shall pay in addition thereto upon such frames the rate of duty applicable thereto when imported separate. 90. Cast polished plate glass, silvered or unsilvered, and cylinder, crown, or common window glass, silvered or unsilvered, polished or unpolished, when bent, ground, obscured, frosted, sanded, enameled, beveled, etched, embossed, engraved, flashed, stained, colored, painted, ornamented, or decorated, shall be subject to a duty of 4 per centum ad valorem in addition to the rates otherwise chargeable thereon. Notes of Decisions Bent glass.-The testimony in this case establishes without contradiction that the parabolic mirrors of the importation are cast, polished plate glass, silvered, and bent. They were dutiable with their frames, if any there were, as provided by paragraphs 103 and 104, Act 1909. General Electric Co. v. U. S. (1915) 5 Ct. Cust. App. 528. Bent disks of glass used in the manufacture of auto goggles held not so far advanced by process of manufacture as to acquire a name, character, and use different from common window glass bent. U. S. v. American Thermo-Ware Co. (1913) 4 Ct. Cust. App. 21; U. S. v. American Thermo-Ware Co. (1911) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 9. Cast polished plate glass.-Cast polished plate glass, silvered and beveled, from which looking glasses are made, held dutiable at 6 cents a square foot, and also to an additional duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraphs 116, 118, Act 1890, and not dutiable under paragraph 116 only, as "looking glass plates." Herrman v. U. S. (C. C. 1894) 62 Fed. 149. Colored glass.-Cylinder crown or common window glass which has been either colored throughout when melted or colored on the outside by flashing held, under Act 1890, subject to the additional duty on glass colored, and not dutiable as stained or painted glass windows. Bache v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 81 Fed. 162, 26 C. C. A. 325, affirming judgment (C. C. 1896) 77 Fed. 603. Cut glass.-Glass tumblers, with bottoms smoothed by cutting or grinding, or with engraved sides, are subject, under July 30, 1846 (9 Stat. 42), to a duty of 40 per cent. as "glass cut," and not to a duty of 30 per cent. as "glass tumblers, plain, moulded, or pressed, not cut or punted." Binns v. Lawrence (1851) 53 U. S. (12 How.) 9, 13 L. Ed. 871. 91. Spectacles, eyeglasses, and goggles, and frames for the same, or parts thereof, finished or unfinished, 35 per centum ad valorem. Notes of Decisions "Or parts thereof."-Avoiding what would be a conflict between paragraphs 108 and 109 in the tariff act of 1897, the words "or parts thereof" in the former paragraph must be taken to refer not to spectacles, eyeglasses or goggles, but to the frames for these. U. S. v. American Thermo-Ware Co. (1911) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 9. Spectacles, eyeglasses, and goggles.From the use of the words "spectacles, eyeglasses, and goggles" in paragraph 105, Act 1909, and "spectacles and eyeglasses" only, goggles being omitted, in paragraph 577, it may be reasonably inferred that Congress understood goggles to be different things from spectacles or eyeglasses and deliberately refrained from making material for them dutiable under paragraph 577. Bache & Co. v. U. S. (1916) 6 Ct. Cust. App. 507. 92. Lenses of glass or pebble, molded or pressed, or ground and polished to a spherical, cylindrical, or prismatic form, and ground and polished plano or coquill glasses, wholly or partly manufactured, strips of glass, not more than three inches wide, ground or polished on one or both sides to a cylindrical or prismatic form, including those used in the construction of gauges, and glass slides for magic lanterns, 25 per centum ad valorem. Notes of Decisions Construction in general.-Construction of this paragraph with the preceding one, see paragraph 91. Coquil glasses.-Disks of glass used in the manufacture of auto goggles held not dutiable as coquil glasses. See paragraph 85. Lenses ground "and" polished. It is necessary that lenses should be both ground and polished in order to be brought within the provision of Act 1897 for "lenses * * ground and polished to a spherical, cylindrical or prismatic form"; and where they have been brought to such form by molding they are not within that provision. U. S. v. Robinson (C. C. 1905) 140 Fed. 968. Lenses of glass.-Rough lenses, see paragraph 494. A patent portrait lens, used as a part of a photographic camera, consisting of eight single lenses arranged in pairs and mounted in metal, which constitutes but a small part of the value of the whole, the complete articles being commercially known as lenses, held dutiable, under Act 1894 as "lenses of glass," and not as "optical instruments." E. & H. T. Anthony & Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1898) 90 Fed. 802. Prismatic form.-In Act 1897 the provision for strips of glass ground or polished to "prismatic form" held not limited to strips so ground that a side in itself forms a prism, but includes also strips that fulfill the functions of a prism, as where there are ground in cne side fine parallel longitudinal incisions forming prisms. U. S. v. Ashcroft Mfg. Co. (1910) 176 Fed. 736, 100 C. C. A. 281, affirming judgment (C. C. 1909) 172 Fed. 449. Slides.