copies of the current certificate of inspection and the last marine documents of vessels. The collector, in submitting his certificate of freedom from indebtedness on form 1330, will state the place of build, age, official number, the date and place of inspection or examination, the home port, and the name of the owner of the vessel. (92819-10.) FRANKLIN MACVEAGH, Secretary. (T. D. 33158.) White phosphorus matches. Foreign certificates of inspection for matches manufactured in Austria-Hungary to be waived. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 8, 1913. To collectors and other officers of the customs: It has been represented to this Government by the Government of Austria-Hungary that the laws of that country prohibit the use white or yellow phosphorus in the manufacture of matches. The department is therefore satisfied that matches from AustriaHungary may be admitted to entry without the production of certificates of official inspection, provided the other requirements of the regulations be complied with on entry and the appraiser shall state that the matches entered were found upon examination not to be white phosphorus matches. The production of such certificates upon the entry of matches manufactured in Austria-Hungary will therefore be waived. (92655-17.) FRANKLIN MACVEAGH, Secretary. (T. D. 33159-G. A. 7427.) Stained-glass windows. Stained or painted glass windows imported for presentation to a religious society are dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909, and are not entitled to free entry under paragraph 716 as pictorial paintings on glass. United States General Appraisers, New York, February 5, 1913. In the matter of protests 519888, etc., of United States Express Co. et al. against the assessment of duty by the surveyor of customs at the port of Pittsburgh. Before Board 1 (SHARRETTS, MCCLELLAND, and CHAMBERLAIN, General Appraisers). SHARRETTS, General Appraiser: The merchandise in question, as established by the testimony of the witnesses, consists of stained or painted glass windows imported for presentation to St. Paul's Catholic Church at Butler, Pa. Evidence introduced at the trial in the case * in tends to show that these windows were stained and not painted, but that fact we do not deem material, inasmuch as paragraph 716 of the tariff act of 1909, relied upon by the protestants, provides for the free entry of all works of art ("except stained or painted window glass or stained or painted glass windows") "imported expressly for presentation to a national institution or * corporated religious society * or other public institution." It is not contended that the merchandise is not works of art nor that it is not intended for presentation to a religious society or public institution. It is contended, however, in behalf of the Government, that the exception of "stained or painted window glass or stained or painted glass windows" from "works of art" excludes the merchandise in question from free entry under paragraph 716, and that the assessment of duty thereon by the collector at the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 109 of the act of 1909 was correct and his decision should be affirmed. A further fact that we do not regard as material is shown by the testimony of Rev. Patrick Collins, the rector of St. Paul's Church, namely, that prior shipments of glass windows intended for presentation to his church and entered under like conditions to those in the present case were assessed with duty at 45 per cent ad valorem, but that the duty was subsequently refunded. Glass windows that attain the dignity of works of art usually consist of a background of stained glass bearing pictorial biblical subjects painted thereon by hand with mineral colors made permanent by firing. Hence it is manifest that such works of art may be pictorial paintings on glass and, at the same time, stained-glass windows. Inasmuch, however, as the latter class of articles is excluded from the privilege of free entry, we are required to determine whether the pictorial paintings here in dispute are or are not stained or painted glass windows. If the answer is in the affirmative, then, regardless of whether they are works of art or whether imported for presentation to a church or not, they are subject to duty under paragraph 109. It has been suggested, not in this case, however, that biblical scenes painted on glass and intended to adorn a church as a memorial gift, although they may serve the purpose of admitting light and air, are pictorial paintings and not glass windows. The correctness of this conclusion, however, we do not concur in. If such a sash and glass is made to fit an opening in the wall and intended to become a permanent fixture of the edifice, not transferable from place to place, although protected with outside windows, it is, within the common understanding, a window, and we must resort to common understanding for the reason that such articles are rarely if ever dealt in at wholesale, but are ordered on specifications as to dimen sions and sketches of the subject desired. It is a matter of common knowledge that they are known as church windows. We find that the merchandise is stained or painted glass windows, and in accordance with the views herein expressed we overrule the protests and affirm the surveyor's decision in each case. (T. D. 33160.) Abstracts of decisions of the Board of General Appraisers. Board 1-Sharretts, McClelland, and Chamberlain. Board 2-Fischer, Howell, and Cooper. Board 3-Waite, Somerville, and Hay. BEFORE BOARD 1, FEBRUARY 4, 1913. No. 31230.-BEADED ARTICLES.-Protests 611425, etc., of American Bead Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Handbags, necklaces, fans, chains, and other articles composed wholly or in chief value of beads held properly classified under paragraph 421, tariff act of 1909. Littauer v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 314; T. D. 32050) followed. No. 31231.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 549232, etc., of Marshall Field & Co. et al. and protests 512826, etc., of George C. Heimerdinger & Co. et al. (New York). Opinions by McClelland, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. No. 31232.—PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protests 465661, etc., of Icy-Hot Bottle Co. (Cincinnati). Protests abandoned. BEFORE BOARD 2, February 4, 1913. No. 31233.-WIRE-WORKING MACHINES-MACHINE TOOLS.-Protests 649466, etc., of Spencer Wire Co. (Boston). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Wire-drawing machines, power driven, held dutiable as machine tools under paragraph 197, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. Protests overruled as to wire-stranding machines classified under paragraph 199. No. 31234.-LITHOGRAPHED PLACARDS, EMBOSSED.-Protests 586247, etc., of Wolf & Co. (Philadelphia). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Lithographed placards with a surface effect in imitation of the texture of canvas or lining held not to be embossed under the provisions of paragraph 412, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. No. 31235.-BLOTTING PAPER.-Protests 601930, etc., of Kimpton, Harbottle & Haupt (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Blotting paper classified as paper with a surface design under paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909, held dutiable as paper not specially provided for (par. 415). No. 31236.-SLIPPERS EMBROIDERED WITH METAL THREADS.-Protest 668994 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Slippers composed of silk and other materials, appliquéd or embroidered with metal threads, held properly classified under paragraph 179, tariff act of 1909. No. 31237.-SCALLOPED ARTICLES.-Protest 28993h of Neuss, Hesslein & Co. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Scalloped articles classified as embroidered under paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, held dutiable as woven flax articles (par. 346). Abstract 26756 (T. D. 31899) followed. No. 31238.—Protests OverruLED.-Protests 582759, etc., of B. Altman & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. BEFORE BOARD 3, FebruaARY 4, 1913. No. 31239.-JUTE WASTE.-Protests 508042, etc., of W. F. Corne (Boston). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Jute waste held properly classified under paragraph 479, tariff act of 1909. No. 31240.-MEASUREMENT OF ALMERIA GRAPES.-Protests 628967, etc., of T. Alonso et al. (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Protests sustained as to the capacity of barrels containing Almeria grapes. G. A. 7030 (T. D. 30664) followed. No. 31241.-ROTTEN FRUIT.-Protests 336791, etc., of A. Carramusa et al., and protests 209595, etc., of F. Minaldi & Co. et al. (New York). Opinions by Somerville, G. A. Protests sustained claiming allowance in duty on account of rot in shipments of fruit, United States v. Shallus (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 332; T. D. 32074) followed. No. 31242.-PROTESTS DISMISSED.-Protests 562236, etc., of Robert Beatty Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Somerville, G. A. Protests dismissed upon stipulation of counsel. No. 31243.-PROtests OverruleD.-Protests 628927, etc., of American Express Co. (Boston), protests 615302, etc., of Austin Baldwin & Co. et al., and protests 643274, etc., of Albert Eckstein et al. (New York), protest 577897 of Union Cotton Bagging Corporation (Newport News), and protest 471885 of Margolius Co. (Norfolk), and protests 619428, etc., of E. H. Bailey & Co. et al. (Philadelphia). Opinions by Somerville, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. No. 31244.-SPARK PLUGS.-Protest 600792 of Herz & Co. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Undecorated porcelain spark plugs classified under paragraph 94, tariff act of 1909, were claimed dutiable under paragraph 95, tariff act of 1909. Protest overruled, United States v. Morris European & American Express Co. (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 300; T. D. 31356) followed. No. 31245.-AUTOMOBILE TIRES-CLERICAL ERROR.-Protest 638435 of W. N. Proctor Co. (Boston). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Certain automobile tires imported and found to be defective were claimed to have been entered through clerical error at a rate lower than the market value. Protest sustained. No. 31246.-CLERICAL ERROR.-Protest 635324 of Stone & Downer Co. (Boston), and protest 612079 of Central Vermont Railway Co. (Burlington). Opinions by Hay, G. A. Protests sustained claiming that there was a clerical error in making out the invoices in question. No. 31247.-PRO FORMA INVOICE.-Protest 626461 of F. H. Shallus (Baltimore). Opinion by Hay, G. A. In this case the merchandise was entered at the value stated in the pro forma invoice, which was the appraised value. The consular invoice value was found to be greater than that of the pro forma invoice and the collector reliquidated the entry, assessing duty upon the consular invoice value. Protest overruled. United States v. Bennett (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 249; T. D. 31975) and United States v. Hobbs (T. D. 32567) cited. No. 31248.-NIGHT LIGHTS.-Protests 561380-39862, etc., of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Hay, G. A. Night lights made without metal, classified as tapers under paragraph 436, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles (par. 480). United States v. Godillot (T. D. 32382) followed. No. 31249.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 611854 of J. M. Colpas (Burlington), protest 641214 of Wells, Fargo & Co. (Eagle Pass), protest 631772 of Henry Bischoff & Co., protests 592081, etc., of R. B. MacLea Co. et al., and protest 630256 of F. Pustet & Co. (New York), protest 635367 of Michigan Central Railroad Co. (Niagara Falls), protests 614639, etc., of F. W. Meyers & Co. (Plattsburg), and protest 635940 of De Vilbiss Manufacturing Co. (Toledo). Opinions by Hay, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. BEFORE BOARD 1, FEBRUARY 5, 1913. No. 31250.-BOTTLES CONTAINING AD VALOREM MERCHANDISE.-Protests 623158, etc., of La Manna, Azema & Farnan et al. (New York). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. On the authority of G. A. 7377 (T. D. 32644) plain molded bottles, vials, jars, demijohns, and carboys held dutiable at the ad valorem rates applicable to their contents, as claimed. No. 31251.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 389398, etc., of Jones & Doyer et al. (New York). Opinion by Sharretts, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. BEFORE BOARD 2, FEBRUARY 5, 1913. No. 31252.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 378713-30069, etc., of G. W. Sheldon & Co. et al. (Chicago). Opinion by Fischer, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. BEFORE BOARD 3, FEBRUARY 5, 1913. No. 31253.-Prepared VEGETABLES.-Protests 648043, etc., of Neuman & Schwiers Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Prepared vegetables held properly classified under paragraphs 251 and 252, tariff act of 1909. No. 31254.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 555632, etc., of J. Wanamaker et al. (New York). Opinion by Waite, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. No. 31255.-ROTTEN FRUIT.-Protests 325700, etc., of Philip W. Saitta et al., and protests 247167, etc., of Frank Zito et al. (New York). Opinions by Somerville, G. A. Protests sustained on the authority of United States v. Shallus (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 332; T. D. 32074) as to allowance in duties for certain rotten fruit. No. 31256.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 642524, etc., of Albert Eckstein et al., and protest 610568 of Sonn Bros. Co. (New York). Opinions by Somerville, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled. |