Messrs. LUN, Wo & Co. claim to enter the article in question as an unenumerated vegetable, liable to 10 per cent ad valorem duty.

Section 5 of the Tariff act of July 14, 1862, imposes a duty of 5 cents per pound on "ginger root;" and in the absence of any provision for LL green or fresh" ginger root, this rate must prevail.

66

Your decision is hereby affirmed.

I am, very respectfully,

GEO. HARRINGTON, Acting Sec. of the Treasury.

TO IRA P. RANKIN, Esq., Collector, San Francisco.

GOODS ORDERED, ETC., PREVIOUS TO THE ACT OF JULY 14, 1862, TAK

ING EFFECT.

Treasury Department, Aprii 22, 1863.

SIR: The appeal of GEO. ROGGE from your decision assessing duty, in accordance with the tariff act of July 14, 1862, on three bales of woolens imported by him per "Aristides" from Antwerp, is before me.

The appellant says: "1st. The goods in question were contracted for in Europe, and on shipboard, and bill of lading signed, previous to any intention having been made known by Congress to amend or alter the tariff acts of March 2, 1861, August 5, 1861, and December 24, 1861; and such being the case, claim to enter them under the provisions of the last named acts of 1861.

"2d. That the clause in the act taking effect on the 1st of August, 1862, imposing the new duty on goods on shipboard,' is not equitable or just, as it places the merchant at the mercy of any sudden changes made in the tariff, and thereby causes him to sustain heavy pecuniary losses."

It will be perceived that the appellant does not allege that the duty was erroneously or illegally exacted, but simply complains of the want of equity and oppressiveness of the act of Congress of July 14, 1862.

As this Department has no authority to question the policy of any act of Congress, I dismiss the appeal and hereby affirm your decision. I am, very respectfully,

GEO. HARRINGTON, Acting Secretary of the Treasury. HIRAM BARNEY, Esq., Collector, &c., N. Y.

COTTON-NEW ORLEANS AND SURAT.

Treasury Department, April 23, 1863.

SIR: I have considered your report on the appeal of HENRY S. SHAW from your decision assessing duty, at the rate of one-half cent per pound, on 200 bales of New Orleans cotton, and one-half cent per pound and 10 per cent ad valorem on 195 bales Surat cotton, imported by him from Liverpool.

The appellant alleges that the "200 bales are exempt from duty, being the production of the United States returned to this country," and claims the "whole as entitled to free entry, it having been ordered sometime before the passage of the tariff act of July 14, 1862, and bought and shipped on board the vessels before the 1st of August, 1862."

It appears that the appellant has failed to produce the evidence required by law to entitle the 200 bales to free entry. The duty of one-half cent per pound and 10 per cent ad valorem assessed on the 195 bales Surat

cotton was strictly in accordance with the tariff act of July 14, 1862, section 8 of which imposes the one-half cent per pound, and section 14 authorizes the additional 10 per cent ad valorem " on all goods, wares, and merchandise of the growth or produce of countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, when imported from places this side of the Cape of Good Hope."

The claim that both parcels are entitled to free entry because the order was given and the cotton on board the vessels before the passage of the act of July 14, 1862, is groundless.

The 21st section of this act provides that "all goods on shipboard ou the 1st day of August, 1862, shall be subject to the duties prescribed by this act." There is no exemption of goods ordered, purchased, or shipped prior to its passage.

Your decision is hereby affirmed.

I am, very respectfully,

GEO. HARRINGTON, Acting Sec. of the Treasury.

J. Z. GOODRICH, Esq., Collector, &c., Boston, Mass.

RAGS.

Treasury Department, April 25, 1863.

SIR: I have considered the appeals dated February 5 and March 17, 1863, of Wm. B. WOOD, from your decisions assessing duty, at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem, under section 14 of the tariff act of July 14, 1862, as "East India Rags," on certain rags imported by him per "Neptune" and "Columbia."

་

In the appeal of February 5, the appellant says: "Had we entered them as rags, without any such description as Calcutta,' they would have been passed free, as the balance were."

