derived from coal tar. It is a nonmedicinal coal-tar preparation and a chemical compound. Undoubtedly, the true coumarin of immediate vegetable origin would be dutiable under paragraph 3 as assessed, but when it is proven, as in this case, that it is derived from coal tar and is a coal-tar preparation, then the provision for coal-tar preparations, which is narrower and more specific than chemical compounds, embraces the article in question, and this claim in the protest is sustained. (T. D. 25482.) Summary of decisions of the Board of General Appraisers. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 20, 1904. The following abstracts of decisions of the United States Board of General Appraisers at New York are published for the information and guidance of officers of the customs and others concerned. While the decisions are not of enough interest to promulgate entire, the summary herein given will be of assistance to customs officials in easily locating cases and tracing important facts. ROBERT B. ARMSTRONG, Assistant Secretary. No. 2241.-FRENCH RECIPROCITY-SPIRITS-CLERICAL ERROR-PROTEST SIGNED WITH WRONG NAME.-Protest 97286 ƒ of H. E. Frankenberg Company against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), July 13, 1904. The merchandise in question consisted of certain spirits, which were claimed in the protest to be subject to the French reciprocal commercial agreement. The Board found the merchandise to be of a character which would entitle it to be included within said agreement under the rule of United States v. Wile (T. D. 25223). The only question on which there was any controversy was in regard to the sufficiency of the protest. * * The only question of doubt is as to the SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser: * signature to the protest, which is signed "Henry E. Frankenberg Co., by F. W. Brooks." It appears from the testimony of Mr. Brooks that he is the authorized attorney for Henry E. Gourd, the importer, and that on the day on which he signed this protest he also signed some for the Henry E. Frankenberg Company, and that by a clerical error in this instance he signed the name of the Henry E. Frankenberg Company instead of the name Henry E. Gourd, which he intended to place on this protest. The present protest was filed by virtue of specific instructions received from Henry E. Gourd as to this importation, whereas Mr. Brooks received no instructions whatever from the Henry E. Frankenberg Company to file any protests for them on importations of cordials or on their account, nor has the witness any knowledge that they imported any such cordials either by the vessel named in the entry or in any other manner. The agency of Mr. Brooks for the purpose of filing this protest in behalf of Mr. Gourd is clearly established, and it is equally clear that he was not the agent of the Frankenberg Company for this purpose. We are of opinion that, in view of the similarity of the Christian names of the two parties, and of the circumstances under which the signature was made, a case of clerical error has been shown, and that the protest is sufficient. Herman v. Schell (18 Fed. Rep., 891.) In Gray . Lawrence (3 Blatch., 117) it was decided that an entry or protest made by an agent is, in law, (T. D. 25482.) made by his principal. In the present case no question is raised as to the fact of Mr. Brooks's agency. The protest is sustained and the decision of the collector is reversed, with instructions to reliquidate the entry. WAITE, General Appraiser (concurring): I agree that the protest should be sustained in this case. HAY, General Appraiser (dissenting): I can not agree with the conclusions reached in this case. The facts stated do not constitute a manifest clerical error such as is contemplated by section 32 of the act of July 24, 1897, and I know of no other principle of law that may be invoked before this Board that would entitle the protestants to the relief accorded by this decision. I therefore dissent therefrom. No. 2242.-PROTEST ABANDONED.-Protest 98126 ƒ of Emil Levi against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt and McClelland, General Appraisers), July 13, 1904. Opinion by Lunt, G. A. Protest abandoned; overruled. No. 2243.-PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protests 15994 h, etc., of Frank D'Anci et al. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Same as No. 2242 (supra). No. 2244.-PROTEST UNSUPPORTED.-Protest 115184 of Geo. Borgfeldt & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), July 13, 1904. Opinion by Hay, G. A. Protest overruled for lack of evidence. No. 2245.-FAVORED-NATION CLAUSE IN BRITISH TREATY.