otherwise hidden from view except when being used at prayers. Biblical pictures, on the other hand, whether the creation be in oil by one of the great masters or lithographic prints the work of an artisan, appeal to the artistic taste of the public, and although such pictures may inspire devotional feelings in those religiously inclined, they are intended for exhibition in art collections or to adorn the walls of private dwellings. In the present case, the lithographic pictures have been made more ornamental by mounting them in frames composed of beads. No proof having been offered touching the value of the beads as compared with that of the other materials composing the completed article, the presumption follows that they were correctly classified for duty as articles composed in chief value of beads. We find such to be the case. The protest is accordingly overruled and the col lector's decision affirmed. (T. D. 31968-G. A. 7291.) 1. METAL-THREAD BELTINGS-METAL THREAD-METAL. Congress has provided, in paragragh 179, tariff act of 1909, for metal thread as a material, and thus distinguished it from the material metal. The provision in paragraph 349 of said act for "beltings of cotton, india rubber, and metal" is, therefore, not applicable to metal-thread beltings. 2. SAME. * * * Beltings of metal thread, cotton, and india rubber, metal thread chief value, are dutiable as "beltings * in chief value of * * * * paragraph 179, tariff act of 1909, and not as "beltings * * * metal threads," under * of cotton, * * * india rubber, and metal," under paragraph 349 of said act, the provision in paragraph 179 being unlimited, while that in paragraph 349 is qualified by the phrase "not elsewhere specially provided for." United States General Appraisers, New York, October 27, 1911. In the matter of protests 487988, etc., of M. L. Eckstein & Co. et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (FISCHER, HOWELL, and COOPER, General Appraisers). FISCHER, General Appraiser: The claim of the importers in these cases is against the classification of certain beltings which are reported to be made up of metal thread, cotton, and india rubber, metal thread chief value. The provision under which the said goods were assessed (par. 179, tariff act of 1909) reads: Beltings, * * * made wholly or in chief value of * fifteen cents per pound and sixty per centum ad valorem. metal threads, The provision under which it is claimed that the goods should have been classified (par. 349) reads: * * Beltings, * of cotton, flax, or other vegetable fiber, india rubber, and metal and not elsewhere specially provided for in this section, sixty per centum ad valorem. If both of these provisions are comprehensive enough to cover the articles, and we think they are, it follows that the provision for beltings in chief value of metal threads (unqualified) controls over the provision for beltings of cotton, india rubber, and metal, which is limited by the words "not elsewhere specially provided for in this section." Paragraph 179 accurately describes the imported merchandise and provides specifically for a belting in chief value of "metal threads" without regard to the other materials composing it, and we believe it controls over the provision which, while it also includes the article, is qualified by the phrase "not elsewhere specially provided for." The classification of the article necessarily falls under the unqualified provision. There is another reason why in our opinion the provision in paragraph 179 must prevail over that in paragraph 349. Congress has provided for "metal thread" as a material and has thus distinguished it from the material "metal." Note the ruling of the board in G. A. 4734 (T. D. 22381). It has been urged that this construction would in part nullify the provision in paragraph 349. We can not take that view of the matter. The provision in paragraph 349 may well apply to elastic goods of cotton ornamented with metal, such as metalstudded belting, and to elastic belts with metal buckles, and as to such merchandise no question could be raised. But in these cases the merchandise is composed of cotton, india rubber, and metal thread, and not of cotton, india rubber, and metal, and as the textile component of chief value in the belting is the metal thread the goods have been properly classified by the collector. The protests are hereby overruled. (T. D. 31969-G. A. 7292.) * * Dropping bottles composed of flint glass blown in a mold, having glass stoppers ground to fit the necks of the bottles, which, when properly adjusted make the bottles air tight, in which stoppers there are two grooves corresponding with two grooves on the inner surface of the neck of each bottle, the word "ether" appearing on the side of each bottle, which, as well as the grooves, was produced in molding, are not dutiable as "bottles, * printed" under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, but are dutiable as "molded or pressed and flint, lime, or lead glass bottles * * suitable for use as and of the character ordinarily employed as containers for the holding or transportation of merchandise, and not as appliances or implements in chemical or other operations," under paragraph 97 of said act. * United States General Appraisers, New York, October 30, 1911. In the matter of protest 485570 of Surgical Supply Importing 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). SHARRETTS, General Appraiser: The merchandise in question consists of flint-glass bottles known as dropping bottles, of which there are several varieties on the market, some merely having a lip projecting from the rim, others a pipette inserted in the bottle, and still others, like these now in question, having glass stoppers ground to fit the necks of the bottles, in which there are two grooves corresponding with those on the inner surface of the neck of each bottle. The stopper when properly adjusted permits the fluid contents of the bottle to escape a drop at a time. By turning the stopper sufficiently to break the connection between the grooves, the bottles become the ordinary air-tight containers for volatile fluids. The word "ether" in raised letters that appear on the side of each bottle, as well as the grooves referred to, was produced in molding the articles and not by any of the processes named in paragraph 98. The collector's classification of the merchandise as "bottles, printed" consequently is erroneous; nevertheless, we are required to decide whether it is dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 98, act of 1909, as assessed, perforce of the provisions thereof for "bottles * * blown either in a mold or otherwise," or, as claimed by the importer, under paragraph 97 at not less than 40 per cent ad valorem as "molded or pressed, and