eighteen hundred and eighty-three, amending section forty-two hundred and fourteen, Revised Statutes, and so forth, is amended accordingly. SEC. 5. That any master or owner violating the provisions of this or the preceding section shall be liable to the penalty of two hundred dollars, in addition to any other penalty imposed by law. The Secretary of the Treasury shall have power to remit or mitigate any such penalty if in his opinion it was incurred without negligence or intention of fraud. SEC. 6. That this act shall not invalidate the bonds heretofore given under the requirements of law. The blank forms for registry, enrollment, and license now in use may continue to be used until further instructions, on the insertion after the word "bond" or "security," of a reference to a note, which should be made at the bottom of each form, as follows: "Bonds abolished by act of January 16, 1895, but conditions formerly embodied therein must be observed under penalty." Approved: J. G. CARLISLE, Secretary. EUGENE T. CHAMBERLAIN, Commissioner. (15545.) Woolen or Worsted Table Covers, Dutiable as Manufactures of Wool, etc., under Act of 1890. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 16, 1895. SIR: The Department is in receipt of a communication from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, reporting the result of the trial, in the United States circuit court for that district, of the so-called appraisers' case of Vietor & Achelis v. The United States (A. 1344), which involved the dutiable classification of certain woolen or worsted table covers imported at your port, per steamship Fulda, January 21, 1891. The merchandise was classified by you as "manufactures of wool, silk, and cotton, wool chief value, over forty cents, embroidered," and assessed for duty at the rate of 60 cents per pound and 60 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 398 of the act of October 1, 1890. The importers protested, claiming that the merchandise was not commercially known as embroideries, nor in fact embroideries, and that it was dutiable only at the rate of 44 cents per pound and 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 392 of said act. The appraiser reported that the table covers were manufactured from woolen cloth, embroidered with worsted and silk, and with cotton and worsted. An appeal was taken by the importers to the Board of General Appraisers, who found in substance that the table covers contained wool or worsted as chief value; that they were embroidered in part with wool, worsted, etc., and were correctly classified by you. The importers having procured, by petition, the return of the Board of General Appraisers to be filed in the United States circuit court, presented evidence in that court, and by competent testimony identified and proved samples of the merchandise in question showing that the groundwork thereof was composed of wool or worsted, and that the embroidered figures thereon were produced by silk or cotton threads, and that such embroidery, so far as the threads thereof were concerned, contained no wool or worsted whatever, which evidence the Government was unable to controvert. After hearing and considering the evidence, the court reversed the decision of the Board of General Appraisers, and found that the goods were properly dutiable, as claimed in the importers' protest, at 44 cents per pound and 50 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 392 of the act of October 1, 1890, the case being entirely controlled by the decisions of the United States circuit court and of the United States circuit court of appeals for the southern district of New York in the case In re Schefer et al., reported in 49 Fed. Rep., 826, as affirmed in 63 Fed. Rep., 1011. The Attorney-General having advised this Department, under date of the 8th instant, that no appeal will be directed from this decision of the United States circuit court, you are hereby authorized to take the usual course for the refund of the duties erroneously exacted. Small Tin Lanterns Dutiable as Toys under Act of 1890. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 16, 1895. SIR: The Department is in receipt of a communication from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, reporting the result of the trial in the United States circut court for that district of the so-called appraisers' case, Steinhardt & Brother v. The United States (A. 1740), which involved the dutiable classification of certain small tin lanterns invoiced as "tri-color lanterns," and imported at your port, per St. Enoch, August 11, 1893. The merchandise was classified by you as "manufactures of metal and glass, metal chief value, forty-five per centum ad valorem" under the provisions of paragraph 215 of the act of October 1, 1890. The importers protested, claiming that the lanterns were "toys," and dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 436 of the aforesaid act. An appeal having been taken by the importers to the Board of General Appraisers, the Board found in substance that the merchandise consisted of lanterns of metal and glass, metal chief value, designed for practical uses, and not as mere toys for the amusement of children, and that they were therefore correctly classified by you. The importers having by petition procured the return of the Board of General Appraisers to be filed in the circuit court, pursuant to section 15 of the Customs Administrative Act of June 10, 1890, obtained from the court an order for further evidence to be taken before a referee. On such reference the importers proved a sample of the lanterns, which appeared to be a little article of tin, varnished, having in its front a round piece, or bull's eye of the commonest turbid glass, which would with difficulty allow the passage of rays of light, the little lantern being furnished with a small lamp capable of containing a couple of thimblefuls of oil, and having at the side small bits of colored glass. The importers presented the testimony of a number of trade witnesses, which tended to show that these lanterns were in fact toys and were fit for no practical use. After considering the record and the testimony, and the fact that the Government had not introduced evidence to sustain your classification, the circuit court reversed the decision of the Board, and held that the lanterns were properly dutiable as "toys," as claimed by the importers. The Attorney-General having advised this Department, under date of the 8th instant, that no appeal will be directed from this decision of the United States circuit court, you are hereby authorized to take the usual course for the refund of the duties erroneously exacted. Allowance for Loss of Brandy in Bottles Packed Twelve Bottles in a Case. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 17, 1895. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, reporting upon the application of Messrs. Heidsieck & Lauteren for an allowance for loss from certain cases of brandy imported by them, per steamship La Touraine, from Havre, November 19, 1894. It appears that the importation consisted of one hundred cases of brandy, marked "H. & L.," each containing twelve bottles, and that, upon delivery from the importing vessel, it was found that fourteen of the bottles were broken and the contents wholly lost. You have declined to make an allowance for such loss in view of the provisions found in paragraph 244 of the act of August 28, 1894, first, that there shall be no constructive or other allowance for breakage or leakage, and second, that liquors imported in bottles shall be packed in packages containing not less than 1 dozen bottles or jugs, and that duty shall be paid as if such packages contained at least 1 dozen bottles or jugs. The question of allowance for loss on account of breakage, under paragraph 336 of the act of October 1, 1890, was fully considered in Synopsis 14004, in the case of the application of Messrs. Chas. D. Stone & Co. for remission of duties on two casks of wine imported by them at your port. In such decision it was stated that if no loss or abstraction of contents occurred after the landing of the packages comprising the importation, duty should be assessed upon the actual contents as found and reported by the customs officers, and that the entry should be liquidated accordingly. Paragraph 336 of the act of 1890 and paragraph 244 of the act of 1894 are similar so far as they relate to the nonallowance of damage on account of breakage, leakage, etc. The case presented in Synopsis 14004 is identical in principle with the case now under consideration. The conclusion reached in the former case was that an allowance should be made on account of casualty happening to goods prior to their arrival in the United States. The addition to paragraph 336 of the act of 1890, found in paragraph 244 of the act of 1894, is as follows: "Or duty should be paid as if such package contained at least 1 dozen bottles or jugs." It will be observed that duty is not to be assessed upon each package as if it contained 1 dozen bottles, unless the package was so packed as to contain less than 1 dozen bottles. There is no question raised as to the manner in which this brandy was packed, it being admitted that this was done in conformity with the law; therefore the clause above cited has no application in this instance. This case does not come under section 23 of the act of June 10, 1890, because that portion which was lost can not be considered as having been constructively imported. Under said section an allowance for damage can be made only on goods, wares, and merchandise "imported" into the United States. This brandy having been lost through breakage, it can not be considered as having been "imported," and the case necessarily falls outside the limits of said section. In view of the above, you are hereby authorized to take measures looking to an allowance for said loss, and you will adjust the entry accordingly. Respectfully, yours, (7492 g.) COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Acting Secretary. (15548.) Shad and Alewives, if Imported Frozen or Packed in Ice in a Fresh Condiion, Free if Caught in Fresh Waters. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 17, 1895. GENTLEMEN: In reply to your letter of the 8th instant, I have to state that shad and alewives imported packed in ice in a fresh condition would be entitled to free entry under the provisions of paragraph 481 of the act of August 28, 1894, if caught in fresh waters. Respectfully, yours, Messrs. FRANKLIN, SNOW & Co., 3 Long Wharf, Boston, Mass. CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Acting Secretary. (15549.) Importations by Mail. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 18, 1895. SIR: In reply to your letter of the 12th instant, in regard to the refusal of the addressee to open in the presence of the postmaster a package received by the foreign mail and marked "supposed liable to customs duties," I have to inform you that the Postmaster-General was this day requested to instruct the postmaster at Centreville, Md., as to the proper disposition of the package under Section XXI of the Universal Postal Union Regulations, which is as follows: "Correspondence of every kind which is not delivered, from whatever cause, must be returned immediately after the expiration of the period for keeping it required by the laws of the country of destination, and at latest within a period of six months, through the intermediary of the respective offices of exchange, and in a special bundle labeled 'Rebuts.'"' Duty on Waste Pieces of Waterproof Garments under Act of 1890. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 18, 1895. SIR: I have to inform you that the Department is in receipt of a |