pound might perhaps be chemically compounded within paragraph 498. Id.

Fish oil hardened by chemically increasing its hydrogen content, its essential characteristics remaining unchanged, was classifiable under paragraph 44 of that act, as fish oil, and not as a chemical compound, or under paragraph 498 of that act as, miscellaneous, not chemically compounded grease. Id.

Lignum extract, obtained as a by-product from the manufacture of wood pulp, containing no alcohol but a substantial amount of tannin and commonly used for tanning, was held classifiable as "extracts of other * * woods * * * such as are commonly used for tanning" (par. 624 of the Act of 1913), rather than as a chemical compound. Meyers & Co. v. U. , S. (1920) 10 Ct. Cust. App. 216.

Acetol, a fine white powder resulting from the chemical action of acetic anhydride on cellulose, held a "chemical compound" under a similar provision of paragraph 5 of the Tariff Act of 1913, but more specifically provided for by the provision of paragraph 29 of that act for "esters of all kinds." U. S. v. Rhodia. Chemical Co. (1922) 11 Ct. Cust. App. 388.

Classification of hardened soya-bean oil as a chemical compound under paragraph 5, Act 1913, affirmed as against claim that it was free of duty as an oil not chemically compounded commonly used in soap making in absence of claim under paragraph covering soya bean oil. Bush & Co. v. U. S. (1922) 11 Ct. Cust. App. 246.

The provision of paragraph 29, Act 1913, for "esters of all kinds," was held more specific than that of paragraph 5 for "chemical * compounds." U. S. v. Rhodia Chemical Co. (1922) 11 Ct. Cust. App. 388.

Under the Acts of 1897 and 1909, perborate of sodium was held not dutiable as borate material, but as a chemical compound. Morgenstern & Co. v. U. S. (1911) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 213.

Under the Act of 1897, glycerophosphate of lime, though occasionally dispensed medicinally, was held, not a "medicinal preparation," but a "chemical compound." A. Klipstein & Co. v. U. S. (N. Y. 1909) 167 F. 535, 93 C. C. A. 67. Bone size substitute, consisting of chemical starch, dextrin, magnesium chloride, and silica, used for stiffening the backs of fabrics, was held under that act not a preparation fit for use as starch, but a chemical compound. U. S. v. B. P. Ducas & Co. (C. C. N. Y. 1903) 149 F. 253.

Dulcin, being a chemical compound, was dutiable as such under that act, and not as saccharine. U. S. v. Lehn (C. C. N. Y. 1902) 113 F. 1005.

able as such under act of 1897. McKesson v. U. S. (1911) 1 Ct. Cust. App. 213. Tri-nitro-iso-butyl-xylol, or artificial

musk, was not dutiable as a coal tar preparation, but as a chemical compound under that act. Magnus v. U. S. (1911) 1 Ct. Cust. App. 166.

An article returned by a local appraiser as acetate of copper was held to be a subacetate of copper, entitled to free entry under paragraph 694 of that act, and not dutiable as a chemical compound not specially provided for. U. S. v. Petry (C. C. N. Y. 1902) 116 F. 929.

Borate of manganese or bormangan,

which is a manufactured article made from manganese and borates of lime or soda, held dutiable as a chemical compound or salt and not as "other borate material." Hempstead v. Thomas (Pa. 1904) 129 F. 907, 64 C. C. A. 339, reversing O. G. Hempstead & Son v. U. S., (C. C. 1903) 123 F. 346.

Gaduol, an extract of cod liver oil, which in the form in which imported is not prepared for the use of the apothecary or physician, and which is not dispensed in that form, was held not to be a "medicinal preparation" under paragraph 67 of the Act of 1897, but dutiable as a chemical compound under this paragraph. U. S. v. Merck (N. Y. 1905) 136 F. 817, 69 C. C. A. 472, affirming Merck v. U. S. (C. C. 1903) 126 F. 438.

Under the Act of 1894 perfumed smelling salts were dutiable as chemical salts, and not as articles of perfumery. U. S. v. Utard (C. C. N. Y. 1899) 91 F. 522. Under the Act of 1890, acetate of copper, a variety of verdigris, known commercially as "pure or distilled verdigris," was dutiable as a chemical compound, and was not entitled to free entry under paragraph 749 as verdigris or subacetate of copper. U. S. v. Ducas (N. Y. 1897) 78 F. 339, 24 C. C. A. 121, reversing Ducas v. U. S. (C. C. 1896) 71 F. 954.

Under the Act of 1883, the phrase "chemical compound or salt," was held too general to take an article out of the similitude clause. Lloyd v. McWilliams (C. C. R. I. 1887) 31 F. 261, affirmed (1890) 11 S. Ct. 173, 137 U. S. 576, 34 L. Ed. 788.

