Mr. BAND. That is right.

Senator MUNDT. You may proceed.

AIR-CONDITIONING PROJECT

Mr. MOLLISON. The next item was a nonrecurring item. We had requested $25,000 for the purpose of air conditioning the chambers of the judges, the library of the court, the clerk and the marshal's office. We had had a survey and certain estimates made, and $25,000 was the amount that we believed at the time we drew the justification would be necessary. We had been told that there would be a cost of at least $6,000 for the purpose of additional wiring in the building, wiring which would extend from the main distribution board to the individual judges' chambers, and the library and the clerk's and marshal's offices. However, since that time we have gotten an additional estimate from the General Services Administration which is willing to do this wiring. They will do it for approximately $3,300. So that is the reason for the variance between the original request and what we now are going to ask this committee to consider.

The House made a specific allowance of $12,000 for air conditioning. But before we could put one unit in, we would have to have this wiring on the 11th floor, where our court is, done by the General Services Administration. They will do that for $3,300.

So if we got the $12,000, and we first do the wiring, that would leave approximately $8,700 which sum would not be sufficient at all to pay for the cost of the individual air-conditioning units. We have figured it, and we believe that the air-conditioning units can be installed at a price of about $425. In order to purchase the air conditioning

AIR-CONDITIONING UNITS REQUIRED

Senator MUNDT. How many units would be required?
Mr. MOLLISON. Thirty-eight units.

Senator MUNDT. Is that more than one to an office?

Mr. MOLLISON. Yes, sir; that is. I have a breakdown here which I can file with you or explain.

Senator MUNDT. What type of building are your quarters in?

Mr. MOLLISON. This is on the 11th floor of a warehouse building with no refrigeration and none of the advantages that would come from a regularly constructed office building.

Senator MUNDT. That is a Federal warehouse building?

Mr. MOLLISON. That is right. The appraiser's stores is in the building, but it is essentially a warehouse building with a well in the center so that the space that is usable for offices is really on the outer perimeter of the building.

Senator MUNDT. Does the court always meet in New York City? Mr. MOLLISON. All the time.

Senator MUNDT. Does it travel around?

Mr. MOLLISON. When judges are on circuit they do travel around. Senator MUNDT. When do they travel?

Mr. MOLLISON. Throughout the year.

Senator MUNDT. Is there any chance to get them to do their traveling during the hot months of July and August?

Mr. MOLLISON. The dockets are mostly in the cooler months of the year, September to June. In the summer time the judges have to work to catch up with their decisions. We have to write decisions and do so in the slack period of the year when we are not busy with trial work when we can sit in our offices and work. So it is absolutely necessary to work there during this period of the year.

Senator MUNDT. How come you waited until 1954 to request this air conditioning? This air conditioning has been with us quite a while, and so has the temperature in New York?

Mr. MOLLISON. I can explain that. We looked at the hearings before the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate and we saw, that other courts, the Court of Claims, for example, had asked for money to air condition their building. They were, I think, several years ago turned down because there was going to be installed central air conditioning for all the Federal buildings. We had discussed this matter earlier but we thought that there was no chance of getting it until very recently. It is for that reason only.

Mr. BAND. Senator, may I give another reason for that? We got an estimate about 8 or 9 years ago and it ran into nearly a quarter million dollars on the basis of air-conditioning the whole building. So with a sum of that kind, the matter was dropped for the moment. If you will permit me, I would like to say that all the buildings around are factory buildings. Directly across the street is a factory building manufacturing stamped metal products. When you open your window, you get that noise. They made Varick Street a five-lane truck highway, and when you open the windows, we have the noise of the big trucks and the dirt they stir up coming up, and our desks every day are covered with layers of dust. To talk on the phone is almost impossible.

Senator MUNDT. Is there any more modest approach you can make to this air-conditioning problem? Could you not distribute this over a period of several years?

Mr. MOLLISON. First, Senator Mundt, we have the cost of installation.

Senator MUNDT. That is the $3,000 that you would have to spend. Mr. MOLLISON. Yes; $3,300.

