other débris of the cargoes, described as "slush," and of no commercial value, they had ceased to be damaged goods within the meaning of section 23 of the act of June 10, 1890, and were not subject to the requirements of that section, but were properly to be treated as merchandise totally destroyed prior to importation into the United States, and that therefore following the ruling in Marriott v. Brune (9 How., 619) and subsequent decisions of the courts to the same effect, an allowance should have been made as one of shortage in assessing duties on the cargoes.

Upon due entry of the judgment, you are hereby authorized to forward to the Department a certified statement for refund of the duties exacted in excess in settlement of the case.

Hematite ore, being an iron ore, is dutiable under paragraph 121, act of July 24, 1897, at the rate of 40 cents per ton. Such ore, even if a pigment or color, is more specifically provided for in paragraph 121, which covers iron ore without limitation or qualification.-Francklyn & Ferguson v. United States (unpublished) cited and followed; G. A. 4665 (T. D. 22057) overruled.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 26, 1903. In the matter of the protests, 31084 f, etc., of Perry Ryer & Co. et al., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York, N. Y., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per the vessels and entered on the dates named in the schedule.

Opinion by FISCHER, General Appraiser.

The merchandise in question consists of oxide of iron in the form of hematite." Duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem, under the provisions of paragraph 58 of the act of July 24, 1897, as a pigment or color. The importers make the claim, among others, that the merchandise is properly dutiable at the rate of 40 cents per ton, under the provisions of paragraph 121 of said act, as iron ore.

The precise question raised by these protests was passed upon by this Board in G. A. 4665 (T. D. 22057) adversely to the importers, and subsequently on appeal to the United States circuit court for the southern district of New York in the suit of Francklyn & Ferguson v. United States, the decision of the Board was reversed and the claim of the importers sustained. The Treasury Department having acquiesced in that decision, the same has become final.

Judge Townsend, in his opinion in the above action, filed November 10, 1902 (not yet published), in part said:

The merchandise is, in fact, crude hematite ore or iron ore. In its present state it can not be used as a pigment or color, and even if it be assumed that it is, in fact, a color or pigment, then it is a color, specially provided for as iron ore in paragraph 121. Congress having seen fit to levy a duty of 40 cents per ton on iron ore without qualification as to its use, and without limitation, not specially provided for, such designation must stand.

Following this decision, we sustain the claim in the protests that the merchandise is properly dutiable at the rate of 40 cents per ton under paragraph 121, and reverse the decisions of the collector.

(24190—G. A. 5268.)

Wooden boxes as coverings for Sumatra tobacco.

Wooden boxes containing Sumatra tobacco, though not the usual coverings for such merchandise, are not subject to the additional duty prescribed in section 19, customs administrative act of June 10, 1890, as they are not "designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of such merchandise to the United States."-In re Laverge, G. A. 4422 (T. D. 21057), overruled; Laverge v. United States (119 Fed. Rep., 481) followed.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 26, 1903. In the matter of the protests, 52462b-4789 and 56776b-5061, of Conradi & Goldberg, against the decision of the collector of customs at San Francisco, Cal., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per South Pacific Company, and entered May 23 and November 30, 1902.

Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser.

The articles in question consist of wooden boxes used as coverings for Sumatra tobacco. On the ground that wooden boxes are not the usual and ordinary coverings for such merchandise, the collector classified them as dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 208, tariff act of 1897, as manufactures of wood, this action being by virtue of the provision in section 19, customs administrative act of June 10, 1890, that

If there be used for covering or holding imported merchandise, whether dutiable or free, any unusual article or form designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of such merchandise to the United States, additional duty shall be levied and collected upon such material or article at the rate to which the same would be subject if separately imported.

The importers contend that the coverings are not liable to the duty imposed by the collector, for the reasons, as alleged, that they are usual and are not "designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of such merchandise to the United States."

The same contention was made in the case of In re Laverge, G. A. 4422 (T. D. 21057). There the Board found that wooden boxes were not usual coverings for Sumatra tobacco, and affirmed the collector's

assessment.

On appeal by the importers to the circuit court for the southern district of New York, in Laverge v. United States (119 Fed. Rep., 481), the decision of the Board was reversed, the coverings in question being held to be free of duty. It was observed by the court (Townsend, J.):

It is undisputed that the boxes are not the usual coverings of imported tobacco, but there is no evidence that such boxes were designed for use otherwise than in the bona fide transportation of such merchandise to the United States. In fact, the testimony shows that they are not designed for any other use, but are thrown away or cut up into kindling wood.

In other words, it is not enough that coverings should be unusual in order to be subject to the additional duty prescribed in said section 19, but they should be designed for other uses than as coverings. This is in harmony with In re Greenbaum, G. A. 117 (T. D. 10467), decided by the Board November 18, 1890. Note, also, In re Pollmann, G. A. 4649 (T. D. 21961), and the decisions there cited.

Following the decision of the circuit court, we sustain the protests and reverse the decision of the collector, with instructions to reliquidate the entries accordingly.

(24191-G. A. 5269.)

Colored fabrics of single jute yarns.

Certain colored fabrics known as monks' cloth, woven double in warp and weft, from jute yarns not advanced beyond the condition of singles, are, when weighing not less than 6 ounces to the square yard, and not exceeding 60 inches in width, dutiable under paragraph 341, tariff act of 1897, as "plain woven fabrics of single jute yarns."-In re White, G. A. 5035 (T. D. 23386), explained.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 26, 1903.

In the matter of the protests, 52165, 53057 b-53768, and 53769 b, of Marshall Field & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at Chicago, Ill., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per St. Paul and St. Louis, and entered August 28, 1901, and February 8, March 21, and April 4, 1902.

Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser.

The merchandise was classified by the collector as a manufacture of vegetable fiber, not specially provided for, under paragraph 347, tariff act of 1897, and is claimed by the protestants to be dutiable under the provision in paragraph 341 of said act for

Plain woven fabrics of single jute yarns, by whatever name known, not exceeding sixty inches in width, weighing not less than six ounces per square yard.

It appears that the merchandise consists of a jute fabric known as monks' cloth, which is less than 60 inches in width, weighs more than 6 ounces per square yard, and contains not more than 55 threads to the square inch. It is in various colors, and is woven both with a double warp and a double weft. Under In re Collins, G. A. 4916 (T. D. 22988), the coloring would not operate to take the goods from

paragraph 341. Neither would they be removed from the descriptive term in said paragraph, "plain woven fabrics," by the fact that the warp and weft are double, inasmuch as that term was held to include double-warp fabrics in United States v. Lamb (99 Fed. Rep., 262). (Note In re Samuel Thompson's Nephew & Co., G. A. 4785; T. D. 22560.)

erroneous.

The only point of controversy seems to be whether the goods are "fabrics of single jute yarns," the local appraiser having stated in his reports to the collector that the yarns are not single. Examination of samples of the fabrics in question shows this statement to be The yarns are composed of but a single strand of jute fibers spun in the usual manner. Grouping the yarns in the weaving so as to make the fabric double in warp and weft, rather than single, of course would not make the yarns themselves other than singles. The word "single" refers only to the condition of the yarns and not to the manner of weaving. This point was in effect covered by In re White, G. A. 5035 (T. D. 23386).

It should be explained, perhaps, that the grouping spoken of in the case last cited does not refer to the grouping of threads or yarns in the process of weaving, but only to the assembling and twisting together of strands or small yarns in making coarser yarns, or (as in tariff nomenclature) yarns advanced beyond the condition of singles.

We sustain the protests and reverse the decision of the collector, who is authorized to reliquidate the entries accordingly.

(24192.)

Drawback on bags.

Drawback on "round-bale" bags manufactured by Bemis Bro. Bag Company, of St. Louis, Mo., wholly from imported burlaps.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 28, 1903. SIR: On the exportation of round-bale bags manufactured by the Bemis Bro. Bag Company, of St. Louis, Mo., wholly from imported burlaps, said bags being sewed up one side, and having at each end a hem through which a shirring string is drawn, a drawback will be allowed equal in amount to the duties paid on the material used, less the legal deduction of 1 per cent, under the general regulations heretofore established.

Respectfully,
(7107.)

O. L. SPAULDING,
Acting Secretary.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New Orleans, La.

(24193.)

Drawback on steel-wire nails and fencing.

Department's instructions of June 13, 1894 (T. D. 15067), April 27, 1901 (T. D. 22997), and May 2, 1901 (T. D. 23010), extended to steel wire, wire nails, and fencing manufactured by Kokomo Steel and Wire Company, of Kokomo, Ind.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 28, 1903. SIR: Department's instructions of June 13, 1894 (T. D. 15067), April 27, 1901 (T. D. 22997), May 2, 1901 (T. D. 23010), and the general regulations of August 1, 1896 (T. D. 17355), authorizing the allowance of drawback on steel wire, steel-wire nails, and wire fencing are hereby extended to include similar articles of manufacture produced by the Kokomo Steel and Wire Company, of Kokomo, Ind. Respectfully, O. L. SPAULDING, (39471.) Acting Secretary.

SURVEYOR OF CUSTOMS, Cincinnati, Ohio.

(24194.)

Liquidation of manifests of vessels arriving at ports at which there is no naval officer.

[Circular No. 13.]

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF AUDITOR FOR THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

Washington, D. C., January 29, 1903.

To collectors of customs and officers acting as such

at ports at which there is no naval officer:

Your attention is directed to section 9 of an act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government, for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-six, and for other purposes," as follows: SEC. 9. On and after July first, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, each master of a vessel arriving in the United States from a foreign port, except vessels carrying traffic in bond on transfer ferries shall, immediately upon landing and before entering his vessel at the custom-house, mail to the Auditor for the Treasury Department, Washington, a true copy of the manifest of his vessel, and shall on entering his vessel make affidavit that he has mailed such copy and that the same is true and correct; and he shall also mail to the said Auditor a true copy of the corrected manifest filed on any post entry of his vessel. Any master who neglects or refuses to mail to the said Auditor the required copy of the original or corrected manifest, shall be subject to the same fines and penalties fixed by law for his refusal to deliver the manifest of his vessel to the collector: Provided, That this section shall not apply to ports where there is a naval officer.

Envelopes, with the address of the Auditor for the Treasury Department, and instructions printed thereon, will be furnished you on the usual requisition on the Secretary of the Treasury, for delivery