the collector as manufactures of jute, dutiable at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 374 of the act of October 1, 1890, which prescribes that rate of duty for "all manufactures of jute, or other vegetable fiber, except flax, hemp, or cotton, or of which jute, or `other vegetable fiber except flax, hemp, or cotton, is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this act, * * * valued above five cents per pound," the parties claiming that the goods were dutiable at the rate only of 13 cents per pound, under paragraph 364 of said act, which reads as follows: "Burlaps, not exceeding sixty inches in width, of flax, jute, or hemp, or of which flax, jute, or hemp, or either of them, shall be the component material of chief value (except such as may be suitable for bagging for cotton), one and fiveeighths cents per pound;" and that upon taking the matter to the Board of United States General Appraisers, under the provisions of section 14 of the act of June 10, 1890, the contention of the importers was sustained and the decision of the collector reversed (G. A. 1129), whereupon the collector appealed to the court, under the provisions. of section 15 of the act of June 10, 1890, with the result aforesaid. The decision of the court in this case was as follows:

The sole question in this cause is one of fact. It is conceded on all sides that the term "burlaps," found in the act of 1890, is a more specific designation of the imported goods than the term, also found in that act," Manufactures of jute or other vegetable fiber, etc., not specially provided for in this act."

Are they burlaps? This question of fact was thoroughly tried before the Board of Appraisers, and that board has reported that all of the articles in controversy are burlaps. Giving to their report only the weight which would be given to the report of a master in chancery, it does not seem to me that this court, sitting in review, would be justified in reversing their decision upon a question of fact. They have advantages which an appellate tribunal can not have. They see and hear witnesses and can determine what weight should be given to their testimony. Witness after witness called by the importers testified that these articles were commercially known as burlaps; and, stating the case as favorably for the appellant as the facts warrant, there was simply a dispute upon the evidence before the board. They having reached a conclusion which I think was amply sustained by the evidence, it seems to me that their decision should remain undisturbed.

Upon submitting the matter to the United States Attorney-General, under the provisions of the act of June 10, 1890, that officer advises this Department that no appeal will be directed from the decision of the circuit court in this case.

You are therefore hereby authorized to take measures looking to a refund of the duties exacted in excess on the above described goods,

and to apply these instructions to all similar cases pending at your port where the parties have duly protected their rights under the pro

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 31, 1893.

SIR: The Department is in receipt of a letter, dated the 17th instant, from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, in which he reports the trial on the 12th instant of the so-called appraiser's suit, arising on the application of the collector of customs at New York for a review of the decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers (G. A. 1301) in the matter of certain goods imported by Dieckerhoff, Raffloer & Co. in the year 1891, which trial resulted in favor of the importers.

The facts in the case appear to be that the goods in question consisted . of feather-stitched braids, which the collector assessed with duty at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem, under the provisions of paragraph 373 of the act of October 1, 1890, as on cotton trimmings, the importers claiming that the goods were properly dutiable either at 35 cents per pound as "cotton braids" or at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem as "galloons," under paragraph 354; that the parties took the case to the Board of United States General Appraisers, under the provisions of section 14 of the act of June 10, 1890, where the contention of the importers that the goods were trimmings was sustained, whereupon the collector took the case to the United States circuit court, where the contention of the importers that the goods were "braids," and dutiable as such, was sustained.

Upon submitting the matter to the United States Attorney-General, that officer advises this Department, under date of the 26th instant, that no appeal will be directed from the judgment of the circuit court. You are therefore hereby authorized to take measures looking to the payment of the judgment in this case, and to apply these instructions to all similar cases pending at your port where the importers have duly protected their rights under the provisions of the act of June 10, 1890. O. L. SPAULDING,

Respectfully, yours,

(2533 g.)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

Assistant Secretary.

(13654.)

Countable cotton goods.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 31, 1893.

SIR: The Department is in receipt of a letter, dated the 17th instant, from the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, in which he reports the trial on the 6th instant of the so-called appraiser's case, arising on the application of Wm. Meyer & Co. for a review of the decision of the Board of General Appraisers in the matter of the dutiable classification of certain cotton goods imported, per La Champagne, July 13, 1891, which trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the importers.

The importation, it appears, consisted of certain cotton cloths, which were classified by the collector as countable cottons, dutiable at the rate of 5 cents per square yard and 63 cents per square yard, respectively, under paragraphs 347 and 348 of the act of October 1, 1890, the importers claiming that the same were dutiable at the rates of 5 and 54 cents per square yard, respectively, under paragraphs 346 and 347 of said act, the question involved being one purely of fact as to the number of threads to the square inch.

