not dutiable as manufactures of paper, but as printed matter. The language of the court was: "They are used for any purpose to which paintings by hand can be applied; there are no letters constituting language upon the face of the paper." In defining what constituted "printed matter," the court said: "It is not necessary, however, that the characters should be letters or numerals, or the result of types or stereotypes, or be reading matter, but the term 'print' or 'printing' includes most of the forms, or figures, or characters, or representations, colored or uncolored, that may be impressed on a yielding surface.” The chromolithographs covered by the above decision were unquestionably manufactures of paper. They were made to represent paintings, well-known articles, but they had undergone a process of printing, which process the court held made them "printed matter" within the meaning of the law. In our opinion, the articles upon appeal come within the scope of this ruling. Paper napkins, mats, and scrolls are not provided for by name in the act of 1883. The printed characters. designs, and figures upon them form a prominent and significant feature thereof, and whatever may be the names given to the articles or their intended use the fact remains that they are mere pieces of paper which have undergone a process of printing. The assessment of duty, therefore, upon them as "printed matter" was, in our opinion, correct, and is affirmed. (10730.-G. A. 283.) Toys-Tinsel for Christmas trees. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 31, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 1999 a, of John A. Norman, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York, as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain Christmas tree ornaments, imported per Sorrento, September 15, 1890. Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser. The articles in question consist of metal ornaments for Christmas trees, upon which duty was assessed at 35 per cent. ad valorem, under T. I., 425. The appellant contends that inasmuch as the articles are made from tinsel thread, filé, or gespinst, duty should have been assessed upon them at 25 per cent. ad valorem, under T. I., 401. This contention is, in our opinion, not well grounded. The merchandise in the condition in which imported is the product of labor bestowed upon the tinsel thread, thus changing its name, character, and use. The Treasury Department has for many years held that Christmas tree ornaments are constructively toys. We can see no good reason for depart ing from this ruling. The courts have defined toys to be articles mainly designed for and ordinarily employed by children for their amusement, and as Christmas tree ornaments are designed for the amusement of children the ruling of the Department would seem to be correct. The ones under consideration are no longer tinsel thread. They are either dutiable as manufactures of metal or as toys. We incline to the latter classification as the proper one. The assessment of duty is affirmed. (10731.-G. A. 284.) Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 31, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 2501b, of Hing Kee, against the decision of the collector of customs at San Francisco, Cal., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain Chinese playing cards, imported per Belgic, October 10, 1890. Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser. The merchandise was returned by the appraiser as "Chinese playing cards," and duty was accordingly assessed thereon at 50 cents per pack, under paragraph 424 of the act of October 1, 1890. The appellants contend that the goods are not playing cards, but printed matter, dutiable at 25 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 423. The sample package accompanying the protest comprises twenty-nine strips of glazed card-board with red backs, each strip about 3 inches long and inch wide, bearing upon its face a distinctive printed design. The testimony of Chinese dealers respecting the name and use of similar goods was to the effect that they were known as "poker cards," and were designed for use in the same manner as the ordinary playing cards of commerce. Identically the same description of merchandise was the subject of decision by the Treasury Department (Synopsis 8617, January 9, 1888), and we concur in the conclusions reached therein, that they are playing cards within the meaning of the law. The assessment of duty upon the merchandise is accordingly affirmed. (10732.-G. A. 285.) Table covers, curtains, and upholstery goods, in part metal. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 31, 1891. In the matter of the protests, 1167 a, 1168 a, and 1169a, of W. B. & J. E. Quaintance and others, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain table and piano covers, imported per vessels named in the accompanying schedule. Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser. From the report of the appraiser it appears that the articles covered by protest No. 1167 a consist of piano and table covers and squares (not laces, as alleged) composed of cotton and metal, cotton chief value, but metal a substantial and conspicuous part thereof; also other covers and curtains composed of cotton, jute, and metal, jute chief value. Duty was assessed upon all of the articles named at the rate applicable to manufactures composed wholly or in part of metal, under T. I., 216 (act of 1883). As heretofore decided by this Board, the assessment of duty at 45 per cent. ad valorem upon the merchandise composed of cotton and metal in significant proportions, regardless of which constituted the portion of chief value, was correct, and is affirmed as to this portion of the goods upon appeal. As to the covers and curtains of which jute is the component material of chief value, the claim of the importer that duty should have been exacted at 35 per cent. ad valorem, under T. I., 334, is sustained. An inspection of the so-called upholstery goods covered by protests Nos. 1168 a and 1169 a tends to confirm the statement of the appraiser that metal component is of greater value than the cotton. It certainly constitutes a substantial part, and the assessment of duty at 45 per cent. ad valorem upon the same is affirmed. (10733.