This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1915 Excerpt: ... The case cited is persuasive authority for the holding of the board in the present case. This decision was rendered in 1903, and presumably was followed up to the enactment of the tariff law of 1909, and the provisions relating to this subject were embodied in the tariff law of 1909, without any amendment affecting the question here involved. The inference is very strong that the purpose was to enact the provision with the interpretation which had been placed upon it, and in the absence of any commercial testimony showing any other status of this merchandise than that ascribed to it by the court in the case cited, we are inclined to hold that it is free of duty under the provision named. See also Rattan & Cane Co. v. United States (6 Ct. Cust. Appls.,--; T. D. 35247). The decision of the board is affirmed. (T. D. 35504.) Bass fiber. United States V. Osborn Manufacturing Co. et al. (No. 1512). Bass Fiber For Brooms. This bass fiber lias been subjected to a process that fits it for a definite use and has been advanced, accordingly, from a crude state to that of a manufactured article. It was not entitled to free entry under the tariff act of 1909. United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 24, 1915. Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 37094 (T. D. 35020). Reversed. Bert Hanson, Assistant Attorney General (Robert Ilardison, special attorney, on the brief), for the United States. Submitted on record by appellees. Before Montgomery, Smith, Barber, De Vries, and Martin, Judges. Smith, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: A vegetable fiber, known as African bass fiber, imported at Cleveland, Ohio, and classified by the collector of customs as a nonenumerated manufactured article was assessed for duty at 20 por cent ad valorem und...