calfskins, 30 per cent. ad valorem. A sample of the merchandise in question was submitted to reputable manufacturers of shoes, who testified that it is commercially known as "patent calf" or "patent leather," is dressed, and differed in no respect from the ordinary patent leather of commerce. At least 75 per cent. of it is used for shoe uppers; they had so used identically the same description of leather for a period of over twenty years, during all of which time it was known as “patent leather" or patent calf. All patent leather is produced by a system of japanning. This fact, however, does not affect the present case, as the "japanned calfskins” provided for in the act at 30 per cent. ad valorem must be construed to mean only such as are not upper leather, dressed or undressed. The leather upon appeal is commercially known as "patent leather." It is chiefly used as an upper leather, and is consequently provided for eo nomine in paragraph 456, as suggested by the collector in his letter transmitting the papers in the case. The claim of the appellant is sustained. (10720.-G. A. 273.) Plants-Free and dutiable-Rhododendrons, rose plants, and clematis. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 26, 1891. In the matter of the protests, 2881b and 2882 b, of Chase Brothers' Company, against the decision of the collector of customs at Rochester, N. Y., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain live plants, imported per Obdam and Persian Monarch, December 13 and 15, 1890. Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser. The grounds of objection presented in these protests which relate to the constitutionality of the act of October 1, 1890, having been fully discussed and ruled upon by the Board in G. A. 203, will not be considered by us in the present case. With regard to the claim of the appellants that five cases of rhododendrons, imported per Persian Monarch, December 15, 1890, should have been admitted free of duty under paragraph 666, it appears that the collector assessed duty thereon at 20 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 282, for the reason that the importers are in the nursery business and do not force any plants under glass. We are of the opinion that the importers' intention is not material, if the plants are of the kind specified in paragraph 666, and are chiefly used for forcing under glass for cut flowers or decorative purposes. The Encyclopædia Britannica, referring to rhododendrons, states that no adequate distinction can be drawn between this genus and azalias; we find also, as matter of fact, that they are of a kind chiefly grown under glass. The claim of the appellants relative thereto is therefore sustained. Concerning the rose plants and clematis in question, which were also returned for duty at 20 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 282, we find, from the evidence before us, that they belong to a class of plants which are chiefly used and generally known as nursery stock and are rarely grown under glass. The assessment of duty upon them is aceordingly affirmed. (10721.-G. A. 274.) Dutiable values-Additions "prorated" on re-appraisement on coverings. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 27, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 994 a, of Isaacs, Vought & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Waesland, August 29, 1890. Opinion by SHARPE, General Appraiser. The merchandise was imported August 29, 1890, and all the items. on the invoice were advanced by the appraiser. The importers then called for a re-appraisement, which was had, and the general appraiser in his findings directed that in order to make market value there should be an addition of a certain sum as the cost of the cartons or coverings which contained the goods. The sum so established by him was a reduction of the amount fixed by the appraising officer for the same item, and in passing upon it the general appraiser directed the addition to be made pro rata per carton. The importers claim that the items advanced separately are not subject to any part of the advance made "as pro rata." What was found by the general appraiser was the value of the cartons, and as the goods were all of the same kind, the cartons were identical, and the sum fixed was properly directed to be prorated according to the number of the cartons. It is understood that the importers or their representative expressed their satisfaction at the disposition of the sum established on re-appraisement as the value of the cartons. They were content with the values found by the general appraiser or they would have appealed to the Board. The protest is therefore dismissed. (10722.-G. A, 275.) So-called traveling rugs dutiable as woolen shawls, etc., under act March 3, 1883. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 27, 1891. In the matter of the protest, No. 244b, of O. F. Willey & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at San Francisco, Cal., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per immediate-transportation entry 2471, August 21, 1890. Opinion by HAM, General Appraiser. The articles subject of protest in this case are invoiced as "rugs." But the appraiser reports that they are square robes, used for protection against cold, and that they are commercially known as "lap robes." The samples submitted support this statement; one is a plush about 3 feet wide by 5 feet long, with plain edges; the other a checked cloth, about 4 feet wide by 6 feet long, with plain edges on the sides and fringed ends. They were returned by the appraiser as "wool shawls," and so classified for duty by the collector as manufactures of wool, under paragraphs 362 and 363 of the act of March 3, 1883, respectively, at 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent. ad valorem, and 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent. ad valorem. Appellants claim