by which it appears that the suit of Louis Blumgart et al. vs. C. A. Arthur, (N. S., 4468,) involving the question referred to, was duly tried on the 27th ultimo, in the U. S. circuit court for the southern district of New York, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs, sustaining the position taken by the importers that said goods are dutiable according to their value per square yard, under the provision for "real or imitation Italian cloths," in Schedule L.

The result of said trial was, in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the act of March 3, 1875, submitted to the Attorney-General, who, under date of the 18th instant, certifies that as the question involved is one of fact, the judgment must be deemed conclusive, and recommends that the principle thereby established be "recognized in similar importations and cases, any prior contrary ruling of your [this] department notwithstanding."

Under these circumstances, and in accordance with such recommendation, the department acquiesces in the conclusions aforesaid, and you are therefore hereby directed to take the necessary steps for refunding any duties exacted on the merchandise covered by the above-mentioned suit, which, according to the principle established by the judgment therein, were exacted in excess of the proper amount.

The same course will be taken by you with regard to the entries of similar goods where the requirements of law as to protest, appeal, and bringing of suit have been duly complied with by the importers, and you will also cause the practice at your port, in assessing duty on future importations of such goods, to conform to the said decision, which is to the effect that the so-called striped and fancy Italians are dutiable, when valued at not exceeding twenty cents per square yard, at six cents per square yard and 35 per cent. ad valorem, and when valued at over twenty cents per square yard at eight cents per square yard and 40 per cent. ad valorem.

Respectfully,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

LOT M. MORRILL,

Secretary.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., February 3, 1877.

SIR: In department's letter of the 10th ultimo you were authorized to take the necessary steps to pay the judgment recovered by the plaintiffs in the case of Herrman vs. Arthur, involving the proper rate of duty on certain descriptions of goods claimed to be women's and children's dress goods.

I have now to state that from the reports of the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, it appears that the goods involved in that case were black in color, and of the class known as figured and fancy alpacas and diagonals. They appear to be of the description of goods which, when not black, are accepted as liable to duty under the provision in Schedule L for women's and children's dress goods when weighing under four ounces per square yard.

In view of the fact that the department has directed steps to be taken for payment of the judgment in the case mentioned, you are hereby instructed that goods identical in character with those embraced in that case will hereafter be admitted to entry at the rate of duty decided by the court in that case to be correct.

In cases where protest, appeal, and suit have been duly instituted, (where such suit was necessary,) you will refer invoices of the class of

goods named to the appraiser for an amended return of classification, and upon receiving such return, you will readjust the entries embraced in such appeals aud suits, and forward certified statements to the department for a refund of the duty exacted in excess.

Very respectfully,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

CHAS. F. CONANT,

Acting Secretary.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., May 14, 1877.

SIR Referring to the letter, of this department dated the 3d of February last, relating to the decision in the case of Herrman vs. Arthur, in which the question as to the proper classification of goods known as figured and fancy alpacas, diagonals, &c., black in color, and composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other like animals, was involved, I have to state that the department deems it proper to more clearly define the goods which, in its opinion, such decision should be held to cover.

The evidence adduced at the trial of the case mentioned shows that dealers in dress-goods regard fabrics of the kind above alluded to as dress-goods, and sell them as such for the use of women and children, while tailors and dealers in cloths for men's wear use them for linings and similar purposes.

It appears, also, that they are sometimes used in the manufacture of upholstery.

Similar goods, colored, have been classified as dress-goods, and the color, and in some instances the figure, appears to have been the only tangible difference between the goods first above mentioned and others heretofore classified as dress-goods.

It seems to be impracticable to determine with certainty, at the time of the examination by the appraisers, the uses to which such goods are ultimately to be applied; and it is the opinion of the experts of the customs service generally, who have been consulted, that the articles should be classified as dress-goods when they are of such a character as to reasonably fit them for use as such goods.

It is therefore directed that all such fabrics, composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other like animals, weighing less than four ounces to the square yard, and known as figured and fancy alpacas, diagonals, mohair serges, fancy mohair, or London twills, shall be classified hereafter as women's and children's dress-goods, or as assimilating thereto, under the decision aforesaid and Schedule L of the tariff.

When, however, such fabrics are obviously designed for use in the manufacture of upholstery or other articles, and are not of the character sold as dress goods for women or children, they will be excluded from classification as dress-goods.

Respectfully,

JOHN SHERMAN, Secretary.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

EXHIBIT I.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., November 1, 1876.

SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter of the 3d ultimo, transmitting the appeal (1876 E) of.J. W. Valentine from your decision assess

ing duty at the rate of 30 per centum ad valorem on certain vegetable fiber imported per "Bolivar," from Aspinwall, September 16, 1876, which the importer claims to be dutiable at the rate of 10 per centum ad valorem as a raw material not otherwise provided for.

After due consideration of the question involved, and an inspection of samples, the department has arrived at the conclusion that the claim of the importer is correct. The merchandise in question is clearly a raw vegetable fiber, wholly unmanufactured, and, although intended for use in the manufacture of hats, cannot be considered as coming within the provision for "braids, plaits, flats, laces, willow sheets and squares" for hats, in Schedule M, which, by the terms used, must be articles manufactured, in whole or in part, from some vegetable or animal substance.

The department, therefore, decides in accordance with its ruling in a somewhat similar case, dated April 22, 1876, (S. S. 2764,) that the merchandise is dutiable at the rate of 10 per centum ad valorem, under the provision in section 2516 of the Revised Statutes, for "all raw or unmanufactured articles not herein enumerated or provided for."

