COURT AND TREASURY DECISIONS. "Artificial" for tariff purposes is substantial simulation of the natural. (United States v. Dieckerhoff, Raffloer & Co., 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 384, of 1913.) An exact imitation is not essential. Thus dyed straw millinery ornaments, crudely resembling "fruits, grains, leaves, flowers, and stems, or parts thereof," were held to come within paragraph 347; but articles composed of strips of colored straw and not resembling any of the things named in paragraph 347 were held dutiable as unenumerated manufactured articles under paragraph 385. (Johnson v. United States, 10 Ct. Cust. Appls., T. D. 38333, of 1920.) It is not necessary that the articles should truly represent fruits, grains, leaves, flowers, or stems. It is sufficient if they simulate natural fruits, leaves, flowers, and stems in physical characteristics and appearance closely enough to cause them in common understanding to be regarded as leaves, stems, flowers, or fruits produced not by nature but by the hand of man, and at the same time are appropriate and suitable to be used for those purposes of ornamentation to which the natural products may be temporarily devoted. Millinery ornaments consisting of clusters of black straw wound into the form of berries or grapes and set on black straw leaves attached to stems made of black straw and metal; and millinery ornaments consisting of sprays of black straw leaves and black straw roses sewed with black threads to a stiff fabric foundation were held properly classified as "artificial and ornamental fruits, grains, leaves, flowers, and stems"; but millinery ornaments in chief value of straw and not in imitation of fruits, grains, leaves, flowers, and stems were held dutiable as manufactures in chief value of straw in "its natural state" under paragraph 368, or if in chief value of dyed straw, as manufactures not provided for under paragraph 385. Dyed straw was furthermore held not in its "natural state" within paragraph 368, and millinery ornaments so crudely and grotesquely fashioned as to be scarcely deserving of the description ornamental and not resembling fruits, grains, leaves, flowers, and stems were held not classable under paragraph 347. (Cochran Co. v. United States, 10 Ct. Cust. Appls., T. D. 38336, of 1920.) Ivory brooches, pendants, and scarfpins carved in imitation of various flowers were held dutiable as manufactures of ivory under paragraph 369, rather than as artificial and ornamental flowers under paragraph 347. (United States v. Darling, 10 Ct. Cust. Appls., T. D. 38334, of 1920, followed in Abstract 43739.) In another case articles of straw and chip in natural colors, too fragile and crude to be used as millinery ornaments but imported as raw material for making them, and not resembling fruits, grains, leaves, flowers, and stems, or parts thereof, were held excluded from paragraph 347, it being declared that not every bended straw or twisted shaving can amount to an artificial and ornamental flower or leaf within that paragraph. Split straw and chip material for the manufacture of millinery ornaments, too crude for classification under paragraph 347, fall within paragraph 368 as manufactures of chip and straw. (Isler v. United States, 10 Ct. Cust. Appls., T. D. 38339, of 1920; followed in Abstract 43745, of 1920, as to split straw in its natural condition and chip braided or twisted into shapes resembling in a crude way fruits, stems, or flowers.) Under the act of 1913 the articles must be both artificial and ornamental. (Bayersdorfer & Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 66, of 1916.) The words "artificial and ornamental" modifying the word "fruits,” etc., in this paragraph refer to the per se character and not to the intended use of the articles. This is shown by the fact that feathers in various physical conditions are dutiable at one rate and "artificial or ornamental feathers suitable for use as millinery ornaments" at another rate. (Morimura Bros. v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 111, of 1917.) Dried and dyed immortelles were held to come within paragraph 210 of the act of 1913, directly or by similitude, as preserved cut flowers and not as artificial and ornamental flowers under paragraph 347. (Bayersdorfer v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 66, of 1916; Rice v. United States, 10 Ct. Cust. Appls., T. D. 38403, of 1920.) Wreaths of dried and dyed immortelles with straw frames, the frames being of minor value, were held by virtue of the mixed material clause in paragraph 386 of the act of 1913 dutiable at the same rate as preserved cut flowers. (Bayersdorfer v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 66.) The following articles have been held to come within paragraph 347 of the act of 1913: Artificial and ornamental pears and apples, chiefly used as pincushions. (Morimura v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 111, of 1917.) Goose skins dressed with down on them not suitable for millinery ornaments, as "downs on the skin * * * dressed." (United States v. Herskovits, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 203, of 1917.) Leaves and flowers for millinery ornaments made of straw which has been dyed, but the fibers of which have not been separated. (United States v. Gage, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 306; United States v. International Forwarding Co., id., 378; United States v. RosenthalSloan, id., 380, of 1918.) Carved ivory flowers. (Abstract 41375, of 1917.) Artificial flowers made of beads. (United States v. American Bead Co., 9 Ct. Cust. Appls., - T. D. 38044, of 1919.) Dried skins of chicks and ducklings with the heads and feet attached, stuffed with cotton, fitted with bead eyes, and wired so as to give them a natural appearance and having a wire attachment apparently for the purpose of fastening them to other objects as decorations as 'downs on the skin * * * dressed." (Morimura v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 378, of 1917.) Skins of ducklings or chicks, which skins have been dried and stuffed with cotton medicated with some preservative, same classification. (Morimura v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 183, of 1915.) Straw hats trimmed with silk, artificial flowers, and ornamental feathers, flowers and feathers predominating. (Aitken, Son & Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 232, of 1915.) Colored feathers fastened upon white cards in the shape of birds, used to decorate walls in the same manner as pictures, are articlos of feathers and not feathers within this paragraph. (United States v. Beach, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 365, of 1918.) Mounted birds, not suitable for use as millinery ornaments, are dutiable at 40 per cent under this paragraph. (T. D. 36184, of 1916.) Down-filled silk quilts, silk the component material of chief value, are dutiable as manufactures of silk under paragraph 318, and not as quilts of down under this paragraph. (United States v. Altman & Co., 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 148, of 1917.) Flues of feathers, obtained by stripping one side of the goose quill, were held dutiable at 20 per cent rather than at 40 per cent under this paragraph. (United States v. Massce & Co., 9 Ct. Cust. Appls., T. D. 38214, of 1919.) Regulations governing the importation of plumage are contained in articles 537 and 538 of the Customs Regulations of 1915, and T. D. 33781, 33799, 33810, 33944, of 1913; 34057, 34518, 34748, 34886, 34913, of 1914; 35307, of 1915; 36322, 36382, of 1916; 37422, of 1917; and 37660, of 1918. While downs were enumerated in the first part of this paragraph, they are not mentioned in the prohibitory clause, and downs of wild birds are accordingly permitted entry. Beaks of wild birds, however, while not mentioned, are nevertheless excluded, as being within the term "heads." Local concentration—Artificial flowers, feathers, and plumes-Value of products. Average number of wage earners in establishments where prevailing hours per week were as follows: |