-Glass slides held dutiable as toys. See paragraph 342. 93. Opera and field glasses, optical instruments and frames and mountings for the same; all the foregoing not specially provided for in this section, 35 per centum ad valorem. Notes of Decisions Opera glasses.-Pearl opera glasses dutiable as manufacture of mother of pearl, see paragraph 369. Opera glasses, composed of metal tubes covered with polished mother of pearl, and held together by a metal framework, were dutiable at 45 per cent. ad valorem, as "manufactured articles composed in part of metal," under Schedule C of the act of 1883, although the shell was of greater value than the other component materials; and they could not properly be classed as "shells, whole or parts of," under Schedule N, or as "articles composed of shell, metal, and glass in which shell is the component of chief value," under R. S. § 2499, as amended by the act of 1883. Seeberger V. Schlesinger (1894) 14 Sup. Ct. 729, 731, 152 U. S. 581, 38 L. Ed. 560, modifying judgment Schlesinger v. Seeberger (C. C. 1889) 40 Fed. 872, and overruling U. S. v. Manassee (1893) 56 Fed. 828, 6 C. C. A. 155. Opera glasses held dutiable under Act 1883 as "articles composed in part of metal," and not as nonenumerated articles. Aloe v. Churchill (C. C. 1890) 44 Fed. 50. Opera glasses, composed of metal, glass, and pearl or shell, in which the pearl or shell is the component of chief value, held dutiable at 25 per cent. ad valorem (Heyl's Dig. pt. 2, p. 32); but, when the metal and pearl or shell are of equal value, they were dutiable at 45 per cent. ad valorem, as a manufacture of copper not otherwise provided for (Heyl's Dig. pt. 2, p. 13, cl. 216). Young v. Spalding (C. C. 1885) 24 Fed. 87. Optical instruments.-Azimuth mirrors, sextants, and octants held not dutiable, as optical instruments. See paragraph 167. Magic lanterns for children held not dutiable as optical instruments. See paragraph 342. Portrait lens held not dutiable as optical instrument. See paragraph 92. 94. Surveying instruments, telescopes, microscopes, photographic and projection lenses, and frames and mountings for the same, 25 per centum ad valorem. Notes of Decisions Surveyors' compasses. compasses do not come within the meaning of "philosophical instruments," but are more properly "mathematical instruments." Manasse v. Spalding (C. C. 1885) 24 Fed. 86. 95. Stained or painted glass windows, or parts thereof, and all mirrors, not exceeding in size one hundred and forty-four square inches, with or without frames or cases; incandescent electric-light bulbs and lamps, with or without filaments; and all glass or manufactures of glass or paste or of which glass or paste is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this section, 30 per centum ad valorem. manufactures of glass. See paragraph Notes of Decisions Manufactures of glass.-Buttons of glass and fish scales held not dutiable as 339. Watch enamel held manufacture of glass. 493. See paragraph not dutiable as together and Glass beads strung colored in imitation of precious stones held dutiable under Act 1890 as manufactures of glass, and as imitations of precious stones not set. U. S. v. E. A. Morrison & Son (1900) 21 Sup. Ct. 195, 179 U. S. 456, 45 L. Ed. 275. Spectacles made of glass and steel are not subject to a duty of 45 per cent., under Act June 30, 1864, § 3 (13 Stat. 202), as a manufacture of steel, or of which steel shall be a component part not otherwise provided for, but under section 9, which fixes a duty of 40 per cent. on pebbles for spectacles and all manufactures of glass, or of which glass shall be a component material not otherwise provided for. Arthur v. Sussfield (1877) 96 U. S. 128, 24 L. Ed. 772. In re Goldberg (C. C. 1893) 56 Fed. Thermometers and lactoscopes, com- as Molded glass articles, consisting of * * Black hat ornaments, composed of & Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1902) 116 Fed. Trimming made of glass beads, silver- Articles in chief value of blown glass, but in part of other glass or other material, held not "blown glassware" in Act 1897, but dutiable as ufactures of glass. U. S. v. Heil Chemical Co. (1910) 178 Fed. 537, 102 C. C. A. 47. Crude, incomplete articles of glass, Merchandise, consisting of glass disks Hat trimmings composed of black Narrow cotton trimming, covered with black glass beads, known in trade as "jet headings or trimmings" or "imitations of jet," held dutiable as "manufactures and imitations of jet," under Act 1883, and not as "bead ornaments." Id. Atomizers, consisting of ornamented glass vessels, with metal and rubber tops which are essential parts of the articles, the glass being the most valuable component, held dutiable under Act 1894 as manufactures of glass, and not as articles of glass or glass bottles, under paragraphs 88-90. Borgfeldt v. U. S. (C. C. 1897) 78 Fed. 809. Oval glass blanks blown in