(Witness: Meyer.)

The CHAIRMAN. Did this society you spoke of reach any conclusion with reference to the durability of the two bindings, or did they not discuss that question?

Mr. MEYER. They discussed only leather, and they spoke of the very poor quality. They laid special stress on the very poor quality of the recent specimens of sheep and calf.

The CHAIRMAN. That have been in use since 1860?

Mr. MEYER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And did it appear whether the quality had deteriorated recently; was that deterioration practically incident to 1860 and from that on?

Mr. MEYER. I do not recall that, but I judge that all the leather that has been produced since 1860; that is, the most of it. There are a few firms, a few localities, that produce good leather, but on the whole all the leather has deteriorated pretty much in general since that time.

The CHAIRMAN. How about buckram as a binding?

Mr. MEYER. I consider it very good.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it equal to or superior to cloth?

Mr. MEYER. I should say that it was one of the best kinds of cloth for binding books.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a cloth?

Mr. MEYER. It is simply a variety of cloth.

The CHAIRMAN. What other kinds of binding are there that are generally used, if any, besides leather, law sheep, and cloth? Mr. MEYER. They use calf and morocco and cow skin.

The CHAIRMAN. Those are expensive?

Mr. MEYER. More expensive. The cow skin is the cheapest of those that I have named, and that is quite durable, far superior to the sheep or calf.

The CHAIRMAN. Those bindings are used, as a rule, with the better or more choice editions?

Mr. MEYER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. But in editions for popular or common use, those bindings are confined largely to sheep and cloth?

Mr. MEYER. No, sir; to cloth now.

The CHAIRMAN. To cloth now?

Mr. MEYER. Yes; I do not think they use any sheep at all in the Library. They use a cow skin that is left yellow, its natural color, to resemble sheep as far as possible; but cloth, either duck or buckram, is preferred.

The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking now of the Library of Congress? Mr. MEYER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. How long has it been since you have gone from law sheep to cloth?

Mr. MEYER. That I am not prepared to say. I was not connected with the Library when the change was made.

The CHAIRMAN. But that is the rule there now?

Mr. MEYER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What about the cloth? You have spoken about the cloth and the law sheep with reference to the question of deterioration by the weather or atmospheric conditions. Now, what about the deterioration of the respective bindings when you come to the

(Witnesses: Meyer, Zappone.)

use and handling of the books, and as to their capacity to stand wear, under those circumstances; which is superior, the cloth or the sheep, or is there any distinction between the two in that respect? Mr. MEYER. I think the cloth is superior.

The CHAIRMAN. Even in that respect?

Mr. MEYER. Yes; the sheep has a tendency to fray. A little corner or sharp instrument will raze the surface a little, and it will begin to tear from that point.

The CHAIRMAN. Then I understand that it is your judgment that the cloth binding is superior, from the point of view of wear and durability, to the sheep binding?

Mr. MEYER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, a book is worth more bound in cloth than in sheep.

Mr. MEYER. Yes. For my own part I should not care to buy a book bound in sheep, if I could avoid it. I feel quite certain that my cloth-bound books will last my lifetime, whereas the leather bindings, excepting real morocco, are all crumbling to pieces.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know anything about the difference in cost?

Mr. MEYER. The cost of the actual cloth required to cover a book is, I believe, a little less than that of the leather. The manipulation of the leather is a little more expensive. So that on the whole the leather would be more expensive than the cloth. Binders have a tendency to use more careful methods when using leather. It seems to be a tradition of the trade. But if they are cautioned, and the specification is drawn so as to include that, there ought to be no difficulty.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, if you get the same quality of workmanship the cloth binding is superior, from your point of view, to the sheep binding?

Mr. MEYER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything more you gentlemen think of? Mr. SAMUEL. Nothing.

Mr. ZAPPONE. No, sir; nothing.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very greatly obliged to you.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.

JANUARY 5, 1907.

(Part of testimony given on above date before Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Agriculture.)

STATEMENT OF SYLVESTER R. BURCH, ESQ., CHIEF CLERK OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.)

The CHAIRMAN. What is your position, please?

Mr. BURCH. Chief clerk of the Department of Agriculture.
The CHAIRMAN. What are your duties, generally speaking?

Mr. BURCH. My duties are somewhat varied. I am the administrative officer of the Secretary and responsible for the enforcement of all rules and regulations of the Department; have general supervision of the personnel of the Department, and issue all special and general orders. I have supervision of the watchmen and messenger force, the file room, the distribution of the Secretary's mail, the telephone and telegraph office, the engineers and firemen, the chief of supply division, and the various offices that come under the Secretary, including expenditures made from the contingent fund. I am also custodian of the buildings.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the general Department?
Mr. BURCH. The general Department.

