(T. D. 31736.) Peeled melon seeds. Appeal directed from decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of May 12, 1911, Abstract 25572 (T. D. 31589), involving the classification of peeled melon seeds. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 8, 1911. SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo, relative to the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of May 12, 1911, Abstract 25572 (T. D. 31589), wherein it is held that certain peeled melon seeds, which were assessed with duty as seeds under paragraph 266 of the tariff act of 1909, were properly dutiable as unenumerated articles under paragraph 480 of the said act at 10 per cent ad valorem. In view of the importance of the issue, you are hereby requested to file, in the name of the Secretary of the Treasury, an application with the United States Court of Customs Appeals for a review of the said decision, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 29 of section 28 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. Respectfully, Mr. WILLIAM K. PAYNE, R. O. BAILEY, Assistant Secretary. Deputy Assistant Attorney General, New York. (T. D. 31737.) Drawback on asbestos packing, wound cloth packing, gaskets, and asbestos roofing. Drawback on asbestos sheet packing, wound cloth packing, and gaskets manufactured by the H. W. Johns-Manville Co., of New York City, with the use of imported asbestos cloth, and asbestos roofing manufactured with the use of imported burlap. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 8, 1911. SIR: Drawback is hereby allowed under section 25 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, on asbestos sheet packing, asbestos metallic sheet packing, wound cloth packing, and gaskets manufactured by H. W. Johns-Manville Co., of New York City, with the use of imported asbestos cloth, and also on asbestos roofing manufactured by this company with the use of imported burlap. The allowance in the case of the roofing shall not exceed 40 lineal feet of burlap 32 inches in width for each roll (one square), or 80 lineal feet of 32-inch burlap for each roll (two squares). In the case of the gaskets and the several kinds of packing the allowance for imported asbestos cloth shall not exceed 52.6 per cent of the net weight of the exported article. The manufacturer's sworn statements of January 4, 1902, and April 15, 1907, are now on file in your office, and the statements and schedules dated May 26, 1911, are transmitted herewith for filing. Respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. (T. D. 31738.) R. O. BAILEY, Quarantine regulations Additional precautions against cholera. [Circular No. 45.] TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 6, 1911. To National, State, and local quarantine officers, collectors of customs, shipowners and agents, and others concerned: The following additions to the Quarantine Regulations of the Treasury Department issued October 20, 1910, under the act of Congress approved February 15, 1893, are hereby promulgated and shall remain in force until otherwise ordered: CHOLERA BACILLUS CARRIERS. To diminish the danger from cholera bacillus carriers, steerage passengers coming from ports or places where cholera prevails and arriving on vessels upon which cholera has appeared shall be detained 10 days for observation unless after 5 days' detention they are found not to be bacillus carriers. The same provision shall also apply to other persons arriving on said vessels who for special reasons are deemed liable to be thus infected. FOOD PRODUCTS BROUGHT BY STEERAGE PASSENGERS FROM PORTS OR PLACES INFECTED WITH CHOLERA. Attention is called to paragraph 27 of the Special Regulations on Account of Cholera, to be enforced at foreign ports, which provides as follows: 27. Certain food products, viz, unsalted meats, sausages, dressed poultry, fresh butter, fresh milk (unsterilized), fresh cheese, coming from cholera-infected localities or through such localities, if exposed to infection therein, should not be shipped. Fresh fruits and vegetables from districts where cholera prevails shall be shipped only under such sanitary supervision as will enable the inspector to certify that they have not been exposed to infection. At domestic ports, to supplement the above regulation, it is hereby ordered that food products brought by steerage passengers or members of the crew from ports or places where cholera prevails, in violation of paragraph 27, Quarantine Regulations, whether brought in trunks, hand baggage, or on the persons of the immigrants or members of the crew, shall be removed to the quarantine station. Said food products and others, including water supplies, which in the opinion of the quar antine officer may be infected, shall be destroyed or held until by careful examination it is determined that they are free from infection, and if allowed entry must be accompanied by a written certificate in each case. R. O. BAILEY, Acting Secretary. (T. D. 31739-G. A. 7242.) Jute card waste. 1. CERTAIN WASTE PRODUCTS SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR. Paragraph 479 of the tariff act of 1909, and paragraph 463 of the act of 1897, provide specially for all waste products not otherwise provided for in said acts, and require the assessment of said products at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem. 2. SAME. Jute card waste, which is a by-product produced in the process of manufacturing jute by rejection from cards or combing machines, Held to be dutiable under the one or other of said paragraphs as "waste, not specially provided for," according to whether the importation was made under the tariff act of 1909 or the act of 1897, and is not free of duty under paragraph 578 of the act of 1909, or under paragraph 566 of the act of 1897, as "jute * * * not dressed or manufactured in any manner." The fact that the material itself remains jute is irrelevant. 