Opinion of the Court. continued in paragraph 677, while in paragraph 757 a similar exemption is extended to "works of art, the production of American artists residing temporarily abroad, or other works of art, including pictorial paintings on glass, imported expressly for any incorporated religious society, except stained or painted window glass or stained or painted glass windows." It is insisted by the defendants that the painted glass windows in question, having been executed by artists of superior merit, specially trained for the work, should be regarded as works of art, and still exempted from duty as "paintings," and that the provision in paragraph 122, for "stained or painted window glass and stained or painted glass windows," applies only to such articles as are the work of an artisan, the product of handicraft, and not to memorial windows which attain to the rank of works of art. Those who are familiar with the painted windows of foreign cathedrals and churches will indeed find it difficult to deny them the character of works of art; but they would nevertheless be reluctant to put them in the same category with the works of Raphael, Rembrandt, Murillo, and other great masters of the art of painting. While they are artistic in the sense of being beautiful, and requiring a high degree of artistic merit for their production, they are ordinarily classified in foreign exhibits as among the decorative and industrial rather than among the fine arts. And in the catalogues of manufacturers and dealers in stained glass, including the manufacturers of these very importations, no distinction is made between these windows and other stained or painted glass windows, which, by paragraph 757, are specially excepted from the exemption of pictorial paintings on glass. For most practical purposes works of art may be divided into four classes: 1. The fine arts, properly so called, intended solely for ornamental purposes, and including paintings in oil and water, upon canvas, plaster, or other material, and original statuary of marble, stone or bronze. These are subject to a duty of 15 per cent. Opinion of the Court. 2. Minor objects of art, intended also for ornamental purposes, such as statuettes, vases, plaques, drawings, etchings, and the thousand and one articles which pass under the general name of bric-a-brac, and are susceptible of an indefinite reproduction from the original. 3. Objects of art, which serve primarily an ornamental, and incidentally a useful, purpose, such as painted or stained glass windows, tapestry, paper hangings, &c. 4. Objects primarily designed for a useful purpose, but made ornamental to please the eye and gratify the taste, such as ornamented clocks, the higher grade of carpets, curtains, gas-fixtures, and household and table furniture. No special favor is extended by Congress to either of these classes except the first, which is alone recognized as belonging to the domain of high art. It seems entirely clear to us that in paragraph 757, Congress intended to distinguish between "pictorial paintings on glass" which subserve a purely ornamental purpose, and stained or painted glass windows which also subserve a useful purpose, and moved doubtless by a desire to encourage the new manufacture, determined to impose a duty of 45 per cent upon the latter, while the former were admitted free. As new manufactures are developed, the tendency of each tariff act is to nicer discriminations in favor of particular industries. Thus, by acts previous to that of 1890, paintings upon glass and porcelain were distinguished and taken out of the general category of manufactures of glass and porcelain, and even of stained glass, while under that act painted and stained glass windows are distinguished and taken out of the general designation of paintings upon glass. If the question in this case rested solely upon the language of paragraph 677, doubtless these importations would be exempted as paintings imported for religious purposes; but as, by paragraph 757, pictorial paintings on glass, a more specific designation, are again exempted, and stained glass windows are excepted and taken out of this exemption, we think the intent of Congress must be gathered from the language of the latter paragraph rather than the former. Robertson v. Glendenning, 132 U. S. 158. Particularly is this so in view of the fact that, by Counsel for Appellant. paragraph 122, a duty is levied upon "stained or painted window glass and stained or painted glass windows" eo nomine. The use for which the importations are made in each case is much the same. The fact that these articles are advertised and known to the trade as painted or stained glass windows is an additional reason for supposing that Congress intended to subject them to a duty. The judgment of the Circuit Court must, therefore, be Reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity to this opinion. UNITED STATES v. SCHOVERLING. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 690. Argued October 25, 1892. - Decided November 7, 1892. In the latter part of October, 1890, the firm of S., D. & G. imported from Europe articles described in the entry as "finished gunstocks with locks and mountings," unaccompanied by barrels for the guns. The collector levied duty on them as guns, under paragraph 170, in Schedule C of the act of October 1, 1890, c. 1244, (26 Stat. 579.) The importers protested that they were dutiable as manufactures of iron, under paragraph 215 of Schedule C of the act. The general appraisers affirmed the decision of the collector. It did not appear that the gunstocks had formed part of completed guns in Europe, and the question of the importation of the barrels was not involved, although it appeared that the gun-stocks were intended to be put with barrels otherwise ordered, to form complete guns. The Circuit Court, on appeal by the importers, reversed the decision. On appeal to this court, by the United States; Held that the decision of the Circuit Court was correct. The provision of § 2 of the act of January 29, 1795, (1 Stat. 411,) was not still in force. The appeal to this court was prosecuted as against the firm, but a motion was granted to cure that defect by amendment. THE case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Solicitor General for appellant. Opinion of the Court. Mr. Albert Comstock for appellees. MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. On the 20th of October, 1890, the firm of Schoverling, Daly & Gales, composed of August Schoverling, Charles Daly and Joseph Gales, imported into the port of New York, from Europe, articles described in the entry as "12 finished gunstocks, with locks and mountings." The collector assessed a duty upon them of $1.50 each, and in addition thereto, 35 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 170 of the act of October 1, 1890, c. 1244, (26 Stat. 579,) in Schedule C of that act, entitled "Metals and Manufactures of Fire-arms:" "170. All double-barreled, sporting, breech-loading shotguns, valued at not more than six dollars each, one dollar and fifty cents each; valued at more than six dollars and not more than twelve dollars each, four dollars each; valued at more than twelve dollars each, six dollars each; and in addition thereto, on all the above, thirty-five per centum ad valorem. Singlebarrel breech-loading shotguns, one dollar each and thirty-five per centum ad valorem. Revolving pistols valued at not more than one dollar and fifty cents each, forty cents each; valued at more than one dollar and fifty cents, one dollar each; and in addition thereto, on all the above pistols, thirty-five per centum ad valorem." The importers, on November 15, 1890, filed with the collector, under § 14 of the act of June 10, 1890, c. 407, (26 Stat. 137,) a notice in writing, addressed to him, objecting to the decision of the collector, and stating their reasons for so doing. That notice in writing, called a "protest," claimed that the articles were only parts of guns, and were dutiable at 45 per cent ad valorem, under paragraph 215 of Schedule C of the act of October 1, 1890, (p. 582,) which reads as follows: "215. Manufactures, articles or wares not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of iron, steel, lead, copper, nickel, pewter, zinc, gold, silver, platinum, aluminum, or any other metal, and whether partly or wholly manufactured, forty-five per centum ad valorem." The protest stated that the articles in Opinion of the Court. question were simply parts or accompaniments intended for use in the manufacture of guns or muskets, were not guns or muskets, and could not be classed as such completed commodities. Under § 14 of the act of June 10, 1890, the collector, on the 16th of December, 1890, transmitted to the three general appraisers on duty at the port of New York the invoice, entry, and protest. The assistant appraiser had reported to the appraiser, November 28, 1890, that the articles in question were "gunstocks, with mountings complete, ready for attachment to the barrels, which arrived by another shipment," and that "the gunstocks and barrels, when attached, make doublebarreled breech-loading shotguns, complete." The collector, in his communication to the general appraisers, referred to the foregoing report of the assistant appraiser, and stated that the merchandise was returned by the appraiser upon the invoice as "breech-loading shotguns," invoiced at a value not over $6 each, and that he had assessed duty on them, under paragraph 170, at the rate of 35 per cent ad valorem and $1.50 each. The board of general appraisers took the testimony of Mr. Daly, one of the importing firm, on December 19, 1890, and it is set forth in the margin. In its report to the collector, 1 Protest in the matter of importation of certain gunstocks by Messrs. Schoverling, Daly & Gales. Statement of Mr. Daly. Examined by Gen. App. SOMERVILLE: Q. You are a member of the firm of Schoverling, Daly & Gales? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where are you doing business? A. In New York. Q. This importation, as I understand you, consists of this item marked 225 here, finished gunstocks, with locks and mountings? A. That is it. Q. Shotguns? A. They are parts of shotguns; parts of breechloading shotguns. Q. When did you make this order for this importation? A. I telegraphed for it a short time before this invoice. Q. How many of these are there here? A. Twelve of these finished gunstocks. Q. Did you at the same time order the other parts of these guns to be sent? A. I did not. That is all we received. We never received the barrels. Q. You made no order for the barrels? A. No, sir. (Reference made in the special report of the appraiser to protests of Schoverling, Daly & Gales against the assessment of duty at the rate of 35 per cent, etc.) Q. What we want to know is whether the barrels of these guns have arrived by another shipment, within your knowledge? A. As a member of the firm of Schoverling, Daly & Gales, I do not know it, because we have never received any invoice. Q. Never made any order? A. No, sir. Q. Have you any agreement with |