HOUSE REPORT (PP. 6—7)

"The amount recommended for the customs court includes funds for air conditioning of the chambers of the eight judges, the court library, the office of the clerk of the court, and the office of the marshal. In view of the nature of the space occupied by this court in New York City, air conditioning of this space is essential to the proper functioning of this organization."

JUSTIFICATION

When the proposed appropriation for the United States Customs Court was considered by the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives that committee disallowed the sum of $80,630. The report submitted by the House committee does not identify any part of the amount disallowed. Therefore, an analysis of the appropriation approved by the House committee shows that the disallowance was apparently arrived at by the deduction of $3,330 for automatic increments for personnel; $300 for transportation of things; $1,000 for penalty mail; $500 for communication services; $1,000 for printing and reproduction; $60,000 for contractual services; $13,000 for air conditioning; and $1,500 under equipment.

In an effort to effectuate further savings in the proposed appropriation for 1955, the judges of the United States Customs Court held a special court meeting on May 24 and adopted the following recommendations:

1. That the Senate reconsider the action taken by the Committee on Appropriations of the House and restore to the proposed appropriation of the Customs Court the sum of $3,330 requested for the purpose of within-grade advancements in salary to personnel which fall due during the fiscal year 1955. The sum of $3,330 was included in the proposed appropriation for the fiscal year 1955 so as to comply with the requirements of the statute covering automatic increments of salaries to civil-service personnel. After recomputing the allowances required to provide the within-grade advancements for present personnel, the court feels that this sum is the minimum amount which should be made available and therefore renews its request that such allowance be restored to the proposed appropriation.

2. The proposed appropriation for the "Transportation of things" for the fiscal year 1955 was increased to the extent of $300 because of the greater volume of litigation now being filed with the court. In view of the fact that the caseload of the court is steadily increasing it was believed that this sum would be necessary to transport the additional exhibits, court records, and other files to the various ports of hearing throughout the United States and its possessions during the fiscal year 1955. Toward the end of endeavoring to economize in every way, the court decided to try to absorb this $300 and limit their appropriation for the item "Transportation of things" to the $1,500 allowed for the fiscal year 1954.

3. In disallowing the sum of $1,500 requested for "Communication services" it is the belief of the court that possibly the Appropriations Committee of the House overlooked the fact that the Customs Court, like other Government agencies, is now required to pay for its use of the mails as provided for in Public Law 286, approved August 15, 1953. The court desires to point out here that this is the first year the penalty-mail item has been specifically included in its appropriation. Based upon the court's experience it was believed that the sum of $1,000 should be set aside to meet the postal charges arising out of greater volume of mail created by increased litigation. The remaining $500 disallowed under the item of "Communication services" was included by the court to cover the greater use of telephone facilities and the proposed increase in rates for telephone services. After further study of costs covering mail charges and telephone services, the court decided to reduce the allowance set aside for postal charges as required under Public Law 286 from $1,000 to $500 and to limit the use of additional telephone facilities to the expenditure of $250 instead of $500. Therefore, the court is reducing its proposed appropriation under “Communication services" from $1,500 to $750.

4. Under the heading of "Printing and reproduction," the court originally applied for an additional sum of $1,000. The court believes it may be able to change office procedures to the end that the sum of $500 would be sufficient to meet the needs of printing and reproduction for the fiscal year 1955. This change will require some experimentation in the use of forms which it hopes will prove satisfactory. Therefore, the court requests the Senate Appropriations Committee to restore the sum of $500 to the court's proposed appropriation for the fiscal year 1955.

5. Under the heading of "Contractual services," the court applied for the preparation, printing, and binding of a digest of its decisions for the sum of $60,000, which was the best estimate obtained for this project. The Customs Court is seriously hampered in legal research because there is no customs law digest of the approximately 4,000 or more customs decisions contained in the court's 30 or more customs law report volumes. In respect to the court's lack of a digest, the situation is growing steadily worse and is being further aggravated by the regular addition of two volumes of customs decisions each year. As a consequence of the annual addition of two volumes to the 30 volumes now in existence, the initial cost of a customs law digest grows progressively greater.