molds, to be finished by cutting into dishes for table use, held dutiable as "manufactures of glass," under Act 1894, and not as "glassware," under paragraph 88. U. S. v. Fensterer (C. C. 1897) 84 Fed. 148; U. S. v. Louis Hinsberger Cut Glass Co. (C. C. 1899) 94 Fed. 645. Glass beads, strung, and glass ornaments, similar to beads, but without holes for stringing, held dutiable as manufactures of glass, under Act 1890, and not as glass beads, loose, unthreaded, or unstrung. Morrison v. U. S. (C. C. 1896) 77 Fed. 605. Imitations of pearls, consisting of hollow glass beads with wax insert ed, giving an appearance like pearls, strung, and not capable of being set, held dutiable as manufactures of glass, under Act 1890, and not as "imitations of precious stones, composed of paste or glass, not set." Id. A finding of the general appraisers, supported by evidence, that glass beads, threaded on strings, were strung beads, dutiable as "manufactures of glass," under Act 1890, and not as "glass beads, loose, unthreaded, or unstrung," should be sustained. In re Steiner (C. C. 1894) 66 Fed. 726. Pins of different sizes, having iron or steel shanks from 12 to 6 inches in length, with more or less ornamental glass heads, some polished and some of a dull black, the articles being commercially known as "lace pins," "hat pins," and "bonnet pins," the glass heads of some of the bonnet pins being in the form of sprays or sprigs, held dutiable as manufactures of glass under Act 1890, and not as "pins, metallic." In re Goldberg (C. C. 1893) 53 Fed. 1015. Certain so-called "jet trimmings," being ornamental articles manufactured from black glass and iron, glass being the material of chief value, held properly dutiable as "manufactures glass," under Act 1890, and not as "manufactures of jet," or of which jet is the component material of chief value. In re Goldberg (C. C. 1893) 56 F. 818, judgment affirmed Goldberg v. U. S. (1894) 61 Fed. 91, 9 C. C. A. 380. of The term "aigrette" embraces not only the feather of the heron or egret, but also tufts of precious stones worn on the headdress of men and women. The glass aigrettes of the importation are not to be deemed artificial flowers, either because of their name or of the effect they are intended to produce. They are in chief value of glass and fall within the provisions of paragraph 109, Act 1909, as manufactures in chief value of glass. Judkins & McCormick Co. v. U. S. (1915) 6 Ct. Cust. App. 112. The merchandise here is composed of window glass, but it is cut to form and shape and is adapted and designed for use alone as parts in the making of goggles, so removing it from the classification and assessment as made. Such of these glasses as are not colored are held as dutiable under paragraph 109, Act 1909; and while those colored would seem dutiable under paragraph 98, no claim having been made thereunder, the judgment as to these is affirmed. American Thermo-Ware Co. v. U. S. (1915) 6 Ct. Cust. App. 218. other precious stones set in metal claws that hold the stones in position and that are used as the proof shows chiefly for dress trimming are dutiable as manufactures of glass under Act 1909. U. S. v. American Bead Co. (1913) 3 Ct. Cust. App. 509. Technically "jet goods" are not, of course, imitation jet, but where the record discloses the importer, the collector, and the board of general appraisers all considered the importation an imitation jet it could not be properly assessed as jet, and was rightly held to be dutiable as imitation jet under paragraph 109, Act 1909. U. S. v. Sheldon & Co. (1911) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 283. See, also, Same v. Beierle (1911) 1 Ct. Cust. App. 457. Mirrors.-Mirror plates, not framed, but intended to be put in frames or cases, held dutiable as mirrors, under paragraph 102 of Act 1894. Wiederer v. U. S. (C. C. 1897) 78 Fed. 809. Table mirrors, known as "mirror plateaus" or "circles," made of plate glass, silvered, beveled, and framed, in circular form, held not dutiable under Act 1883, as a "manufacture of glass," but dutiable at a square-foot duty according to measurement. In re Maddock (C. C. 1892) 49 Fed. 219. Pocket imitation leather goods holding small mirrors and combs, or pencils and memorandum tablets held dutiable as mirrors. U. S. v. Metropolitan Aluminum Co. (1912) 3 Ct. Cust. App. 224. Paste.