■s.-;jtr»-ir»-c^--»''»-" ' 
 
 « a Bfcaai yp>M fl K6 «» iB»%f> . TW*»i i *ii * nlL '' '* ^ ^ 'r L fc-afr 
 
FROM THE 
 
 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 
 
 THROUGH THE 
 
 SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 
 
 g 506 Rev. Stat, prohibits the withdrawal of this book for home use, 
 
Cornell University Library 
 KF6687.U581917 
 
 Digest of decisions of the Treasury depa 
 
 3 1924 020 028 027 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tinis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924020028027 
 
DIGEST OF DECISIONS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT (CUSTOMS) 
 BOARD OF U. S. GENERAL APPRAISERS 
 and U. S. COURT OF CUSTOMS APPEALS 
 
 RENDERED DURING THE 
 
 CALENDAR YEARS 1908 TO 1915 
 
 (BOTH INCLUSIVE) 
 
 UNDER ACTS OF CONGRESS 
 wrm 
 
 DECISIONS OF UNITED STATES COURTS 
 IN CUSTOMS CASES 
 
 WILLIAM G. McADOO 
 
 Seaetaty of the Treasuiy 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OmCE 
 
 1917 
 
Treasury Department, 
 
 Document No. 2769. 
 
 Division of Customs. 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 This digest is published for the information of officers of the customs and others 
 concerned. It is a continuation of the volume entitled Digest of Decisions of the 
 Treasury Department (1904-1907), Treasury document 2504, and embraces all pub- 
 lished decisions relating to the administration of the customs under the tariff acts of 
 July 24, 1897, August 5, 1909, and October 3, 1913, rendered during the calendar 
 years 1908 to 1915, inclusive, by the Treasury Department, the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, and the United States Court of Customs Appeals, together 
 with decisions of United States Courts in customs cases. 
 
 3 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS RENDERED DURING CALENDAR 
 YEARS 1908 TO 1915, BOTH INCLUSIVE. 
 
 A. 
 
 Abandonment. (See also Allowance) — 
 Damaged goods. — 
 
 An oral abandonment of damaged goods under section 23, customs administrative 
 act of June 10, 1890, made by telephone, is insufficient. Such abandonment 
 must be in writing. (T. D. 29338— G. A. 6826; Nov. 10, 1908.) 
 
 Where merchandise was so damaged by sea water on the voyage of importation 
 as to be entirely valueless, there was nothing to be abandoned under section 23, 
 customs administrative act of 1890. The fact that there has been a breach of a 
 bond given under section 2899, Revised Statutes, does not affect the right of the 
 importer to an allowance for merchandise so damaged on the voyage of importa- 
 tion as to be entirely worthless. No different penalty is contemplated by said 
 section than the damages stipulated in the bond. Habicht v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 4, 1909. 
 Suit 5190. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 6700 (T. D. 28651). Board reversed. (T. D. 29768; May 19, 1909.) 
 
 Regulations contained in T. D. 30023, relative to allowance for damage upon 
 
 imported fruit extended to other perishable merchandise. No provision of law 
 
 undep which allowance can be made upon merchandise not perishable unless 
 
 abandonment be made within 10 days after entry. (T. D. 30816; July 21, 1910.) 
 
 Delivery not a condition of right to abandon — 
 
 The requirement in subsection 22 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, that the importer 
 shall deliver abandoned goods at the instance of the chief officer of customs, is 
 not a condition on which the right to abandon and be relieved from the pay- 
 ment of duty depends. 
 
 Meaning of "deliverable": Damaged goods, such as cotton gloves, landed 
 upon a steamship dock mingled with a great variety of other merchandise in a 
 damaged condition, are nevertheless "deliverable" within the meaning of that 
 term as used by the Court of Customs Appeals in Thomas v. United States 
 (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 51; T. D. 33305). 
 
 Meaning of "invoice": The invoice referred to in the provision of subsection 
 22 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, that " the portion so abandoned shall amount to 
 10 per centum or more of the total value or quantity of the invoice," refers to 
 the invoice upon which entry is made, which may be distinguished from the 
 consulated invoice. (T. D. 34032— G. A. 7523; Dec. 31, 1913.) 
 Goods must be deliverable — 
 
 Where an attempt has been made to abandon imported merchandise under section 
 28, subsection 22, tariff act of 1909, the goods abandoned must be in a condition 
 to be delivered or they can not be lawfully abandoned. If they have been 
 destroyed by being sunk in the water and can not be delivered it is fatal to any 
 recovery. (T. D. 33324— G. A. 7454; Apr. 2, 1913.) 
 
 6 
 
6 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Abandonment— Continued . 
 Liability for duties — 
 An importer can not, by exercising the right of abandonment given him under 
 sectiiJn 28, subsection 22, tariff act of 1909, escape the payment of additional 
 duties which, by reason of undervaluations, have accrued under the provisions 
 of section 28, subsection 7, of the same act; nor can he by abandonment be 
 relieved from the payment of regular duties upon the appraised value of the 
 goods when such appraised value is an advance of more than 75 per cent over 
 the entered value, which latter is thus made presumptively fraudulent by the 
 terms of section 28, subsection 7. (T. D. 32072— G. A. 7308; Dec. 7, 1911.) 
 Loss of goods by collision of lighter not allowed where they have left the custody of 
 the Government — 
 Although the law provided for the abandonment of goods falling within the de- 
 scription of subsection 22 of section 28, act of 1909, the right of abandonment was 
 gone when the goods had left the custody and control of the Government and 
 had been delivered, duty paid, to the importers prior to their being lost by sink- 
 ing on a lighter in which the Government had no interest. (T. D. 32273 — G. A. 
 7329; Feb. 13, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed): Duty had accrued on these goods before delivery to the importer. 
 By request he was given permission to unload over the vessel's side, at his own 
 risk, and the goods passed thus out of the custody and control of the customs 
 officers. Loss occun-ed by sinking in consequence of a collision after payment 
 of duty thereon and after the receipt of the merchandise by the importer. Sub- 
 section 22 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, that provides abandonment as an addi- 
 tional remedy, clearly imports that the goods sought to be abandoned there- 
 under shall be at that very time deliverable. These goods, lost as described, 
 were of course not deliverable, and under the facts it would have been gratuitous 
 to give notice requiring delivery. Thomas & Pierson v. United States (No. 878), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7329 (T. D. 3227*). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 33305; Mar. 21, 1913.) 
 Time of entry — 
 Fruit not entered within 48 hours after entry of the vessel to be treated as un- 
 claimed. (T. D. 30082; Nov. 2, 1909.) 
 Abrasives. 
 Borc-carbone not. (See Boro-carbone.) 
 
 Powdered glass not dutiable as crude artificial abrasive. (See Glass, powdered.) 
 Accordions. (See Musical instruments.) 
 Accounts, income tax. 
 
 Accounting for moneys withheld at the source by disbursing officers from income 
 payments to individuals — Special-deposit account. (T. D. 34699; circular No, 
 33; Aug. 11, 1914.) 
 Acid. 
 
 PhthaUc acid anhydride, which is not technically an acid, but which is commer- 
 cially known as phthaUc acid, and which, as such, was held free of duty in the 
 case of Heller & Merz Co. v. United States (124 Fed., 299) under the act of 1890 
 and in the case of Heller & Merz Co. et al., G. A. 4824 (T. D. 22664), under the 
 act of 1897, the language of the act of 1909 being substantially the same, was 
 not made dutiable at 15 per cent under the new provision for " all other * * * 
 acid anhydrides not specially provided for" in paragraph 1, act of 1913, but 
 
 remains free as phthalic acid under paragraph 387 of said act. (T. D. 35914 
 
 G. A. 7819; Nov. 24, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 7 
 
 Acid — Continued . 
 Nitric — 
 Nitric acid containing about 3 per cent in value of sulphuric acid, which latter, 
 according to the uncontradicted testimony in the case, is added solely for the 
 purpose of preventing the nitric acid from attacking the metal of the tank cars 
 in which it was shipped, does not become a chemical mixture within the mean- 
 ing of that term as used in paragraph 5, tariff act of 1913, but is free as nitric acid 
 under paragraph 387. (T. D. 36000— G. A. 7828; Dec. 13, 1915.) 
 Stearic — Stearin — 
 Dutiable as an acid not specially provided for, under paragraph 1, tariff act of 1897, 
 at 25 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 30335— G. A. 6977; Feb. 7, 1910.) 
 Additional duty. (See Duty, additional.) 
 Adeps lanse. (See Medicinal preparations.) 
 Advertising matter. 
 Cardboard chief value — 
 Placards, show cards, or advertising signs, the foundations of which are composed 
 of either plain or coated cardboard upon which have been superimposed letters 
 or designs die cut from differently colored sheets of surface-coated paper, and 
 in each of which signs, as completed, the cardboard foundation constitutes the 
 component material of chief value, are properly dutiable as manufactures of 
 paper under paragraph 420 of the act of 1909, as claimed, rather than as manufac- 
 tures in chief value of surface-coated paper under paragraph 411 of said act, as 
 assessed. (T. D. 34860— G. A. 7620; Oct. 23, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Manufactures of paper. — A review of the judicial, legislative, 
 and administrative interpretations shows cardboard made of a single layer, if 
 not provided for eo nomine, is within the designation "paper," and that articles 
 made of two or more layers of such cardboard are within the designation "manu- 
 factures of paper." These goods were properly held dutiable as such under 
 paragraph 420, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Overton & Co. et al. (No. 1480), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Government from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7620 (T. D. 34860). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 35474; May 21, 1915.) 
 (See also Publications.) 
 Aeroplanes, balloons, etc. — Free entry. 
 
 Aeroplanes, airships, and balloons impdrted for racing purposes may be entered 
 under bond for exportation within three months from date of importation, in 
 same manner as automobiles imported for similar purposes are admitted . (T. D. 
 30976; Oct. 5, 1910.) 
 Affidavit. 
 Articles for institutions— 
 The affidavit required by article 709, Customs Regulations of 1908, upon entry of 
 articles imported for colleges and other institutions, under paragraphs 519 and 
 650, tariff act of 1909, must be filed at time of entry, if importation is made 
 through dealer, but if importation is made directly by institution it may be 
 filed at any time prior to liquidation. Article 710 of the Customs Regulations 
 amended accordingly. (T. D. 30525; Apr. 11, 1910.) 
 Article 710 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 and T. D. 30525 of April 11, 1910, 
 relative to filing of aflidavits from institutions, amended as follows: Deposit 
 duties may be accepted and refund thereof made upon the production of the 
 affidavit of the executive officer of the institution, provided that the dealer 
 shall , at the time of entry, file an affidavit naming the institution for which the 
 articles are imported and giving the reason why the production of the affidavit 
 of the executive officer of said institution is impossible at that time, and stating 
 that it is intended to produce the required affidavit prior to liquidation. (T. D. 
 31861; Sept. 15, 1911.) 
 
8 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Affidavit — Continued. 
 Articles for institutions — Continued. 
 Purchasing agent may sign affidavit and certificate of delivery as executive officer 
 of institution under articles 709 and 710, Customs Regulations, 1908. (T. D. 
 33909; Nov. 24, 1913.) 
 Proof of identity of merchandise. (See Evidence.) 
 Works of art. (See Works of art — Free entry — Affidavit.) 
 Agate, alabaster, coral; manufactures of. 
 
 Agate, alabaster, and other articles mentioned in paragraph 115, tariff act of 1897, 
 
 when cut, polished, etc., should be classified as dutiable at the rate of 50 per 
 
 cent under paragraph 115, and not at the rate of 10 per cent under paragraph 435, 
 
 whether or not intended for settings in jewelry. (T. D. 28960; Apr. 22, 1908.) 
 
 Agate balls — Marbles. (See Toys, agate balls.) 
 
 Agate bearings. 
 
 Small pieces of agate, fitted for use as bearings for scales by cutting, grooving, and 
 polishing, are dutiable at 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 115, tariff act 
 of 1897, as manufactures of agate, and not at 10 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 435 as precious stones, cut. United States v. Lorsch (T. D. 28513) fol- 
 lowed. (T. D. 28697— G. A. 6705; Jan. 15, 1908.) 
 Agate buttons. (See Buttons.) 
 Agate, cut. (See Precious stones — Cut agate, etc.) 
 Agate rings. 
 
 Pieces of agate in the form of rings which, when mounted in metal holders, are 
 suitable for use as guides for lines on fishing rods are not " parts of fishing tackle, " 
 dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 165, but are materials for use 
 in the manufacture of fishing tackle, and were properly assessed by the collector 
 as "manufactures of agate" at 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 112, 
 tariff act of 1909. Fenton v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 529; T. D. 31546) 
 followed. (T. D. 32766— G. A. 7385; Aug. 15, 1912.) 
 Agreements, commercial reciprocity. (See Reciprocity.) 
 Agricultural implements. 
 Budding and pruning knives not. (See Knives.) 
 Hedge shears not. (See Shears.) 
 Lawn mowers — 
 A lawn mower is more aptly described as "mowers" under paragraph 476, tariff 
 act of 1909, than as manufactured articles of metal not specially provided for, 
 under paragraph 199 of said act. The term ''mowers " is used in the act to desig- 
 nate the implement used by gardeners, as well as the large machine used by 
 grain harvesters. (T. D. 31615— G. A. 7224; May 22, 1911.) 
 Steam-plow equipments — 
 Steam-plow equipments, consisting of engines, plows, cultivators, harrows, etc., 
 not classifiable as entireties, but as separate parts. (T. D. 32709; July 12, 1912.) 
 Aigrettes. (See also Feathers, artificial, and Plumage.) 
 Artificial — 
 The term "aigrette" embraces not only the feather of the heron or egret, but also 
 tufts of precious stones worn on the headdress of men and women. 
 
 Glass aigrettes: The glass aigrettes of the importation in controversy are not to 
 be deemed artificial flowers, either because of their name or of the effect they are 
 intended to produce. They are in chief value of glass and fall within the pro- 
 visions of paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909, as manufactures in chief value of glass. 
 Fur motifs: The fur motifs of the importation are not made in imitation of 
 feathers, but are intended to be used as ornaments for ladies' hats, and were clas- 
 sifiable as furs prepared for use as material under paragraph 439 of the said act. 
 Judkins & McCormick Co. v. United States (No. 1351), United States Court of 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 9 
 
 Aigrettes — Continued. 
 Artificial — Continued. 
 
 CuBtoms Appeals, May 3, 1915. Appeal by importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 34520 (T. D. 34090) and Abstract 35113 
 (T. D. 34307). Decision affirmed as to part, and reversed as to part. (T. D. 
 35385; May 3, 1915.) 
 Grass. (See Grass aigrets.) 
 Prohibition of— 
 Prohibition in paragraph 347, tariff act of 1913, against importation of aigrettes, 
 egret plumes, etc., applies to such plumage contained in passengers' baggage 
 when used as trimming of hats or other articles of wearing apparel. (T. D. 
 33781; Oct. 7, 1913.) 
 Akaumezuke. (See Fruits.) 
 
 Alabaster, manufactures of. (See Agate, alabaster, coral, etc.) 
 Alabaster pedestals. (See Sculptures.) 
 Alaska fox skin. (See Fur.) 
 Alaska- Yukon-Pacific Exposition, Seattle, Wash. 
 
 Regulations governing. (T. D. 29556; Feb. 16, 1909.) 
 
 Quarantine removed from Canadian sheep imported for exhibition at. (T. D. 
 29736; May 8, 1909.) 
 Alcohol in still wines. (See Wines.) 
 
 Alcohol, domestic tax-paid, medicinal and toilet preparations manufactured from. 
 Drawback on— T. D. 29952; Aug. 13, 1909, amended. (T. D. 30559; Apr. 22, 
 1910.) 
 Alcoholic compounds. 
 
 Herbs in alcohol not dutiable as. (T. D. 29804; June 4, 1909. T. D. 30228; Dec. 28, 
 1909.) (See also Herbs in alcohol.) 
 Sinalco Seele — • 
 Sinalco Seele dutiable as an alcoholic compound at the rate of 60 cents per pound 
 and 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 2, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32688; 
 July 1, 1912.) 
 A mixture of fruit ether and fruit essence, having the odor of natural fruit and 
 containing 17.60 per cent alcohol and 1.76 per cent extract, which is used as a 
 base for a nonalcoholic drink, is neither a fruit ether nor a fruit essence within 
 the meaning of paragraph 21, tariff act of 1909, and was dutiable under said act 
 as a nonenumerated article (paragraph 480). (T. D. 32313 — G. A. 7335; Mar. 15, 
 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise in question ig of a secret composition and is 
 used as a base for the manufacture of nonalcoholic drinks. The evidence showed 
 that the article was not an unenumerated manufacture, as held by the Board of 
 General Appraisers, but fell for dutiable purposes within one or the other of 
 paragraphs 2 or 3, tariff act of 1909, as an alcoholic compoimd or as a chemical 
 compound. The protest claimed under neither of these paragraphs, and so 
 could not be allowed. United States v. Danker & Marston (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 462; T. D. 32208). United States v. Chattanooga Brewing Co. (No. 905), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7335 (T. D. 32313). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 32965; Nov. 14, 1912.) 
 To constitute a chemical mixture containing alcohol under paragraph 3, act of 
 1909, the chemicals themselves must form such a substantial part, without the 
 alcohol, as to give such predominant character to the article taken as a whole. 
 If the alcohol largely predominates, and the other ingredients of a chemical 
 nature become relatively insignificant in quantity and proportion, then the 
 article is an alcoholic compound under paragraph 2. 
 
10 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Alcoholic compounds — Continued. 
 Sinalco Seele — Continued. 
 
 Sinalco Seele, manufactured as a base for nonalcoholic drinks, is an alcoholic 
 compound. United States v. Kraemer (4 Ct. Cust. Appls,, 433; T. D. 33858) 
 followed. (T. D. 34124— G. A. 7528; Jan. 27, 1914.) 
 Ale, porter, and stout. 
 Bok. (See Bok ale.) 
 Gauge — 
 T. D. 29929 of August 2, 1909, respecting the gauging of beer, extended to cover 
 ale, porter, and stout imported in kegs, casks, barrels, and similar containers. 
 (T. D. 30495; Apr. 4, 1910.) 
 Conventional gauge of one-half bottles (pints) containing Great Auk's Head ale, 
 12 fluid ounces per bottle. T. D. 26293 of April 19, 1905, modified. (T. D. 
 32480; May 3, 1912.) 
 Wantage — 
 Method of ascertaining the dutiable quantities of ale, porter, and stout imported 
 in barrels, casks, and similar containers; allowance of 3 per cent for wantage. 
 T. D. 30495 superseded. (T. D. 33986; Dec. 17, 1913.) 
 Alizarin assistant. 
 Faiatlue oil — 
 The merchandise the subject of this appeal consisted of paratine oil, returned by 
 the collector of customs as an alizarin assistant containing more than 50 per cent 
 of castor oil, the importers claiming that the merchandise was an alizarin 
 assi.stant containing less than 50 per cent of castor oil. From the testimony the 
 analysis made by the chemist employed by the appellees must be assumed cor- 
 rect; and there is no proof to the effect that castor oil may have been used in 
 the manufacture of the alizarin assistant which would not be revealed by the 
 analysis. As the o il contained less than 50 per cent of castor oil, it was dutiable 
 under paragraph 32, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Koons, Wilson & Co. 
 (No. 1142), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31810 (T. D. 
 33304). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33877; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 Tetrapol not. (T. D. 29724— G. A. 6902; Apr. 28, 1909.) 
 Allowance. 
 Breakage, etc. — 
 
 The proviso to para^aph 296 of the wine and liquor schedule, tariff act of 1897, 
 prohibits any allowance by way of deducted duties for breakage, leakage, or 
 damage on wines, liquors, cordials, or distilled spirits. While the general rule 
 is to limit the proviso of a statute to the paragraph to which it is attached, there 
 are many well settled exceptions to this rule, dependent on the purpose of the 
 proviso, its relation to other legislation in pari materia, the legislative intent 
 derived from the whole law, the mischievous results of a contrary construction, 
 and the difficulties encountered in the administration of the law as intei-preted. 
 Said proviso to paragraph 296, Held to be applicable to reimportations of Ameri- 
 can whisky made under said section 27, so far as to prohibit any allowance for 
 breakage of bottles containing such liquors. (T. D. 29875 — G. A. 6915; June 22, 
 1909.) 
 Condemned fruit — Time of filing claim — 
 From the record it appears that certain fruit was condemned on August 12. The 
 claim for an allowance on the fruit so condemned was made prior thereto, on 
 August 11. But the statute requires notice shall be given by the importer in 
 such cases after, not before, condemnation. The notice was insufficient. 
 Steiner v. United States (No. 928), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from Board of United States Graieral Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 29010 (T. D. 32655). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33219; Feb. 18, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 11 
 
 Allowance — Continued . 
 Damage — 
 
 A simple mechanical mixture of two kinds of metals, due probably to carelessness 
 in the stowing of the vessel in which imported or in the handling of the goods, 
 but which may be again separated, is not such a damage or destruction of the 
 goods as will excuse the importers from paying duty thereon. Damage amounts 
 to deterioration or injury which prohibits the return of the commodity to its 
 original condition. (T. D. 30753— G. A. 7056; June 30, 1910.) 
 
 Damage and nonimportation — 
 Method of procedure prescribed: When fruit or other perishable articles are im- 
 ported under the tariff act of 1909, the method of ascertaining the amount of an 
 article so decayed or destroyed that it is not subject to any duty is provided for 
 by subsection 22 of section 28 of said act, and the regulations of the Secretary of 
 the Treasury made to carry out the provisions of the statute, as found in T. D. 
 30023. This statute and the regulations apply as well to losses by reason of non- 
 importation or shortage as to losses by damage or condemnation by health 
 boards. And the methods there prescribed are exclusive of all other methods, 
 and unless such regulations are complied with by importers no recovery can be 
 had. 
 
 The findings of examiners as reported final : The findings of the examiners de- 
 tailed to investigate claim? under said statute, as reported by the appraiser, are 
 final and conclusive, and will not be reinvestigated by the board on protest filed 
 by the importer. Somerville, G. A., rendering opinion of the board. Held as to 
 jurisdiction of the board, that such protests should be dismissed by the board 
 on appeal for want of jurisdiction; but the majority of the board are of opinion 
 that although the regulations of the Secretary are not properly complied with 
 the board has jurisdiction of the protest, and in this case it should be overruled 
 and not dismissed. (T. D. 32071— G. A. 7307; Dec. 4, 1911.) 
 
 Damage and nonimportation — Grapes — 
 Grapes imported in barrels or other packages are dutiable under paragraph 276, 
 tariff act of 1909, at 25 cents per cubic foot of capacity of barrels or packages. 
 This paragraph levies a duty on the packages containing the grapes, and not on 
 the quantity of grapes contained in such packages. Hence no allowance can 
 be made as a nonimportation for decay in the fruit prior to arrival in this country. 
 (T. D. 32108— G. A. 7310; Dec. 19, 1911.) 
 
 Decay in imported fruit— (T. D. 30023; circular No. 50; Oct. 4, 1909)— 
 Where an application for allowance of rot or decay in imported fruit is not filed - 
 with the collector of customs within 48 hours after the arrival of the vessel 
 which brought the fruit into this country, the application will be denied . (T. D. 
 33239— G. A. 7439; Feb. 25, 1913.) 
 (See also Fruit, rotten.) 
 
 Decay in imported onions — Time of filing application, (See Onions, rotten.) 
 
 Dirt In nuts — Almonds. (See Almonds.) 
 
 Im:Surities in fish. (See Fish, weight of.) . 
 
 Impurities in flaxseed. (See Flaxseed, allowance for impurities.) 
 
 Impurities in raisins. (See Raisins, impurities and dutiable weight.) 
 
 Impurities in seeds. (See Seeds, castor, allowance for impurities.) 
 
 Leakage, breakage, etc. — 
 The proviso to paragraph 307, tariff act of 1909, forbidding allowance to be made 
 for breakage, leakage, etc., of merchandise therein described, must be strictly 
 construed and can not be made to apply to merchandise not within its terms, 
 but the legality of that provision itself is now stare decisis. The board rightly 
 held the leakage on an importation of 24 casks of wine to be dutiable. Gataldi 
 Aurola et al. v. United States (No. 593), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 24585 (T. D. 31207). Decision affirmed. (T. D 32077; Nov. 28, 1911.) 
 
12 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Allowance — Continued. 
 Leakage of sake. (See Sake.) 
 Leakage of vermuth. (See Vermuth.) 
 Macaroni, rotten — 
 
 The date in a certificate given by the board of health of the city of New York 
 purporting to show a seizure and condemnation of macaroni as not fresh, sound, 
 wholesome, and sate for human food, under chapter 19, title 1, sections 42 and 
 58, Laws of New York, 1900, is prima facie evidence of the date of seizure as 
 shown on the face of the certificate, but may be proved to be erroneous by satis- 
 factory evidence showing the true date of such seizure. Where an investiga- 
 tion made under the direction of the collector shows that such merchandise 
 was seized and condemned 12 days after importation, and subsequent to 
 the time the articles passed from the custody of customs oflScers into the pos- 
 session of the importer. Held that, without further proof, the collector's report 
 is BuflScient to overcome the prima facie case shown by the health department's 
 certificate. To constitute a shortage or nonimportation of merchandise claimed 
 to be decayed and unfit for food, such decayed condition must be proved to 
 exist at the time of importation, or at least before the goods are delivered to the 
 importer. Subsequent decay is not material. (T. D. 28887 — G. A. 6743; Mar. 
 19, 1908.) 
 
 Macaroni Ls not a perishable article within the meaning of subsection 22 of section 
 28, tariff act of 1909, relating to allowances for the decay or destruction of " fruit 
 or other perL-ihable articles," on the ground of shortage or nonimportation, nor 
 under sections 2962 and 2975, Revised Statutes, excepting from warehouse 
 privileges merchandise of a perishable nature. Hence the regulations of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury designed to carry out the provisions of said subsection 
 22, which are embodied in T. D. 30023, have no reference to the article of maca- 
 roni, the nonimportation of which by reason of destruction by decay must be 
 governed by the principle enunciated in Lawder v. Stone (187 U. S. 281; 23 
 Sup. Ct. Rep., 79), followed in board decision In re Courtin, G. A. 6356 (T. D. 
 27324), and affirmed by the Circuit Court in United States v. Courtin (153 Fed. 
 Rep., 594; T. D. 27970). (T. D. 31690— G. A. 7228; June 5, 1911.) 
 Moisture in wood pulp. (See Wsod pulp.) 
 Nonimportation — 
 
 Decayed macaroni: It is not contended by either party-that macaroni is a perish- 
 able article within the meaning of the first part of subsection 22 of section 28, 
 tariff act of 1909. The evidence disclosed by the record justifies the conclusion 
 that the macaroni for which allowance was made was, before arrival in port, not 
 merely damaged, but destroyed, by reason of being saturated with water during 
 a delayed voyage, and that therefore as to the destroyed portion there was no 
 importation. United States v. Pastene & Co. (No. 745), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 26203 (T. D. 31788). (T. D. 32458; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 
 Where glass demijohns containing floral waters were broken in transitu, so as to 
 waste the contents and destroy the conunercial value of the entire importation, 
 a deduction of duty wiU be made on the ground that the goods were never im- 
 ported. 
 
 Such a case does not present one of damage allowance under section 23 of the 
 customs administrative act, which requires abandonment of damaged goods, and 
 has no appplication to the entire destruction of merchandise, rendered commer- 
 cially valueless and resulting in entire loss. (T. D. 29494 — G. A. 6854; Jan. 21, 
 1909.) 
 
 (See also Nonimportation.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 13 
 
 Allowance — Continued. 
 
 Outage or wantage. (See Wantage.) 
 Shortage. (See also Shortage.) 
 
 Claim for allowance — When filed : It is provided in the regulations of the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury (T. D. 30023) that in order to obtain an allowance on account 
 of shortage or nonimportation caused by decay, destruction, or injury to im- 
 ported fniit under subsection 22 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, the importera 
 shall, within 48 hours after the arrival of the importing vessel, give notice in 
 writing to the collector of customs of their intention to claim such allowance. 
 Thereupon the form of such claim is given. This does not mean 48 hours from 
 the entry of the vessel, but from the arrival of the vessel. 
 
 Proof before the board — When barred : Where the importers have filed no satis- 
 factory proof of any kind within 10 days after the landing of the merchandise, 
 they will be debarred from making proof by testimony given before the board 
 or of explaining any defective proof by evidence. (T. D. 33278 — G. A. 7448; 
 Mar. 14, 1913.) 
 
 Nonimportation: Where a shortage of goods is shown to have existed at the time 
 of arrival in this country, the importer is not deprived of the right to claim an 
 allowance by way of deduction for the same on the ground that the goods had 
 been delivered to him by the collector under a penal bond prescribed by section 
 2899, Revised Statutes, and he had opened the package in violation of its con- 
 ditions. The penalty for such violation is stipulated in the bond itself. Hay, 
 G. A., dissents. (T. D. 30379— G. A. 6984; Feb. 28, 1910.) 
 
 The importation was one of round wire, covered by a single entry. A portion 
 thereof was held dutiable at a specific and the remainder at an ad valorem rate 
 of duty. The protest alleges a shortage or nonimportation of both classes, and 
 asserts that allowance was duly made by the collector for the shortage of that 
 portion paying a specific rate of duty, but denied for the shortage of that portion 
 paying an ad valorem rate. The collector called for the weighing of this mer- 
 chandise, as he had the power to do, and it was accordingly weighed. The 
 weight of the merchandise controlled its dutiable segregation, and classification 
 was necessary to the proper ascertainment thereof. The weigher's return being 
 a necessary ofiicial document before the collector at the time of liquidation and 
 the asses-sment of duty in this case, it is ruled by United States v. Swedish 
 Produce Co. (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33437); and the board's conclusion 
 may well be sustained upon the theory of manifest clerical error. Moreover, 
 there was such a shortage or nonimportation here that as to that it was not to be 
 deemed "an importation of merchandise." United States v. Bush & Co. et al. 
 (No. 1164), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31640 (T. D. 
 33263). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33938; Nov. 28, 1913.) 
 Theft of imported merchandise — 
 
 While allowance by way of deduction in duty can properly be made for goods 
 stolen before arrival in this country, no such allowance is permissible where the 
 theft has occurred after their arrival at a port of entry in the United States, or 
 during their transshipment in bond to another port. 
 
 Goods transshipped in bond have been held by the courts to be constructively 
 in warehouse. Hence they come within the purview of section 2961 of the Re- 
 vised Statutes, which provides that all imports deposited in any public or private 
 warehouse shall be at the sole and exclusive risk of the owner and importer. 
 (T. D. 29493— G. A. 6853; Jan. 21, 1909.) 
 Mmeiia grapes, measurement of. (See Grapes.) 
 
14 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Almonds. 
 Allowance for dirt in nuts — 
 
 In assessing duty on shelled almonds no allowance will be made by way of deduc- 
 tion from weight for shells, dust, and like impurities, in the absence of abnormal 
 quantities of such foreign matter, there being no variation from the ordinary 
 wholesale condition of such merchandise as commonly bought and sold in the 
 commerce of this country. The phrase "clear almonds, shelled," as used in 
 said paragraph, has no commercial or peculiar signification in commerce which 
 would exclude almonds shelled, and containing ordinary quantities of shells, 
 dust, and like foreign matter, claimed to average from 2 to 5 per cent in weight. 
 Majorca almonds and Sicilian almonds, shelled and imported in bags, containing 
 small percentages of impurities, estimated at from 2 to 5 per cent, fleW dutiable 
 on the basis of the gross weight as returned by the United States weigher, under 
 said paragraph 269. ' (T. D. 28816— G. A. 6734; Feb. 29, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The provision in paragraph 269, tariff act of 1897, for "clear" 
 almonds was meant to include only almond nuts that are practically and sub- 
 stantially free from shells, dust, and dirt; that is, almonds which after being 
 divested of their outer covering should be fairly clear from that covering. 
 Shelled almonds not in that condition are dutiable under paragraph 272 as nuts 
 not specially provided for. Heide v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, November 13, 1909. Suit 5248. Appeal 
 by importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6734 (T. D. 
 28816). Board reversed. (T. D. 30144; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 
 So-called Jordan and Valencia almonds, shelled, imported in boxes, are dutiable 
 under the tariff act of 1909 as clear almonds, shelled, and not under paragraph 
 283, which prohibits any allowance being made for dirt or other impurities in 
 nuts of any kind, shelled or unshelled. (T. D. 30726— G. A. 7048; June 27, 
 1909.) 
 
 In the absence of any commercial meaning or custom of trade, the board will 
 decline to attach to this phrase as used in paragraph 269, act of 1897, and para- 
 graph 280, tariff act of 1909, a meaning which would require the allowance or 
 abatement of over 83 per cent of duties on imported shelled almonds by reason 
 of their containing small quantities of dirt and other like impurities not greater 
 than that contained ordinarily in similar merchandise, especially in view of a 
 prior contrary construction by customs officers followed for nearly 20 years. 
 All evidence which affects the classification of imported merchandise, to be 
 relevant, must be shown to be applicable to the particular merchandise under 
 consideration; and proof of the varying percentages of dirt and other impurities 
 alleged to be contained in other importations of similar goods can not be intro- 
 duced to prove the average impurities claimed to be contained in such goods 
 under consideration. Doubtful words or phrases in a tariff act or other statute 
 will not be construed so as to lead to absurdity or injustice, if reasonably avoid- 
 able by a construction that will harmonize with all other parts of such statute 
 in pari Tnateria. (T. D. 31475— G. A. 7199; Apr. 7, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The importation in question consists of almonds imported in bulk 
 in burlap bags . They have been removed from the shells and as imported are in- 
 termixed with dirt, dust, and pieces of shell. Some of the almonds are broken 
 and some imperfect. There is no question of commercial designation raised, and 
 no allowance is claimed because of the presence of dirt or refuse. The importer's 
 claim is that the words "clear almonds, shelled," means the selected almond 
 meats ready for consumption, unbroken in form, substantially perfect in shape, 
 covered with the brown outer skin which is characteristic of almonds, and from 
 which all dirt, dust, and pieces of shell have been removed. If Congress had 
 meant to impose a duty of 6 cents per pound only upon thoroughly cleaned and 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 15 
 
 Almonds — Continued . 
 
 Allowance for dirt in nuts — Continued. 
 
 perfect almond meats, it were easy to have plainly so declared . A review of the 
 history of tariff provisions relative to almonds makes it plain there was no inten- 
 tion on the part of Congress to depart from an established usage of years by which 
 almonds shelled bore a higher rate of duty than almonds unshelled, and by 
 which almonds eo nomine were made to take a duty higher than the duty im- 
 posed on nuts generally "of all kinds," not specially provided for. The impor- 
 tations were properly held dutiable under paragraphs 269, tariff act of 1897, and 
 280, tariff act of 1909, respectively, as clear almonds, shelled. Heide v. United 
 States (No. 645), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appealby the 
 importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7199 (T. D. 
 31475). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32166; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 
 Broken shells and dust — 
 Clear almonds, shelled, remain almonds, though they should contain a certain 
 amount of broken kernels, dust, and shells, and they are not to be classified gen- 
 erally with "nuts of all kinds.'' They are dutiable as clear almonds, shelled, 
 under paragraph 280, tariff act of 1909. Paragraph 283 of that act forbids any 
 allowance for the weight of the dust and shells. Spencer Importing & Trading 
 Co. V. United States (No. 761), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 26800 (T. D. 31912). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32201; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 Spencer Importing & Trading Co. v. United States (No. 722). Ruled by Spencer 
 Importing & Trading Co. v. United States, supra (T. D. 32201). United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals, January 11, 1912. Appeal by importers 
 from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25946 
 (T. D. 31720). (T. D. 32202; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 Aluminum. 
 
 Colls — 
 Sheet aluminum and aluminum in sheets are not the same, and proof of a commer- 
 cial designation of the first is not applicable to the other article. But alumi- 
 num in coils, the goods in controversy, differs inherently from aluminum in 
 sheets, and the testimony sustains this view. The aluminum coils were prop- 
 erly held dutiable under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. Seligmann et al. v. 
 United States (No. 1447), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 36215 
 (T. D. 34677). (T. D. 35336; Apr. 14, 1915.) 
 
 Disks — 
 Aluminum circles classified as manufactures of metal under paragraph 167, tariff 
 act of 1913, were claimed dutiable as aluminum in sheets. Reviewing the proc- 
 esses by which aluminum is prepared for market and also the legislation affect- 
 ing aluminum itself, these disks are found not to be included in any of the terms 
 "plates," "sheets," "bars," "strips," or "rods," as these are employed in 
 paragraph 143, tariff act of 1913; nor is it aluminum in crude form or an alloy 
 thereof under the same paragraph. Universal Shipping Co. v. United States (4 
 Ct. Cust. Appls., 245; T. D. 33479). Guiterman, Rosenfeld & Co. ■;;. United 
 States (No. 1452), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porters from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 36158 (T. D. 
 34668). Decision affiraned. (T. D. 35155; Feb. 12, 1915.) 
 
 FoU— 
 Aluminum foil dutiable at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem as a manufacture of 
 aluminum under the provisions of paragraph 167, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 
 35517; June 11, 1915.) 
 
16 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Aluminum — Continued. 
 Sheets— 
 The importation involved in this appeal coneisted of certain merchandise cut from 
 aluminum sheets into what are generally included under the term "blanks," 
 and in two forms, one square and the other cut in the form of a circle. The 
 term "sheets" is ordinarily applied to a broad general surface, and in paragraph 
 172, tariff act of 1909, may fairly be said to mean the sheet of the metal made in 
 that form as one of the developments in the process of manufacture, and not 
 intended to include the articles made from such sheets. 
 
 Aluminum sheets advanced in condition: The articles here are not sheets of 
 aluminum within the meaning of paragraph 172, but have been advanced be- 
 yond that state and must be held to be articles or wares composed wholly of 
 aluminum, partly manufactured, and dutiable under paragraph 199 of that act. 
 Universal Shipping Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1030), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 29817 (T. D. 32830). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 33479; May 23, 1913.) 
 Spoons — 
 Aluminum kitchen spoons dutiable as manufactures of metal at the rate of 20 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 167, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34337; Apr. 1, 
 1914.) 
 Spoons, ladles, etc., not hollow ware — 
 Spoons, ladles, graters, and other articles composed of aluminum, being com- 
 mercially known as "flat ware," are properly dutiable under paragraph 167 of 
 the act of 1913 as manufactures of metal not specially provided for, as claimed, 
 rather than as "table, kitchen, and hospital utensils or other similar hollow ware 
 composed * * * of aluminum " under paragraph 134 of said act, as classified 
 by the collector. The latter provision applies solely to aluminum utensils 
 which are hollow ware similar to table, kitchen, and hospital utensils, and the 
 merchandise here in question is not commercially of that character. (T. D. 
 35049— G. A. 7662; Jan. 8, 1915.) 
 Aluminum in leaves. (See Leaf metal.) 
 Amber necklaces. 
 Beaded articles — 
 Amber is neither technically nor commercially a precious stone; and amber 
 necklaces are not dutiable as "jewelry" under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, 
 nor as manufactures of amber under paragraph 448, but as beaded articles under 
 paragraph 408. (T. D. 29615— G. A. 6881; Mai. 9, 1909.) 
 Amberoid. 
 
 Refuse pieces of amber melted and molded into shapes to be used for making 
 mouthpieces for pipes and cigar holders are free of duty as amberoid under para- 
 graph 488 of the tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31741— G. A. 7244; July 8, 1911.) 
 American animals exported and returned. (See Animals.) 
 American fisheries. (See Fisheries.) 
 American goods returned. (See Reimportation.) 
 American goods exported and returned— Certificate of exportation. (See Certificate of 
 
 exportation.) 
 American shocks. (See Shocks.) 
 American views. (See Views; also Post-carda.) 
 Amor's metal polish. (See Metal polish.) 
 Ampoules of quinine. (See Quinine, ampoules of.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 17 
 
 Anatomical preparations. 
 
 Parts of the hiunan and animal bodies preserved in an alcoholic fluid, manufac- 
 tured and sold especially for educational purposes, held to be specifically pro- 
 vided tor as "preparations of anatomy" under paragraph 675 of the free list, 
 tariff act of 1909, and not dutiable as animal objects preserved in alcohol under 
 paragraph 2. (T. D. 34088— G. A. 7526; Jan 19, 1914.) 
 Anchovies, brisling, sprats, etc. (See Fish in tins.) 
 Animals. (See also Dogs and other domesticated animals.) 
 Breeding pnrposes — 
 
 T. D. 27476 (Circular No. 70) July 10, 1906, revoked. (T. D. 31147; Dec. 17, 1910.) 
 
 Citizenship of importer: Paragraph 473, tariff act of 1897, as amended by the act 
 of March 3, 1903 (32 Stat., 1023; T. D. 24268), provides for the free entry, by "a 
 citizen of the United States, ' ' of animals imported for breeding purposes. Held, 
 that to be entitled to the privileges of free entry under this paragraph, a person 
 must establish his legal status as a citizen of the United States; and the fact 
 that an alien has for years been a resident, and enjoyed the privileges of citizen- 
 ship, in a community is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute. 
 (T. D. 30420— G. A. 6988; Mar. 8, 1910.) 
 
 Citizenship of corporation importing: A corporation organized under State laws 
 is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of that portion of paragraph 
 492, tariff act of 1909, which provides that "any animal imported by a citizen 
 of the United States specially for breeding purposes shall be admitted free, " 
 and this regardless of the citizenship of the individual stockholders. (T. D. 
 32776— G. A. 7386; Aug. 22, 1912.) 
 
 Eegistry certificates of American Hampshire Swine Record Association not to be 
 accepted in future. (T. D. 29357; Nov. 23, 1908.) 
 
 Importations of animals for breeding purposes. (T. D. 29148; circular No. 53, 
 July 9, 1908.) 
 
 New secretary of American Cat Association. (T. D. 28882; Mar. 24, 1908.) 
 
 New secretary of Kerry and Dexter Cattle Society. (T. D. 29362; Nov. 23, 1908.) 
 
 Changes in books of record of animals entitled to free entry under paragraph 473, 
 tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29468; Jan. 14,1909.) 
 
 Name of Hampshire Down Breeders' Association changed to American Hampshire 
 Sheep Association. (T. D. 29554; Feb. 15, 1909.) 
 
 Withdrawal of certification of American books of record for sheep, and certifying 
 in lieu thereof the register of the Vermont, New York, and Ohio Merino Sheep 
 Breeders' Association. (T. D. 29605; Mar. 8, 1909.) 
 
 Registration certificates issued by American Suffolk Flock Registry Association, 
 George W. Franklin, secretary, Des Moines, Iowa, not to be accepted on entry 
 of sheep under paragraph 492, and book of record of Suffolk Sheep Society, 
 Ernest Prentice, secretary, Ipswich, Suffolk, England, adopted as book of record 
 for Suffolk sheep. (T. D. 30609; May 12, 1909.) 
 
 Change in the office of secretary of the Dutch Belted Cattle Association. (T. D. 
 29907; July 13, 1909.) 
 
 Certificates issued by American Suffolk Flock Eegistry Association, James Bow- 
 man, secretary, to be treated as issued by foreign book of record. (T. D. 29990; 
 Sept. 8, 1909.) 
 
 Registration certificates issued by United States Register and Studbook not to be 
 accepted on entry of cats under paragraph 492, and studbook of the Arabian 
 Horse Club of America adopted as book of record for horses. (T. D. 30032; Oct. 
 8, 1909.) 
 
 Registration certificates issued by Studbook of Cat Fanciers' Association and Royal 
 Aldemey Agricultural Society's Herdbook to be accepted upon entry of animals 
 imported for breeding purposes under paragraph 492, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 30072; Oct. 28, 1909.) 
 -iceaQO 17 9. 
 
18 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Animals — Continued. 
 Bleeding purposes — Continued. 
 
 Registration certificates issued by American Trotting Register, showing registra- 
 tion of horses as standard, should be accepted upon entry of horses imported for 
 breeding purposes, under paragraph 492, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30231; Dec. 
 30, 1909.) 
 
 Registration certificates of American Shropshire Registry Association, signed by 
 Miss Julia M. Wade, as acting secretary, to be accepted upon entry of sheep for 
 breeding purposes under act of 1909. (T. D. 30256; Jan. 12, 1910.) 
 
 Notice of change of secretaries of American Shropshire Registry Association and 
 National Duroc Jersey Record Association. (T. D. 30597; May 9, 1910.) 
 
 Changes in the office of secretary of the English Kerry and Dexter Cattle Society. 
 (T. D. 30695; June 14, 1910.) 
 
 Change in the office of secretary of the Percheron Society of America. (T. D. 
 30755; July 5, 1910.) 
 
 Registration certificates issued by The Jockey Club, signed by the secretary, P. 
 K. Sturgis, may be accepted. (T. D. 30984; Oct. 11, 1910.) 
 
 Report to Secretary of Agriculture of animals imported for breeding purposes 
 required in T. D. 29148 discontinued. (T. D. 31309; Feb. 18, 1911.) 
 
 Foreign pedigree certificates for animals imported for breeding purposes under 
 paragraph 492, tariff act of 1909, to be submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture. 
 (T. D. 31518; Apr. 22, 1911.) 
 Circus — 
 
 Animals of foreign origin exported for exhibition by circus or menagerie may be 
 reimported free of duty under act of March 3, 1899, but such animals of domestic 
 origin not entitled to free entry. (T. D. 29989; Sept. 8, 1909.) 
 
 Animals taken abroad for temporary use or exhibition by an American circus may 
 be returned to the United States free of duty. (T. D. 30481; Apr. 1, 1910.) 
 Equipment for — Halters and blankets — • 
 
 Halters and blankets, necessary for the transportation of blooded horses duly cer- 
 tified and admitted under the statute and regulations prescribed by the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury thereunder for free entry, are to be considered as necessary 
 equipment for the safe transportation of the animals and are not subject to duty. 
 (T. D. 33054— G. A. 7413; Dec. 31, 1912.) 
 Excluded from free entry — 
 
 American animals entered subsequent to June 1, 191 1, will be dutiable in accord- 
 ance with the decision of the Court of Customs Appeals in Bragg v. United 
 States (T. D. 31575), holding that such animals were excluded from free entry 
 under paragraph 500 of the act of 1909. Free entry permitted upon return to 
 the United States of animals exported for temporary use or exhibition at any 
 public exposition, fair, or conference held in a foreign country and wild and 
 other animals of foreign origin taken abroad temporarily for exhibition in con- 
 nection with any circus or menagerie, in accordance with the provisions of the 
 act of May 18, 1896, aa amended by the act of March 3, 1899 (T. D. 20819, Mar. 
 10, 1899), and also animals entitled to free entry under paragraph 492 of the 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31597; May 15, 1911.) 
 
 Paragraph 500 of the tariff act of 1909, amended by act approved July 27, 1911, so 
 as to permit the free entry, under certain conditions, of animals of American 
 origin. (T. D. 31784; July 31, 1911.) 
 Exportation of — 
 
 Horses taken abroad for personal use of owners may be registered on exportation 
 and returned free of duty under provisions of T. D. 30481 and paragraph 500, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30608; May 11, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 19 
 
 Animals — Continued. 
 Exported and rejected — 
 
 Horses and other animals of domestic origin, shipped for exportation to Canada 
 and rejected by Canadian veterinary officials, may be returned free of duty as 
 nonexportation without formal entry thereof being made. Such animals may 
 be returned only to the border States from which they were shipped to Canada, 
 the State veterinarian to be notified of their presence. (T. D. 30305; Jan. 27, 
 1910.) 
 Exported and returned — - 
 
 Sheep driven across the border into Mexico for temporary pasturage for a longer 
 period than six months may be returned free of duty under the provision in 
 paragraph 483, tariff act of 1897, for the free entry of "articles the growth, prod- 
 uce, and manufacture of the United States, when returned after having been 
 exported, without having been advanced in value or improved in condition 
 by any process of manufacture or other means." The regulation by the Sec- 
 retary of the Treasury as to identity of American goods returned under para- 
 graph 483, tariff act of 1897, Beld not applicable where no consul is located at 
 the place from which the property is returned into the United States; in such 
 case proof of identity that is satisfactory to the collector of customs or the Board 
 of General Appraisers fulfills the requirement of the law. The provision in 
 paragraph 473, tariff act of 1897, for free retiun of animals driven across the 
 border for temporary pasturage does not preclude free importation of such 
 animals when so exported, under paragraph 483, relating to American goods 
 returned. (T. D. 28976— G. A. 6759; Apr. 24, 1908.) 
 
 Free entry upon return to United States of animals of American origin under para- 
 graph 500, tariff act of 1909. (T. D . 31393; Mar. 9, 1911.) 
 
 Certain animals, American products, were exported while the tariff act of 1897, 
 permitting the free entry of these on retvu-n to the United States, was in force; 
 these animals were returned to the United States subsequent to the enactment 
 of the tariff law of 1909, by which free entry was denied an importation of this 
 kind. Held, a tariff law creates no vested rights to import free or at any par- 
 ticular rate of duty goods, wares, merchandise, or products of any kind; no con- 
 tractual obligation had been incurred by the taxing power incapable of being 
 impaired by a subsequent modification or repeal of the provision in question; 
 the law in force at the date reentry was sought applies and the importation of 
 animals was properly held dutiable under paragraphs 225 and 227, tariff act of 
 1909.— Campbell v. United States (107 U. S., 407) distinguished. Bragg v. 
 United States (No. 484), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appealby the 
 importer from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 23875 (T. D. 30879). Decision aflirmed. (T. D. 31575; May 1, 1911.) 
 
 American teams taken into foreign contiguous territory in the ordinary course of 
 business, free of duty upon return to United States, provided such teams have 
 not remained in a foreign country over three days. (T. D. 31687; June 14, 1911.) 
 Exported for exhibition purposes — 
 
 Horses exported for temporary use or exhibition at a public exposition, fair, or con- 
 ference may be returned to the United States free of duty under act of May 18, 
 1896, and articles 672 to 676, Customs Regulations of 1908. (T. D. 29950; Aug. 
 13, 1909.) 
 Fur-bearing — 
 
 Section 1956, Revised Statutes, and section 173, act of March 3, 1899, relative to 
 fur-bearing animals, amended by section 4 of the act of April 21, 1910, entitled 
 "An act to protect the seal fisheries of Alaska, and for other piuposes." (T. D. 
 30682; June 13, 1910.) 
 
20 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Animals — Continued. 
 Heads ol — 
 Heads of game animals as cut from the carcass free of duty under paragraphs 423, 
 511, or 605, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34061; Jan. 15, 1914.) 
 Imported for exhibition. 
 Bonds. (See Bonds.) 
 Canadian sheep imported for exhibition at Alaska- Ytikon-Pacific Exposition not 
 
 subject to quarantine under certain conditions. (T. D. 29736; May 8, 1909.) 
 Certificates of exportation. (See Certificates of exportation.) 
 Horse killed while in United States under bond: There is no obligation to pay duty 
 upon a horse imported free of duty for exhibition purposes under bond, as pro- 
 vided for in paragraph 493, tariff act of 1909, and accidentally killed within the 
 six months' period. Duty exacted on entry after death of the horse should be 
 refunded. (T. D. 33049— G. A. 7412; Dec. 27, 1912.) 
 Horse killed: Referring to the decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A^ 7412 (T. D. 33049), supra, the department instructs the col- 
 lector to cancel the entry for consumption and cause application for cancellation 
 of the exhibition bond to be forwarded for action under T. D. 31999 of November 
 U, 1911. (T. D. 33202; Feb. 18, 1913.) 
 Inspection — 
 Customs officers to notify the inspectors of the Bureau of Animal Industry, De- 
 partment of Agriculture, of the arrival of any dogs. (T. D. 31515; Apr. 19, . 
 1911.) 
 Dogs imported from North American countries are not subject to inspection by 
 
 the Department of Agriculture. (T. D. 31749; July 13, 1911.) 
 Inspection and quarantine; B. A. I. order No. 2090. (T. D. 35129; Feb. 16, 
 1915.) 
 Prohibited importations — 
 Publication of special order prohibiting the landing of horses, afisea, mules, sheep, 
 goats, and swine from any of the countries of Asia and Africa at any of the ports 
 of the United States, the Territories, or dependencies thereof. (T. D. 31081; 
 Dec. 5, 1910.) 
 Quarantine of. (See Quarantine.) 
 Regulations — 
 Begulations governing importation of ,under paragraph 492 of the tariff act 
 of 1909. T. D. 27476 (Circular No. 70, of July 11, 1906, revoked). (T. D. 31147; 
 Dec. 27, 1910.) 
 Viruses and serums for — 
 Kegulations under the provisions in the agricultural appropriation act of March 4, 
 1913, relative to the importation of viruses, serums, etc., for the treatment of 
 domestic animals. (T. D. 33575; June 23, 1913.) 
 Anise seed. 
 
 Star anise seed not. (See Star anise seed.) 
 Anthracene oU. (See Oil, anthracene.) 
 Anthracite coal. 
 
 Percentage of fixed carbon. (See Coal.) 
 Antimonial lead. 
 
 On the withdrawal of antimonial lead for consumption under subsection 1 of parar 
 graph N of section 4, tariff act of 1913, the bond is to be credited with an amount 
 equal to the lead duties or duties on the imported metals, any difference from 
 the duties to which the antimonial lead is subject, whether less or more, to be 
 adjusted by additions or deductions. (T. D. 35709; Sept. 14, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 21 
 
 Antimony oxide. 
 Salts of— 
 
 Certain salts of antimony, classified for duty under the provision in paragraph 
 144 of the act of 1913 for "antimony oxide, salts, and compounds of," are held 
 to be properly dutiable under the provision in paragraph 5 of said act for "all 
 chemical * * * salts, not specially provided for," as claimed by importers. 
 Said provision in paragraph 144, construed grammatically and in accordance 
 with the plain intent of Congress, means " antimony oxide, salts of antimony 
 oxide, and compounds of antimony oxide." (T. D. 35142 — G. A. 7688; Feb. 
 17, 1915.) 
 
 Salts of antimony to be continued to be assessed with duty at the rate of 25 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 144, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35379; May 7, 
 1915.) 
 Antimony ware. 
 Plated— 
 
 Chemical tests to be made to determine whether antimony articles are stiver 
 plated, and if found to be silver plated, such articles are dutiable at 50 per cent 
 ad valorem under paragraph 167, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34043; Jan. 3, 1914.) 
 
 Antimony ware, coated with a tbln film of silver or gold as a result of having been 
 immersed or dipped in a solution of silver or gold, is properly dutiable under 
 the provision in paragraph 167, tariff act of 1913, for "articles or wares plated 
 with gold or silver," irrespective of the method employed to produce such 
 plated effect. (T. D. 34651— G. A. 7587; July 13, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Plated with gold or silver. — ^The term ' ' plated with gold or silver, ' ' 
 when used without limitation, signifies that the given articles are coated with 
 gold or silver by any one of the several known processes which are employed 
 to cover or coat such articles with a layer of gold or silver. It signifies a final 
 condition rather than the process by which the condition was produced. The 
 articles here in question held to be "plated with gold or silver." Tuska, Son 
 & Co. V. United States (No. 1438), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7587 (T. D. 34651). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35153; Feb. 12, 1915.) 
 Antlpasto. (See Fish in tin packages.) 
 Antiques. (See also Works of art.) 
 
 Furniture upholstered with antique tapestry made of wool is dutiable under the 
 provision in paragraph 378, tariff act of 1909, for "all manufactures of every 
 description made wholly or in part of wool," and is not free of duty under para- 
 graph 717 as an artistic antiquity because composed in chief value of antique 
 tapestry, which in itself would be free of duty under the latter paragraph. 
 Paragraph 717 provides only for articles which are complete in themselves and 
 fulfill the other requirements of said paragraph. (T. D. 31492— G. A. 7203; 
 Apr. 14, 1911.) 
 
 The importer in the case at bar clearly limited himself Ln his protest to a claim 
 imder the 20-year clause, paragraph 717, tariff act of 1909, and the question pre- 
 sented was whether that paragraph conferred an exclusive and final jurisdiction 
 upon the Secretary of the Treasury to determine a particular importation is or is 
 not a work of art of a described kind. The Secretary had asserted no such power 
 (Treasury Circular, T. D. 31263), and properly, for the intention in the statute 
 seemed manifestly to have been to confer upon that official authority to prescribe 
 rules and regulations according to which all questions as to the age of works of 
 art are to be determined by the ordinary trubunals having jurisdiction in cus- 
 toms cases. Bowling Green Storage & Van Co. v. United States (No. 838), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27613 (T. D. 32161). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 32588; May 27, 1912.) 
 
22 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Antiques — Continued. 
 
 Affidavit of the " Owner," Treasury Regulations — 
 Section 2 (T. D. 31623) of the Treasury Regulations governing the importation of 
 artistic antiquities requires an " affidavit of the owner. " The affidavit here was 
 made by the consignee. By the terms of the tariff law, subsection 1 of section 
 28, the consignee is to be deemed the owner of the property consigned; and it 
 will be assumed the Treasury Regulations were framed in view of this provision 
 of law. Compliance was shown here as to the affidavit. Finman v. United 
 States (No. 1081), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30230 (T. D. 
 32884). Reversed and remanded. (T. D. 33484; May 23, 1913.) 
 
 Affidavit and declaration — 
 Foreign shipper's declarations executed by an agent competent to declare to the 
 values and facts of the invoice may be accepted. The owner's affidavit should 
 be accepted only when executed by t)wner personally, or bond for its subsequent 
 production given. (T. D. 32523; May 20, 1912.) 
 Certain articles of silverware were contained in the personal baggage of the appel- 
 lant and claimed to be exempt as artistic antiquities. The Treasury regulation 
 is reasonable, which requires an affidavit *to be made by the importer of an 
 antique showing why the article is regarded as an antique; and that requires 
 further a described kind of declaration by the foreign seller of the antique as to 
 the character and history of this. That the importation was brought in as per- 
 sonal baggage does not exempt the owner from showing a compliance with this 
 regulation, both as to the affidavit and the declaration. The regulation in terms 
 requires the affidavit and the declaration to be produced upon entry, and ths 
 fact that no objection was made before the collector that the declaration wa 
 wanting will not excuse the importer from showing, on appeal to the Board of 
 General Appraisers, that the requirements had been complied with at the time 
 of entry. Bradley Martin, jr., v. United States (No. 579), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 24465 (T. D. 31165). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32982; 
 Nov. 21, 1912.) 
 
 Bonded goods — 
 Compliance with Treasury Regulations: The regulation of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury (T. D. 29958) relating to antiques is reasonable and must be complied 
 with to entitle merchandise to free entry under paragraph 717, tariff act of 
 1909, where the goods were entered for warehousing prior to August 5, 1909, and 
 withdrawn after said regulation was promulgated. (T. D. 31812 — G. A. 7264* 
 Aug. 14, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Treasury Regulations.— The regulations of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury (T. D. 29958, promulgated Aug. 20, 1909), requiring an impoiter 
 who desired to obtain the benefit of paragraph 717, tariff act of 1909, to file at the 
 time he made entry of his merchandise certain affidavits, was a requirement 
 applying to merchandise in a bonded warehouse at the time the act of 1909 went 
 into effect; and as to merchandise of this description the regulations were to be 
 taken to refer to the time when the necessary steps were taken to withdraw the 
 goods from bond, duty ascertained and liquidated, and delivery permit issued 
 and not to a later time. Gump Co. v. United States (No. 758), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7264 (T. D. 31812). Decision affirmed (T 
 D. 32384; Apr. 1, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST 01* CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 23 
 
 Antiques — Continued . 
 Evidence — 
 The question involved is one of proper compliance with Treasury Regulations gov- 
 erning the admission duty free of works of art produced more than 100 years 
 prior to the date of importation. The collector assessed the goods for duty. The 
 character of the affidavits of record being ex parte, and being unsupported, does 
 not warrant a reversal of the collector's action, presumably correct, as this must 
 be considered. United States v. Thomas (No. 770), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 26777 (T. D. 31912). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32385; 
 Apr. 1, 1912.) 
 This appeal relates to a certain musical instrument more than 100 years old, which 
 is described as a lyre in a screen. It is not within the discretion of a coHector to 
 waive the production of proof of the facts going to show an article is an antique 
 within the last provision of paragraph 717, tariff act of 1909. The regulations 
 governing the admission of antiques were in force at the time the lyre in a screen 
 was imported. These regulations unconditionally required that the specified 
 papers in proof of antiquity should be filed on entry of the importation. The 
 regulations were not complied with, and the claim for free entry could not be 
 allowed.— Martin, jr., v. United States (3 Ct. Oust. Appls., 384; T. D. 32982). 
 Kronfeld, Saunders & Co. v. United States (No. 966), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 28826 (T. D. 32618). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 33308; Mar. 21, 1913.) 
 On entry certain merchandise was claimed as entitled to free entry. This claim 
 was supported by an affidavit in which all the articles were not claimed to be 
 free of duty, and the articles so omitted were withdrawn by counsel from consid- 
 eration. The evidence that the goods are artistic antiquities is too weak and 
 confused to warrant that the finding of the board that they are dutiable should 
 be disturbed, based as this was on a thorough inspection of the goods by an 
 examiner. Bowles v. United States (No. 1213), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 32815 (T. D. 33578). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33885; Nov. 
 11, 1913.) 
 Tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31263; circular No. 9; Feb. 1, 1911.) 
 Treasury Begulations — 
 Conformity to the Treasury Regulations governing the free entry of artistic antiques 
 is a condition precedent to the right accruing under the statute. Conformity 
 shown in the case at bar. — United States v. Dominici (78 Fed. Rep., 334). 
 Affidavits: The formal sufficiency of the affidavits of the importer going to 
 show the importation entitled to free entry assailed by the Government. Appel- 
 lant, for the first time, on appeal to the Customs Court of Appeals. The objec- 
 tion comes too late. — United States v. Goodsell Co. (91 Fed. Rep., 519). 
 
 Not an artistic antique: It appears the sole artistic feature of the furniture of 
 the importation was the carving on it, and this had been recently applied. 
 This fact is uncontroverted. It compels a reversal. United States v. Morris 
 European & American Express Co. (No. 776), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 26570 (T. D. 31866). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32386; 
 Apr. 1, 1912.) 
 Apparatus for use in electrochemistry. (See Electrochemistry apparatus.) 
 Apparatus, philosophical and scientific. (See Philosophical and scientific apparatus.) 
 
24 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Appeals — 
 
 In deciding appeals from the Board of General Appraisers, considerable weight 
 should be attached in close cases to the opinion of experts like the General 
 Appraisers who are famiUar with controversies of the kind in question. (T. D. 
 28688; Jan. 15, 1908.) 
 
 The rule of the controlling effect to be given by an appellate tribunal to the con- 
 curred decisions of two tribunals below on questions of fact is applicable to in- 
 stances where a finding by the Board of General Appraisers has been affirmed 
 by the circuit court. (T. D. 28782; Feb. 19, 1908.) 
 
 Collectors of customs should take no appeals from decisions of the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers in the absence of specific instructions from the 
 department. (T. D. 29971; Aug. 27, 1909.) 
 
 Copies of petitions on appeal in customs cases filed by importers to be forwarded 
 to the Deputy Assistant Attorney-General. (T. D. 30026; Oct. 4, 1909.) 
 
 In certain cases a mandate having been issued on petition directing the court 
 below to transmit the records to the Court of Customs Appeals for adjudication, 
 and it being contended the cases are not properly before the Court of Customs 
 Appeals on appeal, the petitions will be treated as applications for the allow- 
 ance of appeals and the appellants will be permitted to withdraw the original 
 petition with certificates of the allowance of their appeals by the Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals to be used in having the cases duly certified from the court below 
 for its determination. Gross d. United States (No. 451). Herskovitz ». United 
 States (No. 452), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Order entered. 
 (T. D. 31323; Feb. 14, 1911.) 
 Assignments of error — 
 
 Among the assignments of error made by an importer on appeal from the Board 
 of General Appraisers were general assignments that the board had erred "in 
 overruling the protests" and "in not sustaining the protests," and the protests 
 thus referred to mentioned the paragraph relied upon by the importers. Held, 
 that this was a compliance with the requirement in section 15, customs admin- 
 istrative act of 1890, of "a concise statement of the errors of law and fact com- 
 plained of." United States v. Loewenthal, United States Circuit Court of 
 Appeals, Second Circuit, December 7, 1909. No. 13 (suit 4067). Appeal by 
 the United States from the Circviit Court of the United States for the Southern 
 District of New York (T. D. 29164), reversing Abstract 7246 (T. D. 26559). 
 Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30215; Dec. 21, 1909.) Ac- 
 quiesced in March 31, 1910 (T. D. 30476). 
 
 One of the several contentions urged by the appellant on argument was based on 
 an assignment of error that merely negatived the entire result in the court below. 
 Held, that such assignment was too general, though this defect might have been 
 overlooked if there had been a plain error. United States v. Stone & Downer 
 Co., United States Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, December 20, 1909. 
 No. 834 (suit 1833). Appeal by United States from the Circuit Court of the 
 United States for the District of Massachusetts (171 Fed. Rep., 293- T. D. 
 29804), affirming Abstract 11235 (T. D. 27348). Decision in favor of the Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 30228; Dec. 28, 1909.) 
 
 On appeal from the Board of General Appraisers error was assigned on the point 
 that the board had erred in holding the merchandise in question to be free of 
 duty. Held, that the assignment related to the merits and was not sufficiently 
 comprehensive to include the point of the sufficiency of the protest passed on by 
 the board. The circuit court on appeal from the Board of General Appraisers 
 wiU not consider whether a protest decided by the board was insufficient, unless 
 the question of insufficiency is raised by the asaigimfient of errors. United 
 States V. Hempstead, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 25 
 
 Appeals — Continued . 
 Assignments of error — Continued. 
 
 York, July 1, 1910. Suit 4796. Appeal by the importer from the decision of 
 the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 13865 (T. D. 27803). Board 
 affirmed. (T. D. 30844; Aug. 2, 1910.) 
 Circuit court — 
 
 Jurisdiction of: Where a general appraiser has been appointed referee to take 
 fvirther testimony in the circuit court, on appeal from the Board of General 
 Appraisers under section 15, customs administractive act of 1890, there is no 
 authority whereby the circuit court may direct the general appraiser to go 
 beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court to take testimony. This rule is 
 not altered by the fact that the general appraiser may express his willingness 
 to go. NordHnger v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York, July 27, 1900. Suit 93. Appeal by importer from un- 
 published decision of Board of General Appraisers. Board reversed. (T. D. 
 30189; Dec. 14, 1909.) 
 
 Writ of error inapplicable: Decrees by circuit courts on review of decisions by 
 the Board of General Appraisers, under section 15, customs administrative act 
 of 1890, may be reviewed by circuit courts of appeals by appeal only, under 
 section 6, act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 828), creating the circuit courts of ap- 
 peals. Review by writ of error is not permissible, in error to the circuit court 
 of the United States for the southern district of Texas, United States v. Bond, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, December 15, 1908. No. 
 1810 (suit 1714) . In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the South- 
 em District of Texas. (T. D. 29816; June 8, 1909.) 
 Doubtful cLuestions of fact — 
 
 On appeal from the Board of General Appraisers the circuit court should not dis- 
 turb the board's findings upon doubtful questions of fact, especially as to ques- 
 tions which turn upon the intelligence and credibility of witnesses who have 
 been produced before the board. Balaban v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 8, 1909. Suit 5424. 
 Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 
 20074 (T. D. 29409). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30187; Dec. 14, 1909.) 
 Evidence, further — 
 
 The procedure is faulty in customs appeals under section 15, customs administra- 
 tive act of 1890, in that it permits parties to partially present a case before the 
 Board of General Appraisers, and, on losing it there, then to produce in the 
 circuit court evidence which could have as easily been submitted to the board. 
 (T. D. 28820; Mar. 4, 1908.) 
 
 On appeal to the circuit court from the Board of General Appraisers, the import- 
 ers may not, under section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, introduce 
 evidence as to items of their merchandise with respect to which no evidence 
 was offered at the hearing before the board. Where importers appeared at a 
 hearing before the Board of General Appraisers, and, after introducing evi- 
 dence as to certain items, rested their case, without suggesting that there were 
 other items covered by their protest, the board was justified in assuming that 
 the importers had Umited their claim to the items covered by the evidence 
 that was introduced, and had abandoned their protests so far as they related 
 to other goods. After importers, on appeal to the circuit court from the Board 
 of General Appraisers, had introduced some evidence under section 15, cus- 
 toms administrative act of 1890, the taking of further evidence was objected 
 to by the Government on the ground that it was inadmissible because no evi- 
 dence on the same merchandise had been offered before the board. Held, 
 that the Government was not estopped from relying on this objection because 
 
26 DIGEST o:e CUSTOMS Decisions, 1908-1915. 
 
 Appeals — Continued. 
 Evidence, foithei — Continued. 
 
 it was not taken at an earlier stage of the proceedings. The right of "further 
 evidence" in the circuit court, given by section 15, customs administrative act 
 of 1890, on appeal from the Board of General Appraisers, does not permit im- 
 porters to ignore the board by withholding their^evidence entirely and intro- 
 ducing it before the circuit court, thus presenting their controversies for the 
 first time to the court. Such procedure would defeat the main purpose of said 
 customs administrative act. Plummer v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, December 15, 1908. No. 105 (suit 4217). 
 Appeafcfrom Circuit Court of United States for Southern District of New York 
 (160 Fed. Rep., 284; T. D. 28635), affirming Abstract 10331 (T. D. 27182). 
 Decision in favor of Government. (T. D. 29443; Dec. 29, 1908.) 
 
 Where an importer appears before the Board of General Appraisers and gives 
 evidence as to the matter at issue, he ia not precluded from the introduction of 
 further evidence on appeal to the circuit court under section 15, customs admin- 
 istrative act of 1890. Wolff v. United States, United States Circuit Court, North- 
 ern District of California, March 22, 1909. No. 13836 (suit 1774). Appeal by 
 importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 8757 (T. D. 
 26818). Boaj-d reversed. (T. D. 29677; Apr. 7, 1909.) 
 
 Evidence excluded: The provision in section 15, customs administrative act of 
 1890, that on appeal to the circuit court the Board of General Appraisers shall 
 return "the record and the evidence taken by them," does not require that the 
 board should return evidence which they excluded. Where on such appeal it 
 is desired that evidence excluded by the board should be passed on by the court, 
 it is requisite either that an exception should be taken to the board's ruling 
 excluding the evidence and the matter brought beforS the court in the assign- 
 ments of error, or that the evidence should have been offered as additional evi- 
 dence in the manner provided in said section. Harris v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, January 7, 1910. No. 232 (suit 
 1931). Appeal by the importer from the decisions of the Board of General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6502 (T. D. 27784) and Abstract 14019 (T. D. 27801). Decision 
 in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30275; Jan. 18, 1910.) 
 
 Testimony reviewed: Where there is a later importation of merchandise identical 
 in kind with a former importation and a new and different issue is presented as 
 to the true character of the importation, the United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals will, in reaching a decision, review aU the testimony (declining to fol- 
 low Bockmann v. United States, 158 Fed. Rep., 807; T. D. 28784). (T. D. 
 30849; July 25, 1910.) 
 
 Under the act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat., 403; T. D. 29044), providing that "here- 
 after" the parties litigant should be required to introduce all their evidence 
 before the Board of General Appraisers, there was no right to introduce further 
 evidence in the circuit coiu-t as to cases decided by the board after said date, 
 even though the cases arose before that date and had been submitted to the board 
 for decision under the previous law, customs administratis e act of 1890, section 
 15 of which permitted further evidence to be taken in the circuit court. Beer 
 V. United States, United State Circuit Court, Southern District of New York 
 May 11, 1910. Suit 5320. Appeal by importers from decision of the Board of 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 6788 (T. D. 29144). Government moved to vacate 
 ex parte order for further testimony taken out by importer. Decision in favor 
 of the Government. (T. D. 30843; Aug. 2, 1910.) 
 
 The practice of taking additional evidence on appeal from the Board of General 
 Appraisers, under section 15, customB administrative act of 1890, has been very 
 liberal; a motion to require the general appraiser to make his return, on the 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 27 
 
 Appeals — Continued. 
 
 Evidence, fuithei — Continued. 
 
 ground that the importer had failed to duly exercise the right of introducing 
 further evidence upon an order obtained, ordered to stand and the appraiser 
 directed to allow the parties a reasonable time to take further evidence. Harris 
 V. United States, United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, May 5, 
 1910. No. 232 (suit 1931). (T. D. 31166; Dec. 31, 1910.) 
 
 "Judgment"— Decision by consent — 
 In the circuit court an order aflirming a decision by the Board of General Apprais- 
 ers was entered by consent of counsel for both sides, "to expedite the final 
 decision of the issue at bar in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals * * * 
 without prejudice to the right of appeal." Held (1) that as there had been no 
 judgment of the circuit court in a just sense of the work, there was no error to be 
 assigned; (2) that to hear the appeal would be to disregard the statute establish- 
 ing the circuit court of appeals, thus converting it from an appellate tribunal to 
 a court of first instance, contrary to the intent of the law; and (3) that the Circuit 
 Court of Appeals is therefore without jurisdiction. Ballot v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, April 28, 1909. No. 
 818 (suit 2050). Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the United 
 States for the District of Massachusetts (T. D. 29548), affirming Abstract 19887 
 (T. D. 29339). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29766; May 19 
 1909.) 
 
 Premature — 
 The Board of General Appraisers granted an application for rehearing on the same 
 date that an appeal from its original decision was taken to the circuit court, 
 these proceedings being brought under the provisions of sections 1 and 2, act of 
 May 27, 1908 (35 Stat., 403). Held, that by reason of the allowance of the rehear- 
 ing the appeal was premature and should be dismissed. United States v. Gal- 
 lagher, United States Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern 
 Division, February 4, 1910. No. 29329 (suit 2059). Appeal by United States 
 from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 20307 (T. D. 
 29449). Appeal dismissed without prejudice. (T. D. 30365; Feb. 21, 1910.) 
 
 Preparation of— 
 Appeals from decisions of the board shall be made in the name of the Secretary 
 of the Treasury, and all appeal papers shall be prepared in the office of the 
 Assistant Attorney General. (T. D. 30701; June 17, 1910.) 
 
 Procedure — 
 The appeal as taken by petition omits the names of certain protestants, though 
 the numbers of their protests are given in the annexed schedule. This is not 
 sufficient. Orderly practice, as well as compliance with the rules of the court, 
 require that the caption or body of the petition for review shoflld embrace the 
 names of the parties and that the names of the appealing parties should be signed 
 to the petition. 
 
 Amendments: If there were any question of the authority of the covat to per- 
 mit generally an amendment of such petition, power to do this is certainly con- 
 ferred by section 954, Revised Statutes. Meyer & Lange et al. v. United States 
 (No. 1162), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31712 (T. D. 33280), 
 Abstract 31975 (T. D. 33338). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33855; Oct. 31, 1913.) 
 
 B eappraisement — 
 
 Timeliness: A collector of customs, in requesting a reappraisement of imported 
 
 merchandise under the authority of section 13, customs administrative act of 
 
 1890, is required to act within a reasonable time; and where such request was 
 
 not made until the lapse of nearly one year from the date of the entry, and the 
 
28 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Appeals — C<)iatmued. 
 Beappiaisement — Continued. 
 
 goods had been delivered to the importer ajid gone into consumption, hie action 
 Ib invalid as not being taken within a reasonable time. (T. D. 30378 — G. A. 
 6983; Feb. 21, 1910.) 
 
 Time within which fee must be deposited : The fee provided by paragraph M of 
 section 3 of the act of October 3, 1913, must be deposited within two days after 
 the filing of the appeal to reappraisement and holidays or Sundays should not 
 be excluded. (T. D. 33904; Nov. 21, 1913.) 
 
 Appeals are regulated or denied by statute and the determination of the tribunal 
 of a question of law or lacts is final unless an appeal be authorized either by the 
 organic law or some effective statute. The review of legislation affecting a col- 
 lector's right to "appeal" to reappraisement reveals no statutory method gov- 
 erning him in making his appeal; but viewing this legislation as a whole it is 
 held that it is an appeal if he complies with the regulation authorizing him, if 
 he is dissatisfied with the appraisement, to transmit the invoice and all the 
 papers appertaining thereto to the board of nine general appraisers. The 
 transmission by a collector o£ another port by mailing ia a compliance with 
 the statute. Larzelere & Co. v. United States (No. 1412), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 35421 (T. D. 34416). Decisdon affirmed. (T. D. 
 35154; Feb. 12, 1915.) 
 
 Reports in appeals to reappraisement to be sent to the United States appraiser, 641 
 Washington Street, New York, Law Division (T. D. 34989), and the balance of 
 the papers in such appeals to be forwarded to the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, in conformity with paragraph M of section 3 of the tariff act of Octo- 
 ber 3, 1913. (T. D. 35218; Mar. 13, 1915.) 
 Timeliness — 
 
 Motion to dismiss appeal on the ground that more than one year had elapsed since 
 the date of the judgment sought to be reviewed. Held, that an order entered 
 after hearing, that "the petition herein be, and hereby is, dismissed, and that 
 findings and decision be filed and judgment thereon entered herein accordingly," 
 was not, under the California practice, final so as to preclude and did not pre- 
 clude appeal from a judgment later entered. The first order clearly contem- 
 plated a future finding of facts and judgment thereon. United States v. Harper 
 & Co. (No. 482), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Motion denied. (T. 
 D. 32367; Feb. 12, 1912.) 
 
 Motion to dismiss suit: This case involves a motion to dismiss an appeal taken by 
 the Government on the ground that the time for an appeal had elapsed when 
 application was made to the court. Held, that where a motion for a new trial 
 has been entered within the time fixed by law, the limitation of 60 days within 
 which it is permitted to take an appeal begins to run not from the date of the 
 original decision, but from the date the motion for a new trial is disposed of. 
 United States v. Vandegrift & Co. (No. 730), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Motion denied. (T. D. 32197; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 
 In construing the provision in section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, that 
 applications to circuit courts from decisions by the Board of General Appraisers 
 should be made "within thirty days next after such decision, and not after- 
 wards, * * * by filing in the office of the clerk of said circuit" an assign- 
 ment of errors. Held, that the statute is mandatory, that it must be construed 
 strictly, and that a delay beyond the period named is as fatal aa a longer period. 
 Where an application for review of a decision by the Board of General Appraisers 
 is not filed within the time required by section 15, customs administrative act 
 of 1890, the proper disposition of the case by the circuit court is by an order of 
 
DIGEST 0¥ CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 29 
 
 Appeals — Continued . 
 Timeliness — Continued . 
 
 dismissal for want of jurisdiction. No case is presented for the exercise of dis- 
 cretion as to whether the application will be entertained by the court. Going 
 to trial upon the merits of a case does not have the effect of waiving the lack 
 of jurisdiction on the part of the tribunal in which the case is pending. Oar- 
 riere v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Western District of Michigan, 
 Northern Division, April, 1908. No. 460 (suit 1459). On application for review 
 of a decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers. Decision in 
 favor of the Government. (T. D. 28957; Apr. 22, 1908.) 
 Upon the organization of the Court of Customs Appeals, April 22, 1910, the pro- 
 visions of the organic act as to appeals became fully effective, and 60 days, 
 not 30, marked the period within which an appeal could be taken from a 
 decision of the Board of General Appraisers. United States v. Marsching (No. 
 124); United States v. Drakenfeld (Ifo. 125), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Motion to dismiss appeals taken by the Government from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. 
 D. 30771; June 22, 1910.) 
 
 Apples. 
 Bushel measure — 
 There is no controversy aa to the rate of duty. The controversy is over the legal 
 contents of a bushel of apples. Reviewing the history of the legislation and the 
 decisions affecting weights and measures, it would appear there has never been 
 an authoritative definition of a standard bushel measurement for the United 
 States. The bushel has come, by usage in trade and commerce, to be with us 
 the Winchester bushel of English law prior to 1826, the date of the adoption of 
 the imperial bushel in England. By a statute of Anne, A. D. 1701, recognizing 
 a trade usage already in" force, apples and pears were required to be sold by 
 heaping measure; and in the absence of any specific declaration by Congress as 
 to the contents of a bushel of apples or the like, it will be presumed that a bushel 
 of to-day is the bushel of English law and custom in 1776; and a bushel of apples 
 is not a struck Winchester bushel, but that measure heaped. United States v. 
 Weber (No. 757), United States Coinrt of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 26351 
 (T. D. 31832). Decision aflBrmed. (T. D. 32288; Feb. 15, 1912.) 
 
 Apple wood. (See Wood, apple.) 
 
 AppUquSd articles. 
 
 The provision in paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897, for "articles * ♦ * appli- 
 qu6d " is not limited to goods in which the design is regular, conventional, or 
 highly ornamental, and is held to include silk fabrics to which has been applied 
 a gilt cord, in loops of various shapes and sizes, running at irregular intervals 
 of from 9 to 12 inches, and not exhibiting any semblance of regularity, but be- 
 ing in a crude and unconventional though fairly ornamental design; the goods 
 being fairly durable, permanent, and salable in this form. It does not appear 
 that there is any definition of "appliqu^" in trade and commerce different 
 from the dictionary definition of it as "any ornament laid out and applied on 
 another surface, such as cloth;" and goods within this definition are "appU- 
 qu^d " within the meaning of paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897. United States 
 V. Vantine, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, November 
 16, 1908. No. 10 (suit 3576). Appeal from Circuit Court of the United States 
 for the Southern District of New York; see 155 Fed. Rep., 149 (T. D. 28188). 
 Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29392; Dec. 9, 1908.) Acquiesced 
 in by Government. (T. D. 29658; Mar. 27, 1909.) 
 
30 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. • 
 
 AppUqued articles — Continued. 
 
 Candle shades — 
 Candle shades made of cotton cloth which has been fluted and ornamented by 
 having trimmings composed of lace made on the Lever or Go-through machine, 
 metal thread, cotton and metal thread, or artificial silk appliqu6d thereon, the 
 cotton in each instance being the component of chief value, are not dutiable 
 at 60 per cent ad valorem as "aiticles, appliqu^d" under paragraph 349, but, 
 by virtue of the first proviso thereto, are dutiable at a rate not less than the high- 
 est imposed in any paragraph in the same section of the act on any of the 
 materials entering into their composition. They are dutiable at 70 per cent 
 ad valorem under paragraph 350, at 15 cents per pound and 60 per cent ad va- 
 lorem under paragraph 179, or at 45 cents per pound and 60 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 405, act of 1909, according to whether they contain lace made 
 on the Lever or Gothrough machine, metal thread, or artificial silk. 
 
 Proviso to paragraph 349: The first proviso to paragraph 349 operates to ex- 
 clude goods or articles from classification thereunder when any of the articles 
 or goods or the component materials of chief value in any of the articles or goods 
 are specified in the body of the paragraph and the articles or goods also contain 
 materials dutiable at higher rates in another paragraph in the section. Stein 
 V. United States (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 519; T. D. 32250). (T. D. 33760— G. A. 
 7494; Sept. 23, 1913.) 
 
 Collarettes. (See Collarettes.) 
 
 Egyptian scarfs — 
 So-called Egyptian veils or scarfs, made of cotton netting and having designs of 
 metal thread that are applied to the netting after it has been woven and are 
 made by passing the thread through the fabric and producing the same ornar 
 mentation on both sides of the article, are "appUqu^d" within the meaning 
 of paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897. (T. I). 30423— G. A. 6991; Mar. 10, 1910.) 
 
 Fancy boxes — 
 Boxes covered with fancy cotton fabrics, the upper and lower edges being bound 
 with a golden braid, composed of metal thread and other material, dutiable as 
 appliqu^d articles at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under pragraph 349, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32370; Apr. 3, 1912.) 
 
 Garnitures, trimmings, etc., in chief value of beads^ 
 Garnitures, motifs, and trim m ings composed of silk or cotton netting, to which 
 beads and spangles of various colors have been applied in forms and designs, 
 and some of which have also been embroidered, are dutiable as appliqu^d or 
 embroidered articles under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913, and not as articles 
 in chief value of beads under paragraph 333. 
 
 "Blanket" protests: Protests relating to importations embracing a great 
 variety of articles and failing to describe the particular merchandise against 
 which they are lodged, the protests merely objecting to the rate assessed and 
 then claiming the goods dutiable under one of 13 different provisions of the 
 tariff act of 1913, held, not to comply with the requirements of paragraph N of 
 section 3 of said act, that the protest shall set forth therein " distinctly and specifi- 
 cally " the reasons for the importer's objections to the assessment.— Lichtenstein 
 V. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 79; T. D. 31105) cited. (T D 35048— G 
 A. 7661; Jan. 5, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Appliqued.—Au article is appliqu^d within the tariff sense when 
 it is ornamented with a pattern or design independently fabricated. These 
 goods are not appliqu^d.— United States v. Hamburger Levine Co. (5 Ct Cust 
 Appls., 217; T. D. 34382). 
 
 Articles in chief valiie of beads, paragraph 333, tariff acl of 1913.— These articles 
 are in chief value of beads and paragraph 333, tarifi act of 1913, relative to 
 "beads and spangles and other articles not appliqu6d, but composed in chief 
 
1908-1915. 31 
 
 AppUcLuSd articles — Continued. 
 
 Garnitures, trimmings, etc., in chief values of beads — Continued. 
 
 value of beads" applies more specifically to the goods here than paragraph 358 
 of that act providing for, am ongst other articles , "ornaments " and ' ' trimmings . ' ' 
 Loewenthal & Co. v. United States (No. 1529); WlUenborg & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 1531), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by import- 
 ers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37284, and G. A. 
 7661 (T. D. 35048). Decision reversed. (T. D. 35464; May 18, 1915.) 
 
 Behearing requested of the United States Comt of Customs Appeals in suit 
 1531, Willenborg & Co. v. United States (T. D. 35464), involving beaded articles. 
 Beaded articles, embroidered, will continue to be assessed with duty at the rate 
 of 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35488; 
 June 5, 1915.) 
 Leather shoes. (See Shoes.) 
 
 Materials and Fabrics — 
 In paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909, providing that appliqu6d fabrics shall not 
 be dutiable at less than the rate imposed " upon the material if not so * * * 
 appliqu^d , ' ' the term " material ' ' refers to the fabrics in the condition in which 
 they would have been if they had not been appliqu6d and the rate applicable 
 to such material not appliqu^d can only be determined by ascertaining the 
 weight of the fabric stripped of the applique. Removing the appliqu6 before 
 weighing the fabric is not makiag a " deduction, " which is prohibited by para- 
 graph 404 of the act of 1909, the said appliqu6 not being a " foreign substance or 
 material," but is simply placing the fabric in the condition in which it would 
 be if imported not appliqued. (T. D. 30337— G. A. 6979; Feb. 7, 1910.) 
 In determining the proper rate of duty upon appliqued fabrics, the equivalent ad 
 valorem rate upon the naked fabrics should first be ascertained and this rate 
 applied to the total value of the appliqued fabric if that rate is in excess of 60 per 
 cent ad valorem. (T. D. 32726; July 16, 1912.) 
 
 Silk- 
 Articles composed of silk or mainly of silk or of silk and metal, and appliqued, 
 are not dutiable under paragraph 399, tariff act of 1909, but are dutiable under 
 paragraph 402 of that act. The proviso to paragraph 402, "That tamboured, 
 embroidered, or appliqued articles or fabrics shall pay no less rate of duty than 
 that imposed upon the material if not so tamboured, embroidered, or appliqued," 
 is operative only when it appears that the duty on the articles or fabrics with the 
 appliqu6 removed would under paragraph 399 exceed the duty at 60 per cent 
 provided by paragraph 402. United States v. Vietor & Achelis (No. 207), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals, February 28, 1911. Appeal by the 
 United States from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 30337). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31355; Feb. 28, 1911.) 
 
 Wearing apparel. (See wearing apparel, appliqued.) 
 Appointments. 
 
 Collector- 
 Acting collector, pending appointment of new collector, to give a bond to the Gov- 
 ernment in the same sum as that required for the collector for that district. 
 While acting as collector such officer shall receive an increased compensation, 
 to be fixed in each instance by the department, but not to exceed in any instance 
 the maximum compensation fixed by law. (T. D. 34391; Apr. 17, 1914.) 
 
 Customs, custodian, internal-revenue, mint and assay, and subtreasury services — 
 Nominations to be submitted to department in duplicate. (T. D. 29894; July 2, 
 1909.) 
 
 Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service.— (T. D. 28691; circular No. 6; Jan. 16, 
 1908.) 
 
32 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Appiaisement. (See also Dutiable Value.) 
 
 The 10 per cent required to be added for general expenses on merchandise ap- 
 praised under subsection 11 of section 28 of the act of August 5, 1909, should be 
 computed on and added to the combined costs of material and labor. Mer- 
 chandise consigned for sale, or which has no established market value in the 
 country o£ exportation, not to be appraised at less than the wholesale market 
 value in the United States, allowance being made for duty, expenses of im- 
 portation, and profit. (T. D. 30016; Sept. 30, 1909.) 
 
 It is not within the province or jurisdiction of the Customs Court of Appeals to 
 make a finding of the market value of imported goods. (T. D. 31007; Oct. 18, 
 1910.) 
 
 The addition by the appraiser to make market value of an amount equal to itema 
 invoiced as " freight and consul fee " is not an appraisement of charges. — United 
 States V. Spingarn (5 Ct. Cust. Appla. — ; T. D. 34002) distinguished. (T. D. 
 34569— G. A. 7575; Apr. 6, 1914.) 
 Advance in value — Notice to importers — 
 
 Where a notice of additions to the invoice value, on appraisal, was sent to the 
 address given by the importer in his entry, the Government officials exercised 
 due diligence, and the importer can not object to the assessment of duty on the 
 basis of such advance, on the ground that the wrong address was givan. United 
 States V. Independent Importing Co., United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York, May 22, 1908. Suit 4975. Appeal by Government from 
 decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6621 (T. D. 28250). 
 Board reversed. (T. D. 29122; June 30, 1908.) [ NotB.— No appeal was taken 
 from this decision.] 
 Appeals — 
 
 Regulations providing for reports to accompany appraisement appeals to be used 
 before the Board of General Appraisers. (T. D. 34989; Dec. 16, 1914.) 
 Dies — 
 
 The cost of the die used in stamping articles should be included In the appraised 
 value of the article when it appears that such cost was paid by the pxu-chaser. 
 (T. D. 34660; July 24, 1914.) 
 Finality of— 
 
 Fraud: The provision in subsection 13 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, that in 
 cases where no objection is made thereto the decision of the appraiser "shall be 
 final and conclusive against all parties" is conclusive on the collector of cus- 
 toms, even in cases where the appraisal was procured by fraud. (T. D. 31730; 
 June 30, 1911.) 
 
 The powers of collectors of customs relate to classification and reliquidation and 
 not to valuation, which is confided to appraisers. The provision in subsection 
 13, section 28, tariff act of 1909, that in cases where no objection is made thereto 
 the decision of the appraiser "shall be final and conclusive against all parties" 
 is conclusive against the collector. Bomn Hat Co. v. United States; United 
 States V. Calhoun; Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, May 14, 1914. In 
 error to the District Court of the United States, Southern District of New York. 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34846; Oct. 22, 1914.) 
 Invalid — 
 
 An invalid appraisement will not avail an importer in a protest against the liqui- 
 dation of an entry where the collector assessed the merchandise for duty upon 
 the amount of the invoice and entered value in accordance with the concluding 
 provision of section 7 of the customs administrative act of 1890. (T. D 29883— 
 G. A. 6918; June 29,1909.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 33 
 
 Appraisement — Continued. 
 Legality — 
 
 When a collector has before him both a pro forma and a consular invoice and there 
 is no valid appraisement by an appraising officer, he should assess and collect 
 duty upon the value of the merchandise as stated in the consular invoice. 
 Where the appraisement of merchandise by an appraising officer does not con- 
 form to the requirements of the law and is invalid, the merchandise comeabefore 
 the collector the same as if there had been no appraisement and should be as- 
 sessed for duty at the value stated in the consular invoice. Method of appraise- 
 ment adopted by the appraising officer held to be invalid. Ter Kuile's case, 
 G. A. 6398 (T. D. 27488); Unitxsd States v. Muller (158 Fed. Rep., 405; T. D. 
 28518); United States v. Commercial Cable Company (141 Fed. Rep., 473; T. 
 D. 26494); Bozzo's case, G. A. 6108 (T. D. 26605). (T. D. 29141— G. A, 6785; 
 July 2, 1908.) 
 
 Approval of pro forma invoice: Entry was made on a pro forma invoice and the 
 value stated therein was approved by the appraiser. Subsequently a consular 
 invoice giving a lower value was also approved by the appraiser. Held, that 
 duty should have been assessed on the basis of the value in the latter invoice. 
 United States v. Bennett, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, November 27, 1909. Suit 5356. Appeal by United States from decision 
 of Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 19656 (T. D. 29267). Board affirmed. 
 (T. D. 30210; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Notice of advance of value: Notice of the advance in value of imported merchan- 
 dise made by the appraiser must be given to the importer as provided for in the 
 customs regulations. If this notice is not given, the appraisement is not con- 
 clusive against the importer, and liquidation thereon is illegal. Lace House v. 
 United States (141 Fed. Rep., 869; T. D. 26970); Hawley's case, G. A. 6465 (T. 
 D. 27671); Independent Importing Company's case, G. A. 6621 (T. D. 28250). 
 (T. D. 30336— G. A. 6978; Feb. 7, 1910.) 
 
 Second appraisement — Power of appraiser: Merchandise which has been regularly 
 entered and appraised by the United States appraiser gainst whose appraise- 
 ment an appeal has been taken to reappraisement by the collector, and such 
 appeal having been dismissed upon the ground that it was not taken within the 
 statutory period, may not be made the subject of a new or second appraisement 
 by the United States appraiser. By the exercise of his statutory power of 
 appraisal in the first instance that officer became functus officio and a 
 subsequent appraisal of the same merchandise by him was illegal and void and 
 could not be the basis of an appeal to reappraisement, especially after the 
 merchandise had passed out of the custody of the Government. United States 
 V. Morewood (94 Fed., 639); Maddaus v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 330; T. D. 32623); Tilge v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 462; T. D. 
 31507); United States v. Loeb (107 Fed., 692); G. A. 5100 (T. D. 23601); G. 
 A. 3292 (T. D. 16647). 
 
 Board of General Appraisers a judicial tribunal: The Board of General 
 Appraisers is a judicial tribunal and its members, in the hearing and determinar 
 tion of issues presented to them, act judicially.— G. A. 6738 (T. D. 28849); 
 Miller, Const. U. S., 314; In re Van Blankensteyn (56 Fed., 475); Marine v. 
 Lyon (65 Fed., 992). (T. D. 34455— G. A. 7563; May 7, 1914.) 
 Merchandise withdrawn from bond under new tariff act — 
 
 Where certain merchandise was imported, entered, and appraised under the tariff 
 act of 1897, and, having been placed in bonded warehouse, was withdrawn from 
 bond after the tariff act of 1909 went into effect, no new or second appraisement 
 of such merchandise can be demanded by the importer. The rights of the Gov- 
 
 45633°— 17 3 
 
34 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Appiaisement — Continued. 
 
 Merchandise withdrawn from bond under new tariff act — Continued. 
 
 emment which accrued under the appraisement already made were preserved 
 unaffected by the new act amending previous laws. 
 
 Subsection 19 oi section 28, tariff act of 1909, pro-viding for the withdrawal of 
 merchandise in bonded warehouse "on payment of the duties and charges to 
 which it may be subject at the time of withdrawal," like section 20 of the cus- 
 toms administrative act of 1890, refers to' the rate and not the amount of duty 
 assessed. (T. D. 30542— G. A. 7008; Apr. 13, 1910.) 
 
 Merchandise not in public stores — ■ 
 The leather bags of the importation in question were contained in cases that were 
 not sent to the public stores for examination. The importer's contention is that 
 the bags did not contain toilet articles, but were assessed for duty as if they did 
 contain them. The goods having gone into consimiption and the veracity of the 
 witness who testified being unquestioned, it was sufficient proof of the actual 
 character of the leather bags, when there was produced and submitted by the im- 
 porter a memorandum known as a " stock list " that contained a complete and accu- 
 rate description of the articles in question, with the cost and sale prices thereof. 
 It was not necessary to corroborate this testimony by offering samples of the mer- 
 chandise. The goods were dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 452, tariff act of 1909. Bradley Martin v. United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 134; 
 T. D. 31185); United States v. Hermann (154 Fed. Rep., 196). Stem Bros. v. 
 United States, United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by tiie import- 
 ers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25070 (T. B. 
 31405). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32167; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 
 Method of — Keene's cement- 
 Under paragraph 88, tariff act of 1909, Keene's cement valued above $10. 
 and not above $15 per ton was subject to a duty of $5 per ton. The duty 
 being based upon or regulated by the value thereof, subsection 18 of section 
 28 of said act required that, in appraising the value of such merchandise, the 
 value of the containers, which are barrels, should be added to the per se 
 value of the cement, and duty should be assessed accordingly on the gross weight 
 of the merchandise as thus ascertained. (T. D. 32378 — G. A. 7346; Apr. 8, 
 1912.) 
 
 Notice of. (See Notice of appraisement.) 
 
 Principal market — • 
 The provision in section 19, customs administrative act of 1890, that dutible value 
 shall be the market value "in usual wholesale quantities, at the time of exporta- 
 tion to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from whence 
 imported," refers to the principal market where imported merchandise is 
 bought for exportation to the United States in wholesale quantities, rather than 
 to markets where there may have been limited purchases at a higher price than in 
 the principal market. The entire output of a china manufacturer in Limoges was 
 exported to the United States directly from Limoges, except a small amount of 
 special classes, which was disposed of in Paris to European trade, the portion 
 thus sold at wholesale not exceeding 4 per cent of the total product of the manu- 
 facturer. Held, as to the goods shipped to America, that Limoges and not Paris 
 was the "principal" market within the meaning of section 19, customs adminis- 
 trative act of 1890. United States v. Haviland, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, January 19, 1909. Suit 5034. Appeal by 
 United States from decision of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6655 (T. D. 
 28382). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29523; Feb. 3, 1909.) Appealed by United 
 States to Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Decision adverse to 
 Government. (T. D. 30296; Jan. 25, 1910.) (See also Eeappraisement, 
 Eavilaud China.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 35 
 
 Appraisement — Continued. 
 Boyalties on books. (See Books, appraisement of — Royalties.) 
 Without invoice — 
 Appraisements of imported goods without invoice can be made with the approval 
 of the Secretary of the Treasury under article 1450, Customs Regulations of 1899; 
 but such permission confers no privilege in violation of the Federal statutes. 
 (T. D. 28814— G. A. 6732; Feb. 27, 1908.) (See also Regulations— Appraise- 
 ment entry without invoice— Invalid regulation.) 
 Appraiser, power of. (See Appraisement, legality of.) 
 Appraisers' reports. 
 
 Appraising officers in making returns of appraisement should not note items as 
 disallowed, but should make specific notations of advance and state either the 
 amount or percentage added. (T. D. 34992; Dec. 19, 1914.) 
 Evidence — 
 The reports made by local appraisers to collectors concerning merchandise, when 
 they are made within the line of duty, become part of the record in the case, 
 and as such may be considered upon the trial of a protest before the board. 
 
 Report more than 30 days after protest filed: A report made by an appraiser 
 after the lapse of the 30 days fixed by law wherein reports must be made is 
 extra-official and is not entitled to be considered a part of the record in the case. 
 Tower Manufacturing & Novelty Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1530), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 37171. Decision affirmed as to part and 
 reversed as to pait. (T. D. 35478; May 21, 1915.) 
 Probative force — ^American shocks — ■ 
 Where orange or lemon boxes, assessed for duty under paragraph 205, tariff act of 
 1897, after examination by the appraiser, are reported by him to be of foreign 
 manufacture, the mere production of the affidavit of the foreign shipper and of 
 the certificate of the American consul, prescribed by article 586, Customs Reg- 
 ulations of 1908, to the effect that the boxes are of domestic origin, is not suffi- 
 cient to justify assessing the goods at half rates under the proviso to said para- 
 graph as American manufactures. The judgment of the appraiser must stand, 
 unless reversed on reappraisem'ent, or by the Board of General Appraisers, on 
 protest filed. Following United States v. Ranlett (172 U. S., 133; 19 Sup. Ct. 
 Rep., 114). 
 Conflict between decisions: Where there is a conflict between a decision of the 
 Supreme Court and one made by an inferior court, the board will follow the 
 ruling of the superior tribunal. (T. D. 30312— G. A. 6972; Jan. 27, 1910.) 
 Apricot pulp. (See Frmt pulp preserved.) 
 Apron leather. (See Leather.) 
 Aprons in the piece. (See Wearing apparel.) 
 Aqueous extract of opium. (See Opium, smoking.) 
 Areca nuts. 
 Drugs — 
 The chief use of areca nuts in this country is as a medicine, hence they are doubt- 
 less properly classifiable as drugs, but the history of the drug paragraph of the free 
 list, as well as the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio altering, excludes them 
 from paragraph 477 of the tariff act of 1913. Nor are they free of duty under 
 paragraph 552, not being ejusdem generis with moss and seaweed, being expressly 
 provided for in paragraph 226, under which they, are properly classifiable for 
 tariff purposes. (T. D. 35704— G. A. 7773; Sept. 10, 1915-.) 
 Arms and munitions to Mexico. (See Mexico.) 
 Arrow-point gloves. (See Gloves.) 
 
36 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Arsenic, metallic. 
 
 The provision in paragraph 479, tariff act of 1897, for "arsenic" being without 
 terms of limitation, it is not proper to exclude therefrom "metallic arsenic," 
 which is therefore free of duty under that paragraph. (T. D. 28700— G. A. 6708; 
 Jan. 17, 1908.) 
 
 Art, works of. (See Works of art.) 
 
 Article. 
 
 The term "article" is commonly accepted in trade and elsewhere as something 
 different from bulky and heavy commodities. Harrison Supply Co. v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, April 28, 1909. 
 No. 801 (suit 1756). Appeal by importer from Circuit Coiu-t of the United 
 States for the District of Massachusetts (164 Fed. Rep., 155; T. D. 29207), affirm- 
 ing Abstract 8429 (26753). Decision in favor of Government. (T. D. 29767; 
 May 19, 1909.) 
 
 Articles embroidered. (See Scalloped articles.) 
 
 Articles for institutions — 
 
 Free entry of articles for institutions under paragraphs 427, 573 and 611 of the 
 tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 34980; Dec, 10, 1914.) 
 
 Articles of personal adornment. 
 Brass, chief value — • 
 The merchandise of the importation in question consists of articles of personal 
 adornment composed in chief value of brass, valued at less than 20 cents per 
 dozen pieces, assessed with duty by the collector at 60 per cent ad valorem 
 under the last clause of paragraph 448 and claimed by the importers to be dutiar 
 ble at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. The mer- 
 chandise was both commonly and commercially known as jewelry. Reviewing 
 the legislative history of paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, and its interpreta- 
 tions, the articles of the importation that were stipulated to be both commonly 
 and commercially known as jewelry must be taken to have come directly under 
 the provisions of that paragraph and to have been dutiable under it. They 
 were not dutiable as manufactures of metal. Hensel v. United States (3 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 32366). United States v. Guthman, Solomons & Co. 
 (No. 860), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7330 (T. D. 
 32281). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32572; May 17, 1912.) 
 Buckles, brass, set with imitation jet — 
 Buckles valued at 20 cents or more per dozen pieces, composed wholly or in chief 
 value of silver, German silver, white metal, brass, or gun metal, whether set or 
 not set with imitation precious stones, including imitation jet, are dutiable at the 
 equivalent ad valorem rate of 85 per cent under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909. 
 The provisions of said paragraph 448 with regard to articles of personal adorn- 
 ment valued at more than 20 cents per dozen pieces — not composed of gold or 
 platinum — are in the alternative: (a) If set with imitation precious stones 
 (except imitation jet), regardless of the materials of which the articles are com- 
 posed, they are dutiable at 85 per cent ad valorem; or (6) if they are composed 
 in chief value of silver, German silver, white metal, brass, or gun metal, they are 
 Likewise dutiable at 85 per cent ad valorem whether set with imitation precious 
 stones, inclvding imitation jet, or not. (T. D. 31448 — G. A. 7195- Mar 30 
 1911.) " ' ■ ' 
 
 Combination penholders and automatic stamps — 
 The provision in paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, for "all other articles of every 
 description" applies to articles which fulfill the purpose of their existence in 
 being worn on apparel or carried on or about or attached to the person, and are 
 primarily designed and intended to be so worn or carried merely for the sake of 
 their ornamental character. Articles devised for purposes essentially utilitarian 
 and carried on the person for convenience and avail^biJity, even though made 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 37 
 
 Aiticles of personal adoinment — Continued. 
 
 Combination penholdeis and automatic stamps — Continued. 
 
 ■wholly or in chief value of precious or one or another of the base metals specified 
 in the paragraph, whether ornate in appearance or not, are not ejusdem generis 
 with those provided for in the first section of paragraph 448, nor are they em- 
 braced by the provision for "all of the foregoing, whether known as jewelry or 
 otherwise and whether or not denominatively or otherwise provided for in any 
 other paragraph of this act * * * ." Nickel-plated brass combination 
 penholders, and brass automatic stamps, not combined with penholders, not 
 being articles designed to be worn or carried on or about the person for piu-poses 
 of adornment, are not dutiable under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909. The 
 combination penholders are specially enumerated in paragraph 187, under 
 which they are dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem, the pens therein contained" 
 being dutiable under paragraph 186. The automatic stamps are dutiable at 45 
 per cent ad valorera, under paragraph 199 of said act, as manufactures of metal. 
 (T. D. 31348— G. A. 7179; Feb. 27, 1911.) 
 Fob chains- 
 Fob chains composed of brass, which after being plated with gold or silver are 
 intended for free distribution for advertising purposes, are articles designed to 
 be worn on or about the person for ornament or display and dutiable at com- 
 pound rates equivalent to 85 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 448 of the 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31865— G. A. 7273; Sept. 18, 1911.) 
 Fob chains composed of gun metal and white metal, valued at more than 20 cents 
 per dozen pieces, commonly and commercially known as jewelry, are dutiable 
 as articles of personal adornment under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, and 
 not as "articles commonly or commercially known as jewelry,'' under the same 
 paragraph. The provision for "articles commonly and commercially known as 
 jewelry" is limited to those composed of gold or platinum. — G. A. 7019 (T. D. 
 30612) followed. (T. D. 31907— G. A. 7281; Oct. 2, 1911.) 
 Hatpins — 
 Hatpins mounted with paste heads, which heads, although not accurately imi- 
 tating any known precious stone, belong to a class of goods designated commer- 
 cially as imitations of precious stones, are included in the provisions of paragraph 
 448 of the tariff act of 1909 and are dutiable at the equivalent ad valorem rate of 
 85 per cent ad valorem if such hatpins are valued at 20 cents or more per dozen 
 pieces. (T. D. 31402— G. A. 7188; Mar. 16, 1911.) 
 Jewelry. (See also Jewelry.) 
 Articles commonly and commercially known as jewelry, composed in chief value 
 of silver and set with precious, semiprecious, or imitation precious stones, if 
 valued at more than 20 cents per dozen pieces, are dutiable at the equivalent ad 
 valorem rate of 85 per cent under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, and not at 60 
 per cent ad valorem as jewelry. 
 
 The articles of jewelry made dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem 
 under that paragraph are limited to such as are composed of gold or plati- 
 num, set or not set with precious or semiprecious stones or imitations thereof. 
 (T. D. 31522— G. A. 7212; Apr. 22, 1911.) 
 Articles of personal adornment composed in chief value of silver or brass, valued 
 at 20 cents or more per dozen pieces, although commonly or commercially known 
 as jewelry, were dutiable at rates equivalent to 85 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909; those composed in chief value ol brass, valued 
 at less than 20 cents per dozen pieces, even if commonly and commei daily 
 known as jewelry, were dutiable as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199 
 of said act. 
 
38 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Articles of personal adomment — Continued. 
 Jewelry — Continued. 
 
 Set with precious stones in combination with imitation precious ston«s: 
 Articles of personal adornment composed of brass, plated with gold or silver, 
 brass being of more value than the gold, and set with imitation precious stones 
 in combination with genuine precious atones or semiprecious stones, commonly 
 and commercially known as jewelry, were dutiable under the act of 1909 at rates 
 equivalent to 85 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 448, irrespective of 
 whether the precious, semiprecious, or imitation precious stones are the com- 
 ponent of chief value. 
 
 Set exclusively with precious stones: Articles of personal adornment com- 
 posed of silver and set exclusively with precious and semiprecious stones, the 
 precious or semiprecious stones being the component of chief value, commonly 
 and commercially known as jewelry, not being specifically provided for in the 
 tariff act of 1909, were dutiable as manufactures composed wholly or in part of 
 metal, under paragraph 199. 
 
 Composed of gold or platinum: The only articles of jewelry made dutiable at 
 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 448 were limited to those composed of 
 gold or platinum, set or unset.— G. A. 7019 (T. D. 30612); G. A. 7281 (T. D. 
 31907). 
 
 Punctuation: Punctuation not being part of a statute, repunctuation may be 
 made if necessary to avoid absurd and incongruous results; and under this rule 
 the provision in paragraph 448, for "jewelry * * * including chain, mesh 
 and mesh bags and purses composed of gold or platinum," should be construed 
 as though a comma followed "purses," so that the words "composed of gold or 
 platinum" will relate to "jewehy" as well as to "bags and purses." — Ham- 
 mock V. Loan & Trust Co. (105 U. S., 77). (T. D. 32281— G. A. 7330; Feb. 21, 
 1912.) 
 Millinery and dress ornaments — 
 Imitation of precious stones, including so-called semiprecious stones, set in metal, 
 forming parts of hatpins and other articles of personal adornment, valued at more 
 than 20 cents per dozen pieces, are dutiable at 85 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909. Millinery and dress ornaments composed in 
 chief value of silk, straw, beads, or metal thread, having imitation precious 
 stones sewed, pasted, or glued to the tabric. Held not to be set, and are not duti- 
 able under paragraph 448, but at the rate applicable to their component material 
 of chief value. MilUnery ornaments set with both imitation jet and other imita^ 
 tion precious stones, imitation jet the component material of chief value, are not 
 dutiable under paragraph 448. Millinery ornaments composed of straw, imi- 
 tating feathers, are dutiable as artificial feathers at 60 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 438. (T. D. 31809— G. A. 7261; Aug. 8, 1911.) 
 
 Artificial flowers. (See Flowers, artificial.) 
 Boutonnieres of celluloid. (See Boutonnieres.) 
 
 Artificial fruits and vegetables used in waxing threads. (See Wax, manufactures of.) 
 
 Artificial horsehair. (See Horsehair.) 
 
 Artificial horsehair braids, (^ee Braids.) 
 
 Artificial musk. (See Musk.) 
 
 Artificial shamrocks. (See Shamrocks.) 
 
 Artificial silk. (See Silk, artificial.) 
 
 Woven cotton cloth with an artificial silk flock. (See Cloth, cotton, coated.) 
 
 Artificial sUk hats. (See Hats, artificial silk.) 
 
 Artificial silk waste. (See Silk waste, artificial.) 
 
 Artistic antiquities. (See Antiques, and Works of art.) 
 
1908-1915. 39 
 
 Asafetida. 
 
 Importations of asafetida containing 35 per cent or more of alcohol soluble material 
 may be permitted entry, providing the importer files bond or affidavit to the 
 effect that the asafetida is to be used in the manufacture of certain commodities, 
 enumerating the preparations, and that a proportionately larger quantity of 
 the product will be used, depending upon the strength of the article, in the man- 
 ufacture of official preparations of asafetida. (T. D. 31097; Dec. 10, 1910.) 
 T. D. 31097, dated December 10, 1910, supra, revoked. (T. D. 34708; Aug. 18, 
 1914.) 
 Asbestos articles. 
 Woven fabrics In cMef value of asbestos — 
 The merchandise is a plain, loose, open weave of thick asbestos cords. Tha 
 change in the language of the tariff act of 1909 clearly manifests a legislative 
 intention separately to provide for woven asbestos. The goods here are woven 
 fabrics and fell properly under the last clause of paragraph 462 of that act. 
 United States v. Grasselli Chemical Co. (No. 1332), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 34310 (T. D. 34026). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 34527; May 28, 1914.) 
 Asphalt, westrumite. 
 
 So-called "westrumite," a liquid in chief value of asphalt, which is used in road 
 building, is not dutiable as a paint under paragraph 56, tariff act of 1909, nor is 
 it ' ' asphaltum " within the meaning of paragraph 90 ; but by virtue of the mixed- 
 materials clause in paragraph 481 it is dutiable at the rate provided in said para- 
 graph 90 for "asphaltum * * * advanced." (T. D. 30223— G. A. 6959; 
 Dec. 24, 1909.) 
 Asphaltum or bitumen advanced in condition. 
 
 In the composition of the merchandise, it appears from the record that the origi- 
 nal substances employed in the making are different kinds of asphalt or bitu- 
 men and that certain chemicals and water are added solely for the purpose of 
 combining the different kinds of asphalt and bitumen and so to perfect the mate- 
 rial resulting for use as paving material: Held, the material is not to be classi- 
 fied as a chemical compound or mixture, but rather as asphaltum or bitumen 
 advanced in condition, and as such dutiable under paragraph 90, tariff act of 
 1909. United States v. Central Westrumite Co. (No. 96). United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from decision of the Board 
 of General Appraisers, Abstract 22924 (T. D. 30447). Transferred from United 
 States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Michigan. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 31480; Apr. 3, 1911.) 
 Assay, base bullioa. 
 
 Base bullion smelted under provisions of section 24, tariff act of 1909, must be 
 assayed for the purpose of determining the lead contents. (T. D. 30157; Dec. 
 4, 1909.) 
 Assessment too low. 
 Importer's right to protest a rate too low. (See Board of General Appraisers' jurisdic- 
 tion — Protest claiming a higher rate of duty than assessed. 
 Assignments of error. (See Appeals— Assigimients of error.) 
 Attempt to make fraudulent importation. (See Forfeiture — Fraudulent attempt to 
 
 import.) 
 Attorney General, opinions of. 
 
 Copyright act of March 4, 1909, section 31, applicable to every American copy- 
 right in a book, regardless of law under which copyright was obtained. (T. D. 
 30136; Nov. 24, 1909.) 
 
40 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Attorney General, opinions of — Continued. 
 
 State licenses not required of surety companies doing business with the United 
 States vmder act of August 13, 1894, except where company executes bonds 
 within the State. (T. D. 30230; circular No. 69; Dec. 30, 1909.) 
 Automatic cigar lighters. (See Smokers' articles.) 
 Automobile cloth — ^Dress goods. 
 
 Merchandise the principal use of which is as automobile cloth, but which is also 
 adaptable for use as dress goods, and is in fact sometimes so used, is properly clas- 
 sifiable as "goods of similar description and character" to woJien's dress goods 
 under paragraph 380, tariff act of 1909, and not as cloth of wool (par. 378).— 
 Greenleaf v. Goodrich (101 U. S.. 27S,i and Schmieder v. Barney (113 U. S., 645) 
 cited; G. A. 4567 (T. D. 21650) distinguished. (T. D. 34303— G. A. 7544; 
 Mar. 16, 1914.) 
 Automobiles, parts, and accessories. 
 Bond for exportation — 
 
 Automobiles imported for touring purposes may be entered under bond for expor- 
 tation within six months from date of importation. (T. D. 23808, June 20, 
 1902; T. D. 26162, Mar. 15, 1905; and article 595 of the Customs Regulations 
 of 1908, amended.) (T. D. 31292; Feb. 13, 1911.) 
 
 Regulations governing automobiles exported for touring purposes, imported for 
 temporarj' stay not over seven days, and tor touring purposes under six months' 
 bond. Automobiles, etc., imported for racing or other specific contests, under 
 six months' bond. (T. D. 32799; Aug. 31, 1912.) 
 
 Regulations for the free entry of articles under six months' bond, in accordance 
 with the provisions of paragraphs 398, 582, and 653 of Section I and subsection 
 4, paragraph J, of Section IV, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 33806; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 
 Section 5 of T. D. 32799 superseded by T. D. 33806. Automobiles imported from 
 contiguous foreign territory for touring purposes may be entered under section 
 3 of T. D. 32799. (T. D. 34018; Dec. 23, 1913.) 
 Consular certificate — 
 
 Consular certificate required for automobiles imported under bond for touring 
 purposes, and also a certified invoice if automobile is valued at over $100. No 
 form of certificate prescribed for automobiles brought to this country for tem- 
 poraiy stay of not exceeding seven days. (T. D. 34757; Sept. 8, 1914.) 
 Emigrant's automobile — 
 
 Free entr}' is not granted in paragraph 493 of the tariff act of 1909 to wagons or 
 any other vehicles unless the same are drawn by animals, as the paragraph 
 includes within its scope only animals and such harness and vehicles as are 
 used therewith. An automobile brought into the United States by an emigrant 
 from England is therefore dutiable under the express provision of paragraph 
 141. (T. D. 31706— G. A. 7236; June 19, 1911.) 
 Foreign automobile returned abroad for repairs. — 
 
 An automobile, valued at more than $2,000, imported from England was subse- 
 quently returned to that country for necessary repairs and then reimported into 
 this countrj'. Eeld, that the proper rate of duty applicable to the value of such 
 repairs under paragraph 404 of the act of 1913 is the same rate which would have 
 been le%ied upon said automobile under paragraph 119 of said act if the auto, 
 mobile itself had been subject to duty. (T. D. 35795 — G. A. 7789; Oct. 11, 
 1915.) 
 
 (See also Effects, household.) 
 Horns and bulbs — Entireties. 
 
 Automobile horns and metal-mounted rubber bulbs therefor, constituting com- 
 plete horns of which metal is chief value, each part being useless without the 
 other, are entireties and dutiable as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199, 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 41 
 
 Horns and bulbs — ^Entireties — Continued. 
 
 tariff act of 1909. Tlie bulbs are not separately classifiable as manufactures of 
 india rubber (par. 463), (T. D. 31567— G. A. 7219; May 8, 1911.) 
 
 Lamp reflectors. (See Glass disks.) 
 
 Parts — Clutch leathers not classified as. (See Leather.) 
 
 Rugs. (See Rugs.) 
 
 Tires imported with car — • 
 
 Automobiles were imported with tires accompanying them; but the tires had not, 
 prior to importation, been attached in such a way as to be capable of immediate 
 use, and they were interchangeable and might or might not be used on the ma- 
 chines with which imported. Meld, that the tires and machines did not together 
 constitute an entirety, but were dutiable as though imported independently. 
 In order that merchandise that is distinctively a manufacture of one material, as a 
 rubber automobile tire, shall be classified as a manufacture of another material, 
 as an automobile in chief value of metal, it is necessary that the entire article 
 manufactured should have existed as an assembled entity, so that it would be an 
 invasion for the foreign maker to break the entity into fragments and expect each 
 fragment to be treated as if complete in itself. But where an article has never 
 been assembled abroad, it ought not for tariff purposes to be treated as if it had 
 been so assembled. Archer v. United States; Auto Import Co. v. United 
 States; Derouche v. United States; United States Circuit Court, Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York, May 23, 1908. Suits 4915 and 4918-9. Appeals by importers 
 from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6567 (T. D. 
 28044), and Abstract 15117 (T. D. 28104). Board^ reversed. (T. D. 29123; 
 June 30,- 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Tires imported with car — Entirety. — ^When an incomplete auto- 
 mobile car and the foiu- tires necessary to put it in running order are imported 
 together, in the same vessel, by the same importer, and entered at the same 
 time, the parts are dutiable as a whole, though before the machine is ever used 
 other tires may be substituted. Auto Import Co. v. United States; Archer 
 V. United States; United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Feb- 
 ruary 16, 1909. Nos. 198-9 (suits 4918 and 4915). Noyes, Circuit Judge, dis- 
 sents. Appeals by importers from Circuit Court of the United States for the 
 Southern District of New York (T. D. 29J23), reversing decisions by the Board 
 of General Appraisers G. A. 6567 (T. D. 28044) and Abstract 15117 (T. D.28104). 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29599; Mar, 3, 1909.) 
 An automobile or a chassis on wheels, with the tires therefor, whether the latter 
 are on the wheels or separately packed, constitutes an entirety and should be 
 treated as such in the assessment of duty. United States v. Auto Import Co. 
 (T. D. 29599), affirming G. A. 6567 (T. D. 28044), followed. (T. D. 29760— G. 
 A. 6908; May 17, 1909.) 
 
 Average price — ^Value. (See Dutiable value, average price.) 
 
 Awards to informers. (See Informers.) 
 
 Axles and tires, old. (See Metal scrap, old.) 
 
 Babies, position and bath. (See Bath babies.) 
 
 Baby crys — Small wooden whistles. (See Whistles, wooden.) 
 
 Bonded- 
 Baggage of passengers arriving at Quebec, Canada, from Europe may be corded 
 and sealed at Quebec by United States customs officers and forwarded to its 
 port of destination in this country under the provisions of article 624 of the Cus- 
 toms Regulations of 1908. (T. D. 30557; Apr. 20, 1910.) 
 
42 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Baggage — Contimied. 
 Bonded — Contimied. 
 
 The privilege of forwarding baggage in bond from Quebec discontinued. (T. D. 
 33992; Dec. 18, 1913.) 
 
 Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway being bonded carriers 
 and operating in the United States, baggage may be forwarded thereby from 
 Quebec, Canada, to points in the ITnited States. (T. D. 34405; Apr. 21, 1914.) 
 
 Regulations amended to require the forwarding by mail to the port of destination or 
 exportation of ad\dce of shipment. (T. D. 34882; Nov. 5, 1914.) 
 Cargo — 
 
 Passengers' baggage not cargo within the meaning of section 5 of the act of Febru- 
 ary 13, 1911. (Opinion of Attorney General, Max. 3, 1913.) (T. D. 33275; Mar. 
 18, 1913.) 
 Declaration — 
 
 The baggage declaration of a person arriving from abroad referred only to a "trunk," 
 without specification of its dutiable contents. Held, that this was a sufiicient 
 compliance with the requirement of section 2802, Revised Statutes, that if a 
 passenger's baggage contains any article subject to duty it shall be "mentioned " 
 to the collector. United States v. One Trunk, United States District Court, 
 Southern District of New York, July 19, 1909. In rem on proceedings for for- 
 feiture of imported goods. Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29926; 
 July 27, 1909.) 
 
 Sufficiency of: A trunk containing dutiable merchandise of a value exceeding 
 $500, which, under article 615, Customs Regulations of 1908, must be regularly 
 entered at the customhouse and appraised, arrived as baggage, -was described 
 on the usual passenger's declaration as "1 trunk for public stores," and subse- 
 quently was entered at the customhouse, a copy of the consular invoice being 
 fUed with the entry. Beld, that this was a sufiicient compliance with section 
 2802, Revised Statutes, providing that dutiable articles found in the baggage 
 of persons arriving within the United States must be mentioned to the collector 
 at the time of making entry. United States v. One Trunk (McNally, claimant). 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 9, 1911. No. 
 51. In error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District 
 of New York. Judgment for claimant. (171 Fed. Rep., 772; T. D. 29926.) 
 Aflirmed. (T. D. 31731; June 30, 1911.) 
 
 Baggage not mentioned in. (See Forfeiture.) 
 Entries. (See Effects, personal — Entry, baggage.) 
 
 Examination at frontier ports. (T. D. 30497; circular No. 16; Apr. 4, 1910.) 
 Exemption allowed returning residents — 
 
 Character of articles enumerated which may be included within the $100 exemp- 
 tion in paragraph 642, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 33994; Dec. 18, 1913.) 
 Expedition of — 
 
 Orders to expedite landing and examination of baggage to be issued only by col- 
 lector of customs or by the Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. — 
 Article 613, Customs Regulations of 1908, amended accordingly. (T. D. 29775; 
 May 25, 1909.) 
 
 Regulations governing expedite orders for examination of passengers' baggage. 
 (T. D. 33455; May 23, 1913.) 
 Foreign, diplomatic and consular officers. (T. D. 31934; Oct. 19, 1911.) 
 Labels for — 
 
 Prescribing a form of gummed baggage labels, to be printed on white paper, for 
 use by customs officers at frontier ports in passing passengers in transit through 
 Canada or Mexico destined for points in the United States (catalogue No. 6057); 
 the label to be pasted across the opening of the baggage. (T. D 31582- May 12 
 1911.) ' ' ' ' 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIOKS, 1908-1915. 43 
 
 Baggage— Continued . 
 labels for — Continued. 
 Gummed labels for hand baggage of passengers crossing border not to be pasted 
 across opening. (T. D. 31582, of May 12, 1911, amended.) (T. D. 31938; Oct. 
 23, 1911.) 
 Locks — 
 Customs officers forbidden to break locks on trunks in order to examine passen- 
 gers' baggage. (T. D. 34804; Oct. 2, 1914.) 
 Merchandise for sale not baggage — 
 Merchandise for sale is not "baggage " within the meaning of section 2799, Revised 
 Statutes. United States v. One Trunk (Gannon, claimant). United States 
 District Court, Southern District of New York, November 18,' 1914. In rem. 
 On proceedings for forfeiture of imported goods Decision adverse to the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 30214; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 Notice to passengers. (T. D. 29951; circular No. : 8; Aug. 13, 1909.) 
 
 Under tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 33995; Dec. 20, 1913.) 
 Plumage. (See also Plumage, prohibited.) 
 Prohibition in paragraph 347, tariff act of 1913, against importation of aigrettes, 
 egret plumes, etc., applies to such plumage contained in passengers' baggage 
 when used as trimming of hats or other articles of wearing apparel. (T. D. 
 33781; Oct. 7, 1913.) 
 Becelpt for articles taken from — 
 Whenever it becomes necessary for inspectors or other customs officers to detain 
 any or all cf passenger's baggage for further examination, or otherwise, a receipt 
 will be given to the passenger on form provided for that purpose, entitled 
 "Receipt to passenger for baggage" (Customs Cat. No. 6053). (T. D. 32739; 
 July 23. 1912.) 
 Regulations. (See Regulations, baggage.) 
 Bepairs abroad. (See also Repairs.) 
 Wearing apparel and other personal effects taken abroad by residents of the United 
 States and repaired while abroad dutiable under the tariff act of 1909 on the cost 
 of repairs only when reimported as baggage upon the identity of such articles 
 as those taken abroad as baggage by residents of the United States being estab- 
 lished to the satisfaction of the customs officers and the production of satisfac- 
 tory evidence of the character and cost of the repairs. (T. D. 30871; Aug. 12, 
 1910.) 
 Tobacco — 
 Three pounds of smoking tobacco brought by passengers may be passed free of 
 duty, under article 618 of Customs Regulations, in Ueu of cigars or cigarettes. 
 (T. D. 32406; Apr. 18, 1912.) 
 Unclaimed and unacoompanled — 
 Article 622 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 amended to provide for the subse- 
 quent entry of baggage, which for unavoidable reasons does not accompany 
 passengers arriving in the United States. (T. D. 33650; July 23, 1913.) 
 Bagging for cotton. 
 
 Classification of old waste gunny bagging, burlaps, and rags. (Halftone engrav- 
 ings published in illustration.) (T. D. 31776; July 26, 1911.) 
 When collectors of customs are in doubt as to element of chief value of bagging for 
 cotton a deposit of estimated duties at 45 per cent ad valorem should be required 
 pending result of analysis. (T. D. 31746; July 12, 1911.) 
 Analysis- 
 Three specimens of each sample of bagging for cotton to be submitted for analysis. — 
 T. D. 31516 of April 19, 1911, modified. (T. D. 32724; July 19, 1912.) 
 
44 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Bagging for cotton — Continued. 
 Analysis — Continued . 
 
 Each specimen of bagging for cotton for analysis to be of the full width of the bag- 
 ging and 18 inches in length.— T. D. 31516 of April 19, 1911, as modified by T. D. 
 32724 of July 19, 1912, amended. (T. D. 33134; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 Jute — 
 
 Pieces of jute bagging 30 by 54 inches ia dimensions, of the texture, count of 
 threads, and weight per yard described in paragraph 355, tariff act of 1909, and 
 paragraph 344, act of 1897, used as patches to cover the holes in cotton bales pro- 
 duced by sampling the cotton, are dutiable at 0.6 of 1 cent per square yard under 
 said paragraph as bagging or similar fabrics of jute suitable for covering cotton, 
 and not at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 358 as woven fabrics com- 
 posed of vegetable fiber. 
 
 Xot printed: The stenciling of a single name or word on said fabrics solely for 
 the purpose of identification of the cotton on shipment to foreign ports does not 
 constitute a " -printing " within the meaning of paragraph 355, tariff act of 1909, 
 or 344, act of 1897. (T. D. 30930— G. A. 7098; Sept. 17, 1910.) 
 
 Jute rejections, jute waste, or other fibers of jute origin are jute within the meaning 
 of paragraph 355, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31688; June 14, 1911.) 
 
 Pieces of jute bagging used for covering cotton bales, composed in chief value of 
 jute, in the approximate proportion of over 75 per cent of jute fiber, are dutiable 
 at the rate prescribed in paragraph 355, tariff act of 1909, and not under para- 
 graph 358 of said act. (T. D. 31797— G. A. 72.54; Aug. 4, 1911.) 
 
 The merchandise was classified by the collector as bagging made of jute butts and 
 waste, and was assessed for duty under paragraph 355, tariff act of 1909. The 
 protest claimed alternatively under two paragraphs, to wit, 358 and 480, of that 
 act. On the date set for hearing the Government asked that a consent order 
 sustaining the protest should be entered of record. The protestants objected 
 to this, insisting on a hearing and a decision upon the question of law involved. 
 The board denied this, and, directing a submission of the case without a trial of 
 the issues of fact, sustained the protest. An assessment was ordered imder the 
 provisions of paragraph 358. The appeal was taken from the order sustaining the 
 protest. 
 
 Consent order, when both parties do not consent: The order sustaining the 
 protest was not made by the consent of both parties, nor upon the express 
 admission by the Government of any of the facts alleged in the protest. 
 This was not a consent order in the legal acceptation of the term; it was not an 
 order legally following on an express admission of fact by one of the contending 
 litigants. The protestant had the right to show by e\idence whether the mer- 
 chandise belonged to one or the other of the two classes, as alleged in the protest. 
 American Manufacturing Co. v. United States (No. 818), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 27492 (T. D. 32126). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 33161; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 
 Old jute bagging of the character represented by Exhibits 1 to 4 and 7 and 8, 
 reported in T. D. 31776, entitled to admission free of duty under paragraph 408, 
 tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34297; Mar. 19, 1914.) 
 
 Component material of chief value: That component material of chief value 
 means a component material which shall exceed in value any other single com- 
 ponent material of the article is the signification prescribed for that phrase by 
 paragraph 481, tarifi act of 1909. 
 
 Cotton bagging of jute yams: In the merchandise jute is the component ma- 
 terial of chief value; it constitutes from 70 to 80 per cent of the weight of the 
 materials used in making the goods, while the flax waste and seg employed are 
 
1908-1915. 45 
 
 Bagging for cotton — Continued. 
 Jute — Continued. 
 
 used as adulterants. The bagging so made is accordingly of jute and jute butts, 
 substantially, and comes within the meaning and intent of paragraph 355 of the 
 act. Hawley & Letzerich v. United States (No. 1224), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Rehearing in Abstract 32693 (T. D. 33560). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 35322; Apr. 14, 1915.) . 
 
 Evidence: The oral evidence in this case, as reviewed, seems to establish the fact 
 that it is impracticable to distinguish between old bagging of a domestic origin 
 and that of foreign manufactm-e, especially where the samples offered are frag- 
 ments or scraps of different importations, worn and dirty by age and use. 
 Wherfe a claim is made under said paragraph 483, tariff act of 1897, involving 
 the identity of old bagging, that it is of domestic origin, oral evidence of this 
 alleged fact is inadmissible. The only method of proof that can legally be 
 offered is that prescribed by the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 which is a condition precedent to the right of free entry of said merchandise. — 
 United States v. Dominici (78 Fed. Rep., 334; 24 C. C. A., 116) and other cases 
 followed. (T. D. 30409— G. A. 6987; Feb. 28, 1910.) 
 Vegetable fibers, not jute — 
 
 Cotton bagging, although suitable for covering cotton, which is made in chief 
 value of vegetable fibers, as aloe, Russian seg, and other fibers than jute, jute 
 butts, or hemp, is dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 358, 
 tariff act of 1909, and not under paragraph 355 of said act. Where such mer- 
 chandise has been improperly classified by the collector and the importer ex- 
 presses his dissatisfaction by filing a protest claiming the proper classification, 
 the protest will not be dismissed on the ground that the rate claimed is greater 
 than that assessed by the collector. (See also Jurisdiction, Board of General 
 Appraisers; Protest, claiming a higher rate of duty than assessed.) (T. D. 
 31401— G. A. 7187; Mar. 16, 1911.) 
 
 While certain pieces of bagging, similar in size, texture, and use to the merchan- 
 dise passed on by the board in Wolff's case, G. A. 7098 (T.D. 30930), maybe con- 
 sidered as bagging suitable for covering cotton, if, however, they are made in 
 chief value of other vegetable fibers than jute, jute butts, or hemp, such articles 
 are subject to classification for duty under paragraph 358 of the tariff act of 1909, 
 as woven articles of the kind there described, at 45 per cent ad valorem, and not 
 under paragraph 355, as bagging for covering cotton, made of jute, jute butts, or 
 hemp. The board, under the powers conferred by law, will proceed to classify 
 imported merchandise in accordance with the claim made in the protest, if 
 sustained by satisfactory evidence, and will deny a motion to dismiss such pro- 
 test on the ground that the rate of duty alleged to be applicable is greater than 
 that assessed by the collector.— Following Schwartz's ca,se, G. A. 7187 (T. D. 
 31401). (T. D. 31403— G. A. 7189; Mar. 20, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The cotton bagging of the importations was classified and assessed 
 at the appropiiate rate as bagging for cotton composed of jute, jute butts, or 
 hemp under paragraph 355, tariff act of 1909. It is undisputed, in fact agreed 
 on, that the importations are a manufacture of vegetable fibers not spe&ially 
 provided for, and conceded to have been dutiable at a higher rate under para- 
 graph 358 of the act in question. The importers appealed against the assessment 
 of the lower rate and the board assessed the higher rate. The Government 
 contends the importers may not appeal where they have suffered no pecuniary 
 loss. The statute, June 10, 1890, gives the importer the right of appeal if "dis- 
 atisfied" with the collector's decision. The collector's decision is not final 
 and conclusive against the Government, and under the statute is not to be 
 deemed final and conclusive against the importer. An appeal would have for 
 
46 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Bagging for cotton — Continued. 
 Vegetable fibers, not jute — Continued. 
 
 its object the judicial ascertainment and enforcement of the lawful rate for the 
 just protection of the parties to the proceedings, of the importer as well as of the 
 Government. A review of the legislation and of the judicial constructions the 
 pertinent clause of the statute has received sustains the right of the importer 
 to appeal. He has a right to have his merchandise correctly assessed. De Blois 
 & BaUut, G. A. 2413 (T. D. 14691); Wakem v. United States (T. D. 25827). 
 United States v. Schwartz & Co. (No. 601) and United States v. Byrne (No. 
 623), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeals by the United States 
 from decisions of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 7187 (T. D. 31401) and 
 G. A. 7189 (T. D. 31403). Decisions affirmed (Barber, J., dissents). (T. D. 
 32315, Mar. 12, 1912; and T. D. 32316, Feb. 12, 1912.) 
 Bagging suitable for covering cotton, which, upon analysis, is shown to be com- 
 posed in chief value of fibers other than jute, jute butts, or hemp is properly 
 dutiable under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 45 per cent ad 
 valorem. (T. D. 31516; Apr. 19, 1911.) 
 Waste- 
 Secondhand pieces of jute bagging, varying in size and selected for their fitness 
 for their intended use of patching the coverings for bales of cotton, are classible 
 under paragraph 463, tariff act of 1897, as "waste, not specially provided for, " 
 rather than under paragraph 344, relating to "baggage for cotton, gunny clolh, 
 and simi lar fabrics, suitable for covering cotton," or under paragraph 648 as 
 "rags, not otheiwise specially provided for." United States r. Davies; Daviea 
 V. United States; United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, March 
 4, 1908. No. 1698 (suit 1885). Cross appeals from Circuit Court of the United 
 States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, see T. D. 28238, reversing G. A. 
 6431 (T. D. 27586). Decision adverse to appellant in each case. (T. D. 28951; 
 Apr. 22, 1908.) [Note. — ^The foregoing decision has been acquiesced in by the 
 Government.] 
 Old secondhand bagging, a portion of which is known as selected sides and a 
 portion as unassorted original gunny, containing pieces large enough to be 
 used for patching cotton bales, held to be dutiable as waste not specially pro- 
 vided for under paragraph 463, tariff act of 1897, and not under paragraph 344, 
 as bagging for cotton or similar fabrics suitable for covering cotton, nor under 
 paragraph 648 as rags not otherwise specially provided for. — Following Davies 
 V. United States (T. D. 28951) and Train-Smith v. United States (107 Fed. Eep., 
 261; 113 Fed. Eep., 1020). (T. D. 29029— G. A. 6765; May 23, 1908.) 
 Selected pieces of old cotton bagging, such as are generally tised for patching 
 cotton bales, held dutiable as waste at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 463, tariff act of 1897.— United States v. Davies (T. D. 28951) fol- 
 lowed. (T. D. 29046— G. A. 6768; May 27, 1908.) 
 Old waste bagging, to be free of duty under paragraph 644, tariff act of 1909, must 
 be proved to be chiefly used for manufacturing paper. By chief use is meant 
 the predominant use to which identical or similar articles are applied and not 
 • the exceptional use for other purposes. And in determining such use the board 
 will consider the use of such articles, whether of domestic or foreign manufac- 
 ture, and will not restrict the investigation to imported merchandise. Old 
 scrap gunny bagging may be in such condition as to fall within the term "rags, " 
 as used in paragraph 660 of said act. Where a term or paragraph of the tariff 
 act has been for many years construed by the courts and the board to have 
 such construction as to include a particular kind of goods, the readoption of 
 the same paragraph by Congress will presumptively be held to have the same 
 construction unless affirmatively shown by new evidence to be erroneous. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 47 
 
 Bagging for cotton — Continued. 
 Waste — Continued. 
 
 Held, accordingly, that an importation of old ragged fragments of waste gunny- 
 bagging falls within the term of "rags," and not being specially provided for 
 elsewhere in said act is free of duty under said paragraph 660. Such merchan- 
 dise is not chiefly used for manufacturing paper and is not therefore, free of 
 duty under said paragraph 644. (T. D. 31447— Gr. A. 7194; Mar. 30, 1911.) 
 
 Question of fact, when to be determined by board: The importation consisted of 
 small pieces of gunny bagging packed in bales, and appropriate samples of the 
 merchandise were exhibited. The proper classification of these goods could be 
 ascertained without expert knowledge on an inspection of them, and the col- 
 lector's classification should not be taken as conclusive. The goods were rags 
 and as such entitled to free entry under the tariff act of 1897. — Krusi v. United 
 States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 168; T. D. 31213); Knauth v. United States {ibid., 
 178; T. D. 31216); Train-Smith Co. v. United States (140 Fed. Eep., 113); Shal- 
 lus V. United States (No. 603), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 24670 (T. D. 31236). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32205; Jan. 12, 1912.) 
 
 Sample not a part of importation : There was only one witness for the importer in the 
 case at bar, and it is not made to appear that the sample of merchandise he had 
 examined and testified concerning was in fact a sample of the importation and 
 BO properly representative of the .goods in question. The board on that showing 
 declined to disturb the collector's finding of a classification, and that finding for 
 the same reason will not be disturbed in the appellate court. Shallus v. 
 United States (No. 221), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 17667 (T. D. 28626). Transferred from the United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of Maryland. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32347; Mar. 
 20, 1912.) 
 Bags and purses. (See also Hand bags.) 
 Bamboo basket — 
 
 This article of the importation shows in its structure the characteristics of a bag; 
 has the distinguishing characteristic of bags generally in that it may be closed 
 at the top by drawing the material together. It was improperly classified as a 
 basket. United States v. Vantine & Co. (No. 1144), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 31800 (T. D. 33291). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 33937; Nov. 28, 1913.) 
 Component material of chief value— 
 
 The component material of chief value in hand bags and purses made of beaded 
 cotton plates, lined with various materials and fitted with metal frames, is ascer- 
 tained by determining the relative values of the several parts in the country of 
 exportation, including the labor cost of making such parts, before being incorpo- 
 rated into finished bags and purses. The actual market value of mateiials the 
 product of one country imported into another country, where they become a 
 part of articles manufactured therein and ultimately exported therefrom to the 
 United States, Is their full value in the condition as found in the completed 
 articles in the country of exportation, and not their cost in the country of 
 production. Covering cotton plates with beads involves the application of 
 labor, the cost of which mtist be apportioned equally between the beads and 
 the cotton, and when the value of the beads so found is greater than that of any 
 other material contained in 'hand bags and purses the latter are dutiable as 
 beaded articles under paragraph 421, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31428— G. A. 
 7193; Mar. 27, 1911.) 
 
48 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Bags and purses — continued . 
 Jute — 
 Secondhand jute bags upon which letters or figures have been stenciled or printed 
 by the shipper who used the bags in the first instance, which printing decreases 
 rather than increases the present value of the bags, are nevertheless excluded 
 from paragraph 281, tariff act of 1913, by the provisions "not dyed, colored, 
 stained, painted, printed, or bleached," and are properly dutiable at 35 per cent 
 ad valorem as manufactures of vegetable fiber (par. 284). (T. D. 34492 — G. A. 
 7568; May 25, 1914.) 
 (Stenciled:) Secondhand bags, made from plain woven jute fabrics, containing 
 identification marks consisting of two or three letters stenciled thereon and cov- 
 ering an insignificant amount of the surface of the bags, are not "dyed, colored, 
 stained, painted, or printed" within the meaning of those words used in para- 
 graph 281, tariff act of 1913, and are therefore not excluded from classification 
 thereunder. Such bags are dutiable at 10 per cent ad valorem under paragiaph 
 281, and not at 85 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 284. (T. D. 35268 — ^G. 
 A. 7705; Mar. 22, 1915.) 
 Leather, containing opera glasses not dutiable as entireties. (T. D. 29142 — G. A. 
 
 6786; July 2, 1908.) 
 Mesh — • 
 Gun metal: Congress having differentiated mesh bags and purses from the general 
 class of goods provided for in paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, said paragraph 
 covers such articles only when made of silver, German silver, or white metal. 
 Gun-metal mesh bags and purses are dutiable as manufactures of metal (par. 
 199). (T. D. 31089— G. A. 7129; Dec. 5, 1910.) 
 Silver: Mesh bags, and parts thereof, composed wholly of silver, are dutiable as 
 "finished or unSnished bags, * * * or parts thereof , made in cftie/ DaZue of 
 metal mesh composed of silver," under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, the 
 words ' ' in chief value of " applying to the mesh and not to the completed article. 
 (T. D. 31939— G. A. 7287; Oct. 18, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The words "composed of silver" in paragraph 448, tariff act of 
 1909, in the provision reading, "Finished or unfinished bags, purses, and other 
 articles, or parts thereof, made'in chief value of metal mesh composed of silver, Ger- 
 man silver, or white metal, valued at two dollars per dozen pieces," etc., are not 
 to be construed as relating back and modifying "bags, purses, and other articles " 
 in the paragraph; they relate solely to the words "metal mesh," immediately 
 preceding. To hold otherwise would result in absurdity. The importation, con- 
 sisting of a part of a silver mesh bag composed wholly of silver mesh, is dutiable 
 as made in chief value of metal mesh composed of silver. — Cauvlgny Brush Co. 
 V. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 118; T. D. 31118). Hensel v. United 
 States (No. 797), United States Coiurt of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porter from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7287 (T. D. 31939). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32366; Mar. 26, 1912.) 
 
 Balata beltings. (See Beltings.) 
 
 Balbuse gum. (See Gum.) 
 
 Baling wire — Cotton ties. Hoop or band iron or steel, cut to lengths and which can be 
 identified as cotton ties, is free under paragraph 509, tariff act of 1913; if not 
 identified as cotton ties, it is dutiable under paragraph 107. No. 9 annealed 
 wire is not wire for baling hay or other commodity. (T. D. 34055; Jan. 12- 
 1914.) 
 
 Ball bearings. Parts of — 
 
 Baceways for ball bearings: The articles are so far finished when imported as to 
 indicate per se their ultimate use, and their shape and condition unfit them com- 
 mercially for any other than this use. The words "finished or unfinished, and. 
 parts thereof," paragraph 106, tariff act of 1913, apply tq fiiiigbed or imfinished 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 49 
 
 Ball bearings. Parts of— Cbntinued. 
 
 ball bearings, and also to parts of finished oi* unfinished ball bearings. The 
 importations were properly assessed under that paragraph. Noima Co. of 
 America v. United States (No. 1468), United States Comt of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 36535 (T. D. 34774). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35250; Mar. 18, 1915.) 
 (See also Steel horseshoe calks and ball beariftgs.) 
 
 Balsam in capsules. 
 
 In construing paragraphs 20 and 548, tariff act of 1897, relating, respectively, to 
 drugs "advanced in value or condition" and to drugs not so advanced, held as 
 to balsam in capsules, that it has been advanced in both value and condition by 
 being so prepared, and that it is therefore classible under the former paragraph. 
 The provision for medicinal preparations in paragraph 68, tariff act of 1897, -is 
 less specific than that in paragraph 20 for " drugs, such as * * * balsams;" 
 and therefore balsam in capsules is dutiable under the latter rather than v.nder 
 the former provision. (T. D. 29408— G. A. 6837; Dec. 15, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Medicinal preparations. — Crude balsam in gelatin capsules is duti- 
 able as a medicinal preparation under paragraph 68, tariff act of 1897. 
 
 "Crude drug." — ^Where crude balsam has been placed in gelatin capsules, such 
 treatment resulting in an article with a greater value and an improved con- 
 dition, this article is excluded from the provision in paragraph 548 for "crude " 
 drugs not advanced in value or condition. 
 
 "Advanced." — An article consisting of balsam in gelatin capsules can not be 
 considered simply as balsam and is not classifiable under paragraph 20 as "bal- 
 sams * * * advanced in value or condition," because nothing whatever 
 has been done to the balsam itself. 
 
 Capsules filled — Coverings. — Gelatin capsules containing a medicine are not 
 coverings for the purposes of transportation, but are an essential part of the article. 
 On application for review of a decision by the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers. United States v. Lehn. Lehn v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 19, 1909. Suits 5429-30. 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29809; June 8, 1909.) 
 
 Bamboo articles. 
 
 Bamboo articles, such as fern dishes, vases, trays, and other basket ware, with 
 metal lining, will be assessed with duty as baskets at the rate of 25 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 175, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35999; Dec. 18, 1915.) 
 
 Bamboo basket bag. (See Bags and purses.) 
 
 Bamboo lamp shades. (See Lamp shades.) 
 
 Bamboo, spUt. (See Wood, manufactures of.) 
 
 Band-saw plates. ^(See Steel.) 
 
 Barbadoes fancy molasses. (See Molasses.) 
 
 Barettes set with imitation jet. 
 
 Barettes made of base metal and set with imitation jet are not dutiable as " jew- 
 elry," but are dutiable as manufactures of paste under paragraph 109, tariff act 
 of 1909. A review of the interpretations, both legislative and judicial, indicates 
 an absence of any evidence going to show a commercial designation of the com- 
 modity, the fact appearing that the relevant clause in the tariff act of 1909 was 
 placed there after a like clause in the tariff act of 1897 had received an author- 
 itative interpretation similar to the one now given. United States v. Beierle 
 & Co. (No. 269), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 7019 (T. D. 30612). Decision afiirmed. (T. D. 31506; Apr. 10, 1911.) 
 
 Bar hoists, rock drills, and steam engines. (See Machinery and machines.) 
 
 Barium, binoxide of. (See Chemical compounds.) 
 45633°— 17 4 
 
50 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Batk, biich. 
 
 Birch bark is not a crude fibrous vegetable substance or a crude vegetable sub- 
 stance, within the meaning of paragraphs 566 and 614, respectively, of the tariff 
 act of 1897, but is dutiable as an unenumerated unmanufactured article. Reed 
 V. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 17, 1909. Suit 5333. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 19419 (T. D. 29173). Board affirmed. (T. B. 29850; 
 June 22, 1909.) 
 The merchandise here is birch bark in the condition it is stripped from the tree. 
 Rule of ejusdem generis: The term "vegetable substances" in paragraph 
 630, tariff act of 1909, can not be limited to articles that are strictly ejusdem 
 generis with moss and seaweeds. 
 
 Birch bark not entitled to free entry: While the rule of eiusdem generis must 
 be applied with some liberalty in construing paragraph 630, it would be going 
 too far to hold birch bark to be such a vegetable substance as is there named, 
 and the importation was properly assessed as a nonenumerated unmanufactured 
 article under paragraph 480. Reed & Keller v. United States (No. 1209), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32464 (T. D. 33464). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 34132; Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 Bark, mangrove. (See Cutch.) 
 
 Barking machines. (See Machine tools, barking machines.) 
 Bar-le-duo. (See Fruit.) 
 
 Barrel hoops — Poles for making. (See Hoop poles.) 
 Barrels containing grapes — Conventional gauge. (See Gauge for barrels.) 
 Bars, bands or strips, and plates of steel. (See Steel.) 
 Baryta, carbonate of. (See Chemical salt.) 
 Base buUion, assay. (See Assay.) 
 Basket bags. 
 Bamboo basket bag — 
 The article of the importation shows in its structure the characteristics of a bag; 
 has the distinguishing characteristic of bags generally in that it may be closed 
 at the top by drawing the material together. It was improperly classified aa a 
 basket. United States v. Vantine & Co. (No. 1144), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 31800 (T. D. 33291). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 33937; Nov. 28, 1913.) 
 Baskets. 
 Bamboo — 
 Baskets made of flat-looking narrow strips of split bamboo so thin as to be flexible 
 and capable of being woven into a desired form are manufactures of chip and 
 were dutiable under paragraph 449, tariff act of 1897. 
 
 Bags and baskets made of wistaria or rattan: Both wistaria, a vine-like shrub 
 with a bark, and rattan, which belongs to the pahn family, have the appearance 
 and general qualities of wood; and bags and baskets made of either were dutia^- 
 ble under paragraph 208 of the said act. Tuska v. United States (No. 408), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from a 
 decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23521 (T. 
 D. 30710). Decision reversed. (T. D. 31547; Apr. 24, 1911.) 
 Bamboo baskets fitted with cheap metal receptacles properly dutiable under 
 
 paragraph 214, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33179; Feb. 11, 1913.) 
 Bamboo articles, such as fern dishes, vases, trays, and other basket ware, with 
 metal lining wiU be assessed with duty as baskets at the rate of 25 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 175, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35999; Dec. 18, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 51 
 
 Baskets — Continued. 
 
 Eastei — 
 
 Toys: Small bamboo or chip baskets, colored, and ornamented with artificial 
 rabbits, chicks, or ducklings of cotton or other material, known as Easter' 
 baskets, Easter novelties, trimmed baskets, and fancy baskets, used for hold- 
 ing candy or various utilitarian purposes, and not designed for the amusement 
 of children only, are not dutiable as toys under paragraph 342, tariff act of 1913, 
 but as baskets under paragraph 175 of the same act. (T. D. 35796 — G. A. 7790; 
 Oct. 13, 1915.) 
 
 Hinoki — 
 Manufactures of chip: Baskets made of twisted hinoki wood shavings are found 
 to be composed chiefly of chip and held dutiable as manufactures in chief value 
 of chip imder paragraph 449, tariff act of 1897. Morimura v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, February 15, 1909. 
 Suit 5126. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 17534 (T. D. 28575). Board reversed. (T. D. 29566; Feb. 24, 1909.) 
 Acquiesced in April 19, 1909 (T. D. 29696). 
 Baskets made of twisted hinoki wood shavings and chip of wood, being stained or 
 dyed, are baskets made of wood. The provision in paragraph 214, tariff act oi. 
 1909, for "baskets * * * of * * * wood" is more specific as applied 
 to such baskets than the provision in paragraph 463 of said act for "manufac- 
 tures * * * of chip," and they are accordingly held to be subject to duty 
 at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 214, supra. — ^Morimura v. 
 United States (167 Fed. Eep., 687; T. D. 29566) and G. A. 7023 (T. D. 30640) 
 distinguished. (T. D. 31497— G. A. 7208; Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 
 Sea grass. (See Furniture, baskets of sea grass.) 
 
 Shida — 
 Shida baskets, which are composed of vegetable fiber derived from ferns, are not 
 dutiable by similitude as manufactures of grass, etc., under paragraph 449, 
 tariff act of 1897. Butler v. United States, United States Circuit Court, North- 
 em District of UlLuois, May, 1910. No. 29728 (suit 2088). Appeal by importer 
 •from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 22017 (T. D. 30069). 
 Board affirmed. (T. D. 30846; Aug. 2, 1910.) 
 
 Straw or wood covered with cotton — 
 Baskets of straw or wood covered with cotton, cotton being the component of chief 
 value, are dutiable under paragraph 214, tariff act of 1909. — United States v. 
 Zinn (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 419; T. D. 32171) and Vantine v. United States (T. D. 
 33124) distinguished. (T. D. 33237— G. A. 7437; Feb. 25, 1913.) 
 
 Willow — 
 Willow clothes baskets and hampers which have been held by the Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers to be house furniture, and other baskets of willow properly classi- 
 fiable as house furniture, dutiable as willow furniture under paragraph 212, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30496; Apr. 4, 1910.) 
 Willow is not a "wood" within the meaning of the tariff act of 1909, and willow 
 baskets are dutiable under the provision in paragraph 212, tariff act of 1909, for 
 manufactures of " willow " rather than under paragraph 214, relating to " baskets 
 * * * of * « * ^ood, * * * not specially provided for." (T.D. 30640— 
 G. A. 7023; May 24, 1910.) 
 Eo nomine rule: Manufactures of willow are covered by paragraph 212, tariff act 
 of 1909, and baskets of wood are covered by paragraph 214 of that act. Apply- 
 ing the recognized doctrine that an eo nomine provision is more specific than 
 one of general description, it must be held that the term baskets of wood, willow 
 being concededly wood, is more specific than manufactures of wiUow, and bask- 
 
52 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Baskets — Continued. 
 Willow — Continued. 
 
 eta made of -willow wood are dutiable under paragraph 214 of the act in question. 
 Brody et al. v. United States (No. 413), United States Court of Customs Appeals, 
 May 1, 1911. Appeal by the importer from a decision of the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 23579 (T. D. 30733). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 81573; May 1, 1911.) 
 "Willow" is used botanically, colloquially, and commercially to describe a kind 
 of wood. It would seem to have been the purpose of the Congress in enacting 
 paragraph 214, tariff act of 1909, to constitute a new class for all baskets made of 
 any kind of wood, and instead of continuing a former provision whereby dif- 
 ferent kinds of wooden baskets should be classified differently and with differing 
 rates of duty to make all wooden baskets dutiable at the same rate; and market 
 baskets and hampers made of willow are dutiable not as manufactures of willow, 
 but, according to the more specific of two possible designations, as baskets of 
 wood and under said paragraph 214. — Zlinn case (T. D. 24811) and others dis- 
 tinguished. Krauss & Co. u. United States (No. 421), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the importers from a decision of the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23619 (T. D. 30754), Abstract 23756 
 (T. D. 30828). Decision reversed. (T. D. 31574; May 1, 1911.) 
 Wood- 
 Baskets of wood, stained, dyed, or painted might be classed as baskets of wood 
 imder paragraph 214, or as manufactures of chip under paragraph 463, tariff act 
 of 1909, but as the applicable language in paragraph 214 is the more exact and 
 specific, it must be held to be controlling and the importation is dutiable under 
 that paragraph. — Brody v. United States (T. D. 31573); Krauss v. United States 
 (T. D. 31574). Thomsen v. United States (No. 412), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals, May 8, 1911. Appeal by the importer from a decision of the 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23563 (T. D. 30733). 
 Decision afBrmed. (T. D. 31590; May 8, 1911.) 
 Baskets measuring 6 by 8 inches across the top and 4J inches in height, in imita- 
 tion of wash baskets, dutiable as baskets in chief value of wood at 25 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 175, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34118; Jan. 30, 1914.) 
 Wood and straw lined with silk — 
 Baskets of wood and straw lined with silk, silk being the component material of 
 chief value, are, notwithstanding the fact of such component of chief value, 
 baskets of wood and straw. The provision for "baskets * * * of bamboo, 
 wood, straw, or compositions of wood," in paragraph 214, tariff act of 1909, is 
 more specific as applied to such baskets than the provision for "all manufac- 
 tures of sUk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value." Seld, 
 that such baskets are dutiable at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem under the 
 provisions of paragraph 214, supra. — Hempstead v. United States (168 Fed. 
 Rep., 450; T. D. 29634) and Woodruff v. United States (168 Fed. Rep., 452; T. 
 D. 29645) cited. (T. D. 31587— G. A. 7221; May 15, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Straw, willow, rattan, and wood, lined with silk. — "Baskets" is a 
 term, descriptive eo nomine, and the sole requirement needed to bring " baskets " 
 within the provisions of paragraph 214, tariff act of 1909, is that they should in 
 fact be the articles there described, namely, baskets made of bamboo, wood, 
 straw, or compositions of wood. — Thomsen v. United States (T. D. 31590). 
 United States v. Zinn & Co. (No. 703), United States Courtof Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 7221 (T. D. 31587). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32171; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 53 
 
 Bass fiber foi blooms. 
 
 This bass fiber has been subjected to a process that fits it for a definite use and has 
 been advanced, accordingly, from a crude state to that of a manufactured 
 article. It was not entitled to free entry under the tariff act of 1909. United 
 States V. Osborn Manufacturing Co. et al. (No. 1512), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 37094 (T. D. 35020). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 35504; May 24, 1915.) 
 
 Bassine or Palmyra fiber. 
 
 These goods are not sufiiciently similar in material, quality, texture, or the use to 
 which they may be applied to the istle or Tampico, dressed, dyed, or combed, 
 of paragraph 285, tariff act of 1913, to be dutiable thereunder by similitude, nor 
 is their quality such as to warrant such an assessment. They are dressed goods, 
 and are dutiable as an unenumerated manufactured article under paragraph 385 
 of the act. Cone v. United States (No. 1527), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 37277. 'Decision reversed. (T. D. 35477; May 21, 1915.) 
 
 Bath bricks. 
 
 Bath bricks are dutiable under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, relatiiig to " articles 
 and wares composed * * * of earthy or mineral substances, * * * 
 whether susceptible of decoration or not," rather than as unenumerated manu- 
 factures under paragraph 480. (T. D. 30752— G. A. 7055; June 80, 1910.) 
 
 Bath and position babies. 
 
 Bath babies and position babies are "dolls" within the meaning of paragraph 
 418, tariff act of 1897, and are dutiable as such, rather than as china toys, under 
 paragraph 95. United States v. Butler, United States Circuit Court, Northern 
 District of Illinois, May, 1910. No. 29587 (suit 2080). Appeal by the United 
 States from the decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 21653 
 (T. D. 29931). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30847; Aug. 2, 
 1910.) 
 
 Bath-robe blankets. (See Cotton, Bath-robe blankets.) 
 
 Battery rods made of carbon. (See Carbon, manufactures of.) 
 
 Bayonets. 
 Side arms — 
 Bayonets, designed to be worn at the side in a scabbard when not attached to a 
 firearm, are classifiable under paragraphs 154 and 153, respectively, tariff acts of 
 1897 and 1909, as "side arms," rather than under paragraphs 157 and 156 of the 
 same acts, as "parts of rifles." (T. D. 31477— G. A. 7201; Apr. 10, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) A bayonet when in use is affixed to a gun, but is not to be con- 
 sidered a part of the gun. The lexicons uniformly define "bayonets" as side 
 arms. As such, they were dutiable under paragraph 154, tariff act of 1897, and 
 are dutiable under paragraph 153, tariff act of 1909. American Express Co. 
 et al. V. United States (No. 672), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the American Express Co. from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 7201 (T. D. 81477). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32049; Nov. 
 22, 1911.) 
 
 Bead trimmings. (See Trimmings.) 
 
 Beaded articles. 
 Bags and purses. (See Bags and purses.) 
 Bracelets not toys^ 
 The bead bracelets, the subject of this appeal, are cheap in material and construc- 
 tion, but they are intended for use by children as articles of personal adorn- 
 ment and are so used. They are not used in the sport or play of children and so 
 are not toys.— Illfelder v. United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 109; T. D. 31115). 
 
54 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIOSTS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Beaded articles — ContiBued. 
 Bracelets not toys — Continued. 
 
 United States v. Bernard, Judae & Co. (No. 1314), United States Court of Ciw- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the United States from the Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 33968 (T. D. 33833). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 34328; Mar. 25, 1913.) 
 Curtains — 
 
 Curtains composed of bamboo and glass beads, glass beads chief value, dutiable 
 as "curtains * * * composed wholly or in chief value of beads," under 
 paragraph 421, tariff act of 1909, and not as "curtains * * * of bamboo 
 * * * stained, dyed," etc., under paragraph 214 of said act. (T. D. 32283— 
 G. A. 7332; Feb. 26, 1912.) 
 
 (See also Eice-bead curtains.) 
 Fan chains — 
 
 Chains composed of glass beads strung on strands of cotton thread in a substantial 
 manner, having a snap attached for fastening to fans or other articles, are not 
 toys, but are articles used by adults and dutiable under paragraph 421, tariff 
 act of 1909, as " articles not specially provided for, * * * composed wholly 
 or in chief value of beads."— G. A. 7251 (T. D. 31786) modified. (T. D. 31965— 
 G. A. 7288; Oct. 23, 1911.) 
 
 Rehearing: Fan chains composed in chief value of beads are dutiable under 
 paragraph 408, tariff act of 1897, as articles "composed wholly or in part of 
 beads," rather than as "toys" under paragraph 418 of said act. — G. A. 6658 
 (T. D. 28391); G. A. 7288 (T. D. 31965). 
 
 Petition for rehearing and an appeal filed at the same time : Where a petition for 
 rehearing and an appeal from a decision of the board are filed at the same time, 
 the board may proceed with the rehearing, as the appeal is premature and a 
 nullity.— United States v. Gallagher (T. D. 30365); Voorhees v. John T. Noye 
 Mfg. Co. (151 U. S., 135); Kingman v. Western Mfg. Co. (170 U. S., 675). 
 (T. D. 32004— G. A. 7297; Nov. 13, 1911.) 
 Jewelry, necklaces, etc. — (See also Amber Necklace.) 
 
 Bead necklaces valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces dutiable as jewelry at the 
 rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 356, tariff act of 1913. Such 
 necklaces valued at less than 20 cents per dozen pieces dutiable at the rate of 
 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 333 of the said act. (T. D. 34511; 
 June 6, 1914.) 
 
 Necklaces composed of beads, with or without snaps or clasps for fastenings, are 
 dutiable as jewelry rather than as beaded articles. The first clause of para- 
 graph 356 of the tariff act of 1913, "jewelry, commonly or commercially so 
 known, valued above twenty cents per dozen pieces, 60 per centum ad valorem," 
 is complete in itself, and the words after the third subdivision of said paragraph, 
 "all the foregoing and parts thereof, finished or partly finished, composed of 
 metal, * » *" bear no relation to the first clause. The first clause of said 
 paragraph covers all merchandise conmionly or commercially known as jewelry 
 of whatever material composed. The rate of duty on jewelry and beaded arti- 
 cles being the same under the tariff acts of 1897 and 1909, it was not necessary 
 to raise the question whether merchandise was beaded articles or jewelry, and, 
 therefore, decisions affirming the collector's classification of necklaces as beaded 
 articles under those acts, or holding them jewelry, are not of great value in arriv- 
 ing at a correct conclusion in similar cases under the tariff act of 1918. (T. D. 
 35591— G. A. 7754; July 15, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 55 
 
 Beaded articles — Continued. 
 Hand bags — 
 
 Ladies' hand bags composed of glass beads, cotton, and metal, glass beads chief 
 value, are dutiable as beaded articles under paragraph 42] , act of 1909. (T. D. 
 32003— G. A. 7296; Nov. 13, 1911.) (See also Hand bags.) 
 Pictures in frames composed in chief value of glass beads^ 
 
 Religious pictures composed of paper lithographically printed, covered with glass 
 and mounted in frames composed wholly of beads of different colors strung on 
 cotton threads, glass beads being the component of chief value, are dutiable aa 
 beaded articles under paragraph 421, tariff act of 1909. — United States v. Ben- 
 ziger (178 Fed. Eep., 1006; T. D. 30386) distinguished. (T. D. 31967— G. A. 
 7290; Oct. 25, 1911.) 
 Bosaries not dutiable as. (See Rosaries.) 
 Beaded fringes. 
 
 Fringes composed of glass beads attached to a narrow strip of material made of 
 artificial silk and cotton, glass beads being the component material of chief value 
 and artificial silk the material next in value, are dutiable at the rate of 60 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 421, tariff act of 1909, as fringes in chief value 
 of beads, when it appears that the duty on the merchandise under that paragraph 
 is greater than the duty would be on the merchandise if imported without the 
 beads. 
 
 Scope of proviso to paragraph 421: Paragraph 421 contains a proviso "that no 
 article composed wholly or in chief value of beads or spangles made of glass, 
 paste, gelatin, metal, or other material shall pay duty at a less rate than is im- 
 posed in any paragraph of this section upon such articles without such beads or 
 spangles.'' Held, that the proviso becomes operative only when it appears that 
 the duty on the merchandise with the beads removed would be greater than the 
 duty provided in the paragiaph for the articles when imported with the beads 
 attached.— United States v. Vietor & Achelis (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 297; T. D. 
 31355). (T. D. 32045— G. A. 7303; Nov. 27, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed :) The merchandise in controversy is fringes composed of glass beads, 
 artificial silk, and cotton. The value of the beads before they are strung and at- 
 tached to the fabric is 75 per cent of the total value of the materials entering into 
 the fringes, and the value of the artificial silk and cotton are, respectively, about 
 15 and 10 per cent thereof. The proper rate of duty in this case is such an ad 
 valorem rate as upon a computation based upon the value per pound of the artifi- 
 cial silk fabric it is found such fabric would pay under the compound rates pro- 
 vided for in paragraph 405. So, the intention of the law, that the aiificial silk 
 fabric shall not escape the duty imposed thereon under paragraph 405, is attained ; 
 the beads and other materials entering into the fringe pay a rate of duty not less 
 than the 60 per cent ad valorem imposed thereon under paragraph 421; and at 
 the same time such beads and other materials are not charged with the extreme 
 penalty it is contended should be charged on them, they being found associated 
 with the artificial silk fabric— United States v. Vietor (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 297; 
 T. D. 31355), and Stein & Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 519; T. D. 
 32250). United States v. Ewing & Clancey (No. 829), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7303 (T. D. 32045). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 32624; May 8, 1912.) 
 
 Decision of the United States Court of Customs Appeals in T. D. 32624 should be 
 limited to articles of the kind the subject of the said decision; i. e. , fringes com- 
 posed in chief value of beads or spangles, where the material other than the 
 beads or spangles is in chief value of aitifldal silk. (T. D. 32866; Oct. 18, 1912.) 
 
 (See also Appliqu^d articles, beaded.) 
 
56 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Beads. 
 DriUed— 
 
 Glass beads, bars, and ornaments drilled, of such inferior quality as to render them 
 unfit for use in the manufacture of jewelry, dutiable as beads under paragraph 
 421, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32417— G. A. 7348; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 
 Glass beads, bars, and ornaments, drilled, and unfit for use in the manufacture 
 of jewelry, are dutiable as beads under paragraph 421, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 33166; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 Graduated — 
 
 Strung graduated beads of materials other than metal dutiable at the rate of 50 per 
 cent ad valorem as articles not specially provided for composed wholly or in 
 chief value of beads under paragraph 333 of the tariff act of October, 3, 1913, and 
 not at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem as beads strung loosely on thread for 
 facility in transportation only under same paragraph. (T. D. 35538; June 21, 
 1915.) 
 Imitation pearl — 
 
 The dominant factor determining the classification of imitation pearls is tieir use. 
 If in the form of beads not threaded or strung, or strung loosely on thread for 
 facility in tiansportation only, and not intended for use in the manufacture of 
 jewelry, they are dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 421, 
 tariff act of 1909; if designed and intended for use in the manufacture of jewelry, 
 they are dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 449 of said act. 
 (T. D. 30827— O. A. 7079; July 25, 1910.) 
 
 Merchandise claimed by the importers to be dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909, as imitation precious stones, including 
 pearls and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of jewelry, is properly duti- 
 able under paragraph 421 as imitation pearl beads at 35 per cent ad valorem. — 
 United States v. American Bead Co. (3 Ct. Gust. Appls., 509; T. D. 33166), 
 United States v. American Express Co. (147 Fed., 894; T. D. 25808), and G. A. 
 7155 (T. D. 31234) distinguished. (T. D. 33587— G. A. 7473; June 23, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed :) The testimony in this case is convincing that in trade and com- 
 merce, as well as in common speech, the articles of the importation are, while 
 often called imitation pearls, equally well known as imitation pearl beads. 
 They come accordingly within the precise terms of paragraph 421, tariff act of 
 1909. Lorsch & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1208), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 7473 (T. D. 33587). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34132; 
 Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 
 Imitation pearl beads loosely strung on a cotton string, having all the character- 
 istics of beads, and afterwards restrung on a silk thread and a clasp placed 
 thereon, do not become imitation precious stones, including pearls and parts 
 thereof, dutiable under paragraph 449, but are dutiable as imitation pearl beads 
 under paragraph 421 of the act of 1909. The use to which merchandise may be 
 placed is not necessarily a criterion of its classification. If merchandise is refer- 
 red to in more than one paragraph of the tariff act, it should be classified under 
 that paragraph which in specific terms refers to it. The purpose for which mer- 
 chandise may be imported does not control in its classification, if a specific pro- 
 vision of the statute describes the merchandise and provides the rate of duty. 
 (T. D. 34415— G. A. 7561; Apr. 23, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The provision in the tariff act of 1909 for imitation pearl beads 
 is more specific than that for imitation pearls, and the several provisions taken 
 together indicate a legislative purpose to include within paragraph 449 of that 
 act only such imitation pearls for use in the manufacture of jewelry as are not 
 also imitation pearl beads. Lorsch & Co. v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 57 
 
 B eads — Continued . 
 Imitation pearl — Continued. 
 
 — ; T. D. 34132). Cohn & Rosenberger v. United States (No. 1387), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers.'G. A. 7561 (T. D. 34415). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 34533; May 28, 1914.) 
 Imitation precious stones — 
 Heart-shaped, with metal ring attached: Imitation precious stones in the form 
 of hearts, having a hole in the upper extremity, in which is inserted a diminu- 
 tive brass screw ring, dutiable as "imitation precious stones" under paragraph 
 449, and not as "jewelry" under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909. 
 
 In metal settings: Imitation precious stones set in metal with claws holding 
 the stones in position, being of less value than 72 cents per gross, dutiable as 
 "manufactures of paste or metal" under paragraph 109 or 199. 
 
 With foil backs: Imitation precious stones with foil backs, either pierced or 
 not pierced, dutiable as "imitation precious stones" imder paragraph 449, and 
 not as beads under paragraph 421. 
 
 Oval or heart-shaped, cameos, etc.: Imitation precious stones, oval, heart- 
 shaped, etc., having a small shoulder pierced through in the process of molding, 
 imitation cameos with two holes pierced in the sides, and other articles not in 
 the form of beads, all suitable for use in the manufacture of jewelry, dutiable as 
 "imitation precious stones" under paragraph 449, and not as beads under para- 
 graph 421. 
 
 Glass beads, bars, and ornaments, drilled: Glass beads, bars, and ornaments, 
 drilled, of such inferior quality as to render them unfit for use in the manufac- 
 ture of jewelry, dutiable as beads under paragraph 421, tariff act of 1909. (T. 
 D. 32417^G. A. 7348; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Heart-shaped, with metal ring attached. — Imitation precious 
 stones in the form of hearts, having a hole in the upper extremity in which is 
 inserted a diminutive brass screw ring, are parts of jewelry and were dutiable 
 as such under the last part of paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909. — Cohn v. United 
 States (3 Ct. Oust. Appls., — ; T. D. 32575). 
 
 In metal settings. — Small imitation diamonds, rubies, and other precious 
 stones set in metal claws that hold the stones in position and that are used as 
 the proof shows chiefly for dress trimming dutiable as manufactures under 
 paragraph 109 or 199, tariff act of 1909. 
 
 With foil locks. — Imitation precious stones with foil locks, either pierced or 
 not pierced, are dutiable not as beads, but as imitation precious stones under 
 paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909. 
 
 Oval or heart-shaped cameos, etc. — Imitation precious stones, oval, heart- 
 shaped, etc., having a small shoulder pierced through in the process of molding, 
 imit.at.inTi cameos with two holes pierced in the sides, and other articles not in 
 the form of beads, all suitable for use in the manufacture of jewelry, dutiable 
 as "imitation precious stones" under paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909. 
 
 Glass beads, bars, and ornaments, drilled. — Glass beads, bars, and ornaments, 
 drilled, and unfit for use in the manufacture of jewelry, dutiable as beads under 
 paragraph 421, tariff act of 1909. United States v. American Bead Co. (No. 
 907); American Bead Co. v. United States (No. 909); United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Cross appeal by United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7348 .(T. D. 32417). Decision modified. (T. D. 
 33166; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 
58 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Beads — Continued. 
 
 Strung on cotton tlireads — 
 Beads pennanently strung on cotton tlireads, one thread knotted lengthwise of 
 each bead to prevent it from slipping out of place, and such beaded strings 
 being fit for use in the condition in which imported as trimmings for wearing 
 apparel, are dutiable as articles composed in chief value of beads at the rate of 
 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 421, tariff act of 1909, and not at the 
 rate applicable to the material of which such beads are composed. — G. A. 5878 
 (T. D. 25891) and G. A. 5818 (T. D. 25695) followed. (T. D. 31541— G. A. 7215; 
 Apr. 28, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The phraseology of paragraph 421, tariff act of 1909, relative to 
 beads and spangles, discloses a substantial change from the language in the 
 former law relating to the same subject matter; and it appearing the importa- 
 tion under consideration is of beads on strands of a permanent kind designed 
 for use as embroidery just as imported, they will be deemed dutiable conform- 
 ably to the requirements of that paragraph at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem. 
 Littauer v. United States (No. 676), United States Court of Customs Appeals, 
 November 22, 1911. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7215 (T. D. 31541). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 32050; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 Beams containing spun silk. (See Coverings.) 
 Beans. 
 Dry, in tins — 
 Not hermetically sealed: Ordinary dry, white beans put up in cylindrical tin 
 cans, not hermetically sealed, of a capacity of 4 to 6 gallons, and containing 
 from 20 to 30 pounds of beans, are not dutiable under paragraph 199, tariff act 
 of 1913, as "beans * * * prepared or preserved, or contained in tins, jars, 
 bottles,- or similar packages," but under paragraph 197 as "beans, * * * 
 not specially provided for, 25 cents per bushel of 60 pounds." 
 
 Large tins — Ejusdem generis: Tins of a capacity of 4 to 6 gallons are not 
 ejusdem generis with "tins, jars, bottles, or similar packages" mentioned in 
 paragraph 199, tarifi act of 1913. (T. D. 36034— G. A. 7836; Dec. 30, 1915.) 
 Green pod — 
 Green pod beans, cut or sliced, packed in salt or brine, in casks or kegs, dutiable 
 at the rate of 2i cents per pound under paragraph 251, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 33210; Feb. 15, 1913.) 
 Beasley locks. 
 
 Beasley registering locks discontinued for use in customs service for securing 
 cars and compartments. (T. D. 33447; May 22, 1913.) 
 Beaver strips. 
 
 Beaver strips used for making women's hats are not articles of wearing apparel 
 partly or wholly manufactured, but are furs prepared for use as material, and 
 held to be subject to duty at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under the pro- 
 visions of paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30990— G. A. 7109; Oct. 17, 
 1910.) 
 Beer. 
 Gauge of — 
 Instructions as to gauging of beer imported in barrels or casks. (T. D. 29929; 
 
 Aug. 2, 1909.) 
 Quantity — Question of fact: The quantity of beer imported is to be determined 
 as a question of fact by a preponderance of the evidence. Measurement of 6f 
 per cent of beer imported during a certain period does not furnish sufficient data 
 from which to determine the amount imported, when traversed by creditable 
 proof and when contrary to return of the Government gauger acting under rea- 
 sonable regulations. (T. D. 33303— G. A. 7452; Mar. 25, 1913.) (Appealed:) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 59 
 
 Beer— Contimied. 
 Gauge of— Continued. 
 Half barrels: The amount of beer in containers not entirely filled was determined 
 by experts, who sounded the casks and estimated the shortage. All of the half 
 barrels were inspected for shortage by the importer, the steamship company, 
 the customs gauger, and the customs stamper. The importer in his own behalf 
 bottled 2,040 half barrels out of 30,068 and, protesting, claimed the result as it 
 appeared to be the true gauge of the beer. This method was liable to too much 
 error to warrant such a finding of contents valid as against the ganger's, sustained 
 as that is by the collector's, decision. Hollender & Co. et al. v. United States 
 (No. 1118), United States Coiurt of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7452 (T. D. 33303). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33850; Oct. 31, 1913.) 
 In the absence of satisfactory proof showing that the collector assessed duty on 
 a greater quantity of beer than was actually imported, the importers are not to 
 be arbitrarily relieved from the payment of the duties required by law. — Hol- 
 lender & Co. et al. V. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 406; T. D. 33850). Hol- 
 lender & Co. et al. V. United States (No. 1118), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, G. A. 7452 (T. D. 33303). Application for rehearing denied. (T. D. 
 34195; Feb. 10, 1914.) 
 Sufficiency of protest: The only question sought to be raised by the protest was 
 the correctness of the ganger's report on the quantity of beer, and this question 
 was sufficiently indicated. The gauger made no return of actual measurement, 
 but simply a return of the branded capacity of the casks. In doing this he 
 divided the shipments into two lots, corresponding in the number of casks to 
 those named on the invoice and entry, and so entered the two lots as to increase 
 the apparent branded capacity of one and to decrease the other. A computation 
 shows the board reached a result entirely equitable. (United States v. Neu- 
 stadtl (No. 1266), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32853 
 (T. r>. 33591). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34470; May 18, 1914.) 
 In estimating the dutiable quantity of imported beer in which krausen is used, 
 an outage allowance of 1 per cent of the branded capacity of the barrel shall be 
 made as a safety margin, it being shown that it is unsafe to fill the barrels to the 
 full capacity. (T. D. 35881— G. A. 7811; Nov. 12. 1915.) 
 
 Beer mats, printed. 
 
 Beer mats, consisting of a round piece of wood pulp upon which is printed a Ger- 
 man verse and the name and advertisement of a dealer in beers, are not "printed 
 matter" within the meaning of paragraph 403, tariff act of 1897, but are dutiable 
 as manufactures of pulp under paragraph 433. Hollender v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, January 3, 1910. 
 Suit 5327. Appeal by importer from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 19347 (T. D. 29159). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30250; Jan. 11, 1910.) 
 
 Beet-knife sharpeners. (See Machine parts.) 
 
 Beet pulp, dried. 
 
 Dried beet pulp, a by-product in the manufacture of sugar, dutiable as waste 
 not specially provided for at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem imder para- 
 graph 384, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 33971; Dec. 11, 1913.) 
 
 Beets in tins. (See Vegetables, prepared.) 
 
 Belting. 
 Balata — 
 "Beltings'' as used in section 320, tariff act of 1897, denotes beltings as articles 
 of dress. Without determining balata to be India rubber in the commercial 
 sense, balata is in similitude india rubber, and was dutiable under paragraph 
 
60 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 190&-1915. 
 
 Belting — Continued. 
 Balata — Continued. 
 
 449, tariff act of 1897. Robins v. United States (No. 339), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers (T. D. 29727). Transferred from the United States Circuit 
 Court for the Southern District of New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 31278; Feb. 1, 1911.) 
 Cotton — 
 
 Narrow cotton fabric invoiced as " cotton machinery belting '' dutiable as "cotton 
 webbing" under paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 60 per cent ad 
 valorem. (T. D. 31958; Oct. 26, 1911.) 
 Elastic — • 
 
 Belting composed of cotton and india rubber, india rubber chief value, is dutiable 
 under paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, and not under paragraph 463, as manu- 
 factures in chief value of india rubber, the eo nomine provision in paragraph 349 
 prevailing. (T. D. 30932— G. A. 7100; Sept. 17, 1910.) 
 Machinery — 
 
 Tape-like belting for cigarette-making machines : A tape-like article made of cotton 
 or other vegetable fiber and used as a belt running over the wheels of a cigarette- 
 making machine is not datable under paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, but is 
 dutiable under paragraph 330 of that act. United States v. Horrax (No. 396), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 decision of the Board ot United States General Appraisers (T. D. 30828). Deci- 
 sion affirmed. (T. D. 31187; Jan. 5, 1911.) 
 
 Cotton rope: The orderly guide in determining the proper classification of im- 
 ported merchandise is to ascertain (1) whether the article is distinctly and defi- 
 nitely named in the law; (2) whether it is distinctly and definitely described; 
 (3) its chief use, and (4) what article named in the law it most resembles. 
 Where it is evident that Congress intended the classification of an article to be 
 determined by its use, any general description of it is not controlling. Cotton 
 rope ] or 2 inches in diameter, made up in the form of belts for the transmission 
 of power, is dutiable as "belting for machinery " under paragraph 330, tariff act 
 of 1909, rather than as manufactures of cotton under paragraph 332 of said act. 
 (T. D. 3]922— G. A. 7286; Oct. 16, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Cotton driving rope. — The word belting signified originally a flat 
 and not a round article, but the term has taken on a more extended meaning and 
 now covers belts that are round, square, and V-shaped as well as belts that are 
 flat. The merchandise consisting of cotton rope, specially fabricated for use 
 upon machinery as a means of transmitting power from one revolving wheel or 
 drum to another, though round and corded in shape, has its principal use as 
 belting, and was dutiable as belting for machinery made of cotton, under para- 
 graph 330, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Pitt & Scott (Ltd.) (No. 789), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7286 (T. D. 31922). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 32358; Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 
 Cotton and india rubber: The merchandise is belting for machinery, and it is 
 made of cotton or other vegetable fiber and india rubber. As such it comes 
 directly within the terms of paragraph 330, tariff act of 1909, there being no am- 
 biguity in the statute. — Kenyon v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 
 33529) distinguished. Nairn Linoleum Co. v. United States (No. 1134), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31345 (T. D. 33217). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 33837; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISI02S'S, 1908-1915. 61 
 
 Belting — Continued. 
 Metal thread — 
 Congress has provided, in paragraph 179, tariff act of 1909, for metal thread as a 
 material, and thus distinguished it from the material metal. The provision in 
 paragraph 349 of said act for "beltings * * * of cotton, india rubber, and 
 metal" is, therefore, not applicable to metal-thread beltings. Beltings of metal 
 thread, cotton, and india rubber, metal thread chief value, are dutiable as 
 "beltings * * * in chief value of * * * metal threads," under para- 
 graph 179, tariff act of 1909, and not as "beltings * * * of cotton, * * * 
 india rubber, and metal," under paragraph 349, the provision in paragraph 179 
 being unlimited, while that in paragraph 349 is qualified by the phrase "not 
 elsewhere specially provided for." (T. D. 31968— G. A. 7291; Oct. 27, 1911.) 
 
 Belts. 
 Elastic — 
 Wearing apparel of silk and rubber — Articles in part of metal: Paragraph 390, 
 tariff act of 1897, prescribes a duty for wearing apparel of silk or in chief value of 
 silk and contains a proviso requiring that the "articles provided for in this para- 
 graph * * * when composed in part of india rubber shall be subject to the 
 same duty." Held that this does not include wearing apparel in which silk is 
 not the most valuable component, and that elastic belts of silk, rubber, and 
 metal, metal chief value, are dutiable as articles in part of metal under para- 
 graph 193. 
 
 Metal, consisting of steel-point ornamentation and of buckles, was the com- 
 ponent of chief value in certain belts, and the buckles were an essential part of 
 the construction of the articles. Held that the metal could not be treated as 
 immaterial and incidental to the belts, but must be considered in determining 
 the tariff classification of the goods. Simpson-Crawford Company v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 22, 
 
 1909. Suit 5115. Appeal by importers from decision of Board of General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6675 (T. D. 28480). Board reversed. (T. D. 29836; June 15, 
 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897, prescribes a duty for wearing 
 apparel of silk or in chief value of silk and contains a proviso requiring that the 
 "articles provided for in this paragraph * * * when composed in part of 
 india rubber shall be subject to the same duty." JSeld that this does not 
 include wearing apparel in which silk is not the most valuable component, and 
 that elastic belts of silk, rubber, and metal, metal chief value, are dutiable as 
 articles in part of metal under paragraph 193. United States v. Simpson-Craw- 
 ford Company, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 4, 
 
 1910. No. 176 (suit 5115). Appeal by the United States from the Circuit 
 Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York (172 Fed. Rep., 
 301; T. D. 29836) reversing G. A. 6675 (T. D. 28480). Decision adverse to the 
 Government. (T. D. 30551; Apr. 19, 1910.) Acquiesced in May 11, 1910 
 (T. D. 30606). 
 
 Silk elastic belts with fancy metal buckles and steel-point ornamentation, metal 
 being the component material of chief value in the completed belt, are properly 
 dutiable as manufactures in part of metal, under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897, 
 and not as wearing apparel under paragraph 390. — United States v. Simpson- 
 Crawford Company (T. D. 30551), affirming 172 Fed. Rep., 301 (T. D. 29836), 
 which reversed G. A. 6675 (T. D. 28480), followed. (T. D. 30730— G. A. 7052; 
 June 27, 1910.) 
 Bent wire. (See Wire staples.) 
 
62 DIGEST 05 CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Benzine. 
 
 Duty on benzine imported into the Dutch East Indies. (T. D. 29149; July 9, 
 
 1908.) 
 Duty on benzine imported into the Dutch East Indies. (T. D. 29300; Oct. 14, 
 1908.) 
 Berry jams. (See Fruit.) 
 Bessemer steel. (See Steel strips in coils.) 
 Bible covers. 
 Olive wood pieces — 
 Pieces of olive wood, carved and polished, in suitable dimensions to be used as 
 covers for Bibles and Testaments, are not entitled to tree entry under para- 
 graph 414, tariff act of 1913, as parts of Bibles, but are subject to duty as manu- 
 factures of wood at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of 
 paragraph 176 of said act. — ^Worthington v. Robbins (139 U. S., 337) cited. 
 (T. D. 35720— G. A. 7776; Sept. 21, 1915.) 
 Bibles. 
 
 Paragraph 414 of the free list, tariff act o 1913, construed to cover portions of the 
 Old or New Testament, bound or unbound. (T. D. 34288; Mar. 18, 1914.) 
 Bibs and aprons in the piece. (See Wearing apparel.) 
 Bicycle parts. 
 
 Cycle lamps, pump clips, pumps, push bells, and tool bags, used as accessories 
 to bicycles, are not properly classifiable under the provisions of paragraph 120 
 of the act of 1913 for "bicycles * * * and finished parts thereof," but are 
 dutiable according to the component of chief value therein. (T. D. 35223 — 
 G. A. 7700; Mar. 12, 1915.) 
 Bicycles not personal effects. (See Effects, personal.) 
 Bills of lading. 
 Immediate transportation — 
 Regulations governing bills of lading required upon entries for immediate trans- 
 portation. (T. D. 29867; June 24, 1909.) 
 Merchandise covered by various bills of lading naming consignees at port of des- 
 tination can not be included in one immediate-transportation entry at port of 
 arrival. (T. D. 30065; Oct. 25, 1909.) 
 Bindings. 
 Commercial designation — 
 Braids which are used as bindings are specially provided for as "bindings'" in 
 paragraph 320, tariff act of 1897, and are therefore removed from the provision 
 in paragraph 339 for "braids * * * not elsewhere specially provided for," 
 notwithstanding that they are commercially known as featherstitch braids. Bar 
 ruch V. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 
 May 25, 1909. No. 245 (suit 4419). Appeal by the importer from decision 
 of Circuit Court of United States for the Southern District of New York (159 
 Fed. Rep., 294; T. D. 28579) affirming Abstract 12333 (T. D. 27545). Decision 
 adverse to Government. Steinhardt v. United States (121 Fed. Rep., 442) 
 followed. (T. D. 29791; June 1, 1909.) 
 The importation consisted of narrow woven fabrics, in chief value of cotton, in 
 running lengths and less than an inch in width. Along one edge was a contin- 
 uous ornamental design covering less than half of its surface, the remainder of the 
 surface, extending from the ornamental design to the opposite edge, being en- 
 tirely plain. No commercial designation is shown. The plain surface of the 
 fabric covers more than half of the fabric itself, and the area of this plain surface 
 makes it clear the merchandise is designed to be something more than a mere 
 edge for the side that is ornamented. It can not therefore be deemed a trimming', 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 63 
 
 Bindings — Continued . 
 Commeicial designation — Continued. 
 
 and the evidence moreover shows the use to be chiefly for binding. It was 
 dutiable as binding under paragraph 320, tariff act of 1897. Massce & Whitney 
 V. United States (No. 995), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 6671 (T. D. 28457). Transferred from United States District Court for 
 the Southern District of New York. Decision reversed. (T. D. 33042; Dec. 16, 
 1912.) 
 
 Biuoxide of barium. (See Chemical compounds.) 
 
 Birch bark. (See Bark.) 
 
 Birch-tar oil. (See Oil, birch-tar.) 
 
 Biscuits. 
 
 Huntley & Pahner's biscuits containing no appreciable per cent of sweetening 
 material dutiable under paragraph 244 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, at 20 
 per cent ad valorem. Those valued at over 15 cents per pound, containing 
 reducing sugars and sucrose, dutiable under said paragraph 244 at 50 per cent 
 ad valorem. (T. D. 30243; Jan. 8, 1910.) 
 Huntley & Palmer's biscuits, valued at over 15 cents per pound, dutiable under 
 paragraph 244 of the tariff act of 1909, as "biscuits not specially provided for," 
 at 20 per cent ad valorem. T. D. 30243, of January 8, 1910, supra, revoked. 
 (T. D. 30649; May 31, 1910.) 
 Sugar tests — 
 Occasional tests to be made of Huntley & Pahner's biscuits to determine whether 
 sugar or other sweetening has been added thereto. (T. D. 30702; June 17, 1910.) 
 Sugar wafers — 
 Huntley & Palmer "sugar wafers,'' consisting of two thin layers of baked material, 
 between which is a sweet filling composed of sugar, water, flavoring, and per- 
 haps some egg, are dutiable under the provision in paragraph 194, tariff act of 
 1913, for "wafers * * * containing * * * confectionery," and are 
 not free of duty under paragraph 417 as "wafers not specially provided for.'' 
 Biscuits with icing — Confectionery: Small biscuits or cakes of different shapes 
 and known by different names, some of which are iced on one side with a sub- 
 stance similar to the filling in the "sugar wafers" above described, are held not 
 to contain confectionery, and are therefore not dutiable under paragraph 194, 
 but are free of duty under paragraph 419. — Dutton v. United States (154 Fed., 
 214; T. D. 27983) followed. (T. D. 34627— G. A. 7584; July 3, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Iced sweetened biscuits — Containers — Confectionery. The bis- 
 cuits of this importation, surfaced with icing, "contain" the icing and this icing 
 constitutes confectionery. It is not necessary that it should be made up into 
 forms before it can be so classed. They are dutiable under paragraph 194, 
 tariff act of 1913. United States v. Meadows & Co. (No. 1444), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals, February 23, 1915. Appeal by the United States 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7584 (T. D. 34627). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 35177; Feb. 23, 1915.) 
 
 Bisque rings for incandescent burners. (See Magnesia articles.) 
 
 Bitumen, liquid. (See Petroleum, crude.) 
 
 Black olives. (See Olives.) 
 
 Blanco. 
 
 Cbcular zinc boxes containing. (See Coverings.) 
 
 Blanket protests. (See Protests.) 
 
 Blown glassware. (See Glass.) 
 
64 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Blue, bleachei's. 
 
 An article containing ferrocyanide of iron that is used exdnsively tor bleaching 
 purposes was not dutiable as a "color" under paragraph 45, tariff act 1897, but 
 under section 6 of that act, as an unenumerated manufactured article. De 
 Konde & Co. v. United States (No. 66), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by importer from decision of the Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers (T. D. 28253). Board reversed. (T. D. 31112; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 Board of United States General Appraisers. 
 Appeals from. (See also Appeals.) 
 
 Directions for forwarding official papers to Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers. (T. D. 29483; Jan. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Dockets for hearing of cases by the Board of United States General Appraisers 
 and individual general appraisers. (T. D. 30193; circular No. 68; Dec. 13, 
 1909.) 
 
 bockets of hearings and amendments of rules of procedure and practice before 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers. (T. D. 31099; Dec. 12, 1910.) 
 Appraisement appeals — 
 
 Regulations providing for reports to accompany appraisement appeals to be used 
 before the Board of General Appraisers. (T. D. 34989; Dec. 16, 1914.) 
 Decision of General Appraisers — 
 
 The Board of General Appraisers passed on a protest making the contentions 
 that cherries were dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem and bottles were free of 
 duty. The importers were entitled to a favorable decision on each contention. 
 The board in its decision referred only to the cherries, but ruled that "the pro- 
 tests are all sustained, with instructions to the collector to reliquidate the entries 
 at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem." The importers did not attempt to have 
 this error corrected by appeal, but protested against the refusal of the collector 
 to consider the board's decision as sustaining both contentions. Held that it 
 was not incumbent on them to appeal; that the collector erred in refusing to 
 reliquidate on the bottles, and that they were entitled to protest against the 
 reUquidation on the basis adopted. La Manna v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, March 5, 1908. Suit 4836. 
 Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 
 14185 (T. D. 27873)." (T. D. 28890; Mar. 25, 1908.) 
 Decisions, finality of — 
 
 Decisions of the Board of United States General Appraisers adverse to the Govern- 
 ment will, if not appealed from, take effect 60 days after their respective dates, 
 except that decisions based on protests filed in Alaska and in the insular and 
 other outside possessions of the United States will take effect 90 days after their 
 respective dates, in accordance with subsection 29 of section 28 of the act of 1909. 
 Decisions of the United States Court of Customs Appeals adverse to the Govern- 
 ment will become effective upon the issuing of orders by the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers pursuant to the mandates of the said court. (T. D. 
 31243; Jan. 25, 1911.) 
 
 When a Board of General Appraisers has decided cases pending before it and has 
 issued a mandate directing a reliquidation of the entry, collectors of customs, 
 if of the opinion that certain of the merchandise is not covered by the protest 
 and that therefore the board is without jurisdiction to pass upon the issue, should 
 comply with the statutory requirement and apply for a rehearing within 30 days 
 or file an appeal in the court from the board's decision. (T. D. 32328 — G. A. ' 
 7337; Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 
 Legal status of Board of United States General Appraisers: By subsection 12 of 
 section 28, tariff act of 1909, the Board of United States General Appraisers, in 
 the trial and determination of issues arising under the tariff law, is created a 
 court in everything but name — a court of limited jurisdiction, but within that 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 65 
 
 Board of TTnited States General Appraisers — Continued. 
 
 Decisions, finality of — Continued. 
 
 jurisdictioil its powers are made as ample as those of the United States Circuit 
 Court. 
 
 The decisions of the Board of United States General Appraisers, in cases where 
 it has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the persons, are not only final and 
 conclusive, not only presumed to be correct, but are absolute verity when the 
 same have not been appealed from in the manner prescribed by law, and are to 
 be treated as such in any collateral proceeding. Voorhees et al. v. United States 
 Bank (10 Pet., 449). It must be presumed by every court that when the board 
 renders a decision with reference to the classification of merchandise it does so 
 upon ample proof and the conclusion reached must stand as the law and be 
 accepted as such unless appealed from and reversed in the manner prescribed 
 by law. Hilton's Administrators v. Jones (159 U. S., 584). 
 
 Credence to be given the board's decision: By subsection 14 of section 28, 
 tariff act of 1909, the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers 
 in classification cases, when acting within its jurisdiction, is made final and con- 
 clusive upon all persons interested, except in cases appealed to the United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals in the manner provided by law. (T. D. 
 34666— G. A. 7589; July 22, 1914.) 
 
 Finality of reappraisement by. (See Reappraisement.) 
 
 Findings of, etc. — 
 The findings of the Board of General Appraisers as to the fact of similitude will 
 not be disturbed on appeal to the courts, imless clearly contrary to the evidence 
 or further evidence of a material character is presented. (T. D. 29105; June 
 24, 1908.) 
 On appeal from the Board of General Appraisers the circuit court should not dis- 
 turb the board's findings upon doubtful questions of fact, especially as to ques- 
 tions which turn upon the intelligence and credibility of witnesses who have 
 been produced before the board. Balaban v. United States, United States Cir- 
 cuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 8, 1909. Suit 5424. 
 Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 
 20074 (T. D. 29409). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30187; Dec. 14, 1909.) 
 
 Judicial notice — 
 The question at issue was whether the stem or the bowl of the imported glassware 
 constitutes value in chief of the merchandise. The relative values were not 
 shown by the testimony. Evidence taken on the hearing of other protests and 
 regarded as material must be offered and received in conformity with established 
 rules and after opportunity has been afforded counsel to reexamine or cross- 
 examine witnesses. 
 
 Ibid: And as there was no proof actually before the board upon which a con- 
 clusion could be rested that molded and not blown glass was the component 
 material of chief value, the knowledge of the board itself could not support its 
 conclusion. United States v. Burley & Tyrrell Co. (No. 1369), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 35264 (T. D. 34321). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 34938; Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 
 Jurisdiction — 
 Decision of case before payment of increased duties. (See Duties, increased.) 
 The jurisdiction of the Board of General Appraisers extends over all articles com- 
 ing into the United States from the Philippine Islands since March 8, 1902, the 
 provisions of the act of that date having been held to be valid and constitu- 
 tional. (T. D. 28740— G. A. 6717; Feb. 4, 1908.) 
 45633°— 17 5 
 
66 DIGEST OF GTJSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Board of TJiiited States General Appraisers — Continued. 
 Jniisdiction — Continued. 
 
 A Board of Greneral Appraisers, sitting ae a board of claasification, -will decline 
 jurisdiction of a protest filed under section 14 of the customs administrative 
 act unless the goods under consideration have been lawfully entered, regularly 
 invoiced, and regularly appraised. (T. D. 28814— G. A. 6732; Feb. 27, 1908.) 
 
 Where the collector of customs declines to grant an importer's application for 
 reappraisement under section 13 of said act, the Board of General Appraisers 
 has no authority to issue an order in the nature of mandamus to compel him 
 to grant such application. (T. D. 28814— G. A. 6732; Feb. 27, 1908.) 
 
 Going to trial upon the merits of a case does not have the effect of waiving the 
 lack of jurisdiction on the part of the tribunal in which the case is pending. 
 (T. D. 28957; Apr. 22, 1908.) 
 
 A Board of General Appraisers, sitting as a board of classification under section 
 14 of the customs administrative act of 1890, is a statutory tribunal and has 
 power to determine only questions of law and fact arising upon protest. It 
 has no equity jurisdiction and no power to relieve an importer from his failure 
 to take timely steps, which the statute provides, to secure reappraisement by a 
 Board of General Appraisers. (T. D. 29047— G. A. 6769; May 28, 1908.) 
 
 After part of the evidence in a reappraisement case had been taken before a gen- 
 eral appraiser the case was continued for further hearing before another general 
 appraiser, who subsequently decided the case, but by oversight failed to con- 
 sider the evidence taken before the former general appraiser. Held, that he 
 had jurisdiction to decide the case, his failure to consider a part of the evidence 
 being only an error of procedure, which did not go to the jurisdiction. United 
 States V. Taylor's Sons, United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Penn- 
 sylvania, May 13, 1909. No. 95 (suit 1980). Appeal by United States from 
 decision of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6641 (T. D. 28299). Board 
 reversed. (T. D. 29849; June 22, 1909.) 
 
 The action of the Secretary of the Treasury in refusing to approve an application 
 to enter by appraisement without invoice is not subject to review by Board of 
 General Appraisers oi- by courts. (T. D. 29883— G. A. 6918; June 29, 1909.) 
 
 Where the Board of Gteneral Appraisers grants a rehearing and at the same time 
 an appeal is taken to the circuit court and the appeal is not discontinued, the 
 Board of General Appraisers should not dismiss the rehearing proceedings, but 
 should request permission of the circuit court to retain the papers and proceed 
 on rehearing. — Kingman v. Western Manufacturing Company (170 U. S., 675) 
 and Eoemer v. Simon (91 U. S., 149). (T. D. 30110— G. A. 6940; Nov. 12, 1909.) 
 
 A protest objecting to the assessment of duty on goods contained in certain cases 
 specified in the protest as "529-38, 10 cases and various," is not limited to the 
 goods contained in the particiilar cases enumerated, but applies to all other cases 
 on the invoice involving similar merchandise. — Bing & Co.'s Successors v. 
 United States (3 Ct. Oust. Appls., 211; T. D. 32532) cited and followed. (T. D. 
 33618— G. A. 7478; July 7, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The Board of General Appraisers is a judicial tribunal, clothed 
 with judicial powers to determine the classification of imported goods and the 
 rate of duty thereon, and its decisions on questions of classification or rates are 
 open only to direct and not collateral attack by parties to -the proceedings. 
 
 Materials for straw hats other than plateaux. — ^The board's authority was com- 
 plete, and this had been properly invoked. The board was charged with the 
 duty, and it had the power, to decide not alone the main issue concerning 
 plateaux, but every other question of law or fact material in determining the 
 case. The collector was without warrant of law in disregarding the board's 
 decision. United States v. Kurtz, Stuboeck & Co. (No. 1243), United States 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 67 
 
 Board of United States General Appraisers — Continued. 
 Jurisdiction— Continued. 
 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7478 (T. D. 33618). Decision aflBrmed. (T. 
 D. 84192; Feb. 5, 1914.) 
 
 Where classification has been made by the department under a certain paragraph 
 levying a 25 per cent rate of duty, and, at the instance of a domestic manufac- 
 turer, the classification of a particular shipment imported by him has also been 
 made at a higher rate "to the end that the proper classification may be the sub- 
 ject of a judicial determination," and where, at the trial, both the attorney for 
 the Government and for the protestant favor the classification at a higher rate, 
 such a case does not arise as to properly invoke the jurisdiction of the board 
 under the provisions of the customs administrative act of 1890, as amended by 
 the act of October 3, 1913, and the protest must be dismissed. (T. D. 35561 — 
 G. A. 7744; June 28, 1915.) 
 
 Deposition, exclusion of: A witness having refused to answer certain cross-inter- 
 rogatories upon which, together with direct interrogatories, a deposition was 
 taken under a commission issued by the Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers to show the component material of chief value in certain gloves assessed 
 for duty as being composed in chief value of silk and claimed to be composed 
 in chief value of cotton, the questions which the witness refused to answer 
 being material and important to the issue, and counsel for the Government 
 having objected to the admission of the commission in evidence, held, that the 
 board had power to exclude the deposition from the record. 
 
 Rule XXV of the Board of United States General Appraisers: Rule XXV of 
 this board, relating to the issuing of commissions to take depositions, does not 
 preclude the board from passing upon the admissibility of the deposition. 
 
 Interlocutory orders: When a deposition taken under a commission issued by 
 the board was returned and offered in evidence, counsel for the Government 
 objected to its introduction on the ground that the witness refused to answer 
 certain cross-interrogatories. Counsel for the importers thereupon requested 
 that an interlocutory order be entered that he might "take an appeal on the 
 question of evidence," and the board refused to grant the order for the 
 reason that only final decisions of the board are reviewable by the Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals.- — Subsection 29 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, and Stegeman v. 
 United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 208; T. D. 31240). (T. D. 33912— G. A. 7508: 
 Nov. 20, 1913.) 
 
 Duress: Importers so chained the form of invoicing their goods as to increase the 
 amount of duty payable, this being done to comply with a rule which had been 
 established by the Board of General Appraisers, but which the courts subse- 
 quently held illegal. Held, that, as the action of the importers had been with- 
 out protest, and the customs officers had not raised or changed the invoices, nor 
 directed or requested that to be done, there had been no legal compulsion or 
 duress. Where excessive customs duties are paid under a mistake of law and 
 without protest, the payment was voluntary and there can be no recovery. 
 Section 21, act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190), making the settlement of duties 
 "final and conclusive upon all parties," after the expiration of one year, applies 
 to actions to recover from the Government alleged excessive or illegal duties. 
 Under section 21, making the settlement of duties final in the absence of 
 "fraud," it was not fraud by the Government where subordinate customs offi- 
 cers, without notice to importers or instructions from their superior oflicers, 
 made a change in the method of assessing duties, after years of uniform, prac- 
 tice. Gulbenkian v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York, December 29, 1909. Proceedings at law to recover 
 
68 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Board of TCTnited States General Appraisers — Continued. 
 Jurisdictiou — Continued. 
 
 excessive duties. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30295; Jan. 
 25, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Proceedii^ for the recovery of additional duties resulting from 
 the action of the appraiser in making illegal additions to the entered value to 
 make market value must be by appeal to reappraisement by a general appraiser 
 and a Board of General Appraisers, in accordance with the customs administra- 
 tive act of June 10, 1890. Said act provides a complete remedial system for 
 the correction of errors in the collection of duties, and the remedy afforded by 
 it is exclusive. Gulbenkian v. United States, United States Circuit Court of 
 Appeals, Second Circuit, March 13, 1911. No. 161. Appeal by the importer 
 from decision of the United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York (175 Fed. Rep., 860; T. D. 30295). Decision in favor of the Government. 
 (T. D. 31732; June 30, 1911.) 
 , Expert knowledge not exercised by the board: In passing on the classification of 
 imported merchandise the members of the board can not lawfully exercise 
 knowledge as experts, but are governed by the evidence introduced at the hear- 
 ing. If an official sample is introduced in evidence, it is presumed to be a proper 
 representation of the goods in question, unless shown to be erroneous. And it 
 becomes the duty of the board to determine as a question of fact whether the 
 claim id supported by the evidence afforded by the sample. Common knowl- 
 edge may be exercised in reaching a conclusion, but where expert knowledge 
 is required the board will decline to pass on the issue raised by the protest in 
 the absence of evidence. (T. D. 32241— G. A. 7322; Feb. 8, 1912.) 
 
 Fees and exactions; drawbacks: Subsection 14 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, 
 gives the Board of General Appraisers jurisdiction to review the decisions of 
 the collectors of customs in two distinct and separate respects: First, as to the 
 rate and amount of duty chargeable upon imported merchandise, including all 
 dutiable costs and charges; second, as to all fees and exactions of whatever 
 character, except duties on tonnage. The Board of United States General 
 Appraisers has jurisdiction to review the action of the collector in charging cer- 
 tain fees and making certain exactions in connection with the lading of a vessel 
 with articles manufactured in the United States, the exporter thereof having 
 filed claims for drawback of duty paid upon the imported material entering 
 into the manufacture of these articles. (T. D. 32759— G. A. 7384; Aug. 9, 1912.) 
 
 Hearing by one board; determination by another: The powers and duties of the 
 board of appraisers and the law affecting these are stated and discussed. The 
 record in this case shows there was a hearing by board 1, to whom the case had 
 been lawfully committed for hearing and determination and the jurisdiction 
 of which is not challenged. The decision here complained of, however, was 
 rendered by another board having no appellate jurisdiction over board 1, and 
 the assumed jurisdiction of which is directly .challenged. The judgment of 
 the second board is void and the case is still pending before board 1 for deter- 
 mination and decision. United States v. Park & Tilford (No. 1039), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29824 (T. D. 32830). Reversed 
 and remanded. (T. D. 33514; May 29, 1913.) 
 
 Legal status of Board of United States General Appraisers: By subsection 12 of 
 section 28, tariff act of 19G9, the Board of United States General Appraisers, in 
 the trial and determination of issues arising under the tariff law, is created a 
 court in everything but name — a court of limited jurisdiction, but within that 
 jurisdiction its powers are made as ample as those of the United States Circuit 
 Court. (T. D. 34666— G. A. 7589; July 22, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST 01* CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 69 
 
 Boaid of United States General Appiaiseis — Continued. 
 Jurisdiction — Continued. 
 
 Liquidation pending appeal: The liquidation of an entry by the collector pending 
 an appeal to the Board of United States General Appraisers lor reappraise- 
 ment is illegal, null, and void. 
 
 Parole evidence to contradict public record: A memorandum book, kept by 
 the clerk in charge of the reappraisement division of the collector's office, of all 
 applications for reappraisements filed, is not such a public record as can not be 
 explained or contradicted by parole evidence. 
 
 Piling application for reappraisement — Parole evidence: Upon a protest duly 
 filed against the liquidation of an entry relative to which the records of th^ col- 
 lector 's ofiice show no application for reappraisement, parole evidence will be 
 received as to the filing of such application ; and where the party filing the appli- 
 cation swears positively that he did file it on a certain day within the statutory 
 time, and the clerk of that department of the collector's office can not swear that 
 it was not filed, but only that he has no record and no memory of it, the weight 
 of the testimony is in favor of the party making the positive statement — the 
 liquidation will be set aside and the collector directed to forward the papers to 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers for reappraisement. (T. D. 
 33962— G. A. 7512; Dec. 5, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Rate and amount of duties. — ^The words "rate and amount of 
 duties' ' occurring in the statute define a class of decisions against which protest 
 will lie for any cause distinctly and specifically stated and are not a limitation 
 of the grounds upon which a collector's decision can be assailed. 
 
 Board's jurisdiction to order reappraisement. — The board has jurisdiction to 
 hear and determine protests against a collector's decision assessing a rate a^id 
 amount of duty upon imported merchandise on the ground that the appraise- 
 ment is irregular or invalid, and a demand for a reappraisement operates after the 
 manner of supersedeas. 
 
 Parole testimony. — The parole testimony in this case does not contradict but 
 merely supplies an omission, and as the strict rule against such parole testimony 
 will not be enforced where the rights of third parties will be injured, the rule 
 against its admission, in the absence of any statutory or regulative requirement 
 of a record, will not be here enforced. United States v. American Express Co. 
 (No. 1334), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7512 (T. D. 
 33962). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34550; June 1, 1914.) 
 Parcels-post importations: The Board of General Appraisers has jurisdiction of 
 protests filed against the collector's decision as to the rate and amount of duties 
 assessed upon merchandise imported by mail from foreign countries parties to 
 parcels-post treaties with the United States. (T. D. 31519— G. A. 7209; Apr. 
 18, 1911.) 
 Protest claiming a higher rate of duty than assessed: The authority conferred on 
 the several Boards of United States General Appraisers to hear and determine 
 all cases and questions involved in ascertaining such classification is a judicial 
 power, and carries with it the authority to take testimony of witnesses, to 
 ascertain the materials of which the merchandise is composed, to correct errors 
 of the collector, and assign the importation to the proper paragraph of the tariff 
 act, in accordance with the claim made in the protest, if sufficiently definite 
 and distinct and found to be correct. One purpose of the customs administra- 
 tive act is to secure the accurate and truthful classification of imported mer- 
 chandise. Where such merchandise has been improperly classified by the 
 collector, and the importer expresses his dissatisfaction by filing a protest claim- 
 ing the proper classification, the protest will not be dismissed on the ground 
 that the rate claimed is greater than that assessed by the collector. The motive 
 
70 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Board of United States General Appraisers — Continued. 
 Jurisdiction — Continued. 
 
 of the Importer in expressing liis dissatisfactLon will not be inquired into by 
 the board. (T. D. 31401— G. A. 7187; Mar. 16, 1911.) 
 
 The board, under the powers conferred by law, will proceed to classify imported 
 merchandise in accordance with the claim made in the protest, if sustained by 
 satisfactory evidence, and will deny a motion to dismiss such protest on the 
 ground that the rate of duty alleged to be applicable is greater than that assessed 
 by the collector.— Following Schwartz's case, G. A. 7187 (T. D. 31401). (T. D. 
 31403— G. A. 7189; Mar. 20, 1911.) 
 
 Reappraisement: Where an importer has invoked a decision by a general ap- 
 praiser and later by the reappraisement board, bringing both the subject matter 
 and the parties there, he can not be heard to contend that the board was without 
 jurisdiction to reappraise the goods. 
 
 Mandatory provisions of sections 2901 and 2939, Revised Statutes: Though 
 there may have been a failure on the part of the collector strictly to comply 
 with the provisions of sections 2901 and 2939, Revised Statutes, governing the 
 special designation of merchandise for examination and appraisement, never- 
 theless the Board of General Appraisers would be in duty bound, the goods in 
 question remaining subject to their control and open to their inspection and 
 examination, to resort, on appeal, to the best means at hand for making an ap- 
 praisement; and though it should appear that one package in ten was not in 
 some instances examined by the board, there being sufficient samples of the mer- 
 chandise before them, and these having been examined, there would be accord- 
 ingly such a substitute process as the law contemplates and permits. 
 
 Questions of fact not retried by classification board: It is not the province of 
 a classification board to retry questions of fact determined by a board of reap- 
 praisement, and additional testimony offered before the classification board 
 was properly excluded. — Gulbenkain & Co. v. United States (153 Fed. Rep., 
 858) distinguished. 
 
 Evidence not formally offered and not objected to: The Government having 
 tendered evidence, with the promise to support it with additional testimony to 
 make it relevant, but failing in this, and there being no motion to exclude it, 
 the action of the board in taking the testimony originally can not be urged to 
 vitiate the board's finding in the case. Oelrichs & Co. v. United States (No. 
 57), United States Coiu-t of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 19797 (T. D. 29306). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New 
 York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32091; Dec. 6, 1911.) 
 
 Review of facts by: The power of a Board of General Appraisers to review on 
 appeal a finding of facts is not limited in its exercise to cases where new and 
 additional facts or exhibits are there submitted, but embraces the case in its 
 entirety, with or without new and additional facts or exhibits appearing; and so 
 the finding of a collector is not conclusive against an importer when, on appeal 
 to a Board of General Appraisers, precisely the same case is there presented for 
 decision that was pre.sented at the port of entry. The Board of General Ap- 
 praisers having found the gloves in this consignment were not embroidered 
 with more than three single strands or cords, and the Government relying 
 here solely on a contention that the board exceeded its authority in not adhe> 
 ing to a different finding by the collector, the board on the contrary possessing 
 the authority so denied, its finding is affirmed. United States v. Perkins, Van 
 Bergen & Co. (No. 155), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the United States from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 
 22027 (T. D. 30086). Transferred from United States Circuit Court for South- 
 em District of New York. (T. D. 31430; Mar. 20, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 71 
 
 Board of United States Oeneial Appraiseis — Continued. 
 Jurisdiction — Continued. 
 
 The importation consisted of small pieces of gunny bagging packed in bales, and 
 appropriate samples of the merchandise were exhibited. The proper classifica- 
 tion of these goods could be ascertained without expert knowledge on an inspec- 
 tion of them, and the collector 's classification should not be taken as conclusive. 
 The goods were rags and as such entitled to free entry under the tariff act of 
 1897.— Krusi v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 168; T. D. 31213); Knauth 
 V. United States {ibid., 178; T. D. 31216); Train-Smith Co. v. United States 
 (140 Fed. Rep., 113). Shallus v. United States (No. 603), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 24670 (T. D. 31236). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 32205; Jan. 12, 1912.) 
 
 Subpoena duces tecum: The Board of General Appraisers has power under sub- 
 section 12, section 28, tariff act of 1909, to issue a subpoena dwxg tecum for the 
 Secretary of the Treasury directing him to produce papers in his possession at 
 a hearing before a general appraiser. The statement on the part of the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury that a report in his possession is of a confidential nature 
 and against public policy to disclose is a complete answer to a suhpana duces 
 tecum. .This is a question which he alone must determine, and his determina- 
 tion is binding upon this board and the courts. (T. D. 32925 — G. A. 7401; Nov. 
 4, 1912.) - 
 
 Subsection 14 of section 28, act of 1909: The appellant was required to pay for 
 the services of inspectors who supervised the loading of a vessel at night and on 
 Sundays and holidays. Subsection 14 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, was not 
 intended to confer jurisdiction upon the board in any cases other than those 
 related to duties or charges on imported goods, and the charges here could not 
 be reviewed.— Czarnecki's case, G. A. 3785 (T. D. 17851). (T. D. 34872; Oct. 
 29, 1914.) 
 
 Transfer of cause from one board to another: In this cause the only warrant that 
 board 1 had for deciding the question at issue was a so-called order of transfer 
 made by the president of the Board of General Appraisers. This order was 
 made after trial, and not before trial, as prescribed by statute, and it conferred 
 no authority on board 1 to determine the issues involved in the protests. More- 
 over, as appears from the record, no opportunity was given, either to the Gov- 
 ernment or the importers, to appear and be heard. United States v. Saunders 
 et al. (No. 1329), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34156 
 (T. D. 33934). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34446; May 4, 1914.) 
 
 Vessel as dutiable merchandise: The steamship Altenburg, arriving in the port 
 of Philadelphia "in the ordinary course of navigation," is not imported merchan- 
 dise within the meaning of the tariff act of 1909; and the Board of United States 
 Gfcneral Appraisers has no jm-isdiction over a case involving an exaction of 
 duties on such vessel, paid under protest. A subsequent conversion of the ves- 
 sel into "scrap" held not to alter this rule. (T. D. 31898— G. A. 7280; Sept. 30, 
 1911.) 
 
 Vessel as dutiable merchandise: Where a tonnage duty is assessed by the collector 
 on a vessel under section 37, tariff act of 1909, the board has no jurisdiction 
 of a protest claiming error in such assessment, a vessel not being imported 
 merchandise within the meaning of section 1 of said tariff act, or of section 14 
 of the customs administrative act, as amended by said act of 1909. But where 
 a duty prescribed by said section at 35 per cent ad valorem is assessed, the board 
 is invested with jurisdiction to pass on the question of its correctness, such assess- 
 ment being an exaction other than a duty on imported merchandise, and not a 
 tonnage duty. (T. D. 30354— G. A. 6981; Feb. 9, 1910.) 
 
72 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Board of United States General Appraisers — Continued. 
 Hefnnds under board's decision — 
 Where a collector refuses to refund duties to which importers become entitled 
 under a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, an action may be brought 
 against the collector for damages, in the circuit court, under section 629, Be- 
 vised Statutes, giving that court jurisdiction "of all suits * * * arising 
 under any act providing revenue from imports." (T. D. 28818; Mar. 4, 1908.) 
 Behearing. (See Hearing and Rehearing.) 
 
 Kules of pioceduie and practice. (T. D. 30506, Apr. 7, 1910; T. D. 34210, Feb. 25, 
 1914; T. D. 34649, July 20, 1914; T. D. 34683, Aug. 4, 1914.) 
 Amendment of rules 28 and 30 of the rules of procedure and practice before the 
 
 Board of United States General Appraisers. (T. D. 35108; Feb. 3, 1915.) 
 Substitute for rule 7 of the "Rules of procedure and practice" before the Board 
 of United States General Appraisers. (T. D. 35376; May 6, 1915.) 
 Boards, planed, dovetailed, and glued together. (See Wood, manufactures of.) 
 Boas, feather. (See Feathers and feather articles.) 
 BoUed-off silks. (See Silks.) 
 B(}k ale. 
 Barley brew base; similitude to beer — 
 Bok ale or barley brew base, which is an unfinished product to which carbonic 
 acid gas, water, and flavoring matter are to be added to make a nonalcoholic 
 beverage, but which is derived by processes and from materials similar to those 
 used in the manufacture of beer, is dutiable as beer by similitude imder para- 
 graph 297, tariff act of 1897. Wakem v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Northern District of niinois. May, 1910. No. 27205 (suit 1597). Appeal 
 by the importer from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 5633 
 (T. D. 25172). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30845; Aug. 2, 
 1910.) 
 Boleros. (See Wearing apparel.) 
 Bolting and press cloths. 
 
 Regulations governing the marking of bolting and press cloths imported free under 
 paragraph 422, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 33929; Nov. 22, 1913.) 
 Bonded manufacturing warehouse — Withdrawals of by-products from. (See Ware- 
 houses.) 
 Bonded merchandise. 
 Examination of — 
 Inspectors of the Trunk Line Association and agents of the Interstate Commerce 
 Commission authorized to open and examine packages offered for shipment in 
 bond which are described as "glassware, " " hardware, " or by other general terms. 
 (T. D. 33465; May 24, 1913.) 
 Extending provisions of T. D. 33465 of May 24, 1913, to inspectors of the Joint 
 Rate Inspection Bureau and the Southern Weighing & Inspection Bureau. 
 (T. D. 33723; Aug. 29, 1913.) 
 Issuance of "Permits to switch" and "Release of merchandise in bond." (T. D. 
 
 29870; June 25, 1909.) 
 Begulations — 
 Regulations governing the entry of certain classes of merchandise under bond 
 conditioned for the exportation of the goods within specified periods or for the 
 payment of the duties if the goods enter into the commerce of the United States 
 or are applied to uses other than those prescribed by the law under which they 
 are imported. (T. D. 31999; Nov. 11, 1911.) 
 Regulations for the free entry of articles under six months' bond, in accordance 
 with the provisions of paragraphs 398, 582, and 653 of Section I and subsec- 
 tion 4, Paragraph J, of Section IV, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 33806; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 73 
 
 Bonded merchandise — Continued. 
 Bepoiting delivery — 
 Procedure to be followed by customs officers in reporting the irregular delivery or 
 failure to deliver at the port of destination bonded merchandise forwarded under 
 any of the various forms of transportation entry. (T. D. 32280; Feb. 26, 1912.) 
 Bonded smelting warehouses. (See Warehouses.) 
 Bonds. 
 
 As to execution, see T. D. 29993; Sept. 9, 1909. 
 
 Posting of daily list of appointments of all Treasury officials and employees who 
 
 are required to give bond. (T. D. 31840; circular No. 55; Aug. 28, 1911.) 
 Rates of premiums on bonds of deputy clerks of Federal courts — opinion of At- 
 torney General. (T. D. 33048; Dec. 30, 1912.) 
 Approval of form — 
 Forms of bonds to be submitted to the Secretary, Division of Appointments, for 
 approval, before being issued. (T. D. 29694; Apr. 16, 1909.) 
 Breach of — 
 Damages: To support an action for damages for breach of a bond given by im- 
 porters under section 2899, Revised Statutes, in which it is stipulated that 
 packages delivered without examination shall be returned to the collector on 
 demand made within 10 days after appraisal, it is not enough to aver that the 
 importers did not return on demand; it should also appear that the demand 
 was made within 10 days. United States v. Psaki, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, September 27, 1910. Action by the United 
 States for breach of bond (181 Fed. Rep., 635). (T. D. 31168; Dec. 31, 1910.) 
 Where goods do not arrive in this country, thereby constituting a shortage or non- 
 importation, although not discovered until delivery to the importers, they are 
 not liable to be assessed for duty, notwithstanding the fact that the merchandise 
 may have been opened in violation of the terms of a bond given under section 
 2899 of the Revised Statutes. Such bond must be enforced, when forfeited, 
 by a separate procedure claiming damages for its breach. (T. D. 31673 — G. A. 
 7233; June 9, 1911.) 
 Cancellation of — 
 Bonds for exportation of articles refused delivery under food and drugs act of 
 Jime 30, 1906, may be canceled on the presentation of an outward bill of lading 
 and a duly authenticated certificate of clearance. T. D. 24751 of October 28, 
 1903, amended accordingly. (T. D. 28841; Mar. 14, 1908.) 
 Amendment of Customs Regulations of 1908. (T. D. 32317; Mar. 16, 1912.) 
 (T. D'. 34212; Feb. 27, 1914.) 
 Certificates of origin — 
 Bonds to be taken to produce certificates of origin of mail or parcel-post packages 
 containing Philippine products. (T. D. 34076; Jan. 21, 1914.) 
 Certificates of exportation and certified invoices- 
 Forms prescribed of six months' bonds to produce certified invoices and to pro- 
 duce certificates of exportation. (T. D. 32233; F^b. 8, 1912.) 
 Common carriers — 
 Bond prescribed for transportation of dutiable merchandise and lading and un- 
 lading under act February 13, 1911. (T. D. 32159; Jan. 22, 1912.) 
 Cosureties on joint and several bonds — 
 Excess over qualifying power of each surety may be covered by side agreement. 
 (T. D. 29315; Oct. 28, 1908.) 
 Declaration, production of — ^Personal effects. (See Effects, personal.) 
 Examination at importer's premises — 
 Form of bond prescribed for the redelivery of merchandise examined at importer's 
 premises or at any other unusual place. (T. D. 33230; Feb. 24, 1913.) 
 
74 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Bonds — Continued. 
 Execution of — 
 Amendment of department regulations of November 23, 3907 (circular No. 70), 
 governing the execution of bonds under the Treasiuy Department. (T. D. 29993; 
 Sept. 9, 1909.) 
 Exhibitiou animals- 
 Bonds given upon entry of animals for exhibition purposes under paragraph 474, 
 tariff act of 1897, should be canceled only upon exportation being made at port 
 where imported, or production of certificate from collector of customs at port of 
 exportation showing same were exported under customs supervision as animals 
 of foreign origin imported for exhibition purposes. (T. D. 29863; June 22, 
 1909.) 
 Extension — 
 Customs bonds limited by law for definite periods can not be extended by col- 
 lectors under the general authority to extend bonds conferred by T. D. 34212, 
 (T. D. 34417; Apr. 28, 1914.) 
 Extension and cancellation — 
 Extension and cancellation of customs bonds by collectors. Articles 1321 and 
 1323 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 amended. (T. D. 84212; Feb. 27, 
 1914.) 
 Forms — 
 Modified form of bond Cat. No. 762J to be used upon withdrawals from warehouse 
 for transportation and exportation to Canada or Mexico imtil present supply is 
 exhausted, when new form will be furnished upon requisition. (T. D. 29129; 
 July 1, 1908.) 
 Cat. No, 3375 to be used as form of bond for production shippers or sellers decla- 
 ration on free-entry works of art, paragraph 717, tariff act of 1909. Cat. No. 3377 
 to be used for the production of certificates of origin covering merchandise from 
 the Philipptae Islands. (T. D. 30462; Mar. 23, 1910.) 
 Originals only ol bonds, etc., to be approved by the Secretary. (T. D. 29108; cir- 
 cular No. 45; June 24, 1908.) 
 Owner's declaration — 
 The owner's declaration, or a bond for the production thereof, should be required 
 on entry of merchandise sold at a price delivered in the United States duty and 
 expenses paid. The bond may be canceled on the production of an affidavit of 
 the purchaser showing the price paid and that he has no knowledge of the value 
 declared on entry. (T. D. 32518; May 16, 1912.) 
 Panama premium. (See Lottery matter.) 
 Bedelivery — 
 Redelivery bonds under section 11 of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906, may 
 be printed on entries, and forms of combined bonds for redelivery of unexam- 
 ined packages under said act and section 2899, Revised Statutes, will be fur- 
 nished on requisition. (T. D. 28842; Mar. 14, 1908.) 
 Seals required in execution of. (T. D. 29088; circular No. 43; June 22, 1908.) 
 Several forms of bond under department circular No. 36 of Jime 2, 1908. (T. D. 
 29188; July 30, 1908.) 
 Begulations governing importations under bond — 
 Regulations governing the entry of certain classes of merchandise imder bond con- 
 ditioned for the exportation of the goods within specified periods or for the pay- 
 ment of the duties if the goods enter into the commerce of the United States or 
 are applied to uses other than those prescribed by the law under which they are 
 imported. (T. D. 31999; Nov. 11, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 75 
 
 Bonds — Continued. 
 Residue cargo — 
 Bonds required for the landing and delivery of residue cargo destined to a number 
 
 of ports, foreign or domestic. (T. D. 30681; June 13, 1910.) 
 Cancellation of residue cargo bonds authorized upon production of certificate of 
 foreign revenue officer or by foreign consignee or vessel's agents. (T. D. 35319; 
 Apr. 19, 1915.) 
 Seals of corporations on customs bonds — 
 Customs bonds to which corporations are parties may be executed without seal 
 where State laws do not require bonds to be sealed. Instructions not applica- 
 ble to official bonds of United States, common carriers ' bonds, or customs ware- 
 'house bonds.— T. D. 29088 of June 22, 1908, modified. (T. D. 34045; Jan. 5, 
 1914.) 
 TTnexamined packages — 
 The fact that there has been a breach of a bond given under section 2899, Eevised 
 Statutes, does not affect the right of the importer to an allowance for merchan- 
 dise so damaged on the voyage of importation as to be entirely worthless. No 
 different penalty is contemplated by said section than the damages stipulated 
 in the bond. Habicht v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York, May 4, 1909. Suit 5190. Appeal by importer from 
 decision of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6700 (T. D. 28651). Board 
 reversed. (T. D. 29768; May 19, 1909.) 
 Bone black. 
 
 Bone black not suitable for use as a pigment in its condition as imported entitled 
 to admission free of duty under paragraph 447 of the tariff act. (T. D. 34344; 
 Apr. 4, 1914.) 
 Bone precipitate. 
 
 Bone precipitate free of duty as a substance used only for manure under paragraph 
 499, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34451; May 15, 1914.) 
 Boned herring. (See Fish — Herring, boned.) 
 Bones. 
 
 Bones which have been thoroughly cleaned and which are in a condition ready to 
 be ma,nufactured into various articles, are properly dutiable at the rate of 10 per 
 cent ad valorem under pa-pigraph 480, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31766; July 19, 
 1911.) 
 Degelatinized — " Manufactures" — " Manufactured" — 
 Bones which are the residuum of steaming processes, the ultimate purpose of which 
 is the production of glue and gelatin, such processes rendering the bones unfit 
 for any use except to be made into fertilizer, are not "manufactures of bone," 
 under paragraph 463, tariff act of 1909, nor "bones * * * manufactured" 
 (par. 515). Such degelatinized bones, unfit in their imported condition for use 
 as fertilizer, but which are fit only to be made into fertilizer, are free of duty as 
 "bones, * * » fit only for fertilizing purposes" (par. 515). (T. D. 31233— 
 G. A. 7154; Jan. 17, 1911.) 
 Free entry — 
 Paragraph 515 of the tariff act of 1909, by its grammatical construction, limits the 
 free entry of bones thereunder to such bones as are "fit only for fertilizing pur- 
 poses." (T. D. 33657— G. A. 7483; July 23, 1913.) 
 Shin- 
 Shin bones, burned, calcined, ground, or steamed, free of duty under paragraph 
 423, tariff act of 1913, even though the ends of the bones have been cut off. 
 (T.D. 33862; Nov. 12, 1913.) 
 
76 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Bone swoids. 
 
 As to so-called bone swords, used as curios, etc., Meld that they are not of the 
 kind of "swords" referred to in paragraph 154, tariff act of 1897, relating to 
 "swords, sword-blades, and side-arms," but are dutiable as manufactures of 
 bone under paragraph 449. Morimura v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, May 16, 1907. Suit 4973. Appeal by 
 importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 6612 (T.D. 28229). Board reversed. (T. D. 29012; May 20, 1908.) Acquiesced 
 in June 12, 1908 (T. D. 29063). 
 
 So-called bone swords in the nature of ornaments and to be used for purposes 
 of decoration are not within the provision for "swords" or "side-arms, 'J para- 
 graph 154, tariff act of 1897, but are dutiable as manufactures of bone under 
 paragraph 449. Morimura v. United States (T. D. 29012) followed; G. A. 6612 
 (T. D. 28229) reversed. (T. D. 29258— G. A. 6803; Sept. 11, 1908.) 
 
 The amendment to the tariff provision for "sWords" and "side arms" contained 
 in the tariff act of 1909, paragraph 153, plainly indicates an intention to embrace 
 therein all swords or side arms made in part of metal, irrespective of quality or 
 use, and swords or side arms with metal blades, and handles and scabbards of 
 bone are dutiable thereunder, notwithstanding that they may be intended 
 only for use as curios or ornaments. (T. D. 32841— G. A. 7394; Sept. 26, 1912.) 
 Book backs of leather. (See Leather book backs.) 
 Books and blanks. 
 
 Requisitions for— Outside service. (T. D. 30094; circular No. 61; Nov. 4, 1909.) 
 
 Explanations, etc., relative to No. 3037, Catalogue of Customs Books and Blanks. 
 (T. D. 30756; circular No. 41; July 5, 1910.) 
 
 Reports to Auditor for the State and Other Departments of "Landing certificates 
 received" on Catalogue No. 3073 (272) discontinued. (T. D. 30952; Sept. 28, 
 1910.) 
 
 Form (Cat. No. 3859) of "Report of baggage shipped in bond," provided for by 
 article 624, Customs Regulations, 1908, added to General Catalogue. (T. D. 
 31078; Dec. 2, 1910.) 
 
 Form (Cat. No. 5967) of "Inspector's certificate" added to General Catalogue. 
 (T. D. 31375; Mar. 13, 1911.) 
 
 .Form (Cat. No. 6005) of "Daily Report of U. S. Weigher" added to General Cata- 
 logue. (T. D. 31471; Apr. 7, 19H.) 
 
 Use of old edition of Form Catalogue No. 202, SJ by 14 inches, to be discontinued. 
 (T. D. 31666; June 6, 1911.) 
 
 Discontinuance of Form Catalogue No. 4463. (T. D. 31769; July 19, 1911.) 
 
 Customs officers authorized to make requisitions for blank master's certificate for 
 sick or disabled seamen. (T. D. 31843; Sept. 5, 1911.) 
 
 Forms prescribed of six months' bonds to produce certified invoices and to pro- 
 duce certificates of exportation. (T. D. 32233; Feb. 8, 1912.) 
 
 Changes in. (T. D. 32309; Mar. 15, 1912.) 
 
 Statement of transactions under the steamboat-inspection laws (Cat. No. 1453) 
 discontinued. (T. D. 32334; Mar. 25, 1912.) 
 
 Form of proposal for furnishing supplies for the customs service. (T. D. 32743; 
 July 23, 1912.) 
 
 Catalogue No. 3763, "Record of cigars and cigarettes imported, inspected, and 
 stamped," abolished. (T. D. 32913; Nov. 6, 1912.) ' 
 
 Proceeds from the sale of blank customs forms to be deposited to the credit of the 
 Treasurer of the United States instead of to the credit of customs officers. (T. D. 
 34049; Jan. 12, 1914.) 
 
 Customs Cat. Nos. 3405 and 6003 abolished. (T. D. 35225; Mar. 16, 1915.) 
 
 Abolishment of forms pertaining to salt bonds. (T. D. 35200; Mar. 9, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 77 
 
 Books and blaiiks — Continued. 
 
 "Affidavit for free entry under bond of machinery for repair" (Cat. No. 3329) and 
 "Proof required of use of materials in construction or repair of vessels" (Cat. 
 No. 4459) aboHshed. (T. D. 34883; Nov. 5, 1914.) 
 
 B ooklets — B ooks . 
 
 Commercial designation — 
 So-called "wedding books," "baby books," and other books for the recording of 
 events, being small books the leaves of -which are permanently fastened and 
 bound in the cover, the binding being the work of a bookbinder, dutiable as 
 "books," under paragraph 416, tariff act of 1909, and not as "booklets," under 
 paragraph 412 of said act. A booklet, as that term is used in the tariff act, is 
 imderstood by the trade to be an article used for greeting or souvenir purposes, 
 sold and dealt in by art dealers and stationers, and made up of several leaves or 
 inserts flimsily fastened within a folder of paper or other material, usually by 
 means of a ribbon or cord; while a book is a collection of leaves of any size per- 
 manently stitched or bound together in a cover, the binding being the kind of 
 work performed by a bookbinder. In trade and commerce size is not a dis- 
 tinguishing feature between books and booklets. (T. D. 32327— G. A. 7336; 
 Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 Hand-decorated — 
 Hand-decorated booklets with pyroxylin covers and paper inserts, pyroxylin 
 chief value, are dutiable under paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909, as "booklets, 
 decorated in whole or in part by hand, * * * whether or not lithographed," 
 and not as manufactures of pyroxylin under paragraph 17 of said act. The 
 provision for hand-decorated booklets in paragraph 412 is independent of the 
 limitation as to material qualifying the general provision for lithographic 
 printing found in the introductory clause of said paragraph. At best this 
 question is one of substantial doubt, which must be resolved in favor of the 
 importer. (T. D. 32019— G. A. 7301; Nov. 18, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) In chief value of pyroxylin. — Hand-decorated booklets, with 
 pyroxylin covers and paper inserts, value in chief of pyroxylin, are dutiable 
 under paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909, as "booklets, decorated in whole or in 
 part by hand, * * * whether or not lithographed," and not as manufac- 
 tures of pyroxylin under paragraph 17 of that act. United States v. Hagelberg 
 et al. (No. 832), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7301 
 (T. D. 32019). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32626; June 1, 1912.) 
 Iiithographic prints — Folded post cards — 
 The term "booklets" in paragraph 400, tariff act of 1897, does not include an 
 article consisting of six post cards folded together and ready to be detached for 
 use and with a paper cover pasted thereon. Such articles are dutiable under 
 the provision in the same paragraph for "lithographic prints." Downing v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 13, 1909. Suit 5382. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 19845 (T. D. 29313). Board reversed. (T. D. 
 29769; May 19, 1909.) 
 
 Books. 
 Appraisement of — Royalties — 
 
 In the appraisement of books under subsection 11 of section 28, tariff act of Au- 
 gust 5, 1909, royalties paid to an author are not to be computed as a part of the 
 cost of production. (T. D. 31903; Oct. 5, 1911.) 
 
78 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Books — ContiiiTied. 
 
 Classification of books undei paragiapli 416, taiiS act of 1909 — 
 
 Books printed upon paper and appropriately bound, dutiable at the rate of 25 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 416. Books bound in fancy or costly mate- 
 rials obviously disproportionate in value to the value of the contents, excluded 
 from classificatioii under said paragraph 416. (T. D. 30326; Feb. 4, 1910.) 
 Copyriglited — 
 
 Section 31 of the act of March 4, 1909, prohibits the importation of any book copy- 
 righted in the United States during the existence of such copyright, regardless 
 of the law under which the copyright was obtained, unless the book was pro- 
 duced in accordance with the manufacturing provisions of section 15 of the copy- 
 right act. (T. D. 30136; Nov. 24, 1909.) 
 
 Rebinding abroad: Rebinding abroad of books copyrighted in the United States 
 does not operate to exclude such books from reimportation. — -Opinion of Attor- 
 ney General, March 1, 1910. (T. D. 30414; Mar. 10, 1910.) 
 Foreign languages — 
 
 Unbound photomechanic reproductions of paintings, having descriptive titles 
 appearing severally in the German, French, and English lauguages, accom- 
 panied by an index, but intended to be completed before being bound or pub- 
 lished by the addition of a preface in English, which would constitute English 
 the predominant language, held not so far a completed entity as to warrant their 
 introduction as books published chiefly in a foreign language. — The case of Mac- 
 millan Co. j). United States (116 Fed., 1018) distingiiished. These productions 
 are held dutiable as assessed under paragraph 416 of the act of 1909. Petry Co. 
 V. United States (No. 1383), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 34932 (T. D. 34219). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35174; Feb. 23, 1915.) 
 
 Unbound volumes containing printed plans or drawings of architectural designs 
 of certain buildings in France, with full descriptive matter pertaining thereto 
 printed exclusively in the French language, are properly entitled to free entry 
 under the provision in paragraph 518 of the act of 1909 for ' ' books and pamphlets 
 printed chiefly in languages other than English," as claimed. — The decision in 
 Petry v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Apple., — ; T. D. 35174) distinguished. (T. 
 D. 35266— G. A. 7703; Mar. 22, 1915.) 
 Gratuitous private circulation — 
 
 The publishers of the books imported were dealers in dyes and chemicals; were 
 sellers of the dyestuifs listed in the publication. The testimony showed that 
 these books were intended to be, and were, circulated gratuitously. They 
 were entitled to free entry under paragraph 517, tariff act of 1909.— rScHefieKn 
 V. United States (84 Fed., 880). 
 
 "Individuals'' in paragraph 517, tariff act of 1909: It is reasonably clear that 
 the term "individuals" as employed in paragraph 517, tariff act of 1909, was 
 intended to differentiate between the publications of those other than literary 
 associations or academies. and foreign Governments and to include under "indi- 
 viduals" all others. United States v. Badische Co. (No. 1011), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 29309 (T. D. 32714). (T. D. 33170; Feb. 
 1, 1913.) 
 
 Th^ books of the importation in question appear to have been printed by the 
 Brusse Publishing House, of Rotterdam, for the HoUand-American Line. This 
 shipping company circulates the books gratuitously to excite interest in for- 
 eign travel and so secure patronage for its steamers. The mere size of the circular 
 tion of these books, an edition of 40,000 being printed, does not negative the 
 importer's contention that they were gratuitously privately circulated and they 
 were entitled to free entry. — United States v. Badische Co. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 79 
 
 Books — Continued. 
 
 Gratuitous private circulation — Continued. 
 
 T. D. 33170). United States v. Gips (No. 1168), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 31839 (T. D, 33304). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 33879; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 Imported for educational institutions, etc. — 
 
 Free entry of textbooks used in schools and other educational institutions under 
 paragraph 426, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34158; Feb. 5, 1914.) 
 
 Books purchased and imported by and through a State commission appointed for 
 that and other purposes, for the sole use of a State normal school are properly 
 entitled "to free entry under the provisions of paragraph 519, tariff act of 1909. 
 It is the use and destination of the imported articles, not the medium of importa- 
 tion, that control. (T. D. 34319— G. A. 7548; Mar. 24, 1914.) 
 Imported for libraries — 
 
 Evidence prescribed by articles 709 to 711 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 
 required for the free entry of books, etc., imported for the use of the Uiuted 
 States or the Library of Congress under paragraph 516, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 31372; Mar. 10, 1911.) 
 
 Assistant librarian may sign affidavit for free entry of books imported for a public 
 library. (T. D. 33968; Dec. 8, 1913.) 
 Leather chief value — 
 
 Books in chief value of leather held to be subject to duty as manufactures of 
 leather under the provisions of paragraph 452, tariff act of 1909, rather than as 
 "books of all kinds * * * wholly or in chief value of paper, " under para- 
 graph 416 of said act. Sharretts, G. A., dissents. (T. D. 31911— G. A. 7285; 
 Oct. 9, 1911.) 
 lithographically printed books for children's use — 
 
 The provision in paragraph 325 of the act of 1913 for "books of paper or other mate- 
 rial for children's use, lithographically printed in whole or in part, not exceed- 
 ing in weight 24 ounces each, ' ' includes books of that description the covers 
 alone of which are lithographically printed. (T. D. 36032— G. A. 7834; Dec. 
 28, 1915.) 
 Marking of — 
 
 Books are required to be marked to indicate the country of origin under subsection 
 1 of paragraph F of section 4 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 34994; 
 Dec. 19, 1914.) 
 Textbooks — 
 
 Foreign and English grammers, spellers, etc.: Grammars, spellers, readers, etc. 
 printed partly in English and partly in foreign languages, intended for use in 
 the study of foreign languages, free of duty under paragraph 518, tariff act of 
 1909, unless it clearly appears that the text of such books is chiefly in English. 
 (T. D. 33023; Dec. 18, 1912.) 
 
 Everyman's Library: Classical works of literature which have been substantially 
 bound in cloth and specially printed in clear type on a good quality of paper 
 and designed to be sold at a very moderate price per volume are not necessarily 
 textbooks within the trade or common meaning of that term, even though they 
 may be used to a very large extent Ln schools and other educational institutions. 
 They are therefore excluded from the provision for "all textbooks" in para- 
 graph 426 of the free list of the tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35170— G. A. 7692; 
 Feb. 26, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Everyman's lAbrary not textbooks. — Volumes of a series planned 
 to embrace 1,000 titles, being reprints of the world's classical literature in fic- 
 tion, poetry, history, biography, economics, essays, children's books, etc., do 
 
80 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Books — Continued. 
 Text books — Continued. 
 
 not become textbooks because, on account of tteir compactness, cheapness, 
 and convenient form, they are largely used by teachers and students as supple- 
 mentary or illustrative reading or in classrooms. 
 
 Same, how dutiable. — Such volumes are dutiable under paragraph 329 of the 
 tariff act of 1913 at 15 per cent ad valorem, and are nox admissible free as text- 
 books under paragraph 426. 
 
 Textbook, what is. — The term "textbook" carries with it the idea of special 
 preparation for classroom use, such as exceptional title-page, introduction, 
 glossary, notes, spacing, and other features. Books which appeal aa readily to 
 the general reader as to the student are not fairly to be regarded as textbooks. 
 E. P. Button & Co. V. United States (No. 1538), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 7692 (T. D. 85170). Decision aflarmed. (T. D. 35987; Dec. 
 6, 1915.) 
 Boot wipers. 
 Entireties — ■ 
 Boot wipers consisting of an iron stand and two brushes are dutiable as entireties 
 at the rate applicable to the component article of chief value. 
 
 Article of chief value: In determining the article of chief value in any com- 
 modity composed of several articles the value in the foreign market of each 
 article and the labor incident to assembling the same must be considered. 
 (T. D. 35846— G. A. 7802; Oct. 27, 1915.) 
 Boro-carbone. 
 Emery grains, manufactured — Crude artificial abrasive — 
 Boro-carbone, made from bauxite changed from its natural state by having been 
 placed in an electric furnace and reduced to a molten mass, having the im- 
 purities removed preliminary to the cooling, the mass being, then broken and 
 ground by passing through rollers, and finally through sieves of various meshes, 
 is not a crude artificial abrasive within the meaning of paragraph 432 of the tariff 
 act of 1909, but is dutiable as emery grains, manufactured (par. 432), by simili- 
 tude.— G. A. 7249 (T. D. 31773) and Harrison Supply Co. v. United States (6 
 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 35326) followed. (T. D. 35383— G. A. 7723; May 3 
 1915.) 
 Bottle caps. 
 Metal, decorated — 
 Bottle caps of metal, the tops of which are embossed with a design in the shape of 
 a star, a bunch of grapes, or a crown, are properly dutiable under the last part 
 of paragraph 164, tariff act of 1913, as bottle caps of metal, decorated. (T. D. 
 34844— G. A. 7617; Oct. 17, 1914.) 
 Viscose — 
 Bottle caps of viscose, similar to bottle caps of metal in the use to which they are 
 employed, are properly dutiable with the latter imder paragraph 196, tariff act 
 of 1909, by virtue of the simiUtude clause in paragraph 481 of said act, rather 
 than as unenumerated manufactured articles under paragraph 480. (T. D. 
 34375— G. A. 7554; Apr. 10, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Bottle caps of metal. — "Bottle caps of metal" in paragraph 196, 
 tarifi act of 1909, is not to be deemed a term of exclusion forbidding classification 
 by similitude thereunder. — Strauss & Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 
 203; T. D. 81946). 
 
 Board's finding of fact on review. — The board's conclusion in this case was a 
 finding of fact, and such a finding will not be reviewed in the Coujt of Customs 
 Appeals unless the finding is wholly without evidence to support it or is clearly 
 contrary to the weight of evidence. 
 
DIGEST or CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 81 
 
 Bottle caps — Continued. 
 
 Viscose — Continued. 
 
 Ibid. — The uncontradicted testimony shows the especial design and use of the 
 cap of the importation is to form an air-tight and air-sealed cap, whether for bot- 
 tles or tubes, but metal caps do not adhere and do not effect a like purpose. 
 These caps were not dutiable by similitude as metal caps. Nevin v. United 
 States (No. 1408), United States Coiirt of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7554 (T. D. 
 34375). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34945; Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 Bottles. 
 
 Blown-glass — 
 Certain blown-glass bottles, suitable for use as containers of medicines and chemi- 
 cals, dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 97, instead of under 
 paragraph 98 of the tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32728; July 28, 1912.) 
 
 Blown-glass flasks not. (See Chemical flasks.) 
 
 Contained in celluloid cases — - 
 Articles consisting of celluloid cases containing perfumery bottles are not to be 
 considered as entireties for the assessment of duty, though sold and used together, 
 but are dutiable as though imported separately. — United States v. Dieckerhoff 
 (160 Fed. Rep., 449; T. D. 28716) followed. (T. D. 30140— G. A. 6942; Nov. 
 27, 1909.) 
 
 Double — 
 Manufactures of glass — Plain bottles — ^Silvered glassware: Certain bottles con- 
 sisted of a smaller bottle inserted into a larger, the space between the two being 
 silvered and made a vacuum, for purposes of insulation. Held that they were 
 not dutiable as "silvered" bottles under paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, 
 because not silvered for ornamental or decorative purposes, and that they were 
 not "plain" glass bottles within the meaning of paragraph 99, but that they 
 were dutiable as manufactures of glass under par^raph 112. — Koscherak v. 
 United States (98 Fed. Rep., 596) and United States v. Hesse (141 Fed. Rep., 
 492; (T. D. 26398) followed.,. (T. D. 29996— G. A. 6931; Sept. 8, 1909.) 
 
 Dropping — 
 Dropping bottles composed of flint glass blown in a mold, having glass stoppers 
 ground to fit the necks of the bottles, which, when properly adjusted, make the 
 bottles air-tight, in which stoppers there are two grooves corix jonding with 
 two grooves on the inner surface of the neck of each bottle, the word "ether" 
 appearing on the side of each bottle, which, as well as the grooves, was produced 
 in molding, are not dutiable as "bottles, * * * printed " under paragraph 
 98, tariff act of 1909, but are dutiable as "molded or pressed and flint, Ume, or 
 lead glass bottles * * * suitable for use as and of the character ordinarily 
 employed as containers for the holding or transportation of merchandise, and 
 not as appliances or implements in chemical or other operations," under para- 
 graph 97 of said act. (T. D. 31969— G. A. 7292; Oct. 30, 1911.) 
 
 Mineral-water — 
 Memorandum of weights and values of bottles used as the containers of mineral 
 waters. (T. D. 31345; Mar. 3, 1911, amended by T. D. 31603, May 17, 1911.) 
 
 Nonimportation of — 
 Where certain whisky was imported contained in glass bottles, packed in cases of 
 6 bottles each, the whisky was properly assessed by the collector as if the pack- 
 ages each constructively contained 12 bottles, under the provisions of paragraph 
 296, tariff act of 1897 ; but the addition^ duty on the bottles levied by said para- 
 graph and assessible under paragraph 99 of said act should be assessed only on 
 such of the bottles as are actually imported, viz., 6 bottles to each package. (T. 
 D. 29882— G. A. 6917; June 29, 1909.) 
 45633°— 17 6 
 
82 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Bottles — Contmued. 
 
 Nonrefillable— 
 Nonrefillable bottles dutiable at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem mider para^ 
 graph 83, tarifi act of October 3, 1913, on the value of the bottles, including the 
 value of the nonrefiUable device. (T. D. 35839; Oct. 26, 1915.) 
 
 Opal glass — 
 Seld that the provision in paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, for "porcelain, opal 
 and other blown glassware," relates only to articles known as blown glassware, 
 and that pressed opal-glass bottles are dutiable under paragraph 99, relating to 
 "molded or pressed * * * bottles." (T. D. 29248— G. A. 6799; Sept. 
 3, 1908.) 
 
 Stone. (See Coverings.) 
 
 Trick ink bottles — 
 So-called trick ink bottles, consisting of a small blown-glass bottle and an irregu- 
 larly shaped piece of black colored metal dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, as articles in chief value of blown 
 glass. (T. D. 33638; July 19, 1913.) 
 
 Wicker-covered — 
 Plain green or colored glass bottles covered with wicker composed of wiUow suit- 
 able for and of the character ordinarily employed as containers for the holding or 
 transportation of merchandise are dutiable as "bottles" at the appropriate rate 
 under paragraph 97, and not at 45 per cent ad valorem as manufactures of willow 
 under paragraph 212, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33241— G. A. 7441; Feb. 27, 
 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed :) The merchandise is composed of glass bottles and woven willow, 
 and the willow is so woven and attached to the bottles that it produces an article 
 differing from what is commonly understood to be a plain green, etc., glass bot- 
 tle. The wicker is the component material of chief value, and the bottle so 
 covered is classifiable as a manufacture of willow under paragraph 214 per force 
 of paragraph 481, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Zinn (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 
 419; T. D. 32171) distinguished. United States v. Mulhens & Kropff et al. 
 (No. 1152), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7441 (T. D. 
 33241). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33917; Nov. 18, 1913.) 
 
 With cut-glass stoppers. .(See Entireties, bottles with cut-glass stoppers.) 
 Bottles and jars containing ad valorem merchandise. (See Coverings.) 
 Bouillon cubes. 
 
 Vegetables, prepared, and meat extracts^ 
 The merchandise is vegetable extractive matter with a small amount of meat 
 extract and is a nonenunierated manufacture unless it is dutiable by similitude. 
 There is no substantial proof in the record of there being any substantive portion 
 of meat extract in these bouillon cubes, the proof showing rather that vegetable 
 extract predominates to the exclusion of all other ingredients save for flavoring. 
 But there can be no similitude of quality or texture between such a liquid 
 extract and a vegetable or other soUd. The merchandise is dutiable as a non- 
 enumerated manufacture under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909. Lang v. 
 United States (No. 1012), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 29661 (T. D. 32801). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33394; Apr. 29, 1913.) 
 Bounty, sugar. (See Duty, countervailing, sugar bounty.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 83 
 
 Boutonnieies. 
 Artificial flowers — 
 Imitation roses of celluloid and metal, wliich are worn as boutonniereB, chiefly 
 by children on occasions of frolic and fun, and which are also used as gifts in 
 prize packages, are not toys, and are therefore not dutiable as such under para- 
 graph 418, tariff act of 1897, but are as "artificial * * * flowers," imder 
 paragraph 425, tariff act of 1897. Articles do not become dutiable as toys because 
 of the mere fact that they are imported and generally sold by toy dealers, nor 
 because they may be used chiefly by children. Hamburger v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, Jione 28, 1910. 
 Suit 5301. Appeal by importer from decision of the Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 18920 (T. D. 28998). Board affirmed. (T. D. 
 30804; July 19, 1910.) 
 Box shooks. (See Shoolca.) 
 Box tops. 
 
 Paper box tops stamped into designs or shapes dutiable under paragraph 415, act 
 of 1909. (T. D. 32140; Jan. 10, 1912.) 
 Boxes. 
 Embroidered — 
 Under the proviso in paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, that "no * * * article 
 * * * embroidered * * * shall pay duty at a less rate than that imposed 
 in any schedule of this act upon any embroideries of the materials of which such 
 embroidery is composed, " silk-embroidered candy boxes are subject to the duty 
 provided in paragraph 390 for embroideries of silk. The doctrine of ejiosdem 
 generis does not operate to exclude such articles from the purview of either para- 
 graph. Lichtenstein Millinery Co. v. United States (154 Fed. Rep., 736; T. D. 
 27919) and Carter v. United States (143 Fed. Rep., 256; T. D. 27135) followed. 
 (T. D. 29445— G. A. 6848; Dec. 29, 1908.) 
 Metal, lacquered. (See Coverings.) 
 Papier-machS, containing nettings. (See Coverings.) 
 Boxes or tins, imported empty. (See Coverings.) 
 Boxwood sticks. (See Wood, unmanufactured.) 
 Boys' suits. (See Clothing.)" 
 Bracelets. (See Jewelry.) 
 
 Beaded. (See Beaded articles, bracelets; also Toys.) 
 Braces, ear caps not dutiable as. (T. D. 30121— G. A. 6941; Nov. 19, 1909.) 
 Braid. 
 Articles made in part of— 
 Lamp shades trimmed with braid are dutiable as "articles made * * * in 
 part of" braid under paragraph 358, act of 1913, and not as "manufactures of 
 silk or of which silk or silk and India rubber are the component materials of chief 
 value" under paragraph 318. (T. D. 34754— G. A. 7596; Sept. 3, 1914.) 
 Braid sets. (See Lace articles.) 
 Braids. 
 
 Olo-clo braid in chief value of lead dutiable as articles in chief value of lead under 
 paragraph 167, act of 1913. (See CIo-clo braid.) (T. D. 35798— G. A. 7792; 
 Oct. 13, 1915.) 
 Cotton — 
 Narrow lace edgings or insertings not dutiable as. (See Lace edgings and insert- 
 
 ings.) 
 Cotton braids, whether omaniental or otherwise, and irrespective of the use to 
 which they may be appUed, are dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 349, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31000— G. A. 7110; Oct. 18, 1910.) 
 
84 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Braids — Continued. 
 Cotton and rubber— 
 
 The provision in paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, for "braids » * * -wholly 
 or in chief value of * * * cotton, * * *j whether composed in part of 
 india rubber or otherwise," is limited to braids chiefly of cotton; and braids of 
 cotton and india rubber, in which rubber is the chief component, are dutiable 
 as manufactures in chief value of rubber under paragraph 449. — G. A. 6496 (T. 
 D. 27778) and Horrax v. United States (T. D. 29001) reversed; Horrax v. United 
 States (167 Fed. Rep., 526; T. D. 29505) followed. (T. D. 29712— G. A. 6899; 
 Apr. 26, 1909.) 
 Featherstitched — 
 
 Braids which are used as bindings are specially provided for as "bindings" in 
 paragraph 320, tariff act of 1897, and are therefore removed from the provision 
 in paragraph 339 for "braids • * * not elsewhere specially provided for," 
 notwithstanding that they are commercially known as featherstitch braids. 
 Baruch v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Cir- 
 cuit, May 25, 1909. No. 245 (suit 4419). Appeal from Circuit Court of the 
 United States (159 Fed. Rep., 294; T. D. 28579). Decision reversed. Stein- 
 hardt v. United States (121 Fed. Rep., 442) followed. (T. D. 29791; June 1, 
 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Bindings. — Featherstitch braids, being generally and uniformly 
 known in trade and commerce as "braids," dutiable under the eo nomine pro- 
 vision therefor in paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, and not as "bindings," under 
 paragraph 320 of said act. Congress, having reenacted in paragraph 339 the 
 provision for braids without change of phraseology, adopted the construction 
 put upon that term under the acts of 1890 and 1894. United States v. Baruch, 
 United States Supreme Court. No. 190 (suit 4419). Februrary 19, 1912. On 
 writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for Second Cir- 
 cuit (172 Fed. Rep., 342; T. D. 29791), reversing decision of the Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York (159 Fed. Rep., 294; T. D. 28579), which 
 affirmed Abstract 12333 (T. D. 27545). Decision in favor of the Government. 
 (T. D. 32300; Mar. 5, 1912.) 
 Horsehair — 
 
 Horeehair braids used exclusively in the manufacture of hats are dutiable by 
 similitude to the "braids * * * wholly of straw, * * * suitable for 
 making or ornamenting hats," enumerated in paragraph 409, tariff act of 1897. 
 In order to invoke the provisions of the similitude clause in section 7, tariff act 
 of 1897, it is not necessary that the article in question shall be found similar 
 in all the particulars (material, quality, texture, and use) mentioned in said 
 section. It is enough if similarity be found in any one of these particulars. 
 Where an unenumerated article bears a very vague and questionable resem- 
 blance to some enumerated article, and an exact identity to another e'nmner- 
 ated article, the status of the merchandise under the similitude clause in sec- 
 tion 7, tariff act of 1897, should be determined by the latter condition, without 
 reference to the vague resemblance. There is no substantial similarity between 
 a horsehair hat braid and a silk braid, within the meaning of the similitude 
 clause in section 7, tariff act of 1897, the resemblance in material, quality, and 
 texture being too artificial for tariff purposes. Though in these respects there 
 is probably a greater similarity to braids made of silk than to braids made 
 of straw, in either case it is too remote to be considered. Paterson v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, November 16, 
 1908. No. 38 (suit 5029). Appeal from arcuit Court of United States for the 
 Southern District of New York (159 Fed. Rep., 320; T. D. 28581). Decision 
 adverse to Government. (T. D. 29377; Dec. 2, 1908.) Acquiesced in by the 
 Government, March 1, 1909 (T. D. 29590). 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 85 
 
 Braids — Continued. 
 Horsehair — Continued. 
 
 Horsehair braids are dutiable by similitude as straw braids under paragraph 409, 
 tariff act of 1897.— Paterson v. United States (166 Fed. Rep., 733; T. D. 29377) 
 followed. (T. D. 29687— G. A. 6892; Apr. 8, 1909.) 
 
 Stare decisis: After the elimination of the "wool" theory, horsehair braids and 
 hats were always assessed under the act of 1897 by similitude with silk braids 
 and hats, except for an interval when this practice was inhibited by an erroneous 
 rule of construction that was subsequently expressly disapproved by the Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Upon the present record it is held that the importers 
 failed to sustain the burden of proof in showing the assessment was wrong and 
 that the importation was properly held dutiable by similitude to silk braids and 
 silk hats under paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897. Zimmerman & Meyer et al. v. 
 United States (No. 1248), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 33264 (T. D. 33668). Decision afiu-med. (T. D. 34137; Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 
 Imitation of — Similitude to cotton braids: The articles in suit consisted of arti- 
 ficial horsehair hat braids imported under the tariff act of 1897. The article 
 which the importation most resembles in material, quality, texture, and use 
 furnishes the basis for comparison in determining a duty by similitude. It 
 seems clear that in the respects named artificial horsehair braids more nearly 
 resemble cotton braids than straw braids. — United States v. Eckstein (2 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 312; T. D. 32049); United States v. Cochran (3 ih., T. D. 32349; 
 United States v. Buss & Warner (3 ib. ; T.,D. 32357). Plummer & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 826), United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 8, 1912. Appeal 
 by the importers from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New 
 York, G. A. 6491 (T. D. 27761). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32539; May 8, 
 1912.) 
 
 The imitation horsehair braids of the importation were not shown to resemble 
 pjTOxylin or its compounds, or any article of which pyroxylin is the component 
 material of chief value. On the contrary, in texture, quality, and use they re- 
 semble braids of cotton, and since they were dutiable by similitude, they were 
 dutiable as cotton braids. Isler & Guye et al. v. United States (No. 1315), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34047 (T. D. 33872). Decision 
 aflirmed. (T. D. 34401; Apr. 14, 1914.) 
 India rubber — 
 
 The provision in paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, for "braids * * * com- 
 posed wholly or in chief value of * * * cotton, * * *^ whether com- 
 posed in part of india rubber or otherwise," does not require that braids in 
 part of india rubber should be in chief value of cotton; and it includes braids 
 in chief value of rubber. Horrax v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, May 7, 1908. Suit 4787. Appeal by 
 importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 6496 (T. D. 27778). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29001; May 20, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The provision in paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, for "braids 
 * * * wholly or in chief value of * * * cotton, * * *^ whether 
 composed in part of India rubber or otherwise," is limited to braids in which 
 cotton is the chief component; and braids of cotton and india rubber, in which 
 the rubber is the chief component, are dutiable under paragraph 449 as manu- 
 factures in chief value of india rubber. Horrax v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. No. 118 (suit 4787). 
 Appeal from Circuit Court of United States for Southern District of New York; 
 
86 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Braids — Continued. 
 India rubber — Continued. 
 
 see T. D. 29001, affirming G. A. 6496 (T. D. 27778). Decieion adverse to Gov- 
 ernment, T. D. 29505, January 27, 1909. Acquiesced in by Government, 
 February 20, 1909 (T. D. 29562). 
 Yams, threads, or filaments: Paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913, provides for braids 
 and other articles of "whatever yarnB, threads, or filaments composed." Held 
 that elastic braids composed in chief value of india-rubber thread, which is 
 recognized as a distinct article of commerce and bought and used as such by 
 manufacturers of braids, are, in the absence of proof to show that the terms 
 "yams, threads, or filaments" have a meaning in trade and commerce different 
 from the ordinary meaning, properly dutiable under paragraph 358 of said act. 
 (T. D. 34887— G. A. 7626; Nov. 4, 1914.) 
 Straw — 
 Straw braids manufactured from straw fumigated with sulphur subject to duty 
 under paragraph 422, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 Eevoked May 20, 1910 (T. D. 30626). (T. D. 30452; Mar. 21, 1910.) 
 Bleached : Straw braids manufactured from straw fumigated in the fields with sul- 
 phur, the process of fumigation not bleaching the straw to any appreciable 
 extent, but being designed to prevent mildewing in transit, are not dutiable as 
 bleached braids under paragraph 422 of the tariff act of 1909, but should be classi- 
 fied at 15 per cent ad valorem under said paragraph. T. D. 30452, of March 21, 
 1910, revoked. (T. D. 30626; May 20, 1910.) 
 
 Bran, wheat. (See Wheat and wheat products.) 
 
 Brandy, gauge of. (See Liquors, gauge of.) 
 
 Brass fob chains. (See Articles of personal adornment.) 
 
 Brass whistles. 
 
 Cyclone or siren whistles of brass, nickel plated, sold by manufacturers of musical 
 instruments for the use of drummers, to be hung on the wall and not canied on 
 the person, are dutiable as articles of brass at 20 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 167, tariff act of 1913, and not at 60 per cent under paragraph 356. (T. D. 
 35845— G. A. 7801; Oct. 25, 1915.) 
 
 Brass-wire articles. 
 
 Articles in chief value of brass wire dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 199, plus 1 cent per pound under paragraph 135, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 32600; June 6, 1912.) 
 
 Brattice cloth. 
 
 Brattice cloth, a jute fabric treated with wood tar, oil, and mineral matter, is duti- 
 able as "plain woven fabrics of single jute yarns," under paragraph 352, tariff 
 act of 1909, the treatment of the fabric not being of such a character as to make it 
 a manufacture of jute. Departmental construction is to be followed only when 
 it has been uniform and when the meaning of the statute is doubtful. (T. D. 
 30967— G. A. 7104; Oct. 3, 1910.) 
 
 Braziers' copper. (See Copper plates.) 
 
 Bread. 
 Waverly shortbread — 
 Waverly shortbread, containing sugar, butter, and flour, but no other ingredients, 
 is classifiable under paragraph 417, tariff act of 1913, which grants free entry to 
 "biscuits, bread, and wafers, not specially provided for in this section," and is 
 not dutiable under paragraph 194 by similitude to "baked articles, * * * 
 containing chocolate, nuts, fruit, or confectionery." To apply the similitude 
 clause in such way would result in nullifying the very limitations which have 
 been written into paragraph 194. — Schoenemaim v. United States (119 Fed., 
 584), and Fensterer v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 93; T. D. 31110) 
 followed. (T. D. 35017— G. A. 7654; Dec. 21, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 8*7 
 
 Bread— Continued. 
 Waverly shoitbiead — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) Biscuit. — The merchandise here is clearly distinguishable by 
 its form, consistency, and composition from both cake and bread, as these terms 
 are commonly understood. Its characteristics make of it biscuits, a term cov- 
 ering not only a species of bread, but also both sweetened and unsweetened 
 crackers. United States v. Dunlop & Ward (No. 1516), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals; Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7654 (T. D. 35017). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 35505; May 24, 1915.) 
 
 Bieccia. (See Marble.) 
 
 Brewing-machine parts. (See Machine parts.) 
 
 Brick. 
 Fire. (See Fire brick.) 
 Bubbing or scouring bricks — 
 The word "brick," other than fire brick, relates to brick used for structural or 
 kindred purposes, and does not apply to all articles in which the word occurs as 
 a designation. The importation is a stone, in brick shape it is true, but it is used 
 in water in the process of rubbing, scouring, and cleaning marble, thus disin- 
 tegrating in its use. It was properly assessed as an article or ware composed 
 wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral substances not specially provided 
 for, not decorated, under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909. WaddeU & Co. v. 
 United States (No. 1242), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 33157 
 (T. D. 33660). Decision aflarmed. (T. D. 34098; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 Bubble. (See Clay.) 
 
 Bridal wreaths. (See Wreaths.) 
 
 BrilUautine. (See Gelatine.) 
 
 Brine. 
 
 Method for determining percentage of salt in biine surrounding fruits preserved in 
 brine. (T. D. 32631; June 13, 1912.) 
 
 Bristles. 
 
 Bristles which have been tied up in bundles, with their butt ends lying together, 
 being thereby put into a state of partial preparation for the brush maker, are 
 not free of duty under paragraph 509, tariff act of 1897, as "crude, not sorted, 
 bunched, or prepared," but are dutiable under paragraph 411, relating to bristles 
 "bunched or prepared." Pushee v. United States, United States Circuit Court 
 of Appeals, First Circuit, January 30, 1908. No. 750 (suit 1575). Appeal by 
 importer from Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts 
 (155 Fed. Rep., 265; T. D. 28385). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. 
 D. 28782; Feb. 19, 1908.) 
 
 British commercial travelers' samples under reciprocal agreement. (See Reciprocity- 
 Great Britain and Ireland.) 
 
 Broken rice. (See Rice.) 
 
 Brominated indigo paste. (See Colors, coal-tar.) 
 
 Bronze powder. 
 
 Powdered tin properly dutiable as bronze powder at the rate of 25 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 146, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34578; June 24, 1914.J 
 
 Brooms, whisk. (See Brushes.) 
 
 Bronze statuary. (See Statuary.) 
 
 Bronze wire cloth. (See Wire cloth.) 
 
 Brooclies, bead. (See Toy necklaces, bracelets, and brooches.) 
 
88 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Blooms. 
 Bamboo sink blooms — 
 Certain merchandise consisting of bundles of bamboo strips, about one-eighth of 
 an inch wide and 6J inches long, tightly tied together at one end with similar 
 bamboo or rattan strips, dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem as brushes 
 under the provisions of paragraph 336 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913. — Ab- 
 stract 38158 not acquiesced in. (T. D. 35696; Sept. 7, 1915.) 
 Wood, manufactures of — 
 The importation consisted of round wooden sticks about 18 inches long, at one 
 end of which is a whisk effect produced by small shavings of the stick turned 
 down and bound together. An examination of the samples shows that these 
 articles could not be used as brooms or brushes. They were properly held 
 dutiable as manufactures of wood under paragraph 215, tariff act of 1909. 
 United States v. Sheldon & Co. (No. 1101), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 30952 (T. D. 33055). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33524; 
 May 26, 1913.) 
 Brushes. 
 Clarinet cleaners — 
 Clarinet cleaners, consisting of twisted pieces of wire and having yarns or threads 
 running nearly at right angles with the wire, are properly dutiable as brushes 
 under paragraph 423, tariff act of 1909. (T. B. 32512; May 17, 1912.) 
 Whisk brooms— 
 A certain importation invoiced as "2 cases, 579 dozen whisks," was claimed 
 dutiable as manufactures of wood under paragraph 215 of the tariff act of 1909. 
 There is sufficient evidence in the record to show that these articles are ' ' whisks, " 
 as stated in the invoice and as is admitted in the protest. They are brushes 
 known as whisk brooms, and were subject to duty when imported under the 
 tariff act of 1909, under paragraph 423. United States v. Swedish Produce Co. 
 (No. 1103), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31031 (T. D. 
 33088) and Abstract 31380 (T. D. 33217). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33525; 
 May 26, 1913.) 
 Buckles, brass, set with imitation jet. (See Articles of personal adornment.) 
 Buffalo hides. (See Hides, buSalo.) 
 Building stone. (See Stone, building.) 
 Bulbs. 
 Gladiolus — 
 Gladiolus biilbs, which are shown by the evidence to be mature mother flowering 
 bulbs — that is, flowering bulbs that, planted in the ground, wiU produce other 
 small bulbs, and which were imported solely for propagating purposes— are en- 
 titled to free entry under the provision in paragraph 210, tariff act of 1913, that 
 "all mature mother flowering bulbs imported exclusively for propagating pur- 
 poses shall be admitted free of duty." 
 Department's regulation: The department's regulation, promulgated as T. D. 
 34206, instructing that free entry under paragraph 210 to bulbs claimed to be 
 mature mother flowering bulbs imported exclusively for propagating purposes 
 should be denied by the collector unless the invoice indicates which of the 
 bulbs in an importation are mature mother flowering bulbs, and unless an affi- 
 davit from the ultimate consignee is submitted stating that the bulbs are im- 
 ported exclusively for propagating purposes does not preclude the importer 
 from proving such facts before the board by other evidence. (T. D. 35102 — 
 G. A. 7674; Jan. 29, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OV CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 89 
 
 Bulbs— Continued. 
 Hyacinth — 
 
 Hyacinth bulbs are dutiable under ,tlie provision in paragraph 263, tariff act of 
 1909, for "hyacinth, astilbe, dielytra, and lily of the valley clumps," and not 
 under the last provision in the paragraph for "all other bulbs, bulbous roots or 
 corms which are cultivated for their flowers or foliage." (T. D. 30875 — G. A. 
 7085; Aug. 11, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) "Hyacinth" m paragraph £61, tariff act of 1909.— -The only 
 assignable reason for the change of "hyacinths" in paragraph 251, tariff act of 
 1897, to "hyacinth" in paragraph 263, tariff act of 1909, is the word in the last 
 case was employed as an adjective and not a noun, and "hyacinth" in the 
 connection there used must acoort'lngly take its grammatical construction as 
 an adjective; and this more especially as there is nothing to indicate a contrary 
 intent in framing that paragraph. Hyacinth clumps are clusters of roots or 
 bulbs joined together and are within the ordinary meaning of the word "clumps." 
 A comparison between the former and the later law seems to make it clear the 
 importation was dutiable not as hyacinth, and so taking a higher duty, but as 
 bulbs from which clumps are propagated, at a lesser rate of duty, under para- 
 graph 261, tariff act of 1909. Breck v. United States (No. 487), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from a decision of the 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7085 (T. D. 30875). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 31576; May 1, 1911.) 
 Orchid plants. 
 Not mother bulbs: Orchid plants, which are imported exclusively for propagating 
 purposes, and which consist of roots surmounted by root stalks, from which 
 growspikes which bear flowers, these spikes being enlarged, thickened portions 
 known as "pseudo bulbs, " are not free of duty under paragraph 210, tariff act 
 of 1913, as "mature mother flowering bulbs imported exclusively for propagat- 
 ing purposes," but are dutiable under the same paragraph as "orchids." (T. 
 D. 85103— G. A. 7675; Jan. 29, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Orchid plants — Mature mother flowering bulbs. — Orchid plants, 
 known as Cattleyas,.which at the time of importation had already flowered and 
 would never flower again and were useful for propagating and for no other com- 
 mercial purpose and which, although not true bulbs, were known to the trade as 
 orchid bulbs, were assessed for duty at 25 per cent ad valorem as orchids under 
 paragraph 210, tariff act of 1913. Held, that the same were entitled to free entry 
 under the proviso to said paragraph as mature mother flowering bulbs imported 
 exclusively for propagating purposes. 
 
 "Bulbs" used in popular rather than botanical sense. — There is nothing in the 
 act or in its legislative history which would justify the conclusion that Con- 
 gress intended that the term "bulbs" should be given a strictly scientific or 
 botanical meaning; on the contrary, the fact that Congress applied the term 
 to other plant growths, not true bulbs, enumerated in paragraph 210, con- 
 clusively establishes^ that such was not its intention. Maltus & Ware v. 
 United States (No. 1546), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7675 
 (T. D. 35103). Decision 'reversed. (T. D. 35920; Nov. 19, 1915.) 
 Propagating— 
 Invoices must specifically indicate which of the bulbs comprised in an importation 
 are mature mother flowering bulbs, and an afiidavit must be submitted from the 
 ultimate consignee stating that the bulbs are imported for propagating purposes 
 and are intended exclusively for such purposes to entitle the bulbs to free entry 
 under paragraph 210, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34206; Feb. 25, 1914.) 
 
90 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Bulgaria. 
 
 Becipiocal commeicial agreement. (See Reciprocity, Bulgaria.) 
 Bullions or Bull's-eyes. (See Glass, window.) 
 Bungo sulphur. (See Sulphur.) 
 Burial wreaths. (See Wreaths.) 
 Bushel measure. (See Apples — Bushel measure.) 
 Button blanks. 
 
 Agate articles, white in color, rounded on one side and flattened on the other, and 
 pierced with a countersunk hole through the center, held dutiable, as classified 
 by the collector, as agate button blanks according to line measurement, plus 15 
 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 427 of the act of 1909, and not as beads at 
 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 421, as claimed by the importer. (T. 
 D. 33777— G. A. 7499; Oct. 2, 1913.) 
 
 Where two or more rates of duty are applicable: The present merchandise before 
 and at the time of the passage of the tariff act of 1909 was known commercially as 
 beads and known also commercially as agate button blanks, and imder the tes- 
 timony it can not be well said that either designation is the more specific. 
 Accordingly, the articles fall within the final clause of paragraph 481 of the act 
 in question, by which they must take the higher rate of duty assessed upon the 
 two classifications. American Bead Co. v. United States (No. 1341), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 34844 (T. D. 34201). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 35001; Dec. 14, 1914.) 
 Shoe buttons — 
 
 Parts of buttons or button molds, to be finished into buttons suitable for and 
 intended to be used as shoe buttons, are not classifiable as "shoe buttons" under 
 paragraph 339, tariff act of 1913, but are dutiable imder the provision in the same 
 paragraph tor "parts of buttons and button molds or blanks, finished or un- 
 finished." 
 
 Construction: When the plain wording of a law (par. 339, tariff act of 
 1913) imposes a higher rate of duty upon a partly finished material than upon the 
 finished article, resort to rules of construction to vary that plain wording is not 
 justified. (T. D. 35843— G. A. 7799; Oct. 25, 1915.) 
 Button forms. 
 
 Paragraph 426, tariff act of 1909, relating to button forms, covered only material 
 fit exclusively for buttons; and unless the material shows exclusive suitability 
 for such use by mere inspection, it can not fall within said paragraph. 
 
 Limitation as to size: Strips of cloth composed of cotton, 9 inches in length 
 and not more than 3 inches in width, woven in patterns, each pattern marked off 
 by means of threads of a different color, were not dutiable as "button forms," 
 under paragraph 462, tariff act of 1909, but as manufactures of cotton, not specia- 
 ally provided for, under paragraph 332 of said act, the 3-inch limitation in said 
 paragraph 462 applying neither to the forms nor to the patterns, but to the 
 imported material. Cooper, G. A., dissenting. (T. D. 32418 — G. A. 7349; 
 Apr. 15, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The importation consisted of materials used in the making of 
 buttons, in chief value of cotton in strips about 9 inches long and 3 inches or less 
 in width. Each strip consisted of several patterns woven in the piece, con- 
 cededly no one thereof over 3 inches in any dimension, with an indicated line 
 for the subsequent cutting apart of each such pattern, which in every case must 
 be done before being fed into the button-making machine. 
 
 Reviewing the history of the legislation of paragraph 426, tariff act of 1909, 
 relating to button forms, it is clear that the clause, "and not exceeding three 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 91 
 
 Button foims — Continued. 
 
 inches in any one dimension," governs by exclusion this importation, con- 
 cededly as this is 9-inch strips in chief value of cotton cloth. The goods are 
 not fit for buttons exclusively and accordingly could not be properly assessed 
 as so fit; they were righdy assessed as a manufacture of cotton under paragraph 
 332, tariff act of 1909. Rothschild Bros. & Co. v. United States (No. 908), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7349 (T. D. 32418). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 33002; Nov. 27, 1912.) 
 Button shanks. 
 Metal, silver-plated — 
 
 Silver-plated metal button shanks, intended for use as parts of pearl buttons, are 
 more specifically provided for as "parts of buttons, * * * finished or un- 
 finished," under paragraph 339 of the act of 1913, as claimed in these protests, 
 than as "articles or wares plated with gold or silver" under paragraph 167, or 
 as "materials of metal * * * suitable for use in the manufacture of any of 
 the foregoing articles in this paragraph" under paragraph 356 of said act, as 
 herein classified by the collector. (T. D. 35877— G. A. 7807; Nov. 8, 1915.) 
 Buttons. 
 Beaded — 
 
 Beaded buttons are more specifically enumerated as "buttons" in paragraph 414, 
 tariff act of 1897, than as "articles * * * in part of beads," in paragraph 
 408. (T. D. 29439— G. A. 6845; Dec. 28, 1908.) 
 CoUar — 
 
 Agate collar buttons will continue to be assessed with duty at the rate of 40 per 
 cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 339, tariff act of 1913, for 
 "all collar and cuft buttons and studs composed wholly of * * * agate." 
 (T. D. 35712; Sept. 18, 1915.) 
 
 Line measurement: Agate collar buttons, capable of different line measurements, 
 one for the largest diameter of the base and the other for the head of the button, 
 are dutiable as agate buttons under paragraph 427, tariff act of 1909, taking the 
 measure of the largest diameter, and not as buttons not specially provided for 
 under said paragraph. (T. D. 30877— G. A. 7087; Aug. 15, 1910.) 
 
 Commercial designation: Collar buttons commercially known as "agate collar 
 buttons' ' and assessed for duty under the provision of paragraph 339 of the tariff 
 act of 1913 for collar buttons composed wholly of agate, are properly dutiable 
 under the same paragraph of the law as "agate buttons." 
 
 The phrase "composed wholly of" any specified material wiU not permit of 
 that Uberal construction which might result from commercial designation. 
 Under this well-settled rule of construction the words "agate buttons" might 
 be held to mean "buttons commercially known as agate buttons, ' ' but it would 
 be carrying that rule too far, we think, to hold that the phrase "composed 
 wholly of agate " includes articles that are not composed of agate at aU. (T. D. 
 35590— G. A. 7753; July 15, 1915.) 
 Collar, parts of — 
 
 "Amended decision:" At an earlier stage of. this litigation an application for a 
 rehearing was filed and the board, responding to this without a hearing, directed, 
 by a letter there termed "an amended decision," that the matter omission of 
 which had been urged as a ground for granting a rehearing should be incorpor- 
 ated in the formal decision of the case. The application for a rehearing being 
 thereupon withdrawn, the protestant could not be later heard in objection to 
 the proceeding as irregular. — King Collar Button Co. v. United States (3 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 174; T. D. 32461). 
 
92 
 
 Buttons — Continued. 
 
 Collar, parts of^ — Continued. 
 
 Requirements in measuring merchandise: The law contemplates that the 
 true amount or rate of duty should be paid on imported merchandise and noth- 
 ing more. There is a doubt in this case, however, whether the proper method 
 of measuring the merchandise of the importation, viz, parts of collar buttons, 
 made of metal, was employed. The appeal was seasonably taken and a 
 further hearing in the circumstances is reasonably required. King CoUjir 
 Button Co. V. United States (No. 796), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract26448(T.D. 31845). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33436; May 12, 1913.) 
 
 Collar and cuS buttons of metal and celluloid — 
 Paragraphs 339 and 151 considered and compared. 
 
 Highest duty provision — Paragraph 386: Under the provision of paragraph 
 386, tariff act of 1913, where a nonenumerated article resembles two or more 
 articles enumerated in the tariff law, it should be assessed for duty at the 
 highest of the rates provided for these. Under the operation of the principle 
 of this statutory provision, where the general provisions of two paragraphs 
 apply with equal accuracy to an imported article, it should be assessed at the 
 highest rate. (T. D. 35064— G. A. 7664; Jan. 13, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Metal buttons. — Metal is the predominating material in the 
 composition of these buttons L.nd concededly is the component material of chief 
 value in them. To constitute metal buttons under paragraph 151, tariff act of 
 1913, it is not required that the articles should be exclusively of metal. They 
 are dutiable under that paragraph. Henry Buss & Co; v. United States (No. 
 1518), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7664 (T. D. 35064). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 35441; May 18, 1915.) 
 
 Dress — 
 Dress buttons, whether composed in chief value of metal or not, if set with imi- 
 tation precious stones composed of glass or paste (except imitation jet), or com- 
 posed wholly or in chief value of silver, German silver, white metal, brass, or 
 gun metal, are dutiable at the specific rate according to value and in addition 
 thereto 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 30721— G. A. 7043; June 22, 1910.) 
 Mother-of-pearl vest buttons set with imitations of various precious stones are 
 dutiable under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, which paragraph provides for 
 dress buttons regardless of the material of which composed, when set with imitar 
 tion precious stones composed of glass or paste, and are not classifiable as buttons 
 under paragraph 427 nor as manufactures of mother-of-pearl under paragraph 
 464 of said act. (T. D. 30863— G. A. 7080; Aug. 4, 1910.) 
 Dress buttons composed of a composite metal known as "tombac," containing 
 86.47 per cent of copper and 13.1 per cent of zinc, are not composed of copper, 
 but are composed of a variety of brass and are dutiable at 85 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, as dress buttons. Dress buttons com- 
 posed in chief value of paste, imitating jet and galUlith, are dutiable at 50 per 
 cent ad valorem as buttons not specially provided for, under paragraph 427, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31848— G. A. 7268; Sept. 8, 1911.) 
 Metal buttons, round or oblong, valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces, used both 
 for utilitarian and ornamental purposes on suits or coats, are dress buttons, and 
 properly dutiable under paragraph 356, tariff act of 1913, at 60 per cent ad 
 valorem. (T. D. 35849— G. A. 7805; Nov. 1, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 93 
 
 Buttons — Continued. 
 
 Glass and fish scale — 
 Commercial designation: Buttons made of glass and fish scales, the latter being 
 chief value, are dutiable imder paragraph 427, tariff act of 1909, as buttons not 
 specially provided for at 50 per cent ad valorem. They are not withdrawn 
 from this classification as glass buttons by commercial designation. 
 
 No judicial notice of commercial designation: The commercial designation 
 of an article is not a matter of which the court will take judicial notice, but is a 
 fact to be proved by evidence. 
 
 Must be proved by a fair preponderance of evidence : The common meaning 
 of words is to be adopted when no commercial meaning is proved by a fair pre- 
 ponderance of evidence. 
 
 Must be uniform and definite, not partial or local: A commercial designation 
 such as will control the meaning of the tariff law must be definite, uniform, and 
 general, and not partial, local, or personal. (T. D. 34126 — G. A. 7530; Jan. 28, 
 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) This case relates to buttons of different colors, made of glass and 
 fish scales. There was no evidence tending to show that the merchandi.se was 
 commercially known as buttons of glass, and the evidence did not establish the 
 fact that they were buttons composed of glass in chief value. The present case 
 is no exception to the general rule that merchandise made, composed, or manu- 
 factured of a specified article is classified with reference; to the component- 
 material of chief value, and there is in this case nothing to show that glass is the 
 predominant material. Blumenthal & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1344), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of Unifed States General Appraisers, G. A. 7530 (T. D. 34126). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 34529; May 28, 1914.) 
 
 Glassteine and glass-stone — 
 Glassteine and glass-stone buttons and parts thereof dutiable at the rate of three- 
 quarters of 1 cent per Une per gross and 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 427, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33343; Apr. 15, 1913.) 
 
 Rhinestone or paste — 
 
 Not embraced in paragraph 427, tariff act of 1909 : Rhinestone buttons composed 
 of paste are not embraced within the provision of paragraph 427, tariff act of 
 August 5, 1909. They are not buttons of glass, because, though paste is a kind 
 of glass, it is distinguished from glass elsewhere in the tariff act under its own 
 peculiar name. The buttons are dutiable under paragraph 109 at 45 per cent ad 
 valorem, as manufactures in chief value of paste. (T. D. 34245 — G. A. 7539; 
 Mar. 4, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Buttons in chief value of paste. — ^There has been a legislative 
 recognition that for tariff purposes there is a difference between paste and glass. 
 The buttons of the importation are manufactures of paste, but they are not classi- 
 fiable as manufactures in view of the more specific and applicable language 
 appearing in paragraph 427, tariff act of 1909, and they were properly dutiable 
 under that paragraph. United States v. Veith (No. 1357), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal toy the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7539 (T. D. 34245). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 34478; May 18, 1914.) 
 
 Shoe buttons of mother-of-pearl — 
 Shoe buttons made of mother-of-pearl under the act of 1913 are dutiable at 15 per 
 cent under the eo nomine provision of paragraph 339, and not as buttons of shell 
 and pearl, as provided for in the same paragraph. 
 
94 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Buttons — Continued. 
 Shoe buttons of mother-of-pearl — Continued. 
 
 Construction of a statute — -Most specific provision: When Congress has desig- 
 nated an article by a specific name and by such name imposed a duty upon it, 
 general terms in the same act, although sufficiently broad to comprehend such 
 article, are not applicable to it. — Arthur v. Lahey (96 U. S. 112). (T. D. 
 34784^-G. A. 7598; Sept. 21, 1914.) 
 Vest buttons, brass-plated — 
 The importation was of buttons made of brass, plated, and some of these were 
 studded with imitation precious stones. To bring these biittons within the pro- 
 -visions of paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, they should be found to be either 
 dress buttons set with imitation precious stones composed of glass Or paste, or 
 brass should compose their value in chief, or they should be designed for per- 
 sonal adornment, and in any of these cases be valued in addition at not less than 
 20 cents per dozen. This importation on examination appears to fall within the 
 provisions of paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, and giving the collector's decision 
 the benefit of the presimiption of correctness to which it is entitled, the goods 
 are dutiable under that paragraph. Lent v. United States (No. 420), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from a decision of the 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23614 (T. D. 30754). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31549; Apr. 24, 1911.) 
 By-products, withdrawal of from bonded manufacturing warehouses. (See 
 Warehouses.) 
 
 C. 
 
 Cabbages, prepared or preserved. (See Vegetables, prepared.) 
 
 Cabinet wood. (See Wood, cabinet.) 
 
 Cachet El Tiemac. (See Opium.) 
 
 Cadmium sulphide. 
 A pigment or color — 
 The importation may be described as a pigment or color, or as a chemical com- 
 pound or salt. Its place in science and commerce, however, has apparently 
 been fixed by its use and by its being chiefly known as a pigment or color. 
 This designation is the more specific and it must prevail as against one more gen- 
 eral in kind, and without any limitation as to use or other qualification. It 
 was dutiable as assessed under paragraph 58, tariff act of 1897. — Fink v. United 
 States (170 U. S., 584). Drakenfeld & Co. v. United States (No. 685), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from decision of 
 the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6659 (T. D. 28402). Transferred from 
 United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 32248; Feb. 1, 1912.) 
 
 Caffeine. (See Medicinal preparations.) • 
 
 Cakes. 
 Honey cakes or so-called gingerbread — 
 There was no testimony introduced as to the characteristics of the articles nor any 
 samples. But from the appraiser's statement it is concluded the goods do not 
 contain chocolate, nuts, fruit, or confectionery of any kind and are so excluded 
 from paragraph 194, tariff act of 1913. The record does not sustain the claim 
 that they are biscuits, bread, or wafers entitled to free entry under paragraph 
 417. The record does support the claim that the goods are classifiable as a non- 
 enumerated manufactured article under paragraph 385 of the act. United 
 States V. Neuman & Schwiers Co. (No. 1536), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the Government from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 37192. Decision modified. (T. D. 35467; May 18, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 95 
 
 Calaimine. (See Ores, zinc.) 
 Calcutta, meichandise from. 
 
 Date of sailing of vessels wUl be noted on triplicate copy of invoice by the consul 
 general. (T. D. 31778; July 26, 1911.) 
 Calendars. 
 Lithographic — 
 Calendars composed of lithographed sheets with a metal strip at each end, and 
 having a calendar pad composed of lithographed sheets attached thereto, the 
 lithographic prints being the most important feature of the importation, are 
 dutiable under paragraph 400, tariff act of 1897, relating to Uthographic prints, 
 bound or unbound, rather than as printed matter (par. 403) or as manufactures 
 of paper (par. 407). Luyties v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, June 30, 1910. Suit 5468. Appeal by the 
 importers from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 20772 
 (T. D. 29618). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30840; Aug. 2, 
 1910.) 
 Painted — 
 Hand-painted panels to which small calendars, a trifling part of the entire article, 
 are affixed, are dutiable as "paintings" under paragraph 454, tariff act of 1897. 
 Vantine v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 New York, March 16, 1909. Suit 5192. Appeal by importer from decision of 
 Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 17894 (T. D. 28687). Board reversed. 
 (T. D. 29647; Mar. 24, 1909.) Acquiesced in by Government. (T. D. 29697; 
 Apr. 19, 1909.) 
 Camel' s-halr press cloth mats. (See Hair press cloth.) 
 Cameos, shell. (See Precious stones.) 
 
 Camera tripods not dutiable as parts of cameras. (See Metal, manufactures of.) 
 Camphor. 
 Refined — 
 Refined camphor in two-thirds ounce tablets, packed in tin cans containing 24 
 tablets each, dutiable at the rate of 5 cents per pound under paragraph 36, 
 tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34612; July 1, 1914.) 
 Synthetic — 
 Synthetic camphor, though in a sense a chemical compound, is not dutiable as 
 such, but is subject to the same classification as natural camphor; and a grade 
 of synthetic which resembles crude more than refined natural camphor is 
 subject to classification as "camphor, crude," under paragraph 515, tariff act 
 of 1897, rather than as "camphor, refined," under paragraph 12. United 
 States V. Schering (2 cases). United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second 
 Circuit, June 8, 1908. Suits 4182 and 4186. Appeal from Circuit Court of 
 United States for Southern District of New York (T. D. 28576), affirming G. A. 
 • 6263 (T. D. 26995) and Abstract 9901 (T. D. 27087). Decision adverse to Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 29077; June 17, 1908.) Acquiesced in July 25, 1908. (T. D. 
 29181.) 
 (See also Naphthalin and camphor.) 
 Canada, sealing cars in. 
 
 Customs officers stationed in Montreal and Vancouver, Canada, to seal cars as 
 provided for in section 3102 of the Revised Statutes. Articles 425, 426, and 
 427 of the Customs Regulations of 1908, amended.) (T. D. 32772; Aug. 24, 
 1912.) 
 Canadian reciprocity. (See Reciprocity.) 
 
96 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Canal Zone. 
 
 Bills of health— 
 Special-original and supplemental bills of health to be issued by medical officers 
 of the United States Public Health Service to vessels departing from United 
 States ports to the Canal Zone. (T. D. 34759; Sept. 3, 1914.) 
 Importations from — 
 Importations into the United States from the Panama Canal Zone, since the ces- 
 sion of such territory to the United States, are dutiable. Kaufman v. Smith, 
 United States Circuit Court," District of New Jersey, January 13, 1909. Action 
 to recover customs duties paid to the collector of customs at Newark, N. J. 
 Decision ill favor of the Government. (T. D. 30254; Jan. 11, 1910.) 
 
 Candle lamps, with beaded shades. (See Lamps.) 
 
 Caudle shades, appliquSd. (See AppUqufid articles.) 
 
 Candles — Paraffin tapers. (See Wax, manufactures of.) 
 
 Cane handles set with precious stones. (See Umbrella and cane handles, etc.) 
 
 Canes, composed of metal. 
 
 Walking canes composed wholly of metal, and such as are composed of metal with 
 an attachment to the handle in the form of an electric light, were not dutiable as 
 manufactures of metal under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, but as "walking 
 canes" under paragraph 478 of said act, the latter provision being unlimited aa 
 to component materials. (T. D. 32272— G. A. 7328; Feb. 13, 1912.) 
 
 Canned beef and mushrooms. (See Meat, prepared.) 
 
 Canned vegetables. (See Vegetables, preserved.) 
 
 Cans, hermetically sealed. (See Coverings, metal.) 
 
 Canvas hose. (See Hose.) 
 
 Capers. 
 Pickled- 
 Capers pickled in vinegar, which are used in flavoring sauces and otherwise as a 
 condiment, are dutiable under paragraph 241, tariff act of 1897, relating to 
 "pickles and sauces of aU kinds." Articles are not to be excluded from the 
 provision in paragraph 241, tariff act of 1897, for "vegetables * * *, includ- 
 ing pickles and sauces of all kinds, " on the groimd that they are not palatable 
 or desirable as a distinct and separate eatable, or are not what are known as gar- 
 den vegetables. The use, rather than strict botanical classification, is the 
 determinative factor; and capers, which.are flower buds but are used as pickles 
 or as a sauce, are included in said provision. Articles are not to be removed 
 from a provision for pickles and sauces and placed in a provision for drugs, 
 simply because a medical or therapeutic property may be extracted from them. 
 Pierce v. United States, United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, 
 February 12, 1910. No. 114 (suit 1775). Appeal by the importer from a deci- 
 sion of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6201 (T. D. 26849). Board 
 affirmed. (T. D. 30367; Feb. 21, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) A review of tariff legislation from 1790 and of the pertinent 
 decisions of courts tails to disclose any legislative purpose or uniform customs 
 practice indicating an intent to classify capers either as pickles or as vegetables 
 prepared or preserved; and capers, being a condiment used to flavor vegetables 
 and meats rather than an edible vegetable, were not dutiable under paragraph 
 241, tariff act of 1897, but as an unenumerated article in whole or in part manu- 
 factured, under the provisions of section 6 of that act. The rule that long- 
 continued practice in customs cases should control in the classification of com- 
 modities is based on sound reason, but practice can not establish an arbitrary or 
 wholly conclusive classification. Pierce v. United States (No. 53), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from the decision 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 97 
 
 Capers— Continued . 
 Pickled — Continued. 
 
 of the United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts (T. D. 30367), 
 affirming G. A. 6201 (T. D. 26849). Decision reversed. Transferred from 
 United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts (T. D. 26849). (T. D. 
 31215; Jan. 11, 1911.) 
 Pickled capers are dutiable under paragraph 253, tariff act of 1909, aa "pickles." 
 The word "pickles" as u!5ed in paragraph 253, tariff act of 1909, is unlimited, 
 and has a more general application than was given to the word as used in para- 
 graph 241, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 31496— G. A. 7207; Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) There is no limitation on the word "pickles" as used in para- 
 graph 253, tariff act of 1909, and pickled capers are dutiable under it. In the 
 presence of clear and explicit enactment, canons of construction have n- o appli- 
 cation— Microutsicos V. United States (T. D. 32078). Godillot & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 680), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7207 (T. D. 
 81496). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32168; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 In salt: Capers packed in salt dutiable under the provision in paragraph 480, 
 tariff act of 1909, for articles manufactured in whole or in part. 
 
 In vinegar: Capers put up in vinegar and imported in bottles or in casks duti- 
 able as pickles under paragraph 253, tariff act of 1909. 
 
 "Pickles" — Commercial designation: The term "pickles" as used in para- 
 graph 253, tariff act of 1909, is to be given the broad ordinary- meaning usually 
 attributed to it in usage among people generally, and is not susceptible of a 
 trade interpretation differing from its ordinary meaning. (T. D. 32978 — G. A. 
 7405, Nov. 25, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The importation is of capers, but these capers possess certain 
 qualities and characteristics that bring them within the class of pickles. This 
 applies to those that are washed and treated with fresh vinegar after importation 
 as well as to those that do not re'uire such treatment. Austin, Nichols & Co. v. 
 United States (No. 1080), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7405 
 (T. D. 32978). Decision affirmed. _ (T. D. 33483; May 23, 1913.) 
 Capsicene. (See Medicinal preparations— Gingerine and Capsicene.) 
 Capsules, filled. (See Coverings.) 
 Carat. .' 
 
 Weight of precious stones. (See Precious stones, weight of.) 
 Carbolineum America. (See Coal-tar preparations.) 
 Carbou, manufactures of. 
 Battery rods made of carbon — 
 
 The rods of the importation, when fitted with brass caps, make poles of a galvanic 
 battery of a kind, though not completed poles. Reviewing the legislative 
 -history of paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, and the construction it has received 
 by the courts, the intention is manifest that articles like those described are 
 not subject to the duties imposed by that paragraph upon articles and wares 
 composed of earthy or mineral substances. The merchandise is a manufacture 
 of carbon and is classifiable and^dutiable as a nonenumerated manufacture 
 under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909. Stegemann v. United States (No. 962), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28757 (T. D. 32584). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 33197; Feb. 12, 1913.) 
 Carbonade. (See Diamonds, miners.) 
 45633°— 17 7 
 
98 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Caibosolite. 
 
 Carbosolite dutiable as an article composed in chief value of earthy or mineral 
 substance at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 81, tariff act of 
 1913. (T. D. 34885; Nov. 7, 1914.) 
 Cardamom oil. (See Oils, essential.) 
 Cardboard. 
 Trade designation — 
 The term ' ' cardboard " has acquired in trade an extended meaning which includes 
 the different kinds of paper boards. Held, accordingly, that a so-called leather 
 board used in the manufacture of suit cases is dutiable under the provision in 
 paragraph 415, tariff act of 1909, as "cardboard," being one of the paper boards 
 covered by that term. The provision in said paragraph 415 for "cardboard" 
 held to be more specific than that in paragraph 411 for "papers" with the sur- 
 face decorated or covered with a design, fancy effect, etc. Therefore, a leather 
 . board with an embossed grain in imitation of leather is dutiable under para- 
 graph 415 as "cardboard," rather than under paragraph 411 as "papers" with 
 a decorated surface. (T. D. 30826— G. A. 7078: July 25, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Cardboard embossed to imitate leather. — Plain cardboard that 
 has been embossed to give it an appearance of grain leather by passing it be 
 tween a smooth and an indented roller remains cardboard ; and it is not dutiable 
 as paper, but as cardboard, under paragraph 415, tariff act of 1909. United 
 States V. Meyerson (No. 547), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7078 (T. D. 30826). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31953; Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 Cardboard advertising signs. (See Advertising matter.) 
 Cardboard covering. (See Covering, cartons, etc.) 
 Card cases. (See Toilet accessories.) 
 Card clothing. (See Entireties, card clothing.) 
 Card form of manifest. (See Manifest.) 
 
 Carding machine with card clothing — -Entirety. (See Entirety.) 
 Cards, folding. (See Post cards, folding.) 
 Cargoes. 
 
 No information in regard to outward cargoes to be given out until 30 days after 
 clearance. (T. D. 34868; Oct. 28, 1914.) 
 Publication of information of outward cargoes — 
 T. D. 34868, relative to the making public of information regarding outward car- 
 goes and the destination thereof, revoked, and previous practice restored. 
 (T. D. 35128; Feb. 12, 1915.) 
 Carica papaya. 
 
 Carica papaya dutiable at the rate of one-fourth of 1 cent per pound and 10 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 20, tariff act of 1909. T. D. 32614; June 10, 
 1912.) 
 Carmelite ware. 
 Earthenware — 
 
 So-called carmelite ware, consisting of earthen cooking ware of a dark-brown 
 color, some of the articles having a white lining and some not lined, are duti- 
 able as earthenware "not ornamented or decorated," under paragraph 96, 
 tariffactof 1897, rather than as "common * * * brown * * * earthen- 
 ware * * * not decorated in any manner," undej- paragraph 94. Thur- 
 nauer v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, May 12, 1908. Suit 4259. Appeal by importer from decision by Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6359 (T. D. 27327). Board sus- 
 tained. (T. D. 29014; May 20, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 99 
 
 Carmelite ware — Continued. 
 Enameled — 
 
 So-called carmeUte ware, a brown earthenware the outside of which is covered 
 with a transparent glaze or enamel and the inside of which is covered with a 
 white glaze or «namel, leaving the completed article brown on the outside and 
 white on the inside, is both enameled and colored within the meaning of pars^ 
 graph 93, act of 1909. The words "plain white, plain brown," in paragraph 93, 
 mean that the ware must be either all plain white or all plain brown. The omis- 
 sion of the word "otherwise" preceding the words "ornamented or decorated" 
 in said paragraph changes the rule laid down in Koscherak v. United States 
 (98 Fed. Kep., 596), and all wares enumerated in this paragraph, if "painted, 
 tinted, stained, enameled, gilded, or printed," come within its provisions, 
 whether the painting, tinting, staining, enameUng, gilding, or printing con- 
 stitutes a decoration or ornamentation or not. In reenacting a paragraph of 
 the tariff law the omission therefrom by Congress of words which the court had 
 theretofore held gave to it acertain meaning which otherwise it would not have 
 had, indicates the intent of Congress to change the rule which the court's con- 
 struction had established. Arnold v. United" States (147 U. S., 494). (T. D. 
 30543— G. A. 7009; Apr. 13, 1910.) 
 The importation is of earthenware cooking utensils known as carmelite ware, and 
 these are in the shape of bowls. The bowls have had imposed on them a thin 
 white layer of vitreous glass, forming a smooth, hard coating that differs in color 
 and character from the body on which it is laid and so constituting a new 
 surface. These articles are enameled; they are recognized in the trade as 
 enameled, and as such they were properly dutiable under paragraph 93, tariff 
 act of 1909. They were in fact assessed erroneously at a lower rate than the 
 proper rate, and accordingly, as the appellants are not in a position to complain, 
 the decision of the board is affirmed. Frank v. United States (No. 562), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from a decision of 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24234 (T. D. 31103). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31633; May 22, 1911.) 
 . Camauba-wax substitute. (See Wax-carnauba.) 
 
 Carriages not personal effects. (See Effects, personal.) 
 
 Carrier's special manifest. (See Manifests.) 
 
 Cartage charges. (See Charges, drayage.) 
 
 Carved wooden columns. (See Works of art, carved wooden columns.) 
 
 Casein. (See Lactarene.) 
 
 Cases. (See Coverings, cartons, etc.) 
 
 Cash boxes. 
 
 The comprehensive language of the provision in paragraph 195, tariff act of 1909, 
 for "cans, boxes, packages, and other containers of all kinds * * * com- 
 posed wholly or in chief value of metal lacquered or printed by any process of 
 lithography whatever * * *, " does not warrant a construction which would 
 restrict its operation to containers that are suitable only for some particular use, 
 such as the holdin? or transportation of merchandise. Cash boxes made of the 
 material mentioned in the tariff provision cited above are dutiable thereunder. 
 (T. D. 32821— G. A. 7391; Sept. 11, 1912.) 
 
 Cashmere goat hair. (See Goat hair, cashmere.) 
 
 Casting lines. (See Fishing tackle, parts of.— Gut leaders.) 
 
 Castings. 
 Galvanized date nails not malleable-iron castings. (See Metal, manufactures of.) 
 Malleable iron. (See Iron.) 
 Mantel interiors and friezes not castings nor cast-iron plates. (See Mantel interiors.) 
 
100 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Cast-iron. 
 Disks — 
 Cast-iron disks, when subjected to processes of manufacture, are not "plates" 
 within the meaning of paragraph 148, tariff act of 1897, and were dutiable imder 
 paragraph 193 of that act. Prosser v. United States (No. 25), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importer from decision of the Board of 
 General Appraisers (T. D. 28276). Transferred from the United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York. Decision in favor of the Government. 
 (T. D. 30850; July 25, 1910.) 
 Cast-iron grinders which have been finished by machinery after the completion of 
 the casting process are dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 147, tariff act 
 of 1909, as iron castings advanced in condition subsequent to casting. The 
 phrase "but not made up into articles" will not operate so as to exclude a fin- 
 ished casting, but applies to such as are made into or form a part of something 
 else. (T. D. 30981— G. A. 7106; Oct. 6, 1910.) 
 Machine parts. (See Machine parts.) 
 
 Kickel-plated eccentrics for sewing machines. (See Machine parts.) 
 Statues. (See Statuary, cast-iron.) 
 Castor beans or seed. 
 Tare — 
 The ordinary impurities of merchandise, such as dirt and other materials, do not 
 constitute tare, but the extraordinary impurities, ^ch as are uncommonly pres- 
 ent in the merchandise as bought and sold in trade and commerce, are alone the 
 subject of allowance for dutiable purposes. (T. D. 33692 — G. A. 7487; Aug. 12, 
 1913.) 
 Castor oil In capsules. (See Medicinal preparation.) 
 Cast-steel grinders. 
 
 Pieces of cast steel upon which machine work had been done after being cast, and 
 so forming a combination of parts ready in the condition as imported for imme- 
 diate use in a cement mill, are not "plates' ' as provided for under paragraph 135, 
 tariff act of 1897, but are finished articles and were dutiable under paragraph 193 
 of the said act. United States v. Prosser (No. 24), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal from decisions of Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 
 26835; T. D. 27493). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30848; 
 July 25, 1910.) 
 Catalogues, etc., for gratuitous circulation. (See Publications.) 
 Catgut. 
 Colored — 
 Catgut used in making or binding tennis rackets, which has been colored during 
 the processes of preparation but has not been changed in form, use, or name by 
 such coloring, is still catgut, and not a manufacture thereof, and is entitled to 
 free entry under pragraph 529 of the tariff act of 1909.— G. A. 5800 (T. D. 25630), 
 Abstract 7780 (T. D. 26655), Kreshower v. United States (152 Fed., 485; T. D. 
 27826), G. A. 5887 (T. D. 25940), Abstract 35422 (T. D. 34416), Hartranft v. 
 Wiegmann (121 U. S., 609) cited. (T. D. 34907— G. A. 7634; Nov. 14, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The coloring here is not a process occurring after the manufac- 
 ture of the catgut, but pending the manufacture. Whatever the object of the 
 coloring, the articles are manufactured in precisely the same form as the white 
 article, and the colored article is not a manufacture of catgut. 
 
 Catgut and whip gut. — ^Paragraph 509 of the free list provides for "catgut, whip 
 gut, or worm gut, unmanufactured." The terms "catgut" and "whip gut" are 
 often used interchangeably. Whip gut or whipcord is the result of the process of 
 the manufacture of gut into a twisted article, which clearly falls within para- 
 graph 509. 
 
DIGEST o» Customs Decision's, 1908-1915. 101 
 
 Catgut— Continued. 
 Colored — ^Continued. 
 
 Whip gut — Tennis rackets. — The fact that whip gut, the result of such manu- 
 facture, is of a length suitable for use in the manufacture of tennis rackets, does 
 not remove it from the free list provision, as the record discloses that this is the 
 length in which whipcord so manufactured is produced in the first instance. 
 United States v. American Express Co. et al. (No. 1498), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Government from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7634 (T. D. 34907). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 35275; Mar. 25, 1915.) 
 Manufacture of-^ 
 This merchandise consists of various strands of gut twisted in the form of a rope or 
 cable and then apparently coated with a light varnishlike material. It clearly 
 falls within the description of a manufacture of catgut. — Fischer v. United 
 States (5 Ct. Oust. Appls., — ; T. D. 34477). United States v. Sheldon & Co. 
 (No. 1406), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers,. Abstract 35422 (T. D. 
 34416). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34944; Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 Unmanufactured — ■ 
 Catgut suitable as strings for musical instruments not classifiable as catgut, unman- 
 ufactured. 
 (See Musical instruments, strings for.) 
 Catsup, Walnut. 
 
 Walnut catsup is dutiable as a sauce under paragraph 241, tariff act of 1897, and 
 not as an unenumerated manufactured article imder section 6. (T. D. 29713 — 
 G. A. 6900; Apr. 26, 1909.) 
 Cattle-hair cloth and zibeline, or ripple, cloth. 
 
 Cattle-hair cloth containing small percentage of mohair dutiable at the rate of 25 
 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 288, tariff act of 1913; zibeline, or ripple, 
 cloth dutiable at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 308 of said 
 act. (T. D. 34624; July 10, 1914.) 
 Cattle-hair goods. 
 
 Cattle-hair goods are dutiable by similitude as manufactures of wool under para- 
 graph 366, tariff act of 1897. Rosenstern v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, November 28, 1908. Suit 5152. Appli- 
 cation for review of decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 6686 (T. D. 28592). Decision in favor of Government. (T. D. 29390; 
 Dec. 9, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Similitude to wool. — Cattle-hair goods are dutiable by similitude 
 as manufactures of wool under paragraph 366, tariff act of 1897. Rosenstern v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, May 25, 
 1909. No. 249 (suit 5152). Appeal by importer from the Circuit Court of 
 the United States for the Southern District of New York. Decision in favor of 
 the Government. (T. D. 29825; June 8, 1909.) 
 
 Rosenstern v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second 
 Circuit, June 9, 1909. No. 249 (suit 5152). On petition for rehearing (T. D. 
 29825). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29839; June 15, 1909.) 
 Cattle. 
 Hides. (See Hides.) 
 Neat— 
 The prohibition in subsection 1, paragraph H, section 4, tariff act of October 3, 
 1913, suspended as to neat cattle from New Zealand. T. D. 23546 of February 
 27, 1902, amended accordingly, (T. D. 34765; Sept. 17, 1914.) 
 
102 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Cattle — Continued. 
 Prohibited importations — 
 The importation from Canada of cattle, sheep, other ruminants, or swine pro- 
 hibited. T. D. 34900, November 16, 1914, revoked December 1, 1914 (T. D. 
 34952). 
 Singapore bufialoes not. (See Hides, buffalo.) 
 Straying across border — "Importation" — 
 Grazing cattle straying into the United States across the Canadian border held 
 not to be "imported merchandise" within the meaning of subsection 9, section 
 28, tariff act of 1909, and therefore not subject to forfeiture. United States v. 
 Eighty-five head of cattle. District Court, District of Montana, May 24, 1913. 
 (T. D. 33739; Sept. 13, 1913.) 
 Tick-infested, from Mexico — 
 Regulations governing importation of tick-intested cattle from Mexico at the ports 
 
 of Eagle Pass, Laredo, and Brownsville, Tex. (T. D. 31394; Mar. 17, 1911.) 
 Texas City, Tex., added to the list of ports designated in T. D. 31394 and T. D. 
 31442 for the admission of tick-infested cattle from Mexico. (T. D. 31468; Apr. 
 6, 1911.) 
 Cauliflower in brine. (See Vegetables, prepared.) 
 Caustic potash. (See Potash.) 
 Caviar. (See Pish.) 
 
 Cedar telephone poles. (See Telephone poles.) 
 Celery seed. 
 
 Judicial notice will be taken of the prominent, important, and generally known 
 facts of vegetable growth and life ; but such facts as are of minor importance, not 
 actually within the sphere of common observation and knowledge, will not be 
 judicially noticed, even though such facts may be ascertained by reference to 
 technical treatises. The evidence, while not ample, is sufficient to support 
 the finding that the importation was not garden celery seed, but celery seed of 
 the aromatic kind, used commonly in the drug trade, and as such was free of • 
 duty under the tariff act of 1909. United States v. Squibb & Sons (No. 732), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 26002 (T. D. 31727). 
 Decision aflSrmed. (T. D. 32081; Nov. 28, 1911.) 
 CeUon. (See Gelatin.) 
 Cellophane. (See Gelatin.) 
 Celluloid. 
 Articles composed of — 
 The provision in paragraph 17, tariff act of 1909, for finished or partly finished 
 articles of which collodion or any compound of pyroxylin or of other cellulose 
 esters is the component material of chief value, includes finished or partly fin- 
 ished articles composed entirely thereof. (T. D. 30634— G. A. 7022; May 19, 
 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Combs, boxes, and handles made wholly of pyroxylin or cellu- 
 loid are dutiable under paragraph 17, tariff act of 1909. Cauvigny Brush Co. 
 V. United States (No. 281), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from decision of the Board of United States General Apprais- 
 ers (G. A. 7022— T. D. 30634). Board affirmed. (T. D. 31118; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 Articles composed of two or more component parts, one of which is celluloid, 
 which is the component of chief value therein, are dutiable under paragraph 17 
 of_ the tariff act of 1909 at the rate of 65 cents per pound and 30 per cent ad 
 valorem on the total weight and value of such articles. (T, D. 31296 — G. A. 
 7167; Feb. 11, 1911.) 
 
1908-1915. 103 
 
 Celluloid — Continued. 
 Articles composed of — Continued. 
 
 Articles made wholly of celluloid are dutiable as finished or partly finished articles 
 of which collodion or any compound of pyroxylin or of other cellulose esters is 
 the component material of chief value at 65 cents per pound and 30 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 17 of the tariff act of 1909. Cauvigny Brush Co. v. 
 United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 118; T. D. 31118) followed. (T. D. 31849— 
 G. A. 7269; Sept. 9, 1911.) 
 Imitation flowers. (See Flowers, artificial, celluloid.) 
 Martingale rings and loops. (See Pyroxylin.) 
 
 Set with imitation precious stones. (See Precious stones, imitation.) 
 Sheets- 
 Celluloid sheets, cut from a block of plastic material, seasoned, and then straight- 
 ened by pressing several sheets together with a hydraulic press, are not polished 
 within the meaning of the last clause of paragraph 25, tariff act of 1913, nor are 
 they finished articles within the meaning of that clause, but should be classified 
 under the second clause of said paragraph, covering blocks, sheets, rods, and 
 tubes, not polished, wholly or partly, and not made into finished or partly 
 finished articles, at 25 per cent ad valorem. Semble as to rods and tubes 
 molded from a block and not polished. Junge v. Hedden (146 U. S., 233) and 
 United States v. Eschwege (98 Fed., 600) distinguished. (T. D. 35245— G. A. 
 7701; Mar. 18, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) When not partly polished. — Celluloid sheets, tubes, and rods, 
 which have not been subjected to any process designed to polish them, but 
 which may have been polished to some extent as an incident to their undergoing 
 a process for smoothing and straightening them, are dutiable at 25 per cent ad 
 valorem as "not polished, wholly or partly," under the second clause of para- 
 graph 25, tariff act of 1913. United States v. M. G. Cohn Co. (No. 1554), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7701 (T. D. 35245). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 35979; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 Celluloid in sheets advanced beyond the condition of unpolished sheets by being 
 subjected to hydraulic pressure dutiable at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 25, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34394; Apr. 18, 1914.) 
 Cellulose — Watte or Watoline. 
 
 An article called "Cellulose watte" or "Watoline," composed of anumber of lay- 
 ers of thin, soft, craped paper, is dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 410, 
 tariff act of 1909. That paragraph provides for crgpe paper, bibulous paper, 
 tissue paper, and for all papers not specially provided for, weighing not over 6 
 pounds to the ream, and the final clause therein subjects articles made from such 
 papers to at least the rate of duty imposed by the paragraph on the specified 
 papers. Held, that there was no error in assessing the cellulose watte or wato- 
 line at the rate applicable to crSpe paper. (T. D. 33347 — G. A. 7456; Apr. 15, 
 1913.) 
 Cement, Keene's. (See Keene's cement.) 
 Ceramic colors. (See Colors.) 
 Certificates of deposit. 
 
 Proper disposition of certificates of deposit. (T. D. 33351; circular No. 12; Apr. 
 17, 1913.) 
 Certificates of exportation. 
 American goods exported and returned — 
 Where goods have been exported from one port of the United States and later are 
 returned for entry at another port, and when free entry of these goods as of domes- 
 tic growth, produce, or manufacture is claimed, it is a reasonable exercise of the 
 
104 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Certificates of ezpoitation — Continued. 
 American goods exported and returned — Continued. 
 
 power vested in the Secretary of the Treasury for him to require a certificate 
 showing the fact of original exportation ; and it appearing the collector at the port 
 of entry did not waive the production of such a certificate, and such a certificate 
 not having been produced, an appeal will not lie against the collector's decision 
 holding the goods dutiable. Lunham v. United States (No. 271), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from the decision of the 
 Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 27576). Transferred from 
 United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 31258; Jan. 25, 1911.) 
 Animals — 
 
 Certificates of exportation for horses taken abroad for exhibition purposes should 
 be issued directly to the collector of customs.at the port of entry at which such 
 horses are to be returned to this country in the same manner that certificates of 
 exportation are issued for domestic products. (Art. 575 of the Customs Regu- 
 lations of 1908 amended accordingly.) 
 
 Certificates of exportation covering theatrical effects taken into Canada or 
 Mexico for temporary use may be issued directly to exporter, under the provi- 
 sions of article 631 of the Customs Regulations of 1908. (T. D. 30512; Apr. 7, 
 1910.) 
 
 Approximate weight of horses need not be stated in certificates of exportation. 
 T. D. 28550, of November 26, 1907, amended. (T. D. 34520; June 8, 1914.) 
 Emergency revenue law — Stamp tax — 
 
 Certificates of exportation of domestic merchandise (Cat. No. 4467) are not sub- 
 ject to tax under the act of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 35014: Dec. 28, 1914.) 
 Waiver of — 
 
 Production of certificate of exportation upon the entry of domestic products 
 exported and returned should be waived only upon the filing of an afiidavit by 
 the importer or consignee showing that it is impracticable to produce the same 
 and when collector is satisfied from an examination that the merchandise is in 
 fact of domestic production. (T. D. 30510; Apr. 7, 1910.) 
 Certification of export manifests. 
 
 Under certain conditions exports may be laden under customs supervision and 
 manifests thereof certified by collectors of customs. (T. D. 35050; Jan. 5, 1915.) 
 Certificates of origin. (See Philippine Islands.) 
 Certificates of value issued by chambers of commerce. 
 
 Certain British chambers of commerce added to list published in T. D. 28369, and 
 Edinburgh, Dublin, and Huddersfield withdrawn from said list. (T. D. 28764; 
 Feb. 13, 1908.) 
 
 Certificates of value issued by the committee of the Wholesale Merchants' Assodar 
 tion of Copenhagen to be accepted as in the case of German chambers of com- 
 merce. (T. D. 29417; Dec. 17, 1908.) 
 
 The German agreement (and the regulations made by the Secretary of the Treas- 
 iiry based thereon) containing a stipulation to the effect that certificates of 
 value issued by German chambers of commerce should be accepted by ap- 
 praisers as competent evidence, applies only to questions of value that come 
 up in reappraisement proceedings, and does not apply to the many questions 
 of fact arising with reference to the proper classification and dutiable character 
 of imported commodities; (T. D. 28800— G. A. 6727; Feb. 18, 1908.) 
 
 Certificates of value issued by Japanese chambers of commerce will be accepted 
 as in the case of German chambers of commerce. (T. D. 29150; July 9, 1908.) 
 
 Chambers of cominerce of Leith and Kirkcaldy added to the lists published in 
 T. D. 28369 and T. D. 28764. (T. D. 28982; May 9, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 105 
 
 Certificates of value issued by chambers of commerce — Continued. 
 
 Certificates of values issued by chambers of commerce and factories of the Neth- 
 erlands will be accepted as in the case of German chambers of commerce. 
 (T. D. 28869; Mar. 17, 1908.) 
 Certificates of value issued by certain Russian exchange committees to be ac- 
 cepted as in the case of German chambers of commerce. (T. D. 28906; Mar. 
 31, 1908.) 
 Certificates of value issued by chambers of commerce of Spain will be accepted 
 as in the case of German chambers of commerce. (T. D. 29290; Oct. 7, 1908.) 
 Certificates of weight, gauge, or measure, charges for. (See Charges, etc.) 
 Certified checks. 
 
 Acceptance of certified checks in payment of all public dues, including special 
 customs deposits authorized (act of Congress, Mar. 2, 1911, as amended by act 
 of Mar. 3, 1913). (T. D. 33296; circular No. 11; Mar. 27, 1913.) 
 Ceylon oil. (See Oils, essential.) 
 Chain valued at less than 30 cents per yard. 
 
 Chain valued at less than 30 cents per yard, intended for use in the manufacture 
 of articles provided for in paragraph 356, tariff act of 1913, dutiable at the rate 
 of 50 per cent ad valorem under the said paragraph. (T. D. 34177; Feb. 11, 
 1914.) 
 Chains. 
 Bead. (See Toys.) 
 Fan. (See Beaded articles.) 
 Necklaces. (See Jewelry, necklaces.) 
 Muff. (See Muff chains of iron or steel.) 
 Old iron. (See Iron, old, chains.) 
 Chair reeds. (See Rattan reeds.) 
 
 Chairs, partly finished. (See Furniture, partly finished.) 
 Chalk. 
 French, powdered talc not. (See Talc.) 
 Precipitated — 
 
 "Toilet purposes:" Precipitated chalk ready for use in the preparation of tooth 
 powder is not "chalk (not * * * prepared for toilet purposes)," under 
 paragraph 13, tariff act of 1897, but is dutiable as manufactures of chalk under 
 the same paragraph. United States v. Anderson, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, March 11, 1909. Suit 5328. Appeal by Unite d 
 States from decision of Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 19346 (T. D. 
 29159). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29631; Mar. 17, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) "Manufacture" — Artificial precipitation — "Prepared for toilet 
 purposes." — ^The article produced by the artificial precipitation of chalk is not 
 "manufactures" of chalk withiu the meaning of paragraph 13, tariff act of 1897, 
 but is chalk itself. While in the provision in paragraph 13, tariff act of 1897, 
 for "chalk prepared for toilet purposes" the preparation referred to is not per- 
 haps such as is necessary to make a completed toilet article, there must be ad- 
 vancement toward use for toilet purposes by the admixture of flavoring or other 
 ingredients or otherwise; and chalk that has been merely precipitated artifi- 
 cially, bolted, and packed in bags is not within that provision. Chalk precipi- 
 tated artificially, bolted, and packed in bags is dutiable as chalk artificially 
 precipitated, under paragraph 13, tariff act of 1897, rather than as manufactures 
 of chalk under the same paragraph. While in construing customs laws consid- 
 eration should be given the circumstance that there has been a long-continued 
 practice in the aasespjnent of an article of importation, this circumstance should 
 not control in what is not a doubtful case. United States v. Anderson, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, December 14, 1909. No. 99 
 (suit 5328). Appeal by the United States from the Circuit Court of the United 
 
106 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Chalk — Continued. 
 Fiecipitated — Continued. 
 
 States for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29631), affirming Abstract 
 19346 (T. D. 29159). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30216; 
 Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Chamois skins. 
 
 Sheepskins which have been tanned by the same special processes as chamois 
 skins, but not finished so as to be adaptable to any of the practical uses to which 
 such chamois skins are ordinarily applied, Held not to be subject to duty under 
 the eo nomine provision for chamois skins in paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, but 
 under the provision in said paragraph for "all other leather, * * * not 
 specially provided for. " G. A. 7075 (T. D. 30799) cited and distinguished. (T. 
 D. 32526— G. A. 7365; May 13, 1912.) 
 Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of May 13, 1912, G. A. 
 7365 (T. D. 32526), supra, not to be followed in the classification of similar mer- 
 chandise until the question of the proper classification of this merchandise finally 
 adjudicated. (T. D. 32898; Oct. 29, 1912.) 
 Crust chamois skins finished ready for use in cleaning automobiles, carriages, har- 
 ness, and windows, and known commercially as chamois skins, were dutiable 
 at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under the special eo nomine provision in 
 paragraph 451 of the tariff act of 1909. G. A. 7365 (T. D. 32526) cited and modi- 
 fied accordingly. (T. D. 33143— G. A. 7425; Jan. 31, 1913.) 
 Pieces of chamois or chamois skin, the terms being interchangeable, have not 
 become manufactures of leather by being cut into particular sizes and by hav- 
 ing their edges scalloped. They remain chamois or chamois skin and were 
 dutiable as such under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909. United States v. 
 American Express Co. (No. 1261), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 32274 (T. D. 33578). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34170; Jan. 29, 
 1914.) 
 Sheepskins split and dressed as chamois skins are not dutiable under the provision 
 for split leather in paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909. Such skins bought and sold 
 uniformly in the commerce of the United States as chamois skins are dutiable 
 under the eo nomine provision therefor under paragraph 451 of said act. (T. D. 
 30799— G. A. 7075; July 18, 1910.) 
 
 Change of duties. (See Duty, change of.) 
 
 Charcoal. 
 
 Charcoal for censers, which upon examination is shown to be a mixture of charcoal 
 and certain gummy mucilaginous substances and which the testimony does not 
 show is not suitable for use as a pigment, is not classifiable under paragraph 447. 
 Commercial designation: Where it is intended to extend the meaning of 
 descriptive words in a tariff law to articles not coming exactly under the specific 
 designation by testimony that such articles are commercially known by the 
 terms used in the tariff law at the time of its passage, the testimony must show 
 that the articles are uniformly and generally so known in the commerce of the 
 entire country. (T. D. 35917— G. A. 7822; Nov. 26, 1915.) 
 
 Charcoal iron. (See Iron.) 
 
 Charges. 
 Assessment of duty on — 
 Appraisers to advisorily return the value of charges. Duty to be assessed on the 
 value of charges as determined by the collector. Additional duty under para- 
 graph I does not accrue by reason of the addition of cost or charges by the col- 
 lector. The costs and charges are not to be included in the entered or appraised 
 value in determining the rate or amount of additional duty under paragraph I. 
 
DIGEST or CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 107 
 
 Charges—Continued. 
 
 Assessment of duty on — Continued. 
 
 The value of costs and charges are to be included in the dutiable value for the 
 purpose of determining a rate of duty dependent on value. Appraisers should 
 report specifically on the value of the merchandise per se. (T. D. 34274; Mar. 
 16, 1914.) 
 Duty to be assessed on not less than the value of the charges as declared in the 
 entry. (T. D. 34385; Apr. 14, 1914.) 
 
 Certificates of weight, gauge, or measure — 
 Customs ofiicers not required to make copiesof dock books, weighers' return, etc., 
 without charge. Importers, however, should be permitted to make copies of 
 such records and the same may be certified as correctand a fee of 20 cents 
 charged for such certification. (T. D. 32901; Oct. 29, 1912.) 
 
 Diayage — 
 Evidence of a party in interest: It is presumed a collector in a given instance 
 is acting within the law, but this is not a conclusive presumption, and there is 
 no rule of law that deprives a party in interest of his right to have his testimony 
 weighed and considered in opposition to that presumption of correctness. 
 
 Overcharge for drayage: The importer here was compelled to pay drayage 
 charges on his merchandise (matches) of 18 cents per case. The proof goes to 
 show the regular rate for the haul was 6 cents per case. The law is that the rate 
 "shall not exceed in any case the regular rates for such objects at the port in 
 question. ' ' United States v. Masson (No. 1083), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 30903 (T. D. 33055). Decision afiirmed. (T. D. 33534; 
 May 31, 1913.) 
 "Regular" cartage rates in ports: A fiat rate agreed on by the Government for 
 drayage charges is not conclusive against an importer. His liabiUty is for the 
 payment of the regular rate for service of the sort at the same time and place. 
 United States v. Masson (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., 863; T. D. 33534). On the record 
 in this case the proof, while not conclusive, is sufficient to support the board's 
 decision that the regular rate at the port of Baltimore for services of the kind in 
 issue was 6 cents and not 18 cents. United States v. Masson (No. 1366), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34860 (T. D. 34201). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 34479; May 18, 1914.) 
 
 Extraordinary services of inspectors. (See Inspectors' services.) 
 
 Packing, jurisdiction of appraiser over — 
 It being the duty of the collector to fix the packing charges, any action of the 
 appraiser relative thereto must be held to be either advisory or extra-official. 
 The addition of packing charges, therefore, does not raise the per se value, and 
 hence the provisions of subsection 7 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909 do not 
 apply. United States v. Spingam Bros. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 34002). 
 (T. D. 34726— G. A. 7595; Aug. 21, 1914.) 
 
 Shrinkage of woolens. (See Woolens, shrinkage as a charge of expense.) 
 
 Storage— Cartage— Extraordinary expenses — 
 The collector has no authority whatever to make a charge for services rendered 
 unless the same is authorized by law. Acker, Merrall & Condit's case, G. A. 
 5689 (T. D. 25331); American Express Co.'s case, G. A. 6552 (T. D. 27962). 
 
 Charge for unlading vessels at specially designated place : The act of Jime 26, 
 1884 (23 Stat. L., 60), authorizes the collector to require the importer to pay all 
 the extraordinary expenses incurred in unlading a vessel at a specially desig- 
 nated place within the collection district. Only such expenses may be charged 
 to the importer as would not have been incurred if the merchandise had been 
 
108 DIGEST Ot CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Charges — Continued. 
 Storage — Cartage — ^Extraordinary expenses — Continued. 
 
 unladen in the ordinary way. Snow's case, G. A. 6800 (T. D. 29249). Unleas 
 the evidence shows that it has been grossly abused, this board will not review 
 the exercise of the discretion of the collector in determining what will reim- 
 burse the Government for the extraordinary privilege granted to the importer 
 of articles in bulk. 
 
 Storage charges: Under section 2926, Revised Statutes, the collector is au- 
 thorized to make a charge for storage where incomplete entries are made. 
 
 Merchandise stored in Government building: While the language "at the 
 expense of the owner' ' in section 2926, Revised Statutes, contemplates that the 
 Government shall only collect from the importer sufficient "for reimbursement 
 for storage, it does not necessarily follow that it shall be reimbursement alone 
 for moneys directly and immediately paid out. If the Government provides a 
 building of its own, it can charge such sum as will reasonably reimburse it in 
 the expense of maintaining such storehouse. Kennedy v. Magone (158 U. S., 
 212). 
 
 Excessive storage charges: Under section 2965, Revised Statutes, the charge 
 which a collector may make for unclaimed goods sent to public stores is lim- 
 ited by the following language, "not to exceed in any case the regular rates for 
 such objects at the port in question." A charge which appears from the testi- 
 mony to be an arbitrary one and in excess of the regular rate at the port of entry, 
 Held, to be in violation of the law. 
 
 Constructive charges: To chaise an importer for an expense incurred in re- 
 moving his merchandise from the wharf to the public stores the expense must 
 have been an actual one. Where an automobile was transferred under its own 
 power to the public stores by the owner, or some one acting for him, and the Gov- 
 ernment was put to no expense whatever, the collector has no authority or 
 power to make charges for cartage. (T. D. 31271— G. A. 7163; Feb. 6, 1911.) 
 Because of the absence of an invoice, the collector on liquidation charged, under 
 section 2926, Revised Statutes, a certain sum for cartage, labor, and storage 
 incidental to the removal and custody of the importation. The cartage was 
 paid for by the Government, while the other services were rendered by Gov- 
 ernment employees. The entry was confessedly incomplete, an invoice being 
 necessary, and so it was within the authority of the collector under the section 
 cited to cause the merchandise to be removed at the expense of the owners to a 
 warehouse or storehouse, there to remain until due appraisement was had, or, at 
 the option of the owners, the original invoice produced; and this is true though 
 there was only one case of merchandise, valued at less than $100. Kennedy v. 
 Magone (158 U. S., 212). Davies, Turner & Co. v. United States (No. 900). 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27999 (T. D. 32346). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 33036; Dec. 16, 1912.) 
 Charts. 
 Lithographically printed papers — 
 The importation consisted of articles of paper lithographically printed, which 
 exhibit in a pictorial manner the outline, form, and mechanical featiures of 
 either a locomotive or an automobile. The various parts are accurately shown 
 by superimposed paper flaps, arranged in proper order, and which are hinged 
 so that they may be turned back to show the interior mechanism of the machine 
 or engine. The question is whether the articles of the importation are ' ' charts' ' 
 within the meaning of paragraph 416, tariff act of 1909. Reviewing the various 
 pertinent decisions affecting this question it seems clear that the meaning of 
 the word "chart' ' has been broadened since the first use of the term in tariff 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 109 
 
 Charts — Continued . 
 Lithographically printed papers — Continued. 
 
 legislation and that the term was employed in the present law with this accepted 
 broader meaning. "Charts" in paragraph 416 eo nomine describes the impor- 
 tation. Sheldon & Co. v. United States (No. 985), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 28988 (T. D. 32655) and Abs'tract 29390 (T. D. 32751). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33265; Feb. 28, 1913.) 
 Checks. 
 
 Authorizing use of a stamp or typewriter to fill up checks. (T. D. 29686; Apr. 12, 
 1909.) 
 
 Modifying regulations authorizing use of typewriter to fill up checks. (T. D. 
 29874; circular No. 30; June 25, 1909.) 
 
 Issue, care, and use of disbursing officers' checks. (T. D. 35567; circular No. 8. 
 second edition; July 3, 1915.) 
 
 All warrants and checks to be drawn on the Treasurer of the United States, payable 
 by any assistant treasurer or any active designated depositary bank. (T. D. 
 " 33077; circular No. 5; Jan. 9, 1913.) 
 Cheese. 
 Dutiable weight — 
 
 Certain Camembert cheese was imported in large wooden boxes, each box con- 
 taining 60 small boxes, and each small box holding one cheese wrapped in paper. 
 The importers claimed that the dutiable weight should be found by weighing the 
 cheese itself, free from the boxes and paper. Held, tha,t there is no provision of 
 law for ascertaining the net weight in such manner. Under section 2898, 
 Revised Statutes, it is provided that, in estimating allowance for tare on im- 
 ported merchandise, except in certain specified cases, "the real tare shall be 
 allowed, and may be ascertained under such regulations as the Secretary of the 
 Ti'easury may from time to time prescribe." Seld, that where United States 
 weighers, in ascertaining the tare of imported cheese, have followed the Treasury 
 regulations prescribed by the Secretary under the authority of said section 2898, 
 their method is reasonable and therefore lawful, whether leading to mathemati- 
 cally accurate results or not. Wilson v. Maxwell (2 Blatch., 316; 30 Fed. Cas., 
 147) followed. The method prescribed for obtaining the net weight of imports 
 is to ascertain and deduct the weight of boxes, casks, and other coverings of the 
 merchandise from the gross weight, and does not require the article itself to be 
 separately weighed apart from all coverings. (T. D. 30380 — G. A. 6985; Feb. 
 28, 1910.) 
 "Chemical" defined. 
 
 The Bureau of Chemistry states that from a commercial point of view a chemical 
 may be defined as "any substance or mixture of substances of fairly definite 
 composition obtained by chemical process used in the arts for its chemical 
 effect either by itself or in the manufacture of other substances." (T. D. 34112; 
 Jan. 28, 1913.) 
 Chemicals. 
 
 All patent medicines, all proprietary remedies, all chemicals specifically pre- 
 pared, and all articles which are combined or compounded with the use of 
 chemicals fall within the provisions of paragraph 17, tariff act of 1913. Olive 
 oil, oil of lemon, oil of orange, peanut oil, fish oil, and other rendered, expressed, 
 distilled, and essential oils, which are not mixed or compounded with other oils, 
 earths, chalk, crude drugs which are natural and uncompounded, and similar 
 articles, do not fall within the provisions of paragraph 17 of the said act. T. D. 
 34035 of January 2, 1914, modified accoTdingly. (T. D. 34184; Feb. 14, li)14.) 
 
110 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Chemicals — Continued. 
 
 All articles provided for in the dutiable schedule of the tariff act of 1913 which in 
 fact consist of chemical or medicinal compounds, or combinations or articles 
 similar thereto, when contained in packages of less than 2 J pounds ^ross weight, 
 are dutiable at not less than 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 17. (T. D. 
 34035; Jan. 2, 1914.) 
 Chemical compounds. 
 
 Binoxide of barium — 
 Binoxide of barium does not occur in a state of nature; it is not a clay or earth, 
 wrought or unwrought; nor is it a mere mechanical mixture, but is an artificially 
 produced chemical compound, differing essentially from the original material, 
 and was dutiable under paragraph 3, tariff act of 1897. 
 
 Correction of the record: When there was ample time to inspect the record as 
 made up and to apply to the board of appraisers for any supposedly needed cor- 
 rection therein prior to its transmission to the Court of Customs Appeals and 
 there was a failure, without any good cause shown, so to apply, the appellant 
 maynotonappealquestionthe truth of that record. McKesson u. United States 
 (No. 117), United States Coiirt of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer 
 from decision of the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 20183). Transferred 
 from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. Deci- 
 sion affirmed. (T. D. 31256; Jan. 25, 1911. 
 
 Glycerophosphate of lime — 
 The provision in paragraph 67^ tariff act of 1897, for "medicinal preparations," 
 includes glycerophosphate of lime, which can be and is used as a medicine by 
 simply dissolving it in water, even though it may have been more largely used 
 as an ingredient in medicinal preparations. Klipstein v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 13, 1908. Suit 5205. 
 Appeal from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 17921 (T. D. 28687). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29100; June 24, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Glycerophosphate of lime, which, though occasionally dispensed 
 medicinally in its imported form, is almost always used in combination with 
 other drugs in the preparation of ehxirs, is not a medicinal preparation within 
 the meaning of paragraph 67, tariff act of 1897, but is dutiable as a chemical 
 compound under paragraph 3. Klipstein v. United States, United States Cir- 
 cuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. No. 127 (suit 5205). 
 Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for Southern District of New 
 York (T. D. 29100). Decision adverse to Government (T. D. 29518) February 
 3, 1909. Acquiesced in February 6, 1909. (T. D. 29535.) 
 
 Hydroxide of chrome — 
 Hydroxide of chrome, variously invoiced as "chrome oxyd," "chromoxydrate," 
 and "chromoxydhydrate," a mordant derived as a by-product,in the manufac- 
 ture of certain coal-tar colore, which at the close of the manufacture is found in 
 a greenish paste, is an article "in a crude state used in dyeing or tanning," and 
 as such is free of duty under paragraph 482, tariff act of 1897, or paragraph 499, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31102— G. A. 7132; Dec. 12, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) A crude substance used in dyeing and tanning. — Hydroxide of 
 chrome, as here imported, in the state of its first production, unrefined and 
 unfit for use for dyeing or tanning without being subjected to refining processes, 
 was not dutiable as a chemical compound imder either the tariff act of 1897 
 or that of 1909, but under each act was free of duty as an article in a crude 
 state used in dyeing or farming not specially provided for. United States u. 
 Continental Color & Chemical Co. (No. 543), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals, May 31, 1911. Appeal by the United States from a decision of the 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7132 (T. D. 31102). Deci- 
 sion affirmed. (T. D. 31679; May 31, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. Ill 
 
 Chemical compounds — Continued. 
 Isaiol — 
 
 Isarol, although similar in use to ichthyol, but neither chemically identical with, 
 nor commercially so known, is not free of duty as "ichthyol" under paragi'aph 
 626, tariff act of 1897, but is dutiable under paragraph 68 as a medicinal prepara- 
 tion. (T. D. 30526— G. A. 7005; Apr. 11, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Ammonium sulphoiMhyolate — Ichthyol. — The importation is 
 a compound obtained by treating crude ichthyol oil with sulphuric add, and 
 neutralizing this with ammonium carbonate. . Paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897, 
 is confined to oils, and, so far as it relates to ichthyol, may properly be read, 
 "oils, namely, ichthyol," etc. The particular name by which an ichthyol 
 preparation is known can not determine the question of fact as to whether it is 
 dutiable under that paragraph as ichthyol oil; whether, in truth, it is such a 
 preparation aa retains sufficient characteristics of the ichthyol oil to be within 
 the intent and meaning of Congress in enacting paragraph 626. Is the com- 
 modity ichthyol oil, must be the true inquiry, for the paragraph covers all 
 ichthyol oils. The importation here is a product of ichthyol, called isarol. 
 Equally with Merck's ichthyol, it is an ammonium sulphoichthyolate, and as 
 such is an oil within the meaning of paragraph 626 . It was entitled to free entry 
 ae "oil, ichthyol." United States v. Merck (T. D. 29600); G. A. 5703 (T. D. 
 25376). Cassett v.- United States (No. 227); Cassett & Co. v. United States (No. 
 228), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board'of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7005 (T. D. 30526). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 32225; Jan. 23, 1912.) 
 
 Lime powder not. (See Chemical mixtures.) 
 
 Perborate of sodium^ 
 
 Under neither the tariff act of 1897 nor the tariff act of 1909 may perborate of 
 sodium be classed as borate material. It is the product of a chemical reaction, 
 is a chemical compound, and dutiable as such under paragraph 3 of each of 
 said acts. Morgenstern & Co. v. United States (No. 481), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 23840 (T. D. 30865). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 31949; Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 
 "Sinalco Seele." (See Alcoholic compounds.) 
 
 Tetrachloride of tin. 
 Not classifiable as, under act of 1897. (See Tetrachloride of tin.) 
 Chemical flasks. 
 
 Blown glassware — bottles — 
 
 Chemical flasks composed exclusively of blown glass are dutiable as blown glass- 
 ware under paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, rather than a.s "bottles" under 
 paragraph 99. Eimer v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York, May 21, 1908. Suit 4963. On application for review of 
 ' a'decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers. Decision in favor 
 of Government. (T. D. 29162; July 15, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Thin blown-glass flasks designed for use in chemical laboratories 
 are dutiable under paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, as "blown glassware," 
 rather than under paragraph 99 as "bottles." Eimer v. United Staites, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 16, 1909. No. 138 
 (suit 4963"). Appeal by importer from the Circuit Court of the United States 
 for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29162), affirming Abstract 15582 
 (T. D. 28223). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29601; Mar. 3, 
 1909.) 
 Chemical glassware. (See Glass.) 
 
112 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Chemical miztntes. 
 Alcohol contained in — 
 
 To constitute a chemical mixture containing alcohol under paragraph 3, act of 
 1909, the chemicals themselves must form such a substantial part, without the 
 alcohol, as to give such predominant character to the article taken as a whole. 
 If the alcohol largely predominates, and the other ingredients of a chemical 
 nature become relatively insignificant in quantity and proportion, then the 
 article is an alcoholic compound under paragraph 2. Sinalco Seele, manu- 
 factured as a base for nonalcoholic drinks, is an alcoholic compound. United 
 States V. Kraemer (4 Ct. Gust. Appls., 433; T. D. 33858) followed. (T. D. 
 34124— G. A. 7528; Jan. 27, 1914.) 
 Goddard's plate powder — 
 
 Gk)ddard's plate powder dutiable as a chemical mixture at the rate of 25 per cent 
 ad valorem under paragraph 3, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33319; Apr. 5, 1913.) 
 
 Whiting by similitude: Chemical substances and mineral substances are dis- 
 tinguished for dutiable purposes in the statute. The main constituent of the 
 powder here is a mineral rather than a chemical, 94.89 per cent of it being min- 
 eral. It was properly held dutiable under paragraph 54, tariff act of 1909. 
 Hartley Bros. & Hall v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 363; T. D. 32961), 
 Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 285; T. D. 32035), 
 United States v. Holland-American Trading Co. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 
 33527). United States v. Kraemer & Co. et al. (No. 1216), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 33222 (T. D. 33668). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 33858; Oct. 31, 1913.) 
 
 Appraiser's report — Absence of testimony: The record contained no testimony 
 concerning the character, use, or component materials of the article imported 
 bearing the trade name "Goddard's plate powder," and there was no sample 
 before the board. A reference by the appraiser in his report to the similarity 
 of the mei-chandise to other merchandise involved in another case could not 
 serve as a basis for the Board of General Appraisers holding the goods the same. 
 There being no proof offered by the protestants of what the importation actually 
 was the assessment of the collector was properly sustained. Wanamaker v. 
 United States (No. 1425), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 35803 (T. D. 34548). Affirmed. (T. D. 35271; Mar. 25, 1915.) 
 Lime powder — 
 
 A combination of lime, carbonate of Ume, and manganese oxide, for use in drying 
 and hardening varnish is not a chemical compound, but is a chemical mixture, 
 and as such is dutiable under paragraph 3, tariff act of 1909. Mixture implies 
 that the corporeal integrity, the separate chemical nature, and individual proper- 
 ties of the mixed ingredients have been preserved. A chemical compound is 
 not simply a mingling of components, but a combination of them, resulting in 
 their destruction as distinct entities and in the development by chemical reac- 
 tion of a new substance possessing properties radically different from those of its 
 constituent elements. Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States (No. 480), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23840 (T. D. 30865). (T. D. 
 32035; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 Metal polish — Putz pomade — 
 
 Metal polish similar to Putz pomade dutiable as a chemical mixture, at the rate of 
 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 3, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33540; 
 June 9, 1913.) 
 Scammony lesin — 
 
 Dutiable by similitude to. (See Sca,mmony lesin.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 113 
 
 Chemical mixtures — Continued. 
 Westiumite — 
 Not a chemical mixture. (See Asphalt — Westrumite.) 
 
 Chemical ^alt. 
 Carbonate of baryta — 
 Under the tariff act, 1897, native or precipitated carbonate of baryta was non- 
 dutiable. United States v. Gabriel & Schall (No. 32), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from decision of the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers (T. D. 28921). Board aflflrmed. (T. D. 
 31108; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 The provision for the free entry of baryta, carbonate of, or witherite, in paragraph 
 489, tariff act of 1897, is broad enough to include the artificial or precipitated 
 carbonate of baryta. (T. D. 31145— G. A. 7141; Dec. 23, 1910.) 
 The provision for witherite in paragraph 711, tariff act of 1909, is limited in its 
 application to the natural crude mineral ore, and does not include precipitated 
 carbonate of baryta, which, being a chemical salt, is provided for under para- 
 graph 3 of said act at 25 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 31810— G. A. 7262; Aug. 
 8, 1911.) 
 Chrome alum — 
 Chrome alum which after reduction has been subjected to a careful and extensive 
 refining process and is, in its condition as imported, ready for use, is not "crude ' ' 
 within the meaning of paragraph 482, tariff act of 1897, providing free entry for 
 "articles in a crude state used in dyeing," but is dutiable as a chemical salt 
 under paragraph 3. Kuttroff v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, May 7, 1908. Suit 5024. Appeal by importer 
 from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6647 (T. D. 
 28346). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29003; May 20, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) "Crude state."— Chrome alum which after production has 
 been subjected to a crystallizing process, being thereby freed from incidental 
 impurities, is by reason of this process removed from the provision in paragraph 
 482, tariff act of 1897, tor articles in a "crude state," used in dyeing, and is 
 dutiable as a chemical salt under paragraph 3. Kuttroff v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 13, 1909. No. 154 (suit 
 5024). Appeal by importer from the Circuit Court of the United States for the 
 Southern District of New York (T. D. 29003). Decision in favor of the Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 29701; Apr. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Chenilles. (See Velvets.) 
 
 Cherries in maraschino. (See Fruit.) 
 
 Cherries, sulphured. (See Fruit.) 
 
 Cherry juice containing alcohol. (See Fruit juice containing alcohol.) 
 
 Chlckory and beet root. (See Coffee substitutes.) 
 
 Chicks and ducklings, stuffed. (See Down on the skin.) 
 
 Chief clerk. 
 
 Duties of; signing of mail, etc. (T. D. 30963; circular No. 59; Oct. 1, 1910.) 
 
 Chiffon ribbons. (See Silk, manufactures of.) 
 
 Children's cotton hose. (See Wearing apparel.) 
 
 Children's knitted wool caps. (See Wearing apparel.) 
 
 China clay. (See Clay.) 
 
 China clock cases. (See Clocks.) 
 
 China sheepskins. (See Sheepskins.) 
 45633°— 17 8 
 
114 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Chlnaware. 
 Colored or tinted — 
 
 Chinaware with a white body having a superimposed brown coloring on the out- 
 side dutiable at the rate of 55 per cent ad valorem as chinaware,* colored or 
 tinted, under paragraph 80, tariff act of 1913. (T. D: 35569— July 7, 1915.) 
 Decorated — 
 
 White china does not become decorated merely by adding a color tor utilitarian 
 purposes; and cooking and serving dishes which are white, with the exception 
 of an irregular brown coloring on the sloping undersides, put on to conceal 
 smoke and finger marks, are dutiable under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1897, as 
 "china * * * not ornamented or decorated, " and not under paragraph 95 
 as "china » » * decorated." Thumauer «. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 7, 1908. No. 51 (suit 4016). 
 Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for Southern District of New 
 York (152 Fed. Rep., 660; T. D. 27857) reversing Abstract 6309 (T. D. 26338). 
 Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 28689; Jan. 15, 1908.) Acquiesced 
 in February 13, 1908 (T. D. 28763). 
 
 Cooking and serving dishes of white china colored brown on the undersides are 
 not decorated, such coloring being for utilitarian purposes, and are dutiable as 
 undecorated china at 55 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 96, tariff act of 
 1897. Thumauer v. United States (159 Fed. Rep., 122; T. D. 28689) followed. 
 (T. D. 29236— G. A. 6797; Aug. 26, 1908.) 
 
 Paragraph 95, tariff act of 1897, embraces within its provisions only such articles 
 as are composed wholly of china, porcelain, parian, bisque, earthen, stone, or 
 crockery ware. All articles composed in chief value of these materials, not 
 otherwise specially provided for, are embraced within the provisions of para- 
 graph 96. Where an article composed of china has in it an insignificant quan- 
 tity of some other material, that material may be treated as negligible when it 
 does not perform an essential function in the construction of the article; but 
 where the article in question could not be fashioned into the form in which it 
 b imported without the use of the other material, then it must be regarded in 
 fixing the classification. White china lamps of elaborate and ornamental 
 designs,, the various parts of which designs were molded separately and assem- 
 bled in the clay before the completed articles were fired, held to come within 
 the meaning of the words ' ' otherwise decorated or ornamented " as used in para- 
 graph 96. (T. D. 29305— G. A. 6820; Oct. 20, 1908.) 
 
 An article of chinaware that has had designs etched upon it with acid by means of 
 a stencil and to which must be applied gold in order to complete the decoration 
 should be classified as decorated china under the provisions of paragraph 93, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33693— G. A. 7488; Aug. 12, 1913.) 
 Limoges or Haviland — 
 
 Where all the output of a china manufacturer was sold to the United States, except 
 special classes manufactured for European trade, it can not be said that the latter 
 class is in "condition" to supply the American trade within the meaning of 
 section 19, customs administrative act of 1890, which provides that the market 
 value of merchandise shall be based on the ' ' condition in which * * * there 
 bought and sold for exportation to the United States." The entire output of a 
 china manufacturer in Limoges was exported entirely to the United States 
 directly from Limoges, except a small amount of special classes, which was 
 disposedofinParistoEuropeantrade, the portion thus disposed of at wholesale 
 not exceeding 4 per cent of the total product of the manufacturer. Held, as to 
 the goods shipped to America, that Limoges and not Paris was the "principal" 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 115 
 
 Chinaware — Continued. 
 Limoges or Havilaud — Continued. 
 
 market within the meaning of section 19, customs administrative act of 1897. 
 United States v. Havil^d, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 New York, January 19, 1909. Suit 5034. Appeal by United States from deci- 
 sion of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6655 (T. D. 28382). Board affirmed. 
 (T. D. 29523; Feb. 3, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Where a Board of General Appraisers in making a reappraise- 
 ment acts outside of or contrary to law or proceeds upon a wrong principle or 
 without any evidence to sustain their findings, their decision may be set aside. 
 A reappraisement decision was based on indirect evidence, the result reached 
 being based upon portions of the evidence read apart from the context, upon 
 unwarranted deductions and assumptions unsupported by the proof, and upon 
 arbitrary deductions to equalize certain conditions peculiar to the case; and 
 many of the propositions urged in support of the conclusions made were based 
 upon conjecture and guesswork. Held, that this was not such proof as is con- 
 templated by the statute, and that, there being no legal evidence to justify 
 the reappraisement, it should be set aside. 
 
 The evidence in a reappraisement case relative to china exported from Lim- 
 oges was to the effect that 80 per cent of the entire output of the factory was 
 exported directly to the 'O'nited States and that there was no open market for 
 such china at Limoges, but it showed the values established at Paris, where 
 the remaining 20 per cent of the Limoges output was disposed of; this latter 
 value, however, was affected somewhat by the fact that the Paris house sold at 
 both wholesale and retail, and that the goods handled there differed riaterially 
 from those sold at Limoges for export to the United States. Held, that there 
 was no evidence that Paris was the principal market for the china thus exported. 
 United States v. Havilandr, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second 
 Circuit, January 11, 1910. No. 59 (suit 5034). Appeal by the United States 
 from the decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern 
 District of New York (167 Fed. Rep., 414; T. D. 29523), affirming G. A. 6655 
 (T. D. 28382). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30296; Jan. 25, 
 1910.) 
 Printed — 
 The merchandise the subject of this appeal, as disclosed by the record, consists of 
 white china plates upon which is imprinted the word "Cenco," so placed and 
 so printed as to be attractive in color and design, and so become as well as a 
 trade-mark a matter of adornment or decoration. Richard & Co. v. United 
 States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33533). United States v. Bernard, Judae 
 & Co. (No. 1233), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 33187 
 (T. D. 33660). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33841; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 
 Chinese matting reappraised. (See Reappraisement.) 
 
 Chinese shoes. (See Shoes.) 
 
 Chinese wine. (See Wine.) 
 
 Chip baskets. (See Baskets, Hinoki.) 
 
 Chloral hydrate. 
 
 Duty on chloral hydrate to be assessed as an alcoholic medicinal preparation 
 under paragraph 65, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32738; July 22, 1912.) 
 
116 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Chloiophyll. 
 
 Chlorophyll, used for Btaining foodstuffs and essential oils, is not dutiable as a color 
 under paragraph 58, tariff act of 1897, but as an unenumerated manufactured 
 article imder section 6. United States v. Mangus, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, January 13, 1908. Suit 4906. Appeal from 
 decision of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6560 (T. D. 28018). Decision 
 adverse to Government. (T. D. 28719; Jan. 29, 1908.) Acquiesced in March 
 10, 1908 (T. D. 28826). 
 
 Chocolate in lithographic tins. 
 
 Chocolate in lithographic tins dutiable under paragraph 292, tariff act of 1909, and 
 the tins not separately dutiable under paragraph 195 of said act, lithographic 
 tins and paper cartons being the usual coverings for merchandise of this char- 
 acter. (T. D. 32764; Aug. 16, 1912.) 
 
 Chocolate and cocoa coverings. (See Coverings.) 
 
 Christmas labels. (See Labels.) 
 
 Christmas seals. (See Seals.) 
 
 Chiistmas-tree ornaments. 
 Tinsel articles — 
 Fragile, flimsy articles mainly composed of tinsel wire in the shape of stars, rings, 
 etc., which, while used in decorating Christmas trees, are often used in window 
 dressing, and which are not generally recognized by the trade as toys, are not 
 dutiable as "toys" under paragraph 418, tariff act of 1897, but as "articles 
 * * * in chief value of tinsel wire' ' under paragraph 179. In order to bring 
 articles within the tariff designation of "toys," it is not enough that children 
 can or do play with them. It must appear either that their intended and prin- 
 cipal use is the amusement of children or that, it they are capable of other uses. 
 they are commercially known as toys. Thanhauser v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, February 7, 1908. No. 
 36 (suit 1768). Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Apprais- 
 ers, Abstract 8727 (T. D. 26818). Board affirmed. (T. D. 28781; Feb. 19, 
 1908.) 
 Tinsel-wire forms used as decorations for Christmas trees, etc., are dutiable as 
 articles in chief value of tinsel wire under paragraph 179, tariff act of 1897, and 
 not as toys vmder paragraph 418. Thanhauser v. United States (159 Fed. Rep., 
 228; T. D. 28781) followed. (T. D. 29045— G. A. 6767; May 27, 1908.) 
 
 Chrome, hydroxide of. (See Chemical compoimd, hydroxide of chrome.) 
 
 Chrome salt. (See Chemical salt.) 
 
 Chrysarobin. (See Medicinal preparations.) 
 
 Chutney. 
 
 Fruits preserved in sugar. (See Fruit.) 
 
 Cigar and cigarette cases. (See Smokers' articles.) 
 
 Cigar fans' (See Toys.) 
 
 Cigar lighters. (See Smokers' articles.) 
 
 Cigarette boxes. (See Smokers' articles.) 
 
 Cigarette holders. (See Smokers' articles.) 
 
 Cigarette paper. (See Paper.) 
 
 Cigars. 
 Made in bonded manufacturing warehouses — 
 Collectors instructed relative to the withdrawal of cigars made in bonded manu- 
 facturing warehouse under the provisions of section IV, paragraph M, tariff 
 act of 1913. (T. D. 33783; Oct. 10, 1913.) 
 Cancellation of customs and internal-revenue stamps and caution notice to be 
 placed on boxes containing cigars. (T. D. 34454; May 18, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 117 
 
 Cigais — Continued . 
 Made in bonded manufacturing warehouses — Continued. 
 T. D. 34454, requiring caution notice on cigar boxes, amended to require name of 
 manufacturer, claas of warehouse, and location. (T. D. 35868; Nov. 3, 1915.) 
 Proprietors of bonded manufacturing wareliouees are required to pay collectors of 
 customs at the rate of $10 per 1,000 for customs stamps to be affixed to boxes 
 containing cigars made in bonded premises. (T. D. 34659; July 22, 1914.) 
 Inscriptions to be placed on cigar stamps on cigars made in bonded manufacturing 
 
 warehouse from imported tobacco. (T. D. 34923; Nov. 27, 1914.) 
 Exportation by parcel post: Instructions to customs officers. (T. B. 35186; 
 Mar. 5, 1915.) 
 Cigars and cigarettes from the Philippine Islands. 
 
 Section 2804, Revised Statutes, applies to cigars and cigarettes from the Philippine 
 Islands and section 3402 does not. — Instructions to customs officers. — Opinion 
 of the Attorney General. (T. D. 31781; July 31, 1911.) 
 Cigars, cheroots, and cigarettes brought in by passengers from the Philippine 
 Islands. — Amendment to article 618, Customs Regulations of 1908. (T. D. 
 34630; July 14, 1914.) 
 What constitutes direct shipment. (See Philippine Islands, direct shipment.) 
 Cigars, cigarettes, and whisky. 
 Free entry of — 
 Privilege of free entry of cigars, cigarettes, and spirits, wines, or other beverages, 
 referred to in article 618, Customs Regulations of 1908, not to be extended to 
 persons frequently crossing into Canada. (T. D. 33822; Oct. 30, 1913.) 
 Cinematograph films. (See Films.) 
 Circuit Court. 
 
 Jurisdiction of. (See Courts.) 
 Circular saw plates. (See Saw plates, circular.) 
 Circulars and circular letters. 
 
 Regulations governing the issuance of. (T. D. 34613; circular No. 9; July 1, 
 1914.) 
 Circus animals. 
 
 Free entry. (See Animals.) 
 Citation of Importers to appear before collectors of customs. 
 Appraisement — Jurisdiction of collectors of customs — 
 Subsection 15 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, authorizing appraisers and collectors 
 of customs to "cite to appear before them and examine upon oath any owner, 
 . importer, agent, consignee, or other person touching any matter or thing which 
 * * * they may deem material respecting any imported merchandise in ascer- 
 taining the dutiable value or classification thereof," does not empower collec- 
 tors of customs to examine a person so cited as to the dutiable value of imported 
 merchandise, they not being appraising officers. 
 
 Reliquidation: The act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190), which provides that 
 after duties have been liquidated the "settlement of duties shall, after the ex- 
 piration of one year from the time of entry, in the absence of fraud, * * * be 
 final and conclusive upon all parties, ' ' was not repealed by the tariff act of 1909, 
 is merely a statute of limitation, and gave no new powers to collectors of customs. 
 A reliquidation under said act can not include a reappraisal, but must proceed 
 on the basis of the old appraisal. 
 
 Finality of appraisement — Fraud: The provision in subsection 13 of section 
 28 that in cases where no objection is made thereto the decision of the appraiser 
 "shall be final and conclusive against all parties' ' is conclusive on the collector 
 of customs, even in cases where the appraisal was procured by fraud. 
 
118 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, . 1908-1915. 
 
 Citation of importeis to appear befoie collectois of customs — Continued. 
 Appiaisement — Jurisdiction of collectors of customs — Continued. 
 
 Reliquidation — Citation for undiBclosed illegal purpose: Subsection 15 of 
 section 28 does not confine customs oflBcers to the citation of persons in relation 
 to appraisals and original liquidations, but extends to reliquidations by collec- 
 tors under the act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190); and the undisclosed illegal 
 purpose of a collector, proceeding under the latter act, to inquire into the dutia^ 
 ble value of merchandise, is no answer to a disobedience of his order, if that 
 order be within the scope of his powers at the time. 
 
 Production of books — Corporations: In directing a person, under subsection 
 15 of section 28, to produce his books, it is not necessary that customs oflScers 
 should show first that the contents of the books are material evidence; nor is it 
 an answer that the person so directed is a corporation. 
 
 Scope of subsection 15 of section 28, tariff act of 1909: The scope of subsection 
 15 of section 28, is not limited because the forfeiture penalty provided in sub- 
 section 16 for failure to comply with orders of customs officers made under said 
 subsection 15 can not apply to examinations in aid of reliquidations. United 
 States V. Calhoun; United States v. Bomn Hat Co.; United States District 
 Court, Southern District of New York, January 9, 1911. Actions by the United 
 States of America against David Calhoun and against the Bomn Hat Co. to 
 recover penalties for failure to answer and produte books and papers before a 
 collector of customs. Verdict for defendant in the first case and for the United 
 States in the second. (T. D. 31730; June 30, 1911.) 
 Citizenship. 
 Personal effects of citizens dying abroad — 
 The political status of a married woman follows that of her husband. Therefore, 
 a foreign-bom woman marrying a naturalized American or a foreigner who there- 
 after becomes naturalized, becomes herself an American citizen. A foreign 
 woman married to an American and residing abroad for more than one year after 
 his death loses her American citizenship unless within that period she registers 
 before a United States consul, in compliance with section 4 of " An actin reference 
 to the expatriation," etc. (34 U. S. Stat. L., 1228). (T. D. 32713— G. A. 7381; 
 July 12, 1912.) 
 Citizenship of corporation importing animals for breeding purposes. (See Animals 
 
 imported for breeding purposes.) 
 Citrus nursery stock, prohibition of. (See Plant quarantine act.) 
 Civil service. 
 
 Communication with the Civil Service Commission concerning persons or posi- 
 tions in the Treasury Department to be made by the Secretary of the Treasury 
 through the Division of Appointments. (T. D. 32189; circular No. 7; Jan. 27, 
 1912.) 
 Employment of persons under Schedule A, Rule II, clause 3, civil-service rules. 
 
 (T. D. 31963; circular No. 63; Oct, 27, 1911.) 
 Personnel prohibited from instructing for civil-service examinations. (T. D. 
 
 29466; circular No. 3; Jan. 12, 1909.) 
 Probationary appointments and removals and reductions in the competitive classi- 
 fied service. (T. D. 32265; circular No. 11; Feb. 12, 1912.) 
 Regulations governing the temporary appointment of persons having relatives in 
 
 the civil service. (T. D. 32390; circular No. 20; Apr. 10, 1912.) 
 Rules regarding removals in the classified service. (T. D. 34728; circular No. 34; 
 Aug. 5, 1914.) 
 Clarinet cleaners. (See Brushes.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 119 
 
 Classification. 
 Aieca nuts — Drugs — 
 
 The chief use of areca nuts in this country is as a medicine, hence they are doubt- 
 less properly classifiable as drugs, but the history of the drug paragraph of the 
 free list, as well as the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, excludes 
 them from paragraph 4/7 of the tarifl act of 1913. Nor are they free of duty 
 under paragraph 552, not being ejusdem generis with moss and seaweed, being 
 expressly provided for in paragraph 226, under which they are properly classifi- 
 able for tariff purposes. (T. D. 35704^G. A. 7773; Sept. 10, 1915.) 
 "Articles" — Definition — Goods in the piece — 
 
 The ordinary use of the word "articles" in the tariff is a broad one; and there is 
 nothing in the structure of paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897, which would require 
 the restriction of that word as therein used to completed articles, but it may 
 include woven fabrics in pieces 25 yards long. (T. D. 29392; Dec. 9, 1908.) 
 
 The term "article" is commonly accepted in trade and elsewhere as some- 
 thing different from bulky and heavy commodities. Harrison Supply Co. v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, April 28, 
 1909. No. 801 (suit 1756). Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the 
 United States for the District of Massachusetts (164 Fed. Rep., 155; T. D. 
 29207), affirming Abstract 8429 (T. D. 26753). Decision in favor of the Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 29767; May 19, 1909.) 
 
 Compounded of two enumerated substances: An article compounded of two enu- 
 merated substances may be classified under a provision separately enumerating 
 those substances; as carnauba-wax substitute, which, being composed of a vege- 
 table and mineral wax, is classifiable under a provision for "wax, vegetable or 
 mineral." United States v. Morningstar, United States Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Second Circuit, March 16, 1909. No. 185 (suit 4964). Appeal by United 
 States from Circuit Court of the United States, Southern District of New York 
 (T. D. 29121) affirming G. A. 6609 (T. D. 28220). Decision adverse to Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 29651; Mar. 24, 1909.) 
 
 "Designed to be worn or carried :" Merchandise to be within the third clause of 
 paragraph 356 must be "valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces"; must be 
 "designed to be worn on apparel or carried on or about or attached to the per- 
 son "; must be one of the articles mentioned in the paragraph, or a like article 
 thereto; and must be composed of metal. 
 
 Customary use — Specific purpose: Articles which are not designed to be worn on 
 apparel nor like the articles enumerated in the paragraph, because not cus- 
 tomarily carried on the person or in customary use, but only carried when their 
 use is desired by a specific class of people for a specific purpose, are not within 
 paragraph 356, even though in other respects they answer the requirements of 
 the paragraph. (T. D. 35949— G. A. 7824; Nov. 30, 1915.) 
 Bagging — 
 
 Bagging, burlaps, and rags. (Halftone engravings pubUshed in illustration.) 
 (T. D. 31776; July 26, 1911.) 
 Brossei overstitch machines — 
 
 Brosser overstitch machine and others of similar type not dutiable at 30 per cent 
 ad valorem as sewing machines under paragraph 197, tariff act of 1909, but prop- 
 erly dutiable under paragraph 199 at 45 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 30639; 
 May 31, 1910.) 
 Collector's classification — 
 
 Collectors of customs are legally constituted by statute as classifying officers, and 
 a decision made by a collector as to the proper tariff classification of imported 
 merchandise is ordinarily to be taken as presumptively correct. (T. D. 29021 — 
 G. A. 6924; July 26, 1909.) 
 
120 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DEClSlOifS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Classification^ — Continued. 
 Commeicial designation — 
 
 Conditions are not such as allow establishment of a trade designation as to imports 
 which are not kept in stock or dealt in as articles of general merchandise, but 
 are only made to the order of those requiring them. (T. D. 29007; May 20, 
 1908.) 
 
 Ichthyol sodium is dutiable under paragraph 68 of the tariff act of 1897 at 25 per 
 cent ad valorem, and should not be classified under the provision in paragraph 
 626 for "ichthyol." It appears that by trade and techfdcal usage the term 
 "ichthyol" is the designation for the compound described as ichthyol ammon- 
 ium, but not for that described as ichthyol sodium. (T. D. 30315; Feb. 1, 1910.) 
 
 Where it is intended to extend the meaning of descriptive words in a tariff law to 
 articles not coming exaxjtly under the specific designation by testimony that 
 such articles are commercially known by the terms used in the tariff law at 
 the time of its passage, the testimony must show that the articles are uniformly 
 and generally so known in the commerce of the entire coimtry. (T. D. 35917 — 
 G. A. 7822; Nov. 26, 1915.) 
 
 Catalogues as evidence: The so-called catalogues are designed solely to give 
 information to the trade concerning the supplies carried and the prices at which 
 these may be purchased; they furnish no evidence whatever of any intention 
 to classify vegetable products according to table use and are valueless in fixing 
 commercial designation. 
 
 Spanish red peppers — Pimientos morrones: It is not true that pleasantness 
 in taste is essential to a vegetable. These peppers, as appears from the evidence, 
 are used both as a garnish and as food. They are vegetables as that term is 
 commonly, ordinarily, and popularly understood, and were dutiable under 
 paragraph 252, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 35249; Mar. 18, 1915.) 
 
 Common yellow earthenware: As to the expression "common yellow * » * 
 earthenware, ' ' in paragraph 96, tariff act of 1897, Held, that the word "common" 
 is not a commercial designation, but is a descriptive term. (T. D. 29393; Dec. 
 9, 1908.) 
 
 Congressional intent: It is apparent from the language of paragraph 627 that Con- 
 gress used the words contained therein in their ordinary sense, without special 
 application to any particular trade or line of business. In the enactment of 
 tariff laws words are frequently used so clear and definite in their meaning and 
 so expressive of the intent of Congress that it would be subversive of good ad- 
 ministration to give to such words, by judicial decision, a meaning other than 
 or different from their popular or received import. 
 
 Coverings of tea — Packages of less than 5 pounds: Immediate coverings of 
 packages of tea weighing less than 5 pounds under paragraph 627, tariff act of 
 1913, are dutiable at the rate chargeable thereon if imported empty. (T. D. 
 34467— G. A. 7567; May 19, 1914.) 
 
 Descriptive words: Descriptive words used in the tariff law to designate articles 
 of imported merchandise are to be understood in their known commercial 
 sense, and the meaning given to such words in the commerce of this country at 
 the time of the passage of the tariff law must control in the classification of such 
 merchandise. Where it is sought to extend the meaning of descriptive words 
 used in the tariff law to articles not coming exactly under the specific descrip- 
 tion, by testimony that such articles were commercially known by the term or 
 terms used in the tariff law at the time of its passage, that testimony must show 
 that such articles were uniformly and generally so known in the commerce of 
 the entire country. 
 
 Testimony: Ordinarily, negative testimony should not be held sufficient to 
 overcome the positive statements of witnesses; but with reference to the ques- 
 tion of commercial designation the case is different. Where witnesses testify 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-191S. 121 
 
 Classificatioii — Continued. 
 Commercial designation — Continued. 
 
 to the commercial designation of an article, and other witnesses of equal experi- 
 ence in the commerce of the country and equally to be believed testify that 
 they have never known it to be so designated, it is evident that it could not 
 have been uniformly and generally so known in the commerce of the country. 
 
 Rockingham ware: Rockingham ware is a cheap earthenware, originally 
 manufactured in England, and more recently in the United States, generally, 
 but not always, made of a reddish clay body, which is covered with a brown 
 glaze, the chief coloring ingredient of which is manganese. (T. D. 32271 — 
 G. A. 7327; Feb. 13, 1912.) 
 "Embroidered:" In the absence of proof it will not be held that the term "em- 
 broidered" in paragraph 339, tariff act of ' 1897, includes the ornamentation 
 added to the corners of drawnwork articles, consisting of a conventional Mal- 
 tese cioss or of a conventional wheel or spider web. United States v. Simon, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 13, 1909. No. 
 189 (4617). Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern 
 District of New York (T. D. 29017) reversing G. A. 6452 (T. D. 27644). Deci- 
 sion adverse to the Government. (T. D. 29702; Apr. 21, 1909.) 
 Establishment after enactment of tariff: At the time of the enactment of the tariff 
 act of 1897 the term "semi- vitrified" as applied to tiles had no definite, uniform, 
 and general meaning in the trade and commerce of the United States; and it is 
 indefinite, meaningless, and incapable of a uniform understanding. (T. D. 
 29744— G. A. 6906; May 11, 1909.) 
 Evidence: Evidence as to commercial designation in a tariff act must be given as 
 of the time of the passage of the act. Evidence as to the commercial meaning 
 of the term "wool" should be given by dealers in wool; and testimony that the 
 growth on cabretta skins is not wool is inadmissible if given by dealers in other 
 materials, as skins, hair, etc. (T. D. 29376; Dec. 2, 1908.) 
 
 The determination of the common or ordinary meaning is a matter of law for 
 the court or board. The trade or commercial meaning is a fact to be proved by 
 competent evidence. Proof aa to whether a given article is or is not included by 
 trade meaning within a certain term or phrase used in the tariff is material only 
 after proof has been adduced showing that such term or phrase is used in the 
 trade and that its trade meaning differs from its common or ordinary meaning. 
 Congress did not use the term " junk " in the free list in its broad, generic sense, 
 and sorted articles of metal which are to be used for the purposes of the type metal 
 of commerce, though in the nature of old material, are provided for under the 
 metal schedule rather than under the general classification of junk. Held as to 
 shipments of 6ld electrotypes and stereotype plates that such merchandise is 
 subject to classification as "type metal," paragraph 191, tariff act of 1909, or as 
 metal articles, paragraph 199, rather than as "junk, old," ps«agraph 600, as 
 "waste, not specially provided for," paragraph 479, as "types, old," paragraph 
 702, or as "stereotype plates," or "electrotype plates," paragraph 166. (T. D. 
 32395— G. A. 7347; Apr. 12, 1912.) 
 
 No judicial notice of commercial designation: The commercial designation 
 of an article is not a matter of which the court- will take judicial notice, but is a 
 fact to be proved by evidence. 
 
 Must be proved by a fair preponderance of evidence: The common meaning 
 of words is to be adopted when no commercial meaning is proved by a fair pre- 
 ponderance of evidence. 
 
 Must be uniform and definite, not partial or local: A commercial designation 
 such as will control the meaning of the tarifi law must be definite, uniform, and 
 general, and not partial, local, or personal. (T. D. 34126 — G. A. 7530; Jan. 
 28, 1914.) 
 
122 DIGEST OF CtrSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Classification — Continued. 
 Commeicial designation — Continued. 
 
 Fruit oU: Orange oil made from the natural fruit is not known to the trade and 
 commerce of the United States as "fruit oil," but as "essential oil." The com- 
 modities known to the trade and commerce of the United States as "fruit oils " 
 are artificial or synthetic products, known scientifically as "fnut ethers." The 
 commercial designation of an article must control over a different meaning 
 scientifically or in common speech. Held, accordingly, that natural fruit oil 
 is not a "fruit oil " within the meaning of paragraph 21, tariff act of 1909, but is 
 an "essential oil," subject to duty at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 3 of said act. (T. D. 31718— G. A. 7239; June 26, 1911.) 
 
 Gutta-percha: The term "gutta-percha" as used in paragraph 450, tariff act of 
 1897, has reference to commercial gutta-percha. (T. D. 29095— G. A. 6778; 
 June 18, 1908.) 
 
 Long-continued practice: No imiform trade meaning having been egtabUshed for 
 the term "semi vitrified," the long-continued practice of classifying tiles like 
 those of the importation in question as plain unglazed tiles will not be dis- 
 turbed.— See Kerce v. United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 171; T. D. 31215). 
 (T. D. 35895— G. A. 7813; Nov. 17, 1915.) 
 
 Paintings in oil: The expression "paintings in oil or water colors," in paragraph 
 454, tariff act of 1897, is not a commercial term, the language being only descrip- 
 tive. Steinhardt v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York, May 21, 1909. Sviit 5065. Appeal by importer from decision 
 of Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 16751 (T. D. 28414). Board affirmed. 
 (T. D. 29819; June 8, 1909.) 
 
 Parasols — Toys: In the classification of merchandise the commercial designation 
 is of first importance. If a word has a commercial use differing from that of the 
 common or ordinary use, it must appear that this commercial use is the result of 
 established use in trade or commerce generally throughout the country, and all 
 words will be presumed to have the same meaning in commerce that they have 
 in ordinary use, unless the contrary is shown. Robertson v. Salomon (130 U. S., 
 412); Haddock v. Magone (152 U. S., 368); Cadwalader v. Zeh (151 U. S., 171); 
 Swan V. Arthur (103 U. S., 597). 
 
 General designation — Specific des^ation: "Where Congress has designated 
 an article by a specific name, and imposed duty upon it, general terms in the 
 same act, though sufficiently broad to comprehend such article, are not appli- 
 cable to it. In other words, the article will be classified by its specific designa- 
 tion, rather than under a general designation." Homer v. Collector (1 Wall., 
 486); Arthur v. Lahey (96 U. S., 113); Arthur v. Stephani (96 U. S., 125); 
 Movius V. Arthur (95 U. S., 144); In re Wise (73 Fed. Rep"., 183). Parasols are 
 designated by name in the tariS act of 1909. Paragraph 478 containing such 
 deaignatiwn is therefore more specific than the general provision for toys in para- 
 graph 431. Marshall Field's case, G. A. 4784 (T. D. 22559). (T. D. 31377— G. 
 A. 7183; Mar. 8, 1911.) 
 
 Specific designation — General designation: (SomerviUe, G. A., dissenting). 
 Articles shown to be toys are dutiable under the general designation of "toys" 
 in paragraph 431, act of 1909, the fact that they are toys taking them out of the 
 specific enumeration for articles that they resemble and mak in g inapplicable 
 the rule that words of specific designation prevail over words of general descrip- 
 tion. Toys are things used chiefly for the amusement or entertainment of chil- 
 dren. FUmsily constructed parasols, valued at about 10 cents each, unfit for use 
 as parasols, and intended and peculiarly suited for the amusement of children, 
 are "toys" within the meaiung of that word in paragraph 431, tarifi act of 1909. 
 (T. D. 31377— G. A. 7183; Mar. 8, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 123 
 
 Classification — Continued. 
 Commercial designation — Continued. 
 
 Plain woven fabrics; The term "plain woven fabrics" is not a term used in buy- 
 ing and selling goods, but testimony shows that it is a commercial term under' 
 stood in the trade as including a variety of fabrics.dealt in under specific names. 
 Held, that the merchandise in question, consisting of crash or toweling composed 
 of flax or of flax and cotton, flax chief value, is commercially known as a 
 "plain woven fabric." (T. D. 34818— G. A. 7608; Oct. 7, 1914.) 
 