-Protests 40224 h, etc., of C. H. King et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), July 13, 1904. Opinion by Somerville, G. A. The question was the same as in G. A. 5670 (T. D. 25260), where the Board affirmed the action of the collector in declining to apply the provisions of the most-favorednation clause in the British treaty on account of reductions in duty provided in reciprocal commercial agreements with other countries. Protests overruled. No. 2246.-PALM NUTS-PANDANUS SEEDS-COMMINGLING OF GOODS.-Protest 15268 h of F. B. Vandegrift & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), July 13, 1904. WAITE, General Appraiser: The goods in this case were all assessed for duty at 30 per cent ad valorem under the provision for "seeds of all kinds not specially provided for" in paragraph 254 of the tariff act of 1897. The local appraiser reports that the merchandise consists of palm nuts and pandanus seeds mixed, the greater part of which are pandanus; and that as no separation was possible, they were returned as though all were pandanus seeds. The palm and pandanus appear to belong to different botanical orders, and there is nothing in the case before us which would enable us to say that the classification of pandanus seeds under paragraph 254 was not correct. Palm nuts are, by name, made free of duty under paragraph 622, and on this provision the protestants base their claim. The proportion of palm nuts in the importation, however, has not been shown, and it is a well-established principle that collectors, where free and dutiable goods are (T. D. 25482.) thus commingled, may assess the entire importation at the rate applicable to the dutiable merchandise, unless the importer shows what part of the whole is not subject to duty. United States v. Ranlett (172 U. S., 133); In re Schmoll, G. A. 4624 (T. D. 21900). It has not been thought necessary to notice a further claim made in the protest under paragraph 617. The protest is overruled and the collector's decision affirmed. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, No. 2247.-ANGELICA IN BRINE - CRUDE VEGETABLE SUBSTANCE.-Protests 103080, etc., of E. Reboulin Fils & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. and Hay, General Appraisers), July 13, 1904. On authority of G. A. 5547 (T. D. 24917), Held that stalks of the angelica plant preserved in brine are free of duty under paragraph 617, tariff act of 1897, as a crude vegetable substance. Protests sustained. No. 2248.-DRAGEES-CONFECTIONERY.-Protest 107462 of La Manna, Azema & Farnan against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), July 13, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. On authority of G. A. 5485 (T. D. 24799), Held that certain so-called dragees were properly classified as confectionery under paragraph 212, tariff act of 1897. No. 2249.-STATUARY-BUSTS-PEDESTALS.-Protest 61590b of Charles H. Wagner against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Chicago. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), July 13, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. On authority of G. A. 5196 (T. D. 23955) and G. A. 5501 (T. D. 24822), Held, as claimed by the importer, that certain marble busts are statuary within the meaning of paragraph 454, tariff act of 1897, but that certain pedestals are not statuary and were properly classified as manufactures of marble under paragraph 115 of said act. No. 2250.-BEAN CAKE-UNENUMERATED ARTICLE.--Protest 103549b of Y. Suga against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Honolulu. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), July 13, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. On authority of G. A. 5361 (T. D. 24513), Held, that certain bean cake is dutiable as an unenumerated manufactured article under section 6 of the tariff act of 1897, as claimed by the importers. No. 2251.-CANARY SEED.—Protest 104631 of Pascal, Dubedat & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of San Francisco. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), July 13, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. On authority of Nordlinger v. United States (T. D. 24976), Held that certain canary seed was properly classified as seeds not specially provided for under paragraph 254, tariff act of 1897, and is not free of duty as grass seed under paragraph 656. No. 2252.-PROTEST INSUFFICIENT.-Protest 112637 of R. & J. Farquahr & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Burlington. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), July 13, 1904. Opinion by Waite, G. A. The protestants claimed the merchandise to be free of duty, but failed to mention in their protest the paragraph number, or to point out in any way the provision of law (T. D. 25482.) under which the exemption is claimed, and made no suggestion at any stage of the case which would indicate the claim they had in mind. The Board held that the protests failed to satisfy the requirement of section 14 of the customs administrative act that a protest should set forth “distinctly and specifically " the reasons for the importers' objection to the collector's action. Protest overruled. No. 2253.