We therefore find that this portion of the merchandise is embroidered, and overrule the protest relative thereto. This ruling is not in conflict with G. A. 470, wherein the board held that "the term tamboured or embroidered can only be properly and safely applied to those fabrics * figured or ornamented by the employment of the needle, whether directed by the hand or by machinery." We further find that all of the merchandise covered by this protest is women's dress goods composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, or other animals, weighing less than 4 ounces to the square yard. We can not sustain the claim of the appellants that the plain and embroidered parts of the so-called robes, which were invoiced as an entirety, should be treated in the same manner as clocks or other completed articles. In G. A. 334 the board held that merchandise similar to that in question was not wearing apparel, but was piece goods intended to be made into wearing apparel. The appraiser having segregated the value of the plain and embroidered portions of the goods in question, the action of the collector in assessing duty upon the separate parts thereof, in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 395 and 398, respectively, was, in our opinion, correct, and is affirmed. (11975–G. A. 888.) NEW YORK, October 8, 1891. CHARGES FOR WINDING, HANKING, SKEINING, ETC., WORSTED YARN.-We find (1) that the merchandise consists of six bales of worsted, imported from Liverpool, and entered at the port of Philadelphia on September 30, 1890. (2) That the items of charge to which objection is taken by the protest consist of the following: Winding into skeins Hanking and bundling. £ 8. d. Cost of packing.. Total (3) That the merchandise was actually purchased in the market of Bradford, England, and that the invoice, as verified by oath, did not include and specify the said charges, or any of them, in the declaration required to be filed by section 5 of the act of June 10, 1890. (4) We are of opinion that these charges are elements of dutiable value, either as entering into the per se market value of the merchandise, or as belonging to those "costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States," which are expressly made a part of such dutiable value by section 19 of said act of June 10, 1890. They were properly, therefore, included in the estimate of market value. There is no evidence of any kind before us that these charges were twice included in the estimate of market value, as seems to be contended. The objection to the constitutionality of the act of June 10, 1890, has been many times decided by this board not to be well taken. All the grounds of protest are accordingly overruled, and the collector's decision is affirmed. (12017—G. A. 930.) NEW YORK, October 10, 1891. FEZ CAPS.-The goods are invoiced as red Fez caps. They were assessed for duty at 494 cents per pound and 60 per cent ad valorem as wearing apparel, under paragraph 396, N. T., and are claimed by the appellant to be dutiable either as hats of wool under paragraph 393, or at 44 cents per pound and 50 per cent ad valorem as wool-knit fabrics, under paragraph 392, act of October 1, 1890. . The caps are not hats and are not popularly nor commercially known as hats. They are composed of a felted knit fabric, with a long silk tassel attached to the center of the crown. They are not known to trade or commerce as knit fabrics. The protest is overruled, and the assessment of duty by the collector is hereby affirmed. (12025–G. A. 938.) NEW YORK, October 16, 1891. WOOL INVOICED IN SHANGHAI TAELS.-We find as facts in this case: (1) That S. Conrad's Sons imported into the port of New York, November 12, 1890, 163 bales of wool from Shanghai, covered by two invoices and which were returned by the appraiser as wool of the third class, valued at less than 13 cents per pound, including charges, and subject to duty at 32 per cent ad valorem, the invoiced value in Shanghai taels being the appraised value. (2) That the entry of said wool was made in the currency of the invoices. (3) That said wool was shipped at Shanghai April 15 and 26, 1890, upon two invoices certified by the U. S. consul at that port on the 16th and 30th days of said month, and that said wool was purchased in the currency of the invoices. (4) That the value of the Shanghai tael, expressed in the money of account of the United States as duly proclaimed by the Secretary of the Treasury, January 1, 1890, was $1.03.1, and as proclaimed October 1, 1890, $1.25.6. (5) That the entry of said wool was made at the custom-house in New York November 12, 1890, and the duty was liquidated in accordance with the value of the tael as proclaimed October 1, 1890. The protestants allege in their protest, which is not sworn to, that the tael at Shanghai, on the 15th day of April, 1890, at the then rate of exchange, was equivalent to $1.0929, and on the 26th day of said April, $1.059, in American gold coin, but they offered no evidence to support this allegation. The protestants further allege that the liquidation of their entry upon the basis of value of the tael as proclaimed on the first day of October, 1890, in effect increased the value of their wool for dutiable purposes beyond the actual and the appraised market value thereof at the time and place of export, and claim that such liquidation is illegal. In the liquidation of the duties under this entry, the collector, upon examination of the invoice, entry, and appraised value of the merchandise, ascertained that there was a concurrence in the several values, expressed in taels. It is claimed, upon the one hand, that the foreign market value, expressed in the money of account of the United States according to the rate of exchange at the time of purchase and shipment, is the correct value upon which duty should be assessed. Upon the other hand, it is