 "Rough leather:'' The term "rough leather'' as understood in trade and com- 
 merce includes leathers tanned from hides of the bovine species, but not so 
 finished as to be fitted for general commercial uses. (See also Leather, rough.) 
 (T. D. 30720— G. A. 7042; June 22, 1910.) 
 
 "Surface:'' The term "surface" in paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909, has no par- 
 ticular trade meaning different from the usual understanding of the word, and 
 it applies alike to both sides of the paper, one of which is rough and uncalendered 
 and the other smooth and finished. Where a design or pattern is impressed on 
 one side of a paper, the paper is one the "surface" of which is "decorated or 
 covered by a design;" within the meaning of said paragraph. (T. D. 30083 — 
 G. A. 6937; Oct. 28, 1909.) 
 
 "Toys:" In order to bring articles within the tariff designation of "toys," it is 
 not enough that children can or do play with them. It must appear either 
 that their intended and principal use is the amusement of children or that, if 
 they are capable of other uses, they are commercially known as toys. (T. D. 
 28781; Feb. 19, 1908.) 
 
 Usage: It is a well-settled principle of customs law that in arriving at the meaning 
 and application of the tariff laws, commercial designation is the most impor- 
 tant designation to be ascertained. Sonn v. Magone, (159 IT. S., 417, 422). In 
 construing a tariff act, * * * it must appear that the commercial designa- 
 tion is the result of established usage in commerce and trade, and that at the 
 time of the passage of the act that usage was definite, uniform, and general, 
 and not partial, local, or personal. (T. D. 30794^G. A. 7070; July 15, 1910.) 
 
 In order to show that a term used in the tariff act includes within its commer- 
 cial meaning an article not ordinarily within its scope, it must appear that such 
 commercial designation is the result of usage generally throughout the trade, 
 and not a local usage known only to particular persons. Maddock v. Magone 
 (152 IT. S., 368); Wilkinson v. Greely (29 Fed. Cas., 1259). A thick sirup made 
 from grape juice boiled with a particular kind of clay and with yeast dutiable 
 under the provision in paragraph 310, tariff act of 1909, for "fruit juices and 
 fruit sirup, not specially provided for in this section, containing no alcohol," 
 and not dutiable under paragraph 216 as "molasses." The molasses which it 
 was intended to cover by the provisions of paragraph 216 is the molasses de- 
 rived from the manufacture of cane sugar. (T. D. 32332 — G. A. 7341; Mar. 25, 
 1912.) 
 
 Yams: A leguminous plant of the genus Pueraria, grown in China, is not a yam, 
 and is dutiable under paragraph 257, tariff act of 1897. Although occasionally 
 designated a yam in commerce, such designation is not the result of an estab- 
 lished commercial usage that is definite, uniform, and general, which is essen- 
 tial to constitute a commercial designation in a legal sense. United States v. 
 Kwong Yuen Shing (No. 8), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Trans- 
 ferred from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (T. D. 
 30145). Appeal by the United States from decisions of the Circuit Court for 
 the Southern District of New York, reversing decision of the Board of General 
 Appraisers. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30778; June 22, 
 1910.) 
 
124 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Classification — Continued . 
 Commeicial terms— 
 
 Neither the term "fancy soap" nor "fancy toilet soap'' is a commercial term, 
 having a uniform, definite, and general meaning other than the ordinary or 
 dictionary meaning which the words convey. Pears' unscented soap is a fancy 
 toilet soap within the meaning of the provision in paragraph 69, tariff act of 
 1909, for "fancy * * * toilet soaps. " The character of the soap and the use 
 ^ for which it is intended control, rather than the kind of wrapper or maimer of 
 packing. (T. D. 30761— G. A. 7059; July 7, 1910.) 
 
 Fancy matches: At and prior to the enactment of the tariff law of 1909 the term 
 "fancy matches" had no commercial meaning. The words "fancy matches'' 
 as used in paragraph 436 of the said tariff act, inasmuch as they have no special 
 trade meaning, must be construed according to common understanding. The 
 common Swiss black-head safety match, which ignites only when scratched 
 upon a specially prepared surface, is not a fancy match. Certain "wind 
 matches" and matches with varicolored stems and heads are fancy matches, 
 and held to be subject to duty at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 436 of 
 the tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31017— G. A. 7116; Oct. 31, 1910.) 
 Component material of chief value — 
 
 Paragraph 650, tariff act of 1909: The history of this paragraph shows a purpose to 
 regard less the character of the article imported than its intended use. The 
 object was to admit the articles described free of duty when imported by desig- 
 nated institutions in the furtherance of education. (T. D. 35322; Apr. 14, 
 1915.) 
 "Composed of" — 
 
 A tariff provision for a manufactured article "composed of" a certain material 
 applies, in the absence of other controlling rules of construction, to the appropri- 
 ate article if composed in chief value of the given material. (T. D. 35434; 
 May 18, 1915.) 
 Confusion of goods ; broken rice — 
 
 Under paragraph 232, tariff act of 1897, providing a duty on broken rice that will 
 pass through a No. 12 wire sieve, it is not necessary that an entire importation 
 should be able to pass through such a sieve. The broken-rice rate applies to the 
 portion that will pass through. The fact that age and repeated handling of 
 broken rice may have caused an infinitesimal increase in the percentage of the 
 material that will pass through a No. 12 wire sieve is not a sufiicient reason for 
 rejecting a test based on samples of such rice, particularly where the failure to 
 make a proper test at the time of importation was due to no fault of the importer. 
 Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Western District of Washington, Northern Division, January 25, 1910. 
 No. 1469 (suit 1967). Appeal by importer from the decision of the Board of 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 13152 (T. D. 27674). Decision adverse to the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 30341; Feb. 8, 1910.) 
 Congressional intent — 
 
 Under the general plan of the fish schedule of the tariff act of 1913 (1) the raw or 
 nearly raw food product, roughly prepared or nolrprepared at all, is to enter free 
 of duty; (2) fish slightly advanced in preparation by skinning or boning is to pay 
 three-fourths of 1 cent per pound ; (3) fish more elaborately prepared by packing 
 in tin packages pay 15 per cent; (4) fish highly prepared in tins or other pack- 
 ages, with oil or oil and other substances, pay 25 per cent. Under this plan for 
 gradation of duty based upon the condition of advancement, skinned or boned 
 fish in tins is dutiable under the provision for fish in tins not specially provided 
 for at 15 per cent, and not imder the provision for fish, skinned or boned. The 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 125 
 
 Classification — Continued. 
 Congressional intent — Continued. 
 
 rule which requires classification under the more specific of two competing pro- 
 visions can not be invoked in the face of a plain purpose to the contrary mani- 
 fested by the language used by Congress in framing the whole schedule. (T. D. 
 35365— G. A. 7720; Apr. 29, 1915.) 
 Stare decisis: In construing a law of Congress it is the duty of a court, if possible, 
 to arrive at the exact intent and meaning of Congress, and this intent should 
 never be defeated by any narrow rule of construction. While the classification 
 of merchandise should not lightly be changed, it is the clear and undoubted 
 function of Congress to make such change in the tariff law as will alter and 
 change aay previous classification; and when that purpose of Congress is clearly 
 and distinctly manifest the rule of stare decisis has no application. (T. D. 
 35331— G. A. 7714; Apr. 19, 1915.) 
 Construction of law — 
 When the plain wording of a law (par. 339, tariff act of 1913) imposes a 
 higher rate of duty upon a partly finished material than upon the finished article, 
 resort to rules of construction to vary that plain wording is not justified. (T. D. 
 35843— G. A. 7799; Oct. 25, 1915.) 
 Degree of manufacture — 
 Forgings: The provision in paragraph 127, tariff act of 1897, for forgings of "what- 
 ever degree or stage of manufacture," refers only to the different stages of the 
 forging process, not extending beyond completion as a forging; and forms that 
 after being subjected to the final forging processes are further advanced into 
 completed articles practically ready for use, such as axles, piston rods, connect- 
 ing rods, etc., are dutiable as manufactured metal under paragraph 193, rather 
 than under the provision quoted . The provision for steel shapes in paragraph 135, 
 tariff act of 1897, does not include forgings that have been advanced to the condi- 
 tion of practically completed articles. United States v. Prosser; Prosser v. United 
 States, United States Circviit Court, Southern District of New York, January 27, 
 1910. Suits 5383 and 5389. Appeals by United States and by the importers 
 from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6822 (T. D. 29326). 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30340; Feb. 8, 1910.) Appeals 
 were taken by the importers from this decision. (See T. D. 31551; Apr. 24, 
 1911.) 
 Doubt resolved in favor of importer — 
 Where from the evidence there may be a doubt whether an article falls within one 
 
 of two classifications, the doubt will be resolved in favor of the importer. 
 Description eo nomine: Where an article is designated eo nomine, whether for 
 duty or to be free of duty, such de.signation must prevail over words of a general 
 description. (T. D. 31237; Jan. 18, 1911.) 
 Duty- 
 Change from specific to ad valorem rate: The change by Congress from specific to 
 ad valo.rem duty on merchandise carries with it all of the provisions of existing 
 law that apply to the administration of the customs in the assessment of ad 
 valorem duty upon imported merchandise. 
 
 Under paragraph 162 of the tariff act of 1?13, the zinc contained in zinc- 
 bearing ore is made dutiable at 10 per cent ad valorem. If the unit value is 
 not stated in the entry, but the total value when reduced to units is less than 
 the unit appraised value, the additional duty provision of paragraph I is prop- 
 erly appUed by the collector in assessing duty. (T. D. 35948— G. A. 7823; Nov. 
 30, 1915.) 
 
126 DIGEST OF OtrSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Classification — Continued. 
 Ejusdem geneiis — 
 
 By paragraph 356, tarifi act of 1913, a duty is imposed, amongst other articles, 
 upon articles of a certain value composed of metal and designed to be worn on 
 apparel or carried on or about or attached to the person, such as and including 
 buckles, card cases, etc. If the assessed articles are similar to the named exem- 
 plars in respect to the manner in which they are worn or carried, then the resem- 
 blance meets the terms of the provision. (T. D. 35343; Apr. 14, 1915.) 
 
 So-called rice-bead curtains composed chiefly of rice paste formed into particles 
 resembling small beads, are subject to the duty provided by paragraph 408, 
 tariff act of 1897, for "articles * » * in part of beads, " not being excluded 
 from such classification by the principle of ejusdem generis. Morimura v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 13, 
 1909. No. 212 (suit 4986). Appeal by importer from the Circuit Court of the 
 United States for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29015) affirming G. 
 A. 6628 (T. D. 28257). Decision in favor of Government. (T. D. 29703; Apr. 
 21, 1909.) 
 
 Iron sand, which, though less advanced in the direction of refinement than iron 
 in bars, ia in a, perfect state of manufacture, is not covered by paragraph 124, 
 tariff act of 1897, relating to "all iron in slabs, blooms, loops, or other forms less 
 finished than iron in bars. ' ' The test is the degree of advancement in manufac- 
 ture, rather than of advancement in refinement or quality. Harrison Supply 
 Co. V. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Rrst Circuit, 
 April 28, 1909. No. 801 (suit 1756). Appeal by importer from Circuit Court 
 of the United States for the District of Massachusetts (164 Fed. Rep., 155; T. D. 
 29207), affirming Abstract 8429 (T. D. 26753). Decision in favor of the Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 29767; May 19, 1909.) 
 
 The rule of ejusdem generis is only a rule of construction and is not to be applied 
 to defeat the real purpose of the statute. Where the particular words exhaust 
 the class enumerated, the addition of a general term must be construed as em- 
 bracing something outside of that class. So, in section 9, customs administra- 
 tive act of 1890, in reference to making an illegal entry of imports, the addition 
 of the term "other person" to the enumeration of "owner, importer, consignee, 
 or agent," was intended to include persons having a different relation to the 
 importation from that of the owner, etc., inasmuch as none but the owner, 
 importer, consignee, or agent could "make entry" in the narrower sense of that 
 term. United States v. Mescall, United States Supreme Court, November 8, 
 1909. No. 278. In error from the District Court of the United States for the 
 Eastern District of New York (164 Fed. Eep., 580; T. D. 29242). Decision in 
 favor of the Government. (T. D. 30131; Nov. 23, 1909.) 
 
 Bead fringes, consisting of beads strung on a cord or webbing, and used to decorate 
 lamps as trimmings and shades, are dutiable under the provision in paragraph 
 408, tariff act of 1897, for "ornaments, trimmings, and other articles, * * * 
 in part of beads," not being excluded under the doctrine of ejusdem, generis. 
 Holcomb V. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 New York, June 28, 1910. Suits 5046-52. Appeal by the importer from deci- 
 sions of United States General Appraisers, Abstracts 16568 and 16592 (T. D. 
 28392). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30802; July 19, 1910.) 
 
 Ribbons: A plain ribbon is not excluded from paragraph 349 on the theory that 
 it is not ejusdem generis with the other goods (laces, wearing apparel, ornaments, 
 etc.) included in the context of that paragraph. Burlington Venetian Blind 
 Co. V. United States (T. D. 31456) and G. A. 7021 (T. D. 30614) followed. (T. D. 
 31495— G. A. 7206; Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 
 Coverings — Section 19, customs administrative act of 1890: In the construction 
 of section 19, custonM administrative act of 1890, following the rule ejusdem. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DEOISIOBTS, 1908-1915. 127 
 
 Classification — Continued. 
 
 Ejusdem generis — Continued. 
 
 generis laid down in United States v. Nichols (186 TJ. S., 298), the words "cov- 
 erings of any kind," appearing in that section, must be taken to include cover- 
 ings previously named therein, or coverings similar in kind, and used only to 
 convey BoUds. Containers of liquids or semiHquidB do not come within the 
 descriptive language "Cartons, cases, crates, boxes, sacks, and coverings of 
 any kind" as these words stand in said section 19. Austin, Nichols & Co. et al. 
 V. United States (No. 422), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 7082 (T. D. 30872). Decision reversed. (T. D. 31508; Apr. 10, 1911.) 
 Construction of a statute: General terms apparently all embracing are sometimes 
 restricted in their melining by the use of specific words in the same connection. 
 The application of this doctrine to tariff laws has quite generally been confined 
 to the paragraph in which the general phrase was used, but in the case of Bingel- 
 stedt V. United States (91 Fed., 112), the court considered the general phrase 
 under consideration in connection with the whole schedule in which it was to 
 be found. This would seem to be a broader rule of construction. 
 Where a provision of law is identical in language or in meaning with a similar pro- 
 vision in a former tariff law which has been judicially construed. Congress is 
 presumed to have acted with the full knowledge and understanding of these 
 decisions. United Cigar Stores Co., G. A. 7026 (T. D. 30643). (T. D. 35331— 
 G. A. 7714; Apr. 19, 1915.) 
 
 Embroidery — 
 Though lace may be embroidery from an artistic standpoint, it can not be held 
 dutiable as embroidery, because in successive tariff acts -Congress has made 
 distinction between the two. United States v. Simon, United States Circuit 
 Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 13, 1909. No. 189 (4617). Appeal by 
 United States from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York (T. D. 29017) reversing G. A. 6452 (T. D. 27644). Decision 
 adverse to the Government. (T. D. 29702; Apr. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Embroidery proviso — Noscitur a sociis — 
 Fur garments trimmed with embroidered silk, fur chief value, are not dutiable as 
 "manufactures of fur," but as "silk embroideries," by virtue of the proviso to 
 paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, "that no wearing apparel * * * tf^Jien em- 
 broidered * * * shall pay duty at a less rate than that imposed in any 
 schedule of this act upon any embroideries of the materials of which such em- 
 broidery is composed . ' ' The said proviso relating to articles when embroidered , 
 appHes to "wearing apparel," or "other article" or "textile fabric," and is 
 not to be limited or restricted to such articles of wearing apparel only as are 
 textiles or made of textiles. Jaeckel v. United States (T. D. 30389), affirming 
 172 Fed. Rep., 292 (T. D. 29824) and G. A. 6818 (T. D. 29297), followed. (T. D. 
 30599— G. A. 7017; May 5, 1910.) 
 
 Furniture in chief value of wood — 
 Where the statute provides for "furniture wholly or in chief value of wood," the 
 only question to be ascertained, before classification can be made under that 
 provision, is whether wood is chief value as against any of the other components. 
 (T. D. 35267— G. A. 7704; Mar. 22, 1915.) 
 
 Inspector's report as to — 
 
 Inspectors of customs are in no sense classifying officers of imported merchandise, 
 and hence a report made by af-discharging inspector stating that certain coal is 
 "slack coal" can not avail to justify the board in classifying the merchandise 
 aflsuchunderparagraph415, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29921— G. A. 6924; July 
 26, 1909.) 
 
128 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Classification — Continued. 
 Intent — 
 
 The term "alcoholic compounds" in paragraph 2, taiifi act of 1897, includes a 
 mixture of fine-cut herbs and alcohol, in which the alcohol incidentally serves 
 as a preservative in the importation of the leaves and continues in use after 
 importation, for the purpose of producing a tincture. But there is no justifi- 
 cation for holding that the primary purpose of using the alcohol as a mere pre- 
 servative determines classification under said provision. In paragraph 2, 
 tarifi act of 1897, relating to alcoholic compounds, the term "compound" is 
 not limited by any trade usage or technical adaptation, but is used in its com- 
 mon broad sense of being any union or mixture of elements, ingredients, or 
 parts, as fine-cut herbs commingled with alcohol. It is the evident general 
 intention of customs and internal-revenue laws tb levy a high duty, at least 
 for once, on all spirits, whether of domestic or foreign production. United 
 States V. Stone & Downer Co., United States Circuit Court of Appeals, First 
 Circuit, December 20, 1909. No. 834 (suit 1833). Appeal by United States 
 from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts 
 (171 Fed. Rep., 293; T. D. 29804) affirming Abstract 11235 (T. D. 27348). De- 
 cision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30228; Dec. 28, 1909.) 
 Language of tariff — 
 
 Tunny fish — ^Mackerel: Tariff acts are not drawn in the terms of science, but in 
 those of commerce, presumptively the language in common use, and while the 
 tunny fish may be a mackerel in the eye of science it can not be so classified for 
 customs purposes, it not being popularly or commercially known as such. The 
 fish are fish in tin packages and they were properly assessed under paragraph 
 270, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 35436; May 18, 1915.) 
 Legislative distinction — 
 
 Though lace may be embroidery from an artistic standpoint, it can not be held 
 dutiable as embroidery, because in successive tariff acts Congress has made dis- 
 tinction between the two. United States v. Simon, United States Circuit Court 
 of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 13, 1909. No. 189 (4617). Appeal from the 
 Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 
 29017) reversing G. A. 6452 (T. D. 27644). Decision adverse to the Government. 
 (T. D. 29702; Apr. 21, 1909.) 
 Nonenumerated articles — 
 
 Before the nonenumerated provision can be resorted to it must be found that the 
 article is not fairly included within any of the enumerating clauses of the act. 
 (T. D. 33839; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 Packages less than one-halt barrel — 
 
 In construing paragniph 258, tariff act of 1897, relating to "fish in packages con- 
 taining less than one-halt barrel, ' ' held that fish in boxes of a capacity of not less 
 than one-halt barrel but filled with 1-pound paper packages, is not dutiable 
 under said paragraph. The classification is determined by the size of the con- 
 tainer in which the merchandise was packed for transportation and wholesale 
 trade, rather than of the container in which it is packed for retail trade. United 
 States V. Yamashita; United States v. Furuya, United States Circuit Court, 
 Western District of Washington, Northern Division, January 10, 1910. Nos. 
 1320-1 (suits 1740-1). Appeals by United States from decisions of the Board of 
 General Appraisers, Abstracts 7521-2 (T. D. 26637). Board affirmed. (T. D. 
 30317; Feb. 1, 1910.) Appealed by the United States to Customs Court of 
 Appeals. Decision of Circuit Court affirmed. (T. D. 31435; Mar. 20, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 129 
 
 Clas sification — Continued . 
 Paragraph 448, tariflf act of 1909 — 
 
 Articles of utility which are ordinarily carried in the pocket, even though orna- 
 mental in character, such as metal cigarette cases and similar articles composed 
 wholly or in chief value of silver, German silver, white metal, brass, or gun 
 metal, excluded from classification under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909. 
 (T. D. 30785; July 14, 1910.) 
 Presumption of correctness — 
 
 Collectors of customs are legally constituted by statute as classifying officers, and a 
 decision made by a collector as to the proper tariff classification of imported mer- 
 chandise is ordinarily to be taken as presumptively corect. (T. D. 29921 — G. 
 A. 6924; July 26, 1910.) 
 Process not manufacturing process — 
 
 It has been uniformly held in customs interpretation that the application of pro- 
 cesses necessary to produce an article from its native condition and to bring it 
 into a condition that it may be imported, without affecting its per se character, 
 is not regarded either as a manufacturing process or as a process advancing it in 
 value or condition. (T. D. 35926; Nov. 19, 1915.) 
 Bound iron — 
 
 Classification of round iron with particular reference to such iron manufactured, 
 with the use of charcoal as a fuel. Round iron commercially is the product of a 
 bar mill and is properly dutiable under paragraphs 119 and 120 of the tariff act 
 of 1909. (T. D. 30741; June 30, 1910.) 
 . Sample — Evidence — 
 
 Shortbread : A case may be decided upon bare sample if classification can be deter- 
 mined by the application of general or common knowledge, as distinguished 
 from expert knowledge. The question of classification of a baked article known 
 as "shortbread" does not present such a case. Shallus v. United States (2 Ct. 
 Cusfc. Appls., 456; T. D. 32205) and United States v. Lun Chong & Co. (3 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 468; T. D. 33041) distinguished. (T. D. 35916— G. A. 7817; Nov. 
 24, 1915.) 
 Sewing machines — 
 
 The term "sewing machine" is used in its ordinary meaning and covers the usual 
 well-known and commonly recognized article, and machines which produce 
 only fancy effects and do not stitch together ordinary fabrics, do not fall within 
 that class. (T. D. 30291— G. A. 6969; Jan. 20, 1910.) 
 Similitude — 
 
 In the similitude clause in section 7, tariff act of 1897, prescribing the treatment 
 of unenumerated articles "similar * * * in material * * * use," etc., 
 the term "similar" is used in the sense of "nearly corresponding," "resembling 
 in many respects," "somewhat like," or "having a general resemblance." 
 Sake is "similar" to still wine in material and use within the meaning of this 
 provision. The resemblance in material is based on the fact that the predomi- 
 nant substance in each is alcohol and that the two articles have a substantial 
 similarity-in alcoholic strength, the percentage of alchohol in sake being about 
 18 and in still wine from 11 to 16; and the resemblance in use arises from the 
 fact that both articles are drunk for purposes of exhilaration and are capable 
 of producing intoxication. T^e provision in the similitude clause in section 7, 
 tariff act of 1897, for unenumerated articles "similar" to enumerated articles 
 "either in material, quality, texture, or the use," does not require similarity 
 in all four, but in only one, of these respects. The similarity required by the 
 similitude clause in section 7, tariff act of 1897, must be real or substantial. In 
 determining whether any unenumerated article resembles any enumerated 
 45633°— 17 9 
 
130 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Classification — Continued. 
 Similitude — Continued. 
 
 article in "material" within the meaning of the similitude clause in section 7, 
 tariff act of 1897, difference in the original materials from which the articles 
 compared are made need not be considered; the law concerns itself only with 
 the condition of the articles at the time of importation. The question whether 
 an unenumerated article is "similar" to an enumerated one, within the mean- 
 ing of the similitude clause in section 7, tariff act of 1897, is one of fact. The 
 findings of the Board of General Appraisers as to the fact of similitude will not 
 be disturbed on appeal to the courts, unless clearly contrary to the evidence or 
 further evidence of a material character is presented. (T. D. 29105; June 24, 
 1908.) 
 
 The similitude provision in section 7, tariff act of 1897, does not require that an 
 unenumerated article in chief value of a material, as artificial silk, manufac- 
 tures of which are not enumerated, and in minor value of another material as 
 leather, manufactures of which are enumerated, shall pay duty at the rate pro- 
 vided for manufactures of such material of minor value. (T. D. 29164; July 
 15, 1908.) 
 
 Where the similitude clause in section 7, tariff act of 1897, is applicable, the pro- 
 vision for unenumerated articles in section 6 can not apply. (T. D. 29239; 
 Sept. 2, 1908.) 
 
 In order to invoke the provisions of the similitude clause in section7, tariff act of 
 1897, it is not necessary that the article in question shall be found similar in all 
 the particulars (material, quality, texture, and use) mentioned in said section. 
 It is enough if similarity be foimd in any one of these particulars. Where an 
 unenumerated article bears a very vague and questionable resemblance to some 
 enumerated article, and an exact identity to another enumerated article, the 
 status of the merchandise under the similitude clause in section 7, tariff act of 
 1897, should be determined by the latter condition without reference to the 
 vague resemblance. (T. D. 29377; Dec. 2, 1908.) 
 
 Inasmuch as paragraph 97, tariff act of 1897, relating to mineral substances "not 
 decorated," and "if decorated," does not include articles not susceptible of 
 decoration, wares not thus susceptible can not be brought under that paragraph 
 through the application of the similitude clause in section 7. (T. D. 29391; 
 Dec. 9, 1908.) 
 
 The amount of duty is not one of the tests prescribed for the application of the 
 similitude clause in section 7, tariff act of 1897. If incongruity results, the 
 inference is not that the tests should be abandoned, but that Congress failed to 
 express its intention. United States v. Behrend; United States v. Wing. (T. 
 D. 29499; Jan. 27, 1909.) 
 
 Loose drilled pearls which had been assembled and matched abroad and were 
 ordered to be made into a necklace in New York, and which had never been 
 strung, except temporarily for purposes of display, are not "jewelry" within 
 the meaning of paragraph 434, act of 1897, but are dutiable either directly or 
 by simiUtude under paragraph 436, relating to "pearls in their natural state." 
 Citroen v. United States (T. D. 29502) followed. (T. D. 29542— G. A. 6864; 
 Feb. 6, 1909.) 
 
 Substantial resemblance — Inconsistency of rate: An unenumerated article can 
 not be removed from the operation of the simiUtude clause in section 7, tariff 
 act of 1897, if it substantially resembles an enumerated article in any of the par- 
 ticulars mentioned therein, notwithstanding great inequality which may result 
 in the assessment of duty. Therefore concentrated fruit juice, valued at $30 per 
 gallon, which has the same use as ordinary fruit juice valued at $1 to $5 per gal- 
 lon, is subject to the same duty as the latter, 60 cents per gallon. Rich v. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 131 
 
 Clas sification — Continued . 
 Similitude — Continued. 
 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 17, 1909. Suit 5243. Appeal by importer from decision by Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 18229 (T. D. 28805). Board reversed. (T. D. 29812; 
 June 8, 1909.) 
 
 Resemblance in use: Resemblance in "use" within the meaning of the similitude 
 clause in section 7, tariff act of 1897, exists between fabrics composed of calf 
 hair and cotton and used in manufacturing cloaks and fabrics of similar compo- 
 sition, except that they contain a substantial percentage of wool or mohair noils, 
 which are also used in manufacturing cloaks. The circumstance that the lat- 
 ter fabrics are of a better grade and command a higher price does not prevent 
 the application of the similitude clause. Rosenstem v. United States, United 
 States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, May 25, 1909. No. 249 (suit 5152). 
 Appeal by importer from the Circuit Court of the United States for the South- 
 ern District of New York. Decision in favor of the Government. (T.D. 29825; 
 June 8, 1909.) 
 
 "Material" — "Quality" — "Texture" — "Use :" Within the meaning of the simili- 
 tude clause in section 7, tariff act of 1897, ramie sliver resembles cotton sliver (1) 
 in "material" because it is a vegetable fiber, (2) in "quality" because it has 
 reached the same degree of purity, (3) in "texture " because the fibers are in prac- 
 tically the same form,' and (4) in "use" because intended to be spun into yam 
 and thread for the manufacture of fabrics in the same way that cotton sliver is 
 used . Vandegrift v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Third 
 Circuit, August 20, 1909. No. 43 (suit 1683). Appeal by importer from Cir- 
 cuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (164 
 Fed. Rep., 65; T. D. 29239) affirming a decision of the Board of General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 3702 (T. D. 25772). Decision in favor of the Government. 
 (T. D. 30010; Sept. 28, 1909.) 
 
 Coffee essence — "Coffee" — Coffee substitute: Coffee essence, used as coffee or 
 as a substitute therefor, is not "coffee" within the meaning of paragraph 529, 
 tariff act of 1897, but is dutiable either directly or by similitude under para- 
 graph 283, relating to "articles used as coffee, or as substitutes for coffee." 
 Hazard v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Cir- 
 cuit, December 7, 1909. No. 35 (suit 4921). Appeal by importer from Circuit 
 Court of the United States for Southern District of New York (164 Fed. Rep., 
 907; T. D. 29351) affirming Abstract 14953 (T. D. 28074). Decision adverse to 
 Government. (T. D. 30213; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 
 In questions of doubt as to the application of the similitude clause, the construc- 
 tion given by the department charged with the execution of the tariff acts is 
 entitled to great weight. Sake had been held dutiable as a still wine by simili- 
 tude under the tariff act of 1890, and that rule had been followed eight years, 
 during which two other tariff acts had been enacted, and while litigation was 
 in progress Congress in terms put sake in the category of still wines. Held, that 
 the intent of Congress to make sake dutiable at the same rate as still wines was 
 clearly manifested. (T. D. 30253; Jan. 11, 1910.) 
 
 Concentrated fruit juice: Within the meaning of the similitude clause in section 
 7, tariff act of 1897, concentrated fruit juice resembles ordinary fruit juice in 
 "material" because it differs only in having had some of the water removed by 
 evaporation; and it resembles fruit juice in "use" because applied to the same 
 purpose. It is therefore dutiable as fruit juice by similitude under paragraph 
 299, tariff act of 1897. United States v. Rich, United States Circuit Court of 
 Appeals, Second Circuit, February 8, 1910. No. 148 (suit 5243). Appeal by 
 the United States from the decision of the Circuit Court of the United States 
 
132 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Classification — Continued. 
 Similitude — Continued. 
 
 for the Southern District of New York (172 Fed. Eep., 293); T. D. 29812, re- 
 versing Abstract 18229 (T. D. 28805). Decision adverse to the Government. 
 (T. D. 30357; Feb. 15, 1910.) 
 
 So-called "night lights," composed chiefly of stearin, a manufacture of tallow, 
 held to be properly classifiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles under 
 section 6, tariff act of 1897, and not under paragraph 279 as tallow by similitude. 
 Fairbanks v. Spaulding (19 Fed. Rep., 416); Strohmeyer's case, G. A. 6724 
 (T. D. 28797); Bancel v. United States (T. D. 30124). (T. D. 30332— G. A. 
 6974; Feb. 2, 1910.) 
 
 Artificial silk hats: Artificial silk hats are dutiable by similitude at the rate for 
 silk wearing apparel, provided by paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897. United 
 States V. Wanamaker, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 
 February 12, 1910. No. 65 (suit 1973). Appeal by United States from Circuit 
 Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (169 Fed. 
 Rep., 664; T. D. 29676) reversing G. A. 6606 (T. D. 28217). Decision in favor 
 of the Government. (T. D. 30385; Mar. 1, 1910.) 
 
 Ferroa —Un wrought metals — Ferromanganese : So-called ferroalloys — ferrochrome, 
 ferrotungsten, and ferrovanadium — are dutiable under paragraph 122, tariff 
 act of 1897, as ferromanganese by similitude, rather than as unwrought metala 
 under paragraph 183. United States v. Lavino (T. D. 30168), affirming 171 
 Fed. Rep., 245 (T. D. 29764), followed. G. A. 6755 (T. D. 28948) reversed. 
 (T. D. 30441— G. A. 6992; Mar. 14, 1910.) 
 
 Corundum ore, ground: Ground corundum ore which has been advanced in value 
 by processes of manufacture for a specific use is dutiable as emery by similitude 
 under paragraph 419, tariff act of 1897, rather than free of duty under paragraph 
 614 (crude minerals) or paragraph 671 (manufactured sand). Myers v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, District of Vermont, March 21, 1910. No. 
 95 (suit 2078.) Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Apprais- 
 ers, Abstract 21450 (T. D. 29848). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30470; Mar. 29, 
 1910.) 
 
 Miso — Unenumerated manufacture: The article commercially known as miso, 
 which is generally used in making soup, and is composed of rice and beans, the 
 former being the chief element, both in weight and value, and in which processes 
 of cooking and fermentation change the flavor of the components but do not 
 entirely destroy their form, is not "preserved vegetables" nor "sauce," within 
 the meaning of paragraph 241, tariff act of 1897, but is dutiable as an unenum- 
 erated manufacture under section 6. Because an unenumerated article resem- 
 bles an enumerated article sufficiently to be brought within the scope of the 
 similitude clause, it does not follow that another unenumerated article that is 
 somewhat similar to the first or is produced by a similar process must also be 
 charged with the same duty by siroilitude. The provision in section 7, tariff 
 act of 1897, that the chief component material shall be ascertained with refer- 
 ence to "such material in its condition as found in the article," was probably 
 intended to apply to such compounds as leave the component parts sufficiently 
 accessible to examination for the basis of a judgment, such as combinations of 
 different kinds of fibers in one manufacture. It seems impracticable to ascer- 
 tain the value of the components after manufacture, in such an article as miso, 
 consisting of rice and beans subjected to fermenting and cooking processes. 
 Fujiyama v. United States, United States District Court, Territory of Hawaii, 
 April 6, 1910. No. 46 (suit 1804). Appeal by the importer from decision of 
 the Board of General Appraisers (G. A. 6244 — T. D. 26938). Decision adverse 
 to the Government. (T. D. 30573; Apr. 26, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 133 
 
 Classification — Continued. 
 Similitude — Continued. 
 
 Breccia in the form of rough blocks, being similar in texture and uses to marble, 
 is dutiable, under the application of the similitude provision of paragraph 481, 
 at the same rate as marble in rough blocks, at 65 cents per cubic foot under para- 
 graph 111, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30797— G. A. 7073; July 18, 1910.) 
 
 Talc: Talc sawed into cubes for use in making gas burnere and insulators, the saw- 
 ing being not merely to remove foreign matter and to put the material in shape 
 for transportation, but to put it into certain desired dimensions, has been ad- 
 vanced in value and condition, and is therefore excluded from paragraphs 519 
 and 614, tariff act of 1897, relating to crude chalk and to minerals not advanced 
 in value or condition and is dutiable as French chalk by similitude, under para- 
 graph 13, tariff act of 1897. Kraemer v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, June 28, 1910. Suit 5511. Appeal by 
 importer from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 21245 (T. D. 
 29763). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30808; July 19, 1910.) 
 
 Specific enumeration: Untrimmed hats of imitation horsehair, a material chiefly 
 of vegetable origin, are dutiable by similitude under the provision in paragraph 
 409, tariff act of 1897, for untrimmed hats composed of straw, etc., rather than 
 by similitude under the more general provision in paragraph 390 for wearing 
 apparel of silk. Cochran v. United States; Rosenblum v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, June 28, 1910. 
 Suits 4717-8. Appeals by the importers from decision of the Board of General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6487 (T. D. 27743). Board reversed. (T. D. 30839; Aug. 
 2, 1910.) 
 
 Paragraph 425, tariff act of 1897, making feathers and downs when dressed, 
 colored, or otherwise advanced or manufactured in any manner dutiable at 50 
 per cent, does not extend to or include goose skins adapted to and employed 
 for other purposes than those for which down is used. The evidence show- 
 ing that the use to which goose skins such as were here imported are ordi- 
 narily put is similar to the use of fur and not to that of down, they were dutiable 
 by similitude under paragi-aph 426 of that act and according thus with a long- 
 continued practice of the Treasury Department. Gross, Engle & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 451); Herskovitz & Roth v. United States (No. 452), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal from United States Circuit Court for South- 
 ern District of New York (T. D. 30122, T. D. 30806). (T. D. 31410; Mar. 13, 
 1911.) 
 
 Jewels as bearings: Where the clear and unmistakable intent of Congress is to pro- 
 vide for a group of articles designed solely for a particular use and to exclude 
 from that provision all other articles of the same class identical as to material but 
 differing in their use, the similitude clause will not be applied in cases where 
 its operation would deprive that intendment of its full force and effect. 
 
 Jewels for instruments other than watches or clocks: Bearings for instruments 
 of precision other than watches or clocks, made of sapphires or other precious 
 stones, are dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 480, tariff act of 
 1909j as unenumerated manufactured articles, and not at 10 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 192 or 449 as jewels for watches and clocks, or as precious stones, 
 respectively, nor are they dutiable as articles composed of mineral substances 
 under paragraph 95, or as semiprecious stones under paragraph 112 of said act. 
 (T. D. 31519— G. A. 7209; Apr. 18, 1911.) 
 
 It is only in a case where there is a doubt as to the meaning of the statute itself that 
 the usage of the customs may be held to determine the construction of that 
 statute. That the article in question, namely, a mat of unwoven hair contains 
 no wool must be assumed, but it appears certainly to be felt, and since its use 
 
134 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Classification — Continued. 
 Similitude — Continued . 
 
 is subBtantially the same with woolen felt, there being shown a similar though 
 not identical use, it is dutiable under the similitude clause, tariff act of 1909. 
 United States v. Eoessler (137 Fed. Rep., 770); Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. 
 United States (No. 587), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7157 (T. 
 D. 31253). Decision aflirmed. (T. D. 32162; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 
 The classification of imported articles must be ascertained by an examination of 
 the articles in their condition as imported. The similitude clause, section 7, 
 tariff act of 1897, applies only to articles not enumerated in the tariff act. 
 
 Merchandise manufactured to suit tariff: Articles may be manufactured or 
 prepared for the purpose of importing them at a lower rate of duty. (T. D. 
 32298; Mar. 5, 1912.) 
 
 The assessment of an unenumerated article by similitude properly depends on 
 its resemblance to some enumerated dutiable article and not upon the manner 
 in which the enumerated article is itself named in the law ; the unenumerated 
 article is subject to the same duty that is levied on that enumerated article it 
 most resembles in material, quality, texture, or use. Patterson v. United 
 States (166 Fed. Rep., 733) distinguished. (T. D. 32349; Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 
 Commercial designation: The fact that grenadine contains citric acid and that 
 certain fruits also contain that substance is not sufficient to show uch similarity 
 of substance as would justify classifying grenadine by similitude to fruit sirups. 
 The testimony of a single witness that "we " — evidently meaning the firm which 
 he represented — "consider it among the fruit sirups" is not sufiicient to show 
 commercial designation. (T. D. 35923; Nov. 19, 1915.) 
 Specific designation — ■ 
 
 Mackerel, halibut, and salmon, packed in ice, are more specifically enumerated 
 in paragraph 261, tariff act of 1897, as "fish * * * packed in ice, * * * 
 not specially provided for," than as "mackerel, halibut, or salmon, fresh." 
 United States v. Peny, United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, 
 April 6, 1909. No. 115 (suits 1776-81.) Appeal by United States from decision 
 of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6208 (T. D. 26856). Board affirmed. (T. 
 D. 29691; Apr. 14, 1909.) 
 
 "Cocoanut oil" in paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897, is a more specific designation 
 than "cocoa butterine" in paragraph 282. Fuerst v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, December 7, 1909. No. 84 
 (suit 4168). Appeal by the importer from the Circuit Court of the United States 
 for the Southern District of New York (166 Fed. Rep., 1014; T. D. 29394) affirm- 
 ing Abstract 9541 (T. D. 26958). Decision adverse to the Goverimaent. (T. D. 
 30190; Dec. 14, 1909.) 
 
 Colors not containing quicksilver but containing lead are more specifically enu- 
 merated under paragraph 54, tariff act of 1897, as "colors * * * jjgt con- 
 taining quicksilver but made of lead or containing lead," than under paragraph 
 58, relating to "colors * * * nototherwisespecially provided for." United 
 States V. Marsching, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 November 4, 1909. Suit 4116. Appeal by the United States from decision of 
 the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6144 (T. D. 26689). Decision adverse to 
 the Government. (T. D. 30235; Dec. 31, 1909.) 
 
 Construction: The word "handmade" is denominative and not merely descrip- 
 tive; and being a name that is specific and not general, it controls on the natural 
 reading of the statute, over the term "printing" as applied to paper, though the 
 common sense of the matter, the force of other provisions, and the surrounding 
 circumstances might under some conditions make what is descriptive overrule 
 
MGfiST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, l908-l9l5. l36 
 
 Classification — Continued. 
 Specific designation — Continued. 
 
 that which enumerates. Handmade printing paper is dutiable as "handmade 
 paper" under paragraph 401, tariff act of 1897, rather than as "printing paper" 
 under paragraph 396. In construing the application of the terms "handmade " 
 and "printing" as applied to paper, consideration is given to the evident intent 
 of Congress, (1) as revealed in numerous successive tariff acts, to reduce the 
 duties on printing paper for the benefit of the ordinary reading public, and (2) 
 by elevating handmade paper into a new class in a later act, to impose a higher 
 duty on an article which it is a matter of common knowledge is relatively a 
 luxury. United States v. Davies, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, First 
 Circuit, March 4, 1910. No. 841 (suit 2053). Appeal by the United States from 
 decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachu- 
 setts (172 Fed. Rep., 298; T. D. 29924) reversing Abstract 20Hp (T. D. 29429). 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30425; Mar. 15, 1910.) 
 
 Use: Imitation pearl beads loosely strung on a cotton string, having all the char- 
 acteristics of beads, and afterwards restrung on a sillc thread and a clasp placed 
 thereon, do not become imitation precious stones, including pearls and parts 
 thereof, dutiable under paragraph 449, but are dutiable as imitation pearl beads 
 under paragraph 421 of the act of 1909. The use to which merchandise may be 
 placed is not necessarily a criterion of its classification. If merchandise is re- 
 ferred to in more than one paragraph of the tariff act it should be classified under 
 that paragraph which in specific terms refers to it. The purpose for which mer- 
 chandise may be imported does not control in its classification, if a specific pro- 
 vision of the statute describes the merchandise and provides the rate of duty. 
 (T. D. 34415— G. A. 7561; Apr. 23, 1914.) 
 
 The use of the phrase "by whatever name known" indicates the purpose of Con- 
 gress to make the provision for embroideries in paragraph 358 so specific and all 
 inclusive that it will include articles of the character therein specified, whether 
 they are mentioned by name in another paragraph of the act or not. 
 
 Embroidered hosiery: Embroidered stockings, hose and half hose are dutiable 
 under paragraph 358, act of 1913, as "wearing apparel, * * * embroidered, 
 * * * by whatever name known," and not under paragraph 260 as "stock- 
 ings, hose, and half hose," etc. (T. D. 34930— G. A. 7644; Nov. 28, 1914.) 
 Specific provision of tariff — 
 
 Every commodity should be classified under that provision of a tariff law which 
 most specifically provides for it. Chew Hing Lung v. Wise (176 U. S., 156); 
 Arthur v. Lahey (96 U. S., 113). T. D. 30290— (G. A. 6968; Jan. 18, 1910.) 
 Specificity — 
 
 The relative specificity of competing provisions of the tariff law is not always con- 
 trolling of decision. (T. D. 35984; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 Stare decisis — 
 
 Practice: At the trial importers' counsel stated that as to certain protests no 
 samples of the gloves covered by them could be had, and they were abandoned. 
 Subsequently, however, by stipulation these protests were reopened, and it was 
 agreed the rate on the goods in question should be determined by the rule laid 
 down in the Wertheimer case. This became an agreed statement of facts, and 
 the rule in the Wertheimer case should have been applied. — United States v. 
 Wertheimer (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 338; T. D. 33528). 
 
 Leather gloves, hand embroidered: The second class of gloves bore three- 
 point embroideries that were hand stitched. Each of the three points was 
 stitched by the use of only two separate threads, but in each point the two 
 threads are continued so as to form three or four rows or lines. As to these, 
 United States v. Wertheimer (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 338; T. D. 33528) rules, and 
 the doctrine of stare decisis applies. Altman & Co. v. United States (No. 1384), 
 
136 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Classification — Continued. 
 
 Staie decisis — Continued. 
 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34943 (T. D. 34247). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 34941; Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 "All articles commonly or commercially known as jewelry, or parts thereof, fin- 
 ished or unfinished," paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, is more specific in its 
 application than the provision with the proviso in that paragraph, and that this 
 is so is now stare decisis. (T. D. 35272; Mar. 25, 1915.) 
 
 Straw hats, trimmed — 
 Classification under paragraph 422, tariS act of 1909, of straw hats, trimmed, to be 
 limited to such as, including the trimming, are composed in chief value of straw. 
 (T. D. 31794; Aug. 4, 1911.) 
 
 Trade designation — 
 The terms "coal slack or culm" in paragraph 415, tariff act of 1897, have acquired 
 in the commerce of this country no definite and uniform meaning such as would 
 exclude from it small pieces of bituminous coal such as would pass through a 
 half-inch screen. (T. D. 29915— G. A. 6923; July 16, 1909.) 
 
 Use governs classificatiou — 
 Articles are not to be excluded from the provision in paragraph 241, tariff act of 
 1897, for "vegetables * * *, including pickles and sauces of all kinds," on 
 the ground that they are not palatable or desirable as a distinct and separate 
 eatable, or are not what are known as garden vegetables. The use, rather than 
 strict botanical classification, is the determinative factor; and capers, which are 
 flower buds but are used as pickles or as a sauce, are included in said provision. 
 Articles are not to be removed from a provision for pickles and sauces and placed 
 in a provision for drugs, simply because a medical or therapeutic property may 
 be extracted from them. Pierce v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 District of Massachusetts, February 12, 1910. No. 114 (suit 1775). Appeal by 
 the importer from decision of the Board of General Appraisers,. G. A. 6201 (T. D. 
 26849). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30367; Feb. 21, 1910.) 
 
 Waste — Test of classification — ■ 
 The term "waste " in paragraph 463, tariff act of 1897, refers to waste and scraps of 
 different commodities that can be put to some new or different use from that to 
 which its main constituent part would ordinarily be put, and would not include 
 scrap that, though of very low grade, could be used for the same purposes as 
 similar material of better character. Latimer v. United States, United States 
 District Court, District of Porto Rico, September 7, 1909. No. 650 (suit 2076). 
 Appeal by importer from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 
 21409 (T. D. 29834). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30011; Sept. 28, 1909.) 
 
 Where two or more rates of duty are applicable — 
 Paragraph 481, tariff act of 1909, providing that if two or more rates of duty shall be 
 applicable to any imported merchandise, it is dutiable at the highest of such 
 rates, will be construed, in case of ambiguity, in favor of the importer; but where 
 there is no ambiguity, the highest rate must be applied. (T. D. 31119; Nov. 
 30, 1910.) 
 The present merchandise before and at the time of the passage of the tariff act of 
 1909 was known commercially as beads and known also commercially as agate 
 button blanks, and under the testimony it can not be well said that either desig- 
 nation is the more specific. Accordingly, the articles fall within the final 
 clause of paragraph 481 of the act in question, by which they must take the 
 higher rate of duty assessed upon the two classifications. American Bead Co. 
 ^ V. United States (No. 1341), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 34844 (T. D. 34201). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35001; Dec. 14, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 137 
 
 Clay. 
 Brick nibble — 
 
 Ordinary clay, burnt, ground, and passed through a screen, used for tennis courts, 
 is not classifiable at 50 cents per ton as clay or earth unwrought or unmanu- 
 factured or as wrought or manufactured at $1 per ton under paragraph 76, tariff 
 act of 1913, but is dutiable as an earthy or mineral substance wholly or partially 
 manufactured, at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 81. Paragraph 76 is 
 not intended to apply to articles manufactured from clay, but only to clay 
 manufactured or unmanufactured. (T. D. 35915— G. A. 7820; Nov. 24, 1915.) 
 China — 
 
 In determining the weight of china clay, which is dutiable per ton under para- 
 graph 93, tariff act of 1897, no allowance should be made for such moisture as 
 is found in the clay in its ordinary commercial condition; but if an abnormal 
 amount of moisture be present duty should not be paid upon the excess over 
 normal moisture. In assessing on china clay in casks the duty per ton pro- 
 vided by paragraph 93, tariff act of 1897, the Government is not bound by the 
 trade custom of regarding a cask as half a ton, but may base the duty on the 
 actual contents. Perkins ■;;. United States, United States Circuit Court, Eastern 
 District of Pennsylvania, March 27, 1908. No. 52 (suit 1914). Appeal by 
 importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 13381 (T. D. 27691). Board affirmed. (T. D. 28923; Apr. 8, 1908.) 
 
 Weight: In determining the weight of china clay, which, under paragraph 93, 
 tariff act of 1897, is made dutiable by the ton, the actual weight should be ascer- 
 tained. Such weights can not be regulated by an alleged trade custom. Per- 
 kins V. United States (160 Fed. Kep., 272; T. D. 28923). Testimony as to the 
 amount of tare that should be allowed in ascertaining the dutiable weight of 
 china clay, taken in previous cases, is not competent evidence to establish the 
 amount of tare to be allowed in other cases. (T. D. 31379 — G. A. 7185; Mar. 
 10, 1911.) 
 Modeling — 
 
 Modeling clay, so called, composed of sulphur, petroleum wax, saponifiable oil, 
 and clay, is not the clay provided for in paragraph 93, tariff act of 1897, and is 
 not so assessable, either directly or by similitude, but should be classified as a 
 nonenumerated manufactured article under the provisions of section 6. (T. D. 
 28797— G. A. 6724; Feb. 18, 1908.) 
 
 "Plasticine" and "plastilina," nonenumerated manufactures: Earthy and min- 
 eral substances are not dutiable under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, but arti- 
 cles made out of earthy or mineral substances are — that is to say, articles that 
 are something more than the material out of which they are made, being dis- 
 tinguishable from the mass out of which they were developed by a definite 
 shape and form adapted to a final use. Salomon v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., 92; T. D. 31635); United States v. Tamm & Co. (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 425; 
 T. D. 32173). United States v. Embossing Co. et al. (No. 748), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 26362 (T. D. 31832). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 32536; May 8, 1912.) 
 
 Tariff act of 1913: The merchandise in this case, being as stipulated, does not fall 
 within the terms of paragraph 81, tariff act of 1913, but manufactured and com- 
 posed as it is of earthy or mineral substances and a substance which is neither 
 earthy nor mineral, namely, saponifiable matter in percentage 31.12, it is dutia- 
 ble as an unenumerated manufactured article under paragraph 385 of the act. 
 United States v. Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. (No. 1466), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Government from Board of United States 
 Genjeral Appraisers, Abstract 36458 (T. D. 34763). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 35473; May 21, 1915.) 
 
138 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Clay — Continued. 
 Modeling — Continued. 
 TJnenumerated article: Plastilina or modeling clay, not shown to contain clay, is 
 dutiable as an unenmnerated manufacture under section 6, tariff act of 1897, 
 and not either directly or by similitude as clay under paragraph 93. Bancel v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 November 10, 1909. Appeal by importer from decision of the Board of General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 21258 (T. D. 29763). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30124; 
 Nov. 23, 1909.) 
 Clear almonds. (See Almonds.) 
 Clearance of vessels. (See Vessels.) 
 Clerical error. (See Error, clerical.) 
 Clinical thermometers. (See Thermometers. cUnical.) 
 Clocks. 
 China cases and metal movements — 
 China clock cases, whether imported separately or containing clock movements, 
 and whether they are of more or of less value than the movements, are dutiable 
 as "clock cases " under paragraph 93, tariff act of 1909, at 60 per cent ad valorem; 
 and the metal movements or works are separately dutiable under paragraph 192 
 of said act as "parts of clocks." (T. D. 31086— G. A. 7126; Dec. 5, 1910.) 
 Parts of — 
 The provision in paragraph 191, tariff act of 1897, for clocks and "parts thereof" 
 does not include devices separately imported, which are susceptible of use 
 other than as parts of clocks; and chime devices which without alteration can 
 be used on doors as well as on clocks are not within said provision. (T. D. 
 29495— G. A. 6855; Jan. 21, 1909.) 
 Watchmen's time detectors — 
 Under the act of 1897 it was held that "watch movements'' included "time- 
 detector movements," and the insertion in paragraph 192, tariff act of 1909, 
 after "watch movements," of the words "including time-detectors," plainly 
 adopts that construction. Accordingly the merchandise consisting of such 
 time detectors was not dutiable as entireties, but as assessed under paragraphs 
 192 and 199 of the act of 1909. Chicago Watchman's Clock Works v. United 
 States (No. 1079), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30882 
 (T. D. 33055). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33376; Apr. 22, 1913.) 
 Clo-clo braid. 
 Lead chief value — 
 So-called clo-clo braids composed of a flax cord, on which are molded at regular 
 intervals of about one-fourth of an inch apart uniformly shaped pieces of lead 
 measuring about one-half of an inch in length, one-fourth of an inch in width, 
 and one-eighth of an inch in thickness, the whole article being covered with 
 tubular braid, the lead constituting the component material of chief value, are 
 properly dutiable as articles in chief value of lead at the rate of 20 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 167, tariff act of 1913, rather than as articles in part of 
 braid under paragraph 358 of said act, that paragraph being limited to "articles 
 in chief value of threads, yams, and filaments." Loewenthal & Co. d. United 
 States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 35464) cited and followed. (T. D. 35798— 
 G. A. 7792; Oct. 13, 1915.) 
 Appeal directed from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers 
 of October 13, 1915, G. A. 7792 (T. D. 35798). (T. D. 35929; Nov. 29, 1915.) 
 Cloisonne jewelry. (See Jewelry.) 
 Cloth, cotton. (See Cotton. Cloth.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 139 
 
 Clothing. 
 Boys' suits — 
 Goods partly, but not in chief value, of wool: This merchandise — boys' suits — 
 consisting of a blouse, flannel neckpiece, and trousers, were properly assessed 
 under paragraph 382, tariff act of 1909. There was no purpose on the part of the 
 Congress to limit that paragraph to woolen wearing apparel not otherwise pro- 
 vided for. Hecht & Co. v. United States (No. 1297), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 33777 (T. D. 33789). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 34444; May 4, 1914.) 
 Card. (See Entireties, card clothing.) 
 In part of braid — 
 A dress suit, composed of wool and trimmed on the outside seam of the trousers 
 legs with braid, is dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem as "clothing, ready-made, 
 * * * composed wholly or in chief value of wool" under paragraph 291, act 
 of 1913, and not as "wearing apparel, * * * appliqu6d" or as "articles 
 made * * * in part of braid," at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 358. (T. D. 34755— G. A. 7597; Sept. 3, 1914.) 
 
 Clothes baskets. (See Baskets, willow.) 
 
 Cloves, oil of. (See Oils, essential.) 
 
 Clutch-leathers. (See Leather.) 
 
 Coal. 
 Anthracite- 
 Welsh anthracite coal containing between 90 and 92 per cent of fixed carbon is 
 free of duty under section 2, act of January 15, 1903 (32 Stat., 773; T. D. 24164), 
 providing that after said date paragraph 415, tariff act of 1897, should not "be 
 construed to authorize the imposition of any duty upon anthracite coal." (T. 
 D. 29800— G. A. 6912; June 3, 1909.) 
 Percentage of fixed carbon: In construing the provision in paragraph 415, tariff 
 act of 1897, for "all coals containing less than ninety-two per cent of fixed car- 
 bon," held that, in view of past decisions on the subject in which it was held 
 that anthracite coal contains less than 92 per cent of fixed carbon, the contrary 
 would not be held on conflicting evidence. Construing the provision in section 
 2 of the coal act of January 15, 1903 (32 Stat., 773; T. D. 24164), that the tariff 
 act of 1897 "shall not hereafter be construed to authorize the imposition of any 
 duty upon anthracite coal," held that the term "hereafter " was not intended to 
 have a retroactive effect and did not apply to importations made several months 
 before the date of that act. Perkins v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, July 13, 1910. Suit 3514. Appeal by 
 importer from decision of the Board of General Appraisers (Abstract 492, T.D. 
 25067). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30842; Aug. 2, 1910.) 
 Slack — 
 The merchandise in question consisted of so-called surplus bunkers taken from a 
 steamship consisting of bituminous coal with a large proportion of slack. Held, 
 that the lower duty provided for slack in paragraph 415, tariff act of 1897, might 
 be applied to such proportion, regardless of its being intermingled with bitu- 
 minous coal paying a higher rate, and that the law would not throw upon the 
 importer the burden of separating the slack from the other coal, when it appeared 
 that the relative proportions of the two could be fixed by the customs officers by 
 testing a single tub. Held, that the percentage of slack in an importation of 175 
 tons of coal might be determined by testing 113 pounds of that importation. 
 United States v. Bond, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 Texas, February 4, 1908. No. 2017 (suit 1714). On application for review of a 
 
140 DIGEST OP CtJSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Coal — Continued . 
 Slack — Continued. 
 
 decision of Board of United States General'Appraisers (T. D. 26022), Abstract 
 4458 (T. D. 25991). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 28853; Mar. 18, 
 1908:) 
 
 United States v. Dickens. Decision in this case follows that of United States v. 
 Bond (T. D. 28853). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 28854; Mar. 18, 1908.) 
 Slack or culm — 
 
 The terms "coal slack or culm" in paragraph 415, tariff act of 1897, have acquired 
 in the commerce of this country no definite and uniform meaning such as would 
 exclude from it small pieces of bituminous coal such as would pass through a 
 half-inch screen. All bituminous coal which, on test made, will pass through a 
 half-inch screen at the port of arrival. Held to be dutiable at 15 cents per ton of 
 28 bushels, 80 pounds to the bushel. Where a cargo of coal, composed of lump 
 coal and slack, is imported in a mixed.condition, a portion being dutiable under 
 said paragraph 415 at 67 cents per ton, and a portion at 15 cents per ton, such 
 cargo may, for dutiable purposes, be segregated by being passed over a half-inch 
 screen at the port of arrival. Imported coal was twice screened to determine 
 the percentage of slack, the percentage shown by the second screening being 
 higher than that shown by the first. Held, that as pulverization or breakage 
 occurs each time coal is handled, the amount of slack found at the first screening 
 shows more accurately the condition of the merchandise at the time of importar 
 tion, and that the true percentage of slack must be taken to be that ascertained 
 by the first screening. United States v. Bond (161 Fed. Rep., 165; T. D. 28853 
 followed. 
 
 Waite, General Appraiser, dissents, holding: All coal which will pass through 
 a half-inch screen is not "slack or culm" within the meaning of paragraph 415, 
 tariff act of 1897. The expression "slack or culm" in the statute was intended 
 to apply to screenings, including waste, impurities, and coal which were sepa- 
 rated at the mine. (T. D. 29915— G. A. 6923; July 16, 1909.) 
 
 Appeal directed July 30, 1909 (T. D. 29928). The term "coal slack or culm," 
 appearing in paragraph 415, tariff act of 1897, may not be taken as employed 
 there in a commercial sense limiting the words to coal screened at the mines, but 
 applies as well to coal screened on entry at a port of entry; and coal having been 
 so screened, the coal slack or culm resulting from the process was dutiable under 
 the act named at 15 cents per ton of 28 bushels, 80 pounds to the bushel. 
 
 Mixed goods that may bear differing rates of duty: Dutiable goods imported 
 mixed with other goods subject to another rate of duty or none at all, if practi- 
 cably separable or if determinable in quantity may, on a levy of duties, be segre- 
 gated for that purpose. United States v. Ranlett (172 U. S., 133). United 
 States V. Waterhouse & Co. (No. 119), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 6923 (T. D. 29915). Transferred from United States Circuit Court for 
 WesternDistrictof Washington, Northern Division. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 31452; Mai. 27, 1911.) 
 
 Coal which, after being mined, had been washed in water by the use of machinery 
 or otherwise pribr to exportation, so as to remove the dirt, dust, fine coal, or other 
 impurities of like kind, is dutiable at 45 cents per ton under paragraph 428 of 
 the tariff act of 1909, and not at 15 cents per ton as coal slack or culm such as wUl 
 pass through a half-inch screen. The process of washing changes its weight and 
 commercial character so as to remove it from the category of "coal slack or culm 
 produced and screened in the ordinary way, as such, and so shipped from the 
 mine." (T. D. 30907— G. A. 7096; Aug. 24, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISION'S, 1908-1915. 141 
 
 Coal — Continued . 
 
 Slack or culm — Continued. 
 The provision in paragraph 415, tariff act of 1897, tor coal slack or culm, includes 
 the coal dust and the broken particles of coal such as will pass through a half- 
 inch screen, ordinarily resulting from the screening of the coal at the mines, the 
 carrying of the same to the bunkers, the loading of it into vessels or cars, the 
 motion of the vessel or cars during transportation, and the shock and friction 
 caused by unloading at point of destination. United States v. Waterhouse (1 
 Ct. Oust. Appls., 353; T. D. 31452) followed. (T. D. 35169— G. A. 7691; Feb. 
 23, 1915.) 
 Coal-tar preparations. 
 
 Bases — 
 Products or preparations of coal tar known as bases, which, after being treated 
 with or dissolved in acids, are used in dyeing fabrics, are not coal-tar colors or 
 dyes, and there is no such commercial understanding of the words "coal-tar 
 colors and dyes " as includes them. The bases in question are therfore subject 
 to duty at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 15, 
 tariff act of 1909, for "all other products or preparations of coal tar, not colors or 
 dyes, and not medicinal." United States v. Walter (4 Ot. Cust. Appls., — ; T. 
 D. 33371), Haddock v. Magone (152 U. S., 368), and Sonn v. Magone (159 U. S., 
 417) cited. (T. D. 33831— G. A. 7505; Oct. 27, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise consists of preparations of coal tar known as 
 bases. These bases, after acid treatment, are used in dyeing fabrics. The proof 
 does not show there is a commercial designation of these goods as coal-tar colors 
 and dyes, and as brought in they are not coal-tar colors and dyes, but a product 
 or preparation of coal tar, not medicinal, and were dutiable as such under para- 
 graph 15, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Badische Co. et al. (No. 1301), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7505 (T. D. 33831). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 34400; Apr, 14, 1914.) 
 
 Carboltneum America — 
 Coal-tar oils, known under the trade name of Carbolineum America, showing resi- 
 dues of 81.4, 74.4, and 82.2 per cent in the processes of distillation above 350° C, 
 are not dead or creosote oils, but are products or preparations of coal tar not spe- 
 cially provided for in the tariff act of August 5, 1909, and as such were subject to 
 duty at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 15. 
 (T. D. 32653— G. A. 7378; June 24, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise involved in this case consists of a product of 
 coal tar known under the trade name of ' ' Carbolineum America. ' ' In paragraph 
 536, tariff act of 1909, it was the evident intention to restrict the grade of oil 
 admissible free of duty under that paragraph to that known as dead oil. It is 
 not shown here that the importation is in any sense dead oil; the record shows, 
 on the contrary, that the importation was not at the date of the enactment of the 
 tariff act of 1909 known as creosote oil, but was in fact an oil of much greater 
 value. Hawley & Letzerich v. United States (No. 983), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board ot United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 7378 (T. D. 32653). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33487; 
 May 26, 1913.) 
 
 Carbolineum avenarius — 
 Coal-tar oils known ujider the trade name ot Carbolineum avenarius, showing resi- 
 dues in the processes ot distillation ranging from 58.6 to 86.8 per cent, and zinc 
 and chlorin ranging from eight to thirty one-hundredths ot a per cent at 350° C, 
 are not dead or creosote oils, but are products or preparations of coal tar not 
 
142 DIGEST or CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Coal-tai preparations — Continued. 
 Carbolineum avenarius — Continued. 
 
 specially provided for in the tariff act of August 5, 1909, and as such are subject 
 to duty at 20 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 15 thereof 
 T. D. 31093 cited; G. A. 7240 (T. D. 31719) cited and distinguished; G. A. 7378 
 (T. D. 32653) and Downing v. United States (123 Fed., 1000) cited and followed. 
 (T. D. 33259— G. A. 7442; Mar. 3, 1913.) 
 Creolln — 
 
 Creolin properly dutiable at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 15, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33504; June 5, 1913.) 
 Creolin-Pearson — 
 
 Creolin-Pearson, chemically recognized as saponified creosote, is a coal-tar prepa- 
 ration, not medicinal, and subject to duty at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 15 of the tariff act of 1909. Evidence that it was chemically 
 substantially the same as "Sarena, " which was held by the board to be sheep 
 dip, and also that it possessed such chemical qualifications as would meet the 
 requirements of the Department of Agriculture at Washington for sheep dip, is 
 not sufficient to establish that it was practically and commercially adaptable to 
 such use. G. A. 3582 (T. D. 17391) and G. A. 7256 (T. D. 31799) discussed and 
 distinguished. (T. D. 33775— G. A. 7497; Oct. 1, 1918.) 
 Creolin and sheep dip — 
 
 The importation is of saponified creosote put up in smaller packages imder the 
 trade-mark designation of "Creolin. ' ' From the evidence here it appears there 
 may be some article which is chiefly used as a sheep dip, but it does not appear 
 that creolin is either commercially or commonly known as a sheep dip, nor that 
 it has ever been officially recognized by the Government as such or that it is 
 chiefly used tor that purpose. The presumption of correctness attaching to the 
 collector's decision was not accordingly overcome. Merck & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 1451), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 36180 (T. D. 
 34668). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35274; Mar. 25, 1915.) 
 Creosote oil — 
 
 Creosote oil containing less than 1 per cent of chlorine and zinc compounds free 
 of duty under paragraph 536, tariff act of 1909. Entries containing more than 
 1 per cent of chlorine or zinc compounds to be referred to departmei t before 
 liquidation. (T. D. 31093; Dec. 8, 1910.) 
 
 Merchandise described on the invoice as "creosote oil," and assessed for duty at 
 20 per cent under paragraph 15, tariff act of 1909, as a coal-tar preparation. 
 Held to be creosote oil, in absence of testimony by Government to sustain col- 
 lector's classification. (T. D. 31719— G. A. 7240; June 14, 1911.) 
 Bosaniline — 
 
 RosaniUne dutiable under paragraph 15 of the tariff act of 1909, as a coal-tar color 
 or dye at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 31763; July 18, 1911.) 
 
 Rosanilin, a product of coal tar, used in the manufacture of colors, is dutiable as a 
 coal-tar product, not a color or dye and not medicinal, under paragraph 15, 
 tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 33215— G. A. 
 7435; Feb. 21, 1913.) 
 Trinitrotoluol — 
 
 Trinitrotoluol can not be classified as an explosive substance used for artillery, 
 etc. , under paragraph 435, tariff act of 1909, in the absence of evidence showing 
 its primary and general use as such, it being in evidence that it is also used for 
 other purposes. Consequently, upon this record, a classification following 
 G. A. 6171 (T. D. 26786), which case held it dutiable as a preparation of coal tar 
 under paragraph 15, and not free of duty under paragraph 536, will not be dis- 
 turbed. T. D. 34787— G. A. 7601; Sept. 24, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 143 
 
 Coated cotton cloth. (See Cotton cloth, coated.) 
 
 Coated wire. (See Wire.) 
 
 Coated zinc sheets. 
 
 Zinc sheets coated with paint dutiable under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. 
 (T. D. 30311; Jan. 28, 1910.) 
 
 Coat hangers — Not tapes. 
 
 The merchandise consists of running lengths of woven cotton strips with cross 
 marks appearing at short intervals to indicate the points for cutting the strips 
 into small pieces suitable for use as coat hangers. The uncontradicted testimony 
 is to the effect that the merchandise has been for a number of years used ex- 
 clusively for coat hangers and that there is no other use to which they are com- 
 mercially applied. They were not dutiable as tapes, but as manufactures of 
 cotton not specially provided for under paragraph 332, tariff act of 1909. United 
 States V. Buss & Co. (No. 1262), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Ap- 
 peal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 33475 (T. D. 33727). Decision aflirmed. (T. D. 34138; Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 
 Coat linings, mohair. 
 
 Congress in separating goods consisting of or manufactured from Angora goat hair 
 and goods made of wool, in Schedule K of the act of 1913, intended to tax under 
 the separate Angora goat hair provisions (pars. 305, 306, 307, 308, and 309) 
 every species of merchandise made of Angora goat hair which is covered 
 by the terms of those paragraphs; and therefore coat linings in chief value of 
 Angora goat hair are properly classified under paragraph 308 at 40 per cent ad 
 valorem, rather than under paragraph 290 as coat linings composed wholly or 
 in chief value of wool. Crimmins & Pierce i;. United States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 — ; T. D. 35392) distinguished and explained. (T. D. 35541— G. A. 7741; 
 June 15, 1915.) 
 
 Cocaine. (See Opium and cocaine.) 
 
 Cocoanut oil. 
 Cocoa — Butterine — 
 A cocoanut oil which has been subjected to a process of manufacture and is sold 
 to confectioners and bakers is held dutiable under paragraph 282, tariff act of 
 1897, as "cocoa butterine," rather than under paragraph 626 as cocoanut oil. 
 Fuerst v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, November 28, 1908. Suit 4168. On application for review of decision 
 by the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 9541 (T. D. 26958'). 
 Board affirmed. (T. D. 29394; Dec. 9, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The provision in paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897, for "cocoanut 
 oil" includes refined as well as unrefined oil. Refined cocoanut oil is not 
 "cocoa butterine" within the meaning of paragraph 282, tariff act of 1897. 
 Fuerst v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 
 .^ December 7, 1909. No. 84 (suit 4168). Appeal by importer from Circuit Court 
 
 of the United States for the Southern District of New York (166 Fed. Rep., 
 1014; T. D. 29394), affirming a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 9541; T. D. 26958). Decision adverse to the Govermnent. (T. D. 30190; 
 Dec. 14, 1909.) 
 Acquiesced in, January 15, 1910 (T. D. 30261). 
 
 Coco fiber. 
 Crude coco fibers, processed — 
 The appraiser found the merchandise to be partly manufactured coco fibers and 
 there is nothing in the record to contradict his finding. The fibers of the im- 
 portation had been subjected to a certain process tha^t fitted them as materials 
 for use in the, manufacture of brushes. They were not entitled to free entry. 
 United States v. Flatt & Co. (No. 1292), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 33808 (T. D. 33789). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34379 ; Apr. 7, 1914.) 
 
144 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Codeine. 
 Alkaloids of opium — 
 Codeine pays a duty as an alkaloid of opium under the language of paragraph 43, 
 act of 1897, and paragraph 41, tariff act of 1909, whether manufactured from 
 opium or synthetically from raorphia. Abstract 5493 (T. D. 26218) followed 
 and the doctrine of that case extended to include codeine synthetically prepared 
 from morphia. (T. D. 33998— G. A. 7517; Dec. 15, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The alkaloids here are produced from morphine, but morphine 
 is derived from opium, and in paragraph 43, tariff act of 1897, "alkaloids" is 
 employed to embrace generically all known or possible alkaloids of opium, and 
 it embraces codeine. 
 
 Salts of opium: While there are no salts of opium proper, that expression in 
 paragraph 43 should be interpreted to mean such salts as are produced by the 
 chemical action of an acid radical on organic bases that are component parts of 
 opium. The merchandise in this case was dutiable under that paragraph. 
 United States v. Merck & Co. (168 Fed., 244). Merck & Co. v. United States 
 (No. 1340), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7517 (T. D. 33998). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35315; Apr. 5, 1915.) 
 Cod oU. (See Oil.) 
 Coffee. 
 Beans — 
 Coffee beans from which the caffein has been extracted dutiable under paragraph 
 294, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 2J cents per pound. (T. D. 32187; Jan. 25, 
 1912.) 
 DecaSelnized — 
 Coffee from which 80 per cent of the caffein has by some process been extracted, 
 and which has undergone no other change either in form, shape, structure, or 
 character, is nevertheless coffee, and free of duty under the express provisions 
 of paragraph 541. 
 
 Substitute for coffee: To be dutiable under paragraph 294, tariff act of 1909, 
 a commodity must be either dandelion root, acorns prepared, or articles used aa 
 coffee or as a substitute for coffee. Coffee in whatever form can not come within 
 the purview of this paragraph, as the same is specifically provided for. 
 
 Food and drugs act: The underlying purpose of the food and drugs act is to 
 prevent the sale of impure and adulterated foods, drugs, etc., while the customs 
 tariff laws are neither preventive nor remedial, but are revenue statutes pro- 
 viding for customs duties and protecting American industries. The rule of con- 
 struction as applied to these two statutes is entirely different. In construing 
 customs laws all doubt should be resolved in favor of the importer. The United 
 Cigar Stores Co. case, G. A. 7026 (T. D. 30643), and cases there cited; United 
 States V. United Cigar Stores Co. (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 450; T. D. 31505). (T. D. 
 33463— G. A. 7464; May 21, 1913.) 
 Extract — ■ 
 A liquid extract of the coffee bean is held not to be covered by paragraph 283, 
 tariff act of 1897, relating to "articles used as coffee, or as substitutes for coffee," 
 but to be dutiable under section 6 as an unenumerated manufactured article. 
 Hazard v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 New York, November 9, 1908. Suit 4921. Appeal from decision by Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 14953 (T. D. 28074). Board affirmed. 
 (H. D. 29351; Nov. 18, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Coffee essence, used as coffee or as a substitute therefor, is not 
 "coffee " within the meaning of paragraph 529, tariff act of 1897, but is dutiable 
 either directly or by similitude under paragraph 283, relating to "articles used 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 145 
 
 Coffee — Continued. 
 Extract— Continued. 
 
 as coffee, or as substitutes for coffee." Hazard v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, December 7, 1909. No. 35 (suit 4921). 
 Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern 
 District of New York (164 Fed. Bep., 907; T. D. 29351) afBrming Abstract 
 14953 (T. D. 28074). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30213; 
 Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 Porto Rlcan — 
 Porto Rican coffee exported and returned to Porto Rico and foreign coffee im- 
 ported into Porto Rico free of duty under act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 34672; 
 Aug. 3, 1914.) 
 
 Coffee substitutes. 
 
 An article represented to be and sold as a substance not alone for coloring coffee, 
 but as a substitute for a portion of each drawing of coffee, adding, it being 
 claimed, to the quality, purity, and wholesomeness of the beverage as served, 
 was dutiable under paragraph 283, tariff act of 1897, as a substitute for coffee. 
 Petru American Importing Co. v. United States (No. 83), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importer from decision of the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers. (T. D. 30547). Board affirmed. (T. D. 
 31113; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 Chicory and beet root — Fig mixtures — 
 A mixture of chicory and beet root is held dutiable under .paragraph 280, tariff 
 act of 1897, relating to "chicory root * * * prepared," etc. Mixtures con- 
 sisting of figs and chicory and figs and beet root, which are used with coffee, are 
 dutiable under paragraph 283, tariff act of 1897, relating to "articles used as 
 coffee or as substitutes for coffee." United States v. Solfronk, United States 
 Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, March 24, 1910. 
 No. 29452 (suit 2070). Appeal by United States from decision of the Board of 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 21052 (T. D. 29690). Board reversed. (T. D. 
 30550; Apr. 19, 1910.) 
 
 Colled spring wire articles. 
 
 The coiling process to which this wire has been subjected has given the wire a new 
 character, name, and use. It is not according to the accepted definition of 
 "wire," "a slender rod, strand, or thread of ductile metal," but is essentially 
 different from this. It has a use as a spring, resulting from the changed form 
 into which the original wire has been permanently converted. It was dutiable 
 as an article manufactured of wire. Boye Needle Co. v. United States (No. 
 1234), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32898 (T. D. 33591). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34009; Dec. 15, 1913.) 
 
 Coin holders. (See Toilet cases.) 
 
 Coin swords. (See Copper-coin articles.) 
 
 Coins. 
 Foreign — 
 Valuation of: The date of the certification of an invoice by the United States con- 
 sul is conclusive evidence of the time of exportation under the provisions of 
 section 25 of the tariff act of 1894. United States v. Lawrence (137 Fed. Rep., 
 466; T. D. 26121). Where two consular invoices were issued of different dates 
 and the one of earlier date abandoned, the importer must stand upon the one 
 presented to the coUe.ctor and this board. The invoice, consular certificate, 
 and entry in this case are public records which can not be altered or modified by 
 parole evidence, an4 facts relative to an earlier invoice can not be established 
 45633°— 17 10 
 
146 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Coins — Continued. 
 Foieign — Continued. 
 
 by extraneous testimony. Blue Mountain Iron & Steel Co. v. Portner (131 
 Fed. Rep., 60); Shankland v. Washington (5 Pet., 390). (T. D. 29278— G. A. 
 6812; Sept. 24, 1908.) 
 Penal code — 
 Section 171 of the penal laws approved March 4, 1909, relating to coins, amended. 
 (T. D. 32279; Feb. 23, 1912.) 
 
 Collar buttons. (See Buttons.) 
 
 Collar supporters. 
 
 Collar supporters made of steel wire covered with and in chief value of silk, bent 
 into a series of open loops and cut into sizes measuring about 2J and 3J inches in 
 length, the ends of the wire being turned back and soldered so as to foftn a closed 
 loop at each end, in which condition they are ready to be used as supports for 
 women's collars, are properly dutiable as manufactures in chief value of silk at 
 the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 403, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 32005— G. A. 7298; Nov. 18, 1911.) 
 Covered wire articles — 
 Collar supporters made of steel wire covered with and in chief value of silk, bent 
 into a series of open loops and cut into' sizes measuring about 2^ and 3i inches in 
 length, the ends of the wire being turned back and soldered so as to form a closed 
 loop at each end, in which condition they are ready to be used as supports for 
 women's collars, were properly dutiable (tariff act of 1909) as manufactures 
 in chief value of silk at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 403. 
 (T. D. 32421— G. A. 7352; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Covered wire articles in chief value of silk: The merchandise 
 consists of collar supporters made of a thin steel silk-covered wire bent into a 
 series of open loops, with the ends of the wire bent back and soldered so as to 
 form a closed loop at each end of the article. Paragraph 135, tariff act of 1909, 
 contains no provision fixing a primary rate of duty upon silk-covered wire, 
 though the piirpose is clear to fix a minimum rate on covered wire. The com- 
 modity falls directly within the provisions of paragraph 403 of that act as manu- 
 factures of silk not specially provided for. Strouse, Adler & Co. v. United 
 States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls. — ; T. D. 32466) distinguished. Schloss Co. v. United 
 States (No. 917), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7352 (T. D. 
 32421). Decision affirmed. (T. B. 33038; Dec. 16, 1912.) 
 
 Collarettes, appliquSd. 
 
 Appliqu^d collarettes, whether in chief value of silk or of cotton, were dutiable, 
 silk collarettes at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897, 
 and cotton collarettes at the same rate under paragraph 339 of that act. Whether 
 collarettes designed to be sewn on womens ' dresses and intended for wear about 
 the necks of women have been in fact appliqu6d or not may be determined 
 by actual inspection, and the court will take judicial notice of the facts in com- 
 mon knowledge and experience that show these articles to have been appli- 
 qu6d. Krusi v. United States (No. 39), United States Court of Custonis Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board of General Appraisers 
 (T. D. 29482). Decision affirmed. Transferred from United States Circuit 
 Court for Southern District of New York. (T. D. 31213; Jan. 11, 1911.) 
 
 Collars and cuffs in the piece. (See Wearing apparel.) 
 
 Collections. 
 
 Miscellaneous collections on account of public buildings. (Sales of property, 
 groimd rent, rental collections, etc.) (T. D. 29549; circular No. 7; Feb. 9, 
 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OT CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 147 
 
 Collectors of customs. 
 Authority In leliquidating. (See Entry, Reliquidation.) 
 Classification — - 
 Collectors of customs are legally constituted by statute as claasifying officers, and 
 a decision made by a collector as to the proper tariff classification of imported 
 merchandise is ordinarily to be taken as presumptively correct. (T. D. 29921 — 
 G. A. 6924; July 26, 1909.) ^ 
 
 Jurisdiction — 
 Appraisement — Citation to appear — Jurisdiction of collectors of customs: Sub- 
 section 15 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, authorizing appraisers and collectors 
 of customs to "cite to appear before them and examine upon oath any owner, 
 importer, a^ent, consignee, or other person touching any matter or thing which 
 * * * they may deem material respecting any imported merchandise, in ascer- 
 taining the dutiable value or classification thereof," does not empower collec- 
 tors of customs to examine a person so cited as to the dutiable value of imported 
 merchandise, they not being appraising officers. 
 
 Reliquidation: The act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190), which provides that 
 after duties have been liquidated the "settlement of duties shall, after the ex- 
 piration of one year from the time of entry, in the absence of fraud, * * * be 
 final and conclusive upon all parties," was not repealed by the tariff act of 1909, 
 is merely a statute of limitation, and gave no new powers to collectors of customs. 
 A, reliquidation under said act can not include a reappraisal, but must proceed 
 on the basis of the old appraisal. 
 
 Knality of appraisement — Fraud: The provision in subsection 13 of section 
 28, that in cases where no objection is made thereto the decision of the appraiser 
 "shall be final and conclusive against all parties" is conclusive on the collector 
 of customs, even in cases where the appraisal was procured by fraud. 
 
 Reliquidation — Citation for undisclosed illegal purpose: Subsection 15 of 
 section 28 does not confine customs officers to the citation of persons in relation 
 to appraisals and original liquidations, but extends to reliquidations by collec- 
 tors under the act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190); and the undisclosed illegal 
 purpose of a collector, proceeding under the latter act, to inquire into the dutia- 
 ble value of merchandise, is no answer to a disobedience of his order, if that order 
 be within the scope of his powers at the time. 
 
 Production of books — Corporations: In directing a person, under subsection 
 15 of section 28, to produce his books, it is not necessary that customs officers 
 should show first that the contents of the books are material evidence; nor is 
 it an answer that the person so directed is a corporation. 
 
 Scope of subsection 15 of section 28, tariff act of 1909: The scope of subsection 
 15 of section 28 is not limited because the forfeiture penalty provided in sub- 
 section 16 for failure to comply with orders of customs officers made under said 
 subsection 15 can not apply to examinations in aid of reliquidations. United 
 States V. Calhoun; United States v. Bomn Hat Co.; United States District 
 Court, Southern District of New York, January 9, 1911. Actions by the United 
 States of America against David Calhoun and against the Bomn Hat Co. to 
 recover penalties for failure to answer and produce books and papers before a 
 collector of customs. Verdict for defendant in the first case and for the United 
 States in the second. (T. D. 31730; June 30, 1911.) 
 Powers of — 
 The collector of customs has no arbitrary or discretionary power and can not 
 collect or receive from an importer, or' exact or require an importer to pay to 
 him, any sum of money whatever without express authority of law. (T. D. 
 29249— G. A. 6800; Sept. 3, 1908.) 
 
148 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Collin's oxide. (See Colors or pigments.) 
 
 Colored catgut. (See Catgut.) 
 
 Colored copying paper. (See Paper.) 
 
 Colored cotton cloth. (See Cotton cloth.) 
 
 Colored glass, imitation precious stones. (See Precious stones, imitation.) 
 
 Colored glass insulators. (See Glass.) 
 
 Colored rolled plate glass. (See Glass.) 
 
 Colors. 
 Ceramic — 
 Unsatisfactory record : The goods were assessed as ceramic colors under paragraph 
 56, tariff act of 1909. A careful examination of the meager record and proof 
 furnishes no ground for disturbing the decision of the collector or tpr reversing 
 the decision of the board. Reusche & Co. v. United States (No. 869), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27715 (T. D. 32244). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 32983; Nov. 21, 1912.) 
 Ceramic or enamel — 
 Enamel or ceramic colors containing no quicksilver were dutiable at 5 cents per 
 pound, under paragraph 54, tariff act of 1897. Any provision of a law must be 
 read in the light of all the other provisions of that law, and in a tariff law the 
 language used must be interpreted in view of the conditions of commerce exist- 
 ing when the statute was enacted. But where the essential words thai; support 
 a construction contended for have been in a later enactment expressly omitted 
 by Congress, the omitted words may not be, by any rule or method of construc- 
 tion, restored in the terms of the law. United States v. Marsching (No. 124); 
 United States v. Drakenfeld (No. 125); Marsching v. United States (No. 168); 
 Drakenfeld v. United States (No. 169); United States Court of Customs Appeals, 
 January 25, 1911. Cross appeals from decisions of Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers (T. D. 30529). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31257; Jan. 25, 1911.) 
 Coal-tar — 
 Brominated indigo paste: Indigo, either natural or synthetic, treated with bromine 
 or chlorine is dutiable as a coal-tar color under paragraph 15, tariff act of 1909, 
 and not as indigo paste, this term being limited commercially to an indigo 
 treated with sulphuric acid. Abstract 26344 (T. D. 31832) and Abstract 28915 
 (T. D. 32645) modified. (T. D. 33192— G. A. 7432; Feb. 17, 1913.) 
 Fustin: So-called "fustin," an azo compound of aniline and fustic extract, dutiar 
 ble at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 20, tariff act of October 
 3, 1913, as a coal-tar color or dye not specially provided for. (T. D. 36013; 
 Dec. 23, 1915.) 
 Hansa yellow: A product of coal tar known as "Hansa yellow, 5 6 lumps," being 
 a coal-tar color without a metallic base or carrier, is subject to duty at the rate 
 of 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 20 of the tariff act of 1913. G. A. 
 7378 (T. D. 32653) and Hawley & Jjetzerich v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 268; T. D. 33487) cited. (T. D. 35065— G. A. 7665; Jan. 13, 1915.) 
 CoUins's oxide — • 
 The merchandise, consisting of Collins's oxide, a pigment and not iron ore, can 
 not be profitably smelted; it has been made unfit for smelting by the pulveriz- 
 ing treatment to which it has been subjected . It can not properly be considered 
 iron ore in the sense of the relevant clause, tariff act of 1897. The primary and 
 chief use of it as it appears is to impart color to fiber boards, and it was dutiable 
 as "colors or pigments" under paragraph 58 of that act. The cases relied on to 
 the contrary dealt with iron ore in a crude state and not adapted as imported 
 for use as a color. Drakenfeld & Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Cuat. Appls., 512; 
 
MGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 149 
 
 Colors— Continued. 
 CoUins's oxide — Continued. 
 
 T. D. 32247). Collins & Co. v. United States (No. 774), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from decisions of the Board of 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 6857 (T. D. 29497), and Abstract 26646 (T. D. 31833). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court for District of Massachusetts. 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32356; Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 lakes containing lead — 
 Lakes containing lead are more specifically 'enumerated in paragraph 54, tariff 
 act of 1897, relating to "colors * * * made of lead or containing lead," 
 than under paragraph 58, relating to "lakes * * * not otherwise specially 
 provided for." United States v. Siegle, United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York, November 13, 1909. Suit 5310. Appeal by United 
 States from decision of Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 18995 (T. D. 
 29031). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30126; Nov. 23, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Lakes containing lead are dutiable under paragraph 54, tariff 
 act of 1897, and not under paragraph 58 of said act. It is held that the expres- 
 sion in paragraph 54, "colors containing lead," is quite as specific as "lakes" in 
 paragraph 58; and, in view of the fact that paragraph 58 is qualified by the 
 phrase "not otherwise expressly provided for," it can not be given effect to 
 defeat the plainly expressed intention of paragraph 54. United States v. G. 
 Siegle & Co. (No. 3), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from the decision of the United States Circuit Court for the 
 Southern District of New York. Transferred to the United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. Decision 
 adverse to the Government. (T. D. 31005; Oct. 18, 1910.) 
 Lead — 
 Colors not containing quicksilver but containing lead are more specifically 
 enumerated under paragraph 54, tariff act of 1897, as "colors * * * not con- 
 taining quicksilver but made of lead or containing lead, " than under paragraph 
 58, relating to "colors * * * not otherwise specially provided for. " United 
 States V. Marsching, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, November 4, 1909. Suit 4116. Appeal by United States from decision 
 of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6144 (T. D. 26689). Board affirmed. 
 (T. D. 30235; Dec. 31, 1909.) 
 (See also Iron, oxide of.) 
 
 Colt, dependent. 
 
 A mare and suckling colt were imported together in regular course of trade. Held, 
 that each is separately dutiable under paragraph 220, tariff act of 1897, provid- 
 ing for "horses and mules," and the colt is not entitled to free entry because 
 dependent upon its mother for sustenance. G. A. 5642 (T. D. 25196) distin- 
 guished. Hay, General Appraiser, dissents. (T. D. 29983 — ^G. A. 6930; Sept. 
 2, 1909.) 
 
 Combination knives and forks. 
 
 Combination knives and forks dutiable under paragraph 152, tariff act of August 
 5, 1909. (T. D. 32061; Dec. 6, 1911.) 
 
 Combination penholders, etc., not articles of personal adornment. (See Articles of 
 personal adornment.) 
 
 Commercial agreements. (See Reciprocity.) 
 
 Commercial designation. (See Classification.) 
 
 Commercial traveler's samples. (See Samples.) 
 
150 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Commissions. 
 Agent for pnichasei — 
 A person or firm purchasing goods for an American importer with no interest in 
 the goods other than his commission should be considered as an agent of the 
 purchaser. The evidence to be required of such agency is primarily for the 
 determination of the consul; in case of regularly constituted commissionaires, 
 a written order from the purchaser should be considered as suflicient evidence 
 of the agency. A 6ona_^(ie commission is not a dutiable charge. (T. D. 34163; 
 Feb. 2, 1914.) 
 Commissionaire's services — Duress — 
 Commissions paid to a commissionaire for services as commissionaire are non- 
 dutiable. An invoice item of commissions, not necessarily a part of the whole- 
 sale market value of the goods, but included in the entered value by the im- 
 porter simply because he is apprehensive that they might be added by the cus- 
 toms officers and a penalty exacted, is not added under duress, and the collector 
 is authorized to collect duty thereon. The return of the appraiser was as fol- 
 lows: "Full foreign market value is covered by entered value, which includes 
 Item X." Said item appeared upon the invoice as "Commissions, 2^ per cent.!' 
 This does not mean that the appraiser assumes to assess duty upon commissionB 
 as such. He merely acts within his legal duty to find the foreign market value. 
 That the amount of commissions is included in the market value is simply inci- 
 dental. (T. D. 28886— G. A. 67^2; Mar. 19, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Commissions paid a commissionaire: A commission paid a com- 
 missionaire for receiving goods, comparing with samples, procuring cases, pack- 
 ing and shipping these goods, is a commission simply and as such is nondutiable. 
 
 Duress: An item amongst others in an importer's invoice showing a commis- 
 sion had been paid a commissionaire is held to have been placed in the invoice 
 under duress, it appearing that under the customs regulations the omission of this 
 item by the importer would be followed by its immediate inclusion and further 
 by the exaction of a penalty for its omission. Stein & Co. •«. United States, (No. 
 31), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from the 
 decision of the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 28886). Transferred from the 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York. Decision adverse 
 to the Government. (T. D. 31007; Oct. 18, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Reaffirming the doctrine of Stein & Co. v. United States (T. D. 
 31007), that an item in an importer's invoice showing he had paid a commission 
 to a commissionaire had been included there under duress, it is now further held 
 that the figures on entered valuation certified to the appraiser by the collector 
 wherein this payment was included did not constitute an opinion, judgment, 
 and voluntary act of the importer, but something entirely different; the im- 
 porter has been without a day in court when by a penalty threatened he is com- 
 pelled to substitute the judgment of another for his own in declaring the value 
 of his goods, and he is irremediably denied a legal right. 
 
 Memorandum showing importer's valuation: A memoranduma slip attached 
 to each invoice that showed the change the importer had wished to make in the 
 valuation as entered is not such an entry as could be taken to comply with the 
 statute. The importer was entitled to make upon the entry itself his protest 
 against the addition by the collector of commissions paid as a part of the dutiable 
 value. Stein & Co. v. United States (No. 31), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Rehearing in the case of the appeal from T. D. 28886. Order reaf- 
 firmed. (T. D. 31525; Apr. 27, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 151 
 
 Commissious — Continued. 
 Duress — 
 
 The importers were constrained to include the commisBions in dispute in the 
 entered value of the merchandise; otherwise their entries would not have been 
 V received, but simply returned to them. This constituted duress. 
 
 When nondutiable: The shippers in the Vandegrift case were purchasing 
 agents who bought the merchandise in foreign markets on cabled orders. The 
 commissions charged for this service and included in the invoices were true 
 nondutiable purchasing commissions in fact and in law. 
 
 Failure to protest duress: In the Vandiver case the commissions were averred 
 to be nondutiable in character, but no claim of duress in any form was made in 
 the protest. The protestant was called upon to impeach the validity of the 
 entries themselves and to notify the collector of the grounds of such impeach- 
 ment, and failing in this the assessment must stand. Vandiver v. United States 
 (No. 1428). Vandegrift & Co. v. United States (No. 1433), United St^es Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeals from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 35834 (T. D. 34548) and Abstract 35946 (T. D. 34571). No. 1428 
 affirmed; No. 1433 reversed. (T. D. 35327; Apr. 14, 1915.) 
 
 Dutiable value — 
 If an addition to entered value of merchandise is made by the appraiser to make 
 market value, which addition corresponds in amount to an item of commis- 
 sions appearing on the invoice, such addition ceases to be properly characterized 
 as commissions. 
 
 Commissions, as such, are not part of the dutiable value of merchandise, nor 
 are they either "costs," "charges," or "expenses" to be added by the collector 
 under the statute (par. R, sec. 3, act of 1913) and the rule laid down in United 
 States V. Spingam (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 2; T. D. 34002). 
 
 Where the value on entry has not been increased by the appraiser, additional 
 duty can not be levied. (T. D. 35766— G. A. 7785, Oct. 5, 1915.) 
 
 Issued to take testimony — ■ 
 Without considering the judicial nature of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers or the power that might be found to inhere in the board as a tribunal 
 to issue commissions to take testimony, it would plainly appear that the statute 
 under the authority of which it was established empowers the board to issue 
 such a commission; and that a rule adopted by the board empowering one of its 
 members to issue such a commission is well within the scope of the board's 
 authority. United States v. Hoffman-La Roche Chemical Works (No. 97), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 30547). Deci- 
 sion affirmed. (T. D. 31319; Feb. 13, 1911.) 
 
 Begulations governing agents' commissions and other charges for services. (T. D. 
 31464, Apr. 4, 1911, as modified by T. D. 31723, of June 27, 1911.) 
 
 Selling — 
 Clerical error: The entry here asserts the item claimed as exempt was dutiable. 
 On the invoice the item is called a buying commission. This does not disclose 
 manifest clerical error. WhSa the appraiser examined the statement of the 
 inspector that the item was a nondutiable buying commission, in connection 
 with the fact that the charges were made by the seller of the goods and found 
 the gross sum the dutiable value of the goods, the inqmry was concluded. 
 United States v. Brodie (No. 1513), United States Court of Customs Appeals, 
 May 18, 1915. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 37206. Decision reversed. (T. D. 35438; May 18, 
 1915.) 
 
152 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Commissions — Continued. 
 Sufficiency of protest — 
 A commissionaire's service is rendered in connection mtli, on account of, and in 
 consequence of the purchase of goods, is really a part of the transaction of the 
 purchase and shipment of the goods, and the protest in this case fairly apprise'd 
 the collector that commissions paid the commissionaire for the purchase of the 
 goods abroad were claimed to be nondutiable. Leaving aside technical ques- 
 tions and treating the dutiabiUty of commissions on its merits, regarding the 
 substance rather than the form, it is clear it was not the intention of Congress 
 to impose a duty upon commissions paid in connection with the purchase of 
 goods abroad. When a payment is a commission proper must depend on the 
 facts in the particular case. United States v. Bauer et al. (Nos. 844-851), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27403 (T. D. 32089). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 82627; June 1, 1912.) 
 (See also Duress and Dutiable value.) 
 Common carrier. 
 Cases discharged in bad order — 
 Practice adopted of joint checking, by representatives of the shipper and carrier 
 and the customs officer, of merchandise intended for shipment under forms of 
 transportation entry prescribed in the Customs Regulations. (T. D. 30376; 
 Feb. 26, 1910.) 
 Common carrier's bond. (See Bond, common carrier.) 
 Comparative value reports. 
 
 T. D. 31936 of October 21, 1911, amended, and a Comparative Valuation Report 
 Bureau established at the port of New York. (T. D. 35076; Jan. 23, 1915.) 
 Compasses. (See also Metal, manufactures of — Pedometers and compasses.) 
 Incomplete — 
 Compasses imported in an incomplete state and intended to be used in the manu- 
 facture of the articles enumerated in paragraph 356, tariff act of 1913, are 
 dutiable at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under the said paragraph. (T. D. 
 34783; Sept. 28, 1914.) 
 Small cheap, with needle and dial — 
 It is agreed these goods, in chief value of brass, were improperly assessed by the 
 collector. From the testimony and the exhibits themselves it appears these 
 articles are not intended for use as parts of watches or watchcases or as field 
 glasses, and they are not jewelry or parts thereof. They are intended to be used 
 as a part of something else and were dutiable as articles or wares not specially 
 provided for composed wholly or in part of metal under paragraph 199, act of 
 1909. Sussfeld, Lorsch & Co. v. United States (No. 1403), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeal. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 35167 (T. D. 34307). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 34875; Oct. 29, 1914.) 
 Stem and ring attached — 
 Compasses with stem and ring attached, valued at more than 20 cents per dozen 
 pieces, dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 356, tariff 
 act of 1913. (T. D. 34539; June 12, 1914.) 
 Compensation of customs officers. 
 
 Allowance of additional compensation to customs officers while acting as collectors 
 discontinued. Certain provisions of T. D. 34391 of April 17, 1914, rescinded. 
 (T. D. 34729; Aug. 19, 1914.) 
 Lading and unlading at night. (See Lading and unlading of vessels.) 
 To informers. (See Informeis.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 153 
 
 Component materials. 
 Ascertainment of — 
 
 In ascertaining the component material of chief value in imported goods, the test 
 should be made as of the time of importation. Proof that one material predom- 
 inated in value on one date is not conclvisive as to the composition of precisely 
 similar goods imported on another date. (T. D. 28851; Mar. 18, 1908.) 
 In determining the component of chief value in slippers of cotton and leather, 
 the basis shall be the value of the cotton when ready to be sewn into the form of 
 uppers and the value of the leather when ready to be attached to the uppers. 
 (T. D. 30931— G. A. 7099; Sept. 17, 1910.) 
 Compromise offers. 
 
 Offers of compromise in customs cases should be accompanied by a written offer 
 signed by the proponent or his attorney in fact and should state specifically the 
 claim or claims which it is desired to compromise, the amount offered, the terms 
 on which the offer is made, and be limited to the civil liability of the proponent 
 in the matter or matters the subject of the Government's claim. (T. D. 31489; 
 Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 Regulations governing the receipt and disposition of moneys ofiered under section 
 3469, Revised Statutes, in compromise of claims in favor of the United States. 
 T. D. 10690, dated February 7, 1891, superseded. (T. D. 35043; circular No. 
 39; Dec. 29, 1914.) 
 Concentrated fruit juice. (See Fruit juice.) 
 Condenser tubes. (See Vessels, condenser tubes.) 
 Cones, unbaked. (See Unbaked cones or pyramids.) 
 Confectionery. 
 Dragees — 
 Dragees are dutiable under paragraph 212, tariff act of 1897, relating to sugar candy 
 and confectionery. United States v. La Manna, United States Circuit Court of 
 Appeals, Second Circuit, March 10, 1908. No. 166 (suit 4521). Appeal from 
 Circuit Court of the United States for Southern District of New York (154 Fed. 
 Rep., 955; T. D. 28187) reversing Abstract 12762 (T. D. 27591). Decision in 
 favor of Government. (T. D. 28862; Mar. 18, 1908.) 
 Imitation fruits — 
 A commodity composed of sugar, glucose, and fridt pulp, together with various 
 flavoring materials, and made in imitation of different fruits, such as lemon 
 slices, orange slices, dates, apricots, etc., is dutiable under paragraph 212, tariff 
 act of 1897, providing for "sugar candy and all confectionery," and not under 
 paragraph 263, relating to "comfits, sweetmeats, and fruits preserved in sugar" 
 and "jellies of all kinds." (T. D. 28698— G. A. 6706; Jan. 15, 1908.) « 
 Conference of collectors of customs. 
 
 Recommendations made by the conference of 1914 and the action thereon by the 
 department. (T. D. 35262; Mar. 27, 1915.) 
 Conference of collectors and appraisers, New York, 1918. (T. D. 35356; Apr. 29, 
 
 1915.) 
 Consigned and purchased goods — Partnership — Evidence. (See Purchased goods, 
 
 etc.) 
 Consignee. 
 Liability of— 
 While a person may justly claim he is not the importer of goods which may have 
 been consigned to him without his authority, and which he declines to receive 
 or enter on this account, nevertheless, where he does receive imported goods 
 and makes entry of them he would be liable for the duty, although such goods 
 may have been presented to and not purchased by him. (T. D. 28740— G. A. 
 6717; Feb. 4, 1908.) 
 
154 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Consignee — Continued. 
 Liability of — Continued. 
 The consignee of imported merchandise named in an invoice is deemed for tariff 
 purposes to be the owner of the merchandise and liable as such for the lawful 
 duties assessed. Where such consignee voluntarily enters the merchandise, 
 pays duty, and makes declaration in the usual forms prescribed by customs 
 regulations, he is estopped from pleading his agency for the ultimate consignee 
 as against the Government so as to exempt him from liability for such duty. 
 Where goods are shipped to this country by a foreign consignor, without author^ 
 ity from such ultimate consignee, the latter may refuse to recognize the ship- 
 ment, or to make entry of such goods, and thus relieve himself from liability to 
 pay duties on the importation. (T. D. 29663— G. A. 6891; Mar. 30, 1909.) 
 Conspiracy. 
 Concealment of goods — 
 Valuable laces were imported concealed in packages of nuts, wheat, etc.; they 
 were covered by false entries, invoices, and bills of lading, which did not men- 
 tion them; they were so concealed that under ordinary procedure the customs 
 officers might easily have failed to observe them; other importations by the 
 same parties were similarly packed; and the various shipments were made by 
 different parties abroad. A conviction for conspiracy to defraud the customs 
 revenue, under section 5440, Revised Statutes, affirmed on these facts. Mar- 
 rash V. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 
 February 16, 1909. No. 233. In error to the Circuit Court of the United States 
 for the Southern District of New York. Decision in favor of the Government 
 except as to one plaintiff in error. (T. D. 29635; Mar. 17, 1909.) 
 Fraud upon the customs revenue — ■ 
 An indictment for criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States, under sec- 
 tion 5440, Revised Statutes, need not set forth the consummation of the fraud 
 nor allege that the fraud could have been accomplished without detection; it 
 is sufficient to say that the conspiracy was to do an act which would constitute 
 a fraud upon the United States. United States v. Stamatopoulos (3 cases); 
 United States v. Vamaveliaa; United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of 
 New York, May 6, 1908. Nos. 746, 756, 766-7. On demurrer to indictments 
 for criminal conspiracy. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29241; 
 Sept. 2, 1908.) 
 Constitutionality of tonnage tax on foreign-built yachts. (See Yachts, foreign-built.) 
 Construction of customs laws. 
 
 While in construing customs laws consideration should be given the circumstance 
 that there has been a long-continued practice in the assessment of an article of 
 importation, this circumstance should not control in what is not a doubtful case. 
 (T. D. .30216; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 See also Statutes, construction of — 
 Construction of 60 per cent clause of Department Circular No. 36 of June 2, 1908. 
 
 T. D. 29089; June 22, 1908. 
 Construction of statutes. (See Statutes, construction of.) 
 Consular certificates. 
 Articles under bond — 
 Consular certificates prescribed by paragraph 8 of T. D. 33806 not required where 
 value of articles imported under subsection 4 of paragraph J of section 4, tariff 
 act of October 3, 1913, does not exceed $100. If valued at over $100, certificate 
 should be furnished. (T. D. 34702; Aug. 13, 1914.) 
 Autoauobiles. (See Automobiles.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 155 
 
 Consulai legulations. 
 
 Executive order, dated May 28, 1914, amending the Consular Regulations of 1896. 
 (T. D. 34542; June 13, 1914.) 
 Consular samples on reappiaisemeut. (See Samples, consular, reappraisement of.) 
 Consuls. 
 
 All communications to consulates should be addressed to the principal officer. 
 (T. D. 34826; Oct. 13, 1914.) 
 Containers. (See also Coverings.) 
 Metal containers for holding artificial fish flies— Fishing tackle — 
 Metal boxes or containers specially constructed and designed for holding artificial 
 fish flies and fishing leaders are properly classifiable as manufactures of metal not 
 specially provided for under paragraph 167, tariff act of 1913, as claimed by the 
 importers, rather than dutiable at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 136 
 of said act as ' ' fishing tackle or parts thereof, ' ' as classified by the collector. (T. 
 D. 35749— G. A. 7783; Sept. 30, 1915.) 
 Contracts. 
 
 For care of seamen. (T. D. 29783; circular No. 24; May 28, 1909; T. D. 35521; 
 June 12, 1915.) 
 Convict labor. (See Prison-made goods.) 
 Copper. 
 Coin articles — 
 Ornaments made of copper coins, in the shape of swords and other articles for the 
 household, subject to classification under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897, as 
 articles of copper, not specially provided for, rather than under paragraph 530 
 as copper coins or under section 6 as unenumerated articles. (T. D. 28773 — G. 
 A. 6720; Feb. 13, 1908.) 
 Coin swords — 
 So-called copper cash swords, consisting of articles in the form of swords, and com- 
 posed of copper coins corded together and securely fastened around an iron rod 
 covered by metal foil, are dutiable as articles in part of metal under paragraph 
 193, tariff act of 1897, rather than free of duty as "coins'' under paragraph 530. 
 Soy Kee & Co. v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District 
 of New York, January 21, 1910. Suit 5384. Appeal by the importer from the 
 decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 19874 (T. D. 29239). 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30297; Jan. 25, 1910.) 
 Hinges. (See Hinges, copper.) 
 Matte— 
 Regulus of copper: The merchandise is produced by smelting metalliferous rock 
 containing sulphides of lead, copper, and iron. It was stipulated that the impor- 
 tations were mattgs and that ' ' matte " and ' ' regulus " are interchangeable terms. 
 Now the uncontradicted testimony shows that mattes containing the percent- 
 ages of copper, lead, iron, and sulphur found in these importations were known 
 to the wholesale trade before and after the passage of tariff act of 1909 as copper 
 mattes. They must be accepted to be copper mattes, and as such being regulus 
 of copper they are entitled to free entry. United States v. American Smelt- 
 ing & Refining Co. (No. 1365), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 35013 (T. D. 34279). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34937; Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 Pipes — 
 The provision in paragraph 176, tariff act of 1897, for "copper pipes" does not 
 include pipes containing a substantial amount of any material other than cop- 
 per; and copper tubing covered with iron wire is therefore excluded from that 
 provision and is dutiable under paragraph 193 as manufactures of metal. (T. 
 D. 29714^G. A. 6901; Apr. 26, 1909.) 
 
156 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Copper — Continued. 
 Plates, planished — 
 Tlie provision for copper in plates not manufactured, inparagrapli 532, tariff actot 
 1897, does not include copper plates advanced by grinding and polishing; and 
 planished copper plates aie dutiable as manufactures of metal under paragraph 
 193. Abstract 11096 (T. D. 27318) overruled. (T. D. 28920— G. A. 6748; Apr. 
 3, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Planished copper plates are dutiable under the provision in para- 
 graph 176, tariff act of 1897, for "copper in rolled plates, called braziers' plates,'' 
 and for copper "sheets." Planished copper plates have been manufactured 
 sufficiently to be removed from the provision in paragraph 532, tariff act of 1897, 
 for "copper in plates * * * not manufactured." Drakenfeld v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 19, 
 1909. Suit 5282. Appeal by importer from decision by Board of General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6748 (T. D. 28920). Board reversed. (T. D. 29811; June 
 8, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Copper plates, which have been ground, polished, and planished, 
 and are ready for engravers' use, are not copper "sheets,'' within the meaning 
 of paragraph 176, tariff act of 1897, and are dutiable under the provision in para- 
 graph 193 for manufacture of metal. The provision in paragraph 532, tariff act 
 of 1897, for "copper in plates * * * not manufactured," does not include 
 plates that have been ground, polished, and planished. Drakenfeld v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 11, 1910. 
 No. 177 (suit 5282). Appeal from decision of Circuit Court of the United States 
 for the Southern District of New York (172 Fed. Rep., 296; T. D. 29811) revers- 
 ing G. A. 6748 (T. D. 28920). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 
 30549; Apr. 19, 1910.) 
 Scale or ash- 
 Copper scale or ash free of duty as old copper under paragraph 544, tariff act of 
 1909. (T. D. 33153; Feb. 5, 1913.) 
 Strip — • 
 
 Manufactures of metal: Copper strip properly dutiable at the rate of 45 per cent 
 ad valorem under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, and not as "copper in sheets" 
 under paragraph 176 of the said act. (T. D. 32293; Mar. 2, 1912.) 
 Tanks or vessels. (See Coverings.) 
 Tubing, flexible — 
 Flexible metallic tubing made of copper and covered with a mesh or braid of 
 woven copper wire, the wire representing but 15 per cent of the entire article, 
 is dutiable under paragraph 176, tariff act of 1897, relating to "copper pipes," 
 and not as an article manufactured from copper wire under the second proviso 
 to paragraph 137. This latter provision relates to articles entirely or in chief 
 value of wire. G. A. 5080 (T. D. 23522) followed; G. A. 4998 (T. D. 23302) 
 cited. (T. D. 28996— G. A. 6761; May 19, 1908.) 
 Generally speaking, "pipe" implies an article tubular in form and rigid, while 
 "tubing" implies an article that is flexible. Paragraph 151, tariff act of 1909, 
 provides in precise language for flexible metal tubing or hose, and this being a 
 more specific, definite enumeration than "copper pipes," the importation was 
 dutiable, not under paragraph 176 of that act, but under paragraph 151. Hensel 
 'V. United States (No. 529), United States Court of Customs Appeals, October 
 -12, 1911. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 24104 (T. D. 31020). Decision aflirmed. (T. D. 31951; Oct. 
 12, 1911.) 
 Copying paper, colored. (See Paper.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 157 
 
 Copyright. 
 
 Law and regulations governing the importation of copyrighted articles, including 
 the joint regulations of the Treasury and Post Office Departments, governing 
 treatment of letters and packages received in the mails from foreign countries 
 containing or supposed to contain articles prohibited importation by the copy- 
 right act of March 4, 1909. (T. D. 31754; July 17, 1911.) 
 Books rebound abroad. (See Books, copyrighted.) 
 Moving-picture films — 
 
 Regulations governing the importation of moving-picture films under the copy- 
 right act of March 4, 1909. T. D. 31754 of July 17, 1911, modified. (T. D. 
 33258; Mar. 10, 1913.) 
 Coral cameos removed from settings. 
 
 Where an importer purchases coral cameos in silver settings with the understand- 
 ing that the settings are to be removed and retained by the seller, the coral 
 cameos only to be shipped to this country and permanently set here in gold 
 settings, but the exporter has forwarded the silver settings with the coral cameos 
 after removing the same, the merchandise was dutiable as an entirety as "jew- 
 elry" under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, and not separately as precious 
 stones, cut and not set, under paragraph 435, and manufactures of metal, under 
 paragraph 193. United States v. Citroen (223 U. S., 407; T. D. 32298) distin-^ 
 guished, and United States v. Schoverling (146 U. S., 76) followed. (T. D. 
 32487— G. A. 7359; May 3, 1912.) 
 Coral, manufactures of. (See Agate, alabaster, eoral, etc.) 
 Cord, coronation. 
 
 A cord is a string or small rope composed of several strands twiated together. 
 
 Untwisted cotton cord a manufacture of cotton: The uncontradicted testi- 
 mony is to the effect that the coronation cord of the importation has not been 
 twisted in any way and accordingly it does not come within the meaning of 
 "cords," as that term is used in paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909. The goods 
 were dutiable under paragraph 332 of that act as a manufacture of cotton. (T. 
 D. 17550 of December 22, 1896, and T. D. 19156 of March 25, 1898, distinguished. 
 Ulmann & Co. v. United States (No. 923), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals, April 18, 1913. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 28343 (T. D. 32455). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 33363; Apr. 18, 1913.) 
 
 Coronation cord dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem as cotton cord under 
 paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33431; May 16, 1913.) 
 
 Articles having a core or center composed of strands of cotton around which mer- 
 cerized cotton threads are spun in such manner that the completed article 
 resembles a string or cord upon which there are at regular intervals small, oval 
 lumps about one-half inch in length, the articles being known commercially as 
 "coronation cord," are properly dutiable under the provision for cotton cords in 
 paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 34089— G. A. 7527; Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Cords in paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909: In view of former 
 decisions, taken together with subsequent practice and legislation as well, it 
 will be assumed the Congress used the word "cord" in paragraph 349, tariff act 
 of 1909, with the same meaning that had been attached to it by cited adjudica- 
 tions and the executive practice conforming thereto. Ulmann & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 1342), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7527 (T. D. 
 34089). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34551; June 1, 1914.) 
 Cording and sealing packages. 
 
 Carriers are required to purchase cord and seals for securing packages and baggage, 
 or pay a fee of 5 cents for each package or piece of baggage secured. (T. D. 
 30672; June 8, 1910.) 
 
158 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Coik disks. 
 
 Cork disks about 1 inch in diameter and one-sixteenth of an inch thick, made 
 from granulated cork and used as a lining for metal bottle caps, are not corks as 
 that term is commonly understood, but are manufactures of granulated cork, 
 subject to duty at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem under the last provision of 
 paragraph 429, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 34786— G. A. 7600; Sept. 22, 1914.) 
 
 Disks less than three-sixteenths of an inch in thickness made of granulated cork 
 and a binding material, used for inside lining for bottle caps, cans, and for 
 gaskets, are specifically provided for under the provision for "manufactured cork 
 disks" in paragraph 340 of the tariff act of 1913, and subject to duty at the rate 
 of 15 cents per pound. G. A. 7600 (T. D. 34786) cited and distinguished. (T. 
 D. 35270— G. A. 7707; Mar. 26, 1915.) 
 Cork, manufactures of. 
 Floats- 
 Small, oval-shaped pieces of cork tapering at one or both ends and with holes 
 lengthwise through them, would seem on examination not to be, and they ap- 
 pear by the uncontradicted testimony not to be, either fishing floats or cork 
 floats for use in fishing. They are not commercially known as fishing tackle or 
 parts thereof, nor are they in fact, as it appears, used as such. They are manu- 
 factures of cork and dutiable as such, under paragraph 429, tariff act of 1909. 
 Fenton v. United States (No. 385), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from a decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 23431 (T. D. 30667). Decision reversed. (T. D. 31546; 
 Apr. 24, 1911.) 
 Insoling — 
 
 Component of chief value — "Single component": Linseed oil and other sub- 
 stances were used in preparing cork which, after such preparation, was applied 
 to cotton cloth in the manufacture of insoling. Held that in determining the 
 "single component" materials, in order to ascertain the component of chief 
 value under section 7, customs administrative act of 1890, the cork as thus pre- 
 pared, including the value of the oil, etc., should be considered as a "single" 
 component, and that the insoling should be regarded as composed of cotton and 
 manufactured cork, rather than of cotton, unprepared cork, linseed oil, etc. 
 Insoling was made of cotton cloth. and cork that had been combined with linseed 
 oil, etc., to make it adhesive and impervious to water. Held that the cork as 
 thus prepared was a commercial cork, and that, as that material predominates in 
 value over the cloth, the insoling is dutiable as manufactures in chief value of 
 "cork" under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29594^G. A. 6873; 
 Feb. 27, 1909.) 
 Mats — • 
 
 The terms "cork carpets" and "linoleum" as used in paragraph 337, tariff act of 
 1897, do not include cork mats and linoleum mats. Cork mats and linoleum 
 mats are properly dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem as manufactures 
 of cork under paragraph 448 of said act. (T. D. 29592— G. A. 6871; Feb. 26, 
 1909.) 
 Cork waste. 
 
 Pieces of cork bark, cork trimmings, pieces of sheet cork from which disks have 
 been cut, when imported mixed, dutiable as cork waste at the rate of 10 per cent 
 ad valorem under paragraph 479, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33429; May 16, 1913.) 
 
 Cork waste, consisting of pieces of rough corkwood, pieces of virgin corkwood, the 
 trimmings from rough corkwood, the shavings Or pieces produced in the process 
 of making cork and from corkwood, is free of duty under paragraph 547 of the 
 tariff act of 1909, as ' ' corkwood or cork bark, unmanufactured, ' ' and not dutiable 
 as waste not specially provided for under paragraph 479. Following United 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 159 
 
 Cork Waste — Continued. 
 
 States V. Hatters' Fur Exchange (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 198; T. D. 31237) and 
 Magee & Co. v. United States (4 Ct. Gust. Appls., 443; T. D. 33874). (T. D. 
 34276— G. A. 7541; Mar. 10, 1914.) 
 Clippings or shavings of cork bark: It is immaterial whether the clippings or 
 shavings of cork bark of this importation be deemed waste or not. A review of 
 the legislation affecting the subject matter, of the practice at the customs, and 
 of pertinent judicial decisions makes it clear these cork clippings and shavings 
 were meant to be, and were, included within the provisions of paragraph 547, 
 tariH act of 1909, and so were entitled to free entry. United States v. Johns- 
 Manville Co. (No. 1376); United States v. Armstrong Cork Co. (No. 1377), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7541 (T. D. 34276). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 34939; Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 
 Corkine. 
 
 The importation in question consisted of merchandise called "corkine" and was 
 assessed for duty under paragraph 398 of the tariff act of 1897 as surface-coated 
 paper at 3 cents per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem. The value of the com- 
 ponent parts of the importation as of the time these were ready to be joined to 
 complete the article could not be computed on the data furnished by the 
 record. The importer having failed to establish his contention that the goods 
 were manufactures in chief value of cork, paper, wood pulp, or wood, and there 
 being some evidence tending to show the goods were dutiable by similitude to 
 linoleum, and accordingly prima facie not subject to the provisions of section 6, 
 tariff act of 1897, the protest in this case must be held to have been rightly over- 
 ruled. It should be overruled, even though the collector had made an unac- 
 ceptable finding. Vandiver v. United States (No, 614), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 24728 (T. D. 31255). Decision affirmed., (T. D. 
 32246; Feb. 1, 1912.) 
 
 Corks, marking of. (See Marking of corks.) 
 
 Cornelian, manufactures of. (See Precious stones, agate.) 
 
 Corn on cob. 
 
 Green corn on the cob dutiable at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 215, tariff act of 1913, as vegetables in their natural state not specially- 
 provided for. (T. D. 35806; Oct. 20, 1915.) 
 
 Corn in the ear. 
 
 Com husked but not shelled dutiable at the rate of 15 cents per bushel under para- 
 graph 235, tariff act of 1909, on the basis of 70 pounds to the bushel. (T. D. 
 32403; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 
 Coronation cord. (See Cord, coronation.) 
 
 Corporate seals. (See Seals.) 
 
 Corporate sureties, powers of attorney. 
 
 Requirement of powers of attorney from corporate surety companies. (T. D. 
 28661; circular No. 3; Jan. 2, 1908.) 
 
 C orporations — Agent. 
 
 Owners' declarations may be executed on behalf of a corporation by an agent under 
 power of attorney especially authorized to execute the same by the board of 
 directors. (T. D. 30025; Oct. 4, 1909.) 
 
 Corrugated galvanized-iron sheets. (See Iron sheets.) 
 
 Corsets, cotton, trimmed with lace. (See Wearing apparel.) 
 
 Corundum. 
 
 Corundum, in any form imported, if it has not lost its commercial designation as 
 corundum, free of duty under paragraph 561, tariff act of August 5, 1909. (T. 
 D. 30002; Sept. 18, 1909.) 
 
160 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Corundum — Continued . 
 Ground — 
 Ground corundum ore, of which emery is an impure grade and which is used for 
 the same purpose as emery, is dutiable by similitude as ground emery under 
 paragraph 419, tariff act of 1897. In construing the provision in paragraph 671, 
 tariff act of 1897, for "sand, crude, or manufactured, " ^eZd that the ferm "sand" 
 is not used in the sense that includes metalliferous minerals in a comminuted 
 state, and that corundum, a mineral of this character, does not, when ground, 
 become "sand, * * * manufactured." Myers v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 14, 1908. No. 157 (suit 
 1810). Appeal from Circuit Court of the United States for District of Vermont. 
 See 155 Federal Reporter, 502 (T. D. 28386). Decision in favor of Government. 
 (T. D. 28952; Apr. 22, 1908.) 
 Ground corundum ore which has been advanced in value by processes of man- 
 ufacture for a specific use is dutiable as emery by similitude under paragraph 
 419, tariff act of 1897, rather than free of duty under paragraph 614 (crude min- 
 erals) or paragraph 671 (manufactured sand). Myers v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court, District of Vermont, -March 21, 1910. No. 95 (suit 2078). 
 Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 
 21450 (T. D. 29848). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30470; Mar. 29, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Corundum ore obtained from rocks that have been quarried and 
 crushed fine enough to be passed through the meshes of sieves and, after being 
 washed, graded according to size, can not be regarded as either crude or manu- 
 factured sand, or as a crude mineral, but must be taken rather to be a mineral ex- 
 tracted by process from a crud« mass of matter; it differs from emery only ia being 
 substantially free from impurities, and so was dutiable by similitude as emery, 
 ground, under paragraph 419, tariff act of 1897. Myers v. United States (163 
 Fed. Rep., 53), Rossman v. United States (T. D. 31321); Hartranft v. Wiegman 
 (121 U. S., 609) distinguished. To exclude minerals from the provisions of 
 paragraph 614 covering "minerals crude and not advanced in value or condi- 
 tion by refining, grinding, or other process of manufacture," it is not essential 
 that the product of such process be given a new name. Myers & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 454), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porters from the decision of the United States Circuit Court, District of Ver- 
 mont (T. D. 30470; 178 Fed. Rep., 462), affirming Abstract 21450 (T. D. 29848). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court of Appeals, New York. Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 31531; Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 
 Costs and charges, assessment of duty on. (See Charges.) 
 
 Cosureties on joint and several bonds. 
 
 Excess over qualifying power of each surety may be covered by side agreement. 
 (T. D. 29315; Oct. 28, 1908.) 
 
 Cotton. 
 Bagging. (See Bagging.) 
 Belting for machinery. (See Belting.) 
 Bandages — 
 Narrow individual strips of cotton cloth designated as "Ideal" bandages about 
 5 yards in length, wrapped, labeled, and ready for use as bandages are not to be 
 deemed woven fabrics of cotton in the piece or cut in lengths. They are manu- 
 factures of cotton not specially provided for and were dutiable under paragraph 
 332, tariff act of 1909. The question was not raised by the pleadings as to 
 whether the above goods are or are not the bandings and ribbons of paragraph 
 349, tariff act of 1909, and the issue might not be extended in the Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals, on appeal, to cover that question by a mere suggestion on behalf 
 of the Government. That question was a proper one for appeal. The remain- 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 161 
 
 Cotton — Continued. 
 Bandages — Continued. 
 
 ing importations consisting of narrow pieces of cotton gauze are without a com- 
 mercial designation, but the authorities (the lexicons) seem to make it clear 
 they are bands, and they were dutiable as such under paragraph 349, tariff act 
 of 1909. Surgical Supply Importing Co. v. United States (No. 772), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 26619 (T. D. 31866). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. t». 32364; Mar. 26, 1912.) 
 Bandages In the piece — 
 Cotton bandages in the piece dutiable as cotton bandings at the rate of 25 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 262, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35952; Dec. 6, 
 1915.) 
 Bath-robe blankets — 
 So-called bath-robe blankets, consisting of pieces of colored cotton cloth, the raw 
 edges of which have been whipped or bound, said whipping not being necessary 
 to preserve the integrity of the fabric, were dutiable as "articles made from 
 cotton cloth, finished or unfinished," under paragraph 332, tariff act of 1909, 
 rather than as cotton cloth. (T. D. 32240— G. A. 7321; Feb. 6, 1912.) 
 Braids. (See Braids, cotton.) 
 Cloth- 
 Cotton cloth containing certain threads of the warp, passing to and fro across a so- 
 called cord, interweaving with the filling threads on both sides of the cord, 
 thereby forming a binding for such cord, but which are necessary to the integ- 
 rity of the fabric, and which are introduced not alone for ornamental purposes, 
 but for the substantial purpose of the completion of the fabric, are not, by reason 
 of these facts, subject to the additional duty under the provisions of paragraph 
 323, act of 1909. (T. D. 30163— G. A. 6947; Dec. 3, 1909.) 
 Coated — Woven cotton cloth with an artificial silk flock : The merchandise is a cotton 
 cloth coated and artificial silk constitutes its value in chief. In determining its 
 proper classification the rule applies that an eo nomine provision is more specific 
 than words of general description. The duty is not imposed upon the artificial 
 Bilk as such, but upon a designated article, "cotton cloth, coated." Cotton 
 cloth, coated, is dutiable under paragraph 321, tariff act of 1909. United States 
 V. Zinn & Co. (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 32171). Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne 
 V. United States (No. 744), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 26218 (T. D. 31788). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32229; Jan. 23, 1912.) 
 Colored: Cotton cloth with a bleached foundation and colored extra threads is 
 dutiable as colored cotton cloth under the countable provisions of Schedule I, . 
 tariff act of 1897, even though bleaching may have been the last process to which 
 the cloth was subjected. G. A. 5795 (T. D. 25599) and G. A. 6670 (T. D. 28447) 
 followed. (T. D. 28798— G. A. 6725; Feb. 18, 1908.) 
 
 The provisions of paragraphs 305-9, tariff act of 1897, for "colored " cotton cloth 
 do not include cloth which has colored figures but in which the foundation 
 fabric is not colored, even though the figures are so extensive as nearly to hide 
 the warp and filling threads and give the effect of a colored fabric. United 
 States?;. Rusch; Blatters. United States; Quaintance ti. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, March 2, 1908. Suits 
 4736, 5090, and 5091. On application for review of decisions by Board of United 
 States General Appraisers. See G. A. 6492 (T. D. 27762) and G. A. 6670 (T. D. 
 28447). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 28859; Mar. 18, 190.8.) 
 
 (Appealed :) The provision in paragraphs 305-9 , tariff act of 1 897 , for " colored " 
 cotton cloth does not apply to goods in which the only color is given by other 
 
 45633°— 17 11 
 
162 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Cotton — Continued. 
 Cloth — Continued. 
 
 than ordinary warp and filling threads used in the process of weaving to form a 
 figure, as described in paragraph 313; and in the assessment on such goods of the 
 duty prescribed by the latter paragraph additional to that imposed "on other 
 cotton cloth of the same description or condition," etc., such additional duty 
 should be added to the rate applicable to uncolored cottons. United States v, 
 Rusch; United States v. Blatter; United States v. Quaintance, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. Nos. 92, 99, and 100 
 (suits 4736, 5090, and 5091). Appeals by United States from Circuit Court of 
 United States for the Southern District of New York (160 Fed. Rep., 279; T. D. 
 28859). Decision advei-se to Government. (T. D. 29506; Jan. 27, 1909.) 
 
 The provision in paragraphs 305-9, tariff act of 1897, for "colored" cotton 
 cloth does not apply to goods in which the only color is given by other than ordi- 
 nary warp and filling threads used in the process of weaving to form a figure, as 
 described in paragraph 313; and in the assessment on such goods of the duty 
 prescribed by the latter paragraph additional to that imposed "on other cotton 
 cloth of the same description or condition," etc., such additional duty should be 
 added to the rate applicable to imcolored cottons. (T. D. 30206— G. A. 6956; 
 Dec. 18, 1909.) 
 
 Cotton rep or moire: Colored plain woven textile fabrics, known as cotton rep 
 and cotton moire, having either a stripe produced in the weaving or a watered 
 effect produced by coloring, but not having figures or designs produced in the 
 weaving, are dutiable as countable colored cotton cloth under paragraphs 315 to 
 320, and not as "tapestries, and other Jacquard-figured upholstery goods," 
 under paragraph 326, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 34024— G. A. 7520; Dec. 22, 
 1913.) 
 
 Cotton cloth, having part of the threads colored with a blue tint, the coloring 
 matter being a so-called fugitive or temporary color which is intended to be 
 washed out before the goods are finished and which is used to enable the weaver 
 to distinguish between the threads having a right-hand and a left-hand twist, 
 is nevertheless colored cotton cloth within the meaning of the statute and is 
 dutiable at the rate applicable to such merchandise in paragraph 252 of the 
 tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35747— G. A. 7781; Sept. 27, 1915.) 
 Cord ornamentation: Cotton cloth was so woven that certain warp threads were 
 grouped together and covered on the face of the fabric with another warp thread 
 which was interwoven with the filling threads on both sides of the grouped 
 threads, thereby forming a so-called "cord." Held that this cloth was noc 
 within the provision in paragraph 323, tariff act of 1909, for cotton cloth in which 
 "other than the ordinary warp and filling threads are used to form a figure or 
 fancy effect." The provision in said paragraph 323, for cloth in which "other 
 than the ordinary warp and filUng threads are used to form a figure," being a 
 substantial reenactment of the provision in paragraph 313, tariff act of 1897, for 
 cloth in which "other than the ordinary warp and filling threads are introduced 
 in the process of weaving to form a figure," merchandise that during the entire 
 life of the latter act was uniformly held not to be within paragraph 313 will, 
 under the rule with respect to long-continued customs practice, be held to be 
 excluded from paragraph 323 of the subsequent act. G. A. 6947 (T. D. 30163) 
 reaffirmed on rehearing. (T. D. 30467— G. A. 7000; Mar. 28, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Cotton cloth, commonly called striped or madras shirting, so 
 woven that ordinary warp threads are grouped together and covered with 
 another longer warp thread on the face of the fabric and presenting a raised 
 rounded appearance, forming thereby, in effect only, a so-called Russian cord, 
 irrespective of what it resembles, is not dutiable under paragraph 323, tariff act 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISION'S, 1908-1915. 163 
 
 Cotton— Continued. 
 Cloth — Continued. 
 
 of 1909, imposing a cumulative duty, but under paragraph 320 of that act, in 
 connection with paragraph 318. United States v. McConnell & Co. (No. 2), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 decision of the Board of Unjted States General Appraisers (T. D. 30467). Bo&rd's 
 decision affirmed. (T. D. 31104; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 
 Dust: Cotton dust cloths are properly classifiable as manufactures of cotton under 
 the catchall provision in paragraph 266, tariff act of 1913. If Congress had 
 intended that dust cloths should be classified under paragraph 264, it would 
 have named them therein. (T. D. 35847— G. A. 7803; Oct. 27, 1915.) 
 
 Figured: In determining whether or not cotton cloth is subject to the ad valorem 
 rates of duty in paragraphs 305 and 306, tariff act of 1897, the value of the cloth 
 in its entirety is to be considered, and not the value of the foundation threads 
 exclusive of the threads added to form a figure, by reason of wh^ch the cloth is 
 subject to the additional duty in paragraph 313 of said act. Section 19, cus- 
 toms administrative act of 1890, is not merely a definition of market value, but 
 also a guide to the proper application of ad valorem duties; and where the tariff 
 act makes merchandise dutiable at an ad valorem rate this section is conclusive 
 as to the value on which such rate of duty shall be figured. (T. D. 30968 — 6. A. 
 7105; Oct. 3, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Appraised as an entirety. — In appraising the value of figured 
 cotton cloth, the threads added to constitute the figure are not to be omitted in 
 the valuation, but these, together with the foundation threads, are to be taken 
 into account in fixing ad valorem rates under paragraphs 305 and 306, tariff act 
 of 1897. Section 19, customs administrative act, 1890, providing in effect that 
 imported merchandise subject to an ad valorem duty shall be valued in the 
 condition in which it is imported, requires that the value of the added threads 
 should be computed. Quaintance v. United States (No. 497), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals, ' October 12, 1911. Appeal by the importer from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7105 (T. D. 30968). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 31950; Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 
 Filled or coated: It would appear that Congress intended paragraph 321, tariff 
 act of 1909, reenacting and enlarging paragraph 311, tariff act of 1897, to take 
 the construction theretofore given it so far as it applied to the same merchandise 
 named in each paragraph and that certain window shades and filled cloths 
 formerly held dutiable thereunder should so continue regardless of the fact 
 that it is possible to count the number of warp and filling threads of the basic 
 fabric, which might; but for the specific provisions of paragraph 321, render 
 the merchandise dutiable under paragraph 315. It is true the latest clear ex- 
 pression of legislative intention controls in construction, but it is true also that 
 reasonable effect should be given to all parts of the statute under consideration 
 and regard will be had for the presumption that where a law has received an 
 executive and a judicial interpretation, and is later reenacted, this interpreta- 
 tion was in view on reenactment. 
 
 "Cotton cloth' ' in paragraph 320, tariff act of 1909, defined: The words cotton 
 cloth or cloth, wherever used in paragraph 320, tariff act of 1909, have the same 
 meaning the first clause of that paragraph declares they shall have when applied 
 to other paragraphs of Schedule I of that act. Shallus v. United States (No. 
 535), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from 
 a decision of the Board of United States General Appraiser^, Abstract 24263 
 (T. D. 31070). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31552; Apr. 24, 1911.) 
 
 Riled: So-called green cloth which has been treated with a solution of copper 
 and wax to be assessed at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 254, act of 
 1913, after 30 days from the date hereof. (T. D. 34062; Jan. 15, 1914.) 
 
164 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Cotton — Continued. 
 Cloth — Continued. 
 
 Jacquard-figured manufactures of cotton: Woven cotton cloth, Jacquard figured, 
 dutiable under paragraph 258 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 33907; 
 Nov. 22, 1913.) 
 
 Jacquard figured — Samples: In case of doubt as to the proper classification of 
 figured cotton cloth, samples should be forwarded to the appraiser at the port 
 of New York for an expression of his views. (T. D. 33951; Bee. 5, 1913.) 
 
 Madras muslin — ^Jacquard-figured upholstery goods: The term "upholstery 
 goods" is used in paragraph 258, tariff act of 1913, to cover fabrics in the nature 
 of tapestries suitable for use as draperies, hangings, and upholstering furniture. 
 Madras muslin: Madras muslin is not "upholstery goods" within the tariff 
 sense, and is dutiable at the appropriate rate according to the average yam 
 number under paragraph 252, tariff act of 1913. 
 
 Madras, muslin curtains: Madras muslin curtains are not upholstery goods, 
 and, as they are manufactured from Jacquard-figured cotton fabrics, they are 
 dutiable at 30 per cent ad valorem as "Jacquard-figured manufactures of cotton" 
 under paragraph 258. (T. D. 35320— G. A. 7711; Apr. 13, 1915.) 
 
 Appeal directed from decision of the Board of United States General Apprais- 
 ers of AprU 13, 1915, G. A. 7711 (T. D. 35320). (T. D. 35452; May 29, 1915.) 
 
 Jute: Cloth in chief value of cotton but containing 37 per cent of jute is not "cot- 
 ton cloth" within the meaning of Schedule I, tariff act of 1897, but is dutiable 
 as "manufactures of cotton' ' under paragraph 322. (T. D. 29596— G. A. 6875; 
 Feb. 27, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The provision in Schedule I, tariff act of 1897, for "cotton cloth" 
 does not include fabrics containing a substantial amount of jute. Lord & Tay- 
 lor V. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, May 21, 1909. Suit 5466. Appeal by importers from decision of Board 
 of General Appraisers, G. A. 6875 (T. D. 29596). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29851; 
 June 22, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The definition of "cotton cloth" in paragraph 310, tariff act of 
 1897, as being "a woven fabric of cotton," does not include a fabric containing 
 37 per cent of jute. Lord & Taylor v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 8, 1910. No. 153 (suit 5466). Appeal 
 by importer from decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for the South- 
 em District of New York (172 Fed. Rep., 282; T. D. 29851) affirming G. A. 6875 
 (T. D. 29596). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30359; Feb. 15, 
 1910.) 
 
 In part of jute: Woven fabrics of cotton and jute, cotton being the component 
 material of chief value, are not "cotton cloth " within the meaning of that term 
 as defined in paragraph 310, tariff act of 1897, but are dutiable as manufactures 
 of cotton under paragraph 322. Lord & Taylor v. United States (T. D. 30359), 
 affirming 172 Fed. Rep. , 282 (T. D. 29851), and G. A. 6875 (T. D. 29596) followed. 
 (T. D. 30686— G. A. 7034; June 9, 1910.) 
 
 Mercerized unbleached: Unbleached cotton cloth, mercerized, was dutiable as 
 such at the applicable rates under paragraphs 315 to 319 and paragraph 323, 
 tariff act of 1909, and not as colored cotton cloth, mercerized, it being immaterial 
 that certain coloring matter inherent in the fabric may have been developed in 
 the process of mercerization. (T. D. 32419— G. A. 7350; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 
 Mercerized selvages: The merchandise of the importation consisted of fancy cotton 
 goods with selvages containing mercerized threads. There were mercerized 
 threads in the selvage but not in the body of the cloth. The selvage is a part of 
 the fabric only in the sense of being attached to it; it has none of the uses or pur- 
 poses of the textile to which it is woven. It is, accordingly, a distinct entity 
 
DIGEST OF CtrSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 165 
 
 Cotton — Continued . 
 Cloth— Continued. 
 
 and can not be taken to fix the classification of the textile itself. The importa- 
 tion was not dutiable as cotton cloth, mercerized. United States v. Mandel (1 
 Ct. Oust. Appls., 223; T. D. 31259); United States v. Auffmordt & Co. (No. 773), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 26639 (T. D. 31883). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32561; May 17, 1912.) 
 
 Narrow strips: Narrow strips of cotton cloth, approximately 4 inches wide and from 
 5 to 6i yards in length, dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 262, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34284; Mar. 18, 1914.) 
 
 Number of yarn: Formula for ascertaining the number of yarn in cotton cloth. 
 Tables published for convenience of customs officers. (T. D. 33823; Oct. 30, 
 1913.) 
 
 An addition of 8^ per cent to be made to bone-dry weight in ascertaining the 
 number of the yarn in cotton cloth. T. D. 33823, of October 30, 1913, amended. 
 (T. D. 34255; Mar. 9, 1914.) 
 
 Silk and cotton selvages: Cloth composed of cotton, with selvages of silk and cot- 
 ton, held dutiable as cotton cloth under paragraph 306, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 
 28815— G, A. 6733; Feb. 29, 1908.) 
 
 Silk figures: Cloth composed in chief value of cotton but in part of silk dutiable 
 at 8 cents per square yard and 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 321, tariff 
 act of 1909, although the amount of silk in the fabric is insignificant. (T. D. 
 33576— G. A. 7471; June 19, 1913.) 
 
 Silk selvage: Cotton cloth with selvage of silk, the selvage ordinary in kind and 
 not designed to form a material and essential part of the goods as these might 
 enter into consumption, was dutiable as cotton cloth under paragraph 306, 
 tariff act of 1897. United States v. Mandel (No. 297), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from decision of Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers (T. D. 28815). Transferred from United States Circuit Court 
 for Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 31259; Jan. 25, 1911.) 
 
 Strips — Tapes: Cotton cloth, filled or coated, cut in strips lengthwise and not 
 crosswise, used for insulating and electrical purposes and not for tying or bind- 
 ing, as tapes, bands, or bandings are generally used, is neither dutiable as tapes, 
 bands, or bandings under paragraph 349, act of 1909, nor as "cotton cloth, filled 
 or coated, " under paragraph 321. Held dutiable as "articles made from cotton 
 cloth, whether finished or unfinished, and all manufactures of cotton" under 
 paragraph 332, although that claim is not made in the protest. (T. D. 33658 — 
 G. A. 7484; July 23, 1913.) 
 
 Threads: Where threads which are used to form figures in cotton clotli have been 
 clipped off where they appear at intervals on the underside of the cloth, the 
 remnants left in the fabric are still "threads' ' within the meaning of paragraph 
 313, tariff act of 1897, relating to cloth containing "threads introduced in the 
 process of weaving to form a figure." Maclea Co. v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, February 15, 1909. Suit 
 4950. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 
 6592 (T. D. 28173). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29569; Feb. 24, 1909.) 
 
 Unfinished articles: Cotton cloth which, in the condition that it comes from the 
 loom, has been cut into lengths, and then the edges whipped or bound tempo- 
 rarily with a single thread, such whipping being no step in the process of making 
 an article, is dutiable as cotton cloth "cut in lengths," by virtue of paragraph 
 320, tariff act of 1909, and not as "articles made from cotton cloth, * * * 
 unfinished, " under paragraph 332 of said act. Fischer, G. A., dissenting. (T. 
 D. 31295— G. A. 7166; Feb. 11, 1911.) 
 
166 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Cotton — Continued. 
 Cloth — Continued . 
 Value — Packing cases: The word "valued" in paragraph 317, tariff act of 1909, 
 has no definite meaning without reference to the adnJinistrative act (sec. 28, 
 tariff act of 1909). Its meaning is foxmd in said administrative act. In ascer- 
 taining the value of cotton cloth for the purpose of determining the subdivision 
 of paragraph 317, tariff act of 1909, under which such cloth is properly classifia- 
 ble, the proportionate value of the packing cases should be added to the per se 
 value of the cloth by reason of the mandatory provision in subsection 18 of 
 section 28, tariff act of 1909, that "whenever imported merchandise is subject 
 
 * * * to a duty based upon or regulated in any maimer by the value thereof, 
 the duty shall be assessed upon the actual market value • * * thereof, 
 
 * * * including the value of all * * * cases." The fact that the same 
 cloth might pay different rates of duty, dependent on whether or not it is im- 
 ported in American-made cases, is immaterial where there is express statutory 
 authority for the collection of different rates under different circumstances. 
 (T. D. 31542— G. A. 7216; Apr. 29, 1911.) 
 
 Wearing apparel: Cotton cloth in the piece, colored or printed in designs suitable 
 for kimonos or other articles of wearing apparel, but not manufactured wholly 
 or in part into articles by any process subsequent to weaving and printing, is 
 dutiable as cotton cloth, colored or printed, under paragraph 316 and not as 
 "articles of wearing apparel * * * made up or manufactured, wholly or 
 in part, by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer," under paragraph 324, tariff 
 act of 1909. (T. D. 33643— G. A. 7482; July 18, 1913.) 
 
 Woven figured: Figured cotton cloth woven on Jacquard looms being more specif- 
 ically provided for as "cotton cloth, * * * woven figured" than as "all 
 other Jacquard-figured manufactures of cotton," is dutiable at the appropriate 
 rate according to the size of the yam used under paragraph 252, act of 1913, and 
 not at 30 per cent ad valorem und er paragraph 258. (T. D. 34858 — G. A. 7618 
 Oct. 21, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Figured woven cotton goods. — "Cotton cloth woven figured in 
 the piece" is more specific in describing the goods here than "manufaotures oi 
 cotton, Jacquard figured." "Cotton cloth woven figured" exactly describes 
 the merchandise, and this is "in the piece." The provisions for cotton cloth 
 in paragraph 252, tariff act of 1 913, as defined in paragraph 253, control. United 
 States V. Sherman & Sons Co. et al. (No. 1482); United States v. Wilson & Son 
 (No. 1483); United States v. Schloss (No. 1484); United States v. Sachs & Co. 
 et al. (No. 1485); United States v. Ikle Freres & Co. (No. 1486), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Government from Board of United 
 StatesGeneralAppraisers.G. A. 7618 (T.D. 34858). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 35501; May 24, 1915.) 
 Driving rope. (See Belting for machinery.) 
 Embroidery. 
 
 The merchandise known commercially in July, 1897, as embroidery cotton was 
 put up in small skeins. Loeb v. United States (150 Fed. Rep., 327; T. D. 
 27752) foUowed; G. A. 5372 (T. D. 24560) overruled. (T. D. 28803— G. A. 
 6730; Feb. 21, 1908.) 
 
 Figured: On cotton cloth subject to paragraph 313, tariff act of 1897, the value 
 of the cloth as an entirety, and not the value of the foundation fabric exclusive 
 of the extra threads, is to be used in applying the ad valorem rates under para- 
 graph 305 of said act. United States v. Biggs (203 U. S., 136; T. D. 27721) fol- 
 lowed. (T. D. 28701— G. A. 6709; Jan. 18, 1908.) 
 
 Filling threads: Threads introduced in the process of weaving or by the Jacquard 
 piDceas in cotton cloth, running from selvage to selvage, interwoven at regular 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 167 
 
 Cotton — Continued. 
 Eubioideiy — Continued . 
 
 intervals with the weft for the purpose of forming figures or dots upon the 
 goods, are "fUling threads" "other than ordinary," and should be counted in 
 the determination of the thread count of the fabric under the countable clause 
 of the cotton schedule of the tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29096— G. A. 6779; June 
 18, 1908.)' 
 
 Embroidery cotton in small balls, not exceeding 100 yards, properly dutiable at 
 the rate of 6 cents per dozen under the first portion of paragraph 314, tariff act 
 of 1909. (T. D. 30175; Dec. 9, 1909.) 
 
 Cotton hosiery, cotton gloves, and wool blankets not dutiable under paragraph 
 358 even though embroidered. .(T. D. 34207; Feb. 26, 1914.) 
 
 Embroidery cotton: Cotton yam used on embroidery machines in the process of 
 making fancy or ornamental designs on the face of fabrics is embroidery cotton 
 and properly dutiable at 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 251, tariff act 
 of 1913. 
 
 Cotton yarn: No. 60 two-ply cotton yarn on bobbins, in which form it is used as 
 the bottom thread on embroidery machines to hold the embroidered design in 
 position, the yam itself not appearing upon the face of the fabric, is not em- 
 broidery cotton. It is ordinary cotton yarn and is dutiable at the appropriate 
 rate under paragraph 250, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35314— G. A. 7710; Apr. 9, 
 1915.) 
 
 Cotton yarn used on embroidery machines: Appeal directed from decision of the 
 Board of United States General Appraisers of April 9, 1915, G. A. 7710 (T. D. 
 35314), involving the classification of certain yarn and allowance under sub- 
 section 7 of Paragraph J of section 4, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35489; June 5, 
 1915.) 
 
 Mercerized cotton yam of the same character as embroidery cotton, even though 
 in the gray, duitable at the rate of 15 per cent ad valerom as embroidery cotton 
 under paragraph 251, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35873; Nov. 12, 1915.) 
 Gloves. (See Gloves.) 
 Gun — 
 
 Cotton linters: An article used in the manufacture of gun cotton and smokeless 
 powder, and produced from cotton linters by treating them with soda ash and 
 chloride of lime and afterwards washing them with pure water, held free of duty 
 under paragraph 548, tariff act of 1909, as "cotton." G. A. 6339 (T. D. 27289) 
 foUowed. (T. D. 30728— G. A. 7050; June 27, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Short bits of lint that adhere to the seed of cotton in the ordinary 
 process of ginning and are later stripped from the seed by a specially constructed 
 gin, becoming then what are commonly known as "linters," are not waste, but 
 cotton, and under paragraph 548, tariff act of 1909, are free of duty; and this, 
 irrespective of a cleansing process to which the linters may have been subjected 
 before importation. Language will be presumed to be used in commerce as in 
 ordinary life and to establish that a term is used in commerce with a signification 
 differing from that of the same term when ordinarily employed, its use in com- 
 merce must be shown to be general, uniform, and definite. United States v. 
 Salomon Bros. (No. 307), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the United States from decision of the Board of United States General Apprais- 
 ers (T. D. 30728). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31277; Feb. 1, 1911.) 
 Holland fabrics — 
 
 Whether the importation consisting of a fabric known as cotton hollands is one of 
 articles made from cotton cloth, finished or unfinished, or is one of manufac- 
 tures with cotton as the component material of chief value, is, as a question. 
 
168 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Cotton — Continued . 
 
 Holland fabrics — Continued. 
 
 unimportant. The article was excluded from the other cotton-cloth provisions 
 of the tariff act of 1909 by the terms of paragraph 320 of that act, and being stipu- 
 lated to be an "article" made from the "fabric known as cotton hollands" and 
 not cotton hollands, the goods necessarily fell within paragraph 332 of the act. 
 United States v. Anderson & Co. (No. 856), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 27303 (T. D. 32073) and Abstract 27672 (T. D. 32195). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 32468; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 
 Initials — 
 The provision for "ornaments" in paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, includes cot- 
 ton initials which are ornamental in character, although they may serve as a 
 mark of identification as well as being a means of adorning. (T. D. 31863 — G. 
 A. 7271; Sept. 14, 1911.) 
 
 Knit wearing apparel — 
 Cotton scarfs made on knitting machines or frames are properly dutiable as cot- 
 ton knit wearing apparel under the provisions of paragraph 261, tariff act of 1913, 
 rather than under the provision in paragraph 358 of said act for ' ' wearing apparel, 
 and all other articles or fabrics made wholly or in part of lace or of imitation lace 
 of any kind." (T. D. 35715— G. A. 7775; Sept. 17, 1915.) 
 
 Ladder tape for use on Venetian blinds. (See Cotton, manufactures of.) 
 
 Manufactures of — 
 Cotton screens in a framework of wood not dutiable as. (See Screens.) 
 Fabrics in part of jute : Cloth in chief value of cotton but containing 37 per cent of 
 jute is not "cotton cloth " within the meaning of Schedule I, tariff act of 1897, 
 but is dutiable as manufactures of cotton under paragraph 322. (T. D. 29596 — 
 G. A. 6875; Feb. 27, 1909.) 
 
 The provision in Schedule I, tariff act of 1897, for "cotton cloth" does not 
 include fabrics containing a substantial amount of jute. Lord & Taylor v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 21, 1909. Suit 5466. Appeal by importers from decision of Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 6875 (T. D. 29596.) Board aflBrmed. (T. D. 29851; June 
 22, 1908.) 
 Ladder tapes: Cotton "ladder tape," for use in the manufacture of Venetian blinds, 
 is not excluded by the principle of ejusdum generis from the provision for. "laces, 
 * * * nets, nettings, * * * trimmings, braids, * * * tapes, webs, 
 and webbings," in paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909. The articles provided for 
 under this paragraph can not be classed as all of the same nature, or intended 
 for similar purposes, and the grouping of such goods in one provision makes the 
 doctrine of ejusdum generis inapplicable. (T. D. 30614 — G. A. 7021; May 13, 
 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The doctrine of noseitur a sodis can not be made to include 
 under paragraph 332, tariff act of 1909, so-called cotton ladder tape employed 
 as a device to raise or lower Venetian blinds, and the Congress having appar- 
 ently with intention assembled in paragraph 349 of that act, for dutiable pur- 
 poses, amongst other articles, tape made of cotton, will be presumed to have 
 meant cotton ladder tape should be dutiable under the last-named paragraph, 
 and it is so dutiable. If the importation had been shown to be the product of 
 the loom alone, and that it had been subjected to no other process, a different 
 question might have been presented. Burlington Venetian Blind Co. v. 
 United States (No. 268), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importer from decision of the Board of United States Greneral AppraiseiB, 
 G. A. 7021 (T. D. 30614). Decision affii-med. (T. D. 31456; Mar. 27, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 169 
 
 Cottou — Continued. 
 Manufactures of — Continued. 
 So-called "ladder tapes," used in the construction of Venetian blinds, are not 
 tapes within the meaning of that term as used in paragraph 349, tariff act of 
 1909; and being woven directly from yarn they are not articles made from tapes, 
 and therefore were not subject to the first proviso to said paragraph, "that no 
 article composed wholly or in chief value of one or. more of the materials or 
 goods specified in this paragraph shall pay a less rate of duty than the highest 
 rate imposed by this section upon any of the materials or goods of which the 
 same is composed." They were dutiable as manufactures of cotton, not spe- 
 cially provided for, under paragraph 332 of said act. (T. D. 32503— G. A. 7360; 
 May 6, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Commercial designation. — Commercial designation must be 
 shown by proof of a trade understanding, and the use of the term sought to be 
 established must be shown to be definite, uniform, and general, not partial, 
 local, or personal. The importation was not "tapes" as properly and actually 
 known, nor "webs or webbings," but an article produced by a loom, designed 
 to hold slats and used in the manufacture and repair of Venetian blinds. It 
 was dutiable as a manufacture of cotton, not specially provided for, under para- 
 graph 332, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Burlington Venetian Blind Co. 
 (No. 924), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7360 (T. D. 
 32503). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32967; Nov. 14, 1912.) 
 So-called "ladder tapes" are not tapes within the common meaning of that term, 
 nor are they articles made from tapes. Therefore they were not dutiable under 
 paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, but dutiable as manufactures of cotton, not 
 specially provided for, under paragraph 332. 
 
 Commercial designation: Evidence that the articles were bought and sold in 
 the wholesale trade at the time of the passage of the act under the name of "lad- 
 der tapes" is not sufficient to prove a commercial meaning of the term "tapes" 
 different from the ordinary meaning. (T. D. 32871— G. A. 7396; Oct. 14, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise imported is known as ladder tapes. In tariff 
 statutes words describing merchandise are to be taken as used in their commer- 
 cial sense, but the common and the commercial meanings are presumed to be 
 the same. If a difference in meaning is attempted to be shown, the party 
 seeking to show a difference has the burden of proof. To bring the articles of 
 the importation within the commercial designation of ' ' tapes " it would be neces- 
 sary to show that they are known as such. This is not here shown. On the 
 contrary, the evidence discloses that, instead of being known commercially as 
 tapes, they are commercially known as ladder tapes. Tapes and ladder tapes 
 are not the same thing. United States v. Walter et al. (No. 1058), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7396 (T. D. 32871). Decision aflormed. (T. 
 D. 33371; Apr. 22, 1913.) 
 Sanctuary lights, so-called: The term "tapers," as used in paragraph 436, tariff 
 act of 1909, does not apply to sanctuary lights, so-called, consisting severally 
 of a china base or stand, a wire implement, and a quantity of wicks composed 
 of a bamboo core covered with braided cotton and coated with wax or paraffin, 
 cotton being the component material of chief value. The articles are wicks 
 rather than tapers and were dutiable under paragraph 332, tariff act of 1909, at 
 45 per cent ad valorem, as assessed. Cases on tapers reviewed. United States 
 V. Godillot (T. D. 32382) followed. Abstract 28938 (T. D. 32655) overruled. 
 (T. D. 33119— G. A. 7422; Jan. 24, 1913.) 
 
170 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Cotton — Continued. 
 
 Narrow cotton fabric — 
 Narrow cotton fabric invoiced as "cotton machinery belting" dutiable as "cotton 
 webbing" under paragraph 349, tarifi act of 1909, at the rate of 60 per cent ad 
 valorem. (T. D. 31958; Oct. 26, 1911.) 
 
 Net embroidered with aitiflcial silk. (See Embroideries, artificial silk on cotton 
 net.) 
 
 Nettings — 
 Curtains — Jacquard-figured upholstery goods: Cotton nettings measuring from 38 
 to 46 inches in width and from 4 to 50 yards in length and having figures intro- 
 duced by the Jacquard process, and which are not only suitable for making 
 window curtains but can also be used for making other articles are more spe- 
 cifically provided for as "nettings * * * of whatever yarns, threads, or 
 filaments composed," under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913, than as "Jacquard- 
 figured upholstery goods composed wholly or in chief value of cotton," or as 
 "Jacquard-figured manufactiu'es of cotton," under paragraph 258 of said act. 
 (T. D. 35139— G. A. 7685; Feb. 15, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Upholstery goods. — The merchandise consists of nettings, all 
 of which are Jacquard figured, and the relevant paragraphs in tariff act of 1913 
 are 258 and 358. "Jacquard-figured upholstery goods" in paragraph 258 
 restricts the operation of the term to goods whofe chief use is as upholstery 
 goods, the precise character of these upholstery goods being there defined, and 
 accordingly the description applies to articles that might otherwise be appropri- 
 ately designed nets or nettings under paragraph 358. Carter & Son v. United 
 States (No. 1520), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7685 (T. D; 
 35139). Decision afiirmed as to part and reversed as to part. (T. D. 35475. 
 May 21, 1915.) 
 
 Nettings — Laces — Beadings — 
 Jacquard-figured manufactures of cotton: Cotton nettings, flouncings, edgings, 
 and insertings, which have figiu-es introduced by the Jacquard process, are 
 properly dutiable vmder the eo nomine provision for such articles in paragraph 
 358, tariff act of 1913, and not as "Jacquard-figured manufactures of cotton" 
 under paragraph 258. 
 
 Laces — Beadings — Fabrics with fast edges: Jacquard-figured cotton articles 
 made from Valencieimes lace, although recognized as beadings to distinguish, 
 them from edgings or some other article, fall within that class of articles known 
 in the trade as "laces," and as such are more specifically provided for as "laces" 
 under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913, than as "Jacquard-figured manufactures 
 of cotton" under paragraph 258, or as "fabrics with fast edges not exceeding 12 
 inches in width" under paragraph 262. (T. D. 35140— G. A. 7686; Feb. 15, 
 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Jacquard-figured cotton goods. — ^Jacquard-figured manufactures 
 of cotton may be either laces or figured goods of cotton, not lace at all. and 
 accordingLy the term is more comprehensive than a provision limited to a par- 
 ticular class of figured goods known as laces or lace articles. 
 
 Paragraph S58, tariff act of 19 IS. — Paragraph 358 provides for laces, articles of 
 lace, and all articles or fabrics made wholly or in part of lace of any kind, of what- 
 ever yarns, threads, or filaments such laces, articles, or fabrics may be composed, 
 and as well for nets, nettings, flouncings, edgings, and insertings of whatever 
 yams, threads, or filaments composed. This furnishes a more specific descrip- 
 tion of the goods here and controls. Wilson & Son v. United States (No. 1521), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7686 (T. D. 35140). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 35476; May 21, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 171 
 
 Cotton — Continued . 
 
 Quilts- 
 Cotton quilts, plain woven, dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 264, tariff act of 1913; if woven with a tapestry pattern, 35 per cent ad valorem 
 imder paragraph 258; and if woven with a Jacquard figure, 30 per cent ad va- 
 lorem under the same paragraph. (T. D. 33973; Dec. 10, 1913.) 
 
 Bugs — 
 Congress, in the tariff act of 1909, having placed "rugs of cotton" in the same par- 
 agraph and assessed duty thereon at the same rate as on " carpets and carpeting, ' ' 
 must be taken inf erentially to have intended that the " rugs of cotton, ' ' dutiable 
 thereunder, should be those only which are suitable for floor coverings. (T. D. 
 33577— G. A. 7472; June 20, 1913.) 
 
 Silk ribbons. (See Ribbons.) 
 
 Table covers. (See Table covers.) 
 
 Thread coated with cellulose. (See Horsehair, artificial.) 
 
 Thread, spool — 
 Cotton thread imported in skeins, whether in the gray or bleached, of the character 
 usually sold on spools, is not dutiable under paragraph 302, tariff act of 1897, as 
 cotton threa)d, but is dutiable under paragraph 303 as "spool thread of cotton 
 * * * otherwise than on spools or reels." (T. D. 30184^G. A. 6952; Dec. 
 11, 1909.) 
 
 Threads — 
 Count: In determining the count of threads per square inch of madras muslin, all 
 the warp and filling threads, whether ordinary or other than ordinary, and 
 whether clipped or undipped, must be counted, in accordance with the pro- 
 visions of paragraph 320, tariff act of 1909, and it is immaterial that the count 
 may differ in various portions of the fabric. (T. D. 31966— G. A. 7289; Oct. 
 25, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Figured cotton cloth hnown as madras goods. — Paragraph 320, 
 tariff act of 1909, made provision for counting the threads in the fabrics of the 
 importation, the provision being to the effect that in ascertaining the count of 
 threads per square inch the ordinary as well as the extraordinary threads were 
 to be counted, and counted whether clipped or undipped. 
 
 Texture of the fabric. — The texture of the fabric is to be found by counting the 
 threads in one repeat of the pattern and then dividing this result by the number 
 of inches these threads occupy in the cloth. This is to determine the texture 
 not according to the count in the most or the least compact part of the fabric, but 
 according to the average count of the whole. Witcombe, McGeachin & Co. v. 
 United States (No. 813), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7289 (T. D. 
 31966). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32563; May 17, 1912.) 
 Extra threads in figured cotton cloth: Where threads inserted to form figures in 
 cotton cloth have been clipped off where they appear at intervals on the under- 
 side of the cloth, the renmants left in the fabric are still "threads" within the 
 meaning of paragraph 313, tariff act of 1897, relating to cloth containing "threads 
 introduced in the process of weaving to form a figure." (T. D. 30269 — G. A. 
 6964; Jan. 14, 1910.) 
 
 Ties — Baling wire — 
 Hoop or band iron or steel, cut to lengths and which can be identified as cotton 
 ties, is free under paragraph 509, tariff act of 1913; it not identified as cotton 
 ties, it is dutiable under paragraph 107. No. 9 annealed wire is not wire for 
 baling hay or other commodity. (T. D. 34055; Jan. 12, 1914.) 
 
 Towels. (See Towels.) 
 
172 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Cotton — Continued. 
 Underwear in part of Lever lace — 
 Paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, provides a rate of duty of 60 per cent ad valorem 
 for cotton wearing apparel and other articles made wholly or in part of lace or 
 ornamented with embroidery, and contains a proviso "that no article composed 
 wholly or in chief value of one or more of the materials or goods specified in this 
 paragraph shall pay a less rate of duty than the highest rate imposed by this sec- 
 tion upon any of the materials or goods of which the same is composed. " Held, 
 that cotton underwear trimmed with Lever lace, some of the articles also being 
 embroidered , the article in each case being of greater value than the Lever lace, 
 is, by virtue of said proviso, properly dutiable under paragraph 350 of said 
 act at the rate of 70 per cent ad valorem, which is the highest rate imposed upon 
 any of the component materials. Stein v. United States (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 
 519; T. D. 32250) followed. (T. D. 33794— G. A. 7502; Oct. 14, 1913.) 
 Waste. ("See Waste.) 
 Water roof cloth. (See Waterproof cloth.) 
 Wearing apparel. (See Wearing apparel.) 
 Woven fabrics with loops on one edge — 
 Narrow woven cotton articles imported in lengths with loops on one edge of the 
 fabric, used by Bohemian people solely for the purpose of holding the ends of 
 pillowcases together, which is accomplished by attaching the articles to the 
 ends of pillowcases and inserting a braid or tape into the various loops and 
 drawing them together, are properly dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent ad valo- 
 rem under the provision in paragraph 262, tariff act of 1913, for "fabrics with 
 fast edges not exceeding twelve inches in width, " rather than as "cotton trim- 
 mings" (par. 358). (T. D. 35322— G. A. 7715; Apr. 20,* 1915.) 
 Tarns. (See Yams.) 
 Cotton and leather slippers. (See Shoes, cotton and leather slippers.) 
 Cotton and rubber braids. (See Braids.) 
 Cotton seed and cottonseed hiills. 
 
 Prohibition of the importation, except from the Imperial Valley, in the State of 
 Lower California in Mexico, of cotton seed and cottonseed hulls. (Notice of 
 quarantine No. 8, plant quarantine act.) (T. D. 33574; June 23, 1913.) 
 Couch covers made from pile fabrics. (See Pile fabrics.) 
 Countervailing duty. (See Duty, countervailing.) 
 Counter warrants and settlements. 
 
 Instructions relating to transfer and counter warrants and settlements. (T. D. 
 28734; circular No. 11; Feb. 3, 1908.) 
 "Country." 
 Statutes and Treasury regulations — 
 A long-continued uniform departmental practice of both State and Treasury 
 Departments, now reviewed, shows the word "country" to have been inter- 
 preted to mean the locality and not the political domain itself. (T. D. 35435; 
 May 18, 1915.) 
 Country of origin. 
 Marking. (See Marking.) 
 
 Surgical instruments. (See Surgical instruments, marking of.) 
 Court of Customs Appeals. (See also Coiu-ts.) 
 
 An act to amend section 195, act of March 3, 1911, relating to the judiciary. Appeal 
 to United States Supreme Court from decisions of the Court of Customs Appeals. 
 (T. D. 34747; Sept. 2, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 173 
 
 Court of Customs Appeals— rCoatinued. 
 Decisions, finality of — 
 
 Decisions of the Court of Customs Appeals adverse to the Government will become 
 effective upon the issuing of orders by the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers pursuant to the mandates of the said court. Entries the subject of 
 protests which have not been forwarded to the board, covered in principle by a 
 given decision of the Court of Customs Appeals, will be reliquidated in harmony 
 with the said decision after 30 days have elapsed from the date thereof. (T. D. 
 31564; May 9, 1911.) / 
 
 Findings of fact — • 
 
 Findings of the Board of Appraisers on doubtful questions of fact, turning upon 
 the intelligence or credibility of witnesses, will not be disturbed, but when a 
 finding would appear to be clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence, it is 
 a duty devolved on the Court of Customs Appeals, upon appeal, to disregard 
 it. United States v. Reibe (T. D. 30776). (T. D. 31317; Feb. l5, 1911.) 
 
 Unstitched gloves: The question involved in connection with an importation of 
 gloves being one of fact simply, and only one witness being called, who testified 
 the gloves of the importation were not stitched or embroidered with more than 
 three single strands or cords, and the Board of Appraisers having found this to be 
 the fact, this finding will not be disturbed. United States v. Speilmann 
 (No. 102), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from decision of the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 29559). Trans- 
 ferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. 
 Decision aflirmed. (T. D. 31320; Feb. 13, 1911.) 
 
 Where there has been no authoritative finding of fact concurred in by a majority 
 of the sitting members of the Board of General Appraisers, the question of fact 
 is deemed open for determination by the United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. United States v. Rosenstein Bros. (No. 394), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. (T. D. 31357; Feb. 17, 1911.) 
 
 The act creating the Court of Customs Appeals empowers it to review not alone 
 the law, but, when the findings of the Board of General Appraisers are made an 
 issue, to review the facts presented upon appeal to this court. To enable this 
 court fairly to review a finding of fact by the board, when this finding is made 
 an issue on appeal, it is essential that the court should have before it all the testi- 
 mony that influenced the board in reaching its conclusion. This is not to say 
 the board may not, in the course of its oftentimes necessarily summary deter- 
 minations, rely in its findings on proof in other like cases, heard on earlier dates 
 by the board. Sheldon v. United States (No. 518); Hempstead v. United 
 States (No. 519), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 24047 (T. D. 30983). Decision reversed. (T. D. 31594; May 8, 1911.) 
 Judicial notice — 
 
 Judicial notice will be taken of the prominent, important, and generally known 
 facts of vegetable growth and life; but such facts as are of minor importance, 
 not actually within the sphere' of common observation and knowledge, will not 
 be judicially noticed, even though such facts may be ascertained by reference 
 to technical treatises. (T. D. 32081; Nov. 28, 1911.) 
 Jurisdiction — 
 
 It is not within the province or jurisdiction of the United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals to make a finding of the market value of imported goods. (T. D. 31007; 
 Oct. 18, 1910.) 
 Jurisdiction to review questions of fact — 
 
 The Court of Customs Appeals has power to review questions of fact. (T. D. 
 30776; June 22, 1910.) 
 
 (See Ultramarine blue, questions of fact.) 
 
174 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 CoTut of Customs Appeals — Continued. 
 
 Beheaiing. (See Reiearing.) 
 
 Rules adopted May 3, 1910. (T. D. 30633; May 24, 1910.) 
 
 Time within which appeals may be taken. (See Appeals.) 
 Courts. Court of Customs Appeals. (See Court of Customs Appeals.) 
 
 Evidence. (See Evidence.) 
 
 Jurisdiction — 
 Circuit court: Where a general appraiser has been appointed referee to take 
 further testimony in the circuit court, on appeal from the Board of General Ap- 
 praisers under section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, there is no author- 
 ity whereby the circuit court may direct the general appraiser to go beyond 
 the territorial jurisdiction of the court to take testimony. This rule is not 
 altered by the fact that the general appraiser may express his willingness to 
 go. (T. D. 30189; Dec. 14, 1909.) 
 Decision by consent: In the circuit court an order affirming a decision by the 
 Board of General Appraisers was entered by consent of counsel for both sides, 
 "to expedite the final decision of the issue at bar in the United States Circuit 
 Court of Appeals * * * without prejudice to the right of appeal." Held 
 (1) that as there had been no judgment of the circuit court in a just sense of the 
 word, there was no error to be assigned; (2) that to hear the appeal would be 
 to disregard the statute establishing the circuit court of appeals, thus converting 
 it from an appellate tribunal to a court of first instance, contrary to the intent 
 of the law; and (3) that this court is therefore without jurisdiction. Ballot v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Krst Circuit, April 28, 
 1909. No. 818 (suit 2050). Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the 
 United States for the District of Massachusetts (T. D. 29548), affirming Abstract 
 19887 (T. D. 29339). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29766; 
 May 19, 1909.) 
 B^gulations, Secretary Treastiry: The right of direct appeal from circuit courts 
 to the Supreme Court is given by section 5, act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 827), 
 in any case that involves the application of the Constitution. Held that this 
 does not cover a case resting on the assertion that the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 in regulations for the testing of sugar, had assumed to add something to the 
 dutiable standard prescribed by the tariff act and thereby exercised legislative 
 power confided by the Constitution solely to Congress. In such a case the only 
 real substantial point is whether the Secretary misconstrued the statute; and 
 this can not give jurisdiction under said section. American Sugar Refining 
 Co. V. United States, United States Supreme Court, November 30, 1908. No. 
 3 (suit 3825). Appeal from Circuit Court of United States for Southern District 
 of New York (T. D. 27093). Appeal dismissed. (T. D. 29411; Dec. 16, 1908.) 
 Res udjudicata: Forfeiture proceedings in a district court for alleged undervalua- 
 tion resulted favorably to the importer; but the collector assessed the addi- 
 tional duty provided in section 7, customs administrative act of 1890, for under- 
 valuation, whereupon the importer secured a modification of the judgment, 
 providing that the importation should be surrendered to the importer without 
 the imposition of such additional duty. Held that in the absence of proof 
 that the court was without jurisdiction to make this modification the contrary 
 would be presumed, and that, the matter being therefore res adjudicata, the 
 imposition of the additional duty was illegal. United States v. Sommers, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, May 28, 1909. No. 
 2918 (suit 1957). Appeal from Circuit Court of United States for Eastern Dis- 
 trict of Missouri (T. D. 29167), reversing G. A. 6536 (T. D. 27887). Decision 
 adverae to the Government. (T. D. 29852; June 22, 1909.) Acquiesced in by 
 the Government without prejudice. (T. D. 30108; Nov. 15, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 175 
 
 Courts — Continued. 
 Jurisdiction — Continued. 
 Siare decisis — Uniformity in customs cases: In cases of the character of customs 
 appeals uniformity in the judgments of the courts of first instance is desirable, 
 as well for those of the appellate tribunal; and where no direct attack has been 
 made upon a prior adjudication by a circuit court of the question sought to be 
 subsequently raised in another similar suit, the prior adjudication, unless 
 clearly erroneous, should be followed. (T. D. 29074; June 17, 1908.) 
 ■Stare decisis: The circuit court for one district is justified in following the decision 
 of the circuit court in another district on the same topic, whether or not it fully 
 approved that decision. United States v. Stone & Downer Co., United States 
 CSrcuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, December 20, 1909. No. 834 (suit 
 1833). (T. D. 30228; Dec. 28, 1909.) 
 Supreme Court, United States. 
 Jnrisdictioi^ of, constitutional question — 
 
 In order to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction on the ground of a constitutional 
 question, such question must be real and substantial and not a mere claim in 
 words. The contention that duty should not be imposed on merchandise 
 brought from the Panama Canal Zone into the United States does not raise 
 such a question. Kaufman v. Smith, United States Supreme Court, March 
 7, 1910. No. 668. (T. D. 80448; Mar. 22, 1910.) 
 Coverings. 
 
 In construing the provision in section 19, customs administrative act of 1890, that 
 the dutiable value of imports subject to "an ad valorem rate of duty, or to a duty 
 based upon or regulated in any manner by the value thereof," shall include 
 "the value of all cartons, cases, crates, boxes, sacks, and coverings of any kind, " 
 held that the term "coverings" is not limited to encasements similar to the 
 "cartons, cases, " etc., that are specified in the law, and that the provision covers 
 containers of liquids or semiliquids, such as tins, kegs, bairrels, and stoneware 
 jars, bottles, and terrines. Kimptonv. United States; Magnus v. United States; 
 Metz V. United States; Austin v. United States (two cases); P^me v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 
 14, 1908. Suits 5206-7 and 5239-42. Application for review of decisions by 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6704 (T. D. 28686) and 
 Abstract 18478 (T. D. 28889). Decision in favor of thp Government. (T. D. 
 20361; Nov. 24,1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) " Cases. " — ^Tin cans and stoneware receptacles known as terrines 
 containing vegetables, fish paste, and pfi,t6 de foie gras, are either "cases " within 
 the meaning of section 19, customs administrative act of 1890, or are coverings 
 similar to the "cartons, cases, crates, boxes," etc., there enumerated; and as 
 such their value should be added to the value of their contents to make dutiable 
 value, as provided in said section. Austin v. United States, United States Cir- 
 cuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, May 19, 1909. No. 259 (suit 5242). 
 Appeal by importer from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern 
 District of New York (165 Fed. Hep., 236; T. D. 29361). Decision in favor of 
 Government. (T. D. 29813; June 8, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Storie bottles. — Stone bottles containing merchandise subject to 
 an ad valorem duty are not "coverings" within the meaning of section 19, cus- 
 toms administrative act of 1890, and their value should not be added to the duti- 
 able value of their contents. Kimpton v. United States, United States Cir- 
 cuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, May 19, 1909. No. 256 (suit 5239). 
 Appeal by importer from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern 
 District of New York (165 Fed. Rep., 236; T. D. 29361) affirming Abstract 18478 
 (T. D. 28889). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29814; June 8, 1909.) 
 
176 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Coverings — Continued. 
 
 American goods returned — 
 In view of a long, practical departmental construction of language that does not 
 essentially differ from tte language of paragraph 500, tariff act of 1909, boxes or 
 barrels made from American staves or shooks are entitled to free entry under that 
 paragraph. This right is not limited to the value of the shooks and staves con- 
 stituting a part of the barrels or boxes. Kraemer & Co. v. United, States (No. 
 1000), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29427 (T. D. 32751). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 33369; Apr. 22, 1913.) 
 
 "Blanco"— 
 Circular zinc boxes used as the containers of "bianco"' not dutiable under para- 
 graph 151, but as usual containers under subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 
 1909. (T. D. 32042; Nov. 27, 1911.) 
 
 Bottle covers of straw — 
 Straw covers containing empty bottles are dutiable as unusual coverings, under 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30468; Mar. 24, 1910.) 
 
 BotUes and jars containing ad valorem merchandise — 
 Bottles and jars containing merchandise subject to ad valorem rates of duty, being 
 specifically excepted from the provisions of paragraph 97, tariff act of 1909, by 
 the phrase in parentheses "(except such as contain merchandise subject to an 
 ad valorem rate of duty, or to a rate of duty based in whole or in part upon the 
 value thereof which shall be dutiable at the rate applicable to their contents)," 
 are, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 18 of section 28, for "bottles, 
 jars, demijohns, carboys, * * * whether holding liquids or solids," duti- 
 able at the ad valorem rates applicable to their contents. Congress having 
 added as new matter in subsection 18 of section 28, the words "bottles, jars, 
 demijohns, carboys, * * * whether holding liquids or solids," it is clear 
 that it intended to modify the law as construed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 
 Second Circuit, in the case of United States v. Hensel (106 Fed. Rep., 70), 
 wherein it was held that such bottles were not dutiable as containers at the ad 
 valorem rate applicable to their contents. (T. D. 31986 — G. A. 7294; Nov. 2, 
 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Paragraph 97 and subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, 
 are in pari materia and are to be construed together. The parenthetical clause 
 of paragraph 97 operates to except the bottles there described, leaving these for 
 assessment at the same rate with their contents under the provisions and in the 
 mode pointed out by subsection 18. So, to construe the named provisions 
 gives what appears to have been the intended effect of the language employed 
 and avoids, too, a double assessment. United States v. Hensel (106 Fed. Rep., 
 70) distinguished. United States v. Conkey & Co. et al. (No. 816), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7294 (T. D. 31986). Decision aflarmed. 
 (T. D. 32564; May 17, 1912.) 
 
 Bottles, jars, demijohns, and carboys containing ad valorem merchandise — 
 Bottles, jars, demijohns, carboys, and other containers, when filled with merchan- 
 dise subject to ad valorem rates, dutiable at the ad valorem rate applicable to the 
 contents thereof, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 18 of section- 
 28, and not at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 97 of the tariff act of 1909. 
 United States v. Conkey et al. (T. D. 32564) followed. (T. D. 32644— G. A. 
 7377; June 17, 1912.) 
 
 Boxes containing merchandise subject to an ad valorem rate of duty — 
 Subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, is applicable to coverings of mer- 
 chandise dutiable at an ad valorem rate, and its operation is not suspended by 
 paragraphs 411, 418, or 420. (T. D. 30663— G. A. 7029; May 31, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 177 
 
 Coverings— Continued. 
 Cans, boxes, etc. — 
 The various provisionB of paragraph 195 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, relating 
 to the assessment of duty on cans, hoxes, etc., construed. (T. D. 30046; Oct. 
 
 18, 1909.) 
 Capsules, filled — 
 
 Gelatin capsules containing a medicine are not coverings for the purposes of trans- 
 portation, but are an essential part of the article. United States v. Lehn; Lehn 
 V. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 19, 1909. Suits 5429-30. Cross appeals from decision by Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 6837 (T. D. 29408). Decision in favor of Government. 
 (T. D. 29809r June 8, 1909.) 
 
 Cartons — 
 Articles ejusdem generis with: All coverings containing imported merchandise, if 
 ejusdem generis with cartons, cases, crates, boxes, or sacks, should be treated 
 either as usual or unusual coverings under section 19 of the customs administra- 
 tive act of 1890. Cotton kimonos, which are usually imported without boxes, 
 were, as a matter of convenience and to make less bulk, packed in paper boxes 
 which were subsequently to be used for other purposes. Held that the boxes are 
 coverings within the meaning of section 19 of the customs administrative act of 
 1890. (T. D. 28702— G. A. 6710; Jan. 20, 1908.) 
 
 Chocolate in lithographic tins — 
 Chocolate in Uthographic tins dutiable under paragraph 292, tariff act of 1909, and 
 the tins not separately dutiable under paragraph 195 of said act, lithographic 
 tins and paper cartons being the usual coverings for merchandise of this char- 
 acter. (T. D. 32764; Aug. 16, 1912.) 
 
 Chocolate and cocoa coverings — 
 Under paragraph 231, tariff act of 1913, the phrase "outer packing case or other 
 covering" comprehends all of the covering around the outside of the contents 
 of the package, whether one covering or more, as where the wooden case is lined 
 with tin or zinc or is covered with burlap, and all other coverings being inner 
 should be considered as "immediate" and included in the weight and value. 
 (T. D. 34111; Jan. 27, 1914.) 
 
 Crucibles or pots — 
 These metal vessels are designed to be incased in brick for use, fires being built 
 under them, in the reduction of metals. They are not containers and neither 
 are they tanks or vessels intended to serve the purpose of keeping, retaining, 
 or storing gases, liquids, or other material. They were not dutiable under 
 paragraph 151, tariff act of 1909, but under paragraph 199 of that act. Roessler 
 & Hasslacher Chemical Co. v. United States (No. 1055),. United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 30402 (T. D. 32926). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 33395; Apr. 29, 1913.) 
 
 Customs administrative act of 1890 — 
 
 Tin cans — Stoneware containers — Wooden casks, etc., as coverings: Wooden 
 
 casks, tin cans, barrels, and earthenware jars, and like coverings, containing 
 
 various kinds of merchandise, whether solids, semisolids, or liquids, subject to 
 
 ad valorem duties, are "coverings" or "cases" within the meaning of section 
 
 19, customs administrative act of June 10, 1890, and as such their value should 
 be added to the value of their contents in order to make dutiable value under 
 the provisions of said section. Following Austin v. United States (171 Fed. 
 Bep., 79; T. D. 29813), affirming 165 Fed. Rep., 236 (T. D. 29361); and Board 
 decision In re Austin, G. A. 6704 (T. D. 28G80). (T. D. 30872— G. A. 7082; 
 Aug. 11, 1910.) 
 
 45633°— 17 12 
 
178 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Coveiings — Contmued. 
 Customs administiative act of 1890 — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed :) In the construction of section 19, customs administrative act of 
 1890, following the rule ejusdem generis laid down in United States v. Nichols 
 (186 U. S., 298), the words "coverings of any kind," appearing in that section, 
 must be taken to include coverings previously named therein, or coverings simi- 
 lar in kind, and used only to convey solids. Containers of liquids or eemi- 
 liquids do not come within the descriptive language "cartons, cases, crates, 
 boxes, sacks, and coverings of any kind " as these words stand in said section 
 19. Austin, Nichols & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 422), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers, from a decision of the 
 Board of United States General Appraisere, G. A. 7082 (T. D. 30872). Dedsion 
 reversed. (T. D. 31508; Apr. 10, 1911.) 
 Cylindrical or tabular tanks or vessels — 
 
 The provision in paragraph 151, tariff act of 1909, for cylindrical or tubular tanks 
 or vessels, not limited to vessels composed of iron or steel exclusively, but in- 
 cludes those composed of copper or other metal. (T. D. 30229; Dec. 29, 1909.) 
 
 The provision in paragraph 151, tariff act of 1909, for "cylindrical or tubular tanks 
 or vessels, for holding gas, liquids, or other material, whether full or empty," 
 does not apply to usual and necessary coverings which arrive merely as an 
 incident to the importation of their contents, but is intended to cover vessels, 
 such as gas tanks, storage cylinders, etc., designed for other purposes than the 
 bona fide transportation of their contents. (T. D. 30644 — G. A. 7027; May 28, 
 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) "Tanks or vessels" containing glycerin. — Reviewing in f ull 
 the history of legislation affecting these containers, cylindrical iron drums used 
 in commerce to convey glycerin are held dutiable under paragraph 151, tariff 
 act of 1909. United States v. Marx (No. 256), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals, January 7, 1911. Appeal by the United States from decision of the 
 Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 30644). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 31210; Jan. 7, 1911.) 
 Drawback on free goods — 
 
 While free goods ordinarily operate to make usual coverings free of duty when 
 imported, the rule is otherwise where the same goods have been previously 
 exported and the Government has made an allowance of drawback on such cov- 
 erings. (T. D. 29514— G. A. 6861; Jan. 30, 1909.) 
 Drums — 
 
 Iron, containing creosote oU: Every provision of the tariff law is universal in its 
 application and applies to all ports alike . Therefore, in determining what is 
 the usual covering of any merchandise it is necessary to consider the covering 
 used to import that merchandise into all of the several ports of entry into which 
 it is imported in the United States. Iron drums costing more than their con- 
 tents, which were not used at the time of the passage of the tariff law as con- 
 tainers of creosote oil imported into this country, in which only one-tenth of all 
 creosote oU is imported, used only in 4 of the 16 ports into which such 
 oil is imported, and sold by the importers at approximately their foreign cost 
 for use in transporting other oil in this country, held to be unusual coverings, 
 designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of creosote oD 
 to the United States. (T. D. 29980— G. A. 6927; Aug. 30, 1909.) 
 
 The provision in paragraph 151, tariff act of 1909, for cylindrical or tubular tanks or 
 vessels, not limited to vessels composed of iron or steel exclusively, but includes 
 those composed of copper or other metal. (T. D. 30229; Dec. 29, 1909.) 
 
 Iron or steel: Regulations relative to exportation and reimportation of iron or 
 steed drums used in shipment of adds. (T. D. 30404; Mar. 7, 1910.) (Amended 
 in T. D. 34955; Nov. 30, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 179 
 
 Coverings — Continued. 
 
 Drams — Continued. 
 Iron, containing glycerin: Iron drums, the usual and ordinary coverings or con- 
 tainers used in the shipment of glycerin, are not dutiable under paragraph 151, 
 tariff act of 1909, but are free of duty as usual and necessary containers for goods 
 subject to specific duties. (T. D. 30644^-G. A. 7027; May 28, 1910.) Appeal 
 taken by United States from this decision (T. D. 30706; June 20, 1910). 
 Containing creosote oil: Congress will not be presumed to have intended an im- 
 porter could bring in free of duty durable metal drums of considerable value 
 containing creosote oil, and mingle these drums when emptied of their contents 
 with other articles of commerce in the trade of the United States; such metal 
 drum containers are dutiable, by virtue of section 19 of customs administrative 
 act of June 10, 1890. The inconvenience likely to follow such a decision will 
 not be allowed to defeat the text and spirit of the law, nor can the argument 
 prevail that for years a different practice was followed , inasmuch as such practice 
 was plainly illegal. Pacific Creosoting Co. v. United States (Nos. 120 and 121). 
 Cohnan Co. v. United States (No. 122), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from decision of the Board of Uirited States General 
 Appraisers (T. D. 30364). Decision aflBrmed. (T. D. 31407; Mar. 13, 1911.) 
 Containing chemical salts: Where the containers are cyKndrical iron drums that 
 it is necessary to cut into two parts in order to remove their contents, and when 
 so cut in two appear to have no value and do not enter into or become a part of 
 the merchandise of this country for any purpose whatever, they are not dutiable 
 under paragraph 151, tariff act of 1909, as cylindrical or tubular tanks or vessels 
 for containing purposes and separately from their contents, but rather as usual 
 containers possessing no value apart from their contents, and their value should 
 be assessed along with the contained merchandise at ad valorem rates under 
 paragraph 3, pursuant to the provisions of subsection 18, section 28, tariff act 
 of 1909. United States v. Marx & EawoUe (T. D. 31210) distinguished. United 
 States V. Braun Chemical Co. (No. 561), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from a decision of the Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 24523 (T. D. 31182). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 31596; May 10, 1911.) 
 Iron, containing glycerin: The imported merchandise consisted of "cylindrical or 
 tubular tanks or vessels," made and used for " holding gas, liquids, or other 
 material," and "full" when imported. After being emptied of their contents, 
 some were to be used again in the transportation of crude or refined glycerin and 
 some sold in competition with similar articles in the domestic market. They 
 cleaily fell within the letter of paragraph 151, tariff act of 1909, and were dutiable 
 under said paragraph. United States v. Marx (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 152; T. D. 
 31210); Marx & RawoUe et al. v. United States (No. 791), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 26958 (T. D. 31971). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 32359; Mar. 20. 1912.) 
 
 Iron, secondhand — 
 Cylindrical or tubular tanks or vessels: Paragraph 151, tariff act of 1909, imposed a 
 duty upon cylindrical or tubular tanks or vessels for holding gas, liquids, or 
 other material, whether full or empty. This duty was laid upon containers and 
 not upon the things contained, and this regardless of whether the contents bore 
 specific duties or were free of duty. Merritt v. Stephani (108 U. S., 106); 
 United States v. Braun (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 57; T. D. 31596) distinguished. 
 Colby & Co. V. United States (No. 877), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 28074 (T. D. 32396). Decision afiarmed. (T. D. 32542; May 8, 1912.) 
 
180 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Coverings — Continued. 
 Iron, secondhand — Continued. 
 
 Reimportation — Glycerin — Chemical: Free entry upon reimportation of drums 
 used for the shipment of glycerin under paragraph 404, tariff act of 1913, the 
 Bureau of Chemistry reporting that glycerin is scientifically and also commer- 
 cially known as a chemical. The Bureau oi Chemistry states that from a com- 
 mercial point of view a chemical may be defined as "any substance or mixture 
 of substances of fairly definite composition obtained by chemical process used 
 in the arts for its chemical effect either by itself or in the manufacture of other 
 substances." (T. D. 34112; Jan. 28, 1914.) 
 
 Containing coconut oil: Free entry authorized upon reimportation of drums used 
 for the shipment of coconut oil under paragraph 404 of the tariff act of 1913. (T. 
 D. 34364; Apr. 9, 1914.) 
 
 Iron or steel drums used for the shipment of gasoline, kerosene, and lubricating 
 oil entitled to free entry upon reimportation under parag;raph 404, tariff act of 
 1913. (T. D. 34568; June 22, 1914.) 
 
 Containing acids and chemicals: Regulations relative to exportation and reim- 
 portation of iron or steel drums used for the shipment of acids or other chemicals 
 free under paragraph 404 of the tariff act of 1913. T. D. 30404 of March 7, 1910, 
 amended. (T. D. 34955; Nov. 30, 1914.) 
 Iiegislation — How dutiable — • 
 
 Section 19 of the customs administrative act (26 Stat., 131) must be construed so 
 as to correct the evil which it was designed to remedy, as brought to the atten- 
 tion of Congress at and before the time of its enactment. This evil was the 
 difficulty encountered in administering section 7, tariff act of 1883, as construed 
 by the Supreme Court in Oberteuffer v. Robertson (116 U. S., 499). In apprais- 
 ing merchandise under section 19, customs administrative act of ] 890, the duti- 
 able value of imported goods is to be ascertained by including in the total value 
 that of such containers or coverings as stone jars, tins, casks, and other like 
 encasements of merchandise subject to an ad valorem duty, unless such cover- 
 ings are separately made subject to duty under the provisions of the tariff act, 
 as bottles, for example. United States v. Nichols (186 U. S., 298) distinguished. 
 (T. D. 28686— G. A. 6704; Jan. 13, 1908.) 
 Linings, etc., of tea containers — 
 
 Linings, labels, cardboard ends, etc., of containers of tea, when packed in packages 
 of less than 5 pounds, are parts of such containers, and should therefore be 
 included in the appraised value thereof. The labels should also be included in 
 the value of the containers. (T. D. 34295; Mar. 19, 1914.) 
 Liquids and semiliqnids — Ejusdem generis — 
 
 The provision in section 19, customs administrative act of 1890, that there shall 
 be included in the dutiable value of imported merchandise subject to an ad 
 valorem rate of duty the value "of all cartons, crates, boxes, sacks, and cover- 
 ings of any kind," is to be construed in the light of the rule of ejusdem generis, 
 and is limited to coverings of dry or solid merchandise. United States v. 
 Kimpton (T. D. 31510) and Austin, Nichols & Co. v. United States (T. D. 31508). 
 (T. D. 31717— G. A. 7238; June 23, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Section 19, customs administrative act of 1890, provides that 
 there shall be included in the dutiable value of merchandise subject to an ad 
 valorem rate of duty the value of all cartons, crates, boxes, sacks, and coverings 
 of any kind. The construction of this clause has been established in the light 
 of the rule ejusdem generis, and the containers named have been limited to cov- 
 erings of dry or solid merchandise. This construction is adhered to. United 
 States V. Nichols (186 U. S., 298); Austin v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 
1908-1915. 181 
 
 Coverings — Continued. 
 
 Liquids and semiliquids — Ejusdem generis — Continued. 
 
 465; T. D. 31508); United States v. Peabody & Co. (No. 725), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7238 (T. D. 31717). Decision affirmed. (T. 
 D. 32383; Apr. 1, 1912.) 
 Metal boxes. 
 
 Lacquered: Metal lacquered boxes imported furnished with water-color paints 
 are separately dutiable under the provision in paragraph 195, tariff act of 1909, 
 for "cans, boxes, packages, * * *^ composed wholly or in chief value of 
 metal lacquered * * *^ if filled or unfilled, and whether their contents be 
 dutiable or free," rather than dutiable at the rate applicable to the paints 
 under paragraph 56 of said act. (T. D. 31025— G. A. 7118; Nov. 3, 1910.) 
 
 Air-tight: A metal can, lithographically printed, the closure of which is effected 
 by a friction top, or cover, and which is thereby made air-tight, is not "her- 
 metically sealed," and therefore not within the excepting clause of paragraph 
 195, act of 1909, but dutiable under said paragraph as "cans, * * * printed 
 by * * * lithography." Only such receptacles as have -been made secure 
 against leakage and air by fusing, welding, brazing, or soldering the metal 
 parts together aie "hermetically sealed by soldering or otherwise" within the 
 meaning of paragraph 195, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31163— G. A. 7144; Dec. 
 30, 1910.) 
 
 Imported empty: Metal boxes or tins, lithographically printed, imported empty, 
 aJid designed for use as coverings for metal polish, are dutiable under the pro- 
 vision in paragjraph 195, tariff act of 1909, for "cans, boxes, packages, * * *, 
 composed wholly or in chief value of metal lacquered or printed by any process 
 of lithography whatever, if filled or unfilled, and whether their contents be 
 dutiable or free," rather than under the provision in paragraph 151, for "cylin- 
 drical * * * vessels, for holding gas, liquids, or other material, whether 
 full or empty." (T. D. 31473— G. A. 7197; Apr. 5, 1911.) 
 
 Lacquered: Subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, makes provision, it is 
 true, for a duty on containers, but paragraph 195 of that act carries a specific 
 provision for certain sorts of containers, and the merchandise here falls directly 
 within that specific provision; lacquered metal boxes, with compartments 
 and hinged lids, containing paints, though the lids be used as palettes, are 
 dutiable under that paragraph (195). lUfelder & Co. et al. v. United States 
 (No. 640), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24807 (T. D. 31300). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32040; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 
 Lacquered cash boxes: The comprehensive language of the provision in paragraph 
 195, tariff act of 1909, for "cans, boxes, packages, and other containers of all 
 kinds * * * composed wholly or in chief value of metal lacquered or 
 printed by any process of lithography whatever * * *," does not warrant a 
 construction which would restrict its operation to containers that are suitable 
 only for some pai-ticular use, such as the holding or transportation of merchan- 
 dise. Cash boxes made of the material mentioned in the tariff provision cited 
 above are dutiable thereunder. (T. D. 32821— G. A. 7391; Sept. 11, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The importation' was of small lacquered metal boxes, having a 
 slit in the top and a lock thereupon accompanied by a key. The legislative 
 history of paragraph 195, tariff act of 1909, makes it clear that containers under 
 said paragraph are such as are ordinarily employed in the transportation of 
 merchandise. The goods of the importation are not containers in that sense. 
 Woolworth & Co. v. United States (No. 1020), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, G. A. 7391 (T. D. 32821). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33478; May 
 23, 1913.) 
 
182 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIOK-S, 1908-1915. 
 
 Goveiings — Contmued. 
 
 Metal cans oi containers — 
 Plain metal cans or containers -with printed labels thereon, not lacquered or 
 printed by any process of Uihograpliy, not separately dutiable under paragraph 
 195, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30077; Oct. 29, 1909.) 
 
 Paper — 
 Paper, cardboard, or pasteboard wrappings, referred to in last proviso to para- 
 graph 195 of the act of August 5, 1909, used as the containers of merchandise sub- 
 ject to specific duty, should be assessed with duty at the rate which would be 
 imposed thereon if imported empty. (T. D. 29963; Aug. 20, 1909.) 
 Paper, cardboard, or pasteboard containers used as the coverings of merchandise 
 subject to specific rates of duty, dependent upon value, not subject to separate 
 duty under paragraph 195, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30218; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 Paper boxes with glass tops, each box containing a wool powder puff made of 
 lambs' wool, are usual coverings for such puffs and are dutiable only at the ad 
 valorem rate of the contents. (T. D. 30313— G. A. 6973; Jan. 31, 1910.) 
 
 Paper wrappers — 
 Paragraph 195, tariff act of 1909: The last proviso ol paragraph 195 of the tariff 
 act of 1909 should not be so construed as to make any merchandise dutiable 
 that would not be dutiable without regard to that proviso, and usual coverings 
 of goods subject to specific rates of duty are free of duty. (See Tariff act of 
 1909; par. 195 construed.) (T. D. 30571— G. A. 7015; Apr. 25, 1910.) Appeal 
 directed from this decision May 6, 1910. (T. D. 30594). 
 
 (Appealed:) An importer is entitled to the benefit of the rule that revenue 
 laws imposing taxes and like burdens should receive a reasonably strict con- 
 struction. Unless the intent of the Congress is manifest that a proviso to a para- 
 graph was meant to have a larger scope than the paragraph itself, and so to 
 include something more within its operation, a recognized rule is to be applied 
 and the proviso is to be construed with reference to the subject matter of the 
 paragraph to which it is appended. 
 
 A negative. — A negative may have, if the legislative intent is clear, the force 
 of an affirmative; but a negative will not be given the force of an affirmative if 
 there be a different field for its operation where, unless this negative should be 
 treated as a negative proper, another provision of the same statute would be 
 thereby modified or destroyed. The proviso to paragraph 195, tariff act of 1909, 
 is perhaps broader than it was necessary to make it, but it is apt, nevertheless, 
 and it is held to have been intended to save for operation subsection 18 of sec- 
 tion 28 of that act making dutiable other containers than those enumerated in 
 paragraph 195. The clause "shall not be dutiable unless their contents are 
 dutiable" in a proviso to paragraph 195 does not affirmatively or otherwise 
 impose any duties. United States v. Matagrin (No. 54), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal from decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers (T. D. 30571). (T. D. 31406; Mar. 13, 1911.) 
 
 Papier-mftchS — 
 Separate provision is made by paragraph 418, tariff act of 1909, for boxes made 
 wholly or in chief value of paper or papier-mSch^, if covered with surface- 
 coated paper; but such an eo nomine designation can not be taken to exclude 
 the article so designated from an applicable part of the customs law enacted to 
 simplify administration and to minimize frauds on the revenue. The provi- 
 sions of existing law relative to containers impose a duty, for example, on boxes, 
 as boxes alone, when these are imported as merchandise. When they are 
 brought in as usual containers of ad valorem goods they are subject to the spe- 
 cific administrative provision applicable to them when used in that way; and 
 boxes covered with surface-coated paper and composed wholly or in chief 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 183 
 
 Coverings— Continued . 
 Papier-mache— Continued. 
 
 value of paper or papier-mich^, containing nettings, are dutiable under para- 
 graph 18, section 28, as usual containers. Spielman d. United States (No. 267), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from a deci- 
 sion of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23441 (T. D. 
 30667). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31626; May 22, 1911.) 
 Show cases filled with pipes — 
 
 Show cases imported filled with pipes and intended to be refilled from time to 
 time with other pipes are unusual articles or forms designed for use otherwise 
 than in the bona fide transportation of the merchandise to the United States 
 under subsection 18, section 28, act of 1909. United States v. Hohner (4 Ct. 
 Gust. Appls., 122; T. D. 33393) and Vantine & Co.'s case,-G. A. 6710 (T. D. 
 28702), distinguished. (T. D. 34676— G. A. 7592; Aug. 1, 1914.) 
 Solids contained in water-tight coverings — 
 
 The decisions of the courts in construing the words "coverings of any kind" 
 appearing in section 19 of the customs administrative act of 1890, and exempt- 
 ing from duty such containers or coverings consisting of hermetically sealed 
 tins, kegs, casks, and barrels, when containing merchandise in a liquid or semi- 
 liquid condition subject to ad valorem duty, wUl not be extended or enlarged 
 so as to exempt from duty identical coverings when containing powder or other 
 merchandise in a dry or solid state. United States v. Nichols (186 U. S., 298; 
 22 Sup. Ct. Rep., 918); Austin v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 465; T. D. 
 31508); United States v. Peabody (3 a. Cust. Appls., 130; T. D. 32383). (T 
 D. 35222— G. A. 7699; Mar. 12, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The dutiable value of dry colors, or paints in the form of a fine 
 powder, imported in air-tight kegs, barrels, casks, and tins, includes the value 
 of the containers under the tariff act of 1897, as shown by section 19, customs 
 administrative act of June 30, 1890, as amended July 24, 1897. Austin, Nichols 
 & Co. V. United States (171 Fed., 79) and Austin v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., 465; T. D. 31508) distinguished from each other and from this case. 
 Cassela Color Co. et al. v United States (No. 1560), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by importers from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 7699 (T. D. 35222). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35975; Dec. 
 3, 1915.) 
 Stoneware bottles containing ink — 
 
 Stoneware bottles containing ink subject to an ad valorem duty are not "cover- 
 ings" within the meaning of section 19, customs administrative act of June 10, 
 1890, and their value should not be added to the dutiable value of their contents 
 under the provision of said section. Following Kimpton v. United States (171 
 Fed. Rep., 78; T. D. 29814.) (T. D. 30873— G. A. 7083; Aug. 11, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Following Austin, Nichols & Co. et al. v. United States (T. D., 
 31508), no distinction could be made in containers between stoneware bottles 
 and those of glass, and so stoneware bottles were not dutiable as "coverings" 
 in the sense that term is employed in section 19, customs administrative act of 
 1890; and, as with glass bottles, their value should not have been added to the 
 dutiable value of their contents. Containers of liquids or semiliquids do not 
 come within the descriptive language, "cartons, cases, crates, boxes, sacks, 
 and coverings of any kind," as these words stand in said section 19. United 
 States V. Kimpton (No. 471), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from a decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 7083 (T. D. 30873). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31510; Apr. 
 10, 1911.) 
 
184 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Coverings- -Continued. 
 Sugar — Tare — 
 
 Article 944 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 amended. Schedule tare of 2J 
 pounds per bag for bags measuring 29 by 48 inches, containing Cuban sugars, 
 established. When actual tare is taken, bags to be steam cleaned. (T. D. 
 32976; Nov. 30, 1912.) 
 Tea — 
 
 Five-pound packages and under of tea in containers of elaborate design dutiable 
 as unusual coverings. (T. D. 29369; Dec. 1, 1908.) 
 
 Tin boxes covered with decorated paper, having a removable lid at the top and an 
 outwardly swinging portion near the bottom, which is also provided with a 
 hinged lid, held to be the usual containers for tea and entitled to free entry. 
 (T. D. 81072; Nov. 29, 1910.) 
 
 Outer cases or shipping cases of tea imported in packages containing less than 5 
 pounds not subject to duty. (T. D. 33825; Oct. 30, 1913.) 
 
 Tins, boxes, papers, and other containers of tea of the capacity of less than 5 
 poimds dutiable under the tariff act of 1913 at the rate chargeable thereon as 
 if imported empty. (T. D. 33871; Nov. 15, 1913.) 
 
 Containers of tea samples dutiable under paragraph 627, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 
 34077; Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 
 Packages of less than 5 pounds: Immediate coverings of packages of tea weighing 
 less than 5 pounds under paragraph 627, tariff act of 1913, are dutiable at the 
 rate chargeable thereon if imported empty. 
 
 Commercial designation: It is apparent from the language of paragraph 627 
 that Congress used the words contained therein in their ordinary sense, without 
 special application to any particular trade or line of business. 
 
 Congressional intent: In the enactment of tariff laws words are frequently 
 used so clear and definite in their meaning and so expressive of the intent of 
 Congress that it would be subversive of good administration to give to such words 
 by judicial decision a meaning other than or different from their popular or 
 received import. (T. D. 34467— G. A. 7567; May 19, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Paragraph 627 tariff act of 1913. — Reviewing the history of the 
 legislation affecting containers, such as the immediate coverings of tea in this 
 case, and the larger holders or boxes carrying the packages of tea, it is held that 
 the larger containers used in the shipment and transportation of tea put up and 
 imported in packages less than 5 pounds each should be taxed under paragraph 
 627, tariff act of 1913, but the immediate coverings or wrappers, constituting a 
 part of the packages, are free of duty. Wright & Graham Co. v. United States 
 (No. 1417), United States Coiirt of CustoiHs Appeals. Appeal by the importeis 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7567 (T. D. 34467). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 34976; Nov. 27, 1914.) 
 
 The decision of the Court of Customs Appeals in T. D. 34976 supra, to be limited 
 to the character of packages passed by the court, the immediate coverings of 
 other packages of less than 5 pounds to be assessed with duty. (T. D. 35135; 
 Feb. 16, 1915.) 
 Teapots, earthenware — 
 
 Earthenware teapots containing tea are not free of duty, but are subject to classi- 
 fication under paragraph 96, tariff act of 1897, being held to be coverings or 
 containers designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of 
 tea from foreign markets to the United States, and therefore dutiable as if sepa- 
 rately imported. (T. D. 29801— G. A. 6913; June 4, 1909.) 
 Tins containing tomato sauce and paste — 
 
 Cylindrical tins used as the containers of tomato sauce and paste should be in- 
 cluded in the value of the contents for dutiable purposes, pending determinar 
 tion of appeal from decision of the board, Abstract 24281 (T. D. 31300). (T. D. 
 31556; May 4, 1911.) 
 
1908-1915. 185 
 
 Coverings — Coverings. 
 Tins containing vegetables — 
 "Cylindrical or tubular tanks or vessels" defined: It would seem "cylindrical 
 or tubular tanks or vessels" appearing in paragraph 151, section 1, tariff act of 
 1909, must be taken to refer to containers made in part at least of metal and of 
 such strong and permanent construction that on being emptied of their contents 
 they might properly be devoted to further similar use and possessing apprecia- 
 ble value for such purposes. In view of the legislative history of the clause 
 and its judicial interpretation, and in view of the common significance of the 
 language employed, the cylindrical containers described in said paragraph 151, 
 can not be taken to remove small tin cans with contents of tomatoes and of tomato 
 sauce from the operation of subsection 18 of section 28, though these tins are' 
 cylindrical in shape and they were dutiable under said subsection 18. United 
 States V. Marx & Rawolle (T. D. 31210); United States v. Garramone (No. 636), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from a 
 decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24821 (T. D. 
 31300). Decision reversed. (T. D. 31577; May 10, 1911.) 
 Value of^ 
 The merchandise of the importation consists of jewelry set with imitation precious 
 stones. The collector assessed duty at 85 per cent ad valorem on the value of 
 the goods, in which value, under the provisions of subsection 18 of section 28 
 of the tariff act of 1909, was included the value of the cartons, cases, and boxes, 
 and the costs and charges incident to placing the merchandise in condition, 
 packed ready for shipment to the United States. The duty on goods of the char- 
 acter here involved is required by subsection 18, section 28, tariff act of 1909, 
 to be assessed on the actual market value or wholesale price thereof at the time 
 of exportation to the United States in the principal markets of the country 
 whence they were exported; and "value," as employed in paragraph 448 of 
 that act, must be taken to be the same with the actual market value described 
 in said subsection 18. Ascher Co. et al. v. United States (No. 824), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 26335 (T. D. 31813). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 32622; May 31, 1912.) 
 Wooden tray boxes containing harmonicas — 
 The tray boxes of the importation in question are used as well to display as to 
 contain harmonicas. The law does not contemplate that these coverings, 
 whose only design, purpose, or use other than for transportation is for displaying 
 the harmonicas, should pay the additional duty imposed by subsection 18 of 
 section 28, tariff act of 1909. That provision must be taken to be intended to 
 prevent the importation, under the guise of coverings or containers, of unusual 
 articles having a substantial, material, and valuable use for other purposes than 
 merely holding or covering merchandise in the bona fide transportation thereof. 
 United States v. Hohner et al. (No. 1001), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 29490 (T. D. 32760). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 83393; 
 Apr. 29, 1913.) 
 
 Crash, chain-bordered. (See Fabrics, figured.) 
 
 Crash or toweling. (See Fabrics, plain-woven.) 
 
 Creolin-Pearson. (See Coal-tar preparations.) 
 
 Creosote oil. 
 Carbolineum avenarius not. (See Coal-tar preparations.) 
 Coverings for. (See Coverings, drums, iron, creosote oil.) 
 
 Creosoted wood paving blocks. (See Wood, manufactures of.) 
 
 Cr6pe paper. (See Paper, crSpe.) 
 
186 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIOlirS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Ciesylic acid and zylenol. 
 
 So-called "cresylic acid" and "xylenol" not dutiable as coal-tar preparations 
 under paragraph 21 of the tariS actof October 3, 1913, but the "cresylic acid" 
 is free of duty as carbolic acid under paragraph 387 or as cresol under paragraph 
 452, and the "xylenol" free of duty as crude cresylic acid or cresol under para- 
 graph 452 of the said act. (T. D. 35667; Aug. 19, 1915.) 
 
 Cricket bats, of willow wood, chief value. (See Wood, manufactures of.) 
 
 Crosses. (See Rosaries and crosses.) 
 
 Crucibles. 
 Porcelain; earthenware and stone — 
 Porcelain crucibles are dutiable under paragraph 94 of the tariff act of 1909 as 
 porcelain. In the tariff act of 1897 crucibles were provided for in paragraph 94 
 without qualifying words, while in the law of 1909 "earthenware or stoneware 
 crucibles " are expressly provided for in paragraph 92. This significant change 
 clearly indicates the purpose of Congress to confine the provision in paragraph 
 92 to such crucibles as are made of earthenware or stoneware, leaving all other 
 crucibles to be classified under some appropriate provision of the law. (T. D. 
 31493— G. A. 7204; Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 Porcelain is a highly finished translucent pottery, usually glazed, while earthen- 
 ware is a cruder and inferior product. They are both earthenware, it is true, 
 but the statute distinguishes them, and under the statute the crucibles of por- 
 celain constituting the importation now in controversy are not earthenware. 
 They were dutiable under paragraph 94, tariff act of 1909. Sargent Co. v. 
 United States (No. 1179), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31833 
 (T. D. 33304). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33880; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 
 Crude drugs. (See Drugs, crude.) 
 
 Crude minerals. (See Ores, zinc.) 
 
 Crude opium. (See Opium.) 
 
 Crushed marble. (See Granite.) 
 
 Crushed oyster shells. (See Oyster shells, crushed.) 
 
 Crushed stone. (See Stone, crushed.) 
 
 Crust chamois skin. (See Chamois skin, crust.) 
 
 Crystals — Peppermint. (See Medicinal preparations, menthol.) 
 
 Cuba, scrap iron from. (See Iron.) 
 
 Cuban sugars. (See Sugar.) 
 
 Cuban treaty. (See Reciprocity — Cuban commercial agreement.) 
 
 Cuff buttons as entireties. (See Entireties.) 
 
 Culm. (See Coal.) 
 
 Currency of invoice. 
 
 Section 21, act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190), making final the liquidation and 
 settlement of duties "after the expiration of one year from the time of entry, 
 in the absence of * * * protest," does not apply in a case in which a pro- 
 test has been filed. And under section 25, tariff act of 1894, authorizing the 
 Secretary of the Treasury to order a reliquidation in certain cases of variation 
 in currency values, the Secretary had power to order such reliquidation more 
 than one year after entry in a case in which a protest had been filed but was no 
 longer pending, having been previously sustained by the collector. It is the 
 duty of a collector to transmit to the Board of General Appraisers protests as to 
 the value of the rupee, filed under section 14, customs administrative actof 1890, 
 which provides that on protest being filed "the collector shall transmit the 
 invoice and aU the papers and exhibits coimected therewith to the board of 
 three general appraisers." Where the breach of the duty of a collector of cus- 
 toms to forward a protest to the Board of General Appraisers, under section 14, 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 187 
 
 Currency of invoice — Continued. 
 
 customs administrative act of 1890, is merely technical, only nominal damages 
 will be awarded for such breach. Kendall v. Lyman, United States Circuit 
 Court, District of Massachusetts, March 20,1908. No. 167. At law. Action for 
 the recovery of excessive duties. Decision virtually in favor of the Govern- 
 ment, though nominally adverse. (T. D. 28894; Mar. 26, 1908.) 
 
 Depieciated — 
 If allowance by reason of a depreciated foreign currency is sought by an importer, 
 it must be either in accordance with consular regulations (art. 692) issued under 
 Executive order provided for in section 2903, Revised Statutes (sec. 5603, 3 U. 
 S. Com. Stat., 1913), in which case a certificate of depreciation must be attached 
 to the invoice on entry, or by virtue of authority granted to the Secretary of the 
 Treasury in section 25, tariff act of 1894, to order a reliquidation under condi- 
 tions there set forth. Waentig's case, G. A. 3514 (T. D. 17252), and Vande- 
 grift's case, G. A. 6066 (T. D. 26448), followed. (T. D. 35122— G. A. 7679; Feb. 
 4, 1915.) 1 
 
 German and Austro-Huugarian — 
 Liquidation of entries: In the liquidation of entries covering merchandise im- 
 ported from Germany and Austria-Hungary the invoice currency should be 
 converted into money of the United States at the value proclaimed for the 
 quarter in which the merchandise was shipped. Department's instructions 
 of March 17, 1913, modified accordingly. (T. D. 35317; Apr. 14, 1915.) 
 
 Beappraisement of diamonds — 
 Merchandise must be invoiced in the currency of the place or country from whence 
 it is exported, and the appraisement thereof, or ascertaiimient of its market 
 value, in the same currency. (T. D. 35416— G. A. 7725; May 11, 1915.) 
 
 Bupee — 
 The Board of General Appraisers had sustained an importer's protest as to the 
 value of the rupee and no appeal had been taken; and the collector had reliq- 
 uidated the entries in accordance with the board's ruling, but had withheld 
 from the importer the refunds thereby accruing. The Secretary of the Treasury 
 thereupon ordered a re-reliquidation under section 25, tariff act of 1894, author- 
 izing reliquidation in certain cases of variation in currency values. This was 
 more than one year after entry had been made. Held that this last liquidation 
 was lawful, notwithstanding section 14, customs administrative act of 1890, 
 making decisions of the board final and conclusive in the absence of appeal, 
 and section 21, act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190), forbidding reliquidation 
 more than one year after entry, except where a protest has been filed . Klumpp 
 V. Thomas, United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 
 February 11, 1908. No. 29. At law. Action for damages. Final hearing 
 (T. D. 28453). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 28818; Mar. 4, 
 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Section 14, customs administrative act of 1890, provides that de- 
 cisions by the Board of General Appraisers shall be final and conclusive upon 
 all parties, in the absence of appeal; and section 25, tariff act of 1894, provides 
 that the Secretary of the Treasury may in certain cases of fluctuation in currency 
 values order a reliquidation of the duty on the basis of the actual value. After 
 said board had decided that merchandise was dutiable on the basis of the metal 
 value of the ciurency of the invoice and the entry had been reliquidated 
 accordingly by the collector, no appeal having been taken in the time pre- 
 scribed by statute, the Secretary of the Treasury ordered a further reliquida- 
 tion at a higher value under the authority of said section 25. Held that the 
 action of the Secretary, rather than the unappealed decision of the board, was 
 conclusive. Klximpp v. Thomas, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 
 
188 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Currency of invoice — Continued. 
 Rupee — Continued. 
 
 Third Circuit, May 14, 1908. No. 30. In error to the Circuit Court of the 
 United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (T. D. 28453 and T. D. 
 28818). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29103; June 24, 1908.) 
 Proclaimed value: Collectors will convert, in the liquidation of entries, the rupee 
 of India upon the basis of $0,324 for merchandise shipped during the quarters 
 commencing October 1, 1914. January 1, April 1, and July 1, 1915, and at $0.3244 
 for merchandise shipped in the quarter commencing October 1, 1915. (T. D. 
 35791: Oct. 18, 1915.) 
 Swedish — 
 Liquidation of entries; In the liquidation of entries covering merchandise im- 
 ported from Sweden the invoice currency should be converted into money of 
 the United States at the value proclaimed for the quarter in which the mer- 
 chandise was shipped. Department's instructions of March 17, 1915, modified 
 accordingly. (T. D. 35483; June 3, 1915.) 
 Values. (See Dutiable value, differing currencies.) 
 Currycombs and other horse goods. (See Hoise goods.) 
 Curtains. 
 Bamboo and glass beads. (See Beaded articles — Bamboo curtains.) 
 Lambrequins not dutiable as. (See Lambrequins.) 
 Madras muslin. (See Cotton, cloth.) 
 Kice-bead. (See Rice-bead cm-tains.) 
 Customs Administrative act of 1890 — 
 
 Act amending customs administrative act of June 10, 1890. (T. D. 29044; Jime 
 
 2, 1908.) 
 Construction of section 9. (See Forfeiture, false statements in entry.) 
 Construction of section 19. (See Coverings, articles tjusden generis with cartons, 
 
 etc.) 
 Construction of section 19. (See Coverings, legislation.) 
 
 Ad valorem duties; Section 19, customs administrative act of 1890, is not merely a 
 definition of market value but also a guide to the proper application of ad valo- 
 rem duties; and where the tariff act makes merchandise dutiable at an ad 
 valorem rate, this section is conclusive as to the value on which such rate of duty 
 shall be figured. (T. D. 30968— G. A. 7105; Oct. 3, 1910.) 
 Customs brokers. 
 Licenses — 
 Regulations under act of Congress to license customhouse brokers. (T. D. 30789; 
 
 circular No. 43; July 19, 1910.) 
 Act of Congress and regulations thereunder relative to licenses for customhouse 
 brokers published for the information and guidance of all concerned. (T. D. 
 33152; Feb. 4, 1913.) 
 Copartnership and corporations: Paragraph 3 of the customhouse brokers regula- 
 tions, published in T. D. 33152 of February 4, 1913, amended to permit a copart- 
 nership to be licensed without requiring its members to be licensed and to per- 
 mit a corporation to be licensed without requiring the licensing of its officers, 
 agents, or attorneys. (T. D. 35118; Feb. 4, 1915.) 
 Agents or employees of steamship lines or common carriers not required to be 
 licensed as customhouse brokers when they represent at the customhouse their 
 respective companies solely and do not in fact act as customhouse brokers, (T. 
 D. 35653; Aug. 14, 1915.) 
 Firms and corporations entering and clearing ships required to take out licenses 
 as customhouse brokers being engaged in the transaction of customs business in 
 behalf of other persona. (T. D. 30897; Aug. 29, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 189 
 
 Customliouse brokers — Continued. 
 Licenses — Continued. 
 Cancellation of: Collectors of customs authorized to cancel customhouse brokers' 
 licensee upon application of the licensee and surrender of the licenses. (T. D. 
 34857; Oct. 27, 1914.) 
 Revocation of: Order of court confirming revocation of license of Frank Corsi, 
 
 customhouse broker. (T. D. 32215; Feb. 3, 1912.) 
 Revocation of licenses for failure to pay special tax imposed by the emergency 
 revenue law of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 35067; Jan. 18, 1915.) 
 Special taxes — Emergency revenue law — 
 Special-tax liability as customhouse broker when imposed upon a corporation 
 covers all the customhouse brokerage business done by that corporation at one 
 single place of business. (T. D. 34962; Dec. 7, 1914.) 
 Customs cigar stamps — 
 
 The cost of customs cigar stamps for use in bonded manufacturing warehouse fixed 
 at $1 per thousand. T. D. 34659 of July 22, 1914, modified. (T. D. 34815; 
 Oct. 8, 1914.) 
 Customs districts — 
 
 Designation of, by numbers. (T. D. 34753; Sept. 4, 1914.) 
 List of customs districts, headquarters, and ports of entry. (T. D. 33625; circular 
 No. 16; July 1, 1913.) 
 Customs employees prohibited from importing merchandise- 
 Section 2638 of the Revised Statutes prohibits customs officers and employees from 
 engaging in business of importing merchandise. (T. D. 34078; Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 Customs notaries. 
 
 Instructions as to designation of customs notaries and renewals of commissions. 
 
 (T. D. 30854; At^. 2, 1910.) 
 Collectors of customs required to report the name and address of the State or county 
 official to whom complaint should be made of improper official conduct of cus- 
 toms notaries. (T. D. 33404; May 9, 1913.) 
 Customs officers. 
 Inspectors of customs not classifying officers — 
 Inspectors of customs are in no sense classifying officers of imported merchandise, 
 and hence a report made by a discharging inspector stating that certain coal is 
 "slack coal" can not avail to justify the board in classifying the merchandise 
 as such under paragraph 415, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29921— G. A. 6924; July 
 26, 1910.) 
 Customs Regulations of 1908. 
 Amendment of— 
 Article 4 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 amended discontinuing certificate of 
 inspection and last marine document. Collectors will include in certificate of 
 freedom from indebtedness place of build, age, official number, etc., of vessels. 
 (T. D. 33157; Feb. 6, 1913.) 
 Article 40, Customs Regulations of 1908, amended by substituting "1283" for 
 
 "1293" and striking out "And 1285." (T. D. 29895; July 6, 1909.) 
 Amendment to article 86, Customs Regulations of 1908. (T. D. 30158; Dec. 4, 
 
 1909.) 
 Amending article 421, Customs Regulations of 1908, so as to permit shipment of 
 merchandise under transportation and exportation entry without intervention 
 of district inspectors. (T. D. 32481; May 3, 1912.) 
 Articles 1072 and 1075 of the Customs Regulations of 1908, relative, respectively, 
 to the review of jprotests and the recording of protests, amended. (T. D. 32136; 
 Jan. 8, 1912.) 
 
190 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Cnstoms Segulations of 1908 — Continued. 
 Amendment of — Contdnued. 
 Abstracts of drawbacks and debentures paid (Cat. No . 5011) to be used at nonnaval- 
 office ports, and Cat. No. 5013 at naval-office ports. Article 1135 of the CustoniB 
 Eegulations of 1908 amended accordingly. (T. D. 32218; Feb. 3, 1912.) 
 Articles 1142, Customs Regulations of 1908. Drawback not allowable on any 
 article which has been used prior to its exportation. (T. D. 29933; Aug. 3, 1909.) 
 Articles 1522, 1523, and 1524 of the Customs Regulations of 1908, relative to the 
 comparison of classifications and appraisements made at various ports, amended. 
 (T. D. 31936; Oct. 21, 1911.) 
 Article 622 amended to provide for the subsequent entry of baggage which for 
 unavoidable reasons does not accompany passengers arriving in the United 
 States. (T. D. 33650; July 23, 1913.) 
 Customs service. 
 
 Reorganization of, pursuant to the message of the President, dated March 3, 1913. 
 (T. D. 33249; Mar. 10, 1913.) 
 Customs vouchers. 
 
 Customs vouchers for purchases and services other than personal under blanket 
 authorizations must be sent to the Secretary for approval. Vouchers for per- 
 sonal services to be paid without submitting to the Secretary for approval. (T. 
 D. 32773; July 30, 1912.) 
 Cut paste articles. 
 
 Not cut glass. (See Paste, manufactures of.) 
 Cut or uncut mica. (See Mica.) 
 Cutch. 
 
 Cutch made from the mangrove tree, which is so treated chemically in the proc- 
 esses of manufacture, or after manufacture, as to reduce the coloring properties 
 thereof and make it suitable for use in tanning leather, is known in trade and 
 commerce as cutch and entitled to classification as such under paragraph 542, 
 tariff act of 1897. G. A. 4902 (T. D. 22936), G. A. 6263 (T. D. 26995), United 
 States V. Schering (163 Fed. Rep., 246; T. D. 29077), United States v. Brownell 
 (159 Fed. Rep., 219; T. D. 28577), and Pickhardt v. Merritt (132 U. S., 252) 
 cited. (T. D. 29312— G. A. 6821; Oct. 22, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed :) An extract of the bark of the mangrove tree, used chiefly in tan- 
 ning, is commercially known as "cutch" and free of duty as such, under para- 
 graph 542, tariff act of 1897. United States v. Marden, United States Circuit 
 Court, District of Massachusetts, December 29, 1909. No. 544 (suit 2049). 
 Appeal by United States from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers (G. 
 A. 6821; T. D. 29312). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30236; Dec. 31, 1909.) Ac- 
 quiesced in February 7, 1910 (T. D. 30344). 
 Cutting machines, hand-operated. (See Machine tools.) 
 Cyanide of potassium. 
 
 An article containing 22 per cent of cyanide of potassium, 57 per cent of cyanide 
 of sodium, and 21 per cent of other substances, held, on the testimony, to be 
 commercial cyanide of potassium within the meaning of paragraph 64, tariff act 
 of 1909, and therefore dutiable at 12J per cent ad valorem, and not at 25 per cent 
 under paragraph 3 as a chemical compoimd, mixture, or salt. (T. D. 34495 — G. 
 A. 7571; May 28, 1914.) 
 Cylinders, gas. (See Steel tubes.) 
 Cylindrical iron drums. (See Coverings.) 
 Cypress oil. (See Oils, essential.) 
 
 D. 
 
 Damage allowance. 
 Nonimportation. (See Allowance, damage.) 
 Botten fruit. (See Fruit, rotten, allowance.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 191 
 
 Damages for breach of bond. (See Bond, breach of.) 
 Damask. 
 Cotton — 
 
 Table damask the edges of which are ecalloped. (See Scalloped articles.) 
 Linen. (See Linen damask.) 
 Union — ■ 
 Table covers. (See Table covers.) 
 Dangerous articles, transportation of. 
 Interstate Commerce Commission — 
 
 Promulgating regulations issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission relative 
 to the transportation of dangerous articles. (T. D. 32128; Jan. 2, 1912.) 
 Date nails, galvanized. (See Metal, manufactures of.) 
 Deal ends. (See Waste — Mil] buttings and deal ends.) 
 DecaSeinized coffee. (See Coffee.) 
 Decalcomanias. 
 Lithographic prints — 
 Decalcomanias printed lithographically from stone, and used to transfer a deco- 
 rative picture, figure, or design, to the surface of various articles, are lithographic 
 prints within the meaning of paragraph 400, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 30687 — 
 G. A. 7035; June 9, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Decalcomanias for ceramic decoration, the decorating to be done 
 by transferring the figures and designs from the paper to pottery and fixing 
 them on the pottery by burning or baking, are lithographic prints and were duti- 
 able as such within the meaning of paragraph 400, tariff act of 1897. United 
 States V. Borgfeldt & Co. (No. 301); United States v. Stone & Downer Co. 
 (No. 302), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7035 (T. D. 30687). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 31945; Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 Metal-backed — 
 The provisions in paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909, for "decalcomaiuas in ceramic 
 colors, weighing not over one hundred pounds per thousand sheets » * *; 
 weighing over one hundred pounds per thousand sheets * * *; if backed 
 with metal leaf * * *; aU other decalcomanias * * *," cover three 
 classes of decalcomias in ceramic colors; namely, such as weigh not over 100 
 pounds per thousand sheets of 20 by 30, such as do exceed said weight, and 
 such as are backed with metal leaf, irrespective of weight. Held, accordingly, 
 that decalcomanias backed with metal leaf, not in ceramic colors, were dutiable 
 under the tariff act of 1909, under the provision for "all other decalcomanias." 
 (T. D. 32452— G. A. 7355; Apr. 24, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise is lithographically printed decalcomanias, 
 not in ceramic colors, backed with metal leaf. Application of the principles 
 of statutory construction is not called for in this case, since there was a plain 
 expression of intention that decalcomanias in ceramic colors if backed with 
 metal leaf should pay a specified duty. But the decalcomanias of the importa- 
 tion are not of that described kind, and they fall appropriately under the classi- 
 fication "all other decalcomanias" in paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909. United 
 States 1). Palm, Fechteler & Co. (No. 921), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 7355 (T. D. 32452). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33195; Feb. 
 12, 1913.) 
 
192 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Decalcomanias — Continued. 
 Tiausfers — Surface-coated paper — 
 
 Decalcomania paper is in commerce an entirely different article from lithographic 
 prints and printed matter, and is not dutiable under the provisions tor those 
 articles in paragraphs 400 and 403, tariff act of 1897, but as "surface-coated 
 papers, » * * printed," under paragraph 398. United States v. Hemp- 
 stead, United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, February 
 25, 1908. No. 83 (suit 1976). Appeal by Government from decision of Board 
 of General Appraisers, G. A. 6630 (T. D. 28277). Board reversed. (T. D. 
 28820; Mar. 4, 1908.) 
 
 Decision of United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, involv- 
 ing classification of decalcomania transfers (T. D. 28820), effective on mer- 
 chandise imported on and after April 1, 1908. (T. D. 28827; Mar. 10, 1908.) 
 
 Decision of the United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 
 involving the classification of decalcomania transfers (T. D. 28820), not to 
 control the classification of such merchandise ordered prior to April 1, 1908. 
 T. D. 28827 modified accordingly. (T. D. 28918; Apr. 7, 1908.) 
 
 Department's instructions (T. D. 28918) so modified that the transfers ordered 
 prior to April 1, 1908, must be imported prior to August 1, 1908, to be entitled 
 to classification under paragraph 400, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 28979; May 8, 
 1908.) 
 Decanters, decorated, not bottles. 
 
 Decorated glass decanters containing cordials, held not to be glass bottles such as 
 
 are required to be packed in packages containing not less than one dozen bottles 
 
 in each package under the provisions of paragraph 296, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 
 
 29515— G. A. 6862; Jan. 30, 1909.) 
 
 Decay in imported fruit, aUowance for. (T. D. 30023; circular No. 50; Oct. 4, 1909.) 
 
 (See also Fruit, rotten.) 
 Decisions of the Board of General Appraisers and Court of Customs Appeals. (See 
 
 Board of General Appraisers and Court of Customs Appeals.) 
 Declaration. (See also Entry, declarations.) 
 Bond for production of declaration of personal eSects. (See Effects, personal.) 
 Foreign shipper's — 
 
 Prescribing the form of certification by American consuls of foreign seller's or ship- 
 per's declarations of works of art under paragraph 717, tariff act of 1909, when 
 sent by mail. (T. D. 31713; June 20, 1911.) 
 
 Foreign shipper's declaration executed by an agent competent to declare to the 
 values and facts of the invoice may be accepted. (T. D. 32523; May 20, 1912.) 
 Merchandise for sale — 
 
 Where merchandise for sale is imported in a trunk separate from the remainder of 
 a passenger's effects, no effort being made to conceal it among the passenger's 
 personal effects or to have it treated as personal baggage, the passenger is under 
 no obligation to declare it as baggage under section 2799, Revised Statutes. 
 United States v. One Trunk (Gannon, claimant). United States District Court, 
 Southern District of New York, November 18, 1909. In rem. On proceedings 
 for forfeiture of imported goods. Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 
 30214; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 Out-of-town importers — 
 
 Owners' declarations may be executed by out-of-town importers prior to arrival of 
 importing vessel, provided there is presented on entry a declaration made after 
 the arrival of the importing vessel by the consignee or agent clearing the ship- 
 ment. (T. D. 31559; May 4, 1911.) 
 
1908-1915. 193 
 
 Dedaratiou — Continued. 
 Owner's declaration- 
 Bond for the production of declaration of ultimate consignee not required on entry 
 
 of goods free from duty. (T. D. 29286; Oct. 5, 1908.) 
 Owners' declarations may be executed on behalf of a corporation by an agent under 
 power of attorney especially authorized to execute the same by the board of 
 directors. (T. D. 30025; Oct. 4, 1909.) 
 Panaman consuls^ — - 
 Customs oflB.cers directed to permit Fanaman consuls to take note of shippers' dec- 
 larations showing the value of merchandise exported to the EepubUc of Panama. 
 (T. D. 34181; Feb. 14, 1914.) 
 Shippers' export declarations and export procedure. (T. D. 35708; Sept. 15, 1915. 
 
 (T. D. 35944; Dec. 6, 1915.) (T. D. 35969; Dec. 14, 1915.) 
 Sufficiency of. (See Baggage.) 
 Decorated earthenware. (See Earthenware.) 
 Decorated wrapping paper. (See Faper.) 
 
 Deduction of 6 per cent on dress goods. (See Wool dreps goods.) 
 Default on protest. (See Frotest, default on.) 
 Dekofa. 
 
 Coffee beans from which the caffein has been extracted dutiable under paragraph 
 294, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 2i cents per pound. (T. D. 32187; Jan. 25, 
 1912.) 
 
 Delivery permits. 
 
 The phrase "under bond for warehousing, transportation, or any other purpose" 
 in section 29 of the act of 1909 embraces within its meaning all merchandise still 
 in the custody of the Government and, as the law expressly states, "for which 
 no permit of delivery to the importer or his agent has been issued. ' ' Hartranft 
 V. Oliver (125 U. S., 525) followed. The duty provided by the tariff act in 
 force at the time duty was paid and permit of delivery issued is the duty appli- 
 cable to imported merchandise. Merchandise entered while the tariff act of 
 1897 was in force, but on which duty was not paid and permit of delivery issued 
 until after the act of 1909 became effective, is, under the terms of section 29, 
 dutiable under the tariff act of 1909. Cordero's case, G. A. 6945 (T. D. 30161), 
 distinguished. (T. D. 30443— G. A. 6994; Mar. 18, 1910.) 
 
 As to the bulk and a part designated for examination — 
 Goods had been entered for consumption, 10 per cent of them designated for ex- 
 amination, a proper bond tor the return of the delivered goods executed, a 
 delivery permit as to those issued, all on August 5, 1909. On August 6, the 
 day upon which the tariff act of 1909 became effective, a delivery permit watj 
 issued for the goods designated and detained for examination: Held the entire 
 importation was dutiable under paragraph 250, tariff act of 1897. The obliga- 
 tion to pay duty accrued when the goods were entered for consumption. The 
 amount paid by the importers on August 5 was not a deposit of duty, but a 
 duty, within the meaning of the law. United States v. Grossfeld (No. 216), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 30601). Deci- 
 sion reversed. (T. D. 31218; Jan. 11, 1911.) 
 Demijohns, broken. 
 
 Section 23, customs administrative act — 
 Where glass demijohns containing floral waters were broken in transitu, so as to 
 waste the contents and destroy the commercial value of the entire importation, 
 a deduction of duty will be made on the ground that the goods were never im- 
 ported. Such a case does not present one of damage allowance under section 
 23 of the customs administrative act, which requires abandonment of damaged 
 
 45633°— 17 13 
 
194 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Demijolms, brokeis — Continued. 
 Section 23, customs administrative act — Continued. 
 
 goods, and has no application to the entire destruction of merchandise, rendered 
 commercially valueless and resulting in entire loss. (T. D. 29494 — G. A. 6854; 
 Jan. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Denaturing. (See Oil, olive.) 
 
 Dental instnunents. « 
 
 Tweezers — 
 So-called dental tweezers, riveted together at one end, and not having two lever 
 handles working on a pivot, dutiable at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 167, tariff act of 1913, as manufactures of metal not specially 
 provided for, rather than at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem under the provi- 
 sion of paragraph 166 of the said act for nippers and pliers. (T. D. 36012; Dec. 
 23, 1915.) 
 
 Dependent colt. (See Colt.) 
 
 Depositions. (See Commission to take testimony.) 
 Power of board to exclude. (See Board of General Appraisers, jurisdiction.) 
 
 Deposits, receipts for. 
 
 Single receipts only for deposits to official credit of collectors of customs. Amend- 
 ing circvdars 90 and 92, August 10, 1903. (T. D. 32295; circular No. 14; Mar. 
 4, 1912.) 
 
 Designs. 
 Jacqnard — 
 An importation comprising water-color designs or sketches, Jacquard drafts on 
 point paper, and Jacquard cards, the designs having been used as patterns and 
 drafted on the point paper and then by that means transferred to, or cut on, the 
 cards, is not to be regarded for dutiable purposes as an entirety. Such articles 
 are dutiable as though imported separately. (T. D. 29511 — G. A. 6858; Jan. 
 27, 1909.) 
 
 Dbsigram, native Indian chick-pea. (See Vegetables.) 
 
 Dial plates, enameled. 
 
 Dial plates made of copper and enamel dutiable under paragraph 192, tariff act of 
 1909, notwithstanding Abstract 24103 (T. D. 31019). (T. D. 31389; Mar. 15, 
 1911.) 
 
 Diamantine. (See Gelatin.) 
 
 Diamonds. 
 Miners' — 
 Amorphous diamonds, commercially known as black diamonds, carbon, or car- 
 banado, used in the construction of drills for mining and prospecting purposes, 
 if advanced from their natural condition by cleaving, splitting, cutting, or 
 other process, are dutiable at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 435, tariff act of 1897, as "diamonds « * * advanced, etc.," and 
 are not tiee of duty under paragraph 545 as "miners' diamonds * » * not 
 set." United States v. Fifteen Drilled Diamonds (127 Fed. Rep., 753; T. D. 
 25046) and T. D. 3546 cited; G. A: 5783 (T. D. 25565) distinguished. (T. D. 
 29054— G. A. 6772; June 5, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Carbonado unset. — In the provision in paragraph 545, tariff act 
 of 1897, for " diamonds * * * not advanced, * * *^ including miners' 
 * * * diamonds not set," the limitation of "not advanced," etc., does not 
 apply to miners' diamonds; and unset split miners' diamonds, known as carbon, 
 carbonado, or black diamonds, are free of duty under said paragraph, rather than 
 dutiable under paragraph 435 as "diamonds * * * advanced." Sullivan 
 Machinery Co. v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District 
 of New York, March 15, 1909. Smt 5312. Appeal by importers from decision 
 of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6772 (T. D. 29054). Board reversed. 
 (T. D. 29649; Mar. 24, 1909.) Acquiesced in (T. D. 29678; Apr. 9, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIOlfS, 19.08-1915. 195 
 
 Diamonds— Continued. 
 Bepaiis — 
 
 Unset diamonds and other precious stones imported for repairs entitled, under 
 certain conditions, to admission free of duty under bond, in accordance with 
 subsection 4 of Paragraph J of section 4, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35872; Nov. 
 10, 1915.) 
 Dies. 
 Appraisement — 
 The cost of the die used in stamping articles should be included in the appraised 
 value of the article when it appears that such cost was paid by the pmrchaaer. 
 (T. D. 34660; July 24, 1914.) 
 Monogiam. (See Steel plates.) 
 Digby chicks. (See Pish, herring — Yarmouth bloaters.) 
 Direct shipments. (See also Philippine Islands — Direct shipments.) 
 Wood pulp and printing paper — 
 Collectors of customs instructed in accordance with opinion of Attorney General 
 (dated Sept. 4, 1913) that right to free entry of wood pulp and paper from certain 
 European countries is not affected by transshipment en route when the mer- 
 chandise was originally destined on through billa of lading to the United States. 
 (T. D. 33720; Sept. 4, 1913.) 
 Dirt in nuts, allowance lor. (See Almonds. ) 
 Disbursing officers. 
 
 CSrcular No. 7, amending circular No. 102, December 7, 1906. (T. D. 30345; Feb. 
 
 7, 1910.) 
 Numerical symbols for designating disbursing officers. Amending T. D. 33171 of 
 
 February 7, 1913. (T. D. 33451; May 5, 1913.) 
 System of numerical symbols for designating disbursing officers. (T. D. 33171; 
 Feb. 7, 1913.) 
 Discount on duties. (See Five per cent discount.) 
 Disinfection. 
 Fleshings, hide cuttings, parings, or glue' stock — 
 Amendment of department circular 23 of May 2, 1910 (T. D. 30583), relative to 
 disinfection of fleshings, hide cuttings, parings, or glue stock. (T. D. 30913; 
 Sept. 10, 1910.) 
 Glue stock. (T. D. 31960; Oct. 28, 1911.) (T. D. 32153; Jan. 18, 1912.) 
 Hay and straw — 
 Hay and straw from Jamaica to be disinfected before landing and quarantined 
 three months under supervision of Bureau of Animal Industry. (T. D. 29671; 
 Apr. 6, 1909.) 
 Hides — 
 T. D: 28709; circular No. 7; January 28, 1908. 
 
 Disinfection not required of hides taken from cattle in abattoirs in New Zealand 
 and Australia, if accompanied by certificate of veterinarian or Government 
 inspector stationed at abattoir. (T. D. 28962: Apr. 24, 1908.) 
 Invoices covering hides shipped from consular districts where anthrax is known 
 to be prevalent not to be certified unless such hides are disinfected by immer- 
 sion in a solution of bichloride of mercury. (T. D. 29107; June 23, 1908.) 
 T. D. 30053; circular No. 52; October 20, 1909. 
 
 Hides from Bermuda require disinfection unless taken from American cattle or 
 from other cattle slain in abattoirs and accompanied by certificate of veteri- 
 narian showing same to have been taken from animals free from disease. (T. D. 
 30241; Jan. 7, 1910.) 
 Buffalo: Buffalo hides should be disinfected the same as hides of neat cattle, under 
 the provisions of circular No. 23, of May 2, 1910 (T. D. 30583). (T. D. 31981; 
 Nov. 2, 1911.) 
 
196 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 DisinlCection — Continued. 
 Hides — Continued. 
 Methods of disinfection which may be substituted for the method of immersion in 
 a solution of bichloride of mercury. T. D. 30583 (circular 23) of May 2, 1910, 
 amended. (T. D. 35761; Oct. 11, 1915.) 
 Regulations governing. (T. D. 30583; circular No. 23; May 2, 1910.) Amended 
 
 by T. D. 31083 of December 6, 1910, and by T. D. 33501 of June 4, 1913. 
 Paragraph 4 of the "exceptions" in the regulations in T. D. 30583 of May 2, 1910, 
 amended so as to add Argentina to the list of countries from which hides may 
 be imported under certain conditions without disinfection certificates. (T. D. 
 35745; Oct. 4, 1915.) 
 Wool, hair, and feed stuffs from South America — 
 Instructions to customs officers. (T. D. 30783; July 13, 1910.) 
 Disks for goggles. (See Glass.) 
 Disks for phonographs. (See Phonographs, parts of.) 
 Display cases filled with pipes. (See Coverings — Show cases.) 
 Distillates of montan wax. 
 
 Certain distillates of montan wax not subject to classification as wax, but as acids 
 and waste not specially provided for under paragraphs 1 and 479 of the tariff 
 act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 33555; June 14, 1913.) 
 Distilled oU. (See Oil, distilled.) 
 Distilled spirits. (See Spirits.) 
 Diversion. (See Immediate transportation.) 
 Dockets. 
 
 For hearing of cases by the Board of United States General Appraisers and indi- 
 vidual general appraisers. (T. D. 30193; Dec. 13, 1909.) 
 Dogs and other domesticated animals, free entry of. 
 
 Collie, shepherd, or sheep dogs to be inspected and quarantined and entered only 
 
 at certain ports. (T. D. 31151; B. A. I. Order 176; Dec. 29, 1910.) 
 Customs officers to notify the inspectors of the Bureau of Animal Industry, Depart, 
 ment of Agriculture, of the arrival of any dogs. (T. D. 31515; Apr. 19, 1911.) 
 T. D. 30608, providing for the registration and return, free of duty, imder the 
 provisions of T. D. 30481 and paragraph 500, tariff act of 1909, of horses taken 
 abroad for personal use, extended to dogs and other domesticated animals taken 
 abroad for a similar purpose. (T. D. 30742; June 30, 1910.) 
 Dogskin mats. 
 Furs, manufactures of — 
 The dogskin mats of the importation have been given a form other than that of 
 the natural skin and have in trade a characteristic name. They are furs, ready 
 to be applied, after incidental cleaning or dyeing to their final use as furs. 
 They are dutiable under paragraph 439, tarift act of 1909. United States v. 
 Richter (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 167; T. D. 316S0); Allum et al. v. United States 
 (No. 1114), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31260 (T. D. 33194). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33526; May 26, 1913.) 
 Dogskin rugs and robes dutiable as mats or plates at 10 per cent ad valorem undet 
 paragraph 348, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34054; Jan. 12, 1914.) 
 Dogskins and goatskins. 
 Dressed — 
 Dogskins and goatskins, dressed, dutiable at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 348, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34237; Mar. 6, 1914.) 
 Doilies and other articles made from cotton table damask. (See Scalloped articles.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 197 
 
 Dolls. 
 
 Dolls composed of china, porcelain, parian, bisque, earthen, stone, and crockery 
 ware dutiable under paragraph 431, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 35 per cent 
 ad valorem. (T. D. 30091; Nov. 8, 1909.) 
 Bath and position babies dutiable as. (See Bath and position babies.) 
 Dolls' wigs. 
 
 Dolls' wigs held to be specifically provided for in paragraph 431 of the tariff act 
 of 1909, as "parts of dolls," and dutiable under said paragraph at 35 per cent 
 ad valorem. (T. D. 30293— G. A. 6971; Jan. 24, 1910.) 
 Domestic products exported and returned. (See Reimportation.) 
 
 Certificate of exportation. (See Certificate of exportation. i 
 Domestic tax-paid alcohol. 
 Medicinal and toilet preparations manufactured from, drawback on. (T. D. 29952; 
 circular No. 89; Aug. 18, 1909.) 
 (See also Drawback on various articles.) 
 Domicile — Besidence. (See Effects, personal — Residence and Nonresidence). 
 Door hinges. (See Hingesr) 
 Double bottles. (See Bottles.) 
 Doublets. 
 Reconstructed emeralds or doublets — 
 Two pieces of colorless aquamarine or beryl cemented together, green coloring 
 matter having been inserted between the parts making the stones imitate emer- 
 alds, and also thin slabs of opal cemented to pieces of agate, are commonly known 
 as "reconstructed emeralds" or as "doublets" and properly dutiable at 20 per 
 cent ad valorem as such under paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909, and not at 10 per 
 cent ad valorem as precious stones under the same paragraph. 
 
 Commercial designation: Where evidence as to the trade meaning of the term 
 "doublets " is conflicting, the word will be given its ordinary signification. (T. 
 D. 32778— G. A. 7388; Aug. 23, 1912.) 
 Down. 
 Goose skins with down — 
 Goose skins with the down on which have been dressed and the feathers on which 
 have been cleaned, are dutiable as bird skins, dressed or advanced, etc., under 
 paragraph 425, tariff act of 1897, rather than as dressed furs under paragraph 426. 
 Herskovitz i). United States; Gross v. United States. United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, July 1, 1910. Suits 5592-3. Appeals by 
 the importers from decision of the Board of General Appraisers,*Abstract 22157 
 (T. D. 30122). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30804; July 19, 1910.) 
 Paragraph 425, tariff act of 1897, making feathers and downs when dressed, colored, 
 or otherwise advanced or manufactured in any manner, dutiable at 50 per cent, 
 does not extend to or include goose skins adapted to and employed for other 
 purposes than those for which down is used. The evidence showing that the ■ 
 use to which goose skins such as were here imported are ordinarily put is similar 
 to the use of fur and not to that of down, they were dutiable by similitude under 
 paragraph 426 of that act and according thus with a long-continued practice of 
 the Treasury Department. Gross, Engle & Co. i). United States (No. 451) ; Hers- 
 kovitz & Roth V. United States (No. 452), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of 
 New York (T. D. 30122, T. D. 30806). (T. D. 81410; Mar. 13, 1911.) 
 Chicks and ducklings, stuffed — 
 Pending a decision in regard to the classification of ■stuffed chicks and stuffed 
 ducklings they should be assessed with duty at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 347, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34437; May 7, 1914.) 
 
198 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1&15. 
 
 Down on the skin — Contmued. 
 CMcks and ducklings, staffed — Continued. 
 The Bkins of natural cliicks and ducklings with covering of down, dressed and 
 stuffed so as to preserve their natural appearance, are dutiable under the pro- 
 vision in paragraph 347, tariff act of 1913, for down on the skin "when dressed, 
 colored, or otherwise advanced or manufactured in any manner and not suit- 
 able for use as millinery ornaments." Morimura v. United States (141 Fed., 
 383; T. D. 25872) holding similar merchandise entitled to free entry as "birds, 
 stuffed, not suitable for millinery ornaments'' under paragraph 493 of the tariff 
 act of 1897, noted. (T. D. 35016— G. A. 7658; Dec. 21, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Stuffed chicks, unsuited to he millinery ornaments. — The goods 
 are the skins of ducklings or chicks, which skins have been dried and stuffed 
 with cotton medicated with some preservative. There is not sufficient evidence 
 in the record to support the contention that they are toys; nor is there sufficient 
 evidence to warrant a reversal of the finding below that they were dutiable under 
 paragraph 347, tariff act of 1913, as downs on the skin, dressed, not suitable for 
 use as millinery ornaments. Morimura Bros. v. United States (No. 1510), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7653 (T. D. 35016). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 35437; May 18, 1915.) 
 Dragees. (See Confectionery.) 
 Drawback. 
 Abstracts from manufacturing records — 
 Wkere an abstract from the manufacturing record is required, a reference thereto 
 may be made in the drawback entry in Ueu of a restatement of the particulars of 
 manufacture. (T. D. 32651; June 25, 1912.) 
 Articles used prior to exportation, no allowance. (T. D. 29933; Aug. 3, 1909.) 
 Certificate of delivery for sugar and sirup — 
 T. D. 33500 of June 4, 1913, amended with respect to form of certificate of delivery 
 for sugar and sirup. (T. D. 33681; Aug. 12, 1913.) 
 Declarations for corporations — 
 The president and vice president of a corporation may make the declaration of the 
 proprietor to certificates of manufacture without production of the evidence of 
 authority provided by article 11 of the drawback regulations (T. D. 31695). 
 (T. D. 32708; July 12, 1912.) 
 Declaration of manufacturer in case of a corporation — 
 The declaration in the manufacturer's certificate, in the case of a corporation, 
 may be made by an attorney duly authorized to represent such corporation. 
 (T. D. 32278; Feb. 21, 1912.) 
 Denied — 
 Drawback not allowable on any article which has been used prior to its exporta- 
 tion. Article 1142 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 amended. (T. D. 29933; 
 Aug. 3, 1909.) 
 No drawback allowed on exportation of merchandise after delivery to importer. 
 (T. D. 30182— G. A. 6950; Dec. 10, 1909.) 
 Disclaimer to drawback by nominal exporter — 
 Where the consignor named in a bill of lading is not the real exporter, a disclaimer 
 may be indorsed on the bill of lading and the name of the exporter disclosed. 
 (T. D. 32177; Jan. 22, 1912.) ' 
 Documents — 
 Certification of documents for drawback purposes by the secretary of a corpora- 
 tion before a notary public or other officer having a seal approved. (T. D. 
 31827; Aug. 21, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 199 
 
 Drawback — Continued . 
 
 Duty equal to — 
 Collector's assessment presumptively correct: Where the collector of customs 
 assesses a duty equal to drawback which he supposes was allowed on the expor- 
 tation of certain American manufactures reimported from abroad, the onus is 
 on the importer to prove the contrary, although such proof involves a negative. 
 In proving such negative the importer will satisfy the requirements of law by 
 producing just enough evidence to counterbalance evidence against Mm. (T. 
 D. 29982— G. A. 6929; Sept. 1, 1909.) 
 Evidence necessary to rebut assessment: Where the collector of customs assesses 
 duty on American manufactures exported and returned to this country, and of 
 the kind described in paragraph 483, tariff act of 1897, and this assessment is 
 equal to the amount of drawback allowed by law on the exportation of the arti- 
 cles, the burden is cast on the importer to offer satisfactory evidence that such 
 drawback was never actually paid either to the manufacturer, the producer, 
 exporter or agent of such parties, who are authorized to receive it under existing 
 laws or Treasury regulaticJns. (T. D. 29544— G. A. 6866; Feb. 8, 1909.) 
 
 Exportation prior to rate — 
 
 Under article 1203, Customs Regulations of 1908, drawback is not allowable on 
 exportations made prior to the establishment of a rate. (T. D. 29478; Jan. 16, 
 1909.) 
 Interpretation placed upon article 1115, Customs Regulations of 1908, relative to 
 exportation of merchandise from customs custody with benefit of drawback: 
 While merchandise remains upon- the wharf by permission of the collector, it is 
 considered to be in the custody of the inspector. Tliis must be construed, how- 
 ever, as meaning that it remains in such custody only until the permit shall have 
 been accepted by the oflScer in charge, and there is nothing further to be done by 
 him in the way of measuring, weighing, gauging, etc. (T. D. 6488; July 24, 1884). 
 (T. D. 29640; Mar. 22, 1909.) 
 
 Jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury — 
 The jurisdiction to allow or refuse drawbacks is vested in the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, and it would seem incongruous to vest in another tribunal the decision 
 of questions relating to the chaises connected with the exportation of drawback 
 goods, which in effect result in a reduction of the allowance of drawback. (T. D. 
 34872; Oct. 29, 1914.) 
 
 Manufacture — 
 
 "Manufacture" implies change; but not every change is manufacture, though 
 the result of treatment, labor, and manipulation. Something more is neces- 
 sary. There must be a transformation; a new and different article must emerge, 
 having a distinctive name, character, and use. And a cork which has been 
 put through elaborate cleansing, antiseptic, and other improving processes, 
 but which still remains a cork, is not "manufactured" within the meaning of 
 section 30, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 28778; Feb. 19, 1908.) 
 
 Merchandise exported under transportation and exportation entries — 
 
 Instructions relative to cording and sealing at interior ports and issuance of cer- 
 tificates of exportation at frontier or seaboard ports. (T. D. 30517 ; Apr. 9, 1910.) 
 
 Merchandise exported without inspection- 
 No allowance can be made where the merchandise is exported without inspection 
 unless notice of intent has been filed in accordance with article 4 of the regula- 
 tion of June 16, 1911 (T. D. 31695). (T. D. 32023; Nov. 21, 1911.) 
 
 Begulations — 
 
 Articles manufactured in the United States from imported materials for exporta^ 
 
 tion and toilet and medicinal preparations manufactured from domestic tax- 
 
 paidalcohol, under section25, tariff aetofAugust5,1909. (T. D. 31695;Junel6, 
 
 1911.) Amended to provide for additional data. (T. D. 33703; Aug. 20, 1913.) 
 
200 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback — Continued. 
 Begnlations — Continued. 
 Amendment of: Time for completing dra-wback claims and for return of notices 
 of intent by inspecting officers, extended. (T. D. 33231; Feb. 27, 1913.) 
 Beports on applications — 
 Promptness enjoined in rendering reports on applications for drawback. (T. D. 
 29680; Apr. 9, 1909.) 
 Bevocatlon ol — 
 Various Treasury decisions providing for the payment of drawback on articles 
 manufactured with the use of imported materials revoke's. (T. D. 35161; Feb. 
 24, 1915.) 
 Shipments to Isthmian Canal Commission — 
 Report to be made to department of the filing of any entries for drawback on mate- 
 rials shipped to the Isthmian Canal Commission at Colon or Panama or at any 
 point in the Canal Zone. (T. D. 31091; Dec. 6, 1910.) 
 Suspension ol — 
 The suspension of a drawback rate by T. D. 35162 of February 24, 1915, does not 
 act as a suspension of later decisions extending the suspended rate to cover 
 similar articles manufactured by other parties. (T. D. 35241; Mar. 22, 1915.) 
 Various Treasury decisions for the payment of drawback on articles manufactured 
 with the use of imported materials suspended. (T. D. 35162; Feb. 24, 1915.) 
 Tariff act of 1913 — 
 Articles manufactured in the United States from imported materials for exporta- 
 tion, and flavoring extracts, toilet and medicinal preparations manufactured 
 from domestic tax-paid alcohol, under Paragraph O of section 4, tariff act of 
 1913. (T. D. 33809; Oct. 25, 1913.) 
 Wastage allowances — 
 No wastage allowance for loss in smelting and refining to be made in liquidating 
 drawback entries where lead is withdrawn for consumprion from bonded smelt- 
 ing and refining establishments under section 24, tariff act of 1909, the only 
 allowance to be made for wastage being the loss incurred in producing the ex- 
 ported article, not to exceed 1 per cent of the net weight thereof. T. D. 26144, 
 of March 13, 1905, modified. (T. D. 30814; July 30, 1910.) 
 The quantities specified in drawback rates are to be considered as maximum quan- 
 tities and drawbacli^is to be paid on quantities actually used, the value of waste 
 material being taken into consideration in each instance. (T. D. 32141; Jan. 
 11, 1912.) 
 Drawback on. 
 Acetate ol lead. (See Drawback on lead.) 
 
 Advertising novelties, aluminum. (See Drawback on mirrors, etc.) 
 Aeroplanes — ■ 
 Drawback on Moisant aeroplanes manufactured by the Moisant International 
 Aviators, of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported motors, propellers, and 
 shock absorbers. (T. D. 34502; June 2. 1914.) 
 "Afros " cigarettes, plain and cork tip. (See Drawback on cigarettes.) 
 Agricultural implements — 
 Drawback allowed on agricultural implements manufactured by Adriance, Piatt 
 & Co., of Poughkeepsie, N. Y., with the use of imported crucible section steel 
 and open-hearth section steel. (T. D. 29900; July 10, 1909.) 
 Agricultural machinery. (See Drawback on machinery.) 
 Alcohol, domestic tax-paid — 
 Regulations under section 25, tariff act of August 5, 1909 (T. D. 29952; circular 
 
 No. 39; Aug. 13, 1909). 
 (See also Drawback on various articles.) 
 
 Drawback on domestic tax-paid alcohol used by S. B. Leonardi & Co. in Reno's 
 New Health and Leonardi's Blood Elixir. (T. D. 33025; Dec. 19, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 201 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Alcohol, lectified — 
 
 T. D. 31929 of October 17, 1911, denying drawback on medicinal and toilet prepa- 
 rations manufactured with the use of rectified alcohol, revoked, and the payment 
 of drawback on such preparations in the future authorized, in accordance with 
 the opinion of the Attorney General, dated March 6, 1914. (T. D. 34395; Apr. 
 20, 1914.) 
 Alcohol gas stoves — 
 Drawback on Glogau alcohol gas stoves manufactured by Glogau & Co., of Chicago, 
 111., with the use of imported unfinished stoves. (T. D. 31579; May 10, 1911.) 
 Aletris Cordial Bio. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Alkaloids and salts of morphine and codeine manufactured by Fowers-Weightman- 
 
 Bosengarten Co. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Alloy, aluminum — 
 Drawback on aluminum alloy manufactured by the Northern Aluminum Co., 
 of New Kensington, Pa., with the use of imported aluminum. (T. D. 29781; 
 May 25, 1909.) 
 Alloys of metal. (See Drawback on metal alloy.) 
 Almond lotion. (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Almond paste — 
 Drawback on almond paste manufactured by the Spencer Importing Co. (Inc.), 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported shelled almonds and refined sugar 
 produced from imported raw sugar. T. D. 22640 of November 30, 1900, revoked. 
 (T. D. 35727; Sept. 27, 1915.) 
 Almonds — 
 Drawback on sifted, cleaned, and graded almonds produced by Habicht, Braun & 
 Co., of New York, N. Y., from almonds imported in bulk. (T. D. 34723; Aug. 
 22, 1914.) 
 Aloxite grains or powders, wheels, sharpening stones, hones, paper, and cloth — - 
 Drawback on aloxite grains and powders, wheels, sharpening stones, hones, paper, 
 and cloth manufactured by the Carborundum Co., of Niagara Falls, N. Y., with 
 the use of imported crude aloxite. (T. D. 33084; Jan. 13, 1913.) 
 Alpaca noils. (See also Drawback on Wool products.) 
 Drawback on noils manufactured by the Parr Alpaca Co., of Holyoke, Mass., from 
 imported alpaca. (T. D. 33186; Feb. 17, 1913.) 
 Aluminum advertising novelties. (See Drawback on mirrors, pocket, hand, etc.) 
 Aluminum alloy. (See Drawback on alloy, aluminum.) 
 Aluminum articles — 
 Drawback on aluminum articles manufactured by the United States Aluminum 
 Co., of Pittsburgh, Pa., with the use of imported aluminum in crude forms, 
 aluminum scrap, and alloys of any kind in which aluminum is the component 
 material of chief value. (T. D. 33499; June 4, 1913.) 
 T. D. 33499 of June 4, 1913, extended to cover aluminum wire rods produced by 
 the United States Aluminum Co., of Pittsburgh, Pa., from imported aluminum 
 wire bars. (T. D. 34105; Jan. 27, 1914.) 
 Aluminum castings^ 
 Drawback on aluminum castings manufactured by the Aluminum Castings Co., of 
 Fairfield, Conn., with the use of imported aluminum and alloys of any kind in 
 which aluminum is the component material of chief value, imported in the form 
 of pigs, ingots, or scrap. (T. D. 33454; May 23, 1913.) 
 Drawback on castings manufactured by the Werra Aluminum Foundry Co., of 
 Waukesha, Wis., with the use of imported aluminum for the account of the Con- 
 tinental Motor Manufacturing Co., of Detroit and Muskegon, Mich. (T. D. 
 35195; Mar. 9, 1915.) 
 
202 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 190&-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Alaminam cones and lightning atiesters. (See Drawback on electrical equip- 
 ment.) 
 Aluminum, grained — 
 Drawback on grained aluminum manufactured by the United Statea Aluminum 
 Co. , of Pittsburgh, Pa. , with the use of imported crude aluminum. T. D. 27697 
 of November 10, 1906, extended. (T. D. 30817; July 22, 1910.) 
 Aluminum, granulated — 
 Drawback on granulated aluminum manufactured by the Goldschmidt Thermit 
 Co., of New York City, with the use of imported aluminum. T. D. 28125 of 
 April 30, 1907, extended. (T. D. 28944; Apr. 20, 1908.) 
 Drawback on granulated aluminum manufactured by the United States Aluminum 
 Co. , of Pittsburgh, Pa. , at its various plants from imported pig aluminum. T. D. 
 27697 of November 10, 1906, extended. (T. D. 31694; June 15, 1911.) 
 Aluminum ingots — • 
 Drawback on aluminum ingots manufactured by the Northern Aluminum Co. 
 (Ltd.), of New Kensington, Pa., from imported crude aluminum. T. D. 
 27697 of November 10, 1906, extended. (T. D. 29941; Aug. 6, 1909.) 
 Drawback on aluminum ingots manufactured by the United Aluminum Ingot Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., from imported scrap, cake, and oxide aluminum and cUp- 
 pLags from imported sheet aluminum. (T. D. 33254; Mar. 8, 1918.) 
 Aluminum lasts — 
 Drawback on lasts manufactured by the Geo. 0. Clark Metal Last Co., of Misha- 
 waka, Ind., with the use of imported aluminum alloy. T. D. 30622 of May 
 20, 1910, extended. (T. D. 30857; Aug. 3, 1910.) 
 Aluminum salt and pepper shakers — - 
 Drawback on aluminum salt and pepper shakers manufactured by the Hero Manu- 
 facturing Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., from aluminum sheets which are in turn 
 manufactured in the United Statea from imported pig aluminum. (T. D. 
 32674; June 29, 1912.) 
 Aluminum ware — 
 Drawback on aluminum ware manufactured by the Frontier Iron Works, of Buffalo, 
 N. Y., from imported aluminum. (T. D. 32658; June 25, 1912.) 
 Aluminum and welding compounds — 
 Drawback on granulated or pulverized aluminum manufactured by the Gold- 
 schmidt Thermit Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported crude 
 aluminum and on welding compounda manufactured by the said company with 
 the use of such granulated or pulverized aluminum. T. D. 28125 of April 30, 
 1907, and T. D. 28924 of April 24, 1908, revoked. (T. D. 35012; Dec. 26, 1914.) 
 Aluminum wire rods. (See Ahiminum articles.) 
 "Alvatnnder." (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 "Anethol. " (See Drawback on medicinal preparationa.) 
 Annular bearings. (See Drawback on bearings.) 
 Antifriction metal. (See Drawback on metal, Babbitt.) 
 Antikanmia preparations. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Antimonial pig lead. (See Drawback on lead.) 
 Antimony, powdered — 
 Drawback on powdered antimony manufactured by John C. Wiarda & Co., of 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., from imported antimony regulus for the account of Winter, 
 Son & Co. (T. D. 35309; Apr. 10, 1915.) 
 Antiphlogistine — 
 Drawback on antiphlogistine manufactured by the Denver Chemical Manufac- 
 turing Co., of New York City, with the use of refined glycerin produced from 
 imported crude glycerin. (T. D. 32339; Mar. 27, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 203 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 
 Aprons- 
 Drawback on aprons manufactured by the E. B. Kursheedt Apron Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported laces and embroideries in combination 
 with either imported or domestic cotton piece goods. (T. D. 34593; June 26, 
 1914.) 
 
 Armor plate and guns — 
 Drawback on armor plate and guns manufactured by the Bethlehem Steel Co., 
 of South Bethlehem, Pa., the armor plate with the use of imported ferro- 
 chrome, ferrochromium, and aluminum silicon manganese alloy, known as A. 
 M. S. metal, and the guns with the use of imported silico spiegel. T. D. 29552 
 of February 10, 1910, extended. (T. D. 31055; Nov. 22, 1910.) 
 
 Armor plate, steel ingots, blooms, etc. — 
 Drawback allowed on armor plate manufactured from imported iron ore ferro- 
 manganeae, and ferrosilicon by the open-hearth process, and steel ingots, blooms, 
 billets, bars, rails, plates, structural material, castings, forgings, guns, gun 
 mounts, projectiles, machinery, and armor plate manufactured from imported 
 pig iron or scrap iron or steel and imported ferromanganese and ferrosilicon by 
 the Bethlehem Steel Co., of South Bethlehem, Pa. T. D. 29552 of February 10, 
 1909, extended. (T. D. 30536; Apr. 14, 1910.) 
 
 Arresters, lightning, and aluminum cones. (See Drawback on electrical equipment.) 
 
 Arsenate of lead. (See Drawback on lead.) 
 
 Art paste — 
 Drawback on art paste manufactured by the Dennison Manufacturing Co., of South 
 Framingham, Mass., in part from imported dextrin. T. D. 26643 of August 5, 
 1905, extended. (T. D. 31563; May 8, 1911.) 
 
 Artificial leather. (See Drawback on leather.) 
 
 Artificial silk. (See Drawback on silk.) 
 
 Artificial silk yarn. (See Drawback on yarn, artificial silk.) 
 
 Artificial teeth- 
 Drawback on artificial teeth manufactiwed by the Dentists' Supply Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., and York, Pa., with the use of imported platinum-covered nickel 
 pins. (T. D. 34505; June 2, 1914.) 
 
 Asbestos packing and roofing. (See Drawback on packing and roofing.) 
 
 Asphalt — 
 
 Department's regulations of May 23, 1907 (T. D. 28194), and of April 2, 1908 (T. 
 
 D. 28911), amended to provide for wastage of 39.86 per cent instead of 33J per 
 cent. (T. D. 29186; July 29, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on asphalt and asphalt preparations manufactured by the Barber 
 Asphalt Paving Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported crude asphalt. 
 All former rates revoked. (T. D. 33155; Feb. 6, 1913.) 
 Asphalt, refined, and asphalt products- 
 Drawback on refined asphalt, designated as "cubanel," manufactured by the 
 
 E. F. Conway Co., of Chicago, 111., from imported crude asphalt. T. D. 23042 
 of May 10, 1901, extended. (T. D. 30472; Mar. 29, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on refined asphalt, designated as "cubanel," manufactured by R. F. 
 Conway Co., of Chicago, from imported crude asphalt, when exported by the 
 International Asphalt Co., of Chicago. T. D. 23042 of May 10, 1901, and T. D. • 
 30472 of March 29, 1910, extended. (T. D. 30750; July 2, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on refined asphalt manufactured by the Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co., 
 of New York City, from imported crude land asphalt. (T. D. 30852; Aug. 1, 
 1910.) 
 
204 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Asphalt, lefined — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on refined asphalt and asphalt preparations manufactured by the 
 Barber Asphalt Paving Co. with the use of imported crude asphalt. T. D. 
 22833, T. D. 26433, T. D. 28194, T. D. 28911, T. D. 29186, and T. B. 29583 
 revoked. (T. D. 32856; Oct. 12, 1912.) 
 Drawback on refined asphalt and asphalt products manufactured by the Warren 
 Chemical & Manufacturing Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 crude land or village asphalt in combination with domestic materials. T. D. 
 25402 of June 20, 1904, is hereby revoked. (T. D. 33549; June 14, 1913.) 
 Asphalt paving blocks — 
 
 Drawback on asphalt paving blocks manufactured by the Hastings Pavement Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of refined asphalt produced from imported 
 crude asphalt. (T. D. 33714; Aug. 28, 1913.) 
 Atomizers- 
 Drawback on atomizers manufactured by the De Vilbiss Manufacturing Co., of 
 Toledo, Ohio, with the use of imported glass bottles. (T. D. 32183; Jan. 24, 
 1912.) 
 Atwood's Bitters. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Automatic generators, motors, starting and lighting equipment. (See Drawback on 
 
 electrical equipment.) 
 Automobile axles — 
 Drawback on automobile axles manufactured by the American Ball Bearing Co., 
 of Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 34801; Oct. 
 2, 1914.) 
 Drawback on automobile axles manufactured by the Hess Spring & Axle Co., of 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, with the use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 34851; Oct. 
 23, 1914.) 
 Drawback on automobile axles manufactured by the McCue Co., of Buffalo, N. Y., 
 
 with the use of imported annular bearings. (T. D. 33234; Feb. 27, 1913.) 
 Drawback on automobile rear axles manufactured by the Timken-Detroit Axle 
 Co. with the use of imported driving worms and worm gears. (T. D. 33807; 
 Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 Drawback on automobile axles manufactured by the Weston-Mott Co., of Flint, 
 Mich., with the use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 35054; Jan. 12, 1915.) 
 Automobile axles and gears — 
 Drawback on automobile axles and gears manufactured by the Yuster Axle Co., 
 of Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 34835; 
 Oct. 15, 1914.) 
 Automobile axles and wheels — 
 Drawback on car axles and wheels manufactured by the American Car and 
 Foundry Co., of New York, with the use of axles and wheels imported in the 
 rough and fmished and fitted in the United States. T. D. 30242 of January 8, 
 1910, extended. (T. D. 30306; Jan. 27, 1910.) 
 Automobile castings- 
 Drawback on automobile castings manufactured by the Sherwood Brass Works, 
 of Detroit, and exported as such or as parts of automobiles, such castings being 
 manufactured from imported aluminum. (T. D. 32813; Sept. 9, 1912.) 
 Automobile chassis — 
 Drawback on imported Mercedes automobile chassis exported after being equipped 
 with starting and lighting systems by the Mercedes Repair Co., of New York, 
 N. Y. (T. D. 34964; Dec. 7, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. -205 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Automobile chassis — Continued. 
 
 T. D. 34964 of December 4, 1914, extended to cover automobiles and automobile 
 chassis equipped with electric starting and lighting systems by the Bosch Mag- 
 neto Co., of New York, N. Y., for the account of the Peugeot Auto Import Co., 
 of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35762; Oct. 7, 1915.) 
 Automobile clocks and chronodometers — 
 
 Drawback on automobile clocks and chronodometers manufactured by Ernest C. 
 Meyer, of Cleveland, Ohio, with the use ot imported watches. (T. D. 34715; 
 Aug. 20, 1914.) 
 Automobile covers — 
 
 Drawback on automobile coverings manufactured for and on account of the F. S. 
 Carr Co., of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported cloth. (T. D. 31698; June 
 16, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on automobile slip covering manufactured by the Pantasote Leather 
 Co., ot New York, with the use of imported cotton-warp wool cloth. (T. D. 
 33335; Apr. 11, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on covers for automobile seats, tops, cushions, etc., manutactured by 
 the Sterling Top & Equipment Co., of New York, N. Y., with the u?e of iiAported 
 fabrics. (T. D. 34689; Aug. 6, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobile coverings manufactured by the F. S. Carr Rubber Co. 
 and the Patent Shrinking & Refinishing Works, with the use of imported woolen, 
 mohair, and cotton cloths for the account of the F. S. Carr Co., of Boston, Mass. 
 T. D. 31698 of June 16, 1911, revoked. (T. D. 35960; Dec. 8, 1915.) 
 Automobile engines or motors^ 
 
 T. D. 33417 of May 12, 1913, covering automobiles manufactured by the Ford 
 Motor Co., extended to cover automobile engines or motors manufactured by 
 the Ford Motor Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported aluminum and 
 Scandinavian brake Uning. (T. D. 33552; June 14, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on eelf-etarting automobile gasoline engines manufactured by the 
 United States Light & Heating Co., of Niagara Falls, N. Y., with the use ot 
 imported automobile gasoline engines and domestic electric-motor generators. 
 (T. D. 33746; Sept. 25, 1913.) 
 Automobile gears, transmission cases, gauge blanks, etc. — 
 
 Drawback on automobile ge-^rs, transmission cases, gauge blanks, and other arti- 
 cles of iron and steel imported in the rough and finished by the Brown & Sharpe 
 Manufacturing Co., of Providence, R. 1. (T. D. 32552; May 23, 1912.) 
 Automobile hoods — 
 
 Drawback on aluminum automobile hoods manufactured by the Michigan Stamp- 
 ing Co., of Detroit, Mich., from imported sheet aluminum. (T. D. 34796; 
 Sept. 30, 1914.) 
 Automobile springs — 
 
 Drawback on automobile and motor truck springs manufactured by the Perfec- 
 tion Spring Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of imported steel. (T. D. 
 34987 Dec. 15, 1914.) 
 Automobile tires — 
 
 Drawback on automobile tires manufactured by the B. F. Goodrich Co., of Akron, 
 Ohio, with the use ot imported leather butts and metal rivets or studs. (T. D. 
 30197; Dec. 14, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on automobile tires manutactured by the B. F. Goodrich Co., of Akron, 
 Ohio, with the use of imported leather butts and metal rivets. T. D. 30197 of 
 December 14, 1909, amended. (T. D. 31486; Apr. 12, 1911.) 
 
206 ^ DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Automobile tiies — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on automobile tires manufactured by the B. F. Goodrich Co., of Akron, 
 
 Ohio, with the use of imported leather butts and metal rivets or studs. T. D. 
 
 30197 of December 14, 1909, and T. D. 31486 of April 12, 1911, revoked. (T. D. 
 
 31996; Nov. 8, 1911.) 
 Drawback on adjustable automobile tires manufactured by the Michelin Tire Co., 
 
 of Milltown, N. J., with the use of imported metric thread valves and outer 
 
 tires or shoes in conjunction with domestic inner tubes and metal rims. (T. D. 
 
 33735; Sept. 17, 1913.) 
 Automobile top fabric — • 
 Drawback on auto-top rubberized fabrics manufactured with the use of imported 
 
 mohair cloth and cotton and mohair cloth, for and on account of Messrs. H. 
 
 Scherer & Co., of Detroit, Mich., by the Archer Rubber Co., of Milford, Mass. 
 
 (T. D. 31421; Mar. 23, 1911.) 
 T. D. 31421 of March 23, 1911, providing for allowance of drawback on auto-top 
 
 rubberized fabric, extended to cover automobile covering cloth manufactured 
 
 by the International Rubber Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 32855; Oct. 12, 
 
 1912.) 
 Drawback on auto-top fabric manufactured by the E. I. du Pont De Nemours 
 
 Powder Co., of Wilmington, Del., at their Fabrikoid Works, of Newburg, N. Y., 
 
 with the URC of imported mohair and imitation mohair in the piece. (T. D. 
 
 32263; Feb. 15, 1912.) 
 Drawback on automobile top material manufactured by Messrs. L. C. Chase & 
 
 Co., of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported alpaca, luster, and cotton grand- 
 
 reUe coths. (T. D. 35199; Mar. 9, 1915.) 
 Automobile tops — 
 Drawback on automobile and carriage top coverings manufactured by A. N. 
 
 Parry & Co., of Amesbury, Mass., with the use of imported mohair, serge, 
 
 woolen, and other cloth. (T. D. 32602; June 5, 1912.) 
 Drawback on automobile tops manufactured by the American Top Co., with the 
 
 use of various imported materials. (T. D. 34797; Sept. 30, 1914.) 
 Automobile transmission cases or speed boxes — 
 Drawback on automobile transmission cases or speed boxes manufactured by the 
 
 Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Co., of Providence, R. I., with the use of im- 
 ported unfinished cases, gears, shafts, arbors, and bushings. (T. D. 30348; 
 
 Feb. 9, 1910.) 
 Automobile transmission gears — 
 Drawback on automobile transmisdion gears manufactured by the Muncie Gear 
 
 Works, of Muncie, Ind., with the use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 32970; 
 
 Nov. 26, 1912.) 
 Automobile wind shields — 
 Drawback on wind shields manufactured by the Rands Manufacturing Co., of 
 
 Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported plate glass. (T. D. 31902; Oct. 4, 
 
 1911.) 
 Drawback on automobile wind shields manufactured by the Troy Carriage Sun- 
 shade Co., of Troy, Ohio, with the use of imported plate glaas. (T. D. 32007; 
 
 Nov. 14, 1911.) 
 Drawback on automobile wind shields manufactured by the Garage Equipment 
 
 Co., of Milwaukee, Wis., in part from imported plate glass. (T. D. 32292; Mar. 
 
 1, 1912.) 
 Department's regulations of October 4, 1911 (T. D. 31902), extended to cover wind 
 
 shields manufactured by the Rands Manufacturing Co., of Detroit, Mich., with 
 
 the use of imported plate glass, when exported as part of the equipment of auto- 
 mobiles. (T. D. 34037; Jan. 2, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 207 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Automo'bile wind shields — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on automobile wind shields manufactured by the Diamond Manufac- 
 turing Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported glass. (T. D. 34617; 
 July 8, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobile wind shields manufactured by the Universal Wind 
 Shield Co., of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported glass. (T. D. 34803; Oct. 
 2, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 31902 of Octpber 4, 1911, and T. D. 34037 of January 2, 1914, amended to 
 provide for the filing of supplemental sworn schedules. (T. D. 35514; June 8, 
 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on automobile wind shields manufactured by the Rands Manufactur- 
 ing Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported plate glass. T. D. 31902 of 
 October 4, 1911, T. D. 34037 of January 2, 1913, and T. D. 35514 of June 8, 1915, 
 revoked. (T. D. 35967; Dec. 11, 1915.) 
 Automobiles — 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by Abbott Motor Co., of Detroit, Mich., 
 with the use of imported.magnetos. T. D. 28028 of March 22, 1907, extended. 
 (T. D. 31337; Feb. 27, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the American Locomotive Automo- 
 bile Co., of New York City, and Providence, R. I., with the use of imported 
 parts and materials. (T. D. 28728; Jan. 30, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactiired by the Auto Export Co. with the use of 
 imported parts and materials. T. D. 28556 of November 27, 1907, extended. 
 (T. D. 29419; Dec. 18, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the members of the Association of 
 Licensed Automobile Manufacturers with the use of imported parts. T. D. 
 28556 of November 27, 1907, extended. (T. D. 29422; Dec. 19, 1908.) 
 
 T. D. 29422 of December 19, 1908, providing for the payment of drawback on auto- 
 mobiles manufactured by members of the Association of Licensed Automobile 
 Manufacturers with the use of imported materials revoked. (T. D. 35900; Nov. 
 24, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Benz Auto Import Co. with the 
 use of imported parts. T. D. 28556 of November 27, 1907, extended. (T. D. 
 32492; May 8, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Benz Auto Import Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported complete or incomplete chassis and 
 domestic bodies manufactured for their account with the use of imported 
 French plate glass, leather, hardware, upholstery cloth, and similar imported 
 materials and articles in combination with domestic materials. (T. D. 34153; 
 Feb. 6, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34153 of February 6, 1914, extended to cover imported automobiles exported 
 after having been permanently equipped by the Benz Auto Import Co. with 
 lighting and starting systems and wheel rims of domestic manufacture. (T. D. 
 34233; Mar. 6, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 28556 of November 27, 1907, extended to cover automobiles manufactured 
 by Brewster & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported chassis. 
 (T. D. 34.506; June 2, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles and automobile engines manufactured by the Briggs- 
 Detroiter Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported annular bearings. 
 (T. D. 33342; Apr. 15, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33342 of April 15, 1913, extended to cover automobiles manufactured by 
 the Briggs-Detroiter Co., with the use of castings made by the General Alumi- 
 num & Brass Castings Co., of Detroit, Mich., from imported pig aluminum. 
 (T. D. 33496; June 3, 1913.) 
 
208 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Automobiles — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on automobiles, automobile chassis, self-propelling trucks, truck 
 chassis, axles, and motor units manufactured by various firms with the use of 
 imported materials, parts, and articles, and parts manufactured in the United 
 States with the use of imported materials, parts, and articles. (T. D. 34227; 
 Mar. 4, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34227 of March 4, 1914, extended to cover automobiles manufactured by 
 the Cadillac Motor Car Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported mercer- 
 ized cotton cloth. (T. D. 34383; Apr. 11, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 28556 of November 27, 1907, extended to cover automobiles manufactured 
 by A. T. Demarest & Co., of New York,' with the use of imported engines, 
 leather, cloth, carpet, plat« glass, and other materials and parts. (T. D. 33322; 
 Apr. 5, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on automobOes manufactured by the Fiat Automobile Co., of New 
 York, with the use of imported woolen carriage cloth, lace, silk cloth, metal 
 fittings, plate glass, tires, and other. materials and parts. T. D. 28556 of No- 
 vember 27. 1907, extended. (T. D. 30239; Jan. 5, 1910.) 
 
 T. D. 33417 of May 12, 1913, providing for the payment of drawback on automobiles 
 manufactured by the Ford Motor Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of im- 
 ported aluminum and Scandinavian brake lining, extended to include the use 
 of aluminum hoods manufactured for the account of the Ford Motor Co., by the 
 Micliigan Stamping Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported sheet 
 aluminum. (T. D. 34294; Mar. 19, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 33417 of May 12, 1913, extended to cover model "T" automobiles manu- 
 factured by the Ford Motor Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported 
 aluminum. (T. D. 34310; Mar. 27, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Ford Motor Co., of Detroit, Mich., 
 with the use of imported materials. (T. D. 34953; Dec. 1, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 28556 and T. D. 29422, allowing drawback on automobiles, extended to 
 cover automobiles manufactured by Hupp Motor Car Co., with the use of im- 
 ported parte. (T. D. 30894; Aug. 24, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Hupp Motor Car Co., of Detroit, 
 Mich., with the use of imported ball bearings and aluminum castings made 
 from imported aluminum for their account by the Columbia Castings Co. and 
 the General Aluminum & Brass Castings Co., of Detroit, Mich. (T. D. 34143; 
 Feb., 4, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34143 of February 4, 1914, extended to cover aluminum castings manufac- 
 tured by the Columbia Castings Co. and the General Aluminum & Brass Cast- 
 ings Co., of Detroit, Mich., and automobile assemblies manufactured by the 
 Hupp Motor Car Co., with the use of such castings and imported ball bearings. 
 (T. D. 34267; Mar. 13, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34143 of February 4, 1913, extended to cover automobiles manufactured by 
 the Hupp Motor Car Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported Coventry 
 chains. (T. D. 34464; May 25, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by Healey & Co., of New York, N. Y., 
 with the use of imported chassis and with various other imported materials and 
 on imported automobiles equipped with starting and Lighting apparatus. 
 (T. D. 34487; June 1, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Thomas B. Jeffrey Co., of Ken- 
 osha, Wis., with the use of imported aluminum and ball bearings. (T. D. 
 34507; June 2, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Keeton Motor Co., of Detroit, 
 Mich., with the use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 33696; Aug. 19, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 209 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Automobiles — Continued. 
 T. D. 33696 of August 19, 1913, extended to cover automobile transmiasions and 
 rear axles manufactured by the Keeton Motor Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the 
 use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 33772; Oct. 6, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Lozier Motor Co., of Detroit, 
 Mich., with the use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 34465; May 25, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Maxwell Motor Co., of Detroit, 
 Mich., with the use of imported rubber tires. (T. D. 35811; Oct. 22, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Mitchell Motor Car Co., of Racine, 
 Wis., with the use of imported nickel alloy, ball bearings, crank castings, Split- 
 dorf magnetos, etc. (T. D. 30049; Oct. 19, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Ohio Electric Car Co., of Toledo, 
 Ohio, with the use of imported ball bearings, Bedford cord, seaming lace, past- 
 ing lace, and broad lace. (T. D. 34205; J'eb. 25, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Packard Motor Car Co., of Detroit, 
 Mich., with the use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 33958; Dec. 8, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 34964 of December 7, 1914, covering imported Mercedes automobile chassis 
 exported after being equipped with starting and lighting systems by the Mer- 
 cedes Repair Co., of New York, N. Y., extended to cover automobiles and auto- 
 mobile chassis equipped with electric starting and lighting systems by the Bosch 
 Magneto Co., of New York, N. Y., for the account of the Peugeot Auto Import 
 Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35762; Oct. 7, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Pope Manufacturing Co., of Hart- 
 ford, Conn., with the use of Bosch magnetos and coils. (T. D. 28028 of March 
 22, 1907, extended. (T. D. 30715; June 28, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles equipped with domestic electric self-starting devices 
 by the Wagner Specialty Co., of New York, N. Y., for account of the Renault 
 Selling Branch, of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35431^ May 24, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Reo Motor Car Co., of Lansing, 
 Mich., with the use of imported Eisemann-Lavalette magnetos. T. D. 28028 
 of March 22, 1907, extended. (T. D. 29474; Jan. 15, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Reo Motor Car Co., of Lansing, 
 Mich., with the use of imported tires. (T. D. 33273; Mar. 14, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Studebaker Corporation, of 
 Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 33570; June 19, 
 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles (T. D. 33496 of June 3, 1913) extended to cover auto- 
 mobiles manufactured by the Studebaker Corporation, of Detroit, Mich., with 
 the use of castings made by the Greneral Aluminum & Brass Castings Co., of 
 Detroit, Mich., from imported alumimmi. (T. D. 33571; June 19, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Studebaker Corporation, of 
 Detroit, Mich., with the use of aluminum parts made from castings manufac- 
 tured from imported aluminum for their account by the General Aluminum & 
 Brass Castings Co., of Detroit, Mich., and on such automobile parts when ex- 
 ported either separately or in connection with other parts of Model 6 automo- 
 biles. (T. D. 33828; Nov. 1, 1918.) 
 
 T. D. 33828 of November 1, 1913, amended to include automobiles and parts 
 thereof manufactured by the Studebaker Corporation, of Detroit, Mich., with 
 the use of castings made by the General Aluminum & Brass Castings Co., of 
 Detroit, Mich., from imported aluminum. (T. D. 33894; Nov. 19, 1913.) 
 45633°— 17 14 
 
210 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Automobiles — Continued. 
 
 T. D. 33828, of November 1, 1913, extended to cover automobiles and parts manu- 
 factured by the Studebaker Corporation, of Detroit, Mich., with the use of alumi- 
 num castings made for their account from imported aluminum by the Greneral 
 Aluminum & Brass Castings Co., and the Aluminum Castings Co., of Detroit, 
 Mich. (T. D. 33950; Dec. 5, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Studebaker Corporation, of 
 Detroit, Mich., with the use of self-starting devices manufactured for their 
 account by the Wagner Electric Manufacturing Co., of St. Louis, Mo., with the 
 use of imported ball bearings, and on such self-starting devices when exported 
 separately or in combination with motor assemblies. (T.D. 33954; Dec. 6, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Studebaker Corporation, Detroit, 
 Mich., with the use of imported materials and parts, and with the use of parts 
 manufactured with the use of imported materials. T. D. 33828 of November 1, 
 1913, T. D. 33984 of November 19, 1913, and T. D. 33950 of December '5, 1913, 
 revoked. (T. D. 34776; Sept. 24, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the Sultan Motor Co., of Springfield, 
 Mass., with the use of imported steel side and cross frames, rear and front axles 
 and hubs, springs, castings, forgings, etc. T. D. 28556 of November 27, 1907, 
 extended. (T. D. 29202; Aug. 11, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles manufactured by the United States Motor Co., of New 
 York, with the use of imported materials and parts. T. D. 28556 of November 
 27, 1907, extended. (T. D. 31191; Jan. 10, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on electric automobiles manufactured by the Waverly Co., of Indian- 
 apolis, Ind., with the use of various imported materials and parts. (T. D. 
 33698; Aug. 19, 1913.) 
 Automobiles and automobile bodies — 
 
 T. D. 28556 of November 27, 1907, extended to cover automobiles and automobile 
 bodies manufactured by Locke & Co., of New York, with the use of various 
 imported materials and parts. (T. D. 33637; July 18, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 28556 of November 27, 1907, extended to cover automobiles and automobile 
 bodies manufactured by the Moore & Munger Co., of New York, N. Y., with 
 the use of various imported materials and parts. (T. D. 33615; July 12, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 28556 of November 27, 1907, extended to cover automobiles and automobile 
 bodies manufactured by the Holbrook Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of 
 various imported materials and parts. (T. D. 33614; July 12, 1913.) 
 Automobiles and electric generators — 
 
 Drawback on electric generators manufactured by the Eemy Electric Co., of An- 
 derson, Ind., with the use of imported ball bearings, for the account of tile Reo 
 Motor Car Co., of Lansing, Mich., and on automobiles manufactured by the 
 Reo Motor Car Co., with the use of such electric generators. (T. D. 33808; 
 Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 Automobiles and engines — 
 
 Drawback on automobiles and automobile engines manufactured by the Hupp 
 Motor Car Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of thrust bearings manufactured 
 for their account by the Standard Machinery Co., of Providence, R. I., with 
 the use of imported steel balls. (T. D. 34222; Mar. 3, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles and automobile engines manufactured by the Briggs- 
 Detroiter Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported annular bearings. 
 (T. D. 33342; Apr. 15, 1913. Extended to cover automobiles manufactured by 
 the Briggs-Detroiter Co., with the use of castings made by the General Alumi- 
 num & Brass Castings Co., of Detroit, Mich., from imported pig aluminum. 
 (T. D. 33496; June 3, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST -OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 211 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Automobiles and parts — 
 
 Drawback on automobiles and automobile rear axles manufactured by the Abbott 
 Motor Car Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 
 33443; May 21, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles and automobile parts manufactured by the Abbott 
 Motor Car Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of various imported materials 
 and parts. (T. D. 34802; Oct. 2, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles and parts manufactured by the Baker Motor Vehicle 
 Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of imported materials. (T. D. 34833; 
 Oct. 15, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles, automobile chassis, self-propelling trucks, truck 
 chassis, axles, and motor unite manufactured by various firms with the use of 
 imported materials, parte, and articles, and pai-ts manufactured in the United 
 States with the use of imported materials, parte, and articles. (T. D. 34227; 
 Mar. 4, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34227 of March 4, 1914, amended to provide for the filing of supplemental 
 sworn schedules and as to the allowance to be made in liquidation. T. D. 
 35054 of January 12, 1915, revoked. (T. D. 35692; Sept. 3, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 34227 of March 4, 1914, extended to cover automobiles manufactured by the 
 Cadillac Motor Car Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported mercerized 
 cotton cloth. (T. D. 34383; Apr. 11, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles and parte manufactured by the Chandler Motor Car Co. , of 
 Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of imported materials. (T. D. 34832; Oct. 14, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34143 of February 4, 1914, covering drawback on automobiles manufac- 
 tured by the Hupp Motor Car Co. extended to cover aluminimi castings manufac- 
 tured by the Columbia Castings Co. and the General Aluminum & Brass Cast- 
 ings Co., of Detroit, Mich., and automobile assemblies manufactured by the 
 Hupp Motor Car Co., with the use of such castings and imported ball bearings. 
 (T. D. 34267; Mar. 13, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles and' parte manufactured by the Thomas B. Jeftery Co., 
 of Kenosha, Wis., with the use of imported materials and parte. T. D. 34507 of 
 June 2, 1914, revoked. (T. D. 34911; Nov. 18, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles and automobile parte manufactured by the Lozier 
 Motor Co. with the use of various imported materials and parte. (T. D. 34805; 
 Oct. 5, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles and parte manufactured by the Packard Motor Car 
 Co. with the use of imported materials and parte. T. D. 33958 of December 8, 
 1913, revoked., (T. D. 34852; Oct. 26, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34766 of September 24, 1914, covering automobiles manufactured by the 
 Studebaker Corporation, of Detroit, Mich., extended to cover automobiles and 
 automobile parte manufactured by the Pierce-Arrow Motor Car Co. (T. D. 
 34895; Nov. 11, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34153 of February 6, 1914, covering automobiles manufactured by the 
 Benz Auto Import Co., of New York, N. Y., extended to cover automobiles 
 and automobile bodies manufactured by J. M. Quinby & Co., of Newark, N. J., 
 with the use of various imported materials, parte, and articles. (T. D. 34654; 
 July 21, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobile parte, transmission cases, cylinders, and other articles 
 of iron, steel, and aluminum imported in the rough and finished by the Diamond 
 Machine Co., of Providence, R. I. (T. D. 33682; Aug. 12, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33571 of June 19, 1913, extended to cover transmission cases for "Model 25" 
 automobiles manufactured by the Studebaker Corporation, of Detroit, Mich., 
 from castings made from imported aluminum by the General Aluminum & 
 Brass Castings Co., of Detroit, Mich. (T. D. 33686; Aug. 14, 1913.) 
 
212 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Automobiles and parts — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on tools and automobile parts manufactured by the Vincent Steel 
 Process Co., of Detroit, Micb., witb the use of imported tools and parts by a 
 special process of tempering. _(T. D. 30988; Oct. 14, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles, automobile trucks, and parts of automobiles, etc., 
 manufactured by the Peerless Motor Car Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of 
 imported materials. (T. D. 35160; Feb. 20, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35160 of February 20, 1915, extended to cover automobiles and automobile 
 trucks and parts manufactuerd by the White Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, with the 
 use of imported materials. T. D. 35071 of January 20, 1915, revoked. (T. D. 
 35228; Mar. 16, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35160 of February 20, 1915, extended to cover automobile trucks and parts 
 manufactured by the General Vehicle Co., of Long Island City, N. Y., with the 
 use of imported materials. (T. D. 35378; May 7, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35160 of February 20, 1915, extended to cover automobiles, automobile 
 trucks, and parts of the same manufactured by the Chase Motor Truck Co., of 
 Syracuse, N. Y. (T. D. 35409; May 17, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35160 of February 20, 1915, extended to cover automobiles, automobile 
 trucks, and parts of same manufactured by the Locomobile Co. of America, of 
 Bridgeport, Conn. (T. D. 35618; July 29, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35160 of February 20, 1915, extended to provide for the payment of draw- 
 back on motor trucks and parts of motor trucks manufactured by the Driggs- 
 Seabury Ordnance Corporation, of Sharon, Pa., from imported material. (T. D. 
 35683; Aug. 25, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35160 of February 20, 1915, extended to cover automobiles, trucks, tractors, 
 and similar self-propelled vehicles manufactured by the Baldwin Locomotive 
 Works, of Philadelphia, Pa. (T. D. 35710; Sept. 17, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles, automobile trucks, and parts thereof manufactured 
 by the Peerless Motor Car Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of imported 
 materials. (T. D. 35010; Dec. 23, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobiles and automobile trucks manufactured by the Peerless 
 Motor Car Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of imported bearings. T. D. 
 27668 of October 22, 1906, extended. (T. D. 32451; Apr. 29, 1911.) 
 
 T. D. 35010 of Decern' er 23, 1914, extended to cover automobiles, automobile 
 trucks, and parts thereof manufactured by the White Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, 
 with the use of imported materials. (T. D. 35071; Jan. 20, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on automobile trucks manufactured by the Commerce Motor Car Co., 
 of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported materials. (T. D. 35304; Apr. 8, 
 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on motor trucks manvifactured by the International Motor Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported materials. (T. D. 35088; Jan. 26, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 34776 of September 24, 1914, extended to cover motor trucks and parts o^ 
 motor trucks manufactured by the Kelly-Springfield Motor Truck Co., of Spring- 
 field, Ohio, with the use of imported materials. (T. D. 35082; Jan. 25, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on motor trucks and parts of motor trucks manufactured by the Stand- 
 ard Motor Truck Co., of Detroit, Mich., in whole or in part of imported mate- 
 rials. (T. D. 34988; Dec. 16, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on motor trucks manufactured by the Stegeman Motor Car Co., of Mil- 
 waukee, Wis., with the use of imported magnetos and ball bearings. (T. D. 
 33430; May 16, 1913.) 
 Axles, automobile. (See Drawback on automobile axles.) 
 Babbitt metal. (See Drawback on metal, babbitt.) 
 "Baby Mine" candy. (See Drawback on candy.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 213 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Backed cloth and wateiproofed cloth — 
 
 Drawback on backed cloth and waterproofed cloth manufactured with the use of 
 imported clothB for the account pf Henry Gitterman & Co., of New York, N. Y., 
 T. D. 30653 of MaySl, 1910, and T. D. 32612 of June 8, 1912, are hereby revoked. 
 (T. D. 33551; June 13, 1913.) 
 Backing and shoe cloth — 
 Drawback on backing and shoe cloth manufactured by the Manhattan Manufac- 
 turing Co., of Jersey City, N. J., with the use of imported gutta-percha tissue; 
 (T. D. 32663; June 25, 1912.) 
 Bag linings. (See Drawback on bags, safty paper, or bag lining.) 
 
 Drawback on bags manufactured by the Ames Harris Neville Co., of Portland, 
 Oreg., and San Francisco, CaJ., with the use of twilled burlap. (T. D. 35456; 
 June 1, 1915.) 
 Drawback on bags manufactured by the Bemis Bros. Bag Co., at their St. Louis 
 
 factory, from imported burlap. (T. D. 33819; Oct. 28, 1913.) 
 Drawback on bags manufactured by the Bemis Bros. Bag Co., at their factory at 
 
 Seattle, Wash., from imported twilled burlap. (T. D. 35413; May 18, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35413 extended to cover bags manufactured by the Bemis Bros. Bag Co. 
 from imported twilled burlap at their San Francisco, Cal., factory. (T. D. 
 35481; June 3, 1915.) 
 Drawback on bags manufactured by F. A. Ferris & Co., from imported burlaps, 
 
 and used as containers of hams and bacon. (T. D. 28810; Feb. 28, 1908.) 
 Drawback on bags manufactiured by the Noon Bag Co., of Portland, Oreg., with 
 the use of imported twilled burlap. (T. D. 35455; June 1, 1915.) 
 Bags, leather. (See Drawback on leather bags and other articles.) 
 Bags, paper — 
 Drawback on paper bags manufactured by Miller, Tompkins & Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported Swedish paper. T. D. 30285 of January 20, 1910, 
 extended. (T. D. 30925; Sept. 15, 1910.) 
 Drawback on bags manufactured by the Union Bag & Paper Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported "parchmyn" and plain wrapping paper of Swed- 
 ish or Norwegian manufacture, or of either of said papers, and paper of domestic 
 manufacture. (T. D. 30285; Jan. 20, 1910.) 
 Bags, safety paper, or bag lining — 
 Drawback on safety paper bags or bag linings manufactured by the Arkell Safety 
 Bag Co., of New York, N. Y., from imported paper. T. D. 28557 of November 
 27, 1907, amended to cover different sizes of bags. (T. D. 30362; Feb. 16, 1910.) 
 Drawback on safety paper bags or linings for bags,.barrels, drums, and boxes man- 
 ufactured by the Arkell Safety Bag Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of 
 imported paper. T. D. 28557 and T. D. 30362 revoked. (T. D. 33026; Dec. 
 21, 1912.) 
 Bags and burlap, paper-lined, waterproof — 
 Drawback on paper-lined waterproof burlap and bags manufactured by the Cleve- 
 land-Akron Bag Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of paper, asphaltum, and 
 imported burlap. (T. D. 33460; May 26, 1913.) 
 Baked beans — 
 Drawback on baked beans manufactured by H. J. Heinz Co., of Pittsburgh, Pa., 
 from imported beans. (T. D. 29621; Mar. 11, 1909.) 
 Baking powder — 
 Drawback on Royal Baking Powder manufactured by the Royal Baking Powder 
 Co., of New York City, in part from bitartrate of potash produced wholly from 
 imported argols or crude tartar. T. D. 18819 of January 17, 1898, amended. 
 (T. D. 30330; Feb. 5, 1910.) 
 
214 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Uiawback on — Continued. 
 Bakmg powder — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on Royal Baking Powder manufactured by the Royal Baking Powder 
 Co., of New York City, in part from bitartrate of potash produced wholly from 
 imported argols or crude tartar. T. D. 18819 of January 17, 1898, amended, and 
 T. D. 30330 of February 5, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 30812; July 20, 1910.) 
 Balls, antimonlal lead. (See Drawback on lead.) 
 Balls, billiard, etc. (See Drawback on billiard balls, etc.) 
 Bands, braids, ribbons, and trimmings. (See Drawback on trimmings, etc.) 
 Bangkok hats. (See Drawback on hats.) 
 Barrel heads — 
 Drawback on barrel heads manufactured by Richard Hamilton, of Rahway, N. J., 
 with the use of imported lumber. (T. D. 33584; Jime 26, 1913.) 
 Barrels — 
 Drawback on barrels manufactured by the Gulf Refining Co., of Bayonne, N. J., 
 
 with the use of hoops of imported iron. (T. D. 30396; Mar. 3, 1910.) 
 Drawback on barrels manufactured by the Standard Oil Co., of New York, with 
 
 the use of imported lumber for the heads. (T. D. 32679; June 29, 1912.) 
 Drawback on barrels manufactured by the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey with 
 the use of heads manufactured by the Standard Oil Co. of New York from im- 
 ported lumber. T. D. 32679 of June 29, 1912, extended. (T. D. 32784; Aug. 
 28, 1912.) 
 Drawback on barrels manufactured by the Standard Oil Co. of New York, N. Y., 
 with the use of imported lumber. T. D. 32679 of June 29, 1912, revoked. (T. 
 D. 33903; Nov. 21, 1913.) 
 "Barry's Tricapherous." (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Bath robes and bath slippers — 
 Drawback on bath robes and bath slippers, manufactured by W. O. Horn & Bro., 
 of New York, N. Y., from imported cotton blankets. (T. D. 33297; Mar. 27j 
 1913.) 
 Beaded articles — 
 Drawback on beaded articles manufactured by the American Bead Co., of New 
 York City, from imported beads. (T. D. 30087; Nov. 2, 1909.) 
 Beans. (See Drawback on baked beans.) 
 Bearings, annular — 
 Drawback on annular bearings produced by the Norma Co. of America, of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported steel inner and outer rings, cages, and 
 balls. (T. D. 35092; Jan. 27, 1915.) 
 Beaver boards 
 Drawback on beaver board^ manufactured by the Beaver Board Co., of Buffalo, 
 N. Y., with the use of imported wood-pulp board. (T. D. 34966; Dec. 8, 1914.) 
 Bed and cushion cloths for billiard tables. (See Drawback on billiard balls, etc.) 
 Bed sets. (See Drawback on curtains.) 
 Bed spreads and covers. (See Drawback on curtains.) 
 Beds, cribs, etc. — 
 Drawback on iron bedsteads, cribs, combination and three-piece bedsteads, hos- 
 pital and institution beds manufactured by the Simmons Manufacturing Co., 
 of Kenosha, Wis., with the use of imported iron tubing. (T.D. 34792; Sept. 29, 
 1914.) 
 Bee veUs — 
 Drawback on bee veils manufactured by Dadant & Sons, of Hamilton, 111., with 
 the use of imported French silk and cotton tulle. (T. D. 31764; July 18, 1911.) 
 
1908-1915. 215 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Beer — 
 Drawback on beer manufactured by the Schoenhofen Brewing Co., of Chicago 
 111., in part with imported hops. T. D. 23072 of May 27, 1901, extended. (T. 
 D. 29040; May 28, 1908.) 
 Drawback on beer manufactured by the P. Schoenhofen Brewing Co., of Chicago, 
 111., in part from imported rice. T. D. 23072 of May 27, 1901, extended. (T. 
 D. 29182; July 28, 1908.) 
 Drawback on beer manufactured by the Seattle Brewing & Malting Co., of Seattle, 
 
 Wash., with the use of imported hops. (T. D. 32672; June 28, 1912.) 
 Drawback on beer manufactued by the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association, of 
 St. Louis, Mo., with the use oi imported barley, rice, and hops. T. D. 20976 of 
 April 11, 1899, revoked. (T. D. 35291; Apr. 5, 1915.) 
 Belt webbing. (See Drawback on military equipment.) 
 Belting. (See Drawback on leather.) 
 
 Belts, leather. (See Drawback on leather bags and other articles.) 
 Bentvrood furniture. (See Drawback on furniture.) 
 Benzoin and almond lotion. (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Bermudez asphalt paving cement — 
 Department's regulations of February 4, 1908 (T. D. 28736), amended. (T. D. 
 28839; Mar. 13, 1908.) 
 Bicycle lamps — 
 
 Drawback on acetylene-gas bicycle lamps manufactured by the Badger Brass 
 Manufactining Co., of Kenosha, Wis., with the use of imported tips and tip 
 holders. (T. D. 29919; July 24, 1909.) 
 Drawback on acetylene bicycle lamps manufactured by Badger Brass Manufac- 
 turing Co., of Kenosha, Wis., with the use of imported jewels and lenses. (T. 
 D. 30057; Oct. 22, 1909.) 
 Bicycle rims — 
 Drawback on rims manufactured by the American Wood Eim Co., of Onaway, 
 Mich., with the use of imported aluminum lining when exported in connection 
 with bicycles. (T. D. 29152; July 9, 1908.) 
 Bicycles and motor cycles. (See Drawback on motor cycles and bicycles.) 
 Billiard balls, etc. — 
 Drawback on billiard baUs, ivory rings, and bed and cushion cloths for bilUard 
 tables manufactured by the Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., of New York, N. 
 Y., with the use of imported ivory and woolen piece goods. (T. D. 35585; 
 July 15, 1915.) 
 Binder twine — 
 Drawback on binder twine manufactured by the Plymouth Cordage Co., of Ply- 
 mouth, Mass., with the use of imported degras. (T. D. 29452; Jan. 2, 1909.) 
 Drawback on binder twine manufactured by the Peoria Cordage Co., of Peoria, 
 111., with the use of imported degras. (T. D. 34688; Aug. 6, 1914.) 
 Biplanes and fusUages — 
 Drawback on biplanes and fusilages for biplanes manufactured by Fred. P. 
 Shneider, of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported rubberized cloth, mo- 
 tors, and ball bearings. (T. D. 34117; Jan. 30, 1914.) 
 Bltartrate of potash, manufactured by Charles Pfizer & Co. (Inc.). (See Drawback 
 
 on medicinal preparations.) 
 Bitters, Hostetter's — 
 Drawback on Hostetter's Bitters manufactured by the Hostetter Co., of Pitts- 
 biu:gh,Pa., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 30055; Oct. 21, 
 1909.) 
 Blades, safety-razor. (See Drawback on safety-razor blades.) 
 
216 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Blank stencil caids. (See Drawback on cards, stencil.) 
 Blasting caps — 
 Drawback on blasting caps manufactured by the E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Pow- 
 der Co., of Wilmington, Del., with the use of imported quicksilver. (T. D. 
 35599; July 21, 1915.) 
 Bleaclied and finislied Panama hats. (See Drawback on hats.) 
 Bleaclied and mercerized piece goods. (See Drawback on piece goods.) 
 Blended flour. (See Drawback on flour, blended.) 
 Blocks of marble and other stone. (See Drawback on marble and other stone 
 
 blocks.) 
 Bloodine — 
 Drawback on "Bloodine" manufactured by the Bloodine Corporation, of Maiden, 
 Mass., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 31984; Nov. 3, 1911.) 
 Blue-print and brown-print paper. (See Drawback on papers, drawing, etc.) 
 Boat covers and sails. (See Drawback on tarpaulins, boat covers and sails.) 
 Bob sleighs — 
 Drawback on bob sleighs manufactured by the Studebaker Corporation, of South 
 Bend, Ind., with the use of imported sled runners. (T. D. 35078; Jan. 25, 
 1915.) 
 Boiler tabes — 
 Drawback on boiler tubes manufactured by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, of 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported iron and steel tubes. (T. D. 30104; 
 Nov. 10, 1909.) 
 Bonded .warehouse withdrawals — 
 Articles manufactured from lead withdrawn from bonded smelting and refining 
 establishments — Certificates of importation: In lieu of certificates of importa- 
 tion, certificates shall be issued by the collector at the port where metal is with- 
 drawn, showing date of withdrawal, date of entry, party making same, quantity 
 and character of metal, and rate and amount of duty paid. (T. D. 31685; June 
 12, 1911.) 
 Book cases — 
 Drawback on sectional bookcases manufactured by the Gunn Furniture Co., of 
 Grand Rapids, Mich., with the use of imported window glass. (T. D. 34775; 
 Sept. 22, 1914.) 
 Booklets and tubes,^ cigarette. (See Drawback on cigarette booklets and tubes.) 
 Books — 
 Drawback on books designated as the "Diccionario Enciclopedico Hispano- 
 Americano," manufactured by the Plimpton Press, of Norwood, Mass., for the 
 acoimt of the R. H. Hinkley Co., of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported 
 plans, maps, half tones, three-color plates, and lithographs. (T. D. 33154; 
 Feb. 6, 1913.) 
 Books, cigarette-paper. (See Drawback on cigarette-paper books.) 
 Books, letter-copying. (See Drawback on letter-copying books.) 
 Books, press-copying. (See Drawback on letter-copying books.) 
 Boots and slippers (ladies') — 
 Drawback on ladies' footwear consisting of boots, oxford ties, and slippers, manu- 
 factured by Wichert & Gardiner, of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 calf, patent calf, kid, antelope skins, tinsel cloth, and other imported materials 
 and parts. T. D. 22961, T. D. 23803, T. D. 23945, T. D. 24771, and T. D. 26302, 
 • revoked. (T. D. 32474; May 1, 1912.) 
 Bottle caps — 
 Drawback on bottle caps manufactured by Jose Torres, of Brooklyn, N. Y., with 
 the use of imported cork disks. (T. D. 35401; May 14, 1915.) 
 
BIGEST OF CTJSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 217 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Bottte stoppers — 
 Drawback on bottle stoppers manufactured by L. Mundet & Son, of Brooklyn, 
 
 N. Y., with tbe use of imported tin. T. D. 28264 of June 20, 1907, extended. 
 
 (T. D. 29581; Feb. 25, 1909.) 
 Drawback on bottle stoppers manufactured by the Crown Cork & Seal Co., of 
 
 Baltimore, Md., froin imported tin and cork disks. T. D.. 28264 of June 20, 
 
 1907, extended. (T. D. 29880; June 26, 1909.) 
 Drawback on bottle stoppers manufactured by the Crown Cork & Seal Co., of 
 
 Baltimore, Md., from imported tin and cork disks or imported cork disks and 
 
 domestic tin. T. D. 29880 of June 26, 1909, and T. D. 30459 of March 25, 1910, 
 
 amended. (T. D. 30697; June 16, 1909.) 
 Drawback on bottle stoppers manufactured by the Crown Cork & Seal Co., of 
 
 Baltimore, Md., from imported tin and cork disks or imported cork disks and 
 
 domestic tin. T. D. 30697 of June 16, 1910, amended. (T. D. 30820; July 23, 
 
 1910.) 
 Drawback on bottle stoppers manufactured by the Crown Cork & Seal Co., of 
 
 Baltimore, Md^, from imported cork disks and domestic tin. T. D. 29880 of 
 
 June 26, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30459; Mar. 25, 1910.) 
 T, D. 30459 of March 25, 1910, extended to cover bottle stoppers manufactured by 
 
 the Brooklyn Bottle Stopper Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 
 cork disks and domestic tin for the account of Ferdinand Gutmann & Co., of 
 
 New York, N. Y. (T. D. 33609; July 11, 1913.) 
 T. D. 30459 of March 25, 1910, is extended to cover bottle stoppers manufactured 
 
 by the Interstate Bottle Stopper Co., of New York, N. Y., from imported cork 
 
 disks and domestic tin for the account of Ferdinand Gutmann & Co., of New 
 
 York, N. Y. (T. D. 34655; July 21, 1914.) 
 Bottled olives and flavoring extracts. (See Drawback on flavoring extracts and 
 
 bottled olives.) 
 Bottoms, spelter and zinc. (See Drawback on spelter and zinc bottoms.) 
 Bowls for pipes. (See Drawback on pipes and pipe bowls.) 
 Box shook^ — 
 Drawback on box shocks manufactured from imported lumber. So much of T. D. 
 
 17355 of August 1, 1896, aa provides for the payment of drawback on box shocks, 
 
 T. D. 25902 of December 24, 1904, T. D. 27987 of March 9, 1907, and all other 
 
 regulations providing for the payment of drawback on box shooks, revoked. 
 
 (T; D. 33902; Nov. 21, 1913.) 
 Box straps — 
 Drawback on embossed steel box straps manufactured by the De Haven Manu- 
 facturing Co., of New York, N. Y., from imported hoop steel. (T. D. 34733; 
 
 Aug. 28, 1914.) 
 T. D. 34733 of August 28, 1914, extended to cover embossed box straps manufac- 
 tured by the De Haven Manufacturing Co., of New York, N. Y., from imported 
 
 hoop steel. (T. D. 34770; Sept. 19, 1914.) 
 Boxes, velvet-lined — 
 Drawback on velvet-lined boxes manufactured by the Gillette Safety Razor Co., 
 
 of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported velveteen. (T. D. 31859; Sept. 15, 
 
 1911.) 
 Bracelet watches. (See Drawback on watches and bracelet watches.) 
 Bracelets, adjustable — 
 Drawback on adjustable bracelets manufactured by the Bennett & Sawyer Co., of 
 
 Attleboro, Mass., with the use of imported watch-case centers. (T. D. 33029; 
 
 Dec. 23, 1912.) 
 
218 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 19(l8-191fi. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Biaids — ■ 
 Drawback on braid (designated as No. 4261) manufactured by the Oneko Manu- 
 facturing Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported artificial silk. (T. 
 
 D. 33749; Sept. 25, 1913.) 
 T. D. 33749 of September 25, 1913, extended to cover various biaids manufactured 
 
 by the Oneko Manufecturing Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 
 artificial silk. (T. D. 34074; Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 Drawback on braids manufactured by the R. H. Comey Co., of Camden, N. J., 
 
 from straw braids imported in the raw state. T. D. 23495 of January 2, 1902, 
 
 extended. (T. D. 30680; June 13, 1910.) 
 Drawback on braids manufactured by Berlin & Trosky, of New York City, with 
 
 the use of imported artificial silk and horsehair. (T. D. 30822; July 25, 1910.) 
 Drawback on braids manufactured by L. B. Simonds & Co., of New York City, 
 
 with the use of imported artificial silk and horsehair. T. D. 30822, of July 25, 
 
 1910, extended. (T. D. 30830; July 26, 1910.) 
 Drawback on braids manufactured by the R. H. Comey Co., of Camden, N. J., 
 
 from imported dyed braids by the processes of redyeing, recoloring, or reataio- 
 
 ing. T. D. 30680 of June 13, 1910, extended. (T. D. 30862; Aug. 6, 1910.) 
 Drawback on braids manufactured by L. B. Simonds & Co., of New York City, 
 
 with the use of imported geUtin spangles. T. D. 30830 of July 26, 1910, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 31137; Dec. 23, 1910.) 
 Drawback on braids manufactured by Berlin & Trosky, of New York City, with 
 
 the use of tinsel, spangles, cotton yarns, and other materials. T. D. 30822 of 
 
 July 25, 1910, extended. (T. D. 31138; Dec. 23, 1910.) 
 Drawback on braids manufactured by William Salmon, of Brooklyn, N. Y., from 
 
 imported artificial silk. (T. D. 31930; Oct. 19, 1911.') 
 Drawback on braids manufactured by GoodmaD Bros. & Hinlein, of Philadelphia, 
 
 Pa., with the use of imported pyroxylin or artificial silk. (T. D. 33573; June 
 
 19, 1913.) 
 T. D. 33573 of June 19, 1913, extended to cover additional styles of braids manu* 
 
 factured by Goodman Bros. & Hinlein, of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of 
 
 imported artificial silk. (T. D. 35009; Dec 23, 1914.) 
 Drawback on braids manufactured by L. B. Simonds & Co., of New York, N. Y., 
 
 with the use of imported visca after the same has been dyed for their account by 
 
 the Wm. Teschemacher Co. (T. D. 34621; July 10, 1914.) 
 Braids, dyed and bleached. (See Drawback on hat braids, dyed, bleached, etc.) 
 
 (See also Drawback on trimmings, braids, bands, and ribbons.) 
 Brass boiler tubes — 
 Drawback on brass boiler tubes manufactured by the Amercian Locomotive Co.; 
 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported brass tubing. (T. D. 32893, 
 
 Oct. 29, 1912.) 
 Brassieres — 
 Drawback on brassieres manufactured by the Model Brassiere Co., of New York, 
 
 N. Y., with the use of imported lace edging, embroidery edging, lace, and em- 
 broidery. (T. D. 33617; July 12, 1913.) 
 Drawback on brassieres manufactured by the Alberts Manufacturing Co., of New 
 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported laces and embroideries. (T. D. 35495; 
 
 June 7, 1915.) 
 Brazil nuts, cleaned. (See Drawback on nuts.) 
 Brewers' combined mash tubs, kettles, and rice cookers — 
 Drawback on brewers' combined mash tubs and kettles and brewers' rice cookers 
 
 manufactured by the Goetz & Flodin Manufacturing Co., of Chicago, 111., in 
 
 part with the use of imported iron paddles or agitators. (T. D. 29020; May 20, 
 
 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 219 
 
 Biawback on — ^Continued. 
 Brewers' varnishes — 
 Drawback on brewers' vamisliea manufactured by Maynz & Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported alcohol. (T. D. 32814; Sept. 9, 1912.) 
 Brilliantine. (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Bromangelon — • 
 Drawback on bromangelon manufactured by the Stem & Saalberg Co., of New 
 York City, with the use of imported gelatin and refined sugar produced from 
 imported raw sugar. (T. D. 31807; Aug. 10, 1911.) 
 Bronchial tablets. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Bronze paints. (See Drawback on paints.) 
 Bronze powders. (See Drawback on powders, bronze.) 
 Brushes — 
 Drawback on brushes manufactured by the John L. Whiting & Son Co., of Boston, 
 Mass., wholly with the use of imported bristles. T. D. 28611 of December 13, 
 1907, extended. (T. D. 28808: Feb. 26, 1908.) 
 Drawback on brushes manufactured by the J. L. Whiting-J. J. Adams Co., Boston, 
 Mass., with the use of imported bristles. T. D. 28808 of February 26, 1908, 
 extended. (T. D. 29531; Feb. 5, 1909.) 
 Drawback on brushes manufactured in whole or in part from imported bristles by 
 
 the Wooster Brush Co., of Wooster, Ohio. (T. D. 32369; Apr. 2, 1912.) 
 T. D. 28611 of December 13, 1907, extended to cover brushes manufactured by 
 Messrs. Rennous, Kleine & Co., of Baltimore, Md., with the use of imported 
 bristles. (T. D. 32865; Oct. 17, 1912.) 
 Drawback on brushes manufactured by the Standard Brush Co., of New Hartford, 
 Conn., with the use of imported bristles. (T. D. 85635; Aug. 5, 1915.) 
 Brushes, carbon. (See Drawback on carbon brushes.) 
 Buckrams — 
 Drawback on one, two, and three ply buckrams manufactured by the Chandler 
 Oil Cloth & Buckram Co., of East Taunton, Mass., with the use of imported 
 burlap. (T. D. 32593; June 4, 1912.) 
 Buggy washers, leather — 
 Drawback on leather buggy washers manufactured by the Diamond Whip Co., of 
 Chicago, 111., wholly from imported strip leather. (T. D. 28972;. May 2, 1908.) 
 Bullets and cartridges — 
 Bullets and cartridges manufactured by the Winchester Repeating Arms Co., of 
 New Haven, Conn., with the use of imported lead, antimony, tin, etc. (T. D. 
 34517; June 6, 1914.) 
 Burlap bags — 
 In order to bring bags of American manufacture within the exemption of para- 
 graph 500 of the tariff act of 1909, such bags must be imported by the 
 exporter thereof, and the burden of proof is on the protestant to prove this fact. 
 Where an allowance of drawback has been made, the reimportation of the 
 merchandise, although of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United 
 States, is prohibited except upon the payment of duties equal to the drawback 
 allowed. The allowance of drawback on imported materials which are used in 
 the manufacture of articles produced in the United States would preclude the 
 reimportation of such articles except on the payment of the drawback allowed on 
 such materials. (T. D. 31100— G. A. 7130; Dec. 5, 1910.) 
 Burlap coverings — 
 Drawback on burlap coverings manufectured by the Chandler Oil Cloth & Buck- 
 ram Co., of East Taunton, Mass. T. D. 23235 of August 15, 1901, extended. 
 (T. D. 29421; Dee. 19, 1908.) 
 Burners, gas. (See Drawback on gas burners.) 
 
220 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Bumeis, tax and oil — 
 
 Drawback on tar and oil burners manufactured by W. N. Best, of New York City, 
 with the use of burners imported in the rough. (T. D. 3028G; Jan. 21, 1910.) 
 Burning Colza oil. (See Drawback on oils.) 
 Buoy lanterns. (See Drawback on lanterns, buoy.) 
 Bushings or lava insulators. (See Drawback on electrical equipment.) 
 Butter — 
 
 Drawback on butter manufactured by the Curlew Creamery Co., of Curlew, Wash., 
 from imported cream. (T. D. 29589; Mar. 1, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on imported butter exported after having been reworked and prepared 
 by the use of coloring matter, salt, and domestic butter. (T. D. 34515; June 
 6, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on preserved butter manufactured by Bartram Bros. (Inc.), of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported butter. (T. D. 35954; Dec. 7, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on renovated butter produced by the Rock Island Butter Co. , of Toledo, 
 Ohio, from imported butter tor the account of Droste & Snyder Co., of New York, 
 N. Y. (T. D. 34266; Mar. 13, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34266 of March 13, 1914, extended to cover renovated butter produced by 
 the Dairy Farm Products Co., of Chicago, 111., from imported butter for the 
 account of Hunter, Walton & Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 34312; Mar. 27, 
 1914.) 
 Buttons — 
 
 Drawback on buttons manufactured by Appelbee & Neuman, of New York City, 
 with the use of imported pearl and agate beads. (T. D. 31554; May 5, 1911.) 
 Buttons, and collar and cuff links- 
 Drawback on collar and cuff links manufactured by Messrs. Appelbee & Neuman, 
 of New York City, with the use of imported pearl and agate beads and buttons. 
 T. D. 31554, supra, of May 5, 1911, extended. (T. D. 32721; July 17, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 31554 of May 5, 1911, extended to cover buttons and collar and cuff links 
 manufactured by Appelbee & Neuman, of New York, N. Y., with the use of 
 imported gallalite beads or buttons, and amended to provide for the fiUng of 
 supplemental sworn statements. (T. D. 33091; Jan. 16, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on buttons, collar Unks, cuff links, colored buttons, and fancy buttons, 
 manufactured by Appelbee & Neuman, of New York, N. Y., from imported 
 beads and buttons or tor their account by Carl Heger, of Carlstadt, N. J., and 
 the American Pearl Button Coloring Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35575; July 
 10, 1915.) 
 Cabinets and mirrors. (See Drawback on mirrors.) 
 Cake icings — 
 
 Drawback on cake icings designated as Taatella or Flavo, manufactured by S. 
 Gumpert & Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported sugar, beer color, 
 powdered coco, and nulomoline manufactured by the NulomoUne Co., of New 
 York City, in part from imported raw sugar. T. D. 32105 of December 20, I91I, 
 and T. D. 32326 of March 26, 1912, revoked. (T. D. 32636; June 14, 1912.) 
 
 "Flavo:" Drawback on cake icings designated as "Flavo," manufactured by S. 
 Gumpert & Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported glycerin, sugar, 
 beer color, cocoa, and oil of ora.nge. (T. D. 32326; Mar. 22, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 32636 of June 14, 1912, extended to cover cake icings manufactured by S. 
 Gumpert & Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported sugar, beer color, 
 cocoa, and essential oils or with the use of one or more of the imported materials 
 mentioned in combination with domestic materials. (T. D. 35052; Jan. II, 
 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 221 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Cake icings — Continued. 
 
 "Taatells:" Drawback on cake icings, designated as "Tastella," manufactured by 
 S. Gumpert & Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported glycerin, sugar, 
 beer color, cocoa, and oil of orange. (T. D. 32105; Dec. 20, 1911.) 
 Calcimine — 
 
 Drawback on calcimine manufactured by Ilsley-Doubleday & Co., of Brooklyn, 
 N. Y., in part from imported glue. (T. D. 29433; Dec. 22, 1908.) 
 Calcined, or wall, plaster. (See Drawback on plaster, wall.) 
 Camel' s-hair belting- 
 Drawback on camel's-hair belting manufactured by Rossendale-Reddaway Belt- 
 ing & Hose Co., of Newark, N. J., with the use of camel's-hair yam manufac- 
 tured by the Abbot Worsted Co., of Graniteville, Mass., from imported camel's 
 hair. (T. D. 33146; Feb. 3, 1913.) 
 Camel's-hair products — (See also Drawback on wool products.) 
 
 Yarns, worsted: Drawback on worsted yam manufactured by the Abbot Worsted 
 Co., of Graniteville, Mass., wholly with the use of imported Russian camel's hair. 
 T. D. 27604 of September 13, 1906, extended. (T. D. 29057; June 8, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on camel's-hair press cloth and other products manufactured by the 
 Oriental Textile Mills, of Houston, Tex., from imported camel's hair. Including 
 tops and noils. (T. D. 29654; Mar.. 24, 1909.) 
 
 T. D. 29654, of March 24, 1909, providing for an allowance of drawback on hair- 
 press cloth, tops, and noils, etc., manufactured by the Oriental Textile Mills, 
 of Houston, Tex., from imported camel's hair. Amended with respect to manu- 
 facturing record. (T. D. 31063; Nov. 25, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on camel's-hair yam, tops, noilsj and other products manufactured by 
 E. S. Parkhurst & Co., of Gloversville, N. Y., from imported camel's hair. 
 (T. D. 29458; Jan. 5, 1909.) 
 
 Department's regulations of May 14, 1901 (T. D. 23051), providing for the allow- 
 ance of drawback on camel's-hair press cloth manufactured by the J. T. Perkins 
 Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., revoked. (T. D. 29540; Feb. 9, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on camel's-hair yam, hair-pi-ess cloth, tops and noils, and other pro- 
 ducts manufactured by the J. T. Perkins Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., from imported 
 camel's hair. T. D. 29458 of January 5, 1909, amended with respect to the 
 manufacturing record. (T. D. 31064; Nov. 25, 1910.) 
 Candelabra. (See Drawback on clocks, candelabra, mirrors, and plateaus.) 
 Candy — 
 
 T. D. 30351 of February 11, 1910, covering drawback on lozenges and wafers, 
 extended to cover candies manufactured by the Package Confectionery Co., 
 successors to the National Wafer Co., of Boston, Mass. (T. D. 34791; Sept. 
 28, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on candies manufactured by the Philadelphia Caramel Co., of Camden, 
 N. J., with the use of refined sugar obtained from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 
 32903; Oct. 30, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on package candy produced by Park & TiUord, of New York, N. Y., 
 with the use of imported paper, metal twine, and labels. (T. D. 34501; June 2, 
 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on candy designated as "Queen Mints" and "Luncheon Cream Mints," 
 manufactured by George Boyd & Sons, of Camden, N. J., with the use of refined 
 sugar obtained from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 33185; Feb. 17, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 32524 of May 20, 1912, covering drawback on cocoanut ditties, extended 
 to cover candy designated as "Baby Mine " manufactured by the Ohio Confec- 
 tion Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of imported cocoanut and refined 
 sugar or refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 33566; June 
 18, 1913.) 
 
222 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Candy — Continued. 
 Drawback on candy manufactured by the United Candy Co., of Boston, Mass., 
 with the use of imported refined sugar or sugar produced from imported raw 
 sugar, and imported cocoa butter, cherries, dates, and other fruits and mate- 
 rials. (T. D. 32522; May 20, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32522 of May 20, 1912, extended to cover other brands of candy manufac- 
 tured by the United Candy Co., of Boston, Mass., with the use of various im- 
 ported materials. (T. D. 34362; Apr. 9, 1914.) 
 T. D. 32522 of May 20, 1912, extended to cover candy manufactured by Guth 
 Chocolate Co., of Baltimore, Md., with the use of imported refined sugar or 
 refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar and other imported materials. 
 (T. D. 34361; Apr. 9, 1914.) 
 Caii« handles. (See Drawback on umbrella, parasol, and cane handles.) 
 Cane simp. (See Drawback on sirup.) 
 Cane webbing — 
 Drawback on cane webbing manufactured by the Rattan & Cane Co., of New 
 York City, with the use of imported rattans and reeds. (T. D. 30946; Sept. 27, 
 1910.) 
 Drawback on cane webbing manufactured by the Rattan & Cane Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported chair cane or flecht-rohr. T. D. 30946 
 of September 27, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 33425; May 14, 1913.) 
 Canes, parasols, handles, etc. (See Drawback on umbrellas, parasols, canes, etc.) 
 Canned fmit. (See Drawback on fruits, canned.) 
 Canopies — 
 Drawback on canopies manufactured by the Troy Carriage Sunshade Co., of Troy, 
 Ohio, with the use of imported mohair and serges. (T. D. 29707; Apr. 26, 1909.) 
 Cans — 
 So much of T. D. 17355 of August 1, 1896, and such other regulations as provide 
 for the payment of drawback on petroleum cans and attachments therefor 
 revoked. (T. D. 34447; May 8, 1914.) 
 Drawback on 1-gallon rectangiUar cans manufactured by the Standard Oil Co., 
 
 of New Jersey, with the use of imported lead. (T. D. 34488; June 1, 1914.) 
 Drawback on cans manufactured by the Wm. Underwood Co., of Boston, Mass., 
 with the use of imported taggers tin plate when exported filled with preserved 
 meat. (T. D. 34314; Mar. 27, 1914.) 
 Cans, condensed milk. (See Drawback on milk, condensed, and on cans.) 
 Cans and attachments — 
 Drawback on oil cans and attachments therefor manufactured with the use of 
 
 imported tin plate. (T. D. 34448; May 8, 1914.) 
 T. D. 34448 of May 8, 1914, extended to cover oil cans and attachments manufac- 
 tured by the Tidewater Oil Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 tin plate. (T. D. 34772; Sept. 21, 1914.) 
 Caps, blastins. (See Drawback on blasting caps.) 
 Caps, bottle. (See Drawback on bottle caps.) 
 Capsules — 
 Drawback on capsules manufactured by the Hall Capsule Co., of Covington, Ky., 
 wholly from imported gelatin. (T. D. 29321; Nov. 2, 1908.) 
 Carbon-free metals. (See Drawback on metal, carbon-free.) 
 Carbon brushes — 
 Drawback on carbon brushes manufactured by W. J. Jeandron, of New York, N .Y., 
 with the U3e of imported carbons and copper cables. (T. D. 35115; Feb. 5, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 223 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Caibon papei — 
 T. D. 21726 of November 2, 1899, providing for an allowance of drawback on car- 
 bon paper manufactured with the use of imported paper, amended to provide 
 for a manufacturing record showing the number of sheets of carbon paper manu- 
 factured, the size and weight of the paper, the percentage of wastage, the num- 
 ber of sheets to the pound, including wastage, and the number of pounds of 
 imported paper used. (T. D. 32704; July 12, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32704 of July 12, 1912, amended with reference to the allowance for waste. 
 (T. D. 35041; Jan. 7, 1915.) 
 "Carbona," unburnable and ncnezplosive cleaning fluid — 
 Drawback on carbona, unburnable and nonexplosive cleaning fluid, manufac- 
 tured by the Carbona Products Co., of Newark, N. J., in part with the use of 
 imported tetrachloride of carbon. (T. D. 29282; Sept. 30, 1908.) 
 Cardboard containers. (See Drawback on containers.) 
 Cardboard sample satchels and suit cases. (See Drawback on leather bags and 
 
 other articles.) 
 Cardcases. (See Drawback on leather bags and other articles.) 
 Card clothing — 
 Drawback on card clothing manufactured by Benj. Booth & Co. (Ltd.), of Phila- 
 delphia, Pa., with the use of imported card cloth. (T. D. 35991; Dec. 13, 1915.) 
 Card waste. (See Drawback on wool products.) 
 Carded wool. (See Drawback on wool.) 
 Carding-engine rollers — 
 Drawback on carding-engine rollers manufactured by Leigh & Butler, of Boston, 
 Mass., with the use of imported licker-in wire. (T. D. 31485; Apr. 12, 1911.) 
 Carding machines — 
 Drawback on carding machines manufactured by the Potter & Johnston Machine 
 Co., of Pawtucket, R. I., with the use of imported card clothing. (T. D. 33340; 
 Apr. 14, 1913.) 
 Cards, stencil — 
 Drawback on blank stencil cards manufactured by the Rapid Addressing Machine 
 Co., of New York City, from imported imitation parchment paper. (T. D. 
 30089; Nov. 2, 1909.) 
 Drawback on blank stencil cards manufactured by the Rapid Addressing Machine 
 Co., of New York City, from imported imitation parchment paper. T. D. 
 30089 of November 2, 1909, amended. (T. D. 30116; Nov. 17, 1909.) 
 Carpets and rugs. (See also wool products.) 
 Drawback on carpets and rugs manufactured by the Hartford Carpet Corporation, 
 of Thompsonville, Conn., with the use of imported wool. (T. D. 32629; June 
 11, 1912.) 
 Carpet looms and yam carriers — 
 Drawback on carpet looms and yam carriers manufactured by the Worcester 
 Loom Co., of Worcester, Mass., with the use of imported grippers and springs. 
 (T. D. 33598; July 8, 1913.) 
 Carpet sweepers — 
 Drawback on carpet sweepers manufactured by the National Sweeper Co., of 
 Newark, N. J., from imported Chinese bristles. T. D. 23773 of June 3, 1902, 
 extended. (T. D. 30054; Oct. 21, 1909.) 
 Drawback on carpet sweepers manufactured by the National Carpet Sweeper Co., 
 of Newark, N. J., from imported Chinese bristles. T. D. 30054 of October 21, 
 1909, amended. (T. D. 30097; Nov. 5, 1909.) 
 
224 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Caipet sweepeis — Continued. 
 Drawback on carpet sweepers manufactured by the Metal Stamping Corporation, 
 of Streator, 111., with the use of imported bristles. (T. D. 33424; May 14, 1913.) 
 Carpet sweepers and cleaners, vacuum. (See Drawback on vacuum cleaners and 
 
 sweepers.) 
 Carriage robes, fur — 
 Drawback on fur carriage robes manufactured by A. Hoenigsberger, of Chicago, 
 111., from imported fur skins. (T. D. 30134; Nov. 23, 1909.) 
 Carriages — 
 Drawback on carriages manufactured by Hassett & Hodges, of Amesbury, Mass., 
 with the use of imported cloth. (T. D. 29733; May 7, 1909.) 
 Cartons — 
 Drawback on cartons manufactured by Colgate & Co., of Jersey City, N. J., from 
 imported plain pasteboard cartons by printing, lithographing, decorating, fold- 
 ing, and pasting. (T. D. 29666; Apr. 1, 1909.) 
 Cartridges — 
 T. D. 32477 of May 2, 1912, covering drawback on loaded shells and oartridges, 
 extended to cover additional brands of cartridges manufactured by the Peters 
 Cartridge Co., of Cincinnati, Ohio, with the use of imported lead or lead refined 
 from imported ore. (T. D. 34356; Apr. 7, 1914.) 
 Drawback on cartridges manufactured by the United States Cartridge Co., of 
 Jewell. Mass., with the use of imported pig lead. (T. D. 30926; Sept. 15, 1910.) 
 T. D. 30926, of September 15, 1910, providing for an allowance of drawback on 
 cartridges manufactured by the United States Cartridge Co., of Lowell, Mass., 
 with the use of imported pig lead, amended. (T. D. 31686; June 12, 1911.) 
 Drawback on cartridges manufactured by the United States Cartridge Co., of 
 I^owell, Mass., with the use of imported aluminum wire. (T. D. 35430; May 
 24, 1915.) 
 Drawback on cartridges manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co., of Alton, 111., 
 with the use of imported antimony. (T. D. 35068; Jan. 19, 1915.) 
 Car trucks — 
 Drawback on car trucks manufactured by the Orenstein-Arthur Koppel Co., of 
 Koppel, Pa., with the use of imported car wheels and axles. (T. D. 34563; 
 June 18, 1914.) 
 Cars, coal. (See Drawback on coal cars.) 
 Casein — 
 Drawback on casein manufactured by the Casein Manufacturing Co., of New 
 York, with the use of imported materials. Department's instructions (T. D. 
 24466) of June 8, 1903, regarding allowance of drawback on manufactured arti- 
 cles exported prior to the establishment of the rate, revoked. (T. D. 29087; 
 June 20, 1908.) 
 Castile soap. (See Drawback on soap, castile.) 
 
 Castings. (See also Drawback on die castings and on aluminum castings.) 
 Drawback on castings manufactured in part with the use of imported pig iron by 
 the Pawtucket Foundry Co., of Pawtucket, R. I., for and on account of the 
 Potter & Johnston Machine Co., of Pawtucket, R. I., for use in making auto- 
 matics, shapers, and other machines. T. D. 24125 of December 29, 1902, 
 extended. (T. D. 29085; June 19, 1908.) 
 Drawback on castings imported by the IngersoU Milling Machine Co., of Rock- 
 ford, 111., and finished or partly finished by mil ling and machining. T. D. 
 32323 of March 22, 1912, extended. (T. D. 32711; July 15, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 225 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Castings — Continued. 
 Drawback on castings established for the H. P. Townsend Manufacturing Co., 
 Hartford, Conn., in the manufacture of automatic screw machines. (T. D. 
 33072; Jan. 9, 1913.) 
 Drawback on castings manufactured by the United States McAdamite Metal Co., 
 of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported aluminum for the account of the 
 Continental Motor Manufacturing Co'., of Detroit aud Muskegon, Mich. (T. D. 
 35196; Mar. 9, 1915.) 
 Drawback .on castings manufactured by the Enterprise Brass Works, of Muskegon, 
 Mich., with the use of imported aluminum for the account of the Continental 
 Motor Manufacturing Co., of Detroit and Muskegon, Mich. (T. D. 35197; Mar. 
 9, 1915.) 
 Drawback on castings manufactured by the General Aluminum & Brass Manufac- 
 turing Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported aluminum for the account 
 of the Continental Motor Manufacturing Co., of Detroit and Muskegon, Mich. 
 (T. D. 35198; Mar. 9, 1915.) 
 Drawback on castings manufactured by the Columbia Castings Co., of Detroit, 
 Mich., with the use of either imported commercially-pure aluminum in combi- 
 nation with other metals or imported alloy. (T. D. 35357; Apr. 30, 1915.) 
 Castor oil — 
 The department's regulations of August 1, 1896 (T. D. 17355), so far as they 
 authorize the payment of drawback on castor oil manufactured from imported 
 castor beans, revoked. (T. D. 34879; Nov. 5, 1914.) 
 Manufactured by Spencer, Kellogg & Sons (Inc.) and Toledo Seed & Oil Co. 
 (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Catsup. (See Drawback on ketchup.) 
 Cattle feed — 
 Drawback on cattle feed manufactured by the W. P. Devereux Co., of Minneap- 
 olis, Minn., from imported screenings, either with or without an admixture of 
 domestic screenings, by the process of mixing and grinding. (T. D. 33274; 
 Mar. 15, 1913.) 
 Ceilings, stamped steel. (See Drawback on stamped steel ceilings.) 
 Celerlna. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Centerpieces. (See Drawback on pillow slips, scarfs, etc.) 
 
 Cerium and thorium nitrate and gas mantles. (See Drawback on mantles, gas. 
 Chain hoists, hoist chains, and tire chains — 
 Drawback on Weston direct-geared chain hoists, hoist chains, and tire chains 
 manufactured by Clinton H. Hobbs, of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported 
 material. (T. D. 30972; Oct. 4, 1910.) 
 Chairs — 
 Drawback on chairs manufacturd by the White River Chair Co., of Brattleboro, 
 Vt., containing cane seats in the manufacture of which imported cane has been 
 used. (T. D. 29335; Nov. 10, 1908.) 
 Office: Drawback on office chairs manufactured by the Milwaukee Chair Co., of 
 Milwaukee, Wis., with the use of imported woods, leather, gimps, and bronze 
 nails. (T. D. 33449; May 22, 1913.) 
 Chairs and engines, dental. (See Drawback on dental chairs and engines.) 
 Chamberlain's Colic, Cholera, and Diarrhoea Bemedy. (See Drawback on medici- 
 nal preparations.) 
 Champagne and sparkling wines. (See Drawback on liquors, sparkling wines, and 
 champagne.) 
 
 45638°— 17 15 
 
226 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Chenilled veiling. (See Drawback on veilings.) 
 Cherry bounce — 
 
 Drawback on cherry bounce manufactured by the Star Extract Works, of New 
 York City, with the use of imported cherry juice. (T. D. 31341; Mar. 1, 1911.) 
 Chewing gum — 
 
 T. D. 22612 of November 16, 1900, providing for drawback on Red Rose chewing 
 gum, manufactured by the American Chicle Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., amended 
 to provide that where supplemental sworn schedules are filed the allowance 
 may equal the quantity of imported sugar and chicle used in the manufacture 
 of the brand of chewing gum covered thereby, after verification. (T. D. 33398; 
 May 8, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on chewing gum, known as "Dentyne" and "Cinderella" brands, 
 manufactured by the Autosales Gum & Chocolate Co., of New York, with the 
 use of imported raw sugar and gum chicle. (T. D. 32258; Feb. 14, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on Beechnut chewing gum manufactured by the Beechnut Packing 
 Co., of Canajoharie, N. Y., with the use of imported refined and crude chicle 
 and refined sugar made from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 33253; Mar. 8, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on chewing gum manufactured by the Beechnut Packing Co., of Cana- 
 joharie, N. Y., with the use of imported crude chicle, refined chicle, and refined 
 sugar, or refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. T. D. 33253 of March 
 8, 1913, revoked. (T. D. 35754; Oct. 7, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on Dentyne chewing gum manufactured by the Bon Bon Co., of New 
 York, with use in part of imported gum chicle and cane sugar. (T. D. 29291; 
 Oct. 9, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on Violet Chips, Mint Chips, and Taffy Tolu manufactured by the 
 Colgan Gum Co., of Louisville, Ky., with the use of imported gum chicle and 
 sugar. T. D. 29291 of October 9, 1908, extended. (T. D. 30638; May 23, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on chewing gum manufactured by the Common Sense Gum Co., of 
 Newport, R. I., with the use of imported gum chicle and refined sugar produced 
 from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 35422; May 20, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on Sen-Sen chewing gum manufactured by the T. B. Dunn Co., of 
 Rochester, N. Y., from imported gum chicle and sugar refined from imported 
 raw sugar. T. D. 29291 of October 9, 1908, extended. (T. D. 30105; Nov. 12, 
 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on "Mintets"' chewing gum manufactured by the Federal Chewing 
 Gum Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported gum chicle and sugar 
 refined from imported raw sugar. T. D. 29291 of October 9, 1908, extended. 
 (T. D. 29771; May 19, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on chewing gum manufactured by the Franklin-Caro Co., of Richmond, 
 Va., with the use of imported chicle, or with the use of imported chicle and 
 refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 35775; Oct. 13, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on chewing gum manufactured by WiUiam H. Luden, of Reading, Pa., 
 with the use of imported gum chicle and refined sugar produced from imported 
 raw sugar. (T. D. 35990; Dec. 11, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on "U-all-no mint chewing gum" manufactured by the Manufacturing 
 Co. of America, Philadelphia, Pa., from refined sugar obtained from imported 
 raw sugar, chicle, and essence of mint. (T. D. 32892; Oct. 29, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on chewing gum manufactured by the Pulver Chocolate & Chicle Manu- 
 factmring Co., of Rochester, N.Y., with the use of imported sugar and gum chicle. 
 T. D. 29291 of October 9, 1908, extended. (T. D. 31346; Mar. 3, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on chiclets and Fleer's Old Fashioned Chewing Gum, manufactured 
 by the Sen-Sen Chiclet Co., factory of Fleer & Co., Philadelphia, Pa., with the 
 use of imported sugar and gum chicle. T. D. 20054 of September 16, 1898, 
 revoked. (T. D. 32257; Feb. 14, 1912.) 
 
1908-1915. 227 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Chewing gum — Continued. 
 Drawback on chewing gum designated as "0. K. Perfect" and "Fruits and Flow- 
 ers" manufactured by the Sen-Sen Chiclet Co., of Portland, Me., with the use of 
 imported gum chicle and refined sugar made from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 
 33173; Feb. 10, 1913.) 
 Drawback on chewing gum manufactured by the Sterling Gum Co., of Long Island 
 City, N. Y., with the use of imported gum chicle and sugar. (T. D. 35345; 
 Apr. 27, 1915.) 
 Drawback on Blood Orange chewing gum manufactured by WilUam Wrigley, Jr., 
 & Co., of Chicago, with the use of imported materials T. D. 32142 of January 
 11, 1912, hereby extended. (T. D. 32835; Sept. 26, 1912.) 
 Drawback on chewing gum manufactured by William Wrigley, Jr., & Co., of 
 Chicago, 111., and Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported sugar and gum 
 chicle. (T. D. 32142; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32142 of January 11, 1912, extended to cover "Jewel Brand Old English 
 Peppermint" chewing gum manufactured by the William Wrigley, Jr., & Co., 
 with the use of imported sugar and gum cUcle and amended to permit the filing 
 of supplemental sworn schedules. (T. D. 33174; Feb. 10, 1913.) 
 T. D. 32142 of January 11, 1912, extended to cover chewing gum designated as 
 "Doublemint" manufactured by William Wrigley, Jr., & Co., of Chicago, 111., 
 with the use of imported sugar and gum chicle and amended to provide for 
 the filing of supplemental sworn statements. (T. D. 35280; Apr. 1, 1915.) 
 T. D. 32142 of January 11, 1912, amended to provide for liquidation of entries in 
 accordance with the sworn statement of the manufacturer, dated Jime 6, 1914. 
 (T. D. 34637; July 15, 1914.) 
 Drawback on chewing gum manufactured by William Wrigley, Jr., & Co.. of 
 Chicago, 111., and Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported gum chicle andTe- 
 fined sugar refined from imported raw sugar. Former drawback rates revoked. 
 (T. D. 35557; June 29, 1915.) 
 Chewing and smoking tobacco. (See Drawback on tobacco.) 
 Chicle, refined — 
 Drawback on refined chicle produced by William Wrigley, Jr., & Co., of Chicngo, 
 111., from imported crude chicle. (T. D. 35957; Dec. 7, 1915.) 
 Chicory — 
 
 Drawback on chicory manufactured by Heinr. Franck Sons (Inc.), of Flushing, 
 N. Y., wholly from imported chicory root. (T. D. 34854; Oct. 27, 1914.) 
 Chiffons, silk. (See Drawback on silk.) 
 Chiffons, veilings, nettings, malines, etc. (See Drawback on veiling, nettings, 
 
 chiffons, malinee, etc.) 
 Children's and misses' underwear. (See Drawback on underwear.) 
 Children's and women's dresses. (See Drawback on clothing.) 
 China, decorated- 
 Drawback on decorated china manufactured by L. Strauss & Sons, of New York, 
 
 with the use of imported white china. (T. D. 29223 Aug. 24, 1908.) 
 Drawback on decorated china manufactured by the Art China Import Co., of 
 New York City, with the use of plain white imported china. T. D. 29223 of 
 August 24, 1908, extended. (T. D. 30993; Oct. 17, 1910.) 
 China, decorated and gilded — 
 Drawback on decorated and gilded china dishes, cups, saucers, platters, table, 
 toilet, and fancy china articles manufactured by the Bonita Art Co., of Wheel- 
 ing, W. Va., with the use of imported plain china articles of the same character. 
 (T p. 33245; Mar. 3, 1913.) 
 
228 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Chinese lamp founts and lamp-case sliooks — 
 
 T. D. 34448 of May 8, 1914, extended to cover Chinese lamp founts manufactured 
 by the Standard Oil Co. from imported tinplate, and T. D. 33902 of November 
 21, 1913, extended to cover lamp-case shocks manufactured by the above com- 
 pany from lumber imported prior to October 4, 1913. (T. D. 34838; Oct. 19, 
 1914'.) 
 Chocolate — 
 
 Department's regulations of July 12, 1900 (T. D. 22347), and January 21, 1903 
 (T. D. 24177), extended to provide for the filing of supplementary schedules to 
 cover special formulas. (T. D. 29955; Aug. 19, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on "Bensdorp's Cocoa, One Portion," manufactured by the Stephen L. 
 Bartlett Co., of Boston, Mass., from imported cocoa and granulated sugar man- 
 ufactured from imported raw sugar. T. D. 22370 of July 20, 190O, extended. 
 (T. D. 30258; Jan. 13, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on chocolates of various brands manufactured by the Hershey Choco- 
 late Co., of Hershey, Pa., with the use of imported sugar, cocoa butter, and 
 almonds. (T. D. 31092; Deo. 7, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on cocoa powders manufactured by the Stephen L. Bartlett Co., of Bos- 
 ton, Mass. , in part from imported cocoa. T. D. 22370 of July 20, 1900, extended. 
 (T. D. 32015; Nov. 20. 1911.) 
 Chocolate coating — 
 
 Drawback on chocolate coating manufactured by the Hooton Cocoa Co., of Newark, 
 N. J., with the u.se of cocoa butter and refined sugar made from imported raw 
 sugar. (T. D. 33715; Aug. 29, 1913.'( 
 
 Drawback on confectionery chocolate coating manufactured by Huyler's, New 
 York, N. Y. , with the use of imported refined sugar or refined sugar produced in 
 the United States from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 35367; May 3, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on sweet chocolate and chocolate coatings manufactured by Rockwood 
 & Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported coco butter and refined 
 sugar or refined sugar produced in the United States from imported raw sugar. 
 T. D. 22347 of July 20, 1900, T. D. 24177 of January 21, 1903. and T. D. 29955 of 
 August 19. 1909, revoked. (T. D. 35355; Apr. 30, 1915.) 
 Chocolate, milk — 
 
 Drawback on plain milk chocolate and nut milk chocolate manufactured for the 
 account of Lamont, Corliss & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 nuts and refined sugar made from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 33943; Dec. 2, 
 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33943 amended with respect to the allowance for imported almonds used in 
 the manufacture of almond milk chocolate. (T. D. 34794; Sept. 29, 1914.) 
 Chocolate, milk, and nnt milk — 
 
 Drawback on plain milk chocolate and nut milk chocolate manufactured by the 
 Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Co. (Inc.), with the use of imported nuts 
 and refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. T. D. 33943 of December 
 2, 1913, revoked. (T. D. 35444; May 24, 1915.) 
 Chocolate and coco preparations — 
 
 Drawback on chocolate and coco preparations manufactured by the Walter Baker 
 Co. (Ltd.), of Dorchester, Mass., with the use of graniilated sugar refined from 
 imported raw sugar. (T. D. 35659; Aug. 17, 1915.) 
 Christmas-tree ornaments — 
 
 Drawback on Christmas-tree ornaments manufactured by B. Wilmsen, Philadel- 
 phia, Pa., with the use of imported tinsel and glass-ball ornaments. (T. D. 
 34231; Mar. 5, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 229 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Chrome acetate — 
 Drawback on chrome acetate manufactured by the Bulls Ferry Chemical Co., o£ 
 
 Shady Side, N. J., with the use of imported hydroxide of chrome extra. (T. D. 
 
 30589; May 5, 1910.) 
 Chutney. (See Drawback on ketchup.) 
 Cigar lighters — 
 Drawback on cigar lighters manufactured by The Smith & Griggs Manufacturing 
 
 Co., of Waterbury, Conn., with the use of imported steel sparking wheels. (T. 
 
 D. 32876; Oct. 22, 1912.) 
 Cigars — 
 Drawback on cigars manufactured by E. Regensburg & Sons, of New York City, 
 
 with the use of imported wrapper tobacco. T. D. 26164 of March 15, 1905, 
 
 extended. (T. D. 29382; Dec. 7, 1908.) 
 Drawback on cigars manufactured by Salomon Bros. & Stem, of New York, N. Y., 
 
 with the use of imported wrapper and filler tobacco. (T. D. 33747; Sept. 25, 
 
 1913.) 
 Drawback on cigars manufactured by the American Cigar Co., of Philadelphia, 
 
 Pa., with the use of imported Sumatra leaf tobacco. (T. D. 35639; Aug. 6, 
 
 1915.) 
 Cigarette booklets and tubes — 
 Drawback on cigarette booklets manufactured by Michael Gluckman, of New 
 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported cigarette paper. (T. D. 33426; May 14, 
 
 1913.) 
 Drawback on cigarette booklets and cigarette tubes manufactured by Gluckman & 
 
 Son, of New York, N. Y., with the use of cigarette paper imported in sheets 
 
 and rolls. (T. D. 33423; May 14, 1913.) 
 Drawback on cigarette booklets and tubes manufactured by Max Spiegel, of New 
 
 York City, from cigarette paper imported in reams and reels. T. D. 27388 of 
 
 June 4, 1906, extended. (T. D. 30855; Aug. 2, 1910.) 
 T. D. 30855 amended to provide for the filing of supplemental sworn schedules. 
 Drawback on cigarette booklets and cigarette tubes manufactured by Gluckman 
 
 & Son (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported cigarette paper, 
 
 cork paper, and metal leaf. T. D. 33423 of May 14, 1913, revoked. (T. D. 35681; 
 
 Aug. 24, 1915.) 
 Cigarette books — 
 Drawback on cigarette books manufactured by the Western Pipe Co., of Chicago, 
 
 111., with the use of imported cigarette paper. (T. D. 33052; Dec. 31, 1912.) 
 Drawback on cigarette-paper books manufactured by the Strauch Co., of New 
 
 York City, with the use of imported sheet cigarette paper in reams. T. D. 
 
 26762 of October 6, 1905, extended. (T. D. 29460; Jan. 8, 1909.) 
 Cigarette boxes — 
 Drawback on cigarette boxes manufactured by the Box Co. of America, of New 
 
 York City, in part with the usaof imported labels. (T. D. 32720; July 17, 1912.) 
 Cigarette machines^ 
 Drawback on cigarette machines manufactured by the American Machine & 
 
 Foundry Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported linked leather belt- 
 ing and bar steel. (T. D. 34680; Aug. 4, 1914.) 
 Cigarette tips — 
 Drawback on cigarette tips in reels or separately manufactured by the Boucher 
 
 Cork & Machine Co. (Inc.), of New York City, from imported cork sheets. (T. 
 
 D. 82103; Dec. 20, 1911.) 
 
230 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Cigaiette tips — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on cigarette tips manufactured by the Boucher Cork & Machine Co. 
 (Inc.), of New York City, with the use of imported paper. T. D. 32103 of De- 
 cember 20, 1911, extended. (T. D. 32407; Apr. 18, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarette tips manufactured by the Boucher Cork & Machine Co. 
 (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported cork sheets and paper. 
 T. D. 32103 of December 20, 1911, and T. D. 32407 of April 18, 1912, revoked. 
 (T. D. 34561; June 18, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34561 of June 18, 1914, extended to cover cigarette tips manufactured by the 
 Boucher Cork & Machine Co. (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of im- 
 ported straw sheets. (T. D. 35744; Oct. 4, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 34561 of June 18, 1914, extended to cover cigarette tips manufactured by the 
 Boucher Cork & Machine Co. (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of 
 imported metal leaf and paper. (T. D. 34878; Nov. 4, 1914.) 
 Cigarette tobacco, cut — 
 
 T. D. 24555 of July 11, 1905, extended to cover cut cigarette tobacco manufactured 
 by Philip Morris & Co. (Ltd.), of New York, wholly from imported Turkish 
 leaf tobacco. (T. D. 29319; Oct. 31, 1908.) 
 Cigarettes — 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by the American Tobacco Co., of New York, 
 with the use of imported leaf tobacco. (T. D. 29462; Jan. 8, 1909.) 
 
 T. D. 29462 of January 8, 1909, establishing drawback rate on cigarettes manufac- 
 tured by the American Tobacco Co., of New York, revoked. (T. D. 32064; 
 Dec. 9, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by the Arabesca Cigarette Co. (Inc.), of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported Turkish tobacco. (T. D. 35626; 
 July 31, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by the John Bollman Co., of San Francisco, 
 Cal., with the use of imported Turkish tobacco. T. D. 23839 of July 3, 1902, 
 extended. (T. D. 29837; Mar. 20, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by the John Bollman Co., of San Fran- 
 cisco, Cal., in part trom imported Turkish tobacco and imported cigarette 
 paper. T. D. 24541 of July 2, 1903, amended. (T. D. 29746; May 12, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by the Cado Co. (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., 
 with the use of imported Turkish tobacco. (T. D. 35421; May 20, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by the Crescent Tobacco Co., of New York, 
 N . Y., with the use of imported Turkish tobacco. (T. D. 33256; Mar. 10, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by the Imperial Ottoman Tobacco Co., of 
 New York City, wholly from imported Turkish tobacco. T. D. 23839 of July 
 3, 1902, extended. (T. D. 30578; Apr. 28, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by the International Tobacco Co., of 
 Newark, N. J., with the use of imported Turkish tobacco under the brand names 
 of "Autolite" and "Monolite." T. D. 23839 of July 3, 1902, extended. 
 (T. D. 31056; Nov. 22, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes designated as "Egyptian Heroes," "Egyptian Lotus," 
 "Jacob Gordin," "Turkish Students," "Concord," and "Fifth Avenue" 
 manufactured by the estate of I. B. Krinsky, of Brooklyn, N. Y., from imported 
 Turkish tobacco. (T. D. 32256; Feb. 14, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by G. Le Favre & Co., of New York, N. Y., 
 with the use of shredded tobacco produced by the Commercial Tobacco Co. 
 wholly from Turkish leaf tobacco. (T. D. 35113; Feb. 5, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by the Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. with 
 the use of imported Turkish tobacco. (T. D. 34575; June 23, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 231 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Cigaiettes — Continued. 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by the P. Lorillard Co., of Jersey City, N. 
 
 J., with the use of imported Turkish tobacco. (T. D. 33655; July 28, 1913.) 
 Drawback on "Makaroff No. 20 cigarets" manufactured by the Makaroff Co. of 
 America, wholly with the use of Turkish Cavalla and Smyrna leaf tobacco. 
 T. D. 23839 of July 3, 1902, extended. (T. D. 29470; Jan. 14, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by the Makaroff Co. of America, of Boston, 
 Mass., with the use of imported Turkish tobacco under the brand names of 
 "Makaroff No. 15, No. 20, and No. 25." T. D. 23839 of July 3, 1902, extended. 
 (T. D. 31057; Nov. 22, 1910.) 
 
 T. D. 31057 of November 22, 1910, extended to cover cigarettes manufactured by 
 the Makaroff Cigaret Co., of Boston, Mass. (T. D. 33427; May 15, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on "Makaroff No. 20 cigarets" manufactured by the Makaroff Co. of 
 America wholly with the use of Turkish Cavalla and Smyrna leaf tobacco. T. 
 D. 23839 of July 3, 1902, extended. (T. D. 29470; Jan. 14, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on^ Ambassador cigarettes manufactured by Phihp Morris & Co. (Ltd.), 
 of New York, wholly with the use of imported Turkish tobacco. T. D. 23839 
 of July 3, 1902, extended. (T. D. 30155; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on certain new brands of cigarettes, namely, "Cambridge" and "Mo- 
 risco," manufactured by Philip. Morris & Co. (Ltd.), of New York City, 
 wholly with the use of imported Turkish tobacco. T. D. 23839 of July 3, 1902, 
 extended. (T. D. 30521; Apr. 11, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by Philip Morris & Co., of New York, N. Y., 
 with the use of imported Turkish tobacco. T. D. 28583 of December 6, 1907, 
 T. D. 30155 of November 30, 1909, and T. D. 30521 of April 11, 1910, revoked. 
 (T. D. 35420; May 20, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by Prospero De Nobili & Co., of New York, 
 with the use of imported Turkish tobacco and rice paper in reels. T. D. 23839 
 of July 3, 1902, and T. D. 25054 of February 24, 1904, as amended by T. D. 25143 
 of March 24, 1904, extended. (T. D. 29770; May 19, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on "Nestor cigarettes No. 3" manufactured by the Nestor Gianaclis 
 Co., of Boston, Mass., wholly from imported Turkish Cavalla filler tobacco and 
 cigarette paper. T. D. 23839 of July 3, 1902, extended. (T. D. 29157; July 
 14, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by the Pera Cigarette Co., of New York, 
 N. Y., with the use of imported Turkish tobacco. (T. D. 35037; Jan. 6, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on Royal Ascot cigarettes manufactured by the Royal Ascot Cigarette 
 Co., of New York City, wholly from imported Turkish tobacco. T. D. 23839 
 of July 3, 1902, extended. (T. D. 30437; Mar. 19, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by H. L. Savory & Co., of New York City, 
 wholly from imported Turkish tobacco. T. D. 23839 of July 3, 1902, extended. 
 (T. D. 29332; Nov. 9, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by Starr & Reed, of Philadelphia, Pa., 
 with the use of imported Turkish leaf tobacco. (T. D. 34736; Aug. 28, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on "Aphrodite" cigarettes manufactured by Stephano Bros., of Phila- 
 delphia, with the use of imported tobacco. T. D. 23839 of July 3, 1902, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 30350; Feb. 11, 1910.) 
 
 "Afros, " plain, and "Afros, " cork tip: T. D. 30350of February 11, 1910, extended 
 to cover cigarettes designated as ' 'Afros, " plain, and ' ' Afros, ' ' cork tip, manufac- 
 tured by Stephano Bros., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported tobacco. 
 (T. D. 35079; Jan. 25, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35079 of January 25, 1915, amended to provide for the filing of supplemental 
 sworn Bchedules. T. D. 24222 of February 11, 1903, and T. D. 30350 of February 
 11, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 35679; Aug. 24, 1915.) 
 
232 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Cigarettes — Continued. 
 Drawback on cigarettes designated as "Milo," manufactured by the Surbrug Co., 
 of Hoboken, N. J., with the use of imported Turkish tobacco. (T. D. 34349, 
 Apr. 6, 1914.) 
 Drawback on Turkish Herald cigarettes manufactured by the Turco-American 
 Tobacco Co., of New York City, wholly from imported Turkish tobacco. T. D. 
 23839 of July 3, 1902, extended. (T. D. 30948; Sept. 27, 1910.) 
 Drawback on cigarettes manufactured by Yak Ousaani & Co., of New York City, 
 with the use of imported Turkish tobacco. T. D. 23839 of July 3, 1902, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 30522; Apr. 11, 1910.) 
 Cigarettes and smoking tobacco — 
 Drawback on cigarettes and smoking tobacco manufactured by the British-Amer- 
 ican Tobacco Co., of Petersburg, Va., with the use of imported materials and 
 materials manufactured from imported materials. Department's letter of July 
 18, 1891, T. D. 26325 of April 27, 1905, and all prior regulations, revoked. (T. 
 D. 35449; May 26, 1915.) 
 Drawback on cigarettes and smoking tobacco manufactured by Butler-Butler 
 (Inc.), of New York City, with the use of imported Turkish tobacco and 
 glycerin. T. D. 26325 of April 27, 1905, extended. (T. D. 29418; Dec. 18, 
 1908.) 
 Cinematograph film pictures — - 
 Drawback on cinematograph film pictm'es manufactured by or for the account of 
 the Photo-Cines Co., of New York City, with the use of imported photographic 
 film. (T. D. 30918; Sept. 12, 1910.) 
 Circassian Beauty Extract. (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Circular saws — 
 Drawback on circular saws manufactured by the Simonds Manufacturing Co., of 
 Fitchburg, Mass., with the use of imported steel saw blades. (T. D. 32144; 
 Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 Citron- 
 Drawback on glac6 citron, crystallized citron, and crystallized orange and lemon 
 peel manufactured by William Hills, jr., of New York City, with the use of 
 imported preserved citron, orange peel, lemon peel, and refined sugar. T. D. 
 25287 of May 16, 1904, extended. (T. D. 29917; July 21, 1909.) 
 Citronella oil. (See Drawback on oils, citronella.) 
 Cleaned Brazil nuts. (See Drawback on nuts.) 
 Cleaned currants and package dates. (See Drawback on currants, cleaned, and 
 
 package dates.) 
 Cleaned currants and raisins. (See Drawback on cuirants and raisins, cleaned.) 
 Cleaning fluid. (See Drawback on carbona unburnable and nonexplosive cleaning 
 
 fluid.) 
 Cloaks, ladies'. (See Drawback on clothing.) 
 Clocks — 
 Drawback on watchman's clocks (T. D. 22800 of Feb. 11, 1901) extended to pro- 
 vide for the payment of drawback on watchman's time-detector clocks manu- 
 factured by the Watchman's Clock & Supply Co., of New York, N. Y., with the 
 use of imported movements and keys. (T. D. 33339; Apr. 14, 1913.) 
 Drawback on clocks manufactured by the Colonial Manufacturing Co., of Zeeland, 
 Mich., with the use of imported clock movements. (T. D. 35033; Jan. 5, 1915.) 
 Drawback on clocks manufactured by Geoi^e Borgfeldt & Co., of New York, N. Y., 
 with the use of imported clock movements, dials, and pendulums. (T. D. 
 35544; June 22, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 233 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Clocks, candelabra, minors, and plateaus — 
 Drawback on clocks, candelabra, mirrors, and plateaus manufactured by the Wil- 
 liam L. Gilbert Clock Co., of Winsted, Conn., in part from imported glass and 
 onyx. T. D. 28067 of April 6, 1907, extended. (T. D. 30861; Aug. 6, 1910.') 
 Clocks and watches — 
 Drawback on clocks and watches manufactured by the Western Clock Manufac- 
 turing Co., of New York, N. Y., and La Salle, 111., with the use of imported band 
 steel, glass disks, hour, minut«, and second hands, hair and main springs, and 
 porcelain clock cases. T. D. 26264 of April 11, 1905, extended. (T. D. 29693; 
 Apr. 16, 1909.) 
 Clocks, watchmen's. (See Drawback on watchmen's clocks.) 
 Cloth— 
 Coal-tai colors — 
 Drawback on imported and domestic cloth, bleached, dyed, printed, decorated, 
 or finished by David & Quick, of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 coal-tar colors. (T. D. 32874: Oct. 22, 1912.) 
 Cotton. (See Drawback on cotton cloths.) 
 Embroidered — 
 
 Drawback ou embroidered cloth manufactured by Nathan Ries. of New York, 
 with the use of imported cotton cloth, wool cloth, silk cloth, cotton-and-wool 
 cloth, and silk-and-wool cloth. (T. D. 29784; May 28, 1909.) 
 Shoe. (See Drawback on shoe cloth.) 
 Worsted — 
 Drawback on worsted cloth manufactured by the Uxbridge Worsted Co., of 
 Lowell and Uxbridge, Mass., in part with the use of imported wor.'?ted yarns 
 and dyes. (T. D. 35774; Oct. 11, 1915.) 
 Cloth and profile and cross-section paper. (See Drawback on paper, profile and 
 
 cross-section, and cloth.) 
 Clothespins — 
 Drawback on clothespins manufactured by the United States Clothes Pin Co., of 
 Montpelier, Vt., with the use of imported pin, woods. (T. D. 31462; Apr. 3, 
 1911.) 
 Clothing — 
 Drawback on boys' washable suits manufactured by H. B. Isaacson & Son, of New 
 York City, with the use of imported linen and cotton cloth. (T. D. 29477; 
 Jan. 16, 1909.) 
 Drawback on ladies' coats and suits manufactured by A. Beller & Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported woolen, silk, and cotton piece goods. (T. 
 D. 34587; June 24, 1914.) 
 Drawback on men's and women's clothing manufactured by Alfred Benjamin & 
 Co., of New York City, from imported materials. T. D. 27389 of June 4, 1906, 
 extended. (T. D. 29905; July 12, 1909.) 
 Drawback on women's and children's dresses manufactured by Borgenicht, Kom- 
 reich & Co., of New York, with the use of imported linens, serges, and similar 
 fabrics and imported braids, buttons, embroideries, and laces. (T. D. 34120; 
 Jan. 31, 1914.) ' 
 Drawback on ladies' waists manufactured by Brill & Krigsman, of New York City, 
 with the use of imported linens, embroideries, and laces. (T. D. 31964; Oct. 
 30, 1911.) 
 Drawback on ladies' dresses and waists manufactured by Louis Cohen, of New 
 York City, with the use of imported lawn, laces, embroideries, and Japanese 
 silks. T. D. 29734 of May 7, 1909, extended. (T. D. 31135; Dec. 20, 1910.) 
 Drawback on ladies' waists manufactured by Cook & Son, of New York City, with 
 the use of imported embroideries, cotton cloth, Unen, and laces. T. D. 29734 
 - ' ■ " " " """ ""; July 29, 1910.) 
 
234 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Clothing — Continued. 
 Drawback on clothing manufactured by Alfred Decker & Cohn, of Chicago, 111., 
 
 from imported woolen fabrics. T. D. 27389 of June 4, 1906, extended. (T. D. 
 
 32394; Apr. 15, 1912.) 
 Drawback on men's clothing manufactiired by Frankel Bros,, of New York 
 
 City, with the use of imported materials. T. D. 27389 of June 4, 1906, extended. 
 
 (T. D. 30669; June 6, 1910.) 
 Drawback on ladies' waists manufactured by the Frankenthal Bros. Co., of New 
 
 York City, with the use of imported laces, linens, and embroideries. (T. D. 
 
 29734; May 7, 1909.) 
 Drawback on men's clothing, suits, and overcoats, and women's garments manu- 
 factured by Fnihauf Bros. & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of various 
 
 imported materials. (T. D. 34348; Apr. 6, 1914.) 
 Drawback on men's clothing, covering T. D. 27389, extended to cover men's 
 
 clothing manufactured by Hart, Schaffner & Marx, of Chicago, 111., with the 
 
 use of imported materials. (T. D. 32945; Nov. 19, 1912.) 
 Drawback on men's clothing manufactured from imported materials by Messrs. 
 
 Heidelberg, Wolff & Co., of New York City. T. D. 27389 of June 4, 1906, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 28902; Mar. 30, 1908.) 
 Drawback on men's clothing manufactured by the Hirsh, Wickwire Co., of Chicago, 
 
 III., with the use of imported woolens, Holland linings, and mohair linings. 
 
 (T. D. 34370; Apr. 10, 1914.) 
 Drawback on ladies' waists manufactured by Kauffman & Harris, of Philadelphia, 
 
 Pa., in part from imported laces and embroideries. T. D. 25210 of April 19, 
 
 1904, extended. (T. D. 29213; Aug. 17, 1908.) 
 Drawback on men's and women's clothing manufactured by the C. Kenyon Co., 
 
 of Brooklyn, N. Y., from imported materials. T. D. 27389 of June 4, 
 
 1906, extended. (T. D. 29904; July 12, 1909.) 
 Drawback on men's clothing manufactured by A. B. Kirschbaum & Co., of Philar 
 
 delphia. Pa., with the use of imported materials. T. D. 27389 of June 4, 1906, 
 
 extended. (T. D. 29364; Nov. 25, 1908.) 
 Drawback on men's and boys' clothing manufactured by the Herman Kratzen- 
 
 stein Co., of New York, with the use of imported materials. T. D. 27389 of 
 
 June 4, 1906, extended. (T. D. 29741; May 11, 1909.) 
 Drawback on clothing manufactured by B. Kuppenheimer & Co., of Chicago, 
 
 111., with the use of various imported materials. (T. D. 34719; Aug. 19, 1914.) 
 Drawback on ladies' and misses' suits and coats manufactured by A. E. Lefcourt 
 
 & Co., of New York, with the use of imported broadcloth, woolen."" and worsteds, 
 
 trimmings, etc. T. D. 30655 of May 31, 1910, extended. (T. D. 31127; Dec. 
 
 19, 1910.) 
 Drawback on men's clothing manufactured by Levy & Schilt, of New York City, 
 
 with the use of imported materials. T. D. 27389 of June 4, 1906, extended. (T. 
 
 D. 30813; July 20, 1910.) 
 Drawback on men's and boys' clothing manufactured by Meyers, Crown & Wal- 
 
 lach, of New York, successors to Herman Kratzenstein, from imported materials. 
 
 T. D. 29741 of May 11, 1909, extended. (T. D. 32786; Aug. 28, 1912.) 
 Drawback on partly finished waists, skirts, and trimmings, manufactured by the 
 
 Pall Mall Embroidery Works, of New York City, with the use of imported beads, 
 
 tinsel, velvet, etc. T. D. 29734 of May 7, 1909, extended, (T. D. 31608; 
 
 May 10, 1911.) , 
 
 Drawback on men's, youths', and boys' clothing manuf^tured by the F.B.Q. 
 
 Clothing Co., of New York, N. Y.. with the use of imported woolen and worsted 
 
 fabrics. (T. D. 34015; Dec. 26, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 235 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Clothing — Continued. 
 Drawback on ladies' cloaks manufactured by Jacob Rapaport & Co., of New York, 
 
 with the use of imported woolens, silks, trimmings, etc. (T. D. 30655; May 31, 
 
 1909.) 
 Drawback on men's clothing manufactured by Rosenberg Bros. & Co . , of Rochester, 
 
 N. Y., with the use of imported woolens, worsteds, linings, and buttons. (T. D. 
 
 34144; Feb. 4, 1914.) 
 T. D. 34144 of February 4, 1914, extended to cover clothing manufactured by 
 
 Marks Amheim (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported materials. 
 
 (T. D. 35081; Jan. 23, 1915.) 
 Drawback on dresses, waists, and mantles finished for the account of Richard Roth 
 
 by the Stern Selling Service (Inc.), of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35074; Jan. 
 
 22, 1915.) 
 Drawback on clothing manufactured by the Siff Bros. Co. (Inc.), of New York, 
 
 N. Y., with the use of variaus imported fabrics and linings. (T. D. 35261; 
 
 Mar. 26, 1915.) 
 Drawback on women's waists and suits manufactured by the Silberberg Bros., 
 
 Waist Co., of New York City, wholly or in part from imported materials. 
 
 (T. D. 28980; May 9, 1908.) 
 Drawback on ladies' waists, robes, dresses, and other garments manufactured by 
 
 The Triangle Waist Co., of New York City, with the use of imported lace, em- 
 broidery, and other materials. T. D. 29734 of May 7, 1909, extended. (T. D. 
 
 31194; Jan. 10, 1911.) 
 Drawback on men's two-piece suits manufactured by the Snellenburg Clothing 
 
 Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of Imported woolen cloth, mohair lin- 
 ings, and canvas. (T. D. 32580; June 3, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32580 of June 3, 1912, providing for allowance of drawback on two-piece 
 
 suits manufactured by the Snellenburg Clothing Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with 
 
 the use of imported woolen cloth, mohair linings, and canvas, amended to pro- 
 vide for use of cloth whether of wool or other material. (T. D. 33729; Sept. 11, 
 
 1913.) 
 Correcting T. D. 33729, supra, of September 11, 1913,. to provide for a maximum 
 
 allowance of 4 J square yards per suit instead of "4J yards per suit." (T. D. 
 
 34066; Jan. 19, 1914.) 
 Drawback on men's clothing manufactured by the Snellenburg Clothing Co., of 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported cloth'. (T. D. 34406: Apr. 22, 1914.) 
 Drawback on men's clothing manufactured by the Stein-Block Co., of Rochester, 
 
 N. Y. , with the use of imported materials. T. D. 27389 of June 4, 1906, amended. 
 
 with respect to special manufacturing record. (T. D. 29742; May 11, 1909.) 
 Drawback on men's clothing manufactured by Sweet, Orr & Co., of New York, 
 
 N. Y., with the use of imported linens. (T. D. 32930; Nov. 12, 1912.) 
 Cloths, bed and cushion, for billiard tables. (See Drawback on billiard balls, 
 
 ivory rings, etc.) 
 Coal — 
 Drawback may be paid on coal used as fuel oh American vessels in foreign trade, 
 
 although coal did not remain continuously in customs custody in this country. 
 
 (T. D. 28899; Mar. 27, 1908.) 
 Coal cars — 
 Drawback on coal cars manufactured by the Peteler Car Co., of Minneapolis, 
 
 Minn., with the use of imported wheels, axles, and journal boxes. ("T. D. 
 
 30177; Dec. 9, 1909.) 
 Coal-tai preparations and dyes. (See Drawback on dyes and coal-tar preparations.) 
 
236 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 
 Coat fronts — 
 Drawback on coat fronts manufactured by the Universal Pad Co., of Philadelphia, 
 Pa., with the use of imported linen and jute canvas. (T. D. 30949; Sept. 27, 
 1910.) 
 
 Coated paper — 
 Drawback on coated paper manufactured by the Champion Coated Paper Co., of 
 Hamilton, Ohio, with the use of imported china clav. T. D. 22801 of February 
 11, 1901, revoked. , (T. D. 32752; Aug. 7, 1912.) 
 
 Coating, chocolate, confectionery. (See Drawback on chocolate coating, confec- 
 tionery.) 
 
 Coats and suits, ladies'. (See Drawback on clothing.) 
 
 Cocaine alkaloid and hydrochloride, manufactured by the Lamar Chemical Works. 
 (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 
 Cocaine hydrochloride, manufactured by the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works. (See 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 
 Cocktails, (See Drawback on liquors, cocktail.) 
 
 Cocoa. (See Drawback on chocolate.) 
 
 Cocoanut ditties — 
 Drawback on cocoanut ditties manufactured by the Ohio Confection Co., of Cleve- 
 land, Ohio, in part from imported refined sugar or refined sugar produced from 
 imported raw sugar and imported cocoanut. (T. D. 32524; May 20, 1912.) 
 
 Codeine and morphine alkaloids and salts. (See Drawback on medicinal prepara- 
 tions.) 
 
 Cod-liver extract, Wampole's — 
 Drawback on Wampole's perfected and tasteless preparation of the extract of cod 
 Uver manufactured by the Henry K. Wampole Co. (Inc.), of Philadelphia, Pa., 
 in part with the use of imported Java cane sugar. T. D. 24044 of November 
 8, 1902, extended. (T. D. 28974; May 5, 1908.) 
 
 Cod-liver oil^ 
 Drawback on emulsion of cod-liver oil manufactured by the Custer Chemical Co., 
 of New York City, in part from imported cod-liver oil and refined glycerin. (T. 
 D. 28762; Feb. 13, 1908.) 
 
 Cod oil, refined — 
 Drawback on refined cod oil manufactured from imported cod oil by Lanman & 
 Kemp, of New York. T. D. 22441 of August 20, 1900, extended. (T. D. 29862; 
 June 22, 1909.) 
 
 Coffeepots, teapots, and hot-water bottles — 
 Drawback on coffeepots, teapots, and hot-water bottles manufactured by Landers, 
 Frary & Clark, of New Britain, Conn., with the use of imported aluminum 
 disks. (T. D. 33745; Sept. 25, 1913.) 
 
 Cogwheels — 
 Drawback on cogwheels manufactured by F. L. Smidth & Co., of New York, 
 N. Y., and Jersey City, N. J., with the use of imported rough cast wheels. 
 (T. D. 30196; Dec. 14, 1909.) 
 
 Coke, tar, and ammonia — 
 Drawback on coke, tar, and pure ammonia (the latter being combined with 
 domestic sulphuric acid as ammonia sulphate) manufactured by the New 
 England Gas & Coke Co., of Boston, Mass., with the use in part of imported 
 slack coal. T. D. 22329 of July 3, 1900, and T. D. 23264 of September 5, 1901, 
 revoked. (T. D. 32267; Feb. 16, 1912.) 
 
 Collapsible tubes of dental cream — 
 Dental cream: Drawback on collapsible tubes of dental cream manufactured by 
 Colgate & Co., of New York, with the use of imported block-tin tubes. (T. D. 
 29381; Dec. 5, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 237 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Collapsible tubes of dental cieam — Continued. 
 Drawback on collapsible tubes of dental cream manufactured by Colgate & Co., 
 of New York, with the use of imported block-tin tubes. T. D. 29381 of Decem- 
 ber 5, 1908, extended. (T. D. 31058; Nov. 22, 1910.) 
 Collapsible tubes of glue — 
 Drawback on collapsible tubes of Le Page's glue, manufactured by the Russian 
 Cement Co., of Gloucester, Mass., with the use of imported block-tin tubes. 
 T. D. 29381 of December 5, 1908, extended. (T. D. 30114; Nov. 17, 1909.) 
 Collapsible tubes of paste- 
 Drawback on collapsible tubes of paste manufactured by Carter's Ink Co., of 
 Boston, Mass., with the use of imported tin tubes. T. D. 29381 of December 5, 
 1908, extended. (T. D. 31391; Mar. 15, 1911.) 
 Collar cases, leather. (See Drawback on leather bags and other articles.) 
 Collar and cuS links, and buttons. (See Drawback on buttons and collar and cuff 
 
 links.) 
 Collars^ 
 Drawback on silk-faced collars manufactured by Cluett, Peabody & Co. (Inc.), 
 of Troy, N. Y., with the use of imported silk piece goods. (T. D. 34491; June 
 1, 1914.) 
 Cologne^ 
 Drawback on Forest Flower cologne manufactured by the Austen Cologne Co., of 
 Oswego, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 29992 of Sep- 
 tember 9, 1909, and T. D. 23941 of August 20, 1902, revoked. (T. D. 32515; 
 May 18, 1912.) 
 Drawback of internal-revenue tax paid on domestic alcohol used in manufacture 
 of Forest Flower cologne by the Austen Manufacturing Co., of Oswego, N. Y. 
 (T. D. 29992; Sept. 9, 1909.) 
 Colors, dry — 
 Drawback on dry colors manufactured by A. B. Ansbacher & Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported materials. T. D. 30995 of October 18, 1910, 
 extended. (T. D. 31722; June 27, 1911.) 
 Drawback on dry colors manufactured by Cawley, Clark & Co., of Newark, N. J., 
 with the use of imported materials. T. D. 30995 of October 18, 1910, amended 
 and extended. (T. D. 31721; June 27, 1911.) 
 Colors, pulp — 
 Drawback on pulp colors manufactured by Cawley, Clark & Co., of Newark, N. J., 
 with the use of imported materials. (T. D. 30995; Oct. 18, 1910.) 
 Colors and dyes — 
 Drawback on colors and dyes manufactured by H. Kohnstamm & Co., of New 
 York City, with the use of imported coal-tar colors, turkey-red oil, and other 
 materials. (T. D. 32661; June 25, 1912.) 
 Combing, waste. (See Drawback on wool products.) 
 Combs — 
 Drawback on combs manufactured by the Manitowoc Aluminum Novelty Co., of 
 Manitowoc, Wis., wholly with the use of imported gallilith. (T. D. 29082; 
 June 18, 1908.) 
 Commutators. (See Drawback on electrical equipment.) 
 Compasses, liquid magnetic — 
 Drawback on liquid magnetic compasses manufactured by the Sperry Gyroscope 
 Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported illuminated mica disks. (T. 
 D. 35751; Oct. 5, 1915.) 
 Compound cordial of cerebrine. (See Di;awback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Condensed milk. (See Drawback on milk.) 
 
