machine, the purpose apparently being to show that without such an attachment a machine may nevertheless be a Lever or Gothrough machine.

The Lever machine was invented by John Lever, of Nottingham, England, in 1813. The Gothrough machine consists of a Lever loom with an improvement which varies the "catch-bar" motion in such a way as to materially increase the working speed of the loom. In all other essential respects the two machines are similar; and they are especially adapted for the manufacturing of laces, nets, veilings, and other similar articles where fancy designs are desired. Whether or not these machines originally used the Jacquard attachment to control the movement of the warp threads in forming the design in the fabric being produced may be open to question, but we think it clearly appears from the record that at the time of the passage of the tariff act of 1909, and for many years prior thereto, the machine which the trade recognized as the Lever or Gothrough machine was operated with a Jacquard attachment. For the first time in the history of tariff legislation Congress, in the act of 1909, specifically recognized the Lever or Gothrough machine and the products thereof. In paragraph 197 of said act it was provided that "Lever and Gothrough lace-making machines, * * imported prior to January first, nineteen hundred and eleven," should be admitted free of duty; and paragraph 350 provided a rate of duty of 70 per cent ad valorem on laces, embroideries, nets, nettings, and other articles therein mentioned made on the Lever or Gothrough machine.

*

It appears from the testimony of the examiner of machinery at the port of New York, who was called as a witness in this case, that in addition to making an advisory classification of machinery at his home port, he also acts in an advisory capacity in the classification of similar merchandise entered at other ports, and that he never returned or advised the return as free of duty under the provision in paragraph 197 above cited any machine claimed to be a Lever or Gothrough machine, unless it had a Jacquard attachment. In other words, he did not consider the machine a Lever or Gothrough machine if it was imported without the Jacquard attachment; and his view was approved by the board in American Express Company's case, Abstract 31424 (T. D. 33217).

We think the testimony of the witnesses in this case as to the character of the Lever or Gothrough machine tends to confirm the view we took in that case.

From a careful review of the whole record we think it clearly appears that the only machine which the trade has recognized for many years past as the Lever or Gothrough machine is one equipped with the Jacquard attachment, and we have no doubt this was the machine Congress had in mind when making provision for the free entry of Lever and Gothrough machines for a limited period and levying a high rate of duty on the products of such machines. During the life of the provision for the free admission of Lever and Gothrough machines (paragraph 197) the Government contended that only those machines equipped with a Jacquard attachment were entitled to the benefit of that provision, and that contention was sustained by the board in American Express Company's case, supra. And in Finlay's case, Abstract 24701 (T. D. 31255), which involved the classification of plain nets commonly known as "Mechlins" or "Malines," we said:

We learn from the testimony that the Lever and Gothrough machines are practically identical, varying slightly only in the "catch-bar" motion, and that they are always operated with the Jacquard attachment. As the Jacquard attachment is not required in the making of Malines or Mechlins, the Lever or Gothrough machine could only be adapted for use in the making of such nets by readjustment at considerable expense without any compensating advantages in manufacturing. It appears, therefore, that these nets may be made to better advantage and at less cost on the Mechlin machine.

The nets here in question are the ordinary plain hair nets, and while it would be possible to make them on a machine with the Jacquard attachment, just as it would

be possible to make the Malines on such a machine because of the adaptability of that attachment, yet there would be no advantage in making them on such a machine. On the contrary, it would be positively disadvantageous, as they would be made less rapidly and consequently the cost of production would be increased. There are hair nets which, because of certain special characteristics, are required to be manufactured on a machine with a Jacquard attachment, such nets, for exampe, as those containing holes of graduated size in the same net. Such nets are necessarily made on the Lever or Gothrough machine. According to the testimony there are no such nets involved in the importations here in question.

We find that the hair nets covered by Schedule A were not made on the Lever or Gothrough machine. The claim in the protests that these nets are properly dutiable under paragraph 402 at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem is sustained, and the decision of the collector in each case is modified accordingly.

*

BEFORE BOARD 1, JULY 7, 1914.

No. 36067.-Novelty Siding Beaded LumBER.-Protests 732915, etc., of F. W. Myers & Co. et al. (Ogdensburg and Burlington). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Novelty siding and beaded lumber produced by a planer and matcher, classified as manufactures of wood under paragraph 176, tariff act of 1913, were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 647. G. A. 7546 (T. D. 34305) followed.

No. 36068.-SPONGES.-Protests 730446, etc., of Leousi, Cloney & Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Sponges not bleached or advanced in value by processes involving chemical operations were held dutiable at 10 per cent under paragraph 68, tariff act of 1913, as claimed. No. 36069.—SANDSTONE-BUILDING STONE.-Protests 712274, etc., of GermanAmerican Stoneware Works (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Protests overruled as to blocks of sandstone classified as building stone under paragraph 114, tariff act of 1909.

