within the general description of Schedule A, section 8; also that the similitude clause, section 5, did not apply, for the reason that the article was an enumerated one. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 14, 1895. SIR: The Department is authoritatively informed that under the laws of Denmark no bounty is granted on the export of unrefined sugar the product of said country, but that an indirect bounty is paid on the exportation of sugar refined from raw sugars under No. 19 in color by the Dutch standard. You are therefore advised that those sugars only which are refined from raw sugars under said number in color, when imported from that country, will be liable to the additional duty of one-tenth of 1 cent per pound under the provisions of paragraph 1824 of the act of August 28, 1894. The instructions of August 31, 1894 (Synopsis 15209), are hereby modified accordingly. Respectfully, yours, (6604 g.) COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. (15622.) CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Acting Secretary. Substituted Powers of Attorney. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 14, 1895. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo, in which, referring to Synopsis 15431, you request information as to your duty in regard to substituted powers of attorney, "as no specific instructions have been received at (your) office otherwise than through the promulgation of the circular of decisions issued December 1, 1894." You state that decisions 14029 and 14030 were noted at your office, but "were construed as applying to a species of powers of attorney and to a practice not in vogue at your port. " You further state that if the decision No. 14998 "had not escaped notice until referred to in No. 15431, you would have before this asked for instructions." You report that about 90 per cent of the powers of attorney on file in your office are invalid under the former decision, as they contain a clause giving power of substitution. You say that because of the great labor which it would entail upon the clerical force of your office and the inconvenience that would result to importers, etc., you hesitate to order the filing of new powers of attorney. You also present certain views adverse to the propriety of the Department's ruling in the above matter. The difficulties which you describe as likely to grow out of an enforcement of the Department's rulings will probably disappear after a careful reading of Synopsis 15431, wherein the collector at Baltimore is informed, in answer to his query, that "Bonds, withdrawals, etc., executed under regular powers of attorney, by an attorney originally named and not by a substituted attorney, would be entirely valid and would not be regarded as defective. * * * While it is desirable that amended powers of attorney should be procured in place of those containing the objectionable clause, no objection is perceived to the exercise, by the original attorneys, of all the powers conferred upon them in such instruments, except the power of substitution." Under this opinion of the Department, there can be no necessity for a wholesale rejection of those powers of attorney which have been accepted and placed on file, but no substitution can be permitted except by the principals named in the instruments, nor can any power of attorney be accepted hereafter which contains a clause granting the power of substitution. Powers of attorney are not employed under statutory authority. They are allowed by the Department simply for the convenience of importers. A careful consideration of the matter has convinced the Department that the privilege requires strict and definite limitations. In Synopsis 14029, May 22, 1893 (which appears to have escaped your observance) the Department instructed the collector at Philadelphia that in all future proceedings he should "refuse to recognize a transferable power of attorney as of any authority." The collector himself had described the difficulties which he encountered in dealing with powers of attorney containing the power of substitution, and declared that, in some instances, he was compelled to "wade through a labyrinth of transfers to determine the final attorney." Under the customs laws the importer maintains a peculiar relation to the Government. Severe penalties are provided by section 9 of the customs administrative act for any connivance on his part in any proceeding "by means of which the United States shall be deprived of the lawful duties of any portion thereof" accruing upon the merchandise imported by him. It is requisite that the direct responsibility of the importer shall be rigidly maintained without being attenuated by the interposition of a succession of substituted attorneys. The Department concedes to the importer the right to revoke at any time a power of attorney granted by him, and it is proper, in this view, that the attor ney shall be one originally named by him and not a more or less remote substitute. You are therefore instructed that powers of attorney now on file may continue operative until they are revoked or until they expire by limitation, except that the rights and privileges conferred thereby must be exercised solely by the attorneys originally named therein; also that no power of attorney shall hereafter be accepted by you which contains the objectionable clause. If substituted attorneys are now representing the principals in any such instrument, you will, as soon as practicable, direct such principals to file new instruments drawn in accordance with Department's views. The following rulings of the Department relate to the subject of powers of attorney: Synopses 2481, 5099, 5580, 9001, 9233, 10124, 14029, 14030, 14998, 15431. Respectfully, yours, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. (15623.) CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Acting Secretary. Amendment of Regulations for the Departure from and Return to the United States of Chinese Laborers. