to those at bar. His testimony is not contradicted in the record so far as it relates to the materials composing the articles.

The brown part of the vessel is made of brown clay, into which an addition of oxide of iron is mixed. The white layer is made of china clay, with additions of ball clay, some lead, cobalt, and oxide of tin. The vitreous glaze is made of glass and oxide of tin. The materials composing the white lining of the bowls and also the glaze are the same as those used to enamel steel hollow ware to produce the white inner surface which protects the metal base from the action of corrosive acids.

The witness above referred to also states that the white lining of the vessels and the vitreous glaze were known in the trade as enamel. In this, however, he is contradicted by two other witnesses, who have been engaged in the trade for many years, not as manufacturers, but as merchants, and who never heard the term "enamel" applied to such a finish.

The appellants contend that neither the white lining nor the glaze can be called enamel; that the one is essentially a part of the structure of the bowl and is simply white chinaware, and that the other is transparent, whereas enamel must be colored or opaque.

Various definitions of the word "enamel," taken from dictionaries, are quoted by counsel in their briefs, but the following are the ones which seem to be most apt and authoritative.

Murray's English Dictionary:

Enamel (n.): 1. d. In recent use applied to any composition employed to form a smooth, hard coating on any surface (e. g., on pottery, wood, leather, paper, etc.). cf. Enamel v. 2.

Enamel (v.): 2. In various extended uses:

a. To apply a vitreous glaze by fusion to (surfaces of any kind, e. g., pottery).

Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia:

Enamel (n.): 1. In ceram., a vitrified substance, either transparent or opaque, applied as a coating to pottery and porcelain of any kind. It is simply a fusible kind of glass, and when transparent is commonly called a glaze. A vitreous coating of similar character is applied to a class of iron utensils for cooking, etc., and is made to serve other useful purposes.

These definitions show that a recognized and authorized extended or secondary meaning has been given to the word "enamel" as applied to such manufactures as those at bar; that it is applied to "any composition employed to form a smooth, hard coating on any surface," such as pottery. The white glaze imposed upon the bowls of steel hollow ware is thus called enamel, and is so designated in paragraph 158 of the tariff law.

In the light of these definitions the thin white layer imposed upon the brown frame of the bowl, covered as it is by a vitreous glaze, may properly be called enamel. That layer is in the nature of an added

surface covering the real body of the article, and is composed of the same materials as those forming the steel-ware enamel above mentioned. It forms a smooth, hard coating different in color and character from the body upon which it is laid, and it constitutes simply a new surface for the article. It is also doubtless true that this has come to be recognized in the trade under the name of enamel so generally as to be established as a trade designation, even if it were not an ordinary meaning of the term. This appears from the testimony of the Government witness.

This conclusion finds further confirmation in the history of the recent and present legislation upon this subject.

In the tariff act of 1897 it was provided in paragraph 95 that earthenware "painted, tinted, stained, enameled, printed, gilded, or otherwise decorated or ornamented in any manner" should be dutiable at 60 per cent ad valorem, but if plain white and without superadded ornamentation of any kind it should be dutiable at 55 per cent ad valorem.

In December, 1899, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, decided the case of Koscherak et al. v. United States (98 Fed. Rep., 596), which involved the construction of a similar provision relating to glass bottles contained in paragraph 90 of the tariff law of 1894. In that paragraph it was provided that all glass bottles when cut, engraved, painted, colored, printed, stained, etched, or otherwise ornamented or decorated * * * should be dutiable at 40 per cent ad valorem. Paragraph 88 of the same act made plain glass bottles dutiable at a different rate. In construing the language of paragraph 90, above named, the court in the case just cited held that the cutting, engraving, painting, coloring, printing, staining, or etching of the glass bottles "must be substantial and sufficient to amount to an ornament or decoration," otherwise the bottles would be assessed as plain glass bottles under paragraph 88 of the act. This was by force of the word "otherwise" appearing as it did in the construction.

According to this decision, therefore, the provision of paragraph 95 of the act of 1897 for a rate upon earthenware enameled or otherwise decorated or ornamented in any manner would apply only where the enameling was "substantial and sufficient to amount to an ornament or decoration." Any enamel which was not decorative or ornamental in character would not bring the enameled article within the scope of the paragraph.

When Congress, in 1909, drafted the present paragraph 93, the same provisions for enameled earthenware were contained within its terms, except that the word otherwise was omitted therefrom. This omission was certainly not inadvertent. It is indeed fair to conclude that it was made in answer to the decision in the above-named case or at least with full knowledge of it. The omission eliminated from the paragraph the single term which, according to the decision, required the enameling to be substantial and sufficient to amount to

an ornament or decoration in order to bring the enameled article within its provisions. This amounted to an expression of legislative purpose to include within the provision for enameled earthenware such enameling as did not amount to an ornamentation or decoration of the article. In the manufacture of the articles at bar this condition appears. The white inner layer is a covering of the surface of the article to promote its usefulness rather than to improve its appearance, and is not an ornament or decoration in the ordinary sense of those terms as applied to enameling. It seems, therefore, to fall within the class created by the paragraph as thus changed, in which an enameling is recognized that might be called industrial, as contradistinguished to jewelers' enameling. It is not meant that these are statutory terms; they are used by way of illustration only. This presents the conclusions of the court upon the merits of the case. There are various questions of procedure presented by the brief of appellants, but some of them are not properly saved for review here and the others do not appear to be substantial.

There is no error apparent in the record to the prejudice of appellants, and the decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

SCHIFF v. UNITED STATES (No. 538).

PLATEAUX, FLAT ROUND ARTICLES MADE OF STRAW BRAIDS.

