,4 pucxmmmymu v. Masons. ». 31
r The plaintiffs, the nrm of Luekemeyer, Schefer & Co_.,,of the city of
New York, on November 14, 1887, im ported certain women’s dress
goods, composedchiefly of wool, with a very slight percentage of cotton,
and valued at not `exceeding 20 cents per square yard, r The defendant,
as collector of customs at the port of New York, levied and collected duty
at 9 cents per squareyard, and, 40 per centum ad valarem, under Sched- i
ule K of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, (Heyl, 365,)_claiming that such
goods were made with threads of other materials than wool pr worsted,
introduced forithe purpose of changing the classification  and also claim-
ing that the selvedges of said goods were made wholly or in part 0f
otherlmaterials. ‘ Plaintiffs claimed that these dress goods were com-
posed in part of wool, and under the same schedule were dutiable at 5
cents per square yard and 35 per centum ad vatorem. The merchandise
in suit was manufactured in France at the _request of plaintiffs, by a
peculiarprocess, by which the cotton was introduced into the warp of the
fabric prior tothe spinning process. The warp consisted of woolen and
cotton fibers twisted together. The filling was entirely of wool. The
selvedges of the goods were composed of wool and cotton. No separate,
single, and entire thread of cotton was traceable in the goods., ln ap- ·
pearance, texture, quality,. and use they were indistinguishable from
women’s dress goods com posed wholly of wool. The cotton in the fabric
could only be discovered by chemical analysis. The original purpose of
introducing such cotton in the warp -of the goods was for_the purpose of
changing the classification. The percentage of cotton inthese goods ,
varied from 1.99 to 4.74. The fibers of cotton, in the warp of these
goods were continuoUS, but irregular in size. The paragraph of the tariff
act of 1883, under which duty was assessed, is as follows: _
"Women’s and children’s dress goods, coat linings, Italian cloths, and goods
of like description, composed in part of wool, worsted, the hair Eofl the alpaca,
`oat, or other animals, valued at not exceeding twenty cents per square yard,
Eve cents per square yard, and in addition thereto, thirty-Eve per centum ad
balorem; valued at above twenty cents per square yard, seven cents per square
yard, and forty per centum ad. valorem ,· if composed wholly of whool, worsted,
the hair ofthe alpaca, goat, orother animals, or of a mixture of them, nine
cents per square yard and forty per centum ad iualcrem; but all such goods
with selvedges, made wholly or in part of other materials. or with threadsof
other materials introduced for the purpose of changing the clmsidcation, shall
be dutiable at nine cents persquare yard and forty per centum ad mlorem :
provided, that all such goods weighing over four ounces perisquare yard shall
pay a duty otthirty-five cents per pound and fortyper centumad valor6m."
I Franck Ixymte Stetson, for plaintiffs. ‘ `_ `
Stephen A. Walker, U.' S. Atty.`, and Henry 0. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty.,
for defendant. A ` . ' "
Laoomna, J., (orally charging jury.) Beforecoming to, the particular
question which I shall submit to you, it is only right, in (view of the
great elaborateness and care with which this case has been presented by
counsel, that I should briefly state the reasons which lead metothe
conclusion I,have reached. , V 2 » _ . . y A _