the proviso to paragraph 349 for cotton and India-rubber clothing. I would also invite attention to the provision for "water-proof cloth," contained in paragraph 369. The commercial designation of this merchandise is variously single textures, double textures, "Macintosh cloth," and sometimes "water-proof cloth."

The report of the appraiser is given in full, as it contains a description of the merchandise and all the points contended for by the Government, relative to the dutiable character thereof.

The importer claims that the fabrics contained in parcels 71 and 72, as designated in the invoice, are composed of India rubber and cotton, of which materials India rubber is the greater in value, and that the goods contained in parcels 73 and 74 are composed of India rubber, cotton, and wool, in the first of which fabrics India rubber is the component material of chief value, and in the other, although while admitting that wool is of more value than India rubber or cotton, it is held that, inasmuch as India rubber is the significant feature of the goods, this substance controls the classification thereof. Based upon the above claim, it is contended by the appellant that duty should have been assessed upon all of the merchandise at 30 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 460, N. T. A representative of the manufacturer of the. goods in question appeared before the board and submitted a sworn statement as to the relative value of the different materials entering into the fabrication. Manufacturers of domestic India-rubber fabrics were also present and testified as to the value of crude India rubber. A quantitative analysis of samples representing the merchandise was, at our request, made by Dr. Baker, connected with the United States laboratory at New York. Based upon this analysis, the amount of pure India rubber found to be contained in the several kinds and qualities of merchandise, when valued at the price per pound fixed by the domestic manufacturers referred to, tends to confirm the statement of the maker of the goods.

We therefore find as facts

That the fabrics contained in parcels 71 and 72 are composed of India rubber and cotton, of which materials India rubber is the component of chief value. That the merchandise contained in parcel 73 is composed of India rubber, cotton, and wool, and that India rubber forms the component material of chief value thereof; and that the goods contained in parcel 74 are composed of India rubber, cotton, and wool, and that in these fabrics the wool constitutes the component material of chief value. We further find that the goods are India-rubber fabrics, and are not the water-proof cloth provided for in paragraph 369. We hold that the portion of the merchandise of which India rubber is the component material of chief value is more specifically provided for in paragraph 460, N. T., than elsewhere in the act. The protest is accordingly sustained as to the goods contained in parcels 71, 72, and 73, and the action of the collector is affirmed as to the goods contained in parcel 74, of which wool constitutes the component material of chief value. (11679–G. A. 504.)

SCAPULARIES PART WOOL.

NEW YORK, August 26, 1891.

* Concerning the remainder of the merchandise, an inspection of a sample thereof shows it to be composed of ten pieces of flannel of wool, each piece 2 inches long and 2 inches wide. There is a division of these pieces into two sets, each set containing five pieces, which are stitched together upon the upper edge thereof, and the sets joined together by two pieces of red woolen braid, the whole forming religious articles of devotion known as a pair of scapularies. Upon the outer surface of one portion of the scapularies there is stitched a representation of our Saviour's passion, and on the other the sacred heart of Christ, both representations printed on cotton cloth.

In G. A. 425 the board held that similar representations printed upon cotton cloth separately imported were dutiable as printed matter. In the present case, however, the printed matter is a portion of a completed article and is merely an incidental feature thereof.

We find the scapularies are manufactures made wholly or in part of wool. The claim of the importers that duty should have been assessed upon this portion of the merchandise at 25 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 423, N. T., is overruled, and the action of the collector relative thereto affirmed. (11842—4. A. 833.)

1

NEW YORK, August 26, 1891.

RUSSIAN WOOL-PAPER RUBLES OF RUSSIA.-We find as facts in the present case that on or about the 26th day of September, 1890, there were shipped from Moscow, Russia, 115 bales of class 3 wool, invoiced at 54 paper rubles per pood. Entry was made at the port of Philadelphia on the 20th day of October, 1890.

Attached to the invoice is a certificate of the U. S. vice-consul at Moscow to the effect that "the true market value of the currency, paper rubles of Russia, in which currency the invoice of merchandise in question is made out, is 60.15 cents estimated in United States gold dollars, as indicated by the latest quotations at St. .Petersburg, of sight draft on London, viz, 293d. sterling."

The action of the collector is set forth in the following official report to the board: The assessment of duty upon the merchandise at 32 per cent ad valorem, as provided in paragraph 385, act of October 1, 1890, for class 3 wool costing less than 13 cents per pound, was based upon a valuation of $0.68 per Russian ruble, in accordance with Department's ruling of October 1, 1890. (Synopsis 10263.)

The return made on the invoice by the appraiser was "value correct to 9.18 cents per pound," and in a special report to the collector he wrote, "I beg to say that the value of the wool as returned by this office was based on its value at the time of shipment, and not at the time of arrival, which value was based upon the declaration of the consul that the ruble was worth 60.15 cents." The appellants claim that the amount of duties chargeable upon the merchandise should have been estimated in accordance with the appraiser's return.

The points at issue in the present case are:

(1) What was the equivalent in the gold dollars of the United States of the paper ruble of Russia?

