paper. Indeed, this is the exclusive use for which the article is made and used, and we so find.

In paragraph 415 we have an eo nomine provision for paper hangings. We find there no restriction as to the process of the printing of such paper, but a limitation as to material only.

Congress did not provide that a wall paper or paper hanging had to be printed by any particular process. The express limitation provides that a wall paper or paper hanging, to be dutiable as such, must either be in chief value of paper or must have a paper back. Paper hangings within such limitations are dutiable as such by whatever process printed. The manner of the production of the design is of no consequence. In fact, there are similar papers which are painted by hand or otherwise. The testimony here offered establishes the fact that it is not unusual to have wall papers or paper hangings lithographically printed.

In G. A. 6586 (T. D. 28157) this board, overruling a protest claiming hand-painted wall hangings dutiable as paintings, said:

We think this testimony confirms the correctness of the collector's classification as paper hangings. Paragraph 402 contains no restriction as to the manner in which such hangings may be produced. It covers all paper hangings without qualification, and these articles fall precisely within that designation. Cases in point are G. A. 5976 (T. D. 26185), wherein an article composed of cotton and gilt paper was held to be dutiable as paper hangings, because it was chiefly if not exclusively used as wall paper, and G. A. 6202 (T. D. 26850), wherein so-called grass cloth with a paper backing, grass cloth chief value, was held, nevertheless, to be dutiable as paper hangings, on the ground that "it is uniformly and generally classed throughout the country as within that class of goods known as paper hangings."

We may here also refer to the ruling in De Jonge v. Magone (159 `U. S., 562-568), wherein it was said, Mr. Justice White, speaking for the court:

Nor is it at all probable that Congress would specifically impose a duty of twenty-five per cent upon paper hangings and intend that an importation of velvet paper of a similar class to wall paper and used for wall decorations should be assessed as a manufacture of paper at a rate of fifteen per cent ad valorem.

While under the present tariff act we have paper hangings imposed with a duty of 25 per cent, manufactures of paper with a duty of 35 per cent, and lithographic prints with a specific rate according to cutting size and thickness, the principle laid down in the De Jonge case, supra, that paper prepared and sold for wall hangings is specifically provided for as paper hangings, still holds good here.

This board also held in Abstract 10808 (T. D. 27280) that stampedout paper reliefs in floral designs, on separate sheets about 15 inches. in length and about 12 inches in width, and which were used as borders for wall paper, being applied to a background of solid color by paste, were classifiable as paper hangings. In view of all the facts as stated we conclude that these lithographically printed friezes in the form as

imported are denominatively provided for in paragraph 415 as paper hangings.

That claim in the protests is accordingly sustained in each case and the collector's decisions are reversed.

(T. D. 33215-G. A. 7435.)

Rosanilin.

Rosanilin, a product of coal tar, used in the manufacture of colors is dutiable as a coal-tar product, not a color or dye and not medicinal, under paragraph 15, tariff act of 1909, at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem.

United States General Appraisers, New York, February 21, 1913.

In the matter of protests 587083, etc., of Schoellkopf, Hartford & Hanna Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Buffalo.

Before Board 1 (SHARRETTS, MCCLELLAND, and CHAMBERLAIN, General Appraisers). CHAMBERLAIN, General Appraiser: The merchandise under protest, described on the invoices as "Rosaniline" consists of a coal-tar product. It was returned by the appraiser as a coal-tar color and duty assessed thereon by the collector at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 15 of the tariff act of 1909. The importers claim the merchandise to be dutiable under the same paragraph at 20 per cent ad valorem as a coal-tar product or preparation, not a color or dye and not medicinal.

The issue is one of fact. It is admitted that rosanilin is a coal-tar product and the undisputed testimony shows that it is not medicinal. The sole question at issue, therefore, is, Is the article in the condition as imported a color or dye?

It appears from the testimony that rosanilin has been imported into this country for a number of years, and the examiner at the port of New York testified that for 18 years he has passed it as claimed by the importers. It further appears, however, that through certain interests the attention of the department was called to the fact that rosanilin would impart color to certain products, and on the basis of these representations the practice of assessing a 20 per cent ad valorem duty on this article was changed and a rate of 30 per cent was thereafter assessed. The Government, to sustain their contention, called one witness who conducted experiments before the board which showed that when rosanilin is boiled with water the resulting liquid will impart a reddish color to wool and silk. The witness admitted, however, that rosanilin was not commercially used as a dye or color and that it is not practicable to use it as such, inasmuch as better and cheaper results could be obtained by the use of other products. The witnesses called for the importers fully corroborate the testimony of the Government witness and go further, testifying that rosanilin was never sold or used as a color or dye, although it is

admitted that it is used in the manufacture of colors. To say that merely because a substance will impart a tint or color it is in fact a color, is not in accordance with the views of the courts. It must be a color that can be so used as such, practically and commercially. Smith v. United States (93 Fed., 194). We are quite convinced after an examination of the record that rosanilin in its imported condition is not, and can not be used as, a color or dye.

Furthermore, the fact that rosanilin has been uniformly classified during the life of the tariff act of 1897 as a coal-tar product not a color or dye, and that paragraph 15 of the act of 1909 is a reenactment of the corresponding paragraph of the act of 1897, leads us to the conclusion that the classification contended for by the importers is the correct one. Komada v. United States (215 U. S., 392; T. D. 30253) and Kuttroff v. United States (154 Fed., 1004; T. D. 28003). We find the merchandise to be a coal-tar product, not a color or dye and not medicinal, and hold it dutiable as claimed at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 15 of the present tariff act. The protests are accordingly sustained and the decision of the collector in each case is reversed.

(T. D. 33216-G. A. 7436.)

Chemical glassware.

