duty at the rate of 50 per cent.. ad valorm:n under the provisions of para.graph 383 of Schedule L of the act of March 3, 1883. The importerS protested, that the said bolting cloth was entitled to free entry under paragraph 657 of the free-list of said act providing for" bolting cloths." .' The board of United States general appraisers affirmed the decision of the collector. An appeal was duly taken under the act of June 10, 1890, by importers from the decision of the board of appraisers to the· States circUIt court. Return filed May 15, 1891. The evi';' dence take» the board of general appraisers showed that the, said known in ;trade and commerce of this country as" bolting . and. that it was bought and sold under that name, but the particular merchandise in suit was not used for milling purposes, but for fancy \York or tq be embroidered. Sjl.mples of the merchandise were produced ill court. Edward Mitchell, U. S. Atty., and Henry O. Platt, Asst. U. S.Atty., for the collector. . Comstock &- Brown, for the importers.
WllEELER, .All the force of the evidence is that these cloths are of the kind made for" bolting cloths." They may be fitted up .for other purpOEles, but they are still the same kind of cloth, and made in'the same way. When congress said "bolting cloths," they did not then say that if they. were used for anything else they should pay a different duty, but that when made in that way, as bolting, ,clot1;ls, without saying, for what they were used, they should be. on the think that, although these may be used for something or'for ornamentation, or for something of thatsort,,*dse' under that act should come in free; and 1 fhink" that tHe'd(!CIMdn 'of 'the board of general appraisers should be re:: versed. So ordered.
January 9, 1892.)
(OIircwtt Court, S. D. New York.
CtrSTOMSI)UTIES-Aqt .011 MAlteH' S, 1883-" SHOT-CHAINS. " So-called ",shotccbains" Of iron or steel, consisting of iron or steel balls fastened together with'swivels or links, hdd not to be dutiable at 45 per cent. ad val6rem, undervaragraph 216 ,of Schedule C of the act· of March 3, 1883, as an article com-
posed wholly or in part of iron', steel, etc.; but at 2?\l' cents per pound, under paragraph 171 of Schedule C of said act, under the description, "chains of all kinds, of. iron or I " , (according to their diameter.) , .,'
, At .LaW.,' AppeJpy importers from decision of ,the board of United State,s under act of June] 0, 1890. "
· ! " -, . "
QQ. imported per steamers Trave and Jj;lbe, in Au"shot-chains," which were returned.
." .. ,. . , , · .." ., ·
DDEWRE:PoR1'ER, \rol 49. appmi'ser upo.nthe invoice as or artiCle8,'cQmposed wnolly or in' steel, etc., asseFlsed by the collect6rat the rate of 45 ad valorJm, u,iil:lerthe provisions of paragraph 216 of Schedule.C of the tariff aCJt of IMarch 3, 1883. The importem duly protested, clitiming that the said chains were dutiable at 2hlei#s per pound only, .under paragraph 1710fsaidschedule and act, und¢f the phrase; "chains'Qf all kinds, made of iron or steel." The bpard ,of United Stll.tes genetal h,ppraisersaffirmed tl;ie decision of the collector,and an appeal was taken'by the importers fronithe decision of said' board to the' United States circnitcourt The merchandise consisted oh'mall iron or'steel baDsfastEmed swivels or links. The board of appraisers found that said articles were not the ordinary chains ofcomrnerce. The return onne board of general appraisers was filed in the United State!) circui,t court on May 15, 1891. Additional evidence was taken, under the provi!rlons 'of the act of June 10, 1890, and pursuant to an order of the court, by which it appeared that the merchandise in suit was knowntothe'trade and commerce as" shotchains," and. w,ere bougqt and sold by that name; that they were used for key-chains, beck-chains'; arid the smaller !lize for ch!tins for eye-glasses. SampIes of the merchandise.were .prod nced in.cotirt. Edwa1·d MiJi1}eU, U. S. Atty., arid 'Henn./ O. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the collector. ' , Oom8toclc&:' BrO'llm, for; . importers. the , '
. WHEELER,nistrict Judge. I think we shall have to call these"chains." The hollow balls are nofb",ads, because beads .are stl'ung, while these ntake a link; and these little connections between them are links, and they make a chain. The .of the board of general appraisers is reversed. . '.
(Circuit Oourt, B. D. New York. January 8,1892.)
CuSTOMS DUTIBS-AoT OJ' OOTOBBR 1, 18llO-eOTTON CORSETS-WBARING APPAREL. Cotton corsets, imported on April 80,1891, held to be dutiable under the tariff act. of October I, 18110 (26 St. at. Large, p. 567,) at 50 pl,lr cent: ad.1Jal,()'l"em, under
Schedule I,.Par. 849, as cottoll,wearing apparel, and not at 85 per cent..· under Sched.1 ule I, par. 324, of the act 01. March 81 1883,88 corsets; nor at per cent., under Schedule 1, J?8r. 855, of the said act ox Ootober I, 1890. as "manufactures of cotton."
