can not be utilized without being broken by machinery, thus destroying the fiber of the wool and the utility of the article for other purposes than that of waste.

#

You are requested to inform your deputies at St. Albans and elsewhere of the nature of the inclosed ruling, in order that this article may be properly classified hereafter. (7915.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 8, 1887. SLIPPER PATTERNS-EMBROIDERED.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo, transmitting the appeal (9538 o) of Mr. H. E. Frankenberg from your assessment of duty at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent ad valorem on certain embroidery on cotton imported by him, per Werra, August 18, 1886.

It appears, from the report of the appraiser and an inspection of the sample submitted, that the goods in question are commercially known as "cotton slipper patterns," and that they are embroidered with worsted, and valued at over 80 cents per pound.

Your assessment of duty thereon, being in accordance with T. I., new, 363, and Department's decisions of April 22, 1884 (Synopsis, 6309), and April 16, 1885 (unpublished), is hereby affirmed. (7965.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 13, 1887. REAPPRAISEMENTS OF WOOL.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 7th instant, in which, stating a case which comes before you under section 2930 of the Revised Statutes, where the general and merchant appraisers have disagreed as to the value of certain imported wool, you call attention to the fact that while the law imposing duty on wools prescribes that the value at the last port or place whence imported to the United States shall fix the classification, the oath taken by the merchant appraiser requires him to report "the actual market value or wholesale price thereof in the principal markets of the country from which the same was imported into the United States." You state that the oath being at variance with the language of the statute, the same is, in your opinion, inoperative, and makes the whole action of the merchant appraiser a nullity, since the oath requires him to disregard the law.

As requested in your letter, the matter was submitted to the Solicitor of the Treasury for his opinion, and I now transmit herewith a copy of a letter from that officer, dated the 12th instant, which embodies his views on the question submitted. You will notice that the Solicitor advises that the oath to be administered to the merchant appraiser, in the case of reappraisements of wool, should conform to the requirements of the statute making it obligatory upon him to report the values of the wools at the last port or place whence they are exported to the United States. The Department concurs with the Solicitor in the opinion thus expressed, and you will be governed accordingly. (7978.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 18, 1887. SADDLEBAGS.-The Department is in receipt of a letter, dated the 8th instant, from the U. S. general appraiser at Philadelphia, in which he reports that, according to a statement received from your port, saddlebags of which Brussels carpet forms the component material of chief value appear to have been classified at the rate of 30 cents per square yard and 30 per cent ad valorem, under the provision in Schedule K (T. I., new, 371) for "Brussels carpets."

Referring to Department's decisions of June 25, 1883 (Synopsis, 5776), and August 10, 1883 (Synopsis, 5853), you are informed that, in the opinion of the Department, saddlebags are dutiable at the rate provided in Schedule N. (T. I., new, 415) for “saddlery,” viz, 35 per cent ad valorem. (7990.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 21, 1887. GOAT HAIR OF THE COMMON GOAT UNFIT FOR COMBING PURPOSES.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, further reporting on the appeal (8785 o) of Mr. Henry Schmidt from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 10 cents per pound on certain raw hair of the common goat imported, per British King, on the 2d of August last, which the appellant claims to be exempt from duty.

The appellant represents that the hair in question is refuse common goat hair, unfit for combing purposes, which can only be utilized in mixing mortar, stuffing saddlery, etc., and an inspection of samples verifies such representations.

It is urged by you that goat hair of this character which is totally unfit for combing purposes is not covered by the provisions of Schedule K (T. I., new, 354 and 358), which relate to "class two, combing wools, and also all hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals," but is exempt from duty under the provision in the free list (T. I., new, 717) for "hair of all kinds unmanufactured," etc.

This question was to a certain extent considered by the court in the case of the United States r. McNeely recently decided at Philadelphia, where it was held that goat hair unfit for combing purposes was exempt from duty as aforesaid. The U. S. Attorney-General also, to whom the matter was submitted, “by a letter dated the 15th instant, advises that, in his opinion, the decision of the court was right, and that goat hair unfit for combing purposes is entitled to free entry, under the provision in the "free list," above referred to.

The Department concurs in such views, and holds that the said appeal is well taken, and that the common goat hair in question is exempt from duty.

You will reliquidate the entry accordingly, and, if necessary, take the usual steps for refunding the duties erroneously exacted.

The previous rulings of May 27 and July 2, 1886 (Synopses, 7544 and 7614), will be considered as modified to accord herewith.