238 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Condensers foi steam boileis — 
 
 Department's regulations of October 6, 1904 (T. D. 25670), extended to cover con- 
 densers for steam boilers manufactured by the Alberger Pump & Condenser Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported brass tubing. (T. D. 33148; Feb. 
 3, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33148 of February 3, 1913, extended to cover condensers for steam boilers 
 manufactured by the Alberger Pump & Condenser Co., of New York, N. Y., 
 with the use of imported brass condenser tube heads. (T. D. 34867; Oct 27, 
 1914.) 
 Condiments and food products. (See Drawback on food products and condiments.) 
 Coney or rabbit skins. (See Drawback on skins, rabbit or coney.) 
 Confectionery. (See also Drawback on candy.) 
 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by the American Caramel Co., of Lan- 
 caster, Pa., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. 
 (T. D. 35781; Oct. 15, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by Brandle & Smith, of Philadelphia, 
 Pa., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 
 35619; July 28, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by Greorge Blome & Son Co., of Balti- 
 more, Md., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. 
 (T. D. 35858; Nov. 3, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by the Blue Ribbon Candy Co., of 
 Baltimore, Md., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw 
 sugar. (T. D. 35861; Nov. 4, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by the George Davis Co. (Inc^), of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw 
 sugar. (T. D. 35996; Dec. 15, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on candies manufactured by the Max Glick Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, 
 with the use of imported nuts, refined sugar made from imported raw sugar, and 
 condensed milk manufactured by the Borden's Condensed Milk Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported sugar. (T. D. 33688; Aug. 15, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by E. Greenfield's Sons, of New York, 
 N. Y., with the use of various imported materials and refined sugar produced 
 from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 35729; Sept. 27, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by Herman Henschel, of New York, 
 N. Y., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 
 35492; June 5, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by the Hershey Chocolate Co., of Her- 
 shey, Pa., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar and 
 imported almonds. T. D. 31092 of December 7, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 35788; 
 Oct. 18, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by the Robert F. Mackenzie Co., of 
 Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of sugar refined from imported raw sugar and 
 condensed milk manufactured with the use of imported sugar. (T. D. 29796; 
 June 5, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by the Robert F. Mackenzie Co., of 
 Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of sugar refined from imported raw sugar and 
 condensed milk manufactured with the use of imported sugar. T. D. 29796 
 of June 5, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30618; May 16, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by the Manufacturing Co., of America, 
 of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of refined sugar refined from imported raw 
 sugar. (T. D. 35655; Aug. 16, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 239 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Confectionery — Continued. 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by the James J. Matchett Co. (Inc.), 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw 
 sugar. (T. D. 35859; Nov. 3, 1915.) 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by the Ohio Confection Co., of Cleve- 
 land, Ohio, with the use of sugar refined from imported raw sugar and condensed 
 milk manufactured with the use of imported sugar. T. D. 27432 of June 20, 
 1906, extended. (T. D. 31598; May 16, 1911.) 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by the Ohio Confection Co., of Cleve- 
 land, Ohio, with the use of imported sugar, walnuts, filberts, and shredded 
 cocoanut. (T. D. 35576; July 10, 1915.) 
 Drawback on confectionery manufactured by Philip Wunderle, of Philadelphia, 
 Pa., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 
 35374; May 5, 1915.) 
 Confectionery, chocolate coating. (See Drawback on chocolate.) 
 Containers — 
 Cardboard: Drawback on cardboard containers manufactured by the Quaker Oats 
 Co., of Akron, Ohio, with the use of imported cardboard in sheets. (T. D. 
 31228; Jan. 20, 1911.) 
 Glass: Drawback on glass containers manufactured by the Franco-American 
 Chemical Works, of Carlstadt, N. J., with the use of imported glass containers 
 and domestic spring caps. (T. D. 35425; May 22, 1915.) 
 Metal: Drawback on metal containers manufactured by Colgate & Co., of Jer.ey 
 City, N. J., with the use of imported bodies and caps, inseparably united. T. 
 D. 29293 of October 10, 1908, extended. (T. D. 29667; Apr. 1, 1909.) 
 Metal or glass: Drawback on metal or glass containers manufactured by Colgate & 
 Co., of Jersey City, N. J., with the use of improved metal caps. (T. D. 29293; 
 Oct. 10, 1908.) 
 Paper containers for straw sippers: Drawback on paper containers for straw sip- 
 pers manufactured by the Hygeia Antiseptic Toothpick Co., with the use of 
 imported paper. (T. D. 29400; Dec 10, 1908.) 
 Cooking utensils- 
 Drawback on cooldng utensils manufactured by the National Aluminum Works, 
 of Wellsville, N. Y., with the use of imported aluminum sheets. (T. D. 31932; 
 Oct. 19, 1911.) 
 Copaiba — 
 Drawback on cleansed and purified balsam copaiba and essential oil of copaiba 
 manufactured by the Dodge & Olcott Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of 
 imported crude copaiba. (T. D. 34626; July 13, 1914.) 
 Copying tissue — 
 Drawback on copying tissue manufactured by the Roneo Co., of New York City, 
 from imported tissue paper by the treatment of the same chemically. (T. D. 
 32594; June 4, 1912.) 
 Cords, loops, rope, etc. (See Drawback on pillow slips, scarfs, and centerpieces.) 
 Cords and loops, silk. (See Drawback on silk.) 
 Core centers for spark plugs — ■ 
 Drawback on core centers or porcelains for spark plugs manufactured by the 
 Champion Ignition Co., of Flint, Mich., with the use of imported porcelains. 
 T. D. 30577 of April 28, 1910, amended. (T. D. 31415; Mar. 23, 1911.) 
 Cork paper strips — 
 Drawback on cork paper strips manufactured by Salvadore Ragona, of New York, 
 from imported cork sheets. (T. D. 30093; Nov. 4, 1909.) 
 
240 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Coik-pressing machineiy — 
 
 Drawback on cork-pressing machinery manufactured by the Crown Cork & Seal 
 Co., of Baltimore, Md., with the \ise of imported cutting and forming dies and 
 punches and punch holders. T. D. 27994 of March 11, 1907, extended. (T. D. 
 32209; Jan. 29, 1912.) 
 Cork tips — 
 
 Drawback on cork tips, manufactured by the American Tobacco Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported sheet cork. T. D. 27388 of Jime 4, 1906, extended. 
 (T. D. 31446; Apr. 3, 1911.) 
 Corks, bottled-beer — 
 
 Imported corks were subjected to an elaborate process, consisting of sorting, brand- 
 ing, cleansing, steaming, drying, and chemical bathing and coating, this being 
 done to fit them for use in the export of beer. Held that they are not "articles 
 manufactured " from imported materials so as to be subject to drawback under 
 section 30, tariff act of 1897. "Manufacture" implies change; but not every 
 change is manufacture, though the result of treatment, labor, and manipulation. 
 Something more is necessary. There must be a transformation; a new and dif- 
 ferent article must emerge, having a distinctive name, character, and use. 
 And a cork which has been put through elaborate cleansing, antiseptic, and 
 other improving processes, but which still remains a cork, is not "manufactured" 
 within the meaning of section 30, tariff act of 1897. Under section 30, tariff 
 act of 1897, permitting drawback "on the exportation of * * * articles 
 manufactured [from] * * * imported materials," Ae/d as to an exportation 
 of bottled beer, in which the beer and the corks were made from imported ma- 
 terials, that beer alone, excluding the corks, is the "article" exported within 
 the meaning of the law. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association v. United States, 
 United States Supreme Court, January 6, 1908. No. 60. Appeal by importers 
 from United States Court of Claims. Decision reported in 41 Court of Claims 
 Reports, 389. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 28778; Feb. 19. 1908.) 
 Corks, crown — 
 
 Drawback on Crown corks manufactured by the Crown Cork & Seal Co., of Balti- 
 more, Md., with the use of imported cork disks. T. D. 29880 of June 26, 1909, 
 T. D. 30459 of March 25, 1910, T. D. 30697 of June 16, 1910, and T. D. 30823 of 
 July 25, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 35787; Oct. 16, 1915.) 
 Com products — 
 
 Drawback on glucose, starch, dextrine, grape sugar, gluten feed, com oil, oil cake, 
 and other products manufactured by the Com Products Refining Co., of New 
 York, wholly with the use of imported com, or imported com in combination 
 with domestic com. (T. D. 29190; July 31, 1908.) 
 Corrosive sublimate — 
 
 Drawback on corrosive sublimate manufactured by the Standard Essence Co., of 
 Maywood, N. J., with the use of imported quicksilver. (T. D. 30581; Apr. 13, 
 1910.) 
 Corsets — 
 
 Drawback on corsets manufactured by the Corset H. Co., of Worcester, Mass., with 
 the use of various imported materials. (T. D. 34773; Sept. 21, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on corsets manufactured by Madam Irene, of New York City, with the 
 use of imported cotton, silk, and hnen cloth, laces, edgings, and other materials. 
 T. D. 23405 of December 11, 1901, extended. (T. D. 30820; July 23, 1910.) 
 
 T. D. 30820 of July 23, 1910, providing for drawback on corsets manufactured by 
 Madam Irene, of New York, N. Y., reinstated. (T. D. 35423; May 20, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on corsets manufactured by the Kabo Corset Co., of Chicago, 111., with 
 the use of imported silk, lace, linen, wire, and other materials. (T. D. 31618; 
 May 24, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 241 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Corsets — Continued . 
 
 Drawback on corsets manufactured by the Lily of France Corset Co., of New York, 
 N. Y., with the use of imported laces, embroideries, linens, silks, satins, bro- 
 cades, and other materials of a similar nature. (T. D. 33128; Jan. 28, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on corsets manufactured by the E. C. McWatty Co. (Inc.), of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported linen, silk, cotton, lace, and embroidery. 
 (T. D. 33401; May 8, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on corsets manufactured by the Royal Worcester Corset Co., of Wor- 
 cester, Mass., in part from imported materials. T. D. 25926 of January 3, 1905, 
 amended. (T. D. 29720; Apr. 30, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on corsets manufactured by the Royal Worcester Corset Co., of Wor- 
 cester, Mass., with the use of imported brooches, coutilles, batistes, sateens, 
 laces, embroideries, and other imported materials of a like character. T. D. 
 25926 of January 3, 1905, and T. D. 29720 of April 30, 1909, revoked. (T. D. 
 33622; July 14, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on corsets manufactured by the Warner Bros. Co., of Bridgeport, 
 Conn., in part from imported materials. T. D. 24794 of November 23, 1903, 
 amended. (T. D. 29379; Dec. 2, 1908.) 
 Corundum wheels — 
 
 Drawback on corundum wheels manufactured by the Vitrified Wheel Co., of 
 Westfield, Mass., with the use in part of imported corundum. T. D. 26742 of 
 September 29, 1905, extended. (T. D. 28939; Apr. 15, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on corundum wheels manufactured by the Massasoit Abrasive Prod- 
 ucts Co., of Chester, Mass., with the use of imported corundum. T. D. 26742 
 of September 29, 1905, extended. (T. D. 29397; Dec. 9, 1908.) 
 Corundum and emery wheels — 
 
 Drawback on corundum and emery wheels manufactured by the Abrasive Mate- 
 rial Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported corundum. T. D. 26742 
 of September 29, 1905, extended. (T. D. 29233; Aug. 28, 1908.) 
 Cotton cloth — 
 
 Drawback on cotton cloth bleached, printed, and dyed by the American Printing 
 Co., of Fall River, Mass., with the use of imported colors, dyes, and bleaching 
 powders. T. D. 28621 of December 17, 1907, extended. (T. D. 30406; Mar. 7, 
 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on "Victoria black" cotton cloth manufactured by the Eddystone 
 Manufacturing Co., of Eddystone, Pa., with the use of yellow prussiate of 
 potash. T. D. 28621 of December 17, 1907, extended. (T. D. 30955; Sept. 30, 
 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on dyed and printed cotton cloths manufactured by the Passaic Print 
 Works, of Passaic, N. J., with the use of imported dyestuffs and chemicals. T. 
 D. 28621 of December 17, 1907, extended. (T. D. 29844; June 15, 1909.) 
 Cotton drills — 
 
 Drawback on cotton drills manufactured for the account of G. A. Stafford, of 
 New York, N. Y., by the Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, of Danville, 
 Va., with the use of imported aniline colors or dyes. (T. D. 33948; Dec. 5, 
 1913.) 
 Cotton fabrics. (See Drawback on fabrics.) 
 Cotton gins and linting machines — 
 
 Drawback on cotton gins and linting machines manufactured by the Brown Cotton 
 Gin Co., of New Loffdon, Conn., with the use of imported bristles. (T. D. 31926; 
 Oct. 17, 1911.) 
 45633°— 17 16 
 
242 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Cotton-gin saws — 
 Drawback on cotton-gin saws manufactured by the Brown Cotton Gin Co., of New 
 London, Cona., with the use of imported sheet steel. T. D. 23580 of March 10, 
 1902, extended. (T. D. 28905; Mar. 31, 1908.) 
 Drawback on cotton-gin saws manufactured by the Brown Cotton Gin Co., of New 
 London, Conn., from imported sheet steel. T. D. 28905 of March 31, 1908, 
 revoked. (T. D. 32844; Oct. 4, 1912.) 
 Drawback on cotton-gin saws manufactured by the Continental Gin Co., of Bir- 
 mingham, Ala., with the use of imported steel saw plates. T. D. 12402, T. D. 
 23580, and T. D. 30115, revoked. (T. D. 31639; May 29, 1911.) 
 Drawback on cotton-gin saws manufactured by the Lummus Cotton Gin Co., of 
 Columbus, Ga., from imported steel in sheets. (T. D. 32748; July 30, 1912.) 
 Cotton goods — 
 Drawback on finished cotton goods manufactured by the Fall Eiver Bleachery, 
 Fall Eiver, Mass , from imported unbleached cotton goods. (T. D. 33742; 
 Se, t. 24, 1913.) 
 Cotton, mercerized, dyed — 
 Drawback on dyed mercerized cotton manufactured for and on account of 0. E. 
 Hertlein, of New York, with the use of raw, mercerized cotton. T. D. 26684 
 of August 30, 1905, extended. (T. D. 29113; June 30, 1908.) 
 Cotton piece goods. (See Drawback on piece goods.) 
 Cotton thread finished and wound. (See Drawback on thread.) 
 Cotton yams. (See Drawback on yams, cotton.) 
 Couches for railway cars — 
 Drawback on convertible couches for railway cars manufactured by the Hale & 
 Kilburn Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported fiax canvas. (T. 
 D. 33251; Mar. 8, 1913.) 
 Counters, shoe. (See Drawback on shoe counters.) 
 Coverings for automobiles. (See Drawback on automobile coverings.) 
 Coverings, burlap. (See Drawback on burlap coverings.) 
 Cranes — 
 Drawback on open-hearth cranes manufactured by the Morgan Engineering Co., 
 of Alliance, Ohio, provided with linings and bearings, in the manufacture of 
 which imported antifriction metal is used. (T. D. 31392; Mar. 16, 1911.) 
 Electric traveling — 
 Drawback on electric traveling cranes manufactured by the Whiting Foundry 
 Equipment Co., of Harvey, 111., with the use of imported structural steel 
 girders, electric motors, controllers, resistance, and brakes. (T. D. 29757; 
 May 17, 1909.) 
 Cravenetted cloth — 
 Drawback on imported cloth cravenetted for and on account of Julius Einstein, of 
 New York City, by the Cravenette Co., of Hoboken, N. J. (T. D. 32796; Aug. 
 31, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32796 of August 31, 1912, extended to cover cravanette cloth manufactured 
 by the Cravanette Co., of Hoboken, N. J., tor and on account of E. Connor <Sc 
 Co., of New York. (T. D. 33448; May 22, 1913.) 
 Cream of Wheat — 
 Drawback on Cream of Wheat manufactured by the Cream of Wheat Co., of Minne- 
 apolis, Minn., with the use of imported wheat farina. (T. D. 34722; Aug. 21, 
 1914.) 
 Creamug machines. (See Dia.wback on machines, creamug.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 243 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Creme Yvette — • 
 Drawback on a cordial or liqueur designated as Creme Yvette manufactured by 
 the Sheffield Dentifrice Co., of New London, Conn., with the use of refined sugar 
 made from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 33965; Dec. 9, 1913.) 
 Creosoted lumber — 
 Drawback on creosoted lumber manufactured by the Pacific Creosoting Co., of 
 Eagle Harbor, Wash., from imported lumber. (T. D. 30514; Apr. 8, 1910.) 
 Crescent liquid mangrove cutcb — 
 Drawback on Crescent liquid mangrove cutch manufactured by Harden, Orth & 
 Hastings, of Boston, Mass. , with the use of imported solid mangrove-bark extract. 
 (T. D. 32181; Jan. 24, 1912.) 
 Crest and crystal saccharin. (See Drawback on saccharin.) 
 Cross-section and profile paper and cloth. (See Drawback on paper, profile and 
 
 cross-secticai, and cloth.) 
 Crown corks. (See Drawback on corks. Crown.) 
 Crystolon grains — 
 Drawback on crystolon grains manufactured by the Norton Co., of Worcester, 
 Mass., from imported silicon carbide ore. (T. D. 32319; Mar. 18, 1912.) 
 Cuban palm hats. (See Drawback on hats.) 
 
 Cuff cases, leather. (See Drawback on leather bags and other articles.) 
 Cuff and collar links, and buttons. (See Drawback on buttons and collar and cuff 
 
 Unks.) 
 Currants, cleaned — 
 T. D. 25287 of May 16, 1904, providing for an allowance of drawback on cleaned 
 currants, amended with respect to ascertainment of and allowance for wastage. 
 (T. D. 31176; Jan. 6, 1911.) 
 Drawback on cleaned currants produced by Austin, Nichols & Co. (Inc.), of New 
 
 York, N. Y., from currants imported in bulk. (T. D. 35887; Nov. 17, 1915.) 
 T. D. 33922 of November 24, 1913, covering drawback on currants and raisins, 
 extended to cover cleaned currants produced by R. C. Williams & Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., from currants imported in bulk. (T. D. 35125; Feb. 11, 1915.) 
 Currants and dates — 
 Drawback on cleaned dates, cleaned and pitted dates, and cleaned currants pro- 
 duced by Cavanna & Co. (Inc.), of Philadelphia, Pa., from dates and currants 
 imported in bulk. (T. D. 34564; June 19, 1914.) 
 Drawback on cleaned currants and packed dates produced by the Hills Bros. Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of currants and dates imported in bulk. T. D. 
 27351 of May 16, 1906, T. D. 27399 of June 7, 1906, T. D. 28314 of July 11, 1907, 
 and T. D. 32430 of April 25, 1912, are hereby revoked. (T. D. 35801; Oct. 19, 
 1915.) 
 T. D. 27351 of May 16, 1906, providing for an allowance of drawback on figs, dates, 
 prunes, and almond paste manufactured by Hills Bros. Co., of New York, with 
 the use of imported materials, amended and extended. (T. D. 32430; Apr. 25, 
 1912.) 
 Drawback on cleaned currants, cleaned Sultana raisins, dates, and pitted dates, 
 manufactured by Palmer & Pierce, of New York, from imported currants, 
 raisins, and dates. (T. D. 32904; Nov. 1, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32904 of November 1, 1912, extended to cover package dates produced by 
 Palmer & Pierce, of New York, N. Y., and dates imported in bulk in accord- 
 ance with their sworn statement of January 13, 1915. (T. D. 35090; Jan. 27, 
 1915.) 
 
244 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Currants and dates — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on cleaned currants and package dates manufactured by Frank P. 
 Kruger, of New York, with the use of imported currants and dates. (T. D. 
 33471; May 31, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33471 of May 31, 1913, extended to cover package dates produced by Frank 
 P. Kruger, of New York, N. Y., by a certain process, and amended to provide 
 for the filing of supplemental sworn schedules covering both cleaned currants 
 and package dates. (T. D. 35612; July 28, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on cleaned currants and package and pitted sterilized dates manufac- 
 tured by the W. J. Cantwell Co. (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of 
 currants and dates imported in bulk. (T. D. 36007; Dec. 20, 1915.) 
 Currants and laisins — 
 
 Drawback on cleaned currants and raisins produced by Habicht, Braxm & Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., from raisins and currants imported in bulk. (T. D. 33922; 
 Nov. 24, 1913.) 
 Currants and raisins, cleaned — 
 
 Drawback on cleaned currants and cleaned raisins produced by Palmer & Pierce, 
 of New York, N. Y., from currants and raisins imported in bulk. T. D. 32904 
 of November 1, 1912, revoked. . (T. D. 36010; Dec. 22, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on cleaned currants and raisins produced by William A. Higgins & Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., from currants and raisins imported in bulk. (T. D. 35290; 
 Apr. 5, 1915.) 
 Curtains, etc. — 
 
 Drawback on curtains manufactured by J. S. Lesser Sons & Co., of New York City, 
 with the use of imported cotton netting. (T. D. 30508; Apr. 7, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on curtains, portiferes, and wall draperies manufactured by the Tiffany 
 Studios, of New York, with the use of imported fabrics. (T. D. 33640; July 19, 
 1913.) 
 Curtains, embroidered — 
 
 Drawback on embroidered curtains, table covers, bedspreads, and other articles 
 manufactured by B. Saubiac & Son, of New York City, with the use of imported 
 velvets, satin, cotton, and other materials. T. D. 30621 of May 19, 1910, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 31601; May 17, 1911.) 
 Curtains, lace — 
 
 Drawback on lace curtains manufactured by P. K. Wilson & Son, New York City, 
 with the use of mported cotton net and laces. T. D. 30508 of April 7, 1910, 
 covering drawbacks on curtains, supra, extended. (T. D. 31416; Mar. 23, 1911.) 
 
 Piece goods, and bed sets: Drawback on lace curtains, piece goods, and bed sets 
 manufactured by the Wellington-Pierce Co., of Boston, Mass., with the use of 
 imported cable nets, laces, motifs, and other similar materials. (T. D. 33654; 
 July 26, 1913.) 
 
 Panels, bedspreads, and covers: Drawback on lace curtains, panels, bedspreads, 
 and covers manufactured by John F. Patching & Co., of New York, N. Y., with 
 the use of cotton and linen lace, insertions, medallions, edgings, and other fab- 
 rics. (T. D. 33683; Aug. 13, 1913.) 
 Cut-glass stoppers — 
 
 Drawback on cut-glass stoppers imported in an unfinished condition and manu- 
 factured by the Monongah Glass Co., at Fairmont, W. Va., by grinding and 
 polishii^ the same to fit individual decanters, bottles, etc. (T. D. 33352; Apr. 
 22, 1913.) 
 Cut mica — 
 
 Drawback on cut mica manufactured by A. O. Schoonmaker, of New York City, 
 from imported uncut mica. T. D. 26045 of February 10, 1905, extended. 
 (T. D. 30513; April 8, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 245 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Cutch, powdered — 
 Drawback on powdered cutch manufactured by the Franklin Chemical Works, of 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported gum cutch. (T. D. 34039; Jan. 
 3, 1914.) 
 Cycles and bicycles, motor. (See Drawback on motor cycles and bicycles.) 
 Cylinder castings — 
 Drawback on cylinder castings imported in the rough and milled and otherwise 
 machined by the IngersoU Milling Machine Co., of Rockford, 111. (T. D. 32323; 
 Mar. 22, 1912.) 
 Dauderine — 
 Drawback on Danderine manufactured by Parke, Davis & Co., of Detroit, Mich., 
 with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 32414; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 Dates. (See also Drawback on currants and dates.) 
 
 Drawback on package dates produced by Austin, Nichols & Co., of New York, 
 
 N. Y., from dates imported in bulk. (T. D. 34595; June 26, 1914.) 
 Drawback on dipped dates and pitted stuffed dates manufactured by the Cresca 
 Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported dates, walnuts, and almonds. 
 (T. D. 33103; Jan. 18, 1913.) 
 Drawback on package dates manufactured by William A. Higgins & Co., of New 
 York City, from imported dates by the process of cleaning, selecting, treating to 
 a sugar solution, and packing. T. D. 27351 of May 16, 1906, extended. (T. D. 
 32611; June 8, 1912.) 
 Drawback on stuffed dates prepared by the Smyrna Fruit Co., of New York City, 
 with the use of imported dates, almonds, and walnuts. (T. D. 32616; June 10, 
 1912.) 
 Drawback on package dates produced by the Smyrna Fruit Co., of New York, 
 N. Y., by the use of dates imported in bulk. (T. D. 33893; Nov. 19, 1913.) 
 Decorated china. (See Drawback on china.) 
 Dental chairs and engines — 
 Drawback on dental chairs manufactured by the Ritter Dental Manufacturing Co., 
 of Rochester, N. Y., with the use of imported haircloth. T. D. 25247 of May 2, 
 1904, extended. (T. D. 31264; Feb. 2, 1911.) 
 Drawback on dental chairs and engines manufactured by the Ritter Dental Manu- 
 facturing Co., of Rochester, N. Y., with the use of imported mohair cloth, plush, 
 sleeves, and cables. T. D. 25247 of May 2, 1904, T. D. 31264 of February 2, 1911, 
 and T. D. 34582 of June 24, 1914, revoked. (T. D. 359*33; Dec. 1, 1915.) 
 Drawback on electric dental engines manufactured by the Ritter Dental Manu- 
 facturing Co., of Rochester, N. Y., with the use of imported cables and sleeves. 
 (T. D. 34582; June 24, 1914.) 
 Dental cream — 
 Drawback on Kolynos dental cream manufactured by the Kolynos Co., of New 
 Haven, Conn., in part from domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 30092; Nov. 4, 
 1909.) 
 T. D. 30092, of November 4, 1909; providing for an allowance of drawback on 
 Kolynos dental cream manufactured by the Kolynos Co., of New Haven, Conn., 
 with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol, amended. (T. D. 31366; Mar. 9, 
 1911.) 
 Drawback on the toilet preparation designated as "Kolynos Dental Cream," 
 manufactured by the Kolynos Co., of New Haven, Conn., with the use of doines- 
 tic tax-paid alcohol, imported thymol, and imported eucalyptus. T. D. 30092 
 of November 4, 1909, and T. D. 31366 of March 9, 1911, revoked. (T. D. 34769; 
 Sept. 18, 1914.) 
 
246 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Dental cieam — Continued. 
 Drawback on Kolynos dental cream, manufactured by Kolynos Co., of New 
 Haven, Conn., with the use of imported collapsible tin tubes. T. D. 29381 of 
 December 5, 1908, extended. (T. D. 31198; Jan. 14, 1911.) 
 Dental engines. (See Drawback on dental chairs and engines.) 
 Dental plaster — 
 Drawback on dental plaster manufactured by the Higginson Manufacturing Co., 
 of Newburgh, N. Y., with the use of imported gypsum. (T. D. 29366; Nov. 25, 
 1908.) 
 Dental powder, and talcum — 
 Drawback on dental and talcum powders manufactured by Colgate & Co., of Jersey 
 City, N. J., with the use of imported chalk and talc. (T. D. 29669; Apr. 1, 
 1909.) 
 Dental rubber — 
 Drawback on dental rubber manufactured by Claudius Ash, Sons & Co., of New 
 York, N. Y. with the use of imported vermilion and white zinc sulphide. (T. 
 D. 35691; Sept. 1, 1915.) 
 Diamond drawplates — 
 Drawback on steel set diamond drawplates manufactured by the Balloftet-Baszan- 
 ger Die Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported pierced diamonds or 
 diamond dies. (T. D. 34020; Dec. 27, 1913.) 
 Diamond dyes — 
 T. D. 22714 of January 9, 1901, amended to provide for allowance of drawback on 
 Diamond dyes manufactured by the Wells & Richardson Co., of Burlington, 
 Vt., under a new sworn statement, dated March 23, 1912. (T. D. 32864; Oct. 
 16, 1912.) 
 Die castings — 
 Drawback on die castings manufactured by the Doehler Die Casting Co., of Brook- 
 lyn, N. Y., with the use of imported hardened -steel wheels. (T.D. 35034; 
 Jan. 5, 1915.) 
 Doilies. (See Drawback on pillow slips, scarfs, and centerpieces.) 
 Domestic tax-paid alcohol used in the manufacture of medicinal and toilet prepara- 
 tions — 
 Regulations under section 25, act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 29952; circular No. 
 
 39; Aug. 13, 1909J 
 (See also Drawback on various articles.) 
 Door frames — 
 Drawback on doorframes manufactvu«d by J. G. Braun, of Chicago, 111., from 
 imported structural wrought iron. (T. D. 33466; May 27, 1913.) 
 Doors for safes, finished. (See Drawback on safe doois.) 
 Down. (See also Drawback on feathers and down.) 
 Cleaned and renovated: Drawback on cleaned and renovated down manufactured 
 by the P. R. Mitchell Co., of Cincinnati, Ohio, from imported uncleaned down. 
 (T. D. 29920; July 24, 1909.) 
 Drawing papers, etc. (See Drawback on papers.) 
 Dredge pins and bushings, frogs and switches, etc. — ' 
 Drawback on dredge pins and bushings, frogs and switches, gears and pinions, 
 stone crusher castings, and other products manufactured by the Taylor Iron 
 & Steel Co., of High Bridge, N. J., in part from imported ferromanganese. 
 (T. D. 29345; Nov. 16, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 247 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Dress shield's — 
 Drawback on dress sliields manufactured by the I. B. Kleinert Eubber Co., of 
 New York City, in part from imported silk in the piece and imported cotton 
 galloon binding. Department's regulations of January 15, 1896, extended to 
 cover certain other styles. (T. D. 29270; Sept. 25,-1908.) 
 Drawback on dress shields manufactured by I. B. Kleinert Rubber Co., of New 
 York, with the use of imported silk in the piece and cotton galloon binding. 
 (T. D. 30714; June 23, 1910.) 
 Drawback on certain styles of dress shields manufactured by the I. B. Kleinert 
 Rubber Co., of New York City, with the use of imported elastic webbing and 
 galloon binding. (T. D. 32373; Apr. 4, 1912.) 
 Dresses, infants', and veils. (See Drawback on veils and infants' dresses.) 
 Dresses, women's and children's. (See Drawback on clothing.) 
 Drills- 
 Drawback on st«el drills manufactured by the Ingersoll-Rand Co., of New York, 
 N. Y., from imported round hollow drill steel. (T. D. 33813; Oct. 27,' 1913.) 
 Driving axles, engine-truck axles, etc. — 
 Drawback on driving axles, engine-truck axles, tender-truck axles, connecting 
 rods, piston rods,' wrist pins, and guides manufactured from imported steel 
 blooms by the Standard Steel Co., of Burnham, Pa., and the Baldwin Loco- 
 motive 'Works, of Philadelphia, Pa., when exported as such or incorporated in 
 locomotives manufactured by the Baldwin Locomotive Works. T. D. 24418 of 
 May 7, 1903, revoked. (T. D. 32758; Aug. 10, 1912.) 
 Drums, 10-gallon — 
 Drawback on 10-gallon drums known aa "light" manufactured by the Standard 
 Oil Co., of New York, from imported terneplates. (T. D. 32213; Feb. 1, 1912.) 
 Dry batteries — 
 Drawback on dry batteries manufactured by the American Ever Ready Co., of 
 San Francisco, Cal., with the use of imported sal ammoniac, chloride of zinc, 
 and carbon. (T. D. 33444; May 21, 1913.) 
 Drawback on dry-cell batteries manufactured by the Manhattan Electrical Supply 
 Co., of Jersey City, N. J., with the use of imported sal ammoniac. (T. D. 33255; 
 Mar. 10, 1913.) 
 T. D. 33255 of March 10, 1913, amended to provide that the allowance shall not 
 exceed the quantity of imported sal ammoniac used, as shown by the sworn 
 schedule of the manufacturer, dated February 15, 1913. (T. D. 33458; May 
 23, 1913.) 
 Dry colors. (See Drawback on colors.) 
 
 Dry plates, photographic. (See Drawback on photographic dry plates.) 
 Dry white lead. (See Drawback on lead.) 
 "Durons" — 
 Drawback on "Durons" manufactured by the Amid-Duron Co., of Brooklyn, N. 
 Y., with the use of an imported chemical compound known as "Amid G" and 
 "Amid D." (T. D. 31793; Aug. 3, 1911.) 
 Dyed artificial silk. (See Drawback on silk.) 
 Dyed, backed, and waterproofed cloths — 
 Drawback on dyed, backed, and waterproofed cloths manufactured for and on 
 account of Henry Gitterman & Co., of New York City, with the use of imported 
 woolen or cotton and woolen cloth. (T. D. 32612; June 8, 1912.) 
 Dyed braids, trimmings, fabrics, and artificial silk yarn. (See Drawback on yarn, 
 artificial silk, and dyed braids, trimmings, and fabrics.) 
 
248 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Contimied. 
 Dyed skins. (See Drawback on skins.) 
 Dyed and finished Habutai silk. (See Drawback on silk, dyed and finished, 
 
 Habutai.) 
 Dyed and mercerized cotton yarn. (See Drawback on yam, mercerized and cotton.) 
 Dyed and spooled artificial silk yam. (See Drawback on yam.) 
 Dyes — 
 Drawback on dyes manufactured by the Badische Co., of New York City, with 
 the use of imported dry coal-tar colors. T. D. 30628 of May 31, 1910, extended. 
 (T. D. 30858; Aug. 4, 1910.) 
 Drawback on dyes manufactured by the Cassella Color Co., of New York City, 
 
 with the use of imported dry coal-tar colors. (T. D. 30628; May 21, 1910.) 
 Drawback on dyes manufactured by J. S. & W. R. Eaklns, of Brooklyn, N. Y., 
 
 with the use of imported anaUne dyestuffs. (T. D. 34586; June 24, 1914.) 
 T. D. 23903 of July 28, 1902, extended to provide for the payment of drawback on 
 dyes manufactured by the Swiss Colours Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use 
 of imported coal-tar colors. (T. D. 34594; June 26, 1914.) 
 Dyes and coal-tar preparations — 
 Drawback on dyes and coal-tar preparations manufactured by the American Dye- 
 wood Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported coal-tar products. T. 
 D. 23903 of July 28, 1902, revoked. (T. D. 35555; June 28, 1915.) 
 Dynamite and refined glycerine. (See also Glycerin, refined.) 
 T. D. 17355 of August 1, 1896, providing for the allowance of drawback on dyna- 
 mite and other explosives, amended. (T. D. 29062; June 12, 1908.) 
 Drawback on dynamite manufactured by the Keystone Powder Manufacturing 
 Co., of Emporium, Pa., and the Slnnamahoning Powder Manufacturing Co., of 
 Sinnamahoning, Pa., with the use of imported saltpeter. T. D. 17355 of August 
 1, 1896, as amended by T. D. 29062 of June 12, 1908, extended. (T. D. 29947; 
 Aug. 10, 1909.) 
 Drawback on dynamite, dynamite powder, and dynamite gelatin manufactured 
 with the use of imported refined glycerin, or with the use of refined glycerin 
 produced from imported cmde glycerin. (T. D. 34716; Aug. 21, 1914.) 
 Amended T. D. 35312; Apr. 12, 1915). 
 Dynamos and motors — 
 Drawback on dynamos and motors manufactured by Gray & Davis (Inc.), of Bos- 
 ton, Mass., with the use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 34686; Aug. 5, 1914.) 
 "Eau de Cologne." (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Eckman's alterative — ■ 
 Drawback on Eckman's alterative manufactured by the Eckman Manufacturing 
 Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 
 32338; Mar. 27, 1912.) 
 Edged veiling. (See Drawback on veiling, ladies'.) 
 Eggs, powdered — 
 
 Drawback on powdered eggs manufactured by Stein, Hirsh & Co., of New York, 
 N. Y., from imported dried albumen and dried egg yolks. tT. D. 35227; Mar. 
 16, 1915.) 
 Electrelle piano player. (See Drawback on Piano players, electric.) 
 Electric commutators. (See Drawback on electrical equipment.) 
 Electric flatirons. (See Drawback on flatirons, electric.) 
 Electric generators. (See Drawback on automobiles and electric generators.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 249 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Electric-lamp fixtures — 
 
 Drawback on electric-lamp fixtures manufactured by the General Electric Co., 
 of Schenectady, N. Y., at their plant located at Cleveland, Ohio, designated 
 as the Ivanhoe Metal Works, with the use of imported sockets and holders. (T. 
 D. 33930; Dec. 1, 1913.) 
 Electric lamps — ■ 
 T. D. 32605 of June 6, 1912, concerning drawback on electric lights, extended to 
 cover electric lamps manufactured by the General Electric Co., of New York, 
 at their factories at Lynn and East Boston, Mass. , with the use of imported glass 
 bulbs and brass bases. (T. D. 33718; Sept. 3, 1913.) 
 T. D. .32605 of June 6, 1912, extended to cover electric lamps manufactured by the 
 General Electric Co., of New York, N. Y., at their factory at Newark, N. J., 
 with the use of imported glass bulbs and brass bases. (T. D. 33754; Sept. 26, 
 1913.) 
 Incandescent — 
 Drawback on Ediswan incandescent electric lamps manufactured by the Gen- 
 eral Electric Co., of New York, with the use of imported bases. (T. D. 30061; 
 Oct. 23, 1909.) 
 Drawback on incandescent electric lamps manufactured by the General Elec- 
 tric Co., of Harrison, N. J., with the use of imported tantalum wire. (T. D. 
 30632; May 21, 1910.) 
 Electric-light fixtures — 
 Drawback on electric-light fixtures manufactured by H. G. McFaddin & Co., of 
 New York City, with the use of imported glass shades. (T. D. 31418; Mar. 23, 
 1911.) 
 Electric-light pendant shades. (See Drawback on gas and electric light pendant 
 
 shades.) 
 Electric lights. (See also Electric lamps.) 
 Drawback on electric lights manufactured by the General Electric Co . , of Harrison, 
 N. J., with the use of imported glass bulbs. (T. D. 32605; June 6, 1912.) 
 Electric meters, protected, (See Drawback on protected electric meters.) 
 Electric meters, recording. (See Drawback on recording electric meters.) 
 Electric starting and lighting equipment — ■ 
 Drawback on electric starting and lighting equipment for automobiles manufac- 
 tured by the Jones Electric Starter Co., of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported 
 carbon and metal brushes and ball bearings. (T. D. 34489; June 1, 1914.) 
 Electric sweepers. (See Drawback on vacuum cleaners and electric sweepers.) 
 Electric traveling cranes. (See Drawback on cranes.) 
 
 Electrically heated appliances and on heating elements and mica parts therefor — - 
 Drawback on electrically heated appliances and on heating elements and mica 
 parts therefor manufactured by the Hotpoint Electric Heating Co., of Ontario, 
 Cal., with the use of imported mica. (T. D. 33603; July 9, 1913.) 
 Electrical apparatus and mica articles — 
 Drawback on electrical apparatus and mica articles manufactured by the General 
 Electric Co. from imported rough-trimmed mica. T. D. 23268 of September 9, 
 1901, amended. (T. D. 30418; Mar. 14, 1910.) 
 Electrical equipment — 
 Automobile starting and lighting equipment: Drawback on starting and lighting 
 equipments manufactured by the Bijur Motor lighting Co., of Hoboken, N. J., 
 with the use of imported ball bearings and motor generator brushes. (T. D. 
 34083; Jan. 24, 1914.) 
 
250 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Electrical equipment — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on electric commutators manufactured by the Cameron Electrical 
 Manufacturing Co., of Ansonia, Conn., with the use of imported mica split- 
 tings. (T. D. 34834; Oct. 15, 1914.) 
 
 Commutators: T. D. 34834 of October 15, 1914, extended to cover commutators 
 manufactured by the Cameron Electrical Manufacturing Co., of Ansonia, Conn., 
 with the use of imported India mica splittings and segments. (T. D. 35278, 
 Mar. 31, 1915.) 
 
 Drjiwback on automatic generators, motors, and starting and lighting equipments 
 manufactured by the Kemco Electric Manufacturing Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, 
 with the use of imported materials. (T. D. 35087; Jan. 26, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on lightning arresters manufactured by the Greneral Electric Co. with 
 the use of cones manufactured from imported aluminum disks. (T. D. 31488; 
 Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 
 Lightning arresters and parts: T. D. 31488 of April 17, 1911, extended to cover 
 lightning arresters and cones therefor manufactured by the General Electric Co., 
 with the use of imported aluminum disks. (T. D. 33130; Jan. 30, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on aluminum cones and lightning arresters manufactured by the Gen- 
 eral Electric Co., of Pittsfield, Mass., with the use of imported aluminum sheets. 
 (T. D. 35603; July 22, 1915.) 
 
 Insulators or bushings : Drawback on lava insulators or bushings manufactured by 
 M. Kirchberger & Co. (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported tal- 
 cum, steatite, or French chalk. (T. D. 35855; Nov. 2, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on electric starting and lighting equipments for automobiles manufac- 
 tured by the North East Electric Co., of Rochester, N. Y., with the use of im- 
 ported ball bearings, brushes, and chains. (T. D. 34350; Apr. 6, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on automobile starting, lighting, and ignition equipment and units of 
 such equipment manufactured by the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing 
 Co., of East Pittsburgh, Pa., with the use of imported materials. (T. D. 35114; 
 Feb. 5, 1915.) 
 Electrical hoists — 
 
 Drawback on electrical hoists manufactured by the Lidgerwood Manufacturing 
 Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., for and on account of J. K. Robinson, of New York 
 City, with the use of imported motors. (T. D. 31700; June 16, 1900.) 
 Electrical machinery — • 
 
 Drawback on various kinds of electrical machinery, heating apparatus, and other 
 articles manufactured by the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co., of 
 Pittsburgh, Pa., with the use of imported mica, Krupp steel, steel balls, Italian 
 marble, and other materials and parts. (T. D. 32591; June 3, 1912.) 
 Electrodes — 
 
 Drawback on electrodes manufactured by the National Carbon Co., of Cleveland, 
 Ohio, with the use of imported brass mounts or disks. (T. D. 31423; Mar. 25, 
 1911.) 
 Elixir Lactopeptin manufactured by the New York Pharmacal Association. (See 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Embroidered cloth. (See Drawback on cloth, embroidered.) 
 Embroidered curtains. (See Drawback on curtains.) 
 Embroidered nets and fabrics — 
 
 Drawback on embroidered nets and fabrics manufactured by the Southern Em- 
 broidery Co., of Baltimore, Md., with the use of imported nets and artificial 
 silk. (T. D. 35738; Oct. 1, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 251 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Embroideied veiling. (See Drawback on veiling, ladies'.) 
 Emulsion, petroleum. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Enamels, varnishes, and stains. (See Drawbaxik on varnishes, enamels, and stains.) 
 Enamolin, Bed Label — 
 Drawback on Red Label Enamolin manufactured by Emil Caiman & Co., of New 
 York City, with the use of imported oxide of zinc. T. D. 25079 of March 5, 1904, 
 extended. (T. D. 31599; May 16, 1911.) 
 Engine oil, marine. (See Drawback on marine engine oil.) 
 Engines — 
 
 Drawback on Diesel engines manufactured by the Otto Gas Engine Works, of 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported incomplete engines. (T. D. 35657) 
 Aug. 16, 1915.) 
 Engines, gasoline — 
 
 Drawback on gasoline engines manufactured by the Electric Boat Co., of Quincy, 
 Mass., in part with the use of imported steel crank shafts. (T. D. 28789; Feb. 
 20, 1908.) 
 Drawback on gasoline engines and parts manufactured by the Continental Motor 
 Manufacturing Co., of Detroit and Muskegon, Mich., with the use of imported 
 materials. (T. D. 35159; Feb. 20, 1915.) 
 Engines and chairs, dental. (See Drawback on dental chaii-s and engines.) 
 Entry — 
 The omission of certain data in drawback entries authorized where such data are 
 either unnecessary or are given in the sworn statement or schedule of the manu- 
 facturer. (T. D. 33605; July 9, 1913.) 
 The word "entry" as used in paragraph 21 of the regulations of June 16, 1911 (T. 
 D. 31695), construed to apply to shipments and not to combination drawback 
 entries. (T. D. 32929; Nov. 11, 1912.) 
 Amending the form of drawback entry prescribed in article 11 of T. D. 31695 of 
 June 16, 1911. (T. D. 35484; June 3, 1915.) 
 Essential oil of orange, refined. (See Drawback on oil, orange.) 
 Etching machines — 
 
 Drawback on etching machines manufactured by the Graphic Arts Co., of Phila- 
 delphia, Pa., with the use of imported stoneware and earthenware baths and 
 trays. (T. D. 29198; Aug. 8, 1908.) 
 "Evarosa" and "Toiletine" manufactured by the Toiletine Co. (See Drawback on 
 
 medicinal and toilet preparations.) 
 Extracts, flavoring. (See Drawback on flavoring extracts.) 
 Eyeglasses. (See Drawback on spectacles and eyeglasses.) 
 Fabrics, cotton, linen, silk, and woolen — 
 Drawback on cotton, linen, silk, and woolen fabrics imported by J. Sachs & Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., in a raw or unfinished condition, and bleached, dyed, and 
 finished for their account by M. Desaye & Co., of Passaic, N. J. (T. D. 33865; 
 Nov. 14, 1913.) 
 Fabrics, linen — 
 Drawback on imported linen fabrics exported after being water shrunk and refin- 
 ished by the Rigby Waterproof & PiniBhing Co., of New York, N. Y., for the 
 account of N. Erlanger, Blumgart & Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35035; 
 Jan. 5, 1915.) 
 Fabrics, silk — 
 Drawback on silk fabrics manufactured by the Stewart Silk Co., of New York, N. 
 Y., with the use of imported spun silk or schappe. (T. D. 33059; Jan. 3, 1913.) 
 
252 DIGEST OF CtrSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on— Contimied. 
 Fabrics and nets, embioideied. (See Drawback on embroidered nets and fabrics.) 
 'Fabrikoid — 
 
 Drawback on artificial leather, designated as fabrikoid, manufactured by the Du 
 Pont Fabrikoid Co., of Wilmington, Del., with the use of imported cotton piece 
 goods and dyes and castor oil manufactured from imported castor seeds. (T. D. 
 34635; July 15, 1914.) 
 Feathers — 
 
 Drawback on feathers imported in a raw condition and bleached and dyed by the 
 London Feather Co., New York City. (T. D. 31900; Oct. 2, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on cleaned and sterilized, or cleaned, sterilized, and curled feathers 
 manufactured by the Sunset Feather Co., of San Francisco, Cal., from imported 
 raw and unpurified feathers, and on pillows manufactured by this company from 
 imported feathers after such feathers have been cleaned and sterilized. (T. D. 
 32191; Jan. 27, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 32191 of January 27, 1912, amended to provide for an allowance to compen- 
 sate for waste on the basis of an abstract from the manufacturing record. (T. D. 
 33604; July 9, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on feathers imported in a raw condition and dyed, bleached, steamed, 
 cleansed, wrapped with silk or wire at the ends, backed, etc., by Lehman Bros., 
 of New York City. T. D. 31900 of October 2, 1911, extended. (T. D. 32725; 
 July 19, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on ostrich feathers and plumes manufactured by E. Eisemann & Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported raw or crude ostrich feathers. (T. 
 D. 34017; Dec. 26, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on dyed ostrich feathers produced by the John Leone Co., of New York, 
 N. Y., from imported crude ostrich feathers. (T. D. 35835; Oct. 27, 1915.) 
 Feathers and down — 
 
 Drawback on purified and refined feathers, down, fine half down, and half down 
 manufactured by Robinson-Roders Co., of Newark, N. J., with the use of im- 
 ported raw unpurified feathers. (T. D. 28807; Feb. 26, 1908.) 
 
 Department's regulations of February 26, 1908 (T. D. 28807), amended to provide 
 in liquidation for valuable waste. (T. D. 28986; May 12, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on purified and refined down and feathers manufactured by the Robin- 
 son-Roders Co., of Newark, N. J., with the use of imported raw unpurified 
 feathers. T. D. 28807 of February 26, 1908, and T. D. 28986 of May 12, 1908, 
 revoked. (T. D. 33068; Jan. 7, 1913.) 
 Fellow's Compound Syrup of Hypophosphites. (See Drawback on medicinal prep- 
 arations.) 
 Felt and felt articles — 
 
 Drawback on felt and felt articles manufactured by the Alfred Dolge Manufac- 
 turing Co., of Dolgeville, Cal., with the use of imported wool in combination 
 with domestic materials. (T. D. 29083; June 18, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on felt and felt articles manufactured by the Alfred Dolge Felt Co., of 
 Dolgeville, Cal., wholly from imported wool. T. D. 29083 of June 18, 1908, 
 extended. (T. D. 29403; Dec. 12, 1908.) 
 Ferrovanadinm — 
 
 Drawback on ferrovanadium manufactured by the American Vanadium Co., of 
 Pittsburgh, Pa., with the use of granulated aluminum manufactured from im- 
 ported aluminum by the-Aluminum Co. of America. (T. D. 33607; July 10, 
 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33607 of July 10,' 1913, extended to cover ferrovanadium manufactured by 
 tha American Vanadium Co., of Pittsburgh, Pa., with the use of imported 
 aluminum. (T. D. 33719; Sept. 4, 1913.) i 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 253 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Ferrovim. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Fertilizer — 
 
 Drawback on fertilizer manufactured by the Knowles-Bradley Co., of New York, 
 N. Y., with the use of imported tobacco snuff flour. (T. D. 35077; Jan. 23, 
 1915.) 
 Figs. (See also Drawback on dates and figs, etc.) 
 Drawback on pulled and treated figs manufactured by the Smyrna Fruit Co., of 
 New York City, from imported figs in the raw condition. T. D. 25450 of April 
 5, 1904, extended. (T. D. 29530; Feb. 5, 1909.) 
 T. D. 29530 of February 5, 1909; amended to provide that the allowance on the 
 exportation of figs shall not exceed 100 pounds of imported figs to each 106.9 
 pounds of exported figs. T. D. 29530 of February 5, 1909, and T. D. 32616 of 
 June 10, 1912, extended to provide for the payment of drawback on the respec- 
 tive articles when packed in the same jar or package. (T. D. 33132; Jan. 31, 
 1913.) 
 Drawback on prepared figs manufactured by Arguinbau & Ramee, of New York 
 
 City, from imported dry-packed figs. (T. D. 31877; Sept. 20, 1911.) 
 Drawback on prepared figs manufactured by Van Dyk & Catrevas, of New York 
 
 City, from imported dry-packed figs. (T. D. 31874; Sept. 20, 1911.) 
 T. D. 26139 of March 11, 1905, providing for the payment of drawback on pulled 
 and treated figs manufactured by Reiss & Brady, of New York, N. Y., extended 
 to cover pulled and treated figs manufactured by the Cresca Co., successors to 
 Reiss & Brady, and amended to provide that the allowance shall not exceed 100 
 pounds of imported figs for each 108 pounds of pulled and treated figs exported. 
 (T. D. 33421; Ma^ 14, 1913.) 
 Films, moving-picture'. (See Drawback on moving-picture films.) 
 Finished, bleached, Panama hats. (See Drawback on hats.) 
 Finished shawls. (See Drawback on shawls.) 
 Fire-alarm boxes — 
 Drawback on fire-alarm boxes manufactured by the Gamewell Fire Alarm Tele- 
 graph Co., of New York City, with the use in part of imported telephone jacks. 
 (T. D. 28989; May 13, 1908.) - 
 Firearms, silent — 
 Drawback on silent firearms manufactured by the Maxim Silent Firearms Co., 
 with the use of imported rifles, shotguns, revolvers, and other firearms. (T. D. 
 29386; Dec. 8, 1908.) 
 Fire boxes, locomotives. (See Drawback on locomotive fire boxes.) 
 Fire cables and switch ropes — 
 Drawback on fire cables and switch ropes manufactured by the Upson-Walton 
 Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of imported steel wire rope. (T. D. 33446; 
 May 21, 1913.) 
 Fire hose — 
 Drawback on fire hose manufactured by the Eureka Fire Hose Co., of New York 
 City, from imported flax yarns. T. D. 20252 of October 28, 1898, and T. D. 
 23105 of June 10, 1901, extended. (T. D. 30868; Aug. 10, 1910.) 
 Drawback on fire hose manufactured by William and Charles Beck, of Lawrence, 
 Mass., with the use of imported flax yam. (T. D. 35524; June 14, 1915.) 
 Fish nets — 
 Drawback on flsh nets manufactured by the American Net & Twine Co., of 
 Boston, Mass., in part from imported cotton twine. (T. D. 28766; Feb. 14, 
 1908.') 
 Drawback on fish nets manufactured by the R. J. Ederer Co., of Chicago, 111., 
 from imported linen thread. (T. D. 29280; Aug. 26, 1908.) 
 
254 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on— Continued. 
 Fish nets — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on fish nets manufactured by the E. J. Ederer Thread Co., of Phila- 
 delphia, Pa., with the use of gray linen yam. T. D. 29230 of August 26, 1908, 
 extended. (T. D. 31308; Feb. 17, 1911.) 
 Fish nets and seines — 
 
 Drawback on fish nets and seines manufactured by the Fish Net & Twine Co., of 
 East Haddam, Conn. (T. D. 31821; Aug. 17, 1911.) 
 
 T. D. 31821 of August 17, 1911, extended to cover fish nets and seines manufactured 
 by the Fish Net & Twine Co., of East Haddam, Conn., with the use of Unen 
 thread manufactured by J. E. Barbour, of Pateison, N. J., from imported flax 
 yarns. (T. D. 33203; Feb. 18, 1913.) 
 Fittings, etc. — 
 
 Drawback allowed under T. D. 28136 of May 4, 1907, on flanged and screwed fit- 
 tings, pipe connections, valves, etc., manufactured with the use of imported 
 pig iron by the Crane Valve Co., of Bridgeport, Conn., successor to Eaton, Cole 
 & Bumham Co., of same place. (T. D. 29739; May 10, 1909.) 
 Fittings for military equipment. (See Drawback on military equipment fittings.) 
 Fixtures for gas and electric lights and oil lamps — 
 
 Drawback on oil lamps and gas and electric light fixtures manufactured by Edward 
 Miller & Co., of Meriden, Conn., in part from imported materials. (T. D. 
 32852; Oct. 9, 1912.) 
 Fixtures, store and bank. (See Drawback on glass articles.) 
 Flatirons, electric- 
 Drawback on electric flatirons manufactured by the Chicago Flexible Shaft Co., 
 o^ Chicago, 111., with the use of imported hardwood,'' General Electric plugs. 
 (T. D. 33057; Jan. 2, 1913.) 
 Flats, revolving, and revolving flat-card machines — ■ 
 
 Drawback on revolving flats and revolving fla1>card machines manufactured by 
 the Saco-Lowell Shops, at Boston, Mass., with the use of imported card clothing. 
 (T. D. 36024; Dec. 30, 1915.) 
 Flavoring extracts. (See also Drawback on medicinal preparations and flavoring 
 extracts.) 
 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by Austin, Nichols & Co., of New 
 York City, from imported alcohol. T. D. 28368 of August 5, 1907, extended. 
 (T. D. 29401; Dec. 10, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by the Baker Extract Co., of Spring- 
 field, Mass., with the use of imported alcohol. (T. D. 31982; Nov. 2, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts, juices, sirups, fruits, and specialties of various 
 kinds manufactured by the Beach-Clarridge Corporation, of Boston, Mass., with 
 the use of imported materials. (T. D. 28927; Apr. 10, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on vaniUa extract manufactured by the Blanke-Baer Chemical Co., of 
 St. Louis, Mo., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol and imported vanilla 
 beans. (T. D. 35201; Mar. 9, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by the Blanke-Baer Chemical Co., 
 of St. Louis, Mo., with the use of various imported materials and domestic tax- 
 paid alcohol. (T. D. 35728; Sept. 28, 1915.) 
 
 Drawba*;k on flavoring extracts manufactured by the Joseph Burnett Co., of 
 Boston, Mass.. with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34224; Mar. 
 4, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by W. J. Bush & Co. (Inc.), of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohoL (T. D. 35611; July 28, 
 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 255 
 
 Draw1)Bck on — Continued. 
 Mavoimg extracts — Continued. 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by Colgate & Co., of New York, 
 
 N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol and imported vanilla beans 
 
 and oil of lemon. (T. D. 34591; June 26, 1914.) 
 T. D. 25095 of March 11, 1904, extended to cover flavoring extracts manufactured 
 
 by the Davis & Lawrence Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic 
 
 tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34734; Aug. 28, 1914.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by Fred Fear & Co., of New York 
 
 City, with the use of imported alcohol. T. D. 28368 ,of August 5, 1907, extended. 
 
 (T. D. 30328; Feb. 5, 1910.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by Fred Fear & Co., of New York 
 
 City, with the use of imported alcohol and granulated sugar, or granulated sugar 
 
 manufactured from imported raw sugar. T. D. 28368 of August 5, 1907, ex- 
 tended; T. D. 30328 of February 5, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 30563; Apr. 22, 1910.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by Fred Fear & Co., of New York, 
 
 N. Y.,.with the use of imported essential oil of lemon and domestic tax-paid 
 
 alcohol. T. D. 30563 of April 22, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 35615; July 29, 1915.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by Richard Frank & Co., of New 
 
 York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34082; Jan. 24, 
 
 1914.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by Fries & Bro., of New York, 
 
 N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34291; Mar. 19, 1914.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by Fries & Bro., of New York, 
 
 N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 34291 of March 19, 
 
 1914 revoked. (T. D. 34912; Nov. 19, 1914.) 
 T. D. 35424, dated May 21, 1915, extended to cover vanillin manufactured by 
 
 Fries Bros., of New York, N. Y., with the use of oil of cloves manufactured from 
 
 imported cloves. (T. D. 35829; Oct. 26, 1915.) 
 T. D. 34071 of January 20, 1914, extended to cover flavoring extracts manufactured 
 
 by Jacob House & Sons, of Bufl[alo, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid 
 
 alcohol. (T. D. 34149; Feb. 5, 1914.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by the Knickerbocker Mills Co., 
 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 35601; 
 
 July 21, 1915.) 
 Drawback on Nabob emon extract manufactured' by Francis H. Leggett & Co., 
 
 of New York City, with the use of imported alcohol. T. D. 28368 of August 5, 
 
 1907, extended. (T. D. 29330; Nov. 9, 1908.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by the Lehman-Rosenfeld Co., o 
 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34881; 
 
 Nov. 5, 1914.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by the Liquid Carbonic Co., of 
 
 New York, in part with the use of imported alcohol. T. D. 28368 of August 5, 
 
 1907, extended. (T. D. 29363; Nov. 24, 1908.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by the Liquid Carbonic Co., of 
 
 Chicago, 111., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol and imported ethers, 
 
 essential oils, roots, herbs, vegetable coloring matter, and acids. (T. D. 34109; 
 
 Jan. 28, 1914.) 
 T. D. 84109 of January 28, 1914, extended to provide for the filing of supplemental 
 
 sworn statements. (T. D. 35380; May 8, 1915.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts, including tinctures, manufactured by George 
 
 Lueders & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol, 
 
 (T. D. 34619; July 10, 1914.) 
 
256 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Flavoring extracts — Continued. 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by the Maas & Waldstein Extract 
 
 Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 
 
 34596; June 26, 1914.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by John Matthews (Inc.), of New 
 
 York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34636; July 
 
 15, 1914.) 
 Drawback on vanillin manufactured by the Monsanto Chemical Works, of St. 
 
 Louie, Mo., with the use of oil of cloves manufactured by the Verona Chemical 
 
 Co., of North Newark, N. J., with the use of imported cloves. (T. D. 35424; 
 
 May 21, 1915.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by Seeman Bros., of New York, 
 
 with the use of imported alcohol. T. D. 28368 of August 5, 1907, extended. 
 
 (T. D. 28970; Apr. 29, 1908.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by Seeman Bros., of New York, 
 
 N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34690; Aug. 6, 1914.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by the Star Extract Works, of New 
 
 York aty, with the use of imported alcohol. T. D. 28368 of August 5, 1907, 
 
 extended. (T. D. 30910; Sept. 8, 1910.) 
 T. D. 30910 of September 8, 1910, providing for the payment of drawback on fla- 
 voring extracts manufactured by the Star Extract Works, of New York, N. Y., 
 
 revoked. (T. D. 34986; Dec. 15, 1914.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by the Star Extract Works, of New 
 
 York, N. Y., with the use of wholly domestic tax-paid alcohol in combination 
 
 with other materials. T. D. 30910 of September 8, 1910, reinstated. (T. D. 
 
 35238; Mar. 20, 1915.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by the S. Twitchell Co., of Phila- 
 delphia, Pa., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34573; June 
 
 23, 1914.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by the Van Duzer Extract Co., of 
 
 New York City, with the use in part of imported alcohol. T. D. 28368 of August 
 
 5, 1907, extended. (T. D. 28873; Mar. 19, 1908.) 
 Drawback on vanillin manufactured by the Verona Chemical Co., of North 
 
 Newark, N. J., with the use of imported cloves and acetic acid anhydride. (T. 
 
 D. 34226; Mar. 4, 1914.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by R. C. Williams & Co., of New 
 
 York City, with the use of imported alcohol. T. D. 28368 of August 5, 1907, 
 
 extended. (T. D. 28985; May 11, 1908.) 
 Drawback on Royal Scarlet flavoring extracts manufactured by R. C. Williams 
 
 & Co., of New York City, with the use of imported alcohol. T. D. 28368 of 
 
 April 5, 1907, extended. (T. D. 29232; Aug. 27, 1908.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by R. C. Williams & Co., of New 
 
 York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 28985 of May 11, 
 
 1908, and T. D. 29232 of August 27, 1908, revoked . (T. D. 35780; Oct. 15, 1915.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by Wood & Selick, of New York, 
 
 N. Y., with the use of either domestic tax-paid alcohol or imported alcohol. 
 
 T. D. 23880 of July 17, 1902, revoked. (T. D. 34589; June 25, 1914.) 
 Flavoring extracts and bottled olives — 
 Drawback on bottled olives and flavoring extracts manufactured by Francis H. 
 
 Leggett & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of various imported materials 
 
 and domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 23003 of April 30, 1901, and T. D. 29330 
 
 of November 9, 1908, revoked. (T. D. 35732; Sept. 30, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 257 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Flavoring extracts and medicinal and toilet preparations. (See also Drawback on 
 toilet preparations and flavoring extracts.) 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts and medicinal and toilet preparations manufac- 
 tured with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol when shipped to Porto Bico or 
 the PhiUppine Islands. (T. D. 35316; Apr. 10, 1915.) 
 "Flavo." (See Drawback on cake icings.) 
 
 Flexible metal hose and tubing. (See Drawback on metal hose and tubing, flexible. 
 Floral designs, decorations and carnival goods- 
 Drawback on floral designs, decorations and carnival goods manufactured by the 
 Botanical Decorating Co., of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported artificial 
 flowers, fruits, and leaves. T. D. 32753 of August 8, 1912, extended. (T. D. 
 32787; Aug. 29, 1912.) 
 Floral designs, wreaths, bouquets, etc.— 
 Drawback on floral designs, wreaths, and bouquets manufactured by L. Baumann 
 & Co., of Chicago, 111., from imported leaves, plants, flowers, etc. (T. D. 32753; 
 Aug. 8, 1912.) 
 Floss, rope, cord, and loops. (See Drawback on pillow slips, scarfs, and centerpieces.) 
 Flour — 
 Drawback on flour manufactured by the Duluth-Superior Milling Co., of Duluth, 
 Minn., either wholly or in part from imported wheat, and also on such flour when 
 blended with flour of domestic origin. (T. D. 32808; Sept. 4, 1912.) 
 Blended: Drawback on blended flour produced by A. P. Youngblood (Inc.), of 
 New York, N. Y., by the use of imported flour in combination with domestic 
 flour. (T. D. 35571; July 8, 1915.) 
 Drawback on flour manufactured in whole or in part from imported wheat and on 
 blended flour manufactured with the use of flour produced in whole or in part 
 from imported wheat, domestic flour, and imported flour. (T. D. 35936; Dec. 
 1, 1915.) 
 Flues. (See Drawback on iron tubes, pipes, etc.) 
 
 Fluid extracts, etc., by H. K. Mulford & Co. (See Drawback on medicinal prepara- 
 tions and flavoring extracts.) 
 Fly paper — 
 Drawback on fly paper manufactured by the O. & W. Thum Co., of Grand Bapids, 
 Mich., in part from castor oil produced from imported castor seed. T. D. 23944 
 of August 22, 1902, revoked. (T. D. 30538; Apr. 18, 1910.) 
 T. D. 30538, of April 18, 1910, providing for drawback on fly paper manufactured 
 by the O. & W. Thum Co., of Grand Bapids, Mich., in part from castor oil pro- 
 duced from imported castor seed, amended. (T. D. 30960; Oct. 1, 1910.) 
 Drawback on Tanglefoot fly paper and Tree Tanglefoot manufactured by the O. & 
 W. Thum Co., of Grand Bapids, Mich., with the use of castor oil produced from 
 imported castor seeds or beans. T. D. 30538 of April 18, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 
 33829; Nov. 3, 1913.) 
 Food products and condiments — 
 Drawback on condiments and food products manufactured by the T. A. Snider 
 Preserve Co., of Chicago, 111., with the use of various imported materials. (T. 
 D. 35377; May 7, 1915.) 
 Footwear, women's. (See Drawback on shoes.) 
 Forest fl.ower cologne. (See Drawback on cologne.) 
 Forglngs — 
 Drawback on forgings consisting of rivets, guide bars, and cylinder studs manufac- 
 tured by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, of Philadelphia, Pa., from imported 
 bars. (T. D. 81992; Nov. 7, 1911.) 
 45633°— 17 17 
 
258 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Formic acid — 
 Drawback on formic acid manufactured by the Merrimac Chemical Co., of Boston, 
 Mafls., with the use of imported formiate of soda. (T. D. 31281; Feb. 8, 1911.) 
 Foundry oil- 
 Drawback on foxmdry oil manufactured by Spencer Kellogg & Sons with the use of 
 linseed oil manufactured from imported linseed. (T. D. 33442; May 21, 1913.) 
 Frames and ribs of umbrellas. (See Drawback on umbrellas, ribs and frames.) 
 Free goods and free coverings — 
 While free goods ordinarily operate to make usual coverings free of duty when 
 imported, the rule is otherwise where the same goods have been previously 
 exported and the Government has made an allowance of drawback on such 
 coverings. Paragraph 483, tariff act of 1897, relating to manufactures of the 
 United States of the kind there described, expressly excepts from its provisions 
 articles of any kind upon which an allowance of drawback has been made and 
 prohibits their reimportation except on payment of duties equal to the draw- 
 backs allowed. (T. D. 29514— G. A. 6861; Jan. 30, 1909.) 
 Freight cars. (See Drawback on railway cars.) 
 Fringe, embroidered shawls, etc. — 
 Drawback on ball fringe, embroidered shawls, and robe patterns manufactured 
 by Messrs. Salomon & Newman with the use of imported balls or tassels and 
 imported net and artificial silk. (T. D. 32610; June 8, 1910.) 
 Fruit jams — 
 T. D. 29023 of May 22, 1908, amended to cover fruit jams manufactured by Hum- 
 bert & Andrews, of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of refined sugar produced 
 from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 32895; Oct. 29, 1912.) 
 Fruit simp. (See Drawback on sirup.) 
 Fruits, canned — • 
 Drawback on canned fruits manufactured by Libby, McNeill & Libby, of Sunny- 
 vale, Cal., with the use of sugar refined from imported raw sugar. T. D. 28973 
 of May 5, 1908, extended. (T. D. 29459; Jan. 6, 1909.) 
 Drawback on canned fruit manufactured by the J. C. Ainsley Packing Co. (Inc.), 
 of Campbell, Cal., with the use of imported refined sugar or refined sugar manu- 
 factured from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 35737; Oct; 1, 1915.) 
 Drawback on canned fruits manufactured by H. G. Prince & Co., of Fruitvale, 
 Oakland, Cal., with the use of imported refined sugar or refined sugar produced 
 from imported raw sugar, or both. (T. D. 35789; Oct. 18, 1915.) 
 Drawback on canned pears manufactured by the John E. Diament Co., with the 
 use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 35941; Dec. 4, 
 1915.) 
 Drawback on canned strawberries manufactured by the John Boyle Co., of Balti- 
 more, Md., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. 
 (T. D. 35958; Dec. 7, 1915.) 
 Drawback on canned pears manufactured by the Torsch Packing Co., of Balti- 
 more, Md., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar, 
 (T. D. 35819; Oct. 25, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35819 of October 25, 1915, extended to cover canned pears manufactured 
 by the Aughinbaugh Canning Co., of Baltimore, Md., with the use of refined 
 sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 35930; Nov. 27, 1915.) 
 Drawback on preserved and canned pears manufactured by the Curtice Bros. Co., 
 of Rochester, N. Y., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw 
 sugar. (T. D. 34839; Oct. 19, 1914.) 
 Drawback on canned pineapples manufactured by the Hawaiian Pineapple Co., of 
 Honolulu, Hawaii, with the use of imported sugar. (T.D. 29785; May29,1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 259 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Fruits, canned — Continued. 
 
 T. D. 35162 of February 24, 1915, amended by striking out T. D. 29785, Hawaiian 
 Pineapple Co. (T. D. 35235; Mar. 20, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on canned pineapple manufactured by the Hawaiian Pineapple Co. 
 (Ltd.), of Honolulu, Hawaii, with the use of imported refined sugar or refined 
 sugar produced from imported raw sugar, or a combination of both classes of 
 refined sugar. (T. D. 35828; Oct. 26, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on canned pineapple manufactured by the Hawaii Preserving Co. 
 (Ltd.), of Honolulu, Hawaii, with the use of imported refined sugar or refined 
 sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 35852; Nov. 2, 1915.) 
 Fruits, glace and crystallized, and on olive oil — 
 
 T. D. 29510 of February 2, 1909, extended to cover various kinds of glac6 and crys- 
 tallized fruit and maraschino cherries manufactured by R. U. Delapenha & Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported fruits and cane sugar. T. D. 33470 
 of May 31, 1913, extended to cover filtered and clarified olive oil produced by 
 R. U. Delapenha & Co., from oUve oil imported in bulk. (T. D. 34063; Jan. 
 16, 1914.) 
 Fruits, glaoS and crystallized pineapple and ginger and stuffed dates — 
 
 Drawback on glac6 pineapple and crystallized pineapple, glacfi stem ginger and 
 crystallized ginger, and stuffed dates manufactured by R. U. Delapenha & Co., 
 of New York City, with the use of imported ginger root, dates, pineapples, nut 
 meats, cane sugar, and canned pineapple. (T. D. 29510; Feb. 2, 1909.) 
 Fuel economizers for steam boilers — 
 
 Drawback on Green's patent fuel economizers for steam boilers manufactured by 
 the Green Fuel Economizer Co., of Matteawan, N. Y., in part with the use of 
 imported pig iron. (T. D. 29231; Aug. 26, 1908.) 
 Fulminate of mercury. (See Drawback on mercury, fulminate of.) 
 Furniture^ 
 
 Drawback on furniture manufactured by Greemann Bro. Manufacturing Co. of 
 Batesville, Ind., containii^ mirrors manufactured from imported plate glass. 
 (T. D. 30869; Aug. 12, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on furniture manufactured by the Hawks Furniture Co., of Goshen, 
 Ind., in part from imported plate-glass mirrors. (T. D. 32014; Nov. 20, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on furniture imported in an unfinished and knocked-down condition 
 and manufactured into finished articles of furniture by Jacob & Josef Kohn, oi 
 New York, N. Y. (T. D. 34345; Apr. 6, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on furniture exported by B. Souto & Co., of New York, containing 
 mirror plates manufactured under T. D. 17355 of August 1, 1896. (T. D. 
 29268; Sept. 23, 1908.) 
 
 Bent-wood — 
 
 Drawback on bent-wood furniture manufactured by Thonet Bros., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported parts. (T. D. 30975; Oct. 5, 1910.) 
 
 T. D. 30975 of October 5, 1910, extended to cover bentwood furniture manufac- 
 tured by Thonet Bros., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported parts, in 
 accordance with their sworn statement of November 20, 1914. (T. D. 34954; 
 Dec. 1, 1914.) 
 
 Containing mirror plates — 
 
 Drawback on furniture containing mirror plates manufactured by Semon Bache 
 & Co., New York City, with the use of imported glass. T. D. 22354 of April 16, 
 1900, and T. D. 25706 of October 22, 1904, extended. (T. D. 29210; Aug. 13, 
 1908.) 
 Fur carriage robes. (See Drawback on carriage robes.) 
 
260 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Fur skins — 
 Drawback on fur skins manufactured for and on account of Albert Jaulus, of New 
 York, by the New York Fur Refining Co., from imported coney skinB. (T. D. 
 32232; Feb. 7, 1912.) 
 Drawback on fur skins manufactured for and on account of Joseph Steiner & Bros., 
 of New York City, by the Cimiotti Unhairing Co., of New York, with the use of 
 imported rabbit skins, by the process known as unhairing. T. D. 15084 of July 
 
 3, 1894, extended. (T. D. 31067; Nov. 28, 1910.) 
 
 Dyed; Drawback on dyed fur sHns manufactured by Herman Basch & Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported fur skins. (T. D. 32811; Sept. 6, 
 1911.) 
 Fur skins, parts of — 
 
 Drawback on dyed tails, paws, plates, and heads, or other parts of fur skins, manu- 
 factured by Messrs. H. F. Bindseil & Son, of New York City. T. D. 22446 of 
 August 21, 1900, extended. (T. D. 28945; Apr. 20, 1908.) 
 Furs — 
 
 Drawback on fur skins prepared for and on account of Revillon Freres, New York 
 City, from imported "coney skins" by the process known as "unhairing." (T. 
 D. 32706; July 13, 1912.) 
 
 Imitation seal — 
 
 Drawback on imitation seal furs manufactured by the Cimiotti Unhairing Co., for 
 and on account of Mautner & Ahlswede, of New York City, from imported 
 dressed fur skins. T. D. 15084 of July 3, 1894, extended. (T. D. 29794; June 
 
 4, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on imitation seal furs manufactured by the Mutual Unhairing Co. for 
 and on account of W. Eitingon & Co., of New York City, from imported skins. 
 T. D. 15084 of July 3, 1894, extended. (T. D. 30173; Dec. 7, 1909.) 
 
 T. D. 15084 of July 3, 1894, extended to cover rabbit or coney skins, imhaired, by 
 the Cimiotti Unhairing Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., for and on account of Albert 
 Herskovitz & Son, New York, N. Y. (T. D. 32946; Nov. 19, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 29794 of June 4, 1909, providing for the payment of drawback on imitation 
 seal furs, reinstated. (T. D. 35672; Aug. 23, 1915.) 
 Gaiterettes, ladies'. (See Drawback on leggings and overgaiters.) 
 Galvanized sheets and plates — 
 
 Drawback on galvanized plain and corrugated sheets and plates manufactured by 
 the American Sheet & Tin Plate Co. , of Pittsburgh, Pa., with the use of imported 
 spelter or zinc in blocks or slabs, or with the use of spelter or zinc produced from 
 imported zinc ores. (T. D. 32667; June 27, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on galvanized sheets manufactured by the Berger Manufacturing Co., 
 of Canton, Ohio, with the use of imported spelter. (T. D. 33506; June 5, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on galvanized sheets manufactured by the Newport Rolling Mill Co., 
 of Newport, Ky., with the use of imported spelter or spelter produced from im- 
 ported zinc ores. (T. D. 32756; Aug. 9, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 32756 of August 9, 1912, extended to cover galvanized sheets manufactured 
 by the Newport Rolling Mills Co., at Newport, Ky., with the use of imported 
 spelter or spelter produced from imported ores. (T. D. 33044; Dec. 18, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on galvanized plain and corrugated sheets and plates. T. D. 32667 of 
 June 27, 1912, amended to provide for the liquidation of entries on the basis of 
 the spelter practice during the period in which the exported sheets and plates 
 were manufactured, as shown by a semiannual sworn statement to be filed as 
 soon as practicable after the 1st day of January and the 1st day of July. (T, 
 D. 33630; July 16, 1913.) 
 
1908-1915. 261 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Garters — 
 Drawback on garters manufactured by Prank & Gutmann, of New York City, 
 with the use in part of imported silk elastic webbing. (T. D. 28941; Apr. 20, 
 1908.) 
 Drawback on garters manufactured by Frank & Gutmann, of New York City, 
 with the use of imported cotton webbing. T. D. 28941 of April 20, 1908, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 29509; Feb. 2, 1909.) 
 Sas burners — 
 Drawback on gas burners manufactured by M. Kirchberger & Co. (Inc.), of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported talcum, steatite, or French chalk. (T. 
 D. 35402; May 14, 1915.) 
 Gas mantles. (See Drawback on mantles, gas.) 
 Gas or electric fixtures and lamps, mounted vases, etc. — 
 Drawback on gas or electric fixtures and lamps, mounted vases, tables, and side- 
 boards, manufactured by Edward F. Caldwell & Co., of New York City, with 
 the use of imported crystal trimmings, fruit clusters, vases, and manufactures of 
 marble and alabaster. (T. D. 31060; Nov. 22, 1910.) 
 Gas and electric light pendant shades — 
 Drawback on gas and electric light pendant shades manufactured by Oscar O. 
 Friedlaender, of New York City, with the use of imported beads and glass pen- 
 dant sticks. T. D. 29201 of August 11, 1908, extended. (T. D. 81646; June 
 8, 1911.) 
 Gasoline engines. (See Drawback on engines, gasoline.) 
 Gauze packing — 
 Drawback on cotton woven edge gauze packing manufactured by Seabury & John- 
 son, of New York City, with the use of imported woven edge gauze. (T. D. 
 31325; Feb. 18, 1911.) 
 Gay ola — 
 Drawback on gay ola manufactured for the account of H. Lictenberg, of New York, 
 N. Y., by the Gay Ola Co., of Memphis, Tenn., with the use of refined sugar 
 made from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 33947; Dec. 3, 1913.) 
 Gears — ■ 
 Drawback on gears imported in the rough and finished by grinding and polishing 
 by the Gear Grinding Machine Co., of Detroit, Mich. (T. D. 32815; Sept. 9, 
 1912.) 
 Gelatins and glues. (See Drawback on glues and gelatins.) 
 
 Generators, automatic, motors, and starting and lighting equipment. (See Draw- 
 back on electric equipment.) 
 Giant dynamite powder- 
 Drawback on giant dynamite powder, in cartridge form, manufactured by the 
 Giant Powder Co. (Consolidated), of San Francisco, Cal., in part with the use 
 of imported wood flour. T. D. 27138 of February 20, 1906, extended. (T. D. 
 29356; Nov. 23, 1908.) 
 Glacg and crystallized fruit. (See Drawback on fruit.) 
 Glass articles — 
 Mirrors, toilet racks, shelves, etc. : Drawback on adjustable mirrors, toile racks, 
 shelves, and other articles for use in bathrooms or by dentists, physicians, and 
 surgeons, manufactured by the Art Brass Co., of New York City, with the use 
 of imported glass and glass material. (T. D. 31095; Dec. '8, 1910.) 
 Mirror plates: Drawback on mirror plates manufactured by Semon Bache & Co., 
 of New York, with the use of imported glass, when exported in connection with 
 car sash, car doors, or other parts of railroad or passenger cars, show cases, and 
 other store and oflace fixtures. T. D. 22354 of July 16, 1900, and T. D. 25706 of 
 October 22, 1904, extended. (T. D. 31022; Nov. 8, 1910.) 
 
262 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 
 Glass articles — Continued. 
 
 Mirror plates, etc. : Drawback on mirror plates, car sash and doors or other parts of 
 
 cars, show cases, and store and office fixtures manufactured by Semon Bache & 
 
 Co., of New York City, with the use of imported unpolished cylinder, crown, 
 
 and common window glass. T. D. 22354 of July 16, 1900, T. D. 25706 of October 
 
 22, 1904, and T. D. 31022 of November 3, 1910, extended. (T. D. 81420; Mar. 
 
 23, 1911.) 
 
 Mirrors, etc. : Drawback on mirrors, window glasses, and similar articles manufac- 
 tured by Semon Bache & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 glass. Former regulations revoked. (T. D. 34403; Apr. 21, 1914.) 
 T. D. 34403 of April 21, 1914, amended with respect to the manufacturing record 
 required to be kept and as to the quantity of imported material upon which 
 liquidation of entiy shall be based. (T. D. 35373; May 5, 1915.) 
 Mirrors, etc.: Drawback on mirrors, glass shelves, and similar articles manufac- 
 tured by Jacques Kahn, of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported plate 
 glass. T. D. 31789 of July 31, 1911, revoked. (T. D. 35736; Oct. 1, 1915.) 
 Shelves, etc.: Drawback on mirrors, glass shelves, and similar articles, manufac- 
 tured by Jacques Kahn, of New York City, with the use of imported plate glass, 
 said glass being beveled, silvered, or both beveled and silvered in the United 
 States. (T. D. 31789; July 31, 1911.) 
 Show cases, fixtures, etc.: Drawback on show cases, store fixtures, and bank fix- 
 tures, manufactured by the Quincy Show Case Co., of Quincy, 111., with the 
 use of imported window glass, plate glass, plate mirrors, hard woods, veneers, 
 marble, and steel. (T. D. 33550; June 14, 1913.) 
 Window sash and doors: Drawback on glazed window sash and doors, manufac- 
 tured by A. W. Hastings & Co., of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported win- 
 dow and plate glass. T. D. 25055 of February 24, 1904, extended. (T. D. 
 31068; Nov. 28,1910.) 
 Glass, beveled plate. (See Drawback on plate glass.) 
 Glass containers. (See Drawback on containers, glass.) 
 Glass ornaments — 
 Drawback on glass ornaments exported separately or in connection with chan- 
 deliers manufactured by the Sterling Bronze Co., of New York City, with the 
 use of imported glass prisms, beads, etc. (T. D. 29201; Aug. 11, 1908.) 
 Glazed kid leather. (See Drawback on leather.) 
 Glazed window sash and doors. (See Drawback on glass articles.) 
 Globes and mounted wall maps and charts — 
 Drawback on globes and mounted wall maps and charts manufactured by A. J. 
 Nystrom & Co. (Inc.), of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported maps and 
 charts. T. D. 27817 of January 12, 1907, extended. (T. D. 31157; Dec. 30, 
 1910.) 
 Glove leather — 
 Drawback on glove leather manufactured by S. H. Shotwell & Son, of Glovers- 
 ville, N. Y., from imported leather. T. D. 23494 of January 29, 1902, extended. 
 (T. D. 28745; Feb. 6, 1908.) 
 Glue — 
 Drawback on commercial glue produced by Hirsh, Sfein & Co., of Chicago, 111., 
 and New York, N. Y., from glue imported in sheets and cakes. (T. D. 34289; 
 Mar. 19, 1914.) 
 Drawback on ground glue manufactured by F. W. Tunnell & Co. (Inc.), of Phila- 
 delphia, Pa., with the use of imported sheet glue. (T. D. 34798; Sept. 30, 
 1914.) 
 
DIGEST or CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 263 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Glue, lic[iiid., adhesive gum, etc. — 
 Drawback on liquid glue, designated aa "Gluoid," manufactured by the Ameri- 
 can Gum & Liquid Glue Co., of New York City, with tjie use in part of imported 
 dextrin. (T. D. 32921; Nov. 9, 1912.) 
 Dra*/back on adhesive gums, liquid glue, and similar preparations manufactured 
 by the Arabol Manufacturing Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of various 
 imported materials. T. D. 26324 of April 27, 1905, T. D. 26700 of September 12, 
 1905, and T. D. 27015 of January 22, 1906, revoked. (T. D. 35289; Apr. 3, 
 1915.) 
 Drawback on adhesive pastes and liquid glue manufactured by the National Gum 
 & Mica Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported potato starch, potato 
 dextrin, and dry glue. (T. D. 34682; Aug. 4, 1914.) 
 Glues and gelatins — 
 Drawback on comminuted glue and gelatin powders, cracked, granulated, and 
 powdered glues and gelatins and blended glues and gelatins manufactured by 
 the Milligan & Higgins Glue Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 glues and gelatins. T. D. 24789 of November 20, 1903, is hereby revoked. (T. 
 D. 35808; Oct. 21, 1915.) 
 Glycerin, refined — (See also Drawback on dynamite and refined glycerin.) 
 Drawback on refined glycerin manufactured by William P. Jobbins (Inc.), of 
 Aurora, 111., wholly from imported crude glycerin. (T. D. 32013; Nov. 20, 
 1911.) 
 Drawback on refined glycerin manufactured wholly from imported glycerin. (T. 
 D. 34717; Aug. 21, 1914.) 
 Glycerin and sugar, imported and refined. (See Drawback on medicinal prepara- 
 tions, Wampole's cod-liver oil.) 
 Glyco-Thymoline manufactured by Kress & Owen. (See Drawback on toilet prep- 
 arations.) 
 Goatskins — • 
 T. D. 34086 of January 26, 1914, extended to cover imported Chinese goatskins 
 dyed by the Ferdinand Hosch Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., for the account of Chand- 
 less, Batouieff & Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 34145; Feb. 4, 1914.) 
 Drawback on goatskins which have been imported and dyed, cleaned, and combed 
 by the Leipzig Fur Dyeing Works, of New York City. (T. D. 32793; Aug. 30, 
 1912.) 
 Gold leaf — 
 Drawback on ribbon gold leaf manufactured by the W. H. Coe Manufacturing Co., 
 of Providence, R. I., from imported gold leaf. T. D. 22393 of July 28, 1900, 
 and T. D. 22779 of February 4, 1901, revoked. (T. D. 35945; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 Drawback on roll gold leaf manufactured by the American Roll Gold Leaf Co., oE 
 
 Providence, R. I., from imported gold leaf. (T. D. 31465; Apr. 4, 1911.) 
 Drawback on roll gold leaf manufactured by the American Roll Gold Leaf Co., of 
 Providence, R. I., with the use of imported gold leaf. T. D. 31465 of April 4, 
 1911, extended. (T. D. 32810; Sept. 6, 1912.) 
 Gold and silver glaze — 
 Drawback on sapolin gold glaze and sapolin silver glaze manufactured by Ger- 
 stendorfer Bros., of New York, with the use of imported bronze and aluminum 
 powders. (T. D. 32325; Mar. 22, 1912.) 
 Graded pulled wool. (See Drawback on wool.) 
 Grain separators. (See Drawback on machines.) 
 Grained aluminum. (See Drawback on aluminum.) 
 
264 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Gramoplione cabinets — 
 Drawback on gramophone cabinets manufactured by the Henry H. Sheip Manu- 
 facturing Co., of P^dladelphia, Pa., with the use of imported hardware. (T. D. 
 31995; Nov. 7, 1911.) 
 Granulated aluminum. (See Drawback on aluminum, granulated.) 
 Granulated opium. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Grape punch — 
 Drawback on grape punch manufactured by J. Stromeyer & Co., of Philadelphia, 
 Pa., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 
 35769; Oct. 11, 1915.) 
 Green's patent fuel economizers for steam boilers. (See Drawback on fuel econo- 
 mizers for steam boilers.) 
 Grindstones — 
 Drawback on grindstones manufactured by W. B. Parry & Son, of Utica, N. Y., 
 comprising imported grindstones fitted to metal frames of domestic construction. 
 (T. D. 32740; July 23, 1912.) 
 Ground land plaster. (See Drawback on plaster.) 
 Ground spices. (See Drawback on spices, ground.) 
 Gum, adhesive, etc. (See Drawback on glue.) 
 Gumdrops — 
 Drawback on gumdrops manufactured by the Manierre-Yoe Sirup Co., of Chicago, 
 111., in part from imported cane sugar. (T. D. 29378; Dec. 2, 1908.) 
 Gummed stay paper — 
 Drawback on gummed stay paper manufactured by the Harvard Paper Co., of 
 
 Somerville, Mass., from imported paper. (T. D. 30308; Jan. 27, 1910.) 
 Drawback on gummed stay paper manufactured by the Nashua Card, Gummed 
 & Coated Paper Co., with the use of imported Kraft paper. T. D. 30308 of 
 January 27, 1910, extended. (T. D. 30966; Oct. 3, 1910.) 
 Gummed stay paper and paper tape — 
 Drawback on gummed stay paper and gummed paper tape manufactured by the 
 Ideal Coated Paper Co., of Brookfield, Mass., from imported Swedish Kraft 
 paper. T. D. 30308 of January 27, 1910, extended. (T. D. 30408; Mar. 7, 1910.) 
 Drawback on gummed stay paper and paper tape manutactuired by the Ideal 
 Paper Co., of Brookfield, Mass., from imported Swedish Kraft paper. T. D. 
 30408, of March 7, 1910, amended. (T. D. 30438; Mar. 19, 1910.) 
 Gunlocks — 
 Drawback on 200 gunlocks manufactured by the Lanston Monotype Machine Co., 
 of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported steel forgings and steel bars. (T. 
 D. 35947; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 Gun rests- 
 Drawback on gun rests manufactured by Pratt & Whitney Co., of Hartford, Conn., 
 with the use of imported telescopic gun sights. (T. D. 31042; Nov. 14, 1910.) 
 Habutai silk dyed and finished. (See Drawback on silk, dyed and finished, Habutai.) 
 Hack-saw blades — 
 Drawback on hack-saw blades manufactured by the G. W. Griffin Co., of Franklin, 
 N. H., from imported Swedish steel. T. D. 24528 of June 29, 1903, extended. 
 (T. D. 29114; June 30, 1908.) 
 Drawback on hack-saw blades manufactured by G. W. GriffiLn & Co., of Franklin, 
 N.H., from imported sheet steel. T. D. 24528 of June 29, 1903, extended. (T. 
 D. 30079; Nov. 1, 1909.) 
 Drawback on hack-saw blades manufactured by the Henry G. Thompson & Son 
 Co., of New Haven, Conn., from imported sheet and ribbon steel, T. D. 24528 
 of June 29. 1903, extended. (T. D. 30035; Oct. 11, 1909.) ' 
 
DJGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 265 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 • Hacksaw blades — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on hack-saw blades manufactured by the Henry G. Thompson & Son 
 Co., of New Haven, Conn., from imported sheet and ribbon steel. T. D. 30035 
 amended as to wastage. (T. D. 32719; July 17, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on hack-saw blades manufactured by the West Haven Manufacturing 
 Co., New Haven, Conn., wholly from imported Swedish ribbon steel. T. D. 
 24528 of June 29, 1903, extended. (T. D. 28877; Mar. 19, 1908.) 
 
 T. D. 28877 of March 19, 1908, amended so as to provide for a wastage of 10 per 
 cent. (T. D. 28990; May 14, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on hack-saw blades manufactured from imported sheet steel. T. D. 
 24528 of June 29, 1913, T. D. 25445 of July 1, 1904, T. D. 27167 of February 28, 
 1906, T. D. 27478 o"f July 11, 1906, T. D. 28877 of March 19, 1908, T. D. 28990 
 of May 14, 1908, T. D. 29114.of June 30, 1908, T. D. 30035 of October 11, 1909, 
 and T. D. 30079 of November 1, 1909, and all other regulations providing for the 
 payment of drawback on hack-saw blades, revoked. (T. D. 33705; Aug. 21, 
 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33705 of August 21, 1913, amended to provide for an allowance to compen- 
 sate for waste resulting from milling and punching the hack-saw blanks and for 
 identification of the imported steel used in manufacturing periods of three or 
 six months. (T. D. 34639; July 15, 1914.) 
 Hair press cloth. (See Drawback on camel's-hair products.) 
 Hair tonic, Sanitol — 
 
 Drawback on Sanitol hair tonic manufactured by the Sanitol Chemical Laboratory 
 Co., of St. Louis, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 30062; Oct. 
 23, 1909.) 
 Hammers, piano — 
 
 Drawback on piano hammers manufactured by Strauch Bros., of New York, N. Y., 
 with the use of imported piano felt. (T. D. 35445; May 25, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on piano hammers manufactured by Charles Pfriemer (Inc.), of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported hammer felt. (T. D. 35834; Oct. 27, 
 1915.) 
 Hand bags, etc. — 
 
 Drawback on hand bags manufactured by P. W. Lambert & Co., of New York City, 
 with the use of imported Gobelin tapestry panels. (T. D. 31887; Sept. 27, 
 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on ladies' hand bags, fire screens, and albiuns manufactured by the 
 Cordova Shops, of Buffalo, N. Y., with the use of imported metal frames and 
 leather. (T. D. 32478; May 2, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback allowed on hand bags manufactured by Messrs. Levy & Merzbach, of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported leather, metal frames, metal orna- 
 ments, trimmings, etc. (T. D. 32894; Oct. 29, 1912.) 
 Handkerchiefs, linen — 
 
 Drawback on linen handkerchiefs manufactured by the Newark Embroidering 
 Works, of Newark, N. J., from imported linen. (T. D. 31714; June 20, 1911.) 
 Handles for umbrellas, parasols, canes, etc. (See Drawback on umbrellas, para- 
 sols, canes, and on handles for same.) 
 Hard vulcanized fiber — 
 
 Drawback on hard vulcanized fiber manufactured by the Diamond State Fibre 
 Co., of Bridgeport, Pa., with the use of imported zinc chloride. (T. D. 33687; 
 Aug. 14, 1913.) 
 
266 DIGEST 01" CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Hardware — 
 
 Brawback on hardware inanufactured by the Stanley Works, of New York City, 
 N. Y., and New Britain, Conn., with the use of imported steel billets. (T. D. 
 31889; Sept. 28, 1911.) 
 Harmless chocolate color — 
 
 Drawback on Harmless chocolate color manufactured by S. Gumpert & Co., of 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported beer color and glycerin refined from 
 imported crude glycerin. T. D. 32105 of December 20, 1911, extended. (T. 
 D. 32498; May 10, 1912.) 
 Harvesting implements — 
 
 T. D. 24454 of June 2, 1903, amended to include sickle grinders and rakes manu- 
 factured by the International Harvester Co. (T. D. 28809; Feb. 28, 1908.) 
 Hat braids, dyed, bleached, etc. — 
 
 Drawback on dyed braids and bleached braids manufactured by Wm. Randall 
 & Sons, of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported unfinished straw and hemp 
 braids. (T. D. 35939; Dec. 3, 1915.) 
 Hats- 
 Drawback on hats manufactured by Schapiro & Anderson, of New York, N. Y., 
 from imported crude South American and Japanese shapes. (T. D. 34480; May 
 27, 1914.) 
 
 Blocked, bleached, and trimmed — 
 
 Drawback on blocked, blocked and bleached, and blocked, bleached, and 
 trimmed hats manufactured by Pattison & Co. (Ltd.), of New Orleans, La., 
 with the use of imported untrimmed hat bodies. (T. D. 34922; Nov. 24, 1914.) 
 
 Cuban palm — 
 
 Drawback on bleached hats and hat bodies manufactured by the R. H. Comey 
 Co., of Camden, N. J., from imported unbleached Cuban hats. T. D. 23596 of 
 March 15, 1902, extended. (T. D. 29424; Dec. 21, 1908.) 
 
 Finished — 
 
 Diawback on hats manufactured by the Blum & Lehman Co., of Philadelphia, 
 Pa., with the use of imported hemp and chip braids, and on finished hats manu- 
 factured by the said company from so-called Panama hats imported in the 
 rough. (T. D. 35112; Feb. 4, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35112 of February 4, 1915, extended to cover finished hats manufactured by 
 Joseph Anderson & Co. (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 crude or unfinished Formosan shapes. (T. D. 35512; June 8, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35112 of February 4, 1915, extended to cover so-called Panama hats manu- 
 factured by Hirsch & Guinsburg, of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 hat bodies. (T. D. 35534; June 17, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35112 of February 4, 1915, extended to cover ladies' Panama and Leghorn 
 hats manufactured by J. Schapiro, of New York, N. Y. , with the use of imported 
 crude or unfinished hat shapes. (T. D. 35770; Oct. 11, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35112 of February 4, 1915, extended to cover bleached Japanese Panama 
 hats manufactured by the C. Thalheim Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use 
 of imported unbleached Japanese Panama hat bodies. (T. -D. 35606; July 23, 
 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on finished hats manufactured by Bronston Bros. & Co., New York 
 City, with the use of imported chip or straw hat bodies. (T. D. 31487; Apr. 14, 
 1911.) 
 
 Japanese Panama — 
 
 Drawback on Japanese Panama hata imported in the rough and blocked and 
 shaped, and in some instances trimmed by the Ecuadorian Panama Hat Co., 
 of New York City. (T. D. 32675; June 29, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 26Y 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Hats — Continued . 
 Ladies' — 
 Drawback on ladies' hats manufactured by Hirsh & Guinzburg, of New York, 
 
 N. Y., with the use of imported braids, -velvet cloth, and other similar imported 
 
 materials. (T. D. 35600; July 21, 1915.) 
 Drawback on ladies' trimmed hats manufactured by the London Feather Co., of 
 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported untrimmed hat shapes. (T. D. 
 
 34684; Aug. 5, 1914.) 
 Ladles' and children's — 
 Drawback on ladies' and children's hats manufactured by M. Kurzman & Sons, 
 
 of New York City, with the use of various imported materials. (T. D. 30919; 
 
 Sept. 12, 1910.) 
 Palm-leaf — 
 Drawback on palm-leaf hats imported in the rough and steamed, blocked, and 
 
 shaped, and either trimmed or untrimmed, by the Mexican- American Hat Co., 
 
 of St. Louis, Mo. (T. D. 32179; Jan. 24, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32179 of January 24, 1912, extended to cover palm-leaf hats imported in the 
 
 rough by the Caradine Harvest Hat Co., of St. Louis, Mo., and finished by 
 
 blocking, banding, binding, and trimming. (T. D. 34119; Jan. 31, 1914.) 
 Panama — 
 
 Drawback on Panama hats imported in the rough or unfinished condition and fin- 
 shed by the Bomn Hat Co., of New York City. T. D. 24196 of January 30, 
 
 1903, extended. (T. D. 31390; Mar. 15, 1911.) 
 Drawback on Panama hats imported in the rough or unfinished condition, and 
 
 finished by C. A. Bomn Hat Co., of New York. (T. D. 33845; Nov. 6, 1913.) 
 Drawback on Panama hats finished by J. Gallay, of New York, for and on account 
 
 of Isaac Brandon & Bros. , of New York, with the use of Panama hats imported in 
 
 a rough or unfinished condition. T. D. 24196 of January 30, 1903, extended. 
 
 (T. D. 29901; July 10, 1909.) 
 Drawback on Panama hats imported in the rough and finished by the Peruvian 
 
 Panama Hat Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 24196, of January 30, 1903, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 31555; May 5, 1911.) 
 T. D. 24196 of January 30, 1903, extended to cover Panama hats manufactured by 
 
 the Ecuadorian Panama Hat Co., New York, from Panama hats imported in a 
 
 rough or unfinished condition. (T. D. 29324; Nov. 2, 1908.) 
 Drawback on finished Panama hats manufactured by the Perpierre Co. (Inc.), of 
 
 New York, N. Y., from imported crude South American and Japanese shapes 
 
 for the account of the Brando Importing Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 34508; 
 
 Jvme 2, 1914.) 
 T. D. 34508, of June 2, 1914, extended to cover finished hats manufactured by the 
 
 Ferpierre Co. (Inc.) with the use of imported Pormosan and Adamba bodies. 
 
 (T. D. 35236; Mar. 20, 1915.) 
 Drawback on Panama hats manufactured by the Standard Hat Works, of New 
 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported ribbon and Panama shapes. (T. D. 
 
 33354; Apr. 23, 1913.) 
 T. D. 33354 of April 23, 1913, extended to cover Panama hats manufactured by J. 
 
 Gallay, of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported crude Panama and Japa- 
 nese shapes. (T. D. 34108; Jan. 28, 1914.) 
 Drawback on Panama hats imported by S. Glanzrock & Co., of New York City, in 
 ■ the rough and finished, with the use of imported binding or ribbon. T. D. 
 
 24196 of January 30, 1903, extended. (T. D. 32662; June 25, 1912.) 
 T. D. 27285, providing for the payment of drawback on Panama hats manufac- 
 tured by Lustig Bros., of New York, N. Y., reinstated. (T. D. 35616; July 29, 
 
 1915J 
 
268 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Hats — Continued. 
 Panama — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on Panama hats imported in the rough or untrimmed condition, and 
 bleached, blocked, and finished for and on account of Vanderheof & Co., of New 
 York aty, by the A. & B. Panama Co., of New York City. T. D. 24196 of Jan- 
 aiary 30, 1903, extended. (T. D. 80203; Dec. 20, 1909.) 
 Drawback on finished Panama hats manufactured by the Townsend Grace Co., of 
 Baltimore, Md., from imported rough Panama hats. (T. D. 32971; Nov. 26, 
 1912.) 
 Drawback on Panama hats manufactured by Gus Van Lier, of New York, N. Y., 
 
 from imported crude Panama hat bodies. (T. D. 35959; Dec. 7, 1915.) 
 Drawback on bleached and finished Panama hats manufactured by the R. H. 
 Comey Co., of Camden, N. J., and the National Panama Hat Co., of New York, 
 N. Y., from Panama hats imported in a rougU or unfinished condition. (T. D. 
 35187; Mar. 6, 1915.) 
 Drawback on unbleached, unfinished Panama hats bleached by E. H. Comey & 
 Co., for the account of the Peruvian Panama Hat Co., and on such bleached 
 Panama hats finished by the Peruvian Panama Hat Co. T. D. 31555 of May 5, 
 1911, revoked. (T. D. 35405; May 15, 1915.) 
 Panama and Bangkok — 
 
 Drawback on Panama and Bangkok hats manufactured by Ohlbaum Bros., of 
 New York City, with the use of imported Panama and Bangkok hat bodies in 
 the crude or unfinished form, and imported silk hat bands and bindings and 
 leather bands. T. D. 27335 of May 9, 1906, extended. (T. D. 31250; Jan. 28, 
 1910.) 
 Straw — 
 
 Drawback on straw hats manufactured by Charles Levy's Sons, of New York, from 
 imported straw braid. T. D. 23102 of June 8, 1901, extended. (T. D. 32836; 
 Sept. 26, 1912.) 
 Hats and braids, dyed, bleached, etc. — 
 Drawback on imported braids and hats dyed, bleached, stained, redyed, re- 
 bleached, or recolored by the R. H. Comey Co., at their factories located at 
 Camden, N. J., Brooklyn, N. Y., and Chicago, 111. T. D. 23495 of January 29, 
 1902, T. D. 30680 of June 13, 1910, T. D. 30862 of August 6, 1910, and T. D. 31790 
 of August 2, 1911, revoked. (T. D. 35830; Oct. 26, 1915.) 
 Hats and hat bodies — 
 Drawback on hat bodies and hats of chip, straw, hemp, and other materials, manu- 
 factured by R. H. Comey Co., of Camden, N. J., by process of bleaching or dye- 
 ing. T. D. 29424 of December 21, 1908, revoked. (T. D. 31790; Aug. 2, 1910.) 
 Headache cologne. (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Head gates for irrigation canals — 
 Drawback on head gates for irrigation canals manufactured by the Seattle Construc- 
 tion & Dry Dock Co., of Seattle, Wash., with the use of imported brass bushings. 
 (T. D. 32917; Nov. 9, 1912.) 
 Headstones, marble. (See Drawback on monuments, marble." 
 Helmbold Buchu. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Herpicide. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Hershey's chocolate. (See Drawback on chocolate.) 
 Hinds honey and almond cream. (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Hires syrup — 
 Drawback on Hires syrup manufactm-ed by the Charles E. Hires Co., of Philadel- 
 phia, Pa., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. 
 D. 32413; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 269 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Hoist chains. (See Drawback on chain hoists, hoist chains, and tire chains.) 
 Honey sirup. (See Drawback on sirup, honey.) 
 
 Hood's sarsaparilla and Hood's medicine. (See Drawback on medicinal prepara- 
 tions.) 
 Horsehair, imitation — i 
 
 Drawback on dyed artificial silk and imitation horsehair manufactured for and on 
 
 account of Ludwig Littauer, of New York, with the use of imported artificial raw 
 
 silk and imitation horsehair. T. D. 26684 of August 30, 1905, extended. (T. 
 
 D. 29782; May 26, 1909.) 
 Hose, flexible metal. (See Drawback on metal hose, flexible.) 
 Hose, hydraulic — 
 Drawback on imported flax hydraulic hose exported after having been cut into 
 
 lengths and fitted with metal couplings at each end by the Electric Hose & 
 
 Rubber Co., of Wilmington, Del. (T. D. 35997; Dec. 15, 1915.) 
 Hose supporters — 
 Drawback on hose supporters manufactured by the I. B. Kleinert Rubber Co., of 
 
 New York, with the use of imported elastic webbing. (T. D. 29560; Feb. 19, 
 
 1909.) 
 Hose and tubing, flexible metal. (See Drawback on metal hose and tubing, flexible.) 
 Hosiery — 
 Drawback on hosiery manufactured by the Interwoven Stocking Co., of New 
 
 Brunswick, N. J., with the use of imported cotton yam and silk thread. (T. D. 
 
 33129; Jan. 30, 1913.) 
 T. D. 33129 of January 30, 1913, corrected to authorize payment of drawback on 
 
 hosiery manufactured by the Interwoven Mills (Inc.), of New Brunswick, N. J. 
 
 (T. D. 33649; July 23, 1913.) 
 Drawback on hosiery manufactured by the Ipswich Mills, of Boston, Mass., with 
 
 the use of imported artificial silk yam. (T. D. 35231; Mar. 18, 1915.) 
 Drawback on ladies' and men's hosiery manufactured by John Blood & Co., of 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the'use of imported yams. (T. D. 35239; Mar. 22, 
 
 1915.) 
 Drawback on hosiery manufactured by the Ipswich Mills, of Boston, Mass., in 
 
 whole or in part with the use of imported mercerized cotton yam. (T. D. 
 
 35258; Mar. 25, 1915.) 
 Drawback on hosiery manufactured by Pilling & Madeley (Inc.), of Philadelphia, 
 
 Pa., with the use of imported artificial silk yam. (T. D. 35281; Apr. 1, 1915.) 
 Drawback on hosiery manufactured by the Thos. W. Buck Hosiery Co., of Phila- 
 delphia, Pa., with the use of imported artificial silk fiber. (T. D. 35303; Apr. 
 
 8, 1915.) 
 Drawback on hosiery manufactured by the Brooks Hosiery Mills, of Philadelphia, 
 
 Pa., with the use of imported artificial silk. (T. D. 35513; June 8, 1915.) 
 Drawback on hosiery manufactured by Thompson Bros., of Milroy, Pa., with the 
 
 use of imported artificial silk. (T. D. 35429; May 24, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35429 of May 24, 1915, extended to cover hosiery manufactured by the Ideal 
 
 Hosiery Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported artificial silk. (T. 
 
 D. 35598; July 21, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35429 of May 24, 1915, extended to cover hosiery manufactured by the Berk- 
 shire Knitting Mills, of Reading, Pa., with the use of imported artificial silk 
 
 fiber. (T. D. 35604; July 23, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35429 of May 24, 1915, extended to cover hosiery manufactured by the West 
 
 Branch Knitting Co., of Milton, Pa., with the use of imported artificial silk, 
 
 (T. P. 35609; July 28, 1915.) 
 
270 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Confiaued. 
 Hosiery — Continued. 
 T. D. 35429 of May 24, 1915, extended to cover hosiery manufactured by the Allen 
 Hosiery Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported artificial silk. (T. 
 D. 35625; July 31, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35429 of May 24, 1915, extended to cover hosiery manufactured by the Berk- 
 shire Knitting Mills, of Reading, Pa., with the use of imported cotton yarns. 
 (T. D. 35630; Aug. 5, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35429 of May 24, 1915, extended to cover hosiery manufactured by the Dun- 
 deis Hosiery Mills, of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported artificial silk 
 yam. (T. D. 35631; Aug. 5, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35429 of May 24, 1915, extended to cover hosiery manufactured by Henry 
 Taubel & Son, of Riverside, N. J., with the use of imported artificial silk. (T. 
 D. 35733; Sept. 30, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35429 of May 24, 1915, extended to cover hosiery manufactured by the Wil- 
 liam Brown Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported cotton yarns. 
 (T. D. 35821; Oct. 25, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35429 of May 24, 1915, extended to cover hosiery manufactured by the Frank- 
 ford Hosiery Mills Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported cotton 
 yam. (T. D. 35995; Dec. 15, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35429 of May 24, 1914, extended to cover hosiery manufactured by the Oak- 
 brook Hosiery Mills, of Reading, Pa., with the use of imported artificial silk 
 yam. (T. D. 35537; June 18, 1915.) 
 Drawback on hosiery manufactured by the Wolfinger Knitting Mi Is, of Reading, 
 
 Pa., with the use of imported cotton yams. (T. D. 35837; Oct. 27, 1915.) 
 Drawback on hosiery manufactured by the Maybaum Manufacturing Co., of 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported cotton yam and artificial silk. (T. 
 D. 35547; June 24, 1915.) 
 Drawback on hosiery imported in the gray and dyed by the Berkshire Knitting 
 Mills, of Reading, Pa. (T. D. 35610; July 28, 1915.) 
 Hostetter's Bitters. (See Drawback on bitters.) 
 
 Hot-water bottles. (See Drawback on coffeepots, teapots, and hot-water bottles.) 
 Hydraulic hose. (See Drawback on hose, hydraulic.) 
 Hydrochloride, cocaine, etc., manufactured by the Lamar Chemical Works. (See 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Icy-hot bottles — 
 
 Drawback on icy-hot bottles manufactured by the Icy-Hot Bottle Co., of Cincin- 
 nati, Ohio, with the use of glass vacuum bottles. (T. D. 29247; Sept. 8, 1908.) 
 Icings, cake. (See Drawback on cake icings.) 
 IdeaUte— 
 
 Drawback on Idealite manufactured by the IdeaHte Co., of South Bend, Ind., 
 with the use of magnesite, magnesium, and mineral colors. (T. D. 33548; 
 June 14, 1913.) 
 Ignition, starting and lighting equipment for automobiles. (See Drawback on 
 
 electrical equipment.) 
 Imitation seal furs. (See Drawback on furs, imitation seal.) 
 Implements, agricultural. (See Drawback on agricultural implements.) 
 Incandescent electric lamps. (See Drawback on electric lamps.) 
 Incandescent gas mantles. (See Drawback on mantels, gas.) 
 Infants' dresses and veils. (See Drawback on veils and infants' dresses.) 
 Ingot-bar calking lead — 
 Drawback on ingot-bar calking lead, T. D. 27121 of Febmary 14, 1906, extended 
 to cover ingot-bar calking lead manufactured by the National Lead Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., from imported lead. (T. D. 33353; Apr. 22, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 271 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Ingots, aluminum. (See Drawback on aluminum ingots.) 
 Ink, piintei's — 
 
 Drawback on printer's ink manufactured by the Ault & Wiborg Co., Cincinnati, 
 Ohio, with the use of imported dyestufts. (T. D. 29224; Aug. 24, 1908.) 
 Inner tubes for automobile tires — 
 Drawback on inner tubes for automobile tires manufactured by the Michelin Tire 
 Co., of Milltown, N. J., with the use of imported metric thread valves. (T. D. 
 32099; Dec. 18, 1911.) 
 Inner tubes for motor-cycle tires — 
 Drawback on inner tubes for motor-cyele tires manufactured by the Michelin 
 Tire Co., of Milltown, N. J., with the use of imported rubber butt ends and 
 domestic rubber tubing. (T. D. 33843; Nov. 4, 1913.) 
 nsulated trolley bolts — 
 Drawback on insulated trolley bolts manufactured for and on account of A. Hall 
 Berry by the Duranoid Manufacturing Co., of Newark, N. J., with the use of 
 imported metal bolt blanks of various forms and styles. (T. D. 28963; Apr. 24, 
 1908.) 
 'nsulating cloth — 
 Drawback on Empire linseed-oil coated insulator cloth manu''actured by the Mica 
 Insulator Co., of New York City, with the use of imported raw linseed oil. (T. 
 D. 30498; Apr. 5, 1910.) 
 Drawback on Empire linseed-oil coated insulating cloth manufactured by the Mica 
 Insulator Co., of New York City, with the use of linseed oil produced from im- 
 ported linseed. T. D. 30498 of April 5, 1910, extended. (T. D. 30870; Aug. 
 12, 1910.) 
 nsulators. (See also Drawback on electrical equipment.) 
 Drawback on insulators manufactured by the Ohio Brass Co., of Mansfield, Ohio, 
 
 with the use of imported castings. (T. D. 30050; Oct. 20, 1909.) 
 Drawback on insulators manufactured by R. Thoma & Sons Co., of New York, 
 N. Y., with the use of imported iron thimbles. (T. D. 33289; Mar. 22, 1913.) 
 Iron articles treated by the hydraesfer process — 
 Drawback on iron articles manufactured by J. J. Bradley, of Brooklyn, N. Y., by 
 the so-called hydraesfer process. (T. D. 29395; Dec. 8, 1908.) 
 Iron products. (See Drawback on steel and iron products.) 
 Iron tubes, pipes, flues, stays, and similar articles- 
 Drawback on iron tubes, pipes, flues, stays, and similar articles manufactured by 
 the Parkesburg Iron Co., of Parkesburg, Pa., wholly or in part from imported 
 Swedish charcoal pig iron. T. D. 26320 of April 26, 1905, extended. (T. D. 
 29488; Jan. 26, 1909.) 
 Drawback on iron tubes, pipes, flues, and stays manufactured by the Reading 
 Iron Co., of Reading, Pa., wholly or in part from imported Swedish charcoal 
 pig iron. T. D. 26320 of April 26, 1905, extended. (T. D. 29469; Jan. 14, 
 1909.) 
 Ivory rings, billiard balls, etc. (See Drawback on billiard balls, etc.) 
 Jam — 
 Drawback on jam manufactured by Max Ams in part with the use of sugar refined 
 
 from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 28973; May 5, 1908.) 
 Drawback on jams manufactured by the American Preserve Co., of Philadelphia, 
 Pa., in part with the use of sugar refined from imported raw sugar. T. D. 28973 
 of May 5, 1908, extended. (T. D. 29019; May 20, 1908.) 
 
272 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Contmued. 
 Jam — Continued . 
 
 Drawback on fig jam manufactured by the American Preserve Co., o Philadel- 
 phia, Pa., in part witlrthe use of sugar refined from imported raw sugar and im- 
 ported figs. T. D. 28973 of May 5, 1908, extended. (T. D. 29336; Nov. 10, 
 1908.) 
 Drawback on "standard brand" jam manufactured by the American Preserve 
 Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of sugar refined from imported raw ugar. 
 T. D. 28973 of May 5, 190S, extended. (T. D. 29792; June 4, 1909.) 
 Drawback on jams manufactured by Francis H. Leggett & Co., o£ New York, in 
 part from refined sugar produced from imported raw sugajr. T. D. 28973 of May 
 5, 1908, extended. (T. D. 30060; Oct. 23, 1909.) 
 Drawback on jam manufactured by the Montclair Jam Kitchens, of Montclair, 
 N. J., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 
 34685; Aug. 5, 1914.) 
 Drawback on jam manufactured by the Quaker City Preserve Co., of Philadel- 
 phia, Pa., in part with the use of sugar refined from imported raw sugar. T. D. 
 28973 of May 5, 1908, extended. (T. D. 29195; Aug. 6, 1908.) 
 Janin's antiseptic. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Japanese Panama hats. (See Drawback on hats, Japanese Panama.) 
 Japans and enamolins — 
 Drawback on Special Baking Japan, Tumbling Japan, Navy Japan, Cuban Japan, 
 and One Coat Tin Japan, manufactured by Emil Caiman & Co., New York City, 
 with the use of imported asphaltum, stearin pitch, and Blue Label or Outside 
 Eggshell Bnamolin, Blue Label or Outside Flat Enamolin, Blue Label or Outside 
 Enamolin, Slow Drying Red Label Enamolin, Quick Drying Red Label Enamo- 
 lin, and Flat Red Label Enamolin, manufactured by the said firm with the use 
 of imported oxide of zinc. T. D. 25079 of March 5, 1904, and T. D. 31599 of 
 May 16, 1911, revoked. (T. D. 31819; Aug. 16, 1911.) 
 Jellies — 
 Drawback on jellies manufactured by Humbert & Andrews, of Brooklyn, N. Y., 
 in part from sugar refined from imported raw sugar. T. D. 28973 of May 5, 1908, 
 extended. (T. D. 29023; May 22, 1908.) 
 Drawback on jellies manufactured by F. H. Leggett & Co., of New York, in part 
 from sugar refined from imported raw sugar. T. D. 28973 of May 5, 1908, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 30486; Apr. 4, 1910. i 
 JeUycon — 
 Drawback on jellycon manufactured by the E. S. Burnham Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugjr. T. D. 
 28973 of May 5, 1908, extended. (T. D. 31611; May 20, 1911.) 
 Jewelry — 
 Drawback on jewelry manufactured by the Attleboro Manufacturing Co., of Attle- 
 boro, Mass., with the use of imported precious stones, beads, snaps, and other 
 materials and parts. (T. D. 32548; May 22, 1912.) 
 Drawback on jewelry manufactured by the Barber Jewelry Manufacturing Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported semiprecious and imitation stones. 
 (T. D. 34681; Aug. 6, 1914.) 
 Drawback on bracelets, hatpins, scarfpins, chains, risgs, and other jewelry manu- 
 factured by C. H. Eden Co., of Attleboro, Mass., with the use of imported imita- 
 tion precious stones, beads, snaps, swivels, and other materials and parts. (T. 
 D. 32431; Apr. 25, 1912.) 
 Kalsomine — 
 Drawback on calcimine manufactured by Ilsley, Doubleday & Co., of Brooklyn, 
 N. Y., in part from imported glue. (T. D, 29433; Dec. 22, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 273 
 
 Drawback on— Continued. 
 Kalsomine — Continued. 
 T. D. 29433 of December 22, 1908, as amended by T. D. 32948 of November 21, 
 1912, extended to cover Standard kalsomine manufactured by Ilsley, Double- 
 day & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported glue. (T. D.' 33109; 
 Jan. 22, 1913.) 
 T. D. 29433 extended to cover additional tints of kalsomine manufactured by 
 Ilsley, Doubleday & Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., in part from imported glue, and 
 amended to dispense with the requirement of analysis. (T. D. 32948; Nov. 
 21, 1912.) 
 "Keepdry" cloth-lined waterproof wrapping paper- 
 Drawback on "keepdry" cloth-lined waterproof wrapping paper manufactured 
 by the Angier Mills, of Quincy, Mass., wholly or in part from imported paper, 
 cloth, and pitch. (T. D. 28895; Mar. 25, 1908.) 
 Ketchup and chutney — 
 Drawback on tomato chutney and tomato ketchup manufactured by Gordon & 
 Dilworth, of New York, with the use of imported paprika and refined sugar 
 produced from raw sugar. (T. D. 30088; Nov. 2, 1909.} 
 Drawback on tomato ketchup and tomato chutney manufactured by Gordon & 
 Dilworth, of New York, from imported paprika and sugar. T. D. 30088 of 
 November 2, 1909, amended. (T. D. 30137; Nov. 26, 1909.) 
 Kid leather, colored, glazed. (See Drawback on leather.) 
 
 Kidney pills manufactiued by the Foster-Milbum Co. (See Drawback on medici- 
 nal preparations.) 
 Kiln cloths — ■ 
 Drawback on kiln cloths mainufactured by the Bemis Bro. Bag Co., of San Fran- 
 cisco, Cal., with the use of imported jute cloth. (T. D. 29086; June 19, 1908.) 
 Klngsford boilers — ■ 
 Drawback on Kingsford boilers manufactured with the use of imported furnaces 
 by the Kingsford Foundry & Machine Works, of Oswego, N. Y. (T. D. 32741; 
 July 23, 1912.) 
 Kolynos dental cream. (See Drawback on dental cream.) 
 Kosmeo toilet preparations. (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Labels, tin. (See Drawback on tin labels.) 
 Lace curtains. (See Drawback on curtains.) 
 Laces, shoe. (See Drawback on shoe laces.) 
 Ladies' and men's hosiery. (See Drawback on hosiery.) 
 
 Ladies' and misses' suits and coats, cloaks, etc. (See Drawback on clothing.) 
 Ladies' neckwear. (See Drawback on neckwear.) 
 Ladies' shoes. (See Drawback on shoes.) 
 
 Ladies' veiling, embroidered, chenilled, and edged. (See Drawback on veiling.) 
 Ladies' vests or undershirts. (See Drawback on un'derwear.) 
 Lamp-case shocks and Chinese lamp founts — 
 T. D. 34448 of May 8, 1914 (drawback on cans), extended to cover Chinese lamp 
 founts manufactured by the Standard Oil Co. from imported tin plate, and T. 
 D. 33902 of November 21, 1913 (drawback on box shooks), extended to cover 
 lamp-case shooks manufactured by the above company from lumber imported 
 prior to October 4, 1913. (T. D. 34838; Oct. 19, 1914.) 
 Lamps, bicycle. (See Drawback on bicycle lamps.) 
 Lamps, electric. (See Electric lamps.) 
 Lamps for motor cars. (See Drawback on motor-car lamps.) 
 Lanterns, "A. G. A." (See Drawback on lighthouse apparatus.) 
 45633°— 17 18 
 
274 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Lanterns, buoy — 
 
 Drawback on buoy lanterns manufactured by the Safety Car Heating & Lighting 
 Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported lenses. (T. D. 35294; Apr. 
 '5, 1915.) 
 lasts, aluminum. (See Aluminum.) 
 
 Lava insulators or bushings. (See Drawback on electrical equipment.) 
 Lead. 
 
 Drawback on pig lead manufactured by the American Smelting & Refining Co., 
 of New York, from imported lead-bearing ore. (T. D. 29197; Aug. 7, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on pig lead, antimonial lead, Babbitt metal, electrotype metal, and 
 stereotype metal manufactured by the Hoyt Metal Co., of Maurer, N. J., from 
 imported scrap lead and lead dross or oxide. (T. D. 29896; July 9, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on dry white lead manufactured by the United Lead Co., of New York 
 City, wholly with the use of imported pig lead or pig lead produced from im- 
 ported bullion or lead-bearing ores. T. D. 27927 of February 16, 1907, revoked. 
 (T. D. 32516; May 18, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on pig lead manufactured by the American Smelting & Befining Co. 
 from copper matte containing more than 10 per cent of lead and assessed with 
 duty in accordance with T. D. 32439. (T. D. 32668; June 27, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on antimonial sheet lead manufactured by the Hoyt Metal Co., of St. 
 Louis, Mo., with the use of imported antimonial pig lead. (T. D. 35670; Aug. 
 21, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on antimonial pig lead manufactured by the Hoyt Metal Co., of St. 
 Louis, Mo., with the use of imported antimony. (T. D. 35671; Aug. 23, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on antimonial lead balls manufactured by the Euston Process Co., of 
 Scranton, Pa., in whole or in part with the use of imported lead, antimonial 
 lead, and antimony. (T. D. 35889; Nov. 18, 1915.) 
 
 Acetate of— 
 
 Drawback on acetate of lead manufactured by the Grasselli Chemical Co., of 
 Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of imported pig lead. (T. D. 31619; May 24, 1911.) 
 
 Arsenate of — 
 
 Drawback on arsenate of lead manufactured by the Graaselli Chemical Co., of 
 Cleveland, Ohio, and Grasselli, N. J., with the use of imported lead and arsenate 
 of soda wholly or in combination with domestic lead and arsenate of soda. (T. 
 D. 32686; July 1, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on arsenate of lead manufactured by the Merrimac Chemical Co., of 
 North Wobum, Mass., with the use of imported pig lead in conjunction with 
 domestic materials. T. D. 27341 of May 14, 1906, revoked. (T. D. 33581; 
 June 25, 1913.) 
 
 Articles of — 
 
 Drawback on sheet lead, lead pipe, collapsible tubes, solder, lead traps, and lead 
 bends manufactured by the Raymond Lead Co., of Chicago, 111., either wholly 
 from imported lead or from imported lead in combination with domestic lead 
 and other materials. (T. D. 34067; Jan. 19, 1914.) 
 
 In the liquidation of drawback entries covering articles manufactured with the 
 use of lead produced in bonded smelting warehouse allowance may be made for 
 waste incurred in smelting and refining. (T. D. 34540; June 12, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on various lead articles manufactured by the United Lead Co., with the 
 use of imported lead, antimonial lead, and antimony in combination with other 
 metals. T. D. 24025 of October 28, 1902, T. D. 24750 of October 27, 1903, the 
 department's letter of February 20, 1904, the department's letter of February 
 23, 1904, T. D. 27595 of September 6, 1906, T. D. 27757 of December 15, 1906, 
 T. D. 28338 of July 19, 1907, T. D. 30999 of October 24, 1910, and T. D. 31075 
 of December 1, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 35718; Sept. 22, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 275 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Lead — Continued. 
 
 Articles of — Continued. 
 
 T. D. 35718 of September 22, 1915, extended to cover balls or bullets and litharge 
 manufactured by the Chadwick-Boston Lead Co., of Boston, Mass. T. D. 13832 
 of March 13, 1893, revoked. (T. D. 35756; Oct. 7, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35718 of September 22, 1915, extended to provide for drawback on lead 
 articles manufactured by the Raymond Lead Co., of Chicago, 111. T. D. 34067 
 of January 19, 1914, revoked. (T. D. 35777; Oct. 18, 1915.) 
 
 Games — 
 
 Drawback on lead cames manufactured by the United Lead Co., of New York, 
 with the use of imported pig lead, or lead produced from imported lead ore or 
 bullion. T. D. 30999 of October 24, 1910, extended. (T. D. 31075; Dec. 1, 
 1910.) 
 
 Castings — 
 
 Drawback on lead castings manufactured by the United Lead Co., of New York, 
 with the use of imported pig lead, lead and antimony or antimonial lead, or 
 lead refined from imported lead ore. (T. D. 30993; Oct. 24, 1910.) 
 
 Foil. (See Drawback on tin and lead foil.) 
 
 Hauufactures of — 
 
 Shrapnel: Drawback on shrapnel manufactured by the Providence Engineering 
 Works, of Providence, R. I., with the use of antimonial lead balls produced by 
 the Boston-Chad wick Lead Co., of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported lead, 
 antimonial lead, antimony, etc. T. D. 23981 of September 27, 1902, revoked. 
 (T. D. 35802; Oct. 20, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on shrapnel manufactured by the Bethlehem Steel Co., of South Beth- 
 lehem, Pa., with the use of imported antimony, antimonial lead, and lead, and 
 with the use of various articles and materials containing imported antimony, 
 antimonial lead, and lead. (T. D. 35842; Oct. 30, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on shrapnel manufactured by the E. W. Bliss Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., 
 with the use of imported lead, antimonial lead, antimony, etc. T. D. 25059 of 
 February 27, 1904, and T. D. 28304 of July 1, 1907, revoked. (T. D. 35853: 
 Nov. 2, 1915.) 
 
 Sheets and Hoyt metal sheets — 
 
 Drawback on soft sheet lead and Hoyt metal sheet manufactured by the Hoyt 
 Metal Co., of St. Louis, Mo., with the use of imported lead bullion and antimo- 
 nial lead. (T. D. 30553; Apr. 18, 1910.) 
 
 Sleeving — 
 
 Drawback on lead sleeving manufactured by the Western Electric Co., of New 
 York City, wholly with the use of imported pig lead. T. D. 27738 of December 
 10, 1906, extended. (T. D. 29112; June 25, 1908.) 
 
 Tape- 
 Drawback on lead tape manufactured by the Western Electric Co., of Chicago, 
 lU., from imported lead bullion or lead-bearing ores. (T. D. 32190; Jan. 27, 
 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on lead tape manufactured by the Western Electric Co., of Chicago, 
 111., wholly from imported lead bullion. (T. D. 34357; Apr. 7, 1914.) 
 
 Washers — 
 
 Drawback on lead washers manufactured by the American Casting Co., of Brook- 
 lyn, N. Y., with the use of imported refined lead. (T. D. 32100; Dec. 18, 191}.) 
 Leather — 
 
 Drawback on black leather manufactured by Dungan, Hood & Co. (Inc.), of 
 Philadelphia, Pa., in part\with the use of imported logwood crystals. (T. D. 
 29187; July 29, 1908.) 
 
276 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued, 
 leather — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on leather manufactured by James Gormley, of Roxbury, Mass., with 
 the use of imported cod oil. T. D. 26950 of December 27, 1905, extended. (T. 
 D. 29434; Dec. 23, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on leather tanned or prepared with the use of imported degras, que- 
 bracho, cod oil, bichromate of potash, sumac, logwood crystals, or glycerin. 
 Rates heretofore established revoked. (T. D. '29873; June 25^ 1909.) This 
 decision amended with respect to filing abstract from manufacturing record. 
 T. D. 30259; January 15, 1910. 
 
 T. D. 29873 of June 25, 1909, extended to provide for the payment of drawback on 
 leather tanned or prepared with the use of mangrove cutch. (T. D. 33292; 
 Mar. 24, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on blackened, glazed, or embossed seal leather manufactured by K. 
 Kaufmann & Co., of Newark, N. J., wholly with the use of imported, rough, 
 tanned sealskins. (T. D. 29222; Aug. 21, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on leather manufactured by Thomas A. Kelley & Co., of West Lynn, 
 Mass., with the use of imported bichromate of soda, logwood crystals, and 
 refined glycerin. T. D. 29334 of November 9, 1908, extended. (T. D. 29343; 
 Nov. 14, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on leather manufactured by the Pfister & Vogel Leather Co., of Mil- 
 waukee, Wis., with the use of imported bichromate of soda. (T. D. 29334; 
 Nov. 9, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on glazed kid manufactured by the Surpass Leather Co., of Philadel- 
 phia, Pa., with the use of imported chromean black. (T. D. 29737; May 8, 
 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on rubberized patent or japanned leather manufactured by the Vigori 
 Leather Co., of New York, from imported leather. (T. D. 29659; Mar. 27, 
 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on leather tanned or prepared with the use of imported degras, que- 
 bracho, cod oil, bichromate of potash, etc. T. D. 29873 of June 25, 1909, 
 amended with respect to filing abstract from manufacturing record. (T. D. 
 30259; Jan. 15, 1910.) 
 
 Artificial — 
 
 Drawback is hereby allowed on artificial leather manufactured by the O'Bannon 
 Corporation, of Boston, Mass., with the use of castor oil produced by the Baker 
 Castor Oil Co., of New York, N. Y., from imported castor beans. (T. D. 34880; 
 Nov. 5, 1914.) 
 
 Bags and other articles — 
 
 Drawback on leather bags manufactured by the K. A. Kelley Co. , of Bos^n, Mass., 
 from imported India tanned sheepskins. (T. D. 30090; Nov. 2, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on bags, pocketbooks, cardcases, music rolls, and other articles manu- 
 factured by P. W. Lambert & Co., of New York City, from imported leather. 
 T. D. 29795, of June 4, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30580; Apr. 29, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on bags, pocketbooks, cardcases, music rolls, and other articles manu- 
 factured by P. W. Lambert & Co., of New York City, with the use of imported 
 shawls and silk ribbon. T. D. 29795 of June 4, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30994; 
 Oct. 17. 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on leather bags, belts, and collar and cuff cases manufactured by the 
 Anthony Manufacturing Co., of Lynn, Mass., wholly with the use of imported 
 ' East India sheepskins. (T. D. 29310; Oct. 23, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on traveling bags and suit cases manufactured by K. Kaufmann & Co., 
 of Newark, N. J., wholly or in part from imported leather, frames, fittings, etc. 
 ' (T. D. 29795; June 4, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 277 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Leathei — Continued . 
 
 Bags and other articles — ^Continued. 
 
 Drawback on traveling bags and suit cases manufactured by K. Kaufmann & Co., 
 of Newark, N. J., wholly or in part from imported leather, frames, fittings, etc. 
 T. D. 29795 of June 4, 1909, amended. (T. D. 30374; Feb. 25, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback is allowed on dress-suit cases and satchels manufactured by Messrs. K. 
 Kaufmann & Co. (Inc.), of Newark, N. J., with the use of imported frames, locks, 
 keys, and satchels. (T. D. 35329; Apr. 26, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on suit and sample cases manufactured by S. Meyerson, of New York 
 City, with the use of imported cardboard. T. D. 27016 of January 23, 1906, 
 extended. (T. D. 29454; Jan. 4, 1909.) 
 
 Belting- 
 Drawback on leather belting maniifactured by the New York Leather Belting Co., 
 from imported butts. T. D. 24545 of July 6, 1903, extended. (T. D. 29899; 
 July 9, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on leather bating manufactured by the New York Leather Belting Co., 
 of Brooklyn, N. Y., from imported leather butts. T. D. 24545 of July 6, 1903, 
 extended. (T. D. 30283; Jan. 18, 1910.) 
 
 Colored and glazed — 
 
 Drawback on colored glazed kid leather manufactured by Thomas A. Kelley & 
 Co., of Lynn, Mass., with the use of imported medium brown, olive brown, 
 and Mikado orange aniline dyes. (T. D. 30373; Feb. 24, 1910.) 
 
 Dressing for— 
 
 Drawback on leather dressing designated as "moellon" manufactured by Marden, 
 Orth & Hastings, of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported wool grease, sod 
 oil, and cod oil. (T. D. 31645; June 3, 1911.) 
 
 Glazed kid — 
 
 Drawback on glazed kid manufactured by the Surpass Leather Co., of Philadel- 
 phia, Pa., with the use of imported chromean black. (T. D. 29737; May 8, 
 1909.) 
 
 Splits — 
 
 Drawback on splits manufactured by C. Moench Sons Co., of Gowanda and Sala- 
 manca, N. Y., with the use of imported quebracho extract. T. D. 25855 of 
 December 19, 1904, extended. (T. D. 28992; May 15, 1908.) 
 
 Welting — 
 
 Drawback on leather welting manufactured by W. J. Fallon, of Boston, Mass., 
 from imported rough-tanned or partially tanned hides. T. D. 19427 of June 2, 
 1898, extended; T. D. 26424 of May 31, 1905, revoked. (T. D. 29420; Dec. 19) 
 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on leather welting manufactured by I. B. Williams & Sons, of Dover, 
 N. H., with the use of imported rough leather. (T. D. 32024; Nov. 21, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on leather welting manufactured by the Woelfel Leather Co., of Morris, 
 111., from rough-tanned hides. Department'^ regulations of June 2, 1898 (T. D. 
 19427), extended. (T. D. 29898; July 9, 1909.) 
 Leggings and overgaiters — 
 
 Drawback on leggings and overgaiters manufactured by H. Jacobs & Sons, of New 
 York City, with the use of imported Jersey cloth. (T. D. 31338; Feb. 27, 1911., 
 
 Drawback on men's overgaiters, ladies' gaiterettes, and stockinette leggins manu- 
 factured by S. Rauh & Co., of New York City, with the use of imported cloth. 
 (T. D. 31670; June 8, 1911.) 
 Leghorn and Panama hats, ladies'. (See Drawback on hats, ladies' Panama and 
 
 Leghorn.) 
 
278 DIGEST OF CITSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on— Contfnued. 
 Lemon peel — 
 Drawback on glac6 citron, crystallized citron, and crystallized orange and lemon 
 peel manufactured by William Hills, jr., of New York City, with the use of 
 imported preserved citron, orange peel, lemon peel, and refined sugar. T. D. 
 25287 of May 16, 1904, extended. (T. D. 29917; July 21, 1909.) 
 Leonardl's Blood Elixir. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 letter-copying books — 
 Drawback on letter-copying books manufactured by the Bailey Manufacturing 
 Co., of New York City, with the use of imported Japanese copying paper. (T. 
 D. 26406 of May 26, 1905, extended. (T. D. 28788; Feb. 20, 1908.) 
 Drawback on letter-copying books manufactured by H. J. Meister, of Chicago, 111., 
 in part from imported Japanese tissue paper. T. D. 26406 of May 26, 1905, 
 extended. (T. D. 29484; Jan. 25, 1909.) 
 Drawback on letter-copying books manufactured by the Gresham Blank Book 
 Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported Japanese copying paper. T. 
 D. 26406 of May 26, 1905, extended. (T. D. 31384; Mar. 14, 1911.) 
 Drawback on letter-press copying books manufactured by the National Blank 
 Book Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported copying tissue paper. 
 (T. D. 33741; Sept. 24, 1913.) 
 Drawback on press-copying books manufactured by the Boorum & Pease Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported paper. T. D. 23904 of July 28, 
 1902, revoked. (T. D. 35554; June 28, 1915.) 
 Drawback on press-copy books manufactured by the Gresham Blank Book Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported tissue copying paper for the ac- 
 count of H. Ohashi & Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35586; July 17, 1915.) 
 Leyden jars — ■ 
 Drawback on Leyden jars manufactured by the Wireless Specialty Apparatus Co., 
 of New York City, with the use of imported glass plates and jars. (T. D. 32178; 
 Jan. 22, 1912.) 
 Library paste. (See Drawback on paste.) 
 Licorice paste and licorice root — 
 Drawback on licorice paste manufactured by the J. S. Young Co., of Baltimore, 
 
 Md., from imported licorice root. (T. D. 34504; June 2, 1914.) 
 Drawback on licorice paste and powdered licorice root manufactured by the Mac- 
 Andrews & Forbes Co., of Camden, N. J., with the use of imported crude licorice 
 root. (T. D. 34483; May 27, 1914.) 
 Lifeboats — • 
 Drawback on lifeboats manufactured by the Welin Marine Equipment Co., of 
 Long Island City, N. Y., with the use of imported "Mill's boat-releasing gear." 
 (T. D. 33252; Mar. 8, 1913.) 
 Lighter covers, sailcloths, etc. — 
 Drawback on lighter covers, boat covers, sailcloths, wagon tops, leggings, and 
 other articles manufactured for and on account of T. S. Todd & Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported WUford waterproof canvas. (T. D. 32603; June 
 6, 1912.) 
 Lighthouse apparatus — 
 Drawback on lighthouse apparatus designated as "AGA" lanterns, manufactured 
 by the American Gasaccumulator Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of im- 
 ported lenses, prisms, iron cylinders, and accumulator valves. (T. D. 35188; 
 Mar. 8, 1915.) 
 Lightning arresters. (See Drawback on electrical equipment.) 
 Limko sirup. (See Drawback on sirup, Limko.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 279 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Lincrusta— 
 
 Drawback on lincrusta manufactured by the American Lincrusta Co., of / 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported oxidized linseed oil, wood flour, i.ij.y, 
 ILthopone, French ocher, umber, sienna, and other coloring matter and paper. 
 (T. D. 33187; Feb. 17, 1913.) 
 Linen fabrics. (See Drawback on fabrics, linen. 
 Linen hydraulic hose — 
 T. D. 20252 of October 28, 1898, T. D. 23105 of June 10, 1901, and T. D. 30868 of 
 August 10, 1910, providing for the payment of drawback on linen hydraulic hose 
 manufactured by the Eureka Fire Hose Manufacturing Co., of New York, from 
 imported flax or linen yam, amended to provide for allowance on a basis of the 
 weight of the exported hose, with an addition of 2J per cent for waste. (T. D. 
 33349; Apr. 21, 1913.) 
 Linen, oUed. (See Drawback on oiled Unen.) 
 Linens, table — 
 Drawback on table linens manufactured by the H. W. Baker Linen Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported linen piece goods or with the use of unfin- 
 ished table coveis and napkins. (T. D. 35240; Mar. 22, 1915.) 
 Links, collai and cufi, and buttons. (See Drawback on buttons and collar and 
 
 cuff links.) 
 Linseed oil. (See Drawback on oil and oil cake.) 
 
 Linting machines. (See Drawback on cotton gins and linting machines.) 
 Liquid glue, etc. (See Drawback on glue.) 
 
 Liquid magnetic compasses. (See Drawback on compasses, liquid magnetic.) 
 Liquors, cocktails — 
 Drawback on Chancellor cocktails manufactured in whole or in part from imported 
 materials by the S. C. Herbst Importing Co., of Milwaukee, Wis. (T. D. 29585; 
 Mar. 1, 1909.) 
 Drawback on cocktails manufactured by the Tezor Co., of New York, with the use 
 of imported materials. T. D. 29585 of March 1, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30395; 
 Mar. 3, 1910.) 
 Drawback on < ocktails manufactured by the Tezor Co., of New York, N. Y., with 
 
 the use of imported vermuth and gin. (T. D. 36026; Dec. 30, 1915.) 
 Sparkling wines and champagne — 
 
 Drawback on sparkling wines and champagne manufactured by Luigi, Bosca & 
 FigU, of New York, N. Y., from imported still wines. (T. D. 36011; Dec. 23, 
 1913.) 
 Vermuth — 
 
 Drawback on vermuth manufactured by Forges & Levy, of New York, N. Y., 
 with the use of imported sherry or Marsala wine. (T. D. 35934; Nov. 30, 1915.) 
 Listertne. (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Lithographic rollers — 
 Drawback on lithographic rollers manufactured by the Hall Printing Press Co., 
 Dunellen, N. J., with the use of imported leather. T. D. 26960 of January 3, 
 1906, extended. (T. D. 29638; Mar. 20, 1909.) 
 Loaded shells and cartridges. (See Drawback on shells and cartridges, loaded.) 
 Locomotive fire boxes — 
 Drawback on locomotive fire boxes manufactured by the American Locomotive 
 Co., of New York City, with the use of imported plates. T. D. 16878 of March 
 4, 1896, extended. (T. D. 29234; Aug. 29, 1908.) 
 LocomotiTes — 
 Drawback on locomotives manufactured with the use of imported rotary snow- 
 plows by the American Locomotive Co. T. D. 22810 of February 13, 1901, 
 extended. (T. D. 29302; Oct. 16, 1908.) 
 
280 DIGEST 01" CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Locomotives — Continued. 
 Drawback on locomotives manufactured by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, of 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported asbestos mats used as boiler lagging. 
 
 (T. D. 30262; Jan. 15, 1910.) 
 Drawback on locomotives manufactured by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, of 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., ia part from imported steel tubes. (T. D. 30532; Apr. 13, 
 
 1910.) 
 Drawback on locomotives manufactured by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, of 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., in part of imported tender wheels premanently attached to 
 
 domestic axles. T. D. 26978 of January 10, 1906, extended. (T. D. 30964; 
 
 Oct. 3, 1910.) 
 Drawback on locomotives manufactured by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, of 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported steel channel bars. (T. D. 31822; 
 
 Aug. 17, 1911.) 
 Drawback on locomotives manufactured by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, of 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported Eyre antifriction metal. (T. D. 
 
 32969; Nov. 26, 1912.) 
 Xocomotives and parts of. 
 Drawback on locomotives and parts of locomotives manufactured by the Bald- 
 win Locomotive Works, of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of various imported 
 
 materials, parts, etc. Former drawback rates suspended and revoked. (T. D. 
 
 35862; Nov. 5, 1915.) 
 Lozenges and wafers — 
 Drawback on lozenges and wafers manufactured by the National Wafer Co., of 
 
 Boston, Mass., in part from imported sugar. (T. D. 30351; Feb. 11, 1910.) 
 Lubricating oils. (See Drawback on oils, lubricating.) 
 Lumber, creosoted. (See Drawback on creosoted lumber.) 
 Machetes — 
 Drawback on machetes manufactured by the Collins Co., of Collinsville, Conn., 
 
 with the use of imported horn handles. (T. D. 29918; July 22, 1909.) 
 Machine parts — 
 Drawback on finished machine parts manufactured by the Potter & Johnston 
 
 Machine Co., of Pawtucket, R. I., from imported rough cast and forged iron, 
 
 steel, brass, bronze, and aluminum parts. (T. D. 30019; Sept. 30, 1909.) 
 Machine shops, portable — ■ 
 Drawback on portable machine shops manufactured by the J. G. Brill Co., of 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of various articles of domestic manufacture 
 
 containing imported materials. (T. D. 36023; Dec. 29, 1915.) 
 Machines. (See also Drawback on machinery following.) 
 Drawback on metal-shaping machines manufactured by the E. W. Bliss Co., of 
 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported dies or mandrils. (T. D. 33895; 
 
 Nov. 19, 1913.) 
 Drawback on band-saw machines manufactured by the Crescent Machine Co., 
 
 Leetonia, Ohio, with the use of imported baU bearings. (T. D. 33679; Aug. 11, 
 
 1913.) 
 Creamug— 
 Drawback on "creamug" machines manufactured by the Taylor & Fenn Co., of 
 
 Hartford, Conn., in part from imported baU bearings and ball thrust washers. 
 
 (T. D. 30502; Apr. 6, 1910.) 
 T. D. 30502, providing for allowance of drawback on "creamug" machines manu- 
 factured by the Taylor & Fenn Co., of Hartford, Coim., with the use of imported 
 
 ball bearings and ball thrust washers, amended. (T. D. 31021; Nov. 2, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISION'S, 1908-1915. 281 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Machines — Continued. 
 
 Flat-card, revolving. (See Drawback on flats, revolving, and revolving flat-card 
 macliines.) 
 
 Sewing — 
 
 Drawback on sewing-machine needles manufactured by the Singer Manufactur- 
 ing Co., of Elizabethport, N. J., from imported steel wire. (T. D. 29462; Mar. 
 23, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on sewing machines manufactured by the Singer Manufacturing Co., 
 of Elizabethport, N. J., with the use of decalcomania transfers for decorative 
 purposes. (T. D. 29683; Apr. 10, 1909.) 
 
 Talking- 
 Drawback on talking machines manufactured by the Crescent Talking Machine 
 Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported metal parts. (T. D. 34618; 
 July 10, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on talking machines manufactured by the Aeolian Co., of New York, 
 N. Y., with the use of imported parts and materials. (T. D. 35242; Mar. 22, 
 1915.) 
 
 Thrashing, and grain separatois^ 
 
 Drawback on thrashing machines and grain separators manufactured by the Ad- 
 vance Thresher Co., of Battle Creek, Mich., with the use of imported screens. 
 T. D. 26782 of October 11, 1905, extended. (T. D. 30941; Sept. 26, 1910.) 
 
 T. D. 30941, providing for the allowance of drawback on thrashing machines manu- 
 factured by the Advance Thresher Co., of Detroit, Mich., extended to cover 
 thrashing machines manufactured by the M. Rumely Co., of Laporte, Ind. 
 (successors to the Advance Thresher Co.), with the use of similar imported 
 materials. (T. D. 32947; Nov. 20, 1912.) 
 
 Wood-barking— 
 
 Drawback on wood-barking machines manufactured by the Green Bay Barker Co., 
 of Green Bay, Wis., with the use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 35750; Oct. 
 5, 1915.) 
 Machinery — 
 
 Drawback on turret lathes, boring mills, tool grinders, and other similar machines 
 manufactured by the Gisholt Machine Co., of Madison, Wis., with the use of 
 imported steel castings. (T. D. 33689; Aug. 15, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on Save-All paper and pulp machines, manufactured by the Improved 
 Paper Machinery Co., of Nashua, N. H., with the use of imported phosphor- 
 bronze woven-wire cloth. (T. D. 33866; Nov. 14, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on automatic movable peat plants manufactured by L. B. Lincoln, of 
 Chicago, 111., with the use of imported tubular macerators. (T. D. 33868; Nov. 
 14, 1913.) 
 
 Agricultural — 
 
 Drawback on mowers and reapers manufactured by Adriance, Piatt & Co., of 
 Poughkeepsie, N. Y., with the use of imported pig iron. T. D. 24125 of Decern 
 ber 29, 1902, amended. (T. D. 30670; June 7, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on agricultural machinery and parts manufactured by Adriance, Plat 
 & Co., of Poughkeepsie, N. Y., in part with the use of imported pig iron. T. D 
 24125, T. D. 28367, T. D. 28394, and T. D. 30670, revoked. (T. D. 31424; Mar. 
 27, 1911.) 
 
 Mining — 
 
 Drawback on mining machinery manufactured by the Joshua Hendy Iron Works, 
 of San Francisco, Cal., partly from imported pig iron. T. D. 26171 of March 17, 
 1905i extended. (T. D. 29708; Apr. 26, 1909.) 
 
282 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Machinery — Continued. 
 Sugar-null — 
 
 Drawback on sugar-mill machinery manufactured by the Fulton Iron Works, of 
 St. Louis, Mo., with the use of imported caat-iron rollers. (T. D. 29987; Sept. 
 7, 1909.) 
 Magnetic liquid compasses. (See Drawback on compasses, liquid magnetic.) 
 Magnetos — 
 Drawback on magnetos manufactured by the Ericsson Manufacturing Co., of 
 Buffalo, N. Y., with the use of imported ball bearings or ball bearings produced 
 in the United States with the use of imported parts. (T. D. 35689; Sept. 1, 
 1915.) 
 Drawback on ma^etos manufactured by the Hendricks Novelty Co., of Indian- 
 apolis, Ind., with the use of imported magnets and with the use of imported 
 ball bearings. (T. D. 34721; Aug. 20, 1914.) 
 Drawback on magnetos manufactured by the Simms Magneto Co., of New York 
 City, from imported screws, gear wheels, springs, magnets, and other materials. 
 (T. D. 32212; Jan. 31, 1912.) 
 Magnifiers. (See Drawback on mirrors, etc.) 
 Magnolia metal — 
 Drawback on Magnolia metal manufactured by the Magnolia Metal Co., of New 
 York City, with the use of imported lead and antimony. T. D. 12772 of May 2, 
 1892, revoked. (T. D. 31875; Sept. 20, 1911.) 
 Mail exportations — 
 Regulations for the allowance of drawback on articles exported by mail. (T. D. 
 32143; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 Mak&roS cigarettes. (See Cigarettes.) 
 
 Malines, veilings, nettings, chiffons, etc: (See Drawback on veilings, etc.) 
 Malttne — 
 Drawback on maltine plain and maltine and cod-liver oil manufactured by the 
 Maltine Co., of New York, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 
 17321 of July 30, 1896, and T. D. 18568 of November 11, 1897, extended. (T. D. 
 30153; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 Mangrove cutch, crescent liquid. (See Drawback on crescent liquid mangrove 
 
 cutch.) 
 Mantles, gas — 
 Drawback allowed on gas mantles manufactured by the Welsbach Co., of Glouces- 
 ter, N. J., with the use of thorium nitrate obtained from imported monazite 
 sand and with imported ramie thread. (T. D. 32886; Oct. 24, 1912.) 
 Drawback on gas mantles manufactured by the General Gas Mantle Co., of New 
 York, with the use of double or twisted ramie yam produced from ramie yarn 
 imported in the single. (T. D. 33093; Jan. 16, 1913.) 
 Drawback on thorium nitrate manufactured by the Welsbach Light Co., of Glou- 
 cester City, N. J., with the use of imported monazite sand and oxalic acid. 
 (T. D. 35447; May 25, 1915.) 
 Drawback on thorium nitrate manufactured by the Rare Earth Chemical Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported gas-mantle scrap. (T. D. 35899; 
 Nov. 24, 1915.) 
 Thorium nitrate: Drawback on thorixmi nitrate manufactured by the Chemical 
 Refining Co., of Newark, N. J., with the use of imported monazite sand and 
 mantle ash. (T. D. 30699; June 17, 1910.) 
 Thorium nitrate and cerium nitrate : Drawback on thoriiun nitrate, cerium nitrate, 
 and gafi mantles manufactured by the Lindsay Light Co., of Chicago, HI., with 
 the use of imported monazite sand. (T. D. 35230; Mar. 18, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 283 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Mantles, gas — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on incandescent mantles manufactured by the Block Light Co., of 
 Youngstown, Ohio, with the use of imported ramie thread. T. D. 27148 of 
 February 24, 1906, extended. (T. D. 30973; Oct. 4, 1910.) 
 
 T. D. 30973 of October 4, 1910, amended with respect to the quantities of the im- 
 ported ramie thread used in the manufacture of incandescent mantles. (T. D. 
 34714; Aug. 20, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on incandescent mantles, Nos. 2 to 14, inclusive, manufactured by the 
 Block Light Co., of New York City, with the use of imported thorium nitrate. 
 T. D. 27148 of February 24, 1906, extended. (T. D. 31231; Jan. 23, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on incandescent mantles designated aa Nos. 15 and 80, and Blaugas, 
 manufactured by the Block Light Co., of New York City, with the use of im- 
 ported thorium nitrate and ramie thread. (T. D. 31230; Jan. 23, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on incandescent mantles designated as Blaus Inverted, Block No. 80, 
 and Block No. 95, manufactured by the Block Light Co., of Youngstown, Ohio, 
 with the use of imported ramie thread. T. D. 27148 of February 24, 1906, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 31622; May 23, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on incandescent gas mantles manufactured by the Solar Light Co., 
 of New York City, with the use of imported thorium nitrate. T. D. 27043 
 of January 27, 1906, extended. (T. D. 29404; Dec. 12, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on incandescent gas mantles manufactured by the Lindsay Light Co., 
 of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported thorium nitrate. T. D. 27043 of Jan- 
 uary 27, 1906, amended. (T. D. 30132; Nov. 22, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on incandescent mantles manufactured by the General Gas Light Co., 
 of New York City, and the General Gas Mantle Co., of Camden, N. J., with the 
 use of imported thorium nitrate. T. D. 27043 of January 27, 1906, extended. 
 (T. D. 30965; Oct. 3, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on inverted incandescent gae mantles manufactured by the Lindsay 
 Light Co., of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported thorium nitrate. T. D. 
 27043 of January 27, 1906, extended. (T. D. 30430; Mar. 15, 1910.) 
 Mantles, dresses, and waists. (See Drawback on clothing, ladies' dresses, waista, 
 
 etc.) 
 Maple sirup. (See Drawback on sirup.) 
 
 Maps and charts. (See Drawback on globes and mounted wall maps an charts.) 
 Marble articles — 
 
 Drawback on marble slabs, moldings, and other articles manufactured for and on 
 account of Taber & Co., of New York City, from imported marble blocks. T. 
 D. 20569 of January 19, 1899, extended. (T. D. 32665; June 25, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on interior trim in the form of slabs, bases, caps, columns, etc., and 
 also other articles of marble manufactured by William Bradley & Son, of Long 
 Island, N. Y., from imported block marble. T. D. 20569 of January 19, 1899, 
 extended. (T. D. 32473; Apr. 30, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on slabs, moldings, capitals, pilasters, columns, risers, treads, flooring, 
 wainscoting, bases, counters, plumbers' slabs, and other forms of marble interior 
 finish manufactured by the Northwestern Marble & Tile Co., of Minneapolis, 
 Minn., from marble imported in blocks. (T. D. 33282; Mar. 20, 1913.) 
 Marble building articles — 
 
 Drawback on marble articles for building purposes manufactured by P. M. & W. 
 Schlichter, New York, N. Y., with the use of marble imported in blocks. (T. 
 D. 34016; Dec. 26, 1913.) 
 Marble decorations — 
 
 Drawback on interior and exterior architectural marble and house decorations, 
 including mantles, wainscoting, etc., manufactTired by the Grant Marble Co., 
 of Milwaukee, Wis., whoUy or in part from imported marble. (T. D. 32411; 
 Apr. 18, 1912.) 
 
284 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Matble decoiations — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on interior and exterior arclutectural marble decorations manufactured 
 by the Cheater N. Marthens Marble Co., of Chicago, 111., from marble imported 
 in blocks. (T. D. 33450; May 22, 1913.) 
 Marble slabs — 
 
 Drawback on plain marble slabs manufactured by or for and on account of C. D. 
 Jackson & Co., of New York City, wholly from imported marble blocks. T. D. 
 20569 of January 19, 1899, extended. (T. D. 28696; Jan. 20, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on marble slabs manufactured by Pisani Bros., of New York City, 
 from imported marble blocks. (T. D. 29219; Aug. 20, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on marble slabs manufactured by the Tompkins- Kiel Marble Co., of 
 New York City, from imported marble blocks. T. D. 20569 of January 19, 1899, 
 extended. (T. D. 29526; Feb. 4, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on marble slabs manufactured by Bockmann & Shepard, of New York 
 City, from imported marble blocks. T. D. 20569 of January 19, 1899, extended. 
 (T. D. 30503; Apr. 6, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on marble slabs manufactured for and on account of the Tompkins- Kiel 
 Marble Co., of New York City, from imported marble blocks. T. D. 29526 of 
 February 4, 1909, extended. (T. D. 31644; June 3, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on marble slabs manufactured for and on account of the Tompkins- Kiel 
 Marble Co., of New York City, with the use of imported marble blocks by the 
 Hilgartner Marble Co., of Baltimore, Md. (T. D. 32102; Dec. 20, 1911.) 
 
 Bjawback allowed on marble slabs manufactured by Feeney & Devanny, of New 
 York City, from imported rough marble blocks. (T. D. 32887; Oct. 24, 1912.) 
 
 Drawba«k on marble slabs manufactured by the Astoria Marble Sawing Mills, of 
 Astoria, N. Y., from imported marble blocks for the account of Pisani Bros., of 
 Astoria, N. Y. (T. D. 35763; Oct. 8, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on marble slabs manufactured by the Astoria Marble Sawing Mills, of 
 New York, N. Y., Edwin Shuttleworth, of Long Island City, N. Y., and the Hil- 
 gartner Marble Co., of Baltimore, Md., from imported marble blocks for the 
 account of the Tompkins- Kliel Marble Co., of New York, N. Y., for their own 
 account and for the account of others. T. D. 29526 of February 4, 1909, T. D. 
 31644 of June 3, 1911, and T. D. 33102 of December 20, 1911, revoked. (T. D. 
 35800; Oct. 19, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35800 of October 19, 1915, extended to cover marble slabs manufactured by 
 the Morrison Stone Co., of Long Mand City, N. Y., and extended to provide 
 for the filing of supplemental sworn statements covering other kinds of stone 
 slabs. (T. D. 35935; Dec. 1, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35800 of October 19, 1915, extended to cover marble and other stone blocks 
 and slabs manufactured by C. D. Jackson & Co., of New York, N. Y., or for 
 their account by the Astoria Marble Sawing Mills, of Astoria, N. Y., from 
 imported marble or other stone blocks. (T. D. 35962; Dec. 9, 1915.) 
 Marble slabs and other articles^ 
 
 Drawback on marble slabs, moldings, and other articles manufactured for and on 
 account of Taber & Co., of New York City, from imported marble blocks. T. 
 D. 20569 of January 19, 1899, extended. (T.-D. 32665; June 25, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on interior trim in the form of slabs, bases, caps, columns, etc., and 
 also other articles of marble manufactured by WiUiam Bradley & Son, of Long 
 Island, N. Y., from imported block marble. T. D. 20569 of January 19, 1899, 
 extended. (T. D. 32473; Apr. 30, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on slabs, moldings, capitals, pilasters, columns, risers, treads, flooring, 
 wainscoting, bases, counters, plumbers' slabs, and other forms of marble interior 
 finish manufactured by the Northwestern Marble & Tile Co., of Minneapolis, 
 Minn., from marble imported in blocks. (T. D. 33282; Mar. 20, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OE CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 285 
 
 Drawback on — 
 Marble slabs and other articles — Continued. 
 Drawback on marble slabs or blocks manufactured by G. P. Sherwood & Co., of 
 
 New York, with the use of Italian and other foreign marbles. T. D. 20569 of 
 
 January 19, 1899, extended. (T. D. 31125; Dec. 16, 1910.) 
 Marine engine oil. (See Drawback on oils, marine engine.) 
 Marine motors — 
 Drawback on marine motors manufactured by the Scripps Motor Co., of Detroit, 
 
 Mich., with the use of imported Mea magnetos. (T. D. 34265; Mar. 13, 1914.) 
 Marshall's uterine catholicon. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Mascaro Tonique. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Mash tubs. (See Drawback on brewers' combined mash tubs.) 
 Measuring tapes — • 
 Drawback on steel measuring tapes manufactured by the L. S. Starrett Co., of 
 
 Athol, Mass., with the use of imported strip or ribbon steel. T. D. 25327 of 
 
 May 28, 1904, extended to cover additional sizes and styles. (T. D. 30007; 
 
 Sept. 24, 1909.) 
 Drawback on pocket steel tape measures manufactured by the Parisian Novelty 
 
 Co., of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported steel tape. (T. D. 33675; Aug. 
 
 11, 1913.) 
 Drawback on measuring tapes manufactured by the Keuffel & Esser Co., of Ho- 
 
 boken, N. J., with the use of imported woven tapes. (T. D. 33964; Dec. 8, 
 
 1913.) 
 Measuring tapes and rules, steel — ■ 
 Drawback on steel measuring tapes and rules manufactured by the Lutkin Rule 
 
 Co., of Saginaw, Mich., wholly from imported strip or ribbon steel. (T. D. 
 
 29475; Jan. 16, 1909.) 
 Medicinal preparations. (.See also Drawback on medicinal preparations and flavoring 
 
 extracts; on medicinal and toilet preparations; and on medicinal and toilet 
 
 preparations and flavoring extracts, post.) 
 Drawback on petroleum emulsion manufactured by the Angier Chemical Co., of 
 
 Allston, Mass., with the use of imported materials. T. D. 17763 of February 2, 
 
 1897, and T. D. 22233 of May 16, 1900, revoked. (T. D. 35305; Apr. 8, 1915.) 
 Drawback on antikamnia tablets, antikamnia powder, and antikamnia and co- 
 deine tablets, manufactured by the Antikamnia Chemical Co., of St. Louis, Mo., 
 
 with the us^ of imported acetphenetidine, citrate of caffeine, and sulphate of 
 
 codeine. (T. D. 32236; Feb. 9, 1912.) 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by the Arlington Chemical 
 
 Co., of Yonkers, N. Y., from domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 17727 of January 
 
 30, 1897, and T. D. 24712 of October 10, 1903, extended. (T. D. 30483; Apr. 1, 
 
 1910.) 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by the Arlington Chemical 
 
 Co., of Yonkers, N. Y., with the use pf domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 17727 
 
 of January 30, 1897, T. D. 24712 of October 10, 1903, and T. D. 30483 of April 1, 
 
 1910, revoked. (T. D. 35632; Aug. 5, 1915.) 
 Drawback on pills manufactured by Frederick 0. Amer, of Buffalo, N. Y., with the 
 
 use of imported sugar. (T. D. 29586; Mar. 1, 1909.) 
 Drawback on pills manufactured by Frederick,C. Amer, of Buffalo, N. Y., with 
 
 the use of imported sugar. T. D. 29586 of March 1, 1909, extended. (T. D. 
 
 30590; May 5, 1910.) 
 Drawback on Comprgssed Bronchial Tablets No. 3100 manufactured by Frederick 
 
 C. Amer, of Buffalo, N. Y., with the use of imported sugar. T. D. 29586 of March 
 
 1, 1909, extended. (T. D. 32408; Apr. 18, 1912.) - 
 
286 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Medicinal piepaiations — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on peroxide o£ hydrogen manufactured by the Arthur Chemical Co., 
 of New Haven, Conn., with the use of imported barium. (T. D. 35833; Oct. 
 27, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on a medicinal preparation designated as "Barry's Tricopheroua" 
 manufactured by Barclay & Co., of New York, N. Y., in part with the use of 
 whoUy domestic tax-paid alcohol and imported or domestic castor oil, or with 
 the use of imported alcohol and imported or domestic castor oil. (T. D. 34263; 
 Mar. 12, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by Battle & Co., of St. Louis, 
 Mo., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 33419; May 12, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on peroxide of hydrogen manufactured by John Bene, of Brooklyn, 
 N. Y., for and on account of the Custer Chemical Co., of New York City, with 
 the use of imported binoxide of barium. (T. D. 30038; Oct. 12, 1909.) 
 
 The regulations of October 12, 1909 (T. D. 30038), providing for the allowance of 
 drawback on peroxide of hydrogen manufactured by John Bene, of Brooklyn, 
 N. Y., for and on account of the Custer Chemical Co., of New York City, with 
 the use of imported binoxide of barium, revoked. (T. D. 30815; July 21, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on Rheumatine Goutaline and Helmbold Buchu manufactured by 
 George Bayne, of Bayonne, N. J., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. 
 (T. D. 31609; May 20, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on certain remedy manufactured by the Chamberlain Medicine Co., 
 of Des Moines, Iowa, with the use of imported alcohol and natural gum opium. 
 T. D. 23313 of October 19, 1901, amended. (T. D. 29246; Sept. 4, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by the Chamberlain Medicine 
 Co., of Des Moines, Iowa, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 
 23313 of October 19, 1901, extended. (T. D. 30307; Jan. 27, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by the Chamberlain Medicine 
 Co., of Des Moines, Iowa, with the use of imported natural gum opium and 
 either imported or domestic alcohol. T. D. 23313 of October 19, 1901, T. D. 
 29246 of September 4, 1908, and T. D. 30307 of January 27, 1910, revoked. (T. 
 D. 30971; Oct. 3, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on Chamberlain's Colic, Cholera, and Diarrhoea r.pmedy manufactured 
 by the Chamberlain Medicine Co., of Des Moines, Iowa, with the use of im- 
 ported crude opium and domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 23313 of October 19, 
 1901, T. D. 24814 of December 5, 1903, T. D. 29246 of September 4, 1908, T. D. 
 30307 of January 27, 1910, and T. D. 30971 of October 3, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 
 35346; Apr. 27, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on "Wine of Cardui" manufactured by the Chattanooga Medicine Co., 
 of Chattanooga, Tenn., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 25228 
 of April 23, 1904, extended. (T. D. 32063; Dec. 7, 1911.) 
 
 T. D. 32063 of December 7, 1911,, extended to provide for the payment of draw- 
 back on Wine of Cardui manufactiired by the Chattanooga Medicine Co., of 
 Chattanooga, Tenn., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol when exported 
 in 9i-ounce bottles. (T. D. 34225; Mar. 4, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on a medicinal preparation designated as "Wine of Cardui" manufac- 
 tured by the Chattanooga Medicine Co., of Chattanooga, Tenn., with the use of 
 domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 25228 of April 23, 1904, T. D. 32063 of Decem- 
 ber 7, 1911, and T. D. 34225 of March 4,^914, revoked. (T. D. 35523; June 14, 
 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on extract of witch-hazel manufactured by E. A. & W. E. Child, of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 31991 of 
 November 6, 1911, revoked, (T. D. 35705; Sept. 16, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 287 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Medicinal piepaiations — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on a medicinal preparation designated as " Anethol " manufactured by 
 J. A. Crombie & Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported oil of anise 
 and domestic tax-paid alcohol, for the account of George Lueders & Co., of New 
 York, N. Y. (T. D. 35352; Apr. 29, 1915.) 
 
 Pain Killer, Perry Davis: Department's regulations of January 10, 1896 (401 h), 
 amended so as to provide in liquidation for an allowance of 3 per cent wastage 
 instead of 6.665 per cent. (T. D. 28825; Mar. 9, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on Perry Davis Pain Killer manufactured by Davis & Lawrence Co., 
 of New York City, with the use of imported alcohol. Regulations of January 
 10, 1896 (401 h), and March. 9, 1908 (T. D. 28825), amended. (T. D. 29220; 
 Aug. 20, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by the Davis & Lawrence Co., 
 of New York, with the use of imported alcohol. T. D. 27620 of September 27, 
 1906, amended. (T. D. 30778; July 13, 1910.). 
 
 Drawback on Perrovim manufactured by the Davis & Lawrence Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported alcohol and sherry wine and other ingredients of 
 domestic production. (T. D. 31371; Mar. 9, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on various medicinal preparations, including Pain Killer, manufac- 
 tured by the Davis & Lawrence Co., of New York City, with the use of domestic 
 tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 31779; July 28, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on Ferrovim manufactured by the Davis & Lawrence Co., of New York, 
 N. Y., with the use of imported alcohol and imported sherry wine or with the 
 use of imported alcohol and domestic sherry wine. (T. D. 34482; May27, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by the Davis & Lawrence Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of either wholly imported alcohol or wholly 
 domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 27620 of September 27, 1906, T. D. 30778 of 
 July 13, 1910, and T. D. 31779 of July 28, 1911, revoked. (T. D. 35605; July 
 23, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on peroxide of hydrogen exported under the names of hydrozone, per- 
 oxide of hydrogen 15 volumes, and Drevet Manufacturing Co., U. S. P. 10 vol- 
 umes, manufactured by the Drevet Manufacturing Co., of New York City, with 
 the use of imported binoxide of barium. (T. D. 30998; Oct. 21, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on Ebrey's Preparation for the Hair manufactured by the Ebrey Chemi- 
 cal Works, of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. 
 D. 33321; Apr. 5, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on Panopepton manufactured by Fairchild Bros. & Foster, of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported sherry wine. T. D. 23644 of April 2, 
 1902, revoked. (T. D. 35302; Apr. 8, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on bottled Fellows' Compound Syrup of Hypophosphites produced by 
 the Fellows Medical Manufacturing Co. (Ltd.), of New York, N. Y., with the 
 use of imported metal capsules. (T. D. 34894; Nov. 12, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on Fellows' Compound Syrup of Hypophosphites manufactured by the 
 Fellows Medical Manufacturing Co. (Ltd.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of 
 refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar and refined glycerin produced 
 from imported crude glycerin. T. D. 16741 of February 3, 1896, and T. D. 
 17197 of June 4, 1896, revoked. (T. D. 35491; June 5, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on a medicinal preparation designated as "Mul-en-ol" manufactured 
 by Pinlay, Dicks & Co., of New Orleans, La., with the use of domestic tax-paid 
 alcohol. (T. D. 34347; Apr. 6, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on kidney pills manufactured by the Foster-Milbum Co., of Buffalo, 
 N. Y., with the use of refined sugaj produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 
 36Q06; Dec. 20, 1915.) 
 
288 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on— Continued. 
 Medicinal preparations — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on Marsliall's Uterine Catho'icon manufactured by tlie Graef enbei^ Co. , 
 of New York City, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 31360; 
 Mar. 6, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on a medicinal preparation designated as "Wizard oil" manufactured 
 by the HamKn's Wizard OU Co., of Chicago, 111., with the use of domestic tax- 
 paid alcohol and imported camphor oil and thyme oil. (T. D. 34590; June 25, 
 1914.) 
 
 Drawback onMascaroTonique manufactvu-ed by the Martha Matilda Harper Co., 
 of Rochester, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 30482; 
 Apr. 1, 1910.) 
 
 Herpicide: Drawback on Herpicide manufactured by theHerpicide Co., of De- 
 troit, Mich., with the use of imported alcohol. (T. D. 29303; Oct. 17, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback 'on Herpicide manufactured by the Herpicide Co., of Detroit, Mich.', 
 with the use of domestic tax-paid or imported alcohol. T. D. 29303 of October 
 
 17, 1908, amended and extended. (T. D. 30757; July 7, 1910.) 
 
 Renne's Pain-Killing Magic Oil: Drawback on Renne's Pain-KilUng Magic Oil 
 manufactured for and on account of Hall & Ruckel, of New York City, by Doc- 
 tor Herrick's Family Medicine Co., of St. Louis, Mo., with the use of imported 
 alcohol. (T. D. 29269; Sept. 25, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on Renne's Pain-Killing Magic Oil manufactured by Doctor Herrick's 
 Family Medicine Co., of St. Louis, Mo., with the use of domestic tax-paid 
 alcohol. T. D. 29269 of September 25, 1908, extended. (T. D. 30554; Apr. 
 
 18, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on Alvatunder manufactured by the Hisey Dental Manufacturing Co., 
 of St. Louis, Mo., with the use of imported cocaine. (T. D. 33629; July 16, 
 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on a medicinal preparation designated as "Renne's Pain- Killing Magic 
 Oil" manufactured by Doctor Herrick's Family Medicine Co., of St. Louis, Mo., 
 with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 29269 of September 25, 1908, 
 and T. D. 30554 of April 18, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 35288; Apr. 3, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on Hood's Sarsaparilla and Hood's Medicine manufactured by C. I. 
 Hood Co., of Lowell, Mass., in part from domestic alcohol. T. D. 17989 of April 
 15, 1897, extended. (T. D. 30352; Feb. 11, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on Atwood'e Bitters manufactured by 0. H. Jadwin & Sons (Inc.), of 
 New York, N. Y., either with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol or imported 
 alcohol. (T. D. 33672? Aug. 9, 1913.) 
 
 Drawb ack on a medicinal preparation designated as ' ' Tobias Liniment' ' manufac- 
 tured by O. H. Jadwin & Sons (Inc.), New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic 
 tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34068; Jan. 19, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by Dr. D. Jayne & Son, of 
 Philadelphia, Pa., in part from domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 24235 of Feb- 
 ruary 20, 1903, extended. (T. D. 30455; Mar. 24, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactiired by Dr. D. Jayne & Son, of 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 25235 of 
 February 20, 1903, and T. D. 30455 of March 24, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 35622; 
 July 29, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on spavin cure for animals and spavin cure refined manufactured by 
 the Dr. B. J. Kendall Co., of Enosburg Falls, Vt., wit'i the use of domestic tax- 
 paid alcohol. (T. D. 30323; Feb. 13, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations designated as "Kickapoo Sagwa" and 
 " Kickapoo OU" manufactured by William R. Warner & Co., of Philadelphia, 
 •Pa., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 33974; Dec. 12, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 289 
 
 Drawback on — 
 Medicinal preparations — Continued. 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by Dr. Kilmer & Co., of Bing- 
 
 hamton, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 28098 of April 
 
 19, 1907, extended. (T. D. 30071; Oct. 26, 1909.) 
 Drawback on a medicinal preparation designated as "Glycothymoline" manufac- 
 tured by the Kress & Owen Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of refined 
 
 glycerin produced from imported crude glycerin and domestic tax-paid alcohol. 
 
 T. D. 29909 of July 15, 1909, and T. D. 30058 of October 22, 1909, revoked. (T. 
 
 D. 35730; Sept. 80, 1915.) 
 Drawback on cocaine alkaloid and cocaine hydrochloride manufactured by the 
 
 Lamar Chemical Works, of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported coca 
 
 leaves. (T. D. 35739; Oct. 2, 1915.) 
 Drawback on cocaine alkaloid and cocaine hydrochloride manufactured by the 
 
 Lamar Chemical Works, of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported coca 
 
 leaves. (T. D. 35884; Nov. 16, 1915.) 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations known as "Reno's New Health" and "Leo- 
 
 nardi's Blood Elixir" manufactured by S. B. Leonardi & Co., of Tampa, Fla., 
 
 with the use of domestic" tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 32277; Feb. 20, 1912.) 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by S. B. Leonardi & Co., of 
 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported materials and domestic tax-paid 
 
 alcohol. (T. D. 35229; Mar. 16, 1915.) 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by C. S. Littell & Co., of New 
 
 York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 33C85; Aug. 
 
 14, 1913.) 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by the Luyties Pharmacy 
 
 Co., St. Louis, Mo., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34516; 
 
 June 6, 1914.) 
 Drawback on Janin's Antiseptic manufactured by I. L. Lyons & Co. (Ltd.), of 
 
 New Orleans, La., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34692; 
 
 Aug. 6, 1914.) 
 Drawback on hydrogen peroxide manufactured by the Mallinckrodt Chemical 
 
 Works, of St. Louis, Mo., with the use of imported barium dioxide. (T. D. 
 
 34648; July 17, 1914. 
 Drawback on cocaine hydrochloride (muriate) manufactured by the Mallinck- 
 rodt Chemical Works, of St. Louis, Mo., with the use of imported coca leaves. 
 
 (T. D. 35404; May 14, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35888 of November 16, 1915, covering drawback on morphine and codeine 
 
 manufactured by the Powers-Weightman-Kosengarten Co., of Philadelphia, 
 
 Pa., extended to cover morphine and codeine alkaloids, etc., manufactured by 
 
 the Mallinckrodt Chemical Co., of St. Louis, Mo., with the use of imported 
 
 opium. T. D. 22397 of July 30, 1900, revoked. (T. D. 35909; Nov. 27, 1915.) 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations mani5factured by the Maltine Co., of New 
 
 York, N; Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol and refined glycerin 
 
 produced from imported crude glycerin. T. D. 17321 of July 30, 1896, T. D. 
 
 18568 of November 11, 1897, and T. D. 30153 of November 30, 1909, revoked. 
 
 (T. D. 35637; Aug. 6, 1915.) 
 Drawback on Vin Mariani manufactured by Mariani & Co., of New York City, 
 
 with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 31050; Nov. 19, 1910.) 
 Drawback on medicinal extract used in the manufacture of Vin Mariani by Mari- 
 ani &.Co., of New York City, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 
 
 31050 of November 9, 1910, amended. (T. D. 31128; Dec. 19, 1910.) 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by B-. S. McKean, of New 
 
 York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 33713; Aug. 
 
 28, 1913.) 
 
 45633°— 17 19 
 
290 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Medicinal preparations — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by McKesson & Bobbins, of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 33820; Oct. 28, 
 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 34634 of July 15, 1914, covering drawback on medicinal and toilet prepa- 
 rations and flavoring extracts manufactured by McKesson & Robbins, of New 
 York, N. Y., extended to cover certain medicinal preparations manufactured 
 by McKesson & Robbins, of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax- 
 paid alcohol and imported opium. (T. D. 35202; Mar. 10, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on cocaine hydrochloride manufactured by Merck & Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported cocaine leaves. (T. D. 34829; Oct. 14, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 35888 of November 16, 1915, covering drawback on morphine and codeine 
 manufactured by the Powers-Weightman-Rosengarten Co., of Philadelphia, 
 Pa., extended to cover morphine and codeine alkaloids, etc., manufactured by 
 Merck & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported opium. (T. D. 
 35908; Nov. 27, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on Sinkina manufactured by the Metropolitan Pharmaceutical Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the iise of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 32944; 
 Nov. 19, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on peroxide of hydrogen manufactured by the Middletown Chemical 
 Co., of Middletown, N. Y., with the use of binoxide of barium. T. D. 30998 of 
 October 21, 1910, extended. (T. D. 31013; Oct. 28, 1910.) 
 
 T. D. 34813 of October 8, 1914, covering drawback on medicinal preparations and 
 flavoring extracts, extended to cover solid extract of opium manufactured by 
 the H. K. Mulford Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported crude 
 opium. (T. D. 35412; May 17, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on Elixir Lactopeptine manufactured by the New York Pharmacal 
 Association, of Yonkers, N. Y., with the use of refined sugar manufactured from 
 imported raw sugar and domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 31153; Dec. 29, 
 1910.)^ 
 
 Drawback on Elixir Lactopeptine manufactured by the New York Pharmacal 
 Association, of Yonkers, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. 
 D. 31153 of December 29, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 35633; Aug. 5, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35888 of November 16, 1915, covering drawback on morphine and codeine 
 manufactured bj the Powers-Weightman-Rosengarten Co., of Philadelphia, 
 Pa., extended to cover morphine and codeine alkaloids, etc., manufactured by 
 the New York Quinine & Chemical Works, of New York, N. Y., with the use 
 of imported opium. (T. D. 35907; Nov. 27, 1915.) - 
 
 Drawback on Dr. S. P. Townsend's Sarsaparilla manufactured by the Nostrand 
 Trading Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., either with the use of imported alcohol or with 
 the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 26364 of May 15, 1905, and T. D. 
 31221 of January 16, 1911, revoked. (T. D. 33648; July 23, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on sulphur bitters manufactured by A. P. Ordway & Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 28090 of April 15, 1907, 
 extended. (T. D. 30474; Mar. 31, 1910.) 
 
 T. D. 30474 of March 31, 1910, providing for drawback on sulphur bitters manu- 
 factured by A. P. Ordway & Co., of New York City, with the use of domestic 
 tax-paid alcohol, amended. (T. D. 31365; Mar. 9, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on a medicinal preparation known as "Zhongiva" manufactured by 
 James J. Ottinger, of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of domestic tax-paid 
 alcohol. (T. D: 32409; Apr. 18, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 291 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 
 Medicinal piepaiations — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by the Palisade Manufac- 
 turing Co., of Yonkers, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 
 24212 of February 7, 1903, extended. (T. D. 30435; Mar. 18, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on hemaboloids and hemaboloids-arseniated manufactured by the 
 Palisade Manufacturing Co., of Yonkers, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax- 
 paid alcohol, when exported in 5-ounce bottles, and borolyptol manufactured 
 by said company with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol, when exported under 
 the name of formolyptol. (T. D. 30694; June 13, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by the Palisade Manufactur- 
 ing Co., of Yonkers, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 
 24212 of February 7, 1903, T. D. 30435 of March 18, 1910, and T. D. 30694 of June 
 13, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 35636; Aug. 6, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 33341 of April 14, 1913, covering drawback on medicinal and toilet prepara- 
 tions, extended to cover medicinal preparations manufactured by Parke, Davis 
 & Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported morphine or its derivatives, 
 codeine or cocaine, or the salts of the same. (T. D. 33675; Aug. 11, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on a medicinal preparation designated as " Syrup of Figs and Elixir of 
 Senna" manufactured by Parke, Davis & Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use 
 of domestic tax-paid alcohol and refined sugar refined from imported raw sugar, 
 for the account of the California Fig Syrup Co., of Wheeling, W. Va. (T. D. 
 35651; Aug. 12, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on fig sirup manufactured by Parke, Davis & Co., of Detroit, Mich., 
 with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 35768; Oct. 11, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on pills, tablets, and other pharmaceuticals manufactured by Parke, 
 Davis & Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported giun opium. (T. D. 
 36004; Dec. 20, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by the Parker-Blake Co. 
 (Ltd.), of New Orleans, La., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 
 35783; Oct. 16, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on Peacock's bromides and chionia manufactured by the Peacock 
 Chemical Co., of St. Louis, Mo., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. 
 D. 30980; Oct. 8, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by Peek & Velsor, of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 33993; Dec. 
 18, 1913.) 
 
 Peruna: T. D. 27400 of June 7, 1906, amended so as to allow drawback on a quan- 
 tity of alcohol not to exceed 17.8 per cent of the quantity of exported peruna 
 with an allowance of 6 per cent of said alcohol to compensate for loss in manu- 
 facture. (T. D. 28708; Jan. 28, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on Peruna manufactured by the Peruna Drug Manufacturing Co., of 
 Columbus, Ohio, in part from domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 27400 of June 
 7, 1906, extended. (T. D. 32805; Sept. 4, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on a medicinal preparation designated as "Peruna" manufactured by 
 the Peruna Co., of Columbus, Ohio, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. 
 Former regulations covering the said preparation revoked. (T. D. 34342; Apr. 
 4, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on Wintersmith's tonic manufactured by Arthur Peters & Co., of 
 Louisville, Ky., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 24926 of 
 January 20, 1904, and T. D. 27094 of February 6, 1906, extended. This draw- 
 back decision amended by T. D. 31023 of November 3, 1910, so as to provide 
 for a wastage allowance not to exceed 13 per cent of the absolute alcohol con- 
 tained in the exported product. (T. D. 30282; Jan. 18, 1910.) 
 
292 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawbacks on — Continued. 
 Medicinal preparations — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on Wintersmlth's tonic manufactured by Arthur Peters & Co., of 
 Louisville, Ky., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 30282 of 
 January 18, 1910, amended. (T. D. 31023; Nov. 3, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on bitartrate of potash manufactured by Charles Pfizer & Co. (Inc.), 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported crude wine lees, argols, and tartar. 
 (T. D. 35890; Nov. 18, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on vegetable compound and blood purifier manufactured by the Lydia 
 E. Pinkham Medicine Co., of Lynn, Mass., with the use of domestic tax-paid 
 alcohol. (T. D. 30018; Sept. 30, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations designated as corrosive sublimate and calo- 
 mel manufactured by the Powers-Weightman-Rosengarten Co., of Philadel- 
 phia, Pa., with the use of imported metallic mercury. (T. D. 34781; Sept. 28, 
 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on morphine and codeine alkaloids and salts manufactured by the 
 Powers-Weightman-Rosengarten Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of 
 imported opium. (T. D. 35888; Nov. 16, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on powdered and granular opium manufactured by the Powers-Weight- 
 man-Rosengarten Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported crude 
 opium. (T. D. 35414; May 18, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on Radway's Ready Relief manufactured by Radway & Co. (Inc.), of 
 New York, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 17984 of April 9, 
 1897, extended. (T. D. 30070; Oct. 26, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on a medicinal preparation designated "Radway's Ready Relief" 
 manufactured by Radway & Co. (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of 
 domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 17984 of April 9, 1897, and T. D. 30070 of 
 October 26, 1909, revoked. (T. D. 35816; Oct. 25, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on a medicinal preparation designated as "Pain Expeller" manufac- 
 tured by F. Ad. Ricbter & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic 
 tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 35570; July 7, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparation designated " Sorol " manufactured by F. Ad. 
 Richter & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. 
 (T. D. 35863; Nov. 5, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on Aletris Cordial Rio and Celerina manufactured by the Rio Chemical 
 Co., of New York City, with the use of imported alcohol. T. D. 24397 of April 
 29, 1903, amended. (T. D. 29476; Jan. 16, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on Aletris Cordial Rio and Celerina manufactured by the Rio Chemical 
 Co., of New York City, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol and imported 
 glycerin. T. D. 24397 of April 29, 1903, extended. (T. D. 30928; Sept. 19, 
 1910.) • 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations designated as "Aletris Cordial Rio" and 
 "Celerina," manufactured by the Rio Chemical Co., of New York, with the use of 
 domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 30928 of September 19, 1910, revoked. (T. 
 D. 33232; Feb. 27, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by Schieffelin & Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 35410; May 17, 
 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on "Preventina'' manufactured by Scott & Bowne, of New York City, 
 with the use of imported alcohol and glycerin. T. D. 23605 of March 20, 1902, 
 amended to reduce aUowance for alcohol. (T. D. 30202; Dec. 18, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on sugar-coated piUs and tablets manufactured by Sharp & Dohme, of 
 Baltimore, Md., with the use of imported sugar. T. D. 29586 of March 1, 1909, 
 extended. (T. D. 29829; June 10, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 293 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Medicinal piepaiations — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on Ozomulsion manufactured by T. A. Slocum Co., of New York, with 
 the use of imported pure Norwegian cod-liver oil and refined glycerin. T. D. 
 26496 of June 15, 1905, amended; T. D. 27562 of August 15, 1906, revoked. (T. 
 D. 30375; Feb. 26, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on granulated and powdered opium produced by Smith & Butler, of 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., from imported crude or gum opium for the account of Mc- 
 Kesson & Robbins, of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35069; Jan. 20, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations manufactured by the Smith, Kline & French 
 Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 
 30986; Oct. 13, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on granular opium and powdered opium manufactured by the Smith, 
 Kline & French Co. , of Philadelphia, Pa. , with the use of imported crude opium. 
 (T. D. 85515; June 8, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on castor oil manufactured by Spencer, Kellogg & Sons (Inc.), of Buf- 
 falo, N. Y., with the use of imported castor seed. (T. D. 35776; Oct. 13, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on Seng manufactured by the Sultan Drug Co., of St. Louis, Mo., with 
 the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 30979; Oct. 8, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on castor oil and pomace manufactured by the Toledo Seed & Oil Co., 
 of Toledo, Ohio, from imported castor seed. (T. D. 35851; Nov. 2, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on Compound Cordial of Cerebrine and Morrhualta Compound Elixir 
 manufactured by the Ulrici Medicine Co., of New York City, with the use of 
 domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 27301 of April 23, 1906, revoked. (T. D. 
 32545; May 22, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on Rexall remedies manufactm-ed by the United Drug Co. (United 
 Laboratories Co.), of Boston, Mass., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. 
 (T. D. 32335; Mar. 26, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 32335 of March 26, 1912, extended to cover medicinal preparations manu- 
 factured by the United Drug Co. (United Laboratories Co.), of Boston, Mass., 
 with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol in the manner described in their sworn 
 statement of January 15, 1913. (T. D. 33172; Feb. 10, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on medicines manufactured by the United Drug Co., of Boston, Mass., 
 with the use of ref.ued sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 33045; 
 Dec. 21, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on Wampole's perfected and tasteless preparation of cod-liver oil manu- 
 factured by Henry K. Wampole & Co. , of Philadelphia, Pa. , in part from domes- 
 tic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 24044 of November 8, 1902, extended. (T. D. 
 30454; Mar. 24, 1910.) 
 
 Wampole's Cod-Liver Oil: T. D. 24044 of November 8, 1902, andT. D. 28974 of May 
 5, 1908, amended as to the allowance to be made for imported refined glycerin 
 and sugar. (T. D. 35036; Jan. 5, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on Paine's Celery Compound manufactured by the Wells & Richardson 
 Co., of Burlington, Vt., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 32324; 
 Mar. 22, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 84040 of January 3, 1914, extended to cover similar products manufactured 
 by F. L. Young & Co. (Inc.), of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported sperm 
 oil. (T. D. 85450; May 27, 1915.) 
 Medicinal preparations and flavoring extracts. (See also Drawback on flavoring ex- 
 tracts; and on medicinal and toilet preparations and flavoring extracts.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations and flavoring extracts manufactured by the 
 Davis & Lawrence Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported alcohol 
 and various other imported materials. T. D. 25095 of March 11, 1904, depart- 
 ment's published regulations of January 10, 1906, T. D. 28825 of March 9, 1908, 
 and T. D. 29220 of August 20, 1908, revoked. (T. D. 34238; Mar. 6, 1914.) 
 
294 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Medicinal piepaiations and flavoilng extracts — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations and flavoring extracts manufactured by the 
 Davis & Lawrence Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported alcohol, 
 opium, camphor, vanilla beans, essential oils, coumarin, and vanillin. Former 
 regulations revoked. (T. D. 34372; Apr. 11, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by the Davis & Lawrence Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34855; 
 Oct. 26, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts manufactured by the Davis & Lawrence Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 34855 of 
 October 26, 1914, revoked. (T. D. 35051; Jan. 11, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations and flavoring extracts. T. D. 34372 of April 
 11, 1914, and T. D. 35051 of January 11, 1915, amended to provide for the filing 
 of sworn schedules. (T. D. 35771; Oct. 11, 1915.) 
 
 Fluid extracts, tinctures, and other pharmaceutical preparations: Drawback on 
 fluid extracts, tinctures, and other pharmaceutical preparations manufactured 
 by H. K. MuUord & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid, 
 alcohol. (T. D. 32932; Nov. 12, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations and flavoring extracts manufactured with 
 the use of wholly imported alcohol, wholly domestic tax-paid alcohol, and im- 
 ported materials. (T. D. 34813; Oct. 8, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34813 of October 8, 1914, extended to cover solid extract of opium manu- 
 factured by the H. K. Mulford Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of 
 imported crude opium. (T. D. 35412; May 17, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on flavoring extracts, concentrated essential oils, concentrated essences, 
 and perfumes manufactured by Van Dyke & Co., of New York City, with the 
 use of imported alcohol and essential oil. (T. D. 29719; Apr. 30, 1909.) 
 
 T. D. 29719, AprU 30, 1909, extended to cover medicinal and toilet preparations 
 manufactured by Van Dyke & Co., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol 
 and amended to permit the filing of supplemental sworn statements. 
 Medicinal preparations, soda-water requisites, etc. — 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations, soda-water requisites, flavoring extracts, 
 etc., manufactured by Sharp & Dohme, of Baltimore, Md., with the use of im- 
 ported sugar or reflned sugar manufactured from imported raw sugar. T. D. 
 29586 of March 1, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30561; Apr. 22, 1910.) 
 Medicinal and toilet preparations. (See also Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal and toilet preparations manuf.ctured from tax-paid 
 domestic alcohol. Regulations under section 25, tariff act of August 5, 1909. 
 (T. D. 29952; circular No. 39; Aug. 13, 1909.) 
 
 Department's regulations of March 17, 1896 (T. D. 16910), and April 15, 1901 (T. 
 D. 22959), providing for the allowance of drawback on sozodont and sprinkler 
 tubes, extended to cover exportations in containers of IJ ounce and 4-ounce 
 capacities. (T. D. 29954; Aug. 19, 1909.) 
 
 Medicinal and toilet preparations manufactured from tax-paid domestic alcohol: 
 Begulations of August 13, 1909 (T. D. 29952), amended. (T. D. 30559; Apr. 
 22, 1910.) 
 
 Alcohol produced by rectifying or redistilling: Drawback is not allowed under 
 section 25 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, on toilet and medicinal preparations 
 manufactured from alcohol produced by rectifying or redistilling. (T. D. 
 31929; Oct. 17, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal and toilet preparations manufactured from domestic tax- 
 paid alcohol. T. D. 30559 of April 22, 1910, amended to provide for the serial 
 numbers of alcohol as indicated on the entry, the name of the distiller, and the 
 district, and date of withdrawal. (T. D. 30831; July 27, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 295 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Medicinal and toilet piepatations — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on Barry's Tricopherous manufactured by Barclay & Co., of New York 
 City, in part from imported castor oil and domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 
 16931 of March 24, 1896, extended. (T. D. 30674; June 9, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on Atwood's Bitters and Sozodont manufactured by Hall & Ruckel, of 
 New York aty, from domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 25280, May 11, 1904; 
 T. D. 16910, March 17, 1896; T. D. 22959, April 15, 1901; and T. D. 29954, 
 August 19, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30623; May 20, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on toilet and medicinal preparations manufactured by Harriet Hub- 
 bard Ayer, of New York City, with the use, of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. 
 D. 32795; Aug. 81, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on Barry's Tricopherous manufactured by Barclay & Co., of New York, 
 in part from imported castor oil and imported alcohol. T. D. 30674 of June 9, 
 1910, amended. (T. D. 30711; June 21, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on Dr. V. C. Bell's Mouth Elixir manufactured by the American Tooth 
 Powder Co., of New York, with the use of either imported or domestic alcohol. 
 (T. D. 30713; June 23, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on Dr. V. C. Bell's Mouth Elixir manufactured by the American Tooth 
 Powder Co., of New York, with the use of either imported or domestic alcohol. 
 T. D. 30713 of June 23, 1910, amended by substituting for the American Tooth 
 Powder Co. the name of Dr. V. C. Bell. (T. D. 30881; Aug. 17, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on a medicinal and toilet preparation designated as "Newbro's Serpi- 
 cide" manufactured by the Herpicide Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of 
 domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 29303 of October 17, 1908, and T. D. 30757 of 
 July 7, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 35860; Nov. 3, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on perfumes, toilet preparations, liqmd soap, and preparations for 
 treating the hair and scalp, manufactured by Richard Hudnut, of New York 
 City, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 30076 of October 29, 
 1909, revoked. (T. D. 32429; Apr. 24, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 32429 of April 24, 1912, extended to cover various perfumes manufactured by 
 Richard Hudnut, of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. 
 (T. D. 33676; Aug. 11, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on Kickapoo Oil, Cough Cure, and Sagwa manufactured by the Kickapoo 
 Indian Medicine Co., of CUntonville, Conn., with the use of domestic tax-paid 
 alcohol. (T. D. 30671; June 8, 1910.) 
 
 T. D. 30671 of June 8, 1910, providing for an allowance of drawback on Sagwa 
 manufactured by the Kickapoo Indian Medicine Co. (Inc.), of Clintonville, 
 Conn., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol, amended. (T. D. 31538; 
 Apr. 27, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on toilet and medicinal preparations manufactured by Lanman & 
 Kemp, of New York, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 32517; 
 May 18, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal and toilet preparations manufactured by Parke, Davis & 
 Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol, imported 
 barium peroxide, and imported opium. (T. D. 33341; Apr. 14, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33341 of April 14, 1913, extended to cover medicinal preparations manufac- 
 tured by Parke, Davis &Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported mor- 
 phine or its derivatives, codeine or cocaine, or the salts of the same. (T. D. 
 33675; Aug. 11, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33341 of April 14, 1913, amended to provide that the allowance for domestic 
 tax-paid alcohol shall not exceed the quantity used, as shown by the sworn 
 schedule of the manufacturer, dated April 24, 1913. (T. D. 33457; May 23, 
 1913.) 
 
296 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Medicinal and toilet piepaiations — Continued. 
 
 T. D. 33341 of April 14, 1913, as amended by T. D. 33457, of May 23,1913, extended 
 to cover medicinal and toilet preparations and flavoring extracts manufactured 
 by Parke, Davis & Co., of Detroit, Mich., in accordance with their sworn state- 
 ment of January 9, 1914. (T. D. 34281; Mar. 18, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal and toilet preparations manufactured by the Sanitol-Chem- 
 ical Laboratory Co., of St. Louis, Mo., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol 
 and various imported materials. (T. D. 34720; Aug. 20, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on toilet and medicinal preparations, including fluid extracts, tinc- 
 tures, elixirs, cordials, solutions, etc., manufactured by Sharp & Dohme, of 
 Baltimore, Md., in part with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 
 30257; Jan. 12, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on toilet and medicinal preparations manufactured by Sharp & Dohme, 
 of Baltimore, Md., in part with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 
 30257 of January 12, 1910, extended. (T. D. 31472; Apr. 8, 1911.) 
 
 T. D. 30257 of January 12, 1910, extended to cover other medicinal and toilet 
 preparations and flavoring extracts manufactured by Sharp & Dohme, of Balti- 
 more, Md., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34286; Mar. 19, 
 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal preparations, perfumery, and toilet waters, manufac- 
 tured by the Smith, Kline & French Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., in part from 
 domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 30779; July 13, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on toilet and medicinal preparations manufactured by Frederick 
 Steams & Co., of Detroit, Mich., in part from domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 
 30257 of January 12, 1910, extended. (T. D. 30329; Feb. 5, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal and toilet preparations designated as "Evarosa" and 
 "Toiletine" manufactured by the Toiletine Co., of Greenfield, Mass., with the 
 use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 35550; June 25, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 29719 of April 30, 1909, covering medical preparations and flavoring ex- 
 tracts extended to cover medicinal and toilet preparations manufactured by 
 Van Dyke & Co., of New York, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol and 
 amended to permit the filing of supplemental sworn statements. (T. D. 33131; 
 Jan. 30, 1913.) 
 Medicinal and toilet preparations and perfumes — 
 
 Drawback on medicinal and toilet preparations and perfumes manufactured by 
 the J. R. Watkins Medical Co., of Winona, Minn., with the use of domestic tax- 
 paid alcohol. (T. D. 33626; July 16, 1913.) 
 Medicinal and toilet preparations and flavoring extracts. (See also Drawback on toilet 
 preparations and flavoring extracts.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal and toilet preparations and flavoring extracts manufac- 
 tured by Brewer & Co., of Worcester, Mass., with the use of domestic tax-paid 
 alcohol. (T. D. 35752; Oct. 5, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal and toilet preparations and flavoring extracts manufac- 
 tured by Dr. Ward's Medical Co., of Winona, Minn., with the use of domestic 
 tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34071; Jan. 20, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on medicinal and toilet preparations and flavoring extracts manufac- 
 tured by McKesson & Bobbins, of New York, N. Y., either with the use of 
 wholly imported alcohol or with the use of wholly domestic tax-paid alcohol. 
 (T. D. 34634; July 15, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34634 of July 15, 1914, extended to cover certain medicinal preparations 
 manufactured by McKesson & Bobbins, of New York, N. Y., with the use of 
 domestic tax-paid alcohol and imported opium. (T. D. 35202; Mar. 10, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 297 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Medicinal and toilet piepaiations and flavoring extracts^Gontinued. 
 Drawback allowed on medicinal and toilet preparations and flavoring extracts 
 manufactured with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol and imported essential 
 oils or concentrated essential oils manufactured with the use of imported essen- 
 tial oils by Van Dyke & Co., of New York, N. Y. T. D. 29719 of April 30, 1909, 
 and T. D. 33131 of January 30, 1913, revoked. (T. D. 35757; Oct. 8, 1915.) 
 Men's clothing. (See Drawback on clothing.) 
 Men's pajamas and underwear. (See Drawback on underwear.) 
 Men's apd women's hosiery. (See Drawback on hosiery.) 
 Men's and women's shoes. (See Drawback on shoes.) 
 Menthol plasters and salve — 
 
 Drawback on "Hazel menthol plasters" manufactured for the account of the 
 Davis & Lawrence Co., of New York, N. Y., by the Deane Plaster Co., of Yonk- 
 ers, N. Y., and on "Davis menthol salve" manufactured by the Davis & Law- 
 rence Co., of New York, N. Y., both with the use of imported menthol crystals. 
 (T. D. 34346; Apr. 6, 1914.) 
 Mercerized and bleached piece goods. (See Drawback on piece goods.) 
 Mercerized and dyed cotton yam. (See Drawback on yam.) 
 Mercurial preparations — 
 Drawback on mercurial preparations manufactured by the Mallinckrodt Chemical 
 Works, of St. Louis, Mo., at their Jersey City, N. J., plant, with the use of im- 
 ported metal quicksilver. (T. D. 34795; Sept. 29, 1914.) 
 Drawback on mercurial preparations manufactured by Charles Pfizer & Co. (Inc.), 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported metal mercury. (T. D. 34679; 
 Aug. 4, 1914.) 
 Mercury, fulminate of — 
 T. D. 35599 of July 21, 1915, extended to cover fulminate of mercury manufac- 
 tured by the E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Co. with the use of imported 
 quicksilver. (T. D. 35827; Oct. 26, 1915.) 
 Metal alloy. 
 Drawback on alloy manufactured by the Leddell-Bigelow Co., of New York City, 
 in part from imported lead, antimony, and antimonial lead. T. D. 22963 of 
 April 16, 1901, extended. (T. D. 29636; Mar. 20, 1909.) 
 Drawback' on metal alloy manufactured by the Leddell-Bigelow Co., of New York, 
 with the use of imported tin, antimony, and lead. (T. D. 31892; Sept. 30, 1911.) 
 T. D.- 31892 of September 30, 1911, providing for an allowance of drawback on 
 metal alloy manufactured by the Leddell-Bigelow Co., of New York, with the 
 use of imported tin, antimony, and lead, amended to provide for the filing of 
 supplemental sworn statements covering different kinds of alloys. T. D. 
 29636 of March 20, 1909, revoked. (T. D. 32590; June 3, 1912.) 
 Drawback on various metal alloys manufactured by the Hoyt Metal Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., in whole or in part with the use of imported antimonial lead and 
 antimony. T. D. 20630 of January 30, 1899, T. D. 28339 of July 19, 1907, and 
 T. D. 29896 of July 9, 1909, are hereby revoked. (T. D. 35717; Sept. 22, 1915.) 
 Drawback on metal alloys. T. D. 35717 of September 22, 1915, corrected as to 
 the allowance for imported materials. (T. D. 35753; Oct. 7, 1915.) 
 Metal, Babbitt- 
 Drawback on antifriction metal manufactured by the Magnolia Metal Co., of New 
 York City, in part from imported pig lead and antimony, under the brand names 
 "Babbitt Metal No. 4" and "Mystic." (T. D. 32337; Mar. 27, 1912.) 
 
298 DIGEST 0^ CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Metal, Babbitt— Continued. 
 Drawback on Babbitt metal manufactured by the Frictionleas Metal Co. at its 
 factories at Chattanooga, Tenn., and Richmond, Va., with the use of imported 
 lead and antimony. T. D. 22963 of April 16, 1901, extended. (T. D. 29471; 
 Jan. 14, 1909.) 
 Drawback on Babbitt metal, type metal, casting metal, and other alloys manufac- 
 tured by the Fidelity Metal Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 refined lead, antimony, type metal, casting metal, etc. T. D. 22963 of April 
 16, 1901, extended. (T. D. 29890; July 1, 1909.) 
 T. D. 29471 of January 14, 1909, extended to cover Babbitt metal manufactured 
 by the Prictionless Metal Co., of Chattanooga, Tenn., with the use of imported 
 antimony and domestic lead. (T. D. 34230; Mar. 4, 1914.) 
 Drawback on Babbitt metal manufactxired by the Prictionless Metal Co., of Chat- 
 tanooga, Tenn., with the use of imported lead and antimony. T. D. 29471 of 
 January 14, 1909, and T. D. 34230 of March 4, 1914, revoked. (T. D. 35368; 
 May 3, 1915.) 
 Metal caps — • 
 Drawback on metal caps manufactured by the American Metal Cap Co., of New 
 York City, with the use of imported tin plate. (T. D. 29913; July 17, 1909.) 
 Metal, carbon-free — ■ 
 Drawback on carbon-free metals manufactured by the Goldschmidt-Thermit Co. 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported aluminum. (T. D. 35457; June 
 1, 1915.) 
 Metal containers. (See Drawback on containers.) 
 Metal doors, windows, and transoms — 
 Drawback on metal doors, windows, and transoms manufactured by the United 
 States Metal Products Co., of College Point, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 locks, butts, and similar imported hardware. (T. D. 34264; Mar. 13, 1914.) 
 Metal hose and tubing, flexible — 
 Drawback on flexible metallic hose manufactured by the New York Flexible 
 Metallic Hose & Tubing Co., of New York City, in part with the use of im- 
 ported flexible metallic tubing. (T. D. 28978; May 6, 1908.) 
 Drawback on flexible metal hose manufactured by the New York Metal Hose Co., 
 of New York City, with the use of flexible metal tubing. T. D. 28978 of May 6, 
 1908, extended. (T. D. 31339; Feb. 27, 1911.) 
 Drawback on flexible metal hose manufactured from imported flexible metal hose 
 and tubing by the United Metal Hose Co. (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., by cutting 
 and attaching permanently thereto couplings and fittings. (T. D. 33567; June 
 19, 1913.) 
 Drawback on flexible metal hose and tubing manufactured by the United Metal 
 Hose Co. (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported flexible metal 
 tubing. (T. D. 35428; May 24, 1915.) 
 Metal lasts — 
 Drawback on metal lasts manufactured by Geo. C. Clark Metal Last Co., of Mis- 
 hawaka, Ind., from imported aluminum alloy. (T. D. 30622; May 20, 1910.) 
 Meters, recording electric. (See Drawback on recording electric meters.) 
 Mica articles. (See Drawback on electrical apparatus and mica articles.) 
 Mica, cut. (See Drawback on cut mica.) 
 Micabeston — 
 Drawback on Micabeston manufactured by the American Mica Co., of Newton 
 Lower Falls, Mass., with the use of imported mica. (T. D. 29747; May 12, 
 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 299 
 
 Drawback on — ^Continued. 
 Micabeston — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on Micabeston manufactured by the American Mica Co., of Newton 
 Lower Falls, Mass., with the use of imported mica. T. D. 29747 of May 12, 1909, 
 revoked. (T. D. 32479; May 2, 1912.) 
 Micanite sheets, cloth and paper, etc. (See- Drawback on oiled silk, linen, cotton 
 
 cloth, etc.) 
 Military equipment — 
 
 Drawback on belt webbing manufactured by the Mills Woven Cartridge Belt Co., 
 of Worcester, Mass., from imported cotton yam. (T. D. 31927; Oct. 17, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on military equipment manufactured by the Mills Woven Cartridge 
 Belt Co., of Worcester, Mass., from imported cotton yam, flax canvas, and linen 
 thread. T. D. 31927 of October 17, 1911, extended. (T. D. 32596; June 5, 
 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on webbing, military equipment, and parts of military equipment 
 manufactured by the Mills Woven Cartridge Belt Co., the Russell Manufac- 
 turing Co., and the Worcester Bleach & Dye Works Co., with the use of im- 
 portel yams and webbing. T. D. 31927 of October 17, 1911, and T. D. 32596 of 
 June 5, 1912, revoked. (T. D. 35854; Nov. 2, 1915.) 
 
 Fittings — 
 
 Drawback on bronze lacquered fittings for belts, knapsacks, cartridge carriers, 
 and other military equipment manufactured by the Mills Woven Cartridge 
 Belt Co., of Worcester, Mass., with the use of imported brass fittings. (T. D. 
 31697; June 16, 1911.) 
 Milk chocolate. (See Drawback on chocolate.) 
 Milk, condensed — 
 
 Drawback on condensed milk manufactured by Libby, McNeill & Libby, of 
 Chicago, lU., in part with the use of imported sugar. (T. D. 28903; Mar. 30, 
 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on condensed milk manufactured by the Franklin County Creamery 
 & Condensed Milk Co., of North Bangor, N. Y., with the use of imported sugar. 
 T. D. 28903 of March 30, 1908, extended. (T. D. 31285; Feb. 9, 1911.) 
 
 T. D. 28903 of March 30, 1908, providing for the allowance of drawback on con- 
 densed milk manufactured by Libby, McNeill & Libby, of Chicago and Mor- 
 rison, 111., extended to cover such product exported in 11-ounce cans. (T. D. 
 29780; May 25, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on condensed milk manufactured by Libby, McNeill & Libby, of 
 Chicago and Morrison, 111., in part from imported sugar. Allowance of sugar 
 increased. (T. D. 29985; Sept. 7, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on condensed milk manufactured by Libby, McNeill & Libby, of 
 Chic.igo, 111., with the use of imported sugar. T. D. 28903 of March 30, 1908, T. 
 D. 29780 of May 25, 1909, and T. D. 29985 of September 7, 1909, revoked. (T. 
 D. 31747; July 12, 1911.) 
 
 T. D. 31747 of July 12, 1911, extended to cover condensed milk manufactured by 
 Libby, McNeill & Libby, of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported sugar, when 
 exported in 13-ounce cans. (T. D. 33931; Dec. 1, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on condensed milk manufactured by Libby, McNeill & Libby, of 
 Chicago and Morrison, 111., in part with the use of imported sugar and exported 
 in barrels. T. D. 28903 of March 30, 1908, extended. (T. D. 32192; Jan. 29, 
 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on condensed milk manufactured by Libby, McNeill & Libby, of 
 Chicago, 111., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. 
 T. D. 28903, T. D. 29780, T. D. 29985, T. D. 31747, T. D. 32192, and T. D. 33931 
 revoked. (T. D. 34847; Oct. 20, 1914.) 
 
300 Digest op Cusiwms decisions, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Milk, condensed — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on condensed milk manufactured by the Northern Condensed Milk Co., 
 of New York, with the use in part of imported sugar. T. D. 28903 of March 30, 
 1908, extended. (T. D. 29938; Aug. 4, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on condensed milk manufactured by Wisconsin Condensed Milk Co., 
 of Burlington, Wis., with the use of either imported refined sugar or refined 
 sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 34921; Nov. 24, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on condensed milk manufactured by the Lewisburg Condensed Milk 
 Co., of Lewisburg, Pa., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported 
 raw sugar. (T. D. 35411; May 17, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on condensed milk manufactured by the Hudson Condensed Milk Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported refined sugar or refined sugar pro- 
 duced in the United States from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 35361; May 3, 
 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on condensed milk manufactured by the Federal Packing Co., of Phila- 
 delphia, Pa., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. 
 (T. D. 35446; May 25, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on condensed milk manufactured by the Wisconsin Condensed Milk 
 Co., of Burlington, ^Yis., with the use of refined sugar refined from imported 
 raw sugar. T. D. 34921 of November 24, 1914, revoked. (T. D. 35549; June 
 24, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on condensed milk manufactured by the John F. Jelke Co., of Chi- 
 cago, 111., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. 
 D. 35998; Dec. 15, 1915.) 
 Milk, condensed, and on cans — 
 
 Drawback on condensed milk manufactured by the Borden Condensed Milk Co. 
 with the use of imported refined sugar or refined sugar produced from imported 
 raw sugar, and on cans manufactured by the said company with the use of 
 imported tin plate and solder manufactured by the National Lead Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., in part from imported lead. (T. D. 35490; June 5, 1915.) " 
 Milled or cleaned rice. (See Drawback on rice.) 
 MiUs— 
 
 Drawback on horsepowers and No. 1 Rapid Feed Mill manufactured by the C. S. 
 Bell Co., of Hillsboro, Ohio, with the use of imported pig iron. T. D. 27883 of 
 February 4, 1907, extended. (T. D. 28896; Mar. 26, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on mills manufactured by the C. S. Bell Co., of Hillsboro, Ohio, with 
 the use of imported pig iron. T. D. 27883 of February 4, 1907, extended. (T. 
 D. 29830; June 11, 1909.) 
 
 The former drawback regulations providing for drawback on mills manufactured 
 by the C. S. Bell Co., of Hillsboro, Ohio, revoked. Drawback allowed under 
 the said regulations on castings made from pig iron imported under the tariff 
 act of 1909. (T. D. 35778; Oct. 13, 1915.) 
 
 Amending T. D. 35778 with reference to the allowance of drawback under 
 certain Treasury decisions revoked. (T. D. 35818; Oct. 25, 1915.) 
 MUls, roller and feed — 
 
 Drawback on roller and feed mills manufactured by the Barnard & Leas Manufac- 
 turing Co., of MoUne, 111., with the use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 30780; 
 July 13, 1910.) 
 
 T. D. 30780 of July 13, 1910, authorizing drawback on roller and feed mills manu- 
 factured by the Barnard & Leas Manufacturing Co., of Moline, 111., with the 
 use of imported ball bearings, extended to cover additional sizes. (T. D. 30920; 
 Sept. 13, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 301 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Mincemeat — 
 
 Drawback on mincemeat manufactured by Richard B. Beaumont, of New York 
 City, with the use of imported Sultana raisins, currants, and granulated sugar 
 refined from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 29889; July 1, 1909.) 
 Drawback on mincemeat manufactured by Atmore & Son, of Philadelphia, Pa., 
 with the use of imported currants, refined sugar manufactured from imported 
 raw sugar, and imported alcohol. T. D. 29889 of July 1, 1909, extended. (T. 
 D. 30579; Apr. 28, 1910.) 
 "Mintets" chewing gum. (See Drawback on chewing gum.) 
 Mirrors — 
 Drawback on mirrors designated as No. 221 J manufactured by Conant Bros. Co., 
 of Somerville, Mass., with the use of imported cast plate glass. T. D. 30784 
 of July 14, 1910, extended. (T. D. 31461; Apr. 3, 1911.) 
 Drawback on mirrors manufactured by the Boston Mirror Co., of Boston, Mass., 
 with the use of imported glass. T. D. 30784 of July 14, 1910, extended. (T. D. 
 31617; May 22, 1911.) 
 Drawback on hand, pocket, and paper-weight mirrors manufactured by the Cruver 
 Manufacturing Co., of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported glass mirrors. (T. 
 D. 32918; Nov. 9, 1912.) 
 Drawback on novelty mirrors manufactured by the Parisian Novelty Co., of Chi- 
 cago, 111., with the use of imported celluloid sheeting. (T. D. 34850; Oct. 23, 
 1914.) 
 Mirrors, pocket — 
 Drawback on pocket mirrors manufactured by J. B. Carroll, of Chicago, in 
 part from imported mirror shocks. T. D. 28432 of September 26, 1907, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 30676; June 10, 1910.) 
 Drawback on pocket mirrors manufactured by Whitehead & Hoag, of Newark, 
 N. J., with the use of imported miir r glass. (T. D. 31959; Oct. 26, 1911.) 
 Mirrors, pocket, magnifiers, and aluminum advertising novelties. (See also Draw- 
 back on clocks, candelabra, mirrors and plateaus, and glass articles.) 
 Drawback on pocket mirrors, magnifiers, and aluminum advertising novelties 
 manufactured by the Aluminum Sign Co., of Kewaunee, Wis., with the use of 
 imported glass mirrors, magnifying disks, thermometers, and egg timers. (T. D. 
 31041; Nov. 14, 1910.) 
 Mirrors and cabinets — 
 Drawback on mirrors and cabinets manufactured by Conant Bros. Co., of Somer- 
 ville, Mass., with the use of imported cast plate glass, silvered or unsilvered, 
 beveled or unbeveled. (T. D. 30784; July 14, 1910.) 
 Drawback on mirrors and cabinets manufactured by Conant Bros. Co., of Somerr 
 ville, Mass., with the use of oval-shaped glass cut from imported rectangular- 
 shaped glass. T. D. 30784 of July 14, 1910, extended. (T. D. 30938; Sept. 22, 
 1910.) 
 Drawback on mirrors and cabinets manufactured by Conant Bros. Co., of Somer- 
 ville, Mass., with the use of circular glass cut from imported rectangular-shaped 
 glass. T. D. 30784 of July 14, 1910, extended. (T. D. 31983; Nov. 3, 1911.) 
 Misses' and children's underwear. (See Drawback on underwear.) 
 Misses' and ladies' coats and suits. (See Drawback on clothing.) 
 Mixed paints. (See Drawback on paints.) 
 
 Mixed sirup and refined molasses. (See Drawback on molasses.) 
 Moellon. (See Drawback on leather, dressing.) 
 Mohair plush — 
 Dra\*back on mohair plushes manufactured by the Massachusetts Mohair Plush 
 Co., of Boston, Mass., from a mixture of imported and domestic mohair. T. D. 
 27050 of January 30, 1906, extended. (T. D. 29168; July 16^ 1908.) 
 
302 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Mohaii plash — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on mohair plushes manufactured by Sanford Mills B, of Sanford, Me., 
 either with the use of imported mohair wholly or from imported mohair in com- 
 bination with domestic mohair. (T. D. 32712; July 15, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on mohair plush- manufactured by Sanford Mills B, of Sanford, Me., 
 from imported mohair wholly or from imported mohair in combination with 
 domestic mohair, and on noils, sweeping waste, and soft waste manufactured by 
 the said company from imported mohair. T. D. 32712 of July 15, 1912, revoked. 
 (T. D. 33503; June 6, 1913.) 
 Mohair tops— 
 
 T. D. 33503 of June 6, 1913, extended to cover mohair tops manufactured by the 
 Sanford MiUs B, of Sanford, Me., either wholly from imported mohair or from 
 imported mohair in combination with domestic mohair. (T. D. 33773; Oct. 
 7, 1913.) 
 Molasses, refined, and mixed sirup — 
 
 Drawback on refined molasses manufactured by the American Molasses Co., of 
 New York, either wholly or in part from imported raw molasses or from im- 
 ported raw molasses and sugar sirups made from imported raw sugar. T. D. 
 21133 of May 12, 1899, T. D. 24252 of February 21, 1903, and T. D. 24309 of 
 March 26, 1903, extended. (T. D. 29603; Mar. 6, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on refined molasses manufactured by the Boston Molasses Co. from 
 imported molasses. (T. D. 32022; Nov. 21, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on mixed sirups and refined molasses manufactured by the American 
 Molasses Co., of New York City, successors to the Eastern Refining Co., from 
 imported materials. T. D. 23625 of March 31, 1902, and T. D. 23893 of July 24, 
 1902, extended. (T. D. 30619; May 17, 1910.) 
 Monuments, marble, etc. — 
 
 Drawback on marble monuments, headstones, moldings, plumbers' slabs, and 
 other articles manufactured by the Vermont Marble Co., of Proctor, Vt., from 
 imported marble blocks. T. D. 20569 of January 19, 1899, extended. (T. D. 
 30363; Feb. 17, 1910.) 
 Morphine and codeine alkaloids, etc. — 
 
 Manufactured by the MalUnckrodt Chemical Co. (See Drawback on medicinal 
 preparations.) 
 
 Manufactured by Powere-Weightman-Rosengarten Co. (See Drawback on medic- 
 inal preparations.) 
 Morrhualta Compound Elixir. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Mosquito veils — 
 
 Drawback on mosquito veils manufactured by the Fred. A. Bernstein Co., of New 
 York City, with the use of imported netting and fiber cloth. (T. D. S1124; 
 Dec. 16, 1910.) 
 Motor-car lamps — 
 
 Drawback on motor-car lamps manufactured by R. E. Dietz Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported tips and tip holders. T. D. 29919 of July 24, 1909, 
 extended. (T. D. 30289; Jan. 24, 1909.) 
 Motorcycles- 
 Drawback on motor cycles manufactured by the Hendee Manufacturing Co., of 
 Springfield, Mass., with the use of imported magnetos. (T. D. 30022; Oct. 2, 
 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 303 
 
 Drawback on— Continued. 
 Motorcycles — Continued . 
 Drawback on motor cycles manufactured by the Hendee Manufacturing Co., of 
 Springfield, Mass., with the use of imported chains, mud guards, grease cups, 
 and exhaust valves. T. D. 30022, of October 2, 1909, extended. (T. D. 31065; 
 Nov. 26, 1910.) 
 Drawback on motor cycles manufactured by the Hendee Manufacturing Co., of 
 Springfield, Mass., with the use of imported balls, ball bearings, and pedals. 
 T. D. 30022 of October 2, 1909, extended. (T. D. 31340; Feb. 27, 1911.) 
 Drawback on motors and motor cycles manufactured by the Shaw Manufacturing 
 Co., of Galesburg, Kans., with the use of imported magnetos and N. S. U. two- 
 speed free engine gears. (T. D. 38184; Feb. 17, 1913.) 
 Motoicycles and bicycles — 
 Drawback on motor cycles and bicycles manufactured by the Pope Manufacturing 
 Co., of Westfield, Mass., with the use of imported parts. (T. D. 35308; Apr. 10, 
 1915.) 
 Motor trucks. (See Automobile trucks, motor.) 
 
 Motors, automatic, generators, and starting and lighting equipments. (See Draw- 
 back on electrical equipment. Also Drawback on dyna,mos and motors.) 
 Moving-picture films. (See also Drawback on cinematograph film pictures.) 
 Drawback on positive moving-picture films manufactured by Habicht, Braun & 
 Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported positive moving-picture 
 films. (T. D. 35904; Nov. 26, 1915.) 
 Drawback on motion-picture films manufactured by the National Film Distribut- 
 ing Co., of New York City, with the use of imported raw films. (T. D. 32145; 
 Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32145 of January 11, 1912, extended to cover moving-picture films manu- 
 factured by the Thanhouser Film Corporation, of New Rochelle, N. Y., with 
 the use of imported films. (T. D. 33176; Feb. 12, 1913.) 
 Drawback on moving-picture films imported in an unfinished condition and fin- 
 ished by the Universal Film Co., of New York, by incorporating and welding 
 therein inserts of film of American manufacture, containing the legends, titles, 
 and descriptive matter thereof. (T. D. 34366; Apr. 9, 1914.) 
 Mowers. (See Drawback on machinery, agricultural.) 
 Mowing-maclilne knives — 
 Drawback on mowing-machine knives manufactured by the Whitman & Barnes 
 Manufacturing Co., of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported steel bars. (T. D. 
 38283; Mar. 20, 1913.) 
 Muffs, collar pieces, hand bags, etc. — 
 
 Drawback on muffs, collar pieces, hand bags, etc., manufactured by M. Kurzman 
 & Sons, of New York City, with the use of various imported materials. T. D. 
 30919 of September 12, 1910, extended. .(T. D. 31012; Oct. 28, 1910.) 
 "Mul-en-ol." (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Music rolls. (See Drawback on leather bags and other articles.) 
 Muskrat skins and plates — 
 
 Drawback on dyed and dressed muskrat skins and plates manufactured by the 
 C. & E. Chapal Frferes & Cie, of Brooklyn, N. Y., from imported muskrat skins 
 and plates. (T. D. 34884; Nov. 4, 1914.) 
 Neckties. (See also Drawback on trimmings and neckties.) 
 
 Drawback on neckties manufactured by the Kursheedt Manufacturing Co., of 
 New York City, from imported artificial silk. T. D. 24804 of November 24, 
 1903, extended. (T. D. 29489; Jan. 26, 1909.) 
 
304 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Neckties — Continued. 
 Drawback on neckties manufactured by H. Richter's Sons, of New York, N. Y., 
 with the use of imported silk, cotton, and fiber piece goods. (T. D. 34499; 
 June 2, 1914.) 
 Drawback on neckties manufactured by S. Rosenau & Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., 
 either wholly with the use of imported artificial silk or from imported artificial 
 silk and domestic cotton. (T. D. 32633; June 13, 1912.) 
 Drawback on trimmings and neckties manufactured by Waitzfelder Braid Co., 
 of Brooklyn, N. Y., from imported artificial silk or imported metal thread or 
 both artificial silk and metal thread. (T. D. 30074; Oct. 29, 1909.) 
 Neckwear, ladies'— 
 Drawback on ladies' neckwear manufactured by Locke & Clarke, of New York, 
 successors to Locke & Altherr, with th.e use of imported materials. T. D. 25839 
 of December 9, 1904, extended. (T. D. 30950; Sept. 27, 1910.) 
 Nestle' s Food — 
 Drawback on Nestle's Food manufactured by the Nestle's Food Co. (Inc.), of 
 Fulton, N. Y., with the use of refined sugar refined from imported raw sugar. 
 T. D. 26565 of July 7, 1905, revoked. (T. D. 35548; June 24, 1915.) 
 Nets and fabrics, embroidered. (See Drawback on embroidered nets and fabrics.) 
 Nettings. (See also Drawback on veilings, nettings, chiffons, malines, etc.) 
 Drawback on nettings manufactured by the Taylor Textile Manufacturing Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., from imported cotton, silk, and tinsel yams, for the account 
 of Louis HambuiKer & Co., of New York. (T. D. 34298; Mar. 20, 1914.) 
 "Newbio's Herpicide" manufactured by the Herplcide Co. (See Drawback on 
 
 medicinal preparations.) 
 Nickel wire — 
 Drawback on nickel wire manufactured by the Driver-Harris "Co., of Harrison, 
 N. J., with the use of imported coil nickel rods. T. D. 28754 of February 10, 
 1908, extended. (T. D. 30917; Sept. 12, 1910.) 
 Nitrate, thorium. (See Drawback on mantles, gas, thorium nitrate.) 
 Noils, alpaca. (See Drawback on alpaca noils and on wool products.) 
 Notice of intent — Meats — 
 The regulations contained in T. D. 31695 with respect to the filing of notice of 
 intent to export instead of preliminary entries apply to shipments of meats. 
 (T. D. 31816; Aug. 15, 1911.) 
 Novelty mirrors, and aluminum advertising novelties. (See Drawback on mirrors, 
 
 pocket, novelty, etc.) 
 Nulomoline sirup. (See Drawback on sirup.) 
 Nut meats- 
 Drawback on "nut meats" produced by the Cresca Co., of New York, N. Y., by 
 the use of imported shelled almonds and filberts. (T. D. 33892; Nov. 19, 1913.) 
 Nutmeg oU. (See Drawback on oils, nutmeg.) 
 
 Nut-milk chocolate. (See Drawback on chocolate, milk and nut-milk.) 
 Nuts- 
 Drawback on shelled Brazil nuts produced by Habicht, Braun & Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., from imported Brazil nuts in the shell. (T. D. 34620; July 10, 
 1914.) 
 Drawback on imported Brazil nuts cleaned and washed by William A. Higgina 
 & Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35292; Apr. 5, 1915.) 
 Oats, rolled — 
 Drawback on rolled oats manufactured by the Beck Cereal Co., of Detroit, Mich., 
 from imported oats. T. D. 29069 of June 16, 1908, extended. (T. D. 29606; 
 Mar. 9, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 305 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Oats, lolled — Continued. 
 Drawback on rolled oats manufactured by the Quaker Oats Co., of Chicago, 111., 
 
 from imported oats. (T. D. 29069; June 16, 1908.) 
 Oil cake — 
 Drawback on oil cake manufactured by the American Linseed Co., of New York, 
 
 from imported linseed or flaxseed. T. D. 29977 of September 7, 1999, extended. 
 
 (T. p. 30059; Oct. 23, 1909.) 
 Drawback on oil cake manufactured by Hauenstein & Co., of Buffalo, N. Y., with 
 
 the use of imported linseed. T. D. 15807 of March 29, 1895, extended. (T. D. 
 
 30419; Mar. 14, 1910.) 
 Drawback on oil cake manufactured by the John T. Lewis & Bros. Co., of Phila- 
 delphia, Pa., from imported linseed. T. D. 15807 -of March 29, 1895, extended. 
 
 (T. D. 30434; Mar. 18, 1910.) 
 Drawback on oil cake manufactured from imported linseed by the National Lead 
 
 Co., of New York City. T. D. 15807 of March 29, 1895, revived and extended. 
 
 (T. D. 29977; Sept. 7, 1909.) 
 Drawback on oil cake manufactured by the Spencer Kellogg Co., of Buffalo, N. Y., 
 
 from imported flaxseed. T. D. 15807 of March 29, 1895, extended. (T. D. 
 
 30005; Sept. 22, 1909.) 
 Amending T. D. 30737 of June 29, 1910, with respect to the data to be shown in 
 
 abstract from the manufacturing record. (T. D. 35237; Mar. 20, 1915.) 
 Oil cake and oil meal — 
 Drawback on oil cake and oil meal manufactured by Kelloggs & Miller, of Amster- 
 dam, N. Y., from imported flaxseed. T. D. 15807 of March 29, 1895, extended. 
 
 (T. D. 30620; May 18, 1910.) 
 OH and oil cake — 
 General regulations: Drawback on oil and oil cake manufactured from imported 
 
 flaxseed. General regulations prescribing method to be followed in ascertain- 
 ing market values. (T. D. 30737; June 29, 1910.) 
 Drawback on oil and oil cake manufactured by Spencer Kellogg & Sons, of Buffalo, 
 
 N. Y., with the use of imported and domeptic flaxseed. T. D. 30737 of June 29, 
 
 1910, extended. (T. D. 31076; Dec. 1, I'jlO.) 
 Drawback on oil and oil cake manufactured by the Archer-Daniels Linseed Co., 
 
 of Minneapolis, Minn., from imported linseed or flaxseed. T. D. 15807 of March 
 
 29, 1895, extended. (T. D. 30427; Mar. 15, 1910.) 
 Drawback on oil and oil cake manufactured by the Grove Linseed Oil Co., of 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., from imported linseed or flaxseed. T. D. 15807 of March 29, 
 
 1895, extended.' (T. D. 30303; Jan. 26, 1910.) 
 Drawback on oil and oil cake manufactured by the Mann Bros. Co., of Buffalo, N. 
 
 Y., from imported flaxseed. T. D. 15807 of March 29, 1895, extended. (T. D. 
 
 30627; May 21, 1910.) 
 Drawback on oil and oil cake manufactured by the Midland Linseed Co., of Min- 
 neapolis, Minn., from imported linseed or flaxseed. (T. D. 30288; Jan. 24, 
 
 1910.) 
 Drawback on linseed oil and oil cake manufactured from imported flaxseed by the 
 
 Sherwin-Williams Co., of Cleveland, Ohio. T. D. 15807 of March 29, 1895, 
 
 extended. (T. D. 30735; June 28, 1910.) 
 Drawback on oil and oil cake manufactured by the Southern Cotton Oil Co., Irom 
 
 imported soya beans. T. D. 15807 of March 29, 1895, extended. (T. D. 30588; 
 
 May 3, 1910.) 
 
 45633°— 17 20 
 
306 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Oilcloth- 
 Drawback on oiled cloths manufactured by the Irvington Varnish & Insulator Co., 
 of IrvLngton, N. J., with the use of imported silk, linen, and cotton cloths, 
 imported duty-paid oil, and oil obtained from duty-paid seeds. (T. D. 32920; 
 Nov. 9, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on oilcloth manufactured by the Standard Oil Cloth Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported china clay and linseed oil or hnseed oil manu- 
 factured from imported flaxseed. (T. D. 31857; Sept. 14, I9I1.) 
 
 Drawback on oil cloth manufactured by the Standard Oil Cloth Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported china clay and linseed oil, or linseed oil manufac- 
 tured from imported flaxseed, or in part from these materials and similar mate- 
 rials of domestic origin. T. D. 31857 of September 14, 1911, hereby revoked. 
 (T. D. 32664; June 25, 1912.) 
 Oil engines — 
 
 Drawback on oil engines manufactured by the New London Ship & Engine Co., 
 of Groton, Conn., with the use of imported crank shafts.- (T. D. 32549; May 23, 
 1912.) 
 OH lamps and gas and electric light fixtures^ 
 
 Drawback on oil lamps and gas and electric light fixtures manufactured by Ed- 
 ward Miller & Co., of Meriden, Conn., in part from imported materials. (T. D. 
 32852; Oct. 9, 1912.) 
 Oil meal — 
 
 Drawback on oil meal manufactured by the New Jersey Oil & Meal Co., of New 
 York City, with the use of domestic linseed and oil cake manufactured by 
 Hauenstein & Co., of Buffalo, N. Y. (T. D. 30515; Apr. 9, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on oil meal manufactured by the New Jersey Oil & Meal Co., of New 
 York, from imported flaxseed screenings and oil cake manufactured from im- 
 ported flaxseed, and also ground flaxseed screenings manufactured from im- 
 ported flaxseed screenings. T. D. 30515 of April 9, 1910, extended. (T. D. 
 30888; Aug. 19, 1910.) 
 Oiled linen — 
 
 Drawback on oiled linen manufactured by the Mica Insulator Co., of New York, 
 with the use of imported linen. T. D. 29320 of November 2, 1908, extended. 
 (T. D. 30172; Dec. 7, 1909.) 
 Oiled silk- 
 Drawback on oiled silk manufactured by the Mica Insulator Co., of New York, 
 with the use of imported silk cloth. (T. D. 29320; Nov. 2, 1908.) 
 OUed silk, Unen, cotton cloth, etc. — 
 
 Drawback on micanite sheets, cloth, and paper, and on oiled silk, linen, and cot- 
 ton cloths manufactured by the Mica Insulator Co., of New York, N. Y., with 
 the use of imported mica, silk, and Hnen cloths, and linseed oil or linseed oil 
 produced from imported linseed. (T. D. 36009; Dec. 20, 1915.) 
 OUs— 
 
 Burning — 
 
 Drawback on burning and lubricating oils manufactured by the Craycroft Oil Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported rapeseed oil. (T. D. 34877; Nov. 
 3, 1914.) 
 
 Burning Colza — 
 
 Drawback-on a preparation designated as "Burning Colza Oil" manufactured by 
 the Union Petroleum Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported rape- 
 seed oil. (T. D. 34562; June 17, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 307 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Oils — Continued. 
 
 Burning Colza — Continued. 
 
 Brawback on Burning Colza Oil manufactured by the Union Petroleum Co., of 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported rapeseed oil. T. D. 34562 of June 
 17, 1914, is hereby revoked. (T. D. 34830; Oct. 14, 1914.) 
 
 Castor, manufactured by Spencer Kellogg & Sons (Inc.). (See Drawback on 
 medicinal preparations.) 
 
 CitroneUa — 
 
 Drawback on refmed citronella oil produced by Magnus, Mabee & Reynard, of 
 New York, N. Y., from imported crude citronella oil. (T. D. 34574; Jvuae 23, 
 1914.) 
 
 Cloves — 
 
 Drawback on essential oil of cloves manufactured by the Dodge & Olcott Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported crude cloves. (T. D. 34713; Aug. 
 20, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34226 of March 4, 1914, covering drawback on vanillin manufactured by 
 the Verona Chemical Co., extended to cover oil of cloves manufactured by the 
 Verona Chemical Co., of North Newark, N. J., with the use of imported cloves. 
 (T. D. 35419; May 20, 1915.) 
 
 Lubricating — 
 
 Drawback on lubricating oils manufactured by the Crew-Levick Co., of Philadel- 
 phia, Pa., with the use of imported rapeseed oil. T. D. 17475^ of October 31, 
 1896, revoked. (T. D. 35786; Oct. 16, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on lubricating oils manufactured by the Kuhne-Libby Cp., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported rapeseed oil. (T. D. 35943; Dec. 4, 
 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on lubricating oil manufactured by A. W. Harris & Co., of New York 
 City, in part from imported raw mineral oil. T. D. 17355 of August 1, 1896, 
 extended. (T. D. 29285; Oct. 5, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on lubricating oils, known as Newton cylinder oil, mineral olive-wood 
 oil, compound red cordage oil, cordage oil, specia,l cordage oil, and tunnel bear- 
 ing grease, manufactured by the Standard Oil Co., of New York, with the use of 
 imported degras. (T. D. 32785; Aug. 28, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 32785 of August 28, 1912, extended to provide for the filing of a supplemental 
 sworn schedule. (T. D. 35494; June 7, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on lubricating oils manufactured by the Swan & Knch Co., of New 
 York City, wholly or in part from imported sperm oil, Russian oil, and Japan 
 oil. T. D. 17355 of August 1, 1896, extended. (T. D. 29461; Jan. 8, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on lubricating oils manufactured by the Swan & Pinch Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported rapeseed oil. T. D. 22441 of August 20, 
 1900, T. D. 24277 of March 7, 1903, T. D. 24527 of June 27, 1903, T. D. 24791 of 
 November 21, 1903; T. D. 25572 of September 3, 1904, and T. D. 29461 of Jan. 
 uary 8, 1909, revoked. (T. D. 36021; Dec. 29, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on lubricating oils manufactured by the Vacuum Oil Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported rapeseed oil in combination with domestic lard 
 oil, petroleum, and vegetable oils. T. D. 17355 of August 1, 1896, extended. 
 (T. D. 29218; Aug. 20, 19*08.) 
 
 Marine-engine — 
 
 Drawback on marine-engine oil manufactured in part from imported rapeseed oil 
 by the Union Petroleum Co., of Philadelphia, Pa. T. D. 17355 of August 1, 
 1896, extended. (T. D. 29018; May 20,a908.) 
 
 Drawback on marine-engine oil manufactured by the Union Petroleum Co., of 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported rapeseed oil. (T. D. 34107; Jan. 
 28, 1914.) 
 
308 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Oils — Continued. 
 Marine-engine — Continued. 
 Drawback in marine-engine oil manufactured by tlks Standard Oil Co., of New 
 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported rapeseed oil. (T. D. 35375; May 5, 1915.) 
 Nutmeg — 
 Drawback on essential oil of nutmeg manufactured by the Dodge & Olcott Co., of 
 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported nutmegs. (T. D. 34311; Mar. 27, 
 
 1914.) 
 Drawback on oil of nutmeg manufactured by W. J. Bush & Co. (Inc.), of New 
 
 York, N. Y., from imported nutmegs. (T. D. 35955; Dec. 7, 1915.) 
 Olive- 
 Drawback on purified, filtered, and clarified olive oil produced by the H. J. Heinz 
 
 Co., of New York, N. Y., from olive oil imported in a raw or unfiltered state. 
 
 (T. D. 33891; Nov. 19, 1913.) 
 T. D. 33891 of November 19, 1913, extended to coverpurified, filtered, and clarified 
 
 olive oil produced by the Pompeian Co., of Washington, D. C, from olive oil 
 
 imported in a raw or unfiltered state. (T. D. 34229; Mar. 4, I9I4.) 
 Drawback on olive oil imported in bulk and manufactured by the Strohmeyer & 
 
 Arpe Co., of New York, by filtering, bottling, canning, labeling, etc. (T. D. 
 
 33470; May 31, 1913.) 
 T. D. 33470 of May 31, 1913, extended to cover filtered and clarified olive oil pro- 
 duced by R. U. Delapenha & Co. from olive oil imported in bulk. (T. D. 
 
 34063; Jan. 16, 1914.) 
 Orange^ 
 Drawback on refined essential oil of orange manufactured by Magnus, Mabee & 
 
 Reynard (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., from imported essential oil of orange. (T. 
 
 D. 35638; Aug. 6, 1915.) 
 
 Peanut — 
 
 Drawback on refined peanut oil manufactured by the Gorgas-Pierie Manufactur- 
 ing Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., from imported peanuts. Drawback not allowed 
 on oil cake resulting from the manufacturing of peanut oil. (T. D. 29655; Mar. 
 26, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on peanut oil manufactured by the Oil Seeds Co., of New York, N. Y., 
 with the use of imported peanuts. (T. D. 35731; Sept. 30, 1915.) 
 
 Peanut, and oil cake — 
 
 Drawback on peanut oil and oil cake manufactured by the Gorgas-Pierie Manufac- 
 turing Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., from imported peanuts. T. D. 30737 of June 
 29, 1910, extended. (T. D. 31359; Mar. 6, 1911.) 
 
 Sanctuary — 
 
 Drawback on sanctuary oil manufactured by the Manhattan Oil Co. from im- 
 ported French rapeseed oil and domestic oil. T. D. 17355 of August 1, 1896, 
 extended. (T. D. 29588; Mar. 1, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on sanctuary oil manufactured by the N. B. Cook Oil Co., of New York, 
 N. Y., with the use of imported rapeseed oil. (T. D. 34579; June 24, 1914.) 
 
 Sperm, spermaceti, etc. (See Drawback on sperm oil, etc.) 
 
 Turkey-red or sulphonated — 
 
 Drawback on "Turkey-red oil" or "Sulphonated oil," manufactured by the 
 National Red Oil & Soap Co., of Harrison, N. J., with the use of imported castor 
 oil. (T. D. 34965; Dec. 7, 1914.) 
 
 Whale, used in shortening — 
 
 Drawback on shortening manufactured by the Southern Cotton Oil Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported rendered whale oil. (T. D. 35574; July 
 10, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 309 
 
 Diawback on — ContLaued. 
 Oils — Continued . 
 
 White thyme- 
 Drawback on oil of white thyme manufactured by J. A. Crombie & Co., of Brook- 
 lyn, N. Y., from imported red oil of thjTne for the account of George Lueders 
 & Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35656; Aug. 16, 1915.) 
 Oleomargarine — 
 
 Drawback on oleomargarine manufactured by Swift & Co., of Jersey City, N. J., 
 in part with the use of imported oleo stearine and salt. (T. D. 29281; Sept. 30, 
 1908.) 
 Olive oU. (See Drawback on oils, olive.) 
 Olives, capers, and olive oil — 
 
 Drawback on bottled plain, pitted, and stuffed olives, bottled capers, and bottled 
 olive oil manufactured by the Alart & McGuire Co., of New York, N. Y., with 
 the use of plain, pitted, and stuffed olives, capers, and olive oil imported in 
 bulk. (T. D. 33812; Oct. 27, 1913.) 
 Olives — 
 
 Drawback on bottled plain olives, bottled pitted olives, bottled stuffed olives, and 
 on stuffed olives manufactured by the Oresca Co., of New York, with the use of 
 olives imported in bulk and imported nuts. (T. D. 33639; July 19, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on bottled plain, pitted, and stuffed olives and on olive rings produced 
 by the Falcon Packing Co., of New York, N. Y., from plain, pitted, or stuffed 
 olives imported in bulk. (T. D. 34735; Aug. 28, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on bottled, canned, and kitted olives manufactured by Libby, McNeill 
 & Libby, of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported salt and olives imported in 
 bulk by sorting, selecting, picking, packing, rebrining, and labeling. (T. D. 
 33381; Apr. 30, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on bottled olives, bottled pitted olives, and bottled stuffed olives manu- 
 factured by the Colin D. Mawer Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of olives 
 imported in casks. (T. D. 33284; Mar. 21, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33284 of March 21, 1913, extended to cover pitted and stuffed olives and 
 plain olives manufactured by R. U. Delapenha & Co., of New York, from pitted 
 olives and stuffed olives and plain olives imported in bulk by pitting and stuff- 
 ing and by sorting, picking, cleaning, and packing in containers of less than 5 
 gallons capacity. (T. D. 33569; June 19, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33284 of March 21, mi3,-a8 amended by T. D. 33569 of June 19, 1913, ex- 
 tended to cover bottled plain, pitted, and stuffed olives produced by Charles 
 Gulden, of New York, N. Y., with the use of olives imported in bulk. (T. D. 
 33966; Dec. 9, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33284 of March 21, 1913, extended to cover bottled olives, bottled pitted 
 olives, and bottled stuffed olives manufactured by Austin, Nichols & Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., from olives imported in bulk. (T. D. 33624; July 16, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33284 of March 21, 1913, extended to cover bottled olives, bottled pitted 
 olives, and bottled stuffed olives manufactured by E.. 0. Williams & Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of olives imported in casks. (T. D. 33613; July 
 11, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33613 of July 11, 1913, extended to cover kitted olives manufactured by 
 R. C. Williams & Co., of New York, N. Y., from olives imported in bulk. (T. 
 D. 33818; Oct. 28, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33818 of October 28, 1913, extended to cover kitted olives produced by Aus- 
 tin Nichols & Co., of New York, N. Y., from olives imported in bulk. (T. D. 
 34622; July 11, 1914.) 
 Olives, bottled, and flavoring extracts. (See Drawback on flavoring extracts and 
 bottled olives.) 
 
310 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 
 Omnibuses, street and passenger cars. (See Drawback on railway cars.) 
 
 Open-hearth cranes. (See Drawback on cranes.) 
 
 Opinm. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 
 'Orange, oil of. (See Drawback on oil, orange.) 
 
 Orange peel — 
 Drawback on glac6 citron, crystallized citron, and crystallized orange and lemon 
 peel manufactured by William Hills, jr., of New York City, with the use of 
 imported preserved citron, orange peel, lemon peel, and refined sugar. T. D. 
 25287 of May 16, 1904, extended. (T. D. 29917; July 21, 1909.) 
 
 Orchestrions — ■ 
 Drawback on orchestrions manufactured by the Rudolph Wurlitzer Co., of Cin- 
 ciimati, Ohio, in part from imported bellows, chimes, pipes, triangles, and 
 other parts. (T. D. 32923; Nov. 9, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32923 of November 9, 1912, extended to cover orchestrions manufactured by 
 the Rudolph Wurlitzer Co., of Cincinnati, Ohio, at North Tonawanda, N. Y., 
 with the use of various imported parts. (T. D. 33098; Jan. 17, 1913.) 
 
 Oropon — 
 Drawback on an article used for deliming hides and sMns known as "Oropon" 
 manufactured by Rohm & Haas, of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported 
 ammonium chloride and a German product. (T. D. 32157; Jan. 19, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32157 of January 19, 1912, extended to cover brands of Oropon designated as 
 "AB " and "XXD " manufactured by Rohm & Haas, of Philadelphia, Pa., with 
 the use of an imported German product (commercially known as bate for hides 
 and skins partially manufactured) and imported ammonium chloride. (T. D. 
 34293; Mar. 20, 1914.) 
 The drawback on a preparation designated as "Oropon" manufactured by RoUm 
 & Haas, of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported ammonia muriate. (T. D. 
 35408; May 17, 1915.) 
 
 Ostrich feathers. (See Drawback on feathers.) 
 
 Overgalters. (See Drawback on leggings and overgaiters.) 
 
 Ozomulslon. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 
 Package candy. (See Drawback on candy.) 
 
 Package dates and cleaned currants. (See Drawback on currants, and dates.) 
 
 Packing rings — 
 Drawback on packing rings manufactured by the Hewitt Supply Co., of Chicago, 
 111., from imported Babbitt metal. (T. D. 33285; Mar. 21, 1913.) 
 
 Packing, rod. (See Drawback on rod packing.) 
 
 Packing and roofing — 
 Drawback on asbestos sheet packing, wound cloth packing, and gaskets manufac- 
 tured by the H. W. Johns-Manville Co., of New York City, with the use of im- 
 ported asbestos cloth, and asbestos roofing manufactured with the use of im- 
 ported burlap. (T. D. 31737; July 8, 1911.) 
 
 Paine' s Celery Compound. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 
 "Pain Expeller" manufactured by F. Ad. Bichter & Co. (See Drawback on medici- 
 nal preparations.) 
 
 Pain KUler. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 
 Paint oil — 
 Drawback on paint oil manufactured by the Anchor Refining Co., of Jersey City, 
 N. J., for the account of S. E. Heymaim & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the 
 use of linseed oil manufactured by the Midland Products Co., of Edgewater, 
 N. J., from imported linseed. (T. D. 33445; May 21, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 311 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Paints — 
 Drawback on paint manufactured by the Thomson Wood Knishing Co., of Phila- 
 delphia, Pa., with the use of imported lithopone and oxide of zinc. (T. D. 
 32928; Nov. 11, 1912.) 
 Drawback on paints manufactured by Benjamin Moore & Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., 
 
 with the use of imported lithopone. (T. D. 34106; Jan. 28, 1914.) 
 Bronze — 
 
 Drawback on Sinoloro brand of gold and other colors of bronze paints manufac- 
 tured by Gerstendorfer Bros., of New York, with the use of imported powders. 
 T. D. 25206 of April 15, 1904, extended. (T. D. 29685; Apr. 12, 1909.) 
 Mixed — 
 
 Drawback on mixed paints manufactured by the Patton Paint Co., of Milwaukee, 
 Wis., and Newark, N. J. , with the use of imported linseed oil or linseed oil manu- 
 factured from imported flaxseed. T. D. 25520 of August 8, 1904, and T. D. 
 25374 of June 10, 1904, extended. (T. D. 31222; Jan. 17, 1911.) 
 Drawback on mixed paints manufactured by the Sherwin-Williams Co., of New- 
 ark, N. J., with the use of linseed oil expressed from imported flaxseed. (T. D. 
 31643; June 3, 1911.) 
 Pajamas and underwear, men's. (See Drawback on underwear.) 
 Palm-leaf hats. (See Drawback on hats.) 
 Panama hats. (See Drawback on hata.) 
 Panama and leghorn ladies' hats. (See Drawback on hats.) 
 Panels, bedspreads, etc. (See Drawback on curtains, lace.) 
 Panopepton. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Paper bags. (See Drawback on bags.) 
 Paper-box stays. (Sea Drawback on staya, paper-box.) 
 Paper containers. (See Drawback on containers, paper.) 
 Paper — 
 Book and writing — 
 
 Drawback on book and writing paper manufactured by the Taylor-Burt Co., 
 paper makers, of Holyoke, Mass., with the use of imported bleached sulphite 
 pulp and aniUne dyes. (T. D. 329.49; Nov. 21, 1912.) 
 Drawing, etc. — 
 
 Drawback on mounted dsawing papers, profile paper, profile cloth, tracing cloth, 
 
 tracing paper, blue-print and brown-print paper manufacttired by the Keuffel 
 
 & Esser Co., of Hoboken, N. J., from imported drawing paper, printing paper, 
 
 tracing cloth, and tracing paper. (T. D. 29892; July 1, 1909.) 
 
 Gummed stay. (See Drawback on gummed stay paper and paper tape. ) 
 
 "Keepdry" cloth-lined waterproof wrapping. (See Drawback on "keepdry" 
 
 cloth-lined waterproof wrapping paper.) 
 Photographic. (See Drawback on photographic paper.) 
 Profile and cross-section — 
 
 Drawback on additional styles and grades of profile and cross-section papers man- 
 ufactured by the Keuffel & Esser Co., of Hoboken, N. J., from imported paper. 
 T. D. 29892 of July 1, 1909, amended. (T. D. 31327; Feb. 23, 1911.) 
 Drawback on "profile and cross-section paper and cloth manufactured for and on 
 account of Eugene Dietzgen Co., of New York City. T. D. 29892 of July 1, 
 1909, extended. (T. p. 29986; Sept. 7, 1909.) 
 Drawback on profile and cross-section paper and cloth manufactured by Walther 
 & Co., of New York, N. Y., from imported plain tracing cloth, drawing paper, 
 . and tracing paper for the account of the Eugene Dietzgen Co. (T. D. 35658; 
 
 Aug. 16, 1915.) 
 Boofing. (See Drawback on roofing paper.) 
 
312 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Paper — Continued. 
 Waxed — 
 
 Drawback on waxed paper manufactured by the Hammerschlag Manufacturing- 
 Co., of New York, with the use of imported wood pulp and bleaching powder. 
 (T. D. 32783; Aug. 28, 1912.) 
 Faper-lined waterproof burlap and bags. (See Drawback on bags.) 
 Paper makers' felts and jackets — ■ 
 Drawback on paper makers' felts and jackets manufactured by the Albany Felt 
 Co., Albany, N. Y., with the use of imported wool. (T. D. 33073; Jan. 9, 1913.) 
 Drawback on paper makers' felts and jackets manufactured by the Albany Felt 
 Co., of Albany, N. Y., with the use of wool in the grease, imported prior to 
 December 1, 1913. (T. D. 33988; Dec. 17, 1913.) 
 Paper pencils. (See Drawback on pencils, paper.) 
 
 Paper tape, gummed. (See Drawback on gummed stay paper and paper tape.) 
 Paper weights. (See Drawback on mirrors.) 
 Parasols, umbrellas, canes, and handles. (See Drawback on umbrellas, parasols, 
 
 canes, and on handles for same.) 
 Parts of automobiles and automobile trucks. (See Drawback on automobiles and 
 
 automobile trucks and parts.) 
 Parts of vacuum cleaners. (See Drawback on vacuum cleaners, parts of.) 
 Passenger cars. (See Drawback on railway cars.) 
 Paste — 
 Drawback on paste manufactured by the Diamond Ink Co., of Milwaukee, Wis., 
 with the use of imported dextrin. T. D. 26643 of August 5, 1905, extended. 
 (T. D. 29937; Aug. 4, 1909.) 
 Paste, almond. (See Drawback on almond paste.) 
 Paste, library, and on collapsible tubes of library paste — 
 Drawback on collapsible tubes of library paste and on library paste manufactured 
 by S. S. Stafford (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported tubes 
 and dextrin. (T. D. 33100; Jan. 18, 1913.) 
 T. D. 33100 of January 18, 1913, extended to cover collapsible tubes of library 
 paste and library paste exported in other containers manufactured by the 
 Thaddeus Davids Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported collapsible 
 tubes and dextrin. (T. D. 33422; May 14, 1913.) 
 Paste, office and photo, and collapsible tube — 
 Drawback on office and photo paste manufactured by the Russia Cement Co., of 
 Gloucester, Mass., from imported dextrin, and collapsible tubes. T. D. 26643 
 of August 5, 1905, extended. (T. D. 30428; Mar. 15, 1910.) 
 Paste, photolibrary and office. (See also Drawback on glue, liquid.) 
 Drawback on photolibrary paste and office paste manufactured by the Carter's 
 Ink Co., of Cambridge, Mass., with the use of imported dextrin. T. D. 27139 
 of February 20, 1906, revoked. (T. D. 33690; Aug. 15, 1913.) 
 Paws, tails, etc., dyed. (See Drawback on fur skins, parts of.) 
 Peacock's bromide and chionia. (See Drawback on medicinal preparatibns.) 
 Peanut confectionery — 
 Drawback on peanut confectionery manufactured by the New England Confec- 
 tionery Co., of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported peanuts. (T. D. 30947; 
 Sept. 27, 1910.) 
 Peanut oil. (See Drawback on oil, peanut.) 
 Peanuts — 
 T. D. 34723 of August 22, 1914, covering drawback on almonds produced by 
 Habicht, Braun &Co., of New York, N. Y., amended as to distribution of draw- 
 back and extended to cover cleaned and graded peanuts produced by Habicht, 
 Braun&Co., of New York,N.Y.,fromimportedshelled peanuts. (T.D. 35587; 
 Nov. 3, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 313 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Peanuts, blanched and salted — 
 Drawback on blanched peanuts and salted peanuts manufactured by the Kelling- 
 Kaxel Co., of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported shelled Jumbo peanuts. 
 (T. D. 35426; May 22, 1915.) 
 Pears, canned. (See Drawback on fruits, canned.) 
 Pease, split — 
 Drawback on split pease and quarter-split pease manufactured by the Winner 
 Milling Co., of New York, N. Y., from imported pease for the account of the 
 Smith & Nessle Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 33927; Nov. 29, 1913.) 
 Pencils, paper — ■ 
 Drawback on paper pencils manufactured by the Blaisdell Paper Pencil Co., of 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported graphite and colored crayons. (T. 
 D. 81252; Jan. 30, 1911.) 
 Pepper, red. (See Drawback on red pepper, etc.) 
 Perfect Cold Cream. (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 "Perfection pink rubber" — 
 Drawback on "Perfection pink rubber" manufactured by C. Ash & Sons Co., of 
 Irvington, N. J., for and on account of the Consolidated Dental Manufacturing 
 Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported rubber mixture and cinnabar. 
 (T. D. 33204; Feb. 19, 1913.) 
 Perfumery — 
 Drawback on toilet preparations, including perfumery, manufactured by Colgate 
 Co., of Jersey City, N. J., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 
 30031; Oct. 8, 1909.) 
 Drawback on perfumes, toilet waters, liquid soap and preparations for treating the 
 hair and scalp, manufactured by Richard Hudnut, of New York City, with the 
 use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 30076; Oct. 29, 1909.) 
 Drawback on perfumery manufactured by the Andrew Jergens Co., of Cincinnati, 
 Ohio, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 32450; Apr. 29, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32450 of April 29, 1912, extended to cover additional odors and grades of per- 
 fumery manufactured by the Andrew Jergens Co., of Cincinnati, with the use of 
 domestic tax-paid alcohol, and amended to provide for the filing of supplemental 
 sworn statements. (T. D. 33083; Jan. 13, 1913.) 
 Perfumery essences — 
 Drawback on perfumery essences manufactured by George Lueders & Co., of New 
 York, in part from domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 31993; Nov. 8, 1911.) 
 Perfumes and toilet preparations, (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Peroxide of hydrogen. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Persian pipe tobacco. (See Drawback on tobacco.) 
 Penma. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Petroleum cans — 
 So much of T. D. 17355, of August 1, 1896, and such other regulations as provide 
 for the payment of drawback on petroleum cans and attachments therefor re- 
 voked. (T. D. 34447; May 8, 1914.) 
 Petroleum emulsion. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Pharmaceuticals. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 PhUllp's Florida Water. (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Phonographs — 
 Drawback on phonographs manufactured by the Sonora Phonograph Corporation, 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported motors, sound boxes, tone arms, 
 and automatic stops. (T. D. 34581; June 24, 1914.) 
 
314 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Fhotogiaphic materials — 
 Drawback on cameras, parts of cameras, and accessories thereto, and on sensitized 
 
 products manufactured by the Eastman Kodak Co., of Rochester, N. Y., with 
 
 the use of various imported materials, and materials manufactured in the United 
 
 States from imported materials. T. D. 22827 of February 19, 1901, and all other 
 
 regulations amending or extending the same revoked. (T. D. 34358; Apr. 7, 
 
 1914.) 
 Photogiapliic paper- 
 Drawback on photographic paper manufactured by the Haloid Co., of Rochester, 
 
 N. Y., with the use of imported paper and gelatin. (T. D. 33899; Nov. 19, 
 
 1913.) 
 Drawback on photographic paper manufactured by the Rochester Photo Works 
 
 (Inc.), of Rochester, N. Y., with the use of imported paper and gelatia. (T. D. 
 
 34790; Sept. 28, 1914.) 
 Photographic paper and films — 
 Drawback on photographic paper and films manufactured by the Ansco Co., of 
 
 Binghamton, N. Y., with the use of imported paper and gelatin. (T. D. 34481; 
 
 May 27, 1914.) 
 Photographic plates — 
 So much of T. D. 17355 of August 1, 1896, as provides for the payment of drawback 
 
 on photographic plates manufactured with the use of imported glass plates and 
 
 gelatin, revoked. (T. D. 35124; Feb. 12, 1915.) 
 Drawback on photographic dry plates manufactured by the Hammer Dry Plate 
 
 Co., of St. Louis, Mo., with the use of imported window glass and gelatin. (T. 
 
 D. 35354; Apr. 30, 1915.) 
 Drawback on photographic dry plates manufactured by the G. Cramer Dry Plate 
 
 Co., of St. Louis, Mo., with the use of imported window glass and gelatin. (T. 
 
 D. 35372; May 5, 1915.) 
 Photographs — 
 Drawback on enlarged photographs manufactured by the Home Copjdng Co., of 
 
 Chicago, 111., with the use of imported Steinbach paper. (T. D. 32118; Dec. 
 
 28, 1911.) 
 Colored — • 
 Drawback on colored photographs or photographic prints manufactured by Kauf- 
 
 mann & Strauss Co., of New York City, with the use of imported photographic 
 
 prints which have been colored, or colored, trimmed, and mounted. (T. D. 
 
 31066; Nov. 28, 1910.) 
 Drawback on colored photographs or photographic prints manufactured by Miss 
 
 Theodora P. Bush, of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported uncolored 
 
 photographs or photographic prints. T. D. 31066 of November 28, 1910, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 31149; Dec. 27, 1910.) 
 Stereoscopic — 
 Drawback on stereoscopic photographs manufactured by the H. C. White Co., of 
 
 North Bennington, Vt., with the use of photographic paper manufactured 
 
 from imported paper. (T. D. 30499; Apr. 5, 1910.) 
 Drawback on stereoscopic photographs manufactured by the H. C. White Co., of 
 
 North Bennington, Vt., with the use of "Chloralla" paper manufactured from 
 
 imported photographic paper. T. D. 30499 of April 5, 1910, extended. (T. D. 
 
 31600; May 16, 1911.) 
 Photo-etched silver articles. (See Drawback on silver articles.) 
 Piano hammers. (See Drawback on hammers, piano.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 315 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Piano strings — 
 
 Drawback on piano strings manufactured in part from imported piano wire by 
 Francis Ramaciotti, of New York City. (T. D. 30997; Oct. 20, 1910.) 
 Pianos — 
 
 Drawback on pianos manufactured by the Auto Piano Co., of New York City, 
 with the use of imported wire and candelabra. T. D. 29936 of August 4, 1909, 
 extended. (T. D. 30956; Sept. 30, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos manufactured by the Baldwin Co., of Cincinnati, Ohio, with 
 the use of imported piano actions, tuning pins, wire, hammer felt, ivory keys, 
 and sconces. (T. D. 29936; Aug. 4, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos manufactured by Christman Sons, of New York City, with 
 the use of imported piano actidns and tuning pins, and hammers and wire manu- 
 factured in the United States from imported felt and wire. T. D. 29936 of Au- 
 gust 4, 1909, extended. (T. D. 31370; Mar. 9, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos manufactured by the Estey Piano Co., of New York, with 
 the use of imported tuning pins, steel wire, hammer felt, etc. T. D. 29936 of 
 August 4, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30112; Nov. 16, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos manufactured by the Estey Piano Co., of New York City, 
 with the use of imported candelabra. T. D. 29936 of August 4, 1909, extended. 
 (T. D. 31011; Oct. 25, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos manufactured by J. & C. Fischer, of New York, from im- 
 ported wire, tuning pins, and decalcomaniaB. T. D. 29936 of August 4, 1909, 
 extended. (T. D. 30475; Mar. 31, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos manufactured by J. & C. Fischer Co., of New York City, from 
 imported wire, tuning pins, decalcomanias, and lambskin. T. D. 30475 of 
 March 31, 1910, extended. (T. D. 30829; July 26, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on grand pianos, style "Scale 6-C-Grand," manufactured by J. & C. 
 Fischer, New York City, with the use of imported music wire, tuning pins, and 
 lambskin. T. D. 29936 of August 4, 1909, extended. (T. D. 31156; Dec. 29, 
 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos manufactured by J. & C. Fischer, of New York, N. Y., with 
 the use of bass strings manufactured by Francis Bamaciotti with the use of im- 
 ported steel wire. (T. D. 35138; Feb. 20, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos manufactured by the Jesse French & Sons Piano Co., of New 
 Castle, Ind., with the use of various imported materials and parts. (T. D. 34800; 
 Oct. 1, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos manufactured by Hardman, Peck & Co., of New York City, 
 with the use of imported felt, wire, and tuning pins. T. D. 29936 of August 4, 
 1909, extended. (T. D. 30745; July 1, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos manufactured by Kohler & Campbell, of New York City, 
 with the use of imported wire and candelabra. T. D. 29936 of August 4, 1909, 
 extended. (T. D. 30956; Sept. 30, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos manufactured by the Milton Piano Co., of New York City, 
 with the use of imported wire and candelabra. T. D. 29936 of August 4, 1909, 
 extended. (T. D. 30958; Sept. 30, 1910.) 
 
 Draw|3ack on imported pianos fitted with playing attachments by the Simplex 
 Piano Player Action Co., of Worcester, Mass., successors to the Simplex Piano 
 Player Co., of Worcester, Mass. T. D. 27470 of July 7, 1906, extended. (T. D. 
 32806; Sept. 4, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos manufactured by William Tonk & Bro. (Inc.), of New 
 York City, with the use of tuning pins, piano wire, piano actions, and decal- 
 comanias. T. D. 29936 of August 4, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30654; May 31, 
 1910.) 
 
316 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Pianos — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on pianos manufactured by William Tonk & Bro. (Inc.), New York 
 City, with the use of imported sconces. T. D. 29936 of August 4, 1909, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 32707; July 13, 1912.) 
 Pianos and player pianos — 
 
 Drawback on pianos and player pianos manufactiu^d by the Baldwin Co., of Cin- 
 cinnati, Ohio, with the use of various imported materials. T. D. 29936 of 
 August 4, 1909, revoked. (T. D. 35940; Dec. 3, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos and piano players manufactured by the Faber Piano Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported piano wire and timing pins. (T. D. 
 35533; June 17, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos and player pianos manufactured by J. & C. Hscher, of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of piano hammers manufactured by Charles Pfriemer 
 (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported hammer felt. (T. D. 
 35832; Oct. 27, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos and piano players manufactured by Ernest Gabler & Bro., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported piano wire and tuning pins. (T. 
 D. 35532; June 17, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos and player pianos manufactured by Hardman, Peck & Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported hammer felt, tuning pins, and 
 piano wire, and with the use of bass strings manufactured with the use of im- 
 ported wire. (T. D. 35966; Dec. 11, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos and piano players manufactured by J. & C. Kscher, of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of piano hammers manufactured for their account by 
 Strauch Bros., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported hammer felt. (T. 
 D. 33955; Dec. 6, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on player pianos, scale 20, manufactured by J. & C. Fischer, of New 
 York City, with the use of imported wire, tuning pins, and lambskin. T. D. 
 29936 of August 4, 1909, extended. (T. D. 31280; Feb. 7, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on player pianos manufactured by Gulbransen, Dickenson & Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported pianos. (T. D. 33553; June 14, 
 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos fitted with Electrelle piano players manufactured by the 
 Simplex Piano Player Co., of Worcester, Mass., with the use of imported pianos. 
 T. D. 27470 of July 7, 1906, extended. (T. D. 29155; July 13, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on pianos, pianola pianos, and automatic actions for player pianos 
 manufactured by the Aeolian Co., of New York, with the use of various imported 
 materials and parts. (T. D. 33418; May 12, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33418 of May 12, 1913, extended to cover pianos and player pianos manufac- 
 tured by the Aeolian Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported piano 
 keys. (T. D. 35011; Dec. 24, 1914.) 
 Piece goods, cotton — 
 
 Drawback on dyed cotton piece goods manufactured by the Du Pont Fabrikoid 
 Co., of Wilmington, Del., with the iise of imported dyes and cotton piece goods 
 imported in the gray. (T. D. 34632; July 14, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on dyed cotton piece goods produced by the Pond Lily Co., of New 
 Haven, Conn., from cotton piece goods imported in the gray for the account of 
 Stavert, Zigamala & Co., of New York City, aad others. (T. D. 34831; Oct. 14, 
 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on bleached and bleached and mercerized cotton piece goods produced 
 by the Bellman Brooks Bleachery Co., of Fairview, N. J., from cotton piece 
 goods imported in the gray for the account of the Sea Island Mills, of New York, 
 N. Y. (T. D. 35184; Mar. 3, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 317 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Piece goods, cotton — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on cotton piece goods dyed, bleached, bleached and dyed, and bleached 
 and printed cotton piece goods manufactured by the Gamer Print Works & 
 Bleachery, of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported aniline dyes or colors 
 and cotton piece goods imported in the gray. T. D. 28621 of December 17, 1907, 
 revoked. (T. D. 35640; Aug. 6, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on bleached, mercerized, dyed, bleached and mercerized, bleached 
 and dyed, mercerized and dyed, or bleached, mercerized, and dyed cotton 
 piece goods manufactured for the use of cotton piece goods imported in the 
 gray or in an unfinished state. (T. D. 35965; Dec. 10, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on silk piece goods imported in the gray, exported after being dyed for 
 the account of S. Yajima, of New York, N. Y., by Alfred Crew, of Paterson, 
 N. J. (T. D. 34963; Dec. 7, 1914.) 
 Piece goods, cotton, sUk, wool, etc. — 
 
 Drawback on cotton, cotton and silk, wool, wool and silk, and silk piece goods 
 imported in the gray and dyed by the United Piece Dye Works, of Lodi, N. J. 
 (T. D. 31020; Nov. 1, 1910.) 
 
 T. D. 31020 of November 1, 1910, extended to cover piece goods imported in the 
 gray and dyed by the United Piece Dye Works, of Lodi, N. J., and the Merrill 
 Silk Co., of Hornell, N. Y., for the account of C. Hoffbauer & Co., of New York, 
 N. Y. (T. D. 34085; Jan. 26, 1914.) 
 Piece goods, woolen — 
 
 Drawback on piece goods imported in the gray and bleached, dyed, and finished 
 by the Botany Worsted Mills, of Passaic, N. J., and on such piece goods when 
 printed for their account by the Manhattan Print Works, of Passaic, N. J. (T. 
 D. 34336; Apr. 2, 1914.) 
 Piece goods, woolen and cotton. — 
 
 T. D. 32597 of June 5, 1912, covering drawback on shoe cloth manufactured 
 for J. Einstein (Inc.), extended to cover woolen and woolen and cotton piece 
 goods imported in the gray and dyed for the account of J. Einstein (Inc.), of 
 New York, N. Y., by Kennedy & Britt, of Philadelphia, Pa. (T. D. 35217; 
 Mar. 13, 1915.) 
 Pie fillers- 
 Drawback on lemon and fig pie fillers manufactured by Wood & Selick, New 
 York, in part with the use of imported sugar and imported figs. (T. D. 29041; 
 June 1, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on lemon and orange pie fillers manufactured by Logan, Johnson & 
 Co., of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported sugar in combination with 
 domestic materials. T. D. 29041 of June 1, 1908, extended. (T. D. 29139; 
 July 7, 1908.) 
 Pig iron, etc. — 
 
 T. D. 28676 of January 9, 1908, amending T. D. 22890 of March 16, 1901, estab- 
 lishing a rate of drawback on pig iron and other products manufactured by the 
 Maryland Steel Co., of Sparrows Point, Md., amended. (T. D. 28915; Apr. 6, 
 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on pig iron manufactured from iron ore, and steel billets, blooms, 
 ingots, bars, structural material, guns, machinery, etc., manufactured from 
 pig iron produced from imported iron ore and imported ferromanganese and 
 ferrosilicon by the Bethlehem Steel Co., of Bethlehem, Pa. T. D. 29365 of 
 November 25, 1908, revoked. (T. D. 29552; Feb. 10, 1909.) 
 Pig iron and steel products — 
 
 Drawback on pig iron and steel products manufactured by the Bethlehem Steel 
 Co., of Bethlehem, Pa., with the use of imported iron ore, ferromanganese, and 
 ferrosilicon. T. D. 29552 of February 10, 1909, amended. (T. D. 31438; Mar. 
 30, 1911.) 
 
 Tv/ror>„fo,.t„ro/l v.ir tha Po.TiTiHvlvfl.nia steel Co. (T. D. 31439; Mar. 80, 1911.) 
 
318 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Pig lead. (See Drawback'on lead.) 
 Pillow slips and stuffed pillows — 
 Drawback on piUow slips and stufied pillows manufactured by B. Ulmann & Co., 
 of New York, with the use of imported tapestry. (T. D. 30152; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 Pillow slips, scarfs, etc. — 
 Drawback on pillow slips, scarfs, centerpieces, and other articles manufactured 
 by Campbell, Metzger & Jacobson, of New York City, from imported tapestries, 
 Unen, and other goods, by the process of cutting and stamping, cutting, stamp- 
 ing, and tinting, or cutting, stamping, and completely finishing. (T. D. 30621; 
 May 19, 1910.) 
 Drawback on scarfs, centerpieces, and other articles manufactured by B. Ul- 
 mann & Co., of New York City, with the use of imported tapestry, Unen, and 
 other goods. (T. D. 31024; Nov. 7, 1910.) 
 Drawback on lace doilies, centerpieces, and scarfs manufactured by Bemhard 
 Ulmann & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported linens, insertions, 
 laces, and drawn-work centers. (T. D. 33811; Oct. 27, 1913.) 
 Drawba,ck on pillow slips, scarfs, etc., manufactured by Campbell, Metzger & 
 Jacobson, of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported tapestries, linens, laces, 
 etc. T. D. 30621 of May 19, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 35623; July 30, 1915.) 
 Drawback on floss, rope, cords, an.d loops, pillow slips and pillows, doilies, center- 
 pieces, and scarfs manufactured by the Bernhard iTlmann Co. (Inc.), of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of various imported materials. T. D. 30152 of Novem- 
 ber 30, 1909, T. D. 31024 of November 7, 1910, T. D. 31383 of March 14, 1911, T. 
 D. 33811 of October 27, 1913, T. D. 34365 of April 9, 1914, and T. D. 34812 of 
 October 7, 1914, revoked. (T. D. 35669; Aug. 20, 1915.) 
 Pills, tablets, etc. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Pineapples, canned. (See Drawback on fruits, canned.) 
 Pineapple, glac€ and crystallized. (See Drawback on fruits.) 
 Pipes and pipe bowls — 
 Drawback on pipe bowls manufactured by the Manhattan Briar Kpe Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported biierwood blocks. (T. D. 35480; June 
 2, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35480 of June 2, 1915, extended to cover pipes and pipe bowls manufactured 
 by Wm. Demuth & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported brier- 
 wood blocks. (T. D. 35536; June 15, 1915.) 
 Pipe connections. (See also Drawback on iron tubes, pipes, etc.) 
 Drawback allowed under T. D. 28136 of May 4, 1907, on flanged and screwed 
 fittings, pipe connections, valves, etc., manufactured with the use of imported 
 pig iron by the Crane Valve Co., of Bridgeport, Conn., successor to Eaton, 
 Cole & Bumham Co., of same place. (T. D. 29739; May 10, 1909.) 
 Pitch, heavy oil, and light oil- 
 Drawback on pitch, heavy oil, and light oil manufactured by the Barrett Manu- 
 facturing Co. , of Boston, Mass., from coal tar manufactured in part from imported 
 coal by the New England Gas & Coke Co. (T. D. 32266; Feb. 16, 1912.) 
 Plantation cars and railroad equipment — 
 Drawback on plantation cars and railroad equipment manufactured by the Gregg 
 Co. (Ltd.), of Hackensack,N. J., with the use of imported wheels. (T. D. 32687; 
 July 1, 1912.) 
 Plaster boards — 
 Drawback on fibrous plaster boards manufactured by J. B. King & Co., of New 
 York City, with the use of imported gypsum rock. (T. D. 30866; Aug. 9, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 319 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Plaster, ground land — 
 Drawback on ground land plaster manufactured by Deasy & Jones, of Red Beach, 
 Me., from imported crude gypsum. (T. D. 33097; Jan. 16, 1913.) ' 
 
 Plaster, wall — 
 Drawback on calcined or wall plaster manufactured bythe Keystone Plaster Co., 
 of Chester, Pa., with the use of imported gypsum rock. (T. D. 35893; Nov. 
 20, 1915.) 
 Plateaus. (See Drawback on clocks, candelabra, mirrors, and plateaus.) 
 Plate glass, be\^eled — 
 
 Drawback on beveled plate glass manufactured by the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 
 of New York, wholly with the use of imported plate glass. (T. D. 29402; Dec. 
 11, 1908.) 
 Plates, dry, photographic. (See Drawback on photographic plates.) 
 Plating racks — 
 Drawback on hard-rubber coated plating racks manufactured by the B. F. Good- 
 rich Co., of Akron, Ohio, with the use of imported iron plating racks. (T. D. 
 35850; Nov. 2, 1915^) 
 Player pianos. (See Drawback on pianos and player pianos.) 
 Plows — 
 Drawback on Benicia reversible disk plows manufactured by the Berdcia Iron 
 Works, Benicia, Oal., with the use of imported iron and steel. T. D. 25979 of 
 January 20, 1905, extended. (T. D. 28747; Feb. 7, 1908.) 
 Drawback on Benicia Hancock disk plows manufactured by the Benicia Iron 
 Works, of Benicia, Cal., in part from imported pig iron and round and flat steel. 
 T. D. 25979 of January 20, 1905, extended. (T. D. 30734; June 28, 1910.) 
 Plum pudding, etc.— 
 
 Drawback on plum pudding manufactured by Francis H. Leggett & Co., of New 
 York City, from imported citron and currants, and granulated sugar manufac- 
 tured from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 30284; Jan. 20, 1910.) . 
 Drawback on plum pudding manufactured by Atmore & Son, of Philadelphia, 
 with the use of imported currants, alcohol, and sugar refined from imported raw 
 sugar. T. D. 30284 of January 20, 1910, extended. (T. D. 30535; Apr. 14, 
 1910.) 
 Drawback on plum pudding, soups, spaghetti, and other food products manufac- 
 tured by the Franco-American Food Co., of Jersey City, N. J., with the use of 
 imported sugar, sherry wine, lemon peel, orange peel, currants, raisins, and 
 spaghetti. (T. D. 32788; Aug. 29, 1912.) 
 Plumbers' slabs. (See Drawback on monuments, marble.) 
 Plumbing appliances — 
 
 Drawback on sanitary plumbing appliances manufactured by James B. Clow & 
 Son, of Chicago, 111., from imported marble. (T. D. 32276; Feb. 19, 1912.) 
 Plushes, velvets, and similar fabrics. (See also Drawback on mohair plush.) 
 Drawback on plushes, velvets, and similar fabrics manufactured by Sidney Blu- 
 menthal & Co. (Inc.), of New York City, with the use of imported cotton yarn, 
 silk yam of various kinds, mohair yarn, artificial silk yarn, tussah spun silk, and 
 other materials. (T. D. 32659; June 25, 1912.) 
 Pneumatic actions for piano players- 
 Drawback on pneumatic actions exported as such or incorporated in pianos manu- 
 factured by the Auto Pneumatic Action Co., of New York City, with the use of 
 imported lambskin. (T. D. 80810; July 19, 1910.) 
 Pocketbooks, cardcases, etc. (See Drawback on leather bags and other articles.) 
 Pocket and hand mirrors. (See Drawback on mirrors.) 
 Polished rice. (See Drawback on rice.) 
 
320 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Foicelains for spark plugs. (See Drawback on core centers for spark plugs.) 
 Portable machine shops. (See Drawback on machiae shops, portable.) 
 tortieres and waU draperies. (See Drawback on curtains.) 
 Portraits — 
 Drawback on portraits manufactured by the Pioneer Portrait & Picture Frame Co., 
 of Chicago, lU., with the use of imported Steinbach paper. (T. D. 31997; Nov. 
 8, 1911.) 
 Post Toasties — 
 Drawback on flaked maize product, otherwise known as Post Toasties, manufac- 
 tured by the Postum Cereal Co. (Ltd.), of Battle Creek, Mich., in part with the 
 use of imported refined sugar. (T. D. 28737; Feb. 4, 1908.) 
 Potash, bitartrate of. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Powder — 
 Drawback on powder manufactured by the Trojan Powder Co., of San Francisco 
 Cal., in part from imported ammonium nitrate. (T. D. 32922; Nov. 9, 1912.) 
 Powder, bronze — 
 Drawback on so-called bronze powders manuiactiired by Baer Bros., of New York, 
 N. Y., with the use of imported powdered metal. (T. D. 35070; Jan. 20, 1915.) 
 Drawback on bronze powder produced by T. Kiessner, of New York, N. Y., from 
 imported bronze powder by combination with domestic bronze powder. (T. 
 D. 35254; Mar. 23, 1915.) 
 Powder, dental. (See Drawback on dental powder.) 
 Powder, giant dynamite. (See Drawback on giant dynamite powder.) 
 Powdered antimony. (See Drawback on antimony, powdered.) 
 Powdered cutch. (See Drawback on cutch.) 
 Powdered eggs. (See Drawback on eggs, powdered.) 
 Precious stones, cut and polished — 
 Drawback on diamonds and other precious stones imported by Nathan Hyman & 
 Co., of New York City, and cut or recut and polished. (T. D. 32499; May 10, 
 1912.) 
 Drawback on diamonds and other precious stones imported by Charles Simon, of 
 New York ttty, and cut or recut and polished. (T. D. 32500; May 10, 1912.) 
 Preparations for treating the hair and scalp. (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Preserved butter. (See Drawback on butter.) 
 Preserves — 
 Drawback on preserves, jelUes, jelly jams, marmalades, crystallized fruits, fruit 
 sirups, plum pudding, ketchup, etc., manufactured by Grordon & Dilworth, of. 
 New York, with the use of imported granulated sugar or granulated sugar refined 
 from imported raw sugar. T. D. 28973 of May 5, 1908, extended. (T. D. 30576; 
 Apr. 26, 1910.) 
 Drawback on preserves, jellies, jams, and other articles manufactured by Gordon 
 & Dilworth, of New York City, with the use of imported paprika, currants, 
 raisins, ginger, and olive oil. T. D. 30576 of April 26, 1910, and T. D. 28973 of 
 May 5, 1908, amended. (T. D. 30650; May 31, 1910.) 
 Press-copying books. (See Drawback on letter-press copying books.) 
 Printed sheets — 
 Drawback on printed sheets manufactured by the University Press, of Cambridge, 
 Mass., with the use of imported paper for the account of C. H. Langley, of Bos- 
 ton, Mass. (T. D. 33700; Aug. 20, 1913.) 
 Printing presses — 
 Drawback on printing presses manufactured by R. Hoe & Co., of New York City, 
 with the use of imported ball bearings, thrust washers with housings, ball thrust 
 washers, and hand spiral gears. (T. D. 32155; Jan. 18, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 321 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Printing type. (See Drawback on type.) 
 Profile and cioss-sectiou papers. (See Drawback on papers.) 
 Projectiles — 
 
 Drawback on projectiles manufactured by the Bethlehem Steel Co., of South, 
 Bethlehem, Pa., with the use of imported trotyl charges and fuses. (T. D. 
 33543; June 10, 1913.) 
 Protected electric meters — 
 Drawback on protected electric meters manufactured by the Northwestern Elec- 
 tric Equipment Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported electric 
 meters in connection with combination service and meter-testing cut-outs of 
 domestic manufacture. (T. D. §2154; Jan. 18, 1912.) 
 Pulled and graded wsol. (See Drawback on wool.) 
 Pulp colors. (See Drawback on colors.) 
 Pulverizing mills — 
 Drawback on pulverizing mills manufactured by the Abb^ Engineering Co., of 
 New York City, with the use of imported porcelain jars. (T. D. 31175; Jan. 5, 
 1911.) 
 Drawback on pulverizing mills manufactured by the Pennebacker Co., of Emaus, 
 Pa., with the use of imported procelain jars, for the account of Paul O. Abbe, 
 of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35189; Mar. 8, 1915.) 
 Babbit or coney skins. (See Drawback on skins, rabbit or coney.) 
 Backs, plating. (See Drawback on plating racks.) 
 Badiopticans — 
 
 Drawback on radiopticans manufactured by the H. C. White Co., of North Ben- 
 nington, Vt., with the use of imported electrical plugs or adapters. (T. D. 
 33063; Jan. 4, 1913.) 
 Badway's Beady Belief. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Bail joints — 
 Drawback on continuous rail joints manufactured by the Rail Joint Co., of Troy, 
 N. Y., with the use of imported steel billets. T. D. 23809 of June 20, 1902, and 
 T. D. 27951 of February 28, 1907, revoked. (T. D. 33467; May 28, 1913.) 
 Bails, steel. (See Drawback on steel rails.) 
 Ballway cars — 
 
 Department's regulations of April 13, 1903 (T. D. 24350), and September 5, 1906 
 (T. D. 27592), extended to cover railway cars manufactured by the American 
 Car & Foundry Co., of New York, with the use of imported axles and wheels 
 of rolled or forged iron and steel. (T. D. 30242; Jan. 8, 1910.) 
 Drawback on railway passenger cars manufactured by the American Oar & Foundry 
 Co., of Wilmington, Del., with the use of imported automatic brake fittings.' (T. 
 D. 33830; Nov. 3, 1913.) 
 Drawback on railway cars manufactured by the American Car & Foundry Co., of 
 Wilmington, Del., with the use of imported wheels and axles and vacuum brake 
 equipment. (T. D. 34079; Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 Drawback on railway cars manufactured by the Barney & Smith Car Co., of Day- 
 ton, Ohio, with the use of imported steel-tired wheels, journal boxes, glass, mir- 
 rors, and other materials. (T. D. 32553; May 24, 1912.) 
 Drawback on railway cars manufactured by the Harlan & Hollingsworth Co., of 
 Wilmington, Del., with fhe use of various imported materials. (T. D. 35804; 
 Oct. 19, 1915.) 
 45633°— 17 21 
 
322 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Sailway cars — Continued. 
 
 T. D. 35804 of October 19, 1915, extended to cover street cars, passenger cars, cai 
 trucks, omnibuses, and motor trucks manufactured by the J. G. Biill Co., of 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of various imported materials and parts. (T. 
 D. 35840; Oct. 30, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on railway freight cars and parts manufactured by the Greggs Co. 
 (Ltd.), of Hackensack, N. J., with the use of imported steel. (T. D. 34490; 
 June 1, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on railway cars manufactured by the Magor Car Co., of New York City, 
 with the use of imported wheels and axles. (T. D. 32261; Feb. 14, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on 14 railway cars manufactured by the Magor Car Co., of New York, 
 N. Y., with the use of imported Gresham & Craven automatic vacuum brakes 
 and couplings. (T. D. 33991; Dec. 18, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on railway cars manufactured by the Middletown Car Co., of Middle- 
 town, Pa., with the use of imported air brakes. T. D. 24326 of March 31, 1903, 
 extended. (T. D. 30456; Mar. 24, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on railroad cars manufactured by the Middletown Car Works, of Middle- 
 town, Pa., with the use of imported bronze journal bearings. (T. D. 32657; 
 June 25, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on machinery cars and coal cars manufactured by the Middletown Car 
 Co., of Middletown, Pa., with the use of various imported materials and parts. 
 T. D. 24326 of March 31, 1903, T. D. 27140 of February 21, 1906, T. D. 30456 
 of March 24, 1910, and T. D. 32657 of June 25, 1912, revoked. (T. D. 35942; 
 Dec. 4, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35942 of December 4, 1915, amended as to the class of articles on which 
 drawback is allowed. (T. D. 35993; Dec. 14, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on sleeping cars, dining cars, colonists' cars, parlor caf^ cars, tourist cars, 
 and first-class coaches manufactured by the Pullman Co., of Pullman, 111., with 
 the use of various imported materials and parts. (T. D. 33400; May 8, 1913.) 
 Railway equipment. (See Drawback on plantation cars and railway equipment.) 
 Railway passenger coaches — 
 
 Drawback on narrow-gauge steam railway passenger coaches manufactured by the 
 J. G. BriU Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported vacuum automatic 
 brakes, provided such brakes are permanently attached to the cars. T. D. 
 26432 of June 5, 1905, extended. (T. D. 31073; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on railway passenger coaches manufactured by the Osgood Bradley 
 Car Co., of Worcester, Mass., with the use of imported glass windows. (T. D. 
 34656; July 21, 1914.) 
 Railway switches and frogs — 
 
 Drawback on railroad switches and frogs manufactured by the Frog, Switch & 
 Manufacturing Co., of Carlisle, Pa., in part from imported rails. T. D. 19122 of 
 March 22, 1898, extended. (T. D. 30560; Apr. 22, 1910.) 
 Railway tires. (See Drawback on steel railway tires.) 
 Rain cloth- 
 Drawback on rain cloth manufactured by or for and on account of B. Priestley & 
 Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported cloths. (T. D. 32885; Oct. 
 24, 1912.) 
 Rain coats and linen dusters — 
 
 Drawback on raincoats and Unen dusters manufactured by the Sanborn Manufac- 
 turing Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported worsted and linen 
 raorics. (T. D. 33542, June 10, 1912.) 
 Raisins and currants, cleaned. (See Drawback on currants and raisins.) 
 Reapers. (See Drawback on machinery, agricultural.) 
 Recleaned and polished rice. (See Drawback on rice.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 323 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Becordlng electric meters — 
 
 Drawback on recording electric meters manufactured by the Minerallac Electric 
 
 Co., of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported meters in combination with 
 
 printing devices of domestic manufacture. (T. D. 30460; Mar. 25, 1910.) 
 Bed Label Enamolin. (See Drawback on enamolin.) 
 Bed pepper and prepared sage — 
 
 Drawback on red pepper and prepared sage manufactured by the A. Colburn Co., 
 
 of Philadelphia, Pa., from imported -sage and red-pepper pods. (T. D. 29716; 
 
 Apr. 28, 1909.) 
 Drawback on red pepper and sage manufactured by the R. T. French Co., of 
 
 Rochester, N. Y., from imported red-pepper pods and sage in the leaf. (T. D. 
 
 30039; foct. 12, 1909.) 
 Drawback on ground red pepper and green sage produced by the R. T. French Co., 
 
 of Rochester, N. Y., from imported red-pepper pods and sage. (T. D. 36022; 
 
 Dec. 29, 1915.) 
 Beflned asphalt. (See Drawback on asphalt.) 
 Befined chicle. (See Drawback on chicle, refined.) 
 Refined essential oil of orange. (See Drawback on oils, orange.) 
 Befined glycerin and dynamite. (See Drawback on glycerin and on dynamite 
 
 and refined glycerin.) 
 Befined molasses. (See Drawback on molasses.) 
 Befined peanut oil. (See Drawback on oils, peanut.) 
 Befined sperm oil, spermaceti, etc. (See Drawback on sperm oil.) 
 "Benne's Pain-Killing Magic OU" — 
 Manufactured by Doctor Herrick's Family Medicine Co. (See Drawback on 
 
 medicinal preparations.) 
 Beno's New Health. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Benovated butter. (See Drawback on butter.) 
 Beuter's sirup, concentrated — 
 
 Drawback on Renter's sirup, concentrated, manufactured by Barclay & Co., of 
 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported alcohol. (T. D. 34503; June 2, 
 
 1914.) 
 Beuter's soap. (See Drawback on soap.) 
 
 Bevolving flats and revolving flat-card machines. (See Drawback on flats, revolv- 
 ing, and 'revolving flat-card machines.) 
 Bheumatine Gontaline. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Bibbon cloth — 
 Drawback on nonfilling slit ribbon cloth manufactured for and on account of 
 
 Hermann, Schutte & Co., of New York City, with the use of imported un- 
 bleached muslin. (T. D. 29225; Aug. 24, 1908.) 
 Bibbon gold leaf. (See Drawback on gold leaf.) 
 Bibbons, braids, bands, etc. (See Drawback on trimmings, braids, bands, and 
 
 ribbons.) 
 Bibbons, chiffons, and other materials. (See Drawback on silk.) 
 Bibbons, typewriter, i (See Drawback on typewriter ribbons.) 
 Bibs and frames of umbrellas. (See Drawback on umbrellas, ribs and frames.) 
 Bice — 
 
 Drawback on cleaned rice manufactured by the Northwest Rice Milling Co., of 
 
 Portland, Oreg., from imported rough or brown Cidna rice. (T. D. 32992; Dec. 
 
 5, 1912.) 
 
324 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Kioe — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on milled rice designated as triple screened rice, fancy head rice, line 
 rice, polished rice, second head rice, screened rice, and brewers' rice, and on 
 by-products designated as meal No. 1, meal No. 2, and paddy shoe tailings, 
 produced by the Seaboard Rice Milling Co., of Galveston, Tex., from imported 
 rice. (T. D. 34084; Jan. 26, 1914.) 
 Drawback on milled or cleaned rice produced by M. J. Brandenstein & Co., of San 
 Francisco, Cal., from imported brown or imcleaned rice. (T. D. 35204; Mar. 
 11, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35204 of March 11, 1915, extended to cover cleaned or polished rice produced 
 by M. Phillips & Co., of Sacramento, Cal., from imported brown or uncleaned 
 rice. (T. D. 35617; July 29, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35204 of March 11, 1915, extended to cover polished rice produced by M. J. 
 Brandenstein & Co., San Francisco, Cal., from imported uncoated cleaned rice. 
 (T. D. 35400; May 13, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35204 of March 11, 1915, extended to cover polished rice produced by M. J. 
 Brandenstein & Co., of San Francisco, Cal., from imported cleaned Siam or 
 China rice. (T. D. 35572; July 8, 1915.) 
 Drawback on polished rice manufactured by the Empire Rice Mill Co. (Ltd.), of 
 New Orleans, La., with the use of imported brown rice. (T. D. 35743; Oct. 
 4, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35743 of October 4, 1915, extended to cover polished rice manufactured by 
 the Standard Milling Co., of Houston, Tex., with the use of Japan rice or brown 
 rice. (T. D. 35803; Oct. 20, 1915.) 
 Drawback on recleaned and recleaned and polished rice produced by Walter J. 
 Moses & Co., of New York, N. Y., from imported cleaned rice. (T. D. 36005; 
 Dec. 20, 1915.) 
 Drawback on polished rice produced by M. Phillips & Co., of San Francisco, Cal., 
 from imported cleaned rice. (T. D. 36020; Dec. 29, 1915.) 
 Rice cookers. (See Drawback on brewers' combined mash tubs, etc.) 
 Bobes, carriage. (See Drawback on carriage robes.) 
 
 Kobes, waistes, dresses, etc. (See Drawback on clothing, ladies' waistes, etc.) 
 Bod packing — 
 Drawback on Daniel's P. P. P. rod packing manufactured by the Quaker City 
 Rubber Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported hemp. (T. D. 
 29525; Feb. 4, 1909.) 
 T. D. 29525, of February 4, 1909, providing for an allowance of drawback on 
 Daniel's P. P. P. rod packing manufactured by the Quaker City Rubber Co., 
 of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported hemp, extended to cover addi- 
 tional sizes of packing. (T. D. 31692; June 15, 1911.) 
 Bods, wire. (See Drawback on wire rods.) 
 RoU gold leaf. (See Drawback on gold leaf.) 
 BoUed barley — 
 Drawback on rolled barley manufactured by the Globe Grain & Milling Co., of 
 Los Angles, Cal., with the use of imported barley. (T. D. 32432; Apr. 25, 1912.) 
 Boiled oats. (See Drawback on oats, rollgd.) 
 Boiler mills. (See Drawback on mills.) 
 
 BoUers, carding engine. (See Drawback on carding-engine rollers.) 
 Boilers, lithographic. (See Drawback on lithographic rollers.) 
 BoUers, rubber-covered. (See Drawback on rubber-covered rollers.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 325 
 
 Dtawback on — Continued. 
 Boofing paper— 
 
 T. D. 26755 o£ October 3, 1905, providing for an allowance of drawback on roofing 
 paper manufactured by the Flintkote Manufacturing Co., of Butherford, N. J., 
 with the use of imported palm stearin pitch, amended. (T. D. 31553; May 3, 
 1911.) 
 Bope, wire. (See Drawback on wire rope.) 
 Boyal Ascot Cigarettes. (See Drawback on cigaretteB.) 
 Bubber cloths — 
 
 Drawback on rubber cloths manufactured by L. J. Mutty Co., of Boston, Mass., 
 with the use of imported cotton, silk, woolen, and mohair cloths. (T. D. 31980; 
 Oct. 30, 1911.) 
 T. D. 31980 of October 30, 1911, extended to provide for the payment of drawback 
 on rubber cloths when manufactured for the account of the L. J. Mutty Co., of 
 Boston, Mass., by various manufacturing concerns. (T. D. 33628; July 16, 
 1913.) 
 Bubber-covered rollers — 
 
 Drawback on rubber-covered rollers manufactured by the Boston Belting Co., of 
 Boston, Mass., in part with the use of imported iron and steel rolls. (T. D. 
 28961; Apr. 23, 1908.) 
 Bubber extractors and varnish separators — 
 
 Drawback on rubber extractors and varnish separators manufactured by the Em- 
 pire Cream Separator Co., of Bloomfield, N. J., with the use of imported "No. 
 15 Crown Separators." (T. D. 32927; Nov. 11, 1912.) 
 Bugs, wool. (See Drawback on wool products.) 
 Bules. (See Drawback on measuring tapes and rules.) 
 Saccharin — 
 Drawback on saccharin manufactured by Fries Bros., of New York, N. Y., from 
 imported orthotoluolsulfamid and potassium permanganate. (T. D. 32891; 
 Oct. 28, 1912.) 
 Drawback on refined saccharin, crest saccharin, and crystal saccharin manufac- 
 tured by the Heyden Chemical Works, of New York, N. Y., with the use of 
 imported orthotoluolsulfamid and postassium permanganate. (T. D. 36014; 
 Dec. 23, 1915.) 
 Safe doors — 
 Drawback on fiaiished safe doors, exported as a part nf safes or separately, manu- 
 factured by the Ely-Norris Safe Co., of Perth Amboy, N. J., with the use of 
 imported steel castings. (T. D. 30361; Feb. 16, 1910.) * 
 Safety-razor blades — 
 Drawback on safety-razor blades manufactured by the Fremont Crescent Metal 
 & Manufacturing Co., of Fremont, Ohio, irom imported English ribbon steel. 
 T. D. 29217 of August 19, 1908, extended. (T. D. 29831; June 12, 1909.) 
 Drawback on safety-razor blades manufactured by the Gillette Safety Eazor Co., 
 of Boston, Mass, with the use of Swedish and English ribbon steel. (T. D. 
 29217; Aug. 19, 1908.) 
 Drawback on safety-razor blades, finished and unfinishad, manufactured by the 
 Gillette Safety Razor Co., of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported Swedish 
 and English ribbon steel. T. D. 29217 of August 19, 1908, revoked. (T. D. 
 33060; Jan. 3, 1913.) 
 Safety razors — 
 Drawback on safety razors manufactured by the Zepp Safe-Razor Co., of New York, 
 •with the use of imported blades. (T. D. 32875; Oct. 22, 1912.) 
 
326 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Sage, piepaied — 
 Drawback on red pepper and sage manufactuied by the R. T. French Co., of 
 Rochester, N. Y., from imported red-pepper pods and sage in the leai. (T. D. 
 30039; Oct. 12, 1909.) 
 Sage and red pepper. (See Drawback on red pepper and sage.) 
 Sagwa. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Sailcloth, etc. (See Drawback on lighter covers, sailcloth, etc.) 
 Sample cards — 
 Drawback on sUk-thread sample cards manufactured by the Hatheway-Sheffield 
 Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported silk thread. (T. D. 33608; 
 July 11, 1913.) 
 Sample suit cases. (See Drawback on leather bags and other articles.) 
 Sanctuary oil. (See Drawback on oils, sanctuary.) 
 Sanitary pluiubing appliances. (See Drawback on plumbing appliances.) 
 Sanitol Hair Tonic. (See Drawback on hair tonic.) 
 Santo Vacuum Cleaners and Santo Sweepers. (See Drawback on vacuum cleaners 
 
 and sweepers.) 
 SarsaparUla — 
 Drawback on sarsaparilla manufactured by the Nostrand Trading Co., of Brook- 
 lyn, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid or imported alcohol. T. D. 26364 
 of May 15, 1905, amended. (T. D. 31221; Jan. 16, 1911.) 
 Satchels and dress-suit cases. (See Drawback on leather bags and other articles.) 
 Sateens — 
 Drawback on printed, dyed, and bleached sateens imported in the gray and manu- 
 factured by a process of printing, dyeing, and bleaching for and on account of 
 A. S. Laecelles & Co., of New York. (T. D. 31412; Mar. 21, 1911.) 
 Sausage — 
 T. D. 27477 of July 11, 1906, as amended by T. D. 29682 of April 9, 1909, extended 
 to provide for the payment of drawback on chorizos sausages manufactured by 
 Morris & Co., with the use of imported red pepper. (T. D. 34041; Jan. 3, 1914.) 
 Drawback on chorizos sausage manufactured by the Cudahy Packing Co., of South 
 Omaha, Nebr., with the use in part of imported piinenton. T. D. 27312 of April 
 26, 1906, extended. (T. D. 28838; Mar. 13, 1908.) 
 Drawback on sausage manufactured by Morris & Co., of Chicago, 111., with the use 
 of imported red pepper. T. D. 27477 of July 11, 1906, extended. (T.D. 29682; 
 Apr. 10, 1909.) 
 Saw plates — 
 Drawback on saw plates manufactured by the E. C. Atkins Co., of Indianapolis, 
 Ind., from imported steel plates by the process of hardening and tempering. 
 (T. D. 30692; June 13, 1910.) 
 Saws^ 
 Drawback on saws manufactured by the E. C. Atkins Co., of Indianapolis, Ind., 
 
 with the use of imported steel plates. (T. D. 31820; Aug. 16, 1911.) 
 Drawback on saws manufactured by the E. C. Atkins Co., of Indianapolis, Ind., 
 with the use of imported steel. T. D. 31820 of August 16, 1911, revoked. (T. 
 D. 34644; July 15, 1914.) 
 Drawback on cotton-gin saws manufactured by the Carver Cotton Gin Co., of Bast 
 Bridgewater, Mass., from imported sheet steel. T. D. 26291 of April 18, 1905, 
 amended. (T. D. 29842; June 14, 1909.) 
 Drawback on cotton-gin saws 12^ inches in diameter manufactured by the Conti- 
 nental Gin Co., of Dallas, Tex., from imported sheet steel. T. D. 23580 of 
 , March 10, 1902, extended. (T. D. 30115; Nov. 17, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 327 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Saws — Continued. 
 Drawback on band saws and saws in coils manufactured by John L. Fowie, Read- 
 ing, Mass., with the use of steel imported in coils. (T. D. 34232; Mar. 5, 1914;) 
 Saws, band and ciiculai — 
 Drawback on band and circular saws manufactured by Joshua Oldham & Sons, of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported saw plates. T. D. 15067 of June 28, 
 1894, revoked. (T. D. 32476; May 1, 1912.) 
 Saws, cotton-gin. (See Cotton-gin saws.) 
 Scales — 
 Drawback on scales manufactured by the Computing Scale Co., of Dayton, Ohio, 
 
 with the use of imported agates. (T. D. 29580; Feb. 25, 1909.) 
 Drawback on scales manufactured by the Computing Scale Co., of Dayton, Ohio, 
 
 with the use of imported plate glass. (T. D. 29891; July 1, 1909.) 
 Drawback on scales manufactured by the W; F. Stimpson Co., of Detroit, Mich., 
 with the use of imported glass and agate scale bearings. T. D. 29891 of July 1) 
 1909, extended. (T. D. 31470; Apr. 7, 1911.) 
 Drawback on transit scales manufactured by the J. C. Ulmer Co., of Cleveland, 
 Ohio, with the use of imported brass blanks. (T. D. 33636; July 18, 1913.) 
 Scarfs, centerpieces. (See Drawback on pillow slips, scarfs, etc.) 
 Scarfs, silk. (See Drawback on silk.) 
 
 Seal furs, imitation. (See Drawback on furs, imitation seal.) 
 Seat and top covers for automobiles. (See Drawback on automobile covers.) 
 Self-starting devices for automobiles- 
 Drawback on self -starting devices for automobiles manufactured by Gray & Davis 
 (Inc.), of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported ball bearings, for the account 
 of the Lozier Motor Co., of Detroit, Mich. (T. D. 34687; Aug. 6, 1914.) 
 "Seng." (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Sen-Sen Throat Ease — 
 Drawback on Sen-Sen Throat Ease and Breath Perfume manufactured by the Sen- 
 Sen Co., of Rochester, N. Y., in part from domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 
 30219; Dee. 21, 1909.) 
 Sewing machines. (See Drawback on machines.) 
 Shade rollers — 
 Drawback on shade rollers manufactured by the American Shade Roller Co., of 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported lumber. (T. D. 31858; Sept. 15, 
 1911.) 
 Drawback on shade rollers manufactured by the Ball Bearing Shade Roller Co., 
 of Naugatuck, Conn., with the use of imported springs and ball bearings, and 
 blank rollers manufactured for their account by the Vermont Shade Roller Co., 
 of Burlington, Vt., from pickets imported under the tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 34301; Mar. 21, 1914.) 
 Shawls, finished — 
 Drawback' on finished shawls manufactured by P. W. Lambert & Co., of New 
 York City, with the use of imported woolen shawls. (T. D. 31129; Dec. 19, 
 1910.) 
 Sheepskins, tanned — 
 Drawback on tanned sheepskins with the wool on manufactured by Winslow 
 Bros. & Smith Co., of' Norwood, Mass., from imported untanned sheepskins. 
 (T. D. 31062; Nov. 22, 1910.) 
 Sheet lead, autimouial. (See Drawback on lead.) 
 
 Sheets, cloth and paper, micanite. (See Drawback on oiled silk, linen, cotton 
 cloth, etc.) 
 
328 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 SheUs— 
 Drawback on gun shells manufactured by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, of 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported copper bands. (T. D. 35759; Oct. 
 
 9, 1915.) 
 Shells and cartridges, loaded — 
 Drawback on loaded shells and cartridges manufactured by the Peters Cartridge 
 
 Co., of Cinciimati, Ohio, from imported lead or lead refined from imported ore. 
 
 (T. D. 32477; May 2, 1912.) 
 Shelves, glass, etc. (See Drawback on glass articles.) 
 Shields, dress. (See Drawback on dress shields.) 
 Shoe cloth — 
 Drawback on shoe cloth manufactured by Famsworth, Hoyt & Co., of Boston, 
 
 Mass., with the use of imported fabrics. (T. D. 35403; May 14, 1915). 
 Drawback on shoe cloth manufactured by C. Stohn's Sons, of Jersey City Heights, 
 
 N. J., with the use of imported cotton and gutta-percha tissue. (T. D. 29748; 
 
 May 12, 1909.) 
 Drawback on shoe cloth manufactured for and on account of J. Einstein, of New 
 
 York City, from imported cloth by the process of dyeing. (T. D. 32597; June 
 
 5, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32597 of June 5, 1912, extended to provide for the filing of supplemental 
 
 sworn statements. (T. D. 35381; May 8, 1915.) 
 Drawback on shoe cloth manufactured by the Einstein Manufacturing Co., of 
 
 New York City, and the Conunonwealth Manufacturing Co., of Boston, Mass., 
 
 with the use of imported velvets, worsteds, and gutta-percha tissue. T. D. 
 
 29748 of May 12, 1909, extended. (T. D. 32749; July 30, 1912.) 
 Drawback on shoe cloth manufactured for and on account of Henry Gitterman & 
 
 Co., of New York City, from imported worsted cloth in the gi'ay or dyed. (T. 
 
 D. 30653; May 31, 1910.) 
 Drawback on shoe cloth manufactured in part from imported cotton yarn for and 
 
 on account of Albert Herzog, of New York. (T. D. 32792; Aug. 30, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32792 of August 30, 1912, extended to cover shoe cloth manufactured for 
 
 the account of Albert Herzog, of New York, with the use of imported cotton 
 
 yam and gutta-percha tissue. (T. D. 32896; Oct. 29, 1912.) 
 Drawback on shoe cloth man\ifactured for the account of the Julius Elallman Co., 
 
 of Boston, Mass., by the Windram Manufacturing Co., of Boston, Mass., with 
 
 the use of imported worsted cloth. (T. D. 34633; July 14, 1914.) 
 Drawback on shoe cloth manufactured by C. Stohn's Sons, of Jersey City Heights, 
 
 N. J., with the use of imported cotton and gutta-percha tissue. T. D. 29748 of 
 
 May 12, 1909, amended. (T. D. 32546; May 22, 1912.) 
 Shoe counters — 
 Drawback on shoe counters manufactured by the Colvmibia Counter Co., of Bos- 
 ton, Mass., with the use of imported fiber board. (T. D. 35690; Sept. 1, 1915.) 
 Shoe laces — • 
 Drawback on shoe laces manufactured by the Blackstone Webbing Co., of Paw- 
 tucket, R. I., from imported No. 60 two-ply cotton yams andmetaltips. T.D. 
 
 28455 of October 21, 1907, extended. (T. D. 28943; Apr. 20, 1908.) 
 Drawback on shoe laces manufactured by the International Braid Co., of Provi- 
 dence, R. I., with the use of imported artificial silk yam. (T. D. 35406; May 
 
 15, 1915.) 
 Shoe lasts — 
 Drawback on shoe lasts manufactured by the Shoe Hardware Co., of Waterbury, 
 
 Conn., with the use of imported aluminum. (T. D. 32235; Feb. 8, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 329 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Shoe topping — 
 
 Drawback on shoe topping manufactured by Seamans & Cobb Co., of Boston, 
 Mass., with the use of imported velveteen. T. D. 30653 of May 81, 1910, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 31557; May 4, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on water, spot, and moth proof shoe-topping cloth manufactured from 
 imported corkscrew worsted and cotton coating cloth for the account of Rous- 
 maniere, Williams & Co., of Boston, Mass. (T. D. 38803; Oct. 23, 1913.) 
 Shoe vamps — 
 
 Drawback on imported shoe vamps manufactured in the United States by the 
 Reproduction Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., by decorating with a printed design. 
 (T. D. 33564; June 13, 1913.) 
 Shoes — 
 
 Drawback on men's and women's shoes manufactured by Thomas Cort (Inc.), of 
 Newark, N. J., with the use of imported French calfskin, patent calfskin, and 
 woolen-back cloth. (T. D. 33403; May 10, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33403 of May 10, 1918, extended to cover shoes manufactured by the T. D. 
 Barry Co., of Brockton, Mass., with the use of imported cloth. (T. D. 34073; 
 Jan. 21, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on shoes manufactured by the J. & T. Cousins Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., 
 with the use of imported cloth. (T. D. 33627; July 16, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on shoes manufactured by J. H. Durgin & Co., of Haverhill, Mass., for 
 ' and on account of the Peerless Shoe Co., of Boston, in part with the use of im- 
 ported cut soles. T. D. 29066 of June 15, 1908, extended. (T. D. 30014; Sept. 
 28, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on shoes manufactured in part from imported cut soles by the C. A. 
 Ellis Co., of Newburyport, Mass. T. D. 25504 of August 2, 1904, extended. (T. 
 D. 29066; June 15, 1908.) 
 
 T. D. 33627 of July 16, 1913, covering drawback on shoes manufactured by the 
 J. & T. Cousins Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., extended to cover shoes manufactured 
 by Laird, Schober & Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported cork- 
 screw cloth. (T. D. 33702; Aug. 20, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on ladies' shoes manufactured by A. E. Little & Co., of Lynn, Mass., 
 with the use of imported cloth. T. D. 30000 of September 17, 1909, extended. 
 (T. D. 30183; Nov. 23, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on shoes of various kinds manufactured by A. E. Little & Co., of Lynn, 
 Mass., with the use of imported gray striped cloth, black, white, and tanned 
 corkscrew cloth, and other kinds of imported cloth. T. D. 80133 and T. D. 
 30828 revoked. (T. D. 31983; Oct. 19, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on shoes manufactured by the Thomas G. Plant Co. with the use of 
 imported buckles, slides, buttons, ornaments, and woolen cloths. (T. D. 35901; 
 Nov. 24, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on shoes manufactured by the Regal Shoe Co., of Whitman, Mass., 
 with the use of imported cut outer soles. T. D. 25504 of August 2, 1904, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 31440; Mar. 31, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on shoes manufactured by the Regal Shoe Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., 
 with the use of imported corkscrew worsted cloth or similar imported cloth. 
 (T. D. 35953; Dec. 7, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on shoes manufactured by Rice & Hutchins, of Boston, Mass., with the 
 use of imported wool cloth. (T. D. 34313; Mar. 27, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on shoes manufactured by the Selby Shoe Co., of Portsmouth, Ohio, 
 with the use of imported whipcord, corkscrew, and velvet cloth. (T. D. 33149; 
 Feb. 3, 1913.) 
 
330 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Shoes — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on shoes manufactured by the J. P. Smith Shoe Co., of Chicago, 111., 
 in part with the use of imported cut soles. T. D. 25504 of August 2, 1904, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 28984; May 11, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on shoes manufactured by the Syracuse Shoe Manufacturing Co., of 
 Syracuse, N. Y., in part with the use of imported cut soles. T. D. 25504 of 
 August 2, 1904, extended. (T. D. 29136; July 6, 1908.) 
 
 T. D. 22961, as amended by T. D. 28930, extended to cover ladies' footwear manu- 
 factured by the John J. Lattemann Shoe Manufacturing Co., of New York City, 
 with the use of imported gold and silver cloth and other similar materials. (T. 
 D. 32897; Oct. 29, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on men's and women's shoes manufactured by Hanan & Son, of Brook- 
 lyn, N. Y., with the use of imported woolen cloth and dressed deer and antelope 
 skins. (T. D. 32416; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on men's and women's shoes manufactured by George E. Keith Co., 
 of Campello, Mass., with the use of imported corlacrew, velvet, satin, and other 
 cloth. (T. D. 31152; Dec. 29, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on men's and women's shoes manufactured by the George E. Keith Co., 
 of Campello, Mass., with the use of imported corkscrew, velvet, satin, and other 
 cloth. T.D. 31152 of December 29, 1910, revoked. (T.D. 32652; June 25, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 32652 of June 25, 1912, extended to cover women's high and low shoes manu- 
 factured by Edwin C. Burt Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 cloth. (T. D. 32931; Nov. 12, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on women's boots, oxford ties, and slippers manufactured wholly or 
 in part from imported materials. T. D. 22961 of April 15, 1901, and T. D. 26302 
 of April 24, 1905, extended. (T. D. 28930; Apr. 11, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on women's shoes manufactured by A. E. Little & Co., of Lynn, Mass., 
 with the use of imported black, white, and tanned corkscrew cloth. (T. D. 
 31828; Aug. 21, 1911.) 
 Shops, portable machine. (See Drawback on machine shops, portable.) 
 Showcases, etc. (See Drawback on glass articles.) 
 Shrapnel. (See Drawback on lead, manufactures of.) 
 Sieve cloths — 
 
 Drawback on sieve cloths manufactured by the Multi-Metal Separating Screen Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported wire cloth. (T. D. 33236; Feb. 
 28, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on artificial silk imported in the gray and dyed for and on account of 
 Berizzi Bros. Co., of New York, by William Teschemacher Co., of Brooklyn, 
 N. Y. (T. D. 30372; Feb. 24, 1910.) 
 Silk- 
 Artificial, dyed — 
 
 Drawback on artificial silk imported in the gray and dyed for and on account of 
 Berizzi Bros. Co., of New York, N. Y., by William Teschemacher Co., of Brook- 
 lyn, N. Y. (T. D. 30372; Feb. 24, 1910.) 
 
 T. D. 26684 of August 30, 1905, amended to provide for actual wastage in connec- 
 tion with artificial silk imported in the gray and dyed or dyed and spooled for 
 and on account of the Chardonnet Artificial Silk Co., of New York City. (T. 
 D. 32393; Apr. 12, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on artificial silk imported in the gray, dyed for and (^'account of M. J. 
 Corbett & Co., of New York, by the William Teschemacher Co., of Brooklyn, 
 N. Y. T. D. 26684 of August 30, 1905, extended. (T. D. 30539; Apr. 18, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on artificial silk imported in the gray, dyed for and on account of M. J. 
 Corbett & Co., of New York, by Schnorf & Englert, New Durham, N. J., and 
 others. T. D. 30539 of April 18, 1910, extended. (T. D. 32062; Dec. 6, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 331 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Silk — Continued . 
 Aitificlal, dyed — Continued. 
 Drawback on artificial eilk imported in the gray and dyed for and on account of 
 
 M. L. Eckstein & Co., of New York, by the William Teschemacher Co., of 
 
 Brooklyn, N. Y. T. D. 26684 of August 30, 1905, extended. (T. D. 30461; 
 
 Mar. 25, 1910.) 
 T. D. 26684 of August 30, 1905, extended to cover artificial silk imported in the 
 
 gray and dyed for and on account of M. L. Eckstein & Co., of New York, by Abe 
 
 Stuermann, of Jersey City, N. J. (T. D. 33092; Jan. 16, 1913.) 
 Drawback on dyed and spooled artificial silk manufactured from imported silk 
 
 in the gray for and on account of the International Artificial Silk Co., of New 
 
 York City, by Messrs. Schnorf & Englert, of New Durham, N. J. T. D. 26684 
 
 of August 30, 1905, extended. (T. D. 30429; Mar. 15, 1910.) 
 Drawback on dyed artificial silk and imitation horsehair manufactured for and 
 
 on account of Ludwig Littauer, of New York, with the use of imported artificial 
 
 raw silk and imitation horsehair. T. D. 26684 of August 30, 1905, extended. 
 
 (T. D. 29782; May 26, 1909.) 
 Drawback on artificial silk imported in the gray and dyed or dyed and spooled by 
 
 Ludwig Littauer, of New York. (T. D. 32120; Dec. 28, 1911.) 
 Drawback on dyed and spooled artificial silk manufactured from imported artifi- 
 cial silk in the gray for and on account of Mindlin & Rosemnan, of New York 
 
 City, by F. P. Maupai, of the same place. T. D. 26684 of August 30, 1905, 
 
 extended. (T. D. 30407; Mar. 7, 1910.) 
 Drawback on artificial silk imported in the gray and dyed, or dyed and spooled 
 
 for and on account of G. Robison & Co., of New York City. T. D. 26684 of 
 
 August 30, 1905, extended. (T. D. 31094; Dec. 8, 1910.) 
 Drawback on artificial silk imported in the gray and dyed and spooled for and on 
 
 account of G. Robison & Co., New York City. T. D. 26684 of August 30, 1905, 
 
 extended. (T. D. 32809; Sept. 4, 1912.) 
 Drawback on dyed artificial silk manufactured from imported raw silk by or for 
 
 and on account of S. A. Salvage, of Brooklyn, N. Y. T. D. 26684 of August 30, 
 
 1905, extended. (T. D. 29641; Mar. 23, 1909.) 
 Drawback on artificial silk, spooled, dyed, or dyed and spooled, by F. A. Straus 
 
 & Co., of New York, said artificial silk being imported in the form of yarns in 
 
 the gray. T. D. 26684 of August 30, 1905, extended. (T. D. 30693; June 13, 
 
 1910.) 
 Drawback on artificial silk imported in the gray and dyed for and on account of 
 
 Abe Stuermann, of Jersey City, N. J. (T. D. 32343; Apr. 1, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32343 of April 1, 1912, amended to provide for the allowance of drawback on 
 
 artificial silk imported in the gray and dyed for and on account of Paul Putt- 
 
 mann, of New York City, by Abe Stuermann, of Jersey City, N. J. (T. D. 
 
 32391; Apr. 11, 1914.) 
 Drawback on dyed artificial silk imported in the gray and dyed and spooled by 
 
 the Union Novelty Co. , of New York. T. D. 26684 of August 30, 1905, extended. 
 
 CT. D. 31059; Nov. 22, 1910.) 
 Artificial, redyed. 
 T. D. 26684 of August 30, 1905, extended to cover dyed artificial silk redyed by 
 
 the William Teschemacher Co., of New York, N. Y., for the account of M. L. 
 
 Eckstein & Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 34960; Dec. 3, 1914.) 
 Artificial, spooled and twisted — 
 Drawback on twisted and spooled artificial silk manufactured by Ludwig Littauer, 
 
 of New York, from imported artificial silk in the gray. (T. D. 32182; Jan. 24, 
 
 1912.) 
 Chiflons, ribbons and other materials. (See also Drawback on silk ribbons.) 
 
332 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1916. 
 
 I>Tawback on — Continued. 
 Silk — Continued. 
 
 Chiffons, libbons and other mateiials — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on chiffons printed, finished, carded, labeled, and boxed by the Na- 
 tional Silk Dyeing Co., of Dundee Lake, N. J., for the account of M. J. Corbett 
 & Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 33028; Dec. 23, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on ribbons, silks, chiffons, and other materials imported by the New 
 York Watering Co., of New York City, and exported after dyeing or treatment 
 by various processes. (T. D. 31155; Dec. 29, 1910.) 
 
 Cords and loops, artificial — 
 
 T. D. 34365 of April 9, 1914, extended to cover additional cords and loops manufac- 
 tured by Bemhard XJlmaim & Co., of New York, with the use of dyed imported 
 artificial silk yam. (T. D. 34812; Oct. 7, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 31383 of March 14, 1911, extended to cover cords and loops manufactured by 
 Bemhard Ulmann & Co., from dyed artificial silk yarn manufactured for and on 
 their account from imported artificial silk yam in the gray. (T. D. 34365; 
 Apr. 9, 1914.) 
 
 Dyed and finished, Habutal — 
 
 Drawback on Habutai silk dyed and finished by various manufacturers for the 
 account of J. R. Simon & Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35566; July 1, 1915.) 
 
 Fabric. (See Drawback on fabrics.) 
 
 Oiled. (See Drawback on oiled silk.) 
 
 Piece goods. (See Drawback on piece goods.) 
 
 Bibbons — 
 
 Drawback on ribbons subjected to the process of flocking or printing, wire binding, 
 tinsel edging, crfiping, or embossing, by Wertheimer Bros., of New York City> 
 and also on corsage ribbons manufactured by this firm with the use of imported 
 silk and other ribbons. (T. D. 32115; Dec. 23, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on chiffon ribbons manufactured for and on account of Wertheimer 
 Bros., of New York City, with the use of imported ribbons. (T. D. 32307; Mar. 
 14, 1912.) 
 
 Scarfs — 
 
 Drawback on scarfs manufactured by the Ohio Knitting Mills Co., of Toledo, Ohio, 
 with the use of imported artificial silk. (T. D. 32702; July 11, 1912.) 
 
 Trimmings, artificial — 
 
 Drawback on artificial silk trimmings manufactured by the Kursheedt Manufac- 
 turing Co., of New York, in part from imported artificial sUk. T. D. 24804 of 
 November 24, 1903, amended. (T. D. 30171; Dec. 6, 1909.) 
 
 Yam, artificial. (See Drawback on yam, artificial silk.) 
 Silver articles, photo-etched — 
 
 Drawback on photo-etched silver articles manufactured by the-Gorham Manufac- 
 turing Co., of Providence, E. I., with the use of imported silver articles, by the 
 process of photo-etching. (T. D. 29653; Mar. 24, 1909.) 
 Sinkina. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Siphon bottles — 
 
 Drawback on siphon bottles manufactured by Philip Spitzenberg for and on ac- 
 count of Fensterer & Kuhe from imported glass bottles. Regulations of August 
 11, 1899 (6295t), extended. (T. D. 29177; July 24, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on siphons manufactured by the Manhattan Bottlers' Supplies Manu- 
 facturing Co., of New York City, successors to S. Bernstein, New York, with the 
 use of imported glass bottles. (T. D. 24440, of May 26, 1903, extended. (T. D. 
 30660; June 3, 1910.) 
 Siphon bottles and parts— 
 
 Dia,wback on siphon bottles, etched or sandblasted bottles, and capped siphon 
 tubes manufactured by the Koscherak Siphon Bottle Works, of Hoboken, N. J., 
 with the use of imported glass bottles and tubes. (T. D. 34643; July 15, 1914 J 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 333 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 
 Sirup. (See also Drawback on BUgar and sirup.) 
 Drawback on eirupa manufactured from a mixture of imported and domestic sugars 
 other than Porto Rican. T. D. 28411 of September 13, 1907, extended, and 
 T. D. 23570 of March 6, 1902, revoked. (T. D. 29092; June 23, 1908.) 
 Drawback on sirup manufactured by 3. Stromeyer & Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., 
 with the use of two or more sirups manufactured from imported raw sugars in 
 combination with either imported granulated and crystal sugars or refined sugars 
 produced from imported sugars and glucose of domestic production. (T. D. 
 31584; May 13, 1911.)' 
 
 Cane, etc. — 
 
 Drawback on cane sirup, maple flavor, and cane and maple sirup manufactured by 
 the Pacific Coast Sirup Co., of San Francisco, Cal., with the use of imported 
 refined sugar, raw China sugar, and maple sugar. (T. D. 29756; May 17, 1909.) 
 
 Fig. (See also Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 
 Drawback on fig sirup manufactured by the California Fig Syrup Co., of Louis- 
 ville, Ky., with the use of imported alcohol and granulated sugar. T. D. 29845 
 of June 16, 1909, amended. (T. D. 29912; July 17, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on sirup of figs in bottles or barrels manufactured' by the California Fig 
 Syrup Co., of Louisville, Ky., with the use of alcohol and granulated sugar. 
 T. D. 22859 of March 7, 1901, T. D. 23428 of December 18, 1901, T. D. 25904 of 
 December 29, 1904, T. D. 25905 of December 29, 1904, and T. D. 26044 of Feb- 
 ruary 9, 1905, revoked. (T. D. 29845; June 16, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on sirup of figs manufactured by the California Fig Syrup Co., of Louis- 
 ville, Ky., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 29845 of June 16, 
 1909, extended. (T. D. 30030; Oct. 6, 1909.) 
 
 Fruit — 
 
 Drawback on fruit sirups manufactured by John Matthews (Inc.), of New York 
 City, with the use of imported cane sugar and cocoa in combination with 
 domestic ingredients. (T. D. 29480; Jan. 19, 1909.) 
 
 Honey — 
 
 Drawback on honey sirup manufactured by the Perfection Jar Closure Co., of 
 Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported honey and refined sugar produced 
 from imported raw sugar. T. D. 26177 of May 21, 1905, revoked. (T. D. 35620; 
 July 29, 1915.) 
 
 Limko — 
 
 Drawback on Limko maniifactured by the Limko Co. of America, of Baltimore, 
 Md., with the use of refined sugar produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 
 35932; Nov. 30, 1915.) 
 
 Maple — 
 
 Drawback on maple sirup manufactured by Hildreth & Segelken, of New York 
 City, wholly with the use of imported maple and cane sugars. T. D. 24900 of 
 January 18, 1904, extended. (T. D. 28677; Jan. 10, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on maple sirup manufactured by Francis H. Leggett & Co., New York 
 City, with the use of imported maple and cane sugars. T. D. 24900 of January 
 18, 1904, extended. (T. D. 28964; Apr. 24, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on maple sirup manufactured wholly from imported maple sugar and 
 granulated sugar produced from imported raw sugar. T. D. 24900 of January 
 18, 1904, and T. D. 28964 of April 24, 1908, revoked. (T. D. 29331; Nov. 9, 
 1908.) 
 
 T. D. 29331 of November 9, 1908, amended to cover maple sirup manufactured in 
 part from imported maple sugar and granulated sugar produced from imported 
 raw sugar. (T. D. 29908; July 13, 1909.) 
 
334 DIGEST 0¥ CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Siiap — Continued. 
 
 NulomoUne — 
 
 Drawback on Nulomoline sirup manufactured by J^. W. Taussig, of New York City, 
 witi the use of imported refined sugar or refined sugar produced from imported 
 raw sugar. (T. D. 31174; Jan. 4, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on Nulomoline sirup manufactured by the Nulomoline Co. , of New York 
 City, with the use of imported refined sugar or refined sugar produced from 
 imported raw sugar. T. D. 31174 of January 4, 1911, extended. (T. D. 31199; 
 Jan. 14, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on Nulomoline sirup and BE, Nulomoline manufactured by the Nulo- 
 moUne Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported refined sugar or refined 
 sugar produced from imported raw sugar. T. D. 31174 of January 4, 1911, and 
 T. D. 31199 of January 14, 1911, revoked. (T. D. 35820; Oct. 25, 1915.) 
 
 Sugar- 
 Drawback on sugar sirup manufactured by Heyl Bros., of Philadelphia, Pa., by 
 blending of sirups manufactured from imported raw sugar and domestic sirup. 
 (T. D. 32592; June 3, 1912.) 
 
 Sugar sirup, and honey sirup — 
 
 Drawback on sirup, sugar sirup, and honey sirup manufactured by J. Stromeyer 
 & Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported materials. T. D. 24008 of 
 October 16, 1902, T. D. 26709 of September 13, 1905, T. D. 27096 of February 7, 
 1906, T. D. 27367 of May 23, 1906, T. D. 27605 of September 13, 1906, and T. D. 
 31584 of May 13, 1911, revoked. (T. D. 35682; Aug. 25, 1915.) 
 
 Used in curing meats — 
 
 Drawback on sirup manufactured from imported sugar and used by the North 
 Packing & Provision Co., of Somerville, Mass., in curing hams, shoulders or 
 picnics, bacon sides, belly bacon, and tongues. T. D. 32442 of April 26, 1912, 
 extended. (T. D. 32443; Apr. 26, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on sirup manufactured from imported sugar and used by Sperry & 
 Barnes Co., of New Haven, Conn., in curing hams, shoulders or picnics, belly 
 bacon, and tongues. (T. D. 32442; Apr. 26, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on sirup manufactured from imported sugar and used by the Springfield 
 Provision Co., of Brightwood, Mass., in curing hams, shoulders or picnics, belly 
 bacon, and tongues. T. D. 32442 of April 26, 1912, extended. (T. D. 32445; 
 Apr. 26, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on sirup manufactured from imported sugar and used by John P. 
 Squire & Co., of Cambridge, Mass., in curing hams, shoulders or picnics, belly 
 bacon, and tongues. T. D. 32442 of April 26, 1912, extended. (T. D. 32446; 
 Apr. 26, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on sirup manufactured from imported sugar and used by the White, 
 Pevey & Dexter Co., of Worcester, Mass., in curing hams, shoulders or picnics, 
 belly bacon, and tongues. T. D. 32442 of April 26, 1912, extended. (T. D. 
 32444; Apr. 26, 1912.) 
 
 Skins — 
 
 Drawback on duty-paid skins, dyed, bleached, and electrified by the Columbia 
 Dye Works, New York, N. Y. (T. D. 32934; Nov. 14, 1912.) 
 
 Bleached and electrified — 
 
 T. D. 32934 of November 14, 1912, extended to cover imported "Thibet" lamb- 
 skins and crosses, bleached and electrified by the Columbia Dye Works, of New 
 York, for and on account of Simon Herzog & Sons Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. 
 D. 33452; May 22, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 335 
 
 Drawback on— Continued. 
 Dyed- 
 Drawback on skins and parts thereof imported by H. F. Wagner, of New York 
 City, and dyed for and on his account by H. F. Bindseil & Son. T. D. 22446 of 
 August 21, 1900, extended. (T. D. 30523; Apr. 11, 1910.) 
 Fur. (See Drawback on fur skins.) 
 Sabbit or coney — 
 
 Drawback on imported rabbit or coney skins, unhaired, by the New York Fur 
 Refining Co., of New York, N. Y., for the account of Fuchs & Co., of New York, 
 N. Y. (T. D. 33842; Nov. 4, 1913.) 
 Drawback on rabbit or coney skins, unhaired by the Cimiotti Unhairing Co., for 
 the account of the Soci6t6 Anonyme des Anciens !l&tablissements, C. & E. 
 Chapal Frferes & Cie., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35353; Apr. 29, 1915.) 
 Skirts, waists, etc. (See Drawback on clothing.) 
 Skiving machines — 
 Drawback on skiving machines manufactured by the Fortuna Machine Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with, the use of imported skiving machine bodies. (T. D. 
 33545; June 11, 1913.) 
 Slabs, marble. (See Drawback on marble slabs.) 
 Slabs, plumbers'. (See Drawback on monuments, marble.) 
 Sleighs, bob. (See Drawback on bob sleighs.) 
 Slippers — 
 Drawback on ladies' slippers manufactured by A. E. Little & Co., of Lynn, Mass., 
 with the use of satin gold, silver, bronze, and steel cloth. (T. D. 30000; Sept. 
 17, 1909.) 
 Drawback on slippers manufactured by A. E. Little & Co., of Lynn, Mass., with 
 
 the use of imported ornaments. (T. D. 30043; Oct. 14, 1909.) 
 Drawback on ladies' slippers manufactured by A. E. Little & Co., of Lynn, Mass., 
 with the use of imported satin, gold, silver, bronze, and steel cloth. T. D . 30000 
 of September 17, 1909, amended as to wastage allowance. (T. D. 30154; Nov. 
 30, 1909.) 
 Smoking and chewing tobacco. (See Drawback on tobacco, also cigarettes and 
 
 smoking tobacco.) 
 Snowplows, rotary — 
 T. D. 22810 of February 13, 1901, extended to cover rotary snowplows manufac- 
 tured by the American Locomotive Co., with the use of imported parts. T. D. 
 29302 of October 16, 1908, revoked. (T. D. 29323; Nov. 2, 1908.) 
 Drawback on rotary snowplows manufactured by the American Locomotive Co. 
 with the use of imported tires, boiler tubes, copper plates, and other parts. (T. 
 D. 29367; Nov. 30, 1908.) 
 Soap — • 
 Drawback on a toilet preparation designated as Renter's soap, manufactured by 
 Barclay & Co., of New York, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol and vari- 
 ous imported materials in combination with domestic materials. (T. D. 34172; 
 Feb. 9, 1914.) 
 T. D . 34172 of February 9, 1914, providing for the payment of drawback on Renter's 
 soap, manufactured by Barclay & Co., New York, N. Y., corrected to provide 
 for the use of imported alcohol instead of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 
 34463; May 25, 1914.) 
 
336 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Contiiiued. 
 Soap, castile — 
 Drawback on castile soap manu&ctured by Colgate & Co., of Jersey City, W. J. 
 
 from imported castile bar soap. (T. D. 29668; Apr. 1, 1909.) 
 Drawback on castile soap manufactured by Colgate & Co., from imported bar soap. 
 Wastage allowance under T. D. 29668 of April 1, 1909, increased. (T. D. 30051; 
 Oct. 20, 1909.) 
 Drawback on powdered castile soap manufactured by Lockwood, Brackett & Co., 
 of Boston, Mass., from imported castile bar soap. (T. D. 30098; Nov. 6, 1909.) 
 Soap, liquid. (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Soap-pressing machines — 
 Drawback on soap-pressing machines manufactured by the Machinery Designing 
 & Manufacturing Co., of New York, with the \ise of imported dies. (T. D. 
 32837; Sept. 30, 1912.) 
 Soda fountains — 
 Drawback on soda fountains manufactured by the Liquid Carbonic Co., of Chicago, 
 lU., in part from imported marble and onyx. (T. D. 31578; May 10, 1911.) 
 Soda-water requisites. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations, soda-water re- 
 quisites, etc.) 
 Soil pipes and fittings, cast-Iron — 
 Drawback on cast-iron soil pipes and fittings manufactured by the Essex Foundry, 
 of Newark, N. J., in part with the use of imported pig iron. T. D. 24727 of 
 October 15, 1903, revoked. (T. D. 28828; Mar. 10, 1908.) 
 Solder — 
 Drawback on solder manufactured by the Western Electric Co., of New York City, 
 with the use of imported refined lead. T. D. 23500 of January 31, 1902, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 29670; Apr. 5, 1909.) 
 "Sorol"— 
 Manufactured by F. Ad. Eichter & Co. (See Drawback on medicinal prepara- 
 tions.) 
 Sozodont. (See Drawback on toilet and medicinal preparations.) 
 Sparklers — 
 Drawback on electric sparklers manufactured by the American Sparkler Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported nitrate of barium, aluminum bronze 
 powder, dextrin, and orange shellac gum. (T. D. 32878; Oct. 23, 1912.) 
 Sparkling wines and champagne. (See Drawback on liquors.) 
 Spark plugs- 
 Drawback on spark plugs manufactured by the Champion Ignition Co., of Flint, 
 Mich., with the use of imported porcelain insulators. T. D. 27957 of March 2, 
 
 1907, extended. (T. D. 30577; Apr. 28, 1910.) 
 Spars, yacht. (See Drawback on yacht spars.) 
 
 Spavin cure. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Spectacles and eyeglasses — 
 Drawback on spectacles and eyeglasses manufactured by the Pennsylvania Opti- 
 cal Co., of Reading, Pa., in part with the use of imported lenses. (T. D. 29380; 
 Dec. 2, 1908.) Revoked; (T. D. 35992; Dec. 13, 1915.) 
 Drawback on spectacles and eyeglasses manufactured by T. A. Willson & Co., of 
 Reading, Pa.,, with the use of imported lenses. T. D. 29380 of December 2, 
 
 1908, extended. (T. D. 31647; June 3, 1911.) 
 
 Speed boxes for automobUes. (See Drawback on automobile transmission cases or 
 speed boxes.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 337 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. ' 
 Spelter— 
 
 T. D. 31725 of June 29, 1911, extended to cover spelter manufactured by the Amer- 
 ican Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co., of St. Louis, Mo., from imported ore. (T. D. 
 33547; June 14, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 31725 of June 29, 1911, extended to cover spelter manufactured by the Amer- 
 ican Metal Co., St. Louis, Mo., from imported ore. (T. D. 33561; June 17, 
 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on spelter manufactured by the Edgar Zinc Co. , of St. Louis, Mo. , at its 
 works at Cherryvale, Kans., with the use of imported calamine. (T. D. 31725; 
 
 . June 29, 1911.) 
 
 T. D. 35805 of October 20, 1915, extended to cover spelter manufactured by the 
 Granby Mining & Smelting Co., of St. Louis, Mo., in whole or in part with the 
 use of imported zinc ores. (T. D. 35905; Nov. 26, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on spelter manufactured by the Graeselli Chemical Co., of Cleveland, 
 Ohio, from imported zinc ore or calandne, wholly or in combination with domes- 
 tic ores. T. D. 32185 of January 25, 1912, extended. (T. D. 32678; June 29, 
 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on spelter manufactured by the Mineral Point Zinc Co., at the works 
 at Depue, 111., from imported sulphide ore. T. D. 32336 of March 26, 1912, 
 amended. (T. D. 32410; Apr. 18, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on spelter manufactured by the New Jersey Zinc Co. from imported 
 oxide zinc ores wholly or in combination with domestic ores. (T. D. 32185; 
 Jan. 25, 1912.) , 
 
 Drawback on spelter manufactured by the New Jersey Zinc Co., at the works at 
 Depue, 111., from imported sulphide ore or from imported and domestic ores 
 mixed. T. D. 32185 of January 25, 1912, extended. (T. D. 32336; Mar. 26, 
 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on spelter manufactured by the United States Smelting Co. with the 
 use of imported zinc ores. (T. D. 35805; Oct. 20, 1915.) 
 Spelter and zinc bottoms — 
 
 Drawback on spelter and zinc bottoms manufactured by the Trenton Smelting & 
 
 Refining Co., of Trenton, N. J., and the Pearlman Co. (Inc.), of Clarksburg, W. 
 
 Va., from imported zinc dross and skimmings, for the account of the Eagle 
 
 Smelting & Refining Works, of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35347; Apr. 27, 1915.) 
 
 Sperm oil, spermaceti, and sperm-oil soap — 
 
 Drawback on sperm oil, spermaceti, natural winter refined sperm oil, bleached 
 sperm oil, and sperm-oil soap manufactured by W. A. Robinson & Co., of New 
 Bedford, Mass., and by Frank L. Young & Kimball, of Boston, Mass., with the 
 use of imported raw sperm oil. (T. D. 34040; Jan. 3, 1914.) 
 Spices, ground — 
 
 Drawback on ground spices produced by the Archibald & Lewis Co., of Brooklyn, 
 N. Y., wholly from imported whole spices for the account of the William B. 
 Harris Co., of New York, N. Y., and others. (T. D. 35203; Mar. 10, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on ground spices and artificial mace manufactured by the Knicker- 
 bocker Mills Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported whole or un- 
 ground spices. (T. D. 35652; Aug. 12, 1915.) 
 Spindle collars- 
 Drawback on spindle collars manufactured by the United Shoe Machinery Co., 
 of Boston, Mass., from imported coUars by the process of corrugation. (T. D. 
 29709; Apr. 27, 1909.) 
 
 45633°— 17 22 
 
338 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Split printed cloth — 
 Drawback on split printed cloth manufactured by the Eddystone Manufacturing 
 Co., of Eddystone, Pa., for the account of A. S. Lascelles & Co., of New York, 
 with the use of imported split print cloth, by bleaching, dyeing, printing, and 
 splitting. (T. D. 33080; Jan. 10, 1913.) 
 Spool cotton thread. (See Drawback on thread.) 
 Spooled and dyed artificial silk yam. (See Drawback on yam.) 
 Spooled and twisted silk. (See Drawback on silk.) 
 Spoons — 
 Drawback on tinned spoons manufactured by the R. Wallace & Sons' Manufactur- 
 ing Co., of WalUngford, Conn., with the use of imported steel. (T. D. 29169; 
 July 17, 1908.) 
 Spring wire and springs for shade rollers — . 
 Drawback on spring wire and springs for shade rollers, manufactured by gtewart, 
 Hartshorn Co., of Harrison, N. J., with the use of imported steel rods. (T. D. 
 31931; Oct. 19, 1911.) 
 Springs for automobiles and motor trucks — 
 Drawback on automobile and motor truck springs manufactured by the Perfec- 
 tion Spring Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, with the use of imported steel. (T. D. 
 34987; Dec. 15, 1914.) 
 Springs, vulcanized rubber and steel tmss. (See Drawback on vulcanized rubber 
 
 and steel truss springs.) 
 Stains, varnishes, and enamels. (See Drawback on varnishes, enamels, and 
 
 stains.) 
 Stamped steel ceilings — ' 
 
 Drawback on stamped steel ceilings manufactured by the Northrop, Cobum & 
 Dodge Co., of New York, wholly with the use of imported No. 29 gauge steel 
 sheets. T. D. 23440 of December 30, 1901, revoked. (T. D. 29307; Oct. 22, 
 1908.) 
 Starting and lighting equipment, motors, and automatic generators. (See Draw- 
 back on electric equipment.) 
 Stay paper, gummed. (See Drawback on gummed stay paper and gummed paper 
 
 tape.) 
 Stays. (See Drawback on iron tubes, pipes, flues, stays, etc.) 
 Stays, paper-box — 
 Drawback on paper-box stays manufactured by M. D. Knowlton Co., of Roches- 
 ter, N. Y., with the use of imported paper. T. D. 28399 of August 28, 1907, 
 revoked. (T. D. 35994; Dec. 14, 1915.) 
 Steam condensers — 
 Drawback on steam condensers manufactured by the C. H. Wheeler Manufactur- 
 ing Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported Muntz metal circles 
 and soUd drawn brass tubes. (T. D. 33805; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 Steam governors — 
 T. D. 20220 of October 21, 1898, extended to cover additional sizes of steam-engine 
 governors manufactiu«d by the Pickering Grovemor Co., of Portland, Coim., 
 with the use of imported strip steel. (T. D. 33990; Dec. 18, 1913.) 
 Drawback on steam governors manufactin-ed by the Pickering Governor Co., of 
 Portland, Conn., with the use of imported speed rangers, or ball speed rangers. 
 (T. D. 31265; Feb. 2, 1911.) 
 Steam turbine blowers — 
 Drawback on turbine blowers maniifactured by the Terry Steam Turbine Co., of 
 Hartford, Conn., with the use of imported fan wheels. (T. D. 34691; Aug. 6, 
 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 339 
 
 Drawback on — Contiaued. 
 Steam turbines — 
 Drawback on steam turbines, turbine machinery, and parts thereof manufactured 
 by the De Laval Steam Turbine Co., of Trenton, N. J., with the use of imported 
 steel forgings, bearings, shafts, gear cases, etc. T. D. 26135 of March 9, 1905, 
 extended. (T. D. 31190; Jan. 9, 1911.) 
 Steel — 
 Drawback on various brands of steel manufactured by the Crucible Steel Co. of 
 
 America with the use of imported tungsten. (T. D. 32818; Sept. 12, 1912.) 
 Drawback on steel manufactured by the Western Steel Corporation, of Irondale, 
 Wash., with the use, in part, of imported Chinese pig iron. (T. D. 31422; Mar. 
 24, 1911.) 
 Steel bars — 
 Drawback on steel bars manufactxured by the Pacific Coast Steel Co., of San Fran- 
 cisco, Cal., with the use of imported pig iron. (T. D. 32634; June 14, 1912.) 
 Steel ingots, etc. (See Drawback on pig iron, also armor plate.) 
 Steel, manufactures of, turbine wheels and parts — 
 Drawback on turbine wheels and parts manufactured by William Cramp & Sons 
 Ship & Engine Building Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported 
 steel shaft forgings and tubes. T. D. 24227 of February 12, 1903, T. D. 24336 of 
 April 7, 1903, T. D. 25502 of July 28, 1904, and department's letter of February 
 12, 1913, revoked. (T. D. 35784; Oct. 16, 1915.) 
 Steel measuring tapes and rules. (See Drawback on measuring tapes.) 
 Steel pipe, coated — 
 Drawback on coated steel pipe manufactured by the East Jersey Pipe Co., of 
 Paterson, N. J., with the use of imported burlap. (T. D. 33101; Jan. 18, 1913.) 
 Steel plates — 
 Drawback on steel plates manufactured by the Lukens Iron & Steel Co., of 
 Coatesville, Pa., from imported scrap steel in combination with domestic pig 
 iron. T. D. 29552 of February 10, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30431; Mar. 15, 
 1910.) 
 Steel products and pig iron — 
 Drawback on pig iron and steel products manufactured by the Pennsylvania 
 Steel Co., with the use of imported iron ore, ferromanganese, and ferrosilicon. 
 (T. D. 31439; Mar. 30, 1911.) Bethlehem Steel Co. (T. D. 31438; Mar. 30, 
 1911.) 
 Steel rails — 
 T. D. 22890 of March 16, 1901, establishing a rate of drawback on pig iron and other 
 products manufactured by the Maryland Steel Co., of Sparrows Point, Md., 
 amended. (T. D. 28676; Jan. 9, 1908.) 
 Drawback on steel rails manufactured by the Bethlehem Steel Co., South Bethle- 
 hem, Pa., with the use of imported iron ore. T. D. 27127 of February 19, 1906, 
 extended. (T. D. 29365; Nov. 25, 1908.) 
 Steel railway tires — 
 Drawback on finished steel tires for railroad car, locomotive, and locomotive tender 
 wheels, manufactured by the American Locomotive Co., of New York, with 
 the use of imported rough steel forgings. (T. D. 81077; Dec. 2, 1910.) 
 Drawback on steel railway tires manufactured by the Railway Steel Spring Co., of 
 New York City, with the use of imported steel, pig iron, ferromanganese, and 
 ferrosilicon. (T. D. 31860; Sept. 15, 1911.) 
 T. D. 31860 of September 15, 1911, amended to allow drawback on new Krupp 
 steel tires used as steel in the manufacture of the exported steel railway tires 
 and to provide for a new form of abstract from the manufacturing record. (T. 
 D. 33112; Jan. 23, 1913.) 
 
340 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Steel shanks — 
 Drawback on steel shanks manufactured by John M. Carrecabe, of Boston, Mass., 
 with the use of imported steel in strips of not less than No. 15 wire gauge. T. D. 
 28758 of February 12, 1908, extended. (T. D. 31160; Dec. 31, 1910.) 
 Drawback on steel shanks manufactured by Churchill & Allen, of Lynn, Mass., 
 
 wholly from imported steel. (T. D. 28758; Feb. 12, 1908.) 
 Drawback on steel shanks or combination leather and steel shanks manufactured 
 by the George E. Keith Co., of Campello, Mass., with the use of imported steel. 
 T. D. 28758 of February 12, 1908, extended. (T. D. 31284; Feb. 9, 1911.) 
 Drawback on steel shanks manufactured by the Whitman Shank Co., of Whitman, 
 Mass., from imported sheet steel. T. D. 28758 of February 12, 1908, extended. 
 (T. D. 29485; Jan. 25, 1909.) 
 Drawback on steel shanks manufactured by the Union Shank Co., of Whitman, 
 Mass., from imported steel. (T. D. 32101; Dec. 20, 1911.) 
 Steel, structural and structural shapes — 
 Drawback on structural steel manufactured by the Snare & Tiiest Co., of New 
 York, from imported steel beams. T. D. 23928 of August 2, 1902, extended. 
 (T. D. 30507; Apr. 7, 1910.) 
 Drawback on structural steel shapes galvanized by MilUken Bros. (Inc.), of Milli- 
 ken, N. Y., with the use of zinc spelter imported in pigs. (T. D. 33046; Dec. 
 23, 1912.) 
 Steel and iron products — 
 Drawback on steel and iron products manufactured by the Bethlehem Steel Co., 
 from imported scrap iron and steel and domestic pig iron. T. D. 29552 of Feb- 
 ruary 10, 1909, extended. (T. D. 29869; June 25, 1909.) 
 Stencil cards. (See Drawback on cards, stencil.) 
 Stereoscopic views — 
 Drawback on stereoscopic views manufactured by the Keystone View Co., of 
 Meadville, Pa., with the use of imported mounts. T. D. 29453 of January 4, 
 1909, extended. (T. D. 29584; Feb. 26, 1909.) 
 Drawback on stereoscopic views manufactured by Berry, Kelley & Chadwick, of 
 
 Chicago, 111., with the use of i ported mounts. (T. D. 29453; Jan. 4, 1909.) 
 Drawback on stereoscopic views manufactured by E. W. Kelley, of Chicago, 111., 
 successor to Berry, Kelley & Chadwick. T. D. 29453 of January 4, 1909, 
 extended. (T. D. 31580; May 10, 1911.) 
 Stereoscopic photographs. (See Drawback on photographs, stereoscopic.) 
 Sterilized package and pitted dates. (See Drawback on currants and package 
 
 dates.) 
 Stoppers. (See Drawback on bottle stoppers.) 
 Storage-battery plates — 
 Drawback on positive plates styled "reduced plates" and "peroxidized plates" 
 manufactured by the Electric Storage Battery Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., from 
 imported lead. T. D. 24058 of November 19, 1902, extended. (T. D. 30656; 
 May 31, 1910.) 
 Drawback on storage-battery plates manufactured by the Westinghouse Machine 
 Co., of East Pittsburgh, Pa., from imported refined lead. T. D. 24058 of Novem- 
 ber 19, 1902, extended. (T. D. 29750; May 13, 1909.) 
 Stoves, alcohol gas. (See Drawback on alcohol gas stoves.) 
 Straining cloth — 
 Drawback on straining cloth manufactured by the Sugden Press Bag Co., of Bos- 
 ton, Mass., with the use of yam manufactured by the Abbot Worsted Co., of 
 Graniteville, Mass., from imported camel's hair. (T. D. 32146; Jan. 15,, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 341 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Stranding machines — 
 Drawback on stranding machines manufactured by the Torrington Manufacturing 
 Co., of Torrington, Conn., with the use of Hoffman ball bearings. (T. D, 32877; 
 Oct. 23, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32877 of October 23, 1912, amended to provide for an allowance of 10 im- 
 ported ball bearings to each unit of the stranding machines exported. (T. D. 
 33350; Apr. 21, 1913.) 
 Strawberries, canned. (See Drawback on fruits, canned.) 
 Straw hats. (See Drawback on hats.) 
 
 Street and passenger cars, etc. (See Drawback on railway cars.) 
 Structural steel and steel shapes. (See Drawback on steel.) 
 Stuffed dates. (See Drawback on dates, stuffed.) 
 Stuffed pillows. (See Drawback on pillow slips, etc.) 
 Sugar-coated pills and tablets. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Sugar-mill machinery. (See Drawback on machinery.) 
 
 Sugar and glycerin, imported and refined. (See Drawback on medicinal prepara- 
 tions, Wampole's Cod-Liver Oil.) 
 Sugar and sirup. (See also Drawback on sirup.) 
 General regulations on Sugar and Sirup; T. D. 33062; Jan. 3, 1913. 
 T. D. 33062 of January 3, 1913, amended to provide for the distribution of draw- 
 back between sugars and sirups in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 
 O of section 4, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34331; Mar. 31, 1914.) 
 T. D. 34331 of March 31, 1914, amended as to manner of estimating drawback on 
 the two products. Samples of sirup to be furnished. (T. D. 34392; Apr. 17, 
 1914.) 
 Articles 6 and 8 of T. D . 33062 of January 3, 1913, amended with respect to abstract 
 from the refinery records required to be filed and the storage of sirup products. 
 (T D. 34340; Apr. 2, 1914.) 
 Amending T. D. 34340 of April 2, 1914, with respect to the abstract from the 
 refinery record and prescribing the manner in which stock in process at the 
 beginning and ending of refining periods shall be accounted for. (T. D. 34664; 
 July 27, 1914.) 
 T. D. 33062 of January 3, 1913, amended by striking out the last paragraph of 
 
 article 11 thereof. (T. D. 34662; July 27; 1914.) 
 T. D. 33062 of January 3, 1913, amended to provide for the distribution of draw- 
 back between sugars and sirups in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 
 O of section 4, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34663; July 27, 1914.) 
 Certificate of delivery: Form of certificate of delivery for use in the transfer of 
 sugar and sirup manufactured from imported raw sugar for exportation with 
 benefit of drawback under T. D. 33062. (T. D. 33500; June 4, 1918.) 
 Suit cases. (See Drawback on leather bags and other articles.) 
 Suits, boys', washable. (See Drawback on Clothing.) 
 Suits and coats, ladies'. (See Drawback on clothing.) 
 Sulphonated oil. (See Drawback on oils.) 
 Sulphur bitters. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Superheaters — 
 Drawback on Poster superheaters manufactured by the Power Specialty Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported steel boiler tubes. (T. D. 33606; 
 July 10, 1913.) 
 
342 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Supplies sold to GoTemment — 
 No drawback will be allowed on any material or supplies sold to any department 
 of the United States Government and shipped to the Philippine Islands or any 
 other insular possessions where, in the contract between that department and 
 the party furnishing such material or supplies, the right of drawback is reserved 
 by the Government. (T. D. 31227; Jan. 18, 1911.) 
 Sweepers and cleaners, vacuum. (See Drawback on vacuum cleaners and sweepers.) 
 Syrup. (See Drawback on sirup.) 
 "Syrup of Figs and Elixir of Senna " — 
 
 Manufactured by Parke, Davis & Co. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Table covers. (See Drawback on curtains, table covers, etc.) 
 Tails, paws, etc., dyed. (See Drawback on fur skins, parts of.) 
 Talcum powder — 
 Manufactured by D. R. Bradley & Son, Gerhard Mennen Chemical Co., Andrew 
 Jergens Co., and Talcum Pufi Co. (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Talking machines. (See Drawback on machines, talking.) 
 Tanning extract — 
 Drawback on Crescent taTinitig extract manufactured by Marden, Orth & Hast- 
 ings, of Boston, Mass., from imported solid quebracho and mangrove bark ex- 
 tract. (T. D. 30101; Nov. 9, 1909.) 
 Drawback on tanning extract manufactured by the Argam Tannin Co., of New 
 York, with the use of solid quebracho extract. T. D. 30101 of November 9, 
 1909, extended. (T. D. 30951; Sept. 27, 1910.) 
 Drawback on tanning extract known as " Vacome No. 2," manufactured by the 
 Vacuimi Oil Co., of New York, with the use of imported chrome alum. T. D. 
 30101 of November 9, 1909, extended. (T. D. 31610; May 20, 1911.) 
 IiicLUid quebracho and liquid myrabolam extract — 
 
 Drawback on liquid quebracho extract manufactured witti the use of imported 
 solid quebracho extract, and on liquid myrabolam extract manufactured with 
 the use of imported solid myrabolam extract, by the Argam Tannin Co., of New 
 York City. T. D. 30951 of September 27, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 31780; July 
 28, 1911.) 
 Tanoyl — 
 Drawback on Tanoyl manufactured by the National Red Oil & Soap Co., of New- 
 ark, N. J., with tiie use of imported cod oil and whale oil. (T. D. 33286; Mar. 
 22, 1913.) 
 Tape, paper, gummed. (See Drawback on gummed stay paper and gummed paper 
 
 tape.) 
 Tapes, measuring. (See Drawback on measuring tapes.) 
 Tar and oil burners. (See Drawback on burners.) 
 Tarpaulins, boat covers, and sails — 
 Drawback on tarpaulins manufactured by John Boyle & Co. (Inc.), of New York, 
 with the use of imported waterproof canvas. T. D. 29111 of June 25, 1908, 
 extended. (T. D. 29717; Apr. 28, 1909.) 
 Drawback on tarpaulins manufactiired by John Curtin (Inc.), of New York City, 
 with the use of imported waterproof flax canvas. (T. D. 29111; June 25, 1908.) 
 Drawback on tarpaulins, boat covers, and sails manufactured by Andrew Mills & 
 Sons, New York, N. Y., with the use of imported flax waterproof cloth. (T. D. 
 34292; Mar. 19, 1914.) 
 Tastells. (See Drawback on cake icings.) 
 
 Teapots. (See Drawback on coffeepots, teapots, and hot-water bottles.) 
 Teeth, artificial. (See Drawback on artificial teeth.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIOKS, 1908-1915. 343 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Telephone switchboaids — 
 Drawback on telephone switchboards manufactured by the Automatic Electric 
 Co., of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported tag blocks, brackets, and screws. 
 (T. D. 34592; June 26, 1914.) 
 Tennis balls — 
 Drawback on tennis balls manufactured by Wright & Ditson, of Wakefield, Mass., 
 with the use of imported rubber balls and cotton covers. (T. D. 33565; June 
 18, 1913.) 
 Tension devices for sewing machines — 
 Drawback on sewing machines manufactured by the United Shoe Machinery Co., 
 of Boston, Mass., with the use in part of imported tension devices. (T. D. 
 28871; Mar. 18, 1908.) 
 Theatrical scenery — 
 Drawback on theatrical scenery manufactured by Oscar Hammerstein, New York, 
 N. Y., with the use of imported linen canvas. (T. D. 31558; May 4, 1911.) 
 Thorium nitrate — 
 Drawback on thorium nitrate, cerium nitrate, and gas mantles manufactured by 
 the Lindsay Light Co., of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported monazite sand. 
 (T.D. 35230; Mar. 18, 1915.) 
 Thrashing machines and grain separators. (See Drawback on machines.) 
 Thread — 
 Drawback on spool cotton thread manufactured by the Boas Thread Co., of Stam- 
 ford, Conn., with the use of imported two-ply and three-cord cotton yarn. T. 
 D. 25888 of December 27, 1904, extended. (T. D. 29833; June 14, 1909.) 
 Drawback on spooled thread manufactured by the Eureka Fire Hose Manufactur- 
 ing Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported linen yarn. (T. D. 33748; 
 Sept. 25, 1913.) 
 Drawback on finished and wound cotton thread produced by the Boas Thread Co., 
 of Stamford, Conn., from cotton thread imported in hanks. (T. D. 35726; 
 Sept. 27, 1915.) 
 Tile — 
 Drawback on biscuit enameled tile and vitreous tile manufactured by the Mosaic 
 Tile Co., of Zanesville, Ohio, with the use of imported clay. (T. D. 33147: 
 Feb. 3, 1913.) 
 Tin cans — 
 T. D. 14592 of January 26, 1894. extended to cover tin cans manufactured by the 
 Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey with the use of imported lead and tin. (T. D, , 
 34924: Nov. 27, 1914.) 
 Drawback on sealed tin containers manufactured by the West Disinfecting Co., of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported partially manufactured tin cans, in 
 combination with cut-out seal caps of domestic manufacture and exported filled 
 with disinfecting fluid. (T. D. 34072; Jan. 21, 1914.) 
 Tin containers — 
 Drawback on tin containers manufactured by the -4.merican Tobacco Co., of New 
 York, with the use of imported knives or cutters. (T. D. 32098; Dec. 18, 1911.) 
 Tin foil, etc — 
 Drawback on tin foil, tea lead, bcjttle caps, cap metal, soft metal for steam and 
 other packing purposes, pure lead foil, sheet lead, electrotype foil, mounted 
 composition tin foils on paper, printed and colored foils, compound tin foil and 
 other similar articles manufactured by Lehmaier, Schwartz & Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported lead, tin, and paper. T. D. 23014 and T. D. 
 25543 and the unpublished decision of October 6, 1897, are hereby revoked. (T. 
 D. 31829; Aug. 22, 1911.) 
 
344 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Tin labels and soldei — 
 
 Drawback on triangular and elliptical labels, either attached to tin cans or drums 
 or in bulk, manufactured by the Standard Oil Co. of New York wholly with the 
 use of imported tagger's tin, and also on solder used in attaching such labels man- 
 ufactured by this company with the use of imported pig lead. T. D. 27810 of 
 January 3, 1907, revoked. (T. D. 32220; Feb. 3, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 32220 of February 3, 1912, amended to substitute the Standard Oil Co.- of 
 New Jersey for the Standard Oil Co. of New York. T. D. 27810 of January 3, 
 1907, restored. (T. D. 32604; June 6, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 32220 of February 3, 1912, as amended by T. D. 32604 of June 6, 1912, 
 amended to provide for the use of both imported and domestic lead and im- 
 ported and domestic tin in the manufacture of solder used by the Standard Oil 
 Co. of New Jersey in attaching elliptical and triangular labels to cans and drums. 
 (T. D. 34585; June 24, 1914.) 
 Tin sheets, embossed and crystallized — 
 
 Drawback on embossed and crystallized tin sheets manufactured by M. Gould's 
 Sons & Co., of Newark, N. J., with the use of imported tagger's tin plate. 
 (T. D. 34638; July 15, 1914.) 
 Tin and lead foil — 
 
 Drawback on tin foil, lead foil, paper-back foil, paper interleafed foil, electro- 
 typers' foil, etc., manufactured by the American Foil Co., of New York City, 
 with the use of imported lead and tin. (T. D. 31047; Nov. 16, 1910.) 
 Tinctures, essences, and extracts — 
 
 Drawback on various tinctures manufactured by Boericke & Tatel, of New York 
 City, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 32673; June 28, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on tinctures, essences, and extracts manufactured by George Luedera 
 & Co.,' of New York, from imported and domestic alcohol. (T. D. 32119; Dec. 
 28, 1911.) 
 Tire chains. (See Drawback on chain hoists, hoist chains, and tire chains.) 
 Tire containers — 
 
 Drawback on tire containers manufactured by the Michelin Tire Co., of Milltown, 
 N. J., with the use of imported special wrapping paper in conjunction with 
 domestic corrugated paper. (T. D. 33090; Jan. 15, 1913.) 
 Tire fabric — 
 
 Drawback on tire fabric manufactured by the Lowell Weaving Co., of Lowell, 
 Mass., wholly from imported cotton yam. (T. D. 31469; Apr. 6, 1911.) 
 Tire treads — 
 
 Drawback on tire treads known as "Woodworth's treads" manufactured by the 
 Leather Tire Goods Co., of Buffalo, N. Y., with the use of imported hard rivets. 
 (T. D. 32415; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 32415 of April 22, 1912, extended to cover tire treads 810 by 105 millimeters, 
 manufactured by the Leather Tire Goods Co., of Buffalo, N. Y., with the use of 
 imported hard rivets. (T. D. 32879; Oct. 23, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 32415 of April 22, 1912, extended to cover tire treads 835 by 135 milli- 
 meters manufactured by the Leather Tire Goods Co., at Niagara Falls, N. Y., 
 with the use of imported hard rivets, and amended to provide for the filing 
 of supplemental sworn statements. (T._D. 33053; Dec. 31, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on tire treads manufactured by the Leather Tire Goods Co., of Niagara 
 Falls, with the use of imported hard rivets. (T. D. 32838; Sept. 30, 1912.) 
 Tires, automobile. (See Drawback on automobile tires.) 
 Titanium potassium oxalate^ 
 
 Drawback on titanium potassium oxalate manufactured by the Eastern Chemical 
 Co., of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported oxalic acid. (T. D. 34228; 
 Mar. 4, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 345 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Tobacco — 
 
 Drawback on smoking tobacco manufactured by Beshara, Ganim & Bro., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported Turkish, Persian, and other similar leaf 
 tobacco. (T. D. 34498; June 2, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on smoking and chewing tobacco manufactured by the David Dunlop 
 Co., of Petersburg, Va., in part from glycerin refined from imported crude 
 glycerin. T. D. 26325 of April 27, 1905, extended. (T. D. 29660; Mar. 27, 
 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco manufactured by David 
 Dunlop (Inc.), of Petersburg, Va., with the use of imported materials or mate- 
 rials manufactured from imported materials. The department's letter of July 
 18, 1891, T. D. 29660 of March 27, 1909, T. D. 32425 of April 23, 1912, and T. D. 
 32854 of October 11, 1912, revoked. (T. D. 35448; May 26, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on tobacco manufactured by the P. Lorillard Co., of Jersey City, N. J., 
 with the use of imported raw sugar. (T. D. 33653; July 26, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 34498 of June 2, 1914, extended to cover smoking tobacco manufactured by 
 J. S. Maloof & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported leaf tobaccos. 
 (T. D. 34641; July 15, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on smoking tobacco manufactured by the Turko-American Tobacco 
 Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported Turkish tobacco. (T. D. 
 33957; Dec. 8, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on "Owl" brand smoking tobacco manufactured by the Liggett & 
 Myers Tobacco Co., of Richmond, Va., wholly from imported Turkish leaf 
 tobacco. (T. D. 32493; May 8, 1912.) 
 
 Llended — 
 
 Drawback on blended tobacco manufactured by Philip Morris & Co. (Ltd.), of 
 New York, from imported leaf tobacco, by blending, compressing, and cutting 
 into blocks. (T. D. 29587; Mar. 1, 1909.) 
 
 Chewing — 
 
 Drawback on plug and twist chewing tobacco manufactured by David Dunlop, 
 New York, N. Y., in bonded manufacturing warehouse at Petersburg, Va., with 
 the use of Nulomoline sirup produced from imported sugar or with the use of 
 refined sugar imported as such or produced from imported raw sugar. (T. D. 
 32425; Apr. 23, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback allowed under T. D. 32425 of April 23, 1912, on chewing tobacco manu- 
 factured in bonded manufacturing warehouse at Petersburg, Va., by David 
 Dunlop, of New York, N. Y., extended, so far as applicable, to cover plug 
 tobacco exported by the same firm under the names of Sickle Plug, Acorn, and 
 Master Workman. (T. D. 32854; Oct. 11, 1912.) 
 
 Persian pipe. (See Drawback on cigarettes and smoking tobacco.) 
 
 Drawback on Persian pipe tobacco manufactured by T. K. Malouf & Co. with the 
 use of imported leaf tobacco. (T. D. 31817; Aug. 17, 1911.) 
 
 Prepared — 
 
 Drawback on prepared tobacco for cigarettes or pipes manufactured by A. N. Bar- 
 son & Co., of New York City, with the use of imported Turkish tobacco. (T. 
 D. 31437; Mar. 29, 1911.) 
 Tobias' Liniment. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Toilet preparations. (See also Drawback on medicinal and toilet preparations.) 
 
 Drawback on talcum powder manufactured by D. R. Bradley & Son, of New 
 York City, with the use of imported talcum powder. T. D. 29669 of April 1, 
 1909, extended. (T. D. 30179; Dec. 11, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on toilet preparations manufactured by the Aubry Sisters ^Inc), of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol and imported 
 ground talc. (T. D. 35621; July 29, 1915.) 
 
346 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Toilet piepaiatious — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on toilet preparations, including perfumery and extracts, manufactured 
 by Calisher & Co. and Oakley & Co., of New York, with the use of domestic 
 tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 30031 of October 8, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30302; 
 Jan. 25, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on toilet preparations, including perfumery, manufactured by Cal- 
 isher & Co. and Oakley & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic 
 tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 80302 of January 25, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 35856; 
 Nov. 2, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on toilet preparations and perfumes manufactured by the Arthur 
 Chemical Co., of New Haven, Conn., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. 
 (T. D. 35836; Oct. 27, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on toilet preparations, including perfumery, manufactured by Colgate 
 & Co., of Jersey City, N. J., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 
 30031; Oct. 8, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on toilet preparations, including perfumery, manufactured by Colgate 
 & Co., of Jersey City, N. J., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 
 30031 of October 8, 1909, amended to provide for the filing of additional sched- 
 ules. (T. D. 30616; May 14, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on talcum powder, tooth powder, and Circassian Beauty Extract manu- 
 factured by the Wilbert Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., in part from imported chalk, 
 talcum, and domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 31876; Sept. 20, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on "Headache Cologne" and "Perfect Cold Cream" manufactured by 
 Daggett & Ramsdell, of New York City, with the use of domestic tax-paid 
 alcohol and imported menthol crystals and imported rose water and oil rose 
 geranium. (T. D. 31607; May 9, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on talcum powder manufactured by Gerhard Mennen Chemical Co., of 
 Newark, N. J., with the use of imported talcum powder. (T. D. 29758; May 
 17, 1909.) 
 
 T. D. 29758 of May 17, 1909, extended to provide for the filing of supplemental 
 schedules. (T. D. 35360; May 3, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on Kosmeo cream, Kosmeo face powder, hair color, Cactico hair tonic, 
 face bleach, Bath of Isis, eyebrow stimulant, lip rouge, hygienic sldn cure, 
 White Lilac skin cure, complexion cream (small), dandruff cure, aromatic medi- 
 cation, Bonalaxa, nerve pills, toilet powder. Rose Bloom, perfect tooth paste, 
 depilatory powder, and bleaching cream manufactured by Mrs. Gervaise Gra- 
 ham, of Chicago, with the use of imported materials. (T. D. 32843; Oct. 1, 
 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on Hinds' Honey and Almond Cream manufactured by A. S. Hinds, of 
 Portland, Me., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 31671; June 
 12, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on a toilet preparation designated as "Hinds' Honey and Almond 
 Cream" manufactured by A. S. Hinds, of Portland, Me., with the use of do- 
 mestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 35634; Aug. 5, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on perfumes, toilet waters, liquid soap, and preparations for treatii^ 
 the hair and scalp manufactutred by Richard Hudnut, of New York City, with 
 the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 30076; Oct. 29, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on benzoin and almond lotion maniifactured by Andrew Jergens Co., 
 of Cincinnati, Ohio, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. ' (T. D. 32180; 
 Jan. 24, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 32180 extended to provide for allowance of drawback on sample bottles of 
 beazoin and almond lotion maniifactured by the Andrew Jergens Co., of Cincin- 
 nati, Ohio. (T. D. 32888; Oct. 25, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1&15. 347 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Toilet pieparations — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on prepared talcum powder manufactured by the Andrew Jergens Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported talcum powder in conjunction 
 with domestic ingredients. (T. D. 32972; Nov. 26, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 32972 of November 26, 1912, extended to cover prepared talcum powder 
 designated as "Eutaska" manufactured by the Andrew Jergens Co., of Cin- 
 cinnati, Ohio, with the use of imported talcum powder in conjunction with 
 domestic ingredients. (T. D. 33582; June 25, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on glyco-thymoline manufactured by the Kress & Owen Co., of New 
 York, with the use in part of refined glycerin produced from imported crude 
 glycerin. (T. D. 29909; July 15, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on glyco-thymoline manufactured by the Kress & Owen Co., of New 
 York, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 29909 of July 15, 1909, 
 extended. (T. D. 30058; Oct. 22, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on listerine manufactured by the Lambert Pharmacal Co., of St. Louis, 
 Mo., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 25026 of February 17, 
 1904, extended. (T. D. 30106; Nov. 13, 1909.) 
 
 T. D. 30106 of November 13, 1909, providing for an allowance of drawback on lis- 
 terine manufactured by the Lambert Pharmacal Co., of St. Louis, Mo., with the 
 use of domestic tax-paid alcohol amended to provide for an allowance of abso- 
 lute alcohol by volume not to exceed 28 per cent of the exported preparation. 
 (T. D. 32607; June 6, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on toilet preparations, including perfiunery, manufactured by the 
 George Lorenz Co., of New York, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. 
 D. 30031 of October 8, 1909, extended. (T. D. 80244; Jan. 10, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on Phillips' Florida Water, manufactured by I. L. Lyons & Co. (Ltd.), 
 of New Orleans, La., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 35807; 
 Oct. 20, 1915.) 
 
 T. D. 35807 of October 20, 1915, amended to provide for the filing of supplemen- 
 tal sworn statements and schedules. (T. D. 35874; Nov. 12, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on the toilet preparation designated as "Eau de Cologne" manufac- 
 tured by Mulhens & Kropff, of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax- 
 paid alcohol and imported materials. (T. D. 35293; Apr. 5, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on toilet preparations, including perfumery, manufactured by Solon 
 Palmer, of New York City, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 
 30031 of October 8, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30581; Apr. 29, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on a toilet preparation designated as "Vanishing Cream" manufac- 
 tured by the Pond's Extract Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported 
 stearol, for the account of Lamont, Corliss & Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 
 34300; Mar. 21, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on toilet preparations manufactured by the Pond's Extract Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported stearol and collapsible metal tubes and 
 domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 34300 of March 21, 1914, revoked. (T. D. 
 35685; Aug. 27, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on toilet preparations manufactured by the Theo. Ricksecker Co., of 
 New York City, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 30031 of Octo- 
 ber 8, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30346; Feb. 8, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on prepared talcum powder manufactured with the use of imported 
 tale and on toilet preparations manufactured with the use of domestic tax-paid 
 alcohol by 0. H. Selick, of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 33942; Dec. 2, 19l3.) 
 
 T. D. 33942 of December 2, 1913, amended to provide for the filing of supplemental 
 sworn schedules. (T. D. 35677; Aug. 24, 1915.) 
 
348 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 Toilet piepaiations — Continued. 
 Drawback on talcum powder manufactured by the Talcum Puff Co. (Inc.), of 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., with the use of imported talc. (T. D. 35522; June 14, 1915.) 
 Drawback on perfumery, toilet waters, liquid soap, and other toilet preparations 
 manufactured by the United Perfume Co., of Boston, Mass., with the use of 
 domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 32184; Jan. 24, 1912.) 
 T. D. 32184 of January 24, 1912, amended to provide for the filing of supple- 
 mental sworn schedules. (T. D. 35817; Oct. 25, 1915.) 
 Drawback on talcum powder manufactured by J. B. Williams Co., of Glastonbury, 
 Conn., with the use of imported talc, and toilet waters and brilliantine manu- 
 factured by the same company with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. 
 D. 32116; Dec. 23, 1911.) 
 Toilet preparations and flavoring extracts — 
 Drawback on toilet preparations and flavoring extracts manufactured by George 
 Lueders & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. 
 T. D. 31993 of November 8, 1911, T. D. 32119 of December 12, 1911, and T. D. 
 34619 of July 10, 1914, revoked. (T. D. 35284; Apr. 2, 1915.) 
 Toilet and medicinal preparations and flavoring extracts — 
 Manufactured by Brewer & Co. (See Drawback on medicinal and toilet prepara- 
 tions and flavoring extracts.) 
 Toilet racks, shelves, etc. (See Drawback on glass articles.) 
 Toilet waters. (See Drawback on toilet preparations.) 
 Tomato ketchup and tomato chutney. (See Drawback on ketchap.) 
 Tools — 
 Drawback on air drills, wood-boring machines, and grinders manufactured by the 
 Cleveland Pneumatic Tool Co., with the use of imported ball bearings. (T. D. 
 35008; Dec. 32, 1914.) 
 Drawback on drills, anvil blocks, chuck keys, Leyner valves, air compressors, 
 drills and hoists, scalers, and similar articles manufactured by the IngersoU- 
 Rand Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of various imported materials. T. 
 D. 33813 of October 27, 1913, revoked. (T. D. 34560; June 17, 1914.) 
 Top material for automobiles. (See Drawback on automobile top fabric.) 
 Tops, alpaca. (See Drawback on alpaca wool products.) 
 Tops, mohair. (See Drawback on mohair tops.) 
 
 Tops and noils, hair press cloth. (See Drawback on camel's hair products.) 
 Tops and noils, wool. (See Drawback on wool products.) 
 Towels — 
 Drawback on union huck towels manufactured by the Lowell Textile Co., of North 
 Chelmsford, Mass., with the use of imported bleached and unbleached flax yarn 
 in conjunction with domestic materials. (T. D. 33580; June 25, 1913.) 
 T. D. 35240 of March 22, 1915, extended to cover towels manufactured by the H. 
 W. Baker Linen Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported linens. (T. 
 D. 35511; June 6, 1915.) 
 Tractors, trucks, automobiles, etc. (See Drawback on automobiles, trucks, trac- 
 tors, etc.) 
 Transmission gears for automobiles. (See Drawback on automobile transmission 
 
 gears.) 
 Traveling bags. (See Drawback on leather bags and other articles.) 
 Traveling cranes. (See Drawback on cranes.) 
 Trimmings, artificial sUk. (See Drawback on silk.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 349 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 
 Trinuulngs, braids, bands, and ribbons- 
 Drawback may be allowed on braids, trimmings, bands, and ribbons manufac- 
 tured by S. Rosenau & Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of imported arti- 
 ficial silk. (T. D. 35648; Aug. 10, 1915.) 
 
 Trimmings, ladies' hats — 
 Drawback on branches and trimmings for ladies' hats manufactured by the New 
 York Flower & Feather Co., of New York, either wholly from imported artificial 
 buds, flowers, stems, silks, satins, velvets, leaves, roots, and similar articles or 
 from such imported materials in combination with domestic materials. (T. D. 
 34123; Feb. 2, 1914.) 
 
 Trimmings and neckties. — 
 Drawback on trimmings and neckties manufactured by the Waitzfelder Braid Co., 
 of Brooklyn, N. Y., from imported artificial silk or artificial silk and metal 
 braid. T. D. 30074 of October 29, 1909, amended. (T. D. 30631; May 21, 
 1910.) 
 Drawback on trimmings and neckties manufactured by Waitzfelder Braid Co., of 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., from imported artificial silk or imported metal thread, or both 
 artificial silk and metal thread. (T. D. 30074; Oct. 29, 1909.) 
 
 Trolley bolts, insulated. (See Drawback on insulated trolley bolts.) 
 
 Trucks, automobile, and automobiles. (See Drawback on automobiles and auto- 
 mobile trucks.) 
 
 Trunks — 
 Drawback on wardrobe trunks manufactured by the Innovation Trunk Co., of 
 New York, with the use of imported ply wood. (T. D. 34371; Apr. 10, 1914.) 
 
 Tubes, boiler. (See Drawback on boiler tubes.) * 
 
 Tubes, iron. (See Drawback on iron tubes, etc.) 
 
 Tubes and booklets, cigarette. (See Drawback on cigarette tubes and booklets.) 
 
 Tubes and cigarettes. (See Drawback on cigarettes and tubes.) 
 
 Tubing and hose, flexible metal. (See Drawback on metal hose and tubing, 
 flexible.) 
 
 Turbine wheels and parts. (See Drawback on steel, manufactures of, turbine 
 wheels and parts.) 
 
 Turbines. (See Drawback on steam turbines.) 
 
 Turkey-red oil. (See Drawback on oils.) 
 
 Turkish tobacco, imported. (See Drawback on cigarettes.) 
 
 Twine. (See Drawback on binder twine.) 
 
 Two-imperial-gallon cans — 
 T. D. 24207 of February 4, 1903, T. D. 24850 of December 10, 1903, and T. D. 
 26345 of May 5, 1905, extended to cover two-imperial-gallon tins manufactured 
 by the Standard Oil Co, of New York wholly from imported terneplate No. 27 
 gauge and solder containing imported lead. (T. D. 29322; Nov. 2, 1908.) 
 
 Type — 
 Drawback on Unitype machine printing type produced by the American Type 
 Founders Co., of Jersey City, N. J., from imported plain printing type for the 
 account of the Unitype Co., of New York. (T. D. 33867; Nov. 14, 1913.) 
 Drawback on printing type and adjuncts manufactiu-ed by the Keystone Type 
 Foundry, of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of either imported antimonial lead, 
 antimony, and lead, or all of them. T. D. 25856 of December 19, 1904, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 31419; Mar. 23, 1911.) 
 
