(T. D. 25513.) No. 2514.-MEASUREMENT OF LATHS.-Protest 101432 of A. L. Marzolf against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Port Huron. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by McClelland, G. A. The importer contended that 105,000 pieces of laths, 32 inches long, should have been treated in assessment of duty as 70,000 laths, because they equal that number of laths of standard length. The Board found that there was no basis for the contention that in the assessment of laths their length should be taken into consideration. test overruled. Pro No. 2515.-VEGETABLE WAX-VEGETABLE TALLOW.-Protests 62910b, etc., of Balfour, Guthrie & Co. et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of San Francisco. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by McClelland, G. A. The merchandise was returned by the appraiser as vegetable tallow, and was classified as tallow under paragraph 279, tariff act of 1897. The Board sustained the contention of the importers that the article should have been classified as vegetable wax under paragraph 695. Note Abstract 1445 (T. D. 25312). No. 2516.-PLASTER OF PARIS STATUARY.-Protest 62530 b of Gallagher Brothers against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of San Francisco. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by McClelland, G. A. The importers contended that certain manufactures of plaster of paris were statuary within the meaning of paragraph 454 of the tariff act of 1897. As statuary is defined in said paragraph as including only such as is produced from marble, stone, alabaster, or metal, the Board held that the merchandise in question was not embraced in said paragraph. Note G. A. 5213 (T. D. 24016). No. 2517.-CARD-CLOTH FOUNDATION-FLAX FABRICS.-Protests 54657b, etc., of Henry Ashworth against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Fall River. Before Board 1 (Lunt and Sharretts, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Lunt, G. A. Certain card-cloth foundation, classified as cloth in part of wool, not specially provided for under paragraph 366 of the tariff act of 1897, was claimed by the importer to be dutiable under the provision in paragraph 346 for woven fabrics composed in chief value of flax. The Board found flax to be the component of chief value as alleged by the importer, and on authority of Hartranft v. Meyer (135 U. S., 237), Held that the merchandise was more specifically described in paragraph 346. than in paragraph 366 and sustained the protest accordingly. No. 2518.-BORATE OF MANGANESE-CHEMICAL SALT.-Protests 50198 b, etc., of O. G. Hempstead & Sons against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Philadelphia. Before Board 1 (Lunt and Sharretts, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Lunt, G. A. These protests relate to certain borate of manganese. In some instances the importers make the claim that the article is dutiable under paragraph 3, tariff act of 1897, as a chemical salt, but in other protests failed to make this contention. On authority of Hempstead v. Thomas (129 Fed. Rep., 907; T. D. 25315), the Board sustained such of the protests as referred to paragraph 3. (T. D. 25513.) No. 2519.-COLORED GLASS COMBS.-Protest 121014 of D. Lisner & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt and Sharretts, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Certain combs composed of cut glass, colored glass, metal, and horn, glass being the component material of chief value, were classified under paragraph 100 of the tariff act of 1897 as decorated glassware, and were claimed to be dutiable under paragraph 112 as manufactures of glass. Protest sustained. No. 2520.-WATER-COLOR PAINTS.-Protest 120249 of Favor, Ruhl & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt and Sharretts, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. On authority of G. A. 5697 (T. D. 25355), Held that certain water-color paints costing more than 25 marks net per gross boxes should have been classified as paints under paragraph 58 of the tariff act of 1897, as claimed by the importers. No. 2521.-WATER-COLOR PAINTS.-Protest 22293 h of Geo. Borgfeldt & Co. Same as No. 2520 (supra), the merchandise being water-color paints in tin boxes. No. 2522.-BUFFALO HIDES.-Protests 34105f, etc., of Harburger & Stack against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Certain buffalo hides, classified as hides of cattle under paragraph 437 of the tariff act of 1897, were claimed to be free of duty under paragraph 664, relating to hides not specially provided for. Protest overruled on authority of G. A. 4305 (T. D. 20276), and Rossbach v. United States (122 Fed. Rep., 1020). No. 2523.-LEATHER WATCH GUARDS-JEWELRY.