70), and the provision for smokers' articles covering only such articles as are designed to be used chiefly by smokers, we are of opinion that this class of articles is not dutiable under this provision.

As to the second class of articles in dispute, the case is different. These articles are of various kinds, but a description of certain representative exhibits will serve to show their general character.

Exhibit I, protest 92546f, is a table made of wood, about 30 inches high, the top being only 12 inches in diameter, cut out in fancy scroll form and mounted on a wooden column, from which branch out three legs. On the top, are fixed (1) a wooden jar, 6 inches high and 3 inches in diameter, intended to hold cigars; (2) a similar wooden jar containing a brass cup, intended to hold matches; (3) another small wooden jar, with a brass cup, intended for receiving ashes; (4) a cigar cutter with a porcelain dish attached to catch and hold the cut off tips. Some of the tables covered by the protests have racks for holding cigars instead of jars, some have metal attachments on which to strike matches, and others have a candlestick attached.

Exhibit 2, protest 92389f, is a stand, and is similar to the top of the table just described with similar fixtures attached, but it is smaller in diameter than the table tops.

Exhibit 2, protest 97757f, is a stand similar to Exhibit 2, protest 92389f, but is made of metal. On this there is no cigar cutter, but

a place to strike matches.

Exhibit 4, protest 92389 ƒ, represents an automobile made chiefly of wood with a cup for holding matches, an ash receiver, a rack for cigars, and a cigar cutter.

It is claimed by the importers that the articles represented by the four exhibits just described are intended for use only as ornaments. They are described on some of the invoices as smokers' tables, smokers' sets, and smokers' stands, and it is not denied that they are so known, that they are used for practical purposes by smokers, and that aside from their use as ornaments they have no use other than by smokers.

A number of witnesses introduced on behalf of the importers gave testimony to the effect that they sold such articles to department stores, that they are not sold in cigar stores, and that they are usually purchased by women for presentation as holiday gifts; but there was no evidence to show that they were not smokers' articles to all intents and purposes, and designed for the exclusive and sole use of smokers. The fact that an article may be incidentally ornamental can not, of course, change its classification.

We find from the evidence

1. That the articles covered by protest 97757 f, invoice 976, and described thereon as wooden jars and contained in case 7329, are

jars composed entirely of wood, whose chief use is by others than smokers, and that they are not smokers' articles.

2. That the articles covered by said protest and invoice and contained in case 7333 are pipe racks in the form of horses' heads, composed entirely of metal, that their chief use is by others than smokers, and that they are not smokers' articles.

3. That the articles covered by said protest and invoice and contained in case 7336 are snuffboxes composed entirely of papiermaché; that their chief use is by others than smokers, and that they are not smokers' articles.

4. That the articles covered by said protest and invoice and contained in case 7345 are bags composed entirely of leather; that their chief use is by others than smokers, and that they are not smokers' articles.

5. That the articles covered by protest 92389f, invoice 4544, and designated by the item numbers 2316 and 2356 are ash and pin trays, composed entirely of metal; that their chief use is by others than smokers, and that they are not smokers' articles.

6. That the articles covered by protest 92389 f, invoice 19244, and designated by the item numbers 4141, 4142, and 4143 on said invoice, and all articles covered by protest 94638 f are smokers' tables, represented by Exhibit 1, protest 92546 f, whose chief use is by smokers, and that they are smokers' articles.

7. That the articles covered by said protest and invoice, other than the articles designated on said invoice by the item numbers 4141, 4142, and 4143, also item No. 2333 covered by said protest, and invoice No. 4544, and all items covered by this protest, invoice No. 1820, are smokers' stands, represented by Exhibit 2, protest 92389f, whose chief use is by smokers; that they are not house furniture, and that they are smokers' articles.

8. That the articles covered by protest 97757f and contained in case 7332 are smokers' stands, represented by Exhibit 2, protest 97757 f, whose chief use is by smokers; that they are not house furniture, and that they are smokers' articles.

9. That the articles covered by protest 6344h are automobiles, represented by Exhibit 4, protest 92389f, whose chief use is by smokers; that they are not house furniture, and that they are smokers' articles.

All the exhibits before us are, as before mentioned, only representative, and do not constitute all the articles in controversy, but the general proposition may be stated that where the principal use of the article is by smokers, even though it may be ornamental in its character, it is a smokers' article; but where the use by smokers is only incidental, the chief use of the article being by others than smokers, it is not a smokers' article.

But the importers urge as matter of law that even if these articles be smokers' articles they are not the class of articles contemplated by paragraph 459, and that only articles ejusdem generis with those mentioned in the paragraph fall within its provisions. G. A. 994 is cited by the importers in support of this contention. The merchandise there passed upon consisted of cigar-moistening cabinets. These cabinets had compartments intended to hold cigars and tobacco, and another for holding a wet sponge whose purpose was to keep the cigars and tobacco moist. The Board held that such articles were not dutiable as smokers' articles for the reason that they were not ejusdem generis with the articles mentioned in the paragraph. The Board said:

*

*

*

In our opinion, the contention of the appellant is well founded. Many articles designed for the convenience of, and used chiefly by, smokers are not within the meaning of the term "smokers' articles." The provisions of paragraph 468, act of 1890, would seem to limit smokers' articles to cigarette books, cigarette book covers, pouches for smoking or chewing tobacco, cigarette paper in all forms, and other articles appertaining to cigars or smoking tobacco, such as are usually carried about the person of a smoker. The Treasury Department has for many years held that ash receivers and articles of furniture of a kind used exclusively by smokers were not dutiable as smokers' articles. We concur in the correctness of that ruling.

