Hemstitched lace-trimmed handkerchiefs. - Paragraph 345 provides for handkerchiefs, hemmed, hemstitched, etc., the duty being increased for each of these stages of elaboration. Paragraph 339 provides a still higher rate for "handkerchiefs in part of lace not elsewhere specially provided for." It has been held that it was the intention of Congress to advance the duty in accordance with the advancement of the goods in condition, and that hemstitched lace-trimmed handkerchiefs are dutiable under the latter rather than the former paragraph. Glendinning v. U. S., (1908) 162 Fed. 910.

Lace articles.-This paragraph includes goods made by sewing together pieces of lace produced in shapes designed to be used in making the articles; the term "lace" not being restricted to articles made up from lace that is bought and sold by the yard. Goldenberg v. U. S., (1907) 152 Fed. 658.

Lace neckwear. Lace neckwear is more specifically provided for in this paragraph, as "wearing apparel . made wholly or in part of lace," than in paragraph 314 of this act, as "articles of wearing apparel of every description, including neckties or neckwear." Goldenberg . U. S., (C. C. A. 1904) 130 Fed. 108, affirming (1903) 124 Fed. 1003.

Openwork embroidery Act of 1890.- Socalled openwork articles, having ornamental designs stitched thereon by hand with a needle and thread, were held to be "embroideries," within the meaning of Tariff Act

Vol. II, p. 453, par. 344.

Oct. 1, 1890, ch. 1244, sec. 1, par. 373, Schedule J, 26 Stat. L. 594. Neuss v. U. S., (1896) 142 Fed. 281.

Ramie braids. In U. S. v. Rosenberg, (C.' C. A. 1906) 145 Fed. 343, it was held that, as to braids of ramie, the provision in paragraph 339, for "braids of . . vegetable fiber," is more specific than that in paragraph 347 for "all manufactures of ramie" and other vegetable fibers; the latter provision being intended to embrace any manufactures of vegetable fiber that have been omitted elsewhere in the tariff.

66

and ruf

Ruffled cotton curtains. — In construing the Tariff Act of Aug. 27, 1894, paragraph 276, which relates to "neck rufflings, articles made wholly or in part of flings," it was held that the word neck " should not be reread in connection with the word " 'rufflings," ," and that cotton curtains made in part of rufflings were dutiable under said paragraph, and not under paragraph 264 of said Act as "manufactures of cotton." Brill r. U. S., (1900) 123 Fed. 845.

“Wearing apparel.” — In Darlington v. U. S., (1905) 136 Fed. 716, it was held that dress shields, which are articles for women's wear, intended to be worn under the arms to protect the dress from perspiration, are wearing apparel," within the meaning of paragraph 413, which corresponds to paragraph 339 of the Act of 1897.

Bindings. See under this title, vol. 2, p. 448, par. 320.

Braids used as bindings. title, vol. 2, p. 448, par. 320.

Cotton velvet fabric trimmings. der this title, vol. 2, p. 447, par. 315. Crocheted goods. See under this title, vol. 2, p. 449, par. 322. Drawn work in flax. See under this title, vol. 2, p. 454, par. 346. Embroidered fans. vol. 2, p. 474, par. 427.

- See under this title,

Specific designation. — See under this title, vol. 2, p. 448, par. 318.

shape are principally used in the manufacture of handkerchiefs.

Hemstitched lace-trimmed handkerchiefs. See under this title, vol. 2, p. 451, par. 339.

under paragraph 346. Simon v. U. S., (1904) 131 Fed. 649, affirmed (C. C. A. 1905) 139 Fed. 3.

Flax-wool fabrics. Fabrics in chief value of flax, but in part of wool, are dutiable under paragraph 346, relating to goods "the

well as "articles." Schulemann v. U. S., (1901) 123 Fed. 1002.

Variation in thread count. In construing the provision in this paragraph of different rates of duty on fabrics of flax, varying according to thread count, etc., it has been held that it is not necessary that a fabric should be homogeneous throughout in order to bring it within said paragraph, and that the paragraph may include so-called "drawn work" from which some of the threads have been removed. Simon v. U. S., (1904) 131 Fed. 649, affirmed (C. C. A. 1905) 139 Fed. 3.

Dundee bagging. Corbitt, etc., Co. v. U. S., (1907) 153 Fed. 648. Ramie braids. See under this title, vol. 2, p. 451, par. 339.

Vol. II, p. 455, par. 349.

"Merino blood, immediate or remote." In paragraph 349, relating to wools, the words "merino blood, immediate or remote," convey an unmistakable meaning, and include

Vol. II, p. 455, par. 351.

"wool." Johnson v. U. S., (1907) 159

wool in which the presence of merino blood is marked, though of inferior quality. U. S. v. American Express Co., (1910) 177 Fed. 735.

