The  appellants  rely  upon  the  Department's  decision  (Synopsis,  .5743)  of  June  2
1883,  which  accords  with  an  unpublished  letter  of  this  Department,  addressed  to  yoii
under  date  of  September  14,  1883,  in  which  it  was  decided  that  certain  56  liales  of
"Cashmere-goat  hair"  entered  by  them  as  -'East  India  carpet  wool,"  class  3,  which
you  classified  as  wool  of  class  2,  was  entitled  to  admission  as  wool  of  class  3,  on  the
ground  that  the  article  was  not  fit  for  combing  purposes,  and  was  used  as  "a  substi-
tute for  cattle  hair  to  mix  with  wool  or  shoddy  for  the  manufacture  of  the  lowest
class  of  carpets  and  woolen  goods"— the  view  being  adopted  that  it  was  the  inten-
tion of  Congress  to  include  in  class  2  only  such  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  and  other
like  animals  as  is  fit  for  combing  purposes.
The  doctrine  laid  down  in  these  decisions  seems  to  be  clearly  at  variance  with  thr
law.
The  tarifi' act  of  March  3,  1883  (par.  354,  T.  I.,  new),  after  describing  certsiin
wools  to  be  included  in  class  2  as  combing  wools,  adds  "and  also  all  hair  of  the
alpaca,  goat,  and  other  like  animals;"  and  paragraph  358  (T.  I.,  new)  provides  that
*'  wools  of  the  second  class,  and  all  hair  of  the  alpaca,  goat,  and  other  like  animals,"
shall  pay  duty  at  10  or  12  cents  per  pound,  according  to  value.