alleged that the foreign market value was taken, and that that value was expressed in taels; that the tael had no value in the money of account of the United States, except as fixed by the proclamation of the Secretary of the Treasury; that the proclamation in force at the time of the entry superseded the former proclamation and in effect repealed it; that no duties attached to the merchandise until it was imported; that when duties did attach they attached according to the laws there in force, and that it was the duty of the collector to compute the duties upon the tael value according to the law in force when he was required to act. If in one instance this requirement appeared to work to the prejudice of the importer, at another time the effect might appear to be prejudicial to the Government, and thus, as a rule, was not unfair to either party. While we find no decision of the courts clearly covering the point raised is this case, yet the language of the opinion in Hedden v. Merritt (115 U.S., 27), seems to sustain the action of the collector, and the views heretofore expressed by this board in G. A. 838 support his action. It is proper to call attention to the fact that the Secretary of the Treasury, on the first day of July, 1891, changed the language of his quarterly proclamation. Formerly it was stated therein that the proclaimed value is "to be followed in estimating the value of all foreign merchandise imported on or after" the specified date. In the proclamations of July 1, 1891, and subsequent dates, the language is changed to "exported to the United States on and after the" date thereof. Under the requirements of the law as they appear to us to have existed at the time of this importation, we are of the opinion that the collectors' action was correct. The protest is overruled, and the action of the collector affirmed. (12038-G. A. 951.) TREASURY DEPARTMENT, November 28, 1891. DRAWBACK ON EXPORTED WOOL.-The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 21st instant, in which you inclose the application of Messrs. Chas. J. Webb & Co. for the rebate of duty paid on certain wool by embracing in one export entry merchandise from four different importations, neither of which, you state, paid a duty amounting to $50. You report that, under the provisions of article 943 of the Regulations of 1884, and section 3016, Revised Statutes, which prescribes that “no merchandise imported shall be entitled to a drawback of the duties paid, unless the duties so paid shall amount to $50 at least," the application in question was denied by you, and you ask to be advised whether you would be justified in granting the request of the said importers. In reply, I have to state that the combination of separate small importations in one export entry for the purpose of making an amount of duty which would exceed $50, in order to obtain a refund of duty paid, is regarded as an evasion of the requirements of the statute, and should not be permitted. Your action, therefore, in refusing the application is hereby approved. (12092.) NEW YORK, November 10, 1891. PILE FABRICS, WOOL CHIEF VALUE-CARPETS FOR UPHOLSTERY PURPOSES.-The collector classified the goods in question as pile fabrics composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the camel, goat, alpaca, or other animal, and assessed duty upon it at 494 cents per pound and 60 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 396, act of October 1, 1890. The importers claim that the goods are dutiable at 50 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 470 of said act, as carpets or carpeting of wool, flax, or cotton, or composed in part of either of them. An examination of the official sample of the merchandise shows it to be a heavy cloth with a cotton back and an extra looped warp of wool, which forms a surface pile. Every alternate loop thread is cut, giving to the face of the goods-a corded velvety effect. The material is invoiced as "crab and red spot figured cords rep.," and the venders thereof advertise themselves as manufacturers of carriage and railway laces and woven figured velvets. In addition to the above significant facts, the fineness of the cotton threads composing the back of the goods indicates that they are not suitable for floor wear, but were probably designed for and are chiefly used for upholstering seats of cars, as stated by the appraiser. We find as facts that the merchandise is not carpets or carpeting. We further find that it is composed of wool and cotton, wool chief value, and that it is a pile fabric. The protest is accordingly overruled, and the action of the collector is affirmed. (12142—G. A. 1004.) NEW YORK, December 2, 1891. GLORIA CLOTH.-The appraiser reports that "the merchandise in question consists of a manufacture of silk in the warp and worsted in the weft. It has no border on the selvage, which is a distinguishing characteristic of merchandise known as umbrella cloth, but is similar to women's and children's dress goods." It was assessed with duty at 12 cents per square yard and 50 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 395, act of October 1, 1890. At the hearing in the case the counsel for the importers appeared before the board and argued in support of their protest: (1) That the merchandise is not dress goods. (2) That it is composed of silk and worsted (not wool). (3) That silk is the component material of chief value entering into its fabrication. An analysis of the merchandise had by the board confirmed the appellant's claim that the component parts thereof are worsted and silk, of which substances silk is the greater in value. There was no evidence submitted, however, to us tending to impeach the appraiser's statement that, inasmuch as the material has no border on the selvage, it was not umbrella cloth. We make the following findings of fact: (1) That the merchandise is known as