advanced in value or condition," and not as a nonenumerated manufactured article. In re Kraft (C. C. N. Y. 1893) 53 F. 1017. 11. Nutgall extract.-Extract of nutgalls held dutiable as drugs, etc. U. S. v. W. N. Proctor & Co. (C. C. A. Mass. 1906) 145 F. 126, affirming W. N. Proctor & Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1905) 139 F. 586. 12. Oil of cypress.-Oil of cypress, oil of cloves, oil of cardamom, and oil of peńnyroyal held not dutiable as drugs. See paragraph 59. 13. Olive pits ground. Cround olive nuts held improperly classified for duty as drugs, such as nuts not edible, advanced in value by grinding. While there had been a conflict in the authorities under the previous tariff acts whether these were nuts not edible, and dutiable under similar paragraphs, the insertion of the words in this paragraph, "which are drugs," removes doubt as to the construction of the statute. Kessler v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1900) 107 F. 264. Olive pits ground were held not dutiable under Act 1890 as an unenumerated manufactured article, but as nuts, seeds, etc., not edible, but advanced in value or condition by refining, grinding, etc. Haulenbeck v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1897) 84 F. 148. 14. Orchil and Persian berry extracts.Orchil and Persian berry extracts held not dutiable as drugs. See paragraph 39. 15. Papaw melon juice powder.-Powder from the juice of the papaw melon, held not dutiable, under Act 1897, as a manufactured article not otherwise provided for, nor entitled to free entry as a crude drug, but dutiable as a drug not edible, advanced in value or condition by grinding. U. S. v. American Ferment Co. (C. C. N. Y. 1901) 108 F. 802. 16. Powdered opium.-Powdered opium held a "drug advanced in value or condition," within Act 1897, rather than opium crude or unmanufactured. Merck v. U. S. (N. Y. 1906) 151 F. 14, 80 C. C. A. 510 (reversing decision Merck & Co. v. U. S. [C. C. 1906] 143 F. 694); U. S. v. McKesson, Robbins & Co. (C. C. N. Y. 1909) 172 F. 168. 17. Pyrethrum.-A powder made from camomile or pyrethrum flowers by drying and grinding them, imported for the purpose of being made the active ingredient in Persian insect powder, was classified as a drug under paragraph 27, Act 1913, and not as a nonenumerated manufactured article under paragraph 385. U. S. v. Nagase (1921) 11 Ct. Cust. App. 144. But see paragraph 35. 18. Sago flour.-Sago flour held not dutiable as a drug. See paragraph 1654. 19. Scammony resin.-Scammony resin, prepared from gum scammony, or scammony root, and used principally in compounding medicines, held dutiable as a drug advanced in value or condition, under Act 1897, rather than as a medicinal preparation. U. S. v. Martin (C. C. Mass. 1907) 155 F. 264. 20. Sirup of rhamnus.-Sirup of rhamnus, extract of gentian, and extract of taraxacum held not dutiable as drugs. See paragraph 34. 21. Spruce gum.-See, also, notes under paragraph 1459. There being no evidence in the record that spruce gum is a drug, it could not be classified under either paragraph 27 or 477, Act 1913 (paragraphs 34 and 1567 of this section). U. S. v. Eastern Drug Co. (1916) 7 Ct. Cust. App. 210. sweepings 22. Tea sweepings.-Tea mixed with lime and asafetida held not dutiable as a drug. See paragraph 15. 23. Wai san.-Wai san held not dutiable as a drug. See paragraph 772. 24. Young fustic dyewood.-Young fustic dyewood, cut or shredded into pieces, suitable to be packed in burlaps for shipment, has been thereby advanced in condition. The statutory provision of the act of 1897 relating to an advance in condition was unqualified and the importation of corresponding date was dutiable under paragraph 20 of that act. Perry, Ryer & Co. v. U. S. (1911) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 374. But paragraph 559, Act 1909, expressly provided for the free entry of such an importation, if not advanced in value or condition by any process or treatment whatever beyond that essential to the proper packing of it. The importation of corresponding date was free of duty under Act 1909. Id. Cited without specific application.