The  testimony  of  prominent  manufacturers  and  importers  of  similar  goods  who
appeared  before  the  board  was  to  the  effect  that  this  style,  as  well  as  styles  numbers
1,  6,  7,  8,  9,  11,  12,  15,  16,  20,  22,  24,  25,  and  26,  were  embroidered  on  a  ma<-hine
known  as  the  Bonnaz  or  Cornerly  machine.  •

The  specification  of  the  patent,  therefore,  which  we  have  examined,  describes  the
work  produced  by  the  machine  as  round  stitch  and  chain-stitch  embroidery.  The
corded  or  tamboured  appearance  of  the  work  is  produced  by  tlir-  nuichine  twisting
the  silk  at  the  same  time  the  needle  therein  is  embroidering  the  reiiuired  dcbign  npou
the  fabric.
244  WOOL  AND  MANUFACTURES  OF  WOOL.
We  therefore  find  that  tliis  portiou  of  the  merchandise  is  embroidered,  and  over-
rule the  protest  relative  thereto.
This  riiliug  is  not  in  conflict  with  G.  A. 470,  wherein  the  board  held  that  "the
term  tamboured  or  embroidered  *  *  »  can  only  be  properly  and  safely  applied
to  those  fabrics  *  »  *  figured  or  ornamented  by  the  employment  of  the  needle,
whether  directed  by  the  hand  or  by  machinery."     *     *     *

We  furtlu')-  find  that  all  of  the  merchandise  covered  by  this  protest  is  women's
dress  goods  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  wool,  worsted,  the  hair  of  the  camel,  goat,
alpaca,  or  other  animals,  weighing  less  than  4  ounces  to  the  stjuare  yard.
We  can  not  sustain  the  claim  of  the  appellants  that  the  plain  and  embroidered
parts  of  the  so-called  robes,  which  were  invoiced  as  an  entirety,  should  bo  treated
in  the  same  manner  as  docks  or  other  completed  articles.
In  G.  A.  334  the  board  held  that  merchandise  similar  to  that  in  question  wa«  not
wearing  apparel,  but  was  piece  goods  intended  to  be  made  into  wearing  apparel.