(2) Should the value of the paper ruble have been estimated at the time of shipment of the merchandise or at the date of entry thereof?

As to the second point, we hold that the local appraiser exhausted all the powers vested in him by law when, in addition to an advisory classification, he made return on the invoice as to the quantity and character of the merchandise and the actual market value thereof at the date of shipment in paper rubles, the currency stated in the invoice and alleged by the importers to have been paid for the goods.

It was exclusively the duty of the collector at the date of entry to have reduced to its equivalent in gold dollars of the United States the invoiced and entered amount in paper rubles, and to have estimated the amount of duty chargeable thereon.

We proceed to a consideration of the question: What was the monetary value of the paper ruble of Russia at the date of entry? The statutes bearing upon this subject are section 52, act of October 1. 1890, which makes provision for the manner of estimating the value of foreign coins, and section 2903, Revised Statutes, which provides that "the President may cause to be established fit and proper regulations for estimating the duties on merchandise imported into the United States in respect to which the original cost shall be exhibited in a depreciated currency issued and circulated under authority of any government." It must be borne in mind, in connection with this statute, first, that the President can not fix an arbitrary value to the depreciated foreign currency without regard to its intrinsic value as compared with our money; and, second, that instructions given by the Secretary of the Treasury relative to the value of a depreciated currency, either by general circulars to collectors, or by specific directions in a particular case, are in law to be regarded as regulations established by the President in that behalf.

Article 1294 of the General Regulations of the Treasury Department for 1884 directs that "when the standard value of foreign currency is undetermined, a consular certificate must be indorsed upon or securely attached to the invoice, in accordance with form 311."

The Secretary of the Treasury in synoptical decision 7398, dated March 8, 1886, advises that entry of merchandise shipped from Russia shall be refused, unless the invoice covering the same is made out in paper rubles, and is accompanied by a consular certificate giving the value thereof, estimated in United States gold dollars, as indicated by the latest quotations at St. Petersburg of sight drafts in sterling on London.

The certificate of the U. S. consul, attached to the invoice under consideration, was made in the form prescribed above, and up to the date of the entry, October 20, 1890, covered by this protest, as far as we have been able to discover, there have been no regulations of a conflicting nature issued by the President.

It is true that paper currency is merely a promise to redeem the face value thereof in the standard coin of the country issuing the same, and that the value of such standard coin, as estimated by the Director of the Mint and proclaimed by the Secretary of the Treasury, must be accepted in estimating the amount of duties chargeable on imported merchandise, when the paper currency with which the merchandise was purchased has a greater value, as compared with our money, than the standard coin it represents.

This rule, however, does not apply to paper currency which is redeemable only at a discount. Such paper currency then becomes a depreciated currency. It is also true that the certificate of the consul is merely prime facie evidence as to the actual value of a depreciated currency; but in the present case the evidence is to be taken as conclusive, as it is not controverted by the appellants.

We find as facts:

(1) That the value of the merchandise was correctly stated in Russia paper rubles. (2) That the paper ruble is a depreciated currency issued and circulated under the authority of Russia.

(3) That by regulations established by the President the value of the paper ruble at the date of entry of the merchandise in question was $0.6015.

We hold that the claim of the appellants was well taken, and the protest is sustained. (11847-G. A. 838.)

NEW YORK, August 28, 1891.

COTTONETTES.-The importers of the merchandise in question say: "We protest against the assessment and liquidation of duty upon one bale of cottonette. We claim that your classification of said merchandise as woolen cloth dutiable at 50 per cent ad valorem and 44 cents per pound under paragraph 392, act of October 1, 1890 is erroneous, and that said merchandise should be classified as manufactures of cotton not specially enumerated or provided for, and dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 355, N. T., for the reason that cotton is the component part of chief value, a very small percentage of the goods being wool."

The official sample of the material accompanying the protest and papers in the case was, at the request of the board, the subject of a quantitative analysis by the chemist in charge of the U. S. laboratory at New York.

This officer reports as follows relative thereto :

Quality of wool as worsted in colored condition, 31.94 per cent; quality of cotton in colored condition, 68-06 per cent.

Based upon the above analysis, together with the testimony of expert witnesses, who examined the sample referred to, we find as facts concerning the merchandise In question:

That it is composed of cotton and wool, of which materials cotton forms the principal part in quantity and wool the component of chief value.

We hold that duty was properly assessed upon the goods in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 392, N. T.

The protest is overruled and the action of the collector affirmed. (11853-G. A. 814.)

NEW YORK, September 8, 1891.

FLANNELS DUTIABLE AS WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S DRESS GOODS.-The report of the appraiser relative to the merchandise covered by the protest in the present case is as follows:

The goods are wool flannels, weighing over 4 ounces to the square yard, measuring over 57 inches in width, and costing over 50 cents per pound. They were returned for duty as all-wool flannels at 44 cents per pound and 50 per cent ad valorem, under paragraphs 393 and 395, act October 1, 1890.

The importers in their protest say: "We claim the goods in question are specially provided for as similar description to women's dress goods, under paragraph 395, N. T."

