be known in the trade by different names, is significant of the difference in the character and description of the goods. There was no dispute upon the facts. Neither party asked to go to the jury, but each claimed that it was entitled to a direction as matter of law. Let judgment be entered upon the verdict. The views of the court appear to be substantially in accordance with the existing regulations upon the subject, and are therefore adopted by the Department and will be accepted by you as a guide in any case which may arise at your port, involving the question of law at issue in the suit. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 26, 1880. It appearing to this Department that, by an order in council of the Dominion of Canada, of the 4th of October, 1879, all neat-cattle coming from Europe are subjected, on entering the ports of Quebec, Halifax, and St. John, to a quarantine of ninety days, the order of November 3, 1879, prohibiting the importation of neat-cattle from the Dominion of Canada, is revoked. By authority of section 2493 of the Revised Statutes, it is ordered that the operation of the first clause of that section, which prohibits the importation of neat-cattle from any foreign country into the United States, be suspended as to the Dominion of Canada, the Secretary having officially determined that such importation will not tend to the introduction or spread of any infectious or contagious disease among the cattle of the United States. This order will take effect on March 1, 1880. By order: COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS AND OTHERS. H. F. FRENCH, Assistant Secretary. (4473.) Fees-On immediate-transportation entries at port of shipment. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 27, 1880. SIR: This Department is in receipt of your letter of the 25th ultimo, relating to fees collected on the entry at your port of merchandise for immediate transportation without appraisement. From the correspondence on the subject before the Department, it appears that it is the practice at Philadelphia to exact a fee of 20 cents for a certificate to the invoice, and a similar fee for certifying the manifest, making, with the other fees collected on such entries, the sum of $1.40, while at your port the two fees specified are not collected. Article 676 of the Regulations requires that the invoice presented at the first port of arrival in such cases shall be certified by the collector and also by the naval officer. Article 679 requires that the inspector shall certify manifests of the merchandise in triplicate, and that one of the manifests shall be verified by the signature and official seal of the collector, and be forwarded to the collector at the port of destination. In view of these regulations, the Department, after careful consideration, decided in its circular of September 1, 1875, that the fees mentioned should be collected. It appears that it has been the practice at other ports to observe the instructions therein contained. You state that invoices presented with immediate-transportation entries are always stamped with the word "verified" and the date, and are signed by a deputy collector, and that the triplicate manifest is certified and forwarded to its destination. The Department is of opinion that for these services the fees mentioned may properly be collected under the provisions of section 2654 of the Revised Statutes. In view of these provisions, of the ruling of the Department above cited, and of the practice which has usually obtained thereunder, you are instructed to collect the fees in future, and thus make uniform the practice in the respect mentioned at your port and Philadelphia. Very respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. H. F. FRENCH, Assistant Secretary. (4474.) Stamping of imported articles specified in Schedule A of the internal-revenue laws. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 29, 1880. Hereafter collectors of customs will not permit the delivery of imported articles subject to stamp-duty under Schedule A of the internalrevenue laws (Title XXXV, sec. 3437, Revised Statutes) until the stamps specified in said schedule are properly affixed by the importer. The above regulation is not to be considered as applicable to articles that have been properly stamped in a foreign country. JOHN SHERMAN. COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS. (4475.) Secretary. Bead embroideries-Duty on. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 29, 1880. SIR: The Department is in receipt of a letter, dated the 4th instant, from the United States Attorney-General, in which he advises that the Government should acquiesce in the decision of the court in the suit (N. S., 4156) of Kohlsaat vs. Arthur, which involved the question as to the proper classification of bead embroideries and embroidered slipperpatterns, the former of which consisted of pieces of cotton canvas embroidered with beads, and the latter of pieces of cotton canvas embroidered with worsted. The bead embroideries were classified as "bead ornaments," at a duty of 50 per cent. ad valorem, and the slipper-patterns as "manufactures of worsted not otherwise provided for," at a duty of 50 cents per pound and 35 per cent. ad valorem (less 10 per cent.), against which classification the importer (plaintiff) protested, appealed, and brought the said suit, claiming that the goods were dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem, under the provision (Heyl, 1264) for "embroidery manufactures of cotton, * * * if embroidered or tamboured in the loom, or otherwise, by machinery, or with the needle or other process, not otherwise provided for." The decision of the court in the said suit sustained the claim of the plaintiff, thus establishing the facts, as reported by the United States attorney, that the goods were embroideries and were entitled to classification as such, and following substantially the previous rulings in the cases of Weihemeyer et al. vs. Arthur (tried in 1876) and Homer vs. Arthur (6th Otto, p. 137). (See Synopses 3703 and 3709.) The Department, therefore, acquiesces in such decision, and hereby directs that goods of the character mentioned be hereafter classified as "embroideries," at a duty of 35 per cent. ad valorem. Certified statements, looking to the settlement of the judgment in this case, and all claims for excessive duties in such suits, where the requirements of law, as to protest, appeal, and institution of suit, have been complied with, may be forwarded for the consideration of the Department. Care should be taken to see that certified statements are forwarded only in cases where the protest claims that the goods are in fact embroideries, and should have been classified at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem. Very respectfully, H. F. FRENCH, Assistant Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. (4476.) Seaford, Del.-Authority to enter and clear and to enroll and license vessels. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 30, 1880. SIR: Your letter of the 25th instant is received, reporting upon the application of Hon. E. L. Martin to have the deputy collector of customs at Seaford, in your district, empowered to enroll and license vessels. Mr. Martin states in his letter that he makes the request on behalf of numerous vessel-owners residing at or near Seaford, who wish to avoid the inconvenience of sending or going to your port and Crisfield to obtain marine documents; and you report that, while no complaint has been made to you of the present method of issuing marine documents to these vessels, you see no objection to granting the authority requested, if it shall be necessary for the best interests of commerce. The act of Congress approved January 24, 1880 (copy inclosed), authorizes the appointment of a deputy collector, to be stationed at Seaford, with power to enter and clear all vessels coming to that port, and is held to constitute that place a port within the meaning of sec tion 2633, Revised Statutes. While this act does not confer any authority to enroll and license vessels, there may arise cases in which its operation will be restricted by the absence of that power. Under all the circumstances, the Department decides, by virtue of section 2633, Revised Statutes, to authorize the enrollment and licensing of vessels by the deputy collector at Seaford, and you will take the necessary steps to carry this decision into effect. Very respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Wilmington, Del. JOHN SHERMAN, Secretary. |