-Protests 78546f, etc., of J. M. Martin et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt and Sharretts, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Certain watch guards or fob straps, composed in chief value of leather, classified as jewelry under paragraph 434 of the tariff act of 1897, were claimed to be dutiable as manufactures of leather under paragraph 450. Protests sustained on authority of Veil v. United States (T. D. 25007). No. 2524.-SILK WEARING APPAREL-RAMIE WEAR.-Protest 110161 of Samuel Ach Company against the assessment of duty by the surveyor of customs at the port of Cincinnati. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Howell, G. A. Held that certain wearing apparel composed in chief value of silk and ramie, respectively, was properly classified under the provisions in paragraphs 390 and 314 of the tariff act of 1897 for silk wearing apparel and wearing apparel in chief value of vegetable fiber, respectively. No. 2525.-PROTEST TOO LATE.-Protest 110770 of Kildall Fish Company against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Minneapolis. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Fischer, G. A. This protest was filed more than ten days after liquidation of the entry, and was accordingly overruled. (T. D. 25513.) No. 2526.-HORSEHAIR BRAIDS.-Protest 109692 of Jos. Lazarus Company against the assessment of duty by the surveyor of customs at the port of Cincinnati. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Howell, G. A. Various classes of merchandise were classified as composed in chief value of silk or cotton, as the case may be. The importers contended that other materials were the components of chief value. The Board affirmed the assessment in each case, except as to certain braids found to be composed in chief value of horsehair, which were held to be dutiable under paragraph 409 of the tariff act of 1897, by similitude, to braids of straw, chip, etc. No. 2527.-SILK AND RAMIE BRAIDS.-Protest 101128 of Samuel Ach Company against the assessment of duty by the surveyor of customs at the port of Cincinnati. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Howell, G. A. Certain silk and ramie braids which were classified under the provision in paragraph 339 of the tariff act of 1897, for braids in chief value of vegetable fiber, were claimed by the importers to be composed in chief value of chip. Protest overruled. No. 2528.-SILK HATS.-Protest 63168 b of Samuel Ach Company against the assessment of duty by the surveyor of customs at the port of Cincinnati. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Howell, G. A. The merchandise was classified as cotton wearing apparel under paragraph 314 of the tariff act of 1897, and was claimed by the importers to be composed in chief value of chip. The Board found silk to be the component material of chief value, and held that the goods should have been classified as silk wearing apparel under paragraph 390. Protest overruled. No. 2529.—GERMAN-SILVER STRIPS.-Protest 63071b of O. G. Hempstead & Son against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Philadelphia. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Fischer, G. A. On authority of G. A. 5742 (T. D. 25478), Held that certain German silver in the form of strips was properly classified as manufactures of metal under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897. No. 2530.-BOOKS PRINTED PARTLY IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE.-Protest 118855 of Solon J. Vlasto against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Fischer, G. A. The importers contended that certain dictionaries, printed partly in English and partly in a foreign language, were free of duty under the provision in paragraph 502 of the tariff act of 1897 for books printed exclusively in languages other than English. Protest overruled. No. 2531.-PAINTINGS ENAMELED ON METAL.-Protest 118591 of Geo. Borgfeldt & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Certain paintings in enamel colors on metal were held to have been properly classified under paragraph 159 of the tariff act of 1897, as enameled ware, and not to be dutiable under the provision in paragraph 454, for paintings in oil or water colors, as claimed by the importers. (T. D. 25513.) No. 2532.-SILK HATS.-Protest 118144 of Dearberg Brothers against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Howell, G. A. Certain untrimmed hats, classified as wearing apparel in chief value of silk, under paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897, were claimed to be composed in chief value of chip. Assessment affirmed. No. 2533.-JACQUARD FIGURED SILKS.-Protest 116123 of R. Vogelsang against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Howell, G. A. The merchandise, which was classified under the provision for silk fabrics in paragraph 387 of the tariff act of 1897, was claimed to be dutiable under the provision in paragraph 391, for Jacquard figured silks containing two or more colors in the filling. Protest sustained as to one item. No. 2534.