The importation was of articles circular in form, slightly convex, but nearly flat in shape, with the appearance of plain round mats of braided straw, but without a crown and untrimmed: Held, since the evidence shows the material to be so constructed as to permit of being blocked into hats, without adding any new material, and that it is so blocked, being practically useless for any other purpose, it was dutiable under paragraph 409, tariff act of 1897, as hats composed of straw partly manufactured and untrimmed. It was so dutiable, though more than one piece of goods was sometimes employed in the making of one hat.

United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 22, 1911.

TRANSFERRED from United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York, G. A. 6481 (T. D. 27718).

[Affirmed.]

Comstock & Washburn (Albert H. Washburn of counsel) for appellants.

D. Frank Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General (Martin T. Baldwin on the brief), for the United States.

Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, and MARTIN, Judges. MARTIN, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court:

On January 18, 1906, the appellants imported into this country a quantity of plateaux, which are flat, circular bodies composed of straw braids and used in the manufacture of straw hats. They are made in various sizes; the representative sample first put in evidence is 22 inches in diameter. However, some are larger and some smaller than that size.

1 Reported in T. D. 31634 (20 Treas. Dec., 1102).

The collector held the importation to be untrimmed straw hats, dutiable at 35 per cent ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 409 of the act of 1897.

The appellants duly filed their protest to this ruling and advanced various alternative claims in contravention to the collector's classification. The one, however, which appellants chiefly rely upon is that the importation is dutiable at 30 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 449 of the same act as manufactures of straw not otherwise specially provided for.

This issue was duly heard upon evidence by the board and the decision of the collector was sustained. The appellants now pray for a reversal. The case comes to this court by transfer from the United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, where additional testimony was taken as appears by the record.

The two sections of the tariff law of 1897 which are referred to in the presentation and discussion of this issue, namely, 409 and 449, respectively read as follows:

409. Braids, plaits, laces, and willow sheets or squares, composed wholly of straw, chip, grass, palm leaf, willow, osier, or rattan, suitable for making or ornamenting hats, bonnets, or hoods, not bleached, dyed, colored or stained, fifteen per centum ad valorem; if bleached, dyed, colored or stained, twenty per centum ad valorem; hats, bonnets, and hoods, composed of straw, chip, grass, palm leaf, willow, osier, or rattan, whether wholly or partly manufactured, but not trimmed, thirty-five per centum ad valorem; if trimmed, fifty per centum ad valorem. But the terms "grass" and "straw" shall be understood to mean these substances in their natural form and structure, and not the separated fiber thereof.

449. Manufactures of bone, chip, grass, horn, india-rubber, palm leaf, straw, weeds, or whalebone, or of which these substances or either of them is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this act, thirty per centum ad valorem; but the terms "grass" and "straw" shall be understood to mean these substances in their natural form and structure, and not the separated fiber thereof.

The Government contends that the imported articles are properly described as "hats, composed of straw, partly manufactured, but not trimmed," and therefore dutiable under paragraph 409; whereas the appellants maintain that the articles can not be called hats at all, either wholly or partly manufactured; that they are only materials to enter into the making of hats; and that they should be classified as manufactures of straw not specially provided for, and dutiable as such under paragraph 449.

As has been stated, the plateaux as imported are circular in form, slightly convex but nearly flat in shape, and they have the appearance of plain round mats of braided straw. They have no crown nor other like resemblance in shape to a finished hat, and are of course untrimmed.

The plateaux are imported to be used in the manufacture of women's hats, and practically all such importations are used in that way. A very few are said to be made into flower holders or similar

articles, but such uses are so rare that they do not substantially qualify the foregoing statement.

The testimony is somewhat contradictory as to the manner in which the plateaux are used in the making of hats. It appears, however, that a single plateau may be made into a hat without the addition of any other straw or like material by a process of pressure and manipulation, and that many are thus made. It also appears that two plateaux may together be used in the making of a single hat. In such case one is blocked into a crown and the other is used for the brim, the center of the latter form being first cut out and the two pieces being then joined together. It appears also that a plateau may be folded or bent by hand by milliners and held in place by a form of wire in such manner as to be trimmed, and thus become a finished hat for woman's wear.

The fashions of course change, and the trade demands different kinds of hats at di Terent seasons. Some of the witnesses therefore are doubtless more familiar with one of these processes and some with another. But the facts are substantially as briefly stated in the foregoing outline.

The language of the paragraph provides for hats composed of straw partly manufactured but not trimmed. These straw forms or bodies are intended to be made into finished hats; they are so constructed that they may generally be blocked into hats by a process which adds no new material to them and does not substantially change them except as to shape; and they are practically useless for any other purpose except to be finished as hats. A person familiar with such manufactures would therefore see in each plateau a hat which required for its completion only a process of blocking and trimming. The plateau would in that view be a hat in process of manufacture, one whose manufacture had been begun and had been carried far enough to identify it as the article which was to be finished from it. It would therefore be a partly manufactured hat. It would not have a crown, which is generally the most distinguishing feature of a finished hat, and therefore it would not look like a hat to a person unfamiliar with the business; but such provisions of the law relating to a manufacture are in a sense addressed chiefly to those who are engaged in it or are at least familiar with its processes. Such persons would have no difficulty in understanding the nomenclature which describes the plateau as a partly manufactured hat. This view is sustained by the history of the subject appearing in the decisions cited by counsel.

Nor is it altered by the fact that often two plateaux are used to make a single hat. From the testimony it is probable that this method was much less common before the adoption of the act than since, and the language of the act followed the process of manufacture which was then generally pursued