to have filed protests at New Orleans and Honolulu, making like claims, and in many instances relating to the same goods.

The importers have submitted the cases for our decision without the introduction of any evidence as to the actual character of the articles. In Lilienthal's case, G. A. 5165 (T. D. 23818), we held that steam plows are properly dutiable under said paragraph 460, at 20 per cent, but that steam-plow machinery, consisting of engines and tackle for the operation of the plows, can not be classified under that paragraph. The present protests raise no questions regarding engines or tackle. The collector at Honolulu has made a supplemental report to the Board, stating that, out of the entire lot of goods covered by 34 protests, there are only 3 protests covering complete plows. The invoice description of merchandise does not determine its classification (Dwight v. Merritt, 140 U. S., 213), and there being no evidence to rebut this statement of the collector, we find it to be true. (United States v. Midgely, 42 Fed. Rep., 668.) If the importer fails to introduce competent evidence to support all the essential facts in relation to his claim, the presumption of correct classification on the part of the collector must always prevail. (Davies v. Miller, 91 Fed. Rep., 647; 34 C. C. A., 37.)

The protests relating to the complete plows are numbered 50261b, 50263b, and 50270b. The first two appear to have been properly filed with the collector at Honolulu, and they are therefore sustained.

In regard to protest 50270b, a different conclusion follows. The goods to which it relates were imported at New Orleans on December 17, 1900, and were entered in bond for immediate transportation to Honolulu, on the same day. On arrival at Honolulu, they were entered for rewarehouse and consumption on the 28th day of January, 1901, and on January 29 the entry was liquidated. All this occurred before Congress had extended to Honolulu the benefits of the immediate transportation act of June 10, 1880 (21 U. S. Stat., 173), which was not done until February 15, 1901, when a special act was passed for the purpose. (31 U. S. Stat., 791.)

It is clear, therefore, that the collector at New Orleans erred in permitting the merchandise to be entered on an immediate-transportation entry for carriage to a port not entitled to the privilege. It necessarily follows also that the attempted liquidation of the entry by the collector at Honolulu was illegal and void; for under the circumstances stated the entry could only be properly liquidated at the port of arrival, namely, New Orleans. The collector there was the only officer authorized to make the "ascertainment and liquidation of the duties" as required by statute. (Saltonstall v. Russell, 152 U. S., 658; 14 Sup. Ct. Rep., 733.)

An examination of the immediate-transportation entry, which constitutes part of the entry before us, shows that on December 17, 1900,

the New Orleans collector actually did liquidate it, and on August 2, 1901, he made a reliquidation. Against this reliquidation the importers duly protested to the collector at New Orleans, which protest has been forwarded to this Board, and has become No. 51015 b. In this way the rights of the importers have been saved, and they are entitled to have the entry reliquidated by the New Orleans collector, and the articles, which consist of whole plows, reclassified under paragraph 460, as claimed.

To avoid any misunderstanding as to our position regarding the proper filing of these protests, we must mention one circumstance in connection with protest 50263 b, filed at Honolulu, which protest is one of the three covering an importation of whole plows. The record shows that the merchandise in question reached New Orleans and was entered for immediate transportation to Honolulu on February 4, 1901, eleven days before the passage of the statute extending to Honolulu the benefits of the immediate-transportation act. By the time the goods reached their destination, however, Congress had passed the necessary measure, and it had been approved by the President; so that, for the purposes of this decision, we may assume that such legislation, being of a remedial character, had the effect of curing the irregularity on the part of the New Orleans collector in accepting the immediate-transportation entry before Honolulu had been made an immediate-transportation port. For this reason, we sustain the protest, as before stated.

The remaining protests, which cover only parts of plows, are all overruled, paragraph 460 providing for "plows" only, and not parts thereof. Note the principle settled by the Supreme Court in Robertson v. Gerdan (132 U. S., 454; 10 Sup. Ct. Rep., 119). There would be some question also whether all of these protests had been properly filed.

Protests 50261b and 50263b (filed at Honolulu) and protest 51015b (filed at New Orleans) are sustained, so far as they relate to entire plows, and the collector is instructed to reliquidate the entries, classifying the plows under paragraph 460. The remaining protests are

all overruled and the decision of the collector affirmed.

(24154-G. A. 5256.)

Books in foreign language-Music books.

Music books containing no words other than a short preface, an index, and occasional notes for the guidance of the performer, all printed in a foreign language, are dutiable as music in books, at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 403, act of July 24, 1897, and are not free of duty as books or pamphlets printed exclusively in language other than English.

An insignificant amount of printing in a foreign language in a book of instrumental music, the foreign printing being merely incidental to the music, is not sufficient to entitle such merchandise to free entry as books printed exclusively in a language other than English.-G. A. 1703 followed.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 13, 1903.

In the matter of the protests, 45364, 45365, and 45366 b, of Lyon & Healy, against the decision of the collector of customs at Chicago, Ill., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Palatia, Graf Waldersee, and Belgravia, and entered March 17, March 29, and April 25, 1900.

Opinion by FISCHER, General Appraiser.

The merchandise was assessed for duty at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 403, act of July 24, 1897, for "music in books or sheets," and is claimed to be free of duty under paragraph 502 of said act as "books and pamphlets printed exclusively in languages other than English."

The samples introduced in evidence as representative of the goods are three books of the "Edition Peters," the first one being for the instruction of the voice, the second a collection of preludes by Bach, and the third a fantasie of the opera Lohengrin. The first of these exhibits contains a preface comprising one page printed in French and in German, and the covers contain advertisements in German. The second contains an index in French and the back cover contains advertisements in German. The third has advertisements in German on the back of the cover. Aside from this, the books contain no words whatever except the ordinary musical terms found in all instrumental music, and an occasional note in the first-named exhibit printed in German and French for the guidance of the performer.

