PER CURIAM. The question in this case is whether a painting imported for exhibition, and not intended for sale, by the appellee, should have been admitted free of duty under a provision of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, which reads as follows: "758. * Paintings and statuary imported for exhibition by any association established in good faith, duly authorized under the laws of the United States, or of any state, expressly and solely for the promotion and encouragement of science, art or industry, and not intended for sale, shall be deemed free of duty under such regulations as the secretary of the treasury shall prescribe." The board of general appraisers affirmed the decision of the collector, placing their affirmance upon the following statement: "The Boussod-Valadon Company is connected through its incorporators with the commercial house of Boussod-Valadon & Company, and their appeal for relief cannot, therefore, be sustained." The circuit court reversed the decision of the board upon the ground that the fact found, if true, would not exclude the importer from the benefit of the exemption. The Boussod-Valadon Company was incorporated in April, 1888. At that time, under existing tariff provisions, "all paintings imported into the United States for exhibition by any association duly authorized under the laws of any state for the promotion and encouragement of art, and not intended for sale," were admitted free of duty under such regulations as the secretary of the treasury might prescribe. The BoussodValadon Company was incorporated for the purpose of availing itself of the benefit of this provision, and with the intention of importing pictures and paintings, not for sale, but for the purposes of exhibition, and then re-exportation. We are unable to doubt, upon the evidence in the record, that the company was not established "expressly and solely" for the promotion and encouragement of art; but, on the contrary, was established in part as an advertising adjunct of the commercial firm of Boussod-Valadon & Co., art dealers and publishers, whose name it adopted, whose place of business it has invariably used gratuitously for its exhibitions, and whose employé is, and always has been, its general manager. This feature of the case was not the basis of the decision of the board of general appraisers, and does not seem to have been presented for the consideration of the judge of the circuit court. The mere fact that some of the incorporators of the association were associated with the commercial house of Boussod-Valadon & Co. would not necessarily characterize it as established for other purposes than the promotion and encouragement of art solely, and to this extent we concur in the opinion of the circuit court. It is obvious, however, that the statutory provision was carefully framed to exclude from its benefit any association established with a view to any other object than the promotion and encouragement of art. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed. In re SECRETARY OF TREASURY. (Circuit Court, N. D. California. September 16, 1895.) CUSTOMS DUTIES-WITHDRAWALS FROM BOND-IMPORTATIONS UNDER PRIOR LAWS. Goods which were imported under the tariff law of 1883, placed in a bonded warehouse, and remained therein more than three years prior to the enactment of the McKinley law (Act Oct. 1, 1890), could not be withdrawn for consumption upon payment of duties and charges at the rates prescribed in the McKinley law; nor, after the passage of the Wilson act (Aug. 28, 1894), could they be withdrawn at the rates prescribed thereby; for Rev. St. §§ 2970-2973, which limit the time for leaving goods in bond to three years, and provide that thereafter the government may cause the same to be sold to enforce payment of the duties, were not repealed, either expressly or by implication, by the McKinley law or the Wilson law, and the right of the government to enforce payment of the duties and charges prescribed by the act of 1883 was, under such circumstances, "a right accrued" so as to be within the saving clause of section 54 of the McKinley law, and the liability of the goods was "a liability under a prior law," within the saving clause of the Wilson law. In re Schmid, 54 Fed. 145, distinguished. U. S. v. Abbott, 20 Ct. Cl. 281, disapproved. In the matter of the petition of the secretary of the treasury for a review of a decision of the board of United States general appraisers in relation to the withdrawal for consumption of certain steel rails. H. S. Foote, U. S. Atty., and Samuel Knight, Asst. U. S. Atty., for petitioner. Charles A. Garter and J. F. Evans, for respondents. MCKENNA, Circuit Judge. The facts of the case are stipulated by the parties, and are recited in the opinion of the board of appraisers, as follows: "The Bank of California, at various times between March 2 and June 24, 1887, imported into the port of San Francisco certain T steel rails, aggregating 5,678 tons. These rails remained in general order unclaimed until February 27, 1888, when warehouse entries thereof were made, and bonds given by the Bank of California as the importer and consignee. Said warehouse entries were liquidated under the act of March 3, 1883, at $17 per ton, and at the expiration of one year from the date of importation the additional duty of 10 per cent. prescribed by section 2970, Rev. St., was charged up on the bonds against the merchandise. Between September 21, 1888, and December 6, 1889, four withdrawals for consumption were made, and the amount of duties charged thereon was paid. When the bonded period of three years was about to expire, the Oregon Pacific Railroad Company. for whose account the steel rails in question had been imported, represented to the treasury department that serious casualties had occurred to its road by storms and floods, and requested a postponement of the sale of merchandise required under section 2971, Rev. St., whereupon the secretary of the treasury authorized a postponement of the sale for three months, without giving due notice to or having the consent of the principal or sureties on the warehouse bonds. Similar postponements have been allowed for periods of six months up to the present date, the Bank of California uniting in two instances in the application for delay. A postponement of the sale of merchandise allowed by the secretary of the treasury September 16, 1893, was conditioned upon the consent of the sureties on the bond. The final postponement was authorized by the secretary of the treasury March 25, 1895, pending decision regarding the legal status of the goods by the board of general appraisers. Under date of June 30, 1890,-more than three years after the date of importation,-the secretary of the treasury authorized the collector at San Francisco to permit withdrawals for consumption of the steel rails in question from time to time, in such quantities as might be desired. On October 21, 1890, the treasury department decided that withdrawals might be made, under the act of 1890, by the importers, at the rates of duty, regular and additional, prescribed by the act of 1883. Notwithstanding this decision, 3,306 tons of the steel rails were withdrawn for