either under paragraph 3 or 65, tariff act of 1909. The merchandise is claimed to be dutiable under paragraph 65 at 25 per cent ad valorem, or under paragraph 20 at one-fourth cent per pound and 10 per cent ad valorem, or free of duty under paragraph 559, or alternatively at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 480 as a nonenumerated manufactured article.

The assessment under paragraph 65 as a medicinal preparation is clearly erroneous, for it has been held in the case of United States v. Martin (155 Fed. Rep., 264; T. D. 28145), involving the same article, that scammony resin, being used principally in the compounding of medicinal preparations, was not a medicine in the condition as imported, but was a drug advanced. This decision was acquiesced in by the Government in T. D. 28155. It further follows that protestant's claim under the same paragraph is also untenable.

We are then confronted with the proposition, Has the tariff act of 1909 made any change in paragraph 20 which would alter the classification of the article as decided by the court? A perusal of both paragraphs 20 of the act of 1897 and of the act of 1909 answers the question in the affirmative. Paragraph 20 of the present act contains a proviso which did not appear in paragraph 20 of the act of 1897. This proviso reads as follows:

Provided, That no article containing alcohol, or in the preparation of which alcohol is used, shall be classified for duty under this paragraph.

It is therefore apparent, after an examination of the evidence, that the merchandise can not fall under paragraph 20, for the reason that it is prepared with the use of alcohol. Neither can it fall under paragraph 559 for the same reason, the provisos in paragraphs 559 and 20 being identical.

The claim under paragraph 480 would seem to have more force than the other contentions raised by the importer; but before the merchandise can be found dutiable under paragraph 480 the provisions of paragraph 481 must first be exhausted

It was manifestly the intent of Congress to impose a high rate of duty on articles containing alcohol or in which alcohol is used to compensate for the duty imposed on alcohol. Paragraph 3 provides for chemical compounds, mixtures, and salts, and although the merchandise may not be a chemical compound, mixture, or salt, the use of alcohol on the crude substance unquestionably produces some chemical change, and Congress having specifically provided for articles of such a description when containing alcohol or in which alcohol is used in its production, it would seem that the merchandise in question in material, quality, and use is similar to compounds or mixtures, alcoholic, provided for under paragraph 3 at 55 cents per pound. The collector having assessed that rate on the merchandise, his decision stands affirmed, the protests being overruled.

(T. D. 31803-G. A. 7260.)

Wool dress goods-Deduction of 5 per cent.

In applying the proviso to paragraph 380, tariff act of 1909, "That on all the foregoing, weighing over four ounces per square yard, the rates of duty shall be five per centum 1 ss than those imposed by this schedule on cloths," the 5 per cent in question is to be deducted from the total amount of duties and is not to be subtracted from the ad valorem rate.

United States General Appraisers, New York, August 7, 1911.

In the matter of protest 491792 of C. A. Auffmordt & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.

Before Board 1 (SHARRETTS, MCCLELLAND, and CHAMBERLAIN, General Appraisers; MCCLELLAND, G. A., absent).

CHAMBERLAIN, General Appraiser: This protest relates to wool dress goods weighing over 4 ounces per square yard, containing a cotton warp. The collector assessed duty thereon under paragraphs 378 and 380 of the tariff act of 1909, which, so far as applicable, read as follows:

378. On cloths,

for in this section, *

*

*

*

made wholly or in part of wool, not specially provided valued at over seventy cents per pound, the duty per pound shall be four times the duty imposed by this section on one pound of unwashed wool of the first-class and fifty-five per centum ad valorem. 380. On women's and children's dress goods, of which the warp consists wholly of cotton or other vegetable material with the remainder of the fabric composed wholly or in part of wool: Provided, That on all the foregoing, weighing over four ounces per square yard, the rates of duty shall be five per centum less than those imposed by this schedule on cloths.

* * *

The method pursued by the collector in determining the amount of duty was to figure the total amount at the rate of 44 cents per pound and 55 per cent ad valorem, from which amount he deducted 5 per cent, or one-twentieth. The protestants admit that this method is correct so far as it applies to the 44 cents per pound rate, but that it is incorrect as to the 55 per cent ad valorem rate; that in that case 5 per cent should be deducted from 55 per cent, leaving 50 per cent.