In the appeal of March 17, the appellant says: "We have now an invoice of paper stock marked 'Surat gunny,' and the same duty of 10 per cent is demanded by the collector of this port;" furthermore, that “‘Calcutta' are light thin rags, and so called because they describe such rags as would be collected from worn-out garments of hot climates. But whether the rags were actually collected in the East Indies, or were selected from among those collected in Europe, we believe it impossible to decide."

The experts of the customs say the rags in question "appear to us to be Calcutta or East India produce, and were baled in material and manner similar to goods imported from these places. We therefore reported them as from beyond the Cape,' under 14th section act of July 14, 1862; and this we should have done if the bales had not been stamped nor invoiced as 'Calcutta or Surat.'"

The appellant having failed to show that the rags were the produce of a country this side of the Cape of Good Hope, and the reasons of the experts for classifying them as the produce of a country beyond the Cape of Good Hope being substantial and according to usage, the terms of the law leave no discretion.

Your decision is affirmed.

I am, very respectfully,

GEO. HARRINGTON, Acting Sec. of the Treasury. HIRAM BARNEY, Esq., Collector, &c., N. Y.

"HALF GOLD," (GOLD LEAF.)

Treasury Department, April 2, 1863.

SIR: Messrs. L. BRANDIES & Co. appeal from your decision assessing duty, at the rate of one dollar and fifty cents per pack, on fifty-five packs of "half gold" imported by them, alleging that "fifty packs of this half gold,' (which is only a technical name for it,) are composed of a body of silver slightly plated or coated on one side with an alloy of gold, and five packs are composed of silver, and plated with Dutch metal.

"We claim, consequently, the article being almost entirely silver leaf, to pay the duty at the rate of 75 cents per pack.”

The article called "half gold" is not specially provided for by name in any of the existing tariffs. It is a combination of gold and silver leaf, and is used for similar purposes and as a substitute for gold leaf, and therefore is liable to duty, under the 20th section of the act of August 30, 1842, to the same duty as gold leaf, that being the enumerated article it most nearly resembles in " material, quality, texture, or the uses to which it may be applied."

Your decision is therefore affirmed.
Very respectfully,

S. P. CHASE, Sec. of the Treasury.

TO HIRAM BARNEY, Esq., Collector, New York.

SLIPPER PATTERNS.

Treasury Department, April 11, 1863. SIR: Certain "slipper patterns," imported by Messrs. SCHACK & HOTOP were classified by you as manufactures of worsted and cotton, and duty assessed at the rate of 35 per cent; from this classification and assessment the importers appeal, claiming that 10 per cent ad valorem is the proper rate of duty under the clause in section 6 of the tariff act of July 14, 1862, commencing: "Lastings, mohair cloth, silk, twist, or other manufacture of cloth, woven or made in patterns of such size, shape, and form, or cut in such manner as to be fit for shoes, slippers, boots, bootees, gaiters, and buttons, exclusively," &c., &c.

A majority of the experts of the customs, to whom a sample of the goods in question has been submitted, are of opinion that the article is of size and shape, and of a texture and color precisely adapted for slippers, and can be used for no other purpose advantageously, and should be admitted at 10 per cent, as claimed by the importers, and in this opinion I concur.

You will govern yourself accordingly.

Respectfully,

S. P. CHASE, Sec. of the Treasury. HIRAM BARNEY, Esq., Collector, New York.

COTTON SHIRTS.

Treasury Department, May 4, 1863. SIR: Messrs. JORDAN, MARSH & Co., of Boston, appeal from your decision assessing duty, at the rate of 35 per cent, on certain "cotton shirts," imported by them into Portland per steamer Jura, and claim to enter them at 30 per cent, alleging that the law expressly provides that shirts and drawers pay that rate of duty.

The act of March 2, 1861, imposes a duty of 25 per cent, and section 10 of the Tariff act of July 14, 1862, imposes an additional duty of 5 per cent "on shirts or drawers wove or made on frames, composed wholly of cotton, etc."

The act of March 2, 1861, imposes a duty of 30 per cent, and section 13 of the Tariff act of July 14, 1862, imposes an additional duty of 5 per cent "on wearing apparel of whatever description, of whatever material ocmposed, except wool, made up or manufactured wholly or in part by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer."

The question which presents itself is, to which of these two classes the shirts imported by Messrs. JORDAN, MARSH & Co., properly belong.