Vol. II, p. 456, par. 352.

Conclusiveness of samples. The standard samples of wool prescribed by the secretary of the treasury on the authority of this paragraph are conclusive in respect to classification and quality, except, perhaps, where the issue is one of fraud or mistake, and regulations in respect to such samples are not subject to review by the courts or the board of

Vol. II, p. 456, par. 356.

"Changed in character or condition." - In construing paragraph 356 it has been held that it is not necessary that there should be any mechanical or chemical change, disguis ing the quality or character of the wool; and that, where white and black Iceland wools, which had always been dealt in and imported separately in different bales, were imported mixed together in the same bale for the purpose of securing a lower rate of duty on the white wool, the wool had been changed in condition within the meaning of the law. Stone, etc., Co. v. U. S., (1906) 147 Fed. 603. Double duty. Where two kinds of wools were changed in condition by mixing them in the same bale, in order to make the mixture subject to the lower duty provided for the

general appraisers; and where imported wools answer the quality of the standard samples, they should be classified accordingly, regardless of whether such standards operate unjustly, oppressively, or disproportionately to other classifications and values. U. S. v. American Express Co., (1910) 177 Fed. 735.

poorer kind, it was held (1) that, within the meaning of paragraph 356, only the better kind is changed "for the purpose of evading the duty to which it would otherwise be subject," because the poorer kind would be subject to the same rate, whether mixed or not; (2) that, therefore, the further provision in the same paragraph that wool changed for such purpose shall pay "twice the duty to which it would be otherwise subject," would apply only to the better kind, and not the poorer; and (3) that the duty which is thus doubled is that which would have been applicable to the better kind if imported in its natural condition. Stone, etc., Co. v. U. S., (1906) 147 Fed, 603,

quantity of wool on imported sheepskins, it is not enough to show a different weight to have been found by others. It must appear by direct and positive evidence that the method adopted by such officers was incorrect; and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will not be assumed that a test of eight out of 20,000 skins was inadequate, especially where there is evidence that such test was in accordance with the usual mode. U. S. r. Thomas, (1910) 178 Fed. 602.

Growth on the skins of mocha sheep. - See under this title, vol. 2, p. 497, par. 664.

Clippings of woolen material, produced in the process of making up garments, are rags," within both the popular and the commercial signification of the term, and are more specifically provided for as "woolen

Vol. II, p. 458, par. 366.

Camel's-hair press cloth is dutiable as manufactures of "wool " under this paragraph, rather than as "hair press cloth under paragraph 431. Oberle v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1908) 165 Fed. 53.

Cattle-hair goods are dutiable by similitude as manufactures of "wool," under this paragraph, being similar in quality, use, and texture. Rosenstern v. U. S., (1909) 171 Fed. 71, 96 C. C. A. 175.

Woolen powder puffs. — In paragraph 410, the provision for "brushes" does not include so-called powder puffs, which are composed of flat circular pieces of woolen cloth with a fuzzy surface and are useful in applying toilet powder, and which, though resembling brushes in use, do not resemble them in construction, and are properly classi

Vol. II, p. 459, par. 368.

.

Wool traveling rugs, which are not por. tions of carpets or carpeting," were not included in the provision in Tariff Act of Oct. 1, 1890, ch. 1244, sec. 1, Schedule K, par. 408, 26 Stat. L. 598, for " rugs and other portions of carpets or carpeting, made wholly or in part of wool," but were dutiable under the provision in paragraph 392 of that act, for "all manufactures of every description made wholly or in part of wool." U. S. v. Haynes, (1901) 124 Fed. 295.

Cotton-wool cloth-Act of 1890. See under this title, vol. 2, p. 449, par. 322. Cravenette cloth - Act of 1890.- See under this title, vol. 2, p. 451, par. 337. Flax-wool fabrics. - See under this title, vol. 2, p. 545, par. 346.

Vol. II, p. 459, par. 369.

Embroidered dress goods. In Thomas v. Wanamaker, (1904) 129 Fed. 92, 63 C. C. A. 594, affirming (1903) 123 Fed. 193, it was held that so-called wool "dress robes" or "dress patterns," consisting of women's dress goods of wool, embroidered with silk, imported in single patterns in separate lengths and pieces, each pattern comprising the material for the body and trimming of a dress, were dress goods," and were dutiable under the provision in paragraph 369, for

66

Vol. II, p. 460, par. 370.

entire area of the rug, including the selvage, should be measured in ascertaining the number of square feet. Fritz v. U. S., (1904) 135 Fed. 916.