 Type metal — 
 Drawback on type metal designated as "Lino" and "Stereo" manufactured by 
 the Great Western Smelting & Refining Co., of Seattle, Wash., with the use of 
 imported lead dross. T. D. 25503 of July 30, 1904, revoked. (T. D. 33752; 
 Sept. 26, 1913.) 
 
350 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Typewriter ribbons and ribbon cloth — 
 Drawback on typewriter ribbon cloth for and on account of Hermann, Schutte & 
 
 Co., o! New York City, by the Standard Bleachery Co., of Carlton Hill, N. J., 
 
 with the use of imported unbleached muslin. (T. D. 28792; Feb. 21, 1908.) 
 Drawback on "Hilkeretta'' cloth and strips manufactured by Sherman & Sons 
 
 Co., of New York, from imported nainsook and cambric cloth fabrics. T. D. 
 
 29333 of November 9, 1908, extended. (T. D. 30433; Mar. 17, 1910.) 
 Drawback on slit typewriter ribbon cloth manufactured by the Frank Bayer Co., 
 
 of New York City, from imported cloth. (T. D. 32210; Jan. 29, 1912.) 
 Drawback on bleached muslin typewriter cloth and nonfilling slit ribbon cloth 
 
 manufactured for and on account of Hormann, Schutte & Co., of New York 
 
 City, with the use of imported unbleached muslin. T. D. 28792 of February 
 
 21, 1908, and T. D. 29225 of August 24, 1908, revoked. (T. D. 29333; Nov. 9, 
 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on typewriter ribbons manufactured by the Carter's Ink Co., of Boston, 
 Mass., from imported nainsook or woven-edge cloth. T. D. 21726 of November 
 2, 1899, extended. (T. D. 28942; Apr. 20, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on typewriter ribbons manufactured by the Henry Gerber Co., from 
 tape manufactured by Clarence Whitman & Co., both of New York City, from 
 imported yam. T. D. 29879 of June 26, 1909, extended. (T. D. 31266; Feb. 
 6, 1911.) 
 
 T. D. 28942, T. D. 29333, T. D. 29532, T. D. 30433, and T. D. 31441, providing 
 for the allowance of drawback on typewriter ribbons manufactured by the Car- 
 ter's Ink Co., of Boston, Mass., the Hormann, Schutte Co., of New York City, 
 the Mittag & Volger Co., of Park Ridge, N. J,, Sherman Sons & Co., of New 
 York City, and the Neidich Process Co., of Burlington, N. J., amended with 
 respect to the wastage allowance where imported unbleached cloth ia used. 
 (T. D. 32471; Apr. 30, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 21726 of November 2, 1899, providing for the allowance of drawback on type- 
 writer ribbons manufactured from nainsook imported in the piece or from im- 
 ported woven-edge cloth, and of carbon paper manufactured with the use of 
 imported tissue paper, amended with respect to wastage allowance where im- 
 ported unbleached cloth is used. (T. D. 32472; Apr. 30, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on typewriter ribbons manufactured by Mittag & Volger, of New York 
 City, from imported nainsook or imported woven-edge cloth. T. D. 21726 of 
 November 2, 1899, extended. (T. D. 29532; Feb. 6, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on typewriter ribbons manufactured by the Neidich Process Co., of 
 Burlington, N. J., with the use of imported nainsook. T. D. 29333 of November 
 9, 1908, extended. (T. D. 31440; Mar. 31, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on typewriter ribbons manufactured by the Schlegel Manufacturing 
 Co., of Rochester, N. Y., wholly with the use of imported cotton yam. (T. D. 
 29396; Dec. 9, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on typewriter ribbons manufactured by the Union Typewriter Co., of 
 Bridgeport, Conn., with the use of tape manufactured by Clarence Whitman 
 & Co., of New York, from imported cotton yam. (T. D. 29879; June 26, 1909.) 
 Typewriting machines — 
 
 Drawback on typewriting machines manufactured by the Standard Typewriter 
 Co., of Groton, N. Y., with the use of imported aluminum. (T. D. 32547; May 
 
 22, 1912.) 
 Umbrella cloth — 
 
 Drawback on umbrella cloth manufactured by the Dundee Textile Co., of Passaic, 
 N. J., with the use of imported cotton yam. T. D. 30624 of May 20, 1910, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 30673; June 9, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 351 
 
 Diawback on — Continued. 
 ITmbiella cloth — Continued. 
 
 Drawback on umbrella cloth manufactured for and on account of Fleitmann & 
 Co., of New York City, by the Dundee Textile Co., of Passaic, N. J., with the 
 use of imported yams. (T. D. 30624; May 20, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on umbrella cloth manufactured for and on account of Fleitmann & 
 Co., by the Dundee Textile Co., of Passaic, N. J., with the use of imported 
 cotton yams. T. D. 30624 of May 20, 1910, amended. (T. D. 30961; Oct. 1, 
 1910.) 
 TImbrella, parasol, and cane handles — 
 
 Drawback on umbrella, parasol, and cane handles manufactured by Dost & Brandt, 
 of New York City, with the use of imported horn, metal, china, and celluloid 
 parts. T. D. 27903 of February 8, 1907, extended. (T. D. 30914; Sept. 12, 
 1910.) 
 Umbrellas, parasols, canes, and handles for same — 
 
 Drawback on umbrellas, parasols, canes, and on handles manufactured for the 
 same by Dost & Brandt, of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported parts. 
 T. D. 30914 of September 12, 1910, revoked. (T. D. 35556; June 29, 1915.) 
 
 Ribs and frames for— 
 
 Drawback on umbrella ribs and frames manufactured by the Newark Bivet Works, 
 Newark, N. J., with the use of imported steel coil. (T. D. 35647; Aug. 10, 1915.) 
 Underwear — 
 
 Drawback on ladies' undergarments manufactured by Kaufmann, Eose & Co., of 
 New York City, with the use of imported embroideries, laces, and medallions. 
 (T. D. 29755; May 17, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on ladies' undergarments manufactured by the American Undergar- 
 ment Co., of Newark, N. J., with the use of various imported materials. T. D. 
 . 29755 of May 17, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30818; July 22, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on ladies' undergarments manufactured by Gutman Bros., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported laces and embroideries. T. D. 29755 of May 17, 
 1909, extended. (T. D. 31261; Jan. 31, 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on ladies' undermuslins manufactured by the Wolf Co., of New York 
 City, with the use of imported embroideries and laces. (T. D. 32623; June 13, 
 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on ladies' undergarments manufactured by Nelson & Landsberg, of 
 New York, N. Y., with the use of imported laces and embroideries. (T. D. 
 33355; Apr. 23, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on men's underwear manufactured by the Union Mills (Inc.), of Hudson, 
 N. Y., with the use of woven material manufactured in part from imported cot- 
 ton yam. (T. D. 34710; Aug. 18, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on ladies' vests or undershirts manufactured by Walter W. Moyer, of 
 Ephrata, Pa., with the use of imported laces and trimmings. (T. D. 35641; 
 Aug. 7, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on underwear manufactured by the Linen Underwear Co., of Green- 
 wich, N. Y., with the use of imported linen or flax yarn and Unen piece goods. 
 T. D. 28375 of August 8, 1907, revoked. (T. D. 35660; Aug. 18, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on misses' and children's underwear manufactured by the Richmond 
 Underwear Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported laces and embroid- 
 eries. (T. D. 35725; Sept. 27, 1915.) 
 Underwear and pajamas, men's — 
 
 Drawback on men's pajamas and underwear manufactured by Delpark (Inc.), of 
 Newark, N. J., with the use of imported cotton, cotton and wool, and cotton ^nd 
 silk piece goods. (T. D. 36008; Dec, 20, 1915.) 
 
352 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on— Continued. 
 TTniioims — _ 
 
 Drawback on men's two-piece uniforms mamrfactured by Sigmund Eisner, of Bed 
 Bank, N. J., with the use of imported cotton cloth (waterproof twillettes). (T. 
 D. 34484; May 27, 1914.) 
 Unitype machine printing type. (See Drawback on type.) 
 Vacuum bottles — 
 
 Drawback on vacuum bottles manufactured by the Vacuum Specialty Co., of - 
 New York City, with the use of imported glass bottles. T. D. 29247 of Septem- 
 ber 8, 1908, extended. (T. D. 30575; Apr. 26, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on vacuum bottles manufactured by the American Thermos Bottle Co., 
 of New York City, with the use of imported blown glass flasks. (T. D. 32372; 
 Apr. 4, 1912.) 
 Vacuum cleaners — 
 
 Drawback on portable electric pnetmiatic vacuum cleaners and equipment manu- 
 factured by the Duntley Products Co., of Erie, Pa., with the use of ahuninum 
 castings manufactured by the German Bronze Co., of Erie, Pa., from imported 
 aluminum. (T. D. 33235; Feb. 28, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on Eureka vacuum cleaners manufactured for the account of the 
 Eureka Vacuum Cleaner Co., of Detroit, Mich., by the Stecker Electric & Ma- 
 chine Co., of Detroit, Mich., with the use of castings made from imported alumi- 
 num by the Detroit Bath Tub & Brass Manufacturing Co., of Detroit, Mich, 
 (T. D. 33661; July 30, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33661 of July 30, 1913, providing for the payment of drawback on vacuum 
 cleaners manufactured for the account of the Eureka Vacuim^i Cleaner Co., of 
 Detroit, Mich., with the use of imported aluminum, revoked. (T. D. 34959; 
 Dec. 3, 1914.) 
 Vacuum cleaners and sweepers — 
 
 Drawback on Santo Vacuum Cleaners, Type "R," and Santo Twin sweepers, 
 manufactured by the Keller Manufacturing Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the 
 use of aluminum castings which are manufactured in the United States from 
 imported aluminum. (T. D. 32676; June 29, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback allowed on vacuum cleaners, electric sweepers, and aluminum parts 
 therefor, manufactured by the Duntley Products Co., of Erie, Pa., with the use 
 of aluminum castings made for their account by the Germann Bronze Co., of 
 Erie, Pa., with the use of imported aluminum and domestic materials. T. D. 
 33235 of February 28, 1913, revoked. (T. D. 34840; Oct. 19, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on carpet and vacuum sweepers manufactured by the Bissell Carpet 
 Sweeper Co., of Grand Rapids, Mich., with the use of imported Chinese bris- 
 tles. T. D. 23685 of April 25, 1902, T. D. 23773 of June 3, 1902, T. D. 23991 of 
 October 3, 1902, T. D. 24485 of June 30, 1903, and T. D. 25634 of October 21, 
 1904, revoked. (T. D. 35661; Aug. 17, 1915.) 
 
 Parts of — 
 
 T. D. 32676 of June 29, 1912, supra, extended to cover individual parts of Santo 
 Vacuum Cleaners, Type "R," manufactured by the Keller Manufacturing Co., 
 of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of aluminum castings manufactured in the 
 United States from imported aluminum. (T. D. 32919; Nov. 9, 1912.) 
 Vanillin. (See Drawback on flavoring extracts.) 
 Varnishes, enamels, and stains — 
 
 Drawback on varnishes, enamels, and stains manufactured by the Standard 
 Varnish Works, of Staten Island, N. Y., with the use of imported asphalt, ani- 
 line colors, and linseed oil, or linseed oil pressed from imported linseed. T. D. 
 22069 of March 12, 1900, T. D. 22946 of April 6, 1901, T. D. 23439 of December 
 30, 1901, T. D. 24030, of October 31, 1902, T. D. 24613 of August 11, 1903, and 
 T. D. 25246 of May 2, 1904, revoked. (T. D. 35519; June 14, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 353 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Veils- 
 Drawback on ladies' veils manufactured by Martin -Biavaechi, of New York, N. 
 Y., from imported veilings, mousseline de sole, nettings, and plain malines, 
 for the account of Stern & Stem, of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 33987; Dec. 17, 
 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33987 of December 17, 1913, extended to cover ladies' veils manufactured 
 by Martin Biavaschi, of New York, N. Y., from imported veilings, mousseline 
 de sole, nettings, and plain malines, for the account of the Weil Bros., New 
 York, N. Y. (T. D. 34290; Mar. 19, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 33987 of December 17, 1913, extended to cover ladies' veils manufactured 
 by the D. Strauss Co. (Inc.), of New York, N. Y., with the use of various im- 
 ported materials. (T. D. 34640; July 15, 1914.) 
 
 Mosiiulto. (See Drawback on mosquito veils.) 
 Veils and dotted malines — 
 
 Drawback on veils and dotted malines manufactured by E. Jacob & Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., from imported veilings, chiffon, nettings, and plain malines (T. 
 D. 33541; June 10, 1913.) 
 Veils and infants' dresses — ■ 
 
 Drawback on veils and infants' dresses manufactured by S. Hollander & Sons, 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported veiUngs and artificial silk fabrics. 
 (T. D. 35961; Dec. 9, 1915.) 
 Veilings, nettings, chiffons, malines, etc. — 
 
 Drawback on embroidered, chenilled, and edged ladies' veiling manufactured by 
 Louis Hamburger & Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported plain 
 veiling, nettings, muslin de sole, and marabau. (T. D. 35116; Feb. 5, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on imported plain veilings, nettings, chiffons, malines, and similar 
 materials manufactured by various concerns for the account of Stern & Stern, 
 of New York, N. Y., by the process of printing, dotting, flocking, chenilling, or 
 hemstitching. T. D. 24128 of January 2, 1903, revoked. (T. D. 35560; June 
 30, 1915.) 
 Velvet-lined boxes. (See Drawback on boxes.) 
 Velveted piece goods — 
 
 T. D. 33987 of December 17, 1913, covering drawback on veils manufactured by 
 Martin Biavaschi, extended to cover velveted piece goods manufactured by 
 Martin Biavaschi from imported plain cotton and silk piece goods for the account 
 of Stern & Stern, of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 34500; June 2, 1914.) 
 Velvets and plushes — 
 
 Drawback on velvets and plushes manufactured by the Salt's Textile Manufactur- 
 ing Co., of Bridgeport, Conn., with the use of imported cotton yarn and schappe 
 and tussah silk yarns. (T. D. 32797; Aug. 31, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on velvets and plushes manufactured by the Salt's Textile Manufac- 
 turing Co., of Bridgeport, Conn., with the use of imported yarns. (T. D. 34814; 
 Oct. 8, 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on plushes, velvets, and similar fabrics manufactured by Sidney Blu- 
 menthal & Co. (Inc.), of New York City, with the use of imported cotton yarn, 
 silk yarn of various kinds, mohair yarn, artificial silk yam, tussah spun yam, 
 and other materials. (T.D. 32659; June 25, 1912.) 
 Venetian blinds — • 
 
 Drawback on Venetian blinds manufactured by the Burlington Venetian Blind 
 Co., of BurUngton, Vt., in part with the use of imported interwoven cotton 
 ladder tape. (T. D. 28683; Jan. 11, 1908.) 
 45633°— 17 2Z 
 
354 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Vermuth. (See Drawback on liquors, vermuth.') 
 Vests or undershirts, ladies'. (See Drawback on underwear.) 
 Vin Mariani. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Voile flounces — 
 Drawback on voile flounces manufactured by the West Shore Embroidery Co., of 
 West New York, N. J., with the use of imported silk and woolen piece goods for 
 the account of Voss & Stern, of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 33602; July 9, 1913.) 
 Vulcanized rubber and steel truss springs — 
 Drawback on vulcanized rubber and steel truss springs manufactured by the Vul- 
 canized Rubber Co., of New York, with the use of imported spring steel. (T. 
 D. 29325; Nov. 2, 1908.) 
 Waists, ladies'. (See Drawback on clothing.) 
 Wall coverings — 
 Drawback on wall coverings manufactured by the Cott-a-lap Co., of SomerviUe, 
 N. J., with the use of imported burlap. T. D. 27599 of September 11, 1906, 
 extended. (T. D. 31693; June 15, 1911.) 
 Drawback on wall coverings manufactured for and on account of F. A. Foster & 
 Co., of Boston, Mass., by the Waltham Bleachery & Dye Works, of Waltham, 
 Mass., wholly with the use of imported burlaps. T. D. 23235 of August 15, 1901, 
 extended. "(T. D. 29355; Nov. 23, 1908.) 
 Drawback on wall coverings manufactured by the Pacific Mills, of Lawrence, 
 Mass., with the use of imported burlap. (T. D. 31914; Oct. 13, 1911.) 
 Wall draperies. (See Drawback on curtains.) 
 Wall paper — ■ 
 Drawback on wall paper manufactured by the Gledhill Wall Paper Co., of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of imported paper known as "Holzmehls, " by cutting, 
 trimming, decorating, and printing. (T. D. 33111; Jan. 23, 1913.) 
 Walnuts — 
 Drawback on cleaned and bleached walnuts produced by Bennett, Day & Co., of 
 
 New York, N. Y., from imported walnuts. (T. D. 34730; Aug. 24, 1914.) 
 Drawback on walnuts imported by John Leslie & Co., of Chicago, 111., and sorted, 
 bleached, and cleaned and graded prior to exportation. (T. D. 31985; Nov. 
 4, 1911.) 
 T. D. 31985 of November 4, 1911, extended to cover walnuts imported by William 
 A. Higgins & Co., of New York, and screened, picked, cleaned, and bleached 
 prior to exportation. (T. D. 33647; July 23, 1913.) 
 T. D. 31985 of November 4, 1911, extended to cover walnuts imported by William 
 Hills, jr., of New York, N. Y., and bleached and polished prior to exportation. 
 (T. D. 33288; Mar. 22, 1913.) 
 Wampole's Cod Liver Oil. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Waste allowance in carbon paper. (See Drawback on carbon paper.) 
 Watches. (See also Drawback on clocks and watches.) 
 Drawback on watches manufactured by the Illinois Watch Case Co., of Elign, 111., 
 with the use of imported parts. (T. D. 32475; May 1, 1912.) 
 Watches and bracelet watches — 
 Drawback on watches and bracelet watches manufactured by the Omega Watch 
 Co., of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported watch movements. (T^D, 
 35602; July 21, 1915.) 
 Watchmen's clocks — 
 Drawback on watchmen's clocks manufactured by the Chicago Watchman's 
 Clock Works, of Chicago, 111., with the use of imported movements, cases, and 
 register keys. T. D. 22800 of February 11. 1901, extended. (T. P. 31669; June 
 9, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 355 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Watchiaen's clocks — Continued. 
 Drawback on watchmen's clocks and keys manufactured by E. O. Hausburg, of 
 New York, with the use of imported works, metal cases, and key blanks. T. D. 
 22800 of February 11, 1901, extended. (T. D. 29283; Sept. 30, 1908.) 
 Water pipe, cast-iron — 
 Drawback on cast-iron water pipe and other castings manufactured by the Central 
 Foundry Co., of New York City, with the use of imported pig iron. T. D. 24227 
 of February 12, 1903, extended. (T. D. 28753; Feb. 8, 1908.) 
 Waterproof goods. (See also Drawback on dyed, backed, and waterproofed cloths.) 
 Drawback on waterproof goods manufactured for and on account of Frank & Lam- 
 bert, of New York City, by the Rigby Waterproofing & Finishing Co., of New 
 York City, from imported cotton piece goods. (T. D. 32151; Jan. 15, 1912.) 
 Drawback on backed cloth and waterproofed cloth manufactured with the use of 
 imported cloths for the account of Hem-y Gitterman & Co., of New York, N. Y. 
 T. D. 30653 of May 31, 1910, and T. D. 32612 of June 8, 1912, revoked. (T. D. 
 33551; June 13, 1913.) 
 Drawback on waterproof cloaks and coats manufactured by the Cravenette Co., of 
 Hoboken, N. J., from imported woolen cloaks and coats for the account of E. 
 Connor & Co., of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 33766; Oct. 3, 1913.) 
 Drawback on imported fabrics and clothing cravenette-prOofed or waterproofed 
 by the Cravenette Co., U. S. A., of Hoboken, N. J., for the account of their 
 customers. (T. D. 34828; Oct. 13, 1914.) 
 Wattmeters — • 
 Drawback on integrated wattmeters manufactured by the Westinghouse Electric 
 & Manufacturing Co., of Newark, N. J., with the use of imported dial gear 
 trains. (T. D. 31179; Jan. 9, 1911.) 
 Waxed paper. (See Drawback on paper, waxed.) 
 
 Webbing, military equipment. (See Drawback on military equipment.) 
 Welting. (See Drawback on leather welting.) 
 Wheels, turbine, and parts. (See Drawback on steel, manufactures of, turbine 
 
 wheels and parts.) 
 White lead- 
 Drawback on white lead in oil manufactured by the United Lead Co., of New 
 York City, with the use of linseed oil. T. D. 23294 of October 1, 1901, extended. 
 (T. D. 30562; Apr. 22, 1910.) 
 Drawback on white lead in oil manufactured by the United Lead Co., of New 
 York, with the use of linseed oil produced from imported flaxseed. T. D. 
 23294 of October 1, 1901, and T. D. 30562 of April 22, 1910, extended. (T. D. 
 30700; June 17, 1909.) 
 Drawback on white lead manufactured by the United Lead Co., of New York 
 City, wholly with the use of imported pig lead produced from imported bullion 
 or lead-bearing ores. T. D. 32516 of May 18, 1912, amended as to wastage 
 allowance. (T. D. 32701; July 11, 1912.) 
 Drawback on white lead, in oil and in water, manufactured by the United Lead 
 Co., of New York City, in part with the use of imported pig lead. T. D. 27927 
 of February 16, 1907, extended. (T. D. 29284; Oct. 2, 1908.) 
 White thyme, oil of. (See Drawback on oils.) 
 
 Wind shields for automobiles. (See Drawback on automobile wind shields.) 
 Window frames — 
 Drawback on iron window frames manufactured by the Lieberman & Sanford Co., 
 of New York, N. Y., with the use of imported iron moldings and rosettes. (T. 
 D. 34038; Jan. 3, 1914.) 
 Window glass, mirrors, etc. (See Drawback on glass articles.) 
 
356 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 "Wine of Cardui"— 
 Manufactured by the Chattanooga Medicine Co. (See Drawback on medicinal 
 
 preparations.) 
 Wines, sparkling, and champagne. (See Drawback on liquors.) 
 Wlntersniith's Tonic. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Wire — 
 Drawback on wire manufactured by the Electrical Alloy Co., of Morristown, N. J., 
 
 with the use of imported nickel-st«el rods and copper rods. (T. D. 31989; Nov. 
 
 7, 1911.) 
 Drawback on copper-nickel wire manufactured by the Driver-Harris Wire Co., 
 
 of Harrison, N. J., wholly with the use of imported copper-nickel alloy bars. 
 
 (T. D. 28754; Feb. 10, 1908.) 
 Wire rivets — 
 Drawback on wire rivets manufactured by the C. C. & E. P. Townsend Co., of 
 
 New Brighton, Pa., with the use of imported Swedish iron rods. (T. D. 31460; 
 
 Apr. 3, 1911.) 
 Wire rods, sheets, bars, etc. — ^ 
 Drawback on wire rods manufactured by the Page Woven Wire Fence Co., of 
 
 Monessen, Pa., from imported steel ingots. (T. D. 30199^ Dec. 16, 1909.) 
 Drawback on wire rods, sheets, bars, plates, tubing, castings, bare and insulated 
 
 wire and cable, and other articles, manufactured by the United States Alumi- 
 num Co., with the use of aluminum alloy which is manufactured in part from 
 
 imported crude aluminum. T. D. 23875 of July 16, 1902, T. D. 27697 of 
 
 November 10, 1906, and T. D. 28083 of April 11, 1907, extended. (T. D. 30978; 
 
 Oct. 7, 1910.) 
 Wire rope — 
 Drawback on wire rope manufactured by the Pacific Wire Rope Co., of Los Ange- 
 les, Cal., with the use of imported steel wire. T. D. 17355 of August 1, 1896, 
 
 extended. (T. D. 31154; Dec. 29, 1910.) 
 Drawback on wire rope manufactured by the Williamspoit Wire Rope Co., of 
 
 Wllliamsport, Pa., from imported wire. T. D. 12168 of December 11, 1891, 
 
 revoked. (T. D. 31760; July 18, 1911.) 
 Drawback on wire rope manufactured by the A. Lfeschen & Sons Wire Rope Co., 
 
 of St. Ixiuis, Mo., with the use of imported wire. T. D. 12168 of December 11, 
 
 1891, and T. D. 16579 of December 10, 1895, revoked. (T. D. 35306; Apr. 9, 
 
 1915.) 
 Drawback on wire rope manufactured by the Williamsport Wire Rope Co., of 
 
 Wllliamsport, Pa., with the use of imported wire. (T. D. 35791; Oct. 18, 1915.) 
 Witch-hazel — 
 Drawback on witch-hazel manufactured by Seeman Bros., of New York, with the 
 
 use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 20328 of November 16, 1898, extended. 
 
 (T. D. 30073; Oct. 29, 1909.) 
 Drawback on witch-hazel manufactured by E. E. Dickinson & Co., of Essex 
 
 Conn., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 20328 of November 16, 
 
 1898, extended. (T. D. 30075; Oct. 29, 1909.) 
 Drawback on witch-hazel manufactured by Austin, Nichols & Co., of New York, 
 
 with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 20328 of November 16, 1898, 
 
 extended. (T. D. 30107; Nov. 13, 1909.) 
 • Drawback on witch-hazel manufactured by the Gould Witch-Hazel Co., of New 
 
 York, with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 20328 of November 16, 
 
 1898, extended. (T. D. 30473; Mar. 30, 1910.) 
 Drawback on witch-hazel manufactured by the Merrimac Witch-Hazel Co., of 
 
 Windham, N. H., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 20328 of 
 
 November 16, 1898, extended. (T. D. 30974; Oct. 5, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 357 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Witch-hazel — Continued . 
 
 T. D. 30974 of October 5, 1910, extended to cover witch-hazel manufactured with 
 the uae of domestic tax-paid alcohol by the Gould Witch-Hazel Co., succeesora 
 to the Merrimac Witch-Hazel Co., of Windham, N. H. (T. D. 34724; Aug. 22, 
 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on witch-hazel styled "Marvel of Healing" manufactured by the 
 Humphreys' Homeopathic Medicine Co., of New York, with the use of domestic 
 tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 20328 of November 16, 1898, extended. (T. D. 
 30977; Oct. 6, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on witch-hazel manufactured by E. A. & W. E. Child, of East Hamp- 
 ton, Conn., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 31991; Nov. 6, 
 1911.) 
 
 Drawback on witch-hazel manufactured by E. E. Dickinson & Co., of Essex, 
 Conn., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. T. D. 30075 of October 29, 
 1909, revoked. (T. D. 32260; Feb. 14, 1912.) 
 
 Drawback on witch-hazel manufactured by Magnus, Mabee & Reynard, of New 
 York, N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 34588; June 25, 
 1914.) 
 
 Drawback on witch-hazel extract manufactured by the American Chemical Co., 
 of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol. (T. D. 35094; 
 Jan. 30, 1915.) 
 
 Drawback on extract of witch-hazel manufactured by Seeman Bros., of New York, 
 N. Y., with the use of domestic tax-paid alcohol.' T. D. 30073 of October 29, 
 1907, revoked. (T. D. 35831; Oct. 26, 1915.) 
 "Wizard OH." (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Wood-barking machines. (See Drawback on machines, wood-barking.) 
 Women's clothing. (See Drawback on clothing.) 
 Women's shoes. (See Drawback on shoes.) 
 Wool- 
 Drawback on graded pulled wool manufactured by Levor & New, of New York 
 City, from imported sheepskins by the process of washing, bleaching, pulling, 
 grading, scouring, etc. T. D. 28169 of May 21, 1907, extended. (T. D. 28897; 
 Mar. 26, 1908.) 
 
 T. D. 28169 of May 21, 1907, extended to cover graded, pulled, and scoured wool 
 manufactured by G. Levor & Co., of New York, N. Y., from imported sheep- 
 skins. (T. D. 33610; July 11, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on graded pulled wool manufactured for and on account of C. J. South- 
 wick & Co., of Boston, Mass., from imported sheepskins. T. D. 28169 of May 
 21, 1907, extended. (T. D. 29539; Feb. 9, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on graded pulled wool manufactured by the Surpass Leather Co., of 
 New York City, from imported sheepskins. T. D. 28169 of May 21, 1907. ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 28746; Feb. 6, 1908.) 
 
 Drawback on carded wool manufactured by E. S. Parkhurst & Co. , of Gloversville, 
 N. Y., with the use of imported washed wool. T. D. 28133 of May 3, 1907, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 30405; Mar. 7, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on carded wool manufactured by E. S. Parkhurst & Co., of Glovers- 
 ville, N. Y., with the use of imported wool in the grease. T. D. 28133 of May 3, 
 1907, amended. (T. D. 30540; Apr. 18, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on graded pulled wool manufactured by the S. A. Maxfield Co., of 
 Bangor, Me., with the use of imported sheepskins. T. D. 28169 of May 21, 1907, 
 extended. (T. D. 81061; Nov. 22, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on graded pulled wool manufactured by the New England Dressed 
 Meat & Wool Co., of Somerville, Mass., for and on account of the Swift Wool 
 Co., from imported sheepskins. (T. D. 31998; Nov. 9, 1911.) 
 
358 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Contmued. 
 Wool products — (See also Drawback on Camel's-hair products.) 
 
 Drawback on worsted yarns, tops, and noils manufactured by the Abbot Worsted 
 Co., of Graniteville, Mass. T. D. 29458 of January 5, 1909, extended; T. D. 
 29057 of June 8, 1908, revoked.' (T. D. 29718; Apr. 30, 1909.) 
 
 Drawback on tops and noils manufactured by the Goodall Worsted Co., of San- 
 ford, Me., with the use of imported alpaca. T. D. 29458 of January 5, 1909, 
 as amended by T. D. 31064 of November 25, 1910, extended. (T. D. 31096; 
 Dec. 10, 1910.) 
 
 Drawback on noils manufactured by the Farr Alpaca Co., of Holyoke, Mass., from 
 imported alpaca. (T.D. 33186; Feb. 17, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on tops, noils, dusted card waste, clean burr waste, combing bits, and 
 oily waste manufactured by the Arlington Mills, of Boston, Mass., either wholly 
 from imported wool or from imported wool in combination with domestic wool. 
 (T. D. 33544; June 11, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33544 of June 11, 1913, extended to cover tops, noils, and other valuable 
 products manufactured by the American Woolen Co., of Boston, Mass., from 
 imported wool. (T. D. 33599; July 8, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33544 of June 11, 1913, extended to cover tops, noils, combing waste, and 
 card waste manufactured from imported wool by the Barre Wool Combing Co., 
 of Barre, Mass., for the account of Dupee & Meadows, of Boston, Mass. (T. D. 
 33600; July 8, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33544 of June 11, 1913, extended to cover alpaca tops manufacutred by 
 Joseph Benn & Sons (inc.), of Greystone, R. I., from raw alpaca wool imported 
 prior to December 1, 1913. (T. D. 33888; Nov. 18, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33544 of June 11, 1913, extended to cover tops, noils, combing waste, cleaned 
 combing waste, and card waste manufactured by Wm. H. Grundy & Co., of 
 Philadelphia and Bristol, Pa., and the Erben-Harding Co., of Tacony, Pa., 
 from wool in the grease imported prior to December 1, 1913. (T. D. 33901; 
 Nov. 21, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33544 of June 11, 1913, extended to cover tops and noils manufactured by 
 the Lorraine Manufacturing Co., of Pawtucket, R. I., from imported wool. (T. 
 D. 33753; Sept. 26, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33544 of June 11, 1913, extended to cover tops, noils, combing waste, and 
 card waste manufactured by the Talbot Wool Combing Co., of Norton, Mass., 
 from imported wool for the account of Winslow & Co. (Inc.,) of Boston-, Mass. 
 (T. D. 33616; July 12, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on wool tops and noils manufactured by the Barre Wool Combing Co., 
 of Barre, Mass., for the account of Francis Willey & Co., of Boston, Mass. (T. 
 D. 33136; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on tops and noils manufactured by the Barre Wool Combing Co., of 
 Barre, Mass., from imported wool in combination with domestic wool for the 
 account of Francis Willey & Co., of Boston, Mass. (T. D. 33502; June 6, 
 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on tops, noils, combing waste, and card waste manufactured from im- 
 ported wool by the Barre Wool Combing Co. (Ltd.), of South Barre, Mass., for 
 the account of Jeremiah Williams & Co., of Boston. (T. D. 33635; July 18, 
 1913.) 
 
 Drawback on tops, yarn, carpets, and rugs manufactured by M. J. Whittall, of 
 Worcester, Mass., with the use of wool imported in the grease. T. D. 14488 of 
 November 22, 1893, revoked. (T. D. 33824; Oct. 30, 1913.) 
 Wool sealskins — 
 
 Drawback on dyed wool sealskins produced by J. D. Williams (Inc.), of New 
 York, N. Y., from imported undyed wool sealskins. (T. D. 34086; Jan. 26, 
 1914.) 
 
DIGEST GF CUSTOMS l>EClSiOirS, 1908-1915. 359 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Wool slubbing— 
 Drawback on wool slubbing manufactured by or for and on account ot Charles J. 
 Webb & Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., from imported wool. T. D. 28133 of May 3, 
 1907, extended. (T. D. 31282; Feb. 8, 1911.) 
 Wool tops and noils and other by-products. (See Drawback on wool products.) 
 Woolen fabrics. (See Drawback on fabrics.) 
 Woolen piece goods. (See Drawback on piece goods.) 
 Worsted cloth. (See Drawback on cloth, worsted.) 
 Worsted yam. (See Drawback on wool products.) 
 Worsted yarn, camel's hair. (See Drawback on camel's hair products.) 
 Wrappers and labels — 
 T. D. 33943 of December 2, 1913, extended to cover wrappers and labels manufac- 
 tured by the Lord Baltimore Press, of Baltimore, Md., from imported surface- 
 coated papers for the account of the Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Co., 
 of Pulton, N. Y. (T. D. 34173; Feb. 9, 1914.) 
 Yacht spars — 
 Drawback on hollow yacht spars manutactivred by the George Lawley & Son Cor- 
 poration, of Boston, Mass., with the use of imported metal mast bands, reefing 
 gear, main-boom bands and plates, spreader bands, spreaders and struts, etc. 
 (T. D. 29705; Apr. 22, 1909.) 
 Yams — 
 T. D. 35875 of ^^ovember 12, 1915, extended to cover imported bleached or mer- 
 cerized yarns exported after having been dyed or dyed and spooled. (T. D. 
 85906; Nov. 27, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35875 of November 12, 1915, amended. Former rates revoked thereby. 
 
 (T. D. 35946; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 Artificial silk — 
 
 Drawback on artificial silk yam imported in the gray and dyed for and on account 
 of B. TJllmann & Co., of New York City. T. D. 26684 of August 30, 1905, ex- 
 tended. (T. D. 31383; Mar. 14, 1911.) 
 T. D. 32391 of April 11, 1912, extended to cover artificial silk yam when dyed for 
 and on account of Paul Puttmann, of New York, by the Hasco Dyeing Co., of 
 Weehawken, N. J., for the William Teschemacher Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (T. 
 D. 33135; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 Drawback on spooled yam, twisted yam, and twisted spooled yam produced for 
 the account of Paul Puttmann , of New York, N . Y. , by the Standard Silk Wind- 
 ing Co., of New York, N. Y., and the F. Eliot Low Co., of Paterson, N. J., either 
 from artificial silk yam imported in the gray or such imported artificial silk yam 
 after having been dyed for the account of Paul Puttmann under the provisions 
 of T. D. 32391 of April 11, 1912, and T. D. 33135 of February 1, 1913. (T. D. 
 34142; Feb. 3, 1914.) 
 T. D. 34142 of Febmary 3, 1914, extended to cover spooled artificial yarn, twisted 
 artificial yarn, and twisted and spooled artificial yam produced by Arnold 
 Kamps, of New York, N. Y., from artificial silk yarn imported in the gray for 
 the account of Paul Puttmann, of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 34462; May 25, 
 1914.) 
 Drawback on yam imported in the gray and dyed by Albert Eckstein , of New York, 
 N. Y., and on such dyed yarn spooled by the Einstein Manufacturing Co., for 
 the account of Albert Eckstein. (T. D. 33680; Aug. 11, 1913.) 
 Drawback on dyed or dyed and spooled artificial silk yam manufactured by 
 Mindlin & Rosenman, of New York, N. Y., from imported gray or bleached arti- 
 ficial silk yam. (T. D. 35255; Mar. 23, 1915.) 
 
360 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Drawback on — Continued. 
 Yams — Continued. 
 Drawback on artificial silk yam imported in the gray and dyed and finished by 
 the William Teschemacher Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., for account of the Lustre 
 Fibres (Ltd.). (T. D. 35545; June 22, 1915.) 
 Cotton — 
 
 Drawback on mercerized, mercerized and bleached, and mercerized and dyed 
 cotton yam manufactured by Gerald Cooper, of Providence, R. I., and the 
 William Teschemacher Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., from cotton yarn imported in 
 the gray. (T. D. 34176; Feb. 11, 1914.) 
 T. D. 34176 of February 11, 1914, extended to cover mercerized anid dyed cotton 
 yam, mercerized and bleached cotton yarn, and mercerized, bleached, and 
 dyed cotton yam, manufactured for the account of Ludwig Littauer, of New 
 York City, by Gerald Cooper, of Providence, R. I., the Home Bleach & Dye 
 Works, and the Robert D. Mason Co., of Pawtucket, R. I., from cotton yam im- 
 ported in the gray. (T. D. 34981; Dec. 11, 1914.) 
 Drawback on cotton yams imported in warps and skeins and wound on spools, 
 cones, tubes, and cops by the Philadelphia Winding Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., 
 either in the condition in which imported or after being mercerized for their 
 account by the Ontario Dyeing Co., of the same city. (T. D. 35758; Oct. 8, 
 1915.) 
 Uercerized — 
 
 Drawback on mercerized and mercerized and dyed cotton ya?jis manufactured by 
 William H, Lorimer's Sons Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., with the use of cotton yam 
 imported in the gray. T. D. 22394 of July 28, 1900, revoked. (T. D. 35785; 
 Oct. 16, 1915.) 
 Drawback on bleached, mercerized, dyed, bleached and mercerized, bleached 
 and dyed, mercerized and dyed, or bleached, jnercerized, and dyed yams, 
 natural or artificial, manufactured with the use of yams imported in the gray or 
 crude state. (T. D. 35875; Nov. 12, 1915.) 
 T. D. 35875 of November 12, 1915, as extended by T. D. 35906 of November 27, 
 1915, and T. D. 35965 of December 10, 1915, extended to cover various articles 
 dyed by Abe Stuermann, of Jersey City, N. J., for the account of R. F. Down- 
 ing & Co., Paul Puttmann, of New York, N. Y., and others. T. D. 32343 of 
 April 1, 1912, and T. D. 32391 of April 11, 1912, revoked. (T. D. 36025; Dec. 
 30, 1915.) 
 Mohair — 
 
 Drawback on yam manufactured by the Griswold Worsted Co., of Darby, Pa., in 
 whole or in part with the use of imported mohair. (T. D. 35558; June 29, 1915.) 
 Wool and worsted. (See Drawback on wool products and on camel's-hair products.) 
 Yam carriers. (See Drawback on carpet looms and yam carriers.)^ 
 Zhongiva. (See Drawback on medicinal preparations.) 
 Zinc shavings — 
 Drawback on zinc shavings manufactured by F. W. Brq,un, of Los Angeles, Cal., 
 
 from imported zinc in sheets. (T. D. 29463; Jan. 9, 1909.) 
 Drawback on zinc shavings manufactured by the Braun Corporation, of Los 
 Angeles, Cal., successors to F. W. Braun, from imported zinc in sheets. T. D. 
 29463 of January 9, 1909, extended. (T. D. 30736; June 28, 1910.) 
 Zinc and spelter bottoms- 
 Drawback on spelter and zinc bottoms manufactured by the Trenton Smelting & 
 Refining Co., of Trenton, N. J., and the Pearlman Co. (Inc.), of Clarksburg, W. 
 Va. from imported zinc dross and skimmings, for the account of the Eagle 
 Smelting & Refining Works, of New York, N. Y. (T. D. 35347; Apr. 27, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 361 
 
 Drawings. 
 Fashion-plate — 
 
 Works of art: Faahion-plate drawings that possess some artistic merit, but are for 
 purely practical and utilitarian purposes, are not "works of art" within the 
 meaning of paragraph 703, tariff act of 1897. Harper v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 18, 1909. Suit 5247. 
 Appeal by importer from decision by Board of General Appraisers. Abstract 
 18287 (T. D. 28817). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29806; June 8, 1909.) 
 Drawnwork. 
 
 Meld, that flax drawnwork, classified under paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, 
 relating to embroidered articles and to articles in imitation of lace, is dutiable 
 under paragraph 346, relating to woven articles in chief value of flax. Simon 
 V. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 18, 1908. Suit 4617. Appeal by importer from a decision by Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6452 (T. D. 28644). Board reversed. 
 (T. D. 29017; May 20, 1908.) 
 
 Drawnwork articles are not dutiable under paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, as 
 "embroidered," but under paragraph 346 as woven articles of flax. In the 
 absence of proof it will not be held that the term "embroidered" in paragraph 
 339, tariff act of 1897, includes the ornamentation added to the comers of drawn- 
 work articles, consisting of a conventional Maltese cross or of a conventional 
 wheel or spider web. United States v. Simon, United States Circuit Court of 
 Appeals, Second Circuit, April 13, 1909. No. 189 (4617). Appeal by United 
 States from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of 
 New York (T. D. 29017), reversing G. A. 6452 (T. D. 27644). Decision adverse 
 to the Government. (T. D. 29702; Apr. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Writ of certiorari denied in suit 4617, United States v. Simon & Co. (T. D. 30343), 
 involving the classification of so-called drawnwork. (T. D. 30397; Mar. 3, 
 1910.) 
 Drawnwork articles. 
 
 Drawnwork articles of linen are not duitable under paragraph 339, tariff act of 
 1897, but under paragraph 346 as woven fabrics of flax. United States v. Simon 
 (169 Fed. Rep., 106; T. D. 29702). (T. D. 30442— G. A. 6993; Mar. 16, 1910.) 
 
 While the department concurs in the decision of the board, G. A. 7227 (T. D. 
 31649), with respect to the merchandise the subject thereof, it does not concur 
 in the general interpretation placed by the board upon the language of para- 
 graph 349 of the tariff act with respect to plain openwork, not ornamented or 
 embroidered, tamboured, appUqu^d, or scalloped by hand or machinery. 
 (T. D. 31765; July 19, 1911.) 
 
 Articles of linen, from which threads have been drawn, and threads from other 
 and different fabrics introduced and interwoven, and so intertwined and 
 grouped as to form embellished figures and decorations adding to their beauty 
 and value, are dutiable under the provision in paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, 
 for "articles or fabrics * * * from which threads have been drawn, cut, or 
 punched to produce openwork." This provision in said paragraph 349 describes 
 a distinct species of articles, and is not limited in its application by the subse- 
 quent phrases "ornamented or embroidered in any manner herein described, 
 in any part thereof, however small," so as to include only such articles which 
 have been embroidered, appliqu^d, scalloped, or ornamented by other means 
 described in the paragraph. 
 
362 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-191S. 
 
 Drawnwork articles — Continued. 
 
 Statutory construction — Punctuation: A statute should be read with such 
 stops as are manifestly required, but construction must be agreeable to the 
 principles of English grammer, render the language plain and unambiguous, 
 and harmonize with the evident intent of Congress. The substitution of a 
 semicolon for the comma or the insertion of the disjunctive conjunction ''or" 
 after the word "openwork" in paragraph 349 renders the paragraph a consistent 
 and harmonious whole, removes redundancy, repugnancy, or absurdity, and' 
 clearly reflects the legislative intent. While the conference report, as adopted, 
 is the last written expression of Congress, it does not follow that this expression 
 gives the intention of Congress. Such intention can best be gathered from the 
 the whole legislative history of the law and the decisions of the courts and board 
 relating to the subject matter in controversy. (T. D. 31649 — 6. A. 7227; May 
 29, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The uncontradicted testimony shows the importation under 
 consideration to be of drawn-work articles, doilies, table centers, tidies, etc., in 
 part of lace or imitation lace. They were as such dutiable under paragraph 
 349, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Ulmann (139 Fed. Rep., 3) and United 
 States V. Simon (169 Fed. Rep., 106) distinguished. Frank & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 710), United States Court of Custom Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porteiB from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7227 (T. D. 31649). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32534; May 8, 1912.) 
 Articles of cotton, flax, or other vegetable fiber from which threads have been 
 drawn, cut, or punched to produce openwork, are dutiable under the provision 
 therefor in paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909. The provision in said paragraph 
 349 for "articles or fabrics * * * from which threads have been drawn, cut, 
 or punched to produce openwork," describes a distinct species of articles, and 
 ip not limited in its application by the subsequent phrases "ornamented or 
 embroidered in any manner herein described, in any part thereof, however 
 small," so as to include only such articles which have been embroidered, 
 appliqu6d, scalloped, or ornamented by other means described in the para- 
 graph. 
 
 Statutory construction — Punctuation: A statute should be read with such 
 punctuation marks as are manifestly required, but construction must be agree- 
 able to the principles of English grammar, render the language plain and un- 
 ambiguous, and harmonize with the evident intent of Congress. 
 
 Substitution of semicolon for comma, insertion of "or:" The substitution of 
 a semicolon for the comma or the insertion of the disjunctive conjunction "or" 
 after the word "openwork" in paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, renders the para- 
 graph a consistent and harmonious whole, removes redundancy, repugnancy, 
 or absurdity, and clearly reflects the legislative intent. (T. D. 33262 — G. A. 
 7445; Mar. 5, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise involved in this case consists of scarfs, squares, 
 doilies, tidies, and similar articles of Japanese openwork or drawn work, com- 
 posed in chief value of flax. On a review of the judicial decisions affecting 
 the classification of articles similar to those of the importation, and of the legis- 
 lative action following upon those decisions, it is clear that paragraph 349, tarifl 
 act of 1909, was intended to subject ornamental openwork to the same duty 
 imposed by that act on laces, embroideries, and the Uke. Frank & Co. et al. v. 
 United States (No. 1161), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7445. 
 . (T. D. 33262). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34469; May 18, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 363 
 
 Diawuwork articles — Continued. 
 
 Tidies and-bureau scarfs, from which threads have been drawn and the remaining 
 loose threads fastened or grouped together by an additional thread inserted by 
 hand, so that ornamental figures or designs are produced on the articles, are duti- 
 able at 60 per cent ad valorem as "woven fabrics or articles from which threads 
 have been omitted, drawn, punched, or cut, and with threads introduced after 
 weaving, forming figures or designs," under paragraph 358 of the act of 1913. 
 (T. D. 34918— G. A. 7637; Nov. 20, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Cotton tidies and bureau scarfs with figures or designs. — The fig- 
 ures on these goods are outlined exclusively by threads introduced after weaving 
 and they are not produced by combining these threads with threads of the fabric. 
 The goods were properly assessed under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913. Taka- 
 yama v. United States (No. 1502), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7637 (T. D. 34918). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35396; May 3, 1915.) 
 
 Drawplates. (See Steel plates.) 
 
 Drayage charges. (See Charges, drayage.) 
 
 Dress buttons. (See Buttons.) 
 
 Dress goods. 
 Automobile cloth — Dress goods. 
 Merchandise the principal use of which is as automobile cloth, but which is also 
 adaptable for use as dress goods, and is in fact sometimes so used, is properly clas- 
 sifiable as "goods of similar description and character" to women's dress goods 
 under paragraph 380, tariff act of 1909, and not as cloth of wool (par. 378). — 
 Greenleaf v. Goodrich (101 U. S., 278) and Schmieder v. Barney (113 U. S., 645) 
 cited; G. A. 4567 (T. D. 21650) distinguished. (T. D. 34303— G. A. 7544; 
 Mar. 16, 1914.) 
 Silk-wool — 
 Dress goods in chief value of silk but in part of wool are dutiable under paragiaph 
 369, tariff act of 1897, as "women's and children's dress goods * * * jn 
 part of wool," rather than under paragraph 387 as woven fabrics of silk. Ballot 
 V. United States, United States Circidt Court of Appeals, First Circuit, April 28, 
 1909. No. 818 (suit 2050). Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the 
 United States for the District of Massachusetts (T. D. 29548) afiimiing Abstract 
 19887 (T. D. 29339). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29766; May 
 19, 1909.) 
 
 Dressed lambskins. (See Glove leather.) 
 
 Dressed lava stone. (See Stone, lava.) 
 
 Dressed limestone lanterns. (See Lanterns.) 
 
 Dressed sheepskins. (See Fur, manufactures of.) 
 
 Dressing oil distilled from grease. (See Oils.) 
 
 Dried ducks' feet and gizzards. (See Meat, prepared.) 
 
 Dried fish. (See Fish.) 
 
 Dried flowers, statioe, etc. (See Flowers.) 
 
 Dried mint. (See Mint, dried.) 
 
 Dried opium. (See Opium.) 
 
 Drilled pearls. (See Pearls, drilled.) 
 
 Drills, rook — Bar hoists — Steam engines. (See Machinery and machines.) 
 
 Drinking straws. 
 
 Rye straws grown specially to be cut into lengths for drinking purposes and chem- 
 ically bleached, held to be straws manufactured and dutiable at the rate of 20 
 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909, as unenumerated 
 manufactured articles. (T. D. 32527— G. A. 736G; May 17, 1912.) 
 
364 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Driving rope of cotton. (See Belting, machinery.) 
 Dropping botttes. (See Bottles.) 
 Dross of tin and lead. 
 
 A dross composed of tin and-lead is not entitled to free entry under paragraph 683, 
 tariff act of 1897, as "black oxide of tin" or "grain tin," but is dutiable under 
 paragraph 183 as "metals unwrought, not specially provided for." G. A. 5179 
 (T. D. 23872) distinguished. (T. D. 28909— G. A. 6746; Mar. 31, 1908.) 
 Drugs. 
 
 Areoa nuts — 
 The chief use of areca nuts in this country is as a medicine, hence they are doubt- 
 less properly classifiable as drugs, but the history of the drug paragraph of the free 
 list, as well as the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, excludes them 
 from paragraph 477 of the tariff act of 1913. Nor are they free of duty under 
 paragraph 552, notbeinge;usdemjen«m with moss and seaweed, being expressly 
 provided for in paragraph 226, under which they are properly classifiable for 
 tariff purposes. (T. D. 35704— G. A. 7773; Sept. 10, 1915.) 
 Labeling importations of — 
 
 The provisions of T. D. 28928 of AprQ 10, 1908, will not be applied to any products 
 to whose admission the Secretary of Agriculture shall make objection. (T. D. 
 29910; July 15, 1909.) 
 Powdered opium — 
 Powdered opium is dutiable under paragraph 20, tariff act of 1897, as a drug ad- 
 vanced in value. (T. D. 29776; May 25, 1909.) 
 Wat san, not. (See Wai san; T. D. 30150; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 Drugs, crude. 
 Balsam — 
 Crude balsam in gelatine capsules is dutiable as a medicinal preparation under 
 paragraph 68, tariff act of 1897. United States v. Lehn; Lehn v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 9, 1909. 
 Suits 5429-30. Cross appeals from decision by Board of General Appraisers, G. 
 A. 6837 (T. D. 29408). 
 
 (Appealed:) Where crude balsam has been placed in gelatin capsules, such 
 treatment resulting in an article with a greater value and an improved condition, 
 this article is oxcluded from the provision in paragraph 548 for "crude" drugs 
 not advanced in value or condition. United States v. Lehn; Lehn v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 19, 
 1909 . Suits 5429-30. Cross appeals from decision by Board of General Apprais- 
 ers, G. A. 6837 (T. D. 29408). Decision in favor of Government. (T. D. 29809; 
 June 8, 1909.) 
 Gum resin — 
 Gum resin, or rosin, dutiable under paragraph 20, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 
 one-fovirth of 1 cent per pound and 10 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 30119; Nov. 
 20, 1909.) 
 Gum resin, commonly known as rosin, is a drug (gum) in a crude state and not 
 advanced in value or condition by any process whatsoever. Where language of 
 a statute is doubtful and construction by executive department has been uni- 
 form the court will adopt such construction. The fact that merchandise has 
 been continuously given the same classification for a period of 20 years should 
 receive due consideration in arriving at a conclusion. (T. D. 30982 — G. A. 7107 ; 
 Oct. 8, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 365 
 
 Diugs, cmde — Continued. 
 Gum resin — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed :) The importation ie of gum resin or rosin. This is the product of 
 the ordinary treatment that oleoresin or crude turpentine is subjected to in 
 order to separate its two contents. By the application of heat the turpentine is 
 vaporized, passed through a worm, and condensed; the resin content being at 
 the same time run oft from the boiler of the still into a vat, but cleansed, in pass- 
 ing through screens, ot chips, bark, insects, and dirt, accumulated in taking the 
 turpentine from the tree. These processes have been uniformly held not to 
 advance an article from its crude state ; not to advance it either in value or con- 
 dition as those terms are used and uniformly construed in revenue statutes. 
 They merely serve to get the article by itself. The term "in a crude state" is 
 broad enough to include as "crude" all the grades of. resin shown by the record 
 in this case, and the importation is entitled to free entry. Roessler & Hasslacher 
 Chemical Co. v. United States (94 Fed. Rep., 822); United States v. Godwin (91 
 Fed. Rep., 753); Schoenemann v. United States (119 Fed. Rep., 584). United 
 States V. Sheldon & Co. (No. 494), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 7107 (T. D. 30982). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32245; Feb. 1, 1912.) 
 The entry involved in this case, covering an importation of resin, had been reliq- 
 uidated at Laredo on the faith of instructions given by the Auditor for the 
 Treasury Department, pending determination on appeal in another case of the 
 question involved. That case — United States v. Sheldon (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 
 485; T. D. 32245) — was decided adversely to the Govermnent and controls this 
 case. The facts of record adequately rebut the presumption of correctness that 
 attends the reliq nidation; the resin was entitled to free entry. Lange Soap Co. 
 V. United States (No. 980), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28935 
 (T. D. 32655). Decision re\ersed. (T. D. 33005; Nov. 27, 1912.) 
 Sufficiency of protest: Protests which are sufficiently clear and specific to point 
 out the action of the collector complained against, and what protestants claim 
 the collector's action should have been, comply with the requirements of the 
 statute, subsection 14 of section 28, tariff act of 1909. Frazee v. Moffitt (18 Fed., 
 584), United States v. Salambier (170 U. S., 621), Davies v. Arthur (96 U. S., 
 148), Heinze v. Arthur's Executors (144 U. S., 28), Arthur i;.- Morgan (112 U. S., 
 495), United States v. Shea (114 Fed., 38), United States v. Straus & Sons (5 
 Ct. Oust. Appls., — ; T. D. 34193), G. A. 5283 (T. D. 24244), G. A. 6140 (T. D. 
 26680), G. A. 6460 (T. D. 27662), and G. A. 6476 (T. D. 27704). Gum resin 
 shown to contain impurities consisting of pieces of wood and dirt, or even with 
 such impurities removed, is still crude gum resin if not further advanced than 
 the elimination of such impurities. Congress in providing for the free entry ot 
 crude gum resin was dealing with that substance and not a combination or a 
 mixture of crude gum resin, sticks, dirt, and other impurities. United States v. 
 . Sheldon (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 485; T. D. 32245) followed. (T. D. 34320— G. A. 
 7549; Mar. 27, 1914.) 
 Star anise seed — 
 Star anise seed is not dutiable as "anise seed" under paragraph 212, tariff act of 
 1913, but is free of duty as a crude drug under paragraph 477. (T. D. 35797 — 
 G. A. 7791; Oct. 13, 1915.) 
 
 Drumheads, skins for. (See Musical instruments, parts of.) 
 
 Drums, iron or steel. (See Coverings.) 
 
 Drums used as coutaiuers for imported merchandise. (See Coverings.) 
 
 Duck, tinned. (See Meat, prepared.) 
 
 Ducks' feet and gizzards, dried. (See Meat, prepared.) 
 
 Ducra's Alimentary Misrtuie. (See Medicinal preparations containing alcohol.) 
 
366 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Dummy watches. (See Toys, watches.) 
 Duplex Uthographic transfer paper. (See Paper, transfer.) 
 Duress. 
 Commission — 
 
 An item amongst others in an importer's invoice showing a commission had been 
 paid a commissionaire is held to have been placed in the invoice under duress, 
 it appearing that under the customs regulations the omission of this item by 
 the importer would be followed by its immediate inclusion and further by the 
 exaction of a penalty for its omission. (T. D. 31007; Oct. 18, 1910.) 
 
 The importer may, in view of possible subsequent proceedings, register with his 
 entry his claim as to the true valuation, and for the collector to refuse this priv- 
 ilege might be duress. But to constitute duress the proof must show a sub- 
 stantial right had been denied. 
 
 Ibid: In the case here there is no evidence that the goods are ever sold in the open 
 markets of the country of exportation at less than the price including the com- 
 mission in controversy, and the requirement that this should be added to make 
 market value was not to deprive the importer of any substantial right. The 
 requirement, accordingly, did not constitute duress. Batten & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 1378), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers,* Abstract 34856 (T. 
 D. 34201). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34975; Nov. 27, 1914.) 
 
 The importers were constrained to include the commissions in dispute in the 
 entered value of the merchandise; otherwise their entries would not have been 
 received, but simply returned to them. This constituted duress. 
 
 Commissions — When nondutiable: The shippers in the Vandegrift case were 
 purchasing agents who bought the merchandise in foreign markets on cabled 
 orders. The commissions charged for this service and included in the invoices 
 were true nondutiable purchasing commissions in fact and in law. 
 
 Failure to protest duress: In the Vandiver case the commissions were averred 
 to be nondutiable in character, but no claim of duress in any form was made in 
 the protest. The protestant was called upon to impeach the validity of the en- 
 tries themselves and to notify the collector of the grounds of such impeachment, 
 and failing in this the assessment must stand. Vandiver v. United States (No. 
 1428); Vandegrift & Co. v. United States (No. 1433), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeals from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 35834 (T. D. 34548), and Abstract 35946 (T. D. 34571). No. 1428 
 affirmed; No. 1433 reversed. (T. D. 35327; Apr. 14, 1915.) 
 Mistake of law — 
 
 Importers so changed the form of invoicing their goods as to increase the amount 
 of duty payable, this being done to comply with a rule which had been estab- 
 lished by the Board of General Appraisers but which the courts subsequently 
 held illegal. Held that, as the action of the importers had been without pro- 
 test, and the customs officers had not raised or changed the invoices, nor 
 directed or requested that to be done, there had been no legal compulsion or 
 duress. Where excessive customs duties are paid under a mistake of law and 
 without protest, the payment was voluntary and there can be no recovery. 
 Section 21, act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190), making the settlement of duties 
 "final and conclusive upon all parties," after the expiration of one year, applies 
 to actions to recover from the Government alleged excessive or illegal duties. 
 
 Under section 21, making the settlement of duties final in the absence of 
 "fraud," it wasjiot fraud by the Government where subordinate customs officers 
 without notice to importers or instructions from their superior officers, made a 
 change in the method of assessing duties, after years of imiform practice. Gul- 
 benkian v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 New York, December 29, 1909. Proceedings at law to recover excessive duties. 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30295; Jan. 25, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 367 
 
 Duress — Continued. 
 Mistake of law — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) Jurisdiction. — Proceedings for the recovery of additional duties 
 resulting from the action of the appraiser in making illegal additions to the en- 
 tered value to make market value must be by appeal to reapgraisement by a 
 general appraiser and a Board of General Appraisers, in accordance with the cus- 
 toms administrative act of June 10, 1890. Said act provides a complete reme- 
 dial system for the correction of errors in the collection of duties, and the remedy 
 afforded by it is exclusive. Gulbenkian v. United States, United States Cir- 
 cuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, March 13, 1911. No. 161. Appeal by 
 the importer from decision of the United States Circuit Court, Southern District 
 of New York (175 Fed. Eep., 860; T. D. 30295). Decision in favor of the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 31732; June 30, 1911.) 
 Notations of, on entries — ■ 
 Entries bearing notations that additions are made under duress maybe accepted, 
 such acceptance, however, not constituting an admission that any duress was 
 in fact exercised. T. D. 32058 of December 5, 1911, modified. (T. D. 33568; 
 June 19, 1913.) 
 Beappraisement — 
 The fear of possible additional duties, depending upon the result of reappraise- 
 ment proceedings, does not constitute duress. (T. D. 33193 — G. A. 7433; Feb. 
 17, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The importers were embarrassed in stating the actual market 
 value of their merchandise, consisting of certain woolens and cottons for the 
 manufacture of men's wear, but they elected -to enter the woolens and cottons 
 here with the additions of a penny a yard for dampage and 10 per cent for shrink- 
 ing. A notation that this was done under duress does not make a case of duress. 
 No unlawful demand was made on the importers, and what they did was done 
 . freely and voluntarily to fix the entered value of the goods. Van Ingen & Co. 
 V. United States (No. 1113), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7433 
 (T. D. 33193). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33520; May 29, 1913.) 
 What is not — 
 The importers had been warned that the entered value of their brierwood was 
 lower than that of other importers and that unless the value was advanced pen- 
 alties for undervaluation would be exacted. The importers were by this warn- 
 ing required to do nothing more than the law itself obliged; they were sub- 
 jected to no unlawful demand and consequently to no duress. Colonial Import 
 & Export Co. V. United States (No. 1178), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Apprais- 
 ers, Abstract 31821 (T. D. 33304). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34190; Feb. 5, 
 1914.) 
 Dust cloths. (See Cotton cloth, dust.) 
 Dutch metal. (See Leaf metal.) 
 Dutiable value. 
 Appraisement entry — 
 
 There is no statute granting to the Treasury Department the power to adopt article 
 1450, Customs Regulations of 1899, permitting entry by appraisement without 
 invoice, where the invoice value greatly exceeds the general market value at 
 the time of exportation. The provisions in sections 7 and 19, respectively, of 
 the customs administrative act of 1890, that "duty shall not * * * be 
 assessed * * * upon * * * less than the invoice * * * value," 
 and that "duty shall be assessed upon the actual market value * * * at 
 the time of exportation," ^heu, construed together mean that the dutiable 
 
368 DIGEST OF CUSTOSIS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Dutiable value — Continued. 
 Appraisement entry — Continued. 
 
 value shall in no case be fixed at less than the purchase price of the goods; and 
 where subsequently to the purchase of goods for import to the United States 
 the market value of such goods decreases the goods are nevertheless dutiable 
 on the basis of the price paid. Ullman v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, January 21, 1910. Suit 5559. Appeal 
 by the importer from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6918 
 (T. D. 29883). Board aflirmed. (T. D. 30298; Jan. 25, 1910.) 
 Appraisement — Legality — Approval of pro forma invoice — 
 
 Entry was made on a pro forma invoice and the value stated therein was approved 
 by the appraiser. Subsequently a consular invoice giving a lower value was 
 also approved by the appraiser. Held that duty should have been assessed on 
 the basis of the value in the latter invoice. United States v. Bennett, United 
 States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 27, 1909. Suit 
 5356. Appeal by United States from decision of Board of General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 19656 (T. D. 29267). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30210; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 Ascertainment of — « 
 
 To ascertain the material of chief value in any manufacture the value of the mate- 
 rials should be determined as of the time when they have reached such condi- 
 tion that nothing remains to be done by the manufacturer except to put them 
 together. United States v. Meadows (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 143; T. D. 31665). 
 (T. D. 32532; May 8, 1912.) 
 
 Appeal to reappraisement: The board has uniformly held that the remedy of an 
 importer is to appeal to reappraisement in order to determine the correct value 
 of his imported merchandise, and that such question can not be raised by pro- 
 test. In Padische v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33535) it was 
 decided by the Court of Customs Appeals that the initial step to obtain relief 
 should be an appeal to reappraisement and not by protest. (T. D. 33619 — 
 G. A. 7479; July 10, 1913.) 
 Assessment of duty — 
 
 Invalidity of reappraisement: It is immaterial that a reappraisement is illegal, if 
 the value found in the same is that ascertained on an appraisement by the local 
 appraiser which is not shown to be invalid; for where a reappraisement is illegal 
 the dutiable value is that found on the last legal appraisement. Grubnau v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 
 May 13, 1909. No. 79 (suit 1975). Appeal by importer from decision of Board 
 of General Appraisers, Abstract 15933 (T. D. 28300). Board affirmed. (T. D. 
 29835; June 15, 1909.) 
 
 The concluding language of section 7 of the customs administrative act of 1890, 
 " duty shall not, however, be assessed in any case upon an amount less than the 
 invoice or entered value," held to modify and control all other provisions of 
 said act relative to the value of merchandise upon which duty shall be assessed, 
 including the provision of section 19 that "duty shall be assessed upon the 
 actual market value or wholesale price * * * at th« time of exportation to 
 the United States." (T. D. 29883— G. A. 6918; June 29, 1909.) 
 
 In cases where an importer adds to make market value to meet advances made by 
 the appraiser on similar goods pending reappraisement and the appraiser ap- 
 proves the entered value, duty can not be assessed on less than the entered and 
 appraised value unless there is an appeal for reappraisement and the appeal is 
 sustained. (T. D. 34179; Feb. 4, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 369 
 
 Dutiable value — Continued. 
 
 Average price — 
 Where certain cotton undershirts of the same material and description were 
 appraised at different values and invoiced at an average price, duty is properly 
 assessed on all the goods' at the rate to which the highest valued goods in such 
 invoice is subject, in accordance with the requirements of section 2910, Kevised 
 Statutes. The word "value" as used in section 2910, Kevised Statutes, means 
 market value, and should be ascertained by appraisement and not by protest 
 before a board of classification. (T. D. 29072— G. A. 6776; June 12, 1908.) 
 
 Charges on bottles — 
 The provision for "bottles * * * filled," in paragraph 99, tariff act of 1897, 
 does not include accessories to the bottles, such as corks, capsules, labels, wir- 
 ing, and envelopes, and the cost of such items should not be included in the 
 dutiable value of the bottles, but should be attributed to their contents. Though 
 "bottles * * * filled" are enumerated in paragraph 99, tariff act of 1897, 
 as articles dutiable at an ad valorem rate, separately from their contents, they 
 are not within section 19, customs administrative act of 1890, prescribing that 
 the dutiable value of imported merchandise shall include the cost of the cover- 
 ings and of other expenses incident to preparing it for exportation, and charges 
 for packing boxes and for filling and packing the bottles should not be distribu- 
 ted between the bottles and their contents, but should be assigned wholly to the 
 contents. The charges on goods in bottles should be included in the dutiable 
 value of the contents of the bottles, where such contents are subject to an ad 
 valorem rate ; but if the contents are subject to a specific duty or are free of duty, 
 such charges are not dutiable. (T. D. 28713— G. A. 6714; Jan. 28, 1908.) 
 
 Commissions — 
 If an addition to entered value of merchandise is made by the appraiser to make 
 market value, which addition corresponds in amount to an item of commissions 
 appearing on the invoice, such addition ceases to be properly characterized as 
 commissions. Commissions, as such, are not part of the dutiable value of mer- 
 chandise, nor are they either "costs," "charges," or "expenses" to be added 
 by the collector under the statute (Par. E, sec. 3, act of 1913) and the rule 
 laid down in United States v. Spingara (5 Ct. Oust. Appls., 2; T. D. 34002). 
 Where the value on entry has not been increased by the appraiser, additional 
 duty can not be levied. (T. D. 35766— G. A. 7785; Oct. 5, 1915.) 
 
 Construction, section 7, Administrative Act of 1890 — 
 The last clause of section 7 of the customs administrative act of 1890, which pro- 
 vides that "duty shall not be assessed in any case upon an amount less than the 
 invoice or entered value," applies to value only and not to quantity. (T. D. 
 29387— G. A. 6832; Dec. 4, 1908.) 
 
 Cost of shrinkage of cloth. (See Woolens, shrinkage of cloth, cost of.) 
 
 Deduction from invoice value — 
 The right conferred by subsection 7 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, authorizing the 
 importer to deduct from the invoice value to make market value, must be exer- 
 cised at the time of entry and before appraisement of the goods, and not after- 
 wards. Such deduction is properly refused by the collector of customs if de- 
 manded after entry of the goods. (T. D. 30542— G. A. 7008; Apr. 13, 1910.) 
 
 Depreciation in invoice value — 
 Where imported merchandise offered for entry has depreciated from its invoice 
 value, the rate of duty is to be determined by considering not alone section 19 of 
 the customs administrative act of 1890, but effect must be given to section 7 of said 
 act and the duty should not be assessed in any case upon an amount less than the 
 invoice or entered value. A regulation issued by the Treasury Department per- 
 
 45633°— 16 ^24 
 
370 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Dutiable value — Continued. 
 
 Depreciation in invoice value — Continued. 
 
 mitting entry by appraisement without invoice is not valid, in so far as the 
 regulation might be construed to abrogate section 7 of the customs administra- 
 tive act of 1890, requiring that in no case shall an assessment be fixed on an 
 - amount less than the invoice or entered value. Joseph Ullman v. United States 
 (No. 19), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal from decision of 
 Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 29883) to United States Cir- 
 cuit Court, Southern District of New York (T. D. 30298); appeal thence to 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals and transferred. Decision in favor of 
 the Government. (T. D. 31032; Oct. 28, 1910.) 
 
 DifEerent currencies — 
 Date of invoice used in computing values of two diff rent currencies: Where mer- 
 chandise was shipped on September 28, but was entered at the port of entry in 
 the United States under an invoice dated and certified at the port of shipment 
 October 1, the date of the invoice controls and the proportion between the stand- 
 ard of values in the two countries as fixed by the United States Treasury De- 
 partment for the quarter beginning October 1 governs in computing the actual 
 money value of the imported goods. Masson v. United States (No. 222), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from a decision of 
 the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 29278). Decision afiirmed. (T. D. 
 31209; Jan. 7, 1911.) Transferred from United States Circuit Court, District 
 of Maryland. 
 
 Exportation, what constitutes — 
 A shipment of goods from one point to another within a country for transshipment 
 beyond that country is not a true exportation; and such a shipment becomes a 
 true exportation only aa of the date the vessel with these goods on board is 
 cleared for the United States. The value of the goods as 9, basis for the assess- 
 ment of duty upon importatiou to the United States is the value at the time of 
 actual exportation and not the date of shipment of the goods from one point to 
 another within the country of exportation. Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical 
 Co. V. United States (No. 150), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importer from decision of the board of General Appraisers, Abstract 
 21579 (T. D. 29906). Decision of the board affirmed. (T. D. 31353; Feb. 27, 
 1911.) Almy v. State of California (24 How., 169) distinguished. 
 
 Finding market value — 
 The duty of an appraising officer, as defined in Paragraph K, section 3, tariff act 
 of 1913, is to find market value and report such to the collector. A general 
 appraiser hearing an appeal to reappraisement is governed by the same law, and 
 his finding, based on the facts introduced at the trial, is a judicial determination 
 as to value. 
 
 General average: A general average of dissimilar merchandise is not the way 
 to establish market value, especially when the articles are entered and valued 
 separately. 
 
 Entered value: An appraising officer is bound to accept for assessment pur- 
 poses an amount not less than the entered value placed upon the merchandise 
 by the importer, and on appeal the burden rests upon the importer disputing 
 the value to establish by testimony that the advance is not coiTect. A general 
 appraiser has no authority to arbitrarily disregard the testimony and sustain a 
 value not supported by testimony. (T. D. 34808 — G. A. 7604; Sept., 28, 1914.) 
 
 Fluctuations — 
 Judicial notice will be taken that with the present means of intercommunication 
 between the various countries of the world the price of a commodity like cotton 
 does not greatly fluctuate or differ in different countries. (T. D. 31184; Jan. 
 5, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 371 
 
 Dutiable value — Continued. 
 Principal market in limited sales — 
 
 The provision in section 19, customs administrative act of 1890, that dutiable 
 value shall be the market value "in usual wholesale quantities, at the time of 
 exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from 
 whence imported," refers to the principal market where imported merchandise 
 is bought for exportation to the United States in wholesale quantities, rather 
 than to markets where there may have been limited purchases at a higher price 
 than in the principal market. The entire output of a china manufacturer in 
 Limoges was exported entirely to the United States directly from Limoges, 
 except a small amount of special classes, which was disposed of in Paris to Euro- 
 pean trade, the portion thus disposed of at wholesale not exceeding 4 per cent of 
 the total product of the manufacturer. Held, as to the goods shipped to Amer- 
 ica, that Limoges and not Paris was the "principal" maiket within the meaning 
 of section 19, customs administrative act of 1897. Where all the output of a 
 china manufacturer was sold to the United States, except special classes manu- 
 factured for European trade, it can not be said that the latter class is in "con- 
 dition" to supply the American trade within the meaning of section 19, customs 
 administrative act of 1890, which provides that the market value of merchandise 
 shall be based on the "condition in which * * * there boiight and sold for 
 exportation to the United States." While a reappraisement by a Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers is, under section 13, customs administrative act of 1890, "final 
 and conclusive '' as to dutiable value, it may nevertheless be impeached if based 
 upon a wrong principle oi contrary to law, or the power conferred by statute has 
 been transcended. And where a reappraisement board misinterprets a portion 
 of the evidence, a legal error has been committed, which makes it necessary to 
 look into all the evidence, to see if the error works injustice; and proceedings to 
 this end may be initiated by protest under section 14 of said act. United 
 States V. Haviland, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 January 19, 1909. Suit 5034. Appeal by United States from decision of Board 
 ofGeneralAppraisers,G. A. 6655 (T.D. 28382). Board affirmed. (T.D. 29523; 
 Feb. 3, 1909.) Upon appeal by the United States to Circuit Court of Appeals, 
 Second Circuit, decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 30296; Jan. 25, 1910.) 
 Pro forma invoice — Consular invoice — 
 
 Where the collector in the liquidation of an entry has before him a pro forma 
 invoice and a consular invoice containing several items, and there has been an 
 appraisement, he should not select the high values from each invoice and assess 
 duty accordingly. 
 
 The liquidation of an entry upon a pro forma invoice where a bond is given to pro- 
 duce a consular invoice considered. (T. D. 32107— G. A. 7309; Dec. 4, 1911.) 
 (Appealed:) The bond required of an importer entering his goods upon a 
 ■pro forma invoice stipulates that duties are to be and will be paid upon the cer- 
 tified invoice valuation. In all cases the collector is empowered to rehquidate 
 within one year, the customs regulations governing him in the exercise of this 
 power. In the case at bar protest is made against the reliquidation by the col- 
 lector upon the basis of the subsequently produced certified invoice involving 
 the payment of additional duties; held that authority for the relic^iidation by 
 the collector is found both in the law and the express stipulation of the import- 
 er's bond. United States v. Hobb (No. 839), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 7309 (T. D. 32107). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32567 ; May 17, 
 1912.) 
 
372 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Dutiable value — CoBtinued. 
 Reduction of entered value — 
 
 Outlining the method to be followed in making certificate on entry of merchandise 
 and making application for reduction of the entered value under the provision 
 in the last part of Paragraph I, section 3, of the tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. 
 D. 34806; Oct. 5, 1914.) 
 Remedy of importer — 
 
 The ascertainment of the market value of imported merchandise can not be chal- 
 lenged by protest, but only by calling for a reappraisement under section 13 of 
 the customs administrative act. (T. D. 28740— G. A. 6717; Feb. 4, 1908.) 
 When subject to challenge — 
 
 Certain tomato sauce was voluntarily entered by the importer at 7.50 lire per 100 
 cans, and this valuation was sustained by a general appraiser and a Board of 
 General Appraisers. Held, that neither of these reappraisements could be chal- 
 lenged by protest so as to reduce the assessment below that made by the collector 
 on such entered value, unless such entry was made under duress. (T. D. 
 30378— G. A. 6983; Feb. 21, 1910.) 
 Dutiable weight. 
 
 ChiU peppers shown by the invoice to have been purchased in Mexico at a cer- 
 tain weight, including the seeds and stems, but which were imported into this 
 country minus said seeds and stems, are dutiable on the weight of the mer- 
 chandise as imported and not on the weight of the goods as purchased abroad 
 prior to importation, in accordance with the enacting clause of the tariff act 
 of 1897. The abstraction of the seeds and stems from the peppers before their 
 shipment to this country, which may have been for the purpose of saving 
 freight as well as duties, in no manner changed the classification of the goods 
 under the tariff act. (T. D. 29387— G. A. 6832; Dec. 4, 1908.) 
 
 Duty to be assessed on imported merchandise upon the weight shown in the 
 weigher's return and in the ganger's return in case of gaugeable merchandise. 
 When merchandise liable to shrinkage on the voyage of importation shows a 
 loss of weight, the attention of appraising ofiicers should be called to the weigh- 
 er's return in order that the unit value may be advanced if necessary. (T. D. 
 35706; Sept. 15, 1915.) 
 lithographic post cards in strips. (See Post cards.) (T. D. 29802— G. A. 6914; 
 June 7, 1909.) 
 Duty. 
 Additional — 
 
 If the question whether merchandise is subject to a specific or an ad valorem 
 duty, or both, is determined by the value thereof, an appraisement is essential, 
 and where that appraisement exceeds the entered value the additional duty 
 provided in section 32, tariff act of 1897, attaches as a matter of law, regardless 
 of whether the appraisement brings the merchandise into the class upon which 
 an ad valorem duty may be levied. Pings v. United States (72 Fed. Rep., 
 260); Hoeninghaus v. United States (172 U. S., 622). \T. D. 29427— G. A. 
 6840; Dec. 18, 1908.) 
 
 In order to make what he considered market value, and as permitted by sec- 
 tion 7, customs administrative act of 1890, as amended by section 32, tariff act of 
 1897, an importer added certain invoice items to the invoice valse of his goods. 
 On reappraisement it was found that the invoice value was correct and that the 
 addition had been unnecessary. Held nevertheless that duty could not be 
 assessed on less than the entered value without violating the provision in said 
 section that "duty shall not, however, be assessed in any case upon an amount 
 less than the * * * entered value." Where an invoice specifies certain 
 items distinctly from the per se value of the article invoiced and the importer 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 373 
 
 Duty — Continued. 
 Additional — Continued. 
 
 in entering the importation states that the amount of such items is added to 
 make market value, .such items then constitute a part of the entered value 
 just as though such sum had been included in the per se value. Daloz v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, May 7, ■ 
 1909. No. 495 (suit 2038). Appeal by importer from decision of Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 19658 (T. D. 29267). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29807; 
 June 8, 1909.) 
 
 Importers so changed the form of invoicing their goods as to increase the amount 
 of duty payable, this being done to comply with a rule which had been estab- 
 lished by the Board of General Appraisers but which the courts subsequently 
 held illegal. Held that, as the action of the importers had been without pro- 
 test, and the customs officers had not raised or changed the invoices, nor directed 
 or requested that to be done, there had been no legal compulsion or duress. 
 Where excessive customs duties are paid under a mistake of law and without 
 protest, the payment was voluntary and there can be no recovery. Section 21, 
 act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190), making the settlement of duties "final and 
 conclusive upon all parties," after the expiration of one year, applies to actions 
 to recover from the Government alleged excessive or illegal duties; Under 
 section 21, act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190), making the settlement of duties 
 final in the absence of "fraud," it was not fraud by the Government where 
 subordinate customs officers, without notice to importers or instructions from 
 their superior officers, made a change in the method of assessing duties, after 
 years of uniform practice. Gulbenkian v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, December 29, 1909. Proceedings at 
 law to recover excessive duties. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 
 30295; Jan. 25, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Jurisdiction. — ProceediQgs for the recovery of additional duties 
 resulting from the action of the appraiser in making illegal additions to the en- 
 tered value to make market value must be by appeal to reappraisement by a 
 general appraiser and a Board of General Appraisers, in accordance with the cus- 
 toms administrative act of June 10, 1890. Said act provides a complete reme- 
 dial system for the correction of errors in the collection of duties, and the rem- 
 edy afforded by it is exclusive. Gulbenkian v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, March 18, 1911. No. 161. Appeal 
 by the importer from decision of the United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York (175 Fed. Rep., 860; T. D. 30295). Decision in favor of 
 the Government. (T. D. 31732; June 30, 1911.) 
 
 Under the decision of the Circuit Court in United States v. Deeming (153 Fed. 
 Rep., 489; T. D. 27986) the additional duty provided for in section 32 of the 
 tariff act of 1897 should be assessed and collected on excess merchandise not 
 invoiced and not entered. (T. D. 30207— G. A. 6957; Dec. 18, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed :) An American concern with a London branch closed that branch 
 and directed that such supplies as had been forwarded from this country and not 
 consumed should be returned to the United States. Some goods of English 
 manufacture were included in the consignment made up to be returned, but 
 these last were not declared at the home port of entry, apparently through ignor- 
 ance or mistake, for there is no imputation of fraud. The English goods were 
 fairly to be treated as excess goods and not subject to an additional duty over 
 and above that to which they would have been subject if regularly imported. 
 United States v. Deeming (153 Fed. Rep., 489), distinguished. Downing & Co. 
 V. United States (No. 188), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6957 
 
374 DIGEST OF OtISTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Duty — Continued. 
 Additional — Continued, 
 
 (T. D. 30207). Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York, G. A. 6957 (T. D. 30207). De(;ision reversed. (T. D. 32033; 
 Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 Cuba: Additional duties accruing for undervaluation on goods the product of 
 Cuba under subsection 7 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, are not subject to a 
 deduction of 20 per cent provided by section 2 of the reciprocity treaty betw^n 
 the United States and Cuba. (T. D. 33070; Jan. 7, 1913.) 
 Duress: The fear of possible additional duties, depending upon the result of reap- 
 praisement proceedings, does not constitute duress. (T. D. 33193— G. A. 7433; 
 Feb. 17, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The importers were emban-assed in stating the actual market 
 value of their merchandise, consisting of certain woolens and cottons for the 
 manufacture of men's wear, but they elected to enter the woolens and cottons 
 with the additions of a penny a yard for d«impage and 10 per cent for shrinking. 
 A notation that this was done under duress does not make a case of duress. No 
 unlawful demand was made on the importers, and what they did was done freely 
 and voluntarily to fix the entered value of the goods. Van Ingen & Co. v. 
 United States (No. 1113). United States Coxirt of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7433 
 (T. D. 33193). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33520; May 29, 1913.) 
 Goods in warehouse subject to provisions of the act at time of withdrawal: Mer- 
 chandise which was entered for warehouse during the life of the act of 1909 was 
 advanced in value on appraisement and reappraisement, but, as said merchan- 
 dise was subject to duty at specific rates, no additional or penal duties were 
 levied; but the merchandise remaining in warehouse until after the enactment 
 of the tariff act of 1913, in which statute the merchandise is dutiable at ad valorem 
 rates, is subject to the additional duty imposed by that act. 
 
 Imported merchandise in bonded warehouse is in the custody of the Govern- 
 ment and under the control of its officers, and the importation is not complete 
 for dutiable purposes until it is withdrawn from warehouse and entered for con- 
 sumption. 
 
 Tariff laws create no contractual relations between the Government and the 
 citizen; The power to tax is the exercise of the power of sovereignty, and in the 
 exercise of such power there can be no contractual relations between the sov- 
 ereign and the citizen. (T. D. 35594^G. A. 7757; July 16, 1915.) 
 Jurisdiction of district court: Forfeiture proceedings in a district court for alleged 
 undervaluation resulted favorably to the importer; but the collector assessed 
 the additional duty provided in section 7, customs administrative act of 1890, 
 for undervaluation, whereupon the importer secured a modification of the judg- 
 ment, providing that the importation should be surrendered to the importer 
 without the imposition of such additional duty. Held that in the absence of 
 proof that the court was without jurisdiction to make this modification the con- 
 trary would be presumed, and that, the matter being therefore res adjudicata, 
 the imposition of the additional duty was illegal. United States v. Sommers, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, May 28, 1 909. No. 291 8 
 (suit 1957). Appeal from Circuit Court of United States for the Eastern District 
 of Missouri (T. D. 29167) reversing a decision of the Board of General Apprais- 
 ers, G. A. 6536 (T. D. 27887). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 
 29852; June 22, 1909.) Acquiesced in by the Government without prejudice. 
 (T. D. 30108; Nov. 15, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 375 
 
 Duty — Continued. 
 Additional — Continued. 
 
 Jurisdiction of Board of General Appraisers: Under subBection 14, section 28, tariff 
 act of 1909, providing, where merchandise has been entered for consumption, 
 that upon protest and payment of "the full amount of the duties and charges 
 ascertained to be due," the collector shall transmit the papers to the Board of 
 Greneral Appraisers for decision, held that the collector should -withhold the 
 papers till such payment is made, and that in the event of premature transmis- 
 sion to the board, the board will be without jurisdiction to decide the case unless 
 and until such payment shall have been made. United States v. Tiffany (151 
 Fed., 473; T. D. 27754, reversing 137 Fed., 971; T. D. 26313). 
 
 Delay in payment — Waiver of payment: While delay in the payment of 
 duties is not necessarily fatal to the importers' right of relief in the case of errone- 
 ous assessments of duty, all duties and charges in the case of entries for consump- 
 tion must be paid before the board can acquire jurisdiction of a protest duly 
 made. An officer of the Government can not, by waiving payment of increased 
 duties ascertained to be due on merchandise entered for consumption, confer 
 jurisdiction upon the board or make it legal on the part of the board to enter 
 upon a consideration of the merits. Tiffany v. United States (153 Fed., 969; 
 T. D. 28057), United States v. Tiffany (154 Fed., 740; T. D. 28107), United 
 States V. Schefer (71 Fed., 959), Grandmange v. Schell (32 Fed., 655), Haynes 
 V. Brewster (46 Fed., 471), In re Guggenheim Smelting Co. (112 Fed., 517), and 
 G. A. 5512 (T. D. 24846) cited. (T. D. 33762— G. A. 7496; Sept. 26, 1913.) 
 
 Jurisdiction of appraiser over packing charges: It being the duty of the collector 
 to fix the packing charges, any action of the appraiser relative thereto must be 
 held to be either advisory or extra-official. The addition of packing charges 
 therefore does not raise the per se value, and hence the provisions of subsection 
 7 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909 do not apply. United States v. Spingam 
 Bros. (5 Ct. Oust. Appls., — ; T. D. 34002). (T. D. 34726— G. A. 7595; Aug. 
 21, 1914.) 
 
 Shortage: The provision in section 7, customs administrative act of 1890, for an 
 additional duty where the "appraised value exceeds the value declared in the 
 entry," refers to the imit value rather than the total value; and where there is a 
 shortage of goods the percentage excess of the appraised value over the entered 
 value should be ascertained by dividing the difference between the appraised 
 value and the entered value (less the shortage) by such entered value less the 
 shortage, or by dividing the difference between the unit entered value and the 
 unit appraised value by the entered value of a unit when the same can be found. 
 (T. D. 29876— G. A. 6916; June 22, 1909.) 
 Assessment of — 
 
 Tarifi act applicable: The duty provided by the tariff act in force at the time duty 
 was paid and permit of delivery issued is the duty applicable to imported mer- 
 chandise. Merchandise entered while the tariff act of 1897 was in force, but 
 on which duty was not paid and permit of delivery issued until after the act 
 of 1909 became effective, is, under the terms of section 29, dutiable under the 
 tariff act of 1909. Cordero's case, G. A. 6945 (T. D. 30161), distinguished. (T. 
 D. 30443— G. A. 6994; Mar. 18, 1910.) 
 Change of — 
 
 Notice to importer: Where the Government changes its method of assessing 
 duties, it is under no obligation to give notice to importers in advance of actual 
 importation. Years of illegal practice in classifying goods and assessing the 
 duties thereon does not bar the United States from changing to the legal method. 
 (T. D, 30295; Jan. 25, 1910.) 
 
376 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Duty — Continued. 
 Countervailing — 
 Ksh — French fisheries: Additional duty under section 6, tariff act of 1909, equiv- 
 alent to the export bounty paid, to be collected on dried cod the product of 
 the French fisheries. (T. D. 30220; Dec. 22, 1909.) 
 
 Additional duty under section 6, tarifi act of 1909, equivalent to the export 
 bounty paid, to be collected on dried haddock the product of the French fish- 
 eries. (T. D. 30371; Feb. 18, 1910.) 
 Fish— Export bounty on fish the product of French fisheries: Additional duty 
 under section 6, tariff act of 1909, equivalent to the export bounty paid, to be 
 collected on certain fish the product of the French fisheries. (T. D. 31994; 
 Nov. 9, 1911.) 
 
 The various classes of fish entitled to the bounty published in T. D. 31994 
 enumerated and defined. (T. D. 32936; Nov. 16, 1912.) 
 Flour, wheat, etc.: Additional duty equal to the export bounty bestowed by the 
 German Government to be collected under section 6, tariff act of 1909, on cer- 
 tain articles, namely, rye, various kinds of wheat, barley, oats, buckwheat, 
 beans, peas, lentils, rapeseed, flour (both wheat and rye), split peas, barley 
 malt, and oils produced from oilseeds. (T. D. 32768; Aug. 22, 1912.) 
 
 Extension of the period for the taking effect of T. D. 32768, 30 days additional, 
 imposing countervailing duties on certain German exports. (T. D. 32828; 
 Sept. 21, 1912.) 
 
 Extension until December 20, 1912, of the period for the taking effect of T. 
 D. 32768, imposing countervailing duties on certain German exports. (T. D. 
 32939; Nov. 16, 1912.) 
 
 T. D. 32768 of August 22, 1912, imposing on certain articles countervailing 
 duties equal to the export bounties bestowed by the German Government, 
 revised. (T. D. 33953; Dec. 6, 1913.) 
 
 T. D. 33953 of December 6, 1913, imposing on certain articles countervailing 
 duties equal to the export bounties bestowed by the German Government, 
 amended so as to take effect January 1, 1914. (T. D. 33975; Dec. 11, 1913.) 
 Fruit and wool — ^Australia: Countervailing duties under section 6 of the tariff act 
 of 1909 equivalent to the export bounties paid to be collected on fruits, dried 
 (except currants and raising) or candied, and on combed wool or tops the product 
 of the Commonwealth of Australia. (T. D. 33726; Sept. 8, 1913.) 
 Petroleum and petroleum products: The provision in paragraph 626, tariff act of 
 1897, for a countervailing duty on "the products of crude petroleum produced 
 in any country which imposes a duty on petroleum or its products exported from 
 the United States," does not apply where the article ia manufactured from crude 
 petroleum in a country which imposes no such duty on exports from the United 
 States, though the petroleum originated in a country which does impose such a 
 duty. Therefore the countervailing duty should not be assessed on Russian 
 petroleum refined in and imported from Great Britain. United States v. Swan 
 & Finch Co. (eight cases), United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 New York, May 13, 1908. Suits 4416, 4802, 4811, 4839, 4940, 5038, 5082, and 
 5238. Appeal from decisions by Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 12463 (T. D. 27550), Abstracts 13865 and 14018 (T. D. 27801), Abstract 
 14264 (T. D. 27892), Abstract 15037 (T. D. 28096), Abstract 16535 (T. D. 28384), 
 Abstract 16976 (T. D. 28448), and Abstract 18379 (T. D. 28833). Board tus- 
 tained. (T. D. 29033; May 27, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 377 
 
 Duty — Continued. 
 
 Counteivailing — Continued. 
 
 Hamburg: Under paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897, duty should be asseased 
 upon paraflBn, a product of petroleum, coming from Germany at a rate equal to 
 that imposed by Germany upon parafBn exported thereto from the United States. 
 United States v. Downing (146 Fed. Rep., 56; T. D. 27025); Bergeresch's.case, 
 G. A. 6405 (T. D. 27507). 
 
 ' ' Country' ' ; meaning in revenue law : It is a general rule in construing revenue 
 laws that the word "country," when used in a statute of the United States, 
 relates to that sovereignty with which, in its international relations, our Gov- 
 ernment can treat, and that the word is meant to embrace all of the territory and 
 possessions of any given country which contribute to its existence as a nation. 
 The word "country" in paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897, must therefore be held 
 to embrace all of the possessions of the German Empire which come under its 
 supreme executive and legislative authority. Stairs v. Peaslee (18 How!, 521); 
 Jackson's case, G. A. 1007 (T. D. 12145). 
 
 Purpose of proviso of paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897: The purpose manifest 
 in the proviso of paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897, is to accord the privilege of freey 
 entry of petroleum and its products to such countries only as grant free entrwfb 
 like commodities produced or manufactured in the United States. ^ 
 
 Free port of Hamburg: The free port of Hamburg is not a "country" within 
 the meaning of that word as xised in the proviso of paragraph 6267 tariff act of 
 1897. (T. D. 30569— G. A. 7013: Apr. 21, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The word "c ry," as employed in the revenue laws of the 
 United States, embraces ana a,jt>plies to all the territorial possessions of a foreign 
 State, however widely separated, which are subject to the saine supreme execu- 
 tive and legislative control. The free zone in Hamburg is in the German Cus- 
 toms Union; it is not a "coimtry" in the sense that term is employed in the 
 proviso to paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897, and in the matter of customs duties 
 it is to be regarded as a part of the German Empire. In the interpretation of a 
 statute, whenever possible, effect will be given to all parts of the act, even though 
 to do this enlarges or limits the stricter meaning of some provision in the act, 
 and though paraffin is free of duty, according to one paragraph of the tariff act of 
 1897, paraffin oil produced from petroleum must be taken to have been included 
 by intent in paragraph 626 of that act, the proviso to which makes crude petro- 
 leum or its products subject to a countervailing duty. Sonnebom Sons v 
 United States (No. 239), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 7013 (T. D. 30569). (T. D. 31504; Apr. 10, 1911.) 
 Printing paper: (See also Duty, countervailing, on wood pulp and printing paper.) 
 
 Collectors instructed to collect countervailing duty under paragraph 322, 
 .tariff act of October 3, 1913, on printing paper valued above 2J centp per 
 pound imported from British Columbia, Quebec, Finland, or Portugal. T. 
 D. 29968, T. D. 30045, T. D. 30591, T. D. 30679, T. D. 30859, T. D. 31772, T. D. 
 31879, T. D. 31884, T. D. 31890, T. D. 32117, T. D. 32156, T. D. 32238, T. D. 
 32757, T. D. 33108, T. D. 33209, T. D. 33250, and all regulations inconsistent 
 with the provisions of the tariff act of 1913, revoked. (T. D. 33786; Oct. 11, 
 1913.) 
 T. D. 33786 of October 11, 1913, relative to countervailing duty under paragraph 
 
 322, tariff act of 1913, amended. (T. D. 34449; May 13, 1914.) 
 Printing paper, Labrador: Countervailing duty to be collected on printing paper 
 valued above 2i cents per pound when imported from Labrador. (T. D. 35741; 
 Oct. 4, 1915.) 
 
378 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIOITS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Duty — Continued. 
 Countervailing — Continued. 
 Spirits: Additional duty under section 6 of the tariff act of 1909, equivalent to 
 the export bounty paid, to be collected on certain spirits the product of the 
 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (T. D. 31229; Jan. 21, 1911.) 
 
 No additional duty to be assessed under section 6, tariff act of August 5, 1909. 
 T. T>. 31229 of January 21, 1911, revoked. (T. D. 31490; Apr. 18, 1911.) 
 
 Extension of the period for the taking effect of T. D. 31229, imposing counter- 
 vailing duty on British spirits. (T. D. 31291; Feb. 13, 1911.) 
 
 Further extension for 30 days for the taking effect of T. D. 31229, imposing 
 countervailing duty on British spirits. (See T. D. 31229 of Jan. 21, 1911, and 
 T. D. 31291 of Feb. 13, 1911.) (T. D. 31413; Mar. 22, 1911.) 
 
 Additional duty under Paragraph E of section 4 of the tariff act of October 3, 
 1913, equivalent to the export bounty paid, to be collected on certain British 
 •spirits. (T. D. 34466; May 25, 1914.) 
 
 Collectors instructed relative to classification of British spirits for the purpose 
 of assessing countervailing duty under T. D. 34466. (T. D. 34752; Sept. 4, 
 1914.) 
 
 Collectors informed that Great Britain pays no export allowance on rum and 
 that therefore countervailing duty on rum imported from that country should 
 lirt be collected under T. D. 34466. (T. D. 34982; Dec. 11, 1914.) 
 
 Collectors advised of the correct method of determining the number of British 
 proof galiT>ns of British spirits for the assessment of countervailing duty under 
 T. D. 34466. (T.. D. 35089; Jan. 26, 1915.) 
 
 British excise law.'^ The Government of Great Britain makes an allowance to 
 the exporter of 3d. on plain spirits and 5d. on compound spirits upon the ex- 
 portationof the same. Held tobea bounty or grant within the meaning of those 
 words as used in Paragraph E of section 4, tariff act of 1913. 
 
 The effect, not the purpose, of foreign statutes considered: It is only the effect 
 and not the purpose of a foreign statute that may be inquired into by the courts 
 of the United States. If the effect of any such law is to bestow a bounty or 
 grant upon the exporter of merchandise to the United States, it must be so held 
 under the provisions of Paragraph E of section 4, act of 1913. 
 
 Contra as to domestic statutes: In construing a local law the -courts will look 
 to the history of the times and the national policy in determining the purpose 
 of the law. The purpose of Paragraph E of section 4, act of 1913, was to prevent 
 an unequal competition in our domestic market with the products of other 
 countries. 
 
 Meaning to be given words used in a statute: \\Tiile it is true that words, the 
 meaning of which have been definitely settled by judicial decision, should 
 when used in a statute be given the meaning thus settled, we should not give 
 to words used in a statute a narrow or technical meaning if such would, defeat 
 the very purpose of the law when a broader and more liberal definition would 
 effect that purpose. 
 
 Conflict between departmental and judicial construction: Congress in re- 
 enacting a preexisting statute will be held to have intended that it should have 
 the meaning given it by the courts rather than that given it by the department 
 where the same may be in conflict. (T. D. 33595— G. A. 7758; July 16, 1915.) 
 
 Certain British spirits known as "orange bitters" to be classified as "British 
 compounded spirits" and countervailing duties assessed accordingly under 
 T. D. 34466. (T. D. 35668; Aug. 20, 1915.) 
 Spirits: "Black and White Blend" and other Scotch whiskies to be classified as 
 "plain British spirits,'' and countervailing duties assessed accordingly under 
 T. D. 34466. (T. D. 35055; Jan. 14, 1915.)- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 379 
 
 Duty — Continued. 
 Countervailing — Continued. 
 
 Spirits — Alcoholic perfumery: Amount of internal-revenue tax remitted on ex- 
 portation from Great Britain of alcoholic perfumery and similar articles made 
 with British spirits to be included in the foreign market value; countervailing 
 duty to be collected under T. D. 34466. (T. D. 35510; June 8, 1915.) 
 
 Sugar: A Treasury declaration as to the amount of sugar bounty allowed by a for- 
 eign country, under section 5, tariff act of 1897, which was properly issued and 
 was in effect at the time Cf the importation of sugars, is presumably correct 
 and can not be impeached or inquired into by the courts. Franklin Sugar 
 Refining Co. v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of 
 Pennsylvania, March 17, 1910. No. 64 (suit 1824). Appeal by importer from 
 decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 10013 (T. D. 27087). 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30493; Apr. 5, 1910.) 
 
 The countervailing duty assessed on account of sugar bounty, under section 5, 
 tariff act of 1897, is dutiable according to the rate in force at the time of importa- 
 tion; and the promulgation of a new rate between the time of importation and of 
 liquidation does not affect the amount of countervailing duty applicable. 
 Where a published declaration by the Secretary of the Treasury as to the amount 
 of sugar bounty, as authorized by section 5 of the said tariff act, was followed by 
 another declaration, but there was nothing to indicate that the latter was issued 
 for the purpose of correcting the former, evidence is not admissible to show that 
 the former declaration was wrong. Findings made by the Secretary under the 
 authority of said section are binding upon collectors of customs, the Board of 
 General Appraisers, and the courts, and an importer's only remedy is by appeal 
 to the Secretary himself^ Under sections 245 and 161, Revised Statutes, pro- 
 viding, respectively, that "Assistant Secretaries of the Treasury shall * * * 
 perform such * * * duties fa the office of the Secretary of the Treasury as 
 may be prescribed by the Secretary or by law," and that "in case of * * * 
 absence * * * of the head of any department, the first or sole assistant shall 
 * * * perform the duties of such head," it is clear that the Secretary of the 
 Treasury could require an Assistant Secretary to "ascertain, determine, and 
 declare" the amount of bounties prescribed by foreign countries, which was a 
 duty given "the Secretary of the Treasury" by section 5, and where an Assist- 
 ant Secretary has issued a declaration under said section 5, it will be presumed 
 in the absence of evidence to the contrary that he was performing a duty in 
 accordance with law and that the declaration was properly issued. Franklin 
 Sugar Refining Co. v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Eastern 
 District of Pennsylvania, March 17, 1910. No. 42 (suit 1831). Appeal by the 
 importer from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 11009 
 (T. b. 27309). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30494; Apr. 5, 
 1910.) 
 
 Under the tariff act of 1897 the Secretary of the Treasury possessed full 
 authority to assess and collect duties imposed by law to countervail foreign-paid 
 bounties, and his determination, as of the date of the importation itself, of the 
 amount of bounty granted on an exportation of raw-beet sugar from Germany and 
 imported to the United States is not open to collateral attack and is final. Cramer 
 V. Arthur (102 U. S., 612) cited and approved. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. 
 United States (No. 282), United States Court of Customs Appeals, February 1, 
 1911 . Appeal by the importer from decision of the United States Circuit Court, 
 Eastern District of Pennsylvania (T. D. 27309). Decision aflfirmed. (T. D. 
 31276; Feb. 1, 1911.') 
 
380 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Duty — Continued . 
 Counteivailing — Continued. 
 
 A change in the weight of imported sugar resulting from natural evaporation 
 only is not a change in its condition by "remanufacture or otherwise.'' The 
 Secretary of the Treasury was empowered by law to make all needful regulations 
 for the assessment and collection of a countervailing duty imposed by the tariff 
 act of 1897 on sugar imported into this country from a country where a bounty 
 had been paid and regardless of any possible change in the weight on a consign- 
 ment of sugar from Germany after its importStion, the established regulations 
 of the Treasury Department then in force controlled the shipment, and the 
 countervailing duty, accordingly, should properly be assessed on the actual or 
 , landed weight. United States v. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. (No. 528), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from decision 
 of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 14351 (T. D. 27892). Transferred 
 from United States Circuit Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Deci- 
 sion affirmed. (T. D. 31659; May 29, 1911.) 
 
 Sugar refined in Denmark not subject to countervailing duty under section 6, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33182; Feb. 17, 1913.) 
 
 Sugar produced in the Netherlands not subject to countervailing duty under Para- 
 graph E of section 4 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 34678 ; Aug. 4, 
 1914.) 
 
 Toqiiilla straw from Panama: Countervailing duty under section 6, tariff act of 
 1909, equivalent to the export bounty paid, to be collected on toquilla straw 
 the product of the Republic of Panama. (T. D. 33699; Aug. 19, 1913.) 
 
 Venezuelan products: Additional duty under section 6, tariff act of 1909, equiva- 
 lent to the export bounty paid, to be collected oij certain products of Venezuela. 
 (T. D. 30555; Apr. 19, 1910.) 
 
 Abrogation of the decree of March 9, 1910, granting export bounties on various 
 products of Venezuela. T. D. 30555 of April 19, 1910, authorizing counter- 
 vailing duties on importations from Venezuela under section 6 of the act of 
 August 5, 1909, revoked. (T. D. 30883; Aug. 18, 1910.) 
 
 Wood pulp, chemical — Evidence: This appeal concerns certain unbleached 
 chemical wood pulp, the importers protesting against the assessment of counter- 
 vailing duty thereon. An ex parte affidavit, which was the only evidence on 
 which the importers relied to sustain their claim, was improperly admitted in 
 evidence when it was shown that it had been made without notice to the other 
 party and without the other party having had an opportunity in a proper pro- 
 ceeding to test by cross-examination the truth of the statements contained in 
 the affidavit. United States v. Hoffman (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 276; T. D. 31319); 
 Strakosh v. United States (ib., 360; T. D. 31453); Acker v. United States (t6., 
 404; T. D. 31481). United States v. Freese Co. (No. 993), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 29162 (T. D. 32681). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 33488; May 26, 1913.) 
 
 Wood pulp and printing paper: Countervailing duty on wood pulp and other 
 products of wood imported from Sweden. (T. D. 29342; Nov. 11, 1908.) 
 
 Department's instructions (T. D. 29968) as to the assessment of regular, addi- 
 tional, and couatervailing duty on wood pulp and printing paper under para- 
 graphs 406 and 409, tariff act of August 5, 1909, more fully stated. (T. D. 30045; 
 Oct 16, 1909.) 
 
 Paper imported from Finland subject to countervailing duty. (T. D. 30064; 
 Oct. 25, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIOHTS, 1908-1915. 381 
 
 Duty — Continued. 
 Countervailing — Continued . 
 
 Instructions as to the assessment of regular, additional, and countervailing 
 duty on wood pulp and printing paper under paragraphs 406 and 409 of the tariff 
 act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 29968; Aug. 26, 1909.) 
 
 The Eoyal Ordinance of Sweden of July 24, 1903 (T. D. 29342), does not 
 authorize the collector of customs to assess the countervailing duty provided in 
 paragraph 393, tariff act of 1897, for wood pulp exported from said country, no 
 export duty being levied by said ordinance on pulp«;oorfexported fromSweden. 
 It would seem otherwise as to importations made under the tariff act of August 
 5, 1909, and subject to duty under paragraph 406 of this act. (T. D. 30267— 
 G. A. 6962; Jan. 12, 1910.) 
 
 Export duty on wood products from Finland promulgated in T. D. 30064 not 
 yet renewed for the year 1910. (T. D. 30416; Mar. 10, 1910.) 
 
 Instructions as to the assessment of duty on wood pulp and printing paper 
 under paragraphs 406 and 409, tariff act of 1909. Pulp and printing paper 
 manufactured from wood cut on Crown lands. Province of Quebec, prior to May 
 1, 1910, subject to countervailing duty under T. D. 30045. Like products 
 manufactured from wood cut on C rown lands. Province of Quebec, after May 1, 
 1910, not subject to countervniling duty, following T. D. 30591. (T. D. 30679; 
 June 11, 1910.) 
 
 Countervailing duty to be assessed upon wood pulp and printing paper im- 
 ported from Finland. (T. D. 30683; June 13, 1910.) 
 
 Wood pulp manufactured in Sweden from pulp wood cut in Norway is not sub- 
 ject to the export duty provided by the Swedish Government, and therefore no 
 countervailing duty should be assessed thereon. (T. D. 30859; Aug. 6, 1910.) 
 Countervailing duty should not be assessed upon wood pulp and printing 
 paper produced in Sweden. (T. D. 30898; Aug. 29, 1910.) 
 
 Countervailing duties under paragraphs 406 and 409, tariff act of 1909, to be 
 collected on wood pulp and printing paper from Portugal. (T. D. 33684; Aug. 
 13, 1913.) 
 Highest duty provision — Paragraph 386 — 
 Under the provision of paragraph 386, tariff act of 1913, where a nonenumerated 
 article resembles two or more articles enumerated in the tariff law, it should be 
 assessed for duty at the highest of the rates provided for these. Under the oper- 
 ation of the principle of this statutory provision, where the general provisions 
 of two paragraphs apply with equal accuracy to an imported article, it should 
 be assessed at the highest rate. (T. D. 35064— G. A. 7664; Jan. 13, 1915.) 
 Liability for, in cases of abandonment by importer. (See Abandonment.) 
 Liquidated — 
 Warehoused goods — Seizure: Certain straw hats were imported during the tariff 
 act of 1909, and while in warehouse under bonds they were seized by Govern- 
 ment officials for alleged fraud. Forfeiture proceedings were thereafter insti- 
 tuted by the Government and subsequently dismissed on the importers 
 agreeing to pay the "liquidated duties," together with certain penalties. 
 Held, that the "liquidated duties" are the duties which accrued at the time 
 the goods were delivered by the Government into the possession of the im- 
 porters. Hartranft v. Oliver (125 U. S., 525) cited. (T. D. 35530— G. A. 7740; 
 June 11, 1915.) 
 Payment in gold coin — 
 Gold coin may be accepted in payment of duty on passengers' baggage without 
 being weighed to determine loss by abrasion. _(T. D. 31836; Aug. 24, 1911.) 
 Payment, hours. (See Entry; Hours of business.) 
 Becovery of — 
 Proceedings aa in a court of claims. (See Protests.) 
 
382 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Duty — Continued . 
 Beflmd — 
 
 Compliance with decisions by Board of General Appraisers and Circuit Court: 
 The refunding of moneys in compliance with decisions of the Board of General 
 Appraisers and the Circuit Court is, under section 24, customs administrative 
 act of 1890, a fimction of the Treasury Department, and there is, therefore, no 
 foundation for a suit against the collector of customs to restrain him from dis- 
 posing of such moneys. Joamnidis v. Loeb, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, September, 1911. Complainant's bill for an 
 injunction restraining the defendant as collector of the port of New York from 
 disposing of certain moneys claimed by the complainant. Bill dismissed. 
 (T. D. 31925; Oct. 17, 1911.) 
 
 Exported merchandise: Certain merchandise was imported into this country, 
 duties paid, and the goods delivered to the importer. There being no sale of 
 such merchandise in the markets of this country, it was exported to Canada. 
 Held, that a refund of duties is prohibited by section 3025, Revised Statutes. 
 (T. D. 30182— G. A. 6950; Dec. 9, 1910.) 
 
 Interest: Money refunded by a collector of customs on account of duties illegally 
 collected may, in the absence of directions as to its application, be appropriated 
 to the payment of accrued interest. Bidwell v. Douglas Trading Co., United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, November 14, 1910. No. 26. 
 In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of 
 New York. Action by the Geoi^e B. Douglas Trading Co. against George R. 
 Bidwell, collector of customs at the port of New York. Decision adverse to 
 the collector of customs. (T. D. 31728; June 30, 1911.) 
 
 Jurisdiction of court: These proceedings arise through petition by the attorneys 
 for the importer for an order directing the collector of the port to pay over to 
 them one-half of the amount paid under protest by the importer as duties, under 
 an agreement that the attorneys should have one-half of whatever was recovered 
 as compensation for their services in resisting the collection of such duties. On 
 appeal to a circuit court from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, 
 under section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, that court's jurisdiction 
 was appellate only. In the present case, which involved the question of 
 refund to the importer of certain duties paid under protest, the jurisdiction 
 had been completely exercised by an affirmance in favor of an importer. The 
 court had no power to order the collector of customs to pay to the importer's 
 attorneys the proportion of the refund to which they were entitled under their 
 agreement with the importer. United States v. Calogera, United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, December 22, 1910. Petition denied. 
 (T. D. 31729; June 30, 1911.) 
 
 Pending appeal: A refund to an importer of duties on imported merchandise by 
 order of the Treasury Department operates as a satisfaction of his claim; and, 
 on the report of the collector to that effect and the written application of the 
 importer, the protest will be ordered dismissed by the board. (T. D. 28919— 
 G. A. 6747; Apr. 3, 1908.) 
 Time when duty attaches — 
 
 It is a general principal of law that duty attaches to imports immediately upon 
 their arrival within the limits of our ports; and while, to ascertain the dutiable 
 condition of the goods, we may perhaps go beyond the date when the vessel con- 
 taining them drops anchor, it would be going very far to go beyond the date of 
 actual entry. Cuccio v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York, May 21, 1909. Suit 5319. Appeal by importer from 
 decision of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6777 (T. D. 29094). Board 
 affirmed. (T. D. 29820; June 8, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 383 
 
 Duty — Continued. 
 Time when duty attaches — Continued. 
 Customs duties attach to imported merchandise when it is taken into the port to 
 which it is consigned with intent to unload, and the importer becomes obligated 
 to pay the duty at that time. Haynes's case, G. A. 4033 (T. D. 18635); Ellison 
 V. United States (142 Fed. Rep., 732; T. D. 27035); United States v. Hartwell 
 Lumber Co. (142 Fed. Rep., 432; T. D. 26826). The duty which the importer 
 becomes obligated to pay is the duty provided by the law in force at the time 
 his merchandise enters the port; and if at this time a new law is about to be- 
 come effective, changing the rate of such duty, containing a provision such as 
 is contained in section 29 of the act of 1909, he must discharge this obligation 
 by entering the merchandise and paying the duty promptly in order to have his 
 merchandise assessed under the old law. (T. D. 30161 — G. A. 6945; Nov. 30, 
 1909.) Appeal by United States, December 20, 1909 (T. D. 30217). 
 
 Dyes. 
 Hydron blue— 
 Hydron blue, a dye derived from carbazol, which in turn is obtained from an inter- 
 mediate coal-tar distillate containing carbazol, anthracin, and other ingredients 
 mechanically combined, and which is a chemical compound distinct from an- 
 thracin, dutiable as a "coal-tar dye " under paragraph 15, tariff act of 1909, and 
 not free of duty as "dyes derived from * * * ' anthracin," under paragraph 
 487 of said act. (T. D. 32559— G. A. 7369; May 20, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Produced from carbazol. — Carbazol is a chemical compound 
 distinct from anthracin, having a different chemical formula, and it is used to 
 produce different dyes from those derived from anthracin. The fact that car- 
 bazol is found in association with anthracin does not leave it open to say that a 
 product derived solely from carbazol, not including anthracin, is derived from 
 anthracin. The dyes of the importation are a product of coal tar, some elements 
 being eliminated, but none added, to produce carbazol. They were dutiable 
 at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 15, tariff act of 1909. Cassella Color 
 Co. V. United States (No. 948), United States Court of Customs Appeals. . Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7369 
 (T. D. 32559). Decision aflarmed. (T. D. 33391; Apr. 29, 1913.) 
 
 Dyewood, youngfustic. (See Youngfustic dyewood.) 
 
 E. 
 
 Eai caps. 
 Wearing apparel — 
 Ear caps composed of tapes and elastic braid, which are worn by children in the 
 nursery and during sleeping hours to prevent disfigurement of the ears and to 
 keep the hair from becoming disarranged or entangled, are "wearing apparel" 
 within the meaning of paragraph 314, tariff act of 1897, and are dutiable as such, 
 rather than as "braces" under paragraph 320. Steinhardt v. United States (4 
 C. C. A., 679, T. D. 26740, affirming 141 Fed. Rep., 494), followed. (T. D. 
 30121— G. A. 6941; Nov. 19, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) A child's cap made of elastic braid or straps, connected by nar- 
 row bands of cotton tape and designed to prevent the ears from growing abnor- 
 mally, and held in position when spread closely over the skull by being knotted 
 under the chin, is not cotton wearing apparel and dutiable under paragraph 314, 
 tariff act of 1897, but is a brace, rather, and dutiable under paragraph 320 of said 
 act. Best & Co. v. United States (No. 163), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board of General 
 Appraisers. Transferred from the United States Circuit Court, Southern Dis 
 trict of New York (T. D. 30121). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 
 .linnS: Oct. 18. 1909.^ 
 
384 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Earth. 
 
 Silica compound — 
 Not a medicinal preparation: Volcanic earth dried and ground in a mill and used 
 for external application to the human body is not a medicinal preparation for 
 the use of the apothecary or physician as a remedy for disease. United States v. 
 Eoessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co. (79 Fed., 313). The dry pulverized earth 
 here is used as a mud bath and can not be deemed a plaster, healing or curative. 
 It is dutiable, according to the protest, as an earth, wrought or manufactured, 
 under paragraph 90, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Von Oefele (No. 1042), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29825 (T. D. 32830). Deci- 
 sion reversed and case remanded. (T. D. 33200; Feb. 12, 1913.) 
 Rehearing: This cause was reversed in a former decision (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; 
 T. D. 33200), the appellee, however, being adjudged a more favorable rate than 
 that he had obtained from the board. There was no cross appeal by the im- 
 porter. A party who is dissatisfied with the judgment of a lower tribunal, in 
 order to obtain a review thereof and a judgment in an appellate tribunal more 
 favorable to himself, must take his own appeal, and, failing in that, can be heard 
 only in support of the judgment or decree from which the appeal is taken by the 
 other party. United States v. Von Oefele (No. 1042), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Motion tor rehearing. Decision reversed. (T. D. 33492; 
 May 26, 1913.) 
 
 Wrought — 
 
 Scope of statutory provisions: To be dutiable under paragraph 11 of the tariff act 
 of 1913 the merchandise, if not expressly manufactured for use as blacking, 
 polishing powder, a cream or preparation for cleaning or polishing, it must at 
 least be imported for use as such. Wrought earth which it is possible, but im- 
 practical, to use as a polishing powder will not be held dutiable imder paragraph 
 11 unless it is shown to have been expressly manufactured for or intended to be 
 used as such. 
 
 Provisions of a new act: The classification of a commodity long established 
 should not be held to have been changed by a change in the tariff law, except 
 where that change is made clear and distinct by the express language of the law. 
 (T. D. 34697— G. A. 7594; Aug. 4, 1914.) 
 Earthenware. 
 
 Carmelite. (See Carmelite, ware.) 
 
 Decorated — 
 
 Earthenware jardiniferes having a glaze of but a single color are "decorated" 
 within the meaning of paragraph 96, tariff act of 1897, and may reasonably be 
 concluded to be "stained" also within the meaning of the same paragraph, 
 although the stain is in the glaze and not in the substructure. United States 
 V. Straus, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, March 
 16, 1909. Suit 5084. Appeal by United States from decision of Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 17024 (T. D. 28448). Board reversed. (T. D. 29648; 
 Mar. 24, 1909.) 
 
 Decorated Bockingham — 
 Paragraph 92 of the tariff act of 1909 specifically provides for Rockingham earth- 
 enware, a commodity not mentioned in other paragraphs of the law. The 
 changes made in this paragraph from the corresponding paragraph (94) of the 
 act of 1897 clearly indicate that it was the purpose of Congress that all Rocking- 
 ham earthenware should be dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 30290 — 
 G. A. 6968; Jan. 18, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 385 
 
 Earthenware — Continued. 
 Decorated Bockingham — Continued. 
 
 Commercial designation: Rockingham ware is a cheap earthenware, originally 
 manufactured in England, and more recently in the United States, generally, 
 but not always, made of a reddish clay body, which is covered with a brown 
 glaze, the chief coloring ingredient of which is manganese. Descriptive words 
 used in the tariff law to designate articles of imported merchandise are to be 
 understood in their known commercial sense, and the meaning given to such 
 words in the commerce of this country at the time of the passage of the tariff 
 law must control in the classification of such merchandise. Where it is sought 
 to extend the meaning of descriptive words used in the tariff law to articles 
 not coming exactly under the specific description, by testimony that such arti- 
 cles were commercially known by the term or terms used in the tariff law at 
 the time of its passage, that testimony must show that such articles were uni- 
 formly and generally so known in the commerce of the entire country. 
 
 Testimony: Ordinarily, negative testimony should not be held sufiicient to 
 overcome the positive statements of witnesses; but with reference to the ques- 
 tion of commercial designation the case is different. Where witnesses testify 
 to the commercial designation of an article, and other witnesses of equal ex- 
 perience in the commerce of the country and equally to be believed testify 
 that they have never known it to be so designated, it is evident that it could not 
 have been uniformly and generally so known in the commerce of the country. 
 (T. D. 32271— G. A. 7327; Feb. 13, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The issue presented in this case relates to various importations 
 of decorated earthenware, consisting of teapots. It is not shown that the .im- 
 portation is definitely, generally, and uniformly known as Rockingham earth- 
 enware and so constituting this a coromercial designation; rather the conten- 
 tion that it is Rockingham ware is clearly and strongly denied by witnesses 
 whose testimony, though negative in character, must under the circumstances 
 be held to be competent. A witness is qualified to testify as to the commercial 
 meaning of a trade term when he shows he has had experience in the same 
 trade through dealing in a competing article of a similar kind. The goods were 
 properly assessed as decorated earthenware under paragraph 93, tariff act of 
 1909. Masson et al. v. United States (No. 876), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, G. A. 7327 (T. D. 32271). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33000; Nov. 27, 
 1912.) 
 Ice tanks — 
 
 Paragraph 92, tariff act of 1909, more specifically applies to this merchandise than 
 paragraph 93, and the protest covers the claim under paragraph 92. The pro- 
 vision in paragraph 92 is for yellow earthenware "coated with white or trans- 
 parent vitreous glaze." This covers all yellow earthenware coated with white 
 or transparent vitreous glaze that has no other ornamentation or decoration than 
 white or vitreous glaze, and this specifically describes the goods here. Langley 
 et al. V. United States (No. 1259), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 33311 (T. D. 33677), Abstract 33447 (T. D. 33709). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 34102; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 Sarreguemlnes — 
 
 Sarreguemines earthenware, which is of a superior quality, is not "common" 
 
 yellow earthenware under paragraph 94, tariff act of 1897, but is dutiable under 
 
 paragraph 96, relating to earthenware not specially provided for. As to the 
 
 expression "common yellow * * * earthenware," in paragraph 96, tariff 
 
 46633"— 17 ^25 
 
386 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Earthenware — Continued. 
 Sarreguemines — Continued. 
 
 act of 1897, held that the word "common" is not a commercial designation, 
 but is a descriptive term. United States v. Reugger. United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York. November 28, 1908. Suit 4961. Appli- 
 cation for review of a decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 15576 (T. D. 28223). Board reversed. (T. D. 29393; Dec. 9, 1908.) 
 Teapots, not usual coverings. (See Coverings.) 
 Vitrified.— 
 Vitrified earthenware, semiporcelain earthenware, and vitrified hotel ware, being 
 in a greater or less degree absorbent, are dutiable under paragraph 79, tariff act 
 of 1913. (T. D. 34332; Mar. 31, 1914.) 
 Easter baskets. (See Baskets.) 
 
 Edgings and insertings of lace. (See Lace edgings and insertings.) 
 Effects. 
 Honsehold — 
 Automobiles are not entitled to free entry under the provisions of paragraph 504, 
 tariff act of 1897. United States v. Grace (T. D. 29500). (T. D. 29491; Jan. 
 26, 1909.) 
 Automobiles not: In construing the provision in paragraph 504, tariff act of 1897, 
 for "books, libraries, usual and reasonable furniture, and similar household 
 effects," held (1) that the insertion of "similar" indicates that Congress in- 
 tended to do away with the former exemption of household effects generally and 
 to restrict the provision to such property as the "books," "furniture," etc., 
 there enumerated, and (2) that automobiles are not "similar" to such articles, 
 and, therefore, are not covered by said paragraph. United States ». .Grace, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. No. 
 112 (suit 4829). Appeal from Circuit Court of United States for Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York, T. D. 28958 affirming Abstract 14263 (T. D. 27892). Decision 
 in favor of Government. (T. D. 29500; Jan. 27, 1909.) 
 An imported automobile is not a household effect similar to books, libraries, or the 
 usual household and reasonable furniture, or either of them, within the meaning 
 of paragraph 504 of the present tariff act of 1897. United States v. Grace (T. D. 
 29500) followed. (T. D. 29593— G. A. 6872; Feb. 26, 1909.) 
 Declaration of consignee: Promulating new form of declaration to be used upon 
 entry of household effects by consignee other than actual owner. (T. D. 30657; 
 May 31, 1910.) 
 Furniture for house of ill fame: The provision in paragraph 504, tariff act of 1897, 
 for "usual and reasonable furniture and similar household effects of persons or 
 fanulies from foreign countries," is confined to such articles only as are used by 
 the owner in a household for personal, home, or household convenience; and 
 furniture and similar articles that were xised abroad by the owner as furniture 
 for a house of ill fame, and that were imported for a like use, and have been so 
 used since importation, are not within the exemption allowed by said provision. 
 (T. D. 30905— G. A. 7094; Aug. 31, 1910.) 
 Horse and carriage, etc., free entry of: Tariff laws of 1897, 1894, and previous 
 statutes relative to the free admission of household effects, and the decisions of 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers and the courts thereunder, re- 
 viewed. Applying the latest decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the 
 Second Circuit construing paragraph 504 of the tariff act of 1897, a horse, car' 
 riage, cutter, harness, and saddle are not entitled to free entry under its provi- 
 sions. United States v. Grace (166 Fed. Rep., 748; T. D. 29500). (T. D, 
 30162— G. A. 6946; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 387 
 
 Effects — Continued. 
 Household — Continued. 
 
 Immigrants: Immigration officers at ports on Canadian frontier to be informed of 
 entry of household effects, etc. (T. D. 30985; Oct. 12, 1910.) 
 
 Persons or families from foreign countries: Household effects acquired by a cousin 
 of a deceased relative in a foreign country, in whose family she had never lived 
 and at whose home she had been but twice, are not free of duty under the pro- 
 visions of paragraph 428, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 36001— G. A. 7829; Dec. 13, 
 1915.) 
 
 Regulations governing free entry of, under paragraph 520 of the tariff act of 1909. 
 (T. D. 30477; Apr. 1, 1910.) 
 
 Residents and nonresidents: A resident of the United States traveling to and from 
 a foreign country, and not remaining there more than a few months at a time, is 
 not a " person from a foreign country ' ' within the meaning of that phrase as used 
 in paragraph 504, tariff act of 1897, and is not entitled to the exemption from 
 duty on household effects provided under that paragraph. (T. D. 29428 — G. A. 
 6841; Dec. 18, 1908.) 
 
 Wines and liquors not: The use of the word "similar" in paragraph 504, tariff act 
 of 1897, limits the articles that may be admitted free of duty as household effects 
 to such as are similar to books, libraries, and furniture. United States v. Grace 
 (166 Fed. Rep., 748; T. D. 29500). Wines and liquors are not household effects 
 "similar" to books, libraries, and furniture, and are therefore not free of duty 
 under paragraph 504. (T. D. 29711— G. A. 6898; Apr. 22, 1909.) 
 Personal — 
 
 The first p^rt of paragraph 697, tariff act of 1897, relating to personal effects "of 
 persons arriving in the United States," provides for foreigners only. The 
 privileges accorded to American residents are prescribed only in the latter 
 portion, comprising the proviso to the paragraph. The final clause of para- 
 graph 697, tariff act of 1897, provides that "no more than one hundred dollars 
 in value of articles 'purchased abroad by * * * residents of the United 
 States shall be admitted free of duty upon their return." Held that this 
 privilege extends only to articles of the same kind as those specified in the 
 preceding portion of the paragraph, namely, "wearing apparel, articles of per- 
 sonal adornment, toilet articles, and similar personal effects." United States 
 V. Bemays (T. D. 28861), reversing decision of Circuit Court (T. D. 27778) and 
 affirming board decision In re Bernays, Abstract 8168 (T. D. 26724); note, also, 
 Wyman's case, G. A. 5109 (T. D. 23631). (T. D. 29048— G. A. 6770; May 29, 
 1908.) 
 
 In the case of husband and wife and minor children traveling together exempted 
 articles may be grouped without regard to individual ownership. (T. D. 34512; 
 June 6, 1914.) 
 
 Articles arriving subsequent to arrival of returning residents may be included 
 within the $100 exemption in paragraph 642, tariff act of 1913, if the articles 
 were actually acquired abroad by such residents. (T. D. 35296; Apr. 3, 1915.) 
 
 Bicycles, baby carriages, and wheel chairs not personal effects under the first part 
 of paragraph 642, tariff.act of 1913, but may be included within the $100 exemp- 
 tion allowed returning residents of the United States. (T. D. 34282; Mar. 18, 
 1914.) 
 
 Bond for production of owner's declaration: Bond may be taken under T. D. 
 30657 for production of owner's declaration upon entry of personal effects taken 
 abroad by residents of United States, but not those of nonresidents or articles 
 purchased abroad by a returning resident. (T. D. 30809; July 19, 1910.) 
 
 Change in form of articles taken out of the United States and brought back as the 
 personal effects of a resident: Precious stones taken by a resident of the United 
 
388 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Effects — Continued. 
 Personal — Continued . 
 
 States to Paris, France, and there made into the form of a pendant, can not be 
 admitted free of duty imder paragraph 709 of the tariff act of 1909, for the reason 
 that the pendant in question was not taken out of the United Statee — ^precioxis 
 stones were taken out and a piece of jewehy brought back. Mitchell's case, 
 G. A. 6381 (T. D. 27421). (T. D. 31015— G. A. 7114; Oct. 20, 1910.) 
 
 Citizen of United States dying abroad: An American woman who marries a for- 
 eigner takes the nationality of her husband. (Conflict of decisions settled by 
 the act of Mar. 2, 1907 (34 Stat. L., 1228).) She becomes a redintegrated 
 American citizen upon the death of her husband by returning to and taking up 
 her residence in the United States; and the personal effects of such a citizen 
 dying in a foreign country are entitled to free entry under paragraph 648 of the 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31003— G. A. 7113; Oct. 21, 1910.) 
 
 Dogs and harness: Dogs and their harness, used by residents of the United States 
 in returning from Dawson, Canada, to Coldfoot, Alaska, are not entitled to free 
 admission under paragraph 474, tariff act of 1897, as teams of emigrants. Such 
 dogs and harness are not entitled to free admission under paragraph 697 as wear- 
 ing apparel, articles of personal adornment, toilet articles, and similar personal 
 effects, tor the reason that they are not ejusdem generis with any of the articles 
 specifically named in that paragraph. (T. D. 28699— G. A. 6707; Jan. 16, 1908.) 
 
 Entry, baggage: Congress having prescribed two independent systems of formali- 
 ties for the importation of personal effects and merchandise not personal effects, 
 each complete in itself, under section 2799, Revised Statutes, and section 
 4, customs administrative act of 1890, respectively, it could not have been 
 intended that both should be applicable to merchandise imported by a passen- 
 ger arriving in the United States, but not attempted to be concealed by dressing 
 it up as baggage. United States v. One Trunk (Gannon, claimant), United 
 States District Court, Southern District of New York, November 18, 1909. In 
 rem. on proceedings for forfeiture of imported goods. Decision adverse to the 
 Government. (T. D. 30214; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Exemptions: The final clause of paragraph 697, tariff act of 1897, provides that 
 "no more than one hundred dollars in value of articles purchased abroad by 
 * * * residents of the United States shall be admitted free of duty upon 
 their return." Held that this privilege extends only to articles of the same 
 kind as those specified in the preceding portion of the paragraph, namely, 
 "wearing apparel, articles of personal adornment, toilet articles, and similar 
 personal effects," and that pictures, chairs, trinkets, etc., not being of that de- 
 scription, are excluded. The first part of paragraph 697, tariff act of 1897, relat- 
 ing to personal effects "of persons arriving in the United States," provides for 
 foreigners only. The privileges accorded to American citizens are prescribed 
 only in the latter portion, comprising the proviso to the paragraph. United 
 States V. Bernays, United States Circuit Court of Appeals. Eighth Circuit, 
 February 28, 1908. No. 2531 (suit 1797). Appeal by Government from Cir- 
 cuit Court of the United States for Eastern District of Missoiu-i (T. D. 27773). 
 Decision in favor of the Govenmient. (T. D. 28861; Mar. 18, 1908.) 
 
 Horse not classifiable as: A horse is not embraced within the meaning of the words 
 "personal effects" as used in paragraph 709, tariff act of 1909; hence a horse 
 taken by a resident of the United States to his summer home in Canada can not, 
 upon being returned to this country, be admitted free of duty under this para- 
 graph of the law. Mary Garden's case, G. A. 6965 (T. D. 30270); United States 
 V. Bernays (158 Fed. Eep., 792; T. D. 28861); United States v. One Pearl Neck- 
 lace (111 Fed. Rep., 164); Wyman's case, G. A. 5109 (T. D. 23631). (T. D. 
 30544— G. A. 7010; Apr. 14, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1&15. 389 
 
 Effects — Continued. 
 Peisonal — Continued. 
 
 Motion-picture film: A motion-picture film of the protestant flying in an aeroplane 
 not intended tor sale but intended only to be shown to his friends, is an article 
 acquired for personal use and a souvenir within the meaning of that word as 
 used in paragraph 642 of the act of 1913. 
 
 Act of 1913: Under the act of 1913 residents of the United States returning 
 from abroad may bring into this country articles up to but not exceeding $100 
 in value acquired while abroad for personal or household use or as souvenirs or 
 as curios, If not bought on commission or intended for sale. Act of 1909 distin- 
 guished. (T. D. 34931— G. A. 7645; Nov. 28, 1914.) 
 
 Passengers' baggage. (See Baggage.) 
 
 Presents for other persons: Free entryMs not granted by paragraph 709, tariff 
 act of 1909, of articles brought in by returning travelers for other persons, but 
 only of such articles as are intended for their own use. Peacock's case, 6. A. 
 5114 (T. D. 23636); Oberndorf's case, G. A. 5618 (T. D. 25131), United States v. 
 Bernays (158 Fed. Rep., 792; T. D. 28861). (T. D. 30270— G. A. 6965; Jan. 13, 
 1910.) 
 
 Residence and nonresidence : (See also Residents and nonresidents.) Paragraph 709 
 of the tariff act of 1909, providing for the free entry of personal effects of persons 
 arriving in the United States, is identical in language with paragraph 697 of the 
 tariff act of 1897, and therefore has the same meaning as has been given to the 
 latter paragraph by judicial construction. McDonald u. Hovey (110 U. S.,619); 
 Roosevelt v. Maxwell (3 Blatch., 391, 20 Fed. Cas., 1155); In re Guggenheim 
 Smelting Co. (121 Fed. Rep., 153); Spencer v. Philadelphia Smelting & Refining 
 Co. (124Fed. Rep., 1002). Only wearing apparel, articles of personal adornment, 
 toilet articles, and personal effects similar thereto may be admitted free under 
 this paragraph, and these articles must actually accompany the person to whom 
 they belong, and be in his use or necessary and appropriate for his use for the 
 immediate purposes of his journey and his present comfort and convenience. 
 United States D. Bernays (158 Fed. Rep., 792;T. D. 28861); Peacock's case, G. A. 
 5114 (T. D. 23636). "The immediate purposes of the journey" held to mean 
 the complete journey of the traveler from his foreign home back to his home, and 
 not the mere voyage of crossing the ocean. Nonresidents arriving in the United 
 States may bripg with them free of duty such articles as are enumerated in the 
 paragraph and stated above, without regard to their value or where purchased. 
 Residents of the United States may bring in free of duty all wearing apparel and 
 other personal effects taken by them out of the United States, upon their iden- 
 tity being established, and, in addition thereto, such articles purchased abroad 
 as are enumerated in the paragraph and stated above, not exceeding $100 in 
 value. United States v. One Pearl Necklace (111 Fed. Rep., 164). A person's 
 residence is a question of law to be determined from the facts of each particular 
 case. Paragraph 709 does not make free entry conditioned upon comphance 
 with any regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury; hence that official can 
 not, by regulations, in any way modify this paragraph. He ean not by a regu- 
 lation fix the length of time a resident of the United States shall remain in a for- 
 eign country to be, when returning therefrom, "returning from abroad." 
 Hedges' case, G. A. 6523 (T. D. 27863). A resident of the United States return- 
 ing from a five days' trip to Canada claimed free entry of certain furs of a less 
 value than $100 purchased in Canada. Held, that the furs were entitled to 
 entry free of duty under said paragraph 709. Free entry is not granted by para- 
 graph 709 of articles brought in by returning travelers for other persons, but only 
 of such articles as are intended for their own use. Peacock's case, G. A. 5114 
 
390 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 
 
 E£f ects — Continued . 
 Personal — Continued. 
 
 (T. D. 23636); Oberndorf's case, G. A. 5618 (T. B. 25131); United States v. Ber- 
 nays (158 Fed. Rep., 792; T. D. 28861). (T. D. 30270— <1. A. 6965; Jan. 13, 
 1910.) 
 
 Apart from any question of legal citizenship, one who in good faith resides and 
 makes his home abroad, according to the evidence, and who visits the United 
 States with no intention of remaining here, is entitled to bring in his wearing 
 apparel — ^his personal effects — free of duty. Bradley Martin, Jr., v. United 
 States (No. 246), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porter from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 
 30601). Decision reversed. (T. D. 31185; Jan. 5, 1911.) 
 
 A citizen of the United States who accepts employment in a foreign country, 
 expecting to remain there indefinitely, and who does remain there in that em- 
 ployment for 18 years and then returns to the United States without having any 
 residence in this country or any place of abode in any city or State, is not a resi- 
 dent of the United States so as to come within the purview of the proviso of para- 
 graph 709, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33694— G. A. 7489; Aug. 12, 1913.) 
 
 Status of a married woman: The residential status, like the poUtical status, 
 of a married woman follows that of her husband. A woman whose husband is a 
 resident of the United States is also a resident of this country within the mean- 
 ing of paragraph 642, tariff act of 1913. The residence of the husband becomes 
 that of the wife instantly upon the celebration of the marria^. A woman who 
 is a resident of England becomes a resident of the United States immediately 
 upon her marriage in that country to a man who is a resident of the United 
 States. Residence may be changed by commencing to remove from one country 
 to another without intention of returning to the other country. (T. D. 34354 — 
 G. A. 7553; Apr. 2, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The appellant, though born in the United States, lived in Eng- 
 land for many years with her father, who, at her birth and continuously there- 
 after, was a citizen of England. She married in London a citizen of the United 
 States. Voyaging to the United States after her marriage, she is not to be 
 deemed a resident of the United States, returning thereto, but a person arriving 
 in the United States, and under paragraph 642, tariff act of October 3, 1913, her 
 personal effects were entitled to entry free of duty. Thompson v. United States 
 (No. 1367), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7553 (T. D. 34354). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 34534; June 1, 1914.) 
 
 Minor child: The minor daughter of a resident of Kentucky, returning from 
 Paris, France, where she has been for several years and expects to live for a 
 longer period, is a "resident of the United States" within the meaning of para- 
 graph 709 of the tariff act of 1909, her residence following that of her parents, 
 notwithstanding her temporary sojourn in a foreign country. Dresser v. Edison 
 Illuminating Co. (49 Fed. Rep., 257); Exparie Petterson (166 Fed. Rep., 536); 
 Lamar v. Micou (112 U. S., 452). (T. D. 31015— G. A. 7114; Oct. 20, 1910.) 
 Towels: Towels in reasonable quantities intended for the personal use of a passen- 
 ger may be included within the f 100 exemption from duty under the provisions 
 of paragraph 709, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31560; May 6, 1911.) 
 Wearing apparel: Wearing apparel and other personal effects taken abroad by 
 residents of the United States may be brought back by them free of duty, 
 whether or not belonging to the persons taking same abroad and whether or not 
 intended for use as personal effects, provided their identity is established. (T. 
 D. 31777; July 26, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 391 
 
 Effects — Continued. 
 Theatrical — 
 Provisions of article 631, Customs Regulations of 1908, relative to return, tree of 
 duty, of threatiical effects taken to Canada for temporary use, extended to the- 
 atrical companies going to any foreign country. (T. D. 30524; Apr. 11, 1910.) 
 Opinion of the Solicitor of the Treasury holding that the Secretary of the Treasury 
 has no power to allow exportation without payment of duty after expiration of 
 one year. (T. D. 33989; Dec. 17, 1913.) 
 Efficiency and economy. 
 
 Appointment of departmental committee on efficiency and economy. (T. D. 
 31036; circular No. 62; Oct. 29, 1910.) 
 Efficiency board for customs service, appointment of. (T. D. 34275; Mar. 16, 1914.) 
 Eggs. 
 
 Game birds — 
 Regulations under paragraph 560 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, governing the 
 ' importation of eggs of game birds for propagation. (T. D. 30637; May 23, 1910.) 
 Mixture of yolks and whites- 
 Hen's eggs, having their whites and yolks mixed in exact proportion, the white 
 and the yolk of each egg being thrown into a common receptacle, and the total 
 contents being placed in hermetically sealed tin cans and frozen for shipment, 
 are dutiable under paragraph 256, tariff act of 1909, as eggs not specially pro- 
 vided for. Stin Kwong On v. United States (143 Fed. Rep., 115) approved. 
 Horsfield v. United States (No. 248), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers (T. D. 30691). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31186; Jan. 5, 1911.) 
 A frozen mixture imported in tins of about 43 pounds each, and consisting of 75 
 per cent yolk of egg and 25 per cent white, though not in the proportions of 
 yolk and white foimd in the natural egg, is dutiable, by similitude, under para- 
 graph 256, tariff act of 1909, as "eggs, not specially provided for in this section, 
 five cents per dozen," on the basis of 11 eggs to the poimd. (T. D. 31880 — G. A. 
 7274; Sept. 21, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The imported merchandise consisted of a mixture, one-fourth 
 whites and three-fourths yolks, of eggs. This mixture is not dutiable as "eggs, 
 yolk of " simply, for it contains whites of eggs, though in a different proportion 
 from that in the natural egg. It was properly assessed, by similitude, as eggs, 
 having as it does a similar quality and use with them. Horsfield v. United 
 States (No. 780), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porter from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7274 (T. D. 31880). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32463; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 Egyptian veils or scarfs. 
 
 So-called Egyptian veils or scarfs, made of cotton netting and having designs of 
 metal thread that are applied to the netting after it has been woven and are 
 made by passing the thread through the fabric and producing the same orna- 
 mentation on both sides of the article, are "appliqufed" within the meaning 
 of paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 30423— G. A. 6991; Mar. 10, 1910.) 
 Elastic belts. (See Belts.) 
 Electric bulbs. 
 Fruit-shaped and colored — 
 Electric-light bulbs, colored, and shaped as fruit, could only be doubtingly 
 classified as fruit, and any doubt should be resolved in favor of the importer. 
 To hold otherwise would result in classifying these importations in all their 
 variety at greatly varying rates of duty, and duties should be imif orm upon uni- 
 form classes and kinds of goods. 
 
392 DIGEST OF CtrSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Electric bulbs — Continued, 
 frnit-shaped and coloied — Continued. 
 Manufactures of metal: The goods were assessed by the board as "articles or 
 wares * * * composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, lead, copper, nickel, 
 pewter, zinc, gold, silver, platinum, aluminum, or other metal; » » *" 
 under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. This assessment was proper. "Man- 
 ufactures of metal" refers to the material and includes all the component 
 classes of such by whatever distinctive name known. United States v. Wolff 
 & Co. (No. 1402), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 35162 
 (T. D. 34307). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34943; Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 
 Electric flash-light cases. (See Metal, manufactures of.) 
 
 Electrochemistry apparatus. 
 
 Apparatus used for experiments in electrochemistry, composed in chief value of 
 glass that has been blown in a mold or otherwise, is dutiable at the rate of 60 
 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31299 — G. A. 
 7170; Feb. 11, 1911.) 
 
 Electrotypes, old. (See Type metal.) 
 
 Embossed, lithographed post cards. (See Post cards.) 
 
 Embossers and stampers. (See Machinery and machines.) 
 
 Embroideries. 
 Artificial silk — 
 Embroideries in chief value of artificial silk are properly dutiable under the 
 denominative provision therefor in paragraph 405, tariff act of 1909. Embroid- 
 eries composed of a cotton net foundation embroidered with artificial silk, 
 cotton being the component material of chief value, are properly dutiable imder 
 the provisions of said paragraph 405 by virtue of the last proviso to paragraph 
 349 of said act, which prescribes "that no article or fabric of any description, 
 composed of flax or other vegetable fiber, or of which these materials or any of 
 them is the component material of chief value, when embroidered » * » 
 shall pay a less rate of duty than that imposed in this section upon any embroid- 
 eries of the materials of which such embroidery is composed." (T. D. 31087 — 
 G. A. 7127; Dec. 5, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Vegetable fiber, paragraph S49, tariff act of 1909. — Cotton is a 
 vegetable fiber, and merchandise composed of cotton net, if embroidered with a 
 design in artificial silk, cotton being the component of chief value, falls for 
 dutiable purposes within the last proviso of paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, 
 namely, that no article or fabric of any description composed of flax or other 
 vegetable fiber, or of which these materials or any of them is the component of 
 chief value, when embroidered, shall pay a less duty than the duty imposed 
 upon any embroideries of the materials of which such embroidery is composed. 
 Shoninger v. United States (No. 563), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from a decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 7127 (T. D. 31087). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31661; May 
 29, 1911.) 
 lace — 
 Though lace may be embroidery from an artistic standpoint, it can not be held 
 dutiable as embroidery, because in successive tariff acts Congress has made dis- 
 tinctions between the two. United States v. Simon, United States Circuit 
 Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 13, 1909. No. 189 (4617). Appeal by 
 United States from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York (T. D. 29017) reversing G. A. 6452 (T. D. 27644). Decision 
 adverse to the Government. (T. D. 29702; Apr. 21, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OV CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 393 
 
 Embioideiies — Continued. 
 Metal thread. (See Metal thread.) 
 Scalloped articles not — 
 
 Articles with scalloped edges, the edges of which have been stitched over a cord, 
 the needlework being of the plainest description and serving simply the neces- 
 sary and useful purpose of preventing the articles from raveling, are not "em- 
 broidery" or "embroidered in any manner" within the meaning of paragraph 
 339, tariff act of 1897. The fundamental idea of "embroidery" is that it is 
 needlework done upon a previously completed fabric, as distinguished from 
 tapestry or lace work in which the design is a part of the original fabric. It is 
 not enough that it should simply serve a useful purpose; it is essential that it 
 should be ornamental. United States v. Waentig, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, February 9, 1909. Suit 4146. Appeal by 
 United States from decision of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6205 (T. D. 
 26853). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29598; Mar. 3, 1909.) Appeal from this 
 decision by the United States to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 
 decided adversely to the Government. (T. D. 30225; Dec. 28, 1909.) 
 Acquiesced in by the Government, February 3, 1910 (T. D. 30325). 
 Embroidery and embroidered articles. (See Boxes, cotton, fans, fur garments, gloves, 
 handkerchiefs, hosiery, initials, machinery, screens, shoes, silk, toys, kin- 
 dergarten sets, trimmings, wearing apparel, wool, woolen cloth). 
 Emeralds, reconstructed. (See "Doublets.") 
 
 Emergency outfit of tools for an automobile packed in a leather case. (See Metal.) 
 Emergency revenue law. (See Stamp tax.) 
 Emery. 
 Boro-carbone — Crude artificial abrasive — 
 Boro-carbone, made from bauxite changed from its natural state by having been 
 placed in an electric furnace and reduced to a molten mass, having the impuri- 
 ties removed preliminary to the cooling, the mass being then broken and ground 
 by passing through rollers, and finally through sieves of various meshes, is not a 
 crude artificial abrasive within the meaning of paragraph 432 of the tariff act of 
 1909, but is dutiable as emery grains, manufactured (par. 432), by similitude. 
 G. A. 7249 (T. D. 31773) and Harrison Supply Co. v. United States (6 Ot. Cust. 
 Appls., — ; T. D. 35326) followed. (T. D. 85383— G. A. 7723; May 3, 1915.) 
 Employees. 
 Hours — 
 Hours of labor on Saturdays from June 15 to September 15. (T. D. 34557; circu- 
 lar No. 30; June 12, 1914.) 
 Injuries — 
 Injuries to employees of the Treasury Department to be reported. (T. D. 29216; 
 
 circular No. 65; Aug. 19, 1908.) 
 Injuries to employees of the Treasury Department — Amendment of circular No. 
 65 of 1908. (T. D. 30109; circular No. 63; Nov. 15, 1909.) 
 Leave of absence of — 
 Leave of absence not to be granted officers and employees in the customs service 
 who have not performed any service during the calendar year. (T. D. 34497; 
 June 1, 1914.) 
 Legislation — 
 Executive order prohibiting the influencing of legislation by employees of the 
 
 Treasury Department. (T. D. 32134; circular No. 3; Jan. 6, 1912.) 
 Influencing legislation by employees of the Treasury Department. (T. D. 32389; 
 circular No. 19; Apr. 10, 1912.) 
 
394 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Employees — Continued. 
 Personnel — 
 
 Changes in personnel in customs service to be reported to department in dupli- 
 cate. (T. D. 33139; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 Promotions — 
 No employees to be promoted during probation, except upon approval of the Civil 
 Service Commission previously obtained. (T. D. 35158; circular No. 40; Jan. 
 4, 1915.) 
 Vacancies — 
 Prompt notice to be submitted to the Department of all vacancies occurring in 
 
 districts, porta, or offices. 
 Officers of the customs relieved from further compliance with T. D. 32550, in 
 relation to filling vacancies. (T. D. 32691; July 2, 1912.) 
 Enamel colors. (See Colors.) 
 Enamel white paint. (See Paint.) 
 Enameled article s . (See Jewelry, cloisonne . ) 
 Enameled Carmelite ware. (See Carmelite ware, enameled.) 
 Enameled dials. (See Dial plates, enameled.) 
 Enameled steel ware. (See Steel ware.) 
 Enameled ware, marking of. (See Marking.) 
 Enameled zinc sheets. (See Zinc, enameled sheets.) 
 Enamelette. 
 
 So-called enamelette, known also as white enamel and matt enamel, is dutiable 
 under paragraph 57, tariff act of 1897, as "white paint or pigment, containing 
 zinc, but not containing lead, * * * ground in oil, ".and not under para- 
 graph 58 as paint "ground with solutions other than oil." Venderink Co. v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern 
 Division, April 10, 1909. No. 7231 (suit 1915). Appeal by importer from deci- 
 sion of Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 13501 (T. D. 27729). Decision 
 adverse to Government. (T. D. 29765; May 19, 1909.) 
 Enfleuiage grease. 
 
 Concrete muguet de mai not classiiiable as. (See Muguet de mai.) 
 Engines for the propulsion of vessels. (See Vessels, motor engines.) 
 Engines for steam plows. (See Agricultural implements.) 
 Engraved steel slabs. (See Steel.) 
 Engraver's plates. (See Steel plates.) 
 Engravings and etchings. 
 
 Etchings and engravings in existence more than 20 years entitled to entry 
 under paragraph 717 of tariff act of 1909, and not under paragraph 517 of said 
 act. (T. D. 30078; Oct. 30, 1909.) 
 Etchings and engravings in existence more than 20 years entitled to entry under 
 paragraph 517, tariff act of 1909, without requiring the production of the evi- 
 dence prescribed by T. D. 31263, dated February 1, 1911, in relation to the 
 free entry of works of art and artistic antiquities. T. D. 30078 modified ac- 
 cordingly. (T. D. 31536; Apr. 25, 1911.) 
 Enrollment of vessels. 
 
 Amendment of regulations. (See Customs regulations.) 
 Entered value. (See Dutiable value.) 
 Entireties. 
 Automobile tires — 
 In order that merchandise that is distinctively a manufacture of one material, as a 
 rubber automobile tire, shall be classified as a manufacture of another material, 
 as an automobile in chief value of metal, it is necessary that the entire article 
 manufactured should have existed as an assembled entity, so that it would be an 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 395 
 
 Kntiieties — Continued . 
 
 Automobile tires — Continued. 
 
 invasion for the foreign maker to break the entity into fragments and expect 
 each fragment to be treated as if complete in itself. But where an article has 
 never been assembled abroad, it ought not for tariff purposes to be treated as if 
 it had been so assembled. (T. D. 29123; June 30, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) When an incomplete automobile car and the four tires necessary 
 to put it in running order are imported together, in the same vessel, by the same 
 importer, and entered at the same time, the parts are dutiable as a whole, though 
 before the machine is ever used other tires may be substituted. Auto Import 
 Co. V. United States; Archer v. United States, United States Circuit Court 
 of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 16, 1909. Nos. 198-9 (suits 4918 and 
 4915). Noyes, Circuit Judge, dissents. Appeals by importers from Circuit 
 Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29123), 
 reversing decisions by the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6567 (T. D. 28044), 
 and Abstract 15117 (T. D. 28104). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. 
 D. 29599; Mar. 3, 1909.) 
 
 Automobile tires imported with car — 
 An automobile or a chassis on wheels, with the tires therefor, whether the latter 
 are on the wheels or separately packed, constitutes an entirety and should be 
 treated as such in the assessment of duty. United States v. Auto Import Co. 
 (T. D. 29599), affirming G. A. 6567 (T, D. 28044), followed. (T. D. 29760— G. 
 A. 6908; May 17, 1909.) 
 
 Boot wipers — 
 Boot wipers consisting of an iron stand and two brushes are dutiable as entireties 
 at the rate applicable to the component article of chief value. 
 
 Article of chief value: In determining the article of chief value in any com- 
 modity composed of several articles the value in the foreign market of each 
 article and the labor incident to assembling the same must be considered. (T. 
 D. 35846— G. A. 7802; Oct. 27, 1915.) 
 
 Bottles in celluloid eases — ■ 
 Articles consisting of celluloid cases containing perfumery bottles are not to be 
 considered as entireties for the assessment of duty, though sold and used to- 
 gether, but are dutiable as though imported separately. United States v, 
 Dieckerhoff (160 Fed. Rep., 449; T. D. 28716) followed. (T. D. 30140— G. A. 
 6942; Nov. 27, 1909.) ' 
 
 Bottles with cut-glass stoppers — 
 Molded-glass bottles imported filled with perfumery and fitted with cut-glass stop- 
 pers are not dutiable as separate articles of merchandise, the bottles under para- 
 graph 99 and the stoppers under paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, but collectively 
 dutiable as entireties under paragraph 100 as articles of cut glass. Utard v. 
 United States (128 Fed. Rep., 422; T. D. 25115) followed; United States v. 
 Hayes (150 Fed. Rep., 63; T. D. 27806) distinguished. (T. D. 29192— G. A. 
 6794; July 29, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Filled glass bottles with cut-glass stoppers, the bottle neck and 
 the stopper being ground to fit each other, and the stopper not capable of use in 
 any other bottle, are dutiable as entireties, rather than separately; and where 
 the stopper predominates in value, the goods are dutiable under paragraph 100, 
 tariff act of 1897, relating to articles in chief value of cut glass. Park & Tilford v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York. 
 November 9, 1909. Suit 5341. Appeal by importers from decision of Board of 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 6794 (T. D. 29192). Board aflBrmed. (T. D. 30123; 
 Nov. 28, 1909.) 
 
396 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 I 
 
 Entireties — Continued. 
 
 Bottles not of cut glass with cut-glass stoppers — 
 Bottles made of glass, plain, blown, or molded, designed to be subsequently fitted 
 with cut-glass stoppers, are not dutiable as articles apart from the glass stoppers 
 imported with them; the bottles and the cut-glass stoppers are dutiable as 
 entireties as cut-glass bottles under paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897. Park & 
 Tiltord V. United States (No. 21), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 
 6794 (T. D. 29192). Transferred from the United States Circuit Court, South- 
 em District of New York (T. D. 29192). Decision in favor of the Government, 
 (T. D. 31006; Oct. 18, 1910.) 
 
 Card clothing — • 
 Card clothing, when imported in quantity sufficient for the use of the machine 
 for which it is intended and which it accompanies, is, though packed separately, 
 properly dutiable as a part of the machine, and duty should be assessed on the 
 whole as an entirety under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897, as manufactures of 
 metal. United States v. Leigh (T. D. 28688), G. A. 6174 (T. D. 26789), and G. 
 A. 6490 (T. D. 27760) followed. (T. D. 28802— G. A. 6729; Feb. 21, 1908.) 
 
 Carding machine and card clothing therefor — 
 Carding machines were imported in an unassembled condition, in separate pack- 
 ages. Part of the clothing therefor was attached and a portion was not. This 
 latter portion had not been adjusted to the machinery before importation, and 
 required cutting somewhat in order to be fitted for adjustment. Held that for 
 the assessment of duty the importation should be considered as an entirety, 
 and the card clothing subjected to duty as a part of the machine and at the same 
 rate. An article dutiable as a whole may be imported in separate packages, a 
 small need of adjustment not making the several parts dutiable separately 
 rather than as integral parts of a finished whole. But if, under the name of 
 adjustment, a considerable part of the manirfacture of the article takes place 
 after importation, so that the component parts are, when imported, related to 
 the complete article as raw material, such raw material is dutiable accordingly. 
 The question is one of degree. United States v. Leigh, United States Circuit 
 Court, District of Massachusetts, December 31, 1907. No. 227 (suit 1920). 
 Appeal by Government from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. 
 A. 6490 (T. D. 27760). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 28688; Jan. 
 15, 1908.) Acquiesced in. (T. D. 28732; Feb. 3, 1908.) 
 
 Cuff buttons — 
 Where cuffbuttons, consisting of link mountings and settings of sapphire, were, 
 prior to exportation, separated into their parts, and are described on the same 
 invoice as link mountings and sapphires, and are imported by the same vessel 
 and consigned to the same owner, with the intention of resetting the stones in 
 the links so as to constitute cuff buttons complete, the importation is dutiable 
 as an entirety under paragraph 414, tariff act of 1897, as cuff buttons, and not 
 separately under paragraph 435 as precious stones and paragraph 193 as manu- 
 factures of metal. (T. D. 29981— G. A. 6928; Aug. 31, 1909.) 
 
 Leather bags — 
 
 Leather bags containing opera glasses not dutiable as entireties. (T. D. 
 29142— G. A. 6786; July 2, 1908.) 
 
 Paragraph 128, tariff act of 1913, construed — 
 The enacting provision in paragraph 128 of the tariff act of 1913 imposes a rate 
 of duty, based upon their respective value per dozen, on certain knives, erasers, 
 and razors, "whether assembled but not fully finished or finished," and the 
 first proviso thereto is strictly limited in effect to the same class of articles 
 imported as entireties, but in the condition of parts unassembled. 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 397 
 
 Entireties — Continued . 
 
 Paragraph 128, tariff act of 1913, construed — Continued. 
 
 Razor blades or handles separately imported: Single razor blades or handles, 
 imported in separate shipments, are merely parts of razors, and as such can not 
 be held dutiable under said proviso at the same rate applicable to the particular 
 razors of which they are supposed to be parts, vhen, as matter of fact, there are 
 no complete razors in the same shipment. Single parts of razors, separately 
 imported, are therefore excluded from said paragraph 128, and, not being 
 elsewhere specifically provided for, are classifiable according to their compo- 
 nent material of chief value. (T. D. 35897— G. A. 7815; Nov. 17, 1915.) 
 
 Sculptures — 
 Marble figure with capital and base: The importation was a winged figure of a 
 woman, concededly a sculpture, upon a pedestal made of a square shaft with a 
 carved capital and base. The testimony shows that the monument was ordered, 
 designed, and made as an entirety. It was dutiable as an entirety under para- 
 graph 470, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Haaker (No. 1130), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 31434 (T. D. 33217). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 33935; Nov. 28, 1913.) 
 
 Sounding-machine tubes contained In tin case- 
 Not classifiable as entireties. (See Glass, blown, manufactures of — Sounding- 
 machines tubes.) 
 
 Steam plow equipments not. (See Agricultural implements.) 
 
 Table candle lamps with beaded shades — 
 Table candle lamps made in the shape of romer glasses, with beaded shades, to be 
 classified as entireties, dutiable at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 333, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35260; Mar. 25, 1915.) 
 
 Tantalus sets not. (See Tantalus sets.) 
 
 Toilet cases — 
 Toilet cases, consisting of an imitation leather case composed of cotton chief value, 
 containing brush, metal-top glass cream jar, glass toothbrush bottle, etc., prop- 
 erly dutiable as entireties, the rate depending upon the component materials of 
 chief value. (T. D. 32264; Feb. 15, 1912.) 
 Held, as to metal-topped glass bottles in fancy leather cases, that they do not with 
 the cases constitute entireties, but that the bottles and cases are separately 
 classifiable for the assessment of duty. United States v. Dieckerhoff (160 Fed. 
 Rep., 449; T. D. 28716), G. A. 6780 (T. D. 29097), followed; G. A. 6569 (T. D. 
 28046) overruled. (T. D. 29481— G. A. 6852; Jan. 14, 1909.) 
 
 Watch movements — • 
 A machine or mechanism which is for all practical purposes a unit, though made 
 of separable parts, which parts are shipped in separated condition, must be 
 treated for duty purposes as an entirety. The parts necessary to form, when 
 assembled, a number of complete watch movements, imported on the same vessel 
 and covered by the same invoice, though packed separately, are for duty pur- 
 poses entireties and classifiable as "watch movements," under paragraph 192, 
 tariff act of 1909, rather than as "parts of watches," under the same paragraph. 
 (T. D. 32194— G. A. 7318; Jan. 24, 1912.) 
 Kntry. (See also Invoices.) 
 
 Small frontier importations valued at $10 or less admitted without formal entry, 
 (T. D. 29146; July 8, 1908.) 
 
 Addition on — 
 The provision in section 7, customs administrative act of 1890, that duty shall not 
 be assessed on less than the entered value of merchandise, is held to cover a 
 case where the addition by an importer on entry results in a lower duty than 
 would have accrued on the basis of the invoice and appraised v?lue, (T. p, 
 29557— G. A. 6867; Feb. 11, 1909.) 
 
398 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Entry— Continued . 
 Animals — 
 
 Where no actual tender of entry was made : It is unnecessary to determine whether 
 the absence of an inspector would validate on a later day a tender of entry made 
 during the inspector's absence, it appearing here no actual tender of entry was 
 made of certain horses it was desired to import on August 5, 1909, and that the 
 tender of entry was made in fact on August 6, 1909. The horses were rightly 
 held dutiable as of that date under the act in force that day. Van Treese v. 
 United States (No. 484), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23890 
 (T. D. 30879). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32036; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 Appraisement — 
 
 The action of the Secretary of the Treasury in refusii^ to approve an application 
 to enter by appraisement without invoice is not subject to review by the Board 
 of General Appraisers or the courts. (T. D. 29883— G. A. 6918; June 29, 1909.) 
 Carbon copies, etc. — 
 
 Entries made out with indelible pencils and use of carbons for copies may be 
 accepted. (T. D. 28704; Jan. 21, 1908.) 
 Clerical error. (See Error, clerical.) 
 Declarations on — 
 
 Personal effects: The exception of "personal effects accompanying the passenger" 
 from the requirement of section 4, customs administrative act of 1890, that "no 
 importation of any merchandise " shall bS entered without an invoice, is equiva- 
 lent to an exception of articles not personal effects from section 2799, Eevised 
 Statutes, relating to the declaration of "baggage." United States v. One Trunk 
 (Gannon, claimant). United States District Court, Southern District of New 
 York, November 18, 1909. In rem on proceedings for forfeiture of imported 
 goods. Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30214; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 
 The owner's declaration (Cat. No. 3347) can not be made by an agent. When 
 entry is made on an indorsed bill of lading the name of the owner must be given 
 and his declaration produced. The agent of merchandise sold at a price deliv- 
 ered may make the declaration of ultimate consignee when the goods are con- 
 signed to him for delivery. Only one bond is required for the declaration of 
 several owners when the merchandise is included in one entry. An owner's 
 declaration antedating the entry may be accepted when the agent's declaration 
 is made at the time of entry. (T. D. 35264; Mar. 27, 1915.) 
 
 Pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph F of Section III of the act of October 3, 
 1913, the forms of declarations prescribed in subsection 5 of section 28 of the act 
 of August 5, 1909, prescribed for use on the entry of merchandise imported on 
 and after October 4, 1913, until further notice. (T. D. 33774; Oct. 7, 1913.) 
 
 Paragraph 2 of the department's decision of March 19, 1914 (T. D. 34283), is 
 amended to read as follows: Cat. No. 3345 must be used in all cases where 
 entry is made by an agent or broker or forwarder or any person other than the 
 actual owner, purchaser, or ultimate consignee. In avery such case the declara- 
 tion of the purchaser or ultimate consignee (Cat. No. 3347) must be filed at the 
 time of entry or a bond given for the production of the'declaration of the pur- 
 chaser or ultimate consignee to cancel the bond on Cat. No. 8349 or Cat. No. 
 3351, as the case may be. (T. D. 35060; Jan. 16, 1915.) 
 Drawback — 
 
 The omission of certain data in drawback entries authorized where such data are 
 either unnecessary or are given in the sworn statement or schedule of the manu- 
 facturer. (T. D. 33605; July 9, 1913.) 
 Duress. (See also Duress, anU.) 
 
 Entries bearing notations by importers that additions were made tmder duress 
 should not be accepted. (T. D. 32058; Dec. 5, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OE' CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 399 
 
 Entiy — Continued. 
 Hours of business — 
 
 Deposit of estimated duties and payments of increased and additional duties 
 should be accepted between the hours of 9 o'clock a. m. and 3 o'clock p. m., 
 except on Saturdays, when the hours should be from 9 a. m. to 12 m. (T. D. 
 28914; Apr. 3, 1908.) 
 
 Where an importer appears at the customhouse and seeks to make entry of im- 
 ported merchandise after the hour of 4.30 p. m., which is named as the proper 
 time for terminating official business, and the collector refuses to admit him to 
 his office, and he is thereby prevented from making entry, he has no legal re- 
 dress. Articles 1389 and 1390 of the Customs Regulations of 1908, prescribing 
 the hours of business and the hours of service for customs officers, are reasonable 
 regulations for official business at the customhouse, and as such have the force 
 of law. The extension of such hours beyond the time prescribed rests with 
 the Secretary of the Treasury as a matter within his discretion. (T. D. 30891 — 
 G. A. 7090; Aug. 22, 1910.) 
 
 Entry sought to be made after office hours: In June, 1909, certain liquors were 
 withdrawn from warehouse at the port of New York, transported to Chicago, 
 and entered for warehouse there July 29 following. On August 5 following, at 
 about 5.30 o'clock p. m., the owners sought to withdraw these liquors, paying 
 duty as of that date. Held, the collector properly refused the duties so tendered 
 after office hours and properly, on August 6 ensuing, assessed the duties under 
 the tariff act of August 5, 1909, effective that day. Gallagher & Ascher v. 
 United States (No. 247), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 23266 (T. D. 30601). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 
 31034; Oct. 28, 1910.) 
 
 Article 1389, Customs Regulations of 1908, requires that customs offices shall be 
 kept open on all business days from 9 a. m. to 4.30 p. m., and provides further 
 that "these hours are to be prolonged when the necessities or interest of the 
 public service require it." Held that the matter of determining when the ne- 
 cessities or interests of the public service require such extension of hours is for 
 the sound discretion and business judgment of the Government officials, and 
 that no such necessity existed from the mere anticipation of the arrival of a 
 vessel which had not entered the port at the regular closing hour. (T. D. 
 30890— G. A. 7089; Aug. 22^ 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The tariff act of 1909 was signed at 5.05 p. m. on August 5, and 
 ■went into effect the next day. Business hours at customhouses, by virtue of 
 reasonable departmental regulations then in force, ended at 4.30 p. m. At 
 that hour certain importations had not arrived within a collector's jurisdiction. 
 Beld, under these circumstances a tender and payment of duty under the pro- 
 visions of the act of 1897, made a few minutes after 4 o'clock, was properly 
 refused for the reason that the importation was not within the jurisdiction and 
 the collector was not bound to keep his office open beyond the regular hour for 
 closing for the purpose of permitting an entry to be made later that day. 
 
 Office hours. — Nothing further appearing, the fact that a new tariff law has 
 been enacted does not of itself create within the meaning of article 1389 of 
 the Customs Regulations of 1908 an occasion where the "necessities or interests 
 of the puislic service " require the ordinary business hours of customhouses to 
 be prolonged. 
 
 Constitutional rights. — The fact that a collector at another port voluntarily 
 kept his office open and received entries after the close of regular business hours 
 of August 5 does not lay the foundation for the claim of an unlawful invasion of 
 the constitutional rights of an importer under sections 8 and 9 of Article I of 
 
400 DIGEST OF CXTSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Entiy — Continued . 
 Houis of business — Continued. 
 
 the Constitution of the United States. Talbot v. United States (No. 490); 
 Perry v. United States (No. 491); Kraut v. United States (No. 492), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from a decision of 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7089 (T. D. 30890). Deci- 
 sion affirmed. (T. D. 31483; Apr. 3, 1911.) 
 Illegal — Acts subsequent to filing entry — 
 
 In section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, forbidding the making or at- 
 tempting to make a false entry of imported merchandise by means of a fraudu- 
 lent practice, etc., the word "entry" is not limited to the paper filed with the 
 collector of customs, but refers to the entire transaction of passing the goods 
 through the customhouse, including such steps as weighers' returns on articles 
 dutiable by weight. The provision in section 9, customs administrative act of 
 1890, against false entries by the importer "or other person," does not relate.to 
 all individuals who may assist or have a fraudulent part in making an entry; 
 and it does not include the case of an assistant customs weigher who made false 
 returns in furtherance of an importer's attempt to make a fraudulent entry. 
 United States v. Mescall (4 cases), United States Circuit Court, Eastern Dis- 
 trict of New York, May 7, 1908. Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 12 (suits 753, 764^5, and 774). 
 On demurrer to indictments for illegal entry. Decision adverse to the Grovem- 
 ment. (T. D. 29242; Sept: 2, 1908.) 
 
 Under section 5444, Revised Statutes, making it a crime to knowingly aid in 
 "admitting to entry" any imported goods at less than the legal rate of duty, the 
 term "entry" does not mean simply tbe act of filing at the customhouse the 
 paper known as an entry, but comprises the transaction of entering the goods 
 into the body of the commerce of the United States; that is, the whole process 
 of passing the goods through the customhouse, which can not be deemed com- 
 plete until liquidation has been had. The section therefore may include the 
 official acts of a customs weigher performed after the customhouse entry has 
 been made. The provision in section 5444, Revised Statutes, against aiding in 
 admittiug merchandise to entry at less than the legal rate of duty, includes aid 
 given both before and after the fact; and where, after a false entry has been made, 
 a customs officer aids the wrongdoer by concealing the fraud or by rendering 
 other false statements to correspond with the original false entry, he transgresses 
 against this section. United States v. Mescall (3 cases). United States Circuit 
 Court, Eastern District of New York, May 7, 1908. Nos. 6-8 (suit 768-70). On" 
 demurrer to indictments for criminally aiding in illegally admitting imported 
 merchandise. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29243; Sept. 2, 
 1908.) 
 
 In section 5445, Revised Statutes, relating to the crime of aiding in effecting an 
 illegal ' ' entry " of imported goods, the term ' ' entry " is not limited to the paper 
 so known in the customs service, nor to the making and filing of this paper, nor 
 to the process of filing it, and thereby entering the goods. In section 5445, 
 Revised Statutes, relating to the crime of aiding "in effecting any entry of any 
 goods * * * atlessthauthetrue weight or measure, "includes aid rendered 
 after as well as before the entry is made at the customhouse ; as where a weigher 
 returns false weights to the collector, upon which duties are to be computed. 
 Section 5445, Revised Statutes, prescribing the puiushmeut "of every person" 
 who knowingly effects an entry of merchandise at less than the true weight, is 
 not limited to persons outside the customs service, and includes a weigher who 
 aids in a way prohibited by the statute. A person who has aided illegally in 
 effecting a fraudulent entry of imported merchandise, under section 5445, 
 Revised Statutes, is not relieved from the penal consequences of his acts by the 
 fact that he would have an opportunity for repentance up to the time when the 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 401 
 
 Entry — Continued 
 Illegal — Acts subsequent to filing entry — Continued. 
 
 goods had been released and the fraud had become successful. His acts are 
 within the section if they constitute aid in any material step of a fraudulent 
 importation. United States v. Mescall (3 cases), United States Circuit Court, 
 Eastern District of New York, May 7, 1908. Nos. 9-11 (suits 771-3). On de- 
 murrer to indictments for criminally aiding in effecting an illegal entry. (T. 
 D. 29244; Sept. 2, 1908.) 
 Illegal — ^Fraudulent act of welghei — "Other person." (See also Conspiracy and 
 forfeitin-e.) 
 In section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, relating to the attempt of an 
 "owner, importer, consignee, agent, or other person" to make an illegal entry, 
 the term "other person" is not limited to those bearing to imports the relation 
 of owner, etc., but was meant to reach others having something to do with re- 
 spect to the entry beyond that which was done by the owner, etc., and that 
 it includes the case of a customs weigher who had falsely returned the weight of 
 imported goods. United States v. Mescall, United States Supreme Court, 
 November 8, 1909. No. 278. In error from the District Court of the United 
 States for the Eastern District of New York (164 Fed. Eep., 580; T. D. 29242). 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30131; Nov. 23, 1909.) 
 Immediate transportation. (See Immediate transportation.) 
 Lic[uidation — 
 Board's mandate: The collector has no power or authority to liquidate an entry in 
 a case decided by the Board of United States General Appraisers in a manner other 
 than or different from the mandate of said board. Where the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers has made a finding of facts and has issued its mandate 
 to the collector to reliquidate with respect to merchandise in specific cases set 
 forth therein, the collector is without authority to challenge the mandate by 
 withholding reliquidation on certain of the cases, claiming the merchandise to be 
 other than that found by the board. (T. D. 33982— G. A. 7516; Dec. 8, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Board's mandate. — On reUquidation the collector disregarded 
 the mandate of the board. The board had made an attempt by its order to 
 segregate the cases in which the artificial horsehair covered by its decision was 
 contained, and it is clear it was intended to decide that the cases named con- 
 tained artificial horsehair. United States v. Eckstein (No. 1310), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7516 (T. D. 33982). Decision aflBrmed. (T. 
 D. 34524; May 28, 1914.) 
 Board's right to order reappraisement: The liquidation of an entry by the collec- 
 tor pending an appeal to the Board of United States General Appraisers for 
 reappraisement is illegal, null, and void. 
 
 Parole evidence to contradict public record: A memorandum book, kept by 
 the clerk in charge of the reappraisement division of the collector's office, of all 
 applicationfl for reappraisements filed, is not such a public record as cau not be 
 explained or contradicted by parole evidence. 
 
 EUing application for reappraisement — Parole evidence: Upon a protest 
 duly filed against the liquidation of an entry relative to which the records of 
 the collector's office show no application for reappraisement, parole evidence 
 will be received as to the filing of such application; and where the party filing 
 the application swears positively that he did file it on a certain day within the 
 statutory time, and the clerk of that department of the collector's office can not 
 swear that it was not filed, but only that he has no record and no memory of it, 
 the weight of the testimony is in favor of the party making the positive state- 
 ment — the liquidation will be set aside and the collector directed to forward 
 
 45633°— 17 26 
 
402 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Entry — Continued . 
 Liquidation — Continued. . 
 
 the papers to the Board of United States General Appraisers for reappraisemeut. 
 (T. D. 33962— G. A. 7512; Dec. 5, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) "Rate and amount of duties." — The words "rate and amount of 
 "duties" occurring in the statute define a class of decisions against which pro- 
 test will lie for any cause distinctly and specifically stated and are not a Umita- 
 tion of the grounds upon which a collector's decision can be assailed. 
 
 The board has jurisdiction to hear and determine protests against a collec- 
 tor's decision assessing a rate and amount of duty upon imported merchandise 
 on the ground that the appraisement is irregular or invalid, and a demand for 
 a reappraisement operates after the manner of supersedeas. 
 
 Parole testimony. — -The parole testimony in this case does not contradict but 
 merely supplies an omission, and as the strict rule against such parole testimony 
 will not be enforced where the rights of third parties will be injured, the rule 
 against its admission, in the absence of any statutory or regulative requirement 
 of a record, will not be here enforced. United States v. American Express Co. 
 (No. 1334), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7512 (T. D. 33962). 
 Decision aflfirmed. (T. D. 34550; June 1, 1914.) 
 
 German and Austro-Hungarian currencies: In the liquidation of entries covering 
 merchandise imported from Germany and Austria-Hungary the invoice cur- 
 rency should be converted into money of the United States at the value jjro- 
 cladmed for the quarter in which the merchandise was shipped. Department's 
 instructions of March 17, 1915, modified accordingly. (T. D. 35317; Apr. 14, 
 1915.) 
 
 Packed package and mail importation entries: Formal liquidation of entries for 
 packed package and mail importations is required, the proper stamp of liquida- 
 tion, with the date, to be placed upon the entry, and notice of liquidation posted 
 in same manner as for other entries. (T. D. 33923; Nov. 25, 1913.) 
 
 Parcels-post packages: Regular entries of parcels-post packages should be liqui- 
 dated before the same are forwarded. (T. D. 29881; June 29, 1909.) 
 
 Swedish currency: In the liquidation of entries covering merchandise imported 
 from Sweden the invoice currency should be converted into money of the United 
 States at the value proclaimed for the quarter in which the merchandise was 
 shipped. Department's instructions of March 17, 1915, modified accordingly. 
 (T. D. 35483; June 3, 1915.) 
 MaU— 
 
 Formal entry is required for parcel-post and parcel-convention packages and all 
 parcels from countries to which domestic postal conditions apply valued at 
 over $100. (T. D. 34739; Aug. 29, 1914.) 
 
 Mail entries not to be issued covering articles unconditionally free. (T. D. 35134; 
 Feb. 17, 1915.) 
 Market value — ^Entered value — 
 
 Principal market: The law will presume, in determining the market value of 
 merchandise, when there is nothing appearing to the contrary, that the point 
 from which the merchandise was consulated was determined by the appraising 
 officer to be one of the principal markets of the country. 
 
 Action of the Secretary of the Treasury final: The collector can not, under 
 the provisions of subsection 1 of section 3 of the act of 1913, assess merchandise 
 at a less value than the entered value unless so directed to do by the Secretary 
 of the Treasury. The action of the Secretary under the power given to him by 
 this provision of law is not subject to review. (T. D. 35629 — G. A. 7764- July 
 29, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 403 
 
 Entiy — Continued . 
 Power of attorney. (See Power of attorney.) 
 Preparation of — 
 
 Entries made out with indelible pencils and use of carbons for copies may be 
 accepted. (T. D. 28704; Jan. 21, 1908.) 
 
 Entries covering articles dutiable under paragraph 448 may be prepared to specify 
 the value of all goods subject to each equivalent rate under such paragraph and 
 the entries liquidated accordingly. (T. D. 30139; Nov. 27, 1909.) 
 ReUquidation — 
 
 The protest in this case raises the single question as to the regularity of the col- 
 lector's action when taken by the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 and within one year from the original liquidation, the goods having in the mean- 
 time gone into consumption. The Secretary had authority under section 2652, 
 Revised Statutes, to give the directions; the reliquidation was made within a 
 prescribed period fixed by law. United States v. Hobbs (3 Gt. Oust. Appls., — ; 
 T. D. 32567); and there was no error. Hawley & Letzerich v. United States 
 (No. 901), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28053 (T. D. 32379). 
 Decision aflarmed. (T. D. 33037; Dec. 16, 1912.) 
 
 Where the Board of General Appraisers sustains a protest without holding the 
 merchandise under consideration dutiable at a specified rate of duty and the 
 paragraph under which the protestant claims contains more than one rate, it is 
 the duty of the collector to decide which rate is applicable to the merchandise, 
 and his decision thus made is not a new decision against which protest will lie. 
 (T. D. 34570— G. A. 7576; June 15, 1914.) 
 
 The Government will not allow foreign goods to be brought into this country and 
 then litigate with the importer as to the amount of the duty. The duty, as 
 assessed by the collector, must be paid in any event, not only as a condition of 
 entering the goods, but also as a condition of the right to file a protest. After 
 payment and protest the importer may exercise a right of review under the 
 statutory method and procedure provided therefor. 
 
 The assessment and collection of duties is an administrative matter, no notice 
 hearing being necessary where the assessment is in rem and against the foreign 
 goods sought to be entered. 
 
 In case of fraud, inability on the part of the Government to proceed in rem 
 against goods fraudulently entered would not prevent it from enforcing the 
 personal liability of the importer in a suit in personam. United States v. 
 National Fiber Co. (133 Fed., 596) approved. 
 
 An importer is not concluded by a reliquidation order made more than one 
 year after the entry where the complaint contains no allegation of the presence 
 of a protest or of a fraud, but may file his plea and be heard in his defense as in 
 other cases even though he did not file a protest and make the payment required 
 in the case of the original liquidation. 
 
 In a suit brought against an importer to recover the amount of duty assessed 
 under a reliquidation made more than a year after the original liquidation, the 
 Government must conform to the general rule of pleading where recovery is 
 sought on the ground of fraud. United States v. Sherman & Sons Co., Supreme 
 Court of the United States, April 5, 1915. On certificate from United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (T. D. 35500; June 2, 1915.) 
 Beliquidation — Collector's authority — 
 
 The only action a collector of customs may take after the filing of a protest is to 
 reliquidate the entry In accordance with the demands of the same or to forward 
 the protest to the Board of United States General Appraisers. Under the law 
 it is the duty of the collector to forward all protests to the board within a reason- 
 
404 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 
 
 Entry — Continued. 
 BeliquidaKon— Collector' s authority— Continued. 
 
 able time, and, under the regulations of the Treaaury Department, pujsuant to 
 the tariff act of 1909, it was his duty to forward them within 30 days after they 
 are filed. (T. D. 32581— G. A. 7370; May 31, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) A protest serves the purpose not only of a notice to the collector 
 of alleged errors in his classification or assessment so that he may correct his 
 decision if so minded, but as well the purpose of an appeal to the Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers in case the collector declines or fails to make his decision con- 
 form to the protest. And once the limit fixed by the regulations within which 
 the collector must pass upon the protest, namely, 30 days, has expired, the juris- 
 diction of the Board of General Appraisers attaches and the authority of the 
 collector in the premises is suspended, and this whether the papers have been 
 transmitted or not. Gulbenkian v. Stranahan (158 Fed., 836) distinguished; 
 United States v. Straus & Sons et al. (No. 954); Straus & Sons et al. v. United 
 States (No. 965), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7370 (T. 
 D. 32581). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34193; Feb. 10, 1914.) 
 
 The legislative and judicial history of the customs administrative act is reviewed. 
 The customs administrative law markedly differentiates between actual market 
 value and dutiable actual market value, and makes it the duty of the appraising 
 officer to determine the first, the duty of the collector to determine the last. 
 The goods here — feathers — were packed in inside boxes and there had been 
 additional packing charges, though all mention of these was omitted from the 
 consular invoice. The collector, on being later apprised of the fact of omission, 
 reliquidated the entry by adding thereto the packing charges. There was in 
 this no interference with or change of the invoice entered or appraised valua- 
 tion; the collector simply exercised his right of adding to the appraised value 
 to make dutiable value these packing charges. Beard v. Porter (124 U. S., 437). 
 United States v. Francklyn (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33306) distinguished. 
 United States v. Spingam Bros. (No. 1072), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 30556 (T. D. 32943). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34002; 
 Dec. 15, 1913.) 
 Beliquidation — Correction of errors — 
 
 The provision in section 1, act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 469), that "the act shall 
 not * * * prevent the correction of errors in liquidation, whether for or 
 against the Government, arising solely upon errors of fact discovered within 
 one year from the date of payment," is only a saving clause relative to the opera- 
 tion of the act of which it is a part, and did not repeal or modify section 21, act 
 of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190), which prescribed finality for the "settlement of 
 duties * * * after the expiration of one year from the time of entry." 
 Therefore the reUquidation of an entry is void if made more than a year after 
 the filing of the first entry paper, though within a year after the payment of 
 duty. United States v. Vandegrift, United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York, November 28, 1908. Suit 5268. Application for review 
 of decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6737 (T. D. 
 28848). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29430; Dec. 22, 1908.) 
 
 A manifest clerical error in a liquidation made within one year after original entry 
 can not be corrected more than one year after such entry, because not within 
 the provision in section 24, customs administrative act of 1890, authorizing the 
 Secretary of the Treasury to correct such errors "in any * * * liquidation 
 * * * within one year from the date of such entry;" the term "entry" as 
 there used refers to the document filed by the importer on entry. Inasmuch as 
 
DIGEST OP CtrSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 405' 
 
 Entry — Continued . 
 
 Beliquidation^ — Coirection of errors — Continued. 
 
 section 24, customs administrative act of 1890, relating to the correction of "man- 
 ifest clerical errors," is the latest legislative deliverance on that subject and 
 relates most specifically thereto, it controls over section 21, act of June 22, 1874 
 (18 Stat., 190), relative to the "settlement of duties," and section 1, act March 
 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 469), relative to "correction of errors in liquidation." Where 
 in liquidation the clerk miscalculated the number of square yards in the fabric 
 imported, this constituted a "manifest clerical error," within the meaning of 
 section 24, customs administrative act of 1890, permitting the correction of 
 such errors within one year after entry. United States v. Vandegrift, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, November 7, 1909. No. 68 
 (suit 5268). Appeal by the United States from decision of the Circuit Court 
 of the United States for the Southern District of New York (166 Fed. Rep., 
 1017; T. D. 29430), affirming G. A. 6737 (T. D. 28848). Decision adverse to 
 the Government. (T. D. 30251; Jan. 11, 1910.) Acquiesced in by the Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 30260; Jan. 15, 1910.) 
 
 Rellquidation denied — Austrian currency — 
 The Secretary of the Treasury has authority to direct reliquidation of entries under 
 section 25, act of August 28, 1894, on the basis of rate of exchange in this country 
 for foreign currency specified in invoices when the value of such currency 
 is at least 10 per cent less than the proclaimed value, but this authority will 
 be exercised only when it is shown that a reliquidation on such basis will result 
 in the assessment of duty on the actual market value of the merchandise. In 
 the absence of such evidence reliquidation of entries under consideration is 
 denied. (T. D. 35951; Dec. 7, 1915.) 
 
 Beliquidation — Finality of— 
 Where the first liquidation was tentative and not final, a reliquidation after 
 more than one year is not contrary to section 21, act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 
 190), which prescribes that "whenever duties * * * shall have been 
 liquidated * * * such settlement of duties shall, after the expiration of 
 one year from the time of entry, * * * be final." Sommers v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Missouri, May 30, 1908. 
 No. 5416 (suit 1957). Appeal by importer from decision by Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 6536 (T. D. 27887). Decision adverse to 
 Government. (T. D. 29167; July 15, 1908.) 
 Under act June 22, 1874, section 21 (18 U. S. Stat. L., 190), which provides that 
 when imports shall have been passed tree of duty, and that, when duties shall 
 have been liquidated and paid, such passage or settlement shall, after one year, 
 be conclusive, etc., a collector may liquidate duties before or after one year 
 from entry, but after once liquidating he can not, in the absence of fraud or 
 protest, reliquidate after a year from the date of entry. Pacific Creosoting Co. 
 V. United States, Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, May 12, 1912. In 
 error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the 
 Western District of Washington. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. 
 D. 32746; July 30, 1912.) 
 
 BeliCLUidatiou — ^lucreased valuation — 
 Power of collector: The collector is not an appraising officer, and he has no author- 
 ity under the statute to reliquidate an entry at a higher valuation than that at 
 which it was appraised by the appraising officers, no reappraisement having 
 been asked or had. 
 
 Appraisal procured by fraud: This is true notwithstanding that the passage 
 of the goods through the customhouse at the price at which they were appraised 
 was accomplished by means of a declaration that was imtrue and an invoice 
 that was false and fraudulent. 
 
406 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Entry— Continued . 
 
 Beliquidation — ^Incieased valuation — Continued. 
 
 Remedy in case of fraudulent entry: In such a case the Government is not 
 without a remedy. Paragraph G of section 3 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913, 
 provides a criminal action against the offender, and Paragraph H provides an 
 action for the forfeiture of the goods or their value. (T. D. 34917— G. A. 7636; 
 Nov. 16, 1914.) 
 
 Beliquidatiou — Mandate of Board of General Appraisers — 
 An importer's protest against the inclusion of charges for corking, etc., in the 
 dutiable value of filled bottles was sustained by the Board of General Ap- 
 praisers, which held that the charges pertained to the contents of the bottles. 
 On reUquidation by the collector in accordance with this decision, the importer 
 filed another protest, contending that the contents were dutiable at a lower 
 rate than that assessed originally. Held that, aa the reliquidation did not 
 change the classification of the contents, and affected the original liquidation 
 only incidentally and necessarily, to carry out the mandate of the board, and 
 as there was no voluntary action by the collector, a new protest would not lie 
 against the reliquidation. (T. D. 29884— G. A. 6919; June 29, 1909.) 
 
 Beliquidation — ^Protest — 
 Where importers in their protest claim reductions of duty on merchandise de- 
 scribed in the terms of the tariff act, under the appropriate paragraph and at 
 the rate provided therein, absolute accuracy is not essential, provided the col- 
 lector can determine with reasonable certainty what the importers had in mind 
 when filing their notice of dissatisfaction. 
 
 Specification of packages — Specification of amount of refunds: Importers 
 are not limited to the precise packages mentioned in the protest if it shall reason- 
 ably appear that other packages included in the invoices were erroneously 
 omitted. Nor are the claimants limited to the estimated amount of refunds 
 alleged to be due them, the collector being the proper person to determine the 
 exact amount to be refunded on the reliquidation of the entries in conformity 
 with the mandate of the Board of General Appraisers or the court. 
 
 Finality of decisions by the Board of General Appraisers: When a Board of 
 Qeneral Appraisers has decided cases pending before it and has issued a mandate 
 directing a reliquidation of the entry, collectors of customs, if of the opinion 
 that certain of the merchandise is not covered by the protest and that therefore 
 the board is without jurisdiction to pass upon the issue, should comply with 
 the statutory requirement and apply for a rehearing within 30 days or file an 
 appeal in the court from the board's decision. (T. D. 32328 — G. A. 7337; Mar. 
 20, 1912.) 
 
 BeUguidation — Statute of limitations— 
 The collector is Umited in the reliquidation of an entry to the time prescribed by 
 section 21 of the act of June 22, 1874. The proviso of section 1 of the act of 
 March 3, 1875, does not modify or repeal section 21 of the act of 1874 nor grant 
 any new power to the collector in the reliquidation of an entry. (T. D. 28848 — 
 G. A. 6737; Mar. 12, 1908.) 
 Section 21, act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190), provides that in the absence of 
 protest the settlement of duties shall become final one year after entry. Held 
 that the filing of a protest suspends the running of the statute until the protest 
 is decided. Statutes of limitation are statutes of repose, based on the likeli- 
 hood that inaction for a protracted period would not occur unless a settlement 
 had been made; and while litigation is going on and the parties are using legal 
 proceedings to effect a settlement, it would be at variance with the principles 
 underlying limitations to hold that such statutes were then running. (T. D. 
 29103; June 24, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 407 
 
 Entry — Coatinued . 
 Belfc[uidatioii — Statute of limitations — Continued. 
 A protest having been lodged against an assessment of duty upon a certain in- 
 voice, the entry was retained for reliquidation. On January 3, 1907, the col- 
 lector reliquidated the invoice in question and on December 4, 1908, proceeded 
 to reliquidate the same invoice for the purpose of correcting a clerical error in 
 the former reliquidation. The second reliquidation was barred, the protest 
 having been satisfied by the reliquidation of January 3, 1907, the statute of 
 limitations having begun then to run, and more than one year having elapsed. 
 United States v. Leng (18 Fed. Rep., 15). United States v. Goldberg (No.. 588), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24520 (T. 
 D. 31182). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31664; May 29, 1911.) 
 The act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190), which provides that after duties have been 
 liquidated the "settlement of duties shall, after the expiration of one year 
 from the time of entry, in the absence of fraud, * * * be final and conclu- 
 sive upon all parties," was not repealed by the tariff act of 1909, ia merely a stat- 
 ute of limitation and gave no new powers to collectors of customs. A reliquida- 
 tion under said act can not include a reappraisal, but must proceed on the basis 
 of the old appraisal. 
 
 Reliquidation — Citation for undisclosed illegal purpose: Subsection 15 of 
 section 28, tariff act of 1909, does not confine customs officers to the citation of 
 persona in relation to appraisals and original liquidations, but extends to re- 
 liquidations by collectors under the act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190); and the 
 undisclosed illegal purpose of a collector, proceeding imder the latter act, to 
 inquire into the dutiable value of merchandise, is no answer to a disobedience 
 of his order, if that order be within the scope of his powers at the time. (T. D. 
 31730; June 30, 1911.) 
 Beliquidation — Statute of limitations — Fraud — 
 Fraud is never presumed. Where the collector reliquidates an entry more than 
 one year after the original liquidation on the ground of fraud, the burden of 
 proving the facts which constitute the fraud is upon the Government. " When 
 there has been no protest filed against the original liquidation and fraud is not 
 shown, the collector's right to reliquidate after one year from the original liqui- 
 dation is barred by section 21 of the act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190), which 
 has been held to be a statute of limitation. (T. D. 33115; G. A. 7418; Jan. 21, 
 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Section 21, act of 1874- — There is no limitation fixed by section 
 21, act of 1874, except a limitation which arises only in the absence of fraud 
 and in the absence of protest. So far as the section contains implied authority 
 for reliquidation, it imports the right to reliquidate in case of fraud and in case 
 of protest after the lapse of one year equally with the right so to reliquidate 
 within the period of a year. 
 
 Reliquidation — Fraud — Burden of proof. — The collector in this case found 
 the existence of fraud as a fact. It was not incumbent on the Government in 
 the first instance to introduce evidence tending to support the correctness of 
 the^^liquidation by the collector on the ground of fraud. In this case, as in 
 others, the btu-den was placed on the importer to show by proof that the col- 
 lector's action was erroneous. United States v. Vitelli & Son (No. 1084), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7418 (T. D. 33115). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 34194; Feb. 10, 1914.) 
 
408 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Entry — Continued. 
 
 SeUgnidation — Statute of limitations — ftend — Continued. 
 
 Section 21 of the act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat. L., 190), which provides "such set- 
 tlement of duties shall, after the expiration of one year from the time of entry, 
 in the absence of fraud and in the absence of protest by the owner, importer, 
 agent, or consignee, be final and conclusive upon all parties," is a statute of 
 limitations. See Benzdger Bros.' case, G. A. 6224 (T. D. 26898). No protest 
 having been filed, and no fraud or presumption of fraud being disclosed by the 
 record, reliquidation of an entry more than a year after the original liquidation 
 and more than two years after entry is void. (T. D. 35321— G. A. 7712; Apr. 
 14, 1915.) 
 
 Beliqmdation — ^Warehouse goods — 
 ReUquidation not necessary of warehouse entries on merchandise imported under 
 the act of 1909 when the rates of duty under the act of 1913 are not changed. 
 (T. D. 33949; Dec. 4, 1913.) 
 The collector reliquidated under section 29 of the act of 1909 upon goods in ware- 
 house while a protest filed under the act of 1897 covering the same goods was 
 pending on appeal from a decision of the board to the Court of Customs Appeals 
 on the question of dutiability of an item of 2J per cent commission. Held, 
 that as the new tariff act did not change the rate of duty, create any new right, 
 nor alter the dutiable status of these goods, the importers were not bound to 
 protest against the reliquidation made under the law of 1909 upon the same 
 ground as the liquidation protested against under the act of 1897. 
 
 Collateral attack of judgment: The judgment of a court having jmrisdiction 
 of the parties and the subject matter is not open to collateral attack by the par- 
 ties to the proceeding. United States v. Kurtz (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — , T. D. 
 34192). (T. D. 34396— G. A. 7557; Apr. 13, 1914.) 
 
 Beliquidation — When not retroactively disturbed — • 
 After a liquidation has been made, based on a polariscopic test of sugar properly 
 made in accordance with customs regulations in existence at the time, and an 
 appeal has been taken to the Board of General Appraisers, the board will not 
 distiu^b such decision of the collector where the protest is based on a letter of 
 the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury issued to the collector many years after 
 such appeal was taken, which can not be regarded as having the force and effect 
 of law. (T. D. 29688— G. A. 6893; Apr. 12, 1909.) 
 
 Schedule E, Department of Commerce — 
 Information called for by Schedule E of the Department of Commerce to be given 
 in the entry for all importations. (T. D. 34614; July 6, 1914.) 
 
 Stamp tax — 
 MaU entries. Cat. Nos. 3419 and 3421, subject to the same stamp taxes as regular 
 entries under act of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 34948; Dec. 1, 1914.) 
 
 Time when entry begins — ^Producing invoice before consul — 
 While it is a condition to the entry of merchandise that invoices should be pro- 
 duced before au American consul abroad, this is not necessarily a part of the 
 entry, within the meaning of section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, 
 relating to illegal "entry." The entry does not begin at the earliest until the 
 owner, after the goods reach this country, begins that series of acts through 
 which, by application to the customs officials, he gains possession of the goods. 
 United States v. One Trunk, United States District Court, Southern District 
 of New York, July 19, 1909. In rem on proceedings for forfeiture of imported 
 goods. Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29926; July 27, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 409 
 
 Entry— Continued. 
 Time of tender — 
 
 The tender to the collector of a proper entry of merchandise that had theretofore 
 arrived at the port is tantamount to entering the same; and where such entry 
 is presented just prior to the expiration of the tariff act of 1897, and the collector 
 refuses to receive the same and the merchandise is subsequently entered after 
 the act of 1909 has taken effect, section 29 of that act does not apply. (T. D. 
 30161— G. A. 6945; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Entry sought before completion of voyage. — Entry implies the 
 presence of the merchandise at the time entry is sought to be made, the entry 
 being required to be followed by an inspection and appraisal of the goods. A 
 consignment of gin on board a mail steamer reached Key West August 3, 1909; 
 entries of the gin were presented by the importer on August 4; the commodity 
 itself remained on board ship while the vessel proceeded to another destination; 
 but, returning, the vessel called again at Key West on a later day and subse- 
 quently to the going into full force and efiect of the tariff act, 1909; section 29 
 of that act governed the entry of the gin August 10, 1909, and it was dutiable aa 
 entered of that day. United States v. Cordero (No. 95), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from decision of the Board 
 of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 30161). Decision in favor of the 
 Government. (T. D. 31114; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 Transportation and exportation — 
 
 Amendment of form of transportation and exportation entry by striking off declara- 
 tion of owner and prescribing form of receipt for goods delivered for transporta- 
 tion. (T. D. 32428; Apr. 24, 1912.) 
 
 Amendment of article 421, Customs Regulations of 1908, so aa to permit shipment 
 of merchandise under transportation and exportation entry without interven- 
 tion of district inspectors. (T. D. 32481; May 3, 19]2.) 
 
 Shortage: Charges against carrier's bond made in connection with transportation 
 and exportation entries may be canceled when it appears cars arrived with 
 seals intact and all merchandise arriving was exported. (T. D. 32731; July 
 22, 1912.) 
 Unit value^ 
 
 Where an invoice clearly states the unit value of merchandise an error in exten 
 sion which was followed on entry can not be considered as an addition on entry 
 to make market value. (T. D. 35767— G. A. 7786; Oct. 7, 1915.) 
 Warehouse and immediate transportation entry — Lead and zinc ores — 
 
 Warehouse and imtmediate transportation entries covering lead and zinc ores not 
 to be liquidated on final findings and forwarded to the auditor, but report to be 
 made on modified customs Form 5047 and receiving port to make report on mod- 
 ified Form 5049. (T. D. 35482; May 29, 1915.) 
 Epaulets. (See Military ornaments.) 
 Erasers. 
 Metal— 
 
 The provision for "erasers" in paragraph 152, tariff act of 1909, is not to be limited 
 to such as have "folding or other than fixed blades or attachments,'' but in- 
 cludes "erasers" which have fixed metal blades set into handles of' wood or 
 other material. The clause "which have folding or other than fixed blades or 
 attachments," qualifies its antecedent, viz, "all knives by whatever name 
 known" and not the previous words as well. The phrase "including such as 
 are denominatiyely mentioned in this section," extended rather than limited 
 the provision. (T. D. 31294— G. A. 7165; Feb. 11, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Erasers of metal with fixed blade. — According to the strict rules 
 of grammatical and legal construction and in the absence of restraining consid- 
 
410 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Erasers — Continued. 
 
 Metal — Continued. 
 
 erations, a modifying clause following a number of recitals applies to its imme- 
 diate antecedent and not to aU those antecedents; but the legislative history 
 of paragraph 152, tariff act of 1909, seems to show that the additional provision 
 inserted therein, viz, "which have folding or other than fixed blades or attach- 
 ments," the basis of contention here, was intended to enlarge the class, make it 
 more comprehensive, not less so; and erasers of metal with fixed or rigid blades 
 set into handles of wood or other material are dutiable under that paragraph. 
 Irwin & Co. v. United States (No. 638), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. 
 A. 7165 (T. D. 31294). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32039; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 Erroi, clerical. 
 
 Definition — Overvaluation — Carelessness not ground for denying relief — 
 "Clerical error" implies negligence or carelessness by a clerk, writer, or copyist; 
 it assumes that the mistake, negligence, or carelessness is that of one engaged in 
 the subordinate service of transcription, copying, or comparison — a labor not 
 requiring original thought. Where imports are incorrectly invoiced at a value 
 higher than the actual price or the price paid, this constitutes a clerical error 
 from the consequences of which the importer should be relieved. The fact that 
 a clerical error was due to carelessness or neglect is no ground for denying reUet 
 to an importer who has incurred excessive duties on account of the error. Mori- 
 mura v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, March 2, 1908. Suit 5071. Appeal by importer from decision of Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 16819 (T. D. 28429). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 28866; Mar. 18, 1908.) Acquiesced in. (T. D. 28931; Apr. 13, 
 1908.) 
 
 Entry on wrong invoice — 
 Importers erroneously made entry of an importation on the basis of an invoice 
 relating to another importation having a higher value. The merchandise was 
 appraised at such higher value, and the right to reappraisement proceedings 
 was waived by the importers under a misapprehension. Held that duty might 
 properly be assessed on the basis of the value shown by the right invoice. Rice- 
 Stix Dry Goods Co. v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Eastern 
 District of Missouri, December 13, 1907. No. 5400 (suit 1934). Appeal by 
 importers from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 13984 (T. D. 27801). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 28999; May 
 20, 1908.) [Note. — No appeal was taken from the foregoing decision.] 
 
 Entry of lumber in transit — 
 Certain lumber imported from Canada and accompanied by bill of lading showing 
 it to be designed merely for transit through this country by way of Vanceboro 
 and Bangor, Me., was by clerical mistake entered for consumption at Vance- 
 boro, and was subsequently exported to its destination in South America from 
 Bangor. Held, on the evidence to have been entered without authority and to 
 be free of duty. (T. D. 30876— G. A. 7086; Aug. 15, 1910.) 
 
 Manifest — 
 A manifest clerical error in a liquidation made within one year after original entry 
 can not be corrected more than one year after such entry, because not within 
 the.provision in section 24, customs administrative act of 1890, authorizing the 
 Secretary of the Treasury to correct such errors "in any * * * liquidation 
 • * * within one year from the date of such entry;" the term "entry" as 
 there used refers to the document filed by the importer on entry. Inasmuch as 
 aection 24, customs administrative act of 1890j relating to the correction of 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 411 
 
 Eiioi, clerical — Continued. 
 Manifest — Continued. 
 
 "manifest clerical errors," is the latest legislative deliverance on that subject 
 and relates most specifically thereto, it controls over section 21, act of June 22, 
 1874 (18 Stat., 190), relative to the "settlement of duties" and section 1, act 
 March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 469), relative to "correction of errors in liquidation." 
 Where in liquidation the clerk miscalculated the number of square yards in the 
 fabric imported, this constituted a "manifest clerical error" within the mean- 
 ing of section 24, customs administrative act of 1890, permitting the correction 
 of such errors within one year after entry. United States v. Vandegrift, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, November 7, 1909. No. 68 
 (suit 5268). Appeal by the United States from decision of the Circuit Court of 
 the United States for the Southern District of New York (166 Fed. Rep., 1017; 
 T. D. 29430) affirming G. A. 6737 (T. D. 28848). Decision adverse to the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 30251; Jan. 11, 1910). Acquiesced in by the Government. 
 (T. D. 30260; Jan. 15, 1910.) 
 
 Shippers of an importation failed to note on the invoice that the value included 
 certain nondutiable charges. Held that allowance should be made in the 
 dutiable value accordingly, on the ground of clerical error. Delapenha v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 November 12, 1909. Suit 5298. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 18815 (T. D. 28977). Board reversed. (T. D. 
 30148; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 -Under the decisions of the United States Court of Customs Appeals the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers has power to correct only such clerical errors 
 as are manifest and apparent upon the face or such papers as are before the col- 
 lector at the time of liquidation of the entry. The administrative and judicial 
 decisions on this subject reviewed. (T. D. 33590— G. A. 7476; June 26, 1913.) 
 
 The collector had before him the invoice, the entry, and the weigher's certificate, 
 and it was apparent therefrom that the statement of the gross weight of the wire 
 in the invoice and entry was incorrect and that the true weight less tare, which 
 is the dutiable weight, was before him in the manner required by law. A case 
 of manifest clerical error was thus presented and a shortage in weight of the ship- 
 ment as invoiced appeared. United States v. Nash et al. (27 Fed. Cas., 750); 
 Marriott v. Brune (50 U. S., 633); United States v. Bush & Co. et al. (No. 1164), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31640 (T. D. 33263). 
 Rehearing denied. (T. D. 84187; Feb. 5, 1914.) 
 
 Additional duties: The language of subsection 7 of section 28 of the tariff act 
 of 1909 relates only to such errors as are manifest on the face of the papers, and 
 remission of additional duties may only be had thereunder in cases where the 
 additional duties arise from manifest clerical error. United States v. Swedish 
 Produce Co. (4 Ct. Gust. Appls., 223; T. D. 33437), United States v. Wyman 
 (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 264; T. D. 33485), United States v. Proctor & Co. (5 Ct. Cuat. 
 Appls., — ; T. D. 34091), Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (5 Ct. Oust. 
 Appls., — ; T. D. 34093), United States v. Nozaki Bros. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; 
 T. D. 34471), and G. A. 7476 (T. D. 33590). (T. D. 35085— G. A. 7667; Jan. 
 23, 1915.) 
 
 There can be no manifest clerical error within the meaning of that phrase as used in 
 paragraph I of section 3, tariff act of 1913, where the record discloses that the 
 value stated upon entry though too low was deliberately so stated. Meyer 
 Bros. Drug Co., G. A. 5667 (T. D. 25257); United States i). Wyman & Co. (4 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 264; T. D. 33485). (T. D. 35948— G. A. 7823; Nov. 30, 1915.) 
 
412 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 
 
 Enor, clerical — Continued. 
 Manifest — What is not— 
 
 The penalty prescribed for undervaluation was applied where a shipment of oil 
 was invoiced and entered at the price of a cheaper oil. The importers alleged 
 that the cheaper was ordered, but that by mistake the more valuable had been 
 shipped. Held that this was not a clerical error from the consequences of which 
 the importers might be relieved; also that relief should not be granted by reason 
 of the encouragement which would be given tor collusion for fraudulent pur- 
 poses between shippers and importers. Magnus v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, March 2, 1908. Suit 4972. Appeal 
 by importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 6614 (T. D. 28231). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 28867; Mar. 18, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Undervaluation — Shipment of better goods than ordered. — Through 
 an alleged clerical error of the shippers, merchandise of a better grade than that 
 ordered was shipped, being invoiced as of the description and value of the 
 cheaper grade ordered. Being entered on the basis of this incorrect invoice 
 value, the merchandise was subjected to the additional duty provided for under- 
 valuation. Held that no relief from this duty could be afforded on the ground of 
 clerical error. Magnus v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 
 Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. No. 116 (suit 4972). Appeal by importer 
 from Circuit Court of United States for Southern District of New York (160 
 Fed. Rep., 281; T.D. 28867). Decision in favor of Government. (T.D. 29522; 
 Feb. 3, 1909.) 
 
 The customs administrative law, subsection 14', vests jurisdiction in the Board of 
 General Appraisers to review the decision of any collector of customs as to "the 
 rate and amount of duties chargeable upon imported merchandise." United 
 States V. Benjamin et al. (72 Fed., 51). It appears that the facts establishing 
 the imdervaluation of this merchandise were known to the importers at the time 
 the entry was made. In view of the importers' knowledge the undervaluation 
 does not present a case of manifest clerical error. United States v. Swedish 
 Produce Co. (No. 1016), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 29501 (T. D. 32760). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33437; May 12, 1913.) 
 
 Assessment upon entered value: The commission charged abroad, disputed here 
 as dutiable, was entered on the invoice in the words and figures intended by the 
 writer; they received from the collector the interpretation they were intended 
 to take when the invoice was made out. This is not a case of manifest clerical 
 error. United States v. Bennett et al. (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 249; T. D. 31975). 
 United States v. Wyman & Co. (No. 1112), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 31113 (T. D. 83106). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33485; 
 May 23, 1913.) 
 
 Importers claim they overstated the value of the merchandise in a pro forma 
 invoice, being misled by an error in the transmission of a cable message from 
 their London office. The appraiser appraised the merchandise at the value 
 stated in the pro forma invoice, and the collector liquidated thereon. It is held 
 that this is not manifest error in the appraisement or assessment, and can not be 
 reviewed upon protest to the board of classification. United States v. National 
 Steam Navigation Co. (Ltd.) (No. 1119), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 31167 (T. D. 33145). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33915; Nov. 18, 
 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 413 
 
 Error, clerical — Continued. 
 Manifest— What is not — Continued. 
 
 The merchandise in this case consisted of automobile tires, which were sold and 
 imported to replace defective tires. The brokers made the entry, following the 
 invoice, without adding anything to the invoice price to make market value. 
 This was not a clerical error. Subsection 7 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, 
 plainly requires, if it is desired to add to the invoice value to make market 
 value, that this should be done at the time of making entry and not afterwards. 
 United States v. Swedish Produce Co. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223; T. D. 33437); 
 United States v. Wyman, (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 264; T. D. 33485). United States 
 V. Proctor Co. (No. 1120), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 81245 (T. D. 33160). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34091; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 There was a mistake made in the invoice in stating the cost of the wool of the im- 
 portation. To constitute manifest clerical error, this must be apparent to the 
 appraising officers or collector at the time of liquidation and upon the record 
 itself. This is stAre decisis. There was nothing in the record here to show the 
 appraising officers or collector that the error was caused by an inaccurate state- 
 ment of the price of the wool. United States v. Swedish Produce Co. (4 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 223; T. D. 33437); United States v. Wyman & Co. (4 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., 264; T. D. 33485); United States v. Proctor Co. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; 
 T. D. 34091; Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 
 34093). Thomsen & Co. v. United States (No. 1249), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 33156 (T. D. 33660). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 34100; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 The entry, the invoice, and the replace invoice submitted to the Secretary of the 
 Treasury all showed that the value of the wool of the importation the subject of 
 this appeal exceeded 12 cents per pound, and there was no indication of error in 
 stating the value or the charges to be deducted therefrom to make actual market 
 value; and the entry itself, once made and verified, could not be corrected by 
 the importer or the collector. The correction of the entry was properly denied 
 on the papers submitted. United States i;. Zuricaldy (71 Fed., 955) distin- 
 guished. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (No. 1186), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 31984 (T. D. 33338). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 34093; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 The evidence of the admitted clerical error in this case was before the importers 
 at the time they made entry, based upon the consular invoice which upon its 
 face showed no clerical error. Subsequently the error in valuation was dis- 
 closed to the appraiser. These facts do not constitute a case of manifest clerical 
 error. United States d. Swedish Produce Co. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223; T. D. 
 33437); United States v. Wyman (Ibid., 264; T. D. 33485); United States v. 
 Proctor (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 34091). United States v. Bayersdorter & 
 Co. (No. 1215), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32999 (T. D. 
 33594). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34134; Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 
 An alleged replace invoice: The facts as stated in the opinion of the court 
 were correct. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. 
 D. 34093 (supra). An alleged replace invoice was not the true replace invoice, 
 for the affidavit accompanying it was made nearly four months after the decision 
 of the Secretary of the Treasury was rendered. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 1186), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of- United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31984 (T. 
 D. 33338). Petition for rehearing denied. (T. D. 34248; Feb. 27, 1914.) 
 
414 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Error, clerical — Continued. 
 Manifest — Wliat is not — Continued. 
 
 There was nothing before the appraiser at the time of appraisement nor was there 
 anything before the collector at the time of liquidation indicating the character 
 of items that were allowed as nondutiable. There was no manifest clerical 
 error for correction. Thomsen v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 
 34100). United States v. Nozald Bros. (No. 1277), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals, May 18, 1914. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 33927 (T. D. 33816). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 34471; May 18, 1914.) 
 
 There was nothing before the collector at the time of liquidation which would 
 enable him to determine whether or not the item in question entitled "carriage 
 to port paid by shipper," should or should not be included within the dutiable 
 value of the merchandise, and in dealing with it there might be an error in judg- 
 ment committed, but there could be no manifest clerical error. United States 
 V. Nozaki Bros. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 34471). United States v. Rice (No. 
 1278), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 33927 (T. D. 33816). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 34472; May 18, 1914.) 
 
 The entry here asserts the item claimed as exempt was dutiable. On the invoice 
 the item is called a buying commission. This does not disclose manifest clerical 
 error. When the appraiser examined the statement of the inspector that the 
 item was a nondutiable buying commission, in connection with the fact that the 
 charges were made by the seller of the goods and found the gross sum the dutiable 
 value of the goods, the inquiry was concluded. United States v. Brodie (No. 
 1513), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37206. Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 35438; May 18, 1915.) 
 
 The entrants at the time of entry had before them the shippers' invoices, upon 
 which two prices were indicated, one purporting to be the unit cost price and 
 the other the unit market value, and intentionally entered the merchandise at a 
 value corresponding to such market value. Held, not to make a case of mani- 
 fest clerical error under Paragraph Y of section 3 of the act of 1913. United 
 States V. Kuppenheimer & Co. et al. (No. 1582), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the Government from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 37948. Decision reversed. (T. D. 35925; Nov. 19, 1915.) 
 
 Where the consular invoice for goods imported from Hongkong stated the total 
 value in three currencies — correctly in pounds sterling but incorrectly in gold 
 dollars and Tientsin taels — ^not one of the three agreeing by the proper rate of 
 exchange with either of the others, and the entrants adopted the statement in 
 Tientsin taels and declared its equivalent in gold dollars, they can not escape 
 the payment of the additional duty imposed by section 3 of paragraph I, tariff 
 act of 1913, by claiming a manifest clerical error. United States v. Gordon & 
 Ferguson (No. 1576), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37887. 
 
 - Decision reversed. (T. D. 35976; Dec. 3, 1915.) 
 
 Where the consular invoice for cloth showed the number of units of length, the 
 price per unit, and the value as the product of the two, without stating whether 
 the unit was yards or meters or the price for a yard or a meter, and the importers, 
 having declared accordingly, claim afterwards that the consular invoice stated 
 the measurement in yards and the price for a meter, if there was error, it was not 
 manifest clerical error. De Liagre & Co. v. United States (No. 1577), United 
 States Coiurt of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37796. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 35989; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 415 
 
 Error, writ of. (See Appeals, Circuit Court.) 
 
 Essence, coflfee. (See Coffee extract.) 
 
 Esseutial oils. (See Oils.) 
 
 Estimates. 
 
 Estimates for expenses of collecting the revenue from customs for fiscal year 1915. 
 
 Instructions to collectors of customs. (T. D. 33764; Sept. 30, 1913.) 
 Estimates for funds covering expenses of collecting the revenue from customs. 
 (T. D. 33792; Oct. 14, 1913.) 
 
 Etamines. 
 
 The word "etamines " in paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, is used in a denominative 
 and not in a descriptive sense. G. A. 5790 (T. D. 25580), G. A. 5928 (T. D. 
 26062), and G. A. 6147 (T. D. 26692) followed. The word "etamines" in para- 
 graph 339, tariff act of 1897, defined, and certain merchandise held to be in- 
 cluded therewithin and other merchandise held not to be included therewithin 
 in accordance with the scope of that definition. (T. D. 29259 — G. A. 6804; 
 Sept. 11, 1908.) 
 
 Etchings. (See Engravings and etchings.) 
 
 Ethyl chloride. 
 
 Liquid imported in small glass tubes shown by analysis to be 99.85 per cent of 
 ethyl chloride and fifteen one-hundredths of 1 per cent of parfumstofte held to 
 be ethyl chloride, subject to duty at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem under the 
 provisions of paragraph 21 of the tariff act of 1909 or at 20 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 29 of the tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35026— G. A. 7658; Dec. 
 29, 1915.) 
 
 Euquinine. 
 
 The provision in paragraph 647, tariff act of 1897, for "salts of cinchona bark,'' 
 includes ethereal salts; and euquinine, which, though an ester, is also an ethe- 
 real salt, is classible under that provision. Merck v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 23, 1908. Suit 3922. 
 Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 4753 (T. D. 26053). Board reversed. (T. D. 29101; June 24, 1908.) 
 (Appealed:) Salts of cinchona hark. — ^The provision in paragraph 647, tariff 
 act of 1897, for "salts of cinchona bark," was not used in a chemical sense, but 
 was intended to include derivatives from that bark which preserved the con- 
 trolling or essential medicinal element of the bark; and euquinine, which is 
 not a salt, but is a preparation from cinchona bark, is free of duty under said pro- 
 vision. United States v. Merck, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second 
 Circuit, February 16, 1909. No. 129 (suit 4922). Appeal by the United States 
 from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New 
 York (T. D. 29101) reversing a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 4753 (T. D. 26053). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 
 29600; Mar. 3, 1909.) Acquiesced in May 21, 1909 (T. D. 29772). 
 
 European meadow ants, importation of. 
 
 Collectors of customs instructed that under act of March 3, 1905 (T. D. 26172), the 
 importation of live European meadow ants is prohibited. (T. D. 34315; Mar. 
 28, 1914.) 
 
 Evergreen seedlings. 
 
 Species of the laurel (Aucuha japonica and Kalmia laiifolia) and of the rhododen- 
 dron {Rhododendron ponticum), which retain their verdure throughout the year, 
 are "evergreens" within the meaning of paragraph 252, tariff act of 1897; and 
 under said paragraph seedhngs of those plants are dutiable as "evergreen seed- 
 lings" rather than as "nursery stock." United States v. Ouwerkerk, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 14, 1908. No. 128 (suit 
 4136). Appeal from Circuit Court of the United States for Southern District of 
 
416 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Eveigieen seedlings — Continued. 
 
 New York. See 153 Federal Reporter, 916 (T. D. 28183). Decifiion adverse to 
 Government. (T. D. 28953; Apr. 22, 1908.) Acquiesced in May 9, 1908 (T. 
 D. 28983). 
 Evidence. (See also Appeals, evidence on.) 
 
 Additional — 
 Appeal from Board of General Appraisers: Where an importer appears before the 
 Board of General Appraisers and gives evidence as to the matter at issue, he is 
 ; not precluded from the introduction of further evidence on appeal to the circuit 
 
 court under section 15, customs administrative act of 1890. Wolff v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Northern District of California, March 22, 
 1909. No. 1383 (suit 1774). Appeal by importer from decision of Board of 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 8757 (T. D. 26818). Board reversed. (T. D. 
 (29677; Apr. 7, 1909.) 
 Abandoned protests: Where importers abandoned their protests before the Board 
 of General Appraisers without taking testimony, it was within the sound dis- 
 cretion of the board to refuse to reopen the cases or restore them forbearing, and 
 on appeal to the circuit court the importers were not entitled to introduce fur- 
 ther evidence under the provisions of section 15, customs administrative act of 
 1890. Strohmeyer v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York, June 28, 1910. Suit 4758. Appeal by the importer from 
 decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 13788 (T. D. 27785). 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30807; July 19, 1910.) 
 Appeals under act of May 27, 1908: Under the act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat., 403; 
 T. D. 29044), providing that "hereafter" the parties litigant should be required 
 to introduce all their evidence before the Board of General Appraisers, there 
 was no right to introduce further evidence in the circuit court as to cases decided 
 by the board after said date, even though the cases arose before that date and 
 had been submitted to the board for decision imder the previous law, customs 
 administrative act of 1890, section 15 of which permitted fiu^her evidence to be 
 taken in the circuit court. Beer v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, May 11, 1910. Suit 5320. Appeal by impor- 
 ters from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6788 (T. D. 29144). 
 Government moved to vacate ex parte order for further testimony taken out by 
 importer. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30843; Aug. 2, 1910.) 
 
 Admission before Board of General Appraisers of records and transcripts as — 
 Under the authority given by section 12, tariff act of 1909, and of rule 34 of the 
 Rules of Procedure and Practice of the Board of General Appraisers, the classifi- 
 cation boards may admit in evidence the transcript or record and testimony 
 taken in similar cases under the circumstances and conditions prescribed by 
 said rule. (T. D. 30872— G. A. 7082; Aug. 11, 1910.) 
 
 Admissions on argument — 
 Where at a hearing before the circuit court counsel for one of the parties concedes 
 a point of fact, the question can not be raised on appeal to a higher court. (T. 
 D. 28851; Mar. 18, 1908.) 
 
 Affidavit — 
 The mere report of a discharging inspector of a short shipment of imported mer- 
 chandise, not corroborated by the sworn statement of the importer denying the 
 receipt of the missing article, does not justify the board in making allowances for 
 the alleged nonimportation. The affidavit making such denial, prescribed by 
 article 1452 of the Customs Regulations of 1899 (as amended by T. D. 27713), 
 now published as article 1063 of Customs Regulations of 1908, is admissible in 
 evidence if filed with the board at or prior to the hearing of the case, and will be 
 given effect as a satisfactory denial of the receipt of the goods by the importer. 
 (T. D. 29543— G. A. 6865; Feb. 8, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 417 
 
 Evidence — Continued. 
 
 Affidavit — Continued. 
 An affidavit containing facts not procurable in any other manner, although not the 
 best evidence, is entitled to consideration. (T. D. 30864 — G. A. 7081; Aug. 
 4, 1910.) 
 
 American cost — 
 Testimony offered by the Government of American cost, when it is shown there 
 is a market tor the merchandise in the country of origin, held inadmissible. (T. 
 D. 34023— G. A. 7519; Dec. 22, 1913.) 
 
 Appraisement of merchandise not in public stores — 
 The leather bags of the importation in question were contained in cases that were 
 not sent to-the public stores for examination. The importer's contention is that 
 the bags did not contain toilet articles, but were assessed for duty as if they did 
 contain them. The goods having gone into consumption and the veracity of the 
 witness who testified being unquestioned, it was sufficient proof of the actual 
 character of the leather bags, when there was produced and submitted by the 
 importer a memorandum known as a "stock list" that contained a complete and 
 accurate description of the articles in question, with the cost and sale prices 
 thereof. It was not necessary to corroborate this testimony by offering samples 
 of the merchandise. The goods were dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 452, tariff act of 1909. Bradley Martin v. United States (1 Ct. Oust. 
 Appls., 184; T. D. 31185); United States v. Hermann (154 Fed. Rep., 196). 
 Stem Bros. v. United States (No. 660), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 25070 (T. D. 31405). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32167; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 
 Appraisers' report as — 
 The reports made by local appraisers to collectors concerning merchandise, when 
 they are made within the line of duty, become part of the record in the case, and 
 as such may be considered upon the trial of a protest before the board. 
 
 Report more than 30 days after protest filed: A report made by an appraiser 
 after the lapse of the 30 days fixed by law wherein reports must be made, is 
 extra-official and is not entitled to be considered a part of the record in the case. 
 Tower Manufacturing & Novelty Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1530), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals, May 21, 1915. Appeal by the importers from 
 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37171 (T. D. ; 
 
 ^, ). Decision affirmed in part and reversed in part. (T. D. 35478; May 
 
 21, 1915.) 
 
 Articles illegally entered — Proof of dutiability — 
 In establishing conspiracy to defraud the customs revenue under section 5440, 
 Revised Statutes, it is not necessary to prove affirmatively that the imported 
 articles were dutiable, or that they were not free of duty as of American origin. 
 The court will take judicial notice of the law and its application to the articles. 
 Marrash v. United States. (T. D. 29635; Mar. 17, 1909.) 
 
 Artistic antiques — 
 The question is one of proper compliance with Treasury regulations governing the 
 admission duty free of works of art produced more than 100 years prior to the 
 date of importation. The collector assessed the goods for duty. The character 
 of the affidavits of record, ex parte as these are, and unsupported as they are, 
 does not warrant a reversal of the collector's action, presumably correct, as this 
 must be considered. United States v. Thomas (No. 770), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals, April 1, 1912. Appeal by the United States from Board ot 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 26777 (T. D. 31912). Decision re- 
 versed. (T. D. 32385; Apr. 1, 1912.) 
 
 45633°— 17 27 
 
418 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Evidence — Continued. 
 
 Attistic antiques — Continued. 
 On entry certain merctandise was claimed as entitled to free entry. This claim 
 was supported by an affidavit in which all the articles were not claimed to be 
 free of duty, and the articles so omitted were withdrawn by counsel from con- 
 sideration here. The evidence that the goods are artistic antiquities is too 
 weak and confused to warrant that the finding of the board that they are dutiable 
 should be disturbed, based as this was on a thorough inspection of the goods by 
 an examiner. Bowles v. United States (No. 1213), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 32815 (T. D. 33578). Decision afl5rmed. (T. D. 
 33885; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 
 Board of General Appraisers — 
 Expert knowledge not exercised by: In passing on the classification of imported 
 merchandise the members of the board can not lawfully exercise knowledge as 
 experts, but are governed by the evidence introduced at the hearing. If an 
 official sample is introduced in evidence, it is presumed to be a proper repre- 
 sentation of the goods in question, imless shown to be erroneous. And it be- 
 comes the duty of the board to determine as a question of tact whether the claim 
 is supported by the evidence afforded by the sample. Common knowledge 
 may be exercised in reaching a conclusion, but where expert knowledge is 
 required the board will decline to pass on the issue raised by the protest in the 
 absence of evidence. (T. D. 32241— G. A. 7322; Feb. 8, 1912.) 
 
 Board's ruling not to be disturbed on defective proof — 
 The question involved in the case at bar is the determination whether certain 
 gloves imported at the port of New York, known in the trade as Paris points, 
 are "stitched or embroidered, with more than three single strands or cords," 
 as that term is used in paragraph 459 of the tariff act of 1909. The evidence 
 necessary to fix the proper classification of the gloves of the importation would 
 include proof of a variety of facts as to manufacture and trade usage. The 
 record here is scanty, too scanty of evidence to warrant the board's finding being 
 disturbed. United States v. Spielmann (1 Ct. Gust. Appls., 279; T. D. 31320), 
 United States v. Perkins (ibid., 323; T. D. 31430), and Carson v. United States 
 (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 31656). United States v. Wertheimer & Co. (No. 
 599), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24658 (T. D. 31236). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32204; Jan. 12, 1912.) 
 
 Burden of proof — ^Beliquidation — 
 The collector found in connection with a certain importation the existence of 
 fraud as a fact. It was not incumbent on the Government in the first instance 
 to introduce evidence tending to support the correctness of the reliquidation 
 by the collector on the groimd of fraud. In this case, as in others, the burden 
 was placed on the importer to show by proof that the collector's action was 
 erroneous. (T. D. 34194; Feb. 10, 1914.) 
 
 Catalogues — 
 The so-called catalogues are designed solely to give information to the trade con- 
 cerning the supplies carried and the prices at which these may be purchased; 
 they furnish no evidence whatever of any intention to classify vegetable prod- 
 ucts according to table use and are valueless in fixing commercial designation. 
 (T. D. 35249; Mar. 18, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 419 
 
 Evidence — ContiBued. 
 
 Certificate of analysis — 
 Where castor seeds are sold on the basis of existing impurities, as shown by a cer- 
 tificate of analysis, which is made to constitute a part of the contract between 
 vendor and vendee especially when verified by an analysis of the importer, 
 such certificate of analysis is properly admitted in evidence as a part of the res- 
 gestae of the sale. (T. D. 30878— G. A. 7088; Aug. 15, 1910.) 
 
 Commercial designation. (See Classification.) 
 
 Depositions — Power to exclude depositions — 
 A witness having refused to answer certain cross-interrogatories upon which, 
 together with direct interrogatories, a deposition was taken under a commission 
 issued by the Board of United States General Appraisers to show the component 
 material of chief value in certain gloves assessed for duty as being composed in 
 chief value of silk and claimed to be cornposed in chief value of cotton, the 
 questions which the witness refused to answer being material and important to 
 the issue, and counsel for the Government having objected to the admission of 
 the commission in evidence, held that the board had power to exclude the 
 deposition from the record. 
 
 Rule XXV of the Board of United States General Appraisers: Rule XXV of 
 this board, relating to the issuing of commissions to take depositions, does not 
 preclude the board from passing upon the admissibility of the deposition. 
 When a deposition taken under a commission issued by the board was returned 
 and offered in evidence, counsel tor the Government objected to its introduction 
 on the ground that the witness refused to answer certain cross-interrogatories. 
 Counsel for the importers thereupon requested that an interlocutory order be 
 entered that he might "take an appeal on the question of evidence," and the 
 board refused to grant the order for the reason that only final decisions of the 
 board are reviewable by the Court of Customs Appeals. Subsection 29 of sec- 
 tion 28, tariff act of 1909, and Stegeman v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 208; T. D. 31240). (T. D. 33912— G. A. 7508; Nov. 20, 1913.) 
 
 Excluded — 
 The provision in section 15, Customs administrative act of 1890, that on appeal to 
 the circuit court the Board of General Appraisers shall return "the record and 
 the evidence taken by them," does not require that the board should return 
 evidence which they excluded. Where on appeal to the circuit court from the 
 Board of General Appraisers, under section 15, customs administrative act of 
 1890, it is desired that evidence excluded by the board should have been passed 
 on by the court, it is requisite either that an exception should be taken to the 
 board's ruling excluding the evidence and the matter brought before the court 
 in the assignments of error, or that the evidence should have been offered as 
 additional evidence in the manner provided in said section. Harris v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, January 7, 1910. 
 No. 232 (suit 1931). Appeal by importer from decisions of Board of General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6502 (T. D. 27784) and Abstract 14019 (T. D. 27801). Board 
 afiirmed. (T. D. 30275; Jan. 18, 1910.) 
 Where a protest covers a particiJar sample of flax waste, a question to the witness 
 requesting him to answer, considering all the kinds of flax waste he has handled, 
 what is the chief use, is irrelevant and immaterial and is excluded from evi- 
 dence. The protest does not cover all kinds of flax waste that the witness has 
 ever handled, only some of which are for paper making. (T. D. 83559— G. A. 
 7470; June 11, 1913.) 
 
420 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Evidence— Continued . 
 Excluded impiopeily — 
 
 The merchandise was canned red peppers. It is competent to prove what are 
 vegetables by trade testimony, and in the absence of such to prove the common 
 understanding of that term; and it was error to exclude testimony offered for 
 that purpose. Robertson v. Salomon (130 IT. S., 412). It was error, too, to 
 exclude as to this point evidence contained in wholesale trade catalogues. In 
 this case the witnesses were upon the stand and the offer to state what they 
 would testify to followed questions addressed to the witnesses seeking to elicit 
 this information. It was error to sustain an objection. Scotland County v. 
 Hill (112 U. S., 183). Austin, Nichols & Co. v. United States (No. 1095), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30800 (T. D. 33031). Decision 
 reversed and new trial ordered. (T. D. 33519; May 29, 1913.) 
 Ex parte affidavits — 
 
 As a condition precedent to the free entry of goods under paragraph 483, tariff act 
 of 1897, proof of identity must be filed with the collector of customs at the time 
 of making entry, in compliance with the regulations of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury made in pursuance of the authority conferred upon him by said para- 
 graph. In the absence of compliance with said regulations of the Secretary of 
 the Treasury attempts to make proof in any other manner will be of no avail. 
 Hence the filing by the importers of affidavits of various parties to prove identity 
 of the goods. Held to be incompetent and inadmissible evidence. Therefore 
 if timely objection is interposed before the board to such affidavits they will be 
 excluded as evidence. (T. D. 29886— G. A. 6921; June 29, 1909.) 
 
 Affidavits taken ex parts without notice or agreement, are not admissible iu pro- 
 ceedings in the circuit court for the admission of evidence before a referee, on 
 appeal from the Board of General Appraisers under section 15, customs adminis- 
 trative act of 1890. United States v. Zucca; United States v- Stamatopoulos; 
 United States v. Calogera, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 New York, November 9, 1909. Suits 4806-7 and 4819. Appeal by United 
 States from decisions of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6505 (T. D. 27793) 
 and Abstract 14132 (T. D. 27873). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30147; Nov. 30, 
 1909.) 
 
 It seems that an ex parte affidavit taken abroad for the purpose of introducing the 
 same before the Board of General Appraisers may not be competent evidence 
 before this court. (T. D. 31481; Apr. 3, 1911.) 
 
 An ex parte affidavit was improperly admitted in evidence when it was shown that 
 it had been made without notifce to the other party and without the other party 
 having had an opportunity in a proper proceeding to test by cross-examination 
 the truth of the statements contained in the affidavit. United States v. Hoff- 
 man (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 276; T. D. 31319); Strakoah v. United States {ib., 360; 
 T. D. 31453); Acker v. United States {ih., 404; T. D. 31481). (T. D. 33488; 
 May 26, 1913.) 
 Experimental use as against general use — 
 
 Evidence as to the edibility of an article, based merely on an experimental use by 
 a witness made to prepare himself to testify, can not be accepted against testi- 
 mony that the article has never been used, even in exceptional cases, as human 
 food. (T. D. 30141— G. A. 6943; Nov. 29, 1909.) 
 Forfeiture — Circumstantial evidence- 
 In a forfeiture proceeding under said subsection 9, letters found in a passenger's 
 baggage indicating a plan to smuggle gOods for purpose of sale may be sufficient 
 circiunstantial evidence to sustain a finding against the passenger of a fraudulent 
 attempt to enter or introduce, so as to satisfy that part of the statute requiring 
 the entry or introduction to be an entry »r introduction into the commerce of the 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 421 
 
 Evidence — Continued . 
 
 Forfeiture — Circumstantial evidence — Continued. 
 
 country, even though the passenger is not himself the addresser or the addressee 
 or referred to in the correspondence. 
 
 Burden of proof: In case of probable cause for an information in rem for for- 
 feiture under subsection 9, aforesaid, the burden is placed on the claimant by 
 section 909, Re'vised Statutes, and the Government is not, in any event, required 
 to prove its case by anything more than a preponderance of the evidence. (T. 
 D. 33019; Dec. 10, 1912.) 
 Incompetent — 
 
 A statement not sworn to is not competent evidence to establish the facts therein 
 set out in a classification case before the Board of General Appraisers. (T. D. 
 28800— G. A. 6727; Feb. 18, 1908.) 
 
 The board admitted in evidence a certain certificate "for what it is worth." 
 Without determining whether this was equivalent to holding the certificate had 
 probative force of some sort, it is clear that subsection 29 of section 28, tariff act 
 of 1909, relating to the powers of the Court of Customs Appeals does not exempt 
 testimony admitted by the board from the application on its review of accepted 
 principles governing the competency of evidence; and it is not true that if 
 through error the board has admitted and considered as evidence that which has 
 no tendency to support an issue of fact, such error, aided by the statute, imparts 
 a character and force to that evidence which under no other circumstances could 
 it possess; the word "competent" in the law, as applied to evidence before the 
 court on appeal, does not clothe testimony improperly admitted below with any 
 new quality or give it a probative force never inherently possessed by it. 
 Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne (155 Fed. Rep., 144) distinguished. 
 
 Unattested declaration abroad: An xmswom ex parte statement made abroad 
 and deposited with a vice consul is in no sense the equivalent of a deposition 
 imder oath and taken where there was an opportunity to cross-examine the wit- 
 ness; and such a statement can not be held to overcome the presumption of cor- 
 rectness in a collector's classification; especially is this so when such ex parte 
 statement lacks relevancy. 
 
 Motion to remand: Under the circumstances and upon request therefor, the 
 rule is applied that a cause may be remanded for a new trial when necessary for 
 the purposes of justice. United States v. National Aniline & Chemical Co. 
 (No. 511), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24002 (T. D. 
 30944). Remanded. (T. D. 32287; Feb. 17, 1912.)' 
 Incomplete record — 
 
 The importers should not have been compelled to have their case adjudged on an 
 incomplete record of evidence they sought rightly to complete; moreover, the 
 board erred in considering records improperly received in evidence. United 
 States V. Baiz & Co. (No. 1330), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 34182 (T. D. 33963). Case remanded. (T. D. 34526; May 28, 1914.) 
 Indirect — 
 
 A reappraisement decision was based on indirect evidence, the result reached 
 being based upon portions of the evidence read apart from the context, upon 
 unwarranted deductions and assumptions xmsupported by the proof, and upon 
 arbitrary deductions to equalize certain conditions peculiar to the case; and 
 many of the propositions urged in support of the conclusions made were based 
 upon conjecture and guesswork. Held that this was not such proof as is con- 
 templated by the statute, and that, there being no legal evidence to justify the 
 reappraisement, it should be set aside. United States v. Haviland, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 11, 1910. No. 59 (suit 
 5034). (T. D. 30296; Jan. 25, 1910.) 
 
422 DIGESt OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Evidence — Continued. 
 Insufficiency of — 
 
 Where a Board of General Appraisers in making a reappraisement acts outside of 
 or contrary to law, or proceeds upon a wrong principle or without any evidence 
 to sustain their findings, their decision may be set aside. The eyidence in a 
 reappraisement case relative to china exported from Limoges was to the effect 
 that 80 per cent of the entire output- of the factory was exported directly to the 
 United States and that there was no open market for such china at Limoges, but 
 it showed the values established at Paris, where the remaining 20 per cent of the 
 Ijmoges output was disposed of; this latter value, however, was affected some- 
 what by the fact that the Paris house sold at both wholesale and retail, and that 
 the goods handled there differed materially from those sold at Limoges for export 
 to the United States. Beld that therewas no evidence that Paris was the prin- 
 cipal market for the china thus exported. United States v. Haviland, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 11, 1910. No. 59 
 (suit 5034). Appeal by the United States from the decision of the Circuit Court 
 of the United States for the Southern District of New York (167 Fed. Rep., 414; 
 T. D. 29523) affirming G. A. 6655 (T. D. 28382^. Decision adverse to the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 30296; Jan. 25, 1910.) 
 
 The board found in effect that the testimony and the samples failed to show that 
 the gloves of this importation were not stitched or embroidered with more than 
 three single strands or cords and that they were accordingly subject to the accu- 
 mulated duties provided for in paragraph 459, tariff act of 1909. To warrant a 
 reversal of this finding it must appear to be wholly without evidence to support 
 it, or that it is clearly contrary to the weight of evidence as offered. Applying 
 this rule, irrespective of any opinion proper on the merits or on a review of the 
 authorities, the testimony and exhibits afford no such warrant, and the board is 
 affirmed. Carson v. United States (No. 512), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal from a decision of the Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 24000 (T. D. 30944). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31656; May 
 29, 1911.) 
 
 Sample not part of importation : There was only one witness for the importer in the 
 case at bar, and it is not made to appear that the sample of merchandise he had 
 examined and testified concerning was in fact a sample of the importation, and 
 so properly representative of the goods in question. The board on that showing 
 declined to disturb the collector's finding of a classification; and that finding 
 for the same reason will not be disturbed in the appellate court. Shallua v. 
 United States (No. 221), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from the decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 
 17667 (T. D. 28626). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32347; Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 Judicial notice — 
 
 Federal courts may take judicial notice of customs regulations. (T. D. 32304; 
 Mar. 12, 1912.) 
 Motion for a new trial — 
 
 The affidavit of merits accompanying the motion for a new trial does not properly 
 specify the testimony offered to be produced at a rehearing if granted. The 
 motion itself is vague in terms and is unverified, though including matters out- 
 side the record. Gallagher & Ascher et al. v. United States (No. 871), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27434 (T. D. 32126). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 33512; May. 29, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 423 
 
 Evidence — Continued. 
 Motion for return of a complete copy of eyidenoe — 
 
 Where testimony was offered before a classification board and excluded by order 
 of the board over objection taken, for this court to determine the propriety of 
 the exclusion, all the testimony so excluded should be incorporated in the record 
 on appeal. Harris v. United States (177 Fed. Rep., 475) distinguished. Oelrichs 
 V. United States (No. 57), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importer from decision of the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 29306). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New 
 York. Motion granted. (T. D. 31238; Jan. 18, 1911.) 
 
 Parole evidence to contradict public record — 
 A memorandum book, kept by the clerk in charge of the reappraisement division 
 of the collector's office, of all applications for reappraisements filed, is not such a 
 public record as can not be explained or contradicted by parole evidence. 
 
 Filing application for reappraisement: Upon a protest duly filed against the 
 liquidation of an entry relative to which the records of the collector's office show 
 no application for reappraisement, parole evidence will be received as to the 
 filing of such application; and where the party filing the application swears 
 positively that he did file it on a certain day within the statutory time, and the 
 clerk of that department of the collector's office can not swear that it was not 
 filed, but only that he has no record and no memory of it, the weight of the testi- 
 mony is in favor of the party making the positive statement — the liquidation 
 will be set aside and the collector directed to forward the papers to the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers for reappraisement. (T. B. 33962 — G. A. 
 7512; Dec. 5, 1913.) 
 
 Partnership, admission of one member of — 
 Where the existence of a partBership is disputed, the declaration or admission of 
 one member of the alleged partnership is not admissible evidence to prove the 
 fact of partnership or to bind third persons as partners. One exception to this 
 rule is where third parties are induced to assume obligations by persons holding 
 themselves out as partners when in fact they are not partners. In such a case 
 they would be estopped from denying their individual liability as partners, so 
 as to prevent a fraud on innocent third parties. A report of a mercantile agency 
 offered in evidence as tending to corroborate certain admissions of one of the 
 members of an alleged partnership, but which is not verified by oath, consti- 
 tutes mere hearsay and is inadmissible as evidence. (T. D. 29447 — G. A. 6850; 
 Dec. 29, 1908.) 
 
 Presumption of correctness of collector's action — 
 Upon the coming iii of the protest it is the duty of the collector to forward within 
 30 days the invoice and all the papers and exhibits connected therewith to the 
 board, unless, of course, reliquidation had been considered proper. In this case 
 a memorandum made by the collector subsequent to the lapse of the 30 days can 
 not be deemed the collector's decision. He was without further jurisdiction 
 and such a memorandum does not overcome the presumption of correctness 
 which attaches to the decision already made and entered. 
 
 Citation of former decision of board: The mere citation to a former decision 
 by the board by the appraiser in his report to the collector is not sufficient to 
 identify the merchandise in the two cases. United States v. Ey tinge (4 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 266; T. D. 33486). National Hat Pin Co. v. United States (No. 
 1352), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34521 (T. D. 34090). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34971; Nov. 27, 1914.) 
 
424 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Evidence — Continued. 
 
 Questions of fact — Sufficiency of examination — 
 
 Where the Treasury regulations prescribe that in ascertaining the amount of wool 
 on imported sheepskins "a reasonable number" shall be sheared, it will not be 
 assumed that 8 out of 20,000 was not a reasonable number where there is evi- 
 dence that the skins sheared represented a correct average of the entire ship- 
 ment and there is no direct and positive evidence to the contrary. The ques- 
 tion of what is "a reasonable number" is one of fact to be determined by evi- 
 dence. (See also "Wool on the skin.") (T. D. 30646; May 31, 1910.) 
 Questions of fact not retried by classification board — 
 
 It is not the province of a classification board to retry questions of fact determined 
 by a board of reappraisement, and additional testimony offered before the classi- 
 fication board was properly excluded. Gulbenkian v. United States (153 Fed. 
 Rep., 858) distinguished. 
 
 Evidence not formally offered and not objected to: The Government having 
 tendered evidence, with the promise to support it with additional testimony 
 to make it relevant, but failing in this, and there being no motion to exclude 
 it, the action of the board in taking the testimony originally can not be urged 
 to vitiate the board's finding in the case. (T. D. 32091; Dec. 6, 1911.) 
 Rehearings for purpose of taking additional testimony, etc. (See Hearings and 
 
 Beheanngs.) 
 Belevancy — 
 
 All evidence which affects the classification of imported merchandise, to be rele- 
 vant, must be shown to be applicable to the particular merchandise under con- 
 sideration, and proof of the varying percentages of dirt and other impurities 
 alleged to be contained in other importations of similar goods can not be intro- 
 duced to prove the average impurities claimed to be contained in such goods 
 under consideration. (T. D. 31475— G. A. 7199; Apr. 5, 1911.) 
 Botten fruit — 
 
 Proof of rot — Compliance with statute and regulations of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury: The board and the courts have also held that a strict compliance with 
 the requirements of the law and the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury 
 made pursuant thereto, in regard to the manner and the time within which 
 examination of fruit is to be made and the time within which return is to be 
 made by the appraiser or proof of rot lodged with the collector, is a condition 
 precedent to an importer's right of allowance. Vandegrlft v. United States 
 (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 198; T. D. 32470), United States v. Zito (3 ib., 209; T. D. 
 32531), In re Amorosa, G. A. 7612 (T. D. 34822). (T. D. 35120— G. A. 7677; 
 Feb. 1, 1915.) 
 Samples — 
 
 The production of samples is not an indispensable part of the proof of the char- 
 acter of importsj which may be shown by other evidence. Rheims Company v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, Feb- 
 ruary 16, 1909. Suit 4155. Appeal by importer from decision of the Board of 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 6223 (T. D. 26897). Board reversed. (T. D. 29632; 
 Mar. 17, 1909.) 
 
 The importer having made out a prima fade case that the goods received at his 
 feictory and used there were the goods imported, it was error to refuse to allow 
 bim to show the nature and character of the goods he did in fact receive and the 
 use to which these were put. 
 
 Glue stock — Fur waste: The issue in this case was fuUy presented — namely, 
 was the importation glue stock or fur waste? And the record contains nothing 
 to show satisfactorily that the samples employed for assessment purposes were 
 true samples, but, rather, the contrary. American Glue Co. v. United States 
 (No. 1197), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importeis 
 
biGEST OF Customs ceCisioks, 1908-1915. 425 
 
 Evidence — Continued. 
 Samples^Oontinued. 
 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32266 (T. D. 33409). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 34006; Dec. 15, 1913.) 
 Shortbread: A case may be decided upon bare sample if classification can be 
 determined by the application of general or common knowledge, as distinguished 
 from expert knowledge. The question of classification of a baked article known 
 as "shortbread" does not present such a case. Shallus v. United States (2 Ct. 
 Oust. Appls., 456; T. D. 32205) and United States v. Lun Chong & Co. (3 Ct. 
 Cust. Apple., 468; T. D. 33041) distinguished. (T. D. 35916— G. A. 7821; Nov. 
 24, 1915.) 
 Shortage — 
 This appeal involves a claim of shortage in an importation of decorated China 
 lanterns and other merchandise. There was ample opportunity to establish 
 the fact, if one, of a shortage in the importation here. But there is no evidence 
 showing or tending even to show the condition of the case of goods at the precise 
 time of importation. To protect the revenues, claims of this character should 
 be clearly made out. United States v. Brown (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 189; T. D. 
 31493). United States v. Fenton, jr. (No. 1276), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 33799 (T. D. 33789). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 34252; Feb. 27, 1914.) 
 Stare decisis — 
 The mere citation of a previous decision of the board does not, in the absence of 
 any offer anew of the record in the former case, establish that the facts are the 
 same in each. United States v. Oberle (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 527; T. D. 31545). 
 Nor can the former case on such bare citation be held stare decisis. (T. D. 
 33041; Dec. 16, 1912.) ^ 
 
 "All articles commonly or commercially known as jewelry, or parts thereof, fin- 
 ished or unfinished," paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, is more specific in its 
 application than the provision with the proviso in that paragraph, and that this 
 is so is now stare decisis. (T. D. 35272; Mar. 25, 1915.) 
 Sufficiency of — 
 A return made by a local appraiser that certain petroleum products were "sup- 
 posed to be the product of Germany," accompanied by a report of the collector 
 that "no positive knowledge of the country of origin of the goods was obtainable 
 at his office, ' ' is insufficient, without corroborative evidence, to justify a reversal 
 of the collector's decision assessing a countervailing duty on the articles under 
 the proviso to paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29612— G. A. 6878; Mar. 
 6, 1909.) 
 Testimony in one case offered in another — 
 One witness testified that the articles are porcelain pyrometer tubes and a previous 
 decision of the board upon the rate of assessment was submitted at the hearing. 
 The record in the former case was not put in evidence. No other witness was 
 examined and no sample of the merchandise was introduced in evidence or 
 retained by the appraiser. There was a failure to sustain the protest and the 
 collector's assessment must stand as correct. United States v. Herrmann (145 
 Fed., 843; and Vandegrift v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 219; T. D. 
 32535) distinguished. United States v. Eytinge & Co. (No. 1129), United 
 States Court of Cufctoms Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31312 (T. D. 33194). Decision re- 
 versed. (T. D. 33486; May 23, 1913.) 
 
426 DIGEST 01? CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Evideuce — Continued. 
 Testimony in one case offered in another— Continued. 
 
 The testimony relied upon as taken in a former case should have been, after due 
 notice, ordered into the record . Failure to do this was a substantial irregularity, 
 since it deprived Government's counsel of the opportunity to present opposing 
 testimony. United States v. Lun Chong (3 Ct. Oust. Appls., 468; T. D. 33041). 
 United States v. Quong Chun & Co. (No. 1295), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 33806 (T. D. 33789). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34326; 
 Mar. 25, 1914.) 
 Testimony of a single witness — 
 
 The testimony of a single witness unimpeached, whether or not corroborated by 
 other circumstances in the case, may be held sufficient to sustain or reverse a 
 judgment. (T. D. 34523; May 28, 1914.) 
 Verified protest not proof — 
 
 The fact that a protest is sworn to does not make it effective as proof to overcome the 
 presumption of correctness which attends the collector's finding, it being merely 
 in the nature of an ex parte affidavit. (T. D. 35132— G. A. 7683; Feb. 10, 1915.) 
 Weight of— 
 
 An importer's testimony as to the amount of decay in his importations of lemons, 
 based on memoranda made from two to five days after he had examined the 
 fruit, is not sufficient, considered in connection with his interest in the outcome 
 of the issue, to outweigh the testimony of a customs examiner, with which it is 
 in direct conflict. It must be laid down as an almost universal rule that an im- 
 popter has a greater interest in the outcome of an issue than has a Government 
 official, sworn to the impartial discharge of a public duty ; and where an importer's 
 testimony with respect to his own goods is in direct conflict with that of a customs 
 examiner having equal means of acquiring information as to the matter at issue, 
 the latter's testimony is more reliable. (T. D. 29689— G. A. 6894; Apr. 12, 1909.) 
 What necessary to rebut assessment of duty — 
 
 Where the collector of customs assesses duty on American manufactures exported 
 and returned to this country, and of the kind described in paragraph 483, tariff 
 act of 1897, and this assessment is equal to the amount of drawback allowed by 
 law on the exportation of the articles, the burden is cast on the importer to offer 
 satisfactory evidence that such drawback was never actually paid either to the 
 manufacturer, the producer, exporter, or agent of such parties who are author- 
 ized to receive it under existing laws or Treasury regulations. (T. D. 29544 — 
 G. A. 6866; Feb. 8, 1909.) 
 Examination of merchandise prior to entry. 
 
 Collectors of customs authorized, until further instructed, to permit a consignee 
 or owner to open cases and inspect goods under customs supervision for the pur- 
 pose of preparing a pro forwa invoice when it shall satisfactorily appear that, 
 owing to the war conditions in Europe, the importer has been unable to obtain 
 the necessary papers on which to make entry, and that he can not otherwise 
 obtain such information. (T. D. 34744; Aug. 31, 1914.) 
 Examination of tobacco. (See Tobacco.) 
 Exc^s merchandise. 
 
 When not subject to additional duties. (See Duties, additional.) 
 Executive orders — Method of handling. 
 
 All Executive orders of every description will be distributed through the, office of 
 the chief clerk. One copy will be furnished by this officer to the Division of 
 Appointments. A permanent record of such orders will be maintained in the 
 office of the chief clerk. The promulgation of aU Executive orders, except 
 those pertaining to appointments, will be handled in the office of the chief 
 derk. (T. D. 32501; circular No. 23; May 10, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 427 
 
 Ezliaiisters, composed wholly oi in part of metal. 
 
 The importation in question conmsts of exhausters, composed of stoneware and 
 iron, stoneware being the component material of chief value. The iron coup- 
 lings and screws that connect the stoneware parte are, however, substantial and 
 material constituents of the machines, and this fact is sufficient to bring them 
 within the terms of paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897, inasmuch as they were not 
 otherwise specially provided for. They were dutiable under that paragraph. 
 United States v. Didier-March Co. (No. 751), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 26371 (T. D. 31832). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32198"; 
 Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 Exhibition animals, bonds for. (See Bonds.) 
 Expediting baggage. (See Baggage, expedition of.) 
 Expenditure. 
 
 Principles governing the forms of expenditure documents and the character of 
 evidence to be prepared and kept pertaining to transactions involving the 
 expenditure of public money. (T. D. 31641; circular No. 35; May 20, 1911.) 
 Principles which should govern expenditure accounting and reporting in the 
 several departments after July 1, 1911. (T. D. 31715; circular No. 34, revised; 
 June 20, 1911.) 
 Definitions of classes of expenditures outlined in circular No. 34, revised, govern- 
 ing expenditure accounting and reporting. (T. D. 31716; circular No. 36; 
 June 21, 1911.) 
 Customs vouchers for purchases and services other than personal under blanket 
 authorizations must be sent to the Secretary for approval. Vouchers for per- 
 sonal services to be paid without submitting to the Secretary for approval. 
 (T. D. 32773; July 30, 1912.) 
 Expense of unlading and lelading merchandise. (See Lading and unlading'.) 
 Export declarations. 
 
 Shipper's export declaration and export procedure. (T. D. 35708, Sept. 15, 1915; 
 T. D. 35944, Dec. 6, 1915; T. D. 35969, Dec. 14, 1915.) 
 Export manifests — Certification of. 
 
 Under certain conditions exports may be laden under customs supervision and 
 manifests thereof certified by collectors of customs. (T. D. 35050; Jan. 5, 1915.) 
 Exportation. (See also Drawback, exportation.) 
 Certificates of. (See Certificates of exportation.) 
 Munitions to Mexico. (See also Mexico.) 
 Collectors instructed in accordance with the opinion of the Attorney General dated 
 October 6, 1913, that certain articles, viz: riding saddles, stirrups, girths, hay 
 and other foodstuffs, and horses are not munitions of war under the President's 
 proclamation of March 14, 1912, and may be exported to Mexico. (T. D. 33793; 
 Oct. 20, 1913.) 
 Port of — ^In transit merchandise — 
 Export papers covering merchandise shipped in bond to British Yukon territory 
 via Portal, N. Dak., should be sent to deputy collector at that port and not to 
 Skagway, Alaska. (T. D. 29864; June 22, 1909.) 
 Refund denied — 
 Certain merchandise was imported into this country, duties paid, and the goods 
 delivered to the importer. There being no sale of such merchandise in the mar- 
 kets of this country, it was exported to Canada. EeM, that a refund of duties is 
 prohibited by section 3025, Revised Statutes. (T. D. 30182— G. A. 6950; Dec. 
 10, 1909.) 
 
428 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Expoitation — Continued. 
 Tiansshipment of goods foi — 
 Intention to export shown by forms given in customs regulations: Where goods 
 are shipped from Canada through the United States, and are intended for expor- 
 tation to England, an uncommunicated and secret intention to export them 
 avails nothing. Such intention miist be shown by conforming to the require- 
 ments of articles 418 and 419 of the Customs Regulations of 1908. 
 
 Power of attorney to enter goods: The consignee of imported goods is regarded 
 as the owner, and a power of attorney given by Mm to enter the goods is valid, 
 so that an entry made under his authority will be suflScient on which to assess 
 duty. (T. D. 32147— G. A. 7315; Jan. 15, 1912.) 
 What constitutes exportation from foreign country — (See Dutiable values.) 
 What constitutes exportation from foreign country in order to come within the 
 reciprocity agreement with Prance. (See Reciprocity. — France.) 
 Exportation and reimportation, appraisement. 
 
 The withdrawal of merchandise from bonded warehouse and shipment of same 
 abroad with the intention of bringing back and reentering it in bond, thus to 
 secure an extension of the three years' time allowed by section 2971, Revised 
 Statutes, for deposits in such warehouse, is not a bona fide exportation; nor is 
 the bringing back of such merchandise a bona fide importation. Merchandise 
 withdrawn from bonded warehouse and shipped abroad with the intention of 
 bringing back and reentering it in bond should not be appraised on reimporta- 
 tion, but is subject to duty on the basis of its value at the time of the original 
 importation. (T. D. 31143— G. A. 7139; Dec. 23, 1910.) 
 Exposition. 
 
 Regvdationa for entry of merchandise for exhibition at expositions to be held by 
 the,Merchants and Manufacturers' Exchange of New York. (T. D. 32973; Nov. 
 29, 1912.) 
 Regulations for the Panama-California Exposition, to be held at San Diego, Cal. 
 (T. D. 34389; Apr. 16, 1914.) 
 Exposure meters. 
 
 Instruments known as exposure meters, designed for use by photographers in 
 determining proper exposure for plates or films, and composed in chief value of 
 metal, are dutiable as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199, tariff act of 
 1909, and not as articles ornamental in character designed to be carried on or 
 about the person under paragraph 448 of said act. (T. D. 30662— G. A. 7028; 
 May 31, 1910.) 
 Extract, coflfee. (See Coffee extract.) 
 
 Fabrics. 
 
 Appliqufid. (See Appliqu6d articles.) 
 
 Figured — 
 Crash, chain-bordered: Where two weaves, each of which if alone employed would 
 result in a plain woven fabric as an entirety, are in fact combined and contrasted 
 in the same fabric, as in this case, the result must be a figured fabric and it is 
 aptly designated "chain-bordered" crash to distinguish it from goods without 
 such figure or design. United States v. White & Co. (No. 930), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 28427 (T. D. 32488). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 32968; Nov. 14, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 429 
 
 Fabrics — Continued. 
 Plain woven — 
 Crash or toweling: Crash or toweling composed of flax, or of flax and cotton, of 
 which flax is the component material of chief value, woven on a plain loom, 
 having no extra attachments and using hut two heddles, but having the threads 
 so manipulated that in the border two small, colored threads are inserted in the 
 space taken up by one thread in the body of the fabric, are ' ' plain woven fabrics, " 
 and are properly dutiable under paragraph 283, tariff act of 1913, and not as 
 "manufactures of flax" under paragraph 284. 
 
 Customs practice: Where it has been the practice of customs officers to classify 
 a particular kind of fabric as "plain woven " for several years prior to the enact- 
 ment of the tariff law, and the paragraph of the previous act covering the enum- 
 eration is reenacted without changing the language relating to such merchandise, 
 it will be presumed that Congress adopted this customs practice and intended 
 that the term should cover the same class of goods in the subsequent act. 
 
 Commercial designation: The term "plain woven fabrics" is not a term used 
 in buying and selling goods, but the testimony shows that it is a commercial 
 term understood in the trade as including a variety of fabrics dealt in under 
 specific names; Held, That the merchandise in question is commercially known 
 as a "plain woven fabric." (T. D. 34818— G. A. 7608; Oct. 7, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Plain woven fabrics — What are not. — ^These goods were so woven 
 as to produce a distinctly discernible border the whole length of the piece, and 
 this border, whether in color or plain white, constitutes a figure, irrespective 
 of the particular machinery employed in producing this effect the goods were 
 figured and not plain woven. 
 
 No commercial designation. — ^The testimony fails to show that there was, prior 
 to the enactment of the tariff law of 1913, any recognized class of goods in the 
 trade known as "plain woven fabrics." 
 
 Effect of judicial construction. — Prior to the enactment of the present law this 
 court, in White v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 382; T. D. 32968), had held 
 goods like these in question excluded from the term "plain woven fabrics." It 
 is this decision rather than an administrative practice that the Congress must 
 be presumed to have followed. United States v. Douglas & Berry et al. (No. 
 1481), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Government 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7608 (T. D. 84818). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 35342; Apr. 14, 1915.) 
 
 Fabrics in part of jute. (See Cotton, manufactures of.) 
 
 Facsimiles of postage stamps. 
 
 Importation of facsimiles of postage stamps, foreign and domestic, printed on 
 loose sheets, prohibited under sections 3 and 4 of the act of February 10, 1891 
 (26 Stat., 742) as being an engraving or print of obligations or other securities of the 
 United States and foreign Governments, reenacted in the Criminal Code, ap- 
 proved March 4, 1909 (35 Stats., 1088), as sections 150 and 161 thereof. (T. D. 
 31917; Oct. 14, 1911.) 
 
 Facts determined bj Court of Customs Appeals. (See Court of Customs Appeals.) 
 
 False statements on entry. (See Forfeiture.) 
 
 Fan chains. (See Beaded articles. Fan chains.) 
 
 Fancy boxes, appliquSd. (See Appliqu^d articles.) 
 
 Fancy matches. (See Matches, fancy.) 
 
 Fancy metal pencils. (See Pencils.) 
 
 Fancy toilet soap. (See Soap.) 
 
430 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fan sticks, manufactures of wood. 
 
 Pieces of wood used as fan handles, which are imported in sets in different sizes, 
 cut and prepsu^d upon order and in particular dimensions, are dutiable as ' ' man- 
 ufactures" of wood under paragraph 208, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 30292— G. A. 
 6970; Jan. 20, 1910.) 
 Fans. 
 Cigar and firecracker. (See Toys.) 
 Embroidered — 
 
 Embroidered fans are not subject to the embroidery proviso in paragraph 339, 
 tariff act of 1897, and are liable only to the duty provided in paragraph 427 for 
 "fans of all kinds." The proviso in paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, imposing 
 the embroidery rate on "wearing apparel or other article or textile fabric," does 
 not extend to articles of every class of which embroidery is a component part, 
 whether a textile fabric or not, and does not qualify the specific provision in 
 paragraph 427 for "fans of all kinds." United States v. Quong Lee & Co. et al., 
 United States Circuit Court, Northern District of California, August 6, 1909. 
 Nos. 13839-46 (suits 1784-91). Appeal by United States from decision of Board 
 of General Appraisers (Abstract 8744— T. D. 26818). Board affirmed. (T. D. 
 30012; Sept. 28, 1909.) 
 Tissue-paper — 
 
 The proviso to paragraph 410, tariff act of 1909, covers all articles composed of 
 tissue paper, and by providing that such articles shall pay no less rate of duty 
 than that imposed upon the component paper of chief value of which any such 
 article is made, the classification of tissue-paper fans was fixed as proper imder 
 that paragraph. Downing v. United States (141 Fed. Rep., 490; T. D. 26454) 
 distinguished. United States v. Mason Bros. & Co. (No. 726), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 26241 (T. D. 31804). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 31957; Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 Wood and silk — 
 
 Fans composed of silk and wood and embroidered with silk were dutiable under 
 paragraph 427, tariff act of 1897, which specifically names for duty "fans of all 
 kinds except common palm-leaf fans. ' ' The principle is recognized that, when 
 it clearly appears from the language and context of a proviso that it is intended 
 to apply to other subjects than those stated in the paragraph of which it is a part 
 or that it is intended to apply generally to other parts of an act, the proviso must, 
 so far as possible, be given full effect; but this principle will not be applied ex 
 industria to bring an article within the operation of the proviso. Each case 
 must be determined on the facts of that case ; and though the question here is 
 not entirely free from doubt, this doubt, according to settled law must be re- 
 solved in the importer's favor. Lai Ming v. United States (T. D. 30770) dis- 
 tinguished. United States v. Harper (No. 482), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal from United States Circuit Court, Northern District of Cali- 
 fornia, G. A. 5235 (T. D. 24073). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31655; May 29, 
 1911.) 
 Farb-malz — Carmel-malz. • 
 
 Farb-malz and Carmel-malz properly dutiable as barley malt at the rate of 45 
 cents per bushel of 31 pounds under paragraph 231, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 33271; Mar. 14, 1913.) 
 Fashion-plate drawings. (See Drawings.) 
 Favored-natiou clause. 
 
 The question involved is as to the operation of the-socalled "favored-nation" 
 clauses contained in various treaties of the United States with many countries 
 of the world. The merchandise imported from these countries consists of wood 
 pulp, paper, and other articles, which were assessed for duty by the collectors 
 under appropriate paragraphs of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. The claim 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 431 
 
 favored-nation clause — Continued. 
 
 made by the importers is that the articles are free of duty by reason of the 
 clauses in these treaties which in substance provide that if either party shall 
 grant to any other nation or country any particular favor in commerce it shall 
 immediately become common to the other party, free, where it is freely granted 
 to such other nation or country, or on yielding the same compensation when the 
 grant is conditional. It is provided, in other words, that in all that relates to 
 duties of customs and navigation the high contracting parties promise recipro- 
 cally not to grant any favor, privilege, or immunity to any other State, country, 
 or nation which shall not instantly become common to the citizens and subjects 
 of both parties, respectively, gratuitously if the concession or favor to such other 
 State, country, or nation is gratuitous, and on allowing the same compensation, 
 or its equivalent, it the concession is conditional. 
 
 Canada not a country, nation, or State: The words "country, nation, or 
 State" are used to represent an organized body politic, and mean the same thing 
 as country, which embraces all possessions of a foreign State, however widely 
 separated, which are subject to the same supreme executive and legislative 
 control. Hence Canada is not a country, but only a part of the country of Great 
 Britain. 
 
 Reciprocity: Reciprocity treaties with foreign countries do not bind the 
 United States to extend to such countries, without compensation, privileges 
 which they had conceded to another foreign country for a valuable consideration. 
 
 The treaty-making power: Treaty-making powers of the United States can 
 not be exercised in violation of the Constitution. Hence the President and the 
 Senate can not, by treaty, evade the right of the House of Representatives to 
 unite in making tariff laws regulating the rates of duty imposed on imported- 
 merchandise. The effect of this would be to compel Congress to destroy its 
 whole tariff system. 
 
 Taylor v. Morton (23 Fed. Gas., 784): The doctrine of Taylor v. Morton (23 
 Fed. Cas., 784) discussed, which held that a contention made under the Russian 
 treaty of 1832, claiming a reduction of duties on imported wool, involved under 
 that treaty the exercise of a political power which belonged to Congress, and 
 must be determined by legislative action and not by the courts. 
 
 Doctrine of the Treasury Department: The doctrine announced by John 
 Quincy Adams in 1815, holding that a treaty conferring on one foreign country a 
 gratuitous privilege would operate under favored-nation clauses to be extended 
 to other nations, seems to be indorsed by the Treasury Department, but, quaere, 
 whether by the courts is not decided. 
 
 Section 2, act of July 26, 1911, is a valid law and remains unrepealed: While 
 the proposed treaty between the United States and Canada failed for want of 
 ratification, section 2 of the act of July 26, 1911, entitled "An act to promote 
 reciprocal relations with the Dominion of Canada, and for other purposes," and 
 making free of duty pulp wood and paper of the kind there described, when 
 exported from Canada, was left standing as a law unrepealed. Hay, General 
 Appraiser, concurring, holds — 
 
 Favored-nation provisions of treaties not self-operating — Question political, 
 not judicial: The favored-nation provisions in the various treaties between the 
 United States and other powers are not self-operating in their cbaracter; hence 
 before these provisions can have any effect upon the tariff laws there must be 
 legislation to put them into effect. The question presented by this case is 
 therefore for the political and not the judicial department of the Government. 
 (T. D. 32423— G. A. 7354; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Free importation was claiined tor certain chemical wood pulp 
 and sulphide wood pulp from Norway, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany. 
 The claim was made on the ground that by virtue of the favored-nation clause 
 in existing treaties, when that clause is construed in connection with section 2 
 
432 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Favoied-nation clause — Continued. 
 
 (wood-pulp section) of the act of July 26, 1911, entitled "An act to promote 
 reciprocal trade relations with the Dominion of Canada, and for other purposes, ' ' 
 the merchandise appears as entitled to free entry. It was cone jded at the hear- 
 ing that Canada is a nation tor treaty purposes; that there is nothing in the lan- 
 guage of the several treaties in question with the several countries to call for any 
 distinctions to be made between the countries represented in the protest; and 
 it was further conceded that said section 2 of the act of 1911 is operative, though 
 Canada refused to avail itself of the option to establish reciprocity as to any other 
 possible importations provided for in other sections of the act. 
 
 Treaties and the courts: By the Constitution a treaty is binding as a law of the 
 land, and since it is the function of the courts to construe and apply the law, it 
 becomes a court's duty whenever conditions arise making a^treaty applicable to 
 declare the force and effect of that treaty. Foster v. Neilson, 27 U. S. (2 Pet.), 
 253. 
 
 Courts may not seek to enforce a treaty which is executory in its character, 
 for legislation is needed to give effect to executory provisions; but courts will 
 as to a self-executing provision in a treaty enforce this whenever the occasion 
 and conditions arise that attach the self-executing provision to existing facts. 
 Taylor v. Morton (2 Curtis, 453); Bartram v. Robertson (122 U. S., 116); Whit- 
 ney V. Robertson (124 U. S., 190). 
 
 The provision of the favored-nation clause is, "if either party shall hereafter 
 grant to any other nation any particular favor in navigation or commerce, it 
 shall immediately become common to the other party." This provision is 
 self-executing, for the privilege could not "immediately become common "to 
 the other party to the agreement if it depended upon some future act by another 
 or upon legislation to make the provision effective. 
 
 Section 2, act of July 26, 1911: Section 2 (wood-pulp section) of the a-;* of 
 July 26, 1911, was enacted with a full understanding that under that section 
 there would be a question for determination whether the provisions of existing 
 treaties with favored nations would attach, and whether by the very force of 
 section 2 like commodities from other nations having the favored-nation clause 
 in treaties are to be admitted on the same terms with the given commodities 
 brought in from Canada. It must be recognized that the favored-nation clause 
 has for its field of operation precisely that of cases where and when the lawful 
 authority has granted a new privilege to some other nation. Section 2 is a pro- 
 vision of the act standing by itself. There is nothing contained in it to indicate 
 a consideration passing, nor is there a suggestion of aliunde evidence of the 
 existence of a consideration. It stands wholly independent of the reciprocity 
 provision of the act. American Express Co. et al. v. United States (No. 894); 
 Bertuch & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 895), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, G. A. 7354 (T. D. 32423). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33434; May 12, 
 1913.) 
 Application of, to trade conventions. (See Reciprocity.) 
 Wood pulp and printing paper. (See Wood pulp and printing paper.) 
 Feathers and feather articles. 
 Articles in part of metal — 
 Millinery articles composed principally of feathers, but in part of wire, are dutiable 
 as manufactxiies "in part" of metal under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897, and 
 not as feathers advanced or manufactured under paragraph 425. United States 
 V. Berlinger, United States Circuit Court, Soiithem District of New York, May 
 14, 1908. Suit 4855. Application for review of a decision by the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G, A. 6537 (T. D. 27888). Board affirmed. 
 (T. D. 29034; May 27, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 433 
 
 Feathers and feather articles — Continued. 
 
 Articles in part of metal — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) Millinery articles composed principally of feathers, but in part 
 of wire, are dutiable as manufactures "in part" of metal under paragraph 193, 
 tariff act of 1897, and not as feathers advanced or manufactured, under paragraph 
 425: United States v. Berlinger, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 
 Second Circuit, February 16, 1909. No. 142 (suit 4855) . Appeal by the United 
 States from Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New 
 York (T. D. 29034) affirming G. A. 6537 (T. D. 27888). Decision adverse to the 
 Government. (T. D. 29577; Feb. 24, 1909.) 
 
 Artificial aigrettes — 
 Artificial aigrettes made of vegetable fiber and wire, designed for use in orna- 
 menting ladies' hats, are artificial feathers within the meaning of paragraph 438 
 of the tariff act of 1909'. The provision for "artificial or ornamental feathers, 
 fruits, grains, leaves, flowers, and stems, or parts thereof, of whatever material 
 composed," in paragraph 438 is narrower and more specific than the provision 
 for "manufactures of * * * grass'' in paragraph 463. Held, therefore, 
 that such artificial aigrettes are subject to duty at the rate of 60 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 438. Lang v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; 
 T. D. 34129) distinguished. (T. D. 34217—6. A. 7535; Feb. 24, 1914.) 
 
 Boas — 
 Under section 7, tariff act of 1897, prescribing that "on articles not enumerated, 
 manufactured of two or more materials, the duty shall be assessed at the highest 
 rate at which the same would be chargeable it composed wholly of the com- 
 ponent material thereof of chief value." Held that feathered boas, which are 
 unenumerated articles made by stringing dressed feathers upon a cotton cord, 
 are by virtue of this provision subject to the duty applicable to "feathers, 
 * * * dressed, * » * or otherwise advanced or manufactured," under 
 paragraph 425 of said act. Legg v. United States, United States Circuit Court 
 of Appeals, Second Circuit, May 5, 1908. No. 224 (suit 4648). Appeal by 
 importer from Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of 
 New York. See 154 Federal Reporter, 858 (T. D. 28260), affirming G. A. 6467 
 (T.D. 27673). Decision in favor of Government. (T. D. 29004; May 20, 1908.) 
 Boas made of feathers strung together upon cotton cords, to avoid a manifest incon- 
 gruity if the law were otherwise construed, must be taken to be like feathers in 
 materials, quality, texture, and the use to which they may be applied, and they 
 were properly held dutiable in similitude as feathers under section 7, tariff act 
 of 1897. American Express Co. v. United States (No. 434), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from a decision of the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 22845 (T. D. 30410). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 31591; May 8, 1911.) 
 
 Dusters — Toys— 
 The importation in controversy consisted of small feather dusters 18 to 20 inches 
 in length. The handles are apparently bamboo, and on the end is a loop by 
 which the articles may be hung up when not in use. These articles fall within 
 the terms of paragraph 423, tariff act of 1909, as "feather. dusters of all kinds," 
 and as it does not appear they are adapted to use by children any more than by 
 grown people on gala days, and further, there being no proof of a commercial 
 designation of toys, the importers must be taken to have failed in showing the 
 collector's classification under paragraph 423 of the act of 1909 was erroneous. 
 lUfelder v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 109; T. D. 31115). United States 
 V. Scheuer & Co. (No. 10^5), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 29881 (T. D. 32842). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33224; Feb. 18, 1913.) 
 45633°— 17 ^28 
 
434 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Featheis and feather articles — Continued. 
 Wings, pompons, etc. — 
 Feather articles are dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under the pro- 
 vision in paragraph 438, tariff act of 1909. The provision for manufactures of 
 quills in paragraph 463 of said act was not intended by Congress to cover manu- 
 factures of feathers, but was intended to cover articles made from the quill of the 
 feather, such as toothpicks and quill bristles. (T. D. 31027 — G. A. 7120; Nov. 
 4, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The importation consisted of feathers, technically distinguished 
 as quills and plumage, and they were manufactured for use as trimmings for 
 women's hats. They might be appropriately described as either quills or feath- 
 ers. It must, however, be presumed that paragraph 438, tariff act of 1909, was 
 enacted in view of the construction that had been theretofore placed on a like 
 clause in a previous tariff act, and articles such as make up the importation will 
 accordingly be held to be included by intention as feathers under that paragraph 
 and to be dutiable as such; and this the more certainly since the articles enu- 
 merated along with quills in paragraph 463 of the law do not point to their prob- 
 able use in making up women's hats or bonnets. Goodman et al. v. United 
 States (No. 525), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porter from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7120 (T. D. 31027). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31658; May 29, 1911.) 
 In a decision of these cases at a former term it was stated the importation might be 
 appropriately described as either quills or feathers. It was there attempted to 
 make plain, by exhibiting the previous history of the pertinent clauses of the 
 law and by contrasting the use of certain words employed in paragraphs 438 and 
 469 of the tariff act of 1909, what seemed to the court must have been the inten- 
 tion in that particular enactment. The conclusion there stated was reached 
 after an examination and full consideration of the pertinent authorities, and is 
 now adhered to. Goodman & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 525), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals, November 22, 1911. Application for a 
 rehearing (T. D. 31658), supra. Application denied. (T. D. 32037; Nov. 
 22, 1911.) 
 
 Featherstitched braids. (See Braids.) 
 
 Fees and exactions. 
 
 The collector of customs has no arbitrary or discretionary power and can not collect 
 or receive from an importer, or exact or require an importer to pay to him, any 
 sum of money whatever without express authority of law. All fees connected 
 with imports were abolished by section 22, customs administrative act of 1890. 
 (T. D. 29249— G. A. 6800; Sept. 3, 1908.) 
 
 Felt. 
 Adhesive, for sheathing vessels — Boofing felt — 
 A brown adhesive sheathing felt (in sheets measuring 32 by 40 inches), such as 
 was employed for many years for sheathing vessels, is free of duty imder the 
 specific provision in paragraph 564, tariff act of 1909, irrespective of the circum- 
 stance that the more extensive use of the material at the present time is for other 
 purposes than for sheathing vessels. 
 
 Construction — Intent: The felt is in no event roofing felt, and, being the only 
 material known to commerce that answers the call of paragraph 564, its classifi- 
 cation must be under that paragraph. There is a presumption that when Con- 
 gress reenacts in identical language a statutory provision which has been the 
 subject of judicial or administrative construction, it approves and adopts such 
 construction. (T. D. 33302— G. A. 7451; Mar. 24, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 435 
 
 FeU— Continued. 
 Flax- 
 Flax felt saturated with coal tar or pine tar, similar to that the subject of the 
 decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers in T. D. 22448, 
 dutiable as roofing felt at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 407, tariff act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 31901; Oct. 3, 1911.) 
 
 Felt consisting of a mixture of flax or other vegetable fiber dutiable dkectly or by 
 similitude as roofing felt under paragraph 407, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32490; 
 Apr. 23, 1912.) 
 Pads of cattle hair, tarred — 
 
 Felt pads measuring about 7f by SJ by 1 inch, composed of cattle hair, tarred, 
 used in the construction of railroads and buildings as moisture absorbers and for 
 deadening sound, dutiable at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem as a nonenu- 
 merated manufactured article under paragraph 385 of the tariff act of 1913. (T. 
 D. 35587; July 19, 1915.) 
 Unwoven — 
 
 Felts, not woven, used for polishing glass, and composed principally of cow hair, 
 calf hair, and goat hair, and which may or may not contain an appreciable 
 amount of wool, held dutiable under paragraph 382, tariff act of 1909, as "felts, 
 not woven, * * * composed wholly or in part of wool," either directly or 
 by virtue of the similitude clause in paragraph 481, rather than as unenumerated 
 articles (par. 480). (T. D. 31253— G. A. 7157; Jan. 27, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed :) It is only in a case where there is a doubt as to the meaning of the 
 statute itself that the usage of the customs may be held to determine the con- 
 struction of that statute. That the article in question, viz, a mat of unwoven 
 hair contains no wool must be assumed, but it appears certainly to be felt, and 
 since its use is substantially the same with woolen felt, there being shown a simi- 
 lar though not identical use, it is dutiable under the similitude clause, tariff act 
 of 1909. United States v. Roessler (137 Fed. Eep., 770). Pittsburgh Plate 
 Glass Co. V. United States (No. 587), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7157 (T. D. 31253). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32162; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 Fence posts. 
 
 Measurement is not controlling as to classification of posts known as "woods run.'" 
 Fence posts may vary in size and quality, while usage requires that paving posts 
 shall be sound, cut smooth, and squared evenly at each end. Held that "woods 
 run" posts are fence posts, and dutiable at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem 
 under the provisions of paragraph 200, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 28884— G. A. 
 6740; Mar. 17, 1908.) 
 Ferroalloys. 
 
 So-called ferroalloys, fDrrochrome, ferrotungsten, and ferrovanadium are dutia- 
 ble as unwrought metals under paragraph 183, tariff act of 1897, rather than aa 
 ferromanganese by similitude under paragraph 122 of said act. Thomas v. 
 William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. (142 Fed. Rep., 734; T. 
 D. 27034) followed ; United States v. Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co. (137 
 Fed. Rep., 770; T. D. 26127) compared. (T. D. 28948— G. A. 6755; Apr. 16, 
 1908.) 
 
 The ferroalloys known as ferrochrome, ferrottmgsten, and ferrovanadium are not 
 dutiable as unwrought metals under paragraph 183, tariff act of 1897, but as fer- 
 romanganese by similitude imder paragraph 122. Lavino v. United States; 
 Hempstead v. United States; Hampton v. United States, United States Cir- 
 cuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, May 11, 1909. Nos. 160, 162, and 
 182 (suits 2020-2). Appeal by importers from decision of the Board of General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6755 (T.D. 28948). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 
 29764; May 19, 1909.) 
 
436 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fenoalloys — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) The aUoys ferroclirome, ferrovanadium, and ferrotungsten are 
 dutiable by similitude as ferromanganese under paragraph 122, tariff act of 1897. 
 The provision in paragraph 183, tariff act of 1897, for ''un wrought" metals does 
 not include ferroalloys which, though they can be wrought into different forms 
 and shapes, are not to any extent shown to be imported to be themselves wrought 
 into useful articles, but are generally used for imparting certain qualities to steel 
 in the process of its manufacture. United States v. Lavino; United States v. 
 Hempstead; United States v. Hampton, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 
 Third Circuit, November 15, 1909. Nos. 21-3 (suits 2020-2). Appeals by 
 United States from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern 
 District of Pennsylvania (171 Fed. Rep., 245; T. D. 29764) reversing G. A. 
 6755 (T. D. 28948). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30168; 
 Dec. 7, 1909.) 
 Writ of certiorari denied in suits 2020, 2021, and 2022, United States v. Lavino, 
 United States v. Hempstead, and United States v. Hampton, respectively (T. 
 D. 30370), involving the classification of ferroalloys. (T. D. 30392; Mar. 1, 
 1910.) 
 Ferros — Unwrought metals — Ferromanganese : So-called ferroalloys — ferrochrome, 
 ferrotimgsten, and ferrovanadium — are dutiable under paragraph 122, tariff act 
 of 1897, as ferromanganese by similitude, rather than as unwrought metals under 
 paragraph 183. United States v. Lavino (T. D. 30168), affirming 171 Fed. Rep., 
 245 (T. D. 29764), followed. G. A. 6755 (T. D. 28948) reversed. (T. D. 30441— 
 G. A. 6992; Mar. 14, 1910.) 
 
 Ferrochrome. (See Ferroalloys.) 
 
 Ferromanganese, manganese metal held not to be. (See Manganese metal.) 
 
 Ferrotungsten. (See Ferroalloys.) 
 
 Ferrovanadium. (See Ferroalloys.) 
 
 Fiber, vegetable. (See Vegetable fiber.) 
 
 Fibrous vegetable substances, not dressed oi manufactured. 
 
 A fibrous vegetable substance resembling tampico, cleaned by shaking out the 
 dust, dirt, and dry leaves, and put up in bunches of irregular size, is not dutiable 
 by similitude as "tampico, when dressed, dyed, or combed" under paragraph 
 359, but is free of duty as "fibrous vegetable substances, not dressed or manufac- 
 tvtfed in any manner," under paragraph 578, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33961— G. 
 A. 7511; Dec. 2, 1913.) 
 
 Fig mixtures. (See Coffee substitutes.) 
 
 Figured cotton cloth. (See Cotton cloth.) 
 Eitra thread count. (See Cotton thread.) 
 
 FUet de harengs. (See Fish, herring packed in oil.) 
 
 Filing of invoices. (See Invoices, fUing of.) 
 
 Filling threads. (See Cotton cloth.) 
 
 FUm scrap. 
 
 Scraps of sensitized film produced in cutting to small sizes large rolls of photo- 
 graphic film, suitable for no other commercial purpose than the recovery of the 
 silver salts and pyroxylin therein contained, are dutiable as waste under para- 
 graph 479, tariff act of 1909, rather than as collodion or compounds thereof under 
 paragraph 17. The provision in paragraph 500 of said act for "films of American 
 manufactiu-e * * * unsuitable for any other purpose than the recovery of 
 the constituent materials" does not cover pieces of such films. (T. D. 31130 — 
 G. A. 7133; Dec. 13, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 437 
 
 Films. 
 Cinematogiaph — 
 
 Cinematograph films, a species of pictures made by the action of light in a photo- 
 graphic camera, on sheets of sensitized celluloid, are dutiable as "photographs'' 
 under paragraph 458, tariff act of 1897, at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 Edison V. American Mutoscope Co. (114 Fed. Rep., 926), Edison v. Lubin (122 
 Fed. Rep., 240), American Mutoscope & Biograph Co. v. Edison (137 Fed. 
 Rep., 262) followed. (T. D. 29643— G. A. 6889; Mar. 18, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Cinematograph films are "photographs" within the meaning of 
 paragraph 403, tariff act of 1897. United States v. Berst; United States v. Suss- 
 feld. United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 
 15, 1909. Suits 5481 and 5480. Appeal by United States from decision of 
 Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6889 (T. D. 29643). Board affirmed. (T. D. 
 30146; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Cinematograph, or moving-picture, films are photographs and 
 dutiable under paragraph 403, tariff act of 1897, rather than as celluloid articles 
 under paragraph 17 of the said act. United States v. Sussfeld, Lorsch & Co. 
 (No. 9); United States v. Berst (No. 51), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeals from decision of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of 
 New York affirming G. A. 6889 (T. D. 29643). Decision adverse to the Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 31030; Oct. 28, 1910.) 
 Moving-picture^ 
 
 Moving-picture fUms of domestic production, exposed in this country, exported 
 and returned without having been advanced in value or improved in condition 
 while abroad, entitled to free entry under paragraph 500, act of August 5, 1909. 
 (T. D. 30021; Oct. 2, 1909.) 
 
 Moving-picture films of American manufacture exported,; exposed abroad, not 
 entitled to free entry upon return to United States under paragraph 500, tariff 
 act of 1909, but are subject to duty as if wholly of foreign origin, unless light- 
 struck or otherwise damaged, or worn out, so as to be unsuitable for any other 
 purpose than the recovery of the constituent materials; moving-picture fUms of 
 either domestic or foreign manufacture may be exported to foreign countries for 
 exhibition purposes and returned free of duty. T. D. 30021 of October 2, 1909, 
 modified. (T. D. 31602; May 16, 1911.) 
 
 Act of Congress approved July 31, 1912, prohibiting the importation of any film or 
 other pictorial representation of anyprize fight or encounter of pugilists, which 
 is designed to be used or may be used for purposes of public exhibition. (T. D. 
 32754; Aug. 8, 1912.) 
 
 Moving-picture films are not entitled to free entry as theatrical properties, etc., 
 under paragraph 656, tariff act of 1909, but may be admitted under bond without 
 payment of duty under paragraph 714 of the same act, or may be admitted free 
 under T. D. 31602. (T. D. 32398; Apr. 15, 1912.) 
 
 Illegal importation : An encounter conducted between two pugilists or boxers under 
 the Marquis of Queensbury rules in a 24-foot ring, the contestants wearing regu- 
 lar boxing gloves, 5 ounces in weight, and the contest being limited to 20 rounds, 
 is a prize fight within the meaning of the statute. The importation of a picture 
 film representing such a contest is prohibited by the act of July 31, 1912 (37 
 Stat., 40), and the film can not be imported into the United States. United 
 States V. 3542 Feet of Moving-Picture Film, United States District Court, 
 Southern District of New York, May 12, 1915. Libel under the custom laws tor 
 illegal importation of the property. Verdict directed for the Government, and 
 condemnation decreed. (T. D. 35531; June 9, 1915.) 
 
438 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Films — Continued. 
 Moving-pictuie — Continued. 
 Regulations governing the importation of mo-ving-picture films under the copy- 
 right act of March 4, 1909. T. D. 31754 of July 17, 1911, modified. (T. D. 
 33258; Mar. 10, 1913.) 
 Films reimported claimed to be free as American goods returned. Collectors 
 instructed to examine carefully all moving-picture films claimed to be free of 
 duty under paragraph 404 of the tariff act, and to refuse free entry in case of 
 doubt, unless satisfactory evidence shall be produced as to the American origin 
 of the films. In cases where films of foreign origin are fraudulently invoiced as 
 of American manufacture, they will be released only upon payment of the home 
 value thereof, plus the duty. (T. D. 84892; Nov. 11, 1914.) 
 Finality of decisions of Board of United States General Appraisers. (See Board of 
 
 General Appraisers.) 
 Finality of decisions of Court of United States Customs Appeals. (See Court of United 
 
 States Customs Appeals.) 
 Fines. 
 Disposition of — 
 Disposition of fines collected for violation of the act of June 9, 1910, to regulate 
 motor-boat eqmpment. (T. D. 31988; circular No. 65; Nov. 1, 1911.) 
 Mail packages — 
 Fines not to be assessed on dutiable articles imported through the mails from coun- 
 tries to which domestic postal conditions apply. Amendment of article 778 of 
 the Customs Regulations of 1908. (T. D. 33669; Aug. 7, 1913.) 
 Masters of vessels — 
 Collectors are instructed that whenever any goods or sea stores are found on board 
 a vessel arriving from a foreign country which are not mentioned or described 
 in the manifest or store list of such vessel, a fine should be imposed on the 
 master equal to the value of the merchandise not manifested, or three times the 
 value of the sea stores not listed. All action taken under sections 2797, 2809, 
 and 2810, Revised Statutes, whether or not a fine is imposed, should be reported 
 to the department. Applications for remission to be accompanied by full state- 
 ment of facts. (T. D. 32083; Dec. 14, 1911.) 
 Finland. (See also Wood pulp.) 
 
 Wood pulp and printing paper imported from, subject to countervailing duty. 
 (T. D. 30064; Oct. 25, 1909.) 
 Fire brick. 
 Betort settings — 
 
 Retort settings more than 10 pounds in weight are dutiable by similitude as "fire 
 brick weighing not more than ten pounds each,'' under paragraph 87, tariff act 
 of 1897. United States v. Behrend; United States v. Wing, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, January 9, 1908, and January 13, 
 1908. Suits 4304 and 4585. Appeal from decision of Board of General Apprais- 
 ers, G. A. 6382 (T. D. 27422), and Abstract 13038 (T. D. 27649). Decision ad- 
 verse to Government. (T. D. 28718; Jan. 29, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Retort settings more than 10 pounds in weight are dutiable by 
 similitude as "fire brick weighing not more than ten pounds each," under para- 
 graph 87, tariff act of 1897. Fire brick, which can be but never are decorated, 
 are not susceptible of decoration so as to be covered by paragraph 97, tariff act 
 of 1897, which, though relating to articles composed of earthy or mineral sub- 
 stances, is limited to such as are susceptible of decoration. Retort settings more 
 than 10 pounds in weight resemble fire biick weighing not more than 10 pounds, 
 in material, quality, texture, and use, within the meaning of the similitude 
 clause in section 7, tariff act of 1897. Identity ordinarily would exclude all 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 439 
 
 Pile brick— Continued. 
 Betort settings — Continued. 
 
 question of similarity, but not here, because of the distinction in weight. The 
 amount of duty is not one of the tests prescribed for the application of the simih- 
 tude clause in section 7, tariff act of 1897. If incongruity results, the inference 
 is not that the tests should be abandoned, but that Congress failed to express its 
 intention. United States v. Behrend, United States v. Wing, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. Nos. 90 and 91, 
 (suits 4304 and 4585). Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States foi 
 the Southern District of New York (T. D. 28718). Decision adverse to Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 29499; Jan. 27, 1909.) Acquiesced in February 4, 1909 (T. D, 
 29527). 
 
 Firecracker fans. (See Toys, fans, cigar and firecracker.) 
 
 Fireplace linings. (See Mantel interiors.) 
 
 File sand. 
 
 A manufactured commodity which is composed of a number of different ingre- 
 dients, thoroughly mixed together and chemically changed by the application 
 of intense heat, though having the structure of sand, is not sand, either crude or 
 manufactured, within the provisions of paragraph 683, tariff act of 1909. In order 
 to bring a commodity within a specific provision of the tariff law by proof of the 
 name by which it is known in commerce, the testimony must show that the 
 application of that name to the commodity in question was definite, uniform, 
 and general, and not partial, local, or personal; and that the commodity in ques- 
 tion was known by that name at the time of the passage of the tariff law. (T. D. 
 33189— G. A. 7429; Feb. 10, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Mixture of quartz, coke, salt, and sawdust. — The merchandise 
 here is made by combining approximately 60 parts of crushed quartz with 30 
 parts of coke, 1 part of salt, and 10 parts of sawdust. The term "manufactured 
 sand, " paragraph 683, tariff act oi 1909, relates to material composed of common 
 or crude sand, and can not be taken to include this merchandise. Myers v. 
 United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 506; T. D. 31531). Henderson & Hall v. 
 United States (No. 1096), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7429 
 (T. D. 33189). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33523; May 26, 1913.) 
 
 Firewood. 
 Mill cuttings. (See Mill cuttings.) 
 
 Fireworks. 
 Night shells — 
 These fireworks, called night shells, were held to be made of paper or that paper 
 is the component material of chief value. There is, however, no evidence of 
 record as to what is the component material of chief value in these night shells. 
 On the record they could not properly be held dutiable under paragraph 420, 
 tariff act of 1909. United States v. Wilfred Schade & Co. (No. 1515), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals, May 18, 1915. Appeal by the United States 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37029 (T. D. 34984). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 35439; May 18, 1915.) 
 Sparklets — 
 Sparklets,.- a certain kind of firework made up of a mixture of magnesium and 
 metal filings molded around a thin strip of metal which serves as a handle, are 
 dutiable under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897, as articles composed in part of 
 metal, not specially provided for, rather than under paragraph 421, as "fulmi- 
 nates" and like articles, or under paragraph 418, as toys. (T. D. 29625— G. A. 
 6885; Mar. 15, 1909.) 
 
440 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fireworks — Continued . 
 Sparklets — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) A mixture of iron filings, magnesium, aluminum, nitrate of 
 barium, and gum, attached to a thin strip of metal to serve as a handle, consti- 
 tuting what are known as "sparklers" or "sparklets," were not dutiable as toys 
 under paragraph 418, tariff act 1897, but as manufactures of metal under para- 
 graph 193 of said act. A toy is essentially a plaything for children and reason- 
 ably fitted for no other purpose; the articles known as "sparklers" in composition, 
 manufacture, and effects differ in no essential particular from fireworks, and are 
 reasonably fitted for other purposes than the amusement of children. lUfelder 
 & Co. V. United States (No. 112), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 
 6885 (T. D. 29625). Transferred from the United States Circuit Court for the 
 Southern District of New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31115; Nov. 30, 
 1910.) 
 Fish. 
 Balls and pudding — 
 Fish balls and fish pudding put up in tin packages, in which is used a small portion 
 of flour, potato, and milk, are dutiable as fish in tin packages at 30 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 270, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33472— G. A. 7465; May 
 28, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise consists of haddock and other material com- 
 bined, fish being conceded to be the article of chief value in the compound. 
 The mixed-material clause of paragraph 481, tariff act of 1909, applies. It must 
 be taken to be a manufacture in which fish constitutes the material of chief value 
 and it is one not specially enumerated. It was dutiable aj if wholly composed 
 of fish and at the rate assessed by the board. Murphy v. Amson (96 U. S., 131); 
 American Express Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 39; T. D. 31591,) 
 Benson v. United States (No. 1185), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7465 (T. D. 33472). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33882; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 Boned — 
 Fish from which the backbone has been removed, leaving in the fish some of the 
 other bones, is dutiable as fish, boned, under paragraph 216, act of 1913, and not 
 free under paragraph 483 as fish not otherwise provided for. The provision for 
 fish, boned, is not limited to boneless fish, but if the fish has been advanced in 
 condition by removing a substantial quantity of bone, it is dutiable thereunder. 
 (T. D. 35364— G. A. 7719; Apr. 29, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Salmon from which the larger part of the backbone had been 
 removed, leaving the side bones and other bones in the fish, and which had been 
 treated with a solution of salt or brine for the purpose of preserving them during 
 transportation and not sufficient to affect their acceptability to the consuming 
 public as fresh fish, were not boned within the meaning of paragraph 216 of the 
 tariff act of 1913, but were entitled to free entry imder the provision for "fresh- 
 water fish, and all other fish not otherwise specially provided for" in paragraph 
 483 of said act. 
 
 "Boned" defined. — The term "boned," according to its common signification, 
 does not necessarily mean boneless, but substantially freed of bone. Whether or 
 not an article is boned can not be determined by the process employed. A proc- 
 ess, for instance, which will render a flat fish like the halibut boned may not have 
 the same result when applied to a fish of different anatomical construction, such 
 as the salmon. Woodward & Son v. United States (No. 1565), Uiuted States 
 Covirt of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7719 (T. D. 35364). Decision reversed. (T. D. 35918; 
 Nov. 19, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 441 
 
 Fish— Continued. 
 Caviar — 
 
 Fiah roe — " Preserved for food purposes " : . Caviar in tins and kegs, which has been 
 in brine and as imported is in a salted condition, which is necessary to keep the 
 material suitable for food, is "preserved for food purposes" within the meaning 
 of paragraph 549, tariff act of 1897, excluding from free entry fish roe preserved 
 for food purposes. Caviar in this condition is dutiable by similitude under the 
 appropriate provision for fish in Schedule G of said act. (T. D. 29914— G. A. 
 6922; July 16, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Fish roe or caviar, which was necessarily put into brine before 
 importation because otherwise it would not be suitable for food after importation, 
 is "preserved for food purposes" within the meaning of paragraph 549, tariff 
 act of 1897, and is therefore covered by the specific exclusion from that para- 
 graph of roe so preserved. Hansen v. United States; Weber v. United States, 
 United Sfetes Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 13, 1909. 
 Suits 5560-1. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 6922 (T. D. 29914). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30170; Dec. 7, 1909.) 
 
 Sturgeon roe "Prepared for preservation" not "Preserved." — Fresh roe of the 
 sturgeon rubbed through a sieve, dropping thence into a solution of brine, the 
 brine drawn off and the roe packed for shipment in tins and transported in a 
 refrigerated state, does not constitute "fish roe preserved for food purposes," as 
 excepted by paragraph 549, tariff act of 1897, and is not dutiable under para- 
 graphs 258 and 261 of said act. Hansen v. United States (No. 18); Weber v. 
 United States (No. 123), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeals by 
 the importers from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York (T. D. 29914). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 
 30769; June 22, 1910.) 
 
 Fresh caviar, packed in tins not hermetically sealed, is free of duty as " eggs of 
 * * * fish * * * (except fish roe preserved for food purposes)," under 
 paragraph 560, tariff act of 1909. The provision for " caviar " in paragraph 270, 
 act of 1909, is restricted to that class of caviar which has been preserved, and 
 does not include fish eggs known as "caviar" but not preserved. (T. D. 
 31205— G. A. 7152; Jan. 16, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Caviar in tins held to be dutiable under paragraph 270, tariff act 
 of 1909. United States v. Cohn (2 Ind. Ter., 474); Hubbard v. City of Taunton 
 (140 Mass., 467); Kelly v. The People (182 111., 363). Hansen v. United States 
 (T. D. 30769) distinguished. United States v. American Express Co. (No. 
 566), United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 22, 1911. Appeal by the 
 United States from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 7152 (T. D. 31205). Decision reversed. (T. D. 31636; May 22, 1911.) 
 Codfish — 
 
 Codfish from which a portion of the bones have been removed free of duty under 
 paragraph 483, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35642; Aug. 9, 1915.) 
 Dried — 
 
 Dried fish in 1-pound paper packages that have been sealed and placed in num- 
 bers from 100 to 110 packages in a box were not dutiable under paragraph 258, 
 tariff act of 1897, the 1-pound package being wrongly taken as a unit for classifi- 
 cation. The larger wooden box, containing the 1-pound packages of fish, a 
 hundred or more, was the proper unit for classification and the importation was 
 dutiable under paragraph 261. John R. Fulton & Co., G. A. 4743 (T. D. 22414), 
 In re Johnson (56 Fed. Rep., 822), and Kauffman Bros. v. United States (99 Fed. 
 R«p., 430) distinguished. United States v. Yamashita (No. 261); United States 
 V. Furuya & Co. (No. 262), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 from United States Circuit Court for Western District of Washington, Abstracts 
 7521-7522 (T. D. 26637 and T. D. 30317). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31435; 
 Mar. 20, 1911.) 
 
442 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Ksh — CJontinued. 
 
 rresh, in packages — 
 Mackerel, halibut, or salmon, fresh, when imported in packages of a capacity of less 
 than one-half barrel, dutiable under paragraph 270 of the act of August 5, 1909, 
 and not under the first clause of paragraph 273 of the said act. (T. D. 29973; 
 Aug. 28, 1909.) 
 Fresh-water fish in packages of less than 100 pounds dutiable under paragraph 271, 
 tariff act of 1909, at the rate of one-fourth of 1 cent per pound, except that en- 
 titled to admission free of duty under paragraph 567, even though imported in 
 packages containing less than 100 pounds, unless the fish have been skinned or 
 boned, in which case it is dutiable at IJ cents per pound under the last clause of 
 paragraph 273. (T. D. 32308; Mar. 15, 1912.) 
 
 Fresh, skinned and boned — 
 Fresh-water fish skinned and boned dutiable at rate of three-fourths of 1 cent per 
 pound under paragraph 216 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913r (T. D. 34836; 
 Oct. 15, 1914.) 
 
 Herring, kippered— 
 Construction: Kippered herring in tins are dutiable as "kippered herring" under 
 paragraph 272, tariff act of 1909, rather than as "all other fish in tins" under 
 paragraph 270. Kippered herring being imported only in tins, its classification 
 as fish in tins would nullify the express provision for kippered herring. (T. D. 
 30528— G. A. 7007; Apr. 11, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Kippered herring in tins to be assessed with duty under para- 
 graph 270, tariff act of 1909, at 30 per cent ad valorem, notwithstanding board's 
 decision in G. A. 7007 (T. D. 30528), pending determination of new case under 
 preparation. (T. D. 30684; June 14, 1910.) 
 It is a well-settled principle of customs law that in arriving at the meaning and 
 application of tariff laws commercial designation is the most important designa- 
 tion to be ascertained. The term "kippered herring" has a definite, uniform, 
 and general commercial designation which includes the character and quality 
 of the fish and the container in which it is packed. Kippered herrings commer- 
 cially are imported in no other packages than in tins. General use, not occa- 
 sional use, furnishes the guide for classification. Following 6. A. 7007 (T. D. 
 30528), the merchandise is held dutiable under paragraph 272 at one-half of 1 
 cent per pound. (T. D. 30794— G. A. 7070; July 15, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The words "herrings, kippered," in paragraph 272, tariff act of 
 1909, are construed with reference to the commercial meaning of those words at 
 the time of the statute's enactment, and while it would appear there may have 
 been occasional importations of kippered herring not in tins, the decided pre- 
 ponderance of the testimony here is that kippered herring are commonly im- 
 ported in tins and can only be so imported' during all seasons of the year, and 
 "herrings, kippered," must be taken to refer to the fish in tin containers, and as 
 such these are dutiable under paragraph 272 of said act. Where there has been 
 no authoritative finding of fact concurred in by a majority of the sitting mem- 
 bers of the Board of General Appraisers, as in this case, the question of fact is 
 deemed open for determination by the Customs Court of Appeals. United 
 States V. Rosenstein Bros. (No. 394), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from decision of Board of United States General 
 Appraisers (T. D. 30794). Decision afiirmed. (T. D. 31357; Feb. 27, 1911 ) 
 liquid in tins when not tare: This appeal concerns an importation of kippered 
 herring imported in mechanically and hermetically sealed tins. The contro- 
 versy concerns the proper weight of the fish. Appellant maintains that the 
 weight of the liquid should be deducted in the assessment of duty. The liquid 
 in these tins was not added, but is an oil exuding from the fish in the processes of 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 443 
 
 Pish— Continued. 
 Herring, kippered — Continued. 
 
 canning, this oil taking into solution the inclosed salt, forming thus a brine. 
 There is no case here for an allowance on account of impurities or for tare. Shal- 
 lus V. U. S. (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 316; T. D. 31408). Eosenstein Bros. v. United 
 States (No. 1189), United. States Court of Customs Appeals^ Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32339 (T. 
 D. 33409). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33840; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 Herring packed in oil — 
 
 So-called^Zet de harengs, being salted or smoked herrings in oil, in tins, of acapacity 
 between 7i and 21 cubic inches, held dutiable at 2J cents a package under para- 
 graph 270, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33588— G. A. 7474; June 23, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Salted or smohed herrings in oil in tins. — The broad language of 
 paragraph 270, tariff act of 1909, fixing duty on fish (except shellfish), by what- 
 ever name known, packed in oil, makes the legislative intent clear to include 
 all fish so processed, including herrings. The word "herrings " is not there used, 
 but herrings are included within its terms just as definitely and exactly as if the 
 word had been employed, for it includes fish conditioned as there described by 
 whatever name known. United States v. Smith & Nessle Co. (4 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., — ; T. D. 33312) distinguished. Smith & Co. v. United States (No. 
 1229), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7474 (T. D. 33588). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 34008; Dec. 15, 1913.) 
 Herring, skinned, boned, pickled, etc. — 
 
 Pickled, salted, or smoked herrings, skinned or boned, dutiable under paragraph 
 273, tariff act of August 5, 1909, at the rate of IJ cents per pound. (T. D. 30511; 
 Apr. 6, 1910.) 
 
 Herrings, pickled or salted and skinned or boned, or both skinned and boned, are 
 still "herrings, pickled or salted," and subject to duty as such under paragraph 
 272 of the tariff act of 1909. G. A. 7198 (T. D. 31474), G. A. 7380 (T. D. 32680), 
 Albrecht v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 471; T. D. 32226), and United 
 States V. Smith (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33312) cited. (T. D. 33659— G. A. 
 7485; July 21, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) This merchandise is within the literal meaning of the language 
 in both paragraph 272 and paragraph 273, tariff act of 1909, but "herrings, pick- 
 led," of paragraph 272 is the more specific designation and therefore would con- 
 trol. Further than this, "herring" is an eo nomine designation. Brennan v. 
 United States (136 Fed., 743), United States v. B«iss & Brady (136 Fed., 741) 
 distinguished. United States v. Haaker & Co. et al. (No. 1211), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7485 (T. D. 33659). Decision affirmed. (T. 
 D. 33884; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 
 Smoked herringL. and pickled herrings, packed in tins, are dutiable under para- 
 graph 270, tariff act of 1909, as "all other fish in tins," and not under paragraph 
 272, as "herrings, * * * smoked," or "herrings, pickled." (T. D. 31474— 
 G. A. 7198; Apr. 7, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) By a familiar rule, a statute that has been reenacted takes the 
 estabUshed construction of that statute, but it is always open to the court to 
 determine whether any change that may appear in new phraseology employed 
 was meant to compel a different construction, the prime purpose alwayj being 
 to get at the real intent of the legislature. In paragraph 272, tariff act of 1909, 
 Congress has correlated herrings of all kinds, and has included there herrings, 
 pickled or salted, smoked or kippered, with the knowledge, it is to be presumed, 
 that kippered herring can only be imported as fish in tins, and has so made of the 
 
444 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Pish— Continued. 
 Herring, skinned, boned, pickled, etc.— Continued. 
 
 terms employed a designation more specific than "all other fish (except shellfish) 
 in tin packages," paragraph 270. The importations in question, consisting of 
 smoked and pickled herring packed in tins, are dutiable under paragraph 272. 
 United States v. Rosenstein (T. D. 31358) distinguished. Albrecht & Son v. 
 United States (No. 643); Menzel & Co. v. United States (No. 644), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7198 (T. D. 31474). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 32226; Jan. 23, 1912.) 
 Herring roe — Eazunoko— 
 So-called "kazunoko," being the eggs or roe of the herring, taken from its body 
 and dried, without the addition of other substances, by being spread on mats on 
 a hillside and exposed to sunshine and air, and used as an article of food after 
 being softened in water and having "shoyu" poured over it, held free of duty 
 under paragraph 560, tariff act of 1909, relating to "eggs of * * * fish, 
 
 * * * (except fish roe pre.served for food purposes)," and not dutiable as 
 ' ■ caviar, and other preserved roe of fish' ' under paragraph 270 of said act. Hansen 
 V. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 1; T. D. 30769), G. A. 6039 (T. D. 26368), 
 Causse Manufacturing Co. v. United States (150 Fed., 419; T. D. 27513), G. A. 
 4660 (T. D. 22020), Hills Bros. Co. v. United States (123 Fed., 477), United 
 States V. Furuya (176 Fed., 480; T. D. 30316), Zanmati v. United Stetes (153 
 Fed., 880; T. D. 28054), and G. A. 4161 (T. D. 19422) cited. (T. D. 33911— G. 
 A. 7507; Nov. 18, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Preserved. — ^When fish are dried, whether by means of the heat of 
 the sun or otherwise, being thereby saved from decomposition for a substantia 
 period of time, they are "preserved" within the'common meaning of that term. 
 
 Kazunoko — Fish roe. — ^The term "preserved" in paragraph 270, tariff act of 
 1909, does not bear a restricted interpretation, and the provision there for 
 "caviar, and other preserved roe of fish" was intended to claBsify all fish roe, 
 which had been treated in any manner for preservation for food purposes, as 
 preserved fish roe. United States v. Kagawa & Co. et al. (No. 1321), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7.507 (T. D. 33911). Decision re- 
 versed. (T. D. 34934; Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 Herring and mackerel, pickled, salted, smoked, in tomato sauce or bouillon — 
 The terms "salted," "pickled," and "smoked," as applied to fish have no mean- 
 ing in trade different from their ordinary meaning. The distinction between 
 pickled fish and salted fish would seem to be in the fact that pickled fish are in a 
 liquid, whereas in salted fish the endeavor is to avoid the salt forming into a 
 pickle. The addition of a small quantity of tomato sauce or bouillon as a flavor- 
 ing material does not change the chara<;ter of the fish to which it is added. Her- 
 rings and mackerel in tomato sauce and so-called fresh herrings and mackerel, 
 salted and packed in tins, were dutiable under paragraphs 272 and 273, tariff act 
 of 1909, as "herrings, * * * salted," and "mackerel, * * * salted"; 
 soused or pickled herring and mackerel in tins were dutiable under the same 
 paragraphs as "herrings, pickled" and "mackerel, * * * pickled"; and 
 smoked herrings in bouillon were dutiable under paragraph 272 as "herrings, 
 
 * * * smoked," rather than as fish in tins under paragraph 270 of said act. 
 (T. D. 32680— G. A. 7380; June 26, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The processes to which the fish of the importation had been sub- 
 jected put them in a class apart from "fish in tin packages," as provided for in 
 paragraph 270, tariff act of 1909. The evidence sustains the finding that the 
 merchandise here consisted of herring or mackerel, pickled or salted, and theie 
 were dutiable as such under the eo nomine provisions of paragraphs 272 and 273, 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 445 
 
 Fish— Continued. 
 
 Hening and mackerel, pickled, salted, smoked, in tomato sance oi bouillon — Contd. 
 respectively. United States v. Smith & Nessle Co. et al. (No. 956), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7380 (T. D. 32680). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 33312; Mar. 12, 1913.) 
 
 InoU— 
 The chemical analysis showed 5.7 per cent oil with these fish in tins. , It is imma- 
 terial how this oil became present. The additional duty provided in paragraph 
 216, tariff act of 1913, was intended to reach any case in which oil is part of the 
 substance in which the fish is found packed when offered for importation. 
 Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States (No. 1420), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by importer from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 35629 (T. D. 34459). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35175; 
 Feb. 23, 1915.) 
 The merchandise in controversy is fish, skinned and boned, packed in tin packages 
 with oil. Under the general plan of the fish schedule of the act of 1909 Congress 
 taxed fish, except those mentioned eo nomine, by means of a series of gradations 
 based primarily on the condition of adyancement; the rate of duty increasing as 
 the state of advancement increases, considering the package, the packing, and 
 the preparation, all taken together. Under this plan the fish here under consider- 
 ation are dutiable under the first clause of paragraph 270, tariff act of 1909, at the 
 appropriate rate as fish in oil in tins, and not as fish, skinned or boned, under 
 paragraph 273. This purpose so plainly appears from the language used by 
 Congress that the above conclusion is arrived at, irrespective of which of the two 
 provisions, when separated from the context, would be the more specific. (T. 
 D. 35269— G. A. 7706; Mar. 26, 1915.) ^ 
 
 The provision for fish in oil in paragraph 216, tariff act of 1913, is not limited to fish 
 packed in oil other than fish oil. If fish oil is used instead of oUve, peanut, or 
 other vegetable oil, the product is stUl fish packed in oil. Strohmeyer & Arpe 
 Co. V. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 527; T. D. 35175) foUowed. (T. D. 
 35826— G. A. 7798; Oct. 21, 1915.) 
 
 In packages — ^No protest pending — 
 Protest was filed against the collector's classification of certain codfish, as codfish 
 dried and salted in packages containing less than one-half barrel, not specially 
 provided for, at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 270 of the tariff act of 
 1909, claiming said codfish dutiable at three-fourths of I cent per pound under 
 paragraph 273 of said apt. On the collector's attention being called to Abstract 
 27144 (T. D. 32020), the collector sustained the protest and reliquidated the 
 entry at the lower rate of duty claimed in the protest. The department, how- 
 ever, declined to authorize a refund, and directed that the protest be forwarded 
 to the board. Held, that, inasmuch as the decision of the collector protested 
 against was canceled, and a reliquidation had which sustained the protest, which 
 has not been set aside, the protest was improperly transmitted to the board, 
 as it raised no issue, and was therefore dismissed. (T. D. 38999 — G. A. 7518; 
 Dec. 19, 1913.) 
 
 In tin§ — 
 Meld (1) that the clause " if in other packages " in paragraph 258, tariff act of 1897, 
 relates to fish of the kinds enumerated in the beginning of the paragraph— sar- 
 dels, anchovies, etc., "packed in oil or otherwise, in bottles, jars, tin boxes, or 
 cans, * * * containing * * * not more than seventy cubic inches, " 
 (2) that it is not limited to packages used in the retail trade, and (3) that sardels 
 in large packages used in the wholesale trade are dutiable under said clause, 
 rather than under the final provision in the paragraph for "all other fish * * * 
 in tin packages." (T. D. 29261— G. A. 6806; Sept. 15, 1908.) 
 
446 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 sish — Contiiiued. 
 In tins — Continued. 
 
 Anchovies, pickled and packed in halt harrels, are dutiable as "herrings, pickled," 
 under paragraph 272, tarifi act of 1909, that provision being more specific than 
 for "fish * * * pickled * * * not specially provided for, " under para- 
 graph 273. (T. D. 31204^-G. A. 7151; Jan. 16, 1911.) 
 
 Anchovies, brisling, sprats, sardines, and alewives, pickled, salted, or smoked, in 
 tins,, dutiable at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 270, tariff act of 1909; 
 in kegs, casks, or boxes, under paragraph 270 or 273, according to the size of the 
 packages. (T. D. 32914; Nov. 7, 1912.) 
 
 Antipasto properly dutiable at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 270, tariff act of 1909, as fish in tin packages.- (T. D. 33243; Mar. 1, 1913.) 
 
 Salt fish in tins: The merchandise is fish, salted, and is at the same time fish in tin 
 packages, and it was covered by both paragraphs 270 and 273, tariff act of 1909. 
 As to which of these apply the more specifically seems to have been determined 
 by judicial interpretation, an interpretation that appears to have received legis- 
 lative approval. Salt fish in tins was not subject to the duty imposed by para- 
 graph 273 of that act, but was classifiable as "other fish (except shellfish) in tin 
 packages" under paragraph 270. Chee Chong & Co. et al. v. United States 
 (No. 1471), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 36800 (T. D. 34727), 
 and G. A. 7602 (T. D. 34788). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35194; Mar. 3, 1915.) 
 
 The term "sardines" is a comprehensive one, and includes sprats, biisUngs, and 
 herrings, the only distinction being with reference to the size of the fish, herring 
 ordinarily being larger. They are all members of the herring genus Clupeidie. 
 Sardines put up in bouillon, tomato sauce, vinegar, or mustard sauce held duti- 
 able as "herrings, pickled or salted, smoked or kippered," at one-half of 1 cent 
 per pound under paragraph 272, tariff act of 1909, as claimed in the protests, and 
 not at 30 per cent ad valorem as fish in tins under paragraph 270. (T. D . 33815— 
 G. A. 7504; Oct. 21, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise involved in these appeals consisted variously 
 of herrings, mackerel, sardines put up in bouillon, etc., sprats in tomato eauce, 
 anchovies salted and spiced in tins, etc. In view of the decisions of the courts 
 and Board of General Appraisers and in view of departmental rulings besides, it 
 must be taken that the various small fish of the several importations come within 
 the provision for herrings in paragraph 272, tariff act of 1909, and not within para- 
 graph 270 of that act, as fish packed in tin boxes or cans. United States v. 
 Miller & Tokstad et al. (No. 1294); United States v. Moos & Co. et al. (No. 1302); 
 United States v. Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. (No. 1324), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeals by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7504 (T. D. 33815), Abstract 34000 (T. D. 33848), 
 and Abstract 34389 (T. D. 34033). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34443; May 4, 
 1914.) 
 
 The provision in paragraph 258, tariff act of 1897, for fish "in other packages," 
 means other packages than those immediately before described, which contain 
 not more than 70 cubic inches; and anchovies in tin packages containing more 
 than 70 cubic inches and less than a half barrel are dutiable imder that pro- 
 vision, rather than under the further provisions in the same paragraph for " all 
 other fish * * * in tin packages "and "fish in packages containing less than 
 one-half barrel, and not specially provided for." Strohmeyer v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 21, 1909. 
 Suit 5393. Appeal by the importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 19982 (T. D. 29348). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29818; June 8, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST 0;P CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 447 
 
 Ksli— Continued. 
 In tins — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) In paragraph. 258, tariff act of 1897, relating to "fish * » * in 
 bottlea, jars, tin boxes, or cans " of certain specified sizes not exceeding 70 cubic 
 inches, and "in other packages," the latter phrase is not limited to fish in pack- 
 ages of a retail size, but includes sardines packed in tins of a large size dealt 
 in at wholesale. Strohmeyer v. United States, United States Circuit Court of 
 Appeals, Second Circuit, February 8, 1910. No. 146 (suit 5393). Appeal by 
 the importer from the decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for the 
 Southern District of New York (172 Fed. Rep., 295; T. D. 29818) affirming 
 Abstract 19982 (T. D. 29348). Decision'in favor of the Government. ;T. D. 
 30390; Mar. 1, 1910.) 
 
 Tins containing sardines, "Jockey Club" brand, of a capacity of 7J cubic inches, 
 dutiable at the rate of 2\ cents per tin, under paragraph 270, tariff act of 1909. 
 (T. D. 32392; Apr. 12, 1912.) 
 
 Fish in tins, packed in oil containing small quantities of tomato sauce, dutiable at 
 30 per cent ad valorem imder paragraph 270, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32765; 
 Aug. 19, 1912.) 
 
 The provision for "all other fish (except .shellfish) in tin packages" in paragraph 
 270, act of 1909, is more specific than the provi&ion for "fish, fresh, smoked, 
 dried, salted, frozen, packed in ice, or otherwise prepared for preservation, not 
 specially provided for in this section," in paragraph 273 of said act. (T. D. 
 34788— G. A. 7602; Sept. 24, 1914.) 
 Packed in "ce — 
 
 Mackerel, halibut, and salmon, packed in ice, are more specifically enumerated 
 in paragraph 261, tariff act of 1897, as "fish * * * packed in ice, * * * 
 not specially provided for," than as "mackerel, halibut, or salmon, fresh." 
 United States v. Perry, United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, 
 April 6, 1909. No. 115 (suits 1776-81). Appeal by United States from decision 
 of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6208 (T. D. 26856). Board affirmed. (T. 
 D. 29691; Apr. 14, 1909.) Acquiesced in May 3, 1909 (T. D. 29722). 
 
 The merchandise does not come within the eo nomine designation of fresh mack- 
 erel in paragraph 273, tariff act of 1909. It was properly assessed as fish in pack- 
 ages of less than one-half barrel, dutiable at 30 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 270, act of 1909. Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States (No. 1345), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34762 (T. D. 34186). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 34530; May 28, 1914.) 
 Roe — Preservation — (See also Fish, herring roe.) 
 
 The constant presence and application of heat or cold as an arresting agency of 
 decomposition does not constitute preservation. 
 
 When not preserved : Fish roe, salted sufficiently to preserve it during the 
 winter, but not during the summer, in the climate of New York, is not " pre- 
 served" within the meaning of paragraph 216, tariff act of 1913. United States 
 V. Kagawa (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 388; T. D. 34934) distinguished. Moscahlades 
 Bros. V. United States (No. 1549), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 47286. Decision reversed. (T. D. 35973; Dec. 3, 1915.) 
 Russian fish from the Caspian Sea- 
 Certain Russian fish from the Caspian Sea, called "wobla," held not to be herrings 
 within the intent of Congress, as clearly expounded by the Court of Customs 
 Appeals in United States i;. Miller & Tokstad (5 Ct. Cust. Appla., — ; T. D. 
 34443). . Such fish were therefore properly classified as fish, smoked, dried, 
 
448 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fish— Continued. 
 
 Sussian fish from the Caspian Sea — Continued. 
 
 salted; pickled, or otherwise prepared for preservation, at three-fourths of 1 cent 
 per pound under paragraph 273 of the act of 1909. Abstract 29968 (T. D. 32847), 
 passing upon a record not as full and complete as the record here made up and 
 decided before (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 34443), overruled. (T. D. 34603— 
 G. A. 7581; June 24, 1914.) 
 
 Shark fins — 
 Shark fins dutiable as "fish, skinned or boned," at the rate of 1} cents per pound 
 under paragraph 273, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31894; Oct. 2, 1911.) 
 
 Skinned or boned, in tins — 
 Under the general plan of the fish schedule of the tariff act of 1913 (1) the raw or 
 nearly raw food product, roughly prepared or not prepared at all, is to enter free 
 of duty ; (2) fish slightly advanced in preparation by skinning or boning is to pay 
 three-fourths of 1 cent per pound; (3) fish more elaborately prepared by packing 
 in tin packages pay 15 per cent; (4) fish highly prepared in tins or other packages 
 with oil or oU and other substances pay 25 per cent. Under this plan for grada- 
 tion of duty bated upon the condition of advancement, skinned or boned fish in 
 tins is dutiable under the provision for fish in tins not specially provided for at 
 15 per cent, and not under the provision for fish, skinned or boned. The rule 
 which requires classification under the more specific of two competing provisions 
 can not be invoked in the face of a plain purpose to the contrary manifested by 
 the language iised by Congress in framing the whole schedule. (T. D. 35365 — G. 
 A. 7720; Apr. 29, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Boned or skinned fish, packed in tin packages, but not in oil or 
 in oil and other substances, is dutiable as "all other fish * * * in tin pack- 
 ages," at 15 per cent ad valorem under the second clause of paragraph 216, tariff 
 act of 1913, and not at three-fourths of 1 cent per pound as " fish, skinned or 
 boned," under the last clause. Tokstad-Burger Co. v. United States (No. 1564), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7720 (T. D. 35365). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 35981; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 
 Skinned or boned, in oil — 
 Boned fish packed in oil, in tins or bottles, is dutiable under the first clause of para- 
 graph 216, act of 1913, at 25 per cent, under the general plan of the fish schedule 
 pointed out in the case of Tokstad-Burger Co., protest 764910, G. A. 7720 (T. D. 
 35365), and not at three-fourths of 1 cent per pound as fish, skinned or boned. 
 (T. D. 35366— G. A. 7721; Apr. 29, 1915.) 
 
 Tunny fish — Mackerel—; 
 Tunny fish held not to be mackerel within the intent of Congress in enacting the 
 provision in paragraph 273, act of 1909, reading "mackerel, halibut, or salmon, 
 fresh, pickle, or salted , one cent per pound . ' ' Classification as fish in tins under, 
 paragraph 270 sustained. United States v. Miller & Tokstad (5 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., — ; T. D. 34443) cited. (T. D. 34916— G. A. 7635; Nov. 16, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Funny fish — Mackerel. — ^Tariff acts are not drawn in the terms of 
 science, but in those of commerce, presumptively the language in common use, 
 and while tunny fish may be a mackerel in the eye oi science it can not be so 
 classified for customs purposes, it not being popularly or commercially known 
 as such. The fish are fish in tin packages and they were properly assessed under 
 paragraph 270, tariff act of 1909. Meyer & Lange et ah v. United States (No. 
 1501), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7635 (T. D. 3491B). Decision 
 aflSrmed. (T. D. 35436; May 18, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 449 
 
 Fish— Continued. 
 
 Weight of— 
 Allowance for impurities: In assessing the duty imposed on salted herring accord- 
 ing to weight, under paragraph 260, tariff act of 1897, 28 in every 228 pounds 
 should be allowed on account of salt, dirt, etc. Where it is established that a 
 certain portion of imported fish, consisting of salt, scale, etc., never enters into 
 the marketable weight of the fish in trade, the case falls within the well-settled 
 principle that duty can be assessed 'only upon such merchandise as is brought 
 into a port of entry and becomes a part of the body of the merchandise of the 
 country. It was shown that in selling salted herring in bulk from the holds of 
 fishing vessels it had been a long-standing custom to allow 28 out of 228 pounds 
 for salt, dirt, etc.; that this allowance was not excessive, and that at no time 
 does this 28 pounds enter into the marketable weight of the fish. Held, that a 
 like allowance should be made in ascertaining the dutiable weight of the fish. 
 Lincoln v. United States, United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, 
 April 22, 1910. No. 393 (suit 1995). Appeal by the importer from the decision 
 of the Board of Gene'i'al Appraisers, Abstract 17676 (T. D. 28626). Decision 
 adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30647; May 31, 1910.) 
 
 Yarmouth bloaters and Digby chicks — 
 Yarmouth bloaters and Digby chicks dutiable as herring under paragraph 272, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33181; Feb. 14, 1913.) 
 Fisheries, American. 
 
 Free entry of products of. (T. D. 31233; circular No. 7; Jan. 17, 1911.) (T. D. 
 32138; circular No. 4; Jan. 10, 1912.) 
 
 Great Lakes — 
 The term "American fisheries" as used in paragraph 567, tariff act of 1909, which 
 grants free entry to "fish * * * caught in the Great Lakes or other fresh 
 waters by citizens of the United States, and all other fish the products of Ameri- 
 can fisheries," applies to fisheries in the Great Lakes or fresh waters. 
 
 Regulations of Secretary of the Treasury: The fact that the Secretary of the 
 Treasury in his regulation or instruction to the collectors of customs (T. D. 
 32138) prescribes the method of producing proof that importations of fish claimed 
 upon are the product of an American fishery within the meaning of the statute, 
 does not preclude the importer from the right to furnish such proof in some other 
 manner before the board. The Post Fish Co., a corporation duly organized under 
 the laws of the State of Ohio, owns and operates a steamer known as the Louise, 
 a vessel of American registry, which is used exclusively in the business of trans- 
 porting to the port of Sandusky, Ohio, fish caught in the Canadian waters of 
 Lake Erie by men employed by the Post Fish Co. to fish for them. These fish- 
 ing operations are carried on under the direction and general oversight of the 
 master of the Louise, who is an American citizen, the vessel being on or near the 
 fishing grounds when the fish are taken from the water and delivered on board; 
 and the Post Fish Co. furnishes to the men employed to catch these fish the 
 equipment necessary for that purpose. Held, that the fish so imported consti- 
 tute the product of an American fishery within the meaning of the statute. (T. 
 D. 33279— G. A. 7449; Mar. 14, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Pish from the Canadian waters of Lake Erie. — In all essentials the 
 equipment put in place by the importer in the Canadian waters of Lake Erie, 
 or put in place by the importers' orders, constituted an American fishery, and all 
 the fish there taken were the sole property of the importer and the products of an 
 American fishery. There was no requirement of law as to the showing necessary 
 to be made to entitle these fish to free entry other than that they should be the 
 products of American fisheries, This showing could bp made before the board 
 45633°— 17 ^29 
 
450 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Ksheries, Ameiican — Continued. 
 Great Lakes — Continued. 
 
 after protest had been filed in due form and in due time. United States v. Post 
 Fish Co. (Nos. 1167 and 1212), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7449 (T. D. 33279), Abstract 32984 (T. D. 33594). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 84188; Feb. 5, 1914.) 
 Newfoundland — 
 Fish taken by an Ameiican vessel on the coast of Newfoundland, with the assist- 
 ance of men, boat'?, and gear hired for the purpose, are free of duty as a product 
 of American fisheries. (T. D. 28768; Feb. 11, 1908.) 
 Fish imported from the shores of the " treaty waters " of Newfoundland admitted 
 to free entry as products of American fisheries. The term " American fishery '' 
 held to apply to an enterprise conducted by an American, the necessary appli- 
 ances, place, etc., being provided by him with United States money, although 
 the actual manual labor of catching the fish was not done by Americans. (T. D. 
 31028— G. A. 7121; Nov. 7, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Fish not the products of American fisheries. — The American fish- 
 ing vessel took no part in the fishing operations in question here except to convey 
 from the United States to Newfoundland certain fishing supplies. A portion of 
 the fishing tackle so conveyed w as used under the supervision and by employ- 
 ees of an American citizen temporarily at Bonne Bay, Newfoundland; but the 
 fishermen engaged there for service apparently used their own boats and pre- 
 Bimiably obtained there their supplies. The fish so caught were cured on 
 British soil and shipped to the United States in a British vessel. Held, the im- 
 portation was not entitled to free entry as the product of American fisheries 
 under paragraph 567, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Reading et al. (No. 
 540), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States 
 from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7121 
 (T. D. 31028). Decision reversed. (T. D. 31534; Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 Fishing tackle. 
 Parts of — Gut leaders — • 
 Worm gut made into leaders and snells for fishing purposes is dutiable under para- 
 graph 165, tariff act of 1909, as " all other fishing tackle or parts thereof, " rather 
 than as manufactures in chief value of worm gut under paragraph 462 of said act. 
 (T. D. 31161— G. A. 7142; Dec. 29, 1910.) 
 Metal containers for holding artificial fish flies — 
 Metal boxes or containers specially constructed and designed for holding artificial 
 fish flies and fishing leaders are properly classifiable as manufactures of metal 
 * not specially provided for under paragraph 167, tariff act of 1913, as claimed by 
 
 the importers, rather than dutiable at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 136 of said act as "fishing tackle or parts thereof," as classified by the collector. 
 (T. D. 35749— G. A. 7783; Sept. 30, 1915.) 
 Fitted leather cases. (See Leather cases.) 
 Five per cent deduction on dress goods. (See Wool dress goods, deduction of 5 per 
 
 cent.) 
 Five per cent discount. 
 Tariff act of 1913— 
 Collectors instructed to make no allowance of discount on duties under the pro- 
 visions of Paragraph J, subsection 7, section 4, tariff act of October 3, 1913, 
 pending further instructions from the department. (T. D. 33782; Oct. 8, 1913.) 
 Instructions in T. D. 33782 to make no allowance of discount on duties under sub- 
 section 7 of Paragraph J of section 4, tariff act of 1913, made permanent following 
 the opinion of the Attorney General. (T. D. 33847; Nov. 8, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 451 
 
 Five per cent discount — Continued. 
 Statement — 
 These 14 cases, commonly known as the " Five Per Cent Cases, " involve the con- 
 struction of certain paragraphs in the tariff act of 1913 that are a part of section 4 
 and are in text as follows: 
 
 "B. That nothing in this act contained shall be so construed as to abrogate or 
 in any manner impair or affect the provisions of the treaty of commercial reci- 
 procity concluded between the United States and the Republic of Cuba on the 
 eleventh day of December, nineteen hundred and two, or the provisions of the 
 act of Congress heretofore passed for the execution of the same, except as to the 
 "proviso of article eight of said treaty, which proviso is hereby abrogated and 
 repealed. 
 
 "J. Subsection 7. That a discount of 5 per centum on all duties imposed by 
 this act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be 
 imported in vessels admitted to registration under the laws of the United States: 
 Provided, That nothing in this subsection shall be so construed as to abrogate or 
 in any manner impair or affect the provisions of any treaty concluded between 
 the United States and any foreign nation. 
 
 "Q. That on and after the day when this act shall go into effect all goods, 
 wares, and merchandise previously imported for which no entry has been made, 
 and all goods, wares, and merchandise previously entered without payment of 
 duty and under bond for warehousing, transportation, or any other purpose tor 
 which no permit of delivery to the importer or his agent has been issued shall 
 be subjected to the duties imposed by this act and to no other duty, upon the 
 entry or withdrawal thereof: * * *." 
 
 Section 3 of the act in a subparagraph provides: 
 
 "S. Any merchandise deposited in any public or private bonded warehouse 
 may be withdrawn for consumption within three years from the date of original 
 importation on payment of the duties and charges to which it may be subject 
 by law at the time of such withdrawal." * * * 
 
 Article I of the Cuban treaty provides reciprocally that all merchandise the 
 product of the soil or industry of the respective parties which at the time of its 
 negotiation was being imported into the other free of duty should continue to be 
 so admitted into each country. 
 
 Article 11 provides that during the term of the treaty all merchandise not 
 included in Article I " and being the product of the soil or industry of the Repub- 
 lic of Cuba imported into the United States shall be admitted at a reduction of 
 20 per cent of the rates of duty thereon, as provided by the tariff act of the 
 United States approved July 24, 1897, or as may be provided by any tariff law of 
 the United States subsequently enacted." 
 
 Article VIII provides that "the rates of duty herein granted by the United 
 States to the Republic of Cuba are and shall continue during the term of this 
 convention preferential in respect to all like imports from other countries, and 
 in return for said preferential rates of duty granted to the Republic of Cuba by 
 the United States it is agreed that the concession herein granted on the part of 
 the said Republic of Cuba to the products of the United States shall likewise be, 
 and shall continue during the term of this convention, preferential in respect to 
 all like importers from other countries." 
 
 Certain other treaties with gome nine nations, the continuing existence of 
 which was conceded at the hearing, were outstanding and in force at the date of 
 the enactment of the tariff law, each containing what is referred to as the " recip- 
 rocal commercial provision." A clause iu the treaty between the United States 
 and Italy is taken as an example of the treaties in question, and it is as follows: 
 
 "The high contracting parties agree that whatever kind of produce, manufac- 
 tures, or mefchandise of any foreign country can be from time to time lawfully 
 
452 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Five per cent discount — Continued. 
 
 imported into the United States, in their own vessels, may be also imported in 
 Italian vessels; that no other or higher duties upon the tonnage of the vessel or 
 her cargo shall be levied and collected, whether the importation be made in ves- 
 sels of the one country or of the other; and, in like manner, that whatsoever kind 
 of produce, manufactures, or merchandise of any foreign country can be from 
 time to time lawfully imported into Italy in its own vessels may be also imported 
 in vessels of the United States and that no higher or other duties upon the ton- 
 nage of the vessel or her cai^o shall be levied and collected, whether the impor- 
 tation be made in vessels of the one country or of the other; and they further 
 agree that whatever may be lawfully exported and reexported from the one 
 country, in its own vessels, to any foreign country, may in the like manner be 
 exported or reexported in the vessels of the other country, and the same bounties, 
 duties, and drawbacks shall be allowed and collected, whether such exportation 
 or reexportation be made in vessels of the Unitgd States or of Italy." 
 
 The questions for decision raised here are (a) whether or not J, subsection 7, 
 became operative when said tariff act of 1913 took effect; (6) whether merchan- 
 dise imported in vessels of United States registry was immediately entitled to 
 the 5 per cent discount; (c) whether merchandise imported in the registered 
 vessels of said treaty nations was immediately entitled to the like discount; {d) 
 whether merchandise entered in bond tor warehousing before the act took effect, 
 subsequently withdrawn and entered for consumption, was entitled to such 
 discount; (e) whether merchandise imported from Cuba was entitled to the 20 
 per cent reduction provided in the Cuban treaty, and to the 5 per cent discount 
 provided in said J, subsection 7. Held in the Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers: 
 
 Discount on goods in American vessels — Construction of Statute: Subsection 
 7 of Paragraph J, section 4, tariff act of I9I3, reads as follows: "J. Subsection 7. 
 That a discount of 5 per centum on all duties imposed by this act shall be allowed 
 on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels admitted 
 to registration under the laws of the United States: Provided, That nothing in 
 this subsection sha,ll be so construed as to abrogate or in any manner impair or 
 affect the provisions of any treaty concluded between the United States and any 
 foreign nation." Held, that the language is plain and unambiguous, and there 
 is therefore no occasion for applying the rules of statutory construction to inter- 
 pret its meaning. 
 
 Abrogation of treaties: Under subsection 7 a discount of 5 per cent should be 
 allowed on the duties imposed by the act of 1913 on goods imported in American 
 vessels. The granting of such discount to goods imported in American vessels 
 will not abrogate, impair, or affect the provisions of treaties existing between 
 the United States and foreign nations. 
 
 Favored-nation clauses: Favored-nation clauses in treaties between the 
 United States and foreign nations are not brought into question by the allow, 
 ance under subsection 7 of 5 per cent discount to goods imported in American 
 vessels, for the allowance does not grant a favor to any particular nation. 
 
 Conmiercial treaties: The provisions of commercial treaties existing between 
 the United States and foreign nations, by which each of the contracting parties 
 agrees not to levy higher duties upon importations in vessels of the other country 
 than if the same or like merchandise had been imported in vessels of its own 
 country, are not self-executing, and are therefore not within the jurisdiction of 
 the courts, but address themselves to the political department of the Government. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 453 
 
 Five per cent discount— Continued. 
 
 Treaties — Constitutional prerogatives: Treaties which modify rates of duty 
 to be collected on imports are in contravention of the constitutional prerogative 
 of Congress to lay and collect duties and of the House of Representatives to origi- 
 nate bills for raising revenue; and such treaties are not enforceable by the courts 
 without the sanction of the House of Representatives and Congress. 
 
 Goods in warehouse: Goods in warehouse at the time the act of 1913 became 
 effective and subsequently withdrawn are not entitled under subsection 7 to the 
 discount of 5 per cent on the duties imposed by the act of 1913, even though 
 they may have been imported in American vessels. The discount applies only 
 to such goods as " shall be imported " in American vessels after October 3, 1913. 
 (T. D. 34246— G. A. 7540; Mar. 6, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Held in Court of Customs Appeals: Statutory construction. — It 
 will be presumed that the Congress will not do a vain thing; that it intends its 
 acts, and every par.t of them to be held valid and as capable of being given effect. 
 All statutes are to be construed so as to sustain rather than to ignore or defeat 
 their purpose; to give them a field of operation, if the language will permit, 
 rather than to treat them as meaningless. 
 
 Ibid — Provisos. — The exception of a particular thing from the operation of the 
 general words of a statute shows that in the opinion of the lawmaker the thing 
 excepted would be within the general words had not the exception been made. 
 But a proviso is not to be so construed as to make it plainly repugnant to the 
 body of the section it limits. 
 
 Treaties, abrogation of. — The Congress may abrogate a treaty made by the 
 United States, and this may be accomplished either by legislation to that end 
 or by legislation that by necessary implication results in abrogation; but here — 
 
 /. Subsection 7, tariff act of 191S. — It is clear the Congress intended to give 
 present effect to the law, and by the named proviso, as was declared, intended 
 that the paragraph in chief should not be held to abrogate the treaties in ques- 
 tion or impair any rights thereunder. The treaties must be taken to forbid dis- 
 crimination against merchandise imported in the vessels of a treaty nation. 
 Whether the discriminations as forbidden relate primarily to the means or 
 instrumentalities of transit and not to the products, reserved. 
 
 Held, in these cases — (a) That the merchandise involved, imported in the 
 registered vessels of the United States, is entitled to the 5 per cent discount, as 
 held by the board, whose judgment relating thereto is herby affirmed. 
 
 (6) That as to the merchandise imported in the registered vessels of the said 
 treaty nations, both that which was imported and entered for consumption sub- 
 sequent to the taking effect of the tariff act of 1913, as well as that which was 
 brought to our ports prior thereto and entered in bond for warehousing, subse- 
 quently withdrawn for consumption and duties paid, the 5 per cent discount 
 must be allowed, and with respect to such merchandise the judgment of the 
 Board of General Appraisers is reversed. 
 
 (c) That the merchandise imported in vessels of our registry before the tariff 
 act of 1913 took effect which was entered in bond for warehousing, subse- 
 quently withdrawn and entered for consumption and duties paid, is entitled 
 to the 5 per cent discount thereon, and the judgment of the board with respect 
 thereto is reversed. 
 
 (d) That the merchandise from Cuba is entitled to the reduction of 20 per cent 
 ad valorem provided by the Cuban treaty and the further discount of 5 per cent 
 ad valorem from the amount so ascertained. As to such importations, the judg- 
 
454 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Five per cent discount — Continued. 
 
 ment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed. The M. H. Pulaski Co. et 
 al. V. United States (No. 1346); R. B. Henry Co. et al. v. United States (No. 
 1353); J. Elliott & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1355); Robert Muller & Co. 
 V. United States (No. 1364); Wood & Selick et al. v. United States (No. 1370); 
 United States v. J. Wile, Sons & Co. (No. 1391); United States v. G. W. Paber 
 (Inc.) (No. 1392); United States v. Louis Meyers & Son (No. 1393); United 
 States V. William Openhym & Sons et al. (No. 1394); United States v. Park & 
 TiUord (No. 1395); United States v. Selgas & Co. (No. 1396): E. La Montague's 
 Sons V. United States (No. 1399); Cullman Bros, et al. v. United States (No. 
 1410); A. Lorsch & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1440), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 7540 (T. D. 34246), Abstract 35154 (T. D. 34307), Abstract 
 35619 (T, D. 34459), and Abstract 36281 (T. D. 34704). Decision affirmed in 
 part; reversed in part. (T. D. 35508; May 26, 1915.) 
 Importations made prior to the passage of the act of 1913 are not within the pur- 
 pose of Congress in enacting the 5 per cent discount provision, G. A. 7540 (T. D. 
 34246) followed, so far as it supports that principle. (T. D. 35104— G. A. 7676; 
 Jan. 29, 1915.) 
 Flags. 
 
 Certain small silk flags, mounted on slender wooden staffs about 4J inches long, 
 heldnot tobedutiable as "toy8"under paragraph 318, tariff act of 1897. Tuska 
 V. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 21, 1908. Suit 5031. Appeal by importer from decision by Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6654 (T. D. 28373). Board sustained. 
 (T. D. 29161; July 15, 1908.) [Note. — No appeal was taken from this decision.] 
 Flannels. 
 
 Woolen flannel material used for certain outer garments, and also for pajamas, 
 etc., held to be within the commercial meaning of the term "flannels" used by 
 Congress in paragraph 289, act of 1913. Said merchandise, therefore, should not 
 be classified under the provision for manufactures of wool in paragraph 288, or 
 under the provision for wool dress goods in paragraph 290. (T. D. 35703 — G. A. 
 7772; Sept. 8, 1915.) 
 Flash-light cases. 
 
 Flash-light case? composed of metal, intended to be made into electric pocket 
 lamps to be carried on or about the person, dutiable under paragraph 356, tariff 
 act of 1913, afthe rate of 60 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 34203; Feb. 24, 1914.) 
 Flasks, chemical. (See Glass.) 
 Flax. 
 Card waste. (See Waste.) 
 Felt. (See Felt.) 
 Scarfing. (See Scarfing.) 
 Straw, broken — 
 Broken flax straw produced by passing the crude flax plant through a machine 
 called a brake, which thrashes out the seed, breaks or crushes the straw, and 
 eliminates the chaff and dirt, is dutiable as " flax straw" at $5 per ton under para- 
 graph 333, act of 1909, and not as "tow of flax" imder paragraph 336. 
 
 Commercial designation: Commercial designation of an article used by a 
 single trade or Une of business can not be established by the testimony of wit- 
 nesses from that trade alone when it appears that other trades employ the same 
 term to describe an entirely different commodity. Such testimony does not 
 prove that the term is definitely, uniformly, and generally used in trade and 
 commerce throughout the United States. In re Zeimer (66 Fed., 740). (T. D. 
 34304r-G. A. 7545; Mar. 20, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DEOISIOJSTS, 1908-1915. 455 
 
 Flax — Continued . 
 Straw, bioken — Continued. 
 Broken flax straw dutiable under paragraph 333, tariff act of 1909, providing for 
 " flax straw, " and not dutiable as tow of flax under paragraph 336. The provi- 
 sion for " tow of flax " in paragraph 336 has no commercial meaning which would 
 include flax straw, broken. (T. D. 32857— G. A. 7395; Oct. 7, 1912.) 
 Tow of— 
 Merchandise similar to that the subject of the decision of the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers of October 7, 1912, G. A. 7395 (T. D. 32857), should be 
 assessed with duty at the rate of $20 per ton under paragraph 336, tariff act of 
 1909, as tow of flax, pending a judicial determination of the proper classification 
 of such merchandise. (T. D. 33065; Jan. 4, 1913.) 
 Waste used chiefly for paper making. (See Waste.) 
 Flax articles. 
 Drawn work. (See also Drawnwork.) 
 Drawnwork articles are not dutiable under paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, as 
 "embroidered," but under paragraph 346 as woven articles of flax. United 
 States i). Simon, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 13, 
 1909. No. 189 (4617). Appeal by the United States from the Circuit Court of 
 the United States for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29070) reversing 
 G. A. 6452 (T. D. 27644). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 29702; 
 Apr. 21, 1909.) 
 Flazseejl. 
 Impurities in — 
 
 Flaxseed and screenings mingled therewith, if the screenings are of a commercial 
 value, to be separately assessed with duty under the tariff act of October 3, 1913, 
 the flaxseed at the rate of 20 cents per bushel under paragraph 212 and the screen- 
 ings at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem as a nonenumerated unmanufactured 
 article under paragraph 385. (T. D. 34537; June 10, 1914.) 
 Flexible tubing. (See Copper tubing.) 
 Flexoloid. (See Gelatin.) 
 Flint stones. (See Stones, flint.) 
 Floor planing machines. (See Machine tools.) 
 Floral waters. 
 
 Unenumerated articles — Waste: Floral waters are dutiable as unenumerated 
 manufactured articles under section 6, tariff act of 1897, and not as "waste" 
 under paragraph 463. Burr v. United States, United States Circuit Court of 
 Appeals, Second Circuit, February 16, 1909. No. 144 (suit 4523). Appeal by 
 importer from Circuit Court of the United States (T. D. 28540) affirming decision 
 of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6436 (T. D. 27600). Decision in favor of 
 the Government. (T. D. 29575; Feb 24, 1909.) 
 Flour, wheat. (See Wheat and wheat products.) 
 Flowers. 
 Artificial, celluloid — Eose pins — 
 The certainty required in a commercial designation is not here shown, and it 
 appearing that the small imitation flowers of the importation are made of cellu- 
 loid and attached to metal pins, designed to be worn as boutonniferes, and that 
 they are so worn by adults, they can not be taken to be " toys " ; they were duti- 
 able as artificial flowers under paragraph 425, tariff act of 1897. Hamburger v. 
 United States (No. 625), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importer from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York, 
 Abstract 18920 (T. D. 28998). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31956; Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 
456 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Flowers — Continued. 
 Dried statice, etc. — 
 Dried flowers, such, as helichrysum and statice, not bleached or dyed, dutiable at 
 the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 263, tariff act of 1909; when 
 bleached or dyed, at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 438 of 
 the said act. (T. D. 33064; Jan. 4, 1913.) 
 Ornamental — ^Immortelles — 
 This appeal relates to an importation of immortelles, colored or dyed, classified by 
 the collector of customs as ornamental flowers and rated for duty at 60 per cent 
 ad valorem under paragraph 438 of the tariff act of 1909, and claimed to be prop- 
 erly dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem as cut flowers, preserved, under para- 
 graph 263 of said act. Some effect must be given to the words "of whatever 
 material composed " in paragraph 438. The effect of that phrase modifying the 
 phrase "ornamental * * * flowers not specially provided for," extends 
 this to include articles composed in any part of a material not common to the 
 natural or cut flower; and the dye or coloring matter here used is not common 
 to cut flowers. United States v. Bayersdorfer (175 Fed., 959). Bayersdorier & 
 Co. V. United States (No. 1136), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 31381 (T. D. 33217). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33875; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 Wreaths. (See Wreaths, artificial flowers.) 
 
 Flowers and leaves, etc. 
 Artificial flowers and leaves — 
 Artificial flowers and leaves ornamented with metal spangles dutiable at the rate 
 of 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 425, tariff act of 1897, relating to 
 "artificial * * * leaves, flowers," etc., and not at 60 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 408, relating to "articles * * * fli part of * * * span- 
 gles made of * » * metal." (T. D. 28710— G. A. 6711; Jan. 25, 1908.) 
 Where artificial flowers, leaves and the like, have taken on, through the use of 
 metal wire in their construction, a new form and shape and name, they are to be 
 deemed manufactures of metal; and in the present case, where the evidence ia 
 sufficient to show that a particular part of the consignment falls within this rule, 
 the board's holding as to this part is modified; but- proof failing as to the real 
 character of the remainder of the consignment, the board's ruling as to this will 
 not be disturbed. United States v. Downing (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 337; T. D. 
 31434). Gage Bros. & Co. v. United States (No. 712), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 25774 (T. D. 31575). Decision modified as to part; 
 affirmed as to part. (T. D. 32174; Jan. 11, 1932.) 
 
 Fluorspar. 
 
 An article bought and sold as fluorspar, and used for the purpose fluorspar is ordi- 
 narily used for, is assessable with duty as such, regardless of the per cent of dirt 
 it contains. The mere presence of dirt or impurities in an article, which for 
 aught that appears in the record may not exceed that which is naturally present 
 in such merchandise, does not form a basis for allowance and will not be consid- 
 ered. United States v. Baker Castor Oil Co. (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 338); United 
 States V. Reid (120 Fed. Rep., 242) cited. (T. D. 32995— G. A. 7408; Dec. 6, 
 1912.) 
 
 Fob chains. (See Articles of personal adornment.) 
 
 Folded post cards. (See Post cards, folded.) 
 
 Folding metal drinking cups. (See Metal drinking cups.) 
 
 Food and drugs— Advertised /or sale. 
 
 Food and drugs to be inspected by representative of Department of Agriculture 
 before being advertised for sale. (T. D. 30402; Mar. 5, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS^ 1908-1915. 457 
 
 Food and drugs act. 
 Disposition at ports of cases arising under the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906. 
 (T. D. 29508; Feb. 2, 1909. T. D. 30080; Nov. 1, 1909. T. D. 31038; Nov. 12, 
 1910. T. D. 31049; Nov. 19, 1910. T. D. 31399; Mar. 20, 1911. T. D. 32029; 
 ^ Nov. 25, 1911. T. D. 32268; Feb. 19, 1912. T. D. 32375; Apr. 8, 1912. T. D. 
 33456; May 23, 1913.) 
 The requirement of T. D. 29368, of December 1, 1908, as to the furnishing of a state- 
 ment in duplicate of the disposition made of each shipment detained to the chief 
 of the local food and drugs laboratory applies to all shipments detained. (T. D. 
 30582; Apr. 30, 1910.) 
 Examination of tea — 
 Tea imported after May 1, 1911, must be labeled to show the presence of artificial 
 coloring or facing matter. (T. D. 31224; Jan. 17, 1911.) 
 Flowering tops — 
 Dried flowering tops, pistillate plants of Cannabis saliva Linn^. Importation 
 thereof denied if intended for other than medicinal purposes. (Sec. 11, food 
 and drugs act of 1906.) (T. D. 35719; Sept. 25, 1915.) 
 Inspection — 
 
 Inspection under the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906, at ports where labora- 
 tories of the Department of Agriculture have not been established. (T. D. 
 30201; Dec. 17, 1909.) 
 Amendment of T. D. 30201 of December 17, 1909, relative to inspection under the 
 food and drugs act of June 30, 1906, at ports where laboratories of the Department 
 of Agriculture have not been established. (T. D. 31251; Jan. 28, 1911.) 
 Instructions to collectors at border ports — 
 SampUng of cereals, flax, beans, and pease under the food and drugs act to be dis- 
 continued except as specifically requested. (See T. D. 30201; Dec. 17, 1909.) 
 (T. D. 31039; Nov. 12, 1910.) 
 Marking — 
 Regulations governing the marking of the quantity of food in package form under 
 section 3 of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906, as amended by the act of 
 March 3, 1913. (T. D. 34509; June 5, 1914.) 
 Beshipment — 
 Goods found to be in violation of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906, may be 
 reshippod at the request of the importers without submitting the application to 
 the department. (T. D. 29935; Aug. 4, 1909.) 
 Samples — 
 Samples of food and drug products should be sent to food and drug laboratories, by 
 parcel post instead of by express. (T. D. 34745; Aug. 31, 1914.) 
 Shipments in violation of — 
 Small shipments of medicinal preparations found to be in violation of the food and 
 drugs act and not relabeled to be destroyed at the expiration of the 90 days pro- 
 vided by statute. (T. D. 30413; Mar. 9, 1910.) 
 Stearic acid — 
 Stearic acid, known also as stearin, is dutiable as an acid not specially provided 
 for, under paragraph 1, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 30335— G. A. 6977; Feb. 7, 1910. 
 Stearin — ^Inspection certificate — i 
 
 Certificate prescribed in food-inspection decision 74 must be produced for stearin, 
 and stearin accompanied by such certificate must be held for examination. 
 (T. D. 30558; Apr. 21, 1910.) 
 Stearin and other meat products — 
 T. D. 30558, of April 21, 1910, smended so as to permit the entry at nonlaboratory 
 ports of all stearin and other meat products which are accompanied by a meat- 
 inspection certificate in one of the forms set forth in said decision. (T. D. 30716; 
 June 23, 1910.) 
 
458 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 rood inspection. (See Net-weight law.) 
 
 Foodstuffs manulactored irom wheat. (See Wheat.) 
 
 Foot muffs. (See Leather.) 
 
 Forceps, nippeis, pUeis, etc. (See Siu^cal instruments.) 
 
 Foreign-built yachts. (See Yachts, foreign-built.) 
 
 Foreign vessels. (See Vessels.) 
 
 Forfeiture. (See also Fraud.) 
 Baggage — " Mention " — " Trunk" — 
 The baggage declaration of a person arriving from abroad referred only to a 
 "trunk," without specification of its dutiable contents. Beld that this was a 
 sufficient compliance with the requirement of section 2802, Revised Statutes, 
 that if a passenger's baggage contains any article subject to duty it shall be 
 "mentioned" to the collector. United States v. One Trunk, United States 
 District Court, Southern District of New York, July 19, 1909. In rem. On 
 proceedings for forfeiture of imported goods. Decision adverse to Government. 
 (T. D. 29926; July 27, 1909.) 
 Baggage not mentioned in declaration — 
 Trunks belonging to a steamship passenger arriving in the United States had not 
 been cons^ed to the ship's master by bill of lading, but were delivered to the 
 ship upon baggage checks, which were thereafter delivered to the passenger, and 
 stored in the hold with other baggage. The passenger retained in his possession, 
 without opening the same during the voyage, the envelope containing the baggage 
 checks for the two trunks. Held that the trunks were " baggage " that should be 
 mentioned to the collector in the baggage declaration within the meaning of 
 section 2802, Revised Statutes, and that they were forfeitable because not men- 
 tioned under said section 2802, regardless of the fact that the passenger may not 
 have opened the envelope during the voyage, fraudulent intent not being 
 necessary for the forfeiture of baggage. United States v. Two Trunks, United 
 States District Court, Southern District of New York, December, 1910. On 
 information for forfeiture. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 31169; 
 Dec. 31, 1910.) 
 Cattle straying across the border — "Importation" — 
 Grazing cattle straying into the United States across the Canadian border held not 
 to be "imported merchandise" within the meaning of subsection 9, section 28, 
 tariff act of 1909, and therefore not subject to forfeiture. United States v. 
 ESghty-Five Head of Cattle, District Court, District of Montana, May 24, 1913. 
 (T. D. 33739; Sept. 13, 1913.) 
 Concealment of dutiable articles in baggage — 
 Revised Statutes, sections 2799 and 2802, which require any person arriving in 
 the United States to make entry of articles claimed as baggage or tools, and sub- 
 jecting any dutiable article found in his baggage and not so entered to forfeiture, 
 do not apply where the claimant is ignorant of the fact that such articles are on 
 board. United States v. Two Baskets, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 
 
 ^ April 14, 1913. Review of decree of District Court, Southern District of New 
 
 York. Decision affirmed. (T.D. 34010; Dec. 20, 1913.) 
 Concealment of fraudulent importation — 
 A vioUn purchased abroad to be delivered in this country free of duty and other 
 expenses, which subsequently was delivered to the purchaser without the pay- 
 ment of duty (which fact was not discovered by the customs officers until four 
 years after such importation), and which was habitually kept by him in his 
 drawing-room, played on at a public concert and at Sunday afternoon enter- 
 tainments at the owner's residence, at which times it was frequently examined 
 by musicians as an object of interest; held not to have been concealed within 
 the meaning of section 22, act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat. L., 190), providing that 
 
DIGEST OP CtrSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 459 
 
 Forfeituie — Continued. 
 Concealment of fraudulent impoitation — Continued. 
 
 in cases of actions for forfeiture of fraudulently imported merchandise any 
 period of " concealment * * * of the property shall not be reckoned within " 
 the three-year interval subsequent to importation during which suit must be 
 instituted, even though the importer knew or had reason to believe that the 
 importation was fraudulent. United States v. One Stradivarius Violin, United 
 States District Court, Southern District of New York, May 8, 1911. On demur- 
 rer to information for forfeiture. Sustained. (T. D. 31924; Oct. 17, 1911.) 
 Concealment of property — 
 
 Decedent can not be deemed to have concealed an imported violin, brought into 
 the United States without payment of duty in violation of the customs laws, 
 within act June 22, 1874 (18 U. S. Stat. L., 190), which provides that the time of 
 the concealment of property shall not be considered within the limitation fixed 
 for bringing suit to recover a penalty or forfeiture accruing under the customs 
 laws, where decedent exhibited the violin to many guests, including well- 
 known violinists, at musicales. United States v. One Stradivarius Kieserwetter 
 Violin et al., Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, May 13, 1912. In error 
 to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York 
 (197 Fed. Rep., 157). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 32831; May 
 13, 1912.) 
 False invoice — 
 
 Under section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, providing forfeiture of im- 
 ported merchandise " if any * * * persons shall make or attempt to make 
 any entry * * * by means of any fraudulent or false invoice, * * * by 
 means whereof the United States shall be deprived of the lawful duties * * * 
 accruing upon the merchandise," it is not necessary that there shall be com- 
 pleted fraud and actual deprivation of lawful duties. If the act be calculated 
 to deprive the United States of duties, the statute is satisfied. United States v. 
 Sixty-Six Cases of Cheese; United States v. Seventy-Nine Bags of Cheese, 
 United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, February 22, 1908. 
 On information for forfeiture. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 
 28892; Mar. 25, 1908.) 
 
 Where an importer took out a fraudulent invoice but concluded not to use it in 
 making entry of the goods covered by the invoice, but used instead a corrected 
 invoice, the goods were not forfeitable under section 9, customs administrative 
 act of 1890, on the ground of a fraudulent "attempt to enter" imported mer- 
 chandise. (T. D. 30214; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Misdescription of consignee as owner — Original plan to defraud: If a person mak- 
 ing entry is consignee and not owner of the importation, he violates the law if he 
 declares himself the owner, and the importation is forfeitable by reason of such 
 false statement, under section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, relating to 
 entry by me^,ns of any "false or fraudulent * * * paper, or by means of 
 any false statement, written or verbal." Laces and silks were packed and 
 invoiced as preserved fruits, but before entry the invoice was corrected to show 
 the true nature and value of the fabrics. Held that if the original plan under 
 which the goods were shipped and brought into the United States, as .shown by 
 the manner in which they were packed and in which the invoice was made up, 
 showed a purpose on the part of the consignee to smuggle the goods into the 
 United States, the goods were forfeitable, regardless of said correction of the 
 invoice before entry. It is the duty of an importer, upon receiving infor- 
 mation which would bring about a change in the invoice, to take such infor- 
 mation to the collector. The provision in section 1, customs administrative 
 
460 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Forfeiture — Continued . 
 False invoice — Continued. 
 
 act of 1890, tliat the holder of a bill of lading "shall be deemed the con- 
 signee," and that for the purpose of the act imports shall be "deemed and 
 held to be the property of the person to whom the merchandise may be con- 
 signed," does not preclude the Government from going behind the bill of lading 
 to show true ownership for the purpose of determining the forfeitability of the 
 goods. An allegation of a cause of forfeiture on the theory of conspiracy is inade- 
 quate which does not name some one as conspiring with the party charged with 
 the conspiracy. In proceedings for the forfeiture of imported merchandise the 
 burden of proving that the importation was legal rests upon the claimant. Pre- 
 ponderance of evidence arises from the weight and sufficiency of the evidence 
 and not from the number of witnesses. United States v. One Bag of Crushed 
 Wheat, etc.. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 
 October 16, 1908. In rem. On information for forfeiture. Decision in favor of 
 the Government. (T. D. 29450; Dec. 31, 1908.) 
 
 "Attempt to make entry" — Abandonment of illegal intent: An importer swore to 
 a false invoice value before an American consul abroad, but to the invoice pre- 
 sented at the customhouse added a sum sufficient to make the true value. Held 
 that the case was not within section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, pre- 
 scribing the penalty of forfeiture where anyone shall "attempt to make any en- 
 try" of imported merchandise by means of any fraudulent or false invoice. 
 United States v. One Trunk, United States District Court, Southern District 
 of New York, July 19, 1909. In rem. On proceedings for forfeiture of imported 
 goods. Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29926; July 27, 1909.) 
 
 The provision of section 9, customs administrative act, June 10, 1890 (26 Stat., 
 135), as amended by section 28, subsection 9, act August 5, 1909 (36 Stat., 97), 
 that "if any consignor, seller, owner, importer, consignee, agent, or other person 
 or persons shall enter or introduce, or attempt to enter or introduce, into the 
 commerce of the United States any imported merchandise by means of any 
 fraudulent or false invoice, affidavit," etc., such merchandise shall be subject 
 to forfeiture, is penal in character, and must be strictly constnied, and is not 
 applicable to goods until an entry of the same has been actually made or at- 
 tempted. Goods in "general order" are not subject to forfeiture because of the 
 filing of a false and fraudulent invoice by the foreign consignor, where it is not 
 charged that the consignee participated in or knew of the false invoice, and he 
 has made no attempt to enter the goods. Ward, Circuit Judge, dissenting. 
 United States v. Twenty-Five Packages of Panama Hats (Castillo, claimant), 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, March 11, 1912. In error to the Dis- 
 trict Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Decision 
 adverse to the Government. (T. D. 32737; July 23, 1912.) 
 
 A passenger from abroad was not boimd to enter as baggage, within Revised 
 Statutes, section 2799, a trunk containing only merchandise intended for sale, 
 but was bound to indicate its character to the customs officer. Imported goods 
 are not forfeitable, because the consular invoice procured by the importer under- 
 estimated their value, where, before anything was done toward entry, her attor- 
 ney wrote a letter to the Treasury Sohcitor, stating that entry on the invoice was 
 not desired, and correcting the values. United States v. One Trunk (Gannon, 
 claimant). Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 8, 1912. In error 
 to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York 
 (175 Fed. Rep., 1012). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 32747; 
 July 30, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 461 
 
 Forfeiture — Continued. 
 False invoice — Tobacco invoiced as filler and found upon examination to be wrapper — 
 
 Manner of invoicing tobacco: The regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury that 
 tobacco containing the percentage of wrapper shall be invoiced as "mixed" 
 held to be a reasonable regulation and to have all the force of law. 
 
 False entry: Tobacco invoiced as "filler" which was found to contain a substan- 
 tial amount of "wrapper" held to be entered by means of a false invoice. 
 
 Fraudulent intent: It is necessary that there be circumstances indicating fraudu- 
 lent intent to subject merchandise to forfeiture. United States v. Seventy-Five 
 Bales of Tobacco (147 Fed., 127). The circumstance that tobacco invoiced as 
 filler was foimd to contain a considerable percentage of wrapper and was invoiced 
 at less than its true value held to be sufiicient evidence of fraudulent intent to 
 sustain a forfeiture. United States v. Five Bales of Tobacco. Decision in favor 
 of the Government. (T. D. 34891; Nov. 6, 1914.) 
 False statements in entry — • 
 
 Construing section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, providing forfeiture of 
 imported merchandise where the importer "or other person" makes an entry 
 "by means of any fraudulent or false invoices, * * * false statement, 
 * * * false or fraudulent practice or appliance whatsoever, or * * * any 
 willful act or omission," held that a guilty knowledge and intent on the part of 
 the forfeitor is required and that, where a false invoice made out by the foreign 
 shipper was innocently used in making entry of imported goods, the penalties 
 of the section were not incurred, regardless of the nature of the shipper's purpose 
 and of the fact that he had a financial interest in defrauding the Government in 
 the matter. United States v. One Silk Rug, United States Circuit Court of 
 Appeals, Third Circuit, January 30, 1909. No. 39. In error to the District 
 Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (T. D. 28387). 
 Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 28779; Feb. 19, 1908.) 
 
 Section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, providing forfeiture of imported 
 merchandise where the importer "or other person" makes entry "by means of 
 any fraudulent or false invoice, * * * false statement," etc., does not 
 include a 'case where an importer, without fraud or guilty knowledge, makes 
 entry by means of an invoice falsely made out by the foreign shipper. Under 
 section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, providing forfeiture of imported 
 merchandise when entered by means of a false invoice, the falsification must be 
 of such character that if consummated it would deprive the United States of 
 some of the lawful duties accruing upon the merchandise. Merely a fraudulent 
 misstatement which by itself, without further wrongful acts, could not, in the 
 regular course of procedure, produce that result, is not within the section, 
 United States v. Twenty Boxes of Cheese; United States v. Two Hundred and 
 Ten Half Cases of Figs and Fifty-Nine Cases of Figs; United States District 
 Court, Eastern District of New York, April 4, 1908. In revi. On exceptions to 
 informations for forfeiture, see T. D. 28892; United States v. Sixty-Six Cases of 
 Cheese. Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 28956; Apr. 22, 1908.) 
 
 The provision in section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, for forfeiture of mer- 
 chandise entered on a false invoice by the "owner," includes a case where a 
 shipper abroad made a false declaration before the American consul as to goods 
 of which he was the owner both when the declaration was made and when the 
 goods were entered at the customhouse in this country. Before there can be any 
 forfeiture of merchandise under section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, 
 on the ground of making a false declaration before the American consul, criminal 
 intent on the part of the declarant must be shown. In establishing a right of 
 forfeiture under section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, the Government 
 
462 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Firfeiture — Continued.. 
 False statements in entry — Continued. 
 
 has the same hurden aa in criminal cases of proving fraudulent intent beyond 
 a reasonable doubt. Where an information for the forfeiture of imported mer- 
 chandise was amended so as to set forth the pleadings entirely different from 
 those of the original information, held that section 923, Revised Statutes, 
 applies, providing for the publication of notice of seizure and Ubel 14 days 
 before trial, and that where the amendment was not so published a new trial 
 should be granted. United States v. Two Bales of Rugs, etc.. United States 
 District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, June 15, 1908; rehearing 
 August 24, 1908. No. 8. In rem. On information for the forfeiture of imported 
 merchandise. Decision partly in favor of Government. (T. D. 29245; Sept. 
 2, 1908.) 
 
 Where at the time of making a declaration imder section 2799, Revised Statutes, 
 a passenger intentionally misstates the value of merchandise for sale that is 
 imported at the same time, such merchandise is not forfeitable, because no dec- 
 laration of value was required by said section. United States v. One Trunk 
 (Gannon, claimant). United States District Court, Southern District of New 
 York, November 18, 1909. In rem. On proceedings for forfeiture of imported 
 goods. Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30214; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 Fraudulent attempt to import — 
 
 A fraudulent attempt to import or bring in dutiable merchandise is not reached 
 by Revised Statutes, section 3082, which is directed only against actual importa- 
 tion or bringing in. To constitute a fraudulent attempt to enter or introduce 
 merchandise into the commerce of the United States in violation of the customs 
 administrative act, June 10, 1890 (ch. 407, sec. 9, 26 Stat. L., 135), as amended 
 by the tariff act of August 5, 1909 (ch. 6, sec. 28, subsec. 9, 36 Stat. L., 97), it is 
 not necessary that the Government actually be deprived of revenue, but only 
 that the acts of attempt be of a character calculated to work such deprival. The 
 said amendatory subsection 9 appUes to goods attempted to be imported or intro- 
 duced by means of fraudulent devices of concealment, and for a violation thereof 
 by such an attempt a forfeiture of the goods or their value follows. Though mere 
 intent to fraudulently ihtroduce merchandise into the country by devices of 
 concealment is not within said subsection 9, yet where the incoming passenger 
 is actually making use of such devices the merchandise is forfeitable under the 
 statute. 
 
 Dutiable merchandise in baggage — Sufficiency of declaration or entry: The 
 importer of dutiabl e merchandise fraudulently concealed in his baggage does not, 
 by merely remaining passive, fulfill the obUgation of at least putting the customs 
 officers on inquiry as to such merchandise; but the disclosure must be direct or 
 fairly equivalent to a direct disclosure. The fact that an anomalous or an 
 extraordinary procedure is being pursued by the customs officers of getting mer- 
 chandise through the customs line affords no excuse to a passenger who attempts 
 by devices of concealment to introduce merchandise into this country in violar 
 tion of subsection 9, aforesaid. 
 
 Locus pcenitentiss: In such case there is no locus posnitentise extending until 
 the customs officer shall pursue the r^ular or the usual course; but the goods 
 intended to be unlawfully entered or introduced may be seized as forfeited at 
 any time after the concealment is 'discovered when once the passenger has 
 started the goods through the customs line with intent to use the devices of con- 
 cealment to evade duties. 
 
 Time for completing entry: The 15-day limit within which to complete entry 
 of imported merchandise, under section 2785, Revised Statutes, does not apply 
 to the case of a passenger taking his goods with him immediately through the 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 463 
 
 Forfeiture — Continued . 
 
 Fraudulent attempt to import — Continued. 
 
 customs line, so as to afford a loeiis pcenitentise to an importer who haa concealed 
 ■ articles in his baggage with intent to evade duties; nor does Customs Regula- 
 tions, 1908, article 1092, providing that certain goods shall be sold if not entered 
 within one year, give a locus pcenitentise or a privilege of making complete entry 
 at any time within that period. 
 
 Circumstantial evidence: In a forfeiture proceeding under said subsection 9, 
 letters found in a passenger's baggage indicating a plan to smuggle goods tor pur- 
 pose of sale may be sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain a finding against 
 the passenger of a fraudulent attempt to enter or introduce, so as to satisfy that 
 part of the statute requiring the entry or introduction to be an entry or introduc- 
 tion into the commerce of the country, even tiiough the passenger is not himself 
 the addrossor or the addressee or referred to in the correspondence. 
 
 Burden of proof: In case of probable cause for an information in rem tor for- 
 feiture under subsection 9, aforesaid, the burden is placed on the claimant by 
 section 909, Revised Statutes, and the Government is not, in any event, required 
 to prove its case by anything more than a preponderance of the evidence. 
 
 Construction of forfeiture provisions in statutes: Though the statutes authoriz- 
 ing forfeiture for ^'iolations of the law of customs administration are subject to 
 strict construction, they are also to be construed reasonably and so as to give 
 effect, it possible, to every word thereof. United States u. A Lot of Silk Goods 
 -and Other merchandise (Mrs. S. Kataoka, claimant). United States District 
 Court, Territory of Hawaii, October term, 1912, November 15, 1912. In rem. 
 On information tor forfeiture. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 
 33019; Dec. 10, 1912.) 
 
 Holder of bill of lading — Proof of ownership — ^Estoppel — 
 The provision in section 1, customs administrative act of 1890, that the holder of a 
 bill of lading "shall be deemed the consignee," and that for the purpose of the 
 act imports shall be "deemed and held to be the property of the person to whom 
 the merchandise may be consigned," does not preclude the Government from 
 going behind the bill of lading to show true ownership for the purpose of deter- 
 mining the forfeitabiUty of the goods. (T. D. 29450; Dec. 31, 1908.) 
 
 Illegal entry by absentee — Proof of agency — 
 Forfeiture for illegal entry under section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, 
 does not accrae against a party who was in another country when the entry was 
 made where it does not appear that the person making the entry at the custom- 
 house was his agent. Section 2865, Revised Statutes, making it criminal to 
 "smuggle or clandestinely introduce" merchandise into the United States 
 does not include a case where merchandise is fraudulently entered at the 
 customhouse. Section 3, customs administrative act of 1890, providing for the 
 indorsement on invoices of a declaration before a United States consul does 
 not require the invoices to be verified. Where an exporter causes a false and 
 fraudulent invoice to be made out, signed, verified, and left with a consul to be 
 transmitted to the collector of customs at an American port and then causes the 
 merchandise covered by the invoice to be shipped to said port, he is not brought 
 by these acts within the prohibitions of section 2865, Revised Statutes, forbid- 
 ding any person to "make out or pass, or attempt to pass, through the custom- 
 house any false, forged, or fraudulent invoice." United States v. Six Hundred 
 and Forty-Six Half Boxes of Figs and Forty-Nine Half Barrels of Cheese; United 
 States V. Eighty-Two Half Boxes of Cheese, United States District Court, East- 
 em District of New York, June 13, 1908. In rem. On demurrer to information 
 for forfeiture. Decision partly adverse to the Government. (T. D. 29251- 
 Sept. 9, 1908.) 
 
464 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Forfeiture — Continued . 
 Panama hats. (See also Hats, Panama.) 
 
 Panama hats not technically entered, but stored in general order, subject to forfei- 
 ture at end of one year for fraud of foreign consignor. The arrival at port of 
 entry of goods fraudulently undervalued by foreign consignor is an attempt to 
 introduce them into the commerce of the United States. Supreme Court of the 
 United States, No. 2-57, October term, 1913, United States t). Twenty-Five 
 Packages of Panama Hats, Maximo Castillo. On writ of certiorari to the United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (T. D. 34029; Dec. 29, 
 1913.) 
 Bemission of penalty — Conditions precedent — 
 
 No application for remission of the penalty of forfeiture can be instituted under 
 section 17, act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 189), until a forfeiture has been de- 
 clared; but one is not debarred from making such application by reason of fail- 
 ure to appear as claimant in the forfeiture proceedings, though charged with due 
 notice of such proceedings. United States v. One Hundred and Kfty and One- 
 Twelfth Dozen Long Gloves, United States District Court, Eastern District of 
 New York, April 5, 1909. On petition for remission of penalty. Decision 
 adverse to the Government. (T. D. 29728; May 5, 1909.) 
 Smoking opium — 
 
 Smoking opium seized for violation of the act of February 9, 1909, may be summa- 
 rily forfeited and destroyed by collectors of customs without judicial proceed- 
 ings. (Op. Atty. Gen., Dec. 21, 1912.) (T. D. 33069; Jan. 7, 1913.) 
 Smuggling — ^Previous acquittal— 
 
 Where the defendants in forfeiture proceedings have been previously acquitted of 
 the criminal offense of smuggling, the judgment of acquittal may be interposed 
 in bar of a Ubel of information based upon practically the same offense. United 
 States u. Rosenthal, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 
 November 2, 1909. No. 1838. In error to the District Court of the United 
 States for the Western District of Texas (174 Fed. Rep., 652). Decision adverse 
 to the Government. (T. D. 30391; Mar. 1, 1910.) 
 Waiver — Estoppel — Entry after forfeiture accrues — 
 
 After a cause of forfeiture had accrued under section 2802, Revised Statutes, for 
 failure of a person from abroad to mention dutiable articles of baggage, but before 
 seizure had been made, the owner of the articles was permitted to make regular 
 entry and pay proper duties. Held that such permission did not amount to a 
 waiver of the Government's right of forfeiture nor estop the assertion of such 
 right. United States v. One Purple Cloth Costume, etc.. United States District 
 Court, Southern District of New York, December 9, 1907. On information for 
 forfeiture of imported goods. Motion to set aside verdict and for new trial. 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 28777; Feb. 19, 1908.) 
 Writ of error — Jurisdiction district court — 
 
 Section 5, judiciary act of 1891 (26 Stat., 826-7), provides that writs of error may 
 be taken directly to the Supreme Court in any case in a district court "in which 
 the jurisdiction of the court is in issue." fleWthatthis refers to the jurisdiction 
 of district courts as a class and that a customs forfeiture case concededly within 
 the jurisdiction of district courts may not thus be carried to the Supreme Court 
 on the mere question of whether the case was not within the territorial jurisdic- 
 tion of a court in another district. United States v. Larkin, United States 
 Supreme Court, February 24, 1908. No. 356. In error to the District Court of 
 the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. See 153 Federal Reporter, 
 113 (T. D. 28328). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 28857; Mar. 18, 
 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 465 
 
 Foigings. 
 
 Machined — 
 Steel crank axles, piston rods, crank shafts, etc., produced by a forging process 
 and subsequently more or less manipulated by machining, but not wholly fin- 
 ished or ready for use, are dutiable as "forgings". under paragraph 127, tariff 
 act of 1897, and not as manufactured articles composed of steel under paragraph 
 193. Saltonstall v. Wiebusch (156 U. S., 601) cited. (T. D. 29326— G. A. 6822; 
 Oct. 30, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The provision in paragraph 127, tariff act of 1897, for forguigs of 
 "whatever degree or stage of manufacture," refers only to the different stages of 
 the forging process, not extending beyond completion as a forging; and forms 
 that after being subjected to the final forging processes are further advanced into 
 completed articles practically ready for use, such as axles, piston rods, coimect- 
 ing rods, etc., are dutiable as manufactured metal under paragraph 193, rather 
 than under the provision quoted. The provision for steel shapes in paragraph 
 135, tariff act of 1897, does not include forgings that have been advanced to the 
 condition of practically completed articles. United States v. Prosser; Prosser 
 V. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 January 27, 1910. Suits 5383 and 5389. Appeals by United States and by the 
 importers from the decision of the Board of General Appraisers, G.A. 6822 (T. D. 
 29326). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30340; Feb. 8, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Partly or fully machined articles. — Steel articles that have been 
 either fully machined or that are rough in part and fully machined in part, are 
 something more than forgings and the term "forgings" can not be taken prop- 
 erly to apply here; they are articles of steel partly or wholly manufactured and 
 were dutiable as such under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897. 
 
 Piston rods of steel. — Steel piston rods which have been rough machined and 
 not further advanced than close forged remain forgings of steel and were duti- 
 able as forgings of steel under paragraph 127, tariff act of 1897. Prosser v. 
 United States (No. 488), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importer from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York 
 (177 Fed. Rep., 569; T. D. 30340). Decision affirmed in part; reversed in part. 
 (T. D. 31551; Apr. 24, 1911.) 
 
 Metal hoes — 
 Grinding hoes rough forged from steel bars for the purpose of removing the burr 
 from the edges is not an advancement "in condition by any process or operation 
 subsequent to the forging process," within the meaning of paragraph 123, tariff 
 act of 1909, but is incidental to the forging. Such hoes are dutiable under said 
 paragraph 123 as "forgings" rather than as manufactures of metal under para- 
 graph 199 of said act. (T. D. 31740— G. A. 7243; July 6, 1911.) 
 Comparing paragraph 127, tariff act of 1897, with paragraph 123, tariff act of 1909, 
 and especially taking into view what would appear to be a manifest legislative 
 intention with respect to paragraph 123, as evidenced by its history, a forging is 
 advanced in condition when the burr on -the edge of the rough-forged article is 
 removed by passing it over a grindstone, and a hoe rough forged, but so manipu- 
 lated, is dutiable under paragraph 123. United States v. Anderson & Co. (No. 
 727), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7243 (T. D. 31740). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 32080; Nov. 28, 1911.) 
 
 Unfinished scissors blades not. (See Scissors blades, unfinished.) 
 
 Wortles— Forgings— ' ' Plates "—" Bars "— 
 Wortles, which are small pieces of steel intended for wire drawing, being about 6 
 inches long, 2 inches thick, and 2.5 inches high, with several holes punched 
 45633°— 17 30 
 
466 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Forgings— Continued ; 
 Wortles— Forgings— ' ' Plates "— " Bars ' '—Continued . 
 
 through them, are not "plates" or "bars" within the meaning of paragraph 135, 
 tariff act of 1897, but, ha-ving been made entirely by the forging process, are 
 dutiable as "forgiugs" under paragraph 127. (T. D. 29930— G. A. 6925; July 
 31, 1909.) 
 
 Forged rifle barrels, rough bored. (See Rifle barrels, rough-bored.) 
 
 Forks, with handles. 
 One-piece forks — 
 The provision in paragraph 154, tariff act of 1909, for "knives, forks, and steels, 
 finished or imfinished; if imported with handles of * * * other metal than 
 iron or steel, ' ' is not to be limited to such finished articles as have handles added 
 thereto, but includes as well a fork in which the handle and tines are made of one 
 piece. (T. D. 30488— G. A. 7002; Apr. 4, 1910.) 
 