The shirts are known to the trade as "patent finish shirts," and are composed wholly of cotton, and are manufactured by the tailor or seamstress from cloth in the piece-with the exception of the sleeves, which are woven without seams-1 -then shaped to fit the arm holes, and afterwards attached, by sewing, to the body of the shirt.

It is quite clear they are not shirts "wove or made on frames,” and, in my opinion, were properly classified by you under section 13 of the Tariff act of July 14, 1862, and subjected to duty at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem.

Your decision is hereby affirmed.

I am, very respectfully,

GEO. HARRINGTON, Acting Sec. of the Treasury.

TO JED. JEWETT, Esq., Collector, Portland, Me.

MOHAIR COATING OR CLOAKING.

Treasury Department, May 6, 1863.

SIR: I have had under consideration the appeal of Messrs. WHITE, BROWN, DAVIS & Co. from your decision assessing duty on certain “ mohair and worsted piece goods," at the rate of 18 cents per pound and 30 per cent ad valorem, under section 13 of act of March, 1861, and section 9 of act of July 14, 1862, as "manufactures of wool of every description, made wholly or in part of wool, not otherwise provided for."

The appellants allege that "these goods are not made wholly or in part of wool, but of worsted or mohair-worsted or mohair being the component material subject to a duty of 35 per cent ad valorem."

Samples of the goods in question have been submitted to the experts of the customs, a majority of whom are unable to discover the presence of wool, but are of the opinion that "wool waste" may be, to a very limited extent, a component material. "Wool waste," however, is not recognized by the tariff act as "wool."

In my opinion, the claim of the appellants is well established, and your decision is hereby overruled.

I am, very respectfully,

GEO. HARRINGTON, Acting Sec. of the Treasury. HIRAM BARNEY, Esq., Collector, &c., N. Y.

JOURNAL OF MERCANTILE LAW.

IMPORTANT TO IMPORTERS-HALF MONTH'S STORAGE.

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, MAY 21.

RICHARD IRWIN et al. vs. AUGUSTUS SCHELL. Before Judge NELSON. This suit involves the question of the right of the collector to collect the half month's storage, according to the regulations of the Treasury, under the following circumstances:

The plaintiffs in the case of several shipments of goods in June and July, 1857, from Liverpool to this port, caused warehouse entries to be made at the custom-house, under the act of Congress of 28th March, 1854; but before the goods were removed to the warehouse, they changed their minds and applied to the collector for permits to land the goods for removal to their own stores, or for consumption-whereupon the collector charged them half a month's storage, besides the duties, which storage for the goods in the five vessels, amounted to the sum of $98 26, and which was paid under protest.

It is admitted that no act of Congress can be found for making this charge against the merchant under the above state of facts. The charge is wholly an arbitrary one, prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and a fixed sum might as well have been imposed as the half month's storage. The imposition is sought to be sustained in the idea that in case the goods are entered for warehousing, and before they are landed and removed the merchant applies for a permit to land for consumption, the vessel, in the meantime, may be regarded as the warehouse, with the permission of the Treasury. But this is hardly plausible, as it involves the absurdity of charging the merchant for the use of his own vessel.

Besides, the government has no interest in the warehousing business, as according to the act of 1854 the goods are stored at the risk and expense of the importer.

The truth is, that the charge is made simply for the favor granted to the merchant in permitting him to land the goods for consumption after he has entered them for warehousing. After being thus entered, the collector might doubtless compel him to procure his goods in the usual way, through the warehouse, which would increase considerably the expense. Hence, if the merchant changes his mind and applies for a permit to land for consumption, this charge is imposed. The change, as appears from the case, adds nothing to the labor or trouble of the officers of the customs, as is, indeed, obvious from the usual course of the business.

As I have said already, there is no law for this charge against the merchant; and any other arbitrary sum might as well be imposed. And I have hesitated whether I ought not to put an end to it. I certainly should, were it not for considerations which I will now state.

It does not appear in the case whether the charge goes to the government, or is a perquisite to the collector. But as it is imposed by a regu lation of the Treasury, it is fair to presume, that it goes to the government. This is a suit against the collector, and the question, under the