(7999.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 1, 1887. CROISE.-The Department duly received your letter of the 18th of December last, transmitting the appeal (9765 o) of Messrs. Kahn Bros., Bine & Co. from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 9 cents per square yard and 40 per cent ad valorem , on certain so-called “croise” imported into your port, per rail from New York, under immediate-transportation entry 1951, August 17 last, which was returned by the appraiser at your port as "worsted dress goods," weighing under 4 ounces per square yard.

The appellants, however, claim that the merchandise in question consists of manufactures of worsted, or "worsted coatings," dutiable at the rate of 24 cents per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem, under the provisions of paragraph 363, T. I., new, and Department's decision of July 10, 1886 (Synopsis, 7624).

It appears from a report received from the appraiser at New York, to whom samples of the merchandise were submitted, that they represent what are commercially known as "women's and children's dress goods," and are used entirely as such, being composed wholly of worsted, 40 inches wide and weighing about 3 ounces to the yard, whereas the merchandise covered by the decision above referred to is composed of cotton in the warp and worsted in the weft, 54 inches wide, weighing about 6 ounces to the yard, and is used for men's wear.

The merchandise in question, therefore, being in fact women's and children's dressgoods, and being composed wholly of worsted, is dutiable under the special provision therefor in Schedule K (T. I., new, 365), of the act of March 3, 1883, at the rate assessed by you in this case.

Your decision is hereby affirmed. (8020.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 11, 1887. "GLORIA CLOTH."-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, submitting the following appeals of Messrs. Bister & Schmidt from your assessment of duty at the rate of 7 cents per square yard and 40 per cent ad valorem on certain "gloria cloths" imported by them.

The appraiser reports that the goods in question, which vary in width from 46 to 120 centimeters, and are composed of silk in the warp and worsted in the weft, are similar to women's and children's dress-goods, and are dutiable at the rate assessed, under paragraph 365, act of March 3, 1883, and the Department's decision of April 15, 1885 (not published).

Your assessment of duty thereon is hereby affirmed. (8050.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 25, 1887. NOILS.-On the 20th of April, 1886 (synopsis 7470), the Department instructed you as follows:

Under the existing rulings of the Department noils are to be classified as the wools from which they are made, so that if the noils come from class 1 wool, and are either washed or scoured, they should, if washed, pay twice the rate, and, if scoured, three times the rate of duty to which the wool would have been liable if imported in an unwashed condition. Noils made from class 2 wool and hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals (including mohair noils, cashmere noils, etc.), only pay increased duty if imported scoured, and when in that condition they are liable to three times the rate to which the wool or hair is liable in an unwashed condition.

If these last-mentioned noils are simply washed and not scoured, they pay but a single rate of duty.

It is understood that under these instructions imported noils are now habitually elassified as scoured wools, it being held that all noils come from scoured wools, and that the fact of their original production makes them liable under such instructions to the rate of duty prescribed by the statute for scoured wools.

It was not the intention, however, by such instructions to cause such a practice to prevail, but simply to have all imported noils classified in accordance with the condition in which they may be when imported—that is to say, if in a scoured condition, to pay duty as scoured wool; if washed, as washed wool, etc.

Noils are the product of combing scoured and washed wools, and consist of tufts of short hair which contain all the impurities of such wools, with the addition of the oil and grease which may adhere to the noils in the process of combing.

The appraisers should therefore be instructed upon the importation of any noils to make a careful examination thereof, and if it is found that the noils are in such a condition as to be commercially known as washed, to return them as such, in order that the triple rate of duty shall only be imposed when such examination clearly demonstrates that the noils are in a scoured condition. (8070.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 9, 1887. ELASTIC GAITER-WEBBING.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, reporting further on the appeal (164p) of Messrs. Salomon & Phillips from your assessment of duty at the rate of 30 cents per pound and 50 per cent ad valorem H. Mis. 94-11

on certain webbing imported by them, per Etruria, April 19, 1886, and claimed to be dutiable at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem, under the provision in paragraph 453, act of March 3, 1883, for “India-rubber fabrics, composed wholly or in part of India rubber."

The appraiser reports that the merchandise in question was elastic gaiter-webbing, composed of worsted, cotton, and India rubber, and that it was classified as "webbing wrought by hand or braided by machinery of which

#

worsted is a component material," under the provision therefor in paragraph 368, act of March 3, 1883, and the Department's decision of April 23, 1886 (not published).

The decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in the case of Beard v. Nichols et al., which was acquiesced in by the Department on the 19th ultimo (not published), and which covered similar goods imported prior to the time when the act of March 3, 1883, went into effect, is not applicable to importations under said act, inasmuch as the term "webbing" is not used in the new act, and the decision is based on the use of that term in the old act (T. I., old, 388).

