how they think the laws should be amended in the respects you are dealing with.

Mr. CAMP. The department would like to have a period of not less than two months to go through the decisions since the enactment of the tariff act and prepare a detailed report on what appears to the department to be inequalities and to submit suggestions for amend

ments.

Mr. CRISP. I think that would be very helpful and I know the committee would be delighted to have it and there is no reason you should not have that much time. We are not to report until the next session of Congress.

Mr. BACHARACH. There is no reason why you should not have the time; there is no reason why you should not take your own time in getting the information together and getting it as accurately as

you can.

Mr. CAMP. Yes, sir.

Mr. DICKINSON. You spoke of passing baskets of figs without marking. How did you collect the customs?

Mr. CAMP. The regular duty assessed on the figs is collected, but the marking provision (sec. 304), provides if the merchandise is not marked to indicate the country of origin, a 10 per cent additional duty shall be collected. Customs assessed the 10 per cent additional duty.

Mr. DICKINSON. Of course, you can not mark individual figs, and it does not look to me that it is practicable or common sense to mark the shingles individually.

Mr. CAMP. Oh, no; but that shows the inconsistency. The court said in the one case, that the individual shingle should be marked. It is the view of the department that the marking of the bundle conveys the information to the purchaser; it is the view of the department that this basket of figs, the ornamental basket containing the figs, can be marked; that a tag can be put on the basket. and the basket of figs is the unit of sale. But the court says you are not importing baskets; you are importing the container; you are importing figs; and figs can not be marked Therefore, no marking is required. I took two opposite cases where the strict decision of the court works in different ways and permits an evasion, in one case and works a hardship in other cases.

There has been a decision with reference to the right to amend entries, which in my estimation, has broken down to some extent the administrative machinery. The law permits an importer to amend an entry at any time prior to the time that the merchandise or the invoice comes under the observation of the appraiser for the purposes of appraisement. The appraiser, as a matter of fact, particularly at New York, does not see the merchandise nor does he see the invoice. Formerly amendments were permitted up to the point when an examiner, acting for the appraiser, examines the merchandise. The purpose of the law is to prevent an examiner seeing the merchandise and possibly telling the importer of a contemplated advance in value so the importer can make his amendment and additional duties. The importer raised the point that an examiner was not an appraiser and the Court of Customs Appeals held that when the law says "appraiser" it means the appraiser in person and, at the present time, an entry can be amended at any time a

a little

report can be secured from the appraiser that the merchandise has come under the observation of the examiner but has not come under the observation of the appraiser. The department was obstreperous and refused to allow these amendments for a time, but the importer would protest and the court would uniformly sustain the protests so the department finally gave in and permitted the practice. The word "appraiser" was meant to include "examiner." Mr. BACHARACH. It was meant "examiner or appraiser;" is that your thought?

Mr. CAMP. Yes; that the word should be amplified in the law. The dye importers contend that it is very difficult to state value, because they do not know with much certainty whether the article is going to be appraised on the American value or the United States value; whether the appraiser will find it competitive or noncompetitive. It seems to me if the correct selling price abroad and the correct selling price in the United States and every other pertinent fact is stated accurately, the importer should not be subjected to additional duties for undervaluation if customs rules it is a competitive article and should be appraised on the American selling price. I think that situation can be corrected by an amendment stating substantially that a change from an American valuation to the United States valuation, or vice versa, shall be considered a question of classification rather than one of appraisement.

Mr. WATSON. The Government must lose several million dollars in the difference between the European and American appraisement? Especially rugs.

Mr. CAMP. You understand, Mr. Watson, that the competitive coal-tar products are assessed on the American valuation and noncompetitive coal-tar products on the United States value. The dye importer if in doubt on the question of competitiveness makes his entry and then makes application to amend it and does amend only after he ascertains the appraiser's opinion. He thus avoids. the additional duties.

