the time herein specified, deliver the same to the collector at the said port of destination, and cause due entry thereof to be made for rewarehousing; and shall also, within the time herein specified, produce to and deposit with the collector at the said port of withdrawal the certificate of the collector of the said port of destination that the said merchandise has been delivered to him according to law and rewarehoused, and the duties thereon paid or secured; or failing so to do, shall pay to the proper collecting officer of the United States at the said port of withdrawal the amount of duties to be ascertained as due and owing on the merchandise aforesaid, and an additional duty of one hundred per cent., pursuant to the statute in such case made and provided, then this obligation to be void; otherwise, it shall remain in full force.

Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence of—

[SEAL.

SEAL.
SEAL.

(10639.)

Importation of neat cattle, etc.

The following orders, issued by the Department of Agriculture on the 26th of December, 1890, and 12th of January, 1891, and approved by this Department, are published for the information of officers of the customs and others concerned :

AN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A QUARANTINE STATION AT ST. ALBANS, VT.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Office of the Secretary, Washington, D. C., December 26, 1890.

By virtue of an act of Congress, approved August 30, 1890, providing for the inspection of meats and animals, I hereby designate, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the port of St. Albans, in the collection district of Vermont, as a quarantine station, and all cattle, sheep, and other ruminants, and swine imported into the United States through said collection district must be entered at the said port of St. Albans, where the same will be inspected by a veterinary inspector of the Department of Agriculture.

Railroad companies carrying animals imported into the United States will provide the necessary pens, and unload said animals into the same, so that they may be properly inspected by said veterinarian. J. M. RUSK,

Approved:

WILLIAM WINDOM, Secretary.

Secretary.

AN ORDER ESTABLISHING QUARANTINE STATIONS AT ROUSE'S POINT, OGDENSBURG, AND CAPE VINCENT, N. Y.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, D. C., January 12, 1891. By virtue of an act of Congress, approved August 30, 1890, providing for the inspection of meats and animals, I hereby designate, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the port of Rouse's Point, in the collection district of Champlain, in the State of New York; the port of Cape Vincent, in the collection district of Cape Vincent, N. Y., and the port of Ogdensburg, in the collection district of Oswegatchie, N. Y., as quarantine stations, and all cattle, sheep, and other ruminants, and swine imported into the United States through any of said collection districts must be entered at the port designated as the quarantine station for said collection district, where the same will be inspected by a veterinary inspector of the Department of Agriculture.

Railroad companies carrying animals imported into the United States will provide the necessary pens, and unload said animals into the same, so that they may be properly inspected by said veterinarian. J. M. RUSK,

Approved:

A. B. NETTLETON, Acting Secretary of the Treasury.

Secretary.

The following ports have also been designated by the Secretary of Agriculture, and approved by this Department, as quarantine stations at which cattle, sheep, and other ruminants, and swine imported from Canada and Mexico must be entered and inspected: Vanceborough, Me.; Buffalo, N. Y.; Suspension Bridge, N. Y.; Detroit, Mich.; Port Huron, Mich.; Brownsville, Tex.; and El Paso, Tex.

[Omitted from December decisions.]

(10640.)

Goods entered for warehouse-Weighing of.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, December 10, 1890. SIR: The Department is in receipt of a letter, dated the 15th ultimo, from Special Agent L. G. Martin, in which, among other things, he calls attention to the practice prevailing at your port of weighing all goods at the time they are landed into the bonded warehouses and again when withdrawn therefrom, only a day or two sometimes intervening between the weighing and reweighing of the goods.

If such practice exists, it should be modified so as to only require one weighing of imported merchandise entered for warehouse. Section

50 of the act of October 1, 1890, imposes duties on such merchandise at the weights existing at the time of withdrawal, and you are, therefore, directed to allow warehouse entries to be based upon estimated or invoice weights, and to only require the actual weighing of the merchandise at the time of its withdrawal for consumption.

Additional duty under section 7, act June 10, 1890.

NEW YORK, January 7, 1891.

Before the Board of United States General Appraisers at New York, January —, 1891. In the matter of the protest, No. 713 b, of Charles Kohn & Co., against the assessment of duty by the collector at the port of Portland, Oreg., on certain glass bottles, imported by them per Noddleburn, September 25, 1890.

Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser.

The local appraiser advanced the dutiable value of certain imported glass bottles containing ale and porter from 7 to 9 pence per dozen, an advance of more than 28 per cent. over the invoice and entered value. Section 7 of the act of June 10, 1890, provides that "if the appraised value of any article of imported merchandise shall exceed by more than 10 per cent. the value declared in the entry, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, in addition to the duties imposed by law on such merchandise, a further sum equal to 2 per cent. of the total appraised value for each 1 per cent. that such appraised value exceeds the value declared in the entry; and the additional duty shall only apply to the particular article or articles in each invoice which are undervalued," etc.

