In that report the district attorney states as follows: In conclusion I have only to express the opinion that the government has nothing to gain by trying any more of these cases in this district upon the merits, although I am satisfied that the table-rice of India, as the rice in question was invoiced, was, in fact, designed to be covered by the term “cleaned rice,” as used in the tariff of 1864. The case of Bailey against Goodrich, involving the same question, has been tried at Boston, and with the same result as that attained at New York, viz, a verdict in favor of the importer. The district attorney at Boston took some exceptions during the trial, with the view of carrying the case to the Supreme Court, but they did not relate to the real merits of the case, and were upon other questions. It may be also stated that the case of Low against Shannon, which involved the same question, was tried at San Francisco, and a verdict in that case was also obtained in favor of the importer. In view of these facts, the bill of exceptions in the case of Bailey against Goodrich was referred to the Attorney-General for an opinion as to whether, upon the points presented, the interests of the government demanded a review of the case by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Attorney-General's opinion has since been received, dated the 23d ultimo, in which he states that, inasmuch as the verdicts in this class of cases have heretofore been adverse to the government, and, as it is believed by the United States attorneys at Boston and New York, always will be so, upon the issue of fact presented, he does not deem the legal questions raised by the exceptions in the case of Bailey against Goodrich to be of such a nature or importance as to justify taking the case to the Supreme Court with small prospect of a favorable verdict upon a second trial; and he recommends an acquiescence in the judgment of the circuit court in that case. In accordance with this recommendation, the department addressed a letter to the collector of customs at Boston, under date of the 26th ultimo, advising him that the department had decided to acquiesce in the judgment in that case, and authorized him to prepare and forward the necessary papers for payment of the same. In view of these facts, you are hereby authorized to forward the necessary certified statement for payment of the judgment in the case of Fowler against Arthur. Circular instructions will shortly be issued defining the practice which shall obtain in regard to the assessment of duty on rice imported into the United States. You will please return the inclosure when you shall have availed yourself of its contents. Respectfully, CHAS. F. CONANT, Acting Secretary. (One inclosure.) COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., March 8, 1877. SIR By the decision of the department, dated June 14, 1865, addressed to the collector of customs at San Francisco, published in the printed decisions of that year, it was held that Patna rice, of which the hall and inner cuticle or skin had been removed, was subject to classifi cation as cleaned rice, and was liable to the rate of duty appertaining to that description of merchandise. This ruling was affirmed by the further decision of October 15, 1866; also printed in the decisions for that year. The decision of December 3, 1874, (2026,) held that Siam rice which had been hulled, and which was of the same general character as t a before mentioned, was also subject to classification as cleaned rice. Protests and appeals from assessments of duty under these decisions were duly made, and trials of different cases, involving the question, have been bad at San Francisco, Boston, and New York, in which judg ments were rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, upon the ground that the rice in question was not the cleaned rice of commerce, and was, therefore, subject only to duty as uncleaned rice. In the case of Bailey Brothers against Goodrich, which was tried at Boston, the judgment was in favor of plaintiffs upon the questions of fact presented; and in a letter of this department to the collector of customs at Boston, dated the 26th ultimo, instructions were given to pay that judgment, the Attorney-General of the United States having certified that, in his opinion, the case was not one demanding review by the Supreme Court. Department's letter to you of the 1st instant directed payment of the judgment in the case of Fowler against Arthur, which involved the classification of similar rice, in which judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, In view of these facts the department reverses its previous rulings, and holds that rice of the character mentioned in the decisions before cited is subject to classification as uncleaned rice, and is chargeable with the duty appropriate thereto. You will, therefore, be governed accordingly. Any duties which may have been exacted and received contrary to the ruling herein laid down, which may have been paid under protest and appeal and suit duly instituted, will be refunded by this department upon the forwarding of certified statements for repayment thereof, and you are directed to forward statements in such cases for the consideration of the department. CHAS. F. CONANT, Respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. Acting Secretary. EXHIBIT O. 30 81709 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., January 18, 1877. SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter of the 22d ultimo, transmitting the appeals (213, 2131, and 2732) of Henry W. Mor gan from your decision assessing duty on certain mineral water imported per "Maas," July 17; "W. A. Scholten," August 22; and "Rotterdam," September 5, 1876; which the importer claims to be natural spring water, and exempt from duty. It appears from the special report of the appraiser that the merchandise was originally returned by him as artificial water, and as such liable to duty, but that he is now satisfied, after a careful examination thereof, and from the proofs submitted by the importer, (which conform to department's instructions of September 18, 1876, S. S. 2973,) that such return was erroneous, and that the water (Seltzer) is the natural product of the Tannus Spring, in Gross Karben, Holland. "Mineral waters, all not artificial," are specified in the "free list," and you are hereby authorized to remit the duties on the said merchandise, and, if necessary, to forward a certified statement for refund. This ruling will also apply to the entry per "Aeolus," September 12, 1876, of similar mineral water from the same spring, embraced in the appeal (2733) of Runk & Unger, which was transmitted by you on the 23d ultimo. 8063 Respectfully, By order: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. H. F. FRENCH, Assistant Secretary. EXHIBIT P. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., February 2, 1877. SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter of the 17th ultimo submitting the appeal (2396) of Mr. Leon Rheims from your assessment of duty at the rates of 5 cents per square yard, and 5 cents per square yard and 20 per cent. ad valorem, respectively, on certain so-called buckram, imported by him per Rhein, November 6, 1876, and claimed to be entitled to entry at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem, as "mauufactures of cotton not otherwise provided for.” The importer also claims that the measurement of the goods was incorrect. It appears from the special report of the appraiser that the goods in question consist of manufactures of cotton, bleached and colored, of two different qualities, woven separately and joined together by a starching process, and intended for use for ladies' bonnet-frames; that the number of threads in each quality, when counted separately, does not exceed one hundred threads to the square inch, but when counted together exceeds that number, and that the goods do not exceed five ounces to the square yard in weight. From an examination of the samples submitted, and in view of the report of the appraiser, that the number of threads in each component part of the goods, does not exceed one hundred threads to the square inch, and that they weigh less than five ounces to the square yard, the department is of the opinion that they are not embraced in the first two clauses of schedule A, Revised Statutes, and that they should be classified for duty at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem under the provision in said schedule for "all other manufactures of cotton not otherwise provided for." You will, therefore, adjust the entry accordingly, and forward a certified statement for the refund of the excess of duties. The appellant also claims that the measurement of the goods was returned by the appraiser in yards, and that the amendment clerk in your department claims that it reads "metres." The appraiser reports that his original return was that each piece contains "20 yards in the width of 47 inches," and the entry should therefore be liquidated accordingly. Respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. CHAS. F. CONANT, Acting Secretary. EXHIBIT Q. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., March 1, 1877. SIR: In stating customs account No. 1728, on July 30, 1873, for the payment of a judgment in favor of Messrs. Wills, Edmands & Co, against the collector of customs at Boston, for excessive duties exacted on gunny-cloth, there was withheld and deducted from the amount thereof the sum of $615.92, on account of certain duties which the U. S. claimed to be due from said parties on other merchandise before that time imported at Boston. This claim which has since been the subject of two suits brought by the United States against the said parties, has been decided by the court, in one of the suits, in favor of the parties, (the other suit being suspended to abide the result,) and now the parties make application for the payment of the sum so withheld as aforesaid. The matter having been referred to the Solicitor of the Treasury, that officer, by letter dated the 23d ultimo, expresses the opinion that there are no legal objections to the payment of the said sum, and that the request of the parties should be granted. You are therefore requested to state an account for the sum of $615.92 and interest, in favor of Wills, Edmands & Co. SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter dated the 3d instant, transmitting the appeal (3175 E) of Jacob Rech, from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem, upon certain irou axles imported by him per "Switzerland," January 12, 1877. It appears from your report that the axles were accompanied by iron. wagon or carriage boxes fitted and attached to them, and by wrenches for each set, all being covered by one price in the invoice. The axles are similar to those mentioned in the appeals of Messrs. Brewster & Co., of New York, in regard to which the department decided January 20, 1874, that in view of the small value of the accessories to the axles, the whole should be classified under the provision for "axles or parts thereof" in Schedule E of section 2504 R. S., and assessed at the rate of 2 cents per pound. As there has been no change in the law governing the dutiable classification of the articles in question, and as the facts are similar in each case, the department decides that the appeal of Mr. Rech is well taken. This decision is intended to apply only to the axles, and to the nuts, bolts, boxes, &c., actually fitted and attached thereto at the time of importation. Boxes, wrenches, or other articles not so fitted and attached do not form a part of the axles, and should not be classified under the provision for axles. You will readjust the entry accordingly, and take measures for the refund of any duties erroneously assessed on the merchandise covered by the appeal above specified. Respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Philadelphia, Pa. H. F. FRENCH, Assistant Secretary. EXHIBIT S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., March 23, 1877. SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter of the 2d instant, submitting the following appeals from your assessment of duty at the rate of two cents per pound on certain dried-lichee fruit which was classified for duty under the provision in Schedule M, section 2504 Revised Statutes, for "nuts of all kinds not otherwise provided for," the appellants claiming that the article is entitled to entry at the rate of 10 per cent. ad valorem, under the provision in said schedule for "green, ripe, or dried fruits not otherwise provided for," viz: 3537e. Kwong, Hang, On & Co., "Alice Buck," December 22, 1876. 3538e. Lee Fat, do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. 3542e. Yuen Wo & Co., It appears, upon investigation, that the article in question is a fruit which grows in clusters on a small bush, the skin or outer covering of which is of a bright red color, soft and pliable when ripe; that, on being sun-dried for exportation, the skin becomes hard and brittle, somewhat resembling the shell of a nut, and that the article is known commercially as fruit, both in the green and dried state. The department is therefore of opinion that the claim of the importers is well founded, and you are hereby authorized to readjust the entries accordingly, and to forward certified statements for the refund of the excess of duties exacted thereon. SIR: The department duly received your letter of February 15th last, transmitting the appeal (3276e) of E. A. Snow, from your assessment of duty at 20 cents per pound and 35 per cent. ad valorem, on certain "printers' blankets," so called, imported per Algeria, February 1, 1877. Duty at the rates before mentioned was assessed under the provision in Schedule L, for "endless belts or felts for paper or printing machines," while the appellant claims that the article is not embraced within Schedule L, but is dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent. ad val |