Senator, frankly we don't see how we could make any more modest approach to this than we have. For example, we are not asking to air-condition the premises of the entire court. This is only a part of it. In other words, we are only asking to air-condition the premises of the judges, the library, and the administrative offices of our court. Senator MUNDT. What does that leave unair-conditioned?

Mr. MOLLISON. That would leave the courtrooms, the file rooms, and the general working quarters of the clerk's office where the employees work. We would look into that in the future. We are, we believe, making a modest approach when we ask that this part be allowed us.

What we are asking for is an additional $7,450 for air-conditioning which would make an appropriation of $19,450 for air-conditioning which would allow us to take care of the installation and wiring. Senator MUNDT. The House gave you $12,000.

Mr. MOLLISON. Yes.

Senator MUNDT. Very well. You may go to the next item.

CUSTOMS LAW DIGEST

Mr. MOLLISON. Very well, sir. There is another item which we have had before the House before. Last year we applied for the item, nonrecurring, of $60,000 for the preparation of a customs law digest. In the previous year, the House in its report disallowed the item, but stated that the committee recognized the need for this customs law digest. We renewed our request this year and they did not say anything about it. They merely did not give us the $60,000. Senator MUNDT. Who would read that digest?

Mr. MOLLISON. It would be for the benefit, first, of the judges of the customs court who must prepare written decisions. We have about 30 volumes right at this very moment of customs court decisions, and there is no digest whatsoever of any of the cases in those 30 volumes. So that if we wished to make any legal research on a matter in respect to opinions and decisions that our court has made, we have no way to do that intelligently. The only way we could do that would be to examine each of the individual 30 volumes.

In addition to that, if we had such a digest it would be useful to other Federal courts. It would be useful to our appellate court, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. It would be useful to all the Federal courts anywhere.

Furthermore, it would be highly useful to all the governmental departments, such as the Treasury Department, which must administer the customs laws. It would be useful to the Department of State, which negotiates trade agreements. It would be useful to the Department of Justice, which represents the United States in the Customs Court, and other places. It would also be useful to the various collectors of customs and appraisers.

In addition to that, it would be useful, we believe, to the Ways and Means Committee of the House, and the Finance Committee of the Senate.

BIDS FOR PREPARATION OF DIGEST

Senator MUNDT. I am intrigued by the fact that you had some bids submitted and one company bid $6,400 higher than the other company, and so you say we think that is the company we should patronize, the one that charges the most.

Mr. MOLLISON. You mean why did we suggest that?

Senator MUNDT. Yes.

Mr. MOLLISON. I will tell you why, Senator. Bobbs-Marrill prepared a digest quite recently. This has just been finished. It is a 13-volume digest of the old Board of Tax Appeals and the United States Tax Court. They have made what we consider to be a very fine digest, topically, and alphabetically, indexed, a digest of a very fine kind. It has a fine topical analysis. It has a fine cross-referenced word index. We believe that a digest along this line would be particularly helpful to us since we deal with so many varied items, as well as principles of law. We think that this type of digest would be helpful. It is for that reason.

Senator MUNDT. I would assume that any printing company you did business with would print a digest in conformity with whatever regulations you provide. You could have cross indexes or topical indexes. You would call the shots; would you not?

Mr. MOLLISON. Yes, we can lay down specifications and we have in dealing with these two publishing concerns. The only thing is that if we see that here is a publisher that has an expert experience in getting together a very modern and fine digest, we would feel that it should get, I would say, the call on the matter, because we think it probably has the experience to do this work.

Senator MUNDT. Is it just the one publishing company in the country that has experience in this business of printing digests?

Mr. MOLLISON. No, sir, I will explain that. Callahan & Co., I want to say, is a very fine publishing house. I used to practice law the city of Chicago for a great number of years. They put out some very high grade and creditable legal works, including digests. Their Michigan Digest, and their Wisconsin Digest are very fine digests. If they got the bid, I am sure that they would make a very fine digest. Bobbs-Merrill and Callahan were the only two who were interested in even making such a digest, first, because the digest seems to take a certain amount of skilled personnel, and Lawyers Cooperative, West Publishing Co., and Little-Brown & Co., were not interested in doing it at all. They didn't wish to bid on the work. They talked to us courteously, but they said they could not make it.