In the proposed appropriation for the fiscal year 1954, the court requested the Congress to provide the sum of $60,000 for the purpose of obtaining by contract the editing, compilation, preparation, and binding of a digest of customs decisions. At the hearings before the subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee having charge of the judicial appropriations, it was suggested to representatives of the court that a further survey be made for the purpose of determining whether or not the editorial work for the customs digest desired by the court could be done by the offices of the Library of Congress. As a result thereof, the Congress eliminated the digest item from the proposed appropriation of the Customs Court for 1954. Further, the legislative-judiciary subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations recognized the value of the proposed customs law digest but recommended its deferral for another year. See page 4, report of legislative-judiciary subcommittee of Committee on Appropriations (to accompany H. R. 5805), June 17, 1953, House of Representatives Report 598, 83d Congress, 1st session.

Since the passage of the appropriation bill, a committee of the judges of the court has been in communication with the Acting Librarian of Congress to see if the Library of Congress had any materials which would facilitate the making of a customs law digest. After some research, the Acting Librarian of Congress possessed no such material (except sets of our law reports) and that the task presented by the preparation of the digest desired would be beyond the present capacities of that agency; and the Library of Congress could not hope to divert either funds or personnel from regular Library activity for the purpose. Further, the Acting Librarian of Congress advised our court that that agency did not have available the skilled personnel which it could assign to the editing and preparation of such a customs law digest. Our court was further advised that in the opinion of the agency the editing, compilation, preparation, printing, and binding of such a digest could more economically be done by an established law publisher and as a consequence at less cost and expense to the Government. The court has also thoroughly explored the possibility of getting the digest job satisfactorily completed at less cost than the estimate of $60,000 submitted in the 1954 budget and it is our belief that the estimates secured are as low as could possibly be had especially in view of possible rising professional salaries, labor, and material costs. In view of this position and the continuing urgent need for such a digest, the court is again submitting its request for the reconsideration of the Congress. Since the passage of the appropriation bill for 1954, nothing has taken place which in any way alters the necessity for such a digest as described in the justification for this item in the proposed appropriation for 1954. It is accordingly again set forth herein so that the Congress could have before it a detailed outline of the necessity for the customs digest and the method of obtaining its realization.

The judges of the Customs Court are seriously handicapped in the performance of their judicial duties in preparing written opinions (as required by statute) by the lack of a modern and comprehensive digest of the entire field of customs law which would include and reflect the principles of customs law found in the decisions of the Customs Court, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, it predecessor, the Court of Customs Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

There is no law publisher's digest covering the entire field of customs law, and no digest covering or including the decisions of the Customs Court. At the present time there are 30 law report volumes, containing several thousand printed decisions of the Customs Court, none of which have been digested; and to this number there are regularly added each year 2 volumes, each containing a hundred to several hundred opinions and decisions which will have to be digested. The volumes of the Customs Court reports range in size from about 500 to 1,100 pages, and the court has estimated that there are approximately 3,500 to 4,000 or more written opinions and decisions of the Customs Court which must be digested, compiled, classified, edited, and arranged under a topical index digest plan or scheme of arrangement.

At the present time in order to ascertain whether there is a Customs Court decision on any given subject or principle of law, it would be necessary to make an individual examination of each of the Customs Court law report volumes, and this method, aside from the immense amount of labor required, is a highly doubtful, uncertain, and wholly ineffective way of making any legal research; and, of course, it should be borne in mind that our law report volumes are not even adapted to such an antiquated and time-wasting method of legal research, and that such a method would not certainly yield all points or principles of law or confirm the absence of them. The Customs Court is the only court whose decisions are not covered in a digest.

At the present time, with no digest of the kind sought, we are without a comprehensive topical subject analysis of customs law; we lack a descriptive word analysis or general index to our Customs Court decisions and opinions; and we lack a table of cases furnishing the names and styles of all cases and decisions and the references to the volumes of our reports where they may be found; and we lack also historical reference notes and explanations which would allow a researcher to trace and follow all stages of the case from our court to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and to the Supreme Court of the United States, and further proceedings in our own court.

