with * * * PLATT, District Judge: The importations herein consisted of automobiles tools and accessories," so called. Duties were assessed thereon as entireties at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem, under the provision in paragraph 193, act of July 24, 1897, for "articles or wares * * * composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, or other metal." The claim in the protests is that the tires which accompanied said automobiles, but which were not attached to the rims of the wheels, are properly separately dutiable at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 449, which is the tariff provision for manufactures of india rubber. It has been decided, as I understand it, in Hillhouse v. United States (152 Fed. Rep., 163; T. D. 27831), that in applying the tariff law a single article may be constructively separated into parts subject to different classifications. The petition for certiorari in that case (208 U. S., 615; T. D. 28868) shows that the contention was as to whether parts of a machine taken abroad and brought back with new ones in their place could be treated as separable from the rest of the machine, which seems to settle the general principle contained in the Hillhouse decision. In order that merchandise, which is distinctively a manufacture of rubber, or a manufacture of wood, or a manufacture of this or of that, shall be classified as a manufacture of metal, it is necessary that the entire article manufactured shall have existed as an entity before importation and have been purchased as such an assembled entity. In such a case it would be an evasion for the foreign maker to break the entity into fragments and expect each fragment to be treated as if it were complete in itself. If the article has never been assembled on the other side so that it is capable of immediate use, it ought not to be treated for tariff purposes as if it had been put into that condition on the other side. In the cases at bar there is no evidence that the rubber tires in issue had been attached to the wheels of the automobiles in the country of production in such a way as to be capable of immediate use. That being so, it seems to me that under the rulings in the shotgun cases it is wrong to attempt to treat them at the port of entry as if they had been so attached. United States v. Irwin (78 Fed. Rep., 799); United States v. Schoverling (146 U. S., 76). It is to be observed also that the tires are not so markedly a part of the automobile as the nuts, bolts, beams, angle-irons, etc., because these latter things are individual to the particular make of machine and are intended to stay until worn out, when they will be replaced by like parts; but the tires are detachable and interchangeable and may or may not be used on the particular automobile, according to the whim or caprice of the owner. In the light of these thoughts and others which time forbids me to note, the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed and the tires in question held properly dutiable under the provision in said paragraph 449. NOTE.-Appeals to the circuit court of appeals, second circuit, have been taken in these cases. (T. D. 29124.) Pearl necklace. UNITED STATES v. CITROEN. U. S. Circuit Court, Southern District of New York. June 2, 1908. Suit 4974. COMPLETED PEARL NECKLACE-JEWELRY. Where pearls have been assembled into a completed necklace, and worn as such prior to importation, they are dutiable as "jewelry" under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897, rather than as "pearls in their natural state," by similitude, under paragraph 436. ON application for review of a decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers. [Decision in favor of the Government.] For decision below see G. A. 6617 (T. D. 28246), in which the Board of General Appraisers, one member dissenting, sustained the protest of Bernard Citroen against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Note T. D. 28287, directing the application for review. The article in controversy was classified as "jewelry" under paragraph 434, tariff act of 1897. The importer contended that it was dutiable under paragraph 436 as "pearls in their natural state" by similitude. J. Osgood Nichols, assistant United States attorney, for the United States. Curie, Smith & Maxwell (W. Wickham Smith of counsel), for the importer. LACOMBE, Circuit Judge: This case forcibly indicates the defects of the old practice whereby the proofs were taken in part before the Board of General Appraisers and in part before the court after the Board's decision was rendered. The opinion of the two general appraisers who united in reversing the collector-the third general appraiser dissented-indicates that they would probably have decided the other way "had these 37 pearls been assembled into a completed necklace abroad and worn as such." The brief additional testimony introduced in the circuit court conclusively establishes that proposition, and upon all the proofs the 37 pearls can not under the rule laid down by the court of appeals in Tiffany v. United States (112 Fed. Rep., 672) and Neresheimer v. United States (136 Fed. Rep., 86; T. D. 25876) be classified, even by similitude, as "pearls in their natural state." Inasmuch as this case will undoubtedly be appealed, it seems unnecessary to add anything to the discussion of the correctness or practicability of the rules for classifi cation laid down in the earlier cases above cited, except in one particular. Counsel for the importer challenges the suggestion in the Tiffany case that, when there has been "a careful process of assortment and selection as to size, quality, luster, shape, etc., which takes time and skilled labor," the "string of pearls thus produced is worth more than the aggregate values of the individual pearls composing it." Reference is made to testimony to the effect that a collection of pearls will often be sold to one purchaser at a less price than the aggregate would amount to were each pearl sold separately. There is nothing surprising in the circumstance that a dealer will be content with a smaller percentage of profit if he can sell thirty-seven exceptionally large and expensive pearls in a single transaction than he would if he had to dispose of them individually, possibly having to wait many months before all were sold. It is a mere "wholesale discount," and does not indicate that the intrinsic value of the collection is reduced by sorting, selecting, and arranging. If it were, we may be very sure that dealers would not thus waste their time and skill and the interest on their money. The decision of the Board is reversed and that of the collector affirmed. NOTE.