terms, so as to cover every conceivable question relating to re-appraisement.

In returning the dutiable values, no additions were made for charges, and no additional duty was assessed under the provisions of section 2900, Revised Statutes.

The appellants claim in their protests that the re-appraisements were illegal because the merchant appraisers who acted upon them were not qualified according to law. It is alleged that they were not discreet and experienced merchants, nor were they familiar with the goods, and many irregularities are claimed to have taken place on re-appraisement. An opportunity has been given to the appellants to offer evidence in regard to these alleged irregularities, but they have neglected to do so, and we may consider the protests abandoned so far as they relate to questions of fact.

The chief question of law raised by the protest seems to be that the merchant appraisers were illegally appointed; that being an officer and an inferior officer, he could be appointed only by the President, or by a court of law, or by the head of a Department pursuant to the provisions of article 2, section 2, of the Constitution. This question was considered in an oral opinion delivered by Judge Wheeler in Auffmordt vs. Hedden at circuit, in the southern district of New York, and the case has received recent affirmance by the Supreme Court of the United States, an elaborate opinion being delivered by Mr. Justice Blatchford, wherein a number of other questions incidentally raised by the appellants in the present protests are decided adversely to the appellants.

In the case cited it is held the merchant appraiser has no general functions, nor any employment which has any duration as to time, or which extends over any case further than as he is selected to act in a particular case.

He is an executive agent, as an expert assistant to aid in ascertaining the value of goods, and his position is without tenure, duration, continuing emolument, or continuous duties. Therefore he is not an "officer" within the meaning of the clause of the Constitution referred to.

The other questions raised by these protests have been considered, but it is not deemed necessary to discuss them here, further than to refer to the opinion of the court in Auffmordt vs. Hedden, and the cases therein cited, and also to previous decisions of this Board, wherein alleged irregularities on appraisement and vague and indefinite allegations of irregularity received our attention. (G. A. Nos. 65 and 178. The assessment of duty in these several cases is affirmed.

(10680.-G. A. 264.)

Charges, dutiable-Items for "finishing and adornment" of cotton embroideries.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 23, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 4266, of Baur Bros. & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at San Francisco, Cal., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain charges merchandise, imported per rail from New York, under immediate-transportation entry No. 1463, July 31, 1890.

Opinion by SHARPE, General Appraiser.

The goods were imported July 31, 1890, and are subject to the provisions of the act of March 3, 1883.

The invoice and the appraiser's annotations thereon show that the goods were cotton embroideries, and the importers claim that certain charges stated in the invoice to be for "finishing and adornment" should be deducted from the dutiable value, because such charges accrue after the goods are ready for use. An examination of the invoice shows that before the dutiable value was found a deduction was allowed for sample cards, cases, and packing and freight to Havre.

The appellants offer no evidence to support their contention, and as they imported the goods after "the finishing and adornment" of the same, it must be supposed that such finishing and adornment were necessary in order that the merchandise might command its fair market value.

The importer's oath, under section 2841, Revised Statutes, which was amended by section 8 of the act of 1883, was made to state that the invoice exhibited the actual cost of the goods, "including all cost for finishing said goods, wares, and merchandise to their present condition."

We are of the opinion that the collector made the deductions contemplated in the repeal of section 2907, Revised Statutes, by section 7 of the act of 1883, and that his assessment of duty at 40 per cent. ad valorem on the cost stated in the invoice to be for finishing and adornment was correct.

(10681.-G. A. 265.)

Gilt articles-Silver-plated thimbles.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 23, 1891.

In the matter of the protest, No. 695b, of G. W. Sheldon & Co., against the rate of duty assessed by the collector at Chicago upon certain so-called silver-plated thimbles, imported per Trave, September 3, 1890.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

The appraiser at Chicago, in a special report, dated November 18, 1890, states that "the thimbles in question are made of silver or a composition of which silver is a component material, and are lined

with a plating of gold or gilt. They are neither plated nor gilt ware, being only partially gilded."

Duty was assessed upon the articles at the rate of 45 per cent. ad valorem, under T. I., 216, act of 1883. The importers claim that they are dutiable under T. I., 210, as plated and gilt articles, at 35 per cent. ad valorem.

It appears from an examination and test of the samples submitted, that the thimbles are composed of base metal, plated with silver, their interior and, in instances, part of their exterior being gilded.

The term "gilt" means gold coated, but it is not necessary that articles should be entirely coated with gold.to entitle them to classification as gilt. It is sufficient if they have undergone such a degree of gilding as to be commercially known as gilt articles. The gilt forms a dis. tinctive and desirable feature of these thimbles, and being, moreover, silver-plated, they are, in our opinion, dutiable at 35 per cent. ad valorem, under T. I., 210, as claimed by the importers.

