chief value, there cannot be a doubt that they come within the 90 per cent. clause.

They are classified in the schedules as metals; all the elements of which they are composed are metals. Their manufacture consists in the combination of the several component parts. The tin is still tin, and the iron still iron. There has been no substantial chemical change. All their metallic qualities still remain. They are what they purport to be-manufactures of iron, tin, and sometimes lead, and the result is a new article of commerce, of which metals form the component parts. Although they have, when combined, a particular name, it is a name applicable to the element in the combination, whose use it was intended in this way to secure. Percussion caps, watches and jewelry, and other articles of ornament made of metal, must have been considered as manufactures of metal, or it would not have been necessary to except them by name from the operation of the reduction clause.

Without pursuing the subject further, it is sufficient to say that we are clearly of the opinion that the articles in question were dutiable only at 90 per cent. of rate of 15 per cent. ad valorem.

An objection is made to the sufficiency of the protest. The claim is, that it was not so distinct and specific as to apprise the collector of the nature of the objection made to the duty imposed. "Technical precision," says Mr. Justice Clifford for the court (iù Davies vs. Arthur, 96 U. S., 151), "is not required; but the objection must be so distinct and specific, as when fairly construed, to show that the objection taken at the trial was at the time in the mind of the importer, and that it was sufficient to notify the collector of its true nature and character, to the end that he might ascertain the precise facts and have an opportunity to correct the mistake and cure the defect, if it was one that could be obviated." We have had no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the protest in this case fully meets the requirements of this rule. No one could have any doubt of the nature and character of the claim that was made.

The judgment is affirmed.

Very respectfully,

J. K. UPTON,

Assistant Secretary.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

(4495.)

Measurement of marble.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 15, 1880.

SIR: This Department is in receipt of your letter dated the 7th instant, reporting that it is the practice at your port to treat 1,000 cubic palms of marble imported from Italy as equivalent to 55747 cubic feet.

1728

The Department has ascertained that at none of the principal ports

is the practice alike in regard to the matter, the variation being occasioned, no doubt, by the inaccuracy of the three palm rules used in measuring marble, which are found by the Department to vary at least a fourth of an inch in length.

It is ascertained on the measurement of a number of the rules that they average between 941 and 942 inches to the palm.

The Department, therefore, to secure uniformity in regard to the matter at the various ports, has determined to adopt the practice which exists at some places in the United States, and is alleged to obtain in Italy, of estimating 1,000 cubic palms as equal to 5555 cubic feet. You will take action accordingly.

Very respectfully,

By order:

J. K. UPTON,

Assistant Secretary.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Boston, Mass..

(4496.)

Cut hoop-iron-Duty on.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 17, 1880.

Schedule E of Title 33 of the Revised Statutes imposes upon band, hoop, and scroll iron various specific rates of duty, varying according to the width and thickness of the iron.

The question whether hoop-iron cut into lengths for the manufacture of hoops, and having holes punched in the end, should be classified as hoop-iron or as a manufacture of iron not otherwise provided for, at an ad valorem rate of 35 per cent., was considered by the Department in its decision (No. 3824) of December 21, 1878, wherein it was held that, on the authority of the case of Leng against Arthur, tried in the United States circuit court for the southern district of New York, hoop-iron, cut into lengths and so punched, should be admitted to entry at the ad valorem rate of 35 per cent.

A rehearing has been had upon the question, and the Department has become satisfied that the verdict of the jury in the case before mentioned, and the evidence upon which such verdict was based, are not sufficient to justify the decision above cited, and that the admission of such articles at the ad valorem duty is in violation of the true intent of the law.

Officers of the customs are therefore instructed that hoop-iron merely cut to lengths and punched with more or less holes is not thereby removed from the category of hoop-iron, and the specific rates of duty imposed on hoop-iron in Schedule E of the Revised Statutes will hereafter be collected on the article specified.

COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS AND OTHERS.

JOHN SHERMAN,

Secretary.

(4497.)