This contention is illogical in that it seeks to give one meaning to the proviso in so far as it relates to the specific rate and another when the ad valorem rate is in question. In the brief it is urged that the question is one of differentiation between "rate" and "amount": that the collector deducted 5 per cent from the amount instead of from the rate, as commanded by the proviso to paragraph 380. It is difficult to understand how different results can be arrived at by deducting 5 per cent from the amount in one case and 5 per cent from the rate in the other case. There can be no difference if each method is pursued with arithmetical correctness. The proviso to the paragraph would be subject to no different construction if, instead of saying “five per cent," it said the equivalent in other terms, namely, one-twentieth.

Would counsel for the importer under those circumstances contend that the collector was to deduct one-twentieth from the specific rate and one-eleventh, or 5 per cent, from the ad valorem rate? The ordinary dictionary definition of "five per centum less than" is "onetwentieth less than," and whether applied consistently to all the elements of the compound rate or to the amount the result must be the

same.

The protest is overruled and the decision of the collector affirmed.

(T. D. 31804.)

Abstracts of decisions of the Board of General Appraisers.

Board 1-Sharretts, McClelland, and Chamberlain.

Board 2-Fischer, Howell, and

Cooper. Board 3-Waite, Somerville, and Hay.

BEFORE BOARD 1, AUGUST 2, 1911.

No. 26228.-CHEMICAL GLASSWARE-GLASSWARE, PARTLY BLOWN.-Protests 28667026104, etc., of E. H. Sargent & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. The merchandise, which was classified as "blown glassware" under paragraph 100, tariff act of 1897, was found to consist of: (1) Cylinders, burettes, Erlenmeyer and other forms of flasks, funnels, desiccators, and other articles composed entirely of blown glass, such grinding as may have been applied thereto being for purposes other than for the fitting of stoppers; (2) dropping and weighing bottles, the same being used as containers for liquids or solids; (3) stopcocks, composed of blown and molded or pressed glass; and (4) one viscosimeter-an instrument designed for testing the viscosity of lubricating oils-composed of blown glass and metal. Protests overruled as to the first finding and sustained as to the other merchandise, which was held dutiable as molded glassware (par. 99) and manufactures of glass or metal (par. 112 or 193). United States . Heil (178 Fed. Rep., 537; T. D. 30492) followed.

No. 26229.-GUT STRINGS.-Protest 535728 of Eugene B. Baehr (New York).

Gut strings which were classified under paragraph 467, tariff act of 1909, as "strings for musical instruments" were held free of duty as catgut, unmanufactured (par. 529). SHARRETTS, General Appraiser: * The merchandise in question is comprised

*

in the last seven items on the invoice, and the exhibits in the case show it to be in a condition with regard to quality and finish which indicates that it is commercially unfit for use as strings for musical instruments, and the testimony shows that these strings are imported in coils of 100 feet in length; that they were designed for use as surgical ligatures, and that in tensile strength and finish they are so inferior to the strings suitable for use on musical instruments that their sole practical employment is as ligatures. They are thereby distinguished from the catgut strings passed upon by this board in the matter of protest 463411, G. A. 7250 (T. D. 31785).

We find the merchandise to be catgut in a crude condition, similar to that passed upon by the court in the case of Davies, Turner & Co. v. United States (115 Fed. Rep., 232), on the authority of which decision we sustain the protest.

No. 26230.-APRON LEATHER.-Protest 417578, etc., of F. L. Roberts & Co. et al. (Boston). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Protests sustained as to apron leather. followed.

United States r. Richards (T. D. 31548)

No. 26231.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.--Protests 339383, etc., of R. F. Lang et al. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Protests overruled for want of merit.

BEFORE BOARD 2, AUGUST 2, 1911.

No. 26232.-METAL HOES-FORGINGS.-Protest 367418 of Alfred Andresen & Co. (Minneapolis). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Metal hoes classified as manufactures of metal under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897, were held dutiable as steel forgings (par. 127), as claimed by the importers. Prosser v. United States (T. D. 31551) followed. Note G. A. 7243 (T. D. 31740). No. 26233.-CYLINDRICAL METAL CONTAINERS.-Protests 400584, etc., of F. H. Shallus et al. (Baltimore), protests 410796, etc., of Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co. (Boston), protests 436029-3588, etc, of Illinois Central Railroad Co. et al. (New Orleans), protests 406800, etc., of J. J. Buchey & Co. et al. (Philadelphia), protests 431925, etc., of Suers. De A Mayol & Co. et al. (San Juan), and protest 493707 of Arnold Hoffman & Co. (Savannah). Opinions by Fischer, G. A.

Cylindrical metal containers classified as cylindrical or tubular vessels under paragraph 151, tariff act of 1909, were held free of duty as the usual containers of free merchandise or dutiable at the rate applicable to their contents. United States v. Braun (T. D. 31596) followed.

