(T. D. 25462.) No. 2142.-LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTS.-Protest 109177 of Lunham & Moore 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; De Vries, G. A., not present), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Fischer, G. A. The importers contended that certain lithographic prints were assessed for duty on the basis of an erroneous measurement of their thickness. Assessment affirmed. No. 2143.-DUPLEX LITHOGRAPHIC PAPER.-Protests 110257, etc., of J. Marsching & 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; De Vries, G. A., not present), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Fischer, G. A. On authority of G. A. 5459 (T. D. 24748), Held that certain duplex lithographic paper was properly classified under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1897, as paper not otherwise provided for. No. 2144.-CHURCH STATUARY.-Protest 105098 of O. G. Hempstead & Son against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Philadelphia. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers; Hay, G. A. not present), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. A statue imported for the Academy of the Sacred Heart at Torresdale, Pa., was held to be entitled to admission free of duty under the provision in paragraph 649, tariff act of 1897, for statuary for religious institutions. G. A. 5681 (T. D. 25295) followed. No. 2145.-COFFEE SUBSTITUTE-ENTIRETY.-Protest 61658b of Robt. Croft & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Port Townsend. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers; Hay, G. A., not present), July 1, 1904. WAITE, General Appraiser: The invoice describes the merchandise in question as "French coffee." The goods were returned as "coffee compound (coffee and chicory)" and assessed for duty at 24 cents per pound under paragraph 283 of the tariff act of 1897, which provides that rate for "articles used as coffee, or as substitutes for coffee, not specially provided for." The protestants contend that the article is free under paragraph 529, which exempts "coffee." The protest alleges that the article is coffee containing 124 per cent of chicory, and that it is not intended as a substitute for coffee, but is sold in and known by the trade as coffee. If the allegation is true that the substance is commercially known as coffee, the admixture of 12 per cent of chicory would not, in our judgment, preclude its classification under paragraph 529. Authorities squarely in point are Two Hundred Chests of Tea (9 Wheat., 428) and In re Crooks, G. A. 4777 (T. D. 22521). The importers, however, have not seen fit to introduce the testimony of a single witness on the question of commercial designation, notwithstanding that they were given opportunity for a special hearing at the port of entry. While the correctness of the col lector's action seems open to question, we are not in a position to consider the merits of the case because of the failure of the importers to sustain their allegations by proof. In our opinion, the further claim in the protest that duty should be assessed only upon the proportion of chicory contained in the importation possesses no merit. The chicory and coffee appear to be ground together, and we believe the commodity is an entire and indivisible preparation for tariff purposes. Even were the claim sound, it is well settled that where free and dutiable goods are indiscriminately mixed in an importation the burden is upon the importers to prove what part of the whole is non (T. D. 25462.) dutiable. United States v. Ranlett (172 U. S., 133) and In re Schmall, G. A. 4624 (T. D. 21900). This has not been done in the case before us. The protest is overruled and the collector's decision affirmed. No. 2146.-CHURCH STATUARY OF METAL.-Protest 61688b of Mother Mary McMenamy, for the Academy of the Sacred Heart, against the assessment of duty by the surveyor of customs at the port of St. Joseph. Before Board 3 (Waite and Somerville, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. The protestant contended that a molded church statue imported for the Sacred Heart Convent of St. Joseph, Mo., which was composed of metal, and was of the same character as the metal statuary covered by G. A. 5699 (T. D. 25357), was free of duty under paragraph 649, tariff act of 1897, relating to church statuary. Protest sustained on authority of the decision cited. No. 2147.-CHURCH STATUARY.-Protests 53192f, etc., of H. H. Brown & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite and Somerville, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. On authority of G. A. 5681 (T. D. 25295), Held that certain molded church statuary composed of plastic mineral substances, was entitled to entry free of duty under paragraph 649 of the tariff act of 1897, relating to statuary imported for religious institutions. No. 2148.-PROTEST TOO LATE.-Protest 59649 b of Charles N. Taylor's Sons against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Philadelphia. Before Board 3 (Waite and Somerville, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. The protest was filed more than ten days after liquidation of the entry, and was overruled as invalid. No. 2149.-CANARY SEED.-Protests 58517b, etc., of R. T. French Company against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Rochester. Before Board 3 (Waite and Somerville, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. Certain canary seed was classified as seed not specially provided for under paragraph 254 of the tariff act of 1897, and was claimed to be free of duty under paragraph 656 as grass seed. Classification affirmed on authority of Nordlinger v. United States (T. D. 24976). No. 2150.-MILLET-SEED CAKE-CONFECTIONERY.-Protest 62192b of Domoto On authority of G. A. 5577 (T. D. 24992), Held that certain millet-seed cake was properly classified under paragraph 212 of the tariff act of 1897, as confectionery. No. 2151.-RAPE-SEED MEAL-UNENUMERATED ARTICLES.-Protest 103044 of Knauth, Nachod & Kühne against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite and Somerville, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. Certain meal manufactured from rape seed was classified as a nonenumerated manufactured article under section 6 of the tariff act of 1897, and was claimed to be free of (T. D. 25462.) duty as rape seed under paragraph 656. Held that the meal in question is not seed, and that it was properly classified under the authority of United States v. Kauffman (84 Fed. Rep., 446), G. A. 5628 (T. D. 25167), and G. A. 5534 (T. D. 24904). No. 2152.-DUTIABLE VALUE.-Protest 111768 of John Menke & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite and Somerville, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. The importers contended that the amount of certain nondutiable charges was included by the collector in the dutiable value of the merchandise. It appeared that the duty was assessed upon the value of the goods as entered by the importers. Protest overruled. Note G. A. 4900 (T. D. 22934). No. 2153.—AGAR-AGAR-JAPANESE ISINGLASS.-Protest 101612 of Eimer & Amend against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3(Waite and Somerville, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. On authority of G. A. 5228 (T. D. 24053), Held that certain agar-agar, or Japanese isinglass, is dutiable under paragraph 23, tariff act of 1897, as isinglass, as claimed by the importers. No. 2154.-HAND-PAINTED PLATES-PAINTINGS.-Protests 3800 f, etc., of Glaenzer Frères & Rheinboldt against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite and Somerville, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. The merchandise consisted of hand-painted plates, classified as decorated china under paragraph 85, tariff act of 1894, and claimed to be free of duty under paragraph 575 as paintings in oil or water colors. Protests overruled. Note G. A. 3211 (T. D. 16422) and G. A. 3219 (T. D. 16430). No. 2155.-PREPARED VEGETABLES-DRIED ARTICHOKE HEARTS.-Protest 15742 h of F. C. Linde Company against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite and Somerville, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. The merchandise consisted of the heart of artichokes, dried. It was classified as vegetables prepared or preserved under paragraph 241, tariff act of 1897, and was claimed to be dutiable as vegetables in their natural state under paragraph 257. The local appraiser reported that in order to obtain the article in this condition it is necessary to remove the leaves which constitute at least 80 per cent of the vegetable in its natural state. Protest overruled on authority of G. A. 5326 (T. D. 24370). No. 2156.-JURISDICTION OF GENERAL APPRAISERS-MERCHANDISE DESTROYED BY FIRE.-Protest 19050h of Austin, Nichols & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Somerville and Lunt, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Somerville, G. A. In this case the protestants asked relief from the payment of duty on goods destroyed by fire on the wharf after importation. Protest dismissed for want of jurisdiction, on authority of G. A. 4830 (T. D. 22689). (T. D. 25462.) No. 2157.-WASTE-WOOL TARES-PAPER STOCK.-Protests 57692f, etc., of Salomon Brothers & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Somerville and Lunt, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Somerville, G. A. On authority of G. A. 5418 (T. D. 24664), Held that wool tares are free of duty under paragraph 632 for waste fit only for conversion into paper. No. 2158.-SPIRITS-FRENCH RECIPROCITY.-Protest 84860f of James P. Smith & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. July 1, 1904. Same as No. 2115 (supra). No. 2159.–Old Bagging-WASTE.