are about as free from impurities as the refined article, and a trihydrate may be reduced through the application of heat to a dihydrate by the expulsion of an equivalent of water.

We hold that the merchandise is free of duty, under paragraph 501, as bauxite or beauxite."

The basis of this decision (we may add) rests on the principle often recognized by the Department, that where an article is specified in the free list, without terms of limitation, such article is exempt from duty, irrespective of the condition in which it is imported, unless the changed condition affects its commercial designation or the tariff law otherwise provides.

The protests are sustained, and the collector's decision is reversed in each case. He is instructed to reliquidate the entries as required by law.

[Withheld for review by the courts.]

(13656-G. A. 1894.)

Toys-Certain sets of knives and forks not.

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

In the matter of the protest, 31574a-16954, of Strauss, Sachs & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain knives and forks, imported per Etruria, June 14, 1892.

Opinion by HAM, General Appraiser.

The merchandise here consists of cards holding a knife, fork, and spoon, constituting a set, described thereon as "a memento of affection for my juvenile friend," assessed for duty at 10 cents per dozen and 30 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 167 of the new tariff act, but claimed to be dutiable as toys at 35 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 436 of said act.

The case was heard November 1, 1892, and submitted on samples, verified by the oath of one of the appellants. Each set consists of a bone handled table knife of metal, 7 inches long, a metal bone-handled fork to correspond, and a metal spoon of the ordinary size of a teaspoon. The invoice price of the two sets represented by samples is 128. 9d. per gross. In testifying in regard to the value of the merchandise, appellants swore that the sets covered by the importation, but not represented by samples, were of the same size, but of "a little better quality." An inspection of the invoice and a cross examination of the witness showed that they cost from 29s. to 758. per gross, or from three to six times more than the sets represented by samples.

We find as facts:

(1) That the importation was made under the new tariff act; and (2) That it consists of sets of table knives and forks suitable for use by adults as well as children.

This case is analogous to that considered in G. A. 1053, where a protest claiming on similar grounds to the claim of the protest here was overruled on the familiar principle that a specific enumeration controls as against general terms.

Following the rule of the case cited, the protest is overruled and the decision of the collector is affirmed.

(13657-G. A. 1895.)

Toys-Small bull's-eye lanterns not.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, December 13, 1892. In the matter of the protest, 31657 a, and 346011⁄2 a, of R. F. Downing & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain lanterns and jew's-harps, imported per Buffalo, May 21, 1892, and America, January 13, 1892.

Opinion by HAM, General Appraiser.

The merchandise in these cases consists

(1) Of metal (iron) jew's-harps, and metal and glass lanterns, assessed for duty at 45 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 215 of the new tariff act, but claimed to be dutiable as toys at 35 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 436 of said act.

There was a hearing and a submission of the cases, a sample of the lanterns, duly verified, being presented.

On the record and sample we find as facts—

(1) That the merchandise (consisting of jew's-harps and lanterns) was imported under the new tariff act.

(2) That said jew's-harps are manufactures of metal, like those covered by the decision in G. A. 460.

(3) That said lanterns are small bull's-eye lanterns, composed of glass and metal, and that metal is the component material of chief value therein.

(4) That they are similar to those covered by Treasury Department decision, Synopsis 8345.

In his special report the local appraiser refers to Treasury Department decision, Synopsis 8345, wherein it was held that lanterns of like description to those under consideration were not entitled to entry as toys under the tariff act of March 3, 1883, which was substantially like the act of October 1, 1890, in its provision relating thereto.

In that case the local appraiser reported that he "tested the merits of the lanterns and found that they threw out a powerful light to the distance of 30 or 40 feet; that by their aid the marks on boxes were read in the cellar of his stores distinctly at the distance of 30 feet; that the colored slides may be, and doubtless are, used for danger and other signals, and that the lanterns are used by riders on bicycles and by housekeepers in cellars, etc., and perhaps for other purposes less innocent and useful.”

We hold that the action of the collector was justified both by the law and the facts. The protests are overruled, and the decision of the collector in each case is affirmed.

(13658—G. A. 1896.)

Coquill glasses.

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

In the matter of the protest, 27794 a-9571, of Albert Berger & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain colored cylinder spectacles or eyeglasses, imported per Waesland, February 19, 1892.

Opinion by SHARRETTS, General Appraiser.