At Law. Appeal by the importers from a decisi()n of the board of United States general appraisers under the act of June 10, 1890. Ottenheimer 'Bros. impQrted certain cotton corsets per steamer Teutonic on April 30, 1891, uponwhicl;1 the collector of customs at the 'port of New duty at the rate of 50 per cent. ad valorem as "cotton wearing appat61." under the provisions of pamgraph349 of
IN BE OTTENHE!MER.
the tariff act of October 1, i890. The importers duly protested, claiming (1) that said goods dutiable. at 35 per cent. ad valorem only, under the provisions of Schedule I, par. 324, of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, because they were therein specifically provided for by name, and said act was not expressly repealed by the act of October 1, 1890. (2) If said goods are to beheld dutiable under the act of October 1, 1890, then the .same were d\Jtiable at 40 per cent. only, as "manufactures of cotton, not otherwise provided for,"in Schedule I, par. 355, of the act of October 1, 1890; and that said goods were not "wearing apparel," within the ordinary and popular meaning of said words, nor ready-made clothing. An appeal was taken under the provisions of the act of JUDe 10, 1890, from the decision of the collector to the board. of United States general appraisers, who affirmed the same. The board of general appraisers beldthat said articles are articles of dress, around the waist; that they were worn by females, and are articles of wearing apparel. The importers thereu pOD took an appeal from the decision of the board of general appraisers to the United States circuit·court. The return of the board of general was filed on December 10, 1891. Edward MitcheU, u. S. and .Htmr'JJ C. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty., for collector. Ori,SlniJ.h k Mackie, for importers. WHEELER; District Judge. In this case the question Is whether the article-cotton corsets-is properly classified as "wearing apparel." In point of fact it is a waist, in which are inserted whalebones or steels for the support of the body and also for the support of the clothing. If you were to ask anybody who did not care anything about the Ulatter in any way, but who knew, whether that is an article of wearing apparel or clothing 'or not, or whether it is a mechanical contrivance, I rather think they would say it is a part of the clothing; that it would help to keep the body warm; and that it answers the purpose of a waist. I think it is clothing. The decision of the board of United States general appraisers may be affirmed. So ordered·.
NOTB. ThetarUr act of Maroh 8,1888, was deoided to be repeilled by the tarUr act of Ootobel' 1, 1880, iDBa Straus, 46 Fed. Rep. 500. -.
(OW'cuit Oourt, S. D. New¥ork. January S, 1892.),'
1. CUSTOlllSDUTIEs...ADMunSTJlATIVllI OtiSTOJlS ACT oli' JUNB Oll' PROTBST.· .' '.,
A protest; made within the 10 customs aot of.June 10, 1890, tion of that time, be amelj.d6jl.
by section. 14 of the a.dministrativ.e St. p.1SI,) cannot, after theexpira:
1892-AlIlENDMBN'I' " '. .
In a elise ai'isilj.g under,this aot, In Which neither the classification for duty by a in a collector of customs of imported merchandise under a provision agraph of the tariff act ot October I,' 1890, (chapUlr!244, 26 St. p. 567,) nor the classification thereof,olaimed under' another proviSion,' contained :ilj. another paragraph protest, .is the correct and legal elassifioat10n, a decision of a, boa.rdof United. S'tates general appraisers olassifying this merchandise under a thirdprovisioli,ooI1tBined In a third paragraph,:wU1:be reversed, and the deeis.ion collector affirmed, by a United States cjrcnit. cQurt, reviewing suob. decision ohuch board, even though the rate Of duty p,rescribed by suoh third graph 'tie 'the ,SJmUil as that Olaimed in the aforesaid protest. : ,
At Law .j: :Applicationfor a review of the decision ola board of United States general appraisers. On OctobEu' :6; ,189(); Sherman,; Cecil,& Co;, -imported by the La Champagne, from a foreign country into the United States at the port of New York, certain cotton cloths called "Swisa8pots" and'" Sprigs." These cloths had certain raised ornamental figures thereon of the kinds indicated by 'the words " spots" and'} sprigs, " and were classed for duty as "articltlS embroidered by hand or machinery," under' the provision for "embroideries' . .* and,.?!'" i ,* *, articles embroidered bX hand or machinery," contained in Schedule J; of the tariff act of October 1; l890,:(N. T.378;)and duty at the rate 60 per cent. ad valorem was· exacted 'thereon by j the collector of customs at that ;port. Against this classification and this exaction;, Sherman, Cecil & Co., within the 10 days specified by !lection 14 of the administrative customs act of June 10,1890, <chapter 407, U. S. St. p. 131,) duly protested to the collector, claiming, that the goods were dutiable at the rate of 40 per cent. ad valorem as " bleached cotton Cloths counting over' 100,threads, and unto inqh, l.\n.d valued, at over 10 cents per clothS contained in Schedule square yard, under the provision for I, (N. T. 346.) Thereafter the board of United States general appraisers took certain evidence, by which it appeared in brief that these cloths were not embroideries, and that the ornamental figures upon them, which the collector held rendered them" articles embroidered," etc., were not embroidered thereon, as the terms" em broideries" and" embroidered" were understood in trade and commerce of this country. The board, on March 31, 1891, (S. 11,027, G. A. 470,) decided that upon this evidence these Cloths were not dutiable at 60 per cent. ad valorem, as "articles embroidered," etc., under the provision for such articles contained in Schedule J, (N. T. 373;) that, upon the authority of Robertson v. Hedden, 40 Fed. Rep. 322, these cloths were not dutiable at the rate of 40 per cent. ad valorem, as countable cotton cloths, etc., under the