and license, if she is engaged in the coasting-trade, and of over five tons burden.

In reply, you are informed that the Department holds, in accordance with its interpretation of the opinion of the Attorney General of the - United States, of October 19, 1875, (Synopsis 2478,) that, under the act of April 18, 1874, a boat "answering to the description of a canalboat," and not provided with propelling machinery of its own, and not employed in trade with Canada, is exempt from enrolment and license, although, in the trade which it is now engaged in, "it may never enter a canal of any State." If it is not a boat answering to the description of a canal-boat, and is of more than five tons burden, it should be documented.

This ruling may be your guide until you are further instructed; but you will continue to report to the Department (with diagram) each case in which doubt as to the proper classification of the boat exists.

The canal-boat "C. Holgate," a diagram of which you submit, is in structure and build of like description to a canal-boat, and is therefore exempt from taking documents.

Very respectfully,

JOHN SHERMAN,

Secretary.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Perth Amboy, N. J.

(3718.)

Crude Rubber, in Sheets, Free.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, September 6, 1878.

SIR: This Department is in receipt of your letter dated the 14th ultimo, stating that you have assessed duties at the rate of 10 per cent. ad valorem upon an importation of India-rubber, per "Adolph Flake," July 19, 1878, and enclosing samples of the merchandise, together with the protest and appeal (8835 e) of the importers, Messrs. Wm. Hendley & Co.

It appears from the report of the appraiser at New Orleans, also enclosed with your letter, that the experts and dealers who have examined the merchandise differ as to its proper classification, and that he is doubtful whether it should not have been classified as crude rubber. The samples submitted show that the rubber is in sheets, not of a uniform thickness; and its appearance does not indicate that it has been vulcanized or essentially changed from its natural condition.

In view of these facts, the Department is of opinion that the article is crude India rubber, entitled to entry free of duty, under the provision for such merchandise in the free list.

Kid Gloves-Dutiable Value of.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, September 6, 1878.

SIR: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 3d instant, requesting instructions in regard to the manner of ascertaining the dutiable value of certain imported kid gloves.

From your letter, it appears that Messrs. H. B. Claflin & Co. import kid gloves from Grenoble of two grades, invoiced respectively at 27 and 22 francs per dozen, less the usual discount. The gloves were purchased at the prices stated in good faith, and the facts submitted establish the reliability of the invoice. Messrs. Person, Harriman & Co. also import from Grenoble kid gloves of the same character and quality as those imported by Messrs. Claflin & Co. at 27 francs, which they invoice at 26 francs. The price stated in the invoice of Messrs. Person, Harriman & Co. appears to be the price actually paid. Other parties state that purchases of similar gloves have since been made at 261 and 261 francs per dozen.

The transactions of Messrs. Person, Harriman & Co. are larger in amount than those of Messrs. Claflin & Co., and you ask whether the purchases of Messrs. H. B. Claflin & Co., which are limited in amount, at 27 francs, should be accepted as controlling the dutiable value of the gloves embraced in the invoice of Messrs. Person, Harriman & Co.

In reply, I have to state that section 2902, Revised Statutes, provides that the appraiser shall ascertain, estimate, and appraise, by all reasonable means and ways in his power, the true and actual market value and wholesale price, at the period of exportation, in the principal markets of the country of exportation, any invoice or affidavit thereof to the contrary notwithstanding.

Under this law, it becomes the duty of the appraiser to fix the market value of imports. When such market value has been so fixed, all im

ports of the same character and quality imported from the same market, and at or about the same time, should be valued at the same price, subject of course to the conditions prescribed by law, that duty shall not be assessed upon less than the invoice value.

If, therefore, the price of 27 francs, at which Messrs. Claflin & Co. have made their purchases, is recognized by you as the true market value, no importation of similar goods by other parties should be admitted at a value less than the actual market value so determined.

This rule may be laid down as a general guide, and the action of the appraiser should conform thereto, whether the variance in the invoices is occasioned by a variance in the discount or by a difference in the cost price of the goods.

Very respectfully,

GENERAL APPRAISER, New York.

JOHN SHERMAN,

Secretary.

(3720.)

Raw Hides, with the Hair Removed by Liming, &c.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, September 10, 1878.

SIR: The Department duly received your report of the 8th ultimo, upon the appeal (8123 e) of J. G. Garland from your assessment of duty at the rate of 20 per cent. ad valorem and 10 per cent. ad valorem additional on certain dry hides imported by them into your port, per steamer "Victoria," from Liverpool.

