EXHIBIT A. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., October 2, 1875. SIR: The Department is in receipt of a letter, dated the 29th ultimo, from the United States Attorney-General, inclosing a copy of a report made to him by United States attorney of California on the 20th ultimo, concerning the trial in the United States circuit court of your district of the case of C. Adolphe Low et al. vs. Thomas B. Shannon, collector, &c., involving the question as to the dutiable character of a cargo of rice, imported into your port per Cleta, September 1, 1874, from Bangkok, Siam, which was upon importation subjected to duty by you, at the rate of 2 cents per pound, as cleaned rice, while the plaintiffs claimed that the same was only dutiable at the rate of 2 cents per pound, as uncleaned rice. From such report, it appears that the result of the trial was in favor of the plaintiffs, and against the defendant, and was to the effect that the said merchandise, which consisted of rice with the hull and a portion of the inner cuticle removed from the grain, was uncleaned rice, and dutiable at the rate of 2 cents per pound. The Attorney-General, in transmitting such report, remarks that, in his opinion, there are no legal grounds for taking the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. Under these circumstances, and the question being simply one of fact, the Department acquiesces in the decision of the court, and authorizes you, upon the judgment being duly satisfied on the records of the court, to foward to the Department a certified statement, in the usual form, for the payment thereof. In case there are any other suits pending in your district on the same question, and where the facts are similar, the same course may be taken upon their due discontinuance by the plaintiffs. On further importations of such merchandise, you will cause your practice to conform to the decision of the court. Respectfully, CHAS. F. CONANT, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, San Francisco, Cal. EXHIBIT B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., October 29, 1875. SIR Referring to Department's instructions of the 16th of June last in relation to the suit of Meyer vs. Arthur, collector, &c., for refund of duties exacted on rosalic and carbolic acids, tried in the New York cir cuit court for the southern district of New York, on the 15th day of February last, and resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff, I have to state that the Department, in accordance with an opinion received from the Solicitor-General since the date of the instructions above referred to, has concluded to acquiesce in the judgment in said case upon both of the issues involved. You are therefore instructed, upon receipt of notice from the United States attorney that said judgment has been satisfied of record, to pre pare and forward to the Department a certified statement for payment of the amount of such recovery. Respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. EXHIBIT C. CHAS. F. CONANT, Acting Secretary. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., September 20, 1875. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 6th ultimo, transmitting the appeals (Nos. 50464 to 50494) of Messrs. Mee Kim, Duck Lung, Chung Yune & Co., and Yuen Wa & Co., of Portland, Oreg., from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 23 cents per pound on rice-flour. It appears from your report that you have classified rice-flour under section 2499 of the Revised Statutes as cleaned rice. The appellants claim that it should be classified under section 2516, as an unenumerated article, manufactured in whole or in part, not otherwise provided for, at the rate of 20 per cent. ad valorem. Reference having been made to the ports of New York and San Francisco, it is ascertained that the practice at these ports is to classify riceflour under section 2516 at an ad-valorem duty of 20 per cent. The Department, upon consideration of the question, holds that such practice is correct, and therefore you are hereby instructed to adjust the entries accordingly, and to forward the usual statements for a refund of the excess of duties erroneously exacted. Very respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Portland, Oreg. B. H. BRISTOW, Secretary. EXHIBIT D. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., January 29, 1876. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th instant, calling my attention to the cases in which H. D. Harrison et al. are plaintiffs and the collector at San Francisco is defendant. I now certify that no appeal or writ of error will be taken by the defendant or by the United States from the judgment of the circuit court of the United States for the district of California in cases numbered as follows: 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, in which Henry D. Harrison et al. were plaintiffs and Thomas B. Shannon, collector of the port of San Francisco, was defendant; and case numbered 1385, in which the San Francisco and Pacific Sugar Company was plaintiff and Thomas B. Shannon, collector, &c., was defendant; the cases known as the "melado cases." Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. B. H. BRISTOW, Secretary of the Treasury. EXHIBIT E. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 17, 1876. SIR: Your letter of the 1st ultimo is received, reporting on the application of Hartley & Coleman in relation to the payment of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff's in the suit of Sands et al. vs. Arthur, involving the rate of duty on quill toothpicks. As the Department, under the advice of the United States AttorneyGeneral, on the 15th of June last, instructed you to take the necessary steps for the payment of such particular judgment, it is only necessary now to say that the judgment when entered may properly embrace, as claimed by the parties, all of the entries covered by the suit where the requirements of law as to protest, appeal, &c., have been complied with. Respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. ** B. H. BRISTOW, Secretary. EXHIBIT F. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, SIR: Your letter of the 20th instant is received, further reporting upon the appeals, hereinafter mentioned and described, of Berolzheimer, Illfelder & Rickerdorfer from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem (with 10 per cent. reduction where the importation occurred prior to March 3, 1875) on certain so-called black lead for pencils, which the importers claim to be only liable to duty at the rate of 20 per cent. ad valorem. The merchandise which is the subject of these appeals the appraiser reports to be not black lead for pencils, but pencil-points manufactured of plumbago, or graphite, not a metal, but a mineral subtance; the same being identical with the merchandise which, by Department decision of February 25, 1875, (not published,) was held to be liable to duty at the rate of 20 per cent. ad valorem as articles manufactured, in whole or in part, not otherwise provided for under the provisions of section 2516 of the Revised Statutes. You are therefore authorized to adjust the following entries in accordance with said decision, as it appears that the law relating to protest and appeal was duly complied with by the said importers thereon. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 18, 1876. SIR: Your letter of the 4th instant is received, further reporting on the appeal (8257) of A. Z. Vouros from your decision assessing duty at the rate of 2 cents per pound on certain saltpeter, imported per Prince Rudolph, from Calcutta, in October last. It appears upon investigation that the saltpeter in question contains over 2 per cent. of impurities, and, therefore, that it is of the same character and description as the saltpeter which was the subject of Department's decision of the 27th ultimo, on the appeal (6915) of Buck & Jevons, at your port, and which was thereon held to be "crude" and dutiable at the rate of one cent per pound only. Under these circumstances you are authorized to adjust the entry in accordance with such decision, and, if necessary, to forward a certified statement for a refund of the duties erroneously exacted. Respectfully, By order. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. C. F. BURNAM, Assistant Secretary. EXHIBIT H.-(8976".) TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., January 25, 1876. SIR: Your letter of the 18th instant is received, transmitting the reports of the appraiser and naval officer at your port as to the classifi cation of certain cotton grenadines imported by H. A. Fanshawe. These goods, as the samples show, consist of loosely and open woven cotton fabrics, (with stripes at intervals,) which count less than 100 threads to the square inch, weigh less than five ounces to the square yard, and cost less than 25 cents per square yard, and would seem to assimilate to the loosely-woven cotton goods of similar count, weight, and cost which the Department has, from time to time, decided are not embraced in the countable clauses of schedule A of the Revised Statutes, but are dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem under the provision (Heyl, 932) "for all other manufactures of cotton not otherwise provided.' The Department, therefore, is of opinion, in which the appraiser and the experts of the appraiser's office at your port concur, that the said grenadines, not being provided for under the countable clauses, are dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent. ad valorem as aforesaid. You will please cause copies of this letter to be furnished the appraiser and naval officer, for their information in the premises. Respectfully, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York. B. H. BRISTOW, Secretary. EXHIBIT I. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, December 4, 1875. SIR: Your letter of the 24th ultimo is received, further reporting on the appeals (48884) of Whiteside Bros., (5248) A. D. Napier & Co., and (5349) Wilson & Bradbury, from your decision assessing duty at the rates of 5 cents per square yard on bleached and 5 cents per square yard and 20 per cent. ad valorem on colored cotton handker |