(4) cabochons and other millinery ornaments composed in chief value of metal thread, ornamented with an imitation precious stone (not imitation jet) sewn or pasted upon a buckram backing; (5) millinery ornaments composed wholly or in chief value of brass or brass set with imitation precious stones; (6) hatpins with steel shafts and heads made of glass or paste imitating a single pearl, diamond, or other precious stone, set in a metal cuff or cap; the shaft of the batpin extends through this cap and is fitted permanently into a hole in the head of the pin by gluing, cementing, or soldering; (7) artificial feathers composed of straw and natural quills identical with those held by this board in protest 429666 to be dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 438 of the tariff act of 1909; (8) millinery ornaments composed in chief value of beads, having imitation precious stones sewn to the buck ram foundation thereof. All of the foregoing merchandise was assessed with duty at a rate equivalent to 85 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 448 of the tariff act of 1909, except the artificial feathers, which were assessed at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 438. The argument advanced in behalf of the importers that the provision for articles set with imitation precious stones applies only to articles set with imitation diamonds, rubies, sapphires, or emeralds needs hardly to be taken seriously. Regarding entries dating as far back as 1890, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in Hahn v. United States (100 Fed. Rep., 635), held that the term "precious stones" embraced not only the diamond, sapphire, pearl, opal, and turquoise, but also the garnet, beryl, topaz, rock crystal, etc. Under three successive tariff acts the court's interpretation in the case cited of the meaning of the term "precious stones" has been accepted as conclusive and controlling. During a like period it has been held by the Board of General Appraisers and the courts that the term “imitation precious stones" had a commercial meaning that included imitations of every description of precious stones, even such as were very poor imitations thereof. Because Congress, probably out of abundant precaution, provided for both the superior and inferior grades of precious stones under the designation of precious and semiprecious stones, is hardly a cogent reason for departing from a practice so long followed and acquiesced in. It is not conceivable that Congress intended the involved clause in paragraph 448 to be construed as if reading articles of personal adornment set with imitation diamonds, rubies, sapphires, and emeralds (except imitation jet). We can reach no such conclusion and dismiss the importers' claim based upon such a principle. Nor can we concur in the soundness of the importers' contention that the word "set" must be given the restricted meaning applied thereto by jewelers accustomed to setting in precious metals, diamonds rubies, sapphires, emeralds, and pearls. The term "set" has a different and more extended meaning among manufacturers of cheap jewelry, and it is this class of jewelry that paragraph 448 treats of, except in the last clause, that has no application to the present case. Millinery ornaments, pins, brooches, buckles, etc., costing as little as 13 cents each can not profitably be set with imitation precious stones by skilled labor such as is employed in setting genuine precious stones. In our opinion cheap jewelry and articles of the description provided for in the first clause of paragraph 448 are "set" when each stone is permanently fastened in metal to display it. This conclusion is justified by years of observation and the consideration of litigated cases involving the classification of millinery ornaments and cheap jewelry, and accords with the dictionary definition of the word "set": Standard: Set. To place in a frame or mounting; fasten or partially inclose, as a gem, in gold, silver, or other metal so as to at once support and display it. Webster: Set.—To fix, as a precious stone in metal; to fix in metal; hence, to place in or amid something which embellishes and shows off. The hatpins included in class 6 are ornamented with imitation precious stones fixed in and partly surrounded by a brass cap, and we find they and also the ornaments described in class 5 are articles of personal adornment valued at more than 20 cents per dozen pieces set with imitation precious stones, not imitation jet, or composed wholly or in chief value of brass, and hold they were correctly classified and assessed with duty by the collector, whose decision relative thereto, as also his decision with regard to the artificial feathers included in class 7, is affirmed, the protests covering said articles being overruled. We next turn to a consideration of (a) millinery ornaments composed in chief value of straw and metal threads respectively, having imitation precious stones composed of paste (not imitation jet) pasted or sewn thereon, and (b) millinery ornaments set severally with both imitation jet and imitation precious stones other than jet. Within the popular understanding precious stones and imitations thereof are only set when fixed in or partly surrounded by metal, and there is no evidence before the board that the commercial understanding differs from the lexicographer's definition of the word "set," and, in the absence of proof, we must presume that such is not the fact. Indeed, a careful study of paragraph 448 leads us to conclude that Congress intended that imitation precious stones set included only such as were set in metal. The paragraph cited, after enumerating a long list of articles, imposes a duty of 85 per cent thereon if "set with imitation precious stones composed of glass or paste (except imitation jet) or if composed wholly or in chief value of silver, German silver, white metal, brass, or gun metal." The juxtaposition of the two provisions taken in conjunction with the fact that the entire paragraph deals exclusively with wares composed wholly or in part of metal, coupled with the further provision for all stampings and materials of metal or of metal set with glass or paste for use in the manufacture of any of the foregoing articles, is very persuasive of congressional intent to limit the application of the words "set with imitation precious stones" to such as are set in metal, regardless of whether metal or imitation precious stones is the component of chief value. In G. A. 7195 (T. D. 31448) this board, in passing upon certain articles of personal adornment set with imitation precious stones that were actually set in metal, said that all articles of personal adornment valued at not less than 20 cents per. dozen pieces (except such as are commonly and commercially known as jewelry composed of gold or platinum) if set with imitation. precious stones composed of glass or paste (except imitation jet), without regard to the materials of which the articles were composed or the relative value of the component parts, were dutiable at 85 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 448. It was not intended to make the scope of the decision as broad as the language thereof would seem to warrant, for, although holding then, as we now do, that imitation precious stones, set, have to be fixed or fastened in metal, there are many articles ornamented with imitation precious stones that are not set with imitation precious stones, although the stones themselves may be set. This board reached a like conclusion in G. A. 7097 (T. D. 30929), wherein it was held that silk gowns ornamented with imitation precious stones were not set with such stones. The rule of construction adopted by the board and acquiesced in by the Treasury Department is that only articles of a kindred nature therein enumerated in paragraph 448 are included in the provisions thereof. Millinery orna ments are denominatively provided for in paragraph 448. Some of those here in question, however, lack the essential requirement of being either set with imitation precious stones or composed wholly or in chief value of silver, German silver, white metal, brass, or gun metal. Regarding the millinery ornaments composed of iron or steel set with imitation jet and also imitation precious stones, of which imitation jet is of far greater value than the other two materials combined, we hold that inasmuch as they are excluded from paragraph 448 as articles set with and composed in chief value of imitation jet, and, not being composed in any part of silver, German silver, white metal, brass, or gun metal, they do not fall for duty as returned by the collector under paragraph 448. Aside from the fact that the frames of the articles in question are iron or steel, and not either or any of the metals named in paragraph 448, we think that the classification of such articles depends upon which of the two substances, namely, imitation jet or imitation precious stones other than jet, is the greater in value. In accordance with the views herein expressed, we sustain the claim in the protests that the merchandise of the description included in classes 1 and 8 is dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraphs 402 and 421, respectively, class 2 at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 463, class 3 at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 109, and that included in class 4 at 15 cents per pound and 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 179 of the tariff act of 1909 as per schedule annexed. As to all other goods and in all other respects the protests are overruled. The collector's decision is modified accordingly. (T. D. 31810-G. A. 7262.) Precipitated carbonate of baryta - Chemical salt. The provision for witherite in paragraph 711, tariff act of 1909, is limited in its application only to the natural crude mineral ore, and does not include precipitated carbonate of baryta, which, being a chemical salt, is provided for under paragraph 3 of said act at 25 per cent ad valorem. United States General Appraisers, New York, August 8, 1911. In the matter of protests 427436, etc., of Gabriel & Schall 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: The question at issue is whether certain precipitated carbonate of baryta is dutiable as a chemical salt under paragraph 3, tariff act of 1909, at 25 per cent ad valorem as assessed, or free of duty under paragraph 711 of said act as witherite, as claimed by the importers. The importers have submitted these cases on the record made in the case of United States v. Gabriel & Schall (T. D. 31108), and were the tariff act of 1897 still in force we would not hesitate in sustaining the claim in the protests. But a different state of facts exists in the case at bar. Paragraph 489 of the tariff act of 1897 reads as follows: 489. Baryta, carbonate of, or witherite. Paragraph 711 of the present tariff reads: 711. Witherite. In order for the importers to succeed it must be shown that the precipitated carbonate of baryta and witherite are one and the same thing. Witherite is a natural mineral ore, a natural carbonate found in the southern part of Scotland. It is a crude article containing impurities such as calcium carbonate, silica, and iron. Precipitated car 7680 VOL 21-11-9 bonate of baryta, on the other hand, is a highly refined article, artificially made, uniform and white in appearance. The evidence further discloses the fact that commercially precipitated carbonate of baryta and witherite are two distinct articles. An order for witherite would not be filled by substituting precipitated carbonate of baryta. Neither are the substances chemically alike. A further cogent reason assignable why the claim of the protestants can not be sustained is the fact that in enacting the provision for witherite the framers of the present tariff act no doubt had in mind the decision of the court in Gabriel v. United States (121 Fed. Rep., 208), wherein it was held that precipitated carbonate of baryta was free under the provisions of the law then in force for carbonate of baryta, and in order to remedy the defect Congress eliminated the provision for carbonate of baryta and merely provided for witherite, the natural crude mineral ore. We find the merchandise in question to be a chemical salt, not witherite, and hold it dutiable as assessed. The protests are overruled and the decision of the collector in each case is affirmed. (T. D. 31811-G. A. 7263.) Woolen overcoat lined with fur. A woolen overcoat lined with fur, fur being the component material of chief value, is dutiable under paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909, as wearing apparel in chief value of fur, and not under paragraph 382 as wearing apparel in part of wool, the former provision being more specific than the latter. United States General Appraisers, New York, August 8, 1911. In the matter of protest 453649 of A. J. Woodruff & 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: The merchandise under protest consists of a woolen overcoat lined with fur, fur being the component material of chief value. The collector assessed a duty of 44 cents per pound and 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 382 of the tariff act of 1909, basing his action on the ground that as the provisions for wool wearing apparel and that for fur wearing apparel were equally specific, the higher rate is applicable in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 481 of said act. The coat is claimed to be dutiable under paragraph 439 at 50 per cent ad valorem as wearing apparel composed in chief value of fur. The provision for wearing apparel composed of or of which fur is the component material of chief value is new matter that did not appear in the act of 1897, and the question to be determined is whether the |