Mr. CAMP. The duty on rugs is on the foreign value or export price, whichever is higher. There is no provision in the tariff law for the assessment of a duty on rugs on the American value. American value was provided for only in sections 27 and 28, which relate to coal-tar products.

Mr. WATSON. You are now speaking of dyes?

Mr. CAMP. Yes.

Mr. BACHARACH. In the chemical schedule?

Mr. CAMP. Yes. In the chemical schedule-coal-tar derivatives. Customs, further, would be very glad to have this committee examine the accounting methods, examine the work of the comptrollers of customs and examine proposals that have been made to permit the General Accounting Office to review the liquidation of entries. For many years comptrollers of customs have performed an administrative examination and have audited the accounts of collections. They do not audit the expenditures from the appropriation for collecting the revenue from customs, that is, expenses for personnel, travel, and other things. If the General Accounting Office is permitted to change the rate and amount of duty ascertained by the collector and, when the collector, in the estimation of the Comptroller General, has collected a sum that is too small, if the Comp

troller General may look to the collector, on his personal bond, for the difference, it is going to create a situation that will interfere greatly with commerce; for a collector will refuse to tell the importer definitely what he owes the Government, fearing a personal loss if the comptroller fails to agree with him. The tariff act states that the decision of the collector as to the rate and amount of duty shall be final and conclusive on all parties in the absence of a protest to the board, etc.

Mr. CRISP. Mr. Camp, we reported out of this committee and passed through the House a bill, I thought, correcting that proposition, taking away from the General Accounting Office the right to review decisions of the comptroller of customs.

Mr. CAMP. This is true.

Mr. CRISP. That has not corrected the evil you are speaking of there?

Mr. CAMP. It would correct this, but that bill is still before the Finance Committee of the Senate.

Mr. CRISP. I thought it had become a law. I knew we passed it in the House.

Mr. CAMP. The question may come up at the next session and I think it would be very timely for this committee to secure some first-hand information.

With reference to the organization and salaries. In the early days, 45 years ago, the entrance salary of the customs service was attractive; it was one of the most attractive services from the standpoint of pay. College graduates competed in the civil service examinations, and as a result many very well qualified men were induced to come into the service. At the present time, if you go to New York, you will find the old stalwarts, most of them now beyond the retirement age, to be of that type-college graduates and, as the assistant collector up there states, a good many of them were country school-teachers who, from their experience, are very careful and conscientious, and make fine administrative officers. In 1884, for example, in reviewing an old pay roll, I find that the average salary at the port of New York was $1,435. That was over 40 years ago, and this committee understands that was then an attractive salary. At the present time, the average pay at the port of New York is $1,990, an increase, during this period, from $1,435 to $1,990. I think it would be advisable for this committee to determine whether the policy of attracting people with a good basic education into the customs service was a good policy, or whether it was a wasteful policy. We are benefiting much from the old policy now and I am somewhat apprehensive that 10 or 15 years from now the customs service will suffer from a lack of personnel material.

Mr. BACHARACH. Do you not think in addition to that, Mr. Camp, the Government is losing a great deal of money by reason of the fact that we do not have as competent men in all branches of the customs service as we would have if we paid them a fair salary? Mr. CAMP. I think that is true.

Mr. BACHARACH. That is a reasonable deduction, I think.

Mr. CAMP. But the danger in the future is greater than at the present time, for a number of those people who are doing such good work may not be in the service for a long period. A number have dropped out by death this last year and it is alarming to some who

have been in the service for a long time, to witness the passing of those who have so long and well filled the places of responsibility.

Mr. WATSON. Can you put into the record the total amount of salaries paid in 1884 and the total amount of tariff revenue collected in the same year, as compared with 1926.

Mr. CAMP. Yes, sir.

Mr. DICKINSON. And the number of them then as compared with now?

Mr. CAMF. Yes, Mr. Dickinson.