gloria cloth. (2) That it is composed of silk and wool or worsted, silk chief value. (3) That it is used in the manufacture of women's and children's dresses and is similar in description and character to women's and children's dress goods. (4) That it weighs less than four ounces to the square yard. Women's and children's dress goods is a phrase of commercial designation. The goods in question are composed wholly or in part of worsted, and are of like character and description as, and are to be treated in the same manner as if they were, women's and children's dress goods. Commercial designation takes precedence in the classification of mixed materials. Consequently the ruling in Hartrauft r. Meyer does not apply in the present case. We hold the goods are more specifically provided for in paragraph 395 than in paragraph 414. We are of the opinion that the proviso attached to paragraph 414 removes the merchandise in question from classification thereunder, for, notwithstanding the fact that the fabric is composed of silk and worsted, it is equally a fact that it is a manufacture of silk or of which silk is the component material of chief value, of which wool or the hair of the camel, goat, or other like animal is a component material. The protest is overruled, and the action of the collector is affirmed. (12230– G. A. 1044.) NEW YORK, December 2, 1891. SMOKING JACKETS-WEARING APPAREL.-The goods covered by this protest are smoking jackets composed of cotton bodies bound with worsted braid. They were returned by the appraiser as wool wearing apparel. The collector classified them as such, and assessed duty upon them at 494 cents per pound and 60 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 396, act of October 1, 1890. The importer claims that the merchandise is dutiable at 50 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 349 of the said act, as cotton wearing apparel. * not We are of the opinion that the importer's contention is correct. Paragraph 396 provides for clothing, ready made, and articles of wearing apparel specially provided for, * * composed wholly or in part of wool, etc. # Paragraph 349 provides for wearing apparel * composed of cotton or other vegetable fibers, or of which cotton or other vegetables fiber is the component material of chief value. Applying the principles of statutory construction as laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Meyer v. Hartranft, we are forced to hold that the goods in question are more specifically provided for under paragraph 349 than under paragraph 396. We find as facts that the merchandise is wearing apparel composed of cotton and wool, and that cotton is the component material of chief value entering into the fabrication thereof. We accordingly sustain the protest as to the rate claimed by the appellant to be applicable thereto, under the act of October 1, 1890, and overrule the portion of the protest with regard to the constitutionality of said act. (12231-G. A. 1045.) NEW YORK, December 2, 1891. PAINTERS' CANVAS (WOOL).-The appraiser in his special report to the collector says: "The merchandise in question consisted of a manufacture of wool and cotton commercially known and sold as painters' canvas.” It was classified as a manufacture of wool, and assessed with duty at 44 cents per pound and 50 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 392, act of October 1, 1890. The importer claims the merchandise is a manufacture of cotton and wool, cotton chief value, and dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 355 of said act. At the hearing in the case samples of merchandise were submitted without testimony as to the relative cost of the component materials entering into the fabrication thereof. An inspection of these samples shows the goods to be a fine corded woven fabric, one surface ribbed and the other presenting the appearance of a knit fabric or webbing. The samples are sent to the U. S. chemist at New York for analysis, who reported that they were found to consist wholly of wool fibers, although the fibers forming the ribs of the fabric consist of wool hair called 'Ukemp.”” Several grades of wool are to be found in each sample. Based upon this report, we find that the merchandise is not a manufacture of cotton or of which cotton is the component material of chief value. The protest is accordingly overruled, and the decision of the collector is affirmed. (12234–G. A. 1048.) NEW YORK, December 2, 1891. NUNS' VEILINGS.-The goods in question are woven fabrics known commercially as nuns' veilings. They are composed of wool in the weft and cotton, silk, and wool in the warp, respectively. The goods were classified as part worsted dress goods, or goods of like description, and assessed for duty at 12 cents per square yard and 50 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 395, act October 1, 1890. The importers claim that the goods are dutiable at 44 cents per pound and 50 per cent, in accordance with the provision of paragraph 392 of the said act applicable to manufactures of wool not otherwise provided for, valued at above 40 cents per pound. At the hearing in the case the evidence tended conclusively to show that the merchandise contained a border upon each side thereof and was of such a flimsy character that it was not suitable to be made into dresses for women or children, and that it was known commercially as nuns' veilings or bordered veilings, and not as dress goods. It was also in evidence that there is a material known commercially as nuns' veiling which has a border on one side, and which is composed of the same materials as, but made in a more substantial manner than, the merchandise in question, and that this material is known as dress goods. We make the following finding of facts in this case: (1) That the merchandise is composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair |