KENNEDY V. HARTEANFT. 26 �$1,959.47; in the Lord Clive, $933.72; and in the Lord Gough, $816.48. �But if you are of opinion that this is not a complete fabric made eut of hoop iron, of course your verdict will be for the defendant. The case is with the jury. �The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff for $3,970.20, the full amount claimed, with interest. �Note. The above charge is repovted in full because the principles laid down are of considerable importance in the construction of the tarifl laws. The partieular question involved is one which has been the subject of con- troversy for many years. In 1868 the treasury department heldthat all cotton ties (except orie known as Beard's Patent Loclt Tie) were dutiable as hoop iron. Shortly afterwards the case of Qraham v. Collector, (not reported,) involving the question of duty on cotton ties, was tried in the United States circuit court at New Orleans, and a decision rendered in favor of their classi- fication as manufactures of iron. The treasury department thereupon changed Its ruling. and admitted them as manufactures of iron. In 1880 the depart- ment again changed its ruling and refused to admit cotton ties as manufac- tures if the buckles were loose, but admitted them if the buckles were riveted on. In January, 1881, the case of Ranlett v. Collector, (not reported,) involv- ing the question of duty on cotton ties with loose buckles, was tried in the United States circuit court at New Orleans, and resulted in favor of the im- porter. The treasury department, however, refused to modify the ruling. Afterwards an appeal was made by the home manufacturera to Secretary Sher- man to extend the ruling of the department so as to iuclude cotton ties with riveted buckles in the category of hoop iron. The secretary, however, in a published letter of January 26, 1881, refused the application. A similar application was made upon the accession of Secretary Windom, but he, in a published letter of May 9, 1881, sidhered to the decision of his predeeessor. An appeal has been taken by the government in the case of Ranlett v. Collector, ■-nipra, and it is understood that an appeal will be taken in the present case, HO that the question will ultimately be settled by the highest tribunal. �In connection with this subject may be mentioned the case of Leng v, Arthur, (not reported,) tried in 1868, in the circuit court for the southern dis- trict of New York, wherein a verdict was rendered in favor of an importer who imported hoop iron eut to leugths and punched with lioles, for barrel lioops, and who claimed that these were manufactures of iron. The depart- ment for some years followed this decision, but afterwards, in 1880, assessed all such eut hoops as hoop iron. See, also, the opinion of Atty. Gen. Devens, in Op. of Atty. Gen., vol.l6, page 660. — [Bep. ��� �
