words "manufacture of leather" occurred in a paragraph quite similar to the paragraph in which they appear in the act of 1922. In re Michelin Tire Co., Abstract 21030 (T. D. 29690), chrome leather strips cut into lengths and shapes suitable for automobile treads, and which had been beveled, were held to be manufactures of leather. In re John Russell Cutlery Co. (56 Fed. 221), mother-of-pearl cut into slabs and designed for use in the manufacture of knife handles, was held to be a manufacture of mother-of-pearl, and not under the free list "mother-of-pearl." In this case the slabs of mother-of-pearl were ultimately to become parts of knife handles, but they had only been manufactured to the extent of being cut into slabs, no doubt, of the size and general shape needed for the making of the handle. From mother-of-pearl, an article of general use, they had emerged into a manufacture of pearl with a limited use. To constitute a manufactured article I do not believe it is a proper statement of the law to say that from the original condition it must emerge into a different article devoted to one use. It may be a manufactured article and have several different uses if the advancement made it a different article from the original condition with, at least, one different use. It is needless to multiply citation as to what constitutes a manufacture of an article. I believe the examination of the sample and the report of the appraiser establish this to be a manufacture of leather; that Congress never intended that forms so cut should be classed under paragraph 1606, but there meant to place chiefly shoe forms and other forms upon which no such elaborate manufacturing effort had been expended as characterizes the importation at hand. (T. D. 15724, supra.) I do not believe we should classify this as bag leather, since there is absolutely no evidence and nothing about the sample indicating that it is made of bag leather. And if it was made of bag leather, it was such bag leather before being cut and further processed toward the completed purse. There is no attempt in the ruling opinion to get away from the principle of law, well established by this court, that the collector's finding carries with it the presumption of correctness. In this case the collector found that it was a manufacture of leather. This is presumed to be correct until shown to be incorrect. The burden was upon the importers, who protested the classification, to show that the collector's classification was erroneous. This court has held that the official sample is sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector's finding. (Wertheimer & Co., supra.) But, in this instance, the examination of the sample in no sense tends to dispute the correctness of the collector's finding, but, in my judgment, conclusively supports it. That a presumption of correctness attaches to the col lector's finding, such as to require evidence to remove, is so well settled in this and other courts as to require no citation. (Ishimitsu Co., supra.) If it were necessary to invoke the principle, which I think is a necessary outgrowth of the foregoing statement of law, I would contend that the assessment by the collector of duty upon a given article under a certain paragraph of the tariff act, carries with it the presumption of a correct finding of every material thing or fact necessary to bring it within the paragraph.-United States v. Schering (123 Fed. 65). In the case at bar, the collector's assessment of duty under paragraph 1432 as a manufacture of leather carries with it the presumption that he found the importation had been so manufactured, or processed, from its original condition as to become another article with a name, or characteristics, or use or uses, different from that of its original condition. In addition to the presumption of correctness of the collector's finding, the ruling opinion must also necessarily imply a finding by this court that the evidence in the case overcomes the presumption of correctness of the board's finding on the evidence. In other words, this court finds that the board's decision was against the weight of the evidence. This court has stated this principle of law and sustained the board's finding on the weight of the evidence in Downing Co. v. United States (11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 73; T. D. 38730) and in other cases. The classification of the collector and the decision of the board should be sustained. HAMPTON, JR., & Co. v. UNITED STATES (No. 2462)1 CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS AND REPORTS. In denying an application for rehearing (Hampton, jr., & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 