I would like to point out an additional thing. All of this money recommended by us would not be lost. There will be a recoupment to the Government, I would asy, of probably twenty to twenty-five thousand dollars.

Senator MUNDT. What do you need the extra money for? Whether you take the low bid or the high bid, you are still asking between nine and fifteen thousand dollars additional.

Mr. MOLLISON. For this reason. First, it would take about 2 years to make the digest. During the 2 years there will be 4 additional volumes. As a matter of fact, there have been two additional volumes since we got these estimates. That would increase the cost and there might possibly be an increase in some of the material costs and production costs that we can't foresee, wages and otherwise.

Senator MUNDT. How long since you have had a digest published? Mr. MOLLISON. We have never had a digest published. We don't have any digest at all. We are the only Federal court that does not have a digest.

First, the Court of Claims about 4 or 5 years ago got a digest. Senator MUNDT. Let me change my question. How long since you last asked for the money to print a digest?

Mr. MOLLISON. We asked for it for the first time last

we renewed it again this year.

Senator MUNDT. You never asked for it before last year?

Mr. MOLLISON. No, sir.

Then

Senator MUNDT. Very well. Let us take up the next item. If there is no other statement that you wish to make

Mr. BAND. There are 1 or 2 small items of waivers in the request. I do not think it is necessary to spend time on them. We waived a part of the request and are trying to absorb it, if the committee goes along with us. They are small items of $300 and $500.

Senator MUNDT. We have those taken care of.

Mr. MOLLISON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that we regard this digest as as a very highly important matter. It will greatly increase our judicial efficiency.

Senator MUNDT. It would seem important to me. What I was curious about is why in all the history of the United States you never asked for a digest before 1952.

Mr. MOLLISON. I am not able to give an authoritative answer on that.

Senator MUNDT. That takes some of the gilt off the argument that it is very important, it seems to me, if all these years you never asked for it until 2 years ago.

Mr. BAND. Senator, may I make an explanation of that?
Senator MUNDT. Yes.

Mr. BAND. The court has gone along for a number of years on partial digests, prepared by different people who started them and the money ran out, and they later died, and the partial digests died with them. So they are incomplete and unsatisfactory. This is an effort to try to make a complete digest that will be a guide wherever it is used. That is the reason that the court has to my knowledge never asked for it previously. I have been there 40 years.

Senator MUNDT. I am going to have a little difficulty in convincing my absent colleagues that something is of imminent importance, which I think it is, but has not been so important that you have been waiting for a century and a half in asking for it. Maybe there is not too much urgency now. I do not know. I just ask that question.

Mr. MOLLISON. Senator, I respectfully submit that for whatever reasons the request has not been made, it is now being made for the second time. I would like to say that if we ever are going to get a digest, and we continue to postpone it, all that is being done is that the job is being made more difficult and more costly. We hope that you will look at it in that way. If anyone has overlooked this matter throughout the years, then we hope that it will not be held against us now because we know now we are up against practical difficultiesthat the situation for legal research is growing much worse for us. I can tell that it is much worse in the 9 years that I have been on the court. It is progressively getting worse.

Senator MUNDT. I think that certainly would be true.
Mr. MOLLISON. Thank you very much.
Senator MUNDT. Thank you very much.

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS

STATEMENT OF HENRY P. CHANDLER, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS, ACCOMPANIED BY ELMORE WHITEHURST, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, EDWIN L. COVEY, CHIEF, BANKRUPTCY DIVISION, AND JOHN C. BROWN, BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER

AMENDMENTS AND JUSTIFICATIONS

Senator MUNDT. Mr. Chandler, we will hear from you next. Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman, the appropriations concerning which I appear here in behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States are the appropriations contained in the bill for the courts of appeals and the district courts. Those appropriations are discussed in my letter to you on pages 15 through 33. That is, all of page 15 and the rest of the letter.