 Fountain pens. 
 Parts of — 
 Fountain pens without the pen points are not "penholders" either commercially 
 or according to the common definition of that term, and are therefore not classi- 
 ble as such under paragraph 450, tariff act of 1897. They are projferly dutiable 
 at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 450 of the said act as manufactures of 
 hard rubber. Schrader v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York, June 30, 1910. Suit 5178. Appeal by importer from 
 decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 17702 (T. D. 28626). 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30805; July 19, 1910.) 
 Barrel not a penholder: There is no question of conunercial designation, and 
 "penholder" as employed in the statute can not reasonably be held to in.- 
 clude the rubber fountain-pen barrels of the importation. The language of 
 paragraph 187, tariff act of 1909, clearly contemplates that fountain pens for 
 tariff purposes should be distinguished as they are in fact and in common under- 
 standing from the ordinary penholder, and should be subject to a different rate 
 of duty. The importations were dutiable as manufactures of hard rubber under 
 paragraphs 450, tariff act of 1897, and 464, tariff act of 1909, respectively. 
 Schrader & Ehlers v. United States (Nos. 686 and 718), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 25431 (T.D. 31543). Decision afBrmed. (T. D. 32169; 
 Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 Manufacturers of rubber: The importation in controversy consisted of certain 
 assembled parts of the fountain pen, known as the feed barrel, feed bar, neck, 
 and cap. The legislative history of paragraph 187, tariff act of 1909, shows that 
 the several parts of fountain pens are to be distinguished on assessment from 
 the fountain pens themselves; that a fountain pen is an ink-holding writing 
 instrument with a pen and complete for use. The goods here were not foun- 
 tain pens and were properly assessed imder paragraph 464, tariff act of 1909. 
 Schrader & Ehlers i;. United States (No. 1068), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 30437 (T. D. 32926). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33373; Apr. 
 22, 1913.) 
 
 Fox skins, pointed, dressed and dyed. (See Fur.) 
 
 Frames, beaded, inclosing reUgions pictures. (See Beaded articles.) 
 
 Frames for mesh bags. 
 
 Mesh-bag frames, perforated, wholly or in chief value of metal, dutiable at 60 per 
 cent ad valorem imder paragraph 356, tariff act of 1913. Paragraph 356 con- 
 ptrued. (T. D. 35285; Apr. 3, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 467 
 
 Frames for pictures. 
 
 Where pictures are admitted free of duty under bond for exhibition under para- 
 graph 715, tariff act of August 5, 1909, the frames should also be passed free of 
 duty. (T. D. 33728; Sept. 8, 1913.) 
 Gilded wooden frames and paintings — 
 Where paintings have been admitted free of duty, the frames on these, when 
 framed, have, by a long course of practice in the customs, recognized in law, 
 been dutiable; and where paintings are dutiable and are imported in frames, 
 these frames are not integral parts of the pictures and can not be deemed con- 
 tainers, either in themselves or by the rule ejusdem generis. The pictures and 
 the frames are separable for tariff purposes. United States v. Hensel (98 Fed., 
 418). Kronfeld, Saunders & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1246), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 33227 (T. D. 33668). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 34399; Apr. 14, 1914.) 
 France. 
 
 Beclprocal commercial agreement, termination of. (T. D. 29945; Aug. 10, 1909.) 
 Franking of official maU matter. (T. D. 33328; Apr. 4, 1913.) 
 Fraud. (See also Forfeiture.) 
 
 Suppression of documents — ^Perjury. 
 It is only necessary that an importer should have knowledge of some document 
 which, if known, would have led the United States to fix customs duties higher 
 than if the entry went through at the values fixed in the consular invoice to 
 make him guilty of perjury in making an affidavit that nothing had been to 
 his knowledge concealed or suppressed whereby the United States might be 
 defrauded. It is not necessary that the suppression be in the entry or invoice, 
 or that it be of a document which would, in the usual course, come to the 
 authorities. 
 
 Materiality of false statement: A statement as to the absence of any suppressed 
 facts by which the United States might be defrauded is material within a statute 
 making criminal any false statement in a customs declaration as to any matter 
 material thereto. Herman A. Salen was indicted for perjury. On motions to 
 quash the indictment. United States v. Salen, District Court, Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York, June 30, 1914. July 9, 1914. Motion denied. (T. D. 34890; 
 Nov. 6, 1914.) 
 Warehoused goods — 
 Fraudulent concealment: Where, with intent to evade the law, merchandise in 
 bond was withdrawn from warehouse under the false pretense that it was to be 
 exported, it was ' ' fraudulently ' ' withdrawn , within the meaning of section 2987, 
 Revised Statutes, relating to warehoused merchandise fraudulently concealed in 
 or removed from any public or private warehouse. 
 
 Fraudulent concealment after removal: Section 2987, Revised Statutes, mak- 
 ing it a criminal offense for warehoused merchandise to be fraudulently concealed 
 in or removed from the warehouse, does not create as a crime the concealing of 
 merchandise after its removal from the warehouse. 
 
 Truck as a "warehouse": A truck is not a "warehouse" within the meaning 
 of section 2987, Revised Statutes, making it a criminal offense for merchandise to 
 be fraudulently concealed in or removed from a bonded "warehouse." 
 
 Fraudulent concealment in another jurisdiction: Where merchandise was 
 fraudulently removed from a warehouse in one judicial district and fraudulently 
 concealed in another district, the offense was not indictable in the latter juris- 
 diction, under section 2987, Revised Statutes, because only concealment in a 
 warehouse, and not such as takes place after removal, is contemplated by that 
 section. 
 
468 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fraud— Contimied . 
 Warehoused goods — Continued. 
 
 Withdrawal for export — Duties when due — Entry into commerce of country: 
 On dutiable merchandise withdrawu from bonded warehouse for exportation 
 duties become due upon any act by which the merchandise is diverted from the 
 process of exportation and brought into the commerce of the country, regardless 
 of whether this act is surreptitious or honest. 
 
 "Inspection of proper officers" — Customs regulations as showing depart- 
 mental construction: Section 2979, Eevised Statutes, permits merchandise in 
 warehouse to be reexported without payment of duty ' ' under the inspection of 
 the proper officers. ' ' As the expression quoted is a vague one which permits the 
 interpretation that the goods shall be under constant surveillance qf such officers 
 from the time Ihey leave the warehouse until they reach the ship, and as that 
 interpretation has been put upon it by the Treasury Department in the Customs 
 Regulations, held that such interpretation is controlling on the courts, because 
 as a construction by the executive it is entitled to much weight in a doubtful 
 case, and under section 2989, Revised Statutes, the Regulations have the force of 
 law. 
 
 Withdrawal for export — Quasi officers — Licensed truckmen: As to the pro- 
 vision in section 2979, permitting warehoiued goods to be withdrawn for export 
 under the inspection of "proper officers," ftcJd, asthe Secretary of the Treasury, 
 by articles 834, 838, 841, and 842, Customs Regulations, 1908, provides a system 
 of licensed truckmen to whom a limited custody of the goods is intrusted for the 
 purpose only of transfer from warehouse to hold, that such custody should be 
 regarded as quasi official. 
 
 Diversion from inspection of officers on withdrawal for export: Where mer- 
 chandise has been withdrawn from warehouse for exportation, subject to the 
 "inspection of the proper officers," as provided in section 2979, Eevised Stat- 
 utes — such officers being truckmen licensed under customs regulations — if the 
 owners of the merchandise or their truckmen disregard the Umitations put upon 
 them, thus introducing the goods into unrestricted commerce, they have de- 
 prived the United States of duties, within the meaning of section 9, customs 
 administrative act of 1890. 
 
 Temporary fraudulent concealment: Where merchandise has been withdrawn 
 from bonded warehouse for free export within one year, as permitted by section 
 2989, Revised Statutes, "under the inspection of proper officers," by persons 
 who conspire to interrupt such inspection, so that the merchandise is introduced 
 into the commerce of the country without the payment of duty, this constitutes 
 an attempt to deprive the United States of duties within the meaning of section 
 9, customs administrative act of 1890. It is immaterial that the conspirators 
 may repent and set the goods again in train of exportation before the year for 
 export has expired. 
 
 Customs regulations — Violation as a penal offense: As to the contention that 
 infringement of a customs regulation can not be the basis of a criminal prosecu- 
 tion, held that the distinction is whether Congress in a statute makes penal the 
 violation of the regulations, or whether such a provision can be found only in the 
 regulation itself. United States v. Ehrgott (2 cases). United States Circuit 
 Coiirt, Southern District of New York, November 1, 1910. On demurrers to 
 indictments for violations of customs-revenue laws. (Sees. 2979, 2987, and 
 2989, Rev. Stats.; and sec. 9, customs administrative act.) (T. D. 31170; 
 Dec. 31, 1910.) 
 Free entry. 
 Aeroplanes, balloons, etc. (See Aeroplanes, balloons, etc.) 
 Animals for breeding purposes. (See Animals.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 469 
 
 Free entry — Continued. 
 Aiticles for institutions. (See also Affidavits. 
 Purdiasing agent may sign affidavit and certificate of delivery as executive officer 
 of institution under articles 709 and 710, Customs Regulations, 1908. (T. D. 
 33909; Nov. 24, 1913.) 
 Regulations governing the free entry of articles for institutions under paragraphs 
 427, 573, and 611 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 34980; Dec. 10, 1914.) 
 Paragi-aph 5 of T. D. 34980 of December 10, 1914, amended. (T. D. 35310; Apr. 
 10, 1915.) 
 Articles under six months' bond — ■ 
 
 Regulations for the free entry of articles under six months' bond, in accordance 
 with the provisions of paragraphs 398, 582, and 653 of Section I and subsection 4, 
 Paragraph J, of Section IV, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 33806; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 Artistic antiquities. See Antiquities; and Works of art.) 
 Automobiles. (See Automobiles.) 
 Books, etc. (See Books.) 
 Cigars, cigarettes, and whisky — 
 Privilege of free entry of cigars, cigarettes, and spirits, wines, or other beverages, 
 referred to in article 618, Customs Regulations of 1908, not to be extended to per- 
 sons frequently crossing into Canada. (T. D. 33822; Oct. 30, 1913.) 
 Domestic products — 
 Collectors authorized to waive compliance with the provisions of articles 570 to 572 
 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 where the domestic products returned are 
 provided for in the free list, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34409; Apr. 24, 1914.) 
 Etchings and engravings. (See Engravings and etchings.) 
 Household effects. (See Effects, household.) 
 Material for shipbuilding under Panama Canal act. (See Vessels.) 
 Moving-picture films. (See Films.) 
 
 Philosophical and scientific apparatus. (See Philosophical and scientific apparatus.) 
 Picture frames. (See Frames for pictures.) 
 Products of American fisheries. (T. D. 31223; circular No. 7; Jan. 17, 1911.) 
 
 (T. D. 32138; circular No. 4; Jan. 10, 1912.) 
 Publications. (See Publications.) 
 Begalia. (See Regalia.) 
 Begulations. (See Regulations.) 
 Samples. (See Samples.) 
 Stained-glass windows. (See Windows.) 
 Statuary. (See Statuary.) 
 Theatrical effects. (See Effects, theatrical.) 
 
 Works of art and artistic antiquities under tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31263; circular 
 No. 9; Feb. 1, 1911.) (See also Works of art.) 
 Free transportation prohibited. 
 
 Inspectors and other customs officers prohibited from accepting free transportation 
 except when traveling on official business in the interests of the transportation 
 company or for the purpose of examining baggage and similar routine duties. 
 (T. D. 33140; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 Free zone of Hamburg. (See Duty, countervailing.) 
 Freight charges. 
 Per se value — 
 It is the function of the appraiser to appraise the merchandise at its market value 
 in the principal markets of the country from whence it is imported. All ex- 
 penses incident to getting the merchandise to that point, therefore, become a 
 part of the market value. A finding by the appraiser as to market value, the 
 merchandise being consulated at Amsterdam, is equivalent to finding that that 
 is one of the principal markets of the country of exportation. Milbank, Leaman 
 
470 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Freight charges — Continued. 
 Per se value — Continued. 
 
 & Co.'s case, G. A. 7506 (T. D. 33832), and Grinnell v. Lawrence (1 Blatch., 
 346; 11 Fed. Cases, 54, No. 5831). (T. D. 35596— G. A. 7759; July 16, 1915.) 
 Fresh caviar. (See Fish.) 
 Fresh mackerel. (See Fish.) 
 
 Friezes, lithographically printed. (See Paper, hangings.) 
 Fringes in chief value of beads. (See Beaded fringes.) 
 Frostings. 
 Streuperlen — • 
 So-called streuperlen, consisting of diminutive globules of glass and imitating seed 
 pearls, are found to be commercially known as "frostings" and held dutiable 
 as such under paragraph 58, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29564— G. A. 6869; Feb. 
 23, 1909.) 
 Frozen eggs. (See Eggs.) 
 Frozen wheat. (See Wheat.) 
 Fruit in alcohol. 
 
 The rate of $1.75 per proof gallon which is provided in the reciprocal commercial 
 agreement with Germany (31 Stat., 1978; T. D. 22353) on "spirits manufactured 
 or distilled, ' ' supersedes, with regard to fruit in spirits, imported from Germany, 
 the duty of $2.50 per proof gallon "on the alcohol contained therein in excess of 
 ten per centum," provided in paragraph 263, tariff act of 1897. Paragraph 263, 
 tariff act of 1897, providing with respect to fruit in spirits a duty "on the alcohol 
 contained therein in excess of ten per centum," was intended to include all 
 alcohol in excess of 10 per cent, whether absorbed by the fruit or supernatant. 
 Mihalovitch v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 Ohio, March 23, 1908. No. 5915 (suit 1617). Appeal by importer from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 4144 (T. D. 25894). Decision 
 adverse to Government. (T. D. 28922; Apr. 8, 1908.) 
 Fruit. 
 Allowance for decay in fruit imported in bulk. (See also Fruit, rotten.) 
 Regulations published in T. D. 30023, circular No. 50, of October 4, 1909, to be fol- 
 lowed in the case of fruit imported in bulk, except as to method of fixing per- 
 centage of damaged fruit, the actual number of pineapples or other fruit 
 delivered to importer to be counted, the remainder of cargo consisting of tops 
 and decayed matter to be treated as nonimportation. (T. D. 30704; June 18, 
 1910.) 
 Allowance on account of shortage or nonimportation caused by decay, destruction, 
 or injury to lemons imported in packages. T. D. 30023 of October 4, 1909, 
 amended. (T. D. 31699; June 17, 1911.) 
 Begulations governing the allowance for decay under Paragraph X of section 3, 
 tariff act of 1913, in lemons, etc., and the gauging thereof. T. D. 31699 of June 
 17, 1911, modified. (T. D. 34241; Mar. 9, 1914.) 
 T. D. 34241 of March 9, 1914, amended to permit the filing of allowance claims for 
 decay in fruit and other perishable articles within 96 hours after arrival of 
 importing vessel. Examination to determine the amount of decay to be made 
 by weigher or ganger of surveyor's office. T. D. 30023 amended. (T. D. 34737; 
 Aug. 28, 1914.) 
 Artificial — , 
 Electric bulbs, fruit shaped and colored, not classifiable as. (See Electric bulbs.) 
 Pincushions: Pincushions made to imitate natural fruit, and which are so skill- 
 fully made, both in size, sha,pe, and color, that they might be readily taken for 
 natural fruit, are properly dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under 
 the provision in paragraph 347, tariff act of 1913, for "artificial and ornamental 
 fruits." G. A. 4784 (T. D. 22559), G. A. 4973 (T. D. 23197), G. A. 5894 (T. D. 
 25968), and United States v. Dieckerhoft (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., 384; T. D. 33796) 
 cited. (T. D. 35333— G. A. 7716; Apr. 23, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 471 
 
 Fruit— Continued . 
 Bar-le-duo — 
 
 Commercial designation, proof of: The merchandise consists of the pulp and juice 
 of the currant, preserved, presumably, in sirup or molasses. This is not a 
 jelly in fact, and, while the board found it to be commercially known as jelly, 
 there was no proof of commercial designation. The collector's assessment, at 1 
 cent per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem, as fruit preserved, under paragraph 
 274, act of 1909, in the absence from the record of evidence to controvert it, must 
 be sustained. United States v. Oberle (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 527; T. D. 31545). 
 United States v. Sheldon & Co. et al. (No. 1372), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 34779 (T. D. 34186). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34555; 
 June 1, 1914.) 
 
 Berries in simp — ■ 
 Fruits and berries that are put up in hermetically sealed containers in sirup com- 
 posed of invert sugar, cane sugar, glucose, dextrose, and levulose in amounts 
 varying from 43.39 to 67.56 per centum of the sirup, constitute fruits preserved 
 in sugar and were dutiable under paragraph 263, tariff act of 1897. Austin v. 
 United States (No. 160), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importer from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 30099). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31322; Feb. 13,' 1911.) 
 
 Berry jams — 
 Berry jams are dutiable as sweetmeats or fruits preserved under paragraph 263, 
 tariff act of 1897, rather than as jelly under the same paragraph or as edible fruits 
 under paragraph 262. Bogle v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, November 13, 1909. Suit 5070. Appeal by 
 importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6668 (T. D. 28428). 
 Board affirmed. (T. D. 30167; Dec. 7, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Marmalade and berry jam are not dutiable as jellies, but as sweet- 
 me'ats, under paragraph 263, tariff act of 1897. A marked difierence exists 
 between marmalade and jelly, in that the former is made by boiling the fruit 
 itself, while the latter is made from the juice of the fruit. Bogle & Scott and 
 John Duncan's Sons v. United States (No. 20), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals, January 5, 1911. Appeal by the importers from decision of the United 
 States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 30167; 175 
 Fed. Rep., 889; T. D. 28428). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31188; Jan. 5, 1911.) 
 
 Certificates of Board of health — 
 T. D. 31699, of June 17, 1911, amended, by extending to 15 days the time for filing 
 certificates of board of health showing condemnation, extended. (T. D. 32511; 
 May 16, 1912.) 
 
 Cherries in brine — 
 Cherries, not pitted or stemmed or subjected to any process prior to importation 
 other than treatment with sulphur fumes, are free of duty under paragraph 559 
 of the tariff act if in brine, and dutiable at 25 cents per bushel under paragraph 
 262 if not in brine. (T. D. 28925; Apr. 9, 1908.) 
 A saline solution used in packing friiit is used as a preservative simply and fruit 
 of the kind is "in brine" in the language of paragraph 559, tariff act of 1909. 
 Without undertaking to fix what percentage of salt in a solution will make that 
 solution brine, the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that the fruit of this 
 importation was "in brine." Mihalovitch, Fletcher & Co. ■;;. United States 
 (No. 1060), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30941 (T. D. 33018). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33372; Apr. 22, 1913.) 
 
472 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fruit — Continued . 
 Cherries in maraschino — 
 Fruit in maraschino is dutiable under paragraph 262, tariS act of 1897, as "edible 
 friiits * * * prepared in any manner, " rather than under paragraph 263 as 
 "friiits preserved in * * * spiritsorin their own juices." Reiss d. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 23, 
 1908. Suit 4753. Appeal from decision of Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstracts 13755 and 13797 (T. D. 27785). Board reversed. (T. D. 
 29102; June 24, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Fruit (cherrfes) was put up in a light sirup flavored by maras- 
 chino, in bottles hermetically sealed, the sirup containing an insignificant quan- 
 tity of alcohol and no juice, and the sealing and not the sirup being the preserv- 
 ative. Held that it was dutiable imder paragraph 262, tariff act of 1897, as 
 "edible fruits * * * prepared in any manner, " rather than under pai-agraph 
 263 as "fruits preserved in sugar, * * * spirits, or in their own juices." 
 Even if the provision in paragraph 263, tariff act of 1897, for fruit preserved in 
 "sugar" be construed to include sirup. Congress contemplated sugar which 
 causes, or materially contributes, to the preservation of the fruit, which is found 
 not to be the case as to fruit in maraschino. United States v- Reiss, United 
 States Circuit Court, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. No. 131 (suit 4753). 
 Appeal from Circuit Court of United States for Southern District of New York 
 (163 Fed. Rep., 65; T. D. 29102). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 
 29507; Jan. 27, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed: ) Fruit (cherries) was put up in alight sirup flavored by maraschino, 
 in bottles hermetically sealed, the sirup containing an insignificant quantity of 
 alcohol and no juice, and the sealing and not the sirup being the preservative. 
 Held that it was dutiable under paragraph 262, tariff act of 1897, as "edible fruits 
 * * * prepared in any manner, " rather than under paragraph 263 as "fruits 
 preserved in sugar, * * * spirits, or in their own juices." United States i;. 
 Reiss, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. 
 No. 131 (suit 4753). Appeal by United States from the Circuit Court of the 
 United States for the Southern District of New York (163 Fed. Rep., 65; T. D. 
 29102) reversing Abstracts 13755 and 13797 (T. D. 27785). Decision adverse 
 to the Government. (T. D. 29507; Jan. 27, 1909.) Acquiesced in February 6, 
 1909 (T. D. 29536). ^- 
 
 So-called maraschino cherries exported from France, hermetically sealed in bottles 
 or cans, and containing substantial quantities of spirits added prior to exporta- 
 tion and in sufficient percentages to justify the French Government in assessing 
 internal revenue on such alcohol, and contributing to preserve the same from 
 decay or fermentation for a reasonable time, are dutiable under paragraph 263, 
 tariff act of 1897, as fruits preserved in spirits. Reiss v. United States (135 Fed. 
 Rep., 248; T. D. 25789; affirmed in 142 id., 1039; T. D. 27119). The case of 
 United States v. Reiss, C. C. A. (166 Fed. Rep., 746; T. D. 29507), distinguished. 
 (T. D. 30222— G. A. 6958; Dec.ll, 1909.) 
 
 ' (Appealed:) There is an acknowledged difficulty in determining the precise 
 percentage of alcohol that is necessary to constitute a preservative of cherries in 
 maraschino, when these are packed in hermetically sealed bottles or tins; but 
 where alcohol in amounts from 3.10 per cent to 5.45 per cent appears to have 
 been used, and the evidence showing that alcohol in such proportions retards 
 fermentation when the fruit is exposed to air, it is held this amount serves a pur- 
 pose in preserving the fruit for use, the fruit was so preserved in spirits, and was 
 dutiable under paragraph 263, tajiff act of 1897. United States v. Reiss (166 
 Fed. Rep., 746) distinguished. GodiUot v. United States (No. 185); Reiss v. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 473 
 
 Frui t-^Con tinued . 
 Cherries in maraschino — Oonbinued. 
 
 United States (No. 186), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from decision of the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 30222). 
 Transferred fi-om United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31275; Feb. 1, 1911.) 
 Cherries and figs in maiaschino — 
 
 The merchandise in this case was assessed as fruit preserved or packed in sugar, or 
 as having sugar added thereto. The correctness of the assessment is not chal- 
 lenged. The change appearing in the language of paragraph 274, tariff act of 
 1909, relating to fruits preserved or packed, would seem clearly to require the 
 application of the rate of 1 cent per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem under that 
 paragraph. United States v. Reiss & Brady (166 Fed. Rep., 746) distinguished. 
 United States v. Reiss & Brady (No. 836), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 27240 (T. D. 32046). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32540; 
 May 8, 1912.) 
 Cherries, ripe — 
 
 The provision in paragraph 274, tariff act of 1909, for cherries, green or ripe, and 
 for edible fruits, dried, is more specific than the free-entry provision for all fruits, 
 green, ripe, or dried. The evidence, moreover, shows the importation to be 
 ripe cherries, but clearly not dried, and they are accordingly dutiable under the 
 paragraph named as ripe chenies. Levy & Levis Co. v. United States (No. 
 1170), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31849 (T. D. 33304). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 34130; Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 Cherries, sulphured, in water — 
 
 Paragraph 571, tariff act of 1909, admitted "fruits in brine'' free of duty, but in 
 this case the cherries would seem to have been actually preserved by a sulphur 
 treatment and that the infusion of salt in the contaimng water was negligible. 
 They were properly assessed under paragraph 274 of the act. Delapenha & Co. 
 V. United States (No. 1478), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 36645 (T. D. 34810). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35252; Mar. 18, 1915.) 
 Chutney — 
 
 Chutney, consisting of various fruits preserved with sugar and spices, is dutiable 
 under paragraph 263, tariff act of 1897, relating to fruits preserved in sugar, 
 spirits, etc., and not under paragraph 262, relating to "edible fruits, * * * 
 prepared." Imports are not to be excluded from the provision for "fruits pre- 
 served," in paragraph 263, tariff act of 1897, because prepared in a form in which 
 they have a different commercial designation, as chutney. Park v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 
 5, 1908. Suit 5263. Appeal from decision by Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 18422 (T. D. 28833). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29349; Nov. 
 18, 1908.) 
 
 It appearing from the evidence that chutney is a fruit, and as imported, preserved 
 in sugar, chutney was dutiable under paragraph 263, tariff act of 1897, and this 
 regardless of whether it may or may not have been included within paragraph 
 262 of that act. To fix and limit a phrase to a simple commercial meaning it is 
 necessary to show not alone that this phrase is improperly employed in describ- 
 ing a given commodity, but at the same time to show it is employed definitely 
 and uniformly in the United States to describe another and different commodity. 
 The words "fruits preserved in sugar, molasses, spirits, or in their own juices," 
 
474 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fruit— Continued . 
 Chutney — Continued. 
 
 occurring in paragraph 263, were not there employed in a commercial or trade 
 Bense, but in the sense attaching to these words in common, ordinary usage. 
 Acker, MerraU & Condit Co. v. United States (No. 159), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from United States Circuit Court 
 for Southern District of New York, Abstract 22211 (T. D. 30142). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 31431; Mar. 20, 1911.) 
 Condemned — 
 
 Limitations of time run from condemnation and not from destruction of the goods: 
 Where fruit was condemned by the board of health on August 4, 1910, and was 
 subsequently destroyed on August 12, 1910, the Umitations of time fixed by sub- 
 section 22 of section 28 of the act of 1909 ran from the date of condemnation and 
 not from the date of destruction. The seizure of the fruit cut off the right of the 
 importers to take possession of or assert any control over the goods as their own. 
 (T. D. 32270— G. A. 7326; Feb. 13, 1912.) 
 
 Subsection 22 of section 28, customs administrative law: The importation was of 
 dates and a part of the cargo was condemned and destroyed at the port of entry. 
 Eegardless of the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury under 
 this subsection and putting aside the question of the validity or of the appUca^ 
 tion here of these regulations, the importer is without remedy for the reason there 
 was a failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of the statute itself. 
 Lauricella et al. v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33482), infra. 
 Houlder v. United States (No. 1037), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 29911 (T. D. 32842). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33480; May 23, 1913.) 
 
 Kegulation of Secretary of Treasury held void : The regulation of the Secretary in 
 T. D. 31699, requiring that importers shall file within five days after condemna- 
 tion the certificate of the board of health, is without authority of law and is void . 
 The statute itself would seem to prescribe the mode of proof and the time within 
 which it is to be filed. Lauricella v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 
 834S2). (T. D. 33708— G. A. 7491; Aug. 22, 1913.) 
 Crushed prunes — 
 
 Commercial designation: The issue of a commercial designation is one of fact, the . 
 importer in this ease having the burden of proof. The board found on a con- 
 sideration of the evidence that crushed prunes were not shown to be commercially 
 known as "jelly." This finding is correct. In the absence of a commercial 
 designation the merchandise falls aptly within the designation "fruit preserved 
 in own juices" and dutiable as such "under paragraph 263, tariff act of 1897, and 
 paragraph 274, tariff act of 1909. Meyer & Lange et al. v. United States (No. 
 819), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27092 (T. D. 32006). De- 
 cision affirmed. (T. D. 32565; May 17, 1912.) 
 Japanese umezuke or umeboshi — 
 
 A Japanese commodity known as umezuke, umeboshi, or akaumezuke, which is a 
 plum-Uke fruit preserved in its own juice and salt, dutiable under paragraph 
 274, tariff act of 1909, as a fruit preserved or packed in its own juice, and not free 
 of duty as fruits ia brine under paragraph 571. G. A. 6237 (T. D. 26931) fol- 
 lowed and Abstract 25511 (T. D. 31568) and Abstract 26780 (T. D. 31912) distin- 
 guished. (T. D. 32979— G. A. 7406; Nov. 27, 1912.) 
 
 The importation in controversy consisted of Japanese fruits resembling plums, 
 imported in kits. The evidence does not warrant the conclusion that the mer- 
 chandise is fruit packed in its own juice as classified by the collector. It does 
 justify the contention of the importers that the umeboshi imported should be 
 classified as fruits in brine. They were entitled to free entry under the tariff 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 475 
 
 Fruit— Continued. 
 
 Japanese umezuke or umeboslii — Continued. 
 
 act of 1909. Sakai et al. v. United States (No. 1264), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 33522 (T. D. 33732). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 34196; Feb. 10, 1914.) 
 Pickles: Umeboshi, umezuke, or akaumezuke, which consists of the plum-like 
 fruit of the ume tree, prepared for consumption as a relish by pickling in a brine 
 of salt and water, is dutiable under the provision for "pickles " in paragraph 253, 
 tariff act of 1909, or paragraph 201, act of 1913, and is not free of duty as fruits in 
 brine under paragraphs 571 or 488 of the acts of 1909 and 1913, respectively. 
 (T. D. 35794r— G. A. 7788; Oct. 11, 1915.) 
 
 Marmalade — 
 Marmalade is dutiable under paragraph 263, tariff act of 1897, relating to sweet- 
 meats and preserved fruits, rather than as jelly, under the same paragraph. 
 Bogle V. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, November 13, 1909. Suit 5070. Appeal by importer from decision of 
 BoardofGeneralAppraisers,G. A. 6668 (T.D. 28428). Board affirmed. (T. D. 
 30167; Dec. 7, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Marmalade and berry jam are not dutiable as jelhes, but as 
 sweetmeats, under paragraph 263, tariff act of 1897. A marked difference exists 
 between marmalade and jelly, in that the former is made by boiling the fruit 
 itself, while the latter is made from the juice of the fruit. Bogle & Scott and 
 John Duncan's Sons u. United States (No. 20), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from decision of the United States Circuit 
 Court for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 30167; 175 Fed. Rep., 889; 
 T. D. 28428). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31188; Jan. 5, 1911.) 
 
 Melba sauce — 
 Melba sauce, a thick sauce consisting of the pulp of the raspberry, together with its 
 juice and probably added sugar, put up in small bottles and used on peaches or 
 pears as a dessert, is dutiable under the provision in paragraph 217, tariff act of 
 1913, for "fruits of all kinds preserved or packed in sugar, or having sugar added 
 thereto, or preserved or packed in molasses, spirits, or their own juices," and 
 not under the provision in paragraph 201 for "sauces of all kinds, not especially 
 provided for in this section." The latter provision is intended to cover such 
 sauce as is used on meats and vegetables as a j:elish and not fruit sauce used as a 
 dessert. (T. D. 35950— G. A. 7825; Dec. 2, 1915.) 
 
 Olives in brine — 
 Bipe olives, also known as black olives, imported in brine are free of duty under 
 paragraph 559, tariff act of 1897, as "fruits in brine." United States v. Zucca; 
 United States v. Stamatopoulos; United States v. Calogera, United States Cir- 
 cuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 9, 1909. Suits 4806-7 
 and 4819. Appeal by United States from decisions of Board of General Ap- 
 praisers, G. A. 6505 (T. D. 27793) and Abstract 14132 (T. D. 27873). Board 
 affirmed. (T. D. 30147; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 
 Pineapples — 
 
 Pineapples preserved in hermetically sealed cans, in their own juice, with sugar 
 ranging in quantity from 7 to 20 per cent, which is added for flavoring and is not 
 by itself sufficient to preserve the fruit, are dutiable under paragraph 263, tariff 
 act of 1897, as "pineapples preserved in their own juice," and not under the 
 provision in the same paragraph for fruit preserved in sugar. United States v. 
 Johnson, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, Novem- 
 ber 28, 1908. Suit 5153. Appeal from decision by Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 6684 (T. D. 28574). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29410; Dec. 
 16,1908.) 
 
476 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fruit— Continued. 
 Pineapples — Continued . 
 
 (Appealed:) Preserved in own juice—Fruit in sugar. — Pineapples preserved 
 in hermetically sealed cans, in their own juice, with sugar ranging in quantity 
 from 7 to 20 per cent, which is added for flavoring and is not by itself sufficient 
 to preserve thS fruit, are dutiable under paragraph 263, tariff act of 1897, as 
 "pineapples preserved in their own juice," and not under the provision in the 
 same paragraph for fruit preserved in sugar. United States v. Johnson; United 
 States V. Maurer, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 
 December 7, 1909. Nos. 43-4 (suits 5153-4). Appeals by United States from 
 Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, 166 
 Fed. Eep., 1002 (T. D. 29410), aflSrming a decision of the Board of General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6684 (T. D. 28574). Decision adverse to the Government. 
 (T. D. 30191; Dec. 14, 1909.) 
 
 Decision of United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in suits 5153 
 and 5154, United States v. Johnson and United States v. Maurer (T. D. 30191), 
 supra, involving the classification of preserved pineapples, acquiesced in. 
 (T. D. 30505; Apr. 6, 1910.) 
 
 Singapore pineapples imported under the tariff act of 1909 in hermetically sealed 
 tin cans, to which sugar in substantial quantity has been added, are dutiable 
 under paragraph 274 of said act, at 1 cent per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem, 
 as "fruits preserved or packed in sugar, or having sugar added thereto, " and not 
 under the last clause of said paragraph, as pineapples preserved in their own juice, 
 not having sugar added thereto. (T. D. 30763— G. A. 7061; July 11, 1910.) 
 
 Preserved pineapples found to contain more than 15.3 per cent of total sugar calcu- 
 lated as invert sugar to be assessed with duty under paragraph 274, tariff act of 
 1909, at the rate of 1 cent per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 31467; 
 Apr. 5, 1911.) 
 
 Market value: American consul at Singapore to furnish appraisers weekly reports 
 of market value of pineapples. (T. D. 33846; Nov. 7, 1913.) 
 Plant-quarantine act — Mexico — 
 
 The importation from Mexico of oranges, sweet Umes, mangoes, achras sapotes, 
 peaches, guavas, and plums prohibited. (Notice of quarantine No. 5 (foreign).) 
 (T. D. 33110; Jan. 23, 1913.) 
 Plums in tins— 
 
 The appeal relates to plums preserved either in sirup, sugar, or their own juices 
 and packed in hermetically sealed cans. There is no question of commercial 
 designation. The plums were properly held dutiable under paragraph 274, 
 tariff act of 1909. Meyer & Eange et al. v. United States (No. 1162), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 31712 (T. D. 33280) and Abstract 31975 
 (T. D. 33338). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33855; Oct. 31, 1913.) 
 Pulp, preserved in own juice — 
 
 Fruit pulp, which is the flesh of the fruit reduced to a pulp and preserved in its 
 own juice by cooking and hermetical seaUng in tin cans, held dutiable under 
 paragraph 263, tariff act of 1897, as "fruits preserved * * * ju their own 
 juices," and not under paragraph 262 as "fruits * * * prepared in any 
 manner." (T. D. 28799— G. A. 6726; Feb. 18, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Hermetical sealing. — Hermetical sealing, which permanently 
 preserves from decay, constitutes a preservation; and fruit pulp that has been 
 cooked and hermetically sealed is dutiable as fruit "preserved," under para- 
 graph 263, tariff act of 1897. Habicht v. United States (2 cases), United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, January 3, 1910. Suits 5245-6. 
 Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 
 6726, (T. D. 28799). Board aflSrmed. (T. D. 30252; Jan. 11, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 477 
 
 Fruit -Continued. 
 Pulp, preserved in own juice — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) Strawberries and apricots reduced to a pulp, cooked without 
 sugar, and inclosed in hermetically sealed tins, are dutiable under paragraph 263, 
 as fruits preserved in their own juices and not paragraph 262, tariff act of 1897. 
 Habicht v. United States (No. 5); Habicht v. United States (No. 46), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Transferred from the United States Circuit 
 Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (T. D. 30252). Appeals by the importer 
 from decision of the Circuit Coiu-t for the Southern District of New York 
 affirming decision of the Board of General Appraisers. Decision in favor of 
 the Government. (T. D. 30772; June 22, 1910.) 
 Botten — 
 
 Allowance for: Where as many as 1 package of every 10 packages of imported 
 fruit, designated by the collector of customs for examination under section 2901 
 of the Eevised Statutes, are actually examined and a certain percentage is ascer- 
 tained to be rotten and worthless, it may be assumed prima facie for the piu-pose 
 of assessing duty that the same average percentage of rotten fruit exists in the 
 other packages in the importation which were not examined. But where less 
 than 10 per cent of such packages are examined no such presumption can be 
 indulged as to the unexamined packages; and hence reliquidation will be 
 authorized only on the packages actually examined to the extent satisfactorily 
 shown by the evidence. In such cases it is unnecessary to prove the exact 
 amount of rotten fruit contained in the packages or importation, but the quan- 
 tity may be proved by satisfactory estimates made by competent witnesses. 
 Rotten fruit, worthless and unfit for commerce, and which would be nondutiable 
 if separated from the sound fruit in the same packages, does not become dutiable 
 because not separated and sold in such packages on the market. (T. D. 
 28712— G. A. 6713; Jan. 27, 1908.) 
 
 In a case in which the exact facts as to the amount of decay in imported fruit might 
 have been clearly ascertained, proof of the extent of the decay in not more than 
 5 per cent of the packages imported is not sufficient to show the amount of decay 
 in the remaining packages. Denunzio Fruit Co. v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Western District of Kentucky, June 4, 1908. No. 7148 (suit 
 2005). Appeal from decision of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6713 (T. D. 
 28712). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29075; June 17, 1908.) 
 
 Evidence: Duties upon imported merchandise, as a general rule, attach at the 
 time of its arrival at any port of entry in the United States. Evidence which 
 only shows the percentages of decay in imported fruit 10 to 15 days after its 
 arrival is not satisfactory to show the condition of such fruit as to decay at the 
 time of its arrival, so as to justify an allowance by the collector or the board on 
 the ground of a shortage or nonimportation. (T. D. 29094 — G. A. 6777; June 18 
 1908.) 
 
 An importer's testimony as to the amount of decay in his importations of lemons, 
 based on memoranda made from two to five days after he had examined the 
 fruit, is not sufficient, considered in connection with his interest in the outcome 
 of the issue, to outweigh the testimony of a customs examiner, with which it is 
 in direct conflict. , It must be laid down as an almost universal rule that an 
 importer has a greater interest in the outcome of an issue than has a Government 
 official, sworn to the impartial discharge of a public duty; and where an im- 
 porter's testimony with respect to his own goods is in direct conflict with that of 
 a customs examiner having equal means of acquiring information as to the mat- 
 ter at issue, the latter's testimony is more reliable. (T. D. 29689 — G. A. 6894; 
 Apr. 12, 1909.) 
 
478 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fruit — Continued . 
 Sotten — Continued . 
 
 Time of examination: Importations of lemons were examined after they had lain 
 on the dock for a week, to discover the amount of decayed fruit. Held that aa 
 much loss by rotting probably occurred during that period, the examination 
 should not serve as a basis for determining the condition of the fruit at the time 
 of importation. Cuccio v. United States, United States Circuit Court, South- 
 em District of New York, May 21, 1909. Suit 5319. Appeal by importer from 
 decision of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6777 (T. D. 29094). Board 
 affirmed. (T. D. 29820; June 8, 1909.) 
 
 Tariff act of 1909, subsection 22 of section 28: This provision of the new tariff act 
 of 1909 so abrogates the principle decided by the Supreme Court in Lawder v. 
 Stone (187 U. S., 281; 23 Sup. Ct. Eep., 79) as to aboUsh all allowances by way 
 of deduction of duties for decayed or rotten fruit, either caused by damage or 
 constituting a nonimportation, unless on compliance with statutory require- 
 ments as a condition precedent to such allowance. (T. D. 30446 — G. A. 6997; 
 Mar. 21, 1910.) 
 
 Regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury: The Secretary of the Treasury is 
 authorized to prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions of subsection 22 
 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, relating to allowances for decay, destruction, or 
 injury to imported fruit. This provision was designed to abrogate the principle 
 decided by the Supreme Coxirt in Lawder v. Stone (187 U. S., 281) giving such 
 allowances under previous tariff acta. 
 
 Issuance of regulations necessary before allowance : The promulgation of such 
 regulations is a condition precedent to allowances for decay or destruction of 
 imported fruit arriving in this country after the enactment of the act of August 
 5, 1909. Protests filed prior to October 4, 1909, the date of promulgating such 
 regulations (T. D. 30023), are properly overruled. An affidavit making proof 
 of decay in such fruit and not filed ^^^th the collector within 10 days after the 
 landing of such merchandise is properly disregarded by him in making his liqui- 
 dation. (T. D. 31349— G. A. 7180; Feb. 27, 1911.) 
 
 Where a claim is made by protest of an importer for shortage or nonimportation 
 caused by decay in imported fruit, the proof to ascertain such decay is required 
 to be lodged with the collector of customs within 10 days after the landing of 
 such merchandise, and where no such proof is lodged the board will not allow 
 any evidence to be introduced challenging the return of the appraiser as made 
 under the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury. This requirement will 
 prevent any proof being made before the board which has not been lodged with 
 the collector within the time required by law. (T. D. 32148 — G. A. 7316; Jan. 
 15, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Subsection 22 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, makes express pro- 
 vision for an allowance in the estimation and liquidation of duties upon fruit, 
 when by reason of decay, destruction, or injury during transportation there is a 
 shortage or in fact a nonimportation thereof, its commercial value being de- 
 stroyed. 
 
 Proof of nonimportation. — The Secretary of the Treasury is empowered to 
 make regulations relative to shortage or nonimportation of merchandise, but the 
 law itself requires that "proof to ascertain such destruction or nonimportation 
 shall be lodged with the collector of customs * * * within ten days after the 
 landing of the merchandise." A regulation intended to exclude from the con- 
 sideration of a collector proof that had been so duly filed would be invalid. The 
 importer duly filed his proof and it will be presumed the collector made his deci- 
 sion in the light of it. The board on review affirmed that decision ; it will not be 
 disturbed. Vandegrift & Co. v. United States (No. 843), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States Gen- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISION'S, 1908-1915. 479 
 
 Fruit — Continued . 
 Botten — Continued. 
 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 7316 (T. D. 32148). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32470; 
 Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 
 Pineapples and grapes: No allowance to be made for decay in pineapples or grapes 
 in barrels or packages under the tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32306; Mar. 12, 1912.) 
 
 Nonimportation: Subsection 22 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, relating to allow- 
 ances on nonimportations was not founded upon any previous tariff act, but 
 originated in the absence of any express statute levying duty upon the described 
 commodities. Lawder v. Stone (187 U. S., 281). No allowance can be made 
 for goods that have gone into the possession of the importer and that are later 
 condemned by a board of health. What allowance, if any, should be made on 
 an importation is primarily a question of fact to be determined like any other 
 relevant fact in the case. United States v. Shallus (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 332; 
 T. D. 32074). United States v. Zito (No. 591), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 24556 (T. D. 31207). Decision modified. (T. D. 32531; 
 May 8, 1912.) 
 
 Grapes in barrels: Subsection 22 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, was intended to 
 • provide and did provide for an allowance in the estimation and liquidation of 
 duties upon fruit when by reason of decay, destruction, or injury during trans- 
 portation a shortage occurred, resulting in fact in a nonimportation, the com- 
 mercial value of a designated and reasonably ascertainable quantity of the goods 
 having been destroyed. Harris & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 852), United 
 States Govit of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7310 (T. D. 32108). Decision affirmed as to 
 part and reversed as to part. (T. D. 32570; May 17, 1912.) 
 
 From the record it appears that certain fruit was condemned on August 12. The 
 claim for an allowance on the fruit so condemned was made prior thereto, on 
 August 11. But the statute requires notice shall be given by the importer in 
 such cases after, not before, condemnation. The notice was insufficient. 
 Steiner v. United States (No. 928), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 29010 (T. D. 32655). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33219; Feb. 18, 1913.) 
 
 Application for allowance: Where an application for allowance of rot or decay in 
 imported fruit is not filed with the collector of customs within 48 hours after the 
 arrival of the vessel which brought the fruit into this country, the application 
 will be denied. (T. D. 33239— G. A. 7439; Feb. 25, 1913.) 
 
 Where "landed " : The importation of grapes for the Boston- market were entered 
 partly at Boston, partly at New York for transshipment thence to Boston. Were 
 the grapes immediately transshipped from New York "landed" there or in 
 Boston? The fair inference from the acts and regulations that govern is that the 
 "landing" referred to in subsection 22 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, is the land- 
 ing at the port of actual destination; in this case, at the port of Boston . United 
 States V. Harris & Co. et al. (No. 987), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 28947 (T. D. 32655). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33392; Apr. 29, 1913.) 
 
 Certificate of condemnation must be filed: In the case of lemons condemned and 
 destroyed by the board of health, a failure to file the certificate of condemnation 
 within 15 days thereafter is fatal to a recovery of duties on such merchandise. 
 The Secretary of the Treasury, in regulations which he is authorized to make, 
 requires it. (T. D. 32881— G. A. 7398; Oct. 23, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Statutory construction — Subsection 22, section 28, tariff act of 
 1909, — It is a, familiar principle of statutory constructioii that for tlje determina- 
 
480 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISION'S, 1908-1915. 
 
 * 
 
 Fruit — Continued . 
 Botten — Continued. 
 
 tion of legislative intent courts may assemble provisions of a statute in accord 
 with that intent. Nonimportation of a part of the cargo of lemons was claimed. 
 The provision of the statute is that "proof" of destruction or nonimportation 
 "shall be lodged with the collector of customs," etc. There is no limitation in 
 the language of the statute of the kind of proof or otherwise save as to time 
 when this proof may be made by the importer. The statute allows 10 days to 
 introduce such proof; to limit this to 5, as is sought in the Treasury regulation, 
 is in excess of statutory power. Vandegrift v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls. , 
 198; T. D. 32470) distinguished. Lauricella et al. v. United States (No. 1063), 
 United States Coiu-t of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7398 (T. D. 32881), Abstract 30352 
 (T. D. 32905). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33482; May 23, 1913.) 
 
 Regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury: Subsection 22 of section 28 of the 
 tariff act of 1909 provides that ' ' no allowance sliall be made in the estimation and 
 liquidation of duties for shortage or nonimportation caused by decay, destruc- 
 tion, or injury to fruit or other perishable articles * * * unless under regu- 
 lations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury." Regulations issued in 
 pursuance of such authority, unless unreasonable or in contravention of the 
 statute itself, have the force and effect of law. 
 
 Time of filing proof — Limitation by statute: While the statute also provides 
 that ' ' proof to ascertain such destruction or nonimportation shall be lodged with 
 the collector * * * within ten days after the landing of such merchandise," 
 it is silent as to the time and manner in which examination of the fruit is to be 
 made for the purpose of determining the amount of rot. Impliedly Congress 
 left this latter question a matter of regulation by the Secretary under the general 
 authority quoted above. 
 
 Conditions precedent to right of allowance: In this case the regulations of the 
 Secretary governing importations of lemons (T. D. 31699) limit the time within 
 which sampling and examination are to be made to 96 hours after the arrival of 
 the vessel. Hence, to be entitled to any relief an importer must comply with 
 said regulations regarding the time and manner of examination, and have his 
 proof fUed with the collector within the time Umited by the statute. Vande- 
 grift V. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 198; T. D. 32470); also United States 
 V. Zito (Zib., 209; T. D. 32531). (T. D. 34822— G. A. 7612; Oct. 9, 1914.) 
 
 Under paragraph 219 of the tariff act of 1913 grapes in barrels are made dutiable 
 at 25 cents per cubic foot of the capacity of the barrels or packages. Allowance 
 in duty for rot in grapes is not to be computed upon the percentage which the 
 decayed grapes bear to the entire quantity of grapes in the container, but to the 
 percentage which such decayed part bears to the cubical capacity of the con- 
 tainer. Harris v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 265, 271; T. D. 32570). 
 (T. D. 35133— G. A. 7684; Feb. 10, 1915.) 
 
 Limes and oranges, imported in barrels of between 4 and 5 cubic feet capacity, are 
 dutiable at 70 cents the package under the provisions of paragraph 220, tariff 
 act of 1913, notwithstanding the fact that in some instances as high as 25 per cent 
 of the fruit had decayed. (T. D. 36002— G. A. 7830; Dec. 15, 1915.) 
 
 It has been decided th,at the provisions of subsection 22 of section 28 of the tariff act 
 of 1909, providing for an allowance in the estimation and liquidation of duties 
 upon fruit when by reason of decay, destruction, or injury during transporta- 
 tion a shortage or nonimportation occurs, are applicable to grapes in barrels 
 dutiable on the cubic capacity of the barrels. Harris v. United States (3 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 265; T. D. 32570); United States ^). Harris (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., 
 116; T. D. 33392). 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 481 
 
 Fruit— Continued. 
 
 Botten — Continued. 
 
 Proof of rot — Compliance with statute and regulations of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury: The board and the courts have also held that a strict compliance with 
 the requirements of the law and the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury 
 made pursuant thereto, in regard to the manner and the time within which 
 examination of fruit is to be made and the time within which return is to be 
 made by the appraiser or proof of rot lodged with the collector, is a condition 
 precedent to an importer's right of allowance. Vandegrift v. United States (3 
 Ct. Oust. Appls., 198; T. D. 32470), United States v. Zito (3 *., 209; T. D. 
 32531), In re Amorosa, G. A. 7612 (T. D. 34822). 
 
 Suspension of regulations by Secretary of the Treasury: .The importers in this 
 case contend, among other things, that the regulation of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury requiring the appraiser to make a return of his examination to the col- 
 lector within 10 days after landing of the merchandise was suspended and be- 
 came a nullity during the period of time when most of these importations were 
 made, owing to the Secretary's own action and instructions. Held that, even 
 assuming such to be the case, the Secretary could in no manner suspend or abro- 
 gate the express provision of the statute itself, so that the importers were not 
 relieved nor prevented from lodging proof of rot with the collector themselves 
 within 10 days after the landing of the merchandise. (T. D. 35120 — G. A. 7677; 
 Feb. 1, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Notice within 48 hours of intention to claim is a prerequisite to 
 allowance for destruction. — ^Where the importers of grapes, part of which are 
 claimed to have been rotten, did not comply with subsection 22 of section 28, 
 tariff act of 1909, and the regulation of the Secretary of the Treasury that notice 
 of an intention to claim an allowance must be filed with the collector within 48 
 hours after the arrival of the importing vessel, the allowance will not be made. 
 Making T)f proof within 10 days also a prerequisite. — ^Where such claim was sea- 
 sonably filed and no evidence to support it was filed with the collector within 10 
 days after the arrival of the importing vessel, as required by said statute and 
 regulation, the allowance will not be made ; and the fact that the appraiser made 
 no report on the claim to the collector, as required by regulation, does not relieve 
 the claimant of the duty to make proof within 10 days and allow him to make it 
 afterwards. H. Harris & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1548), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7677 (T. D. 35120). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 35978; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 
 Unclaimed — 
 Fruit not entered within 48 hours after entry of the vessel to be treated as un- 
 claimed. (T. D. 30082; Nov. 2, 1909.) 
 Fruit boxes. 
 
 Composed of American shocks — Consular certificate — 
 Where invoices for fruit importations were accompanied by confiular certificates 
 in accordance with Treasury regulations, showing the "thin wood" of the fruit 
 boxes to be composed of shocks of American origin, the boxes should have been 
 subjected to the haK rate provided in paragraph 205, tariff act of 1897, for "the 
 thin wood, so called, comprising the sides, tops, and bottoms of orange and lemon 
 boxes of the growth and manufacture of the United States." Brucato v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 21, 
 1909. Suit 5025. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 16444 (T. D. 28374). Board reversed. (T. D. 29838; June 
 15, 1909.) 
 
 45633°— 17 31 
 
482 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fruit ethers. 
 Siualco seele. (See also Alcoholic compound Sinalco seele.) 
 
 The merchandise in question is of a secret composition and is used as a base for the 
 manufacture of nonalcoholic drinks. The evidence showed that the article 
 was not an unenumerated manufacture, as held hy the Board of General Ap- 
 praisers, but fell for dutiable purposes within one or the other of paragraphs 2 or 
 3, tariff act of 1909, as an alcoholic compound or as a chemical compound. The 
 protest claimed under neither of these paragraphs, and i=o could not be allowed. 
 United States v. Danker & Marston (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 462; T. D. 32208); 
 United States v. Chattanooga Brewing Co. (No. 905), United States Court ol 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7835 (T. D. 32313). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32965; 
 Nov. 14, 1912.) 
 Fruit juice. 
 Concentrated — ■ 
 
 Concentrated fruit juice is dutiable by similitude at the rate provided for fruit 
 juice in paragraph 299, tariff act of 1897. Eich v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 17, 1909. Suit 5243. Appeal 
 by importer from decision by Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 18229 (T. D. 
 28805). Board reversed. (T. D'. 29812; June 8, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Within the meaning of the similitude clause in section 7, tariff 
 act of 1897 , concentrated fruit juice resembles ordinary fruit juice in ' ' material " 
 because it differs only in having had some of the water removed by evaporation ; 
 and it resembles fruit juice in "use " because applied to the same purpose. It is 
 therefore dutiable as fruit juice by similitude under paragraph 299, tariff act of 
 1897. United States v. Rich, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second 
 Circuit, February 8, 1910. No. 148 (suit 5243). Appeal by the United States 
 from the decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for Southern District 
 of New York (172 Ted. Rep., 293; T. D. 29812) reversing Abstract 18229 (T D. 
 28805). Decision adverse to the Government. (T.p. 30357; Feb. 15, 1910.) 
 Containing alcohol — 
 
 The percentage of alcohol in wines and fruit juices is expressly required by para- 
 graph 296, tariff act of 1897, to be determined for dutiable purposes in such man- 
 ner as the Secretary of the Treasury shall by regulation determine. These regu- 
 lations applicable to importations under the present tariff act of 1897 are pre- 
 scribed in circular No. 108, issued July 24, 1897, published in T. D. 18201 and 
 T. D. 15763. Cherry juice containing not more than 18 per cent of alcohol held 
 dutiable under paragraph 299 of said act at 60 cents per gallon; if containing 
 more than 18 per cent of alcohol, 60 cents per gallon, and in addition thereto 
 $2.07 per proof gallon on the alcohol contained therein, with proper deduction 
 for allowance made in the reciprocity treaty applicable to the country of expor- 
 tation. (T. D. 28739— G. A. 6716; Feb. 4, 1908.) 
 
 Imported fruit juices containing alcohol to be stamped with customs stamps. 
 (T D. 35265; Mar. 27, 1915.) 
 Fruit oil. (See Oil, essential.) 
 Fruit sirup. 
 Grenadine — 
 
 The testimony of the witnesses in the case was to the effect that grenadine is an 
 article manufactured in accordance with a fixed formula, which, for 100 liters, 
 is 80 kilograms of sugar, 50 liters of water, and 3 per cent of coloring matter and 
 citric acid. Held, that such an article is not a fruit sirup under the provisions 
 of paragraph 310 of the act of 1909, but is dutiable as a nonenumerated manufac- 
 tured article. It can not be said that, because certain fruits contain citric acid 
 and grenadine also contains citric acid, therefore grenadine is a fruit sfrup, it 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 483 
 
 Fruit sinip^ — Continued. 
 Gienadine — Continued . 
 
 appearing that citric acid not only exists in certain fruits but is made sjTitlieti- 
 cally. , 
 
 Commercial designation: The testimony of a single witness that "we" — evi- 
 dently meaning the firm which he represented — "consider it among the fruit 
 sirups" is not sufficient to show commercial designation. 
 
 Similitude: The fact that grenadine contains citric acid and that certain 
 fruits also contain that substance is not sufficient to show such similarity of sub- 
 stance as would justify classifying grenadine by similitude to fruit sirups. 
 United States v. Wakem & McLaughlin (No. 1543), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the Government from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 37258. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35923; Nov. 19, 
 1915.) 
 Molasses — 
 A thick sirup made from grape juice boiled with a particular kind of clay and with 
 yeast dutiable imder the provision in paragraph 310, tariff act of 1909, for "fruit 
 juices and fruit sirup, not specially provided for in this section, containing no 
 alcohol," and not dutiable under paragraph 216 as "molasses." The molasses 
 which it was intended to cover by the provisions of paragraph 216 is the molasses 
 derived from the manufactiu:e of cane sugar. 
 
 Commercial designation: In order to show that a term used in the tariff act 
 includes within its commercial meaning an article not ordinarily within its 
 scope, it must appear that such commercial designation is the result of usage 
 generally throughout the trade, and not a local usage known only to particular 
 persons. Maddock v. Magone (152 U. S., 368); Wilkinson v. Greely (29 Fed. 
 Cas., 1259.) (T. D. 32332— G. A. 7341; Mar. 25, 1912.) 
 Fungus, edible. (See Vegetables.) 
 Fur-bearing animals. (See Animals.) 
 Fur clippings or cuttings. 
 
 Pieces of fur cut from skins, known as fur clippings or cuttings, if suitable for use 
 as trimmings or for sewing together, dutiable as dressed furs. (T. D. 30034; 
 Oct. 11, 1909.) 
 Fur garments. (See also Fur, post.) 
 Embroidered — ■ 
 The proviso to paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, "that no wearing apparel or other 
 article or textile fabric, when embroidered by hand or machinery, shall pay 
 duty at a less rate than that imposed in any schedule of this act upon any em- 
 broideries of the materials of which such embroidery is composed," extends to 
 all other provisions of the act except where by reason of the peculiar language 
 of a paragraph it is indicated that the same is to be excepted. Carter v. United 
 States (143 Fed. Rep., 256; T. D. 27135) followed. In construing paragraph 
 339, tariff act of 1897, with reference to articles "embroidered in any manner by 
 hand or machinery, whether with a letter, monogram, or otherwise," the rela- 
 tive cost of the embroidery is immaterial. Fur garments, trimmed with em- 
 broidered silk, fur chief value, are not dutiable as "manufactures of fur," but 
 as "silk embroideries," by virtue of the proviso to paragraph 339, tariff act of 
 1897, "that no wearing apparel * * * when embroidered * * * shall 
 pay duty at a less rate than that imposed in any schedule of this act upon any 
 embroideries of the materials of which such embroidery is composed." (T. D. 
 29297— G. A. 6818; Oct. 13, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Fur garments trimmed with embroidered silk, fur chief value, 
 are not dutiable as ' ' manufactures of fur, ' ' but as ' ' silk embroideries, "by virtue 
 of the proviso to paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, "that no wearing apparel 
 
484 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fur gaiments — Continued. 
 Embioidered — Continued. 
 
 * * * when embroidered * * * shall pay duty at a less rate than that 
 imposed in any schedule of this act upon any embroideries of the materials of 
 which such embroideryis composed." Jaeckel v. United States, United States 
 CircuitCourt, Southern District of New York, May 21, 1909. Suit 5377. Appeal 
 by importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6818 (T. D. 
 29297). Board affirmed. Lichtenstein v. United States (154 Fed. Rep., 736; 
 T. D. 27919) cited and followed. (T. D. 29824; June 8, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Fur garments, ready to wear, lined with silk and trimmed with 
 embroidery, are "embroidered articles," though the fur itself has not been 
 embroidered. The proviso in paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, relating to 
 "embroidered wearing apparel or other article or textile fabric," is not to be 
 construed as though the second "or" were "of"; nor should the doctrine of 
 noscitur a sociis be applied so as to restrict the proviso to such articles of wear- 
 ing apparel as are textiles or made of textiles. Jaeckel v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 8, 1910. No. 151 
 (suit 5377). Appeal by the importer from the Circuit Court of the United 
 States for the Southern District of New York (172 Fed. Eep., 292; T. D. 
 29824) affirming G. A. 6818 (T. D. 29297). Decision in favor of the Government. 
 (T. D. 30389; Mar. 1, 1910.) 
 Fur garments trimmed with embroidered silk, fur chief value, are not dutiable 
 as "manufactures of fur," but as "silk embroideries," by virtue of the proviso 
 to paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, "that no wearing apparel * * * when 
 embroidered * * * shall pay duty at a less rate than that imposed in any 
 schedule of this act upon any embroideries of the materials of which such em- 
 broideryis composed." The proviso in paragraph 339, tariff actof 1897, relating 
 to articles when embroidered, applies to "wearing apparel," or "other article" 
 or ' ' textile fabric, ' ' and is not to be limited or restricted to such articles of wear- 
 ing apparel only as are textiles or made of textiles. Jaeckel v. United States 
 (T. D. 30389), affirming 172 Fed. Rep., 292 (T. D. 29824), and G. A. 6818 
 (T. D. 29297), followed. (T. D. 30599— G. A. 7017; May 5, 1910.) 
 
 Fur-Uned overcoat. 
 
 A woolen overcoat lined with fur, fur being the component material of chief 
 value, is dutiable under paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909, as wearing apparel 
 in chief value of fur, and not under paragraph 382 as wearing apparel in part 
 of wool, the former provision being more specific than the latter. (T. D. 31811 — 
 G. A. 7263; Aug. 8, 1911.) 
 
 Fur motifs. 
 
 The fur motifs are not made in imitation of feathers, but are intended to be used 
 as ornaments for ladies' hats and were classifiable as furs prepared for use as 
 material under paragraph 439 of that act. Judkins & McCormick Co. v. United 
 States (No. 1351), United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 3, 1915. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 34520 (T. D. 34090) and Abstract 35113 (T. D. 34307). Decision affirmed as to 
 part; reversed as to part. (T. D. 35385; May 3, 1915.) 
 
 Fur. 
 Bearskin robes with woolen linings — 
 Bearskin robes with woolen linings, although fur is the element of chief value, are 
 dutiable under paragraph 378, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33114; Jan. 27, 1913.) 
 Crosses, squares, or linings — 
 Furs dressed on the skin, the pieces sewn together and made up into the form of 
 crosses, squares, or linings, regardless of whether the sewing is temporary or per- 
 manent, are specially provided for in paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909, and are 
 dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem, (T, P. 31085— G. A. 7135; Dec 5, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 485 
 
 Fur— Continued. 
 
 Crosses, squares, or linings — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) It was the evident purpose of the Congress by paragraph 439, 
 tariff act of 1909, to distinguish between the completed article and the several 
 grades of materials entering into its composition, and to impose on materials pre- 
 pared for the use of furriers and other maniifacturers of fur an intervening rate 
 of duty, higher than the rate upon dressed sHns that had theretofore been con- 
 strued by the board as proper and applicable, and at the same time lower than 
 the rate provided for manufactures made from such materials. The words 
 ■'plates, linings, and crosses " are employed in that paragraph as words of exten- 
 sion rather than specification, and the furriers' articles of the importation, 
 whether dressed or dyed or not, were properly assessed at 35 per cent ad 
 valorem under that paragraph. Carlowitz v. United States (No. 564), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from a decision of 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7125 (T. D. 31085). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31681; May 31, 1911.) 
 
 Felt bands — • 
 Fur felt bands, of which fur is the component material of chief value, dutiable as 
 wearing apparel partly manufactured under paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909, 
 at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 30304; Jan. 27, 1910.) 
 
 Fox skins — 
 Fox skins, pointed, dressed, and dyed: Fur skins dyed and dressed, and blocked 
 out for use in the making of muffs and stoles, are not wearing apparel partly or 
 wholly manufactured, but are manufactures of fur prepared for use as material. 
 Fox skins, dressed, dyed, and pointed by the insertion of white bristles which 
 so changes the appearance of the skins as to make them resemble the skins of the 
 silver fox, are not manufactures of furs, but are, under the application of the 
 similitude clause of paragraph 481 of the tariff act of 1909, still furs on the skin, 
 dressed and dyed; held subject to duty at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem 
 under the first clause of paragraph 439 of said act. (T. D. 31018 — G. A. 7117; 
 Oct. 31, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) " Manvfactures." — Alaska fox skins that have been dressed and 
 dyed and pointed by the insertion in the fur at intervals of white hairs from the 
 badger, these white hairs being glued to the skin and making them an imitation 
 silver-fox skin, since a new article is thereby made, with a new name, character, 
 and use, constitute a manufacture, but not a manufacture of furs prepared for 
 use as material, and the skins were dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem, whether 
 taken by similitude as furs dressed on the skin or as nonenumera.ted manufac- 
 tured articles. United States v. Hartwig (No. 523), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7117 (T. D. 31018). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 31976; Oct. 16, 1911.) 
 
 Manufactures of — 
 Pieces of dressed fur sewn together into the form of rugs or mats, regardless of 
 whether such sewing, is temporary or permanent, aie manufactures of fur. 
 Manufactures of fur in the form of mats are not included within the provision 
 for manufactures of fur in paragraph 439 of the tariff act of 1909. Such fur rugs 
 are subject to duty under either the provision in paragraph 439 for "furs dressed 
 on the skin not advanced further than dyeing," or as nonenumerated manufac- 
 tured articles under paragraph 480, and as the rate of duty is 20 per cent ad 
 valorem in either case the board deems it unimportant to determine under 
 which one of said provisions they should be classified. (T. D. 31043 — G. A. 
 7122; Nov. 14, 1910.) 
 
486 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fur — Continued. 
 
 Manufactureis of — Continued 
 
 (Appealed:) According to the evidence the importation was of pieces of 
 dressed natural sheepskin sewed into rugs and known to the trade as rugs. It 
 appears they are used as material for making finer rugs or other articles of fur. 
 They are further advanced than dressing and dyeing and were properly dutiable 
 as manufactures of furs further advanced than dressing and dyeing under para- 
 graph 439, tariff act of 1909. Ordinarily a manufactured article takes a different 
 form, or at least subserves a purpose different from that of the original materials 
 out of which it is made, and usually takes a different name. That does not 
 mean, however, that its usefulness as a material has necessarily ended and that 
 as a manufacture it can not serve the purpose of material for some other manu- 
 facture. United States v. Richter (No. 544), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from a decision of the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7122 (T. D. 31043). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 31680; May 31, 1911.) 
 The dogskin mats of the importation have been given a form other than that of 
 the natural skin and have in trade a characteristic name. They are furs, ready 
 to be applied, after incidental cleaning or dyeing to their final use as furs. 
 They are dutiable under paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909. United States v. 
 Richter (2 Ct. Gust. Appla., 167; T. D. 31680); Allum et al. v. United States 
 (No. 1114), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31260 (T. D. 33194). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33526; May 26, 1913.) 
 
 , Dogskin rugs and robes dutiable as mats or plates at 10 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 348, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34054; Jan. 12, 1914.) 
 
 Pony skins — 
 The preparation and use of skins must control their classification. Russian pony 
 skins which have been deliberately prepared for use by furriers in the manufac- 
 ture of fur-lined coats are dutiable as "furs dressed on the skin " under paragraph 
 439, act of 1909. United States v. Bennett (66 Fed. Rep., 299) cited and fol- 
 lowed. (T. D. 30798— G. A. 7074; July 18, 1910.) 
 
 (Appe?iled:) Pony skins are not "furs" or "fur skins" in the common, ordi- 
 nary meaning of those words, but the evidence seems to make it clear that for 
 several years before the enactment of the tariff law of 1909 pony skins had been 
 dealt in commercially precisely as true fur skins and employed as such in manu- 
 facture; they are dutiable as dressed fur skins under paragraph 439, tariff act o£ 
 1909. United States v. Bennett (66 Fed. Rep., 299). Revillon Frferes v. 
 United States (No. 461), United States Courtof Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7074 (T. D. 
 30798). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31948; Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 
 Repaired — ■ 
 
 Fur skins dressed and dyed, temporarily sewn or repaired to prevent further 
 tearing in the processes of dyeing, are not "repaired" within the meaning 
 of paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909, and are dutiable under the provision in 
 said paragraph for "furs dressed on the skin not advanced further than dyeing." 
 Such skins, even though repaired before importation, are not "manufactures of 
 fur " within the meaning of paragraph 439; to become so dutiable, they must be, 
 by processes of manufacture, made into articles having a new name, character, 
 and use. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association v. United States (207 U. S., 
 556; T. D. 28778); Tide Water Oil Co. v. United States (171 U. S., 210); See- 
 berger v. Castro (153 U. S., 32). (T. D. 3076S— G. A, 7063; July 11, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 487 
 
 Pur— Continued. 
 Sealskin garments — 
 Certificate of ownership: Certificates of ownership of sealskin garments (Cat. No. 
 4437) and affidavits for registration of personal and household effects (Cat. No. 
 4447) not subject to tax under the act of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 34991; Dec. 
 18, 1914.) 
 Sealskins — 
 Sealskins that have been "repaired" can not be taken for dutiable purposes to 
 come within tke first clause of paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909, and though 
 "repaired " this will not constitute them manufactures of furs designated by the 
 second clause of that paragraph ; there is no eo nomine provision applicable and 
 the importation is dutiable under paragraph 480 of the act as an unenumerated 
 article manufactured in whole or in part. United States v. Burkhardt (No. 
 610), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States 
 from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24694 
 (T. D. 31255). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31682; May 31, 1911.) 
 Publishing a letter from the Secretary of Commerce showing the number of fur- 
 seal sldns taken in the waters of the north Pacific Ocean during the period from 
 August 24, 1912, to August 10, 1913, both dates inclusive, which have been 
 officially marked and certified by this Government. (T. D. 34115; Jan. 30, 
 1914.) 
 Regulations governing the importation of fur-seal skins and fur-seal skin garments 
 under the act of Congress approved August 24, 1912. (T. D. 34161; Feb. 7, 
 1914.) 
 Undressed — 
 Undressed clippings of rabbit skins and portions of fur detached from the pelt by 
 heating, etc., which are used for the same purpose as the skin from which they 
 are derived, are "fmrs, undressed," within the meaning of paragraph 561, tariff 
 act of 1897, and are classible as such rather than as "waste, not specially pro- 
 vided for," under paragraph 463. Hatters' Fur Exchange v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 12, 1909. 
 Suit 5069. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 16813 (T. D. 28429). Board reversed. (T. D. 80143; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 Fur gathered as scraps or waste from the first treatment of skins is not waste in the 
 strict sense of refuse, but is undressed fur and as such was free of duty under sec- 
 tion 561, tariff act of 1897. Where an article is designated eo nomine, whether 
 for duty or to be free of duty, such designation must prevail over words of a gen- 
 eral description. Where from the evidence there may be a doubt whether an 
 article falls within one of two classifications, the doubt will be resolved in favor 
 of the importer. United States v. Hatters' Fur Exchange (No. 4), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from decision 
 of the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 28429). Transferred from United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Decision aflfirmed. 
 (T. D. 31237; Jan. 18, 1911.) 
 Furnaces, arched purves. (See Steel tubes.) 
 Furnished leather cases. (See Leather.) 
 Furnished toilet cases. (See Toilet cases.) 
 Fumituie. 
 Antique. (See Antiques.) 
 Baskets of sea grass — 
 Furniture, baskets, etc., manufactured from sea grass dutiable under paragraph 
 463 of the tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem, as a manufac- 
 ture of grass. Dyed sea grass advanced beyond its natural state by braiding or 
 
488 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fuinituie — Continued. 
 
 Baskets of sea grass — Continued. 
 
 plaiting, if suitable for making or ornamenting hats, would be dutiable imder 
 paragraph 422 of the said act at 20 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 31759; July 
 18, 1911.) 
 
 Cotton screens in a framework of wood not dutiable as. (See Screens.) 
 
 Covered with cotton velvet — 
 A sofa covered with and composed in chief value of cotton velvet, not being an 
 article of such form or shape that it could have been "made or cut from cotton 
 velvet," is dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem as "manufactures of cotton" 
 under paragraph 332, act of 1909, and not at 47^ per cent ad valorem aa "manur 
 factures or articles in any form * * * made or cut from plushes, velvets, " 
 etc., under paragraph 325. (T. D. 34901— G. A. 7628; Nov. 12, 1914.) 
 
 Embroidered — 
 Furniture composed in chief value of embroidered tapestry or damask is dutiable 
 as "all articles or fabrics embroidered in any manner by hand or machinery" 
 under paragraph 358 of the act of 1913. 
 
 Furniture in chief value of wood: Where the statute provides for "fm-niture 
 wholly or in chief value of wood," the only question to be ascertained, before 
 classification can be made under that provision, is whether wood is chief value 
 as against any of the other components. (T. D. 35267 — G. A. 7704; Mar. 22, 
 1915.) 
 
 Metal chief value — 
 The provision in paragraph 208, tariff act of 1897, for "furniture of wood" is not 
 Umited by the words "of which wood is the component material of chief value "; 
 and furniture whose framework and principal bulk are of wood, though deco- 
 rated metal predominates in value, is dutiable under said provision rather than 
 as articles in part of metal under paragraph 193. Hempstead v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, March 8, 1909. 
 No. 80 (suit 1979). Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6626 (T. D. 28255). Board reversed. (T. D. 29634; Mar. 17, 
 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The provision in paragraph 208, tariff act of 1897, for "furniture 
 of wood," includes what is known as Buhl furniture, in which the metal orna- 
 mentation constitutes the component of chief value, but in which wood is the 
 predominant material in quantity. United States v. Hempstead, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, February 8, 1910. No. 60 (suit 1979). 
 Appeal by the United States from the decision of the Circuit Court of the United 
 States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (168 Fed. Eep., 450; T. D. 
 29634) reversing G. A. 6626 (T. D. 28634). Decision adverse to the Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 30366; Feb. 21, 1910.) 
 
 Partly finished — 
 Chair frames: Pieces of wood which by deliberate processes of manufacture have 
 been fashioned into shapes ready to be assembled and made into chair frames, 
 held to be furniture of wood partly finished or manufactures of wood, dutiable 
 under the provisions of paragraph 215, tariff act of 1909, and not under paragraph 
 203, as wood unmanufactured. (T. D. 30790— G. A. 7066; July 8, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Where an importation consisted* of the defined parts of a piece of 
 furniture, it being apparent those parts were designed for a particular use and 
 that their suitableness for any other purpose had been destroyed, the merchan- 
 dise is taken out of the category of lumber or wood, it has become, as in the case 
 here, a partly finished chair or an article of house furniture partly finished, and 
 as such is dutiable under paragraph 215, tariff act of 1909. Wanner v. United 
 States (No. 430), United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 22, 1911. Appeal 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 489 
 
 Furniture — Continued. 
 Partly finished — Continued. 
 
 by the importer from a decislbn of the Board of United States General Apprais- 
 ers, G. A. 7066 (T. D. 30790). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31628; May 22, 1911.) 
 Silk chief value — 
 
 The provision in paragraph 208, tariff act of 1897, for "furniture of wood" is not 
 limited by the words "of which wood is the component material of chief value "; 
 and furniture with wooden frames, upholstered with silk-wool tapestry, silk 
 being the component material of chief value in the completed articles, is duti- 
 able under said provision rather than under paragraph 366 ("manufactures of 
 every description * * * in part of wool ") or under paragraph 391 (manu- 
 factures in chief value of silk). The proviso in paragraph 391, tariff act of 1897, 
 that "all manufactures, of which wool is a component material, shall be classi- 
 fig,j * * * j^g manufactures of wool," does not extend outside of the silk 
 schedule in which it is found, and possibly should be restricted even to said para- 
 graph; and the "furniture" enumerated in the wood schedule is not subject to 
 this proviso, though in part of wool and in chief value of silk. Woodruff v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 March 15, 1909. Suit 5276. Appeal by importer from decfeion of Board of 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 18543 (T. D. 28910). Board reversed. (T. D. 
 29645; Mar. 24, 1909.) 
 
 Furniture with wooden frames is dutiable as "furniture of wood " under paragraph 
 208, tariff act of 1897, though the silk in its upholstery may be the component 
 of chief value. United States v. Woodruff, United States Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Second Circuit, December 7, 1909. No. 96 (suit 52ffi). Appeal by 
 United States from the Circuit Court of the United States (168 Fed. Rep., 452; 
 -T. D. 29645) reversing Abstract 18543 (T. D. 28910). Decision adverse to the 
 Government. (T. D. 30211; Dec. 21, 1909.) Acquiesced in April 6, 1910 
 (T. D. 30504). 
 
 Furniture composed in chief value of silk is not dutiable under the provision in 
 paragraph 215, tariff act of 1909, for "house or cabinet furniture wholly or in 
 chief value of wood, wholly or partly finished," but is dutiable as a manufac- 
 ture of silk under the provision of paragraph 403 of said act. (T. D. 31162 — 
 G. A. 7143; Dec. 27, 1910.) 
 TTpholstered with antique tapestry — 
 
 Furniture upholstered with antique tapestry made of wool is dutiable under the 
 provision in paragraph 378, tariff act of 1909, for "all manufactures of every 
 description made wholly or in part of wool," and is not free of duty under para- 
 graph 717 as an artistic antiqidty because composed in chief value of antique 
 tapestry, which in itself would be free of duty under the latter paragraph. Para- 
 graph 717 provides only for articles which are complete in themselves and fulfill 
 the other requirements of said paragraph. (T. D. 31492^G. A. 7203; Apr. 14, 
 1911.) 
 Wood chief value — 
 
 Furniture in chief value of wood: Where the statute provides for f lu-niture wholly 
 or in chief value of wood the only question to be ascertained, before classifica- 
 tion can be made under that provision, is whether wood is chief value as against 
 any of the other componenfa. (T. D. 35267— G. A. 7704; Mar. 22, 1915.) 
 Wool and silk — 
 
 The provision in paragraph 208, tariff act of 1897, for "furniture, of wood," is not 
 limited by the words "of which wood is the component material of chief value " ; 
 and furniture with wooden frames, upholstered with silk-wool tapestry, wool 
 chief value, is dutiable under said provision. (T. D. 30422— G. A. 6990; Mar. 
 10, 1910.) 
 
490 DIGEST OP euSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fuinitnie — Continued. 
 Wool and wood — 
 The tariff designation in paragraph 378, tariff act of 1009, for "all manufactures of 
 every description made wholly or in part of wool, not specially provided for in 
 this section," is a broad and comprehensive one and is not limited only to arti- 
 cles similar to cloths and knit fabrics. Held, furniture composed of wood and 
 wool, wool chief value, is properly dutiable as a manufacture of wool. (T. D. 
 31801— G. A. 7258; Aug. 7, 1911.) 
 Fusible enamel. 
 
 Glass towel rods. (See Glass and glasses.) 
 Fustin. 
 Extract of vegetable origin — 
 An azo compound of aniUne and fustic extract, known as fustin, which is prepared 
 by treating aniline to form diazo benzine sulphide, which is then united with 
 the fustic extract, thereby forming a new compound, is dutiable as an "extract 
 of vegetable origin suitable for dyeing, coloring, staining, or tanning" under 
 paragraph 22, act of 1909, aul not as a coal-tar color under paragraph 15. 
 (T. D. 34821— G. A. 7611; Oct. 9, 1914.) 
 So-called "fustin," an azo compound of aniline and fustic extract, dutiable at the 
 rate of 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 20, tariff act of October 3, 1913, 
 as a coal-tar color or dye not specially provided for. (T. D. 36013; Dec! 23, 
 1915.) 
 
 G. 
 Gallilith combs. 
 
 Combs made of a substance or composition called "gallilith" are dutiable, by the 
 application of the similitude clause, under paragraph 463, tariff act of 1909, as 
 "combs, composed wholly of horn, or composed of horn and metal." (T. D. 
 30725— G. A. 7047; June 24, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Since they most nearly resemble combs made of horn, in accord- 
 ance with the terms of paragraph 481, tariff act of 1909. combs made of gallilith 
 are dutiable under paragraph 463 of that act. Strauss & Co. v. United States 
 (No. 419), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7047 (T. D. 30725). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 31946; Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 Galloons and trimmings. (See Trimmings.) 
 Galvanized date nails. (See Metal, manufactures of.) 
 Galvanized-iron sheets, corrugated. (See Iron sheets.) 
 Game. 
 Protection of, in Alaska— 
 T. D. 29153; July 10, 1908. 
 Game birds. 
 
 Birds known as "black game," which are imported with their heads, feet, and 
 feathers on, and undrawn, are not dutiable as "game birds, dressed," under 
 paragraph 227, tariff act of 1913, but are classifiable under the provision for 
 "venison, and other game," in the first part of the same paragraph. (T. D. 
 35098— G. A. 7670; Jan. 27, 1915.) 
 live — 
 Live partridges and other live game birds entitled to admission free of duty under 
 paragraph 416, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34048; Jan. 10, 1914.) 
 Garlic, weight of. 
 
 In assessing duty by weight upon garlic, consisting of the garlic bulb with the top 
 or stalk attached, sometimes imported in the form of braided strands and some- 
 times loose, no allowance shall be made for the weight of the tops. (T. D. 
 31831— G. A. 7266; Aug. 21, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 491 
 
 Garlic, weight of — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) No tare allowance fw . — Garlic consists of the bulb and top of the 
 plant. No portion of the natural product as imported can properly be called 
 tare, and particularly is this true since it is shown by the evidence that the tops 
 serve the purpose of preserving the bulbs and are sold as constituting a part of 
 the importation. Shallus v. United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 316; T. D. 
 31408); United States v. Baker Castor Oil Co. (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 338; T. D. 
 32076). Vitelli & Son v. United States (No. 766), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Apj)eal by the importers from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 7266 (T. D. 31831). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32460; Apr. 
 17, 1912.) 
 
 Garnet, manufactures of. (See Precious stones, agate, cornelian, etc.) 
 
 Gas burners. . 
 Enameled steel or iron ware — 
 Gas or lamp burners, with tubeUke coverings of enameled sheet metal, and having 
 diverse parts, such as magnesia tips, brass tubes and regulating devices, galvaii- 
 ized metal, and other features, are :iot within the purview of paragraph 158, 
 tariff act of 1909, as "other similar hollow ware of iron or steel," but are dutiable 
 under paragraph 199 as manufactures of metal not specially provided for. 
 (T. D. 33508— G. A. 7467; June 4, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise in controversy consists of gas burners com- 
 posed of various kinds of metal and other materials, metal chief value. The 
 articles can not be said to lie hollow ware of iron or steel similar to table, kitchen, 
 and hospital utensils. Each article is a part of a fixed device not complete in 
 itself, lacking as it does the gas mantel and the globe which ordinarily accom- 
 pany it, and it mustbe joined with a gas pipe when put in use. It was dutiable 
 under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. Fensterer & Ruhe et al. v. United 
 States (No. 1217), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7467 (T. D. 
 33508). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34096; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 
 Gas cylinders. (See Steel tubes.) 
 
 Gauge glasses. (See Glass and glasses.) 
 
 Gauge for barrels containing Almeria grapes. 
 
 Capacity of barrels containing Almeria grapes to be taken as 1.95 cubic feet and 
 half barrels as 1.08 cubic feet within prescribed limitations, barrels outside of the 
 prescribed Umitations to be measured and their actual holding capacity ascer- 
 tained. T. D. 29274 of September 30, 1908, revoked. (T. D. 32601; June 5, 
 1912.) 
 
 Gauge of ale. (See Ale, gauge of.) 
 
 Gauge of beer. (See Beer, gauge of.) 
 
 Gauge of gin. (See Liquors.) 
 
 Gauge of oil. (See Oil.) 
 
 Gauge of liquors. (See Liquors.) 
 
 Gauge of whisky. (See Liquors.) 
 
 Ganger's manual. 
 
 The use of Table No. 7 appearing in the Gauger's Manual of 1913 authorized, 
 T. D. 18209 of July 28, 1897, amended. (T. D. 34543; June 13, 1914.) 
 
 Gauze bands or ilbbons. (See Silk, manufactures of.) 
 
 Geissler tubes. (See Glass and glasses.) 
 
 Gelatin. 
 Cellou — 
 Cellon dutiable as sheet gelatin at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 23, tariff act of 1909, by virtue of the similitude clause in paragraph 481 of 
 the said act. (T. D. 33317; Apr. 4, 1913.) 
 
492 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Gelatin — Continued . 
 Cellophane, Flexoloid, etc. — 
 Merchandise variously described as Cellophane, Flexoloid, Diamantine, and 
 BrilUantine dutiable as sheet gelatin at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 23, tariff act of 1909, by virtue of the similitude clause in paragraph 
 481 of said act. (T. D. 33320; Apr. 5, 1913.) 
 In sheets — 
 Gelatin in sheets about 3i inches by 8| inches in size is dutiable as ''gelatin in 
 sheets" under paragraph 23, tariff act of 1909, and not as "gelatin"' under the 
 provisions of the same paragraph. The term "gelatin in sheets" not having 
 been shown to have a special trade meaning which is uniform and general 
 throughout the United States, the common signification must prevail. McClel- 
 land, G. A., dissenting. (T. D. 32223— G. A. 7320; Jan. 29, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) To determine what is a "sheet" in a given case, the particular 
 facts of that case are to be considered ; and the facts in this case showing the mer- 
 chandise to be edible gelatin with irregular edges and uneven surfaces do not 
 make it clear that the article is properly classifiable as sheets of gelatin. The 
 doubt must be resolved in favor of the importer and the goods were dutiable as 
 gelatin under paragraph 23, tariff act of 1909. The board's finding of facts will 
 not be disturbed unless clearly contrary to or unsupported by the weight of evi- 
 dence; but here the finding that the gelatin was in sheets was based on an erro- 
 neous construction of the law itself and so does not fall within the rule . American 
 Express Co. v. United States (No. 870), United States Coiu-t of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7320 (T. D. 32223). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33121; Jan. 20, 1913.) 
 
 Gems. (See Precious stones.) 
 
 General appraisers. (See Board of United States General Appraisers.) 
 
 Generator shaft. (See Metal, manufactures of.) 
 
 Gentianse, ext., TJ. S. P. (See Medicinal preparations.) 
 
 German silver in sheets, polished. 
 
 German silver, concededly a composition of metal in chief value of copper, is more 
 specifically provided for under the eo nomine provision therefor in paragraph 
 174, tariff act of 1909, than as a "composition metal of which copper is the com- 
 ponent material of chief value" in paragraph 545 of said act. German-silver 
 sheets, highly polished on one side, are manufactured articles, and are therefore 
 excluded from said paragraph 174, which provides for German silver, unmanu- 
 factured. They are accordingly held to be properly dutiable as manufactures of 
 metal not specially provided for under paragraph 199 of said act. (T. D. 
 34414— G. A. 7560; Apr. 20, 1914.) 
 
 Germany. 
 Beciprocal commercial agreement — • 
 Merchandise imported via Belgium was found to be of German origin and to have 
 been imported directly from Germany, and was therefore held subject to the 
 reciprocal commercial agreement with the latter country. (T. D. 29677; Apr. 
 7, 1909.) 
 Termination of. (T. D. 29945; Aug. 10, 1909.) 
 
 Gin, gauge of. (See Liquors, gauge of gin.) 
 
 Ginger, preserved. 
 
 "Stem" and "cargo" ginger, imported in a sweet sirup in casks, is dutiable as a 
 "sweetmeat" under paragraph 263, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 30600— G. A. 7018; 
 May 9, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Stem and cargo ginger does not lose its character as a sweetmeat 
 when imported in bulk in casks, and when so imported was dutiable under para- 
 graph 263, tariff act of 1897. Delapenha & Co. v. United States (No. 114); Pea- 
 body & Co. V. United States (No. 115), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 493 
 
 Ginger, preserved — Continued. 
 
 Appeals by the importers from decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers (T. D. 30600). Board sustained. (T. D. 31116; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 
 Gingerbread, so-called. (See Cakes.) 
 
 Gingerine and capsicene. (See Medicinal preparations.) 
 
 Gladiolus bulbs. (See Bulbs.) 
 
 Glass aigrettes. (See Aigrettes, artificial.) 
 
 Glass articles, molded. 
 
 Certain molded glass articles cut to represent brilUants dutiable as manufactures 
 of paste at 30 per cent ad valorem for the large sizes under paragraph 95, tariff 
 act of 1913, and 20 per cent ad valorem for the smaller sizes as imitation precious 
 stones under paragraph 357. (T. D. 35283; Apr. 2, 1915.) 
 
 Glass and glasses. 
 Balls- 
 Glass balls used in the ends of legs of piano stools and tabouret stools, dutiable 
 under paragraph 109 of the tariff act at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem. 
 (T. D. 31704; June 19, 1911.) 
 Blown. 
 Articles not containers: Paragraph 100, tarifi act of 1897, is not limited to articles 
 of blown glass capable of being filled; and lamp chimneys, globes, shades, and 
 other articles composed wholly of blown glass are dutiable under said paragraph. 
 G. A. 5794 (T. D. 25598) and Hempstead v. United States (158 Fed. Rep., 584; 
 T. D. 28638) followed. (T. D. 29328— G. A. 6824; Oct. 30, 1908.) 
 Blown-glass bottles, suitable for use a3 containers of medicines and chemicals, 
 dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 97, instead of under 
 paragraph 98 of the tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32728; July 28, 1912.) 
 Pens: Glass pens, with pen and handle made in one piece, dutiable as articles in 
 chief value of blown glass at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 98, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33621; July 14, 1913.) 
 Manufactures of: Sounding-machine tubes of blown glass, coated on the interior 
 with a, chemical film, packed in tin cases containing 10 such tubes, do not in 
 combination with the tin coverings constitute entireties dutiable as manufac- 
 tures of metal, at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. 
 The tubes are dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 98 of said act, 
 as articles in chief value of blown glass, to the value of which must be added the 
 cost of the metal coverings as provided in section 28, subsection 18, of said act; 
 it being immaterial for tariff purposes that the value of the covering may be 
 greater than that of the merchandise contained therein. (T. D. 31674 — G. A. 
 7234; June 12, 1911.) 
 Syringes ; labor not a material : Unfinished syringes, consisting solely of barrels and 
 plungers made from blown-glass tubing, are dutiable under the provision of para- 
 graph 98, tariff act of 1909, for "articles * * * composed wholly or in chief 
 value ofglass blown either in a mold or otherwise, ' ' and not under paragraph 109 
 as "manufactures of glass. " Labor is not a material, and in connection with the 
 assessment of duties can not be treated as a component part of imported mer- 
 chandise. It is merely an element that must be considered only so far as it 
 affects the value of the particular material to which it has been applied. (T. D. 
 31427— G. A. 7192; Mar. 24, 1911.) 
 Thermos bottles — Unfinished articles: Articles of blown glass in an unfinished 
 condition, intended for use in the manufacture of thermos bottles, are not duti- 
 able as manufactures of glass or in part of metal under paragraphs 109 or 199, 
 tariff act of 1909, respectively, nor as bottles under paragraph 97, but are 
 dutiable under paragraph 98 as articles composed wholly or in chief value of 
 glass, blown. (T. D. 30665— G. A. 7031; June 2, 1910.) 
 
494 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Glass and glasses— Continued. 
 
 Blown — Continued . 
 Tubes: Tubes of blown glass, which, after importation, are sold to manufacturers 
 to be cut to fit siphon bottles, held dutiable as manufactures of glass under para- 
 graph 112, tariff act of 1897, and not as blown glassware under paragraph 100. 
 United States v. Fensterer (84 Fed., 148), United States n. Hinsberger (94 Fed., 
 645), United States v. Diu-and (137 Fed., 382; T. D. 26123), and G. A. 6533 
 (T. D. 27884) followed. (T. D, 34277— G. A. 7542; Mar. 9, 1914.) 
 
 Bottles of various kinds. (See Booties.) 
 
 Chemical — 
 Plain glass articles produced by being blown in molds are not "blown glassware" 
 within the meaning of paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, not being known to the 
 trade by that designation, but are dutiable as manufactures of glass not specially 
 provided for under paragraph 112. The provision for "blown glassware" in 
 paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, includes glass tubing in a finished state; but 
 tubing in an incomplete condition, imported to be used in the manufacture of 
 finished articles, is dutiable under paragraph 112 as manufactures of glass not 
 specially provided for. Articles in chief value of blown glass and in part of solid 
 or pressed glass are not dutiable as "blown glassware" xmder pai-agraph 100, 
 tariff act of 1897, but as manufactures of glass not specially provided for under 
 paragraph 112. The provision in paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, for "articles 
 of glass * * * ornamented, decorated, or gro\md (except such grinding as ia 
 necessary for fitting stoppers)," does not include articles ground only for pur- 
 poses of utility, which are dutiable under paragraph 112 as manufactures of glass, 
 not specially provided for. Bottles of molded or pressed glass, with stoppers 
 cut or ground more than is necessary for fitting stoppers, are dutiable under para- 
 graph 100, tariff act of 1897, relating to "glass bottles * * * cut, * * * 
 or ground (except such grinding as is necessary for fitting stoppers). " So-called 
 lamp work, consisting of articles blown at the lamp, are dutiable as " blown glass- 
 ware," under paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897. Heil Chemical Co. v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Missouri, June 18, 
 1908. No. 5259 (suit 1799). Application for review of decision by Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 9355 (T. D. 26923). Decision 
 partly adverse to Government. (T. D. 29205; Aug. 12, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The provision in paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, for "blown 
 glassware" is not limited to articles blown free-handed, but includes also those 
 blown in a mold. The provision in paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, for "blown 
 glassware " does not include articles composed in chief value of blown glass, but 
 in part of other glass or material. Such ware is dutiable as manufactures of glass 
 under paragraph 112. The provision in paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, for 
 "articles of glass * * * ornamented, decorated, or ground (except such 
 grinding as is necessary for fitting stoppers), " is not limited to articles in which 
 the grinding is done for ornamental or decorative purposes, but includes plain 
 goods ground for utility purposes only. United States v. Heil Chemical Co. 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, March 22, 1910. 
 No. 2591 (suit 1799). Appeal from the decision of the Circuit Court of the 
 United States for the Eastern District of Missouri (T. D. 29205) reversing in part 
 Abstract 9355 (T. D. 26923). Decision principally in favor of the Government. 
 (T. D. 30492; Apr. 5, 1910.) 
 Flint-glass bottles and jars suitable for use as and of the character ordinarily em- 
 ployed as containers for the holding or transportation of merchandise dutiable 
 at the appropriate rates under paragraph 97, and not at 60 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909. 
 
 Boxes or dishes composed of glass blown in a mold and ground for purposes of 
 utility dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 98, act of 1909, irre- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 495 
 
 Glass and glasses — Continued. 
 
 Chemical — Continued . 
 
 spective of whether or not the grinding thereon costs more than the glass articles 
 before being ground. G. A. 7192 (T. D. 31427). 
 
 Glass bottles blown in a mold with stoppers or covers ground for fitting, 
 designed for use in chemical or other operations, dutiable at 60 per cent a-d 
 valorem under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909. 
 
 Trays composed of glass blown in a mold, having covers composed of plate 
 glass which has been ground for the purpose of fitting, the covers after grinding 
 being more valuable than the blown glass trays, dutiable at 45 per cent ad 
 valorem as "manufactures of glass" under paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909. 
 T. D. 33216— G. A. 7436; Feb. 21, 1913. ~i 
 
 (Appealed:) Glass blown in a mold. — The general rule of construction is that 
 an excepting clause relates to what immediately precedes it, and that it will be 
 80 construed unless the legislature has clearly manifested a contrary intent, and 
 there is in paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, no indication of intent to apply the 
 exception to what follows as well as to what goes before it. The given articles 
 of glass blown in a mold were dutiable under that paragraph. 
 
 Colored-glass funnels. — In said paragraph 98 it was intended to declare that it 
 an article otherwise within the paragraph was susceptible of use as a container, 
 no difference should be made in its assessment whether unfilled or filled, as im- 
 ported, with contents dutiable or free. Stem v. United States (105 Fed., 937); 
 Dingelstedt v. United States (91 Fed., 112) distinguished. Scientific Supply 
 Importing Co. v. United States (No. 1195), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, G. A. 7436 (T. D. 33216). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34094; Jan. 14, 
 1914.) 
 
 Chemical flasks — 
 Chemical flasks composed exclusively of blown glass are dutiable as blown glass- 
 ware under paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897 , rather than as ' ' bottles ' ' under para- 
 graph 99. Eimer v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York, May 21, 1908. Suit 4963. Appeal by importer from decision 
 by Board of United States Gtoeral Appraisers, Abstract 15582 (T. D. 28223). 
 Board sustained. (T. D. 29162; July 15, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Thin blown-glass flasks designed foi use in chemical laboratories 
 are dutiable under paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, as "blown glassware," rather 
 than under paragraph 99, as "bottles." Eimer t. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February J 6, 1909. No. 138 (suit 
 4963) . Appeal by importer from C ircuit Court of United States for the Southern 
 District of New York (T. D. 29162), aflirming abstract 15582 (T. D. 28223). 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29601 ; Mar. 3, 1909.) 
 
 Cigarette holders. (See Smokers' Articles.) 
 
 Colored — 
 Imitation precious stones: Colored glass in imitation of precious stones dutiable at 
 the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem as manufactures of paste or glass under para- 
 graph 109, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32802; Sept. 3, 1912.) 
 
 Cut- 
 Cut paste articles not. (See Paste, manufactures of.) 
 
 Cut, engraved, etc. — 
 All articles of every description composed wholly or in chief value of glass to 
 which any of the processes of cutting, engraving, painting, coloring, staining, 
 silvering, gilding, etching, sandblasting, frosting, or printing in any manner 
 has been applied are dul iable under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, irrespective 
 of whether the articles are ornamented or decorated thereby or are merely so 
 treated for purposes of utility. (T. D. 30759— G. A. 7057; July 7, 1910.) 
 
496 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 
 
 Glass and glasses— Continued. 
 Decorated and ornamented — • 
 Table glassware, vases, etc., which, when pressed in a mold, were ornamented so 
 as to give the appearance of cut glass, dutiable at the rate of 45 per cent ad va- 
 lorem under the provision of paragraph 84 ol the tariff act of 1913, for articles of 
 every description composed wholly or in chief value of glass, ornamented or 
 decorated in any manner. (T. D. 35167; Feb. 25, 1915.) 
 Bisks — 
 Rough glass disks, which are to be ground and polished on both sides and silvered, 
 for use as reflectors in automobile lamps, dutiable under paragraph 109, tariff 
 act of 1909, at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 30533; Apr. 13, 1910.) 
 Glass disks, rough cut or unwrought, chiefly used in the manufacture of reflectors 
 for automobile lamps, are not entitled to free entry under paragraph 577, tariff 
 act of 1909, but are dutiable as manufactures of glass at 45 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 109 of said act. Free entry under paragraph 577 is limited to 
 glass plates or disks used exclusively in the manufacture of articles definitely 
 designated in trade as optical instruments, spectacles, eyeglasses, etc., and 
 plates or disks suitable for any other commercial purpose 'are excluded. 
 (T. D. 30906— G. A. 7095; Aug. 24, 1910.) 
 Disks — Not coquill glasses — ■ 
 The importation in conlroversy consisted of certain disks or pieces of glass, bent, 
 used in the manufacture of "auto goggles." These unpolished and unground 
 glasses had not been so far advanced by processes of manufacture as to acquire a 
 name, character, and use different from common window glass; they remained 
 window glass, bent; that is to say, material not yet advanced to the stage of a 
 new manufacture. They were dutiable accordingly under paragraphs 99 and 
 104, tariff act of 1909. United States v. American Thermo-Ware Co. (No. 925), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28349 (T. D. 32488). 
 Decision afiu-med. (T. D. 33218; Feb. 18, 1913.) 
 Disks for goggles. 
 Disks cut from cylinders of common window glass, which possess no magnifying 
 power and are used in the manufacture of goggles, are not free of duty under 
 paragraph 565, tariff act of 1897, as disks for optical instruments, spectacles, and 
 eyeglasses, but are dutiable as cylinder glass under paragraph 1 01 if plain white, 
 and under paragraphs 101 and 107 if smoked or colored. (T. D. 29117 — G. A. 
 6783; June 24, 1908.) 
 Disks of common window glass, bent and suitable for use in the construction of 
 goggles, are not "parts" of goggles within the meaning of paragraph 108, tariff 
 act of 1897, nor coquill lenses within the meaning of paragraph 109, but are duti- 
 able as cylinder glass, bent, under paragraphs 101 and 107. (T. D. 30266 — G. A. 
 6961; Jan. 12, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Oval-shaped glasses suitable for use in the manufactme of auto- 
 mobile goggles were dutiable under paragraphs 101 and 107, tariff act of 1897, 
 and not under paragraph 108, as parts of the completed articles, the language 
 "or parts thereof" in said paragraph 108 providing for "spectacles, eyeglasses, 
 and goggles, and frames for the same, or parts thereof," referring to Ihe frames 
 and not to the spectacles, etc. United States v. American Thermo-Ware Co. 
 (No. 190), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6961 (T. D. 
 30266). Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of 
 New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31571; May 1, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 497 
 
 Glass and glasses — Continued. 
 Gauge glasses — 
 
 Patent gauge glasses, consisting of prismatic strips of glass, to be classified tor 
 duty under paragraph 100 as heretofore. G. A. 6721 (T. D. 28774) not to be 
 followed. (T. D. 28835; Mar. 11, 1908.) 
 
 Gauge glasses produced by a process of blowing and drawing dutiable as "all arti- 
 cles of every description * * * composed wholly or in chief value of glass, 
 blown either in a mold or otherwise," at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 98, tariff act of 1909. The terms "composed wholly or in chief value of glass 
 blown either in a mold or otherwise " being descriptive, it is immaterial whether 
 merchandise described thereby is or is not included within a commercial term. 
 (T. T>. 32882— G. A. 7399; Oct. 25, 1912.) 
 Geissler tubes — 
 
 Geissler tubes which are manufactured from blown-glass tubing manipulated by 
 hand into the required form dutiable as "all articles of every description * * * 
 composed wholly or in chief value of glass blown.either in a mold or otherwise," 
 under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, rather than as manufactures of glass under 
 paragraph 109 of said act. (T. D. 32344— G. A. 7342; Mar. 26, 1912.) 
 Ground — 
 
 Chandeliers,'parts of: Strips of molded glass with ground edges, designed for use as 
 parts of chandeliers, are dutiable under paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, as 
 articles of glass, ground. (T. D. 30709— G. A. 7041; June 20, 1910.) 
 
 Ornamentation: Articles of glass that have been ground for purposes of utility 
 held not dutiable under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, in which provision is 
 made for glass articles ground for ornamentation, under paragraph 109, providing 
 for manufactures of glass. (T. D. 30824— <j. A. 7076; July 19, 1910.) 
 Hand reading or magnifying glasses. (See Optical instruments.) 
 Icicles — 
 
 Toys: So-called icicles, consisting of pieces of twisted glass used on Christmas 
 trees, are found to be commercially known as toys and held dutiable as such 
 under paragraph 418, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 30445— G. A. 6996; Feb. 19, 
 1910.) 
 Imitating seed pearls — 
 
 Frostings — Streuperlen: So-called strueperlen, consisting of diminutive globules 
 of glass and imitating seed pearls, are found to be commercially known as 
 "frostings'' and held dutiable as such under paragraph 58, tariff act of 1897. 
 (T. D. 29564— G. A. 6869; Feb. 23, 1909.) 
 Insulators — 
 
 Molded glass insulators, colored amber in the pot, the process of their manufac- 
 ture being completed when they leave 1he mold, are not dutiable at 60 per cent 
 ad valorem under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, as articles of glass, colored. 
 They are dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem as manufactures of glass under para- 
 graph 109 of the said act. (T. D. 31586— G. A. 7220; May 15, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) "Glass rosettes." — The goods in conlroversy are small hemi- 
 spherical glass insulators, to Ihe glass of which in a melted sta'e an amber color 
 has been given by mixing appropriate coloring matter. From its terms and its 
 legislative history, paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, must be taken to cover all 
 articles of colored glass not otherwise specifically provided for, and the colored- 
 glass insulators were dutiable as assessed under that paragraph. United States 
 V. Wakem & McLaughlin (No. 688). United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by Ihe United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 7220 (T. D. 3158.i). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32170; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 45633°— 17 32 
 
498 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Glass and glasses — Continued. , 
 
 Microscope glasses and stages — 
 No3e glasses and stages which are accessories to microscopes dutiable as mountings 
 for microscopes at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 94, tariff act of 1913. 
 (T. D. 35277; Mai-. 31, J915.) 
 Microscope slides — 
 Microscope slides of glass, cofttaining specimens that are of greater value than the 
 glass, are not dutiable under paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, relating to articles 
 of glass, ground, etc.. but under section 6 as unenumerated manufactured arti- 
 cles. G. A. 1394 (T. D. 12798) followed. (T. D. 29614-G. A. 6880; Mar. 9, 
 1909.) 
 Mosaics — 
 Prismoidal pieces of glass, colored or gilded: The goods have been so far advanced 
 beyond the condition of a mere raw material that they have not only received a 
 distinctive name, but a special definite form that commits them to a specific 
 ultimate use and apparently renders them commercially unfit for anything else. 
 The language of paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, is broad enough to cover articles 
 of glass other than those denominatively provided for, and glass mosaics were 
 dutiable under that paragraph. United States v. Foscafo (No. 1477), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Government from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 36586 (T. B. 34789). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 35251; Mar. 18, 1915.) 
 Opal— 
 Held that the provision in paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, for "porcelain, opal 
 and other blown glassware," relates only to articles known as blown glassware, 
 and that pressed opal-glass bottles are dutiable under paragraph 99, relating to 
 "molded or pressed * * * bottles." (T. D. 29248— G. A. 6799; Sept. 
 3, 1908.) 
 Photo baths — • 
 Jars— Paragraph 97 of the act of 1909 construed: A receptacle 2 by 6 by 10 inches, 
 with open top, and no apparent provision for covering, used by photographers 
 as a bath for sensitized photographers' plates, does not fall within the provision 
 for jars in paragraph 97 of the act of 1909, as the term "jars," as there employed, 
 is expressly restricted to such as are ordinarily employed as containers for the 
 holding or transportation of merchandise. 
 
 The finding of the collector as presumptive evidence of correct classification. 
 No evidence having been offered to impeach the finding of the appraiser that 
 the article in question is blown glass, the assessment under paragraph 98 of the 
 act of 1909 as blown glass must control. Gallagher & Ascher v. United States 
 (No. 1556), United States Court of Custom Appeals. Appeal by importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37372. Decision aflirmed. 
 (T. D. 35924; Nov. 19, 1915.) 
 Plates, rough cut or unwrought — 
 Cylinder-glass plates, colored or uncolored, which by reason of their high cost are 
 not adapted commercially for glaziers' or decorative purposes, and which are 
 manufactured with special care for the purpose of rendering them suitable for 
 use in the manufacture of optical instruments, spectacles, and eyeglasses, are 
 entitled to free entry under paragraph 565, tariff act of 1897, and are not dutiable 
 as cylinder, crown, or common window glass at the rates per pound according to 
 size provided by paragraph ]01 and the additional duty of 5 per cent ad valorem 
 prescribed by paragraph 107, it colored. (T. D. 28804— G. A. 6731; Feb. 25, 
 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 499 
 
 Glass and glasses — Continued. 
 Pot-colored — 
 
 Molded glass rods colored in the pot held specially provided for under paragraph 
 98, tariff act of 1909, as articles of glass, colored, and not dutiable as glass oi- 
 manufactures thereof under paragraph 109. (T. D. 34602 — G. A. 7580; June 
 24, 1914.) 
 Powdered — 
 
 Powdered glass generally used in the manufacture of match heads and occasion- 
 ally in the manufacture of abrasives held dutiable as a manufacture of glass not 
 specially provided for under paragraph 109, and not as a crude artificial abrasive 
 under paragraph 432, nor as waste under paragraph 479, tariff act of 1909. 
 (T. D. 34628— G. A. 7585; July 3, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Abrasive. — ^The true, final, and distinctive purpose of an abrasive 
 is to create new surfaces by rubbing or grinding away older ones, and not to pro- 
 duce friction or heat. The use oi powdered glass on match heads or the sides of 
 match boxes Is not as an abrasive. 
 
 Powdered glass not waste. — This glass might probably be regarded as a manu- 
 facture from waste, but it is not itself waste in the proper sense of the term. It 
 was dutiable as a manufacture of glass under paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909. 
 Chrystal v. United States (No. 1445), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7585 (T. D. 34628). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35148; Jan. 15, 1915.) 
 Prismatic — 
 
 Strips of glass about 6 inches long, IJ inches wide and one-half inch thick, ground 
 on the sides and top surface and having the ends rounded by grinding; five 
 parallel incisions in the upper surface thereof produced by cutting or grinding 
 and polishing, forming four prisms the optical properties of which enable the 
 strips to be used as an improved form of gauge glass for steam boilers, are duti- 
 able as prismatic strips of glass under paragraph 110 of the present tariff act, and 
 not as ground glass under paragraph 100, nor as manufactures of glass under para- 
 graph 112 of said act. United States v. Hinsberger (94 Fed. Rep., 645) cited. 
 (T. D. 28774— G. A. 6721; Feb. 17, 1908.) 
 
 Patent gauge glasses, consisting of prismatic strips of glass, to be classified for duty 
 under paragraph 100 as heretofore. G. A. 6721 (T. D. 28774) not to be followed. 
 (T. p. 28835; Mar. 1], 1908.) 
 
 The provision in paragraph 110, tariff act of 1897, for glass strips "ground or pol- 
 ished on one or both sides to a * * * prismatic form " does not require that 
 the s^ps shall be in the form of a prism, nor that an entire side shall be in pris- 
 matic form. It therefore includes strips into one side of which parallel incisions 
 ' have been ground or polished, producing prisms; and such articles are 
 dutiable under said paragraph rather than under paragraph 100 as articles 
 of glass, ground. United States v. Ashcroft Manufacturing Co., United States 
 Circuit Court, District of Connecticut, June 18, 1909. No. 723 (suit 2041). 
 Appeal by United States from decision of Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 
 19748 (T. D. 29298). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29878; June 29, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The provision in paragraph 110, tariff act of 1897, for strips of 
 glass ground or polished to "prismatic form," is not limited to strips so ground 
 that any side in itself forms a prism, but includes also strips which fulfill the 
 functions of a prism; as where there are ground in one side fine parallel longi- 
 tudinal incisions forming prisms. United States v. Ashcroft Manufacturing 
 Co., United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 8, 
 1910. No. 144 (suit 2041). Appeal by the United States from the decision of 
 
500 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Glass and glasses — Continued. 
 
 Filsmetic — Continued. 
 
 the United States Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut (172 Fed. Rep., 
 449; T. D. 29878) affirming Abstract 19748 (T. D. 29298). Decision adverse to 
 the Government. (T. D. 30384; Mar. 1, 1910.) 
 So-called klinger glasses, consisting of glass strips ground onone side with incisions 
 that give a prismatic effect, are dutiable under paragraph 110, tariff act of 1897, 
 relating to glass strips ground to a prismatic form. (T. D. 30465— G. A. 6998; 
 Mar. 23, 1910.) 
 
 Beflectors, fluted — 
 Reflector glasses in the form of glass sheets, not fashioned into reflectors, dutiable 
 under paragraph J03 of the tariff act of 1909, as cylinder glass, silvered; if fash- 
 ioned into reflectors, ready for use, at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem, under 
 paragraph 98 of the said act. (T. D. 31342; Mar. 3, 1911.) 
 Department's decision of March 1, J911 (T. D. 31342), imposing a higher rate of 
 duty upon fluted glass reflectors not to control in the classification of this mer- 
 chandise until May 1, 1911. (T. D. 31387; Mar. 15, 1911.) 
 
 Reflectors, silvered — 
 Silvered blown-glass reflectors, claimed silvered for utilitarian purposes only, held 
 dutiable under paragraph 98 of the tariff act of 1909, and not under paragraph 
 109, as claimed. Abstract 21957 (T. D. 30048) distinguished; G. A. 7031 (T. D. 
 30665) and Abstract 25466 (T. D. 31843) followed. (T. D. 34351— G. A. 7550; 
 Mar. 31, 1914.) 
 
 Boiled plate — 
 Rolled plate glass, colored by the introduction of some pigment or metallic sub- 
 stance in the molten material prior to the same being cast upon the table or plate 
 imported under the tariff act of 1909, is neither "obscured " glass dutiable under 
 paragraph 102, tariff act of 1909, as assessed, by virtue of the proviso to paragraph 
 101, nor "unpolished cylinder, crown, or common window glass" under para- 
 graphs 99 and 104, as claimed, but is dutiable as "rolled * * * plate glass" 
 at the rates provided in paragraph 101, dependent upon measurement. G. A. 
 5007 (T. D. 23320) cited with approval. The importers not having claimed 
 under paragraph 101, the protest is overruled and the collector's decision re- 
 mains undisturbed. (T. D. 32486— G. A. 7358; Apr. 29, 1912.) 
 
 Sestant, horizon, and index — 
 Sextant, horizon, and index glasses dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32689; July 1, 1912.) 
 
 Silvered — 
 Certain bottles consisted of a smaller bottle inserted into a larger, the space be- 
 tween the two being silvered and made a vacuum, for purposes of insulation. 
 Held that they were not dutiable as "silvered" bottles under paragraph 100, 
 tariff act of 1897, because not silvered for ornamental or decorative purposes, 
 and that they were not "plain" glass bottles within the meaning of paragraph 
 99, but that they were dutiable as manufactures of glass under paragraph 112. 
 Koscherak v. United States (98 Fed. Rep., 596) and United States v. Hesse (141 
 Fed. Rep., 492; T. D. 26398) followed. (T. D. 29996— G. A. 6931; Sept. 8, 
 1909.) 
 
 Slides for magic lanterns. (See Magic-lantern slides.) 
 
 Stem glasses with blown bowls — 
 Goblets and other plain glass stem ware, which have not been subjected to any of 
 the superadded processes named in paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, having more 
 material in the stem and foot, which are not blown glassware, than in the blown- 
 glass bowl thereof, and the labor cost of producing said stem and foot beiog double 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 501 
 
 Glass and glasses — Continued. 
 Stem glasses, with blown bowls — Continued. 
 
 thai of blowing the bowl, so that blown glassware is not of chief value in the com- 
 pleted goblet, held dutiable at 45 per cenl ad valorem as manufactures of glass 
 not specially provided for under paragraph 109 of said act as claimed in the pro- 
 tests, and not at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 98 of said act as articles 
 in chief value of blown glass, as assessed. United States v. Heil Chemical Co. 
 (178 Fed., 537; T. D. 30492) followed. 
 
 American cost: Testimony offered by the Government of American cost, 
 when it is shown there is a market for the merchandise in the country of origin, 
 held inadmissible. (T. D. 34023— G. A. 7519; Dec. 22, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Bowl of blown glass with stem and foot molded. — ^This glassware is 
 composed of blown bowls with molded stems and feet. There was no evidence 
 by which a finding could be made of the value of the blown bowl or that of the 
 molded stem and foot when these first took on the character of blown or molded 
 glass; and the finding of the collector that blown glass was the component ma- 
 terial of chief value was unimpeached. United States v. Gredelue (No. 1336), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7519 (T. D. 34023). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 34476; May 18, 1914.) 
 Stem ware — 
 
 Goblets and other glass stem ware, composed in part of blown glass but in chief 
 value of molded or pressed glass, dutiable as "manufactures of glass" under 
 paragraph 109, and not as articles "composed wholly or in chief value of glass 
 blown either in a mold or otherwise" under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909. 
 (T. D. 33261— G. A. 7444; Mar. 3, 1913.) 
 
 Board's finding on judicial notice taken: The question at issue was whether the 
 stem or the bowl of the imported glassware constitutes value in chief of the mer- 
 chandise. The relative values were not shown by the testimony. Evidence 
 taken on the hearing of other protests and regarded as material must be offered 
 and received in conformity with established rules and after opportunity has 
 been afforded counsel to reexamine or cross-examine witnesses. 
 
 Ibid: And as there was no proof actually before the board upon which a con- 
 clusion could be rested that molded and not blown glass was the component 
 material of chief value, the knowledge of the board itself could not support its 
 conclusion. United States v. Burley & Tyrrell Co. (No. 1369), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 35264 (T. D. 34321). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 34938; Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 Strips — 
 
 Optical instruments: Strips of glass IJ inches in width and 12 inches in length, 
 clear or smoked, used in the manufacture of optical instruments, spectacles, and 
 eyeglasses, and that can not be used for any other purpose, are free of duty under 
 paragraph 577 of the tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33759— G. A. 7493; Sept. 22, 
 1913.) 
 Towel rods — 
 
 Rods resembling glass, some clear in color, others opaque, and which a chemical 
 analysis would not differentiate from glass, and about 4 feet in length by 1\ 
 inches in diameter, not all straight, some thinner at one end than the other, 
 held dutiable as manufad ures of glass under paragraph 109 of the tariff act of 
 1909, and not as fusible enamel (par. 110). Abstract 27715 (T. D. 32244), Ab- 
 stract 25449 (T. D. 31543), and G. A. 5760 (T. D. 25509) cited. (T. D. 34377— 
 G. A. 7556; Apr. 10, 19)4.) 
 
502 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Glass and glasses — Continued. 
 Towel rods — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) The board found from the testimony the merchandise was glass 
 rods or glass and not fusible enamel. There is such a substantial conflict in the 
 testimony that the court does not feel justified, under its well-established rule, 
 in reversing the finding of the board. Semon Bache & Co. v. United States 
 (No. 1409), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7556 (T. D. 34377). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35150; Feb. 3, 1915.) 
 Weighing of — 
 Not less than 5 per cent of imported glass should be weighed, and not less than 
 one box of each mark. T. D. 24643 of August 29, 1903, modified accordingly. 
 (T. D. 30718; June 27, 1910.) 
 Window — 
 Glass dutiable under paragraph 85, tariff act of 191 3, may be permitted entry when 
 packed in boxes containing multiples of 50 square feet. (T. D. 34388; Apr. 
 16, 1914.) 
 Bullions or burll's-eyes: The provision in paragraph 101, tariff act of 1897, for win- 
 dow glass includes so-called bullions or bull's-eyes, consisting of sheets of glass 
 8 inches square with an excrescence in the middle of each sheet. (T. D. 30334 — 
 G. A. 6976; Feb. 7, 1910.) 
 Parts of goggles: Pieces of common window glass, bent, suitable for use in the 
 manufacture of automobile goggles, are not dutiable as lenses of glass or pebble, 
 or as piano or coquill glasses, ground and polished, under paragraph 109 of the 
 tariff act of 1897. They are dutiable at If cents per pound and 5 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraphs 101 and 107 of said act. G. A. 6961 (T. D. 30266), 
 affirmed by the United States Court of Customs Appeals in the case of United 
 States V. American Thermo Ware Co. (T. D. 31571), cited. (T. D. 31787— 
 G. A. 7252; July 28, T9U.) 
 Glassteine and glass-stone buttons. (SeS Buttons.) 
 Glazing stones composed of mineral substances. 
 
 Paragraph 95 of the tariff act of 1909, relating to articles and wares composed 
 wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral substances, is intended to cover 
 only such articles and wares as are thus composed, using the word "composed " 
 in its ordinary sense. Flint stones cut into circular shape with the periphery 
 polished, and used for glazing paper, are dutiable as nonenumerated manufac- 
 tured articles under paragraph 480. See Proctor's case, Abstract 24859 (T. D. 
 31316), and decisions therein cited. (T. D. 31705— G. A. 7235; June 16, 1911.) 
 (Appealed:) "Composed," in paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, does not imply 
 that an article to be "composed" must be made of more than one substance; 
 an article may be composed of a single substance. Nor does the phrase "min- 
 eral substances" in the same paragraph mean substances in the plural, to the 
 exclusion of substance in the singular. The solid flint glazing stones of the 
 importation in controversy were dutiable under that paragraph as articles or 
 wares composed wholly or" in chief value of earthy or mineral substances. Salo- 
 mon V. United States (T. D. 31635). United States v. Tamm & Co. (Ns. 711), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7235 (T. D. 31705). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 32173; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 Glove leather. 
 
 Split sheepskin fleshers, tanned by the acid or formaldehyde process, specially 
 finished for use in the making of gloves, and generally used for that purpose, 
 aie classifiable as glove leathers, and under the eo nomine provision therefor in 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 503 
 
 Glove leather — Continued. 
 
 paragraph 359 of the tariff act of 1913 are aasessable with duty accordingly. 
 G. A. 7075 (T. D. 30799) cited and distinguished. (T. D. 34861— G. A. 7621; Oct. 
 23, 1914.) 
 Lambskins, dressed and finished — 
 Lambskins specially prepared for glove making are not dutiable under the provi- 
 sion in paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, for "sheep and goat skins (including 
 lamb and kid skins) dressed and finished * * * not specially provided 
 for." The provision for "glove leather" in said paragraph 451 as applied to 
 lambskins dressed and finished specially for glove making is more specific than 
 the provision for "sheep and goat skins (including lamb and kid skins) dressed 
 and finished * * * not specially provided for." To hold otherwise would 
 be to practically make the provision for "glove leather" in paragraph 451 of no 
 effect. In construing a statute every word must be given effect, if possible. 
 (Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, p. 68; Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 
 113.) (T. D. 30766— G. A. 7064; July 11, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Dressed lamb and kid skins finished so as to be suitable for mak- 
 ing gloves might be designated as either ' ' lambskins dressed and finished " or aa 
 "glove leather " ; but as the last is the more specific designation it must prevail, 
 and the more certainly since otherwise it would be to deny any significance to 
 "glove leather" in the law. The importation is not dutiable as sheep and goat 
 skins (including lamb and kid skins) dressed and finished under paragraph 451, 
 tariff act of 1909, nor as grain, split, or buff leather under paragraph 450 of that 
 act, but is dutiable as glove leather under paragraph 451. It was error for the 
 board to predicate an opinion on testimony taken in a former case, but as the 
 error relates to a question of fact not essential to the decision of this case it is error 
 without injury. Stiver et al. v. United States (No. 453), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from a decision of the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7064 (T. D. 30766). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 31550; Apr. 24, 1911.) 
 Gloves. 
 Arrow-point gloves — ^Embroidered leather gloves — ■ 
 These gloves with so-called arrow-point embroidery are made with a machine 
 carrying a single needle but two threads, stitching up and down the back, and 
 the arrow points are produced by handwork. Whether they were subject to the 
 additional duty provided for by paragraph 459, tariff act of 1909, is to be deter- 
 mined not by the number of rolls or lines of stitching or embroidery but by the 
 number of strands or threads employed in producing the effect; and here, owing 
 to the fact that only two threads were employed, the provision for additional 
 duty can not apply. 
 
 Strands — Cords — Threads: The uniform course of opinion with the courts is 
 that these words were, as used in this connection, namely, "strands," "cords," 
 and "threads," equivalent in meaning. Fieldetal. v. United States (No. 1416), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 35604 (T. D. 34459). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 35144; Jan. 15, 1915.) 
 Artificial silk — 
 Gloves composed of artificial silk are properly dutiable as wearing apparel of silk, 
 by similitude, under paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897, rather than as wearing 
 apparel of cotton or other vegetable fiber under paragraph 314. (T. D. 28759 — 
 G. A. 6718; Feb. 6, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Gloves made of yarn composed of cellulose filaments obtained 
 from cotton waste by subjecting this to a chemical treatment are not articles of 
 
504 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Gloves — Continued . 
 Artificial silk — Continued. 
 
 wearing apparel to be classed by similitude as silk, but are to be classed by simil- 
 itude as wearing apparel, in chief value of cotton or other vegetable fiber, and 
 were dutiable as such under paragraph 314, tariff act 1897. Thomass & Co. v. 
 United States (No. 30), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importer from decision of the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 28759; 
 G. A. 6718) . Transferred from United States Circuit Court for the Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York. Board reversed. (T. D. 31107; N«v. 30, 1910.) 
 Classification — 
 
 The question involved in the case at bar is the determination whether certain 
 gloves imported at the port of New York, known in the trade as Paris points, 
 are "stitched or embroidered, with more than three single strands or cords," as 
 that term is used in paragraph 459 of the tariff act of 1909. The evidence neces- 
 sary to fix the proper classification of the gloves of the importation would include 
 proof of a variety of facts as to manufacture and trade usage. The record here is 
 too scanty of evidence to warrant the board's finding being disturbed. United 
 States V. Spielmann (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 279; T. D. 31320), United States v. 
 Perkins {ibid., 323; T. D. 31430), and Carson v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., — ; T. D. 31656). United States v. Weriheimer & Co. (No. 599), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24658 (T. D. 31236). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 32204; Jan. 12, 1912.) 
 Cotton, embroidered — 
 
 Cotton gloves, even though embroidered, not dutiable under paragraph 358 of the 
 tariff act of 1913, but properly dutiable under paragraph 260, the articles being 
 provided for without words of limitation in said paragraph 260. (T. D. 34207; 
 Feb. 26, 1914.) 
 Cotton, knitted — 
 
 Women's cotton gloves are wearing apparel within the meaning of paragraph 324, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30892— G. A. 7091; Aug. 22, 1910.) 
 
 The provision in paragraph 328, tariff act of 1909, for "men's and boys' cotton 
 gloves, knitted," is not limited to gloves made on a knitting machine, but 
 includes such as are made from knitted fabrics by cutting or stamping out pat- 
 terns and sewing them together. (T. D. 30900— G. A. 7092; Aug. 29, 1910.) 
 
 The provision in paragraph 328, tariff act of 1909, for "men's and boys' cotton 
 gloves, knitted," is not limited to gloves made on a knitting machine, but in- 
 cludes such as are made from knitted fabrics by cutting or stamping out patterns 
 and sewing them together. 
 
 Commercial designation: The term "gloves, knitted," as used in paragraph 
 328, tariff act of 1909, is not a commercial term, and therefore testimony tending 
 to prove that it has a commercial meaning different from the ordinary is irrele- 
 vant. (T. D. 31909— G. A. 7283; Oct. 5, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Knitted or woven. — ^The importation was of cotton gloves with a 
 knitted fabric. The form of the glove was cut from the fabric, and in completing 
 the glove this form was sewed together with thread. "Cotton gloves knitted or 
 woven," appearing in paragraph 328, tariff act of 1909, is there used in a compre- 
 hensive and inclusive sense and embraces gloves manufactured from material 
 either woven or knitted, though not shaped by the weaving process. Spielmann 
 & Co. V. United States (No. 794); Sudbury & Co. v. United States (No. 795), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7283 (T. D. 31909). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 32962; Nov. 14, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF Customs decision's, 1908-1915. 505 
 
 Gloves — Continued. 
 
 Cotton, knitted — Continued. 
 The provision of paragraph 328, tariff act of 1909, relating to knitted or woven 
 gloves, is not limited in its application to gloves that are knitted, fashioned, and 
 shaped wholly by a machine. Spielmann & Co. v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., 368; T. D. 32962) is controlling on the facts in this case. Lehman Co. v. 
 United States (No. 1354), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34530 
 (T. D. 34090). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34972; Nov. 27, 1914.) 
 
 In part of leather — 
 Gloves in part of leather dutiable under the appropriate paragraphs of the tariff 
 act of August 5, 1909, for leather gloves, although leather is not the element of 
 chief value. (T. D. 32833; Sept. 24, 1912.) 
 
 In part of wool — • 
 The wool in the lining of the gloves of the importation enhances their value, adds 
 to their comfort and warmth, aids in their sale, making thus of the wool a sub- 
 stantial and necessary part of the gloves. They do not come within the provi- 
 sions of paragraph 328, tariff act of 1909, but were dutiable under paragraph 382 
 of that act as knitted articles composed in part of Wool. United States i;. Burne 
 (No. 1049), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29941 (T. D. 
 32847). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33515; May 29, 1913.) 
 
 Leather — 
 Leather gloves with three separate points or clusters embroidered on the back, 
 with two unbroken strands or cords, subject to the cumulative duty provided by 
 paragraph 459, tariff act of 1909. This decision modified by T. D. 30886, so as 
 not to become operative until December 15, 1910. (T. D. 30698; June 17, 1910.) 
 Practice: At the trial importers' counsel stated that as to certain protests no sam- 
 ples of the gloves covered by them could be had, and they were abandoned. 
 Subsequently, however, by stipulation these protests were reopened, and it was 
 agreed the rate on the goods in question should be determined by the rule laid 
 down in the Wertheimer case. This became an agreed statement of facts, and 
 the rule in the Wertheimer case should have been applied. United States v. 
 Wertheimer (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 338; T. D. 33528). 
 
 Leather gloves, hand-embroidered: The second class of gloves bore three- 
 point embroideries that were hand stitched. Each of the three points was 
 stitched by the use of only two separate threads, but in each point the two threads 
 are continued so as to form three or four rows or lines. As to these. United 
 States V. Wertheimer (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 338; T. D. 33528) rules, and the doc- 
 trine of stare decisis applies. Altman & Co. v. United States (No. 1384), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34943 (T. D. 34247). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 34941; Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 
 Leather, embroidered — 
 The board found in effect that the testimony and the samples failed to show thaX 
 the gloves of this importation were not stitched or embroidered with more than 
 three single strands or cords and that they were accordingly subject to the accu- 
 mulated duties provided for in paragraph 459, tariff act of 1909. To warrant a 
 reversal of this finding it must appear to be wholly without evidence to support 
 it, or that it is clearly contrary to the weight of evidence as offered. Applying 
 this rule, irrespective of any opinion proper on the merits or on a review ot the 
 authorities, the testimony and exhibits afford no such warrant, and the board is 
 affirmed. Carson v. United States (No. 512), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal from a decision of the Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 24000 (T. D. 30944). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31656; 
 May 29, 1911.) 
 
506 
 
 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Gloves — Continued. 
 Leathei, embroideied — Continued. 
 
 Ladies' leal her gloves having from five to eight rows of stitching with three or 
 more cords as ornamentations on the backs thereof are ' ' stitched or embroidered 
 with more than three single strands or cords," within the meaning of paragraph 
 445 of the tariff act of 1897 and paragraph 459 of the act of 1909, and, therefore, 
 held subject to the cumulative duty of 40 cents per dozen pairs as provided in 
 said paragraphs. La Fetra v. United States (172 Fed. Rep., 297; T. D. 29810) 
 cited and distinguished. (T. D. 31908— G. A. 7282; Oct. 3, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) United States v. Germain (No. 788), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 7282 (T. D. 31908). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32620; 
 May 31, 1912.) 
 
 "Strands" and "cords": It is plain in the record in this case that there was a 
 failure here to show that "strands" and "cords" as applied to gloves have a 
 recognized commercial meaning. 
 
 Gloves with not more than three threads or strands: "Stitched or embroid- 
 ered with not more than three single strands or cords" means the number cf 
 threads employed in stitching or embroidering the decoration on the backs of 
 the gloves and not the lines or rows of decoration produced. The Paris point 
 gloves of the importation are not stitched with more than three single strands and 
 are not subject to the additional duty prescribed by paragraph 459, tariff act of 
 1909. United States v. Wertheimer & Co. (No. 958), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 29215 (T. D. 32681). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 33528; May 31, 1913.) 
 Leather, fur-lined — 
 
 Leather gloves lined with fur dutiable under paragraphs 362 to 364, notwith- 
 standing the fur lining is the element of chief value. (T. D. 34148; Feb. 5, 
 1914.) 
 Leather, unlined— 
 
 Men's gloves of wool with the finger and thumb fronts and fiie palms faced with 
 leather, leather chief value, piqu6, dutiable as men's leather gloves not specially 
 provided for at $2.50 per dozen pairs, and in addition thereto 25 cents per dozen 
 pairs as piqu6, imder paragraphs 361, 363, and 364, tariff act of 1913, or at the 
 proper rates under the appropriate provisions for men's gloves in paragraphs 453 
 to 459, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 34121; Jan. 29, 1914.) 
 Measurement of— 
 
 Paragraph 439, tariff act of 1897, prescribes, with reference to the provision in suc- 
 ceeding paragraphs for a duty on the basis of the length of gloves, that "the 
 lengths stated in each case being the extreme length when stretched to their 
 full extent. " Held that this provision does not regard slight excesses over "the 
 lengths stated," and that gloves exceeding such lengths not more than a half 
 inch should be classified as though not exceeding such lengths. United States 
 V. Mayer, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, Novem- 
 ber 6, 1908. Suit 5181. Appeal from decision by Board of United States Gen- 
 qral Appraisers, Abstract 17755 (T. D. 28634). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29350; 
 Nov. 18, 1908.) 
 
 Slight excess over dividing line: Imported gloves exceeded the statutory length 
 by three-sixteenths to one-half inch, but this excess was accidental and did not 
 affect the value nor result in any advantage to buyer or seller. Held that this 
 excess is negligible and should not change the classification of the gloves, not- 
 withstanding the prevision in paragraph 439, tariff act of 1897, that gloves shall 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 507 
 
 Gloves — Continued. 
 
 Measuiement of — Continued. 
 
 be measured according to their "extreme length when stretched to their full 
 extent." United States v. Mayer, United States Circuit Coiu-t of Appeals, 
 Second Circuit, December 7, 1909. No. 29 (suit 5181). Appeal by United 
 States from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of 
 New York (164 Fed. Rep., 905; T. D. 29350) affirming Abstract 17755 (T. D. 
 28634). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30209; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 Acquiesced in by the Government February 10, 1910 (T. D. 30320). 
 
 Silk — Depositions — 
 A witness having refused to answer certain cross-interrogatories upon which, 
 together with direct interrogatories, a deposition was taken under a commission 
 issued by the Board of United States General Appraisers to show the component 
 material of chief value in certain gloves assessed for duty as being composed in 
 chief value of silk and claimed to be composed in chief value of cotton, the 
 questions which the witness refused to answer being material and important to 
 the issue, and counsel for the Government having objected to the admission of 
 the commission in evidence, held that the board had power to exclude the depo- 
 sition from the record. 
 
 Rule XXV of the Board of United States General Appraisers: Rule XXV of 
 this board, relating to the issuing of conm[iis8ions to take depositions, does not 
 preclude the board from passing upon the admissibility of the deposition.' 
 
 Interlocutory orders: When a deposition taken under a commission issued by 
 the board was returned and offered in evidence, counsel for the Government 
 ebjected to its introduction on the ground that the witness refused to answer 
 certain cross-interrogatories. Counsel for the importers thereupon requested 
 that an interlocutory order be entered that he might "take an appeal on the 
 question of evidence," and the board refused to grant the order for the reason 
 that only final decisions of the board are reviewable by the Court of Customs 
 Appeails. Subsection 29 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, and Stegeman v. United 
 States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 208; T. D. 31240). (T. D. 33912— G. A. 7508; Nov. 
 20, 1913.) 
 
 Stitched or embroidered — 
 In construing the provision in paragraph 445, tariff act of 1897, for "gloves stitched 
 or embroidered with more than three single strands or cords. Held that the 
 term has no uniform, general, or well-defined trade understanding, and that it 
 does not include gloves having but three points each, each point having three 
 distinct rows of stitching, though the stitching shows nine chains of embroidery 
 on the outside of the backs of the gloves and nine single rows of stitching on the 
 inside. United States v. Robinson (124 Fed. Rep., 1013) and Tretovsse v. 
 United States (144 Fed. Rep., 708; T. D. 27023) followed. (T. D. 28966— G. A. 
 6757; Apr. 23, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) "Strands or cords." — ^The provision in paragraph 445, tariff act of 
 1897, for "gloves stitched or embroidered with more than three single strands or 
 cords," does not include gloves having but three points each, each point having 
 three distinct rows of stitching, though the stitching shows nine chains of em- 
 broidery on the outside of the backs of the gloves and nine single rows of stitch- 
 ing on the inside. United States i). La Fetra (2 cases); United States v. Passa- 
 vant; United States v. Trefousse, United States Circuit Court, Southern District 
 of New York, May 19, 1909. Suits 5287-9 and 5295. Appeals by United States 
 from decisions of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6757 (T. D. 28966) and 
 Abstract 18960 (T. D. 29031). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29810; June 8, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The provision in paragraph 445, tariff act of 1897, tor "gloves 
 stitched or embroidered with more than three single strands or cords," does not 
 include gloyes having but three points each, each point having three distinct 
 
508 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Gloves — Continued . 
 
 Stitched or embroidered — Continued. 
 
 rows of stitching, thougt the stitching shows nine chains of embroidery on the 
 outside of the backs of the gloves and nine single rows of stitching on the inside. 
 United States v. La, Fetra, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Cir- 
 cuit, March 7, 1910. No. 149 (suit 5287). Appeal bv the United States from 
 the decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District 
 of New York (172 Fed. Rep., 297; T. D. 29810) aflBrming G. A. 6757 (T. D. 
 28966) and Abstract 18960 (T. D. 29031). Decision adverse to the Government. 
 (T. D. 30471; Mar. 29, 1910.) 
 
 Vnstitclied — 
 The question involved in connection with an importation of gloves being one of 
 fact simply, and only one witness being called, who testified the gloves of the 
 importation were not stitched or embroidered with more than three single 
 strands or cords, and the Board of General Appraisers having found this to be 
 the fact, this finding will not be disturbed. United States v. Spielmann (No. 
 102), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States 
 from decision of the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 29559). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 31320; Feb. 13, 1911.) 
 Glycerin. 
 
 Analysis without sample of the merchandise- 
 There was a chemical analysis of the glycerin of the importation. Proof of this 
 was excluded because a sample of the glycerin analyzed was not produced. To 
 make the production of a sample a condition precedent to the admission of proof 
 of the analysis was error. The failure to produce a sample might affect the 
 weight, but not the competency, of the evidence offered. United States v. 
 Alpers & Mott (No. 1044), United States Court of Custoins Appeals. Appeal by 
 the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 29966 (T. D. 32847). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33201; Feb. 12, 1913.) 
 
 Refined- 
 Glycerin in plain glass bottles, less than 2J pounds gross weight, is properly duti- 
 able at 20 per cent by reason of the provision in paragraph 17, act of 1913, for 
 "chemical and medicinal compounds, combinations, and all similar articles 
 dutiable under this section, except soap, whether specially provided for or 
 not, "and not at 2 cents per pound under paragraph 35 as glycerin, refined. 
 (T. D. 36031— G. A. 7833; Dec. 28, 1915.) 
 Glycerophosphate of lime. (See Chemical compounds.) 
 Goat hair. 
 
 Cashmere — 
 The fleece of the caahmere goat dutiable at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 305, tariff act of 1913, and so-called cashmere noils not being a waste 
 product are also dutiable at tije rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under the said 
 paragraph. (T. D. 34410; Apr. 25, 1914.) 
 
 China — 
 The question for determination is almost entirely one of fact, and on a review of 
 the testimony it is held the merchandise is China goat hair, not wool and as such 
 was entitled to free entry under paragraph 583, tariff act of 1909. United States 
 V. Fearon Daniel Co. (No. 1421), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers 
 Abstract 35843 (T.D. 34548). Decision aflSrmed. (T. D. 35152; Feb 12 1915 ) 
 
 Dyed— ' ' ' •-' 
 
 Goat hair taken frorn scraps of dyed goatskins and of less value than Uke hair 
 undyed is not a manufactured article within the meaning of the tariff law but 
 should be admitted free ef duty under paragraph 571. tariff act of 1897, relating 
 to animal hair "unmanufactured. " (T. D. 29145 — G. A. 6789; July 7, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 509 
 
 Goatskins and dogskins. 
 China goatskin mats and rugs — 
 
 China goatskin mats and rugs made up into completed articles properly dutiable 
 at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 348, tariff act of 1913. 
 (T. D. 34544; June 13, 1914.) 
 Dressed — 
 
 Dogskins and goatskins, dressed, dutiable at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 348, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34237; Mar. 6, 1914.) 
 
 In the tariff revision of October 3, 1913, the Congress provided for a duty of 10 per 
 cent ad valorem on plates and mats of dog and goat skins, and a duty of 15 per 
 cent ad valorem on articles of wearing apparel composed of dog or goat skins. 
 Query: Was it the intent of Congress that such dressed dog and goat skins should 
 be subject to a duty of 30 per cent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 
 348 for "furs dressed on the skin, not further advanced than dyeing"? Held, 
 that in providing for lower rates of duty on plates and mats and articles of wear- 
 ing apparel made from dog and goat skins, the congressional intent was mani- 
 fested to reduce the duty on dog and goat skins, dressed. Such has been the 
 long-continued policy of the Government in tariff legislation, and the language 
 of the paragraph involved must be so construed, even if it be necessary to inter- 
 polate words to give it that meaning. Knowlton v. Moore (178 U. S., 41); End- 
 lich on the Interpretation of Statutes (sec. 295); G. A. 4812 (T. D. 22621); G. A. 
 6504 (T. D. 27792), affirmed in Oberle v. United States (165 Fed., 53; T. D. 
 29352); and G. A. 7120 (T. D. 31027). There being no provision in the existing 
 tariff law which directly includes dressed goatskins, they must, under the appli- 
 cation of the similitude clause in paragraph 386, take the same rate of duty as 
 goatskin plates and mats which they most resemble. (T. D. 34493 — G. A. 7569; 
 May 27, 1914.) 
 Bugs — 
 
 Rugs dutiable as mats or plates at 10 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 348, 
 tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34054; Jan. 12, 1914.) 
 Goddard's plate powder. (See Chemical mixture.) 
 Goggles. 
 Automobilists ' — 
 
 Goggles designed for use by automobilists for the purpose of protecting the eyes 
 from injury by the intrusion of dust, insects, rain, etc., are dutiable as "goggles " 
 under paragraph 108, tariff act of 1897, and not at the rate applicable to the com- 
 ponent material of chief value entering into the fabrication of the articles. 
 (T. D. 29327— G. A. 6823; Oct. 30, 1908.) 
 Cylinder disks of glass for use in construction of goggles. (See Glass and glasses.) 
 Parts of — 
 
 Parts of goggles or lenses, colored, ground, finished or unfinished, oval or in circles, 
 are dutiable as parts of goggles under paragraph 105 of the tariff act of 1909. 
 Such merchandise is not common window glass, bent or colored, within the pro- 
 visions of paragraphs 99 and 104. Being prepared and practically finished for 
 use as goggles and parts thereof, it could not be denominated as window glass, 
 bent or colored, and therefore is not within the class of merchandise referred to 
 in United States v. American Thermo-Ware Co. (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 9; T. D. 
 31571) or United States v. American Thermo-Ware Co. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 21; 
 T. D. 33218). (T. D. 35046— G. A. 76-59; Jan. 8, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Oval-shaped glasses — ParU of goggles. — The merchandise is com- 
 posed of window glass, but it is cut to form and shape and is adapted and designed 
 for use alone as parts in the making of goggles, so removing it from the classifica- 
 tion and assessment as made. Such of these glasses as are not colored are held 
 as dutiable under paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909; and while those colored would 
 
510 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Goggles— Continued . 
 Parts of— Continued. 
 
 seem dutiable under paragraph 98, no claim having been made thereunder, the 
 judgment as to these is aflSrmed. American Thermo-Ware Co. et al. v. United 
 States (No. 1532), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States (Jeneral Appraisers, G. A. 7659 (T. D. 
 35046). Decision modified. (T. D. 35465; May 18, 1915.) 
 Gold coin. 
 
 Gold coin may be accepted in payment of duty on passengers' baggage without 
 being weighed to determine loss by abrasion. (T. D. 31836; Aug. 24, 1911.) 
 Gold leaf in loUs. 
 Size and dimension of leaf — 
 Paragraph 177, tariff act of 1909, covers all dimensions of gold leaf, and long strips 
 of gold leaf in rolls are dutiable thereunder, rather than tmder paragraph 199. 
 (T. D. 33105— G. A. 7417; Jan. 16, 1913.) 
 Goods lost overboard after entry. 
 
 Goods brought to the dock and regularly entered are subject to duty even though 
 they are lost overboard while unlading, through the carelessness or negligence 
 of those in charge. (T. U. 30729— G. A. 7051; June 27, 1910.) 
 Goose skin with down on it. (See Down.) 
 Grain leather. (See Leather.) 
 Grain, shortage in shipments of. (See Shortage.) 
 Grammars, spellers, etc. (See Books, text.) 
 Granite. 
 Lanterns. (See Lanterns.) 
 Linoleum. (See Linoleum.) 
 Monuments — 
 Building or monumental stones, dressed or polished : Keces of granite , ornamented 
 and polished to size, scale, and design, and ready after being cemented or 
 leaded together to be set up, are building or monumental stones and were duti- 
 able as such under paragraph 118, taiiff act of 1897. Austin, Baldwin & Co. 
 V. United States (144 Fed. Rep., 702); Murphy v. United States (162 Fed. 
 Rep., 871); Vantine & Co. v. United States (159 Fed. Rep., 289) distinguished. 
 Austin, Baldwin & Co. v. United States (No. 462), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the import«r8 from decisions of the Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 14687 (T. D. 27999) and Abstract 14832 (T. D. 28036). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31532; Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 Monuments of dressed granite, imported in sections ready to be put together, held 
 dutiable as dressed granite under paragraph 118, tariff act of 1897, rather than 
 as "articles composed * * * of earthy or mineral substances," under para- 
 graph 97. Murphy v. Uiuted States, United States Circuit Court, Eastern 
 District of Pennsylvania, February 10, 1908. No. 2 (suit 1951). Appeal by 
 importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 14527 (T. D. 27945). Board affirmed. (T. D. 28819; Mar. 4, 1908.) iNote.— 
 An appeal has been taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, and is 
 about to be argued.] 
 Pieces of granite, consisting of die, base, and cap, dressed, ornamented, and 
 polished in pursuance of designs and specifications for monuments, are dutiable 
 under the provision in paragraph 118, tariff act of 1897, for ''granite, * * * 
 hewn, dressed, or polished," and not under paragraph 97 as "articles and wares 
 composed of earthy or mineral substances, * * * if decorated," nor under 
 section 6 as unenumerated articles. Murphy v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, May 14, 1908. No. 35 (suit 1951). 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 511 
 
 Granite — Continued . 
 Monuments — Continued. 
 
 Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Dis- 
 trict of Pennsylvania (T. D. 28819) affirming Abstract 14527 (T. D. 27945). 
 Decision in favor of Government. (T. D. 29032; May 27, 1908.) 
 Waste- 
 Waste granite, consisting of pieces of irregular shapes and various sizes, but suit- 
 able for use in foundations and cellar walls of buildings, dutiable at 3 cents per 
 cubic foot under paragraph 99, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34146; Feb. 4, 1914.) 
 Granite. 
 
 So-called granito or terrazzo, consisting of the waste from marble quarries crushed 
 in a machine and sifted or sorted into various sizes, is subject to classification 
 under section 6, tariff act of 1897, rather than under paragraph 463 as waste, or 
 paragraph 614 as "minerals, crude, or not advanced in value or condition by 
 refining or grindifig or other process of manufacture." An article which has 
 been converted from comparatively valueless material into a commodity of use 
 and value by a process of manufacture specially designed for the purpose, 
 and which as a result of that process has acquired a new name and use, is not 
 "crude" within the meaning of paragraph 614, tariff act of 1897, but "manu- 
 factured" within the meaning of section 6. United States v. Graser-Eothe, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of Ohio, August 21, 1908. No. 
 6266 (suit 1977). Appeal from decision by Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6631 (T. D. 28289). Decisionin favor of Government. (T. D. 
 29240; Sept. 2, 1908.) 
 So-called granito, or crushed marble, dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem 
 
 under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30401; Mar. 4, 1910.) 
 So-called granito or terrazzo, consisting of the waste from marble quarries crushed 
 in a machine and sifted or sorted into various sizes, is subject to classification 
 under section 6, tariff act of 1897, rather than under paragraph 463, as waste, or 
 para^aph 614, as "minerals, crude, or not advanced in value or condition by 
 refining or grinding, or by other process of manufacture." (T. D. 29613 — G. A. 
 6879; Mar. 9, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Marble chips, known as marble waste, that have been crushed 
 and screened, being thereby advanced in value and taking the new and dis- 
 tinctive name of granito or terrazzo, are not crude mineral but manufactmed 
 articles. While administrative usage furnishes some support for the contention 
 of appellants that granito was free of duty under paragraph 614, tariff act of 1897, 
 yet it hardly appears there was such a long, uniform, and well-settled construc- 
 tion of the statute by the Treasury Department that the Congress can be pre- 
 sumed to have intended by that paragraph to declare granito, among other 
 articles, free of duty. It was not entitled to free entry and was dutiable under 
 section 6, tariff act of 1897. Rossman v. United States (No. 107); Eossman Co. 
 V. United States (No. 108), United States Cowt of Customs Appeals. Appeals 
 by the importer from decision of the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 29613). 
 Board affirmed. (T. D. 31321; Feb. 13, 1911.) 
 Marble chips, or granito, are dutiable as "earthy or mineral substances wholly or 
 partially manufactured" under that provision in paragraph 81 of the tariff act 
 of 1913. 
 
 Construction of a statute — Construction of former laws: Where a provision of 
 law is identical in language or in meaning with a similar provision in a former 
 tariff law which has been judicially construed. Congress is presumed to have 
 acted with the full knowledge and understanding of these decisions. United 
 Cig^ Stores Co., G. A. 7026 (T. D. 30643). 
 
512 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Gianito — Contimied . 
 
 Same — Ejusdem yenmg— Application to section of taiifi: General terms 
 apparently all embracing are sometimes restricted in their meaning by the use 
 of specific words in the same connection. The application of this doctrine to 
 tariff laws has quite generally been confined to the paragraph in whioh the gen- 
 eral phrase was used, but in the case of Dingelstedt v. United States (91 Fed., 
 112) the court considered the general phrase imder consideration in connection 
 with the whole schedule in which it was to be found. This would seem to be a 
 broader rule of construction. 
 
 Same — Intention of Congress — Stare decisu: In construing a law of Congress 
 it is the duty of a court, if possible, to arrive at the exact intent and meaning of 
 Congress, and this intent should never be defeated by any narrow rule of 
 construction. While the classification of merchandise should not lightly be 
 changed, it is the clear and undoubted function of Congress to make such change 
 in the taiiff law as will alter and change any previous classification; and when 
 that piu-pose of Congress is clearlj' and distinctly manifest the rule of Stare decisis 
 has no appUcation. (T. D. 35331— G. A. 7714; Apr. 19, 1915.) 
 Grape barrels, capacity of. 
 
 Rule for ascertaining the capacity of Almeria grape barrels. Monthly reports to 
 be forwarded to the department. (T. D. 29274; Sept. 30, 1908.) 
 Grapefruit from Mexico. 
 
 The importation of grapefruit from Mexico prohibited. (Amendment No. 1 to 
 notice of quarantine No. 5— Foreign.) (See T. D. 32935 of Nov. 16, 1912.) 
 (T. D. 33247; Mar. 3, 1913.) 
 Grapes, Almeria. 
 Measurement of — 
 Almeria grapes imported in barrels held to be dutiable, when imported prior to 
 January 1, 1910, on the basis of an average capacity of 1 .93 cubic feet per barrel 
 and 0.965 cubic foot per half barrel. (T. D. 30664— G. A. 7030; May 31, 1910.) 
 No allowance for nonimportation produced by decay. (See Allowances, damage 
 and nonimportation — Grapes.) 
 Grass. 
 Aigrets— 
 
 Dyed and preserved stypa grass, bound upon wire stems in the form of aigrets, is 
 dutiable as "articles * * * composed wholly or in chief value of any of the 
 * * * flowers, leaves, or other materials or articles herein mentioned "under 
 paragraph 438, tariff act of 1909, and not as manufactures of grass under para- 
 graph 463. (T. D. 31144— G. A. 7140; Dec. 23, 1910.) 
 Baskets — 
 Market value: Where grass baskets are made by a tribe of Indians in their homes 
 and by them sold to dealers, who in turn sell them in wholesale quantities to the 
 trade, the market value is governed by the price obtained by the dealers rather 
 than the price paid to the Indians. (T. D. 35458— G. A. 7728; May 25, 1915.) 
 Confusion of samples — 
 The importation appeared to consist in the main of grasses, and a confusion of sam- 
 ples rendered impossible an intelligible decision. The record with the samples 
 left it uncertain whether or not the merchandise was grasses, and, if grasses, what 
 kind; and whether or not grasses, together with other articles. The confused 
 and confusing character of the samples did not justify the imposition of a pen- 
 alty on the importer, and accordingly a new trial was ordered. Vandegrift & 
 Co. V. United States (No. 738), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 26113. 
 (T. D. 31757). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32535; Feb. 15, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISION'S, 1908-1015. 513 
 
 Glasses — Continued. 
 Cut to lengths, diessed. (See Vegetable fiber.) 
 Natural- 
 Dried stypa grass and avoine in a natural state: There might be some difficulty in 
 holding that the sun-dried grasses of the importation are textile grasses, or fibers, 
 or other vegetable substances within the meaning of paragraphs 578 and 630, 
 tariff act of 1909, here relied on by the importer; but the rulings of the Board of 
 General Appraisers and those of the courts, acquiesced in, as these apparently 
 have been by Congress, establish a construction that may not now be departed 
 from. United States v. Post & Co. (No. 840), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 27298 (T. D. 32073). Decision of the board holding the 
 merchandise free of duty afiirmed. (T. D. 32568; May 17, 1912.) 
 Ornamental. (See also Leaves, ornamental.) 
 Ornamental grasses are not specifically described by the provision in paragraph 
 425, tariff act of 1897, for "artificial grains, leaves, or flowers, " but are dutiable 
 as manufactures of grass under paragraph 449. Bayersdorfer v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, May 12, 1909. 
 No. 50 (suit 1974). Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 15505 (T. D. 28205). Board reversed. (T. D. 29853; June 
 22, 1909.) 
 Grease. 
 For dressing leather — 
 Stearin, an oil which, mixed with other oils and sometimes without so mixing, is 
 commonly used for stuffing or dressing leather, is free of duty under paragraph ' 
 498, act of 1913, and not dutiable at 15 per cent as an acid not specially provided 
 for under paragraph 1 of said act. (T. D. 35894— G. A. 7812; Nov. 15, 1915.) 
 Not specifically provided for — 
 The legal effect of paragraph 580, tariff act of 1909, is to cast upon importers the 
 burden of establishing not only that the oil imported is fit for the uses therein 
 enumerated, but that it has no practical commercial fitness for other uses than 
 those named, viz, soap mating or in wire drawing, or for stuffing or dressing 
 leather. Stone & Downer Co. v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 
 33266). There is a clear preponderance of proof in this case of the Government's 
 contention that the grease of the importation was not so limited in its use. 
 United States v. Klipstein & Co. (No. 1), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 29103 (T. D. 32681), and Abstract 31415 (T. D. 33217) 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 34003; Dec. 15, 1913.) 
 Grease-proof paper. (See Paper.) 
 
 Grease wool — ^Lanolin — ^Adeps lanae. (See Wool grease, refined.) 
 Green kem. (See Wheat.) 
 Green-pod beans. 
 
 Green-pod beans, cut or sliced, packed in salt or brine, in casks or kegs, dutiable 
 at the rate of 2i cents per pound under paragraph 251, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 33210; Feb. 15, 1913.) ' 
 
 Grenadine, fruit sirup. (See Fruit sirup, grenadine.) 
 Grinding disks, cast-iron. (See Cast-iron.) 
 Grindstones. 
 For crushing colors — 
 The importation consisted of two stones, one of them round, about 2 feet in diam- 
 eter and 7 or 8 inches thick, and the other not round, probably heavier than the 
 first stone, although its size is not definitely stated, which were assessed for duty 
 at the rate of 50 per cent ad vaJorem as sandstone, hewn or dressed, under para- 
 45633°— 17 33 
 
514 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Giindstones — -Coiitmued. 
 For crushing colors — Continued. 
 
 graph 114 of the tariff act of 1909. The contention was made that the stones of 
 the importation were dutiable by similitude as grindstones. The record does 
 not disclose facts that go to show a similitude exists. Moreover, the similitude 
 clause can be invoked for unenimierated articles only; that is to say, when no 
 other paragraph than the one providing for nonenumerated unmanufactured or 
 manufax-tured articles properly applies. This is not the case in this importation. 
 United States v. Stouffer Co. (No. 691), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Boajrd of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 25501 (T. D. 31568). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32351; Mar. 20, 
 1912.) 
 Unfinished— 
 Boughly hewn sandstone slabs not. (See Sandstone slabs.) 
 
 Ground mica. (See Mica.) 
 
 Ground ores. (See Ores.) 
 
 Ground talc. (See Talc.) 
 
 Grouse. 
 
 Importation of unplucked grouse prohibited tmder paragraph 347, tariff act of 
 1913. (T. D. 33810; Oct. 17, 1913.) 
 
 Guaiacol carbonate. 
 
 The merchandise, guaiacol carbonate, having been found by the board to be a 
 medicinal preparation that contained no alchool and was prepared without the 
 use of it, and the evidence submitted supporting this finding, the finding will 
 not be disturbed; the importation was dutiable at 25 per cent under paragraph 
 68, tariff act of 1897. 
 
 Completeness of record questioned: Where the appraiser in answer to a pro- 
 test returned that no sample of merchandise had been retained because a sample 
 correctly representing it had been retained in another case before the board, and 
 where the cause had been submitted upon that return of the appraiser, it can 
 not be lu^ed that the testimony, so far as this concerned a sample, had been 
 offered in the first case and not in the second; the return and the submission 
 show it had been so offered. United States v. Lehn (No. 245), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from a decision of the 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23229 (T. D. 30585). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31626; May 22, 1911.) 
 
 Guam and Tutuila. 
 
 Tutuila and Guam not foreign countries within the meaning of the tariff laws. 
 Articles shipped to Tutuila and Guam not entitled to drawback. Imported 
 merchandise can not be withdrawn from bond in the United States without 
 payment of duties for shipment to Tutuila and Guam. Opinion of the Attorney 
 General, dated November 6, 1913. (T. D. 33898; Nov. 19, 1913.) 
 
 Guard chains. (See Jewelry.) 
 
 Guhinol metal leaf. (See Leaf metal.) 
 
 Guinea fowl. (See Poultry.) 
 
 Gum, balbuse. 
 
 So-called "balbuse gum, " which has been washed, cleaned, and dried, and which 
 contains elements which are not natural to the gum in its natural or crude state, 
 dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article at the rate of 15 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 385 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 34897; 
 Nov. 12, 1914.) 
 
 Gum resin. (See Drugs, crude.) 
 
 Gum styrax. (See Styrax.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 515 
 
 Gum tiagasol. . 
 
 TTsed in dyeing — 
 
 Gum tragasol, a gum extracted from the locust bean and used in the process of dye- 
 ing, is free of duty under paragraph 499, tariff act of 1909. Stone & Downer's 
 case, G. A. 6158 (T. D. 26732) distinguished. (T. D. 31798— G. A. 7255; Aug. 
 7, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Want of specification in the proiesi.— Whether the appeal pro- 
 ceeding be considered as an appeal solely from the final decision of the board or 
 as an appeal from the order denying a rehearing, together with an appeal from 
 the final decision, there is but one question really presented, namely. Could the 
 board properly direct the admission of the merchandise free of duty under a 
 paragraph of the law not made the basis of any claim by the importer? It was 
 error so to direct. The burden was on the importer to show that his goods were 
 properly dutiable according to the paragraph or paragraphs he had protested 
 were applicable. He failed to do this. United States v. Danker & Marston 
 (No. 753), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7255 (T. D. 31798). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 32208; Jan. 12, 1912.) 
 Though an article may have been processed, if, as a matter of fact, it must be sub- 
 jected to some additional process to fit it for its chief or only use, it is, so far as 
 that use is concerned, a crude article. Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co. v. 
 United States (94 Fed. Eep., 822). Gum tragasol is an article in a "crude" 
 state used in dyeing; it is not a vegetable extract for dyeing, coloring, staining, 
 or tanning. It was free of duty under paragraph 482, tariff act of 1897, and under 
 paragraph 499, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Danker & Marston (No. 731), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7255 (T. D. 31798). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 32251; Feb. 1, 1912.) 
 
 Gun-metal mesh bags and purses. (See Bags and purses.) 
 
 Gunny bagging. (See Bagging.) ^ 
 
 Guns, parts of. 
 Provisions of paragraph 167, tariff act of 1909, construed — 
 Articles which are suitable for use otherwise than as parts of breech-loading guns, 
 whether single or double barreled, such as screws, bolts, nuts, etc., dutiable 
 under the approjjriate paragraph of the tariff act other than paragraph 157; 
 articles which are not suitable for use otherwise than as parts of guns but which 
 are common to or suitable for use interchangeably on either single-barreled or 
 doubled-barreled breech-loading shotguns dutiable at the rate of 50 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 157; only such parts of guns as are suitable for use 
 only on^ single-barreled breech-loading shotguns dutiable at the rate of $1 each 
 and 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 157. (T. D. 32497; May 10, 1912.) 
 
 Gut leaders. (See Fishing tackle, parts of.) 
 
 Gutta-percha. (See Safety fuse.) 
 
 H. 
 
 Habutai silk fabrics. (See Silk, boiled off.) 
 
 Hair of China goat. (See Goat hair.) 
 
 Hail clippers. 
 
 A tool suppUed with rotating or reciprocating knives or cutters arranged for clip- 
 ping the hair short or close is not to be deemed scissors or shears, but is a manu- 
 facture of steel not specially provided for, and the importation was properly 
 assessed under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. The definition of "shears" 
 in Knight's American Mechanical Dictionary is accepted as correct: A cutting 
 
516 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Hair clippers — Continued. 
 
 instrument operating like scissors, but on a larger scale and somewhat differ- 
 ently shaped; the edges of the blades are beveled and the handles adapted for 
 thumb and fingers, respectively, instead of being duplicates. Sheldon v. 
 United States (No. 522), United. States Coiu*t of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importer from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 24074 (T. D. 31004). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31657; May 29^ 1911.) 
 Not machine tools — 
 "Machine" in machine tools connotes the application of some kind of power in 
 the operation of an implement other than hand power alone; and steel hair 
 clippers are not to be deemed machine tools and dutiable as such, but are duti- 
 able as steel not specially provided for, under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. 
 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States (No. 724), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 26164 (T. D. 31774). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32055; 
 Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 
 Hair crSpe. 
 
 Hair crdpe dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 442, tariff act of 
 1909, unless the crSpe is composed of human hair and wool, in which case it 
 would be dutiable as a manufacture of wool or of human hair, depending upon 
 the component material of chief value. (T. D. 32494; May 9, 1912.) 
 
 Hair, human. 
 
 Human hair which has been drawn to some extent and has been partially cleaned 
 is not the drawn and cleaned hair of commerce, and is therefore free of duty 
 under paragraph 583, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32084; Dec. 13, 1911.) 
 Evidence in one case employed to determine another — 
 The testimony relied upon as taken in a former case should have been, after due 
 notice, ordered into the record. Failure to do this was a substantial irregularity, 
 since it deprived Government's counsel of the opportunity to present opposing 
 testimony. United States v. Lun Chong (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 468; T. D. 33041). 
 United States v. Quong Chun & Co. (No. 1295), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 33806 (T. D. 33789). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34326; 
 Mar. 25, 1914.) 
 
 Hair nets. 
 
 The goods are nets such as are worn by women on the head to keep the hair in 
 place. They are accordingly articles of wearing apparel, but they are the more 
 specifically provided for in paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913, by the eo nomine 
 provision "nets." W. N. Proctor Co. v. United States (No. 1459), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 36416 (T. D. 34756). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 35387; May 3, 1915.) 
 Silk- 
 Silk hair nets, which are designed to be worn by women on the head to keep the 
 hair in position, are properly dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under 
 the provision in paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913, for "nets * * * of what- 
 ever yams, threads, or filaments composed," that provision being more specific 
 than the provision in pargraph 317 of said act for "articles of wearing apparel of 
 every description * * * composed of silk or of which silk or silk and india 
 rubber are the component materials of chief value, not specially provided for 
 in this section." Paragraph 358 of said act provides for "nets, nettings, veils, 
 veilings," and other articles "of whatever yams, threads, or filaments com- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIOlirS, 1908-1915. 517 
 
 Hail nets — Continued. 
 Silk— Continued. 
 
 posed." Held, that the provision for "nets" in that paragraph is not restricted 
 to viaterials from which articles of wearing apparel may be fashioned, but in- 
 cludes silk hair nets designed to be worn by women on the head. (T. D. 
 34494— G. A. 7570; May 27, 1914.) 
 Appeal directed from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of 
 July 3, 1914, Abstract 36066 (T. D. 34629), wherein it was held that certain silk 
 hair nets which had been assessed with duty at the rate of 70 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 350, tariff act of 1909 , as articles made on the Lever or Gothrough 
 machine, were properly dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 402 of the said act. (T. D. 34743; Aug. 29, 1914.) 
 Lever and Gothrough machines: Lever and Gothrough machines enumerated in 
 paragraph 197, tariH act of 1909, are machines equipped with a Jacquard attach- 
 ment. The testimony here is clear and explicit that the hair nets of the impor- 
 tation were not manufactured on a machine of this type nor on a transformed 
 Lever or Gothrough machine, but on plain net machines having their own 
 special names and distinguished by differences of form and mechanical move- 
 ment. The goods were properly assessed under paragraph 402 of the act. 
 United States v. Mills & Duflot (No. 1446), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 36066 (T. D. 34629). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35178; 
 Feb. 23, 1915.) 
 
 Hairpins. 
 Gold or silver plated — 
 Hail-pins composed of brass-alloy wire and plated with either gold or silver, valued 
 at less than 20 cents per dozen pieces and not commonly known as jewelry, are 
 properly dutiable at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under the provision in 
 paragraph 167 of the act of 1913 for "articles or wares plated with gold or silver," 
 as here assessed, rather than under the general provision in paragraph 114 of said 
 act for "articles manufactured wholly or in chief value of any wire or wires pro- 
 vided for in this section,'' as claimed by the importers. (T. D. 35645-^. A. 
 7766; Aug. 2, 1915.) 
 
 Hair press clotli. 
 
 Press cloth made from the hair of the camel is dutiable as manufactures of wool 
 "not specially provided for," under paragraph 366, tariff act of 1897, and not 
 as "hair press cloth" under paragraph 431. Oberle v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, December 23, 1907. No. 
 13450 (suit 1936). Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 6504 (T. D. 27792). Board affirmed. (T. D. 28776; 
 Feb. 19, 1908.) 
 
 Oberle v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 
 November 10, 1908. No. 1770 (suit 1936). Appeal from Circuit Court of 
 United States for Eastern District of Louisiana (T. D . 28776) . Decision in favor 
 of the Government. (T. D. 29352; Nov. 18, 1908.) 
 Mats — 
 Camel 'a-hair press-cloth mats dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem as man- 
 ufactures of wool under paragraph 288, tariff act of 1913, and combination goat's- 
 hair and camel's-hair mats dutiable at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem undei 
 paragraph 385 of the said act where goat hair is the element of chief value. 
 (T.D. 34285; Mar. 18, 1914.) 
 
518 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Hail lolls. 
 "Bats"— 
 " Wearing apparel of every description " includes hair rolls or " rats " composed of 
 cotton, wool, and metal, metal being the component material of chief value, 
 and as such these were dutiable under paragraph 370, tariff act of 1897. Guth- 
 man v. United States (No. 41), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importer from decision of the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 29629). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. 
 Decision aflSrmed. (T. D. 31214; Jan. 11, 1911.) 
 Hair rolls, more commonly known as "rats," when composed in part of wool, are 
 dutiable as wool wearing apparel under paragraph 370, tariff act of 1897, or para- 
 graph 382, act of 1909. (T. D. 31315— G. A. 7173; Feb. 17, 1911.) 
 Halters and blankets. 
 
 Halters and blankets, necessary for the transportation of blooded horses duly cer- 
 tified and admitted under the statute and regulations prescribed by the Secre- 
 retary of the Treasury thereunder for free entry, are to be considered as neces- 
 sary equipment for the safe transportation of the animals and are not subject to 
 duty. (T. D. 33054—6. A. 7413; Dec. 31, 1912.) 
 Hamburg free zone. (See Duty, countervailing.) 
 Hampers, willow. (See Baskets, willow.) 
 Hams in tins, when not prepared or preserved meat. 
 
 The merchandise in question consisted of hams packed in hermetically sealed tin 
 cans. Each can contained the meat of a cured and cooked ham, from which 
 the bone had been removed. These hams had not lost their name or their 
 character by reason of any process to which they were subjected before importa- 
 tion; and the eo nomine provision for hams in paragraph 284, tariff act of 1909, 
 being more specific than that for prepared or preserved meats in paragraph 286, 
 paragraph 284 controlled. Neuman & Schwiers Co. et al. v. United States (No. 
 1010), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29530 (T. D. 32767). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 33310; Mar. 21, 1913.) 
 Hand bags, ladles'. * 
 Beaded bags in chief value of silk — 
 Ladies' hand bags composed of silk and ornamented with glass beads, silk being 
 the component material of chief value, in accordance with the proviso to para- 
 graph 402, tariff act of 1909, " that articles composed wholly or in chief value of 
 any of the materials or goods dutiable under this paragraph shall pay not less 
 than the rate of duty imposed upon such materials or goods by this section," 
 are dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem, the rate provided for " silk goods orna- 
 mented with beads or spangles " in said paragraph 402. Ladies' hand bags com- 
 posed of glass beads, cotton, and metal, glass beads chief value, are dutiable as 
 beaded articles under paragraph 421. (T. D. 32003— G. A. 7296; Nov. 13, 1911.) 
 Handkerchiefs. 
 Drawn work- 
 Hemstitched handkerchiefs ornamented by drawn work are more specifically pro- 
 vided for as "handkerchiefs » * * hemmed, or hemstitched," at 30 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 255, tariff act of 1913, than as "articles from 
 which threads have been omitted, drawn, punched, or cut, and with threads 
 introduced after weaving, forming figures or designs, " at 60 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 358. (T. D. 35675— G. A. 7769; Aug. 20, 1915.) 
 Embroidered cotton — 
 Embroidered cotton handkerchiefs are properly dutiable at the rate of 60 percent 
 ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913, for "hand- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 519 
 
 Hmdkerchief s — Continued . 
 Xmbioideted cotton — Continued. 
 
 kerchiefs, * * * embroidered in any manner by hand or machinery, 
 
 * * * by whatever name known; * * * of whatever yams, threads, or 
 filaments composed," rather than under the provision in paragraph 255 of said 
 act for " handkerchiefe * » * composed of cotton, not specially provided 
 for in this section." G. A. 7574 (T. D. 34547) and G. A. 7644 (T. D. 34930) 
 cited and followed. . (T. D. 35063— G. A. 7663; Jan. 11, 1915.) 
 
 Embroidered or scalloped — 
 Embroidered or scalloped flax or cotton handkerchiefs, whether finished or 
 unfinished, hemmed or unhemmed, are dutiable under the provisions in para- 
 graph 358, act of 1913, for "handkerchiefs * * * embroidered in any man- 
 ugj * » « oj. tamboured, appliquM, or scalloped" and not under the gen- 
 eral provisions for handkerchiefs composed of flax or handkerchiefs composed of 
 cotton in paragraphs 282 and 255. 
 
 Finished with an edge made by crocheting: Flax handkerchiefs having the 
 
 edges trimmed with a colored ornamentation made by crocheting, not being 
 
 embroidered, tamboured, appliqu^d, scalloped, or made wholly or in part of 
 
 lace, are dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 282, act of 1913, 
 
 ,aB "handkerchiefs composed of flax, * * * finished or unfinished, not 
 
 - hemmed or hemmed only," rather than under the provision for embroidered 
 
 handkerchiefs in paragraph 358. (T. D. 35654— G. A. 7768; Aug. 14, 1915.) 
 
 Hemstitched lace — ■ 
 
 Hemstitched lace-trimmed linen handkerchiefs are more specifically provided for 
 
 in paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, as "handkerchiefs * * * in part of lace 
 
 * * * not elsewhere specially provided for," than in paragraph 345 as 
 "handkerchiefs * » * hemstitched." Glendinning v.' United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 22, 1908. Suit 
 5151. Appeal by importer from decision by Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6688 (T. D. 28594). Board sustained. (T. D. 29166; July 15, 
 1908.) [Note. — No appeal was taken from this decision.] 
 
 Hemstitched lace-trimmed linen handkerchiefs are more specifically provided for 
 under paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, as "handkerchiefs * * * in part of 
 lace * * * not elsewhere specially provided for," than under paragraph 
 345 as "handkerchiefs * * * hemstitched." G. A. 6688 (T. D. 28594) 
 and Glendinning v. United States (T. D. 29166) followed. (T. D. 29171— G. A. 
 6791; July 16, 1908.) 
 Lever or Gothrough machine — 
 
 Flax handkerchiefs composed in chief value of edgings and insertings of cotton 
 lace made on the Lever or Gothrough machine are properly dutiable at the rate 
 of 70 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 350, tariff act of 1909. 
 
 Scope of proviso to paragraph 350: Paragraph 350 of said act, which specially 
 provides for laces, embroideries, edgings, insertings, and other articles made on 
 the Lever or Gothrough machine, contains a proviso that "no wearing apparel, 
 handkerchiefs, or articles of any description, composed wholly or in chief value 
 of any of the foregoing, shall pay a less rate of duty than that imposed upon the 
 articles or the materials of which the same are composed." Held that the pro- 
 viso was intended to include wearing apparel, handkerchiefs, or other articles 
 composed wholly or in chief value of any or a combination of the materials 
 or articles specified in the body of the paragraph when made on the Lever or 
 Gothrough machine. (T. D. 31672— G. A. 7232; June 6, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Leva" or Oothrough machine. — The merchandise in question con- 
 sisted of handkerchiefs composed in chief value of one or more of the materials or 
 goods specified in paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, and relating to laces and hand- 
 
520 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Handkerchiefs — Continued, 
 lever or Gothrough machine — Continued. , 
 
 kerchiefs. By the terms of the first proviso of that paragraph, such articles are 
 made dutiable at a rate not less than the highest imposed by the first section of 
 the act on any of the materials entering into their composition. Comformably 
 to this proviso, the rate of duty was determined by paragraph 350, tariff act of 
 1909, at 70 per cent ad valorem. Stein & Co. d. United States (No. 714), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals . Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7232 (T. D. 31672). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 32250; Feb. 1, 1912.) 
 
 Handles of wood for fans. (See Fan sticks.) 
 
 Handmade printing paper. (See Paper, printing.) 
 
 Hand reading glasses. (See Optical instruments.) 
 
 Hansa yellow. (See Colors, coal-tar.) 
 
 Harbor regulations. 
 
 The following-named harbors, viz: Tortugas, Florida; Great Harbor, Culebra; 
 Guantanamo Naval Station, Cuba; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; Guam; Subig Bay, 
 Philippine Islands; Kiska, Aleutian Islands, are not and shall not be made sub- 
 ports of entry for foreign vessels of commerce, and said harbors shall ^ot be 
 visited by any commercial or privately owned vessel of foreign registry; nor by 
 any foreign national vessel, except by special authority of the United States 
 Navy Department in each case. (Executive order, dated Sept. 23, 1912.) 
 (T. D. 32861; Oct. 15, 1912.) 
 
 Hardware fixtures of metal, gold and silver plated. 
 
 Door knobs, handles, door plates, and like hardware fixtures, composed in chief 
 value of brass, but plated with gold or silver, are properly dutiable at 50 per cent 
 ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 167, tariff act of 1913, for "articles 
 or wares plated with gold or silver, " as classified by the collector, rather than at 
 20 per cent ad valorem under said paragraph as " articles or wares not specially 
 provided for in this section; * * * if composed wholly or in chief value of 
 * * * brass, * » *, but not plated with gold or silver, * * *," as 
 claimed by the importers. Tuska v. United States (5 Ct. Oust. Appls., 506; 
 (T. D. 35153) followed. (T. D. 35721— G. A. 7777; Sept. 22, 1915.) 
 
 Harmonicas, triple and quadruple. 
 
 Triple harmonicas valued at less than 3 marks and quadruple harmonicas valued 
 at less tha,n 4 marks dutiable as musical instruments at the rate of 45 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 467, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33384; May 2, 1913.) 
 
 Harness of leather. 
 
 The provision in the proviso of paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909, that " on and after 
 October first, nineteen hundred and nine," certain duties shall be payable, is 
 not limited to the items of leather immediately following the words quoted, but 
 extends to all the articles (harness, etc.) enumerated in said proviso. Therefore 
 harness Imported prior to the date mentioned is not covered by the proviso. 
 (T. D. 30381— G. A. 6986; Feb. 28, 1910.) 
 
 Hatftln tops. 
 
 Hatpin tops composed of glass and filled wholly or partially with wax, a film of 
 fish-scale preparation being applied to the inner surface of the glass before the 
 introduction of the wax with the object of simulating the luster of the natural 
 pearl, are dutiable at the rate applicable to the material of chief value entering 
 into their composition; if glass, 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 112; if 
 wax, 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 448; if fish scale, 20 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 435 as imitation precious stones or at the same rate 
 under section 6, tariff act of 1897, as manufactured articles not specially provided 
 for. (T. D. 30762— G. A. 7060; July 11, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 521 
 
 Hatpin tops— Continued. 
 
 Imitation sapphires, amethystg, and sardonyx, composed of glass or paste and 
 intended for use as hatpin tops, held dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909, as "imitation precious stones * * * for use 
 in the manufacture of jewelry," rather than aa manufactures of glass or paste 
 under paragraph 109 of said act. (T. D. 31844^6. A. 7267; Sept. 1, 1911.) 
 
 Imitation precious stones, composed of glass or paste, faceted, intended for use as 
 tops for hatpins, are suitable for use in the manufacture of jewelry and dutiable 
 at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909, as imitation 
 precious stones. (T. D. 31895— G. A. 7277; Sept. 27, 1911.) 
 
 Hatpin tops composed of glass or paste are not suitable " for use in the manufac- 
 ture of jewelry," as the hatpins when completed would not be known as jewelry; 
 consequently the heads for the same are excluded from classification under 
 paragraph 449, act of 1909, although they may belong to the class of articles 
 known as " imitation precious stones, ' ' and are dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem 
 as " all glass or manufactures of glass or paste or of which glass or paste is the 
 component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this section, " 
 under paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32883—6. A. 7400; Oct. 25, 
 1912.) ' 
 
 Evidence — 
 
 Presumption of correctness of collector's action: Upon the coming in of the protest 
 (in this case involving the classification of hatpin tops) it is the duty of the col- 
 lector to forward within 30 days the invoice and all the papers and exhibits con- 
 nected therewith to the board, unless, of course, reliquidation had been con- 
 sidered proper. In this case a memorandum made by the collector subsequent 
 to the lapse of the 30 days can not be deemed the collector's decision. He was 
 without further jurisdiction, and such a memorandum does not overcome the 
 presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision already made and 
 entered. 
 
 Citation of former decision of board : The mere citation to a former decision 
 by the board by the appraiser in his report to the collector is not sufiicient to 
 identify the merchandise in the two cases. United States v. Eytinge (4 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 266; T. D. 33486). National Hat Kn Co. v. United States (No. 
 1352), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34521 (T. D. 34090). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34971; Nov. 27, 1914.). 
 Hatpins. 
 
 Hatpins, the heads of which are composed of paste, cut, dutiable as manufac- 
 tures in chief value of paste, under paragraph 112, tariff act of 1897, rather than 
 as articles of cut "glass" under paragraph 100. United States v. New York 
 Merchandise Co., United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Jan- 
 uary 11, 1910. No. 102 (suit 5354). Appeal by the United States from deci- 
 sion of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York (167 Fed. Rep., 
 684; T. D. 29570) affirming G. A. 6808 (T. D. 29265). Decision adverse to the 
 Goveminent. (T. D. 30279; Jan. 18, 1910.) Acquiesced in by the Govern- 
 ment February 2, 1910 (T. D. 30322). 
 
 Cut-paste articles are dutiable as manufactures of paste, not specially provided 
 for, under paragraph 112, tariS act of 1897, rather than as articles of cut "glass" 
 under paragraph 100. United States v. New York Merchandise Co. (167 Fed. 
 Rep., 684; T. D. 29570) and G. A. 6808 (T. D. 29265) followed. (T. D. 30444— 
 G. A. 6995; Mar. 19, 1910.) 
 Jewelry — 
 
 Hatpins having tops set with imitations of precious stones composed of glass or 
 paste, other than imitation jet, and costing more than 20 cents per dozen pieces, 
 
522 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Hatpins — Continued . 
 Jewelry — Continued. 
 
 are subject to the duty provided in the first part of paragraph 448, taiifi act of 
 1909, namely, 25 per cent ad valorem in addition to the specific duty, varying 
 according to value. (T. D. 30612— G. A. 7019; May 13, 1909.) 
 
 Hatters' plush. (See Plush.) 
 
 Hat sweats. (See Leather.) 
 
 Hat trimmings made of straw. (See Straw, manufactures of.) 
 
 Hat wire. (See Wire, hat or ribbon.) 
 
 Hats. 
 CrSpe-paper hats not toys. (See Paper, hats.) 
 Horsehair — 
 Horsehair hats, trimmed and untrimmed, and horsehair braids are dutiable by 
 similitude, under paragraph 409, tariff act of 1897; the hats as resembling straw 
 hats trimmed and straw hats untrimmed, respectively, and the braids as resem- 
 bling strawbraids suitable for hats. Rheims Co. v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, February 16, 1909. Suit 4155. 
 Appeal by importer from decision of General Appraisers, G. A. 6223 (T. D. 26897). 
 Board reversed. (T. D. 29632; Mar. 17, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Hats and braids wholly or in chief value of horsehair are dutiable 
 by similitude under paragraph 409, tariff act of 1897, relating to straw hats and 
 to straw braids suitable for hats. United States v. Rheims Co., United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, December 7, 1909. No. 97 (suit 
 4155). Appeal by United States from the Circuit Court of the United States 
 for the Southern District of New York (169 Fed. Rep., 29632) reversing G. A. 
 6223 (T. D. 26897). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30226; Dec. 
 28, 1909.) 
 Untrimmed horsehair hats are dutiable by similitude under paragraph 409, tariff 
 act of 1897, as " hats of straw * * * not trimmed." Wanamaker «. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, April 2, 
 1909. No. 69 (suit 1973). Appeal by importer from decision of Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 6606 (T. D. 28217). Board reversed. (T. D. 29676; Apr. 
 7, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Similitude. — Artificial-silk hats are dutiable by similitude at the 
 rate for silk wearing apparel, provided by paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897. A 
 protest relating to ' ' hats made from so-called artificial silk " can not be construed 
 as relating to hats made from real horsehair. United States v. Wanamaker, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, February 12, 1910. No. 
 65 (suit 1973). Appeal by the United States from the Circuit Court of the 
 United States for the Eastern District of Peimsylvania (169 Fed. Rep., 664; 
 T. D. 29676) reversing G. A. 6606 (T. D. 28217). Decisionin favor of the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 30385; Mar. 1, 1910.) 
 Horsehair hats, untrimmed, are properly dutiable by similitude to straw hats, 
 untrimmed, at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 422, tariff act 
 of 1909. Patterson v. United States (166 Fed. Rep., 733; T.,D. 29377) and 
 United States v. Rheims (175 Fed. Rep., 778; T. D. 30226) cit«d. (T. D. 
 31881— G. A. 7275; Sept. 22, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Similitude. — To determine a similitude the final question is one 
 of fact, namely, What article named in the statute does the imported article 
 most closely resemble in toaterial, quality, texture, or use, comparison being 
 made with some article which in any of those particulars would bring it properly 
 within the designated class? And it is clear that both as to texture and use the 
 articles here, horsehair hats, imported under the tariff act of 1909, may be, and 
 are properly to be, compared with artificial horsehair hafa. Robins v. United 
 States (lOt.CuBt. Apple., 252; T.D.31278); Patterson i).Unif«d States (166 Fed. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 523 
 
 Hats — Continued . 
 
 Hoisehaii — Continued. 
 
 Rep., 733; T. D. 29377) distinguished. United States v. Buss & Warner (No. 
 782), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7275 (T. D. 31881). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 32357; Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 Similitude: Hats composed of horsehair braids bear a greater similarity in mate- 
 riill, quality, and texture to silk hats than to any other enumerated dutiable 
 article in the tariff act of 1897, and they are dutiable by "Similitude to silk hats 
 at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 390 of said 
 act for '' articles of wearing apparel of every description " made of silk or of which 
 silk is the component material of chief value. United States v. Cochran (T. D. 
 32349) and United States v. Buss & Warner (T. D. 32357) cited. (T. D. 32617— 
 G. A. 7373; June 5, 1912.) 
 
 Imitation hoisehaii— 
 Similitude to straw hats: Untrimmed hats of imitation horsehair, a material 
 chiefly of vegetable origin, are dutiable by similitude under the provision in 
 paragraph 409, tariff act of 1897, for untrimmed hats composed of straw, etc., 
 rather than by similitude imder the more general provision in paragraph 390 for 
 wearing apparel of silk. Cochrane. United States; Rosenblum «. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern Dif?trict of New York, June 28, 1910. 
 Suits 4717-8. Appeals by the importers from decision of the Board of General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6487 (T. D. 27743). Board reversed. (T. D. 30839; Aug. 2, 
 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Imitation horsehair hats are in material almost identical with, 
 and in quality and texture they resemble, hats of cotton; the use of them, too, 
 is similar. They were dutiable at the same rate with cotton wearing apparel 
 under paragraph 314, tariff act of 1897, at 50 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 Assessment by similitude. — The assessment of an unenumerated article by 
 similitude properly depends on its resemblance to some enumerated dutiable 
 article and not upon the manner in which the enumerated article is itself named 
 in the. law; the unenumerated article is subject to the same duty that is levied 
 on that enumerated article it most resembles in material, quality, texture, or 
 use. Patterson v. United States (166 Fed. Rep., 733) distinguished. United 
 States i;.- Cochran & Co. (No. 552); United States v. Rosenblum (No. 553), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeals by United States from deci- 
 sion of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6487 (T. D. 27743). Transferred 
 from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 32349; Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 
 Panama, forfeiture of. (See Forfeiture.) 
 
 Plateaux. (See Hats, straw, party manufactured.) 
 
 Bamie braids — 
 
 Paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, provided for braids, edgings, iusertings, and other 
 articles composed wholly or in chief v^lue of cotton, flax, or other vegetable 
 fiber, and contained a proviso "that no article composed wholly or in chief 
 value of one or more of the materials or goods specified in this paragraph shall 
 pay a less rate of duty than the highest rate imposed by this section upon any of 
 the materials or goods of which the same is composed." Held, that by virtue of 
 that proviso hats and hoods composed wholly or in chief value of braids of ramie, 
 which is admittedly a vegetable fiber, were properly dutiable under said para- 
 graph 349 as articles composed wholly or in chief value of vegetable fiber braids 
 at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem, rather than as "articles of wearing apparel 
 of every description, " composed wholly or in chief value of cotton or other vege- 
 table fiber, under paragraph 324 of said act. Stein v. United States (T. D. 
 32250) cited and foUowed. (T. D. 32583— G. A. 7372; May 31, 1912.) 
 
524 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Hats — Continued . 
 Silk, in part of wool — 
 
 Silk hats if composed in any part of wool are dutiable as wool wearing apparel at 
 the rate of 44 cents per pound and 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 382, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33008; Dec. 10, 1912.) 
 
 Hats in chief value of silk and partly composed of wool were imported dtiring the 
 interval while Schedule K of the tariff act of 1909 was continued in effegt as part 
 of the act of 1913 by the provisions to that effect in paragraph 310 of the latter 
 act. Treating paragraph 382 of the act of 1909, covering wearing apparel in part 
 of wool, under which classification was made, and paragraph 317, act of 1913, 
 covering wearing apparel in chief value of silk not specially provided for, the 
 former is held to be controlling by reason of the principles of law laid down in 
 Hecht V. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 34444). (T. D. 34600— 
 G. A. 7578; June 22, 1914.) 
 Straw, partly manufactured. 
 
 Flat, round articles made of straw braids: The importation was of articles circular 
 in form, slightly convex, but nearly flat in shape, with the appearance of plain 
 round mats of braided straw, but without a crown and untrimmed: Held, since 
 the evidence shows the material to be so constructed as to permitof being blocked 
 into hats without adding any new material, and that it is so blocked, being prac- 
 tically useless for any other purpose, it was dutiable under paragraph 409, tariff 
 act of 1897, as hats composed of straw partly manufactured and untrimmed. It 
 was so dutiable, though more than one piece of goods was sometimes employed 
 in the making of one hat. Schiff v. United States (No. 538), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6481 (T. D. 27718). Transferred 
 from the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31634^ May 22, 1911.) 
 
 Flat, circular hat forms called "plateaux," some of which are composed of straw 
 and others of manila hemp braids, and which only require to be blocked or other- 
 wise shaped by the milliner to become completed hats, are properly dutiable at 
 the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 422, tariff 
 act of 1909, for "hats, bonnets, and hoods composed wholly or in chief value of 
 straw * * * or manila hemp, whether wholly or partly manufactured, but 
 not trimmed." Schiff v. United States, decided by the Coxirt of Customs Ap- 
 peals (T. D. 31634), cited and followed. (T. D. 32125— G. A. 7314; Dec. 30, 1911.) 
 Straw hat and its trimmings an entity — 
 
 Paragraph 335, act of 1913, in so far as it relates to straw hats, clearly appears to 
 have been framed to make of the trimmed hat an entity for determining whether 
 it, when trimmed, is still composed in chief value of the materials therein 
 named. The goods, consisting of trimmed straw hats, were dutiable as assessed 
 under that paragraph. Aitken, Son & Co. v. United States (No. 1537), United 
 Stat-es Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37197. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 35468; May 18, 1915.) 
 Trimmed — • 
 
 Classification under paragraph 422, tariff act of 1909, of straw hats trimmed, to be 
 limited to such as, including the trimming, are composed in chief value of 
 straw. (T. D. 31794; Aug. 4, 1911.) 
 
 Paragraph 422, tariff act of 1909, provides inter alia for "hats, bonnets, and hoods 
 composed wholly or in chief value of straw, chip, grass, * * * or manila 
 hemp," if untrimmed, at 35 per cent ad valorem, and if trimmed, at 50 per cent 
 ad valorem. Held, that trimmed hats, the bodies of which are composed wholly 
 
DIGEST OF, CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 525 
 
 Hats — Continued. 
 Trimmed — Continued. 
 
 or in chief value of one of the materials named in said paragraph, are dutiable 
 thereunder as trimmed hats, irrespective of the value of the trimming as com- 
 pared with the value of the article without the trimming. G. A. 5734 (T. D. 
 25440) cited; Rheims v. United States (160 Fed., 925; T. D. 28783) distinguished. 
 (T. D. 33086— G. A. 7415; Jan. 13, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) On some of the hats of the importation in controversy the silk 
 trimming is worth more, on others less, than the straw body to which it is 
 attached. Paragraph 422, tariff act of 1909, imposes a certain rate of duty on hats 
 composed wholly or in chief value of straw, whether wholly or partly manufac- 
 tured, but not trimmed, and another and higher rate of duty on the same hat 
 if trimmed. The hats are here the subject of the duty imposed and not the trim- 
 ming on the hats. United States v. Lord & Taylor (No. 1090), United States 
 Coiurt of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7415 (T. D. 33086). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 33521; May 26, 1913.) 
 Ladies' hats made of manila hemp braids, having crowns about 5 inches high and 
 brims measuring between 4 and 5 inches in width, the outer edge of the brims 
 having a wire fastened thereto which gives firmness to the brims and keeps them 
 in the shape desired by the wearer, the wire being covered by black velvet, 
 which is also used to face or cover the under side of the brims, the hats only 
 requiring the insertion of a lining and final shaping of the brims to make them 
 ready for use, properly dutiable as trimmed hats at the rate of 50 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 422, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33407; G. A. 7461; 
 May 7, 1913.) 
 This appeal concerns importations of trimmed hats, assessed for duty as silk wear- 
 ing apparel and claimed by the importer to be dutiable as trimmed straw hats. 
 While the testimony of a single witness unimpeached, whether or not corrobo- 
 rated by other circumstances in the case, may be held sufficient to sustain or 
 reverse a judgment, the witness's testimony in this case did not disclose that the 
 importations were of trimmed straw hats alone; and, in fact, the goods were 
 invoiced as trimmed hats. Under the facts as appearing the board's decision 
 will not be disturbed. Schmitt v. United States (No. 1308), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 33841 (T. D. 33795). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 34523; May 28, 1914.) 
 'rrimmed fur — 
 In finding the component of chief value under paragraph 432, tariff act of 1897, 
 covering "hats * * * trimmed * * * composed wholly or in chief 
 value of fur," held that the value of the trimming should be taken into con- 
 sideration, and that fur hat bodies trimmed with another material of greater 
 value than the fur are not included in the paragraph. Rheims Co. d. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 11, 
 1908. No. 129 (suit 4393). Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the 
 United States for Southern District of New York (154 Fed. Rep., 969 ; 
 T. D. 28185). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 28783; Feb. 19, 
 1908.) 
 
 Hauteville stone. (See Limestone.) 
 
 Haviland china. (See China.) 
 Principal market. (See Reappraisement Haviland china, principal market.) 
 
 Hawaiian scenes, printed views of. (See Post cards.) 
 
526 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Hay and straw. 
 Belgium and Denmark — 
 
 T. D. 25324 so amended as to permit importations of hay and straw from Belgium 
 and Denmark. (T. D. 30159; Dec. 7, 1909.) 
 Jamaica — 
 
 To be disinfected before landing and quarantined three months under supervision 
 of Bureau of Animal Industry. (T. D. 29671; Apr. 6, 1909.) 
 Heads of game animals. (See Animals, heads of.) 
 Hearings and reheaiings. 
 
 Hearings, etc., In classification and reappraisement cases by United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers during the year 1909. (T. D. 29423; circular No. 79; Dec. 19, 
 1908.) 
 
 Collectors to report directly to the Assistant United States Attorney General where 
 the board overrules their decisions under paragraphs not rehed upon by im- 
 porters in their protests. (T. D. 32065; Dec. 9, 1911.) 
 
 Application must be made under Rule XIX: Application for rehearing must be 
 made in accordance with the provisionB of Rule XIX of the rules of procedure 
 and practice before the board. 
 
 Must give notice to Government coimsel by service of copy: Such applica- 
 tions must always be accompanied with a notice of their being given to the 
 counsel for the Government and by a copy of the same. And the failure to fur- 
 nish a copy to the counsel is fatal to such application. 
 
 If application for allowance of rot is not filed in time: Where, moreover, the 
 application is for allowance of rot or decay in imported fruit, and such applica- 
 tion is not filed with the collector of customs within 48 hours after the arrival of 
 the vessel which brought the fruit into this country, the application will be 
 denied. (T. D. 33239— G. A. 7439; Feb. 25, 1913.) 
 
 A cause was reversed in a former decision (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33200), 
 the appellee, however being adjudged a more favorable rate than that he had 
 obtained from the board. There was no cross appeal by the importer. A party 
 who is dissatisfied with the judgment of a lower tribunal, in order to obtain a 
 review thereof and a judgment in an appellate tribunal more favorable to him- 
 self, must take his own appeal, and, faUing in that, can be heard only in support 
 of the judgment or decree from which the appeal is taken by the other party. 
 United States v. Von Oefele (No. 1042), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Motion for rehearing. Decision reversed. (T. D. 33492; May 26, 1913.) 
 Consolidation of hearings — 
 
 It is a matter of discretion with the board to consolidate the hearing of protests 
 when the goods imported are of the same kind and the question of law to be tried 
 is the same, and especially when the importers are the same persons. (T. D. 
 31850— G. A. 7270; Sept. 9, 1911.) 
 Dockets for hearings — 
 
 Dockets for hearing of cases by the Board of United States General Appraisers at 
 ports other than the port of New York for the calendar year 1915. (T. D. 34967; 
 Dec. 7, 1914.) 
 Evidence — 
 
 Motion to remand case for correction of testimony and taking of further evidence: 
 When there was ample time to inspect the record as made up and to apply to the 
 board of appraisers for any supposedly needed correction therein prior to its 
 transmission to the Court of Customs Appeals and there was a failure, without 
 any good cause shown, so to apply, the appellant may not on appeal question 
 the truth of that record. (T. D. 31256; Jan. 25, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 527 
 
 Healings and lehearings — Continued. 
 Jurisdiction of Boaid of General Appiaiseis — 
 
 Where the Board of General Appraisers grants a rehearing and at the same time 
 an appeal is taken to the circuit court and the appeal is not discontinued, the 
 Board of General Appraisers should not dismiss the rehearing proceedings, but 
 should request permiesion of the circuit court to retain the papers and proceed on 
 rehearing. - Kingman v. Western Manufacturing Co. (170 U. S., 675) and Roemer 
 V. Simon (91 U. S., 149). (T. D. 30110— G. A. 6940; Nov. 12, 1909.) 
 Motion for rehearing — 
 
 In the absence of a statute regulating procedure on an application for a rehear- 
 ing, failure of counsel sufficiently to present a cause affords ordinarily no ground 
 on which such an application could be based. It does not appear in this case 
 that the decision as rendered was in conflict with an express statute or with a 
 controlling decision to which the attention of the court had not been directed, 
 either of which conditions is generally considered necessary to support an 
 application for a rehearing. Lunham & Moore v. United States (No. 271), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Motion denied. (T. D. 31409; Mar. 
 13, 1911.) 
 Notice — 
 
 The cause was originally docketed in San Francisco. In New York, on December 
 13, 1911, a previous order of August 21 denying a rehearing was vacated and set 
 aside by the board, a rehearing granted, and the board, without giving notice of 
 its proceedings to the parties at interest or a motion therefor, reconsidered the- 
 case and gave judgment, duly entered, sustaining the protest. There was error 
 in the failure to give notice to counsel for the Governnient or to any of the parties 
 of the final hearing and determination of the case. 
 
 Docketing a cause: Under the rules of the board both the importer and the 
 Government had a right to expect the case would be duly docketed at the port 
 of San Francisco at the next regular hearing. The board was without authority 
 to set the case for a rehearing on a regular trial day, even at the port of New York. 
 United States v. Rothschild & Co. (No. 831), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 26189 (T. D. 81774) and Abstract 27386 (T. D. 32089). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 32566; May 17, 1912.) 
 Open hearings — 
 
 Under section 28, subsection 13, tariff act of 1909, providing that in the discretion 
 of the Board of General Appraisers reappraisement hearings may "be open and 
 in the presence of the importer or his attorney and any duly authorized repre- 
 sentative of the Government, " it is not permissible to have a portion of the evi- 
 dence admitted at an open hearing and the remainder introduced at a closed 
 hearing, with no provision for its inspection by the opposing party. The board 
 may, in its discretion, however, in a case where one side wishes to submit evi- 
 dence procured imder a pledge of secrecy, deny the request for an open hearing 
 and have the entire proceedings closed. Somerville, G. A., dissents. (T. D. 
 30466— G. A. 6999; Mar. 28, 1910.) 
 Petition for rehearing denied — 
 
 Reviewing the decision in Tilge & Co. v. United States (T. D. 31507), the decision 
 is adhered to. The court did not there hold an appraising officer had no juris- 
 diction to appraise any of the merchandise of a consignment unless he had 
 examined the samples deposited at the public stores, nor did it hold that sam- 
 ples forming a part of the importation can not, when duly authenticated, be 
 accepted by appraising officers for jurisdictional purposes. It was there held, 
 however, that no process was permissible "other than the law provides"; and 
 
528 DIGEST OF CtrSTOM& DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Hearings and leheaiings — Continued. 
 
 Petition for rehearing denied — Continued. 
 
 that while the law provides substitute processes, compliance with any of these 
 was not averred in the case as presented for determination here, and the decision 
 as rendered was based simply on noncompliance with the law's requirements. 
 What would or would not constitute a proper waiver or stipulation to avoid the 
 stricter operation of the statute will depend on the facts of record in the particu- 
 lar case. Tilge v. United States (No. 274), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Petition on behalf of the Government for rehearing in Tilge & Co. v. 
 United States (T. D. 31507). Denied. (T. D. 31676; May 31, 1911.) 
 
 Petition for rehearing and an appeal filed at the same time — 
 Where a petition for rehearing and an appeal from a decision of ^he board are filed 
 at the same time, the board may proceed with the rehearing, as the appeal is 
 premature and a nullity. United States ii. Gallagher (T. D. 30365); Voorheesi), 
 John T. Noye Mfg. Co. (151 U. S., 135); Kingman v. Western Mfg. Co. (170 U. S., 
 675). (T. D. 32004— G. A. 7297; Nov. 13, 1911.) 
 
 Power to remand to have additional testimony taken — 
 The power to remand a case to the Board of General Appraisers for the pm-pose of 
 having additional testimony taken is not incident to the right of appeal itself, 
 but must depend upon express statutory authority. The organic act establish- 
 ing the Court of Customs Appeals embodies all provisions relative to appeals to 
 the court now in force, and in determining whether the authority to remand a 
 cause and direct a rehearing exists, the provisions of the organic act are decisive. 
 There is no such authority directly conferred by that act, it may not be brought 
 in by construction, and, the terms of the statute contemplating as speedy a deter- 
 mination of causes as properly may be. a motion to remand to take additional 
 testimony will be denied. 
 
 Rule 11 of the Customs Court of Appeals: Rule 11, relating to amendments, 
 orders, and judgments, should be construed in connection with the statute giv- 
 ing authority to remand a case to the board by an order made on the final hearing 
 before the court. If open to a broader interpretation, it must be held that in so 
 far as it attempted to extend the power of the court beyond the limit prescribed 
 it was in excess of authority. Stegeman v. United States (No. 458), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal from decision o< the United States 
 Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 30828, post-card views). Motion denied. 
 (T. D. 31240; Jan. 18, 1911.) 
 
 Premature appeal — 
 The Board of General Appraisers granted an application for rehearing on the samo 
 date that an appeal from its original decision was taken to the circuit court, 
 these proceedings being brought under the provisions of sections 1 and 2, act of 
 May 27, 1908 (35 Stat., 403). Held that by reason of the allowance of the rehear- 
 ing the appeal was premature and should be dismissed. United States v. Gal- 
 lagher, United States Circuit Court. Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Di- . 
 vision, February 4, 1910. No. 29329 (suit 2059). Appeal by United Statesfrom 
 decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 20307 (T. D. 29449). 
 Appeal dismissed without prejudice. (T. D. 30365; Feb. 21, 1910.) 
 
 Substitution of records on hearing before board — 
 Where a rule had been promulgated by the Board of General Appraisers providing 
 that in classification proceedings the record and testimony in one case might be 
 admitted as the record and testimony in another, if a like case, but providing, 
 too, for a reexamination and cross-examination of witnesses if moved for, pro- 
 ceedings on such a substituted record could only be proper after due notice, so 
 that witnesses might be reexamined or cross-examined as might or might not be 
 desired. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 529 
 
 Healings and rehearings — Continued. 
 
 Substitution of records on hearings before board — Continued. 
 
 Commercial designation, insuflBicient evidence of: Wliere only one witness 
 has testified to the commercial designation of an article, this is insufficient evi- 
 dence to prove an accepted use of the term in commerce. 
 
 Review of questions of fact: This court may review questions of fact, but 
 when a decision by a board is made to rest on a record that is not a part of the 
 record here there is not here sufficient testimony to warrant the finding of the 
 board being sustained. United States v. Oberle (No. 232); United States v. 
 lUfelder (No. 233), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeals by the 
 United States frem decisions of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 23092 (T. D. 30547). Decision reversed. (T. D. 31545; Apr. 24, 1911.) 
 
 Heaters in cars containing bonded merchandise. (See Oil heaters.) 
 
 Hedge shears. (See Sheajs.) 
 
 Hematite iron ore. (See Iron, oxide of.) 
 
 Herbs in alcohol. 
 
 Herbs immersed in alcohol are not dutiable as alcoholic compounds under para- 
 graph 2, tariff act of 1897, but as unenumerated unmanufactured articles under 
 section 6. United States v. Stone & Downer Co., United States Circuit Court, 
 District of Massachusetts, May 11, 1909. No. 150 (suit 1833). Appeal by 
 United States from decision by Board of General Appraisers. Abstract 11235 
 (T.D. 27348). Board affirmed. Boericke & Runyon Co. ■». United States (126 
 Fed. Rep., 1018; T. D. 24886) followed. (T. D. 29804; May 11, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The term "alcoholic compounds" in paragraph 2, tariff act of 
 1897, includes a mixture of fine-cut herbs and alcohol, in which the alcohol 
 incidentally serves as a preservative in the importation of the leaves and con- 
 tinues in use after importation, for the purpose of producing a tincture. But 
 there is no justification for holding that the primary purpose of using the alcohol 
 as a mere preservative determines classification under said provision. In para- 
 graph 2, tariff act of 1897, relating to alcoholic compounds, the term " compound " 
 is not limited by any trade usage or technical adaptation, but is used in its com- 
 mon broad sense of being any union or mixture of elements, ingredients, or parts, 
 as fine-cut herbs commingled with alcohol. It is the evident general intention 
 of customs and internal-revenue laws to levy a high duty, at least for once, on 
 all spirits, whether of domestic or foreign production. United States v. Stone & 
 Downer Co., United States Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, December 20, 
 1909. No. 834 (suit 1833). Appeal by United States from the Circuit Court of 
 the United States for the District of Massachusetts (171 Fed. Rep., 293; T. D. 
 29804) affirming Abstract 11235 (T. D. 27348). Decision in favor of the Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 30228; Dec. 28, 1909.) 
 
 Herring. (See Fish.) 
 
 Hewn lava stone. (See Stone, lava.) 
 
 Hides. 
 American cattle — 
 Where hides have been removed abroad from American cattle exported alive and 
 these hides so removed returned here as imports, they are not to be deemed 
 articles of the growth, produce, and manufacture of the United States and as 
 such free of duty, but as hides of cattle as described in paragraph 437, tariff act 
 of 1897, and were dutiable under that paragraph. Buschoft et al. v. United 
 States (No. 205), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porter from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 22697 (T. D. 30356). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31433; Mar. 20, 1911.) 
 Exported aUve: A previous decision in this cause is adhered to (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 336; T. D. 31483). That decision was rested on the proposition that the com- 
 45633°— 17 34 
 
530 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Hides — Continued . 
 
 American cattle — -Continued. 
 
 modity imported was another and distinct commodity from the one exported. 
 There was no purpose there to hold, nor can the language employed by any fair 
 construction be made to hold, that because an article was named in the dutiable 
 list as subject to duty, the article so named could not in any circumstances be 
 entitled to free entry under paragraph 483, tariff act of 1897. G. A. 4103 (T. D. 
 19130). BuBchoft et al. v. United States (No. 205), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Onrehearing. Decision affirmed. (T.D. 32285; Feb. 15, 1912.) 
 
 Buffalo— 
 Sp-called Samarang and Singapore buffalo hides, imported from Straits Settle- 
 ments and Batavia, are not dutiable as hides of "cattle" under paragraph 437, 
 tariff act of 1897, but are free of duty as hides not specially provided for, under 
 paragraph 664. United States v. Winter (134 Fed. Rep., 841; T. D. 25901) fol- 
 lowed. (T. D. 29266— G. A. 6809; Sept. 16, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Singapore buffalo hides are free of duty under paragraph 664, 
 tariff act of 1897. as "hides not specially provided for." Singapore buffaloes 
 not being shown to be domesticated animals, they can not be considered to be 
 ' ' cattle " and their hides are not dutiable as ' ' cattle ' ' hides under paragraph 437 , 
 tariff act of 1897, especially as the language of the paragraph indicates an inten- 
 tion to cover only hides that can be tanned and used for leather, and these hides 
 are not shown to be susceptible of such uses. United States v. Wadleigh; 
 United States v. Winter, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, May 21, 1909. Suits 5345-5346. Appeal by United States from decision 
 of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6809 (T. D. 29266). Board aflSimed. 
 (T. D. 29821; June 8, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The hides of the Singapore buffalo are not hides of "cattle" 
 within the meaning of paragraph 437, tariff act of 1897, but are classible as hides 
 not specially provided for under paragraph 664. United States v. Wadleigh; 
 United States v. Winter, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Cir- 
 cuit, March 9, 1910. Nos. 166-7 (suits 5345-6). Appeals by the United States 
 from the decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York (172 Fed. Rep., 169; T. D. 29821) affirming G. A. 6809 (T. D. 
 29266). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30450; Mar. 22, 1910.) 
 Decision of United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in suits 5345 
 and 5346, United States t). Wadleigh, and United States v. Winter (T. D. 30450), 
 supra, involving the claBsification of Singapore and Samarang buffalo hides, 
 acquiesced in. (T. D. 30564; Apr. 22, 1910.) 
 
 Disinfection of. (See Disinfection, hides.) 
 
 Tare on — 
 The impurities ordinarily present in an article of merchandise do not constitute 
 tare; and such impurities as are not commonly present in the merchandise as 
 traded in are alone, for dutiable purposes, the subject of allowance. No rule 
 can be laid down to determine the precise number of hides in a given importa- 
 tion that should properly be examined and tested in order to fix a just allowance 
 for tare on an entire consignment; but in the case at bar, of the importations 
 immediately involved, a fair number and selection of hides were examined and 
 tested by an examiner and by the representatives of the importer, when 10 out 
 of 795, 5 at a time being selected at different stages of the count, and 5 out 
 of 409, chosen from the other lots, had been so examined and tested. On the 
 evidence, an allowance of 2 pounds per hide for tare would have been a 
 proper allowance on these two consignments. Shallus v. United States (No. 
 230), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from 
 decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23068 (T. D. 
 30547). (T. D. 31408; Mar. 13, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1916. 531 
 
 Hinges. 
 Bronze chief yalne — 
 Door hinges made of steel, with added fittings of bronze, not dutiable under para- 
 graph 144, tariff act of 1909, relating to "finished tinges or hinge blanks, whether 
 of iron or steel," where the bronze material is chief value, but under paragraph 
 199 of said act as articles not specially provided for composed wholly of metal. 
 (T. D. 33337— G. A. 7455; Apr. 9, 1913.) 
 Copper- 
 Copper hinges are properly dutiable at 10 per cent ad valorem under the specific 
 provision in paragraph 123 of the present tariff act for "finished hinges or hinge 
 blanks," as claimed, rather than at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 167 
 of said act as manufactures of metal, as assessed. (T. D. 35497 — G. A. 7733! 
 June 4, 1915.) 
 Hiuoki baskets. (See Baskets.) 
 Hoes, metal. (See Forgings, metal hoes.) 
 Hog-cholera vaccine. (See Vaccine virus.) 
 Holidays. 
 
 Specifying what days shall be included in the term "holidays" as used in the act 
 of February 13, 1911, relative to the lading and unlading of vessels under pre- 
 liminary entry, etc. (T. D. 32043; Nov. 29, 1911.) 
 Holland fabrics for windows. (See Cotton, holland fabrics.) 
 Hollow ware. (See Iron.) 
 Homing pigeons. (See Pigeons.) * 
 
 Honey cakes. (See Cakes.) 
 Hoop poles. 
 Bough-cut poles, when split and shaved, for making barrel hoops — 
 
 It was clearly intended in paragraph 712, tariff act of 1909, to include in the phrase 
 "round, unmanufactured timber" something other than logs; that timber 
 should not have there a restricted, limited meaning. Articles ejusdem generis 
 with those specifically named are included, and the importation the subject of 
 this appeal, consisting of hoop pole^ accordingly was entitled to free entry. 
 United States v. Nightingale (No. 1287), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 33762 (T. D. 33778). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34104; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 Hop cloth. (See Jute fabrics.) 
 Horn strips, polished and drilled. 
 
 Horn strips, polished, the ends rounded and drilled, properly dutiable at the rate 
 of 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 368, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34535; 
 June 9, 1914.) 
 Horns and bulbs for automobiles. (See Automobile horns and bulbs.) 
 Horses. 
 Exported and returned. (See Animals, American, exported and returned.) 
 Killed while in United States under bond. (See Animals imported for exhibition.) 
 BTot admissible as personal effects. (See Effects, personal.) 
 Horse goods. 
 Metal and leather manufactures; saddlery — 
 In view of the construction by the administrative departments, by the board, 
 and by the courts, and in the absence of clear proof of a commercial designation, 
 the word "saddlery " occurring in paragraphs 450 and 461, tariff act of 1909, can 
 not be taken to apply to articles used in the care of horses or for horse stable 
 equipment. Currycombs, hoof picks, horse clippers, whip thongs, and the like 
 are not "saddlery, " and these are dutiable according to the component of chief 
 value as manufactures of metal or the manufactures of leather. 
 
532 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1906-1915. 
 
 Horse goods — Continued. 
 Metal and leather mannfactnies ; saddlery — Continued. 
 
 Time proviso in paragraph 450, tarig act of 1909: The qualifying words of one 
 clause of a section may be extended to other clauses or even other sections of a 
 law, if to give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature this is necessary; 
 and the proviso in paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909, that on and after October 1 
 of that year certain described leather goods should bear a prescribed rate of 
 duty, will be taken to apply to all the articles enumerated in the several clauses 
 of that proviso and to similar articles also designated in paragraph 461 of the act. 
 Stone V. United States (No. 516); Rraemer v. United States (No. 527), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from a decision of 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24331 (T. D. 31134). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31593; May 8, 1911.) 
 Horsehair. (See also Hats, horsehair.) 
 
 Treatment of, in transit from South America through the United States to a for- 
 eign country. (T. D. 32027; Nov. 23, 1911.) 
 Artificial- 
 Artificial horsehair is not dutiable as cotton yam by similitude under paragraph 
 302, tariff act of 1897 , but as an unenumerated manufactured article under sec- 
 tion 6. Eckstein v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York, March 2, 1908. Suit 4335. Appeal from decision of Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6387 (T. D. 27442). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 28860; Mar. 18, 1908.) 
 Artificial horsehair is dutiable as cotton yam by similitude under paragraph 302, 
 tariff act of 1897, rather than as silk yam by similitude under paragraph 385. 
 Artificial horsehair resembles cotton yarn in material and use within the mean- 
 ing of the similitude clause in section 7, tariff act of 1897, being similar in mate- 
 rial because each is composed almost entirely of cellulose, and in use because 
 eachis used in the manufacture of the same kinds of articles. Eckstein v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 
 12, 1909. No. 106 (suit 4335). Aj^eal from Circuit Court of United States for 
 Southern District of New York (160 Fed. Rep., 287; T. D. 28860), affirming 
 G. A. 6387 (T. D. 27442). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29504; 
 Jan. 27, 1909.) 
 Cotton thread coated with cellulose: The merchandise the subject of the importa- 
 tion in question is given by the importers the trade name of Viscelline. It is 
 manufactured by covering a single cotton thread with a coating of cellulose or 
 viscose, material produced from wood pulp. Cotton is the material of chief 
 value. The merchandise, it is true, retains its character as cotton yam, but 
 the language of paragraph 405, tariff act of 1909, is comprehensive in its applica- 
 tion to artificial or imitation horsehair by whatever name known and by what- 
 ever process made; and "artificial or imitation horsehair" describes the impor- 
 tation accurately. It was dutiable as such imder the paragraph named. United 
 States V. Eckstein (No. 743), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 26216 (T. D. 31788). Decision reversed. (T, D. 32354; Mar. 20, 1912.'> 
 Cotton yam: Artificial horsehair is a yam, and being composed of the same con- 
 stituents in approximately the same proportions as cotton, and being used inter- 
 changeably with polished cotton yarn for making hat braids, it is similar in 
 , material and use to cotton yam, and dutiable as such under paragraph 302, 
 tariff of act of 1897. The similitude clause, section 7, does not require identity. 
 A substantial similitude in any one of the four particulars, material, quality, 
 texture, and use, enumerated in section 7, is sufficient to satisfy the require- 
 ments of said section. United States v. Eckstein, United States Supreme 
 Court. No. 52 (suit 4335). December 4, 1911. On writ of certiorari to the 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 533 
 
 Horsehair — CoDtinued. 
 Artificial — Continued. 
 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (167 Fed. Rep . , 802 ; 
 T. D. 29504). Decision adverse to the Government. (T.D. 32090; Dec. 19, 1911.) 
 Horse-radish roots not vegetables. 
 
 A review of the decisions shows that the word "vegetables" has not been em- 
 ployed Lq tariff acts in a strictly botanical sense, but rather has been applied to 
 vegetables commonly used as food. Horse-radish is botanically a vegetable. 
 Its use, however, is not as a iood, but as a condiment. It ia free of duty under 
 paragraph 630, tariff act of 1909, as a vegetable substance, unmanufactured, not 
 otherwise specially provided for. United States i;. Wallace et al. (No. 1086), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30673 (T. D. 32997) and 
 Abstract 30988 (T. D. 33055). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33413; May 6, 1913.) 
 The protest rightly claimed the merchandise to be entitled to free entry as vege- 
 table substance, unmanufactured, under paragraph 630, tariff act of 1909. The 
 case is ruled by United States v. Wallace et al. (T. D. 33413). United States v. 
 Nix & Co. et al. (No. 1087), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 30673 (T. D. 32997) and Abstract 30988 (T. D. 33055). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 33414; May 6, 1913.) 
 Horseshoe calks. (See Steel, horseshoe calks and ball beanngs.) 
 Hose. 
 Canvas — 
 Not conunercially known as hydraulic hose, dutiable at the rate of 30 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 284 of the tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34373; Apr. 11, 
 1914.) 
 Hydraulic- 
 Seamless flax fire hose, used for the conveyance of water under pressure, is hy- 
 draulic hose within common understanding, and is properly dutiable at the 
 rate of 7 cents per pound imder paragraph 274, tariff act of 1913, and not as 
 manufactures of flax at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 284. (T. D. 
 35879— G. A. 7809; Nov. 10, 1915.) 
 Hosiery, embroidered. (See Wearing apparel.) 
 Hours of business. (See Entry, hours of business.) 
 Household effects. (See Effects, household.) 
 Human hair. (See Hair.) 
 
 Hungary, parcels-post convention with. (See Parcels-post convention.) 
 Hunting knives. (See Knives, deer-foot.) 
 Hyacinth bulbs. (See Bulbs, hyacinth.) 
 Hydrou blue. (See Dyes.) 
 Hydroxide of chrome. (See Chemical coinpounds.) 
 
 I. 
 
 Ice tanks made of china or earthen ware. (See Earthenware, ice tanks.) 
 
 Ichthyol sodium. (See also Chemical compotmd, Isarol.) 
 
 Ichthyol sodium is dutiable under paragraph 68 of the tariff act of 1897 at 25 per 
 cent ad valorem, and should not be classified under the provision in paragraph 
 626 for "ichthyol." It appears that by trade and technical usage the term 
 "ichthyol " is the designation for the compound described as ichthyol ammo- 
 nium, but not for that described as ichthyol sodium. Merck ■!). United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, January 21, 1910. 
 Suit 5462. Appeal by importer from decision of the Board of General Apprais- 
 ers, Abstract 20720 (T.D. 29597). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30315; Feb. 1,1910.) 
 
534 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Illegal entry. (See Entry.) 
 ninstiations for periodicals. (See Periodicals.) 
 Imitation bronze statuary. (See Statuary.) 
 Imitation horsehair braids. (See Braids, horsehair.) 
 Imitation horsehair hats. (See Hats.) 
 Imitatiou jet. (See Jet, imitation.) 
 
 Imitation jewelry, parts of. (See Precious stones, imitation of.) 
 Imitation onyx. (See Onyx.) 
 
 Imitation pearl beads. (See Beads, imitation pearl.) 
 Imitation precious stones. (See Precious stones, imitation of.) 
 Imitation precious stones ornamenting silk wearing apparel. (See Wearing apparel.) 
 Imitation precious stones suitable for use as hatpin tops. (See Hatpin tops.) 
 Imitation sUk fabrics. 
 Pongee silk — 
 Imitation pongee sUk, in chief value of cotton, was dutiable under paragraph 311, 
 tariff act of 1897. A certificate of the Yokohama Chamber of Commerce as to the 
 value of a commodity imported from Japan to the United States is admissible 
 under treaty regulations as evidence before the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers. Judicial notice will be taken that with the present means of inter- 
 communication between the various countries of the world the price of a com- 
 modity like cotton does not greatly fluctuate or differ in different countries. 
 Saito 1). United States (No. 142), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers (T.D. 29848). Decision of board affirmed. (T.D. 31184; Jan.5,1911.) 
 Immediate transportation. 
 
 Shipments to be reported on catalogue 198. (T. D. 29314; Oct. 28, 1908.) 
 Diversion of immediate-transportation shipments for entry at another port than 
 the one named in entry should not be permitted except on instructions of depart- 
 ment. (T. D. 29473; Jan. 15, 1909.) 
 Issuance of "Permits to switch " and "Release of merchandise in bond." (T. D. 
 
 29870; June 25, 1909.) 
 Merchandise shipped under immediate transportation entry or consular seal to be 
 entered at the port of destination only. (T. D. 29608; Mar. 9, 1909.) 
 Entry — 
 Regulations governing bills of lading required upon entries for immediate trans- 
 portation. (T. D. 29867; June 24, 1909.) 
 Merchandise cevered by various bills of lading naming consignees at port of des- 
 tination can not be included in one immediate-transportation entry at port of 
 arrival. (T. D. 30065; Oct. 25, 1909.) 
 Informal entry permitted at immediate-transportation ports of delivery of small 
 importations on which duties amount to less than $5 when consigned to persons 
 not regularly engaged in the importation of merchandise and when not intended 
 for sale in this country, such entries to be reported to the auditor for the Treas- 
 ury Department. (T. D. 30832; July 28, 1910.) 
 Goods entered for immediate transportation before the passage of the act of 1913, 
 which arrived at the port of delivery subsequent to the passage of said act, are 
 entitled to classification thereunder, notwithstanding an entry for consumption 
 has been improperly made and permitted by the collector prior to the passage of 
 said act and during the operation of the act of 1909. (T. D. 35171— G. A. 7693; 
 Feb. 26, 1815.) 
 General order — 
 Article 410, Customs Regulations of 1908, so amended as to permit importers 48 
 hours within which to make entry at port of destination of merchandise arriv- 
 ing under iinmediate-transportation entry. (T. D. 30592; May 5, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DKCISIONS, 1908-1915. 535 
 
 Inunediate-tianspoitation poits. 
 Blaine, Wash. — 
 Privileges of the first section of the immediate-transportation act of 1880 extended 
 to. (T. D. 29602; Mar. 2, 1909.) 
 BrownsvlUe, Tex. — 
 Extension of privileges of immediate transportation to. (T. D. 31833; Aug. 22, 
 1911.) 
 Brunswick, Ga. — 
 Privileges of the seventh section of the act of June 10, 1880, governing the imme- 
 diate transportation of dutiable goods without appraisement, restored to the 
 port of Brunswick, Ga. (T. D. 31745; July 11, 1911.) 
 Corry, Pa. — 
 Act creating Corry, Pa., a port of delivery in the district of Erie, and extending to 
 it the privileges of section 7 of the Immediate-transportation act of June 10, 1880. 
 (T. D. 29622; Maj. 15, 1909.) 
 Dallas, Tex.^ 
 An act extending to Dallas, Tex., the privileges of the seventh section of the act of 
 June 10, 1880, governing the immediate transportation of dutiable merchandise 
 without appraisement. (T. D. 33756; Sept. 27, 1913.) 
 Eastport, Idaho — 
 
 Privileges of the first section of the act of June 10, 1880, governing the immediate 
 transportation of dutiable merchandise without appraisement, extended to East- 
 port, Idaho. (T. D. 30940; Sept. 24, 1910.) 
 Femandina, Fla. — 
 Femandina, Pla., designated port under act of June 10, 1880. (T. D. 29537; Feb. 
 8, 1909.) 
 Holeb, Me. — 
 Holeb, Me., established as a subport of entry, with privileges of the first section of 
 the immediate-transportation act of June 10, 1880. (T. D. 32513; May 18, 1912.) 
 Perth Amboy, N. J. — 
 An act extending to Perth Amboy, N. J., the privileges of the seventh section of 
 the act of June 10, 1880, governing the immediate transportation of dutiable 
 merchandise without appraisement. (T. B. 33784; Oct. 10, 1913.) 
 Providence, B. I. — 
 Providence, R. I., created an immediate-transportation port under act of 1880. 
 (T. D. 34631; July 14, 1914.) 
 Banier, Minn. — 
 Act of Congress establishes Ranier, Minn., as a subport of entry and extends to it 
 the privileges of the first section of the immediate-transportation act of June 10, 
 1880. (T. D. 29607; Mar. 9, 1909.) 
 Sumas, Wash. — 
 Privileges of the first section of the immediate-transportation act of 1880 extended 
 to. (T. D. 29602; Mar. 2, 1909.) 
 Van Buren, Me. — 
 Van Buren, Me., created an immediate-transportation port under the act of Jime 
 10, 1880. (T. D. 35208; Mar. 12, 1915.) 
 Immortelles. 
 Dyed in colors — 
 The dyeing process to which these flowers was subjected was designed to beautify 
 them with new and sometimes brilliant colorings, thereby improving and ad- 
 vancing rather than preserving their condition. They are not preserved cut 
 flowers, but are ornamental flowers within the meaning of paragraph 438, tariff 
 act of 1909. Bayersdorier & Co. v. United States (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., — ; T. D. 
 33875, supra). International forwarding Co. v. United States (No. 1165), United 
 
536 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Immortelles — Continued . 
 Dyed in colois — Continued. 
 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31863 (T. D. 33325). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 33878; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 Immunity of the United States from suit. 
 
 The United States may not be sued in the courts of this country without its con- 
 sent. A suit against the Secretary of the Treasury to review his action in deter- 
 mining the rate of duty to be collected on foreign sugar is, in effect, a suit against 
 the United States. State of Louisiana v. McAdoo, Secretary of the Treasury, 
 United States Supreme Court, June 22, 1914. Motion for leave to file petition. 
 Denied. (T. D. 34764; Sept. 10, 1914.) 
 Importation. 
 Completion — 
 Where a cargo of coal has been purchased and arrives at a port of entry within the 
 United States with the intention of unlading it and a portion of such cargo is 
 purchased from the consignee by the master of the vessel and retained for use as 
 fuel, the coal is subject to duty, and it is not essential that the goods should be 
 actually unloaded in order that the duties of the Government may attach. 
 (T. D. 29406— G. A. 6835; Dec. 14, 1908.) 
 Date of — 
 The date of importation is the date of the arrival of merchandise in a port of entry 
 of the United States, and not the date oi liquidation or even of entry. (T. D. 
 30494; Apr. 9, 1910.) 
 Small, frontier — 
 
 Valued at $10, or less, admitted without formal entry. (T. D. 29146; July 8, 1908.) 
 Time when duty attaches to imported merchandise — 
 Customs duties attach to imported merchandise when it is taken into the port to 
 which it is consigned with intent to unload, and the importer becomes obligated 
 to pay the duty at that time. Haynes's case, G. A. 4033 (T. D. 18635); Ellison 
 V. United States (142 Fed. Rep., 732; T. D. 27035); United States v. Hartwell 
 Lumber Co. (142 Fed. Rep., 432; T. D. 26826). (T. D. 30161— G. A. 6945; 
 Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 Impurities in fish. (See Fish, weight of.) 
 Impurities in flaxseed. (See Flaxseed, impurities in.) 
 Imparities in seeds. (See Seeds, castor.) 
 Incense. 
 Joss light — 
 A dried paste of sandalwood dust and clay, in the form of small sticks, cones, and 
 coils, which when lighted yields a fragrant odor and is burnt at the altars and 
 shrines of joss houses, is free of duty as "joss light" under paragraph 587, tariff 
 act of 1897. Yamanaka v. United States; Morimura v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 20, 1909. Suits 5329- 
 5330. Appeals by importers from decisions by Board of General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 19381 (T. D. 29159) and Abstract 19419 (T. D. 29173). Decision adverse 
 to the Government. (T. D. 29817; June 8, 1909.) Acquiesced in June 7, 1909 
 (T. D. 29798). 
 Mosquito sticks, etc. — 
 Mosquito sticks, mosquito incense, etc., not entitled to admission free of duty as 
 joss sticks or joss lights, but dutiable at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32699; July 10, 1912.) 
 Income-tax accounts. (See Accounts.) 
 India-rubber braids. (See Braids.) 
 India-rubber and cotton wearing apparel. (See Wearing apparel.) 
 
DIGEST 01" CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 537 
 
 ludigo pastes. 
 
 Indigo pastes derived from synthetic indigo are dutiable as indigo extracts or 
 pastes under paragraph 25, tariff act of 1909, and not as coal-tar colors or dyes 
 under paragraph 15. Klipstein v. United States (4 Ct. Oust. Apple., 510; T. D. 
 33936) followed. (T. D. 35825— G. A. 7797; Oct. 21, 1915.) 
 Brominated — 
 Indigo, either natural or synthetic, treated with bromin or chlorin is dutiable as a 
 coal-tax color under paragraph 15, tariff act of 1909, and not as indigo paste, this 
 term being limited commercially to an indigo treated with sulphuric acid. 
 Abstract 26344 (T. D. 31832) and Abstract 28915 (T. D. 32645) modified. (T. D. 
 33192— G. A. 7432; Feb. 17, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Sulphonated indigo and brominated indigo are alike pastes iu 
 point of consistency and are alike extracts of the same parent substance. 
 
 " Indigo extracts or pastes." — ^These terms do not possess a definite, uniform, 
 and general trade usage in this country such as would exclude therefrom the 
 article of the importation, namely, a color or dye derived by chemical reactions 
 from coal tar; nor has the article here itself been given by the trade a definite, 
 uniform, and general title or designation such as to compel another classification. 
 It was dutiable as an indigo extract or paste under paragraph 25, tariff act of 
 1909. Klipstein & Co. v. United States (No. 1133), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 7432 (T. D. 33192). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33936; Nov. 
 28, 1913.) 
 Infants' socks. 
 
 Infants' socks looped or knitted at the junction of the heel and sole dutiable under 
 ■ paragraph 328, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31753; July 15, 1911.) 
 Information, disclosure of. 
 
 Information of a confidential nature contained in invoices and customs records 
 not to be disclosed to persons not parties in interest. (T. D. 32016; Nov. 20, 
 1911.) 
 Informers' claims. 
 
 Informer's claims to be prepared in duphcate. (T. D. 33067; Jan. 7, 1913.) 
 Informers, compensation to. 
 Assignability of claims — 
 Under section 4, act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 186), authorizing the payment of 
 such compensation as "shall be just and reasonable, * * * under the 
 direction of the Secretary of the Treasury," to persons furnishing information of 
 fraud on the revenue, the Secretary is the sole judge as to whether there is an 
 informer who is entitled to such reward. Until the Secretary acts the informer 
 merely has the expectancy of a reward. An informer as to customs frauds trans- 
 ferred to another his claim for reward under section 4, act of June 22, 1874 (18 
 Stat., 186), before it had been allowed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Held 
 that such assignment was void, under section 3477, Revised Statutes, prescribing 
 that "all transfers and assignments made of any claim upon the United States 
 * * * shall be absolutely null and void, unless * * * made * * * 
 after the allowance of such a claim. " A collector of customs paid to the trustee 
 of the property of a bankrupt informer the reward allowed the latter for informa- 
 tion as to customs frauds, though the allowance of such reward was not made until 
 after the adjudication of bankruptcy. Held that such payment to the trustee 
 was illegal, as under section 70, bankruptcy act of July 1, 1898 (30 Stat., 565), 
 the trustee is vested only with the title of the bankrupt^ "as of the date he was 
 adjuged a bankrupt" to property which prior to such date "he could * * * 
 
538 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Informers, compensation to — Continued. 
 Assignability of claims — Continued. 
 
 have transferred or which might have been levied upon and sold under judicia 
 process." This does not include an expectancy of reward. In re Ghazal, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, December 7, 1909. 
 No. 66 . On petition for revision of proceedings of the district court of the United 
 States for the Eastern District of New York (163 Fed. Rep., 602; 169 Fed. Rep., 
 147). Order reversed. (T. D. 30426; Mar. 15, 1910.) 
 Opium smuggling cases^ 
 The payment of the reward for information furnished concerning violations of the 
 provisions of the act of January 17, 1914, amending the opium act of February 9, 
 1909, shall be made by the court exercising jurisdiction in cases involving vio- 
 lations of the law mentioned. (T. D. 34452; May 16, 1914.) 
 Initials, embroidered. 
 
 Shirts with embroidered initials — 
 Initials embroidered on cotton shirts makes of the shirts embroidered articles, and 
 the importation was dutiable as such under paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897. 
 Woodruff & Co. i;. United States (No. 195), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from decision of the Board of General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 22650 (T. D. 30314). Transferred from United States Circuit 
 Court for Southern District of New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31942; 
 Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 Injuries to employee^. (See Employees.) 
 Inlaid linoleom. (See Linoleum, inlaid.) 
 Insecticides, etc. 
 Insecticide act of 1910 — 
 Articles 1015, 1016, and 1031 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 amended so as to 
 apply to insecticides, Paris greens, lead arsenates, and fungicides. (T. D. 
 31703; June 19, 1911.) 
 Articles 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1028, 1029, and 1030 of the Customs 
 Regulations of 1908 amended so as to apply to insecticides, Paris greens, lead 
 arsenates, and fungicides, and the shipper's declaration provided for. (T. D. 
 31847; Sept. 8, 1911.) 
 Insole leather. (See Leather.) 
 
 Inspection and quarantine of animals. (See Quarantine.) 
 Inspection of foods and drugs. 
 
 Foods and drugs to be inspected by representative of Department of Agriculture 
 before being advertised for sale. (T. D. 30402; Mar. 5, 1910.) 
 Inspection of vessels. 
 
 Customs inspection of United States naval vessels arriving from foreign ports. 
 Procedure to be adopted. (T. D. 31514} Apr. 18, 1911.) 
 Inspectors. 
 Car fare — 
 Customs inspectors will hereafter be allowed their actual car fare within the limits 
 of the port incurred in the performance of their official duties. (T. D. 35695; 
 Sept. 7, 1915.) 
 Compensation — 
 A deputy collector and clerk, while performing the duties of an inspector at night, 
 is entitled to the compensation provided for such service. (T. D. 28706; Jan. 
 25, 1908.) 
 Report as to classification. (See Customs officers.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 539 
 
 Inspectors' services. 
 Charges — 
 A charge for the services of inspectors in lading a vessel with certain articles manu- 
 factured in the United States for export upon which drawback of duty was 
 claimed, under special license provided for by the act of February 13, 1911, is 
 not a tax or duty upon articles exported, but a charge for extraordinary services 
 rendered in accordance with the express provisions of said act. (T. D. 33979 — 
 G.A.7513;Dec. 8, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Jurisdiction. — ^The court may at any stage raise the question of 
 jurisdiction of the subject matter, and the determination of the trial court that 
 it has jurisdiction adds nothing to the force of its judgment. 
 
 Board's jurisdiction under subsection 14 of section 28, act of 1909. — The appellant 
 was required to pay for the services of inspectors who supervised the loading of 
 a vessel at night and on Sundays and holidays. Subsection 14 of section 28, 
 tariff act of 1909, was not intended to confer jurisdiction upon the board in any 
 cases other than those related to duties or charges on imported goods, and the 
 charges here could not be reviewed. Czarnecki's case, G. A. 3785 (T. D. 17851). 
 Drawbacks and the Secretary of the Treasury. — The jurisdiction to allow or 
 refuse drawbacks is vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, and it would seem 
 incongruous to vest in another tribunal the decision of questions relating to the 
 charges connected with the exportation of drawback goods, which in effect 
 result in a reduction of the allowance of drawback. Atlantic Transport Co. v. 
 United States (No. 1337), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7513 
 (T. D. 33979) and Abstract 34480 (T. D. 34069). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 34872; Oct. 29, 1914.) 
 Pay of watchmen on vessels Ugbtered of cargoes: The Secretary of the Treasury 
 has plenary power by statute to superintend the collection of duties or imposts 
 and tonnage and to prescribe regulations not inconsistent with law to prevent 
 frauds upon the customs revenue. He may authorize his agents, in the dis- 
 charge of their duties, to insist that all cargoes should be actually landed for 
 inspection, and in permitting the discharge of cargoes upon lighters he is 
 granting a privilege to the importer. In the exercise of this privilege the 
 importer suffers no wrong in being required to pay for watchmen's services. 
 Arbuckle Bros v. United States (No. 739), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 26149 (T. D. 31774). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32362; 
 Mar. 26, 1912.) 
 
 Institutions, free entry of articles for. 
 
 Regulations governing the free entry of articles for institutions under paragraphs 
 427, 573, and 611 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 34980; Dec. 10, 
 1914.) 
 
 Instruments, surgical, marking of. (See Surgical instruments, marking of.) 
 
 Insulators. 
 For spark plugs. (See Spark plugs.) 
 Glass, colored. (See Glass and glasses.) 
 
 Interest. 
 
 In a case in which interest was allowable the importer accepted from the collector 
 a sum equivalent to the principal of the amount due. Held that this consti- 
 tuted a conclusive waiver of the claim for interest and could not be construed 
 as a general payment, on account of which the importer was entitled to apply, 
 first to the extinguishment of the interest and next to part payment of the prin- 
 cipal. Where the payment of money has been improperly exacted by a col- 
 
540 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Interest — Continued. 
 
 lector of customs, ita repayment by the Government rather than by the collector 
 does not constitute a payment by a stranger which can not inure to the benefit 
 of the collector. Bidwell v. Preston, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 
 Second Circuit, March 10, 1908. No. 144 (N. S., 19092). In error to the Cir- 
 cuit Court of the United States for Southern District of New York. Decision 
 in favor of the Government. (T. D. 28891; Mar. 25, 1908.) 
 In transit. (See Transit merchandise.) 
 Investigations. 
 
 Supervision and conduct of special investigations to be under direction and con- 
 trol of special agents in charge. (T. D. 33706; Aug. 25, 1913.) 
 Invoice value, deduction from. (See Dutiable valuo — deduction from invoice value.) 
 Invoices. 
 Appraisement without — 
 
 Appraisements of imported goods without invoice can be made by the approval of 
 the Secretary of the Treasury under article 1450, Customs Regulations of 1899; 
 but such permission confers no privilege in violation of the Federal statutes. 
 (T. D. 28814^-^. A. 6732; Feb. 27, 1908.) 
 Certification of — 
 
 Acajutla: Invoices for merchandise shipped from Acajutla to be certified before 
 the consular officer at San Salvador. (T. D. 31328; Feb. 25, 1911.) 
 
 Adda, Gold Coast, Africa: Invoices covering shipments from Adda, Gold Coast, 
 Africa, to be accepted when certified in accordance with section 2844, Revised 
 Statutes. (T. D. 33102; Jan. 18, 1913.) 
 
 Arriaga: Invoices of merchandise from Arriaga and Magdalena Bay accepted when 
 certified in accordance with the provisions of section 2844, Revised Statutes. 
 (T. D. 33233; Feb. 28, 1913.) 
 
 Baracoa, Cuba: Invoices of merchandise from Baracoa, Cuba, may be accepted 
 when certified by two merchants or by the consul of a friendly nation. (T. D. 
 35583; July 15, 1915.) 
 
 Beira, Africa: Invoices from Beira, Africa, accepted when certified in accordance 
 with the provisions of section 2844, Revised Statutes. (T. D. 35350; Apr. 28, 
 1915.) 
 
 Boma, Kongo: Invoices of merchandise from Boma, Kongo, accepted when cer- 
 tified in the manner prescribed by section 2844 of the Revised Statutes. (T. D. 
 34611; July 2, 1914.) 
 
 Calamata, Greece: Invoices of merchandise shipped from Calamata, Greece, may 
 be certified in accordance with the provisions of section 2844, Revised Statutes. 
 (See article 190, Customs Regulations of 1908.) (T. D. 32656; June 25, 1912.) 
 
 Cayenne, French Guiana: Invoices of merchandise shipped from Cayenne, 
 French Guiana, may be accepted when certified by the consul of a friendly 
 nation or by two merchants. (T. D. 35734; Sept. 30, 1915.) 
 
 Ciudad del Carmen, Mexico, closed: Invoices covering shipments from Ciudad 
 del Carmen, Mexico, accepted when certified under section 2844 of the Revised 
 Statutes. (T. D. 32845; Oct. 4, 1912.) 
 
 Cumana, Venezuela: Invoices of merchandise shipped from Cumana, Venezuela, 
 not to be accepted unless certified by the American consul. (T. D. 35882; Nov. 
 15, 1915.) 
 
 Cumberland, British Columbia: Invoices of merchandise from Cumberland, British 
 Columbia, accepted when certified in the manner prescribed by section 2844, 
 Revised Statutes. (T. D. 35311; Apr. 12, 1915.) 
 
 Dawson, British Columbia: Invoices of merchandise from Dawson, British Co- 
 lumbia, nmy be accepted when certified in accordance with section 2844, Re- 
 vised Statutes. (T. D. 35256; Mar. 23, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 541 
 
 Invoices — Continued. 
 Certification of— Continued. 
 
 Gabes, Tunis: Invoices covering merchandise from Gabes, Tunis, accepted when 
 certified in accordance with section 2844, Revised Statutes. (T. D. 33725; 
 Sept. 6, 1913.) 
 
 Gibara, Cuba: Invoices of merchandise from Gibara, Cuba, accepted when certi- 
 fied in the manner prescribed by section 2844 of the Revised Statutes. (T. D. 
 34341; Apr. 3, 1914.) 
 
 Harrar, Africa: Invoices covering merchandise from Harrar, Abyssinia, Africa, 
 should be accepted when certified in accordance with section 2844, Revised 
 Statutes. (T. D. 33546; June 13, 1913.) 
 
 Hodeidah, Arabia: Invoices of merchandise from Hodeidah, Arabia, may be ac- 
 cepted when certified by two merchants. (T. D. 35243; Mar. 22, 1915.) 
 
 Laguna, Mexico — British vice consul: The collector at the port of New York 
 rejected a proffered invoice and entry as not duly certified. The invoice was 
 certified by the British vice consul at Laguna, Mexico, this certificate contain- 
 ing the statement that there was no American consular office within that district. 
 The invoice as presented to the collector was duly certified under the laws and 
 regulations. It was the collector's duty to receive it, and faiUng to do this no 
 valid appraisement could be had. All proceedings as to exacting bond and 
 otherwise after such failure were accordingly invalid. United States v. Mar- 
 quardt & Co. (No. 1499), United States Cowt of Customs Appeals, May 18, 
 1915. Appeal by the Unit*i States from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, G. A. 7651 (T. D. 34999). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35435; May 
 18, 1915.) 
 
 La Paz, Mexico: Invoices of merchandise from La Paz, Mexico, may be accepted 
 when certified by consul of a friendly nation or two merchants. (T. D. 35552; 
 June 28, 1915.) 
 
 Medan, Sumatra: Invoices of merchandise from Medan, Sumatra, to be certified 
 by the consul at Batavia, Java. (T. D. 35779; Oct. 14, 1915.) 
 
 Medan, Sumatra: T. D. 35779, supra, relative to the certification of invoices of 
 merchandise shipped from Medan, Sumatra, modified. (T. D. 85864; Nov. 
 6, 1915.) 
 
 Matthew Town, Bahamas : Invoices from Matthew Town, Bahamas, accepted when 
 certified in accordance with the provifiions of section 2844, Revised Statutes. 
 (T. D. 35351; Apr. 30, 1915.) 
 
 Papantla, Mexico: Invoices from Papantla, Mexico, may be accepted when certi- 
 fied by the consul of a friendly nation or by two merchants. (T. D. 35584; July 
 15, 1915.) 
 
 Porto Praya and Brava: Invoices certified before the consular agent at Cape Vin- 
 cent to be required for shipments from Porto Praya (Praia) and Brava, Cape 
 Verde Islands. (T. D. 33022; Dec. 17, 1912.) 
 
 Puerto Angel, Mexico: Invoices covering merchandise from Puerto Angel, State 
 of Oaxaca, Mexico, accepted when certified in the manner prescribed by section 
 2844, Revised Statutes. (T. D. 33468; May 28, 1913.) 
 
 Rarotonga: Invoices of merchandise from Rarotonga accepted when certified in 
 accordance with the provisions of section 2844, Revised Statutes. (T. D. 33269; 
 Mar. 12, 1913.) 
 
 Samarang, Java: Invoices of merchandise from Samarang, Java, accepted when 
 certified in the manner prescribed by section 2844 of the Revised Statutes. 
 (T. D. 33722; Sept. 3, 1913.) 
 
 Samarang, Java: Invoices of merchandise shipped from Samarang, Java, to be 
 certified by the American consul at Batavia. (T. D. 35937; Dec. 2, 1915.) 
 
542 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Invoices — Continued. 
 Certification of — Continued. 
 
 San Andres and Providencia Islands: Invoice of merchandise from San Andres or 
 Providencia Islands, Colombia, accepted when certified in accordance with 
 section 2844 of the Revised Statutes. (T. D. 35427; May 24, 1915.) 
 
 Santa Rosalia, Mexico: Invoices covering shipments from Santa RosaUa, Mexico, 
 to the United States to be accepted when certified in accordance with section 
 2844, Revised Statutes. (T. D. 33327; Apr. 8, 1913.) 
 
 Trinidad de Cuba: Invoices from Trinidad de Cuba may be accepted when certi- 
 fied by the consul of a friendly nation or by two merchants. (T. D. 35686; 
 June 14, 1915.) 
 
 Turks Island: Invoices of merchandise from Turks Island, West Indies, accepted 
 when certified by the consul of a friendly nation or by two merchants. (T. D. 
 35883; Nov. 15, 1915.) 
 
 West Africa: Collectors of customs authorized to accept invoices from Coca Beach, 
 West Africa, certified under the provisions of section 2844 of the Revised Stat- 
 utes. (T. D. 33554; June 14, 1913.) 
 
 Invoices of merchandise shipped from certain places in West Africa, namely, 
 Lagos, Seccondee, Axim, Benin, Assinie, Half Assinie, Grand Lahou, and 
 Grand Bassam, may be certified in accordance with the provisions of section 
 2844, Revised Statutes. (T. D. 32951; Nov. 22, 1912.) 
 Consular invoice — 
 
 Values of free goods and goods subject to a specific rate to be ascertained and a con- 
 sular invoice required when the value exceeds |100. (T. D. 34075; Jan. 21, 
 1914.) 
 Consular regulations — 
 
 Executive order, dated May 28, 1914, amending the Consular Regulations of 1896. 
 (T. D. 34542; June 13, 1914.) 
 
 Invoices not made in accordance with the amended consular regulations, pub- 
 lished in T. D. 34542, supra, or when not stating the name of the seller to be 
 rejected by collectors. (T. D. 34779; Sept. 26, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34779, supra, of September 26, 1914, relating to the rejection of invoices, 
 modified by extending the date when operative 30 days. (T. D. 34869; Oct. 
 27, 1914.) 
 Corrected — 
 
 Where merchandise is entered upon a consular invoice without any advance being 
 made by the importer upon entry, and the appraiser advances the value of the 
 merchandise by adding certain items not stated on the consular invoice, the 
 collector should liquidate the entry upon this invoice, notwithstanding the fact 
 that, before the liquidation, what purports to be a corrected invoice, which con- 
 tains the items added by the appraiser, is presented to him by the importer. In 
 Foard's case, G. A. 6723 (T. D. 28796), and Lascelles' case, G. A. 6785 (T. D. 
 29141), there was no consular invoice at the time the merchandise was entered, 
 but the merchandise was entered upon a pro forma invoice, which constitutes 
 the invoice and entry a mere estimate of value. They are therefore not authori- 
 ties in point in the case under consideration. The facts in this case do not show 
 clerical error. (T. D. 29513— G. A. 6860; Jan. 27, 1909.) 
 Currency — 
 
 Reappraisement of diamonds: Merchandise must be invoiced in the currency of 
 the place or country from whence it is exported, and the appraisement thereof, 
 or ascertainment of its market value, in the same currency. (T. D. 35416 — 
 G. A. 7725; May 11, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 543 
 
 Invoices — Continued. 
 Filing of — 
 
 All papers pertaining to the liquidation of an entry, including weigher'n, gauger's, 
 and measurer's retxuns, should be filed with entries. (T. D. 31344; Mar. 2, 
 1911.) 
 False (See Forfeiture.) 
 Market value of merchandise purchased in Europe — 
 
 Invoices for merchandise purchased in Europe, which, owing to the European 
 war conditions, has advanced in value, should be made up at about the time of 
 exportation. (T. D. 35713; Sept. 18, 1915.) 
 Method of invoicing — 
 
 The tariff act of 1913 provides a clear and distinct method of invoicing imported 
 merchandise. The invoice should show of whom goods are purchased, when, 
 where, and the price paid; and a failure so to do is not a compliance with the 
 law, and does not permit of an appeal to reappraisement. If goods are purchased 
 on commission, that fact should be stated in the invoice, and also of whom, 
 when, where, and the price paid, if a commission paid is to become anondutiable 
 item. (T. D. 34608— G. A. 7583; June 30, 1914.) 
 
 Instructions relative to invoicing merchandise under the provisions of the Execu- 
 tive order of May 28, 1913 (T. D. 34542), amending the consular regulations. 
 (T. D. 34700; Aug. 12, 1914.) 
 Pro forma — 
 
 Where merchandise is entered upon a pro forma invoice and bond .given by the 
 importer to produce a certified invoice, the collector should not liquidate the 
 entry until the certified invoice is produced or the period of the bond has ex- 
 pired. Where an entry made upon a pro forma invoice on which the appraiser 
 made the notation "Value correct" is liquidated before the production of a cer- 
 tified invoice, and thereafter, and before the expiration of the period of the bond 
 givon by the importer, the certified invoice is filed showing that the value given 
 in the pro forma invoice included a nondutiable item of freight which the ap- 
 praiser reports to be a reasonable deduction, held that, under these facts, the 
 entry should be reliquidated and duty assessed on the value as shown by the 
 certified invoice. 152 Federal Reporter, 575 (T. D. 27895); T. D. 28518; G. A. 
 6398 (T. D. 27488); G. A. 5856 (T. D. 25801); 141 Federal Reporter, 473 (T. D. 
 26494). (T. D. 28796— G. A. 6723; Feb. 18, 1908.) 
 
 Entry of merchandise valued at more than $100, on pro forma invoice, should be 
 refused unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the collector that the failure to 
 produce a certified invoice is due to causes beyond the control of the owner, 
 consignee, or agent. (T. D. 29846; June 16, 1909.) 
 
 The entry was made on a pro forma invoice on or about April 25, 1907. On May 
 2 the importers filed a consular invoice duly certified, showing the consignment 
 cost less than the amount stated in the pro forma invoice. On May 9 the assist- 
 ant appraiser made a return on the pro forma invoice showing it to be correct, 
 and apparently on the same day the appraiser's approval was indorsed thereon. 
 The collector's notation on the invoice pro forma showed the entered value to be 
 the same as that approved by the appraiser. Later, on May 13, at the request of 
 the appraiser, the proforrrui invoice was returned to him, and on the next day it 
 was sent to the collector by the assistant appraiser with a notation correcting by 
 
 ■ diminishing the stated value of the consignment, but no approval of this act by 
 the appraiser is shown, and the collector thereupon indorsed "No reduction in 
 entered value allowed." The importers took no appeal. 
 
 The function of a pro forma invoice: A pro forma invoice is for entry purposes 
 a recognized lawful invoice made under oath as a substitute for a regularly cer- 
 
544 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Invoices — Continued. 
 Pro forma — Continued. 
 
 tified invoice; a penalty for undervaluation In such an invoice maybe inflicted; 
 and an entry on a pro forma invoice is such an entry as the language of section 7, 
 customs administrative act of 1890, should and must apply to, namely, "the 
 duty shall not, however, be assessed in any case upon an amount less than the 
 invoice or entered value." Reviewing at length the history of the legislation, 
 the practice of the Treasury Department, and the decisions of the courts as well, 
 no warrant is found for the statement that an entry upon a pro forma invoice 
 should be held open until the certified invoice is produced or the bond given 
 for its production has been forfeited; nor is any authority found for holding that 
 liquidation is proper on an amount less than the entered value in case an entry 
 is made upon a pro forma invoice, no manifest clerical error or duress appearing. 
 An appraiser, after having once performed the duty of appraisement in respect 
 of any particular merchandise and after having made his return thereof to the 
 collector, has no authority of his own volition to make another appraisement of 
 the same merchandise. See United States v. Frank & Lambert (T. D. 31973). 
 United States v. Bennett & Loewenthal (No. 455), United States Court of Oub- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the United States from a decision of the Board of 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 19656 (T. D. 29267). Transferred from United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 31975; Oct. 16, 1911.) 
 
 Fro forma invoice for entry purposes: The importation consisted of crates con- 
 taining vegetables, claim being made that the crates were entitled to free entry 
 as American goods returned under paragraph 500 of the tariff act of 1909. The 
 merchandise was entered by pro forma invoices and bonds given for the pro- 
 duction of duly certified invoices. At the time of such entry no claim was 
 made that the goods were entitled to free entry, nor was any bond offered or 
 given for the production of a declaration tending to establish American origin, 
 as provided by article 571 of the Customs Regulations of 1908. The pro forma 
 invoice for purposes of entry takes the place of the certified invoice and is a 
 complete substitute therefor; and so, the production and filing on some day 
 later than the date of filing the pro forma invoice of papers required by regula- 
 tions to be produced and "filed with the entry, " is not a compliance with 
 articles 570 and 571, Customs Regulations of 1908. McBride v. United States 
 (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 293; T. D. 31354); United States v. Frank & Lambert 
 (2 ihid., — ; T. D. 31973); United States v. Bennett & Loewenthal (2 ibid., — ; 
 T. D. 31975). United States v. Rettig et al. (No. 756), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 26388 (T. D. 31832). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 32254; Feb. 1, 1912.) 
 
 Consular — : When a collector has before him both a pro forma and a consular in- 
 voice and there is no valid appraisement by an appraising officer, he should 
 assess and collect duty upon the value of the merchandise, as stated in the 
 consular invoice. (T. D. 29141— G. A. 6785; July 2, 1908.) 
 
 Finality of appraisement upon — : Merchandise was entered on a pro forma invoice 
 at a value which was passed as "correct" by the local appraisers; no appeal 
 was taken for reappraisement, and the entry was liquidated on the basis of this 
 value; but subsequently to the liquidation a, certified invoice was produced by 
 the importers, showing that various nondutiable items had been included in the 
 value of the pro forma invoice, and the appraisers reported to the collector that, 
 had the certified invoice been before them originally, they would have made 
 allowance for said nondutiable items. Held, nevertheless, that duty was prop- 
 erly assessed on the basis of the former value. United States v. Foard, United 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 545 
 
 Invoices — Continued . 
 Pro foima — Continued. 
 
 States Circuit Court, District of Maryland, April 7, 1910. No. 53 (suit 2010). 
 Appeal by United States from decision of Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 
 6723 (T. D. 28796). Board reversed. (T. D.' 30936; Sept. 20, 1910.) 
 • Indorsed " Approved " by appraiser: The importers entered goods upon affidavit 
 and statement in the form of an invoice, giving bond as required by law. 
 The collector sent this pro /orma invoice to the appraiser, and upon the report 
 of the assistant appraiser there appeared the words "Approved, E. S. Fowler, 
 appraiser." • Later the importers filed a consular invoice to cancel their bond, 
 and in an accompanying verified statement asserted the incorrectness of the 
 ■pro forma invoice, but made no application for reappraisement. The entry 
 was liquidated on the basis of the value as given in the pro forma invoice. 
 Held, the indorsement of "approved" by the appraiser shows a comphance 
 with the requirement that he should ascertain, estimate, and appraise the 
 actual market value of the merchandise and make a report thereon; further- 
 more, to hold thus is in accord with the regulations and practice in respect of 
 proforwa invoices. See United States v. Bennett & Loewenthal (T. D. 31975). 
 United States i). Frank & Lambert (No. 115), Uiiited States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from decision of the Board of General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 21027 (T. D. 29690). Transferred from United States Cir- 
 cuit Court for Southern District of New York. Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 31978; Oct. 16, 1911.) 
 Validity of bond taken for production .of a duly certified invoice: The importers 
 made entry of merchandise upon a pro forma invoice in which the aggregate 
 values thereof were stated to be $612. Before making such entry the importers 
 were required to execute a bond for the production of a duly certified invoice, 
 as required by subsection 28 of the tariff act of 1909. When the importers 
 sought to make entry of their merchandise they submitted to the collector 
 an invoice certified to by the British vice consul located at Laguna, in the 
 Bepublic of Mexico. Entry upon that invoice was refused for the reason 
 that it was not certified to by an American consul. Later, however, upon the 
 application of the importers, this invoice was accepted in cancellation of the 
 bond given to produce a duly certified invoice, and thereupon the collector col- 
 lected duties from the importers upon the basis of the values of the merchandise 
 -stated in such invoice, the aggregate of which was $1,065, regardless of the fact 
 that the appraiser had appraised the merchandise at values stated in the pro 
 forma invoice, such action of the collector being based upon a condition in the 
 bond that the importers would pay the amount of duty to which it should appear 
 by the duly certified invoice the merchandise was subject over and above the 
 amount of duties estimated on the appraisement of said goods. Subsection 4 
 requires only that a bond shall be given for the production of a duly certified 
 invoice, and under article 182 of the regulations of 1908 the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, under his general statutory powers, prescribed the penalty for such 
 bond, in the case of dutiable merchandise, double the amount of the duties, or in 
 the case of free goods the sum of $100. The form of bond for the production of a 
 duly certified invoice, which the importers were required by the collector to 
 sign, contained a condition for the payment of duties on the values appearing in 
 Buch duly certified invoice when produced, regardless of the appraised values of 
 the merchandise. Held (1) That the invoice certified to by the British vice 
 consul and submitted in cancellation of the bond was not such a duly certified 
 invoice as' either the statute or the regulation of the Secretary of the Treasury 
 required, and therefore the values stated therein could not be made the basis for 
 45633°— 17 35 
 
546 DIGEST 'OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Invoices — Continued. 
 
 Pro forma — Continued. 
 
 the assessment of duty, even though it be held that in signing the bond the im- 
 porters had waived their right to the statutory appraisement. (2) The condition 
 of the bond requiring that duty should be paid on the basis of the values stated 
 in the consulated invoice when produced was not warranted by statute and 
 therefore void. United States v. Hobbs (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 256; T. D. 32567) 
 cited and distinguished. United States v. Lee (106 U. S., 220), G. A. 4015 
 (T. D. 18617), United States v. Howell (26 Fed. Cas., 396), United States v. Legg 
 (105 Fed., 930), and G. A. 5293 (T. D. 24265) cited. Hay, general appraiser, 
 concurs on the ground that the condition of the bond requiring that duty should 
 be paid on the basis of the value stated in the consular invoice was void unless 
 voluntarily entered into; and that, under the doctrine of Stein v. United States 
 (1 Ot. Cust. Appls., 36; T. D. 31007), the bond was signed in this case under 
 moral duress. Sullivan, general appraiser, dissents. (T. D. 34999 — G. A. 
 7651; Dec. 18, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) "Country" in statutes and Treasury regulations. — ^A long-con- 
 tinued uniform departmental practice of both State and Treasury Departments, 
 now reviewed, shows the word "country" to have been interpreted to mean the 
 locality and not the political domain itself. 
 
 Certification by British vice consul. — The collector at the port of New York 
 rejected a proffered invoice and entry as not duly certified. The invoice was 
 certified by the British vice consul at Laguna, Mexico, this certificate contain- 
 ing the statement that there was no American consular office within that district. 
 The invoice aa presented to the collector was duly certified under the laws and 
 regulations. It was the collector's duty to receive it, and failing to do this no 
 valid appraisement could be had. All proceedings as to exacting bond and 
 otherwise after such failure were accordingly invalid. United States v. Mar- 
 quardt & Co. (No. 1499), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7651 
 (T. D. 34999). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35435; May 18, 1915.) 
 
 Fro forma, used for entry purposes, in connection with importations including Ameri- 
 can goods returned. (See Reimportation, American goods returned, pro forma 
 invoice for entry purposes.) 
 
 Pulp wood^ 
 Invoices of pulp wood must show whether the wood is rough, peeled, or.rossed. 
 (T. D. 30566; Apr. 23, 1910.) 
 
 Shipments from Philippine Islands — 
 T. D. 29026; circular No. 34; May 26, 1908. 
 
 Stamps on — 
 Consuls to be notified by customs officers when invoice is defective with respect to 
 stamping. (T. D. 30751; July 2, 1910.) 
 Iron. 
 
 Castings — 
 Malleable iron: Paragraph 147, tariff act of 1909, provides for various castings 
 "wholly of cast iron," and prescribes on "castings of iron" advanced in condi- 
 tion a duty additional to that imposed on the "castings of iron * * * here- 
 inbefore provided for." Held, that as malleable-iron castings are enumerated 
 in paragraph 148, they are not among those "hereinbefore" provided for in said 
 paragraph 147, and therefore malleable-iron castings when advanced are duti- 
 able as manufactures 'of metal not specially provided for under paragraph 199. 
 (T. D. 33787— G. A 7500; Oct. 9, 1913.) 
 Parts of agricultural implements: Certain castings of malleable iron, constructed 
 and designed solely for use as parts of agricultural implements, some ready for 
 such use as imported, the others requiring but minor finishing processes to be 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DEOISIOWS, 1908-1915. 547 
 
 Iron — Continued. 
 ■ Castings — Continued. 
 
 applied thereto to make tliem so available, are properly classifiable under para- 
 graph 391, tarifi act of 1913, as parts of agricultural implements, as claimed, 
 rather than under paragraph 125 as castings of malleable iron, as assessed. 
 (T. D. 35246— G. A. 7702; Mar. 19, 1915.) 
 
 Advance repair or replacement parts for textile machinery. (See Machine parts, 
 cast iron.') 
 Hematite iron ore-=^ 
 
 Crude red iron ore or hematite ore is dutiable as iron ore under paragraph 121, 
 tariff act of 1897, rather than as a crude color or pigment under paragraph 58. 
 United States v. I^ancklyn, United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of 
 Pennsylvania, February 14, 1908. No. 44 (suit 1782). Appeal from decision of 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 9048 (T. D. 26866). De- 
 cision adverse to Government. (T. D. 28856; Mar. 18, 1908.) 
 
 Hematite iron ore, which in its imported condition can not be used as a pigment, 
 is dutiable as "iron ore'' under paragraph 121, tariff act of 1897, rather than as 
 "colors, pigments, * * ,* crude, * * * not otherwise specially pro- 
 vided for," under paragraph 58. Hill v. Francklyn, United States Circut 
 Court of Appeals, Third Circuit; May 26, 1908. No. 29 (suit 1782). Appeal 
 from Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 
 (T. D. 28856) affirmmg Abstract 9048 (T. D. 26866). Decision adverse to Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 29074; June 17, 1908.) Acquiesced in (T. D. 29132, July 3, 
 1908.) 
 Hollow ware, glazed — 
 
 This appeal concerns the importation of certain cast-iron bowls and cylindrical 
 cast-iron kettles, with flange and rim. Legislation, and the judicial interpreta- 
 tion of this, establishes the intent of Congress to preserve in the tariff act of 1909 
 the distinction long maintained between glazed cast-iron goods and other glazed 
 iron wares, and to subject glazed iron hollow ware and glazed cast-iron hollow 
 ware to different rates of duty. The goods here are cast hollow ware glazed, 
 and they were dutiable under paragraph 149, tariff act of 1909. Sittig v. United 
 States (No. 1038), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29796 (T. D. 
 32830). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33491; May 26, 1913.) 
 Manufactures of — 
 
 Iron pile protectors — Advancement in the course of manufacture: The importation 
 was of pile protectors made of sectional, semicircular iron plates, which when 
 riveted together took a drum shape. As to the point whether the holes in the 
 plates were punched before or after rolling, the testimonj' is distinct that they 
 were punched after rolling. This constitutes an advancement in the course 
 of manufacture beyond hammering, rolling, or casting, resulting in changing 
 the crude article to a form ready for actual use. The merchandise was properly 
 assessed under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, as manufactures of iron not 
 specially provided for. United States v. American Railroad Co. of Porto Rico 
 (No. 1434), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 35945 (T. D. 
 34571). Decision reversed. (T. D. 35005; Dec. 14, 1914.) 
 Muck bars — Charcoal iron — ■ 
 
 Muck bars made by the charcoal process are not included in the last proviso to 
 paragraph 120, tariff act of 1909, but are dutiable under eo nomine provision for 
 such goods in paragraph 119. Only such articles as are enumerated and pro- 
 vided for in paragraph 120 are covered by the 'ast proviso to said paragraph, as 
 by its terms it is not manifest that the proviso was intended to have other appli- 
 cation. (T. D. 31494— G. A. 7205; Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 
548 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Iron — Continued. 
 
 Oxide of — 
 Oxide of iron, or hematite iron ore, which is in a powdered state resulting from a 
 process of grinding and levigation, and which is used in the manufacture of 
 paint and in coloring leather board, etc., is dutiable under paragraph 58, tariff 
 act of 1897, relating to colors and pigments, rather than under paragraph 121 as 
 iron ore. Hill v. Francklyn (162 Fed. Rep., 880; T. D. 29074) distinguished. 
 (T. D. 29497— G. A. 6857; Jan. 26, 1909.) 
 Oxide of iron in its condition as taken from the ground, without any preparation 
 whatever. Intended for use as a pigment, dutiable at the rate of 10 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 55, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34390; Apr. 16, 1914.) 
 
 PUe protectors. (See Iron, manufactures of.) 
 
 Bound. 
 Classification of, with particular reference to such iron manufactured, with the 
 use of charcoal as a fuel. Round iron commercially is the product of a bar mill 
 and is properly dutiable under paragraphs 119 and 120 of the tariff act of 1909. 
 (T. D. 30741; June 30, 1910.) ,v 
 
 Sand — 
 So-called iron sand, iron grit, steel shot, or diamond steel, a completed article pro- 
 duced by a series of manufacturing processes, is not dutiable under paragraph 
 124, tariff act of 1897, relating to "all iron in * * * forms less finished than 
 fron in bars, and more advanced than pig iron," but under paragraph 193 as 
 manufactures of iron. The provision in para^aph 183, tariff act of 1897, for 
 "metals unwrought," does not include iron sand, a completed article resulting 
 from the manufacture of cast iron and steel scrap. Harrison Supply Co. v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, July 27, 
 
 1908. No. 110 (suit 1756). Appeal from decision by Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 8429 (T. D. 26753). Decision in favor of Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 29207; Aug. 12, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Iron sand, a completed article produced by a series of manufac- 
 turing processes, is not dutiable under paragraph 124, tariff act of 1897, relating 
 to "all iron in * * * forms less finished than iron in bars, and more ad- 
 vanced than pig iron, " but under paragraph 193 as manufactures of iron. Iron 
 sand, which, though less advanced in the direction of refinement than iron in 
 bars, is in a perfect state of manufacture, is not covered by paragraph 124, tariff 
 act of 1897 , relating to " all fron in slabs, blooms, loops, or other forms less finished 
 than fron in bars. ' ' The test is the degree of advancement in manufacture, rather 
 than of advancement in refinement or quality. The term "article" is com- 
 monly accepted in trade and elsewhere as something different from bulky 
 and heavy commodities. Harrison Supply Co. v. United States, United 
 States Cfrcuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, April 28, 1909. No. 801 (suit 
 1756). Appeal by importer from the Circuit Court of the United States for the 
 District of Massachusetts (164 Fed. Rep., 155; T. D. 29207) affirming Abstract 
 8429 (T. D. 26753). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29767; May 
 19, 1909.) 
 Abrasives: Iron sand, grit, or shot, usable and actually used for purposes other 
 than abrasives, is excluded from the provision in paragraph 133, tariff act of 
 
 1909, for "grit, shot, and sand * * * that can be used only as abrasives." 
 To bring an article within said provision, it must have no practical utility other 
 than as abrasives. Such sand, grit, or shot made of iron, ready for use as an 
 abrasive, is neither "crude" nor "artificial" within the meaning of paragraph 
 432, tariff act of 1909, but is a manufactured article and dutiable as manufac- 
 tures of metal under paragraph 199 of said act. (T. D. 3J773— G. A. 7249; July 
 22. 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 549 
 
 Iron — Contmued. 
 Sand— Continued. 
 
 The only genuine, bona fide use for iron sand being as an abrasive, it can not be 
 taken out of the specific provision therefor in paragraph 133, tariff act of 1909, 
 by proof that it is sometimes used for other purposes. The words "used only as 
 abrasives" imply a commercial and not an exceptional or unusual use. G. A. 
 7249 (T. D. 31773) modified. (T. D. 33980— G. A. 7514; Dec. 10, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Crude artificial abrasives. — ^The term "artificial abrasives" im- 
 plies an abrasive product resulting from some processing or treatment, and the 
 word "crude" implies that such artificial product must be in a crude condition. 
 The merchandise here is a finished, not a crude, article, not beiag designed for 
 further processing. 
 
 Iron sand, globular and angular in shape. — The testimony showed that the 
 globular iron sand was used in substantial quantities as counterpoise in the 
 manufacture of scales and cement, that the angular shapes thereof were used in 
 the mauufacture of cement, and so negatives the idea that the sand could only 
 be used as abrasives, as required by paragraph 133, tariff act of 1909. It was 
 dutiable as an unenumerated manufactured article under paragraph 199 of that 
 act. Harrison Supply Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1333), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 7514 (T. D. 33980), Abstract 34346 (T. D. 34026), and Abstract 34374 
 (T. D. 34033). Affirmed as to part; reversed as to part. (T. D. 35326; Apr. 
 14, 1915.) 
 Scrap — ■ 
 
 Chains, old iron: The provision in paragraph 122, tariff act of 1897, for "scrap 
 iron," includes old refuse and worn-out iron material, as well as new scrap or 
 waste iron, fit only for remanufacture; therefore, worn-out iron chain, steel rails, 
 etc., are not free as "junk, old," but dutiable at $4 per ton as "scra|) iron." 
 (T. D. 28711— G. A. 6712; Jan. 25, 1908.) 
 
 Cuban reciprocity treaty: Scrap iron, the result of weai and tear in the pursuit of 
 various industries in the Republic of Cuba, is a product of the industry of that 
 country within the meaning of Article II of a convention entered into between 
 the United States and the Republic of Cuba March 31, 1903 (T. D. 24836), and 
 as such should be assessed for duty when imported into the United States at a 
 reduction of 20 per cent of the regular rate provided therefor. (T. D. 33116 — 
 G. A. 7419; Jan. 23, 1913.) 
 
 Free-entry regulations: The regulations of the Treasury are explicit and they are 
 reasonable and lawful in requiring that when free entry is claimed for goods 
 under paragraph 500, tariff act of 1909, the importer must furnish a certificate 
 of prior exportation of the goods, made by the collector and naval officer, if any, 
 at the place of export; or failing in this, the production of them must be waived 
 by the collector and naval officer, if any, at the port of entry. Neither the cer- 
 tificate nor the fact of waiver is shown in this case, and the goods were not en- 
 titled to free entry. Lunham v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 220; T. D. 
 31409). United States v. Goldberg (No. 918), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 26417 (T. D. 31842). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32986; 
 Nov. 21, 1912.) 
 
 Free list, paragraph 500, tariff act of 1909: Importers claimed, first, that old scrap 
 iron imported from Cuba was entitled to admission free of duty as "articles the 
 growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States"; and, second, that the 
 scrap iron was a product of the soil or industry of Cuba and therefore entitled to 
 a reduction of 20 per cent from the regular rate by virtue of the commercial con- 
 vention with that country. As to the first claim, held that it was incumbent on 
 the importers to show not only that this scrap iron was goods the growth, pro- 
 
550 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Iron — Continued. 
 Scrap — Continued. 
 
 dftce, or manufacture of the United States, but to show as well in the manner 
 prescribed by the Treasury regulations that they wese the articles originally 
 exported from this country, and, further, that they had not been advanced 
 in value or improved in condition. They failed to do ttiis and the goods were 
 not entitled to free entry. As to the second claim, held that there was no evi- 
 dence in the record showing that the merchandise was a product of the soil or 
 industry of Cuba. United States v. Morton B. Smith Co. (No. 1180), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31854 (T. D. 33304). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 33918; Nov. 18, 1913.) 
 
 Junk — Old mill shafts: The term "waste" is a generic term and includes scrap 
 metal and junk. Scrap metal is a species of junk. Old broken-up iron mill 
 shafts, fit for remanufacture by rerolling or hammering, are excluded from the 
 provision in paragraph 118, tariff act of 1909, for "scrap iron * * * fit only 
 to be remanufactured by melting," and are free of duty as "junk, old," imder 
 paragraph 600 of said act. (T. D. 32069— G. A. 7305; Dec. 4, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Scrap iron or steel, when not junk. — The importation was of irregu- 
 larly broken pieces of old sugar mills, originally iron and steel shafting. The 
 testimony shows that the greater part of the goods could be remanufactured only 
 by melting and 80 they came within the very terms of paragraph 118, tariff act of 
 1909. In the absence of any showing as to the precise quantity of the consign- 
 ment that is not so classifiable, the whole consignment should be held subject to 
 the provisions of that paragraph. United States v. Strauss & Co. (No. 817), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7305 (T. D. 32069). Decision 
 modified. (T. D. 32464; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 
 On examination and review a previous decision in this cause (T. D. 32464, 
 supra) is found not to be in conflict with the principles as correctly set out 
 in the Government's petition for a rehearing; on the contrary, that decision 
 rests directly on the principles stated in the petition. Benjamin Iron & Steel 
 Co. V. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 159; T. D. 31677). United States v. 
 Strauss & Co. (No. 817), United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 31, 1912. 
 Petition for rehearing. Denied. (T. D. 32621; May 31, 1912.) 
 
 Pots, old iron — "Remanufacture": The provision in paragraph 122, tariff act of 
 1897, for "waste or refuse iron fit only to be remanufactured," is not limited to 
 material fit only to be remanufactured into the same kind of iron; and old an- 
 nealing pots of malleable iron, which are unfit for remanufacture into such iron 
 but are used in producing pig iron, are within that provision. (T. D. 28671 — 
 G. A. 6702; Jan. 3, 1908.) 
 
 Term "melting" as used in paragraph 118, tariff act of 1909, construed: The term 
 "melting" in paragraph 118 of the act of 1909 is used in its ordinary accepta- 
 tion; that is, to become liquid through heat. Therefore no scrap iron or scrap 
 steel is entitled to classification under paragraph 118 unless in its condition as 
 imported it is unfit for use until it has been reduced from a solid to a fluid state 
 by means of heat. (T. D. 30063; Oct. 23, 1909.) 
 Sheets^ 
 
 Corrugated and galvanized: An article of merchandise is dutiable in its condition 
 as imported; corrugated-iron sheets that have been galvanized were not dutiable 
 under paragraph 131, tariff act of 1897, but were dutiable under paragraph 193 
 of that act, though not subject to the additional duty of two-tenths of 1 cent 
 per pound under paragraph 132 of said act. Declining to follow Meurer Bros. 
 Co. (T. D. 26152) and John D. Gluck & Son (T. D. 26866). Moore & Co. v. 
 United States (No. 170), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 551 
 
 Iron — Continued. 
 Sheets — Continued. 
 
 the importers from the decision of the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 
 28910). Transferred from the United States Circuit Court for the Northern 
 District of California. Decision of board modified and affirmed. (T. D. 31117; 
 Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 Nickel and iron: Sheets produced by welding to a plate of iron or steel a sheet of 
 nickel, then rolling the composite metals down to the desired thickness, are not 
 "sheets of iron or steel, common or black," within the meaning of paragraph 
 131, tariff act of 1897; nor "sheets * * * coated with * * * metals," 
 within the meaning of paragraph 132, but are dutiable as manufactures of metal 
 under paragraph 193. Boker i). United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, July 1, 1910. Suit 4976. Appeal by importer 
 from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6613 (T. D. 28230). 
 Board affirmed. (T. D. 30841; Aug. 2, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Nickel-plated iron or steel sheets, loelded by rolling. — A thin plate 
 of iron or steel, common or black, three-eighths of an inch thick, on which a thin 
 sheet of nickel or copper of the same dimensions has been laid and then sub- 
 jected to a process of hot rolling to weld the metals together, is not to be classified 
 as a sheet of iron or steel; and since in thickness it exceeds No. 10 wire gauge, it 
 was not dutiable under either paragraph 126 or paragraph 131, tariff act of 1897, 
 but under paragraph 193 of that act as "manufactures of metal." Boker v. 
 United States (No. 426), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importer from a decision of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern 
 District of New York. 180 Fed. Eep., 959 (T. D. 30841); G. A. 6613 (T. D. 
 28230). Decision afiirmed. (T. D. 31678; May 31, 1911.) 
 Wire rods. (See Wire articles. — Rods.) 
 
 Iron and steel drums. 
 
 Begulations relative to exportation and reimportation of iron or steel drums used 
 in shipment of acids. (T. D. 30404; Mar. 7, 1910.) 
 
 Iron and steel scrap. 
 Cuban reciprocity agreement — 
 Scrap resulting from the use in Cuba of iron and steel manufactures shipped to that 
 island from foreign countries is not a product of the industry of Cuba and is not 
 entitled to benefit of Cuban reciprocity convention. (T. D. 31856; Sept. 16,1911.) 
 Dutiable classification of, under paragraph. 118, tariff act of 1909 — - 
 Scrap iron and scrap steel is dutiable at $1 per ton except such as can be profitably 
 remanufactyred by a process of rolling, hammering, or cutting, or any other proc- 
 ess which does not include the complete change of form of the material by 
 fusion caused by the application of heat. T. D . 30063 of October 23, 1909, modi- 
 fied accordingly. (T. D. 30309; Jan. 28, 1910.) 
 
 Iron and steel tubes. (See Steel tubes.) 
 
 Isarol. (See Chemical compound.) 
 
 Isotonique sea water. (See Medicinal preparations.) 
 
 Istrian stone. (See Limestone, hauteville.) 
 
 Italian pine cones. (See Pine cones.) 
 
 Ivory scales for razor handles. 
 
 Keces of ivory cut and shaped and intended, after being assembled in pairs, fitted 
 with a metal or other tine, and riveted together, to be used as "handles' for 
 razors, are not in their condition as imported dutiable as razor handles. There 
 being no provision in the tariff act of 1909 for "parts of razors," the goods when 
 imported under said act were properly dutiable as manufactures of ivory not 
 specially provided for, under paragraph 464. (T. D. 32822— G. A. 7392; Sept. 
 13, 1912.) 
 
552 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 J. 
 
 Jacgaaid designs. 
 
 An importation comprising water-color designs or sketches, Jacquard drafts on 
 point paper, and Jacquard cards, the designs having been used as patterns and 
 drafted on the point paper and then by that means transferred to, or cut on, the 
 cards, is not to be regarded for dutiable purposes as an entirety. Such articles 
 are dutiable as though imported separately. (T. D. 29511— G. A. 6858; Jan. 
 27, 1909.) 
 JTacciuard figured articles. 
 Cotton nettings. (See Cotton.) 
 Silk. (See Silk.) 
 
 Table damask. (See Table covers and table damask.) 
 Towels, bath mats, and qnilts. (See Towels, etc.) 
 TTpholstery goods. (See Tapestries.) 
 Velvet table covers. (See Table covers.) 
 Jade bead necklaces. (See Jewelry, necklaces.) 
 Jamaica. 
 Hay and straw from— 
 Disinfection and quarantine. (T. D. 29671; Apr. 6, 1909.) 
 Jamaica rum — When a product of France. (See Reciprocity, France.) 
 Japanese articles, marking of. (See Marking of imported merchandise.) 
 Japanese oak flooring. (See Wood, Japanese oak flooring.) 
 Japanese white oak. (See Wood, Japanese white oak.) 
 Jasper, manufactures of. (See Precious stones. — Agates, cornelian.) 
 Jellies. 
 Bar-le-duc not. (See Fruit.) 
 
 Jams and marmalades not dutiable as. (See Fruit, berry jams.) 
 Jet. 
 Imitation — 
 Articles composed of base metal set with imitation jet are dutiable according to 
 the component material of chief value, being excluded from paragraph 448, 
 tariff act of 1909, because not "jewelry * * * composed of gold or plati- 
 num." (T. D. 30612— G. A. 7019; May 13, 1910.) 
 Technically "jet goods" are not, of course, imitation jet, but where the record 
 discloses the importer, the collector, and the Board of General Appraisers all 
 considered the importation an imitation jet it could not be properly assessed as 
 jet, and was rightly held to be dutiable as imitation jet under paragraph 109, 
 tariff act of 1909. United States v. Beierle (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 457 ; T. D. 31506). 
 United States v. Sheldon & Co. (No. 310), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 23464 (T. D. 30691). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32034; 
 Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 Jewelry. (See also Articles of personal adornment; and Precious stones.) 
 
 Articles commonly or commercially known as jewelry, not composed of gold or 
 platinum, to be assessed with duty at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, pending a judicial determination of the question. 
 (T. D. 32158; Jan. 19, 1912.) 
 Articles of personal adornment — 
 Manufactures of metal: Articles of personal adornment composed in chief value 
 of brass, valued at less than 20 cents per dozen pieces, even if commonly and 
 commercially known as jewelry, are dutiable under the tariff act of 1909 (par. 
 199) as manufactures of metal. Those composed of silver and set exclu- 
 sively with precious and semiprecious stones, the precious or semiprecious 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 553 
 
 Jewelry — Continued. 
 Aiticles of peisonal adornment — Continued. 
 
 stones being the component of chief value, commonly and commercially known 
 as jewelry, not being specifically provided for in the tariff, were dutiable as 
 manufactures composed wholly or in part of metal, under said paragraph 199. 
 
 Composed of gold or platinum: The only articles of jewelry made dutiable at 
 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 448 of the tariff act of 1909 were limited 
 to those composed of gold or platinum, set or unset. G. A. 7019 (T. D. 30612); 
 G. A. 7281 (T. D. 31907). (T. D. 32281— G. A. 7330; Feb. 21, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The articles of the importation in controversy consist of hand- 
 wrought sterling-silver necklets, set with pearls and marquisettes. The words 
 "gold or platinum" in paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, refer to and qualify the 
 immediately preceding classification only, "chain, mesh, and mesh bags and 
 purses," and not to all articles commonly or commercially known as jewelry. 
 The goods are dutiable at 60 per cent under that paragraph. United States v. 
 Cohn & Rosenberger (No. 859), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Ap- 
 peal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7330 (T. D. 32281). Decision modified. (T. D. 32571; May 17, 1912.) 
 
 The merchandise of the importation in question consists of articles of personal 
 adornment composed in chief value of brass, valued at less than 20 cents per 
 dozen pieces, assessed with duty by the collector at 60 per cent ad valorem 
 under the last clause of paragraph 448 and claimed by the importers to be duti- 
 able at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 199, tariff act^f 1909. The mer- 
 chandise was both commonly and commercially known as jewelry. Reviewing 
 the legislative history of paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, and its interpretations, 
 the articles of the importation that were stipulated to be both commonly and 
 commercially known as jewelry must be taken to have come directly under the 
 provisions of that paragraph and to have been dutiable under it. They were 
 not dutiable as manufactures of metal. Hensel v. United States (3 Ct. Oust. 
 Appls., — ; T. D. 32366). United States v. Guthmau, Solomons & Co. (No. 860), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7330 (T. D. 32281). Decision 
 reversed, (t. D. 32572; May 17, 1912.) 
 Brooches in chief value of brass or gilt: It was stipulated that the merchandise in- 
 volved in the case at bar was both commonly and commercially known as jew- 
 elry. Descriptively it would fall within the language of paragraph 448, tariff 
 act of 1909, " all other articles of every description * * * composed wholly 
 or in chief value of * * * brass * * * and designed to be worn on ap- 
 parel or carried on or about or attached to the person. ' ' But the commercial must 
 prevail over the descriptive designation, and the merchandise was held to be 
 dutiable as jewelry imder that paragraph. United States ■;;. Vandegrift (3 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 32457); United States v. Guthman, Solomons & Co., 
 supra (T. D. 32572); United States v. Goldberg's Sons et al., supra (T. D. 32573). 
 Guthman, Solomons & Co. v. United States (No. 865), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 7330 (T. D. 32281). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32574; 
 May 17, 1912.) 
 
 The articles of the importation consisting of brooches of brass set with stones 
 and other articles were all commonly and commercially known as jewelry. 
 They might have been classified under two different provisions of paragraph 
 448, tariff act of 1909, but they came more precisely under the clause that 
 related to "all articles commonly or commercially known as jewelry," and 
 were dutiable as such. United States v. Goldberg's Sons et al., supra (T. D. 
 32573); Guthman, Solomons & Co. v. United States, supra (T. D. 32572); 
 
554 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Jewelry — Continued . 
 
 Articles of personal adornment — Continued. 
 
 United States v. Cohn & Kosenberger, supra (T. D. 32571). Cohn & Rosen- 
 berger v. United States (No. 867), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 7330 (T. D. 32281). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32575; May 17, 1912.) 
 Brooches; necklaces, necklets or lavallieres, crosses, and earrings dutiable at 60 
 per cent ad valorem under the last part of paragraph 448, act of 1909, as "all 
 articles commonly or commercially known as jewelry," following Guthman, 
 Solomons & Co. v. United States (T. D. 32574) and Cohn & Rosenberger v. United 
 .States (T. D. 32575). 
 
 Pins, chains, and charms: Hatpins, bar pins, chatelaine pins, scarfpins, veil 
 pins, collar pins, chains, neck chains, and lockets dutiable as "chains, pins, 
 * * * charms, * * *, if set with imitation precious stones composed of 
 glass or paste (except imitation jet), or composed wholly or in chief value of 
 silver, German silver, white metal, brass, or gun metal, * * *," at rates 
 equivalent to 85 per cent ad -valorem under the first part of paragraph 448, act of 
 1909, and not at 60 per cent ad valorem under the last part of said paragraph as 
 " all articles commonly or commercially known as jewelry." 
 
 Chains composed of iron or steel: Guard and muff chains composed of iron or 
 steel, blackened, not being commonly or commercially known as jewelry and 
 not "set with imitation precious stones composed of glass or paste (except imi- 
 tation jet), or composed wholly or in chief value of silver, German silver, white 
 metal, brass, or gun metal, " dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem as manufactures 
 of metal under paragraph 199 of the act of 1909. (T. D. 33142— G. A. 7424; 
 Jan. 31, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Articles commonly or commercially known as jewelry.- — Avoiding a 
 construction that would work inconsistent or absurd results, but not on that 
 ground alone, it is held that in paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, where jewelry 
 is treated comprehensively, it was intended that to all articles commonly or com- 
 mercially known as jewelry the lower rate of 60 per cent ad valorem should apply, 
 notwithstanding the fact that such articles fall within the apparent eo nomine • 
 provisions in a preceding part of the paragraph. United States v. Guthman et al. 
 (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 276; T. D. 32572). Cohn & Rosenberger v. United States 
 (No. 1100); United States v. Cohn & Rosenberger (No. 1108); United States v. 
 Claflin Co. et al. (No. 1109); Guthman, Solomons & Co. et al. v. United States 
 (No. 1110), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeals from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7424 (T. D. 33142). Affirmed as to 
 part; reversed as to part. (T. D. 33536; May 31, 1913.) 
 
 Barettes — 
 Made of base metal and set with imitation jet are not dutiable as jewelry. (See 
 Barettes set with imitation jet.) 
 
 Brooches or pins — 
 The importations in question consisted of brooches or pins made of brass and tin 
 and having an artificial red rose in the center, necklaces constructed of glass 
 beads and cotton strings with a brass clasp, and celluloid bracelets. There is 
 nothing in the record to show that the goods of the importation are designed for 
 use as playthings. They are of a size and appearance that leads to the inference 
 they were made to be worn by children as articles of adornment. A commercial 
 designation as toys was not proved. The articles are properly classifiable as 
 jewehy. United States v. Kraemer & Co. el al. (No. 1322), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 34111 (T. D. 33913). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 34474; May 18, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 555 
 
 Jewelry — Continued . 
 Chain clasps — 
 A commercial designation may not be judicially known. It is, however, within 
 judicial cognizance that a metal neck chain with a clasp constitutes jewelry. 
 Paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, relating to jewelry was, as to the importation in 
 question, consisting of neck-chain clasps, made of brass, and valued at less than 
 72 cents per gross, more specific in its application than paragraph 199, and the 
 goods were dutiable accordingly under paragraph 448. United States v. Guth- 
 man, Solomons & Co., supra (T. D. 32572). United States v. Goldberg's Sons 
 et al. (No. 864), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27809 
 (T. D. 32297). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32573; May 17, 1912.) 
 Chains. (See also Muff chains of iron or steel.) 
 The testimony showed that the long chains of the importations, some ornamented 
 and some unornamented, are commonly and commercially known as jewelry. 
 That incidentally, when worn, they serve a useful purpose does not preclude a 
 proper classification as jewelry under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909. United 
 States V. American Express Co. (No. 1475), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the Government from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 36557 (T. D. 34789). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35341; 
 Apr. 14, 1915.) 
 Cloisouug — 
 Enameled articles: Cloisonne dress buckles, which are designed to be worn on the 
 person as articles of adornment, are jewelry and are more specifically ' enumer- 
 ated under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, as "jewelry, "than under pai-agraph 
 159 as "articles * * * enameled." (T. D. 29626— G. A. 6886; Mar. 15, 
 1909.) 
 Gold or platinum- 
 Punctuation not being a part of a statute, repunctuation may be made if neces- 
 sary to avoid absurd and incongruous results; and under this rule the provision 
 in paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, for "jewelry, * * * including chain, 
 mesh and mesh bags and purses composed of gold or platinum," should be con- 
 strued as though a comma had followed "purses, " so that the words "composed 
 of gold or platinum ' ' may be referred to ' ' jewelry " as well as to " bags and purses . ' ' 
 (T. D. 30612— G. A. 7019; May 13, 1910.) 
 Guard chains — 
 The merchandise in controversy consisted of certain white-metal guard chains, 
 set with imitation precious stones. 
 
 Construction now stare decisis: "All articles commonly or commercially 
 known as jewelry, or parts thereof, finished or unfinished, " paragraph 448, tariff 
 act of 1909, is more specific in its application than the provision with the proviso 
 in that paragraph, and that this is so is now stare decisis. 
 
 Jewelry and utility: The contention made here that no article that possesses 
 any degree of utility can be regarded as jewelry can not be upheld. Jewelry is 
 often an article of utility. ' 
 
 Evidence before the board: There was before the board the return, the report, 
 and samples. With the evidence before it, the board was warranted in finding 
 the merchandise was known, if not conmiercially, then commonly, as jewelry, 
 and it was properly assessed as such. United States v. International Forward- 
 ing Co. (No. 1436), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 35337 
 (T. D. 34378). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35272; Mar. 25, 1915.) 
 
556 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Jewelry — Continued . 
 Hatpins, brooches, etc. — 
 
 Hatpins, brooches, and other articles of personal adornment, costing more than 
 20 cents per dozen pieces, if composed in chief value of silver, German silver, 
 white metal, brass, or gun metal, are dutiable at 85 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 448, tarifi act of 1909, even if set vdth imitation jet or any other ma- 
 terial. G. A. 7019 (T. D. 30612) distinguished. (T. D. 30874— G. A. 7084; 
 Aug. 12, 1910.) 
 Imitation jewelry. 
 
 Where an importation consists of merchandise in a variety of forms, necklaces, 
 chains, hatpins, etc., made of a variety of materials and some complete, some 
 incomplete, without attempting a comprehensive ilefinition of jewelry or of 
 articles conmionly known as jewelry, the appeal being limited to merchandise 
 represented by enumerated samples, and there being no evidence to controvert 
 the conclusion drawn by the board, the board's decision must be afSrmed. 
 Such goods were properly assessed, being commonly known as jewelry, under 
 paragraph 434, tarifi act of 1897. Wolfi v. United States (No. 382), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from decision of the 
 Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 22013 (T. D. 30069); Abstract 22048 (T. D. 
 30086). Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of 
 New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31571; May 1, 1911.) 
 Jade — 
 
 Selected pieces of the mineral known as jade, which have been cut and polished 
 and formed into stones, and which are used exclusively for jewelry purposes, 
 being mounted into gold rings and other like articles, held to be dutiable as pre- 
 cious atones advanced in condition or value from their natural state by cleaving, 
 splitting, or other process, and not set, at 10 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 435, tariff act of 1897, and not under paragraph 97 of said act as mineral 
 substances of the kind there described. (T. D. 29624— G. A. 6884; Mar. 10, 
 1909.) 
 lace pins — 
 
 Gold-plated lace pins, valued at less than 20 cents per dozen pieces, having fancy 
 heads and steel shafts, the gold being insignificant in value compared with the 
 base metal, dutiable as manufactures composed wholly or in part of metal, under 
 paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, and not as jewelry composed of gold or platinum, 
 under paragraph 448 of said act. (T. D. 32345— G. A. 7343; Mar. 29, 1912.) 
 
 Lace pins which are valued at less than 20 cents per dozen pieces are not "com- 
 monly or commercially " known as jewehy . Such lace pins having fancy heads 
 and steel shafts, not being "commonly or commercially" known as jewelry, 
 were dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem as manufactures of glass or paste or as 
 manufactures of metal under paragraphs 109 or 199, and not as "jewelry, " at 60 
 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 448, tarifi act of 1909. (T. D. 32642— 
 G. A. 7375; June 17, 1912.) 
 
 The articles of the importation are complete in themselves, are made of the pre. 
 cious metals, or in imitation of precious metals, and are designed to be worn 
 on the person because of their ornamental character. These goods are jewelry 
 within the common uiiderstanding of the term and are dutiable under para- 
 graph 448, tariff act of 1909. Robbins v. Robertson (33 Fed., 709); Bader v. 
 United States (116 Fed., 541). United States v. Flory &' Co. (No. 872), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27809 (T. D. 32297), Abstracts 27846 
 and 27848 (T. D. 32302). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33367; Apr. 22, 1913.) 
 
 This case concerns gold-plated lace pins, which were held dutiable by the Board 
 of General Appraisers as manufectures of metal. The case is ruled by United 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 557 
 
 Jewelry — Continned. 
 Lace pins — Continued. 
 
 States V. Flory (4 Ct. Oust., Appls., — ; T. D. 33367), supra, and this merchan- 
 dise as there determined was properly dutiable as jewelry under the last clause 
 of paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Strauss & Co. (No. 1174), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32153 (T. D. 33389). De- 
 cision reversed. (T. p. 33797; Oct. 14, 1913.) 
 Lace pins or shawl pins, when not jewelry — 
 
 Government's appeals from decisions of the Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, holding lace pins, bone charms, and rubber brooches not to be jewelry, 
 dismissed. (T: D. 32794; Aug. 30, 1912.) 
 
 These lace pins or shawl pins, with fancy heads and steel shafts, gold plated, 
 according to the testimony, are not known as jewelry and are not used for pur- 
 poses of adornment. On the authority of cases cited the goods are held not to 
 be jewelry.- United States v. Flory (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., 87; T. D. 33367) dis- 
 tinguished. Altman & Co. v. United States (No. 1328), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 34052 (T. D. 33872). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 34475; May 18, 1914.) 
 Necklace clasps — 
 
 A platinum clasp for a necklace, set with a genuine pearl and rose diamonds, is 
 dutiable as "all articles commonly or commercially known as jewelry, or parts 
 thereof, * * * composed of * * * platinum, whether set or not set 
 with diamonds, pearls," etc., under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, and not as 
 "snap fasteners, or clasps, or parts thereof, by whatever name known," under 
 paragraph 427 of said act. (T. D. 31896— G. A. 7278; Sept 27, 1911.) 
 
 Brass snaps or clasps for fastening necklaces, and small compasses used in connec- 
 tion with watch chains as parts of charms, being in fact parts of jewelry, are 
 dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 356 of the act of 1913 as parts 
 of the like articles enumerated therein, whether finished or partly finished, and 
 not as manufactures of metal under paragraph 167 of the same act. Necklace 
 clasps, composed of base metal set with imitation precious stones, used as fasten- 
 ings for necklaces, are dutiable at the same rate under the same portion of para- 
 graph 356, as parts of ' ' Uke articles, ' ' rather than as manufactures of metal under 
 paragraph 167. The valuation "above 20 cents per dozen pieces," referred to 
 in paragraph 356, does not relate to the parts of the completed articles and Uke 
 articles therein mentioned. (T. D. 35592— G. A. 7755; July 15, 1915.) 
 Necklaces — 
 
 Jade beads: Balls or beads of real jade, strung on silk threads, finished with a tassel 
 of red silk threads, ornamented with a conventional design in silver wire, sold 
 and worn as necklaces in the condition in which they are imported and not 
 strung merely for convenience in handling or for transportation, are dutiable 
 under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, as jewelry. (T. D. 28908— G. A. 6745; 
 Mar. 28, 1908.) 
 
 The value of necklaces and chains not to be considered in determining their clas- 
 sification; if designed for personal adornment they are dutiable under para- 
 graph 408, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29623; Mar. 15, 1909.) 
 
 Amber — Beaded articles — ^Jewelry — Precious stone: Amber is neither technically 
 nor commercially a precious stone; and amber necklaces are not dutiable as 
 "jewelry" under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, nor as manufactures of amber 
 under paragraph 448, but as beaded articles under paragraph 408. (T. D. 
 29615— G. A. 6881; Mar. 9, 1909.) 
 
558 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Jewelry — Continued. 
 
 Kecklaces — Continued . 
 Jewelry requires work in metal, and a metal neck chain with a clasp constitutes 
 jewelry or parts of jewelry. United States v. Goldberg (3 Ct. Oust. Appls., 282; 
 T. D . 32573) . Metal appears here in the clasps designed to constitute the article 
 a necklace when completed. They are sold to jewelers and are apparently aa 
 susceptible of use on necklaces of metal as of beads. Kraemer & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 1411), United States Court of Custojns Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 35398 (T. D. 
 34398). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35003; Dec. 14, 1914.) 
 
 Pearls — 
 Necklace: Where pearls have been assembled into a completed necklace, and 
 worn as such prior to importation, they are dutiable as "jewelry" under para- 
 graph 434, tariff act of 1897, rather than as "pearls in their natural state," by 
 similitude, under paragraph 436. United States v. Citroen, United States 
 Circuit Coiirt, Southern District of New York, June 2, 1908. Suit 4974. Appeal 
 from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6617 (T. D. 
 28246). Board reversed. (T. D. 29124; June 30, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) An importation consisted of loose drilled pearls in separate 
 packages, which had been assembled into a necklace abroad and worn on sev- 
 eral occasions by the person who contracted to purchase them, delivery to be 
 made in the United States. After importation they were reassembled and 
 . strung, a few other pearls being added. Held that they were not dutiable as 
 jewelry under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, but as "pearls in their natural 
 state," by similitude, under paragraph 436. Citroen v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. No. 153 
 (suit 4974). Appeal from Circmt Court of United States for Southern District 
 of New York (T. D. 29124), reversing G. A. 6617 (T. D. 28246). Decision ad- 
 verse to Government. (T. D. 29502; Jan. 27, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Pearls in their natural state. — Legislative history shows that the 
 provisions in paragraphs 435 and 436, tariff act of 1897, for "pearls set or strung" 
 and "pearls in their natural state, not set or strung," were intended to embrace 
 all pearls not included in the provision for jewelry; and drilled pearls, unstrung, 
 were dutiable under the said act (par. 436) as "pearls in their natural state, 
 not set or strung." 
 
 Matched pearls — Strung pearls — Pearl necklace. — Pearls of a sufficient niun- 
 ber to constitute a necklace, matched as to size and color, which had been tem- 
 porarily strung abroad for the purpose of exhibition and worn in that condition, 
 but imported unstrung, not dutiable by similitude as "pearls set or strung," 
 under paragraph 435, tariff act of 1897, but fell directly within the provision in 
 paragraph 436 of said act for "pearls in their natural state, not set or strung." 
 Similitude. — The similitude clause, section 7, tariff act of 1897, applied only 
 to articles not enumerated in the tariff act. The classification of imported 
 articles must be ascertained by an examination of the articles in their condition 
 as imported. Articles may be manufactured or prepared for the purpose of 
 importing them at a lower rate of duty. United States v. Citroen, United 
 States Supreme Court. No. 30 (suit 4974). February 19, 1912. On writ of 
 certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for Second Circuit (166 
 Fed. Rep., 693; T. D. 29502), reversing decision of the Circuit Court for the 
 Southern District of New York (T. D. 29124). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 32298; Mar. 5, 1912.) 
 Loose drilled pearls which have been assembled and matched abroad and were 
 ordered to be made into a necklace in New York, and which had pever been 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 559 
 
 Jewelry — Continued. 
 Pearls — Continued. 
 
 strung, except temporarily for purposes of display, are not "jewelry" within 
 the meaning of paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, but are dutiable either directly 
 or by similitude under paragraph 436, relating to "pearls in their natural 
 state.'- ,Citroen v. United States (T. D. 29502) followed. (T. D. 29542— G. A. 
 6864; Feb. 6, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Loose drilled pearls which had been assembled and matched 
 abroad and were ordered to be made into a necklace in New York, and which 
 had been strung abroad only temporarily for purposes of display, are not dutia^ 
 ble as jewelry under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, but at the rate provided in 
 paragraph 436 for "pearls in their natural state." United States v. Tiffany, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 14, 1909. 
 Suit 5454. Appeal by United States from decision of Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 6864 (T. D. 29542). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29855; 
 June 22, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Loose drilled pearls which had been assembled and matched 
 abroad and were ordered to be made into a necklace in New York, and which 
 had been strung abroad only temporarily for purposes of display, are not dutiable 
 as jewelry under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, but at the rate provided in 
 paragraph 436 for "pearls in their natural state." United States v. Tiffany, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 4, 1910. No. 184 
 (suit 5454). Appeal by the United States from decision of the Circuit Court of 
 the United States for the Southern District of New York (172 Fed. Rep., 300; 
 T. D. 29855) affirming G. A. 6864 (T. D. 29542). Decision adverse to the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 30552; Apr. 19, 1910.) 
 
 Imitation on wire: Imitation pearls attached to short lengths of base-metal wire 
 dutiable as imitation pearls at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 449, tariff act of 1909, notwithstanding the wire constituted the material of chief 
 value. (T. D. 32860; Oct. 14, 1912.) (See also Beads, imitation pearl.) 
 
 On wire: Pearls on wire dutiable under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, at the 
 rate of 60 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 30138; Nov. 26, 1909.) 
 
 Product of American fisheries: The opinion of witnesses familiar with pearls from 
 long experience in examining and handling them, that a certain pearl imported 
 from Mexico originated in the United States, this opinion being based entirely 
 upon their examination of the pearl, is insufficient to establish that said pearl 
 is a product of American fisheries. Is a pearl a product of Ataerican fisheries 
 within the meaning of that phrase as used in the tariff law? Does it come 
 within the purview of that law when it has once been exported to some other 
 country, has mingled with the commerce of that country, and is being returned 
 to the United States? (T. D. 29143— G. A. 6787; July 2, 1908.) 
 "Pieces" in paragraph 448 defined^ 
 
 A dozen pairs of earrings, cuff buttons, etc., should be treated as 24 pieces in 
 arriving at their value for the purpose of determining the classification under 
 paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32521; May 20, 1912.) 
 Bepaiis — 
 
 Diamond pin taken abroad and reset dutiable upon return on the cost of repairs 
 only, under paragraph 404, tariff act of October 3, 1913. Instructions as to 
 dutiable status of jewelry taken abroad and repaired. (T.- D. 35096; Feb. 2, 
 1915.) 
 
560 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Jewelry— Continued . 
 Bope chain, when parts of jewelry — 
 Rope chain, not more tha,n one-half of 1 inch in diameter, breadth, or thickness, 
 made of rolled gold plate, valued at 30 cents per yard, and imported in long 
 lengths for use in manufacturing watch chains, is properly classifiable as parts 
 of jewelry under the final clause of paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, which, by 
 the language "articles commonly known as jewelry or parts thereof * * * 
 including chain * * *," fixes the classification of such chain as parts of 
 jewelry. United States v. Massce & Co. (No. 1567), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 37771. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35972; Dec. 
 3, 1915.) 
 Shoe buckles or slides — GaUilith belts — Combs — 
 The evidence of record and the sample sustains the decision of the board as to the 
 imitation je welry here. As to the gallatin belts there is not sufficient testimony 
 to overcome the presumption of correctness in the return of the collector. United 
 States V. International Forwarding Co. (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 35272). 
 United States v. Altman & Co. et al. (No. 1479), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 36687 (T. D. 34824). Decision modified. (T. D. 35390; 
 May 3, 1915.) 
 Toy— 
 The following articles are dutiable as "toys" under paragraph 418, tariff act of 
 1897, rather than as "jewelry" under paragraph 434: (1) Bead necklaces and 
 chains, fastened with a cheap brass clasp and valued at not more than 11 marks 
 per gross, (2) bead bracelets valued at not more than 7 marks per gross, and (3) 
 brooches of base metal and paste, valued at not more than 7 marks per gross. 
 G. A. 6658 (T. D. 28391) modified. (T. D. 29558— G. A. 6868; Feb. 15, 1909.) 
 Watch bracelets — 
 Bracelets to which are permanently attached small watches, and inseparable 
 therefrom, are dutiable as an entirety with the watchcases as jewelry. The col- 
 lector's assessment of 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 161 on the watch 
 movements, and of 60 per cent ad valorem on the watchcases and bracelets as 
 jewelry under paragraph 356, tariff act of 1913, is affirmed. The cases, being 
 part of the bracelets, do not come within the provision of paragraph 161 of the 
 sameact.^ (T. D; 35722— G. A. 7778; Sept. 24, 1915.) 
 Jewels for instruments other than watches or clocks. (See Sapphire bearings.) 
 Jewels for watches. 
 Beconstruoted rabies — 
 The merchandise is watch jewels made of reconstructed rubies. They can not, it 
 would seem, be devoted to any other use or purpose except as jewels for watches. 
 They are the more specifically provided for by paragraph 192, tariff act of 1909. 
 United States v. Elgin National Watch Co. (No. 1382), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 35123 (T. D. 34307). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 34532; May 28, 1914.) 
 Joss light. (See Incense, joss light.) 
 Judicial notice. 
 
 Federal courts may take judicial notice of customs regulations. (T. D. 32304; 
 Mar. 12, 1912.) 
 Judiciary. 
 
 An act to amend section 195, act of March 3, 1911, relating to the judiciary. Ap- 
 peals to United States Supreme Court from decisions of the Court of Custom j 
 Appeals. (T. D. 34747; Sept. 2, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 561 
 
 Junk, old. 
 Old electrotypes and stereotypes not. (See Type metal; also Metal scrap, Iron 
 scrap and Waste.) 
 Jurisdiction. 
 Board of General Appraisers. (See Board of General Appraisers.) 
 Courts. (See Courts.) 
 Jurisdiction of Court of Customs Appeals to review questions of fact. (See Court of 
 
 Customs Appeals.) 
 Jute. 
 Baggiug. (See Bagging.) 
 
 Bags, secondhand, printed. (See Bags and purses, jute.) 
 Card waste — 
 Entry free: The merchandise consists of broken fibers of undressed raw jute re- 
 jected by the carding machine in the first process of manufacture. These 
 broken fibers had been later subjected to a carding process of their own. The 
 product is more accurately described as jute, unmanufactured, than as waste not 
 specially provided for and was entitled to free entry under both tariff acts of 1897 
 and 1909. United States v. Hatters' Fur Exchange (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 198; 
 T. D. 31237). Salomon Bros. & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 729), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7242 (T. D. 31739). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 32196; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 Contained in cotton cloth. (See Cotton cloth.) 
 Fabrics — Hop cloth — 
 Jute fabrics otherwise falling within the conditions of paragraph 352, tariff act of 
 1909, not excluded because containing dyed, colored, or printed stripes. (T. D. 
 32320; Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 Waste. (See Waste.) 
 Webbing- 
 Jute webbing tinder 12 inches in width dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent ad va- 
 lorem under paragraph 262, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34296; Mar. 19, 1914.) 
 Jute-manufacturing machinery. (See Machinery and machines.) 
 
 K. 
 
 Kam Wo tea. (See Tea.) 
 
 Eashidane or Japanese wafers — 
 
 Kashidane or Japanese wafers used as a basis for candy free of duty under para- 
 graph 417, tariff act of 1913, aa wafers not specially provided for. (T. D. 35870; 
 Nov. 9, 1915.) 
 
 Eazunoko. (See Ksh— Herring roe.) 
 
 Eeene's cement — How appraised. 
 
 Under paragraph 88, tariff act of 1909, Keene's cement valued above $10 and not 
 above $15 per ton was subject to a duty of $5 per ton. The duty being based 
 upon or regulated by the value thereof, subsection 18 of section 28 of said act 
 required that, in appraising the value of such merchandise, the value of the 
 containers, which are barrels, should be added to the per se value of the cement, 
 and duty should be assessed accordingly on the gross weight of the merchandise 
 as thus ascertained. (T. D. 32378— G. A. 7346; Apr. 8, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Section 88 and subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 1909. — On 
 a review of the decisions and after allowing due weight to the fact that there 
 has been a legislative adoption of a long-continuing customs practice, it is held 
 that, according to subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, the value of dutia- 
 ble coverings should be added in determining the proper dividend to be used 
 for ascertaining the rate of duty. The value of the coverings should be added 
 45633°— 17 36 
 
562 DIGEST OF CTTSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 
 
 Keene's cement — How appraised — Continued. 
 
 to tie value per se of the cement; but in the absence of express provision, may 
 not be considered in determining the weight of the merchandise. United 
 States V. Francklyn (No. 902), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7346 (T. D. 32378). (T. D. 33306; Mar. 21, 1913.) 
 Kindergarten embroidery sets. (See Toys, kindergarten embroidery sets.) 
 Kippered herring. (See Fish.) 
 Kitchen spoons. (See Aluminum spoons.) 
 Klinger glasses. (See Glass and glasses, prismatic.) 
 Knitted articles. 
 Gloves. (See Gloves, cotton, knitted.) 
 Silk mufflers. (See Mufflers, silk knitted.) 
 Wool caps. (See Wearing apparel, knitted wool capa^) 
 Knitting machines. (See Machinery and machines.) 
 Knives. 
 
 The merchandise in controversy consists of combination penknives, a strip of 
 metal suitable for opening envelopes having been riveted to the handle of a knife, 
 which makes of it something other than the ordinary penknife; it remains, 
 however, a knife, with folding or other than fixed T)lades or attachments. The 
 merchandise was properly assessed under paragraph 152, tariff act of 1909. 
 Silberstein v. United States (No. 777), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 26615 (T. D. 31866). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32562; May 17, 1912.) 
 Budding and shearing, etc. — 
 Budding knives, pruning knives, sheep shears, pruning shears, hedge shears, and 
 hay knives dutiable under paragraphs 128 and 130, tariff act of 1913, and not 
 free of duty as agricultural implements under paragraph 391 of the said act. 
 (T. D. 33977; Dec. 12, 1913.) 
 Budding knives and pruning knives are properly dutiable under the eo nomine 
 provision therefor in paragraph 128 of the act of 1913, as assessed, rather than 
 free of duty under paragraph 391 as agricultural implements, as claimed. 
 (T. D. 35499— G. A. 7735; June 4, 1915.) 
 (Appealed;) Knives with folding blades and spring hacks — How dutiable. — 
 • Knives with folding blades and spring backs, designated as budding and 
 pruning knives, are dutiable under paragraph 128 of the tariff act of 1913 and 
 are not to be admitted free under paragraph 391 as agricultural implements 
 because they are capable of being put to agricultural uses. 
 
 No irreconcilable conflict between paragraphs 128 and 391. — The fact that some 
 of the articles dutiable under paragraph 128 may be put to agricultural uses 
 and that paragraph 391 exempts from duty all agricultural implements creates 
 no irreconcilable conflict. Powers v. Barney (19 Fed. Cas., 1234; 5 Blatch., 
 202) distinguished. Geoige Quirk et al. v. United States (No. 1579), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7735 (T. D. 35499). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 35983; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 Deer-foot — 
 The provision for "hiinting knives" in paragraph 155, tariff act of 1897, is more 
 specific than that in paragraph 153, for "clasp knives," inasmuch as the latter 
 includes a greater variety of knives than the former. Deer-foot knives, each 
 with a folding blade about 5 inches in length, which on being opened fastens 
 with a lock spring, held to be hunting knives and dutiable as such luider said 
 paragraph 155. (T. D. 28685— G. A. 6703; Jan. 7, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OP CtJSTOMS MOiaiONa, 1908-1915. 568 
 
 Knives— Continued . 
 Seer-f ost — Continued > 
 
 (Appealed :) A B^inek knife) witk a 5-inch folding blade that when opened 
 fastens with a spi-lng lock; blade and handle measuring 10 inches in length, is a 
 " liunting knife " in the commercial senae of the term, and was dutiable under 
 paragraph 155, tariff act of 1897. United States v. Borgfeldt (No. 398), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from decision 
 of the Board of General Appraisers (T. D. 28685). Transferred from United 
 States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Peimsylvania. Decision aflSrmed. 
 (T. D. 31279; Feb. 1, 1911.) 
 Pocket — 
 Pocketknives to which handles or scales of a cheap material have been attached, 
 resulting in fully finished knives, and which are a salable cormnodity as im- 
 ported, are finished knives within the meaning of paragraph 152, tariff act of 
 1909, though jewelry manufacturing concerns who purchase such goods remove 
 the handles and substitute therefor gold or silver handles. 
 
 Condition of merchandise as imported controlling: The classification of im- 
 ported articles must be ascertained by an examination of the articles in their 
 condition as imported. United States v. Citroen (223 U. S., 407; T. D. 32298) 
 and United States v. Irwin (78 Fed., 799) cited.. 
 
 Merchandise manufactured to suit tariff conditions: Articles may be manu- 
 factured or prepared for the purpose of importing them at a lower rate of duty. 
 Merritt v. Welsh (104 U. S., 694) and United States v. Citroen (223 U. S., 407) 
 cited. (T. D. 33593— G. A. 7477; June 28, 1913.) 
 With fixed or folding blades. (See Erasers.) 
 With odd-shaped handles — 
 Held that certain diminutive knives with odd-shaped handles, which can be 
 effectively used for most of the purposes for which an ordinary pocketknife is 
 used, are not commercially known as toys, are not in fact used by children as 
 playthings, and are not dutiable as "toys" under paragraph 418, tariff act of 
 1897, but are more properly classed as "penknives" under paragraph 153. 
 Kastor v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, February 10, 1909. Suit 5182. Appeal by importer from decision of 
 Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 17909 (T. D. 28687). Board affirmed. 
 (T. D. 29567; Feb. 24, 1909.) 
 Knives and forks, combination. (See Combination knives and forks.) 
 Eraft paper not printing paper. (See Paper, wrapping.) 
 Eromoline. ' 
 
 The article dealt in under the trade name of "Kromoline," being a mixture of 
 mineral oil, fish or vegetable oils, and other substances, is not an alizarin assist- 
 ant, an acid, or any one of the soluble greases provided for in paragraph 32, tariff 
 act of 1909. Nor is such a mixture a fish oil and therefore within the exception 
 in paragraph 580 of said act. To prove the mere fact that Kromoline might be 
 used for purposes other than stuffing or dressing leather is not sufficient to estab- 
 lish that practically it is fitted for any other use. " Fit only for such use " must 
 be given a practical meaning. 
 
 Grease — Oil: Kromoline is a grease or oil "commonly used * * * for 
 stuffing or dressing leather, and * * * fit only for such use, " and is entitled 
 to free entry under paragraph 580, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31743— G. A. 7246; 
 July 8, 1911.) 
 EUmmel, gauge of. (See Liquors.) 
 
564 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 L. 
 
 Labeling impottations of drags. (See Drugs.) 
 Labeling letters and packages by sea-post clerks. 
 
 T. D. 29200; circular No. 61; August 11, 1908. 
 Labels. 
 . Christmas — 
 
 G umm ed pieces of paper on which is lithographically printed " Please do not open 
 till Christmas morning,'' "Christmas greetings," and "Here is a Christmas 
 present, ' ' etc . , with ample space for writing in a name and address, and intended 
 to be attached to Christmas gifts, are properly dutiable as "labels * * * 
 printed in eight or more colors, " under paragraph 412 of the act of 1909, as as- 
 sessed, rather than under the provision in said paragraph for "all other arti- 
 cles * * * not exceeding eight one-thousandths of one inch in thickness," 
 as claimed. (T. D. 35528— G. A. 7738; June 10, 1915.) 
 Christmas seals not. (See Seals.) 
 Die-cut — • 
 Labels prepared from papers die cut or other forms dutiable at 25 per cent ad 
 valorem under par^iaph 332, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35282; Apr. 2, 1915.) 
 For hand baggage. (See Baggage.) 
 
 So-called wafers, lithographically printed, not labels. (See Paper, wafers.) 
 Surface-coated paper — • 
 Labels, etc., of surface-coated paper dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem 
 as articles composed wholly or in chief value of surface-coated paper under para- 
 graph 324, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35841; Oct. 30, 1915.) 
 Labor day. 
 
 Executive order — Per diem employees. Labor Day. (T. D. 30899; circular No. 
 49; Aug. 31, 1910.) 
 Laborers, customs. 
 Eight-hour law — 
 Laborers performing actual manual labor at the various customs ports should not 
 be permitted or required to work more than eight hours per day, except in case 
 of extraordinary emergency. Opinion Attorney General relative to scope of act 
 of August 1, 1892 (27 Stat., 340). (T. D. 32732; July 19, 1912.) 
 Lace. 
 Articles made of — 
 The provision for " articles made * * * of lace," in paragraph 339, tariff act 
 of 1897, is not limited to articles made from lace bought and sold by the yard, 
 but includes also such as are made by sewing together pieces of lace produced in 
 shapes designed to be used in making the articles. Goldenberg v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January II, 1908. No. 
 118 (suit 4194). Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the United States, 
 Southern District of New York, 152 Fed. Rep., 658 (T. D. 27894), affirming G. A. 
 6290 (T. D. 27113). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 28715; Jan. 29, 1908.) 
 Imitation: The provision for "articles made * * * in imitation of lace," in 
 paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, includes articles containing no lace in their 
 make-up; and collar and cuff sets made of braids, cords, and threads, imported 
 ready to be attached to the garments on which they are to be worn, are dutiable 
 under said provision. United States v. Hesse (158 Fed. Rep., 407; T. D. 28519), 
 reversing 154 Federal Reporter, 171 (T. D. 27890), and affirming G. A. 6283 
 (T. D. 27086), followed. (T. D. 29116— G. A. 6782; June 24, 19080 
 Cotton, Jacquard-figured. (See Cotton. — Nettings — Laces^-Beadings.) 
 Edgings and insertings — 
 Narrow cotton articles made on the Lever or Gothrough machine, which are 
 chiefly used as edgings and insertings for making ladies' handkerchiefs, and 
 which are not uniformly and generally known in trade and commerce as " braids," 
 
DIGEST OS CtrSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 565 
 
 Lace — Continued. 
 
 Edgings and inseitings — Continued. 
 
 but which are known in some branches of the trade as "laces" or "laca edgings 
 and insertingB," were properly dutiable under the provision for cotton laces, 
 edgings, and insertings made on the Lever or Gothrough machine in paragraph 
 350, tariff act of 1909, rather than as cotton braids under paragraph 349 of said 
 act. Commercial designation to be controlling must be definite, uniform, and 
 general throughout the country. (T. D. 32330— G. A. 7339; Mar. 22, 1912.) 
 
 Embroidery — 
 Though lace may be embroidery from an artistic standpoint, it can not be held 
 dutiable as embroidery, because in successive tariff acts Congress has made dis- 
 tinction between the two. United States v. Simon, United States Circuit Court 
 of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 13, 1909. No. 189 (4617). Appeal by United 
 States from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of 
 New York (T. D. 29017) reversing G. A. 6452 (T. D. 27644). Decision adverse 
 to Government. (T. D. 29702; Apr. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Lever lace edgings or insertings— 
 Paragraph 350, tariff act of 1909, provides for laces, embroideries, edgings, insert- 
 ings, and other articles made on the Lever or Gothrough machine, and con- 
 tains the proviso " that no wearing apparel, handkerchiefs, or other articles of 
 any description, composed wholly or in chief value of any of the foregoing, 
 shall pay a less rate of duty than that impost upon the articles or the materials 
 of which the same are composed." Held tha;t the provisions of that paragraph 
 include not only laces made on the Lever or Gothrough machine, but also 
 include laces composed of lace edgings or insertings which were made on the 
 Lever or Gothrough machine and subsequently joined together by hand, either 
 separately or with other materials, to form the completed lace. (T. D. 33959 — 
 G. A. 7509; Nov. 29, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Cotton laces made in part, but not in chief value, of material 
 made on the Lever or Gothrough machine are, by virtue of the first proviso to 
 paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, " that no article composed whoUy or in chief 
 value of one or more of the materials or goods specified in this paragraph shall 
 pay a less rate of duty than the highest rate imposed by this section upon any 
 of the materials or goods of which the same is composed " properly dutiable at 
 the rate of 70 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 350 of said act. (T. D. 
 33960— G. A. 7510; Nov. 29, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) "Articles" and "laces." — In the first proviso to paragraph 349, 
 tariff act of 1909, there was no purpose to use the term " article " in the restricted 
 sense of something completed. Field v. United States (73 Fed., 808). And 
 the connection in which the term "laces" occurs indicates that laces were 
 regarded and treated as articles — articles composed of materials or goods speci- 
 fied in the paragraph — ^thus differentiating this case from Altman v. United 
 States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls. — ; T. D. 34251). The aim was to bring withm the 
 higher rate the article which had the more expensive work done upon it. 
 Stiner & Son et al. v. United States (No. 1331), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, G. A. 7509 (T. D. 33959), G. A. 7510 (T. D. 33960). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 34428; Apr. 28, 1914.) 
 
 Silk lace made on lever or Gothiough machine- 
 Silk laces made on the Lever or Gothrough machine and having beads sewed or 
 appUqu^d on one side are properly dutiable at the rate of 70 per cent ad valo- 
 rem under the provision in paragraph 350, tariff act of 1909, for " laces * * » 
 made on the Lever or Gothrough machine," rather than at 60 per cent ad valo- 
 rem under the provision in paragraph 402 of said act for " silk goods ornamented 
 with beads or spangles." (T. D. 33462— G. A. 7463; May 21, 1913.) 
 
566 
 
 DIGEST OP CUSl^OMS DECI&IONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Lace — Continued. 
 Window curtains of finished Nottingham lace, scalloped— 
 Finished lace window curtains made on the Nottingham lace-curtain machine 
 and composed of cotton or other vegetable fiber, dutiable under the to nomine 
 provision of paragraph 265, tariff act of 1913, although scalloped. (T. D. 35871; 
 Nov. 10, 1915.) 
 Lace-making machines, parts of. (See Machine parts.) 
 Lace paper articles. (See Paper.) 
 Lace pins. (See Jewelry.) 
 
 Lace-trimmed wearing apparel. (See Wearing apparel trimmed with Lever lace.) 
 Laches. 
 Procedure— 
 The appellants' contentions not passed on for the reason that the application, 
 made on March 25, 1912, for the vacation of a decision dated August 12, 1911, 
 was so long delayed after the publication of that decision as to amount to laches. 
 Dunlop Bros. & Hague & Co. v. United States (No. 890), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 26335 (T. D. 31813). Appeal dismissed. (T. D. 
 33475; May 23, 1913.) 
 Lacquered metal boxes and printed tin cans. (See Coverings, metal boxes.) 
 Lactarene. 
 Casein classified as — - , 
 
 Casein is free of duty as "lactarene" under paragraph 594, tariff act of 1897. 
 United States v. Brownell, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second 
 Circuit, November 16, 1908. No. 78 (suit 4586). Appeal from Circuit Court 
 of the United States for Southern District of New York (159 Fed. Rep., 219; 
 T. D. 28577). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29374; Dec. 2, 1908.) 
 Acquiesced in January 4, 1909 (T. D. 29455). 
 The article commercially known as casein or lactarene held to be free of duty as 
 lactarene, under paragraph 594, tariff act of 1897, and not at 20 per cent ad valo- 
 rem as a nonenumerated manufactured article under section 6 of said act. 
 United States v. BrowneU (T. D. 29374) followed. (T. D. 29627— G. A. 6887; 
 Mar. 16, 1909.) 
 "Plasmon" — 
 A gritty, yellowish powder, with the trade name of "plasmon," but invoiced as 
 lactarene, and known to the trade as lactarene, casein, or milk albumen, is 
 not milk, preserved. The importation was free of duty as lactarene under 
 paragraph 594, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Corsi, Zumsteg & Co. (No. 
 632), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24896 (T. D. 31335), 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32038; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 Ladder, tape, cotton. (See Cotton, manufactures of.) 
 Ladies' leather gloves. (See Gloves.) 
 Lading and unlading of vessels. (See also Vessels.) 
 
 The expense of unloading and reloading lumber and other merchandise imported 
 in cars for the purpose of measuring, weighing, gauging, etc., to be borne by 
 parties in interest. (T. D. 30400; Mar. 4, 1910.) 
 At night — ■ 
 Customs officers other than inspectors — Compensation: A deputy collector and 
 clerk, while performing the duties of an inspector at night, are entitled to the 
 compensation provided for such service. (T. D. 28706; Jan. 25, 1908.) 
 A customs officer entitled to compensation for night service shall be paid one full 
 day's pay for any period of service performed between 6 p. m. and 11 p. m., and 
 two full days' pay for any period of service rendered between 11 p. m and 7 a .m. , 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 567 
 
 Iiadiug and unlading of vessels — Continued. 
 At night — Continued. 
 
 but slmll not receive more than two full days' pay for any period of service ren- 
 dered during one night. An inspector shall be paid a* his regular rate of com- 
 pensation, while a customs officer having another designation but acting as in- 
 spector shall be paid at the rate of $4 per diem. (T. D. 28785; Feb. 18, 1908.) 
 Regulations governing unlading of vessels under preliminary entry and of vessels 
 and other conveyances at iiight under act of February 13, 1911. (T. D. 31562; 
 May 8, 1911.) 
 Special licenses — Bonds: Department can not authorize the issuance of special 
 licenses to lade or unlade vessels at night under the act of February 13, 1911, 
 without the giving of the bond required by that act. (T. D. 32012; Nov. 20, 
 1911.) 
 On Sundays and holidays — 
 Amendment of T. D. 31562 of May 8, 1911, relative to extra compensation to be 
 paid customs officers under the act of February 13, 1911. (T. D. 31606; May 
 20, 1911.) 
 Extra compensation to be paid customs officers and employees for services per- 
 formed in lading and unlading of cargoes on Sundays and holidays under the 
 act of February 13, 1911, to be reimbursed by the parties in interest. (T. D. 
 31684; June 13, 1911.) 
 Officers and employees receiving compensation per anniun will be paid one and 
 one-half times one three-hundred -and-sixtieth of their regular annual salary for 
 each day's work, or part thereof, performed during regular working hours on 
 Sundays or holidays in connection with the lading or unlading of cargo under 
 said act. (T. D. 31752; July 15, 1911.) 
 Specifying what days shall be included in the term " holidays " as used in the act 
 of February 13, 1911, relative to the lading and imlading of vessels under pre- 
 liminary entry, etc. (T. D. 32043; Nov. 29, 1911.) 
 Lakes containing lead. (See Colors.) 
 £ambrecLuins. 
 
 In the absence of proof to show that lambrequins fall within the class of articles 
 commonly known and recognized in trade and commerce as "curtains," lace 
 lambrequins are properly dutiable as lace articles at 60 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913, and not as curtains. (T. D. 34968 — G. A. 
 7647; Dec. 3, 1914.) 
 Lambskins. 
 Dressed. (See Glove, leather.) 
 Bussian — 
 Construction: Commercial designation is first to be ascertained and if found to 
 exist it controls the application of the language of the statute. 
 
 Ibid: Where two terms of description are differentiated in a statute and in 
 another paragraph one of these terms is employed, its use here must be taken to 
 be confined to the single subject matter expressed, exclusive of the other. 
 
 Ibid: An administrative interpretation, long continued and adopted in legis- 
 lation, is controlling. 
 
 Lambskins not sheepskins: In conformity with these principles of construc- 
 tion lambskins can not be deemed sheepskins, and the merchandise was enti- 
 tled to free entry whether classified under either paragraph 574 or 676, tariff 
 act of 1909. Goat & Sheepskin Import Co. et al. d. United States (No. 1241), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32961 (T. D. 33594). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 34254; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 
568 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Lamp shades. 
 Bamboo- 
 Lamp shades of bamboo, wood, straw, or composition of wood, if stained, dyed, 
 painted, printed, polished, grained, or creosoted, dutiable at the rate of 40 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 214, tarifi act of 1909. (T. D. 32770; Aug. 23, 
 1912.) 
 Lamp shades in chief value of bamboo are, under the application of the rule of 
 ejusdem generis, excluded from the provision in paragraph 175, tariff act of 1913, 
 for " blinds, curtains, shades, or screens * * * in chief value of bamboo." 
 In the revision of paragraph 214 of the act of 1909 and the framing of paragraph 
 175 of the act of 1913 the elimination of the words "porch and window" was for 
 the purpose of removing doubt as to whether these words were limited in their 
 application to "blinds," and to make more certain that "blinds, curtains, 
 shades, or screens of bamboo" should be considered as being on a parity, both 
 as to character and use. Lamp shades in chief value of bamboo, in the absence 
 of a more specific provision therefor, held subject to duty as manufactures of 
 wood at 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 176, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 
 35848— G. A. 7804; Nov. 1, 1915.) 
 Steel, enameled^ 
 Incandescent lamp reflectors or shades, composed of steel enameled with vitreous 
 glasses, having a hollow interior which gives to them a bell-shaped effect, are 
 properly dutiable under the provision in paragraph 134, tariff act of 1913, for 
 "other similar hollow ware," as assessed, rather than as manufactures of metal 
 not specially provided for under paragraph 167 of said act, as claimed. G. A. 
 7077 (T. D. 30825) followed. Fensterer & Euhe v. United States (5 Ct. Gust. 
 Appls., 61; T. D. 34096) distinguished. (T. D. 35334— G. A. 7717; Apr. 23, 
 1915.) 
 Trimmed with braid. 
 Lamp shades trimmed with braid are dutiable as "articles made * * * in 
 part of" braid imder paragraph 358, act of 1913, and not as "manufactures of 
 siUc or of which silk or silk and India rubber are the component materials of chie^ 
 value" under paragraph 318. (T. D. 34754— G. A. 7596; Sept. 3, 1914.) 
 Lamps. 
 Candle lamps with beaded shades — 
 Table candle lamps made in the shape of romer glasses, with beaded shades, to be 
 classified as entireties, dutiable at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under para^ 
 graph 333, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35260; Mar. 25, 1915.) 
 Decorated china. 
 Paragraph 95, tariff act of 1897, embraces within its provisions only such articles 
 as are composed wholly of china, porcelain, parian, bisque, earthen, stone, or 
 crockery ware. AU articles composed in chief value of these materials, not 
 otherwise specially provided for, are embraced within the provisions of para- 
 graph 96. Where an article composed of china has in it an insignificant quan- 
 tity of some other material, that material may be treated as negligible when it 
 does not perform an essential function in the construction of the article; but 
 where the article in question could not be fashioned into the form in which it 
 is imported without the use of the other material, then it must be regarded in 
 fixing the classification. White china lamps of elaborate and ornamental 
 designs, the various parts of which designs were molded separately and assem- 
 bled in the clay before the completed articles were fired, held to come within 
 the meaning of the words "otherwise decorated or ornamented " as used in para- 
 graph 96. (T. D. 29305— G. A. 6820; Oct. 20, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 569 
 
 Landing ceitificates. 
 
 Reports to Auditor for State and Other Departments of " Landing certificates 
 received" on catalogue No. 3073 (272) discontinued. (T. D. 30952; Sept. 28, 
 1910.) 
 Lanolin. 
 
 Adeps lanse: Wool fat in the forms known as adeps lanse anhydrous and adeps 
 lanse cum aqua, which is valued at 10 to 15 cents per*poimd and is principally 
 used medicinally, is not dutiable as wool grease under paragraph 279, tariff act 
 of 1897, but as a medicinal preparation under paragraph 68. Zinkeisen v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 7, 1908. Suit 4920. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 15013 (T. D. 28074). Board affirmed. (T. 
 D. 29000; May 20, 1908.) 
 
 Adeps lanse anhydrous and adeps lanse cum aqua, which are worth from 10 to 15 
 cents per pound, are used principally in therapeutics and generally sold to the 
 drug trade, though used to some extent in medicinal soaps and salves, are not 
 "wool grease" within the meaning of paragraph 279, tariff act of 1897, but 
 "medicinal preparations" under paragraph 68. Zinkeisen v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. No. 
 119 (suit 4920) . Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the United States for 
 the Southern District of New York (T . D . 29000) . Decision in favor of the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 29546; Feb. 10, 1909.) 
 
 Adeps lanse — Lanolin: Adeps lanse, or lanolin, is used as a basis for ointments 
 and as a carrier for soluble medicinal salts, and the evidence shows that without 
 the addition of medicinal agents it has no therapeutic value. The more specific 
 provision levying duty upon it is to be found in paragraph 290, tariff act of 1909. 
 It is dutiable under that paragraph as wool grease refined or improved in value 
 or condition. Koechl & Co. v. United States (No. 786), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 26810 (T. D. 31912). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 32619; May 31, 1912.) 
 Lanterns. 
 Dressed limestone — 
 
 So-called Japanese lanterns made of dressed limestone, but imported in sections 
 ready to be put together, are subject to duty under the provision in paragraph 
 114, tariff act of 1909, for " limestone * * * hewn, dressed, or polished, or 
 otherwise manufactured." United States v. A. A. Vantine (166 Fed. Rep., 
 751; T. D. 29375) distinguished. (T. D. 30690— G. A. 7038; June 13, 1910.) 
 Granite — 
 
 Ornamental garden lanterns, which are made out of granite, hewn or dressed, 
 but are completed manufactured articles, imported in separate pieces merely 
 for convenience of shipment, have passed out of the class of building or monu- 
 mental stone, and therefore are not dutiable under paragraph 118, tariff act of 
 1897, relating to "granite * * * and other building or monumental stone, 
 * * * hewn, dressed," etc., but under section 6 as unenumerated manu- 
 factured articles. United States v. Vantine, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, November 16, 1908. No. 54 (suit 4889). Ap- 
 peal from the Circuit. Court of the United States for the Southern District of 
 New York (T. D. 28543). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29375; Dec. 
 2, 1908.) Acquiesced in May 26, 1909 (T. D. 29786). 
 Lappings of wool and flax. 
 
 Lappings composed of wool and flax are dutiable according to the component 
 material of chief value, and are not dutiable as manufactures of wool under para- 
 graph 378, tariff act of 1909, unless the wool is the element of chief value. 
 (T. D. 32851; Oct. 8, 1912.) 
 
570 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Lathe. 
 
 The bench lathe of the importation is operated exclusively by force applied to a 
 treadle by the foot of the operator. It is not a machine tool, for ' ' machine tool " 
 connotes the application of some kind of power to an implement in its use and 
 operation other than hand power alone. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States 
 (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 329; T. B. 32055); Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne (8 Ct. Gust. 
 Appls., — ; T. D. 32999). United States /k. Bernard, Judae & Co. (No. 906), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28138 (T. D. 32396). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 33164; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 lava stones. (See Stone, lava, building.) 
 Lawn mowers. (See Agricultural implements.) 
 Lead. 
 Antimouial. 
 
 On the withdrawal of antimonial lead for consumption under subsection 1 of para- 
 graph N of section 4, tariff act of 1913, the bond is to be credited with an amount 
 equal to the lead duties or duties on the imported metals, any difference from 
 the duties to which the antimonial lead is subject, whether less or more, to be 
 adjusted by additions or deductions. (T. D. 35709; Sept. 14, 1915.) 
 Bullion — 
 
 By-product of lead bullion refined in bonded warehouse dutiable upon with- 
 drawal under paragraph 191, tariff act of 1909. (See Type metal.) 
 Wastage — 
 
 There is to be allowed under the provisions of section 24, tariff act of 1909, a lead 
 wastage amounting to 19.92 per cent for smelting imported lead-bearing ores 
 by the El Paso Smelting & Refining Works, located at El Paso, Tex. (T. D. 
 33212; Feb. 25, 1913.) 
 
 There is to be allowed under the provisions of section 24, tariff act of 1909, a lead 
 wastage amounting to 20 per cent for smelting imported lead-bearing ores by 
 the American Smelting & Refining Co., of Perth Amboy, N.J. There is also to 
 be allowed a wastage of 3.7 per cent on account of refining lead bullion by the 
 same company at the eame port. (T. D. 33213; Feb. 25, 1913.) 
 
 Lead-wastage allowance of 18.56 per cent authorized for the El Paso Smelting & 
 Refining Works, branch of Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Refining Co., 
 located at El Paso, Tex. (T. D. 33664; July 31, 1913.) 
 
 Collector of customs, New York, authorized to make an allowance of 6.45 per cent 
 for lead wastage in the smelting of lead-bearing ores; also similar allowance of 
 2.07 per cent for lead wastage incurred in refining of lead bullion on all with- 
 drawals from the plant of the Balbach Smelting & Refining Co., of Newark, 
 N. J., on and after July 1, 1913. (T. D. 34154; Feb. 4, 1914.) 
 ' Collector of customs at El Paso, Tex., authorized to extend departinent's instruc- 
 tions of July 31, 1913 (T. D. 33364), making a lead-wastage allowance of 18.56 
 per cent in the smelting of imported lead -bearing ores by the El Paso Refining 
 Works, at El Paso, to withdrawals under the act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 
 34155; Feb. 4, 1914.) 
 
 Collector of customs, Chicago, 111., authorized to make an allowance of 1.59 per 
 cent for lead wastage incurred in the refining of lead bullion on withdrawals 
 from bond after July 1, 1913. (T. D. 34156; Feb. 4, 1914.) 
 
 Collector of customs, New York, authorized to make* an allowance of 20 per cent 
 for lead wastage in the smelting of lead -bearing ores; also to make an allowance 
 of 2.32 per cent for lead wast^e incurred in the refining of lead bullion on with- 
 drawals from the Perth Amboy plant of the American Smelting & Refimng Co., 
 at Perth Amboy, N. J., on and after July 1, 1913. (T. D. 34157; Feb. 4, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 571 
 
 Lead — Continued . 
 Wastage — Continued. 
 The collector of customs at Chicago, 111. , authorized to make an allowance of 0.5458 
 per cent for lead wastage incurred in the refining of foreign lead bullion at the 
 National plant of the American Smelting & Refining Co., South Chicago, 111., 
 such allowance to be effective as of July I, 1914. (T. D. 34990; Dec. 17, 1914.) 
 Withdrawal from warehouse — 
 Lead may be withdrawn from bonded smelting warehouses free of duty for use in 
 the construction or repair of vessels or their machinery under T. D. 32956. 
 (T. D. 33095; Jan. 15, 1913.) 
 Lead and tin dross. (See Dross of tin and lead.) 
 Lead and zinc-beaiing ores. (See Ores.) 
 Leaf metal. 
 
 Gublnol metal leaf — 
 Dutch metal or aluminum in leaves — Quantity: Dutch metal or aluminum in 
 leaf is dutiable under paragraph 175, tariff act of 1909, at 6 cents per 100 single 
 leaves, irrespective of whether the importation is in separate leaves as beaten 
 out or in the form of pieces or sheets composed of two or more leaves attached 
 together end to end; and a piece or sheet consisting of two or more leaves so 
 attached or secured is to be counted for duty purposes according to the number 
 of single leaves that compose it. (T. D. 33276— G. A. 7446; Mar. 10, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise involved in this case consists of excessively 
 thin sheets of Dutch metal or of aluminum put up in books. 
 
 "Leaf." — Gold leaf or silver leaf is a very thin piece or sheet of metal which 
 has been reduced to that condition by beating or hammering. 
 
 Thin sheets of Dutch metal in hookform. — The leaves of metal in paragraph 175, 
 tariff act of 1909, are such leaves only as singly result from the hammering of the 
 beater and that may be trimmed to dimensions but not united together. The 
 present articles are combinations of leaves, and they were rightly counted as 
 such. Uhlfelder Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1166), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 7446 (T. D. 33276). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34005, 
 Dec. 15, 1913.) 
 Leakage. 
 
 The public stores, sometimes known as " the general-order stores, " situated at the 
 , port of New York, are impliedly placed by the Revised Statutes of the United 
 States and by the customs regulations in the same category as bonded warehouses 
 and must be regarded constructively as such. A barrel of oil was ordered by tha 
 collector of customs to the public stores for examination and appraisement, and 
 while deposited there became entirely empty by reason of leakage before deliv- 
 ery to the importer. Held that such leakage was not a "casualty" within the 
 meaning of section 2984, Revised Statutes. The right of the Government to 
 collect duties on such oil is not affected by leakage while in the custody of cus- 
 toms officers and constructively in bonded warehouse, the abatement of duties 
 or allowance for such loss or leakage being prohibited by statute. (T. D. 28933 — 
 G..A. 6749; Mar. 14, 1908.) ^ 
 
 Liquors — 
 Constitutionality of statute: Where the quantity of liquor shipped from abroad is 
 shown by the invoice, entry, or otherwise, as required by section 2785 of the 
 Revised Statutes, duty is assessable on such quantity, less the usual outage as 
 established by the custom of trade, in view of the proviso to paragraph 296, 
 tariff act of 1897, forbidding an allowance for breakage, leakage, or damage on 
 wines, liquors, cordials, or distilled spirits. The contention that the clause in 
 
572 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Leakage — Contmued. 
 
 Liquors — Continued. 
 
 said paiagiaph 296, tariff act of 1897, forbidding " conetructive or other allowance 
 for * * * leakage * * * on wines, "etc., contravenes the constitutional 
 provision that duties shall be uniform and that property shall not be taken with- 
 out due process of law, held not to be tenable. (T. D. 29448 — G. A. 6851; Dec. 
 31, 1908.) 
 No allowance for breakage and leakage or damage to wines, liquors, cordials, or dis- 
 
 tUled spirits. (T. D. 29875— G. A. 6915; June 22, 1909.) 
 The proviso to paragraph 307, tariff act of 1909, forbidding allowance to be made 
 for breakage, leakage, etc., of merchandise therein described, must be strictly 
 construed and can not be made to apply to merchandise not within its terms, 
 but the legality of that provision itself is now stare decisis. The board rightly 
 held the leakage on an importation of 24 casks of wine to be dutiable. Oataldi 
 Aurola et al v. United States (No. 593), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General 
 Appraiser, Abstract 24585 (T. D. 31207). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32077; 
 Nov. 28, 1911.) 
 
 Beciprocity. (See Keciprocity.) 
 
 Sake— 
 An allowance for leakage of sake is prohibited by the terms of paragraph 307, tariff 
 act of 1909. ((T. D. 31293— G. A. 7164; Feb. 11, 1911") 
 
 Stout. (See Stout.) 
 
 Vermuth. (See Vermuth.) 
 Leather. (See also Chamois skin.) 
 
 Apron- 
 Leather straps proper to be made into picker belts: The importation was of picker 
 straps, leather cut into strips about an inch in width and 30 to 36 inches in 
 length. The goods were properly held to be belting leather under the authority 
 of United States v. Richards (1 Ct. Cust. Apple., 537; T.,D. 31548), but there 
 was a failure to apply the last provision of paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, that 
 imposed an additional 10 per cent upon leather of the kind here — that is, suitable 
 for conversion into manufactured articles — but as there was no protest under that 
 paragraph the cause is reversed. Tilge & Co. v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., — ; T. D. 32360) distinguished. United States v. Ringk & Co„(No. 926), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States, from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28410 (T. D. 32488). De- 
 cision reversed. (T. D. 32908; Oct. 28, 1912.) 
 
 Auto-tire — 
 Chrome-tanned cowhide leather for auto tires dutiable as "band, bend, or belt- 
 ing leather," under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, rather than as "leather 
 * * * not specially provided for," under the same paragraph. 
 
 Leather strips for auto treads — ^Leather cut into forms: Strips of chrome- 
 tanned leather, beveled and cut into lengths and shapes suitable for use as auto- 
 mobile treads, not dutiable as manufactures of leather, under paragraph 452, 
 tariff act of 1909, but subject to the provisions in paragraph 451 of said act for 
 "band, bend, or belting leather" and "leather cut into * * » forms, suit- 
 able for conversion into manufactured articles." (T. D. 32296— G. A. 7333; 
 Mar. 4, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise consisted of strips or bands of chrome leather 
 beveled on the edges and cut into suitable lengths for the manufacture of auto- 
 mobile treads. To adapt these to their special use further labor upon them was 
 necessary. The goods are band or belting leather. They were dutiable as deter- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 573 
 
 Leathei — Continued . 
 Auto-tire — Continued. 
 
 mined by the board under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, and were likewise 
 subject to the additional duty imposed by the proviso of that paragraph. United 
 States V. Richards (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 537; T. D. 31548). United States v. 
 Dubied Machinery Co. (No. 886), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 7333 (T. D. 32296). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33033; Dec. 16, 1912.) 
 Bags- 
 Appraisement of merchandise not in public stores: The leather bags of thf impor- 
 tation in question were contained in cases that were not sent to the public stores 
 for examination. The importer's contention is that the bags did not contain 
 toilet articles, but were assessed for duty as if they did contain them. The goods 
 having gone into consumption and the veracity of the witness who testified being 
 unquestioned, it was sufficient proof of the actual character of the leather bags, 
 when there was produced and submitted by the importer a memorandum known 
 as a "stock list" that contained a complete and accurate description of the arti- 
 cles in question, with the cost and sale prices thereof. It was not necessary to 
 corroborate this testimony by offering samples of the merchandise. The goods 
 were dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 452, tariff act of 1909. 
 Bradley Martin v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 134; T. D. 31185); United 
 States V. Hermann (154 Fed. Rep., 196). Stem Bros. v. United States (No. 
 660), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25070 (T. D. 31405). De- 
 cision reversed. (T. D. 32167; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 Containing opera glasses, etc.: Expensive leather bags severally fitted with an 
 opera glass, a fan, and other articles designed for use by theater and opera goers 
 are not dutiable as entireties at the rate applicable to the component material 
 of chief value therein. The several articles composing the bags and their con- 
 tents should be segregated for the purposes of classification, and duty assessed 
 thereon under the various tariff provisions therefor. United States v. Diecker- 
 hoff (T. D. 28716) cited. (T. D. 29142— G. A. 6786; July 2, 1908.) 
 Belting — 
 Where a protestant bases his claim for classification other than that made by the 
 collector upon a specific provision in a paragraph of the tariff act and names a 
 rate of duty which should have been assessed, such a protest can not be made 
 the basis for recovery under any other provision of the same paragraph naming a 
 different rate of duty, even though it be conceded that the collector's assess- 
 ment was erroneously made. 
 
 A claim that merchandise should have been classified under the provision in 
 paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, for "band, bend, or belting leather, rough 
 leather and sole leather," and assessed with duty at the rate of 5 per cent ad 
 valorem, is not sufficiently specific to point out to the collector that duty should 
 have been assessed on the merchandise at the rate of 5 per cent as belting leather, 
 with an addition of 10 per cent ad valorem under the proviso in said paragraph 
 451 for the reason that such leather is cut into forms ready to be made up into 
 articles. Held, the protest is insufficient and not a compliance with the pro- 
 visions of subsection 14 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909. Abstract 31884 
 (T. D. 33325), Michelin v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 34131), 
 G. A. 7549 (T. D. 34320), BUven v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 205; T. 
 D. 31239), and Bowling Green Storage & Van Co. v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., 310; T. D. 32588) cited. (T. D. 34807— G. A. 7603; Sept. 28, 1914.) 
 
574 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 leather — Continued. 
 Selts for making automobile treads — 
 
 This appeal relates to an importation of leather strips from 2 to 7 feet long and from 
 about 3i to about 5J inches wide. The leather strips had been given a form 
 and a size specially and definitely adapting them for conversion into automo- 
 bile treads of different lengths and widths, and they were dutiable as assessed 
 at 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909. Michelin 
 Tire Co. v. United States (No. 1172), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 31884 (T. D. 33325). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34131; Jan . 22, 1914.) 
 Bends of — 
 
 The decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24562 
 (T. D. 31207), that certain leather was properly dutiable as "belting leather" 
 should be disregarded, and the leather assessed with duty under paragraph 
 451, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 31417; Mar. 
 22, 1911.) 
 Boards. (See Cardboard, trade designation.) 
 Book backs — - 
 
 Pieces of leather made ready for use as book backs, each piece embossed and the 
 title of the book designed to be covered printed or stamped thereon, have been 
 advanced beyond the condition of leather cut into forms '' suitable for conver- 
 sion into manufactured articles," and are dutiable as manufactures of leather 
 under paragraph 452, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32282— G. A. 7331; Feb. 21, 
 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The book backs in controversy are not mere leather but new 
 articles evolved from leather, bearing a distinctive name, and so processed 
 that they are not only definitely and finally committed to a specific purpose, 
 but they are expressly found to be fitted for no other. They were properly 
 assessed as manufactures of leather under paragraph 452, tariff act of 1909. 
 Tilge & Co. V. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 32360). Knauth, 
 Nachod & Kuhne (T. D. 30085) distinguished. Devoy v. United States (No. 
 888), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7331 (T. D. 32282). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 33034; Dec. 16, 1912.) 
 Books — ■ 
 
 Books in chief value of leather held to be subject to duty as manufactures of leather 
 
 under the provisions of paragraph 452, tariff act of 1909, rather than as " books 
 
 of all kinds * * » whoUy or in chief value of paper, " under paragraph 416 
 
 of said act. Sharretts, G. A., dissents. (T. D. 31911— G. A. 7285; Oct. 9, 1911.) 
 
 Calfskins tanned or tanned and dressed — 
 
 The merchandise was invoiced as "dull black lining calf leather." Of the two 
 competing provisions, "grain leather" as used in paragraph 450, tariff act of 
 1909, and " calfskins tanned or tanned and dressed " in paragraph 451, the latter 
 phrase is the more specific and controls. Worsdell & Co. et al. v. United States 
 (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 270; T. D. 31977; Tilge v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 129; T. D. 31662). Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne v. United States (No. 929), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29047 (T. D. 32681). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 33307; Mar. 21, 1913.) 
 Cases — 
 
 Emergency outfit of tools for an automobile : Leather cases fitted with an assort- 
 ment of tools, consisting of a screw driver, saw, file, and small blades, for which 
 a single handle suffices when used, are not dutiable under section 452, tariff act 
 of 1909, as a "traveling set," but, adapted and intended for emergencies only, 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 575 
 
 Leathei — Continued. 
 
 Cases — Continued. 
 
 they are dutiable as articles made wholly or in part of metal, under paragraph 
 199 of that act. United States v. Ovington Bros. & Co. (No. 597), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 24618 (T. D. 31236). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 32163; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 "Permanently fitted and fui:nished:" Leather cases imported empty but fitted 
 to contain brushes, flasks, and other articles which are separately specified on 
 the same invoice, and bearing numbers by which they may be readily assem- 
 bled, are cases "permanently fitted and furnished," within the meaning of 
 paragraph 452, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30688— G. A. 7036; June 9, 1910.) 
 Sufficiency of the record: There was sufficient in the appraiser's reports or the 
 collector's letters, taken together, upon which to predicate a finding of fact and 
 so to bring the particular statute into operation. Vandegrift v. United States 
 (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 219; T. D. 32535). Abraham & Straus et al. v. United 
 States (No. 1300), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeals from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 33837 (T. D. 33789) and 
 Abstract 33858 (T. D. 33795). Remanded. (T. D. 34522; May 28, 1914.) 
 
 Cigar or cigarette cases. (See Smokers' articles.) 
 
 Clutch leathers — Parts of automobiles — 
 Strips of leather, known to automobilists as " clutch leathers, " which, before being 
 fitted to the clutch cone, have to be soaked in water for 24 hours, trimmed down 
 to fit, and made rough so as to incite friction, are not " finished parts " of automo- 
 biles within the meaning of paragraph 141, tariff act of 1909, but were dutiable 
 under the first and last provisions of paragraph 451 of said act as leather made 
 from hides of cattle of the bouvine species similar to belting leather "cut 
 into * * * forms suitable for conversion into manufactured articles." 
 (T. D. 32329— G. A. 7338; Mar. 22, 1912.) 
 
 Cut to uniform size — 
 Small rectangular pieces of leather, deliberately cut to a uniform size, for use as 
 backs of books are subject to the provision in paragraph 438, tariff act of 1897, 
 that " leather cut into * * * forms, suitable for conversion into manufac- 
 tured articles, shall beclassified as manufactures of leather." (T. D. 30085 — G. 
 A. 6939; Nov. 1, 1909.) 
 
 Cut into shape to be manufactured into articles — 
 The merchandise of the importation in controversy was cut from leather of the 
 bovine species in a form suitable to be shaped and fitted upon a particular roller, 
 and so adapted to its final use. It was governed accordingly by United States v. 
 Ringk & Co. (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 32908), and dutiable under paragraph 
 451, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Richards (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 537; T. D. 
 31548) distinguished. United States v. Crabb & Co. (No. 891), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 27835 (T. D. 32302). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 32964; Nov. 14, 1912.) 
 
 Diced leather not embossed leather — - 
 The merchandise in question is dressed leather ornamented upon its grain side 
 with a diced effect, the leather being such as is used in making hat sweats. The 
 leather does not present the appearance of raised figures in relief upon its surface, 
 nor has it been subjected to processes aimed to produce such a result. The 
 article is not embossed or gauffre, but diced leather. Dejonge v. United States 
 (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 463; T. D. 33040) distinguished. United States v. Brown 
 & Co. (No. 1298), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United Statei General Appraisers, Abstract 33862 
 (T. D. 33795). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34380; Apr. 7, 1914.) 
 
576 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Leather — Contiiiued . 
 
 Blessed and finished — 
 The importation consisted of leather intended for use in the manufacture of razor 
 strops, and which, although not entirely finished for its intended use, was never- 
 theless tanned and dressed or finished for general use as leather. The importa- 
 tion was, therefore, raised above classification as rough leather, using that term 
 as it appeared in paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909. It was properly assessed as 
 dressed leather. Sherrard v. United States (No. 922), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 28293 (T. D. 32455). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 32966; Nov. 14, 1912.) 
 
 Foot muffs or foot warmers — 
 Foot muffs or foot warmers made principally of leather, metal, and wool, leather 
 being the component material of chief value, are subject to duty at the rate of 40 
 per cent ad valorem as maniifactures of leather under the provision of paragraph 
 452, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33761— G. A. 7495; Sept. 25, 1913.) 
 
 Glove. (See Glove leather.) 
 
 Gloves. (See Gloves, leather.) 
 
 Gr^in — 
 The merchandise of the importation in controversy consisted of certain finished 
 leathers. They were made from the upper or hair side of split cowhide. They 
 have the natural grain of the hide upon the surface, and in addition are embel- 
 lished with an artificial grain, the importations and varieties differing in the 
 design of the artificial grain alone. It would appear that the proviso to para- 
 graph 451, tariff act of 1909, was intended to be limited in its application to the 
 articles described in that paragraph, and it would be to force the construction to 
 extend it to cover the merchandise here. The leather of the importation, with 
 a natural and an artificial grain, is properly dutiable under paragraph 450, tariff 
 act of 1909. Spalding & Bros, and Worsdell & Co. v. United States (No. 939), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstracts 28479, 28480 (T. D. 32507), 
 and Abstract 29095 (T. D. 32681). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32910; Oct. 28, 
 1912.) 
 Finished leather: Grain leather is a leather tanned with a grain side, but not fin- 
 ished. Leathers which, although tanned and having a grain side, are finished 
 and ready for use in making bags and straps, are not grain leather within the 
 meaning of paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909, but are dutiable under the provision 
 in paragraph 451 for "aU other leather * * * not specially provided for." 
 (T. D. 30760— G. A. 7058; July 7, 1910.) 
 
 Hat sweats^ 
 Pieces of leather dressed and finished, cut to size and shape, adapted for imme- 
 diat« insertion into men's hats as hat sweats, are completed manufactured arti- 
 cles and not dutiable under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, as "leather cut into 
 * * * forms, suitable for conversion into manufactured articles." Held, 
 there being no eo Tiomine provision for hat sweats in the act of 1909, that such 
 articles are dutiable under paragraph 452 of said act as manufactures of leather. 
 (T. p. 31742— G. A. 7245; July 8, 1911.) 
 Finished manufactures: If it were an original proposition for consideration here 
 there would be some difficulty in holding that by the proviso to paragraph 451, 
 tariff act of 1909, it was the legislative intention to exclude from the operation of 
 that proviso all forms cut from leather which were finished manufactured arti- 
 cles. However, the Mndred clause in previous legislation having received a 
 settled construction, the recent enactment must be taken as an enactment in 
 view of that construction; and the importation is accordingly dutiable as manu- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 577 
 
 Leather — Continued. 
 
 Hat sweats — Continued. 
 
 factures of leather under paragraph 452 of that act. Tilge & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 634), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porters from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25192 (T. D. 
 31450). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32360; Mar. 26, 1912.) 
 
 Hides — 
 Calfskins: Hides of cattle of the bovine species exceeding 25 pounds in weight w«t, 
 or 12 pounds in weight dry, tanned into leather but not finished, is rough leather 
 and subject to duty at the rate of 5 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of 
 paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909. The dividing line between calfskins and 
 hides is 12 pounds dry; a skin under that weight is a calfskin, and over that 
 weight is a hide. G. A. 4052 (T. D. 18739), G. A. 4215 (T. D. 19716) cited and 
 followed. (T. D. 32958— G. A. 7403; Kov. 18, 1912.) 
 Tanned by primitive Japanese processes: Hides which have been placed in a run- 
 ning stream of water, the flesh and hair removed therefrom, then soaked in oil for 
 the purpose of sof tenirtg and preserving, and afterwards stretched and bleached 
 in the sun, rendering the grain side smooth, thus become what is known in the 
 leather trade as "rough leather," which is specially provided for in paragraph 
 451, tariff act of 1909. Although rough leather may be used in place of finished 
 leather for some purposes, it must be dressed and curried before it becomes 
 the finished leather of commerce. The term "rough leather" as understood in 
 trade and commerce includes leathers tanned from hides of the bovine species, 
 but not so finished as to be fitted for general commercial uses. (T. D. 30720 — 
 G. A. 7042; June 22, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Where the hides of an importation had been tanned by prolonged 
 soaking in a running stream, chosen for the purpose because of a peculiar effect 
 that particular water had upon the hides, and where the hair of these hides had 
 then been scraped off with knives, and the hides with oil upon them trodden 
 down in barrels, replaced again in the running stream, later to be removed 
 tightly stretched and pegged on the ground to dry and bleach in the sun, and so 
 made water-tight : Held this leather, as shown by the evidence, being now ready 
 for immediate use in manufacture, is not rough leather, but leather, rather, not 
 specially provided for, tanned and curried in effect, and as such dutiable at 15 
 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909. "Rough leather, " 
 as used in paragraph 451, had such a well-established and definite trade meaning 
 before and at the time of that enactment that no change or modification of the 
 meaning by interpretation is permissible. United States v. Robertson & Sons 
 (No. 418), United States Court of Customs Appeals, March 27, 1911. Appeal by 
 the United States from decisions of the Board of United States General Apprais- 
 ers, G. A. 7042 (T. D. 30720), and Abstract 23746 (T. D. 30828). Decision re- 
 versed. (T. D. 31458; Mar. 27, 1911.) 
 
 Horse Goods and Saddlery — 
 In view of the construction by the administrative departments, by the board, 
 and by the courts, and in the absence of clear proof of a commercial designa- 
 tion, the word "saddlery" occurring in paragraphs 450 and 461, tariff act of 
 1909, can not be taken to apply to articles used in the care of horses or for 
 horse-stable equipment. Currycombs, hoof picks, horse clippers, whip thongs, 
 and the like are not "saddlery, " and these are dutiable according to the com- 
 ponent of chief value as manufactiu-es of metal or the manufactures of leather. 
 Time proviso in paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909: The qualifying words of one 
 clause of a section may be extended to other clauses or even other sections 
 of a law, if to give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature this is neces- 
 45633°— 17 37 
 
578 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Leather — Continued . 
 
 Hoise Goods and Saddlery — Continued. 
 
 sary; and the proviso in paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909, that on and after 
 October 1 of that year certain described leather goods should beai a prescribed 
 rate of duty, will be taken to apply tq all the articles enumerated in the several 
 clauses of that proviso and to similar articles also designated in paragraph 461 
 'of the act. Stone v. United States (No. 516); Kraemer v. United States (No. 
 527), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24331 
 (T. D. 31134). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31593; May 8, 1911.) 
 
 Insole — 
 Dressed upper leather — Insole leather: Dressed upper leather, being a fully fin- 
 ished leather, is not dutiable under the provision for "giain" leather (an unfin- 
 ished leather) in paragraph 450 of the tariff act of 1909, but under the eo nomine 
 provision therefor in paragraph 451 of said act. Insole leather, being a split 
 leather and adapted for making insoles or counters, is not dutiable under the 
 provision for sole leather in paragi'aph 451 (supra),' but under the provision for 
 splitleatherin paragraph 450 {supra). (T.D. 30795— G. A. 7071; July 15, 1910). 
 
 Lizard gray moutons — Gauffre — 
 Leather which has been imported and sold for seven years as "lizard gray mou- 
 tons," returned by the appraiser as "gauffre leather" and assessed for duty at 
 the rate of 15 per cent and 10 per cent ad valorem, held to be subject to duty 
 only at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 451 of the tariff act 
 of 1909. Evidence having been submitted by protestants which, unexplained 
 or uncontro verted, establishes that leather known as "lizard gray moutons" 
 had never been known in the leather trade or classified by the customs 
 authorities as "gauffre leather," shifted the burden of proof to the classify- 
 ing officer, and, no evidence having been offered in support of his classification, 
 the protest must be sustained. (T. D. 31016— G. A. 7115; Oct. 24, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) "Gauffre" defined. — "Gaufire" is a word of French derivation 
 and is variously spelled gauffre, gauftree, gouftre, goffer, gauffer, gaufre, and 
 gaufirer. It accords in meaning with embossed. The fact that "gauffre" had 
 no fixed uniform trade meaning as applied to leather when the tariff law of 1909 
 was enacted can not be taken to shift the burden of proof on the Government in 
 determining whether the skins imported were gauffre leather, the said skins 
 being concededly embossed by the use of a stamp, presenting raised surface fig- 
 ures; there is necessary simply an inquiry as to what was intended by the Con- 
 gress in using "gauffre leather" in that act, and to give effect, if may be, to 
 the actual language employed. The word "cut" there appearing, it would 
 seem, was used to impress the customary features of gauffre leather, definite 
 sizes and shapes, but in any view can not be taken to defeat the plain intention 
 as to the dutiable status of the goods . The rate of duty was clearly ascertainable 
 and the importation is dutiable as gauffre leather under paragraph 451, tariff act 
 of 1909. United States v. White (No. 514), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the United States from a decision of the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7115 (T. D. 31016). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 31631; May 22, 1911.) 
 
 Moccasins, boots, and shoes, embroidered — 
 Leather moccasins, boots, and shoes in chief value of leather free of duty under 
 paragraph. 530, tariff act of 1913, even though embroidered. (T. D. 34047; Jan. 
 6, 1914.) 
 
 Pioker.strap and apron leather— 
 The terms "band " and "bend " found in paragraph 451 of the tariff act of 1909 
 have no special meaning as applied to leathers. The term ' ' band leather " is not 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 579 
 
 Leather — Continued. 
 
 Picker strap and apron leather — Continued. 
 
 known to the American leather trade. There is no leather known to trade 
 and commerce as bend leather except as it refers to sections of hides of cattle of 
 the bovine species known as a bend of leather. In the tariff revision of 1909 
 Congress intended to reduce the rates of duty on practically all leathers made 
 from hides of cattle of the bovine species from 20 per cent to 7 J and to 5 per cent 
 as provided in paragraphs 450 and 451. Kcker strap and apron leathers are in- 
 cluded in the provision for band, bend, or belting leather in paragraph 451, and 
 are therefore dutiable at 5 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 30793— G. A. 7069 ; July 
 14, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Leather belting. — There is no uniform general trade meaning 
 attached to the words "leather belting" confining it to that class of leather suit- 
 able in making belts for the transmission of power. An importation of leather 
 to be used in the manufacture of appliances in textile machinery, namely, 
 picker strap and apron leather, falls properly within the description "belting 
 leather" as used in tariff act of 1909; it includes equally leather suited to trans- 
 mit power from wheel to wheel and leather suited simply to convey materials, 
 and is dutiable as belting leather under paragraph 451 of that act. United 
 States V. Bichards et al. (No. 416), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from a decision of the Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 7069 (T. D. 30793). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31548; 
 Apr. 24, 1911.) 
 
 Russian calfskins — Gaufire leather — 
 Eussian calfskins tanned and dressed with long artificial grain produced on the 
 natural grain side by a mechanical device are not "grain leather" within the 
 meaning of paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909, but are embossed leather, and, as 
 the terms "embossed leather" and "gauftre leather" are synonymous, these 
 skins were dutiable under paragraph 451 as "calfskins, tanned," and also sub- 
 ject to the additional duty provided in said paragraph for "gauffre leather." 
 (T. D. 32505— G. A. 7362; May 9, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise involved in this case consists of certain leath- 
 ers imported from Russia, and invoiced as 100 hides of light red Malja, Ameri- 
 can grain, glaze. There is no commercial designation shown, but the artificially 
 embossed surface of the goods makes them aptly described as "gauffre leather" 
 in the common and ordinary acceptation of the term. The importation was 
 dutiable as calfskins tanned and dressed, under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, 
 and was subject to the cumulative duty imposed in the proviso of that paragraph 
 upon gauffre leather. United States v. White (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 80; T. D 
 31632). Louis Dejonge & Co. v. United States (No. 934), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G, A. 7362 (T. D. 32505). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 33040; Dec. 16, 1912.) 
 
 Saddles, pigskin. (See also Leather — Horse Goods and Saddlery.) 
 Saddles in chief value of pigskin tanned and dressed are saddles in chief value 
 of leather within the meaning of the language of paragraph 450, tariff act of 
 1909, and subject to duty at the rate of 20 per cent as therein provided. The 
 provision for "harness, saddles, and saddlery, composed wholly or in chief 
 value of leather," in said paragraph 450 is narrower and more specific than the 
 language of paragraph 461. The rates of duty estabUshed for leathers and arti- 
 cles made therefrom are not limited by the proviso of this paragraph to such 
 articles as are made wholly or in chief value of leather made from cattle hides 
 and calfskins, or cattle of the bovine species, except as to boots and shoes. 
 The provision for harness, saddles, and saddlery in sets or in parts, finished or 
 
580 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Leather — Continued . 
 
 Saddles, pigskin — Continued. 
 
 unfinished; composed wholly or in chief value of leather, covers all such arti- 
 cles made wholly or in chief value of leather without regard to the character of 
 the hide from which such leather is made. (T. D. 31002— G. A. 7112; Oct. 21, 
 1910.) 
 Saddles in chief value of pigskin dutiable under paragraph 461, tariff act of 1909, 
 at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem in view of the decision of the United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals (T. D. 31662). (T. D. 31841; Aug. 28, 1911.) 
 
 Scrap leather and waste — Classification of— 
 So-called scrap leather, if consisting of pieces of dressed leather, calfskins tanned 
 or tanned and dressed, sheep and goat skins dressed and finished, or other 
 skins, or bookbinder's calfskins large enough to be used as leather, dutiable at 
 15 per cent ad valorem omder paragraph 451 of the tariff act of 1909. If consist- 
 ing of band, bend, or belting leather, rough leather, or sole leather large enough 
 to be used as leather, dutiable at 5 per cent ad valorem under the said paragraph. 
 If consisting of scraps not large enough to be used as leather, whether such 
 scraps consist of finished leather or otherwise, dutiable as waste at 10 per cent 
 ad valorem under paragraph 479. Leather board, composed of compressed 
 leather, made cohesive by the use of starch or other substance and pressed into 
 sheets, dutiable as leather under paragraph 451 at 15 per cent ad valorem, fol- 
 lowing the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers in T. D. 
 25021 of February 16, 1904 (G. A. 5589). (T. D. 31806; Aug. 7, 1911.) 
 
 Scrap sole leather — 
 Scrap sole leather suitable for use as leather is dutiable at 5 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, and not at 10 per cent ad valorem as 
 waste under paragraph 479. (T. D. 32613; June 10, 1912.) 
 
 Seal splits or seal split leathers — 
 Paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909, does not cover leathers made from the hides or 
 skins of animals that are not cattle of the bovine species, and, as seal splits or 
 seal split leathers are made from animals not of the bovine species, they do not 
 fall within the provisions of that paragraph. 
 
 Grain or split leather: It not having been shown that the terms "graia 
 leather" and "split leather," as used in paragraph 450 of the tariff act of 1909, 
 are applicable in the trade only to leathers which are unfinished, finished leath- 
 ers of these kinds made from the hides of cattle of the bovine species are dutiable 
 under said paragraph. Worsdell & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 548), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24566 (T. D. 31207). Decision 
 affirmed in part; reversed in part. (T. D. 31977; Oct. 16, 1911.) 
 
 Shoes. (See Shoes;) 
 
 Skivers — 
 Sheepskin split in the pickled state, the flesh or grain side of which has subse- 
 quently been tanned, dressed, and finished, is not "spUt leather" within the 
 meaning of the proviso of paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909; and, being commer- 
 cially known as a " skiver, " it is not classifiable under the provision in paragraph 
 451 of said act for "sheep * * * sldns * * * diessed and finished." 
 It is dutiable imder said paragraph 451 as "all other leather." (T. D. 31131 — 
 G. A. 7134; Dec. 13, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Skivers were properly held to be dutiable under paragraph 451, 
 tariff act of 1909, and as the duty would be the same it is unnecessary to deter- 
 mine their classification as either "sheepskins dressed and finished" or as 
 "other leather." In the ascertainment of the intention of Congress in giving 
 final shape to a paragraph that had been a subject of contention with them, 
 resort may be had to the current history of the times and of the particular piece 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 581 
 
 Leathei — Continued . 
 Skivers — Continued . 
 
 of legislation in question. The Congressional Record officially preserves that 
 history. Aldridge et al. v. Williams (3 How., 8, 23). Reviewing the legisla- 
 tive history of the proviso to paragraph 450, it can not be held the Congress 
 meant to extend its provisions to still other paragraphs — ^to paragraph 451, for ex- 
 ample — and so "split leather," as employed in that proviso, does not include 
 articles such as the skivers of the importation. Tilge v. United States (No. 
 577), United States Court of OuBtoma Appeals. Appeal by the importer from 
 a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7134 (T. D. 
 31131). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31662; May 29, 1911.) 
 Strips — 
 Leather strips of irregular length and width, cut from belting leather, are in fact 
 belting leather, and dutiable under the- eo nomine provision for such in para- 
 graph 451, tariff act of 1909, rather than as "leather * * * not specially 
 provided for," under the same paragraph. (T. D. 32242— G. A. 7323; Feb. 8, 
 1912.) 
 Tanned unsplit sealskins — 
 The merchandise involved in the present case consists of unsplit sealsldns which 
 are tanned but not dressed or finished. 
 
 Hides and skins: There is a recognized distinction between "hides" and 
 "skins " in tariff legislation, hides pertaining to animals of a larger size and skins 
 to smaller animals. 
 
 Rough leather: The provision for "rough leather" in paragraph 451, tarifi 
 act of 1909, was not intended to comprehend the tanned but unfinished skins 
 of small animals. The provision for "rough leather" not applying to these 
 skins of the importation, they fall appropriately under the provision in the para- 
 graph for "all other leather." Kaufmann & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 
 1157). United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30456 (T. D. 32943). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34167; Jan. 29, 1914.) 
 Traveling sets — 
 The importation in controversy consisted of leather cases fitted with manicure 
 sets and returned for duty as fitted leather cases at 50 per cent ad valorem under 
 the last clause of paragraph 452 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. There is no 
 evidence here to overcome the presumption in favor of the collector's classifica- 
 tion and assessment. It is not made to appear that no manicure sets whatever 
 together with the leather cases or holders thereof, mentioned in paragraph 452, 
 tariff act of 1909, could constitute a traveling or other similar set within the 
 meaning of the last clause of that paragraph; and this could not be assumed as 
 a matter of law. United States v. Arnold & Co. (No. 1027), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 28370 (T. D. 32488). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 33267; Feb. 28, 1913.) 
 'The term "set" as used in paragraph 452, tariff act of 1909, is employed there in 
 its popular rather than in its strict etymological sense, and it is properly to be 
 taken as meaning two or more articles. Any combination of toilet articles 
 comes within the definition of "traveUng set," provided they are made up to 
 be carried by the traveler and are designed for the toilet or for the care of his 
 person or clothing while traveling. Articles not so designed are not traveling 
 sets. United States v. Mark Cross Co. (No. 1021), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 29847 (T. D. 32842). Affirmed as to part and re- 
 versed as to part. (T. D. 33489; May 26, 1913.) 
 
582 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 leather — Continued. 
 Traveling sets — Continued. 
 Tourist or writing cases: The included pen holder, lead pencil, and lead-pencil 
 holder of the importation, when put up or assembled in a from which permits of 
 their being conveniently carried by a traveler as a part of the baggage to which 
 he has daily access, may be, and properly are, designated as traveling sets. 
 They were dutiable as such under paragraph 452, tarifi act of 1909. United 
 States V. Mark Cross Co. (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., 274; T. D. 33489). United States 
 V. Bartley Bros. & Hall (Nos. 1284, 1285), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 33671 (T. D. 33763). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34441; 
 May 4, 1914.) 
 
 Leaves, artificial. (See also Wreaths.) 
 Ornamental — 
 Ornamental florists' supplies, consisting of various leaves, some of which are in 
 the form of crosses and wreaths and are airanged on wire frames, and all of 
 which have been so treated as to prevent decomposition and to retain or restore 
 their original appearance, are dutiable as "ornamental leaves" under paragraph 
 425, tarifi act of 1897. Bayersdorfer v. United States, United'States Circuit 
 Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, May 12, 1909. No. 50 (suit 1974). 
 Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 
 15505 (T. D. 28205). Board reversed. (T. D. 29853; June 22, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Palm leaves that have been subjected to a process of painting, 
 etc., to give them their natural appearance and to prevent decomposition, are 
 dutiable as "ornamental * * * leaves * * * not specially provided 
 for," under paragraph 425, tariff act of 1897, rather than as "palms, preserved, 
 
 * * * suitable for decorative purposes." Grasses bleached or dyed, that 
 are intended for ornamental or decorative purposes, are classifiable as "orna- 
 mental * * * leaves * * * jjot specially provided for," under said 
 paragraph 425, rather than under paragraph 566 ("grasses * * * not dressed 
 or manufactured"), or under paragraph 449 as "manufactures" of grass. 
 Wreaths and crosses mounted on wire frames are dutiable as "ornamental 
 
 * * * leaves * * * not specially provided for," under said paragraph 
 425, rather than as articles in part of metal under paragraph 193. United 
 States V. Bayersdorfer; Bayersdorfer v. United States, United States Circviit 
 Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, November 29, 1909. Nos. 17-8 (suit 1974). 
 Cross appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Dis- 
 trict of Pennsylvania (171 Fed. Eep., 286; T. D. 29853), reviewing Abstract 
 15505 (T. D. 28205). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30277; 
 Jan. 18, 1910.) 
 
 The importation in controversy consisted of grains, grasses, grasses made up 
 into aigrettes for women's hats, and palm, fern, and beech leaves. 
 
 Palm leaves, bleached and dyed: The legislative history of paragraphs 251, 
 tariff act of 1897, and 263, tariff act of 1909, shows there was no intention to make 
 the term "palms'' cover palm leaves, preserved. The articles of the importa- 
 tion are ornamental leaves within the meaning of paragraph 438, and therefore 
 dutiable as assessed. 
 
 Natural grasses, dyed and prepared: These ornamental grasses serve the same 
 purposes as the ornamental grains and leaves enumerated in paragraph 481, 
 and they are dutiable thereunder by similitude. 
 
 Aigrettes of dyed and prepared grains and grasses: So far as appears from the 
 record and the samples in evidence the aigrettes are manufactures of metal, 
 and therefore dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 199. Lang et al. v. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 583 
 
 Iieaves, aitificial — Continued. 
 Ornamental — Continued . 
 
 United States (No. 1106), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 "by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstracts 
 30906 and 30949 (T. D. 33055). Reversed as to part and affirmed as to part. 
 (T. D. 34129; Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 Shamrock — 
 Held that certain artificial shamrocks are dutiable as "toys" under paragraph 
 418, tariff act of 1897, rather than as artificial leaves under paragraph 425. 
 Cattus V. United States, United States Circuit court, Southern district of New 
 York, May 15, 1908. Suit 5014. Appeal by importer from decision of Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 16130 (T. D. 28308). Decision 
 adverse to Government. (T. D. 29011; May 20, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Artificial shamrocks are dutiable as artificial leaves under para- 
 graph 425, tariff act of 1897, rather than as toys under paragraph 418. Toys are 
 playthings for the amusement of children, used throughout the year or in dif- 
 ferent seasons of the year; and artificial shamrocks, which are used hy the 
 Irish of all ages as a national emblem, are not toys, even though generally 
 sold in toyshops. Not everything sold in such shops is a toy. United States 
 V. Cattus, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 
 1909. No. 135 (suit 5014). Appeal from Circuit Court of the United States 
 for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29011) reversing Abstract 16130 
 (T. D. 28308). Decision in favor of Government. (T. D. 29517; Feb. 3, 1909.) 
 It is a matter of common knowledge that the leaves of the shamrock are trefoil 
 in shape and green in color. The importations are not toys, and while partly 
 made of silk they resemble shamrock leaves. They may be aptly described 
 as artificial shamrocks, and they were properly held dutiable as artificial leaves 
 imder paragraph 438, tariff act of 1909. Tuska, Son & Co. et al. v. United States 
 (No. 692), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeals by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25543 (T. D. 31589), 
 and Abstract 25835 (T. D. 31675). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32053; Nov. 22* 
 1911.) 
 
 legality of appraisement — Notice of advance of value. (See Appraisement, legality of.) 
 
 Lemons, decayed. (See Fruit, allowance for decay.) 
 
 Letters not regulations. (See Regulations.) 
 
 Lever lace used to trim wearing apparel. (See Wearing apparel trimmed with Lever 
 lace.) 
 
 Liability of consignee. (See Consignee.) 
 
 Licenses. 
 Customhouse brokers. 
 Regulations imder act of Congress to license customhouse brokers. (T. D. 30789- 
 
 circular No. 43; July 19, 1910.) 
 Act of Congress and regulations thereunder relative to licenses for customhouse 
 brokers published for the information and guidance of all concerned. (T. D. 
 33152; Feb. 4, 1913.) 
 Copartnership and corporations: Paragraph 3 of the customhouse brokers regula- 
 tions, pubUshed in T. D. 33152 of February 4, 1913, amended to permit a copart- 
 nership to be licensed without requiring its members to be licensed and to per- 
 mit a corporation to he licensed without requiring the Licensihg of its officers, 
 agents, or attorneys. (T. D. 35118; Feb. 4, 1915.) 
 Agents or employees of steamship lines or common carriers not required to be 
 licensed as customhouse brokers when they represent at the customhouse their 
 respective companies solely and do not in fact act as customhouse brokers. (T. 
 D. 35653; Aug. 14, 1915.) 
 
584 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Licenses — Continued. 
 