We find as facts on the face of the papers that the merchandise is flannel composed wholly of wool, valued at above 50 cents per pound and weighing over 4 ounces to the square yard.

*

#

The portions of the two paragraphs bearing upon the question at issue are: 393. Flannels composed wholly or in part of wool, valued at above 50 cents per pound, shall be classified and pay the same duty as women's and children's dress goods and goods of similar character and description provided by this act. 395. On women's and children's dress goods composed wholly or in part of wool the duty shall be 12 cents per square yard and, in addition thereto, 50 per cent ad valorem: Provided, That on all such goods weighing over 4 ounces per square yard the duty per pound shall be four times the duty jmposed by this act on a pound of unwashed wool of the first class, and in addition thereto, 50 per cent ad valorem.

* *

In accordance with the above provisions the flannels of wool were classified as women's and children's dress goods, and, inasmuch as they weighed over 4 ounces per square yard, the rate of duty prescribed by the proviso attached to paragraph 395 was held to be applicable to, and was assessed upon, the goods in question.

It is inferred that the contention of the importer is that the merchandise is subject to only the rate of duty provided in the first clause of paragraph 395 for women's and children's dress goods.

This contention we hold to be not well taken. By the terms of paragraph 393, the flannels in question being composed of wool, and of greater value than 50 cents per pound, are to be considered as women's and children's dress goods, and subject to all of the provisions, including the proviso made applicable thereto, under paragraph 395, N. T.

The action of the collector in assessing duty upon the merchandise in question at 44 cents per pound and 50 per cent ad valorem was, in our opinion, correct, and is affirmed. (11866–G. A. 857.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 17, 1891. WOOLEN PLUSH.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 25th ultimo, transmitting an application from the Jackson and Sharp Company, of your city, for drawback on woolen plush, imported by them per steamship Switzerland from Antwerp, by way of Philadelphia, August 6, 1891, and used in upholstering seats, backs, and rests, and safety ropes for berths in exported sleeping cars of their construction.

It appearing from your report that the wastage incurred was very small, and that the remaining scraps are of no value, you are hereby authorized, in accordance with your recommendation, to allow a drawback equal to the duties paid on the imported plush so used, less the legal deduction of per cent. (11929.)

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, October 21, 1891.

WOOL WASHED ON THE PELT.-Referring to your note of yesterday, I have to inform you that Synopsis 11297 expressed the conclusions arrived at by this Department regarding the classification of wool washed on the pelt before pulling, but that synopsis 11400 contains the decision of the question by the Board of General Appraisers, which has been accepted as the rule of practice for custom officers, no appeal having been taken by the protestants. (11938.)

NEW YORK, September 24, 1891

ROBE PATTERNS-WOOL AND SILK PIECE GOODS AND EMBROIDERIES.-The appraiser reports that "the merchandise in question consists of women's dress goods imported in patterns, each pattern comprising a certain number of meters of plain woven fabric sufficient for the body of the dress, and one or more shorter pieces embroidered for trimming the garment."

Upon one invoice covered by the protest these dresses, or robes so called, are invoiced as "entireties, while upon the other the plain material and cost of embroidering are separately valued. The plain and embroidered parts are, however, readily. separable for valuation, and were therefore returned for duty separately."

The collector classified the goods in accordance with the report of the appraiser, and assessed duty upon the plain portion thereof at the rate of 12 cents per square yard and 50 per cent ad valorem, under the appropriate provision of paragraph 395, act of October 1, 1890, and at 60 cents per pound, and, in addition thereto, 60 per cent ad valorem upon the embroidered part, under paragraph 398, N. T.

The importers, in protesting against the action of the collector, say:

We claim said goods should have been assessed at 50 per cent ad valorem and 44 cents per pound as manufactures of wool or worsted not specially provided for; or under paragraph 395 of said act, as dress goods, at 50 per cent ad valorem and 12 cents per square yard. We hold that the small part of each of said robes should not pay a different duty from the whole robe, as it would be unsalable without it, and that the parts being put up and sold together in every instance will make it an article which is subject to only one assessment of duty and not to several, the same as clocks and many other articles which have one duty when put together and different ones when the parts are imported separate.

We further hold that style 27 in case 1190 can not be termed embroidered according to the definition of embroidery as given by the Encyclopedia Britannica and G. A. 470, rendered March 31, 1891, there being simply a cord sewn on by machines, not worked upon the cloth, and which can be removed without defacing the piece of goods.

The sample submitted to us of style No. 27 shows it to be a fabric of wool ornamented with silk threads, the ornamentation resembling in appearance tambour work.

The testimony of prominent manufacturers and importers of similar goods who appeared before the board was to the effect that this style, as well as styles numbers 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 25, and 26, were embroidered on a machine known as the Bonnaz or Cornerly machine.

The specification of the patent, therefore, which we have examined, describes the work produced by the machine as round-stitch and chain-stitch embroidery. The corded or tamboured appearance of the work is produced by the machine twisting the silk at the same time the needle therein is embroidering the required design upon the fabric.