The provisions of Chapter VIII of the Customs Regulations of 1908, as amended by T. D. 29826 of June 9, 1909; T. D. 29881 of June 21, 1909; T. D. 31466 of April 5, 1911; T. D. 33011 of December 12, 1912; and T. D. 33024 of December 18, 1912, apply to this convenThe limit of weight of parcels received thereunder is 11 pounds. Such parcels must not exceed the following dimensions: Greatest length in any direction, 3 feet 6 inches; greatest length and girth combined, 6 feet. There is no limit as to value. (60935.) JAMES F. CURTIS, Assistant Secretary. (T. D. 33334.) St. John's bread. Appeal directed from the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of February 26, 1913, Abstract 31521 (T. D. 33242), involving the classification of merchandise described as "St. John's bread." TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 9, 1913. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo, in which you invite attention to the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers of February 26, 1913, Abstract 31521 (T. D. 33242), involving the classification of merchandise described as "St. John's bread." In view of the importance of the issue, you are hereby requested to file, in the name of the Secretary of the Treasury, an application with the United States Court of Customs Appeals for a review of the said decision, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 29 of section 28 of the tariff act of August 5, 1909. Respectfully, JAMES F. CURTIS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, New York. (T. D. 33335.) Drawback on automobile slip covering. Drawback on automobile slip covering manufactured by the Pantasote Leather Co., of New York, with the use of imported cotton-warp wool cloth. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 11, 1913. SIR: Drawback is hereby allowed under section 25 of the act of August 5, 1909, and the regulations promulgated thereunder (T. D. 31695 of June 16, 1911), on automobile slip covering manufactured by the Pantasote Leather Co., of New York, with the use of imported cotton-warp wool cloth. A manufacturing record shall be kept which will show, in addition to the usual data, the number of square yards of imported cottonwarp cloth used in the manufacture of each lot of automobile slip covering. An abstract from such manufacturing record shall be filed with each drawback entry. The allowance shall not exceed the quantity of imported material used in the manufacture of the exported automobile slip covering, as shown by the abstract from the manufacturing record. The sworn statement of the manufacturer, dated March 27, 1913, is transmitted herewith for filing in your office. Door hinges made of steel, with added fittings of bronze, are not dutiable under paragraph 144, tariff act of 1909, relating to "finished hinges or hinge blanks, whether of iron or steel," where the bronze material is chief value, but are dutiable under paragraph 199 of said act as articles not specially provided for composed wholly of metal. United States General Appraisers, New York, April 9, 1913. In the matter of protests 678171, etc., of J. J. Gavin & Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. Before Board 2 (FISCHER, HOWELL, and COOPER, General Appraisers). FISCHER, General Appraiser: The merchandise-door hinges made of steel and bronze-was classified under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, as manufactures of metal, and is claimed dutiable under paragraph 144, relating to "finished hinges or hinge blanks, whether of iron or steel." The article is actually a steel hinge, with added fittings of bronze, silver plated for that part of the hinge which is not hidden when in use. This bronze material is in the shape of ornamental tops covering the socket and pivot portion of the hinge. It is a substantial and necessary part of the framework of this type of hinge; is the most important element whereby the article is given a characteristic style of design, determining whether it is of the Renaissance, the Louis XVI, or other period, and is the essential portion 75044-VOL 24-13- -34 which imparts to this type of hinge the attractiveness and beauty which it otherwise would not have. The only witness heard in the case testifies that these parts of the said hinges, the steel operating portion and the bronze ornamental fittings, are used together and that he has never known them to be otherwise used; that as an entirety they are known as hinges, and that they are bought and sold as such. It is conceded that the bronze part is the material of chief value in the hinges, and it is also apparent that the bronze fittings are necessary to make this type usable as a hinge for its special purpose. Are these articles in chief value of bronze, finished hinges, "whether of iron or steel," as that expression is used in paragraph 144? That is the only issue in the case. Paragraph 144, tariff act of 1909, prescribes a duty of 13 cents per pound on "finished hinges or hinge blanks, whether of iron or steel," and paragraph 199, under which the assessments complained of were made, prescribes a duty of 45 per cent ad valorem on articles or wares not specially provided for when composed wholly or in part of metal. The protestants claim that the imported article is denominatively provided for under paragraph 144. The Government, on the other hand, holds that the said paragraph is limited to hinges of iron or steel, and that hinges not in chief value of such metals are excluded therefrom. The protestants meet this view of the case with the argument that the hinge is in fact a steel hinge, and that the added bronze material, even though it constitutes the element of chief value, should not control the classification of the steel hinge because it is a mere incidental, auxiliary, or ornamental part thereof. They point to the case of United States v. Zinn & Co. (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 419; T. D. 32171) as authority for such conclusion. We do not believe that the case cited is controlling as to the issue here in question. The provision in