-U. S. v. Coroneos Bros. (1919) 9 Ct. Cust. App. 220; Ishimitu v. U. S. (1921) 11 Ct. Cust. App. 186. Par. 35. Aconite, aloes, asafetida, cocculus indicus, ipecac, jalap, manna; marshmallow or althea root, leaves and flowers; maté, and pyrethrum or insect flowers; all the foregoing which are natural and uncompounded, but which are advanced in value or condition by shredding, grinding, chipping, crushing, or any other process or treatment whatever beyond that essential to proper packing and the prevention of decay or deterioration pending manufacture, 10 per centum ad valorem: Provided, That no article containing alcohol shall be classified for duty under this paragraph. Par. 36. Buchu leaves, 10 cents per pound; coca leaves, 10 cents per pound; gentian, one-fourth of 1 cent per pound; licorice root, one-half of 1 cent per pound; sarsaparilla root, 1 cent per pound; belladonna, digitalis, henbane, and stramonium, 25 per centum ad valorem. Notes of Decisions Cited without specific application.-U. S. v. Andrews & Co. (1924) 12 Ct. Cust. App. 258. Par. 37. Ergot, 10 cents per pound. Par. 38. Ethers and esters: Diethyl sulphate and dimethyl sulphate, 25 per centum ad valorem; ethyl acetate, 3 cents per pound; ethyl chloride, 15 cents per pound; ethyl ether, 4 cents per pound; and ethers and esters of all kinds not specially provided for, 25 per centum ad valorem: Provided, That no article containing more than 10 per centum of alcohol shall be classified for duty under this paragraph. Notes of Decisions 1. Esters. The provision of paragraph 29, Tariff Act 1913, for "esters of all kinds," was held more specific than that of paragraph 5 for "chemical * compounds." U. S. v. Rhodia Chemical Co. (1922) 11 Ct. Cust. App. 388. Acetol, a fine white powder resulting from the chemical action of acetic anhydride on cellulose, is a chemical compound and belongs to that class of chemical compounds known as cellulose esters. is a "chemical * * compound" under It paragraph 5 of the Act of 1913, as held by the Board of General Appraisers, but was more specifically provided for by the provision of paragraph 29 for "esters of all kinds." Where, however, no claim was made under paragraph 29 by the protest, the decision of the Board was reversed. Id. Cited without specific application. Rhodia Chemical Co. v. U. S. (1923) 12 Ct. Cust. App. 9. Par. 39. Extracts, dyeing and tanning: Chestnut, cutch, chlorophyll, divi-divi, fustic, hemlock, logwood, mangrove, myrobalan, oak, Persian berry, quebracho, sumac, saffron, safflower, saffron cake, valonia, wattle, and other extracts, decoctions, and preparations of vegetable origin used for dyeing, coloring, staining, or tanning, not specially provided for, and combinations and mixtures of the foregoing articles in this paragraph, 15 per centum ad valorem: Provided, That no article containing alcohol shall be classified for duty under this paragraph. 1. Logwood Notes of extract.-Extract of logwood, mordanted with a salt of chromium, for printing colors on cotton fabrics, should be assessed under this paragraph and not under par. 5. This case construed pars. 26 and 76 of the Act of 1890. Keller v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1896) 90 F. 274. 2. Mangrove bark extract.-Under the Act of 1897, the extract of the bark of the mangrove used, for tanning was classified under par. 542 of the free list as "cutch." U. S. v. Marden (C. C. Mass. 1909) 175 F. 153. 3. Nutgall extract.