No. 31067.-REGALIA-EARTHENWARE STATUES.-Protest 620415 of Hawley & Letzerich (Galveston). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Protest overruled as to earthenware statues classified under paragraph 93, tariff act of 1909, claimed to be entitled to free admission as regalia (par. 661).

No. 31068.-CLERICAL ERROR-NONIMPORTATION.-Protest 618004 of A. Sulka & Co. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

On the authority of United States v. Brown (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 189; T. D. 31943), protest overruled claiming relief on the ground of clerical error for certain silk not imported.

No. 31069.-CLERICAL ERROR.-Protest 564812 of Hardwood Manufacturing Co. (Minneapolis). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

The board sustained the claim that there was a clerical error in the entered value of certain merchandise.

No. 31070.-WOOD-TAR PREPARATION.-Protest 586691 of Winter & Smillie (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Protest overruled as to a wood-tar preparation classified under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909, and claimed to be free of duty.

No. 31071.-CANDLES.-Protests 607202, etc., of Butler Bros. et al. (New York). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Paraffin candles with a coating of wax and gum, classified as tapers under paragraph 436, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles (par. 480). Abstract 29428 (T. D. 32751) followed.

No. 31072.-NIGHT LIGHTS In Part of METAL.-Protest 626058 of Richards, Atkinson & Haserick (Boston), protests 597249, etc., of A. J. Hague & Co. et al., and protests 602599, etc., of J. Wanamaker et al. (New York), and protest 610268 of R. Pierson & Co. (St. Louis). Opinions by Hay, G. A.

Protests overruled on the authority of United States v. American Import Co. (T. D. 32912) and United States v. Borgfeldt (T. DÐ. 32990) as to night lights assessed under paragraph 436, tariff act of 1909.

No. 31073.-NIGHT LIGHTS.-Protests 646679, etc., of Godillot & Co., and protests 629159, etc., of McKesson & Robbins et al. (New York). Opinions by Hay, G. A. On the authority of United States v. Godillot (T. D. 32382) certain night lights were held dutiable under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909, as claimed.

No. 31074.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protest 608872-3968 of Oberle & Henry (New Orleans). Opinion by Hay, G. A.

Protest unsupported; overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 1, JANUARY 13, 1913.

No. 31075.—Leather ArticLES.-Protest 598272 of H. B. Claflin Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

The merchandise in question was assessed as fitted leather cases under paragraph 452, tariff act of 1909, and held dutiable as follows: Toilet sets, manicure sets, drinking cups, and flatirons as manufactures in chief value of leather (par. 452); and tool sets as manufactures of metal (par. 199). United States v. Ovington (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 393; T. D. 32163) followed. Protest sustained in part.

75044-VOL 24-13-5

No. 81076.-CLUTCH LEATHERS.-Protests 610296, etc., of Bolte Bros. (New York) Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Merchandise classified as finished leather parts of automobiles under paragraph 141, tariff act of 1909, was found to be similar to clutch leather held in G. A. 7338 (T. D. 32329) o be dutiable under the first and last provisions of paragraph 451. Protests. sustained in part.

No. 31077.-ALIZARIN ASSISTANT-LUBRICATING OIL.-Protests 660031, etc., of F. L. Kraemer & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Protests sustained as to merchandise classified as alizarin assistant under paragraph 32, tariff act of 1909, claimed to be dutiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article (par. 480). Abstract 28570 (T. D. 32560) followed.

No. 31078.-STRAW MATS.-Protests 600086, etc., of J. W. Hampton, jr. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Straw mats with a border or binding, made to cover the floors of the rooms for which they are designed, held properly classified as manufactures of straw under paragraph 463, tariff act of 1909.

No. 31079.-DRINKING STRAWS.-Protests 660875, etc., of Wm. A. Brown & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

On the authority of G. A. 7366 (T. D. 32527) drinking straws were held dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles under paragraph 480, tariff act of 1909, as claimed.

No. 31080.-WEINASBEST-ASBESTOS.-Protest 663668 of G. W. Sheldon & Co. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

Protest overruled as to filtrier material composed of asbestos classified under paragraph 462, tariff act of 1909, no claim having been made under paragraph 480. Abstract 28666 (T. D. 32560) noted.

No. 31081.-PROTEST OVERRULED.-Protest 655392 of E. Stegemann, jr. (New York). Opinon by McClelland, G. A.