No. 36070.-WOOL ARTICLES IMPORTED BETWEEN OCTOBER 3, 1913, AND JANUARY 1, 1914.-Protest 740167 of James McCutcheon & Co. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

Articles of wearing apparel composed of wool imported on October 7, 1913, classified under paragraph 382, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable as nonenumerated manfactured articles under paragraph 385, tariff act of 1913. Protest overruled, the board holding that by the express terms of the provision in paragraph 310, tariff act of 1913, the merchandise is dutiable as wool wearing apparel under paragraph 382, tariff act of 1909, as classified.

No. 36071.-BETA NAPHTHAL.-Protest 697746 of Pfaltz & Bauer (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

Beta naphthal classified as a medicinal preparation under paragraph 65, tariff act of 1909, was claimed to be used only by rubber manufacturers and entitled to free entry as a product of coal tar n.phthal (par. 536). Protest overruled, the board finding the commodity here under consideration is used in medicine as an antiseptic and is different from alpha naphthal or naphthol.

No. 36072.-VACCINE VIRUS.-Protests 700795, etc., of C. Bischoff & Co. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

On the authority of G. A. 7538 (T. D. 34244) and Abstract 35237 (T. D. 34321) tuberculin serum, classified as a medicinal preparation under paragraph 65, tariff act of 1909, was held entitled to free entry as vaccine virus (par. 704).

No. 36073.-RADIOACTIVE MEDICINE.-Protest 706639 of Morganstern & Co. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

A preparation possessing radioactive properties, classified as a medicinal preparation under paragraph 65, tariff act of 1909, was held entitled to free entry as radium (par. 659). G. A. 7524 (T. D. 34052) followed.

No. 36074.-GUAIACOL CRYSTALS-MEDICINAL PREPARATION.-Protest 707003 of Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A. Guaiacol crystals classified under paragraph 65, tariff act of 1909, as a medicinal preparation in the manufacture of which alcohol was used, reported to be known as a remedy for bronchial and other throat diseases, were claimed to be nonalcoholic, dutiable under paragraphs 3, 65, or 20. Protest overruled, the board holding that from the evidence it was impossible to find that the article was manufactured without the use of alcohol.

No. 36075.-CHEMICAL COMPOUND-SULPHIDE OF ANTIMONY.-Protest 726677 of Pitt & Scott (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

Sulphide of antimony classified as a chemical salt under paragraph 3, tariff act of 1909, was claimed dutiable as antimony (par. 173). Protest overruled. G. A. 4231 (T. D. 19901) cited.

No. 36076.-APPETITSILD.-Protest 534158 of Menzel & Co. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

On the authority of United States v. Haaker (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 471; T. D. 33884) appetitsild was held dutiable under paragraph 272, tariff act of 1909, as claimed.

No. 36077.-FISH IN OIL-FISH BALLS.-Protests 665047, etc., of Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

Protests overruled as to fish in oil and fish balls classified under paragraph 270, tariff act of 1909. Smith v. United States (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., -; T. D. 34008) and Benson v. United States (4 Ct. Cust Appls, 467; T. D. 33882) followed.

No. 36078.-FISH IN TINS-HERRINGS.-Protests 665197, etc., of Henry W. Peabody & Co. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

Herrings in tomato sauce were held dutiable as herrings, pickled, salted, smoked, or kippered under paragraph 272, tariff act of 1909. Salmon and mackerel were held dutiable under paragraph 273, as claimed.

No. 36079.-CAPACITY OF SARDINE TINS.-Protest 715147 of E. H. Bailey & Co. (Philadelphia). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

Protest sustained claiming the capacity of certain sardine tins to be 74 cubic inches or less, under paragraph 270, tariff act of 1909.

No. 36080.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 738687 of Lehn & Fink and protest 740169 of Moos & Co. (New York). Opinions by Brown, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 3, JULY 7, 1914.

No. 36081.-ARTISTIC ANTIQUITIES.-Protests 726037, etc., of United States Express Co. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

Certain artistic antiquities were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 717, tariff act of 1909. Protests sustained in part.

BEFORE BOARD 1, JULY 9, 1914.

No. 36082.-IMITATION PRECIOUS STONES-BEADS.-Protest 667278 of Siegman & Weil (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

Protest overruled as to imitation precious stones with foil backs pierced with two vertical holes, designed to be sewn on wearing apparel, classified as manufactures of metal and paste under paragraphs 199 and 109, tariff act of 1909, the evidence not showing the merchandise to be suitable for use in the manufacture of jewelry (par. 449) or as beads (par. 421), as claimed.