You are hereby directed to reliquidate the entry accordingly, and to forward a certified statement for a refund of duties erroneously exacted. Respectfully,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New Orleans, La.

L. M. MORRILL,

Secretary.

EXHIBIT K.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., January 18, 1877.

SIR: On the 16th ultimo the United States attorney for the southern district of New York reported that the case of Hill vs. Arthur, collector, &c., (N. S. 4373,) had been brought to trial in the United States circuit court at New York, and that judgment had been recovered by the plaintiff.

The case involved the question of the rate of duty on an importation of "orange mineral," on which the collector had exacted a duty of three cents per pound, as coming under the provision in Schedule M for "red lead," or as assimilating thereto, in pursuance of department's instruc tions of September 3, 1874, the claim of the importer (plaintiff) being that said article should be classified under the provision of said sched ule for "paints or painters' colors," at a duty of 25 per centum ad valorem. The claim of the importer having been sustained by the said judg ment, and the Attorney-General, to whom the question was referred, having certified that no appeal or writ of error should, in his opinion, be sued out, in which view this department concurs, you are hereby instructed to forward a certified statement, in the usual form, with a view to the payment of said judgment, (principal in coin and interest and costs in currency,) on receipt of notice from the United States attorney at your port that the same has been satisfied of record.

You are further instructed to classify for duty all future importations of "orange mineral" in accordance with the views herein expressed, to liquidate all entries of such articles upon the same basis, provided the law as to protest, appeal, and time of commencement of suit has, in each case, been duly observed, and to forward certified statements in each

case for any excess of duty paid, said instructions of August 19, 1876, being hereby reversed.

Respectfully,

L. M. MORRILL,

Secretary of the Treasury.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

EXHIBIT L.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., January 20, 1877.

SIR: Your letter of the 22d ultimo was duly received, submitting the appeal (e) of Messrs. Dieckerhoff, Raffloer & Co. from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 60 per cent. ad valorem on certain" buttonstock," so called, imported by them per the steamer City of Berlin, November 13, 1876.

The report of the appraiser, transmitted by you, contains the following: "The article is for top or face of buttons, and is composed of a silken thread, knit with a crochet-needle upon a wire or metal frame, to give shape, form, and consistency to the button, already more than half completed, and is something more than a manufacture of cloth woven or made in patterns of such size, shape, or form, or cut in such manner, as to be fit for buttons exclusively, and is, therefore, assessable for duty as a manufacture of silk and metal 60 per cent. not otherwise provided for, under the act of February 8, 1875."

This reference to the act in question does not quote its provisions in full. That act imposes a duty of 10 per cent. "on lastings, mohair cloth, silk twist, or other manufactures of cloth woven or made in patterns of such size, shape, or form, or cut in such manner, as to be fit for buttons exclusively."

An examination of the samples accompanying the appraiser's report shows that the article in question is simply a cover for a button, the open work in the center being worked on a small iron frame, and is evidently intended for, and adapted exclusively to, the manufacture of buttons.

The samples, with the papers in the case, have been submitted to the collectors and appraisers at Boston and Philadelphia, who each express the opinion that the article in question is subject only to a duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem under the act referred to.

The department concurs in this opinion, and you are directed to readjust the entry at the rate of 10 per cent. ad valorem. The invoice submitted is herewith returned.

Respectfully,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

LOT M. MORRILL,

Secretary of the Treasury.

EXHIBIT M.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., February 24, 1877.

SIR: The department is in receipt of a letter dated Boston, the 6th ultimo, from J. W. Blake, esq., treasurer of the Saxon ville mills, requesting, in behalf of said mills, the payment of judgments in two suits, Nos. 1021 and 1024, recovered by said mills as plaintiffs against yourself as

collector for the repayment of a duty of one cent per pound paid in excess on certain importations of wool made into your port from Rosario and Montevideo in 1875.

The amounts recovered in these two judgments appear to be $9,542.29, principal and interest, and $19.13 costs in the one case, and $4,521.42, principal and interest and $19.13 costs in the other case.

The additional duty of one cent per pound on this wool was, it is understood, exacted in pursuance of a decision of this department, dated October 21, 1875, (No. 2474,) and section 2908 of the Revised Statutes, and it is understood that the value of the wool was raised above twelve cents per pound by adding to the actual market value of the wool at the ports of shipment export duty and charges which accrued at those ports. The papers in the case were referred to the Attorney-General, and that officer reports, under date of the 22d instant, that there is no course left but to acquiesce in said judgments, and advises that no appeal be taken therefrom.

You are, therefore, instructed to forward the usual certified statements for payment of said judgments, to which will be attached the certificates of the clerk of the court.

The following is a statement of the entries covered by the two suits, taken from the copy of the bill of particulars, which your letter of the 17th of November last certified was correct:

SIR: I inclose herewith a letter, dated the 3d of May last, from George Bliss, esq., then district attorney of the United States for the Southern District of New York, reporting the trial of the case of Fowler against Arthur, which involved the rate of duty upon rice imported by the plaintiff, in 1873, from India.

Duty was assessed upon this article at the rate of 2 cents per pound, upon the decision of the department that this character of rice was to be regarded as cleaned rice. The importer claimed that the rice was subject to duty at 2 cents per pound as uncleaned rice; and in the district attorney's report it appears that the rice was known as table-rice of India, imported in a partially cleaned condition, and that the result of the trial was in favor of the plaintiff.