The question as to what books come within the provisions of paragraph 502 of the act of 1897 was discussed in G. A. 4970 (T. D. 23194), and a digest of the cases bearing on that question was appended to the decision. From these cases it would seem that the test as to music books with foreign words is, as stated in G. A. 1703 (T. D. 13323), whether or not the text is a minor or incidental feature of the work. In that case it was held that a book of music containing 18 pages of preface and explanation in German, and another book of 70 pages of printed music with 4 pages of preface, were not books printed in a foreign language.

The converse of this principle has been followed by the Board in numerous cases where books printed in a foreign language, with the exception of an insignificant amount of English printing, were nevertheless held to be entitled to free entry under paragraph 502, the small amount of English matter not being considered.

We find that the merchandise covered by the protests consists of music in books, that the books are not printed in any language, and that they are therefore not within the provisions of paragraph 502. We accordingly overrule the protests and affirm the decisions of the collector.

(24155—G. A. 5257.)

Imitation silk yarns.

Imitation silk yarns or threads, made from cotton waste which has undergone a chemical change, thereby losing its identity as cotton, and containing no compounds of pyroxylin or collodion, are dutiable under paragraph 385 as silk yarns or threads, by virtue of the provisions of section 7, act of July 24, 1897, and are not dutiable as cotton yarns under paragraph 302 of said act, by virtue of the similitude clause.— G. A. 4939 (T. D. 23110) and G. A. 5081 (T. D. 23528) followed; Meyer et al. v. Arthur (91 U. S., 570) noted.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 13, 1903.

In the matter of the protest, 2116 h-7088, of Hardt, Von Bernuth & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York, N. Y., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Zeeland, and entered February 5, 1902.

Opinion by FISCHER, General Appraiser.

The protest is against the assessment of duty at the rate of 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 385, act of July 24, 1897, on certain so-called artificial silk yarns.

This assessment was made in accordance with the Board's decisions G. A. 4939 (T. D. 23110) and G. A. 5081 (T. D. 23528), where merchandise of the character here in question was held not to be dutiable as manufactures of pyroxylin under paragraph 17 of the act of 1897, but dutiable at the rate here complained of by virtue of the similitude clause, the Board finding that the article was similar in quality, texture, and use to silk yarn.

The importers now claim that the merchandise is more similar to cotton yarns, and is therefore dutiable as such under paragraph 302 by virtue of the similitude clause. The alternative claim is made that it is dutiable at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under section 6 as a nonenumerated manufactured article

At the hearing, the importers introduced testimony to show that the yarns are made from cotton waste, that they require treatment in dyeing more nearly resembling the dyeing of cotton yarn than that of silk yarn, and that they are woven in the same manner as cotton yarns. It appears, however, from all the evidence in this case and from the evidence in G. A. 4939, which is made a part of this case, that all yarns of this character, whether made from silk waste or from cotton waste, are known as imitation silk, and that the fabric woven therefrom is known and sold as "nearsilk." It further appears that the yarns are produced by a process which is described in the letters patent covering the same and offered in evidence, as follows:

The process, which consists in dissolving cellulose, without decomposing the same and causing the solution to flow in a thread or fiber-like stream into a bath containing a precipitant of cellulose, whereby the latter is precipitated from its solution in a thread or fiber-like form.

From this it follows that the merchandise as imported no longer consists of cotton, even though it may have been originally cotton

waste and not silk waste. (Note Meyer et al. v. Arthur, 91 U. S., 570.) The contention that the yarns produced by the patented process are dyed and woven in a manner similar to such processes with regard to cotton yarns we do not consider as of weight, for this similarity, if in fact it exist, does not relate to material, quality, character, or use, which are the only points of similarity referred to in section 7. The yarns are similar, however, to silk yarn (as was found in G. A. 4939) in three of these characteristics, namely, quality, texture, and use, and are not similar to cotton yarns as to any of the characteristics named in section 7.

We, therefore, see no reason for modifying our ruling laid down in G. A. 4939 and G. A. 5081, and accordingly overrule the protest and affirm the decision of the collector.

(24156-G. A. 5258.)
Fuses.

Fuses composed in chief value of gutta-percha, used for blasting purposes by being connected with, and adapted to explode, a detonator, which in turn fires a fulminate, are not dutiable under paragraph 421, act of July 24, 1897, as fulminates, fulminating powder, or like articles, but are dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 450 of said act as manufactures in chief value of guttapercha.-G. A. 2684 and T. D. 6213 followed.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, January 13, 1903.

In the matter of the protest, 209 h-3225, of A. H. Funke, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York, N. Y., as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain merchandise, imported per Pennsylvania, and entered March 4, 1902.

Opinion by FISCHER, General Appraiser.

The merchandise here in question is described in the invoice as "white countered gutta-percha fuse," and is imported in rolls. It was returned by the local appraiser as a manufacture of cotton, jute, and gutta-percha, gutta-percha chief value, and assessed for duty at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 450, act of July 24, 1897.

The protest claims that said merchandise is dutiable at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 421 of said act either directly or by similitude. The paragraph in question reads as follows:

Fulminates, fulminating powder, and like articles, not specially provided for in this Act, thirty per centum ad valorem.

The word "fulminate" is defined in the Standard Dictionary as follows:

(1) A salt of fulminic acid. Fulminates decompose readily and explode when struck or heated. (2) A mixture containing such a salt, used to produce an explosion.

It would seem, therefore, that the main characteristic of a fulminate is its explosive quality.

The present case was submitted on the testimony of the importer and the affidavit of the manager of the Insoloid Fuse Company, of