SCHEDULE E.-SUGAR, MOLASSES, AND MANUFACTURES OF 177. Sugars, tank bottoms, sirups of cane juice, melada, concentrated melada, concrete and concentrated molasses, testing by the polariscope not above seventy-five degrees, seventy-one one-hundredths of 1 cent per pound, and for every additional degree shown by the polariscopic test, twenty-six one-thousandths of 1 cent per pound additional, and fractions of a degree in proportion; molasses testing not above forty degrees, 15 per centum ad valorem; testing above forty degrees and not above fifty-six degrees, 24 cents per gallon; testing above fifty-six degrees, 42 cents per gallon; sugar drainings and sugar sweepings shall be subject to duty as molasses or sugar, as the case may be, according to polariscopic test: Provided, That the duties imposed in this paragraph shall be effective on and after the first day of March, nineteen hundred and fourteen, until which date the rates of duty provided by paragraph two hundred and sixteen of the tariff Act approved August fifth, nineteen hundred and nine, shall remain in force: Provided, however, That so much of paragraph two hundred and sixteen of an Act to provide revenue, equalize duties, and encourage the industries of the United States, and for other purposes, approved August fifth, nineteen hundred and nine, as relates to the color test denominated as Number Sixteen Dutch standard in color, shall be and is hereby repealed. This paragraph, as originally enacted, contained the following proviso: "Provided further, That on and after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen, the articles herein before enumerated in this paragraph shall be admitted free of duty." Said proviso was repealed by Act April 27, 1916, e. 93, § 1, 39 Stat. * * Notes of Decisions Beet sugar.-In construing Act 1897, par. 209, relating to "sugar above number sixteen Dutch standard in color, and * sugar which has gone through a process of refining," held, that it is not necessary that, in order to come within the first clause of this provision, sugar should be capable of being used commercially, without refining, as cane sugar; and therefore beet sugar, which is not so capable, is included therein. Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1907) 153 Fed. 653. Color test.-Color, not quality, held to be the test in determining the rate of duty on sugar under R. S. § 2504, Schedule G. Merritt v. Welsh (1881) 104 U. S. 694, 26 L. Ed. 896. Loaf sugar.-In determining whether sugar drainings should be classed under a tariff act as "not above fifty-six degrees" by the polariscope, or as "fifty-six degrees and above," held, that the rule of de minimis non curat lex does not apply to drainings testing 56.025, so as to require their classification under the former provision as testing 56, by disregarding the fraction of a degree. U. S. v. Lueder (1907) 154 Fed. 1, 83 C. C. A. 131, reversing decision (C. C. 1906) 146 Fed. 149. In construing the provision in paragraph 209, Act 1897, regulating duty on sugars according to the polariscopic test, held that the expressions therein, "testing by the polariscope" and "shown by the polariscopic test," are not used with any special trade meaning that would confine them to a particular method of conducting such test, but import an intention on the part of Congress that the method adopted should be the one best calculated to make a scientific determination. U. S. v. Bartram Bros. (1904) 131 Fed. 833, 65 C. C. A. 557, reversing judgment Bartram Bros. v. U. S. (C. C. 1903) 123 Fed. 327, and writ of certiorari denied Bartram v. Same (1904) 25 Sup. Ct. 792, 195 U. S. 635, 49 L. Ed. 354. Where no official polariscopic test had been made of the imported sugar, it was proper to classify the sugar in accordance with the settlement test, especially as the importers had agreed to accept such tests, and the Secretary of the Treasury had authorized their use. American Sugar Refining Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1909) 175 Fed. 893. Crushed loaf sugar is not "loaf sugar," within Act 1816, c. 107, where in commerce loaf sugar means sugar in loaves. U. S. v. Breed (C. C. 1832) Fed. Cas. No. 14,638. Polariscope test.