Alizarin assistant held dutiable as

a chemical compound. See paragraph 56. An antiseptic preservative held not a chemical compound. See paragraph 1. Bichromate of soda held dutiable as a chemical compound or salt. See paragraph 83.

Cadmium sulphite held not dutiable as a chemical compound or salt. See paragraph 68.

Carbolineum or carbolineum avenarius held not dutiable as a chemical compound. See paragraph 27.

Chloral hydrate held dutiable as

Combination of asphalt and bitumen held not dutiable as a chemical compound or mixture. See paragraph 1609.

Commercial carbonate of baryta held not dutiable as a chemical compound or salt. See paragraph 69.

as

Dead oil held not dutiable chemical compound. See paragraph 27. Hyoscin hydrobromate held not dutiable as a chemical compound or salt. See paragraph 24.

Logwood extract held not dutiable as a chemical compound. See paragraph 39.

Lysol held not dutiable as a chemical compound. See paragraph 27.

Nutgall extract held not dutiable as a chemical compound. U. S. v. W. N. Proctor & Co. (C. C. A. Mass. 1906) 145 F. 126, affirming W. N. Proctor & Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1905) 139 F. 586.

Oil of mirbane or nitrobenzole held not dutiable as a chemical compound. See paragraph 27.

Preparations of coal tar held not dutiable as a chemical compound. See paragraph 27.

Refined carbonate of potash held not dutiable as a chemical compound or salt. See paragraph 80.

Saccharin held dutiable as a chemical compound under the Act of 1883. See paragraph 504.

Salol held dutiable as a chemical salt. See paragraph 24.

Soluble creosote held not dutiable as a chemical compound. See paragraph 1549.

Tetrachloride of tin held not dutiable as a chemical compound. See paragraph 90.

Tolidine base and binitrotolule held not dutiable as a chemical compound. See paragraph 27.

Verdigris held not dutiable as a chemical compound. See paragraph 1557.

4. Chemical mixtures.-The provision of this paragraph for "chemical * mixtures," imports mixtures susceptible of commercial use as they exist, or at least such as are purposely started on their way toward adaptation to such use. Ætna Explosives Co. v. U. S. (1919) 9 Ct. Cust. App. 298, certiorari granted U. S. v. Etna Explosives Co. (1920) 40 S. Ct. 483, 253 U. S. 481, 64 L. Ed. 1023, and affirmed (1921) 41 S. Ct. 513, 256 U. S. 402, 65 L. Ed. 1013.

Under paragraph 387 of the Act of 1913, including nitric and sulphuric acid in the free list, nitric acid, to which sulphuric acid amounting to 20 per cent. by weight and 5 per cent. according to value was added solely to prevent corrosion of steel tank cars used in transportation was not dutiable as a "preparation" or "mixture." U. S. v. Etna Explosives Co. (1921) 41 S. Ct. 513, 256 U. S. 402, 65 L. Ed. 1013, affirming Etna

deer

compound.-Sliced

8. Medicinal horn held not a medicinal compound. See paragraph 1592.

A compound or combination, in the general understanding, is necessarily something composed of more than one component material, and these expressions in this paragraph, are not applicable to a natural product. Monticelli Bros. v. U. S. (1917) 8 Ct. Cust. App. 21.

The use of the word "medicinal" requires that the compound or combination should have healing or curative properties, and probably that it should be commonly so regarded and used. Id.

But the fact that preparations designed to cure or alleviate or to palliate or prevent, a disease of the human body, also afford nourishment to the patient, does not necessarily exclude them from the classification of medicinal compounds or articles similar thereto. Britt, Loeffler & Weil v. U. S. (1916) 7 Ct, Cust. App. 118.

The addition in the tariff acts of 1909 and 1913 to the provision for medicinal preparations already existing in former acts, as showing intent to include articles not strictly and exclusively medicinal, but possessing some therapeutic value, see Britt, Loeffler & Weil v. U. S. (1916) 7 Ct. Cust. App. 118.

Sweet almond oil and castor oil, in small bottles each containing not more than 3 to 4 ounces, were dutiable eo nomine under paragraph 45 of the Act of 1913, and not as "chemical and medicinal compounds, combinations, and all similar articles" under this paragraph. Id.

9. Medicinal preparations.-The expression "medicinal preparations" means such articles as are of use or believed by the prescriber or user fairly and honestly to be of use in curing or alleviating or palliating or preventing some disease or affection of the human frame. Dodge & Olcott v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1891) 130 F. 624.