3. SAME-NOT PAPER STOCK. Such merchandise, being chiefly used for other purposes than manufacturing paper, is excluded from classification under either paragraph 644 of the act of 1909, or paragraph 632 of the act of 1897. United States General Appraisers, New York, July 6, 1911. In the matter of protests 336301, etc., of Salomon Bros. & Co. et al. against the assessment of duty by the collectors and surveyor of customs at the ports of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Newport News, and Cincinnati. Before Board 3 (WAITE, SOMERVILLE, and HAY, General Appraisers; HAY, G. A., absent). SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser: The importations covered by the protests in the appended schedule consist of jute card waste, properly represented by the samples marked Exhibits 1 and 2." Some of these importations were made under the tariff of 1909 and others under the tariff act of 1897. It is expressly stipulated between counsel that the two samples referred to correctly represent each of the importations. The question involved is the same as applicable to each of the protests. The merchandise imported under the tariff act of 1909 was all assessed for duty under paragraph 479 of said act at 10 per cent ad valorem, as "waste, not specially provided for" in said act. That imported under the tariff act of 1897 was assessed under the analogous paragraph 463 of that act, also as "waste, not specially provided for. The protests respectively claim that the importations made under the tariff act of 1909 are free of duty either under paragraph 644 of said act as jute card waste used chiefly for paper making, or else free of duty under paragraph 578 of said act, which reads as follows: 578. Grasses and fibers: Istle or Tampico fiber, jute, jute butts, manila, sisal grass, sunn, and all other textile grasses or fibrous vegetable substances, not dressed or manufactured in any manner, and not specially provided for in this section. Similar claims are made as to the importations under the act of 1897, the importers specifying paragraph 632 of said act, as jute card waste fit only to be converted into paper, and paragraph 566, which is identical in language with said paragraph 578 of the act of 1909. In some of the protests other claims are made, but not insisted on. The testimony shows unquestionably that the jute card waste under consideration is used chiefly for other purposes than paper making. In fact, there is no testimony tending to show that it is used for the manufacture of paper. The main contention relied on is that jute card waste of the kind under consideration is free of duty as "jute * * not dressed or manufactured in any manner, and not specially provided for" in other parts of either of said tariff acts. * The illustrative samples introduced in evidence throw but little, if any, light upon the proper classification of the merchandise in ques tion. The local appraiser in several instances has reported this jute card waste as of the same character as that passed on by the board In re Hampton, G. A. 5837 (T. D. 25745), which was held to be dutiable under paragraph 463 of the tariff act of 1897 as waste not specially provided for and not free of duty under paragraph 632 of said act. The testimony shows that jute card waste is a species of waste produced in the process of carding or combing jute, being the inferior part of the jute rejected by the combs or cards. The contention of the importers reduces itself to this proposition-that although the article in question consists of jute card waste and is a waste, it nevertheless must be considered as jute, because it is not dressed or manufactured in any manner, and therefor free of duty under one or the other of the paragraphs of the tariff acts referred to. The tariff act specially makes provision for various kinds of waste products which have been uniformly held subject to duty as waste not otherwise provided for, being generally a by-product produced in the process of manufacture. No one has ever successfully contended that these products cease to be of the same material as the merchandise from which they were produced. For example, in the Standard Varnish Works 2. United States (59 Fed. Rep., 456), where the word "waste" as used in tariff acts is defined, waste rope and waste bagging were said to be “no new creation, but the same in substance as bagging or rope," though unfitted for the purpose for which bagging and rope are intended generally. So with old gunny bagging assessed as waste under paragraph 463 of the tariff act of 1897. Train-Smith v. United States (107 Fed. Rep., 261), affirming G. A. 4406 (T. D. 20960); In re Oberle & Henry, G. A. 7194 (T. D. 31447). It is manifest that cotton waste, which is free of duty, would not cease to be the material of cotton. So, rubber waste would continue to be rubber, and a like principle applies to all other articles known as waste. The contention of the importers is considered by the board to be entirely untenable. All of the protests are overruled and the decisions of the collectors affirmed in each instance. (T. D. 31740-G. A. 7243.) Metal hoes. HOES-FORGINGS-PROCESS SUBSEQUENT TO FORGING. Grinding hoes rough forged from steel bars for the purpose of removing the burr from the edges is not an advancement "in condition by any process or operation subsequent to the forging process," within the meaning of paragraph 123, tariff act of 1909, but is incidental to the forging. Such hoes are dutiable under said paragraph 123 as "forgings" rather than as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199 of said act. United States General Appraisers, New York, July 6, 1911. In the matter of protest 398488 of Alfred Anderson & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Minneapolis. Before Board 2 (FISCHER, HOWELL, and COOPER, General Appraisers; COOPER, G. A., absent). FISCHER, General Appraiser: The merchandise consists of metal hoes upon which duty was assessed at 45 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, as manufactures of metal, and which are claimed dutiable at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 123, as forgings of steel. The metal hoes are first rough forged from steel bars, and then the burr left on the edge is removed by passing it over a grindstone. The said articles are not further manipulated, but it would appear that to prevent them from rusting they are dipped in oil prior to being shipped. The question at issue is whether these articles have been advanced beyond the forging process. The provision for "forgings," paragraph 123 of the act of 1909, is qualified as follows: But not machined, tooled, or otherwise advanced in condition by any process or operation subsequent to the forging process. As we understand the term "forgings," so restricted, it would still apply to and include articles of the kind here in question. The metal forging has not been machined or tooled, but merely ground for the purpose of removing the burr from the edge of the hoes. The burr might be removed by a hammer and anvil, but that would greatly enhance the cost of the article, and it appears that the grindstone is the more economical means of accomplishing the result as well as one of the improved methods of removing surplus material by the forging process. In Prosser & Son v. United States (T. D. 31551) the United States Court of Customs Appeals held that "the terms of extensions in paragraph 127 [act of 1897], if they mean anything, mean the inclusion |