assessed it for duty at three-eighths of 1 cent per pound under that part of paragraph 89 of the tariff act of 1909 which reads as follows: 89. Pumice stone, wholly or partially manufactured, three-eighths of one cent per pound; * The importers protested that the pumice stone was unmanufactured, valued at over $15 per ton, and therefore dutiable at one-fourth of 1 cent per pound under that part of paragraph 89 which reads as follows: 89. Pumice stone, * unmanufactured, valued at $15 or less per ton, 30 per centum ad valorem; valued at more than $15 per ton, one-fourth of 1 cent per pound. The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appealed. The pumice stone involved in the appeal was returned by the appraiser as "pumice stone in lumps which has undergone a process of manufacture either by filing or otherwise." From the testimony produced at the hearing by the importers it appears that this particular merchandise comes from Canneto-Lipari, Italy, and is taken out of the mines in large pieces, which are broken up and divided into grades according to quality. The rough edges and corners of the finer grades are removed by filing or by rolling the pieces of pumice in a cylinder so as to grind off inequalities and projecting points by the friction of one piece against another. The pumice stone in controversy has been either filed or rolled and is designed to be used in the production of smooth, polished surfaces or a high finish on woodwork and such manufactures as carriage bodies. Beyond filing or rolling the pumice stone, ordinarily nothing further is required to make it ready for use except to cut it in two. From the evidence adduced at the hearing it is apparent to us that pumice stone broken into rough pieces, just as it is taken out of the mine, could not be conveniently handled or advantageously used by workmen as an appliance for finishing surfaces requiring a high polish. To fit the pumice for any such use and to make it ready for the hands of the workman, it is necessary that the rough edges and corners should be smoothed away by filing or rolling, and that the stone should be cut in two in order to provide a flat polishing surface. While, in our opinion, to constitute the completed article, ready for use, filing or rolling and cutting of the pumice stone are both necessary, yet the filing or rolling by itself fits it to some degree for efficient and advantageous use, and therefore it may be properly designated as pumice stone partially manufactured to distinguish it from the pumice stone which has been completely manufactured and from the pumice stone upon which nothing at all has been done to adapt it to its ultimate purpose. If paragraph 89 provided only for manufactured and unmanufactured pumice stone, we would be disposed to give serious consideration to the contention of the importer that the importation should not be regarded as a manufactured article. The paragraph provides, however, not only for manufactured and unmanufactured pumice stone, but also for partially manufactured pumice stone, and we do not see how filed or rolled pumice stone can be classified as wholly unmanufactured without ignoring the manifest intent of Congress to lay a duty on pumice stone which is neither completely manufactured nor wholly unmanufactured. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed. FENSTERER & RUHE et al. v. UNITED STATES (No. 1217).1 PARTS OF LAMPS FOR BURNING GAS. This article can not be said to be hollow ware of iron or steel similar to table, kitchen, and hospital utensils. The article is a part of a fixed device not complete in itself, lacking as it does the gas mantel and the globe which ordinarily accompany it, and it must be joined with a gas pipe when put in use. It was dutiable under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. United States Court of Customs Appeals, January 14, 1914. APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7467 (T. D. 33508). [Affirmed.] Comstock & Washburn for appellants. William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (Martin T. Baldwin, special attorney, of counsel; Henry H. Childers, special attorney, on the brief), for the United States. Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, DE VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges. MONTGOMERY, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The merchandise in controversy consists of gas burners composed of various kinds of metal and other materials, metal chief value. It is claimed to be dutiable under paragraph 158 of the act of 1909, which reads as follows: Table, kitchen, and hospital utensils, or other similar hollow ware, of iron or steel, enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses, but not ornamented or decorated with lithographic or other printing, forty per centum ad valorem. The merchandise was assessed for duty at 45 per cent under paragraph 199 as "articles or wares not specially provided for in this section, composed wholly or in part of * steel." An accurate description of the merchandise is found in the opinion of General Appraiser Fischer, which we quote: These so-called burners are lamp parts made up of a tube-like covering of enameled sheet metal in which there are galvanized metal parts holding firmly within the cov ering a central brass tube, at one end of which is a device for regulating the air and gas supply to insure perfect combustion of the gas when in use and at the other end of which there is a magnesia tip for holding the ordinary gas mantle. The article has at one end a brass connection, so that it may be connected to a gas pipe, while at the other end there are brass screws to hold a globe. Two things will be noted: First, that this article before being susceptible of use must be fixed to a gas pipe; secondly, it is not complete in itself and forms no utensil or implement adapted to 1 Reported in T. D. 34096 (26 Treas. Dec., 92). use. It lacks the gas mantle, which is an essential requisite to its usefulness, and also lacks the globe which usually accompanies it and provision for which is made. The question is, Can this be said to be hollow ware of iron or steel similar to table, kitchen, and hospital utensils? We think not. It is a part of a fixed device not complete in itself and which, when completed, would not be used as an implement or utensil in the ordinary sense in which those words are employed, but would be more in the nature of a fixture or, as termed in the Government's brief, a device. There is no such resemblance to table, kitchen, or hospital utensils or hollow ware as to constitute it in a tariff sense similar hollow ware of iron or steel. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed. UNITED STATES v. HENDERSON (No. 1222).1 SILVER SWEEPINGS. The merchandise is sweepings of silver contained in sawdust, and it is imported so that the silver content may be reclaimed. It falls clearly within paragraph 643, tariff act of 1909, providing free entry for "sweepings of gold and silver." United States Court of Customs Appeals, January 14, 1914. APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 32848 (T. D. 33591). [Affirmed.] William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (Charles E. McNabb, assistant attorney, of counsel; Henry H. Childers, special attorney, on the brief), for the United States. Comstock & Washburn for appellee. Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, DE VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges. DE VRIES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The tariff act of 1909, paragraph 643, provides free entry for "ores of gold, * * * sweepings of gold and silver." Paragraph 479 of the dutiable section of that act prescribes a rate of 10 per cent ad valorem upon "waste, not specially provided for in this section, ***" M. Henderson imported at the port of Niagara Falls, during the year 1912, 19 barrels of merchandise, which was entered by him as silver sweepings, entitled to free entry under the provisions of paragraph 643 aforesaid. The collector of customs at that port rated it for duty as waste not specially provided for under said paragraph 479. The importer protested and the Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest. This is an appeal by the Government from that decision of the Board of General Appraisers. There is no serious question of commercial designation in the record. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers recites all the facts of the case: These sweepings come off in buffing silver, and the buff wheels collect a quantity of the silver. A barrel of the sweepings examined contained sawdust, with a solution of silver sweepings saturated and mixed through it. Sawdust is scattered on the floor to pick up the silver. The witness was a silver and gold refiner and manufacturer of sterling silver and fine silver products. The only thing of value is the particles of silver in the sawdust. 1 Reported in T. D. 34097 (26 Treas. Dec., 93). These facts made apparent by the record as thus recited by the board are not seriously controverted. There is nothing in the record showing a commercial designation applicable to the imported merchandise or other meaning than as embraced within the natural signification of the words of the statute. The signification of those words as naturally suggested to the mind are in accord with the lexicographic definitions of the same. Thus in the Standard Dictionary "sweepings" are defined as follows: The refuse from the floors of an establishment in which precious metals are worked or handled, preserved to reclaim particles of gold or silver. Knight's American Mechanical Dictionary (Vol. III) defines "sweep washings" as follows: The refuse of shops in which gold and silver are worked. These metals are separated by mechanical means and amalgamation. Webster's Dictionary defines "sweepings" as follows: The sweepings of workshops where precious metals are worked, containing filings, etc. While there may be some rubbish or refuse in which this silver is lodged which otherwise might be characterized as waste, this importation, however, is precisely within the definitions of that class of waste made free by paragraph 643, supra. The record is uncontradicted that the only valuable content of the importation is the silver. The merchandise is imported in order that its silver content may be reclaimed. It is in perfect harmony, therefore, with the provisions of the free list making ores of gold and silver free (paragraph 643) that sweepings containing a silver content should be made free. Affirmed. 1. BRICK. WADDELL & Co. v. UNITED STATES (No. 1242).1 The word "brick," other than fire brick, relates to brick used for structural or kindred purposes, and does not apply to all articles in which the word occurs as a designation. 2. RUBBING OR SCOURING BRICKS. The importation is a stone, in brick shape it is true, but it is used in water in the process of rubbing, scouring, and cleaning marble, thus disintegrating in its use. It was properly assessed as an article or ware composed wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral substances not specially provided for, not decorated, under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909. United States Court of Customs Appeals, January 14, 1914. APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 33157 (T. D. 33660). [Affirmed.] Comstock & Washburn for appellants. William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (Charles E. McNabb, assistant attorney, of counsel; Samuel Isenschmid, special attorney, on the brief), for the United States. Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, DE VRIES and MARTIN, Judges. MONTGOMERY, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The goods in question consisted of scouring bricks. The appraiser reported the merchandise as "in the shape of bricks of various sizes. 1 Reported in T. D. 34098 (26 Treas. Dec., 94). They are composed of silica, iron oxide, alumina, lime, and magnesia." They are shown by the testimony to be known as rubbing bricks, scouring bricks, German brick, or Schumacher rubbing bricks, and by stipulation between the parties it is agreed that the merchandise is for scouring and is used for abrasive purposes in rubbing and cleaning marble. The merchandise was assessed for duty at 35 per cent ad valorem under the provision of paragraph 95 of the tariff act of 1909 for "articles or wares composed wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral substances, not specially provided for, not decorated." They are claimed to be dutiable at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 84 as "brick other than fire brick, not glazed, enameled, painted, vitrified, ornamented, or decorated in any manner," or at $2 per ton under the provision of paragraph 90 for "clays or earths, wrought or manufactured, not specially provided for." In the course of the proceedings below an order was made suppressing a deposition taken in Germany, and a motion was made to issue another commission to take testimony, which motion was overruled. It is argued that error was committed in these rulings. It is said in the brief of counsel that because the Government has universally contended that these scouring bricks were dutiable, if not at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 95 as assessed, as articles or wares composed of earthy or mineral substances, then at the same rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 89 for "manufactures of pumice stone or of which pumice stone is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for;" that while the deposition of E. Schumacher failed to disclose all of the ingredients of these scouring bricks, it did show clearly that they were composed principally of gravel-like clay, and hence that they were not manufactures of pumice stone, and that to that extent at least the deposition was relevant and material. As the Government does not here contend that the articles are dutiable under the last clause of paragraph 89 as a manufacture of pumice stone, and as the importer, by a stipulation antedating the hearing below, waived his own claim under the earlier provisions of paragraph 89 for pumice stone wholly or partly manufactured, it is obvious that no injury was done to the importers' case by excluding the testimony to meet any claim which the Government might put forth under paragraph 89. We therefore do not deem it necessary to pass upon the rulings made by the board suppressing the deposition and refusing to issue another commission, and are not to be understood as intimating that any error was committed in either case. The case is submitted upon the issue as to whether the goods were properly assessed or whether they should have been assessed as brick other than fire brick. The paragraph under which the importers claim, after providing for fire brick, contains a further provision for "magnesite brick, chrome |