(10645.-G. A. 229.) Silk gauze claimed to be "bolting cloth." NEW YORK, January 12, 1891. Before the Board of United States General Appraisers at New York, January 12, 1891. In the matter of the protest, No. 425b, of Buyer & Reich, against the assessment of duty by the collector at the port of San Francisco on certain “silk gauze," imported July 21, 1890. Opinion by SHARPE, General Appraiser. The goods in question were described by the appraiser on the invoice to be "silk manufactures," and they were classified under T. I., 383, of the act of 1883. The appellants claimed that they should be classified as bolting cloths, free, under paragraph 657 of the same act. The appraiser made a report sustaining his description on the invoice. He stated the width of the gauze manufacture, which is confessedly of silk, to be 17 inches, while bolting cloth for milling purposes is usually about 40 inches in width. He further states that while these goods were of a texture similar to bolting cloth, they are chiefly used in the manufacture of ruchings and other trimmings. The naval officer also made an examination, and reported that while the goods somewhat resembled bolting cloth, they were to be found for sale mostly in trimming stores. Samples having been forwarded, expert testimony has been taken here, by which it is made to appear that the fabric is too light and too imperfect to be used for bolting cloth. It has a satin edge, which is seldom found on bolting cloth, and the width is entirely unsuitable for such use. We therefore find that the goods under protest are not the bolting cloths of commerce, and that they were properly classified by the collector. The additional language of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, paragraph 510, shows that while Congress remains steadfast in its intention to admit bolting cloths free, it is very jealous of any attempt to introduce any similar texture for any other than milling purposes. A very large proportion of bolting cloth may be found suitable for the manufacture of wearing apparel, and much alarm was occasioned by the fear that appraising officers would feel compelled to adopt a strict construction of paragraph 510, in order to insure the safeguards designed by Congress. This might have excluded quantities of bolting cloths from free entry, and would have operated as a tax on breadstuffs, which Congress specially intended to avoid. At the port of New York, importers who desire to evince careful obedience to the law, and to avoid delay and contention, enter these goods with a stamp upon each fold of the cloth, stating that this bolting cloth is imported exclusively for milling purposes. Such a stamp produces a blemish which makes the material unsuitable for the manufacture of wearing apparel, and in no wise injures it for its legitimate use. Where there had not been opportunity to stamp the impression above described, upon the separate folds, the appraising officers have required proof under oath that the cloth was imported especially for milling purposes and was to pass into consumption solely for that use. In some instances importers have declined to furnish such proof, and have paid the duty as upon a manufacture of silk, and such action on their part would seem to demonstrate the propriety of the methods adopted. The action of the collector is affirmed. (10646.-G. A. 230.) Oriental rug as an antiquity. NEW YORK, January 12, 1891. Before the Board of United States General Appraisers at New York, January 12, 1891. In the matter of the protest. No. 1693a, of R. J. Godwin & Sons, against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at New York on a certain oriental rug, imported per City of New York, August 16, 1890. Opinion by SHARPE, General Appraiser. The article in question is an oriental rug, and is claimed to be free under T. I., 669, act of 1883. The assistant appraiser states that as the rug did not constitute a part of a collection of antiquities it was returned for duty at 40 per cent. ad valorem under paragraph 378 of the act of 1883. The rug was imported by Messrs. R. J. Godwin & Sons for Mr. George F. Baker, of New York, who is and has been in the habit of purchasing from time to time articles of antiquity to become additions to his collection of antiquities. Mr. Baker had imported in the first week of August three pieces of antique tapestry, described in protest No. 820 a, which came before this Board for consideration on appeal, and where evidence was introduced to show that the tapestries were not intended for sale, but were designed to be added to other valuable antiquities making a collection already owned by Mr. Baker. It was shown in the evidence taken on the previous protest that Mr. Baker's collection comprises antique china, tapestries, rugs, and brica-brac. There is evidence to show that the rug in question is a product of a period prior to the year 1700, and probably four hundred years old. It is intended to be hung on the walls for exposition and examination, and is not for sale. It was invoiced at its cost price, which was 22,000 francs, and this great value is chiefly caused by its antiquity. Mr. Baker has now furnished us evidence to show that this rug formed a portion of the original purchase of sundry antique tapestries bought by him and considered by this Board under the protest above named, No. 820a, and that it was not received in time to ship with said tapestries. It followed them about two weeks after, and formed part of the collection, to which it is now to be added by the owner. Upon our previous decisions (G. A. Nos. 38 and 39), we should hold that, with the proof before us, this rug is entitled to free entry as a single article intended to be added to an already existing collection. But the appellants have strengthened their case by showing to our satisfaction that it was part of the collection originally purchased. It comes, therefore, strictly within the provisions of T. I.. 669, of the act of 1883. The protest is accordingly sustained. (10647.-G. A. 231.) Ground Cornish stone. 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. 408 a and 1475 a, of Hamill & Gillespie, against the rate of duty assessed upon so-called ground Cornish stone, imported per Indiana and Georgia, June 28 and August 21, 1890. Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser. Duty was assessed upon the merchandise at the rate of $3 per ton, under T. I., 98, act of 1883. The importers claim that the material is ground stone, dutiable either as a "non-dutiable crude mineral advanced in value or condition by refining or grinding, or other process of manufacture," under T. I., 95, or as a non-enumerated manufactured article provided for in section 2513 of the Revised Statutes. The appraiser reports, under date of October 31, 1890, in answer to a communication from this Board, that he had a sample of a similar material to that in question analyzed, and it was found to be wrought silicate of alumina or clay. The assessment of duty upon the merchandise at $3 per ton, in view of the facts as found, was, in our opinion, correct, and is affirmed. (10648.-G. A. 232.) Bookbinders and boxmakers' paper. 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. 1058 a, 1059 a, 1060 a, 1061 a, 1614 a, 1615 a, of Gane Brothers, Barratt 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 paper hangings 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. (10649.-G. A. 233.) Burlaps. NEW YORK, January 12, 1891. Before the Board of United States General Appraisers at New York, January —, 1891. In the matter of the protest, No. 1469 a, of E. Majert, against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at New York on so-called burlaps, imported per Waesland, August 28, 1890. Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser. The importer in his notice of dissatisfaction protests "against the liquidation and assessment of duty at the rate of 40 per cent. ad valorem on one case of burlaps," claiming "that the above described merchandise is burlaps, is commercially known as such, is bought and sold as burlaps, and only dutiable as such at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem as provided for in the act of March 3, 1883." There are two paragraphs of the act of 1883 relative to burlaps, neither of which imposes duty upon the same at 35 per cent. ad valorem. The importer having failed to designate in any manner under which paragraph he seeks relief, his claim is not deemed sufficiently specific to be considered by us. It is thought proper to state, however, that the merchandise was returned by the local appraiser as a manufacture of jute and grass, and duty was assessed upon it at 35 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 351, and not at 40 per cent. ad valorem as alleged. The action of the collector is affirmed. (10650.-G. A. 234.) Fresh fish. 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, 2061-2 b (collector's numbers 15 and 16), of W. Ainsworth, against the assessment of duty by the collector at the port of Cape Vincent, N. Y., on certain fish, imported by him October 23 and 27, 1890, respectively. Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser. The evidence in the case, in the opinion of the Board, proves satisfactorily that the merchandise covered by the several protests under consideration are fresh fish, not salmon, and were caught in fresh waters with nets, and in pounds owned by the appellant, W. Ainsworth; and that said importer also owned the vessel which was used in gathering the fish from the nets or pounds, and that he is a citizen of |