communication from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, dated the 4th instant, in which he reports that the case of the United States v. W. H. Cummings & Co., appraisers' suit No. 1090, was tried in the United States circuit court for that district on December 18 last, and was decided in favor of the Government. The merchandise imported in this case consisted of waste pieces left over from the manufacture of waterproof garments. These waste pieces were composed of wool, cotton, and rubber. The general use of the merchandise after importation into this country was to extract the rubber therefrom, but it might be used also for making roofing paper. The collector assessed duty thereon at 30 cents per pound under paragraph 388 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, as waste composed wholly or in part of wool. The importers protested, claiming that the merchandise was exempt from duty under paragraph 613 of the free list of said act as old scrap, or refuse india rubber, which has been worn out by use and is fit only for remanufacture, or at 10 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 472 of said act as waste not specially provided for. The Board of United States General Appraisers reversed the decision of the collector, and sustained the protest that the merchandise was dutiable as waste not specially provided for at 10 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 472, from which decision an appeal was taken by the collector of customs at New York to the United States circuit court, under the provisions of section 15 of the act of June 10, 1890. Upon argument before the court, it was contended by the United States district attorney that the merchandise was concededly waste, but as it was composed in part of wool, upon its arrival here, whatever might be done with it afterwards, it was specifically provided for in paragraph 388, and that the collector's assessment was therefore correct. The court took this view of the case, and reversed the decision of the Board, as follows: "This importation was of waste pieces of cloth, composed of wool, cotton, and rubber, left over from the manufacture of waterproof garments. The wool can not be profitably separated from the rubber. It was classified by the Board of United States Appraisers as 'waste, not specially provided for,' under paragraph 472 of the tariff act of 1890. But paragraph 388 provided for a duty on noils, shoddy, top waste, slubbing waste, roving waste, ring waste, yarn waste, garnetted waste, and all other wastes composed wholly or in part of wool. This waste is composed in part of wool, and falls within this description. It was none the less composed in part of wool because that part was not avail'able." (Robertson v. Perkins, 129 U. S., 233.) Respectfully, yours, (7631 g.) W. E. CURTIS, Acting Secretary. To the PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF GENERAL APPRAISERS, 123 Bleecker street, New York. (15551.) Duty on Tamboured Cottons under Act of 1890. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 18, 1895. SIR: For your information, I have to state that the Department is in receipt of a communication from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, dated the 4th instant, in which he reports the trial, on December 14 last, in the United States circuit court of that district, of the so-called appraisers' case, Lahey & Duncan v. The United States (A. 1730), which case was decided in favor of the Govern ment. The merchandise in this case consisted of certain tamboured articles, which were classified for duty by the collector as "tamboured cotton cloth, 60 per cent; tamboured cotton shams, 60 per cent," under paragraph 373 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890. The importers protested, claiming the merchandise to be dutiable as manufactures of cotton at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 355, or at the rates for countable cottons under paragraphs 344 to 348 of the said tariff act. An appeal having been taken by the importers from the decision of your Board sustaining the collector's classification, the United States circuit court decided that the articles are figured muslin sash curtains and pillow shams, tamboured, in the piece; that they seem to be similar to lace window curtains, and are tamboured, and were properly dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 373 of the act of October 1, 1890, as classified by the collector. Respectfully, yours, W. E. CURTIS, Acting Secretary. To the PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF GENERAL APPRAISERS, 123 Bleecker street, New York. (15552.) Duty on Lithophone under Act of 1890. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 19, 1895. SIR: For your information, I have to state that the Department is in receipt of a communication from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, dated the 4th instant, in which he reports the trial of the case of Gabriel & Schall v. The United States (appraisers' suit No. 790) on the 18th day of December last, in the United States circuit court for that district, which suit was decided against the appellants and in favor of the Government. The merchandise in this suit consisted of certain "lithophone" or dry paint, which was assessed by the collector at the port of New York at 1 cents per pound as a dry, white paint, containing zine, but not containing lead, under paragraph 60 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890. The importers protested, claiming that the merchandise was dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem as a color, not specially provided for under paragraph 61 of said act. The court affirmed the decision of your Board sustaining the classification of the collector, using the following language: "This article is a white, dry material, for use in painting, containing zine, but not containing lead. Paragraph 60 of the tariff act of 1890 provides for a duty on white paint containing zinc, but not containing lead; dry,' and 'ground in oil.' This seems to be the article of that paragraph, dry, which, in common speech, is called paint, although not usable as such until it is mixed with oil." Respectfully, yours, CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Acting Secretary. To the PRESIDENT OF THe Board of GENERAL APPRAISERS, 123 Bleecker street, New York. (15553.) Duty on Sulpho-Toluic Acid under Act of 1890. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 19, 1895. SIR: For your information, I have to state that the Department is in receipt of a communication, dated the 4th instant, from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, in which he reports the trial on December 20 last in the United States circuit court for that district of the so-called appraisers' case of Wm. J. Matheson & Co., Limited, v. The United States (A. 1293), which case was decided in favor of the Government. The merchandise in this case consisted of certain sulpho-toluic acid, which was classified for duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York as "coal-tar preparation, 20 per cent," under paragraph 19 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890. The importers protested, claiming that the merchandise was free of duty as an acid used for manufacturing purposes under paragraph 473 of the free list of the said tariff act. An appeal having been taken to the United States circuit court by the importers in this case from the decision of your Board sustaining the collector's classification, the court affirmed the decision of your Board and decided as follows: "This importation is an acid prepared from coal tar, used in making coal-tar colors. By paragraph 19 of the tariff act of 1890, 'All preparations of coal tar, not colors or dyes, not specially provided for, were made subject to a duty, and by paragraph 473, Acids used for medicinal, chemical, or manufacturing purposes' were free. not been a preparation of coal tar it would have been free. But it is not with colors and dyes, in the specific exception of paragraph 19, nor If this acid had specially provided for as a preparation of coal tar elsewhere, or more specially included among acids than it is there among coal-tar preparaThe wording of paragraph 19 seems to imply that exceptions of preparations of coal tar elsewhere would be made quite plain." CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Respectfully, yours, Acting Secretary. To the PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF GENERAL APPRAISERS, 123 Bleecker street New York. (15554.) Free Entry of Strayed Cattle under Paragraph 373 of Act of 1894. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 20th ultimo, transmitting the application of The H. Whitbeck Land and Cattle Company for the free entry from Mexico under paragraph 373 of the act of August 28, 1894, of certain cattle claimed to be of domestic origin, with the exception of a certain number understood to be the increase of said cattle. From the affidavits filed in the case it appears that most of the animals were driven across the boundary into Mexico for pasturage purposes exclusively, and still remain the property of said company. Paragraph 373 provides that "cattle, horses, sheep, or other domestic animals which have strayed across the boundary line into any foreign country, or have been or may be driven across such boundary line by the owner for pasturage purposes, together with their increase," shall be admitted free of duty. The Department finds nothing in the papers filed in this case which would operate to exclude the animals in question from free entry under said provision of law, and you are therefore authorized to grant the application. You are also authorized in future cases to grant free entry whenever you shall be satisfied that the cattle were lawfully in the United States before straying across the boundary line into Mexico or being driven across such line for pasturage purposes. Duty on Paraffine under Act of 1890. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 19, 1895. SIR: For your information, I have to state that the Department is in receipt of a communication, dated the 4th instant, from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, in which he reports the trial on December 13 last in the United States circuit court for that district of the so-called appraisers' case, Schoellkopf, Hartford & Maclagan, Limited, v. The United States (A. 1076), which case was decided in favor of the Government. The merchandise in this case consisted of certain so-called "paraffine," entered at the port of New York, and classified for duty as distilled oil, 25 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 76 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890. The importers protested, claiming that the merchandise was entitled to free entry as "paraffine" under paragraph 671 of the free list of said act. An appeal having been taken to the United States circuit court by the importers in this case from the decision of your Board sustaining the collector's classification of the merchandise, that court affirmed the decision of your Board, and decided as follows: "This article is a distilled oil of paraffine. Distilled oils were specially provided for in paragraph 76 of the tariff act of 1890. It was therefore properly assessed under that paragraph, although, but for that specific provision, it might fall within paragraph 671, as in the nature of, yet not strictly, paraffine. (Robertson v. Perkins, 129 U. S., 233; American Net and Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U. S. 468.)” CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Respectfully, yours, Acting Secretary. To the PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF GENERAL APPRAISERS, 123 Bleecker street, New York. (15556.) Delinquencies in Rendering Accounts. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 21, 1895. For the purpose of properly complying with the provisions of Section XII, Act July 31, 1894, relating to delinquencies in rendering accounts, the Auditors of this Department are hereby directed to keep in their several offices complete records as follows: Of all officers who, at any time within each year, may be delinquent in rendering their accounts; of delinquencies on the part of administrative officers in transmitting accounts, and of such officers as may be delinquent in depositing balances found due from them for the last preceding fiscal year, and make report thereof to this office, in time to be transmitted to Congress on the day specified in said act. Each Auditor will also keep a record of all cases in which an extension of time for rendering accounts has been granted, and of delinquencies which have been waived by the Secretary of the Treasury, and make report thereof as in the case of other delinquencies. CHARLES S. HAMLIN, |