He answered:

A. I would put it on a spinning frame and proceed to spin yarn out of it, or put it on a twisting frame and twist it into two ply without changing the original twist and size and sell it as a yarn.

This last seems to imply that it would require further process to make it into a yarn.

He could only define a roving as "wool in a certain stage of manufacture," and afterwards insisted that this was a yarn and claimed he would sell it as such to knitters only, and when sold to them it would be sold according to number and count.

Further, the testimony shows that the merchandise in controversy came off the roving frame, and the product of the roving frame would naturally and inevitably be roving.

Webster describes roving as "the operation of forming the roving or slightly twisted sliver of wool or cotton by means of a machine for the purpose, called a roving frame or roving machine."

This is the last step in the drawing process and the final step before spinning.

Prof. Roberts Beaumont, in his work on "Woolen and Worsted Manufacture," edited by H. Trueman Wood (1888), under the heading of "Worsted thread construction," describes roving as follows (page 89):

This is the last operation through which the slubbing passes before spinning. It may be defined as a combination of drawing and twisting, with an excess of drawing, while spinning is a combination of the same processes with an excess of twisting. In the roving box two of the thick slubbings from the preceding machine are combined and reduced in size, but increased in length, as in the drawing machines, the operation being the same, with the exception of imparting more twine to the soft thread formed.

And at the bottom of page 89, under the heading of "Worsted spinning "—

The spinning frame used in worsted-yarn manufacture differs very materially in construction from the mule. [The mule being previously described as part of the wool-thread manufacture as distinguished from the worsted-thread manufacture.] (Brackets ours.)

There is an important reason for this: It is not required to impart twist into the roving in the same manner as into the condensed sliver. As already pointed out, the roving contains a degree of twist and may correctly be called a spun thread. In the worsted-spinning frame, or throstle, the rollers are so arranged as to draw out the roving before any twist is furnished. Worsted-spinning machines are of three classes-flyer, cap, and ring. When the roving has been formed on the French principle, it is spun on an ordinary mule, giving really four methods of spinning worsted yarns.

The question turns, on the record as substantially outlined above, upon whether Congress intended in using the term "roving or roping" in paragraph 286 to include the article here in controversy.

Assuming that this article should be called a roving yarn, having for some purposes the characteristics of roving and for others the characteristics of a yarn, and to that extent is both a yarn and a roving, it would seem to be more narrowly described by the term "roving" in paragraph 286 rather than under the more general term "yarn" in paragraph 287.

In the case of Stephenson & Co., G. A. 3270 (T. D. 16574), the board held that certain so-called roving yarns, which were incapable of further drawing, and therefore different in that respect from the merchandise in controversy, had ceased to be rovings and were dutiable as yarns under the act of 1894, which contained provisions for both yarns and roving. The board there found that when the single strands were so slightly twisted as to be capable of further elongation or drawing and twisting on a spinning frame or mule they were roving.

Upon the weight of the testimony in this record, and keeping in view the distinction made by the board in G. A. 3270, we find as a fact that the merchandise in controversy is a roving, and even if for some purposes, to wit, knitting, it is also a yarn, it is properly classifiable under the more specific provision for rovings in paragraph 286. Judgment is rendered for the importers, sustaining the claim of the protest at 8 per cent under paragraph 286.

Abstracts of decisions of the Board of General Appraisers.

Board 1-McClelland, Sullivan, and Brown. Board 2-Fischer, Howell, and Cooper. Board S-Waite, and Hay.

BEFORE BOARD 1, SEPTEMBER 12, 1916.

No. 40109.-Protest 796115-58428 of John O. Notari & Co. (Chicago). RUSCUS LEAVES.—Merchandise reported by the appraiser to be ruscus leaves chemically bleached, classified at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 347, tariff act of 1913, is claimed free of duty as crude vegetable substances under paragraph 552, or dutiable as nonenumerated articles under paragraph 385. Opinion by MCCLELLAND, G. A. On the authority of Abstract 39274 the ruscus leaves in question were held dutiable at 15 per cent under paragraph 385. No. 40110.-Protest 751182 of Cowen Heineberg Co., protests 762018, etc., of C. J. Mitchell et al., and protests 797342, etc., of Southern Pacific Co. (Los Angeles and San Francisco).

SEA-GRASS FURNITURE.-Sea-grass furniture classified at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 368, tariff act of 1913, is claimed dutiable at 15 per cent under paragraph 176.

Opinions by McClelland, G. A. The furniture in question was found to be similar to that passed upon in Abstract 39130. On the authority of that decision it was held dutiable under paragraph 176, as claimed.