Protest unsupported; overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 2, JANUARY 13, 1913.

No. 31082.-METAL-THREAD GOODS.-Protests 643174, etc., of Stroheim & Romann (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Merchandise found to be composed in chief value of metal threads held properly classified under paragraph 179, tariff act of 1909.

No. 31083.-MACHINES FOR MANIPULATING PILE FABRICS-MACHINE TOOLS.-Protest 620471 of Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

A machine used to give a surface effect to cloths in imitation of astrakhan fabrics was held properly classified under paragraph 199, tariff act of 1909, and not dutiable as machine tools (par. 197), as claimed.

No. 31084.-PROTESTS DISMISSED.-Protests 508087-37900, etc., of A. C. McClurg & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Fischer, G. A.

Protests dismissed on stipulation of counsel.

No. 31085.-ARTIFICIAL SILK.-Protests 624717, etc., of Veit, Son & Co., and protest 598738 of Waitzfelder Braid Co. (New York). Opinions by Howell, G. A. Protests sustained as to artificial silk in the form of singles. United States v. Straus (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 395; T. D. 32164) followed.

No. 31086.-APPLIQUÉD ARTICLES.-Protests 621176, etc., of R. H. Macy & Co. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Handkerchief boxes composed of cotton appliquéd with meta, threads held dutiable under paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, as claimed. Silk appliquéd held dutiable under paragraph 402. Protests sustained in part.

No. 31087.-SILK-FRINGED ARTICLES.-Protest 616901 of Labe Importing Co. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Coverings of silk and cotton, fringed, held properly classified as in chief value of silk under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909.

No. 31088.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 621100, etc., of S. Ach Co. (Cincin nati). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

No. 31089.-HUNTING COATS, RUBBER CHIEF VALUE.-Protest 579128 of Mark Cross Co. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A.

Hunting coats composed of cotton and india rubber classified as cotton wearing apparel under paragraph 324, tariff act of 1909, found to be in chief value of rubber and held dutiable under paragraph 463. Abstract 27305 (T. D. 32073) followed.

No. 31090.-Mercerized COTTONS.-Protests 644421, etc., of C. A. Auffmordt & Co et al., and protests 623386, etc., of J. Sachs & Co. (New York). Opinions by Cooper, G. A.

Protests sustained on the authority of United States v. Auffmordt (T. D. 32561) as to mercerized cottons.

No. 31091.—BATTENBERG RINGS.-Protests 642394, etc., of Bernard Ullmann & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A.

Renaissance or Battenberg rings classified under paragraph 349, tariff act of 1909, held dutiable as manufactures of cotton or flax (par. 332 or 358). Abstract 27705 (T. D. 32224) followed.

No. 31092.-SCALLOPED ARTICLES.-Protest 289191 of O. G. Hempstead & Son (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A.

Scalloped flax articles classified as embroidered under paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, were held dutiable as woven articles of flax (par. 346).

No. 31093.-ETAMINES.-Protests 24251h, etc., of P. K. Wilson & Son (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A.

Protests sustained on the authority of G. A. 6804 (T. D. 29259) as etamines.

No. 31094.-COLORED COTTON CLOTH.-Protests 268898, etc., of Thos. Young et al. (New York). Opinion by Cooper, G. A.

Certain merchandise classified as colored cotton cloth held dutiable as bleached or unbleached. United States v. Rusch (167 Fed. Rep., 523; T. D. 29506) followed. Protests sustained in part.

No. 31095.-Protests Overruled.-Protest 603534 of L. Dusenbury & Co., pro test 592549 of Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne, and protests 540226, etc., of W. A. Walker (New York). Opinions by Cooper, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

BEFORE BOARD 3, January 13, 1913.

No. 31096.-Dirt in CASTOR SEED.-Protest 478529 of Sherwin-Williams Co. (Cleveland). Opinion by Somerville, G. A.

Protest overruled claiming an allowance for dirt and other impurities in castor seed. United States v. Baker Castor Oil Co. (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 338; T. D. 32076) cited.

No. 31097.-MEASUREMENT OF ALMERIA GRAPES.-Protests 657658, etc., of J. C. Artes 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. 31098.-COVERINGS OF LIQUIDS AND SEMILIQUIDS.-Protests 274234, etc., of Charles T. Howe & Co., and protests 301612, etc., of Henry W. Peabody & Co. et al. (New York). Opinions by Somerville, G. A.