The testimony taken in this case tends to show that the articles in question are not lenses, but are pieces of unpolished cylinder glass, elliptical in form, made uniform in size by nipping off the edges thereof with pincers; that they are known as coquill glasses, and are chiefly used in the manufacture of eyeglasses and spectacles which are intended to protect the eyes from the glare of light.

Duty was assessed upon these goods at 45 per cent ad valorem as lenses, under paragraph 122, N. T. The appellants claim that the articles are dutiable at 13 cents per pound, under paragraph 112, as unpolished cylinder glass less than 10 by 15 inches square.

We find as facts on the face of the papers from the testimony and from the exhibits in the case

(1) That the articles are pieces of convex, concave, unpolished cylinder glass, colored or obscured, and designed for and chiefly used in the manufacture of eyeglasses and spectacles.

(2) These pieces of glass are elliptical in form, about 1 by 11 inches in dimension, and are packed in boxes that do not contain 50 square feet, as near as sizes will permit.

We shall confine ourselves to a consideration of the issue raised by the appellants in their protest. We hold that the glasses in question

are not the kind of cylinder glass provided for in paragraph 112, N. T., which paragraph provides that the cylinder glass specified therein is such as shall be packed in boxes containing, as near as sizes will permit, 50 square feet of glass. Nor is the merchandise dutiable at the rate claimed by the appellants, namely, 13 cents per pound.

If the coquill glasses in question are not properly dutiable as lenses or as manufactures of glass, but should be held to be cylinder glass, they are unpolished cylinder glass, colored or obscured, and are provided for under paragraph 118, N. T., as a particular kind of cylinder glass other than that named in paragraph 112, N. T.

Without deciding the foregoing qustion as to the proper classification of the merchandise, we simply overrule the protest, and the collector's decision stands.

(13659-G. A. 1897.)

Granite paving stones.

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

In the matter of the protest, 26489 a-12229, of Wehncke & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amonnt of duties chargeable on certain paving stones, imported per Competition, January 21, 1892,

Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser.

The merchandise is invoiced as "paving stones," and was returned by the local appraiser as "dressed granite.".

The collector assessed the goods for duty at 40 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 128 of the new tariff act, which reads as follows:

Freestone, granite, sandstone and other building or monumental stone, except marble, not specially provided for in this act, hewn, dressed or polished, forty per centum ad valorem.

The importers insist by protest, and in argument at the hearing before the board, that the articles under consideration are paving stones and are used only for paving purposes, and that they are not used for building or monumental stone and should not be classified under paragraph 128, although they are "granite" and "dressed.” They insist that the merchandise is dutiable under section 4 as a nonenumerated manufactured article at 20 per cent ad valorem.

We find as a fact that the merchandise is granite dressed, in such shapes and sizes as to be suitable for paving stones.

We hold that it is specially enumerated or provided for in paragraph 128, under which it was classified and assessed.

We think it immaterial that these stones can not be used for building or monumental purposes in their present forms and sizes, but only as paving stones, as testified by the importers. "Granite" is provided for by specific name, and when "dressed" is specifically provided for and assessed at 40 per cent of duty, and when "unmanufactured or undressed" at 11 cents per cubic foot. The phrase "other building or monumental stone, except marble," which occurs in paragraph 128, qualifies only other kinds of stone than those previously enumerated eo nomine.

Section 4 applies only to articles "not enumerated or provided for in the (present tariff) act," and hence has no application to the merchandise under consideration.

The protest is overruled and the collector's decision affirmed..

(13660-G. A. 1898.)

Stone ballast.

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

In the matter of the protest, 26449a-3947, of A. Lauro, against the decision of the collector of cus toms at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain stone ballast, imported per Guiseppi, September 8, 1891.

Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser.

We find that the merchandise consists of 200 tons of stone, which was used as ballast by the importing vessel named in the entry. This ballast was discharged by the vessel on arrival at the port of New York. We further find that the value of the merchandise was invoiced and entered at the sum of $100, which was the cost of the labor incurred in putting the ballast on board the vessel; and the local appraiser reported that the entered value was the real market value of the goods.

The importer claims that the stone ballast in question is free of duty, under various rulings of the Treasury Department, on the ground that it had no commercial value. (Heyl's U. S. Import Duties, 1891, title "Ballast.")

The collector assessed the merchandise at 10 per cent ad valorem as a nonenumerated unmanufactured article, "ballast" as such being nowhere enumerated in the present tariff act.

The finding of the local appraiser as to the market value of all imported merchandise is made final by section 13 of the customs administrative act, unless a reappraisement be demanded in the mode and time there presented. No such demand having been made, the ascer