-SILK FABRICS, YARN-DYED And Weighted.-Protest 113099 of Arthur Geoffrey against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Howell, G. A. The question to be decided was whether certain silk fabrics dutiable under paragraph 387, tariff act of 1897, were properly classified as yarn dyed and weighted, or should have been classified as piece dyed, as claimed by the importers. Protest overruled. No. 2535.-SILK FABRICS, YARN-DYED.-Protest 122829 of Trumplette & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Howell, G. A. Held that certain silk fabrics were properly classified under paragraph 387 of the tariff act of 1897. No. 2536.-SILK HATS.-Protest 111429 of Dearberg Brothers. Same as No. 2532 (supra). No. 2537.-COTTON BRAIDS.-Protests 109439, etc., of Barthels Manufacturing Company against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Howell, G. A. Held that the merchandise was properly classified under paragraph 339 of the tariff act of 1897 as cotton braids. No. 2538.-LITHOGRAPHIC CALENDARS.-Protest 19212 h of Devoy Brothers against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer, Howell, and De Vries, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Fischer, G. A. On authority of G. A. 4959 (T. D. 23169), Held that certain fancy calendars, classified as manufactures of paper under paragraph 407, tariff act of 1897, should have been classified as lithographic prints under paragraph 400 as claimed by the importers. (T.D.25513.) No. 2539-PIMENTO LIQUID-ALCOHOLIC COMPOUND.-Protest 104722 of West India Fruit Company against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Philadelphia. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. The merchandise consisted of an alcoholic extract of pimento or allspice. It was classified under paragraph 292 of the tariff act of 1897, as spirituous bitters, but was contended by the importers to be dutiable as still wine under paragraph 296, or as fruit juice under paragraph 299. Protest overruled. No. 2540.-Sizing STARCH-POTATO STARCH AND TAPIOCA MIXED-UNENUMERATED ARTICLE-SOADINE.-Protests 59835b, etc., of Stone & Downer Company against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Boston. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. A portion of the merchandise in question consisted of so-called soadine classified as a chemical compound under paragraph 3 of the tariff act of 1897, and claimed to be dutiable as an unenumerated manufactured article under secton 6. In Abstract 1518 (T. D. 25312) similar merchandise was held to be dutiable as bicarbonate of soda under paragraph 73. As the importers failed to make the correct claim, the protests were overruled. The remainder of the merchandise, which was described as "sizing starch," was shown by a microscopical examination to be a mixture of potato starch and tapioca, the potato starch being the more valuable component. It was classified as starch under paragraph 285, and was claimed to be dutiable as an unenumerated manufactured article under section 6. The assessment of the article was affirmed, the Board making the following observations: * WAITE, General Appraiser: * * Potato starch has uniformly been held to be dutiable as starch. In re Hempstead (decision unpublished), protest 391936, November 22, 1902, and other Board decisions; Union National Bank v. Seeberger (30 Fed. Rep., 429). If regarded as a nonenumerated article, the commodity would be assessed at the rate applicable to the component material of chief value-i. e., potato starch-by virtue of section 7 of the act. On the other hand, if the article be considered a mixture of two enumerated articles (tapioca being free under paragraph 677), the rate assessable upon potato starch was properly applied to the entire lot, there having been no attempt to show the proportion of tapioca in the importation. United States v. Ranlett (172 U. S., 133); In re Schmall, G. A. 4624 (T. D. 21900). No. 2541.-RECIPROCITY-SPIRITS-GERMAN PRODUCTS IMPORTED FROM AUSTRALIA.-Protest 562156 of Chapman & Wilberforce against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of San Francisco. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Certain merchandise imported from Australia was claimed to be entitled to the benefit of the reciprocal commercial agreement with Germany. Protest overruled for the reasons stated in G. A. 5002 (T. D. 23315). No. 2542.-RECIPROCITY-SPIRITS SUFFICIENCY OF PROTEST.-Protests 84409f, etc., of P. W. Engs & Sons Company et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of San Francisco. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), July 28, 1904. Opinion by Somerville, G. A. The merchandise consisted of certain spirituous beverages imported from France and entitled to the benefit of the reciprocal commercial agreement with that country. The protest clearly indicated the intention of the importers to rely on the French |