No. 36083.-AMETHYST BEADS-AGATE GUIDES.-Protests 458658, etc., of A. Lorsch & Co. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

Amethyst beads classified as manufactures of agate under paragraph 112, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as precious stones, cut (par. 449), as claimed. Agate guides for use on fishing rods were held dutiable as manufactures of agate (par. 112), rather than as fishing tackle or parts thereof (par. 165). G. A. 7385 (T. D. 32766) followed.

No. 36084.—RAW FUR SKINS.-Protest 726724-45437 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A.

Fox and marten skins classified as fur skins dressed, under paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909, found to be raw skins not treated further than necessary for preservation, were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 573 or 574.

No. 36085.-HERRINGS.-Protests 496239, etc., of K. Marks & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

Herrings in tomato sauce were held dutiable under paragraph 272, tariff act of 1909, on the authority of United States v. Smith (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 70; T. D. 33312).

No. 36086.-FISH IN HALF BARRELS.-Protest 704182 of Kildall Fish Co. (Minneapolis). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

On the authority of the United States v. Miller (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 34443) anchovies in half barrels were held dutiable as herrings, pickled, under paragraph 272, tariff act of 1909.

No. 36087.-COTTON COUCH COVERS.-Protests 609513, etc., of M. H. Rogers et al. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

Cotton couch covers, table covers, etc., classified as rugs of cotton under paragraph 393, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable at the appropriate rate under paragraph 325. Abstract 29791 (T. D. 32830) followed.

No. 36088.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 741588 of Wm. A. Brown & Co. (New York). Opinion by Brown, G. A.

Protest unsupported; overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 2, JULY 9, 1914.

No. 36089.-ELASTIC CORDS AND WEBBINGS.-Protests 548332, etc., of Dieckerhoff, Raffloer & Co. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Elastic cords and webbings were held dutiable according to the component materials of chief value as follows: (1) Cotton, under paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909; (2) artificial silk (par. 405); (3) india rubber (par. 463); (4) silk (par. 401). Abstract 25606 (T. D. 31616) followed.

No. 36090.-RIBBONS, PICOT EDGE.-Protest 592223-41012 of Gage Bros. & Co (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Ribbon with picot edge made of a series of loops, classified under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909, as trimmings in chief value of silk, were claimed dutiable as silk ribbons with fast edges (par. 401). Protest sustained, the board holding that the loops served the purpose of making a fast edge and preventing unraveling.

No. 36091.-SILK CORDS.-Protest 641517 of W. B. Quaintance (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Protest overruled as to silk cord classified under paragraph 401, tariff act of 1909.

No. 36092.-BASKET BAGS.-Protest 682968 of K. Kawaguchi (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Protest overruled as to basket bags having a bamboo basket for the foundation, to which is attached a piece of cotton cloth with a drawing cord running through rings fastened to the upper part of the bag, lined with cotton, classified under paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, the evidence not showing the component material of chief value. United States v. Vantine (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 516; T. D. 33937) followed.

No. 36093.-COTTON VELVET.-Protest 735215 of O. G. Hempstead & Son (Philadelphia). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Cotton velvet classified as silk velvet ribbon under paragraph 399, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable under paragraph 325, as claimed.

No. 36094. SILK VEILINGS.-Protest 713208 of E. & Z. Van Raalte (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Merchandise classified as all silk, piece dyed, under paragraph 399, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable as silk veilings (par. 402).

BEFORE BOARD 3, JULY 9, 1914.

No. 36095.-SCULPTURES-FOUNTAIN OF MARBLE AND METAL.-Protests 700690, etc., of Louis A. Consmiller (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

A fountain consisting of a pedestal and basin of marble, from the center of which rises a group of metal figures, classified as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, was held dutiable as sculptures (par. 470), the evidence showing that the fountain was designed by an artist and executed under his immediate direction, he himself correcting and retouching both the plaster cast and the final metal cast, the latter having been finished and colored by him personally. Abstract 29420 (T. D. 32751) followed.

No. 36096.-AMERICAN GOODS RETURNED ENTIRETIES.-Protests 652792, etc., E. Denike (Laredo).

of

HAY, General Appraiser: These are protests against the assessment of duty as entireties upon certain locomotive drivers owned by the National Railways of Mexico under paragraph 171 of the tariff act of 1909. According to an agreed statement of facts the wheels were used by the National Railways of Mexico in this country for some time prior to the exportation to New Laredo, Mexico, to have the tires turned; that there was nothing done to the drivers in Mexico except the turning of the tires, which would enhance the value of the tire by the amount of the labor expended thereon, $67.50 United States currency. The protestants now claim a refund of duty as American goods returned under paragraph 500, or if dutiable at all they are dutiable only on the amount of $67.50, the amount of the labor expended thereon. This protest is different in no material respect from that which was the subject of this board's deci