flint, lime, or lead glass bottles" suitable for use as and "of the character ordinarily employed as containers for the holding or transportation of merchandise, and not as appliances or implements in chemical or other operations." * Bottles of a form and description that can only be blown free-handed unquestionably fall for duty under paragraph 98. All glass bottles and bottle glassware, including ordinary containers, however, are blown in a mold, as may be seen by referring to standard authorities. (See Ure's Dictionary of Arts, etc., pp. 652 and 653, and Spon's Encyclopædia of Manufactures, p. 1076.) Indeed, from common knowledge we know that bottles, being larger at the base than at the neck, can only be made by blowing; hence, if we adhere literally to the language of paragraph 98, all bottles are classifiable thereunder to the effacement of paragraph 97. Statutes, however, must be construed so as to be harmonious in all parts and effect be given, as far as practicable, to every word and phrase employed by the legislators. So well known is this rule that it is not necessary to cite an authority in its support. We must therefore conclude that, within the intent of Congress, all molded glass bottles, although necessarily blown, that fulfill all of the conditions of paragraph 97, are dutiable thereunder unless they have been subjected to some one or more of the superadded processes named in paragraph 98. It is thought worthy of remark that it occasionally happens that common flint-glass bottles, serving no use other than as containers, are crudely marked with a small number by a process similar to etching. These numbers serve no purpose except for the orderly arrangement in classes of such bottles on the shelves of apothecaries or in chemical laboratories. So trifling and unimportant in the process of manufacture are these designating marks that, under the principle of de minimis non curat lex, they do not, in our opinion, amount to etching within the intendment of the law. The bottles in question are common flint-glass bottles, not appliances or instruments in chemical or other operations, and are intended for use as containers for ether, the dropping device and inscription being produced in the process of molding the bottles for the convenience of consumers. We accordingly hold that the merchandise in question is dutiable at the appropriate specific rate or at not less than 40 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 97 of the tariff act of 1909, to which extent the protest is sustained, the collector's decision being reversed. (T. D. 31970-G. A. 7293.) Silk ribbons. Silk ribbons known as St. Etienne ribbons, not exceeding 12 inches in width and having fast edges, are properly dutiable under the denominative provision for ribbons in paragraph 401, tariff act of 1909. United States General Appraisers, New York, October 30, 1911. In the matter of protests 430566-33634, etc., of Gage Bros. & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Chicago. Before Board 2 (FISCHER, HOWELL, and COOPER, General Appraisers). HOWELL, General Appraiser: It appears from the report of the appraiser at the port of Chicago, where this case arises, that the goods in question are what are known as St. Etienne ribbons. They were classified as silk trimmings dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909, and are claimed to be dutiable under the provision in paragraph 401 of said act for silk ribbons not exceeding 12 inches in width, having fast edges and not embroidered n any manner. The goods appear to be in all respects similar to those held by this board and the courts to be dutiable under the tariff act of 1897 as silk trimmings. Loewenthal e. United States, decided by the Court of Customs Appeals (T. D. 31592), and cases therein cited. In the tariff act of 1897 there was no denominative provision for ribbons, and as goods like those here in question were found to have been known commercially as trimmings, they were held to be dutiable under the eo nomine provision for trimmings in paragraph 390 of said act. The decisions approving of such classification under the tariff act of 1897 recognized the fact that the term "trimmings" is a comprehensive one, and may include articles which have a more specific name in the trade, but which nevertheless fall within the more general term and are dutiable thereunder in the absence of more specific enumeration. In the tariff act of 1909 ribbons of the character of those before us are denominatively provided for in paragraph 401, and this specific enumeration operates to take them out of the more general provision for trimmings. The protests are accordingly sustained, and the decision of the collector in each case is reversed. (T. D. 31971.) 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, OCTOBER 23, 1911. No. 26927.-GLASS KNOBS.-Protest 493604 of F. H. Shallus (Baltimore). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Glass knobs molded or pressed, but not blown, classified as articles of glass blown in a mold under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as manufactures of glass (par. 109), as claimed by the importer. No. 26928.-TOY MOVING-PICTURE FILMS.-Protests 408057, etc., of A. Forster & Co. et al. (Philadelphia.) Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Protest sustained as to toy moving-picture films on the authority of Abstract 26498 (T. D. 31851). No. 26929.-TOY JEWELRY.-Protests 314550, etc., of Moses Norris et al. (Baltimore). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Protests sustained as to toy jewelry. G. A. 7251 (T. D. 31786) followed. No. 26930.-IMITATION JET-ARTICLES OF PERSONAL ADORNMENT ARTICLES OF UTILITY.-Protest 438326 of J. W. Hampton, jr., & Co., and protests 503016, etc., of Oppenheimer-Brussel Importing Co. (New York). Opinions by Sharretts, G. A. Protests sustained as to imitation jet articles on the authority of United States v. Beierle (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 457; T. D. 31506), and as to smokers' articles and other articles of utility on the authority of G. A. 7129 (T. D. 31089). No. 26931.-ENAMEL COLORS.-Protests 347702, etc., of O. Hommel Co. (Pittsburgh). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Protests sustained as to enamel colors. United States v. Marsching (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 216; T. D. 31257) followed. No. 26932.-WALRUS LEATHER-ROUGH LEATHER.-Protests 408144, etc., of Greene, Tweed & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Leather classified as not specially provided for under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909, was claimed to be dutiable as rough leather under the same paragraph. Protests sustained. Abstract 23769 (T. D. 30828) -followed. |