It is conceded by the appellant that the goods in question are subject to the discriminating duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem imposed by section 2501 of the Revised Statutes, and the only question presented by the appeal, therefore, is as to the correctness of the duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem. This duty was assessed under the decision of Febuary 1, 1878, (Synopsis 3464,) and the merchandise was classified under the provision of section 2516 of the Revised Statutes, for articles manufac tured in whole or in part, not enumerated or provided for.

The appellant claims that the articles in question are exempt from any duty other than the discriminating duty by virtue of the clause in the free list, which exempts from duty hides, raw or uncured, whether dry, salted, or pickled.

The correctness of the duty assessed rests upon the question whether the hides covered by the appeal are raw or uncured. In decision 3464

it was stated that the hides forming the subject of that appeal were imported into England from Singapore in a green, salted condition, with the hair on, and were there subjected to a process of liming and curing which removed the hair, and this process, it was held, removed them from the classification of hides raw or uncured.

Samples of the merchandise covered by this appeal show them to be nearly or quite identical with those submitted in the appeal covered by decision 3464, and your action was therefore sustained by the decision in question.

The appellant has, however, submitted a large amount of testimony to show that, notwithstanding the process of liming, which removes the hair, the hides are still known commercially as raw hides, and are always sold as such. This evidence consists of the affidavits of a large number of persons engaged in the trade, and their testimony is to the effect that the process of liming is not undergone for the purpose of partially converting the hides into leather, and that, whether with or without the hair, they are known only as raw hides. The hides appear to be used in the manufacture of loom-pickers, straps, and washers for machinery. It is understood that prior to the decision No. 3464, such hides had been admitted for a series of years as uncured hides.

You state that you have carefully examined and considered the evidence submitted, and that you are clearly of opinion that so much of decision 3464 as imposes a duty of 20 per cent. on these hides is not tenable, as you are satisfied that the commercial designation among importers and traders of the article in question is that of raw hides which are enumerated in the free-list of the Revised Statutes.

The appraiser at your port states that the hides in question have a well-known denomination acquired in trade as dry hides, under which they have for many years been bought and sold, and that to his mind the evidence submitted is conclusive on the question of classification. The Department accepts the evidence presented as establishing the fact that the commercial designation of hides of this character is raw hides, and upon submission of the case to the Attorney General, with a statement of the conclusions of the Department as to their commercial designation, the Acting Attorney General advises a change in the ruling of February 1, 1878, to correspond therewith.

So much, therefore, of decision 3464 as subjects hides of this character to the duty of 20 per cent. is hereby reversed, and you will readjust the entry in this case accordingly.

Very respectfully,

JOHN SHERMAN,

Secretary.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass.

(3721.)

Cudbear Substitute or Aniline Residuum-Duty on.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, September 17, 1878. SIR: The Department has carefully considered the appeal (6436 e) of Messrs. F. Bredt & Co. from your assessment of duty at the rate of 50 cents per pound and 35 per centum ad valorem on certain so-called cudbear substitute imported by them, per the "Denmark," October 1, 1877, and which the appellants claim to be dutiable at the rate of 20 per centum ad valorem, as a non-enumerated manufactured article, under section 2516 of the Revised Statutes.

It appears that the article in question is an aniline residuum, resulting from the manufacture of aniline crystals, and containing no cudbear whatever. It is a very cheap article, inferior to ruby powder, and used as a substitute for cudbear. It is not an aniline dye in the sense contemplated by the statute, but a residuum thereof, having but a very small percentage of aniline coloring-matter left in it.

Under all the facts disclosed in the papers, the Department directs that this importation be classified as an unenumerated manufacture, under the section of the statute above mentioned, subject to a duty of 20 per centum ad valorem.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, September 17, 1878.

SIR: The Department duly received your letter of the 9th ultimo, submitting the appeal (8795 e) of Messrs. Dingelstedt & Co. from your assessment of duty at the rate of $1 50 per gross and 35 per cent. ad valorem on certain clay pipes imported by them, per "Switzerland," June 13, 1878.

The samples of pipes transmitted are found to be white clay pipes, some having raised ornaments on the bowls, and some having the mouth-tips colored for the space of half an inch.

The appraiser reports that they were classified at the above rate of duty under the Department's decision of January 15, 1877, (3073.)