Our court believes that a carefully prepared comprehensive digest, covering the entire field of customs law, and including in one legal work the customs decisions of the Customs Court, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and its predecessor, the Court of Customs Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States (beginning about April 1910, the date of the first Court of Customs Appeals decisions) should be made, and that such a digest when made will facilitate the work of the judges of all courts in preparing opinions and decisions in customs cases, improve the quality of judicial opinions, decisions, and acts, and also will facilitate the work of many executive and legislative branches of the Government, including the customs officials of the Treasury Department, and various officials of the Departments of State, Justice, Agriculture, and Commerce, the Tariff Commission, the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, the Finance Committee of the Senate, and various other officials of the Government having to do with matters of customs law and administration. Such a digest will not only be of inestimable value to all judges of all Federal courts and the executive departments and committees of the Congress, but will likewise be of great assistance to members of the bar handling customs matters and cases as well as all business and commercial concerns dealing in foreign trade and

commerce.

A relatively small number of the law reports of the Customs Court and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals are printed and circulated. For those who must make judicial decisions and judgments, or determinations for the purposes of administration of customs laws and regulations, or interpretations of the customs laws and regulations for purposes of business, commerce, and foreign trade, the demand for a customs law digest is imperative. But the demand for such a digest, measured in numbers, would not be great enough to make the publishing of such a digest commercially feasible or possible in view of the extensive and expensive editorial work involved and the high cost of materials, printing, composition, press work, and binding involved in the manufacture of the books themselves.

➜During the last 3 or 4 years the Customs Court has contacted most of the leading law publishers in the country requesting that they prepare and publish such a digest on their own account, but all have indicated that they could not sell enough of such a contemplated legal work to pay for the editorial and manufacturing cost of its production. Law publishers have indicated that the preparation and publication of such a digest is entirely analogous to the work of compiling, recodifing, and revising the statute and session laws of a State, where the demand in numbers for such revised statutes would be relatively small and the amount of highly skilled editorial work great and manufacturing costs high. In such cases it is customary for the State to pay the entire cost of the editorial work and the complete cost of materials, printing, composition, press work, and binding for a completely manufactured set of lawbooks.

The court believes that the best and most economical way of obtaining such a digest is by contract with a regular law publishing firm for the completion of all editorial work and the production of the digest, rather than by the method of hiring a digester for the editorial work and having the book manufacturing done by the Government Printing Office. The court has secured two estimates and offers for the preparation of such a digest from the five law-publishing firms solicited. We have received from the Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., of Indianapolis,

Ind., an estimate of $51,400, and from Callaghan & Co. of Chicago, Ill., an estimate of $45,000. The court believes that the better offer is that made by the Bobbs-Merrill Co. The court has considered the very excellent features and qualities of the Tax Court Digest, recently published by Bobbs-Merrill and believes that a digest prepared upon such a plan would meet its needs.

The Bobbs-Merrill Co. estimated that 24 months will be required in which to finish the digest. The estimate provides for the furnishing of 200 sets of the digest. However, in order to secure the distribution to the courts, to the various Government departments and agencies, and to congressional agencies indicated herein, and to provide a reasonable number which may be purchased by members of the bar, law libraries, and business people engaged in foreign trade and commerce, it is our opinion that at lease 500 or more sets of the digest should be published. Moreover, several additional volumes of the two customs courts will be issued in the 24-month period in which the digest is being prepared, and the law publisher, in accordance with the court's wishes, has promised to bring the digest up to date as far as possible. In view of the foregoing and other possible contingencies, it is our belief that at least $60,000 will be required to pay for the completed digest.

The digest would be the property of the United States. No digest would be sold by the law publisher. The digests could be sold at an established price either through the office of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States courts or the Superintendent of Public Documents. There will be some recoupment of cost through sale of sets of the customs digest, possibly 20 to 40 percent of the total cost. We have been informed by the Library of Congress that the provision of the law relating to the deposit of 150 sets of the customs digest with the Library of Congress must be satisfied in order to permit such agency to fulfill its obligation in respect to international exchange.

The Bobbs-Merrill Co. believes that the digest would be published in three volumes of approximately 500 pages each, and would be in the same format as their Tax Court Digest. In view of the rejustification statement above set forth on this item, the court very urgently recommends that the sum of $60,000 for the digest be retained in its proposed appropriation for 1955.