No. 40111.-Protest 772186 of Newark Tortoise Shell Novelty Co. (New York). CELLULOID IN. SHEETS.-Celluloid in sheets, classified at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 25, tariff act of 1913, is claimed dutiable as not polished, at 25 per cent under the same paragraph.

Opinion by SULLIVAN, G. A. On the authority of United States v. Cohn (6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 426; T. D. 35979), affirming G. A. 7701 (T. D. 35245), the celluloid sheets in question were found to be not polished nor finished articles within the meaning of the last clause of paragraph 25 and were held dutiable at 25 per cent, as claimed.

No. 40112.-Protest 474226-36300 of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago).

IMITATION JET BARRETTES.-Barrettes composed of black glass in imitation of jet, classified as jewelry at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909, are claimed dutiable as manufactures of glass at 45 per cent under paragraph 109.

Opinion by SULLIVAN, G. A. The barrettes in question were held dutiable under paragraph 109, as claimed. G. A. 7019 (T. D. 30612), affirmed in United States v. Beierle (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 457; T. D. 31506), followed.

No. 40113.-Protests 616643, etc., of Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher (New York).

JEWELRY.-Jewelry classified at 85 per cent ad valorem is claimed dutiable at 60 per cent under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909.

Opinion by SULLIVAN, G. A. On the authority of United States v. Cohn (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 273; T. D. 32571) and Guthman v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 378; T. D. 33536) the jewelry in question was held dutiable at 60 per cent under paragraph 448.

No. 40114.-Protest 802183 of J. Personeni (New York).

MEDICINAL PREPARATION.-Medicinal preparations put up in packages of less than 2 pounds gross weight, classified at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 17, tariff act of 1913, are claimed dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles at 15 per cent under paragraph 385.

Opinion by BROWN, G. A. The preparations in question were held properly classified under paragraph 17. Britt v. United States (7 Ct. Cust. Appls., T. D. 36428) followed.

No. 40115.-Protest 761651 of F. L. Kraemer & Co. (New York).

CARICA PAPAYA-MEDICINAL PREPARATION.-The appraiser reported the merchandise in question to consist of powdered carica papaya, having starch added as a constituent, made without the use of alcohol. It was classified as a medicinal compound at 15 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 5, tariff act of 1913, and is claimed dutiable as a drug, advanced, at 10 per cent under paragraph 27. Opinion by BROWN, G. A. No evidence having been introduced to show that the commodity is not a medicinal preparation, the protest was overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 2, SEPTEMBER 12, 1916.

No. 40116.-Protest 798129 of Ames-Bonner Co. (Cleveland).
ARTIFICIAL SILK YARN-SIMILITUDE.

HOWELL, General Appraiser: The merchandise in question was classified by the collector as "imitation horsehair yarn," and duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 319, tariff act of 1913, which paragraph reads as follows:

319. Yarns, threads, filaments of artificial or imitation silk, or of artificial or imitation horsehair, by whatever name known and by whatever process

made, 35 per cent ad valorem; beltings, cords, tassels, ribbons, or other articles or fabrics composed wholly or in chief value of yarns, threads, filaments, or fibers of artificial or imitation silk or of artificial or imitation horsehair, or of yarns, threads, filaments or fibers of artificial or imitation silk, or of artificial or imitation horsehair and india rubber, by whatever name known, and by whatever process made, 60 per centum ad valorem.

The importers claim that the merchandise is dutiable by similitude to bristles at the rate of 7 cents per pound, under the provisions of paragraphs 337 and 386 of said act, or, in the alternative, that it is dutiable at 20 cents per pound under paragraph 311 of said act. The paragraphs relied on by the importers read as follows:

337. Bristles, sorted, bunched, or prepared, 7 cents per pound.

386. That each and every imported article, not enumerated in this section, which is similar, either in material, quality, texture, or the use to which it may be applied, to any article enumerated in this section as chargeable with duty, shall pay the same rate of duty which is levied on the enumerated article which it most resembles in any of the particulars before mentioned; and if any nonenumerated article equally resembles two or more enumerated articles on which different rates of duty are chargeable, there shall be levied on such nonenumerated article the same rate of duty as is chargeable on the article which it resembles paying the highest rate of duty; and on articles not enumerated, manufactured of two or more materials, the duty shall be assessed at the highest rate at which the same would be chargeable if composed wholly of the component material thereof of chief value; and the words "component material of chief value," wherever used in this section, shall be held to mean that component material which shall exceed in value any other single component material of the article; and the value of each component material shall be determined by the ascertained value of such material in its condition as found in the article. If two or more rates of duty shall be applicable to any imported article, it shall pay duty at the highest of such rates.