-See paragraph 1. Decisions 4. Orchil and Persian berry extracts.Orchil and Persian berry extracts held not dutiable as "drugs," but as unenumerated manufactured articles under section 6 of Act of 1897. G. Siegle & Co. v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1908) 166 F. 1015. Persian berry extract, which is used in staining food products, and also as a dyestuff for coloring fabrics, was not dutiable under that Act as a color, not belonging to the "paints, colors, pigments," etc., therein enumerated, nor, by similitude, under paragraph 20 or 22, relating respectively to berries advanced in value and to extracts of barks, etc., used for dyeing but as an unenumerated man Par. 40. Flavoring extracts and natural or synthetic fruit flavors, fruit esters, oils, and essences, all the foregoing not containing alcohol, and not specially provided for, 25 per centum ad valorem. Par. 41. Formaldehyde solution or formalin, 2 cents per pound; solid formaldehyde or paraformaldehyde, 8 cents per pound; and hexamethylenetetramine, 25 per centum ad valorem. Par. 42. Edible gelatin, valued at less than 40 cents per pound, 20 per centum ad valorem and 31⁄2 cents per pound; valued at 40 cents or more per pound, 20 per centum ad valorem and 7 cents per pound; gelatin, glue, glue size and fish glue, not specially provided for, valued at less than 40 cents per pound, 20 per centum ad valorem and 12 cents per pound; valued at 40 cents or more per pound, 20 per centum ad valorem and 7 cents per pound; casein glue, agar agar, isinglass and other fish sounds, cleaned, split, or otherwise prepared, and manufactures, wholly or in chief value of gelatin, glue or glue size, 25 per centum ad valorem. Notes of Decisions 1. Bone size.-Bone size held not dutiable as glue. See paragraph 1459. 2. Cellophane.-Hat materials made by winding cellophane bands around long strips of cloth or paper were dutiable by similitude with either manufactures of gelatin under paragraph 34, Tariff Act 1913, or manufacturers of straw under paragraph 368. Rolland Freres, Inc., v. U. S. (1922) 11 Ct. Cust. App. 321. The same rule applied to millinery material made of cellophane strips held together by cotton or artificial silk threads. Id. Sheets, bands, and ribbons of visca or cellophane, whether crimped or not, were dutiable by similitude with gelatin manufactures under paragraph 34, of that Act rather than with artificial silk under paragraph 319. Id. Cellophane in sheets was dutiable by similitude as manufactures of gelatin under paragraph 34 of that Act. U. S. v. Henle Wax Paper Mfg. Co. (1923) 11 Ct. Cust. App. 487; U. S. v. Cohen (1923) 11 Ct. Cust. App. 488. 3. Compound of gelatin and acetic acid. -A physical (not a chemical) solution of gelatin with acetic acid, water, and coloring matter, the gelatin being the component material of chief value and still possessing its natural inherent qualities, known as "Red Top roller varnish" or "roller varnish," used to dress the surfaces of leather rollers in woolen mills to keep the wool from sticking to them, was not a varnish under paragraph 58, of the Act of 1913, or a nonenumerated manufacture under paragraph 385, but a manufacture of gelatin under this paragraph. U. S. v. Vandegrift & Co. (1918) 9 Ct. Cust. App. 30. a 4. Finings.-So-called "finings," an article consisting of gelatin containing considerable proportion of sulphurous acid or sulphite as a preservative, held, under Act 1897, dutiable as "gelatin," and not as a manufacture of gelatin, or as an unenumerated manufactured article. Sonoma Wine & Brandy Co. v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1900) 123 F. 999. 5. Fish sounds.-Fish sounds which had been cleaned and dried, after having been split to facilitate the cleaning and drying, imported to make soup, were not dutiable under paragraph 34, Act of 1913, as "prepared fish sounds," but admissible free of duty under paragraph 419, as "fish sounds, crude, dried, or salted for preservation only and unmanufactured." U. S. v. Brown & Co. (1920) 10 Ct. Cust. App. 47. 