110·as' cc propnemit1artioles ,·or prepared· itp :some., pri Vll te '. mula, -as ;remediftSlor·speaifics for any .disease, or:dUJeases or affections W:batever is medicinal, whatever." Ai1d(,that,iI think, is the recommended :a&J;fuctti....;..it may be good for somethiug,or it mllY buHfit is of of stuff that is got up to folks think it will eurethem.-...+tbatcomesunder .paragraph 99; but iOt is for a drink, for uselUla beverage :and not for cUle,then it will Q9me under 818; llnd Iso'decide this,oilse; The decision of the board of United States generalappraisers ,is
(CCreuCt C'0urt.B. D. NewYor1c. February 11, 1892.)
Two artioles, produCed at a period prior to the year 1700, do not oobstitut6aool. leotion of antiquilieElj ititbmthe meaning of. the provisi<>11 for ,suoh oolleotlons uontaiued of the tariff act of Ootober1, 18\10, (26 U. S. St. p. 567.)
OJ' ANTIQUITIBS-AoT OOT. 1, 1890,CONSTR1:Tlm.
2. S.c;itether or not aD. at, stiCh period is within this provision does not depend'upon the faotwhether it has belonged to a colleotlon of antiquities, or iI$ imported to luC)ha oollection,but whether it ilia part of suoh a oollection When it is brought in., ' ' , . , ' .cS'IItltlbus btl the' Coun.J
, At Law. Appimlby Louis Stem fora review ofthe decision or United general appraisers. ' . .The above-named Lotii!l$tem imported Apdl 27, 1891. by the Spree, from a foreign:oountry into the port of New York, two antique Gobelin 'tapestries. made of wool and silk, wool being the component material of Qhief value. " These two tapestries were classified for duty as ures made -in' part of wool under the provision for such manufactures lcontained in paragraph 892 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890. (26 U. p. 567 ,)and duty at the compound rates' prescribed thereby for S. ,manufactures of that kind was exacted thereon by the collector of that 'port.' Against this classification and this exaction the importer tes'ted,claiming that these tapestries were a collection.orantiquities and pr()ducts of'a period prior to the' year 1700, were suitable for souvenirs, 'Were purchased by :him for the purpose of adding to his collection of antiquities in New York, and, ,were, therefore, entitled to entry free of duty, under the provision for such collection contained in paragraph 524 ofthe same tariff act, which reads: '''Cabinets of old coins and medals, and other collections of antiqUities; but tbe term' antiqUities, 'SBUSed in this act, shall include on Jy such articles as
are suitable for
souvenirs or cabinet c911ections, and which shall have been prqlluced at any period prior, to tbeyearseventeen bundred."·
The board of United States generalappraisers,llfter taking evidence, found that these two tapestries were made of wool and silk, wool being
IN BE BOYD.
the· 'COmponent material of chief .value;' that they were produced at. a period prior to the yeal' 1700;. that they and two other antique Gobelin tapestries, produced at a like period, Were allpur:chased by the said Louis Stem for the purpose ofadding them to a,CQllection of curiosities and brie-a-brac, which he owned at the time in New York; that the two tapestries in suit were placed by the said Stem in his apartment ina foreign country,while temporarily residing there, being thus separated' from the other two tapestries, so as to destroy the unity of IlsseIilblage; that the two in suit were ordered to be shipped to this country, and were shipped on' a different vessel from that in which the other two were imported; that theSe tapestries were not suitable for souvenirs, or for a cabinet of collections of antiquarian curiosities, within the' meaning of paragraph 524, and were not free of duty thereunder; and the board affirmed the decision of the collector as to the aforeElaid classification and exaction Iilade by him. From this decision of the board the importei' appealed to the United States circuit court for a review of the questions of law and fact involved, and thereafter, upon the return made by the was tried. board, this W. Wickham Smith, of Ourie, Smith, & Machie, for appellant. Edward M'lkhell, U. S. Atty., and Thomas Greenwood, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
WALLACE, Circuit Judge. Inasmuch as the question in this case can very readily be reviewed by the circuit court of appeals, I am not disposed to feel trammeled by any of the previous decisions in this circuit, or in any other circuit, in respect to it. I think a "collection" means something more than two articles. I also think that whether an article is dutiable or not under this particular clause does not depend upon the fact whether it has belonged to a collection or is imported to add to a collection, but whether it is apart of a collection when it is brought in. Therefore I hold that these tapestries were dutiable, and I affirm the decision of the board of appraisers.
CCWcuit Court, So D. Ntw Yor7c. FebrulU'J 18, 1899.)
CUSTOMS DUTIEs--AOT OJ' OOTOBER 1 1890-CLASSI:FIOATION-COTToN
LAQII APllONBo Aprons made of cotton lace /teld not to be dutiable, as articles of wearing apparel, at 00 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 849 of the act of October 1, 1890, but dutiable, as "articles made wholly or in part of lace, " at 60 per cent. ad l1alO'1"em, under paragraph 373 of said act. (SyUavus btl the Court.)
At Law. Appeal by collector of the port of New York from decision 'Of the board of United Statai general appraisers under the acto!' June 10, 18UO.