-Under Act 1897, specific rates of duties are laid upon imported sugars graduated according to the polariscopic test. These tests, while made by officers and experts sub ordinate to the appraiser, are reported sugar, reported to the collector for to him, and by him, after ascertain- classification. (1900) 23 Op. Atty. ment of the quality and value of the Gen. 238. 178. Maple sugar and maple sirup, 3 cents per pound; glucose or grape sugar, 1% cents per pound; sugar cane in its natural state, or unmanufactured, 15 per centum ad valorem. This paragraph, as originally enacted, contained the following proviso: "Provided, That on and after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen, the articles enumerated in this paragraph shall be admitted free of duty." Said proviso was repealed by Act April 27, 1916, c. 93, § 2, 39 Stat. 180. Sugar candy and all confectionery not specially provided for in this section, valued at 15 cents per pound or less, 2 cents per pound; valued at more than 15 cents per pound, 25 per centum ad valorem. The weight and the value of the immediate coverings, other than the outer packing case or other covering, shall be included in the dutiable weight and the value of the merchandise. Notes of Decisions Chocolate.-Chocolate held not dutiable as confectionery. See paragraph 231. Dragées. Dragées are "confectionery," within Act 1897, par. 212. U. S. v. La Manna, Azema & Farnan (1908) 166 Fed. 751, 92 C. C. A. 431, reversing judgments La Manna, Azema & Farnan v. U. S. (1906) 144 Fed. 683, 75 C. C. A. 485, and Id. (C. C. 1907) 154 Fed. 955. Fruit tablets.-Confectionery known as "fruit tablets" held dutiable under Act 1883 as "sugar candy not colored." (1887) 18 Op. Atty. Gen. 606. Sweet crackers.-Sweet crackers, known as "wafers and biscuits," in which the proportion of the sweetened centers to the pastry envelopes, is large, but in which flour is used to a substantial extent, held not dutiable either directly or by similitude as "confectionery," under Act 1897. U. S. v. Thomas Meadows & Co. (1907) 154 Fed. 1005, 83 C. C. A. 297, affirming decree (C. C. 1906) 147 Fed. 757. SCHEDULE F.-TOBACCO AND MANUFACTURES OF 181. Wrapper tobacco, and filler tobacco when mixed or packed with more than 15 per centum of wrapper tobacco, and all leaf tobacco the product of two or more countries or dependencies when mixed or packed together, if unstemmed, $1.85 per pound; if stemmed, $2.50 per pound; filler tobacco not specially provided for in this section, if unstemmed, 35 cents per pound; if stemmed, 50 cents per pound. Notes of Percentage test.-Unstemmed leaf tobacco suitable for cigar wrappers, when mixed or packed with filler tobacco, though constituting less than 15 per cent. of the whole, is separately dutiable Decisions at $1.85 per pound as wrapper tobacco, under paragraph 213 of the tariff act of July 24, 1897, and not as filler tobacco at 35 cents per pound. Rothschild & Bro. v. U. S. (1900) 21 Sup. Ct. 197, 198, 179 U. S. 463, 45 L. Ed. 277, answering certified questions (1901) 109 Fed. 1062, 47 C. C. A. 686. The percentage test is to be applied to the bale as a unit if the leaves are of such uniform character as to be collectively of one class, and otherwise to the amount of each class in the bale; the separate hands in the bale are not to be taken as the unit. The test of size is to be applied, not to a leaf as a whole, but to each half as divided by the stem, and there must be 85 halves out of each 100 halves having a portion sufficiently fine in texture, of the requisite size, to make at least one wrapper. The test of whether "100 leaves are required to weigh a pound" is applied to the whole leaves. Erhardt v. Schroeder (1894) 15 Sup. Ct. 45, 48, 155 U. S. 124, 39 L. Ed. 94. Under Schedule F, Act 1883, the bale in which tobacco is imported held