 Cnstomhoase brokers — Continued. 
 Firms and corporationa entering and clearing ships required to take out licenses 
 as customhouse brokers being engaged in the transaction of customs business in 
 behalf of other persons. (T. D. 30897; Aug. 29, 1910.) 
 Cancellation of: Collectors of customs authorized to cancel customhouse brokers' 
 licenses upon application of the licensee and surrender of the licenses. (T. D. 
 ■ 34857; Oct. 27, 1914.) 
 Revocation of: Order of court confirming revocation of license of Prank Corai, 
 
 customhouse broker. (T. D. 82215; Feb. 3, 1912.) 
 Revocation of licenses for failure to pay special tax imposed by the emergency 
 revenue law of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 35067; Jan. 18, 1915.) 
 State- 
 Not required of surety companies doing business with the United States under 
 act of August 13, 1894, except where company executes bonds within the State. 
 (T. D. 30230; circular No. 69; Dec. 30, 1909.) 
 Light shades of steel. (See Steel, light shades.) 
 Lighters, cigar. (See Smokers' articles.) 
 Lime, glycerophosphate of. (See Chemical compounds.) 
 Lime powder. (See Chemical mixtures.) 
 Limestone. 
 Haute ville — 
 Hauteville stone is dutiable as "limestone" under paragraph 117, tariff act of 
 1897, and not as "marble" under paragraph 114. Though the term "marble" 
 is sometimes broadly used to describe any limestone susceptible of a high 
 polish, it is employed in paragraph 114, tariff act of 1897, according to its more 
 precise definition as being a limestone having a granular and crystalline struc- 
 ture. Therefore, Hauteville stone, a high-grade ornamental and poUshable 
 limestone which, though used for building purposes, is not crystalline, is not 
 within said paragraph. Bockmann v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 11, 1908. No. 130 (suit 4215). 
 Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the United States for Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York (154 Fed. Rep., 1000; T. D. 28284), affirming G. A. 6298 (T. 
 D. 27157). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 28784; Feb. 19, 1908.) 
 Acquiesced in March 13, 1908. (T. D. 28840.) 
 Hauteville stone similar to that passed upon by the United States Circuit Court 
 of Appeals for the Second Circuit in suit 4215 of Bockmann v. United States 
 (T. D. 28784) to be classified for duty as marble at 65 cents per cubic foot under 
 paragraph 114, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29196; Aug. 7, 1908.) 
 Various kinds of limestone, such as Hauteville, Istrian, etc., held dutiable as 
 "limestone" under paragraph 117, tariff act of 1897, rather than as "marble" 
 under paragraph 114. Bockmann v. United States (158 Fed. Rep., 807; T. D. 
 28784) foUowed; G. A. 3803 (T. D. 17928) overruled. (T. D. 29496— G. A. 
 6856; Jan. 25, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Hauteville stone and various other stones of substantially the 
 same character are dutiable as "limestone" under paragraph 117, tariff act of 
 1897, and not as "marble" under paragraph 114. United States v. Jackson; 
 United States v. Pisani; United States v. Traitell Marble Co.; United States v. 
 Bockmann; United States v. Rossmann, United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York, November 13, 1909. Suits 5443-7. Appeals by United 
 States from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6856 (T. D. 
 29496). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30274; Jan. 18, 1910.) 
 I (Appealed:) Hauteville, Istrian, and other like stones, being a granular 
 substance, capable of a high degree of polish and susceptible of use for decora- 
 tive purposes, are not limestones but marble, and were dutiable under paragraph 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 585 
 
 Limestone — Continued. 
 
 Hauteville — Continued. 
 
 114, tariff act of 1897, and not under paragraph 117 of that act. Where there 
 is a later importation of merchandise identical in kind with a former importa- 
 tion and a new and different issue is presented as to the true character of the 
 importation, the United States Customs Court of Appeals will, in reaching a 
 decision, review all the testimony (declining to follow Bockmann v. United 
 States, 158 Fed. Rep., 807; T. D. 28784). United States v. Jackson (No. 6) 
 United State's v. Pisani (No. 47); United States v. Traitell Marble Co. (No. 48) 
 United States v. Bockmann (No. 49); United States «. Rossmann (No. 50) 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Transferred from the United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Appeal by United States from deci- 
 sion of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, 
 affirming decision of Board of General Appraisers. Decision in favor of the 
 Government (T. D. 30848; July 25, 1910.) 
 
 Lanterns. 
 Bo-caUed Japanese lanterns made of dressed limestone, but imported in sections 
 ready to be put together, are subject to duty under the provision in paragraph 
 114, tariff act of 1909, for "limestone * * * hewn, dressed, or polished, or 
 otherwise manufactured." United States v. A. A. Vantine (166 Fed. Rep., 
 751; T. D. 29375) distinguished. (T. D. 30690— G. A. 7038; June 13, 1910.) 
 Limitations of time. 
 
 Condemnation of fruit. (See also Fruit, condemned.) 
 Where fruit was condemned by the board of health on August 4> 1910, and was 
 subsequently destroyed on August 12, 1910, the limitations of time fixed by 
 subsection 22 of section 28 of the act of 1909 ran from the date of condemnation 
 and not from the date of destruction. The seizure of the fruit cut oft the right 
 of the importers to take possession of or assert any control over the goods as their 
 own. (T. D. 32270— G. A. 7326; Feb. 13, 1912.) 
 
 Statute of. (See Entry — Reliquidation — Statute of Umitations.) 
 Limoges china. (See China; also Reappraisement, Haviland china, principal mar- 
 ket.) 
 Linen damask. 
 
 Twilled — Plain woven fabrics — 
 Linen damask, twilled, and having a figure or design formed in the process of 
 weaving, is not a plain woven fabric within the meaning of the provision in 
 paragraph 357, tariff act of 1909, for "plain woven fabrics," but is properly 
 dutiable under paragraph 358, providing for "all woven articles, * * * 
 and all manufactures of flax * * * hq^ specially provided for." The 
 word "plain" in the provision for "plain woven fabrics" in' paragraph 357, is 
 not a technical or commercial term, but is used in its usual and ordinary sense, 
 and the phrase "plain woven fabrics" means fabrics untwilled or not figured. 
 As a general rule, duties are levied on articles rather than upon the method of 
 producing the article, and the effect produced, not the means of production, 
 must be the guide and criterion to determine whether or not a fabric is a plain 
 woven fabric. (T. D. 31588— G. A. 7222; May 15, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Not a plain woven fabric. — Plain woven fabrics are to be distin- 
 guished by their not having twilled or figured effects produced in the process 
 of weaving. The evidence shows that linen damask is not a plain woven fabric 
 and it was properly held to be dutiable under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1909, 
 "all woven articles * * * and all manufactures of flax * * * not 
 specially provided for." White & Co. v. United States (No. 702), United 
 States Courtof Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7222 (T. D. 31588). Decision affirmed. (T. 
 'D, 32054; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 
586 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Ijnen diawn work. (See Drawnwork aiticles.) 
 Idnoleom. 
 Inlaid — 
 
 linoleum made by the stencil process, whereby the plastic material constituting 
 the different figures is applied upon the basic fabric in different figures and 
 shapes of uniform construction, each extending from the base of the fabric to 
 the siuiace of the merchandise, the same representing exactly the method of 
 construction of inlaid linoleum made by hand, is properly dutiable as inlaid 
 Unoleum at the rate of 20 cents per square yard and 20 per cent ad valorem 
 under the provisions of paragraph 337, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 30183— G. A. 
 6951; Dec. 11, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) A plastic material composed of cork and linseed oil when placed 
 on a stencil over a burlap foundation and forced by pressure into separate and 
 distinct bodies, in separate and distinct colors, in separate and distinct posi- 
 tions, and through to the base, constitutes inlaid linoleum and is dutiable as 
 such under section 337, tariff act of 1897. Keveney & Co. v. United States (No. 
 42); Germania Importing Co. v. United States (No. 52), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeals by the importers from decision of the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers (T. D. 30183). Board afiBrmed. (T. D. 
 31111; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 Mats— 
 The terms "cork carpets" and "linoleum" as used in paragraph 337, tariff act of 
 1897, do not include cork mats and linoleum mats. Cork mats and linoleum 
 mats are properly dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem as manufactures 
 of cork under paragraph 448 of said act. (T. D. 29592— G. A. 6871; Feb. 26, 
 1909.) 
 Oak plank- 
 So-called plank linoleum or oak plank linoleum, made by running upon the bur- 
 lap foundation paste of two colors in stripes of equal width, this being a different 
 process from that employed in the manufacture of inlaid linoleum, held not to 
 be commercially within the designation of "inlaid linoleum" in paragraph 337, 
 tariff act of 1897, but to be dutiable under the provision in the same paragraph 
 for "linoleum * * * figured or plain." United States v. Scott, United 
 States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, July 27, 1908. No. 312 (suit 
 1978). Appeal from decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 6633 (T. D. 28291). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29208; 
 Aug. 12, 1908.) Acquiesced in August 11, 1908 (T. D. 29203). 
 "Plank" or "oak plank" Unoleum is properly dutiable at the rate of 8 cents per 
 square yard and 15 per cent ad valorem as linoleum not inlaid under the provi- 
 sions of paragraph 337, tariff act of 1897. United States v. Scott (T. D. 29208) 
 followed. (T. D. 29256— G. A. 6801; Sept. 8, 1908.) 
 Flank or granite — 
 Granite and plank linoleum are properly dutiable under paragraph 347, tariff act 
 of 1909, as "Unoleum, * * * the composition of which forms designs or 
 patterns." It is not necessary that the designs or patterns in Unoleum be ab- 
 solutely certain and fixed and capable of being reproduced exactly and to the 
 smallest detail. It is suflBcient that they be made to resemble generally cer- 
 tain articles. (T. D. 30764.-G. A. 7062; July 11, 1910.) 
 Liquid bitumen. (See Petroleum., crude.) 
 Liquid paraffin. (See Paraffin.) 
 Liquid soap. (See Soap.) 
 Liquidation of entries. (See Entry, Uquidation.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 587 
 
 liquors. 
 Allowance for losses — 
 
 Where wines, cordials, brandy, or other Bpirituoua Uquors, imported in bottles 
 or jugs, are at the time of exportation packed in packages containing the number 
 of bottles or jugs specified in and required by the second proviso of paragraph 
 296, tariff act of 1897, and on the opening of such packages the local appraiser 
 reports a portion of such goods as missing or not found, an allowance for such 
 deficiency should be made in estimating and assessing the duty on such mer- 
 chandise, as for a shortage or nonimportation. (T. D. 30160 — G. A. 6944; Nov. 
 30, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Shortage of liqwyrs in bottles or jugs. — From the evidence it was 
 shown that the cases containing the liquors were packed at exportation with not 
 less than a dozen bottles each, conforming so to the legal requirements as to 
 packing, and further that the shortage appearing was attributable to theft be- 
 fore importation. No allowance may be made for breakage, leakage, or damage 
 in bottle shipments, but this punitive provision of paragraph 296, tariff act of 
 1897, was not to be- enlarged beyond its express terms. Such losses as might 
 be allowed for in bulk shipments would be allowable in bottle shipments, 
 and a shortage in bottles that was due to theft was properly held to be non- 
 dutiable. De Bary v. Arthur (93 U. S., 420) distinguished. United States 
 ■y. Vignier et al. (No. 172), United States Coxurt of Customs Appeals. Ap- 
 peal by the United States from decision of the Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 6944 (T. D. 31060). Transferred from United 
 States Circuit Court for Northern District of California. Decision afiSrmed. 
 (T. D. 32380; Apr. 1, 1912.) 
 
 Kegulations governing allowances for losses of liquors, by breakage or other injury, 
 as provided in paragraph 244, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34140; Feb. 4, 1914.) 
 
 Allowance for loss of wine or liquors due to breakage or injury of containers to be 
 made when ganger's return shows an actual outage of 10 per cent or more, in 
 addition to the allowance for normal wantage. T. D. 34140 modified accord- 
 ingly. (T. D. 35614; July 27, 1915.) , 
 Gauge of — 
 
 Corrections to be made, when gauged at temperature above or below 60° F., in 
 accordance with Table No. 3, pages 291-305, and Table No. 5, pages 409-559, of 
 the United States Internal Revenue Ganger's Manual of 1906. (T. D. 30970; 
 Oct. 3, 1910.) 
 
 Standard temperature of 60° F. : Imported liquors are dutiable on the basis of their 
 condition and measurenient at the standard temperature of 60° F. prescribed 
 by the Secretary of the Treasury, which is the rule adopted in gauging liquors 
 under the internal-revenue laws. This rule seems reasonable and valid. (T. 
 D. 31796— G. A. 7253; July 31, 1911.) 
 
 Brandy: Conventional gauge of James Hennessy & Co.'s brandy, 24} fluid ounces 
 per bottle. T. D. 22430 of August 11, 1900, modified. (T. D. 33082; Jan. II, 
 1913.) 
 
 Gin: Conventional gauge of De Kuyper gin in large bottles, 40.55 fluid ounces 
 per bottle; in small bottles, 25.35 fluid ounces per bottle. (T. D. 34317; Mar. 
 30, 1914.) 
 
 Conventional gauge of Gordon & Co.'s dry gin imported in bottles with oval sides, 
 23 fluid ounces per bottle. Gauge established for the gin in T. D. 29679 of April 
 9, 1909, revoked. (T. D. 34657; July 22, 1914.) 
 
 Kummel: Establishing conventional gauge of 28 fluid ounces per bottle for ktim- 
 mel manufactured by J. A. GUka, of Berlin. T. D. 22237 of May 21, 1900, re- 
 voked. (T. D. 29779; May 25, 1909.) 
 
588 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Li^nois — Continued. 
 Gauge of — Continued. 
 
 Vermuth — Excess in bottles: Paragraph 296, tariff act of 1897, pro\ddes as to ver- 
 muth in pint and quart bo ttles that any excess beyond 1 pint or 1 quart " found 
 in such bottles * * * shall be subject to a duty of five cents per pint or 
 fractional part thereof." Held that the law contemplates that the additional 
 duty should be assessed on each bottle containing an excessive quantity, and 
 not according to the total excess per case or per importation. De Fremery v. 
 United States; Pascal v. United States (4 cases). United States Circuit Court, 
 Northern District of California, April 13, 1909. Nos. 13552-6 (suits 1642-6). 
 Appeals by importers from decisions of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstracts 278 and 280 (T. D. 25000) and Abstract 363 (T. D. 
 25023). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29729; May 5, 1909.) 
 
 Whisky: Establishment of standard gauges for Bushmills whisky, Tanquaray, 
 Gordon & Co.'s dry gin, and Field's sloe gin. (T. D. 29679; Apr. 9, 1909.) 
 
 Conventional or standard gauge for John Dewar & Sons' Special Old Scotch 
 Whisky, 2f gallons per case. (T. D. 29858; June 22, 1909.) 
 
 Conventional or standard gauge for John Dewar & Sons' "Special" and "White 
 Label" whiskies, 2\ gallons per case. T. D. 29858 of June 22, 1909, revoked. 
 (T. D. 30819; July 21, 1910.) 
 
 Conventional gauge of James Buchanan & Co.'s "Black and White" Scotch 
 whisky, 24 fluid ounces per bottle. T. D. 22237 of May 21, 1900, modified. (T. 
 D. 32648; June 25, 1912.) 
 
 Conventional gauge of 24 fluid ounces per bottle established for Usher's Scotch 
 whisky. (T. D. 33721; Sept. 4, 1913.) 
 Gaugeis' returns — 
 
 The practice of gangers making returns in connection with the importation of 
 liquors in bottles, not being authorized by the regulations, will be discontinued, 
 and the returns will hereafter be made by the appraiser on the invoices. (T, 
 D. 35371; May 5, 1915.) 
 Labeling — 
 
 Labeling of liquors under section 240, Criminal Code, act of March 4, 1909 — In- 
 structions to customs officers — Opinion of Attorney General. (T. D. 30393; 
 Mar. 2, 1910.) (See also T. D. 30661; June 6, 1910.) 
 
 Enforcement of law relative to labeling of liquors under section 240 of the Criminal 
 Code, act of March 4, 1910. (T. D. 30738; June 29, 1910.) 
 Leakage of. 
 
 Constitutionality of statute: Where the quantity of Uquor shipped from abroad is 
 shown by the invoice, entry, or otherwise, as required by section 2785 of the 
 Revised Statutes, duty is assessable on such quantity, less the usual outage as 
 established by the custom of trade, in view of the proviso to paragraph 296, 
 tariff act of 1897, forbidding an allowance for breakage, leakage, or damage on 
 wines, liquors, cordials, or distilled spirits. The contention that the clause in 
 said paragraph 296, tariff act of 1897, forbidding "constructive or other allowance 
 for * * * leakage * * * on wines," etc., contravenes the constitutional 
 provision that duties shall be uniform and that property shall not be taken 
 without due process of law, hM not to be tenable. (T. D. 29448 — G. A. 6851; 
 Dec. 31, 1908.) 
 
 No allowance for breakage and leakage or damage to wines, liquors, cordials, oi 
 distilled spirits. (T. D. 29875— G. A. 6915; June 22, 1909.) 
 
 (See also Vermuth, leakage of.) 
 
 Sake. (See Sake.) 
 
 Stout. (See Stout.) 
 
 Vermuth. (See Vermuth, allowance for leakage.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 589 
 
 Liqnois — Continued. 
 Not household effects — 
 
 Wines and liquors are not household effects "similar" to books, libraries, and 
 furniture, and are therefore not free of duty under paragraph 504. (T. D. 
 29711— G. A. 6898; Apr. 28, 1909.) 
 
 Packed in cases of 6 bottles each — 
 Where certain whisky was importe,d contained in glass bottles, packed in cases 
 of 6 bottles each, the whisky was properly assessed by the collector as if the 
 packages each constructively contained 12 bottles, under the provisions of 
 paragraph 296, tariff act of 1897; but the additional duty on the bottles levied 
 by said paragraph and assessable under paragraph 99 of said act should be 
 assessed only on such of the bottles as are actually imported, viz, 6 bottles to 
 each package. (T. D. 29882— G. A. 6917; June 29, 1909.) 
 
 Beimportations — 
 A reimportation of exported merchandise is ordinarily to be considered for dutia- 
 ble purposes as a new importation. (T. D. 29875— G. A. 6915; June 22, 1909.) 
 
 Belabeling — 
 Relabeling of liquors not marked in accordance with section 240, Criminal Code 
 (T. D. 30393), will be permitted under customs supervision for 90 days from 
 March 10, 1910. (T. D. 30541; Apr. 19, 1910.) , 
 
 Shortage — 
 Injury to cask: An allowance for loss of liquor arising from injury in transit to 
 the cask which contained it can be made under paragraph 244, tariff act of 1913, 
 only when the report of the ganger and the affidavit of the importer, filed in 
 accordance with the provisions of the paragraph, conjoin to satisfy the collector 
 of such loss. 
 
 Shortage of liquor — Theft: If shortage of liquor is shown to be caused by theft 
 previous to importation, a finding of loss due to breakage, leakage, or damage is 
 not justified. G. A. 6699 (T. D. 28650) cited. (T. D. 85918— G. A. 7818; Nov. 
 24, 1915.) 
 Lithographic prints. (See also Paper.) 
 
 Booklets — 
 The term "booklets" in paragraph 400, tariff act of 1897, does not include an 
 article consisting of six post cards folded together and ready to be detached for 
 use and with a paper cover pasted thereon. Such articles are dutiable under 
 the provision in the same paragraph for "lithographic prints." United States 
 V. Downing, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 
 13, 1909. Suit 5382. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 19845 (T. D. 29813). Board reversed. (T. D. 29769; 
 May 19, 1909.) 
 
 Calendars. 
 Calendars composed of lithographed sheets with a metal strip at each end, and 
 having a calendar pad composed of lithographed sheets attached thereto, the 
 lithographic prints being the most important feature of the importation, are 
 dutiable under paragraph 400, tariff act of 1897, relating to lithographic prints, 
 bound or unbound, rather than as printed matter (par. 403) or as manufactures 
 of paper (par. 407). Luyties v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, June 30, 1910. Suit 6468. Appeal by the 
 importers from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 20772 
 (T. D. 29618). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30840; Aug. 2, 
 1910.) 
 
 "Cutting size" — 
 In determining under paragraph 400, tariff act of 1897, the "cutting size " of litho- 
 graphic post cards imported in a folded, undetached condition, the measure- 
 ment should be on the basis of each card rather than of the entire series, just 
 
590 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 LithogiapMc prints — Continued. 
 
 "Cutting size" — Continued. 
 
 the same as if they were imported separately. Downing v. United States. 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 33, 1909. 
 Suit 5382. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 19845 (T. D. 29313). Board reversed. (T.D. 29769; 
 May 19, 1909.) 
 The "cutting size " of Uthographic prints in the form of post cards folded together 
 is, within the meaning of paragraph 400, tariff act of 1897, the size of each card 
 rather than of the whole series, as though the cards were imported separately. 
 (T. D. 29802— G. A. 6914; June 7, 1909.) 
 
 Decalcomanias, dutiable as. (See Decalcomanias.) 
 
 Folded post cards. (See Post cards, folded.) 
 
 Oil painting on cotton cloth not a work of art — 
 Paragraph 376 of the act of 1913 provides for works of art, including paintings in 
 oil or water color, etc., or copies, replicas, or reproductions thereof. A litho- 
 graphic print of an oil painting is not a work of art, nor is it even a copy of a 
 painting in oil, within the meaning of said paragraph. To measure up to the 
 standard of a work of art a copy thereof should be a literal imitation or duplicate 
 of the original. (T. D. 34929— <J. A. 7643; Nov. 27, 1914.) 
 
 Photograph frames. 
 The provision in paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909, for "pictures * * * and 
 other articles, composed wholly or in chief value of paper, lithographically 
 printed in whole or in part," is not to be limited to articles in chief value of 
 lithographically printed paper, but includes photograph frames in chief value 
 of paper, if bearing lithographic printing. (T. D. 32124^G. A. 7313; Dec. 22,- 
 1911.) 
 
 Wall pockets — 
 Wall pockets made in part of lithographic prints and in part of mirrors, ther- 
 mometers, and pincushions, are dutiable as manufactures of paper at 35 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 407, tariff act of 1897. Similar articles con- 
 sisting merely of lithographic prints pasted on cardboard, having no other 
 articles attached thereto, are dutiable as "lithographic prints" under para- 
 graph 400. Knauth v. United States (155 Fed. Bep., 144; T. D. 28184). (T. 
 D. 29762— G. A. 6910; May 18, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Flat cardboards, of different sizes and shapes, upon which litho- 
 graphic prints have been mounted, and that have been imported in a "knocked- 
 down" condition, but complete in themselves and ready to be assembled and 
 used as wall pockets, are not to be deemed Uthographic prints and dutiable as 
 such- they have a new name and new use and were dutiable under paragraph 
 407 tariff act of 1897, as manufactures of paper. Knauth v. United States (No. 
 137), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from 
 decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6910 (T. D. 
 29762). Transferred from United States Circuit Court ipr Southern District of 
 New York. Decision reversed. (T. D. 31499; Apr. 11, 1911.) 
 Lithographs, painted. 
 
 "Paintings" — 
 Articles consisting of lithographic prints pasted on wood and decorated with oil 
 paints are not "paintings" within the meaning of paragraph 454, tariff act of 
 1897. Steinhardt v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York, May 21 , 1909. Suit 5065. Appeal by importer from 
 decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 16751 (T. D. 
 28414). Board aflnrmed. (T. D. 29819; June 8, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 591 
 
 Live partridges. (See Game birds.) 
 Lizard gray moutons. (See Leather.) 
 Lock washers. (See Washers.) 
 Locomotives. 
 Steam engine — Manufactures of metal — 
 Locomotives are not dutiable as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199, 
 tariff act of 1909, but as "steam engines " under paragraph 197 of said act, that 
 provision being broad enough to cover both stationary and portable steam en- 
 gines. (T. D. 32018— G. A. 7300; Nov. 18, 1911.) 
 Lottery matter. 
 
 So-called Panama "premium bonds" held to be lottery matter and prohibited 
 importation under the provisions of section 9, act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 
 31411; Mar. 21, 1911.) 
 Lotus nuts. 
 
 Lotus nuts properly dutiable as seeds under paragraph 266, tariff act of 1909, at 
 the rate of 10 cents per pound rather than as vegetables in their natural state 
 under paragraph 269 of the said act. (T. D. 31373; Mar. 11, 1911.) 
 Lotus seeds. 
 
 The seeds of the lotus lily, which are chiefly used in this country by the Chinese 
 in making soups, are not dutiable under paragraph 272, tariff act of 1897, relat- 
 ing to "nuts of all kinds, shelled or unshelled." (T. D. 29055— G. A. 6773; 
 June 6, 1908.) 
 Lubricants. 
 
 Acceptance or rejection on laboratory test. (T. D. 35399; circular No. 46; May 
 11, 1915.) 
 Lubricating oil. (See Oils.) 
 Lumber. 
 
 Sash rail, stair rail, crown molding, novelty siding, and similar articles, when 
 beaded or molded, dutiable under paragraph 176, tariff act of 1913, at 15 per 
 cent ad valorem, as manufactures of wood. (T. D. 34178; Feb. 11, 1914.) 
 Measurement — 
 Spruce lumber, how measured and how dutiable: It appearing to be the reason- 
 able custom to estimate lumber by the size of the thin end, it is not permissible, 
 for dutiable purposes, to take the average after a measurement of both the thick 
 and the thin ends; and it further appearing, from a preponderance of the evi- 
 dence, that when lumber is delivered as being IJ inches in thickness it is 
 actually measured on the basis of If inches and so settled for, the importation 
 of l|-inch spruce lumber was properly held dutiable as If-inch material. 
 United States v. Thomson (No. 496), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from a decision of the Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 24024 (T. D. 30969). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 31630; May 22, 1911.) 
 Molded, or beaded — 
 Novelty siding and other lumber, beaded or sided, dutiable at the rate of 15 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 176, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34958; Dec. 
 4, 1914.) 
 Novelty siding — 
 Lumber put through a Berlin planer, smoothed on the sides and edges as well as 
 being coved or concaved, known as novelty siding, is not subject to duty under 
 the provisions of paragraph 176 of the tariff act of 1913 as manufactures of wood. 
 The most that may be said of such lumber is that it is lumber manufactured 
 rather than manufactures of lumber. Held, that in the tariff revision of 1913 the 
 •Congress transferred all such lumber from the dutiable schedules to the free list, 
 and the terms "clapboards" and "planed lumber" in paragraph 647 are each 
 
592 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Ltunbei — Continued. 
 Novelty siding — Continued. 
 
 sufficiently comprehensive to include novelty siding. United States v. Dudley 
 (174 U. S., 670) and G. A. 5827 (T. D. 25715), affirmed in Myers v. United States 
 (147 Fed., 204; T. D. 27385) cited. (T. D'. 34305^G. A. 7546; Mar. 18, 1914.) 
 Planed — 
 
 PsB-agraph 195, tariff act of 1897, provides that lumber "planed or finished " shall 
 pay an additional duty of 50 cents per thousand feet "for each side so planed 
 or finished," $1 per thousand feet "if planed on one side and tongued and 
 grooved," and $1.50 per thousand feet "if planed on twosidesand tongued and 
 grooved." Held that the two latter provisions do not apply to liunber planed 
 on three sides and planed and grooved on the fourth side, and that such lumber 
 is subject to an additional duty of 50 cents for each of its four sides on account 
 of planing. The provision in paragraph 195, tarift" act of 1897, for sawed "lum- 
 ber" planed, finished, grooved, etc., includes pieces of wood 2^ by 4 inches 
 and 2i by 3i inches which have been planed on three sides and planed and 
 grooved on the fourth side. (T. D. 30084^G. A. 6938: Nov. 1, 1909.) 
 Sawed — 
 
 When not cabinet wood : The issue as made in this case was one of fact, whether 
 the wood of the importation is or is not cabinet wood as described in paragraph 
 203, tarift act of 1909. The board found that oak, poplar, and ash are not cabinet 
 woods and the evidence supports this finding. Paragraph 201, act of 1909, 
 applied. United States v. Mitsui & Co. (No. 1139), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 31558 (T. D. 33262). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 33876; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 Sawed and dressed boards with ornamental beading — 
 
 The question is whether the beading which appears upon the ceiling lumber and 
 upon some of the novelty siding serves to exclude the importation from proper 
 classification as "not further manufactured than sawed, planed, and tongued 
 and grooved," paragraph 647, tariff act of 1913. The planer and matcher used 
 in dressing sawed boards is, in fact, simply a planing machine, and its work is 
 simply planing, whether the boards are or are not beaded in the process. "Plan- 
 ing" includes beading, the beading giving the boards no new name, character, 
 or use. The free-entry clause applies. United States v. Myers & Co. et al. 
 (No. 1476), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Govern- 
 ment from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 36765 (T. D. 
 34871). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35179; Feb. 23, 1915.) 
 "Sides" as applied to lumber — 
 
 There does not appear to be any definite, uniform, and general trade meaning of 
 the word "sides" applied to lumber, but the change in the phraseology of para- 
 graph 201, tarift act of 1909, seems to show it was intended to include within it 
 all planed or sawed lumber without regard to its actual dimensions, y^en one, 
 two, three, or four sides had been planed or finished; and so the importation of 
 boards, varying from 1 to IJ inches in thickness, was dutiable under that para- 
 graph. United States v. Saunders (No. 533), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from a decision of the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 24274 (T. D. 31090). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 31660; May 29, 1911.) 
 Specification of lading of cars — 
 
 T. D. 30439 so modified as to require the commercial description and kind of lum- 
 ber, the number of pieces and the aggregate number of feet, board, measure, 
 laden on each car to be stated upon entry; also whether such lumber is tongued 
 or grooved, rough or planed, and it planed, on how many sides. (T. D. 30811; 
 July 19, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OV CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 593 
 
 Lumber — Continued . 
 Specification of quantity — 
 
 Copy of the tally sheet or specification, showing number of pieces of each size 
 and length of lumber laden in each car, to be required upon entry of lumber 
 imported by railway from Canada. (T. D. 30439; Mar. 21, 1910.) 
 Unloading and reloading of — 
 
 The expense of unloading and reloading lumber and other merchandise imported 
 in cars in order that the same may be measured, weighed, gauged, etc., to be 
 borne by parties in interest. ,(T. D- 30400; Mar. 4, 1910.) 
 
 M. 
 Macaroni, decayed. 
 
 Allowance for. (See Allowance, macaroni, rotten.) 
 Macbeth pads. 
 
 Macbeth pads, compbsed of wood, wool, cotton, and soap, wood component 
 material of chief value, dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 208, tariff act of 1897. T. D. 28627 to be followed. (T. D. 28752; Feb. 8, 1908.) 
 Machine parts. 
 Beet-knife sharpeners — For use in the manufacture of sugar. 
 Circular steel files known as "fraises," used exclusively to sharpen the knives or 
 blades of beet-slicing machines which are employed in the manufacture of beet 
 sugar, are properly entitled to free entry as parts of "machinery for use in the 
 manufacture of sugar" within the meaning of paragraph 391 of the act of 1913, 
 as claimed, rather than dutiable as manufactures of metal under paragraph 167, 
 as classified by the collector. (T. D. 35141— G. A. 7687; Feb. 17, 1915.) 
 Castings — 
 Cast-iron machinery parts which have been drilled, bored, planed, fitted, and 
 finished are not dutiable as "castings" under paragraph 148, tariff act of 1897, 
 as that provision does not include iron castings fitted as parts of machines by 
 work bestowed on them after they were cast. Such fitted machinery parts are 
 dutiable under paragraph 193 as manufactures of metal. Bromley v. United 
 States (154 Fed. Rep., 399; T. D. 28051; affirmed, 156 Fed. Rep., 958; T. D. 
 28520); Lehigh Manufacturing Co. v. United States (153 Fed. Rep., 596; T. D. 
 28055); North American Lace Co. v. United States, suit 1771 (T. D. 28210), fol- 
 lowed. (T. D. 28*949— G. A. 6756; Apr. 16, 1908.) 
 These are finished castings, molded, drilled, and machined, but to make the 
 machine complete rubber gaskets, filter cloths, bronze fittings, cocks, etc., are 
 required. They are not adapted to the final use for which they were made; 
 they are not "made up into articles." Lang et al. v. United States (No. 1348), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34937 (T. D. 34219). Decision re- 
 versed. (T. D. 34552; June 1, 1914.) 
 Cast-iron — 
 Repair or replacement parts for textile machinery, made of cast iron and shaped by 
 the process of casting, which parts have been finished by machining after the 
 completion of the casting process, dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 
 147, tariff act of 1909, as iron castings advanced in condition subsequent to cast- 
 ing. The phrase "but not made up into articles " will not operate so as to ex- 
 clude a machined casting, but applies to the casting as a unit when other parts pr 
 things are joined or added thereto. (T. D. 32872— G. A. 7397; Oct. 17, 1912.) 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise involved in this case consists of various cast- 
 iron repair or replacement parts for textile machinery. 
 45633°— 17 38 
 
594 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Machine parts — Continued. 
 Cast-iron — Continued. 
 
 " To make up." — "To make up" invariably expresses a process of aggregating 
 or assembling different units into a composite entirety. A made-up article is 
 one which has been composed by uniting together various parts. 
 
 Cast-iron repair or replacement parts. — These parts of textile machinery were 
 made ready for immediate attachment to the machines for which they had been 
 severally designed. They are iron castings advanced in condition as defined by 
 paragraph 147, tariff act of 1909. Jackson Co. et al. v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. 
 Apple., 475; T. D. 32227). United States v. Leigh & Butler (No. 1052), 
 United States Coiiit of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7397 (T. D. 32872). Deci- 
 sion affirmed. (T. D. 33517; May 29, 1913.) 
 For sewing machines — 
 
 Nickel-plated cast-iron eccentrics: These eccentrics for sewing machines were 
 made of cast iron, drilled, reamed, and nickel plated. Paragraph 147, tariff act 
 of 1909, is limited to castings made wholly of iron. These goods, composed of 
 cast iron and nickel, are strictly within the terms of paragraph 199, where a duty 
 of 45 per cent ad valorem is laid on articles or wares partly or wholly manufac- 
 tured not specially provided for and composed wholly or in part of metal. 
 United States v. Durbrow & Heame Manufacturing Co. (No. 1379), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals, November 18, 1914. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 35048 (T. D. 
 34279). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34940; Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 Lace-making — 
 
 Parts of articles are not within the terms of a paragraph which fails to extend its 
 provisions by the express language thereof, to "parts'' as well as to entire arti- 
 cles; and bobbins and carriages for Gothrough lace-making machines are not 
 within the provision in paragraph 197, tariff act of 1909, for such machines. 
 United States v. SchoverUng (146 U. S., 76) and Robertson v. Gerdau (132 U. S., 
 454) followed. (T. D. 30271— G. A. 6966; Jan. 17, 1910.) 
 Motion-picture machines — ■ 
 
 Pathescopes — Optical instruments — Frames and mountings for projection lensgs: 
 The frame and machinery of a moving-picture machine or pathescope, imported 
 ■without the projection lens, lamp and lamp house, and reels, composed of metal, 
 and weighing about 50 pounds, are not properly classifiable under paragraph 93 
 of the tariff act of 1913 as " optical instruments and frames and mountings for the 
 same " not specially provided for, but are dutiable under paragraph 94, cover- 
 ing "photographic and projection lenses and frames and mountings for the 
 same." (T. D. 35970— G. A. 7826; Dec. 8, 1915.) 
 Machine tools. 
 
 Machine tools in paragraph 197, tariff act of 1909, include the machine proper and 
 one set of such alternate parts thereof as are necessary for the proper performance 
 of the several functions of the machine, but does not include duplicate, extra, or 
 spare parts, or parts designed for use upon machines not covered by the impor- 
 tations, or any that are hand tools or appliances. Norma Co. of America 
 V. United States (No. 1458), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 36213 (T. D. 34677). Decision modified. (T. D. 35338; Apr. 14, 1915.) 
 Barking machines — 
 
 Commercial designation: The term "machine tools" as used in paragraph 197, 
 tariff act of 1909, has no definite, general, and uniform meaning in trade and 
 commerce limiting it to metal-working machines. 
 
 Barking machines — Bossing machines: Barking or rossing machines, used in 
 removing the bark from pulp wood, being power-driven appliances for working 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 595 
 
 Machine tools — Continued. 
 
 Barking machines — Continued. 
 
 on wood with cutting tools, were dutiable as "machine tools" under paragraph 
 197, tariff act of 1909, and not as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199 of 
 said act. (T. D. 32193— G. A. 7817; Jan. 22, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Barking Tnachines not machine tools. — The importation is of large, 
 power-driven machines, containing a mechanism for revolving logs while the 
 bark on these is cut away by fixed knives. Are these "machine tools," as that 
 term is used in paragraph 197, tariff act of 1909? By the testimony it is satisfac- 
 torily shown that in the machinery trade, prior to the enactment of the tariff act 
 of 1909 and at that time, "machine tools " had taken on in commerce an estab- 
 tabliahed meaning that was general, uniform, and definite, and not partial, local, 
 or personal; and that woodworking machines did not fall within the terms and 
 were not commercially known as "machine tools." Theywerenot, accordingly, 
 dutiable as such, but as articles wholly or in part of metal not specially provided 
 for under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. Hedden v. Richard (149 U. S., 346); 
 Pickhardt v. Merritt (132 U. S., 252); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States (2 
 Ct. Oust. Appls., 329; T. D. 32055). Myers v. United States (1 Ct. Cufit. Appls., 
 226; T. D. 31260) distinguished. United States v. Georgia Pulp & Paper 
 Manufacturing Co. (No. 858), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7317 (T. D. 32193). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32998; Nov. 27, 1912.) 
 
 Bench lathe operated by treadle — 
 The bench lathe of the importation is operated exclusively by force applied to a 
 treadle by the foot of the operator. It is not a machine tool, for "machine tool " 
 connotes the application of some kind of power to an implement in its use and 
 operation other than hand power alone. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States 
 (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 329; T. D. 32055); Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne (3 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., — ; T. D. 32999). United States v. Bernard, Judae & Co. (No. 906), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, 'Abstract 28138 (T. D. 32396). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 33164; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 
 Cutting machines, hand-operated — 
 
 \ The machines are composed of metal, are used for pinking or cutting the edges 
 of samples or other textile materials, giving them a scalloped edge. They are 
 operated entirely by hand power. Being operated by hand power they are 
 not "machine tools," and were properly assessed as composed wholly or in part 
 of metal under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. Sears, Roebuck & Co. i;. 
 United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 329; T. D. 32055). Knauth, Nachod & 
 Kuhne v. United States (No. 915), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 28553 (T. D. 32529). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33003; Nov. 27, 1912.) 
 
 Floor-planing — 
 A portable apparatus used to scrape or plane hardwood floors is not within the 
 meaning of the term "machine tools," paragraph 197, tariff act of 1909, the 
 words so used being restricted to such machines as are workshop appliances. 
 (T. D. 30666— G. A. 7032; June 2, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Floor planers, with an electric motor for the attached planes, 
 portable and when in use propelled by hand, resenjbhng in style lawn mowers, 
 are machine tools and were dutiable under paragraph 197, tariff act of 1909. 
 Myers v. United States (No. 381). United States Court of Customs Appeals, 
 January 25, 1911. Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers (T. D. 30666). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 31260; Jan. 25, 1911.) 
 
696 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Machine iools — Continued. 
 
 Hand-power — 
 Only such machines as are driven by other than hand power and that work upon 
 metal employing in their operations cutting tools, are machine tools, as that 
 term was definitely, uniformly, and generally understood in trade and com- 
 merce throughout this country prior to the passage of the tariff act of 1909. (T. 
 D. 34413— G. A. 7559; Apr. 20, 1914.) 
 
 Meat-slicing machines not machine tools — 
 The meat-slicing machines of the importation, whether operated by hand power 
 or otherwise, are not used in mechanical work; they are not used upon wood, 
 metal, or stone, and so are not to be regarded as machine tools. Thay were 
 properly assessed as manufactures of metal not specially provided for under 
 paragraph 199, tariS act of 1909. Sears, Eoebuck & Co. v. United States (2 Ct. 
 CuBt. Appls., 329; T. D. 32055); United States v. Georgia Pulp & Paper Manu- 
 facturing Co. (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 32998). Gallagher & Ascher v. 
 United States (No. 991), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from Boaxd of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29404 
 (T. D. 32751). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33168; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 
 Pantograph machines not — 
 It satisfactorily appears that the articles of the importation in controversy, namely, 
 so-called pantograph machines, are operated by hand power. Thgy can not, 
 accordingly, be deemed machine tools. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States 
 (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 329; T. D. 32055). Johnson & Co. v. United States (No. 
 978), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28936 (T. D. 32655). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33309; Mar. 21, 1913.) 
 
 Pencil sharpeners not — 
 The appliances for sharpening pencils, the subject of this appeal, are admittedly 
 hand-power machines, and they are not commonly or popularly regarded as 
 machine tools. They were dutiable as manufactures of metal not specially 
 provided for under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. Favor, Ruhl Co. v. United 
 States (No. 873), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porters from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27821 (T. D. 
 32297). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33513; May 29, 1913.) 
 
 Power-driven — 
 A machine tool, construed as an entirety, embraces only the power-driven, metal- 
 working machine proper and its necessary cutting tool. All other parts of such 
 machine are additional and as such are properly dutiable as manufactures of 
 metal under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 34424— G. A. 7562; Apr. 
 30, 1914.) 
 
 Shears — 
 The merchandise is a machine, made wholly of metal, operated entirely by hand 
 power, and designed and used for shearing or cutting metal plates or bars. 
 "Machine tools" connotes the application of power to an implement or tool in 
 its use and operation other than hand power alone; and the multiplication of 
 the manual power of the operator by mechanical devices is not such other mo- 
 tive power. These shears accordingly are not machine tools and they are dutia- 
 ble as assessed by the collector under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, as a man- 
 ufacture of metal. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 329; T. D. 32055); United States v. Georgia Paper & Pulp Manufacturing Co. 
 (3 Ct. Cust.- Appls., — ; T. D. 32998). United States v. Knauth, Nachod & 
 Kuhne et al. (No. 866), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 27728 (T. D. 32244). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32999; Nov. 27, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 697 
 
 MacMned forgings. (See Forgings, machined.) 
 Machinery belting. (See Belting, machinery.) 
 Machinery and machines. 
 Brosser overstitch — 
 
 Brosser overstitch machine and others of similar type not dutiable at 30 per cent 
 ad valorem aa sewing machines under paragraph 197, tariff act of 1909, but 
 properly dutiable under paragraph 199 at 45 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 
 30639; May 31, 1910.) 
 Embossers and stampers — 
 
 Not a printing press: Every printing press may be correctly described as a print- 
 ing machine, but not every printing machine as a printing press. The evidence 
 in this case was insufficient to prove a trade designation and the bench-lever 
 embossers of the importation, appearing to have been built and to have been 
 generally and chiefly used to emboss and stamp in gold various substances, 
 particularly leather, employed in the manufacture of pocketbooks and note- 
 books, were properly held dutiable under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, as 
 manufactures in part of metal. Petry Co. v. United States (No. 896), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board oj 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27889 (T. D. 32314). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 32906; Oct. 28, 1912.) 
 Embroidery and sewing — 
 
 Notwithstanding the fact that sewing machines may be equipped with attach- 
 ments so as to render them capable of executing fancy or embroidery work, 
 that function, nevertheless, is incidental and secondary, and in no way affects 
 their status as ordinary sewing machines. An embroidery machine, however, is 
 a special form of sewing machine, primarily constructed and designed to do all 
 kinds of festooning and embroidery work. (T. D. 34607 — G. A. 7582; June 30, 
 1914.) 
 Fish-net machinery — 
 
 Not being elsewhere more specifically provided for in the tariff act of 1913, a 
 machine composed of metal and specially constructed and designed for mak- 
 ing fish nets is classifiable for duty at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 167 of said act as a manufacture of metal not specially provided for. 
 The provision for "machines for making * * * nets or nettings" in para- 
 graph 165 is strictly limited to such machines as produce the particular kinds 
 of nets or nettings ejusdem, generis with the embroideries, laces, lace curtains, 
 etc., enumerated in paragraph 358 of said act. (T. D. 35898 — G. A. 7816; 
 Nov. 17, 1915.) 
 For marking metal tubes — 
 
 Printing press: A printing press is a machine used in letter-press printing on paper 
 and like substances, and is designed to produce books, newspapers, magazines, 
 circulars, handbills, and the like. 
 
 Mechanism for marking collapsible metal tubes: The article of the importa- 
 tion, a printing mechaidsm for lacquering and marking collapsible metal tubes, 
 is not used by "the art or trade of letter-press printing," and it was properly 
 assessed as a manufacture of metal not specially provided for under paragraph 
 199, tariff act of 1909. Lang v. United States (No. 1303), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 33883 (T. D. 33795). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 34327; Mar. 25, 1914.) 
 Glove and straw sewing machines — 
 
 The term "sewing machines" covers the various styles of machines used to make 
 a stitch which fastens together fabrics or material for manufacturing purposes, 
 and is not to be limited to such as are constructed only for family or domestic 
 
598 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Machinery and macUnes — Contimied. 
 
 Glove and stiaw sewing machines — Continued. 
 
 sewing purposes. Machines used in making leather gloves, and in making 
 straw hats, stitching leather and straw together, as the case may be, are "sew- 
 ing machines" under paragraph 197, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31623— G. A. 
 7225; May 26, 1911.) 
 
 Jute-manufacturing — 
 Jute-manufacturing machinery to be dutiable under paragraph 197 of the tarifi 
 act must be of a character which is used solely in the manufacture of jute. (T. 
 D. 31287; Feb. 10, 1911.) 
 The importation involved in this case consisted of a machine which is described as 
 Boyd's patent stop-motion spring rail ring flyer twister with upright rollers for 
 smooth yam. Paragraph 197, tariff act of 1909, applies according to the usual 
 and common or chief use of the articles there designated, and it is not necessary 
 to show that the imported machinery is used solely in the manufacture of jute 
 to make the importation assessable as jute machinery. United States v. 
 Hempstead & Son (No. 942), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 28254 (T. D. 32529). Decision aflBimed. (T. D. 33004; Nov. 27, 1912.) 
 
 Jute yam— 
 The squeezers, doublers, spreaders, drawing frames, roving frames, and spinning 
 frames of the importation operate directly on the jute and are all suitable, neces- 
 sary, and are actually used for the making of jute yarns of the accepted and 
 recognized commercial sizes. They are to be classified as jute manufacturing 
 machinery, and are dutiable as such under paragraph 197, tariff act of 1909. 
 United States v. Murphy & Co. (No. 1051), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 30011 (T. D. 32858). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33516; 
 May 26, 1913.) 
 
 Knitting machines — 
 The merchandise consists of knitting machines, which are operated by hand 
 power. The article^ are not "machine tools" and were properly assessed 
 under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, as articles composed wholly or in part of 
 metal. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 329; T. D. 
 32055). • Surgical Supply Importing Co. v. United States (No. 903), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28149 (T. D. 32396). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 33001; Nov. 27, 1912.) 
 
 Power-transmitting tables for sewing machines — 
 Power-transmitting tables composed in chief value of metal and capable of operat- 
 ing at the same time from 5 to 20 sewing machines are properly dutiable at 20 
 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 167 of the act of 1913 as manufactures of 
 metal not specially provided for, as here assessed, rather than entitled to free 
 entry under the provision in paragraph 441 of said act for "sewing machines, 
 * * * whether imported in whole or in parts." (T. D. 35644— G. A. 7765; 
 Aug. 2, 1915.) 
 
 Bock drills — Bar hoists — Steam engines — 
 
 Bock drills and bar hoists propelled by compressed air and specially designed for 
 use in mining operations and underground work where the use of steam as a 
 motive power is impracticable are not steam engines within the purview of para- 
 graph 197, tariff act of 1909. A steam engine must necessajily employ steam as 
 its motive force. (T. D. 34458— G. A. 7566; May 16, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 599 
 
 ' Machinery and macliines — Continued. 
 
 Bock drills — Bar hoists — Steam engines — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) The testimony bIlows both afl to these rock drills and bar hoists 
 that they were manufactured as machines to be operated by compressed air and 
 as to the bar hoists they were specially designed for use underground where 
 steam can not be employed as a propelling force. The articles can not be 
 deemed steam engines and they were properly assessed as manufactures of 
 metal. Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher v. United States (No. 1419), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7566 (T. D. 34458). Decision afiBrmed. 
 (T. D. 35145; Jan. 15, 1915.) 
 
 Sewing — 
 The term ' ' sewing machine " is used in its ordinary meaning and covers the usual, 
 well-known, and commonly recognized article, and machines which produce 
 only fancy effects and do not stitch together ordinary fabrics, do not fall within 
 that class. (T. D. 30291— G. A. 6969; Jan. 20, 1910.) . 
 
 Skiving machines and parts thereof — 
 Skiving machines and parts thereof, used to bevel the edges of pieces of leather to 
 enable them to be fastened together without increasing at the joining point the 
 uniform thickness of the assembled pieces, and which machines have been pri- 
 marily designed for, and are actually used to a very large extent in, the manu- 
 facture of shoes, are properly entitled to free entry under the provision in para- 
 graph 441 of the act of 1913 for "shoe machinery * * * in whole or in parts, 
 including repair parts." (T. D. 35589— G. A. 7752; July 15, 1915.) 
 
 Slicing meats — 
 The meat-slicing machines of the importation, whether operated by hand power 
 or otherwise, are not used in mechanical work; they are not used upon wood, 
 metal, or stone, and so are not to be regarded as machine tools. They were prop- 
 erly assessed as manufactures of metal not specially provided for under para- 
 graph 199, tariff act of 1909. Sears, Boebuck & Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Cust 
 Appls., 329; T. D. 32055); United States v. Georgia Pulp & Paper Manufactur- 
 ing Co. (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 32998). Gallagher & Ascher v. United 
 States (No. 991), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porters from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29404 (T. D. 
 32751). Decision aflSrmed. (T. D. 33168; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 
 "Sludge"— ' 
 
 The term "sludge machines " in paragraph 441, tariff act of 1913, should be limited 
 to machines used for drying sludge emanating from sewage and separating the 
 particles thereof. (T. D. 34211; Feb. 25, 1914.) 
 
 Sugar-making machinery — 
 So-called sugar-making machinery, even though installed in a sugar-making plant, 
 if identical with machinery used chiefly for purposes other than the manufac- 
 ture of sugai, not entitled to free entry under paragraph 391, tariff act of 1913, as 
 machinery for use in the manufacture of sugar, but dutiable at the rate of 20 per 
 cent ad valorem as a manufacture of metal under paragraph 167 of the said tariff 
 act. (T. D. 35576; June 10, 1915.) 
 
 Testing machines, gear cutters, etc.- — 
 Machines designed for the sole purpose of testing the accuracy of the cutting work 
 done by gear cutting machines, and gear cutters and hobs imported unaccom- 
 panied by the machines of which they form part, are properly dutiable as manu- 
 factures of metal under paragraph 199 of the act of 1909, as here classified by the 
 collector, rather than as machine tools under paragraph 197 of said act, as claimed 
 in the protests. (T. D. 35579— G. A. 7750; July 6, 1915.) 
 
600 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Btachinery and machines — Continued. 
 Ticket printing and recording mechanism — 
 A machine which prints and vends railroad tickets, at the same time making a 
 record of the sale and of the total of sales, constitutes, with its equipment of dies 
 or plates from which the tickets are printed, an entirety, and it should be so 
 treated for duty purposes. Such a machine is something more than a printing 
 press, however, and it was error to classify it under the provision for printing 
 presses in paragraph 197, tariff act of 1909. Petry v. United States (T. D. 32906) 
 followed. (T. D. 33191— G. A. 7431; Feb. 14, 1913.) 
 
 Mackerel. (See Fish.) 
 
 Macramg towels. (See Towels.) 
 
 Madras muslin. (See Cotton cloth, Jacquard-figured.) 
 
 Madras shirting. (See Cotton cloth, cord ornamentation.) 
 
 MafuTia tallow. (See Tallow.) 
 
 Magic-lantern slides, toy. (See Toys, magic-lantern slides.) 
 
 Maggi's soup tablets. (See Soup tablets.) 
 
 Magnesia articles. 
 Bisque rings — 
 So-called magnesia rings, used as part of gaslight burners, held upon the evidence 
 to be bisque, and hence dutiable under the specific provisions of paragraph 96, 
 tariff act of 1897. Previous decisions of the board and the courts reviewed, and 
 Crawford v. United States (T. D. 28539) distinguished upon the facts. (T. D. 
 29512— G. A. 6859; Jan. 27, 1909.) 
 Bisque rings, insusceptible to decoration and designed for incandescent burners, 
 were not dutiable as bisque under section 96, tariff act of 1897, but under section 
 6 of that act, as an unenumerated manufacture. Schoenmann v. United States 
 (119 Fed. Rep., 584) followed. Fensterer & Ruhe v. United States (No. 37), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from decision 
 of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 21678 (T. D. 29946). 
 Transfened from United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New 
 York. Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 31110; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 Magnesia rings — 
 So-called magnesia rings, used as part of gaslight burners, held upon the evidence 
 to be bisque, and hence dutiable under the specific provisions of paragraph 96, 
 tariff act of 1897 . Previous decisions of the board and the courts reviewed, and 
 Crawford v. United States (T. D. 28539) distinguished upon the facts. (T. D. 
 29512— G. A. 6859; Jan. 27, 1909.) 
 Susceptible or not of decoration: Reviewing the pertinent clauses of the act of 
 1897 and the act of 1909, there appears no reason to hold the latter law neces- 
 sitated a new ruling as to the dutiable value of magnesia rings used for holding 
 In place the incandescent mantles of gas burners; they were properly held 
 dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, as 
 aiticles composed wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral substances, not 
 specially provided for and not decorated, whether susceptible of decoration or 
 "not. Fensterer & Ruhe v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 93). United 
 States V. Fensterer & Ruhe (No. 620), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 24819 (T. D. 31300). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32094; Dec. 6, 1911.) 
 
 Magnifying glasses. (See Optical instruments.) 
 
 Mail and files. 
 
 Abolishing the recordation of mail in the division of mail and files. (T. D. 32239; 
 circular No. 8; Jan. 15, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 601 
 
 Mail entries — Stamp tax. 
 
 The stamps required for mail entries under the act of Octqber 22, 1914, may be 
 aflBxed and canceled by the addressee personally or by a customs or post-office 
 officer as the agent of the addressee. (T. D. 35023; Dec. 31, 1914.) 
 Mail importations. 
 
 Regulations. (T. D. 29826; June 9, 1909.) 
 
 Philippine Islands, cigars and cigarettes from. (T. D. 29978; Sept. 7, 1909.) 
 
 Parcels-post conyentior with Dutch Guiana. (T. D. 30052; Oct. 20, 1909.) (See 
 also Parcel-post conventions.) 
 
 In repacking foreign-mail packages, as provided in article 825 of the Customs 
 Regulations of 1908, customs officers will be careful to include in ths rewrapped 
 package s the original wrappers in the same condition as when received, together 
 with all labels, tags, and customs declarations, particular care being taken to 
 preserve for identification all marks, either printed or written, appearing on 
 the original wrappers. (T. D. 30915; Sept. 12, 1910.) 
 
 Instructions to customs officers governing handling of foreign-mail packages sup- 
 posed liable to customs duty. (T. D. 31466; Apr. 5, 1911.) 
 
 Notice to postmaster of dutiable package: Label for use of custom officers to notify 
 postmasters of packages not accompanied by mail entries. (T. D. 33024; Dec. 
 18, 1912.) 
 
 Instructions governing the rewrapping of foreign-mail packages. (T. D. 34707; 
 Aug. 18, 1914.) 
 
 Customs officers will advise the chief post office inspector promptly in each 
 instance when a complaint concerning the failure to make customs collections 
 has been satisfactorily adjusted, in order that the investigation by the Post 
 Office Department may be discontinued. Article 821, Customs Regulations 
 of 1908, amended. (T. D. 34827; Oct. 13, 1914.) 
 
 Mail entries not to be issued covering articles unconditionally free. (T. D. 
 35134; Feb. 17, 1915.) 
 
 Parcel-post packages from Argentine Republic may be closed and sealed. (T. 
 D. 35927; Nov. 29, 1915.) 
 Malt extract and malt food. 
 Condensed — 
 
 Malt extract containing about 20 per cent of water properly dutiable as malt 
 extract, condensed, at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 309, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33711; Aug. 22, 1913.) 
 Drums^ 
 
 Paragraph 309, tariff act of 1909, imposes a duty of 45 per cent ad valorem on malt 
 extract when solid or condensed without regard to coverings and in whatever 
 form it may be packed for shipment. United States v. Conkey & Co. (No. 
 1202), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32313 (T. D. 33409). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 33920; Nov. 18, 1913.) 
 Fluid — Solid or condensed — 
 
 Malt extract of the consistency of thick molasses put up in bottles is dutiable 
 under the provision in paragraph 246, tariff act of 1913, for "malt extract, fluid, 
 * * * in bottles or jugs, 45 cents per gallon," rather than under the fur- 
 ther provision in the same paragraph for "malt extract, * * * goUd or 
 condensed, 45 per centum ad valorem," the words "solid or condensed" as 
 used in the paragraph being held to apply to malt extract in a solid or hard, 
 dry form. 
 
 Same — Legislative recognition of previous construction: Where a provision 
 in a tariff act is enacted in language identical with that judicially construed 
 under a previous law, it is presumed that Congress enacted the new provision 
 
602 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Malt extract and malt food — Continued. 
 Fluid^Solid or condensed — Continued. 
 
 in full recognition of the previous interpretation. G. A. 7714 (T. D. 35331) 
 and Ulmann & Co. v. United States (5 Ct. Oust. Appls., 357; T. D. 34551) cited. 
 (T. D. 35896-^. A. 7814; Nov. 17, 1915.) 
 Loeflund's — 
 Not "solid or condensed": A fluid malt extract containing no alcohol and about 
 20 per cent of water, imported in bottles, was dutiable under paragraph 309, 
 act of 1909, as fluid malt extract In bottles, and not as a malt extract, solid or 
 condensed. The latter wordb, "solid or condensed," are interchangeable 
 terms. (T. D. 32269— G. A. 7325; Feb. 13, 1912.) 
 Loeflund's Food Maltose and Loeflund's Malt Soup or food, packed in packages 
 of less than 2\ pounds gross weight, held to be similar articles to medicinal 
 compounds, and therefore within the meaning of paragraph 17, act of 1918, 
 and properly classifiable under that paragraph at 20 per cent ad valorem, and 
 not at 15 per cent undei paragraph 385 as nonenumerated manufactured articles. 
 (T. D. 36030— G. A. 7832; Dec. 28, 1915.) 
 
 Malt tropon. 
 
 A preparation of tropon and malt extract, with a small percentage of listerin, the 
 former being chief value, which is used as a lactatic to promote the secretion 
 of milk in nursing women, is a "medi<;inal" preparation within the meaning 
 of paragraph 68, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 30047--G. A. 6934; Oct. 14, 1909.) 
 
 Manganese metal not ferromanganese. 
 
 Without meaniiig to imply that no alloy is entitled to be called ferromanganese in 
 case its manganese content exceeds in any measure 80 per cent of the entire 
 article, yet where the manganese is so considerable and the iron and carbon so 
 slight, a« in the present importation, which consists of an alloy of iron and man- 
 ganese, the commodity is not to be deemed ferromanganese as that term appears 
 in the law. The importation was properly assessed as metal unwrought, not 
 specially provided for, under paragraph 183, tariff act of 1909. Goldschmidt- 
 Thermit Co. i). United States (No. 835), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 27213 (T. D. 32046). Decision aflBrmed. (T. D. 32467; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 
 Mangrove bark. (See Cutch.) 
 
 Manicure sets as constituting traveling sets. (See Leather, traveling sets.) 
 
 Manicure sticks. 
 
 Small pieces of wood, 4} inches long, which are pointed on one end and beveled 
 on the other to form a cutting edge, and are designed for and used by mani- 
 cures, are not toothpicks, but are dutiable as manufactures of wood under para- 
 graph 208 , tariff act of 1897 . Manicure sticks, which are articles of very general 
 use, having a distinctive trade name, and deliberately fashioned into shape and 
 readyforuse, are "manufactures" within the meaning of the provision in para- 
 graph 208, tariff act of 1897, for "manufactures of wood." (T. D. 29358— G. A. 
 6828; Nov. 20, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Manicure sticks, consisting of pieces of wood several inches long, 
 pointed at one end and beveled off at the other end to form a cutting edge, are 
 "manufactures" of wood and dutiable as such under paragraph 208, tariff act of 
 1897. Estes v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 New York, November 12, 1909. Suit 5394. Appeal by importer from decision 
 of Boaid of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6828 (T. D. 29358). Board 
 affirmed. (T. D. 30125; Nov. 23, 1909.) 
 
 Manifest clerical error. (See Error, clerical.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 603 
 
 Manifests. 
 
 Vessels calling at a port for bunker coal and departing within 48 hours without un- 
 lading any cargo not required to file or forward to Auditor for Treasury Depait- 
 ment copies of manifests. (T. D. 30200; Dec. 16, 1909.) 
 
 Card form of, for "in transit" shipments by express through the United States. 
 (T. D. 29940; Aug. 6, 1909.) 
 
 Card form of manifest for "in transit" shipments by freight through the United 
 States. (T. D. 34853; Oct. 26, 1914.) 
 
 Circular No. 51 of July 25, 1907, abolished general catalogue Forms Nos. 744, 753, 
 and 755. (T. D. 28729; Jan. 31, 1908.) 
 
 Requiring number of manifest to be placed on waybill and number of waybill on 
 manifest. (T. D. 31244; Jan. 25, 1911.) 
 
 The triplicate copy of the carrier's manifest covering goods in transit through the 
 Dominion of Canada is discontinued. (T. D. 33013; Dec. 13, 1912.) 
 
 Form of manifest to cover merchandise entered for transportation and exportation 
 with benefit of drawback or without payment of internal-revenue tax. (T. D. 
 29078; June 16, 1908.) 
 
 The practice of recording manifests of importing vessels in full discontinued. An 
 abstract from the manifest alphabetically indexed will be kept. Catalogue 
 Form 3477 discontinued. (T. D. 31886; Sept. 27, 1911.) 
 , Manifests covering shipments of goods forwarded under transportation entry shall 
 show the initials and number of the car. (T. D. 32129; Jan. 3, 1912.) 
 Manifold papers. (See Papers, grease-proof.) 
 Mantel interiors, and friezes. 
 
 Articles of cast-iron in several sections, imported in sets, each piece of which has 
 been fitted to the other and finished, ready to be set up to form the lining of a 
 fireplace, or the frieze of a mantel, are not "castings" nor "cast-iron plates," 
 within the meaning of paragraph 147, tarifi act of 1909, but manuf3,ctures of 
 metal, under paragraph 199. (T. D. 31566— G. A. 7218; May 8, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Cast-iron linings for mantels and fireplaces. — The several pieces 
 of the importation in question, constituting the fireplace and mantel sets, have 
 been so designed, formed, shaped, and fitted together that they have lost their 
 identity as castings and have become parts of a consistent whole; they have 
 passed from the category of materials into one of articles that, through manufac- 
 turing processes, have had their ultimate use determined. The fact that the 
 castings are not assembled does not deprive them of their character as entireties. 
 The articles were dutiable as assessed under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. 
 Jackson Co. et al. v. United States (No. 693), Uidted States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, G. A. 7218 (T. D. 31566). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32227; Jan. 23, 
 1912.) 
 Manufacture. 
 Artificial precipitation — 
 
 The article produced by the artificial precipitation of chalk is not "manufactures " 
 of chalk within the meaning of paragraph 13, tariff act of 1897, but is chalk 
 itself. United States v. Anderson, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 
 Second Circuit, December 14, 1909. No. 99 (suit 5328). Appeal by the United 
 States from the decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for the South- 
 ern District of New York (T. D. 29631) afimning Abstract 19346 (T. D. 29159). 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30216; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 Cutting to size — 
 
 It is a "manufacture," within the meaning of the tariff, to cut soapstone into 
 blocks of the right sizes for being finished into gas tips. (T. D. 29391; Dec. 9, 
 1908.) 
 
604 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Manufactnie — Continued . 
 Defined— 
 
 An article can not be said to have been "manufactured" which has been sub- 
 jected to a process that greatly reduces its value. "Manufacturing" impKes 
 addition to and not subtraction from the value of the thing manufactured. 
 Therefore disks cut from tin plate which are worth only about one-fifth as much* 
 per pound as the plate from which they were made are not "manufactured from 
 tin plate" within the meaning of paragraph 140, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 
 29104; June 24, 1908.) 
 New name and use — 
 ■An article which has been converted from comparatively valueless material into 
 a commodity of use and value by a process of manufacture specially designed 
 for the purpose, and which as a result of that process has acquired a new name 
 and use, is not "crude " within the meaning of paragraph 614, tariff act of 1897, 
 but "manufactured" within the meaning of section 6. (T. D. 29613— G. A. 
 6879; Mar. 9, 1909.) 
 Manufactures of cork. (See Cork, manufactures of — insoling.) 
 Manufactures of fur. 
 
 Fur skins, dressed and dyed, temporarily sewn or repaired before importation, 
 not manufactures of fur. (See also Fur.) 
 Manure. 
 
 Paragraph 581, act of 1909, construed: The phrase "used only for manure " in para- 
 graph 581, tariff act of 1909, embraces within its meaning substances used in the 
 manufacture of fertilizer, the word "manure" as used in this act being synony- 
 mous with fertilizer. Shallus v. United States (129 Fed. Rep., 845; T. D. 
 25041). The word "substances" as used in this act has a general rather than a 
 special application, and with the words following, which denote the kind of sub- 
 stances, applies generally to commodities of the kind therein described and not 
 to the particular sliipment which is the subject of a protest. Magone v. Heller 
 . (150 U. S., 70) and Marine v. Bartol (60) Fed. Rep., 601). Soya cake meal, not 
 being shown to be used only for manure, is not classifiable under said paragraph 
 581. (T. D. 31800— G. A. 7257, Aug. 7, 1911.) 
 Maraschino cherries. (See Fruit.) 
 Marble. (See also Sculptures.) 
 Breccia in blocks — 
 Breccia in the form of rough blocks, being similar in texture and uses to marble, 
 is dutiable, under the application of the similitude provision of paragraph 481, 
 at the same rate as marble in rough blocks, at 65 cents per cubic foot under para- 
 graph 111, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30797— G. A. 7073; July 18, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed :) The provisions of the tariff act of 1909, construed in pari materia 
 show a purpose to classify breccia and marble alike for dutiable purposes; to 
 make them, whenever in similar conditions, dutiable at the same rate. "Mar- 
 ble" and "breccia in blocks" are more specific terms than "minerals crude or 
 not advanced in value or condition," and moreover, according to the rule, where 
 there are two provisions applicable the one carrying the higher rate must be 
 applied, breccia is held to be dutiable by similitude as marble under para^aph 
 111, tariff act of 1909. Jackson v. United States (No. 463), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from a decision of the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7073 (T. D. 30797). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 31629; May 22, 1911.) 
 Crushed. (See Granito.) 
 
 Figuie with capital and base. Dutiable aa an entirety. (See Entireties, sculp- 
 tures.) 
 Hanteville stone. (See Limestone, hauteville.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS OECISIONS, 1908-1915. 605 
 
 Maible — Continued . 
 
 Mantels — 
 When not sculptures: A sculpture must be the work of a sculptor and such a pro- 
 duction as to be stamped with some of the individuality of the artist himself. 
 The burden of showing the importation under controversy to be sculptures was 
 on the importer, and the evidence goes to prove the maker was not a sculptor 
 proper, but an ornamentaUst, rather, with a Specialty in the decoration of stone- 
 work. The merchandise is dutiable under paragraph 112, tariff act of 1909, 
 as manufactures of marble. Consmiller v. United States (No. 683), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 25578 (T. D. 31589). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 32585; May 27, 1912.) 
 
 Manufactures of — 
 The merchandise involved in this case consisted of different articles of marble, 
 comprising benches, vases, tables, etc. To constitute "sculptures" under 
 tariff act of ] 909 the evidence must show the articles were cut, carved, or other- 
 wise wrought by hand from solid blocks or masses of marble and that they were 
 severally the professional productions of a sculptor. The record here establishes 
 neither of these propositions and the merchandise was properly assessed as 
 manufactures of marble under paragraph 112, tariff act of 1909. Downing & 
 Co. V. United States (No. 1002), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 29462 (T. D. 32751). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33043; Dec. 16, 1912.) 
 Columns: The goods in question consist of highly ornamental marble columns 
 imported for tise in the public library of the city of New York, held by the 
 Board of General Appraiaers to be dutiable as sculptures under paragraph 470. 
 tariff act of 1909, from which decision the Government appeals. The question 
 involved is one of fact. These columns are made of solid marble. On the 
 whole record it does not appear that the finding of the board is clearly against 
 the weight of the testimony. United States v. Sterling Bronze Co. (No. 1131), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31435 (T. D. 33217). Deci- 
 sion affirmed. (T. D. 33835; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 Panels, carved: Merchandise was imported, consisting of certain carved marble 
 panels. It was not shown that the articles were "the production of a sculptor; 
 and though they were carved representations in marble of artistic subjects, 
 they were not dutiable as sculptures. They were properly assessed as manu- 
 factures of marble under paragraph 112, tariff act of 1909. United States v. 
 Baumgarten (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 321; T. D. 32052) distinguished. Warren & 
 Wetmore v. United States (No. 933), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 28755 (T. D. 32584). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33039; Dec. 16, 1912.) 
 Vase, copy of an artistic original: A carved marble vase, made by a sculptor 
 as a copy of an original in the Borghese collection, is not to be deemed a manufac- 
 tured article. The evidence shows that artistic skill was employed in its pro- 
 duction, and it was properly held to be dutiable as a "sculpture" under para- 
 graph 470, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Baumgarten & Co. (No. 687), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25440 (T. D. 31543). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32052; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 
 Mexican. (See Onyx.) 
 
 Pedestals. 
 Marble or alabaster pedestals are dutiable as "marble [and] alabaster * • « 
 manufactured into * * » articles," imder paragraph 112, tariff act of 1909, 
 
606 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Maible — Continued. 
 
 Pedestals — Continued . 
 
 and are not "sculptures" within the meaning of paragraph 470, not being "the 
 professional production of a sculptor only," as required by the said paragraph 
 470. (T. T). 31331— G. A. 7174; Feb. 20, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Without determining whether the importations rise to the dig- 
 nity of "sculptures" in the arts, the character of their production by wholesale 
 would exclude them from the terms of paragraph 470, tariff act of 1909. Under 
 that paragraph the sculptures designated must be made by hand from solid 
 blocks of alabaster and be, too, the professional production of a sculptor only. 
 The merchandise was dutiable under paragraph 112, tariff act of 1909, as alabas- 
 ter manufactured into articles. Lazarus, Rosenfeld & Lehmann v. United 
 States (No. 624), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7174 (T. D. 
 31331). Decision aflSrmed. (T. D. 32247; Feb. 1, 1912.) 
 
 Vase copied by sculptor from an artistic original. (See Sculptures.) 
 
 When not shown to be sciilptnres — 
 No typical exhibits of the merchandise of the importation were produced, and 
 the testimony as offered in behalf of the importers was based on photographs. 
 The burden of showing the goods to be sculptures rested on the importer. The 
 board found the importers had failed to make out their case, and there is nothing 
 in the record to warrant a reversal of that finding. Marshall Field & Co. v. 
 United States (No. 1257), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 33287 (T. D. 33677). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34324; Mar. 25, 1914.) 
 Mare and dependent colt. 
 
 A mare and suckling colt were imported together in regular course of trade. Seld 
 that each is separately dutiable under paragraph 220, tariff act of 1897, provid- 
 ing tor "horses and mules," and the colt is not entitled to free entry because 
 dependent upon its mother for sustenance. G. A. 5642 (T. D. 25196) distin- 
 guished. (T. D. 29983— G. A. 6930; Sept. 2, 1909.) 
 Market value. (See also Dutiable value.) 
 
 Deduction' to make. 
 The right conferred by subsection 7 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, authorizing the 
 importer to deduct from the invoice value to make market value, must be exer- 
 cised at the time of entry and before appraisement of the goods, and not after- 
 wards. Such deduction is properly refused by the collector of customs if de- 
 manded after entry of the goods. (T. D. 30542— G. A. 7008; Apr. 13, 1910.) 
 
 Finding market value — 
 The duty of an appraising officer, as defined in Paragraph K, section 3, tariff act 
 of 1913, ia to find market value and report such to the collector. A general 
 appraiser hearing an appeal to reappraisement is governed by the same law, and 
 his finding, based on the facts introduced at the trial, is a judicial determination 
 as to value. 
 
 General average: A general average of dissimilar merchandise is not the way 
 to establish market value, especially when the articles are entered and valued 
 separately. 
 
 Entered value: An appraising officer is bound to accept for assessment pur- 
 poses an amount not less than the entered value placed upon the merchandise 
 by the importer, and on appeal the burden rests upon the importer disputing 
 the value to establish by testimony that the advance ia not correct. A general 
 appraiser has no authority to arbitrarily disregard the testimony and sustain a 
 value not supported by testimony. (T. D. 34808— G. A. 7604; Sept. 28, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 607 
 
 Maiket value — Continued. 
 Fluctuations — 
 
 Judicial notice will be taken that with the present means of intercommunication 
 between the various countries of the world the price of a commodity like cotton 
 does not greatly fluctuate or differ in different countries. (T. D. 31184; Jan. 
 5, 1911.) 
 Freight charges — Per se value — 
 
 It is the function of the appraiser to appraise the merchandise at its market value 
 in the principal markets of the country from whence it is imported. All ex- 
 penses incident to getting the merchandise to that point, therefore, become a 
 part of the market value. A finding by the appraiser as to market value, the 
 merchandise being consulated at Amsterdam, is equivalent to finding that that 
 is one of the principal markets of the country of exportation. Milbank, Lea- 
 man & Co.'s case, G. A. 7506 (T. D. 33832) and Grinnell v. Lawrence (1 Blatch., 
 346; 11 Fed. Cases, 54, No. 5831). (T. D. 35596— G. A. 7759; July 16, 1915.) 
 Grass baskets — 
 
 Where grass baskets are made by a tribe of Indians in their homes and by them 
 sold to dealers, who in turn sell them in wholesale quantities to the trade, the 
 market value is governed by the price obtained by the dealers, rather than the 
 price paid to the Indians. (T. D. 35458— G. A. 7728; May 25, 1915.) 
 Principal market — 
 
 The provision in section 19, customs administrative act of 1890, that dutiable 
 value shall be the market value "in usual wholesale quantities, at the time of 
 exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from 
 wtcnce imported," refers to the principal market where imported merchandise 
 is boilght for exportation to the United States in wholesale quantities, rather 
 than to markets where there may have been limited purchases at a higher price 
 than in the principal market. The entire output of a china manufacturer in 
 Limoges was exported entirely to the United States directly from Limoges, 
 except a small amount of special classes, which was disposed of in Paris to Emo- 
 pean trade, the portion thus disposed of at wholesale not exceeding 4 per cent of 
 the total product of the manufactiu'er. Held, as to the goods shipped to Amer- 
 ica, that Limoges and not Paris was the "principal " market within the meaning 
 of section 19, customs administrative act of 1897. Where all the output of a 
 china manufacturer was sold to the United States, except special classes manu- 
 factured for European trade, it can not be said that the latter class is in "con- 
 dition " to supply the American trade within the meaning of section 19, customs 
 administrative act of 1890, which provides that the market value of merchandise 
 shall be based on the "condition in which * * * there bought and sold for 
 exportation to the United States." While a reappraisement by a Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers is, under section 13, customs administrative act of 1890, "final 
 and conclusive " as to dutiable value, it may nevertheless be impeached if based 
 upon a wrong principle or contrary to law, or the power conferred by statute has 
 been transcended. And where a reappraisement board misinterprets a portion 
 of the evidence, a legal error has been committed, which makes it necessary to 
 look into all the evidence, to see if the error works injustice; and proceedings to 
 this end may be initiated by protest under section 14 of said act. United 
 States V. Haviland, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 January 19, 1909. Suit 5034. Appeal by United States from decision of Board 
 ofGeneralAppraisers.G. A. 6655 (T.D. 28382). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29523; 
 Feb. 3, 1909.) Upon appeal by the United States to Circuit Court of Appeals, 
 Second Circuit, decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 30296; Jan. 25, 1910.) 
 
608 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 
 
 Ifarket value — Continued. 
 Fiincipal maiket — Continued. 
 The law will presume, in determining the market value of merchandise, when 
 there ia nothing appearing to the contrary, that the point from which the mer- 
 chandise was consulated was determined by the appraising officer to be one of 
 the principal markets of the country. 
 
 Action of the Secretary of the Treasury final: The collector can not, under 
 the provisions of subsection 1 of section 3 of the act of 1913, assess merchandise 
 at a less value than the entered value unless so directed to do by the Secretary 
 of the Treasury. The action of the Secretary under the power given to him by 
 this provision of law is not subject to review. (T. D. 35629 — G. A. 7764; July 
 29, 1915.) 
 Marking of imported merchandise. 
 
 Marking of imported merchandise to indicate country of origin, etc., under sec- 
 tion 7 and paragraphs 152, 154, and 192 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. (T. 
 D. 29970; circular No. 44; Aug. 27, 1909. Also T. D. 30029, Oct. 5, 1909; and 
 T. D. 30041, Oct. 12, 1909.) 
 Bolting and press cloths — 
 Regulations governing the marking of bolting and press cloths imported free under 
 paragraph 422, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 33929; Nov. 22, 1913.) 
 Books — 
 Books are required to be marked to indicate the country of origin under subsec- 
 tion 1 of Paragraph F of section 4 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 
 34994; Dec. 19, 1914.) 
 Catalogue covers — ) - 
 
 Covers imported for use on catalogues of American manufacture must "be marked 
 BO as to indicate country of origin imder section 7, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 33315; Apr. 3, 1913.) 
 Corks — 
 Corks not marked in any manner should not be required to be marked to indicate 
 the country of origin. If marked with the name or initials of the importer, or 
 otherwise, they should also be required to be marked with the name of the 
 country of origin under section 7, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30668; June 4, 1910.) 
 Enameled ware — 
 Enameled ware required to be permanently and indelibly marked to indicate 
 the country of origin under subsection 1 of Paragraph F of section 4 of the tariff 
 act of 1913, except small articles packed six or more to the package and intended 
 to be sold at retail in such package, in which case package to be marked. T. D. 
 30029 modified. (T. D. 35649; Aug. 10, 1915.) 
 Japanese articles — 
 Articles produced in Japan and marked with the word " Nippon " legally marked 
 under subsection 1 of Paragraph F of section 4 of the tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 
 34740; Aug. 31, 1914.) 
 Models, by cord and seal — 
 Regulations governing the marking of models of women's wearing apparel by 
 means of a cord and seal. T. D. 33806 of October 24, 1913, modified. (T. D. 
 34273; Mar. 16, 1913.) 
 Paper — 
 Paper is sufficiently marked under section 7, act of 1909, where the wrappers, 
 bands, or packages in which it is packed are marked to indicate the country 
 of origin. (T. D. 32011; Nov. 20, 1911.) 
 Shipments to Philippine Islands. (See PhUippine Islands.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 609 
 
 Marking of impoited meichandise — Continued. 
 Su^cal instruments — 
 Surgical instruments marked in any manner must also be marked to indicate 
 country of origin, under section 7, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30300; Jan. 25, 
 1910.) 
 Watch movements — 
 Watch movements having no adjustmento or no jewels or no adjustments nor 
 jewels required to be marked to indicate such fact under provisions of para- 
 graph 192, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30281; Jan. 18, 1910.) 
 Marmalade. (See Fruit, marmalade.} 
 Marmite. 
 Extract of meat — Similitude — 
 Marmite, a commodity of vegetable origin produced from yeast, is not similar in 
 use to extract of meat, bxit is dutiable under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909, as 
 an unenumerated manufactured article. (T. D. 32030 — G. A. 7302; Nov. 24, 
 1911.) 
 Marquardt-Masse. (See Pyrometer tubes.) 
 
 Martingale rings and loops of celluloid. (See Pyroxylin articles.) 
 Master records not parts of phonographs. (See Wax master records.) 
 Match boxes (trick), wooden cigars, etc., not toys. (See Trick match boxes, etc.) 
 Matches. 
 
 The importation, on and after January 1, 1913, and the exportation after January 1, 
 
 1914, of white phosphorus matches, prohibited. (T. D. 32975; Nov. 30, 1912.) 
 
 The furnishing of official certificates of inspection, or bonds for the production 
 
 thereof, will not be required under T. D. 32975 until April 1, 1913, in the case of 
 
 matches manufactured in Sweden and Norway. (T. D. 33020; Dec. 14, 1912.) 
 
 Foreign certificates of inspection for matches manufactured in Austria-Hungary 
 
 to be waived. (T. D. 33158; Feb. 8, 1913.) 
 T. D . 33158, waiving foreign certificates of inspection for matches manufactured in 
 Austria-Hungary, extended to matches manufactured in Denmark. (T. D. 
 33248; Mar. 6, 1913.) 
 Foreign certificates of inspection for matches manufactured in Germany to be 
 
 waived. (T. D. 33399; May 9, 1913.) 
 Foreign certificates of inspection waived for matches manufactured in Great 
 
 Britain and Ireland. (T. D. 33441; May 20, 1913.) 
 Foreign certificates of inspection for matches manufactured in the Netherlands 
 
 waived. (T. D. 33804; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 Foreign certificates of inspection for matches shipped to this country prior to 
 January 1, 1913, to be waived in cases not provided for in T. D. 33020. (T. D. 
 33078; Jan. 8, 1913.) 
 Form of foreign certificate of inspection required under the regulations in T. D. 
 
 32975 of August 31, 1912. (T. D. 33127; Jan. 27, 1913.) 
 The furnishing of foreign certificates of inspection or bonds for the production 
 thereof will not be reqiiired under T. D. 32975 until April 1, 1913, in the case of 
 matches manufactured in Russia. (T. D. 33151; Jan. 31, 1913.) 
 Form of certificate of official inspection of matches in T. D. 33127 will be used by 
 the Norwegian Government and will be executed by Mr. L. Schmelck as Gov- 
 ernment inspector. (T. D. 33360; Apr. 24, 1913.) 
 Foreign certificates of exportation for matches manufactured in Norway to be 
 waived. (T. D. 35276; Mar. 20, 1915.) 
 Colored sticks — 
 Matches having red sticks or stems, imported in boxes containing less than 100 
 each, claimed to be subject to duty at the rate of 3 cents per gross under the pro- 
 . 45633°— 17 ^39 
 
610 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Matches — Continued. 
 
 Coloied sticks — Continued. 
 
 vision in paragraph 345 of the tariff act of 1913 for friction and lucif er matches of 
 all descriptions, held dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under the 
 provision in the same paragraph for matches having colored sticks or stems, that 
 provision being the narrower and more specific of the two. (T. D. 35097 — G. A. 
 7669; Jan. 27, 1915.) 
 
 Fancy — 
 Certain "wind matches" and matches with varicolored stems and heads are fancy 
 matches, and subject to duty at 35 per 6ent ad valorem under paragraph 436 of 
 the tariff act of 1909. The common Swiss black-head safety match, which 
 ignites only when scratched upon a specially prepared surface, is not a fancy 
 match. At and prior to the enactment of the tariff act of 1909, the term "fancy 
 matches" had no commercial meaning. The words "fancy matches" as used 
 in paragraph 436 of the said tariff act, inasmuch as they have no special trade 
 meaning, must be construed according to common understanding. (T. D. 
 31017— G. A. 7116; Oct. 31, 1910.) 
 Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers dated October 31, 1910, 
 G. A. 7116 (T. D. 31017), supra, should be followed in the classification of 
 matches similar in character to those which were held by the board to be 
 dutiable as "fancy matches." (T. D. 31139; Dec. 23, 1910.) 
 The merchandise involved in this case consisted of matches, contained in paper 
 folders or wrappers in such a way that they may be conveniently carried in the 
 vest pocket and the splints readily broken off one at a time as required. The 
 folder or wrapper is provided with a specially prepared striking surface required 
 for the ignition of a safety match. 
 
 Fancy matches, what not : ' ' Fancy " is the antonym of ' ' plain, " " common, ' ' 
 "ordinary," "staple," and to say that a thing is "fancy" implies that it has a 
 value or has characteristics not found in the article of simpler type . In this case 
 no commercial designation Is shown. The goods have no quality which is not 
 found in the ordinary safety match of trade, and they have the same common 
 use. The duty imposed on fancy matches was intended to fall on matches that 
 served some purpose not answered by the ordinary article. The importation 
 was dutiable at three-fourths of 1 cent per thousand under paragraph 436, tariff 
 act of 1909. United Cigar Stores Co. et al. v. United States (No. 952), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28911 (T. D. 32645), Abstract 28971 
 (T. D. 32655), and* Abstract 29212 (T. D. 32681). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 33311; Mar. 25, 1913.) 
 
 Safety— 
 ■ Safety matches, colored or uncolored or with varicolored stems, dutiable under 
 paragraph 436, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 6 cents per gross boxes or three- 
 fourths of 1 cent per 1,000, depending upon whether they are imported in boxes 
 or otherwise than in boxes. (T. D. 33633; July 17, 1913.) 
 
 Safety and wind — 
 The matches of the importation called "Wind Flamers " come within the defini- 
 tion of "fancy" matches as fixed by the Court of Customs Appeals. United 
 Cigar Stores Co. et al. v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 66; T. D. 33311). 
 The friction saf etymatches of the importation are not ' ' fancy " matches. United 
 States V. Masson (No. 1280), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 33553 (T. D. 33738). Dedsion modified. (T. D. 34103; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 611 
 
 Material of chief value. 
 
 The provision in section 7, tariff act of 1897, that the chief component material 
 shall be ascertained with reference to ' ' such material in its condition as found in 
 the article," was probably intended to apply to such compoimds as leave the 
 component parts suflBciently accessible to examination for the basis of a judg- 
 ment, such as combinations of different kinds of fibers in one manufacture. It 
 seems impracticable to ascertain the value of the components after manufac- 
 ture, in such an article as miso, consisting of rice and beans subjected to fer- 
 menting and cooking processes. Fujiyama v. United States, United States 
 District Court, Territory of Hawaii, April 6, 1910. No. 46 (suit 1804). (T. D. 
 30573; Apr. 26, 1910.) 
 Decision of the United States District Court for the Territory of Hawaii (Fujiyama 
 V. United States; T. D. 30573), involving the classification of miso, acquiesced 
 in. (T. D. 30836; July 30, 1910.) 
 
 llaterial for use in making button forms. (See Button forms.) 
 
 "Materials" and "goods." — 
 
 "Materials " means that from which an article is made up . "Goods " has a broader 
 signification and includes the material upon which some work has been per- 
 formed, and applies so long as these retain their character of not being manu- 
 factured into an article. (T. D. 34251; Feb. 27, 1914.) 
 
 Mats, cork and linoleum. 
 
 The terms ''cork carpets" and "linoleum" as used in paragraph 337, tariff act of 
 1897, do not include cork mats and linoleum mats. Cork mats and linoleum 
 mats are properly dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem as manufactures 
 of cork under paragraph 448 of said act. (T. D. 29592— G. A. 6871; Feb. 26, 
 1909.) 
 
 Matte containing copper and lead. 
 
 So-called copper matte containing in excess of 10 per cent of lead properly duti- 
 able at the rate of li cents per pound on the lead contents under paragraph 181, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32439; Apr. 26, 1912.) 
 
 Matting, Chinese, reappraised. 
 
 Variation from other reappraisementsr A reappraisement by a Board of General 
 Appraisers is not invalid simply because ^he value fixed is different from that 
 found on subsequent reappraisements of the same kind of goods. (T. D. 29628 — 
 G. A. 6888; Mar. 16, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Without inquiring into the objections urged against the reap- 
 praisement of matting by a local appraiser as erroneous, or as unsupported by 
 the evidence, or as founded on irrelevant considerations, the Board of General 
 Appraisers on appeal having found that appraisal correct, this finding can not 
 be disturbed. The customs laws contemplate finality at some point in all 
 appraisement proceedings and on appeal to an appraisement by the Board of 
 General Appraisers, from a finding of a general appraiser, a decision of that board 
 on the actual market value of the merchandise in question is conclusive against 
 all parties interested therein, and in the absence of fraud is not subject to review 
 by the courts. Wolff v. United States (No. 175), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board of United States 
 General Appraisers (T. D. 29628). Transferred from United States Circuit 
 Court for Eastern District of Louisiana. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31217; 
 Jan. 11, 1911.) 
 
 Measurement. 
 Almeria grapes. (See Grapes.) 
 Gloves. (See Glovea.) 
 Lumber. (See Lumber.) 
 
612 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Meat. 
 Extiact of — 
 
 Marmite, a commodity of vegetable origin produced from yeast, is not similar in 
 use to extract of meat, but is dutiable under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909, 
 as an unenumerated manufactured article. (T. D. 32030— G. A. 7302; Nov. 
 24, 1911.) 
 Inspection — 
 
 Instructions to customs officers relative to the importation of meat and meat-food 
 products. (T. D. 33952; Dec. 8, 1913.) 
 
 Customs officers instructed relative to enforcement of the regulations of the Secre- 
 tary of A^culture, issued July 30, 1914, to take effect January 1, 1915 (B. A. I. 
 Order No. 211). (T. D. 34848; Oct. 21, 1914.) 
 
 Customs officers informed of the removal of the name of A. J. Maloney, Ciudad 
 Juarez, Mexico, from the list of foreign meat-inspection officials. (T. D. 35810; 
 Oct. 21, 1915.) 
 Prepared-^ 
 
 Blood pudding — Sausage: Sausages made of blood pudding, being composed of 
 material closely related to meat in every way, similar in appearance and being 
 prepared for a similar use and being so used, were properly classified for duty, 
 respectively, under paragraph 275, tariff act of 1897, and paragraph 286, tariff 
 act of 1909. Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. v. United States (No. 938), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 28754 (T. D. 32584). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 32987; Nov. 21, 1912.) 
 
 Canned beef and mushrooms: There are present in these goods two distinct 
 articles mixed together before importation. There is no evidence of the rela- 
 tive value of these, nor is a commercial designation shown. The mushrooms 
 are not introduced as flavoring, but are articles of food. Neither the mixed- 
 material clause nor the rule of value in chief has any application and the beef 
 and mushrooms were not entitled to free entry. United States v. Furuya Co. 
 (No. 1528), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37274. Deci- 
 sion reversed. (T. D. 35463> May 18, 1915.) 
 
 Duck: The meat of ducks, salted, dried, and packed in tins, with or without 
 peanut oil, is dutiable under paragraph 275, tariff act of 1897, as meats prepared 
 or preserved, and not specially provided for, and not as poultry dressed, nor as a 
 nonenumerated raw or unmanufactured article. Kwong Yuen Shing v. United 
 States (No. 16), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Transferred from 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (T. D. 30166). Appeal 
 by importer from decision of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern 
 District of New York affirming decision of the Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers. Decbion in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30774; June 
 22, 1910.) 
 
 Ducks' feet and gizzards — Prepared poultry: Ducks' feet which have been pre- 
 pared by skinning, placing between the claws a piece of duck's liver, binding 
 the whole together with a strip of tendon or gut of the duck, and then salting and 
 drying in the sun; and ducks' gizzards, which have been prepared by cutting 
 open and stripping out the inside lining, after which they are salted and dried 
 in the sun, are not dutiable under paragraph 229, tariff act of 1913, as poultry 
 prepared in any manner, but are entitled to free entry under the provision in 
 paragraph 545 for "meats of all kinds, prepared or preserved, not specially pro- 
 vided for in this section." (T. D. 35130— G. A. 7681; Feb. 10, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) This case is ruled by United States d. Weber (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 — ; T. D. 35469). The merchandise is dutiable as poultry, prepared in any man- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-191S. 613 
 
 Meat — Continued . 
 Prepared — Continued . 
 
 ner, paragraph 229, tariff -act of 1913. United States v. Brown & Co. (No. 1544), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Government from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7681 (T. D. 35130) and Ab- 
 stract 37382. Decision reversed. (T. B. 35471; May 18, 1915.) 
 
 Ham in tins: Smoked ham meat (from which the long bone has been removed, 
 but which still contains the knuckle bone) put up in a hermetically sealed tin, 
 the meat of one ham in a tin, is not within the provision of paragraph 284, tariff 
 act of 1909, for " bacon and hams, " but is dutiable under paragraph 286 as meat, 
 prepared or preserved. (T. D. 32017— G. A. 7299; Nov. 15, 1911.) 
 
 Hama: The merchandise in question consists of hams in hermetically sealed tin 
 cans. Each can contains the meat of a cured and cooked ham, from which the 
 bone has been removed. These hams have not lost their name or their charac- 
 ter by reason of any process to which they were subjected before importation; 
 and the eo nomine provision for hams in paragraph 284, tariff act of 1909, being 
 more specific than that for prepared or preserved meats in paragraph 286, para- 
 graph 284 controls. Neuman & Schwiers Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1010), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29530 (T. D. 32767). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 33310; Mar. 21, 1913.) 
 
 P3,t6 de foie gras: The provision in paragraph 275, tariff act of 1897, for "meats of 
 all kinds, prepared or preserved," is broad enough to cover not only canned 
 meat of poultry and birds, but also the livers of poultry prepared in the form of 
 p3,t6 de foie gras; and those articles are dutiable under said provision rather 
 than under paragraph 278 (dressed poultry) or section 6 (unenumerated manu- 
 factured articles). Smith v. United States, United States Circuit Court, South- 
 em District of New York, March 16, 1909. Suit 5270. Appeal by importer 
 from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 18619 
 (T. D. 28910). Board afllrmed. (T. D. 29646; Mar. 24, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) P&t6de foie gras — Canned poultry: The provision in paragraph 
 275, tariff act of 1897, for " meats of all kinds, prepared or preserved, " includes 
 canned meat of poultry and birds, and poultry Uvers in the form of pit^ de foie 
 graa. Smith v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second 
 Circuit, December 14, 1909. No. 106 (suit 5270). Appeal by importer from 
 Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York (168 
 Fed. Rep., 462; T. D. 29646) affirming Abstract 18619 (T. D. 28910). Decision 
 in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30227; Dec. 28, 1909.) 
 
 Pat6 de foie gras: The provision in paragraph 229, tariff act of 1913, that relates to 
 "poultry prepared in any manner," clearly appears to have been enacted in 
 view of Kwong Yuen Shing v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 16; T. D. 
 30774), and must be taken accordingly to enlarge the terms used so as to include 
 the merchandise in controversy as poultry prepared. Articles of food "pre- 
 pared or preserved " do not necessarily retain their original form and separate 
 identity. United States v. Weber (No. 1540), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the Government from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 37379 (T. D. — ). Decision reversed. (T. D. 35469; May 
 18, 1915.) 
 
 Poultry: Duck meat in tins, some being salted and dried and some packed in oil, 
 is dutiable under paragraph 275, tariff act of 1897, relating to "meats of all 
 kinds, prepared or preserved," rather than under paragraph 278 as "poultry 
 * * * dressed." Kwong Yuen Shing v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 13, 1909. Suit 5496. 
 Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States General Apprais- 
 
614 DIGEST OF Customs decisions, i908-i9i5. 
 
 Meat — Continued. 
 Prepared — Continued . 
 
 ers, Abstract 21036 (T. D. 29690). Decision of board affirmed. (T. D. 30166; 
 Dec. 7, 1909.) 
 Sausages — Chinese — Bologna sausage: Not all sausages in casings are "sausages, 
 bologna," within the meaning of pars^raph 655, tariff act of 1897; and Chinese 
 sausages, consisting of coarsely chopped pork mixed with condiments and in- 
 closed in casings, are not classifiable under said provision, but under paragraph 
 275 as prepared meat. Wing Sing Lung v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, District of Massachusetts, June 18, 1909. No. 122 (suits 1801-3). Appeal 
 by importerafrom decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 6250 (T. D. 26965). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29923; July 27, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Chinese sausages, consisting of coarsely chopped meat, which 
 are used exclusively by the Chinese and are not shown to be commercially 
 known as bologna sausages, are not within the provision in paragraph 655 
 tariff act of 1897, for "sausages, bologna.'' Wing Sing Lung v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, June 27, 1910. No. 872 
 (suits 1801-1803). Appeal by the importer from the decision of the Circuit 
 Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts (171 Fed. Rep., 
 906; T. D. 29923) affirming G. A. 6250 (T. D. 26965). Decision in favor of the 
 Government. (T. D. 30801; July 19, 1910.) 
 
 Mechanically ground wood pulp. (See Wood pulp.) 
 
 Medallions. (See Ornaments.) 
 
 Medicinal preparations. 
 Adeps lanse anhydrous and adeps lanse cum agua. 
 Adeps lanse: Wool fat in the forms known as adeps lanae anhydrous and adeps 
 lanse cum aqua, which is valued at 10 to 15 cents per poimd and is principally 
 used medicinally, is not dutiable as wool grease under paragraph 279, tariff act 
 of 1897, but as a medicinal preparation under paragraph 68. Zinkeisen v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 7, 1908. Suit 4920. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 15013 (T.D. 28074). Boardaffirmed. (T. D. 
 29000; May 20, 1908.) 
 Adeps lanse anhydrous and adeps lanse cum aqua, which are worth from 10 to 15 
 cents per pound, are used principally in therapeutics and generally sold to the 
 drug trade, though used to some extent in medicinal soaps and salves, are not 
 "wool grease" within the meaning of paragraph 279, tariff act of 1897, but 
 "medicinal preparations" under paragraph 68. Zinkeisen v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. No. 
 119 (suit 4920). Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the United States for 
 the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29000). Decision in favor of the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 29546; Feb. 10, 1909.) 
 Adeps lanae — Lanolin: Adeps lanse, or lanolin, is used as a basis for ointments 
 and as a carrier for soluble medicinal salts, and the evidence shows that without 
 the addition of medicinal agents it has no therapeutic value . The more specific 
 provision levying duty upon it is to be foimd in paragraph 290, tariff act of 1909. 
 It is dutiable under that paragraph as wool grease refined or improved in value 
 or condition. Koechl & Co. v. United States (No. 786), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 26810 (T. D. 31912). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 *32619; May 31, 1912.) 
 Balsam. 
 In construing paragraphs 20 and 548, tariff act of 1897, relating, respectively, to 
 drugs "advanced in value or condition" and to drugs not so advanced, held as 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 615 
 
 Medicinal preparations — Continued. 
 Balsam — Continued. 
 
 to balsam in capsules, that it has been advanced in both value and condition by 
 being so prepared, and that it is therefore classible under the former paragraph. 
 The provision for medicinal preparations in paragraph 68, tariff act of 1897, is 
 less specific than that in paragraph 20 for "drugs, such as * * * balsams;" 
 and therefore balsam in capsules is dutiable under the latter rather than imder 
 the former provision. (T. D. 29408— G. A. 6837; Dec. 15, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Medicinal preparations. — Crude balsam in gelatin capsules is 
 dutiable as a medical preparation under paragraph 68, tariff act of 1897. 
 "Crude drugs." — Where crude balsam has been placed in gelatin capsules, such 
 treatment resulting in an article with a greater value and an improved con- 
 dition, this article is excluded from the provision in paragraph 548 for "crude" 
 drugs not advanced in value or condition. 
 
 "Advanced." — ^An article consisting of balsam in gelatin capsules can not be 
 considered simply as balsam and is not classifiable under paragraph 20 as "bal- 
 sams * * * advanced in value or condition," because nothing whatever 
 has been done to the balsam itself. 
 
 Capsules filled — Coverings. — Gelatin capsules containing a medicine are not 
 coverings for the purposes of transportation, but are an essential part of the article. 
 On application for review of a decision by the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers. United States v. Lehn. Lehn v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 19, 1909. Suits 5429-30. 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29809; June 8, 1909.) 
 Caffeine — 
 Caffeine or cafteina, made from tea sweepings by adding acetate of lead and sul- 
 phide of hydrogen, held to be a medicinal preparation under paragraph 65, tarifi 
 act of 1909, and dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem, following the principle 
 established by Lehn & Fink v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 325; T. D. 
 33522), wherein it was held that gentian, taraxacum, and rhamnus were not un- 
 compounded drugs under paragraph 20 or paragraph 559. (T. D. 34218 — G. A. 
 7536; Feb. 26, 1914.) 
 Castor oil in capsules — 
 Castor oil in gelatin capsules, each capsule containing proper medicinal doses for 
 instant administration, is dutiable as a medicinal preparation under paragraph 
 68, tariff act of 1897, rather than as "castor oil," which is dutiable "per gallon" 
 under paragraph 33. United States v. Lehn (T. D. 29809) followed. (T. D. 
 29885— G. A. 6920; June 29, 1909.) 
 Chrysarobin — 
 Chrysarobin dutiable as a medicinal compound under paragraph 5 of the act of 
 October 3, 1913. (T. D. 35044; Jan. 9, 1915.) 
 Ducro's alimentary mixture — 
 Ducro's alimentary mixture was dutiable under paragraph 67, tariff act, 1897. 
 The article was not covered by the French reciprocity treaty. There is such a 
 presumption in favor of a collector's finding as to the actual character of a com- 
 modity that this presumption is to be overcome only by a preponderance of 
 proof that the article in question was something other than it was declared by 
 the collector to be. 
 
 Internal-revenue circular: A circular of the Commissioner of Internal Bev- 
 enue fixing the taxable status of a commodity will not control in fixing the duti- 
 able status of the same commodity on importation. Fougera v. United States 
 (No. 134), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer 
 from the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 29690). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New 
 York. (T. D. 31208; Jan. 7, 191-1.) 
 
616 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Medicinal piepatations — Continued. 
 
 Ducio's alimentaiy mixture — Continued. 
 Ducro's alimentary elixir, a preparation containing alcohol and used as a tonic, 
 appetizer, and reconstituent, is dutiable under paragraph 67, tariff act of 1897, 
 as a "medicinal preparation containing alcohol," rather than as a compound 
 Uquor (par. 289 or 292). (T. D. 31268— G. A. 7160; Feb. 2, 1911.) 
 
 Earth not. (See Earth, siUca compound.) 
 
 Ext. Taiaxici "Aliens," Ext. Gentianse U. S. P. and Syr. Bhaini — 
 Merchandise known as -Est. Taraxid " Aliens," Ext. Gentians U.S. P. and Syr. 
 Ehaini, extracted from roots and berries having medicinal properties, and 
 wliich are prescribed for and used as medicines, are not drugs within the mean- 
 ing of the language of par^raph 20 of the tariff act of 1909. Such articles are 
 medicinal preparations and as such were dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 65 of said act. (T. D. 33118 — G. A. 7421; Jan. 24, 
 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Sirup of rhamnus; extract of taraxacum, etc. — The 'importa- 
 tions in controversy consisted of sirup of rhamnus, extract of gentian, and ex- 
 tract of taraxacum. The goods are not natural drugs such as those enumerated 
 in paragraph 20, tariff act of 1909, but medicines artificially produced and 
 ready for use. They are medicinal preparations within the intention of para- 
 graph 65 of that act and were dutiable thereunder. Lelin & Fink v. United 
 States (No. 1093), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7421 (T. D. 
 33118). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33522; May 26, 1913.) 
 
 Gingerine and capsicene — 
 Gingerine and capsicene dutiable as nonalcoholic medicinal preparations under 
 paragraph 68 of the tariff act at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 29383; 
 Dec. 7, 1908.) 
 
 Glycerophosphate of lime. (See Chemical compounds.) 
 
 Isotonique sea water — 
 Isotonique sea water, used for medicinal injections in the treatment of chronic 
 constipation, eczema, scrofula, neurasthenia, and other diseases, is properly 
 dutiable by virtue of the proviso to paragraph 17, tariff act of 1913, at 25 per cent, 
 as a medicinal or similar substance, when imported in capsules, pills, tablets, 
 lozenges, troches, ampoules, jubes, or similar forms. (T. D. 34864— G. A. 7624; 
 Oct. 23, 1914.) 
 
 Malt tropon— 
 A preparation of tropon and malt extract, with a small percentage of listerin, the 
 former being chief value, which is used as a lactatic to promote the secretion 
 of milk in nursing women, is a "medicinal " preparation within the meaning of 
 paragraph 68, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 30047— G. A. 6934; Oct. 14, 1909.) 
 
 Menthol— Peppermint crystals — 
 The term "medicinal preparation" has been defined to be any substance used 
 solely in medicine and prepared for the use of the apothecary or physician to be 
 administered as a remedy in disease. Fink v. United States (170 U. S. 584). 
 Something which is of use, or believed by the prescriber or user fairly and hon- 
 estly to be of use, in curing or alleviating, or palliating, or preventing some 
 disease or affection of the human frame. Dodge v. United States (130 Fed. 
 Rep., 624; T. D. 25240). The term "medicinal preparation" is not limited to 
 the identical condition of the imported article, but includes an article to which 
 have been added other substances none of which change the original article 
 chemically, nor result in chemical reactions, but merely serve as vehicles to 
 allow the patient to take the preparation conveniently. Battle v. United 
 States (108 Fed. Rep., 216). EeU, that menthol, an article in crystalline 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 617 
 
 Medicinal preparations — Continued. 
 Menthol — Peppermint crystals — Continued. 
 
 form, obtained from the oil of peppermint, which may be used in its identical 
 imported condition, but which is largely used in solution and in the form of 
 "pencils," the addition of alcohol, talc, and paraflBn, being in the nature of 
 vehicles which in no way change the chemical condition of the article, falb 
 within the term " medicinal preparation " and is properly dutiable as such under 
 paragraph 65, tariff act of 1909, at 25 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 32643— G. A. 
 7376; June 17, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed :) The merchandise is not a crude drug, but a manufacture from 
 the peppermint plant and known as menthol. This menthol as imported is 
 sometimes used without the addition of any carrying material for medicinal 
 purposes, while its more common use is in solution or as a salve mixed with 
 inert matter or the Uke. It was properly classified as a medicinal preparation 
 and was dutiable accordingly under paragraph 65, tariff act of 1909. Battle & 
 Co. Chemists' Corporation v. United States (108 Fed., 216), Fink v. United 
 States (170 U. S., 584). United States v. Sheldon (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 485; T. 
 D. 32245) distinguished. McKesson & Robbins v. United States (No. 967), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7376 (T. D. 32643). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 33167; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 Kadiogen-trinkwasser, or radium bromide in water, not dutiable as. (See Radium 
 
 bromide.) 
 Scammony resin not dutiable as. (See Scammony resin.) 
 Medicinal and toilet preparations manufactured from tax-paid domestic alcohol. 
 
 Regulations under section 25, tariff act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 29952; circular 
 No. 39; Aug. 13, 1909.) 
 Melba sauce. (See Fruits.) 
 Melon seed, peeled. 
 
 Melon seed which have been reduced in size by peeling, that have been roasted 
 and salted for food, their germinating quality disappearing in these processes, 
 are not to be deemed vegetables proper or as unmanufactured, but come within 
 the category of manufactured articles and are dutiable as a nonenumeiated 
 manufacture under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Kauff- 
 man (84 Fed. Rep., 446). United States v. Shing Shun & Co. (No. 699), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals, December 19, 1911. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25572 (T. D. 
 31589). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32113; Dec. 19, 1911.) 
 "Melting," construction of. 
 
 Term "melting" as used in paragraph 118, tariff act of 1909, construed: The term 
 "melting" in paragraph 118 of the act of 1909 is used in its ordinary accepta- 
 tion; that is, to become liquid through heat. Therefore no scrap iron or scrap 
 steel is entitled to classification under paragraph 118 unless in its condition as 
 imported it is unfit for use until it has been reduced from a solid to a fluid 
 state by means of heat. (T. D. 30063; Oct. 23, 1909.) 
 Menthol. (See Medicinal preparations.) 
 Merchandise. 
 Excess — Assessment of duty. (See Duty, additional.) 
 For sale — Declaration as baggage. (See Declaration.) 
 In transit. (See Transit merchandise.) 
 
 Withdrawn from bond under new tariff act. (See Appraisement,) 
 Mesh bags of silver. (See Bags and purses — ^mesh.) 
 
618 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Mesh composed of silver. 
 
 Sflver mesh, in strips from 6 to 9 feet long and from 9 to 10 inchea wide, suitable for 
 xise in the manufacture of mesh bags and for other purposes as well, is neither 
 mesh bags nor parts thereof, but is material out of which, mesh bags may be 
 manufactured and, when imported imder the tariff act of 1909, was properly 
 dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem as manufactures in part of metal under para- 
 graph 199. United States v. Simon (84 Fed., 154), Fenton v. United States (1 
 Ct. Oust. Appls., 529; T. D. 31546). (T. D. 33144— G. A. 7426; Jan. 31, 1913.) 
 Metal. 
 
 Boxes, lacquered, with compartments and hinged lids, contaiuing paints. (See also 
 Coverings.) 
 Subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, makes provision, it is true, for a duty 
 on containers, but paragraph 195 of that act carries a specific provision for cer- 
 tain sorts of containers, and the merchandise here falls directly within that 
 specific provision ; lacquered metal boxes, with compartments and hinged hds, 
 containing paints, though the lids be used as palettes, are dutiable under that 
 paragraph (195). Illfelder & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 640), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24807 (T. D. 31300). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 32040; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 
 Cigarette cases, etc. — 
 Metal cigarette cases and like articles composed wholly or in chief value of silver, 
 German silver, white metal, brass or gun metal, excluded from classification 
 under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, said paragraph not embracing articles of 
 utility, even though ornamental in character, which are ordinarily carried in the 
 pocket. (T. D. 30785; July 14, 1910.) 
 
 Containers for holding artificial fish flies. (See also Coverings.) 
 Fishing tackle: Metal boxes or containers specially constructed and designed for 
 holding artificial fish flies and fishing leaders are properly classifiable as manu- 
 factures of metal not specially provided for under paragraph 167, tariff act of 
 1913, as claimed by the importers, rather than dutiable at 30 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 136 of said act as "fishing tackle or parts thereof," as classified 
 by the collector. (T. D. 35749—6. A. 7783; Sept. 30, 1915.) 
 
 Crucifixes — 
 Metal crucifixes 3 inches and under in length, valued above 20 cents per dozen 
 pieces, dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 356, tariff act of 1913; 
 above 3 inches in length, unless designed exclusively to be worn upon the per- 
 son, dutiable under paragraph 167 of the said act. (T. D. 34404; Apr. 21, 1914.) 
 
 Drinking cups — 
 Folding drinking cups of metal properly dutiable at the rate of 20 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 167, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34606; June 30, 1914.) 
 
 Emergency outfit of tools for an automobile — 
 Leather cases fitted with an assortment of tools, consisting of a screw driver, saw, 
 file, and small blades, for which a single handle suffices when used, are not duti- 
 able under section 452, tariff act of 1909, as a "traveling set," but, adapted and 
 intended for emergencies only, they are dutiable as articles made wholly or in 
 part of metal, under paragraph 199 of that act. United States v. Ovington 
 Bros. & Co. (No. 597), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24618 
 (T. D. 31236). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32163; Jan. 11 1912.) 
 
 Erasers. (See Erasers.) 
 
 Flash-light cases. (See Metal, manufactures of.) 
 
 Hardware fixtures, gold and silver plated. (See Hardware fixtures.) 
 
 Hoes. (See Forgings, metal hoes.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 619 
 
 Metal— Continued . 
 leaf. (See Leaf metal.) 
 Manufactuies ofr— 
 
 Camera tripods: Tripods composed of brass and designed for use in supporting 
 cameras while in operation are properly dutiable under the provisions of para- 
 graph 167 of the act of 1913 as manufactures of metal not specially provided for, 
 as assessed, and not as parts of cameras under paragraph 380 of said act, as 
 claimed. 
 
 Appraiser's reports: The report of the appraiser, wherein he sought to amend 
 his original return by holding said articles to be properly classifiable as parts of 
 cameras, is null and void and entitled to no legal effect whatever. (T. D. 
 34998— G. A. 7650; Dec. 17, 1914.) 
 
 Engraved steel slab. (See Steel, plates.) 
 
 Flash-light cases: The outer casings of electric flash lights, composed wholly or in 
 chief value of metal, lacking only batteries and light bulbs to render them com- 
 plete articles, valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces, are not like articles to 
 those enumerated in paragraph 356, and are therefore not within that paragraph. 
 They are properly dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem as manufactures of metal 
 not plated with gold or silver under paragraph 167, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 
 35822— G. A. 7794; Oct. 19, 1915.) 
 
 Galvanized date nails — ^Malleable-iron castings: Date nails of cast iron made mal- 
 leable by subjecting them to a continued red heat and thereafte'r allowing them 
 to cool slowly, which have subsequently been galvanized or plated with zinc, 
 have by reason of such galvanizing been advanced beyond the condition of cast- 
 ings, and were therefore not dutiable as "castings of malleable iron," under 
 paragraph 148, tariff act of 1909, but as manufactures of metal, under paragraph 
 199 of said act. The term " castings " as used in tariff acts has uniformly been 
 construed as being Umited to such articles of metal as have not been manipulated 
 or advanced by labor bestowed subsequently to the process of casting, unless 
 such labor constitutes a mere process incidental to the general foundry work. 
 (T. D. 32506— G. A. 7363; May 9, 1912.) 
 
 Generator shaft: A generator shaft for use as a part of an electric engine, which has 
 been forged and subsequently rough-bored and rough-turned, is not dutiable 
 as a " forging, ' ' under paragraph 127, tariff act of 1897, nor as " mill shafting " or 
 "steel in all forms and shapes," uiider paragraph 135, but is dutiable as manu- 
 factures of metal, under paragraph 193 of said act. (T. D. 32378 — G. A. 7346; 
 Apr. 8, 1912.) 
 
 Lace pins: Gold-plated lace pins, valued at less than 20 cents per dozen pieces, 
 having fancy heads and steel shafts, the gold being insignificant in value com- 
 pared with the base metal, are dutiable as manufactures composed wholly or 
 in part of metal, under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, and not as jewelry com- 
 posed of gold or platinum, under paragraph 448 of said act. (T. D. 32345 — 
 G. A. 7343; Mar. 29, 1912.) 
 
 Nautical instruments — Azimuth mirrors, sextants, and octants: Azimuth mirrors, 
 sextants, and octants for taking bearings and determining altitude, composed 
 in chief value of metal, having glass parts possessing refractive and reflective 
 properties, such as prisms, lenses, and telescopes, attached thereto, used in 
 navigation, and not as aids to eyesight or for the purpose of examining objects, 
 are not optical instruments within the provisions of paragraph 93 of the tariff 
 act of 1913, but are manufactures of metal, not specially provided for, under 
 paragraph 167 of the same act. 
 
 Optical instruments — Meaning of term: Optical instruments in ordinary 
 parlance signify instruments used with reference to sight or the science of optics, 
 
620 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Metal — Continued. 
 Manufactures of — Continued. 
 
 and without proof of a trade understanding would not include instruments 
 used for the measurement of distance or as guides to the mariner. 
 
 Azimuth mirror used for navigation not an optical instrument: An azimulii 
 mirror, used only in navigation on a compass and useless for any other pur- 
 pose, is not an instrument for use in the science of optics or as an aid to sight. 
 
 Sextants and octants not optical instruments: Sextants and octants used 
 only in measuring the angular distance between a celestial body and the hori- 
 zon, though possessing lenses having reflective and refractive properties, are 
 not instruments used in the science of optics or to assist sight. (T. D. 35220 — 
 G. A. 7697; Mar. 8, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Azimuth mirrors, sextants, and octants are dutiable as composed 
 chiefly of metal, under paragraph 167 of the tarifi act of 1913; and, not being 
 aids to vision, are not classifiable as optical instruments under paragraph 93. 
 United States v. J. Bliss & Co. et al. (No. 1558), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the Government from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 7697 (T. D. 35220). Decision afBrmed. (T. D. 35980; Dec. 
 6, 1915.) 
 
 Pedometers and compasses: Pedometers and compasses in chief value of metal of 
 such size that they can be conveniently carried in the pocket, valued above 20 
 cents per dozen pieces, not "composed wholly or in part of platinum, gold, or 
 silver " nor plated with gold or silver, are dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 167 of the tariff act of 1913, as manufactures of metal not spe- 
 cially provided for, and not at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 356 of 
 the same act. 
 
 Articles designed to be worn or carried : Merchandise to be within the third 
 clause of paragraph 356 must be "valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces"; 
 must be "designed to be worn on apparel or carried on or about or attached to 
 the person"; must be one of the articles mentioned in the paragraph, or a like 
 article thereto; and must be composed of metal. 
 
 Customary use — Specific purpose : Articles which are not designed to be worn 
 on apparel nor like the articles enumerated in the paragraph, because not 
 customarily carried on the person or in customary use, but only carried when 
 their use is desired by a specific class of people for a specific purpose, are not 
 within paragraph 356, even though in other respects they answer the require- 
 ments of the paragraph. (T. D. 35949— G. A. 7824; Nov. 30, 1915.) 
 
 Power-transmitting tables for sewing machines: Power-transmitting tables com- 
 posed in chief value of metal and capable of operating at the same time from 5 
 to 20 sewing machines are properly dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 167 of the act of 1913 as manufactures of metal not specially provided 
 for, as here assessed, rather than entitled to free entry under the provision in 
 paragraph 441 of said act for "sewing machines, * * * whether imported 
 in whole or in parts." (T. D. 35644— G. A. 7765; Aug. 2, 1915.) 
 
 Screw covers for jars: Colored metallic covers, specially designed to be screwed 
 on jars containing cold cream and similar substances, are not classifiable under 
 paragraph 196, tariff act of 1909, as bottle caps of metal, colored. They are 
 properly dutiable as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199 of said act. 
 (T. D. 34376— G. A. 7555; Apr. 10, 1914.) 
 
 Teapots, pitchers, handles, spouts, etc., which have been stamped from sheets 
 of steel and then spun into shape or form or otherwise manipulated to produce 
 completed articles or parts thereof, are not dutiable as "stamped shapes" 
 under paragraph 135, tariff act of 1897; but, by reason of the work bestowed on 
 such articles subsequent to the stamping, they have been changed into com- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIOlirS, 1908-1915. 621 
 
 Metal — Continued . 
 
 Manufactuies of — Continued. 
 
 plated articles and parts, dutiable properly aa manufactures of metal under 
 paragraph 193. Saltonstall v. Wiebusch (156 U. S., 601); Bromley v. United 
 States (156 Fed. Rep., 958; T. D. 28520); G. A. 5541 (T. D. 24911). (T. D. 
 28760— G. A. 6719; Feb. 6, 1908.) 
 Timers: Timers, composed of metal and specially constructed and designed for 
 the sole purpose of timing rates of speed, such as the velocity of a projectile 
 fired from a gun, the speed of a horse, or a runner at a race course, and of like 
 events,' are properly dutiable as manufactures of metal under paragraph 167, 
 tariff act of 1913, as claimed, rather than as "watch movements, whether im- 
 ported in cases or not," under paragraph 161 of said act, as assessed. (T. D. 
 35460— G. A. 7730; May 27, 1915.) 
 Timers for timing rates of speed dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem aa 
 "like articles" designed to be carried on or about the person under paragraph 
 356 of the tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35666; Aug. 19, 1915.') 
 Timers, being scientific mechanisms constructed and designed for the sole pur- 
 pose of timing rates of speed, such as the velocity of a projectile fired from a 
 gun, the speed of a horse or runner at a race course, the revolution of wheels 
 connected with machinery, etc., are properly classifiable under paragraph 167 
 of the act of 1913 as manufactures of metal not specially provided for, as claimed 
 by the importers, rather than dutiable under the provision for "like articles" 
 in paragraph 356 of said act, as contended by the Government. The applica- 
 tion of the rule of ejusdem generis to the interpretation of the phrase "like 
 articles" is expressly limited by the language of paragraph 356 to articles 
 worn or carried on the person "when in their customary use," and which 
 resemble all the enumerated articles in this particular, to wit, "they are all 
 carried upon the person of the user, not for warmth or protection like clothing, 
 but rather as incidental articles of mere personal comfort, convenience, or 
 adornment." Note decision of the court in Gallagher & Ascher v. United 
 States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 35343). (T. D. 35971— G. A. 7827; Dec. 
 10, 1915.) 
 
 Mesh bags. (See Bags and purses.) 
 
 Pencils. (See Pencils.) 
 
 Polish — 
 The merchandise the subject of this appeal is metal polish which appears to be 
 composed of pulverized silica, alumina, and lime saturated and mixed with 
 petroleum oil and fat. This combination of materials is not fairly to be de- 
 scribed as a chemical compound or mixture. It was properly held dutiable as 
 an unenumerated manufacture under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909. United 
 States V. Holland-American Trading Co. (No. 1126), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraiseis, Abstract 31318 (T. D. 33194). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 33527; May 26, 1913.) 
 
 Polish, Amor's — 
 Earthy or mineral substances— What not: The amorphous viscous substance of the 
 importation, without any determinate shape or form, does not come within the 
 provisions of paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, as an article composed wholly or in 
 chief value of earthy or mineral substance. There is no evidence of similitude 
 in the record, but it is clear the substance is a' manufacture not expressly pro- 
 vided for by any paragraph of the law in question. It was classifiable as a non- 
 enumerated manufacture under paragraph 480. Rosenheim et al v. United 
 States (No. 1231), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32480 (T. 
 D. 33464). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34135; Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 
622 
 
 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Metal — Continued. 
 
 Bosaries. (See Rosaries.) 
 
 Scrap — 
 Scrap car wheels, scrap locomotive ajdes, etc., which in their condition as im- 
 ported are found to be such as can profitably be remanufactured by a process of 
 rolling, hammering, or cutting, or by any other process which does not include 
 the complete change of form of the material by fusion caused by the application 
 of heat, are not entitled to classification under paragraph 118 of the tariff act, 
 and each article should be assessed with duty at the appropriate rate provided 
 by the tariff act for such article. (T. D. 31178; Jan. 7, 1911.) 
 Worn-out metal articles unfit for other than remanufactviring purposes, though in 
 the form of axles or tires, are to be considered for tariff purposes as old scrap, 
 andnot as "axles" or as "tires." Ginsberg i;. United States (147 Fed. Rep., 531; 
 T. D. 27228) and G. A. 6214 (T. D. 26871) followed. Dwight v. Merritt (140 U. 
 S., 313), Downing v. United States (122 Fed. Rep., 445), Illinois Central Rail- 
 road Co. V. McCall (147 Fed. Rep., 925; T. D. 26639), and G. A. 0594 (T. D. 
 28175) distinguished. The provisions of paragraph 118, tariff act of 1909, pro- 
 vide for scrap iron or scrap steel "fit only to be remanufactured by melting," 
 and old metal material fit to be remanufactured by other methods does not fall 
 within the purview of the paragraph. Gardiner v. Wise (84 Fed. Rep., 337), 
 Train v. United States (113 Fed. Rep., 1020), and Swan v. United States (113 
 Fed. Rep., 243) cited. Qiiere as to whether waste or refuse metal will not fall 
 within the provisions for "waste, not specially provided for," paragraph 479, 
 or "junk, old," paragraph 600, tariff act of 1909, in case the provision for scrap 
 iron or steel, paragraph 118, is inapplicable. Sheldon v. United States (159 
 Fed. Rep., 105; T. D. 28602) cited. (T. D. 30489— G. A. 7003; Apr. 4, 1910.) 
 
 Screw covers for jars. (See Metal, manufactures of.) 
 
 Shades, enameled. (See Steelware.) 
 
 Statuary, molded — 
 Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7642 (T. D. 
 34928) (following) relative to stained-glass windows, applicable to molded metal 
 statuary. (T. D. 35056; Jan. 14, 1915.) 
 When excluded from free entry: Stained or painted glass windows, in part me- 
 chanically wrought from metal within 20 years before importation and imported 
 to be used in houses of worship, are dutiable under the provision in paragraph 
 95, tariff act of 1913, for "stained or painted glass windows," and are not free of 
 duty under paragraph 655 as "works of art, * * * including * * * 
 stained or painted glass windows imported to be used in houses of worship," 
 being excluded from the latter paragraph by the proviso therein, which reads, 
 "excluding any article in whole or in part molded, cast, or mechanically 
 wrought from metal within twenty years prior to importation." 
 
 Incorporation of house of worship: Under the provision of paragraph 655, 
 granting free entry to works of art, including stained or painted glass windows 
 to be used in houses of worship, it is not necessary that the house of worship be 
 incorporated. (T. D. 34928— G. A. 7642; Nov. 27, 1914.) 
 
 Tops or clasps for silk, leather, or beaded bags — 
 Gold-plated metal tops or clasps for silk, leather, or beaded hand bags are not 
 classifiable as parts of metal mesh bags at 60 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 356, tariff act of 1913, but are dutiable as articles of metal plated with gold 
 at 50 per cent under paragraph 167. (T. D. 35799- G. A. 7793; Oct. 15, 1915.) 
 
 Unwrought — 
 The provision in paragraph 183, tariff act of 1897, for "unwrought" metals does 
 not include ferroalloys which, though they can be wrought into different forms 
 and shapes, are not to any extent shown to be imported to be themselves wrought 
 
DIGEST 0¥ CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 623 
 
 Metal — Continued. 
 Unwroiiglit — Continued. 
 
 into useful articles, but are generally used for imparting certain qualities to steel 
 in the process of its manufacture. United States v. Lavino; United States v. 
 Hempstead; United States v. Hampton, United States Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Third Circuit, November 15, 1909. Nos. 21-3 (suits 2020-2). Appeala 
 by United States from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern 
 District of Pennsylvania (171 Fed. Rep., 245; T. D. 29764) reversing G. A. 6755 
 (T. D. 28948). Decision adverse to. the Government. (T. D. 30168; Dec. 7, 
 1909.) 
 Rhodium: Rhodium is a metal and un wrought and as such was dutiable under 
 paragraph 183, tariff act, 1897. The Congress by tariff act of 1909, having 
 placed rhodium specifically on the free list, must be taken inferentially to have 
 established its status theretofore as a dutiable article. 
 
 "Unwrought," meaning of: Words and phrases in customs laws are employed 
 in view of a lay imderstanding and are accordingly assumed to be used with 
 their natural signification; so construed, "unwrought" in the phrase "metals 
 unwrought," can not be taken to mean the presence of specific attributes in the 
 metal — of malleability in the metal, for example. United States v. Wells, 
 Fargo & Co. (No. 29), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers 
 (T. D. 28481). Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern 
 District of New York. Decision reversed. (T. D. 31211; Jan. 11, 1911.) 
 Walking canes. (See Canes.) 
 Wreaths. (See Wreaths.) 
 
 Metal-backed decalcomauias. (See Decalcomanias.) 
 
 Metal-coated paper. (See Paper.) 
 
 Metal thread. 
 
 Paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913, is a specific and exclusive provision for aU the 
 merchandise which falls within its terms, irrespective of the material of the 
 yarns, threads, or filaments composing it. Metal-thread embroideries, galloons, 
 ornaments, and trimmings are dutiable under the specific provisions of para- 
 graph 358, and not under paragraph 150 as "other articles" of metal thread. 
 (T. D. 34547— G. A. 7574; June 12, 1914.) 
 Belting. (See Belting.) 
 Fabrics — 
 Fabrics in chief value of metal thread and in part of silk are dutiable under para- 
 graph 179, tariff act of 1897, as "articles * * * in chief value of * * * 
 metal threads, " rather than under paragraph 387 as fabrics in part of silk. The 
 provision in paragraph 387, tariff act of 1897, for fabrics "containing not more 
 than twenty per centum in weight of silk, ".is limited to goods in chief value 
 of silk. Hirsch v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York, May 16, 1908. Suit 4776. Appeal by importer from deci- 
 sion by Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6498 (T. D. 27780). 
 Board affirmed. (T. D. 29013; May 20, 1908.) 
 The provision in paragraph 179, tariff act of 1897, for " laces, embroideries, * * * 
 or other articles * * * in chief value of * * * metal threads, " is not 
 Umited to goods ejusdem generis with the laces, etc., there enumerated; and 
 fabrics in the piece, composed in chief value of metal thread and in part of silk, 
 are dutiable as "articles" under said provision rather than under paragraph 
 387 as fabrics in part of silk. Hirsch v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 16, 1909. No. 132 (suit 4776). 
 Appeal by importer from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern 
 District of New York (T. D. 29013) affirming a decision of the Board of United 
 
624 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Metal thread — Continued. 
 Fabrics — Continued. 
 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 6948 (T. D. 27780). Decision ia favor of the 
 Government. (T. D. 29572; Feb. 24, 1909.) 
 Fabrics in chief value of metal thread and in part of silk are dutiable under para- 
 graph 179, tariff act of 1897, as "articles * * * in chief value of * * * 
 metal threads," rather than imder paragraph 387 as woven fabrics of silk. 
 Hirsch v. United States (T. D. 29572) followed. (T. D. 29699— G. A. 6896; 
 Apr. 14, 1909.) 
 Goods — 
 Laces, embroideries, braids, galloons, ornaments, and trimmings composed wholly 
 or in chief value of tinsel wire, lame or lahn, or of metal threads are dutiable 
 under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913, and not under paragraph 150 as " other 
 articles" of tinsel wire, lame, or metal threads. Allien's case, G. A. 7574 (T. 
 D. 34547), cited and followed. (T. D. 35676— G. A. 7770; Aug. 20, 1915.) 
 Appeal directed from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers 
 of August 20, 1915, G. A. 7770 (T. D. 35676), covering certain metal-thread 
 goods, in so far as it relates to certava items held to be ribbons or beltings duti- 
 able under paragraph 150, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35792; Oct. 16, 1915.) 
 Metal threads. 
 
 Metal threads must be taken to mean articles having a core of vegetable or animal 
 substance wound about with tinsel wire, lame or lahn. 
 
 Metal threads in paragraph 179, tariff act of 1909: Assuming that metal 
 threads must be twisted, there is no evidence of record here that the so-called 
 metal threads in this case were so treated, the evidence rather showing they 
 were made of fine-gauge wire. They were properly assessed as manufactures 
 of metal under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. W. S. Tyler Co. v. United 
 States (No. 1432), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 36049 (T. 
 D. 34609). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35433; May 18, 1915.) 
 Epaulets (military ornaments) composed in chief value of metal threads. (See 
 Military omamenta.) 
 Metal and leather horse goods and saddlery. (See Horse goods.) 
 Metal and stoneware exhausters. (See Exhausters.) 
 Meters, exposure, used by photographers. (See Exposure meters.) 
 Mexican currency depreciation. 
 
 Currency of Mexico is depreciated as compared to the proclaimed value of $0,498 
 for the standard gold peso. Consular certificate of depreciation on Form No. 
 144 should be attached to invoices covering merchandise from Mexico. (T. D. 
 34159; Feb. 5, 1914.) 
 Mexican drawn work. 
 
 Statement showing values of Mexican drawn work and thread-wheel lacework at 
 the close of the year 1910, and comparing these values with those of 1908 and 
 1907, and with values as given iu 1905 revision of drawn-work catalogue. (T. 
 D. 31613; May 23, 1911.) 
 Mexican onyx. 
 
 So-called Mexican onyx is dutiable as "onyx" under paragraph 114, tariff act of 
 1897, rather than as "marble" under the same paragraph. Blochman Banking 
 Co. D. Blake, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of California, March 
 8,1909. No. 1312 (suit 1969). Appeal by importer from decision of Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A,. 6519 (T. D. 27846). Board affirmed. 
 T. D. 29633; Mar. 17, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 625 
 
 Mexican palm-leaf hats. 
 Market value — • 
 
 Collectors authorized to post price lists of Mexican palm-leaf hats for the infor- 
 mation of all parties interested. (T. D. 28794; Feb. 25, 1908.) 
 Mexico. 
 Arms and munitions to — 
 
 Export of arms to Mexico prohibited by proclamation of the President. (T. D. 
 32321; Mar. 22, 1912.) 
 
 Opinion of Attorney General on interpretation of phrase " arms and munitions of 
 war," as used in the President's proclamation of March 14, 1912, prohibiting 
 their exportation to Mexico. (T. T>. 32342; Apr. 1, 1912.) 
 
 Opinion of Attorney General that railroad torpedoes are munitions of war within 
 the meaning of the President's proclamation of March 14, 1912. (T. D. 32916; 
 Nov. 9, 1912.) 
 
 Collectors instructed in accordance with the opinion of the Attorney General dated 
 October 6, 1913, that certain articles, viz, riding saddles, stirrups, girths, hay 
 and other foodstuffs, and horses are not munitions of war under the President's 
 proclamation of March 14, 1912, and may be exported to Mexico. (T. D. 33793; 
 Oct. 20, 1913.) 
 
 President's proclamation of March 14, 1912 (T. D. 32321), prohibiting exportation 
 to Mexico of arms and munitions of war, revoked. (T. D. 34141; Feb. 4, 1914.) 
 
 Executive order directing that instructions to customs officers concerning the 
 exportation of arms and munitions of war to Mexico by sea shall be given by the 
 Department of Commerce. Similar instructions concerning such exportations 
 by land shall be issued by the Treasury Department. (T. D. 34558; June 16, 
 1914.) ' 
 
 In view of the restoration of peace in Mexico, customs officers instructed to treat 
 arms and ammunition as ordinary commercial shipments and permit them to go 
 forward. (T. D. 34758; Sept. 9, 1914.) 
 
 Export of arms, etc. , to Mexico prohibited by proclamation of the President. (T. 
 D. 38815; Oct. 22, 1915.) 
 
 Customs officers instructed to require certification by local representative of the 
 de facto Government of Mexico of the official character of consignees of muni- 
 tions of war destined to Mexico. Paragraph (2) of T. D. 35809 amended. (T. 
 D. 35876; Nov. 12, 1915.) 
 Meats and meat-food products from — 
 
 Customs officers informed of the removal of the name of A. J. Maloney, Ciudad 
 Juarez, Mexico, from the list of foreign meat-inspection officials. (T. D. 35810; 
 Oct. 21, 1915.) 
 
 Notice No. 1, issued by the Department of Agriculture under B. A. I. Order 211, 
 relative to meat and products offered for importation from Mexico, published 
 for the information and guidance of customs officers and others concerned. (T. 
 D. 35398; May 11, 1915.) 
 Mica. 
 "Cat or uncut" — "Rough-trimmed or trimmed." — 
 
 The provision in paragraph 91, tariff act of 1909, for "mica, unmanufactured, or 
 rough trimmed only, ' ' appUea as well to a knife-trimmed as to a thumb -trimmed 
 mica. Mica close trimmed, either by a sickle or knife, and irregular in shape or 
 uneven in form, is not dutiable as cut mica or as trimmed mica, but as mica, 
 "rough trimmed only." The provision for cut or trimmed mica covers such as 
 has been cut to true geometric shape or definite size. (T. D. 30421 — G. A. 6989; 
 Mar. 10, 1910.) 
 45633°— 17 40 
 
626 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Mica — Continued. 
 
 " Cut or uncut " — " Bough-trimmed or trimmed " — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) Unmanvfactured or rough trimmed. — The evidence being in 
 conflict as to the actual commercial designation of a large part of the mica of an 
 importation and the Board of General Appraisers having found these consign- 
 ments to be unmanufactured or rough-trimmed mica, dutiable under section 
 91, tariff act of 1909, and not mica cut or trimmed in definite shapes or sizes, this 
 finding of the board mil be adhered to. And this the more readily on a consid- 
 eration of what had been, subsequent to the enactment of the tariff act of 1897, 
 the established practice under the law in classifying mica at ports of entry, that 
 mica cut or trimmed meant that which is cut into sizes and shapes ready for use ; 
 and further, in view of the fact that, after attention drawn, Congress retained in 
 the tariff act of 1909 the precise language of the former statute that had been so 
 construed. Splittings of mica are not manufactures, but are rough-tiimmed 
 mica. United States v. Myers (No. 45), United States Court ai Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the United States from decision of the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers (T. D. 30421). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31301; 
 Feb. 8, 1911.) 
 Cut in figures — • 
 The treatment to which the mica of the importation had been subjected was to con- 
 vert the clear sheets into such figures and patterns as are useful in industry and 
 merchantable. The resulting pieces are dutiable as "cut mica," even though 
 some of these are not exactly true in geometric form and though the sizes are not 
 the standard siees commonly quoted in trade catalogues. Watson Bros. v. 
 United States (No. 1137), United States Coiut of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31384 
 (T. D. .33217). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33853; Oct. 31, 1913.) 
 Ground — 
 Ground mica dutiable under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 20 
 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 30712; June 23, 1910.) 
 Microscope slides. (See Glass and glasses.) 
 Microscopes. 
 Mountings for — 
 Nose glasses and stages which are accessories to microscopes dutiable as mountings 
 for microscopes at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 94, tariff act of 1913. 
 (T. D. 35277; Mar. 31, 1915.) 
 Military ornaments. 
 Composed of copper — 
 Military ornaments, not set with imitation precious stones, composed wholly or 
 chief value of copper, are excluded by implication from classification imder 
 paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, and are dutiable as manufactures of metal 
 (par. 199). (T. D. 31206— G. A. 7153; Jan. 16, 1911.) 
 Epaulets — 
 Epaulets (military ornaments) composed in chief value of metal threads are more 
 specifically classifiable as "ornaments; * * * of whatever yams, threads, 
 or filaments composed," under paragraph 358 of the tariff act of 1913, than as 
 "articles made wholly or in chief value of * * * metal threads, not spe- 
 cially provided for," under the provisions of paragraph 150 of the act. W. B. 
 Horstman Co. v. Uirited States (No. 1589), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praiseiB, Abstract 38035. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35986; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 Milk, preserved. 
 
 Lactaiene not. (See Lactarene.) 
 Mill buttings. (See Waste.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 627 
 
 Mill cuttings. 
 Firewood — 
 The evidence here is that not over 30 per cent of the importations involved in 
 this appeal is suitable for or is used for making matches, and that the remainder 
 is used for firewood. The merchandise — ends cut from deals or planks — should 
 be classified as firewood, and was entitled to free entry. United States v. 
 Saunders et al. (No. 1244), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 33069 (T. D. 33644). Decision aflarmed. (T. D. 34136; Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 Mill plates, universal. 
 Structural forms — 
 Universal mill plates Id, ordinary rectangular form are either plate steel or steel 
 plates, and are provided for either under paragraph 122 or paragraph 131, tariff 
 act of 1909. The provisions of paragraph 121 cover only articles which in their 
 imported state are "structural forms." G. A. 5395 (T. D. 24602) cited and 
 followed. (T. D. 33017— G. A. 7410; Dec. 14, 1912.) 
 Mill sweepings — Wool. 
 
 Mill sweepings, the wool contents being a negligible quantity, entitled to admis- 
 sion free of duty as paper stock. (T. D. 33009; Dec. 10, 1912.) 
 Millinery articles. 
 Feather articles in part of metal — 
 Millinery articles composed principally of feathers, but in part of wire, are dutia- 
 ble as manufactures "in part" of metal under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897, 
 and not as feathers advanced or manufactured, under paragraph 425. United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circiiit, February 16, 1909. No. 142 
 (suit 4855). Appeal by United States from the Circuit Court of the United 
 States for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29034) affirming G. A. 
 6537 (T. D. 27888). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 29577; Feb. 
 24, 1909.) 
 Millinery ornaments. 
 
 Imitation birds, intended for millinery purposes, formed by covering wire frames 
 with silk netting, to which have been added loops of black silk or cotton re- 
 sembling split straw, the whole ornamented with glass beads and gelatin 
 spangles, are dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 408, tariff act 
 of 1897, and not at 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 425. Millinery 
 ornaments in the form of clover leaves, composed of wire, silk, and artificial 
 horsehair ornamented with gelatin spangles, are dutiable at 50 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 425, and not at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 408 of said act. (T. D. 29098— G. A. 6781; June 23, 1908.) 
 Millinery ornaments composed of straw, imitating feathers, are dutiable as arti- 
 ficial feathers at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 438, tariff act of 1909. 
 (T. D. 31809— G. A. 7261; Aug. 8, 1911.) 
 Millinery ornaments in the construction of which imitation precious stones are 
 used. (See Articles of personal adornment.) 
 Mineral water. 
 
 "Nigari" not. (See Nigari.) 
 Mineral-water bottles. 
 
 Memorandum of weights and values of bottles used as the containers of mineral 
 waters. (T. D. 31345; Mar. 3, 1911.) 
 Minerals, crude, or not advanced in value. 
 
 "Breccia" not classifiable as. (See Marble; see also Granite and ores, zinc.) 
 Miners' diamonds. (See Diamonds, mineiB'.) 
 
628 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Miners' rescue appliances. 
 
 Paragraph 628, tariff act of 1909, admitting free of duty miners' rescue appliances 
 and safety lamps, should be given a most liberal interpretation. (T. D. 30120; 
 Nov. 22, 1909.) 
 Mining machinery. (See Machinery and machines — Rock drills, etc.) 
 Mint, dried. 
 
 Dried mint free of duty as a crude drug under paragraph 559, tariff act of 1909. 
 Bottles, when used as containers of such mint, dutiable at the appropriate 
 rate provided in paragraph 97 of said act. (T. D. 32950; Nov. 20, 1912.) 
 Mirror puzzles. 
 Toys- 
 Water colors in lacquered tin boxes: No controversy being made here, the board's 
 decision that there was no proof to controvert the collector's classification of 
 these articles affirmed. 
 
 Insufficient evidence: The importation, invoiced as mirror puzzles, was classified 
 by the collector as toys imder paragraph 342, tariff act of 1913. A sample of 
 the goods was the only evidence introduced by protestants before the board. 
 HeM, insufficient to warrant reversal of the collector's decision. United States 
 V. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (No. 1559), United States Court of Customs Appeals, 
 November 19, 1915. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States, 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 37311. Decision affirmed in part and reversed 
 in part;. (T. D. 35919; Nov. 19, 1915.) 
 Mirrors. 
 
 Small round mirrors varying from 1} to 3 inches in diameter, inclosed in tin and 
 paper frames and covers, and triplicate mirrors, the individual mirrors of which 
 are about 3i by 4i inches square, which on inspection appear to be capable of 
 practical use, and which are not proved to be toys, either commercially or other- 
 wise, held dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 112, tariff act of 
 . 1897, or paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909. G. A. 5526 (T. D. 24869) followed as 
 to the triplicate mirrors. Protestants, having cited various authorities, must 
 show that the merchandise in question is similar to that covered by the authori- 
 ties. United States v. Lun Chong (3 Ct. Gust. Appls., 468; T. D. 33041). (T. 
 D. 34200— G. A. 7533; Feb. 16, 1914.) 
 In cases — 
 
 The merchandise consists of pocket imitation-leather goods holding small mirrors 
 and combs, or pencils and memorandum tablets. The presence of the comb or 
 of the pencil and paper does not remove these articles from the category of mir- 
 rors in cases, paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909, for the provision there is more 
 specific than that of paragraph 17 of the said act. United States v. Metropolitan 
 Aluminum Co. (No. 815), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 26951 (T. D. 31971). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32537; May 8, 1912.) 
 Parabolic, cast, polished plate glass, silvered, and bent — 
 
 The testimony in this case establishes without contradiction that the parabolic 
 mirrors of the importation are cast, polished plate glass, silvered, and bent. 
 They were dutiable with their frames, if any there were, as provided by para- 
 graphs 103 and 104, tariff act of 1909. General Electric Co. v. United States 
 (No. 1429), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 36035 (T. D. 34609). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 35176; Feb. 23, 1915.) 
 Pyroxylin articles — 
 
 Small circular hand mirrors, set in a celluloid case having a handle and a recep- 
 tacle in the back, closed by a lid, for holding powder or a powder puff, com- 
 posed in chief value of pyroxylin, are dutiable as mirrors under paragraph 109, 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 629 
 
 Mirrors— Continued. 
 Pyroxylin articles — Continued. 
 
 and not as manufactures in chief value of pyroxylin under paragraph 17 of the 
 tariff act of 1909. The word "mirror " must be taken in its ordinary sense. The 
 addition of a frame or case neither changes its character or use, nor advances it 
 into a new article. (T. D. 34919— G. A. 7638; Nov. 20, 1914.) 
 Toy. (See also Toys.) 
 Small triplicate mirrors not more than 3 by 4 inches in dimensions, having card- 
 board backs upon which pictures are printed, and which are so flimsily con- 
 structed as to be unfit for use as articles of utility, but are designed for the enter- 
 tainment and amusement of children, and are known to trade and commerce as 
 "toy mirrors" or "toy triplicates," dutiable as toys under paragraph 418, tariff 
 act of 1897, rather than as "mirrors" under paragraph 112 of said act. (T. D. 
 32312— G. A. 7334; Mar. 12, 1912.) 
 Miso, vegetable, preserved — 
 
 The provision in section 7, tariff act of 1897, that the chief component material 
 shall be ascertained with reference to "such material in its condition as found in 
 the article," was probably intended to apply to such compounds as leave the 
 component parts sufficiently accessible to examination for the basis of a judg- 
 ment, such as combinations of different kinds of fibers in one manufacture. It 
 seems impracticable to ascertain the value of the components after manufac- 
 ture, in such an article as miso, consisting of rice and beans subjected to fer- 
 menting and cooking processes. Fujiyama v. United States, tJnited States 
 District Court, Territory of Hawaii, April 6, 1910. No. 46 (suit 1804). (T. D. 
 30573; Apr. 26, 1910.) 
 Decision of the United States District Court for the Territory of Hawaii (Fujiyama 
 V. United States; T. D. 30573), involving the classification of miso, acquiesced 
 in. (T. D. 30836; July 30, 1910.) 
 Mixed fish oil. (See Oil, cod.) 
 Mixture of goods — Separation. 
 
 When two classes of goods, subject to different rates of duty, are imported in a 
 mixed condition, but are capable of separation with reasonable accuracy, the 
 importer may separate them, and the result of such separation introduced as 
 evidence before the board will be used as the basis of a finding by the board. 
 (T. D. 34843— G. A. 7616; Oct. 17, 1914.) 
 Modeling clay. (See Clay, modeling.) 
 Models of sculpture. (See Sculptures.) 
 Models of wearing apparel. (See Wearing apparel.) 
 Mohair. 
 Coat linings. (See Coat linings, mohair.) 
 Noils. (See Waste, mohair.) 
 Waste. (See Waste, mohair.) 
 Moisture In wood pulp, allowance for. (See Wood pulp.) 
 Molasses. 
 Barbados — 
 Barbados fancy and extra fancy molasses, which is cane juice concentrated by 
 boiling to the point of preservation, but short of crystallization, dutiable under 
 paragraph 216, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 3 cents per gallon. (T. D. 31795; 
 Aug! 5, 1911.) 
 Fruit sirup made from grape juice not. (See Fruit sirup.) 
 Testing of — 
 Article 979 of the Customs Regulations of 1908, which provides that the test of any 
 group shall not be above 56 degrees, modified in so far as it relates to the testing 
 of molasses from the British colony of Antigua. (T. D. 31762; July 18, 1911.) 
 
630 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Molasses — Continued. 
 Testing of — Continued. 
 
 T. D. 31762, relative to testing molaflBes, extended so as to apply to molasses 
 received from countries other than Antigua as well aa to molasses received from 
 Antigua, and article 979 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 further modified 
 accordingly. (T. D. 31935; Oct. 20, 1911.) 
 
 Molded metal statuary. 
 
 Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7642 (T. D. 34928) 
 relative to atained-glaas windows, applicable to molded metal statuary. (T. D. 
 35056; Jan. 14, 1915.) 
 
 Molders' patterns. 
 
 Holders' patterns are not free of duty under paragraph 629, tariff act of 1909, pro- 
 viding for "models of inventions and of other improvements in the arts," but 
 are dutiable as manufactxu-es of the materials of which they are composed. (T. 
 D. 31132— G. A. 7135; Dec. 16, 1910.) 
 
 Molds, plates, or dies. 
 
 Cost of molds,' plates, or dies constitutes a part of the market value of merchandise 
 where manufacturer or dealer makes a charge therefor. (T. D. 33860; Nov. 3, 
 1913.) 
 
 Molybdenite. , 
 
 Mineral substance — Crude — 
 Molybdenite, a mineral substance imported in its natural state as freed from the 
 rock or'gangue formation in which it is found by crushing the rock or gangue 
 without crushing or changing the condition or formation of the mineral itself, 
 and then placing the whole in water when the mineral rises to the surface and is 
 skimmed off, is not dutiable under paragraph 81 of the tariff act of 1913 as a min- 
 eral substance partially manufactured, but is free of duty under paragraph 549 
 as a mineral not advanced in value or condition, etc. Myers v. United States 
 (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 506) distinguished. 
 
 Process not manufacturing process: It has been uniformlyjheld in customs 
 interpretation that the application of processes necessary to produce an article 
 from its native condition and to bring' it into a condition that it may be imported , 
 without affecting its per se character, is not regarded either as a manufacturing 
 process or as a process advancing it in value or condition. Hampton, Jr., & Co. 
 V. United States (No. 1581), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37870. 
 Decision i;pversed. (T. D. 35926; Nov. 19, 1915.) 
 
 Monogram dies. (See Steel, plates.) 
 
 Monozite sand. (See Sand, monozite.) 
 
 Monument, marble. 
 
 The provision in pargraph 703, tariff act of 1897, for "works of art * * * im- 
 ported expressly for presentatioD to * * * [an] incorporated religious 
 society,'' does not include a marble monument upon which the only free sculp- 
 ture is a cornice, a bust in bas-relief, and a garland of flowers covering but a 
 slight area of the marble surface, the remainder of the carving consisting of plain 
 paneling and beveUng. Vandegrift v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Courts Eastern District of Pennsylvania, June 3, 1908. No. 4 (suit 1962). 
 Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 6543 (T. D. 27914). Board aflarmed. (T. D. 29120; June 30, 1908.) 
 [Note. — No appeal taken in this case.] 
 
 Mosquito sticks. (See Incense, mosquito sticks.) 
 
 Motion-pictaie films. (See Films. ) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 631 
 
 Motiou-pictuie macMne parts . (See Machine parts . ) 
 
 Motor engines for the propulsion of vessels. (See Vessels.) 
 
 Mousseline bands or ribbons. (See Silk, manufactures of.) 
 
 Mouthpieces of rubber for pipes. (See Smokers' articles.) 
 
 Moving-picture films. (See Films.) 
 
 Mowers, lawn. (See Agricultural implements.) 
 
 Muck bars. (See Iron products.) 
 
 Mulf chains of iron or steel. 
 
 Guard and muff chains composed of iron or steel, blackened, not being commonly 
 or commercially known as jewelry and not " set with imitation precious stones 
 composed of glass or paste (except imitation jet), or composed wholly or in chief 
 value of silver, German silver, white metal, brass, or gun metal," are dutiable 
 at 45 per cent ad valorem as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199 of the 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33142— G. A. 7424; Jan. 31, 1913.) 
 
 Mufflers, silk, knitted. 
 
 Knitted silk mufflers, measuring about 8 inches wide and 43 J inches in length, and 
 trimmed at the ends with silk fringe, are dutiable as silk wearing apparel under 
 the provisions of paragraph 402 rather than under the provision for "mufflers" 
 in paragraph 400 of said act. Paragraph 400 provides for "handkerchiefs or 
 mufflers composed wholly or in chief value of silk, finished or unfinished, if cvft, 
 nothemmed or hemmed only, * * * hemstitched or imitation hemstitched, 
 or revered, or have drawn threads, or are embroidered in any manner, whether 
 with an initial letter, monogram, or otherwise, * * * or are tamboured, 
 appliqufid, or having tucking or insertion." Held that that provision does not 
 apply to all silk mufflers, but is limited to such as are of the character of hand- 
 kerchiefs. (T. D. 31378— G. A. 7184; Mar. 9, 1911.) 
 The merchandise is admittedly composed of silk, finished, cut, and nothemmed. 
 Paragraph 400, tariff act of 1909, is not restricted in its operation to mufflers that 
 are handkerchiefs or that are similar to handkerchiefs, and the term "mufflers " 
 there employed embraces both knit and woven mufflers, ' ' finished or unfinished, 
 if cut, not hemmed or hemmed only." The goods were dutiable under that 
 paragraph. Kaskel & Kaskel et al. v. United States (No. 935), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstracts 28475 and 28493 (T. D. 32507). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 33264; Feb. 28, 1913.) 
 The importation in controversy consisted of knitted silk mufflers . The issue upon 
 which the case was tried and decided below has been determined here in a pre- 
 vious case — Kaskel v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33264) — and 
 the views there expressed are adhered to. A fuller record might work a reversal 
 of those views, but the present record, taken as a whole in connection with the 
 exhibits, sufficiently establishes the importers' contention that these mufflers 
 were dutiable under paragraph 400, tariff act of 1909. Hensel, Brackmann & 
 Lorbacher et al. v. United States (No. 932), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 28475 (T. D. 32507). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33914; 
 Nov. 18, 1913.) 
 Foregoing decision of the United States Court of Customs Appeals (T. D. 33914), 
 involving the classification of fringed silk mufflers, not to be followed, but duty 
 assessed upon such articles under the provision for articles of wearing apparel of 
 every description, including knit goods, in paragraph 317, tariff act of 1913. (T. 
 D. 33978; Dec. 13, 1913.) 
 
632 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS^ 1908-1&15. 
 
 Mufflers, silk, knitted — Continued. 
 Fringe effect — 
 With these mufflers the threads are in all cases introduced to perfect and hold in 
 place the overwhelmed and overlapped edges and are necessary as well for orna- 
 mentation. Being necessary to complete the hemming process or its equivalent, 
 this can not be said to be a process beyond hemming; and the threads holding 
 the individual pieces together being cut, the merchandise was brought within 
 the provisions of paragraph 400, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Lines & 
 Wame (No. 1453); United States v. Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher (No. 
 1454), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Government 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 36162 (T. D. 34668). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35193; Mar. 3, 1915.) 
 Muffs, teddy-bear. (See Teddy-bear muffs.) 
 Muguet de Mai. 
 
 Muguet de Mai, shown by a preponderance of testimony to contain no essential 
 oil, is not fluorescence valley lily, but enfleurage grease, and as such by para- 
 graph 626, tariff act of 1897, was not dutiable. United States v. Ungerer (T. 
 D. 28210) distinguished. Burr v. United States (No. 28), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 17038 (T. D. 28448). Trans- 
 ferred from United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 31183; Jan. 5, 1911.) 
 By reason of the insertion in paragraph 639, tariff act of 1909, of the words "liquid 
 and soUd primal flower essences not compounded," only such enfleurage 
 grease as is derived from a single flower and contains only the odor of the flower 
 from which it is derived was classifiable under said paragraph. Held, accord- 
 ingly, that concrete muguet de Mai' which is a combination of odors derived 
 directly from flowers, was not free of duty as "enfleurage grease" under said 
 paragraph 639, but dutiable either directly or by similitude imder paragraph 3 
 of said act relating to oils and combiaations of oils. (T. D. 32504 — G. A. 7361; 
 May 9, 1912.) 
 Mushrooms in tins, packed in wooden cases. 
 
 Mushrooms contained in tins, and inclosed in differing numbers of tins in wooden 
 cases, may not be deemed mushrooms, cut, sliced, or dried in undivided pack- 
 ages of a given weight and dutiable as such, but are plainly mushrooms con- 
 tained in tins and are dutiable per pound, the weight of the immediatt; cover- 
 ings included, under the firtt clause of paragraph 251, tariff act of 1909. United 
 States V. Yamashita (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 341; T. D. 31435); Choy Chong Woh 
 & Co. et al. V. United States (No. 595), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Genetal Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 24666 (T. D. 31236). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31978; Oct. 16, 1911.) 
 Musical instruments. 
 Accordions, toy — 
 Small accordions with 10 keys, upon which musical pieces can be played, are 
 not toys under paragraph 431 of the tariff act of 1909, but are musical instruments 
 under paragraph 467 of the same act. 
 
 Value alone does not determine classification: Cheapness of an article, with- 
 out proof that the same is a toy, or commercially known as such, does not en- 
 title it to classification as a toy, especially if it is capable of practical use. (T. 
 D. 34601— G. A. 7579; June 22, 1914.) 
 "Baby crys." (See Whistles, wood-en.) 
 Parts of — 
 Drumheads, dressed skins for: Untanned skins, from which the hair has been 
 removed, and which have been stretched and dried and are chiefly used for 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 633 
 
 Musical instruments — Continued. 
 Parts of — Continued. 
 
 making drumheada, but require fuithfir treatment before they can be so used, 
 are claasible as dressed skins under paragraph 438, tariff act of 1897, and not as 
 parts of musical instruments, under paragraph 453, nor as parchment under 
 paragraph 634. Wyman v. United Statet, United States Circuit Court, East- 
 em District of Missouri, January 24, 1908, No. 5399 (suit 1933). Appeal by 
 importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 13975 (T. D. 27801). Dtcision adverse to Government. (T. D. 28924; Apr. 
 8, 1908.) [Note. — No appeal was taken from the fortgoing decision.] 
 
 Held that untanned skins not mounted on hoops, which are suitable for use 
 in the manufacture of drumheads, are not dutiable as parts of musical instru- 
 ments under paragraph 453, tariff act of 1897, but as dressed skins under para- 
 graph 438. (T. D. 29264^G. A. 6807; Sept. 16, 1908.) 
 The imported articles are called drumheads by the importers and the appraiser 
 alike. They appear to be completely prepared and adapted for use as drum- 
 heads, and by their size and shape they would seem to have been finally appro- 
 priated to that use, and that use alone. They were propeily dutiable as parts 
 of musical instruments under paragraph 467, tariff act of 1909. Wyman case 
 (T. D. 28924) distinguished. United States v. Lyon & Healy (No. 1091), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30933 (T. D. 33055). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 33366; Apr. 18, 1913.) 
 The importation in controversy consisted of (1) blocks of wood made into the form 
 of violin necks; (2) tailpieces for violins; (3) pegs for violins; (4) round pieces 
 of granadilla wood about 7 inches in length, having a hole bored lengthwise 
 through the center, intended to be made into mouthpieces for flutes; and (5) 
 round pieces of ivory in different lengths, having a hole bored lengthwise 
 through the center, intended to be made into mouthpieces for piccolos and 
 flutes. 
 
 Violin and cello necks of wood: The physical construction of the violin and 
 cello necks is such as to render them plainly unserviceable for any other pur- 
 pose than for use as parts of musical instruments. Athenia Steel & Wire Co. 
 ■D. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 494; T. D. 31528); Richard & Co. v. 
 United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 306; T. D. 32587); United States v. Lyon & 
 Healy (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33366). 
 
 Hollow cylindrical pieces of wood and ivory: The appearance of the hollow 
 cylindrical pieces of wood and ivory does not indicate they are confined in 
 their possible uses, nor does the evidence justify the conclusion that they are 
 intended for use as parts of musical instrdments. United States v. Lyon & 
 Healy (No. 1102), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30931 
 (T. D. 88055). Decision modified. (T. D. 33873; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 Violin pegs, cello pegs, violin bridges, violoncello bridges, violin sound posts, 
 violin bow tips, violin finger tips, violin necks, and violin finger boards, so far 
 manufactured as to make them suitable only for use in the manufacture of muai- 
 ' cal instruments held to be subject to duty at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 467, tariff act of 1909, as paits of musical instruments, regard- 
 less of the fact that certain necessary changes must be made in them to fit them 
 to the instruments in the construction of which they are designed for use. 
 United States v. Lyon (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33366) cited and followed. 
 (T. D. 33405— G. A. 7459; May 5, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The impoitation consisted of violin fingei boards, necks, pegs, 
 and bridges of wood each of which have been given such form and shape that 
 
634 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIOKTS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Musical instraments — Continued. 
 Farts of — Continued. 
 
 not only lias its utility for any other purpose been destroyed but each article 
 bears evidence of the use to which it is to be devoted and its adaptation to that 
 use. They were dutiable, as assessed, as parts of musical instruments under 
 paragraph 467, tarifl act of 1909. United States v. Lyon & Healy (4 Ct. Gust. 
 Appls., — ; T. D. 33873, supra). Richard & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 
 1200), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7459 (T. D. 33405). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33883; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 Bolls for self-playing instruments — 
 
 The music rolls in controversy are made for a player piano known as the Welte 
 Mignon. This instrument can be used as an ordinary piano and it is equipped 
 for the mechanical production of music. These rolls are essential to the use of 
 the instrument as a player piano and are therefore parts of the instrument. 
 Welte & Sons v. United States (No. 1273), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 33565 (T. D. 33738). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34249; Feb. 
 27, 1914.) 
 Strings — 
 
 Catgut strings of lengths and quality permitting their use in the condition in which 
 imported as strings for musical instruments are dutiable as such at the rate of 45 
 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 467, tariff act of 1909, and are not entitled 
 to entry free of duty under paragraph 529 as catgut unmanufactured. Davies, 
 Turner & Co. i;. United States (115 Fed. Rep., 232) distinguished. (T. D. 
 31785— G. A. 7250; July 28, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise of the importation in controversy consists of 
 catgut strings, and, as appears from the testimony, is ready for immediate use as 
 strings for musical instruments. It falls eo nomine under paragraph 467, tariff 
 act of 1909. Davies, Tiurner & Co. v. United States (115 Fed. Rep., 232) dis- 
 tinguished. Richard & Co. v. United States (No. 746), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7250 (T. D. 31785). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 32587; May 27, 1912.) 
 
 Silk strings for musical instruments properly dutiable at the rate of 45 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 318, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34044; Jan. 5, 1914.) 
 
 "Strings for musical instruments " refers to strings used for the production of musi- 
 cal sounds; and the tailpiece gut of one of the two classes of importations are 
 not BO employed, being used rather to hold the tailpieces of a violin or cello to 
 the end pin of the instruments. As to the catgut of the other class of importa- 
 tions there is no dispute that when used as a part of an instrument they are used 
 for the purpose of producing musical sounds. They are "strings for musical in- 
 struments" and were dutiable as such. Fischer v. United States (No. 1339), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34317 (T. D. 34026). Decision 
 modified. (T. D. 34477; May 18, 1914.) 
 
 Strings for musical instruments made of gut covered with silk, the silk consti- 
 tuting the material of chief value, are properly dutiable as manufactiu-es of silk 
 under paragraph 318, tariff act of 1913, and not as "parts" of musical instru- 
 ments under paragraph 373. 
 
 Same — Congressional intent: In omitting from paragraph 373, tariff act of 
 1913, the provision for "strings for musical instruments, not otherwise enumer- 
 ated," which provision appeared in the corresponding paragraph in the tariff 
 act of 1909, while retaining therein the provision for strings for musical instru- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 635 
 
 Musical instruments — Continued. 
 Strings — Continued. 
 
 ments composed wholly or in chief value of metal, and making special provision 
 for gut strings for musical instruments in paragraph 366 of the present act, Con- 
 gress evidenced an intent to declare that strings for musical instruments com- 
 posed in chief value of other materials than gut or metal are not to be classified 
 as "parts" of musical instruments. (T. D. 35382— G. A. 7722; May 3, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) How classified. — Strings for musical instruments, composed of 
 catgut wound with silk, silk being the component material of chief value, are 
 dutiable under paragraph 318, tariff act of 1913, as a manufacture of which silk 
 is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for, and not 
 under paragraph 373 as parts of musical instruments. Carl Fischer v. United 
 States (No. 1573), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by im- 
 porter from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7722 (T. D. 35382). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35982; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 Unfinished violin necks — 
 Unfinished violin necks: Blocks of wood, rough-shaped into the form of violin 
 necks and requiring the application thereto of further processes of manufacture 
 before they become fitted for use as violin necks, are not, as imported, parts of 
 musical instruments within the meaning of paragraph 467, tariff act of 1909, 
 but are dutiable as manufactures of wood under paragraph 215 of said act. (T . D . 
 31755— G. A. 7247; July 17, 1911.) 
 
 Musk, artificial. 
 
 It not appearing from the evidence that the dominant characteristic of this com- 
 modity is derived from coal tar, it is not to be classed as coal tar; and tri-nitro- 
 iso-butyl-xylol, or artificial musk, was dutiable under paragraph 3, tariff act of 
 1897. Magnus v. United States (No. 33), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the importer from the decision of the Board of United States 
 GeneralAppraisers(T.D. 29727). Decision affirmed. Transferred from United 
 States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. (T. D. 31212; Jan. 11, 
 1911.) 
 Artificial musk, containing as one of its constituent elements tii-nitro-iso-butyl- 
 xylol, dutiable as a chemical compound under paragraph 3, tariff act of 1897, and 
 not as a coal-tar preparation, under paragraph 15 of said act. (T. D. 31269 — G. 
 A. 7161; Feb. 2, 1911.) 
 
 N. 
 
 Nail files. 
 
 Small toilet articles consisting of nail files inclosed in a metal case, used in mani- 
 curing the nails and carried on or about the person, are dutiable under paragraph 
 356 of the tariff act of 1913 as articles'valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces 
 designed to be carried on or about the person, composed of metal, and are like 
 articles to those enumerated therein. Nail files used as toilet articles to be car- 
 ried on or about the person are not such merchandise as is referred to in para- 
 graph 131 as "files, file blanks, rasps, and floats of all cuts and kinds." This 
 paragraph refers to trade tools and not such as are carried on or about or attached 
 to the person as are provided for by paragraph 356. (T. D. 35793 — G. A. 7787; 
 Oct. 11, 1915.) 
 
 NaU powder. (See Toilet preparations.) 
 
 Nail and manicure nippers. (See Nippers, nail and manicure.) 
 
 Nails. 
 Saddle nails not parts of saddles — 
 Saddle nails, composed of metal and used to fasten the saddle to the saddletree 
 are properly dutiable as manufactures of metal under paragraph 167 of the tariff 
 act of 1913, as here classified by the collector, rather than free of duty under 
 
636 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Nails — Continued. 
 Saddle nails not parts of saddles — Continued- 
 paragraph 530 of said act as "parts" of saddles, as claimed by the importers. 
 They constitute merely one of the classes of materials employed in the manu- 
 facture of a saddle. (T. D. 35578— G A. 7749; July 6, 1915.) 
 With leather heads — 
 The evidence does not show the nails of the importation are wrought iron or steel, 
 and the return of the appraiser shows them to be in chief value of leather. 
 They were dutiable under paragraph 452, tariff act of 1909. Vantine v. United 
 States (T. D. 33124). Richard & Co. v. United States (No. 1061), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30211 (T. D. 32884) and Abstract 
 30460 (T. D. 32943). Decision afiSrmed. (T. D. 33481; May 23, 1913.) 
 
 Naphtha, solvent. 
 
 Merchandise invoiced as solvent naphtha dutiable as a coal-tar preparation under 
 paragraph 15, tarifi act of 1909. (T. D. 30530; Apr. 12, 1910.) 
 
 Naphthalin. 
 Tare — 
 Naphthalin, being made free of duty by paragraph 536, tariff act of 1909, where 
 such an article in the form of a powder is introduced into bales of wool as a dis- 
 infectant, its weight should be deducted from the gross weight of the wool and 
 allowed as tare. (T. D. 32068— G.' A. 7304; Dec. 4, 1911.) 
 
 Naphthalin and camphor. -' 
 
 Naphthalin and camphor imported in the form of balls and tablets do not fall 
 within the proviso of paragraph 17, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34199; Feb. 17, 
 1914.) 
 
 Napkins, paper. (See Paper napkins.) 
 
 Narrow cotton fabric. (See Cotton, narrow cotton fabric.) 
 
 Narrow sUk fabrics used as trimmings. (See Trimmings.) 
 
 Natural flowers, preserved. (See Flowers.) 
 
 Nautical instruments. (See Metal, manufactures of.) 
 
 Navigation regulations. 
 
 Regulations for the documenting of vessels, recording of bills of sale, mortgages, 
 etc., imder the reorganization ordered by the President on March 3, 1913. 
 (T. D. 33558; June 16, 1913.) 
 
 Neat cattle. (See Cattle.) 
 
 Necklace clasps of platinum. (See Jewelry.) 
 
 Necklaces. (See Jewelry, necklaces; also Pearls, drilled.) 
 
 Necklaces, bracelets, and brooches, cheap and flimsy. (See Toys, necklaces, etc.) 
 
 Needlecases. 
 
 Oases or books of paper, resembling cardcases or pocketbooks in appearance, 
 were imported filled with needles; each was a completed structure before the 
 needles were placed in it; and they were susceptible of being again used for 
 the same purpose after the original supply of needles was eidiausted. Held 
 (1) that the cases are not coverings for the needles within the meaning of sec- 
 tion 19, customs administrative act of 1890; (2) that they do not, with the 
 needles, constitute entireties dutiable as composed of paper and metal; and (3) 
 that the cases and needles are two distinct entities, classifiable in the same 
 way as though separately imported. United States v. Dieckerhoff, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 7, 1908. No. 108 (suit 
 4152). Appeal by Government from Circuit Court of United States, Southern 
 District of New York (151 Fed. Rep., 957; T. D. 27949), reversing G. A. 6220 
 (T. D. 26887). Decision aflumed. (T. D. 28716; Jan. 29, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 637 
 
 ITeedlecases — Continued. 
 
 Held, as to needles in fancy cases, that they do not with the cases constitute 
 entireties, but that the needles and cases are separately classifiable for the pur- 
 poses of the assessment of duty. United States v. Dieckerhoft (T. D. 28716) 
 followed; G. A. 6220 (T. D. 26887) overruled. (T. D. 29097— G. A. 6780, 
 June 23, 1908.) 
 
 As to needlecases and needlebooks dutiable by the express terms of paragraph 
 164, tariff act of 1909, as "entireties,"' and which are made up of books or cases 
 of paper, or other material, in which are placed assortments of steel needles 
 and other sewing requisites; held that the material determining their classifi- 
 cation is either metal, -paper, leather, etc.; and such articles are dutiable under 
 paragraphs 199, 420, and 452, according* to material, by virtue of the final clause 
 in paragraph 164, tariff act of 1909, rather than as unenumerated manufactured 
 articles under paragraph 480, or as "needles" under paragraphs 164 and 633. 
 (T. D. 31026— G. A. 7119; Nov. 3, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Needlebooks, containing needles, and the like articles are not 
 dutiable as manufactures in chief value of metal. Paragraph 164, tariff act of 
 1909, singles them out and establishes a rule for the determination of their 
 dutiable status, and that is according to the chief components included within 
 and going to make up the entirety. The importations -were dutiable as non- 
 enumerated manufactured articles under the provisions of paragraph 480, 
 tariff act of 1909. Hartrantt v. Sheppard (125 U. S., 337); Steinhardt & Bro. 
 V. United States (No. 536), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7119 
 (T. D. 31026). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32092; Dec. 6, 1911.) 
 
 By virtue of the provision in paragraph 164, tariff act of 1909, that "needlecases 
 or needlebooks furnished with assortments of needles * * * and other 
 articles, shall pay duty as entireties according to the component mMerial of 
 chief value," as construed in Steinhardt v. United States (T. D. 32092), such 
 furnished needlecases or books are dutiable at the same rate as the component 
 article of chief value, and it Is not necessary that said component article be 
 designated eo nomine. Held, accordingly, that such as are composed in chief 
 value of hand sewing needles are dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured 
 articles under paragraph 480 of said act, such as are in chief value of paper 
 cases, as manufactures of paper (par. 420), and such as are in chief value of 
 leather cases, as manufactures of leather or as leather cases (par. 452). (T. D. 
 32528— G. A. 7367; May 17, 1912.) 
 Pyroxylin articles — 
 
 Needlecases containing a celluloid thimble and a hollow celluloid bobbin on 
 which thread is wound, and in which are inclosed two needles and two pins, 
 aredutiableunderparagraphl35of the tariff act of 1913 as "needlecases * * * 
 furnished with combinations of needles and other articles," and not as manu- 
 factures of pyroxylin imder paragraph 25 of the same act. (T. D. 35099— G. A. 
 7671; Jan. 27, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The boxes contain needles in combination with pins, thread, 
 and a thimble. A needlecase is a case of metal or other material to contain 
 needles, and the statute has enlarged the meaning to include other articles 
 required in the use of the needle itself. The goods fall under paragraph 135 
 as needlecases furnished with assortments of needles or combination of needles 
 and other articles. United States v. Poirier & Lindeman (No. 1541), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7671 (T. D. 35099). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 35470, May 18, 1915.) 
 
638 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Needle thieadeis. 
 
 So-called needle threaders or threading hooks, used in threading needles for 
 embroidering machines, are not dutiable as "needles" under paragraph 164, 
 tariff act of 1909, but are dutiable as "manufactures of metal" under paragraph 
 199 of said act. (T. D. 31347— G. A. 7178; Feb. 27, 1911.) 
 Needles. 
 
 Needles for the Brosser overstitch machine are not dutiable as needles for sewing 
 machines, but as "needles not specially provided for," at the rate of 25 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 165, tariff act of 1897. The term "sewing 
 machine" is used in its ordinary meaning and covers the usual, well-known, 
 and commonly recognized article, and machines which produce only fancy 
 effects and do not stitch together 'ordinary fabrics do not fall within that class. 
 (T. D. 30291— G. A. 6969; Jan. 20, 1910.) 
 Phonographic — 
 Steel needles used in phonographs to reproduce records held dutiable as parts of 
 phonographs under paragraph 468, tariff act of 1909, and not as manufactures of 
 wire (par. 135). G. A. 4971 (T. D. 23195), Abstract 33565 (T. D. 33738); 
 Welte V. United States (5 Ct. Oust. Appls., — ; T. D. 34249); American Ex- 
 press Co. V. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 279; T. D. 33490) followed. 
 (T. D. 34352— G. A. 7551; Apr. 2, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Whether equipped with records of one kind or another, a phono- 
 graph without a needle capable of being fitted to it and of following the cuts or 
 undulations of the records would not serve the purpose for which it was made 
 and would not be a complete machine. The needles stand for tariff purposes 
 on a footing with the records themselves. Landay Bros. v. United States (No. 
 1431), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7551 (T. D. 34352). Deci- 
 sion affirmed. (T. D. 35151; Feb. 3, 1915.) 
 Netherlands. 
 
 Beciprocal commercial agreement with, termination of. (T. D. 29945, Aug. 10, 1909.) 
 Nets and nettings. 
 Curtain Nets — 
 Nets and nettings used in making curtains to be assessed with duty at 60 per cent 
 ad valorem under paragraph 358. (T. D. 35687; Aug. 31, 1915.) 
 Hair. (See Hair nets.) 
 Nottingham — 
 Nottingham nets in the piece, invoiced as unfinished curtains, are dutiable as nets 
 
 under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34065; Jan. 19, 1914.) 
 Plain gauze or leno woven nettings: Cotton nettings made on the Nottingham 
 lace-curtain machine are not to be classified as cotton cloth under the last clause 
 of paragraph 252, tariff act of 1913, which directs that "plain gauze or leno woven 
 cotton nets or nettings shall be classified for duty as cotton cloth, " but are prop- 
 erly dutiable under the provision in paragraph 358 of said act for "nettings 
 * * * of whatever yams, threads, or filaments composed." (TD. 35748— G. 
 A. 7782; Sept. 27, 1915.) 
 Tennis — 
 Tennis nets made from Russian hemp are dutiable as "manufactures of hemp" 
 under paragraph 284, tariff act of 1913, and not as " gill nettings, nets, webs and 
 seines" under paragraph 271, that paragraph being limited to such articles as 
 are intended for use in fishing and fisheries. (T. D. 35562 — G. A. 7745; June 
 30, 1915.) 
 Net-weight law. 
 
 Regulations governing the marking of the quantity of food in package form under 
 section 3 of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906, as amended by the act of 
 March 3, 1913. (T. B. 34509; June 5, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISION'S, 1908-1915. 639 
 
 Neutrality. 
 
 Austria-Hungary and Servia, Germany and Russia, and Germany and France. 
 
 (T. D. 34674; Aug. 5, 1914.) 
 Instructions to collectors of customs relative to the clearance of merchant vessels. 
 
 All such vessels subject to inspection and examination of papers. Instructions 
 
 relative to vessels of war. (T. D. 34693; Aug. 10, 1914.) 
 Executive order relative to the issuance of instructions concerning the enforcement 
 
 of neutrality laws. 
 
 EXECUTIVE ORDER. 
 
 In order to secure a more prompt and effective enforcement of the neutrality 
 laws to meet the emergent conditions now existing, it is hereby ordered that all 
 instructions to customs officers concerning the enforcement of the neutrality 
 laws of the United States shall, until otherwise directed, be issued by the Treas- 
 ury Department. 
 
 WooDROw Wilson. 
 The White House, August 8, 1914. 
 (T. D. 34695; Aug. 11, 1914.) 
 Instructions supplementing those in T. D. 34693 of August 10, 1914, relative to the 
 
 observance of neutrality. (T. D. 34718; Aug. 20, 1914.) 
 Instructions supplementing those in T. D. 34718 of August 20, 1914, relative to the 
 observance of neutrality in radio communication. (T. D. 34777; Sept. 25, 
 1914.) 
 Instructions to collectors of customs relative to a change in the color of merchant 
 vessels as affecting their status. T. D. 34693 of August 10, 1914, paragraph 5, 
 modified. (T. D. 34811; Oct. 8, 1914.) 
 Instructions supplementing those in T. D. 34693 and T. D. 34718 relative to the 
 observance of neutrality. Cooperation of customs and revenue-cutter officers 
 with naval officers required. (T. D. 34899; Nov. 14, 1914.) 
 Joint resolution empowering the President to better enforce and maintain the neu- 
 trality of the United States, published for the information of customs officers 
 and othera concerned. (T. D. 35205; Mar. 10, 1915.) 
 Simday should not be excluded from the 24 hours which belligerent war vessels 
 may remain in port under the President's proclamation in T. D. 34674. (T. D. 
 35902; Nov. 24, 1915.) 
 Badio apparatus of belligerent merchant vessels — 
 Customs officers instructed relative to the control of the radio apparatus of bellig- 
 erent merchant vessels while in United States ports. (T. D. 36017; Dec. 24, 
 1915.) 
 Nickel-plated cast-iron eccentrics. (See Machine parts for sewing machines.) 
 Nickel-plated Iron or steel sheets. (See Iron sheets.) 
 Nickel-plated steel strips. (See Steel strips.) 
 Nickeled zinc in strips. (See Zinc, nickeled.) 
 Nigari. 
 Mineral water — What not — 
 
 " Nigari " is not palatable, is not used as a drinking water nor for medicinal pur- 
 poses, but is used in the cooking of certain oriental dishes. This article is not 
 to be taken as a mineral water as contemplated by paragraph 312, tariff act of 
 1909. The record does not disclose with precision facts necessary in making a 
 true classification of the merchandise. Iwakami & Co. v. United States (No. 
 1265), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 88376 (T. D. 88695). De- 
 cision reversed. (T. D. 34427; Apr. 28, 1914.) 
 
640 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Nigei seed oil. 
 
 Niger seed oil, being, in its imported condition, used for various purposes other 
 tlian soap making, dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 3, tarifi act of 1909. (T. D. 32615; June 10, 1912.) 
 Night lights. 
 
 The importation consisted of night lights, of which metal forms not only a very 
 considerable part of the merchandise, but is, in fact, a very important, sub- 
 stantial, and material constituent of the goods. Paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, 
 was clearly applicable. United States v. American Import Co. (No. 998), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29614 (T. D. 32780). De- 
 cision reversed. (T. D. 32912; Oct. 28, 1912.) 
 
 The importation in controversy consisted of night lights, of which metal appeared 
 to be an essential part As the articles are not specifically enumerated else- 
 where they fell directly within the provisions of paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, 
 as composed in part of metal. United States v. Borgfeldt & Co. (No. 997), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29597 (T. D. 32780). De- 
 cision reversed. (T. D. 32990; Nov. 21, 1912.) 
 Not tapers nor tapers by similitude — 
 
 In construction and in use "night lights '' partake more of the characteristic 
 features of oil lamps than of tapers, and neither in material nor in the use to 
 which they are commonly applied are they similar to tapers. They were 
 dutiable as unenumerated manufactured articles under paragraph 480, tariff 
 act of 1909. United States v. Godillot & Co. (No. 664), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 25655 (T. D. 31624). Decision aflBrmed. (T. 
 D. 32382; Apr. 1, 1912.) 
 Stearin — 
 
 So-called "night Ughfs," composed chiefly of stearin, a manufacture of tallow, 
 held to be properly classifiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles under 
 section 6, tariff act of 1897, and not under paragraph 279 as tallow by similitude. 
 Fairbanks v. Spaulding (19 Fed. Eep., 416); Strohmeyer's case, G. A. 6724 
 (T. D. 28797); Bancel v. United States (T. D. 30124). (T. D. 30332— G. A. 
 6974; Feb. 2, 1910.) 
 Sufficiency of protest — 
 
 The merchandise consisted of short, thick tapers, commercially known as night 
 lights, composed of a cotton wick and paraffin, each taper having a metal plate 
 covering the bottom of the wick and incased in a paper cup. These were im- 
 properly assessed as tapers and as being dutiable under paragraph 436, tariff 
 act of 1909, and were protested as nonenumerated manufactured articles and 
 as dutiable under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909; but as a case must be tried 
 upon the issues made by the protest and these issues having failed here, the 
 protest can not be sustained. United States v. Park & Tilford (No. 897), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28017 (T. D. 32346). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 32907; Oct. 28, 1912.) 
 Night shells. (See Fireworks.) 
 Nikols or nicol prisms. (See Spar prisms.) 
 Nippers, nail and manicure. 
 
 Nail or manicure nippers dutiable at the rate of 8 cents per pound and 40 per cent 
 ad valorem under paragraph 198, tarifi act of 1909. (T. D. 33094; Jan. 16, 
 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 641 
 
 Nippers and pliers — Surgical forceps. 
 
 Surgical forceps are not nippers or pliers. The provision in paragraph 166, tariff 
 act of 1913, for nippers and pliers, should be Uroited to tools and instruments 
 haying two lever handles working on a pivot, with cutting, pinching, or grip- 
 ping jaws. (T. D. 34270; Mar. 14, 1914.) 
 Nitric acid. (See Acid, nitric.) 
 Noils, mohair. (See Waste, mohair.) 
 Nominations for appointments. (See Appointments.) 
 Nonimportation. 
 Admixture of materials — 
 A simple mechanical mixture of two kinds of metals, due probably to careless- 
 ness in the stowing of the vessel in which imported or in the handling of the 
 goods, but which may be again separated, is not such a damage or destruction of 
 the goods as will excuse the importers from paying duty thereon. Damage 
 amounts to deterioration or injury which prohibits the return of the commodity 
 to its original condition. (T. D. 30753— G. A. 7056; June 30, 1910.) 
 Allowance in duties — 
 When merchandise not perishable is found by the appraising officers to be entirely 
 without commercial value by reason of damage and is so reported an allowance 
 in duties should be made. (T. D. 35701; Sept. 9, 1915.) 
 Breach of bond — 
 Where goods do not arrive in this country, thereby conetituting a shortage or 
 nonimportation, although not discovered until delivery to the importers, they 
 are not liable to be assessed for duty, notwithstanding the fact that the mer- 
 chandise may have been opened in violation of the terms of a bond given under 
 section 2899 of the Revised Statutes. Such bond must be enforced, when 
 forfeited, by a separate procedure claiming damages for its breach. (T. D. 
 31678— G. A. 7233; June 9, 1911.) 
 Breakage^ 
 Where glass demijohns containing floral waters were broken in transitu, so as to 
 waste the contents and destroy the commercial value of the entire importation, 
 a deduction of duty will be made on the groxmd that the goods were never im- 
 ported. 
 
 Such a case does not present one of damage allowance under section 23 of the 
 customs administrative act, which requires abandonment of damaged goods, 
 and has no application to the entire destruction of merchandise, rendered com- 
 mercially valueless and resulting in entire loss. (T. D. 29494 — G. A. 6854;' 
 Jan. 21, 1909.) 
 Condemnation — 
 Merchandise the usefulness of which as a commercial commodity has been en- 
 tirely destroyed and that has been condemned and destroyed as insanitary is 
 not an article of merchandise of value imported into this country and can have 
 no dutiable status. 
 
 Procedure as to nommportation: Where an importer has removed in bond 
 to his own warehouse a consignment of merchandise, and it is there found that 
 more than 104)er cent of the consignment had been rendered in transit totally 
 valueless he is not remitted as of course to proceeding alone under section 23 
 of the customs administrative act of 1890, but may seek his remedy as well by 
 protest under section 14 of the same act. 
 
 Glac6 fruit, when a nonimportation: The facts disclosing that 29 cases and 
 59 boxes of glac6 fruit, more than 10 per cent of the entire consignment, were 
 entered in a wholly worthless condition, there was no importation as to this 
 portion of the merchandise, and the importer complying with all conditions as 
 to recovery is entitled to the relief he demands. 
 45633°— 17 a 
 
642 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Nonimportation — Continued. 
 Condemnation — Continued . 
 
 Bond and penalty: 1^6 penalty of a bond given for the return of goods not 
 examined by customs officials is not enforceable in a proceeding of tjiis kind, 
 the court declining to assume jurisdiction of questions arising out of the alleged 
 breach of the conditions of such a bond. United States v. Habicht, Braun & 
 Co. (No. 10), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from the Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 28651) to the 
 United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 
 29768); thence to United States Circuit Court of Appeals and transferred. Deci- 
 sion adverse to the Government. (T. D. 31031; Oct. 28, 1910.) 
 Decayed macaroni. 
 Decayed macaroni: It is not contended by either party that macaroni is a perish- 
 able article within the meaning of the first part of subsection 22 of section 28, 
 tariff act of 1909. The evidence disclosed by the record justifies the conclusion 
 that the macaroni for which allowance was made was, before arrival in port, not 
 merely damaged, but destroyed, by reason of being saturated with water during 
 a delayed voyage, and that therefore as to the destroyed portion there was no 
 importation. United States v. Pastene & Co. (No. 745), United States Coiurt of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 26203 (T. D. 31788). (T. D. 82458 ; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 Fruit — 
 Whether all, or a portion only, of a cargo of fruit constitutes an importation de- 
 pends on the facts established by evidence in the particular case. In this 
 particular case the board based its decision on the ground that the evidence 
 offered by the importers was not convincing of error in the return made by the 
 collector and no reason here appears to disturb that finding. See United States 
 V. Shallus (T. D. 32074). Cuccio & Co. v. United States (No. 319), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from decision of 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 19724 (T. D. 29288). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32075; Nov. 28, 1911.) 
 Loss of cargo — 
 
 When duty attaches: Duty attaches upon imported merchandise at the time 
 the vessel, with the cargo aboard, an^ves within the line of the customs district. 
 
 What is a nonimportation: A cargo, or part thereof, so far destroyed as to be of 
 no commercial value at the time the importation is brought within the customs 
 district is not, as to the destroyed portion, deemed an "importation of mer- 
 chandise " within the tariff laws of the United States, and therefore no duty 
 accrues or can be collected thereon. 
 
 Importation despite loss in cargo: The destruction or loss of the whole or any 
 part of a cargo of imported merchandise after this enters the line of the customs 
 district and before it is uidoaded from the vessel or entered or surrendered from 
 the custody of the customs is not thereby exempted from the payment of duties, 
 unless by reason of express statute or regulation and then as provided in that 
 statute or regulation. 
 
 Decay in cargo a question of evidence: The Congress has by remedial statute 
 established a rule of evidence in determining the condition of merchandise at 
 the time this crosses the customs line, and the quantity of the merchandise 
 existing at the precise moment of importation, if made an issue, becomes a fact 
 to be proved, as any other fact in issue, by evidence. 
 
 Present finding as to lemons: An examination of all the evidence in this case 
 is persuasive of the correctness of the board's finding, except as to one entry, 
 and on modification the finding is affirmed. United States v. Shallus (No. 223), 
 
DIGEST OF OtrSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 643 
 
 Nonimportation — Continued . 
 loss of cargo — Continued. 
 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 20361 
 (T. D. 29449). Transferred from United States Circuit Court, District of 
 Maryland. Decision modified and affirmed. (T. D. 32074; Nov. 28, 1911.) 
 Botten fruit. (See Fruit, rotten.) 
 Subsection 22 of section 28, tariff act ot 1909 — 
 Part of a consignment of potatoes was condemned at the port of entry by the board 
 of health as unfit for use. Certificates to this effect were made by the inspector 
 May 24, 1912. On May 14, preceding, the importer had served notice that he 
 made application to have the merchandise assorted. No other notice was given. 
 The requirements of the statute as to notice are mandatory, and they were not 
 complied with. Houlder v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 247; T. D. 
 33480); Lauricella et al. v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 253; T. D. 33482). 
 Shallus V. United States (No. 1258), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 33291 (T. D. 33677). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34101; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 Nori. 
 Nori, a seaweed gathered from the ocean and sun dried, without the addition of 
 any other substance, and without being subjected to any process other than to 
 spread it on mats to facilitate drying by the sun, is free of duty under paragraph 
 617, tariff act of 1897, relating to "seaweeds * * * crude or unmanufac- 
 tured." United States v. Furuya, United States Circuit Court, Western Dis- 
 trict of Washington, Northern Division, January 21, 1910. No. 1334 (suitl749). 
 Appeal by United States from decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 8065 (T. D. 26708). Decision adverse to the Government. 
 (T. D. 30316; Feb. 1, 1910.) Acquiesced in by the Government March 8, 1910 
 (T. D. 30411). 
 Notaries. 
 Designation of customs notaries by the Secretary of the Treasury no longer re- 
 quired. (T. D. 33945; Dec. 2, 1913.) 
 Notations on entries. 
 
 Entries bearing notations by importers that additions were made under duress 
 should not be accepted. (T. D. 32058; Dec. 5, 1911.) 
 Notice of advance of value. 
 
 Notice of advance of value: Notice of the advance in value of imported merchan- 
 dise made by the appraiser must be given to the importer as provided for in the 
 customs regulations. If this notice is not given, the appraisement is not con- 
 clusive against the importer, and liquidation thereon is illegal. Lace House v. 
 United States (141 Fed. Eep., 869; T. D. 26970); Hawley's case, G. A. 6465 
 (T. D. 27671); Independent Importing Company's case, G. A. 6621 (T. D. 
 28250). (T. D. 30336— G. A. 6978; Feb. 7, 1910.) 
 Notice of appraisement. 
 
 Collectors to notify importers of appraiser's action where additions have been 
 made by importer in accordance with the provision in the last partof Paragraph 
 I of section 3 of the tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34363; Apr. 9, 1914.) 
 Collectors to notify importers of appraiser's action in all cases where additions have 
 been made by importer in accordance with the provision in the last partof Para- 
 graph I of section 3, tariff act of 1913. T. D.,34363 of April 9, 1914, extended. 
 (T. D. 34665; June 18, 1914.) 
 
644 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Notice to importers of change of duty. 
 
 Notice to importer: Where the Government changes its method of assessing 
 duties, it is under no obligation to give notice to importers in advance of actual 
 , importation. Years of illegal practice in classifying goods and assessing the 
 duties thereon does not bar the United States from changing to the legal method. 
 (T. B. 30295; Jan. 25, 1910.) 
 Notice to passengers. (See also Baggage.) 
 Begulatlons — 
 
 Regulations governing the entry of passengers' baggage under paragraph 709 of the 
 tarifi act of 1909 (T. D. 30327; Feb. 4, 1910). (T. D. 31382; Mar. 14, 1911.) 
 Under the tarifi act of 1913. (T. D. 33995; Dec. 20, 1913.) 
 Nottingham nets. (See Nets and nettings.) 
 Novelty siding. (See Lumber.) 
 Nursery stock. 
 
 Peonia moutan — Peonia arborea: Peonia moutan, which was formerly known as 
 Peonia arborea, properly dutiable as nursery stock at the rate of 25 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 264, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33270; Mar. 13, 1913.) 
 Hose cuttings: Rose cuttings that have been put in sand in preparation for ship- 
 ment, but have never in fact been in soil, are not dutiable as "rose plants" 
 under paragraph 252, tariff act of 1897, but as ''cuttings of * * * shrubs, 
 plants, * * * commonly known as "nursery or greenhouse stock," under 
 the same paragraph. United States v. American Express Co. United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 11, 1908. No. 124 (suit 
 1800). Appeal from Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District 
 of New York (T. D. 28206) aflirming Abstract 9655 (T. X>. 26997). Decision 
 adverse to Government. (T. D. 28780; Feb. 19, 1908.) Acquiesced in March 
 16, 1908 (T. D. 28846). 
 Rose plants: Only those briar roses that, are three years old or less were entitled 
 to admission under paragraph 264, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of $1 per 
 thousand plants, and the burden of proof was on the importers to show that the 
 plants came within that description. They failed to do this by a preponderance 
 of credible evidence, and the importation must be taken to have been properly 
 assessed under paragraph 264, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 4 cents each. Mal- 
 tus & Ware v. United States (No. 927), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 28394 (T, D. 32488). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32909; Oct. 28, 1912.) 
 Kosa rugosa — 
 
 Budded and grafted rose plants of a particular variety of rosa rogosa desirable as a 
 rose in rose culture and for ornamental purposes, are dutiable under the provi- 
 sion in paragraph 264, tariff act of 1909, for "rose plants, budded, grafted, or 
 grown on their own roots," and not under the same paragraph as "stocks, cut- 
 tings, or seedlings of * * * briar rose." G. A. 4635 (T. D. 21922) distin- 
 guished. (T. D. 31910— G. A. 7284; Oct. 5, 1911.) 
 (See also Plant quarantine act.) 
 Nuts, clear almonds. (See Almonds.) 
 
 O. 
 
 Oak logs. (See Wood — Unmanufactured.) 
 Oath "filed with entry." 
 
 American goods returned. (See Reimportation.) 
 Offers of compromise. (See Compromise offers.) 
 Office hours. (See Entry, hours of business.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 645 
 
 ou. 
 
 Anthracene — 
 
 Anthracene oil of a specific gravity of from 1 to 1.13 and yielding a distillate of 50 
 per cent or more from 270° to 400° C, free of duty under paragraph 452, tariff 
 act of 1913. (T. D. 34750; Sept. 3, 1914.) 
 Birch-tar — 
 
 It appearing from the evidence that the article imported -was birch-tar oil distilled 
 from the wood and used in dressing russia leather, to give an odor to the leather, 
 the mere possible but undisclosed use of this oil for other purposes did not re- 
 move it from the operation of paragraph 568, tariff act, 1897, and it was non- 
 dutiable under that paragraph. Klipstein & Co. v. United States (No. 309), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals Appeal by importer from decision of 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 30667). Board reversed. 
 (T. D. 31120; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 Cod — Mixed fish oU — 
 
 Only oil which is the product of unhealthy and putrid livers of codfish and allied 
 species, whether or not containing the entrails and other refuse parts of the fish 
 thrown in and allowed to undergo putrefaction, is entitled to admission free of 
 duty under paragraph 561 of the tariff act as cod oil. (T. D. 34160; Feb. 7, 
 1914.) 
 Creosote. (See Coal-tar preparations.) 
 Distilled — 
 
 Wool olein — ^Wool grease: Wool olein, an oil distilled from wool grease, is not 
 "wool grease" within the meaning of paragraph 279, tariff act of 1897, but is 
 dutiable as a distilled oil under paragraph 3. Swan & Finch Co. v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 13, 
 1909. Suit 5426. Appeal by importer from decision by Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 20159 (T. D. 29442). Board affirmed. 
 (T. D. 29805;- June 8, 1909.) 
 
 The importation is known as ' ' Peerless Oil, ' ' has a saponifiable content of about 5 
 per cent, and is distilled from wool grease or degrae, and claimed by the import- 
 ers to be fit only for stuffing or dressing leather, The term "fit only" implies 
 that the article to which it applies has no practical commercial fitness for uses 
 other than those designated. The board found that this limited use of the oil 
 of the importation was not shown. There was uncontradicted testimony tend- 
 ing to support the board's finding that the merchandise was dutiable.under para- 
 graph 3 of the tariff act of 1909. Stone & Downer Co. et al. v. United States 
 (No. 990), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29098 (T. D. 
 
 • 32681). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33266; Feb. 28, 1913.) 
 Essential — 
 
 Orange oil — Fruit oil — Commercial designation: Orange oil made from the natural 
 fruit is not known to the trade and commerce of the United States as "fruit 
 oil," but as "essential oil.'' The commodities known to the trade and com- 
 merce of the United States as "fruit oils" are artificial or synthetic products - 
 known scientifically as "fruit ethers." The^commercial designation of an arti- 
 cle must control over a different meaning scientifically or in common speech. 
 Held, accordingly, that natural fruit oil is not a "fruit oil" within the meaning 
 of paragraph 21, tariff act of 1909, but is an "essential oil," subject to duty at 
 the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 3 of said act. (T. D. 31718 — 
 G. A.' 7239; June 26, 1911.) 
 
 Oil of cypress, oil of cloves, oil of cardamom, oil of Ceylon, and oil of pennyroyal 
 -distilled from drugs, which, through the processes of distillation, have lost 
 their identity as such, are no longer drugs, but are essential oils. Held subject 
 
646 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Oil — Continued. 
 Essential — Continued. 
 
 to duty at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 3 of the tariff act 
 of 1909. (T. D. 33117— G. A. 7420; Jan. 24, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise in this case is oil of cypress, oil of cloves, oil 
 of cardamom, and oil of pennyroyal. All these oils are obtained by processes 
 of distillation and a specific description of them appears in paragraph 3, tariff 
 act of 1909. They are dutiable eo nomine under that paragraph. National 
 Aniline & Chemical Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1092), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7420 (T. D. 33117). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 33377; Apr. 22, 1913.) 
 Gauge of — 
 In ascertaining the value of oil dutiable on an ad valorem basis, it is proper to 
 ascertain in American gallons the quantity actually arriving in this country 
 and afterwards to reduce the unit of the invoice to English or imperial gallons 
 in the relative ratio of 231 cubic inches for the American gallon, liquid meas- 
 ure, and 277.274 cubic inches for the English gallon. The proper value would 
 thus be determined by multiplying the number of gallons by the price per 
 gallon, as shown by the invoice, it found to be correct by the appraiser. (T. D. 
 29370— G. A. 6830; Nov. 25, 1908.) 
 Ichthyol. (See Chemical compound — Isarol.) 
 Lubricating— 
 Combination of oils: As to the merchandise in question, one of its constituents, 
 petroleum, is an oil, but the other constituent differs physically, chemically, 
 and commercially from the vegetable oil out of which it is made. It has be- 
 come a sulphonated saponification of the original vegetable oil and a dissolu- 
 tion of petroleum in this does not constitute a combination of oils. It is a non- 
 enumerated manufactured article and was dutiable as such at 20 per cent 
 under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Schrock & Squires 
 (No. 1374). United States v. Richard & Co. et al. (No. 1375), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 34756 (T. D. 34186) and Abstract 35155 
 (T. D. 34307). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34974; Nov. 27, 1914.) 
 Standard specifications. (T. D. 35119; circular No. 42; Feb. 5, 1915.) 
 Acceptance or rejection on laboratory test. (T. D. 35399; circular No. 45, May 
 11, 1915.) 
 OUve — 
 Chemical examination: Collectors of customs at ports where there is no customs 
 chemist will submit samples of olive oil entered under paragraph 639, tariff' act 
 of 1909, to the United States appraiser at the nearest port having such chemist 
 for advice. (T. D. 30568; Apr. 25, 1910.) 
 Denaturants: 
 
 Under paragraph 639 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 29957; Aug. 20, 
 1909.) 
 
 Under paragraph 639 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 29976; 
 Sept. 7, 1909.) 
 
 T. D. 29976 (supra), relating to the denaturing of olive oil, amended to pro- 
 vide that to every 50 gallons of olive oil there be added 12 ounces of oil of 
 rosemary, full strength. The use of the crude oil is deemed preferable for the 
 reason that the amount of taste and odor which it would impart to the olive oil is 
 greater in the crude than in the refined oil. (T. D. 32056; Dec. 4, 1911.) 
 
 Under paragraph 6.39, tariff act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 30006; Sept. 23, 
 1909.) 
 
 Use of spindle oil, or a rather crude kerosene, as a denaturant of olive oil 
 to be discontinued. (T. D. 30500; Apr. 6, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 647 
 
 Oil— Continued. 
 Olive— Continued. 
 
 The use of pine tar in denaturing olive oil permitted, care being taken to 
 require the use of not less than 2 per cent of the tar and its thorough mixture 
 with the oil. (T. D. 32807; Sept. 4, 1912.) 
 
 The use of caustic soda in denaturing olive oil allowed, care being taken 
 to require the use of not less than 15 pounds to WO poimds of oil, and that the 
 mixture be supervised by a customs officer to be assigned to that duty, at the 
 expense of the parties in interest. (T. D. 32859; Oct. 14, 1912.) 
 
 The use of sulphuric acid in denaturing olive oil permitted under certain 
 conditions. (T. D. 33827; Oct. 31, 1913.) 
 Dutiability : It is clear in view of the decisions and of the change in language ap- 
 pearing in paragraph 38, tariff act of 1909, thatit was intended by that paragraph 
 to levy the duty there fixed upon the contents rather than upon the capacity 
 of tins containing olive oil. United States v. La Manna (154 Fed., 927); Ganr. 
 dolfi & Co. V. United States (152 Fed., 656) distinguished. United States v. 
 Palma (No. 1047), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30243 
 (T. D. 32884). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33412; May 6, 1913.) 
 
 United States v. Bacile (No. 1046), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 30243 (T. D. 32884). Decision reversed. Case ruled by United 
 States V. Palma (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33412, supra. (T. D. 33411; 
 May 6, 1913.) 
 Five-gallon containers: Under paragraph 40, tariff act of 1897, relating to olive 
 oil "in bottles, jars, tins, or similar packages," and to "oUve oil, not specially 
 provided for," Held that oil in tins of a capacity of 5 gallons is dutiable under 
 the latter provision rather than the former. United States v. La Manna, United 
 States V. Austin, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 
 March 10, 1908. Nos. 167-8 (suits 4622 and 4681). Appeals from the Circuit 
 Court of the United States for Southern District of New York, 154 Federal 
 Reporter, 927 (T. D. 28186), and T. D. 28210. Decision adverse to Government. 
 (T. D. 28865; Mar. 18, 1908.) Acquiesced in April 2, 1908 (T. D. 28913). 
 
 Method of ascertaining the quantity of olive oil in so-called 5-gallon con- 
 tainers. (T. D. 31711; June 20, 1911.) 
 
 Olive oil was classified by the collector of customs as oUve oil in tins contain- 
 ing less than 5 gallons each . The importers protested that the oil was dutiable at 
 40 cents per gallon under the provisions of the same paragraph, and based their 
 protest on the ground that the tins were commercially known as 5-gallon tins, 
 and that in any event the deficiency of oil in each tin was negligible. Held, 
 all the tins in this case hold less than the quantity of oil which would entitle 
 the goods to assessment at 40 per cent ad valorem. They were dutiable accord- 
 ing to contente at 50 per cent under paragraph 38, tariff act of 1909. United 
 States D. Palma (4 Ct.Cust. Appls.,— ; T.D. 33412). United States r.Sprague, 
 Warner et al. (No. 1031), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 29810 (T. D. 32830). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33532; May 31, 1913.) 
 
 Duty should be assessed upon oUve oil at the rate of 40 cents per gallon 
 when imported in 5-gallon cans if the outage is not in excess of 1 per cent. 
 (T. D. 33507; June 6, 1913.) 
 
 The merchandise was olive oil contained in tins, the oil in each container 
 being slightly less than 5 gallons in quantity. Held, under paragraph 38 of 
 the tariff act of 1909, the oil was dutiable at 50 cents per gallon as oUve oil in 
 tins containing less than 5 gallons each, and this notwithstanding the Treasury 
 
648 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Oil — Continued. 
 Olive — Contmued . 
 
 regulation of June 20, 1911 (T. D. 31711). United States v. Younglove Grocery- 
 Co. (No. 1360), United States Courtof Customs Appeals. Appealby the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34988 (T. D. 
 34279). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34873; Oct. 29, 1914.) 
 
 "Foots:" Collectors are hereby authorized to sample only 10 per cent of future 
 importations of oils invoiced as sulphur olive oil or olive-oil foots, or olive oil 
 which has been rendered inedible abroad. T. D. 29957 of August 20, 1909, 
 modified accordingly. (T. D. 34215; Mar. 2, 1914.) 
 
 Manufacturing or mechanical purposes: Olive oil which, although imported in 
 good faith for manufacturing or mechanical purposes, and actually used for 
 such purposes, is of a grade that is suitable for human consumption as food, is not 
 within the provision in paragraph 626 of the free list of the tariff act of 1897, for 
 "olive oil for manufacturing or mechanical purposes fit only for such use," but 
 is subject to duty imder paragraph 40, relating to "olive oil, not specially pro- 
 vided for." (T. D. 29388— G. A. 6833; Dec. 8, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Certain olive oil is held to be edible and therefore excluded from 
 paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897, relating to olive oil fit only for manufacturing 
 or mechanical purposes. Holbrook Manufacturing Co. v. United States; Swan 
 & Finch Co. v. United States; Oil Seeds Co. v. United States; KUpstein v. 
 United States; Welch v. United States; Arnold v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 13, 1909. Suits 5417- 
 22. Appeals by importers from decision of Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6833 (T. D. 29388). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30188; Dec. 14, 
 1909.) 
 
 An importation by a marked preponderance of the evidence consisted of olive 
 oil made of decayed fruit and shipped in a variety of containers, such as petro- 
 leum barrels, fresh goat skins, etc., was ill smelling and rancid to the taste, and 
 was used generally for manufacturing purposes: Held the oil was not edible, was 
 fit only for manufacturing or mechanical purposes, and was so free of duty under 
 paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897. Hunt, Associate Judge, dissenting. Hol- 
 brook V. United States (No. 77); Klipstein v. United States (No. 80); Swan v. 
 United States (No. 78); Welch v. United States (No. 81); Oil Seeds Co. v. 
 United States (No. 79); Hoffman v. United States (No. 82), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeals from United States Circuit Court for Southern 
 District of New York (T. D. 29388-T. D. 30188). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 31317; Feb. 15, 1911.) 
 
 The result of chemical tests of oUve oil from the importations under dispute is 
 inconclusive, and in view of the greater number and experience of the witnesses 
 for the importers as to the appearance, taste, and smeU of the oils, and further, in 
 view of the fact that the oils here were actually imported and sold as mechanical 
 oils and for use as mechanical oils, the importation must be deemed oUve oil for 
 manufacturing or mechanical purposes, worth not more than 60 cents per gallon, 
 and as such it was free of duty imder paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897. Holbrook 
 V. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 263; T. D. 31317). Sheldon & Co. v. 
 United States (No. 138); Cusimano v. United States (No. 139); Klipstein & Co. 
 D. United States (No. 140); Kraemer & Foster ti. United States (No. 141), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from a decision of 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 21336 (T. D. 29790). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of 
 New York. Decision reversed. (T. D. 32032; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 
 Tare of tins: Table of certain brands of olive oil showing weight of tins and oils, 
 published for use of customs officers. T. D. 28474 of November 2, 1907, and 
 
DIGEST or CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 649 
 
 Oil — Continued. 
 
 Olive — Continued. 
 
 amendments revoked. Instructions relative to olive oil from shippers and of 
 brands not appearing in table. (T. D. 35746; Sept. 20, 1915.) 
 Weight in tins: (T. D. 29479; Jan. 18, 1909.) 
 
 Weight of tins and oil per case. (T. D. 29773; May 21, 1909.) 
 Weight of tins and oil per tin. (T. D. 29934; Aug. 3, 1909.) 
 Where it is conclusively shown that different brands of olive oil vary in weight 
 per measured gallon it is not a legal ascertainment of quantity thereof for the 
 Government to use a weight as an arbitrary standard for measurement. In 
 the absence of evidence to the contrary the Winchester gallon or wine gallon 
 of 231 cubic inches should be accepted as the common standard gallon for the 
 United Statesr Where the evidence is sufficient to establish that tins of olive 
 oil, the contents of which range from 4.85 to 4.97 gallons, are uniformly bought, 
 sold, and accepted as containing 5 gallons of such oil, and where no claim for 
 shortage in quantity has ever been made or allowed, such tins, the contents of 
 which are within such ranges, contain commercially 5 gallons of olive oil. 
 Cadwalader v. Zeh (151 U. S., 171); United States v. Mayer (175 Fed., 963; 
 T. D. 30209); United States v. La Manna (154 Fed., 927; T. D. 28186, affirmed 
 in 158 Fed., 1022; T. D. 28865). Held: (1) That the method of weighing oUve 
 oil in tins for the ascertainment of quantity by an arbitrary standard of weight 
 to the gallon is not a legal ascertainment of quantity as a basis for the assess- 
 ment of duty; (2) 5-gallon tins of oil showing the contents to range from 4.85 
 to 4.97 gallons each, and so uniformly bought, sold, and accepted in the whole- 
 sale trade as containing 5 gallons of oil, must be accepted for dutiable purposes - 
 as containing 5 gallons of olive oil. G. A. 6416 (T. D. 27556); United States v. 
 Palma (T. D. 33412) distinguished. (T. D. 34216— G. A. 7534; Feb. 24, 1914.) 
 (Appealed:) All olive oils are not of the same specific gravity. The method 
 adopted here by the collector for determining the quantity of the importation 
 in gallons was correct. The English wine gallon of 231 cubic inches capacity, 
 and not a lesser quantity, though accepted by the trade, is the "gallon" of 
 paragraph 38, act of 1909. United States'!;. Moos & Co. et al. (No. 1343), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of. 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7534 (T. D. 34216). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 34528; May 28, 1914.) 
 
 Paraffin — 
 Paraffin oil dutiable under paragraph 3 or 65 of the act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 
 29991; Sept. 8, 1909.) 
 
 Peanut, containing slight proportion of sesame oil — 
 Peanut oil containing from 1 to 3 per cent of sesame oil is not a combination of 
 expressed oils within the contemplation of paragraph 3, tariff act of 1897, but is 
 free of duty under paragraph 626 as nut oil. G. A. 5805 (T. D. 25646) and 
 Abstract 17832 (T. D. 28659) modified. (T. D. 28832— G. A. 6736; Mar. 7, 
 1908.) 
 
 Eapeseed — 
 Samples not shown to be taken from the importation: It was not shown that the 
 sample used by the Government was a part of the importation claimed by the 
 importer to be rapeseed oil and returned by the appraiser as '' a mixture of 
 oils." The evidence here makes out a prima facie case for the importer and is 
 sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the col- 
 lecti^'s decision. The merchandise was dutiable as rapeseed oil. United 
 States V. Lang (No. 1143), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from Board of United State:! General Appraisers, ' 
 Abstract 31592 (T. D. 33263). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33916; Nov. 18, 
 1913.) 
 
650 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Oil — CoLtinned. 
 Bapeseed or colza — 
 
 The contention was made that the importation is not rapeseed oil as assessed, but 
 is a sulphur colza oil, commonly used for soap making. The testimony fell short 
 of maintaining this. A party litigant in.an appellate tribunal must stand upon 
 the case as he made it in the lower court, and a case will not be remanded because 
 the record discloses simply a failure to make proof. Stegeman v. United States 
 (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 208; T. D. 31240). Larkin Co. v. United States (No. 781), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 26673 (T. D. 31883). Decision 
 aflBrmed. (T. D. 32231; Jan. 23, 1912.) 
 Bapeseed and petroleum — 
 Oil which upon analysis shows a mixture of 92.12 per cent of rapeseed oil and 7.88 
 per cent of petroleum is not entitled to classification as rapeseed oil under the eo 
 nomine provision therefor in paragraph 37 of the tariff act of 1909. Held, that 
 being thus a combination of a vegetable and a mineral oil it was improperly 
 assessed with duty under paragraph 3 of said act, and that, as the tariff act 
 of 1909 contains no more specific provision therefor, such oil must be classified 
 as an unenumerated manufactured article, subject to duty at the rate of 20 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 480 of said act. (T. D. 35869 — G. A. 7806; 
 Nov. 3, 1915.) 
 Becovered — 
 The phrase "fit only for such use " means fit in a commercial sense; but whether 
 an article must be held fit for a certain use, if when blended with other articles it 
 becomes so fit, is a question now reserved. 
 
 Dressing oil distilled from grease: A dressing oil distilled from grease or degras 
 being found by the Board of United States General Appraisers to be fit for other 
 purposes than for dressing or stuffing leather, the evidence being conflicting, 
 this finding will not be disturbed. The importation was dutiable under para- 
 graph 3, tariff act of 1897. McKerrow Co., Abstract 6179 (T. D. 26312). Stone 
 & Downer Co. v. United States (No. 4^3), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals, April 17, 1911. Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 21485 (T. D. 29877). Transferred 
 from United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, Abstract 21485 
 (T. D. 29877). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31533; Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 Sulfothal^ 
 
 Sulfothal free of duty as ichthyol oil. (T. D. 36028; Dec. 31, 1915.) 
 Tea-seed — • 
 Tea-seed oil dutiable at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 45, 
 tariff act of 1913, as an expressed oil not specially provided for. (T. D. 35773; 
 Oct. 12, 1015.) 
 Oil cake produced from soya beans. 
 
 Imported oil cake produced from soya beans entitled to free entry under para- 
 graph 638, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30595; May 6, 1910.) 
 Oil heaters in cars containing bonded goods. 
 
 Oil heaters may be placed in compartments at ends of refrigerator cars containing 
 perishable freight. Their use restricted to cars routed wholly within the United 
 States.' (T. D. 31247; Jan. 26, 1911.) 
 Old axles and tires. (See Metal— Scrap.) 
 Old scrap. (See Metal Scrap.) 
 Old steel rails. (See Steel.) 
 Old waste gunny bagging. (See Bagging for cotton.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 651 
 
 Oleomargaiine. 
 
 Any oleomargarine or articles suspected of being oleomargarine that may be im- 
 ported should be reported immediately to the department, and also to the 
 internal-revenue agent, if any, or if none, to the collector of internal revenue at 
 the port of importation, to whom such samples shall be furnished as he may 
 request, and the shipment detained pending instructions from the department. 
 (Internal-Revenue Regulations No. 9, as revised July, 1907.) (T. D. 32237; 
 Feb. 10, 1912.) 
 Olives. 
 Black or ripe — 
 
 Ripe oUves, also known as black olives, imported in brine are free of duty under 
 paragraph 559, tariff act of 1897, as "fruits in brine." United States v. Zucca; 
 United States v. Stamatopoulos; United States v. Oalogera, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 9, 1909. Suits 4806-7 
 and 4819. Appeal by United States from decisions of Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 6505 (T. D. 27793), and Abstract 14132 
 (T. D. 27873). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30147; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 
 It is true a more specific designation controls as against a general designation; 
 that a designation eo nomine controls as against a description by class; but 
 where there has been an administrative construction and this has been adopted 
 into law this construction must control. Brennan v. United States (136 Fed. 
 Rep., 743). 
 
 To hold an importation of black or ripe olives in brine in barrels to be "fruit 
 in brine" and free of duty as such would be to hold all olives are duty free. 
 The construction given in the administration of the law and the apparent adop- 
 tion of this construction by subsequent congressional enactment makes black or 
 ripe olives in brine dutiable under paragraph 275, tariff act of 1909. Causse 
 Manufacturing 0. v. United States, G. A. 5417 (T. D. 24663) distinguished. 
 
 Allowance for brine, when not made: The actual quantity of olives in the 
 importation was^ it would seem, ascertained by the ganger and no allowance 
 should accordingly be made for brine. Goussios & Co. et al. v. United States 
 (No. 682), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25647 (T. D. 31624). 
 Decision afiirmed. (T. D. 32051; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 In jars — 
 
 The provision in paragraph 264, tariff act of 1897, for "olives * * * in bottles, 
 jars, or similar packages, " is not limited to olives in packages usual to retail 
 trade and includes olives in earthen jars of a capacity of about 10 gallons. In 
 reference to the provision in paragraph 264, tariff act of 1897, for olives "in bot- 
 tles, jars, or similar packages," held that, as the terms used are not only well 
 understood in trade, but in common, everyday use in domestic and household 
 affairs, there is nothing equivocal or uncertain in the law, and that to assume 
 that Congress had in mind only packages usual to retail trade would be to ignore 
 the plain terms of the act. Where the language employed in an act is clear and 
 certain, it is the duty of the courts and the customs authorities to follow it; they 
 have nothing to do with the reasonableness or justice of it according to its natural, 
 usual, and obvious meaning, nor with any supposed poUcy actuating its framers. 
 Where no exception or qualification is found in an act, the courts are not at 
 liberty to create one. United States v. Shing Shun, United States Circuit 
 Court, Northern District of California, August 13, 1909. No. 13786 (suits 1750-3.) 
 Appeal by United States from decision of Board of United S.tates General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 7138 (T. D. 26559). Board reversed. (T. D. 30212; Dec. 
 21, 1909.) 
 
652 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 
 
 Olives — Continued. 
 Prepared — 
 
 The mere immersion of olives in salt water for preservative purposes during ship- 
 ment does not make them "prepared" within the meaning of paragraph 264, 
 tariff act of 1897. United States v. Zucca; United States v. Stamatopoulos; 
 United States v. Calogera, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 New York, November 9, 1909. Suits 4806-7 and 4819. Appeal by United 
 States from decisions of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6505 
 (T. D. 27793), and Abstract 14132 (T. D. 27873). Board affirmed. (T. D. 
 30147; Nov. 30, 1909.) Acquiesced in December 9, 1909 (T. D. 30176). 
 Onions, rotten. 
 
 Claim for allowance — ^When filed: It is provided in the regulations of the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury (T. D. 30023) thatin order to obtain an allowance on account 
 of shortage or nonimportation caused by decay, destruction, or injury to im- 
 ported fruit under subsection 22 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, the importers 
 shall, within 48 hours after the arrival of the importing vessel, give notice in 
 writing to the collector of customs of their intention to olatm such allowance. 
 Thereupon the form of such claim is given. This does not mean 48 hours from 
 the entry of the vessel, but from the arrival ot the vessel. 
 Proof before the board — ^When barred: Where the importers have filed no satis- 
 factory proof of any kind within 10 days after the landing of the merchandise, 
 they will be debarred from making proof by testimony given before the board 
 or of explaining any defective proof by evidence. (T. D. 33278 — G. A. 7448; 
 Mar. 14, 1913.) 
 Onionskin, imitation onionskin, and manifold papers. (See Paper.) 
 Onyx. 
 Imitations of — 
 
 Pieces of imitation onyx about one-half of 1 inch in their largest dimension, com» 
 posed of paste and cut in the form of cubes, designed and intended for use in 
 the manufacture of hatpins or other jewelry, held dutiable under paragraph 
 449, tariff act of 1909, as "imitation precious stones." (T. D. 31254— G. A. 
 7158; Jan. 30, 1911.) 
 Manufactures of. (See Precious stones, cut.) 
 Mexican — 
 So-called Mexican onyx is dutiable as "onyx" under paragraph 114, tariff act of 
 1897, rather than as "marble" under the same paragraph. Blochman Banking 
 Co. V. Blake, United States Circuit Court, Southern District ot California, March 
 8, 1909. No. 1312 (suit 1969). Appeal by importer from decision of Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6519 (T. D. 27846). Board affirmed. 
 D. 29633; Mar. 17, 1909.) 
 Opal-glass bottles. (See Bottles, opal-glass.) 
 Opals. (See Precious stones.) 
 Open hearings. (See Reappraisement.) 
 Opium. 
 Dried — 
 Opium obtained by collecting in containers the sap of the poppy-seed pod and 
 allowing it to stand until a percentage of the water In it evaporates, after which 
 it is spread upon boards, exposed to the heat of the sun, and while being dried 
 Is manipulated and later cut into the form of cakes, is not "crude" opium, but 
 is "opium, dried, * * * or otherwise advanced beyond the condition of 
 crude," as provided for in paragraph 41, taiiff act of 1909. G. A. 7001 (T. D. 
 30487) and United States v. Danker (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 522; T. D. 32251) dis- 
 tinguished. (T. D. 33788— G. A. 7501; Oct. 9, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS^ 1908-1915. 653 
 
 Opium — Continued. 
 Dried — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) This appeal relates to an importation of opium in bricks and 
 cakes. 
 
 "Orude." — ^Whether an article is crude is to be determined not by the proc- 
 esses which brought it into being, but by the additional processes to which it 
 is submitted after its creation in order to fit it tor its chief or only use. 
 
 Paragraph 41, tariff act of 1909. — The opium of the importation was not 
 "dried," as that term is used in paragraph 41, nor powdered nor otherwise ad- 
 vanced in condition, and it was propeily dutiable as opium, crude, or unmanu- 
 factured, and not adulterated, containing 9 per cent and Over of morphia. 
 Merck & Co. v. United States (No. 1299), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Apprais- 
 ers, G. A. 7501 (T. D. 33788). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34549; June 1, 1914.) 
 "Dried" and "crude" — 
 Opium containing in excess of 15 per cent of moisture dutiable as crude opium at 
 $1.50 per pound; containing 15 per cent or less of moisture, at $2 per pound, 
 as opium, dried, powdered, or otherwise advanced beyond the condition of 
 crude opium under paragraph 41, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31388; Mar. 15, 
 1911.) 
 Dried, sliced, and crushed — 
 Opium dried, sliced, and crushed, produced from gum opium by drying, slicing, 
 and grinding by means of expensive and specially constructed machinery 
 and with the use of skilled labor, is not dutiable as opium, "crude" or "im- 
 manufactured," under paragraph 43 of the tariff act of 1897, but as a drug 
 (gum) advanced in value or condition, imder paragraph 20 of said act. (T. D. 
 30487— G. A. 7001; Apr. 4, 1910.) 
 Importation of — 
 Importation of opium and preparations and derivatives thereof imder the act 
 
 approved February 9, 1909. (Regulations.) (T. D. 29657; Mar. 27, 1909.) 
 The preparation known as Cachet El Zemac may be delivered in quantities of 
 not less than 25 ounces of the wafers, under the regulations in T. D. 29657. (T. 
 D. 29843; June 15, 1909.) 
 Powdered — 
 Drug advanced: Powdered opium is dutiable vmder paragraph 20, tariff act of 
 1897, as a drug advanced in value or condition. United States v. McKesson; 
 United States v. Merck, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, May 13, 1909. Suits 5342 and 5370. Appeal by United States from 
 decisions of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 1950G (T. D. 
 29193),*and Abstract 19737 (T. D. 29288). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29776; May 
 25, 1909.) Acquiesced in June 22, 1909. (T. D. 29860.) 
 Begulatious, amendment of — 
 Regulation 9 of the regulations in T. D. 29657, March 27, 1909, relative to the im- 
 portation of opium, etc., under the act of February 9, 1909, amended to read as 
 follows: " Opium containing less than nine per centum of morphia, and prepara- 
 tions of opium deposited in bonded warehouse shall not be removed therefrom 
 without payment of duties, and such duties shall not be refunded." (Par. 41, 
 tariff act of Aug. 5, 1909.) (T. D. 31398; Feb. 20, 1911.) 
 Salts of. (See Codeine.) 
 Smoking — 
 Forfeiture and destruction of: Smoking opium seized for violation of the act of 
 February 9, 1909, may be summarily forfeited and destroyed by collectors of 
 customs without judicial proceedings. (Op. Atty. Gen., Dec. 21, 1912.) (T. 
 D. 33069; Jan. 7, 1913.) 
 
654 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Opium— Continued . 
 Smoking — Continued. 
 Aqueous extract of opium lield to be Bmoking opium and the importation thereof 
 prohibited. (T. D. 34598; June 29, 1914.) 
 Smuggling cases- 
 Reward to informers: The payment of the reward for information furnished con- 
 cerning violations of the provisions of the act of January 17, 1914, amending the 
 opium act of February 9, 1909, shall be made by the court exercising jurisdiction 
 in cases involving violations of the law mentioned. (T. D. 34452; May 16, 
 1914.) 
 Unlawful importation of — 
 The offense described in section 2 of the opium act of February 9, 1909, is commit- 
 ted when smoking opium is fraudulently and knowingly brought within the ter- 
 ritorial limits of the United States. The offense is complete, although the opium 
 may not have been landed from the ship. The offender's possession of smoking 
 opium within the territory of the United States is suflBcient evidence of guilt to 
 justify a jury in convicting. United States v. Caminata, United States District 
 Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 12. March sessions, 1912. Mo- 
 tion for new trial; motion in arrest of judgment. Motions overruled. (T. D. 
 32397; Apr. 15, 1912.) 
 Act of Congress of February 9, 1909 (35 U. S. Stat. L., 614), prohibits the importation 
 of opiiim into the United States except for medicinal purposes, under regula- 
 tions, and section 2 provides that if any person shall knowingly import or bring 
 into the United States any opium contrary to law, or shall receive, conceal, buy, 
 sell, or in any manner facilitate the transportation and concealment or sale of 
 such opium, or derivative therefrom, after importation, he shall be guilty of an 
 offense. Held, that the offense described in section 2 is committed whenever 
 smoking opium is fraudulently and knowingly brought by the offender within 
 the territorial hmits of the United States, the offense being complete, though 
 the opium may not have been landed from the ship or carried across the customs 
 hnes. The said act of February 9, 1909 (35 U. S. Stat. L., 614), declares that 
 whenever a defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of opium or a 
 preparation thereof, such possession shall be deemed sufficient to authorize a 
 conviction, unless defendant shall explain the same to the satisfaction of the 
 jury. Held, that where the steward of a vessel bound for Philadelphia was 
 found to have smoking opium in his possession as the vessel was proceeding up 
 Delaware Bay, such possession was sufficient to sustain a conviction for violating 
 the act. United States v. Caminata, District Court, Eastern District of Penn- 
 sylvania, March 29, 1912. Prosecution by the United States against Manoel 
 Caminata. On motions for new trial and arrest of judgment. Overruled. (T. 
 D. 32736; July 23, 1912.) 
 Opium and cocaine. 
 Begulatious — 
 
 Regulations under the act of Congress, approved January 17, 1914, entitled "An 
 act to amend an act entitled 'An act to prohibit the importation and use of 
 opium for other than medicinal purposes,' approved February ninth, nineteen 
 hundred and nine," governing the importation of opium and preparations 
 and derivatives thereof and exportation of opium or cocaine or salts, derivar 
 tives or preparations thereof, under the act approved January 17, 1914. (T. D. 
 34221; Mar. 3, 1914.) 
 Optical Instruments. 
 
 Hand reading glasses or magnifying glasses dutiable as optical instruments at the 
 rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 93, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 
 34782; Sept. 28, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 655 
 
 Optical instnunents — Continued. 
 Meaning of term. 
 Optical instruments in ordinary parlance signify instruments used with reference 
 to sight or the science of optics, and without proof of a trade understanding 
 would not include instruments used for the measurement of distance or as guides 
 to the mariner. 
 
 Azimuth mirrors, sextants, and octants: Azimuth mirrors, sextants, and 
 octants for taking bearings and determining altitude, composed in chief value of 
 metal, having glass parts possessing refractive and reflective properties, such as 
 prisms, lenses, and telescopes, attached thereto, used in navigation, and not as 
 aids to eyesight or for the purpose of examining objects, are not optical instru- 
 ments within the provisions of paragraph 93 of the tariff act of 1913, but are 
 manufactures of metal not specially provided for under paragraph 167 of the 
 same act. 
 
 Azimuth mirror used for navigation not an optical instrument: An azimuth 
 mirror, used only in navigation on a compass and useless for any other purpose, 
 is not an instrument for use in the science of optics or as an aid to sight. 
 
 Sextants and octants not optical instruments: Sextants and octants used only 
 in measuring the angular distance between a celestial body and the horizon, 
 though possessing lenses having reflective and refractive properties, are not 
 instruments used in the science of optics or to assist sight. (T. D. 35220 — G. A 
 7697; Mar. 8, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Azimuth mirrors, sextants, and octants are dutiable as composed 
 chiefly of metal, under paragraph 167 of the tariff act of 1913; and, not being 
 aids to vision, are not classifiable as optical instruments under paragraph 93. 
 United States v. J. Bliss & Co. et al. (No. 1558), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals, December 6, 1915. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 StatesGeneralAppraisers, G. A. 7697 (T.D. 35220). Decision affinned. (T. D. 
 35980; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 For use in ITew York Post-Graduate Medical School and Hospital. (See Scientific 
 apparatus.) 
 Orange oil. (See Oil, essential.) 
 Orange-wood sticks and wood-pith sticks. 
 
 Orange-wood sticks and wood-pith sticks, dressed and assorted and cut into uni- 
 form lengths and bunched, dutiable at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem as 
 nonenumerated articles, manufactured in whole or in part, under paragraph 
 385, tarifi act of 1913. (T. D. 35263; Mar. 27, 1915.) 
 Oranges. 
 Packages of oranges, what is — Two boxes tied together — 
 Two boxes of oranges, each 7i by lOJ by 5i inches, firmly tied together to facili- 
 tate marketing and safe transportation, this method of packing being an estab- 
 lished custom of the trade, constitute one package under the first clause of para- 
 graph 220 of the tariff act of 1913. Bush & Co. (Inc.) et al. v. United States 
 (No. 1550), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37295. Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 35974; Dec. 3, 1915.) 
 Orchard plants not mother bulbs. (See Bulbs, orchard plants.) 
 Orchil extract. (See Persian-berry extract.) 
 Ores. 
 Ground — 
 The subject of these appeals is a natural ore mined in southern France. Before 
 importation it was ground for the purpose of facilitating the reduction of its 
 contents. 
 
656 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Ores — Continued. 
 Ground — Continued . 
 
 A chemical compound — Ground ore not: There must be some artificial 
 mixture of chemicals or artificial compounding of substances to produce a 
 chemical compound or chemical mixture. A natural ore which has received 
 no treatment except to be mechanically ground is not a chemical compound 
 or mixture. This merchandise is not arsenic, and neither is it an acid or a sul- 
 phide of arsenic, but as a crude ore, being advanced in condition, it is not en- 
 titled to free entry. It falls within paragraph 480, tarifi act of 1909, as a non- 
 enumerated partly manufactured article. United States v. Davies, Turner & 
 Co. et al. (No. 1293), United States Coiirt of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 33749 
 (T. D. 33778). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34325; Mar. 25, 1914.) 
 Lead-bearing ores — 
 
 Lead-bearing ores, though covered by the provision in paragraphs 514 and 614, 
 tariff act of 1897, for the free entry of "calamine "and "minerals, crude,'' are 
 nevertheless subject to paragraph 181, prescribing a specific duty "on the 
 lead contained" in "lead-bearing ore of all kinds." (T. D. 29006; May 20, 
 1908.) 
 
 Eegulations governing smelting and refining of, in bonded warehouses under sec- 
 tion 24, tariff act of 1909. (T- D. 30703; June 18, 1910.) 
 
 Ores containing both lead and zinc are dutiable not only on the lead content as 
 provided for under paragraph 181, tariff act of 1909, but are al?o liable to the 
 duties provided for the zinc content, paragraph 193 of said act. (T. D. 30727 — 
 G. A. 7049; June 27, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Lead-bearing and zinc-hearing ores. — A commodity, it is true, 
 is properly assessable in its condition as imported, but where ore, as here, is 
 shown to have contained, as imported, both lead and zinc, the zinc appearing 
 in a quantity exceeding 10 per cent, the metal content in both is dutiable, the 
 lead under paragraph 181, the zinc under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1909. 
 
 Tariff hearings, relevancy of proceedings at. — In determining the intention 
 with which language has been employed in a paragraph of a tariff act some am- 
 biguity therein must be apparent to warrant a resort to the "side lights" ob- 
 tainable from tariff hearings. Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Refining 
 Co. V. United States (No. 427), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Ap- 
 peal by the importer from a decision of the Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, G. A. 7049 (T. D. 30727). Decision afiirmed. (T. D. 31509; Apr. 10, 
 1911.) 
 
 Assay: Assay of lead in ores to be the wet assay, without deduction, under para- 
 graph 152, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35219; Mar. 16, 1915.) 
 
 Warehouse and immediate transportation entries: Warehouse and immediate 
 transportation entries covering lead and zinc ores not to be liquidated on final 
 findings and forwarded to the auditor, but report to be made on modified cus- 
 toms Form 5047 and receiving port to make report on modified Form 5049. 
 (T. D. 35482; May 29, 1915.) 
 Zinc — • 
 
 Zinc ores known as carbonate of zinc, siUcate of zinc, and sulphide of zinc, in 
 which zinc does not exist as a metal, are not dutiable as "metallic mineral 
 substances in a crude state" under paragraph 183, tariff act of 1897, but are 
 subject to classification under paragraphs 514 and 614, relating, respectively, 
 to "calamine" and to "minerals, crude." The circumstance that large pieces 
 of ore have been broken into smaller ones and the Tock and dirt removed for 
 economy and convenience in transportation is not sufficient to exclude such 
 ore from classification under paragraph 614, tariff act of 1897, relating to "min- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 657 
 
 Ores— Continued. 
 Zinc — Continued. 
 
 erals, crude, or not advanced in value or condition by refining or grinding, or 
 by other process of manufacture." Lead-bearing ores, though covered by the 
 provision in paragraphs 514 and 614, tariff act of 1897, for the free entry of "cala- 
 mine" and "minerals, crude," are nevertheless subject to paragraph 181, pre- 
 scribing a specific duty "on the lead contained" in "lead-bearing ore of all 
 kinds." United States v. Brewster, United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of Texas, Laredo Division, April 21, 1908. No. 27 (suit 196). Apph- 
 cation for review of decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstracts 14438-9 (T. D. 27937). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. 
 D. 29006; May 20, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed :) The zinc ores known as carbonate, silicate, and sulphide of ziac 
 are free of duty under the tariff act of 1897, the carbonate and silicate as " cala- 
 mine " under paragraph 514, and the sulphide as "minerals, crude, " under para- 
 graph 614, except that when containing lead the lead contents are subject to the 
 duty provided in paragraph 181 on "lead-bearing ore of all kinds." United 
 States V. Brewster, United. States Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Jan- 
 uary 18, 1909. No. 1811 (suit 1961). Appealed by the United States from the 
 Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Texas (T. D. 
 29006). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 29547; Feb. 10, 1909.) 
 
 The zinc ores in the form of carbonates, siUcocarbonates, and'sulphides or concen- 
 trates are free of duty under paragraphs 514 (calamine) and 614 (crude minerals), 
 tariff act of 1897, except that when containing lead, the lead content is subject 
 to duty under paragraph 181. United States v. Brewster (T. D. 29547) followed. 
 (T. D. 29617— G. A. 6883; Mar. 9, 1909.) 
 
 Zinc ores smelted in bond may be withdrawn for exportation under the provisions 
 of section 29 of the act of July 24, 1897. (T. D. 30015; Sept. 29, 1909.) 
 
 Appraisement of: (1) Ores containing zinc, but no other recoverable metal, to be 
 appraised at the price of the ore. (2) Ores containing zinc in quantities not 
 commercially recoverable to be appraised as of no value. (3) Ores containing 
 zinc and other metal, both the zinc and other metals being recoverable, to be 
 appraised under the last provision of Paragraph L, section 3, tariff act of 1913. 
 (4) Invoices of zinc ore to show the contract basis of purchase. (T. D. 34280; 
 Mar. 16, 1914.) 
 
 Zinc ore to be appraised under the Provisions of paragraph L of section 3 of the act 
 of October 3, 1913, on the basis of the zinc contents and the average value of 
 spelter during the week of arrival of the ore in the United States. (T. D. 35624; 
 July 30, 1915.) 
 feinc-bearing — 
 
 Copper ores containing zinc in percentages varying from 3.60 to 7.30 are properly 
 , dutiable under paragraph 162, tariff act of 1913. Congress, in framing said para- 
 graph, saw fit to omit therefrom the provision admitting free of duty "zinc- 
 bearing ores of all kinds, includuig calamine, containing less than 10 per cent of 
 zinc, " found in paragraph 193 of the act of 1909, thus making clearly manifest 
 the legislative purpose to impose duty on all zinc contained in ores whether or 
 not it is capable of being commercially recovered. (T. D. 35527 — G. A. 7737; 
 June 8, 1915.) 
 
 Additional duty: Under paragraph 162 of the tariff act of 1913, the zinc contained 
 in zinc-Hearing ore is made dutiable at 10 per cent ad valorem. If the unit 
 value is not stated in the entry, but the total value when reduced to units is less 
 than the unit appraised value, the additional duty provision of Paragraph I is 
 properly applied by the collector in assessing duty. 
 45633°— 17 i2 
 
658 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Ores — Continued . 
 Zinc-bearing — Continued . 
 
 Contemporaneoua administrative construction: A practice in the collector's 
 office in the liquidation of an entry of merchandise bearing a specific rate of duty 
 will not be held to be a contemporaneous construction of the law when that duty 
 is changed from a specific to an ad valorem rate, even though the practice is not 
 changed for some time after the change in the law. 
 
 Change from specific to ad valorem rate: The change by Congress from specific 
 to ad valorem duty on merchandise carries with it all of the provisions of existing 
 law that apply to the administration of the customs in the assessment of ad va- 
 lorem duty upon imported merchandise. (T. D. 35948— G. A. 7823; Nov. 30, 
 1915.) 
 Otganzine, damaged. 
 
 Silk organzine that has been damaged in dyeing, but which retains its character 
 and identity as organzine, is not by reason of such damage to be removed from 
 the provision for "organzine" in paragraph 385, tariff act of 1897, and is classifi- 
 •ahle under that provision rather than under paragraph 661, as "silk waste." 
 Cohen v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, June 28, 1910. Suit 5117. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 17269 (T. D. 28496). Board 
 affirmed. (T. D. 30803; July 19, 1910.) 
 Origin, certificates of. (See Philippine Islands.) 
 Ornamental grasses. (See Grasses.) 
 Ornamental ieaves. (See Leaves, ornamental.) 
 Ornamental silk strips. (See Trimmings.) 
 Ornaments. 
 Medallions — 
 In the piece: Ornaments or decorations for garments, consisting of loops, medal- 
 lions, etc., which are manufactured separately, but stitched together for con- 
 venience in handling and to avoid expense in carding, and are imported in 6- 
 yard lengths, and which are intended for separate decorative effect, as distin- 
 guished from a continuous extension of ornamentation on a garment,- are not 
 "trimmings" within the meaning of paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897. Hilbert 
 V. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 7, 1908. Suit 4142. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 6180 (T. D. 26808). Board reversed. (T. D. 
 29005; May 20, 1908.) 
 Silk. (See Silk.) 
 Orris root. . 
 
 Sandalwood and orris root not dutiable under paragraph 49, tariff act of 1913, but 
 free otduty imder paragraph 477 of the said act. (T. D. 34174; Feb. 9, 1914.) 
 Outage of wines. (See Wantage.) 
 Outward cargoes. 
 
 No information in regard thereto to be given out until 30 days after clearance. (T. 
 D. 34868; Oct. 28, 1914.) 
 Overcharge for drayage. (See Charges — Drayage.) 
 Owner's declaration. (See Declaration.) 
 Oxide of iron. (See Iron, oxide of.) 
 Oyster shells, crushed. 
 
 Crushed oyster shells dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article at the rate 
 of 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 385, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34584; 
 June 24, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DRCISIONS, 1908-1915. 659 
 
 Oyster shells, crashed— Continued. 
 
 Crushed oyster shells dutiable at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem as a nonenumer- 
 ated manufactured article under paragraph 385, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35559; 
 June 29, 1915.) 
 
 P. 
 
 Packing charges. 
 
 It being the duty of the collector to fix the packing charges, any action of the 
 appraiser relative thereto must be held to be either advisory or extra-official. 
 The addition of packing charges, therefore, does not raise the per se value, and 
 hence the provisions of subsection 7 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909 do not 
 apply. United States v. Spingam Bros. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 34002). 
 (T. D. 34726— G. A. 7595; Aug. 21, 1914.) 
 
 Packing, "Planit." 
 
 Tin parings and lead shavings obtained by the use of a lathe in the ordinary 
 methods of turning bars of metal to shape and form might, it is true, be deemed 
 waste, but there is no evidence here to negative the idea that these parings and 
 shavings may have been produced for use in the manufacture of a pacldng. The 
 appearance of the sample is suggestive of an article specially prepared for calk- 
 ing purposes. The importation was properly assessed under paragraph 199, 
 tariff act of 1909, as articles or wares not specially provided for composed wholly 
 or in part of lead or other metal. Hodgart & Co. v. United States (No. 661), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25107 (T. D. 31429). (T. D. 
 32048; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 
 " Pack cellxilose." (See Wood pulp.) 
 
 Paint. 
 Containing lead. (See Colors.) 
 Enamel white — 
 So-called enamelette, known also as white enamel and matt enamel, is dutiable 
 under paragraph 57, tariS act of 1897, as "white paint or pigment, containing 
 zinc, but not containing lead, * * * ground in oil," and not under para- 
 graph 58 as paint "ground with solutions other than oil." VenderLnk Co. ti. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern 
 Division, April 10, 1909. No. 7231 (suit 1915). Appeal by importer from de- 
 cision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 13501 (T. D. 
 27729). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29765; May 19, 1909.) 
 A paint called variously zinc white, ripoUn, and enamel white paint, containing 
 zinc, but not containing lead and groimd in oil, is dutiable under paragraph 57, 
 tariff act of 1897, relating to "white paint or pigment containing zinc, but not 
 containing lead, * * * ground in oil," rather than under paragraph 58 as 
 "paints * * * ground with * * * oil or with solutions other than oil, 
 not otherwise specially provided for." The fact that after being ground cer- 
 tain ingredients were added to increase the gloss does not change the character 
 of the article from white paint. Bird v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, May 14, 1908. Suit 4593. Appeal by 
 .importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 '6449 (T. D. 27633). Board reversed. (T. D. 29008; May 20, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) A paint called variously zinc white, ripolin, and enamel white 
 paint, is held dutiable under paragraph 57, tariff act of 1897, as "white paint 
 * * * ground in oil," 'rather than undei paragraph 58, as "paints * * * 
 ground with * * * oil or with solutions other than oil, not otherwise spe- 
 cially provided for." United States v. Bird, United States Circmt Court of 
 Appeals, Second Circuit, February 16, 1909. No. 141 (suit 4593). Appeal by 
 
660 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Faint — Continued . 
 
 Enamel white — Continued. 
 
 United States from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern 
 District of New York (T. D. 29008), reversing a decision o£ the Board of United 
 States Genera} Appraisers, G. A. 6449 (T. D. 27633). Decision adverse to the 
 Government. (T. D. 29576; Feb. 24, 1909.) Acquiesced in March 31, 1909 
 (T. D. 29665). 
 Enamel white shown by analyses to contain from 58 to 63 per cent of oil, turpen- 
 tine, and gum varnish, held dutiable imder paragraph 51, tariff act of 1909, as 
 "enamel paint made with varnish," rather than as "zinc, oxide of, and white 
 pigment containing zinc, * * * ground in oil," under paragraph 55 of 
 said act. (T. D. 32453— G. A. 7356; Apr. 24, 1912.) 
 
 Veluvine white — 
 Commercial designation: There is no trade imderstanding that the terms "pig- 
 ment" and "paint" are synonymous. A pigment is a basic material for the 
 making of paint, and is never understood as applying to a mixed paint ready 
 for application with the brush. Veluvine white is a finished enamel paint, 
 made without varnish, and was therefore neither dutiable as "enamel paints 
 made with varnish," under paragraph 51, tariff act of 1909, nor as a "pigment," 
 under paragraph 55, but as an enamel paint, under paragraph 56 of said act. 
 (T. D. 32243— G. A. 7324; Feb. 8, 1912.) 
 
 Water-color — Toys. (See Toys, water-color paints.) 
 
 Westrumite asphalt — 
 So-called "westrumite," a liquid in chief value of asphalt, which is used in road 
 building, is not dutiable as a paint under paragraph 56, tariff act of 1909, noi is 
 it "asphaltum" within the meaning of paragraph 90, but by virtue of the 
 mixed-materials clause in paragraph 481 it is dutiable at the rate provided in 
 said paragraph 90 for "asphaltum * * * advanced." The provision for 
 "chemical mixtures" in paragraph 3, tariff act of 1909, does not include so-called 
 "westrumite," an article composed of asphalt, ammonia, and water. (T. D. 
 30223— G. A. 6959; Dec. 24, 1909.) 
 Paintings. 
 
 Calendars — 
 Hand-painted panels to which small calendars, a trifling part of the entire article, 
 are affixed, are dutiable as "paintings" under paragraph 454, tariff act of 1897. 
 Vantine v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 New York, March 16, 1909. Suit 5192. Appeal by importer from decision of 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 17894 (T. D. 28687). 
 Board reversed. (T. D. 29647; Mar. 24, 1909.) Acquiesced in April 19, 1909 
 (T. D. 29697). 
 
 In oil — 
 Commercial designation: The expression "paintings in oil or water colors," in 
 paragraph 454, tariff act of 1897, is not a commercial term, the language being 
 only descriptive. Steinhardt v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, May 21, 1909. Suit 5065. Appeal by importer 
 from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 16751 
 (T. D. 28414). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29819; June 8, 1909.) 
 
 Lithographs, painted, not. (See Lithographs, painted.) 
 
 Pile fabrics — 
 Articles about 8 by 12 inches in dimensions, m'ade by applying india ink and 
 water colors upon the surface of pile fabrics so as to produce pictures of scenery, 
 embracing trees, houses, and other effects, are dutiable as "paintings" under 
 paragraph 454, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 30204^-G. A. 6954; Dec. 15, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 661 
 
 Paintings — Continued . 
 Straw matting — 
 So-called paintings on straw matting dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem 
 as a manufacture of straw under paragraph 368, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35163; 
 Feb. 24, 1915.) 
 Palm-leaf hats, Mexican. 
 
 Collectors authorized to post price lists of Mexican palm-leaf hats for the informa- 
 tion of all parties interested. (T. D. 28794; Feb. 25, 1908.) 
 Palm leaves, preserved and prepared. (See Leaves, ornamental.) 
 Panama. 
 
 Parcel-post convention. (See Parcels-post convention.) 
 Panama Canal act. 
 Free entry — 
 Merchandise which may be necessary for the construction or repair of vessels built 
 in the United States or for the building or repair of their machinery, or articles 
 necessary for their outfit and equipment, may be imported into the United States 
 free of duty under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may pre- 
 scribe. Section 4132, Revised Statutes, amended by section 5, act of August 
 24, 1912, 
 
 Compliance with regulations: Compliance with regulations made by the 
 Secretary of the Treasury for the administration of section 5 of the act of August 
 24, 1912, pursuant to the express-authority granted thereby, is a condition pre- 
 cedent to the right of free entry thereunder: Provided, That these regulations 
 are reasonable and do not in their operation defeat the purpose of the law. 
 United States v. Dominici et al. (78 FeJ., 334); E. H. Sargent Co., G. A. 5532 
 (T. D. 24902). 
 
 Unreasonable regulations: Subdivisions (a) and(b) of section 10 of the regu- 
 lations promulgated November 25, 1912, for the administration of section 5 of the 
 act of August 24, 1912, render inoperative the act and destroy the right of free 
 entry given thereby, and hence are unreasonable. United States vt Morris 
 European & American Express Co. (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 146; T. D. 32386); 
 United States v. Dominici et al. (78 Fed., 334); Morrill v. Jones (106 U. S., 466); 
 E. L. Goodsell Co., G. A. 3880 (T. D. 18078). 
 
 Oral testimony where regulations are inoperative : Where the regulations of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury are inoperative or unreasonable, the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers will receive oral testimony to establish the facts 
 essential to free entry and which were sought to be'elicited by such regulations. 
 (T. D. 35086— G. A. 7668; Jan. 20, 1915.) 
 Panama Canal Zone. 
 Importations from — 
 In view of the treaty between the United States and the EepubUc of Panama (33 
 Stat., 2234) and the various acts of Congress relating to the Panama Canal Zone, 
 merchandise brought into the United States from such zone was properly sub- 
 jected to duty as provided in the act of March 2, 1905 (33 Stat., 843). In order 
 to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction on the ground of a constitutional ques- 
 tion, such question must be real and substantial and not a mere claim in words. 
 The contention that duty should not be imposed on merchandise brought from 
 the Panama Canal Zone into the United States does not raise such a question. 
 Kaufman'!). Smith, United States Supreme Court, March 7, 1910. No. 668. In 
 error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey. 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30448; Mar. 22, 1910.) 
 
662 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Panama Canal Zone — Continued. 
 Passengers' exemption — 
 Passengers from Atlantic to Pacific coaat and vice versa by way of Panama, Canal 
 entitled to exemption provided in paragraph 642, tarifi act of 1913. (T. D. 
 35764; Oct. 11, 1915.) 
 Panama-Pacific International Exposition. 
 Regulation. (T. D. 34260; Mar. 11, 1914.) 
 Regulations relating to foreign exhibits at the Panama-California International 
 Exposition at San Diego, Cal. (T. D. 36019; Dec. 28, 1915.) 
 Manama premium bonds. (See Lottery matter.) 
 Panaman consuls — Declarations. 
 
 Customs officers directed to permit Panaman consuls to take note of shippers' dec- 
 larations showing the value of merchandise exported to the Republic of Panama. 
 (T. D. 34181; Feb. 14, 1914.) 
 Panne velvet. 
 
 Panne velvet is dutiable as "plush "under paragraph 386, tariff act of 1897, rather 
 than as "velvets," under the same paragraph. United States v. Passavant, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 12, 1908. 
 Suit 4089 . Appeal from decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 6136 (T. D. 26668). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29009; 
 May 20, 1908.) Acquiesced in June 23, 1908 (T. D. 29090). 
 "Panne velvet" is properly dutiable as "plushes" at the rate of $1 per pound and 
 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 386, tariff act of 1897. United States v. 
 Silberstein (153 Fed. Rep., 965; T. D. 27979) and United States v. Passavant 
 (T. D. 29009) followed. (T. D. 29158— G. A. 6790; July 9, 1^08.) 
 Pantograph machines. (See Machine tools.) ' 
 
 Paper. 
 Advertising cards, die-cut^ 
 The merchandise consists of printed paper advertising cards, with the outline of a 
 picture die cut into them after the manner of a stencil. The proviso to para- 
 graph 415, tariff act of 1909, would appear to have been enacted in view of the 
 decision in Hamilton v. United States (T. D. 29519) and so designed to impose 
 an increased rate of duty over and above the duty on paper, upon paper both 
 printed and die cut with designs. Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne v. United States 
 (No. 821), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27089 (T. D. 32006). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32465; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 Blue-print — 
 Paper used for making blue-print paper and like papers for solar printing purposes 
 dutiable under paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909, as "plain basic papers for albu- 
 menizing, sensitizing, baryta coating, or for photographic or solar printing proc- 
 esses," rather than under paragraph 409, as printing paper "suitable for the 
 printing of books and newspapers" not specially provided for. G. A. 5031 (T. 
 D. 23378) distinguished. (T. D. 32654— G. A. 7379; June 24, 1912.) 
 Box tops — 
 Paper box tops stamped into designs or shapes dutiable under paragraph 415, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32140; Jan. 10, 1912.) 
 Boxes — 
 Paper boxes with glass tops, each box containing a wool powder puff made of 
 lambs' wool, are usual coverings for such puffs and are dutiable only at the ad 
 valorem rate of the contents. (T. D. 30313— G. A. 6973; Jan. 31, 1910.) 
 Surface-coated and embossed: Boxes made of paper covered with embossed sur- 
 face-coated paper are mentioned specifically in paragraph 411, while paragraph 
 418, tariff act of 1909, only provides for boxes made of paper, if covered by sur- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 663 
 
 Paper— Coatinued. 
 
 Boxes — Continued. 
 
 face-coated paper, and does not mention such paper when embossed. Held, 
 accordingly, that such boxes when covered with embossed surface-coated 
 paper are dutiable imder paragraph 411. The proviso to paragraph 411 simply 
 carves out of the general provision for metal-coated papers in the preceding 
 part of the paragraph an exception covering light-weight metal-coated papers, 
 making a separate provision for the latter. The paragraph after that provides 
 for certain other varieties of paper and finally imposes duty on "all boxes of 
 paper or wood covered with any of the foregoing paper." Held, that this pro- 
 vision relates to all papers previously mentioned in the paragraph. No pre- 
 sumption can arise in favor of an importer from the presence of two or more 
 equally specific provisions in the tariff, on the ground that Congress could not 
 have intended to enact repugnant provisions, for Congress has expressly pro- 
 vided for such contingencies in paragraph 481, which requires the application 
 of the highest rate where two or more rates of duty are applicable. (T. D. 
 30642— G. A. 7025; May 26, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Paragraph 481, tariff act, 1909, providing that if two or more 
 rates of duty shall be applicable to any imported article, it is dutiable at the 
 highest of such rates, will be construed in case of ambiguity in favor of the im- 
 porter. But where there is no ambiguity, the highest rate must be applied; 
 and paper boxes covered with embossed surface-coated paper are dutiable 
 under paragraph 411, tariff act, 1909. Woolworth & Co. v. United States 
 (No. 306), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 30642). 
 Board affirmed. (T. D. 31119; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 
 Cigarette — 
 "Hygeia" paper used for wrapping straws and toothpicks: There is a presump- 
 tion in favor of a collector's classification and assessment which must be over- 
 come by proof, and it being possible to show by chemical analysis alone that an 
 importation of hygeia paper contained less magnesia than cigarette paper con- 
 tains, and the results of no such analysis being shown, and it appearing the dom- 
 inant use of paper such as this in question is for the manufacture of cigarettes, 
 the assessment of the collector must stand, as proper, under paragraph 459, 
 tariff act of 1897. Hygeia Antiseptic Toothpick Co. v. United States (No. 404), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from a deci- 
 sion of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23519 (T. D. 
 30710), and Abstract 23642 (T. D. 30754). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31529; 
 Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 
 Containers. (See Coverings.) 
 
 Copying or tissue — 
 The provisions in paragraph 397, tariff act of 1897, for copying and tissue paper 
 "colored" is not limited to paper which has been subjected to a coloring proc- 
 ess, but includes that which naturally has color by reason of the pigment in 
 the material used in making the paper. Kraft v. United States (61 Fed. Rep., 
 398) followed. Handmade copying and tissue papers which weigh less than 
 10 pounds per ream, are excluded from paragraph 401, tariff act of 1897, cover- 
 ing handmade papers "weighing not less than ten pounds * * * to the 
 ream." (T. D. 28975— G. A. 6758; Apr. 29, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The word "colored" is a participial adjective used generally 
 with the meaning of "having a color." The color's origin does not enter into 
 the essential meaning of the word. A paper manufactured of nattiral barks or 
 reeds having an inherent color that persists through all processes to which it 
 may be subjected and jemains a characteristic of the finished product is a col- 
 
664 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Paper — Contmued . 
 
 Copying or tissue— Continued. 
 
 ored paper; and copying paper made of it is colored copying paper, dutiable 
 under paragraph 397, tariff act of 1897. Davison v. United States (No. 498), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from deci- 
 sion of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6758 (T. D. 28975). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. 
 Decision aflBrmed. (T. D. 31631; May 22, 1911.) 
 
 Corkine — 
 The importation in question consisted of merchandise called "Corkine" and was 
 assessed for duty under paragraph 398 of the tariff act of 1897, as surface-coated 
 paper at 3 cents per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem. The value of the com- 
 ponent parts of the importation as of the time these were ready to be joined to 
 complete the article could not be computed on the data furnished by the record. 
 The importer having failed to establish his cohtention that the goods were 
 manufactiores in chief value of cork, paper, wood pulp, or wood, and there be- 
 ing some evidence tending to show the goods were dutiable by similitude to 
 Unoleum, and accordingly prima facie not subject to the provisions of section 
 6, tariff act of 1897, the protest in this case must be held to have been rightly 
 overruled. It should be overruled even though the collector had made an un- 
 acceptable- finding. Vandiver v. United States (No. 614), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 24728 (T. D. 31255). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 32246; Feb. 1, 1912.) 
 
 Crackers or houbons — 
 So-called paper crackers or bonbons, used chiefly as favors at parties for small 
 children, dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem as toys under paragraph 
 342, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35684; Aug. 25, 1915.) 
 
 cfr6pe — 
 The term "cr§pe paper" in paragraph 397, tariff act of 1897, is descriptive, refer- 
 ring to the method of manufacture, and includes a waterproof paper weighing 
 about 50 pounds per ream, which has been subjected to a cr§ping process. 
 Fiegel v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, March 2, 1908. Suit 4659. Appeal from decision of Board of United 
 StatesGeneralAppraiBers,G. A. 6471 (T.D. 27683). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 28858; Mar. 18, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) A paper made by the cr§ping process, which resembles crSpe 
 paper, except that it is heavier and has been subjected to waterproofing treat- 
 ment, is "crgpe paper" within the meaning of paragraph 397, tariff act of 1897. 
 It was the intention of Congress that paper which has undergone the crSping 
 process should pay duty as crfepe paper. Fiegel d. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1902. No. 104 (Buit4659). 
 Appeal from Circuit Court of the United States for Southern District of New 
 York (160 Fed. Rep., 285; T. D. 28858) affirming G. A. 6471 (T. D. 27683). 
 Decision in favor of Government (T. D. 29503; Jan. 27, 1909.) 
 Cellulose watte or Watoline: An article called "cellulose watte" or "Watoline," 
 composed of a number of layers of thin, soft, crSped paper, is dutiable under the 
 provisions of paragraph 410, tariff act of 1909. That paragraph provides for 
 crSpe paper, bibulous paper, tissue paper, and for all papers not specially pro- 
 vided for, weighing not over 6 pounds to the ream, and the final clause therein 
 subjects articles made from such papers to at least the rate of duty imposed by 
 the paragraph on the specified papers. Held, that there was no error in assess- 
 ing the cellulose watte or Watoline at the rate applicable to cripe paper. (T.D. 
 33347— G. A. 7456; Apr. 15, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 665 
 
 Paper— Continued. 
 
 CrSpe — Continued . 
 Waterproof crepe paper: The term "crSpe paper" as used in paragraph 397, tariff 
 act of 1897, is not to be confined to "crSpe tissue paper," but includes as well 
 heavier crinkled papers, such as a heavily sized cr6pe paper which has been sub- 
 jected to a waterproof treatment. Fiegel v. United States (T. D. 29503) fol- 
 lowed. (T. D. 29591— G. A. 6870; Feb. 26, 1909.) 
 
 Embossed— 
 Besides the corrugated and embossed effect on the paper of the importation in con- 
 troversy, there is impressed on it a surface figure or design which makes of the 
 paper something more than plain paper embossed. It was properly assessed 
 under paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909. Dunn v. United States (2 Ct. Oust. 
 Appls., 65). Steinman v. United States (No. 916), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 2a467 (T. D. 32507). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32895; 
 Nov. 21, 1912.) 
 Paragraph 415, tariff act of 1909, applies only to papers, plain or printed, but not 
 lithographed. The merchandise here — embossed paper ornaments composed 
 in chief value of metal-coated paper — are clearly subject to the terms of para- 
 graph 411 of that act and are dutiable thereunder. Enauth v. United States (3 
 Ct. Oust. Appls., 183; T. D. 32465); United States v. Puld (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., — , 
 T. D. 33476) distinguished. United States v. Wyman & Co. (No. 1123), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31200 (T. D. 33145), Abstract 31669 
 (T. D. 33280). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33851; Oct. 31, 1913.) 
 Paper, embossed and die cut into designs in imitation of lace, and having religious 
 pictures printed thereon by the engraving process, is more specifically provided 
 for in paragraph 415, tariff act of 1909, than as "engravings" in paragraph 416 in 
 said act. The proviso to said paragraph 415 distinctly covers all embossed, die- 
 cut, or stamped papers, plain or printed, but not lithographed. Knauthi). 
 United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 183; T. D. 32465) affirming Abstract 27089 
 (T. D. 32006) followed. (T. D. 35313— G. A. 7709; Apr. 9, 1915.) 
 
 Fans. (See Fans, tissue-paper.) 
 
 Grease-proof, supercalendered and embossed — 
 A supercalendered imitation parchment and grease-proof paper, exhibiting an 
 embossed design or fancy effect on the surface of the paper, is more specifically 
 provided for as "grease-proof and imitation parchment papers which have been 
 supercalendered and rendered transparent, or partially so, by whatever name 
 known," under paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909, than as "papers, including 
 wrapping paper, with the surface decorated or covered with a design," under the 
 same paragraph. (T. D. 31133— G. A. 7136; Dec. 15, 1910.) 
 
 Grease-proof and imitation parcbmeiit — 
 Under the tariff act of August 5, 1909, grease-proof and imitation parchment papers 
 are dutiable under the provision therefor in paragraph 411, rather than as ' ' mani- 
 fold " paper imder paragraph 413, even when suitable for manifolding. In con- 
 struing the application of the provisions for "all other grease-proof and imitation 
 parchment papers "by whatever name known, and "manifold" paper, aa 
 applied to imitation parchment papers, consideration must be given to the 
 evident intent of Congress to group within the same classification, without 
 regard to trade names, all parchment and imitation parchment papers. (T. D. 
 33238— G. A. 7438; Feb. 25, 1913.) 
 
 Handmade — 
 Handmade printing paper suitable for books: The term "handmade" as applied 
 to paper is precise, explicit, specific, and controlling, and since the handmade 
 
666 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Paper — Continued . 
 Handmade — CJontinued. 
 
 paper of the importation weighed* 10 pounds to the ream it was dutiable under 
 paragraph 401, tariff act of 1897. Benneche& Bro. v. United States (153 Fed. 
 Rep., 861). 
 
 Effect of departmental practice: Even it the evidence showed, and it does 
 not so show, that the practice of the Treasury Department had been contrary to 
 the ruling here made, the reason for invoking departmental practice as binding 
 is not found here; the provisions of the statute under consideration are not of 
 doubtful construction. American Trading Co. v. United States (No. 99), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeak. Appeal by the importer from decision of the 
 Board of United States General Appraiseia, Abstract 20115 (T. D. 29429). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of 
 New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31972; Oct. 16, 1911.) 
 Hangings — 
 
 The importation consists of white paper in reels, claimed by the importers to be 
 dutiable as printing paper suitable for printing books. The evidence did not 
 show that the paper of the importation was either commercially or commonly 
 known as printing paper, distinguishable as such from wall paper; it was not 
 brought in to be used in printing books, and the testimony was conflicting as 
 to whether it was suitable for such a purpose. The case was ruled by Pritchard 
 V. United States (T. D. 31974), and the merchandise was properly held not to 
 be printing paper. Thomas & Co. v. United States (No. 635), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 24804 (T. D. 31300). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 32165; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 
 Friezes — Lithographic prints: Paper hangings are denominatively provided for 
 in paragraph 415, tariff act of 1909, without restriction as to the manner of their 
 printing. Held, accordingly, that lithographically printed paper in rolls 18 
 inches wide, in designs forming repeats of either 5 or 30 feet, whichever the case 
 may be, and for use as borders or friezes for wall hangings, dutiable as "paper 
 hangings,'' rather than imder paragraph 412 of said act, as lithographic prints. 
 (T. D. 33214— G. A. 7434; Feb. 19, 1913.) 
 Hats — 
 
 Paper hats are not toys, as provided for under paragraph 431, tarifi act of 1909, 
 unless designed and intended only as playthings for children. Certain hats 
 made of crSpe paper to be given away as advertisements or used as favors or 
 novelties are dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 410 of said act as crSpe 
 paper articles. 
 
 Proviso to paragraph 410 — Scope: Though a proviso is ordinarily to be strictly 
 construed and confined to what precedes, it may be treated as applying to the 
 whole act when from its terms it manifestly was intended to have such appli- 
 cation. Carter v. United States (143 Fed. Rep., 256; T. D. 27135). (T. D. 
 31521— G. A. 7211; Apr. 22, 1911.) 
 "Hygeia"— 
 
 Used for wra.pping straws and toothpicks. (See Paper, cigarette.) 
 Japanese — 
 
 Japanese paper weighing between 6 and 10 pounds per ream of 480 sheets, 20 by 
 30 inches, dutiable under paragraph 410, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32368; Apr. 
 2, 1912.) 
 lace-paper articles — 
 
 Ijace-paper articles, some with printed inscriptions and some without printing, 
 Held dutiable as manufactures of paper under paragraph 407, tariff act of 1897, 
 and not as printed matter under paragraph 403, nor as surface-coated paper 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 667 
 
 Paper— <3ontmued. 
 Lace-papei articles — Continued. 
 
 under paragraph 398. Hensel v. United States,. United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, May 22, 1908. Suit 5108. Appeal by im- 
 porter from decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6674 
 (T. D. 28479). Board sustained. (T. D. 29165; July 15, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Where plain paper has been stamped by a single operation into 
 shapes with lace-like effects, it is still "paper" within the meaning of para- 
 graph 402, tariff act of 1897, rather than "manufactures" of paper under para- 
 graph 407. The authorities warrant the classification as "printed matter" 
 under paragraph 403, tariff act of 1897, of lace paper that has been printed with 
 trade-marks, business addresses, decorative designs, etc. Hamilton v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Coiut of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 
 1909. No. 126 (suit 5108). Appeal by the importer from the Circuit Court of 
 the United States for Southern District of New York (T. D. 29165) affirming 
 G. A. 6674 (T. D. 28479). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29519; 
 Feb. 3, 1909.) Acquiesced in February 4, 1909 (T. D. 29528). 
 
 So-called lace-paper tops, doilies, and similar articles, cut or stamped out of 
 sheets of paper without printed inscriptions thereon, are dutiable under para- 
 graph 402, as "paper" rather than iinder paragraph 407, tariff act of 1897, as 
 "manufactures" of paper. Those with printed inscriptions are covered by 
 paragraph 403, aa "printed matter." Hamilton v. United States (T. D. 29519) 
 followed. (T. D. 29698— G. A. 6895; Apr. 14, 1909.) 
 Leaves — 
 
 There is no evidence that the merchandise in question, consisting of ornamental 
 paper leaves of various colors, has been embossed and die cut, but even if there 
 were such evidence, these leaves, simulating natural leaves as they do and 
 being ornamental, are more specifically described in paragraph 438, tariff act 
 of 1909, and they were dutiable thereunder. Hirshbach & Smith v. United 
 States (No. 1201), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32291 
 (T. D. 33409). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34169; Jan. 29, 1914.) 
 Lithographically printed — 
 
 Surface-coated papers lithographically printed with a pattern or design of roses, 
 apple blossoms, or other floral subject, repeated throughout the dimensions Uf 
 the paper, 32 by '43 inches, are dutiable as articles of paper lithographically 
 printed, under paragraph 412, taiiff act of 1909, rather than under paragraph 
 411, as "papers with a coated surface * * * if printed." (T. D. 31653 — 
 G. A. 7231; June 5, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise consisted of sheets of paper lithographically 
 printed with colored designs, and not exceeding eight one-thousandths of an 
 ' inch in thickness. Paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909, contains unmistakable 
 
 evidence that Congress intended to name the exceptions to its appKcation, and 
 that apart from those exceptions it was meant to cover, as is there expressly de- 
 clared, articles composed wholly or in chief value of paper lithographically 
 printed, in whole or in part, whether such articles are or are not ejusdem generis 
 with those first designated. The merchandise consisting of surface-coated 
 paper, with lithographically printed colored designs was, therefore, dutiable 
 under that paragraph. Overton & Co. v. United States (No. 705), United 
 States Cotirt of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7231 (T. D. 31653). ' Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 32172; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 
 Wall pockets madd in part of lithographic prints and in part of mirrors, thermome- 
 ters, and pincushions are dutiable as manufactures of paper at 35 per cent ad 
 
668 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Paper — Continued. 
 
 IiithogiapMcally printed — Continued. 
 
 valorem under paragraph 407, tariff act of 1897. Similar articles consisting 
 merely of Uthographic prints pasted on cardboard, having no other articles 
 attached thereto, are dutiable as "lithographic prints" vmder paragraph 400. 
 Knauth v. United States (155 Fed. Rep., 144; T. D. 28184). (T. D. 29762— 
 G. A. 6910; May 18, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Flat cardboards, of different sizes and shapes, upon which litho- 
 graphic prints have been mounted, and that have been imported in a " knocked- 
 down" condition, but complete in themselves and ready to be assembled and 
 used as wall pockets, are not to be deemed lithographic prints and dutiable as 
 such; they have a new name and new use and were dutiable under paragraph 
 407, tariff act of 1897, as manufactures of paper. Knauth v. United States (No. 
 137), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from 
 decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6910 (T. D. 
 29762). Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District 
 of New York. Decision reversed. (T. D. 31499; Apr. 11, 1911.) 
 
 Manufactures of, trick tobacco bags — 
 Trick novelties, which resemble in appearance the familiar 5-cent package of 
 smoking tobacco, having a label containing a printed advertisement of tobacco 
 pasted to the outer surface of the cotton bag out of which a string extends which 
 when drawn out is attached to a paper fan which unfolds as it is drawn forth, 
 dutiable as manufactures in chief value of paper, under paragraph 420, tariff act 
 of 1909, rather than as "toys," under paragraph 431, or "printed matter," under 
 paragraph 416. (T. D. 32422— G. A- 7353; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 
 Marking of. (See Marking of imported merchandise — Paper.) 
 
 Metal-coated — 
 A metal-coated paper is dutiable at 5 cents per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem 
 under the provisions in paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909, for "papers with coated 
 surface or surfaces * * * if wholly or partly covered with metal or its solu- 
 tions," irrespective of whether the metal coating is applied on a plain or a sur- 
 faced paper. (T. D. 31298— G. A. 7169; Feb. 11, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Plain or surfaced, and metal coated. — It is a well-established 
 rule that where statutory language has been given a long-continued administra- 
 tive construction, and there is a reenactment of the statute in substantially the 
 game language, it is presumed the administrative construction was adopted. 
 Reviewing the history of the relevant clause in the tariff act of 1909 and the con- 
 struction given to the previous acts, paper, whetherplain or surfaced to be coated, 
 metal coated, is foimd to be dutiable under paragraph 411 of that act as "papers 
 with coated surface or surfaces * * * if wholly or partly covered with metal 
 or its substitutes" at 5 cents per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem. Ktipfer 
 Bros. V. United States (No. 641), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7169 (T. D. 31298). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32041; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 
 Napkins — 
 Paper napkins ornamented with designs in colors stenciled, stamped, or printed 
 thereon, are dutiable as manufactures of paper under paragraph 407, tariff act 
 of 1897, rather than as "printed matter" under paragraph 403. Morimura v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 21, 1908. Suit 5015. Appeal by importer from decision by Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 6651 (T. D. 28350). Board sustained. (T. D. 
 29163; July 15, 1908.) [Note. — An appeal has been taken to the Circuit Coiirt 
 of Appeals, Second Circuit.] 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 669 
 
 Paper— Continued. 
 Onionskin — 
 
 Classification of various thin papers weighing under 10 pounds per ream of 480 
 sheets, each 20 by 30 inches. Modified by T. D. 32057, of December 5, 1911, 
 as to onionskin, imitation onionskin, and manifold papers, which were dutiable 
 under paragraph 413, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31885; Sept. 27, 1911.) 
 
 The rare and exceptional use of onionskin paper for printing purposes does not 
 constitute it printing paper and it was dutiable as paper not specially provided 
 for under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1897. In the tariff law "suitable" means 
 actually, practically, and commercially fit. Kahlen v. United States (No. 448), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23721 (T. D. 30800). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 31947; Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 
 Onionskin, imitation onionskin, and manifold papers dutiable under paragraph 
 413, tariff act of 1909. T. D. 31885 modified accordingly. (T. D. 32057; Dec. 
 5, 1911.) 
 Onionskin and grease-proof — 
 
 Grease-proof paper chiefly used for wrapping lard and other oleaginous substances 
 dutiable under paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909, and not as onionskin paper 
 under paragraph 413 of said act. (T. D. 32152; Jan. 17, 1912.) 
 Parchment — • 
 
 Vegetable parchment is synonymous with parchment paper and dutiable accord- 
 ingly under paragraph 324 of the act of 1913, rather than free of duty under para- 
 graph 568 as "parchment and vellum." (T. D. 35526— G. A. 7736; June 8, 
 1915.) 
 Perlmutter — 
 
 Perlmutter paper, with a coating attached to the paper with a gelatin binding, 
 the gelatin not being on the outside exposed surface, is dutiable at the rate of 35 
 per cent ad valorem imder paragraph 324, tariff act of 1913, as paper with coated 
 surface or surfaces not specially provided for, rather than at the rate of 25 per 
 cent ad valorem under the same paragraph as paper partly covered with gelatin. 
 (T. D. 36015; Dec. 24, 1915.) 
 Photograph frames bearing lithographic printing. (See Lithographic prints — Pho- 
 tograph frames.) 
 Printing paper, countervailing duty on. (See Wood pulp and printing paper.) 
 Printing, handmade — 
 
 Handmade printing paper is dutiable under paragraph 396, tariff act of 1897, 
 relating to "printing paper * * * suitable for books and newapapers," 
 rather than imder paragraph 401 as "handmade * * * paper." Davies v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, July 7, 
 1909. No. 556 (suit 2053). Appeal by importer from decision of Board of 
 United States General Appraisers on rehearing. Abstract 20116 (T. D. 29429). 
 Board reversed. (T. D. 29924; July 27, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Handmade printing paper is dutiable as "handmade paper" un- 
 der paragraph 401, tariff act of 1897, rather than as "printing paper" under para- 
 graph 396. The word "handmade" is denominative and not merely descrip- 
 tive; and being a name that is specific and not general, it controls on the 
 natural reading of the statute, over the term "printing" as applied to paper, 
 though the common sense of the matter, the force of other provisions, and the 
 surrounding circumstances might under some conditions make what is descrip- 
 tive overrule that which enumerates. In construing the application of the 
 terms "handmade" and "printing" as applied to paper, consideration is given 
 to the evident intent of Congress, (1) as revealed in numerous successive tariff 
 
670 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Papei — Continued . 
 Fruiting, handmade — Continued. 
 
 acts, to reduce the duties on printing paper for the benefit of the ordinary read- 
 ing public, and (2) by elevating handmade paper into a new class in a later 
 act, to impose a higher duty on an article which it is a matter of common 
 knowledge is relatively a luxury. United States v. Davies,. United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, March 4, 1910. No. 841 (suit 2053). 
 Appeal by the United States from decision of the Circuit Court of the United 
 States for the District of Massachusetts (172 Fed. Rep., 298; T. D. 29924) revers- 
 ing Abstract 20116 (T. D . 29429) . Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 
 30425; Mar. 15, 1910.) 
 Puzzles — Lithographic prints — 
 
 Printed paper puzzles are not in fact toys as provided for under paragraph 418, 
 tariff aet of 1897, unless designed and intended only as playthings for children. 
 Certain lithographed paper puzzles to be given away by dealers in cocoa to their 
 customers as novelties or favors, held dutiable under paragraph 400, as litho- 
 graphic prints. (T. D. 30333— G. A. 6975; Feb. 7, 1910.) 
 Supercalendered — 
 
 Imitation parchment paper does not lose its charactei:. as imitation parchment 
 paper by reason of having been supercalendered and rendered transparent, or 
 partially so, the statutory provision, paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909, evidently 
 contemplating imitation parchment papers which have not been supercalen- 
 dered as well as those that have. (T. D. 32734— G. A. 7383; July 22, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise involved in this case was imported under the 
 tariff act of 1909 and was invoiced as "white glace wrapping paper." The 
 appraiser reported that "the merchandise consists of supercalendered, grease- 
 proof paper known as glassine or parchmyn, paper. It is intended for use in 
 wrapping greasy substances * * *;" and the importation was assessed for 
 duty under paragraph 411, as imitation parchment paper, the protest claiming 
 a duty of 35 per cent under paragraph 415, as "wrapping paper not specially 
 provided for in this section." 
 
 Parchment paper: Parchment paper is made from vegetable fiber, not from 
 wood pulp, is unsized, and is treated with dilute sulphuric acid. It is dull in 
 finish, dense, hard, and hornlike. It is grease proof, waterproof, translucent, 
 and is much more tenacious than the original material. 
 
 Imitation parchment paper, supercalendered and transparent: Specific 
 envuneration of an article governs as against a general classification always and 
 the merchandise here would seem to be specifically named in paragraph 411, 
 tariff act of 1909, providing for "imitation parchment papers which have been 
 supercalendered and rendered transparent or partly so by whatever name 
 known." Germania Importing Co. v. United States (No. 1004), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7383 (T. D. 32734). Decision affirmed. (T. 
 D. 33221; Feb. 18, 1913.) 
 Surface-coated. (See also Paper— Metal-coated.) 
 
 A coated paper which exhibits a design or pattern upon its surface is dutiable 
 under the provision in paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909, for "papers with coated 
 surface or surfaces," rather than vmder the provision in said paragraph for 
 "papers, including wrapping paper, with the surface decorated or covered 
 with a design, fancy effect, pattern, or character," the former being construed 
 to relate to "coated" and the latter to "uncoated" papers. (T. D. 31101— 
 G. A. 7131; Dec. 9, 1910.) 
 
 By the deliberate change made and appearing in paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909 
 making it read "paper with coated surface or surfaces, not specially provided 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISION'S, 1908-1915. ' 671 
 
 Paper— Continued . 
 
 Suzface-coated — Continued. 
 
 for," from the provision in the act of 1897 [paragraph 398] viz: "Surface-coated 
 papers, not specially provided for in this act, " it can not be doubted a change 
 of meaning was intended; and papers like the importation, which consists of 
 a species of paper used in the printing of decalcomanias, that in fact had a 
 coated surface or surfaces are dutiable under that paragraph. Kupfer v. 
 United States (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., -; T. D. 32041) distinguished. AmericanEx- 
 press Co. et al. v. United States (No. 736), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 26052 (T. D. 31757). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32207; Jan. 12, 1912.) 
 Gummed: Paper coated on one side with a gummy substance, and intended for 
 use in making labels and paper boxes, is dutiable as "paper with coated surface 
 or surfaces, " under paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909, that provision being descrip- 
 tive in its terms and precisely describing the merchandise. (T. D. 31142 — G. 
 A. 7138; Dec. 23, 1910.) 
 Labels, etc., of surface-coated paper dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem 
 as articles composed wholly or in chief value of sm^ace-coated paper under 
 paragraph 324, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35841; Oct. 30, 1915.) 
 Proviso to paragraph 415, tariff act of 1909: The paper of the importation has 
 an embossed surface design and is intended for use as covers for books and 
 pamphlets. The proviso to paragraph 415, tariff act of 1909, relating to em- 
 bossed paper is limited to such embossed paper as appears in the form of designs 
 and shapes like those there specified. The proviso does not apply to this im- 
 portation. Steinman v. United States (No. 992), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 29184 (T. D. 32681). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33477; 
 May 23, 1913.) 
 Paper, both surfaces of which have been completely covered with a coat of var- 
 nish without thoroughly saturating the paper, is properly dutiable as surface- 
 coated paper under paragraph 324 of the act of 1913, as here classified, rather 
 than under paragraph 332 of said act as paper not specially provided for, as 
 claimed. Knauth d. United States (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., 11; T. D. 33199) dis- 
 tinguished. (T. D. 3549ft-G. A. 7732; June 2, 1915.) 
 Tissue — 
 Tissue paper, which is also a wrapping paper, is more specifically provided for eo 
 nominee in paragraph 323 of the act of 1913 than under the general provision for 
 wrapping paper not specially provided for in paragraph 328 of said act. (T. D. 
 34904^-G. A. 7631; Nov. 12, 1914.) 
 What is — Weight not the test: Thin, unsized paper of fine, soft texture, silky to 
 the touch, translucent, and to a limited extent transparent, used for wrapping 
 articles, especially those which the manufactiu'er does not wish to tarnish, com- 
 monly known to the trade as tissue paper, weighing lOi to lOJ pounds per ream 
 of 480 sheets, measining 20 by 30 inches, is properly classified as tissue paper, 
 notwithstanding the fact that its weight is much greater than that of the ordinary 
 tissue paper. 
 
 How dutiable: Such paper is more specifically classified as "tissue paper," 
 under paragraph 323 of the tariff act of 1913 than as "wrapping paper" imder 
 paragraph 328 or "papers * * * not specially provided for" under para- 
 graph 332. Germania Importing Co. v. United States (No. 1572), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals, December 6, 1915. Appeal by importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37725. Decision affirmed. (T. 
 D. 35988; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 
672, DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Paper — Continued. 
 Toys — 
 
 Miniature paper toys: Cheap, nonendurable paper articles, made for the amuse- 
 ment of children, to resemble other and really useful articles, are toys, though 
 they might nominally fall within the provisions of some paragraph other than 
 the toy paragraph of the statute. United States v. Borgfeldt (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 370; T. D. 31455). Davies, Turner & Co. v. United States (No. 768), United 
 States Coiui; of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 26465 (T. D. 31845). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 32363; Mar. 26, 1912.) 
 Tracing and imitation parchment and grease-proof papers — 
 
 Paper called "Congo tracing "or "parchment Congo," being an imitation parch- 
 ment paper and grease-proof, is dutiable under the specific provision therefor in 
 paragraph 411 of the tariff act of 1909. As this act differs materially from its 
 predecessor in respect to the dutiable classification of imitation parchment 
 paper, decisions under the earlier statute do not control. (T. D. 33190 — G. A. 
 7430; Feb. 10, 1913.) 
 Transfer, duplex — ■ 
 
 So-called duplex lithographic transfer paper, produced by pasting together two 
 sheets of paper, one coated with a gummy substance and the other uncoated, is 
 dutiable as "paper" under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1897, rather than as 
 "manufactures" of paper under paragraph 407. Drakenfeld v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. No. 
 133 (suit 4992). Appeal from Circuit Court of United States for the Southern 
 District of New York (T. D. 29035) affirming Abstract 15964 (T. D. 28300). De- 
 cision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29520; Feb. 3, 1909.) Acquiesced in 
 February 15, 1909 (T. D. 29555). 
 
 The provision in paragraph 402, tariff act of 1897, for paper not specially provided 
 for, applies as well to paper made from several layers or sheets joined or pasted 
 together, as to paper made of one thickness from the pulp; and duplex transfer 
 paper made of two sheets of paper pasted together, one coated with a gummy 
 substance and one uncoated, is dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 402 , as " paper, ' ' rather than at 35 per ceiit under paragraph 407 , as " man- 
 ufactures" of paper. Drakenfeld v. United States (T. D. 29520) followed. (T. 
 D. 29662— G. A. 6890; Mar. 24, 1909.) 
 
 So-called duplex transfer paper, composed of two sheets of paper pasted together, 
 one coated with a gummy substance and one uncoated, are dutiable as "manu- 
 factures" of paper under paragraph 407, tariff act of 1897, rather than as "paper 
 not specially provided for, " under paragraph 402. Drakenfeld v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 21, 1908. 
 Suit 4992. Appeal by importer from decision by Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 15964 (T. D. 28300). Board sustained. (T. D. 29035; 
 May 27, 1908.) 
 Twine — 
 
 Paper twine dutiable as a manufacture of paper under paragraph 332, tariff act of 
 1913, unless a declaration is attached to the invoice and an affidavit submitted 
 by the importers that it is intended for use in the binding of wool of the sheep, 
 etc. (T. D. 34268; Mar. 13, 1914.) 
 Wafers, UthograpMcally printed — 
 
 So-called wafers, consisting of small, circular pieces of paper, embossed, die cut, 
 coated with gelatin, and having a letter of the alphabet lighographically printed 
 in the center thereof, are not lithographically printed labels within the meaning 
 of paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909, but are properly dutiable at 20 cents per 
 pound under the same paragraph as "all other articles, " etc. (T. D. 34164r— G. 
 A. 7531; Feb. 5, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 673 
 
 Paper — Continueil . 
 Watermarked writing — 
 
 A watermark in the form of a firm's name, business, and address does not consti- 
 tute a decoration, and writing paper so marked is not subject to the additional 
 duty provided in paragraph 401 , tariff act of 1897 , for " writing * * * paper, 
 * * * decorated in any manner." (T. D. 29436— G. A. 6842; Dec. 23, 1908.) 
 Windowphanie — 
 
 Paper which was printed in various designs by process other than lithography, 
 and then coated on both surfaces with a solution of linseed oil which rendered it 
 impervious to water, falls within the terms of paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909, as 
 "papers with coated surface or surfaces * * * jf embossed or printed." 
 This conclusion must follow irrespective of the circumstances that the paper is 
 printed before it is coated and that the solution not merely coats the paper but 
 impregnates it. (T. D. 32829— G. A. 7393; Sept. 20, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The paper of the importation has been subjected to processes by 
 which, after a finished design in colors had been imprinted on it, it was saturated 
 with linseed oil and no varnish or other substance was applied to produce an 
 added surface. This is not a suriace-coated paper. It is dutiable as a "paper 
 with the surface decorated or covered with a design, fancy effect, pattern, or 
 character, * * * but not by Uthographic process, " under paragraph 411, 
 tariff act of 1909. Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne et al. v. United States (No. 1032), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importer from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7393 (T. D. 32829). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 33199; Feb. 12, 1912.) 
 Wrapping — 
 
 Kraft paper not printing paper: The Board of General Appraisers having found 
 the consignment to be wrapping paper and not printing paper, and an examina- 
 tion of the evidence of record failing to show this decision to have been wholly 
 unsupported or contrary to the weight of the evidence, the decision Avill be 
 affirmed. Where there is a question of an article being dutiable and the rate of 
 duty depends on thatarticle's suitableness for a given use, its commercial desig- 
 nation is a material fact. Pritchard & Co. v. United States (No. 417), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals, October 16, 1911. Appeal by the importer 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23582 (T. D. 30733). 
 (T. D. 31974; Oct. 16, 1911.) 
 
 Material having the ordinary thickness of wrapping paper, with the appearance of 
 wrapping paper and used as such, must be deemed not wood pulp but wrapping 
 paper, and was dutiable under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1897, as paper not 
 specially provided for. To constitute a material paper, it is not necessary that 
 the machine used in its manufacture should be known as a paper-makin':r ma- 
 chine, nor that the material should contain glue, alum, and clay; the product 
 determines its classification. Germania Importing Co. v. United States (No. 
 520), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from a 
 decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24059 (T. 
 D. 30991). Decision afiirmed. (T. D. 31595; May 8, 1911.) 
 
 Reliquidation , goods having gone into consumption : The protest in this case raises 
 the single question as to the regularity of the collector's action when taken by 
 the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, and within one year from the 
 original liquidation, the goods having in the meantime gone into consumption. 
 The Secretary had authority under section 2652, Revised Statutes, to give the 
 directions; the reliquidation was made within a prescribed period fixed by law. 
 United States v. Hobbs (3 Ct. Oust. Appls., — ; T. D. 32567), and there was no 
 error. Hawley & Letzerich v. United States (No. 901), United States Court of 
 45633°— 17 43 ' 
 
674 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Paper — Continued . 
 Wrapping — Continued. 
 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 28053 (T. D. 32379). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 33037; Dec. 16, 1912.) 
 With surface design: 
 Wrapping paper with a surface design dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem under 
 
 paragraph 324, tarifi act of 1913. (T. D. 34046; Jan. 6, 1914.) 
 With checkered design: A wrapping paper exhibiting a plaid or checkered design 
 on its surface is dutiable under the provision for "papers, including wrapping 
 paper, with the surface decorated or covered with a design, fancy effect, pattern, 
 or character," paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909. The term "surface" in para- 
 graph 411, tarifi act of 1909, has no particular trade meaning different from the 
 usual understanding of the word, and it applies alike to both sides of a paper, 
 one of which is rough and uncalendered and the other smooth and finished. 
 Where a design or pattern is impressed on one side of a paper, the paper is one 
 the "surface " of which is "decorated or covered by a design," within the mean- 
 ing of said paragraph. (T. D. 30083— G. A. 6937; Oct. 28, 1909.) 
 To bring a wrapping paper with a decorated surface within the pertinent provision 
 of paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909, it is unnecessary to show the decoration was 
 placed on the paper by a separate and independent decorative process; the 
 language of the statute is "whether produced in the pulp or otherwise," and it 
 appears here the decorated effect was produced by the intentional use for that 
 purpose of a particular kind of felt or felt blanket. It was dutiable under para- 
 graph 411 of the act. Dimn v. United States (No. 429), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from a decision of the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23665 (T. D. 30768). Decision 
 aflBrmed. (T. D. 31627; May 22, 1911.) 
 Waterproof, reinforced cloth-Uned wrapping papers, etc.: Oilcloth, or reinforced 
 wrapping papers, and oiled wrapping papers and imitation parchment wrapping 
 papers are dutiable under paragraph 324, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34183; Feb. 
 14, 1914.) 
 Papier-mUchg boxes. (See Coverings.) 
 Papperios seed packed in brine. (See Peppers in brine.) 
 Paraffin. 
 Liquid — 
 Paraffin liquid and paraffin molle free of duty as paraffin under paragraph 645, 
 tariff act of August 5, 1909. Paraffim oil dutiable under paragraph 3 or 65 of the 
 said act. (T. D. 29991; Sept. 8, 1909.) 
 Paraffin which is derived from petroleum originating in Russia, a country that 
 imposes a duty on petroleum products exported from the United States, but 
 which is manufactured in Belgium, a country that- imposes no such duty, is 
 not subject to the countervailing duty provided in paragraph 626, tariff act of 
 1897, on "the products of crude petroleum produced in any country which 
 imposes a duty on petroleum or its products exported from the United States." 
 United States v. Marsily, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 
 November 17, 1908. No. 788 (suit 1923). Appeal from the Circuit Court of 
 the United States for the District of Massachusetts (T. D. 29253). Decision 
 adverse to Government. (T. D. 29373; Dec. 2, 1908.) Acquiesced in Novem- 
 ber 9, 1909 (T. D. 30102). 
 Oil. (See Oil, paraffin.) 
 Tapers. (See Wax, manufactures of.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 675 
 
 Parasols. (See also Toys, parasols.) 
 
 The merchandise of the importations consisted of parasols of various sizes covered 
 with material other than paper. According to the definition of "toy, " Illfelder 
 V. United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 109; T. D. 31115), the articles of the im- 
 portation are not toys either within the letter or intendment of that definition; 
 and the evidence of a commercial designation is not such under all the facts as 
 to warrant the board's finding being disturbed. The merchandise was properly 
 assessed as parasols covered with other material than paper, under paragraph 
 462, tariff act of 1897, and the corresponding paragraph in the tariff act of 1909. 
 Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 
 32361). Cattus et al. v. United States (No. 1019), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 29834 (T. D. 32830). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33198; 
 Feb. 12, 1913.) 
 
 Embroidered or appliqued — 
 Embroidered parasols in chief value of flax or other vegetable fiber or silk dutiable 
 at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraphs 339 and 390, tariff act of 1897, and 
 paragraphs 349 and 402, tariff act of 1909. Parasols with appliqu6d covers in 
 chief value of cotton, Unen, or silk, imported under the tariH act of 1909, duti- 
 able at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraphs 349 and 402. 
 
 Provisos to paragraphs 349 and 402, tariff act of 1909, construed: The estab- 
 lished construction of the proviso to paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, followed, 
 and the provisos to paragraph 349 and the first proviso to paragraph 402, tariff 
 act of 1909, construed as provisions of limitation providing a minimum rate of 
 duty without regard to the rule of specific designation, thereby enlarging the 
 scope of the paragraphs. (T. D. 32558— G. A. 7368; May 20, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The importations were of parasols composed of either cotton, 
 linen, or silk and embroidered or appliqu6d with either cotton or silk, im- 
 ported in part under the tariff act of 1897 and in part under the tariff act of 1909. 
 The question raised is whether the proviso to paragraph 339 of the first act and 
 the provisos to paragraphs 349 and 402 of the last act may be construed to ex- 
 clude from their operation, respectively, paragraph 462, tariff act of 1897, and 
 paragraph 478, tariff act of 1909, and so affect the duty on the parasols of the 
 importation. There seems to be nothing in the language of the provisos that 
 would limit their operation, and a fair interpretation requires that they should 
 be held to cover the goods here. They were properly applied in making the 
 assessment. United States v. Harper (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 101; T. D. 31655) 
 distinguished. Claflin Co. et al. v. United States (No. 950); Knauth, Nachod 
 & Kuhne v. United States (No. 914), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. 
 A. 7368 (T. D. 32558). Decision afiirmed. (T. D. 32988; Nov. 21, 1912.) 
 
 General designation — Specific designation — 
 "Where Congress has designated an article by a specific name, and imposed 
 duty upon it, general terms in the same act, though sufficiently broad to com- 
 prehend such article, are not applicable to it. In other words, the article will 
 be classified by its specific designation, rather than under a general designa- 
 tion." Homer v. Collector (1 Wall., 486); Arthur v. Lahey (96 U. S., 113); 
 Arthur v. Stephani (96 U. S., 125); Movius v. Arthur (95 U. S., 144); In re Wise 
 (73 Fed. Rep., 183). Parasols are designated by namie in the tariff act of 1909. 
 Paragraph 478 containing such designation istherefore more specific than the 
 general provision for toys in paragraph 431. Marshall Field's case, G. A. 4784 
 (T. D. 22559). 
 
676 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Paiasols — Continued . 
 
 General designation — Specific designation— Continued. 
 
 Commercial designation: In the classification of merchandise the commer- 
 cial designation is of first importance. If a word has a commercial use differing 
 from that of the common or ordinary use, it must appear that this commercial 
 use is the result of established use in trade or commerce generally throughout 
 the country, and all words will be presumed to have the same meaning in com- 
 merce that they have in ordinary use, unless the contrary is shown. Robertson 
 V. Salomon (130 U. S., 412); Haddock v. Magone (152 U. S., 368); Cadwalader 
 V. Zeh (151 U. S., 171); Swan v. Arthur (103 U. S., 597). (T. D. 31377— G. A. 
 7183; Mar. 8, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Somerville, G. A., dissenting — Specific designation — General 
 designation. — Articles shown to be toys are dutiable under the general designa- 
 tion of "toys" in paragraph 431, tariff act of 1909, the fact that they are toys 
 taking them out of the specific enumeration for articles that they resemble and 
 making inapplicable the rule that words of specific designation prevail over 
 words of general description. Toys are things used chiefly for the amusement 
 or entertainment of children. Flimsily constructed parasols valued, at about 
 10 cents each, unfit for use as parasols, and intended and peculiarly smted for 
 the amusement of children, are "toys'' within the meaning of that word in 
 paragraph 431, tariff act of 1909. In this case the board found that the evi- 
 dence failed to establish that the importation of parasols are commercially 
 known as toys; the burden was on the importer to show this, or that they were 
 toys in fact, and, failing in it, the collector's classification should be affirmed. 
 Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. United States (No. 652), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 7183 (T. D. 31377). Decision affirmed, (T. D. 32361; 
 Mar. 26, 1912.) 
 Paratlne oil. (See Alizarin assistant — Paratine oil.) 
 Parcel-post convention. 
 
 Argentine Republic — 
 Parcel-post convention with Argentine Republic. (T. D. 35891; Nov. 18, 1915.) 
 
 BrazU and Haiti. (T. D. 31748; July 12, 1911.) 
 
 Dominican RepubUc. (T. D. 33047; Dec. 24, 1912.) 
 
 France. (T. D. 29211; Aug. 14, 1908.) 
 
 Gibraltar. (T. D. 35182; Mar. 3, 1915.) 
 
 Greece. (T. D. 33972; Dec. 2, 1913.) 
 
 Guadeloupe and Martinique. (T. D. 33333; Apr. 9, 1913.) 
 
 Guiana, Dutch. (T. D. 30052; Oct. 20, 1909.) 
 
 Guiana, French. (T. D. 34825; Oct. 12, 1914.) 
 
 Haiti and BrazU. (T. D. 31748; July 12, 1911.) 
 
 Hungary. (T. D. 30916; Sept. 12, 1910.) 
 
 Italy. (T. D. 29176; July 23, 1908.) 
 
 Liberia. (T. D. 34605; June 29, 1914.) 
 
 Netherlands. (T. D. 29127; July 1, 1908.) 
 
 Panama. (T. D. 32853, Oct. 10, 1912.) 
 
 Uruguay. (T. D. 29212; Aug. 14, 1908.) 
 Parcel-post packages. (See also Mail importations.) 
 
 Ecuador — 
 No limit to value on parcel-post packages from Ecuador. (T. D. 34461; May 21, 
 1914.) 
 
 Entry — 
 Regular entries of parcels-post .packages should be liquidated before the same are 
 forwarded. (T. D. 29881; June 29, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 677 
 
 Parcel-post packages — Continued. 
 Entry — Continued . 
 Formal entry is required for parcel-post and parcel-convention packages and all 
 parcels from countries to which domestic postal conditions apply valued at over 
 $100. (T. D. 34739; Aug. 29, 1914.) 
 A protest relating to a parcel-post entry dated New York, September 1, 1911, 
 received in the customs bureau, New York post office, September 18, 1911, 
 held not filed in time. (T. D. 35123— G. A. 7680; Feb. 4, 1915.) 
 Examination — 
 Parcel-post packages and unsealed packages in the postal-union mails to be ex- 
 amined at various ports. (T. D. 33011; Dec. 12, 1912.) 
 Great Britain — 
 A parcel-post convention with Great Britain provides that the merchandise im- 
 ported under it shall be subject to all customs duties or customs regulations en- 
 forced in the United States and that the merchandise shall be delivered to the 
 addressee upon payment by him of the duties properly chargeable thereon. 
 This provision waives the necessity of a formal entry, except when this is re- 
 quired, and a light of appeal to a classification board remains. In re Chichester 
 (48 Fed., 281) distinguished. , (T. D. 33494; May 26, 1913.) 
 Himgary — 
 By arrangement with the postal administration of Hungary, effective November 
 1, 1912, parcel-post packages can be exchanged with that country without limit 
 to the value of the contents thereof. Such packages, however, of a value ex- 
 ceeding $100 must be accompanied by certified consular invoices or a bond given 
 therefor and regular entry made as provided in T. D. 29826, of June 29, 1909. 
 (T. D. 32933; Nov. 13, 1912.) 
 Japan — 
 No limit of value on parcel-post packages from Japan. (T. D. 33428; May 15, 
 1913.) 
 Jurisdiction of the Board of General Appraisers. (See Board of U. S. General 
 
 Appraisers.) 
 Limit of value — 
 Commencing September 1, 1912, parcels-post packages can be exchanged with the 
 following countries without Umit of the value of the contents of the parcels: 
 Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain and 
 Ireland, Hongkong, Italy, The Netherlands, and Norway. Packages from the 
 above countries of a value exceeding $100 must be accompanied by certified 
 consular invoices or a bond given therefor and regular entry made as provided 
 in T. D. 29826 of June 29, 1909. (T. D. 32790; Aug. 29, 1912.) 
 Sweden — 
 By an arrangement with the postal administration of Sweden, effective December 
 1, 1912, parcels-post packages can be exchanged with that country without limit 
 to the value of the contents thereof. Such packages, however, of a value ex- 
 ceeding $100 must be accompanied by certified consular invoices or a bond given 
 therefor, and regular entry made, as provided in T. D. 29826 of Jxme 29, 1909. 
 (T. D. 32977; Dec. 3, 1912.) 
 Weight of: Weight and value of parcels-post packages from. (T.D. 30024; Oct. 
 4, 1909.) 
 Parchment cloth. 
 Vegetable parchment paper with cotton mesh back — 
 The importation is known as parchment cloth; it is made of parchment paper and 
 cotton cloth, the parchment paper being the component of chief value. Its use 
 does not appear by proof, but its apparent characteristics indicate an article 
 differing from either paper or cotton cloth taken alone, and with distinguishing 
 
678 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Paicluuent cloth — Continued. 
 Vegetable paichment paper with cotton mesh back — Continued. 
 
 characteristics of its own. It was properly classified by the collector as a manu- 
 facture of parchment paper and cotton cloth, dutiable under paragraph 411, 
 tariff act of 1909. Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne (T. D. 24912). Stursberg, ScheU 
 & Co. V. United States (No. 889), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 27801 (T.D. 32297). Decision aflBrmed. (T. D. 32963; Nov. 14, 1912.) 
 Parchment paper. (See Paper.) 
 Parole evidence. (See Evidence.) 
 Partridges. (See Game birds.) 
 Parts of jewelry composed of imitation precious stones. (See Precious stones, imitation 
 
 of.) 
 Parts of machines. (See Machine parts.) 
 Passengers' baggage. (See also Baggage.) 
 
 Regulations governing the entry of passengers' baggage under paragraph 709, tariff 
 
 act of 1909. (T. D. 30327; Feb. 4, 1910.) 
 Regulations governing the entry of passengers' baggage unSer paragraph 709, of 
 the tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31382; Mar. 14, 1911.) 
 Panama Canal Zone- 
 Passengers from Atlantic to Pacific coast and vice versa by way of Panama Canal 
 entitled to exemption provided in paragraph 642, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 
 35764; Oct. 11, 1915.) 
 Regulations governing examination of passengers' baggage to be applied to bag- 
 gage of passengers arriving through the Panama Canal when landing while pass- 
 ing through Panama Canal Zone has been permitted. (T. D. 35362; May 3, 
 1915.) 
 Passengers, notice to, under tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 33995; Dec. 20, 1913.) 
 Passes to board vessels. 
 
 Only the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, or collector of cus- 
 toms, authorized to issue passes to board incoming vessels. Article 613, Cus- 
 toms Regulations, 1908, amended accordingly. (T. D. 29752; May 13, 1909.) 
 Paste articles. 
 Hatpins — 
 In its tarifl legislation Congress has regarded paste and glass as two separate sub- 
 stances; and pins with paste heads cut and faceted, the heads constituting the 
 component material of chief value in the finished articles, are dutiable as manu- 
 factures of paste, at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 112, tariff 
 act of 1897, and not as articles in chief value of "glass" cut, at 60 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 100. Field v. United States (85 Fed. Rep., 864); 
 Blumenthal v. United States (144 Fed. Rep., 384; T. D. 26944); Worthington 
 V. United States (90 Fed. Rep., 797); United States v. Popper (66 Fed. Rep., 
 50); G. A. 3965 (T. D. 18408) and G. A. 5687 (T. D. 25329) cited; G. A. 6658 (T. 
 D. 28391) modified. (T. D. 29265— G. A. 6808; Sept. 17, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Paste, though a form of glass, is not glass in the meaning of the 
 tariff, and cut-paste articles are dutiable as manufactures of "paste" under 
 paragraph 112, tariff act of 1897, rather than as articles of cut "glass" under 
 paragraph 100. United States v. New York Merchandise Co., United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, February 15, 1909. Suit 5354. 
 Appeal by United States from decision of Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, G. A. 6808 (T. D. 29265). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29570; Feb. 24, 1909.) 
 (Appealed:) Cut paste articles are dutiable as manufactures of paste, not 
 specially provided for, under paragraph 112, tariff act of 1897, rather than as 
 articles of cut "glass' under paragraph 100. United States v. New York 
 Merchandise Co., Uidted States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Jan- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 679 
 
 Paste articles — Continued. 
 Hatpins — Continued . 
 
 uary 11, 1910. No.- 102 (suit 5354). Appeal by United States from decision 
 of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York (167 Fed. Rep., 684; 
 T. D. 29870) aflSiming G. A. 6808 (T. D. 29265). Decision adverse to the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 30279; Jan. 18, 1910.) Acquiesced in by the Government, 
 February 2, 1910 (T. D. 30322). 
 Paste. 
 Manufactures of — 
 The provision in paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, for articles of cut "glass," does 
 not include articles of the kind of glass known as paste, which are dutiable as 
 manufactures of paste under paragraph 109. (T. D. 30612 — G. A. 7019; May 
 13, 1910.) 
 Wall paper — ■ 
 Paste Used in the manufacture of wall paper, containing alcohol, dutiable under 
 paragraph 2, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31395; Mar. 18, 1911.) 
 Pasteboard wrappings. (See Coverings, paper.) 
 pate de fole gras. (See also Meat prepared.) 
 
 Meats prepartd or preserved. — ^The provision in paragraph 275, tariff act of 1897, for 
 "meats of all kinds, prepared or preserved," is broad enough to cover not only 
 canned meat of poultry and birds, but also the livers of poultry prepared in 
 the form of p&t6 de foie gras; and those articles are dutiable under said provi- 
 sion rather than under paragraph 278 (dressed poultry) or section 6 (unenumer- 
 ated manufactured articles). Smith v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, March 16, 1909. Suit 5270. Appeal by 
 importer from decision of Board of United- States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 18619 (T. D. 28910). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29646; Mar. 24, 1909.) 
 Patent ear caps. (See Ear caps.) 
 Patent silex linings. (See Stone, flint.) 
 Paving posts. (See Fence posts.) 
 Payments of duties. 
 
 On imports and internal taxes — 
 
 Acceptance of certified checks. (T. D. 31513; circular No. 35; Apr. 18, 1911.) 
 Travelers' checks^ 
 Collectors of customs advised to accept travelers' checks in payment of duties on 
 imports. (T. D. 31668; June 7, 1911.) 
 Pay rolls, preparation of. 
 
 Instructions published relative to preparation of pay rolls. (T. D. 30902; circu- 
 lar No. 51; Sept. 1, 1910.) 
 Preparation, certification, and payment of salary pay rolls. (T. D. 31425; circu- 
 lar No. 20; Mar. 27, 1911.) 
 Peanut oil. (See Oil, peanut.) 
 Pearls. (See also Jewelry.) 
 Drilled — ^In natural state — Necklace — 
 
 Necklace: Where pearls have been assembled into a completed necklace, and 
 worn as such prior to importation, they are dutiable as "jewelry" under para- 
 graph 434, tariff act of 1897, rather than as "pearls in their natural state," by 
 similitude, under paragraph 436. United States v. Citroen, United States 
 Circuit Court, SouthernDistrictof New York, June 2, 1908. Suit 4974. Appeal 
 from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6617 (T. D. 
 28246). Board reversed. (T. D. 29124; June 30, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) An importation consisted of loose drilled pearls in separate 
 packages, which had been assembled into a necklace abroad and worn on sev- 
 eral occasions by the person who contracted to purchase them, delivery to be 
 
680 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 
 
 Peails — Continued . 
 Drilled— In natural state — ^Necklace — Continued. 
 
 made in the United States. After importation they were reassembled and 
 strung, a few other pearls being added. Held that they were not dutiable as 
 jeweby under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, but as "pearls in their natural 
 state," by similitude, under paragraph 436. Citroen v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. No. 153 
 (suit 4974). Appeal from Circuit Court of United States for Southern Bistrict 
 of New York (T. D. 29124), reversing G. A. 6617 (T. D. 28246). Decision ad- 
 verse to Government. (T. D. 29502; Jan. 27, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Pearls in their natural state. — ^Legislative history shows that the 
 provisions in paragraphs 435 and 436, tariff act of 1897, for "pearls set or strung" 
 and "pearls in their natural state, not set or strung," were intended to embrace 
 all pearls not included in the provision for jewelry ; and drilled pearls, unstrung, 
 were dutiable Tinder the said act (par. 436) as "pearls in their natural state, 
 not set or strung." 
 
 Matched pearls — Strung pearls — Pearl necklace. — Pearls of a sufficient num- 
 ber to constitute a necklace, matched as to size and color, which had been tem- 
 porarily strung abroad for the purpose of exhibition and worn in that condition, 
 but imported unstrung, not dutiable by similitude as "pearls set or strung," 
 imder paragraph 435, tariff act of 1897, but fell directly within the provision in 
 paragraph 436 of said act for "pearls in their natural state, not set or strung." 
 Similitude. — The similitude clause, section 7, tariff act of 1897, applied only 
 to articles not enumerated in the tariff act. The classification of imported 
 articles must be ascertained by an examination of the articles in their condition 
 as imported. Articles may be manufactured or prepared for the purpose of 
 importing them at a lower rate of duty. United States v. Citroen, United 
 States Supreme Court. No. 30 (suit 4974). February 19, 1912. On writ of 
 certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for Second Circuit (166 
 Fed. Eep.j 693; T. D. 29502), reversing decision of the Circuit Court for the 
 Southern District of New York (T. D. 29124). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 32298; Mar. 5, 1912.) 
 Loose drilled pearls which have been assembled and matched abroad and were 
 ordered to be made into a necklace in New York, and which had never been 
 strung, except temporarily for purposes of display, are not "jewelry" within 
 the meaning of paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, but are dutiable either directly 
 or by similitude under paragraph 436, relating to "pearls in their natural 
 state," Citroen D. United States (T. D. 29502) followed. (T. D. 29542— G. A. 
 6864; Feb. 6, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Loose drilled pearls which had been assembled and matched 
 abroad and were ordered to be made into a necklace in New York, and which 
 had been strung abroad only temporarily for purposes of display, are not dutia- 
 ble as jewelry under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, but at the rate provided in 
 paragraph 436 for "pearls in their natural state." United States v. Tiffany, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 14, 1909. 
 Suit 5454. Appeal by United States from decision of Board of United States 
 General Appraiseis, G. A. 6864 (T. D. 29542). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29855: 
 June 22, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Loose drilled pearls which had been assembled and matched 
 abroad and were ordered to be made into a necklace in New York, and which 
 had been strung abroad only temporarily for purposes of display, are not dutiable 
 as jewelry under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, but at the rate provided in 
 paragraph 436 for "pearls in their natural state." United States v. Tiffany, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 4, 1910. No. 184 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 681 
 
 Pearls — Continued . 
 Drilled — In natural state — Necklace — Continued. 
 
 (suit 5454). Appeal by the United States from decision of the Circuit Court of 
 the United States for the Southern District of New York" (172 Fed. Rep., 300; 
 T. D. 29855) affirming G. A. 6864 (T. D. 29542). Decision adverse to the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 30552; Apr. 19, 1910.) 
 Imitation, on wire. (See also Beads, imitation pearl.) 
 
 Imitation pearls attached to short lengths of base-metal wire dutiable as imitation 
 pearls at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909, 
 notwithstanding the wire constituted the material of chief value. (T. D. 32860; 
 Oct. 14, 1912.) 
 On wire — 
 Pearls on wire dutiable under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 60 per 
 cent ad valorem. (T. D. 30138; Nov. 26, 1909.) 
 Product of American fisheries — 
 The opinion of witnesses familiar with pearls from long experience in examining 
 and handling them, that a certain pearl imported from Mexico originated in the 
 United States, this opinion being based entirely upon their examination of the 
 pearl, is insufficient to establish that said pearl is a product of American fish- 
 ' eries. Is a pearl a product of American fisheries within the meaning of that 
 phrase as used in the tariff law? Does it come within the purview of that law 
 when it has once been exported to some other country, has mingled with the 
 commerce of that country, and is being returned to the United States? (T. D. 
 29143— G. A. 6787; July 2, 1908.) 
 Pears' unsoented soap. (See Soap, toilet.) 
 Pedestals of marble or alabaster. (See Sculptures.) 
 Pedometers of metal. (See Metal, manufactures of.) 
 "Peerless oil." (See Oil, distilled.) 
 Pencil sharpeners. (See Machine tools.) 
 Pencils. 
 Fancy metal — 
 Fancy metal pencils valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces, intended to be car- 
 ried in the pocket, are within paragraph 356 of the tariff act of 1913 providing for 
 metal articles of that value designed to be "carried on or about or attached to the 
 person," and are not dutiable under paragraph 167, providing for articles in 
 chief value of metal not specially provided for. A paragraph of a tariff act pro- 
 viding for articles composed of a specified material not otherwise provided for 
 covers an article or fabric having such material as the component of chief value. 
 (T. D. 34870— G. A. 7625; Oct. 31, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Rule ejusdem generis. — By paragraph 356, tariff act of 1913, a duty 
 is imposed, amongst other articles, upon articles of a certain value composed of 
 metal and designed to be worn on apparel or carried on or about or attached to 
 the person, such as and including buckles, cardcases, etc. If the assessed arti- 
 cles are similar to the named exemplars in respect to the manner in which they 
 are worn or carried, then the resemblance meets the terms of the provision. 
 
 "Prorepel " had pencils. — ^These pencils resemble the designated articles in the 
 paragraph in a common characteristic — that of being worn incidentally for 
 comfort, convenience, or adornment; they are "like articles," and were 
 properly assessed under that paragraph. Gallagher & Ascher et at. v. United 
 States (No. 1491), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7625 (T. D. 
 34870). Decision afiirmed. (T. D. 35343: Apr. 14, 1915.) 
 "Composed of:" A tariff provision for a manufactured article "composed of" a 
 certain material applies, in the absence of other controlling rules of construction, 
 to the appropriate article if composed in chief value of the given material. 
 
682 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Pencils — Continued. 
 Fancy metal — Continued. 
 
 Prorepel fancy metal pencils : These articles axe composed in chief value of 
 metal -with a substantial minor value of other material, the metal value dis- 
 tinctly preponderating. They fall within the terms of paragraph 356, tariff act 
 of 1913. Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher v. United States (No. 1492), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, 6. A. 7625 (T. D. 34870). Decision aflSrmed. 
 (T. D. 35434; May 18, 1915.) 
 Metal pencils valued at over 20 cents per dozen pieces dutiable at the rate of 60 
 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 356, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 33863; Nov. 
 12, 1913.) 
 Penholders. 
 
 Metal tubes, with reversible part fitted to hold a pen and supplied with a rubber 
 tip, the whole designed to be used as a holder for a penpoint and only used for 
 that purpose, are dutiable as "penholders "at 25 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 187, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29441— G. A. 6847; Dec. 28, 1908.) 
 Nickel-plated brass penholders combined with automatic stamp not articles of 
 
 personal adornment. (See Articles of personal adornment.) 
 Parts of fountain pens, not. (See Foxintain peus, parts of.) 
 Penknives. (See Knives.) 
 Pennyroyal oil. (See Oil, essential.) 
 Peonia arborea. (See Niirsery stock.) 
 Peonia moutan. (See Nursery stock.) 
 Peppers in brine. 
 Papperios seed packed in brine, pickles- 
 Seed pods of the papperios plant may not be deemed vegetables, but when packed 
 in brine, in view of the marked change indicated by a comparison of the phrase- 
 ology of paragraphs 252 and 253, tariff act of 1909, and the old law, they must be 
 taken to be pickles, and are dutiable as such under paragraph 253 at 40 per cent 
 ad valorem. Microutsicos v. United States (No. 596), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 24628 (T. D. 31236). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 32078; Nov. 28, 1911.) 
 Perborate of sodium. (See Chemical compounds.) 
 Perfumery. 
 Alcoholic, from Great Britain — 
 Amount of internal-revenue tax remitted on exportation from Great Britain of 
 alcoholic perfumery and similar articles made with British spirits to be in- 
 cluded in the foreign market value; coimtervailing duty to be collected under 
 T. D. 34466. (T. D. 35510; June 8, 1915.) 
 Periodicals. 
 Sheets of illustrations imported separately— 
 These illustrations were imported for use as pages of a magazine, but came in sep- 
 arately from the text of the magazine. Paragraph 634, tariff act of 1909, granted 
 free entry to "periodicals," but this provision does not extend to parts of peri- 
 odicals imported alone. They were properly assessed as "prints not litho- 
 graphed on surface-coated paper," paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909. Kraemer 
 & Co. V. United States (No. 1247), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the Importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 33121 (T. D. 33660). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34099; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 683 
 
 Perjury. 
 
 Suppression of documents: It is only necessary that an importer should have 
 knowledge of some document which, if known, would have led the United 
 States to fix customs duties higher than if the entry went through at the values 
 fixed in the consular invoice to make him guilty of perjury in making an afii- 
 davit that nothing had been to his knowledge concealed or suppressed whereby 
 the United States might be defrauded. It is not necessary that the suppression 
 be in the entry or invoice, or that it be of a document which would in the usual 
 coiUBe come to the authorities. 
 
 Materiality of false statement: A statement as to the absence of any sup- 
 pressed facts by which the United States might be defrauded is material within 
 a statute making criminal any false statement in a customs declaration as to any 
 matter material thereto. Herman A. Salen was iudicted for perjury. On 
 motions to quash the indictment. United States v. Salen, District Court, 
 Southern District of New York, June 30, 1914. July 9, 1914. Motion denied. 
 (T. D. 34890; Nov. 6, 1914.) 
 
 Perlmtrtter paper. (See Paper.) 
 
 Permit of delivery. (See Delivery permits.) 
 
 Persian-berry extract. 
 Orchil extract — 
 Orchil and Persian-berry extracts are not "drugs" within the meaning of para- 
 graph 20, tarifi act of 1897, but are dutiable as unenumerated manufactured 
 articles under section 6. Orchil extract is a manufactured article, and is there- 
 fore excluded from the provision in paragraph 628, tariff act of 1897, for "orchil, 
 or orchil liquid." Siegle v. United States, United States Circuit Court, South- 
 em District of New York, November 28, 1908. Suit 5116. Application for re- 
 view of decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 17248 
 (T. D. 28481). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29431; Dec. 22, 
 1908.) 
 A liquid or semiliquid dyestuff known as orchil, orchil liquor, and orchil extract, 
 obtained by maceration from lichens fermented in the presence of ammonia, 
 which on analysis shows traces of sulphur in combination with coloring matter, 
 the sulphur being used only for the purpose of neutralizing the excess ammonia, 
 is entitled to free entry under paragraph 642, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 34817 — 
 G. A. 7607; Oct. 5, 1914.) 
 
 Persian krau. 
 
 Value of Persian kran for quarter beginning October 1, 1910, advanced over pre- 
 vious year at least 10 per cent. Reliquidation directed in accordance there- 
 with of entries of merchandise under authority of section 25 of the act of Au- 
 gust 27, 1894. (T. D. 31079; Dec. 12, 1910.) 
 Modification of department's instructions of December 2, 1910 (T. D. 31970), in 
 regard to the value of the Persian kran and to the liquidation of entries of mer- 
 chandise under authority of section 1, act of August 27, 1894. (T. D. 31159; 
 Dec. 31, 1910.) 
 Invoices made out in Persian krans certified after January 1, 1911, should be con- 
 sidered as made out in the standard gold kran of Persia, unless accompanied by 
 a consular certificate showing a depreciated currency and the value thereof. 
 Entry may be permitted on a pro forma invoice and bond taken for a corrected 
 consular invoice. (T. D. 31245; Jan. 25, 1911.) 
 Reliquidations of entries invoiced in Persian krans limited to entries made on 
 and after July 1, 1910. T. D. 31079, of December 2, 1910, and T. D. 31159, of 
 December 31, 1910, modified. (T. D. 31303; Feb. 13, 1911.) 
 
 Personal effects. (See Effects, personal.) 
 
684 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Feisonnel. 
 Prohibited from iustmcttng for civil-service examinations. (T. D. 29466; circular 
 No. 3; Jan. 12, 1909.) 
 
 Order in relation to the personnel. (T. D. 29553; circular No. 8; Feb. 10, 1909.) 
 Petroleum. 
 Crude — 
 
 Crude petroleum, also known as "liquid bitumen," is included within the term 
 "crude liquid bitumen" and is covered both by the provision in paragraph 90, 
 tariff act of 1909, for "asphaltum and bitimien, not specially provided for in 
 this section, crude, if not dried, or otherwise advanced in any manner," and 
 by the provision in paragraph 639 of the free list for "petroleum, crude." HeM 
 that the provision in the free list must operate to the benefit of the importer as 
 against the provision in the duty schedule. (T. D. 31726— G. A. 7241; June 
 27, 1911.) 
 Befined — 
 
 Kefmed- petroleum, unmixed with any other ingredient, regardless of its invoice 
 description, commercial designation or use, free of duty imder paragraph 639 
 of the tariff act of 1909. T. D. 29991 of September 8, 1909, modified. (T. D. 
 30008; Sept. 27, 1909.) 
 Petroleum products. 
 Countervailing duty — 
 
 The provision in paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897, for a countervailing duty on 
 "the products of crude petroleum produced in any country which imposes a 
 duty on petroleum or its products exported from the United States," does not 
 apply where the article is manufactured from crude petroleum in a country 
 which imposes no such duty on exports from the United States, though the pe- 
 troleum originated in a country which does impose a duty. United States v. 
 Swan & Finch Co. (2 cases); United States v. Marsily; United States v. National 
 Aniline & Chemical Co.; United States v. Smith, United States Circuit 
 Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, April 20, 1909. Nos. 252-6 (suits 3612, 4802, 
 4811, 4839, 4938-40, 5038, 5082, and 5238). Appeal by the United States from 
 the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York ' 
 (T. D. 29033, 29106, and 29253). Decision adverse to Government (T. D. 
 29704; Apr. 21, 1909). 
 
 Under paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897, duty should be assessed upon paraffin, a 
 product of petroleum, coming from Germany at a rate equal to that imposed by 
 Germany upon paraffin exported thereto from the United States. United 
 States V. Downing (146 Fed. Rep., 56; T. D. 27025); Bergeresch's case, G. A. 
 6405 (T. D. 27507). 
 
 The purpose manifest in the proviso of paragraph 626 is to accord the 
 privilege of free entry of petroleum and its products to such countries only 
 as grant free entry to like commodities produced or manufactured in the 
 United States. 
 
 The free port of Hamburg is not a "country" within the meaning of that 
 word as used in the said proviso. 
 
 "Country, " meaning in revenue law: It is a general rule in construing revenue 
 laws that the word "country," when used in a statute of the United States, 
 relates to that sovereignty with which, in its international relations, our Gov- 
 ernment can treat, and that the word is meant to embrace all of the territory 
 and possessions of any given country which contribute to its existence as a 
 nation. The word "country" in paragraph 626 must therefore be held to em- 
 brace all of the possessions of the German Empire which come under its supreme 
 executive and legislative authority. Stairs v. Peaslee (18 How., 521); Jack- 
 son's case, G. A. 1007 (T. D. 12145). 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 685 
 
 Petroleum products — Continued. 
 Counterrailing duty — Continued. 
 
 Construction of a statute: In construing a statute the principle that the law 
 looks to the substance and not the form may be invoked and the statute ex- 
 amined to ascertain the real purpose the Government sought through the law to 
 accomplish. Holy Trinity Church v. United States (143 U. S., 457). (T. D. 
 30569— G. A. 7013; Apr. 21, 1910.) 
 Country ol production^ 
 Where an importer, by protest, challenges the correctness of the rate or amount of 
 duty levied by the collector upon a product of petroleum, which rate or amount 
 is controlled under the proviso to paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897, by the duty 
 imposed by the country of production upon a like commodity exported thereto 
 from the United States, the burden of proving in what country said commodity 
 was produced is upon the importer.- (T. D. 28800— G. A. 6727; Feb. 18, 1908.) 
 A return made by a local appraiser that certain petroleum products were "sup- 
 posed to be the product of Germany,'' accompanied by a report of the collector 
 that "no positive knowledge of the country of origin of the goods was obtainable 
 at his office," is insufficient, without corroborative evidence, to justify a re- 
 versal of the collector's decision assessing a countervailing duty on the articles 
 under the proviso to paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29612— G. A. 6878; 
 Mar. 6, 1909.) 
 Liquid paraffin. (See Paraffin, liquid.) 
 Sufficiency of protest — 
 Where the importer claimed his importation was dutiable as petroleum under tariff 
 act, 1897, at the rate of duty imposed by Germany on petroleum, audit appeared 
 the rate was levied on the importation as paraffin and as vaseline oil, each of 
 which was then dutiable at other and differing rates in Germany, a protest as to 
 petroleum alone is not sufficiently exact; it does not show that that which was 
 in the mind of the protesting importer was brought to the knowledge of the col- 
 lector. Citiiig Carter v. United States (T. D. 31033). Bliveni;. United States 
 (No. 58), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer 
 from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 
 •27550). Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District 
 of New York. Decision aflarmed. (T. D. 31239; Jan. 18, 1911.) 
 Pewter, old. 
 
 Paragraph 637, free list, tariff act of 1897, relating to "pewter and britannia metal, 
 old, and fit only to be remanufactured," includes clippings or turnings of pewter 
 produced in the manufactvire of machine bearings. Schlesinger v. Beard (120 
 U. S., 264) followed. (T. D. 28987— G. A. 6760; May 6, 1908.) 
 Philippine Islands. 
 Certificates of origin — 
 Customs officers instructed relative to the execution of such certificates. (T. D. 
 
 34749; Sept. 3, 1914.) 
 Certificates of origin for shipments to the Philippine Islands. (T. D. 29979; 
 Sept. 7, 1909.) 
 Cigars or cigarettes in the mails and in passengers' baggage — 
 Cigars in excess of 50 and cigarettes in excess of 300 in passengers' baggage, when 
 accompanied by certificates of origin, should be admitted free of duty. In the 
 absence of certificates of origin or bond for the production thereof, fines equiva- 
 lent to duty should be assessed when quantity does not exceed 3,000, and duty 
 only when quantity exceeds 3,000. (Arts. 618 and 1235, Customs Regulations 
 of 1908.) (T. D. 29956; Aug. 19, 1909.) 
 Cigars and cigarettes sent by mail from the Philippine Islands. (T. D. 29978; 
 Sept. 7, 1909.) 
 
686 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Philippine Islands — Continued. 
 Cigais or cigarettes in the mails and in passengers' baggage — Continued. 
 
 Section 2804, Revised Statutes, applies to cigars and cigarettes from the Philippine 
 Islands and section 3402 does not. Instructions to customs officers — Opinion 
 of the Attorney General. (T. D. 31781; July 31, 1911.) 
 
 Kne not to be imposed on mail importations of cigars and cigarettes from the 
 Philippine Islands. Such importations not to be delivered except upon pay- 
 ment of internal-revenue tax. (T. D. 34333; Mar. 31, 1914.) 
 Direct shipments — What constitutes — 
 
 Shipments from Philippine ports transshipped at Hongkong are not direct or in 
 bond through foreign contiguous territory. (T. D. 29961; Aug. 19, 1909.) 
 
 The provision for direct shipment was placed in the law with the object of safe- 
 guarding the purpose of Congress to admit free of duty within any one year 
 150,000,000 cigars manufactured in the Philippine Islands. Cigars consigned 
 by a through bill of lading from Manila to New York, but transferred in the har- 
 bor of Hongkong from one vessel to another, not having mingled with the com- 
 merce of another country, nor been out of the custody of the common carrier 
 who was the original bailee, constitute a "direct shipment " within the meaning 
 of section 5 of the tariff act of 1909. Said act contemplates reciprocal relations 
 between the Philippine Islands and the United States and is to be construed as 
 reciprocity statutes have hitherto been construed by the judicial tribunals of 
 the United States. (T. D. 30643— <5. A. 7026; May 28, 1910.) Appeal taken by 
 United States (T. D. 30717; June 27, 1910). 
 
 Philippine cigars transshipped at Hongkong, a direct shipment: In the enactment 
 of the provisions of the tariff act of 1909 that relate to commerce between the 
 United States proper and the Philippine Islands, the Congress will be presumed 
 to have had in mind the actual requirements of trade in the Philippines, as these 
 may call for transshipment of merchandise; and having in view, too, the recog- 
 nized benevolent intent of legislation affecting the archipelago, that shipment 
 must be deemed a direct shipment from the Philippines to the Umted States 
 when the consignment was forwarded on a through bill of lading from Manila to 
 New York, but by reason of a trade requirement was transshipped at Hongkong; 
 and so the goods fell within section 5, tariff act of 1909, making them free of duty. 
 United States v. United Cigar Stores Co. (No. 266), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals, April 10, 1911. Appeal by the United States from a decision of 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7026 (T. D. 30643). Board 
 affirmed. (T. D. 31505; Apr. 10, 1911.) 
 
 Sponges: The importation was of sponges, and these, it appears, were dispatched, 
 freight prepaid, from Zamboanga via Hongkong and Tacoma, Wash., to CMcago. 
 They were dehvered by the agents on board a vessel lying in or off the port of 
 Hongkong. The evidence to this effect makes a prima facie showing that the 
 goods were shipped direct, and there being no evidence to show there was any 
 delay in the course of the shipment, the consignment was entitled to free entry 
 under section 5, tariff act of 1909, governing articles the growth or product of the 
 Philippine Islands. United States v. United Cigar Stores Co. (T. D. 31505). 
 Rhodes v. United States (No. 585), United States Court of Customs Appeals, 
 May 22, 1911. Appeal by the importer from a decision of the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 24523 (T. D. 31182). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 31637; May 22, 1911.) 
 Importations from Spain Into — 
 
 Ratification of exaction of duties: The principle of the decision in United States 
 D. Heinszen (206 U. S., 370; T. D. 28237) that Congress had the power to ratify 
 the collection of duties imposed by the Philippine Government on importations 
 into the Philippines from the United States, applies as well to importations into 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 687 
 
 Philippine Islands^-Continned. 
 Importations from Spain into — Continued. 
 
 those islands from Spain. Struckmann v. United States, United States Court 
 of Claims, February 1, 1909. No. 27806. On demurrer to claimants' petition. 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29574; Feb. 24, 1909.) 
 Marking of shipments to — 
 
 Packages containing merchandise withdrawn from customs bonded manufacturing 
 warehouses for shipment to Philippine Islands, to be marked by shipper "Manu- 
 factured in customs bonded manufacturing warehouse," in a conspicuous, legi- 
 ble, and permanent manner. (T. D. 30927; Sept. 15, 1910.) 
 Prison-made goods. (See Prison-made goods.) 
 Products from — 
 
 Reports of the exportation of articles conditionally exempt from Philippine 
 export duties. (T. D. 31696; June 16, 1911.) 
 
 Hemp from the Philippine Islands exported from the United States. Modifica- 
 tion of T. D. 31696 of June 16, 1911. (T. D. 32175; Jan. 22, 1912.) 
 
 Form of bond for. (See Bonds, forms of.) 
 Shipments into and from— 
 
 Begulations under section 5, tariff act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 29944; circular 
 No. 37; Aug. 10, 1909.) 
 
 Sugar, tobacco, and cigars from. (T. D. 30081; drcular No. 57; Nov. 1, 1909.) 
 
 T. D. 30156, circular 67, modifying and extending cfrcular 37 (T. D. 29944; 
 Dec. 4, 1909). (T. D. 30744; cfrcular No. 39; July 1, 1910.) 
 
 Regulations prescribed by the insular collector of customs for the free admittance 
 into the Philippine Islands of articles shipped from the United States and its 
 possessions. T. D. 30744 (circular No. 39) of July 1, 1910, amended accordingly. 
 (T. D. 31459; Apr. 3, 1911.) 
 
 Regulations governing the shipment to the Philippine Islands of articles produced 
 in bonded manufacturing warehouse. (T. D. 32176; Jan. 22, 1912.) 
 
 Collectors instructed relative to the provisions of Paragraph C, section 4, tariff 
 act of 1913, affecting shipments to and from the Philippine Islands. (T. D. 
 33844; Nov. 5, 1913.) 
 Tobacco products — 
 
 Collection of internal-revenue tax and affixing of customs-inspection stamps on 
 tobacco products in the Philippine Islands. (T. D. 35903; Nov. 26, 1915.) 
 Philosophical and scientific apparatus. 
 Free entry — 
 
 When apparatus, imported free of duty for a scientific or educational institution 
 under paragraph 638, tariff act of 1897, is rejected for any reason by such insti- 
 tution, rejection should be reported to the collector of customs at port of entry 
 in order that duties may be collected. (T. D. 29354; Nov. 21, 1908.) 
 
 The evidence shows beyond question that the importation in question, consisting 
 of an fron cylinder containing liquid sulphurous acid, was ordered by the pur- 
 chasing agent of the University of Kansas. Whether the tank, though a usual 
 covering, would be free of duty as such under paragraph 151, tariff act of 1909, 
 query; but paragraph 650 of the act applied. In the broader terms employed 
 in paragraph 650, relative to apparatus for the use of institutions of learning, 
 there appeared to be a purpose to encourage institutions of the kind, and the 
 paragraph must receive a reasonably liberal interpretation. The cylinder was 
 indispensable in keeping its contents in the safe and proper way to make these 
 contents available for scientific instruction; it must be deemed scientific ap- 
 paratus, and as such free of duty. United States v. Wyman & Co. (No. 755), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 26392 (T. D. 31832). Deci- 
 sion affirmed. . (T. D. 32200; Jan. 11, 1912,) 
 
688 
 
 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Philosophical and scientiac apparatus— Continued. 
 Fiee entry — Continued. 
 Power drill imported by an educational institution not entitled to free entry 
 
 under paragraph 650, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32289; Feb. 27, 1911.) 
 ^Additional list of Government bureaus entitled to import philosophical and scien- 
 tific apparatus free of duty under paragraph 573, tarifi act of 1913. (T. D. 
 34318; Mar. 30, 1914.) 
 Phonographs, parts of. 
 Disks and cylinders — 
 Disks or cylinders (so-called records) for phonographs or gramophones, being in- 
 dispensable to the operation of such instruments, which would not be complete 
 and could not be used for the purpose for which they are intended without said 
 cylinders or disks, are parts of phonographs or gramophones and properly dutia- 
 ble imder the specific provisions therefor at 45 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 468, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32779— G. A. 7389; Aug. 23, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The history of paragraph 468, tariff act of 1909, makes it clear 
 that the parts of phonographs therein provided for must be taken to include 
 phonograph disks. American Graphophone Co. i). Amet (74 Fed. , 789) . Amer- 
 ican Express Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1023), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 7389 (T. D. 32779). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33490; May 
 26, 1913.) 
 Needles — 
 Steel needles used in phonographs to reproduce records held dutiable as parts of 
 phonographs under paragraph 468, tariff act of 1909, and not as manufactures of 
 wire (par. 135). G. A. 4971 (T. D. 23195), Abstract 33565 (T. D. 33738); 
 Welte V. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 34249); American Ex- 
 press Co. V. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 279; T. D. 33490) followed. 
 (T. D. 34352— G. A. 7551; Apr. 2, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Whether equipped with records of one kind or another, a phono- 
 graph without a needle capable of being fitted to it and of following the cuts or 
 undulations of the records would not serve the purpose for which it was made 
 and would not be a complete machine. The needles stand for tariff purposes 
 on a footing with the records themselves. Landay Bros. v. United States (No. 
 1431), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7551 (T. D. 34352). Deci- 
 sion affirmed. (T. D. 35151; Feb. 3, 1915.) 
 Records — 
 Cost of production: Wax disks having indentations in the nature of lines or tracks 
 impressed on the surface thereof by means of a needle of a recording machine, 
 which indentations were caused by vibrations of the human voice or musical 
 instruments, the disks being thereby converted into records which mark the 
 initial step in the production of commercial records used in phonographs and 
 similar instruments, were, in the absence of an ascertainable market value in 
 the country of exportation, re^-eappraised by a board of three general appraisers 
 on the basis of the cost of production. Held, that in ascertaining the cost of 
 production the compensation paid to the artists and the expenses incurred in 
 producing the sound vibrations on the disks were properly included by the 
 reappraisement board. 
 
 Scope of Paragraph L: Paragraph L of section 3, tariff act of 1913, provides 
 that "when the actual market value, as defined by law, of any article of im- 
 ported merchandise, wholly or partly manufactured and subject to an ad va- 
 lorem duty, or to a duty based in whole or in part on value, can not be ascer- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 689 
 
 Phonographs, parts of — Continued. 
 Records — Continned . 
 
 tained to the satisfaction of the appraising officer," such officer shall appraise 
 the merchandise on the basis of the cost of production. Held, that Ln ascer- 
 taining the cost of production under that paragraph all expenses, of whatsoever 
 nature, incident to the production of the merchandise, should be included. 
 (T. D. 35593— G. A. 7756; July 16, 1915.) 
 
 Phosphorus pentoxide. 
 
 In the absence of language in the act of 1909 distinguishing acids from anhydrides 
 for purposes of classification thereunder, the phosphorus pentoxide here in- 
 volved, known as phosphoric anhydride or phosphoric acid, anhydrous, is en- 
 titled to free entry as phosphoric acid under paragraph 482 of said act. (T. D. 
 35190— G. A. 7695; Mar. 2, 1915.) 
 
 Photograph frames In chief value of paper bearing lithographic printing. (See Litho- 
 graphic prints. Photograph frames.) 
 
 Photographic film scrap. (See Film scrap.) 
 
 Photographs. 
 
 Cinematograph films, a species of pictures made by the action of light in a photo- 
 graphic camera, on sheets of sensitized celluloid, are dutiable as "photographs" 
 under paragraph 458, tariff act of 1897, at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem. 
 Edison u. American Mutoscope Co. (114 Fed. Rep., 926), Edison v. Lubin (122 
 Fed. Hep., 240), American Mutoscope & Biograph Co. v. Edison (137 Fed. 
 Rep., 262) followed. (T. D. 29643— G. A. 6889; Mar. 18, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Cinematograph films are "photographs" within the meaning of 
 paragraph 403, tariff act of 1897. United States v. Berst; United States v. Suss- 
 feld; United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 
 ^15, 1909. Suits 5481 and 5480. Appeal by United States from decision of 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6889 (T. D. 29643). Board 
 affirmed. (T. D. 30146; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 
 PhthaUc acid anhydride. (See Add.) 
 
 Picker strap leather. (See Leather.) 
 
 Pickled anchovies. (See Fish in tins.) 
 
 Pickled capers. (See Capers.) 
 
 Pickled walnuts. (See Walnuts, pickled.) 
 
 Picture frames. (See also Frames for pictures.) 
 Free entry — 
 Where pictures are admitted free of duty under bond for ^exhibition under para- 
 graph 715, tariff act of August 5, 1909, the frames should also be passed free of 
 duty., (T. D. 33728; Sept. 8, 1913.) 
 
 Pictures In beaded frames. (See Beaded articles.) 
 
 "Pieces" in paragraph 448, tarifiE act of 1909, defined. 
 
 A dozen pairs of earrings, cuff buttons,' etc., should be treated as 24 pieces in arriv- 
 ing at their value for the purpose of determining the classification under para- 
 graph 448, tariff act of 1909, (T. D. 32521; May 20, 1912.) 
 
 Pigeons, homing. 
 
 Homing pigeons, to be released for flight, dutiable as live poultry at the rate of 3 
 cents per pound under paragraph 289, tariff act of 1909; or free of duty under 
 bond under paragraph 493 of the said act if imported for a temporary stay, the 
 bond to be canceled on there being filed with the collector satisfactory evidence 
 ' that the birds have actually been released and returned to Canada. (T. D. 
 32026; Nov. 21, 1911.) 
 
 Pigskin saddles. (See Leather saddles, pigskin.) 
 45633°— 17 44 
 
690 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Pile fabrics. 
 
 (See also Terry cloth; Velvets or velours; and Table covers.) 
 Imitation mohaii astrakhans — 
 In paragraph 325, tariff act of 1909, the words "plushes, velvets, velveteens, cor- 
 duroys, and all pile fabrics, cut or uncut, whether or not the pile covers the 
 entire surface, ' ' are broad enough to include any pile fabric as commonly under- 
 stood. The phrase "cut or uncut" does not restrict the meaning; it merely 
 makes the meaning clear, and the goods consisting of imitation were properly 
 assessed imder the named paragraph. Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne v. United 
 States (No. 1472), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 36495 (T. D. 
 34774). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35389; May 3, 1915.) 
 Paintings, on. (See Paintings.) 
 Panne velvet. (See Panne velvet.) 
 Pile protectors of iron. (See Iron, manufactures of.) 
 Pimentos. (See Vegetables.) 
 Pinafores. 
 Toys of cotton goods — 
 The merchandise consists of cotton cloths in patterns ready to be cut and sewed 
 to make single garments, these to be worn by young children'. The decision ia 
 limited to the articles, samples of which were produced. These cotton goods 
 can hardly have any utility beyond that of a mere plaything, and they are suf- 
 ficiently advanced in manufacture to be treated as parts of toys. United States 
 V. Wyman & Co. (No. 1426), United States Court of Customs Appeals, January 
 15, 1915. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 35927 (T. D. 34571). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35146; 
 Jan. 15, 1915.) 
 Pincers. 
 
 The provision in paragraph 198, tariff act of 1909, for "nippers and pliers of all 
 kinds" includes pincers, and the latter article is dutiable under the said pro- 
 vision rather than under paragraph 197, as machine tools. (T. D. 30689 — G. A. 
 7037; June 13, 1910.) 
 Pincnshions. 
 
 Pincushions made of artificial fruit dutiable under paragraph 847, tariff act of 
 1913. (T. D. 85333— G. A. 7716; Apr. 23, 1915.) 
 Pineapples. 
 
 Preserved. (See Fruit,) 
 Pine cones. 
 
 Pine cones similar to those the subject of the decision of the Board of United States 
 General Appraisers of May 16, 1911, Abstract 25595 (T. D. 31616), dutiable on 
 the total weight of the cones. (T. D. 31854; Sept. 15, 1911.) 
 Italian — 
 This merchandise consists of Italian pine cones with the nuts attached thereto. 
 The nuts are held to be dutiable under the eo nomine provision for nuts in para- 
 graph 283, tariff act of 1909. The cones are not shell nor "dirt or other impuri- 
 ties" in the nuts, and duty should be assessed upon the weight of the nuts alone. 
 United States v. Amendola (No. 1461), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 36255 (T. D. 34698). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 85156; Feb. 15, 1915.) 
 Pines, Five-leafed. (See Plant quarantine act.) 
 Pins, plated. 
 
 The importation, consisting ot hairpins and safety pins of base metal, was classified 
 by the collector as pins, plated, and assessed for duty imder paragraph 193 of the 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1008-1915. 691 
 
 Pins, plated — Continued. 
 
 tariff act of 1897, as articles of metal not specially provided for. Claim was made 
 by the importers that the pins were not plated and were dutiable under para- 
 graph 188. 
 
 Departmental practice: Departmental practices and usages, however uni- 
 form and long continued they may be, are nothing more than aids to the court 
 in construing a law of doubtful import, and in no case can they be invoked to 
 defeat the legislative will expressed in clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal 
 terms. Here, however, a long-continued and xmiform departmental construc- 
 tion is not shown. Whether paragraph 188 of the tariff act of 1897 be considered 
 independently or in its relation to other parts of the law, there is no ground either 
 in its legislative history or its administrative construction for going beyond its 
 express terms in fixing its meaning. No commercial designation is shewn, and 
 according to the very terms of the paragraph all the hairpins or safety pins of the 
 importation overlaid or coated with precious or base metals were "plated" with- 
 in those terms. Bloomingdale Bros. v. United States (No. 126); Hague & Co. u. 
 United States (No. 127); Pratt & Farmer Co. v. United States (No. 128); Stein- 
 hardt & Bro. v. United States (No. 129). United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the importers from decision of the Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 21009 (T. D. 29690). Transferred from United 
 States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 32530; May 8, 1912.) 
 
 Pipe bowls of wood. (See Wood, manufactin-es of.) 
 
 Pipes. 
 
 Clay, glazed — 
 Glazed clay pipes subject to duty at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under the 
 provisionsofparagraph381, tariff act of Octobers, 1913, for "other pipes * * * 
 ot whatever material composed." (T. D. 35963; Dec. 9, 1915.) 
 Copper — 
 The provision in paragraph 176, tariff act of 1897, for "copper pipes," does not 
 include pipes containing a substantial amount of any material other than copper; 
 and copper tubing covered with iron wire is therefore excluded from that provi- 
 sion and is dutiable under paragraph 193 as manufactures of metal. (T. D. 
 29714— G. A. 6901; Apr. 26, 1909.) 
 Tubing not dutiable as. (See also Copper tubing.) 
 Imitation meerschaum — 
 This appeal presents a question of lact. The importation was Invoiced as "Vienna 
 meerschaum pipes." The importer was bound to show by a preponderance of 
 evidence in support of his protest that the pipes here were made of clay; but 
 there appears in the conflicting testimony a preponderance of proof in favor of 
 the Government's contention that the pipes were not made of clay. Butler 
 Bros. V. United States (No. 949), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Ap- 
 peal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 28759 (T. D. 32584). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33368; Apr. 22, 1913.) 
 
 Plain woven fabrics. (See Fabrics, pl^in woven.) 
 
 "Planit" packing. (See Packing.) 
 
 Plank linoleum. (See Linoleum.) 
 
 Plant quarantine act. 
 Cotton lint — 
 Collectors to be governed by the order and regulations of the Secretary of Agri- 
 culture relative to the admission of foreign cotton lint. (T. D. 35486; June 4, 
 1915.) 
 
692 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS^ 1908-1915. 
 
 Plant giiaTantme act — Continued. 
 Cotton lint — Continued. 
 Amendment No. 1 of the regulations of the Department of Agriculture governing 
 
 the importation of cotton lint, published for the information and guidance of 
 
 customs officers. (T. D. 35553; June 28, 1915.) 
 Amendment No. 2 of the regulations of the Department of Agriculture governing 
 
 the importation of cotton lint, published for the information and guidance of 
 
 customs officers. (T. D. 35613; July 27, 1915.) 
 Amendment No. 3 to the regulations of the Department of Agriculture governing 
 
 the importation of cotton lint, published for the information and guidance of 
 
 customs officers. (T. D. 35742; Oct. 4, 1915.) 
 Cotton seed — • 
 Notice of Quarantine No. 8, relative to cotton seed and cottonseed hulls, pub- 
 lished in T. D. 33574, amended by the Department of Agriculture. (T. D. 
 
 33733; Sept. 15, 1913.) 
 The prohibition of the importation of cotton seed and cottonseed hulls, contained 
 
 in notice of Quarantine No. 8, and amendment No. 1 thereto (T. D. 33574 and 
 
 T. D. 33733), applies to cotton seed, seed cotton, and cottonseed hulls from all 
 
 foreign localities except the States of Lower California, Nuevo Leon, and Ta- 
 
 maulipas, Mexico. (T. D. 34418; Apr. 28, 1914.) 
 Amendment No. 2 to Notice of Quarantine No. 8, relative to cotton seed (including 
 
 seed cotton) and cottonseed hulls, published for the information and guidance of 
 
 customs officers. (T. D. 34566; June 20, 1911.) 
 Five-leafed pines— 
 The importation from Europe and Asia of all five-leafed pines prohibited. 
 
 (Notice of Quarantine No. 7, Department of Agriculture.) (T. D. 83469; May 
 
 28, 1913.) 
 Fruit— 
 The importation from Mexico of oranges, sweet limes, mangoes, achrae sapotes, 
 
 peaches, guavas, and plums, prohibited. (Notice of Quarantine No. 5.) (T. 
 
 D. 33110; Jan. 23, 1913.) 
 Grapefruit — 
 The importation of grapefruit from Mexico prohibited. (Amendment No. 1 to 
 
 Notice of Quarantine No. 5, foreign.) (See T. D. 32935, of Nov. 16, 1912.) 
 
 (T. D. 33247; Mar. 3, 1913.) 
 Indian corn- 
 Notice of Quarantine No. 21, forbidding the importation of Indian corn from cer- 
 tain coimtries, published for the information and guidance of officers of the 
 
 customs and others concerned. (T. D. 35286; Apr. 3, 1915.) 
 Inspection and certification requirements — 
 Inspectioil and certification requirements of the Department of Agriculture, and 
 
 lists of countries which have complied with same. (T. D. 33697; Aug. 19, 1913. 
 
 T. D. 33730; Sept. 13, 1913. T. D. 33800; Oct. 23, 1913. T. D. 33908; Nov. 
 
 24, 1913.) 
 Nursery stock — 
 Department of Agriculture and its local representative to be notified of the arrival 
 
 of nursery stock, with a view to preventing introduction into United States of 
 
 plant diseases and injurious insects. (T. D. 30629; May 11, 1910.) 
 Regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture on September 18, 1912, under 
 
 the provisions of the plant quarantine act approved August 20, 1912. T. D. 
 
 30629 of May 11, 1910, superseded. (T. D. 32863; Oct. 16, 1912.1 
 The regulations published in T. D. 32863 of October 16, 1912, amended. (T. D. 
 
 33071; Jan. 8, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 693 
 
 Plant quaiantine act — Continued. 
 Nursery stock — Continued. 
 
 Particular attention called to the requirement for certificates of inspection under 
 the plant quarantine act of 1912 (T. D. 33071 of Jan. 8, 1913), especially for 
 nursery stock from Great Britain. (T. D. 33099; Jan. 17, 1913.) 
 
 Duties to be refunded on nursery stock, etc., found to be in violation of the plant 
 quarantine act of August 20, 1912, and exported or destroyed. (T. D. 33205; 
 Feb. 19, 1913.) 
 
 Regulation 6 of the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture xmder the plant 
 quarantine act of August 20, 1912 (T. D. 33071), amended relative to the dis- 
 infection of nursery stock. (T. D. 33314; Mar. 31, 1913.) 
 
 Regulation 5 of the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture under the plant 
 quarantine act of August 20, 1912 (T. D. 33071), amended relative to permits 
 for the entry of nursery stock, etc. (T. D. 33356; Apr. 23, 1913.) 
 
 Regulation 8 of the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture under the plant 
 quarantine act of August 20, 1912 (T. D. 33071), amended relative to permits 
 for the entry of nursery stock, etc. (T. D. 33495; June 3, 1913.) 
 
 Mail packages containing nursery stock to be turned over to the post office of re- 
 ceipt for return to country of origin. (T. D. 33933; Dec. 1, 1913.) 
 
 Collector instructed relative to unclaimed nursery stock. (T. D. 34151; Feb. 6, 
 1914.) 
 
 Prohibition against importation through mails of nursery stock. Instructions to 
 customs officers. (T. D. 34262; Mar. 13, 1914.) 
 
 Amendment No. 1 to the plant quarantine regulations issued on July 1, 1914, 
 relative to the admission of nursery stock from countries which do not main- 
 tain nursery stock inspection, published for the information and guidance of 
 customs officers and others concerned. (T. D. 35407; May 17, 1915.) 
 
 Citrus: Notice of Quarantine No. 19, prohibiting the importation of citrus nursery 
 stock, published for the information and guidance of customs officers. (T. D. 
 34993; Dec. 18, 1914.) 
 Fears and pear seeds — 
 
 Avocado or alligator pear and seeds thereof: Customs officers instructed to be gov- 
 erned by copies of Notice of Quarantine No. 12 and orders of the Secretary of 
 Agriculture in connection therewith, which have been forwarded to them. (T. 
 D. 34261; Mar. 13, 1914.) 
 Pine trees — 
 
 Notice of Quarantine No. 20, forbidding importation of pine trees, published for 
 the information and guidance of officers of the customs and others concerned. 
 (T. D. 35287; Apr. 3, 1915.) 
 Potatoes — 
 
 Section 7 of the plant quarantine act — Duties of customs officers — Prohibition of 
 the importation of potatoes from certain countries. (T. D. 32935; Nov. 16, 1912.) 
 
 Notice of Quarantine No. 11 (foreign) relative to the prohibition of the importation 
 of potatoes from certain countries, and order covering admission of foreign pota- 
 toes under restriction. (T. D. 34022; Dec. 29, 1913.) 
 
 Customs officers instructed to be governed by copies of certain regulations of the 
 Secretary of Agriculture dated December 30, 1913, which have been forwarded 
 to them. (T. D. 34051; Jan. 12, 1914.) 
 
 Customs officers instructed to be governed by copies of amendment 2 to Notice of 
 Quarantine No. 11, which have been forwarded to them. (T. D. 34213; Feb. 
 27, 1914.) 
 
 Customs officers instructed to be governed by copies of amendment 1 to Notice of 
 Quarantine No. 11, which have been forwarded to them. (T. D. 34242; Mar. 
 9, 1914.) 
 
694 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Plant quarantine act — Continued. 
 Potatoes — Continued . 
 Amendment No. 3 to Notice of Quarantine No. 11, lifting the quarantine against 
 potatoes from the Netherlands. (T. D. 34302; Mar. 23, 1914.) 
 Begulations, Agricultural Department. (T. D. 30629; May 11, 1910, superseded. 
 T.D. 32863; Oct. 16, 1912.) 
 Collectors instructed relative to the observance of the regulations under the plant 
 quarantine act issued by the Department of Agriculture in Circular No. 44. (T. 
 D. 33765; Oct. 3, 1913.) 
 CoUectors instructed relative to the requirement in regulation 8, Plant Quarantine 
 Circular No. 44, for notice of shipment by permittee. (T. D. 34110; Jan. 29, 
 1914.) 
 Collectors instructed relative to the observance of the general regulations under 
 the plant quarantine act issued by the Department of Agriculture July 1, 1914. 
 (T. D. 34625; July 11, 1914.) 
 Sugar cane — 
 The importation of living canes of sugar cane or cuttings or parts thereof prohibited. 
 (T. D. 34567; June 22, 1914.) 
 "Plasmon." (See Lactarene.) 
 
 Plaster ol Paris casts of sculpture. (See Sculptures.) 
 PlastUina. (See Clay, modeling.) 
 Plateaux. 
 Hats, flat, circular — • 
 Flat, circular hat forms called "plateaux," some of which are composed of straw 
 and others of manila hemp braids, and which only require to be blocked or other- 
 wise shaped by the milliner to become completed hats, are properly dutiable at 
 the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 422, tariff 
 act of 1909, for "hats, bonnets, and hoods composed wholly or in chief value of 
 straw * * * or manila hemp, whether wholly or partly manufactured, but 
 not trimmed." Schift v. United States, decided by the Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals (T. D. 31634), cited and followed. (T. D. 32125— G. A. 7314; Dec. 30, 1911.) 
 Straw — 
 Flat, round articles made of straw braids: The importation was of articles circular 
 in form, slightly convex, but nearly flat In shape, with the appearance of plain 
 round mats of braided straw, but without a crown and untrimmed: Held, since 
 the evidence shows the material to be so construe ted as to permit of being blocked 
 into hats without adding any new material, and that it is so blocked, being prac- 
 tically useless for any other purpose, it was dutiable under paragraph 409, tariff 
 act of 1897, as hats composed of straw partly manufactured and imtrimmed. It 
 was so dutiable, though more than one piece of goods was sometimes employed 
 in the making of one hat. Schift v. United States (No. 538), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6481 (T. D. 27718). Transferred 
 from the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District o! New York. 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31634; May 22, 1911.) 
 Plated antimony ware. (See Antimony ware.) 
 Plated articles. 
 Gold and silver- 
 Where 25 per cent of the exposed surface of article is plated with gold or silver the 
 articles are properly dutiable at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under para^ 
 , graph 167, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34182; Feb. 13, 1914.) 
 Metal articles, partly plated with gold or silver, are dutiable at 50 per cent ad 
 valorem imder the provision in paragraph 167 ot the tariff act of 1913 for "arti- 
 cles or wares plated with gold or silver." It is not essential that an article be 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 695 
 
 Plated aiticles — Continued. 
 Gold and silver — Continued. 
 
 wholly or substantially plated with gold or silver; the mere fact that any part 
 thereof has been plated with either of those metals is sufficient to bring it 
 within said provision. 
 
 Protest insufficient: A protest which makes numerous, conflicting, and incon- 
 sistent claims, many of which apparently have no application to the merchan- 
 dise involved, is multifarious and insufficient. (T. D. 35608 — G. A. 7761; 
 July 20, 1915.) 
 Plate powder, Goddard's. (See Chemical mixtures.) 
 Plates. 
 
 Circular saw. (See Saw plates, circular.) 
 Copper. (See Copper.) 
 Printed. (See Printed plates.) 
 Steel. (See Steel plates.) 
 Platinum apparatus for chemical use. 
 In chief value of platinum- 
 Paragraph 653, tariff act of 1909, which grants free entry to "apparatus, vessels, 
 ajid parts thereof, composed of platinum, for chemical uses," includes all such 
 articles when in chief value of the said material, and does not include only such 
 as are wholly of platinum. Kenyon Co. v. United States (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., — ; 
 T. D. 33529) and G. A. 4532 (T. D. 21542) cited. (T. D. 33814— G. A. 7503; 
 Oct. 22, 1913.) 
 Platinum articles. 
 Caps — 
 Platinum caps used as a part of an apparatus employed in the manufacture of artifi- 
 cial silk are not "parts of" apparatus /or chemical uses as contemplated by the 
 provisions of paragraph 653, tariff act of 1909, but are dutiable at 45 per cent ad 
 valorem under the provisions of paragraph 199 of said act as manufactures of 
 metal. (T. D. 31614— G. A. 7223; May 22, 1911.) 
 Platinum caps being parts of an apparatus tor the manufacture of artificial silk 
 from wood pulp, and which caps are used in an acid precipitating bath wherein 
 cellulose filaments are chemically changed and hardened, are employed for 
 chemical uses as contemplated by the provisions of paragraph 653, tariff act of 
 1909, and are free of duty. G. A. 7223 (T. D. 31614) reversed. (T. D. 32980— G. 
 A. 7407; Nov. 27, 1912.) 
 Wire substitute — 
 The merchandise is so-called "substitute platinum wire." This substitute for 
 platinum wire is not platinum in wire. It is composed of two materials and is 
 rather wire in platinum. It is not entitled to free entry. 
 
 Provisicm for nonenumerated articles: Before the nonenumerafced provision 
 can be resorted to it must be found that the article is not fairly included within 
 any of the enumerating clauses of the act. General Electric Co. v. United States 
 (No. 1149), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31516 (T. D. 33242). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33839; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 Wire composed of platinum and iridium — 
 Wire composed of 80 per cent platinum and 20 per cent iridium is not entitled to 
 free entry under the provision in paragraph 578 of the act of 1913 for "platinum 
 * * * in wire," which contemplates platinum in the form of wire and not 
 wire composed in part of platinum and in part of some other material. General 
 Electric Co. v. United States (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., 398; T. D. 33839) followed. 
 (T. D. 35627— G. A. 7762; July 29, 1915.) 
 Plows, steam. (See Agricultural implements.) 
 
696 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Plumage, prohibition of. 
 
 Prohibition in paragraph 347, tariff act of 1913, against importation of aigrettes, 
 egret plumes, etc., applies to such plumage contained in passengers' baggage 
 when used as trimming of hats or other articles of wearing apparel. (T. D. 
 33781; Oct. 7, 1913.) 
 
 Plumage described in the proviso to paragraph 347, tariff act of 1913, not entitled 
 to entry upon the production of a certificate of ownership. (T. D. 33799; Oct, 
 22, 1913.) 
 
 Instructions to collectors of customs relative to procedure in connection with the 
 prohibition against the importation of aigrettes and other articles described in 
 the proviso to paragraph 347, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 33944; Dec. 2, 1913.) 
 
 Plumage of the English pheasant, Indian peacock, and rhea not prohibited under 
 paragraph 347, tariff act of 1913. T. D. 33944 of December 2, 1913, modified 
 accordingly. (T. D. 34057; Jan. 13, 1914.) 
 
 The plumage of the rhea or so-called South American ostrich prohibited importa- 
 tion under paragraph 347 of the tariff act. T. D. 34057 modified accordingly. 
 (T. D. 34886; Nov. 9, 1914.) 
 
 Rhea plumage admitted if procured from domesticated birds. T. D. 34886 modi- 
 fied. (T. D. 34913; Nov. 19, 1914.) 
 
 Prohibited plumage worn by owners crossing the border with a definite intention 
 to bring the same back to the United States not an importation, and should not 
 be seized upon return as a prohibited importation. (T. D. 34518; June 6, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34518 of June 6, 1914, supra, not applicable to prohibited plumage taken to 
 noncontiguous foreign territory. (T. D. 34748; Sept. 2, 1914.) 
 
 Collectors of customs authorized to accept cash deposit in lieu of bond required by 
 T. D. 33944 of December 2, 1913, tor destruction of prohibited plumage. (T. D. 
 35307; Apr. 10, 1915.) 
 Plums in tins. (See Fruit.) 
 Plush, hatters'. 
 
 Black plush, composed of silk and cotton, and known commercially as hatters' 
 plush, although used on rare occasions for other purposes than the manufacture 
 of men's hats, is dutiable as plush "such as is used exclusively for making men's 
 hats" under paragraph 461, tariff act of 1897. G. A. 5708 (T. D. 25381) cited 
 and followed. (T. D. 30791— G. A. 7067; July 13, 1910.) 
 
 Hatters' plush dutiable under paragraph 477, tariff act of 1909, at 10 per cent ad 
 valorem. The occasional use of such plush for other purposes than in making 
 men's hats does not exclude it from classification under said paragraph 477. 
 (T. D. 30912; Sept. 10, 1910.) 
 
 It is clear that paragraph 477, tariff act of 1909, must be taken to refer specifically 
 to material used exclusively for making men's hats. The intention was to en- 
 courage the domestic production of men's hats. The proof shows the importa- 
 tion was made for the manufacture of millinery goods or women's hats, and that 
 it was so used. It was not entitled to the benefit of the paragraph named, and 
 it was properly assessed as a silk plush. Comey & Johnson Co. v. United States 
 (No. 742), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 26178 (T. D. 31774). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32253; Feb. 1, 1912.) 
 
 Black silk or black silk and cotton plush, 65 centimeters in width or more, con- 
 taining not less than 30 warp threads and 63 picks in the weft to the centimeter 
 or 26 warp and 75 picks to the centimeter, dutiable as hatters' plush under para- 
 graph 477, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32692; July 5, 1912.) 
 
 The importations are generally and imitormly known as "hatters' plush" and 
 are of the kind or class or "such as" are used exclusively for making men's 
 hats. The legislative history and the natural imjjort of the words "such as" 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 697 
 
 Plush, Iiatteis' — Continned. 
 
 extend the provisione of the paragraph not alone to such hatters' plush as is 
 used exclusively for making men's hats, but also to hatters' plush so known 
 commercially. Comey & Johnson Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 
 532; T. D. 32253) distinguished. Comey & Johnson Co. v. United States (No. 
 1059), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30415 (T. D. 32926). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 33493; May 26, 1913.) 
 Black plush, known commercially as "hatters' plush" and such as is used in this 
 country for making men's hats, is properly dutiable at the rate of 10 per cent 
 ad valorem under paragraph 477, tariff act of 1909. Comey & Johnson Co. v. 
 United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33493) cited and followed. (T. D. 
 33641— G. A. 7480; July 14, 1913.) 
 Black silk plush less than 26 inches wide including the selvage properly dutiable 
 at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 318, tariff act of 1913. (T. 
 D. 34042; Jan. 3, 1914,) 
 All silk plushes other than those 26 inches in width, including the selvage, dutia- 
 ble at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 814, tariff act of 1913. 
 T. D. 34042 amended accordingly. (T. D. 34139; Feb. 3, 1914.) 
 Black plush composed in chief value of silk and known commercially as "hatters' 
 plush " is properly dutiable at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 382, tariff act of 1913, irrespective of its width, unless its width is such as 
 will exclude it from that class or kind of hatters' plush "such as is used for mak- 
 ing men's hats." (T. D. 35121— G. A. 7678; Feb. 4, 1915.) 
 
 Plush ribbons. 
 
 Strips of white plush in chief value of silk, imported in lengths of 10 meters each 
 and about 2 inches in width, which were cut from lai^er pieces of plush with a 
 macliine, leaving a serrated or scalloped edge effect, and which have no sel- 
 vages, are dutiable under the provision for "velvet or plush ribbons, or other 
 pile fabrics not over twelve inches and not less than three-fourths of one inch in 
 width, cut or uncut," in paragraph 399, tariff act of 1909. Said paragraph 399 
 provides tor such -"velvet or plush ribbons, or other pile fabrics not over twelve 
 inches and not less than three-fourths of one inch in width, cut or uncut," at 
 rates of duty varying according to whether silk is present in the pile and selvage 
 only, or whether it is also found in portions of the fabric other than the pile and 
 selvage. Held, that that provision includes articles with or without a selvage. 
 (T. D. 32222— G. A. 7319; Jan. 31, 1912.) 
 
 Flush, velvet. (See Panne velvet.) 
 
 Pocketknives. (See Knives.) 
 
 Polariscopic test of sugar. (See Sugar test.) 
 
 Poles of cedar for use as telephone or telegraph poles. (See Telephone poles.) 
 
 Polishing powder. 
 
 Such merchandise as the impalpable plate-polishing powder of the importation 
 in controversy is not to be classed as "articles and wares composed of mineral 
 substances,'' but according to an established legislative construction is properly 
 dutiable, by similitude, to whiting at the rate prescribed by paragraph 54, 
 tariff act of 1909. United States v. Tiffany (117 Fed. Rep., 367), Bartley. Bros. 
 & Hall et al. v. United States (No. 715), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 25798 (T. D. 31675). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32961; Nov. 14, 
 1912.) 
 
 Polishing stones. (See Whetstones.) 
 
698 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Political activity and assessments. 
 
 Warning against activity in politics ajidthe collection of political aseesBmentsor 
 contributions by Federal oflficera aoid employees. (T. D. 31010; circular No. 
 60; Oct. 25, 1910.) 
 Pomade vaUey lily. 
 
 So-called "pomade not soluble muguet," consisting of a combination of floral 
 odors produced by the enfleurage-grease process, but with essential oils and 
 wax added to produce the odor of muguet (lily of the valley), is not "enfleur- 
 age grease" within the meaning of paragraph 626, tarifi act of 1897, but is 
 dutiable under paragraph 3, relating to combinations of essential oils, etc. (T. 
 D. 29237— G. A. 6,798; Aug. 26, 1908.) 
 Pongees or shantungs, and imitations of. (See Silk — Fabrics.) 
 Pony skins. (See Fur.) 
 Poppy seed, weight of. 
 
 No fixed standard of weight per bushel for poppy seed; the duties to be assessed 
 on actual weight and measure in each instance. (T. D. 31364; Mar. 9, 1911.) 
 Porcelain crucibles. (See Crucibles.) 
 Porcelain pyrometer tubes. 
 
 Evidence in one case offered in another: One witness testified that the articles 
 imported were porcelain pyrometer tubes and a previous decision of the board 
 upon the rate of assessment was submitted at the hearing. The record in the 
 former case was not put in evidence. No other witness was examined, and no 
 sample of the merchandise was introduced in evidence or retained by the ap- 
 praiser. There was a failure to sustain the protest and the collector's assess- 
 ment must stand as correct. United States v. Herrmann (145 Fed., 843) and Van- 
 degrift V. United States (3 Ct. Gust. Appls., 219; T. T>. 32535) distinguished. 
 United States v. Eytinge & Co. (No. 1129), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 31312 (T. D. 33194). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33486; 
 May 23, 1913.) 
 Port of exportation. (See Exportation.) 
 Portland cement. 
 
 United States Government specifications for Portland cement. (T. D. 32508; 
 circular No. 24; May 13, 1912.) 
 Porto Bican coffee. (See Coffee.) 
 
 Ports. (See also Immediate transportation; and Immediate transportation ports.) 
 list of customs districts and ports of entry and deUvery. (T. D. 29318; circular 
 
 No. 70; Oct. 31, 1908.) 
 Customs districts and ports of entry and deUvery. (T. D. 30044; circular No. 51; 
 
 Oct. 15, 1909.) 
 List of customs districts, headquarters, and ports of entry. (T. D. 33625; circular 
 
 No. 16; July 1, 1913.) 
 Alburg, Vt., port of entry for immediate transportation without appraisement of 
 
 dutiable merchandise. (T. D. 28880; Mar. 24, 1908.) 
 Appointment of deputy collector of customs at Annapolis, Md., pvirsuant to the 
 
 provisions of the act of February 6, 1907. (T. D. 31326; Feb. 18, 191] .) 
 Ashtabula, Ohio, established as a subport of entry in the district of Cuyahoga, 
 
 Ohio. (T. D. 32579; May 31, 1912.) 
 Bay City, Mich., created a port to which merchandise may be forwarded under 
 
 the act of June 10, 1880. (T. D: 35209; Mar. 12, 1915.) 
 Act creating Birmingham, Ala., a subport of entry in the district of Mobile, and 
 extending to it the privileges of section 7 of the immediate-transportation act 
 of June 10, 1880. (T. D. 31376; Mar. 13, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 699 
 
 Ports — Continued . 
 
 Boca Grande, Fla., designated as a subport of entry in the cuatomB collection dis- 
 trict oi Key West. (T. D. 31782; July 31, 1911.) 
 Appointment of a deputy collector of customs at Cairo, 111. (T. D. 31386; Mar. 
 
 15, 1911.) 
 Campo, Cal., designated as a quarantine station for importation of animals. (T. 
 
 D. 29953; Aug. 14, 1909.) 
 Chattanooga, Tenn., and Norwalk, Stamford, and Greenwich, Conn., ports of 
 
 delivery for merchandise forwarded under the immediate-transportation act 
 
 of June 10, 1880. (T. D. 28879; Mar. 24, 1908.) 
 Cordova, Alaska, established as a subport of entry in District of Alaska. (T. D. 
 
 29038; May 25, 1908.) 
 Edinburg, Tex., designated as quarantine station for importation of animals. 
 
 (T. D. 30198; Dec. 14, 1909.) 
 Fairbanks, Alaska, constituted a subport of entry in the District of Alaska. (T. 
 
 D. 33178; Feb. 12, 1913.) 
 Fort Covington, N. Y., made a subport of entry in the customs collection district 
 
 of Champlain, N. Y. (T. D. 32803; Sept. 3, 1912.) 
 Extending limits of port of Galveston, Tex., to include Port Bolivar, Tex. (T. 
 
 D. 32771; Aug. 23, 1912.) 
 Greenwich, Conn. (T. D. 28879; Mar. 24,1908.) 
 Name of customs collection district of St. Johns, in the State of Florida, changed 
 
 to district of Jacksonville. (T. D. 30748; July 1, 1910.) 
 Bemoval of headquarters port in District No. 18 (Florida) from Jacksonville to 
 
 Tampa. (T. D. 84780; Sept. 28, 1914.) 
 Kalama, Wash., constituted subport of entry in the district of Puget Sound. (T. 
 
 D. 32001; Nov. 9, 1911.) 
 Knights Key, Fla., constituted a subport of entry. (T. D. 28705; Jan. 21, 1908.) 
 Port of entry for immediate transportation without appraisement of dutiable 
 
 merchandise. (T. D. 28880; Mar. 24, 1908.) 
 Discontinuance of Knights Key as a subport of entry in the customs collection 
 
 district of Key West, Fla. (T. D. 32211; Jan. 30, 1912.) 
 Kodiak, Alaska, abolished as a subport of entry. (T. D. 29038; May 25, 1908.) 
 Appointment of deputy collector of customs at La Crosse, Wis. (T. D. 31808; 
 
 Aug. 9, 1911.) 
 Monterey, Cal., created a subport of entry. (T. D. 29052; June 6, 1908.) 
 The name of customs port in District No. 7 changed from Mooers Jimction to 
 
 Mobers. (T. D. 35716; Sept. 22, 1915.) 
 Port of Newbury port, Mass., discontinued and made a subport of Boston, Mass. 
 
 (T. D. 30835; July 15, 1910.) 
 Extending limits of the port of New Orleans, La. (T. D. 32804; Sept. 3, 1912.) 
 Norwalk, Conn. (T. D. 28879; Mar. 24, 1908.) 
 Nyando, N. Y., created an immediate transportation port under the act of June 
 
 10; 1880. (T. D. 35181; Feb. 24, 1915.) 
 Changes in boimdaries and names of customs collection districts in the State of 
 
 Oregon. (T. D. 30749; July 1, 1910.) 
 Pembina, N. Dak., created an immediate transportation port under the act of 
 
 1880. (T. D. 35180; Mar. 2, 1915.) 
 Pensacola, Fla., added to the list of nonlaboratory ports in the district of the 
 
 Savannah laboratory, as published in T. D. 30201, amended by T. D. 31251, 
 
 relative to inspection under the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906. (T. D. 
 
 81585; May 13, 1911.) 
 Petoskey, Mich., created a subport of entry. (T. D. 29052; Sxme 6, 1908.) 
 
700 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Ports — Continued . 
 
 Port Arthur, Tex., port o! delivery under inunediate-transportation act of June 
 
 10, 1880. (T. D. 28929; Apr. 11, 1908.) 
 
 Certain privileges ol immediate-transportation act extended to Port Arthur, Tex. 
 
 (T. D. 29052; June 6, 1908.) 
 Port Harford, Cal., created a subport of entry. (T. D. 29052; June 6, 1915.) 
 The name of customs port in District No. 28 changed from Port Harford to Port 
 
 San Luis. (T. D. 35546; Jime 23, 1915.) 
 Port Jefferson, N. Y., discontinued. (T. D. 30834; July 13, 1910.) 
 Redondo Beach created a subport of entry and Port Los Angeles discontinued as 
 
 a subport of entry in the district of lioa Angeles, Cal. (T. D. 28993; May 16, 
 
 1908.) 
 Rio Grande City, Tex., designated as quarantine station for importation of ani- 
 mals. (T. D. 30198; Dec. 14, 1909.) 
 Consolidation of customs Districts Nos. 2 and 3, in the State of Vermont, with 
 
 headquarters at St. Albans. (T. D. 34951; Dec. 1, 1914.) 
 Act creating St. Andrews, Fla., a subport of entry in the district of Pensacola. 
 
 (T. D. 31374; Mar. 13, 1911.) 
 Transfer of St. Joseph Bay, Fla., of the Pensacola collection district, to the 
 
 Apalachicola collection district. (T. D. 31307; Feb. 15, 1911.) 
 The name of customs station in District No. 1 changed from St. Luce to French- 
 
 ville. (T. D. 35423; May 24, 1915.) 
 Certain privileges of immediate-transportation act extended to St. Vincent, 
 
 Minn. (T. D. 29052; June 6, 1915.) 
 The name of customs port in District No. 19 changed from Scranton to Pascagoula. 
 
 (T. D. 35581; July 14, 1915.) 
 Somers Point, N. J., abolished as a port of entry in customs collection District No. 
 
 11. (T. D. 36029; Dec. 31, 1915.) 
 Stamford, Conn. (T. D. 28879; Mar. 24, 1908.) 
 
 Sulzer, Alaska, made subport of entry. (T. D. 28845; Mar. 16, 1908.) 
 Tyee, Alaska, created a subport of entry in the district of Alaska, and Sitka and 
 Seward, Alaska, discontinued as subports of entry in the same district. (T. 
 D. 29749; circular No. 22; May 12, 1909.) 
 Tyee, Alaska, discontinued as a subport of entry in the collection district of 
 
 Alaska. (T. D. 30318; Jan. 29, 1910.) 
 Appointment of deputy collector of customs at Vicksburg, Miss. (T. D. 31846; 
 Sept. 2, 1911.) 
 Portugal. 
 Beciprocal commercial agreement with, termination of. (T. D. 29945; Aug. 10, 
 1909.) 
 Position babies. (See Bath and position babies.) 
 Postage stamps, facsimiles of. (See Facsimiles of postage stamps. 1 
 Post cards. 
 Embossed — ^Printed matter — 
 The importation waa of post cards, printed, embossed, and sprayed. The pro- 
 vision in paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909, beginning "all other articles than those 
 hereinbefore specifically provided," relates only to such goods as are litho- 
 graphically printed and not to such as those in one of these appeals, admittedly 
 not lithographed. The construction given this clause by the board harmonizej 
 otherwise repugnant provisions in pari materia and most nearly effects what 
 must be taken to have been the plain intent of the Congress. 
 
 Objection first made on appeal: The objection to the sufficiency in form of 
 the protests on the ground of multifariousness not having been made before the 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 701 
 
 Post cards — Continued. 
 Embossed — Fiinted matter — Continued . 
 
 board, and being raised for the first time on appeal, comes too late. United 
 States V. Fuld & Co. (No. 959); United States v. Kronfeld, Saunders & Co. (No. 
 960); Kronfeld, Saunders & Co. v. United States (No. 979), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeals from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 29228 (T. D. 32681). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33476 
 May 23, 1913.) 
 Feathered — 
 
 As to post cards printed with -words and pictorial representations and ornamented 
 with feathers, held, that the printing is not insignificant or subordinate in char- 
 acter, but the chief feature, without which the articles would be of no practical 
 value, and that they are dutiable as "printed matter" under paragraph 403, 
 tariff act of 1897, rather than under paragraph 425 as articles composed in chief 
 value of feathers. But this decision would not be precedent for the importa- 
 tion of valuable merchandise under the guise of "printed matter." Bingk 
 V. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 22, 1908. Suit 507Y. Appeal from decision by Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 16863 (T. D. 28438). Decision adverse to Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 29037; May 27, 1908.) Acquiesced in (T. D. 29130; July 2, 
 1908). 
 
 Souvenir post cards, on one side of which appear pictures of birds printed by 
 processes other than lithographic and which are ornamented by feathers, are 
 dutiable as "printed riiatter" under paragraph 403, tariff act of 1897. Bingk 
 V. United States (T. D. 29037) followed. (T. D. 29295— G. A. 6816; Oct. 8, 
 1908.) 
 Folded— 
 
 The term "booklets" in paragraph 400, tariff act of 1897, does not include an arti- 
 cle consisting of 6 post cards folded together and ready to be detached for use 
 and with a paper cover pasted thereon. Such articles are dutiable under the 
 provision in the same paragraph for "lithographic prints." In determining, 
 under paragraph 400, tariff act of 1897, the "cutting size" of hthographic post 
 cards imported in a folded, undetached condition, the measurement should be 
 on the basis of each card rather than of the entire series, just the same as if they 
 were imported separately. Downing v. United States, United States Circuit 
 • Court, Southern District of New York, May 13, 1909. Suit 5382. Appeal by 
 importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 19845 (T. D. 29313). Board reversed. (T. D. 29769; May 19, 1909.) Ac- 
 quiesced in June 7, 1909 (T. D. 29799).- 
 
 Lithographic prints: Lithographed post cards imported in strips of 6 folded cards 
 contained in and attached to printed paper covers are dutiable as lithographic 
 prints under paragraph 400, tariff act of 1897, rather than as lithographic "book- 
 lets" under the same paragraph. (T. D. 29802— G. A. 6914; June 7, 1909.) 
 
 Lithographically printed: The narrow flaps, strips, or hinges which connect the 
 various portions of folding pictures or pulling cards, so called, and which hold 
 the lithographed figures upright when the article opens out are not the "founda- 
 tion" on which the lithographs are mounted or pasted within the meaning of 
 the proviso to paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909. Held, accordingly, that it is 
 not proper to consider such flaps, strips, or hinges in ascertaining the thickness 
 for the purpose of determining the rate of duty on the articles under said para- 
 
 , graph. (T. D. 32733— G. A. 7382; July 22, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Lithographic prints. — The merchandise the subject of thij 
 appeal consists of so-called "pull cards" or "folding pictures," made of litho- 
 graphic prints on paper of different thicknesses, embossed, cut out, and attached 
 
702 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Post caids — Continued. 
 Folded — Continued . 
 
 together, so that they may be folded flat or pulled open. The lithographic 
 prints are of difierent thicknesses and are fastened together by heavier paper, 
 operating as hinge strips. The narrow strips of hinges to which the lithographic 
 prints are united to make up the folding pictures appear as serving simply to 
 join one with the other and not as a formation or base upon which the print is 
 mounted or pasted. The first part of the proviso to paragraph 412, tarifi act of 
 1909, alone applies. Hensel, Bruckmanu & Lorbacher v. United States (No. 
 1003), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7382 (T. D. 32733). 
 Decision aflarmed. (T. D. 33370; Apr. 22, 1913.) 
 Gelatin prints — 
 
 Gelatin prints produced by the lichtdruck process not dutiable under paragraph 
 403, tariff act of 1897, but under paragraph 400 of that act as Uthographic prints. 
 Carter v. United States (T. D. 31033) reaffirmed as to sufficiency of protest. 
 When the language of a revenue law would indicate that certain words had 
 been employed by the Congress because the processes of a particular art were 
 changing processes, dictionaries and treatises may be referred to for the purpose 
 of showing the state of tha,t art. Rotograph Co. i;. United States (No. 27), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from deci- 
 sion of the Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 28158-G. A. 6587). 
 Transferred from the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of 
 New York. Board reversed. (T. D. 31106; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 Lithographed and embossed — Weight of cover — 
 
 The dutiable weight of lithographic post cards in strips, which are folded 
 together and attached to a paper cover, includes the weight of the cover. 
 Downing v. United^ States (T. D. 29769) followed. (T. D. 29802— G. A. 6914; 
 June 7, 1909.) 
 
 Post cards ornamented by a printing in gold on a gelatin surface and impressed 
 with an indented effect or design, giving the effect of relief or raised work, are 
 subject to the extra one-half cent per pound rate provided for printed litho- 
 graphs when embossed, under paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31491 — 
 G. A. 7202; Apr. 12, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Embossing implies a perceptibly raised surface and a raised 
 surface that is perceptibly a form, figure, or design, but the surface of 'such a 
 form, figure, or design needs, in order to be embossed, to be raised only above 
 the surface immediately surrounding it and not necessarily above the general 
 siu-face of the article. Post cards ornamented by a printing in gold on a gelatin 
 surface and impressed with an indented design, producing thereby an effect in 
 relief, are dutiable as cards, "either die cut or embossed,^' under paragraph 
 412, tariff act of 1909; and this whether the embossed effect was or was not in- 
 tended to be produced. Stiner & Son and Bischoff & Co. v. United States 
 (No. 673), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7202 (T. D. 31491). 
 Dedsion affirmed. (T. D. 32079; Nov. 28, 1911.) 
 Printed matter. 
 