1895, the reduction in duties provided in said Act on "manufactures of wool." Robinson v. U. S., (1905) 143 Fed. 919.

condition of skeins; (2) that silk known as "singles or "silk on tubes," which has been wound from the skeins onto tubes, the effect of this process being to advance the silk to a stage in preparation for its ultimate use, has been "advanced in manufacture; and (3) that silk in this form is not free of duty under this provision, but dutiable under paragraph 384 as "silk . . not further advanced or manufactured than carded or combed silk." Klots v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1905) 139 Fed. 606, affirming (1904) 133 Fed. 808. Re-reeled silk. See under this title, vol. 2, p. 497, par. 660.

Vol. II, p. 463, par. 387.

Appraisal by examiner, not by weigher. In appraising goods under this paragraph the goods may appropriately be sent to an examiner, rather than to a weigher, whose duty is confined to weighing articles in bulk; and it is within the examiner's duty to make return of the weight, as well as the other requisite facts. U. S. v. Rosenthal, (1903) 126 Fed. 766, affirmed (C. C. A. 1905) 145 Fed. 1.

Figured silk. - In Wimpfheimer v. U. S., (1905) 142 Fed. 849, affirmed (C. C. A. 1906) 149 Fed. 1022, it was held, in regard to a fabric of two colors, one of which is produced by threads introduced by the swivel process to form figures, and not extending across the cloth from selvage to selvage, that the swivel threads are not a part of the filling, and that the goods are not within the provision in paragraph 391, for Jacquard figured silks containing two or more colors "in the filling" but were properly dutiable under paragraph 387. Compare Johnson v. U. S., (1901) 123 Fed. 997.

Vol. II, p. 464, par. 390.

Appliquéd articles. It does not appear that there is any definition of "appliqué" in trade and commerce different from the dictionary definition of it as "any ornament laid out and applied on another surface such as cloth; and goods within this definition are dutiable under paragraph 390, relating to "articles appliquéd." It is not necessary that the design should be regular, conventional, or highly ornamental, and therefore the provision includes a fabric to which a gilt cord has been applied in irregular loops of a crude design, being in this form fairly durable, permanent, and salable. U. S. v. Vantine, (C. C. A. 1908) 166 Fed. 735, affirming (1907) 155 Fed. 149.

"Articles." The ordinary use of the word "articles" in tariff acts is a broad one; and there is nothing in the structure of paragraph 390, which would require the restriction of that term to completed articles. It may include woven fabrics in 25-yard pieces. U. S. r. Vantine, (C. C. A. 1908) 166 Fed. 735, affirming (1907) 155 Fed. 149.

Artificial silk hats are dutiable under paragraph 390, by similitude to silk wearing apparel. U. S. v. Wanamaker, (1910) 175 Fed. 900, 99 C. C. A. 390, reversing (1909) 169 Fed. 664.

Construction of proviso. In construing paragraph 390, relating to articles of silk, or in chief value of silk, with a proviso that the "articles provided for in this paragraph, when composed in part of India rubber, shall be subject to' the same duty, it has been held that the proviso does not cover articles not in chief value of silk. SimpsonCrawford Co. v. U. S., (1909) 172 Fed. 301, affirmed (1910) 178 Fed. 1006, 101 C. C. A. 665.

Garters were included within the term "wearing apparel," as used under paragraph

See under this title,

413 of the Tariff Act of 1890. U. S. v. Steinhardt, (1892) 141 Fed. 494. Mourning crepes. So-called mourning crepes, consisting of all-silk fabrics in the piece, of the width known as "4/4," are not dutiable as woven fabrics in the piece not specially provided for," under paragraph 387, but as trimmings . . . made of silk, not specially provided for," under paragraph 390. Robinson v. U. S., (1900) 122 Fed. 970.

66

Narrow strips of silk with interwoven designs. The provision in this paragraph for galloons or trimmings includes narrow strips of silk having interwoven thereon ornamental designs, which are chiefly used to decorate and embellish women's apparel. Loewenthal v. U. S., (1910) 180 Fed. 941.

The term trimmings" is used in this paragraph in a commercial rather than a descriptive sense. Naday v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1908) 164 Fed. 44.

Trimmed hats. In applying the provision in paragraph 432, for "hats trimmed,

composed wholly or in chief value of fur," the composition of the hats should be determined by reference to the whole hat including the trimming; so that where hats, the bodies of which are fur, are so trimmed that the silk trimming is the component of chief value in the hats, they are dutiable under paragraph 390, as wearing apparel in chief value of silk. Leon Rheims Co. v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1908) 160 Fed. 925, affirming (1907) 154 Fed. 969.

Trimmings. While ribbons that must be made up into bows, rosettes, and the like before being used for purposes of trimming or ornamentation are not dutiable as "trimmings" under paragraph 390, goods are so dutiable which are manufactured with ornamentation and characteristic design to be used as a trimming, and intended to be so