—G. A. 286.) Constitutionality of act of October 1, 1890. On trial in the United States circuit court for the southern district of New York of the appeal of H. Herrman, Sternbach & Co., for a review of the decision of the Board of General Appraisers as to the constitutionality of the act of October 1, 1890 (Synopsis 10553, G. A. 203), the court sustained the decision of the Board and affirmed the constitutionality of said act. (10734.-G. A. 287.) Spirituous beverages (act 1883)-Strassburger bitters. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, February 4, 1891 In the matter of the protest, 2000 a, of Venable & Heyman, against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain Strassburger bitters, imported per St. Regulus, October 6, 1890. Opinion by WILKINSON, General Appraiser. Duty was assessed on the bitters at $2 per gallon, under T. I., 313, act March 3, 1883, as a spirituous beverage, while appellants claim that the merchandise should be rated at 50 per cent., under T. I., 99, as a proprietary preparation. The label states that the bitters is made of wine and brandy flavored with herbs and roots, but unmixed with any other compound, and recommends it as a wholesome beverage, especially beneficial after indulgence in wine or beer. It is not recommended or known as a remedy for disease, but is sold and commonly used as a beverage. The decision of the collector is, therefore, affirmed. (10735.-G. A. 288.) Wearing apparel of cotton and silk-Chinese shoes. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, February 4, 1891. In the matter of the protests, 2760b, 2761 b, 2762b, and 2763b, of Sang Lung & Co. et al., against the decision of the collector of customs at San Francisco, Cal., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain cotton and silk shoes, imported per City of Peking, October 24, 1890. Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser. The collector reports that "the question at issue is simply one of fact. i. e., are cotton shoes and silk shoes wearing apparel or not?" The appraiser returned the goods upon the invoice as "cotton wearing apparel" and "silk wearing apparel." Duty was accordingly assessed under paragraphs 349 and 413, respectively, of the act of October 1, 1890. The importers claim that shoes are not wearing apparel, and, therefore, that duty should have been assessed upon those of cotton at 40 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 355, and upon those of silk at 50 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 414. We are clearly of the opinion that shoes are "wearing apparel" within the meaning of the law. A person without shoes would be but partially appareled. An attachment laid against wearing apparel would, unquestionably, be held to include shoes. Consideration must also be given to the manifest intent of Congress as expressed in the law. Both the cotton and silk schedules expressly provide for "clothing, ready made, and articles of wearing apparel of every description." It seems plain to us that every article of cotton or silk designed to be worn upon the person was intended to be included in the terms "articles of wearing apparel of every description." The assessment of duty upon the cotton and silk shoes at 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. ad valorem, respectively, is accordingly affirmed. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, February 4, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 3152 a, of Arnold, Constable & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain knit hosiery, imported per Alaska, October 15, 1890. Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser. The goods in question consist of certain knit hosiery, viz, undershirts and drawers, made on knitting frames, and of the material of wool. The articles were classified and assessed for duty, under paragraph 396 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, as articles of "wearing apparel' made of wool and not specially provided for" in that act. The importers contend that the goods are commercially known to the trade as "knit fabrics," and, being made on knitting frames, are specially provided for by that designation in paragraph 392 of said tariff act, and that they should be classified and assessed accordingly. Paragraph 396, under which the collector made the classification, describes the articles intended to be assessed thereunder as "clothing, ready made, and articles of wearing apparel of every description, made up or manufactured wholly or in part, not specially provided for in this act, * * * composed wholly or in part of wool (or) worsted." The corresponding paragraph (T. I., 366) in the act of March 3, 1883, contained substantially the same language, but "knit goods" were in terms excepted from the provisions. Paragraph 392 of the new tariff law, under which the importers claim the goods to fall, applies to "woolen or worsted cloths, shawls, knit fabrics, and all fabrics made on knitting machines or frames, * * * made wholly or in part of wool (or) worsted, * * * not specially provided for" in that act. This paragraph is condensed in part from paragraphs 362 and 363 (tariff index) of the act of March, 1883, the former of which embraced "woolen cloths, woolen shawls, and all manufactures of wool of every description," and the latter "flannels, blankets, hats of wool, knit goods, and all goods made on knitting frames, * * ** composed wholly or in part of worsted," etc. The phrase "knit fabrics" has thus been substituted for the words "knit goods." The words "wearing apparel" are not words of technical but of popular signification. They indicate the use for which an article is. designed, and to which it is ordinarily put, rather than the specific name by which it is known. They have no peculiar mercantile or commercial signification, being "a general description or genus comprehending many species." In Maillard es. Lawrence, 16 How. (U. C |