 Post cards of paper and other materials, such as celluloid, wood, silk, etc., which 
 are printed with the words "post card," are "printed matter" within the mean- 
 ing of paragraph 403, tariff act of 1897. Deutsch v. United States; Hensel v. 
 United States (3 cases); Ringk v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, May 14, 1909. Suits 5432-6. Appear by 
 importers from decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 20138 (T. D. 29429). Board reversed. (T. D. 29808; June 8, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 703 
 
 Post caids — Continued. 
 Printed matter — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) Post cards of paper combined with other materials, such as cel- 
 luloid, silk, or wood, which are the components of chief value, one side of the 
 articles being printed with the words "post card" in various languages, and 
 the other being embossed or sprayed with different floral and decorative effects, 
 are "printed matter," within the meaning of paragraph 403, tariff act of 1897. 
 United States v. Deutsch; United States v. Hensel (3 cases); United States v. 
 Ringk, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second' Circuit, February 8, 
 1910. No. 219-23 (suits 5432-6). Appeals by the United States from the 
 Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York (172 
 Fed. Rep., 290; T. D. 29808) reversing Abstract 20138 (T. D. 29429). De- 
 cision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30387; Mar. 1, 1910.) 
 Public documents — ■ 
 Post cards, containing pictorial and statistical information concerning the agri- 
 cultural resources of the State of Victoria, Australia, and iniported by the offi- 
 cial representative of that Govamment for gratuitous distribution among the 
 inhabitants of the city of San Francisco, Cal., are public documents issued by a 
 foreign Government within the purview of paragraph 517, tariff act of 1909, and 
 accordingly entitled to free entry thereunder. (T. D. 35335 — G. A. 7718; 
 Apr. 23, 1915.) 
 Views of Hawaiian scenes — 
 Printed views of scenes in Hawaii are dutiable vmder the provision in paragraph 
 416, tariff act of 1909, for "views of any landscape, scene, building, place or 
 locality in the United States,'' it being held that such articles are views of 
 scenes "in the United States." (T. D. 30707— G. A. 7039; June 17, 1909.) 
 Views of United States scenes. 
 Lithographically printed post cards which represent copies of well-known paint- 
 ings depicting incidents in American history, such as "Washington's Recep- 
 tion at New York," "Washington Taking Command of the Army," and "Wash- 
 ington Crossing the Delaware," were dutiable under paragraph 416, tariff act 
 of 1909, as "views of any landscape, scene, building, place, or locality in the 
 United States, * » * by whatever process printed or produced," rather 
 than as lithographic prints under paragraph 412 of said act. (T. D. 32331 — 
 G. A. 7340; Mar. 22, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Views of American scenery or objects. — Views covered by para- 
 graph 412, tariff act of 1909, are such as present actual places, buildings, land- 
 scapes, or scenes within the United States. 
 
 George Washington series of post cards: Pictures that imaginatively portray 
 events in the life of Washington are not views of American scenery or objects. 
 They do not profess to represent any real locality or actual scene or scenery 
 within the United. States. They were properly dutiable as cards lithograph- 
 ically printed under paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909. Raphael Tuck & Sons 
 Co. V. United States (No. 899), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Ap- 
 peal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7340 (T. D. 32331). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33163; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 Post-office boses. 
 
 Prepayment of rent for the official use by officers of the Government of post-office 
 boxes not to be made. (T. D. 30263; circular No. 4; Jan. 15, 1910.) 
 Posts, fence and paving. (See Fence posts.) 
 Potash, caustic. 
 
 So-called caustic potash, containing less than 50 per cent of caustic potash or more 
 than 10 per cent of soda, dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem, vmder 
 paragraph 3, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32440; Apr. 26, 1912.) 
 
704 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Potasli, caustic — Continued. 
 
 Caustic potash may vary in purity from 40 to 98 per cent. An article showing by 
 chemical analysis the presence of 39.85 per cent caustic potash, held to be the 
 commercial article sold under that name and entitled to free entry imder para- 
 graph 655 of the tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33509— G. A. 7468; June 5, 1913.) 
 
 Sufficiency of protest: Where a classification, aa here, for crude caustic potash 
 has been settled by decision and such decision has been acquiesced in and fol- 
 lowed for a considerable period of time; where the identity of the goods with 
 those passed upon in the decided case is clearly shown by the evidence taken 
 at the trial, and where the appraiser's report and the sample itself indicate to 
 the mind of the collector that it is the crude article which is being dealt with, 
 and that the importer is attempting to get the benefit of the previous ruling, 
 and when, in addition, the paragraphs governing such merchandise, including 
 the paragraph construed by the decision, are all eo nomine and treat of it by 
 name in simple language, then the collector is bound to take notice that such 
 claim is being made, and the protest claiming the goods eo nomine is valid, 
 even it the proper paragraph and rate of duty are not stated therein. (T. D. 
 34457— G. A. 7565; May 16, 1914.) 
 Potato flour. 
 
 Potato flour obtained by reducing entire potatoes to the state of flour by desiccat- 
 ing and grinding, dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article at the rate 
 of 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 385, tariff act of 19] 3. (T. D. 34236; 
 Mar. 5, 1914.) 
 Potato starch. 
 
 Potato starch which has been chemically treated so that it is in part soluble in 
 hot water, and which is known as soluble starch, although a portion of it is 
 insoluble, is dutiable under the provision in paragraph 36, tariff act of 1913,. 
 for "soluble or chemically treated starch," and not under paragraph 234 as 
 "starch made from potatoes." (T. D. 34906— G. A. 7633; Nov. 13, 1914.) 
 Potatoes. 
 
 Desiccated — 
 
 Potato ground meal or flour: This article is produced from potatoes only and con- 
 tains the entire and chemically unaltered elements of which the constituent 
 potatoes themselves were composed. It has not acquired a new name, use, or 
 character, and serves such culinary purposes as potatoes themselves. It is 
 potatoes, prepared, and falls within the provisions of paragraph 581, tariff act 
 of 1913. Stein, Hirsch & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1503), United States 
 Court of Ciistoms Appeals. Appeal by importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 37090 (T. D. 35020). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 35397; May 3, 1915.) 
 From Bermuda — 
 
 Potatoes imported from the Bermudas or Somers Islands between November 22, 
 
 1913, and Dscember 31, 1913, admissible free of duty; those imported after 
 December 31, 1913, to be assessed with duty. (T. D. 33976; Dec. 13, 1913.) 
 
 Potatoes imported from Bermuda between January 1, 1914, and December 31, 
 
 1914, entitled to free entry under the provisions of paragraph 581, tariff act of 
 1913. (T. D. 34056; Jan. 13, 1914.) 
 
 from Sweden — 
 Paragraph 581, tariff act of 1913, levies a duty of 10 per cent ad valorem upon pota- 
 toes when imported from a comitry which imposes a duty on potatoes imported 
 from the United States. The law of Sweden provides for a duty on potatoes 
 only when imported into that country between the dates of February 15 and 
 Jime 30 of any year. Held, that potatoes imported into the United States from 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 705 
 
 Potatoes — Continued. 
 From Sweden — Continued. . 
 
 Sweden during the month of January are subject to the duty provided by para- 
 graph 581, no limitation being imposed upon the operation of the paragraph 
 because of the fact that the Swedisb law levies the tax during only a part of the 
 year. (T. D. 35461— G. A. 7731; May 27, 1915.) 
 ' Potatoes and products thereof. 
 
 Collectors instructed relative to the dutiability under paragraph 581, tariff act of 
 October 3, 1913, of potatoes and products thereof when imported from certain 
 countries. (T. D. 33801; Oct. 23, 1913.) 
 Collectors instructed relative to the dutiability, imder paragraph 581, tariff act 
 of 1913, of potatoes and products thereof when imported from certain countries. 
 (T. D. 33941; Dec. 1, 1913.) 
 Potatoes, wheat, etc. 
 Tariff act of 1913— 
 Estimated duties to be assessed upon potatoes, wheat, etc., under paragraphs 
 581 and 644, tariff act of October 3, 1913, but liquidation of the entries to be 
 suspended pending further instructions. (T. D. 83779; Oct. 7, 1913.) 
 Pots, old iron. (See Iron, scrap.) 
 
 Poultry. ^ 
 
 Prepared- 
 Ducks' feet and gizzards not. (See Meat, prepared.) 
 Turkeys-^Guinea fowl — ■ 
 Held that guinea fowl and turkeys, not proved to have been in a wild state, were 
 properly classified as "poultry" under paragraph 278, tariff act of 1897, rather 
 than under paragraph 494, relating to "birds, and land * * * fowls." 
 Silz V. United States (2 cases). United States Circuit Court, Southern District 
 of New York, February 15, 1909. Suits 5188 and 5191. Appeal by importer 
 from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6701 (T. 
 D. 28652) and Abstract 17785 (T. D. 28653). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29568; 
 Feb. 24, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Turkeys and guinea fowl not shown to be wild birds were prop- 
 erly classified as "poultry" under paragraph 278, tarifi act of 1897, rather than 
 under paragraph 494, relating to "birds and land * * * fowls." Silz v. 
 United States (2 cases). United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 
 February 8, 1910. No. 132 (suits 5188 and 5191). Appeal by the importer 
 from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New 
 York (167 Fed. Rep., 686^ T. D. 29568) aflirming G. A. 6701 (T. D. 28652) and 
 Abstract 17785 (T. D. 28653). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 
 30388; Mar. 1, 1910.) 
 Powder, plate-polisliiug. (See Polishing powder.) 
 Powdered glass. (See Glass and glasses.) 
 Powdered opium. (See Opium.) 
 Powdered talc. (See Talc.) 
 Powdered tin. (See Tin, powdered.) 
 Power of attorney. 
 Bonds — 
 Form 272, prescribed by circular No. 69 of 1907, applies to customs as well as other 
 
 bonds under this department. (T. D. 29022; May 22, 1908.) 
 Requirement of powers of attorney from corporate surety companies. (T. D. 
 
 28661; circular No. 3; Jan. 2, 1908.) 
 Powers of attorney covering "customs bonds" will be construed to include all 
 bonds of the Customs Service except "official." (T. D. 29582; Feb. 26, 1909.) 
 45633°— 17 i5 
 
706 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Power of attomey — Continued. 
 B on4s — Con tinned . 
 
 Owners' declarations may be executed on behalf of a corporation by an agent, 
 under power of attorney, especially authorized to execute the same by the 
 board of directors. (T. D. 30025; Oct. 4, 1909.) 
 
 The consignee of imported goods is regarded as the owner, and a power of attomey 
 given by him to enter the goods is valid, so that an entry made under his au- 
 thority will be sufficient on which to assess duty. (T. D. 32147 — G. A. 7315; 
 Jan. 15, 1912.) 
 Power, drill. 
 
 A power drill imported by an educational institution not entitled to free entry 
 under paragraph 650, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32289; Feb. 27, 1911.) 
 Power-transmitting tables for sewing machines. (See Metal, manufactures of.) 
 Precious stones. 
 Advisory appraisement — 
 
 Advisory appraisement of precious stones at ports of arrival discontinued. (T. 
 D. 28876; Mar. 19, 1908.) 
 Agates, cornelian, etc. — 
 
 Small pieces of agate, cornelian, garnet, jasper, onyx, etc., advanced in condi- 
 tion or value from their natural state by cutting, polishing, or other process for 
 the purpose of fitting them for use as settings for jewelry, the same being unset 
 and belonging to the group of precious stones known and dealt in in trade under 
 their specific names, such as "agates," "garnets," "rock crystals;" etc., are 
 dutiable as "precious stones" under paragraph 435, and not as manufactures 
 of agate, etc., under paragraph 115, tariff act of 1897. United States v. Bene- 
 dict (145 Fed. Rep., 914; T. D. 27032), Hahn v. United States (100 Fed. Hep., 
 635), Erhardt v. Hahn (55 Fed. Rep., 273), and Hartranft v. Wiegmann (121 
 U. S., 615) followed. United States v. Lorsch (158 Fed. Rep., 398; T. D. 
 28513) distinguished. (T. D. 29337— G. A. 6825; Nov. 6, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Small pieces of agate, cornelian, garnet, jasper, onyx, etc., 
 which have been advanced by cutting or other process for the purpose of fitting 
 them for use as settings for jewelry, but which have not been set, are dutiable 
 as "precious stones advanced * * * and not set," under paragraph 435, 
 tariff act of 1897, rather than aa manufactures of agate, cornelian, etc., under 
 paragraph 115. United States v. Lorsch, United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York, May 12, 1909. Suit 5392. Appeal by United States 
 from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6825 (T. D. 
 29337). Board aflarmed (*r. D. 29837; June 15, 1909). Acquiesced in by Gov- 
 ernment (T. D. 29832; June 10, 1909.) 
 Cut- 
 Precious stones, including agates, onyx, garnets, coral, etc., cut but not set, and 
 intended exclusively for jewelry purposes, are dutiable as precious stones cut 
 but not set, under paragraph 435, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29997— G. A. 6932; 
 Sept. 11, 1909.) 
 Imitation of — 
 
 Colored glass: Colored glass in imitation of precious stones dutiable at the rate of 
 45 per cent ad valorem as manufactures of paste or glass under paragraphl09, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32802; Sept. 3, 1912.) 
 
 Hatpin tops: Imitation sapphires, amethysts, and sardonyx, composed of glass 
 or paste and intended for use as hatpin tops, held dutiable at 20 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909, as "imitation precious stones 
 * * * for use in the manufacture of jewelry," rather than as manufactures 
 of glass or paste under paragraph 109 of said act. (T. D. 31844— G. A. 7267, 
 Sept. 1, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 707 
 
 Precious stones^Continued. 
 Imitation of — Continued. 
 
 Jewels, molded: The provision in paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909, for "imitation 
 precious stones" requires that the latter shall be for use in the manufacture of 
 jewelry; hence imitation precious stones composed of glass or paste, the chief 
 use of which is in the manufacture of other articles than jewelry, are excluded 
 from classification under paragraph 449 and are dutiable as "manufactures of 
 glass or paste" under paragraph 109 of said act. (T. D. 31333 — G. A. 7176; 
 Feb. 21, 1911.) 
 
 Parts of jewelry: Imitations of precious stones designed for use in the manufac- 
 ture of jewelry are provided for by name in paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909, 
 and therein made dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem. They are not dutiable 
 at fiO per cent ad valorem as parts of jewelry under the concluding provision of 
 paragraph 448, which applies only to articles of jewelry composed of gold or 
 platinum. (T. D. 31313— G. A. 7171; Feb. 16, 1911.) 
 
 Pearls, imitation: Imitation pearls, whether pierced through, partially pierced, 
 or attached to wires, designed exclusively for use in the manufacture of jewelry 
 and commercially known as imitation precious stones, are not dutiable as beads 
 nor as parts of jewelry. They are dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under the 
 piovision of paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909, for "imitation precious stones, 
 including pearls and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture of jewelry." 
 G. A. 7079 (T. T>. 30827) and G. A. 5784 (T. D. 25566) distinguished. (T. D. 
 31234— G. A. 7155; Jan. 20, 1911.) 
 
 Pierced: Imitation precious stones with foil backs, not suitable for use in the 
 manufactiire of jewelry, dutiable at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33612; July 11, 1913.) 
 
 Set in celluloid: Articles dutiable under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, when 
 set with iinitation precious stones, even though the stones are set in celluloid 
 or other material and not in metal. (T. D. 32404; Apr. 18, 1912.) 
 
 Size: Imitation precious stones exceeding 1 inch in dimensions, designed and 
 intended for use in the manufacture of jewelry, are dutiable under paragraph 
 449 of the tariff act of 1909, said paragraph containing no limitation as to the 
 size of the imitation precious stones covered thereby. (T. D. 30722 — G. A 
 7044; June 22, 1910.) 
 Jade gems — 
 
 Selected pieces of the mineral known as jade, which have been cut and polished 
 and formed into stones, and which are used exclusively for jewelry purposes, 
 being mounted into^old rings and other like articles, held to be dutiable as 
 precious stones advanced in condition or value from their natural state by 
 cleaving, splitting, or other process, and not set, at 10 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 4.35, tariff act of 1897, and not imder paragraph 97 of said act 
 as mineral substances of the kind there described. (T. D. 29624 — G. A. 6884; 
 Mai. 10, 1909.) 
 Opals — 
 
 Opals, having a portion of the rough surface crudely removed by the miner by 
 planing and polishing in ofder to ascertain their character and quality, not 
 within the provision of paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909, for "precious stones, 
 
 * * * cut," but free of duty imder paragraph 555 as "precious stones, 
 
 * * * not advanced in condition or value from their natural state." (T. D. 
 32525— G. A. 7364; May 13, 1912.) 
 
 Sapphires- 
 Cut and polished sapphires, cylindrical in form, suitable as imported for use in 
 the manufacture of jewelry, but which in the present case, after undergoing 
 further processes of cutting and forming, subsequent to importation, are ulti- 
 
708 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Precious stones — Continued. 
 Sapphires — Continued. 
 
 mately intended for use in phonographs, are more specifically provided for in 
 paragraph 449, tariff act of 1909, as "precious * * » stones * * * suit- 
 able tor use in the manufacture of jewelry," than as "articles composed wholly 
 or in chiet value of * * * semiprecious stones, except such as are cut into 
 shapes and forms fi.,ting them expressly for use in the construction of jewelry," 
 under paragraph 112 of the act aforesaid. (T. D. 31270—6. A. 7162; Feb. 6, 
 1911.) 
 Shell cameos — 
 Though shell is not a mineral, when prepared and designed for settings for jewelry 
 it is coirunercially known as a precious stone; ai^d shell cameos are dutiable 
 under the provision in paragraph 435, tariff act of 1897, for "precious stones" 
 cut but not set, rather than as manufactures of shell, not specially provided 
 tor, under paragraph 450. G. A. 5763 (T. D. 25512) overruled. (T. D. 30068— 
 G. A. 6936; Oct. 22, 1909.) 
 Weight of — The carat — 
 On and after July 1, 1913, the unit of weight for diamonds, pearls, and other 
 precious stones will be the metric carat o^ 200 milligrams. (T. D. 33562; June 
 17, 1913.) 
 Precipitated carbonate of baryta. (See Chemical salt.) 
 Precipitated chalk. (See Chalk, precipitated.) 
 Premium bonds (Panama). (See Lottery matter.) 
 Premiums of surety companies. (See Surety companies.) 
 Prepared cork. (See Cork, insoling.) 
 Prepared meat. (See Meat, prepared.) 
 Prepared vegetables. (See Vegetables.) 
 Preserved fruit. (See Fruit.) 
 Press-cloth mats. (See Hair press-cloth mats.) 
 Pressed steel shapes. (See Steel. — Shapes.) 
 Principal market. (See Market value. — Principal market.) 
 Printed matter. 
 
 The authorities warrant the classification as "printed matter" under paragraph 
 403, tariff act of 1897, ot lace paper that has been printed with trade-marks, 
 business addresses, decorative designs, etc. Hamilton v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. 
 No. 126 (suit 5108). Appeal by the importer from the Circuit Coxu-t of the 
 United States for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29165) affirming 
 G. A. 6674 (T. D. 28479). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29519; 
 Feb. 3, 1909.) Acquiesced in February 4,. 1909 (T. D. 29528). 
 So-called lace-paper tops, doilies, and similar articles, cut or stamped out of 
 sheets oi paper without printed inscriptions thereon, are dutiable under para- 
 graph 402, as "paper" rather than under paragraph 407, tariff act of 1897, as 
 "manufacture" of paper. Those with printed inscriptions are covered by 
 paragraph 403, as "printed matter." HamQton v. United States (T. D. 29519) 
 followed. (T. D. 29698— G. A. 6895; Apr. 14, 1909.) 
 Beer mats. (See Beer mats.) 
 China. (See Chinaware.) 
 On surface-coated paper — 
 The merchandise consists of fashion plates made ot surface-coated paper with 
 samples of embroidered or appliqu^d dress goods attached foi use mainly in 
 mail-order business. These goods are not properly "samples," but are printed, 
 matter on surface-coated paper, coming into competition with like commercial 
 articles produced and for sale in this country. They were not, accordingly, 
 
DIGEST OP CtrSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 709 
 
 Printed matter — Continued. 
 
 On suiface-coated paper — Continued. 
 
 entitled to free entry. Gernet v. United States (No. 1125), United States 
 Court ot Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 31319 (T. D. 33194). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 33834; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 
 Post cards. (See also Post cards.) 
 
 Post cards of paper and other materials, such as celluloid, wood, silk, etc., which 
 are printed with the words "post card," are "printed matter" within the 
 meaning of paragraph 403, tariff act of 1897. Deutsch v. United States; Hen- 
 sel V. United States (3 cases); Ringk v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, May 14, 1909. Suits 5432-6. Appeal 
 by importers from decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 20138 (T. D. 29429). Board reversed. (T. D. 29808; June 8, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Post cards of paper combined with other materials, such as cel- 
 luloid, silk, or wood, which are the components of chief value, one side of the 
 articles being printed with the words "post card" in various languages, and 
 the other being embossed or sprayed with different floral and decorative effects, 
 are "printed matter," within the meaning of paragraph 403, tariff act of 1897, 
 United States v. Deutsch; United States v. Hensel (3 cases); United States v. 
 Ringk, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 8, 
 1910. No. 219-23 (suits 5432-6). Appeals by the United States from the Cir- 
 cuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York (172 Fed. 
 Rep., 290; T. D. 29808) reversing Abstract 20138 (T. D. 29429). Decision 
 adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30387; Mar. 1, 1910.) 
 
 Plates — 
 Paragraph 502, tariff act of 1897, providing for "books" in foreign languages, does 
 not include aii importation of 500 printed copies of an ancient French manu- 
 script, in the form of 24 plates, where the form of a book is lacking in that all 
 the copies of each plate are packed separately rather than assembled in proper 
 order as in a book. Such merchandise is dutiable as "printed" matter under 
 paragi-aph 403. (T. D. 29437— G. A. 6843; Dec. 23, 1908.) 
 
 Samples — 
 The samples (the subject of the present appeal) that show coloring results are 
 designed for the use of salesmen who place dyes on the market; they are not 
 samples of the dyes themselves. The regulations provide that samples to be 
 entitled to free entry must be such as "are obviously intended for use merely 
 as samples of merchandise to sell the class of goods which they represent." 
 These goods 'were properly assessed as printed matter under paragraph 416, 
 tariff act of 1909. Badische Co. v. United States (No. 1094), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 31012 (T. D. 38055). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 33535; May 31, 1913.) 
 The merchandise consists of fashion plates made of surface-coated paper ,^ with 
 samples of embroidered or appliqu^d dress goods attached for use mainly in 
 mail-order business. These goods are not properly "samples, " but are printed 
 matter on surface-coated paper, coming into competition with like commercial 
 articles produced and for sale in this country. They were not, accordingly, 
 entitled to free entry. .Gernet v. United States (No. 1125), United State3 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of Unites 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 31319 (T. D. 33194). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 33834; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 
 Views of Hawaiian scenes. (See Post cards.) 
 
710 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Printing papei. 
 
 Instructions as to the assessment of regular, additional, and countervailing duty 
 on wood pulp and printing paper under paragraphs 406 and 409 of the tariff, act 
 of August 5, 1909. (See also Wood pulp, printing paper.) (T. D. 29968; Aug. 
 26, 1909.) (T. D. 30045; Oct. 16, 1909.) 
 
 Printing presses — Printing machines. 
 
 Wall-paper printing machines designed to coat the surface of paper to produce a 
 tinted effect and for printing and embossing designs on paper are not printing 
 presses nor dutiable as such within the scope of the decision of the United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals in the case of Petry v. United States (3 Ct. Oust. 
 Appls., 348; T. D. 32906). (T. D. 34841— G. A. 7614; Oct. 14, 1914.) 
 
 Prints, Uthogiaphio. (See Lithographic prints.) 
 
 Prismatic glass. (See Glass and glasses.) 
 
 Prison- made goods. 
 
 Before excluding merchandise alleged to be the product of convict labor, all evi- 
 dence relating to any particular entry to be forwarded to the department for 
 consideration. (T. D. 33889; Nov. 18, 1913.) 
 Philippine Islands — 
 The Attorney General expresses the opinion that section 14, tariff act of 1909, 
 does not apply to goods made in the Philippine Islands, the said islands not 
 being a "foreign country" within the meaning of the statute. (T. D. 31071; 
 Nov. 29, 1910.) 
 
 Prize-fight films. (See Films, moving-picture.) 
 
 Prizes, free entry of. (See Trophies or prizes.) 
 
 Procedure. 
 
 Motion to dismiss suit — 
 Petition for rehearing and time limitations on appeals. The question involves a 
 motion to dismiss an appeal taken by the Government on the ground that the 
 time for an appeal had elapsed when application was made to the court. Held, 
 that where a motion for a new trial has been entered within the time fixed by 
 law, the limitation of 60 days within which it is permitted to take an appeal 
 begins to run not from the date of the original decision, butlrom the date the 
 motion for a new trial is disposed of. United States v. Vandegrift & Co. (No. 
 730), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Motion denied. (T. D. 32197; . 
 Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 
 Motion to reduce record — 
 
 On an application for a rehearing being filed but not heard, the board, responding " 
 to the application by a letter termed an "amended decision," directed the in- 
 corporation in the formal decision of the matter the omission of which was com- 
 plained of in the petition for a rehearing. Thereupon, on the faith of this 
 "amended decision," the application for a rehearing was withdrawn. What- 
 ever irregularity there may have been in the course pursued by the board it 
 was no more than an irregularity, and the waiver of this by appellant is mani- 
 fest. A motion to strike this amended decision from the record, made subse- 
 quent to a denial of a second request for a rehearing, must be denied. King 
 Collar Button Co. v. United States (No. 767), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 26448 (T. D. 31845). Motion denied. (T. D. 32461; Apr. 
 17, 1912.) 
 
 Motion for a ne'wr trial — 
 
 Machines, meat-slicing: The affidavit of merits accompanying the motion for a 
 new trial did not properly specify the testimony offered to be produced at a 
 rehearing if granted. The motion itself was vague in terms and unverified, 
 though including matters outside the record. Gallagher & Ascher et al. v. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 711 
 
 Procedure — Continued. 
 Motion for a fcew trial — Continued. 
 
 United States (No. 871), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 tlie importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27434 
 (T. D. 32126). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33512; May 29, 1913.) 
 Rules of procedure and practice before the board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, adopted pursuant to the customs administrative act of 1890, as amended 
 by the act of May 27, 1908, and section 12 of the act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 
 30506; Apr. 7, 1910.) 
 Instructions to customs officers upon questions of practice and procedure pre- 
 sented by the conference of administrative officers held in November, 1910. 
 (T. D. 31791; Aug. 3, 1911.) 
 Pro forma invoice. (See Invoices.) 
 Proof of identity — ^American goods returned. (See Reimportation — American goods 
 
 returned.) 
 Proof of spirits. (See Liquors, gauge of.) 
 Protection of game in Alaska. (T. D. 29153; July 10, 1908.) 
 Protest. 
 
 Where the Board of General Appraisers sustains a protest without holding the 
 merchandise under consideration dutiable at a specified rate of duty and the 
 paragraph under which the protestant claims contains more than, one rate, it is 
 the duty of the collector to decide which rate is applicable to the merchandise, 
 and his decision thus made is not a new decision against which protest will lie. 
 (T. D. 34570— G. A. 7576; June 15, 1914.) 
 Abandoned — Additional evidence — 
 
 Where importers abandoned their protests before the Board of General Appraisers 
 without taking testimony, it was within the sound discretion of the board to 
 refuse to reopen the cases or restore them for hearing, and on appeal to the 
 circuit court the importers were not entitled to introduce further evidence 
 under the provisions of section 15, customs administrative act of 1890. Stroh- 
 meyer v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, June 28, 1910. Suit 4758. Appeal by the importer from decision of 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 13788 (T. D. 27785). De- 
 cision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30807; July 19, 1910.) 
 Amendment of — 
 A protest claiming certain watches as a whole to be free under paragraph 483, 
 tariff act of 1897, can not be successfully amended so as to limit the claim to 
 the cases containing the movements, which constitute only a fractional part of 
 the importation. The merchandise, though separately dutiable under the 
 express requirements of paragraph 191 of said act, must be treated as a whole 
 and not in fractional parts, when imported complete, so far as said paragraph 
 483 is concerned. (T. D. 30268— G. A. 6963; Jan. 14, 1910.) 
 Assignments of error. (See Appeals — Assignments of error.) 
 Baggage declaration and entry — 
 A baggage declaration and entry made upon the regular form provided by the 
 department for such entries is a regular entry within the exception created by 
 subsection 4 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909, and the Board of General Ap- 
 praisers has jurisdiction to hear and determine a protest filed against the liquida- 
 tion of such an entry. (T. D. 30270— G. A. 6965; Jan. 13, 1910.) 
 Blanket — 
 Alternative claims — Intent of law: While protests may properly state alternative 
 grounds of dissatisfaction with decisions of collectors of custom?, this lule does 
 not permit the protestant to enumerate a long list of paragraphs, any of which 
 are entirely remote, with the purpose of covering everythine. It is not enoush 
 
712 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Protest — Continued . 
 
 Blanket — Continued. ' 
 
 that the provision ultimately relied upon by the importer can be found some- 
 where in the protest; that would not meet the spirit of the provision in section 
 14, customs administrative act of 1890, that protests should set forth "distinctly 
 and specifically" the importers' grounds of objections. Protests each covering 
 24 separate provisions of the tariff, which carry about 50 different rates of duty, 
 are invalid as not setting forth the importers' objections "distinctly and spe- 
 cifically " within the meaning of section 14, customs administrative act of 1890. 
 Lichtenstein v. United States; Zimmerman v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 9, 1909. Suits 4852-3. 
 Appeals by importers from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers 
 G. A. 6534 (T. D. 27885). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30169; Dec. 7, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) A protest, blanket in form, covering various classes of articles, 
 not included in the importation or importations in question, fails to state the 
 importer's claim with such clearness and certainty as to acquaint the collector 
 with the leal grounds of the complaint and is insufficient. Protests are to be 
 construed liberally and alternative claims are allowable, but the requirement 
 of law that the importer shall set forth in the protest distinctly and specifically 
 and in respect to each entry or payment the reason for his objection thereto 
 may not be ignored. Lichtenstein & Co. v. United States (No. 12); John 
 Zimmerman Co. v. United States (No. 13); United States Court -of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeals from decision of the United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York (T. D. 30169), affirming G. A. 6534 (T. D. 27885). Trans- 
 ferred from United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Decision 
 in favor of the Government. (T. D. 31105; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 
 Claiming a higher rate- 
 Protests claiming a higher rate of duty than that assessed to be forwarded to the 
 department for instructions, under article 1072 of the customs Regulations, as 
 amended by T. D. 32136. (T. D. 32412; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 
 Codfish, classification of — 
 Protest was filed against the collector's classification of certain codfish, as codfish 
 dried and salted in packages containing less than one-half barrel, not specially 
 provided for, at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 270 of the tariff act of 
 1909, claiming said codfish dutiable at three-fourths of 1 cent per pound 
 under paragraph 273 of said act. On the collector's attention being called to 
 Abstract 27144 (T. D. 32020), the collector sustained the protest and reliquidated 
 the entry at the lower rate of duty claimed in the protest. The department, 
 however, declined to authorize a refund, and directed that the protest be for- 
 warded to the board. Held, that, inasmuch as the decision of the collector 
 protested against was canceled, and a reliquidation had which sustained the 
 protest, which has not been set aside, the protest was improperly transmitted 
 to the board, as it raises no issue, and is therefore dismissed. (T. D. 33999 — G. 
 A. 7518; Dec. 19, 1913.) 
 
 Consent order— 
 The merchandise was classified by the collector as bagging made of jute butts and 
 waste, and was assessed for duty under paragraph 355, tariff act of 1909. The 
 protest claimed alternatively under two paragraphs, to wit, 358 and 480, of 
 that act. On the date set for hearing the Government asked that a consent 
 order sustaining the protest should be entered of record. The protestant ob- 
 jected to this, insisting on a hearing and a decision upon the question of law 
 involved. The board denied this, and, directing a submission of the case 
 without a trial of the issues of fact, sustained the protest. An assessment was 
 ordered under the provisions of paragraph 358. The appeal was taken from 
 the order sustaining the protest. 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 713 
 
 Protest — Continued . 
 
 Consent ordei — Continued. 
 
 Consent order, when both parties do not consent: The order sustaining the 
 protest was not made by the consent of both parties, nor upon the express ad- 
 mission by the Government of any of the facts alleged in the protest. This was 
 not a consent order in the legal acceptation of the term; it was not an order 
 legally following on an express admission of fact by one of the contending liti- 
 gants. The protestant had the right to show by evidence whether the mer- 
 chandise belonged to one or the other of the two classes, as alleged in the pro- 
 test. American Manufacturing Co. v. United States (No. 818), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 27492 (T. D. 32126). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 33161; Feb. 1, 1913.) ~ 
 
 Consolidation of hearings — 
 Upon the application of the protestants, and over the Government's objection, 
 the board ordered a consolidation of several piotests and heard them together 
 upon the same evidence. The several protests were virtually filed by the 
 same party; the questions raised by these protests and the testimony offered 
 apply alike to all the importations. No prejudice resulted from the consolida- 
 tion of the hearings. (T. D. 32576; May 8, 1912.) 
 
 Consolidation of protests — 
 Where protests are ccmsolidated at a hearing by order of the board of classifica- 
 tion, the evidence taken In each of the cases will be considered so far as rele- 
 vant in reaching a decision on each of the importations. (T. D. 30409 — G. A. 
 6987; Feb: 28, 1910.) 
 
 Customs regulations amended— 
 Articles 1072 and 1075 of the Customs Eegulations of 1908, relative, respectively, 
 to the review of protests and the recording of protests, amended. (T. D. 32136; 
 Jan. 8, 1912.) 
 
 Default on — 
 Where there is no appearance at the time set for the hearing of a case before the 
 Board of General Appraisers, that board will under its rule treat the case as 
 submitted and determine it upon the record. Ordinarily upon such a default 
 a case is treated as not proved and the protest overruled; but, where papers 
 filed by the collector with the protest clearly show that the contention of the 
 protestant is correct, the protest will be sustained and the collector directed 
 accordmgly. (T. D. 30336— G. A. 6978; Feb. 7, 1910.) 
 
 Evidence excluded- 
 Where a protest covers a particular sample of flax waste, a question to the witness 
 requesting him to answer, considering all the kinds of fla,x waste he has handled, 
 what is the chief use, is irrelevant and immaterial and is excluded from evidence. 
 The protest does not cover all kinds of flax waste that the witness has ever hand- 
 died, only some of which are for paper making. (T. D. 33559 — G. A. 7470; 
 June 11, 1913.) 
 
 Failure to file^ 
 Recovery of duties — ^Remedy — Proceedings as in Court of Claims: Where import- 
 ers had failed to proceed for the recovery of excessive duties by filing protests 
 and thus securing a decision by the Board of General Appraisers, as provided by 
 section 14, customs administrative act of 1890, they are precluded from recovery 
 by proceedings in a circuit court as a court of claims, under the Tucker Act of 
 March 3, 1887 (24 Stat., 505). Gulbenkian v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, December 29, 1909. (T. D. 
 30295; Jan. 25, 1910.) 
 
714 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Protest — Continued. 
 Fee — 
 
 A fee of $1 is required for each entry protested against. Protests will not be for- 
 w&ded to the Board of General Appraisers until the protest fee is deposited. 
 (T. D. 33817; Oct. 27, 1913.) 
 
 Only one protest fee is required on each entry under Paragraph M. A protest fee 
 should be deposited for each protest against the payment of a fee. Each pay- 
 ment of a fee to be considered a separate payment. Pending determination by ' 
 the Board of General Appraisers, a number of claims may be included in one 
 protest. (T. D. 33956; Dec. 8, 1913.) 
 
 Protest and reappraisement fees to be deposited as customs reappraisement and 
 protest fees. (T. D. 33967; Dec. 9, 1913.) 
 
 Paragraph N of section 3, tariff act of 1913, requiring a deposit of a fee of $1 as a 
 condition precedent to the validity of a protest does not limit a protest as to 
 the number of entries it may contain, nor does it require a deposit of a fee of 
 $1 for each entry enumerated therein. The fee imposed attaches to the protest 
 and not to each cause of action involved therein. (T. D. 33981 — G. A. 7515; 
 Dec. 12, 1913.) 
 
 Protests not to be forwarded to the Board of General Appraisers unless filed in time 
 and the fee deposited. (T. D. 34257; Mar. 10, 1914.) 
 
 Protest defined — Rules for collection of fees on protests. T. D. 33817 of October 27, 
 1913, and T. D. 33956 of December 8, 1913, modified. (T. D. 34541; June 13, 
 1914.) 
 
 Form of tender of payment: Where an importer paid $35 fees which he intended 
 to apply on three protests, and in tendering the payment did not mention the 
 number of the protests here in question (one of the three), held fhaX such tender 
 was unnecessary, for the reason that, under the rule established and made known 
 by the department, tender in that form would not have been received. Swift 
 V. United States (111 U. S., 30) and United States v. Lee (106 U. S., 202) cited. 
 (T. D. 34926— G. A. 7640; Nov. 24, 1914.) 
 
 Excess deposit in the hands of the collector: Money deposited with the collector 
 by a protestant as a protest fee under the provisions of Paragraph N of section 3 
 of the act of 1913 in excess of the amount lawfully required should not be applied 
 by the collector as paym^t of a fee on another protest unless he is especially 
 directed so to do by the protestant making the deposit. 
 
 Waiver of tender: The law does not require a man to do an unnecessary thing, 
 and where the tender of performance or payment is essential to the establish- 
 ment of a right and it is well and generally known that the tender would be re- 
 fused and the right denied, that tender is waived and is unnecessary to the 
 establishment of that right. Hills v. Exchange Bank (105 U. S., 319); United 
 States V. Lee (106 U. S., 196); Bank v. Hagner (1 Peters, 455). 
 
 Waiver of protest fee: It being well known that the collector would not accept 
 a protest fee on certain classes of protests, the offer or tender of such fee was un- 
 necessary to the vaUdatlon of such protests. 
 
 Arbitrary acts of the collector: The collector can not, by arbitrarily refusing 
 the fee required by law upon the fUing of a protest, deprive the protestant of his 
 right, even though the collector's action is the result of a mistaken interpretation 
 ofthelaw. United States d. Legg (105 Fed., 930); Courtin, Golden & Co. 's case, 
 G. A. 5293 (T. D. 24265). (T. D. 34927— G. A. 7641; Nov. 24, 1914.) 
 
 The requirement of payment of protest fee in Paragraph N of section 3 of the act of 
 1913 does not apply to cases in which the right to protest accrued under the act 
 of 1909. 
 
 Paragraph S of section 4 of the act of 1913 construed: The right to protest hav- 
 ing accrued under the act of 1909 the saving clause of Paragraph S of section 4 of 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 715 
 
 Piotest — Continued . 
 
 Fee — Continued. _ ^^ 
 
 the act of 1913 declaring that the repeal or rnm^cation of existing laws shall not 
 affect any right accrued, and that all rights under former laws may be enforced 
 in the same manner as if said repeal or modification had not been made, entitles 
 the protestant to proceed ■without new burdens not imposed by the former act, 
 citing Bechtel v. United States (101 U. S., 597). United States v. Brown & 
 Eoese (No. 1592), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 Government from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 38205. 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35922; Nov. 19, 1915.) 
 
 Filing of, after rellquidation — 
 The liquidation and settlement of duties upon merchandise becomes final and con- 
 clusive upon all parties at the expiration of one year from the date of entry. A 
 reUquidation of an entry for the purpose of adjusting the duties on one case of 
 merchandise which remained in warehouse after the passage of the tariff act of 
 1909 does not open the entry for protest against the collection of duties on goods 
 entered under the previous act more than a year prior to such reUquidation. 
 (T. D. 31334— G. A. 7177; Feb. 21, 1911.) 
 
 Importer's right to protest a rate too low. (See Board of General Appraisers — ^jurisdic- 
 tion — Protest claiming a higher rate of duty than assessed) 
 
 Mailing protest not filing — 
 A protest mailed to the collector of customs, but not received by him within the 
 statutory time specified by section 14 of the customs administrative act of 1890, 
 is properly rejected as not filed in time. The giving of notice to the collector in 
 writing required by said section 14 is synonymous with filing such protest with 
 the collector, which involves actual delivery of the paper either to said officer or 
 some subordinate usually deputed to receive it in due course of business. (T. 
 D. 29514— G. A. 6861; Jan. 30, 1909.) 
 
 Mixed-materials clause — 
 It is not necessary that the mixed-materials clause in paragraph 481, tariff act of 
 1909, should be referred to in an importer's protest, in order to be considered by 
 the board. (T. D. 30223— G. A. 6959; Dec. 24, 1909.) 
 
 New right of — 
 An importer's protest against the inclusion of charges for corking, etc., in the duti- 
 able value of filled bottles was sustained by the Board of General Appraisers, 
 which held that the charges pertained to the contents of the bottles. On reU- 
 quidation by the collector in accordance with this decision, the importer filed 
 another protest, contending that the contents were dutiable at a lower rate than 
 that assessed originally. Held that, as the reUquidation did not change the 
 classification of the contents, and affected the original Uquidation only inci- 
 dentally and necessarily, to carry out the mandate of the board, and as there 
 was no voluntary action by the collector, a new protest would not lie against the 
 reUquidation. (T. D. 29884— G. A. 6919; June 29, 1909.) 
 
 Nonnaval offices — 
 It is required that where a protest is filed at nonnaval office ports a copy of the 
 entry must be attached by the protestant. (T. D. 34510; June 5, 1914.) 
 
 Oral complaint — 
 With no protest other than an oral complaint, importers acquiesced in a customs 
 ruling that involved an increase in the duties on their goods. Held, that there 
 had not been such a "protest" as is contemplated by section 21, act of June 22, 
 1874 (18 Stat., 190), making the settlement of duties final "in the absence of 
 protest." Gulbenkian v. United States, United States (Urcuit Court, South- 
 ern District of New York, December 29, 1909. (T. D. 30295; Jan. 25, 1910.) 
 
716 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Protest — Continued . 
 
 Payment of incieased duties as condition precedent — 
 Under subsection 14, sectioEBBS, tariff act of 1909, providing, where merchandise 
 has been entered for consumption, thac upon protest and payment of "the full 
 amount of the duties and chaiges ascertained to be due," the collector shall 
 transmit the papers to the Board of General Appraisers for decision. Held, 
 that the collector should withhold the papers till such payment is made, and 
 that in the event of premature transmission to the board, the board will be 
 without jurisdiction to decide the case unless and until such payment shall 
 have been made. United States v. Tiffany (151 Fed., 473; T. D. 27754, re- 
 versing 137 Fed., 971; T. D. 26313). 
 
 Delay in payment — ^Waiver of payment: While delay in the payment of du- 
 ties is not necessarily fatal to the importers' right of relief in the case of erro- 
 neous assessments of duty, all duties and charges in the case of entries for con- 
 sumption must be paid before the board can acquire jurisdiction of a protest 
 duly made. An oflScer of the Government can not, by waiving payment of 
 incieased duties ascertained to be due on merchandise entered for consump- 
 tion, confer jurisdiction upon the board or make it legal on the part of the board 
 to enter upon a consideration of the merits: Tiffany v. United States (153 Fed., 
 969; T. D. 28057), United States v. Tiffany (154 Fed., 740; T. D. 28107), 
 United States v. Schefer (71 Fed., 959), Grandmange v. Schell (32 Fed., 655), 
 Haynes v. Brewster (46 Fed., 471), In re Guggenheim Smelting Co. (112 Fed., 
 517), and G. A. 5512 (T. D. 24846) cited. (T. D. 33762— G. A. 7496; Sept. 26, 
 1913.) 
 
 Place of filing — 
 Where goods were imported and entered at Eastport, Me., for warehouse and im- 
 mediate transportation to Boston, and such entries were liquidated by the 
 collector at Eastport, the protest should be lodged with the collector al that 
 port and not at Boston. When filed at the wrong port the protest will b6 dis- 
 missed for want of jurisdiction. (T. D. 30355— G. A. 6982; Feb. 14, 1910.) 
 
 Beliquidatiou. (See also Entry. — Reliquidation.) 
 Where an importer's protest against the inclusion of certain bottla charges in an 
 assessed valuation had been sustained and a reliquidation by the collector 
 ordered, the importer interposed a new protest with the collector, asserting 
 his right to a new assessment on the contents of the bottles at a lower rate than 
 that which had been originally fixed: Held, in the proceedings that ensued on 
 reliquidation the collector made no "decision" from which an appeal would 
 Ue; he was acting ministerially; and the importer having failed within the 
 time prescribed by law to protest against the original assessment as to the value 
 of the contents of the bottles and to appeal therefrom, that assessment is res 
 adjudicata. Smith & Co. v. United States (No. 148), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals, April 17, 1911. Appeal by the importer from decision of 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6919 (T. D. 29884). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New 
 York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31527; Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 A protest serves the purpose not only of a notice to the collector of alleged errors 
 in his classification or assessment so that he may correct his decision if so minded, 
 but as well the purpose of an appeal to the Board of General Appraisers in case 
 the collector declines or fails to make his decision conform to the protest. And 
 once the limit fixed by the regulations within which the collector must pass 
 upon the protest, namely, 30 days, has expired, the jurisdiction of the Board of 
 General Appraisers attaches and the authority Df the collectoi in the piemisej 
 is suspended, and this whether the papers have been transmitted or not. Gul- 
 benkian v. Stranahan (158 Fed., 836) distinguished. United States v. Straus & 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 717 
 
 Protest — Continued . 
 Seliquidation — Continued. 
 
 Sons et al. (No. 954). Straus & Sons et al v. United States (No. 965), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7370 (T. D. 32581). Decision af- 
 firmed. (T. D. 34193; Feb. 10, 1914.) 
 
 There is a preponderance of authorities to the effect that a voluntary reliquida- 
 tion of an entry by the collector which results in a change in the rate or amount 
 of duty is, for the purpose of protest, equivalent to an abandonment of the pre- 
 vious liquidation and reopens the whole entry. G. A. 5406 (T. D. 24623) and 
 cases there cited. (T. D. 35823— G. A. 7795; Oct. 19, 1915.) 
 Samples — 
 
 Practice: At the trial importers' counsel stated that as to certain protests no sam- 
 ples of the gloves covered by them could be had, and they were abandoned. 
 Subsequently, however, by stipulation these protests were reopened, and it 
 was agreed the rate on the goods in question should be determined by the rule 
 laid down in the Wertheimer case. This became an agreed statement of facts, 
 and the rule in the Wertheimer case should have been applied. United States 
 V. Wertheimer (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 338; T. D. 33528). 
 
 Leather gloves, hand embroidered: The second class of gloves bore three-point 
 embroideries that were hand stitched. Each of the three points was stitched 
 by the use of only two separate threads, but in each point bhe two threads are 
 continued so as to form three or four rows or lines. As to these. United States 
 V. Wertheimer (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 338; T. D. 33528) rules, and the doctrine of 
 stare decisis applies. Altman & Co. v. United States (No. 1384), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 34943 (T. D. 34247). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 34941; Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 Signature typewritten — 
 
 A protest the signature to which is made on the typewriter is within the require- 
 ment of section 14, customs administrative act of 1890, that importers shall 
 "give notice in writing" of their grounds of protest. Bodart v. Schell (33 Fed. 
 Rep., 825) and Henschel v. Foster (9 Pick., Mass., 312) followed. T. D. . 
 (29359— G. A. 6829; Nov. 20, 1908.) 
 Signature by stranger — 
 
 A protest must be signed as required by the provisions of the statute, subsection 
 14 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, with the name of the owner, importer, con- 
 signee, or agent ot the merchandise, to be a lawful and sufficient protest. 
 
 A protest signed by any other party is not valid and sufiiclent unless it appears 
 from the evidence that the signer had authority to act. (T. D. 33240 — G. A. 
 7440; Feb. 27, 1913.) 
 Stipulations — • 
 
 Stipulations for the disposal of protests before the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers to be signed on behalf of the Government by the Assistant Attorney 
 General in charge of customs cases. (T. D. 32130; Jan. 4, 1912.) 
 Sufficiency of — 
 
 A protest which merely states that a certain specified number of boxes of fruit 
 were seized by the board of health while in the custody of the customs inspec- 
 tors, on which a refund of duties is claimed, can not be supported by testimony 
 showing certain percentages of decay in the imported fruit where no such seizure 
 was made by the board of health and covering other boxes than those specified 
 in the protest. (T. D. 29028— G. A. 6764; May 23, 1908.) 
 
718 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Protest — Continued. 
 Sufficiency of — Continued. 
 
 Where a protest is lodged against the assessment of duty on ".lithographic prints or 
 other merchandise," claiming that they are dutiable under paragraph 400, tariff 
 act of 1897, at the rate or rates therein provided according to thickness, cutting 
 size, etc., held that the protest is a sufficient compliance with the requirements 
 of section 14, customs administrative act of 1890, where the record before the 
 collector includes a report showing tne particular rate applicable. Hensel v. 
 United States (T. D. 28637) followed; G. A. 6549 (T. D. 27943) overruled. (T. 
 D. 29071— G. A. 6775; June 12, 1908.) 
 
 Silk goods dutiable at 50 cents per pound under the first clause of a tariff para- 
 graph relating to "woven fabrics * * * in the gum," were asserted in an 
 importer's protest to be dutiable "at 60 cents per pound * * * under the 
 first clause, * * * being woven fabrics in the piece, dyed." Held that, 
 though this rate and description ("dyed") were incident to the second clause 
 and not to the first, the protest referred sufficiently to the first clause to satisfy 
 the requirements of protests, as prescribed in section 14, customs administrative 
 act of 1890. Goods dutiable under paragraph 387, tariff act of 1897, were asserted 
 in the importer's protest to be dutiable under paragraph 388. Held that as the 
 language of the protest indicated an intention by the importer to cite paragraph 
 387, the protest should be construed as referring to that paragraph. United 
 States V. Leerburger, United States Circuit' Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 
 February 11, 1908; rehearing March 3, 1908. No. 165 (suit 4133). Appeal from 
 the Circuit Court of the United States for Southern District of New York (155 
 Fed. Rep., 146; T. D. 28262). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 
 28851; Mar. 18, 1908.) Acquiesced in (T. D. 29128; July 1, 1908). 
 
 A protest is sufficient under section 14, customs administrative act of 1890, which, 
 though imperfectly expressed, may be understood when read in connection with 
 the statute referred to therein. In determining the sufficiency of a protest 
 against the assessment of duty by a collector of customs, the fact that the col- 
 lector understood the protest would seem to be relevant. The authority of a 
 collector of customs to sustain a protest or do otherwise than forward it immedi- 
 ately to the Board of General Appraisers, considered in connection with the 
 practice which has prevailed of permitting reUquidation under such circum- 
 stances. Lothrop V. United States, United States Circuit Court, District of Massa- 
 chusetts, July 27, 1908. No. 236 (suit 1941). Appeal from decision by Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 13931 (T. D. 27801). Decision 
 adverse to Government. (T. D. 29206; Aug. 12, 1908.) Acquiesced in August 
 21, 1908 (T. D. 29221). 
 
 Relief will be granted to importers only on the specific grounds set out in the pro- 
 test duly ffled, and on none other. (T. D. 29347— G. A. 6827; Nov. 17, 1908.) 
 
 A protest relating to "hats made from so-called artificial silk " can not be construed 
 as relating to hats made from real horsehair. (See also Hats, artificial silk. ) (T. 
 D. 30385; Mar. 1, 1910.) 
 
 Where the importer protests against the rate assessed on his importation and points 
 out the provisions of law under which he contends the articles in question are 
 properly dutiable and indicates these with sufficient clearness for the collector 
 by mere computation or examination of the goods to determine their classifica- 
 tion, he has in all essential respects complied with section 14 of the customs 
 administrative act of 1890 relative to protests against a collector's decision. The 
 substitution of the word "reasons" in the customs administrative act of June 10, 
 1890, for the word "grounds'" in the former statute (sec. 2931, R. S.), held not to 
 exact a more^specific protest than formerly on the part of the importer (declining 
 to follow Hygienic Wood Wool, T. D. 27328); Baker v. United States (T. D. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 719 
 
 Protest — Continued. 
 Sufficiency of— Continued. 
 
 25892; 140 Fed. Rep., 115) distinguished. Carter v. United States (No. 70), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal from decision of the Board of 
 United States General Appraisers (T. D. 29389). Decision adverse to the 
 Government. (T. D. 31033; Oct. 28, 1910.) 
 
 Where the importer claimed his importation was dutiable as petroleum under 
 tariff act, 1897, at the rate of duty imposed by Germany on petroleum, and it 
 appeared the rate was levied on the importation aa paraffin and as vaseline oil, 
 each of which was then dutiable at other and differing rates in Germany, a pro- 
 test as to petroleum alone is not sufficiently exact; it does not show that that 
 which was in the mind of the protesting importer was brought to the knowledge 
 of the collector. Citing Carter v. United States (T. D. 31033). BUven v. United 
 States (No. 58), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porter from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 
 27550). Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District 
 of New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31239; Jan. 18, 1911.) 
 
 A protest under subsection 14 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, is intended to inform 
 the collector of such error as the importer may claim exists in the classification 
 of merchandise. In this case the importers object to the collector's assessment 
 of duty "under the tariff act of August 5, 1909, at 60 per cent ad valorem on 
 electroUers, vases, and articles of glass and metal, etc." The words "et cetera" 
 having no meaning in a document of this character, the protests were held to 
 apply only to electroliers and vases and articles of glass and metal. (T. D. 
 31520— G. A. 7210; Apr. 18, 1911.) 
 
 A "blanket" protest containing multifarious claims, many of which are not per- 
 tinent to the goods covered by the importation in question, held not to comply 
 with thp requirements of subsection 14 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, which 
 requires that the importer shall set forth in his protest "distinctly and specifi- 
 cally, and in respect to each entry or payment, the reasons for his objections" 
 to the collector's decision. Lichtenstein & Co. v. United States (T. D. 31105). 
 (T. D. 31648— G. A. 7226; May 29, 1911.) 
 
 Where importers in their protest claim reductions of duty on merchandise de- 
 scribed in the terms of the tariff act under the appropriate paragraph and at the 
 rate provided therein, absolute accuracy is not essential, provided the collector 
 can determine with reasonable certainty what the importers had in mind when 
 filing their notice of dissatisfaction. 
 
 Specification of packages — Specification of amount of refunds: Importers are 
 not limited to the precise packages mentioned in the protest if it shall reasonably 
 appear that other packages included in the invoices were erroneously omitted. 
 Nor are the claimants limited to the estimated amount of refunds alleged to be 
 due them, the collector being the proper person to determine the exact amount 
 to be refunded on the reliquidation of the entries in conformity with the man- 
 date of the Board of General Appraisers or the court. (T. D. 32328— G. A. 7337 ; 
 Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 
 Paraffin — Countervailing duty: A nice precision is not required in formulating a 
 protest, but the ground of it should be fairly stated. The question at issue in 
 this case involves the proper rate of the countervailing duty on paraffim im- 
 ported, which is the rate assessed by Germany on paraffin, since the paraffin of 
 the importation was manufactured in Germany and exported thence. But 
 the importers asserted no claim on that ground, protesting instead for the Rus- 
 sian rate, because the crude petroleum used was a Russian product. Such a 
 protest is clearly insufficient. Sonneborn's Sons v. United States (No. 313), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from deci- 
 
720 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Protest — Continued. 
 Sufficiency of — Continued. 
 
 sion of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 12457 (T. D. 
 27550). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32348; Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 
 The use of "etc." in the protest is not to be commended, but a nice precision is 
 not required, and if the collector could ascertain without much difficulty the 
 merchandise to the classification of which objection was made, the protest 
 must be held sufficient. Carter v. United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 64; T. D. 
 31033). (T. D. 32532; May 8, 1912.) 
 
 Appropriate provision to be named in protest: The protest claimed the importa- 
 tion as "bales bagging," to be free under paragraph 644, tariff act of 1909, as 
 paper stock, crude, of every description. It is now admitted the merchandise 
 could not be properly classified as "bagging" under that paragraph. But the 
 collector was directed to that paragraph by the protest, and, being accordingly 
 misdirected, the protest was insufficient. Bliven v. United States (1 Ot. Oust. 
 Appls., 205; T. D. 31239); United States v. Danker & Marston (2 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., 462; T. D. 32208). Oehichs & Co. v. United States (No. 854), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27571 (T. D. 32149). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 32541; May 8, 1912.) 
 
 Technical precision is not required in protests, but the objections to the assess- 
 ment must be stated so distinctly and specifically that when fairly construed 
 they will show the claims of the protestant and to notify the collector what 
 these claims are. The protest here is lacking in these respects. United States 
 V. Ewing & Clancey (No. 829), United States Court of Customs Appeals. (T. 
 D. 32625; June 1, 1912.) 
 
 A commissionaire's service is rendered in connection with, on account of, and in 
 consequence of the purchase of goods, is really a part of the transaction of the 
 purchase and shipment of the goods, and the protest here fairly apprised the 
 collector that commissions paid the commissionaire for the purchase of the goods 
 abroad were claimed to be nondutiable. Leaving aside technical questions 
 and treating the dutiablility of commissions on its merits, regarding the sub- 
 stance rather than the form, it is clear it was not the intention of Congress to 
 impose a duty upon commissions paid in connection with the purchase of goods 
 abroad. When a payment is a commission proper must depend on the facts in 
 the particular case. United States v. Bauer et al. (Nos. 844-851), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27403 (T. D. 32089). Decision 
 affib-med. (T. D. 32627; June 1, 1912.) 
 
 The merchandise consisted of short, thick tapers commercially known as night 
 lights, composed of a cotton wick and paraffin, each taper having a metal plate 
 covering the bottom of the wick and incased in a paper cup. These were im- 
 properly assessed as tapers and as being dutiable under paragraph 486, tariff 
 act of 1909, and were protested as nonenumerated manufactured articles and 
 as dutiable under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909; but as a case must be tried 
 upon the issues made by the protest and these issues having failed here, the 
 protest can not be sustained. United States v. Park & Tilford (No. 897), 
 United States Court of Cvistoms Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28017 (T. D. 32346). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 32907; Oct. 28, 1912.) 
 
 Elastic cords and webbings: The question is one of the sufficiency of a protest. 
 An examination of the language employed shows this to be broad enough, and 
 specific enough as well, to cover all kinds and classes of the goods the duty on 
 which was protested as excessive. Dieckerhoff, Eaffioer & Co. v. United 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 721 
 
 Frolest— Continued. 
 Sufficiency of — Continued. 
 
 States (No. 1066), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30412 
 (T. D. 32926). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33440; May 12, 1913.) 
 
 Objection first made on appeal : The objection to the sufficiency in form of the 
 protests on the ground of multifariousness, not having been made before the 
 board, and being raised for the first time on appeal to the Customs Court of 
 Appeals, comes too late. (T. D. 33476; May 23, 1913.) 
 
 The duty was erroneously computed, the collector applying a size number to 
 the yam greater than was warranted by the fact, the error proceeding from using 
 the gray instead of the dyed condition of the article as a basis. The yams, 
 however, were dutiable according to their size number in a dyed condition 
 and the protest as a whole shows that the importers had the correct provision 
 of law in mind and by this the collector's attention was directed to it. Carter 
 V. United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 64; T. D. 31033); Lichtenstein v. United 
 States (ib., 79; T. D. 31105); Oelrichs v. United States (3 *., 232; T. D. 32541); 
 BowKng Green Storage Co. v. United States (3 ib., 309; T. D. 32588) distin- 
 guished. United States v. Stim (No. 1239), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 32977 (T. D. 33594). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34191; 
 Feb. 5, 1914.) 
 
 A protest objecting to the assessment of duty on goods contained in certain cases 
 specified in the protest as "529-38, 10 cases and various," is not limited to the 
 goods contained in the particular cases enumerated, but applies to all other 
 cases on the invoice involving similar merchandise. Bing & Co.'s Successors 
 V. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 211; T. D. 32532) cited and followed. 
 (T. D. 33618— G. A. 7478; July 7, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Collateral attack. — The Board of General Appraisers is a judicial 
 tribunal, clothed with judicial powers to determine the classification of im- 
 ported goods and the rate of duty theron and its decisions on questions of classi- 
 fication or rates are open only to direct and not collateral attack by parties to the 
 proceedings. 
 
 Materials for straw hats other than plateaux. — The board's authority was com- 
 plete, and this had been properly invoked. The board was charged with the 
 duty, and it had the power, to decide not alone the main issue concerning pla- 
 teaux, but every other question of law or fact material in determining the case. 
 The collector was without warrant of law in disregarding the board's decision. 
 United States v. Kurtz, Stuboeck & Co. (No. 1243). United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7478 (T. D. 33618). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34192; 
 Feb. 5, 1914.) 
 
 Protests which are suflaciently clear and specific to point out the action of the col- 
 lector complained against, and what protestants claim the collector's action 
 should have been, comply with the requirements of the statute, subsection 14 o£ 
 section 28, tariff act of 1909. Frazee v. Moffitt (18 Fed., 584), United States v. 
 Salambier (170 U. S., 621), Davies v. Arthur (96 U. S., 148), Heinze v. Arthur's 
 Executors (144 U. S., 28), Arthur r. Morgan (112 U. S., 49.5), United States v. 
 Shea (114 Fed., 38), United States v. Straus & Sons (5 Ct. Cust. Appla., — ; T. 
 . D. 34193), G. A. 5283 (T. D. 24244), G. A. 6140 (T. D. 26680), G. A. 6460 (t'. B. 
 27662), and G. A. 6476 (T. D. 27704). Gum resin shown to contain impurities 
 consisting of pieces of wood and dirt, or even with such impurities removed is 
 still crude gum resin if not further advanced than the elimination of .such im- 
 45633°— 17 46 
 
722 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Protest — Continued. 
 Sufficiency — Continued . 
 
 purities. Congress in providing for the free entry of crude gum resin was dealing 
 with that substance and not a combination or a mixture of crude gum resin, 
 sticks, dirt, and other impurities. United States v. Sheldon (2 Ct. Gust. Appls., 
 485; T. D. 32245) followed. (T. D. 34320— G. A. 7549; Mar. 27, 1914.) 
 
 Paragraph N of section 3, tariff acb of 1913, requiring a deposit of a fee of $1 as a 
 condition precedent to the validity of a protest does not limit a protest as to the 
 number of entries it may contain, nor does it require a deposit of a fee of $1 for 
 each entry enumerated therein. The fee imposed attaches to the protest and 
 not to each cause of action involved therein. Wire cloth, dutiable at an ad 
 valorem rate of 45 per cent under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, is not subject 
 to the additional duty of 1 cent per pound under paragraph 135 of said act. 
 Citing and following United Stat«s v. McCoy (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 396; T. D. 
 33838). (T. D. 33981— G. A. 7515; Dec. 12, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Protest covering two entries with the same rate of duty. — A protest 
 may cover one or more entries of goods described in more than one invoice. 
 Paragraph N of section 3, tariff act of October 3, 1913, relative to protests, was 
 framed in view of a practice in the department, confirmed by the courts extend- 
 ing over many years, by which a single protest covered more than one entry. 
 The words " claim in writing' ' appearing there instead of "protest in writing" 
 can not be taken to alter a practice so established and so recognized. United 
 States V. McCoy Co. (No. 1313), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Ap- 
 peal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7515 (T. D. 33981). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34445; May 4, 1914.) 
 
 Caustic potash: Where a classification, as here, for crude caustic potash has been 
 settled by decision and such decision has been acquiesced in and followed for a 
 considerable period of time; where the identity of the goods with those passed 
 upon in the decided case is clearly shown by the evidence taken at the trial, 
 and where the appraiser's report and the sample itself indicate to the mind of 
 the collector that it is the crude article which is being dealt with, and that the 
 importer is attempting to get the benefit of the previous ruling, and when, in 
 addition, the paragraphs governing such merchandise, including the paragraph 
 construed by the decision, are all eo nomine and treat of it by name in simple 
 language, then the collector is bound to take notice that such claim is being 
 made, and the protest claiming the goods eo nomine is valid, even if the proper 
 paragraph and rate of duty are not stated therein. (T. D. 34457 — G. A. 7565; 
 May 16, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) When insufficient. — The protest in question not only expressly 
 refers the collector to a paragraph but avers thp merchandise to be of a kind that 
 is provided for in that paragraph alone, and claim is made thereunder. The 
 protestant is bound by this specific allegation and his protest could not avail to 
 give him the benefit of yet another and difierent paragraph of the law. United 
 States V. Troy Laundry Machinery Co. (No. 1418), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 7565 (T. D. 34457). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34947; 
 Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 
 A cardinal rule of: At the time he makes his protest the importer must have in 
 mind the objection afterwards made at the trial, and must sufficiently, in view 
 of all the circumstances, call the collector's attention to that objection. 
 
 When insufficient: The several protests in this case were made at different 
 dates, all relating to the same class of merchandise, and in each claim was made 
 under paragraph 415, tariff act of 1909. This claim can not be said to direct the 
 collector's attention to paragraph 420, nor do the facts warrant the opinion that 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISION'S, 1908-1916. 723 
 
 Protest— Continued. 
 Sufficiency — Continued . 
 
 paragraph 420 was in the mind of the importer when he claimed under paragraph 
 415. United States v. Sheldon & Co. (No. 1415), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 35500 (T. D. 34425). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34946; 
 Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 
 "Blanket" protests: Protests relating to importations embracing a great variety 
 of articles and failing to describe the particular merchandise against which they 
 are lodged, the protests merely objecting to the rate assessed and then claiming 
 the goods dutiable under one of 13 different provisions of the traift act of 1913, 
 held not to comply with the requirements of Paragraph N of section 3 of said act, 
 that the protest shall set forth therein "distinctly and specifically" the reasons 
 for the importer's objections to the assessment. Lichtenstein v. United States 
 (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 79; T. D. 31105) cited. (T. D. 35048— G. A. 7661; Jan. 
 5, 1915.) 
 
 Protest not signed by importer, owner, consignee, or agent: A protest signed 
 "William H. Stiner & Son, by Strauss & Hedges, attorneys," against the col- 
 lector's assessment of duty on merchandise imported by P. E. Anderson & Co., 
 in the absence of evidence that William H. Stiner & Son was either the importer, 
 owner, consignee, or agent of the merchandise, is not such a protest as called 
 upon the collector to review his assessment of duties; nor is such a protest suf- 
 ficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Board of General Appraisers for review 
 of the collector's assessment. (T. D. 35085— G. A. 7667; Jan. 23, 1915.) 
 
 Where a protestant bases his claim for classification other than that made by the 
 collector upon a specific provision in a paragraph of the tariff act and names a 
 rate of duty which should have been assessed, such a protest can not be made 
 the basis for recovery under any other provision of the same paragraph naming 
 a different rate of duty, even though it be conceded that the collector's assess- 
 ment was erroneously made. 
 
 A claim that merchandise should have been classified under the provision in 
 paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, for "band, bend, or belting leather, rough 
 leather and sole leather," and assessed with duty at the rate of 5 per cent ad 
 valorem, is not sufficiently specific to point out to the collector that duty should 
 have been assessed on the merchandise at the rate of 5 per cent as belting leather, 
 with an addition of 10 per cent ad valorem under the proviso in said paragraph 
 451 for the reason that such leather is cut into forms ready to be made up into 
 articles. Held, the protest is insufficient and not a compliance with the pro- 
 visions of subsection 14 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909. Abstract 31884 
 (T. D. 33325), Mlchelin v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls.—; T. D. 34131), 
 G. A. 7549 (T. D. 34320), BUven v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 205; 
 T. D. 31239), and Bowling Green Storage & Van Co. v. United States (3 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 310; T. D. 32588) cited. (T. D. 34807— G. A. 7603; Sept. 28, 
 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Band or belting leather cut into forms. — The protest correctly 
 stated the character of the goods as band or belting leather, and showed error 
 by the collector in the application of a certain clause in paragraph 451, tariff 
 act of 1909. The collector had before him all the facts calling for reliquidation, 
 for increasing the rate of duty because the goods had been cut into forms, and 
 he was not in any respect misled. The protest was sufficient. Bowling Green 
 Storage & Van Co. v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 309; T. D. 32588) dis- 
 tinguished. Michelin Tire Co. v. United States (No. 1473), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals, May 26, 1915. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7603 (T. D. 34807). Decision re- 
 versed. (T. D. 35507; May 26, 1915.) 
 
724 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Protest — Continued. 
 Sufficiency of — Continued. 
 
 Articles plated with gold or silver: Metal articles, partly plated with gold or sil- 
 ver, are dutiable at 50 per cent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 
 167 of the act of 1913 for "articles or wares plated with gold or silver." It is 
 not essential that an article be wholly or substantially plated with gold or silver; 
 the mere fact that any part thereof has been plated with either of those metals 
 is sufficient to bring it within said provision. 
 
 Protest insufficient: A protest which makes numerous, conflicting, and in- 
 consistent claims, many of which apparenily have no application to the mer- 
 chandise involved, is multifarious and insufficient. (T. D. 35608 — G. A. 7761; 
 July 20, 1915.) 
 
 Cotton table damask: A protest which recites the rate of duty against which ob- 
 jection is made and, although making alternative claims, points out consistent 
 and applicable provisions of law imder which it is contended the merchandise 
 in question is dutiable is sufficient to acquaint the collector with the real grounds 
 of the complaint. 
 
 Fringed turkey-red cotton damask table covers: Fringed table cloths or 
 covers made of turkey-red cotton table damask are cotton table damask and 
 properly dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 263, tariff act of 
 1913, and not as "Jacquard figured manufactures of cotton" at 30 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 258. Dunham v. United States (150 Fed., 562; T. D. 
 27805) followed; In re Kelly & Sons (Abstract 38099) overruled. (T. D. 35724— 
 G. A. 7780; Sept. 24, 1915.) 
 
 A protest describing the merchandise alleged to have been improperly classified 
 as "vanity cases, powder boxes, coin purses, or other articles of utility assessed 
 under paragraph 448," tariff act of 1909, is limited to such articles, and a claim 
 subsequently made for an allowance on "brooches, lavalUeres, hatpins, lockets, 
 and buckles, as well as the merchandise in excess returned as plated jewelry," 
 can not be interpolated therein. 
 
 A claim in a protest for a refund on "vanity cases, powder boxes, coin purses, 
 or other articles of utility assessed under paragraph 448 " is not broad enough to 
 cover articles of jewelry assessed with duty under the same paragraph, and the 
 protestant can not enlarge such protest at the trial to include articles of jewelry. 
 (T. D. 36003— G. A. 7831; Dec. 15, 1915.) 
 Suspension of, when declined — - 
 
 Where a question of tariff law has been plainly decided by the Supreme Court, 
 the board will decline to suspend similar cases on the ground that a new suit 
 has been begun in the circuit court, although it involves precisely the same 
 issue, unless new evidence offered changes the phase of the original contention. 
 (T. D. 29027— G. A. 6763; May 23, 1908.) 
 Time for filing — 
 
 Section 14 of the customs administrative act of 1890 provides two distinct and 
 separate acts of the collector against which protests may be filed — ^first, his 
 decision as to the rate and amount of duty upon imported merchandise, and, 
 second, his decision upon fees, charges, and exactions. A protest against 
 storage charges exacted by the collector is too late, though filed within 10 days 
 after the liquidation of the entry but more than 10 days after the payment of 
 the charges. (T. D. 29371— G. A. 6831; Nov. 28, 1908.) 
 
 Dropping protest in box at post office does not constitute peivice on collector, the 
 protest not reaching the office oi the collector within the statutory time. G. A. 
 6861 (T. D. 29514) followed. (T. D. 31449— G. A. 7196; Apr. 3, 1911.) 
 
 Ten-day limit: When the 10-day limit fixed by the customs administrativi act 
 for filing a protest expires on Sunday, it is not a seasonable compliance with 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 725 
 
 Protest— Continued. 
 Time of filing — Continued. 
 
 the requirement when the protest is filed on the Monday ensuing. Shefer v. 
 Magone (47 Fed., 872). Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker (147 U. S., 47) distin- 
 guished. Nor is it a compliance with the requirement if the protest should be 
 mailed at 4.30 p. m. on Saturday preceding the Sunday of expiration. The 
 office of the collector was closed to public business at that hour, and the pro- 
 test, having reached the collector's office at a later hour, came too late. Psaki 
 Bros. V. United States (No. 937), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Boajd of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 28892 (T. D. 32645). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 83122; Jan. 20, 1913.) 
 
 Where the goods are entered and the original classification and liquidation 
 thereon is had at a subport, which can only be reached by mail from the chief 
 port of the district in from 20 to 30 days, and a reclassification and reliquida- 
 tion is subsequently had at the chief port, held, that such reliquidation does 
 not become effective, nor the time for protest against such reclassification com- 
 mence to run, until notice thereof has been received at such subport. (T. D. 
 34025— G. A. 7521; Dec. 26, 1913.) 
 
 Importer's remedies under subsection 14, section 28, tariff act of 1909: Subsection 
 14 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909 provides for two distinct remedies for two 
 distinct transactions by the collector whereat the citizen may feel aggrieved — 
 one in the case of the collection of fees, charges, and exactions, and the other in 
 the collection of duties. A protest filed before the liquidation of duties is dis- 
 missed for want of jurisdiction. (T. D. 34696— G. A. 7593; Aug. 4, 1914.) 
 
 The time in which an appeal may be taken as provided in subsection 14 of section 
 28 of the tariff act of 1909 begins to run from the date of ascertainment and liqui- 
 dation of duties. 
 
 Ascertainment and liquidation of duties: Ascertainment and liquidation 
 means that the entry has passed regularly through the various divisions of the 
 collector's office and that the duties have been finally ascertained and fixed 
 by the customs officials. 
 
 Same: The date such duties are ascertained and fixed is the time from which 
 the right to protest begins to run and not the date of payment of such duties. 
 
 Pai'cel-post entry: A protest relating to a parcel-post entry dated New York, 
 September 1, 1911, received in the customs bureau. New York post office, Sep- 
 tember 18, 1911, held not filed in time. (T. D. 35123— G. A. 7680; Feb. 4, 1915.) 
 
 A protest filed several months after liquidation, but within 30 days after full pay- 
 ment of duties due, is not timely filed within the requirement of Paragraph N of 
 section 3 of the tariff act of 1913, that protests shall be filed within 30 days after 
 liquidation, it being held that the importer by voluntarily delaying payment of 
 duties for nine months after liquidation, during which time the merchandise 
 (entered for consumption) remains in the custody of the Government, can not 
 by that act prolong the period for filing protest beyond the statutory limitation, 
 the facts in this case not giving rise to a situation analogous to that of goods en- 
 tered under bond for warehousing. United States v. Grossfeld (1 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., 189; T. D. 31218) followed and United States v. Goodsell (84 Fed., 439) 
 distinguished. (T. D. 35646— G. A. 7767; Aug. 5, 1915.) 
 Vague and multifarious — 
 
 An attested declaration by a foreign dealer in the goods that the merchandise was 
 manufactured from an article produced in the United States will not be admitted 
 to control a case presented by the evidence. Where no proper conclusion can be 
 drawn from the evidence as to what in fact was the component of chief value in 
 an article, and the importer fails to show the paragraph under which the article 
 is dutiable, although alleging in his protest numerous alternative grounds of dis- 
 
726 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Fiotest — Continued. 
 
 Tagae and mnltifaiious — Continued. 
 
 satisfaction, no attempt to classify the article according to its component of value 
 in chief will be made, and the finding of the Board of General Appraisers will be 
 affirmed. Strakosh v. United States (No. 143); Richard & Co. v. United States 
 (No. 144), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeals from decision of 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 21483 (T. D. 29877). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31453; Mar. 27, 1911.) 
 
 Validity of — 
 Contingent fee: The collector in transmitting the protest to the Board of General 
 Appraisers reported that no evidence had been submitted that no agreement for 
 a contingent fee dependent upon a recovery or refund thereunder had been en- 
 tered into. Subsection N of section 3 of the tariff act of 1913 contains the follow- 
 ing provision: "No agreement for a contingent fee in respect to revovery or 
 refund under protest shall be lawful. Compliance with this provision shall be a 
 condition precedent to the validity of the protest and to any refund thereunder, 
 and a violation of this provision shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding five 
 hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both." Held 
 that under this provision of the statute the protestant was not required, as a con- 
 dition precedent to the validity of his protest, to affirmatively prove to the col- 
 lector that no agreement for a contingent fee had been made dependent upon a 
 recovery or refund thereunder, nor was it necessary to prove this fact on the trial 
 in order to give the Board of General Appraisers jurisdiction to hear and deter- 
 mine the issue raised by the protest, in the absence of any question of jurisdic- 
 tion having been raised by the Government. The fact that no such unlawful 
 agreement was made must be presumed. Abstract 33720 (T. D. 33778), Lawder 
 V. Stone (187 U. S., 281), United States v. Passavant (169 U. S., 16), United 
 States V. Klingenberg (153 V. S., 93), Shaw v. United States (122 Fed., 443), 
 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (vol. 22, p. 1280), Gaines v. New Orleans (6 Wall., 642), 
 and 1 Greenleaf on Evidence (sees. 34, 38) cited. (T. D. 34306— G. A. 7547; 
 Mar. 20, 1914.) 
 Signatures of several protestants — No community of interest: A protest signed by 
 22 different importers and covering 40 different entries does not meet the require- 
 ments of the law relating to protests (Par. N, sec. 3, tariff act of 1913). No com- 
 mimity of interest is shown in these parties, and to allow importers to proceed 
 jointly to estabUsh their individual rights would be contrary to all rules of plead- 
 ing. (T. D. 35191— G. A. 7696; Mar. 4, 1915.) 
 
 Verified protest not proof — 
 The fact that a protest is sworn to does not make it effective as proof to overcome 
 the presumption of correctness which attends the collector's finding, it being 
 merely in the nature of an ex parte affidavit. (T. D. 35132 — G. A. 7683; Feb. 
 10, 1915.) 
 
 Want of specification — 
 Whether the appeal proceeding be considered as an appeal solely from the final 
 decision of the board or as an appeal from the order denying a rehearing, together 
 with an appeal from the final decision, there is but one question really presented, 
 namely, Could the board properly direct the admission of the merclmndise free 
 of duty under a paragraph of the law not made the basis of any claim by the im- 
 porter? It was error so to direct. The burden was on the importer to show that 
 his goods were properly dutiable according to the paragraph or paragraphs he had 
 protested were applicable. He failed to do this. United States v. Danker & 
 Marston (No. 753), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7255 (T. D. 
 31798). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32208; Jan. 12, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 727 
 
 Prunes, ciushed. (See Fruits, crushed prunes.) 
 Pthalic acid anhydride. (See Acid.) 
 Publications. 
 Advertising matter — 
 Publications under paragraph 517, tariff act of 1909: The term "publications" in 
 paragraph 517, tariff act of 1909, must be held to apply to importations of the 
 same general class or type as those mentioned in the preceding provisions of 
 the paragraph. To admit purely advertising matter imder that paragraph 
 would extend the meaning beyond the fair import of the language employed. 
 Schieffelin v. United States (84 Fed., 880) distinguished. Roger & Gallet v. 
 United States (No. 1373), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34934 
 (T. D. 34219). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34973; Nov. 27, 1914.) 
 Gratuitous circulation — Catalogues: These importations were trade publications 
 used tor advertising purposes and they were distributed gratuitously and gen- 
 erally to the public. They did not come within the provision for free entry 
 contained in paragraph 517, tariff act of 1909. Smith & Co. v. United States 
 (No. 1380); La Montague's Sons v. United States (No. 1381), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 34903 (T. D. 34219) and Abstract 34931 
 (T. D. 34219). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35173; Feb. 23, 1915.) 
 Free entry — 
 Publications of the International Bureau of Telegraphic Union at Berne, Switzer- 
 land, free of duty under paragraph 425, tariff-act of 1913. (T. D. 34725; Aug. 
 
 22, 1914.) 
 
 Pueraria roots. (See Yams.) 
 
 Fulpboard. 
 
 Millboards made of refuse paper and bent or curved in form for use in car ceilings 
 are not dutiable under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1897, as paper hangings or 
 paper not specially provided for, but are dutiable as manufactures of paper 
 under paragraph 407 of said act. The Pantasote Co. v. United States (No. 38), 
 Unit€d States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importer from decision 
 of the Board of United States General Appraisers. (T. D. 30086). Transferred 
 from the United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York. Deci- 
 sion in favor of the Government. (T. D. 31008; Oct. 18, 1910.) 
 
 Pulp, rag. 
 
 Where cotton and linen rags have been made into a pulp, imported in sheets, and 
 where the product shows clearly that it can be used only as material in the 
 making of paper, it is not "paper" within the meaning of paragraph 415, tariff 
 act of 1909. Such a pulp of cotton and linen rags, the fibeis of which have not 
 been destroyed, is dutiable as "manufactures of cotton" (par. 332), or as "man- 
 ufactures of flax" (par. 358). Being enumerated in said paragraphs it is not 
 proper to invoke the similitude clause (par. 481) in order to make it dutiable as 
 "chemical wood pulp, bleached" (par. 406). (T. D. 31235— G. A. 7156; Jan. 
 
 23, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Pulp in sheets made from cotton or linen rags. — Previous to the 
 enactment of the tariff act of 1909, the board had in several opinions construed 
 "manufactures of cotton," and there is a strong presumption that that construc- 
 tion was adopted in the new law. Pulp made of cotton rags or linen rags by 
 processes that do not destroy the integrity or strength of the fibers has under- 
 gone no such chemical change as would make these goods dutiable by simili- 
 tude; the pulp was rightly held dutiable, according to the material, as a manu- 
 facture of cotton under paragraph 332, or as a manufacture of flax under para- 
 graph 358, tariff act of 1909. Downing & Co. v. United States (No. 594), United 
 
728 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1916. 
 
 Pulp, rag — Continued. 
 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7156 (T. D. 31235). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 32093; Dec. 6, 1911.) 
 
 Pulp wood. 
 
 Invoices of pulp wood must show whether the wood is rough, peeled, or rossed. 
 (T. D. 30566; Apr. 23, 1910.) 
 
 Pulp, wood, from^ Sweden. 
 Countervailing duty. (See Wood pulp and printing paper, Sweden.) 
 
 Pumice stone. 
 Partially manufactured — 
 Pieces ot pumice stone that have been filed or rolled to smooth oft the edges and 
 used for polishing the surface of various articles were dutiable under paragraph 
 89, tariff act of 1909, as pumice stone partially manufactured. Former cases 
 considered, distinguished, and overruled. (T. D. 33408— G. A. 7462; May 9, 
 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Paragraph 89, tariff act of 1909, provides not only for manufac- 
 tured and unmanufactured pumice stone, but also for partially manufactured 
 pumice stone, and the filed or rolled pumice stone of the importation was dutia- 
 ble thereunder. Gallagher & Ascher et al. v. United States (No. 1203), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7462 (T. D. 33408) and Abstract 32433 
 (T. D. 33433). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34095; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 
 Purchased goods — Partnership— Evidence. 
 
 Where goods have been bought by a firm composed of two brothers resident in 
 this coimtry from a firm in Italy composed of two other brothers, of the same 
 family, and it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there was no 
 community of interests or division of the profits and losses between the brothers 
 residing In this country and those residing in Italy, such goods are purchased 
 goods within the meaning of section 5 of the customs administrative act of 1890. 
 The test of a partnership in its legal aspect, as universally held by the courts, 
 is whether there is such a community of interest among its members as to make 
 them participants in the profits and losses of any particular business. Per- 
 sons can not be regarded as assuming the relation of partners as between them- 
 selves imless these ingredients concur. Where the existence of a partnership 
 is disputed, the declaration or admission of one member of the alleged partner- 
 ship is not admissible evidence to prove the fact of partnership or to bind third 
 persons as partners. One exception to this rule is where third parties are in- 
 duced to assume obligations by persons holding themselves out as partners 
 when in fact they are not partners. In such a case they would be estopped 
 from denying theii individual liability as partners, so as to prevent a fraud on 
 innocent third parties. A report of a mercantile agency offered in evidence as 
 tending to corroborate certain admissions of one of the members of an alleged 
 partnership, but which is not verified by oath, constitutes mere hearsay and is 
 inadmissible as evidence. (T. D. 29447— G. A. G850; Dec. 29, 1908.) 
 
 Purses, beaded. (See Bags and purses.) 
 
 Puzzles, paper, lithographed, not toys. (See Paper.— Puzzles.) 
 
 Pyramids, unbaked. (See Unbaked cones or pyramids.) 
 
 Pyrometer tubes. 
 
 Marquardt-Masse: The importer claims the merchandise is made of Marquardt- 
 Masse. This term is not in common use and no authority is given that sheds 
 any light on the question of what Marquardt-Masse is, of what it is composed, or 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS^ 1908-1915. 729 
 
 Pyrometer tubes — Continued. 
 
 how made. The record shows no chemical analysis of the tubes in controversy. 
 An affirmative showing here required of importer; The importer's conten- 
 tion is that the tubes were not dutiable under paragraph 94, but paragraph 95, 
 tariff act of 1909. The burden is on him of establishing both these claims. 
 Under the evidence if it were assumed the first contention is sound there is no 
 proof of the other. Stegemann, Jr., v. United States (No. 1358), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 34606 (T. D. 34127). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 34935; Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 Pyroxylin articles. 
 
 Celluloid martingale rings and loops — Saddlery — 
 
 Rings and loops (sometimes used by babies when teething, but used chiefly to 
 decorate or ornament harness, and occasionally on martingales or spreaders) 
 which are not essential to a complete harness or saddle — many harnesses and 
 saddles being sold without them — are not free of duty as "harness, saddles, and 
 saddlery, in sets or in parts, finished or unfinished " under paragraph 530, but 
 are dutiable as manufactures of pyroxylin not specially provided for at 40 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 25, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35529 — G. A. 
 7739; June 10, 1915.) 
 Mirrors — ■ 
 
 Small circular hand mirrors, set in a celluloid case having a handle and a recep- 
 tairi«in the back, closed by a lid, tor holding powder or a powder puff, composed 
 in chief value of pyroxylin, are dutiable as mirrors under paragraph 109, and not 
 as manufactures in chief value of pyroxylin under paragraph 17 of the tariff act 
 of 1909. The word "mirror" must be taken in its ordinary sense. The addition 
 of a frame or case neither changes its character or use, nor advances it into a new 
 article. (T. D. 34919— G. A. 7638; Nov. 20, 1914.) 
 Kings — 
 
 Pyroxylin rings, known as martingale rings, properly dutiable at the rate of 40 
 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 25, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 33969; Dec. 
 10, 1913.) 
 Bods — 
 
 Pyroxylin rods are found to have been partly finished and therefore dutiable under 
 paragraph 17, tariff act of 1897, relative to pyroxylin compounds " if in * * * 
 partly finished articles." Rice v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, November 10, 1909. Suit 5495. Appeal by 
 importer from decisions of Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 21031 (T. D. 29690) and Abstract 21141 (T. D. 29715). Board 
 affirmed. (T. D. 30149; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 
 Q. 
 
 Quarantine. 
 
 Animals — 
 Canadian sheep imported tor exhibition at Alaska- Yukon-Pacific Exposition not 
 
 subject to quarantine under certain conditions. (T. D. 29736; May 8, 1909.) 
 Cattle imported from Great Britain, Ireland, and Channel Islands. Amendment 
 
 of regulations. (T.D. 30040; Oct. 12, 1909.) 
 Amendment to regulations 41 and 49 of B. A. I. Order 142 (T. D. 28212), relative 
 
 to inspection and quarantine of imported animals. (T. D. 30135; Nov. 24, 1909.) 
 Hay and straw — 
 From Jamaica to be disinfected before landing and quarantined three months 
 
 under supervision of Bureau of Animal Industry. (T. D. 29671; Apr. 6, 1909.) 
 
730 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Quaiantine — Continued. 
 Hay and straw — Continued. 
 B. A. I. Order 162, canceling B. A. I. Order 159, relative to disinfection of hay 
 
 and straw from Jamaica. (T. D. 29868; June 24, 1909.) 
 From Belgium and Denmark. (T. D. 30159; Dec. 7, 1909.) 
 Begulations — 
 Amendment of quarantine regulations. (T. D. 28821; circular No. 14; Mar. 4, 
 
 1908. T. D. 28901; circular No. 20; Mar. 30, 1908.) 
 
 Inspection and quarantine of animals. Sheep imported from Canada. (T. D. 
 
 29178; July 24, 1908.) 
 Amendment to interstate quarantine regulations. (T. D. 29865; circular No. 29; • 
 
 June 24, 1909.) 
 Additional precautions against cholera. (T. D. 31738; circular No. 45; July 6, 
 
 1911.) 
 Addition to quarantine regulations. Precautions against rats leaving vessels. (T. 
 D. 32698; circular No. 37; July 10, 1912.) 
 Station — 
 Campo, Cal., designated as a quarantine station for importation of animals. (T. 
 
 D. 29953; Aug. 14, 1909.) 
 Rio Grande City and Bdinbui^, Tex., designated as places at which animals sub- 
 ject to inspection and quarantine may be imported.' (T. D. 30198; Dec. 14, 
 1909.) 
 Quebec. 
 Baggage in bond from — 
 Canadian Pacific Railway and the Giand Trunk Railway being bonded carriers 
 and operating in the United States, baggage may be foiwarded thereby from 
 Quebec, Canada, to points in the United SUtes. (T. D. 34405; Apr. 21, 1914.) 
 Quebracho extract. 
 
 Quebracho extract containing extract of myrobolan properly dutiable as a non- 
 enumerated manufactured article at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 385, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34597; June 27, 1914.) 
 Quill toothpicks. (See Toothpicks.) 
 Quinine, ampoules of. 
 Ejusdem generis — 
 A solution of hydrochlorate of quinine in sealed glaas tubes (ampoules), not being 
 provided fox by name under paragraph 65, tariff act of 1909, and not being ejus- 
 dem generis with any of the forms enumerated in the proviso to said paragraph, 
 is not dutiable under paragraph 65, but is free of duty as a salt of cinchona bark 
 imder paragraph 658 of said act. The proviso to paragraph 65 is limited in the 
 scope of its application to articles of a medicinal character which conform in ap- 
 pearance or adaptability in use to capsules, pills, tablets, troches, or lozenges. 
 (T. D. 31830— G. A. 7265; Aug. 17, 1911.) 
 
 R. 
 
 Bacing shells. 
 
 Manufactures of wood: Racing shells can not be held to be "vessels" in the sense 
 in which that term is employed in section 3, Revised Statutes; and this is so with- 
 out any attempt being made to set up a hard and fast rule as to what may or may 
 not be deemed a "vessel" under that section. And a racing shell can be as little 
 considered "a pleasure boat"underparagraph37,tariffactof 1909. The importa- 
 tion was dutiable as a manufacture of wood, under paragraph 215, tariff act of 
 
 1909. Thayer o. United States (No. 735), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 26110 (T. D. 31757). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32252; 
 Feb. 1, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 731 
 
 Badio communication. 
 
 Instructions under Executive order regarding radio communication in the enforce, 
 ment of neutrality. (T. D. 34712; Aug. 20, 1914.) 
 Badiogen-Trinkwasser. 
 Badlum bromide in water — 
 The words "dutiable under this section" in the first clause of paragraph 17, tariff 
 act of 1913, refer to articles upon which a duty has been levied, and have no 
 application to articles which would otherwise be on the free list. Therefore, 
 chemical and medicinal compounds, combinations, and similar articles which 
 would be classifiable under the free list in the tariff act of 1913 are not made 
 dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 17 when imported in indi- 
 vidual packages of 2i pounds or less. (T. D. 34863— G. A. 7623; Oct. 23, 1914.) 
 Radium bromide invoiced as "Radiogen-Trinkwasser" dissolved in distilled water 
 is entitled to free entry as "radium" under paragraph 659 of the free list, and is 
 not properly dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem as a medicinal preparation not 
 specially provided for under paragraph 65, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 34052 — 
 G. A. 7524; Jan. 8, 1914.) 
 Bag pulp. (See Pulp, rag.) 
 
 Old waste gunny bagging dutiable as. (See Bagging for cotton.) 
 Bailway ties. 
 
 A railway tie or sleeper of steel, cut to proper length and with bolt holes punched 
 at each end, is further advanced than the uncompleted forms of steel aa material 
 for which provision is made under paragraph 131, tariff act of 1909. The steel 
 ties are dutiable under paragraph 199 as manufactures of metal, rather than as 
 "steel not specially provided for" under paragraph 131. (T. D. 31180 — G. A. 
 7146; Jan. 6, 1911.) 
 Baincoat material. (See Waterproof cloth.) 
 Baislns. 
 Impurities and dutiable weight — 
 In order for impurities to be allowed for as tare, the importer must establish by a 
 preponderance of evidence that, at the time the law was passed, the impurities 
 claimed as demanding an allowance were other than the ordinary impurities 
 commonly found in that kind of merchandise as traded in; and that it was the 
 general, uniform, and definite custom of the trade not to regard such impurities 
 as part of the goods and to make an allowance therefor. _ No such case is pre- 
 sented. Wood & Selick v. United States (No. 1035), United States Ooiirt of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 30094 (T. D. 32858). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 33439; May 12, 1913.) 
 Bajah spark plugs. (See Spark pltigs.) 
 Bamie. 
 Hats. (See Hats.) 
 Sliver — 
 Ramie sliver is dutiable as cotton sliver by similitude under paragraph 302, tariff 
 act of 1897, and not as an unenumerated manufactured article under section 6. 
 Vandegrift v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of 
 Pennsylvania, July 28, 1908. No. 54 (suit 1683). Appeal from decision by 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 3702 (T. D. 25772). Board 
 affirmed. (T. D. 29239; Sept. 2, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Ramie sliver is dutiable as cotton sliver by similitude under 
 paragraph 302, tariff act of 1897. Vandegrift v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, August 20, 1909. No. 43 (suit 1683). 
 Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Dis- 
 
732 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Kamie — Continued . 
 Sliver — Continued. 
 
 trict of Pennsylvania (164 Fed. Rep., 65; T. D. 29239), affirming a decision of 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 3702 (T. D. 25772). 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30010; Sept. 28, 1909.) 
 Ramie sliver imported under the tariff act of 1897 is properly dutiable at the rate 
 of 45 per cent ad valorem by Bimilitude to cotton sliver under the provisions of 
 section 7 and paragraph 302 of said act. (T. D. 30205— G. A. 6955; Dec. 15, 
 1909.) 
 
 Bape meal. 
 
 The rape meal of the importation was assessed as a nonenumerated manufactured 
 article under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909. It was claimed to be a substance 
 used only for :manure and to be dutiable accordingly. The evidence strongly 
 tends to show that rape meal is used in this country as suitable for feeding stock, 
 but it is sufficient to support the collector's finding that the importers failed to 
 show the merchandise is of a class that has no common, practicable, or profitable 
 use other than use as manure. Taylor et al. v. United States (No. 885), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28066 (T. D. 32379). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 33162; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 
 Bapeseed oil. (See Oil, rapeseed.) 
 
 Battan. 
 Baskets. (See Baskets, bamboo.) 
 Beads — 
 Chair cane or reeds manufactured from rattan: The provision in paragraph 212, 
 tariff act of 1909, for "chair cane or reeds wrought or manufactured from rattans 
 or reeds '' is more specific than the free-list provision for ' ' reeds unmanufactured, ' ' 
 and the clause applies to chair reeds made from rattans or other reeds, whatever 
 their shape, and regardless of whether they are made by the first stripping of the 
 rattan or by a subsequent reduction of stripped reeds. 
 
 Rattan slabs and broom or split rattan: The slab rattan and the broom or split 
 rattan of the importation are used only in the manufacture of brooms and never 
 in the manufacture of chairs. They did not fall within paragraph 212 of the act, 
 but were entitled to free entry as rattan unmanufactured. Rattan & Cane Co. v. 
 United States (No. 1437); United States v. Rattan & Cane Co. (No. 1442), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Cross appeals from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 36027 (T. D. 34609). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 35247; Mar. 18, 1915.) 
 Chair reeds — Reeds unmanufactured: Following Rattan & Cane Co. v. United 
 States (T. D. 35247), it is held that the provision for chair reeds covered by para- 
 graph 212, tariff act of 1909, is more specific than the provision for reeds unman- 
 ufactured. ^ ' 
 
 Presumption in favor of collector's classification : The reeds in question 
 having been assessed as chair reeds, the presumption that the correct classifi- 
 cation was adopted by the collector imposes upon the importer the burden of 
 ov3rcoming that presumption by proof. An analysis of the testimony in this 
 case shows that the importer failed in sustaining this burden. 
 
 "Chair reeds:" Whether chair reeds are limited to such reeds as are chiefly 
 used in the manufacture of chairs or whether the words are to be taken as de- 
 nominative, including a recognized article adapted to use in making chairs, is 
 not decided. United States v. Otto Gerdau Co. (No. 1405), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Government from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 35066 (T. D. 34279). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 35248; Mar. 18, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 733 
 
 Rattan — Continued. 
 Bound — 
 
 Core or reeds from China: Round rattan core or reeds from China measuring less 
 
 than 7 millimeters in diameter dutiable at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem 
 
 under the provision ot paragraph 173, tariff act of 1913, for "chair cane or reeds 
 
 ■wrought or manufactured from rattan or reeds." (T. D. 35573; July 9, 1915.) 
 
 SpUt— 
 
 The merchandise is shown to consist of split rattan, produced by stripping the 
 bark off rattan with a machine and then cutting ic into lengths, and which is 
 used in the manufacture of brooms for street sweepers. Held, that splitting 
 the rattan and cutting it into lengths do not make of it anything but rattan, nor 
 does putting it up in bundles or bales change its character. It is therefore free 
 of duty under paragraph 648, tariff act ot 1913, simply as "rattan." Following 
 Brauss & Co. v. United States (1%0 Fed., 1017). (T. D. 34932— G. A. 7646; 
 Nov. 28, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Split, cut into lengths. — The merchandise is pieces of rattan not 
 further advanced than cut into lengths suitable for umbrella sticks, etc. They 
 can not be said to be by their condition definitely appropriated to any speci- 
 fied use. They were entitled to free entry under paragraph 648, tariff act of 1913. 
 United States i;. Larzelere & Co. (No. 1500), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals, May 24, 1915. Appeal by the Government from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7646 (T. D. 34932). Decision affirmed. (T. 
 D. 35502; May 24, 1915.) 
 Kat traps, wire. 
 
 Wire rat traps or other articles manufactured from iron or steel wire which has 
 been coated with zinc, tin, or other metal, subject to the additional duty of 
 two-tenths ot 1 cent per pound under the last proviso to paragraph 137, tariff 
 act of 1897. (T. D. 28770; Feb. 18, 1908.) 
 
 With respect to paragraph 137, tariff act of 1897, providing a duty on wire and an 
 additional duty on articles made from wire, with the further provision that 
 coated wire shall pay a duty ot 0.2 cent per pound in addition to the rate imposed 
 on the wire from which it is made, held that under a usage established in cus- 
 toms practice rat traps made from coated wire are dutiable at IJ cents per 
 pound in addition to that imposed on the wire and without the imposition of 
 the additional duty on coated wire as provided under the concluding clause ot 
 the second proviso to said par^raph. Burditt & Williams v. United States 
 (153 Fed. Eep., 67; T. D. 28109) followed. The Treasury Department having 
 created a new practice as to the classification of wire-coated articles and by in- 
 structions (T. D. 28770) having given timely notice thereof, rat traps made ot 
 coated wire would in view ot such modifications be now dutiable at the rates 
 provided by the statute, which includes additional duty tor the coating of the 
 wire, as well as the additional duty ot 1\ cents per potmd imposed on articles 
 made from wire as provided by paragraph 13-7, and its provisos, tariff act of 1897. 
 (T. D. 29277— G. A. 6811; Sept. 24, 1908.) 
 Bazors, parts of. 
 
 Paragraph 128, tariff act of 1913, construed — Entireties: The enacting provision 
 in paragraph 128 ot the tariff act ot 1913 imposes a rate ot duty, based upon their 
 respective value per dozen, on certain knives, erasers, and razors, "whether 
 assembled but not fully finished or finished," and the first proviso thereto is 
 strictly limited in effect to the same class ot articles imported as entireties, but 
 in the condition ot parts unassembled. 
 
 Razor blades, or handles imported: Single razor blades or handles, imported 
 in separate shipments, ate merely parts of razors, and as such can not be held 
 dutiable under said proviso at the same rate applicable to the particular razors 
 
734 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Bazois, parts of — Continued. 
 
 of which they are supposed to be parts, when, as matter of fact, there are no com- 
 plete razors in the same shipment. Single parts of razors, separately imported, 
 are therefore excluded from said paragraph 128, and, not being elsewhere specifi- 
 cally provided for, are classifiable according to their component material of 
 chief value. (T. D. 35897— G. A. 7815; Nov. 17, 1915.) 
 Bazor handles of ivory scales. (See Ivory scales for razor handles.) 
 
 Beading glasses. (See Optical instruments.) 
 
 Bead test for tea. (See Tea.) 
 
 Beappiaisement. 
 Appeal to — • 
 
 Liquidation pending appeal: The liquidation of an entry by the collector 
 pending an appeal to the Board of United States General Appraisers for reap- 
 piaisement is illegal, null, and void. 
 
 Parole evidence to contradict public record: A memorandum book, kept by 
 the clerk in charge of the reappraisement division of the collector's office, of all 
 applications for reappraisements filed, is not such a public record ae can not be 
 explained or contradicted by parole evidence. 
 
 Filing application for reappraisement— Parole evidence: Upon a protest duly 
 filed against the liquidation of an entry relative to which the records of the col- 
 lector's office show no application for reappraisement, parole evidence will be 
 received as to the filing of such application ; and where the party filing the appli- 
 cation swears positively that he did file it on a certain day within the statutory 
 time, and the clerk of that department of the collector's office can not swear that 
 it was not filed, but only that he has no record and no memory of it, the weight 
 of the testimony is in favor of the party making the positive statement — the 
 liquidation will be set aside and the collector directed to forward the papers to 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers for reappraisement. (T. D. 
 33962— G. A. 7512; Dec. 5, 1913.) 
 Act of 1913: There is nothing in the law which leqmres a collector to notify an im- 
 porter of the time within which it will be necessary for him to take his appeal in 
 a reappraisement case. Any such notice on the part of a collector is merely an 
 act of courtesy. (T. D. 34996— G. A. 7648; Dec. 14, 1914.) 
 The fact that an invoice fails to furnish the information required by Paragraph D 
 of section 3 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913, does not deprive an importer of hia 
 right of appeal from an appraisement of the merchandise covered thereby. The 
 collector having accepted the invoice and entry and having forwarded same to 
 the appraiser who made an appraisement of the merchandise, the right of the 
 importer to appeal to reappraisement 'is absolute. The collector may refuse 
 entry upon such an invoice, but he can not, after its acceptance and appraise- 
 ment of the merchandise covered thereby, contend that the importer has not a 
 statutory right to demand a reappraisement. (T. D. 34809 — G. A. 7605; Sept. 
 14, 1914.) 
 Appeals are regulated or denied by statute and the "determination of the tribunal 
 of a question of law or fact is final unless an appeal be authorized either by the 
 organic law or some effective statute. The review of legislation affecting a col- 
 lector's right to "appeal " to reappraisement reveals no statutory method govern- 
 ing him in making his appeal; but viewing this legislation as a whole it is held 
 that it is an appeal if he complies with the regulation authorizing him, if he is 
 dissatisfied with the appraisement, he may and shall transmit the invoice and all 
 the papers appertaining thereto to the board of nine general appraisers. The 
 transmission by a collector of another port by maiUng is a compliance with the 
 statute. Larzelere & Co. v. United States (No. 1412), United States Court oi 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 735 
 
 Beappiaisement — Continued. 
 
 Appeal to — Continued. 
 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 35421 (T. D. 34416). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 35154; Feb. 12, 1915.) 
 
 Board's jurisdiction to order. (See Board of General Appraisers, jurisdiction.) 
 
 Duress — 
 The fear of possible additional duties, depending upon the result of reappraise- 
 ment proceedings, does not constitute duress. (T. D. 33193 — G. A. 7433; Feb. 
 17, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The importers were embarrassed in stating the actual market' 
 value of their merchandise, but they elected to enter the woolens and cottons here 
 ■with the additions of a penny a yard for dampage and 10 per cent for shrinking. 
 A notation that this was done under duress does not make a case of duress. No 
 unlawful demand was made on the importers, and what they did was done 
 freely and voluntarily to fix the entered value of the goods. Van Ingen & Co. v; 
 United States (No. 1113),. United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 29, 
 1913. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 7433 (T. D. 33193). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33520; May 29, 1913.) 
 
 Examination of goods — 
 Section 13 of the customs administrative act of 1890 does not direct, either ex- 
 pressly or impliedly, an examination of merchandise by a board of three gen- 
 eral appraisers in reappraisement proceedings. In the absence of statutory 
 reqjiirement that merchandise be, under all circumstances, examined, held 
 that the action of a board of three general appraisers in the reappraisement of 
 imported meithandise was not invalid by reason of the failure of the board to 
 have before it the exact merchandise in question, or samples thereof, when an 
 examination of the merchandise or samples would not have in any way aided in 
 arriving at a right conclusion. G. A. 6035 (T. D. 26354) distinguished. (T. D. 
 28849— G. A. 6738; Mar. 14, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The changes made in the law governing appraisements of mer- 
 chandise at ports of entry, as these changes appear in sections 12 and 13, cus- 
 toms administrative act of 1890, do not warrant the inference that it is unneces- 
 sary in reappraisement proceedings for a board of three general appraisers to 
 examine the samples of the merchandise when reappraised. Packages or sam- 
 ples selected by the collector and deposited in public stores are to be deemed as 
 under the immediate continuing control and in the continuing physical custody 
 of the appraiser, the general appraiser, or Board of General Appraisers, respec- 
 tively, before whom a case may be pending in which these samples have been 
 selected and detached for the purpose of an examination or of inspection and 
 appraisement. Irrespective of the particular designation of the official or offi- 
 cials to whom "a case " is submitted in proceedings to appraise merchandise, it 
 can not be said "the case" has been examined when the exhibits or samples 
 deposited as a part of the case have not been examined; and the statute is man- 
 datory that on appraisement or reappraisement the exhibits or samples shall be 
 examined. Erhardt v. Schroeder (155 U. S., 124) and United States v. Ranlett 
 (172 U. S., 132) distinguished. In the case at bar, it being fairly established 
 fey the evidence that the number of packages required by law were sent to the 
 public stores for examination and that these were in due course examined by 
 the reappraisement board, their finding must be here affirmed. Loeb & Schoen- 
 feld V. United States (No. 69), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Ap- 
 peal by the importers from decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6738 (T. D. 28849). Transferred from United States Circuit 
 Court for Southern District of New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31479; 
 Apr. 3, 1911.) 
 
736 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Reappraisement — Continued. 
 Fee — 
 
 Time within which to deposit: The fee provided by Paragi'aph M of section 3 of 
 the act of October 3, 1913, must be deposited within two days after the filing of 
 the appeal to reappraisement and hohdays or Sundays should not be excluded. 
 (T. D. 33904; Nov. 21, 1913.) 
 Healings. (See Hearings and rehearings.) 
 Jurisdiction — 
 
 After part of the evidence in a reappraisement case had been taken before a gen- 
 eral appraiser the case was continued for further hearing before another gen- 
 eral appraiser, who subsequently decided the case but by oversight failed to 
 consider the evidence taken before the former general appraiser. Meld that he 
 had jurisdiction to decide the case, his failure to consider a part of the evidence 
 being only an error of procedure, which did not go to the jurisdiction. United 
 States V. Taylor's Sons, United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Penn- 
 sylvania, May 13, 1909. No. 95 (suit 1980). Appeal by United States from 
 decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6641 (T. D. 
 28299). Board reversed. (T. D. 29849; June 22, 1909.) 
 
 Where an importer has invoked a decision by a general appraiser and later by the 
 reappraisement board, bringing both the subject matter and the parties there 
 he can not be heard to contend that the board was without jurisdiction to reap- 
 praise the goods. 
 
 Mandatory provisions of sections '2901 and 2939, Revised Statutes: Though 
 there may have been a failure on the part of the collector strictly to comply with 
 the provisions of sections 2901 and 2939, Revised Statutes, governing the special 
 designation of merchandise for examination and appraisement, nevertheless 
 the Board of General Appraisers would be in duty bound, the goods in question 
 remaining subject to their control and open to their inspection and examination, 
 to resort, on appeal, to the best means at hand for making an appraisement; 
 and though it should appear that one package in ten was not in some instances 
 examined by the board, there being sufficient samples of the merchandise before 
 them and these having been examined, there would be accordingly such a sub- 
 stitute process as the law contemplates and permits. 
 
 Questions of fact not retried by classification board: It is not the province of a 
 classification board to retry questions of fact determined by a board of reappraise- 
 ment, and additional testimony oHered before the classification board was prop- 
 erly excluded. Gulbenldan & Co. v. United States (153 Fed. Rep., 858) dis- 
 tinguished. 
 
 Evidence not formally offered and not objected to: The Government having 
 tendered evidence, with the promise to support it with additional testimony to 
 make it relevant, but failing in this, and there being no motion to exclude it, 
 the action of the board in taking the testimony originally can not be urged to 
 vitiate the board's finding in the case. Oelrichs & Co. v. United States (No. 57), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from deci- 
 sion of the Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 29306; Abstract 
 19797). Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of 
 New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32091; Dec. 6, 1911.) 
 
 Items not advanced: Where an importer in his appeal to reappraisement limits 
 his demand for review to "all items advanced" the general appraiser is without 
 jurisdiction to reappraise any other items of merchandise described on the in- 
 voice not advanced by the appraiser. The same rule applies to reappraise- 
 ments by boards of three general appraisers. 
 
 Notice of appeal to be forwarded by collector: It is the duty of the collector, 
 under the provisions of subsection M of section 3, tariff act of 1913, to transmit 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1008-1915. 737 
 
 Beappiaisement — Continued. 
 Jurisdiction — Failure to consider evidence — Continued. 
 
 with the invoice the notice of appeal to reappraisement, such appeal being one 
 of the papers appertaining to the invoice. United States v. Loeb (107 Fed., 
 692) and G. A.' 7563 (T. D. 34455) cited. G. A. 5694 (T. D. 25336) followed. (T. 
 D. 34859— G. A. 7619; Oct. 23, 1914.) 
 Legality of open hearings — 
 
 By the "open hearing" in reappraisement cases provided tor in section 28, sub- 
 section 13, tariff act of 1909, it is contemplated that no evidence shall be con- 
 sidered in rendering decision in such cases except that which was produced at 
 the hearing in the presence of the importer or his attorney and the authorized 
 representative of the Government, and duly admitted as forming the record in 
 the case. The Board of General Appraisers, when sitting as a classification 
 board to review the decision of a board of reappraisement, has no authority or 
 power to modify or change the finding of the reappraisement board. It must 
 either sustain such finding, or sustain a protest which challenges the validity of 
 said reappraisement proceedings. The decision of reappraisement board 2 in 
 advancing a china dinner set 26^ per cent over the entered value was not war- 
 ranted by the evidence in the record before it, and was therefore arbitrary and 
 void. The ruling made by the Circuit Court of Appeals in Haviland's case (177 
 Fed. Rep,, 175; T. D. 30296) should be followed by the board in reviewing reap- 
 praisement cases analogous in character, arising prior to August 5, 1909, when 
 the tariff act went into effect. But when a case arises under this act, and a 
 reappraisement has been made since the amendment (subsection 13, sectiou 28) 
 was enacted by Congress, it is left an open question whether one board of three 
 general appraisers has any lawful power to review a reappraisement case made . 
 by another board of three general appraisers for any cause whatever. (T. D. 
 31084^6. A. 7124; Dec. 1, 1910.) 
 Market value — (See also Market value.) 
 
 The duty of an appraising officer, as defined in Paragraph K, section 3, tariff act of 
 1913, is to find market value and report such to the collector. A general ap- 
 praiser hearing an appeal to reappraisement is governed by the same law, and 
 his finding, based on the facts introduced at the trial, is a judicial determination 
 as to valuft. 
 
 General average: A general average of dissimilar merchandise is not the way 
 to establish market value, especially when the articles are entered and valued 
 separately. 
 
 Entered value: An appraising ofiicer is bound to accept for assessment pur- 
 poses an amount not less than the entered value placed upon the merchandise 
 by the importer, and on appeal the burden rests upon the importer disputing 
 the value to establish by testimony that the advance is not correct. A general 
 appraiser has no authority to arbitrarily disregard the testimony and sustain a 
 value not supported by testimony. (T. D. 84808— G. A. 7604; Sept. 28, 1914.) 
 
 Where grass baskets are made by a tribe of Indians in their homes and by them sold 
 to dealers, who in turn sell them in wholesale quantities to the trade, the market 
 value is governed by the price obtained by the dealers, rather than the price 
 paid to the Indians. (T. D. 35458— G. A. 7728; May 25, 1915.) 
 Merchandise in bonded warehouse — 
 
 Merchandise appraised prior to August 6, 1909, not subject to reappraisement under 
 subsection 11 of section 28, act of August 5, 1909 The provision of section 29, 
 act of August 5, 1909, that merchandise in warehouse "shall be subject to duties 
 imposed by this act," refers only to the rate of duty and not to the value of the 
 goods. (T. D. 29999; Sept. 17, 1909.) 
 45633°— 17 17 
 
738 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Beappiaisement — Continued. 
 
 New trials in leappiaisement cases befoie a single general appraiser — 
 After a reappraLsement case has been decided by a single general appraiser and an 
 appeal from said decision has been made to the board of three general appraisers, 
 the single general appraiser has lost jurisdiction and can not enteitain the appli- 
 cation for a new trial. Under the statute only the "board of three general ap- 
 praisers, or a majority of them," is empowered to grant a new trial, and, con- 
 sequently, a single general appraiser has not the power to grant a new trial in a 
 case in which he has rendered his decision. (T. D. 34785 — G. A. 7599; Sept. 
 22, 1914.) 
 
 Notice of advance — 
 When an importer receives notice from the collector that his goods have been ad- 
 vanced on appraisement and files an appeal to reappraisement on "all items 
 advanced " by the appraiser, and the appeal is subsequently decided by the 
 general appraiser adversely to the importer after the same had been regularly set 
 for trial and hearing had thereon, and a second notice covering the same advance 
 is thereafter given to the importer because an error had been committed in the 
 first notice in stating the percentage of the advance to be less than it was after- 
 wards found to be, held, that, as the first notice was not so defective as to mis- 
 lead the importer, the sending of a second notice did not reopen the case and 
 give the importer a new right of appeal to reappraisement. (T. D. 34842 — G. A. 
 7615; Oct. 16, 1914.) 
 
 Procedure, error in — 
 •Mode of correction: Where a general appraiser through oversight failed to con- 
 sider a portion of the evidence in a reappraisement case which he decided, the 
 remedy of the aggrieved party was by appeal as provided in section 13, customs 
 administrative act of 1890, rather than by protest ae provided in section 14. 
 United States v. Taylor's Sons, United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of 
 Pennsylvania, May 13, 1909. No. 95 (suit 1980). Appeal by United States 
 from a decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6641 (T. D. 
 28299) Board reversed. (T. D. 29849; June 22, 1909.) 
 
 Procedure on wrong principle — 
 Where a Board of General Appraisers in making a reappraisement acts outside of 
 or contrary to law or proceeds upon a wrong principle or without any evidence 
 to sustain their findings, their decision may be set aside. A reappraisement 
 decision was based on indirect evidence, the result reached being based upon 
 portions of the evidence read apart from the context, upon unwarranted deduc- 
 tions and assumptions unsupported by the proof, and upon arbitrary deduc- 
 tions to equalize certain conditions peculiar to the case; and many of the 
 propositions lu-ged in support of the conclusions made were based upon con- 
 jecture and guesswork. Held that this was not such proof as is contemplated 
 by the statute, and that, there being no legal evidence to justify the reappraise- 
 ment, it should be set aside. United Statfes v. Haviland, United States Circuit 
 Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 11, 1910. No. 59 (suit 5034). Appeal 
 by the United States from the decision of the Circuit Court of the United States 
 for the Southern District of New York (167 Fed. Rep., 414; T. D. 29523) affirm- 
 ing G. A. 6655 (T. D. 28382). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 
 30296; Jan. 25, 1910.) 
 
 BegiUations governing.— (T. D. 32781; Aug. 26, 1912.) 
 
 Beview of, what constitutes record — 
 
 Reappraisement proceedings under section 13, customs administrative act of 1890, 
 
 are separate and distinct from protest proceedings under section 14; and where 
 
 the legality of a reappraisement is challenged by proceedings under the latter 
 
 section, the entire reappraisement record does not become a part of the record in 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 739 
 
 Beappiaisement — Continued .- 
 Beview of, what constitutes lecord — Continued. 
 
 the latter proceedings unless expressly admitted. Harris v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, January 7, 1910. No. 
 232 (suit 1931). Appeal by importer from decisions of Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 6502 (T. D. 27784) and Abstract 14019 (T. D. 27801). 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (See also Appeal, excluded evidence.) 
 (T. D. 30275; Jan. 18, 1910.) 
 
 While a reappraisement by a Board of General Appraisers is, under section 13, 
 customs administrative act of 1890, "final and conclusive " as to dutiable value, 
 it may nevertheless be impeached if based upon a wrong principle or contrary 
 to law, or the power conferred by statute has been transcended. And where a 
 reappraisement board misinterprets a portion of the evidence, a legal error has 
 been committed, which makes it necessary to look into all the evidence, to see 
 if the error works injustice; and proceedings to this end may be initiated by 
 protest under section 14 of said act. United States v. Haviland, United States 
 Circuit Cotirt, Southern District of New York, January 19, 1909. Suit 5034. 
 Appeal by United States from decision of Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, G. A. 6655 (T. D. 28382). Board affimed. (T. D. 29523; Feb. 3, 1909.) 
 Appeal to Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circxiit. Decided adversely to 
 Government" (T. D. 30296; Jan. 25, 1910,) 
 
 The provision in section 13, customs administrative act of 1890, that reappraise- 
 ment decisions by the Board of General Appraisers shall be "final and conclu- 
 sive" makes clear the intent of Congress that after providing for appeals to 
 appraisers and general appraisers, who are supposed to be experts as to the duties 
 imposed upon them, there shall be an end of controversy when their decision is 
 made, and that such decision shall not be open to judicial review, except to 
 inquire whether the appraisers have exceeded the authority conferred upon 
 them by law or have otherwise acted illegally or fraudulently. In a reappraise- 
 ment case relating to Smyrna wools that had been bought at a round price in a 
 mixed condition, but before exportation to the United States had been sorted 
 according to color, the Board of General Appraisers held that the value of the 
 white wools was greater than the round price paid for the mixed material in the 
 state in which it was bought. Held that, there being no charge that the board 
 had acted illegally in denying the importers a hearing and an opportunity to 
 produce testimony in the matter, and there being some evidence as to a market 
 value for white wool in Smyrna, the reappraisement decision was "final and con- 
 clusive " as prescribed in section 13, customs administrative act of 1890. Grub- 
 nau V. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 
 February 10, 1910. No. 69 (suit 1975). Appeal by the importer from the 
 decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of 
 Pennsylvania, afiirming Abstract 15933 (T. D. 28300). Decision in favor of 
 the Government. (T. D. 30369; Feb. 21, 1910.) 
 Beview of, wool cloth — 
 
 The collector, acting under instructions from the Treasury Department, refused 
 to adopt a valuation of certain wool cloth found by three general appraisers upon 
 re-reappraisement and assessed duty upon the value found by the local appraiser 
 as affirmed by a single general appraiser. The presumption is that the reap- 
 praising board of three acted in accordance with law and there is nothing in the 
 record to overcome this presumption. The appeal by the Government from the 
 decision of the board sustaining the protest of the importers must fail. United 
 States V. Bradshaw & Co. (No. 1196), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 32681 (T. D. 33511). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34168; Jan. 29, 1914.) 
 
740 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 190S-1015. 
 
 Beappiaisement — Continued . 
 
 Samples. (See Samples, on reappraisement.) 
 
 Samples not present. (See Reappraisement — ^Validity — Absence of samples of 
 merchandise.) 
 
 Second notice of advance gives no new right of appeal — 
 On entering goods at the customhouse the importer made certain additions to the 
 invoice values, which were subsequently approved by the appraiser. One 
 item on which the importer failed to make an addition was advanced by the 
 appraiser to make foreign market value, and regular notice of the appraisement 
 of the merchandise and of such advance was given by the collector to the im- 
 porter. The importer thereupon filed an appeal to reappraisement on "all 
 items advanced," and after due hearing had thereon the appraised value was 
 afiirmed by the general appraiser "on all items appealed on by the importer. " 
 On appeal to re-reappraisement a board of three general appraisers modified that 
 decision by sustaining the advance in part only. More than 30 days subsequent 
 to this final decision a second notice similar to the fii'st notice was sent to the 
 importer by the collector, which notice was sent in compliance with instruc- 
 tions issued by the Treasury Department to collectors to notify importers of the 
 appraiser's action when additions to invoice values have been made on entry un- 
 der the provisions of Paragraph I, section 3, tariff act of 1913. Held, that inas- 
 much as the importer had previously received notice of the appraisement, the 
 sending of the second notice did not give him the right to file an appeal to reap- 
 praisement on the items on which he had made additions on entry but which 
 he had failed to include in his original appeal. (T. D. 34902— G. A. 7629; 
 Nov. 12, 1914.) 
 
 Validity- 
 It is immaterial that a reappraisement is illegal, if the value found is the same as 
 that ascertained on an appraisement by the local appraiser which is not shown to 
 be invalid ; for where a reappraisement is illegal the dutiable value is that found 
 on the last legal appraisement. Grubnau v. United States, United States Cir- 
 cuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, May 13, 1909. No. 79 (suit 1975) 
 Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 15933 (T. D. 28300). Board afiirmed. (T. D. 29835; June 15, 1909.) 
 Certain tomato sauce was voluntarily entered by the importer at 7 .50 lire per 100 cans, 
 and this valuation was sustained by a general appraiser and a Board of General 
 Appraisefs. Held, that neither of these reappraisements could be challenged 
 by protest so as to reduce the assessment below that made by the collector on such 
 entered value, unless such entry was made under duress. Where it does not ap- 
 pear that the presence of samples of the merchandise in question would have 
 aided to a more correct conclusion, a reappraisement is not to be held invalid 
 merely because there were no samples before the reappraisement board. A 
 collector of customs, in requesting a reappraisement of imported merchandise 
 under the authority of section 13, customs administrative act of 1890, is required 
 to act within a rasonable time; and where such request was not made until the 
 lapse of nearly one year from the date of the entry, and the goods had been deliv- 
 ered to the importer and gone into consumption, his action is invalid as not being 
 taken within a reasonable time. (T. D. 30378— O. A. 6983; Feb. 21, 1910.) 
 The action of a reappraisement board of general appraisers in determining the 
 foreign market value of imported merchandise is final and conclusive when its 
 proceedings have been regular and within the law, and the reviewing or classifi- 
 cation board is not called upon to theorize how the reappraisement board ar- 
 rived at its figures on questions of valuation. The presence and examination of 
 merchandise or samples thereof is imnecessary to a statutory review by a reap- 
 praisement board of general appraisers, the statute only reqtiiring that they 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS QECISIONS, 1908-1&15. 741 
 
 Beappiaisement — Continued. 
 Validity — Continued. 
 
 shall examine and decide the questions presented by the record. G. A, 6655 
 (T. D. 28382); G. A. 6738 (T. D. 28849); United States v. Loeb (107 Fed. Rep., 
 692); United States v. Curnen (146 Fed. Rep., 45; T. D. 27262) cited. (T. D. 
 30570— G. A. 7014; Apr. 25, 1910.) 
 
 On an admittedly imperfect record it appears a Board of General Appraisers reap- 
 praised a consignment of goods; yet even if it be assumed the board erred in ex- 
 cluding relevant evidence or in admitting irrelevant evidence, or that it assigned 
 an undue weight to the evidence before it, still, there being evidence that the 
 board acted upon evidence, and there being no evidence here that the board 
 exceeded its authority, it will be presumed to have made its fiuding within the 
 scope of its authority, and its decision must stand. Wolff v. United States (T. 
 D. 31217) cited and approved. Briggs, Extrx., v. United States (No. 311), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal from a decision of the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 23555 (T. D. 30710). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 31482; Apr. 3, 1911.) 
 
 In a reappraisement proceeding by a board of three general appraisers it is not 
 necessary that the board examine the merchandise under reappraisement in 
 order to constitute a valid reappraisement, unless it appears that a correct con- 
 clusion as to the value of such merchandise could not be arrived at by said board 
 without the examination of the merchandise. Under section 11 of the customs 
 administrative act of 1890 a board of three general appraisers in the reappraise- 
 ment of imported merchandise may take into consideration the wholesale price 
 at which such or similar merchandise is sold or offered for sale in the United 
 States. Testimony held not to sustain the allegation of the protest. (T. D. 
 29144— G. A. 6788; July 6, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Section 11, customs administrative act of 1890. — That part of sec- 
 tion 11, customs administrative act of 1890, relating to the proper ascertainment 
 of dutiable value by an inquiry as to the sale price of the commodity in the 
 United States, is a definition of the powers granted appraising officers in appraise- 
 ment proceedings, and there is nothing contained there to limit the scope of that 
 provision to cases where no foreign market value appears; it seems rather in fact 
 intended to aid appraising officers to ascertain true foreign market values. 
 
 Domestic wholesale 'price as a guide. — It is not unfair to the importer to employ, 
 as a basis for computing what was the true value of the commodity on export 
 abroad, the wholesale selling price of a commodity fixed by himself, and the 
 very language of the statute authorizes this to be done. 
 
 Reviewability of an appraisement by board of three general appraisers. — Where a 
 board of three general appraisers, with jurisdiction of the subject matter and the 
 
 . persons, have proceeded in conformity to law to appraise an importation of foods, 
 their finding is not reviewable by any classification board or by this court. 
 
 Validity of preceding appraisements. — If a reappraisement by a Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers be held valid it is unnecessary to inquire into the validity of pre- 
 ceding appraisements of the same merchandise. Beer v. United States (No. 
 73), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States 
 from the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6788 
 (T. D. 29144). Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern 
 District of New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31526; Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 
 Swiss chocolate: In connection with the importation in controversy consisting of 
 milk chocolate from Switzerland, there is no contention that the reappraisement 
 board was without jurisdiction, that it was guilty of fraud, or that it added inde- 
 pendent items not dutiable to make the appraised value. The board had before 
 it evidence as to the course of business of manufacturers and customers where 
 
742 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Beappiaisement — Continued. 
 Validity — Continued. 
 
 the chocolate was handled in Switzerland and at the time this was exported. 
 That evidence related both to the quantities and prices of the commodity in 
 business transactions in Switzerland and it can not accordingly be held that the 
 board's finding was based wholly upon the "conventional agreement" by which 
 it had been sought to control the sale of chocolate in that country. Neither the 
 Board of General Appraisers sitting as a classification board nor this court has 
 authority on the record in this case to review the appraisement as made. Wolff 
 V. United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 181; T. D. 31217). Horace Day Co. 
 V. United States (No. 249); Lamont, Corliss & Co. v. United Staffs (No. 250), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstracts 23334 and 23355 (T. D. 30645). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32456; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 Absence of samples of merchandise: The collector of the port appealed from the 
 action of the appraiser in the appraisement of certain machinery. Prior to this 
 appeal and the hearing before the general appraiser the machinery had gone 
 into consumption and was in use in various parts of the United States, hence not 
 available for examination by the general appraiser. The general appraiser, 
 upon due hearing, advanced the machinery 15 per cent, not having the machin- 
 ery or samples thereof before him. Held, that a reappraisement proceeding 
 under the provisions of subsection 13 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909 is only 
 invalidated by the failure of the general appraiser to have before him the mer- 
 chandise in question, or sufficient or proper samples thereof, when it appears 
 that such samples were necessary to a proper adjudication of the case; that is, 
 necessary to enable the general appraiser to reach a right conclusion as to the 
 foreign market value of the merchandise. Oelrirhs v. United States (T. D. 
 32091), modifying Tilge v. United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 462; T. D. 31507). 
 (T. D. 32109— G. A. 7311; Dec. 21, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The decision in Oelrichs v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 355; T. D. 32091) does not modify the decision in Tilge v. United States (1 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 462; T. D. 31507). In the case at bar not only was there no sample 
 before the appraising ofiicer or a legal substitute therefor, but the record dis- 
 closes that the jurisdiction of the appraising officer was protested because of that 
 fact. Until the jurisdictional requirements of the statute have been complied 
 with there can be no "decision," as contemplated by the statute to be accepted 
 as final in character. Maddaus v. United States (No. 853), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 7311 (T. D. 32109). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32623; 
 May 31, 1912.) 
 This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers sustaining the 
 action of a reappraisement board refusing a reappraisement of shipments of lino- 
 leum from England. A board of reappraisement is not a judicial tribunal and 
 may use information acquired on previous appraisements. They had in this 
 case jurisdiction of the subject of the proceedings, and the classification board 
 did not err in sustaining the other board's action. Wolff v. United States (1 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 181; T. D. 31217). Shallus i;. United States (No. 1319), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 33998 (T. D. 33833). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 34525; May 28, 1913.) 
 Certain machines were reappraised by a single general appraiser at the request of 
 the collector of customs at Chicago, who deemed the appraisement made by the 
 local appraiser too low, and at the request of the importers, and upon their express 
 waiver of the right to have a hearing at the port of entry and agreement not to 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 743 
 
 Beappiaisement — Continued . 
 Validity — Continued . 
 
 contest the result of the reappraisement because of the absence of the goods, the 
 hearing was held at the port of New York. The result of said reappraisement 
 was to sustain the entered values, whereupon the collector of customs appealed 
 to a reappraisement board of three. The importers appeared at the re-reap- 
 praisement hearing and made no objection to the jurisdiction on account of the 
 absence of the goods. The result of the re-reappraisement being unfavorable to 
 the importers, they now contest its validity on the ground that the reappraise- 
 ment board of thi-ee did not acquire jurisdiction in the absence of the goods. Held, 
 that the express waiver and agreement filed by them was not withdrawn and 
 remained in full force and effect during all the proceedings of reappraisement and 
 re-reappraisement, and the importers are estopped from disputing the jurisdic- 
 tion of the said board and attacking the validity of the re-reappraisement be- 
 cause of the absence of the goods, which they were allowed to take away upon 
 an express agreement not to urge the absence thereof. (T. D. 33030 — G. A. 7411; 
 Dec. 17, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) This appeal concerns the validity of the re-reappraisement at 
 New York, without the presence of samples of the merchandise of certain meat- 
 slicing machines entered at the port of Chicago. 
 
 Re-reappraisement. — Subsection 13 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, contains 
 the word "re-reappraisement," appearing there once. The language of the 
 subsection as a whole clearly indicates the word "re-reappraisement" was used 
 where it occurs in the sense of "reappraisement." 
 
 A waiver construed. — The waiver by the importers of the right to have the re- 
 appraisement held at the port of entry and stipulating that the result of the re- 
 appraisement shall not be contested on account of the absence of the merchan- 
 ^ diss from the place of reappraisement, was intended to apply to and continue 
 throughout all and any proceeding in the reappraisement of the importation. 
 The subsequent conduct of importers confirms this conclusion. In view of the 
 stipulation and waiver, the absence of samples in the proceeding on appeal 
 before the board of three general appraisers did not invalidate this board's find- 
 ing. Gallagher & Ascher v. United States (No. 1078), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 7411 (T. B. 33030). Decision afiSrmed. (T. D. 38518; 
 May 29, 1913.) 
 The feathers of the importation were bought at public auction in London on terms 
 that allowed a discount for payment in cash, and the invoice showed the total 
 value less the discount for cash. Whether this discount was to be included in 
 the dutiable value of the merchandise was a question of law, not one of fact. 
 The case is ruled by Arthur v. Goddaid (96 U. S., 145). Lewisohn Importing & 
 Trading Co. v. United States (No. 1323), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Apprais- 
 ers, Abstract 34323 (T. D. 34026). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34329; Mar. 25, 
 1914.) 
 There vests in importers no statutory right to have personally in attendance on the 
 hearing of their appeals to reappraisement all of the members, or even a majority 
 thereof, constituting the board on reappraisement. It is competent for a single 
 member of the board, acting in the capacity of a referee, to take testimony at 
 such hearing for and on behalf of his absent associates. So long as the proof 
 offered has been duly considered by the full board or a majority thereof the 
 decision rendered thereupon has the full effect of a legal decision and deter- 
 mination by said board. (T. D. 34397— G. A. 7558; Apr. 17, 1914.) 
 17, 1914.) 
 
744 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Beappiaisement — Continued. 
 
 Validity — Continued. 
 Tlie protest itself shows that the reappraisement by the single general appraiser 
 was made without a sample of the importation or the merchandise before him 
 and there was no waiver of production of samples. The appraisement by the 
 single general appraiser was accordingly invalid and the appraisement of the 
 local appraiser became again operative. United States v. Scanlan (No. 1309), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 33982 (T. D. 33833). De- 
 cision reversed. (T. D. 34473; May 18, 1914.) 
 
 Valuation, final and conclusive — 
 The question is one of valuation, arising out of the appraisement by a board of 
 reappraisement, under tariff act of 1897, of certain Georgian raw autumn wool, 
 white and colors. At the hearing before the board testimony was introduced 
 by the respective parties tending to sustain their several contentions. The 
 board's decision, based on the testimony so offered, can not be reviewed to deter- 
 mine questions that relate only to the proper weight or proper effect of the evi- 
 dence. Wolff-i). United States (ICt.Cust.Appls., 181; T.D. 31217). An irreg- 
 ularity in complying with the legal requirements as to the sufficiency of samples 
 of goods before a board of reappraisement will be deemed to have been waived 
 if the importer was present and made no objection to the irregularity. Oelrichs 
 & Co. V. United States (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 355; T. D. 32091). Harris v. United 
 States (No. 526), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porter from decisions of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 6. A. 
 6502 (T. D. 27784) and Abstract 14010 (T. D. 27801). Transferred from United 
 States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 32286; Feb. 15, 1912.) 
 
 Variation from other reappraisements — 
 A reappraisement by a Board of General Appraisers is not invalid simply be- 
 cause the value fixed is different from that found on subsequent reappraise- 
 ments of the same kind of goods. (T. D. 29628— G. A. 6888; Mar. 16, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Without inquiring into the objections urged against the reap- 
 praisement of matting by a local appraiser as erroneous, or as unsupported by 
 the evidence, or as founded on irrelevant considerations, the Board of General 
 Appraisers on appeal having found that appraisal correct, this finding can not 
 be disturbed. The customs laws contemplate finality at some point in all ap- 
 praisement proceedings and on appeal to an appraisement by the Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, from a finding of a general appraiser, a decision of that board on 
 the actual market value of the merchandise in question is conclusive against all 
 parities interested therein, and in the absence of fraud is not subject to review by 
 the courts. Wolff v. United States (No. 175), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board of United States 
 General Appraisers (T. D. 29628). Transferred from United States Circuit 
 Court for Eastern District of Louisiana. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31217; 
 Jan. 11, 1911.) 
 
 Waiver — 
 Any question of the regularity of the reappraisement proceedings in this cause 
 might have been waived. Maddaus v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 330; 
 T. D. 32623). The former decision was rested upon the unmistakably clear 
 waiver in writing filed by the appellants, and this as construed in the light of a 
 uniform current of decisions of this court. Gallagher & Ascher v. United States 
 (No. 1078), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Petition for rehearing. 
 Gallagher & Ascher v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33518). Pe- 
 tition denied. (T. D. 33849; Oct. 31, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 745 
 
 Beciprocity. 
 Application ol favored-nation clause to trade conventions — 
 
 By a convention of December 22, 1815, the terms of which, through subsequent 
 agreements, remain in full force and effect, it was stipulated by and between the 
 United States and His Britannic Majesty that "no higher or other duties shall be 
 imposed on the importation into the United States of any article the growth, 
 produce, or manufacture of His Britannic Majesty's territories in Europe 
 * * * than are or shall be payable on the like articles being the growth, pro- 
 duce, or manufacture of any other foreign country." In pursuance of a provi- 
 sion contained in the tariff act of 1897, looking to the arrangement of commercial 
 agreements in which reciprocal and equivalent concessions might be secured in 
 favor of the products and manufactures of the United States, a commercial agree- 
 ment between the United States and the Republic of France was negotiated and 
 proclaimed June 1, 1898, in which it was reciprocally agreed that during the life 
 of the agreement certain articles named therein should be admitted at designated 
 rates on importation from one of the countries to the other. Among the articles 
 so designated brandies or other spirits manufactiyed or distilled from grain or 
 other materials were to be subject to a duty of $1.75 per gallon. The appellants 
 subsequent to the date of this trade agreement with France imported into the 
 United States from England certain whiskies and other spirituous liquors, and 
 assert here that the favored-nation clause in the existing convention between 
 this country and Great Britain applies and that they are entitled to an allowance 
 on their importation from England of the same rate of duty they would be enti- 
 tled to if their importation had been brought in from Prance, namely, $1.75 per 
 gallon. The goods were assessed at the port of New York at $2.25 per proof gal- 
 lon, under paragraph 292, tariff act of 1897. Held, a reciprocity agreement is 
 based on reciprocal considerations moving from each party thereto to the other, 
 separate obligations being assumed in return for benefits granted; and other 
 countries, not parties to the agreement, bearing in no sense the burden of the 
 obligations, can not properly be taken to share in the accruing benefits. It 
 would be, in the case at bar, to concede to Great Britain without a consideration 
 what was conceded to France 6nly on a consideration if these goods were permit- 
 ted entry at the rate fixed in the French agreement; and the consignment was 
 dutiable as assessed under paragraph 292, tariff act of 1897. Bertram v. Robert- 
 son (122 U. S., 116) and Whitney v. Robertson (124 U. S., 190). Shaw et al. v. 
 United States (No. 156), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstracts 22091 and 22116 (T. D. 30099). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31500; 
 Apr. 10, 1911.) 
 Bulgaria — 
 
 Reciprocal commercial agreement, termination of. (T. D. 39945; Aug. 10, 1909.) 
 Canada — 
 
 Act of July 26, 1911. (T. D. 31772; circular No. 48; July 26, 1911.) 
 
 The question involved is as to the operation of the so-called "favored-nation" 
 clauses contained in various treaties of the United States with many countries 
 of the world. The merchandise imported from these countries consists of 
 wood pulp, paper, and other articles, which were assessed for duty by the col- 
 lectors under appropriate paragraphs of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. The 
 claim made by the importers is that the articles are free of duty by reason of 
 the clauses in these treaties which in substance provide that if either party 
 shall grant to any other nation or country any particular favor in commerce it 
 shall immediately become common to the other party, free, where it is freely 
 granted to such other nation or country , or on yielding the same compensation 
 when the grant is conditional. It is provided, in other words, that in all that 
 
746 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Reciprocity — Continued. 
 Canada — Continued. 
 
 relates to duties of customs and navigation the high contracting parties promise 
 reciprocally not to grant any favor, privilege, or immunity to any other State, 
 country, or nation which shall not instantly become common to the citizen 
 and subjects of both parties, respectively, gratuitously if the concession or 
 favor to such other State, country, or nation is gratuitous, and on allowing the 
 same compensation, or its equivalent, if the concession is conditional. 
 
 Canadanotacountry, nation, or State: Thewords"country, nation, or State " 
 are used to represent an organized body politic, and mean the same thing as 
 country, which embraces all possessions of a foreign State, however widely 
 separated, which are subject to the same supreme executive and legislative 
 control. Hence Canada is not a country, but only a part of the country of Great 
 Britain. 
 
 Reciprocity: Reciprocity treaties with foreign countries do not bind the 
 United States to extend to such countries, without compensation, privileges 
 which they had conceded to another foreign country for a valuable considera- 
 tion. 
 
 The treaty-making power: Treaty-making powers of the United States can 
 not be exercised in violation of the Constitution. Hence the President and the 
 Senate can not, by treaty, evade the right of the House of Representatives to 
 unite in making tariff laws regulating the rates of duty imposed on imported 
 merchandise. The effect of this would be to compel Congress to destroy its 
 whole tariff system. 
 
 Taylor.i). Morton (23 Fed. Cas., 784): The doctrine of Taylor v. Morton (23 Fed. 
 Cas., 784) discussed, which held that a contention made under the Russian 
 treaty of 1832, claiming a reduction of duties on imported wool, involved under 
 that treaty the exercise of a political power which belonged to Congress, and 
 must be determined by legislative action, and not by the courts. 
 
 Doctrine of the Treasury Department: The doctrine announced by John 
 Quincy Adams in 1815, holding that a treaty conferring on one foreign country 
 a gratuitous privilege would operate under favored-nation clauses to be ex- 
 tended to other nations, seems to be indorsed by the Treasury Department, but, 
 qusere, whether by the courts is not decided. 
 
 Section 2, act of July 26, 1911, is a valid law and remains unrepealed: While 
 the proposed treaty between the United States and Canada failed for want of 
 ratification, section 2 of the act of July 26, 1911, entitled "An act to promote 
 reciprocal relations with the Dominion of Canada, and for other purposes," 
 and making free of duty pulp wood and paper of the kind there described, 
 when exported from Canada, was left standing as a law unrepealed. Hay, 
 General Appraiser, concurring, holds- 
 Fa vored-nation provisions of treaties not self -operating — Question political, 
 not judicial: The favored-nation provisions in the various treaties between 
 the United States and other powers are not self -operating in their character; 
 hence, before these provisions can have any effect upon the tariff laws, there 
 must be legislation to put them into effect. The question presented by this 
 case is therefore for the political, and not the judicial, department of the Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 32423— G. A. 7354; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Free importation was claimed for certain chemical wood pulp 
 and sulphide wood pulp from Norway, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany. 
 The claim was made on the ground that by virtue of the favored-nation clause 
 in existing treaties, when that clause is construed in connection with section 
 2 (wood-pulp section) of the act of July 26, 1911, entitled "An act to promote 
 reciprocal trade relations with the Dominion of Canada, and for other pm-poses, ' ' 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 747 
 
 Reciprocity — Continued. 
 
 Canada — Continued . 
 
 the merchandise appears as entitled to free entry. It was conceded at the 
 hearing that Canada is a nation for treaty purposes; that there is nothing in 
 the language of the several treaties in question with the several countries to 
 call for any distinctions to be made between the countries represented in the 
 protest; and it was further conceded that said section 2 of the act of 1911 is 
 operative, though Canada refused to avail itself of the option to establish reci- 
 procity as to any other possible importations provided for in other sections of 
 the act. 
 
 Treaties and the courts. — By the Constitution a treaty is binding as a law of 
 the land, and since it is the function of the courts to construe and apply the 
 law, it becomes a comrt's duty whenever conditions arise making a treaty ap- 
 plicable to declare the force and effect of that treaty. Foster v. Neilson (27 
 U. S. 2 Pet., 253). Courts may not seek to enforce a treaty which is executory 
 in its character, for legislation is needed to give effect to executory provisions; 
 but courts will as to a self-executing provision in a treaty enforce this whenever 
 - the occasion and conditions arise that attach the self-executing provision to 
 existing facts. Taylor v. Morton (2 Curtis, 453); Bartram v. Robertson (122 
 U. S., 116); Whitney v. Robertson (124 U. S., 190). The provision of the 
 favored-nation clause is, "if either party shall hereafter grant to any other na- 
 tion any particular favor in navigation or commerce, it shall immediately be- 
 come common to the other party." This provision is self-executing, for the 
 privilege could not "immediately become common" to the other party to the 
 agreement if it depended upon some future act by another or upon legislation 
 to make the provision effective. 
 
 Section 2, act of July 26, 1911. — Section 2 (wood-pulp section) of the act of 
 July 26, 1911, was enacted with a full understanding that under that section 
 there would be a question for determination whether the provisions of existing 
 treaties with favored nations would attach, and whether by the very force of 
 section 2 like commodities from other nations having the favored-nation clause 
 in treaties are to be admitted on the same terms with the given commodities 
 brought in from Canada. It must be recognized that the favored-nation clause 
 has for its field of operation precisely that of cases where and when the lawful 
 authority has granted a new privilege to some other nation. Section 2 is a pro- 
 vision of the act standing by itself. There is nothing contained in it to indicate 
 a consideration passing, nor is there a suggestion of aliunde evidence of the 
 existence of a consideration. It stands wholly independent of the reciprocity 
 provision of the act. American Express Co. et al. v. United States (No. 894); 
 Bertuch & Co. et al. v. tlnited States (No. 895), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, a. A. 7354 (T. D. 32423). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33434; May 12, 
 1913.) 
 
 Commercial agreements — 
 Termination of the reciprocal commercial agreements made under section 3, act 
 of July 24, 1897. (T. D. 29945; Aug. 10, 1909.) 
 
 Country of actual exportation — 
 Champagne produced in France, exported from that country to Great Britain with- 
 out a then existing intent on the part of either party to the transaction to export 
 from France to the United States, followed by storage of the goods, assumed to be 
 in a bonded warehouse in London, and by the owner there subsequently sold to 
 importers in the United. States to fill an order, the compliance with which did 
 not specify or require champagne produced in France, and without any intent 
 on the part of the importer in this country to import from France here, is not an 
 
748 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Becipiocity — Continued . 
 
 Country of actual exportation — Continued. 
 
 importation from France to the United States under the provisions of the reci- 
 procity agreement concluded between that country and this January 28, 1908. 
 It seems that an ex parte affidavit taken abroad for the purpose of introducing 
 the same before the Board of General Appraisers may not be competent evidence 
 before the Customs Court of Appeals. Acker, Merrall & Condit v. United States 
 (No. 103), United States Comt of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer 
 from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 20749 (T. D. 29597). Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern 
 District of New York. DeciBion affirmed. (T. D. 31481; Apr. 3, 1911.) 
 
 Country of origin — 
 Merchandise imported via Belgium was found to be of German origin and to 
 have been imported directly from Germany, and was therefore held subject to 
 the reciprocal commercial agreement with the latter country. Wolff v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Northern District of California, March 22, 
 1909. No. 13836 (suit 1774). Appeal by importer from decision of Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 8757 (T. D. 26818). Board re- 
 versed. (T. D. 29677; Apr. 7, 1909.) 
 
 Cuban commercial agreement — 
 Preferential duty: In the Cuban commercial convention (33 Stat., 2136; T. D. 
 24836) Article II (33 Stat., 2137) provides that Cuban goods shall be admitted 
 at a reduction from the duty provided by the tariff act of 1897 "or as may be 
 provided by any tariff law of the Uiuted States subsequently enacted," and 
 Article VIII (33 Stat., 2140) provides that "the rates of duty herein granted 
 * * * are and shall continue * * * preferential in respect to all like 
 imports from other countries." This treaty was signed and proclaimed subse- 
 quently to the decisions in De Lima v. Bidwell (182 U. S., 1), United States v. 
 Heinszen (206 U. S., 370; T. D. 28237), and Dooleyu. United States (183 U. S., 
 151), holding that the Phihppines are not a foreign country. Held, that this 
 means a reduction only from the regular tariff rates and not from the special rates 
 provided in the Philippine tariff act. The eighth article of the treaty can not 
 be construed to have been intended to give to Cuba an advantage over ship- 
 ments of merchandise coming into the United States from a part of its own terri- 
 tory, where the collections were, in part, made as a means for raising revenue 
 for the support of the Government of the Philippine Islands. Cuba was given a 
 preferential of 20 per cent over tariff rates on imports from countries which are 
 foreign to the United States. The Philippines are not included in the term 
 "other countries" used in Article VIII of the said commercial convention. The 
 word "country" in the revenue laws of the United States has always been con- 
 strued to embrace all the possessions of a foreign State, however widely sepa- 
 rated, which are subject to the same supreme executive and legislative control. 
 Faber v. United "States, United States Supreme Court, May 29, 1911. No. 134. 
 October Term, 1910. Suit 4812. Appeal by the importer from a decision by 
 the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York (157 
 Fed. Rep., 140; T. D. 28542) affirming G. A. 6520 (T. D. 27847). Decision in 
 favor of the Government. (T. D. 31709; June 20, 1911.) 
 Scrap resulting from the use in Cuba of iron and steel manufactures shipped to that 
 island from foreign countries is not a product of the industry of Cuba and is not 
 entitled to benefit of Cuban reciprocity convention. (T. D. 31856; Sept. 16, 
 1911.) 
 Scrap iron: Scrap iron, the result of wear and tear in the pursuit of various indus- 
 tries in the Republic of Cuba, is a product of the industry of that country within 
 the meaning of Article II of a convention entered into between the United States 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS^ 1908-1915. 749 
 
 Becipiocity — Continued. 
 Cuban commercial agreement — Continued. 
 
 and the Republic of Cuba March 31, 1903 (T. D. 24836), and as such should be 
 assessed for duty when imported into the United States at a reduction of 20 per 
 cent of the regular rate provided therefor. (T. D. 33116— G. A. 7419; Jan., 23, 
 1913.) 
 
 Transshipment of merchandise: To secure the benefit of the reduced rate provided 
 for in Article II of the treaty with Cuba promulgated by the President December 
 27, 1903, for merchandise which has been transshipped at a foreign port, it must 
 be shown that the merchandise did not enter into or become a part of the com- 
 merce of that country. (T. D. 34125— G. A. 7529; Jan. 27, 1914.) 
 France — 
 
 Reciprocity between the United States and France. (T. D. 28721; circular No. 
 8; Jan. 29, 1908.) 
 
 Termination of commercial agreements between the United States and France. 
 (T. D. 30017; Sept. 30, 1909.) 
 
 Exports not directly from France: The right to the reduced rates of duty provided 
 for by the commercial reciprocity treaty (T. D. 28721) made with France under 
 the authority conferred by section 3, tariff act of 1897, accrues only on merchan- 
 dise both produced in and exported directly from said country. And it is in- 
 cumbent on the importers to furnish satisfactory evidence that these conditions 
 coexist. It is immaterial that the goods were originally exported from bonded 
 warehouse in France, or were placed in bond in Great Britain when there, prior 
 to being imported into the United States, they being subject to the control of 
 the London shippers, and practically having entered into the commerce of that 
 country. Where goods are produced in France and are shipped from there to 
 London, England, without bills of lading showing that the merchandise was 
 intended to be transshipped at London to the New York consignees in good faith, 
 without any contingency of diversion, and such articles are subsequently ex- 
 ported immediately from Great Britain to this country on invoices made out at 
 London, the importations will be regarded as being exported from that country 
 and not directly from France. (T. D. 30490— G. A. 7004; Apr. 4, 1910.) 
 
 Expiration of, Sunday: In computing the time wherein the law requires an act 
 to be done, if the last day falls on Sunday, unless there is some statutory provi- 
 sion excluding that day, the courts have no power to extend the time beyond the 
 period fixed by law. Shefer v. Magone (47 Fed. Rep., 872), Johnson v. Meyers 
 (54 Fed. Rep., 417), and Hermanns. United States (66 Fed. Rep., 721). The reci- 
 procity agreement with France under the provisions of section 4 of the tariff act 
 of 1909 and the notice given by the President pursuant thereto, terminating on 
 Sunday, merchandise arriving on the following day is dutiable at the regular 
 rate. (T. D. 31202— G. A. 7149; Jan. 13, 1911.) 
 
 Jamaica rum — ^When a product of France: Where certain rum was imported from 
 the West Indies into France, and was there subjected to a process of manufac- 
 ture such as to change its nature and character and transform it into a spirituous 
 beverage of a different kind, the new creation may properly be regarded as a 
 product of France rather than of the West Indies; and when exported Irom 
 France it is entitled to the benefits of the reciprocity agreement between 
 France and the United States, promulgated by the President on March 30, 
 1898 (30 U. S. Stat., 1744; T. D. 19405), and in force at the time the article ar- 
 rived in this country. Generally, if raw material is imported from another 
 country and undergoes a process of manufacture in the country where It arrives, 
 itis justly regarded as a product of the latter country where manufactured within 
 the meaning of said reciprocity agreement. (T. D. 31314 — G. A. 7172; Feb. 
 16, 1911.) 
 
750 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Secipiocity — Contmued . 
 
 Germany, commeicial agreement with — 
 
 Modifications of the customs and consular regulations, eSect of tariff act of 1909 
 upon. (T. D. 30066; Oct. 25, 1909.) 
 Great Britain — 
 
 Termioation of commercial agreement with. (T. B. 29945; Aug. 10, 1909.) 
 Great Britain and Ireland — Commercial travelers' samples — 
 
 Customs officers instructed to accept descriptive lists of commercial travelers' 
 samples intended for use as models or patterns for the purpose of obtaining 
 orders and not for sale, when certified by a consular officer of the United States 
 stationed in the United Kingdom, as establishing the character of such mer- 
 chandise as samples intended for use in selling the class of goods they represent. 
 (T. D. 31136; Dec. 22, 1910.) 
 
 T. D. 31136 of December 22, 1910, promulgating the reciprocal agreement with 
 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland relative to commercial 
 travelers' samples, amended so as to permit the free entry of dutiable samples 
 under certain conditions. (T. D. 31537; Apr. 26, 1911.) 
 Italy- 
 Reciprocity between the United States and Italy under provisions of section 3, 
 tariff act of July 24, 1897. (T. D. 29721; May 4, 1909.) 
 
 Termination of agreement with. (T. D. 29945; Aug. 10, 1909.) 
 Leakage — 
 
 The contention that paragraph 296, tariff act of 1897, forbidding "constructive 
 or other allowance for * * * leakage * * * on wines," contravenes 
 the constitutional provisions that duties shall be uniform and that property 
 shall not be taken without due process of law, is held not to give the Supreme 
 Ourt jurisdiction of an appeal from the circuit court, under section 5, act of 
 March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 827), relating to cases that involve the application of 
 the Constitution. It is inferential from the decision in this case that a recip- 
 rocal commercial agreement negotiated with a foreign country trader section 3, 
 tariff act of 1S97, is not a "treaty" within the meaning of section 5, act of 
 March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 827), which gives the right of appeal from th? circuit 
 court to the Supreme Court in cases in which the "construction of any treaty 
 * * * is drawn in question." Shaw u. United States, United States Supreme 
 Court, November 30, 1908. No. 426 (suit 5067). Appeal from Circuit Court 
 of United States for Southern District of New York (158 Fed. Rep., 648; T. D. 
 28517). Decision in favor of Government. (T. D. 29412; Dec. 16, 1908.) 
 Netherlands — ^ 
 
 Reciprocity between the United States and the Netherlands. (T. D. 29209; 
 circular No. 63: Aug. 13, 1908.) 
 Philippine Islands — 
 
 Section 5 of the tariff act of 1909 contemplates reciprocal relations between the 
 Philippine Islands and the United States, and is to be construed as reciprocity , 
 statutes have hitherto been construed by the judicial tribunals of the United 
 States. (T. D. 30643— G. A. 7026; May 28, 1910.) 
 Spain — 
 
 Sherry wine contained in kegs of the capacity of 1 and 2 gallons, which is the 
 product of and exported from Spain, falls within the reciprocity treaty with 
 that country (T. D. 27583) as still wine "in casks," dutiable at 35 cents per 
 gaUon. In're Freiria, G. A. 6068 (T. D. 26478), distinguished. The words 
 "casks" and "kegs" construed under paragraph 296, tariff act of 1897, and 
 the reciprocity treaty with Spain. (T. D. 29070— G. A. 6774; June 11, 1908.) 
 
 Reciprocity between the United States and Spain under provisions of section 3, 
 tariff act of July 24, 1897. (T. D. 29583; Feb. 26, 1909.) 
 
 TeimiiLation of reciprocal commercial agreement with. (T. D. 29945; Aug. 10, 
 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 751 
 
 Reciprocity — Continued. 
 Statuary — 
 The provision for "statuary" in section 3, tariff act of 1897, and the reciprocal 
 commercial agreements negotiated under that section, Is subject to paragraph 
 454 of said act, prescribing that "the term 'statuary' as used in this act shall 
 be understood to include only such statuary aa is * * * wrought by hand 
 * * * from metal," etc. Altman v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, May 21, 1909. Suit 5372. Appeal by 
 importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 6813 (T. D. 29279). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29856; June 22, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Appeal from circuit court to Supreme CourJ.— In a revenue case 
 which involves not only questions of classification and amount of duty there- 
 under, but also a question under section 5, act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 827), 
 the Supreme Court will review a decision of a circuit court. The act of May 
 27, 1908 (35 Stat., 403; T. D. 29044), does not operate to prevent an appeal to 
 the Supreme Court in cases really involving the Constitution of the United 
 States or the construction of a treaty. 
 
 Reciprocity agreement — Treaty. — The reciprocail commercial agreement with 
 France (30 Stat., 1774; T. D. 19405) held to be a "treaty" within the meaning 
 of section 6, act of March 3, 1891. 
 
 Cost bronze bust— Statuary. — A bronze bust cast in a foundry by artisana 
 from a model made in some plastic material by an artist, and upon which metal 
 casting the artist has done little or no retouching, held not to be included in 
 the term statuary in section 3, tariff act of 1897. Altman v. United States, 
 United States Supreme Court, May 13, 1912. No. 208 (suit 5372). Appeal by 
 the importer from decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for the 
 Southern District of New York (172 Fed. Rep., 161; T. D. 29856) affirming 
 G. A. 6813 (T. D. 29279). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32589; June 4, 1912.) 
 
 Reclaimed rubber. (See Rubber.) 
 
 Reconstructed emeralds. (See "Doublets.") 
 
 Record. 
 Sufficiency of, Court of Customs Appeals — 
 The act creating the Court of Customs Appeals empowers it to review not alone 
 the law, but, when the findings of the Board of General Appraisers are made 
 an issue, to review the facts presented upon appeal to this court. To enable 
 this court fairly to review a finding of fact by the board, when this finding is 
 made an issue on appeal, it is essential that the court should have before it all 
 the testimony that influenced the board in reaching its conclusion. This ia 
 not to say the board may not, in the course of its oftentimes necessarily sum- 
 mary determinations, rely in its findings on proof in other like cases, heard on 
 earlier dates by the board. Sheldon v. United States (No. 518); Hempstead 
 V. United States (No. 519), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers &om a decision of the Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 24047 (T. D. 30983). Decision reversed. (T. D. 31594; 
 May 8, 1911.) 
 
 Records and blanks. 
 
 Revised system of keeping records at nonnaval office ports and districts. (T. D. 
 33227; Feb. 25, 1913.) 
 
 Records for phonographs. (See Phonographs, parts of — Disks and cylinders.) 
 
 Recovered oil. (See Oil.) 
 
 Recovered rubber. (See Rubber.) 
 
 Reduction of entered value of merchandise. (See Dutiable value.) 
 
 Red peppers, canned. (See Vegetables.) 
 
752 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DEClSlONS/1908-1915. 
 
 Seeds. 
 For cliaiis. (See Rattan, reeds.) 
 IJniuannfactuied and in the rough — 
 
 Eeeds imported in the rough in the crudest form in which such reeds are imported 
 are unmanufactured, and fall within the terms of paragraph 713 of the tariff act 
 of 1909 for "reeds unmanufactured * * * or not further advanced than cut 
 into lengths suitable for sticks for umbrellas, parasols, sunshades, etc.," although 
 not suitable for sticks, etc. The fact that a further pro\dsion or exception ex- 
 tended the paragraph to reeds partly manufactured, to wit, when advanced 
 but not further than cut into lengths suitable for sticks, etc., does not exclude 
 therefrom the importation in question, consisting of round reeds manufactured 
 from rattan measuring less than 7 millimeters in diameter. The further pro- 
 vision was not designed as restrictive, but the words employed are words of 
 extension. United States v. Winter <fe Smillie (No. 1206), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 32085 (T. D. 33362). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 33939; Nov. 28, 1913.) 
 Beezamination. 
 
 Merchandise imported under the tariff act of August 5, 1909, and withdrawn 
 for consumption under the tariff act of October 3, 1913, to be reexamined when 
 necessary to determine the rate of duty under the latter act. (T. D. 33771; 
 Oct. 6, 1913.) 
 Beflned petroleum. (See Petroleum.) 
 Beflectors, glass. (See Glass and glasses.) 
 Beflectors. 
 Steel, enameled — 
 Incandescent lamp reflectors or shades, composed of steel enameled with vitreous 
 glasses, having a hollow interior which gives to them a bell-shaped effect, are 
 properly dutiable under the provision in paragraph 134, tariff act of 1913, for 
 "other similar hollow ware," as assessed, rather than as manufactures of metal 
 '^ not specially provided for under paragraph 167 of said act, as claimed. G. A. 
 7077 (T. D. 30825) followed. Fensterer & Ruhe v. United States (5 Ct. Oust. 
 Appls., 61; T. D. 34096) distinguished. (T. D. 35334— G. A. 7717; Apr. 23, 
 1915.) 
 Befund under board's decision. (See Board of General Appraisers.) 
 Befund of duties. (See Duty, refund.) 
 Befuse metal. (See Metal, scrap.) 
 Begalia, free entry of. 
 
 Regulations under paragraph 661, tariff act of 1909, for free entry of statuary, casts 
 of sculptiu-e, regalia, and gems, etc. (T. D. 29995; circular No. 46; Sept. 11, 
 1909.) 
 Begulations. 
 
 Supervision, assignment, and signing of official matter and conduct of the public 
 business in and under the Treasury Department. (T. D. 28874; circular No. 
 16; Mar. 19, 1908.) 
 Appraisement appeals — 
 Begulations providing for reports to accompany appraisement appeals to be used 
 before the Board of General Appraisers. (T. D. 34989; Dec. 16, 1914.) 
 Appraisement entry without invoice; invalid regulation — 
 A regulation issued by the Treasury Department permitting entry by appraise- 
 ment without invoice is not valid, in so far as the regulation might be construed 
 to abrogate section 7 of the customs administrative act of 1890, requiring that in 
 no case shall an assessment be fixed on an amoimt less than the invoice or en- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 753 
 
 Begulations — Continued. 
 Aptiaisement entry without invoice; invalid regulation — Continued. 
 
 tered value. Where imported merchandise offered for entry has depreciated 
 from its invoice value, the rate of duty is to be determined by considering not 
 alone section 19 of the customs administrative act of 1890, but effect must be 
 given to section 7 of said act and the duty should not be assessed in any case 
 upon an amount less than the invoice or entered value. Joseph UUman v. 
 United States (No. 19), United States Coiu-t of Customs Appeals, October 28, 
 1910. Appeal from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers 
 (T. D. 29883) to United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York 
 (T. D. 30298); appeal thence to United States Circuit Court of Appeals and 
 transferred. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 31032; Oct. 28, 
 1910.) 
 Automobiles — 
 Kegulations governing automobiles exported for touring pmrposes, imported for 
 temporary stay not over seven days, and for touring purposes under six months' 
 bond. Automobiles, etc., imported for racing or other specific contests, imder 
 six months' bond. (T. D. 32799; Aug. 31, 1912.) 
 
 Articles 610-611, Treasirry Regulations of 1892, requiring passengers to state the 
 value of their baggage, are valid, because paragraph 697, tariff act of 1897, puts a 
 pecuniary limitation upon the exemption to which the passenger is entitled. 
 United States v. One Trunk (Gannon, claimant). United States District Court, 
 Southern District of New York, November 18, 1909. In rem. On proceed- 
 ings for forfeiture of imported goods. Decision adverse to the Government. 
 (T. D. 30214; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Entry of passengers' baggage under paragraph 709, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30327; 
 Feb. 4, 1910.) 
 
 Entry of passengers' baggage under paragraph 709 of the tariff act of 1909. (T. 
 D. 31382; Mar. 14, 1911.) 
 
 Expedite orders for examination of passengers' baggage. (T. D. 33455; May 23, 
 1913.) 
 
 Regulations amended to require the forwarding by mail to the port of destination 
 or exportation of advice of shipment. (T. D. 34882; Nov. 5, 1914.) 
 Briefing letters — 
 
 Department regulations of April 28, 1908 (circular No. 30), amended. Briefing 
 of letters not to be required. (T. D. 31312; circular No. 14; Feb. 18, 1911.) 
 Circulars and circular letters. (T. D. 34613; circular No. 9; July 1, 1914.) 
 Compliance with regulations — 
 
 Compliance with regulations made by the Secretary of the Treasury for the ad- 
 ministration of section 5 of the act of August 24, 1912, pursuant to the 
 express authority granted thereby, is a condition precedent to the right of 
 free entry thereunder: Provided, That these regulations are reasonable and 
 do not in their operation defeat the purpose of the law. United States v. 
 Dominici et al. (78 Fed., 334); E. H. Sargent Co., G. A. 5532 (T. D. 24902). 
 
 Unreasonable regulations: Subdivisions (a) and (b) of section 10 of the regula- 
 tions promulgated November 25, 1912, for the administration of section 5 of the 
 act of August 24, 1912, render inoperative the act and destroy the right of 
 free entry given thereby, and hence are unreasonable. United States v. Morris 
 European & American Express Co. (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 146; T. D. 32386); 
 United States v. Dominici ei al. (78 Fed., 334); Morrill v. Jones (106 U. S., 
 466); E. L. Goodsell Co., G. A. 3880 (T. D. 18078). 
 
 Oral testimony where regulations are inoperative: Where the regulations of 
 the Secretary of the Treasury are inoperative or unreasonable, the Board of 
 45633°— 17 48 
 
754 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS BECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Regulations — Continued. 
 Compliance with regulations — Continued. 
 
 General Appraisera will receive oral testimony to establish the facts essential 
 to free entry and which were sought to be ehcited by such regulations. (T. 
 D. 35086— G. A. 7668; Jan. 20, 1915.) 
 Construction of regulations — 
 Where a statute or regulation is susceptible of two constructions, one of which 
 would lead to legal resulte and the other to results unathorized by law, the former 
 construction will prevail; nor in such case can it be assumed that the Secretary 
 intended to promulgate a regulation inconsistent with law. (T. D. 31203 — G. 
 A. 7150; Jan. 13, 1911.) 
 Construction of section 14 (b) of department circular No. 54 (1910). (T. D. 31852. 
 circular No. 57; Sept. 13, 1911.) 
 Consular regulations — 
 Executive order, dated May 28, 1914, amending the Consular Eegulations of 1896 
 (T. D. 34542; June 13, 1914.) 
 Courts, Federal — 
 
 May take judicial notice of customs regulations. (T. D. 32304; Mar. 12, 1912.) 
 Employees — 
 Regulations governing leaves of absence, and recording and reporting absence of 
 clerks and employees in the Treasury Department at Washington. (T. D. 
 31121; circular No. 66; Dec. 12, 1910.) 
 Regulations governing arrival and departure of employees in Washington during 
 office hours, etc. (T. D. 31561; circular No. 29; May 6, 1911.) 
 Exhibitions — 
 Regulations for entry of merchandise for exhibition at expositions to be held by 
 the Merchants and Manufacturers' Exchange of New York. (T. D. 31979; Oct. 
 30, 1911.) 
 Extension of, under tariff act of August 6, 1909. (T. D. 29939; Aug. 6, 1909.) 
 Fruit, condenmed — ■ 
 The regulation of the Secretary in T. D. 31699 requiring that importers shall file 
 within five days after condemnation the certificate of the board of health is with- 
 out authority of law and is void. The statute itself would seem to prescribe the 
 mode of proof and the time within which it is to be filed. Lauricella v. United 
 States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33482). (T. D. 33708— G. A. 7491; Aug. 
 22, 1913.) 
 Fruit, rotten — ■ 
 The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe regulations to carry out 
 the provisions of subsection 22 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, relating to allow- 
 ances for decay, destruction, or injury to imported fruit. This provision was 
 designed to abrogate the principle decided by the Supreme Court in Lawder v. 
 Stone (187 U. S., 281) giving such allowances under previous tariff acts. The 
 promulgation of such regulations is a condition precedent to allowances for 
 decay or destruction of imported fruit aniving in this country after the enact- 
 ment of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. Protests filed prior to October 4, 1909 
 the date of promulgating such regulations (T. D. 30023), are properly overruled. 
 An affidavit making proof of decay in such fruit and not filed with the collector 
 within 10 days after the landing of such merchandise, is properly disregarded 
 by him in making his liquidation. (T. D. 31349— G. A. 7180; Feb. 27, 1911.) 
 Subsection 22 of section 28, tariff act of 1909, makes express provision for an allow- 
 ance in the estimation and liquidation of duties upon fruit, when by reason of 
 decay, destruction, or injury during transportation there is a shortage or in fact a 
 nonimportation thereof, its commercial value being destroyed. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 755 
 
 Begulatious — Continued . 
 Fittit, lotten — Continued. 
 
 Proof of nonimportation : The Secretary of the Treasury is empowered to make 
 regulations relative to shortage or nonimportation of merchandise, but the law 
 itself requires that "proof to ascertain such destruction or nonimportation shall 
 be lodged with the collector of customs * * * within 10 days after the land- 
 ing of the merchandise. " A regulation intended to exclude from the considera- 
 tion of a collector proof that had been so duly filed would be invalid. The im- 
 porter duly filed his proof and it will be presumed the collector made his deci- 
 sion in the light of it. The board on review affirmed that decision; it will not be 
 disturbed. Vandegrift & Co. v. United States (No. 843), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 7316 (T. D. 32148). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32470; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 
 Certificate of condemnation must be filed: In the case of lemons condemned and 
 destroyed by the board of health, a failure to file the certificate of condemnation 
 within 15 days thereafter is fatal to a recovery of duties on such merchandise. 
 The Secretary of the Treasury, in regulations which he is authorized to make, 
 requkesit. (T. D. 32881— G. A. 7398; Oct. 23, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Subsection 22, section 28, tariff act of 1909. — It is a famiUar prin- 
 ciple of statutory construction that for the determination of legislative intent 
 courts may assemble provisions of a statute in accord with that intent. Non- 
 importation of a part of the cargo of lemons was claimed. The provision of the 
 statute is that "proof" of destruction or nonimportation "shall be lodged with 
 the collector of customs," etc. There is no limitation in the language of the 
 statute of the kind of proof or otherwise save as to time when this proof may be 
 made by the importer. The statute allows 10 days to introduce such proof; to 
 Umit this to 5, as is sought in the Treasury regulation, is in excess of statutory 
 power. Vandegrift v. United States (3 Ct. Oust. Appls., 198; T. D. 32470) dis- 
 tinguished. Lauricella et al. v. United States (No. 1063), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7398 (T. D. 32881), Abstract 30352 (T. D. 32905). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 33482; May 23, 1913.) 
 
 Subsection 22 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909 provides that "no allowance 
 shall be made in the estimation and liquidation of duties for shortage or nonim- 
 portation caused by decay, destruction, or injury to fruit or other perishable 
 articles * * * unless under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the 
 Treasury. ' ' Regulations issued in pursuance of such authority, unless unreason- 
 able or in contravention of the statute itself, have the force and effect of law. 
 
 Time of filing proof — Limitation by statute: While the statute also provides 
 that "proof to ascertain such destruction or nonimportation shall be lodged with 
 the collector * * * within 10 days after the landing of such merchandise," 
 it is silent as to the time and manner in which examination of the fruit is to be 
 made for the purpose of determining the amount of rot. Impliedly Congress 
 left this latter question a matter of regulation by the Secretary under the gen- 
 eral authority quoted above. (T. D. 34822— G. A. 7612; Oct. 9, 1914.) 
 Letter held not to be a regulation — 
 
 A letter directed to a particular officer, and not embodied in the customs jregula- 
 tions, nor duly promulgated as such, so as to be applicable to all customs officers 
 under like circumstances, has not the force and effect of law, especially where 
 the authority purported to be given is to be exercised or not, within the discre- 
 tion of such officer to whom the letter is directed. (T. D. 29688 — G. A. 
 Apr. 12, 1909.) 
 
756 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Begiilatlous — Continued. 
 
 Navigation — 
 Regulations for the documenting of vessels, recording of bills of sale, mortgages, 
 etc., under the reorganization ordered by the President on March 3, 1913. (T. 
 D. 33558; June 16, 1913.) 
 
 Neutrality. (See Neutrality.) 
 
 Opium. (See Opium.) ^ 
 
 Ores, lead-bearing, or base bullion, smelting or refining of — 
 Establishment of warehouses under section 24, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30703; 
 June 18, 1910.) 
 
 Panama-California Exposition — 
 Regulations relating to foreign exhibits. (T. D. 36019; Dec. 28, 1915; T. D. 34260; 
 Mar. 11, 1914.) 
 
 Procedure^ 
 Rules and regulations governing the practice of attorneys, agents, and customs 
 brokers in customs matters before the Treasury Department. (T. D. 32974; 
 Nov. 30, 1912.) 
 
 Belief from hardships of — 
 Relief from hardships of authorized Government regulations should be sought 
 from the executive department which, under expressly delegated authority, 
 established such regulations. There is no vested right to import superior to 
 the power of Congress to say upon what terms it shall be done, and it is quite 
 within the constitutional discretion of Congress to declare upon what terms 
 foreign trade may be had and to determine how the justice of claims for alleged 
 excessive tariff taxation shall be ascertained and disposed of. Claims based 
 on excessive tariff taxation may in the discretion of Congress be left altogether 
 to an executive department, or in suits against the collectors of customs, or to 
 the determination of a Board of General Appraisers, subject to review by the 
 courts upon such particulars only as the law may prescribe. United States v. 
 American Express Co., United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, 
 February 16, 1910. No. 464 (suit 2031). Appeal by the United States from 
 the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 19295 
 (T. D. 29119). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30368; Feb. 21, 
 1910.) '■ 
 
 Seal skins — 
 Regulations governing the importation of fur-seal skins and fur-seal skin garments 
 under the act of Congress approved August 24, 1912. (T. D. 34161; Feb. 7, 
 1914.) 
 
 Section 251, Revised Statutes — 
 Regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, made under the general power 
 granted ^lim by section 251 of the Revised Statutes, are administrative merely, 
 and compliance therewith is not a condition precedent to the right of exemption 
 from duty. United States v. Morris European & American Express Co. (3 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 146; T. D. 32386). (T. D. 36033— G. A. 7835; Dec. 28, 1915.) 
 
 Seed-importation act. (See Seed-importation act.) 
 
 Statistical returns on imports and exports — 
 Regulations affecting the procedure to be followed on and after July 1, 1915, for 
 making statistical returns on imports and exports of merchandise and gold and 
 silver. (T. D. 35518; June 11, 1915.) 
 
 Sugar sampling — 
 Article 945 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 amended so as to require the sam- 
 pling from the stained side of bags of sugar which are stained from lying in storage 
 or any other eause. (T. D. 33228; Feb. 25, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 757 
 
 Begulatious — Continued. 
 
 Sugar tests — 
 Validity ot regulations: Where imported sugar has been tested in order to ascer- 
 tain the polariscopic test under paragraph 209, tariff act of 1897, and such tests 
 are made in accordance with the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury in 
 existence at the time the entry is liquidated, the collector's liquidation of the 
 entry based on such tests will prevail against tests made by sugar chemists, man- 
 ufacturers, or refiners, adopted in trade at the time the present tariff was passed, 
 or subsequent to such period. Such regulations, like those generally promul- 
 gated by the heads of departments, made under the authority prescribed by 
 Congress, if repugnant to no law ot Congress, are to be regarded as having the 
 force and effect' of law, and the board will take judicial notice of the same as 
 fully as of an existing statute. (T. D. 29688— G. A. 6893; Apr. 12, 1909.) 
 The Treasury Department having promulgated detailed and comprehensive regu- 
 lations respecting the use of the polariscope in testing sugar on importation, 
 these regulations are not to be taken as instructions or orders to be followed at 
 discretion, but on the contrary have the force of law, are uniform in their opera- 
 tion, general in application to all importations of sugar, and binding alike on im- 
 porters and on the officials ot the Treasury. American Sugar Refining Co. v. 
 United States (No. 7), United States Court ot Customs Appeals, February 1, 
 1911. Appeal by the importers from decision of the United States Circuit Court 
 for the Southern District ot New York (T. D. 30130) affirming decision ot the 
 Board of United States General Appraisers (unreported) dated June 27, 1901. 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 31273; Feb. 1, 1911.) 
 Article 1001, Customs Regulations of 1908, amended to provide that polariscopes 
 used in testing sugar shall be equipped with so-called bichromate cell. (T. D. 
 33180; Feb. 13, 1913.) 
 
 Surety companies — 
 Regulations applicable to surety companies doing business with the United States 
 under the act ot Congress approved August 13, 1894, as amended by the act of 
 Congress of March 23, 1910. (T. D. 30937; circular No. 54; Sept. 21, 1910.) 
 
 Suspension of — ■ 
 The importers in this case contend, among other things, that the regulation ot the 
 Secretary ot the Treasury requiring the appraiser to make a return of his exami- 
 nation to the collector within 10 days after landing ot the merchandise was sus- 
 pended and became a nullity during the period ot time when most ot these im- 
 portations were made, owing to the Secretary's own action and instructions. 
 Held that, even assuming such to be the case, the Secretary could in no manner 
 suspend or abrogate the express provision of the statute itself, so that the im- 
 porters were not relieved nor prevented from lodging proof of rot with the col- 
 lector themselves within 10 days after the landing of the merchandise. (T. D. 
 35120— G. A. 7677; Feb. 1, 1915.) 
 
 Tare, method of obtaining — 
 Under section 2898, Revised Statutes, it is provided that, in estimating allowance 
 tor tare on imported merchandise, except in certain specified cases, "the real 
 tare shall be allowed, and may be ascertained under such regulations as the Sec- 
 retary of the Treasury may from time to time prescribe." Held, that where 
 United States weighers, in ascertaining the tare of imported cheese, have fol- 
 lowed the Treasury regulations prescribed by the Secretary under the authority 
 ot said section 2898, their method is reasonable and therefore lawful, whether 
 leading to methematically accurate results or not. Wilson v. Maxwell (2 Blatch., 
 316; 30 Fed.'Cas., 147) followed. The method prescribed for obtaining the net 
 weight ot imports is to ascertain and deduct the weight of boxes, casks, and other 
 
758 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Regulations — Continued. 
 
 Tare, method of obtaining — Continued. 
 
 coverings of the merchandise from the grass weight, and does not require the 
 article itself to be separately weighed apart from all coverings. (Arts. 1495- 
 1598, Customs Regulations of 1908.) (T. D. 30380— G. A. 6985; Feb. 28, 1910.) 
 
 Tariff act of October 3, 1913 — 
 Regulations under the tariff act of August 5, 1909, and other acts extended to im- 
 portations under the tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 33768; Oct. 3, 1913.) 
 
 Time records— Hours of work. (T. D. 31150; circular No. 67; Dec. 27, 1910. T. D. 
 32880; circu'arNo. 50; Oct. 21, 1912.) 
 
 Travel orders, traveling expenses, etc. (T. D. 33027; circular No. 58; Dec. 13, 1912. 
 T. D. 34583; circular No. 31; June 25, 1913.) 
 Behearings. (See Hearings and rehearings.) 
 Beimportation — 
 
 American animals. (See Animals, exported and returned.) 
 
 American goods returned— 
 Articles the growth, produce, and manufacture of the United States, when re- 
 turned after being exported, are admitted to free entry under paragraph 483, 
 tariff act of 1897, only on compliance with all of the conditions stated in said 
 paragraph. Especially must proof of the identity of such articles be made in 
 accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury 
 as a condition precedent to free entry, and such proof can be made in no other 
 manner. The mere filing of the oath set out in department circular of March 
 21, 1901, amendatory of article 484 of Customs Regulations of 1899, without 
 more, is only a partial compliance with the customs regulations, unless the pro- 
 duction of the export certificate is lawfully waived by the collector in cases 
 where authorized by such regulation's, as in department circular No. 80, issued 
 August 22, 1906, further amending said article 484 of Customs Regulations of 
 1899. These regulations are substantially embodied in department circular 
 No. 64, issued October 29, 1907, and published in T. D. 28471. These proofs 
 should be filed with the collector of customs at the time of making the entry 
 and before liquidation. (T. D. 28801— G. A. 6738; Feb. 19, 1908.) 
 Proof of identity: The regulation by the Secretary of the Treasury as to identity 
 of American goods retiu-ned under paragraph 483, tariff act of 1897, held not 
 applicable where no consul is located at the place from which the property is 
 returned into the United States; in such case proof of identity that is satisfac- 
 tory to the collector of customs or the Board of General Appraisers fulfills the 
 requirement of the law. (T. D. 28976— G. A. 6759; Apr. 24, 1908.) 
 Where a drawback has been allowed on the exportation of articles of the growth, 
 produce, and manufacture of the United States described in paragraph 483, 
 tariff act of 1897, such articles can be reimported into this country only on the 
 payment of duties equal to the drawback so allowed. (T. D. 29347 — G. A. 
 6827; Nov. 17, 1908.) 
 Certain wooden crates, used as containers for vegetables exported from Cuba, 
 and assessed for duty under section 19 of the customs administrative act of 
 1890, as usual coverings of such merchandise, were claimed to be free of' duty 
 imder paragraph 483 of the present tariff act of 1897, as American manufactures 
 of the kind there described. Held, (1) that the identity of such articles must 
 be proved under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, as a 
 condition precedent to their free entry, and the proof must be filed with the col- 
 lector of customs at the time of making entry of the goods; (2) in the absence 
 of such proof no amount of oral evidence introduced before the Board of General 
 Appraisers will avail to establish the domestic character of such articles so as 
 to authorize sustaining the protest. (T. D. 29446— G. A. 6849; Dec. 29, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 759 
 
 Beimpoitation — ■Continued. 
 American goods letumed — Continued. 
 
 Where the collector of customs assesses duty on American manufactures exported 
 and returned to this country, and of the kind described in paragraph 483, tariS 
 act of 1897, and this assessment is equal to the amount of drawback allowed by 
 law on the exportation of the articles, the burden is cast on the importer to offer 
 satisfactory evidence that such drawback was never actually paid either to 
 the manufacturer, the producer, exporter, or agent of such parties, who are 
 authorized to receive it imder existing laws or Treasiu-y regulations. (T. D. 
 29544— G. A. 6866; Feb. 8, 1909.) 
 
 American goods exported from the United States and returned over regular routes 
 of transportation, in order to be admitted free under paragraph 483, tariff act 
 of 1897, must be brought in under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of 
 the Treasury, providing for proof of their identity. Any waiver of proof pro- 
 vided for is within the discretion of the collector of the port of entry. Waiver 
 not having been made, the regulations will be enforced. (T. D. 29725 — G. A. 
 6903; Apr. 29, 1909.) 
 
 Proof of identity: As a condition precedent to the free entry of goods under para- 
 graph 483, tariff act of 1897, proof of identity must be filed with the collector of 
 customs at the time of making entry, in compliance with the regulations of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury made in pursuance of the authority conferred upon 
 him by said paragraph. In the absence of compliance with said regulations of 
 the Secretary of the Treasury attempts to make proof in any other manner will 
 be of no avail. Hence the filing by the importers of affidavits of various parties 
 to prove identity of the goods: Held to be incompetent and inadmissible evi- 
 dence. Therefore if timely objection is interposed before the board to such 
 affidavits they will be excluded as evidence. (T. D. 29886— G. A. 6921; June 
 
 29, 1909.) 
 
 Free entry of domestic products exported and returned. (T. D. 29960; circular 
 No. 42; Aug. 20, 1909.) 
 
 Pork exported as carcasses was while abroad cut up and pickled in brine and was 
 then reimported in tierces; and as imported it was of less value than when 
 originally exported. Held that it had been changed from fresh pork to salt 
 pork and was not entitled to free entry under paragraph 483, tariff act of 1897, 
 as American goods returned "without having been advanced in value or im- 
 proved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means." (T. D. 
 29964— G. A. 6926; Aug. 23, 1909.) 
 
 A failure to comply with the regulations of the Secretary of the TreasMy in prov- 
 ing the identity of American manufactures returned after exportation is fatal 
 to free entry of such merchandise. (T. D. 30268— G. A. 6963; Jan. 14, 1910.) 
 
 In reference to paragraph 483, tariff act of 1897, prescribing as to American goods 
 reimported that proof shall be made under Treasiiry regulations, held that 
 this express provision as to proof is of the very essence of the exemption per- 
 mitted by said paragraph, and that where the importers have failed to comply 
 with the regulations they are not entitled to the exemption. Roberts v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, March 
 
 30, 1910. No. 617 (suit 2084). Appeal by importer from decision of the Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6926 (T. D. 29964). Decision in 
 favor of the Government. (T. D. 30548; Apr. 19, 1910.) 
 
 Article 570 of the Customs Regulations of 1908, in relation to the entry of Ameri- 
 can products exported and returned amended to provide for the production of 
 the affidavit of the actual owner or ultimate consignee where appraising officer's 
 return does not' show affirmatively merchandise to be of American production. 
 (T. D. 32388; Apr. 9, 1912.) 
 
760 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Beimpoitation — Continued. 
 American goods letumed — Continued. 
 
 Pro forma iavoice for entry purposes: The importation consisted of crates con- 
 taining vegetables, claim being made that the crates were entitled to free entry 
 as American goods returned under paragraph 500 of the tariff act of 1909. The 
 merchandise was entered by pro forma invoices and bonds given for the pro- 
 duction of duly certified invoices. At the time of such entry no claim was 
 made that the goods were entitled to free entry, nor was any bond offered or 
 given for the production of a declaration tending to establish American origin, 
 as provided by article 571 of the Customs Regulations of 1908. The pro forma 
 invoice for purposes of entry takes the place of the certified invoice and is a 
 complete substitute therefor; and so, the production and filing on some day 
 later than the date of filing the pro forma invoice of papers required by regula- 
 tions to be produced and "filed with the entry," is not a compliance with arti- 
 cles 570 and 571, Customs Regulations of 1908. McBride v. United States (1 
 Ct. Cust. Appls., 293; T. D. 31354); United States k. Frank & Lambert (2 
 ibid., — ; T. D. 31973); United States v. Bennett & Loewenthal (2 ibid., — ; 
 T. D. 31975). United States v. Rettig et al. (No. 756), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 26388 (T. D. 31832). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 32254; Feb. 1, 1912.) 
 
 Free entry of domestic products — Compliance with provisions of articles 570 to 
 572 waived in certain cases: Collectors authorized to waive compliance with 
 the provisions of articles 570 to 572 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 where 
 the domestic products returned are provided for in the free list, tariff act of 1913. 
 (T. D. 34409; Apr. 24, 1914.) 
 
 ■Collectors authorized to waive compliance with the provisions of articles 570 to 
 572 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 where the domestic products returned, 
 upon which no drawbacks has been allowed, are provided for in the free list of 
 the tariff act of 1913. T. D. 34409 of April 24, 1914, modified accordingly. (T. 
 D. 34669; July 29, 1914.) 
 
 Merchandise made of dutiable and nondutiable articles: Wheels and axles of 
 American manufactvire, with tires made in Germany, were shipped into Mexico 
 to have certain alterations made there and were then returned to the United 
 States. The goods were not dutiable as entireties. The wheels and axles 
 should have been admitted free under paragraph 500, tariff act of 1909, as arti- 
 cles the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States. The tires, 
 made in Germany, were dutiable at 1} cents per pound. Denike v. United 
 States (No. 1356), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34555 (T. 
 D. 34090). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34553; June 1, 1914.) 
 
 Repairs — Intent: That part of paragraph 404 which provides for the return of 
 American articles repaired abroad is intended to cover articles sent abroad for 
 the purpose of having them repaired. 
 
 Compliance with regulations — Condition precedent: The benefits of this para- 
 graph are granted conditionally upon compliance with the regulations pre- 
 scribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. These regulations when reasonable 
 and not beyond the scope of the law become a condition precedent to the right 
 of free entry. Id re Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., G. A. 5539 (T. D. 24909). 
 
 Character of repairs: A bracelet made abroad out of diamonds composing a 
 pin does not come within the provisions of paragraph 404 so as to entitle the im- 
 porter to bring the same in upon payment of duty on the cost of making the 
 bracelet. (T. D. 35330— G. A. 7713; Apr. 19, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 761 
 
 iteimpoitatlon — Continued. 
 American goods leturned — Continued. 
 
 Oath "filed with entry": It is not necessary under articles 570 and 571, Customs 
 Regulations of 1908, that the oath or declaration of the owner, importer, con- 
 signee, or agent should be filed at the very instant of time that the first entry 
 paper is filed, but it is a substantial compliance with that article if said oath is 
 filed with the collector within a reasonable time thereafter and before the entry 
 is liquidated or any action is taken thereon by the collector. (T. D. 34650 — 
 G. A. 7586; July 13, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Article 570 of the customs regulations requires as to American 
 goods returned the filing of the declaration by the foreign exporter with the 
 entry and as well the filing therewith of the oath or declaration of the owner, 
 importer, consignee, or agent. The collector has no authority to waive the 
 filing of the oath or declaration of the owner with the entry and a subsequent 
 filing was not a compliance with the law. United States v. Rettig (2 Ct. Oust. 
 Appls., 537; T. D. 32254). United States v. Saunders (No. 1449); United 
 States'!). Bird (No. 1450), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeals 
 by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7586 (T. D. 34650), Abstract 36196 (T. D. 34668). Reversed. (T. D. 35337; 
 Apr. 14, 1915.) 
 Cans containing milk or cream — 
 Duty being collected on original importation of foreign cans used in the transpor- 
 tation of milk or cream, such cans may be admitted free on reimportation upon 
 their identity being estabUshed. (T. D. 31888; Sept. 28, 1911.) 
 New importation — 
 A reimportation of exported merchandise is ordinarily to be considered for duti- 
 able purposes as a new importation. (T. D. 29875— G. A. 6917; June 22, 1909.) 
 Shocks. (See Shocks.) 
 Relabeling. 
 Drugs — 
 Drugs not "improper, " etc., within the meaning of section 2935, Revised Statutes, 
 may be released when relabeled satisfactorily to the Department of Agricul- 
 ture, to show the per cent of standard of strength, quality, or purity, under the 
 provision of section 7 of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906. (T. D. 28928; 
 Apr. 10, 1908.) 
 Liquors. (See Liquors.) 
 Beliquldation. (See Entry — reUquidation; also Protest.) 
 Remission of penalty of forfeiture. (See Forfeiture.) " 
 
 Reorganization of the customs service — ^Reduction in force. (T. D. 33300; Apr. 1, 1913.) 
 Repairs abroad. 
 American goods returned — ^Intent — 
 That part of paragraph 404 which provides for the return of American articles 
 repaired abroad is intended to cover articles sent abroad for the purpose of hav- 
 ing them repaired. 
 
 Compliance with regulations — Condition precedent: The benefits of this para- 
 graph are granted conditionally upon compliance with the regulations prescribed 
 by the Secretary of the Treasury. These regulations when reasonable and not 
 beyond the scope of the law become a condition precedent to the right of free 
 entry. In re Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., G. A. 5539 (T. D.' 24909.) 
 
 Character of repairs: A bracelet made abroad out of diamonds composing a 
 pin does not come within the provisions of paragraph 404 so as to entitle the 
 importer to bring the same in upon payment of duty on the cost of making the 
 bracelet. (T. D. 35330— G. A. 7713; Apr. 19, 1915.) 
 
762 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Repaiis abroad — Continued. 
 Articles exported — 
 Regulations governing the exportation and reimportation of articles sent abroad 
 for repairs under paragraph 404 of the tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 33890: Nov. 19, 
 1913.) 
 Diamond pin. 
 Diamond pin taken abroad and reset dutiable upon return on the cost of repairs 
 only, under paragraph 404, tariff act of October 3, 1913. Instructions as to 
 dutiable status of jewelry taken abroad and repaired. (T. D. 35096; Feb. 2, 
 1915.) 
 Foreign automobile returned abroad for repairs — 
 An automobile, valued at more than $2,000, imported from England was subse- 
 quently returned to that coimtry for necessary repairs and then reimported into 
 this country. Held, that the proper rate of duty applicable to the value of such 
 repairs under paragraph 404 of the tariff act of 1913 is the same rate which would 
 have been levied upon said automobile under paragraph 119 of said act if the 
 automobile itself }ia,d been subject to duty. (T. D. 35795 — G. A. 7789; Oct. 11, 
 1915.) 
 Beports. 
 Appraiser's. (See Appraiser's reports.) 
 
 Inspector's, as to shortage. (See Shortage, inspector's report of.) 
 Beports of transactions. 
 
 Reports of transactions on form catalogue No. 3063, heretofore sent to division of 
 special agents to be sent to the Secretary of the Treasury, division of customs. 
 (T. D. 32216; Feb. 3, 1912.) 
 Amending form catalogue No. 3063, making the same quarterly, and containing 
 
 instructions as to its preparation. (T. D. 32551; May 24, 1912.) 
 Report of transactions on catalogue No. 3063 amended — to be rendered semian- 
 nually instead of quarterly. (T. D. 35707; Sept. 15, 1915.) 
 Beports on drawback applications. ^ 
 
 Promptness enjoined in rendering reports on applications for drawback. (T. D. 
 29680; Apr. 9, 1909.) 
 Bequisitions. 
 Books and blanks— Outside service. (T. D. 30094; circular No. 61; Nov. 4, 1909.) 
 Printing and publication — 
 Circular No. 17, of 1906, amended. (T. D. 30394; Mar. 2, 1910.) 
 New form of requisition for printing and binding. (T. D. 31040; circular No. 63; 
 Nov. 12, 1910.) 
 Stationery — Outside service — 
 Permanency of the public records, etc. (T. D. 30636; circular No. 30, superseding 
 circular No. 17 of 1905; May 21, 1910.) 
 Bescue appliances. (See Miners' rescue appliances.) 
 Besealing of bonded cars. 
 
 In case of a wreck or a car becoming disabled, the agent of the carrier or the con- 
 ductor may reseal the car where the necessity arises outside the limits of a port; 
 if within the limits of a port, the reseaUng should be done by customs officers. 
 (T. D. 32086; Dec. 11, 1911.) 
 Beshipment of goods found to be in violation of food and drugs act. (T. D. 29935 
 
 Aug. 4, 1909.) 
 Residence — Domicile. 
 
 The terms "domicile" and "residence" are not synonymous. Domicile implies 
 residence plus animiis manendi. (T. D. 32303; Mar. 12, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 763 
 
 Residents and noniesidents. (See also Effects, personal.) 
 
 A resident of the United States traveling to and from a foreign country, and not 
 remaining there more than a few months at a time, is not a "person from a for- 
 eign country" within the meaning of that phrase as used in paragraph 504, 
 tariff act of 1897, and is not entitled to the exemption from duty on household 
 effects provided under that paragraph. (T. D. 29428— G. A. 6841; Dec. 18, 
 1908.) 
 
 A person's residence is a question of law to be determined from the facts of each 
 particular case. Paragraph 709, tariff act of 1909, does not make free entry con- 
 ditioned upon compliance with any regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury; 
 hence that official can not, by regulations, in any way modify this paragraph. 
 He can not by a regulation fix the length of time a resident of the United States 
 shall i-emain in a foreign country to be, when returning therefrom, "returning 
 from abroad." Hedges's case, G. A. 6523 (T. D. 27863), a resident of the United 
 States returning from a five days' trip to Canada claimed free entry of certain 
 furs of a value less than $100 purchased in' Canada. Eeld, that the furs were 
 entitled to entry free of duty under said paragraph 709. (T. D. 30270 — G. A. 
 6965; Jan. 13, 1910.) 
 
 The minor daughter of a resident of Kentucky, returning from Paris, France, 
 where she has been for several years and expects to live for a longer period, is a 
 "resident of the United States" within the meaning of paragraph 709 of the 
 tariff act of 1909, her residence following that of her parents, notwithstanding 
 her temporary sojourn in a foreign country. Dresser v. Edison Illuminating 
 Co. (49 Fed. Rep., 257); E'apa)-iePetterson(166 Fed. Rep., 536); Lamaru.Micou 
 (112 U. S., 452). (T. D. 31015— G. A. 7114; Oct. 20, 1910.) 
 
 A citizen of the United States who accepts employment in a foreign country, 
 expecting to rema,in there indefinitely, and who does remain there in that 
 employment for 18 years and then returns to the United States without having 
 any residence in this country or any place of abode in any city or State, is not 
 a resident of the United States so as to come within the purview of the pro- 
 viso of paragraph 709, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33694— G. A. 7489; Aug. 12, 
 1913.) 
 
 One who left his mother's home in the United States for the purpose of studying 
 abroad, with a somewhat indefinite intention to return to the United States 
 sometime in the future; who on subsequent occasions returned to the United 
 States for short visits and was declared and passed as a nonresident; who at no 
 time while abroad maintained any place of residence in the United States; who 
 married abroad and later returned to the United States with his family to obtain 
 employmejit, should be treated as a nonresident, following the decision of the 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals in the case of Thompson v. United States 
 (T. D. 34534). (T. D. 34513; June 6, 1914.) 
 Status of a married woman — 
 
 The appellant, a married woman, had lived mainly abroad for a number of yeara 
 to educate her children. During this time her husband's home was in New 
 York, his business was there, and there he voted. She, during this period, went 
 to France and returned after longer or shorter intervals, living admittedly in 
 amicable relations with her husband. Her legal residence remained accord- 
 ingly her husband's residence, and she was entitled to have entered free of duty 
 only such wearing apparel or personal effects as she took out of this country and 
 such articles as she may have purchased abroad not exceeding $100 in value 
 (tariff act of 1909). Bache v. United States (No. 1127), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 31498 (T. D. 83242). Decision aflBjmed. (T. D. 
 33852; Oct. 81, 1913.) 
 
764 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Besidents and nouresidents — Continued. 
 Status of married woman — Continued. 
 The residential status, like the political status, of a married woman follows that of 
 her husband. A woman whose husband is a resident of the United States is also 
 a resident of this country within the meaning of paragraph 642, tariff act of 1913. 
 The residence of the husband becomes that of the wife instantly upon the cele- 
 bration of the marriage. A woman who is a resident of England becomes a resi- 
 dent of the United States immediately upon her marriage in that country to a 
 man who is a resident of the United States. Residence may be changed by 
 commencing to remove from one country to another without intention of return- 
 ing to the other country. (T. D. 34354— G. A. 7553; Apr. 2, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The appellant, though born in the United States, lived in 
 England for many years with her father, who, at her birth and continuously 
 thereafter, was a citizen of England. She married in London a citizen of the 
 United States. Voyaging to the United States after her marriage, she is not to 
 be deemed a resident of the United States, returning thereto, but a person 
 arriving in the United States, and under paragraph 642, tariff act of October 3, 
 
 1913, her personal effects were entitled to entry free of duty. Thompson v. 
 United States (No. 1367), United States Court of Customs Appeals, June 1, 
 
 1914. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 7553 (T. D. 34354). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34534; June 1, 1914.) 
 
 Besidue cargo. 
 Bonds — 
 Bonds required for the landing^and delivery of residue cargo destined to a number 
 of ports, foreign or domestic. (T. D. 30681; June 13, 1910.) 
 
 Besin, sum. (See Drugs, crude.) 
 
 Besin, scammony. (See Scammony resin.) 
 
 Betort settings. (See Fire brick.) 
 
 Bhaini, syr. (See Medicinal preparations.) 
 
 Bhanmus, siinp of. (See Medicinal preparations.) 
 
 Bhinestoue or paste buttons. (See Buttons.) 
 
 Bhodium. (See Metal, unwrought.) 
 
 Bibbon wire. (See Wire and wire articles.) 
 
 Bibbons. 
 Silk-cotton — 
 In paragraph 320, tariff act of 1897, relating to "ribbons * * * of cotton, 
 * * * whether composed in part of india rubber or otherwise," the word 
 "otherwise" is used in the sense of "not," rather than "of other materials," 
 and ribbons in chief value of silk and in part -of cotton are not included therein. 
 Gartner v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Cir- 
 cuit, March 10, 1908. No. 169 (suit 4457). Appeal from Circuit Court of 
 United States for Southern District of New York (154 Fed. Rep., 957; T. D. 
 28259) affirming Abstract 12372 (T. D. 27545). Decision in favor of Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 28864; Mar. 18, 1908.) 
 In the classification of ribbons composed of silk and cotton, silk the component of 
 chief value, the provision in paragraph 391, tariff act of 1897, for "manufacr 
 tures of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, * * * 
 not specially provided for" prevails over that in paragraph 320, for ribbons 
 "made of cotton, * * * whether composed in part of india rubber or 
 otherwise." Gartner v. United States (154 Fed. Rep., 957; T. D. 28259; 
 affirmed, T. D. 28864) followed. (T. D. 28936-G. A. 6752; Apr. 11, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 765 
 
 Ribbons — Continued. 
 
 Silk- 
 Narrow woven fabrics composed wholly or in chief value of silk, measuring from 
 1 to 2 inches in width, with ornamental designs in various colors and patterns, 
 which have uniformly been known in the trade and commerce of the United 
 States as "ribbons," although they may be and are chiefly used for trimming 
 purposes, are properly dutiable at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under the 
 eo nomine provision for "ribbons" in paragraph 401, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 34456— G. A. 7564; May 15, 1914.) 
 
 St. Etienue — 
 Silk ribbons known as St. Etienne ribbons, not exceeding 12 inches in width and 
 having fast edges, are properly dutiable under the denominative -provision for 
 ribbons in paragraph 401, tariff act of 1909, rather than as trimmings under 
 paragraph 402. (T. D. 31970— G. A. 7293; Oct. 30, 1911.) 
 Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of October 30, 1911, 
 G. A. 7293 (T. D. 31970), involving the classification of silk ribbons known as 
 St. Etienne ribbons, to be limited to ribbons of the character the subject of the 
 said decision, and not to apply to certain narrow fabrics known as galloons and 
 trimmings, notwithstanding they may be invoiced as "St. Etienne ribbons." 
 (T. D. 32131; Jan. 8, 1912.) 
 
 Typewriter. (See Typewriter ribbons.) 
 Bice-bead curtains. 
 
 So-called rice-bead curtains, composed chiefly of rice paste formed into particles 
 resembling small beads, are dutiable under paragraph 408, tariff act of 1897, as 
 beaded articles by similitude, rather than mlder paragraph 112 as manufactures 
 of paste, or section 6 as unenumerated manufactured articles. Morimura v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 15, 1908. Suit 4986. Appeal by importer from a decision by Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6628 (T. D. 28257). Board sustained. 
 (T. D. 29015; May 20, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) So-called rice-bead curtains, composed chiefly of rice paste 
 formed into particles resembUng small beads, are subject to the duty provided 
 by paragraph 408, tariff act of 1897, for "articles * * * jq pajt of beads," 
 not being excluded from such classification by the principle of ejusdem generis. 
 Morimura v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second 
 Circuit, April 13, 1909. No. 212 (suit 4986). Appeal by importer from the 
 Circuit Coxat of the United States for the Southern District of New York (T. 
 D. 29015) afibming G. A. 6628 (T. D. 28257). Decision in favor of Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 29703; Apr. 21, 1909.) 
 Rice, broken. 
 
 Adequacy of test — Treasury regulations — 
 Under paragraph 232, tariff act of 1897, providing a duty on broken rice that will 
 pass through a No. 12 wire sieve, it is not necessary that an entire importation 
 should be able to pass through such a sieve. The broken-l-ice rate applies to 
 the portion that will pass through. The fact that age and repeated handling 
 of broken rice may have caused an infinitesimal increase in the percentage of 
 the material that will pass through a No. 12 wire sieve is not a sufficient reason 
 for rejecting a test based on samples of such rice, particularly where the failure 
 to make a proper test at the time of importation was due to no fault of the im- 
 porter. In construing the provision in paragraph 232 for broken rice that will 
 pass through what is* "known commercially as number 12 wire sieve," held 
 that, it appearing that there were several sieves so known that have meshes of 
 different sizes, it wsis within the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
 
766 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Bice, bioken — Continued. 
 Adequacy of tests — Treasury regulations — Continued. 
 
 order to secure uniforinity in different customB districts, to specify the size of 
 wire of which the sieves should be made. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Western District of Washington, 
 Northern Division, January 25, 1910. No. 1469 (suit 1967). Appeal by the 
 importer from the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 13152 (T. D. 27674). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 
 30341; Feb. 8, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) An importation consisted of 2,328 bags of broken rice, which was 
 assessed for duty as cleaned rice at 2 cents per pound, under paragraph 232 of the 
 tariff act of 1897, and is claimed to be dutiable at one-fourth of 1 cent per pound, 
 at least as to so much of it as is small enough, under the provision in the same 
 paragraph for "rice, broken, which will pass through a sieve known commer- 
 cially as number 12 wire sieve." Apart from any question of the right of the 
 importer to challenge as unfair the quantity or condition of samples of merchan- 
 dise selected by the Government for test purposes, where officials charged with 
 the responsibility of assessing and collecting duties take such samples of an im- 
 ported commodity as they deem necessary to insure a proper test of the goods in 
 conformity to law and the regulations of the Treasury Department, no fraud 
 being alleged, the Government will not be permitted here to challenge as unsat- 
 isfactory the quantity or condition of the samples so selected. To sustain the 
 burden of showing a collector's assessment erroneous, it is not incumbent on the 
 importer to preserve samples of his importation for a possible future use in liti- 
 gation; and he may rely, if he chooses to rely, on the sufficiency of the samples 
 selected by the representatives of the Government. In the case at bar there may 
 have been insufficient samples before the court below, thus making it difficult 
 to determine with precision just what proportion of the consignment of broken 
 rice was dutiable at a higher rate and what at a lower rate, but the court was able 
 to reach the following conclusion : That the collector of customs had the opportu- 
 nity to determine with accuracy the percentage of the rice dutiable at the dif- 
 ferent rates; that the Government must be concluded by the tests made of the 
 samples produced, and that duty should be collected at the rate of one-fourth of 
 a cent per pound on47J}percentot the importation , and at the rate of 2 cents per 
 poimd on the remainder. The judgment of the lower court is substantially correct 
 and is accordingly affirmed. United States ti. Ranlett (172 U. S., 133). United 
 States V. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. (Nos. 263 and 264), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from decision of the United 
 States Circuit Court, Western District of Washington, Northern Division (T. D. 
 30341), reversing Abstract 13152 (T. D. 27674) and Abstract 14032 (T. D. 27824); 
 175 Fed. Rep., 125, 128. Transferred from United States Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Ninth Circuit. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31454; Mar. 27, 1911.) 
 
 Rice wine or sake, leakage of. (See Sake.) 
 
 Rifle barrels, rough-bored. 
 
 In paragraph 157, tariff act of 1897, relating to "rifles and parts thereof," the pro- 
 vision for "parts" is not limited to such as are in a finished condition and ready 
 for adjustment, but includes rough-bored barrels that have been sufficiently 
 elaborated to be specially adapted for use as rifle barrels. United States v. Riga, 
 United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, June 11, 1909. No. 537 
 (suit 2040). Appeal by United States from decision of Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 19740 (T. D. 29288'). Board affirmed. (T. D. 
 29854; June 22, 1909.) Acquiesced in June 24 (T. D. 29866). 
 
 Bipolin. (See Paint, enamel white.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 767 
 
 Bock crystal. 
 
 Rock crystal is a colorless or nearly colorless transparent quartz, and quartz is not a 
 carbonate of calcium but a dioxide of silicon. 
 
 Nikols or nicol prisms: The importations of nikols or nicol prisms are manufac- 
 tured from the mineral substance known as carbonate of calcium, and, as articles 
 or wares of that class are not otherwise provided for, these are dutiable at 35 per 
 cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909. United 
 States V. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. (No. 1401), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 35307 (T. D. 34355). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34942; 
 Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 
 Bock drills, bar hoists, steam engines. (See Machinery and machines.) 
 
 Bockingham earthenware. (See Earthenware.) 
 
 Bods, bronze-wire. 
 
 A hot-rolled rod or bar, used solely as a raw material for making wire, and com- 
 posed of an alloy of copper and phosphor tin, which contains 94 per cent of cop- 
 per, is free of duty under paragraph 533, tariff actof 1897, as "composition metal 
 of which copper is a component material of chief value not specially provided 
 for." (T. D. 29296— G. A. 6817; Oct. 8, 1908.) 
 
 Bods, pyroxylin. 
 
 Pyroxylin rods are found to have been partly finished and therefore dutiable under 
 paragraph 17, tariff act of 1897, relative to pyroxylin compounds "if in * * * 
 partly finished articles.'' Rice v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, November 10, 1909. Suit 5495. Appeal by 
 importer from decisions of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 21031 (T. D. 29690) and Abstract 21141 (T. D. 29715). Board affirmed. (T. D. 
 30149; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 
 BoUed plate glass, colored. (See Glass and glasses.) 
 
 Booflng felt. (See Felt.) 
 
 Bope chain. 
 
 When parts of jewelry. (See Jewelry.) 
 
 Bosaniline. (See Coal-tar preparations.) 
 
 Bosaries and crosses. 
 
 Rosaries are dutiable under paragraph 408, tariff act of 1897, as "articles not speci- 
 ally provided for * * * in part of beads." (T. D. 28883— G. A. 6739; 
 Mar. 17, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Beaded articles — Ejusdem generis. — Rosaries are not subject to 
 the provision in paragraph 408, tariff act of 1897, for "articles * * * in part 
 of beads," because not ejusdem generis with the other goods (ornaments, etc.) 
 included in the context. Benziger Brothers v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 18, 1909. Suit 5272. Ap- 
 peal by importers from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 6739 (T. D. 28883). Board reversed. (T. D. 29777; May 25, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Rosaries are dutiable according to the component material of 
 chief value and not. as "articles * * * in part of beads" under paragraph 
 408, tariff act of 1897. United States v. Benziger, United States Circuit Court 
 of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 8, 1910. No. 150 (suit 5272). Appeal by 
 • the United States from decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for the 
 Southern District of New York (172 Fed. Rep., 280; T. D. 29777) reversing G. A. 
 6739 (T. D. 28883). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D 30386; Mar. 1, 
 1910.) Acquiesced in by the Government (T. D. 30457; Mar. 25, 1910). 
 Rosaries are dutiable according to the component material of chief value entering 
 into their fabrication, and not under paragraph 408, tariff act of 1897, as articles 
 
768 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS^ 1908-1915. 
 
 Rosalies and ciosses — Continued. 
 
 in part of beads. Benziger v. United States (172 Fed. Rep., 280; T. D. 29777) 
 affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (T. D. 30386), followed; 
 G. A. 6739 (T. D. 28883) reversed. (T. D. 30731— G. A. 7053; June 27, 1910.) 
 Crosses and rosaries being articles of utility are not dutiable under paragraph 448 
 of the tariff act of 1909, but are dutiable accoroing to the component material of 
 chief value without regard to size; (T. D. 31246; Jan. 25, 1911.) 
 Rosaries made of beads dutiable according to the component material of chief 
 
 value. (T. D. 34019; Dec. 24, 1913.) 
 Metal rosaries valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces dutiable at the rate of 60 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 356, tariff act of 1913. T. D. 34019 modified 
 accordingly. (T. D. 34235; Mar. 4, 1914.) 
 Bose pins. (See Flowers, artificial, celluloid.) 
 Rose plants and cuttings. (See Nursery stock.) 
 Rotten fruit. (See Fruit, rotten.) 
 Rotten onions. (See Onions, rotten.) 
 Rough-bored rifle barrels. (See Rifle barrels.) 
 Rough glass disks. (See Glass and glasses. — Disks.) 
 Round iron. 
 
 Classification of, with particular reference to such iron manufactured, with the 
 use of charcoal as a fuel. Round iron commercially is the product of a bar mill 
 and is properly dutiable under paragraphs 119 and 120 of the tariff act of 1909. 
 (T. D. 30741; June 30, 1910.) 
 Royalties on books. (See Books, appraisements of. — Royalties.) 
 Rubber. 
 Balloons — 
 Uninflated rubber balloons dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem as parts 
 of toys under paragraph 342, tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 35813; Oct. 
 22, 1915.) 
 Balls, defective — Waste rubber; crude rubber- 
 New india-rubber balls imperfect or split in the making, held to be crude rubber 
 and entitled to free entry under paragraph 591, tariff act of 1909. Magee v. 
 United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 443; T. D. 33874) followed. United States v. 
 Michelin Tire Co. (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 518; T. D. 31544), United States v. Con- 
 tinental Color & Chemical Co. (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 165; T. D. 31679), United 
 States 1). Sheldon (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 485; T. D. 32245), United States v. Danker 
 (2 a. Cust. Appls., 522; T. D. 32251), and Newhall v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., 134: T. D. 33410) cited. (T. D. 34031— G. A. 7522; Dec. 29, 1913.) 
 Mouthpieces for pipes. (See Smokers' articles.) 
 Recovered or reclaimed — 
 
 Rubber recovered from old scrap, boots and shoes, etc . , dutiable as nonenumerated 
 manufactured article under section 6, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29731; May 6, 
 1909.) 
 Chopping old scrap or crude rubber, separating therefrom particles of iron, such as 
 rivets, valves, etc., grinding the rubber into smaller particles, chemically treat- 
 ing washing, riffling, and blowing these, are all done to separate the rubber 
 from the other component materials of the scrap or refuse — in short, to recover 
 or reclaim the rubber in a shape suitable for transportation and marketing; and 
 it has not thus been manufactured, in whole or in part, becoming a particular 
 manufactured article; it has rather been made fit as a single material to be man- 
 ufactured anew. Paragraph 579, tariff act of 1897, to be given its due and proper 
 effect, must be taken to have placed on the free list all india rubber, whatever 
 ite cojidition, imported as a material for manufjicturing india-rubber articles; 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 769 
 
 Bnbbei — Continued. 
 
 Becoveied or leclaimed — ^Continued. 
 
 and it applied to old scrap and refuse rubber, whether imported after separation 
 or as the content of, or associated with, other materials as a part of articles for- 
 merly useful. The changed phraseology in the tariff act of 1909 relative to india 
 rubber suggests a question at least in the mind of the Congress as to what is a 
 proper construction of the similar clause in tariff act of 1897, but in the presence 
 of doubt the importer should have the doubt resolved in his favor, and an impor- 
 tation of reclaimed or jecovered rubber was properly held by the board to be 
 entitled to free entry under paragraph 579, tariff act of 1897. United States v. 
 MichelinTireOo. (No.204),UnitedStatesCourtof CustomsAppeals. Appealby 
 the United States from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 22658 (T. D. 30339). Transferred from the United States Circuit Court 
 for the Southern District of New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31544; 
 Apr. 24, 1911.) 
 
 Waste — Scraps of new or worn rubber — 
 The merchandise involved in this appeal consists of so-called scrap rubber waste. 
 It comprises articles of new rubber, such as balls, all of which are defective and 
 unfit for ordinary use, scrap pieces of new rubber, rubber shoes which have not 
 been worn but damaged in manufacture; and included in the importation it is 
 said there is also scrap rubber, articles of various kinds, which have been in 
 actual physical use, and as the result of such use have been worn out. There is 
 no basis in the record for segregating the worn and the new scrap rubber of the 
 importation. The new scrap rubber is not a manufactured article with a changed 
 texture; it is still rubber and "rubber, crude." Since 1890 rubber of this de- 
 scription had been entitled to free entry, and the tariff act of 1909, which relates 
 the scrap there dealt with to the articles of which it had once been composed, 
 does not withdraw from the term "rubber, crude " anything that had theretofore 
 fallen within the clause. The merchandise was entitled to free entry. United 
 States V. Michelin Tire Co. (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 518; T. D. 31544). Magee & Co. 
 et al. V. United States (No 1124), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 31630 (T. D. 33263). Decision reversed. (TrD. 33874; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 Bubblng or scouring bricks. (See Brick.) 
 Bugs. 
 
 Auto or woolen — 
 Woolen rugs or auto rugs properly dutiable as manufactures of wool, under para- 
 graph 378, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32899; Oct. 29, 1912.) 
 
 Cotton. (See Cotton. — Rugs.) 
 
 Manufactured from plush in chief value of Angora goat hair — 
 Rugs made by sewing plush, composed in chief value of the hair of the Angora 
 goat, to a stiff jute backing are dutiable as articles made wholly or in chief value 
 of plushes "made wholly or partly of the hair of the Angora goat" at 45 per cent 
 ad valorem under paragraph 309, tariff act of 1913, and not under the provision 
 for carpets or carpetings under paragraphs 303 and 296 or 302. (T. D. 85588 — 
 G. A. 7751; July 12, 1915.) 
 
 Seamless — 
 Seamless rugs (that is, woven in one piece) of the character or description specified 
 in paragraphs 293 to 297 dutiable at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 300, tariff act of 1913. ^T. D. 35062; Jan. 16, 1915.) 
 
 Straw rugs — 
 Woven rugs in which cotton thread or Cord is used in the warp and a cord made of 
 twisted straw in the weft are dutiable as "mats and rugs manufactured from 
 45633°— 17 49 
 
770 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Bugs — Continued. 
 Straw rags — Continued. 
 
 straw, round or split," under paragraph 272, tariff act of 1913, and not as 
 "mats and rugs made of vegetable fiber" under paragiaph 273. (T. D. 34820 — 
 G. A. 7610; Oct. 9, 1914.) 
 Floor rugs made of straw braid sewed together are subject to duty at the rate of 25 
 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 368 of the tariff act of 
 1913. The words "and having a warp of cotton, hemp, or other vegetable sub- 
 stances," contained in paragraph 272 of the same act, are words of limitation 
 and exclude from classification imder such paragraph floor mats and rugs not 
 having a warp of any of the substances named in said paragraph. (T. D. 35384 — 
 G. A. 7724; May 5, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Straw mats sewn with cotton — Construction. — Paragraph 272, 
 tariff act of 1913, provides clearly and without ambiguity for mats and rugs 
 having a warp of cotton, etc., and nothing appears which would warrant the 
 court in rejecting the plain meaning of the language used and making search 
 for some other signification. The mats here were not woven and had no warp, 
 but were made of braids of straw sewn together with cotton. Held, that they 
 did not fall within the provisions of paragraph 272, but were properly assessed 
 at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 368. 
 
 Legislative history — Report of Finance Committee. — Even if it were permissi- 
 ble in this case to resort to the legislative history of the provision for aid in in- 
 terpretation, there is nothing in the report of the finance Committee of the 
 Senate relied on by importers which would justify a conclusion different from 
 that which the reading of the provision imposes. Akawo, Morimura & Co. v. 
 United States (No. 1563), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7724 (T. 
 D. 35384). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35921; Nov. 19, 1915.) 
 Strips of carpeting — 
 Brussels and Wilton rugs made up of strips of carpeting of the usual width (27 
 inches) are dutiable under paragraphs 385 and 386, respectively, tariff act of 
 1909, and not under paragraph 391, which provides for carpets woven whole for 
 rooms and rugs woven in one piece. (T. D. 34816— G. A. 7606; Oct. 5, 1914.) 
 Bugs and robes of dogskins or goatskins. 
 
 Dogskin rugs and robes and goatskin rugs are dutiable as mats or plates at 10 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 348, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34054; Jan. 12, 
 1914.) 
 Bnles of procedure and practice. 
 
 Rules of procedure and practice before the Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, adopted pursuant to the customs administrative act of 1890, as amended 
 by the act of May 27, 1908, and section 12 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. 
 (T. D. 30506; Apr. 7, 1910.) 
 Bales of the United States Court of Customs Appeals. (T. D. 30633; May 24, 1910.) 
 Bussian calfskins. (See Leather.) 
 
 Bussian cord ornamentation on cotton cloth. (See Cotton — Cloth — Cord ornamenta- 
 tion.) 
 Bussian fish. (See Fish.) 
 Bussian lambskins. (See Lambskins.) 
 Bye straws for use as drinking straws. (See Drinking straws.) 
 
 S. 
 
 Saddle nails not parts of saddles. (See Nails.) 
 Saddlery. 
 
 The term "saddlery" not limited to articles of leather, but includes all articles 
 used only in equipment of hoises. Buckles, tacks, and rivets used on harness 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 771 
 
 Saddleiy — ^Oontinued. ^ 
 
 and saddles not entitled to free entry as saddlery if of a kind ordinarily used for 
 other purposes. (T. D. 34014; Dec. 24, 1913.) 
 Articles used in the care of horses or for horse-stable equipment not saddlery. 
 
 (See Horse goods.) 
 Celluloid martingale rings and loops not. (See PyroxyUn.) 
 
 Saddles, pigskin. (See Leather. — Saddles, pigskin.) 
 
 Safety fuse. 
 
 The term "gutta-percha," as used in paragraph 450, tariff act of 1897, has refer- 
 ence to conimercial gutta-percha. Certain safety fuse held to be in chief value 
 of gutta-percha and dutiable as manufactures of that substance, under para- 
 graph 450, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29095— G. A. 6778; June 18, 1908.) 
 
 Safety lamps. (See Miners' rescue appliances.) 
 
 Safety pins and hairpins of iron or steel wire. 
 
 Safety pins composed of nickel-plated steel wire and hairpins of lacquered iron 
 wire are both provided for eo nomine in paragraph 158 of the tariff act of 1913 
 and dutiable thereunder, as classified by the collector, rather than under the 
 general provision for articles made of wire in paragraph 114 of said act, as 
 claimed by the protestants. (T. D. 35912— G. A. 7817; Nov. 24, 1915.) 
 
 Sago, German. 
 
 German sago, which is in the form of small pellets manufactured from potato 
 starch and is an imitation of or substitute for true pearl sago, is classifiable as 
 an unenumerated manufactured article under section 6, tariff act of 1897, 
 rather than as a starch under paragraph 285 or as "sago, crude" under para- 
 graph 652. (T. D. 28937— G. A. 6753; Apr. 14, 1908.) 
 
 St. Etienne ribbons. (See Ribbons.) 
 
 St. John's bread. 
 
 The merohandise the subject of this appeal consists of locust pods chopped into 
 coarse pieces, the pith and seeds being indiscriminately mixed together, rela- 
 tively few of the seed being broken in the process and nothing being taken 
 away. The importation is accordingly not to be deemed a manufacture, but 
 rather as by its collective name it is designated "St. John's bread." It was 
 entitled to free entry. United States v. Winter & Smillie (No. 1132), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31521 (T. D. 33242). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 33836; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 
 Sake. 
 
 Sake is dutiable as a still wine by similitude, imder paragraph 296, tariff act of 
 1897. In the similitude clause in section 7, tariff act of 1897, prescribing the 
 treatment of unenumerated articles "similar * * * in material, * * * 
 use,'' etc., the term "similar" is used in the sense of "nearly corresponding," 
 "resembling in manyjespects," "somewhat like," or "having a general resem- 
 blance." Sake is "similar" to still wine in material and use within the mean- 
 ing of this provision. The resemblance in material is based on the fact that 
 the predominant substance in each is alcohol and that the two articles have a 
 substantial similarity in alcoholic strength, the percentage of alcohol in sake be- 
 ing about 18 and in still wine from 11 to 16; and the resemblance in use arises 
 from the fact that both articles are drunk for purposes of exhilaration and are 
 capable of producing intoxication. United States v. Komada, United States 
 Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, May 18, 1908. No. 1361 (suit 1783). Appeal 
 from Circuit Court of the United States for Northern District of California (148 
 Fed. Rep., 125; T. D. 27514) affirming G. A. 6182 (T. D. 26810). Decision in 
 favor of the Government. (T. D. 29105; June 24, 1908.) 
 
772 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Sake — Continued. 
 
 Sake is subject to the duty on still wine provided by paragraph 296, taiifi act of 
 1897. This article had been held dutiable as a still wine by similitude under 
 the tariff act of 1890, and that rule had been followed eight years, during which 
 two other tariff acts had been enacted, and while litigation was in progress 
 Congress in terms put sake in the category of still wines. Held that the intent of 
 Congress to make sake dutiable at the same rate as still wines was clearly mani- 
 fested. Komada v. United States, United States Supreme Court, January 3, 
 1910. No. 220 (suit 1783). On writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit 
 Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Decision in favor of the Government. 
 (T. D. 30253; Jan. 11, 1910.) 
 Leakage of — 
 
 An allowance for leakage of sake is prohibited by the terms of paragraph 807, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31293— G. A. 7164; Feb. 11, 1911.) 
 
 Leakage of sake nondutiable under tariff act of 1897: Of the importation of sake 
 in question the United States ganger foimd seven of the imported casks to be 
 entirely empty and 18 casks to be partly empty. The evidence shows appar- 
 ently that the leakage occurred before importation. Under paragraph 296, 
 tariff act of 1897, sake was held dutiable by similitude only as still wine. How- 
 ever, the provisions of the similitude paragraph do not undertake to place any 
 imposition upon the article affected by it other than the appropriate duty only. 
 There is no provision in the paragraph that such similar articles shall be sub- 
 ject to all the other laws and regulations appertaining to the dutiable article 
 which it so resembles. Therefore, if any burden additional to the appropriate 
 duty is levied upon any article by force of the similitude paragraph it must be 
 done by construction alone and to do so by construction is to do violence to an 
 accepted principle of law. The leakage of sake was not dutiable. United 
 States V. Gonsalves (2 Haw. Kep., 354; T. D. 26737). Peacock & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 642), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porters from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 24628 (T. D. 
 31236). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32047; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 
 In the past there has been much contention over sake and the leakage of sake, 
 but the tariff act of 1909 would seem, by providing in paragraph 307 for rice 
 wine or sake expressly and forbidding any allowance being made for breakage, 
 leakage, or damage on wines, to have placed the question beyond doubt. It 
 was properly held no such allowance should be made on sake. Furuya & Co. 
 V. United States (No. 668), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25232 (T. D. 31478). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32095; -Dec. 6, 1911.) 
 
 It appears there had been leakage in transitu from some of the tubs of this impor- 
 tation. But section 307, tariff act of 1909, specifically provided that rice wine 
 or sake should enjoy no constructive or other allowance for breakage, leakage, 
 or damage during transportation. Furuya & Co. v. United States (2 Ct. Oust. 
 Appls., 37; T. D. 32095). S. Ban Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1361), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34745 (T. D. 34165). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 34874; Oct. 29, 1914.) 
 Salaries and compensation, computation of. (T. D. 34705; circular No. 35; Aug. 31, 
 
 1914.) 
 Sales. 
 Blanks — 
 
 Proceeds from the sale of blank customs forms to be deposited to the credit of the 
 Treasurer of the United States instead of to the credit of customs officers. (T. 
 D. 34049; Jan. 12, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST 01? CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 773 
 
 Sales — Continued. 
 Food and drugs. (See Inspection of food and drugs.) 
 Forfeited goods^Ofl5.oers and employees — 
 Customs officers and employees prohibited from attending public sales of goods 
 forfeited to the Government, or bidding on behalf of themselves or for other 
 persons upon goods there offered. Article 1408 of the Customs Regulations of 
 1908 amended. (T. D. 32371; Apr. 4, 1912.) 
 Salmon. (See Fish, packed in ice.) 
 Salt herring. 
 
 Allowance for impurities. (See Fish, weight of.) 
 Salts of cinchona bark. (See Quinine.) 
 Salts of opium. (See Codeine.) 
 Salved cargo. 
 Customs duties — ^Priority — 
 Where a cargo is salved from a foreign ship the salvors have the prior right to be 
 paid salvage before any duties can be allowed the United States. 
 
 Dutiable goods: The United States has an equitable claim for duties on all 
 such salved goods as were sold and entered into the consumption of the country. 
 No duties can be collected on such salved goods as were exported. Albury et 
 al. V. Cargo of the Lugano, District Court, Southern District of Florida, Novem- 
 ber 6, 1913. In Admiralty. Suit by Dunham Albury and others against the 
 cargo salved from the British steamship Lugano. Decree distributing pro- 
 ceeds. (T. D. 34866; Oct. 27, 1914.) 
 Sample package fees. (See Fees and exactions.) 
 Samples. 
 Analysis of merchandise — 
 Without sample: There was a chemical analysis of the glycerin of the importa- 
 tion. Proof of this was excluded because a sample of the glycerin analyzed 
 was not produced. To make the production of a sample a condition precedent 
 to the admission of proof of the analysis was error. The failure to produce a 
 sample might affect the weight, but not the competency, of the evidence offered. 
 United States v. Alpers & Mott (No. 1044), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 29966 (T. D. 32847). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33201; 
 Feb. 12, 1913.) ' 
 
 Appraisement and reappralsement — 
 Existing practice to be continued in regard to appraisement and reappralsement 
 of merchandise pending final decision upon application for a rehearing in Tilge 
 & Co. V. United States (T. D. 31507). (T. D. 31539; May 1, 1911.) 
 Classification by — 
 Evidence — Shortbread: A case may be decided upon bare sample if classification 
 can be determined by the application of general or common knowledge as dis- 
 tinguished from expert knowledge. The question of classification of a baked 
 article known as "shortbread " does not present such a case. Shallus v. United 
 States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 456; T. D. 82205) and United States v. Lun Chong & 
 Co. (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 468; T. D. 33041) distinguished. (T. D. 35916— G. A. 
 7821; Nov. 24, 1915.) 
 Commercial travelers' samples. (See also Reciprocity.) 
 Commercial travelers' samples from Great Britain and Ireland may be examined 
 on the dock without formal entry. T. D. 31537 of April 26, 19II, modified. 
 (T. D. 34421; May 2, 1914.) 
 Regulations governing the exportation of commercial travelers' samples to Great 
 Britain and Ireland. (T. D. 29060; June 12, 1908.) 
 
774 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1916. 
 
 Samples — Continued. 
 Commeicial travelers' samples — Continued. 
 
 No commercial value: A bill of sale or statement of costs, showing the coat of ma- 
 terials from which imported merchandise has been manufactured, not an invoice 
 within the meaning of act of June 10, 1890. (T. D. 28834; Mar. 10, 1908.) 
 Confusion of. (See Grasses, confusion of samples.) 
 Consular, on leappraisement — 
 
 Where the goods in controversy had gone into commerce and had been there con- 
 sumed, in reappraisement proceedings, on a failure to produce the samples of 
 these goods selected and deposited at the public stores, it is not permissible for 
 the Government to substitute consular samples forwarded according to a prac- 
 tice of the Treasury Department from the place of export abroad . That samples 
 selected by the collector at the port of entry and deposited at the public stores 
 should be examined on a reappraisement is a mandatory requirement of the law. 
 Loeb & Schoenfeld v. United States (T. T>. 31479). Tilge & Co. v. United States 
 (No. 274), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer 
 from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23354 
 (T. D. 30645). (T. D. 31507; Apr. 10, 1911.) 
 Food and drug products- 
 Samples of food and drug products should be sent to food and drug laboratories by 
 parcel post instead of by express. (T. D. 34745; Aug. 31, 1914.) 
 Free entry — 
 
 Samples intended for use in soliciting orders, not intended to be sold or to mingle 
 in the commerce of this country, to be admitted free of duty irrespective of the 
 question of their commercial value. T. D. 4828 is hereby modified accordingly. 
 (T. D. 31771; July 25, 1911.) Modified December 11, 1911 (T. D. 32082). 
 
 Samples entered imder bond for exportation to be marked to insure identification. 
 T. D. 33806 modified. Samples of no commercial value not sutiable for use or 
 sale as merchandise may be admitted free. (T. D. 34374; Apr. 13, 1914.) 
 
 T. D. 34374 of April 13, 1914, governing the free entry of samples modified. (T. 
 D. 35539; June 19, 1915.) 
 On reappraisement— 
 
 Petition for rehearing denied: Eeviewing the decision in Tilge & Co. v. United 
 States (T. D. 31507), the decision is adhered to. The court did not there hold 
 an appraising bfiicer had no jurisdiction to appraise any of the merchandise of a 
 consignment unless he had examined the samples deposited at the public stores, 
 nor did it hold that samples forming a part of the importation can not, when duly 
 authenticated, be accepted by appraising oflicers for jurisdictional purposes. 
 It was there held, however, that no process was permissible "other than the law 
 provides"; and that while the law provides substitute processes, compliance 
 with any of these was not averred in the case as presented for de termination here, 
 and the decision as rendered was based simply on noncompliance with the law's 
 requirements. What would or would not constitute a proper waiver or stipula- 
 tion to avoid the stricter operation of the statute will depend on the facts of 
 record in the particular case. Tilge v. United States (No. 274), United States 
 Covu-t of Ctistoms Appeals. Petition on behalf of the Government for rehearing 
 in Tilge & Co. v. United States (T. D. 31507). Petition denied. (T. D. 31676; 
 May 31, 1911.) 
 
 Absence of samples: Where it does not appear that the presence of samples of the 
 merchandise in question would have aided to a more correct conclusion, a reap- 
 praisement is not to be held invalid merely because there were no samples before 
 the reappraisement board. (T. D. 30378— G. A. 6983; Feb. 21, 1910.) (See 
 also Eeappraisement, validity.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 775 
 
 Samples — Continued. 
 Printed matter — 
 The samples (the subject of the present appeal) that show coloring results are 
 designed for the use of salesmen who place dyes on the market; they are not 
 samples of the dyes themselves. The regulations provide that samples to be 
 entitled to free entry must be such as "are obviously intended for use merely as 
 samples of merchandise to sell the class of goods which they represent." These 
 goods were properly assessed as printed matter under paragraph 416, tariff act of 
 1909. Badische Co. v. United States (No. 1094), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 31012 (T. D. 33055). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33535; May 
 31, 1913.) 
 ^ The merchandise consists of fashion plates made of surface-coated paper with sam- 
 ples of embroidered or appliqu(5d dress goods attached for use mainly in mail- 
 order business. These goods are not properly "samples," but are printed matter 
 on surface-coated paper, coming into competition with like commercial articles 
 produced and for sale in this country. They were-not, accordingly, entitled to 
 free entry. Gernet v. United States (No. 1125), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 31319 (T. D. 33194). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33834; Oct. 
 24, 1913.) 
 Production of^ 
 The production of samples is not an indispensable part of the proof of the character 
 of imports, which may be shown by other evidence. Eheims Co. v. United 
 States. (T. D. 29632; Mar. 17, 1909.) 
 Vsilue of — 
 Appeal to reappraisement: The board has uniformly held that the remedy of an 
 importer is to appeal to reappraisement in order to determine the correct value 
 of his imported merchandise, and that such question can not be raised by pro- 
 test. In Badische v. United States (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., — T. D. 33535) it 
 was decided by the Court of Customs Appeals that the initial step to obtain 
 relief should be an appeal to reappraisement and not by protest. (T. D. 
 33619— G. A. 7479; July 10, 1913.) 
 Samples of seeds. 
 
 To be forwarded to Department of Agriculture. (T. D. 29457; Jan. 5, 1909.) 
 Samples and sample labels — T. D. 31936. 
 
 The samples and sample labels provided by T. D. 31936 of October 21, 1911, should 
 be forwarded from ports of entry to the appraising officers at headquarters for 
 transmission to the port of New York. (T. D. 33785; Oct. 11, 1913.) 
 Sanctuary lights, so-called. (See Cotton, manufactures of.) 
 Sandalwood and orris root. 
 
 Sandalwood and orris root not dutiable under paragraph 49, tariff act of 1913, but 
 free of duty under paragraph 477 of the said act. (T. D. 34174; Feb. 9, 1914.) 
 Sand, fire. (See Fire-sand.) 
 Sand, iron. (See Iron, Sand.) 
 Sand, manufactured. (See Corundum.) 
 Sand. Monazite — 
 
 No allowance for alleged impurities: Monazite sand, which is made dutiable by 
 weight under paragraph 183, tariff act of 1897, is dutiable on the gross weight 
 as ascertained by the Government weighers, without allowance by way of de- 
 duction of duties for alleged impurities consisting of small percentages of other 
 minerals, such as quartz and garnet. (T. D. 30527 — G. A. 7003; Apr. 11, 1910.) 
 
776 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Sandstone slabs. 
 Grindstones, unfinished — 
 
 Roughly hewn and squared sandstone slabs to which nothing has been done 
 toward fashioning them into the form of grindstones are not "grindstones 
 * * * unfinished," within the meaning of paragraph 115, tariff act of 1909, 
 but are dutiable as sandstone, hewn, etc., imder paragraph 114. (T. D. 30546 — 
 G- A. 7012; Apr. 16, 1910.) 
 Sandwich paste. 
 
 Sandwich paste composed of chopped-up protein matter, fat, spices, cooked 
 starch, chopped-up French truffles, and a small amount of meat fiber, so changed 
 that it is impossible to identify the various materials, dutiable at 15 per cent 
 ad valorem as a nonenumerated manufactured article under paragraph 385, 
 tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35520; June 12, 1915.) 
 Sapphire bearings. 
 
 Bearings for instruments of precision other than watches oi clocks, made of sap- 
 phires or other precious stones, are dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909, as unenumerated manufactured articles, and 
 not at 10 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 192 or 449 as jewels for watches 
 and clocks, or as precious stones, respectively, nor are they dutiable as articles 
 composed of mineral substances under paragraph 95, or as semiprecious stones 
 under paragraph 112 of said act. Where the clear and unmistakable intent of 
 Congress is to provide for a group of articles designed solely for a particular use 
 and to exclude from that provision all other articles of the same class identical 
 as to material but differing in their use, the similitude clause will not be ap- 
 plied in cases where its operation would deprive that intendment of its full 
 force and effect. 
 
 Importations by parcels post: The Board of General Appraisers has juris- 
 diction of protests filed against the collector's decision as to the rate and amount 
 of duties assessed upon merchandise imported by mail from foreign countries 
 parties to parcels-post treaties with the United States^ (T. D. 31519 — G. A. 
 7209; Apr. 18, 1911.) 
 
 Duty upon sapphire bearings under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, not to be im- 
 posed until 30 days from December 12, 1912. (T. D. 33051; Dec. 30, 1912.) 
 Jewels for instruments other than watches or clocks — 
 
 Bearings for instruments of precbion other than watches or clocks, made of sap- 
 phires or other precious stones, are dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909, as imenumerated manufactured articles, and 
 not at 10 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 192 or 449 as jewels for watches 
 and clocks, or as precious stones, respectively, nor are they dutiable as articles 
 composed of mineral substances under paragraph 95, or as semiprecious stones 
 under paragraph 112 of said act. 
 
 Importations by parcel posts: The Board of General Appraisers has jurisdic- 
 tion of protests filed against the collector's decision as to the rate and amount of 
 duties assessed upon merchandise imported by mail from foreign countries par- 
 ties to parcels-post treaties with the United States. 
 
 Sufficiency of protests: Where an importer files a protest within 15 days 
 after the payment of duties to the postmaster at Lynn, Mass., but not within 15 
 days after the ascertainment and liquidation of duties by the collector at New 
 York or his subordinate officer, the protest is not filed within statutory time 
 unless the sum received by the Government official is taken in payment of 
 "fees, charges, and exactions other than duties." (T. D. 32957— G. A. 7402; 
 Nov. 18, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed: ) Parcel-post importation. — The importation in controversy 
 consisted of small pieces of Ceylon sapphire in the form of rough slabs, finished 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 77*7 
 
 Sapphire bearings — Continued. 
 Jewels for instruments other than watches or clocks — Continued. 
 
 V or cup jewels, used as bearings for electrical meters or other delicate 
 measiiring instruments. The goods are known as precious stones. They fall 
 within the specific terms of paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, as "articles composed 
 of earthy or mineral substances," and they are not to be excluded from the op- 
 tion of that paragraph by the rule of ejusdem generis. 
 
 Importations by parcel post: A parcel-post convention with Great Britain 
 provides that the merchandise imported under it shall be subject to all customs 
 duties or customs regulations enforced in the United States and that the mer- 
 chandise shall be delivered to the addressee upon payment by him of the du- 
 ties properly chargeable thereon. This provision waives the necessity of a 
 formal entry, except when this is required, and a right of appeal to a classifica- 
 tion board remains. In re Chichester (48 Fed., 281) distinguished. United 
 States V. General Electric Co. (Nos. 1062 and 1097); General Electric Co. v. 
 United States (Nos. 1077 and 1085); United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Cross-appeals from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7402 (T. 
 D. 32957). Decision reversed (T. D. 33494; May 26, 1913.) 
 
 Sapphires. (See Precious stones.) 
 
 Sardines in tins. (See Fish, in tins.) 
 
 Sauces. 
 
 Walnut catsup is dutiable as a sauce under paragraph 241, tariff act of 1897, and 
 not as an unenumerated manufactured article under section 6. (T. D. 29713 — 
 G. A. 6900; Apr. 26, 1909.) 
 Thick soy not. (See Soy.) 
 
 Sausages. (See Meats.) 
 
 Saw plates, circular. 
 
 Steel plates which in size, shape, general finish, and quality correspond to circu- 
 lar saw plates, are "steel circular saw plates" within the meaning of paragraph 
 141, tariff act of 1897, though not actually used as saw plates. Boker v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, March 20, 
 1909. Suit 5180. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 6694 (T. D. 28625). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29652; 
 Mar. 24, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Steel disks resembling circular saw plates in size, shape, general 
 finish, and quality of steel are saw plates and subject to the additional duty 
 provided in paragraph 141, tarifi act of 1897, for "steel circular saw plates." 
 Boker v. United States (T. D. 29652), affirming G. A. 6694 (T. D. 28625), fol- 
 lowed. (T. D. 29743— G. A. 6905; May 6, 1909.) 
 
 Sawed lumber. (See Limiber.) 
 
 Sawed soapstone. (See Soapstone.) 
 
 Sawed Spanish cedar. (See Wood, cabinet.) 
 
 Sawed talc. (See Talc.) 
 
 Scalloped articles. 
 
 The provision in paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, for "articles or fabrics * * * 
 scalloped, by hand or machinery, for any purpose" includes all scalloped arti- 
 cles composed of cotton, flax, or other vegetable fiber, said provision not being 
 modified or restricted by the subsequent phrase in said paragraph "ornamented 
 or embroidered in any manner herein described, in any part thereof, however 
 small." (T. D. 31707— G. A. 7237; June 19, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise involved is table covers composed of flax with 
 the edges scalloped. The words "scalloped by hand or machinery for any pur- 
 pose," as they appear in paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, must be taken to pro- 
 vide that if an article in other respects within the provisions of the paragraph 
 
'7 '78 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS^ 1908-1915. 
 
 Scalloped articles— Continued. 
 
 has been in fact scalloped by hand or machinery it is dutiable thereunder regard- 
 less of the purpose for which the scalloping was done, and it is not necessary that 
 the article should be otherwise ornamented or embroidered. Gardner & Co. v. 
 United States (No. 721), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7237 (T. I). 
 31707). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32228; Jan. 23, 1912.) 
 Cotton table damask- 
 Doilies and other articles made from cotton table damask, the edges of which are 
 scalloped, are neither dutiable as "cotton table damask" nor as "manufactures 
 of cotton table damask or of which cotton table damask is the component mate- 
 rial of chief value, not specially provided for " under paragraph 331, but ai'e more 
 specifically provided for as "articles * * * scalloped, by hand or machin- 
 ery, for any purpose, * * * composed wholly or in chief value of cotton 
 * * * and not elsewhere specially provided for" under paragraph 349, tariff 
 act of 1909. (T. D. 33667— G. A. 7486; July 31, 1913.) 
 Embroidered — 
 Articles with scalloped edges, the edges of which have been stitched over a cord, 
 the needlework being of the plainest description and serving simply the neces- 
 sary and useful purpose of preventing the articles from raveling, are not "em- 
 broidery" or "embroidered in any manner" within, the meantug of paragraph 
 339, tariff act of 1897. United States v. Waentig, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, February 9, 1909. Suit 4146. Appeal by 
 United States from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 6205 (T. D. 26853). Board aflHrmed. (T. D. 29598; Mar. 3, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Scalloped articles, the edges of which have been stitched over a 
 cord, the needlework being of the plainest description and serving simply to 
 prevent the articles from raveling, are not "embroidery" or "embroidered in 
 any manner" within the meaning of paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897. United 
 States V. Waentig, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 
 December 7, 1909. No. 72 (suit 4146). Appeal by United States from the Cir- 
 cuit Court of the Uiiited States for the Southern District of New York (168 Fed. 
 Rep., 570; T. D. 29598) affirming G. A. 6205 (T. D. 26853). Decision adverse to 
 the Government. (T. D. 30225; Dec. 28, 1909.) Acquiesced in by the Govern- 
 ment February 3, 1910 (T. D. 30325). 
 Embroidery is ornamental needlework. United States v. Waentig (T. D. 30225) 
 followed. Certain scalloped articles held dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, as "articles embroidered. " (T. 
 D. 30271— G. A. 6966; Jan. 17, 1910.) 
 When not embroidered — 
 Something more than stitches, utilitarian in character, are needed to bring scal- 
 loped articles within the term "embroidered articles"; there should be stitches 
 superimposed with the purpose of producing an ornamental effect. The articles 
 of the importation in controversy and the testimony go to show they were duti- 
 able under paragraph 346, tariff act of 1897. Simpson v. United States (No. 842), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27399 (T. D. 32089). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 32569; May 17, 1912.) 
 Scoeumony resin. 
 
 Scammony resin dutiable either directly or by simiUtude as an alcoholic medici- 
 nal preparation, at the rate of 55 cents per pound imder paragraph 65, tariff act 
 of 1909. (T. D. 30287; Jan. 22, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 779 
 
 Scammony resin — Continued. 
 
 Scammony resin, an article prepared with the use of alcohol and used in the com- 
 pounding of medicinal preparations, is not dutiable as a medicinal preparation 
 (par. 65, tariff act of 1909); neither is it dutiable as a drug, the proviso to para- 
 graphs 20 and 559 Umiting the applicat'"on of those paragraphs so as to exclude 
 therefrom articles containing alcohol or in which alcohol is used. Held, that the 
 merchandise is dutiable at 55 cents per pound by similitude to chemical mix- 
 tures, alcoholic, under paragraphs 481 and 3 of the said tariff act. (T. D. 31802 — 
 G. A. 7259; Aug. 7, 1911.) 
 Scarfing. 
 Flax— 
 The merchandise consisting of flax scarfing, with a hem and hemstitching, is not 
 an article finished or unfinished, but it has been advanced beyond condition as 
 a plain woven fabric. By its weight it is excluded from the first part of para- 
 graph 357, tariff act of 1909, and by its condition it is excluded from the last part 
 of that paragraph. It falls within paragraph 358 of that act. Lamb, Finlay & 
 Co. V. United States (No. 1397), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Ap- 
 peal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 35021 (T. D. 34279). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35386; May 3, 1915.) 
 Scarfs. 
 Cotton knit wearing apparel — 
 Cotton scarfs made on knitting machines or frames are properly dutiable as cotton 
 knit wearing apparel under the provisions of paragraph 261, tariff act of 1913, 
 rather than under the provision in paragraph 358 of .said act for "wearing ap- 
 parel, and all other articles or fabrics made wholly or in part of lace or of imita- 
 tion lace of any kind." (T. D. 35715— G. A. 7775; Sept 17, 1915.) 
 Schappe silk yarns. (See Yams.) 
 Schlung spangles. 
 
 Schlung spangles, consisting of gelatin spaijgles permanently attached to cotton 
 cords and used in the manufacture of trimmings or as trimmings or ornaments, 
 are dutiable under paragraph 408, tariff act of 1897, relating to trimmings and 
 other articles composed of spangles. (T. D. 30338— G. A. 6980; Feb. 7, 1910.) 
 Scientific apparatus. 
 New York Post-Graduate Medical School and Hospital— 
 This institution was established for the sole purpose of providing a post-graduate 
 course ia medicine and surgery for practicing physicians. The hospital was 
 established as an adjunct to the school, no cases being received for treatment 
 except for purposes of instruction. The institution is an educational one. 
 
 Optical instruments for use in the hospital: It being an educational institu- 
 tion, scientific instruments imported for use in the New York Post-Graduate 
 Medical School and Hospital were entitled to free entry under paragraph 6S0, 
 tariff act of 1909. United States v. Rheinboldt (No. 1269), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 33427 (T. D. 33709). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 35325; Apr. 14, 1915.) 
 Scissors for school use — • 
 Paragraph 650, tariff act of 1909: The history of this paragraph shows a purpose to 
 regard less the character of the article imported than its intended use. The 
 object was to admit the articles described free of duty when imported by de- 
 signated institutions in the furtherance of education. 
 
 Scientific apparatus for educational uses : A review of the decisions makes clear 
 that in fixing the dutiable or nondutiable status of articles imported by institu- 
 tions to further educational objects regard should be had not bo much to intrinsic 
 
780 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Scientific apparatus — Continued. 
 Scissors for school use — Continued. 
 
 character or to use in chief but rather to the actual use for which the particular 
 goods were in fact brought in. This judicial interpretation stands approved by 
 subsequent congressional enactments. The scissors of the importation, marked 
 "Board of Education," and destined to be used in the teaching of sewing in 
 York City schools, were entitled to free entry under paragraph 650. United 
 States V. Kastor & Bros. (No. 1254), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 33236 (T. D. 33668). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35323; Apr. 14, 1915.) 
 Straw-sewing machines — 
 The goods of the importation are straw-sewing machines and they were imported 
 for the use of the Boston Trade School for Girls. The case is ruled by United 
 States V. Kastor (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 35323). United States v. Durbrow 
 & Heame Manufacturing Co. (No. 1255), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the Government from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 33236 (T. D. 33668). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35324; Apr. 14, 
 1915.) 
 
 Scissors blades, unfinished. 
 
 Articles which have been forged into unfinished scissors blades are properly duti- 
 able as such under paragraph 152, tariff act of 1909, rather than as forgings under 
 paragraph 123 of said act, irrespective of the fact that forging was the sole manu- 
 facturing process applied to them. (T. D. 34546— G. A. 7573; June 8, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Unfinished scissors blades. — These articles have been brought 
 into a condition where their only practical use or purpose is to be finished as 
 scissors blades, and they are commercially unsuitable for any other purpose. 
 They were properly assessed under the provision for " scissors and shears, and 
 blades for the same, finished or unfinished," in paragraph 152, tariff act of 1909. 
 Redden & Martin v. United States (No. 1427), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals, January 15, 1915. Appeal by the importer from Board of United 
 StatesGeneralAppraisers.G. A. 7573 (T.D. 34546). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 35147; Jan. 15, 1915.) 
 
 Scouring bricks. (See Brick.) 
 
 Scrap iron or steel. (See Iron.) 
 
 Scrap, metal. 
 
 Fit only to be remanufactured. (See Metal. — Scrap.) 
 
 Scrap, photographic film. (See Film.— Scrap.) 
 
 Scrap rubber, new or worn. (See Rubber.-^Waste.) 
 
 Scrap, steel. 
 
 Old steel rails not. (See Steel.) 
 
 Scrap tin not old junk. (See Waste.) 
 
 Scrap tobacco. (See Tobacco.) 
 
 Screens. 
 Cotton in a framework of wood — 
 On a review of the statutes and the decisions founded on the statutes, it is held that 
 screens with panels of cotton, ornamented with embroidered designs or with 
 figures appliqu^d thereon, were not dutiable as furniture or as a manufacture of 
 cotton under tariff act of 1897, but were dutiable under paragraph 339 of that act 
 at 60 per cent as "other articles" embroidered or appliqu6d. Morimura Bros. 
 V. United States (No. 94), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 6605 (T. D. 28204). Transferred from United States Circuit Court for 
 Southern District of New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31941; Oct. 12, 
 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 781 
 
 Scieens — Continued. ' 
 Embroidery — 
 
 Screens having lacquered wooden frames and satin panels ornamented with silk 
 embroidery, silk being the component material of chief value in the completed 
 articles, were properly dutiable as embroidered articles in chief value of silk 
 under the provisions of paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909, rather than as screens of 
 wood under paragraph 234 of said act. Morimura Bros. «. United States (2 Ct. 
 Gust. Appls., 181; T. D. 31941) and Stein v. United States (2 Ot. Oust. Appls., 
 519; T. D. 32250) citedT Paragraph 214, tariff act of 1909, provided for "porch 
 and window blinds, baskets, curtains, shades, or screens of bamboo, wood, straw, 
 or compositions of- wood. " Held that the paragraph was limited to such screens 
 and other articles therein specified as are composed wholly or in chief value of 
 "bamboo, wood, straw, or compositions of wood." (T. D. 32582 — G. A. 7371; 
 May 31, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise is screens of embroidered silk panels with 
 wooden frameworks. Silk is concededly the component material of chief value. 
 These screens are not fairly to be considered "screens of wood," but rather as 
 articles in chief value of silk. They were accordingly dutiable as such under 
 paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909. Vantine & Co. v. United States (No. 964), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7371 (T. D. 32582). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 33124; Jan. 20, 1913.) 
 Splash mats — 
 
 The merchandise consists of wood strips, joined or sewed together with cords; 
 figures in imitation of paintings are stenciled on these and they are used as 
 splash mats, placed above washstands. No commercial designation is shown. 
 The definitions of the books make it apparent that these articles may very well 
 be designated as curtains or screens, and their use, too, warrants that classifica- 
 tion. They were dutiable as assessed by the collector under paragraph 214, 
 tariff act of 1909. United States v. Butler Bros. (No. 904\ United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 28361 (T. D. 32488). Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 32984; Nov. 21, 1912.) 
 Sculptures. 
 Copies, leplicas or leproductions — 
 
 A group of human figures executed in marble by modern artists, as part of copy 
 of a fountain made by Giovanni di Bologna in the sixteenth century, is not 
 entitled to free entry under the provision in paragraph 652, tariff act of 1913, 
 for "original sculptures or statuary, including not more than two replicas or 
 reproductions of the same," but is dutiable under paragraph 376, which pro- 
 vides for "statuary, sculptures, or copies, rephcas or reproductions thereof." 
 Paragraph 376 provides for "sculptiures, or copies, replicas or reproductions 
 thereof," while paragraph 652 provides for "original sculptures or statuary, 
 including two replicas or reproductions of the same," copies not being men- 
 tioned in the latter paragraph. Held, that the word "replicas" applies to 
 duplicates of an original work of art, ma:de of the same material, having the same 
 size and detail, and produced by the same artist as the original; the word "re- 
 productions," in view of its position in the paragraphs and what it wa'^ evi- 
 dently intended to cover, has the same meaning as "replicas," and "copies" 
 in paragraph 376 is a broader term than "replicas or reproductions," in that 
 copies may be made by other than the original artist. (T. D. 35597 — G. A. 
 7760; July 17, 1915.) 
 
782 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 S culptnies — Continued. 
 Free entry of — 
 
 Eegulations under paragraph 661, tariff act of 1909, for free entry of statuary, 
 casts of sculpture, regalia and gems, etc. (T. D. 29995; circular No. 46; Sept. 
 11, 1909.) 
 Limestone articles, carved — 
 
 The importation in question consiBted of a variety of stone jardiniferes, vases, and 
 figures. The facts disclosed by the record are meager, but are deemed sufiicient 
 to bring the production of designated articles of the importation within the pro- 
 visions of the law relating to sculptures; and in these designated instances the 
 goods were dutiable as sculptures not specially provided for under paragraph 
 470, tariff act of 1909. Stern v. United States (No. 663), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 25180 (T. D. 31450). Decision modified. (T. D. 
 32381; Apr. 1, 1912.) 
 Marble articles — 
 
 The merchandise involved in this case consisted of different articles of marble, 
 comprising benches, vases, tables, etc. To constitute "sculptures" under 
 tariff act of 1909 the evidence must show the articles were cut, carved, or other- 
 wise wrought by hand from solid blocks or masses of marble and that they were 
 severally the professional productions of a sculptor. The record here establishes 
 neither of these propositions and the merchandise was properly assessed as 
 manufactures of marble under paragraph 112, tariff act of 1909. Downing & 
 Co. V. United States (No. 1002), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Ap- 
 peal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 29462 (T. D. 32751). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33043; Dec. 16, 1912.) 
 
 Columns: The goods in question consist of highly ornamental marble columns 
 imported for use in the public library of the city of New York, held by the 
 Board of General Appraisers to be dutiable as sculptiires under paragraph 470, 
 tariff act of 1909, from which decision the Government appeals. The question 
 involved is one of fact. These columns are made of solid marble. On the 
 whole record it does not appear that the finding of the board is clearly against 
 the weight of the testimony. United States v. Sterling Bronze Co. (No. 1131), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31435 (T. D. 33217). Deci- 
 sion affirmed. (T. D. 33835; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 
 Panels, carved: Merchandise was imported, consisting of certain carved marble 
 panels. It was not shown that the articles were the production of a sculptor; 
 and though they were carved representations in marble of artistic subjects, 
 they were not dutiable as sculptures. They were properly assessed as manu- 
 factures of marble under paragraph 112, tariff act of 1909. United States v. 
 Baumgarten (2 a. Cust. Appls., 321; T. D. 32052) distinguished. Warren & 
 Wetmore v. United States (No. 933), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 28755 (T. D. 32584). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33039; Dec. 16, 1912.) 
 Vase, copy of an artistic original: A carved marble vase, made by a sculptor as 
 a copy of an original in the Borghese collection, is not to be deemed a manufac- 
 tured article. The evidence shows that artistic skill was employed in its pro- 
 duction, and it was properly held to be dutiable as a "sculpture" under para- 
 graph 470, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Baumgarten & Co. (No. 687), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25440 (T. D. 31543). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32052; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 783 
 
 Sculptures — Continued. 
 Marble or alabaster pedestals — 
 Marble or alabaster pedestals are dutiable as "marble [and] alabaster * * * 
 manufactured into * * * articles," under paragraph 112, tariff act of 1909, 
 and are not "sculptures" within the meaning of paragraph 470, not being "the 
 professional jroduction of a sculptor only," as required by the said paragraph 
 470. (T. D. 31331—0. A. 7174; Feb. 20, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Without determining whether the importations rise to the dig- 
 nity of "sculptures" in the arts, the character of their production by wholesale 
 would exclude them from the terms of paragraph 470, tariff act of 1909. Under 
 that paragraph the sculptures designated must be made by hand from solid 
 blocks of alabaster and be, too, the professional production of a sculptor only. 
 The merchandise was dutiable imder paragraph 112, tariff act of 1909, as alabas- 
 ter manufactured into articles. Lazarus, Rosenfeld & Lehmann v. United 
 States (No. 624), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porters from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7174 (T. D. 
 31331). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32247; Feb. 1, 1912.) 
 Marble figure with capital and base — 
 
 Dutiable as an entirety. (See Entireties, sculptures.) 
 Plaster o{ Paris models — 
 Plaster of Paris casts of sculpture, imported for use as models from which to mold 
 reproductions, are models within the meaning of paragraph 611, tariff act of 1913, 
 granting free entry to "statuary and casts of sculpture for use as models or for art 
 educational purposes only." (T. D. 34905— G. A. 7632; Nov. 13, 1914.) 
 Statue imported for a club — 
 This appeal relates to the importation by the Olympic Club of a marble statue. 
 The principal purpose of the Olympic Club is to encourage athletics, and to do 
 this a regular corps of teachers is employed to give systematic physical instruc- 
 tion. Such an institution is engaged in educational work and a statue artistic 
 in character imported for exhibition in the club falls within the terms of para- 
 graph 715, tariff act of 1909, and was entitled to free entry. United States v. 
 Olympic Club (No'. 1286), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 33652 (T. D. 33763). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34442; May 4, 1914.) 
 Sea grass, dyed, etc. 
 
 Dyed sea grass advanced beyond its natural state by braiding or plaiting, if suit- 
 able for making or ornamenting hats, would be dutiable under paragraph 422 of 
 the tariff act of 1909, at 20 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 31759; July 18, 1911.) 
 Sea-grass furniture, baskets, etc. (See Furniture of sea grass.) 
 Sea stores. 
 
 Coal is not "sea stores" tnthin the meaning of section 17, navigation act of March 
 3, 1897 (29 Stat., 687, 691), providing that "sea stores * * * may be trans- 
 ferred * » » from one vessel to another vessel of the same owner without 
 payment of duties." Sea stores are the supplies of different articles provided 
 for the subsistence and accommodation of the ship's crew and passengers, and do 
 not include coal. United States v. Hawley , United States Circuit Court, South- 
 em District of Texas, February 4, 1908. No. 2040 (suit 1981). Appeal from 
 decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6643 (T. D. 28321). 
 Board reversed. (T. D. 28855; Mar. 18, 1908.) 
 Coal or coal stores are not sea stores within the meaning of section 17 of the act of 
 March 3, 1897 (29 Stat., 687, 691), providing that sea stores may be transferred 
 from one vessel to another of the same line without the payment of duties. Sea 
 stores may be defined to be, supplies of different kinds provided for the subsist- 
 ence and accommodation of the ship's crew and passengers, and do not include 
 
784 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 
 
 Sea stores — Continued. 
 
 coal or coal stores. United States v. Hawley (T. D. 28855) followed. (T. D. 
 28935— G. A. 6751; Apr. 11, 1908.) 
 
 The term "sea stores" embraces only articles for the use and consumption of the 
 passengers and crew of a ship upon its voyage. 
 
 Ship's equipment defined: The term "ship's equipment" embraces such arti • 
 cles as are necessarily used upon a ship and do not form a part of its sea stores and 
 are not necessary for its propulsion or navigation. (T. D. 34925 — G. A. 7639; 
 Nov. 24, 1914.) (See also Ship's equipment.) 
 
 Sea stores are only such commodities used upon a vessel as are consumed by the 
 passengeiB and crew. George D. All's case, G. A. 4746 (T. D. 22433), and Haw- 
 ley & Letzerich's case, G. A. 6643 (T. D. 28321). Such articles as become a part 
 of the equipment of a vessel are known as "ship stores." United States v. 
 Twenty-three Coils of Cordage (28 Fed. Caa., 290; No. 16573). 
 
 Section 3111, Revised Statutes, construed: Bolts, nuts, packing, and articles 
 of this character are not "sea stores" within the well-defined meaning of that 
 phrase, and hence are not such merchandise as is provided for in section 3111, 
 Revised Statutes. 
 
 Construction of a statute: Words in a statute having a general import are some- 
 times limited by words of a more restricted import, immediately following, and 
 relating to the same matter. Language which is all embracing may be limited 
 in its operation and effect where the intent to so limit it may be gathered from 
 th» intent and purpose of the statute. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight 
 Association (166 U. S., 320). 
 
 Same — Merchandise: The words "all merchandise" in section 3111, Revised 
 Statutes, are, under the above rule, modified and controlled by the direction in 
 the statute to report the merchandise therein referred to to the collector as "sea 
 stores." (T. D. 35824— G. A. 7796; Oct. 21, 1915.) 
 Sealing cars in Canada. 
 
 Customs officers stationed in Canada to seal cars as provided for in section 3102 of the 
 Revised Statutes. (T. D. 32723; July 15, 1912.) 
 
 Customs officers stationed in Montreal and Vancouver, Canada, to seal cars, as pro- 
 vided for In section 3102 of the Revised Statutes. Articles 425, 426, and 427 of 
 the Customs Regulations of 1908 amended. (T. D. 32772; Aug. 24, 1912.) 
 Seals. 
 
 Instructions to customs officers relative to fastenings tor cars and compartments of 
 vessels containing merchandise shipped in customs custody. (T. D. 32294; 
 Feb. 28, 1912.) 
 
 Instructions relative to the removal of seals from baggage and merchandise in tran- 
 sitthrough Canada upon return to United States. (T. D. 32402; Apr. 16, 1912.) 
 
 The price of Tyden seals hereafter will be $3 per thousand when ordered in lots 
 of less than 5,000 seals per order. The price of said seals when ordered in lots 
 of 5,000 or more will remain 12.50 per thousand. On all orders for seals in less 
 than lots of 1,000 the price thereof shall be arranged between the carrier order- 
 ing the same and the company furnishing the seals. (T. D. 32294, of Mar. 2, 
 1912, amended.) (T. D. 32491; May 8, 1912.) 
 
 Authorizing the omission of the numbers on Tyden seals from the manifest cover- 
 ing goods in transit through Canada and Mexico and grain forwarded through 
 the United States under transportation and exportation entry. In-transit seals 
 not to be affixed to cars secured with in-bond seals. (T. D. 32703; July 11, 
 1912.) 
 
 Tyden seals for cars and compartments to be kept under lock and key in charge of 
 inspectors. (T. D. 33S80; Apr. 29, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 785 
 
 Seals — Continued. 
 
 TransportatiQn companiea required to purchase direct from the manufacturer tin 
 button seala for securing packages of merchandise and baggage shipped in cus- 
 toms custody. (T. D. 34240; Mar. 7, 1914.) 
 Adoption of special seals by corporations — 
 A corporation may adopt a special seal in the absence of any direct prohibition in 
 its charter or by-laws. (T. D. 29385; Dec. 8, 1908.) 
 Car, package, and baggage — 
 The use of the Tyden seal for cars and compartments of vessels and the Brooks 
 tin button seal for packages of ordinary merchandise in less than carload lots 
 and baggage continued. (T. D. 35867; Nov. 3, 1915.) 
 Christmas labels — 
 The Christmas seals of the importation are used during the Christmas holidays by 
 attaching them indiscriminately to all kinds of packages, regardless of the con- 
 tents of these. They are not properly labels, and are not dutiable as such 
 imder paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909. Gibson Art Co. v. United States (No. 
 1407), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34946 (T. D. 34247). 
 Decision reversed. T. D.) 34876; Oct. 29, 1914.) 
 Corporate — 
 Impression seals, being exact reproductions of the corporate seal and differing 
 
 from it in size only, may be accepted. (T. D. 29133; July 3, 1908.) 
 Wafer seals on which the regular corporate seal has been impressed may be ac- 
 cepted for 30 days. (T. D. 29135; July 6, 1908). (T. D. 29175; July 22, 1908.) 
 Seals may be accepted under T. D. 22647 until necessary action may be taken by 
 corporations to affix seals under T. D. 29088. (T. D. 29189; July 31, 1908.) 
 In execution of bonds — 
 
 T. D. 29088; circular No. 43; June 22, 1908. 
 Rubber stamp facsimile of corporate seals — 
 Circular No. 43 of June 22, 1908 (T. D. 29088), applies to all bonds of the customs 
 service. Rubber stamps of corporate seals may be used only when formally 
 adopted as special seals by resolution of the corporation. (T. D. 29134; July 
 3, 1908.) 
 Sealskin. (See Fur.) 
 
 Seamen, contracts for care of. (T. D. 29084; circular No. 42; June 19, 1908. T. D. 
 29783; circular No. 24; May 28, 1909. T. D. 30677; circular No. 32; June 11, 
 1910. T. D. 31667; circular No. 38; June 10, 1911.) 
 Search warrants — Seizure of documents. 
 
 A customs inspector to whom a search warrant was issued to search for and seize 
 merchandise fraudulently introduced into the United States removed certain 
 letters, books, and papers from the premises, which removal constituted' a 
 
 Abuse of mandate: A United States commissioner does not act judicially in 
 issuing a search warrant authorizing a customs inspector to search certain 
 premises for merchandise fraudulently introduced into the United States, and 
 to seize the same, if found, as provided by sec. 3066, Revised Statutes; hence 
 such a warrant is not to be regarded as issued under the authority of the court. 
 
 Misuse of process: Where a customs inspector, assisted by an inspector of 
 the Department of Commerce and Labor, entered petitioner's premises pursuant 
 to search warrant issued by a United States commissioner authorizing the cus- 
 toms inspector and his assistant to search for merchandise fraudulently intro- 
 duced into the United States, and without authority removed certain letters 
 and other documents and records, which they refused to return, they in so do- 
 45633°— 17 50 
 
786 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Seaich. warrants— Seizure of documents — Continued. 
 
 ing were not acting as officers of a Federal court, and therefore frere not subject 
 to be proceeded against tor contempt in a Federal court under the Judicial Code 
 (36 Stat., 1163). In re Chin K. Shue, United States District Court, District of 
 Massachusetts, January 26, 1912 (199 Fed. Rep., 282). Petition by Chin K. 
 Shue for an order compelling William H. Tighe, customs inspector for the 
 Massachusetts district, and Richard Taylor, an inspector of the Department 
 of Commerce and Labor, to return certain letters and documents taken from 
 petitioner's place of business pursuant to a search warrant, and to punish them 
 for alleged abuse of process, denied. (T. D. 33032; Dec. 17, 1912.) 
 Second-hand jute bags. (See Bag.'? and purses.) 
 Seed-importation act. 
 
 Regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of Agriculture under 
 the seed-importation act approved August 24, 1912. (T. D. 33175; Feb. 11, 
 1913.) 
 Importations of the seeds covered by the seed-importation act of August 24, 1912, 
 when imported from Canada and valued at $100 or less to be sampled and de- 
 tained under that act and the regulations in T. D. 33175. (T. D. 33294; Mar. 
 27, 1913.) 
 Joint regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury. (T. D. 34393; Apr. 18, 1914.) 
 Collectors instructed, in accordance with a request of the Secretary of Agriculture, 
 to sample and detain all lots of seeds offered for import mentioned in T. D. 
 34393. (T. D. 35024; Dec. 31, 1914.) 
 Joint regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Treasury. 
 (T. D. 35363; May 3, 1915.) 
 Seeds. 
 Castor- 
 Allowance for impurities: Where castor seeds, dutiable by weight under para- 
 graph 266, tariff act of 1909, contain dirt, gravel, and other like impurities, 
 shown to amoimt to 5 per cent of such gross weight, an allowance will be made 
 for such percentage in the assessment of duties. Seeberger v. Wright (157 U.S., 
 183; 15 Sup. Ct. Rep., 583) followed. Where castor seeds are sold on the basis 
 of such existing impurities, as shown by a certificate of analysis, which is made 
 to constitute a part of the contract between vendor and vendee, especially when 
 verified by an analysis made by the importer, such certificate of analysis is prop- 
 erly admitted in evidence as a part of the res gestae of the sale. (T. D. 30878 — G. 
 A. 7088; Aug. 15, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Impurities ordinarily present in an article of merchandise do not 
 constitute tare; only those impurities not ordinarily present in the merchandise 
 as traded in may be the subject of an allowance for tare. Seeberger v. Wright 
 (157 U. S., 183); Shallus v. United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 316). 
 
 Tare in castor seeds. — Without passing on the relevancy, as testimony here, 
 of a certificate showing the results of an analysis made at the place of export, this 
 certificate may be taken as in the nature of an admission against interest, and 
 since it is made apparent that no allowance is commonly made as between seller 
 and buyer of castor seeds, except in cases where the imptuities exceed 3 per cent, 
 and then only for the excess over and above 3 per cent, the allowance here should 
 have been, not for 5, but for the excess above 3 per cent, namely, 2 per cent. 
 United States v. Baker Castor Oil Co. (No. 456), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 7088 (T. D. 30878). Decision modified and affirmed. (T. D. 
 32076; Nov. 28, 1911.) 
 
JOIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 787 
 
 Seeds — Continued. 
 Castor — Continued. 
 Castor seed to be analyzed by the Linseed Association of New York, and allow- 
 ance to be made for nonoleaginous matter therein in excess of 3 per cent. (T. D. 
 32775; Aug. 24, 1912.) 
 The ordinary impurities of merchandise, such as dirt and other materials, do not 
 constitute tare, but the extraordinary impurities, such as are uncommonly pres- 
 ent in the merchandise as bought and sold in trade and commerce, are alone the 
 subject of allowance for dutiable purposes. (T. D. 33692— G. A. 7487; Aug. 12, 
 1913.) 
 Melon, salted — 
 Salted melon seed, roasted, dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles at 
 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33344; 
 Apr. 19, 1913.) 
 Samples to be forwarded to the Department of Agriculture. (T. D . 29457; Jan . 5, 1909. 
 T. D. 29859; June 22, 1909. T. D. 30821; July 25, 1910. T. D. 31712; June 20, 
 1911. T. D. 32705; July 13, 1912. T. D. 33295; Mar. 27, 1913. T. D. 34059; 
 Jan. 14, 1914. T. D. 34646; July 16, 1914.) 
 Sesame — 
 Sesame seed are dutiable under the provision in paragraph 254, tariff act of 1897, 
 for ' ' flaxseed or linseed or other oil seeds not specially provided for, " rather than 
 under paragraph 548 as "seeds aromatic, and seeds of morbid growth," or under 
 the provision in paragraph 626 for the oil of sesame or sesamum seed. (T. D. 
 29426— G. A. 6839; Dec. 18, 1908.) 
 Wild-cherry — 
 Wild-celery seed is free of duty under paragraph 559, tariff act of 1909, as a "seed 
 aromatic, not a garden seed." (T. D. 31476— G. A. 7200; Apr. 10, 1911.) 
 seger cones. 
 
 The merchandise the subject of this appeal consists of so-called "Seger cones." 
 These articles are used as a rough test of the temperature of ovens, and take 
 their name from the man who invented them. The proof does not sustain the 
 importer's contention that the articles are dutiable under paragraph 92, tariff 
 act of 1909. On the other point raised the board predicated its decision upon an 
 earlier decision. The record of this former case was not before the court, and 
 the record here supports beyond serious question the decision of the collector 
 that the merchandise is properly dutiable as articles of earthy or mineral sub- 
 stances. United States v. Eimer & Amend (No. 1225), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 33190 (T. D. 33660). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 33886; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 Seizure — Laches. 
 
 Seizure and sale of property — ^Mistake of fact: The net proceeds of a sale of im- 
 ported property seized by the United States for undervaluation through a mis- 
 take of fact belong to the importer and not to the United States. 
 
 Laches: Where the proceeds of the sale remain in the registry of the court, the 
 Government having suffered no loss, a delay of five years held not to be such 
 laches as to debar the importer from maintaining a libel of review. United 
 States V. One Case Chemical Compound, District Court, Southern District of New 
 York, February 10, 1913. At law. Proceeding by the United States against 
 One Case Chemical Compound imported by George Lenders & Co. March 7, 1899. 
 On libel of review. Decree for claimant. (T. D. 33416; May 13, 1913.) 
 Semolina, etc. (See Wheat and wheat products.) 
 Separation of mixed goods. (See Mixture of goods, separation.) 
 
788 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. . 
 
 Serums and vaccines. (See also Viruses.) 
 
 Eeld that CongresB in the provision of the free list in the act of 1909 (par. 704), 
 reading "vaccine virus," intended to exempt from duty all serums and vac- 
 cines which are used for the purpose of creating an immiuiity against disease. 
 (T. D. 34244— G. A. 7538; Mar. 4, 1914.) 
 Sewing machines. (See Machines and machinery.) 
 
 Power-transmitting tables for. (See Metal, manufactures of.) 
 Shades for lights, metal, enameled. (See Steelware.) 
 Shamrock, artificial. 
 Leaves — 
 
 It is' a matter of common knowledge that the leaves of the shamrock are trefoil in 
 shape and green in color. The importations are not toys, and while partly 
 made of silk they resemble shamrock leaves. They may be aptly described as 
 artificial shamrocks, and they were properly held dutiable as artificial leaves 
 under paragraph 438, tariff act of 1909. Tuska, Son & Co. et al. v. United States 
 (No. 692), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeals by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25543 (T. D. 31589), 
 and Abstract 25835 (T. D. 31675). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32053; Nov. 
 22, 1911.) 
 Toys — 
 Held that certain artificial shamrocks are dutiable as "toys " under paragraph 418, 
 tariff act of 1897, rather than as artificial leaves under paragraph 425. Cattus v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 15, 1908. Suit 5014. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 16130 (T. D. 28308). Decision adverse to 
 Government. (T. D. 29011; May 20, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Artificial shamrocks are dutiable as artificial leaves imder para- 
 graph 425, tariff act of 1897, rather than as toys under paragraph 418. Toys are 
 playthings for the amusement of children, used throughout the year or in differ- 
 ent seasons of the year; and artificial shamrocks, which are used by the Irish of 
 all ages as a national emblem, are not toys, even though generally sold in toy 
 shops. Not everything sold in such shops is a toy. United States v. Cattus, 
 United States Circtiit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. No. 
 135 (suit 5014). Appeal from Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern 
 District of New York (T. D. 29011) reversing Abstract 16130 (T. D. 28308). De- 
 cision in favor of Government. (T. D. 29517; Feb. 3, 1909.) 
 Shantungs. (See Silk, fabrics.) 
 Shark fins. (See Ksh.) 
 Shears for hedges, trees, etc. 
 
 Hedge shears, specially designed for use in pruning or trimming hedges, trees, 
 shrubbery, etc., are properly free of duty as agricultural implements imder 
 paragraph 391, tariff act of 1913, as claimed, rather than subject to duty under 
 paragraph 128 of said act as shears and scissors, as assessed, the former being the 
 more specific provision therefor. (T. D. 34665— <J. A. 7588; July 22, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Agricultural implements. — Agricultm-al implements are such 
 as are employed in piu-siiits that minister to human and, incidentally, animal 
 subsistence; to the requirements of life (food) and possibly men's comfort 
 (raiment) and not merely pleasurable or ornamental ends. 
 
 Hedge shears. — "All other agricultural implements" includes, it is true, all 
 implements devoted to agriculture proper, but the chief use here, as always, 
 determines the classification, and these shears, suited for pruning trees and 
 shrubbery, were free of duty as agricultural implements under paragraph 391, 
 tarifi act of 1913. United -Btates v. Boker & Co. (No. 1455), United States 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 789 
 
 Shears for hedges, trees, etc. — Continued. , 
 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7588 (T. D. 34665). Decision reversed. (T. 
 D. 35472; May 21, 1915.) 
 Shears. 
 
 Hair clippers not. (See Hair clippers.) 
 Sheathing felt. (See Felt, adhesive.) 
 Sheep dip. 
 
 The term "sheep dip" iQ paragraph 669 of the present tariff act is one without 
 words of limitation or qualification, and accordingly embraces all compounds 
 or preparations known as sheep dip, including such as are derived from coal 
 tar, irrespective of the fact that they may be used for other purposes. (T. D. 
 31799— G. A. 7256; Aug. 7, 1911.) 
 An article commercially known as "sheep dip," which is shown upon analysis 
 to be suitable for that purpose, free of duty as "sheep dip" imder paragraph 
 669, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32690; July 1, 1912.) 
 Creohn-Pearson not. (See Coal-tar preparations — CreoUn-Pearson.) 
 Sheep exported and returned. (See Animals, exported and returned.) 
 Sheepskins. 
 Cape, with wool on. (See Wool on the skin.) 
 China — 
 Unselected — Furs: China sheepskins imported unsorted and purchased indis- 
 criminately, without regard to any particular use to which they might be 
 adapted, and not shown to be used as furs, are not free of duty under paragraph 
 561 or 562, relating, respectively, to "furs" and to "fur skins." International 
 Hide & Skin Co. v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York, November 4, 1909. Suit 5326. On application for review 
 of a decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers. Decision in 
 favor of the United States. (T. D. 30278; Jan. 18, 1910.) 
 Dressed. (See Fur, manufactures of.) 
 
 Lambskins not. (See Lambskins.) 
 Split. (See Leather — Skivers.) 
 Split and dressed. (See Chamois skins.) 
 Shelled almonds. (See Almonds.) 
 Shelled walnuts. (See Walnuts.) 
 SheUs. 
 Cut and bored, used for ornamental purposes — 
 Mussel shells prepared by cutting and boring holes and used for ornamental pur- 
 poses, having been advanced in value and adapted to a definite use, are not 
 entitled to free entry under paragraph 635, tariff act of 1897, but were dutiable 
 as "shells engraved, cut, ornamented, or otherwise manufactured," under 
 paragraph 450, of that act. Hartranft v. Wiegmann (121 U. S., 609) distin- 
 guished. United States v. Reed & Keller (No. 910), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 28344 (T. D. 32488). Decision reversed. (T. 
 D. 33165; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 Shida baskets. (See Baskets.) 
 Shin bones. (See Bones.) 
 
 Shipments in bond. (See Bonded merchandise.) 
 Ship timber and ship planking. 
 
 Sawn iron-bark timber used for making the keelsons, keels, frames, cant pieces, 
 and deck frames in the construction of vessels, and also used as outside plank- 
 ing to form the hulls of ships, held to be "ship-timber and ship-plankLng, " 
 and as such entitled to free entry under paragraph 699, tariff act of 1897. G. 
 A. 6137 (T. D. 26669) modified. (T. D. 28934-:rG. A. 6750; Apr. 11, 1908.) 
 
790 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Shippers' export declaiations and export procedure. 
 
 Instructions to collectors of customs and others in regard to shippers' export decla- 
 rations and export procedure. (T. D. 35969; Dec. 14, 1915. T. D. 35708; Sept. 
 15, 1915. T. B. 35944; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 Ship's equipment. (See also Vessels.) 
 
 Sea stores defined: The term "sea stores" embraces only articles for the use and 
 consumption of the passengers and crew of a ship upon its voyage. 
 
 Ship's eqmpment defined: The term "ship's equipment" embraces such 
 articles as are necessarily used upon a ship and do not form a part of its sea stores 
 and are not necessary for its propulsion or navigation. 
 
 Steam winches: Steam winches used ia removing freight to and from the hold 
 of a ship at ports not having a dock equipped with winches are ship's equipment 
 within the meaning of that term as used in section 2797 of the Revised Statutes, 
 as amended by section 17 of the act of March 3, 1897. 
 
 "Under the supervision of a customs oflScer" — Substantial compliance: The 
 examination after transfer by a customs officer of certain steam winches trans- 
 ferred from one vessel of a steamship line to another vessel of the same Une, after 
 application to the collector for free entry under the provisions of section 17 of the 
 act of March 3, 1897, fulfills the useful purpose of and is a substantial compliance 
 with that provision of section 17 which provides that the transfer shall be under 
 the supervision of a customs officer. (T. D. 34925— G. A. 7639; Nov. 24, 1914.) 
 (Appealed:) Free entry under section 17, tariff act of 1897. — Under this sec- 
 tion goods to be entitled to free entry must be legitimate equipment of a vessel 
 belonging to a regularly plying line, delayed in port, this equipment to be trans- 
 ferred, under supervision, from another vessel of the same line. 
 
 Steam winches. — These steam winches were to be installed by way of equip- 
 ment, making the vessel ready for service differing from its previous service. 
 They were not in the statutory sense an equipment of the vessel, but rather for 
 the vessel, and they were not entitled to free entry. United States v. Sickel 
 (No. 1494), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Govern- 
 ment from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7639 (T. D. 34925). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 35394; May 3, 1915.) 
 Shirt bosoms, tucked. (See Wearing apparel.) 
 
 Shirting, striped or madras. (See Cottons— Cloth — Cord ornamentation.) 
 Shirts with embroidered initials. (See Initials, embroidered.) 
 Shoe buttons. (See Buttons.) 
 Shoes. 
 Chinese — 
 Shoes with soles made of leather, two layers the entire length, or one layer the 
 entire length and a second layer on the ball of the foot and the heel, with leather 
 toe and heel protectors, held dutiable as "shoes made of leather" at the rate of 
 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 438, tariff act of 1897. Shoes in chief 
 value of leather embroidered with silk held dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad 
 valorem, provided for silk embroidery by paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897, by 
 virtue of the proviso to paragraph 339. G. A. 6605 (T. D. 28204) and G. A. 6818 
 (T. D. 29297) followed. (T. D. 29595— G. A. 6874; Feb. 27, 1909.) 
 Chinese shoes or slippers, embroidered either by hand or machinery, are dutiable 
 under paragraph 390, tariff act 1897, and not under paragraph 438 of said act. 
 Lai Ming et al. v. United States (No. 40), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from the decision of the Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers (T. D. 29610). Transferred from the United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York. Decision in favor of the Government. 
 (T. D. 30770; June 22, 1910.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 791 
 
 Shoes — ^Oontinued. 
 
 Chine se — Continued . 
 The merchandise involved in this case consisted of two importations of Chinese 
 shoes, held by the board to be dutiable under paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909, 
 as shoes in chief value of leather made from hides of cattle of the bovine species. 
 The only evidence going to sustain the board's finding consists of the samples, 
 unsupported by any testimony that the leather, which is the component mate- 
 rial of chief value, is leather made from the hides of cattle of the bovine species. 
 This in itself is iusufflcient. Shallus v. United States (3 Ct. Oust. Appls., — ; T. 
 D. 32347). 
 
 Record in another case as evidence: The mere citation of a previous decision 
 of the board does not, in the absence of any offer anew of the record in the former 
 case, establish that the facts are the same in each. United States v. Oberle (1 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 527; T. D. 31545). Nor can the former case on such bare citation 
 be held stare decisis. United States v. Lun Chong & Co. et al. (No. 953), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28609 (T. D. 32560). De- 
 cision reversed and case remanded. (T. D. 33041; Dec. 16, 1912.) 
 Chinese shoes or slippers made of different materials, either embroidered or not 
 embroidered, are dutiable as leather shoes under paragraph 450 when composed 
 in chief value of leather, or as silk wearing apparel under paragraph 402, act of 
 1909, when composed in chief value of silk, the relative values of the component 
 materials being determined at the time when those materials have reached such 
 a condition that nothing remains to be done upon them by the manufacturers 
 except to put them together. United States v. Meadows (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 143; T. D. 31665). (T. D. 33388— G. A. 7458; May 2, 1913.) 
 
 Embroidered — Appliqued — 
 Appliqudd: Appliqu^d shoes in chief value of leather are dutiable as shoes of 
 leather under paragraph 438, tariff act of 1897, and not as appliqu^d articles 
 under paragraph 390. (T. D. 29610— G. A. 6876; Mar. 4, 1909.) 
 Embroidered: Silk-embroidered shoes Ln chief value of leather are dutiable at the 
 rate provided for silk embroideries in paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897, by virtue 
 of the proviso to paragraph 339 of said act, "that no wearing apparel * * * 
 embroidered * * * shall pay duty at a less rate than that imposed in any 
 schedule of this act upon any embroideries of the materials of which such em- 
 broidery is composed." (T. D. 29610— G. A. 6876; Mar. 4, 1909.) 
 
 Slippers of leather and cotton — 
 Slippers with cotton uppers and leather soles and heels, leather chief value, are 
 dutiable as "shoes of leather" imder paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909. In de- 
 termining the cpmponent of chief value in slippers of cotton and leather, the 
 basis shall be the value of the cotton when ready to be sewn into the form of 
 uppers and the value of the leather when ready to be attached to the uppers. 
 (T. D. 30931— G. A. 7099; Sept. 17, 1910.) 
 Slippers with cotton uppers and leather soles, the uppers being composed of 
 several pieces of cotton, whose value at the time they are ready to be united 
 into the uppers is less than the value of the leather, held dutiable as "shoes of 
 leather" under paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909. 
 
 In ascertaining the value of the different components of an article for the pur- 
 pose of determining the component material of chief value, under paragraph 
 481, tariff act of 1909, the cost of all work bestowed upon such materials for the 
 purpose of fitting them to be used in the particular article is to be added to the 
 value of such materials. The cost of combining different pieces of the same 
 material, after they have become fitted for use in the particular article, should 
 
792 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Shoes — Continued. 
 Slippeis of leather and cotton — Continued. 
 
 not be added to the value of that material, it being an expense incurred in the 
 actual manufacturing process. HoweU, G. A., dissenting. (T. D. 31297 — G. 
 A. 7168; Feb. 11, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The merchandise consisted of slippers made of cotton and 
 leather, the parts of the slippers composed of each of the two materials being 
 made separately for use in producing the completed article. In determining 
 the component of chief value in merchandise of this kind inquiry will be made 
 in each case as it presents itself to discover at what stage the several parts were 
 completed for use in being put together as a completed whole; that stage will be 
 "its condition as found in the article." Here the expense of sewing the pieces 
 of cotton cloth together, in preparation for uniting them with the leather parts, 
 enters into the value of the cotton so employed. According to the evidence 
 cotton was the component of chief value in these slippers and they are dutiable 
 under paragraph 324, tariff act of 1909. Seebeiger v. Haidy (150 U. S., 420). 
 United States v. Meadows (No. 598), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from a decision of the Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7168 (T. D. 31297). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 31665; May 29, 1911.) 
 
 Shocks. 
 
 Where orange or lemon boxes, assessed for duty under paragraph 205, tariff act of 
 1897, after examination by the appraiser are reported by him to be of foreign 
 manufacture, the mere production of the affidavit of the foreign shipper and of 
 the certificate of the American consul, prescribed by article 586, Customs Regu- 
 lations of 1908, to the effect that the boxes are of domestic origin, is not suffi- 
 cient to justify assessing the goods at half rates under the proviso to said parar 
 graph as American manufactures. The judgment of the appraiser must stand, 
 unless reversed on reappraisement or by the Board of General Appraisers, on 
 protest filed. Following United States v. Ranlett (172 U. S., 133; 19 Sup. Ct. 
 Rep., 114). Where there is a conflict between a decision of the Supreme 
 Court and one made by an inferior court, the board will follow the ruling of 
 the superior tribunal. (T. D. 30312— G. A. 6972; Jan. 27, 1910.) 
 Tongued and grooved: Where shocks of American manufacture were returned as 
 barrels or boxes, and were tongued and grooved before importation, there is no 
 reqiiirement that the shocks be returned without advancement in value under 
 paragraph 500, tariff act of 1909. They are therefore free of duty when their 
 identity is proved by regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury to be of Ameri- 
 can origin. (T. D. 33323— G. A. 7453; Mar. 31, 1913.) 
 Consular certificate — 
 Where invoices for fruit importations were accompanied by consular certificates 
 in accordance with Treasury regulations, showing the "thin wood " of the fruit 
 boxes to be composed of shooks of American origin, the boxes should have been 
 subjected to the half rate provided in paragraph 205, tariff act of 1897, for "the 
 thin wood, so called, comprising the sides, tops, and bottoms of orange and 
 lemon boxes of the growth and manufacture of the United States." Bhicato 
 V. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May21,1909. Suit5025. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 16444 (T. D. 28374). Board reversed. 
 (T. D. 29838; June 15, 1909.) 
 Orange and lemon box- 
 Articles 585 to 587, Customs Regulations of 1908, extended to govern the identifi- 
 cation of the thin wood, so called, exported as shooks and returned as the sidcis, 
 tops, and bottoms of orange and lemon boxes. (T. D. 30194; Dec. 13, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 793 
 
 Shooks — Continued. 
 
 Orange and lemon box — Continued. 
 The tMn wood, so called, comprising the sides, tops, and bottoms of orange and 
 lemon boxes of the growth and manufacture of the United States, exported as 
 orange and lemon box shooks, can be reimported in completed form, filled with 
 oranges and lemons, at the half rate provided in paragraph 211 of the tariff act 
 of 1909, only on compliance with articles 585 to 587 of the Customs Regulations 
 of 1908, in view of the amendment of paragraph 205 of the tariff act of 1897, by 
 said paragraph 211 of the tariff act of 1909, requiring proof of the identity of 
 such articles to be made under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the 
 Treasury. (T. D. 30792— G. A. 7068; July 14, 1909.) 
 Shortage. (See also Allowance, shortage.) 
 
 Additional duty — 
 The provision in section 7, customs administrative act of 1890, for an additional 
 duty where the "appraised value exceeds the value declared in the entry," 
 refers to the unit value rather than the total value; and where there is a shortage 
 of goods, the percentage excess of the appraised value over the entered value 
 should be ascertained by dividing the difference between the appraised value 
 and the entered value (less the shortage) by such entered value less the shortage, 
 or by dividing the difference between the unit entered value and the unit ap- 
 praised value by the entered value of a unit when the same can be foimd. (T. 
 D. 29876— G. A. 6916; June 22, 1909.) 
 
 Bottles^ 
 Allowance will not be made for the duty on missing bottles of liquors in instances 
 where less than 12 bottles are found in the case. (T. D. 29147; July 8, 1908.) 
 Proof of discovery of shortage by an unofficial examination after packages have 
 been discharged from vessel and after surrender of manual possession of the pack- 
 ages by customs officers is not sufficient by itself to support a claim that the goods 
 have not been imported. United States v. Brown (No. 130); United States v. 
 Kwong Tai Chong (No. 131); United States v. Quong Yee Wo (No. 132), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from decision 
 of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 21075 (T. D. 29700). 
 Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. 
 DeciEdon reversed. (T. D. 31943; Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 Lading inspectors should note on manifest all packages of wines, liquors, cordials, 
 and distilled spirits in bad order, and reports should be made imder T. D. 32280 
 of February 26, 1912, of all empty or broken bottles found in examination of 
 packages at destination. (T. D. 33497; June 2, 1913.) 
 
 Evidence — 
 This appeal involves a claim of shortage in an importation of decorated china lan- 
 terns and other merchandise. There was ample opportunity to estabhsh the 
 fact, if one, of a shortage in the importation. But there is no evidence showing 
 or even tending to show the condition of the case of goods at the precise time of 
 importation. To protect the revenues, claims of this character should be clearly 
 made out. United States v. Brown (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 189; T. D. 31493). 
 United States v. Fenton, Jr. (No. 1276), United States Court of Customs Appears. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 33799 (T. D. 33789). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34252; Feb-. 27, 1914.) 
 
 Grain — Transportation and exportation entries — 
 In the case of transportation and exportation shipments of grain embraced in a se- 
 ries of entries covering the cargo of a particular vessel, where a shortage is found 
 in some of the shipments at the port of exportation, the collector of customs at the 
 port of entry may prorate the aggregate shortage among all the entries of the 
 
V94 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 
 
 Shortage — Continued. 
 
 Giain — Transportation and exportation entries— Continued. 
 
 series, and if the shortage is not in excess of 2 per cent of the entered quantity, 
 the charge against the carrier's bond may be canceled. (T. D. 33385; May 5, 
 1913.) 
 
 Inspector's report of — 
 The mere report of a discharging inspector of a short shipment of imported mer- 
 chandise, not corroborated by the sworn statement of the importer denying the 
 receipt of the missing article, does not justify the board in making allowances for 
 the alleged nonimportation. The affidavit making such denial, prescribed by 
 article 1452 of the Customs Regulations of 1899 (as amended by T. D. 27713), 
 now pubhshed as article 1063 of Customs Regulations of 1908, is admissible in 
 evidence if fUed with the board at or prior to the hearing of the case, and will be 
 given effect as a satisfactory denial of the receipt of the goods by the importer. 
 (T. D. 29543— G. A. 6865; Feb. 8, 1909.) 
 
 Liquors — 
 Where wines, cordials, brandy, or other spirituous liquors, imported in bottles or 
 jugs, are at the time of exportation packed in packages containing the number of 
 bottles or jugs specified in and required by the second proviso of paragraph 296, 
 tariff act of 1897, and on the opening of such packages the local appraiser reports 
 a portion of such goods as missing or not found, an allowance for such deficiency 
 should be made in estimating and assessing the duty on such merchandise, as for 
 ' a shortage or nonimportation. (T. D. 30160— G. A. 6944; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Shortage of liquors in bottles or jugs. — From the evidence it was 
 shown that the cases containing the Uquors were packed at exportation with not 
 less than a dozen bottles each, conforming so to the legal requirements as to pack- 
 ing, and further that the shortage appearing was attributable to theft before im- 
 portation. No allowance may be made for breakage, leakage, or damage in bot- 
 tle shipments, but this punitive provision of paragraph 296, tariff act of 1897, 
 was not to be enlarged beyond its express terms. Such losses as might be allowed 
 for in bulk shipments would be allowable in bottle shipments, and a shortage 
 in bottles that was due to theft was properly held to be nondutiable. De Bary 
 V. Arthur (93 U. S., 420) distiaguished. United States v. 'Vignier et al. (No. 
 172), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States 
 from decision of the Board of United State? General Appraisers, G. A. 6944 
 (T. D. 30160). Transferred from United States Circuit Court for Northern 
 District of California. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32380; Apr. 1, 1912.) 
 Regulations governing allowances for losses of liquors, by breakage or other 
 injury, as provided in paragraph 244, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34140; Feb. 4, 
 1914.) 
 Allowance for loss of wine or hquors due to breakage or injury of containers to be 
 made when ganger's return shows an actual outage of 10 per cent or more, in 
 addition to the allowance for normal wantage. T. D. 34140 modified accord- 
 ingly. (T. D. 35614; July 27, 1915.) 
 
 Begulations governing allowance — Importer's affidavit — 
 Article 1063 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 provides that an allowance for 
 missing packages shall not be made unless shown by the report of the United 
 States discharging officer not to have been found on board the importing vessel 
 on discharging the cargo, and unless the importer shall file with the collector, 
 within 30 days after written notice of shortage, an affidavit that such missing 
 packages have not been received. Held that this regulation governs the action 
 of the collector, and if the importer's affidavit is not filed in accordance there- 
 with, the board is not precluded from receiving other evidence to supplement 
 the report of the Government officer. Abe Stein Co.'s case, G. A. 6865 (T. D. 
 29543) followed. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 795 
 
 Shortage — Continued. 
 Begulatious governing allowance — ^Importer's affidavit — Continued. 
 
 Eegulations of tlie Secretary of the Treasury: Regulations of the Secretary of 
 the Treasury, made under the general power granted him by section 251 of the 
 Revised Statutes, are administrative merely, and compliance therewith is not a 
 condition precedent to the right of exemption from duty. United States v. 
 Morris European & American Express Co. (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 146; T. D. 32386). 
 (T. D. 36033— G. A. 7835; Dec. 28, 1915.) 
 Transportation and exportation entries — 
 Charges against carrier's bond made in connection with transportation and expor- 
 tation entries may be canceled when it appears cars arrived with seals intact and 
 aU merchandise arriving was exported. (T. D. 32731; July 22, 1912.) 
 Prescribing the method of reporting shortages from shipments under transportation 
 and exportation entries. (T. D. 33498; June 4, 1913.) 
 Shovels. 
 
 Shovels are dutiable at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 167, tariff act of 
 1913. (T. D. 35643; Aug. 9, 1915.) 
 Show cards, etc. (See Advertising matter.) 
 Show cases filled with pipes. (See Coverings.) 
 Shrinkage as a charge of expense. (See Wool — Shrinkage of cloth.) 
 Side arms. 
 
 Bayonets classifiable as side arms. (See Bayonets.) 
 Silica compound. (See Earth — Silica compoimd.) 
 Silica ware. 
 
 Articles made of fused silica, without admixture or combination with other mate- 
 rials, are not manufactmres of "glass" within the meaning of paragraph 112, 
 tariff act of 1897, nor do they resemble glass to the extent required for the appli- 
 cation of the similitude clause, but are dutiable as unenumerated manufac- 
 tures under section 6. (T. D. 30036— G. A. 6933; Oct. 11, 1909.) 
 Articles made of "fused silica ware" dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, as articles composed wholly or in chief value of 
 earthy or mineral substance. (T. D. 30658; May 31, 1910.) 
 Articles composed of fused silica are dutiable under paragraph 95, tariff act of 
 1909, as articles composed wholly or in chief value of a mineral substance, and 
 not under paragraph 480 as unenumerated manufactured articles. G. A. 6933 
 (T. D. 30036) distinguished. (T. D. 30708— G. A. 7040; June 20, 1910.) 
 
 Sim. 
 
 Artificial — 
 Embroideries of artificial silk. (See Embroideries.) 
 
 Ornaments in chief value of artificial silk and in part of leather are dutiable as 
 manufactures of cotton by similitude, under paragraph 322, tariff act of 1897, 
 rather than as manufactures of silk by similitude imder paragraph 391, or as 
 manufactures of leather by similitude under paragraph 450. The similitude 
 provision in section 7, tariff act of 1897, does not require that an unenumerated 
 article in chief value of a material, as artificial silk, manufactures of which are 
 not enumerated, and in minor value of another material as leather, manufac- 
 tures of which are enumerated, shall pay duty at the rate provided for manu- 
 factures of such material of minor value. Loewenthal v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 21, 1908. Suit 4067. 
 Appeal by importer from decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 7246 (T. D. 26559). Decision adverse to Government. . (T. D. 29164; 
 July 15, 1908.) 
 Boiled off- 
 Silk goods which are shown by the customary boiling tests to retain their natural 
 gum to a substantial extent, though possibly some of it has been removed by 
 
796 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Silk — Continued. 
 Boiled off — Continued. 
 
 the "washing" or "wetting-out" process, are fabrics "in the gum" rather than 
 "boiled off," within the meaning of those two terms as given in paragraph 387, 
 tariff act of 1897. Under paragraph 387, tariff act of 1897, relating to silk fabrics 
 "in the gum" and "boiled off," a slight boiling which leaves a majority of the 
 gum in the goods is not sufficient to remove the fabrics from the former to the 
 latter class. Mendelson v. United States (154 Fed. Rep., 33; T. D. 27898) and 
 Rice V. United States (123 Fed. Rep., 848) followed. (T. D. 28738— G. A. 6715; 
 Feb. 3, 1908.) 
 Habutai sUk fabrics which after weaving have been boiled in soap and water to 
 remove the gum and other foreign substances and have been finished, being 
 chiefly used in that condition for manufacture of wearing apparel, are dutiable 
 as "boiled-off" rather than "in the gum," under paragraph 387, tariff act of 
 1897. It is imma terial that, in order to be converted into other styles of fabrics 
 by printing or dyeing, they might need further boiling. (T. D. 29789— G. A. 
 6911; May 25, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The terms "sUk in the gum" and "silk boiled off" as such are 
 not terms of common, ordinary, or popular usage. They are terms coined and 
 employed by English-speaking manufacturers, converters, dyers, and printers 
 of silks to identify textiles of silk at particular stages of their manufacture. 
 And while these terms may not be used generally by all importers and dealers 
 in silks, their use is definite, uniform, and general with those whose business 
 obliges them to distinguish between the crude fabric and the one which has 
 been further advanced, and the general meaning given to them by that branch 
 of the silk trade which Invented and employs them should prevail. Whether 
 a fabric actually falls within the meaning of "silks boiled off" or within that of 
 "silks in the gum" is a question of fact and not of mere name independent of 
 the processes to which the silk cloth has been subjected and the results thereby 
 accomplished. If it be conceded, as contended by the importer, that a silk 
 "boiled off" signifies a silk from which all the gum has been removed, by boil- 
 ing, or such a percentage of it as will make it fit for dyeing or printing, then 
 the bm'den is on the importer to show by a preponderance of evidence that the 
 gum had not been so removed. 
 
 Proof. — If "boiled off" be regarded as a mere process of manufacture, and if 
 the question of whether the silks were or were not boiled off be considered as 
 one pin-ely of fact, then it would be incumbent on the importer to show by a 
 preponderance of evidence that the silks had not been submitted to that proc- 
 ess, and had not been, as a matter of fact, boiled off. If, on test, a loss of 5 per 
 cent or more in the weight of the fabric is considered conclusive that the silks 
 are still in the gum and not boiled off, then the importer must show the loss of 
 this percentage in weight by a preponderance of evidence. 
 
 Habutai silks — How dutiable. — Whether a decision is made to depend on 
 the meaning properly to be given to the terms "silk in the gum" and "silk 
 boiled off," or on the loss of weight shown in the commodity by boiUng-off 
 tests, or on testimony as to whether the silks had been actually boiled off and 
 were fit for dyeing and printing: Held that the Habutai silks in question are 
 boiled-off silks and as such were dutiable as assessed under paragiaph 387, 
 tariff act of 1897. Mendelson & Co. i;. United States (No. 34), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from a decision of the 
 Board -of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6911 (T. D. 29789). Trans- 
 ferred from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31451; Mar. 27, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 797 
 
 SUk — Continued. 
 Embioideries — 
 Fur garments trimmed with embroidered silk, fur chief value, are not dutiable 
 as "manufactures of fur," but as "silk embroideries," by virtue of the proviso 
 to paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, "that no wearing apparel * * * when 
 embroidered * * * shall pay duty at a less rate than that imposed in any 
 schedule of this act upon any embroideries of the materials of which such em- 
 broidery is composed." Jaeckel v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, May 21, 1909. Suit 5377. Appeal by importer 
 from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6818 (T. D. 
 29297). Board affirmed. Lichtenstein v. United States (154 Fed. Rep., 736; 
 T. D. 27919) cited and followed. (T. D. 29824; June 8, 1909.) 
 Fabrics — 
 The provision in paragraph 387, tariff act of 1897, for fabrics "containing not more 
 than twenty per centum in weight of silk," is limited to goods in chief value of 
 silk. (T. D. 29013; May 20, 1908.) 
 Appliqudd. (See Appliqu^d articles. — Fabrics.) 
 Conunercially known as" trimmings. (See Trimming.) 
 Imitation. (See Imitation silk fabrics.) 
 
 Pongees or shantungs: Silk fabrics which are generally known as "pongees" or 
 "shantungs," and from which all or any portion of the gum has been removed 
 by the "washing" or "boiling" process to which they have been subjected after 
 leaving the loom, are dutiable under the provision in paragraph 399, tariff act of 
 1909, for silk fabrics "if ungummed, wholly or in part, or if further advanced by 
 any process of manufacture or otherwise," rather than under the provision for 
 such articles when "in the gum." 
 
 Legislative intent: The provision" in paragraph 387, tariff act of 1897, for silk 
 fabrics "boiled off" was amended by Congress by substituting in paragraph 399, 
 tariff act of 1909, the words "if ungummed, wholly or in part, or if further ad- 
 vanced by any process of manufacture or otherwise," for the words "boiled off." 
 Held that by so amending the statute it was the intent of Congress that silk fab- 
 rics known as "pongees " or "shantungs, " and from which all or any portion of the 
 gum had been removed by the "washing" or "boiling" process, should no longer 
 be classified as "in the gum." (T. D. 31269— G. A. 7159; Feb. 2, 1911.) 
 Imitation pongee silk, in chief value of cotton, was dutiable under paragraph 311, 
 tariff act of 1897. A certificate of the Yokohama Chamber of Commerce as to 
 the value of a commodity imported from Japan to the United States is admissible 
 under treaty regulations as evidence before the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers. Judicial notice will be taken that with the present means of inter- 
 communication between the various countries of the world the price of a com- 
 modity like cotton does not greatly fluctuate or differ in different countries. 
 Saito V. United States (No. 142), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers (T. D. 29848). Decision of board affirmed. (T. D. 31184; Jan. 5, 
 1911.) 
 Woven: Velvets or veloiirs, wholly or in chief value of silk, not classifiable as. 
 (See Velvets or velours.) 
 Hair nets. (See Hair nets.) 
 Hats. (See Hats.) 
 Jacquard — 
 The official sample of the goods made the subject of controversy being selected by 
 a customs officer charged with the duty of making a selection, it will be presumed 
 the sample so chosen is fairly representative of the merchandise. The sample 
 
798 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Silk — Continued . 
 
 Jaeqnard — Continued. 
 
 exhibited showed the merchandise to have beenjacquard figured goods, in the 
 piece, made of silk and cotton, silk being the component of chief value, two 
 colors in the filling and the fabric dyed in the yam; it was dutiable under para- 
 graph 391, tariff act of 1897. Kaauth v. United States (No. 116), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board 
 of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 29690). Transferred from United 
 States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. Decision reversed. 
 T. D. 31216; Jan. 11, 1911.) 
 Legislative intent: Jacquard figured silk goods are properly dutiable according to 
 their weight, condition, etc., imder the provision for woven fabrics of silk in 
 paragraph 399, tariff act of 1909, and not as manufactures in chief value of silk 
 under paragraph 403 of said act. Under the tariff act of 1897 Jacquard figured 
 goods containing two or more colors in the filling were specially provided for at 
 the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 391, which provision Con- 
 gress failed to reenact in the tariff act of 1909. Held that the failure to reenact 
 such provision and the reenactment of the provision for woven silk fabrics with 
 the proviso that "in no case shall any goods made on Jacquard looms, or any 
 goods containing more than one color in the filling, * * * pay a less rate of 
 duty than forty-five per centum ad valorem," clearly indicated the intention of 
 Congress to include all Jacquard figured goods of silk in the provision for woven 
 fabrics of silk. (T. D. 31651— G. A. 7229; June 5, 1911.) 
 
 Lace made on Lever or Gothrough machine. (See Lace.) 
 
 Manufactures of — 
 Gauze bands, chiffon ribbons, or mousseUnes: The merchandise consisted of woven 
 articles composed of silk, 4, 6, and 10 inches in width, and variously known in 
 trade as chiffon bands of ribbons, or as gauze bands or ribbons, or as mousse- 
 lines. They are used as ribbons in tying floral designs and for other like deco- 
 rative purposes. The goods had been for many years well known as articles of 
 commerce and their proper classification had been fixed by judicial construc- 
 tion. It must be presumed that this construction was adopted when the clause 
 in question was brought forward into the tariff act of 1909 from the tariff act of 
 1897, furnishing thus a clear expression of legislative will. The merchandise 
 was dutiable not as woven fabrics in the piece, but as manufactures of silk, 
 under paragraph 403, tariff act of 1909. Robinson v. United States (121 Fed. 
 Rep., 204). United States v. Wertheimer Bros, et al. (No. 696), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 25928 (T. D. 31720). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 32249; Feb. 1, 1912.) 
 Mousseline bands: Woven articles of light texture composed wholly of silk im- 
 ported in strips measuring 4, 6, or 10 inches in width and known in trade as 
 "moiisseline bands," "chiffon bands," or "gauze bands," and which were 
 originally woven in wide widths with extra threads introduced at intervals of 4, 
 6, or 10 inches to form borders or selvages for the articles after the fabric is cut 
 into strips, are not dutiable under the provision in paragraph 399, tariff act of 
 1909, for "woven fabrics in the piece," but are dutiable as manufactures of silk 
 at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 403 of said act. Robinson 
 V. United States (121 Fed. Rep., 204) and other cases cited and followed. (T. 
 D. 31565— G. A. 7217; May 8, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Light-weight woven silk fabrics, 6, 8, and 10 inches, respectively, 
 in width and generally known as "chiffon," "gauze," or "mousseline bands," 
 are not articles made of chiffon, but are the material, chiffon, from which some- 
 thing can be made. The fabrics are dutiable under the tariff act of 1909 as 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 799 
 
 Silk— Continued. 
 
 Manufactuies of — Continued. 
 
 manufactures of silk under paragraph 403. Wertheimer v. United States (2 Ct. 
 Oust. Appls., 515; T. D. 32249). United States v. Caesar & Co. et al. (No. 695), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7217 (T. D. 31565). Decision 
 aflarmed. (T. D. 32533; May 8, 1912.) 
 
 Mufflers. (See Mufflers.) 
 
 Noils — 
 Silk noils, whether combed or uncombed, dutiable under paragraph 396, tariff act 
 
 of 1909, at the rate of 35 cents per pound. (T. D. 31824; Aug. 18, 1911.) 
 Department's decision of August 18, 1911 (T. D. 31824), directing that duty should 
 be assessed upon silk noils, combed or uncombed, not to become operative until 
 90 days from said date. T. D. 31824 of August 18, 1911, modified accordingly. 
 (T. D. 31855; Sept. 16, 1911.) 
 T. D. 31824 of August 18, 1911, relative to the classification of silk noils, not to 
 
 become effective until December 16, 1911. (T. D. 32000; Nov. 11, 1911.) 
 Silk noils the fibers of which are less than 2 inches in length, free of duty under 
 paragraph 673j tariff act o£ 1909. Silk noils the fibers of which are more than 2 
 inches in length, dutiable under paragraph 396 of the said act. (T. D. 32085; 
 Dec. 15, 1911.) 
 
 Organzine. (See Organzine.) 
 
 Ornaments — 
 Ornaments, loops, and medallions of silk, which are manufactured separately 
 but are temporarily stitched together in G-yard lengths for convenience and 
 economy in handling and carding, and which are used singly in decorating gar- 
 ments, are dutiable as manufactures of silk under paragraph 391, tariff act of 
 1897, rather than as trimmings or galloons under paragraph 390. United States 
 V. Hilbert, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, May 19, 
 1909. No. 242 (suit 4142). Appeal by the importer from the Circuit Court of 
 the United States for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29005). Deci- 
 sion adverse to the Government. (T. D. 29815; June 8, 1909). Acquiesced in 
 August 10, 1909 (T. D. 29949). 
 Ornaments, loops, and medallions of silk, which are manufactured separately, 
 but are temporarily stitched together in lengths for convenience and economy 
 in handling, and which are used singly in decorating garments, are dutiable as 
 manufactures of silk under paragraph 391 , tariff act of 1897, rather than as trim- 
 mings under paragraph 390. United States v. Hilbert (171 Fed. Rep., 69; T. 
 D. 29815) followed. (T. D. 30067— G. A. 6935; Oct. 21, 1909). 
 
 Sibbons. (See Ribbons.) 
 
 Spun, wound on wood beams. (See Wood, beams containing spun silk.) 
 
 Strings for musical instruments. (See Musical instruments. Strings.) 
 
 Strips, ornamental in character. (See Trimming.) 
 
 Tassels^ 
 Silk taflsels made in part of cord, which is used in the construction of necessary 
 and essential parts of the tassels and which also holds the several parts of the 
 tassels together, are, in the absence of proof to show that the articles are defi- 
 nitely, uniformly, and generally known in trade and commerce as "cords and 
 tassels," dutiable as tassels. As silk tassels are not specifically provided for, 
 and the articles are admittedly used as ornaments, they are properly dutiable 
 as silk ornaments at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 358, 
 tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35418— G. A. 7727; May 13, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Tassels — Cords and tassels — Trimmings — Cords fashioned into 
 other articles- — Ornaments, known variously to the trade as "drop ornaments," 
 
800 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. ' 
 
 Silk — Continued. 
 
 Tassels — Continued. 
 
 "triuunings," "tassels," cords and tassels," and "silk tassels," which are 
 composed chiefly of silk cords and threads but partly of other materials, includ- 
 ing soutache braid and wood or pasteboard molds, and which are fashioned by 
 knotting the cords into designs so elaborate that they lose their continuity and 
 identity as cords, are not dutiable under paragraph 316 of the tariff act of 1913 
 as "cords," or as "cords and tassels." They are tassels, but, there being no 
 provision in paragraph 316 for "tassels" as such, they are dutiable as ornaments 
 or trimmings within those provisions of paragraph 358. C. Willenborg & Co. 
 V. United States (No. 1575), United States Court of Customs Appeals, Decem- 
 ber 6, 1915. Appeal by importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, G. A. 7727 (T. D. 35418). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35985; Dec. 6, 
 1915.) 
 
 Trimmings. (See Trimmings.) 
 
 Veils — 
 Woven articles of different colors, of light texture, composed wholly of silk, meas- 
 uring from 75 to 100 centimeters in width and from 100 to 170 centimeters in 
 length, some of which have fancy borders and others are hemstitched, which are 
 susceptible of use as a covering for the face, and were formerly so used, but are 
 now chiefly used by women when automobiling as a protection for the head and 
 hair, are dutiable as silk veils at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 358, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35498— G. A. 7734; June 4, 1915.) 
 
 Waste, artificial — 
 Artificial silk waste which has been put through a combing process is not duti- 
 able as artificial silk yarns or filaments in the form of singles under paragraph 
 405, tariff act of 1909, but is dutiable by similitude as cotton sliver at the rate 
 of 35 per cent ad valorem xmder paragraph 313 of said act. (T. D. 33473 — G. 
 A. 7466; May 29, 1913.) 
 Artificial silk threads, mixed with a very small percentage of real silk threads in 
 a tangled condition dutiable at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 384, tariff act of 1913, as a waste not specially provided for. (T. D. 
 35359; May 1, 1915.) 
 
 Wearing apparel ornamented with imitation precious stones. (See Wearing apparel, 
 silk, ornamented with imitation precious stones.) 
 
 Weight of — 
 Paragraph 404, tariff act of 1909, provides that in ascertaining the weight of silk 
 no deductions shall be made for "any dye, coloring matter, or other foreign 
 substance or material." Held, that this provision does not apply to the ascer- 
 tainment of the weight of yam for the sole purpose of determining the "num- 
 ber" according to the metric or French system. (T. D. 31181 — G. A. 7147; 
 Jan. 9, 1911.) 
 The commodities in controversy were silk- velvet ribbons and woven-silk fabrics. 
 The importers having failed to show that the customs officials weighed as a test 
 an insufficient quantity of the goods, or that the percentage actually weighed 
 was not properly stripped, or that the weight of the percentage that had been 
 properly stripped before weighing was incorrectly reported, or that the method 
 employed to select, strip, and weigh the goods was ill adapted to secure a result 
 at least approximately correct, the official weights as reported will be presumed 
 to be correct, and this importation was properly assessed for duty at $1.50 per 
 pound and 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 386, tariff act of 1897. In 
 the absence of material evidence to the contrary, the method employed by 
 customs officials to determine the weight of commodities will be presumed to 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 801 
 
 Silk — Continued. 
 Weight of — Continued. 
 
 be correct. United States v. Gage Bros. & Co. (No. 229), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from a decision of the Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 23284 (T. D. 30615). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 31503; Apr. 10, 1911.) 
 Weight of silk should be taken in the condition in which found in the goods at 
 
 the time of importation. (T. D. 32426; Apr. 23, 1912.) 
 The importation consisted of two cases of silk chiffon muslin. The examiner 
 weighed but one piece of the silk goods, though these were contained in two 
 separate cases, the silks differing in color and in weight. The evidence clearly 
 rebuts the presumption of correctness attaching to this official's finding, and 
 shows, too, that the weight as stated in the importer's invoice to have been more 
 fairly and justly determined. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States (No. 898), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27934 (T. D. 32333). (T. D. 
 33035; Dec. 16, 1912.) 
 Woven fabrics — Trimmings — 
 Woven fabrics in the piece, of light texture, composed of silk, measuring 60 centi- 
 meters in width, known as "crape mousseline," which, after being cutinto vari- 
 ous forms and shapes, are used as trimmings, are dutiable as woven silk fabrics 
 at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 318 of said act, and not as 
 silk trimmings under paragraph 358. (T. D. 35563— G. A. 7746; June 30, 1915.) 
 Yams. (See Yams.) 
 
 Yams wound on wood spools. (See Wood spools, wound with silk yam.) 
 Silk-flgured cotton cloth. (See Cotton cloth, silk figures.) 
 Silk-lined baskets. (See Baskets, wood and straw lined with silk.) 
 Silk-wool dress goods. (See Dress goods.) 
 Silver mesh. (See Mesh composed of silver.) 
 Silver mesh bags. (See Bags and purses.) 
 Silver sweepings. 
 
 The merchandise is sweepings of silver contained in sawdust, and it is imported so 
 that the silver content may be reclaimed. It falls clearly within paragraph 643, 
 tariff act of 1909, providing free entry for ' ' sweepings of gold and silver. ' ' United 
 States V. Henderson (No. 1222), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Ap- 
 peal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 32848 (T. D. 33591). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34097; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 Silvered glass reflectors. (See, Glass and glasses.) 
 Similitude. (See Classification.) 
 Sinalco seele. (See Alcoholic compoimds.) 
 Singapore buffalo hides. (See Hides.) 
 Singapore pineapples. (See Fruit, pineapples.) 
 Sink brooms. (See Brooms.) 
 Sketches — Jacquards. (See Designs.) 
 Skinned herring. (See Fish.) 
 Skins. 
 Cabretta. (See Wool on the skin.) 
 Cape sheepskins. (See Wool on the skin.) 
 Drumheads. (See Musical instruments, parts of.) 
 Skiving machines and parts thereof. (See Machinery and machines.) 
 Skivers. (See Leather.) 
 Slack. (See Coal.) 
 
 45633°— 17 51 
 
802 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Slag, basic. 
 
 A basic slag known as Thomas's phosphate, Thomas's slag, etc . , containing about 17 
 to 19 per cent of phosphoric acid and useful only as a fertilizer, is not dutiable 
 as "basic slag, ground or unground," under paragraph 121, tariff act of 1897, but is 
 exempt from duty under paragraph 569, relating to "all substances used only tor 
 manure." Magone v. Heller (150 U. S., 70) followed; G. A. 4778 (T. D. 22522) 
 overruled. (T. D. 28947— G. A. 6754; Apr. 15, 1908.) 
 
 Sliced opium. (See Opium.) 
 
 Slides for toy magic lanterns. (See Toys.) 
 
 Slippers of cotton and leather. (See Shoes, slippers of cotton and leather.) 
 
 Sliver, ramie. (See Ramie, sliver.) 
 
 Sludge machines. (See Machinery and machines,) 
 
 Smelting and refining. 
 
 Regulations governing smelting and refining of lead-bearing ores or base bullion, 
 under section 24, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30703; June 18, 1910.) 
 
 Smelting warehouses. (See Warehouses.) 
 
 Smokers' articles. 
 Cigarette and cigar oases — 
 Cigar and cigarette cases, of whatever material composed, are dutiable at the rate 
 of 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 475, tariff act of 1909, as smokers' 
 articles and not under paragraph 448. (T. D . 30942— G . A. 7102; Sept. 23, 1910.) 
 Leather cigar or cigarette cases are dutiable, not under paragraph 452, tariff act of 
 1909, but under paragraph 475 of that act. Said paragraph 475, containing the 
 "smokers' articles " clause, is more limited, definite, and specific than the leather 
 paragraph (452), the latter providing for all leather cases, and the former pro- 
 viding specifically for smokers' articles, including such leather cases as are used 
 by smokers. It would be to deny a reasonable and proper effect to the clause in 
 that paragraph which includes "all smokers' articles whatsoever," if leather 
 cigar or cigarette cases should be classed as leather rather than as smokers' arti- 
 cles. Mark Cross Co. v. United States (No. 415), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from decision of the Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 23575 (T. D. 30733). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 31457; Mar. 27, 1911.) 
 It is sufficient to bring a commodity within the classification "smokers' articles" 
 if it is shown the article must have passed with its first use into the hands of a 
 consumer for use as a smoker's article. Use in chief controls in classification, 
 and the consignment of tin boxes here, being in shape, size, and markings 
 j)lainly designed for use by smokers, could not properly be classed as manufac- 
 tiues of metal, and the boxes were properly held dutiable as smokers' articles 
 under paragraph 459, tariff act of 1897. Steinhardt v. United States (126 Fed. 
 Rep., 443) approved. Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne v. United States (No. 161), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from deci- 
 sions of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 22155 (T. D. 
 30111). Abstract 22273 (T. D. 30165). Transferred from United States Circuit 
 Court for Southern District of New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31432; 
 Mar. 20, 1911.) 
 Cigarette holders — 
 So-called cigarette holders made of^lass and having a metal reed are dutiable ac- 
 cording to component material of chief value, and not as smokers' articles or 
 as toys. (T. D. 34050; Jan. 12, 1914.) 
 Cigar lighters — 
 Small pocket lamps, lighting automatically when the lid is raised, and suscepti- 
 ble of uses other than the lighting of cigars, cigarettes, and pipes by smokers, 
 are not dutiable under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, as articles of personal 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 803 
 
 Smokers' aiticles — Continued. 
 
 Gigai lighters — Continued. 
 
 adornment. In the absence of competent evidence that such lighters have a 
 general use other than by smokers, thereby entitling them to classification 
 under paragraph 199 as articles composed wholly or in part ot metal. Held, 
 that they are dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 475 as smokers' 
 articles. (T. D. 30943— G. A. 7103; Sept. 23, 1910.) 
 Metal: Small metal articles valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces, designed to 
 be carried on the person and used to light cigars, are properly classified under 
 paragraph 356 o£ the tariff act of 1913 at 60 per cent ad valorem. Such merchan- 
 dise, while itmay be included within the term "Smokers' articles," asdescribed 
 in paragraph 381, yet is a like article to cigar cases, cigar cutters, and cigar holders, 
 which are eo nomine mentioned in paragraph 356. This establishes a legisla- 
 tive intent that such smokers' articles as cigar cases, cigar holders, cigar cutters, 
 and like articles made of metal, if valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces and 
 designed to be carried on or about or attached to the person, should be elimi- 
 nated from the smokers' articles provided for in paragraph 381. A cigar lighter 
 made of metal, valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces, designed to be carried 
 on or about or attached to the person, is a like article to those above enumerated 
 and should be classified in the same manner. (T. D. 35880 — G. A. 7810; Nov. 
 12, 1915.) 
 
 Lighters, automatic — 
 From the evidence and upon examination of the article imported, an automatic 
 lighter to ignite acetylene gas, it can not well be deemed a smoker's article. 
 Its use appears to be to light acetylene lamps. It was dutiable as a manufacture 
 of metal, paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, distinguishing Abstract 13785 (T. D. 
 27785). Sheldon & Co. v. United States (No. 754), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 26400 (T. D. 31832). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32199; 
 Jan. II, 1912.) 
 The merchandise in this case consists of small lighters in the form of oblong boxes 
 about 1 J inches wide by 2 J inches long and three-eigh ths of an inch in thickness, 
 which, when opened, make a Ught. The question for determination was 
 whether the goods of the importation were in their chief use smokers' articles. 
 They were so assessed and the board so found them. Prom the evidence, while 
 it appears the articles may have other occasional uses, their chief use is as 
 cigar lighters, and they were properly assessed as smokers' articles. ICnauth 
 V. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 334; T. D. 31432); Dale v. United States 
 (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 384; T. D. 32II1). Bernhardt et al. v. United States (No. 
 1009), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29552 (T. D. 32767). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33223; Feb. 18, 1913.) 
 
 Metal cigar lighters- 
 Small metal articles valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces, designed to be car- 
 ried on the person and used to light cigars, are properly classified under para- 
 graph 356 of the act of 1913 at 60 per cent ad valorem. Such merchandise, 
 while it may be included within the term "smokers' articles," as described In 
 paragraph 381, yet is a like article to cigar cases, cigar cutters, and cigar holders, 
 which are eo nomine mentioned in paragraph 356. This establishes a legisla- 
 tive intent that such smokers' articles as cigar cases, cigar holders, cigar cutters, 
 and like articles made of metal, if valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces and 
 designed to be carried on or about or attached to the person, should be elimi- 
 nated from the smokers' articles provided for in paragraph 381. A cigar lighter 
 made of metal, valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces, designed to be carried 
 
804 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Smokers' articles — Continued. 
 
 Metal cigar lighters — Continued. 
 
 on or about or attached to the person, is a like article to those above eniuneiated, 
 and should be classified in the same manner. (T. D. 35880 — G. A. 7810; Nov. 
 12, 1915.) 
 
 Mouthpieces for pipes, rubber — 
 The subject of this appeal consists of finished mouthpieces for pipes. They are 
 not, it is true, designed to be used in any particular pipe or pipestem, but are 
 made to be inserted in any pipe or stem so constructed as to receive the same, 
 and seem to be of a size and shape commonly in use. They clearly fall within 
 the description of "all smokers' articles whatsoever" in paragraph 475, tariff 
 act of 1909. United States v. Eytinge (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 33486). 
 United States v. Hanover Vulcanite Co. (No. 1194), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 32435 (T. D. 33433). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 33919; Nov. 18, 1913.) 
 
 Pipe and cigarette holder cases, leather covered — 
 Common knowledge and observation serve to convince that the importation con- 
 sisting of leather-covered pipe and cigarette holder cases is one of smokers' arti- 
 cles, and these are dutiable not as manufactures of leather but as falling within 
 "all smokers' articles whatsoever," paragraph 475, tariff act of 1909. Vandiver 
 V. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 194; T. D. 31219); Mark Cross Co. v. United 
 States (ibid., 377; T. D. 31457); Knauth v. United States (ibid., 334; T. D. 
 31432). Dale v. United States (No. 626), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Apprais- 
 ers, Abstract 24862 (T. D. 31316) and Abstract 25186 (T. D. 31450). Decision 
 affii-med. (T. D. 32111; Dec. 19, 1911.) 
 
 Wood boxes, decorated glass and china ware- 
 Cedar boxes of suitable size, plain and decorated, marked "Cigars" or "Ciga- 
 rettes," are smokers' articles, and a finding by the Board of General Appraisers 
 that other cedar boxes also of suitable size, of the same importation and similar" 
 in all essential respects to the boxes marked '^Cigars" or "Cigarettes," though 
 unmarked and possibly fitted for uses other than by smokers, are smokers' arti- 
 cles, will be sustained. An article imported may not be confined in use exclu- 
 sively to the piu-pose for which it is imported and, if sold to persons who use it 
 for other purposes, its classification is not thereby changed and the rate of duty 
 should be assessed for its general and commonly known use. 
 
 Glass and china ware : Articles of bronze and glass and china, such as inkstands, 
 stamp boxes, etc., where the component material of chief value is metal, are 
 dutiable imder paragraphs 96 and 100 of the tariff act of 1897. Vandiver v. 
 United States (No. 399), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal from 
 decisions of the Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 29442; T. D. 
 29644). Decision modified and affirmed. (T. D. 31219; Jan. 11, 1911.) 
 Smuggling. 
 
 A conviction of smuggling was upheld under section 2865,Revised Statutes, where 
 a person entering the United States from a ferryboat passed the customs ofiice, 
 with full knowledge of its location and of the fact that he had dutiable goods 
 concealed on his person, and ignored three calls by a customs officer before he 
 halted, and on disclosure of the dutiable goods stated that he had intended to 
 take them to the main customhouse, a mile away, and pay the duty there. 
 Where a person entering the United States knowingly passes the customs officers, 
 with the intent to evade entering goods or paying the duty at all, he must bo 
 concluded to have purposely declined the opportunity furnished him to comply 
 with the law, and have completed the offen?2 oi smuggling denounced by sec- 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 805 
 
 Smuggling— Continued. 
 
 tion 2865, Re\d8ed Statutes. It is not necessary that he should also be permitted 
 to escape entirely from the customs inclosiu-e before the offense is completed. 
 In section 3082, Revised Statutes, which prohibits the importation of merchan- 
 dise "contrary to law," the words quoted relate to legal provisions not found in 
 that section. Rogers v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals," 
 Sixth Circuit, July 13, 1910. No. 2009. In error to the District Court of the 
 United States for the M''estern District of Michigan. Decision in favor of the 
 Government. (T. D. 31167; Dec- 31, 1910.) 
 
 Smyrna eke. (See Weights — Oke.) 
 
 Snails. 
 
 Construction: Words to which Congress has given a special meaning in a tariff act 
 will be presimied to retain that signification in a subsequent tariff act relating to 
 the same subject matter, no contrary intention appearing. Reiche v. Smythe 
 (13 Wall., 162). Accordingly snails may not be deemed "live animals." 
 
 Escargots or edible snails: Nor, by the same reasoning, can snails be deemed 
 shellfish and entitled to free entry. They are to be classified as a raw article 
 designed to be converted into a food not enumerated or provided for. They 
 were dutiable under paragraph. 480, tariff act of 1909. De Jonghe et al. v. United 
 States (No. 1171), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32075 (T. D. 
 33348), Abstract 32338 (T. D. 33409). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34189; Feb. 
 5, 1914.) 
 
 Soap. 
 Liquid — Tetrapol — 
 The merchandise is composed of potash and fatty acids with an addition of alcohol 
 to the amount of 17 per cent by volume. The question is not one of commercial 
 designation; it is simply whether the presence of 17 per cent in volume of 
 alcohol in the mixture serves to make the classification of the merchandise as a 
 soap improper. "Soap" is not limited in common understanding to solid com- 
 binations, but has been broadened in meaning to include substances liquid in 
 form. The merchandise was properly held dutiable not as a chemical mixture, 
 but as "other soaps not specially provided for" under paragraph 69, tariff act of 
 1909. United States v. Farvenfabtiken of Elberfeld Co. (No. 944), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board o.' 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28692 (T. D. 32560). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 32911;. Oct. 28, 1912.) 
 Medicinal or medicated — 
 Soap dealt in as a medicinal soap, and containing among its component ingredients 
 natural salts having medicinal and curative properties, is dutiable under the 
 provision in paragraph 69, tariff act of 1909, for medicinal or medicated soaps, and 
 not as fancy or perfumed toilet soap under the same paragraph. (T. D. 30864— 
 G. A. 7081; Aug. 4, 1910.) 
 Tetrapol — 
 Tetrapol, a combination of sulphoneted castor oil, olive oil, tetrachloride, and 
 water, which is neither practically nor commercially an alizarin assistant, but is 
 • used as a dry-cleaning soap, is dutiable as "soaps not specially provided for," 
 under paragraph 72, tariff act of 1897, rather than as "alizarin assistant," imdei 
 paragraph 32. (T. D. 29724— G. A. 6902; Apr. 28, 1909.) 
 
806 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Soap — Continued. 
 Toilet- 
 Pears' unscented soap dutiable as a fancy toilet soap at the rate of-50 per cent ad 
 
 valorem under paragraph 69, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30113; Nov. 17, 1909.) 
 Pears' unscented soap is a fancy toilet soap within the meaning of the provision in 
 paragraph 69, tariff act of 1909, for "fancy * * * toilet soaps. " The char- 
 acter of the soap and the use for which it is intended control, rather than the 
 kind of wrapper or manner of packing. Neither the term "fancy soap" nor 
 "fancy toilet soap " is a commercial term, having a uniform, definite, and gen- 
 eral meaning other than the ordinary or dictionary meaning which the words 
 convey. (T. D. 30761— G. A. 7059; July 7, 1910.) 
 Pears' imscented: Where there are irreconcilable differences in the testimony as 
 to the use of the term "fancy soap" in commerce, it can not be said to have a 
 commercial meaning that is definite, uniform, and general ; but since the impor- 
 tation in question consists of cakes of soap, oval in form, translucent, attractive 
 in appearance, agreeable in odor, and appealing to a fastidious taste, it is properly 
 to be regarded as a fancy toilet soap, and was dutiable as such under paragraph 
 69, tariff act of 1897, and this regardless of whether or not it was perfumed. 
 Downing & Co. v. United States (No. 431), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importer from a decision of the Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7059 (T. D. 30761). (T. D. 31530; Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 
 Soapstone. 
 Sawed — 
 Small pieces of soapstone, cut in regular sizes and used in the manufacture of gas 
 binners, are dutiable as unenumerated manufactured articles under section 6, 
 tariff act of 1897, not being "lava, unmanufactured, " under paragraph 595, nor 
 "minerals, crude," under paragraph 614. It is a "manufacture," within the 
 meaning of the tariff, to cut soapstone into blocks of the right sizes for being fin- 
 ished into gas tips. Kirschberger v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, November 28, 1908. Suit 5005. On applica- 
 tion for review of decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 16033 (T. D. 28300). Board sustained. (T. D. 29391; Dec. 9, 1908.) 
 Acquiesced in January 4, 1909 (T. D. 29456). 
 
 Socks, Infants'. (See Infants' socks.) 
 
 Sodium, perborate of. (See Chemical compounds.) 
 
 Solidonia fiber. 
 
 Solidonia fiber dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article at the rate of 
 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 385, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34761; 
 Sept. 11, 1914.) 
 TJncarded — 
 Solidonia filser, degummed, though uncarded, dutiable at the rate of 15 per cent 
 ad valorem under paragraph 385, tariff act of 1913, as a nonenumerated article 
 manufactured m whole or in part. (T. D. 35301; Apr. 7, 1915.) 
 
 Solvent naphtha. (See Naphtha.) 
 
 Soimding-maclilne tubes. (See Glass and glasses.) 
 
 Soup tablets. 
 "Maggi's" — 
 The merchandise of the importation in question consisted of Maggi's soups in 
 tablets. The fact that these tablets are vegetables prepared for soup does not 
 take them out ol the category of "vegetables, prepared," paragraph 252, tariff 
 act of 1909. The evidence is insufficient to overcome the presumption that 
 the collector's decision was correct. Hunter & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 
 1150), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31611 (T. D. 33263), 
 Abstract 31850 (T.D. 33304). Decision aflirmed. (T. D. 34004; Dec. 15, 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 807 
 
 Soup tablets — OontinueA 
 "Maggi's " — Continued. 
 Similitude clause: The similarity required by the general similitude clause is 
 one either of quality, material, texture, or use to which the article may be ap- 
 plied, but there may be similarity in other respects, such as in the manner of 
 production or composition. 
 
 Maggi's desiccated soup tablets: The provisions of paragraph 252, tariff act of 
 1909, were so enlarged as to include bean stick, bean cake, miso, and similar 
 products, and whether "vegetables prepared in any way" is broad enough to 
 cover the importation, it is clear that this product is so similar to bean stick and 
 bean cake that it falls within the "similar products " of the paragraph. Ander- 
 son & Co. V. United States (No. 1504), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 36950 (T. D. 34933). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35344; Apr. 14, 1915.) 
 
 Soy. 
 Thick — 
 Thick soy is dutiable under section 6, tariff act of 1897, as an unenumerated 
 manufactured article, and iiot as a sauce under paragraph 241. United States 
 V. Wo On & Co. United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 18, 1908. Suit 4891. Appeal from decision by Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 6550 (T. D. 27944). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29016; 
 May 20, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed: ) Dutiable as an unenumerated manufactured article under section 6, 
 tariff act of 1897 . — ^The term "sauces" in the provisionin paragi'aph 241, tariff 
 act of 1897, for "sauces of all kinds," is held in the absence of proof of a com- 
 mercial designation to have been used according to its general and popular 
 meaning, as being a seasoning or dressing usually placed on the table to be added 
 to prepared food; and thick soy, which is used as an ingredient in sauces and 
 in coloring or flavoring food while cooking, but is not placed upon the table to 
 be added to or used with food, is not a sauce within the meaning of the provision 
 quoted. United States v. Wo On & Co., United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 
 Second Circuit, February 16, 1909. No. 134 (suit 4891). Appeal by United 
 States from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of 
 New York (T. D. 29016) affirming G. A. 6550 (T. D. 27944). Decision adverse 
 to the Government. (T. D. 29571; Feb. 24, 1909.) Acquiesced in March 26, 
 1909 (T. D. 29656.) 
 
 Soya beans. 
 
 The provision in paragraph 606, tariff act of 1913, for "soya beans" covers soya 
 beans when in their natural state; but soya beans prepared and put up in jars 
 are dutiable under the provision in paragraph 199 for "beans, * * * pre- 
 pared or preserved, or contained in tins, jars, bottles, or similar packages." 
 (T. D. 35143— G. A. 7689; Feb. 17, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Cooked and salted. — Soya beans, cooked and salted, but not 
 enough to so change them as to prevent their identification as soya beans, and 
 packed in tins, jars, bottles, or similar packages, do not thereby lose their status 
 as soya beans, and are more specifically classified on the free list, paragraph 
 606, tariff act of 1913, as "soya beans" than under paragraph 199 as "beans, 
 * * * prepared or preserved, or contained in tins, jars, bottles, or similar 
 packages." Wm. A. Brown & Co. v. United States (No. 1553), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7689 (T. D. 85143). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 35977; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 
808 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Soya cake meal. 
 
 Paragraph 581, act of 1909, construed: The phrase "used only for manure " in para- 
 graph 581, tariff act of 1909, embraces within its meaning substances used in the 
 manufacture of fertilizer, the word "manure " as used in this act being synony- 
 mous with fertilizer. Shallus v. United States (129 Fed. Rep., 845; T. D. 
 25041). The word "substances " as used in this act has a general rather than a 
 special application, and with the words following, which denote the kind of sub- 
 stances, applies generally to commodities of the kind therein described and not 
 to the particular shipment which is the subject of a protest. Magone v. Heller 
 (150 U. S., 70) and Marine v. Bartol (60 Fed. Rep., 601). Soya cake meal, not 
 being shown to be used only for manure, is not classifiable imder said paragraph 
 581. (T. D. 31800— G. A. 7257; Aug. 7, 1911.) 
 
 Spades and shovels. 
 
 Spades are free of duty as agricultural implements; shovels are dutiable at 20 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 167, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35643; Aug. 9, 
 1915.) 
 
 Spain. 
 Beciprocity. (See Reciprocity.) 
 Treaty with. (See Treaties.) 
 
 Spangles, Schlung. (See Schlimg spangles.) 
 
 Spanish cedar. (See Wood, cabinet.) 
 
 Spanish red peppers. (See Vegetables, prepared.) 
 
 Spar prisms. 
 
 Rock crystal : Rock crystal is a colorless or nearly colorless transparent quartz, and 
 quartz is not a carbonate of calcium, but a dioxide of silicon. 
 
 Nikols or Nicol prisms: The importations of nikols or Nicol prisms are manu- 
 factured from the mineral substance known as carbonate of calcium, and, as 
 articles or wares of that class are not otherwise provided for, these are dutiable at 
 35 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909. 
 United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. (No. 1401), United States Court of 
 Customs Apx>eals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 35307 (T. D. 34355). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 34942; Nov. 18, 1914.) 
 
 Sparklets, a certain kind of firework, not toys. (T. D. 29625.— G. A. 6885; Mar. 15, 
 1909.) 
 
 Spark pings. 
 
 A substance made of waste meUUte or lava that has been pulverized, and after an 
 addition made of oxide of magnesia and alkaUes has been molded in the fashion 
 of porcelain and then fired, was for dutiable purposes properly within paragraph 
 96, tariff act of 1897; and from the evidence submitted and from an inspection of 
 the substance itself, it appearing to be susceptible of decoration, it was rightly 
 assessed by the collector xinder said paragraph 96. United States v. Morris 
 European & American Express Co. (No. 242), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from decision of Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 23261 (T. D. 30601). Decision reversed'. (T. D. 
 31356; Feb 27, 1911.) 
 Insulators for, made of German lava — 
 There appears to be no real conflict between the record in the Kraemer case. Ab- 
 stract 30481 (T. D. 32943), and the testimony in United States v. Morris Euro- 
 pean & American Express Co. (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 300; T. D. 31356). The 
 sample in the present case was stipulated as the same with that in the two named 
 cases. Proof that an article is talc does not disprove the collector's return that 
 the article is porcelain; and no satisfactory disproof of return in this case having 
 been made, its correctness stands unimpeached. Eerz & Co. et al. v. United 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 809 
 
 Spark plugs— Continued. 
 Insulators for, made of German lava — Continued. 
 
 States (No. 1424), United States Court of Customs Appeals, March 3, 1915. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 35775 (T. D. 34521). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35192; Mar. 3, 1915.) 
 Printed and enameled — • 
 The importation consisted of china or porcelain spark plugs. The merchandise 
 could be classed as enameled only by an expert, for the true nature of its finish 
 is unapparent to the eye of a layman. "Enameled " as employed in paragraph 
 94, tariff act of 1909, has the limited meaning which it appears always to have 
 borne in ceramics; that is to say, an opaque or colored semivitrified coating 
 applied to the sinrface of pottery either as a decoration or for a utilitarian purpose. 
 However, the contention is made that the merchandise is "printed china." 
 The testimony to the effect that the word "Rajah," appearing on the goods, was 
 put there to protect a registered trade-mark, or that the word "Rajah" was a 
 trade-mark at all, is too weak, vague, and uncertain to overcome the presump- 
 tion of correctness attaching to the collector's decision. The spark plugs were 
 properly held dutiable as "printed china " under paragraph 93. Richard & Co 
 V. United States (No. 747), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 26244 (T. D. 31804). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32469; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 "Bajah" porcelain spark plugs — 
 The importation consisted of spark-plug porcelains, printed with the word "Rajah," 
 the importers alleging that the word "Rajah" was their registered trade-mark 
 and that its appearance upon the porcelains was necessary under the statute to 
 protect them in that right. Neither the tariff act nor the trade-mark statute 
 contains any express provision according to which. the employment of "Rajah" 
 printed on a porcelain spark plug can be taken to fix an exemption in favor of 
 such a ware as against similar ware printed with similar names in common use. 
 The spark plugs are dutiable as assessed under paragraph 93, tariff act of 1909. 
 Richard & Co. v. United States (No. 1065), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 30328 (T. D. 32905). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33533; May 
 31, 1913.) 
 
 Special agents. 
 
 Supervision and conduct of special investigations to be under direction and con- 
 trol of special agents in charge. (T. D. 33706; Aug. 25, 1913.) 
 Transfer of the division of special agents to the division of customs. (T. D. 
 35782; Oct. 14, 1915.) 
 
 Special agents' districts. (T. D. 35525; June 15, 1915.) 
 
 Spelter withdrawn for transportation. 
 
 The withdrawal for transportation to show the total weight of the metal that was 
 in the ore when imported and duty extended on that quantity. (T. D. 32186; 
 Jan. 25, 1912.) 
 
 Spindle banding. 
 
 A narrow tapelike article imported in rolls suitable'and intended to be used for 
 the transmission of power from the cylinder to the spindles on worsted spinning 
 and twisting machinery is "spindle banding." Eeld dutiable at 10 cents per 
 pound and 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 330, and not at 60 per cent 
 ad valorem as "tapes" or "webbings" under paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909. 
 (T. D. 33731— G. A. 7492; Sept. 11, 1913.) 
 
 Spirits, distilled. . * 
 
 Distilled spirits not exported in good faith not entitled on return to United State 
 to entry under section 2500, Revised Statutes, nor to warehousing privileges 
 (T. D. 29432; Dec. 21, 1908.) 
 
810 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Spirits, distilled — Contiiiued. 
 Exportation of — • 
 Under amendment to article 96, internal-revenue regulations No. 29, cases of dis- 
 tilled spirits for exportation -witliout payment of internal-revenue tax to be 
 examined by customs inspector at port of exportation, and loss or discrepancy 
 or any evidence of having been tampered with to be noted on export certificate. 
 (T. D. 28946; Apr. 20, 1908.) 
 Exportation and reimportation of — 
 
 Amendment of internal-revenue regulations. (T. D. 29529; Feb. 5, 1909.) 
 Gauge and proof of— 
 Corrections to be made, when gauged at temperature above or below 60° F., in 
 accordance with Table No. 3, pages 291-305, and Table No. 5, pages 409-559, of 
 the United States Internal Revenue Ganger's Manual of 1906. (T. D. 30970; 
 Oct. 3, 1910.) 
 Product of Great Britain and Ireland — 
 No additional duty to be assessed under section 6, act of August 5, 1909. T. D. 
 31229 of January 21, 1911, revoked. (T. D. 31490; Apr. 18, 1911.) 
 Splash mats. (See Screens — Splash mats.) 
 Split bamboo. (See Wood, manufactures of.) 
 Split rattan. (See Rattan.) 
 Split whalebone. (See Whalebone.) 
 Sponges. 
 
 Direct shipment from Zamboanga via Hongkong and Tacoma, Wash., to Chicago. 
 (See Philippine Islands, direct shipment.) 
 Spool thread, cotton. (See Cotton, thread, spool.) , 
 
 Sprinkler tops, decorated — Trade-mark. 
 
 Sprinkler tops, the screw covers of which have embossed on the tops thereof a 
 design representing a basket of flowers, are properly classifiable as decorated 
 sprinkler tops, notwithstanding said design may be a duly registered trade- 
 mark. Neither the time when the decoration was made nor the processes em- 
 ployed to produce the same can affect the dutiable status of a decorated article, 
 the character or nature of the decoration itself being the sole controlling factor 
 in determining its dutiabiUty. (T. D. 34888— G. A. 7627; Nov. 4, 1914.) 
 Spruce lumber, how measured. (See Lumber measurement.) 
 Spun silk wound on wood beams. (See Wood, beams containing spun silk.) 
 Spun-silk yam. (See Yarns.) 
 Stained-glass windows. (See Windows.) 
 Stamping of cigars and cigarettes. 
 
 Stamping of cigars and cigarettes and rates of internal-revenue tax to be applied 
 under section 26, act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 30719; June 28, 1910.) 
 Stamping packages of vermuth. (See Vermuth.) 
 Stampings, steel. (See Steel). 
 Stamp. 
 
 Use of stamp authorized to fill up checks. ^ (T. D. 29686; Apr. 12, 1909.) 
 Stamp tax. 
 
 Baggage declarations and' entries (Cat. No. 6063) subject to the same stamp taxee 
 as regular entries under the act of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 34995; Dec. 21, 
 1914.) 
 Stamp tax on bonds or other obligations under act of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 
 
 34979; circular No. 38; Dec. 9, 1914.) 
 Rewarehouse bonds subject to stamp tax under the internal-revenue act of Octo- 
 ber 22, 1914. (T. D. 35760; Oct. 9, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 811 
 
 Stamp tax — Continued. 
 
 Six months' bonds for the redelivery of unexamined packages, etc., subject to one 
 tax Only, provided one premium only is charged. Such bonds, if executed 
 and delivered prior to December 1, 1914, not taxable. (T. D. 35083; Jan. 23, 
 1915.) 
 
 Bonds executed under a contract with a surety or fidelity company are not sub- 
 ject to tax under the internal-revenue act of October 22, 1914, provided such 
 bonds are stamped to show they are issued under contract which has been duly 
 stamped. (T. D. 35127; Feb. 11, 1915.) 
 
 Collectors are not authorized to relieve importers from the necessity of giving 
 bond (Cat. No. 3381) required by article 191 of the Customs Eegulations of 1908. 
 Such bond should be stamped under the emergency revenue law of October 22, 
 1914. (T. D. 35295; Apr. 5, 1915.) 
 
 Certificates of ownership of sealskin garments (Cat. No. 4437) and affidavits for reg- 
 istration of personal and household effects (Oat. No. 4447) not subject to tax 
 under the act of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 34991; Dec. 18, 1914.) 
 
 Certificates of exportation of domestic merchandise (Cat. No. 4467) are not subject 
 to tax under the act of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 35014; Dec. 28, 1914.) 
 
 Certificates of landing for merchandise exported with the benefit of drawback 
 under section 2977 of the Revised Statutes and certificates of landing for domes- 
 tic manufactures exported with the benefit of drawback under Paragraph O of 
 section 4 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913, not subject to tax under the act of 
 October 22, 1914. (T. D. 35032; Jan. 5, 1915.) 
 
 Certificates issued by the agent of the carrier at the port of exportation in connection 
 with the transportation and exportation of free goods, as provided for in T. D. 
 34234, certificates of importation of automobiles (Cat. No. 3309), and certifi- 
 cates of exportation of automobiles (Cat. No. 3307) are not subject to tax under 
 the act of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 35038; Jan. 6, 1915.) 
 
 Certificates of the officer taking acknowledgment of bills of sale and mortgages of 
 vessels not subject to tax under the act of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 35039; Jan. 
 7, 1915.) 
 
 Certificate catalogue No. 3305 and entries catalogue Nos. 7505 and 7509 are not 
 subject to stamp tax under the emergency revenue law of October 22, 1914. 
 (T. D. 35073; Jan. 21, 1915.) 
 
 A consumption entry covering merchandise consolidated in one entry under T., D 
 33557, article 8, is subject to the stamp taxes under the act of October 22, 1914, 
 as a single entry. (T. D. 34978; Dec. 8, 1914.) 
 
 Bevocation oE licenses for failure to pay special tax imposed by the emergency 
 revenue law of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 35067; Jan. 18, 1915.) 
 
 Informal entries, catalogue No. 4835, subject to stamp taxes under the act of Octo- 
 ber 22, 1914, the same as regular entries. (T. D. 34961; Dec. 5, 1914.) 
 
 Under the act of October 22, 1914, original entries require stamping, and not dupli- 
 cates, triplicates, etc.; manifests filed in accordance with articles 127 and 128 of 
 the Custoias Regulations of 1908 not subject to the tax, and collectors should 
 refuse to accept entries or other papers when not stamped as required. (T. D. 
 35040; Jan. 7, 1915.) 
 
 Entries covering merchandise imported for the Government or for the benefit of 
 ministers or attachfe of embassies or legations are not subject to stamp tax under 
 the emergency revenue law of October 22, 1914, nor are such entries taxable 
 when made by customs brokers. (T. D. 35072; Jan. 20, 1915.) 
 
 Customs entries covering baggage and personal effects of officers and enlisted men 
 of the Army or Navy changing stations under orders not subject to stamp. (T. 
 D. 35318; Apr. 14, 19J5.) 
 
812 DIGEST OP OTJSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Stamp tax — Continued. 
 
 E«warehouse entries not taxable under the internal-revenue act of October 22, 
 
 1914. (T. D. 35688; Sept. 1, 1915.) 
 Immediate transportation entries under the act of June 10, 1880, are not subject to 
 
 tax under the act of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 35057; Jan. 14, 1915.) 
 Mail entries, catalogue Nos. 3419 and 3421, subject to the same stamp taxes as 
 
 regular entries under act of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 34948; Dec. 1, 1914.) 
 The stamps required for mail entries under the act of October 22, 1914, may be 
 
 affixed and canceled by the addressee personally or by a customs or post-offlce 
 
 officer as the agent of the addressee. (T. D. 35023; Dec. 31, 1914.) 
 Instructions to customs officers governing procedure in connection with stamp tax 
 
 accruing upon mail entries. (T. D. 35207 ;■ Mar. 13, 1915.) 
 No stamp tax required on parcel-post packages passed free of duty unless mail 
 
 entry issued. (T. D. 34983; Dec. 12, 1914.) 
 Powers of attorney are subject to a 25-cent stamp tax, but if executed and accepted 
 
 prior to December 1, 1914, are not taxable. (T. D. 35084; Jan 25, 1915.) 
 Taxable status under the emergency revenue law of October 22, 1914, of various 
 
 certificates and marine documents.. (T. D. 35136; Feb. 17, 1915.) 
 Warehouse and rewarehouse withdrawals for transportation to a bonded manufac- 
 turing warehouse and withdrawals for transportation and exportation from a 
 
 bonded manufacturing warehouse not subject to tax under the act of October 22, 
 
 1914. (T. D. 35006; Dec. 21, 1914.) 
 Withdrawals for transportation and exportation and bonds given therefor not sub- 
 ject to tax under the act of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 85007; Dec. 21, 1914.) 
 Withdrawals for exportation and bonds given therefor not subject to tax under the 
 
 act of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 35031; Jan. 5, 1915.) 
 Stamps. 
 
 Canceled stamps not prohibited articles under section 4 of the act of February 10, 
 
 1891. Opinion of the Attorney General. (T. D. 29444; Dec. 30, 1908.) 
 Consuls to be notified by customs officers when invoice is defective with respect 
 
 to stamping. (T. D. 30751; July 2, 1910.) 
 Proprietors of bonded manufacturing warehouses are required to pay collectors of 
 
 customs at the rate of $10 per 1,000 for customs stamps to be affixed to boxes 
 
 containing cigars made in bonded premises. (T. D. 34659; July 22, 1914.) 
 The cost of customs cigar stamps for use in bonded manufacturing warehouse fixed 
 
 at $1 per thousand. T. D. 34659 of July 22, 1914, modified. (T. D. 34815; 
 
 Oct. 8, 1914.) 
 Affixing of stamps to documents, etc., used in customs procedure required. (T. 
 
 D. 34910; Nov. 17, 1914.) 
 Standard samples of wool. (See Wool, samples of.) 
 Stannic salt. (See Tetrachloride of tin.) 
 Star anise seed. 
 
 Star anise seed is not dutiable as "anise seed" under paragraph 212, tariff act of 
 
 1913, but is free of duty as a crude drug under paragraph 477. (T. D. 35797— 
 
 G. A. 7791; Oct. 13, 1915.) 
 Appeal from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of October 
 
 13, 1915, G. A. 7791 (T. D. 35797), involving the classification of certain star anise 
 
 seed. (T. D. 85968; Dec. 13, 1915.) 
 Starch, soluble or chemically treated. 
 
 Potato starch which has been chemically treated so that it is in part soluble in hot 
 
 water, and which is known as soluble starch, although a portion of it is insQluble, 
 
 is dutiable under the provision in paragraph 36, tariff act of 1913, for " soluble oi 
 
 chemically treated starch, "and not under paragraph 234 as "starch made from 
 
 potatoes." (T. D. 34906— G. A. 7638; Nov. 13, 1914.) 
 Stare decisis — ^Uniformity in customs cases. (See Courts, jurisdiction.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 813 
 
 State licenses. 
 
 Not required of surety companies doing business with the United States under act 
 of August 13, 1894, except where company executes bonds within the State. 
 (T. D. 30230; circular No. 69; Dec. 30, 1909.) 
 
 Statice wreaths. (See Wreaths — Flowers preserved.) 
 
 Stationery. 
 Bequisitions for — 
 Outside service — Permanency of the public records, etc. (T. D. 30636; circular 
 No. 30, superseding circular No. 17 of 1905; May 21, 1910. T. D. 34453; cir- 
 cular No. 29; May 18, 1914. T. D. 35866; circular No. 52; Nov. 6, 1915. 
 
 Statistical returns on imports and exports. 
 
 Regulation^ affecting the procedure to be followed on and after July 1, 1915, for 
 making statistical returns on imports and exports of merchandise and gold and 
 silver. (T. D. 35518; June 11, 1915.) 
 
 Statuary. 
 
 The article in controversy consisted of a statue entitled " La Gloire, " made of gold 
 bronze and ivory. It was classified by the collector as a manufactured article 
 in part of metal, dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 199 of the 
 tariff act of 1909. The affidavit of the artist was introduced and not objected to 
 at the hearing before the Board of General Appraisers, and its consideration 
 before the Court of Customs Appeals accordingly may not be objected to. Oel- 
 richs V. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 355; T. D. 32091). The testimony 
 shows the object in controversy to be very similar to other objects determined 
 by the courts to be art objects. United States v. Tiffany (160 Fed. Rep., 408; 
 Abstract 9957, T. D. 29348). The construction there would seem to have been 
 adopted in existing law, the only change that appears making "statuary" and 
 " sculptures " interchangeable terms. The importation was dutiable as a sculp- 
 ture under paragraph 470, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Mas&on (No. 762), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 26550 (T. D. 31866). De- 
 cision affirmed. (T. D. 32459; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 The articles of the importation in question were bronze knockers fashioned after 
 the human figure and bronze busts and statuettes, together with bases made 
 expressly for these. The uncontradicted testimony of the maker of the articles 
 is to the effect his work on them was that of an artist rather than as an artisan; 
 that he employed his professional skill in their production. The importations 
 are dutiable under paragraph 454, tariff act of 1897. United States v. Godwin's 
 Sons (No. 825), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27215 (T. D. 
 32046). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32538; May 8, 1912.) 
 Bronze — 
 Paragraph 454, tariff act of 1897, providing for "statuary * * * wrought by 
 hand from a BoHd block or mass of marble * * * or from metal," does not 
 require that metal statuary should be produced from "a solid block or mass." 
 Theprovieioninparagraph454, tariff act of 1897, for statuary made "from metal," 
 does not exclude statues not made wholly of metal or even in chief value of metal 
 if metal predominates in quantity; and statuary composed in chief value of 
 ivory and slightly of glass, but in which metal is quantitatively the principal 
 component, being so greatly predominant as to characterize the entire work, is 
 within said provision. The provision in paragraph 454, tariff act of 1897, for 
 statuary " wrought by hand " from metal, and " the professional production of a 
 statuary or sculptor only, " does not require that the entire work on such statuary 
 should be "by hand, " nor that it should be wrought exclusively by the hand of 
 fhe sculptor. A statue of great value and high artistic merit, in which bronze 
 
814 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Statuary — Contimied. 
 Bronze — Continued. 
 
 was overwhelmingly the chief component in point of quantity, was produced by 
 the cire perdue process; after beiug cast, it was gone over carefully by hand by a 
 renowned sculptor, who thereby made the alterations necessary to the execution 
 of his artistic conceptions, this being the important part which gave the piece 
 its distinctive personal character; and the entire work, from the original con- 
 ception to the last touch, was under the sculptor's constant supervision. Held 
 that this statue was within the definition of "statuary" in paragraph 454, tariff 
 actof 1897, as being such as is "wrought by hand * * * from metal." In 
 providing in paragraph 454, tariff act of 1897, for a low duty on paintings and on 
 statuary which is "the professional production of a statuary oj sculptor only," 
 it was the evident intention of Congress to welcome the works of meritorious 
 artists and sculptors and to exclude from the low rate the productions of mere 
 artisans and empirics, such as are made by machinery or unskilled labor or cast 
 in large nimibers from molds by ordinary workmen. United States v. Tiffany, 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 7, 1908. No. 
 106 (suit 4036). Appeal by Government from Circuit Court of the United States, 
 Southern District of New York (154 Fed. Rep., 168; T. D. 27982), reversing Ab- 
 stract 6643 (T. D. 26390). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 28717; 
 Jan. 29, 1908.) Acquiesced iu March 10, 1908 (T. D. 28830). 
 Cast bronze bust — 
 A bronze bust cast in a foundry by artisans from a model made in some plastic 
 material by an artist, and upon which metal casting the artist has done little or 
 no retouching, held not to be included in the term statuary in section 3, tariff 
 act of 1897. 
 
 Appeal from circuit court to Supreme Court: In a revenue case which in- 
 volves not only questions of classification and amount of duty thereunder, but 
 also a question under section 5, act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 827), the Supreme 
 Court will review a decision of a circuit court. The act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat.; 
 403; T. D. 29044), does not operate to prevent an appeal to the Supreme Court in 
 cases really involving the Constitution of the United States or the construction 
 of a treaty. 
 
 Reciprocity agreement — Treaty: The reciprocal commercial agreement with 
 France (30 Stat., 1774; T. D. 19405) held to be a "treaty" within the meaning 
 of section 6, act of March 3, 1891. The provision for "statuary" in section 3, 
 tariff act of 1897, and in the French reciprocal commercial agreement (T. D. 
 19405), is qualified by the statement in paragraph 454 of said act that " the term 
 ' statuary ' as uged in this act shall be understood to include only such statuary 
 as is cut, carved, or otherwise wrought by hand from a solid block or mass of 
 marble, stone, or alabaster, or from metal, and as is the professional production 
 of a statuary or sculptor only . " A bronze statue which was cast in a foundry by 
 artisans from a model made by an artist in some plastic material, but upon which 
 metalcastingtheartisthasdoneUttleornoretouching, is not "statuary * * * 
 wrought by hand * * * from metal," under paragraph 454, tariff act of 
 1897, but is dutiable as a manufacture of metal under paragraph 193. (T. D. 
 29279— G. A. 6813; Sept. 29^ 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The provision for "statuary" in section 3, tariff act of 1897, and 
 the reciprocal commercial agreements negotiated under that section, is subject to 
 paragraph 454 of said act, prescribing that " the term ' statuary ' as used in this act 
 shall be understood to include only such statuary as is * * * wrought by 
 hand * * * from metal, " etc. A bronze statue which was cast in a foundry 
 by artisans from a model made by an artist in some plastic material, but upon 
 which the artist has done little or no retouching, is not "statuary. » * » 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 815 
 
 Statuary — Continued . 
 Cast bionze bust — ^Continued. 
 
 wrought by hand * * * from metal, " within the meaning of paragraph 454, 
 tariff act of 1897, but is dutiable as mianufactures of metal under paragraph 193. 
 Altman v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, May 21, 1909. Suit 5372. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6813 (T. D. 29279). Board affirmed. 
 (T. D. 29856; June 22, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Altman v. United States, United States Supreme Court, May 
 13, 1912. No. 208 (suit 5372). Appeal by the importer from decision of the 
 Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York (172 
 Fed. Rep., 161; T. D. 29856) affirming G. A. 6813 (T. D. 29279). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 32589; June 4, 1912.) 
 Cast-iron- 
 Cast-iron statues, with the marks of the mold removed, then decorated by means 
 of paint or coloring material, and which are finished and ornamented figures, 
 are dutiable as manufactures of iron "not specially provided for," under para- 
 graph 199, tariff act of 1909, and not as "castings" under paragraph 147 of said 
 act. (T. D. 31426— G. A. 7191; Mar. 22, 1911.) 
 Free entry — 
 
 Regulations under paragraph 661, tariff act of 1909, for free entry of statuary, 
 casts of sculpture, regalia, and gems, etc. (T. D. 29925; circular No. 46; Sept. 
 11, 1909.) 
 Imitation bronze — ■ 
 
 Paragraphs 149 and 158, tariff act of 1909, have distinct fields of application. Par- 
 agraph 149, relative to cast hollow ware, has a long legislative and judicial his- 
 tory, and it appears such a ware must be made of cast iron. The importation 
 in controversy consists of imitation bronze statuary made of spelter. It was 
 dutiable as assessed under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, as a manufacture of 
 metal. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States (No. 771), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 26563 (T. D. 31866). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 32203; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 Marble group— 
 
 A marble group, intended for a fountain, consisted of an elaborately carved mass 
 of marble about 5 feet high, two cupids being arranged on the front and side 
 and an eagle with spread wings surmounting the whole; the cupids and eagle 
 were "in the round." Held that this is "statuary" within the meaning of 
 paragraph 454 and section 3, tariff act of 1897, and the reciprocal commercial 
 agreement with Italy (T. D. 22373). (T. D. 29287— G. A. 6814; Sept. 30, 1908.) 
 Molded metal — 
 
 Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7642 (T. D. 
 34928), relative to stained-glass windows, applicable to molded metal statuary. 
 (T. D. 35056; Jan. 14, 1915.) 
 Statute of limitations. (See Entry — reliquidation.) 
 Statutes, construction of— 
 
 Acquiescence by importers, for a long period, in the assessment of duty on an 
 imported article, militates against them when after such delay they question 
 the correctness of the assessment. (T. D. 29003; May 20, 1908.) 
 
 Administrative construction: It is a well-established rule that where statutory 
 language has been given a long-continued administrative construction, and 
 there is a reenactment of the statute in substantially the same language, it is 
 presumed the administrative construction was adopted. (T. D. 32041; Nov. 
 22, 1911.) 
 
816 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Statutes, constraction of — Continued. 
 
 Admimstrative and judicial construction: It is a well-established rule that where 
 statutory language has been given a long-continued administrative and judicial 
 construction, and there is a reenactment of the statute in substantially the same 
 language, it is presumed that the administrative and judicial construction was 
 adopted. (T. D. 34903— G. A. 7630; Nov. 12, 1914.) 
 
 Where a provision of law is identical in language or in meaning with a similar 
 provision in a former tariff law, which has been judicially construed, Congress 
 is presumed to have acted with full knowledge and understanding of these 
 decisions. (T. D. 35331— G. A. 7714; Apr. 19, 1915.) 
 
 Commercial designation — Establishment after enactment of tariff: At the time of 
 the enactment of the tariff act of 1897 the term "semi vitrified" as applied to 
 tUes had no definite, uniform, and general meaning in the trade and commerce 
 of the United States; and it is indefinite, meaningless, and incapable of a uni- 
 form understanding. (T. D. 29744— G. A. 6906; May 11, 1909.) 
 
 Commercial designation is first to be ascertained and if foimd to exist it con- 
 trols the application of the language of the statute. 
 
 Ibid: Where two terms of description are differentiated in a statute and in 
 another paragraph one of these terms is employed, its use here must be taken to 
 be confined to the single subject matter expressed, exclusive of the other. 
 
 Ibid: An administrative interpretation, long continued and adopted in leg- 
 islation, is controlling. (T. D. 34254; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 
 "Composed of:" A tariff provision for a manufactured article "composed of" a 
 certain material applies, in the absence of other controlling rules of construc- 
 tion, to the appropriate article if composed in chief value of the given material. 
 (T. D. 35434; May 18, 1915.) 
 
 Conflicting provisions: If different portions of a statute seem to conflict the courts 
 must harmonize them if practicable, and lean in favor of a construction which 
 will render every word operative, rather than one which may make some idle 
 and nugatory. (Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, p. 68.) (T. D. 30766 — 
 G. A. 7064; July 11, 1910.) 
 
 Congressional debates: Debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of infor- 
 mation from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed 
 by that body. They may be resorted to in the construction of a statute only in 
 connection with and as a part of the history of the times in which it was passed, 
 for the purpose of determining the purpose the statute in question was in- 
 tended to accomplish. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association 
 (166 U. S., 318); United States v. Union Pacific Co. (91 U. S., 79). (T. D. 
 30643— G. A. 7026; May 28, 1910.) 
 
 Construction of former laws: Where a provision of law is identical in language oi 
 in meaning with a similar provision in a former tariff law which has been judi- 
 cially construed. Congress is presumed to have acted with the full knowledge 
 ajid understanding of these decisions. United Cigar Stores Co., G. A. 7026 (T. 
 D. 30643). 
 
 Same — Ejvxdem generis — Application to section of tarifi: General terms 
 apparently all embracing are sometimes restricted in their meaning by the use 
 of specific words in the same connection. The application of this doctrine to 
 tariff laws has quite generally been confined to the paragraph in which the gen- 
 eral phrase was used, but in the case of Dingelstedt v. United States (91 Fed., 
 112) the court considered the general phrase under consideration in connection 
 ■with the whole schedule in which it was to be found. This would seem to be a 
 broader rule of construction. 
 
 Same— Intention of Congress— Store decisis: In construing a law of Congress 
 it Is the duty of a court, if possible, to arrive at the exact intent and meaning of 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DEOISIONS, 1908-1915. 817 
 
 Statutes, constrnction of — Continued. 
 
 Congress, and this intent should never be defeated by any narrow rule of con- 
 struction. While the classification of merchandise should not lightly be 
 changed, it is the clear and undoubted function of Congress to make such change 
 in the tariff law as will alter and change any previous classification; and when 
 that purpose of Congress is clearly and distinctly manifest the rule of stare 
 decisis has no application. (T. D. 35331— G. A. 7714; Apr. 19, 1915.) 
 
 Constitutional question: Direct appeals from the circuit courts of the United 
 States to the Supreme Court, under section 5 of the act of 1891 (26 Stat., 826), 
 can not be entertained unless the construction or application of some provision 
 of the Constitution of the United States is honafide involved, so as to raise a real 
 and substantial dispute or controversy concerning the construction of the Con- 
 stitution upon which the matter in question depends. (T. D. 29425 — G. A. 
 6838; Dec. 18, 1908.) 
 
 Contemporaneous administrative construction: A practice in the coUfector's office 
 in the liquidation of an entry of merchandise bearing a specific rate of duty will 
 not*e held to be a contemporaneous construction of the law when that duty is 
 changed from a specific to an ad valorem rate, even though the practice is not 
 changed for some time after the change in the law. 
 
 Change from specific to ad valorem rate: The change by Congress from specific 
 to ad valorem duty on merchandise carries with it all of the provisions of existing 
 law that apply to the administration of the customs in the assessment of ad 
 valorem duty upon imported merchandise. (T. D. 35948 — G. A. 7823; Nov. 
 30, 1915.) 
 
 Country: In construing a statute the principle that the law looks to the substance 
 and not the form may be invoked, and the statute examined to ascertain the 
 real purpose the Government sought through the law to accomplish. Holy 
 Trinity Church v. United States (143 U. S., 457). It is a general rule in constru- 
 ing revenue laws that the word " country, " when used in a statute of the United 
 States, relates to that sovereignty with which, in its international relations, our 
 Government can treat, and that the word is meant to embrace all of the territory 
 and possessions of any given country which contribute to its existence as a nation. 
 The word " country " in paragraph 626, tariff act of 1897, must therefore be held 
 to embrace all of the possessions of the German Empire which come under its 
 supreme executive and legislative authority. Stairs j;..Peaslee (18 How., 521); 
 Jackson's case, G. A. 1007 (T. D. 12145). (T. D. 30569— G. A. 7013; Apr. 21, 
 1910.) 
 
 Customs practice: Where it has been the practice of customs officers to classify a 
 particular kind of fabric as "plain woven" for several years prior to the enact- 
 ment of the tariff law, and the paragraph of the previous act covering the enu- 
 meration is reenacted mthout changing the language relating to such merchan- 
 dise, it will be presumed that Congress adopted this customs practice and in- 
 tended that the term should cover the same class of goods in the subsequent act. 
 (T. D. 34818— G. A. 7608; Oct. 7, 1914.) 
 
 Deduction to make market value: The right conferred by subsection 7 of section 
 28, tariff act of 1909, authorizing the importer to deduct from the invoice value 
 to make market value, must be exercised at the time of entry and before appraise- 
 ment of the goods, and not afterwards. Such deduction is properly refused by 
 the collector of customs if demanded after entry of the goods. (T. D. 30542 — G. 
 A. 7008; Apr. 13, 1910.) 
 
 Departmental practice: Official rulings as to the scope of a tariff provision, fluc- 
 tuating in accordance with the facts peculiar to various importations, each ruling 
 disposing of a special question of fact only, and not dealing in any way with any 
 45633°— 17 52 
 
818 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Statutes, constmctioii of — Contiaued. 
 
 such rule of law or any such general rule of construction as would give the 
 statute any specific effect, do not go so far as to establish a departmental usage of 
 a determinate character. (T. D. 30801; July 19, 1910.) 
 
 Direct shipment: The provision for direct shipment was placed in the law with 
 the object of safeguarding the purpose of Congress to admit free of duty within 
 any one year 150,000,000 cigars manufactured in the Philippine Islands. Cigars 
 consigned by a through bill of lading from Manila to New York, but transferred 
 in the harbor of Hongkong from one vessel to another, constitute a " direct ship- 
 ment" within the meaning of section 5 of the tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30643— G. 
 A. 7026; May 28, 1910.) Appeal taken by United States (T. D. 30717; June 27, 
 1910.) Board affirmed. (T. D. 3150-5; Apr. 10, 1911.) 
 
 Doubtful meaning: When the meaning of a statute is doubtful, great weight should 
 be given to the construction placed upon it by the department charged with its 
 execution. The rule that the reenactment by Congress, without change, of a 
 statute which had previously received long-continued executive construction, 
 is an adoption by Congress of such construction, held applicable whefe five suc- 
 cessive tariff acts had contained substantially the same provision, which had 
 received uniform interpretation by the Treasury Department through many 
 years. (T. D. 28954; Apr. 22, 1908.) 
 
 A doubtful tariff law may be construed favorably to the Government when 
 such construction is in harmony with a long-continued customs practice. 
 (T. D. 30253; Jan 11, 1910.) 
 
 Doubtful words or phrases in a tariff act or other statute will not be construed 
 so as to lead to absurdity or injustice if reasonably avoidable by a construction 
 that will harmonize with all other parts of such statute in pari materia. 
 (T. D. 31475— G. A. 7199; Apr. 5, 1911.) 
 
 Ejusdem, generis — ^Addition of general words to an enumeration: The rule of ejus- 
 dem generis is only a rule of construction and is not to be applied to defeat the 
 real purpose of the statute. Where the particular words exhaust the class enu- 
 merated, the addition of a general term must be construed as embracing some- 
 thing outside of that class. So, in section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, 
 in reference to making an illegal entry of imports, the addition of the term " other 
 person" to the enumeration of "owner, importer, consignee, or agent," was 
 intended to include persons having a different relation to the importation from 
 that of the owner, etc., inasmuch as none but the owner, importer, consignee, or 
 agent could "make entry " in the narrower sense of that term. United States v. 
 Mescall, United States Supreme Court, November 8, 1909. No. 278. In error 
 to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30131; Nov. 23, 1909.) 
 
 Ejusdem generis: The provision in paragraph 135, tariff act of 1897, for "steel in 
 all forms and shapes, " is limited to articles which are in an imcompleted condi- 
 tion like the other unfinished articles (ingots, blooms, bars, etc.) previously 
 enumerated in the same paragraph. Morris v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, December 7, 1909. No. 98 (suit 5265). Appeal by 
 importer from Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of 
 New York (169 Fed. Rep., 666; T. D. 29675) affirming G. A. 6744 (T. D. 28888). 
 Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30192; Dec. 14, 1909.) 
 
 "Entry:" In section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, forbidding the mak- 
 ing or attempting to make a false entry of imported merchandise, by means of 
 a fraudulent practice, etc., the word "entry" is not limited to the paper filed 
 with the collector of customs, but refers to the entire transaction of passing the 
 goods through the customhouse, including such steps as weighers' returns on 
 articles dutiable by weight. The provision in section 9, customs administra- 
 
DIGEST OF CtrSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 819 
 
 Statutes, construction of — Continued. 
 
 tive act of 1890, against false entries by the importer "or other person, " does not 
 relate to all individuals who may assist or have a fraudulent part in making an 
 entry; and it does not include the case of an assistant customs weigher who 
 made false returns in furtherance of an importer's attempt to make a fraud- 
 ulent entry. (T. D. 29242; Sept. 2, 1908.) 
 
 Excepting clause: The general rule is that an excepting clause relates to what 
 immediately precedes it, and that it will be so construed unless the legislature 
 has clearly manifested a contraiy intent, and there is in paragraph 98, tariff 
 act of 1909, no indication of intent to apply the exception to what follows as 
 well as to what goes before it. (T. D. 34094; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 
 Fish in packages: In construing paragraph 258, tariff act of 1897, relating to "fish 
 in packages containing less than one-half barrel," held that fish in boxes of a 
 capacity of not less than one-half barrel, but filled with 1-pound paper packages, 
 is not dutiable under said paragraph. The classification is determined by the 
 size of the container in which the merchandise was packed for transportation 
 and wholesale trade, rather than of the container in which it is packed for retail 
 trade. United States v. Yamashita; United States v. Furuya; United States 
 Circuit Court, Western District of Washington, Northern Division, January 10, 
 1910. Nos. 1320-1 (suits 1740-1). Appeal by United States from decisions of 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstracts 7521-2 (T. D. 
 26637). Board afiirmed. (T. D. 30317; Feb. 1, 1910.), Appealed by United 
 States to Customs Court of Appeals. Decision of circuit court affirmed. (T. 
 D. 31435; Mar. 20, 1911.) 
 
 Foreign statutes — Effect, not the purpose, of foreign statutes considered: It is 
 only the effect and not the purpose of a foreign statute that may be inquired 
 into by the courts of the United States. If the effect of any such law is to be- 
 stow a bounty or grant upon the exporter of merchandise to the United States, it 
 must be so held imder the provisions of Paragraph E of section 4, tariff act of 
 1913. 
 
 Contra as to domestic statutes: In construing a local law the courts will look 
 to the history of the times and the national policy in determining the purpose of 
 the law. The purpose of Paragraph E of section 4, tariff act of 1913, was to 
 prevent an imequal competition in our domestic market with the products 
 of other countries. 
 
 Meaning to be given words used in a statute: While it is true that words, the 
 meaning of which have been definitely settled by judicial decision, should 
 when used in a statute be given the meaning thus settled, we should not give to 
 words used in a statute a narrower or technical meaning if such would defeat the 
 very purpose of the law when a broader and more Hberal definition would effect 
 that purpose. 
 
 Conflict between departmental and judicial construction: Congress in reen- 
 acting a preexisting statute will be held to have intended that it should have the 
 meaning given it by the courts rather than that given it by the department 
 where the same may be in conflict. (T. D. 35595 — G. A. 7758; July 16, 1915.) 
 
 Forfeiture provisions: Though the statutes authorizing forfeiture for violations of 
 the law of customs administration are subject to strict construction, they are 
 also to be construed reasonably and so as to give effect, if possible, to every 
 word thereof. (T. D. 33019; Dec. 10, 1912.) 
 
 Former laws: Where a provision of law is identical, either in language or in mean- 
 ing, with a similar provision in preexisting law which has been judicially con- 
 strued, Congi-ess will be presumed to have enacted the new law with knowledge 
 of this construction, and the new law will be given the same meaning as was 
 given the like or similar provision of the preexisting law. McDonald v. 
 
820 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Statutes, constiuction of — Continued. 
 
 Hovey (110 U. S., 619); Roosevelt v. Maxwell (3 Blatch., 391); In re Guggen- 
 heim Smelting Co. (121 Fed. Rep., 158); Spencer v. Philadelphia Smelting & 
 Refining Co. (124 Fed. Rep., 1002). (T. D. 30643— G. A. 7026; May 28, 1910.) 
 
 Furniture of wood — Furniture in part wool and silk: The provision in paragraph 
 208, tariff act of 1897, for "furniture, of wood," is not limited by the words "of 
 which wood is the component material of chief value"; and furniture with 
 wooden frames, upholstered with silk-wool tapestry, wool chief value, is dutia- 
 ble under said provision. (T. D. 30422— G. A. 6990; Mar. 10, 1910.) 
 
 General intention of law: The term "alcoholic compounds" in paragraph 2, 
 tariff act of 1897, includes a mixture of fine-cut herbs and alcohol, in which the 
 alcohol incidentally serves as a preservative in the importation of the leaves 
 and continues in use after importation for the purpose of producing a tinc- 
 ture. But there is no justification for holding that the primary purpose of using 
 the alcohol as a mere preservative determines classification under said provi- 
 sion. In said paragraph the term "compound" is not limited by any trade 
 usage or technical adaptation, but is used in its common broad sense of being 
 any union or mixture of elements, ingredients, or parts as fine-cut herbs com- 
 mingled with alcohol. It is the evident general intention of customs and in- 
 ternal-revenue laws to levy a high duty, at least for once, on all spirits, whether 
 of domestic or foreign production. United States v. Stone & Downer Co. (T. 
 D. 30228; Dec. 28, 1909.) 
 
 General terms: All laws should be interpreted so as to give a sensible construction. 
 General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to an absurd 
 or ridiculous result. (T. D. 34819— G. A. 7609; Oct. 7, 1914.) 
 
 History of legislation: The bottle paragraph (No. 88) of the tariff act of 1894 con- 
 tained a provision for "bottle glassware " which was held to cover bottle-shaped 
 receptacles, such as blown-glass chemical flasks, but which was omitted from 
 the tariff act of 1897, while a provision (par. 100) for "blown glassware" was 
 inserted in the latter act. Held that it was intended that blown-glass flasks 
 should no longer be grouped with bottles, but should be included in the larger 
 group of "blown glassware." Eimer v. United States. (T. D. 29601; Mar. 3, 
 1909.) 
 
