"A B C" plates and mugs, held not toys, but dutiable as "decorated earthenware." Maddock v. Magone (C. C. 1890) 41 Fed. 882, judgment affirmed (1894) 14 Sup. Ct. 588, 152 U. S. 368, 38 L. Ed. 482.

Decorated teapots held, under Act

1909, not dutiable as Rockingham

earthenware, but as decorated earthenware. Masson v. U. S. (1912) 3 Ct. Cust. App. 420.

1. Bisque rings.-Bisque rings for incandescent burners held not dutiable as bisque. See paragraph 385.

2. Carmelite ware.-Earthenware cooking utensils known as carmelite ware and in the shape of bowls, which had imposed on them a thin white layer of vitreous glass, forming a smooth, hard coating that differs in color and character from the body on which it is laid, are enameled, and dutiable as such. Frank v. U. S. (1911) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 85.

3. Decorated ware.-Merely adding a color to white china for utilitarian purposes does not make decorated china, and china and cooking serving dishes of which the sloping undersides are irregularly colored brown in order to conceal smoke and finger marks, and without decorative effect, are dutiable as undecorated china under Act 1897. G. W. Thurnauer & Bro. v. U. S. (1908) 159 Fed. 122, 86 C. C. A. 86, reversing judgment U. S. v. G. M. Thurnauer & Bro. (C. C. 1907) 152 Fed. 660.

Bottle stoppers of china or porcelain, on which there have been printed in various colors firm names, and trademarks indicated by various devices, such as a monogram, a star, a bird, a lion, etc., held not ornamented or decorated, within paragraphs 84, 85, when "not changed in condition by superadded ornamentation or decoration" (paragraph

84), but "printed or otherwise decorated in any manner" (paragraph 85), and are dutiable under the former, and not the latter, of these provisions. U. S. v. Borgfeldt (C. C. 1900) 123 Fed. 196. Where "Cenco" is so placed on white china plates and so printed as to be attractive in color and design, it becomes, as well as a trade-mark, a matter of adornment or decoration. U. S. v. Bernard, Judae & Co. (1913) 4 Ct. Cust. App. 403. See, also, Richard & Co. v. U. S. (1913) 4 Ct. Cust. App. 359.

4. Enameled.-"Enameled" as employed in paragraph 94, Act 1909, has the limited meaning which it appears always to have borne in ceramics; that is to say, an opaque or colored semivitrified coating applied to the surface of pottery either as a decoration or for a utilitarian purpose. Richards & Co. v. U. S. (1912) 3 Ct. Cust. App. 193.

5. Marquardt-masse.-The importer claims the merchandise is made of marquardt-masse. This term is not in common use and no authority is given that sheds any light on the question of what marquardt-masse is, of what The it is composed, or how made. record shows no chemical analysis of the tubes in controversy. Stegemann v. U. S. (1914) 5 Ct. Cust. App. 393.

The importer's contention is that the tubes were not dutiable under paragraph 94, but paragraph 95, Act 1909. The burden is on him of establishing both these claims. Under the evidence if it were assumed the first contention is sound there is no proof of the other. Id.

affirming judgment (C. C. 1897) 87 Fed. 190.

The provision in Act 1897 for mineral substances being limited to articles susceptible of decoration, wares not susceptible of decoration are not to be brought within the paragraph through the operation of the similitude clause. M. Kirschberger & Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1908) 166 Fed. 1012.

This case was based upon the tariff law of 1897, in which the provision relating to articles composed of earthy or mineral substances was restricted by the phrase "whether decorated or not"; and this phrase had been held to exclude from the operation of the paragraph articles not susceptible of decoration. Jackson & Co. v. U. S. (1916) 6 Ct. Cust. App. 512.

Earthy and mineral substances are not dutiable under paragraph 95, Act 1909, but articles made out of earthy or mineral substances are-that is to say, articles that are something more than the material out of which they are made, being distinguishable from the mass out of which they were developed by a definite shape and form adapted to a final use. U. S. v. Embossing Co. (1912) 3 Ct. Cust. App. 220. See, also, Same v. Tamm & Co. (1912) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 425; Salomon v. U. S. (1911) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 92.

2. "Composed."-"Composed," under Act 1909, does not imply that an article to be "composed" must be made of more than one substance; an article may be composed of a single substance. U. S. v. Tamm & Co. (1912) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 425.

3. "Mineral substance."-The phrase "mineral substances" does not mean substances in the plural, to the exclusion of substance in the singular. U. S. v. Tamm & Co. (1912) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 425.

4. Carbon.-Blood charcoal held not dutiable as an article of carbon. See paragraph 447.

Carbon points held not dutiable as articles composed of mineral substances. See paragraph 82.

Carbon sticks, which must undergo a slight process of manufacture to be fit for use in electric lamps, not being dutiable under Act 1897 as "carbons for electric lighting," because unfinished, nor, as articles composed of carbon, not specially provided for, decorated or undecorated, because not susceptible of decoration, held dutiable under the similitude clause, at the rate levied by paragraph 98 on the finished product. Judgment U. S. v. R. F. Downing & Co. (1906) 26 Sup. Ct. 476, 477, 201 U. S. 354, 50 L. Ed. 786, reversing judgment U. S. v. Downing (1904) 129 Fed. 90, 63 C. C. A. 532.

Carbon sticks, intended for use in electric lighting, which must be cut into suitable lengths, and the ends pointed or ground, before they can be so used,

held dutiable under Act 1897, as anticles or wares composed wholly of carbon, not specially provided for, and not as carbons for electric lighting. U. S. v. Reisinger (1899) 94 Fed. 1002, 36 C. C. A. 626.