-RECIPROCITY-SPIRITS.-Protests 83157f, etc., of Julius Wile Brother & Co. et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 3 (Waite, Somerville, and Hay, General Appraisers), July 13, 1904. Opinion by Somerville, G. A. On authority of United States v. Wile (T. D. 25223), Held that certain spirituous beverages, including cordials, imported from France are subject to the reduced rate of duty provided in the reciprocal commercial agreements with France, Germany, Portugal, and Italy, as contended by the importers. Note G. A. 5736 (T. D. 25442). No. 2254.-RECIPROCITY-SPIRITS.-Protests 83099f, etc., of Luyties Brothers et al. Same as No. 2253 (supra). No. 2255.-FRENCH RECIPROCITY-SPIRITS.-Protests 47399b, etc., of Grommes & Ullrich et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Chicago. Same as No. 2253 (supra). No. 2256.-RECIPROCITY-SPIRITS.-Protests 47417b, etc., of Glasner & Barzen et al. against the assessment of duty by the surveyor of customs at the port of Kansas City. Same as No. 2253 (supra). No. 2257.-RECIPROCITY-SPIRITS.-Protests 48684b, etc., of Wilfred Schade & Co. against the assessment of duty by the surveyor of customs at the port of St. Louis. Same as No. 2253 (supra). No. 2258.-RECIPROCITY-SPIRITS.-Protests 50356b, etc., of Robert Steel et al. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Philadelphia. Same as No. 2253 (supra). No. 2259.-RECIPROCITY-SPIRITS.-Protests 101129, etc., of Jos. R. Peebles Sons Company against the assessment of duty by the surveyor of customs at the port of Cincinnati. Same as No. 2253 (supra). No. 2260.—Reciprocity—SPIRITS.—Protest 115768 of McGreal Brothers against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Rochester. Same as No. 2253 (supra). No. 2261.-RECIPROCITY-SPIRITS.-Protest 47448b of Cushman & Co. against the assessment of duty by the surveyor of customs at the port of Albany. Same as No. 2253 (supra). No. 2262.-FRENCH RECIPROCITY-SPIRITS.-Protest 47228b of D. Kelly against. the assessment of duty by the surveyor of customs at the port of Columbus. Same as No. 2253 (supra). (T. D. 25482.) No. 2263.—Water-Color PAINTS-TOYS.-Protest 112706 of Geo. Borgfeldt & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), July 14, 1904. Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. The questions before the Board were the same as in G. A. 5697 (T. D. 25355), where it was held that water color paints in metal boxes, irrespective of their cost, and watercolor paints in other kinds of boxes, invoiced at over 30 francs net per gross boxes, were not dutiable as toys under paragraph 418, tariff act of 1897, as assessed, but under paragraph 58, as paints, as claimed by the importers. No. 2264.-WATER-COLOR PAINTS TOYS.-Protest 113073 of Geo. Borgfeldt & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers,) July 14, 1904. Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. The merchandise consisted of water-color paints in boxes other than tin, invoiced at 25 marks or less per gross boxes. On authority of G A. 5697 (T. D. 25355), Held that they were properly classified as toys under paragraph 418, tariff act of 1897. No. 2265.-WATER COLOR PAINTS-Toys.-Protests 24138 h, etc., of G. A. & E. Meyer, et al. Same as No. 2263 (supra). No. 2266.-WATER-COLOR PAINTS-Toys.-Protests 24645 h, etc., of G. A. & E. Meyer et al. Same as No. 2263 (supra), the merchandise being water-color paints costing more than 25 marks per gross boxes. No. 2267.-WATER-COLOR PAINTS-TOYS.-Protest 111406 of Geo. Borgfeldt & Co. Same as No. 2263 (supra). No. 2268.-TRIPLICATE MIRRORS-Toys.-Protest 111734 of B. Illfelder & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), July 14, 1904. Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. On authority of G. A. 5526 (T. D. 24869), it was held that certain triplicate mirrors were dutiable as toys under paragraph 418, tariff act of 1897. Protest sustained. No. 2269.—Protest InsuFFICIENT.—Protest 28725h of B. Illfelder & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), July 14, 1904. Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. It appeared that the merchandise in this case had been improperly classified, but as the importers did not make the correct claim, the protest was overruled. No. 2270-COMBINATION PENS AND PENHOLDERS.-Protest 111736 of B. Illfelder & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 1 (Lunt, Sharretts, and McClelland, General Appraisers), July 14, 1904. Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. On authority of G. A. 5536 (T. D. 24906), Held that certain combination pens and 'penholders composed of colored glass were dutiable under paragraph 112, tariff act of 1897, as manufactures of glass. Protest sustained. |