The articles designated by such phrase are such as from time to time come within its meaning, and not solely those meant by it at the time of the passage of the act. U. S. v. Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co. (N. Y. 1897) 79 F. 313, 24 C. C. A. 604, affirming Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1896) 71 F. 957.

Chloral hydrate, under Act 1897, was not dutiable as an alcoholic medicinal preparation, but as a medicinal preparation not containing alcohol, or in the

preparation of which alcohol is not used. U. S. v. Schering (C. C. N. Y. 1902) 119 F. 473, reversed (1903) 123 F. 65, 59 C. C. A. 283; Battle & Co. Chemists' Corp. v. U. S. (C. C. Mo. 1901) 108 F. 216.

The term "medicinal preparations," and not "wool grease," in that act, included adeps lanæ anhydrous and adeps lan cum aqua, which are highly finished products of wool grease, are used principally in therapeutics, are sold generally to the drug trade, and are used to some extent in salves and medicinal soaps. Zinkeisen & Co. v. U. S. (N. Y. 1909) 167 F. 312, 92 C. C. A. 624.

Gelatin capsules containing balsam were dutiable under that Act as "medicinal preparations," U. S. v. Lehn & Fink (C. C. N. Y. 1909) 172 F. 171.

Hexamethylen tetramin was held a medicinal preparation in the preparation of which alcohol is not used under that act, Lehn & Fink v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1906) 147 F. 640.

Paraldehyde, though produced from aldehyde, which is a by-product in the distillation of alcohol, but contains no alcohol, was held a medicinal preparation in the preparation of which alcohol was not used. Merck & Co. v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1905) 147 F. 895.

Creolin-Pearson was not a medicinal preparation within that Act. Merck & Co. v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1903) 147 F. 896.

Guaiacol carbonate was held dutiable under Act 1897 as a medicinal preparation that contained no alcohol. U. S. v. Lehn (1911) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 59.

Loretin, an antiseptic, was held duty free under par. 363 of the Act of 1894, as an acid used for medicinal purposes and not dutiable under the provision for medicinal preparations. Koechl v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1898) 84 F. 954.

Muriate of cocaine, which is made and used solely as a medicine, was dutiable as a medicinal preparation, under paragraph 74, Act 1890, and not as a chemical salt, under paragraph 76, though it in fact belongs to this class of substances. The former description, being more narrow and specific, must prevail over the latter. Fink v. U. S. (N. Y. 1898) 18 S. Ct. 770, 170 U. S. 584, 42 L. Ed. 1153, affirming Lehn v. U. S. (C. C. 1895) 66 F. 748.

Under that Act fruit juice concentrated and medicated but not used by itself as a medicine, but as an ingredient in the preparation of a medicine, was held not dutiable as a medicinal preparation. C.

B. Richard & Co. v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1892) 147 F. 891.

Anthrax vaccine or blackleg held not dutiable as a medicinal preparation. See paragraph 1510.

Chrysarobin held not dutiable as a medicinal preparation. See paragraph 34.

Diphtheria antitoxine held dutiable as a medicinal preparation under Act of 1894. See paragraph 1510.

Elaterium in cakes held not du

tiable as a medicinal preparation. See paragraph 1567.

Guarana held not dutiable as a medicinal preparation. See paragraph 1567.

Lanoline held dutiable as a medicinal proprietary preparation. See paragraph 53.

Orange flower water and rose water held dutiable under act of 1897 as medicinal preparation, but not dutiable as such under Act 1883. See paragraph 63.

Salol held dutiable as a medicinal preparation. See paragraph 24.

Powder made from juice of papaw melon held not dutiable as a medicinal preparation. See paragraph 1567.

10. Niger seed oil.-See note under paragraph 56.

11. Nut oil.-See note under paragraph 1632.

13. Pomade.-See notes under paragraph 1571.

14. "Similar articles."-As to meaning of this expression used in paragraph 17 of the Act of 1913 with reference to compounds or combinations, see Monticelli Bros. v. U. S. (1917) 8 Ct. Cust. App. 21; Britt, Loeffler & Weil v. U. S. (1916) 7 Ct. Cust. App. 118.

15. Individual packages.-For construction of Act 1913, par. 17, as to sizes of individual packages, see U. S. v. Merck & Co. (1917) 8 Ct. Cust. App. 141; U. S. v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works (1919) 9 Ct. Cust. App. 252; Britt, Loeffler & Weil v. U. S. (1916) 7 Ct. Cust. App. 118.

Cited without specific application.Rhodia Chemical Co. v. U. S. (1923) 12 Ct. Cust. App. 9.

Act 1913, par. 17, cited.-Rhodia Chemical Co. v. U. S. (1923) 12 Ct. Cust. App. 9; U. S. v. Malone (1924) 12 Ct. Cust. App. 178.