of the penal duty accruing under section 7 of the act of June 10, 1890, on certain olives imported by them per Cevic, April 24, 1895. You report that the olives in question were consigned to the United States for sale on account of the foreign owner and were so invoiced; that Messrs. Hazard & Co. bought the goods in transit at a higher price than that specified in the invoice; that the importers offered to make an addition on entry to make market value, which you declined to permit for the reason that they were consigned goods at the time the verified invoice was made out and the merchandise shipped to the United States, and that the additional duties, both regular and penal, were paid on the 11th instant. Your refusal to allow the importers, under the circumstances, to make additions on entry of the goods was in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the act of June 10, 1890, and is approved by the Department; and, while they appear to be entitled equitably to relief, in view of their offer to add to make market value, the Department is unable to authorize a refund of additional duty which has been actually paid and turned into the Treasury. The application, therefore, is denied. Respectfully, yours, (9028 g.) COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Assistant Secretary. (16201.) Record of Appraisers' Suits under Act of June 10, 1890. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 29, 1895. To Collectors and other Officers of the Customs: The Department proposes to establish a consolidated record of all suits that have arisen or may arise by virtue of sections 14 and 15 of the Customs Administrative Act of June 10, 1890, on appeals from decisions by the Board of General Appraisers, said consolidation to be based upon uniform records maintained in the several collection districts. You are instructed, therefore, to prepare for the use of this Department a transcript return, under the form hereto annexed, of all suits of said class that have been commenced in your district, and to continue such record for the purpose of making returns therefrom at the beginning of each month, whenever there have been any proceedings since the last return. CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Collector's Record of Appraisers' Suits under Act of June 10, 1890. [Width of sheet 28 inches, and spaces to correspond.] District of (16202-G. A. 3081.) Calender Rollers. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, May 14, 1895. In the matter of the protest, 75560 a-13484, of Theo. Tiedemann & Bro., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Waesland, and entered July 26, 1894. Opinion by WILKINSON, General Appraiser. The goods are calender rollers, used in finishing textile fabrics. They were assessed with duty at 45 per cent under paragraph 215, act of October 1, 1890, and are claimed to be dutiable at 25 per cent under paragraph 425 of the same act. A roller is composed of sheets of paper pressed together by hydraulic pressure upon an iron rod or axle. We find upon the evidence in the case that paper is the component material of chief value. The protest is sustained accordingly. 44 (16203-G. A. 3082.) Coal-Tar Products-Benzole. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, May 14, 1895. In the matter of the protest, 26671 b-10380, of H. R. Shultz, against the decision of the collector of customs at Philadelphia as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Michigan, and entered March 12, 1895. Opinion by LUNT, General Appraiser. The merchandise covered by this protest consists of benzole imported into the port of Philadelphia by Mr. H. R. Shultz, and entered March 12, 1895, upon which duty was assessed at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 60 of the act of August 29, 1894. The importer claims (1) "The same to be a preparation or product of coal tar, not a color or dye, exempt from duty under the provisions of paragraph 443." 66 (2) That this benzole is a refined fractional distillate of coal tar, not medicinal, not a color or dye, and not commercially known as an oil." We find that it is a product of coal tar and a chemical compound. In the opinion of the Board the term "preparations" of coal tar is more general and comprehensive than products, the former including compounds of which a distinctive and dominating element is derived from coal tar, and the latter limited to substances derived wholly from coal tar by fractional distillation or other methods of elimination. Having found the merchandise to be a product of coal tar, we are required to construe and apply the provisions of paragraph 443, which reads as follows: "Coal tar, crude, and all preparations except medicinal coal-tar preparations and products of coal tar, not colors or dyes, not specially provided for in this act." It is our duty to give force and effect to all provisions of the statute if it can be done by any reasonable construction. In the course of the enactment of the present tariff by Congress, the provision in the free list relating to coal tar, crude, and preparations and products of coal tar, not colors or dyes, as first reported to the House, did not contain the words "except medicinal coal-tar preparations." These words were afterwards inserted, and the preparations so excepted were included in paragraph 58 in the dutiable list. We can make all of paragraph 443 effective if we read it as if the words "except medicinal coal tar preparations" were in brackets. To construe the exception as