19 19 19 19 19 Maillard, Henry Vergho, Ruhling & Co Auffmordt, C. A., & Co Lottimer, William & Co. Refund of duty on burlaps. $25 201 Refund of duty on cotton towels 30 60 Refund of duty on cigars 55 75 Refund of duty on grenadines 320 88 Refund of tonnage-tax on bark Sollecito 169 20 Refund of tonnage-tax on ship Olive S. Southard. 357 90 Refund of tonnage-tax on bark Raguar. 299 79 Refund of tonnage-tax on schooner Alpha 30 60 853 50 ..do ..do ....do 761 70 553 40 Refund of duty on Swiss mulls. Refund of duty on watch main-springs Anghiltree, James W., & Co. Refund of duty on cotton towels. -71 10 2,311.00) 730 50 119 40 65.38 18.30 13 80 760 625 276 53 14% 52 60 80 31 40 27 91 735 99 30 1,596 90 Refund of duty on cigars 273 00 Refund of duty on hemmed cotton handkerchiefs. 127 75 16.27 EXHIBIT A. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., October 2, 1875. SIR: The Department is in receipt of a letter, dated the 29th ultimo, from the United States Attorney-General, inclosing a copy of a report made to him by United States attorney of California on the 20th ultimo, concerning the trial in the United States circuit court of your dis trict of the case of C. Adolphe Low et al. vs. Thomas B. Shannon, collector, &c., involving the question as to the dutiable character of a cargo of rice, imported into your port per Cleta, September 1, 1874, from Bangkok, Siam, which was upon importation subjected to duty by you, at the rate of 2 cents per pound, as cleaned rice, while the plaintiffs claimed that the same was only dutiable at the rate of 2 cents per pound, as uncleaned rice. From such report, it appears that the result of the trial was in favor of the plaintiffs, and against the defendant, and was to the effect that the said merchandise, which consisted of rice with the hull and a portion of the inner cuticle removed from the grain, was uncleaned rice, and dutiable at the rate of 2 cents per pound. The Attorney-General, in transmitting such report, remarks that, in his opinion, there are no legal grounds for taking the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. Under these circumstances, and the question being simply one of fact, the Department acquiesces in the decision of the court, and authorizes you, upon the judgment being duly satisfied on the records of the court, to foward to the Department a certified statement, in the usual form, for the payment thereof. In case there are any other suits pending in your district on the same question, and where the facts are similar, the same course may be taken upon their due discontinuance by the plaintiffs. On further importations of such merchandise, you will cause your practice to conform to the decision of the court. Respectfully, CHAS. F. CONANT, Acting Secretary. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, San Francisco, Cal. EXHIBIT B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., October 29, 1875. SIR Referring to Department's instructions of the 16th of June last in relation to the suit of Meyer vs. Arthur, collector, &c., for refund of duties exacted on rosalic and carbolic acids, tried in the New York cir cuit court for the southern district of New York, on the 15th day of February last, and resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff, I have to state that the Department, in accordance with an opinion received from the Solicitor-General since the date of the instructions above referred to, has concluded to acquiesce in the judgment in said case upon both of the issues involved. You are therefore instructed, upon receipt of notice from the United States attorney that said judgment has been satisfied of record, to pre |