
    
      In re Straus et al.
    
    
      (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    
    April 21, 1891.)
    Customs Duties — Bohemian Glassware — Act as October 1, 1890.
    The tariff act of October 1,1890, held to be a substitute for all prior tariff legislation, so far, at least, as such legislation lays a duty upon imported articles of any kind; and Bohemian glass, imported after October 6,1890, although specifically enumerated eo nomine in the tariff act of March 3,1883, and only generally enumerated as an “article of glass, colored, ” etc., in the act of October 1,1890, is dutiable under the latter act, and. not under the former act, which is no longer in force, as to the imposition of duties.
    At Law.
    Appeal from board of United States general appraisers.
    
      The firm of L. Straus & Son on October 11 and 29, 1890, imported by the Polynesia and Arabia certain Bohemian glassware, which was duly entered at the port of New York and classified and assessed by the collector of customs at that port at 60 per cent, ad valorem, as an “article of glass, colored,” under paragraph 106 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890. The importers protested, claiming that the said goods were dutiable under Schedule B, par. 143, of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, at 45 per cent, ad valorem as “Bohemian glass,” and claiming that said merchandise, being specifically mentioned or enumerated in said act of October 1, 1890, the former act was still in force, and applicable to the particular merchandise in suit. An appeal was taken by the importers from the decision of the collector to the board of United States general appraisers, under the provisions of the act of June 10, 1890. The board of general appraisers affirmed the decision of the collector. The importers then applied for a review of the decision of the said board by the United States circuit court. The board of general appraisers in their return to the court found that “the merchandise under consideration is commonly known as Bohemian glassware, well recognized under this description in the trade and in popular parlance,” and that “the present tariff law does not provide for duty on it by enumeration o nomine, as prior tariff acts had done for many years.” They also found “that Bohemian glassware imported since October 6, 1890, although omitted to be named by specific mention, is provided for and made dutiable under paragraphs 106 or 108 of the new tariff act, according to the nature of the article, and not under the act of 1883.”
    
      Samuel H. Ordioay and Benjamin Barker, Jr., for importers.
    
      Edward Mitchell, U. S. Atty., and Henry G. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty., for collector.
   Lacombe, Circuit Judge.

Taking the language of the new tariff act as a whole and in its entirety, from beginning to end, I cannot escape the conviction that it manifests a plain intention to substitute that tariff act in the place and stead of all prior tariff legislation, so far, at least, as such legislation lays a duty upon imported articles of any kind. The decision of the appraisers is therefore affirmed.  