490; T. D. 40695), it is pointed out that the court's opinion did not at all rest upon the congressional hearings and reports referred to in it. United States Court of Customs Appeals, April 14, 1925 [Rehearing denied.] PER CURIAM: Appellants filed their application for a rehearing herein March 17, 1925, which the court has carefully considered. No suggestions are made therein which, in the opinion of the court, require any other or different conclusion from that already arrived at by the court. Attention is called to the references by the court, in its opinion, to certain congressional hearings and reports and it is sug 1 T. D. 40835. gested that such references are in violation of the rule announced in United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association (166 U. S. 290), and other cases. The conclusion reached by the court and expressed in its opinion filed herein does not at all rest upon what may be gathered from the said congressional hearings and reports, but upon other grounds fully stated in said opinion. The said hearings and reports are cited only as further support of the legal conclusion already drawn by the court from the statutory language used. The application for rehearing is denied. MEMORANDUM OF DECISIONS, COURT OF CUSTOMS APPEALS1 DISMISSED OCTOBER 2, 1923 Steel arm bands.-Cavendish Co. v. United States (No. 2229)—Appeal from Abstract 45394. Tankage.-Darling & Co. (Inc.) v. United States (No. 2294)-Appeal from G. A. 8653 (T. D. 39651). MARCH 3, 1924 Japanese tax.-Bush & Co. v. United States (No. 2308)-Appeal from Reappraisement Circular 33604. Additional duties.-Forbriger & Co. v. United States (No. 2253)-Appeal from Abstract 45630. Reappraisement.-Pacific Orient Co. v. United States (No. 2279)—Appeal from Reappraisement Circular 33023. APRIL 9, 1924 Household effects.-Haigh v. United States (No. 2291)-Appeal from Abstract 45852. Lottery tickets.-Shing & Co. v. United States (No. 2292)-Appeal from Abstract 45842. APRIL 22, 1924 Validity of reappraisement.-International Products Co. v. United States (No. 2267) Appeal from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers of Feb. 9, 1923. Validity of reappraisement.-Standard Growers' Exchange v. United States (No. 2268) Appeal from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers of Feb. 9, 1923. Validity of reappraisement.-Johnson v. United States (No. 2269)—Appeal from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers of Feb. 9, 1923. Additional duties.-Whittaker, Clark & Daniels (Inc.) v. United States (No. 2270) Appeal from Abstract 45695. MAY 7, 1924 Weight (silver salt).-Newport Co. v. United States (No. 2399)-Appeal from Abstract 46901. MAY 16, 1924 Tankage.-United States v. Southern California Fertilizer Co. (No. 2344) — Appeal from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers of Oct. 29, 1923. 1 T. D. 40836. 584 MAY 26, 1924 Reappraisement.-Schmid v. United States (No. 2321)-Appeal from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers of Sept. 5, 1923. OCTOBER 14, 1924 Tankage.-United States v. Southern California Fertilizer Co. (No. 2414)— Appeal from G. A. 8719 (T. D. 39928). OCTOBER 17, 1924 Homatropine hydrobromide.-McKesson & Robbins v. United States (No. 2341)-Appeal from Circular Reappraisement 34161. DECEMBER 17, 1924 Additional duties.-Hertzwig Trading Co. v. United States (No. 2240) — Appeal from Abstract 45515. Additional duties.-Klipstein & Co. v. United States (No. 2241)—Appeal from Abstract 45550. Additional duties.-Lang et al. v. United States (No. 2242)-Appeal from Abstract 45551. Additional duties.-New York Importing Co. v. United States (No. 2251)— Appeal from Abstract 45630. Reappraisement-Cedar poles.-Lindsley Bros. Co. v. United States (No. 2287)-Appeal from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers of Apr. 13, 1923. JANUARY 13, 1925 Cream.-Griffith v. United States (No. 2458)-Appeal from G. A. 8826 (T. D. 40304). FEBRUARY 9, 1925 Currency value.-Bemis Bros. Bag Co. v. United States (No. 2448)-Appeal from G. A. 8830 (T. D. 40308). MARCH 26, 1925 Beads.-American Shipping Co. et al. v. United States (No. 2406)—Appeal from G. A. 8759 (T. D. 40074). APRIL 6, 1925 Dyed grass.-International Forwarding Co. et al. v. United States (No. 2346)— Appeals from Abstracts 46407 and 46525. APRIL 8, 1925 Remission of additional duty.-Lindsley Bros. Co. v. United States (No. 2509)— Appeal from decision of Board of United States General Appraisers of Nov. 12, 1924. APRIL 13, 1925 Fungi and lichens.-Lung & Co. v. United States (No. 2500)-Appeal from Abstract 47358. Fungi and lichens.-Lung & Co. v. United States (No. 2421)-Appeal from Abstract 47358. 72052-25†-VOL 12- -38 |