6. Gelatin spangles.-Gelatin spangles held not dutiable under the Act of 1897 as manufactures of gelatin. G. Hirsch's Sons v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1905) 141 F. 380 affirmed Hirsch v. U. S. (1906) 145 F. 1022, 74 C. C. A. 681. 7. Processes of manufacture.-Cleaning and drying, and splitting for the purpose of cleaning or drying, are not processes of manufacture, and do not ordinarily carry merchandise into the category of "prepared," as that term is used in tariff nomenclature generally and in this paragraph, particularly. U. S. v. Brown & Co. (1920) 10 Ct. Cust. App. 47. 8. Sheets of gelatin.-What constituted sheet of gelatin under paragraph 23, Act 1909, see American Express Co. v. U. S. (1913) 3 Ct. Cust. App. 475. Cited without specific application.Borgfeldt & Co. v. U. S. (1921) 11 Ct. Cust. App. 105. Par. 43. Glycerine, crude, 1 cent per pound; refined, 2 cents per pound. Par. 44. Ink, and ink powders not specially provided for, 20 per centum ad valorem. Par. 45. Iodine, resublimed, 20 cents per pound. Par. 46. Bromine and all bromine compounds not specially provided for, 10 cents per pound. Par. 47. Lead: Acetate, white, 2 cents per pound; acetate, brown, gray, or yellow, 2 cents per pound; nitrate, arsenate, and resinate, 3 cents per pound; and all other lead compounds not specially provided for, 30 per centum ad valorem. Notes of Decisions Cited without specific application.-Comstock & Theakston v. U. S. (1925) 12 Ct. Cust. App. 502. Par. 48. Licorice, extracts of, in pastes, rolls, or other forms, 25 per centum ad valorem. Notes of Decisions 1. Victoria cachous.-See note under par. 62. Par. 49. Lime, citrate of, 7 cents per pound. Par. 50. Magnesium: Carbonate, precipitated, 11⁄2 cents per pound; chloride, anhydrous, 1 cent per pound; chloride, not specially provided for, five-eighths of 1 cent per pound; sulphate or Epsom salts, one-half of 1 cent per pound; oxide or calcined magnesia, medicinal, 31⁄2 cents per pound; oxide or calcined magnesia not suitable for medicinal use, 32 cents per pound. Notes of Decisions 1. Epsom salts.-Sulphate of magnesia, or Epsom salts, which, by the act of 1894, were placed both upon the dutiable and the free list, held to be admitted free, as the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the importer. U. S. v. Merck (C. C. N. Y. 1899) 91 F. 639, affirmed (C. C. A. 1899) 97 F. 989. 2. Calcined magnesia.-"Henry's calcined magnesia" was held under the tariff schedule in the Revised Statutes, to be dutiable as a medicinal preparation and not as "magnesia, calcined." Ferguson v. Arthur (N. Y. 1886) 117 U. S. 482, 6 S. Ct. 861, 29 L. Ed. 979. Par. 51. Manganese: Borate, resinate, sulphate, and other manganese compounds and salts, not specially provided for, 25 per centum ad valorem. Par. 52. Menthol, 50 cents per pound; camphor, crude, natural, 1 cent per pound; camphor, refined or synthetic, 6 cents per pound. Notes of Decisions 1. Liquid camphor refuse.-Liquid camphor refuse held not dutiable as camphor crude. See paragraph 59. 2. Synthetic camphor.-Synthetic camphor held, under Act 1897, if it still retains impurities that bring it far below the standard of refined camphor, and closely resembles the crude natural product, dutiable as "camphor, crude," rather than as "camphor, refined." U. S. V. Schering & Glatz (N. Y. 1908) 163 F. 246, 90 C. C. A. 192. Par. 53. Oils, animal: Sod, herring, and menhaden, 5 cents per gallon; whale and seal, 6 cents per gallon; sperm, 10 cents per gallon; and all fish oils, not specially provided for, 20 per centum ad valorem; wool grease, crude, including that known commercially as degras or brown wool grease, one-half of 1 cent per pound; wool grease, not crude, including adeps lanæ, hydrous and anhydrous, 1 cent per pound; all other animal oils, fats, and greases, not specially provided for, 20 per centum ad valorem. Notes of Decisions at ordinary 1. In general.