other materials of which cotton is the component of chief value, and trimmed with a scalloped edging about three-fourths of an inch in width, composed of cotton or of cotton ornamented with silk by means of a shuttle or other device in the process of weaving the edging.

(2) That the merchandise is of the same general character as that which was the subject of G. A. 1284, not being embroidered by hand or machinery, with the use of a needle, and is wearing apparel.

The protestants appealed from the board's decision, G. A. 1284, and the U. S. circuit court for the southern district of New York, in a decision rendered April 27, 1894, reversed the board's decision, and held that corsets so trimmed were not embroidered by hand or machinery, and the Treasury Department, under the advice of the AttorneyGeneral, has acquiesced in the court's decision.

In this view we sustain the claim in the protest that the merchandise in question is dutiable at 50 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 349, N. T., and reverse the collector's action in the assessment of duty thereon at 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 373, N. T. The board's views, as expressed in G. A. 1284, are modified accordingly. (See G. A. 2066.)

(15118-G. A. 2644.)

Medicinal proprietary preparations containing alcohol.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, June 16, 1894.

In the matter of the protests, 60050-a, etc., of Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York, as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain "Ferro Mangan Pepton, liquid," "Balsamic Elixir," "Vin Urani Pesqui," etc., imported per vessels and on the dates specified in the annexed schedule.

Opinion by WILKINSON, General Appraiser.

The goods are "Ferro Mangan Pepton, liquid," "Balsamic Elixir,' "Vin Urani Pesqui," and "Elixir Valerianate Piertot." They were assessed for duty at 25 per cent under paragraph 76, N. T., and claimed to be dutiable at 50 cents per pound under paragraph 74, N. T. We find that the articles are medicinal proprietary preparations containing alcohol, and sustain the protests.

(15119-G. A. 2645.)

"Direct black," not a dyewood extract.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, June 18, 1894. In the matter of the protest, 42383 a-228, of Sykes & Street, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain chemical compound, imported per Bretagne, November 10, 1892.

Opinion by LUNT, General Appraiser.

(1) The merchandise covered by this protest, invoiced as direct black, was imported by Messrs. Sykes & Street into the port of New York,

November 10, 1892, and duty at 25 per cent ad valorem was assessed thereon under paragraph 76, N. T., as a chemical compound. The importers claim the same to be dutiable at seven-eighths of 1 cent per pound under paragraph 26, N. T., as a liquid extract of dyewood.

(2) Said merchandise is not a simple extract or decoction of a dyewood, but is a constructed dye and is a chemical compound, or contains in combination such a compound.

The protest is overruled.

(15120-G. A. 2646.)

Artists' color in tubes, ochers, umbers, etc.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, June 21, 1894.

In the matter of the protests, 10851 a, etc., of Aquilla Rich et al., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain artists' colors, imported per the vessels and on the dates named in annexed schedule.

We find

Opinion by WILKINSON, General Appraiser.

(1) The goods are oxide of cobalt, blues, satin-white chromes, ochers, umbers, vermilion reds, white leads, verdigris, and other colors in oil and in small tubes.

(2) The said articles are in fact, and are commercially known as, artists' colors in tubes.

They were assessed for duty at 25 per cent under paragraph 61 as artists' colors in tubes, and are claimed to be provided for by name and to be variously dutiable or exempt from duty by special enumeration under the act of October 1, 1890.

In G. A. 364, in affirming the assessment of duty at 25 per cent, the board said:

It would seem proper, therefore, to construe the various paragraphs as providing for the articles named, except when put up as "artists"" colors, in tubes or otherwise.

The issue was carried to the U. S. circuit court of appeals for the second circuit and recently decided, In re Rich, the decision affirming the ruling of the board in G. A. 364. The court said in part:

It is contended for the appellant that the enumeration of the earlier paragraphs is the more specific, and that of paragraph 61 the more general, consequently that the latter can only apply to such colors as are not mentioned in the earlier paragraphs. The rule undoubtedly is that where a tariff act imposes a duty on an article by a specific name or description, general terms in the act, though embracing it broadly, are not applicable to it and the general must give way to the particular. We think the rule has no application to the present case. The case is not one where an article is differently described by different provisions of the act, but is one where the different provisions describe different articles for duty. * * * The colors which have undergone the special preparation necessary to bring them within the category commercially known as "artists' colors" are made dutiable by paragraph 61.

The colors mentioned in the earlier paragraphs, which have not

been advanced so as to bring them within that category, are dutiable under their respective paragraphs.

In accordance with the decisions named, the protests are overruled, and the assessment of duty at 25 per cent under paragraph 61 is affirmed.

(15121-G. A. 2647.)

"Prune pure," not alizarine blue.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, June 22, 1894.

In the matter of the protest, 62635 a-150, of Messrs. Schulze-Berge & Koechl, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain prune coal-tar color or dye, imported per Waesland, October 5, 1893.

We find

Opinion by LUNT, General Appraiser.

(1) That Messrs. Schulze Berge & Koechl imported into the port of New York, October 5, 1893, certain merchandise invoiced as prune pure, upon which duty was assessed at 35 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 18, N. T., and which is claimed to be free under paragraph 478 as alizarine blue or dutiable at various other rates.