not the unit upon which duty is to be calculated, but such unit is the separate quantity of such tobacco. Falk v. Robertson (1890) 11 Sup. Ct. 41, 137 U. S. 225, 34 L. Ed. 645; (1884) 18 Op. Atty. Gen. 1. Except for the purpose of imposing a penalty for importing a bale containing more than 15 per cent. of wrapper, and less than 85 per cent. of filler, any percentage system is abandoned in Act 1897, and all wrapper tobacco, wherever found, and in whatever amount, is subject to the duty of $1.85 per pound, provided in paragraph 213 of said act. Rothschild v. U. S. (1901) 106 Fed. 989, 46 C. C. A. 86, affirming judgment U. S. v. Rothschild (C. C. 1898) 87 Fed. 798. In determining the classification of leaf tobacco under Act 1883, par. 246, the unit to which the percentage test is to be applied is the commercial bale. U. S. v. Rosenwald (1895) 67 Fed. 323, 14 C. C. A. 399, following Same v. Blumlein (1893) 5 C. C. A. 142, 55 Fed. 383, distinguishing Falk v. Robertson (1890) 11 Sup. Ct. 41, 137 U. S. 225, 34 L. Ed. 645; Erhardt v. Schroeder (1894) 15 Sup. Ct. 45, 155 U. S. 124, 39 L. Ed. 94, and reversing judgrient In re Rosenwald (C. C. 1894) 59 Fed. 765. Under the provisions of Act 1883, pars. 246, 247, that "leaf tobacco of which 85 per cent. is" suitable for wrappers, and of a specified grade, shall be subject to a certain duty, and that "all other tobacco in leaf" shall pay a lower duty, the unit upon which the percentage is to be calculated is the bale as packed at the plantation. In re Blumlein (1893) 55 Fed. 383, 5 C. C. A. 142, affirming (C. C. 1892) 49 Fed. 228; Hubbard v. Soby (1893) 55 Fed. 388, 5 C. C. A. 147, affirming judgment Soby v. Hubbard (C. C. 1892) 49 Fed. 234, and distinguishing Falk v. Robertson (1890) 11 Sup. Ct. 41, 137 U. S. 225, 34 L. Ed. 645. The 85 per cent. clause does not refer merely to size and fineness, but to size, fineness, and weight. Id. If a bale of tobacco contained any portion suitable for cigar wrappers, the whole bale was dutiable, under paragraph 242, Act 1890, as "suitable for cigar wrappers," and the court had no discretion to determine whether there was an appreciable percentage of such tobacco in the bale. Stachelberg v. U. S. (C. C. 1896) 72 Fed. 50. 182. The term wrapper tobacco as used in this section means that quality of leaf tobacco which has the requisite color, texture, and burn, and is of sufficient size for cigar wrappers, and the term filler tobacco means all other leaf tobacco. Collectors of customs shall not permit entry to be made, except under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, of any leaf tobacco, unless the invoices of the same shall specify in detail the character of such tobacco, whether wrapper or filler, its origin and quality. In the examination for classification of any imported leaf tobacco, at least one bale, box, or package in every ten, and at least one in every invoice, shall be examined by the appraiser or person authorized by law to make such examination, and at least ten hands shall be examined in each examined bale, box, or package. Notes of Wrapper tobacco.-Under Act 1883, § 246, declaring the duty on leaf tobacco of which 85 per cent. is of the requisite size and fineness of texture to be suitable for wrappers, and of which more than 100 leaves are required to weigh a pound, the percentage test is to be applied to the bale as a unit, if the leaves are of such uniform character as to be collectively of one class, otherwise to the amount of each class in the bale. The separate hands in the bale are not to be taken as the unit. Decisions Erhardt v. Schroeder (1894) 155 U. S. 124, 15 Sup. Ct. 45, 39 L. Ed. 94. The test of size is to be applied, not to a leaf as a whole, but to each half as divided by the stem, and there must be 85 halves out of each 100 halves having a portion sufficiently fine in texture, of the requisite size, to make at least one wrapper. Id. The test of whether "100 leaves are required to weigh a pound" is applied to the whole leaves. Id. Evidence held to show that importa tions of unstemmed Sumatra tobacco were suitable for cigar wrappers, and therefore dutiable at $2 per pound un der Act 1890, deteriorated by drying five months. In re Phelps (C. C. 1892) 53 Fed. 238. 