Postby dognose » Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:20 am
Hi,
I'm afraid I can add very little, beyond the fact that E.V. Haughwout & Co. may have been more than just a retailer. While I agree it likely that in the case of your urn, the below report suggests that they did have some kind of manufacturing capability:
UNFINISHED PEARL KNIFE HANDLES
Treasury Department , March 31, 1859
Sir :—I acknowledge the receipt of your report, under date of the 8th instant, in regard to the appeal of Messrs. E. V. Haughwout & Co. from your assessment of duty at the rate of 24 per cent on an article described as unfinished pearl knife handles." The article in question is pearl sawed into the proper form for knife handles, and partially polished. It is claimed by the appellants that the pearl is converted into that form merely for the convenience of transportation, and should be treated as unmanufactured, and be subjected to a duty of 4 per cent under the classification of " mother of pearl" in schedule H. The Department is clearly of the opinion that the material imported in this form must be treated as a " manufacture " of pearl within the meaning of the law, and that the duty was properly assessed by you at the rate of 24 per cent under the classification of "manufactures of bone, shell, horn, pearl, ivory, or vegetable ivory," in schedule C of the tariff of 1857.
I am, very respectfully,
HOWELL COBB, Secretary of the Treasury
Augustus Schell, Esq., Collector, etc., New York.
Source: Hunt's Merchants' Magazine and Commercial Review - 1859
Trev.
