October 14, 1887, which the appellants claim to be dutiable at the rate of 24 cents per pound, under the provision in Schedule K for third-class wools.

It appears from the special reports of the appraiser, transmitted by you in connection with the said appeal, that the wools in question consisted of unwashed Turkish, Eskissar, and Roumanian wools, which, upon careful examination, were found to contain a considerable percentage of Merino blood, and that they were therefore returned for classification as wools of the first class, at a duty of 10 per cent.

The question as to the correctness of such classification was submitted to the conference of New York appraisers, now being held at your port, and the Department is in receipt of a communication from the Board, dated the 16th instant, from which it appears that the members are unanimous in the opinion that the said wools were properly classified as wools of the first class, dutiable at the rate of 10 cents per pound, under the provisions of Schedule K, T. I., 357. Your decision is therefore affirmed. (8956.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, August 18, 1888. “CHEVIOTS.”—Your letter of May 29 last was duly received, submitting the appeal (3645 8) of Messrs. H. Bernheimer, Son & Co., from your assessment of duty at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem on certain so-called worsted cloths imported by them, per Celtic, December 3, 1887, and claimed to be dutiable as manufactures of worsted, under the provisions of T. 1., 363, according to their value per pound.

The appraiser reports that the goods, which are known as cheviots, are composed wholly of wool, and were therefore returned for duty as manufactures of wool, under T. I., 362.

Your assessment of duty thereon is hereby affirmed.

(8986.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, September 5, 1888. WOOL BLANKETING.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 3d ultimo transmitting the appeals (71388 and 71398) of Messrs. Stone & Downer from your assessment of duty at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem on certain so-called "wool blanketing" imported by the appellants, per Samaria and Catalonia, June 20 and July 10, 1888, and claimed by them to be dutiable either at 18 cents per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem, as woolen blanketing, under T. I., 363, or at 20 cents per pound and 30 per cent ad valorem, as endless belts or felts for paper or printing machines, and returned as nonenumerated manufacture in part of wool, under T. I., 362.

It is understood that the so-called "blanketing" in question is composed in part of wool, is imported for the express purpose of being manufactured into card-cloth, does not assimilate to the flanuels and blankets provided for in T. I., 363, and is not used for the same purposes as are endless belts and felts.

Said goods, being in part of wool, are excluded from classification under T. I., 363, and, not being otherwise provided for, are dutiable under T. I., 362, in accordance with Department's decisions of March 10, 1886 (synopsis 7402), April 22, 1887 (synopsis 2188), June 2, 1888 (synopsis 8874), and July 12, 1888 (unprinted), on a like appeal of the same importers.

Your assessment of duty thereon is hereby affirmed. (9012.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, September 10, 1888. WOOL-BACK WORSTED COATINGS.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 25th ultimo, submitting the appeal (81428) of Messrs E. Oelbermann & Co., from

your assessment of duty at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent ad valorem on certain manufactures of wool imported by them per Waesland, May 21, Schiedam, May 24, and Westernland, May 12, 1886.

The appraiser reports that the goods in question are commercially known as “woolback" worsted coatings, and are composed of wool and worsted, and that they were classified under T. I., 362.

The goods, being composed in part of wool, are expressly excluded from classification under T. I., 363, as claimed by the appellants.

Your assessment of duty is hereby affirmed. (9018.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, November 23, 1888.

WOOLEN PIANO AND TABLE COVERS.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 19th ultimo, submitting the appeal (2487t) of Messrs. F. Victor & Achelis, from your assessment of duty at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent ad valorem, on certain woolen piano and table covers, imported by them per Lahn, March 12, 1888.

The appellants claim that the covers in question are entitled to entry at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem under T. I., 378.

The paragraph in said provision of law reads as follows, viz: "Mats, rugs, screens, covers, hassocks, bedsides, and other portions of carpets or carpetings, shall be subjected to the rate of duty herein imposed on carpets or carpeting of like character or description," and as said piano or table covers are not portions of carpets or carpetings, this provision is manifestly inapplicable to them.

The covers in question were properly dutiable at the rate assessed under the provision in T. I., 362, for "all manufactures of wool of every description or, made wholly or in part of wool," and your assessment of duty thereon is hereby affirmed. (9133.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 22, 1889.

COAT LININGS.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 15th ultimo, reporting further on the appeal (89658) of Messrs. H. H. Schwietering & Co. from your assessment of duty at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent ad valorem on certain coat linings (so called), imported by them per Trave, April 28, 1888, and claimed to be dutiable at the rate of 7 cents per square yard and 40 per cent ad valorem, under the provision for "coat linings composed in part of wool

*

*

worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animal."

*

The appraiser at your port reports that the goods in question are a manufacture of worsted, which is used for the same purpose as light-weight cassimeres sometimes are, viz, for lining overcoats; that it could be used also in the manufacture of negligé shirts, and that it was returned for duty as a "manufacture posed wholly or in part of worsted."

