No. 32800.-COTTON EMBROIDERIES-LACES.-Protests 591947, etc., of Gimbel Bros. (Milwaukee). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Cotton embroideries or laces assessed under paragraph 350, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable under paragraph 349, as claimed. No. 32801.-POWDER PUFFS.-Protest 589575-40976 of Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Hemstitched silk handkerchiefs having a small powder puff fastened in the center, classified as handkerchiefs under paragraph 400, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable as manufactures in chief value of silk (par. 403). Protest sustained. Abstract 27397 (T. D. 32089) followed. No. 32802.-SILK FABRICS.-Protests 586976-40094, etc., of Marshall Field & Co (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Protests overruled as to woven silk fabrics classified under paragraph 399, tariff act of 1909. No. 32803.-SILK HAIR NETS.-Protest 564799-40538 of F. Uhry & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Silk hair nets were held properly classified under paragraph 350, tariff act of 1909. Abstract 25844 (T. D. 31675) followed. No. 32804.-EMBROIDERED SILK SCREENS.-Protests 529225–38112, etc., of Hip Lung Ying Kee Co. et al. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Protests overruled as to embroidered silk and silk velvet screens classified under paragraphs 402 and 403, respectively, tariff act of 1909. Vantine v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 488; T. D. 33124) followed. No. 32805.-RAMIE BRAIDS-HATS.-Protests 630853-41799, etc., of D. B. Fisk & Co. et al. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Braids composed of ramie were held dutiable as vegetable fiber braids under paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, as assessed. Hats and hoods of the same character as hose passed upon in G. A. 7372 (T. D. 32583) were held dutiable as articles of vegetablet fiber braids (par. 349). No. 32806.-CHIP BRAIDS.-Protest 621390-41663 of Bradshaw Bros. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Protest overruled as to chip straw braids classified as colored under paragraph 422, tariff act of 1909. No. 32807.-ARTIFICIAL SILK BRAIDS.-Protest 635044–41966 of Bernard, Judae & Co., protest 639208-42345 of Chicago Mercantile Co., and protests 630854-41835, etc., of Gage Bros. & Co. et al. (Chicago). Opinions by Howell, G. A. Braids composed in chief value of artificial silk were held properly classified under paragraph 405, tariff act of 1909. No. 32808.-LACE BUTTONS.-Protest 631700 of Emery-Bird-Thayer Dry Goods Co. (Kansas City). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Lace buttons assessed as articles made wholly or in part of lace under paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as buttons not specially provided for (par. 427), as claimed. No. 32809.-CHIP BRAIDS, BLEACHED.-Protest 641150-42339 of Raike, Friedman & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Chip hat braids classified as bleached under paragraph 422, tariff act of 1909, were claimed to be natural chip not bleached. Protest overruled. No. 32810.-ARTIFICIAL SILK ARTICLES.-Protests 668159-43069, etc., of T. Buettner & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. On the authority of Shoninger v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 125; T. D. 31661) dresser scarfs, table covers, and other articles in chief value of cotton and linen and embroidered with artificial silk threads were held properly classified under paragraph 405, tariff act of 1909. No. 32811.-FLAX DRESS GOODS.-Protest 582201 of J. Sachs & Co. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Protest overruled as to the count of threads in linen dress goods composed of flax, assessed under paragraph 357, tariff act of 1909. No. 32812.-FIGURED COTTONS.-Protests 544899, etc., of E. McConnell & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. On the authority of United States v. McConnell (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 73; T. D. 31104) protests sustained claiming that certain cotton cloth was not subject to additional duty under paragraph 323, tariff act of 1909. BEFORE BOARD 3, JUNE 19, 1913. No. 32813.-ANTIQUE BRONZE LANTERNS.-Protest 666033-42967 of Ira N. Morris (Chicago). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Bronze lanterns assessed as manufactures of metal under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, were held entitled to free entry as artistic antiquities (par. 717). No. 32814.-ARTISTIC ANTIQUITIES REGULATIONS-AFFIDAVIT.-Protest 667610 of Davies, Turner & Co. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Paneling assessed as manufactures of wood under paragraph 215, tariff act of 1909, was claimed to be an artistic antiquity free of duty under paragraph 717. An affidavit made as owner by the secretary of the company who shipped the paneling and the declaration on the back of the invoice made by the same party held not to fulfill the requirements of the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury (T. D. 31263). Protest overruled. No. 32815.-ARTISTIC ANTIQUITIES.-Protest 661176 of Frank Bowles (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Protest overruled claiming certain articles of decorated earthenware and furniture free of duty under paragraph 717, tariff act of 1909. No. 32816.-COMMISSIONS-DURESS.-Protests 654031, etc., of Simon Hirsch (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Protests overruled claiming that the importer included in the entered value by reason of duress certain items called commissions. Van Ingen v. United States (T. D. 33520) followed. No. 32817.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 650760 of Mattoon & Co. (San Francisco). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Protest unsupported; overruled. No. 32818.-BUTTONS-METAL PARTS OF COLLAR AND CUFF BUTTONS.-Protest 647603-42549 of Bernard, Judae & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Incomplete collar and cuff buttons composed of metal were held properly classified under paragraph 427, tariff act of 1909. Abstract 26061 (T. D. 31757) followed. No. 32819.-SHORTAGE.-Protest 660865 of Paul Baumann, and protest 359652 of No. 32820.-WEIGHT OF WOOL.-Protests 688533, etc., of Robert Crooks Co. of New York (New York), and protests 671459, etc., of Thos. Kenworthy's Sons (Philadelphia). Opinions by Somerville, G. A. G. A. 7304 (T. D. 32068) followed as to weight of wool. Protests sustained. No. 32821.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 597537-41023 of Charlton Silk Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. No. 32822.-PROTESTS DISMISSED.-Protest 623965 of F. S. Maynard & Son (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Protest dismissed upon stipulation of counsel. BEFORE BOArd 1, June 20, 1913. No. 32823. ROUGH LEATHER.-Protest 605295 of Louis Dejonge & Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Merchandise assessed as leather dressed and finished was found to be rough leather dutiable accordingly under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Robertson (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 379; T. D. 31458) followed. No. 32824.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 638448 of American Express Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Protest unsupported; overruled. No. 32825. JEWELRY.-Protests 417331, etc., of Wiener Bros. et al. (New York). Opinion by Sullivan, G. A. Protests sustained on the authority of United States v. Claflin (T. D. 33536) as to articles commonly or commercially known as jewelry, claimed dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 448, tariff act of 1909. Protests sustained. BEFORE BOARD 2, June 20, 1913. No. 32826.-COTTON TRIMMINGS.-Protest 519366-38834 of Gage Bros. & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Protest overruled as to cotton trimmings classified under paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909. No. 32827.-COTTON NETTINGS.-Protests 534168, etc., of Mills & Gibb (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Cotton nettings made on the Nottingham lace machine found to count 10 points or spaces between the warp threads to the inch were held dutiable accordingly under paragraph 351, tariff act of 1909. Protests sustained in part. No. 32828.-Fur Hats-Scarf and Muff.-Protest 613192-41351 of Gage Bros. & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Ladies' trimmed hats composed in chief value of fur, classified under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable under paragraph 446. A fur scarf and muff were held dutiable under paragraph 439, as claimed. No. 32829.-EDGINGS AND INSERTINGS-BRAIDS.-Protests 650365-42579, etc., of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Edgings and laces classified under paragraph 350, tariff act of 1909, were claimed to be commercially known as braids, dutiable under paragraph 349. Protests overruled on the authority of G. A. 7339 (T. D. 32330). No. 32830.-Untrimmed STRAW HATS.-Protest 297239-26601 of Theodore Ascher Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Untrimmed straw hats composed of horsehair and straw, classified under paragraph 390, tariff act of 1897, were found to be in chief value of straw, dutiable under paragraph 409. Protest overruled for the reason that the correct claim was not made. No. 32831.-SILK TRIMMINGS-RAMIE TISSUE.