returned by the appraiser as lead in pigs, dutiable, under the provisions of T. I., 189, at the rate assessed.

From the report of the appraiser received with your letter, it appears that the merchandise in question was submitted for analysis to the laboratory connected with the appraiser's office, and that the official report of the chemist showed its composition to be as follows:

The appraiser states that in view of the small percentage (4.01) of antimony contained therein, the article in question was considered by him as not coming within the scope of Department's decision of March 31, 1887 (Synopsis 8147), and was accordingly returned as lead in pigs, dutiable as aforesaid, and in harmony with Department's decision of March 7, 1885 (Synopsis 6786).

Reports have also been received from the collector and appraiser at Boston, from which it appears that the merchandise, if imported at that port, would also be classified as lead in pigs.

The report of the appraiser at Boston, which is quite exhaustive on the subject of type metal, is inclosed herewith, for the consideration of yourself and the appraiser at your port, in connection with the statements therein named, relative to the omission, unaccounted for, of 73 per cent. of the total of 100 per cent. in the chemist's report.

The appraiser at Boston gives as the accepted analysis in England and Spain of the hard lead of commerce the following:

He states that the analyses given for the importation covered by the present appeal indicate a metal produced from old refuse lead or dross, which may also contain a mixture of stereotype or electrotype metal, but that the proportion of tin and arsenic shown by the analysis is not sufficient to produce an alloy within the category of the type-metal of commerce, although the antimony and tin which may be derived from the mixture of old stereotype or electrotype metal might be suffi

cient to answer certain of the purposes for which such alloys are used in type metal. It would appear from his report that antimony and tin are used in stereotyping to harden the lead, in proportions somewhat less (about one-half) than that required in metal to be used for type; that antimony serves also another purpose in both type and stereotype metal, due to its peculiar property of expansion in cooling, and that this purpose alone is required in electrotyping; that, therefore, while, according to the formula of two of the principal foundries in his district, type-metal should contain 40 per cent. of antimony, stereotype metal should contain only from 16 to 20 per cent., and electrotype but 12 per cent. of antimony.

By Department's decision above referred to (Synopsis 8147) 9 per cent. of antimony was held to be sufficient to bring certain so-called antimonial lead within the purview of T. I., 213, for type metal, and it is not considered expedient at this time to admit any metal containing a lower percentage of antimony to such classification.

As in the present case the importation contains only 4.01, your assessment of duty at the rate applicable to lead in pigs under T. I., 189, is affirmed. * * *

Respectfully yours,

GEORGE C. TICHENOR,

(2879 x.)

Assistant Secretary.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York, N. Y.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Document No. 1304.

Secretary-Customs.

TO COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, D. C., March 1, 1890.

The following decisions of the Department for the month of February, 1890, upon the construction to be given to acts of Congress relating to the tariff, navigation, and other subjects, are published for the information and guidance of officers of the customs and others concerned. WILLIAM WINDOM,

Secretary.

(9832.)

Jewelry-Gilt sleeve-buttons, front and collar buttons dutiable as.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 1, 1890.

SIR: The Department duly received your letter of the 24th of December last, transmitting the appeal (4646 x) of the Plymouth Clothing House from your assessment of duty, at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem, on certain gilt sleeve-buttons, "gilt front and collar buttons," and "gilt patent collar-buttons," imported at your port December 5 last, returned by the appraiser as gilt articles dutiable under T. I., 210, and claimed by the appellants to be dutiable as jewelry under T. I., 459, and in accordance with Department's decision of July 21, 1882 (S. 5315). A report in this matter has been received from the collector at New York, from which it appears that under Department's instruc. tions of April 19, 1888 (Synopsis 8790)-(which were issued to carry out the decision of the court in the case of Robbins vs. Robertson), and Department's further instructions of June 22, 1889, in which the collector was informed that the Department did not intend by its previous instructions or any subsequent ruling to narrow or widen the list of articles which were held by the court in its decision to be known commercially as jewelry, but that in cases of doubt the United States

attorney should be consulted as to what articles are covered by said case-it is the practice to return goods similar to those covered by the appeal received with your letter as jewelry dutiable under T. I., 459. As the action of the collector at New York appears to be in accordance with the ruling of the court, and is also in accordance with the views of the Department, the appeal is sustained, and you are authorized to take the necessary steps for reliquidating the entry and refunding the excess of duty exacted by forwarding a certified statement to the Department for its consideration.

Toys-Certain "after-dinner coffees" (cups and saucers) not dutiable as, but as earthenware.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 1, 1890.

SIR: The Department duly received your letter of the 16th of Decemn. ber last, transmitting the appeal (4136 x) of John Gauche's Sons, from your assessment of duty, at the rate of 55 per cent. ad valorem, on certain cups and saucers, imported per Discoverer, October 2, 1889, and returned by the appraiser at your port as white earthenware, dutiable under T. I., 127.

It appears that the merchandise in question consists of after-dinner coffee cups and saucers, which are not, as claimed by the appellants, "primarily intended for and ordinarily used by children for their amusement, and dutiable as toys under T. I., 425."

The samples submitted with your letter were forwarded to the collector at New York, who reports that the cups are made with a heavy handle specially for the use of hotels and restaurants, and are not such as are intended for toys, and that the practice at his port is to classify such merchandise at the rate assessed by you in this case.

As these views are concurred in by the Department, and are also in accordance with the decision of the United States circuit court embraced in the case of Maddox vs. Magone, recently tried in New York, your assessment of duty is affirmed.

Respectfully yours,

(4136 x.)

GEORGE C. TICHENOR,

Assistant Secretary.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New Orleans, La.