including "except medicinal coal-tar preparations and products" would require the qualifying word medicinal to be applied to products, and logically to be included with preparations in paragraph 58. A further reason why we think this is not to be taken as a proper construction of the paragraph is the fact that the so called coal tar products are not medicinal, but the medicinal substances of which some elements are obtained from coal tar are complex chemical preparations, as are also the so-called coal-tar colors and dyes. If we extend this exception beyond the words "medicinal coal-tar preparations" we must at least embrace all up to the next comma, and by so doing the denominative provision for coal-tar preparations and products is eliminated from the paragraph. We therefore hold that coal tar preparations and products, not medicinal, not colors or dyes, and not elsewhere more specifically provided for, are embraced within the provisions of paragraph 443. The protest is sustained. (16204--G. A. 3083.) Cotton Lace. Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, May 15, 1895. In the matter of the protest, 25509b-11801, of Marshall Field & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at Chicago as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Chester, and entered July 16, 1894. Opinion by HAM, General Appraiser. The merchandise here is cotton lace, assessed for duty at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 373 of the act of October 1, 1890, but claimed to be entitled to entry at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 355 of said act. This case was docketed for hearing March 29, 1895, at Chicago, where appellants appeared and submitted it for decision; but the Board, desiring further testimony, called witnesses at New York on May 7, 1895, whose testimony forms part of the complete record. The merchandise in controversy is invoiced as "tatting," and the appraiser in his special report states that it is composed entirely of cotton, and is known variously as American lace and cotton tatting. There are two official samples in the record; one about 1 inches and the other about 4 inches wide. Their fabrication is similar to that of laces, consisting of meshes of various forms and sizes, and both possess a distinguishing characteristic of lace, namely, one straight and one escalloped edge. All the expert witnesses testify that the official samples are machinemade cotton lace; they also testify that tatting is a lace, and that it is similar in make and appearance to torchon lace. Some of them testify that it is known commercially as lace, and others as "American lace." One witness produced samples of American laces which are in the record, "Illustrative Exhibit A," and swore that they were similar in character and designation to the merchandise represented by the official samples. On the evidence we find as facts (1) That the importation was made under the act of October 1, 1890 (2) That it consists of cotton laces, and that they are so known commercially. (3) That the samples in the record are truly representative of the merchandise in controversy. The protest is overruled. (16205-G. A. 3084.) "Quillings of Cotton." Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, May 16, 1895. In the matter of the protest, 26311b-12014, of Marshall Field & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at Chicago as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Southwark, and entered September 13, 1894. Opinion by HAM, General Appraiser. The merchandise here consists of strips of cotton net assessed for duty at 50 per cent ad valorem as "nettings" under paragraph 276 of the act of August 28, 1894, but claimed to be entitled to entry at 35 per cent ad valorem as manufactures of cotton not specially provided for under paragraph 264 of said act. This case was docketed for hearing at Chicago March 29, 1895, and appellants appeared and submitted it for decision on the record and verified samples of the merchandise in controversy. The appraiser reports that the merchandise is cotton nets known commercially as "spot quillings" and "Bretonne quillings," and that the articles are used in the manufacture of ruchings, etc. The samples vary in width from 1 to 5 inches. They are strips of cotton net, which appear to be designed for the use to which they are stated to be put by the appraiser. In G. A. 803 the Board held that partly made up ruchings were dutiable as manufactures of cotton not specially provided for under paragraph 355 of the act of October 1, 1890, and in G. A. 890 the Board held that certain narrow strips of cotton velveteen designed for use as dress facings were entitled to entry at 40 per cent ad valorem under said paragraph 355, on the ground that such strips of velveteen had undergone an additional process of manufacture whereby their name and intended use were changed from that of velveteen to a specific article known as velvet dress facings. On appeal to the United States circuit court for the southern district of New York the decision of the Board was affirmed, in re Kursheedt Manufacturing Company, 49 Fed. Rep., 633. The case went to the United States circuit court of appeals for the second circuit, and the decision of the court below was there affirmed. In the last cited case the court say: "We think the evidence clearly shows that the articles in controversy have lost their commercial identity as velveteen, and are a manufactured article. Not only have they been advanced to a form in which they |