311. Silk partially manufactured from cocoons or from waste silk and not further advanced or manufactured than carded or combed silk, and silk noils exceeding two inches in length, 20 cents per pound.

If the article is enumerated it can not be classified by similitude, for the reason that the similitude provision (par. 386) applies only to imported merchandise which is not enumerated in the tariff act. It is quite apparent from the language adopted in paragraph 319 that Congress recognized that at the time of the enactment of the provision there existed in trade and commerce an article known as "artificial or imitation horsehair," which is produced in various forms and by different processes. The article here in question has been classified as an "imitation horsehair yarn," and an inspection of the sample in evidence would indicate that it is in fact an imitation of horsehair. The difficulty which the board encounters with the present record is the entire absence therefrom of any testimony tending to show how the article is known in the trade and commerce of this country or by what process it is manufactured or of what material it is composed. It is true that it is described in the invoice as "imitation bristles partially manufactured from cocoons or waste silk," but the invoice description can not be allowed to control the classification of the merchandise. Dwight v. Merritt (140 U. S., 213).

The only oral testimony in the case is that of the secretary of the importing company, who testified that he has been handling this class of merchandise for four or five months; that he is not personally familiar with the method of its manufacture, but that it is used by his company for mixing with bristles in the making of hair brushes. He further testified that his company used natural horsehair in the making of brushes, and said that it was used to cheapen the mixture devoted to the manufacture of the brushes, whereas the material here in question is used for the purpose of stiffening the bristles used in the brushes. All of this testimony has reference to the use of the article by the importing

company after importation and does not enlighten us as to what the article is in its condition as imported. The fact that it is used as bristles are used in making brushes does not justify its classification by similitude to bristles if it is in fact an artificial or imitation horsehair, for the reason that artificial or imitation horsehair is specially provided for without any limitation as to the uses to which it may be devoted after importation. Paragraph 319 is comprehensive and appears to have been drawn with a view to including within its provisions all the various forms of artificial or imitation silk or artificial or imitation horsehair.

As already stated, an examination of the sample in evidence tends to support the classification of the article as an imitation of horsehair, and the testimony shows that it is used for one of the purposes for which natural horsehair is used. It is imported in lengths of about 33 inches, and if it be suggested that in these short lengths it is not to be classified as a yarn, then it would seem to be dutiable as a filament of artificial or imitation horsehair, which is provided for in the same paragraph at the same rate of duty.

The protest is overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 3, SEPTEMBER 12, 1916.

No. 40117.-Protest 791462 of Germania Importing Co. (New York).
SHIP'S EQUIPMENT.

HAY, General Appraiser: The merchandise which is the subject of this protest is linoleum assessed for duty under the appropriate paragraph of the act of 1913 and claimed to be free of duty under subsection 5 or subsection 6 of paragraph J, section 4. These provisions of law read as follows:

J. Subsection 5. That all materials of foreign production, which may be necessary for the construction of naval vessels or other vessels of the United States, vessels built in the United States for foreign account and ownership, or for the purpose of being employed in the foreign or domestic trade, and all such materials necessary for the building of their machinery, and all articles necessary for their outfit and equipment, may be imported in bond under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe; and upon proof that such materials have been used for such purposes no duties shall be paid thereon.

J. Subsection 6. That all articles of foreign production needed for the repair of naval vessels of, or other vessels owned or used by, the United States and vessels now or hereafter registered under the laws of the United States may be withdrawn from bonded warehouses free of duty, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.

The case came up originally upon an interlocutory motion which was denied by the board, and to which protestant was given an exception of which he may take advantage upon the record if he so desires, but in the subsequent proceedings in the case any advantage that he may have derived from the granting of that exception has been supplied by a stipulation. The case is submitted upon the following stipulation, together with such facts as are revealed by the papers forwarded by the collector:

It is hereby stipulated between the Assistant Attorney General and counsel for the importer that 95 per cent of the linoleum in question, delivered at the United States Navy Yard, New York, under the Snellenburg contract, No. 18731, was used upon vessels belonging to the United States Government, and that 5 per cent thereof was used in various buildings at navy yards and naval stations. That such of the linoleum as was so used on such vessels was used solely as deck covering; that is, to cover iron or steel decks in such places where the deck is not exposed to the weather, as in officers' mess rooms, crew's messing spaces, officers' staterooms, etc.

That all of the linoleum delivered under said Snellenburg contract was used upon vessels after they had been placed in service; that is, none of it was used on newly constructed vessels.