-Protests 519348-38563, etc., of Gage Bros. & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Protests overruled as to merchandise classified as silk trimmings under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909. Ramie tissue classified as vegetable fiber trimmings under paragraph 349 was held dutiable as manufactures of ramie (par. 358). Vegetable fiber trimmings were held dutiable under paragraph 349. Manila hemp bands were held dutiable as natural under paragraph 422. G. A. 7372 (T. D. 32583) followed as to hoods composed of ramie braids. No. 32832.-IMITATION HORSEHAIR BRAIDS-RAMIE BRAIDS.-Protests 49290936903, etc., of Gage Bros. & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. On the authority of United States v. Eckstein (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 75; T. D. 32354) imitation horsehair braids were held dutiable under paragraph 405, tariff act of 1909, as assessed. G. A. 7372 (T. D. 32583) followed as to ramie braids classified under paragraph 349. No. 32833.-RAMIE BRAIDS-PLATEAUX.-Protests 560804-38934, etc., of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. Protests overruled as to ramie braids classified as vegetable fiber braids under paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909. United States v. Ranlett (172 U. S., 133) followed as to plateaux in strips composed in chief value of manila hemp. Horsehair braids held properly classified under paragraph 349. No. 32834.-HORSEHAIR PLATEAUX.-Protests 674627-43357, etc., of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A. United States v. Buss (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 87; T. D. 32357) followed as to horsehair plateaux classified under paragraph 405, tariff act of 1909. Protests overruled. No. 32835.-FIGURED COTTON CLOTH.-Protest 313667 of W. O. Horn & Bro. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. G. A. 6956 (T. D. 30206) and United States v. Rusch (167 Fed., 523; T. D. 29506) followed as to figured cotton cloth. Protest sustained. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 23, 1913. The appended decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is published for the information of customs officers and others concerned. JAMES F. CURTIS, Assistant Secretary. (T. D. 33579.) Tea board. MACY V. LOEB. United States District Court, Southern District of New York. June 10, 1913. ON motion for an injunction. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF TEA BOARD. A tea board composed of two members concededly designated according to law, and of a third member designated by the Secretary of the Treasury at another time, held regularly appointed. {Denied.] COXE, Circuit Judge: This a motion for an injunction enjoining the defendant and his successors in office from interfering with or destroying the teas described in the amended bill of complaint. These teas were involved in the appeal recently decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals (T. D. 33538), in which that court affirmed an order denying a similar application. The court held that Congress has the power to exclude all teas or to admit them under any regulations, however arbitrary. The court says: By the act the whole matter is turned over to the administrative officers, with no review of the facts by the court. This decision was intended to be a final adjudication of the controversy, but it is again brought to the attention of the court upon facts alleged to be new, but which were or might have been known to the complainants when the original bill was filed. It is now asserted that the board of appraisers which passed upon the protests of the complainants was not designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, as the law directs. It is conceded that Appraisers Howell and McClelland were so designated, but it is contended that Appraiser Chamberlain was not. The papers presented by the defendant show that in June, 1908, General Appraisers Howell, Sharretts, and McClelland were designated by the Secretary of the Treasury as the Tea Board. The fact that the letter to the president of the board announcing the designation was signed by the Assistant Secretary is wholly immaterial. It might have been signed by a clerk in the department as well. It was merely a notification to the board of the action of the Treasury Department. On July 2, 1909, General Appraisers Somerville, Chamberlain, and Fischer were designated as a tea board during the temporary absence of the regular tea board. On August 18, 1909, the three appraisers who acted on the tea in question were assigned to the tea board by a designation signed by Marion De Vries, president of the Board of General Appraisers. We have, then, a tea board composed of members, two of whom were concededly designated according to law and a third member who was designated a member of a tea board by the Secretary at another time. There is also an assignment to the tea board signed by the president of the Board of General Appraisers of the three members who passed upon the tea in question. There can be |