applicable to their contents." Hensel v. U. S. (C. C. 1900) 99 Fed. 259.

In

Under paragraph 104, Act 1890, which provides that glass bottles filled with an article that pays an ad valorem duty shall pay the same duty as the contents, the dutiable value being ascertained by adding the value of the contents to the value of the bottles, "provided that no article manufactured from glass described in the preceding paragraph shall pay a less rate of duty than forty per centum ad valorem," glass bottles filled with blacking, dutiable at 25 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 11, are liable to duty at the rate of 40 per centum ad valorem. re Salomon (C. C. 1893) 55 Fed. 285. Act 1909, par. 97, excepting bottles the contents of which are subject to an ad valorem duty, and section 5599, post, making coverings part of the value of the article are in pari materia and are to be construed together. The parenthetical clause of paragraph 97 operates to except the bottles there described, leaving these for assessment at the same rate with their contents under the provisions and in the mode pointed out by section 5599. U. S. v. Conkey & Co. (1912) 3 Ct. Cust. App. 245.

3. Bottles for scientific purposes."Bottles," in Act 1897, par. 99, exclude blown glass flasks for chemical laboratories, dutiable under paragraph 100 as "blown glassware." Eimer & Amend v. U. S. (1909) 168 Fed. 240, 93 C. C. A. 454.

Held, that certain bottle-like containers, of glass, used in chemical operations, and known as Koch flasks, and certain so-called Woulf flasks, shaped like bottles, but having two or three necks apiece, are "bottles" or "jars," within the meaning of Act 1897, par. 99. Eimer & Amend v. U. S. (C. C. 1903) 126 Fed. 439.

An importation of bottles and bottleshaped receptacles holding less than a pint, used by chemists for their operations, held dutiable under Act 1894, par. 88, as "bottle glassware, not specially provided for," at three-fourths of a cent a pound. Eimer v. U. S. (C. C. 1900) 99 Fed. 423.

4. Etched bar bottles.-Hollow, translucent vessels, molded from glass, and etched with fluoric acid, representing female figures, the head separable from the body, and fitting closely on a narrow neck, so as to form a stopper, of the capacity of 71⁄2 and 18% fluid ounces, respectively, and used as bar bottles, held dutiable as "bottles," under Act 1890, par. 103, and not as "pressed glassware," under paragraph 105; nor are they dutiable under paragraph 106, which does not include "etched" glassware in its enumeration of ornamental glassware. In re Smith (C. C. 1893) 55 Fed. 476, judgment

affirmed Smith v. Mihalovitch (1894) 61 Fed. 399, 9 C. C. A. 552.

5. Hock bottles or secondhand bottles.-Empty pint wine bottles, commercially known as hock bottles," held dutiable under the final clause of paragraph 88 of the tariff act of 1894, at 40 per cent. ad valorem, and not under the second clause, at 14 cents per pound, as vials holding not more than one pint, and not less than onequarter of a pint. Grace v. Collector of Customs of Port and District of San Francisco (1897) 79 Fed. 315, 24 C. C. A. 606.

Secondhand bottles, capable of being used as bottles, held not junk, within Act 1897, but bottles, under paragraph 99. Carberry v. U. S. (C. C. 1902) 116 Fed. 773.

Hock bottles, holding not more than one pint, and not less than one-quarter of a pint, though commercially known as "bottles," and not as "vials," held dutiable at 1% cents per pound, under the second clause of paragraph 88, Act 1894. In re Grace (C. C. 1896) 75 Fed. 2.

6. Jars.-A receptacle 2 by 6 by 10 inches, with open top, and no apparent provision for covering, used by photographers as a bath for sensitized photographers' plates, does not fall within the provision for jars in paragraph 97 of the act of 1909, as the term "jars," as there employed, is expressly restricted to such as are ordinarily employed as containers for the holding or transportation of merchandise. Gallagher & Ascher v. U. S. (1915) 6 Ct. Cust. App. 387.

7. Molded and pressed glass bottles. -Molded and pressed glass bottles with cut glass stoppers held not dutiable as molded and pressed glass. See paragraph 84.

In Act 1897, par. 99, the term "molded," as applied to glassware, is synonymous with "pressed." U. S. v. Heil Chemical Co. (1910) 178 Fed. 537, 102 C. C. A. 47.

8. Molded flint glass bottles.-Flintglass bottles, molded, and holding more than one pint, held dutiable under Act 1890, par. 103, and not under paragraph 105. Smith v. Mihalovitch (C. C. A. 1894) 61 Fed. 399, affirming judgment In re Smith (C. C. 1893) 55 Fed. 476.

9. Plain glass bottles.-Glass bottles having a name sand blasted thereon held not dutiable as plain glass bottles. See paragraph 84.

The provision in Act 1897, par. 99, for "plain" glass bottles, held not to include fancy bottles with metal mountings. Mark Cross Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1906) 150 Fed. 610.