Fees-Entries of unappraised merchandise for immediate transportation.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 17, 1880.

SIR: In response to your letter of the 2d instant, further in relation to the proper fees to be charged on entries for immediate transportation of unappraised merchandise, you are informed that paragraph 74, Circular No. 125, September 1, 1875, specifies the fees to be exacted on each entry.

The certificate to manifest provided for is the certificate to the original triplicate manifest (see Decision No. 3882), and not a certificate to a duplicate manifest, for which a charge is forbidden in paragraph 88 of same circular.

The fees specified in paragraph 74 must be collected upon each entry; and where more than one invoice is covered by such entry, the single fee for verification is held to be sufficient, as such invoices must be certified separately at the port of destination where the goods are entered for warehouse or consumption.

Very respectfully,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

J. K. UPTON,

Assistant Secretary.

(4498.)

Vessels-Entry and clearance of registered, in coasting trade.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 19, 1880.

SIR: In a communication to the Department of the 8th instant you inquired whether, under the regulations of the circular of the Depart

ment of June 27, 1879, American vessels under register, and engaged in the coasting trade, may proceed from one port to another without entering or clearing.

You are informed that, by the circular in question, registered vessels engaged in the coasting trade are divided into two classes:

1. Such as are laden with excesses of the commodities specified in sections 4349, 4351, and 4359, Revised Statutes. Such registered vessels will enter and clear in every marine customs district.

2. Such as are either in ballast, or not laden with excesses of those commodities, are obliged to enter and clear only when making a trip other than from a marine district in one State to a similar district in the same or an adjoining State.

Under the Department circular of March 25, 1880, an additional rule was prescribed for registered vessels engaged in the coasting trade, namely, those the registers of which show that a rebate of duties attaches to the materials used in their construction, by virtue of the act of June 6, 1872, will enter and clear when proceeding from one marine customs district to any other.

It is believed these regulations embrace all the cases of clearance and entry of registered vessels engaged in the coasting trade.

Very respectfully,

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Georgetown, D. C.

J. K. UPTON,
Assistant Secretary.

(4499.)

Vessels-Canadian vessels carrying passengers from one American port to another on northern, northeastern, and northwestern frontiers.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 20, 1880.

GENTLEMEN: Your letter of the 13th instant is received, in which you inform the Department that the St. Lawrence Steamboat Company, incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, propose to run two steamboats under British registers the coming season, pending the building of steamers, that will be entitled to American registry and to carry the American flag. You inquire whether in case these steamers should take on passengers at Cape Vincent or Clayton for Montreal, and the passengers should land at Alexandria Bay, resuming their journey upon a later trip of either steamer, the steamers would be regarded as infringing our navigation laws.

You are informed that if passengers on steamers running under a British register depart in good faith from an American port for Montreal or any other Canadian port, a temporary stoppage at another American port will not be regarded as subjecting the steamers to the penalty of violating the navigation laws of the United States.

Very respectfully,

Messrs. MURRAY, FERRIS & Co., New York.

J. K. UPTON,
Assistant Secretary.

(4500.)

Common carriers-Approval of bond of Wm. A Hazard.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 21, 1880.

SIR: The Department has received your letter of the 15th instant, transmitting the bond in duplicate of William A. Hazard as a common carrier of dutiable salt in bond.

The said bond is hereby approved, and one copy thereof is inclosed, to be placed upon the files of your office.

Under his bond, Mr. Hazard is authorized to transport in vessels owned or controlled by him and plying coastwise from New York, N. Y., dutiable salt in bond from your port to any port in the United States.

Very respectfully,
By order:

J. K. UPTON,
Assistant Secretary.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York.

(4501.)

Free importation of goods for Millers' International Exhibition of 1880 at

Cincinnati.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 21, 1880.

An act of Congress approved January 24, 1880, entitled "An act to authorize the importation of articles for exhibition at the Millers' International Exhibition to be held at Cincinnati, in eighteen hundred and eighty, free of duty," provides as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all articles which shall