under the prOVISIOns of article 1126 of the treasury regulations even the correction of a clerical error is not permitted where it amounts to a change in the appraisal. The lmporter thereupon had the right to protest against the second valuation by the appraiser on the ground that he (the 'appraiser) had no jurisdiction to recall the invoices, and rp.ake a I am not suffi· dently familiar with the practice in these matters to feel certain as to the proper course to be pursued, but it seems to me that under section 13 of the customs administrative act of 1890 it is doubtful whether the importer could have taken advantage of this unauthorb;ed act of the appraiser by notice, within two days after appraisement, of dissatisfaction, because this does not appear to be a question of dissatisfaction with an appraisal, but of jurisdiction to make a new appraisal. The decision, of the board of general appraisers is affirmed.
SCHOELLKOPF, HARTFORD &' MACLAGAN, STATES. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. May 18, 1899.) No. 2,493.
, CUSTOMS DUTIES-CLASSIFICATION-CRUDE CARBOLIC ACID.
The article known commercially and popularly as crude carbQlic acid, and used for manufacturing purposes, which is the first product of the distillation of coal tar, and' contains, in addition to carbolic acid. many combinations of basic oils and bitumens, .although notchemlcally an acid, is entitled to free entry under paragraph 473, of the tariff act of 1890 as an "acid used for manufacturing purposes," and is not dutiabie under paragraph 19 as a preparation Of coal tar.
Appeal by the importers froni a decision of the board of general appraisers, which sustained the action of the collector of customs in assessing duties upon the importations in ql,lestion. Albert Comstock, for importers. J. T., Vall Rensselaer, Asst. U. So Atty. TOWNSEND, DistrictJudge. The article in question is a crude product obtailled from the of coal tar, and was assessed per cent., ad valorem" in. accordance with the provifor duty sions of par::"graph 76 of the act of 1890, as a product known as an oil. The importers protested, claiming that it was either free, as an acid used for purposes, under paragraph 473 of said act, orqutiable at 20 per cent. ad valorem, as a "preparation of coal tar," under paragraph 19 "of said act. In view of the decisions in Matheson & CO. v" U. 8., 18" G.,C. A. 143, 71, Fed. 394, affirmed in 78 Fed. 810, and U. 8. v. Warren Chemical '&Mfg. Co., 28 O. C. A. 50,0, Fed, 638;.it is admitted that the assessment of duty at 25 <;ent. was wrong. The sole question herein, is whether this product is free under paragraph 473. It is conceded that it il) commerciaIly known as crude carbolic acid, and that it
LESHER, WHITMAN &: CO. V. UNITED STATES.
is used for manufacturing purposes, and that for a period of about 15 years products popularly known as carbolic acids have been classified for duty by the treasury officials as such. On the other hand, it is admitted that it is not, in strict chemical parlance, an acid, and that there is, in fact, no such acid as a carbolic acid. The contention of counsel for the government is that the article in question is a crude carbolic oil of the dead oil class, containing only about 35 per cent. of what are commonly known as carbolic and cresylic acids. In support of this contention it is shown that this product is the first running over in the process of distillation of coal tar, and that it contains many combinations of basic oils and bitumens in addition to the carbolic acid, and that certain German writers call this product carbolic oil. It was decided in Lutz v. Magone, 153 U. S. 105, 14 Sup. Ct. 777, that in the construction of tariff acts questions of whether an article was or was not an acid were not scientific questions, and that, therefore, scientifio tests were not conclusive. It appears that the term "crude carbolic acid" covers a wide range of products of varying degrees of purity; and the evidence introduced on behalf of the go-vernment, derived chiefly from German chemical works, is insufficient to overcome the proof that this product, which is commercially known as crude carbolic acid, is also popularly and scientifically known in this country as crude carbolic acid. The conclusions herein are strengthened by an examination of the opinion of Judge Dallas in Be Schultz, 94 Fed. 820, in the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, where he holds that an article similar in character. although differing somewhat in the· comparative quantities 01. foreign substances, is substantially an acid. The decisioD. of the board of general appraisers is therefore reversed.
LESHER. WHITMAN & ·CO. v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. No. 2.732.
CUSTOMS DUTIES-CONSTRUCTION OF ACT OF 1894-ScOPB OF PROVISION DEPER. RING TAKING EFFECT OF WOOLEN SCHEDULE. Paragraph 297 of the tariff act of 1894, providing that the reduction of
May 17, 1899.)
rates of duty therein made on manufactures of wool should not take effect until January 1, 1895, embraced all the various classes of goods in Schedule K. made Wholly or in part of wool,-those specifically enumerated as well as those which were not.
Appeal by the importers from a decision of the board of general appraisers which sustained the action of the collector of customiS in assessing duties upon the merchandise in question. Stephen G. Clarke, for importers. Henry C. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty. TOvVNSEND, District Judge. The article in question is a ronn· ufactnre of worsted and cotton, worsted chief value, commercia.!ly