consumption, and in addition to 10 per cent., as prescribed by section 2970, Rev. St., duties were paid thereon and accepted by the collector at $13.44 per ton, the rate prescribed therefor in the act of October 1, 1890. All charges and expenses, including storage charges, having been paid, the importers recently offered to withdraw for consumption the remainder of the merchandise in bonded warehouse at the rate prescribed in paragraph 117 of the act of August 1, 1894. Permission to make such withdrawal has not been granted by the secretary of the treasury, but in lieu thereof authority was given the collector to permit withdrawal entry to be made by the importers of a small portion of the merchandise at the rates prescribed in the act of March 3, 1883, in order that a test case for judicial decision might be made. In accordance with the authority thus granted, entry for consumption of twenty of the rails in question (weighing about 5 tons) was made by the importers, and duty was assessed thereon by the collector at $17 per ton, and 10 per cent. additional under the act of March 3, 1883,the act in force at the time the merchandise was imported. Against this action the importers protested, claiming that the merchandise in question, having been withdrawn for consumption after August, 1894, was properly dutiable at seven-twentieths of 1 cent per pound, in accordance with the provisions of section 1 and paragraph 117 of the present act." The tariff act of 1883 was in force at the time of the importation of the rails, and continued in force until the enactment of the act of 1890, known as the "McKinley Bill." Under the latter act the duty was made $13 per ton, and under the act of August, 1894, known as the "Wilson Act," it was made $7.84. As is well known, imported merchandise could be entered for immediate consumption or it could be entered for warehousing; and in the latter case there were certain provisions of law applicable to it. Section 2970, Rev. St., provided for the periods for which, and the terms upon which, merchandise could remain in bond without paying duty. It could remain for one or three years, and during such times it could be withdrawn for consumption. If in one year, "on payment of the duties and charges to which it may be subject by law at that time"; if after one year, and before the expiration of three years, "on payment of the duties assessed on the original entry, and charges, and an addi tional duty of ten per centum of the amount of such duties, and charges." (The italics are mine.) After three years the permission to withdraw goods for consumption expired, and section 2971 provided that: "Any goods remaining in public store or bonded warehouse beyond 3 years shall be regarded as abandoned to the government and sold under such regulations as the secretary of the treasury may prescribe, and the proceeds paid into the treasury." But section 2972 provided that the secretary, in case of sale, may pay to the owner, etc., the proceeds thereof, after deducting duties, charges, and expenses. In 1890 congress enacted a law to simplify the collection of revenues, called the "Administrative Act," section 20 of which provided for the withdrawal for consumption of bonded goods, which was amended by section 54 of the McKinley act. The section as amended is as follows, omitting a proviso, with which we are not concerned: "That any merchandise deposited in bond in any public or private bonded warehouse may be withdrawn for consumption within 3 years from the date of original importation on payment of the duties and charges to which it may be subject by law at the time of such withdrawal." The difference between this section and section 2970, Rev. St., is that it makes but one period,-three years, and provides that the goods withdrawn any time within it shall be subject to the duty then provided by law. This act contained no provision for goods not withdrawn within three years, nor did the administrative act have such provision. If left provided for at all, it was by sections 2971 and 2972, Rev. St., supra. The administrative act explicitly repealed a number of sections of the Revised Statutes, but not those sections, and added: "And all other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed. But the repeal of existing laws or modifications thereof embraced in this act shall not affect any act done or any right accruing or accrued, * * * but all liabilities under said law shall continue and may be enforced in the same manner as if said repeal or modifications had not been made. * * Section 50 of the McKinley act, which is the only other one necessary to quote in full, is as follows: "Sec. 50. That on and after the day when this act shall go into effect all goods, wares, and merchandise previously imported, for which no entry has been made, and all goods, wares, and merchandise previously entered without payment of duty and under bond for warehousing, transportation, or any other purpose, for which no permit of delivery to the importer or his agent has been issued, shall be subjected to no other duty upon the entry or the withdrawal thereof than if the same were imported respectively after that day: provided, that any imported merchandise deposited in bond in any public or private bonded warehouse having been so deposited prior to the first day of October, eighteen hundred and ninety, may be withdrawn for consumption at any time prior to February first, eighteen hundred and ninety-one, upon the payment of duties at the rates in force prior to the passage of this act: provided further, that when duties are based upon the weight of merchandise deposited in any public or private bonded warehouse said duties shall be levied and collected upon the weight of such merchandise at the time of its withdrawal." The act also repealed all prior inconsistent laws, but saved all rights which had accrued, by the same words as the administrative act, supra. The Wilson act contained no administrative provisions with which this case is concerned. A claim, however, is based on its first section, which will be referred to hereafter. From this statement of the facts and the statutes, the question is, to what duty was the merchandise subject? The secretary of the treasury decided that of the act of 1883, or $17 per ton, and on grounds which apply to the whole importation. The board of ap: praisers decided that of 1894, or $7.84 per ton, but on grounds which confine the decision to 20 rails, or 5 tons, only. This is to be regretted, as it leaves us without the views of the board (necessarily val uable) of the relations of the acts of congress. The board based its decision on the act of the secretary in authorizing the with general appraisers. Under date of June 30, 1890,-more than three y The tariff act of 1883 was in force at the time of th "Any goods remaining in public store or bonded w shall be regarded as abandoned to the government a: lations as the secretary of the treasury may pres paid into the treasury." But section 2972 provided that the secretar pay to the owner, etc., the proceeds thereof. charges, and expenses. In 1890 congress er the collection of revenues, called the "Adm 20 of which provided for the withdrawal for d |