facturing lenses for optical instruments, it being represented that the polishing of such disks or plates for the purpose of showing whether they are free from all veins or impurities is a necessary part of the manufacture of the disk or plate itself, and that the articles are still glass plates or disks unwrought, and are covered by the provision for such articles in the free list, T. I., 708. Such being the case, the Department, in accordance with its general rule, which is not to change a long existing practice, unless for good and substantial reasons, which do not appear to exist in this case, hereby revokes its instructions to you of November 21 last, and authorizes you to admit free of duty glass plates and disks which may have the surfaces polished merely for the purpose of showing whether they are free from imperfections or not, provided that it is ascertained in each instance that they are made from optical glass, are intended solely for the manufacture of optical instruments, and are not lenses. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 14, 1890. SIR: The Department duly received your letters of the 18th ultimo and 3d instant, also statement, without date, in regard to the free entry of a marble statue of President Garfield recently imported by you at New York and held for payment of duty. From your statement it appears that the statue in question was executed in Italy from a model prepared by you in this country, and that the work was executed according to your directions, and you claim that the statue was in fact your production and exempt from duty under the provision in the free-list act of March 3, 1883, for "works of art, paintings, statuary, fountains, and other works of art, the production of American artists." The Department has carefully considered the arguments presented by you in support of your claim, but is nevertheless still of opinion that its decision of November 22, 1889 (Synopsis 9730), which held that a statue made in a foreign country, from foreign materials, and by foreign artisans, although from a model designed by an artist in the United States, was not exempt from duty under the provision of law above cited, is correct, and while desirous of affording every legal facility for the prompt delivery of the statue, must decline to admit the claim that it is exempt from duty under said provision of law, which manifestly contemplates only works executed abroad by American artists, inasmuch as it prescribes that "the fact of such production must be verified by the certificate of a consul or minister of the United States indorsed upon the written declaration of the artist." The statue in question being intended to form part of the Garfield Memorial, a public monument now in process of construction at Cleveland, Ohio, is entitled to free entry under the provisions of section 2509, act of March 3, 1883, which authorizes the admission, free of duty, of "articles imported in good faith by any society or association for the purpose of erecting a public monument, and not for sale," on execution of the bond prescribed by said provision of law. Wools of class 2-So-called "white chevrette" or Angora goat hair dut iable as. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 15, 1890. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 8th of November last, further reporting on the appeal (6510 w) of Mr. Henry Schmidt from your decision assessing duty, at the rate of 10 cents per pound, on certain goat hair, imported into your port per Utopia, August 14, 1889, which the appellant claims to be exempt from duty under the provision in the free list, T. I. 717, for "hair of all kinds, cleaned or uncleaned, drawn or undrawn, but unmanufactured, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act." It appears from the special reports of the appraiser, transmitted by you, that the hair in question was returned by him under the provision in Schedule K (T. I., 354), because it consisted of hair taken from Angora goat skins, and although commercially known as "white chev rette," which is ordinarily obtained from skins of the Angora kid by a liming process after the animals are killed, and is of the poorer class of Angora goat hair, it is liable to duty under such provision, which specifies "all hair of the alpaca, goat, and other like animals." That the article is hair of the Angora goat is also proven by certificates from numerous dealers in wool, hair, etc., at your port. The fact that the article is Angora goat hair removes it from the category of the hair specified in the "free list," because (1) it is therein prescribed that to exempt hair from duty it must be otherwise unenumerated, and (2) Angora goat skins with the wool on are specially excluded from exemption of duty (T. I., 719). ་ Angora goat hair is well recognized as belonging to class 2, wools, and as it is clearly covered by the said provision in Schedule K (T. I. 354) the Department decides, regardless of the use to which it may be applied, that it is dutiable at the rate of 10 cents per pound, as assessed by you. Printed matter-A certain subscription work dutiable as, and not free as periodicals. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 16, 1890. SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 12th ultimo, and previous communication, with their inclosures, in regard to the classification and dutiable value of certain fac-similes of old documents relating to America, which you propose to publish and ship to the United States. It is ascertained that the fac-similes in question are produced by a double process of printing, known as "photolithographing;" that they are put up in substantial covers or boxes, made of cloth and leather, for preservation, and that, as a publisher and dealer in books, and a compiler and publisher of the fac-similes of the manuscripts relating to America, from 1763 to 1783, in the archives of England, France, Holland, and Spain, you state in your business circular that the work will be sold only to subscribers, the number being limited to two hundred; that the price for a single volume will be $25, or, where over five volumes are taken, $20 net per volume, and is to be paid on its delivery in London. Under these circumstances, the Department is of opinion that the said articles are not "periodicals," and can not be admitted to free entry as such; that they are, in fact, printed matter, which is dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent. ad valorem, under the provision in the existing tariff act, and that the dutiable value thereof can not be taken by the appraising officer at less than $20 per volume. Iron show-cards-Dutiable as manufactures of iron, and not as printed matter. (Synopsis 6141 affirmed. Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Company vs. Worth ington.) TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 17, 1890. SIR: I transmit herewith a copy of a decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case (No. 163, October term, 1889) of the Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Company, plaintiffs in error, against Roland Worthington, collector of customs, etc., which involved the question as to the proper classification for duty, under the existing tariff acts, of certain iron show-cards imported by the plaintiff into your port in the year 1884. It will be seen that the decision sustains the ruling of the Department of January 25, 1884 (Synopsis 6141), whereby it was held that such articles were dutiable at the rate of 45 per cent. ad valorem, under the provisions of Schedule C, T. I., 216, for "Manufactures, articles, or wares not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron," etc., the claim of the plaintiff in error that they were dutiable at the rate of 25 per cent. ad valorem as printed matter being rejected. Respectfully yours, (2504 i.) GEORGE C. TICHENOR, Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. 163.-OCTOBER TERM, 1889. THE FORBES LITHOGRAPH MANUFACTURING vs. ROLAND WORTHINGTON, collector of customs for the district of Boston and Charlestown. [December 23, 1889.] In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Dis trict of Massachusetts. This cause was heard by the District Judge for the District of New Hampshire, holding the Circuit Court, upon the following agreed statement of facts: "This was an action in which the writ was dated April 18, 1884, brought by the Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing Company, a corporation located at Boston, in said district, to recover back $1,081.42, the amount of duties alleged by them to have been illegally exacted by the defendant Worthington, as collector of the port of Boston, on certain merchandise described in the invoice and entries as 'iron show-cards' imported by them. The pleadings may be referred to. The plaintiffs imported these cards into the port of Boston from Paris, in France, by different steamers from Liverpool, the importations being made in ten separate lots, and extending from December 19, 1883, to April 2, 1884. On each importation as received the plaintiffs paid the assessed duties under protest, and duly filed such protest with the collector and their appeal with the Secretary of the Treasury. A copy of one of the protests, which may stand for all, is hereto annexed and marked ‘A,' and this action was seasonably brought. "The collector exacted a duty of forty-five per centum ad valorem (amounting in the aggregate to $2,432.62), under the clause in Schedule C (last section) of the tariff law of March 3, 1883, which is as follows: 'Manufactures, articles, or wares, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron or any other metal, and whether partly or wholly manufactured, forty-five per centum ad valorem,' while the said importers claimed that the goods were dutiable at twenty-five per centum ad valorem only (the aggregate amounting to $1.351.20), under the clause in Schedule M (first section), which is as follows: Books, pamphlets, bound or unbound, and all printed matter, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, engravings, bound or unbound, etchings, illustrated books, maps, and charts, twenty-five per centum ad valorem.' "The difference between the amount of said duties, at forty-five per cent. and at twenty-five per cent., is $1,081.42, which is the amount that the plaintiffs claim in this case. "All the goods charged with the duties were iron show-cards or advertising cards or signs. "They were manufactured in Paris on orders given by the said importers to fill orders from parties here, who used them for advertising purposes (to hang on the walls or in windows or in public places, to give to customers, etc.). The importers imported and sold them to the consumers here for such advertising purposes only. The cards were of different sizes, being on the average about a foot long by six inches |