The rods of the importation, when fitted with brass caps, make poles of a galvanic battery of a kind, though not completed poles. Reviewing the legislative history of paragraph 95, Act 1909, and the construction it has received by the courts, the intention is manifest that articles like those described are not subject to the duties imposed by that paragraph upon articles and wares composed of earthy or mineral substances. The merchandise is a manufacture of carbon and is classifiable and dutiable as a nonenumerated manufacture under paragraph 480. Stegemann v. U. S. (1913) 4 Ct. Cust. App. 5.

5. Ceylon sapphire.-Small pieces of Ceylon sapphires used as bearings for electrical meters, etc., held dutiable under Act 1909 as articles composed of earthy or mineral substances, and not as semiprecious stones or as precious stones cut, but not set. U. S. v. General Electric Co. (1913) 4 Ct. Cust. App. 287.

6. Fire brick.-Fire brick held not dutiable under the terms of this paragraph. See paragraph 71.

7. Flint glazing stones.-Solid flint glazing stones held dutiable as articles composed wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral substances. U. S. v. Tamm & Co. (1912) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 425.

8. Granito.-Granito, a manufacture of marble waste, crushed and screened, is dutiable under paragraph 81, Act 1913, as an article composed of earthy or mineral substance, not specially provided for. Jackson & Co. v. U. S. (1916) 6 Ct. Cust. App. 512.

9. Ground talc.-Ground talc held not dutiable under the terms of this paragraph. See paragraph 69.

10. Hone stones.-Hone stones designed as polishers held properly assessed as marble polishers composed of a mineral substance under Act 1909. Waddell & Co. v. U. S. (1912) 3 Ct. Cust. App. 406.

11. Jade.-Articles such as tableware, ornaments, etc., manufactured from jade, held, under Act 1897, not "precious stones," or unenumerated articles, but dutiable as "articles and wares composed wholly or in chief value of

** mineral substances." C. L. Tiffany & Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1903) 126 Fed. 255.

12. Lava stone.-Lava stone per se held not in all cases a monumental or building stone, and was not free as lava unmanufactured, but dutiable as articles composed wholly or in chief

value of earthy or mineral substances not specially provided for. U. S. v. Manufacturers' Paper Co. (1913) 4 Ct. Cust. App. 110. See, also, Waddell & Co. v. U. S. (1912) 3 Ct. Cust. App. 406; U. S. v. Stouffer (1912) 3 Ct. Cust. App. 67; Same v. Tamm & Co. (1912) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 425.

13. Magnesia rings.-Magnesia rings used for holding in place the incandescent mantles of gas burners held dutiable under Act 1909, as articles composed wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral substances, not specially provided for and not decorated, whether susceptible of decoration or not. U. S. v. Fensterer & Ruhe (1911) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 368. See, also, Fensterer v. U. S. (1910) 1 Ct. Cust. App. 93.

14. Metal polish.-Metal polish held not dutiable as earthy or mineral substance. See paragraph 385.

15. Modeling clay.-Modeling clay containing saponifiable matter held not dutiable as earthy or mineral substance. See paragraph 385.

17. Nicol prisms.-The importations of nikols or Nicol prisms are manufactured from the mineral substance known as carbonate of calcium, and, as articles or wares of that class are not otherwise provided for, these are dutiable at 35 per cent. ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 95, Act 1909. U. S. v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. (1914) 5 Ct. Cust. App. 416.

18. Polishing powder.-Polishing powder held not dutiable as articles composed of mineral substances. See paragraph 60.

19. Polishing stones.-Tam O'Shanter stones for polishing held dutiable under paragraph 95, Act 1909, as articles or wares in chief value of earthy or mineral substances, and not classifiable as waste or minerals crude. Waddell & Co. v. U. S. (1914) 5 Ct. Cust. App. 188.

20. Pumice stone.-Composition pumice stone held not dutiable under the

terms of this paragraph. See paragraph 75.

21. Rubbing or scouring bricks.-The importation is a stone, in brick shape it is true, but it is used in water in the process of rubbing, scouring, and cleaning marble, thus disintegrating in its use. It was properly assessed as an article or ware composed wholly or in chief value of earthy or mineral substances not specially provided for, not decorated, under paragraph 95, Act 1909. Waddell & Co. v. U. S. (1914) 5 Ct. Cust. App. 63.

U. S.

24. Water of Ayr whetstone.-Water of Ayr whetstone, used to smooth the rough surfaces of engraved rollers held dutiable as an article of earthy or mineral substance under Act 1909. v. Johnson & Co. (1913) 4 Ct. Cust. App. 104. See, also, Waddell & Co. v. U. S. (1912) 3 Ct. Cust. App. 406; Manufacturers' Paper Co. v. U. S. (1912) 3 Ct. Cust. App. 72; U. S. v. Tamm & Co. (1912) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 425.

Notes of Carbon.-Carbon sticks held not dutiable as carbons for electric lighting. See paragraph 81.

Carbon points for are lights, composed chiefly of lampblack, natural graphite, and carbon products resulting from the distillation of coal, coke, or petroleum and coal tar, in varying proportions, the lampblack being produced by the combustion of either mineral or vegetable substances, held dutiable, un

Decisions

der Act 1894 as manufactured articles not provided for, and not as articles composed of mineral substances not specially provided for. Judgment (C. C. 1897) 87 Fed. 190, affirmed. Dingelstedt v. U. S. (1898) 91 Fed. 112, 33 C. C. A. 395.

Soapstone gas tips.-Soapstone gas tips held dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles. See paragraph

385.