Your assesment of duty is hereby affirmed. (8102.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 22, 1887. EMBROIDERED BATH WRAPS AND SLIPPERS.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 16th instant, reporting further on the appeals (457p and 4574p) of Messrs. Richardson & Gerts from your assessment of duty at the rate of 40 cents per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem on certain bath wraps and sandals imported by them, per Samaria, December 6, 1886, and Glaucus, January 24, 1887.

Protest not having been filed in due time for the entry per Samaria, the Department declines to entertain the appeal 457p.

The appellants claim that the wraps in question, which are made of cotton Turkish toweling, embroidered with colored worsted, are properly subject to duty at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem as "cotton goods."

The appraiser reports that the embroidery is sufficiently elaborate to greatly enhance their value and become an important material in their construction, and that, in his opinion, the worsted should govern their classification.

An inspection of the samples submitted shows that the articles are loose wraps and sandals, intended for use in the bath, which are composed of Turkish toweling, and are elaborately and expensively embroidered with worsted down the front on each side, on the hood, and on each sleeve, the embroidery probably forming the chief element of value, and certainly forming a leading feature; and the sandals are also embroidered in the same style as the robe.

The Department is therefore of opinion that they were correctly classified for duty under the provision in paragraph 366, act of March 3, 1883, for "clothing, ready-made, and wearing apparel of every description composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, made up or manufactured wholly or in part by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer." (See synopses 2134, 2678, 2694, 2712, and 3712.)

Your decision is hereby affirmed. (8126.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 24, 1887. HORSE-CLOTHING.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 19th instant, transmitting the appeal (1512p) of the Studebaker Bros.' Manufacturing Company from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem on certain horse-clothing imported into the port of New York, per Germanic, January 20, 1887, and thence transported to your port under immediate-transportation entry No. 26.

The appellants claim the articles are dutiable only at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem, under the provisions in T. I., 415, for "coach and harness furniture of all kinds, saddlery," etc.

It appears from the report of the appraiser submitted with your letter that the clothing in question, which is composed principally of wool, consists of such articles as hoods and bandages for the legs, etc., none of which form a part of or are essential to the articles enumerated in T. I., 415.

The clothing in question is not specially enumerated or provided for in the tariff, and, being composed in part of wool, is dutiable at the rate assessed by you, under the provision in T. I., 362, for "manufactures made wholly or in part of

wool."

# * *

Your decision therefore is hereby affirmed. (8132.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 28, 1887. WORSTED VEILINGS.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 22d instant, transmitting the appeal (1526 p) of Messrs. S. Oppenheimer & Levy from your assessment of duty at the rate of 9 cents per square yard and 40 per cent ad valorem on certain so-called "worsted veilings" imported by them, per St. Laurent, December 30, 1885, and returned as "all-wool dress goods," the appellants claiming the same to be dutiable at 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent ad valorem, as a manufacture of worsted not specially enumerated or provided for.

It appears, from the report of the appraiser and an inspection of the sample submitted, that the merchandise in question is a manufacture exclusively of wool, and known and used almost exclusively for women's and children's dress goods. It was, therefore, correctly classified for duty under T. I., new, 365.

Your assessment of duty is affirmed. (8140.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 21, 1887.

Mixed wools.—In reply to your letter of the 11th instant, in which you inquire if, when "mixed wool is imported and it is required to be sorted for the purposes of correct classification and assessment of duty, as permitted by Department's decision of February 27, 1886 (Synopsis 7384), it is necessary to separate the respective classes and repack them in separate bags or whether a thorough examination and determination of the quantity of each class will suffice," you are informed that the sorting referred to in said decision should not be resorted to except in cases where the correct classification of the wool can not be otherwise determined, and was only authorized by the Department in order to provide for the assessment of duty on importations of mixed wool at the rates applicable to the respective quantities of each class therein contained, instead of at the rate applicable to the highest of said classes, which would otherwise have to be imposed.

In cases, therefore, where the correct classification and determination of the quantity of each class of wool can, as suggested by you, be arrived at without sorting the same, no objection is seen to the adoption of that course, provided, however, that the importers assent and waive all objections thereto in writing; otherwise duty should be assessed either at the rate applicable to the highest class of wool found in the mixed packages, or at the rates applicable to the several classes as ascertained by sorting. (8187.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 22, 1887.

SADDLE FELT.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, transmitting the appeal (2013 p) of Mr. J. H. Fenton from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem on certain saddle