(2) That said prune is a coal-tar color or dye. It is produced by combining methyl with gallocyanine. For a full description of gallocyanine we refer to G. A. 1391.

(3) That said color or dye is not alizarine blue. ruled.

The protest is over

(15122-G. A. 2648.)

Wool grease-So-called lane not.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, June 22, 1894.

In the matter of the protest, 63956 a-19280, of M. Keffel, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain grease, imported per Lahn, December 11, 1893.

Opinion by LUNT, General Appraiser.

(1) The merchandise covered by this protest is known as lanæ, and was imported into the port of New York, December 11, 1893, by Mr. M. Keffel. Duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 76 as a rendered oil. The importer claims the same to be dutiable at one-half a cent per pound under paragraph 316, N. T., as wool grease.

(2) Said lanæ is not the substance commercially known as wool grease, nor is it degras. This is a preparation produced from wool grease. True wool grease contains certain fats and alkalies in combination; this substance is substantially free from alkalies, and is not the natural saponaceous matter obtained from wool commonly known as wool grease. The protest is overruled.

(15123-G. A. 2649.)

Phenylenediamine.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York,.June 22, 1894.

In the matter of the protests, 64133 a-1082 and 64379 a-1980, of Wm. J. Matheson & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain phenylenediamine, imported per Maasdam, November 27, 1893, and Edam, December 4, 1893.

Opinion by LUNT, General Appraiser.

We find that Messrs. Wm. J. Matheson & Co., Ltd., imported into the port of New York on November 27, 1893, and December 4, 1893, a quantity of phenylenediamine, upon which duty was assessed at 20 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 19, N. T., and which is claimed to be free under paragraph 473 N. T.

Phenylenediamine is a chemical compound and a coal-tar preparation, not a color or dye. It was passed upon by the board in G. A. 1841 and 1874.

It is not an acid used for the purposes mentioned in paragraph 473, as claimed. Paragraph 19 specially provides for coal-tar preparations. Some of them are acids, some have certain acid properties, and some are bases or salts.

In accordance with a uniform principle acted upon by the board, we hold that this substance is dutiable as assessed.

The protests are overruled.

(15124-G. A. 2650.)

Curriers' fat blacking.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, June 22, 1894.

In the matter of the protest, 64151 a-836, of C. B. Richard & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain blacking, imported per Moravia, January 10, 1894.

Opinion by LUNT, General Appraiser.

(1) We find that Messrs. C. B. Richard & Co. imported into the port of New York, January 10, 1894, a quantity of merchandise invoiced as "curriers' fat blacking," upon which duty was assessed at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 11, N. T., and which the importers claim is grease fit only for stuffing leather, and entitled to free entry under paragraph 599.

(2) While the base of this composition is grease, it is nevertheless compounded with certain coloring matter, and as imported is blacking, and is so commercially known.

The protest is overruled.

(15125-G. A. 2651.)

Salipyrene.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, June 22, 1894.

In the matter of the protest, 64331 a-1770, of Lehn & Fink, against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain salipyrene, imported per Rhaetia, December 21, 1893.

Opinion by LUNT, General Appraiser.

We find that Messrs. Lehn & Fink imported into the port of New York, on December 21, 1893, a quantity of so-called salipyrene, upon which duty was assessed at 25 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 76, N. T., as a chemical salt, and which the importers claim to be dutiable at 50 cents per pound under paragraph 74 as a medicinal preparation in the preparation of which alcohol is used.

This substance, known in trade as salipyrene, is technically known as salicylate of phenyldimethylpyrazolone. It is a coal-tar preparation, not a color or dye, also a chemical salt, and a proprietary medicinal preparation. Alcohol is used in its preparation, but free alcohol is not a component part thereof. This substance is in the form of crystallized hexagonal scales, and the process of its manufacture, as well as the product, is patented by U. S. letters patent No. 444004, dated January 6, 1891. It possesses antiseptic anodyne and preserving properties, has some of the outward characteristics of chloral hydrate, and is chemically akin to antipyrene. Its constitution is expressed by the formula C18H18 N2O4. Prior to the decision of the U. S. circuit court of appeals In re Battles (54 Fed. Rep., 141), recently followed by the U.S. circuit court at New York In re Merck, the board would have held this article to be dutiable under paragraph 74. In some respects the reasons for classifying chloral hydrate under paragraph 74 are more cogent, as chloral hydrate is manufactured directly from alcohol, while in the production of this article its use is more remote or superficial.

The general state of facts and the law which controlled the decisions of the courts in the cases cited are present in this case, and, following the principles of construction therein acted upon, this protest is overruled.

(15126-G. A. 2652.)

Resorcine.

Before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, June 22, 1894.

In the matter of the protest, 64378 a-1979, of William J. Matheson & Co., against the decision of the collector of customs at New York as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable on certain resorcine, imported per Spaarndam, January 31, 1894.

Opinion by LUNT, General Appraiser.

We find that Messrs. W. J. Matheson & Co. imported into the port of New York, January 31, 1894, per Spaarndam, a quantity of resorcine,