-Protest 88075 ƒ of Castle & Gottheil against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Somerville and Lunt, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Somerville, G. A. On authority of G. A. 4406 (T. D. 20960), Held that certain old cotton bagging was properly classified as waste under paragraph 463, tariff act of 1897, and was not free of duty under paragraph 632 as waste fit only for conversion into paper. No. 2160.-LINEN-THREAD WASTE-PAPER STOCK.-Protests 97062f, etc., of Lewy Brothers Company against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Somerville and Lunt, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Somerville, G. A. On authority of G. A. 5719 (T. D. 25422), Held that certain linen-thread waste was entitled to entry free of duty under paragraph 632, tariff act of 1897, as waste fit only for conversion into paper, as claimed by the importers. No. 2161.-FOXBERRIES.-Protest 111664 of Wm. Haaker & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Somerville and Lunt, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Somerville, G. A. The merchandise was classified as cranberries under paragraph 262, tariff act of 1897. The importers contended that it was foxberries and was dutiable under the provision in the same paragraph for berries, edible, in their natural condition. Protest sustained on authority of G. A. 5142 (T. D. 23731). No. 2162.-WEIGHT OF CLAY.-Protest 59989 b of J. J. Buchey & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Philadelphia. Before Board 3 (Somerville and Lunt, General Appraisers), July 1, 1904. Opinion by Somerville, G. A. The importers contended that the weight of certain clay on the basis of which duty was assessed, was erroneously returned. Protest overruled. No. 2163.-LINEN THREAD WASTE-PAPER STOCK.-Protests 106948, etc., of Gatti, McQuade & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite and Somerville, General Appraisers), July 5, 1904. Opinion by Somerville, G. A. On authority of G. A. 5719 (T. D. 25422), Held that linen thread waste is free of duty under paragraph 632, tariff act of 1897, as waste fit only for conversion into paper. (T. D. 25462.) No. 2164.-SILK HATS.-Protest 111236 of Bloom & Mayer against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (Fischer and Howell, General Appraisers), July 5, 1904. Opinion by Howell, G. A. The merchandise consisted of hats composed of silk and chip. They were classified as silk wearing apparel under paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897, and were claimed to be dutiable under paragraph 409 as straw hats untrimmed. Classification affirmed. Note G. A. 4525 (T. D. 21502). No. 2165.-FRENCH RECIPROCITY-SPIRITS.-Protests 48350b, etc., of Wakem & McLaughlin et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Chicago. Before Board 3 (Waite and Somerville, General Appraisers), July 5, 1904. Opinion by Somerville, G. A. On authority of United States v. Wile (T. D. 25223), Held that certain spirituous beverages, including cordials, imported from France, are subject to the reduced rate of duty provided in the reciprocal commercial agreement with France, as contended by the importers. No. 2166.-Chutney-Fruit PRESERVED.-Protest 60240b of E. H. Dessonslavy against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of San Francisco. Before Board 3 (Waite and Somerville, General Appraisers), July 5, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. On authority of G. A. 4979 (T. D. 23233), Held that certain varieties of chutney were properly classified as fruits preserved in their own juice under paragraph 263, tariff act of 1897. No. 2167.-SUGAR-CONDITIONAL INVOICE.-Protest 96865 a of Leaycraft & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite and Somerville, General Appraisers), July 5, 1904. Opinion by Somerville, G. A. The merchandise in question consisted of sugar imported on invoices containing a conditional clause similar to that passed upon in United States v. American Sugar Refining Company (71 Fed. Rep., 951), where the practice of making such conditional invoices was held to be valid. On authority of the case cited, the Board sustained the protest that the duty should be assessed according to the value determined in accordance with terms of the invoice. No. 2168.-Sugar-CONDITIONAL INVOICE.-Protest 2941f of American Sugar Refining Company. Same as No. 2167 (supra). No. 2169.-WATER-COLOR PAINTS-TOYS.-Protest 115915 of Geo. Borgfeldt & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Baltimore. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), July 6, 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 per gross boxes were erroneously classified as toys under paragraph 418, tariff act of 1897, and were dutiable under paragraph 58, as claimed by the importers. No. 2170.-WATER-COLOR PAINTS-TOYS.-Protest 112703 of Geo. Borgfeldt & Co. 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 6, 1904. Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. On authority of G. A. 5697 (T. D. 25355), Held that certain water-color paints in tin boxes were improperly classified as toys under paragraph 418, tariff act of 1897, |