*

com

The appraiser at Boston, to whom a sample was referred, reports that the goods are in fact coat linings, being manufactured expressly for that purpose, and imported and dealt in by tailoring firms, or those dealing in tailors' trimmings, and that any use other than for coat linings to which they might be put would be quite exceptional.

The appraiser at Philadelphia also reports that these goods are commercially known and chiefly used as coat linings, and that they are so classified at that port. From an inspection of the sample submitted, and in view of these reports, the Department decides that the goods are dutiable as coat linings, under T. I., 365, and you are authorized to readjust the entry in question accordingly, and also the entries of similar goods covered by the appeals specified in the annexed schedule, and to take measures for refunding the excess of duty. (9206.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 28, 1889. NOILS.-The Department is in receipt of a letter dated the 15th instant, from Spe, cial Agent Legare Phenix, in relation to the classification of wool noils at your port, more especially those imported by the firm of Seed & Denby, which are consigned to said firm by Messrs. Bowes Bros., of Liverpool.

The special agent states that there is a great diversity of opinion at your port, Boston, and Philadelphia, as to whether the merchandise consists of noils taken from first, second, or third class wool, and he suggests that, inasmuch as the noils are usually invoiced and entered simply either as "third-class" or "carpet noils," that the consignees be required to specify in their entries the actual character of the noils, so as to show from what wool they are made, that is, whether from Egyptian, Turkish, Persian, English, or what.

The suggestion of the special agent seems to be a good one, and you are requested, if practicable, to carry it into effect. (9221.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 23, 1889. WOOL-SCOURED WOOL-TOPS.-The Department is in receipt of a letter dated the 13th instant, from the U. S. attorney for the southern district of New York, reporting the trial, on the 5th and 6th instant, before Judge Lacombe and a jury, of the case of A. D. Juilliard et al. v. Magone, collector (N. S. 11320), in the U. S. circuit court for his district.

The case involved the classification of three cases of scoured wool-tops imported by said firm from Bradford via Liverpool, and which were classified as scoured wool of the second class, imported in other than the ordinary condition of scoured wool, and dutiable under T. I., 356, etc., at the rate of 60 cents per pound,

The plaintiffs claimed that the merchandise was scoured wool of the second class, valued at less than 30 cents per pound at port of shipment, and hence dutiable at the rate only of 30 cents per pound under T. I., 356 and 357.

The specific question was submitted to the jury whether, upon the evidence submitted, the merchandise was wool imported in any other than ordinary condition, as practiced in 1883 and prior thereto, and the jury answered said question in the affirmative, whereupon the court directed a verdict for the defendant.

It will be seen that the finding of the jury in this case is in keeping with the decision heretofore made by the Department on wool-tops (see Synopses 4777 and 7217), under which it is understood duty is now assessed on similar importations. The United States attorney reports that, after the rendition of the verdict in the above case, he was informed by the plaintiffs that they were thoroughly satisfied with the trial of the case as a test, and should not appeal from the decision thereof. The decisions of the Department being thus sustained, the practice thereunder as to the classification of wool tops will be continued as heretofore. (9261.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 9, 1889.

VALUE OF Wool at foreign port oF SHIPMENT.-I return here with the inclosures of your letter of the 18th ultimo, in which you request instructions as to the proper method of obtaining the per-pound value of wool of class 3, which is returned by the weigher at weights less than those stated in the invoice and entry, and you refer to a paragraph in Department's decision of August 10, 1887 (Synopsis 8380), which seems to you to conflict with article 491 of the regulations.

In reply to your inquiries you are informed that the paragraph in Department's decision of August 10, 1887 (Synopsis 8380), to which you refer is not deemed to be in conflict with article 491 of the Regulations. This article provides that when the actual market value of wool at the last place of shipment to the United States,

exclusive of charges in such port, shall have been ascertained, no further inquiry is necessary to ascertain the value for the purpose of fixing the rate of duty to which the merchandise is liable, and is based upon a circular letter issued by the Department January 22, 1884.

The actual market value of the wool at the place of shipment is to be ascertained by the appraiser, under the direction of the collector pursuant to the authority given him for that purpose under section 2906, that section being modified in the case of wool by the provision of the tariff act of 1883, which substitutes "the last port or place whence exported to the United States" for the "principal markets of the country, from which the importation has been made," and subject also to the further limitation contained in section 2900, that duty shall not be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice or entered value, this limitation applying in cases where the rate of duty depends upon the ascertained value of the merchandise, per pound, per yard, etc.

It would, therefore, seem to be the duty of the appraiser, in all cases, in the first instance, to ascertain the value of an importation of wool at the last port or place whence exported to the United States, excluding charges in such port. In no case, however, is he permitted to fix such value at a less sum per pound than that contained in the invoice and entry.