10. Reagent bottles.-Reagent bottles are admissible free of duty as plain glass bottles, or, at most, should only be charged with duty, under paragraph

valorem duty on "vessels of glass,

*

* decorated, and any articles of which such glass is the component material of chief value, and porcelain, opal and other blown glassware, all of the foregoing filled or unfilled,' covers decorated articles of glass not susceptible of being filled. Stern v. U. S. (1901) 105 Fed. 937, 45 C. C. A. 141.

Photographic glass baths held dutiable under Act 1909 as blown glass. Gallagher & Ascher v. U. S. (1915) 6 Ct. Cust. App. 387.

This glassware is composed of blown bowls with molded stems and feet. There was no evidence by which a finding could be made of the value of the blown bowl or that of the molded stem and foot when these first took on the character of blown or molded glass; and the finding of the collector that blown glass was the component material of chief value was unimpeached. U. S. v. Gredelue (1914) 5 Ct. Cust. App. 298.

The general rule is that an excepting clause relates to what immediately precedes it, and that it will be so construed unless the legislature has clearly manifected a contrary intent, and there is in paragraph 98, Act 1909, no indication of intent to apply the exemption to what follows as well as to what goes before it. The given articles of glass blown in a mold were dutiable under that paragraph. Scientific Supply Importing Co. v. U. S. (1914) 5 Ct. Cust. App. 56.

3. Bohemian glass.-The tariff act of 1890 held a substitute for all prior tariff legislation, so far, at least, as such legislation lays a duty upon imported articles of any kind; and Bohemian glass, imported after October 6, 1890, although specifically enumerated eo nomine in the tariff act of 1883, and only generally enumerated as an "article of glass, colored," etc., in Act 1890, held dutiable under the latter act, and not under the former act, which is no longer in force, as to the imposition of duties. In re Straus (C. C. 1891) 46 Fed. 522.

4. Bottles with stoppers.-Bottles, made of glass, plain, blown, or molded, designed to be subsequently fitted with cut-glass stoppers, held, under Act 1897, not dutiable as articles apart from the glass stoppers imported with them. Park & Tilford v. U. S. (C. C. 1909) 174 Fed. 831; Park & Tilford v. U. S. (1910) 1 Ct. Cust. App. 34.

Held, that certain bottles made of molded or pressed glass, with stoppers that have been cut or ground more than is necessary for fitting, held dutiable under Act 1897, relating to "glass bottles * * cut, ground (except such grinding as is necessary for fitting stoppers)," and not as "molded or pressed * * glass bottles," under paragraph 99.

*

**

Utard v. U. S.

(1904) 128 Fed. 422, 63 C. C. A. 164, affirming judgment (C. C. 1903) 124 Fed. 997.

Glass bottles, fitted with cut glass stoppers that constitute the element of chief value in the whole article, held dutiable as articles in chief value of cut glass, under Act 1897. Park & Tilford v. U. S. (C. C. 1909) 174 Fed. 831.

5. Colored glass.-The goods in controversy are small hemispherical glass insulators, to the glass of which in a melted state an amber color has been given by mixing appropriate coloring matter. From its terms and its legislative history, paragraph 98, Act 1909, must be taken to cover all articles of colored glass not otherwise specifically provided for, and the colored glass insulators here are dutiable as assessed under that paragraph. U. S. v. Wakem & McLaughlin (1912) 2 Ct. Cust. App. 411.

6. Containers.-In paragraph 98, Act 1909, it was intended to declare that, if an article otherwise within the paragraph was susceptible of use as a container, no difference should be made in its assessment whether unfilled or filled, as imported, with contents dutiable or free. Scientific Supply Importing Co. v. U. S. (1914) 5 Ct. Cust. App. 56. See, also, Stern v. U. S. (1901) 105 Fed. 937, 45 C. C. A. 141; Dingelstedt v. U. S. (1898) 91 Fed. 112, 33 C. C. A. 395.

7. Cut glass.-Articles in chief value of paste cut held not dutiable as cut glass. See paragraph 95.

Glass tumblers the entire surface of the bottom of which has been smoothed previous to their importation into the United States held cut glass. Binns v. Lawrence (1851) 12 How. 9, 14, 13 L. Ed. 871.

Glass tumblers, on the sides of which ornamental figures have been engraved previous to their importation into the United States, held cut glass. Id.

Small squares, triangles, and circles of glass, the squares from 2x21⁄2 to 4x4, and the circles from 5 to 6 inches in diameter, with edges beveled and polished, held dutiable as "articles of glass cut," under Act 1883, rather than as "cast polished plate glass, unsilvered," not exceeding 10x15 inches square. In re Popper (C. C. 1891) 50 Fed. 66.