1. Flint glass bottles and jars suitable for use as and of the character ordinarily employed as containers for the holding or transportation of merchandise are dutiable at the appropriate rates under paragraph 97, and not at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909.

2. Boxes or dishes composed of glass blown in a mold and ground for purposes of utility are dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 98, act of 1909, irrespective of whether or not the grinding thereon costs more than the glass articles before being ground. G. A. 7192 (T. D. 31427).

3. Glass bottles blown in a mold with stoppers or covers ground for fitting, designed for use in chemical or other operations, are dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 98, tariff act of 1909.

4. Trays composed of glass blown in a mold, having covers composed of plate glass which has been ground for the purpose of fitting, the covers after grinding being more valuable than the blown glass trays, are dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem as "manufactures of glass" under paragraph 109, tariff act of 1909.

United States General Appraisers, New York, February 21, 1913. In the matter of protest 485118-36529 of Scientific Supply Improvement Co. against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Chicago.

Before Board 1 (SHARRETTS, MCCLELLAND, and CHAMBERLAIN, General Appraisers). SHARRETTS, General Appraiser: The merchandise in question consists of bottles, jars, and various other articles of chemical glassware all returned for duty at 60 per cent ad valorem as "all articles of every description, including bottles and bottle glassware, composed wholly or in chief value of glass blown either in a mold or otherwise,"

under paragraph 98 of the act of 1909. The importers' claim is based on three grounds namely, (a) that said merchandise is not in chief value of blown glass, (b) or is ground for purposes other than ornamentation or for fitting stoppers, (c) or is containers suitable for holding merchandise. The only claims in the importers' protest having any bearing on the issue are 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 97 and 45 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 109 of said act.

At the hearing in the case the importers offered a number of samples of the articles involved and introduced evidence regarding the method and details of manufacture of the merchandise. From the samples and testimony we find that the merchandise consists of

1. Flint glass bottles blown in a mold, with ground stoppers, suitable for use in the transportation of merchandise, represented by Exhibit 1.

2. Flint glass jars blown in a mold, having covers, both the top of the jars and the bottom of the covers being ground for the purpose of fitting, the articles being suitable for use as and of the character ordinarily employed as containers for the holding of merchandise.

3. Glass boxes or dishes, some being rectangular in shape and others cylindrical, all blown in a mold, with covers, both the boxes and the covers therefor being ground for the purpose of fitting, which grinding in Exhibits 4 and 13 costs more than the articles before grinding, while in Exhibits 9, 14, and 21 the glass boxes or dishes are of more value than the grinding.

4. Glass bottles blown in a mold, with stoppers or covers ground for fitting, not suitable for use as containers for the holding or transportation of merchandise, but designed for use in chemical or other operations, represented by Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 8.

5. Glass trays blown in a mold, with covers made of plate glass ground for the purpose of fitting, the cover being of chief value in the completed article, represented by Exhibit 16.

6. Glass boxes blown in a mold, with covers having cut-glass knobs attached, both the top of the jars and the bottom of the covers being ground for the purpose of fitting, represented by Exhibit 10; also glass boxes with covers cut for ornamentation, represented by Exhibit 15.

7. Funnels with receptacles composed of amber-colored glass blown in a mold, the receptacle having a molded glass handle attached by annealing, the blown glass being the component of chief value, represented by Exhibit 11.

8. Glass urine bottles and sediment jars blown in the mold, without covers, represented by Exhibits 12 and 17.

The flint glass bottles covered by our first finding, marked "A" on the invoice in blue pencil, and the flint glass jars covered by our sec

ond finding, marked "B" on the invoice in blue pencil, being "suitable for use as and of the character ordinarily employed as containers for the holding or transportation of merchandise," are dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 97 of the act of 1909. We so hold and sustain the protest to that extent, the collector's decision. relative thereto being reversed.

There is some conflict in the testimony regarding whether or not the boxes or dishes in our third finding are pressed or blown in a mold. An inspection of the articles shows that the inner sides of the jars are bulging, which indicates that they have not been pressed in a mold because, if a plunger had been used in pressing the glass in the mold, the inside diameter of the boxes would necessarily be uniform. The samples before us are not uniform in diameter and we find that the same are blown in a mold and not pressed.

As to the merchandise covered by our third finding, wherein the grinding on the articles is of more value than the glass articles before being ground, we have held, G. A. 7192 (T. D. 31427), that any labor applied to blown glass enhances its value by the full cost of the labor applied thereto, and that as labor is not a material it can be considered only in so far as it affects the value of the particular material to which it is applied. Following this reasoning, we hold that it is immaterial whether or not the grinding is of more value than the blown glass. The articles are composed of glass blown in a mold which has been enhanced in value by grinding, which increases the value of the blown glass.

The bottles covered by our fourth finding are designed for use in chemical or other operations and therefore can not be assessed under paragraph 97, being excepted therefrom by express provisions.

The glass boxes covered by our sixth finding are cut for ornamentation, which is an additional reason for holding them dutiable as assessed, for in G. A. 7057 (T. D. 30759) we held that articles composed wholly or in chief value of glass which has been subjected to one or more of the processes specified in paragraph 98 shall pay duty at 60 per cent ad valorem irrespective of whether or not the articles have been ornamented thereby.

The funnels, urine bottles, and sediment jars covered by our seventh and eighth findings are blown in a mold and not pressed as claimed.

For the reasons above given we hold that the merchandise covered by our third, fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth findings is dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 98 of said act, as the same is composed in chief value of glass blown in a mold, and is not bottles, vials, jars, demijohns, or carboys suitable for use as and of the character ordinarily employed as containers for the holding or transportation of merchandise. The protest relative thereto is accordingly overruled and the collector's decision affirmed.