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 14, 1895. To Collectors of Customs and other Officers of the Treasury Department: The circular of this Department, dated December 28, 1894, prescribing regulations under the treaty proclaimed by the President on the 8th of December last, is amended hereby in such manner as to require Chinese laborers making application to customs officers nearest the place of residence of such laborers for certification of their identification papers to state the place in the United States from which they are to make their exit from this country. Collectors or other customs officers receiving and certifying the applications of Chinese laborers should transmit such applications and accompanying papers to the collector for the district in which the place of exit is situated, or to the deputy collector of customs stationed at such place. In all other respects the provisions of the circular of December 28, 1894, will be observed. CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Acting Secretary. (15624.) Dry-Salted and Arsenic-Cured Hides do not require Disinfection. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 14, 1895. SIR: The Department duly received your letter of the 22d ultimo in regard to the disinfection of hides imported from Madagascar via London. The matter was submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture, who advises this Department in such matters, and I now inclose herewith a copy of his reply, dated the 31st ultimo, from which you will see that he expresses the opinion that consular certificates can not be taken as a reliable basis for formulating regulations to prevent the introduction of disease, and he states in support of such opinion that certificates as to the absence of disease have been granted even in European countries where the official reports of those countries show the widespread prevalence of cattle diseases. As the matter of the disinfection of hides to be shipped to the United States now stands, all hides from Great Britain and the Continent of Europe and the various countries of Asia and Africa which have not been arsenic cured or salted require disinfection before shipment to the United States. For your further information you are respectfully referred to the Secretary of State, who will probably furnish you with a copy of his circular in the matter, issued under date of the 22d ultimo. CHARLES S. HAMLIN, Respectfully, yours, Mr. GEORGE ROPES, No. 10 Broad street, Boston, Mass. (15625.) Acting Secretary. Classification of Hat Braids Under Act of 1890. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 15, 1895. SIR: The Department is in receipt of a communication from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, dated the 2d instant, reporting that the appeal in the case of the United States, appellants, v. Leon Rheims, appellee, No. 1227, in the United States circuit court of appeals for the second circuit, was decided adversely to the Government. This case involved the dutiable classification of certain "hat braids," imported by Leon Rheims, April 11, 1892, per La Gascogne, under the provisions of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, classified by you as subject to duty at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem as manufactures of vegetable fiber under the provisions for "all manufactures of jute or other vegetable fiber, except flax, hemp, or cotton, or of which jute or other vegetable fiber, except flax, hemp, or cotton is a component material of chief value, not specially provided for" (paragraph 374, act of October 1, 1890). The importer protested, claiming that the braids were free of duty under the provisions for "braids, plaits, laces, and similar manufactures composed of straw, chip, grass, palm leaf, willow, ozier, or rattan," suitable for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets, and hoods, contained in paragraph 518 of the said act. Evidence taken before the Board of General Appraisers established, among other things, that the braids were composed in quantity of 71.18 per cent straw and 28.82 per cent cotton cord or cotton; that the value of one piece of 12 yards of the braid was 5 francs, and that of these 5 francs, 3.80 were the value of the straw and 1.20 francs the value of the cotton; the Board also found that the braids were braids of straw, suitable for making or ornamenting hats, and accordingly reversed your classification. Application for review having been filed by you under the provisions of section 15 of the act of June 10, 1890, the case was duly heard in the United States circuit court for the southern district of New York, and resulted in a decision in favor of the importers. This decision was in turn appealed from to the United States circuit court of appeals, and has again resulted in a decision adverse to the Government. The Attorney-General advises this Department, under date of the 4th instant, that as the decision of the court appears to be in harmony with the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Arthur v. Butterfield (125 U. S.) and Herman v. Robertson (152 U.S.) no further proceedings will be directed by him in this case. You are therefore hereby authorized to take the usual course for refunding the excessive duties exacted in this case. Sugars Refined in England the Product of that Country. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 15, 1895. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, with one inclosure, wherein the question is presented whether a certificate of nonpayment of bounty, in the form prescribed in Circular No. 9, of the 14th ultimo, should be required on entries of sugars refined in and imported from England. In reply, I have to inform you that, inasmuch as sugars refined in England from raw sugars of whatever origin are held to be the product of that country (see Synopsis 13613, last paragraph), and as the Government of Great Britain does not pay any bounties on sugars exported, the importations in question are not subject to the provisions of said circular, which, under the terms of paragraph 1824 of the present tariff referred to therein, are applicable only to countries which grant bounties on the exportation of sugars. Respectfully, yours, (6604 g.) COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston Mass. CHARLES S. HAMLIN, |