Comparative statement of customs receipts and expenditures for salaries for the fiscal years 1884 and 1926

[The figures available for 1884 do not include reimbursable salaries, salaries of special agents and the United States Customs Court. So that the figures may be on a comparable basis such salaries are excluded from the total given for 1926]

It may interest the committee to know that total ordinary receipts for the fiscal year 1884 were $348,519,869, customs receipts constituting 56 per cent of the Government's revenue at that time. With the advent of taxes on incomes and other forms of taxation during the period of war, the relative importance of the customs service as a revenue producing agency was reduced to a very minor position. Since the war, the relative importance of the customs service, with increased customs receipts and repeated reductions in the tax laws, has been increased and it seems logical that with the reduction of the national debt and the consequent reduction of the present heavy payments of interest on the national debt, further tax reduction will be brought about and tend to restore the customs service to its former place of relative major importance from a purely revenue point of view.

Mr. CRISP. Mr. Camp, have you any recommendations to make about how much those salaries should be raised now, or is that a matter you would rather consider and later make your recommendation?

Mr. CAMP. Well, it is a matter I would very much like to have this: committee look into. Personally, I think it would be wise to provide,. by salary or otherwise, some way of attracting better people into the

service.

Mr. MARTIN. Do you think the salaries ought to be based on length of service?

Mr. CAMP. No; not entirely.

Mr. CRISP. Mr. Camp, I am sure this committee desires and will look thoroughly into that matter, and of course the committee is not going to accept any recommendation of the department as to salaries, unless it appeals to the judgment of the committee. But what I was after, the committee would like to have the views of the administrative department as to what they thought would benefit the service.

Mr. BACHARACH. I think that proposition merits an investigation. Mr. CAMP. Yes, sir. A review has been made this last year by the Bureau of Efficiency. The work has been well performed, but I do not believe the putting of the classification recommended by the Bureau of Efficiency into effect will entirely correct the situation. My reason for saying that is that the Bureau of Efficiency takes the position that a file clerk should be paid the salary of a file clerk and should compare with a file clerk in any other office; that a stenoggrapher is no better than a stenographer in business; that we ought to compete in the market for stenographers. There is, however, a difference in civil service and in private employment. In civil service, these file clerks, these stenographers, are the material we have for making assistant collectors, liquidators, cashiers, and various other responsible officers. The company on the outside will employ stenographers with no idea that when vacancies occur in responsible positions they will be filled by the promotion of these stenographers. They go on the outside and find suitable men for the places. It would be exceptional now for a college graduate to compete in a civil-service examination for a customs position and, at the present time there is only one channel for obtaining material. We employ at the bottom and promote on through. The entrance salary is the measuring stick of the caliber of the people that will be in the customs service 10, 15, and 20 years hence, and the measuring stick is very much shorter than it was 40 years ago. And, while the report of the Bureau of Efficiency is a very fair report, there is a question of policy involved that I do not think adopting the conclusions of the Bureau of Efficiency will entirely correct.

This review of customs salaries was made by the Bureau of Efficincy and it is very complete. I have brought with me some sample sheets of the individual positions. The officers in the field were required to submit sheets for each individual, describing his job, describing the work he performed and the Bureau of Efficiency indicated the salary range, comparing the work in the field, the job, with comparable work, as far as it could be done, performed in the District of Columbia-the District of Columbia being under classification at the present time.

Mr. WATSON. Does the 8-hour law apply to inspectors?

Mr. CAMP. The 8-hour law?

Mr. WATSON. Yes.

Mr. CAMP. No, sir.

Mr. WATSON. Inspectors are called on Sundays, nights, and holidays?

Mr. CAMP. Yes; inspectors perform overtime service and they receive pay from the railroads and the steamships for this overtime service.

Mr. WATSON. Do you know what is paid for the overtime service? Mr. CAMP. The average overtime?

Mr. WATSON. Yes.

Mr. CAMP. There are about 1,900 inspectors in the Customs Service. I think not over half of them receive overtime. For the half who receive overtime, probably the average is about $400 per

man.

Mr. WATSON. Then he really receives $2,300 a year?