On the authority of United States v. Peabody (T. D. 32383) protests sustained claiming coverings of liquids and semiliquids to be dutiable at the same rate as their

contents.

BEFORE BOARD 1, JANUARY 15, 1913.

No. 31099.-PICKER STRAPS.-Protests 562774, etc., of Fleitmann & Co. et al. (New York). Opinion by McClelland, G. A.

On the authority of United States v. Ringk (T. D. 32908) leather cut into the form of picker straps was held dutiable at 5 and 10 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909. Protests overruled.

No. 31100.-SHEEPSKINS, DRESSED AND FINISHED.-Protests 564359, etc., of O. G. Hempstead & Son et al. (Philadelphia). Opinion by McClelland, G. A. Sheepskins dressed and finished held properly classified under paragraph 451, tariff act of 1909. Tilge v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 129; T. D. 31662) followed.

No. 31101.-Protests OverRULED.-Protests 623054, etc., of Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher et al. (New York). Opinion by Chamberlain, G. A. Protests unsupported; overruled.

No. 31102.-PROTESTS ABANDONED.-Protests 89541f, etc., of Jules and Hugo Rosenberg et al. (New York).

Protests abandoned.

BEFORE BOARD 2, JANUARY 15, 1913.

No. 31103.-EMBOSSED COATED PAPER.-Protest 652642 of Herman Hug (New York). Opinion by Fischer, G. A

Sheets of embossed coated paper held dutiable at 5 cents per pound and 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 411, tariff act of 1909, as claimed.

No. 31104.-PROTESTS OVERRULED.-Protests 406562, etc., of Thos. Prosser & Son et al., and protests 625512, etc., of H. Weiss et al. (New York). Opinions by Fischer, G. A.

Protests unsupported; overruled.

No. 31105.—IMITATION HORSEHAIR HATS.-Protests 195831-20935, etc., of Theo. Ascher Co. et al. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

On the authority of Thomass v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 86; T. D. 31107) and United States v. Cochran (T. D. 32349), hats of imitation horsehair held dutiable by similitude to cotton wearing apparel under paragraph 314, tariff act of 1897.

No. 31106.-STRAW PLAITS-UNTRIMMED HATS.-Protests 649350, etc., of Judkins & McCormick Co. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Straw plateaux and untrimmed hats held properly classified under paragraph 422, tariff act of 1909. G. A. 7314 (T. D. 32125) followed. Certain merchandise classified as manufactures of straw under paragraph 463 held dutiable as colored straw plaits (par. 422). Protests sustained in part.

No. 31107.-ELASTIC BELTING.-Protests 581152, etc., of Bloomingdale Bros. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Elastic belting classified under paragraph 402, tariff act of 1909, found to be in chief value of silk, was held dutiable under paragraph 401. Protests sustained in part.

No. 31108.-ELASTIC WEBBINGS.-Protest 625720 of A. Steinhardt & Bro. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

On the authority of Abstract 25375 (T. D. 31524) silk elastic webbings found to be in chief value of india rubber were held dutiable under paragraph 463, tariff act of 1909, as claimed.

No. 31109.-COTTON DRAWNWORK ROBES.-Protest 591231 of American Express Co. (New York). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Cotton robes ornamented by drawnwork, classified under paragraph 339, tariff act of 1897, were held dutiable under paragraph 314. G. A. 6993 (T. D. 30442) followed.

No. 31110.-COTTON NETS-METAL-THREAD GOODS.-Protests 574074-40711, etc., of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago). Opinion by Howell, G. A.

Nets classified under paragraph 350, tariff act of 1909, were held dutiable: (1) Those in chief value of cotton, under paragraph 349; and (2) those in chief value of metal threads, under paragraph 179. Protests sustained in part.

BEFORE BOARD 3, JANUARY 15, 1913.

No. 31111.-BEANS IN TINS.-Protest 587026 of Holland-American Trading Co. (St. Louis). Opinion by Waite, G. A.

Protest overruled as to beans in tins classified under paragraph 251, tariff act of 1909.

No. 31112.—WHISKY IN BOTTLES-BREAKAGE.-Protest 614198 of H. B. Thomas (San Francisco). Opinion by Somerville, G. A.

Protest overruled claiming an allowance for breakage of bottles containing whisky. Aurola v. United States (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 340; T. D. 32077) followed.