-An appeal will be taken in this case to the circuit court of appeals, second circuit. No. 19304.-WAX BEADS.-Protest 289872 of Cohn & Rosenberger (New York). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Protest sustained as to wax beads. G. A. 6639 (T. D. 28297) followed. No. 19305.-COMPOSITION FIGURES.-Protest 267177 of Geo. Borgfeldt & Co. (Boston). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. The protest related to composition figures surrounded by artificial flowers of cotton and paper, the whole inclosed in an oval glass case mounted on a paper stand. On the authority of Abstract 15942 (T. D. 28300) the Board sustained the importers' contention that these articles were dutiable as manufactures in chief value of glass under paragraph 112, tariff act of 1897. No. 19306.—TOY NECKLACES.-Protest 297512 of Hy. Buss & Co. (New York). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Protest sustained as to toy necklaces. T. D. 28391 followed. No. 19307.-PROTESTS OVERRULED. - Protest 291984, protest 283698, protest 244537, and protest 293859 of American Bead Company, protest 287020 of Hy. Bischoff & Co., protest 94886f, protest 81582ƒ, and protest 268671 of Geo. Borgfeldt & Co., protest 109014 of R. A. Breidenbach, protests 295405, etc., of Wiener Brothers et al., and protest 252583 of C. Wildermann Company (New York), and protest 291209 of O. G. Hempstead & Son (Philadelphia). Opinions by Sharretts, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. No. 19308.-PROTEST ABANDONED.-Protest 298377 of Frederick H. Griffin (Boston). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Protest abandoned. No. 19309.-WOOD SCREENS.-Protest 297680 of Butler Brothers (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. The Board held certain screens dutiable as manufactures in chief value of wood as claimed by the importers. No. 19310.-STUFFED BIRDS.-Protest 297460 of Butler Brothers (St. Louis). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Protest sustained as to stuffed birds only. Morimura v. United States (141 Fed. Rep., 383; T. D. 25872) followed. No. 19311.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 287663-25933 of Goldsmith Brothers (Chicago), protest 297132 of Geo. Wm. Rueff (New Orleans), protests 298352, etc., of Kaufman & Oberleder, protest 296563 of Amerman & Patterson, and protests 292256, etc., of Surpass Leather Company et al. (New York). Opinions by McClelland, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. No. 19312.-PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protests 282454, etc., of A. L. Tuska et al. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Protests abandoned. No. 19313.-TOY WHISTLES.-Protests 291774, etc., of Geo. Borgfeldt & Co. (Philadelphia). Opinion by Chamberlain, G. A. Protests sustained as to toy whistles. G. A. 6771 (T. D. 29049) followed. No. 19314.-SILK-WOOL DRESS GOODS.-Protests 199686, etc., of Perkins, Van Bergen & Co. et al. and protests 188527, etc., of A. K. Wright & Co. et al. (New York) Opinions by Chamberlain, G. A. Protests overruled as to silk-wool dress goods. United States v. Scruggs (156 Fed Rep., 940; T, D. 28580) followed. No. 19315.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 279618 of W. N. Proctor & Co. (Boston), protest 295642 of Geo. Lueders & Co., and protest 296280 of Rosenstein Brothers (New York). Opinions by Chamberlain, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. BEFORE BOARD 2, JUNE 30, 1908. No. 19316.-SILK FABRICS.-Protests 127577, etc., of Arthur Williams, Jr., & Co. et al. (Boston), protests 177783, etc., of M. J. Corbett & Co., and protests 16738 h, etc., of J. Grose & Co. (New York). Opinions by Howell, G. A. Protests sustained as to silk fabrics. G. A. 6715 (T. D. 28738). No. 19317.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 298356, etc., of Klauber, Horn & Co. et. al. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. No. 19318.--PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protests 293985, etc., of R. H. Macy & Co. et al. (New York) and protest 295564 of J. J. Buchey & Co. (Philadelphia). Opinions by Howell, G. A. Protests abandoned. No. 19319.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 296110 of F. B. Vandegrift & Co. and protests 295489, etc., of R. H. Macy & Co. et al. (New York). Opinions by De Vries, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit BEFORE BOARD 3, JUNE 30, 1908. No. 19320.-PROTEST OVERRULED.-Protest 282064 of W. H. Merrall (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Protest overruled for want of merit. No. 19321.-COIR FIBER.-Protest 285654 of Japhair Manufacturing Company (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. So called coir fiber was held to be free of duty under paragraph 531, tariff act of 1897, relating to coir. No. 19322.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 254845, etc., of John Wanamaker (Philadelphia). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit. No. 19323.-PROTEST ABANDONED.-Protest 291526 of Kwong Tai Chong (New York). Protest abandoned. Additional duty; undervaluation of horse (Abstract 18614). 28910 29000 Advertising signs, metal and celluloid (Abstract 18545). 28910 Advisory appraisement of precious stones discontinued. 28876 Agate, alabaster, coral, etc., manufactures of, duty on under act of 28960 Air cushions: manufactures of cotton (Abstract 18585). 28910 Alabaster, agate, coral, etc., manufactures of, duty on, under act of 28960 Alarm clocks, toy (Abstract 18385). 28833 Alaska Pacific Steamship Company, bond of, as common carrier 28767 28667 Alaska Steamship Company, bond of, as common carrier.. 28900 Amendment of customs administrative act of June 10, 1890. 29044 |