that they are traveling or carriage rugs, and, indirectly, that they are dutiable at 40 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 378 of said act. No doubt they are used by travelers both in carriages and railway coaches for the protection of the person, and they are perhaps commercially and commonly known in England and on the continent of Europe as "rugs." But in this country they are commercially and commonly known as "lap robes." The rug known to the tariff seems to be an article for the floor, in the nature of a carpet. It is provided for in the act of 1883, not in the wearing apparel or the cloth paragraphs, but in one of the carpet paragraphs, 378, namely, "and mats, rugs, screens," etc.; and the same association is maintained in the present law, paragraph 408, "mats, rugs, screens, covers, hassocks," etc., "shall be subjected to the rate of duty herein imposed on carpets," etc. The articles subject of appeal are not known as rugs to the trade and commerce of this country; nor do they appear to have been known to the legislative mind in the enactment of the law of 1883. They are therefore not specially provided for, but fall under paragraph 362 of said act, where they are placed for classification. The decision of the collector is affirmed. (10723.-G. A. 276.) Flat wire. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 28, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 2027b, of the Ames-Bonner Company, against the decision of the collector of customs at Toledo, Ohio, as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain flat wire, imported per Germanic, October 3, 1890. Opinion by WILKINSON, General Appraiser. inch to Duty was The articles in question are iron strips, varying from inch in width, and from 25 to 27 wire gauge in thickness. assessed at 45 per cent., under the last proviso of paragraph 148, act October 1, 1890, which provides that all wire valued at over 4 cents a pound shall pay a duty of not less than 45 per cent. ad valorem. Appellants claim that the merchandise is flat rolled iron, and should have been rated at 1 cent a pound, under paragraph 135. It appears from expert evidence, and an examination of the samples submitted by the importer, that the flat strips in question are cold rolled from drawn wire, and subsequently drawn through dies or grooved rolls to give a uniform width and thickness and smooth edges. The merchandise is consequently dutiable under the provisions for wire, and the decision of the collector is therefore affirmed. (10724.-G. A. 277.) Jute and metal table covers. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 28, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 575 a, of Mills & Gibb, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain jute, metal, and cotton table covers, imported per St. Pancras, July 16, 1890. Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser. The merchandise in question consists of mixed goods, invoiced as "jute table covers," which were returned by the appraiser as manufactures of jute, cotton, and metal, jute chief value, but metal forming a significant part. Duty was assessed upon the same at the rate of 45 per cent. ad valorem, under T. I., 216 (act of 1883). The appellants contend that inasmuch as jute is the component material of chief value no greater rate than 35 per cent. ad valorem should have been exacted. Table covers not being provided for by name in the act of 1883, regard must be had to their component parts in determining their dutiable character. The two components to which we shall give consideration are jute and metal, jute constituting the chief portion in value, and metal, although secondary in importance, forming a substantial and conspicuous part of the articles. The two paragraphs bearing upon the question are: 216. Manufactures * * * not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, * ** or any other metal, * * * 45 per cent. ad valorem. 334. * * * Manufactures of flax, jute, or hemp shall be the component material of chief value not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, 35 per cent. ad valorem. It appears that the merchandise fulfills the conditions of both paragraphs-is provided for in both-and the question arises whether provision therefor is more specific in the one than the other. Following the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hartranft vs. Meyer et al. (132-136, U. S.), we find that "manufactures of which jute shall be the component material of chief value" is more specific than "manufactures composed in part of metal." The claim of the importers, therefore, that duty should have been assessed upon the goods at 35 per cent. ad valorem is sustained. (10725.-G. A. 278.) Linen embroideries-Table covers with initials, etc. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 28, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 31686, of G. W. Sheldon & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at Chicago, Ill., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain protectors and table-cloths of linen, imported per immediate-transportation entry No. 21151, November 5, 1890. Opinion by HAM, General Appraiser. The goods in this case consist of articles of linen-"table-cloths" and so-called "protectors." These latter are designed for "headrest" covers for the backs of upholstered railway-car seats. Appellants claim that the goods are dutiable at 35 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 371 of the act of October 1, 1890. Two samples accompany the protest-the one being a table-cloth about 60 by 104 inches, the other a "protector" about 22 by 40 inches. The table-cloth is plain, except a slight embroidered monogram consisting of the interwoven letters "P. P. C." in one corner; the "protector" contains a strip of embroidery extending through the middle and nearly the entire length thereof, including the letters P. P. C., but |