It would appear from your communication that the difficulty arises in those cases where there is a discrepancy between the weight of the wool as invoiced and the actual weight as found by the United States weigher at the custom-house. In most cases the actual price paid for the wool, per pound, would be correctly represented by dividing the total amount paid for the importation (less charges) by the number of pounds returned by the United States weigher, and if the appraiser is satisfied that this result correctly exhibits the value of the wool, per pound, at the place whence exported to the United States, excluding charges in such port, he may certify and return the same accordingly to the collector for classification and assessment of duty. (9281.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 22, 1889. WOOL-BROKEN TOPS.-The Department is in receipt of the appeals, hereinafter mentioned, from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 60 cents per pound on certain so-called "worsted waste" imported by the parties named, which the respective appellants claim to be dutiable at the rate of 10 cents per pound, under the provision in Schedule K (paragraph 361) for "woolen waste," but which merchandise was returned by the United States appraiser as "scoured broken wool tops," etc., on classes 1 and 2, costing under 30 cents per pound in the unwashed condition.

* * #

Upon investigation, the claim of the appellants appear to have no foundation in fact. The merchandise, as the special reports of the United States appraising officers and an inspection of official samples show, is not woolen waste within the proper meaning of that term as used in the tariff acts (paragraph 361) where it occurs in connection with "rags," "shoddy," "mungo," and "flocks," and which term has been heretofore defined by the Department (Synopsis 5820) (a) to apply only to a refuse material resulting from the various processes of woolen manufacture, or, as Worcester defines the word to mean, "something of little or no account or value, as the refuse of cotton or silk," but is in fact a fine quality of scoured and purified wool, of classes 1 and 2 in the form either wholly of broken tops or with broken tops predominating to the extent of at least 70 per cent, which, as proofs submitted to the Department seem to indicate, have been purposely broken with a view to procuring its illegal admission as "waste."

a See note to 6884.

H. Mis. 94-12

Scoured wool, imported in the form of top or tops, similar to the merchandise in question, can not be removed from its proper classification under the statute and the decisions of the courts (see Synopsis 9261) either by reason of the tops being broken purposely or otherwise, or on account of a small percentage of thread, or other waste being mixed with it, and as it is clear to my mind that the said merchandise is in fact wool advanced beyond the scoured condition and suitable for ' immediate use, and is, therefore, wool imported in other than the ordinary condition in which wools were imported at the time of the passage of the act of March 3, 1883, I decide that it is dutiable at twice the rate of duty prescribed for scoured wools of the classes to which it belongs, under said Schedule K (paragraph 356). which, among other things prescribes that "the duty upon wool of the sheep which shall be imported in any other than ordinary condition, as now and heretofore practiced, or which shall be changed in its character or condition for the purpose of evading the duty, or which shall be reduced in value by the admixture of dirt or any other foreign substance, shall be twice the duty to which it would be otherwise subject."

Your decision is therefore affirmed.

(9303.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 22, 1889. WEIGHT OF WOOLEN AND Worsted GOODS.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 6th instant, reporting further on the appeal (2079 v) of Messrs. Neustadter Brothers from your assessment of duty at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 40 per cent ad valorem, on certain wool flannel imported by them per Servia, February 20, 1888, and claimed to be dutiable at the rate of 24 cents per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem.

The appellants claim that the weight of the goods as taken by the appraiser who averaged the boards at the weight of one board is incorrect, and that the invoice presented shows the exact net weight of the goods sworn to by the manufacturer before the United States consul.

The appraiser reports that the weight of the boards was ascertained by weighing one board and multiplying the result by the number of pieces.

The Department being of opinion that this method of ascertaining the amount of allowance to be made for the weight of boards upon which flannels and other woolen and worsted goods are rolled was inadequate, the question was submitted to the board of local appraisers in conference at your port, and from the report of the recorder of said board, dated the 13th instant, it appears that the practice at the different ports varies, and the appraisers unanimously recommend the adoption of the method of weighing one board out of every ten, to ascertain their average weight. This recommendation is approved, and you will please direct the appraiser to adopt this method in ascertaining the weights of all woolen and worsted goods where the rate or amount of duty is dependent on the weight of the goods.

As the goods covered by the appeal of Messrs. Neustadter Brothers were entered for consumption, and it is now impracticable to ascertain their actual weight, the Department can afford them no relief, and your assessment of duty thereon must stand affirmed. (9346.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, May 27, 1889.

WORSTED CLOTHS.—The Department duly received your letter of the 17th instant, transmitting the appeal (No. 6682 v) of Messrs. H. Herrman, Sternbach & Co. from your assessment of duty, at the rate of 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent ad valorem, on certain merchandise imported by them per Adriatic, April 8, 1889.

The appellants, in their protest, claim that the goods in question "are manufactures of worsted and contain no wool, and as such, costing under 60 cents per pound,