The present protest, as we construe it, is an expression of dissatisfaction only against the assessment of the penalty. If the objection was aimed at the increase of dutiable value by the local appraiser, the remedy was to have a reappraisement under the provisions of section 13 of the act of June 10, 1890. This was not done. The appraised value of the merchandise unquestionably exceeded the value declared in the entry by more than 10 per cent. This being true, the additional penalty prescribed by section 7 of said act followed as a matter of law. There is no contention that the amount of the penalty was not properly calculated. It is only contended that it was illegally assessed.

The decision of the collector seems free from error, and must be affirmed.

(10642 —G. A. 226.)

Protests against advances in value made by the appraiser.

NEW YORK, January 7, 1891.

Before the Board of United States General Appraisers at New York, January 7, 1891. In the matter of the protest, 1128 a, of Isaaca, Vought & Co., against the assessment of duty by the collector at the port of New York on an importation per Noordland, September 11, 1890.

Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser.

The protest states but one ground of objection, and that goes to the question of the valuation of the merchandise, and not of classification or rate of duty. The claim of the importers is that "the items advanced separately by the appraiser are not subject to any part of the advance made by the appraiser pro rata."

The remedy of the importer, if this be true, was to have taken an appeal from the reappraisement to the board of three General Appraisers, as provided by section 13 of the act of June 10, 1890. This step should have been taken within two days after the decision of the General Appraiser was made. Its purpose is to review the decision as to the correct amount of dutiable value, not to protest against the rate and amount of duties chargeable upon the merchandise.

The liquidation of the entry was made October 1. The protest was filed October 11, within ten days, but not within two days, as required by section 13 of the act of June 10, 1890. The decision of the collector is affirmed.

(10643.-G. A. 227.)

Paper-Classification of.

NEW YORK, January 9, 1891.

Before the Board of United States General Appraisers at New York, January 9, 1891. In the matter of the protests, Nos. 1058 a, 1059 a, 1060 a, 1061 a, 1614a, and 1615a, of Gane Brothers, Barrett Brothers, and L. Dejonge & Co., against the rate of duty assessed by the collector of customs at New York upon certain varieties of paper, imported in the vessels and at the dates named in the accompanying schedule.

Opinion by TICHENOR, General Appraiser.

The merchandise in question comprises several varieties of paper suitable for bookbinders' and boxmakers' use which has been fabricated or finished in imitation of marble, cabinet-woods, gold-foil, bronze, leather, cambric, etc. Duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 25 per cent. ad valorem, under T. I., 392 (act of 1883). The appellants claim that it is dutiable as manufactures of paper, under T. I., 388.

The processes of surface coating, coloring, glazing, stamping, embossing, or other treatment which this merchandise has undergone in the course of manufacture to its present completed condition do not remove it from classification as paper. It has not been converted into a new and different article, having a distinctive name, character, or use from that of paper. (Hartranft vs. Weigmann, 121 U. S., 615.) On the contrary, it is known in commerce as paper, is the product of paper mills, is invoiced and entered as paper, and is of the same general character, with respect to processes of manufacture, etc., as paperhangings, and paper for screens and fireboards specified in T. I., 392. (Dejonge vs. Magone, 41 Fed. Rep., 432.)

We are therefore of the opinion that the assessment of duty upon the merchandise at 25 per cent. ad valorem was correct. Our decision (G. A. 173) of December 4, 1890, on protest No. 367 a of Gane Brothers is modified accordingly.

(10644.—G. A. 228.)

Paper-Classification of.

NEW YORK, January 12, 1891.

Before the Board of United States General Appraisers at New York, January 12, 1891. In the matter of the protests, Nos. 1510a and 1765a, of John Hunter, against the rates of duty assessed by the collector at New York on certain paper, imported per Galileo and Buffalo, August 20 and July 30, 1890, respectively.

Opinion by TICHENOR, General Appraiser.

The merchandise consists of two kinds of paper, the one being sized and suitable for printing paper and the other gummed or coated on one side with mucilage and intended for use in making labels and paper boxes. Duty was assessed upon the former at 20 per cent. ad valorem, under T. I., 386 (act of 1883), and on the latter at 25 per cent. ad valorem, under T. I., 392. It is claimed by the appellant that the merchandise is dutiable at 15 per cent. ad valorem, as manufactures of which paper is a component material, under T. I., 388.

It does not appear that the gumming or sizing treatment to which the merchandise has been subjected has given it a name or character other than that of paper. It is known in trade as paper, is made by paper makers, and sold by paper dealers. Therefore, following the principles enunciated in our decision dated January 9, 1891, in the' cases of Gane Brothers and others, the claim of the appellant is rejected, and the assessment of duty affirmed.