(10682.-G. A. 266.)

Cotton, wool, and silk shirtings.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 23, 1891. In the matter of the protest, No. 2756b, of Tootle, Hosea & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at St. Joseph, Mo., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Nebraska, November 15, 1890.

Opinion by HAM, General Appraiser.

We find the facts in this case to be as reported by the surveyor. The merchandise consists of cotton, wool, and silk shirtings. They were classified under paragraph 395 of the act of October 1, 1890, at 12 cents per square yard and 50 per cent. ad valorem. Appellants claim that they are entitled to entry under paragraph 394 of said act, on the ground that the warp thereof is composed wholly of vegetable material, whereas it is composed of cotton and silk, and silk is not a vegetable material.

The decision of the surveyor is sustained.

(10683.-G. A. 267.)

Free entry-Articles for colleges-India-rubber tubing.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 23, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 1849 a, of Richard King & Co., against the assessment of duty by the collector of the port of New York, on "India-rubber tubing," imported per Servia, August 13,

1890.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

The appraiser reports the merchandise to be the ordinary India-rubber tubing of commerce, suitable for various uses. Duty was assessed

upon the same at 25 per cent. ad valorem, under T. I., 454. The appellants contend that the article was imported for the use of Cornell University, and is entitled to free entry as philosophical or scientific apparatus or instruments.

The importers were invited to appear before us and give evidence in substantiation of their claim, but having failed to do so, we assume the return made by the appraiser is correct; and as India-rubber tubing, such as is designed for general use, is not philosophical or scientific apparatus or instruments within the meaning of the law, the fact that the importation in question is intended for use of a college, in connection with the class of apparatus or instruments provided for in T. I., 759, does not, in our opinion, affect the result. The action of the collector is accordingly affirmed.

(10684.-G. A. 268.)

Proprietary preparations-De Jough's cod liver oil.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 23, 1891.

In the matter of the protest, 2503 b, of Redington & Co., against the assessment of duty by the collector at San Francisco on De Jough's cod liver oil, imported per Hospodar, October 20, 1890.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

From the report of the local appraiser, it appears that the merchandise in question, known as "De Jough's cod liver oil," is a proprietary medicinal preparation. Duty was assessed upon it at 25 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 75, act of October 1, 1890.

The importers claim the proper rate to be 15 cents per gallon, under paragraph 38. Their contention is based upon the nomenclature of the substance. The name alone, however, is not deemed sufficient by us to control its classification. It is not the cod liver oil of commerce, but is a preparation compounded from several ingredients other than alcohol, of which cod liver oil is the base and is most probably the chief. ingredient in value. But the admixture of the several substances into a preparative of a medicinal character, which, from the evidence, is found to be proprietary, clearly brings it within the scope of paragraph 75.

The assessment of duty upon the merchandise at 25 per cent. ad valorem is affirmed.

(10685.-G. A. 269.)

Regalia-Piece-goods not.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 23, 1891.

In the matter of the protest, No. 2179 b, of P. J. McEvoy, against the decision of the collector of customs at Baltimore, Md., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Ville de Marseilles, October 17, 1890.

Opinion by HAM, General Appraiser.

"with mon

Some of the

The merchandise in this case consists of silk piece-goods ograms, emblems, and inscriptions woven into the fabric." emblems were "partially cut out," while in other portions of the importation the material was intact. The appraiser returned the merchandise for duty at 50 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 414 of the act of October 1, 1890. Appellant contends that it is free, as regalia, under paragraph 692 of said act.

The case turns on the definition of regalia. Regalia is free. What is regalia? Webster defines it as: "Decorations or insignia of an office or order, as of Freemasons, etc." Can a fabric in the piece, although designed to be cut out and made up into regalia, be properly termed regalia? A piece of cloth, although designed for use in the making of a coat, is not a coat.

The language of paragraph 692 of the free list is simple and concise, namely: "Regalia, ** * where specially imported in good faith," etc. But even this concise language is made the subject of a restrictive provision, namely: "But the term "regalia," as herein used, shall be held to embrace only such insignia of rank or office or emblems as may be worn upon the person or borne in the hand during public exercises," etc. restrictive proviso is conclusive against the contention of the appellant, for he admits in his protest that something must be added to the fabric to make it into regalia. Following is the language of the protest on this point: "Very little addition being made to the fabric to make regalia thereof." This is an unqualified admission that the merchandise subject of protest is not regalia; and, if not regalia, not entitled to free entry.

The decision of the collector is affirmed.

(10686.-G. A. 270.)

Pins with glass or enamel heads.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 24, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 864 a, of L. Metzger & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain pins with glass or enamel heads, imported per Saale, July 14, 1890.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

The merchandise consists of mourning pins, steel pins with metal head, and steel pins with colored glass or enameled head, all of small