183. All other tobacco, manufactured or unmanufactured, not specially provided for in this section, 55 cents per pound; scrap tobacco, 35 cents per pound. Notes of Decisions Manufactured tobacco.-A cigar-shaped bundle of tobacco of an extremely large size, if used for display, though capable of being smoked held dutiable as manufactured tobacco and not as a cigar. D'Estrinoz v. Gerker (C. C. 1890) 43 Fed. 285. Scrap tobacco.-Tobacco sweepings, used in manufacture of stogies and cigarettes, held dutiable under Act 1897, par. 215, as unmanufactured tobacco, and not under paragraph 463, as waste not specially provided for. Latimer v. U. S. (1912) 32 Sup. Ct. 242, 223 U. S. 501, 56 L. Ed. 526. Tobacco composed of fragments clipped from the ends of cigars, or broken off in the course of manufacture, held dutiable as "tobacco, unmanufactured, not specially enumerated," under Schedule F, and not as "tobacco, manufactured, of all descriptions * not specially enumerated," under the same Schedule. Seeberger v. Castro (1894) 14 Sup. Ct. 766, 153 U. S. 32, 38 L. Ed. 624. * Act 1890, having no provision for "tobacco, unmanufactured, not specially enumerated or provided for," the portions of leaf tobacco which break off in handling the tobacco before stemming or in the process of shipping, and are swept up, and are and can be used only for cigarettes and the fillers of the cheaper grades of cigars, and are not covered by any of the paragraphs of the tobacco schedule, may be classified as waste. U. S. v. Schroeder (1899) 93 Fed. 448, 35 C. C. A. 376, affirming judgment Schroeder v. U. S. (C. C. 1898) 87 Fed. 201. Leaf tobacco scraps, which are the remnants of tobacco, left after making cigars, and are used in the manufacture of snuff, cigarettes, and cheap cigars, held dutiable under paragraph 244, Act 1890, as "tobacco, manufactured, not especially enumerated or provided for," and not as "waste," under paragraph 472, nor as "unenumerated, unmanufactured goods," under section 4. Sheldon v. U. S. (1893) 55 Fed. 818, 5 C. C. A. 282. Imported scrap tobacco held dutiable as manufactured tobacco under Act 1883. (1884) 17 Op. Atty. Gen. 646. Tobacco not specially provided for.Under Act 1897, par. 214, and paragraph 215, defining wrapper and filler tobacco, held, that tobacco neither suitable for wrappers nor fillers, but which may be used as a filler in the manufacture of a very small size of tobacco cigars, was not leaf tobacco, and was properly dutiable under paragraph 215. Dominguez Bros. v. U. S. (D. C. 1903) 122 Fed. 556. Unmanufactured tobacco.-Congress, in using the words "unmanufactured tobacco," in Act 1897, par. 215, held to have adopted the construction given by Supreme Court to those words in earlier tariff act. Latimer v. U. S. (1912) 32 Sup. Ct. 242, 223 U. S. 501, 56 L. Ed. 526. 184. Snuff and snuff flour, manufactured of tobacco, ground dry, or damp, and pickled, scented, or otherwise, of all descriptions, 55 cents per pound. 185. Cigars, cigarettes, cheroots of all kinds, $4.50 per pound and 25 per centum ad valorem, and paper cigars and cigarettes, including wrappers, shall be subject to the same duties as are herein imposed upon cigars. Notes of Decisions Cigars. A cigar-shaped bundle of tobacco for display held not dutiable as a cigar. See paragraph 183. SCHEDULE G.-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND PROVISIONS 186. Horses and mules, 10 per centum ad valorem. 187. All live animals not specially provided for in this section, 10 per centum ad valorem. Notes of Decisions Birds.