Disks of glass known as "spectacle lenses," which have been ground or polished for use in spectacles, and which only require to be cut and fitted to the frame, are not exempt from duty as "plates or disks of glass unwrought, for use in the manufacture of optical instruments," but are dutiable as "articles of glass cut, engraved," etc. Fox v. Cadwalader (C. C. 1889) 42 Fed. 209.

mented, decorated," etc., held not to apply to articles that have been etched otherwise than for ornamentation or decoration. Eimer & Amend v. U. S. (C. C. 1903) 126 Fed. 439.

9. Glass articles ground.-In Act 1897, par. 100, the provision for "articles of glass * ornamented, decorated,

or ground (except such grinding as is necessary for fitting stoppers)," is not limited to articles in which the grinding is done for ornamental or decorative purposes, but includes plain goods ground for utility purposes only. U. S. v. Heil Chemical Co. (1910) 178 Fed. 537, 102 C. C. A. 47; Thos. McMullen & Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1901) 123 Fed. 847.

Glass bottles having the words "Thos. McMullen & Co.'s White Label" ground thereon by means of the process of sand-blasting held dutiable under the provision in paragraph 100, Act 1897, for "glass bottles, * ** ground," and not under paragraph 99 of said act, relating to "plain * glass bottles." Thos. McMullen & Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1901) 123 Fed. 847.

* *

Glass blanks ground on the edge and bottom are dutiable under Act 1897, as "articles of glass, ground," without regard to the purpose for which the grinding was done. U. S. v. Louis Hinsberger Cut Glass Co. (C. C. 1899) 94 Fed. 645.

10. Microscopic slides.-Microscopic slides held not dutiable as articles of glass cut. See paragraph 85.

In Act 1897, par. 100, providing for "vessels or articles of glass, * * * all the foregoing, filled or unfilled, and whether their contents be dutiable or free," the reference to the filling of such articles does not, in view of the history of the legislation, imply that only articles capable of being used as containers are covered by the paragraph; and microscope slides cannot for that reason be excluded. O. G. Hempstead & Son v. U. S. (1907) 158 Fed. 584, 86 C. C. A. 42.

11. Mosaics.-These goods have been so far advanced beyond the condition of a mere raw material that they have received not only a distinctive name, but a special definite form that commits them to a specific ultimate use and apparently renders them commercially unfit for anything else. The language of paragraph 98, Act 1909, is broad enough to cover articles of glass other than those denominatively provided for, and these glass mosaics were dutiable under that paragraph. U. S. v. Foscato (1915) 6 Ct. Cust. App. 15.

12. Ornamented or decorated glassware.-Etched bottles held not dutiable

as

** *

*

Glass eyes for dolls, in which the iris and the pupil have been skillfully painted or traced held dutiable under Act 1897 "articles of glass, * * painted * or otherwise ornamented, decorated," etc. R. Hoehn Co. v. U. S. (1905) 142 Fed. 1038, 73 C. C. A. 595, affirming judgment (C. C. 1904) 139 Fed. 301.

Glass siphon bottles intended for holding gas-charged water, having etched thereon the outlines of the figure of a woman inclosed in an oval panel resting on a scrolled base, held ornamented or decorated. Koscherak V. U. S. (1899) 98 Fed. 596, 39 C. C. A. 166.

Glassware ornamented with metal filigree work held dutiable as "articles of glass, * ornamented, decorated," etc., under Act 1897, par. 100, regardless of whether glass or metal is the component of chief value. Gallenkamp v. Rachman (C. C. 1906) 147 Fed. 769.

As to certain cut glass thermometers, the cutting on which is not shown to ornament or decorate the articles, held, that they are not within the provision in Act 1897, for "articles of glass, cut, ** * * or otherwise ornamented, decorated, or ground." U. S. v. D. S. Hesse & Bro. (C. C. 1905) 141 Fed. 492.

Glass ornamented or decorated lamp shades and chimneys held dutiable, under Act 1897, as articles of glass, ornamented or decorated, and not as all glass or manufactures of glass "not specially provided for." Stern Bros. v. U. S. (C. C. 1900) 99 Fed. 260.

Siphon bottles for mineral waters. having private names, trade-marks, and directions etched ornamentally upon them, not for the purpose of identifying the wares of the importers, but for sale to persons who may want them so decorated for their own use, held dutiable, under paragraph 90, Act 1894, as ornamented or decorated glassware. Koscherak v. U. S. (C. C. 1899) 91 Fed. 524.

13. Thermo bottles.-It is not shown that the goods (thermo bottles) consist of the ordinary articles recognized as containers for holding or transporting merchandise. They are a product which, while still known as bottles, and while blown, are in a class by themselves, and, so far as the record discloses, fall without the provisions of paragraph 97, Act 1909, and within those of paragraph 98, there being an entire absence of proof to overcome the presumption arising in favor of the action of the collector. Stegemann, Jr., v. U. S. (1913) 4 Ct. Cust. App. 26.