The Treasury rulings here referred to are evidently T. D. 4559 and T. D. 7245. An examination of these rulings does not sustain the language above quoted. The Department did not hold that articles used exclusively by smokers were not smokers' articles, but it did hold that certain smokers' tables were house furniture and were dutiable as such, because, in thé Department's opinion, the provision for household furniture was more specific than that for smokers' articles.

The following language used in T. D. 4559, which was followed in T. D. 7245, without discussion, shows this:

It bears no similarity to any of the articles named in the clause relating to smokers' articles, and while this provision has been heretofore construed as not being necessarily limited to articles of the same character as those which are embraced therein, the Department is of opinion that in the present case the articles should be classified under the provision for furniture, that being a more specific provision than that for smokers' articles.

T. D. 3692 is also in point. There the question arose under the same act as that passed on in T. D. 4559 as to the classification of certain so-called cane pipes described as follows:

Walking sticks of the ordinary length, with a handle extending horizontally from the top end, and from 2 to 3 inches in length. This handle contains a pipe bowl which is uncovered by unscrewing the end of the handle. The lower end of the cane, about 6 or 8 inches from the end, contains a mouthpiece, which is also uncovered by unscrewing the lower end of the stick.

The Department found "that these articles are clearly made for and intended to be used by smokers only, and as such are dutiable as pipes."

Here unquestionably the Department did not hold that the provision related only to "such as are usually carried about the person of a smoker," as was said in G. A. 994; and that the Department in fact did not intend to limit this paragraph to articles of the same character as those named therein is evident from the language in T. D. 4559, "while this provision has been heretofore construed as not being necessarily limited to articles of the same character as those which are embraced therein.” * * *

The Department's ruling, as before stated, was based simply on the theory that the articles passed upon thereby were house furniture, and that that term is more specific than "all smokers' articles," but it should be noted that this decision was made under the act of 1874, where the provision was for "all smokers' articles," and the Department's ruling as to the specificness of the two provisions, which in any event applies only to smokers' tables, can have no force under the present act, where the language is made more comprehensive by the addition of the word "whatsoever."

But aside from all this, we see no violation of the doctrine of ejusdem generis in classifying the articles here in question under paragraph 459. That paragraph can not be limited to such articles as are usually carried about the person of a smoker, for it provides for pipes of all kinds, which includes not only the "cane pipes" passed upon in T. D. 3692, but also large German pipes, which are used only in the home; Turkish water pipes, which have to be placed on the floor or on a stand, and also the very large wooden pipes used as display pieces in the windows of cigar stores. It is true that all of these articles are specially provided for as "pipes; ' but if the doctrine of ejusdem generis can be invoked as to the other articles mentioned in the paragraph as showing the character of smokers' articles intended to be covered thereby, the doctrine can with equal fairness, so far as "carrying about the person" is concerned, be invoked as to all the articles covered by the paragraph. Nor can paragraph 459 be limited to articles which are capable of being used for smoking for and by themselves, in view of the language of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Isaacs v. Jonas (148 U. S., 648), where it was held that cigarette paper, of suitable size and quality to be used for making cigarettes, and pasteboard covers therefor, of corresponding size, imported separately and entered together with the intention to combine them with paste

into cigarette books for the use of smokers, were subject to duty as smokers' articles under the provision in the act of 1883 for "pipes, pipe bowls, and all smokers' articles whatsoever, not specially enumerated or provided for in this Act." The court said, at page 653:

It is manifestly not requisite, in order to bring an article under this clause, that it should, of and by itself, be capable of being used for smoking, for the clause includes not only "pipes," which are ready to be filled and smoked, but "pipe bowls," which can not be smoked without putting stems to them, "and all smokers' articles whatsoever."

Even without the authority of the court in that case it could not be successfully contended that articles, in order to be covered by the paragraph, must be capable of being used for smoking, of and by themselves, for the language as it now reads includes not only the cigarette books and book covers passed upon by the court, but also pouches for smoking and chewing tobacco. We see no reason, therefore, why, if the cigarette paper and the pasteboard covers passed upon by the court were ejusdem generis with pipes and pipe bowls, smokers' stands are not ejusdem generis with the articles named in the paragraph, since their use is in no respect different from that of many of the articles enumerated.

We accordingly hold

1. That the articles covered by our first finding are dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 208, act of July 24, 1897, as manufactures of wood, and we sustain this claim in the protests as to the merchandise covered thereby.

2. That the articles covered by our second and fifth findings are dutiable at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 193 of said act as manufactures of metal, and we sustain this claim in the protests as to the merchandise covered thereby.

3. That the articles covered by our third finding are dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 450 of said act as manufactures of papier-maché, and we sustain this claim in the protests as to the merchandise covered thereby.

4. That the articles covered by our fourth finding are dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 450 of said act as manufactures of leather, and sustain this claim in the protests as to the merchandise covered thereby.

5. That the provision for "all smokers' articles whatsoever" is more specific than the provision for "house furniture," and that the remaining articles covered by these protests are dutiable at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 459 of said act as smokers' articles, as assessed, and as to these articles the protests are overruled and the decisions of the collector affirmed.