No. 26234.-PARTS OF CLOCKS

"ESCAPEMENTS."-Protest 501559 of American

Express Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Escapements for clocks, jeweled and constructed upon the lever principle, classified under paragraph 192, tariff act of 1909, as “lever clock movements having jewels in the escapement," were held dutiable as parts of clocks under the same paragraph, as claimed by the importers.

No. 26235.-FILTERING PAPER.-Protests 472739, etc., of Justinian Caire Co. et al. (San Francisco). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Disks cut from filtering paper, ready for use in filtering, classified as a manufacture of filter paper under paragraph 420, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as filtering paper (par. 410). Protests sustained. Note Abstract 24511 (T. D. 31182).

No. 26236.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 303775-27128, etc., of American Shipping Co. et al., protest 496768-37521 of C. F. Baum Co., and protests 505426-38081, etc., of Bernard, Judae & Co. (Chicago), protest 489778 of Blake, Moffitt & Towne, and protest 491089 of H. Jevne Co. (Los Angeles), protest 504439-3766 of Illinois Central Railroad Co. (New Orleans), protests 497113, etc., of B. Altman & Co. et al., and protest 484740 of R. F. Lang (New York), and protests 475188, etc., of Atkins, Kroll & Co. et al., and protests 472773, etc., of Zellerbach Paper Co. et al. (San Francisco). Opinions by Fischer, G. A. Protests overruled for want of merit.

No. 26237.—PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 156816, etc., of Samuel Eiseman & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Protests overruled for want of merit.

BEFOLE BOARD 3, AUGUST 2, 1911.

No. 26238.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 469996, etc., of James A. Hayes & Co. et al. (Boston), and protests 472879, etc., of W. H. Jackson Co. et al., and protests 455643, etc., of United States Express Co. et al. (New York). Opinions by Waite, G. A.

Protests overruled for want of merit.

No. 26239.,-WASTE RUBBER.-Protest 484292 of R. F. Downing & Co. (Boston), and protest 491167 of J. L. Vandiver (Philadelphia). Opinions by Somerville, G. A.

New cuttings composed of cotton and india rubber, being the waste product from material used in the manufacture of weatherproof goods, and also new rubber balls which have been split and torn, classified under paragraph 479, tariff act of 1909, as waste not specially provided for, were claimed free of duty under paragraph 591 (scrap rubber worn out by use). Protests overruled.

No. 26240.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 477506-36344 of Marshall Field & Co., and protest 489759–36604 of Gallagher & Ascher (Chicago), and protests 462953, etc., of Pritchard, Verkruzen & Co. et al. (New York). Opinions by Somerville, G. A..

Protests overruled for want of merit.

No. 26241.-PAPER FANS.-Protest 467753 of Mason Bros. & Co. (Boston). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Fans made of tissue paper and classified under paragraph 410, tariff act of 1909, as manufactures of tissue paper, were held dutiable as manufactures of paper (420). Protest sustained. Note Downing v. United States (141 Fed. Rep., 490; T. D. 26454).

No. 26242.-PHILIPPINE PRODUCTS-DIRECT SHIPMENT.-Protests 424773, etc., of Isler & Guye et al. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

The importers claimed that Philippine products transshipped at Hongkong constituted a direct shipment within the meaning of section 5, tariff act of 1909, and are therefore entitled to admission free of duty. Protests sustained on the authority of Rhodes v. United States (T. D. 31637) and United States v. United Cigar Stores Co. (T. D. 31505).

No. 26243.-CLERICAL ERROR.-Protest 460305 of George A. Moore & Co. (San Francisco). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

The board sustained a claim for relief on the ground of clerical error.

No. 26244.—Printed Spark PLUGS.—l'rotests 461111, etc., of C. B. Richard & Co. (New York).

HAY, General Appraiser: The merchandise in question is invoiced as porcelain tubes, but, in the testimony, is generally referred to as china spark plugs. It is a small article of china or porcelain ware covered with a white glaze or enamel, upon which is found in small red letters the words "Made in Germany" and "Rajah.” It was assessed for duty by the collector under paragraph 93, which is the paragraph of the act of 1909 made to cover all articles of china, porcelain, etc., which are painted, colored, tinted, stained, enameled, gilded, printed, or ornamented or decorated in any manner.

The testimony tends to show that the words "Made in Germany" are placed upon the article in compliance with law, and the word "Rajah" is a trade-mark. The