 History of period: The courts, in construing a statute, may look to the history of 
 the legislation upon the subject of which the statute treats, and the history of 
 the times in which it was enacted, as well as the general history of the country, 
 to determine the purpose the Government sought through the law to accomplish. 
 Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (143 U. S., 457). (T. D. 30643— G. 
 A. 7026; May 28, 1910.) 
 
 Implication of existence of article enumerated: Where Congress has continued an 
 enumeration from one tariff act to another, it must be assumed that it had in 
 contemplation some particular article of commerce intended to be covered by 
 that enumeration. Kwong Yuen Shing v. United States. (T. D. 30145; Nov. 
 30, 1909.) 
 
 Inconsistency in duties: The fact that a conclusion may lead to inconsistency in 
 duties is not adequate ground for holding that Congress meant the opposite from 
 what it said. (T. D. 29505;' Jan. 27, 1909.) 
 
 Intent: Section 7, customs administrative act of 1890, prescribing additional duty 
 for undervaluation of imports, held not applicable to goods entered at an insuffi- 
 cient value, but valued correctly in the consular invoice produced later, where 
 there had been no wrongful intent on the part of the importers. (T. D. 29167; 
 July 15, 1908.) 
 
 Laws of 1897, etc., reviewed: Tariff laws of 1897, 1894, and previous statutes rela- 
 tive to the free admission of household effects, and the decisions of the Board of 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 821 
 
 Statutes, constructiou of — Continued. 
 
 United States General Appraisers and the courts thereunder, reviewed. (T. D. 
 30162— G. A. 6946; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 Leakage of wines: The contention that paragraph 296, tariff act of 1897, forbidding 
 "constructive or other allowance for * * * leakage * * * of wines," 
 contravenes the constitutional provisions that duties shall be uniform and that 
 property shall not be taken without due process of law, is held not to give the 
 Supreme Court jurisdiction of an appeal from the circuit court, under section 5, 
 act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 827), relating to cases that involve the application 
 of the Constitution. It is inferential from the decision in this case that a recip- 
 rocal commercial agreement negotiated with a foreign country under section 3, 
 tariff act of 1897, is not a ' ' treaty " within the meaning of section 5, act of March 
 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 827), which gives the right of appeal from the circuit court to 
 the Supreme Court in cases in which the "construction of any treaty » * * 
 is drawn in question." (T. D. 29412; Dec. 16, 1908.) 
 Legislative intent: It is to be assumed that Congress did not in tariff legislation 
 intend to make duties prohibitive. Its purpose in enacting the tariff act of 1897 
 was to protect and not to prohibit, to raise and not to cut off revenue, to promote 
 and not to destroy legitimate business, and such construction should be adopted 
 as will give effect to that purpose. In ascertaining the intention of Congress in 
 enacting a law, it is proper to consider congressional records and debates on the 
 subject. (T. D. 29104; June 24, 1908.) 
 
 In ascertaining legislative intent it is proper to refer to explanations made by 
 the legislator having charge of the bill, also to documents laid before Congress, 
 which led to its conclusions. (T. D. 30612— G. A. 7019; May 13, 1910.) 
 
 By a familiar rule, a statute that has been reenacted takes the established con- 
 struction of that statute, but it is always open to the court to determine whether 
 any change that may appear in new phraseology employed was meant to compel 
 a different construction, the prime purpose always being to get at the real intent 
 of the legislature. (T. D. 82226; Jan. 23, 1912.) 
 
 While Congress may have the power to impose an excise duty on a citizen per- 
 manently domiciled abroad, such an imposition is so unusual that an intent to do 
 so will not be presumed unless clearly expressed. The expectation of those who 
 sought the enactment of legislation may not be used for the purpose of affixing 
 to such legislation, when enacted, a meaning which it does not express. (T. D. 
 34433; May 2, 1914.) 
 
 It will be presumed that the Congress will not do a vain thing; that it intends 
 its acts and every part of them to be held valid and as capable of being given 
 effect. 
 
 Ibid: All statutes are to be construed so as to sustain rather than to ignore or 
 defeat their purpose; to give them a field of operation, it the language will per- 
 mit, rather than to treat them as meaningless. (T. D. 35508; May 26, 1915.) 
 
 Courts will be alert to give effect to all of the provisions of a statute, but the 
 case must be a very clear one, if it ever arises, in which a court will strike out 
 words plainly limiting the operation of a clause that would be operative but for 
 those words. 
 
 Woven bronze wire cloth — Rate: The first proviso to paragraph 135, tariff act 
 of 1909, does not establish 35 per cent as a primary rate, but does establish it as a 
 minimum rate. Schloss v. United States (3 Ot. Oust. Appls., 459; T. D. 33038). 
 The second proviso requires that articles manufactured wholly or in chief value 
 of any wires the duty upon which is fixed by the paragraph should pay the addi- 
 tional rate of I cent per pound; but it was not designed to increase the rate upon 
 manufactured articles falling under other paragraphs of the act. United States 
 V. McCoy Co. et al. (No. 1145); McCoy Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1146); 
 
822 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Statutes, construction of — Continued. 
 
 United States v. Neumeyer & Dimond (No. 1147); Neumeyer & Dimond v. 
 United States (No. 1148), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Cross 
 appeals from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31676 (T. D. 
 33280); Abstract 31816 (T. D. 33304). Decision aflSimed. (T. D. 33838; Oct. 
 24, 1913.) 
 
 Legislative recognition of previous construction: Where a provision in a tariff 
 act is enacted in language identical with that judicially construed under a 
 previous law it is presumed that Congress enacted the new provision in full 
 recognition of the previous interpretation. 6. A. 7714 (T. D. 35331) and Ul- 
 mann & Co. v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 357; T. D. 34551) cited. (T. 
 D. 35896— G. A. 7814; Nov. 17, 1915.) 
 
 Letters to congressional committees: The construction of a tariff provision can 
 not be determined by reference to communications to a congressional com- 
 mittee prior to the enactment of the tariff bill suggesting certain legislation, 
 but only the language employed by Congress may be considered. (T. D. 29007; 
 May 20, 1908.) 
 
 Long acquiescence by importers: In cases in which there is a conflict in the evi- 
 dence as to the character of an imported article, much weight should be given 
 to the fact of a previous decision by the Board of General Appraisers which had 
 long been acquiesced in by importers of the article. (T. D. 29105; June 24, 
 1908.) 
 
 Long-continued practice: While in construing customs laws consideration should 
 be given the circumstance that there has been a long-continued practice in 
 the assessment of an article of importation, this circumstance should not con- 
 trol in what is not a doubtful case. United States D. Anderson. (T. D. 30216; 
 Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Paragraph 323, tariff act of 1909: The provision in paragraph 323, tariff act of 
 1909, for cloth in which "other than the ordinary warp and filling threads are 
 used to form a figure," being a substantial reenactment of the provision in para- 
 graph 313, tariff act of 1897, for cloth in which "other than the ordinary warp 
 and filling threads are introduced in the process of weaving to form a figure," 
 merchandise that during the entire lite of the latter act was uniformly held not 
 to be within paragraph 313 will, under the rule with respect to long-continued 
 customs practice, be held to be excluded from paragraph 323 of the subsequent 
 act. G. A. 6947 (T. D. 30163) reaffirmed on rehearing. (T. D. 30467— G. A. 
 7000; Mar. 28, 1910.) Appeal directed from this decision April 23, 1910 (T. D. 
 80567). 
 
 Reenactment by Congress, without change, of a statute which has previously 
 received long-continued executive construction is an adoption by Congress of 
 such construction. The classification of cotton gloves as wearing apparel for 
 three successive tariff acts held conclusive. (T. D. 30892— G. A. 7091; Aug. 
 22, 1910.) 
 
 Modifying clauses : According to the strict rules of grammatical and legal construc- 
 tion and in the absence of restraining considerations, a modifying clause fol- 
 lowing a number of recitals applies to its immediate antecedent and not to all 
 those antecedents; but such a rule is, however, only the beginning of a real 
 inquiry into the subject, because manifestly it must yield if other and control- 
 ling reasons appear to the contrary. (T. D. 32039; Nov. 22, 1911.) 
 
 Most specific provision: When Congress has designated an article by a specific 
 name, and by such name imposed a duty upon it, general terms in the same act, 
 although sufficiently broad to comprehend such article, are not applicable to it. 
 Arthur v. Laiey (96 U. S., 112). (T. D. 34784^-G. A. 7598; Sept. 21, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 823 
 
 Statutes, constiuctioii of — Continued. 
 
 Nosdiur a sociis: The proviso in paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, relating to "em- 
 broidered wearing apparel or other article or textile fabric," is not to be con- 
 strued as though the second "or" were "of"; nor should the doctrine of nosd- 
 tur a sociis be applied so as to restrict the proviso to such articles of wearing- 
 apparel as are textiles or made of textiles. Jaeckel v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 8, 1910. No. 151 
 (suit 5377). Appeal by the importer from the Circuit Court of the United 
 States tor the Southern District of New York (172 Fed. Rep., 292; T. D. 29824) 
 affirming G. A. 6818 (T. D. 29297). Decision in favor of the Government. 
 (T. D. 30389; Mar. 1, 1910.) 
 
 Obvious meaning — Creation of exceptions: In reference to the provision in para- 
 graph 264, tariff act of 1897, for olives "in bottles, jars, or similar packages," 
 held that, as the terms used are not only well understood in trade, but in com- 
 mon, everyday use in domestic and household affairs, th^re is nothing equivocal 
 or uncertain in the law, and that to assume that Congress had in mind only 
 packages usual to retail trade would be to ignore the plain terms of the act. 
 Where the language employed in an act is clear and certain, it is the duty of the 
 courts and the customs authorities to follow it; they have nothing to do with 
 the reasonableness or justice of according to it its natural, usual, and obvious 
 meaning, nor with any supposed policy actuating its framers. Where no ex- 
 ception or qualification is found in an act, the courts are not at liberty to create 
 one. United States v. Shing Shun, United States Circuit Court, Northern 
 District of California, August 13, 1909. No. 13786 (suits 1750-3). Appeal by 
 United States from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 7138 (T. D. 26559). Board reversed. (T. D. 30212; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Paragraph 17, tariff act of 1909, construed: The provision in paragraph 17, tariff 
 act of 1909, for finished or partly finished articles of which collodion or any com- 
 pound of pyroxylin or of other cellulose esters is the component material of 
 chief value, includes finished or partly finished articles composed entirely 
 thereof. (T.T). 30634— G. A. 7022; May 19, 1910.) 
 
 Paragraph 195, tariff act of 1909: An importer is entitled to the benefit of the rule 
 that revenue laws imposing taxes and like burdens should receive a reasonably 
 strict construction. Unless the intent of the Congress is manifest that a proviso 
 to a paragraph was meant to have a larger scope than the paragraph itself, and 
 BO to include something more within its operation, a recognized rule is to be 
 applied and the proviso is to be construed with reference to the subject matter 
 of the paragraph to which it is appended. 
 
 A negative: A negative may-have, if the legislative intent is clear, the force 
 of an a&mative; but a negative will not be given the force of an affirmative it 
 there be a different field for its operation where, unless this negative should be 
 treated as a negative proper, another provision of the same statute would be 
 thereby modified or destroyed. The proviso to paragraph 195, tariff act of 1909, 
 is perhaps broader than it was necessary to make it, but it is apt nevertheless, 
 and it is held to have been intended 'to save for operation subsection 18 of sec- 
 tion 28 of that act making dutiable other containers than those enumerated in 
 paragraph 195. The clause "shall not be dutiable imless their contents are 
 dutiable" in a proviso to paragraph' 195, does not affirmatively or otherwise 
 impose any duties. United States v. Matagrin (No. 54), United States Coiirt of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal from decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers (T. D. 30571). (T. D. 31406; Mar. 13, 1911.) 
 
 Paragraph 450, tariff act of 1909: The provision in the proviso of paragraph 450, 
 tariff act of 1909, that "on ajid after October fiist, nineteen hundied and nine,-! 
 
824 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Statutes, construction of — Continued. 
 
 certain duties shall be payable, is not limited to the items of leather immedi- 
 ately following the words quoted, but extends to all the articles (harness, etc.) 
 enumerated in said proviso. Therefore harness imported prior to the date men- 
 tioned is not covered by the proviso. (T. D. 30381—6. A. 6986; Feb. 28, 1910.) 
 Paragraph S, section 4, tariff act of 1913: The right to protest having accrued 
 under the tariff act of 1909, the saving clause of Pai-agraph S of section 4 of the 
 tariff act of 1913 declaring that the repeal or modification of .existing laws shall 
 not affect any right accrued, and that all rights under former laws may be 
 enforced in the same manner as if said repeal or modification had not been made, 
 entitles the protestant to proceed without new burdens not imposed by the 
 former act, citing Bechtel v. United States (101 U. S., 597). 
 
 Appeal — Protest fee: The requirement of payment of protest fee in Paragraph 
 N of section 3 of the tariff act of 1913 does not apply to cases in which the right 
 to protest accrued under the tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 35922; Nov. 19, 1915.) 
 Privileges or exemptions: The grant of a privilege, or exemption, such as is con- 
 tained in section 24, tariff act of 1909, is to be construed most favorably to the 
 Government. (T. D. 31201— G. A. 7148; Jan. 11, 1911.) 
 Protective character of tariff: Since the tariff is enacted on protective lines, it is 
 proper in construing the tariff law to consider the fact that certain grades of a 
 commodity are the only ones that come into competition with domestic products. 
 Heide v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, November 13, 1909. Suit 5248. Appeal by importer from decision of 
 Board of United States General Appraisers G. A. 6734 (T. D. 28816). Board 
 reversed. (T. D. 30144; Nor. 30, 1909.) 
 Proviso: While the general rule is to limit the proviso of a statute to the paragraph 
 to which it is attached, there are many weU-settled exceptions to this rule, de- 
 pendent on the purpose of the proviso, its relation to other legislation in pari 
 materia, the legislative intent derived from the whole law, the mischievous 
 results of a contrary construction, and the difficulties encountered in the admin- 
 istration of the law as interpreted. (T. D. 29875— G. A. 6915; June 22. 1909.) 
 
 The proviso in paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, imposing the embroidery rate 
 on "wearing apparel or other article or textile fabric," does not extend to articles 
 of every class of which embroidery is a component part, whether a textile fabric 
 or not, and does not qualify the specific provision in paragraph 427 for "fans of 
 all kinds." United States v. Quong Lee & Co. et al. (T. D. 30012; Sept. 28, 
 1909.) 
 
 It is a general rule of statutory construction that a proviso in a law shall be 
 construed with reference to the subject matter of the paragraph of which it forms 
 a part. This rule is only to be departed from when it clearly appears that the 
 proviso in question is to have a broader operation and a more general signifi- 
 cance. Kessler's case, G. A. 6915 (T. D. 29875); Milne's case, G. A. 5183 (T. D. 
 23889); United States v. Bemays (158 Fed. Rep., 792; T. D. 28861). 
 
 Extension by implication — ^Negative provision: A revenue law should not be 
 so construed as to extend its operation by implication beyond the clear import 
 of the language used, nor a negative provision be given the force and effect of 
 positive enactment when, by such construction, a duty not otherwise provided 
 for would be the result. United States v. Wi^lesworth (2 Story, 369; 28 Fed. 
 Caa., 595). 
 
 Rulein construing doubtful or ambiguous language: In construing a revenue 
 law where the language is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning, the construe tion 
 should be in favor of the importer, as duties are never imposed on the citizen 
 upon vague or doubtful interpretation. Powers v. Barney (5 Blatch., 202; 19 
 Fed. Gas., 1234); United States v. Wigglesworth (2 Story, 369; 28 Fed. Gas., 
 
DIGEST OP CtrSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 825 
 
 Statutes, construction of — ^Continued. 
 
 595); Hartranft v. Wiegmann (121 U. S., 609). The last proviso of paragraph 
 195 of the tariff act of 1909 should not be ao construed as to make any merchan- 
 dise dutiable that would not be dutiable without regard to that proviso. (T. D. 
 30571 — G. A. 7015; Apr. 25, 1910.) Appeal directed from this decision May 
 6, 1910 (T. D. 30594). • 
 
 Punctuation: Punctuation not being a part of a statute, repunctuation may be 
 made if necessary to avoid absurd and incongruous results; and under this rule 
 the provision in paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, for "jewelry, * * * in- 
 cluding chain, mesh and mesh bags and purses composed of gold or platinum," 
 should be construed as though a comma had followed ' ' purses, ' ' so that the words 
 "composed of gold or platinum" may be referred to "jewelry" as well as to 
 "bags and purses." (T. D. 30612— G. A. 7019; May 13, 1910.) 
 
 A statute should be read with such punctuation marks as are manifestly re- 
 quired, but construction must be agreeable to the principles of English grammar, 
 render the language plain and unambiguous, and harmonize with the evident 
 intent of Congress. (T. D. 33262— G. A. 7445; Mar. 5, 1915.) 
 
 A statute should be read with such stops as are manifestly required, but con- 
 struction must be agreeable to the principles of English grammar, render the 
 language plain and unambiguous, and harmonize with the evident intent of 
 Congress. The substitution of a semicolon for the comma or the insertion of 
 the disjunctive conjunction "or'' after the word "openwork" in paragraph 
 349, tariff act of 1909, renders the paragraph a consistent and harmonious whole, 
 removes redundancy, repugnancy, or absurdity, and clearly reflects the legis- 
 lative intent. While the conference report, aa adopted, is the last written ex- 
 pression of Congress, it does not follow that this expression gives the intention ol 
 Congress. Such intention can best be gathered from the whole legislative 
 history of the law and the decisions of the courts and board relating to the sub- 
 ject matter in controversy. (T. D. 31649— G. A. 7227; May 29, 1911.) 
 
 Punctuation not being part of a statute, repunctuation may be made if neces- 
 sary to avoid absurd and incongruous results ; and under this rule the provision In 
 paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, for "jewelry * * * including chain, mesh 
 and mesh bags and purses composed of gold or platinum, " should be construed 
 as though a comma followed "purses," so that the words "composed of gold or 
 platinum" will relate to " jewelry " as well as to " bags and purses. " Hammock 
 V. Loan & Trust Co. (105 U. S., 77). (T. D. 32281— G. A. 7330; Feb. 21, 1912.) 
 
 Beciprocity: Section 5 of the tariff act of 1909 contemplates reciprocal relations 
 between the Philippine Islands and the United States, and is to be construed 
 as reciprocity statutes have hitherto been construed by the judicial tribunals 
 of the United States. (T. D. 30643— G. A. 7026; May 28, 1910.) 
 
 Reenactment: Where Congress reenacts a law which has previously received 
 construction by the courts, it will be presumed that such construction was 
 adopted on the reenactment. (T. D. 29002; May 20, 1908.) 
 
 The reenactment of a statute that had once been construed by the courts 
 carries with it the legislative adoption of the court's construction, or the reenact- 
 ment of a paragraph of the tariff law, and omission therefrom by Congress of words 
 which the court had theretofore held gave to it a certain meaning which other- 
 wise it would not ha,ve had, indicates the intent of Congress to change the rule 
 which the court's construction had established. Arnold v. United States (147 
 U. S., 494). (T. D. 30543— G. A. 7009; Apr. 13, 1910.) 
 
 A reenactment of a provision of law is an adoption by Congress of the con- 
 struction put upon that law. (T. D. 32299; Mar. 5, 1912.) 
 
 Words to which Congress has given a special meaning in a tariff act will be 
 presumed to retain that signification in a subsequent tarifi act relating to the 
 
826 DIGEST OJF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Statutes, construction of — Continued. 
 
 eame eubject matter, no contrary intention appearing. Reiche v. Smyths (13 
 Wall., 162). Accordingly snails may not be deemed "live animals." (T. D. 
 34189; Feb. 5, 1914.) 
 
 Repugnant provisions: The rule of construction that the last of two repugnant 
 provisions of the eame act shall prevail is subject to exception where an exami- 
 nation of the repugnant provisions and the entire body of legislation on the sub- 
 ject and also the previous history of legislation touching the same subject matter 
 reveals the fact that the intention of the lawmaking body was that the earlier 
 provision should modify and control the later. (T. D. 29883— G. A. 6918; 
 June 29, 1909.) 
 
 No presumption can arise in favor of an importer from the presence of two or 
 more equally specific provisions in the tariff, on the ground that Congress could 
 not have intended to enact repugnant provisions, for Congress has expressly 
 provided for such contingencies in paragraph 481, tariff act of 1909, which re- 
 quires the application of the highest rate where two or more rates of duty are 
 applicable. (T. D. 30642— G. A. 7025; May 26, 1910.) 
 
 Retroactive statutes — Coal act: Construing the provision in section 2 of the coal 
 act of January 15, 1903 (32 Stat., 773; T. D. 24164), that the tariff act of 1897 
 "shall not hereafter be construed to authorize the imposition of any duty upon 
 anthracite coal," held that the term "hereafter" was not intended to have a 
 retroactive effect and did not apply to importations made several months be- 
 fore the date of that act. Perkins v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Southern District of New York, July 13, 1910. Suit 3514. Appeal by 
 importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 492 (T. D. 25067). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30842; Aug. 
 2, 1910.) 
 
 The fact that a tax statute operates retroactively does not necessarily cause it 
 to be unconstitutional. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (220 U. S., 107). The rule 
 that statutes should be construed if possible so as not to operate retroactively 
 does not authorize a judicial reenactment of the statute to save it from acting 
 retroactively if Congress intended it so to do. (T. D. 34429; May 2, 1914.) 
 
 Revenue laws: Revenue laws are to be construed liberally to carry out the pur- 
 poses of their enactment. Smythe v. Fiske (23 Wall., 380). (T. D. 30643— 
 G. A. 7026; May 28, 1910.) 
 
 Rule of doubtful statutes: The rule that "in case of a doubtful and ambiguous 
 law the contemporaneous construction of those who have been called upon to 
 carry it into effect is entitled to great respect, and should not be disregarded 
 without the most cogent and persuasive reasons," is, by reason of the lack of 
 doubt and ambiguity, not applicable to the proviso to paragraph 339, tariff act 
 of 1897, "that no wearing apparel or other article or textile fabric, when em- 
 broidered by hand or machinery, shall pay duty at a less rate than that imposed 
 in any schedule of this act upon any embroideries of the materials of which 
 such embroidery is composed." Menitt v. Cameron (137 U. S., 542) and 
 United States v. Healey (160 U. S., 136) foUowed. (T. D. 29297— G. A. 6818; 
 Oct. 13, 1908.) 
 
 Rule of interpretation: The rule of interpretation that where there are two possi- 
 ble constructions of a statute, one of which will give rise to grave doubts of its 
 constitutionality and the other avoids such question, the latter will be adopted, 
 is based on the existence of both conditions as to more than one construction 
 and doubt and is not applicable where neither of those conditions exists. (T. 
 D. 34434;- May 2, 1914.) 
 
 Sea stores; Sea stores are only such commodities used upon a vessel as are consumed 
 by the passengers and crew. George D. Ali'a case, G. A. 4746 (T. D. 22433), 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 827 
 
 Statutes, constniction of — Continued. 
 
 and Hawley & Letzerich's case, G. A. 6643 (T. D. 28321). Such articles aa 
 become a part of the equipment of a vessel are known as " ship stores. ' ' United 
 States V. Twenty-three Coils of Cordage (28 Fed. Cas., 290; No. 16573). 
 
 Section 3111, Revised Statutes, construed: Bolts, nuts, packing, and articles 
 of this character are not "sea stores" within the well-defined meaning of that 
 phrase, and hence are not such merchandise as is provided for in section 3111, 
 Revised Statutes. (T. D. 35824— G. A. 7796; Oct. 21, 1915.) 
 
 Section 9, customs administrative act: While it is a condition to the entry of mer- 
 chandise that invoices should be produced before an American consul abroad, 
 this is not necessarily a part of the entry, within the meaning of section 9, cus- 
 toms administrative act of 1890, relating to illegal "entry." The entry does 
 not begin at the earliest until the owner, after the goods reach this country, be- 
 gins that series of acts through which, by application to the customs officials, 
 he gains possession of the goods. An importer swore to a false invoice value 
 before an American consul abroad, but to the invoice presented at the custom- 
 house added a sum sufficient to make the true value. Held that the case was 
 not within section 9, customs administrative act of 1890, prescribing the penalty 
 of forfeiture where anyone shall "attempt to make any entry" of imported 
 merchandise by means of any fraudulent or false invoice. United States v. 
 One Trunk, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, July 
 19, 1909. In rem on proceedings for forfeiture of imported goods. Decision 
 adverse to Government. (T. D. 29926; July 27, 1909.) 
 
 Section 15, customs administrative act: Among the assignments of error made by 
 an importer on appeal from the Board of General Appraisers were general as- 
 signments that the board had erred "in overruling the protests" and "in not 
 sustaining the protests," and the protests thus referred to mentioned the para- 
 graph relied upon by the importers. Held that this was a compliance with 
 the requirement in section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, of "a concise 
 statement of the errors of law and fact complained of." United States v. 
 Loewenthal, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Decem- 
 ber 7, 1909. No. 13 (suit 4067). Appeal by the United States from the deci- 
 sion of Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York 
 (T. D. 29164) reversing Abstract 7246 (T. D. 26559). Decision adverse to the 
 Government. (T. D. 30215; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Section 29, tariff act of August 5, 1909: Merchandise appraised prior to August 6, 
 1909, not subject to reappraisement under subsection 11 of section 28, tariff 
 act of August 5, 1909. The provisibn of section 29, tariff act of August 5, 1909, 
 that merchandise in warehouse "shall be subject to duties imposed by this 
 act," refers only to the rate of duty and not to the value of the goods. (T. D. 
 29999; Sept. 17, 1909.) 
 
 The duty which the importer becomes obligated to pay is the duty provided 
 by the law in force at the time his merchandise enters the port; and if at this time 
 a new law is about to become effective, changing the rate of such duty, contain- 
 ing a provision such as is contained in section 29 of the act of 1909, he must dis- 
 charge this obligation by entering the merchandise and paying the duty 
 promptly in order to have his merchandise assessed under the old law. The 
 tender to the collector of a proper entry of merchandise that had theretofore 
 arrived at the port is tantamount to entering the same; and where such entry 
 is presented just prior to the expiration of the tariff act of 1897, and the collector 
 refuses to receive the same and the merchandise is subsequently entered after 
 the act of 1909 has taken effect, section 29 of that act does not apply. (T. D. 
 30161— G. A. 6945; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 
828 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Statutes, constmction of — Continued. 
 
 Thephrase "underbond for warehousing, transportation, or any other purpose" 
 in section 29 of the act of 1909 embraces within its meaning all merchandise 
 still in the custody of the Government and, as the law expressly states, "for 
 which no permit of delivery to the importer or his agent has been issued." 
 Hartranft v. Oliver (125 U. S., 525) followed. The duty provided by the tariff 
 act in force at the time duty was paid and permit of delivery issued is the duty 
 applicable to imported merchandise. Merchandise entered while the tariff act 
 of 1897 was in force, but on which duty was not paid and permit of delivery 
 issued until after the act of 1909 became effective, is, under the terms of section 
 29, dutiable under the tariff act of 1909. Cordero's case, G. A. 6945 (T. D. 
 30161), distinguished. (T. D. 30443— G. A. 6994; Mar. 18, 1910.) 
 
 Section 2865, Revised Statutes: Section 2865, Revised Statutes, making it crim- 
 inal to "smuggle or clandestinely introduce" merchandise into the United 
 States, does not include a case where merchandise is fraudulently entered at 
 the customhouse. Section 3, customs administrative act of 1890, providing 
 for the indorsement on invoices of a declaration before a United States consul, 
 does not require the invoices to be verified. (T. D. 29251; Sept. 9, 1908.) 
 
 Section 2926, Revised Statutes: Section 2926, Revised Statutes, rimply author- 
 izes the collector to store merchandise at the expense and risk of the owner or 
 consignee. It contemplates that all charges which an importer is required to 
 pay under its provisions are in the nature of reimbursements to the Government. 
 (T. D. 29249— G. A. 6800; Sept. 3, 1908.) 
 
 Section 5444, Revised Statutes: Under section 5444, Revised Statutes, making it 
 a crime to knowingly aid in "admitting to entry" any imported goods at less 
 than the legal rate of duty, the term " entry" does not mean simply the act of 
 filing at the customhouse the paper known as an entry, but compri&es the trans- 
 action of entering the goods into the body of the commerce of the United States— 
 that is, the whole process of pasatug the goods through the customhouse — which 
 can not be deemed complete until liquidation has been had. The section 
 therefore may include the official acts of a customs weigher performed after 
 the customhouse entry has been made. The provision in section 5444, Revised 
 Statutes, against aiding in admitting merchandise to entry at less than the 
 legal rate of duty, includes aid given both before and after the fact; and where, 
 after a false entry has been made, a customs ofiicer aids the wrongdoer by con- 
 cealing the fraud or by rendering other false statements to correspond with the 
 original false entry, he transgresses against this section. (T. D. 29243; Sept. 
 2, 1908.) 
 
 Section 5445, Revised Statutes: In section 5445, Revised Statutes, relating to 
 the crime of aiding in effecting an illegal "entry" of imported goods, the term 
 " entry" is not limited to the paper so known to the customs service, nor to the 
 making and filing of this paper, nor to the process of filing it, and thereby enter- 
 ing the goods. In section 5445, Revised Statutes, relating to the crime of aid- 
 ing "in effecting any entry of any goods * * * at less than the true weight 
 or measure," includes aid rendered after as well as before the entry is made at 
 the customhouse; as where a weigher returns false weights to the collector, 
 upon which duties are to be computed. Section 5445, Revised Statutes, pre- 
 scribing the punishment " of every person " who knowingly effects an entry of 
 merchandise at less than the t»ue weight, is not limited to persons outside the 
 customs service, and includes a weigher who aids in a way prohibited by the 
 statute. A person who has aided illegally in effecting a fraudulent entry of 
 imported merchandise, under section 5445, Revised Statutes, is not relieved 
 from the penal consequences of his acts by the fact that he would have had an 
 opportunity for repentance up to the time when the goods had been released 
 and the fraud had become successful. His acts are within the section if they 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 829 
 
 Statutes, construction of — Continued. 
 
 constitute aid in any material step of a fraudulent importation. (T. D. 29244; 
 Sept. 2, 1908.) 
 
 Specific provision: Inasmuch as section 24, customs administrative act of 1890, 
 relating to the correction of "manifest clerical errors," is the latest legislative 
 deliverance on that subject and relates most specifically thereto, it controls 
 over section 21, act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 190), relative to the "settleinent 
 of duties," and section 1, act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 469), relative to "cor- 
 rection of errors in liquidation." (See also Clerical error.) (T. D. 30251; 
 Jan. 11, 1910.) 
 
 Statutes in pari materia: Where a' statute repeals an earlier law, change of lan- 
 guage is more consistent with change of intent than with the purpose of defining 
 or declaring the meaning of the language of the earlier act; and the latter 
 theory should not be adopted where there is no proof that such was the object of 
 Congress. United States v. Woodruff. (T. D. 30211; Dec. 21, 1909.) 
 
 Subsection 13, section 28, tariff act of 1909: Under section 28, subsection 13, tariff 
 act of 1909, providing that in the discretion of the Board of General Appraisers 
 reappraisement hearings may "be open and in the presence of the importer or 
 his attorney and any duly authorized representative of the Government," it is 
 not permissible to have a portion of the evidence admitted at an open hearing 
 and the remainder introduced at a closed hearing, with no provision for its in- 
 spection by the opposing party. The board may, in its discretion, however, in 
 a case where one side wishes to submit evidence procured under a pledge of 
 secrecy, deny the request for an open hearing and have the entire proceedings 
 closed. Somerville, G. A., dissents. (T. D. 30466— G. A. 6999; Mar. 28, 1910^ 
 
 Synthetic claasification^Article compounded of two enumerated substances: 
 An article compounded of two enumerated substances may be classified 
 under a provision separately enumerating those substances; as camauba-wax 
 substitute, which, being composed of a vegetable and mineral wax, is classifia- 
 ble under a provision for "wax, vegetable or mineral." United States v. 
 Momingstar, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, March 16, 
 1909. No. 185 (suit 4964). Appeal by United States from Circuit Court of the 
 United States for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29121) affirming 
 G. A. 6609 (T. D. 28220). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29651; 
 Mar. 24, 1909.) 
 
 Tariff acts: The tariff act, like all statutes, must be given a common-sense con- 
 struction. United States v. Strohmeyer & Arpe Co., United States Circuit 
 Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 16, 1909. No. 136 (suit 4957). (T. 
 D. 29573; Feb. 24, 1909.) 
 
 Tariff act of 1909 — Scope of proviso to paragraph 421: Paragraph 421, tariff act of 
 1909, contains a proviso "that no article composed wholly or in chief value of 
 beads or spangles made of glass, paste, gelatin, metal, or other material shall 
 pay duty at a less rate than is imposed in any paragraph of this section upon 
 such articles without such beads or spangles." Eleld, that the proviso becomes 
 operative only when it appears that the duty on the merchandise with the beads 
 removed would be greater than the duty provided in the paragraph for the arti- 
 cles when imported with the beads attached. United States v. Vietor & 
 Achelis (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 297; T. D. 31355). (T. D. 32045— G. A. 7303; 
 Nov. 27, 1911.) 
 
 Tariff law universal in application: Every provision of the tariff law is universal 
 in its application and applies to all ports alike. Therefore, in determining 
 what is the usual covering of any merchandise, it is necessary to consider the 
 covering used to import that merchandise into all of the several ports of entry 
 into which it is imported in the United States. (T. D. 29980— G. A. 6927; 
 Aug. 30, 1909.) 
 
830 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS' DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Statutes, constrnction of — Continued. 
 
 Treaties — Subsequent inconsistent statutes: When a treaty is inconsistent with 
 a subsequent act of Congress, the latter will prevail; and British-built yachts 
 are, therefore, not exempt from the tonnage tax imposed by section 37, tarifi 
 act of 1909, upon the use by TJnited States citizens of foreign-built yachts, by 
 virtue of the treaty of 1815 with Great Britain, which provided that no higher 
 or other duties or charges should be imposed in the TJnited States upon British 
 vessels than those imposed upon vessels of the United States. (T. D. 32303; 
 Mar. 12, 1912.) 
 Uniformity of decisions: Uniformity of decisions, especially in administering 
 the tariff act, is most desirable. United States v. Lavino; United States v. 
 Hempstead; United States v. Hampton. (T. D. 30168; Dec. 7, 1909.) 
 Validity of act of Congress: Validity of an act of Congress can be assailed in the 
 courts only on the ground that it violates some provision of the Federal Consti- 
 tution, the policy of the law or its alleged injustice being no ground tor its as- 
 sailment. (T. D. 28740— G. A. 6717; Feb. 4, 1908.) 
 Validity of reappraisement: The presence and examination of merchandise or 
 samples thereof is unnecessary to a statutory review by a reappraisement 
 Board of General Appraisers, the statute only requiring that they shall examine 
 and decide the questions presented by the record. (T. D. 30570 — G. A. 7014; 
 Apr. 25, 1910.) 
 "Value," how construed: The word "value" as used in section 2910, Revised 
 Statutes, means market value, and should be ascertained by appraisement and 
 not by protest before a board of classification. (T. D. 29072 — G. A. 6776; June 
 12, 1908.) 
 Withdrawal of merchandise in bonded warehouse: Subsection 19 of section 28, 
 tariff act of 1909, providing for the withdrawal of merchandise in bonded ware- 
 house "on payment of the duties and charges to which it may be subject at the 
 time of withdrawal," like section 20 of the customs administrative act of 1890, 
 refers to the rate and not the amoant of duty assessed. (T. D. 30542 — G. A. 
 7008; Apr. 13, 1910.) 
 Steam engines. 
 
 Locomotives dutiable as. (See Locomotives.) 
 Steam engines, rock drills, and bar hoists. (See Machinery and machines.) 
 Steam plow equipments. (See Agricultural implements.) 
 Stearic acid. (See Food and drugs act.) 
 Stearin and other meat products. (See Food and drugs act.) 
 Steel. 
 Band-saw plates — 
 The terms "sheets" and "plates" of steel, paragraph 131, tariff act of 1909, do 
 not include long lengths of thin steel invoiced as "band-saw plates," and such 
 material is subject to the provisions of paragraph 124 of said act, for "bands and 
 strips of steel, exceeding 12 feet in length, not specially provided for." (T. 
 D. 30989— G. A. 7108; Oct. 14, 1910.) 
 Bars, bands, or strips, and plates of — 
 lines of demarcation between bars, bands, or strips, and plates of steel, estab- 
 Ushed as follows: Over i^ by 7 inches and under as bars; -^ and under by 7 
 inches and under as bands or strips; over 7 inches in width and up to 2^ inches 
 thick as sheets and plates; and further established that such material thicker 
 than 0.140 of an inch should be classified as plates, and material 0.140 of an inch 
 thick and thinner be denominated sheets. (T. D. 34694; Axig. 7, 1914.) 
 Circular-saw plates. (See Saw plates.) 
 Drums. (See Coverings — Drums.) 
 Forgings. (See Forgings.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 831 
 
 Steel — Continued. 
 
 Hoisesboe calks and ball bearings — 
 The pro-vision in paragraph 135, tariff act of 1897, for "steel in all forms and 
 shapes," while it may include articles upon which some labor has been ex- 
 pended to produce sheets and plates, could not have been intended to cover 
 distinctively finished products, such as horseshoe calks and ball bearings; and 
 such articles are dutiable under paragraph 193 as articles manufactured from 
 steel. Maldonado v. United States; Hensel v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 21, 1909. Suits 4448 and 
 4679. Appeals by importers from decisions of Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6412 (T. D. 27542). and Abstract 13561 (T. D. 27729). Board 
 affirmed. (T. D. 29822; June 8, 1909.) 
 
 Light shades- 
 Steel light shades enameled with vitreous glass, and bell-like in form, are within 
 the piu^iew of paragraph 158, tariff aet of 1909, and are classifiable under the 
 provision in said paragraph for "other similar hollow ware," rather than under 
 paragraph 199 of said act, as manufactures of metal not specially provided for. 
 (T. D. 30825— G. A. 7077; July 19, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Steel horseshoe calks and ball bearings, which' are completed 
 and ready for immediate use, are not within the provision in paragraph 135, 
 tariff act of 1897, for steel in all forms and shapes, but are dutiable under para- 
 graph 193 of the said act as manufactures of metal. Maldonado v. United 
 States; Hensel v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 
 Second Circuit, February 8, 1910. Nos. 121 and 128 (suits 4448 and 4679)., 
 Appeals by the importers from' the decision of the Circuit Court of the United 
 States for the Southern District of New York (172 Fed Rep., 170; T. D. 29822) 
 afljrming G. A. 6412 (T. D. 27512) and Abstract 13561 (T. D. 27729). Decision 
 in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30358; Feb. 15, 1910.) 
 
 Old steel rails not scrap — 
 To bring old steel rails within the provisions of paragraph 118, tariff act of 1909, 
 the burden is on the importer to show that the importation is not only of scrap 
 steel, but that it is such scrap steel as to constitute "waste or refuse iron or steel 
 fit only to be remanufactured by melting." The evidence in the record falls 
 short of showing the shipment was of this character; it was properly held dutia- 
 ble under paragraph 126, tariff act of 1909. Benjamin Iron & Steel Co. v. 
 United States (No. 411), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importer from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 23664 (T. D. 30768). Decision afBrmed. (T. D. 31677; May 31, 1911.) 
 
 Plates — 
 Polished steel plates intended to be engraved and used in printing engravings, 
 and so-called monogram dies, consisting of ."mall plates on which monograms 
 are to be engraved, are steel plates within the meaning of paragraph 135, tariff 
 act of 1897, being within dictionary definitions of "plates." United States v. 
 Sellers, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, March 2, 
 1908. Suit 4996. Appeal by Government from decision of Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 16013 (T. D. 28300). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 28852; Mar. 18, 1908.) 
 Steel plates made with one aide checkered to prevent slipping, and used for the 
 flooring of boiler rooms, are dutiable under paragraph 135, tariff act of 1897, as 
 steel plates not specially provided for, rather than as " boiler or other plate iron 
 or steel," under paragraph 126. Hill v. Wood (163 Fed. Rep., 51; T. D. 29160); 
 G. A. 5886 (T. D. 25915) followed. (T. D. 29405— G. A. 6834; Dec. 10, 1908.) 
 Polished steel plates intended to be engraved and used in printing engravings, and 
 so-called monogram dies consisting of small plates on which monograms are to be 
 
832 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Ste el — Continued. 
 Plates — Continued. 
 
 engraved, are steel plates within the meaning of paragraph 135, tariff act of 1897. 
 United States v. Sellers, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 
 January 12, 1909. No. 93 (suit 4996). Appeal from Circuit Court of the United 
 States for Southern District of New York (160 Fed. Rep., 518; T. D. 28852) 
 affirming Abstract 16013 (T. D. 28300). Decision adverse to Government. (T. 
 D. 29521; Feb. 3, 1909.) Acquiesced in February 6, 1909 (T. D. 29533). 
 
 Polished steel plates consisting of (1) steel plates intended to be engraved and used 
 in the printing of steel engravings, and (2) so-called monogram dies, which are 
 small plates on which monograms are to be engraved, are dutiable under the 
 provisions of paragraphs 135 and 141, tariff act of 1897, as polished steel plates, 
 rather than at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 193 of said act, as manu- 
 fectures of steel not specially provided for. United States v. Sellers (T. D. 
 29521) followed. (T. D. 29616— G. A. 6882; Mar. 9, 1909.) 
 
 An engraved steel slab, in the form of a table top and used by glass manufacturers 
 for making devices or figures on plate glass, is dutiable under paragraph 193, 
 tariff act of 1897, as an article composed of steel not specially provided for, 
 wholly manufactxn:ed, and not under paragraph 135 as "plates and steel in all 
 forms and shapes." In re Morris, G. A. 5409 (T. D. 24626), following Morris v. 
 United States (110 Fed. Rep., 774; T. D. 25183), overruled; United States v. 
 C. Newman Wire Co. (152 Fed. Rep., 488; T. D. 27896; affirmed, T. D. 28600) 
 dted. (T. D. 28888— G. A. 6744; Mar. 21, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Held that an engraved steel slab in the form of a table top, used 
 in producing designs on plate glass, is not within the provision in paragraph 
 135, tariff act oi 1897, for "plates and steel in all forms and shapes," but is dutia- 
 ble under paragraph 193 as manufactures of metal. Morris v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, March 29, 1909. 
 Suit 5265. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6744 (T. D. 28888). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29675; Apr. 
 7, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) An engraved steel slab, completed ready for use in the manufac- 
 ture of glass, is dutiable as a manufacture of metal under paragraph 193, tariff 
 act of 1897, rather than under paragraph 135, relating to "sheets and plates of 
 steel in all forms and shapes." A piece of steel 15 feet long, over 4 feet wide, 
 6i inches thick, and weighing over 6 tons, is a slab and not a "plate" within 
 the meaning of paragraph 135, tariff act of 1897. The provision in paragraph 
 135, tariff act of 1897, for "steel in all forms and shapes" is limited to articles 
 which are in an uncompleted condition like the other unfinished articles (in- 
 gots, blooms, bars, etc.) previously enumerated in the same paragraph. Morris 
 V. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, December 7, 1909. 
 No. 98 (suit 5265). Appeal by importer from the decision of the Circuit Court 
 of the United States for the Southern District of New York (169 Fed. Rep., 
 666), affirming a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6744 (T. D. 
 28888). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30192; Dec. 14, 1909.) 
 
 The provision in paragraph 135, tariff act of 1897, for steel " plates, ' ' is not limited 
 to forms that are plain, flat, straight, and rectangular; and so-called "draw- 
 plates," which are roughly finished, incomplete heavy pieces of steel with an 
 elongated end somewhat like a handle, and are commercially known as wire- 
 drawing plates, drawing plates or drawplates, are within said provision. (T. D. 
 29930— G. A. 6925; July 31, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Drawplates and wortles forged from the ingot through various 
 stages and reaching the condition as here imported, namely, the final shape in 
 which they are delivered to the consumer, the adjusting processes to which they 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 833 
 
 Steel — Continued. 
 Plates — Continued. 
 
 are neceasarUy subjected being merely incidental to the common use of draw- 
 plates and wortles, are articles, it is true, of steel, wholly or partly manufac- 
 tured, but they are more specifically "forgings of steel" and were dutiable, 
 accordingly, under paragraph 127 rather than under paragraph 135, tariff act of 
 1897. The testimony in the record is at one with the authority of the lexicons 
 in emphasizing the fact that " plate " both in common parlance and in commerce 
 is used to designate an article distinct from " drawplate, " being in fact the thing 
 out of which "drawplates" are made. The term "plate" is not generic, in- 
 cluding "drawplate" as a species. Newman- Andrew Co. v. United States (No 
 149); United States v. Newman-Andrew Co. (No. 152), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Cross-appeals from the decision of the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 6925 (T. D. 29930). Transferred from the 
 United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. Decision 
 modified and affirmed. (T. D. 31570; May 1, 1911.) 
 
 Steel plates measuring 12 feet by 59 inches by five-sixteenth inch, specially 
 adapted for use in the construction of floors for boiler rooms, are dutiable under 
 paragraph 135, tariff act of 1897, as steel "plates," rather than under paragraph 
 126 as "plate * * « steel." Hill «. Wood, United States Circuit Court of 
 Appeals, Third Circuit, June 18, 1908. No. 18 (suit 1699). Appeal from Cir- 
 cuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (T. D. 
 28655) affirmkig G. A. 5886 (T. D. 25915). Decision adverse to Government. 
 (T. D. 29160; July 15, 1908.) Acquiesced in July 20, 1908 (T. D. 29170). 
 Scrap — 
 
 Term "melting" as used in paragraph 118, tariff act of 1909, construed. (See 
 Iron, scrap.) (T. D. 30063; Oct. 23, 1909.) 
 Shapes — ' 
 
 Flat plates of steel made into various shapes — Pitchers, spouts, etc.: No commer- 
 cial designation appearing, a variety of steel shapes ready to be enameled and 
 converted into pitchers, knobs, handles, spouts, etc., is less aptly described as 
 pressed, sheared, or stamped shapes, or as steel in all forms and shapes, than as 
 articles or wares composed of steel, whether wholly or partly manufactured, for 
 to hold otherwise would be to declare the nearly completed articles should have 
 been admitted at the same rate of duty with the original flat sheets of steel; and 
 the importations were dutiable as assessed under paragraph 193, tariff act of 
 1897. Lunham & Moore v. United States (No. 105); Central Stamping Co. v. 
 United States (No. 272), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 
 , the importers from decisions of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 20951 (T. D. 29664) and Abstract 18520 (T. D. 28889). Transferred 
 from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. Deci- 
 sion affirmed. (T. D. 31569; May 1, 1911.) 
 
 Pressed: The importation in controversy consists of pieces of steel, cast, pressed, 
 roUed, and hammered. These articles are for use as frames of automobiles. 
 Paragraph 121, tariff act of 1909, enumerates as dutiable therexmder articles 
 which have been subjected to the more common processes in steel working, 
 namely, hammering, rolUhg, or casting. Paragraph 131 provides for "pressed, 
 sheared, or stamped shapes." Thegoodsin this case are admittedly "pressed." 
 Paragraph 131 applies. Kuyper &Co.v. United States (No. 1281), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 33645 (T. D. 33763). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 34253; Feb. 27, 1914.) 
 45633°— 17 53 
 
834 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Steel — Continued. 
 Sheet steel made by the open-heaith process — 
 
 Sheet steel made by the open-hearth process, containing 0.55 per cent manganese 
 and 0.20 per cent silicon, which were added in the course of manufacture, is 
 nevertheless dutiable at 8 per cent ad valorem under the specific provision for 
 steel made by the open-hearth process in paragraph 110 of the act of 1913. Man- 
 ganese and silicon, added in quantities absolutely essential to the production of 
 Bessemer and open-hearth steels, can not be considered alloys within the mean- 
 ing of said paragraph without rendering nugatory and incapable of application 
 the entire provision therein for such steels. (T. D. 35297 — G. A. 7708; Apr. 
 2, 1915.) 
 Sheets, nickel-plated. (See Iron, sheets.) 
 Stampings — 
 
 Steel stampings, in the form of strips or individual pieces which have been 
 stamped or pressed out of sheets of steel into an openwork raised pattern and 
 then sheared into the desired widths, being used in the manufacture of so-called 
 steel-point ornaments, are within the provision in paragraph 135, tariff act of 
 1897, for "sheared, pressed, or stamped shapes." United States v. Veith, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, March 29, 1909. 
 Suit 4213. Appeal by United States from decision of Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 6293 (T. D. 27131). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29674; 
 Apr. 7, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Steel stampings, consisting of soft steel in strips or individual 
 pieces, which have been stamped and pressed out of sheets of steel and sheared 
 into desired widths, and are used in the manufacture of steel-point ornaments, 
 are dutiable under paragraph 135, tariff act of 1897, as "pressed, sheared, or 
 stamped shapes " of steel. United States v. Veith (T. D. 29674), affirming G. A. 
 6293 (T. D. 27131), followed. (T. D. 29759— G. A. 6907; May 14; 1909.) 
 Strips — 
 
 Cold-rolled thin steel strips, n long lengths, imported in coils, and an inch or over 
 in width, are dutiable as "steel in aU forms and shapes, not specially provided 
 for," xmder paragraphs 122 and 135, tariff acts of 1884 and 1897, respectively. 
 The term "sheet steel in strips " in said paragraphs does not include cold-rolled 
 steel of this description. United States v. Boker (T. D. 28548, affirming 154 
 Fed. Rep., 174; T. D. 28005) followed; G. A. 5929 (T. D. 26063) reversed. (T. 
 D. 28885— G. A. 6741; Mar. 17, 1908.) 
 
 Flat pieces of steel not wire rods: Flat pieces of steel, 3 inches wide by one-eighth 
 of an inch in thickness, and 30 or more feet in length, imported in coils and 
 known commercially as "flat rods," are not flat wire rods and were dutiable not 
 as flat wire rods, but under the clause "steel in all f oraa and shapes not specially 
 provided for," paragraph 135, tariff act of 1897. 
 
 Designation covering ultimate use: To bring a manufacturing material 
 within a particular designation in a tariff law that covers one of the ultimate 
 uses of that material, it should be found to be so far advanced by the processes 
 applied to it in fitting it for that ultimate use that either on an examination per 
 se its ultimate use is clear or it is found so far advanced that its utility for another 
 possible use has been destroyed. Athenia Steel & Wire Co. v. United States 
 (No. 208), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer 
 from the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 22752 (T. D. 30364). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31528; Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 
 In coils: The merchandise involved in this case is Bessemer cold-rolled steel, im- 
 ported in 1910 for use as material in the manufacture of corset clasps or steels. 
 Paragraph 135, tariff act of 1909, presented no ambiguities in respect to the issue 
 presented and it is unnecessary to go beyond its express terms to fix its meaning. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 835 
 
 S teel — Continued. 
 Strips— Continued. 
 
 That paragraph exhibits certain well-defined changes from previous enactments 
 that dealt with the same subject matter (steel in strips), and it is not to be con- 
 strued according to the practice of the customs or the decisions of law controlling 
 the first enactment. The paragraph in the 1909 statute provided for a duty of 
 35 per cent ad valorem on "steel strips, not thicker than number fifteen wire 
 gauge, and not exceeding five inches in width, whether in long or short lengths, 
 in coils or otherwise, and whether rolled or drawn through dies or rolls, or other- 
 wise produced." These terms apply to the importation with precision and it 
 was dutiable under that paragraph. Strouse, Adler & Co. v. United States (No. 
 834), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27214 (T. D. 32046). De- 
 cision affirmed. (T. D. 32466; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 Nickel-plated steel strips in coils: The merchandise imported consisted of nickel- 
 plated steel strips put up in coils. When these steel strips were plated with 
 nickel, they became something more than steel strips, and not being specifi- 
 cally enumerated in their advanced condition they fell properly within the 
 general provisions of paragraph 199, tarifl act of 1909, as manufactures of metal 
 not provided for. Victor v. United States (128 Fed., 472); Eckstein v. United 
 States (140 Fed., 94). Hirsch & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1070), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30438 (T. D. 32926). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 33365; Apr. 18, 1913.) 
 Tubes- 
 Steel cylinders, 19 feet long and 4 feet in diameter and 35 feet long and 8 feet in 
 diameter, respectively, and used in storing illuminating gas, are "tubes" 
 within the meaning of paragraph 152, tariff act of 1897. Knauth v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 12, 
 1908. Suit 4231. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 6345 (T. D. 27295). Board reversed. (T. D. 29010; 
 May 20, 1908.) 
 Bottle-shaped vessels of steel, about 4 feet long and 8 inches in diameter, closed at 
 each end and used in the transportation of gas at high pressure, are dutiable as 
 tubes under paragraph 152, tariff act of 1897. United States v. Liquid Carbonic 
 Co., United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, March 10, 1908. 
 No. 178 (suit 4245). Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for 
 Southern District of New York (T. D. 28452) affirming G. A. 6345 (T. D. 27295). 
 Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 28863; Mar. 18, 1908.) Acquiesced 
 in June 30, 1908 (T. D. 29115). 
 Boiler tubes: So-called arched Purves furnaces, consisting simply of corrugated 
 steel cylinders or tubes about 4 feet in diameter and perfectly plain within, 
 being intended to be made into furnaces by the insertion of an elaborate struc- 
 ture and the application of much labor, held, not to be "furnaces" within the 
 meaning of paragraph 152, tariff act of 1897, but "boiler tubes [or] flues," under 
 the same paragraph. Conditions are not such as allow establishment of a trade 
 designation, as to imports which are not kept in stock or dealt in as articles of 
 general merchandise, but are only made to the order of those requiring them. 
 Thomas v. Vandegrift, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 
 May 5, 1908. No. 2 (suit 1553). Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United 
 States for Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (See 153 Fed. Rep., 591; 
 T. D. 27976.) Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29007; May 20, 1908.) 
 Acquiesced in (T. D. 29131; July 3, 1908.) 
 
836 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Steel — Continued. 
 Tubes — Continued. 
 Gas cylinders: Steel cylinders 19 feet long and 4 feet in diameter and 35 feet long 
 and 8 feet in diameter, respectively, which are used in storing illuminating 
 gas, are " tubes " within the meaning of paragraph 152, tarifi act of 1897. United 
 States V. Knauth, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 
 March 16, 1909. No. 190 (suit 4231). Appeal by United States from Circuit 
 Court of the United States, Southern District of New York (T. D. 29010), re- 
 versing G. A. 6345 (T. D. 27295). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 
 29650; Mar. 24, 1909.) Acquiesced in April 6, 1909 (T. D. 29672). 
 Steel cylinders, severally 19 feet in length and 4 feet in diameter, and 35 feet in 
 length and 8 feet in diameter, used as storage tanks for illuminating gas, are 
 dutiable. as "tubes" under paragraph 152, tariff act of 1897. United States 
 ■V. Knauth (T. D. 29650, aflarming -T. D. 29010) followed. (T. D. 29710— G. A. 
 6897; Apr. 22, 1909.) 
 The provision in paragraph 152, tariff act of 1897, for "iron or steel tubes," in- 
 cludes tubes of iron and steel combined, as well as those composed wholly of 
 either iron or steel, but does not include tubes containing a substantial quan- 
 tity of other materials than bon and steel. Therefore tubing comprising an inner 
 steel tube covered with iron wire is within that provision, but tubing comprising 
 an inner steel tube covered with brass wire is dutiable as manufactures of metal 
 under paragraph 193. (T. D. 29714— G. A. 6901; Apr. 26, 1909.) 
 Window sashes and frames. (See Window sashes.) 
 ■Wool- 
 Steel wool made from wire is dutiable under the provision in paragraph 137, tariff 
 act of 1897, for articles manufactured from steel wire, rather than under para- 
 • graph 135, as steel in all forms and shapes not specially provided for, or under 
 paragraph 193, as articles manufactured from steel not specially provided for. 
 United States v. Buehne Steel Wool Co. (159 Fed. Rep., 107; f. D. 28599) fol- 
 lowed. (T. D. 29541— G. A. 6863; Feb. 5, 1909.) 
 Steelware. 
 
 Teapots, pitchers, handles, spouts, etc., which have been stamped from sheets 
 of steel and then spun into shape or form or otherwise manipulated to produce 
 completed articles or parts thereof, are not dutiable as "stamped shapes" un- 
 der paragraph 135, tariff act of 1897; but, by reason of the work bestowed on 
 such articles subsequent to the stamping, they have been changed into com- 
 pleted articles and parts, dutiable properly as manufacturer of metal under 
 paragraph 193. Saltonstall v. Wiebusch (156 U. S., 601); Bromley v. United 
 States (156 Fed. Rep., 958; T. D. 28520); G. A. 5541 (T. D. 24911). (T. D. 
 28760— G. A. 6719; Feb. 6, 1908.) 
 Enameled — 
 Steel light shades enameled with vitreous glass, and bell-like in form, are within 
 the purview of paragraph 158, tariff act of 1909, and are classifiable under the 
 provision in said paragraph for "other similar hollow ware," rather than under 
 paragraph 199 of said act, as manufactures of metal not specially provided foi. 
 (T. D. 30825— G. A. 7077; July 19, 1910.) 
 Stereotypes, old. (See Type metal.) 
 
 Sticks of boxwood — "Umbrella handles. (See Wood, unmanufactured.) 
 Stone. 
 Bottles. (See Coverings, stoneware bottles.) 
 Crushed- 
 Stone crushed by machinery and screened to size desired, free of duty as a crude 
 mineral substance, under paragraph 626, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31891; 
 Sept. 29, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 837 
 
 Stone — Continued. 
 Crushed — Continued. 
 
 Crashed stone dutiable at 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 385, tariff 
 act of 1913. (T. D. 33925; Nov. 28, 1913.) 
 
 Crashed stone dutiable under paragraph 81, tariff act of 1913, at the rate of 20 per 
 cent ad valorem. T. B. 33925 of November 28, 1913, modified accordingly. 
 (T. D. 34028; Dec. 30, 1913.) 
 
 Crashed stone dutiable at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 81, 
 tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34746; Sept. 1, 1914.) 
 Crushed and screened — 
 
 The tariff act of 1913, by the all-embracing language of paragraph 81, changes the 
 classification of earthy or mineral substances that are not specially provided 
 for. Stone that has been crushed and screened, heretofore dutiable as a non- 
 enumerated manufactured article, is, under paragraph 81, tariff act of 1913, 
 dutiable as earthy or mineral substances, wholly or partially manufactured. 
 
 C. D. Jackson & Co.'s case, G. A. 7714 (T. D. 35331), cited and followed. (T. 
 
 D. 35723— G. A. 7779; Sept. 24, 1915.) 
 Flint- 
 Flint stones incased in cement in the form of bricks, commercially known as patent 
 
 silex linings, and used for hning tubes in cement mills, held to be dutiable 
 under section 6, tariff act of 1897, at 20 per cent ad valorem as unenumerated 
 manufactured articles, and not under paragraph 97 of said act, the articles not 
 being susceptible of decoration. (T. D. 29611— G. A. 6877; Mar. 6, 1909.) 
 Lava — 
 
 Dressed — Unenumerated manufactured article: The dressed lava stones of the 
 iuiportati-'n in quertion are u«ed as a part of drums in wood-pulp machines. 
 The words "hewTi,' dressed, or polished" in paragraph 118, tariff act of 1S97, 
 would seem to have reference to the advancemeat of building scone as siich, and 
 the importation was not one of building stone. These stones in fact had been 
 adapted for another and distinct use. They were dutiable as unenumerated 
 manufactured articles at 20 per cent ad valorem., under section 6, tariff act of 
 1897. Vantine ca-^e (159 Fed. Rep., 280). United States v. Tanim (2 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., 425; T. D. 32173) distin?uir.hed. Manufacturers' Paper Co. v. United 
 States (No. 737),' United States Court of Cuetomi Appeals. Appea! by the 
 impiirters from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 26113 (T. 
 D. 31757). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32353; Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 
 Building stone: Lava stone in its natural condition is a building stone. When 
 by mechanical or manufacturing process it is made into material to be used in 
 the making of some article or stracture in the construction of which other mate- 
 rials must of necessity be used it is building stone, hewn, dressed, or otherwise 
 manufactured. Held to be subject to duty at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 114, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Stouffer (3 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., — ; T. D. 32351); Manufacturers' Paper Co. v. United States (3 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 32353); Abstract 25501 (T. D. 31568), G. A. 2349 (T. 
 D. 14557); G. A. 4923 (T. D. 23030); Abstract 26111 (T. D. 31757); Abstract 
 28511 (T. D. 32529); United States v. GrasselU Chemical Co. (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 — ; T. D. 33123); G. A. 6026 (T. D. 26334); Baldwin v. United States (144 Fed., 
 702; T. D. 27066, and 149 Fed., 1022; T. D. 27802); Abstract 14527 (T. D. 
 27945); Murphy v. United States (T. D. 28819); Murphy v. United States (162 
 Fed., 871; T. D. 29032); Abstract 14687 (T. D. 27999) and Abstract 14832 (T. 
 D. 28036); Austin v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 510; T. D. 31532); G. 
 A. 5835 (T. D. 25743); Vantine v. United States (159 Fed., 289; T. D. 28543); 
 United States v. Vantine (166 Fed., 751; T. D. 29375); G. A. 7038 (T. D. 30690); 
 
838 DIGEST or CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Stone — Continued. 
 Lava — Continued . 
 
 WaddeU v. United States (3 Ct. Gust. Appls., — ; T. D. 32989); Gage v. 
 United States (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 430; T. D. 32174) cited and discussed. (T. 
 D. 33188— G. A. 7428; Feb. 10, 1913.) 
 
 Hewn: The hewn lava stone of the importation is employed in the construction of 
 chimneys, being used as lining to carry the inner surface of the chimney from 
 the bottom to within 2 feet of the shaft's top, and the stone had been prepared for 
 this purpose. It is held to be a building stone and dutiable as such under para- 
 graph 114, taria act of 1909. Manufacturers' Paper Co. v. United States (3 Ct. 
 Gust. Appls., — ; T. D. 32353) distinguished. United States v. Grasselli Chemi- 
 cal Go. (No. 940), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28511 
 (T. D. 32529). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33123; Jan. 20, 1913.) 
 
 The merchandise consisted of roughly cut or dressed lava stones of various sizes 
 and is used in paper mills. Lava stone per se is not in all cases a monumental or 
 building stone, and it appears that those of the importation are not fit for or de- 
 signed to be devoted to such uses. They are not free as lava unmanufactured 
 and they fall appropriately within the provisions of paragraph 95 as articles com- 
 posed wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral substances not specially pro- 
 vided for. United States v. Tamm & Co. (2 Ct. Gust. Appls., 425; T. D. 32173); 
 United States v. Stoufier (3 ib., 67; T. D. 32331); Waddell & Go. v. United 
 •States (3 ib., 406; T. D. 32989). United States v. Manufacturers' Paper Co. 
 (No. 941), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28967 (T. D. 
 32655). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33390; Apr. 29, 1913.) 
 
 Towers or chinmeys, pots, covers, saucers, pipes, and' condensers cut from lava 
 stone, intended as part of or the equipment of chemical vats, held subject to duty 
 at the rate of 50 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 114, tariff 
 act of 1909, as building stone, hewn, dressed, polished, or otherwise manufac- 
 tured. Manufacturers' Paper Co. v. United States (3 Ct. Gust. Appls., 72; T. D. 
 32353); United States v. Manufacturers' Paper Co. (4 ib., 110; T. D. 33390) 
 cited. United States v. Grasselli Chemical Co. (3 Ct. Gust. Appls., 486; T. D. 
 33123) followed. (T. D. 34278— G. A. 7543; Mar. 12, 1914.) 
 Tam O'Shanter — 
 
 When not hones or whetstones, nor crude minerals: The stones of the importatioji 
 do not appear to be in the condition in which they were quarried; rather their 
 shape and size appear as the result of labor and design for a particular use, 
 namely, as polishers. They were properly assessed as marble polishers com- 
 posed of a mineral substance under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909. Waddell & 
 Co. V. United States (No. 981) , United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 29022 (T. D. 32655). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32989; Nov. 21, 1912.) 
 
 For polishing: The merchandise, it is conceded, is like that considered in Waddell 
 & Co. V. United States (3 Ct. Gust. Appls., 406; T. D. 32989). The uncertainty 
 in the evidence in the present case as to just how these stones were produced 
 makes strongly against the contention that they are waste, and this evidence 
 does not differentiate this merchandise from that in the former case so as to war- 
 rant a different classification. Waddell & Go. v. United States (No. 1245), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 33348 (T. D. 33695). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 34323; Mar. 25, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 839 
 
 Stone — Continued . 
 Temple — 
 Work of art: An importation described as a round stone temple, which consists of 
 an open circular structure formed by eight sculptured columns resting upon 
 carved pedestals, which in turn rest upon a plain stone foundation, the columns 
 supporting a circular frieze and cornice elaborately carved, while between the 
 pedestals is a low balustrade with extended slabs forming seats which rest upon 
 carved supports, is not dutiable as a manufacture of marble under paragraph 98, 
 tarig act of 1913, but is dutiable as a work of art under paragraph 376. 
 
 Paragraphs 376 and 652 compared : Considering together paragraphs 376 and 
 652, held that paragraph 376 is broader than paragraph 652, and will include the 
 temple above described within its scope as a work of art, even though a mechani- 
 cal process may have, to a certain extent, entered into its production. (T. D. 
 35564— G. A. 7747; June 30, 1915.) 
 Appeal directed from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of 
 June 30, 1915, G. A. 7747 (T. D. 35564), involving the classification of a certain 
 stone temple. (T. D. 35665; Aug. 18, 1915.) 
 Stoneware and metal exhausters. (See Exhausters.) 
 Stoppage in transitu. 
 "General-order" goods; bonded-warehouse goods — 
 Goods in possession of the customs authorities under "general order," for which 
 no entry has been made, freight and duty being unpaid, are in the custody of the 
 carrier and subject to the vendor's right of stoppage in transitu. Goods for 
 which entry has been made and which remain in bonded warehouse, freight 
 paid but duty unpaid, have come into the possession of the buyer and are not 
 subject to the vendor's right of stoppage in transitu. In re Talbot & Poggi, 
 United States District Court, Southern District of New York, March 16, 1911). 
 In the matter of bankruptcy proceedings of Talbot & Poggi. Petitions against 
 the bankrupts' trustee by Emil Grossmann, Moritz Bsche, and Paul Reinhardt 
 for the stoppage in transitu of goods shipped to the bankrupts. Petition granted 
 in part. (T. D. 31651 ; June 30, 1911.) 
 Goods in possession of the customs authorities under general order, for which no 
 entry has been made, freight and duty being unpaid, are in the custody of the 
 carrier and subject to the vendor's right of stoppage in transitu. 
 
 Goods for which entry has been made and which remain in bonded warehouse, 
 freight paid but duty unpaid, are in possession of the buyer, and are not subject 
 to the vendor's right of stoppage in transitu. In re Talbot & Poggi, United 
 States District Court, Southern District of New York, March 16, 1911. (T. D. 
 31733; June 30, 1911.) 
 Storage charges. (See Charges.) 
 Stout. 
 Leakage of — 
 The second proviso to paragraph 296, tariff act of 1897, prohibiting allowance for 
 breakage, leakage, or damage on wines, liquors, cordials, or distilled spirits, 
 does not include stout, and for this reason duty can be assessed only on the 
 quantity of this article actually arriving in the United States. Following 
 Hollander & Co., G. A. 5909 (T. D. 26008), and Hollender v. Magone (149 U. S., 
 586; 13 Sup. Ct. Rep., 932). (T. D. 30796— G. A. 7072; July 18, 1910.) ' 
 Straits Settlements dollar, value of. 
 
 Value of Straits Settlements dollar erroneous as proclaimed in T. D. 31172 and 
 31443 of January 1 and April 1. 1911, respectively. Customs officers instructed 
 to liquidate entries at $0,421, as proclaimed, and to forward to department for 
 instructions under section 25 of tariff act of August 28, 1894. (T. D. 31702; 
 June 19, 1911.) 
 
840 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Strawberry and apricot pulp. (See Fruit, pulp.) 
 Straw braid plateaux. (See Plateaux.) 
 Straw. 
 Covers containing empty bottles. (See Coverings.) 
 Hats, trimmed. (See Hats.) 
 Manufactures of — 
 Hat trimmings made of straw: Hat trimmings made from split straws, some of 
 which are twisted or plaited, properly dutiable as manufactures of straw at the 
 rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 463, tari.ff act of 1909, rather 
 thaa as trimmings composed of vegetable fiber under paragraph 349 of said act. 
 . (T. D. 33510-G. A. 7467; June 9, 1913.) 
 Mattings — 
 Painting on: So-called paintings on straw matting dutiable at 26 per cent ad 
 valorem as a manufacture of straw under paragraph 368, tariff act of 1913. 
 (T. D. 35163; Feb. 24, 1915.) 
 Bugs. (See Rugs.) 
 Toquilla, from Panama — 
 Countervailing duty vmder section 6, tariff act of 1909, equivalent to the export 
 bounty paid, to be collected on toquilla straw, tho product of the Tlepublic of 
 Pananrn. (T. J). 33699; Aug. 19, 1913.) 
 Straw-sewing machines. (See Machinery and machines, glove a id straw sewing 
 
 machines.) 
 Straws used for drinking purposes. (See Drinking straws.) 
 Street railway ties. (See Railway ties.) 
 Streuperlen. (See Frostinga.) 
 String beans in brine. (See Vegetables, prepared.) 
 Strings for musical instruments. (See Musical instruments, strings.) 
 Structural shapes. ( See Window sashes.) 
 Stub books. 
 
 ' Abolishment of report of distribution of. (T. B. 35183; Mar. 4, 1915.) 
 Stuffed chicks and ducklings. (See Down on the skin.) 
 Styrax, gum. 
 
 Balsam styrax from which has been removed foreign matter, such as sticks and 
 dirt, is still natural and uncompounded balsam gum, not adapted for use as an 
 odoriferous or aromatic substance in the manufacture of perfumes or cosmetics. 
 Held to be subject to duty at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under the pro- 
 visions of paragraph 9 of the tariff act of 1913. G.'A. 6303 (T. D. 27162) and 
 Unit«d States v. Sheldon (2 a. Oust. Appls., 485; T. D. 32245) cited. (T. D. 
 35172— G. A. 7694; Feb. 26, 1915.) 
 Subpcena duces tecum— 
 
 The Board of General Appraisers has power under subsection 12, secti(m 28, tariff 
 act of 1909, to issue a suhposna duces tecum for the Secretary of the Treasury 
 directing him to produce papers in his possession at a hearing before a general 
 appraiser. The statement on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury that a 
 report in his possession is of a confidential nature and against public policy to 
 disclose is a complete answer to a subpcena duces tecum. This is a question 
 which he alone must determine, and his determination is binding upon this 
 board and the courts. (T. D. 32925— G. A. 7401; Nov. 4, 1912.) 
 Substitutes for coffee. (See Coffee substitutes.) 
 Sugar. 
 Bounty. (See Duty, countervailing.) 
 Cane, living — 
 The importation of living canes of sugar cane or cuttings or parts thereof prohib- 
 ited. (T. D. 34567; June 22, 1914.) 
 Countervailing duty. (See Duty, countervailing.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 841 
 
 Sugai — Continued. 
 Cuban — 
 
 Tare: On Cuban sugars a tare of 2^ pounds to be allowed for each bag measuring 
 29 inches by 48 inches. Invoice specification required of size and weight of 
 bags. (T. D. 30860; Aug. 6, 1910.) 
 
 Collectors instructed to admit Cuban sugar on and after March 1, 1914, at a reduc- 
 tion of 20 per cent from the rates in paragraph 177, tariff act of 1933. (T. D. 
 34215; Feb. 28, 1914.) 
 Sampling — 
 
 Customs regulations amended: Article 945 of the Customs Regulations of 1903 
 amended so as to require the sampling from the stained side of bags of sugar 
 which are stained from lying in storage or any other cause. (T. D. 33228; Feb. 
 25, 1913.) 
 
 The use of Dutch color standard sugar samples discontinued. (T. D. 33790; Oct. 
 14, 1913.) 
 Tarex- 
 
 An actual finding of tare departed from: The contention here as to tare is limited 
 to the consigimient of sugar on one vessel. In this case the collector in report- 
 ing tare departed from his own actual finding and substituted a lower estimate 
 of tare, believing the actual tare for more or less plausible reasons not fair and 
 just. A guess or estimate of a proper allowance for tare may not be substituted 
 for a" finding arrived at according to the regulations that control. American 
 Sugar Kefining Co. v. United States (No. 716), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 25792 (T. D. 31675). Decision modified. (T. D. 32352; 
 Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 Tare on bags- 
 Schedule tare of 2.5 pounds per bag to be increased or diminished when the super- 
 ficial area of the bags varies by more than 2 per cent from the standard area of 
 1,382 square inches. (T. D. 33701; Aug. 20, 1913.) 
 Tare on containers — 
 
 Article <)44 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 amended. Schedule tare of 2J 
 pounds per bag for bags measiuing 29 by 48 inches, containing Cuban sugars, 
 established. When actual tare is taken, bags to he steam cleaned. (T. D. 
 32976; Nov. 30, 1912.) 
 Test — 
 
 The right of direct appeal from circuit courts to the Supreme Coiurt is given by 
 section 5, act of March 3, 1891 ^26 Stat., 827), in any case that involves the ap- 
 plication of the Constitution. Held that this does not cover a case resting on 
 the assertion that the Secretary of the Treasmy, in regulations for the testing 
 of sugar, had assumed to add something to the dutiable standard prescribed by 
 the tariff act and thereby exercised legislative power confided by the Consti- 
 tution solely to Congress. In such a case the only real substantial point is 
 whether the Secretary misconstrued Ihe statute; and this can not give jurisdic- 
 tion under said section, .\merican Sugar Refining Co. v. United States, United 
 States Supreme Cowt, November 30, 1908. No. 3 (suit 3825). Appeal from 
 Circuit Court of United States for Southern District of New York (T. D. 27093) 
 Appeal dismissed. (T. D. 29411; Dec. 16, 1908.) 
 
 Polariscopic regulations:. The expression "testing * * + degrees by the 
 polariscope, " occiu-ring in paragraph 209 of the present tariff act of 1897, is 
 construed to mean the percentage of pure sucrose contained in imported sugar 
 as actually ascertained by polariscopic estimation, and has no reference to the 
 commercial meaning attached to the phrase as recognized in trade between 
 
842 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Sugai — Continued. 
 Test — Continued. 
 
 the sellers and buyers of sugaj prior to the adoption of said act. The regulations 
 of the Secretary of the Treasmy promulgated under the authority conferred on 
 him by Congress, and designed to carry into effect the provisions of said para- 
 graph, are reasonable and valid, and free froni constitutional objections. (T. 
 D. 29425— G. A. 6838; Dec. 18, 1908.) 
 
 Where imported sugar has been tested in order to ascertain the polariscopic test 
 under paragraph 209, tariff act of 1897, and such tests are made in accordance 
 with the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury in existence at the time 
 tho entry is liquidated, the collector's liquidation of the entry based on such 
 tests will prevail against tests made by sugar chemists, manufacturers, or re- 
 finers, adopted in trade at the time the present tariff was passed, or subsequent 
 to such period. Such regulations, like those generally promulgated by the 
 heads of departments, made under the authority prescribed by Congress, if 
 repugnant to no law of Congress, are to be regarded as having the force and effect 
 of law, and the board will take judicial notice of the same as fully as of an exist- 
 ing statute. A letter directed to a particular officer, and not embodied in the 
 customs regulations, nor duly promulgated as such, bo as to be applicable to all 
 customs officers under like ciicumstances, baa not the force and effect of law, 
 especially where the authority purported to be given is to be exercised or not, 
 within the discretion tf such officer to whom the letter is directed. After a 
 liquidation has been made, based on a polariscopic test of sugar properly made 
 in accordance \Titb customs regulations in existence at the time, and an appeal 
 has been taken to the Board of General Appraisers, the board will not disturb 
 such decision of the collector where the protest is based on a letter of the .Assist- 
 ant Secretary of the Treasury issued to the collector many years after such 
 appeal was taken, which can not be regarded as having the force and effect of 
 law. (T. D. 29688— G. A. 6893; Apr. 12, 1909.) 
 
 Evidence —Settlement test: It was proper to assess duty on the bads of a settle- 
 ment test made between the seller and the buyer of sugar, where no correct 
 official polariscopic test had been made, and the Secretary of the Treasury had 
 authorized assessment on that basis. American Sugar Refining Co. i'. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, iNovem- 
 ber 13, 1909. Suit 3221. .Vppeal by importer from unpublished decision of 
 Hoard of United States General .4.pprai?ers, June 27, 1901. Board affirmed. 
 (T D. 30130; Nov. 23, 1909.) 
 
 The Treasury Depaitment having promulgated detailed and comprehensive regu- 
 lations respecting the use of the polariscope in testing sugar on importation, 
 these regulations are not to be taken as instructions or orders to be followed at 
 discretion, but on the contrary have the force of law, aie uniform in their opera- 
 tion, general in application to all importations of sugar, and binding alike on 
 importers and on the officials of the Ti-easury. American Sugar Refining Co. v. 
 United States (No. 7), United States Court of Customs Appeals, February 1, 
 1911. Appeal by the importers from dedsion of the United States Circuit 
 Court for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 30130), affirming decision of 
 the Board of United States General Appraisers (unreported) dated June 27, 1901. 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 31273; Feb. 1, 1911.) 
 
 Weight of — 
 Upon the liquidation of an entry of beet sugar, the collector made an arbitrary 
 addition to the ascertained weight, to bring the weight of the sugar weighed on 
 one scale up to the average of weights as found on other scales. Held, that the 
 weight of sugar as ascertained by the Government weighers, who act in the line 
 of theii- authority as vested in them by the statute, is conclusive, and the col- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 843 
 
 Sugar — Continued . 
 Weight of — Continued. 
 
 lector of customs is without authority to make an arbitrary addition to such 
 weights not justified by the evidence. (T. D. 30248— G. A. 6960; Jan. 7, 1910.) 
 
 Sugar-making machinery. (See Machinery and machines.) 
 
 Sulfothyol. 
 
 Sulfothyol, essentially ammonium sulfoichthyolate, is free of duty as ichthyol 
 oil under paragraph 561, tariff act of 1913. (T. J). 36028; Dec. 31, 1915.) 
 
 Sulphur. 
 
 Sulphur mined in Hokkaido dutiable as refined sulphur at the rate of $4 per ton 
 
 under paragraph 81, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31775; July 25, 1911.) 
 Sulphur mined in Hokkaido free of duty under paragraph 686, tariff act of 1909. 
 T. D. 31775 of July 25, 1911, revoked. So-called Bungo sulphur dutiable as 
 refined sulphur under paragraph 81, at the rate of $4 per ton. (T. D. 31962; 
 Oct. 28, 1911.) 
 Sulphur from the iBungo Province, in the Empire of Japan, obtained by secur- 
 ing the vapors as they are emitted from a burning crater by means of air-tight 
 pipes sunk into crevices from which the fumes escape, and which conduct the 
 vapors to a conduit where the sulphur congeals, and which is shown upon analy- 
 sis to be 99.98 per cent pure, is not crude sulphur within the meaning of para- 
 graph 674, tariff act of 1897, and paragraph 686, tariff act of 1909. Heat is neces- 
 sary in the refinement of all sulphur, and it is immaterial whether it is supplied 
 through the existence of some abnormal condition in the earth or by artificial 
 means, since it is the condition of the sulphur at the time of importation that 
 must be considered in fixing its classification and not the means through which 
 that condition has resulted. The means employed to preserve these vapors in 
 their purity are designed to accomplish the same results as those employed at 
 the retorts where sulphur is refined. The congressional policy in framing tariff 
 laws is to place upon raw materials either no duty at all or lower rates of duty than 
 those placed upon articles advanced in condition through processes of manufac- 
 ture; and this sulphur, being in the highest attainable state of purity, and at 
 least equal to the refined sulphur of commerce, held, therefore, to be refined 
 sulphur subject to duty at $8 per ton under paragraph 84, tariff act of 1897, and 
 $4 per ton under paragraph 81, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32420— G. A. 7351; 
 Apr. 19, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Sublimation of sulphur is the artificial distillation thereof, in 
 the course of which the sulphur content of the article distilled is, after evapora- 
 tion, deposited, collected, and formed according to the commercial or other uses 
 for which it may be designed. "Crude" refers commonly to substances or 
 articles in a condition unfit for the ultimate purpose or use for which they are 
 intended. 
 
 Bungo sulphur not refined or crude: The sulphur of the importation is from 
 Japan. It is expelled by volcanic force from geysers, is drawn off in conduits, 
 and when cooled is broken into various shapes and placed in sacks for transpor- 
 tation. This sulphur, very nearly pure, can not be said to have been refined; 
 nor is it crude. It falls appropriately within the free-entry paragraphs of the 
 acts of 1897 and 1909, as sulphur not otherwise provided for. Newhall & Co. e< 
 al. V. United States (No. 911), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7351 
 (T. D. 32420). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33410; May 6, 1913.) 
 Sulphur imported from Japan free of duty under paragraph 686, tariff act of 1909, 
 . where a certificate is attached to the invoice that the sulphur has not been 
 sublimed. (T. D. 33556; June 14, 1913.) 
 
844 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 SnppUes. 
 
 Purchase of miscellaneous supplies and payment of contingent expenses from 
 appropriation "Collecting the revenue from customs." (T. D. 30884; circular 
 No. 47; Aug. 18, 1910.) 
 Regulations relating to the making of contracts for miflcellaneous suppUes. (T. 
 D. 35755; circular No. 3; Oct. 8, 1915.) 
 Surety companies. 
 
 Premiums of surety companies on bonds of officers and employees of the United 
 
 States. (T. D. 29942; circular No. 36; Aug. 7, 1909.) 
 State licenses not required of surety companies doing business with the United 
 States under act of August 13, 1894, except where company executes bonds 
 within the State. (T. D. 30230; circular No. 69; Dec. 30, 1909.) 
 Regulations applicable to surety companies doing business with the United States 
 under the act of Congress approved August 13, 1894, as amended by the act of 
 Congress of March 23, 1910. (T. D. 30937; circular No. 54; Sept. 21, 1910.) 
 Surface-coated paper. (See Paper.) 
 Surgical instruments. 
 
 Surgical forceps are not nippers or pliers. The provision in paragraph 166, tariff 
 act of 1913, for nippers and pliers, should be limited to tools and instruments 
 having two lever handles working on a pivot, with cutting, pinching, or grip- 
 ping jaws. (T. D. 34270; Mar. 14, 1914.) 
 Surgical instruments and other articles may be included within the $100 exemp- 
 tion clause of paragraph 642, tariff act of 1913, whether intended for the personal 
 or business use of the returning resident. (T. D. 34486; May 29, 1914.) 
 Forceps and certain other surgical instruments, by reason of their construction 
 and the uses to which they are applied, are clearly within the category of nip- 
 pers, and as such are properly classifiable under the eo nomine provision for 
 "nippers and pliers of all kinds" in paragraph 166, tariff act of 1913, as here 
 assessed, rather than as manufactures of metal not specially provided for under 
 paragraph 167 of said act, as claimed. (T. D. 35018— G. A. 7655; Dec. 26, 1914.) 
 Forceps, needle holders, and Uke surgical instruments constructed of metal, hav- 
 ing two lever handles working on a pivot and operating cutting, gripping, or 
 pinching jaws or blades, are properly classifiable for tariff purposes under the 
 general provision in paragraph 166 of the tariff act of 1913 for " nippers and 
 pliers of all kinds wholly or partly manufactured. " (T. D. 35628— G. A. 7763; 
 July 31, 1915.) 
 Marking of. 
 Sittgical instruments marked in any manner must also be marked to indicate 
 country of origin, under section 7, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30300; Jan. 25, 
 1910.) 
 Suspenders, classification of. 
 
 Suspenders of cotton or otter vegetable fiber and india rubber, or of which cotton 
 or other vegetable fiber is the cnmponenl material of chief value, not embroid- 
 ered by hand or machinery, dutiable at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 330, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30246; Jan. 10, 1910.) 
 Sweetened biscuits. (See Biscuits.) ^ 
 
 Swiss chocolate. 
 
 Beappraisement. (See Reappraieement — Validity — Swiss chocolate.) 
 Switzerland, reciprocal commercial agreement with, termination of. (T. D. 29945; 
 
 Aug. 10, 1909.) 
 Swords with handle and scabbard of bone. (See Bone swords.) 
 Swords, coin or cash. (See Copper coin articles.) 
 Syringes of blown glass. (See Glass and glasses, blown.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 845 
 
 T. 
 
 Table candle lamps with beaded shades. (See Lamps.) 
 Table covers. 
 Cotton — 
 
 Cotton table covers, made of a Jacquard figured fabric, are not dutiable as manu- 
 factures of cotton table damask or of which cotton table damask is the com- 
 ponent material of chief value, " under paragraph 331, that paragraph being lim- 
 ited to such cotton damask as is usually and ordinarily used on thp table during 
 the service of meals. The goods were properly assessed at 45 per cent ad valorem 
 as "articles made from cotton cloth" under paragraph 332 of the tariff act of 
 1909. The term " cotton table damask " has been held to have been used in prior 
 tariff acts in its denominative or common and popular sense (Dunham v. United 
 States, 150 Fed., 562; T. D. 27805), and testimony regarding the commercial 
 meaning of the same is therefore immaterial, as Congress, in reenacting the pro- 
 vision, is presumed to have adopted the construction put upon that term by 
 the courts under the prior tariff acts. (T. D. 33387— G. A. 7457; Apr. 28, 1913.) 
 
 Cotton rugs, pile fabrics, etc: Couch and table covers which resemble rugs in 
 design and coloring, but which are made of pile fabrics not suitable either in 
 material or weight for floor coverings, dutiable as "articles * * * made or 
 cut from * * * pile fabrics, " under paragraph 325, tariff act of 1909. Con- 
 gress, in the tariff act of 1909, having placed "rugs of cotton" in the same para- 
 graph and assessed duty thereon at the same rate as on "carpets and carpeting," 
 must be taken inferentially to have intended that the " rugs of cotton, " dutiable 
 thereunder, should be those only which are suitable for floor coverings. (T. D. 
 33577— G. A. 7472; June 20, 1913.) 
 
 Cotton table damask is substantially wholly made of cotton. A substantial por- 
 tion of the merchandise of the importation is of flax, though of chief value of 
 cotton. It was properly held dutiable as manufactures of which the compo- 
 nent material of chief value is cotton under paragraph 332, tariff act of 1909. 
 Glass & Co. V, United States (No. 1169), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Ab- 
 stract 31519 (T. D. 33242). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33856; Oct. 31, 1913.) 
 
 Upholstery articles: Cotton table covers of a character both in use and weave simi- 
 lar to upholstery articles properly dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 258, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34538; June 11, 1914.) 
 
 Jacquard woven cotton table damask dutiable at the rate of 30 per cent ad val rem 
 under paragraph 258, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34223; Mar. 4, 1914.) 
 
 Fringed turkey-red cotton damask table covers: Fringed table cloths or covers 
 made of turkey-red cotton table damask are cotton table damas and properly 
 dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 263, tariff act of 1913, and 
 not as "Jacquard figured manufactures of cotton" at 30 per cent ad valo.em 
 uiider paragraph 258. Dunham v. United States (150 Fed., 562; T. D. 27805) 
 followed; In re Kelly & Song (Abstract 38099) overruled. (T. D. 35724— G. A. 
 7780; Sept. 24, 1915.) 
 
 Jacquard figured velvet: Cotton table covers made from figured velvet woven on a 
 loom using a Jacquard attachment are more specifically provided for as " articles 
 * * * made from * * * velvets" than as "Jacquard figured upholstery 
 goods" or as "Jacquard figured manufactures of cotton," and are dutiable at 40 
 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 257, tariff act of 1913, and not at 30 or 35 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 258. (T. D. 35047— G. A. 7660; JanrS, 1915.) 
 (Appealed:) Velvet table covers — Cotton rugs — Jacquard figured upholstery 
 goods. — By the provision for "Jacquard figured upholstery goods, composed 
 wholly or in chief value of cotton or other vegetable fiber; any of the foregoing 
 in the piece or otherwise," paragraph 258 of the tariff act of 1913, Congress in- 
 
846 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Table covers — Continued. 
 Cotton— Continued. 
 
 tended to make the use of this narrowly prescribed goods the test of classification 
 and to include therewithin all such goods for dutiable purposes and to invade 
 the other paragraphs of the tariff act, including within this provision for dutiable 
 purposes all goods answering to this description. 
 
 Specificity. — ^The relative specificity of competing provisions of the tariff law 
 is not always controlling of decision. T. D. Downing & Co. v. United States 
 (No. 1555), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importers rom 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7660 (T. D. 35047) and Abstract 
 37302. Decision reversed. (T. D. 35984; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 Table damask. 
 Cotton — 
 
 Specific provision: Cotton table damask and articles made from cotton table 
 damask, being more specifically provided for as ''cotton table damask, and 
 manufactures of cotton table damask, or of which cotton table damask is the com- 
 ponent material of chief value" than as "all other Jacquard figured manufac- 
 tures of cotton or of which cotton is the component material of chief value " are 
 dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 263, tariff act of 1913, rather 
 than at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 258. 
 
 Administrative and judicial construction: It is a well-established rule that where 
 statutory language has been given a long-continued administrative and judicial 
 construction, and there is a reenactment of the statute in substantially the same 
 language, it is presumed that the administrative and judicial construction was 
 adopted. (T. D. 34904— G. A. 7631; Nov. 12, 1914.) 
 Tables, power-transmitting, for sewing machines. (See Metal, manufactures of.) 
 Tagua-nut slabs. 
 
 Tagua nuts sawed into slabs after the outer shells have been removed are no longer 
 classifiable under the provision for tagua nuts in paragraph 620, tariff act of 1913, 
 nor are such slabs dutiable as manufactures of vegetable ivory (par. 369). In 
 the absence of any specific provision therefor they must be classified as " articles 
 manufactured, in whole or in part, not provided for in this section" (par. 385). 
 Abstract 31142 (T. D. 33120), G. A. 6596 (T. D. 28177), and Zanmati v. United 
 States (153 Fed., 880; T. D. 28054) cited. (T. D. 34862— G. A. 7622; Oct. 23, 
 1914.) 
 Talc. 
 
 Ground-powdered — 
 
 Ground talc, established by testimony to be the same as French chalk, is duti- 
 able, either directly or by simihtude, under paragraph 13, tariff act of 1909; 
 hence paragraph 480 (unenumerated articles), which may be invoked only as a 
 last resort, is not applicable to this commodity, nor is paragraph 95 appUcahle, 
 it providing only for' articles and wares composed wholly or in chief value of 
 earthy or mineral substances, and not for earthy or mineral substances them- 
 selves. (T. D. 31088— G. A. 7128; Dec. 5, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Powdered talc not French cAaZi.— Powdered talc is a substance 
 in itself, not a material made up of a mineral 8ub3tauce; and having a proper 
 regard for the rule that language employed in an act is presimied to have been 
 used in accordance with the construction which has been given it by a long- 
 continued practice of an administrative department or by a court, powdered 
 talc may not be deemed French chalk and dutiable as such, but it is dutiable 
 as a manufactured article under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909. Salomon v. 
 United States (No. 532), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importer from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7128 (T. D. 81088). Decision reversed. (T. D. 31635; May 22, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 847 
 
 Talc — Continued. 
 Ground — 
 
 Pending final decision as to correct classification, ground talc will be assessed with 
 duty under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem. 
 (T. D. 31158; Dec. 30, 1910.) 
 Sawed — 
 
 Talc sawed into cubes for use in making gas burners and insulators, the sawing 
 being not merely to remove foreign matter and to put the material in shape for 
 transportation, but to put it into certain desired dimensions, has been advanced 
 in value and condition, and is therefore excluded from paragraphs 519 and 614, 
 tariff act of 1897, relating to crude chalk and to minerals not advanced in value 
 or condition and is dutiable as French chalk by similitude, under paragraph 13, 
 tariff act of 1897. Kraemer v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, June 28, 1910. Suit 5511. Appeal by importer 
 from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 21245 
 (T. D. 29763). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30808; July 19, 1910.) 
 
 Talc and French chalk are not treated in the decisions as being the same substance. 
 Under these decisions the classification of talc is a question of fact rather than of 
 law, the classification to be determined by the evidence in the particular case. 
 The evidence here on review would make it appear there are two varieties of 
 talc, one crystalline and the other massive — that is, French chalk — and that 
 these commercially are different articles with different uses. The talc of the 
 importation at the port of New York had been sawed to a form and size conven- 
 ient for the economical manufacture of gas burners and electric insulators, and 
 being a mineral advanced in value and condition was dutiable at 20 per cent ad 
 valorem as articles partly manufactured and not provided for under section 6, 
 tariff act of 1897, and paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909. There was no evidence 
 to support the protest of the American Lava Co., and the collector's finding is 
 sustained. American Lava Co. et al. v. United States (No. 999), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstracts 29454 and 29500 (T. D. 32760). Reversed as to 
 part; affirmed as to part. (T. D. 33169; Feb. 1, 1913.) 
 Talcum powder. 
 
 Scented or perfumed — Toilet preparations — 
 
 Talcum powder, scented or perfumed, has, by processes of manufacture and by 
 the addition of other materials, become a finished article ready for a specific 
 use. It is therefore dutiable as a toilet preparation at 60 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 48, tariff act of 1913, rather than as talcum at 15 per cent under 
 paragraph 69. (T. D. 35844— G. A. 7800; Oct. 25, 1915.) 
 Tallow. 
 
 So-called "night lights," composed chiefly of stearin, not classifiable as tallow by 
 similitude. (See Night lights.) (T. D. 30322— G. A. 6974; Feb. 2, 1910.) 
 Mafura — 
 
 Used in making soap: Mafura tallow, extracted from the seed of a tree that grows 
 in Mozambique, Portuguese East Africa, being such a substance as is commonly 
 used in making soap, is entitled to free entry under the provisions of paragraph 
 498 of the tariff act of 1913. 
 
 Common use in a foreign country : The mere fact that such tallow had not been 
 previously imported into and therefore not used in the United States in the mak- 
 ing of soap does not preclude it from free entry, since it has been shown to be 
 commonly used in a foreign country for such purpose and possesses character- 
 istics similar to like substances commonly used in soap making in the United 
 States. 
 
848 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS^ 1908-1915. 
 
 • 
 Tallow — Continued. 
 Mafuia — Continued. 
 
 Intent of Congress: The Congress in omitting in the tariff revision of 1913 from 
 paragraph 498 the words "and which are fit only for such uses" evidenced an 
 intent to permit a more liberal use of the greases and oils provided for in that 
 paragraph. (T. D. 35221— G. A. 7698; Mar. 8, 1915.) 
 Tamarinds. 
 Packed in molasses — 
 It appears that "tamarinds" as a commercial designation has been accepted for a 
 number of years in the administration of our tarifi laws, and having been incor- 
 porated in the tariff act of 1909, it is to be inferred the interpretation so estab- 
 lished was there adhered to. The addition of the words "packed in molasses" 
 will not suffice to change the classification. The importation consisting of tam- 
 arind fruit, to which molasses had been added, imported in barrels, was entitled 
 to free entry. United States v. John Duncan's Sons et al. (No. 733), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 26197 (T. D. 31788). (T. D. 32097; 
 Dec. 6, 1911.) 
 Tam O'Shanter stones. (See Stone.) 
 Tanks, cylindrical or tubular. (See Coverings.) 
 Tanned and unsplit sealskin. (See Leather, tanned \meplit sealskin.) 
 Tantalus sets. 
 Entireties not — 
 The constituent parts of so-called tantalus sets composed of cut-glass bottles set in 
 frames of wood trimmed with metal, the bottles differing in no respect from the 
 ordinary cut-glass bottles of commerce, are dutiable separately — the glassware 
 at 60 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 100, and the frames at 35 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 208, tariff act of 1897, and not as entireties accor ing 
 to the component material of chief value in the combined articles. United 
 States V. Dickerhoff (T. D. 28716) and G. A. 5748 (T. D. 25490) followed. (T. D. 
 29030— G. A. 6766; May 23, 1908.) 
 Tape-like belting for machinery. (See Belting.) 
 Tapers. 
 Paraffin — Candles. (See Wax, manufactures of.) 
 Sanctuary lights — 
 So-called, not dutiable as tapers. (See Cotton, manufactures of — Sanctuary 
 lights, so-called.) 
 Tapes. 
 Cotton cloth in strips not tapes. (See Cotton, cloth, strips.) 
 Cotton ladder. (See Cotton, manufactures of.) 
 Tapestries. 
 
 Tapestry panels, composed of cotton Jacquard figured goods, weighing ov^r 6 
 ounces per square yard, are dutiable imder the provision in paragraph 326, tariff 
 act of 1909, for "tapestries, and other Jacquard figured upholstery goods." (T. 
 D. 31882— G. A. 7276; Sept. 22, 1911.) 
 
 (A^jiealed:) , Figured upholstery goods.— Figaied cotton panels of various 
 sizes made on a Jacquard loom and designed to be affixed to screens are not 
 manufactures of cotton cloth, but are more aptly described as Jacquard figured 
 upholstery goods, and they are dutiable as such under paragraph 326, tariff act- 
 of 1909. Bing & Co.'s Successors v. United States (No. 779), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 StatesGeneralAppraisers.G. A. 7276 (T.D. 31882). Decision affirmed. (T D. 
 32365; Mar. 26, 1912.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 849 
 
 Tapestiies — Oontinued. 
 
 Cotton rep or moire — 
 Colored plain woven textile fabrics, known" as cotton rep and cotton moire, having 
 either a stripe produced in the weaving or a watered effect produced by coloring, 
 but not having figures or designs produced in the weaving, are dutiable as count- 
 able colored cotton cloth under paragraphs 315 to 320, and not as "tapestries, 
 and other Jacquard figured upholstery goods, " under paragraph 326, tariff act of 
 1909. (T. D. 34024— G. A. 7520; Dec. 22, 1913.) . 
 Taraxacum, extract of. (See Medicinal preparations.) 
 Tare. 
 
 Allowance for — 
 Garlic tops. (See Garlic.) 
 
 In importations of wool in which naphthalin ia used as disinfectant. (See Naph- 
 thaUn.) 
 
 Ascertainment of — 
 The return of United States weighers of imported merchandise as to gross weight 
 will generally be considered conclusive on the board and the courts so long as 
 the weighers act within the scope of their lawful authority and proceed on no 
 wrong principle; but the board will correct an erroneous ascertainment of 
 actual tare where it is shown that an insufficient number of cases were tested 
 by the weigher, and satisfactory evidence is furnished in proof of the correct 
 tare on the goods. Where a test is made for actual tare, such test must be made 
 of representative packages of the whole importation. Held, accordingly, that 
 tests madie of 200 cases of walnuts, out of an importation of 300 described in 
 the invoice, m\ist prevail over a test of only three cases made by the weigher, 
 the tare varying on the several packages. (T. D. 29294— G. A. 6815; Oct. 8, 
 1908.) 
 
 Cuban sugar. (See Sugar, Cuban, tare.) 
 
 Hides. (See Hides, tare.) 
 
 Impurities in raisins. (See Raisins, impurities and dutiable weight.) 
 
 Olive oil tins. (See OH, olive.) 
 
 Begulatious governing ascertainment of — 
 Under section 2898, Revised Statutes, it is provided that, in estimating allowance 
 for tare on imported merchandise, except in certain specified cases, " the real 
 tare shall be allowed, and may be ascertained under such regulations as the Sec- 
 retary of the Treasury may from time to time prescribe." Meld, that where 
 United States weighers, in ascertaining the tare of imported cheese, have fol- 
 lowed the Treasury regulations prescribed by the Secretary under the authority 
 of said section 2898, their method is reasonable and therefore lawful, whether 
 leading to mathematically accurate results or not. Wilson v. Maxwell (2 Blatch. , 
 316; 30 Fed. Cas., 147) followed. The method prescribed for obtaining the net 
 weight of imports is to ascertain and deduct the weight of boxes, casks, and other 
 coverings of the merchandise from the gross weight, and does not require the 
 article itself to be separately weighed apart from all coverings. (Arts. 1495- 
 1498, Customs Regulations of 1908.) Certain Camembert cheese was imported in 
 large wooden boxes, each box containing 60 small boxes, and each small box hold- 
 ing one cheese wrapped in paper. The importers claiined that the dutiable 
 weight should be found by weighing the cheese itself, free from the boxes and 
 paper. Held, that there is no provision of law for ascertaining the net weight in 
 such manner. (T. D. 30380— G. A. 6985; Feb. 28, 1910.) 
 
 Sugar and sugar bags. (See Sugar, tare.) 
 
 Tobacco. (See Tobacco.) 
 46633''— 17 54 
 
850 DIGEST OB CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Tare — Continued. 
 Vegetables In tins — 
 
 The merdiandise is beans, pease, and mushrooms in tins. The collector included 
 the weight of the water in the tins to determine the weight of the goods. The 
 water was designedly placed in the tins as a preservative of the contents, and is 
 common to the condition of importations of this Mnd. By paragraph 251, tariff 
 act of 1909, this method of packing was recognized, and the weight of the tins, 
 with their contents, constitutes dutiable weight, and no allowance for tare can 
 be made. ShaUus v. United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 316; T. D. 31408). 
 Austin, Nichols & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1274), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 ersl Appraisers, Abstract 33519 (T. D. 33732). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 34250; Feb. 27, 1914.) 
 Tariff act of 1897. 
 Material of chief value — 
 
 The provision in section 7, tariff act of 1897, that the chief component material 
 shall be ascertained with reference to " such material in its condition as found in 
 the article," was probably intended to apply to such compounds as leave the 
 component parts sufficiently accessible to examination for the basis of a judg- 
 ment, such as combinations of different kinds of fibers in one manufacture. It 
 seems impracticable to ascertain the value of the components after manufac- 
 ture, in such an article as miso, consisting of rice and beans subjected to fer- 
 menting and cooking processes. Fujiyama v. United States, United States 
 District Court, Territory of Hawaii, April 6, 1910. No. 46 (suit 1804). (T. D. 
 30573; Apr. 26, 1910.) 
 
 Decision of the United States District Court for the Territory of Hawaii (Fujiyama 
 V. United States; T. D. 30573), involving the classification of miso, acquiesced 
 in. (T. D. 30836; July 30, 1910.) 
 Tariff act of 1909. 
 Enforcement of — 
 
 Tariff act of August 5, 1909, to be operative August 6, 1909. (T. D. 29943; circu- 
 lar No. — ; Aug. 10, 1909.) 
 
 Effect of tariff act of August 5, 1909, upon the modifications of the customs and 
 consular regulations made under the conmiercia,l agreement with Germany. 
 (T. D. 30066; Oct. 25, 1909.) 
 
 Instructions for the guidance of officers of the customs after the tariff act becomes 
 operative. (T. D. 29903; July 10, 1909.) 
 
 Instructions for the guidance of officers of the customs, extending existing regula- 
 tions prescribed under the tariff act of July 24, 1897, and other acts, to importa- 
 tions under the tariff act of August 5, 1909, wherever applicable. (T. D. 
 29939; circular No. 35; Aug. 6, 1909.) 
 
 Construction of section 29: Merchandise in warehouse which was appraised prior 
 to August 6, 1909, not subject to reappraisement under subsection 11 of section 
 28 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 29999; Sept. 17, 1909.) 
 Paragraph 93 construed. 
 
 The omission of the word "otherwise" preceding the words "ornamented or de- 
 corated " in paragraph 93 of the tariff act of 1909 changes the rule laid down in 
 Koscherak v. United States (98 Fed. Rep., 596), and all wares enumerated in 
 this paragraph, if "painted, tinted, stained, enameled, gilded, or printed," 
 come within its provisions, whether the painting, tinting, staining, enameling, 
 gilding, or printing constitutes a decoration or ornamentation or not. The words 
 " plain white, plain brown " in paragraph 93, tariff act of 1909, held to mean that 
 the ware must be either all plain white or all plain brown. So-called carmelite 
 ware, a brown earthenware, the outside of which is covered with a transparent 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 851 
 
 TaiiS act of 1909 — Continued. 
 
 Paragraph 93 construed— Continued. 
 
 glaze or enamel and the inside of which is covered with a white glaze or enamel, 
 leaving the completed article brown on the outside and white on the inside, is 
 " enameled " within the meaning of that word as used in paragraph 93, (T. D. 
 30543— G. A. 7009; Apr. 13, 1910.) 
 
 Paragraph 198 construed — 
 The last proviso of paragraph 195 of the tariff act of 1909 should not be so construed 
 as to make any merchandise dutiable that would not be dutiable without jegard 
 to that proviso. 
 
 Negative proposition: A revenue law should not be so construed as to extend 
 its operation by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, nor a 
 negative provision be given the force and effect of positive enactment when, by 
 such construction, a duty not otherwise provided for would be the result. United 
 States V. Wigglesworth (2 Story, 369; 28 Fed. Cas., 595). 
 
 Rule in construing doubtful or ambiguous language: In construing a revenue 
 law where the language is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning, the construction 
 should be in favor of the importer, as duties are never imposed on the citizen 
 upon vague or doubtful interpretation. Powers v. Barney (5 Blatch., 202; 19 
 Fed. Cas., 1234); United SUtes v. Wigglesworth (2 Story, 369; 28 Fed. Cas., 
 595); Hartranft v. Wiegmann (121 U. S., 609). 
 
 Proviso: It is a general rule of statutory construction that a proviso in a law 
 shall be construed with reference to the subject matter of the paragraph of which 
 it forms a part. This rule is only to be departed from when it clearly appears 
 that the proviso in question is to have a broader operation and a more general 
 significance. Kessler's case, G. A. 6915 (T. D. 29875); Mihie's case, G. A. 5183 
 (T. D. 23889); United States v. Bemays (158 Fed. Rep., 792; T. D. 28861). (T. 
 D. 30571— G. A. 7015; Apr. 26, 1910.) 
 
 Paragraph 349, first proviso — 
 Following the case of Steia v. United States (T. D. 32250) any article mentioned 
 in paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, which is composed wholly or in chief value 
 of one or more of the materials or goods described in that paragraph is dutiable 
 at a rate not less than the highest rate imposed by the first section of the tariS 
 act on any of the materials or goods of which the article is composed, irrespective 
 of whether such higher rate is applicable to the component material of chief 
 value, if it is in fact applicable to one or more of the component materials or 
 goods. (T. D. 32405; Apr. 18, 1912.) 
 
 Paragraph SCO, amendment of — 
 Paragraph 500 of the tariff act of 1909, amended by act approved July 27, 1911, so 
 as to permit the free entry, under certain conditions, of animals of American 
 origin. (T. D. 31784; July 31, 1911.) 
 
 Seciprocity — Philippine Islands — 
 Section 5 of the tariff act of 1909 contemplates reciprocal relations between the 
 Philippine Islands and the Uirited States, and is to be construed as reciprocity 
 statutes have hitherto been construed by the judicial tribimals of the United 
 States. (T. D. 30643— G. A. 7026; May 28, 1910.) 
 
 Keenactment of former provision — 
 The provision in paragraph 323, tariff act of 1909, for cloth in which "other than 
 the ordinary warp and filling threads are used to form a figure," being a sub- 
 stantial reenactment of the provision in paragraph 313, tariff act of 1897, for 
 cloth in which " other than the ordinary warp and filling threads are introduced 
 in the process of weaving to form a figure, ' ' merchandise that during the entire life 
 of the latter act was uniformly held not to be within paragraph 313 will, under 
 the rule with respect to long-continued customs practice, be held to be excluded 
 
852 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Tariff act oJ 1909 — Contmued. 
 Beenactment of foimer provision — Continued. 
 
 from paragraph 323 of the subsequent act. G. A. 6947 (T. D. 30163) reaffirmed 
 on rehearing. (See also Cotton cloth, figured.) (T. D. 30467— G. A. 7000; 
 Mar. 28, 1910.) Appeal directed from this decision in T. D. 30567; April 23, 
 1910. 
 Time of taking effect — 
 The duty which the importer becomes obligated to pay is the duty provided by 
 the law in force at the time his merchandise enters the port; and if at this time 
 a new law is about to become effective, changing the rate of such duty, contain- 
 ing a provision such as is contained in section 29 of the tariff act of 1909, he must 
 discharge this obligation by entering the merchandise and paying the duty 
 promptly in order to have his merchandise assessed under the old law. (T. D. 
 80161— G. A. 6945; Nov. 30, 1909.) Appeal by United States December 20, 
 1909 (T. D. 30217). 
 The tarifi act of 1909 became efiective on August 6 of that year. Held that mer- 
 chandise which arrived within the limits of the port of New York on the night 
 of August 5, and for which entry was made on August 6, is dutiable under the 
 act of 1909, in accordance with section 29 thereof. Article 1389, Customs Regu- 
 lations of 1908, requires that customs offices shall be kept open on all business 
 days from 9 a. m. to 4.30 p. m., and provides further that "these hours are to be 
 prolonged when the necessities or interest of the public service require it." 
 Held that the matter of determining when the necessities or interests of the 
 pubUc service require such extension of hours is for the sound discretion and 
 business judgment of the Government officials, and that no such necessity 
 existed from the mere anticipation of the arrival of a vessel which had not en- 
 tered the port at the r^ular closing hour. (T. D. 30890— G. A. 7089; Aug. 22, 
 1910.) 
 Tariff act of 1913. 
 Discount on duties — 
 Collectors instructed to make no allowance of discount on duties under the pro- 
 visions of Paragraph J, subsection 7, section 4, tariff act of October 3, 1913, pend- 
 ing further instructions from the department. (T. D. 33782; Oct. 8, 1913.) 
 Distribution — 
 Copies of the tariff act of October 3, 1913, may be purchased from the Superinten- 
 dent of Docimients, Government Printing Office. All applicants for copies 
 thereof should be referred to said superintendent. (T. D. 33826; Nov. 1, 1913.) 
 "Notice to passengers." (T. D. 33995; Dec. 20, 1913.) 
 Paragraph 310 of Schedule E construed — 
 Only the articles and manufactures of wool provided for in Schedule K of para- 
 graph 310, tariff act of 1913, are dutiable under the provisions of Schedule K, 
 tariff act of 1909, until January 1, 1914. (T. D. 33821; Oct. 28, 1913.) 
 Paragraphs 376 and 662 — 
 
 Eelating to the entry of works of art, interpreted. (T. D. 33985; Dec. 16, 1913.) 
 Paragraphs 681 and 644 — 
 Potatoes, wheat, etc. : Estimated duties to be assessed upon potatoes, wheat, etc., 
 vmder paragraphs 581 and 644, tariff act of October 3, 1913, but liquidation of 
 the entries to be suspended pending further instructions. (T. D. 33779; Oct. 
 7, 1913.) 
 Scope of Paragraph L — 
 Paragraph L of section 3, tariff act of 1913, provides that " when the actual market 
 value, as defined by law, of any article of imported merchandise, wholly or 
 partly manufactured and subject to an ad valorem duty, or to a duty based in 
 whole or in part on value, can not be ascertained to the satisfaction of the ap- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 853 
 
 Tariff act of 1913— Continued. 
 Scope of Paiagiaph L — Continued. 
 
 praising oflElcer, " such officer shall appraise the merchandise on the basis of the 
 cost of production. Held, that in ascertaining the cost of production under that 
 paragraph all expenses, of whatsoever nature, incident to the production of the 
 merchandise, should be included. (T. D. 35593— G. A. 7756; July 16, 1915.) 
 Tariff Board. 
 
 Investigations by Tarifi Board. (T. D. 30675; circular No. 33; June 10, 1910.) 
 Tariff, minimum. 
 
 Proclamations by the President extending the minimum tariff to certain countries. 
 (T. D. 30331; Feb. 5, 1910. T. D. 30360; Feb. 15, 1910. T. D. 30403; Mar. 7, 
 1910. T. D. 30377; Feb. 28, 1910. T. D. 30417; Mar. 14, 1910. T. D. 30440; 
 Mar. 22, 1909. T. D. 30484; Apr. 2, 1910. T. D. 30518; Apr. 11, 1910.) 
 Tariffs. 
 Foreign countries- 
 Requests for information concerning the tariff laws of foreign countries to be re- 
 ferred to the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Com- 
 merce, for reply. (T. D. 33379; Apr. 25, 1913.) 
 Protective character of — 
 Since the tariff is enacted on protective lines, it is proper in construing a tarifi law 
 to consider the fact that certain grades of a commodity are the only ones that 
 come into competion with domestic products. Heide v. United States, United 
 States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 13, 1909. Suit 
 5248. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 6734 (T. D. 28816). Board reversed. (T. D. 30144; Nov. 
 30, 1909.) 
 Specific provisions — 
 Every commodity should be classified under that provision of a tariff law which 
 most specifically provides for it. Chew Hing Lung v. Wise (176 U. S., 156); 
 Arthur v. Lahey (96 U. S., 113). (T. D. 30290— G. A. 6968; Jan. 18, 1910.) 
 Tax. 
 Customhouse brokers — 
 Special-tax liability as customhouse broker when imposed upon a corporation 
 covers all the customhouse brokerage business done by that corporation at one 
 single place of business. (T. D. 34962; Dec. 7, 1914.) 
 Stamp — 
 
 Emergency revenue law. (See Stamp tax.) 
 Tonnage. (See Yachts, foreign-buUt.) 
 Tea. 
 
 Artificially colored or faced teas not entitled to admission. (Opinion of Solicitor, 
 of the Treasury published.) (T. D. 31868; Sept. 19, 1911.) 
 Containers. (See Coverings, tea.) 
 Examination of — 
 Tea imported after May 1, 1911, must be labeled to show the presence of artificial 
 
 coloring or facing matter. (T. D. 31224; Jan. 17, 1911.) 
 OutUne of the method to be used to ascertain artificial coloring or facing matter in 
 
 tea by chemical analysis. (T. D. 31920; Oct. 16, 1911.) 
 T. D. 31920, of October 16, 1911, prescribing method to be used to ascertain artifi- 
 cial coloring or facing matter in tea by chemical analysis, amended. (T. D. 
 31961; Oct. 28, 1911.) 
 T. D. 31920 of October 16, 1911, amended to require use of 100 grams of tea in mak- 
 ing analysis. (T. D. 32044; Dec. 5, 1911.) 
 
854 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Tea — Continued. 
 Ezamtnei — 
 
 Appointment and duties of supervising tea examiner. (T. D. 32554; May 27, 
 1912.) 
 
 Redesignation of supervising tea examiner. (T. D. 33225; Feb. 21, 1913.) 
 Inspection of— 
 
 Qualified examiner appointed and standard samples of tea established at Boston 
 under act of March 2, 1897. (T. D. 29681; Apr. 9, 1909.) 
 
 Inspection and importation of tea under act approved March 2, 1897. (T. D. 
 29538; circular No. 6; Feb. 9, 1909.) 
 
 Under act of Congress approved March 2, 1897. (T. D. 81343; circular No. 17; 
 Mar. 1, 1911.) 
 
 Excessive artificial coloring matter in teas shipped from abroad prior to May 1, 
 1911, may be removed imder customs supervision. Teas imported after May 
 1, 1911, will not be allowed entry if they contain any artificial coloring matter 
 at all. (T. D. 31367; Mar. 10, 1911.) 
 
 Importation and inspection of, under act approved March 2, 1897. (T. D. 35244; 
 Mar. 23, 1915.) 
 
 Regulations governing the importation and inspection of tea under act approved 
 March 2, 1897. (T. D. 33211; Feb. 24, 1911.) 
 
 Regulations in T. D. 33211 relative to the importation and inspection of tea 
 amended and extended, to take efiect May 1, 1914. (T. D. 34256; Mar. 10, 
 1914.) 
 Invoices covering — 
 
 Invoices to be forwarded with samples of teas sent for examination. Reports of 
 teas finally passed or rejected to be made to the department. (T. D. 32160; 
 Jan. 19, 1912.) 
 Kam Wo — 
 
 Collectors instructed that Kam Wo Cha or Kam Wo tea is classed by the Secre- 
 tary of Agriculture as a drug under the food and drugs act, and should be assessed 
 with duty and should not be examined under the tea act of March 2, 1897. (T. 
 D. 33910; Nov. 24, 1913.) 
 Fowchong — 
 
 Collectors instructed that all teas known as Fowchong (scented) Formosa oolong 
 should be examined under the act of March 2, 1897, in comparison with the 
 Formosa standard. (T. D. 34339; Apr. 1, 1914.) 
 Prohibited — 
 
 Uidess an importation of tea is found by the examiner or the Board of General 
 Appraisers to come up to the standard fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 it must be taken away. Congress has the power to exclude all teas or to admit 
 them under the most arbitrary regulations. Neither the statute nor the Con- 
 stitution gives the importer the right to be present at the examination of tea 
 samples by the Board of General Appraisers or to examine the persons whose 
 advice the board obtains. Macy v. Loeb, United States Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Second Circuit, May 12, 1913. Appeal by the importer from the United 
 States District Court, Southern District of New York. Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 33538; June 4, 1913.) 
 Bead test — 
 
 The decision of the Board of General Appraisers, designated by the Secretary of 
 the Treasury to determine the purity, quality, and fitness for consumption of 
 teas as to which the collector, importer, or consignee protests against the find- 
 ings of the tea examiner, must be based upon tests thereof made according to 
 the usages and customs of the tea trade, including the testing of an infusion of 
 the same in boiling water, and, it necessary, chemical analysis. The power 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 855 
 
 Tea — Continued. 
 Read test — Continued 
 
 given to the Secretary of the Treasury under section 10 of the act entitled " An 
 act to prevent the importation of impure and unwholesome tea" (29 Stat. L., 
 604), passed March 2, 1897, is limited to the making of such regulations as will 
 enforce the provisions of the act, and vests no authority in that officer to make 
 regulations looking to the enforcement of its provisions which are repugnant 
 thereto. Section 7 of the tea act provides that the purity, quality, and fitness 
 for consumption of all teas, or merchandise described as tea, shall be "tested 
 according to the usages and customs of the tea trade," and it being established 
 that the so-called Read test for color, provided for in regulation 22 (T. D. 32322), 
 is a test which was unknown to the tea trade until the promulgation of regula- 
 tion 22, it is therefore repugnant to the provisions of the statute vesting in the 
 Secretary of the Treasury the power to make regulations to enforce its provi- 
 sions. In making and promulgating regulation 22, supra, the Secretary of the 
 Treasury exceeded the authority vested in him by section 10 of the tea act, 
 supra, and the said regulation must be disregarded by the Board of General 
 Appraisers in proceedings under protest to determine the purity, quality, and 
 fitness for consumption of teas. (T. D. 32959— G. A. 7404; Nov. 19, 1912.) 
 
 Mechanical analysis — Chemical analysis: The so-called Kead test for color in 
 teas is a mechanical analysis and not a chemical analysis within the meaning of 
 section 10 of " An act to prevent the importation of impure and unwholesome 
 tea" (29 TJ. S. Stat. L., 604). Such test may be applied as far as it goes, as a 
 means to an end, and may be supplemented where artificial coloring matter is 
 discovered by chemical methods to fix the identity of such coloring matter. 
 Upon such identity being fixed, chemical analysis within the meaning of the 
 statute, supra, is complete and judgment admitting or excluding the teas there- 
 upon may be lawfully made by the tea board of general appraisers. G. A. 
 7404 (T. D. 32959) cited and modified accordingly. (T. D. 33087— G. A. 7416; 
 Jan. 13, 1913.) 
 
 Examination of imported tea: The "Read test," a method used in examination 
 of tea to detect coloring matter, sustained. 
 
 Jurisdiction of Secretary of the Treasury: The Secretary of the Treasury, 
 having power under the statute to enforce the provisions of the tea act by ap- 
 propriate regulations, has required examiners and the tea board to use what 
 is known as the " Read test" to examine for artificial coloring or facing matter. 
 Court of equity may compel official to act: A court of equity may lawfully be 
 asked to compel a public official to do an act plainly required of bim by law, 
 but that official can never be judicially told how to think. 
 
 Bill dismissed : The bill of complainant must be dismissed for lack of equity, 
 it not being necessary to consider the question whether the "Read test" is a 
 chemical analysis. Macy et al. v. Browne et al., United States District Court, 
 Southern District of New York, July 13, 1914. Final hearing in equity. Bill 
 dismissed. (T. D. 34653; July 21, 1914.) 
 Begulations— 
 
 Regulations adopted pursuant to an act entitled "An act to prevent the importa- 
 tion of impure and unwholesome tea," approved March 2, 1897. (T. D. 32322; 
 Mar. 25, 1912. Amended by T. D. 32502; May 13, 1912.) 
 
 Importation and inspection of tea under act approved March 2, 1897. (T. D. 
 33211; Feb. 24, 1911; extended by T. D. 34256; March 10, 1914. 
 Sweepings, denatured — • 
 
 Tea sweepings, which have been denatured by the addition of about 10 per cent of 
 lime and asafetida so as to be fit only for manufacturing purposes, are dutiable 
 under the provision in paragraph 13, tariff act of 1913, for "tea siftings or sweep- 
 ings." (T. D.' 35417— G. A. 7726; May 13, 1915.) 
 
856 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Tea — Continued. 
 Waste, etc. — • 
 
 Importation of low-grade tea, tea waste, etc., for manufacturing purposes under 
 act approved May 16, 1908. (T. D. 29311; Oct. 28, 1908.) 
 Tea board. 
 
 Board of tea experts for 1908 under the tariff act of March 2, 1897. (T. D. 28666; 
 Jan. 6, 1908.) 
 
 Appointment of member of board of tea experts for 1909 under the act of March 2, 
 1897. (T. D. 29472; Jan. 14, 1909.) 
 
 Board of tea experts for the calendar year 1911 under the provisions of the act of 
 March 2, 1897. (T. D. 31330; Jan. 24, 1911.) 
 
 A tea board composed of two members concededly designated according to law 
 and of a third member designated by the Secretary of the Treasury at another 
 time held regularly appointed. Macy v. Loeb, United States District Court, 
 Southern District of New York, June 10, 1913. On motion for an injunction. 
 Motion for injunction denied. (T. D. 33579; June 23, 1913.) 
 Behearlng by — 
 
 Opinion of the Attorney General that the Secretary of the Treasury has not the 
 authority under the tariff act of March 2, 1897, to direct a rehearing by the tea 
 appeals board after a final rejection by that board of tea entered for importation. 
 (T. D. 33299; Mar. 29, 1913.) 
 Teapots. 
 
 Teapots, pitchers, handles, spouts, etc., which have been stamped from sheets 
 of steel and then spun into shape or form or otherwise manipulated to produce 
 completed articles or parts thereof, are not dutiable as "stamped shapes" un- 
 der paragraph 135, tariff act of 1897; but", by reason of the work bestowed on 
 such articles subsequent to the stamping, they have been changed into com- 
 pleted articles and parts, dutiable properly as manufactures of metal under 
 paragraph 193. Saltonstall v. Wiebusch (156 U. S., 601); Bromley v. United 
 States (156 Fed. Eep., 958; T. D. 28520); G. A. 5541 (T. D. 24911). (T. D. 
 28760— G. A. 6719; Feb. 6, 1908.) 
 
 Teapots of antique appearance, made of cast iron, with wrought-iron handles and 
 expensive bronze covers, are dutiable under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897, as 
 "articles or wares not specially provided for * * "• composed wholly 
 * * * of * * * metal," rather than under paragraph 148 as "cast-iron 
 vessels," or paragraph 150 as "cast hollow-ware." (T. D. 28795 — G. A. 6722; 
 Feb. 18, 1908.) 
 Tea-seed oil. (See Oil.) 
 Teddy-bear mufis. 
 
 "Teddy bears," the bodies of which have an opening at each side and the interior 
 thereof lined, thus forming a muff for the use of children, are articles of utility 
 and not toys either popularly or commercially. Held, dutiable^t the rate of 44 
 cents a pound and 60 per cent ad valorem as articles of wool wearing apparel 
 under the provisions of paragraph 382, tariff act of 1909. Chamberlain, G. A., 
 dissents. (T. D. 31540— G. A. 7214; Apr. 26, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed :) The articles, " Teddy bears, ' ' have the shape of dolls with heads 
 representing bears; the testimony shows they are Sold to and handled by toy 
 dealers almost exclusively; they are not reasonably fit for any use except to 
 amuse children; they are toys and are dutiable as such under paragraph 431, 
 tariff act of 1909. lUfelder v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 109; T. D. 
 31115). Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. i;. United States (No. 684), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7214 (T. D. 31540). Decision reversed. (T. 
 D. 32112; Dec. 19, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 857 
 
 Telegrams, official. 
 
 Washington-Alaska military cable and telegraph system charges for oflScial tele- 
 grams. (T. D. 34420; circular No. 27; May 4, 1914.) 
 Officers and agents in field service directed to omit "D. C." from address on tele- 
 grams destined to Washington. (T. D. 35814; Oct. 21, 1915.) 
 Telephone poles. 
 Cedar — 
 The merchandise was cedar poles, peeled, 30 feet in length, and assessed as tele- 
 graph poles under paragraph 204, tariff act of 1909. The Board of General Ap- 
 praisers sustained the protest of the importers, and admitted the merchandise to 
 free entry as " round unmanufactured timber, " apparently upon the strength of 
 the collector's supplemental report showing the merchandise to have been 
 peeled but not notched. The decision setting aside the collector's action was 
 without evidence to support it. These poles were unnotched, but it can not be 
 considered a matter of law that such a pole is an unfinished telephone pole. It 
 is a matter of common knowledge that such poles are used in stringing telephone 
 or telegraph wires. The merchandise was not entitled to free entry under para- 
 graph 712. United States v. Myers & Co. (No. 1207), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 32584 (T. D. 33511). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 33857; Oct. 31, 1913.) 
 Tennis nets. (See Nets and nettings.) 
 Terpine hydrate and urea. 
 
 Terpine hydrate and urea dutiable as chemical salts ia the preparation of which 
 alcohol is used at 55 cents per pound under paragraph 3, tariff act of 1909. (T. 
 D. 30696; June 14, 1910.) 
 Terrazzo. (See Granite.) 
 Terry cloth and Turkish toweling. 
 
 Terry cloth and similar fabrics to be classified as pile fabrics under paragraph 257, 
 tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34287; Mar. 18, 1914.) 
 Pile fabric — 
 Bleached and colored cotton "terry clbth," which has a series of closely placed 
 loops of thread issuing from the body of the fabric at right angles thereto, and 
 which is suitable and intended for use as dress goods, is included within the 
 meaning of the term "pile fabrics" as that term is commonly and commercially 
 used, and is properly dutiable as "pile fabrics, uncut," under the provisions of 
 paragraph 325, tariff act of 1909, and not as countable cotton cloth under para^ 
 graphs 315 to 320, inclusive. (T. D. 34545— G. A. 7572; June 5, 1914.) 
 Testing machines. (See Machinery and machines.) 
 Testing of molasses. (See Molasses.) 
 Testimony. (See Evidence.) 
 Test, sugar. (See Sugar.) 
 Tetrachloride of tin. 
 Lao spirits— 
 Tetrachloride of tin, which is a stannic salt, is not free of duty under paragraph 
 593, tariff act of J897, as " lac spirits, " which is a stannous salt, but is dutiable as 
 a chemical compound under paragraph 3. (T. D. 30584 — G. A. 7016; Apr. 29, 
 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Tetrachloride of tin, while admittedly a chemical compound, 
 was not dutiable as such under tariff act of 1897, and being, as appears from a pre- 
 ponderance of the testimony in this case, lac spirits, it was, as such, free of duty 
 imder that act. Consolidated Color & Chemical Co. v. United States (No. 240), 
 
858 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Tetiachloiide of tin — Continued. 
 Lac spirits — Continued. ' 
 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7016 (T. D. 30584). Decision re» 
 versed. (T. D. 31944; Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 
 Tetrapol soap. (See Soap.) 
 
 Textbooks. (See Books.) 
 
 Theatrical effects. (See ESects, theatrical.) 
 
 Theft of imported merchandise. (See Damage allowance.) 
 
 Thermometers, clinical. 
 
 Clinical thermometers composed either in chief value of blown glass or of glass 
 that has been subjected to cutting, engraving, painting, coloring, staining, 
 silvering, gilding, etching, sandblasting, frosting, or printing in any manner, 
 dutiable under par^raph 98, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30759— G. A. 7057; July 
 7, 1910.) 
 
 Thermos bottles. (See Glass, blown — Thermos bottles.) 
 
 Thick soy. (See Soy.) 
 
 Thread. 
 Colored thread embroidery — 
 Needlework to constitute embroidery must consist of an ornamental design. A 
 single thread running the entire length of a fabric, though it may be ornamental 
 by reason of the added color, does not constitute a design which in itself would 
 be ornamental, and is not in fact embroidery nor commonly or commercially 
 known as such. (T. D. 32399; Apr. 16, 1912.) 
 Spool cotton. (See Cotton, thread.) 
 
 Thread count of cottons. (See Cottons.) 
 
 Thread-wheel lacework. 
 
 Statement showing values of Mexican drawn work and thread -wheel lacework at 
 the close of the year 1910, and comparing these values with those of 1908 and 
 1907, and with values as given in 1905 revision of drawn- work catalogue. (T. 
 D. 31613; May 23, 1911.) 
 
 Threading hooks. (See Needle threaders.) 
 
 Ticket printing and recording machines. (See Machinery and machines.) 
 
 Tick-infested cattle from Mexico. 
 
 Galveston and Port Arthur, Tex., added to the Ust of ports designated in T. D. 
 31394 for the admission of tick-infested cattle from Mexico. (T. D. 31442; 
 Mar. 31, 1911.) 
 
 TUes. 
 
 Plain unglazed tiles — Semivitrified tiles: Certain tiles are held to be dutiable as 
 "plain unglazed" under paragraph 88, tariff act of 1897, rather than as "semi- 
 vitrified" under the same paragraph. 
 
 At the time of the enactment of the tariff act of 1897 the term " semi-vitrified " 
 as applied to tiles had no definite, uniform, and general meaning in the trade 
 and commerce of the United States; and it is indefinite, meaningless, and inca- 
 pable of a uniform understanding. (T. D. 29744— G. A. 6906; May 11, 1909.) 
 Red ferrolite flooring tiles, being plain, unglazed, absorbent, and with no vitreous 
 substance used in their manufacture, are dutiable at IJ cents per square foot 
 xmder the provision in paragraph 72 for plain unglazed tUes, and not at 5 cents 
 per square foot as " semivitrified " under the same paragraph. G. A. 6906 (T. D. 
 29744) foUowed. 
 
 Commercial designation — Long-continued practice: No uniform trade mean- 
 ing having been established for the term "semi-vitrified," the long-continued 
 practice of classifying tiles like those in question as plain unglazed tiles will 
 not be disturbed. See Pierce v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 171; T. D. 
 31215). (T. D. 35895— G. A. 7813; Nov. 17, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 859 
 
 Tiles — Continued. 
 Imitation of — 
 Zinc sheets, enameled. (See Zinc enameled sheets.) 
 Timber, lound, unmanufactured. (See also Wood.) 
 
 Cedar telephone poles, peeled but not notched, not free of duty as. (See tele- 
 phone poles.) 
 Time detectors. (See Clocks.) 
 Time of filing protest. (See Protest.) 
 Time limitations on appeals. (See Appeals.) 
 Timers. (See Metal, manufactures of.) 
 Tin. 
 Cans containing vegetables. (See Coverings.) 
 Disks. 
 The provision in paragraph 134, tariff act of 1897, for "sheets * * * com- 
 mercially known as tin plates," includes rectangular sheets and does not relate 
 to tin disks. Disks varying from 1.5 to 3 inches in diameter, which arose as 
 a by-product in the manufacture of tin cans and consist simply of the round 
 pieces cut out of the tops of the cans to provide an aperture for iilluig, are not 
 covered by paragraph 140, tariff act of 1897, relating to articles "not specially 
 provided for, * * * wholly or partly manufactured from tin plate," nor 
 by paragraph 463, relating to "waste," but are dutiable under paragraph 193 
 as "articles or wares not specially provided for, * * * composed * * * 
 of * * * metal, and whether partly or wholly manufactured." An article 
 can not be said to have been "manufactured" which has been subjected to a 
 process that greatly reduces its value. "Manufacturing" implies addition to 
 and not subtraction from the value of the thing manufactured. Therefore 
 disks cut from tin plate which are worth only about one-fifth as much per jSound 
 as the plate from which they were made are not " manufactured from tin plate " 
 within the meaning of paragraph 140, tariff act of 1897. Shallus v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, May 12, 1908. 
 No. 771- (suit 1686). Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the United 
 States for the District of Marylan*(155 Fed. Rep., 213; T. D. 26324) affirming 
 Abstract 4129 (T. D. 25894). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29104; 
 June 24, 1908.) Acquiesced in (T. D. 29226; Aug. 24, 1908). 
 Tin disks stamped out of tin plate used in the manufacture of tin cans are duti- 
 able under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897, as manufactures of metal, rather 
 than as waste under paragraph 463, or as articles manufactured from tin plate 
 under paragraph 140. Shallus v. United States (162 Fed. Rep., 653; T. D. 
 29104) followed; G. A. 5632 (T. D. 25171) reversed; (T. D. 29438— G. A. 6844; 
 Dec. 28, 1908.) 
 Powdered — 
 Powdered tin properly dutiable as bronze powder at the rate of 25 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 146, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34578; June 24, 1914.) 
 Scoops. (See Toys — Tin scoops.) 
 Tetrachloride of. (See Tetrachloride of tin.) 
 Tin dross. (See Dross of tin and lead.) 
 Tins, weight of. 
 
 CHive-oil containers: Results of tests published. (T. D. 29639; Mar. 20, 1909. 
 T. D. 29773; May 21, 1909.) 
 Tinsel articles. (See Christmas-tree ornaments.) 
 Tinsel wire. 
 
 Flat wire in width 22 -Birmingham gauge and in thickness 32 Birmingham wire 
 gauge dutiable at the rate of 45 cent ad valorem under paragraph 199, tariff act 
 of 1909. (T. D. 32609; June 7, 1912.) 
 
860 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Tinsel wire — Continued. 
 
 Toys of tinsel wire, lame or lahn, and india rubber dutiable under paragraph 150, 
 tariff act of 1913; toys of tinsel wire, lame, lahn, india rubber, and another com- 
 ponent material, if combined values of tinsel wire, lame, lahn, and india rub- 
 ber exceed value of other component material, dutiable under paragraph 150. 
 (T. D. 34027; Dec. 29, 1913.) 
 Tires, automobile. 
 
 Imported with car. (See Entireties.) 
 Tissue-papei fans. (See Fans.) 
 Tobacco. 
 Baggage- 
 Three pounds of smoking tobacco brought by passengers may be passed free of duty 
 under article 618, customs regulations, in lieu of cigars or cigarettes. (T. D. 
 32406; Apr. 18, 1912.) 
 Clippings, cuttings, and scrap — 
 Produced in bonded warehouse, in the manufacture of cigars. (See Warehouse — 
 Tobacco.) 
 Examination of — 
 Where examination shows two or more bales to contain a percentage of wrapper, 
 additional bales to be ordered into appraiser's stores for examination. (T. D. 
 30028; Oct. 4, 1909.) 
 Examiners to report the actual percentage of wrapper found in bales of tobacco 
 invoiced as filler or mixed. (T. D. 35535; June 17, 1915.) 
 Forfeiture of. (See Forfeiture, false invoice.) 
 Scrap — 
 Tobacco consisting of small pieces which have fallen from leaf tobacco during the 
 process of manufacture, and known in the trade as scrap tobacco, is dutiable 
 under paragraph 215, tariff act of 1897, as tobacco unmanufactured, not specially 
 enumerated or provided for. (T. D. 29027— G. A. 6763; May 23, 1908.) 
 Tare on — 
 Official scales in determining: In determining an allowance for tare, weights 
 taken upon scales in compliance wl'th official duty must be accepted in prefer- 
 ence to those taken on scales without an official status and not shown to have 
 been tested and to be correct. United States v. Lozano, Son & Co. (No. 1535), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Government from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37194. Decision reversed. 
 (T. D. 35506; May 24, 1915.) 
 Unmanufactured — 
 Tobacco scrap, consisting of sweepings which, though of a very low grade and con- 
 taining dirt, can after cleaning be used in the manufacture of cheap stogies and 
 cigarettes, is dutiable as "tobacco * * * unmanufactured, not specially 
 provided for," under paragraph 215, tariff act of 1897, rather than as "waste, 
 not specially provided for," under paragraph 463. Latimer v. United States, 
 United States District Court, District of Porto Bico, September 7, 1909. No. 650 
 (suit 2076). Appeal by importer from decision of the Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 21409 (T. D. 29834). Board affirmed. (T. D. 
 30011; Sept. 28, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Waste is remnants and by-products of small value that have not 
 the quality or utility either of the finished product or the raw material. 
 
 Unmanufactured tobacco. — Small pieces broken from tobacco leaves in the 
 process of manufacturing and handling tobacco, which retain the name and 
 quality of tobacco and are used for making cigarettes and stogies, dutiable as 
 "tobacco * * * unmanufactured," under paragraph 215, tariff act of 1897, 
 rather than as "waste," under paragraph 463 of said act. Latimer v. United 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 861 
 
 Tobacco — Continued . 
 TTmnanufactuTed — Continued. 
 
 States, United States Supreme Court. No. 151 (suit 2076). February 19, 1912. 
 Appeal by the importer from decision of the United States District Court for the 
 District of Porto Edco (T. D. 30011) afflrming Abstract 21409 (T. D. 29834). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32299; Mar. 5, 1912.) 
 Weighing of — 
 Importations of tobacco to be weighed on scales with beams graduated with half- 
 pound notches. The nearest balance in each draft to be taken, whether it be 
 full pound or half pound. (T. D. 31195; Jan. 11, 1911.) 
 Toilet cases. 
 
 Held, as to metal-topped glass bottles in fancy leather cases, that they do not with 
 the cases constitute entireties, but that the bottles and cases are separately classi- 
 fiable for the assessment of duty. United States v. Dieckerhoft (160 Fed. Rep., 
 449; T. D. 28716), G. A. 6780 (T. D. 29097) followed; G. A. 6569 (T. D. 28046) 
 overruled. (T. D. 29481— G. A. 6852; Jan. 14, 1909.) 
 Card cases, pocketbooks, coin holders, vanity cases, and toilet accessories are arti- 
 cles of utility and therefore excluded from the provisions of paragraph 448,and 
 when composed of gun metal are dutiable as manufactures of metal (par. 199). 
 (T. D. 31089— G. A. 7129; Dec. 5, 1910.) 
 Toilet cases, consisting of an imitation leather case composed of cotton chief value, 
 containing brush, metal-top glass cream jar, glass toothbrush bottle, etc., prop- 
 erly dutiable as entireties, the rate depending upon the component materials of 
 chief value. (T. D. 32264; Feb. 15, 1912.) 
 Toilet preparations. 
 Nail powder — 
 The phrase "and other toilet preparations" in paragraph 48, tariff act of 1913, 
 must be taken to include the merchandise in this case — a preparation for polish- 
 ing finger nails. These preparations are not to be limited to such as axe for use or 
 application to the hair, mouth, teeth, or skin. Graf Bros. v. United States 
 (No. 1517), United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 18, 1915. Appeal by 
 the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37060 
 (T. D. 35000). Decision afltoned. (T. D. 35440; May 18, 1915.) 
 Tomato paste. (See V^etables, prepared.) 
 Tonnage, gross, deduction from. 
 
 Amendment to article 86, Customs Regulations of 1908. (T. D. 30158; Dec. 4, 
 1909.) 
 Tonnage tax on foreign-built yachts. (See Yachts, foreign-built.) 
 Tools, automobile. 
 
 In leather cases, constituting an emergency outfit. (See Metal — i^mergency 
 outfit.) 
 Tools, machine. (See Machine tools.) 
 Toothpicks. 
 Quill- 
 Quills fashioned into toothpicks by deliberate processes, and thus made into com- 
 pleted articles, are dutiable under paragraph 463, tariff act of 1909, as " manu- 
 factures of quills." (T. D. 30685— G. A. 7033; June 8, 1910.) 
 The provision for manufactures of quills in paragraph 463 of said act was not in- 
 tended by Congress to cover manufactures of feathers, but was intended to cover 
 articles made from the quill of the feather, such as toothpicks and quill bristles. 
 (T. D. 31027— G. A. 7120; Nov. 4, 1910.) 
 (See also Feathers and feather articles.) 
 Tops for hatpins. (See Hatpin tops.) 
 Toquilla straw. (See Straw.) 
 
862 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Tourist cases. (See Leather — ^Traveling sets — Tourist or writiiig cases.) 
 Tow of flax. (See Flax.) 
 
 Towel rods composed of glass. (See Glass and glasses, towel rods.) 
 Toweling. 
 Crash. (See Fabrics, plain woven.) 
 Turkish- 
 Terry cloth and similar fabrics to be classified as pile fabrics under paragraph 257, 
 tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34287; Mar. 18, 1914.) 
 Towels. 
 
 Prohibition of use of towels by more than one person. (T. D. 33791; circular No. 
 20; Oct. 11, 1913.) 
 Cotton, woven on Jacquard looms- 
 Specific provision: Towels made of cotton and woven on Jacquard looms, being 
 more specifically provided for as "towels * * * made of cotton * * * 
 and not otherwise provided for" than as "all other Jacquard figured manufac- 
 tures of cotton," are dutiable under paragraph 264, tarifi act of 1913, and not 
 imder paragraph 258. 
 
 Statutory construction — General terms: All laws should be interpreted so as 
 to give a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their 
 application as not to lead to an absurd or ridiculous result. (T. D. 34819 — G. 
 A. 7609; Oct. 7, 1914.) 
 Jacquard figured — 
 Towels, bath mats, and quilts: Towels, bath mats, and quilta made of cotton cloth 
 woven on looms using the Jacquard attachment are dutiable under the eo 
 nomine provisions therefor in paragraph 264, tariff act of 1913, and not under 
 the provision for "all other Jacquard figured manufactures of cotton" under 
 paragraph 258. 
 
 Interpretation of statutes: While it is within the power of the courts, and 
 sometimes becomes their duty, to ascertain the policy of the Government in 
 order to correctly interpret ambiguous statutes, such a course is of doubtful 
 wisdom and a dangerous expedient, and such a line of research should be last 
 resorted to, and courts will not consider the opinions of Congressmen expressed 
 in debate in Congress in order to ascertain the meaning of the law or the inten- 
 tion of the lawmakers. (T. D. 35577— G. A. 7748; July 2, 1915.) 
 Macram€ — 
 Towels with fringes formed by the omission or withdrawal of the weft threads, and 
 the warp threads of the fringe then tied in various elaborate designs with sepa- 
 rate threads introduced, dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35166; Feb. 27, 1915.) 
 Personal effects in passengers' baggage. (See Effects, personal.) 
 Turkish — 
 Turkish towels, being more specifically provided for as " towels * • * made 
 of cotton" than as "manufactures or articles * » * made or cut from 
 * * * pile fabrics, " are dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 264, tariff act of 1913, and not at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 257. 
 (T. D. 35019—6. A. 7656; Dec. 26, 1914.) 
 Turkish towels in the piece woven in patterns in such a manner that each towel 
 is distinctly set forth and a few plain threads are inserted at regular intervals 
 showing where the articles are to be cut apart, are dutiable as " towels » * * 
 made of cotton " under paragraph 264 of the tariff act of 1913 and not under the 
 provisions for cotton cloth in paragraphs 252 and 253. (T. D. 35101 — G. A. 
 7673; Jan. 27, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 863 
 
 Toys. 
 
 Accoidlons. (See Musical instrumenta.) 
 
 Agate balls — Maibles — 
 Agate balls of the color, appearance, and size of marbles, from 13 to 33 millimeters 
 in diameter, highly polished and colored, and perfectly round, held to be duti- 
 able under paragraph 431, tariff act of 1909, as toy marbles of whatever mate- 
 rials composed, at 35 per cent ad valorem, and not as semiprecious stones under 
 paragraph 449. (T. D. 33776— G. A. 7498; Oct. 2, 1913.) 
 
 Artificial shamrocks not. (See Shamrocks.) 
 
 Beaded fan chains not. (See Beaded articles, fan chains.) 
 
 BoutonnlSres of artificial flowers not. (See Boutonniferes.) 
 
 CrSpe paper hats not. (See Paper, hats.) 
 
 Easter baskets — 
 Small bamboo or chip baskets, colored, and ornamented with artificial rabbits, 
 chicks, or ducklings of cotton or other material, known as Easter baskets, Easter 
 novelties, trimmed baskets, and fancy baskets, used for holding candy or vari- 
 ous utilitarian purposes, and not designed for the amusement of children only, 
 are not dutiable as toys under paragraph 342, tariff act of 1913, but as baskets 
 under paragraph 175 of the same act. (T. D. 35796— G. A. 7790; Oct. 13, 1915.) 
 
 Fans, cigar and firecracker — 
 Although the provision for "fans of all kinds" in paragraph 427, tariff act of 1897, 
 is very broad. Congress did not mean to include everything which might be 
 called a fan and to an exceedingly limited extent used as a fan; and so-called 
 cigar fans and firecracker fans, consisting of small folding fans closing into cases 
 representing cigars, etc., are not subject to that provision, but are dutiable as 
 "toys" under paragraph 418. Morimura Bros. v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 15, 1909. Suit 5509. 
 Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States General Apprais- 
 ers, Abstract 21233 (T. D. 29763). Board reversed. (T. D. 30129; Nov. 23, 1909.) 
 Acquiesced in December 14, 1909 (T. D. 30195). 
 
 Imitation flowers of celluloid — 
 Attached to metal pins not toys. (See Flowers, artificial, celluloid.) 
 
 Jewelry— 
 The following articles are dutiable as "toys" under paragraph 418, tariff act of 
 1897, rather than as "jewelry" under paragraph 434: (1) Bead necklaces and 
 chains, fastened with a cheap brass clasp and valued tit nor more than 11 marks 
 per gross, (2) bead bracelets valued at not more than 7 marks per gross, and (3) 
 brooches of base metal and paste, valued at not more than 7 marks per gross. 
 G. A. 6658 (T. D. 28391) modified. (T. D. 29558— G. A. 6868; Feb. 15, 1909.) 
 
 Kindergarten embroidery sets — 
 The embroidery sets of the importations, which are used in kindergarten work, 
 are essentially toys, useful only for the amusement of children, whether with 
 or without accompanying instruction. United States v. Meier & Frank Co. 
 (No. 1338), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34400 
 (T. D. 34038). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34330; Mar. 25, 1914.) 
 
 Knives with odd-shaped handles not. (See Knives.) (T. D. 29567; Feb.24, 1909.) 
 
 Magic lantern, glass slides — ^Parts of toys — 
 Glass slides designed for use in toy magic lanterns are, although imported sepa- 
 rately, dutiable as parts of toys under paragraph 431, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 30613— G. A. 7020; May 13, 1910.) Appeal directed June 3*0, 1910 (T. D. 30740). 
 Glass slides for use with toy magic lanterns are not dutiable under paragraph 107, 
 tariff act of 1909, as glass slides for magic lanterns, but are dutiable under para- 
 graph 431 of that act as parts of toys. A specific designation in one paragraph 
 
864 DIGEST or CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Toys — Continued. 
 
 Magic lanterns, glass slides — Parts of toys — Continued. 
 
 ordinarily controls as against a general description in another paragraph; but 
 where such a phrase as "parts of toys" appears for the first time in a paragraph 
 of a tarifi act, efiect will be given to what seems to have been a plain intention of 
 the Congress to embody in the new paragraph, for dutiable purposes, all toys 
 and parts of toys, except certain described kinds there enumerated. United 
 States V. Borgfeldt & Co. (No. 265), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from decision of the Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 7020 (T. D. 30613). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31455; 
 Mar. 27, 1911.) 
 Glass slides for use with toy magic lanterns are not dutiable at 45 per cent ad va- 
 lorem as " glass sUdes for magic lanterns " under paragraph 107, tariff act of 1909, 
 but are dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem as "parts of toys" imder paragraph 
 431 of said act. United States v. Borgfeldt (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 370; T. D. 31455) 
 foUowed. (T. D. 31897— G. A. 7279; Sept. 28, 1911.) 
 
 Match boxes, etc. (See Trick match boxes.) 
 
 Miniature paper toys — 
 Cheap, nonendurable paper articles, made for the amusement of children, to re- 
 semble other and really useful articles, are toys, though they might nominally fall 
 within the provisions of some paragraph other than the toy par^raph of the 
 statute. United States v. Boigfeldt (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 370; T. D. 31455). 
 Davies, Turner & Co. v. United States (No. 768), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 26465 (T. D. 31845). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32363; 
 Mar. 26, 1912.) 
 
 Mirror puzzles — 
 Water colors in lacquered tin boxes: No controversy being made, the board's 
 decision that there was no proof to controvert the collector's classification of 
 these articles affirmed. 
 
 Insufficient evidence: The importation, invoiced as mirror puzzles, was 
 classified by the collector as toys under paragraph 342, tariff act of 1913. A 
 sample of the goods was the only evidence introduced by protestants before the 
 board. fleW, insufficient to warrant reversal of the collector's decision. United 
 States V. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (No. 1559), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the Government from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 37311. Decision affirmed in part and reversed in part. (T. 
 D. 35919; Nov. 19, 1915.) 
 
 Mirrors — 
 Small triplicate mirrorB not more than 3 by 4 inches in dimensions, having card- 
 board backs upon which pictures are printed, and which are so flimsily con- 
 structed as to be unfit for use as articles of utility, but are designed for the enter- 
 tainment and amusement of children, and are known to trade and commerce 
 as " toy mirrors " or " toy triplicates, ' ' dutiable as toys under paragraph 418, tariff 
 act of 1897, rather than as " mirrors " under paragraph 112 of said act. (T. D. 
 32312— G. A. 7334; Mar. 12, 1912.) 
 
 Necklaces, bracelets, and brooches — 
 Necklaces and chains fitted with cheap brass snaps or clasps valued at not more 
 than 11 marks per gross, and bracelets and armlets valued at not more than 7 
 marks per gross, sill the foregoing composed in chief value of beads, and brooches 
 or pins composed of base metal and paste, valued at not more than 7 marks per 
 gross; cheap and flimsy in construction and character, designed and intended for 
 the use and amusement of children in play, not suitable for wear by others than 
 children, and commercially known and dealt in as toys, are dutiable at the rate 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 865 
 
 Toys — Continued . 
 
 Necklaces, bracelets, and brooches — Continued. 
 
 of 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 431 of the tariff act of 1909 as toys, and 
 not at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 421 as beaded articles or at 45 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 199 or 109 as manufactures in chief value of 
 metal or glass. G. A. 6868 (T. D. 29558) and G. A. 6658 (T. D. 28391) and suit 
 3106 (T. D. 26903) cited. (T. D. 31786— G. A. 7251; July 28, 1911.) 
 
 Paper crackers or bonbons — 
 So-called paper crackers or bonbons, used chiefly as favors at parties for small 
 children, dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem as toys under paragraph 
 342. tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35684; Aug. 25, 1915.) 
 
 Parasols. (See also Parasols — ^Toys.) 
 It can not be accepted that an article confessedly a toy within the ordinary or com- 
 mercial meaning of that term, must always be assessed under a paragraph other 
 than the toy paragraph, because that paragraph describes the merchandise by 
 a name that for some purposes might be applicable. Downing v. United States 
 (141 Fed. Rep., 490); Borgfeldt v. United States (124 Fed. Rep., 473); United 
 States V. Borgfeldt (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 370; T. D. 31455). (T. D. 32361; Mar. 
 26, 1912.) 
 
 Pinafores — ■ 
 The merchandise consists of cotton cloths in patterns ready to be cut and sewed 
 to make single garments, these to be worn by young children. The decision is 
 limited to the articles, samples of which were produced. These cotton goods can 
 hardly have any utility beyond that of a mere plaything, and they are sufficiently . 
 advanced in manufacture to be treated as parts of toys. United States v. 
 Wyman & Co. (No. 1426), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 35927 (T. D. 34571). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35146; Jan. 15, 1915.) 
 
 Printed paper puzzles not. (See Paper, puzzles.) 
 
 Sparklets. (See Fireworks.) 
 
 Teddy-bear mufis for children not. (See Teddy-bear muffs.) 
 
 Tin scoops — 
 An inspection of the sample disclosing that certain diminutive tin scoops are toys, 
 they are so held, the collector's classification thereof as manufactures of metal 
 being reversed. (T. D. 34200— G. A. 7533; Feb. 16, 1914.) 
 
 Tinsel wire forms for Christmas tree decorations not. (See Christmas tree orna- 
 ments.) 
 
 Trick tobacco bags not. (See Paper, manufactures of.) 
 
 Uninflated rubber balloons — 
 Uninflated rubber balloons dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem as parts 
 of toys under j)aragraph 342, tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 35813; Oct. 
 22, 1915.) 
 
 Watches^ 
 Toy watches made of various cheap metals properly dutiable as toys under para- 
 graph 431, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30264; Jan. 17, 1910.) 
 Dummy watches — Articles of personal adornment: The provision in paragraph 448, 
 tariff act of 1909, for " all other articles of every description * » * composed 
 wholly or in chief value of silver, German silver, white metal, brass, or gun 
 metal, * * » designed to be worn on apparel or carried on or about or 
 attached to the person," is to be limited to such "other" articles as are of the 
 same kind as those specified in the paragraph — ^i. e., such as are in a way orna- 
 mental or serviceable as articles of adornment. Dummy watches only useful 
 as playthings to amuse children are not of that character and are dutiable under 
 paragraph 431 as toys. (T. D. 30545— G. A. 7011; Apr. 14, 1910.) 
 45633°— 17 55 
 
866 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Toys — Continued. 
 Water-color paints — 
 Boxes of paint which are clearly intended for the amusement of children are dutisi- 
 ble at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem as toys, regardless of the fact that they 
 are valued in excess of 25 marks per gross. (T. D. 34180; Feb. 11, 1914.) 
 Tracing paper. (See Paper.) 
 Trade conventions. 
 
 Application of favored-nation clause to. (See Reciprocity agreements.) 
 Trade-marks. 
 
 Regulations under section 27, tariff act of February 20, 1905. (T. D. 29975; 
 Sept. 7, 1909.) 
 Tragasol. (See Gum tragasol.) 
 Transfer paper. (See Paper, transfer.) 
 Transit merchandise. 
 
 Instructions relative to shipment of merchandise in transit to British Yukon Terri- 
 
 .tory. (T. D. 29435; Dec. 24, 1908.) 
 Export papers covering merchandise shipped in bond to British Yukon Terri- 
 tory via Portal, N. Dak., should be sent to deputy collector at that port and 
 not to Skagway, Alaska. (T. D. 29864; June 22, 1909.) 
 Shipments to Mexico — 
 The provisions of articles 445 to 447 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 extended 
 to shipments en route from point to point in Mexico through the United States. 
 The provisions of articles 433 to 444, inclusive, as amended by T. D. 32402 of 
 April 16, 1912, extended to shipments en route from point to point in the United 
 States through the RepubUc of Mexico. (T. D. 33461; May 24, 1913.) 
 United States and Canada — 
 In this case there was no compliance with customs regulations governing goods in 
 transit; and, moreover, the goods here were taken out of the customs custody 
 by the importer or his agent and into his own possession while in the United 
 States. The law is mandatory that no refund of duties may be had in such a 
 case as that. United States v. Cornett (No. 1347), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 34568 (T. D. 34090). Decision reversed. (T D. 
 34531; May 28, 1914.) 
 Transmission or driving rope of cotton. (See Belting, machinery.) 
 Transportation In bond — Baggage. 
 
 Baggage may be forwarded from Quebec, Canada, to its destination in this country 
 under regulations contained in article 624, Customs Regulations of 1908. (T. 
 D. 30557; Apr. 20, 1910.) 
 Transportation and exportation entries. (See Entry.) 
 Transportation of Government property for the Treasury Department. 
 
 (T. D. 28969; circular No. 31; Apr. 29, 1908. T. D. 32255; circular No. 10; Jan. 
 29, 1912.) 
 Transportation of Government employees and property. 
 
 (T. D. 32637; circular No. 27; June 15, 1912. T. D. 35693; circular No. 49; 
 June 19, 1915.) 
 Transshipment of merchandise for exportation. (See Exportation.) 
 Transshipment of merchandise under the Cuban reciprocity treaty. (See Reci- 
 procity, Cuban reciprocity treaty.) 
 Travel. 
 
 Trips to the department on official business by customs officers. Specific author- 
 ity to be obtained before coming to Washington. (T. D. 33755; Sept. 26, 1913.) 
 Regulations:, T. D. 34585; circular No. 31; June 25, 1914. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 867 
 
 Travelers' checks. 
 
 Collectors of customs advised to accept travelers' checks in payment of duties on 
 imports. (T. D. 31668; June 7, 1911.) 
 Traveling expenses. 
 
 Charges for Pullman accommodations. (T. D. 31310; circular No. 12; Feb. 15, 
 
 1911.) 
 Orders for travel, allowances for traveling expenses, etc. (T. D. 32880; circular 
 No. 50; Oct. 21, 1912. 
 Traveling sets. 
 
 Emergency outfit of tools in leather case not dutiable as "traveling set." (See 
 Metal.) (See also Leather.) 
 Treasury Decisions and Beappraisement Circulars. 
 
 The free issuance of Treasury Decisions and Reappraisement Circulars to persons 
 other than Government oflScials, being of doubtful legality, will be discontinued 
 on April 1, 1911. (T. D. 31368; Mar. 10, 1911.) 
 Treasury Department. 
 
 Improvement of business methods in the Treasury Department. (T. D. 35694; 
 circular No. 51; Sept. 3, 1915.) 
 Treasury Begulations. (See Regulations.) 
 Treaties (See also Reciprocity.) 
 Abrogation of — 
 The Congress may abrogate a treaty made by the United States, and this may be 
 accomplished either by legislation to that end or by legislation that by necessary 
 implication results in abrogation; but here—. (T. D. 35508; May 26, 1915.) 
 Commercial — 
 The provisions of commercial treaties existing between the United States and 
 foreign nations, by which each of the contracting parties agrees not to levy 
 higher duties upon importations in vessels of the other country than if the same 
 or like merchandise had been imported in vessels of its own country, are not self- 
 executing, and are therefore not within the jurisdiction of the courts, but ad- 
 dress themselves to the political department of the Government. (T. D. 
 34246— G. A. 7540; Mar. 6, 1914.) 
 Constitutional prerogatives — 
 Treaties which modify rates of duty to be collected on imports are in contravention 
 of the constitutional prerogative of Congress to lay and collect duties and of the 
 House of Representatives to originate bills for raising revenue; and such treaties 
 are not enforceable by the courts without the sanction of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives and Congress. (T. D. 34246— G. A. 7540;. Mar. 6, 1914.) 
 Construction of — • 
 Treaties are contracts between independent nations, and in their construction 
 words are to be taken in their ordinary meaning as understood in the public law 
 of nations. A treaty is regarded as equivalent to an act of Congress whenever it 
 is self-executing; that is, when it operates of itself without the aid of legislative 
 action. Treaties and statutes are construed so that both may be given effect 
 when this is possible. (T. D. 32423— G. A. 7354; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 Spain — 
 The provision in the treaty of peace with Spain (30 Stat., 1754) that Spanish mer- 
 chandise would be admitted " to the ports of the Philippine Islands upon the 
 same terms as * * * merchandise of the United States, "did not give to goods 
 from Spain a different status from those imported from the United States. 
 Struckmann v. United States, United States Court of Claims, February 1, 1909. 
 No. 27806. On demurrer to claimants' petition. Decision in fevor of the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 29574; Feb. 24, 1909.) 
 
868 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Treaties — Continued. 
 Subsequent inconsistent statutes — 
 When a treaty is inconsistent with a subsequent act of Congress the latter will pre- 
 vail. The Constitution does not declare that the law established by a treaty 
 shall never be altered or repealed by Congress; and while good faith may cause 
 Congress to refrain from making any change in such law, if it does so its enact- 
 ment becomes the law. Although the other contracting power to a treaty may 
 have ground for complaint if Congress passes a law changing the law established 
 by the treaty, every person is stUl bound to obey the latest law passed. No 
 person acqxiires any vested right to the continued operation of a treaty. (T. D. 
 34436; May 2, 1914.) 
 
 Trick ink botUes. (See Bottles.) 
 
 Trick match boxes, etc. 
 
 Trick match boxes, wooden cigars, cigarettes, and cigar cutters not dutiable as toys 
 under paragraph 431, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32318; Mar. 18, 1912.) 
 
 Trick tobacco bags. (See Paper, manufactures of.) 
 
 Trimmed hats. (See Hats, trimmed.) 
 
 Trimmed mica. (See Mica.) 
 
 Trimming. 
 Beaded fringes. (See also Beaded fringes.) 
 Bead fringes, consisting of beads strung on a coid or webbing, and used to decorate 
 lamps as trimmings and shades, are dutiable imder the provision in paragraph 
 408, tariS act of 1897, for " ornaments, trimmings, and other articles, * * * 
 in part of beads," not being excluded under the doctrine of ejiisdem generis. 
 Holcomb V. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 New York, June 28, 1910. Suits 5046-52. Appeal by the importer from deci- 
 sions of United States General Appraisers, Abstracts 16568 and 16592 (T. D. 
 28392). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30802; July 19, 1910.) 
 Beads chief value — 
 Dress trimmings composed of glass beads, artificial silk and cotton, glass beads 
 being the component material of chief value, are dutiable at the rate of 60 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 421, tarifi act of 1909, as trimmings in chief value 
 of beads, when it appears that the duty on the merchandise under that para- 
 graph is greater than the duty would be on the merchandise if imported without 
 the beads. Paragraph 421 contains a proviso " that no article composed wholly 
 or in chief value of beads or spangles made of glass, paste, gelatin, metal, or other 
 material shall pay duty at a less rate than is imposed in any paragraph of this 
 section upon such articles without such beads or spangles." Held, that that 
 proviso becomes operative only when it appears that the duty on the merchan- 
 dise with the beads removed would be greater than the duty provided in the 
 paragraph for the articles when imported with the beads attached. United 
 States V. Vietor & Achelis (T. D. 31355). 
 
 Insufficiency of protest: A "blanket" protest containing multifarious claims, 
 many of which are not pertinent to the goods covered by the importation in 
 question, held not to comply with the requirements of subsection 14 of section 
 28, tariff act of 1909, which requires that the importer shall set forth in Ms protest 
 "distinctly and specifically, and in respect to each entry or payment, the rear 
 sons for his objections " to the collector's decision. Lichtenstein & Co. v. United 
 States (T. D. 31105). (T. D. 31648— G. A. 7226; May 29, 1911.) 
 Galloons and. 
 Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of October 30, 1911, 
 G. A. 7293 (T. D. 31970), involving the classification of silk ribbons known as 
 St. Etienne ribbons, to be limited to ribbons of the character the subject of the 
 said decision and not to apply to certain narrow fabrics known as galloons and 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 869 
 
 Trimming ^Continued. 
 Galloons and — Continued. 
 
 trimmings, notwithstanding they may be invoiced as "St. Etienne ribbons.'' 
 (T. D. 32131; Jan. 8, 1912.) • 
 Ornamental silk strips — 
 Narrow strips of silk, having interwoven thereon ornamental designs and used 
 chiefly to decorate and embellish women's apparel, are "trimmings" within the 
 meaning of paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897. Loewenthal v. United States; 
 Sundheimer v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District 
 of New York, August 4, 1910. Suits 5502-3. Appeal by the importers from the 
 decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6909 (T. D 
 29761). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30935; Sept. 20, 1910.) 
 (Appealed:) Narrow silk fabrics showing original designs. — Trimmings were 
 provided for eo nomine, in paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897. The testimony 
 shows that silk fabrics such as those imported, J to li inches in width, with orig- 
 inal designs thereon, are known commercially as trimmings; and they fell within 
 the eo nomine description, although the term is a comprehensive one and may 
 include articles that are sometimes designated by a name more restricted in 
 meaning. The importation was dutiable under paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897. 
 Sidenberg v. Robertson (41 Fed. Rep., 763); Naday t). United States, (164 Fed. 
 Rep., 44). Loewenthal v. United States (No. 499); Sundheimer v. United 
 States (No. 500), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 importers from the United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New 
 York, G. A. 6909 (T. D. 29761). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31592; May 8, 1911.) 
 
 SlUs. 
 
 In paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897, relating to " galloons * * » trimmings," 
 and many other articles " of silk, or of which silk is the component material of 
 chief value," the term "trimmings" is used in its commercial rather than in a 
 descriptive sense. Naday v. United States; Brown v. United States; Loewen- 
 thal V. United States; Estate of Rouss v. United States; Steinhardt v. United 
 States; Sundheimer v. United States; Hilbert v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, September 1, 1908. Suits 3916-21 
 and 4039. Appeals from Circuit Court of United States for Southern District 
 of New York (155 Fed. Rep., 303; T. D. 28329 and T. D. 28330). Decision in 
 favor of the Government. (T. D. 29252; Sept. 9, 1908.) 
 Narrow woven fabrics made wholly or in chief value of silk, with characteristic 
 designs worked thereon in the form of superimposed ornamentation, are not 
 ribbons and are properly dutiable under paragraph 390 as "trimmings" or 
 ••galloons." Naday v. United States (164 Fed. Rep., 44; T. D. 29252; affirm- 
 ing 155 Fed. Rep., 303; T. D. 28329) followed. (T. D. 29761— G. A. 6909; 
 May 17, 1909.) 
 St. Etienne ribbons not. (See Ribbons.) 
 Woven silk fabrics — 
 Woven fabrics in the piece, of light texture, composed of silk, measuring 60 centi- 
 meters in width, known as "crape mousseline," which, after being cut into 
 various forms and shapes, are used as trimmings, are dutiable as woven silk 
 fabrics at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 318 of said act, 
 and not as silk trimmings under paragraph 358. (T. D. 35563 — G. A. 7746; 
 June 30, 1915.) 
 
 Trinitrotoluol. (See Coal-tar prepwations.) 
 
 Triple and quadruple harmonicas. (See Harmonicas.) 
 
 Tiipods. 
 
 Tripods for cameras not dutiable as parts of cameras. (See Metal, manufactures 
 of.) 
 
870 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Trophies oi piizes. 
 Medals and other metallic articles — 
 The provision ia paragraph. 624, tariff act of 1909, for free entry of " other metallic 
 articles usually bestowed as trophies or prizes" is not limited to such as are 
 ejtisdem generis with medals, and a shotgun won in a prize shooting tournament 
 is a trophy or prize within the meaning of the law. 
 
 Delivery of the trophy or prize: Actual manual delivery abroad of an article 
 awarded as an honorary distinction is not a condition precedent to the free 
 admission of that article. American Express Co. v. United States (No. 1014), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29494 (T. D. 32760). Decision 
 reversed. (T. D. 33125; Jan. 20, 1913.) 
 
 Tropical and semitropical fruit plants. 
 
 The term "tropical and semitropical fruit plants'' is limited to such species as 
 are indigenous to tropical and semitropical climates. Cold-enduring species 
 like the apple, pear, cherry, and the hardy species of the genus prunus are not 
 commercially or scientifically semitropical plants even when grown in a semi- 
 tropical region. (T. D. 32441; Apr. 26, 1911.) 
 
 Truffles. (See Vegetables.) 
 
 Tubes. 
 Furnace. (See Steel, tubes.) 
 Iron or steel. (See Steel, tubes.) 
 
 Tubing, flexible, copper. (See Copper tubing.) 
 
 Tunny fish — ^Mackerel. (See Fish.) 
 
 Turkeys. (See Poultry.) 
 
 Turkish towels. (See Towels.) 
 
 Tutuila and Guam. 
 
 Tutuila and Guam not foreign countries within the meaning of the tariff laws. 
 Articles shipped to Tutuila and Guam not entitled to drawback. Imported 
 merchandise can not be withdrawn from bond in the United States without 
 payment of duites for shipment to Tutuila and Guam. Opinion of the Attorney 
 General, dated November 6, 1913. (T. D. 33898; Nov. 19, 1913.) 
 
 Tweezers. 
 
 So-called dental tweezers, riveted together at one end, and not having two lever 
 handles working on a pivot, dutiable at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem imder 
 paragraph 167, tariff act of 1913, as manufactures of metal not specially pro- 
 vided for, rather than at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem under the provision 
 of paragraph 166 of the said act for nippers and pliers. (T. D. 36012; Dec. 23, 
 1915.) 
 
 Type metal. 
 
 Where imported lead bullion is smelted in a bonded smelting warehouse and a 
 portion of the product is withdrawn for domestic consumption in the form of 
 antimonial lead (or type metal), duty must be paid upon the whole weight of 
 the metal withdrawn at the rate provided in paragraph 182, tariff act of 1909; 
 for "lead bullion," or "lead," rather than at the rate provided in paragraph 
 191 for "type metal." Upon the importation of the "lead bullion" the right 
 of the Government to duties imder paragraph 182 accrued, and can not be im- 
 paired unless there is some saving clause elsewhere in the act. The provision 
 of section 24, that on the withdrawal for domestic consumption, from a bonded 
 smelting warehouse, of the lead produced from the smelting of the crude metal, 
 there shaU be paid "the duties chargeable against it in that condition," is ap- 
 plicable only to a withdrawal of lead — ^that is, commercial lead. It does not 
 permit the product to bear a less rate of duty when withdrawn than when im- 
 ported. The grant of a privilege, or exemption, such as is contained in section 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 871 
 
 Type metal — Continued. 
 
 24, 13 to be construed most favorably to the Government. (T. D. 31201 — G. 
 A. 7148; Jan. 11, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) By-product of lead bullion refined in bonded warehouse. — Cer- 
 tain lead bullion was imported and deposited in the bonded smelting ware- 
 house of the importer; later refined, precious metals and a percentage of refined 
 lead being extracted and leaving a by-product of lead, antimony, and other 
 substances; this by-product is not to be deemed bullion, but type metal, and 
 when this is withdrawn from the bonded warehouse for domestic consumption 
 it is dutiable under paragraph 191, tariff act of 1909. American Smelting & 
 Refining Co. v. United States (No. 590), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. 
 A. 7148 (T. D. 31201). Decision reversed. (T. D. 31955; Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 Old electrotypes and stereotypes — 
 Commercial designation: The determination of the common or ordinary meaning 
 is a matter of law for the court or board. The trade or commercial meaning is a 
 fact to be proved by competent evidence. Proof as to whether a given article 
 is or is not included by trade meaning within a certain term or phrase used in 
 the tariff is material only after proof has been adduced showing that such term 
 or phrase is used in the trade and that its trade meaning differs from its common 
 or ordinary meaning. Congress did not use the term "junk" in the free list in 
 its broad, generic sense, and sorted articles of metal which are to be used tor the 
 purposes of the tj^pe metal of commerce, though in the nature of old material, 
 are provided for under the metal schedule rather than under the general classi- 
 fication of jimk. Held as to shipments of old electrotypes and stereotype plates 
 that such merchandise is subject to classification as "type metal," paragraph 
 191, tariff act of 1909, or as metal articles, paragraph 199, rather than as "junk, 
 old," paragraph 600, as "waste, not specially provided for," paragraph 479, as 
 "types, old," paragraph 702, or as "stereotype plates," or "electrotype plates," 
 paragraph 166. (T. D. 32395— G. A. 7347; Apr. 12, 1912.) 
 
 Typewriter. 
 
 Use of, authorized to fill up checks. (T. D. 29686; Apr. 12, 1909.) 
 
 Typewriter ribbons. 
 
 Plain narrow woven fabrics of cotton, to be used in the manufacture of finished 
 typewriter ribbons, resembling plain ribbons or tapes, are dutiable as cotton rib- 
 bons or tapes under the provisions of paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909. A 
 plain ribbon is not excluded from paragraph 349 on the theory that it is not 
 ejusdem generis with the other goods (laces, wearing apparel, ornaments, etc.) 
 included in the context of that paragraph. Burlington Venetian Blind Co. v. 
 United States (T. D. 31456) and G. A. 7021 (T. D. 30614) followed. (T. D. 
 31495— G. A. 7206; Apr. 17, 1911.) 
 
 tritramarine blue. 
 Questions of fact on review- 
 Where there were two importations of material resembling ultramarine blue, and 
 assessed as ultramarine blue by the collector of customs, under paragraph 52, 
 tariff act of 1897, the Board of General' Appraisers, after testimony taken, find- 
 ing one item properly assessed and the other improperly assessed, because this 
 rightfully fell under paragraph 58 of said act, it being of a pale-blue tint and not 
 possessing the strength of ordinary commercial ultramarine blue, the facts being 
 reviewed, the board is affirmed. The Court of Customs Appeah has power to 
 review questions of fact. United States v. Reibe (No. 35), United States Court 
 
872 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 TJltiamaiine blue — Continued. 
 
 Questions of fact on review — Continued. 
 
 of Ciistoms Appeals. Appeal by the United States from a decision of the Board 
 of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 29834). Decision adverse to the 
 Government. (T. D. 30776; June 22, 1910.) 
 Umbrella and cane handles set with precious stones. (See also Wood, unmanufac- 
 tured.) 
 Umbrella and cane handles composed of precious metal set with genuine dia- 
 monds, pearls, etc., are not "commonly known as jewelry" within the meaning 
 of paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, but are dutiable as manufactures in part of 
 metal under paragraph 193. G. A. 6427 (T. D. 27577), affirmed in United States 
 V. Knoedler (154 Fed. Rep., 928; T. D. 28282), followed. (T. D. 29304— G. A. 
 6819; Oct. 16, 1908.) 
 TJmezuke or umeboshi. (See Fruit, Japanese.) 
 Tlnbaked cones or pyramids. 
 
 So-called " Thon Kegel " or " Seger Kegel, " which are composed of clay and chem- 
 icals, have not been baked or fired, are in the shape of cones or pyramids, and 
 are used in ascertaining temperatures of -furnaces or kilns, are dutiable under 
 section 6, tariff act of 1897, as unenumerated manufactured articles. Articles 
 of clay and chemicals which have not been baked or fired are not " earthenware " 
 within the meaning of paragraph 94, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29228— G. A. 
 6795; Aug. 20, 1908.) 
 Unbleached cottons. (See Cotton.) 
 Unclaimed merchandise. 
 
 Fruit not entered within 48 hours after entry of the vessel to .be treated as un- 
 claimed. (T. D. 30082; Nov. 2, 1909.) 
 Underwear. (See Wearing apparel.) 
 Unfinished violin necks. (See Wood, "manufactures of.) 
 
 United States, Immunity of, from suit. (See Immunity of the United States from suit.) 
 Universal mill plates. (See Mill plates.) 
 Unlading and relading of merchandise. 
 
 Expense. (See Lading and unlading of vessels.) 
 Unmanufactured wood. 
 
 Boxwood sticks. (See Wood, unmanufactured.) 
 Unusual coverings. (See Coverings.) 
 Unwoven felts. (See Felt, unwoven.) 
 Unwrought metals. 
 
 Ferroalloys not. (See Metal, unwrought.) 
 Upholstery goods. 
 Madras muslin — Jacquard figured. (See also Tapestries and Table covers.) 
 Upholstery goods: The term "upholstery goods" is used in paragraph 258, tariff 
 act of 1913, to cover fabrics in the nature of tapestries suitable for use as draper- 
 ies, hangings, and upholstering furniture. 
 
 Madras muslin: Madras muslin is not " upholstery goods " within the tariff 
 sense, and is dutiable at the appropriate rate according to the average yam 
 number under paragraph 252, tariff act of 1913. 
 
 Madras muslin curtains : MadraffmusUn curtains are not upholstery goods, and, 
 as they are manufactured from Jacquard figured cotton fabrics, they are dutiable 
 at 30 per cent ad valorem as "Jacquard figured manufactures of cotton" under 
 paragraph 258. (T. D. 35320— G. A. 7711; Apr. 13, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 873 
 
 V. 
 
 Vacancies in the customs seirice. 
 
 Prompt notice to be submitted to the department of all vacancies occurring in dis- 
 tricts, ports, or offices. (T. D. 32550; May 23, 1912.) 
 Report to be made to department stowing all vacancies in the customs service as 
 they occur. (T. D. 34147; Feb. 4, 1914.) 
 Vaccine virus. (See also Viruses, serums, etc.) 
 
 The provision in paragraph 692, tariff act of 1897, for "vaccine virus" is not lim- 
 ited to substances used in the vaccination of human beings for the prevention of 
 smallpox, and includes a vaccine used for the prevention of cholera in hogs. 
 Pasteur Vaccine Co. v. United States (123 Fed. Rep., 846) followed. (T. D. 
 29407— G. A. 6836; Dec. 14, 1908.) 
 Held that Congress in the provision of the free list in the tariff act of 1909 (par. 704), 
 reading "vaccine virus, " intended to exempt from duty all serums and vaccines 
 which are used for the purpose of creating an immunity against disease. (T. D. 
 34244— G. A. 7538; Mar. 4, 1914.) 
 Validity of reappraisement. (See Reappraisement.) 
 Validity of Treasury Begulations. (See. Regulations.) 
 Value. 
 Advance, notice to importers of. (See Notice of appraisement.) 
 Entered. (See Dutiable value.) 
 Market. (See Market value.) 
 Vanity cases. (See Toilet cases.) 
 Vases. 
 Marble, carved. Copy of an artistic original. (See Sculptures.) 
 Metal and china — 
 Articles consisting of decorated china vases attached to so-called rose trees of 
 bronze, the latter being not only the component of chief value but the more 
 significant feature, are not "decorated or ornamented" china vases within the 
 meaning of paragraph 95, tariff act of 1897, but are dutiable as manufactures of 
 metal, not specially provided for, under paragraph 193. (T. D. 29183 — G. A. 
 6793; July 21, 1908.) 
 Vegetable fiber. 
 
 Grasses cut to lengths: The report of the appraiser that the grasses of the impor- 
 tation were cut to lengths to be used in the manufacture of brushes ready for 
 use is supported by the record. 
 
 Grasses, dressed: The material is prepared for a definite use and is ready at 
 hand for its ultimate use in the manufacture of specified articles and according 
 to the lexicons these facta make the material "dressed." It is held this con- 
 forms to the statute and that the merchandise was properly assessed under para- 
 graph 480, tariff act of 1909. United States V, Continental Color & Chemical Co. 
 (2 Cust. Appls., 165; T. D. 31679); United States v. Danker & Marston (2 Ct. Gust. 
 Appls., 522; T. D. 32251); Schoenemann v. United States (119 Fed., 584) dis- 
 tinguished. Cone et al. v. United States (No. 1457), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 36238 (T. D. 34677). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 85149; Jan. 15, 1915.) 
 Vegetable ivory — 
 
 Tagua-nut slabs not. (See Tagua-nut slabs.) 
 Vegetable ivory nuts. 
 
 Vegetable ivory nuts sawed into slabs free of duty under paragraph 596, tariff act 
 of 1909, as vegetable ivory in its natural state; ivory-nut blanks dutiable under 
 paragraph 427 of the said act. (T. D. 32088; Dec. 16, 1911.) 
 
874 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Vegetable paichment. (See Paper, parchment.) 
 Vegetable tallow. 
 
 Conceding for the purposes of this case only that the merchandise consisting of a 
 mixture chiefly composed of saponified fat, unsaponifled fat, and alkaline sili- 
 cate is a vegetable tallow or that it is commercially known as such, it is not the 
 vegetable tallow described in paragraph 580, tariff act of 1909, not being such 
 as is commonly used in soap making or in wire drawing and commercially unfit 
 for any other purpose, and it can not, therefore, be admitted free of duty. 
 United States v. Davies, Turner & Co. (No. 1041), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 29841 (T. D. 32830). Decision reversed. (T. 
 D. 33364; Apr. 18, 1913.) 
 Vegetable tins. (See Coverings.) 
 Vegetables. 
 Beans. 
 Dry, in tins— 
 
 Not hermetically sealed: Ordinary dry, white beans put up in cylindrical tin 
 cans, not hermetically sealed, of a capacity of 4 to 6 gallons, and containing 
 from 20 to 30 pounds of beans, are not dutiable under paragraph 199, tariff act 
 of 1913, as "beans * * * prepared or preserved, or contained in tins, jars, 
 bottles, or similar packages," but under paragraph 197 as "beans, * * * 
 not specially provided for, 25 cents per bushel of 60 pounds." 
 
 Large tins — Ejusdem generis: Tins of a capacity of 4 to 6 gallons are not 
 ejiisdem generis with "tins, jars, bottles, or similar packages" mentioned in 
 paragraph 199, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 36084— G. A. 7836; Dec. 30, 1915.) 
 Green pod — 
 
 Green pod beans, cut or sliced, packed in salt or brine, in casks or kegs, dutiable 
 at the rate of 2i cents per pound under paragraph 251, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 33210; Feb. 15, 1913.) 
 Beets In tins. (See Vegetables, prepared.) 
 Cabbage. (See Vegetables, prepared.) 
 Cauliflower in brine — 
 Cauliflower trimmed, washed, and packed in a weak brine, the use of the brine 
 being a mere temporary expedient to arrest decay and retain the form which 
 nature gives to the article, is dutiable under paragraph 257, tariff act of 1897, 
 as ''vegetables in their natural state," rather than under paragraph 241 as 
 "vegetables prepared or preserved." United States v. Strohmeyer & Arpe 
 Co., United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 23, 1908. 
 Suit 4957. Application for review of decision of Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, G. A. 6593 (T. D. 28174). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29076; 
 June 17, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Vegetables "in natural state" — "Prepared" — "Preserved." — The 
 provision in paragraph 257, tariff act of 1897, for "vegetables in their nat- 
 ural state," should not be construed with literal strictness; and cauliflower 
 trimmed, washed, and packed in brine for preservation during transportation, 
 with a view to keeping it in its natural state as closely as possible, is dutiable 
 under said provision, rather than under paragraph 241, as "vegetables prepared 
 or preserved." The higher duty imposed by the latter paragraph indicates 
 that it was intended for vegetables that have been advanced in value by being 
 prepared or preserved. United States v. Strohmeyer & Arpe Co., United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 16, 1909. No. 136 
 (suit 4957). Appeal by United States from the Circuit Court of the United 
 States for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29076) affirming decision 
 of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6593 (T. D. 28174). 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 875 
 
 Vegetables — Continued. 
 Cauliflower in brine — Continued. 
 
 Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 29573; Feb. 24, 1909.) Acquiesced 
 in April 19, 1909. (T. D. 29695.) 
 
 Cauliflower which has been immersed in brine and packed in casks is dutiable 
 under the provision in paragraph 252, tariff act of 1909, for "vegetables, * » * 
 if pickled, or packed in salt, brine, oil, or prepared in any way,'' rather than 
 under paragraph 269 as "vegetables in their natural state." (T. D. 31141 — 
 G. A. 7137; Dec. 19, 1910.) 
 Corn on cob- 
 Green com on the cob dutiable at the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 215, tariff act of 1913, as vegetables in their natvu:al state not specially 
 provided for. (T. D. 85806; Oct. 20, 1915.) 
 Corn In the ear — 
 
 Com husked but not shelled dutiable at the rate of 15 cents per bushel under para- 
 graph 235, tariff act of 1909, on the basis of 70 pounds to the bushel. (T. D. 
 32403; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 Desi gram — • 
 
 Native Indian chick-pea: The scientific or botanical name does not control as 
 against an applicable common nomenclature. The "desi gram'' of the impor- 
 tation is interchangeable in ordinary use with " chick-pea, " and the term " pea " 
 as used in paragraph 209, tariff act of 1913, includes every known kind of edible 
 pea. United States v. Jones (No. 1487), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 36851 (T. D. 34908). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35391; 
 May 3, 1915.) 
 Edible fungus — Similitude to vegetables — 
 
 An edible fungus which grows on the bark of trees and which has been merely 
 dried and packed loose bears a greater similitude to vegetables in their natural 
 state, enumerated in paragraph 257, tariff act of 1897, than to mushrooms pre- 
 pared, etc., in tins, enumerated in paragraph 241, and is therefore dutiable 
 under the former paragraph. Sun Kwong On v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court, Southem District of New York, November 13, 1909. Suit 5574. 
 Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 21736 (T. D. 29974). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30127; Nov. 23, 
 1909.) 
 In tins — 
 
 Tare, what not — ^Water in tins: The merchandise is beans, pease, and mushrooms 
 in tins. The collector included the weight of the water in the tins to determine 
 the weight of the goods. The water was designedly placed in the tins as a pre- 
 servative of the contents, and is common to the condition of importations of this 
 kind. By paragraph 251, tariff act of 1909, this method of packing was recog- 
 nized, and the weight of the tins, with their contents, constitutes dutiable 
 weight, and no allowance for tare can be made. Shallus v. United States (1 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 316; T. D. 31408). Austin, Nichols & Co. et al. v. United States 
 (No. 1274), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 33519 (T. D. 33732). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34250; Feb. 27, 1914.) 
 Lotus nuts not classifiable as. (See Lotus nuts.) 
 Prepared — 
 
 Vegetables that have been packed in tin cans and subjected to heat to expel the 
 air, then hermetically sealed and again heated for the purpose of sterilization, 
 are not vegetables in the natural state, but are prepared vegetables, and were 
 dutiable under paragraph 241, tariff act of 1897. United States v. Strohmeyer 
 
876 DIGEST or CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Vegetables — Continued. 
 Prepared — Continued. 
 
 (167 Fed. Rep., 533) distinguished. Vitelli v. United States (No. 145); Roseano 
 V. United States (No. 146); Afeltia v. United States (No. 147), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeals from decision of tlie Board of United States 
 General Appraisers (T. D. 29906). Transferred from United States Circuit 
 Court for Southern District of New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31274; 
 Feb. 1, 1911.) 
 
 Beets in tins: Beets, whole or sliced, in hermetically sealed tins, dutiable as vege- 
 tables, cut, sliced, or prepared at 25 per cent ad valorem, tariff act of October 3, 
 1913. (T. D. 35259; Mar. 25, 1915.) 
 
 Cabbage: Dried and salted cabbage in the form of hanks and balls, in which the 
 salting was done not only for preservation but as a seasoning and to fit the cab- 
 bage for cooking, is dutiable as a " prepared or preserved " vegetable under para- 
 graph 241, tariff act of 1897, and not as a vegetable in its "natural state" under 
 paragraph 257. Sun Kwong On v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, November 13, 1909. Suit 5575. Appeal by 
 importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 21724 (T. D. 29965). Board afiBrmed. (T. D. 30128; Nov. 23, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed :) Cabbages pTepared or preserved. — Cabbages cut, partially dried, 
 salted, and rolled into balls or put up in hanks or bundles are dutiable as pre- 
 pared or preserved vegetables under paragraph 241 of the tariff act of 1897. 
 United States v. Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. (167 Fed. Rep., 533) distinguished. 
 Sun Kwong On v. United States (No. 17), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the importers from the decision of the decision of the United 
 States Circuit Court (T. D. 30128) for the Southern District of New York affirm- 
 ing Abstract 21724 (T. D. 29965). Transferred from the United States Circuit 
 Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (T. D. 30128). Decision in favor of the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 30775; June 22, 1910.) 
 
 Maggi's soup tablets. (See Soup tablets.) 
 
 Red peppers, canned — Evidence improperly excluded: The merchandise was 
 caimed red peppers. It is competent to prove what are vegetables by trade 
 testimony, and in the absence of such to prove the common iinderstanding of 
 that term; and it was error to exclude testimony offered for that purpose. 
 Robertson v. Salomon (130 U. S., 412). It was error, too, to exclude as to this 
 point evidence contained in wholesale trade catalogues. 
 
 Statement of what it is expected to prove: In this case the witnesses were 
 upon the stand and the offer to state what they would testify to followed ques- 
 tions addressed to the witnesses seeking to elicit this information. It was 
 error to sustain an objection. Scotland County v. Hill (112 U. S., 183). Aus- 
 tin Nichols & Co. V. United States (No. 1095), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 30800 (T. D. 33031). Decision reversed and new trial 
 ordered. (T. D. 33519; May 29, 1913.) 
 
 Red peppers or pimentos — Commercial designation: Spanish red peppers or pi- 
 mentos, consisting of the pulp or meat of the pepper, with the skin and seeds re- 
 moved, put up in gmaU hermetically sealed tins, are dutiable as prepared vege- 
 tables under paragraph 252, tariff act of 1909, the evidence not showing that 
 they are excluded by commercial designation from classification as vegetables. 
 The term "vegetables" as used in paragraph 252, tariff act of 1909, is not shown 
 by the evidence to have any different meaning by virtue of commercial designa- 
 tion than is given to it in ordinary usage. (T. D. 34667— G. A. 7590; July 22, 
 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. ^ 877 
 
 Vegetables— Continued. 
 
 Prepaied — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed :) Spanish red peppers — ^Trade catalogues as evidence. — So-called 
 catalogues are designed solely to give infonnation to the trade concerning the 
 supplies carried and the prices at which these may be purcha,sed; they furnish 
 no evidence whatever of any intention to classify vegetable products according 
 to table use and are valueless in fixing commercial designation. 
 
 Pimientos morrones. — It is not true that pleasantness in taste is essential to a 
 vegetable. These peppers, as appears from the evidence, are used both as a 
 garnish and as food. They are vegetables as that term is commonly, ordinarily, 
 and popularly understood, and were dutiable under paragraph 252, tariff act of 
 1909. Austin, Nichols & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1456), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 StatesGeneralAppraisers,G. A. 7590 (T.D. 34667). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 35249; Mar. 18, 1915.) 
 String beans in brine: The word "beans" appearing in the tariff act of 1897 was 
 continued in the tariff act of 1909, and this continuance carries the presumption 
 that the term was there employed in the sense affixed by judicial interpreta- 
 tion. 
 
 Beans prepared: These young, green beans, after being cut and shredded, are 
 placed in barrels, and salt is put over them. The juices of the vegetable mixing 
 with the salt form a brine, and this brine, by the record, acted as a preservative. 
 The importation was of prepared vegetables, and they were dutiable as such. 
 Sun Kwong On v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 17; T. D. 30775). United 
 States 1). De Boer & Dik (No. 1448), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the Government from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 36166 (T. D. 34668). Decision reversed. (T. D. 35273; Mar. 25, 1915.) 
 Tomato paste: The form of the tomato has been destroyed by the processes to 
 which it has been subjected, it is true, but the elements that make the vegetable 
 valuable as a food, namely, a part of the juice and most of the pulp, remain, and 
 the paste resulting is a prepared vegetable, dutiable under paragraph 252, tariff 
 act of 1909. VitelU & Son v. United States (No. 1034), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 30084 (T. D. 32858). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 33313; Mar. 25, 1913.) 
 
 Bed peppers. (See Vegetables, prepared.) 
 
 Soya beans. 
 The provision in paragraph 606, tariff act of 1913, for "soya beans'' covers soya 
 beans when in their natural state; but soya beans prepared and put up in jars 
 are dutiable under the provision in paragraph 199 for " beans, * * * pre- 
 pared or preserved, or contained in tins, jars, bottles, or similar packages." 
 (T. D. 35143— G. A. 7689; Feb. 17, 1915.) ■ 
 
 (Appealed:) Cooked and salted. — Soya beans, cooked and salted, but not 
 enough to so change them as to prevent their identification as soya beans, and 
 packed in tins, jars, bottles, or similar packages, do not thereby lose their status 
 as soya beans, and are more specifically classified on the free list, paragraph 
 606, tariff act of 1913, as "soya beans" than under paragraph 199 as "beans, 
 * * * prepared or preserved, or contained in tins, jars, bottles, or similar 
 packages." Wm. A. Brown & Co. v. United States (No. 1553), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7689 (T. D. 35143). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 35977; Dec. 6, 1915.) 
 
 String beans. (See Vegetables, prepared.) 
 
878 , DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Vegetables Continued . 
 
 Tomato paste. (See Vegetables, prepared.) 
 Truffles. 
 Truffles are vegetables within the meaning of paragraph 241, tariff act of 1897, 
 and are assessable as such, rather than as mushrooms by similitude, under the 
 same paragraph. Von Bremen v. United States; Mouquin Bestaurant Wine 
 Co. V. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, May 7, 1908. Suits 4763-4. Applications for review of decision of 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 13776 (T. D. 27785). 
 Board aflSrmed. (T. D. 29002; May 20, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Truffles in tins are dutiable as mushrooms in tins, by similitude, 
 imder paragraph 241, tariff act of 1897. The term "vegetables" in paragraph 
 241, tarifi act of 1897, is xised in its ordinary meaning of vegetables usually 
 served at dinner. Truffles, which are used solely as a condiment in cooking 
 and never served separately, are not, in trade or ordinary usage, classed among 
 the vegetables and are therefore not within said provision. The Supreme 
 Court had given the term "vegetables" a meaning that excluded truffles, and 
 a circuit court had afterwards held that truffles were "vegetables." Held that 
 Congress in reenacting the provision for "vegetables" in paragraph 241, tariff 
 act of 1897, must be presumed to have used it in accordance with its definition 
 by the Supreme Court. Von Bremen v. United States; Mouquin Restaurant 
 & Wine Co. v. United States, United States Circmt Court of Appeals, Second 
 Circuit, January 12, 1909. Nos. 124-125 (suits 4763^764). Appeals from the 
 Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 
 29002) affirming Abstract 13776 (T. D. 27785). Decision adverse to Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 29501; Jan. 27, 1909.) Acquiesced in February 6, 1909 (T. D. 
 29534). 
 Wai san — 
 An edible root known by the Chinese as "wai ean'' and used by them as a vege- ■ 
 table is, because edible, removed from the provision for "drugs" in paragraph 
 20, tariff act of 1897, and is dutiable as "vegetables" under paragraph 257. 
 Wing On W. v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 New York, November 13, 1909. Suit 5504. Appeal by importer from decision 
 of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 21139 (T. D. 29715). 
 Board affirmed. (T. D. 30150; Nov. 30, 1909,) 
 
 VeUings. 
 Silk. (See also Etamines.) 
 Woven articles of light texture, of different colors, composed wholly of silk, rang- 
 ing from 82 to 90 centimeters in width, having closely woven borders of the 
 same material as the body of the fabric, and which are known commercially as 
 "veilings," are dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under the eo 
 nomine provision for "veilings" in paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913. G. A. 
 6677 (T. D. 28508) and G. A. 7734 (T. D. 35198) cited. (T. D. 35563— G. A. 
 7746; June 30, 1915.) 
 
 Veils, silk. (See Silk veils.) 
 
 Velvet-covered furniture. (See Furniture, covered with cotton velvet.) 
 
 Velvets or velours. 
 
 Woven fabrics commonly known as figured "velvets" or "velours," composed 
 wholly or in chief value of silk, the face of the fabric having substantially a 
 pile surface, are properly dutiable under the provision in paragraph 399, tariff 
 act of 1909, for "velvets » * * and other pile fabrics," according to their 
 weight per square yard, rather than as woven silk fabrics under the same para- 
 graph. (T. D. 31756— G. A. 7248; July 17, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 8*79 
 
 Velvets or velouis — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) A commercial designation was clearly shown to exist in the 
 case of the importation at bar. Woven fabrics commonly known aa figured 
 "velvets," or "velours," composed wholly or in chief value of silk, the face of 
 the fabric having substantially a pile surface, are dutiable under paragraph 
 399, tariff act of 1909, according to their weight per square yard, as "velvets 
 * * * and other pile fabrics." McGibbon case, G. A. 3686 (T. D. 17638; 
 lUd., 107 Fed. Rep., 265), distinguished. United States v. Schumacher & 
 Co. (No. 741), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7248 (T. D. 
 31756). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32586; May 27, 1912.) 
 Classification of velvets, chenilles, etc., under paragraph 399, tariff act of 
 .August 5, 1909. (T. D. 30003; Sept. 20, 1909.) 
 Panne. 
 Panne velvet is duriable as "plush " under paragraph 386, tariff act of 1897, rather 
 than as "velvets," under the same paragraph. United States v. Passavant, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 12, 1908. 
 Suit 4089. Appeal from decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 6136 (T. D. 26668). Decision adverse to Government. (T. D. 29009; 
 May 20, 1908.) Acquiesced in June 23, 1908 (T. D. 29090). 
 "Panne velvet " is properly dutiable as "plushes " at the rate of $1 per pound and 
 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 386, tariff act of 1897. United States v. 
 Silberstein (153 Fed. Rep., 965; T. D. 27979) and United States v. Passavant 
 (T. D. 29009) followed. (T. D. 29158— G. A. 6790; July 9, 1908.) 
 Veluvine white. (See Paint.) 
 Venezuela. 
 Countervailing duty on products from — : 
 Additional duty under section 6, tariff act of 1909, equivalent to the export 
 bounty paid, to be collected on certain products of Venezuela. (T. D. 30555; 
 Apr. 19, 1910.) 
 Abrogation of the decree of March 9, 1910, granting export bounties on various 
 products of Venezuela. T. D. 30555 of April 19, 1910, authorizing counter- 
 vailing duties on importations from Venezuela, under section 6 of the tariff 
 »ct of August 5, 1909, revoked. (T. D. 30883; Aug. 18, 1910.) 
 Vermuth. 
 Gauge of. (See Liquors, gauge of.) 
 Leakage of — 
 The provision in paragraph 296, tariff act of 1897, prohibiting allowance for leak- 
 age, etc., on "wines, liquors, cordials, or distilled spirits" does not include 
 vermuth, and allowance should be made for shortage in importations of that 
 article. Wile v. United States (2 cases); Hartman v. United States (2 cases); 
 Weideman v. United States; Batjer v. United States (2 cases), United States 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 19, 1909. Suits 3950, 4275, 
 4296, 4301, 4303, 4635, 4638. Appeals by importers from decisions of Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 5939 (T. D. 26086), Abstracts 11646, 
 11671, and 11726 (T. D. 27409), Abstract 12039 (T. D. 27458), and Abstract 
 13198 (T. D. 27674). Board reversed. (T. D. 29778; May 25, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Vermuth is not a wine, cordial, or liquor, within the meaning of 
 paragraph 296, tariff act of 1897, prohibiting allowance for leakage of "wines, 
 Uquors, cordials," etc. United States v. Wile, United States Circuit Coiirt of 
 Appeals, Second Circuit, March 7, 1910. No. 153 (suit 3950). Appeal by the 
 United States from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York (172 Fed. Rep., 164; T. D. 29778) reversing G. A. 5939 (T. D. 
 
880 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Vermuth — Continued. 
 Leakage of — Continued. 
 
 26086). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30449; Mar. 22, 1910.) 
 Acquiesced in April 7, 1910, (T. D. 30509). 
 
 Allowance to be made for leakage of vermuth from casks and for shortage due to 
 breakage of bottles found at time of importation. (T. D. 33133; Jan. 31, 1913.) 
 Stamping packages — 
 
 Packages of imported vermuth should be stamped under the provisions of section 
 11 of the tarifi act of March 1, 1879. (T. D. 31621; May 23, 1911.) 
 Vessels. 
 Boarding incoming — 
 
 Only the Secretary or an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, or collector of cus- 
 toms-, authorized to issue passes to board incoming vessels. Article 615, Cus- 
 toms R^ulations of 1908, amended accordingly. (T. D. 29752; May 13, 1909.) 
 Clearance — Manifests — Fines — 
 
 Vessels can not be seized or clearance refused for the purpose of collecting a fine 
 imposed upon the master for violation of the revenue laws. The Government's 
 remedy is limited to an action s^ainst the master. (Opinion of the Attorney 
 General, Mar. 12, 1912.) (T. D. 32433; Apr. 23, 1912.) 
 
 Neutrality: Instructions to collectors of customs relative to the clearance of mer- 
 chant vessels. All such vessels subject to inspection and examination of papers. 
 Instructions relative to vessels of war. (T. D. 34693; Aug. 10, 1914.) 
 Condenser tubes- 
 Condenser tubes, which are of standard gauge and size, merely cut to length on 
 special orders, entitled to free entry under section 5 of the Panama Canal act 
 and the regulations thereunder in T. D. 32956 of November 25, 1912. (T. D. 
 33281; Mar. 17, 1913.) 
 Enrollment of, article 40 — 
 
 Customs Regulations of 1908 amended. (T. D. 29895; July 6, 1909.) 
 Foreign — 
 
 Where a tonnage duty is assessed by the collector on a vessel imder said section 37, 
 tariff act of 1909, the board has no jurisdiction of a protest claiming error in such 
 assessment, a vessel not being imported merchandise within the meaning of sec- 
 tion 1 of said tariff act, or of section 14 of the customs administrative act as 
 amended by said act of 1909. But where a duty prescribed by said section at 
 35 per cent ad valorem is assessed, the board is invested with jurisdiction to pass 
 on the question of its correctness, such assessment being an exaction other than 
 a duty on imported merchandise, and not a tonnage duty. (T. D. 30354 — G. A. 
 6981; Feb. 9, 1910.) 
 Free entry of materials for construction, repair, etc., of vessels — 
 
 Instructions in the case of entries under section 5, tariff act of August 24, 1912, 
 pending the promulgation of regulations. (T. D. 32825; Sept. 16, 1912.) 
 
 Regulations governing the free entry of materials for construction and repair and of 
 articles for outfit and equipment. (T. D. 32956; Nov. 25, 1912.) 
 
 Abstracts of published and unpublished decisions of the department made under 
 section 5 of the Panama Canal act since the promulgation of the regulations in 
 T. D. 32956. (T. D. 33386; May 6, 1913.) 
 
 Free entry of materials for construction and repair and of articles for outfit and 
 equipment: — Investigations required under T. D. 32956 of November 25, 1912, 
 to be made by the special agents. (T. D. 33383; May 2, 1913.) 
 
 Free entry of materials for construction of vessels and their machinery and free 
 entry of articles fortheir outfit and equipment and for repairs of certain vessels. 
 (T. D. 34150; Feb. 5, 1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. . 881 
 
 Vessels — Continued. 
 Fiee entiy of mateiials for constiuction, repaii, etc., of vessels — Continued. 
 Paragraph 22 of the regulations in T. D. 34150 amended eo as to require the importers 
 to notify the collector of the intended departure of the vessel. (T. D. 35700; 
 Sept. 9, 1915.) 
 Panama Canal act — Free entry: Merchandise which may be necessary for the con- 
 struction or repair of vessels built in the United States or for the building or 
 repair of their machinery, or articles necessary for their outfit and equipment may 
 be imported into the United States free of duty under such regulations as the 
 Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe. Section 4132, Revised Statutes, 
 amended by section 5, tariff act of August 24, 1912. (T. D. 35086— G. A. 7668; 
 Jan. 20, 1915.) 
 Appeal directed from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of 
 January 20, 1915, G. A. 7668 (T. D. 35086), declaring unreasonable and inopera- 
 tive certain requirements of the regulations in T. D. 32956 under section 5 of the 
 Panama Canal act relative to the free entry of materials for the construction and 
 repair of vessels. (T. D. 35224; Mar. 16, 1915.) 
 "Importation" — 
 The steamship Altenburg arriving in the port of Philadelphia "in the ordinary 
 course of navigation," is not imported merchandise within the meaning of the 
 tariff act of 1909; and the Board of United States General Appraisera has no 
 jurisdiction over a case involving an exaction of duties on such vessel, paid under 
 protest. A subsequent conversion of the vessel into " scrap " held not to alter 
 ^ this rule. (T. D. 31898— G. A. 7280; Sept. 30, 1911.) 
 Inspection of — 
 Customs inspection of United States naval vessels arriving from foreign ports; 
 Procedure to be adopted. (T. D. 31514; Apr. 18, 1911.) 
 Lading and unlading of, on Sundays and holidays — ^Extra compensation. (Seo 
 
 Lading and unlading of vessels.) 
 Manifests. (See Manifests.) 
 Measurement of foreign vessels — • 
 Customs officers informed of the regulations of the Secretary of Commerce coi^cern- 
 ing the measurement of foreign vessels. (T. D. 34741; Sept 1, 1914.) 
 Motor engines for the propulsion of — 
 Motor engines for the propulsion of vessels are not entitled to free entry under sub- 
 section 5, Paragraph J, section 4, tariff act of 1913, when intended for vessels 
 under construction, but may be withdrawn free of duty under subsection 6, 
 ibid., when for the repair of vessels already built. (T. D. 35740; Oct. 4, 1915.) 
 Ship's equipment — 
 Every conunodity having a value brought within the limits of the United States is 
 imported merchandise within the meaning of the customs law. Machinery 
 brought to the United States from a foreign country to repair a vessel lying dis- 
 abled in one of our ports held to be imported merchandise. Machinery ttens- 
 ferred without the supervision of customs officers from a foreign vessel of one line 
 to a vessel of a different line is not entitled to exemption from duty under sec- 
 tion 17, act of March 3, .1897. United States v. Boyd (24 Fed. Rep., 692); 
 James's case, G. A. 4869 (T. D. 22828); Swift Beef Co.'s case, G. A. 4754 (T. D, 
 22450); 20 Opinions of Attorney General, 194. (T. D. 29260— G. A. 6805; 
 Sept. 15, 1908.) 
 Vest buttons. (See Buttons.) 
 Views, American. (See also Post cards.) 
 
 Sheets of paper thinner than eight one-thousandths of an inch, with 12 views of 
 American scenes printed thereon, are properly dutiable at the rate of $2 per 
 45633°— 17 56 
 
882 _ DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Views, American — Continued. 
 
 thousand views under the last provision in paragraph 329 of the tariff act of 1913, 
 the computation being based upon the number of individual views printed on 
 a sheet rather than upon the number of sheets containing such views. (T. D. 
 35542— G. A. 7742; June 17, 1915.) 
 Bound views of American scenes, printed on paper thinner than eight one-thou- 
 sandths of an inch, are properly classifiable for duty at the rate of $2 per thou- 
 sand views under the last provision of paragraph 329 of the tariff act of 1913, the 
 individual view, and not the book, constituting the dutiable entity. (T. D. 
 35543— G. A. 7743; June 17, 1915.) 
 
 Violin necks, unfinished. (See Wood, manufactures of.) 
 
 Viruses, serums, etc. 
 
 Importation of viruses, serums, etc., under tariff act of July 1, 1902. Regulations 
 
 governing. (T. D. 29828; June 10, 1909.) 
 List of manufacturing establishments. (T. D. 29897; July 9, 1909. T. D. 30265; 
 Jan. 17, 1910. T. D. 30896; Aug. 29, 1910. T. D. 31290; Feb. 11, 1911. T. D. 
 33079; Jan. 9, 1913. T. D. 33646; July 22, 1913. T. D. 34060; Jan. 14, 1914. 
 T. D. 34642; July 15, 1914.) 
 Eegulations imder the provisions in the agricultural appropriation act of March 4, 
 1913, relative to the importation of viruses, serums, etc., for the treatment of 
 domestic animals. (T. D. 33575; June 23, 1913.) 
 
 Viscelline. (See Horsehair, artificial.) 
 
 Viscose caps. (See Bottle caps.) 
 
 Voiles. (See Etamines.) 
 
 W. 
 
 Wafers, so-called, of paper, lithographically printed. (See Paper, wafers.) 
 
 Wafers. 
 Unleavened — 
 Small envelopes, used to contain nauseous medicines which are to be adminis- 
 tered, made of wheat flour and unmedicated, identical in component materials 
 with the wafers held to be free of duty in previous decisions of the board, and 
 used precisely for the same purpose, differing only in form, are free of duty under 
 paragraph 708, tariff act of 1909, and not dutiable as nonenumerated manufac- 
 tured articles under paragraph 480 of said act. (T. D. 30904— G. A. 7093; 
 Aug. 31, 1910.) 
 
 Wai san. 
 
 An edible root known by the Chinese as "wai ean" and used by them as a vege- 
 table, is, because edible, removed from the provision for "drugs" in paragraph 
 20, tariff act of 1897, and is dutiable as " vegetables '' under paragraph 257. Wing 
 On W. V. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New 
 York, November 13, 1909. Suit 5504. Appeal by importer from decision of 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 21139 (T. D. 29715). 
 Board affirmed. (T. D. 30150; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 
 Walking canes. (See Canes.) 
 
 Wall paper printing machines. (See Printing presses — Printiug machines.) 
 
 Wall pockets — Lithographed. 
 
 Wall pockets made in part of lithographic prints and in part of mirrors, thermome- 
 ters, and pincushions are dutiable as manufactures of paper at 35 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 407, tariff act of 1897. Similar articles consisting 
 merely of lithographic prints pasted on cardboard, having no other articles 
 attached thereto, are dutiable as "lithographic prints" under paragraph 400. 
 Knauth v. United States (1.55 Fed. Rep., 144; T. D. 28184). (T. D. 29762— G. 
 A, 6910; May 18, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 883 
 
 Wall pockets — Lithographed — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) Flat cardboards, of different sizes and shapes, upon which litho- 
 graphic prints have been mounted, and that have been imported in a "knocked- 
 down" condition, but complete in themselves and ready to be assembled and 
 used as wall pockets, are not to be deemed lithographic prints and dutiable as 
 such; they have a new name and new use and were dutiable under paragraph 
 407, tariff act of 1897, as manufactures of paper. Knauth v. -United States (No. 
 137), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importer from 
 decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6910 (T. D. 
 29762). Transferred from United States Circviit Court for Southern District of 
 New York. Decision reversed. (T. D. 31499; Apr. 11, 1911.) 
 Walnuts. 
 Pickled — 
 The term "pickles," in the provision in paragraph 241, tariff act of 1897, for "all 
 vegetables, prepared or preserved, including pickles and sauces of all Tiinds, " 
 is limited to such pickles as are vegetables. Pickled walnuts are therefore ex- 
 cluded, walnuts not being vegetables, and are dutiable under section 6 as unenu- 
 merated manufactured articles. Acker v. United States, United States Cir- 
 cuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 22, 1908. Suit 5068. Appeal 
 by importer from decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 6663 (T. D. 28423). Board reversed. (T. D. 29036; May 27, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Unenumerated articles — "Pickles" — "Vegetables" — The term 
 "pickles" in the provision in paragraph 241, tariff act of 1897, for "all vege- ' 
 tables, prepared or preserved, including pickles and* sauces of all kinds," is 
 limited to such pickles as are vegetables. Pickled walnuts are therefore ex- 
 cluded, walnuts not being vegetables, and are dutiable under section 6 as un- 
 enumerated manufactured articles. United States v. Acker, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, July 8, 1909. JSfo. 244 (suit 5068). 
 Appeal by United States from Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern 
 District of New York (T. D. 29036) reversing a decision of the Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 6663 (T. D. 28423). Decision adverse to the 
 Government. (T. Di 29925; July 27, 1909.) Acquiesced in August 27, 1909 
 (T. D. 29969). 
 Shelled— ^ 
 
 Broken pieces of shelled walnuts are an inferior grade of shelled walnuts, and 
 were dutiable at 5 cents per pound under paragraph 281, tarifi act of 1909, as 
 shelled walnuts, and not under paragraph 283, which provided for nuts of all 
 kinds, not otherwise provided for in said act. Goods which are properly de- 
 scribed by a general classification can not be withdrawn from such description 
 by showing that they were bought and sold under particular names, which 
 merely comprise a subdivision of a general class named in the tariff act. 
 
 Commercial designation: Proof of commercial designation, to prevail, must 
 have reference to some specific term used in the tariff act, and not to names 
 under which goods are otherwise bought and sold in the markets of the country. 
 (T. D. 31651— G. A. 7229; June 5, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Walnut meat, broken in parts less than halves, are dutiable as 
 "walnuts of all kinds," "shelled," under paragraph 281, tariff act of 1909. 
 The attempts to establish a commercial designation must be deemed to have 
 failed, though a proper view of the language in paragraph 281 would exclude in 
 its construction any evidence of trade designation; the words there are essen- 
 tially descriptive, not denominative. Habicht, Braun & Co. et al. v. United 
 States (No. 679), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the im- 
 porters from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7229 (T. D. 
 31651). Decision alHrmed. (T. D. 32206; Jan. 12, 1912.) 
 
884 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Wantage. 
 Ale in casks — 
 A minimum allowance will be made of 3 gallons on every hogshead, 2 gallons on 
 every barrel, half hogshead, and kilderkin, and 1 gallon on every firkin which 
 contains Bass' imported ale, caiised by reason of failing to fill the casks bung 
 full, and of loss by fermentation during the transit to this country. But no 
 deduction will be made for the hops, sediment, and lees which are contained 
 in the casks, and are eliminated by a costly process for bottling purposes on 
 this side by the importers. 
 
 Consolidation of protests on hearing: It is a matter of discretion with the 
 board to consolidate the hearing of protests when the goods imported are of the 
 same kind and the question of law to be tried is the same, and especially when 
 the importers are the same persons. (T. D. 31850 — G. A. 7270; Sept. 9, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Allovmnce for shortage of ah in casks, generally. — There is no 
 inhibition of allowance for a shortage in ale imports, and it was error on the part 
 of the collector to ignore the actual shortage in the importation as reported by 
 the gaugers. 
 
 Dregs in ale. — Dregs and lees in ale are not usable ale, but neither is a foreign 
 impurity. They are dutiable as a part of the importation. 
 
 Allowance in this case. — The question of wantage and the proper allowance 
 for it is essentially one of fact, and upon the evidence in this case a proper 
 allowance ia found to be 3 per cent of the invoice or standard capacity of 
 the several kinds of cases containing the ale. 
 
 Consolidation of hearings. — Upon the application of the protestants, and over 
 the Government's objection, the board ordered a consolidation of the several 
 protests and heard them together upon the same evidence. The several pro- 
 tests were virtually filed by the same party; the questions raised by these pro- 
 tests and the testimony offered apply alike to all the importations. No preju- 
 dice resulted from the consolidation of the hearings. United States v. Cum- 
 mings et al. (No. 763) and Gummings et al. v. United States (No. 769), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Cross-appeals from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7270 (T. D. 31850). Decision modified. (T. D. 
 32576 ;May 8, 1912.) 
 Ale, porter, and stout — 
 Method of ascertaining the dutiable quantities of ale, porter, and stout imported 
 in barrels, casks, and similar containers; allowance of 8 per cent for wantage. 
 T. D. 30495 superseded. (T. D. 33986; Dec. 17, 1913.) 
 Insufficient evidence — 
 This appeal relates to an allowance for shortage in an importation of certain 
 Chinese wine in bottles. The evidence tends to show there was a shortage, but 
 entirely fails to show that the packages when landed were in the condition in 
 which they were found at the time they reached the importers' place of busi- 
 ness. Entries in the books of the steamship company were offered in evidence 
 to prove the condition of the importation on its arrival, said entries purporting 
 to have been made by clerks on the wharves upon the statement of the coopers 
 who opened the cases and made notations upon the packages. The witness 
 produced to prove the entries was the manager of the company, and no witness 
 was offered who had personal knowledge of the facts, nor was their absence 
 accounted for by showing their death, absence from the jurisdiction, or other 
 disability. Held, that a manager who did not make the entries, and who had 
 no personal knowledge of the facts, is an incompetent witness to prove the en- 
 tries by. (See United States v. Brown, 2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 189; T. D. 31943.) 
 United States v. Brown & Co. (No. 1071), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Ap- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 885 
 
 Wantage — Continued. 
 Insufficient evidence — Continued. 
 
 praisers, Abstract 31006 (T. D. 33055). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33374; 
 Apr. 22, 1913.) 
 Wines — 
 Outage or wantage is defined to be the difference between the capacity of the 
 cask and the quantity of wine or liquor which is usually placed in it according 
 to the custom of the trade, a certain vacancy being allowed for the expansion 
 of such wines or liquors. The allowance for normal outage or wantage author- 
 ized by the Treasury Department (T. D. 26547) of SJ per cent of the capacity 
 of barrels or casks containing imported wines or liquors was intended only as 
 approximately representing the usual amount of such outage or wantage in 
 ordinary cases. This regulation has no application to a case where such allow- 
 ance would reduce the quantity of wines or liquors below that shown by the 
 net gauge of such contents to have been actually imported and admitted to be 
 correct, except for such allowance. Where a statute or regulation is susceptible 
 of two constructions, one of which would lead to legal results and the other to 
 results unauthorized by law, the former construction will prevail. Nor in such 
 case can it be assumed that the Secretary intended to promulgate a regulation 
 inconsistent with law. (T. D. 31208— G. A. 7150; Jan. 13, 1911.) 
 Warehouse entries. (See Entry.) 
 Warehouse goods. 
 Exported and reimported, appraisement of. (See Exportation and reimportation, 
 
 appraisement.) 
 Seizure — ^Liquidated duties — 
 Certain straw hats were imported during the tariff act of 1909, and while in ware- 
 house under bonds they were seized by Government officials for alleged fraud. 
 Forfeiture proceedings were thereafter instituted by the Goverimient and sub- 
 sequently dismissed on the importers agreeing to pay the "liquidated duties," 
 together with certain penalties. Held, that the "liquidated duties" are the 
 duties which accrued at the time the goods were delivered by the Government 
 into the possession of the importers. Hartranft v. Oliver (125 U. S., 525) cited. 
 Conditions of bonds suspended: During the pendency of forfeiture proceed- 
 ings for alleged fraud in connection with importations of certain straw hats, 
 which had been seized by the Government while the hats were in warehouse 
 under bonds, the three-years' time limit fixed in the bonds by virtue of section 
 2971 of the Revised Statutes expired. Held, that the terms of the bonds were 
 suspended while the forfeiture proceedings were pending by reason of the Gov- 
 ernment's custody and control of the goods. (T. D. 35530 — G. A. 7740; June 
 11, 1915.) 
 Warehouses. 
 
 Merchandise in, not subject to reappraisement under subsection 11 of section 28, 
 tariff act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 29999; Sept. 17, 1909.) 
 Bonded manufacturing — 
 Public stores constructively bonded warehouse: The public stores, sometimes 
 known as "the general order stores," situated at the port of New York, are im- 
 pliedly placed by the Revised Statutes of the Umted States and by the customs 
 regulations in the same category as bonded warehouses, and must be regarded 
 constructively as such. (T. D. 28933— G. A. 6749; Mar. 14, 1908.) 
 Withdrawal of distilled spirits from internal-revenue warehouses for transfer to 
 customs bonded manufacturing warehouses. (I*. D. 29299; Oct. 13, 1908.) 
 Bonded smelting and refining — 
 
 Regulations governing establishment and operation of bonded smelting and refining 
 warehouses under section 24, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 30703; June 18, 1910.) 
 
886 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Waiehouses — Continued . 
 
 Bonded smelting and refining — Continued. 
 
 Collector of customs, New York, authorized to make an allowance of 6.45 per cent 
 for lead wastage in theismelting of lead-bearing ores; also similar allowance of 
 2.07 per cent for lead wastage incurred in refining of lead bullion on all with- 
 drawals from the plant of the Balbach Smelting & Refining Co. , of Newark, N. J. , 
 on and after July 1, 1913. (T. D. 34154; Feb. 4, 1914.) 
 
 New bonds to be required covering bonded smelting and refining warehouses 
 operating under the provisions of subsection 1 of Paragraph N of section 4 of the 
 tariff act of October 3, 1913, if not already bonded under the said provisions. 
 (T. D. 35061; Jan. 16, 1915.) 
 
 Establishment of bonded smelting and refining warehouses under subsection 1 of 
 Paragraph N of section 4, tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 35216; Mar. 10, 
 1915.) 
 
 No wastage allowance to be given under subsection 1 of Paragraph N of section 4 of 
 the tariff act of 1913 until reports are filed as provided by T. D. 35216 (arts. 5 
 and 15) and wastage allowances are established by the department. (T. D. 
 35885; Nov. 16, 1915.) 
 
 Withdrawal of lead from. (See Lead.) 
 Cigars made in bonded manufacturing warehouses. (See Cigars.) 
 Tobacco — 
 
 Transfer of scraps, cuttings, and clippings of tobacco produced in bonded ware- 
 house in the manufacture of cigars. (T. D. 34204; Feb. 25, 1914.) 
 Withdrawal of Jjy-products — 
 
 Upon the withdrawal from bonded manufacturing warehouses of by-products, the 
 value upon which to base duty is the wholesale value of such by-products in the 
 country of exportation at the time of withdrawal. (T. D. 30458; Mar. 22, 1910.) 
 
 Pursuant to section 23, tariff act of 1909, waste or by-products maybe withdrawn 
 from bonded warehouses for consumption upon the filing of an entry in the form 
 provided by article 257 of the Customs Regulations of 1908, said entry identify- 
 ing in detail the imported material used, and the by-products or waste being 
 appraised and duty being assessed as in the case of imported merchandise. (T. 
 D. 30516; Apr. 9, 1910.) 
 Withdrawals from — 
 
 Parcel post: Merchandise entered for warehousing may be withdrawn for exporta- 
 tion by parcel post. (T. D. 34703; Aug. 15, 1914.) 
 
 Stamp tax: Warehouse and rewarehouse withdrawals for transportation to a bonded 
 manufacturing warehouse and withdrawals for transportation and exportation- 
 from a bonded manufacturing warehotise not subject to tax under the act of 
 October 22, 1914. (T. D. 35006; Dec. 21, 1914.) 
 Washers. 
 
 Metal washers with an improved device to prevent the nut from slipping after it 
 has been properly fastened are dutiable properly as "washers'' under paragraph 
 162, tariff act of 1909, rather than as manufactures of metal not specially pro- 
 vided for, paragraph 199 of said act. A patented metal washer, though it may 
 be used on automobiles, having no special adaptation for that purpose, and in 
 fact commonly and practically used otherwise, is dutiable as a "washer" rather 
 than as "parts of automobiles." (T. D. 30933— G. A. 7101; Sept. 17, 1910.) 
 
 So-called "lock washers," which are made of steel and so constructed that when 
 properly fastened they prevent nuts from backing off bolts, and which have no 
 name uniformly and generally recognized in trade, are dutiable as "washers" 
 under paragraph 162, tariff act of 1909, rather than as manufactures of metal 
 under paragraph 199 of said act. (T. D. 31864— G. A. 7272; Sept. 16, 191].) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 887 
 
 Wa sheis — Continued . 
 
 (Appealed:) The authorities concur in the conclusion that lock washers or 
 nut locks, intended for use on automobiles, are an evolution of the common 
 washer, and they are properly to be designated "washers." The importation 
 was dutiable as such under paragraph 162, tariff act of 1909, and not as manufac- 
 tures of steel not specially provided for. United States v. Motor Car Equipment 
 Co. (No. 764), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7272 (T. D. 31864). 
 Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32355; Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 Waste. 
 Bagging- 
 Secondhand pieces of jute bagging, varying in size and selected for their fitness 
 for their intended use of patching the coverings for bales of cotton, are classible 
 under paragraph 463, tariff act of 1897, as "waste, not specially provided for," 
 rather than under paragraph 344, relating to "baggage for cotton, gunny cloth, 
 and similar fabrics, suitable for covering cotton," or under paragraph 648 as 
 "rags, not otherwise specially provided for." United States v. Davies; Davies 
 V. United States; United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, March 
 4, 1908. No. 1698 (suit 1885). Cross appeals from Circuit Court of the United 
 States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, see T. D. 28238, reversing G. A. 
 6431 (T. D. 27586). Decision adverse to appellant in each case. (T. D. 28951; 
 Apr. 22, 1908.) [Note. — ^The foregoing decision has been acquiesced in by 
 the Government.] 
 Old secondhand bagging, a portion of which is known as selected sides and a 
 portion as unassorted origipal gunny, containing pieces large enough to be 
 used for patching cotton bales, hdi to be dutiable as waste not specially pro- 
 vided for under paragraph 463, tariff act of 1897, and not under paragraph 344, 
 as bagging for cotton or similar fabrics suitable for covering cotton, nor under 
 paragraph 648 as rags not otherwise specially provided for. — Following Davies 
 V. United States (T. D. 28951) and Train-Smith v. United States (107 Fed. Rep., 
 261; 113 Fed. Rep., 1020). (T. D. 29029— G. A. 6765; May 23, 1908.) 
 Selected pieces of old cotton bagging, such as are generally used for patching 
 cotton bales, held dutiable as waste at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under 
 paragraph 463, tariff act of 1897.— United States v. Davies (T. D. 28951) fol- 
 lowed. (T. D. 29046— G. A. 6768; May 27, 1908.) 
 Old waste bagging, to be free of duty under paragraph 644, tariff act of 1909, must 
 be proved to be chiefly used for manufacturing paper. By chief use is meant 
 the predominant use to which identical or similar articles are applied and not 
 the exceptional use for other purposes. And in determining such use the board 
 will consider the use of such articles, whether of domestic or foreign manufac- 
 ture, and will not restrict the investigation to imported merchandise. Old 
 scrap gunny bagging may be in such condition as to fall within the term "rags, " 
 as used in paragraph 660 of said act. Where a term or paragraph of the tariff 
 act has been for many years construed by the courts and the board to have 
 such Construction as to include a particular kind of goods, the readoption of 
 the same paragraph by Congress will presumptively be held to have the same 
 construction unless affirmatively shown by new evidence to be erroneous. 
 Held, accordingly, that an importation of old ragged fragments of waste gunny 
 bagging falls within the term of "rags," and not being specially provided for 
 elsewhere in said act is free of duty under said paragraph 660. Such merchan- 
 dise is not chiefly used for manufacturing paper and is not therefore free of 
 duty under said paragraph 644. (T. D. 31447— G. A. 7194; Mar. 30, 1911.) 
 Question of fact, when to be determined by board: The importation consisted of 
 small pieces of gunny bagging packed in bales, and appropriate samples of the 
 
888 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 ' m 
 
 Waste — Continued. 
 Bagging— Continued . 
 
 merchandise were exhibited. The proper classification of these goods could be 
 ascertained without expert knowledge on an inspection of them, and the col- 
 lector's classification should not be taien as concliisive. The goods were rags 
 and as such entitled to free entry under the tariff act of 1897.— Krusi v. United 
 States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 168; T. D. 31213); Knauth v. United States (ibid., 
 178; T. D. 31216); Train-Smith Co. v. United States (140 Fed. Rep., 113); Shal- 
 lus V. United States (No. 603), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 24670 (T. D. 31236). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32205; Jan. 12, 1912.) 
 Cotton — 
 
 Thread waste composed of cotton waste and jute threads Ln about equal propor- 
 tions is found to be commercially known as "cotton waste," and held free of 
 duty as such under paragraph 537, tariff act of 1897. Wood v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, March 20, 1908. No. 
 165 (suit 1853). Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 6394 (T. D. 27457) and Abstract 12233 (T. D. 27493). 
 Board reversed. (T. D. 28893; Mar. 25, 1908.) Acquiesced in AprQ 7, 1908 
 (T. D. 28917). 
 
 The sweepings of cotton waste and dirt, when subjected to a "mixing" process 
 to e limina te the dirt and t» produce a recognized and marketable cotton waste, 
 the product being used by the manufacturers of wiping- waste, held not to be 
 included among the cotton wastes "manufactured or otherwise advanced in 
 value," final clause in paragraph 313, tariff act of 1909, but free of duty imder 
 paragraph 548 as "cotton waste." (T. D. 30641— G. A. 7024; May 26, 1910.) 
 
 Cotton waste that has been bleached or by any treatment or process changed from 
 natural cotton waste has been "advanced in value" and is dutiable under the 
 provision in paragraph 313, tariff act of 1909, for " cotton waste * » » manu- 
 factured or otherwise advanced in value." G. A. 7024 (T. D. 30641) modified. 
 (T. D. 31001— G. A. 7111; Oct. 20, 1910.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Not advanctd in value. — Cotton waste recovered from miU 
 sweepings or used cotton waste is not "advanced in value" by processes of 
 combing, washing, and bleaching in the sense implied by "advanced in value" 
 appearing in section 313, tariff act of 1909. It is entitled to free entry under 
 that act. Simpson v. United States (No. 530); Vandegrift v. United States 
 (No. 531), United States Court of Customs Appeals, -Appeal by the Importers 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7111 (T. D. 31001). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 31952; Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 
 Fending decision on the Government's petition for a rehearing of the decision of 
 the United States Court of Customs Appeals (T. D. 31952), cotton waste recov- 
 ered from mill sweepings should be assessed with duty under paragraph 313, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32291; Feb. 28, 1912.) 
 Film scrap — 
 
 Scraps of sensitized film produced in cutting to small sizes large rolls of photo- 
 graphic film, suitable for no other commercial purpose than the recovery of the 
 silver salts and pyroxylin therein contained, are dutiable as waste under para- 
 graph 479, tariff act of 1909, rather than as collodion or compounds thereof uiyier 
 paragraph 17. The provision in paragraph 500 of said act for "films of American 
 manufacture * * » unsuitable for any other purpose than the recovery of 
 the constituent materials" does not cover pieces of such films. (T. D. 31130 — 
 G. A. 7133; Dec. 13, 1910.) 
 
DIGKST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 889 
 
 Waste— Continued . 
 Flax card waste, dutiability — 
 Flax card waste varies in grades, quality, and price, according to the length of 
 the fiber, freedom from ehives, and the uses to which it can profitably be put 
 either for manufacturing paper or other products made of flax. Where particu- 
 lar grades or similar flax card waste are shown by the preponderance of evidence 
 to be chiefly used for paper making they are subject to classification under 
 paragraph 644, tariff act of 1909, as free of duty. If such grades are sold to paper 
 makers they may be assumed prima fade to have been used by them for the 
 manufacture of paper, and if sold to spinners or other flax manufacturers, may 
 be found in like manner to have been used for other purposes than making 
 paper. (T. D. 31400— G. A. 7186; Mar. 13, 1911.) 
 Flax, used chiefly lor paper making- 
 Two classes of flax waste: Congress has divided all the articles mentioned in para- 
 graph 644, tariff act of 1909, into two classes, (1) those that are used chiefly for 
 paper making, and (2) those used chiefly for other purposes. The onus is on 
 the importer to prove that the sample of the goods falls under the first class. 
 
 All flax waste not free under paragraph 644: The statement that the largest 
 percentage of tonnage of flax waste that is imported goes undoubtedly to paper 
 makers, even if true, would not justify the admission of all flax waste to the free 
 list without proof that the particular sample covered by the protest is chiefly 
 used for paper making under said paragraph 644. (T. D. 33290 — G. A. 7450; 
 Mar. 18, 1913.) 
 Fui clippings not — 
 Undressed clippings of rabbit skins and portions of fur detached from the pelt 
 by heating, etc., which are used for the same purpose as the skin from which 
 they are derived, are " ixas, undressed, " within the meaning of paragraph 561, 
 tariff act of 1897, and are classible as such rather than as " waste, not specially 
 provided for," tmder paragraph 463. Hatters' Fur Exchange v. United States, 
 United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 12, 
 1909. Suit 5069. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 16813 (T. D. 28429). Board reversed. (T. D. 
 30143; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 Granite — 
 Waste granite, consisting of pieces of irregular shapes and various sizes, but suit- 
 able for use in foundations and cellar walls of buildings, duitable at 3 cents per 
 cubic foot under paragraph 99, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34146; Feb. 4, 1914.) 
 Gianito. (See Granito.) 
 Jute- 
 Jute rejections, juttf waste, or other fibers of jute origin are jute within the mean- 
 ing of paragraph 365, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31688; June 14, 1911.) 
 Paragraph 479 of the tariff act of 1909, and paragraph 463 of the act of 1897, pro- 
 vide specially for all waste products not otherwise provided for in said acts, 
 and require the assessment of said products at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem. 
 Jute card waste, which is a by-product produced in the process of manufactur- 
 ing jute by rejection from cards or combing machines, lield to be dutiable 
 under one or other of said paragraphs as "waste, not specially provided for," 
 according to whether the importation was made under the tariff act of 1909 or 
 the act of 1897, and not free of duty under paragraph 578 of the act of 1909, or 
 under paragraph 566 of the act of 1897, as "jute * * * not dressed or manu- 
 fectured in any manner. " The fact that the material itself remains jute is irrele- 
 vant. Such merchandise, being chiefly used for other purposes than manufac- 
 turing paper, is excluded from classification under either paragraph 644 of the 
 
890 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Waste — Continued. 
 Jute— Continued. 
 
 act of 1909 or paragraph 632 of the act of 1897. (T. D. 31739— G. A. 7242; July 
 6, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Entry free: The merchandise consists of broken fibers of un- 
 dressed raw jute rejected by the carding machine in the first process of man- 
 ufacture. These broken fibers had been later subjected to a carding process 
 of their own. The product is more accurately described as jute, unmanufac- 
 tured, than as waste not specially provided for, and was entitled to free entry 
 under both tariff acts of 1897 and 1909. United States v) Hatters' Fur 
 Exchange (1 a. Oust. Appls., 198; T. D. 31237). Salomon Bros. & Co. et al. v. 
 United States (No. 729), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7242 
 (T. D. 31739). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32196; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 
 Bagging for cotton made of jute waste: Bagging for covering cotton made in chief 
 value of various kinds of jute waste, such as card waste, roving waste, loom 
 waste, jute croppings, jute rejections, and other kinds of jute waste, is made in 
 chief value of jute within the meaning of paragraph 355, tariff act of 1909, and 
 is dutiable imder said paragraph, and not under paragraph 358 of said act. (T. 
 D. 33277— G. A. 7447; Mar. 14, 1913.) 
 
 Jute and jute butts: The terms "jute" and "jute butts" are not used without 
 qualification by the trade in the buying and selling of jute; and, consequently, 
 those terms, standing by themselves, can not have been given by the trade a 
 special commercial signification that excluded jute waste or any class of jute 
 fiber available for textile uses. 
 
 Jute waste still jute or jute butts: Goods more than 98 per cent jute are to be 
 regarded as articles composed of jute, and an insignificant percentage of material 
 other than jute found to be present on analysis of bagging did not exclude the 
 goods from the operation of paragraph 355, tariff act of 1909. Overton & Co. v. 
 United States (No. 1115), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7447 
 (T. D. 33277). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34322; Mar. 25, 1914.) 
 Jute thread — 
 
 Act 1913: Merchandise reported by the appraiser as jute thread waste composed 
 of the short ends of new, unused jute thread, and otherwise shown by the tes- 
 timony of the importers to be the warp ends, mill waste, or offals of machinery 
 resulting in the manufacture of jute bagging or cloth, and which is also shown to 
 be suitable for paper making, h.eld to be free of duty under paragraph 408, 
 tariff act of 1913, as waste of one of the articles therein described suitable for 
 the manufacture of paper. 
 
 The word "suitable" defined: The word "suitable" in the tariff law means 
 actually, practically, and commercially fit. Kahlen v. United States (2 Ct. 
 Oust. Appls., 206; T. D. 31947). (T. D. 35015— G. A. 7652; Dec. 21, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Paragraph 408, tariff act of 191S — ^Waste under this paragraph 
 must be a waste of bagging, gunny cloth, or similar woven fabric. The waste of 
 the importation in controversy is the short broken warp ends of the jute thread 
 used in the manufacture of burlap cloth, and is in fact a thread waste. It falls 
 under the provisions of paragraph 384, tariff act of 1913, as waste not specially 
 provided for. United States v. Crompton & Son (No. 1519), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Grovernment from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 7652 (T. D. 35015). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 35442; May 18, 1915.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 891 
 
 Waste — Continued. 
 Mill buttings and deal ends — 
 
 Mill buttings and deal ends dutiable as waste at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 479, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33058; Jan. 3, 1913.) 
 Mixed thread — 
 Thread waste, composed of cotton waste and jute threads in about equal propor- 
 tions, is found to be commercially known as "cotton waste," and held free of 
 duty as such under paragraph 537, tariff act of 1897. Following Wood v. United 
 States (T. D. 28893), which reversed In re Wood, G. A. 6394 (T. D. 27457). (T. 
 D. 28997— G. A. 6762; May 19, 1908.) 
 Mohair — 
 
 "Ejusdem generis" with wool waste: Paragraph 651 of the tariff act of 1913 pro- 
 vides specifically for wool waste. Its general provision, therefore, for "all other 
 waste not specially provided for" more specifically applies to mohair waste than 
 does the general provision for "waste not specially provided tor" in paragraph 
 884. (T. D. 34997— G. A. 7649; Dec. 14, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Mohair noils. — Reviewing the authorities bearing on the paragraph 
 of the tariff involved, it is clear that the ."wool wastes" of paragraph 651, tariff 
 • act of 1913, embracing as it does all noils, includes noils of hair from Angora or 
 alpaca goats. Crimmins & Pierce et al. v. United States (No. 1488); United 
 States V. Ringk & Co. (No. 1514), United States Courtof Customs Appeals. 
 Appeals by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 36761 (T. D. 34865) and G. A. 7649 (T. D. 34997). Decision affirmed 
 in part and reversed in part. (T. D. 35392; May 3, 1913.) 
 Powdered glass not. (See Glass and glasses powdered.) 
 Scrap tin not old junk — 
 Scrap tin which is new and bright in appearance is dutiable under paragraph 479, 
 tariff act of 1909, as waste, not specially provided for, and is not free under para- 
 graph 600 of said act as "junk, old." (T. D. 32376— G. A. 7344; Apr. 3, 1912.) 
 Test of classification — , 
 The term "waste " in paragraph 463, tariff act of 1897, refers to waste and scraps of 
 different commodities that can be put to some new or different use from that to 
 which its main constituent part would ordinarily be put, and would not include 
 scrap that, though of very low grade, could be used for the same purposes as 
 similar material of better character. Latimer v. United States, United States 
 District Court, District of Porto Rico, September 7, 1909. No. 650 (suit 2076). 
 Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 8744 (T. D. 26818). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30011, Sept. 28, 1909.) 
 Wool — Scraps of sheepskin with wool thereon — 
 Small scraps of sheepskin with wool on them are not dutiable under paragraph 384, 
 tariff act of 1913, as waste not specially provided for, but are free of duty as wool 
 waste under paragraph 651. By paragraph 651 Congress intended to admit free 
 of duty all forms of wool waste. (T. D. 35714— G. A. 7774; Sept. 17, 1915.) 
 Watch bracelets. (See Jewelry.) 
 Watchcases. 
 
 Watchcases are dutiable under paragraph 192, tariff act of August 5, 1909, and not 
 under paragraph 448 of the said act. (T. D. 30033; Oct. 8, 1909.) 
 Watch jewels. (See Jewels for watches.) 
 Watch movements — ^Entireties. 
 
 A machine or mechanism which is for all practical purposes a unit, though made 
 of separable parts, which parts are shipped in separated condition, must be 
 treated for duty purposes as an entirety. The parts necessary to form, when 
 assembled, a number of complete watch movements, imported on the same ves- 
 sel and covered by the same invoice, though packed separately, are for duty 
 
892 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Watch movements — Entiieties — Continued. 
 
 purposes entireties and classifiable as "watch movements," under paragraph 
 192, tariff act of 1909, rather than as "parts of watches" under the same para- 
 graph. (T. D. 32194^G. A. 7318; Jan. 24, 1912.) 
 Watch parts, American, exported and returned, advanced in condition. 
 
 Certain parts of watches, including the cases and movements, were separately 
 exported at different times without dials or hands, and put together abroad, 
 with the addition of dials and hands, so as to construct complete watches. Held, 
 to be advanced in value and improved in condition so as to be debarred from 
 free entry under paragraph 483, tariff act of 1897, as American manufactures 
 returned "after being exported without having been advanced in value or im- 
 proved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means." , (T. D. 
 30268— G. A. 6963; Jan. 14, 1910.) 
 Watches. (See also Toys — Watches.) 
 
 Completed watches dutiable under paragraph 192, tariff act of August 5, 1909. 
 T. D. 30033 of October 8, 1909, modified. (T. D. 30096; Nov. 5, 1909.) 
 
 Where watches are imported in a complete condition, the cases and movements 
 are separately dutiable under paragraph 191, tariff actof 1897. (T. D. 30268 — G. 
 A. 6963; Jan. 14, 1910.) 
 Watchmen's time detectors. (See Clocks.) 
 Water-color paints, toys. (See Toys, water-colored paints.) 
 Waterproof cloth. 
 
 The merchandise in question, consisting of waterproof cloth composed of wool, cot- 
 ton, and rubber, came eo nomine under paragraph 378, tariff act of 1909, wherein 
 provision was made for a duty on. "all manufactures of every description 
 made wholly or in part of wool "; it was dutiable thereunder and not as a manu- 
 facture with India rubber as the component of chief value. Hartranft v. Meyers 
 (135 U. S., 237) distinguished. United States v. Vandegrift & Co. (No. 730), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25910 (T. D. 31708). De- 
 cision reversed. (T. D. 32457; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 
 Part of wool : In paragraph 347, tariff act of 1909, the words " waterproof cloth com- 
 posed of cotton or other vegetable fiber, whether composed in part of India rub- 
 ber or otherwise, " must be taken to mean composed in part of india rubber or not. 
 The goods here, a waterproof cloth composed in chief value of other material 
 than cotton or vegetable fiber, do not fall within the provisions of that paragraph. 
 Being made wholly or in part of wool, they were dutiable as such, not specially 
 provided for vmder paragraph 378, tariff act of 1909. Gartner, Sons & Co. v. 
 United States (154 Fed., 957). United States v. Vandegrift & Co. (No. 1024), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29721 (T. D. 32823). De- 
 cision reversed. (T. D. 33438; May 12, 1913.) 
 
 The samples and the record disclose that rubber is the chief component material 
 of value in the waterproof cloth the subject of this appeal, and the board so 
 found. It is excluded from the terms of paragraph 347, tariff act of 1909, and it 
 falls, for dutiable purposes, imder paragraph 463 of that act. United States v 
 Vandegrift (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 161; T. D. 32457); United States v. Zinn (2 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 419; T. D. 32171). Kenyon Co. v. United States (No. 963), United 
 States Coiut of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 28933 (T. D. 32645). Decision re- 
 versed. (T. D. 33529; May 31, 1913.) 
 
 The merchandise is not a velvet cloth, but a waterproof cloth resembling velvet 
 on one side and a rubber-like fabric on the other. ' Cotton fiber is the component 
 material of chief value. Paragraph 347, tariff act of 1909, applies. United 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 893 
 
 Wateipioof cloth — Continued. 
 
 States V. Walker (No. 1317), United States Court of Customa Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 34149 (T. D. 33934). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34381; Apr. 7, 1914.) 
 Watoline. (See Cellulose, watte or watoline.) 
 Waverly shortbread. (See Bread.) 
 Wax. 
 Camauba — 
 
 The provision for " wax " in paragraph 695, tariff act of 1897, is not limited to natu- 
 ral wax; and a by-product of bleached camauba wax, which contains paraffin 
 necessarily introduced in the bleaching process, is covered by that provision. 
 United States v. Momingstar, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of 
 New York, May 22, 1908. Suit 4964. Appeal from decision of Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, G. A. 6609 (T. D. 28220). Board affirmed. (T. D. 
 29121; June 30, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) There being no mineral waxes in a chemical sense, the provision 
 for " wax * * * mineral " in paragraph 695, tariff act of 1897, must have been 
 used according to the popular meaning of those words. Camaubarwax substitute, 
 which is compounded of camauba wax (a vegetable wax) and paraffin (a mineral 
 wax) and is to all appearances a waxy substance used for the same purpose as 
 other waxes, is free of duty under paragraph 695, tariff act of 1897, relating to 
 "wax, vegetable or mineral.". United States v. Momingstar, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, March 16, 1909. No. 185 (suit 4964). 
 Appeal by United States from Circuit Court of the United States, Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York (T. D. 29121), affirming G. A. 6609 (T. D. 28220). Decision 
 adverse to Govemment. (T. D. 29651; Mar. 24, 1909.) 
 Manufactures of — 
 
 Artificial fruits and vegetables: The merchandise consists of small articles, resem- 
 bling in shape and color, but not in size, various fruits or vegetables, and they 
 are designed for use alone in waxing sewing thread. These articles do not sub- 
 stantially simulate artificial fruits and can not be held to be "artificial fruits" 
 within the meaning of paragraph 438, tarifi act of 1909. They were properly 
 held dutiable as manufactures of wax under paragraph 462 of that act. United 
 States V. Dieckerhoff, Eaffloer & Co. (No. 1158), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 31585 (T. D. 33263). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33796; 
 Oct. 14, 1913.) 
 
 Candles, paraffin: Small candles, composed of paraffin of various colors and used 
 for decorating Christmas trees and birthday cakes, are dutiable either as toys or 
 as manufactiu-ea not enumerated or provided for, the classification depending 
 upon the size of the candles. (T. D. 29257— G. A. 6802; Sept. 10, 1908.) 
 
 Paraffin tapers: "Wax" is not restricted in its meaning by lexicographers, by the 
 courts, or by Congress to substances of animal origin only, but they have in- 
 cluded under that name all substances of kindred nature derived from mineral or 
 vegetable sources. The paraffin in these articles (paraffin tapers) is wax, and 
 this constitutes their value in chief. They come within paragraph 462 as manu- 
 factures of wax, a more specific designation than "articles in part of metal." 
 United States v. Coccaro et al. (No. 1220), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 32618 (T. D. 33511). Decision modified. (T. D. 33921; 
 Nov. 18, 1913.) 
 Montan — 
 
 Certain distillates of montan wax not subject to classification as wax, but as acids 
 and waste not specially provided for under paragraphs 1 and 479 of the tariff act 
 of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 33555; June 14, 1913.) 
 
894 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Wax master records. 
 
 Disks of soft wax known as master records, impressed with a series of indenta- 
 tions caused by vibrations of the human voice, musical instruments, etc., 
 designed for use as matrices in the manufacture of records for use on phono- 
 graphs and like instruments, and in themselves neither intended for nor sus- 
 ceptible of use as parts of phonographs, graphophonea, or gramophones, are not 
 dutiable as parts of the latter, under paragraph 468, tariff act of 1909, nor free of 
 duty as models of improvements in the arts (par. 629). They are dutiable at 
 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 462 of said act aa manufactures of wax. 
 (T. D. 31351— G. A. 7182; Mar. 4, 1911.) 
 Wearing apparel. (See also Effects, personal.) 
 Applic[ued — 
 
 Articles of wearing apparel made in part "by sewing fancy ribbons or tape about 
 the neck, armholes, yoke, belt, or bottom are not appliqu^d. An article to be 
 considered appliqu^d must necessarily have applied to it material which has 
 been cut from or out of another fabric. Trimming does not constitute appliqu6. 
 (T. D. 34087— G. A. 7525; Jan. 19, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) "AppKquid," what is not. — The merchandise consists of cotton 
 wearing apparel upon which are sewn strips or bands of goods figured in different 
 colors for ornamental purposes only. The articles are held to be cotton wear- 
 ing apparel only, and not "appliqu6d." United States v. Hamburger Levine 
 Co. (No. 1335). United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7525 (T. D. 
 34087). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34382; Apr. 7, 1914.) 
 Bibs and aprons in the piece — 
 
 Merchandise consisting of woven cotton cloth in the piece, having printed thereon 
 designs of bibs and aprons, each design, when separated, forming a complete 
 bib or apron, are properly dutiable as partly made wearing apparel at the rate 
 of 50 per cent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 324, tariff act of 
 1909, for "articles of wearing apparel * * * made up or manufactured, 
 wholly or in part, by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer." G. A. 2967 (T. 
 D. 15867) and other cases cited and followed. (T. D. 34243— G. A. 7537; Mar. 
 4, 1914.) 
 Boleros — 
 
 Garments designed to be worn about the shoulders by women, if made in net- 
 work or openwork design and of silk cord and braid, taking a shape like that of 
 bolero jackets, dutiable as articles of wearing apparel wholly or in chief value 
 of silk, under paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897. Taxis v. United States (No. 
 36), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by importer from 
 decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers (T. D. 29946). Board 
 affirmed. (T. D. 31108; Nov. 30, 1910.) 
 Collars and cnfis in the piece — 
 
 Merchandise consisting of a foundation fabric of silk 108 centimeters wide and 
 imported in pieces several meters in length, with raised pile surfaces in designs 
 of ladies' collars and cuffs, which are repeated in sets throughout the length of 
 the piece at regular intervals of about 17 inches, and which are designed for 
 use exclusively as ladies' collars and cuffs and have only to be cut from the 
 piece to be ready for use, are properly dutiable as partly made wearing apparel 
 at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 402, 
 tariff act of 1909, for "articles of wearing apparel of every description * * * 
 made up or manufactured in whole or in part by the tailor, seamstress, or manu- 
 facturer." Robinson v. United States ('122 Fed.. 970), G. A. 6116 (T. D. 26613) 
 and authorities therein referred to cited. (T. D. 33406— G. A. 7460; May 5, 
 1913.) 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS^ 1908-1915. 895 
 
 Wearing apparel — Continued. 
 
 Corsets of cotton trimmed with lace — ' 
 
 The goods were cotton corsets trimmed with lace. Since Lever lace was not the 
 component material of chief value, the merchandise was excluded from the pro- 
 visions of paragraph 350, tariff act of 1909, and they did not fall within the 
 
 • terms of the provisos to paragraph 349. Xhey were properly held dutiable 
 under the principal provision of paragraph 349. United States v. Vandiver 
 (No. 1495), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37007 (T. D. 
 34984).. Decision aflormed. (T. D. 35395; May 3, 1915.) 
 Cotton cloth — 
 
 Cotton cloth in the piece, colored or printed in designs suitable for kimonos or 
 other articles of wearing apparel, but not manufactured wholly or in part into 
 articles by any process subsequent to weaving and printing, is dutiable as cotton 
 cloth, colored or printed, under paragraph 316, and not as "articles of wearing 
 apparel * * * made up or manufactured, wholly or in part, by the tailor, 
 seamstress, or manufacturer," under paragraph 324, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 33643— G. A. 7482; July 18, 1913.) 
 Ear caps for children not. (See Ear caps.) 
 Hosiery, cotton — 
 
 Children's cotton hose and half hose imported from Spain, made from fabrics 
 knitted on two different types of machines and shaped by cutting and seam 
 stitching, are dutiable under paragraph 327, tariff act of 1909, providing for 
 "stockings, hose, and half hose, made on knitting machines or frames, * * * 
 not otherwise specially provided for." (T. D. 33085— G. A. 7414; Jan. 7, 1913.) 
 
 Cotton hosiery, even though embroidered, not dutiable under paragraph 358 of 
 the tariff act of 1913, but properly dutiable under paragraph 260, the articles 
 being provided for without words of limitation in said paragraph 260. (T. D. 
 34207; Feb. 26, 1914.) 
 
 Etnbroidered stockings, hose, and half-hose are dutiable under paragraph 358, tariff 
 act of 1913, as "wearing apparel, * * * embroidered, * * * by what- 
 ever name known," and not under paragraph 260 as "stockings, hose, and half 
 hose," etc. 
 
 Specific designation: The use of the phrase "by whatever name known " indi- 
 cates the purpose of Congress to make the provision for embroideries in paragraph 
 358 so specific and all inclusive that it will include articles of the character 
 therein specified, whether they are mentioned by name in another paragraph 
 of the act or not. (T. D. 34930— G. A. 7644; Nov. 28, 1914.) 
 Hosiery, silk — 
 
 Silk hose ornamented with what is known as "clocking," which has been repeat- 
 edly held to be a form or species of embroidery, are, in the absence of a more 
 specific designation, dutiable as silk wearing apparel, embroidered, at the rate 
 of 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 358, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 
 35459— G. A. 7729; May 27, 1915.) 
 India rubber and cotton — 
 
 Wearing apparel of India rubber and cotton, rubber being the component of chief 
 value, is dutiable as manufactures in chief value of India rubber, under para- 
 graph 449, tariff act of 1897, not being covered by paragraph 314, relating to 
 wearing apparel "of which cotton * * * jg the component material of 
 chief value," and to "any outside garment provided for in this paragraph hav- 
 ing India rubber as a component material." Horrax v. United States (T. D. 
 29505) followed. (T. D. 29726— G. A. 6904; Apr. 29, 1909.) 
 
896 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Wearing apparel — Continued. 
 Knitted wool caps — 
 
 Children's knitted wool caps ornamented with rosettes on each side composed of 
 eilk ribbon dutiable as wearing apparel at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem imder 
 paragraph 291 of the tariff act. (T. D. 34985; Dec. 15, 1914.) 
 Marking of — < 
 
 Eegiilations governing the marking of models of women's wearing apparel by 
 means of a cord and seal. T. D. 33806 of October 24, 1913, modified. (T. D. 
 34273; Mar. 16, 1913.) 
 Models- 
 Duty to be collected on models of wearing apparel entered under bond for exporta- 
 tion when the cords and seals have been removed or tampered with. (T. D. 
 34898; Nov. 12, 1914.) 
 Kepaiis abroad — 
 
 Wearing apparel and other personal effects taken abroad by residents of the United 
 States and repaired while abroad dutiable under the tariff act of 1909 on the cost 
 of repairs only when reimported as baggage upon the identity of such articles as 
 those taken abroad as baggage by residents of the United States being estab- 
 lished to the satisfaction of the customs officers, and the production of satisfac- 
 tory evidence of the character and cost of the repairs. (T. D. 30871; Aug. 12, 
 1910.) 
 Shirt bosoms, tucked — 
 
 Shirt bosoms made from tuckings, being more specifically provided for as "Cloth- 
 ing « * * and articles of wearing apparel of every description, composed of 
 cotton or other vegetable fiber, * * * niade up or manufactured, wholly or 
 in part " than as " articles made wholly or in part of tuckings, "are dutiable at 30 
 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 256, tariff act of 1913, and not at 60 per 
 cent ad valorem under paragraph 358. (T. D. 34823— G. A. 7613; Oct. 9, 1914.) 
 (Appealed:) Shirt bosoms of tucked cotton material. — These shirt bosoms are 
 precisely and more specifically described by the term "wearing apparel com- 
 posed of cotton or of cotton in chief value made up or manufactured in part, " 
 paragraph 256, tariff act of 1913, thanthey are by the term "articles made up in 
 part of tuckings of whatever yams , threads, or filaments composed , ' ' paragraph 358 
 of that act. The required attributes of wearing apparel most closely describe and 
 identify the goods, and they are dutiable as such under paragraph 256. United 
 States V. Snow's United States Sample Express Co. (No. 1469), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Government from Board of United 
 StatesGeneralAppraisers,G. A. 7613 (T.D. 34823). Decision affirmed. (T.D. 
 35388; May 3, 1915.) 
 Silk scarfs. (See also Mufflers, silk, knitted.) 
 
 The merchandise of the importation consisted of "silk van tine scarfs," claimed to 
 be dutiable as silk mufflers. "Muffler," as commonly understood, refers to 
 something worn round the neck or throat, and, perhaps, mainly for warmth. 
 The merchandise of the importation, as appears from the evidence, is usually 
 worn about the shoulders rather than about the neck or throat. The collector's 
 classification is not shown to be incorrect. They are not mufflers and were 
 properly assessed as silk wearing apparel under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909. 
 Vantine & Co. v. United States (No. 936), United States Court of Customs Ap- 
 peals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Apprais- 
 ers, Abstract 28475 (T. D. 32507). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33196; Feb. 12, 
 1913.) 
 Silk, ornamented with imitation precious stones — 
 
 The provision in paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, for articles of personal adorn- 
 ment does not apply to silk gowns that have had stitched thereon as an embel- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 897 
 
 Wearing apparel — Continued. 
 Silk, ornamented with imitation precious stones — Continued. 
 
 lishment articles in the nature of millinery or dress ornaments set with imita- 
 tion precious stones. Such wearing apparel is dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem 
 under paragraph 402 of said act. (T. D. 30929— G. A. 7097; Sept. 15, 1910.) 
 Trimmed with Lever lace — 
 Paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, provides a rate of duty of 60 per cent ad valorem 
 for cotton wearing apparel and other articles made wholly or in part of lace or 
 ornamented with embroidery, and contains a proviso "that no article composed 
 wholly or in chief value of one or more of the materials or gobds specified in this 
 paragraph shall pay a less rate of 'duty than the highest rate imposed by this sec- 
 tion upon any of the materials or goods of which the same is composed." Held, 
 that cotton underwear trimmed with Lever lace, some of the articles also being 
 embroidered, the article in each case being of greater value than the Lever lace, 
 is, by virtue of said proviso, properly dutiable under paragraph 350 of said act 
 at the rate of 70 per cent' ad valorem, which is the highest rate imposed upon any 
 of the component materials. Stein v. United States (2 Ct. Oust. Appls., 519; T. 
 D. 32250) followed. (T. D. 33794— G. A. 7502; Oct. 14, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) "Materials" and "goods."- — "Materials" means that from which 
 an article is made up. "Goods" has a broader signification and includes 
 the material upon which some work has been performed, and applies so long as 
 these retain their character of not being manufactured into an article. 
 
 Plain cotton underwear with lace added. — In the proviso to paragraph 349, tariff 
 act of 1909, "goods" has no broader signification than as stated, and it was not 
 there intended to include a completed article in terms provided for elsewhere. 
 The plain cotton underwear with lace added thereto of the importation does not 
 fall within the named proviso. 
 
 Embroidered fabrics. — Paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, provides not only for 
 embroidered articles, but for fabrics embroidered in any manner, by hand or 
 machinery. The paragraph specifies the embroidered fabrics of the importation , 
 and as the completed article is in chief value of such fabric and has added the 
 Lever or Gothrough lace, it comes directly within the terms of the proviso and is • 
 subject to the highest rate of duty. Altman & Co. v. United States (No. 1275), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7502 (T. D. 33794). Decision modi- 
 fled. (T. D. 34251; Feb. 27, 1914.) 
 Woolen- overcoat, fur-lined — 
 A woolen overcoat lined with fur, fur being the component material of chief value, 
 is dutiable under paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909, as wearing apparel in chief 
 value of fur, and not under paragraph 382 as wearing apparel in part of wool, the 
 former provision being more specific than the latter. (T. D. 31811 — G. A. 
 7263; Aug. 8, 1911.) 
 
 Weasands or oz gullets. 
 
 So-called weasands or ox gullets, crude and dried, dutiable at the rate of 10 per 
 cent ad valorem as a nonenumerated unmanufactured article under paragraph 
 385, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 85886N; Nov. 16, 1915.) 
 
 Weighing, etc. 
 
 Regulations governing weighing, taring, sampling, classification, and polarization 
 of imported sugars and molasses. (T. D. 28787: Feb. 19, 1908.) 
 
 Weighing of glass. (See Glass and glasses, weighing of.) 
 
 Weighing of tobacco. (See Tobacco.) 
 45633°— 17 57 
 
898 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Weight. (See also dutiable weight.) 
 Asceitaimnent of — Tare — 
 The return of United States weighers of imported merchandise as to gross weight 
 will generally be considered conclusive on the board and the courts so long a£ 
 the weighers act within the scope of their lawful authority and proceed on no 
 wrong principle; but the board will correct an erroneous ascertainment of 
 actual tare where it is shown that an insufficient number of cases were tested 
 by the weigher, and satisfactory evidence is furnished in proof of the correct 
 tare on the goods. Where a test is made for actual tare, such test must be made 
 of representative packages of the whole importation. Held, accordingly, that 
 teste made of 200 cases of walnuts, out of an importation of 300 described in 
 the invoice, must prevail over a test of only three cases made by the weigher, 
 the tare varying on the several packages. (T. D. 29294 — G. A. 6815; Oct. 8, 
 1908.) 
 Olive oil in tins. (See Oil, olive.) 
 Precious stones — The carat — 
 On and after July 1, 1913, the unit of weight for diamonds, pearls, and other 
 precious stones will be the metric carat of 200 milligrams. (T. D. 33562; June 
 17, 1913.) 
 Weights — Oke. 
 
 The Smyrna oke is equivalent to 2.83282 pounds. (T. D. 28707; Jan. 27, 1908.) 
 We strumite . ( See also Asphalt. ) 
 
 The provision for "chemical mixtures" in paragraph 3, tariff act of 1909, does not 
 include so-called "westrumite, " an article composed of asphalt, ammonia, 
 and water. (T. B. 30223— G. A. 6959; Dec. 24, 1909.) 
 Whalebone, split. 
 
 Whalebone, split, cut into lengths, etc., dutiable as a nonenumerated manufac- 
 tured article under section 6, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29753; May 14, 1909.) 
 Wheat. 
 Food products of crushed wheat — 
 Wheat that has been boiled, dried, and ground or otherwise broken, constituting 
 thereby a food product, has lost its character as a grain and takes on a form, 
 nature, appearance, and use differing distinctly from those it had before being 
 subjected to the described treatment, and it can not be properly classified as 
 wheat, or by similitude as wheat. It would seem this commodity has no com- 
 mercial designation, but it is manifestly a foodstuff manufactured from wheat, 
 and as such was dutiable under section 6, tariff act of 1897. Malouf v. United 
 States (No. 191), United States Court of Customs Appeals, April 10, 1911. 
 Appeal by the importer from decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 22592 (T. D. 30294). Transferred from United States 
 Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 31502; Apr. 10, 1911.) 
 Frozen — 
 Frozen wheat, about 50 per cent of which would germinate, and from which could 
 be produced edible bread, is dutiable as wheat under paragraph 242, tariff act 
 of 1909, notwithstanding it was principally used for animal food. United 
 States V. Devereux (135 Fed., 428; T. D. 26160) followed; Abstract 19941 (T. 
 D. 29339) distinguished. (T. D. 34353— G. A. 7552; Apr. 2, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) "Wheat" is used in the tariff act of 1909 without limitation or 
 qualification, and in the absence of a contrary commercial custom must be ap- 
 plied to every kind and class of merchandise embraced in the term. 
 
 Wheat, "no grade." — This iinportation was of frozen Manitoba wheat. Even 
 if it be assumed that no commercial designation was shown, and that the mer- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 899 
 
 Wheat — Continued. 
 Frozen — Continued. 
 
 chandise here waB improperly classed as "no grade," the record and the samples 
 clearly establish that the common, ordinary designation of "wheat" applies, 
 and this is so, though the wheat was confessedly of inferior quality, suitable 
 alone for animal food. Schade & Co. v. United States (No. 1404), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7552 (T. D. 34353). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 35002; Dec. 14, 1914.) 
 Green kern — 
 
 Green kern dutiable at the rate of 25 cents per bushel, as wheat, under paragraph 
 242, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33432; May 16, 1913.) 
 Heated — 
 
 Stored wheat, "bin burned ": This wheat was stored in a damp condition and it 
 heated and fermented and became "bin burned." To prevent further deterio- 
 ration it was subjected to a process of dry heating. Notwithstanding the com- 
 modity had been "bin burned" and "dry heated" it remained essentially 
 wheat and was bought and sold as wheat. United States v. Devereux (135 
 Fed., 428) and Malouf v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 437; T. D. 31502) 
 distinguished; Atwood-Stone Co. v. United States (No. 1414), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 35531 (T. D. 34440). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 35004; Dec. 14, 1914.) 
 Wheat and wheat products. 
 
 Collectors further instructed relative to the dutiability under paragraph 644, 
 tariff act of 1913, of wheat, wheat flour, and semolina, etc., when imported 
 from certain countries. (T. D. 33802; Oct. 23, 1913.) 
 
 Collectors instructed relative to the dutiability under paragraph 644, tariff act 
 of 1913, of wheat, wheat flour, semolina, etc., when imported from certain 
 countries. (T. D. 33940; Dec. 1, 1913.) 
 
 Collectors instructed that wheat and wheat products from the Argentine Republic 
 may be admitted free of duty under paragraph 644, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 
 34064; Jan. 17, 1914.) 
 
 Wheat bran the product of Canadian wheat ground in England free of duty under 
 paragraph 644 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 34368; Apr. 10, 1914.) 
 
 Statement: The merchandise described on the invoice as vegetable albumen is, 
 according to the chemist's report, not vegetable albumen, but a preparation 
 evidently of cereal meal that has been treated in such a way as to get rid of much 
 of the starch and leave mostly protein. The starch grains are so broken up in 
 the process that it is not possible to identify it. The protein is evidently derived 
 from wheat, com, rye, or barley, and contains 77.9 per cent protein, 10 per cent 
 starch, and 12.1 per cent moisture and fat. It was therefore returned for duty 
 as a Donenumerated manufactured article at 15 per cent ad valorem, paragraph 
 385, tariff act of 1913. 
 
 Free entry imder paragraph 644, tariff act of 1913: To entitle merchandise to 
 free entry under paragraph 644, tariff act of 1913, it must appear that it is a wheat 
 product not specially provided for and that it is imported from a country or sub- 
 division thereof which does not impose a duty on wheat products imported from 
 the United States. 
 
 Vegetable albumen: It is not a matter of common knowledge that a substance 
 obtained as this was is albumen within paragraph 392 of the act, the chemical 
 analysis relied on by the importers showing the substance to be 77.90 per cent 
 protein, 10 per cent starch, and 12.10 per cent moisture and fat. 
 
900 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Wheat and wheat products — Continued. 
 
 Protests, insuflSciency of: The protest here did not call the attention of the 
 collector to any other claim than that of free entry under paragraph 644, nor did 
 it indicate that any different claim was then in importers ' mind. It was insuf- 
 ficient. United States v. Kuyper & Co. (No. 1493), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal by the Government from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Ahstract 36813 (T. D. 34871). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 35393; May 3, 1915.) 
 
 Wheel chairs not personal effects. (See Effects, personal, bicycles, etc.) 
 
 Whetstones. 
 Water of Ayr polishing stones— 
 The stone is smooth, and its chief use is to smooth the rough surfaces of engraved 
 rollers. It was dutiable as an article of earthy or mineral substance under para- 
 graph 95, tariff act of 1909. Waddell & Co. v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 406; T. D. 32989); Manufacturers' Paper Co. v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 72; T. D. 32353); United States v. Tamm (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 425; T. D. 
 32173). United States v. Johnson & Co. (No. 1075); Johnson & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 1076), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30677 (T. D. 32997). De- 
 cision reversed. (T. D. 33375; Apr. 22, 1913.) 
 
 Whisk brooms. (See Brushes.) 
 
 Whistles. 
 Brass. (See Brass whistles.) 
 Wooden — 
 
 "Baby crys" not classifiable as: Small wooden whistles, known as "baby crys," 
 occasionally used in orchestras or moving-picture shows to produce a sound like 
 the cry of a baby, are not commonly or commercially known as musical instru- 
 ments as assessed under paragraph 467, but are dutiable as manufactures in 
 chief value of wood at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 215, tarifi act 
 of 1909. (T. D. 32777— G. A. 7387; Aug. 23, 1912.) 
 
 White oak — Japanese oak flooring. (See Wood, Japanese oak flooring.) 
 
 White paint, enamel. (See Paint.) 
 
 Whiting. (See Polishing powder.) 
 
 Wicker-covered bottles. (See Bottles.) 
 
 Wicks for lamps — So-called sanctuary Ughts. (See Cotton, manufactures of.) 
 
 Wigs, dolls'. (See Dolls' wigs.) 
 
 Wild animals and birds. 
 
 Importation of foreign wild animals and birds. (T. D. 30310; circular No. 5; 
 Jan. 28, 1910.) 
 
 Wild-cherry seed. (See Seeds— Wild-cherry seed.) 
 
 Willow baskets. (See Baskets.) 
 
 Wind matches. (See Matches.) 
 
 Window glass. (See Glass and glasses.) 
 
 Windowphanie paper. (See Paper.) 
 
 Window sashes. 
 
 Steel window fraines with sashes and gun-metal handles, stays, etc., are dutiable 
 as articles manufactured wholly of metal, not specially provided for, under para- 
 graph 193, tariff act of 1897, rather than as structural shapes or building forms 
 under paragraph 125. When structural shapes or forms have been advanced and 
 manufactured into a new product, they are no longer the described forms enu- 
 merated in the latter paragraph, but articles made therefrom. (T. D. 29276 — 
 G. A. 6810; Sept. 23, 1908.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 901 
 
 Window saslies — Continued. 
 
 (Appealed:) Where steel parts have been assembled and united into complete 
 window sashes, they have been too far advanced in manufacture to be "struc- 
 tural shapes of iron or steel * * « fitted for use," within the meaning ot 
 paragraph 125, tariff act of 1897, but are dutiable as manufactures of metal 
 under paragraph 193. Ackerson v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, May 22, 1909. Suit 5362. Appeal by importer 
 from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6810 (T. D. 
 29276). Board affirmed. ' (T. D. 29823; June 8, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Where steel parts have been assembled and united into complete 
 window sashes, they have been too far advanced in manufacture to be " struc- 
 tural shapes of iron or steel * * * fitted for use," within the meaning of 
 paragraph 125, tariff act of 1897, but are dutiable as manufactures of metal under 
 paragraph 193. Ackerson v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Second Circuit, March 12, 1910. No. 169 (suit 5362). Appeal by the 
 importer from decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern 
 District of New York (172 Fed. Rep., 303; T. D. 29823) affirming G. A. 6810 (T. 
 D. 29276). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30469; Mar. 29, 1910.) 
 
 Window sashes and frames composed entirely of steel, notwithstanding they have 
 permanently attached thereto gun-metal hinges and stay pins and brass bush- 
 ings, are nevertheless properly classifiable as sashes and frames of steel under 
 the eo nomine provision therefor in paragraph 104, tariff act of 1913, as claimed, 
 rather than as manufactures of metal under paragraph 167 of said act, as assessed. 
 (T. D. 34675— G. A. 7591; July 27, 1914.) 
 Windows. 
 Stained or painted glass— 
 
 Stained-glass windows not entitled to free entry under paragraph 703, tariff act of 
 1897, or paragraph 716, tariff act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 30221; Dec. 23, 1909.) 
 
 Stained or painted glass windows imported for presentation to a religious society 
 dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909, 
 and are not entitled to free entry under paragraph 716 as pictorial paintings on 
 glass. (T. D. 33159— G. A. 7427; Feb. 5, 1913.) 
 
 Paragraph 655, tariff act of 1913, construed as admitting stained-glass windows 
 for use in houses of worship to free entry only when imported for presentation 
 to an incorporated reUgious society. (T. D. 34175; Feb. 9, 1914.) 
 
 Painted or stained glass windows imported for presentation to incorporated 
 churches, etc., when the principal value thereof is the artistic production, en- 
 titled to entry free of duty under paragraph 655, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34419; 
 Apr. 27, 1914.) 
 
 When excluded from free entry: Stained or painted glass windows, in part me- 
 chanically wrought from metal within 20 years before importation and imported 
 to be used in houses of worship, are dutiable under the provision in paragraph 
 95, tariff act of 1913, for "stained or painted glass windows," and are not free of 
 duty under paragraph 655 as "works of art, * * * including * * * 
 stained or painted glass windows imported to be used in houses of worship," 
 being excluded from the latter paragraph by the proviso therein, which reads, 
 "excluding any article in whole or in part molded, cast, or mechanically 
 wrought from metal within twenty years prior to importation." 
 
 Incorporation of house of worship: Under the provision of paragraph 655, 
 granting free entry to works of art, including stained or painted glass windows 
 to be used in houses of worship, it is not necessary that the house of worship be 
 incorporated. (T. D. 34928— G. A. 7642; Nov. 27, 1914.) 
 
902 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Windows — Continued. 
 Stained or painted glass — Continued. 
 Decision of Board of United States General Appraisers relative to stained-glass 
 windows, G. A. 7642 (T. D. 34928), effective 30 days from d^te thereof. Said 
 decision also applicable to molded metal statuary. (T. D. 35056; Jan. 14, 1915.) 
 "Molded, cast, or mechanically wrought from metal: " A stained or painted glass 
 window, which is made by cutting the glass into desired forms, staining or 
 painting the same, putting the pieces together by means of lead strips or sash 
 which were made in a machine from a bar of cast metal, is an "article, in whole 
 or in part molded, cast, or mechanically wrought from metal " within the mean- 
 ing of the prohibition in paragraph 655, tariff act of 1913, excluding from its 
 scope articles so wrought. 
 
 House of worship — Incorporation: Under the terms of paragraph 655, pro- 
 viding free entry for works of art, "including * * * stained or painted 
 glass windowa imported to be used in houses of worship,'' it is not necessary 
 that the house of worship shall be incorporated, and therefore proof of incor- 
 poration is not required. G. A. 7642 (T. D. 34928) followed. (T. D. 35168— 
 G. A. 7690; Feb. 23, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Foruse in houses of worship. — The legislative history of that por- 
 tion of paragraph 655, tariff act of 1913, that relates to painted or stained glass 
 windows shows clearly, and the language itself must be taken to show, that it 
 is a complete and independent provision, in nowise modified or affected by 
 the clause of exclusion in the paragraph. Houses of worship are those desig- 
 nated as beneficiaries in importing free of duty painted or stained glass win- 
 dows, and they are so entitled whether incorporated or not. Perry, Byer & 
 Co. V. United States (No. 1526), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Ap- 
 peal by importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7690 
 (T. D. 35168). Decision reversed. (T. D. 35462; May 18, 1915.) 
 Wines and liquors. 
 Breakage and leakage. (See Allowance.) 
 Capacity of bottles — • 
 Paragraph 296, tariff act of 1897, provides for bottles "containing each not more 
 than one quart and more than one pint," and for bottles "containing each not 
 more than one pint;" also, that "any excess beyond these quantities * * * 
 shall be subject to a duty of five cents per pint or fractional part thereof." 
 Meld that this provision for wine in excess applies only to bottles containing 
 more than 1 quart, and that bottles containing between a pint and a quart are 
 subject to the duty provided for bottles "containing each not more than one 
 quart and more than one pint." United States v. Cerecedo (209 U. S., 337; 28 
 Sup. Ct. Rep., 532; T. D. 28954) followed. (T. D. 29118— G. A. 6784; June 
 25, 1908.) 
 Chinese^ 
 Chinese wine, so-called, which is a spirituous beverage made by a process of dis- 
 tillation from rice and which contains a high percentage of alcohol, is dutiable 
 under paragraph 303, tariff act of 1909, as a "spirituous beverage," and not 
 under paragraph 307 as "rice wine." (T. D. 31523— G. A. 7213; Apr. 24, 1911.) 
 Excess — ^Bottles containing more than pint — 
 Paragraph 296, tariff act of 1897, provides for bottles "containing each not more 
 than one quart and more than one pint," and for bottles "containing each not 
 more than one pint;" also, that "any excess beyond these quantities * * * 
 shall be subject to a duty of five cents per pint or fractional part thereof." 
 Held that this provision for wine in excess applies only to bottles containing 
 more than 1 quart, and that bottles containing between a pint and a quart are 
 subject to the duty provided for bottles "containing each not more than one 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 903 
 
 Wines and liquois — Continued. 
 
 Excess — ^Bottles containing more than pint — Continued. 
 
 quart and more than one pint." United States v. Cerecedo, United States 
 Supreme Court, April 6, 1908. No. 152 (suit 1821). Appeal from District 
 Court of the United States for the District of Porto Rico (T. D. 27706). Deci- 
 sion in favor of the Government. (T. D. 28954; Apr. 22, 1908.) 
 
 Not household eflfects. (See Effects, household.) 
 
 Percentage of alcohol — 
 An excess of 14 per cent of alcohol in still wines: The wine of the importation 
 under consideration was tested in accordance with the regulations of the Treas- 
 ury. It was ascertained to contain absolute alcohol perceptibly in excess of 
 14 per cent. This finding leaves no room for construction. The wines were 
 dutiable as assessed at 60 cents per gallon under paragraph 307, tariff act of 1909. 
 United States v. Lueder (154 Fed. Rep., 1; T. D. 27918). Vandegrift & Co. v. 
 United States (No. 827), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by 
 the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 27439 
 (T. D. 32126). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 32462; Apr. 17, 1912.) 
 
 Wantage. (See Wantage.) 
 Wings, quills, pompons, and other manufactured feather articles. (See Feathers 
 
 and feather articles.) 
 Wire and wir» articles. 
 
 Coated — 
 Wire made by inserting an iron wire in a hollow tube of nickel and then drawing 
 the whole wire down until the nickel covering becomes welded to and a part of 
 the iron core, is "coated" wire within the meaning of paragraph 137, tariff act 
 of 1897. Boker v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District 
 of New York, March 2, 1909. Suit 4472. Appeal by importer from decision of 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 6414 (T. D. 27544). Board 
 reversed. (T. D. 29630; Mar. 17, 1909.) 
 
 (Appealed:) The provision in paragraph 137, tariff act of 1897, for wire 
 "coated with * * * metal," includes an article produced by pushing a 
 steel or iron rod through a nickel tube and then wiredrawing the whole, thus 
 bringing it down to the required diameter and welding the nickel to the core. 
 It makes no difference whether the coating mentioned in the statute is affixed 
 by welding, dipping, electrolysis, or otherwise. United States v. Boker, United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 11, 1910. No. 108 
 (suit 4472). Appeal by the United States from decision of the Circuit Court of 
 the United States for the Southern District of New York (168 Fed. Rep., 464; 
 T. D. 29630) reversing G. A. 6414 (T. D. 27544). Decision adverse to the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 30276; Jan. 18, 1910.) 
 
 Coiled spring wire articles — 
 The coiling process to which this wire has been subjected has given the wire a new 
 character, name, and use. It is not according to the accepted definition of 
 "wire," "a slender rod, strand, or thread of ductile metal," but is essentially 
 different from this. It has a use as a spring, resulting from the changed form 
 into which the original wire has been permanently converted. It was dutiable 
 as an article manufactured of wire. Boye Needle Co. v. United States (No. 
 1234), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32898 (T. D. 33591). De- 
 cision affirmed. (T. D. 34009; Dec. 15, 1913.) 
 
 Collar supporters. (See Collar supporters.) 
 
 Composed of platinum and iridium — 
 Wire composed of 80 per cent platinum and 20 per cent iridium is not entitled to 
 free entry under the provision in paragraph 578 of the tariff act of 1913 for " plati- 
 
904 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Wire and wire articles — Continued. 
 
 Composed of platinum and iiridium — Continued. 
 
 num * * * in wire," which contemplates platinum in the form of wire and 
 not wire composed in part of platinum and in part of some other material. Gen- 
 eral Electric Co. v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 398; T."D. 33839) followed. 
 (T. D. 35627— G. A. 7762; July 29, 1915.) 
 
 Hat or ribbon — 
 Hat wire or ribbon wire in chief value of metal to be assessed with duty at the rate of 
 45 per cent.ad valorem under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 33126; 
 Jan. 27, 1913.) 
 
 Bibbon wire — ■ 
 Ribbon wires composed of flat strips of woven cotton material containing three 
 round steel wires, one in each edge and the other in the middle, dutiable under 
 paragraph 135, tariff act of 1909, as articles made of steel wire and subject to the 
 proviso to the said paragraph, levying an extra duty of 1 cent per pound in addi- 
 tion to the duty imposed by said paragraph on the wire of which they are made 
 and a minimum rate of 40 per cent ad valorem. (T. D. 33260 — G. A. 7443; 
 Mar. 3, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Not round iron or steel wire. — The merchandise is commercially 
 known as "ribbon wire," but it is not thereby brought within the terms "round 
 iron or steel wire," as used in paragraph 135, tariff act of 1909. It is not, in tact, 
 a round steel wire, but is a flat article; it is not a steel article, but one made 
 partly of steel and partly of cotton fabric. It was assessed under the proviso of 
 that paragraph as a manufacture of round steel wire covered with cotton. This 
 arrangement, in view of the issues, will not be disturbed. Steinhardt & Bro. 
 et al. V. United States (No. 1159), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7443 (T. D. 33260). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33854; Oct. 31, 1913.) 
 
 Rods — 
 Articles composed of iron or steel and commercially known and recognized as wire 
 rods are properly dutiable under the general provision for "wire rods" in the 
 first part of paragraph 113 of the tariff act of 1913, irrespective of the use or uses 
 for which they may be destined. The clause "ready to be drawn or rolled into 
 wire or strips" has reference only to the phrase which forms its immediate ante- 
 cedent, to wit, "and flat rods up to 6 inches in width." (T. D. 35100— G. A. 
 7672; Jan. 27, 1915.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Bundles or coils of Swedish iron rods. — ^The language of paragraph 
 113, tariff act of 1913, is comprehensive, including, as it does, "rivet, screw, 
 fence, nail, and other iron or steel wire rods." The testimony shows the goods 
 were sold as iron wire rods and are used in this country as such. The record 
 sustains the conclusion of the board that the merchandise was iron wire rods and 
 dutiable under paragraph 113. Athenia Steel & Wire Co. v. United States (1 
 Ct. Cust. Appls., 494; T. D. 31528) distinguished. Swedish Iron & Steel Cor- 
 poration V. United States (No. 1533), United States Coxirt of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 
 7672 (T. D. 35100). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35466; May 18, 1915.) 
 
 Eope — 
 Wire cable composed of wires twisted around a core made of wire twisted together 
 dutiable at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem as wire rope under paragraph 114, 
 tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35300; Apr. 7, 1915.) 
 
 Safety pins and hairpins — 
 Safety pins composed of nickel-plated steel wire and hairpins of lacquered iron 
 wu-e are both provided for eo nomine in paragraph 158 of the tariff act of 1913 
 and dutiable thereunder, as here classified by the collector, rather than under 
 
DIGEST 0¥ CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 905 
 
 Wire and wire articles — Continued. 
 Safety pins and hairpins — Continued. 
 
 the general provision for articles made of wire, in paragraph 114 of said act, aa 
 claimed by the protestants. (T. D. 35912— G. A. 7817; Nov. 24, 1915.) 
 Staples — 
 
 Wire staples employed in the manufacture of automobile tires to anchor the cords 
 at each side of the completed tire are properly exempt from duty under the pro- 
 visions for "wire staples" in paragraph 554 of the tariff act of 1913, as claimed, 
 rather than dutiable as manufactures of wire under paragraph 114 of said act, as 
 classified by the collector. (T. D. 35025— G. A. 7657; Dec. 29, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Wire in U forms, but not used as staples. — These articles, wire 
 forms of heavy wire, are used in the manufacture of automobile tires. They 
 were not impdrted nor are they designed for use as staples, that is, as fasteners. 
 They have been advanced beyond the condition of a staple proper and should 
 not be classified as such. United States v. B. F. Goodrich Co. (Nos. 1522 and 
 1523), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7657 (T. D. 35025). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 35443; May 18, 1915.) 
 "Tinsel wire," so-called — 
 
 Flat wire in width 22 Birmingham gauge and in thickness 32 Birmingham wire 
 gauge dutiable at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem imder paragraph 199, tariff 
 act of 1909. '(T. D. 32609; June 7, 1912.) 
 Weight of — Evidence — 
 
 The collector had before him the invoice, the entry, and the weigher's certificate, 
 and it was apparent therefrom that the statement of the gross weight of the wire 
 in the invoice and entry was incorrect and that the true weight, less tare, which 
 is the dutiable weight, was before him in the manner required by law. A case 
 of manifest clerical error was thus presented and a shortage in weight of the 
 shipment as invoiced appeared. United States v. Nash et al. (27 Fed. Cas., 
 750); Marriott v. Brune (50 U. S., 633). United States v. Bush & Co. et al. 
 (No. 1164), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31640 (T. D. 
 33263). Rehearing denied. (T. D. 34187; Feb. 5, 1914.) 
 Wire cloth. 
 
 Wire cloth, dutiable at an ad valorem rate of 45 per cent under paragraph 199, 
 tariff act of 1909, is not subject to the additional duty of 1 cent pound under 
 paragraph 135 of said act. Citing and following United States v. McCoy (4 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 396; T. D. 33838). 
 Brass or bronze wire — 
 
 The first proviso to paragraph 135, tariff act of 1909, does not establish 35 per cent 
 as a primary rate, but does establish it as a minimum rate. Schloss v. United 
 States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 459; T. D. 33038). The second proviso requires 
 that articles manufactured wholly or in chief value of any wires the duty upon 
 which is fixed by the paragraph should pay the additional rate of 1 cent per 
 pound; but it was not designed to increase the rate upon manufactured articles 
 falling under other paragraphs of the act. Courts will be alert to give effect to all of 
 the provisions of a statute, but the case must be a very clear one, if it ever arises, 
 in which a court will strike out words plainly limiting the operation of a clause 
 that would be operative but for those words. United States v. McCoy Co. et al. 
 (No. 1145); McCoy Co. et al. v. United States (No. 1146); United States v. 
 Neumeyer & Dimond (No. 1147); Neumeyer & Dimond v. United States (No. 
 1148), United States Court of Customs Appeals, October 24, 1913. Cross-appeal 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31676 (T. D. 33280); 
 Abstract 31816 (T. D. 33304). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33838; Oct. 24, 1913.) 
 
906 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Wire cloth — Continued. 
 Biass or bionze wire — Continued. 
 Metal threads: Metal threads must be taken to mean articles having a core of 
 vegetable or animal substance wound about with tinsel wire, lame or lahn. 
 
 Metal threads in paragraph 179, tariff act of 1909: Assuming that metal 
 threads must be twisted, there is no evidence of record here that the so-called 
 metal threads in this case were so treated, the evidence rather showing they 
 were made of fine-gauge wire. They were properly assessed as manufactures 
 of metal under pai-agraph 199, tariff act of 1909. W. S. Tyler Co. v. United 
 States (No. 1432), United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 18, 1915. Ap 
 peal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 36049 (T. D. 34609). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35433; May 18, 1915.) 
 Wire gauge. 
 
 The tariff act of 1913 eliminates the term "wire gauge," except in paragraph 114 
 in relation to steel strips. The use of the American wire gauge (Brown & Sharpe 
 authorized, where applicable. (T. D. 34701; Aug. 13, 1914.) 
 Wistaria baskets. (See Baskets, bamboo, split.) 
 Withdrawal for transportation and exportation ^nd bonds therefor. 
 Emergency revenue law — Stamp tax — 
 Withdrawals for transportation and exportation and bonds given therefor not 
 subject to tax under the act of October 22, 1914. (T. D. 35007; Dec. 21, 1914.) 
 Withdrawal from warehouse. (See Warehouses.) 
 Withdrawal of lead from bonded smelting warehouse. (See Lead.) 
 Withdrawal of merchandise from bond under new tariff act. (See Appraisement.) 
 Witherite. 
 
 Provision for witherite does not include precipitated carbonate of baryta. (See 
 Chemical salt.) 
 "Wobla." (See Fish — Russian fish from the Caspian Sea.) 
 Wood. 
 Apple — 
 Apple wood is not a "cabinet wood " within the meaning of that term as used in 
 the tariff acts of 1897 and 1909. (T. D. 30181— G. A. 6949; Dec. 8, 1909.) 
 Baskets. (See Baskets.) 
 Beams containing spun silk— 
 The usual articles or forms for covering or holding merchandise subject to specific 
 duty are free, unless such articles or forms are given a different status by con- 
 gressional enactment. Karthaus v. Frick (14 Fed. Cas., 136); United States v. 
 Leggett (66 Fed. Rep., 300); Curtis' case, G. A. 4947 (T. D. 23131). To render 
 articles or forms used for covering or holding imported merchandise dutiable 
 under the provisions of subsection 18 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909, two 
 conditions must coexist; they must be unusual, and must also be designed for 
 use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of the merchandise. Pacific 
 Creosoting Co.'s case, G. A. 6927 (T. D. 29980); PoUmann's case, G. A. 4649 
 (T. D. 21961). Wooden beams containing spun silk are not unusual articles or 
 forms for holding such silk within the meaning of subsection 18 of section 28 of 
 the tariff act of 1909; they are entitled to free admission as usual articles or 
 forms for holding merchandise subject to specific duty. Blumenthal's case, 
 G. A. 2351 (T. D. 14559), overruled. Somerville, G. A., dissenting, holds 
 that the protests claiming that the wooden beams in question are the usual 
 covering for the spun silk within the meaning of subsection 18 of section 28 of 
 the tariff act of 1909, which is referable to containers or coverings of the kind 
 there enumerated, are not sufficiently specific and should be overruled. (T. 
 D. 31332— G. A. 7175; Feb. 20, 1911.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 907 
 
 Wood — Continued. 
 
 Beams containing spun silk — Oontiaued. 
 
 (Appealed:) To be admitted free of duty as a container of merchandise on 
 which a specific duty is imposed, an article should not only be a container, but 
 should be Uie usual container employed in transporting the goods. The im- 
 porter failed to overcome by a preponderance of evidence the presumption of 
 the correctness of the collector's finding that the beams in question were un- 
 usual containers, if containers they were, and therefore that presumption must 
 prevail. Further, it is admitted that the beams were designed for some other 
 use than the bona fide transportation of the merchandise to the United States. 
 Under such circumstances additional duty would have been properly assessable 
 on the beams even if they had been within the category of containers described 
 by subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Stim (No. 
 612), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States 
 from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7175 (T. D. 31332). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 32350; Mar. 20, 1912.) 
 A single entity: The merchandise is spun silk on beams, dutiable under that title 
 at a specific rate, paragraph 397, tariff act of 1909. The beams were separately 
 assessed with duty as manufactures of wood. Held, that the beams should be 
 admitted without separate assessment as parts of the entirety "spun silk on 
 beams." Stim v. United States (No. 1135), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeal by the importer from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, Abstract 31402 (T. D. 33217). Decision reversed. (T. D. 34092; 
 Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 
 Cabinet — 
 Spanish cedar, sawed: Sawed Spanish cedar dutiable as a cabinet wood under 
 
 paragraph 203, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 32482; May 3, 1912.) 
 Sawed Spanish cedar of dimensions from 5 to 6 feet in length, 5^ inches wide, and 
 from three-sixteenths to one-fourth of an inch in thickness, being a soft wood, 
 resinous in character, is not a cabinet wood. 
 
 Sawed lumber — Chief use: Sawed Spanish cedar, shown to be used chiefly for 
 making cigar boxes, is not to be classified as a cabinet wood, but is sawed lumber, 
 subject to duty at the rate of |1.25 per thousand feet board measure under para- 
 graph 201, tariff act of 1909. The chief use determines its classification. Magone 
 V. Weiderer (159 U. S., 555); Meyer v. Cadwalader (89 Fed., 963); Vandiver v. 
 United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 194; T. D. 31219); United States v. Marsching 
 (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 216; T. D. 31257). (T. D. 33642— G. A. 7481; July 14, 1913.) 
 (Appealed:) Spanish-cedar strips or boards, intended for use in themanufac- 
 ture of cigar boxes, were assessed with duty as sawed cedar under paragraph 203, 
 tariff act of 1909. The testimony in the Case establishes the fact that Spanish 
 cedar is commercially known as a "cabinet wood," such as is covered by para- 
 graph 203. The assessment is sustained. United States v. Owen & Co. et al. 
 (No. 1232), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7481 (T. D. 33642). 
 Decision reversed. (T. D. 33887; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 
 Columns, carved — 
 Works of art. (See Works of art, carved wooden columns.) 
 
 Furniture. (See Furniture.) 
 
 Japanese oak flooring — 
 Japanese oak flooring, planed, tongued and grooved, although plowed on the 
 under side and in some cases having narrow grooves or channels, free of duty 
 under paragraph 647, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34408; Apr. 23, 1914.) 
 Japanese white-oak flooring, planed and tongued and grooved, subject to duty at 
 the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 176, tariff act of 1913. (T. 
 D. 35233; Mar. 19, 1915.) 
 
908 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Wood — Continued . 
 Japanese white oak — 
 
 Japanese white oak, the more general use of which is for furniture and cabinet pur- 
 poses, is a cabinet wood, and when imported in the log, rough, or hewn only, ia 
 entitled to free entry under the provisions of paragraph 713, tariff act of 1909, as 
 "cabinet woods, in the log, rough, or hewn only." (T. D. 32454— G. A. 7357; 
 Apr. 26, 1912.) 
 
 Japanese white-oak hewn logs over 8 inches square free of duty under paragraph 
 713, tariff act of 1909; Japanese white-oak lumber not further manufactured 
 than sawed, 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 203 of said act. (T. D. 
 32660; June 25, 1912.) 
 
 Japanese white-oak lumber found to be cabinet wood and held subject to duty at 
 the rate of 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 203 of the tariff act of 1909 
 and at 10 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 169 of the tariff act of 1913. G. A. 
 7357 (T. D. 32454) cited. (T. D. 35131— G. A. 7682; Feb. 10, 1915.) 
 Manufactures of — 
 
 Bamboo articles: Bamboo articles, such as fern dishes, vases, trays, afnd other 
 basket ware, with metal lining, will be assessed with duty as baskets at the rate 
 of 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 175, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 35999; 
 Dec. 18, 1915.) 
 
 Bamboo, split: Split bamboo not in the form of sticks sutiable for use in the manu- 
 facture of articles specified in paragraph 648, tariff act of 1913, dutiable as manu- 
 factures of wood under paragraph 176 of the said act. (T. D. 34751; Sept. 4, 
 1914.) 
 
 Boards: Boards planed, dovetailed, and glued together, advanced beyond the 
 condition of planed and tongued and grooved, and dutiable as manufactures 
 of wood under paragraph 176, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34198; Feb. 17, 1914.) 
 
 Brooms and brushes: The importation consisted of round wooden sticks about 18 
 inches long, at one end of which is a whisk effect produced by small shavings 
 of the stick turned down and bound together. An examination of the samples 
 shows that these articles could not be used as brooms or brushes. They were 
 properly held dutiable as manufactures of wood under paragraph 215, tariff act 
 of 1909. United States v. Sheldon & Co. (No. 1101), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 30952 (T. D. 33055). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 33524; May 26, 1913.) 
 
 Creosoted wood paving blocks: Creosoted wood paving blocks dutiable at the rate 
 of 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 176; tariff act of October 3, 1913, as 
 manufactures of wood not specially provided for. (T. D. 35838; Oct. 23, 1915.) 
 
 Cricket bats — Willow wood chief value: Cricket bats, the handles of which are 
 made of cane and the blades of willow wood, the willow wood being the compo- 
 nent of chief value, are not manufactures of willow within the meaning of para- 
 graph 212, tariff act of 1909. In framing paragraph 212 it was not the purpose 
 of Congress to do more than provide for the lighter or twig forms of willow, such 
 as are commonly used for basket making and other kinds of wickerwork, and 
 nowhere in the tariff act is any distinction made between articles made from 
 willow wood and those made from other woods. Held to be manufactures of 
 wood and subject to duty at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 
 215 of said act. (T. D. 32641— G. A. 7374; June 13, 1912.) 
 
 Olive-wood pieces— Bible covers: Pieces of oUve wood, carved and polished, in 
 suitable dimensions to be used as covers for Bibles and Testaments, are not en- 
 titled to free entry under paragraph 414, tariff act of 1913, as parts of Bibles, 
 but are subject to duty as manufactures of wood at the rate of 15 per cent ad 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 909 
 
 Wood — Continued; 
 Manufactures of — Continued. 
 
 valorem under the provisions of paragraph 176 of said act. Worthington v. 
 Bobbins (139 U. S., 337) cited. (T. D. 35720— G. A. 7776; Sept. 21, 1915.) 
 
 Pipe bowls: A piece of wood that hae been roughly carved into the shape and 
 form of a pipe bowl, but which has not been sufficiently advanced in manufac- 
 ture to answer the purpose of a pipe bowl, is not dutiable as such under para- 
 graph 881, tariff act of 1913, but is properly classifiable under paragraph 176 as 
 manufactures of wood. (See Reiss Bros. & Co.'s case, G. A. 3405, T. D. 16977.) 
 United States v. Hanover Vulcanite Co. (4 Ct. Oust. Appls., 503; T. D. 83919) 
 distinguished. (T. D. 85697— G. A. 7771; Sept. 1, 1915.) 
 
 Sash rail, stair rail, crown molding, novelty siding, and similar articles, when 
 beaded or molded, dutiable under paragraph 176, tariff act of 1913, at 15 per cent 
 ad valorem, as manufactures of wood. (T. D. 34178; Feb. 11, 1914.) 
 
 Split and cut into lengths: The splitting and cutting into lengths of bamboo does 
 not in fact make of it anything and putting it up into bundles did not change its 
 character. It has not been manufactured. The decisions and the legislative 
 history of the relevant provision show the merchandise was entitled to free entry 
 under paragraph 713, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Steeb & Co. (No. 1508), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the Government from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37055 (T. D. 35000). De- 
 cision affirmed. (T. D. 35503; May 24, 1915.) 
 
 Unfinished violin necks: Blocks of wood, rough-shaped into the form of violin 
 necks and requiring the application thereto of further processes of manufacture 
 before they become fitted for use as violin necks, are not, as imported, parts of 
 musical instruments within the meaning of paragraph 467, tariff act of 1909, 
 but are dutiable as manufactures of wood under paragraph 215 of said act. (T. 
 D. 31755— G. A. 7247; July 17, 1911.) 
 Paving blocks. (See Wood, manufactures of.) 
 Sticks for fans. (See Fan sticks.) 
 Unmanufactured- 
 Boxwood sticks: Boxwood sticks in the rough, dutiable at the rate of 20 per cent 
 ad valorem as wood unmanufactiu"ed under paragraph 203, tariff act of 1909. 
 (T. D. 33634; July 17, 1913.) 
 
 Boxwood sticks in the rough — Umbrella handles: These sticks are in the rough 
 and not further advanced than cut into lengths suitable for use in making um- 
 brellas, parasols, etc. They remain boxwood sticks in the rough and their 
 principal use, as was shown, is for umbrella or parasol handles, and it further 
 appears that umbrella handles are parts of umbrella sticks. Paragraph 718, 
 tariff act of 1909, applied, and the sticks were entitled to free entry. United 
 States V. Benneche (No. 1465), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Ap- 
 peal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 86842 (T. D. 84742). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35339; Apr. 14, 
 1915.) 
 
 The facts in this case are the same as those in T. D. 35339, and it was heard con- 
 currently with, and is ruled by United States v. Benneche (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 
 — ; T. D. 35339). United States v. Otto Gerdau Co. (No. 1467), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 36725 (T. D. 34865). Affirmed. (T. D. 
 35340; Apr. 14, 1915.) 
 
 Parts of furniture not classifiable as wood, unmanufactured. (See Furniture, 
 partly finished.) 
 
 Timber — Oak logs: White-oak logs were imported substantially as the tree had 
 fallen when cut down. The branches had been cut off, but the logs had not 
 
910 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Wood — Continued . 
 Unmanufactured — Continued. 
 
 been peeled or sided. It is doubtful if importations of this character and con- 
 dition are within the letter or spirit of paragraph 200, tariff act of 1909, and there 
 is nothing in the record so convincing of the contrary as to warrant a reversal. 
 The logs were properly held not dutiable as being the round unmanufactured 
 timber of paragraph 712. United States v. MacNaughton (No. 1237), United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of 
 United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32938 (T. D. 33594). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 34166; Nov. 28, 1913.) 
 Wood flour. 
 
 Wood flour a manufactm'e of wood: The question here presented is whether certain 
 wood flour, so called, is dutiable as assessed and as held by the Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 215 of the tariff act 
 of 1909 as manufactures of wood, or whether it is dutiable at 20 per cent ad 
 valorem under paragraph 460 as a nonenumerated article, or directly or by simil- 
 itude at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 203 as wood, unmanufadured, 
 not specially provided for. In the light of the decisions it is held that the pro- 
 , vision in the tariff act of 1909 covering the merchandise here was reenacted, and 
 that by this reenactment the Congress adopted the construction which had been 
 placed upon the terms there employed by the coiurts, and that, accordingly, 
 wood flour was dutiable as a manufacture of wood. Rossman v. United States 
 (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 280; T. D. 31321); Salomon v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., 92; T. D. 31635) distinguished. Lang et al. v. United States (No. 1182), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31921 (T. D. 33338). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 33881; Nov. 11, 1913.) 
 Wood pulp and printing paper. (See also Duty, countervailing.) 
 
 In the form of a Ucense fee for the privilege of cutting pulp wood on public lands 
 in the Province of Quebec 40 cents a cord is collected on what is consumed in 
 manufacture within Canada, and 65 cents a cord on what is exported. Held, 
 that in its essential nature this is the imposition of an export duty of 25 cents 
 a cord and should be considered such within the meaning of paragraph 393, 
 tariff act of 1897, providing a countervailing duty on pulp imported from a 
 "coiintry or dependency [which] shall impose an export duty on pulp wood." 
 In complying with the provision of paragraph 393, tariff act of 1897, for a coun- 
 tervailing duty on pulp made from wood subjected to an export duty, customs 
 officers are not required to pass upon questions of foreign constitutional or statu- 
 tory construction. Their action is justified if they find correctly that what in 
 fact is a duty upon exportation from a foreign country has been acted upon by 
 taxing officers throughout that country as fully as if it were imposed by unques- 
 tionable authority. Heckendom v. United States, United States Circuit Court 
 of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, April 14, 1908. No. 1396 (suit 1925). Appeal 
 from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin 
 (T. D. 28330). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 28955; Apr. 22, 
 1908.) 
 
 Wood pulp and printing paper: Instructions as to the assessment of regular, addi- 
 tional, and countervailing duty on wood pulp and printing paper under para- 
 graphs 406 and 409 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 29968; Aug. 26, 
 1909.) 
 
 Department's instructions (T. D. 29968) as to the assessment of regular, additional, 
 and countervailing duty on wood pulp and printing paper under paragraphs 
 406 and 409, tariff act of August 5, 1909, more fully stated. (T. D. 30045; Oct. 
 16, 1909.) 
 
DIGEST or .CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 911 
 
 Wood pulp and priutiug paper — Oontinued. 
 
 A Hworn statement should be attached to or stamped on all invoices of wood pulp 
 or printing paper showing the origin of the pulp wood from which the wood pulp 
 or printing paper was produced, as well as the origin of the wood pulp or printing 
 paper. The percentage of any portion claimed exempt from the additional duty 
 prescribed by paragraphs 406 and 409 of the tariff act of 1909 should be shown 
 upon the invoice. (T. D. 30859; Aug. 6, 1910.) 
 
 T. D. 30859 of August 6, 1910, relative to the character of evidence required to 
 establish the exemption of wood pulp and printing paper from special duties 
 imder paragraphs 406 and 409, tariff act of 1909, amended by prescribing that 
 the statement as to origin, etc., need not contain the provision that the books 
 and accounts of the manufacturers shall at all times be open to the inspection of 
 the American consul or Treasury agent. (T. D. 31286; Feb. 10, 1911.) 
 
 Pending decision by the courts, free entry will.be denied to certain wood pulp, 
 paper, and paper board from countries other than Canada. (T. D. 32137; Jan. 
 10, 1912.) 
 Allowance for moisture — 
 
 T. D. 16781 of February 24, 1896, amended so as to provide for the ascertainment of 
 the air-dry weight of wood pulp by adding to the bone-dry weight one-ninth of 
 the latter. (T. D. 32485; May 6, 1912.) 
 Belgium and Denmark — 
 
 The department extends to importations of wood pulp and paper, the products of 
 Belgium and Denmark, respectively, the principle of the decision of the United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals in T. D. 33434 in the wood-pulp cases. (T. D. 
 33737; Sept. 19, 1913.) 
 
 For T. D. 33434 see Wood pulp and printing paper — Favored-nation clause. 
 British Columbia — 
 
 T. D. 31772, as amended by T. D. 31890 and T. D. 32238, further amended so as to 
 permit the free entry of certain wood pulp, paper, and paper board manufac- 
 tured from wood cut on certain leased lands in British Columbia. (T. D . 32757 ; 
 Aug. 10, 1912.) 
 Canada — 
 
 Wood pulp and printing paper produced from pulp wood cut on Crown lands in 
 Canada after May 1, 1910, dutiable as follows: Mechanically ground wood pulp, 
 one-twelfth of 1 cent per pound, dry weight, under paragraph 406 of the tariff act 
 of August 5, 1909; chemical wood pulp, unbleached, one-sixth of 1 cent per 
 pound, dry weight, and bleached, one-fourth of 1 cent per pound, dry weight, 
 under paragraph 406; printing paper, the regular rates, and in addition thereto 
 one-tenth of 1 cent per pound when valued at 3 cents per pound or less under 
 paragraph 409. T. D. 29968 and 30045 of August 26 and October 16, 1909, 
 amended. (T. D. 30591; May 5, 1910.) 
 
 Instructions as to the assessment of duty on wood pulp and printing paper under 
 paragraphs 406 and 409, tariff act of 1909. Pulp and printing paper manufac- 
 tured from wood cut on Crown lands. Province of Quebec, prior to May 1, 1910, 
 subject to coimtervaiUng duty under T. D. 30045. Like products manufac- 
 tured from wood cut on Crown lands, Province of Quebec, after May 1, 1910, not 
 subject to countervailing duty, following T. D. 30591). (T. D. 30679; June 11, 
 1910.) 
 
 Reciprocity: between the United States and Canada. (T. D. 31772; circular No. 
 48; July 26, 1911.) (Modified by T. D. 31890; Sept. 29, 1911.) 
 
 Reafflrmance of department's practice under T. D. 26804 relative to assessing 
 coimtervailing duty only on that portion of Canadian pulp or printing paper 
 made from wood cut on Crown lands. (T. D. 31879; Sept. 26, 1911.) 
 
912 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Wood pulp and printing papei — Continued. 
 Canada — Continued. 
 
 Paragraphs? and 8 of T. D. 31772, relative to entry of wood pulp, paper, and paper 
 board, the products of Canada, modified. (T. D. 31890; Sept. 29, 1911.) 
 
 Instructions as to the assessment of duty on wood pulp and printing paper, under 
 paragraphs 406 and 409, tarifi act of 1909, produced from wood cut on certain 
 Dominion lands in Canada. (T. D. 32238; Feb. 12, 1912.) 
 
 Wood pulp, paper, and paper board inanufactured in Canada wholly or in par{ 
 from materials imported into that coimtry from other countries are not entitled 
 to free entry under section 2, act of July 26, 1911. (T. D. 32156; Jan. 18, 1912.) 
 
 Collectors instructed to continue to collect duty on pulp, paper, and paper board 
 manufactured from wood cut on Crown lands in Quebec, notwithstanding state- 
 ments in shippers' declaration on invoices made by virtue of the order in council 
 of December 31, 1912, relating to the freedom of the wood cut in such lands from 
 restrictions as to manufacture, exportation, etc. (T. D. 33108; Jan. 18, 1913.) 
 
 Section 2 of the act of Congress of July 26, 1911, entitled "An act to promote recip- 
 rocal trade relations with the Dominion of Canada, and for other purposes," is 
 valid and still in force as a law of Congress. 
 
 Pulp made from private-lands wood free, notwithstanding pulp made from 
 Crown-lands wood is dutiable: Pulp imported direct from Canada which was 
 made from wood grown on private lands upon which no export duty, license fee, 
 or other export charge or restriction of any kind has been imposed, is free of duty 
 under said section 2, notwithstanding goods of like character made from wood 
 grown on Crown lands are dutiable. Where free and dutiable goods are indis- 
 criminately mixed, the collector may separate them for dutiable purposes if 
 they are capable of separation by testimony. Myers v. United States (140 Fed., 
 648). (T. D. 33141— G. A. 7423; Jan. 27, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Section S {wood pulp), act of July g6, 1911. — The sections of the 
 Canadian reciprocity act are separable both in form and in character. The act 
 contains no words that specifically or impliedly make the operation of section 1 
 dependent upon the operation of section 2 or the operation of section 2 dependent 
 upon the operation of section 1, and section 2 is valid and in force. The words 
 in this section that affix a condition precedent make the condition applicable to 
 the given, specific, particular importation, and not to any and all possible impor- 
 tations similar in character from any other part of the Dominion of Canada. The 
 wood pulp of this importation and the pulp wood from which it was manufac- 
 tiured were entitled to exportation from Canada into the United States free of any 
 export charge or prohibition or restriction upon exportation; and it accordingly 
 falls directly within the provisions of section 2 of the act and is thereby entitled 
 to free entry. Cliff Paper Co. v. United States (No. 1099), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7423 (T. D. 33141). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33435; 
 May 12, 1913.) 
 
 Requirements in regulation 4 (T. D. 31772 of July 26, 1911), for free entry of Cana- 
 dian wood pulp, paper, and paper board, under section 2, act of July 26, 1911, 
 amended. (T. D. 33209; Feb. 24, 1913.) 
 
 Collectors instructed relative to the treatment of pulp, paper, and paper board 
 made from wood cut on certain Crown lands in Ontario, from which it is claimed 
 the Government of that Province has removed the export restrictions. (T. D. 
 33244; Feb. 28, 1913.) 
 
 Pulp, paper, or paper board manufactured from wood cut on Crown lands covered 
 by the Quebec order in council of December 31, 1912, subject to duty. (T. D. 
 33250; Feb. 28, 3913.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1G08-1915. 913 
 
 Wood pulp and printing paper — Continued. 
 
 Canada — Continued . 
 Wood pulp and news print paper imported from Canada and manufactured from 
 wood cut on Crown lands in the Province of Ontario is free of duty under section 
 2 of the act of July 26, 19XX, entitled "An act to promote reciprocal trade rela- 
 tions with the Dominion of Canada, and for other purposes," when it is shown 
 that by special grant or agreement of the Canadian Government all restrictions 
 of whatever nature have been removed against the exportation of such wood 
 pulp or news print paper or the wood from which the same has been manufac- 
 tured. (T. D. 33707— G. A. 7490; Aug. 18, 1913.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Wood pulp manufactured under a special agreement with the 
 Province of Ontario. — The question for determination is whether the written 
 contracts between the appellee here and the Province of Ontario, Canada, im- 
 pose any restrictions upon appellee's right to export wood pulp manufactured 
 from pulp wood cut upon Crown lands. Held, that the contracts impose cer- 
 tain conditions, some new, some old, to be complied with by the appellee as a 
 continuing consideration for the abrogation of the preexisting contractual pro- 
 hibition of export of such pulp wood and the enjoyment of the grant of the right 
 to export the same; that these conditions, whether precedent or subsequent, 
 impose burdens upon and result in a restriction of the export of the pulp wood 
 from which the importations were manufactured; and, therefore, that free 
 entry can not be had under (he provisions of section 2 of an act of Congress 
 entitled "An act to promote reciprocal trade relations with the Dominion of 
 Canada, and for other purposes," approved July 26, 1911. United States v. 
 Spanish River Pulp & Paper Mills (Ltd.) (No. 1260), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by (he United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7490 (T. D. 33707). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 34426; Apr. 28, 1914.) 
 The ques'ion is whether (here was by a Canadian rule or regulation any prohibi- 
 tion or res'riction of exporta'ion ei(her by contractual relation or otherwise, 
 directly or indirectly, applicable to this merchandise; whether the act of July 
 26, 1911, controls. Section 13 of the Canadian woods and forest regulations 
 did contain such a prohibition, and, so far as the record discloses, it remained 
 in force until December 31, 1912, when, by an order in council, the prohibition 
 was not to be enforced and provision was made that the prohibition was to be 
 deemed inoperative from May 1, 1911. The merchandise here, as the record 
 shows, was cut from the lands described in that order and was manufactured, 
 in part at least, prior to December 31, 19J2. Our statute has its own field of 
 operation, and this operation is not to be defeated by another authority. Under 
 our statute and under the facts shown here this wood pulp and news print 
 paper were not entitled to free entry. United States v. Laurentide Paper Co. 
 (No. 1368), United States Court of Cus'^oms Appeals. Appeal by the Govern- 
 ment from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 34940 (T. D. 
 34219). Decision reversed. (T. D. 3515?; Feb. 12,. 1915.) 
 
 Chemical — 
 
 Evidence' This appeal concerns certain unbleached chemical wood pulp, 
 the importers protesting agaiinst the assessment of countervailing duty thereon. 
 An ex parte affidavit, which was the only evidence on which the importers 
 relied to sustain their claim, was improperly admitted in evidence when it 
 was shown that it had been "made without notice to the other party and without 
 the other party having had an opportunity in a proper proceeding to test by 
 cross-examination the truth of the statements contained in the affidavi t. United 
 States V. Hoffman (1 Ct. Gust. Appls., 276; T. D. 31319); Strakosh v. United 
 
 456330—17 58 • 
 
914 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1015. 
 
 Wood pulp and piinting paper— Continued. 
 Chemical — Continued. 
 
 States (ib., 360; T. D. 31453); Acker v. United States (*., 404; T. D. 31481). 
 United States v. Freese Co. (No. 993), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract29162(T.D. 32681). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33488; May 26, 1913.) 
 Europe — 
 Transshipments — Direct shipments — Opinion of the Attorney General: Collec- 
 tors of customs instructed in accordance with opinion of Attorney General, 
 dated September 4, 1913, that right to free entry of wood pulp and paper from 
 certain European countries is not affected by transshipment en route when 
 the merchandise was originally destined on through bills of lading to the United 
 States. (T. D. 33720; Sept. 4, 1913.) 
 Favored-nation clause — ■ 
 The question involved is as to the operation of the so-called "favored-nation" 
 clauses contained in various treaties of the United States with many countries 
 of the world. The merchandise imported from these countries consists of 
 wood pulp, paper, and other articles, which were assessed for dutyljy the col- 
 lectors under appropriate paragraphs of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. The 
 claim made by the importers is that the articles are free of duty by reason of 
 the clauses in these treaties which in substance provide that if either par^y 
 shall grant to any other nation or country any particular favor in commerce it 
 shall immediately become common to the other party, free, where it is freely 
 granted to such other nation or country, or on yielding the same compensation 
 when the grant is conditional. It is provided, in other words, that in all that 
 relates to duties of customs and navigation the high contracting parties promise 
 reciprocally not to grant any favor, privilege, or immunity to any other State, 
 country, or nation which shall not instantly become common to the citizens 
 and subjects of both parties, respectively, gratuitously if the concession or favor 
 to such other State, country, or nation is gratuitous, and on allowing the same 
 compensation, or its equivalent, if the concession is conditional. 
 
 Canada not a country, nation, or State: The words "country, nation, or 
 State," are used to represent an organized body politic, and mean the same 
 thing as country, which embraces all possessions of a foreign State, however 
 widely separated, which are subject to the same supreme executive and legis- 
 la'ive control. Hence Canada is not a country, but only a part of the country 
 of Great Britain. 
 
 Reciprocity: Reciprocity treaties with foreign countries do not bind the 
 United States to extend to such countries, without compensation, privileges 
 which they had conceded to another foreign country for a valuable considera- 
 tion. 
 
 The treaty-making power: Treaty-making powers of the United States can 
 not be exercised in violation of the Constitution. Hence the President and the 
 Senate can not, by treaty, evade the right of the House of Representatives to 
 unite in making tariff laws regulating the rates of duty imposed on imported 
 merchandise. The effect of this would be to compel Congress to destroy its 
 whole tariff system. 
 
 Taylor v. Morton (23 Fed. Caa., 784): The doctrine of Taylor v. Morton (23 
 Fed. Gas., 784) discussed, which held that a contention made under the Russian 
 treaty of 1832, claiming a reduction of duties on imported wool, involved under 
 that treaty the exercise of a political power which belonged to Congress, and 
 must be determined by legislative action, and not by the courts. 
 
 Doctrine of the Treasury Department: The doctrine announced by John 
 Quincy Adams in 1815, holding that a treaty conferring on one foreign country 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 915 
 
 Wood pulp and printing paper — Continued. 
 Favored-nation clause — Continued. 
 
 a gratuitous privilege would operate under favored-nation clauses to be ex- 
 tended to other nations, seems to be indorsed by the Treasury Department, 
 but, qusere, whether by the courts is not decided. 
 
 Section 2, act of July 26, 1911, is a valid law and remains unrepealed: While 
 the proposed ireaty between the United States and Canada failed for want of 
 ratification, section 2 of the act of July 26, 1911, entitled "An act to promote 
 reciprocal relations with the Dominion of Canada, and for other purposes," 
 and making free of duty pulp wood and paper of the kind there described, 
 when exported from Canada, waa left standing as a law unrepealed. Hay, 
 General Appraiser, concurring, holds — 
 
 Favored-nation provisions of treaties not self-operating — Question political, 
 not judicial: The favored'-nation provisions in the various treaties between 
 the United Slates and other powers are not self-operating in their character; 
 hence, before these provisions can have any effect upon the tariff laws, there 
 must be legislation to put them into effect. The question presented by this 
 case is therefore for the political, and not the judicial, department of the Gov- 
 ernment. (T. D. 32423— G. A. 7354; Apr. 22, 1912.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Free importation wa? claimed for certain chemical wood pulp 
 and sulphide wood pulp from Norway, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany. 
 The claim was made on the ground that by virtue of the favored-nation clause 
 in existing treaties, when that clause is construed in connection with section 2 
 (wood-pulp section) of the act of July 26, 1911, entitled "An act to promote 
 reciprocal trade relations with the Dominion of Canada, and for other purposes, " 
 the merchandise appearj as entitled to free entry. It was conceded at the hear- 
 ing that Canada is a nation for treaty purposes; that there is nothing in the lan- 
 guage of the several treaties in question with the several countries to call for any 
 distinctions to be made between the countries represented in the protest; and 
 it was further conceded that said section 2 of the act of 1911 is operative, though 
 Canada refused to avail Itself of the option to establish reciprocity as to any 
 other possible importations provided for In other sections of the act. 
 
 Treaties and the Coia-ts. — By the Constitution a treaty is binding as a law of 
 the land, and sipce it is the function of the courts to constnie and apply the law, 
 it becomes a court's duty whenever conditions arise making a treaty applicable 
 todeclarethe force and effect of that treaty. Foster v. Nellson (27 U. S., 2 Pet., 
 253.) Courts may not seek to enforce a treaty which is executory in its character, 
 for legislation is needed to give effect to executory provisions; but, courts will 
 as to a self-executing provision in a treaty enforce this whenever the occasion 
 and conditions arise that attach the self-executing provision to existing facts. 
 Taylori). Morton (2 Curtis, 453); Bartram v. Robertson (122U. S., 116); Whitneyi). 
 Robertson (124 U. S., 190). The provision of the favored-nation clause is, "if 
 either party shall hereafter grant to any other nation any particular favor in 
 navigation or commerce, it shall immediately become common to the other 
 party." This provision is self-executing, for the privilege could not "immedi- 
 ately become common" to the other party to the agreement if it depended upon 
 some future act by another or upon legislation to make the provision effective. 
 
 Section 2, act of July 26, 1911. — Section 2 (wood-pulp section) of the act of 
 July 26, 1911, was enacted with a full understanding that under that section 
 there would be a question for determination whether the provisions of existing 
 treaties with favored nations would attach, and whether by the very force of 
 section 2 like commodities from other nations having the favored-nation clause 
 in treaties are to be admitted on the same terms with the given commodities 
 brought in from Canada. It must be recognized that the favored-nation clause 
 
916 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Wood pulp and printing paper — Continued. 
 Favoied-nation clause — Continued. 
 
 has for its field of operation precisely that of cases where and when the lawful 
 authority has granted a new privilege to some other nation. Section 2 is a pro- 
 vision of the act standing by itself. There is nothing contained in it to indicate 
 a consideration passing, nor is there a suggestion of aliunde evidence of the exist- 
 ence of a consideration. It stands wholly independent of the reciprocity pro- 
 vision of the act. American Express Co. et al. v. United States (No. 894); 
 Bertuch & Co. et al. v. United States (No. 895), United States Court of Customs 
 App^la. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers, G. A. 7354 (T. D. 32423). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33434; May 12, 
 1913.) 
 
 Collectors informed of the department's acquiescence in the decision of the United 
 States Court of Customs Appeals in T. D. 33434, and instructed to make the 
 necessary reUquidations and refunds and future liquidations strictly in accord- 
 ance with that decision. (T. D. 33656; July 28, 1913.) 
 
 Collectors of customs instructed on questions of country of production, origin of 
 materials, direct shipments, bills of lading, and export duty affecting right of 
 wood pulp and paper to free entry under the principle in T. D. 33434. (T. D. 
 33740; Sept. 22, 1913.) 
 Finland — 
 
 Paper imported from Finland subject to countervailing duty. (T. D. 30064; Oct. 
 25, 1909.) 
 
 Export duty on wood products from Finland promulgated in T. D. 30064 not yet 
 renewed for the year 1910. (T. D. 30416; Mar. 10, 1910.) 
 
 Countervailing duty to be assessed upon wood pulp and printing paper imported 
 from Finland. (T. D. 30683; June 13, 1910.) 
 Germany — 
 
 Where wood pulp manufactured in Germany from pulp wood grown and cut in 
 Germany and Russia, but not in Finland, was exported directly from Germany 
 and was not subject to any export duty or any Ucense fee of any kind, it must be 
 considered as a product of Germa,ny. 
 
 The product of the country where manufactured: Where raw material is im- 
 ported from another country and undergoes a process of manufacture in the 
 country where it arrives, it is regarded as a product of the latter country when 
 manufactured. Such being the case the wood pulp of the importation must be 
 considered free of all duty under American Express Co. v. United States (4 Ct. 
 Cust. Appls., 146; T. D. 33434). (T. D. 34185— G. A. 7532; Feb. 9, 1914.) 
 
 (Appealed:) German wood pulp manufactured from wood cut in Russia.— 
 The expression in section 2, act of July 26, 1911, " being the products of Canada, " 
 describes and refers to wood pulp manufactured in Canada from pulp wood, 
 without regard to the place or country where the wood grew or was cut. Balfoiu- 
 V. Sullivan (19 Fed., 578). The condition of free entry here was that the wood 
 from which it was made must be entitled to free and unrestricted export and 
 there was no intention to declare that the country of manufacture must also be 
 the country of origin of the raw material. Under the favored-nation clause this 
 German wood pulp made of wood cut in Russia was entitled to free entry. 
 United States v. Castle, Gottheil & Overton (No. 1371), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by th^ United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7532 (T. D. 34185). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 34554; June 1,1914.) 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 917 
 
 Wood pulp and printing paper— Continued. 
 Indian lands — 
 Instructions in T. D. 31772 relative to wood pulp and printing paper produced 
 from wood cut on the Crown lands in the Province of Ontario extended to include 
 such products of wood cut on the Indian lands in the same Province. (T. D. 
 32117; Dec. 27, 1911.) 
 Newfoundland — 
 Instructions as to the assessment of duty on wood pulp and printing paper, under 
 paragraphs 406 and 409, tariff act of-1909, produced from wood cut on Crown 
 lands in Newfoundland. (T. D. 31783; July 29, 1911.) 
 Extension of the period for the taking effect of T. D. 31783, relating to the assessment 
 of duties on wood pulp and printing paper produced from wood cut on the Crown 
 lands in Newfoundland. (T. B. 31884; Sept. 25, 1911.) 
 "Pack cellulose" — Wrapping paper — 
 Material having the ordinary thickness of wrapping paper, with the appearance of 
 wrapping paper and used as such, must be deemed not wood pulp but wrapping 
 paper, and was dutiable under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1897, as paper not 
 specially provided for. To constitute a material paper it is not necessary that 
 the machine used in its manufacture should be known as a paper-making ma- 
 chine, nor that the material should contain glue, alum, and clay; the product 
 determines its classification. Germania Importing Co. v. United States (No. 
 520), United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 8, 1911. Appeal by the 
 importer from a decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 24059 (T. D. 30991). Decision afl5rmed. (T. D. 31595; May 8, 1911.) 
 Portugal — 
 Countervailing duties under paragraphs 406 and 409, tariff act of 1909, to be col- 
 lected on wood pulp and printing paper from Portugal. (T. D. 33684; Aug. 13, 
 1913.) 
 Sweden — 
 Countervailing duty on wood pulp and other products of wood imported from 
 
 Sweden. (T. D. 29342; Nov. 11, 1908.) 
 
 The Royal Ordinance of Sweden of July 24, 1903 (T. D. 29342), does not authorize 
 
 the collector of customs to assess the countervailing duty provided in paragraph 
 
 893, tariff act of 1897, fos-wood pulp exported from said country, no export duty 
 
 being levied by said ordinance on pulp wood exported from Sweden. It would 
 
 seem otherwise as to importations made under the tariff act of August 5, 1909, 
 
 and subject to duty under paragraph 406 of this act. (T. D. 30267— G. A. 6962; 
 
 Jan. 12, 1910.) 
 
 Wood pulp manufactured in Sweden from pulp wood cut in Norway is not subject 
 
 to the export duty provided by the Swedish Government, and therefore no 
 
 countervailing duty should be assessed thereon. (T. D. 30859; Aug. 6, 1910.) 
 
 Countervailing duty should not be assessed upon wood pulp and printing paper 
 
 produced in Sweden. (T. D. 30898; Aug. 29, 1910.) 
 The department extends to importations of wood pulp and paper, the product of 
 Sweden, the principle of the decision of the United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals in T. D. 33434 in the wood-pulp cases. (T. D. 33671; Aug. 8, 1913.) 
 Transshipment of — 
 Collectors instructed to refuse free entry and to suspend liquidation of entries of 
 wood pulp and paper under T. D. 33656 and T. D. 33671 where there has been 
 transshipment of the merchandise en route, pending the decision of the Attorney 
 General. (T. D. 33691; Aug. 15, 1913.) 
 
918 DIGEST OF Customs decisions, 1908-1915. 
 
 Wood spools wound with silk yarn. 
 Wooden spools distinct from their contents — 
 
 The importations consist of wooden spools about 3 inches in length, upon which 
 as imported was wound artificial or imitation silk yarn and artificial or imita- 
 tion horsehair. These wooden spools being excluded from subsection 18 of 
 section 28, tariff act of 1909, as they are neither coverings, containers, nor of 
 the costs, charges, and expenses therein provided, they must be rated for duty 
 as though separate and distinct importations under paragraph 215 of that act. 
 KarthauB v. Frick (14 Fed. Cas., 136). United States v. Ringk & Co. et al. 
 (No. 1006), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29613 (T. D. 
 32780). Decision reversed. (T. D. 33530; May 31, 1913.) 
 The wooden spools entering into the value of their contents — 
 
 These spools were not designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transpor- 
 tation of the artificial silk yam which they contained, and as used they entered 
 into the cost and value of their contents as appraised and assessed for duty. 
 They are not "containers or coverings" as those terms appear in subsection 18, 
 section 28, tariff act of 1909, and they are not ratable for duty as a separate entity 
 under the fundamental rule that forbids double taxation. They are dutiable 
 as a part of the contents themselves. Karthaus v. Frick (14 Fed. Cas., 136, 
 No. 7615); United States v. Vandegrift & Co. (No. 1007), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United States 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 29613 (T. D. 32780). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 33531; May 31, 1913.) 
 
 So far as the record here discloses the facts in this case were taken below to be 
 the same with the facts in United States v. Eingk (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; T. D. 
 33530), the collector's classification must stand on the record here. United 
 States V. Hogan (No. 1013), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal 
 by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 29589 (T. D. 32780). Reversed. (T. D. 34001; Dec. 15, 1913.) 
 Wool. 
 Blankets — 
 
 Wool blankets, even though embroidered, not dutiable under paragraph 358 of 
 the tariff act of 1913, but properly dutiable undffr paragraph 289, the articles 
 being provided for without words of limitation in said paragraph 289. (T. D. 
 34207; Feb. 26, 1914.) 
 Blankets — Lap robes — 
 
 So-called blankets of wool to be continued to be assessed with duty as wool cloth 
 or manufactures of wool. Abstract 36913 (T. D. 34933) not acquiesced in. (T. 
 D. 35095; Feb. 1, 1915.) 
 Caps, knitted. (See Wearing apparel, knitted wool caps.) 
 Cattle-hair goods dutiable as, by similitude. (T. D. 29825; June 8, 1909.) 
 Clerical error — 
 
 There was a mistake made in the invoice in stating the cost of the wool of the 
 importation. To constitute manifest clerical error, this must be apparent to 
 the appraising officers or collector at the time of liquidation and upon the record 
 itself. This is stare decisis. There was nothing in the record here to show 
 the appraising officers or collector that the error was caused by an inaccurate 
 statement of the price of the wool. United States v. Swedish Produce Co. (4 
 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223; T. D. 33437); United States v. Wyman & Co. (4 Ct. Cust. 
 Appls., 264; T. D. 33485); United States v. Proctor Co. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., — ; 
 T. D. 34091); Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. 
 D. 34093). Thomsen & Co. v. United States (No. 1249), United States Court 
 of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915, 919 
 
 Wool— Continued . 
 
 Clerical error — Continued. 
 
 General Appraisers, Abstract 33156 (T. D. 33660). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 34100; Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 
 Dress goods — ^Deduotion of 5 per cent — 
 In applying the proviso to paragraph 380, tariff act of 1909, covering dress goods, 
 "That on all the foregoing, weighing over four ounces per square yard, the rates 
 of duty shall be five per centum less than those imposed by this schedule on 
 cloths," the 5 per cent in question is to be deducted from the total amount of 
 duties and is not to be subtracted from the ad valorem rate. (T. D. 31803 — G. 
 A. 7260; Aug. 7, 1911.) 
 Proviso to paragraph 380, tariff act of 1909: The importation was of woolen dress 
 goods with cotton warp weighing over 4 ounces per square yard. Under the 
 proviso to paragraph 380, tariff act of 1909, the collector, after, fixing the duty 
 at 44 cents per pound and 55 per cent ad valorem, deducted 5 per cent from this 
 total sum and assessed the remainder. The importer protested the proviso 
 should be read as reducing the ad valorem rate to 50 from 55 per cent. This 
 contention was properly overruled by the board. The proviso to the paragraph 
 should be subjected to the same construction as if the 5 per cent had been ex- 
 pressed by the equivalent term, "one-twentieth." Auffmordt & Co. v. United 
 States (No. 750), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal from Board 
 of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7260 (T. D. 31803). Decision 
 affirmed. (T. D. 32230; Jan. 23, 1912.) 
 
 Embroidered — ■ 
 An article having cotton netting as a foundation and covered with woolen cloth 
 upon which various designs were embroidered with cotton thread, was intended 
 to be subjected after importation to an acid process which will bum out the wool 
 and leave the goods in the form of cotton lace. Held that the use to be made of 
 the goods after importation would not affect their classification, and that they 
 were dutiable under paragraph 371, tariff act of 1897, relating to "articles em- 
 broidered * * * of which wool ig a component material, " rather than under 
 paragraph 339 as "laces" (T. D. 29440— G. A. 6846; Dec. 28, 1908.) 
 Effect of provision in paragraph 310, tariff act of 1913: The provision in paragraph 
 310 of Schedule K of the tariff act of 1913, by its express terms, left the old 
 Schedule K of the act of 1909 in force as part of the present tariff act until Jan- 
 uary 1, 1914. This being so, embroidered articles made of wool entered on Oc- 
 tober 18, 1913, are more specifically covered by paragraph 383 of the act of 1909, 
 providing for embroidered articles made of wool, than under paragraph 358 of 
 the act of 1913, both of which were in force at the time of this importation. 
 The fact that the new Schedule K of the act of 1913, which did not go into 
 effect until later, did not mention among its provisions embroidered articles 
 can not affect the situation. (T. D. 34599— G. A. 7577; June 22, 1914.) 
 
 Felt, so-called — 
 Woven jute fabric with a cattle-hair facing and backing, the felt being placed on 
 the jute while in a dampened condition, dutiable as a cloth made in chief value 
 of cattle hair at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 288, tariff act 
 of 1918. (T. D. 34615; July 6, 1914.) 
 
 Five per cent discount — 
 The proviso in paragraph 650 of the act of 1913, providing that "this paragraph 
 I hall be effective on and after the firjt day of December, 1913, until which time 
 the ratej of duty now provided by Schedule K of the existing law shall remain 
 in full force and effect," wa- de-igned to continue the ratej upon wool as part of 
 the new act until the Ist of December, 1913. Consequently, wool which was 
 withdrawn from warehouse and entered between said dated was properly classi- 
 
920 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Wool — Continued. 
 
 Five per cent discount — Continued. 
 
 fied at the rate provided by paragraph 370 of the tariff act of 1909. And a claim 
 by the importer that there was no wool schedule between said dates, and that con- 
 sequently this importation should be assessed as a nonenumerated article, is 
 overruled. G. A. 7577 (T. D. 34599) and G. A. 7578 (T. D. 34600) cited. 
 
 Importations made prior to the passage of the tariff act of 1913 are not within the 
 purpose of Congress in enacting the 5 per cent discount provision. G. A. 7540 
 (T. D. 34246) followed, so far as it supports that principle. (T. D. 35104— G. A. 
 7676; Jan. 29, 1915.) 
 Flannels — 
 
 Woolen flannel material used for certain outer garments, and also for pajamas, 
 etc., held to be within the commercial meaning of the term "flannels " used by 
 Congress in paragraph 289, tariff act of 1913. Said merchandise, therefore, 
 should not be classified under the provision for manufactures of wool in para- 
 graph 288, or under the provision for wool dress goods in paragraph 290. (T. D. 
 35703— G. A. 7772; Sept. 8, 1915.) 
 Grease — 
 
 Adeps lanse: Wool fat in the forms known as adeps lanse anhydrous and adeps 
 lanse cum aqua, which is valued at 10 to 15 cents per pound and is principally 
 used medicinally, is not dutiable as wool grease under paragraph 279, tariff act 
 of 1897, but as a medicinal preparation under paragraph 68. Zinkeisen v. 
 United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 
 May 7, 1908. Suit 4920. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United 
 StatesGeneralAppraisers, Abstract 15013 (T.D. 28074). Board affirmed. (T. D. 
 29000; May 20, 1908.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Adeps lanse anhydrous and adeps lanse cum aqua, which are worth 
 from 10 to 15 cents per pound, are used principally in therapeutics and generally 
 sold to the drug trade, though used to some extent in medicinal soaps and 
 salves, are not wool grease" within the meaning of paragraph 279, tariff act 
 of 1897, but " medicinal preparations " under paragraph 68. Zinkeisen v. United 
 States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, January 12, 1909. 
 No. 119 (suit 4920). Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the United States 
 for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29000). Decision in favor of the 
 Government. (T. D. 29546; Feb. 10, 1909.) 
 
 Adeps lanse — Lanolin: Adeps lanse, or lanolin, is used as a, basis for ointments 
 and as a carrier for soluble medicinal salts, and the evidence shows that without 
 the addition of medicinal agents it has. no therapeutic value. The more specific 
 provision levying duty upon it is to be found in paragraph 290, tariff act of 1909. 
 It is dutiable under that paragraph as wool grease refined or improved in value 
 or condition. Koechl & Co. v. United States (No. 786), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States Gen- 
 eral Appraisers, Abstract 26810 (T. D. 31912). Decision reversed. (T. D. 
 32619; May 31, 1912.) 
 Kanufactures of — 
 
 Furniture in chief value of wool. (See Furniture.) 
 Mixed — 
 
 Reappraisement of: The provision in section 13, customs administrative act of 
 1890, that reappraisement decisions by the Board of General Appraisers shall be 
 "final and conclusive" makes clear the intent of Congress that after providing 
 for appeals to appraisers and general appraisers, who are supposed to be experts 
 as to the duties imposed upon them, there shall be an end of controversy when 
 their decision is made, and that such decision shall not be open to judicial re- 
 view, except to inquire whether the appraisers have exceeded the authority 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 921 
 
 WTool — Continued. 
 
 Mixed— Continued. 
 
 conferred upon them by law or have otherwise acted illegally or fraudulently. 
 In a reappraisement case relating to Smyrna wools that had been bought at a 
 round price in a mixed condition, but before exportation to the United States 
 had been sorted according to color, the Board of General Appraisers held that 
 the value of the white wools was greater than the round price paid for the mixed 
 material in the state in which it was bought. Held that, there being no charge 
 that the board had acted illegally in denying the importers a hearing and an 
 opportunity to produce testimony in the matter, and there being some evidence 
 as to a market value for white wool in Smyrna, the reappraisement decision was 
 "final and conclusive" as prescribed in section 13, customs administrative act 
 of 1890. Grubnau v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 
 Third Circuit, February 10, 1910. No. 69 (suit 1975). Appeal by the importer 
 from the decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Dis- 
 trict of Pennsylvania affirming Abstract 15933 (T. D. 28300). Decision in favor 
 of the Government. (T. D. 30369; Feb. 21, 1910.) 
 
 Olein— 
 Wool olein, an oil distilled from wool grease, is not " wool grease " within the mean- 
 ing of paragraph 279, tariff act of 1897, but is dutiable as a distilled oil under 
 paragraph 3. Swan & Finch Co. v. United States, United States Circuit Court, 
 Southern District of New York, May 13, 1909. Suit 5426. Appeal by importer 
 from decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 20159 
 (T. D. 29442). Board affirmed. (T. D. 29805; June 8, 1909.) 
 
 On the skin — Cabretta — • 
 The growth on cabretta skins is properly classified as "wool" under Schedule K, 
 tariff act of 1897. Evidence as to commercial deiignation in a tariff act must be 
 given as of the time of the passage of the act. Evidence as to the commercial 
 meaning of the term " wool " should be given by dealers in wool; and testimony 
 that the growth on cabretta skins is not wool is inadmissible if given by dealers 
 in other materials, as skins, hair, etc. Johnson v. United States, United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, November 16, 1908. No. 21 (suit 
 4615). Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for Southern District 
 of New York (159 Fed. Rep., 189; T. D. 28538). Decision in favor of Govern- 
 ment. (T. D. 29376; Dec. 2, 1908.) 
 
 On the skin — Cape sheepskins^ 
 Wool on Cape sheepskins dutiable as wool of class 1, under paragraphs 355, 357, 
 and 360, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 29058; Juie 9, 1908.) 
 
 On the skin — ^Estimate of weight — Examination — 
 If an appraiser in making his eslimate of the weight of wool on the skin pioceeda 
 according to the method ,irescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury under para- 
 graph 360, tariff act of 1897, his estimate is conclusive; ^nd consequently an 
 estimate made by the importers becomes immaterial, even though more correct. 
 As a basis of relief from an excessive estimate, the importers must first show by 
 direct and positive proofs that the appraiser did not proceed properly. Where 
 the Treasury regulations prescribe that in ascertaining the amount of wool on 
 imported sheepskins "a reasonable number" shall be sheared, it will not be 
 assumed that 8 out of 20,000 was not a reasonable number, where there is evi- 
 dence that the skins sheared represented a coirect average of the entire ship- 
 ment, and there is no direct and positive evidence to the contrary. The ques- 
 tion of what is "a resonable number" is one of fact, to be determined by evi- 
 dence. United States v. Thomas, United States Circuit Court, District of 
 Massachusetts, May 5, 1910. No. 141 (suit 1826). Appeal by the United 
 States from the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 10482 (T. D. 27209). Board reversed. (T. D. 30646; May 31, 1910.) 
 
922 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Wool — Continued. 
 
 Overcoat lined with fur. (See Wearing apparel, woolen overcoat.) 
 
 Bugs. (See Rugs.) 
 
 Samples of — 
 In paragraph 349, tariff act of 1897, relating 1o wools of the first class, the words 
 "merino blood, immediate or remote," convey an unmis'akable meaning and 
 include wool in which the presence of merino blood is marked, though of in- 
 ferior quality. Where imported wools answer the quality of the standard sam- 
 ples prescribed on the authority of paragraph 352, of the said tariff act, they 
 should be classified accordingly, regardless of whether such standards operate 
 unjustly, oppressively, or disproportionately to other classifications and values. 
 The standard samples of wool prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury on 
 Ihe authority of paragraph 352, are conclusive in respect to classification and 
 quality, except perhaps where the issue is one of fraud or mistake; and regula- 
 tions in respect to such samples are not subject to review by the courts or the 
 Board of General Appraisers. Relief from hardships of authorized Government 
 regulations should be sought from the executive department which, under 
 expressly delegated authority, es'.ablished such regulations. There is no vested 
 right to import superior to the power of Congress to say upon what terms it shall 
 be done, and it is quite within the consiitutional discretion of Congi-ess to declare 
 upon what terms foreign trade may be had and to determine how the justice of 
 claims for alleged excessive tariff taxation shall be ascertained and disposed of. 
 Claims based on excessive tariff taxation may in the discretion of Congress 1 e 
 left altogether to an executive department, or in sviits against the collectors of 
 customs, or to the determination of a Board of Geneial Appraisers, subject to 
 review by the courts upon such particulars only as the law may prescribe. 
 United States v. American Express Co., United States Circuit Court, District 
 of Massachusetts, February 16, 1910. No. 464 (suit 2031). Appeal by United 
 States from the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 19295 (T. D. 29119). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 
 30368; Feb. 21, 1910.) 
 Es ablishment of new standard: Establishment of new standard sample No. 
 399-B to cover Cape of Good Hope native skin wool of a kempy character shorn 
 from so-called Cape goat-sheep in a rundown condition. Standard samples Nos. 
 137 and 138 withdrawn. (T. D. 30786; July 15, 1910.) 
 Standard wool sample No. 164, heretofore used in classifying wools of class I, 
 relabeled 223-A and transferred to the wools of class 2, prescribed in T. D. 
 22681. (T. D. 33316; Apr. 4, 1913.) 
 Standard samples of wool to be preserved at the several ports. (T. D. 33869; 
 Nov. 15, 1913.) 
 
 Shrinkage of cloth, cost of — 
 Collector's authority: The collector has no power or authority to assess duty upon 
 merchandise at a value greater than or different from that determined by the 
 last appraisement, except to add items of "costs " or "charges " within the mean- 
 ing of those words as used in subsection 13, section 28, tariff act of 1909. 
 
 Market value — Costs and charges: The market value of goods at a given point 
 includes all costs and expense of production and of transportation to and deliv- 
 ery at that market. Only such items of expense as are incurred thereafter are 
 to be considered as "costs" and "charges" to be ascertained by the collector. 
 Grinnell v. Lawrence (1 Blatch., 346; Fed. Cas., 5831). 
 
 Shrinkage: An itein comprising the cost of examining, shrinking, and pre- 
 paring English cloth for shipment was added by the collector to the entered 
 and appraised value as a dutiable charge. Held, that this item is a part of the 
 expense of preparing and placing the merchandise in a condition ready for ship- 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 923 
 
 Wool— Continued. 
 Shrinkage of cloth, cost of — Continued. 
 
 ment, and therefore a part of the market value of the cloth. (T. D. 33832 — G. 
 A. 7506; Oct. 29, 1913.) 
 Shrinkage as a charge or expense— Subsection 18 of section 28, tariff act of 1909: 
 The importer of these woolens incurred cerfain costs for their inspection and 
 damping in London and the collector added (hese cos's to the entered value. 
 In this he exceeded his authority. These cos's so incurred are not charges and 
 expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for 
 shipment to the United States, as provided for in subsection 18 of section 28, 
 tariff act of 1909. United States v. Spingarn (5 Ct. Cust. Appls. — ; T. D. 
 34002) distinguished. United States v. Van Ingen & Co. et al. (No. 1327), 
 United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by Ihe United States from 
 Board of United States General Appraisers. Abstract 34066 (T. D. 33872.) Deci- 
 sion affirmed. (T. D. 34970; Nov. 27, 1914.) 
 Tare^ 
 Naphthalin, being made free of duty by paragraph 536, tariff act of 1909, where 
 such an article in the form of a powder is introduced into bales of wool as a dis- 
 infectant, its weight should be deducted from the gross weight of the wool and 
 allowed as tare. (T. D. 32068— G. A. 7304; Dec. 4, 1911.) 
 Waste — 
 Scraps of sheepskin with wool Ihereon: Small scraps of sheepskin with wool on 
 them are not dutiable under paragraph 384, tariff act of 1913, as waste not spe- 
 cially provided for, but are free of duty as wool waste under paragraph 651. 
 By paragraph 651 Congress intended to admit free of duty all forms of wool 
 waste. (T. D. 35714— G. A. 7774; Sept. 17, 1913.) 
 Weight and tare of— 
 Collectors will direct the weigher to furnish the appraising officer with the gross, 
 tare, and net weights of all importations of wool. (T. D. 33346; Apr. 21, 1913.) 
 Wool and flax lappings. (See Lappings.) 
 Wool-silk dress goods. (See Dress goods.) 
 Works of art. 
 Affidavit on entry — 
 Affidavit of ultimate consignee embodying features of declaration of seller or ship- 
 per and affidavit of importer may be accepted upon entry, under pai-agraph 717, 
 tariff act of 1909, of works of art valued at not more than $80, imported through the 
 mails or by express companies. (T. D. 30453; Mar. 22, 1910.) 
 Amendment of T. D. 29958 and 29959, dated August 20, 1909, for the free entry of 
 works of art under paragraph 717, tariff act of 1909, to provide that upon entry of 
 works of art the affidavit of the ultimate consignee shall contain an itemized 
 statement in the English language of the articles claifned to be entitled to free 
 entry. (T. D. 30911; Sept. 9, 1910.) 
 Carved wooden columns — 
 Evidence lacking that goods were antiques; The question is one of proper com- 
 pliance with Treasury regulations governing the admission duty free of works of 
 ai-t produced more than 100 years prior to the date of importation. The collector 
 assessed the goods for duty. The character of the affidavits of record, ex parte 
 as these are, and unsupported as they are, does not warrant a reversal of the col- 
 lector's action, presumably correct, as this must be considered. United States 
 V. Thomas (No. 770), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the 
 United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 26777 
 (T. D. 31912). Decision reversed. (T. D. 32385; Apr. 1, 1912.) 
 Engravings and etchings. (See Engravings and etchings.) 
 Fashion plate drawings not. (See Drawings.) (T. D. 29806; June 8, 1909.) 
 
924 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Works of art— Continued. 
 Form of bond. (See Bonds, forma of.) 
 Free entry — 
 
 Free entry of works of art, etc., produced more than 100 years prior to importation. 
 (T. D. 29958; circular No. 40; Aug. 20, 1909.) 
 
 Free entry of works of art in existence more than 20 years. (T. D. 29959; 
 circular No. 41; Aug. 20, 1909.) 
 
 Free entry of works of art and artistic antiquities. (T. D. 31263; circular No. 9; 
 Feb. 1, 1911.) 
 Lithographic print of an oil painting on cotton cloth not a work of art. (See Litho- 
 graphic prints.) 
 Marble monument — ■ 
 
 The provision in paragraph 703, tariff act of 1897, for "works of art * * * im- 
 ported expressly for presentation to * * * [an] incorporated religious 
 society," does not include a marble monument upon which the only free sculp- 
 ture is a cornice, a bust in bas-relief, and a garland of flowers covering but a 
 slight area of the marble surface, the remainder of the carving consisting of plain 
 paneUng and beveling. Vandegrift v. United States, United States Circuit 
 Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, June 3, 1908. No. 4 (suit 1962). Ap- 
 peal by importer from decision by Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 6543 (T. D. 27914). Board sustained. (T. D. 29120; June 30, 1908.) 
 [Note. — No appeal taken in this case.] 
 More than 20 years old — 
 
 Paragraph 717, tariff act of 1909, provides in its first half for the free entry under 
 certain conditions, of ''works of art" which were produced more than 20 
 years before importation. Held, that this portion of the paragraph relates to 
 objects belonging to the realm of the fine arts, so called. The second half of the 
 paragraph grants free entry to "other works of art," besides several classes of 
 articles there enumerated, if produced more than 100 years before importation. 
 Held, that this provision is' broader than that contained in the first half of the 
 paragraph, and will include, if of the requisite age, the numerous ornamental 
 antiquities which may be termed articles of virtue, as well as a class of objects 
 embraced within the useful or industrial arts, if such objects are illustrative 
 of the progi-ess of the arts or of educational value. (T. D. 31069 — G. A. 7123; 
 Nov. 28, 1910.) 
 
 Paragraph 717, tariff act of 1909, in its fu-st provision grants free entry to "works of 
 art, including paintings in oil, mineral, water, or other colors, pastels, original 
 drawings and sketches, etchings and engravings, and sculptures, which are 
 proved * * * to have been in existence more than twenty years prior to the 
 date of their importation." Held that certain Chinese vases are not within the 
 class of objects there provided for. G. A. 7123 (T. D. 31069) modified. (T. D. 
 32800— G. A. 7390; Aug. 28, 1912.) 
 Paragraphs 376 and 653, tariff act of 1913, construed. (T. D. 33985; Dec. 16, 1913.) 
 
 Articles of utility and articles made wholly or in part by mechanical processes are 
 dutiable under paragi-aph 376, tariff act of 1913, if they fall within the category 
 of "works of ai-t" as the term is broadly applied. (T. D. 34438; May 7, 1914.) 
 Pictorial paintings on glass- 
 Pictorial paintings on glass, if works of art and not painted or stained glass win- 
 dows or window glass, imported expressly for presentation to an institution of the 
 character described in paragraph 703 of the tariff act are entitled to entry free of 
 duty under said paragraph. (T. D. 28690; Jan. 15, 1908.) 
 
 Treasury regulations: By the tariff act of 1897 the Treasury Department was duly 
 and lawfully authorized to prescribe regulations governing the allowance of 
 exemptions from duty on works of art imported expressly for presentation; and 
 
DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 925 
 
 Works of art— Continued. 
 Pictorial paintings on glass — Continued. 
 
 the requirement in that act that there should be filed with the entry of such 
 works of art an affidavit showing the importation to be of the kind contemplated 
 by the statute must be taken to mean the affidavit so prescribed should have 
 been filed at the time entry was made and nol later. McBride v. United States 
 ■ (No. 183). Bischoff v. United States (No. 184), United States Court of Customs 
 Appeals. Appeals from decisions of the Board of United States General Ap- 
 praisers (T. D. 30164 and Abstract 22512, T. D. 30234). Decisions' affirmed. 
 (T. D. 31354; Feb. 27, 1911.) 
 Kctorial paintings on glass, if works of art and not painted or stained glass windows 
 or window glass, imported expressly for presentation to an institution of the char- 
 acter described in paragraph 716, tariff act of 1909, are entitled to free entry 
 under the said paragraph. (T. D. 32219; Feb. 5, 1912.) 
 Begulations, compliance with. 
 Compliance with Treasury regulations: The regulations prescribed by the Sec- 
 retary of the Treasmy in article 720 of the Customs Regulations of 1908 are not 
 unreasonable, and compliance therewith must be observed as a condition pre- 
 cedent to the right of free entry of works of art under paragraph 703, tariff act of 
 1897. 
 Proof of incorporation of religious society: Proof of incorporation of a religious 
 society must be presented to warrant free entry, under paragraph 703, tariff act 
 of 1897, of works of art imported for presentation to such society. 
 Time of filing proof — ^Meaning of word "entry " : The affidavit and letters of pre- 
 sentation and gcceptance referred to in article 720 of Customs Regulations of 
 1908 must be filed at the time of filing the entry, the word "entry," as used in 
 article 720, being construed to refer to the written entry or document filed at 
 the time of importation. (T. D. 30164— G. A. 6948; Dec. 6, 1909.) 
 In order that works of art claimed to have been in existence more than 20 
 years prior to their importation may be entitled to free entry under paragraph 
 717, tariff act of 1909, it is necessary that the required evidence to prove their 
 age shall be filed with the collector at the time the goods are entered, pjursuant 
 to regulations issued by the Secretary of Ihe Treasury (T. D. 29959) under the 
 authority granted him for that purpose in paragraph 717. (T. D. 30732 — G. A. 
 7054; June 27, 1910.) 
 Stained or painted glass windows. (See Windows.) 
 Stone temple. (See Stone, temple.) 
 Wortles. (See Forgings.) 
 
 Woven cotton table damask. (See Table covers.) 
 Wrapping paper. (See Paper.) 
 Wrappings, paper, cardboard, etc. (See Coverings.) 
 Wreaths. (See also Leaves, ornamental.) 
 Artificial flowers — ^Wreaths in part of metal — 
 Wreaths made of artificial flowers and wire, the flowers being composed of cotton 
 cloth and wax and the shape of the articles being entirely given by the use of 
 such wire, held to be dutiable as manufactures in part of metal under para- 
 graph 193, tariff act of 1897. G. A. 6537 (T. D. 27888), affirmed in T. D. 29034, 
 followed. (T. D. 29235— G. A. 6796; Aug. 26, 1908.) 
 Manufactures in part of metal: Although the provisions for manufactures in chief 
 value of cotton or silk are more specific than the provision for articles in part of 
 metal, the goods in this case, consisting of wreaths, clusters, sprays, bouquets, 
 aigrettes, pompons, and artificial plants, made of artificial leaves, fruits, 
 flowers, and grasses, branched or bound together by wire, fell within the metal 
 
926 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Wieaths — Continued . 
 Aitificial flowers — Wieaths in part of metal — Continued. 
 
 paragraph, paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897, according to the weight of the evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Burden of proof: The burden of proof never shifts, but here the importer 
 had sustained that burden prima facie, proving his case by a preponderance of 
 evidence, and the Government was thereby called to offset that evidence by 
 proof of equal weight tending either to sustain the collector's action or to prove 
 the goods were not dutiable as claimed. United States v. Edson Keith & Co. 
 (No. 946), United States Court of Cus'oms Appeals. Appeal by the United 
 States from Board of United States General Appraisers, AbsJract 28964 (T. D. 
 32655). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 34128; Jan. 22, 1914.) 
 Flowers, preserved — Statice wreaths — 
 Statice wreaths, which have all the appearance of natural flowers, are dutiable 
 under paragraph 251, tariff act of 1897, as "natural flowers * * * pre- 
 served." Bayeredorfer v. United S'^ates, United Stages Circuit Court, Eastern 
 District of Pennsylvania, May 12, 1909. No. 50 (suit 1974). Appeal by im- 
 porter from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 15505 (T.D. 28205). Board reversed. (T. D. 29853; June 22, 1909.) . 
 Statice wreaths are dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 438, tariff 
 act of 1909. (T. D. 32742; July 20, 1912.) 
 Metal- 
 Burial or bridal wrea'hs in chief value of metal: An importation consisting of 
 burial or bridal wreaths made of wax, cotton, tin, wire, and o'her metal did not 
 come within that clause of paragraph 425, lariff act of 1897, limited to feathers, 
 fruits, grains, leaves, flowers, and stems or parts thereof; but, being made sub- 
 stantially in part of metal and which metal gave shape, form, and name to the 
 articles and determined their use, they were dutiable under paragraph 193 of 
 that act. Seeberger v. Schlesinger (152 U. S., 581, 587) cited and approved. 
 United States v. Downing, Judae & Co. (No. 252), United States Court of Cus- 
 toms Appeals. Appeal from a decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, Abstract 23470 (T. D. 30691). (T. D. 31434; Mar. 20, 1911.) 
 Writing cases. (See Leather, traveling sets.) 
 Wrought earth. (See Earth.) 
 
 X. 
 
 Zylenol and cresylic acid. 
 
 So-called "cresylic acid" and "xylenol" not dutiable as coal-tar preparations 
 under paragraph 21 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913, but the "cresylic acid" 
 is free of dui y as carbolic acid under paragraph 387 or as cresol under paragraph 
 452, and the "xylenol" free of duty as crude cresylic acid or cresol under parar 
 graph 452 of the said act. (T. D. 35667; Aug. 19, 1915.> 
 
 Yachts. 
 
 Sections 4214 and 4218, Revised Statutes, amended by the act approved August 
 20, 1912. (T. D. 32869; Oct. 19, 1912.) 
 Foreign-built — 
 
 Instructions as \o the collection of the sums equivalent to the tonnage tax, or the 
 duty in lieu thereof, on foreign-built yachts, provided by section 37 of the 
 tariff act of August 5, 1909. (T. D. 29962; Aug. 20, 1909.) 
 Foreign-built — Tonnage tax — Constitutionality — 
 
 Federal taxing power: There are no limitations upon the right of Congress to 
 discriminate in selecting the subjects of taxation so long as it follows the par- 
 ticular constitutional provisions relating to the levying of taxes. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 927 
 
 Yachts— Continued, 
 roreigu-built — Tonnage tax — Constitutionality — Continued. 
 
 Due process of law: SecUon 37, tariff act of 1909, imposing a tonnage tax 
 upon tlie use of foreign-built yachts by citizens of the United States, is in 
 accord with all the special constitutional limitations upon the taxing power, 
 and can not, by reason of discriminating between foreign-built and domes' ic- 
 built yachts, be held to violate the due process of law provision of the fifth 
 amendment to the Constitution. 
 
 Taxation of property outside territorial jurisdiction: The United States Gov- 
 ernment having power to afford protection to the persons and property of its 
 citizens abroad, its taxing power is not limited by the rule that property outside 
 the jurisdiction of a State may not be subjected to taxation there. Congress has 
 power to tax foreign-built yachts owned by citizens and located in foreign coun- 
 tries. Such a tax, however, would be extraordinary in it^ nature, and if im- 
 posed should be by clear and express enactment. The presumption is that a 
 tax law applies only to subjects within the territorial jurisdiction; and section 
 37, tariff act of 1909, levying a tonnage tax on the use of foreign-built yachts by 
 United States citizens, does not evidence any intention on the part of Congress 
 to tax the use of such yachts in foreign waters, either by resident or nonresident 
 citizens. 
 
 Owned yachts — Chartered yachts: The six months' limitation in section 37, 
 tariff act of 1909, which provides that a tonnage tax " shall be le\'ied and col- 
 lected annually on the 1st day of September * * * upon the use of every 
 foreign-built yacht * * * now or hereafter owned or chartered for more 
 than six months," applies to chartered yachti only. The tonnage tax impojed 
 by said section 37 on the use of foreign-built yachts was intended to cover the 
 privilege of their use, and actual use is not a prerequisite to liability for the tax. 
 It was the intention of Congress that such tax should be levied on the 1st day of 
 every September following the enactment of the statute. 
 
 Treaties: When a treaty is inconsistent with a subsequent act of Congress, the 
 latter will prevail; and British-built yachts are, therefore, not exempt from the 
 tonnage tax imposed by section 37, tariff act of 1909, upon the use by United 
 States citizens of foreign-built yachts, by virtue of the treaty of 1815 with Great 
 Britain, which provided that no higher or other duties or charges should be im- 
 po ed in the United States upon British vessels than thoje imposed upon vessels 
 of the United States. 
 
 Tonnage taxes — How enforced : An action in the nature of debt will lie against 
 the owners or charterers of foreign-built yachts to enforce the collection of the 
 tonnage tax imposed upon the use of such yacht? by section 37. United States 
 V. Billings; United States v. Bennett; United States v. Goelet; United States 
 V. Pierce; United States v. Rainey, United States Circuit Court, Southern 
 District of New York, March 8, 1911. On demurrers to answers to actions 
 brought by the United States to recover the annual tonnage tax upon the use of 
 foreign-built yachts under section 37 of the tariff act of 1909. Demurrers sus- 
 tained in part; overruled in part. (T. D. 32303; Mar. 12, 1912.) 
 A foreign-built yacht, within the meaning of section 37, tariff act of 1909, imposing 
 a tonnage tax on the use of foreign-built yachts by United States citizens, is one 
 originally constructed outside the United States; and, though changed, 
 altered, and repaired, it remains foreign-built if the changes, alterations, and 
 repairs do not change its identity so that, were it a vessel built in the United 
 States, it might be rechristened without application to the Commissioner of 
 Navigation. The tonnage tax imposed by section 37 on the use of foreign-built 
 yachts by United States citizens is directed against the privilege of use, and 
 therefore assessable to and collectible from the personal user. 
 
928 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Yachts — Continued. 
 Foieign-built — Tonnage tax — Constitutionality — Oontinued . 
 
 Notice to taxpayer: In enforcing the provisions of section 37, imposing a ton- 
 nage tax on the use of foreign-built yachts, which " shall be levied and collected 
 annually * » * by the collector of customs of the district nearest the resi- 
 dence of the managing owner, " the collector must do eometliing by way of appris- 
 ing the person who is called upon to pay the tax; and one particular collector, 
 namely, the one of the district nearest the residence of the managing owner, 
 being charged with the duty of levying and collecting the tax, no other collector 
 can lawfully perform it. 
 
 Tonnage of rebuilt yachts: In estimating the tonnage tax imposed by section 
 37, tariff act of 1909, on the use of foreign-built yachts, it is proper, in the case 
 of yachts whose tonnage has been increased in rebuilding, to compute the tax 
 on the basis of the increa=!ed tonnage. 
 
 Judicial notice: Federal courts may take judicial notice of customs regulations. 
 
 Domicile — Residence: The terms "domicile" and "residence" are not syn- 
 onymous. Domicile implies residence plus animus manendi. United States v 
 BilUngs; United States v. Pierce; United States v. Rainey; United States v. 
 Bennett; United States v. Goelet; United States v. Blair; United States v. 
 Investors' & Traders' Realty Co., United States Circuit Court, Southern District 
 of New York, May 1, 1911. Actions at law by the United States to recover one 
 year's tonnage tax under section 37, tariff act of 1909. Trial without a jury. 
 Judgment for plaintiff in the Billings, Pierce, Rainey, and Investors' & Traders' 
 Realty Co. cases; and for defendants in the Bennett, Goelet, and Blair cases; 
 (T. D. 32304; Mar. 12, 1912.) 
 Statutory construction: Under section 37,- tariff act of 1909, imposing a tax on the 
 use of foreign-built yachts owned or chartered for more than six months by citi- 
 zens of the United States, to be collected annually on September 1, the tax 
 became due on the 1st day of September next occurring after the act became 
 effective; further held that the six months' clause relates only to the chartering 
 of the yachts, and the word "annually" indicates continuity, and that the tax 
 is not a sporadic one to cease after a single payment. Where words are used in a 
 statute in their every-day sense and not in a technical one they should be so 
 construed. 
 
 Actual use: The use of a foreign-built yacht which renders the owner subject 
 to the tax imposed by section 37, tariff act of 1909, is active and actual use and 
 not the potential use arising from the mere fact of ownership. 
 
 Retroactive operation of statute: The fact that a tax statute operates retro- 
 actively does not necessarily cause it to be unconstitutional. Flint v. Stone 
 Tracy Co. (220 U.S., 107). The rule that statutes should be construed if possible 
 BO as not to operate rectroactively does not authorize a judicial reenactment of 
 the statute to save it from acting retroactively if Congress intended it so to do. 
 
 Interest: The Government is entitled to interest on taxes on use of foreign- 
 built yachts under section 37, tariff act of 1909, from the date when the taxes 
 become due, and may maintain an action against the owner or charterer therefor. 
 Billings V. United States; United States v. Billings, United States Supreme 
 Court, February 24, 1914. Billings v. United States, in error to the Circuit 
 Court of the United States for the Southern Di trict of New York. United 
 States V. Billings, on a certificate from the United States Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals for the Second Circuit. (190 Fed., 359; T. D. 32303.) Decision modified 
 and aflSrmed. (T. D. 34429; May 2, 1914.) 
 United States v. Billings — Billings v. United States, United States Supreme 
 Court, February 24, 1914: United States v. Billings, on a certificate from the 
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Billings v. 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 929 
 
 7achts — Continued. 
 Foreign-built — Tonnage tax — Constitutionality — Continued. 
 
 United States, in error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern 
 District of New York. Decided on authority of Billings v. United States (232 
 U. S., 261; T. D. 34429); 190 Fed., 359 (T. D. 32303), modified and affirmed. 
 (T. D. 34430; May 2, 1914.) 
 
 Nonuse: BUlings v. United States (232 U. S., 261; T. D. 34429) followed and dis- 
 tinguished, to the effect that the owner of a foreign-built yacht is not liable for 
 the tax imposed by section 37, tariff act of 1909, it the yacht was not actually 
 used at all during the preceding year. Pierce v. United States; United States 
 V. Pierce, United States Supreme Court, February 24, 1914. Pierce v. United 
 States, in error to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. 
 United States v. Pierce, on certificate from the United States Circuit Court of 
 Appeals for the Second Circuit. Decision reversed, 190 Fed. 359 (T. D. 32303). 
 'T. D. 34431; May 2, 1914.) 
 
 Pierce v. United States — ^United States v. Pierce, United States Supreme Court, 
 Februarj' 24, 1914: Decided on authority of Pierce v. United States (232 U. S., 
 290; T. D. 34431); 190 Fed., 359 (T. D. 32303), reversed. Pierce v. United 
 States, in error to the Circuit Coiurt of the United States for the Southern Dis- 
 trict of New York. United States v. Pierce, on certificate from the United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (T. D. 34432; May 2, 
 19]4.) 
 
 Billings V. United States (232 U. S., 261; T. D. 34429) followed to the effect that 
 the tax on the use of foreign-built yachts imposed by section 37, tariff act of 
 1909, is not an unconstitutional exercise of powei by Congress, and it became 
 due for the year 1909 on the 1st day of September, 1909. 
 
 Legislative intent: While Congress may have the power to impose an excise 
 duty on a citizen permanently domiciled abroad, such an imposition is so 
 unusual that an intent to do so will not be presumed unless clearly expressed. 
 The expectation of those who sought the enactment of legislation may not be 
 used for the purpose of affixing to such legislation, when enacted, a meaning 
 which it does not express. 
 
 Permanent residence in foreign country: The tax imposed by section 37, 
 tariff act of 1909, does not apply to the use of a foreign-built yacht owned by a 
 citizen of the United States who was permanently resident and domiciled in a 
 foreign country for more than one year prior to September 1, 1909, and to the 
 levy of such tax. United States v. Goelet; United States v. Goelet, United 
 States Supreme Court, February 24, J 914. On certificates from the United 
 States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (T. D. 34433; May 2, 
 1914.) 
 
 Statutory construction: The rule of interpretation that where there are two pos- 
 sible constructions of a statute, one of which will give rise to grave doubts of its 
 constitutionality and the other avoids such question, the latter will be adopted, 
 is based on the existence of both conditions as to more than one construction 
 and doubt and is not applicable where neither of those conditions exists. 
 
 Yachts used outside jurisdiction of United States: The tax imposed by sec- 
 tion 37, tariff act of 1909, applies to the use of a foreign-built yacht owned by a 
 citizen of the United States, although such yacht, for a period of more than one 
 year prior to September 1, 1909, and to the levy of such tax, was used wholly 
 outside of the limits and tenitorial jurisdiction of the United States. 
 
 Interest on tax: The United States is entitled to recover interest upon the 
 tax imposed upon the use of foreign-built yachts under section 37, tariff act of 
 45633°— 17 59 
 
930 DIGEST OP CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Yachts — (jontinned. 
 Foieign-built — ^Tonnage tax — Constitutionality — Continued. 
 
 1909. United States v. Bennett, United States Supreme Court, February 24, 
 1914. Certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 
 (T. D. 34434; May 2, 1914.) 
 Yacht owned by citizen permanently resident in foreign country: United States 
 V. Goelet (232 U. S., 293; T. D. 34433) followed to effect that the tax imposed 
 by section 37, tariff act of 1909, does not apply to the use of a foreign-built 
 yacht owned by a citizen of the United States who was permanently resident 
 and domiciled in a foreign country for more than one year prior to September 
 1, 1909, and to the levy of such tax. On certificate from the United States 
 Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. United States v. Bennett, 
 United States Supreme Court, February 24, 1914. (T. D. 34436; May 2, 1914.) 
 BilUngs V. United States (232 U. S., 261; T. D. 34429) followed to the effect that 
 iinder section 37, tariff act of 1909, in imposing a tax on the use of foreign-built 
 yachts there is authority to bring an action in personam against the owner for 
 the recovery; that the lax became due on the 1st day of September next fol- 
 lowing the passage of the act; that the six months' clause applied only to the 
 charterer and not to the owner of such a yacht; and that that statute does not 
 violate the due-process clause of the fifth amendment. 
 
 Ad valorem in lieu of tonnage tax: The second paragraph of section 37, tariff 
 act of 1909, giving the owner of a foreign-built yacht an option to pay an ad 
 valorem of 35 per cent in lieu of the annual tonnage tax imposed on the use of 
 such yacht by the first paragraph of the section, is separable from the first para- 
 graph and its validity is not involved in an action to recover the tonnage tax 
 from (he owner of a foreign-built yacht who has not availed of the option. 
 
 Treaty — Subsequent inconsistent statutes: When a treaty is inconsistent 
 with a subsequent act of Congress fhe latter will prevail. The Constitution 
 does not declare that the law established by a treaty shall never be altered or 
 repealed by Congress; and while good faith may cause Congress to refrain from 
 making any change in such law, if it does so its enactment becomes the law. 
 Although the other contracting power to a treaty may have ground for complaint 
 if Congress passes a law changing the law established by the treaty, every per- 
 son is still bound to obey the latest law passed. No person acqiiires any vested 
 right to the continued operat ion of a treaty. Rainey v.- United States; United 
 Stales V. rtainey (2 cases), United Stales Supreme Court, February 24, 1914. 
 Rainey v. United States, in error to the Circuit Court of the United States for 
 the Southern District of New York. United Stales v. Rainey, on a certificate 
 from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circu't. Deci- 
 sion from which these appeals are taken (190 Fed., 359; T. D. 32303) modified 
 and affirmed. (T. D. 34436; May 2, 1914.) 
 Where, on bringing into the country a foreign-built yacht, no election is made 
 under the provisions of paragraph 37, tariff act of 1909, to pay an ad valorem 
 duty rather than a tonnage tax, a payment of the ad valorem duty levied on 
 subsequent entry of the yacht would not excuse the payment of a tonnage tax 
 which had previously accrued and become a debt to the GTovernment. (T. D. 
 35765— G. A. 7784; Oct. 5, 1915.) 
 
 Tams. 
 Legumes — 
 Chinese roots of the genus pueraria, which, when given an English name, have 
 always been called yams in the trade that deals in them and were the only vege- 
 tables known as yams that were imported prior to the passage of the tariff act of 
 1897, are "yams" within the meaning of paragraph 704 of said act, though.not 
 scientifically so known. Kwong Yuen Shing v. United States, United States 
 
DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. ■Q^l 
 
 Yams— Continued. 
 Legumes — Continued. 
 
 Circuit Court, Southern District of Nev York, November 13, 1909. Suit 5471. 
 Appeal by importer from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 Abstract 20957 (T. D. 29664). Board reversed. (T. D. 30145; Nov. 30, 1909.) 
 (Appealed:) A leguminous plant, of the genus pueraria, grown in China, is 
 not a yam, and is dutiable under paragraph 257, tariff act of 1897. Although 
 occasionally designated a yam in commerce, such designation is not the result 
 of an established commercial usage that is definite, uniform, and general, which 
 is essential to constitute a commercial designation in a legal sense. United 
 States V. Kwong Yuen Shing (No. 8), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Transferred from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit 
 (T. D. 30145). Appeal by the United States from decisions of the Circuit Court 
 for the Southern District of New York, reversing decision of the Board of Gen- 
 eral Appraisers. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30773- June 
 22, 1910.) 
 Taimouth bloaters and Digby chicks. (See Fish, herring.) 
 Yams. " 
 
 Artificial silk — Singles — 
 Artificial silk yarns in the crudest form known to commerce and consisting of 
 filaments held together by a twist which gives them firmness, in which condi- 
 tion they are the raw material which is manipulated by the throwster and con- 
 verted into tram or organzine, are properly dutiable as "in the form of singles" 
 rather than aa "in the form of tram" under the provisions of paragraph 405, 
 tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31404— G. A. 7190; Mar. 20, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Singles, not trams. — The merchandise in question, consisting 
 of so-called artificial silk yam, imported in skeins, produced from a form of 
 cellulose obtained by chemical processes from cotton or wood is the crudest 
 form of artificial silk known to the throwster's trade; it corresponds precisely 
 to the natural silk single, as this is made up from the cocoon; it was properly 
 held to be in the form of singles and not tram, and the form being the determin- 
 ing fact for consideration, it was dutiable as singles under paragraph 405, tariff 
 act of 1909. United States v. Straus & Co. (No. 631), United States Court of 
 Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Boaid of United States 
 General Appraisers, G. A. 7190 (T. D. 31404). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 
 32164; Jan. 11, 1912.) 
 Cotton — 
 Cotton yam in skeins from 15,000 to 21,000 yards each held dutiable as yam 
 under paragraph 302, tariff act of 1897. (T. D. 28803— G. A. 6730; Feb. 21, 
 1908.) 
 Formula for ascertaining the number of yarn in cotton cloth — 
 Tables published for convenience of customs officers. (T. D. 33823; Oct. 30, 
 1913.) 
 Schappe silk — 
 Schappe silk yarns dyed and finished are dutiable under paragraph 397, tariff 
 act of 1909, according to the number of the yarns in the gray. The word "num- 
 ber" as used in said paragraph 397 means the number of the yarns in the gray 
 or original condition before being dyed. (T. D. 30723— G. A. 7045; June 23 
 1910.) 
 ' Schappe silk yams are dutiable under paragraph 397, tariff act of 1909, according 
 to "number'' to be ascertained by metric or French system. In determining 
 the size or "number" of the yam according to the metric or French system, 
 the absolutely dry weight of the yam should be ascertained, to which 11 per 
 cent mast be added for moisture, ajid the weight thus obtained is the basis for 
 
932 DIGEST oi" Customs decisions, 1908-1915. 
 
 Yarns — Continued. 
 Schappe silk — Continued. 
 
 calculating the number of the yam. In buying or selling schappe silk yam a 
 variation of 2^ per cent in the number of the yam, either above or below a 
 recognized commercial number, is disregarded by the trade. Held, that in 
 ascertaining the number of the yarn for dutiable purposes this trade usage 
 should be followed. Paragraph 404 provides that in ascertaining the weight 
 of silk no deductions shall be made for "any dye, coloring matter or other for- 
 eign substance or material." Held, that this provision does not apply to the 
 ascertainment of the weight of the yarn for the sole purpose of determining the 
 "number" according to the metric or French system. (T. D. 30724 — G. A. 
 7046; June 23, 1910.) 
 
 Schappe silk yarns are dutiable under paragraph 397, tariff act of 1909, according 
 to "number," to be ascertained by the metric or French system. In deter- 
 mining the size or "number" of the yarn according to the metric or French 
 system, the absolutely dry weight of the yam should be ascertained, to which 
 11 per cent must be added for moisture, and the weight thus obtained is the 
 basis for calculating the number of the yarn. Paragraph 404 provides that in 
 ascertaining the weight of silk no deductions shall be made for "any dye, col- 
 oring matter or other foreign substance or material." Held, that this provision 
 does not apply to the ascertainment of the weight of the yarn for the sole pur- 
 pose of determining the "number" according to the metric or French system. 
 In buying or selling schappe silk yarn a variation of 2J per cent in the number 
 of the yam, either above or below a recognized commercial number, is disre- 
 garded by the trade. Held, that in ascertaining the number of the yarn for 
 dutiable purposes this trade usage should be followed. (T. D. 31181 — G. A. 
 7147; Jan. 9, 1911.) 
 
 (Appealed:) Conditioning rule. — The testimony shows such a general trade 
 adoption of and acquiescence in the conditioning rule for finding the number 
 to be assigned schappe silk yarns according to the metric system, that the refer- 
 ence to this system in paragraph 397, tariff act of 1909, may be fairly held to 
 indicate this conditioning rule as a proper guide. This conditioning rule hav- 
 ing been complied with in the case here, there is no error in the appraisement. 
 United States v. Bouchsein (No. 582), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the United States from Board of United States General Appraisers, 
 G. A. 7147 (T. D. 31181). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31954; Oct. 12, 1911.) 
 
 Schappe silk yarns, dyed and finished, are dutiable under paragraph 397, tariff 
 act of 1909, according to the number of the yarns in their dyed condition as 
 found by the metric or French system. G. A. 7045 (T. D. 30723) modified. 
 (T. D. 32002— G. A. 7295; Nov. 13, 1911.) 
 Spun silk — 
 
 Protest, suflSciency of: The duty was erroneously computed, the collector apply- 
 ing a size nimiber to the yam greater than was warranted by the fact, the error 
 proceeding from using the gray instead of the dyed condition of the article as a 
 basis. The yams, however, were dutiable according to their size number in a 
 dyed condition and the protest as a whole shows that the importers had the cor- 
 rect provision of law in mind and by this the collector's attention was directed 
 to it. Carter v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 64; T. D. 31033). Lichten- 
 stein V. United States) ib., 79; T. D. 31105); Oelriehs v. United States (3 ib., 
 232; T. D. 32541). Bowlii^ Green Storage Co. v. United States (3 ib., 309; 
 T. D. 32588) distinguished. United States v. Stim (No. 1239), United States 
 Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the United States from Board of United 
 States General Appraisers, Abstract 32977 (T. D. 33594). Decision affirmed. 
 (T. D. 34191; Feb. 5, 1914.) 
 
' DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 933 
 
 Yams — Continued . 
 Spiiu silk on bobbins. (See also Wood spools wound with silk yam.) 
 Spun silk yam in the gray, wound upon cylindrical paper tubes measuring about 
 4f inches in length and having a uniform diameter of about one-half of an inch, 
 which tubes are recognized in trade under the general term "bobbins," is 
 dutiable as spun silk yam "on bobbins" rather than as spun silk yam in 
 "skeins, warps, or cops," according to its value per pound, condition, and 
 number, imder the provisions of paragraph 397, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 
 32123— G. A. 7312; Dec. 22, 1911.) 
 
 Young fustic dyewood. 
 
 Young fustic dyewood, cut or shredded into pieces, suitable to be packed in 
 burlaps for shipment, has been thereby advanced in condition. The statutory 
 provision of the tariff act of 1897 relating to an advance in condition is unquali- 
 fied and the importation of corresponding date was dutiable under paragraph 
 20 of that act. 
 
 But paragraph 559, tariff act of 1909, expressly provides for the free entry of 
 such an importation, if not advanced in value or condition by any process or 
 treatment whatever beyond that essential to the proper packing of it. This is 
 the case here, and the rule of stare decisis does not apply. The importation of 
 corresponding date was free of duty under tariff act of 1909. Perry, Ryer & 
 Co. D. United States (No. 669), United States Court of Customs Appeals. J>p- 
 peal by the importer from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 
 25204 (T. D. 31450). Decision aflSrmed as to part and reversed as to part. 
 (T. D. 32096; Dec. 6, 1911.) 
 
 Z. 
 
 Zibeline or ripple cloth. < 
 
 Zibeline or ripple cloth dutiable at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem under para- 
 graph 308, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34624; July 10, 1914.) 
 
 Zinc dross and ztnc skimmings. 
 
 Zinc dross and zinc skimmings dutiable as metal, unwrought, at the rate of 10 
 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 154, tariff act of 1913. (T. D. 34070; 
 Jan. 14, 1914.) 
 
 Zinc enameled sheets — Artificial tiles. 
 
 The importation consisted of sheets of zinc on which several coats of enamel had 
 been applied, one coat at a time, and after each application baked in an oven. 
 The processes involved, besides, the use of a power press in printing various 
 colors on sundry of the zinc sheets, while all were varnished, embossed, and 
 made true to edges, the completed article having the appearance of artificial 
 tile; held, the importation is not to be classified as zinc in sheets coated or 
 plated with nickel or other metal or solutions, but as zinc partly or wholly 
 manufactured, and they are dutiable under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. 
 Lunham v. United States (T. D. 31569), Langerman & Petty v. United States 
 (75 Fed. Rep., 1), and Dejonge v. Magone (153 U. S., 562) distinguished. 
 Stengel v. United States (No. 584), United States Court of Customs Appeals. 
 Appeal by the importer from a decision of the Board of United States General 
 Appraisers, G. A. 7145 (T. D. 31164). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 31663; May 
 29, 1911.) 
 
 Zinc sheets coated with paint. 
 
 Zinc sheets coated with paint dutiable under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. 
 (T. D. 30311; Jan. 28, 1910.) 
 
934 DIGEST OF CUSTOMS DECISIONS, 1908-1915. 
 
 Zinc tiles or borders, enameled. 
 
 Zinc tiles and strips, or borders, covered witli enamel paint, having been ad- 
 vanced from tte condition of the zinc sheets to that of finished articles ready for 
 use, are dutiable as manufactures of metal, under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. 
 The provJBions of paragraph 194, relating to zinc in various forms, cover only 
 the crude commercial forms in which zinc as a material is marketed, and do not 
 extend to such material when advanced by machine processes and labor ex- 
 pended upon it, to the condition of finished articles, such as tiles, strips, and 
 borders. Zinc sheets covered with enamel paint are not " coated " within the 
 meaning of paragraph 194. This provision embraces only such sheets as have 
 been covered with metal by means of coating, plating, or solutions. (T. D. 
 31164— G. A. 7145; Dec. 31, 1910.) 
 
 Zinc, nickeled. 
 
 Zinc nickeled on one side, polished, and cut into strips, dutiable under paragraph 
 199, tariff act of 1909. (T. D. 31396; Mar. 18, 1911.) 
 
 Zinc and lead bearing ores. (See Ores.) 
 
 Zinc-white paint. (See Faint.) 
 
 ADDITIONAL COPIES 
 
 OP THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PKOCTJBED FBOH 
 
 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 AT 
 
 J1.60 PEE COPY 
 
 V 
 
^■::T3CV3r&3^:53™**^ jn"Si-=f*r=i»' 
 
 rJj;^i-ai»i*iT-*.=.J-V*-»*'M»3-»*«-' 'j 
 
 wti^e*i^A--^^:^^v^i.imBi 
 
 1:^-1 
 
 tf^iiJ-AiJtiii.M*-'***^-*^-'**-'''-'-***-*-''^ *