paragraph 144, as we read it, obviously applies to such hinges as are made entirely, or nearly so, of either iron or steel. These hinges are neither of iron nor of steel, but of steel and bronze. In the finished article the steel is not predominant, and for that reason we do not believe the article should find classification under paragraph 144. The bronze is not an immaterial part, as claimed by the protestants, but on the contrary it determines the very type and character of the finished article, besides forming by far the chief part of its total expense. In the case of Vantine & Co. v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 488; T. D. 33124) certain screens made of a wooden framework and valued in chief part of embroidered silk panels were held not to fall within the provision for "screens of wood," as used in paragraph 214. It was said in that case that the wood was not the component material of chief value in the screens, nor predominant therein as to construction or use. like the case at bar; it is controlling It can not be denied that this is exceedingly and, if it may not be distinguished therefrom, As we regard the steel and bronze hinges here in question, they fail to respond to the requirements of paragraph 144, the steel not being the component material of chief value in the hinges or predominant therein "as to construction or use." The hinges being entirely of metal, and in chief value of bronze, we think paragraph 199 should determine their classification. We so hold. The protests are overruled, and the collector's assessment in each case is hereby affirmed. (T. D. 33338.) Abstracts of decisions of the Board of General Appraisers. Board 1. , McClelland, and BEFORE BOARD 1, APRIL 7, 1913. No. 31915.-METAL LANTERNS ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS.-Protest 676944-4365 of Morgan, Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Co. (New Orleans). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Collapsible lanterns held properly classified as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909. Protest overruled as to artificial flowers and leaves set on a paper base in a blown glass cover, classified under paragraph 438. No. 31916.--OLEIN.-Protests 667721, etc., of F. L. Roberts & Co. et al. (Boston). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. On the authority of Swan v. United States (172 Fed., 173; T. D. 29805) olein was held properly classified under paragraph 3, tariff act of 1909. No. 31917.-SPLASH MATS-BASKETS.-Protest 638076 of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. (Baltimore), and protest 590254 of F. W. Woolworth & Co. (New York). Opinions by McClelland, G. A. Splash mats and baskets held properly classified under paragraph 214, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Butler (T. D. 32984) and Thomsen v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 37; T. D. 31590) followed. No. 31918.-REFUSE FUR PIECES-FERTILIZER.-Protest 561718 of Ode Camean Co. (Buffalo). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Refuse pieces of fur classified as waste under paragraph 479, tariff act of 1909. held entitled to free entry as a substance used only for manure (par. 581). No. 31919. FEATHER DUSTERS.-Protests 647577, etc., of Tajimi Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Feather dusters held properly classified under paragraph 423, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Scheuer (T. D. 33224) followed. No. 31920.-FEATHER ARTICLES.-Protest 681400 of Francois (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Ornamental feathers having wire in their make-up held dutiable as manufactures in part of metal under paragraph 193, tariff act of 1897, as claimed. No. 31921.-WOOD FLOUR.-Protests 562868, etc., of R. F. Lang et al. (New York), and protests 614629, etc., of Koons, Wilson & Co. et al. (Philadelphia). Opinions by McClelland, G. A. Wood flour used as an absorbent for retaining nitroglycerin, manufacturing linoleum, and surfacing wall paper, held properly classified as a manufacture of wood under paragraph 215, tariff act of 1909. Nairn Linoleum Co. v. United States (151 Fed., 955; T. D. 27969) and G. A. 6583 (T. D. 28130) followed. No. 31922.-RABBIT SKINS.-Protest 522864 of G. A. Van Rossan (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Dressed and dyed rabbit skins held dutiable as dressed furs on the skin under paragraph 439, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. No. 31923.-RESIN.-Protests 623957, etc., of Maldonado & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Resin classified as a drug advanced in value under paragraph 20, tariff act of 1909, was held entitled to free entry under paragraph 559, as claimed. United States v. Sheldon (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 485; T. D. 32245) followed. No. 31924.-FILTRIER MATERIAL.-Protest 679932 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Filtrier material composed in chief value of wood pulp held dutiable under paragraph 408, tariff act of 1909. Abstract 28666 (T. D. 32560) followed. No. 31925.-ORNAMENTAL LEAVES GRASSES.-Protests 492930, etc., of H. Bayersdorfer & Co. (Philadelphia). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Ornamental leaves preserved and colored held properly classified under paragraph 438, tariff act of 1909. Eulalia and stipa grasses in their natural condition held entitled to free entry under paragraph 578. Abstract 28358 (T. D. 32488) followed. Protests sustained in part. No. 31926.-BEECH SPRAYS, PRESERVED.-Protest 610747-41477 of Ove Gnatt. (Chicago). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Beech leaves preserved held properly classified under paragraph 438, tariff act of 1909. No. 31927.-NATURAL PLANTS, COLORED.-Protests 679898, etc., of A. Herrmann (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. On the authority of Abstract 30949 (T. D. 33055) natural plants artificially colored were held properly classified under paragraph 438, tariff act of 1999. No. 31928.-IMMORTELLES AND NATURAL FLOWERS, COLORED.-Protest 681423 of |