Against this classification the importers filed notice of dissatisfaction under section 14, act of June 10, 1890, and took the case to the Board of General Appraisers, where the decision of the collector was affirmed, whereupon they appealed to the circuit court under the provisions of section 15 of said act, with the result aforesaid.

The United States attorney reports that there was no question in this case, but that the merchandise was a plain homogeneous cotton cloth, involving no difficulties in the count, there being no irregularity in the weaving and no question as to what properly constituted warp and filling, there being no figures of any kind in the nature of spots, sprigs, or embroidery upon the cloth in question, which was perfectly plain cloth of two varieties, and that, inasmuch as the failure of the board to attach competent evidence to their return in support of the findings was fatal to their decision, under the decision of the United States circuit court of appeals for this circuit in the matter of Van Blankensteyn et al.; and inasmuch as he was unable to produce proof in the circuit court to sustain the findings of the board, the issue being purely and simply one of fact, the judge, after hearing the testimony presented before the Board of General Appraisers, and their decision thereon, reversed the decision of the board upon the evidence contained in the

return, and adjudged that the cotton cloths in question should be assessed for duty as claimed in the importers' protest.

Upon submitting the matter to the United States Attorney-General, that officer advises this Department that no appeal will be directed from the judgment of the circuit court in this case.

You are therefore hereby authorized to take measures looking to the payment of this judgment.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 13, 1892.

In the matter of the protests, 24332 a, etc., of Thos. Irwin & Sons and others, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain hydrate of alumina or bauxite, imported per the vessels named and on the dates set forth in the annexed schedule.

Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser.

The merchandise covered by the protests in these cases is precisely of the same character. It is described in the invoices as "hydrate of alumina, or bauxite."

It was returned by the local appraiser as alumina, and was assessed by the collector, under paragraph 9 of the new tariff act, which reads as follows:

Alumina, alum, alum cake, patent alum, sulphate of alumina, and aluminous cake, and alum in crystals or ground, six-tenths of one cent per pound.

The Treasury Department recently referred a sample of the merchandise to the collector at the port of Boston for investigation by him, and he reached a conclusion different from that attained by the customs officials at New York. He reported that the article was "refined bauxite," which is merely the crude bauxite of commerce, with the impurities of iron and silica removed, and unchanged in chemical properties.

The importers make the claim in each of the cases that the merchandise is exempt from duty under paragraph 501 of the new tariff act, which enumerates in the free list "bauxite or beauxite." In two of the cases the additional claim is made that the article is dutiable at

20 per cent ad valorem under section 4 of said act as a nonenumerated manufacture.

On the hearing of the cases the testimony was conflicting, especially that relating to the chemical constituents of the mineral, or clay, known as "bauxite," or, as it is sometimes spelled, "beauxite." On this particular point the board was enlightened by the testimony of Thomas M. Drown, professor of chemistry in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at Boston, and of John H. Wainright, analytical chemist in the United States laboratory at the appraisers' department in New York, who were orally examined on the hearing of the cause. They both agree in the view that the mineral known as "bauxite" is a hydrate of alumina, being a chemical combination of alumina and water, and usually containing silica and iron as its principal impurities.

The former, however, asserts that bauxite appears in the form of both a dihydrate and a trihydrate of alumina that is chemically combined in the proportion of 2 parts of alumina to 2 parts of water, and also of 2 parts of alumina to 3 parts of water. The latter maintains that bauxite chemically contains only 2 parts or equivalents of water, and is therefore only found in the form of a bihydrate, and that the article under consideration contains 3 equivalents of water, being a trihydrate, and is not, for this reason, in his judgment, the mineral known as "bauxite" or "beauxite." The whole difference in dispute in its chemical aspects is thus reduced to a single equivalent of water in the composition of the article in question.

The board makes the following findings of facts in the second cases: (1) The merchandise under consideration is a white mineral powder, resembling pulverized alum in appearance. The accompanying sample is a correct representative of the several importations.

(2) It is, chemically considered, hydrate of alumina, or alumina and water combined.

(3) It is known and dealt with in trade under the name of "refined bauxite," and differs from crude bauxite only in the fact that it has gone through a process of manufacture by which the impurities of iron and silica have been mechanically removed from the crude article.

(4) It is used for the same purposes as the crude bauxite, namely, for the manufacture of alum or aluminous product, such as the sulphate of alumina or alum cake.

(5) We further find that the article is refined bauxite, which is nothing more than crude beauxite, with the impurities of iron and silica removed, without affecting the chemical composition of the article or its chief utility. There are samples of this mineral found in nature which