(15475-G. A. 2824.) Chillies, under act of 1894. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, November 12, 1894. In the matter of the protest, 24561 b, of McLaren & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at San Francisco, Cal., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain chillies, imported per Oceanic, September 18, 1894. Opinion by WILKINSON, General Appraiser. The goods are "chillies" similar to those covered by G. A. 2464. They were assessed with duty under paragraph 235, act August 28, 1894, and are claimed to be exempt from duty as nonedible drugs such as spices, under paragraph 470, or to be dutiable as vegetables in their natural state under paragraph 207. The circuit court of appeals, second circuit (Fed. Rep., vol. 59, p. 447), held that under the act of 1890 "chillies," which had been assessed with duty as "cayenne pepper, unground," under paragraph 326 were not so dutiable, but were exempt from duty as nonedible spices under paragraph 560. It was found that the merchandise was not cayenne pepper, unground. But the status of the article under the present act is different. Paragraph 235, which takes the place of paragraph 326 of the tariff of 1890, provides for "capsicum or red pepper, unground," and not for cayenne pepper; and paragraph 470 exempts from duty only such nonedible spices as are drugs. We find (1) The merchandise is capsicum, unground. (2) It is not a nonedible spice which is a drug. (3) It is not a vegetable. The decision of the collector is affirmed. (15476-G. A. 2825.) Fees-Certain storage and labor charges not. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, November 16, 1894. In the matter of the protest, 71406-7 a, of F. J. Keveney & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, storage charges on, imported per State of Nevada, August 6, 1889, State of Pennsylvania, March 14, 1890, and State of Nebraska, January 7, 1890. Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser. The protests are directed against the legality of certain charges for storage and labor on imported goods which were permitted by the importer to remain in the public stores, at the port of New York, for more than two days after notice had been given him that the merchandise had been duly examined by the local appraiser and passed as correct. It is objected (1) that the charges were not authorized by law when made, which was in latter part of the year 1890; and (2) that charges of this kind had then been abolished by section 22 of the Customs Administrative Act of June 10, 1890. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized by law (Rev. Stat., section 2989) to establish, from time to time, suitable rules and regulations in reference to the whole subject of warehouses designed for the storage of imported merchandise. Like authority may also possibly be deduced from section 251 of the Revised Statutes. (15 Op. AttorneyGeneral, 128, 132.) The public stores have long been designated and used for warehouse purposes on the prescribed condition that the importer should pay charges for storage and labor, and other like expenses accruing on his goods, not to exceed the usual or customary rates at the port where these charges are incurred. (Customs Reg. 1884, art. 618; Reg. 1892, art. 683-686, 692.) And there seems to be no valid reason why such charges, when reasonable in amount, and authorized by the Treasury Department, should not be sustained on the ground of implied contract, in all cases where the importer, having notice of the rates of charge, voluntarily permits his goods to be deposited in warehouse for safe-keeping, or suffers them to remain there beyond the time reasonably required for their removal. The law presumes, in such event, that the owner agreed to pay the rates designated and duly brought to his notice. (Hempstead v. Cadwalader, 42 Fed. Rep., 529; Kennedy v. Magone, 41 Ib., 768; Treasury Synopsis 9514; In re Wyman & Co., G. A. 2327.) The practice at the port of New York since the year 1870-extending through the past twenty-five years-has generally been to allow a period of two days, after notice to importers, for the removal of all packages from the public stores, or else to charge warehouse storage after the expiration of that time; the only interruption of this practice being that the time was extended to three days for a few intervening years, and for a short interval. For the past eight years the time fixed has been uniformly two days, as appears from the report of the collector in the present case. We find that the foregoing facts, which are stated in the report of the collector, are true, and that the charges in question are the reasonable and customary charges for storage and labor at the port of New York, and that two days (excluding legal holidays) is a reasonable time to allow importers of merchandise to remove their goods from warehouses after notice given to do so. The charges in question, which are for special services rendered to the importer by the Government at his request and for his exclusive accommodation, are in no sense "fees" within the meaning of this word as used in section 22 of the Customs Administrative Act, and which are therein declared to be abolished, when incurred "upon the entry of imported goods and the passing thereof through the customs, etc." The protests are overruled as to both grounds urged, and the collector's decision affirmed in each case. (15477-G. A. 2826.) Salt from Turks Island. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, November 16, 1894. In the matter of the protests, 24343b-1 and 24344 b-2, of Trefethen & Bearce and Lord Bros. & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at Portland, Me., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain salt, imported per Lizzie E. Dennison, September 29, 1894, and B. Webster and Hattie M. Bain, September 29, 1894. Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser. The question raised for decision by the protests is whether certain salt, imported from Turks Island prior to the time when the new tariff act of August, 1894, went into effect, and withdrawn from bonded warehouse after said date, is dutiable under the tariff act of October 1, 1890, or is free under the said tariff act of August, 1894, the law in force at the time of withdrawal from bonded warehouse. We find as facts (1) That the merchandise consists of salt in bulk, which was imported from Salt Cay, in Turks Island, and deposited in bonded warehouse prior to August 28, 1894, at the several dates specified in the protests and shown by the entries. (2) That Turks Island, while under the political jurisdiction of the governor of Jamaica, is permitted to regulate its own tariff laws independently, and, in the exercise of this power, admits the article of salt free of duty. (3) That the merchandise under consideration was withdrawn from bonded warehouse subsequent to August 28, 1894, when the new tariff act went into legal operation. The collector assessed a duty of 8 cents per 100 pounds on the salt in question, under the provisions of paragraph 322 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890. The importers claim the article to be exempt from duty under paragraph 608 of the tariff act of August 28, 1894, which reads as follows: Salt in bulk, and salt in bags, sacks, barrels, or other packages, but the coverings shall pay the same rate of duty as if imported separately: Provided, That if salt is imported from any country, whether independent or a dependency, which imposes a duty upon salt exported from the United States, then there shall be levied, paid, and collected upon such salt the rate of duty existing prior to the passage of this act. This assessment appears to have been made upon the assumed fact that the colonial government of Jamaica imposes a duty on salt exported to that country from the United States, as stated in the circular of the Treasury Department issued August 29, 1894 (Synopsis 15201). More recent information, however, has been obtained on this subject by the Department, through the Department of State, now officially before the Board, that, while the government of Jamaica itself levies an import duty on salt, the article is admitted free of duty into Turks Island, which regulates its own tariff law independently on this subject. The Board held In re Wolff & Co. (G. A. 2775) that the rate of duty was to be governed by the law in force at the time of the withdrawal of goods from bonded warehouse, and this principle was acquiesced in by the Treasury Department in a circular issued August 28, 1894. (Synopsis 15204.) It is our judgment that the principle applies as well to goods made free by the new tariff act of 1894 as to those upon which the rate of duty has been diminished. The protests are sustained, and the collector's decision reversed in each case, with instructions to admit the merchandise free of duty. TREASURY Department, DECISIONS UNDER THE TARIFF AND NAVIGATION LAWS, ETC., DECEMBER, 1894. TO OFFICERS OF THE CUSTOMS: TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., January 2, 1895. The following decisions of the Department and of the Board of United States General Appraisers at the port of New York in the months of November and December, 1894, upon the construction to be given to acts of Congress relating to the tariff, navigation, and other subjects, are published for the information and guidance of officers of the customs and others concerned. The decisions of the Board of General Appraisers will go into effect after the expiration of thirty days from the date thereof, unless, in the meanwhile, appeal has been taken under the provisions of section 15 of the act of June 10, 1890, in which case you will be advised, and action will be suspended under such decisions until the questions involved are judicially determined. (See circular of November 15, 1890, Synopsis 10369.) CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Acting Secretary. (15478.) Circular.-Employment of Temporary Surfmen in the Life-Saving Service. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Office of the General Superintendent U. S. Life-Saving Service, Washington, D. C., December 4, 1894. Circular, Department No. 69, 1885, is hereby amended to read as follows: Hereafter all absences of surfmen from duty in the Life-Saving Service, except during the time between sunrise and sunset of one day in each week, allowed by paragraph 88, "Revised Regulations, Life Saving Service, 1884," will be without pay. Whenever a surfman is absent from his station for any cause whatever except as provided above, the keeper will engage the best qualified surf |