-Fluidity room temperatures is not necessary to the meaning of the word "oils," in this paragraph. U. S. v. Rockhill & Vietor (1920) 10 Ct. Cust. App. 114. The expressions "Oils, rendered," in paragraph 44, Act of 1913, and "Oils, distilled and essential," in paragraph 46, did not exclude all distilled and essential oils from paragraph 44 and all rendered oils from paragraph 46. Stone & Downer Co. v. U. S. (1918) 8 Ct. Cust. App. 368. Heavy oils, derived from a wool-grease base by distillation, invoiced as "oleine," "dressing oil," "soluble oleine," and "leather dressing oil," were dutiable, not under paragraph 46, Act of 1913, as distilled oils, but under paragraph 44 as animal oils not specially provided for. Id. The presumption of correctness attaching to the collector's classification of merchandise as distilled oil under paragraph 46 of the Act of 1913, aided by the testimony of a competent witness, held not overcome by the testimony to the contrary of a witness who admitted that his testimony was based on what people told him. The claim for classification under paragraph 498, or paragraph 44, was denied. U. S. v. Vandefrift & Co. (1918) 9 Ct. Cust. App. 25. 2. Brown grease.-The fatty matter known as "de gras," or brown grease, held, under Act 1883, not dutiable as an "expressed" or "rendered" oil. Miller v. Seeberger (C. C. Ill. 1890) 44 F. 261. 3. Fish oil. The term "fish oil" in Act 1897, was held to cover all oil made from any fish or any part thereof, including oil made from the livers of cod and other fish of the cod species. Swan & Finch Co. v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1901) 109 F. 949, affirmed (1902) 113 F. 243, 51 C. C. A. 200. Fish oil hardened by chemically increasing its hydrogen content, was classifiable under the Act of 1913, as fish oil, and not under paragraph 5 as a chemical compound, or under paragraph 498 as miscellaneous, not chemically compounded grease, commonly used in soap making or in wire drawing or for stuffing or dressing leather. U. S. v. Rockhill & Vietor (1920) 10 Ct. Cust. App. 112. "Cod oil," made from putrid fish livers, and used principally for dressing leather, but fit for some other purposes though not technically known in the trade as a "fish oil," held, under Act 1897, dutiable as fish oil. Swan & Finch Co. v. U. S. (N. Y. 1902) 113 F. 243, 51 C. C. A. 200 (affirming [C. C. 1901] 109 F. 949); Wells v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1899) 99 F. 258. 4. Grease not specially provided for.Under the Act of 1909, see U. S. v. Klipstein (1913) 5 U. S. Cust. App. 28. 5. Japanese fish oil.-Japanese fish oil held not dutiable as whale and other fish oil. See paragraph 56. 6. Lanolin.-"Lanolin" was held, under Act 1890, dutiable as a "medicinal proprienot tary preparation," and "wool grease." Movius v. U. S. (C. C. N. Y. 1895) 66 F. 734. as In a later case, it was said, however, that adeps lanæ, or lanolin, was used as a basis for ointments and as a carrier for soluble medicinal salts, and that the evidence showed that without the addition of medicinal agents it had no therapeutic value. It was therefore held dutiable under paragraph 290, Act 1909 as wool grease refined or improved in value or condition. Koechl & Co. v. U. S. (1912) 3 Ct. Cust. App. 316. Scientific authorities, dictionaries, and encyclopedias do not class adeps lanæ anhydrous as lanolin. Presumptively commercial usage is the same, and, in the absence of any showing of commercial usage to the contrary, the board's classification of it as "wool grease * refined or improved in value or condition," and not as "lanolin," was affirmed. U. S. v. Merck (1917) 8 Ct. Cust. App. 171. It appearing from the record that the |