6. Under the heading of "Equipment" the House Appropriations Committee eliminated the sum of $13,000 from the original request of the court for $25,000 to air-condition certain key offices. The House committee specifically allowed the sum of $12,000 for this item. In an effort to effectuate every possible savings and economize, the court has had a new survey made covering the installation of 38 units. As a result of this survey it was determined that to obtain the three-quarter-ton units and their installation under the labor cost prevailing in the New York area, would require a minimum charge per unit of $425 installed. The court also found that in addition to the charge for the units and their installation they would have to provide for the expenditure of $3,300 to extend the wiring facilities necessary for the installation of the units from the main distribution panel board and lighting board through hung ceilings of the various judges' chambers and other offices. Therefore, the total minimum cost based on new estimates for the installation of 38 units and the essential basic wiring would cost $19,450. The court therefore recommends that the Senate Appropriations Committee allow $19,450 which is $5,550 less than the $25,000 originally requested. However, it should be pointed out here that the sum of $19,450 is $7,450 more than allowed by the House committee.

Under the heading of “Equipment" the court has also had a survey made of its mechanical and other equipment. So that savings may be effectuated, the court feels that it will be able to continue to obtain its needs from the same sum appropriated for the fiscal year 1954. Therefore, the additional sum of $1,500 requested under "General equipment" is withdrawn.

In conclusion, the court desires to point out to the Senate that the rejustifications set forth above show a reduction in the court's original proposed appropriation of $8,600. In view of these circumstances, the court respectfully requests that the Senate give favorable consideration to the proposed appropriation of the United States Customs Court as herewith revised.

GENERAL STATEMENT

Senator MUNDT. Will you proceed, please, Mr. Mollison?

Mr. MOLLISON. My name is Irvin C. Mollison. I am a judge of the United States Customs Court. I am appearing on behalf of Chief Judge Webster J. Oliver, who is unavoidably detained from this meeting which he wished very much to attend, because he is presently

in the midst of a trial at Philadelphia. So he was unable, Mr. Chairman, to come down.

Our clerk, who is our financial expert, has analyzed what the House did in respect to our requests for various appropriations. We have several items that we would like to submit for your consideration, and hope that some additional appropriation can be made because of the great importance of these items.

AUTOMATIC INCREMENT AND SALARY INCREASES

The item that we are greatly interested in is the matter of $3,330 which the House reduced our request by. That item is necessary because we must have it in order to pay the automatic increments in salaries which are required by law for all of our employees. We have got to get the money to pay the automatic increments for our employees. We would like your committee to recommend and restore to our appropriation $3,300 for that purpose.

We have not made a request in respect to transportation of things. That was reduced by $300. The court will waive any request to restore that cut, and we will try to get along with the amount which was allowed us in the House.

COMMUNICATION SERVICES

The next item is for communication services. We had requested an increase of $1,500. We are requesting that your committee recommend that $500 of that increase be restored. I am advised by the clerk that we are in fact requesting that $750 be restored instead of the $1,500.

Senator MUNDT. Yes, I notice that in your presentation.

PENALTY MAIL

Mr. MOLLISON. I would like to explain that there is an item of $1,000 which appeared for the first time on account of penalty mail. The court is now by public law required to pay for its own postage and mailing. So although that appears for the first time, it is an absolutely necessary item and we believe that the House did not take that into consideration, and we should have that.

Senator MUNDT. May I ask if you called that to the attention of the House during the House hearings?

Mr. MOLLISON. The matter did not come up. However, it was in the request.

Senator MUNDT. Did you call the attention of the House to the fact that this was the first time you had to pay for the mail? Mr. MOLLISON. I think it was in the justification, Senator. at that hearing.

Mr. BAND. It was before the House.

Senator MUNDT. What reason did they give in their report?

Mr. BAND. There was no reason given, Senator. They just reduced the appropriation by the sum of $80,630. They gave no allocation as to amounts or headings. We broke it down as we believed it was intended.

Senator MUNDT. It is just your assumption that that is where they took it away?