-Act March 2, 1861, exempted fowls"; and Act May 16, 1866, levied from duty "animals of all kinds; birds, a duty of 20 per cent. "on all horses, singing and other, and land and water mules, cattle, sheep, hogs, and other live animals." Held, that birds were not included in the terms "other live animals." The second statute must be read by the light of the first. Reiche v. Smythe (1871) 80 U. S. (13 Wall.) 162, 20 L. Ed. 566, reversing (C. C. 1870) Fed. Cas. No. 11,666. Snails.-Words to which congress has given a special meaning in a tariff act will be presumed to retain that signification in a subsequent tariff act relating to the same subject matter, no contrary intention appearing. Accordingly snails may not be deemed "live animals." De Jonghe v. U. S. 1914) 5 Ct. Cust. App. 134. See, also, Reiche v. Smythe (1871) 13 Wall. 162, 20 L. Ed. 566. 188. Barley, 15 cents per bushel of forty-eight pounds. 191. Macaroni, vermicelli, and all similar preparations, 1 cent per pound. 192. Oats, 6 cents per bushel of thirty-two pounds; oatmeal and rolled oats, 30 cents per one hundred pounds; oat hulls, 8 cents per one hundred pounds. Notes of Decisions Oat hulls.-A by-product in the manufacture of oatmeal, which consists merely of the broken hulls of the oats, and is known as "oatmeal feed," held dutiable as "oat hulls," under paragraph 231, Act 1897. U. S. v. McGettrick (C. C. 1905) 139 Fed. 304. 193. Rice, cleaned, 1 cent per pound; uncleaned rice, or rice free of the outer hull and still having the inner cuticle on, 5% of 1 cent per pound; rice flour, and rice meal, and rice broken which will pass through a number twelve sieve of a kind prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, 4 cent per pound; paddy, or rice having the outer hull on, % of 1 cent per pound. Notes of Decisions Broken rice.-The fact that age and repeated handling of broken rice may have caused an infinitesimal increase in the percentage of the material that will pass through the standard sieve is not a sufficient reason for rejecting a test based on samples of such rice, especially where the failure to make a proper test at the time of importation was due to no fault of the importer. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1910) 176 Fed. 125. Under paragraph 232, Act 1897, for "rice broken, which will pass through a sieve known commercially as number twelve wire sieve," the Secretary of the Treasury prescribed for the use of customs officers one of several kinds of sieves which were known commercially as "No. 12," though they varied some what in the size of their meshes. The kind selected was not the one which would allow the greatest quantity of rice to pass through. Held that the exclusive use of such a sieve might be prescribed, regardless of the fact that it was not the one most favorable to importers. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. v. U. S. (C. C. 1910) 176 Fed. 125; Waken & McLaughlin v. Same (C. C. 1906) 147 Fed. 874. Cleaned rice.-Patna or Bengal rice, from which both the outer and inner cuticle has been removed, held dutiable, under paragraph 193, Act 1894, as cleaned rice, though commercially known before the act as uncleaned rice. mage v. U. S. (C. C. 1896) 77 Fed. 826, judgment affirmed (1897) 80 Fed. 887, 26 C. C. A. 218. Tal 194. Biscuits, bread, wafers, cakes, and other baked articles, and puddings, by whatever name known, containing chocolate, nuts, fruit, or confectionery of any kind, and without regard to the component material of chief value, 25 per centum ad valorem. Notes of Decisions Honey cakes.-Honey cakes, or SOcalled gingerbread, not containing chocolate, nuts, fruit, or confectionery of any kind are excluded from paragraph 194, Act 1913. The record does not sustain the claim that they are biscuits, bread, or wafers entitled to free entry under paragraph 417. The record does support the claim that the goods are classi fiable as a nonenumerated manufactured article under paragraph 385 of the act. U. S. v. Neuman & Schwiers Co. (1915) 6 Ct. Cust. App. 228. Iced sweetened biscuits.-These biscuits, surfaced with icing, "contain" the icing and this icing constitutes confectionery. It is not necessary that it should be made up into forms before it |