-Buttons of paste held not dutiable as manufactures of paste. See paragraph 339. The provision in Act 1897 for manufactures of "paste" includes only the form of paste which is a variety of glass, and does not embrace articles made from rice paste. Morimura Bros. v. U. S. (1909) 169 Fed. 279, 94 C. C. A. 555. Articles in the form of buttons having a metal shank and back, and set with a cluster of imitation diamonds, commercially known as paste, the paste being the component material of chief value, and the articles not being commercially known as buttons nor as jewelry held dutiable under Act 1894, as manufactures of paste, etc., and not as "buttons of glass." U. S. v. Marshall Field & Co. (1898) 85 Fed. 862, 29 C. C. A. 458. Tariff legislation having distinguished between glass and form of it known as paste, articles in chief value of paste, cut, held not within Act 1897, for goods in chief value of cut "glass," but dutiable as manufactures of "paste." U. S. v. New York Merchandise Co. (C. C. 1909) 167 Fed. 684, judgment affirmed (1910) 174 Fed. 1022, 98 C. C. A. 638. Rhinestones, composed of metal and paste, the latter being the more valuable component, which are merely used to decorate and ornament women's outer apparel, held dutiable as manu factures of paste, under Act 1897. B. Blumenthal & Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1904) 135 Fed. 254, judgment affirmed (1905) 144 Fed. 384, 75 C. C. A. 322. Millinery or hat ornaments composed chiefly in value of paste, in the form of so-called "Rhinestones," their remaining material being metal backs and frames to hold the paste stones, held dutiable under Act 1890 as manufactures of paste, as articles of jewelry. Worthington v. U. S. (C. C. 1898) 90 Fed. 797. Barettes made of base metal and set with imitation jet are not dutiable as "jewelry," but are dutiable as manufactures of paste under Act 1909. U. S. v. Beierle (1911) 1 Ct. Cust. App. 457. Stained or painted window glass.Cylinder, crown or common window glass which has been either colored throughout when melted or colored on the outside by flashing held not dutiable as stained or painted window glass. See paragraph 90. Under Act 1890 stained glass windows containing representations of saints and biblical subjects and imported in fragments for the use of a convent held not exempt from duty as "paintings" specially imported in good faith for the use of any society or institution established for religious purposes, but dutiable as "stained or painted window glass and stained or painted glass windows." U. S. v. Perry (1892) 13 Sup. Ct. 26, 27, 146 U. S. 71, 36 L. Ed. 890. 96. Fusible and glass enamel, not specially provided for in this section, 20 per centum ad valorem; opal or cylinder glass tiles or tiling, 30 per centum ad valorem. 97. Marble, breccia, and onyx, in block, rough or squared only, 50 cents per cubic foot; marble, breccia, and onyx, sawed or dressed, over two inches in thickness, 75 cents per cubic foot; slabs or paving tiles of marble or onyx, containing not less than four superficial inches, if not more than one inch in thickness, 6 cents per superficial foot; if more than one inch and not more than one and one-half inches in thickness, 8 cents per superficial foot; if more than one and onehalf inches and not more than two inches in thickness, 10 cents per superficial foot; if rubbed in whole or in part, 2 cents per superficial foot in addition; mosaic cubes of marble or onyx, not exceeding two cubic inches in size, if loose, 20 per centum ad valorem; if attached to paper or other material, 35 per centum ad valorem. Notes of Marble in block.-Marble cut into blocks simply for convenience in transportation is not dutiable as manufactured marble. Act 1832. U. S. v. Wilson (D. C. 1838) Fed. Cas. No. 16,736. Breccia. The provisions of Act 1909, construed in pari materia show a purpose to classify breccia and marble alike for dutiable purposes; to make them, whenever in similar conditions, dutiable at the same rate. "Marble," too, and "breccia in blocks" are more specific terms than "minerals crude or not advanced in value or condition," and moreover, according to the rule, where there are two provisions applicable, the one carrying the higher rate must be applied, breccia is held to be dutiable by similitude as marble. Jackson v. U. S. (1911) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 70. Hauteville stone.-Hauteville stone held by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bockman Case dutiable as marble, and not limestone. See paragraph 99. Hauteville and other like stones being a granular substance, capable of a high degree of polish and susceptible of use for decorative purposes, held, under Act 1897, not limestones, but Decisions marble. U. S. v. Jackson (1910) 1 Ct. Cust. App. 25. Istrian stone or marble.-Istrian stone or marble, quarried in Istria, some 10 miles from Trieste, held dutiable under Act 1894, as "marble of all kinds," and not as "limestone," etc. Fisher v. U. S. (C. C. 1899) 91 Fed. 759; U. S. v. Jackson (1910) 1 Ct. Cust. App. 25. Mexican onyx.-Mexican onyx held dutiable as "onyx," rather than as "marble," under Act 1897. Blochman Banking Co. v. Blake (C. C. 1909) 168 Fed. 572, So-called "Mexican onyx," a mineral consisting chiefly of carbonate of lime and certain impurities, used in ornamental and interior decoration as marble, held dutiable as "marble in block," under Act 1890, and not free of duty as a "crude mineral." Mexican Onyx & Trading Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1895) 66 Fed. 732. "Mexican onyx" not being a chalcedony or onyx proper, as defined in inineralogy, but being a carbonate of lime, containing a small proportion of carbonate of magnesia and ferrous oxides, and having the other characteristics of marble in respect of texture, hardness, |