out of "hemmed handkerchiefs" from paragraph 349 of the act of October 1, 1890, evinced a further legislative intent to preserve the relation, for tariff purposes, which has always been maintained between hemmed and hemstitched handkerchiefs and embroideries and embroidered handkerchiefs. On the other hand, both in the act of 1883, and that of October 1, 1890, the provision for "handkerchiefs" merely is found in the plain and coarse goods paragraphs, as in the act of 1883, for example, it appears in paragraph 334 of the hemp and flax schedule with "Brown and bleached linens, ducks, canvas, paddings, cot-bottoms, diapers, crash," etc., while in the act of October 1, 1890, it is found in paragraph 349 (cotton schedule) with "clothing, ready made, and articles of wearing apparel of every description," etc. These circumstances show, conclusively, we think, a legislative purpose to continue hemstitched handkerchiefs in the category of embroideries and embroidered handkerchiefs, where they have always been placed; and if there is a conflict between paragraphs 349 and 373 of the present law, the last expression of the legislative will, or that found in paragraph 373, must prevail, under a well-established rule of construction. We hold that the decision of the collector was in accordance with the law, and it is hereby affirmed. (10670.-G. A. 254.) Reappraisement-General appraiser not restricted as to amount of advance by the return of the local appraiser. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 21, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 1798 a, of Megros, Portier, Magney & Co., against the amount of duty assessed by the collector at the port of New York on certain cottons, imported per Normandie, September 17, 1890. Opinion by WILKINSON, General Appraiser. It appears that certain items on the invoice were, upon reappraisement, advanced by the general appraiser beyond the valuation given by the local appraiser. The protest alleges illegality of the reappraisement, on the ground "that on an appeal by the importer to the general appraiser, the latter can not raise values above those adopted by the local appraiser.” The importer having expressed to the collector his dissatisfaction with the values found by the local appraiser, the invoice was referred to a general appraiser for a new appraisement. Section 10 of the act of June 10, 1890, provides "that it shall be the duty of the appraisers of the United States, and every of them, and every person who shall act as such appraiser, or of the collector, as the case may be, by all reasonable ways and means in his or their power, to ascertain, estimate, and appraise * * *the actual market value and wholesale price of the merchandise at the time of importation to the United States in the principal markets of the country whence the same has been imported." The only limitation upon this requirement is the provision in section 11, that where an appraisal is made on the basis of the cost of production, the merchandise shall not be appraised, on original appraisement or upon reappraisement, below the cost of production. In a reappraisement it is the duty of the general appraiser to appraise the foreign market value of the merchandise without regard to any previous valuation, and the fact that his appraisal was higher than the valuation by the local appraiser does not warrant the charge of illegality. The decision of the collector is accordingly affirmed. (10671.—G. A. 255.) Brass wire-Manufactures of copper. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 21, 1891. In the matter of the protest, No. 1892 a, of G. W. Sheldon & Co., against the assessment of duty by the collector of the port of New York on certain "brass wire," imported per Devonia, September 10, 1890. Opinion by WILKINSON, General Appraiser. Appellants claim that duty should have been assessed at 35 per cent., under T. I., 186, act of 1883, for manufactures, instead of at 45 per cent., the rate exacted by virtue of T. I., 216. T. I., 186, provides for manufactures of copper or of which copper shall be a component material of chief value. T. I., 216, makes provision for manufactures or articles composed wholly or in part of copper or any other metal. As either paragraph is applicable to the merchandise in question, the collector very properly assessed duty under that providing the higher rate, in accordance with section 2499, Revised Statutes, and his decision is affirmed accordingly. (10672.-G. A. 256.) Table-covers composed in part of metal. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 21, 1891. In the matter of the protest, No. 574 a, of R. Blankenberg & Co., against the rate of duty assessed by the collector at the port of New York on certain table-covers, imported per Wieland, July 15, 1890. Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser. The merchandise comprises table-covers composed of cotton and metal; jute, cotton and metal; and cotton, wool and metal, in all of which cotton is the component material of chief value, and metal an appreciable part and distinctive feature. With respect to that portion of the goods the classification of which is dependent upon that point, the importers admit that metal constitutes from 8 to 10 per cent. of the value of the whole, and the articles are invoiced as "cotton and metal table-covers." The importers claim that the appraiser erred in returning the merchandise covered by quality numbers 420 and 421 as part wool, but this allegation was negatived as to quality 420 by a statement of the shipper thereof that wool entered into their composition to an appreciable extent. With regard to quality 421, concerning which the importers claim that it is dutiable as a manufacture of cotton at 35 per cent. or 40 per cent. ad valorem, we find, from the evidence, that metal formed an appreciable portion of the value of the same. This fact is fatal to the contention of the importers, and leaves the rate of duty assessed upon the goods final and conclusive against them. Duty was assessed upon the metal and cotton covers at 45 per cent. ad valorem, under the provisions of paragraph 216, and upon the wool, cotton, and metal covers, valued at not over 80 cents per pound, at 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent., under paragraph 362. The exaction of the specified rates was, in our opinion, correct, for the reason that the several terms "manufactures of cotton," "made wholly or in part of wool," and "made wholly or in part of metal" are equally specific, and, according to the provisions of section 2499, Revised Statutes, the highest rate applicable to either of the materials mentioned must be imposed upon articles manufactured from two or more of them in combination. The decision of the collector is accordingly affirmed. (10673.