ground for relief. This principle rests on the fundamental theory that 66 every man is bound at his peril to know the law, and is therefore conclusively presumed to know it." The protest not having been filed with the collector within the required statutory period of ten days from the date of liquidation, it is overruled and the collector's decision affirmed. (Merrill v. Cameron, 137 U. S., 542; Salstonstall v. Russell, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep., 733.) (16659-G. A. 3304.) Cut glass-Dairy thermometers, etc., not. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, November 29, 1895. In the matter of the protests, 83147a, 89221a, and 94053 a, of Oelschlaeger Brothers, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York City as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Wittekind, Havel, and Ems, and entered December 31, 1894, and March 9 and May 31, 1895. Opinion by WILKINSON, General Appraiser. The goods are dairy thermometers, alcoholometers, hydrometers, lactometers, and similar instruments. The scales are printed on paper, which is glued or otherwise fastened inside the tubes. The glass is not etched, cut or otherwise marked. The merchandise was assessed for duty at 40 per cent under paragraph 89, act of August, 1894, and is claimed to be dutiable at 35 per cent under paragraph 102. We find that the following are not articles of glass cut, engraved, painted, colored, printed, stained, or decorated, and that they are manufactures of which glass is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for. Protest 94053-9 gross dairy thermometers. Protest 89221-Item 1, dairy thermometers. Protest 89221-Item 2, hydrometers; item 4, hydrometers; item 8, hydrometers; item 9, alcoholometers; item 10, lactometers; and on page 2, 6 dozen lactometers. Protest 83147-Item 1, dairy thermometers; item 2, Kugelschwimmer; item 4, cylinder thermometers; item 6, alcoholometers; item 17, 6 dozen hydrometers; item 18, 1 dozen hydrometers. The protest as to the articles named is sustained. The decision of the collector as to the remainder of the merchandise is affirmed. (16660-G. A. 3305.) Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, November 29, 1895. In the matter of the protest, 28371 b-3927, of G. H. Croley, against the decision of the collector of customs at San Francisco, Cal., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain poultry, imported per Walla Walla, and entered August 9, 1895. Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser. The goods in question consist of 13 coops of live chickens, and were imported at the port of San Francisco, Cal., August 9, 1895. They were assessed for duty by the collector at 2 cents per pound under paragraph 226 of the tariff act of 1894, which reads as follows: "226. Poultry, two cents per pound; dressed, three cents per pound." The protest makes two alternative claims-each that the merchandise is exempt from duty-as follows: (1) That the chickens are animals imported specially for breeding purposes, and are free under the provisions of paragraph 373 of said tariff act. (2) That they are free under paragraph 401, which places on the free list birds and land and water fowls." Admitting the truth of the importer's assertion (which is supported by affidavit) that the poultry in question was imported for breeding purposes and that chickens are "animals" of the kind intended by Congress to come within the purview of said paragraph, there is no evidence showing that these so-called feathered animals were "pure bred of a recognized breed, and duly registered in a book of record established for that breed." This fact would render them ineligible to the benefits of the exemption from duty provided for in said paragraph 373. The second ground of protest is equally untenable. The word "poultry," as used in said paragraph 226, is a more narrow and specific description of the merchandise than the phrase "birds, and land and water fowls," as used in paragraph 401. Poultry is defined to be "Domestic fowls collectively: those birds which are ordinarily kept in a state of domestication for their flesh, eggs, or feathers; as the domestic hen, guinea fowl, geese, and ducks."-Century Dictionary. The decision of the Board in re Moreau (G. A. 166), covering live geese imported under the tariff act of 1890, in principle at least settled the same question. The protest is overruled, on both grounds urged, and the collector's decision affirmed. (16661-G. A. 3306.) Cotton shirts with linen collars and cuffs. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, November 30, 1895. In the matter of the protest, 28298b-10611, of O. G. Hempstead & Son, against the decision of the collector of customs at Philadelphia, Pa., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Pennland, and entered June 17, 1895. Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser. The goods are men's shirts, the body of these shirts being made of cotton, and the bosoms, collars, and cuffs of linen. They were assesed for duty at 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 275 of the tariff act of 1894, which reads as follows: 275. "Collars and cuffs, composed wholly or in part of linen thirty cents per dozen pieces, and in addition thereto thirty per centum ad valorem; shirts and all other articles of wearing apparel of every description, not specially provided for in this Act, composed wholly or in part of linen, fifty per centum." The claim made in the protest is that the goods are dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 258 of said act, as "Clothing ready made, and articles of wearing apparel of every description * * * composed of cotton or other vegetable fiber, or of which cotton or other vegetable fiber is the component material of chief value, etc.," not specially provided for in said act. The articles being specially provided for eo nomine in said paragraph 275, under which they were assessed, as "shirts" and other articles of wearing apparel * * * composed in part of linen," are, therefore, excepted from the more generic description in paragraph 258, on the well-settled rule that specific names in tariff acts dominate` general descriptions. (Hedden v. Richards, 149 U. S., 343; Victor and Arthur, 104 U. S., 498.) The protest is overruled and the collector's decision affirmed. |