Buckles, card cases, chains, cigar cases, millinery, military ornaments, etc.-Imports for consumption-Revenue-Continued. Articles valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces, n. s. p. f.—Imports for consumption-- (calendar years). Gold, all other, manufactures of, or plated with—Imports for consumption—Revenue. Silver, all other, manufactured of, or plated with-Imports for consumption-Revenue. Act of Par. 1883 1890 459 1894 336 1897 434 1909 1913 Jewelry and related articles and parts thereof—Rates of duty. Tariff classification or description. Jewelry of all kinds.. 452 | Jewelry: All articles, not elsewhere specially provided for in this 356 Jewelry, commonly or commercially so known,valued above 20 Stampings, galleries, mesh and other materials of metal, whether Rates of duty, specific and ad valorem. 25 per cent ad valorem. 50 per cent ad valorem. 35 per cent ad valorem. 60 per cent ad valorem. Do. Do. 50 per cent ad valorem. COURT AND TREASURY DECISIONS. * * * Proof In which What constitutes jewelry for tariff purposes has long been a troublesome question. The act of 1883 (par. 459) read "jewelry of all kinds." This was held to be governed by trade meaning. of commercial designation was advantageous to the importer. 1890 (par. 452) the provision read "all articles shall be known commercially as 'jewelry."" The rate of duty was wice that of 1883, and it was to the advantage of importers to prove the articles were not commercially known as jewelry. In 1897 (par. 434) the word "commonly" was substituted for "commercially.' Ordinary meaning was thus made the criterion, but commercial testimony was nevertheless still admitted and considered. In 1909 (par. 449) both terms "commonly" and "commercially" were used, with the disjunctive "or." Either trade or common meaning was accordingly sufficient for classification of articles as jewelry. "Commonly or commercially" was retained in 1913. Commercial usage is always a question of fact, to be established by evidence. Caprice of fashion or advantages of trade may vary it. (United States v. International Forwarding Co., 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 25, of 1915; American Bead Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 18, of 1916.) Common meaning, on the other hand, is matter of law within judicial knowledge. Testimony, however, as well as dictionaries and other authorities may aid the court. (American Bead Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 18, of 1916.) Without attempting a comprehensive definition, the Court of Customs Appeals has declared jewelry in common conception to be composed of precious metals or imitations thereof, or of precious or semiprecious stones, pearls or imitations thereof, or cameos, coral or amber, including artificial, synthetic or reconstructed pearls, rubies, or other precious stones strung or set. (American Bead Co. v United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 18, of 1916.) Jewelry may be useful as well as ornamental; all articles of personal adornment are not jewelry. (United States v. International Forwarding Co.. 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 25; United States v. American Express Co., 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 97; United States v. Altman, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 131, of 1915; American Bead Co. ". United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls.. 18, of 1916; Bloomingdale Bros. et al. v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 314, of 1918.) Jude pendants suitable for necklaces, but completely finished, were held not dutiable as jewelry by reason of the fact that there was no metal work in their composition. (G. A. 8390. T. D. 38543 of 1920.) Ivory, wood, and tortoise-shell bracelets were also held not to be dutiable as jewelry. (Abstract 44022 of 1920.) "Designed" in "designed to be worn on apparel or carried on or about or attached to the person" refers to such articles as are specially fitted for being carried on or about the person and devoted to such use. (United States v. Faber, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 406, of 1917.) The controlling question, apart from value and material, is whether the articles are designed to be so worn, carried, or attached in the same manner as the enumerated articles and like articles when in their customary use. (Gallagher v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Apple 105 of 1915.) Congress did not intend to include in the jewelry provision any such articles not composed of metal unless commonly or commercially known as jewelry. (American Bead Co. v. United |