-G. A. 257.) Glass beads, strung or threaded. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 21, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 2431 b, of Son Brothers & Co., against the assessment of duty by the collector at San Francisco on "beads," imported per Acapulco, September 30, 1890. Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser. Duty was assessed upon the merchandise, which consists of white glass beads strung upon cotton threads, at 60 per cent. ad valorem, the rate applicable to manufactures of glass, under paragraph 108, act of Octo ber 1, 1890. The appellants claim that duty should have been assessed at 10 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 445. It appears that the merchandise was imported September 30, and entered for consumption October 7, 1890. Paragraph 445, which is relied upon by the importers in support of their contention, is as follows: Glass beads, loose, unthreaded, or un strung, 10 per cent. ad valorem." An inspection of a sample shows that the beads are not loose, but are assorted and strung upon threads. They are, therefore, clearly not entitled to entry under paragraph 445, and as glass beads, strung or threaded, are not provided for denominatively in the present act, the assessment of duty upon them at 60 per cent. ad valorem, as manufactures of glass, is affirmed. (10674.-G. A. 258.) Silk elastic garter-webbing. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 21, 1891. The merchandise consists of an elastic webbing inclosed in a covering of silk ribbon, the two stitched together forming a completed article, of which silk is the component material of chief value. Duty was assessed thereon at 50 per cent. ad valorem, under T. I., 383, act of 1883. A sample of the merchandise was submitted to experts, who united in testifying that it was commercially known as "garter-webbing." Webbing is provided for by name in T. I., 495, without limitation as to kind or use. As heretofore held by us, in G. A. 19, September 9, 1890, the term "webbing" is a more specific enumeration than manufactures of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, and this ruling is in harmony with a decision of the Treasury Department, Synopsis 4220, September 30, 1879. The claim of the appellants, that duty should have been assessed upon the merchandise at 35 per cent. ad valorem, is accordingly sus tained. (10675.-G. A. 259.) Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 21, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 153a, of Dieckerhoff, Raffloer & Co., against the assessment of duty by the collector of the port of New York on hair-curlers, imported per Suevia, July 1, 1890. Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser. The articles known as "hair-curlers" consist of pieces of soft metal wire about 4 inches in length, wrapped with raw cotton and covered with kid. Duty was assessed upon them at 45 per cent. ad valorem, under T. I., 216, act of 1883. Precisely similar articles were the subject of a Treasury decision dated April 23, 1884, Synopsis 6432, wherein it was stated that the appraiser reported wire to be component material of chief value. Even if the metal in the present case is not the component material of chief value, it forms a prominent and essential feature of the article. The rate applicable to metal being higher than that provided for leather, the assessment of duty upon the merchandise under T. I., 216, was, in our opinion, correct, and is affirmed. (10676.-G. A. 260.) Act of October 1, 1890-Application to goods arrived prior to October 1, but which were not entered for warehouse prior to that date. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 21, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 3168 a, of G. W. Sheldon & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain woolens, imported per Servia, September 29, 1890. Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser. The importing vessel containing the merchandise arrived at the port of New York prior to October 1, 1890. The entry of the merchandise required to be made by the owner or consignee (Rev. Stat. U. S., 2785) was prepared in due form, and handed to the deputy collector on the night of September 30, 1890. It was not verified by oath until October 1, the ensuing day. The entry was made for warehouse only, and not for transportation or other purpose. The contention of the importers is that the goods are dutiable under the act of March 3, 1883, and not under the new tariff law of October 1, 1890, as held by the collector. The goods having been imported while the law of 1883 was in force, the point of inquiry is the effect exerted on the case by section 50 of the act of 1890. This section was framed to adjust the status of several specified classes of merchandise imported previously to the day when the new law went into effect, so that no doubt might exist as to the law under which they were to be dutiable. 1. Merchandise imported prior to October 6, 1890-the day the new law took effect for which no entry had been made," as required by |