The CHAIRMAN. As distinguished from particular bureaus?
I get that right?

Mr. BURCH. Yes. I have charge of the annual leaves of absencethe sick leaves, the leaves of absence of people without pay-and approve requests for the purchase of supplies from all the small bureaus, and am chairman of the committees on the award of contracts under informal bids and the sale of condemned property; in fact, all business transactions of the Secretary's office.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have to do with the disbursement of the funds that relate to the Department generally?

Mr. BURCH. No; nothing, except that I have supervision of the contingent fund. That comes under my jurisdiction.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any control over the question of fixing the compensation of the employees of the Department? Mr. BURCH. No, sir.

Mr. SAMUEL. Is the compensation of the various employees fixed by law?

Mr. BURCH. Yes, sir; almost all are statutory employees now in the Secretary's office, except a very few paid from the "emergency

fund."

The CHAIRMAN. If I understand it correctly, you are familiar with the services performed by and the duties of the men who would be included in the list of expenditures on pages 3, 4, and 5? Mr. BURCH. Yes, sir,

(Witnesses: Burch, Zappone.)

The CHAIRMAN. As to the balance of the expenditures, they are grouped and classified under the heads of the various bureaus?

Mr. BURCH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. With which you would not be personally familiar? Mr. BURCH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do I get correctly the scope of your employment and your knowledge of the affairs of the Department?

Mr. BURCH. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your understanding that the compensation of all the officers referred to on these pages is fixed in detail by the appropriation bill?

Mr. BURCH. Not all. The Secretary is given $10,000 for emergency employments and for rents not otherwise provided for.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, $10,000 relating to the office of the Secretary for emergency purposes?

Mr. BURCH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The total expenditures are $110,320?

Mr. BURCH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And out of that he has the sum of $10,000 for a contingent fund for general salary purposes?

Mr. BURCH. For salary, and all other purposes for emergency work, including rents.

The CHAIRMAN. That includes not only salaries, but expenses? Mr. BURCH. Yes, sir; rents, etc.

The CHAIRMAN. All expenditures.

Mr. ZAPPONE. May I read to you an extract from the law?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. ZAPPONE (reading):

gency employments, and pay of rents, $10,000." That is the lump fund to which the chief clerk refers.

Mr. FLOOD. Is that in addition to the $110,320?

Mr. ZAPPONE. No; it is included in it.

The CHAIRMAN. What page of the appropriation bill do you find that on?

Mr. ZAPPONE. That is on page 2, just at the close of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, with the exception of the lump sum to which you have referred, the salaries for the Secretary's office are specifically fixed by Congress itself?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How does the sum of $110,320 compare with the appropriations that have been made for that purpose during the last half dozen years? Of course this is only approximate.

Mr. BURCH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What we want to get at is whether there has been much increase, or whether it is substantially the same?

Mr. BURCH. It is a slight increase, but I can not say just how much.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose the scope of the work of the Department has been increasing gradually all the time?

Mr. BURCH. Yes; very materially.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give us-of course it can be done easily enough by a little computation-a list, for the last ten years, say, of the appropriations made for the office of the Secretary, so that we can have the figures in the record for the purposes of comparison?

(Witnesses: Burch, Zappone.)

Mr. BURCH. For the last ten years; yes. Just make a note of that please, Mr. Zappone.

Mr. ZAPPONE. I have that all compiled in the annual report of the Division of Accounts for 1906.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, you have?

Mr. ZAPPONE. Yes, sir; from 1839 to date. The report shows all the appropriations made for the Department of Agriculture.

The following is a summary of these appropriations, and will show the wonderful growth of the Department, due to the urgent and continual demands of agricultural and other public interests:

Includes $1,646.45 of the appropriation for reclamation of arid lands, carried to the fiscal year 1882.

Includes $85.26 of the appropriation for reclamation of arid lands and $3,530.85 of the appropriation for experiments in the manufacture of sugar, carried to the fiscal year 1883.

Includes $7,656.13 of the appropriation for reclamation of arid lands, carried to the fiscal year 1884.

• Includes $93,192.27 of the appropriation for Bureau of Animal Industry and $2,970.82 of the appropriation for quarantine stations, carried to the fiscal year 1886. For the fiscal year 1888 including the sum of $8,000 appropriated for deficiencies in the appropriation for experiments in the manufacture of sugar for the fiscal years 1887 and 1888, of which $7,927.50 was disbursed and $72.50 remained unexpended.

Includes $12,923.25 of the appropriation for botanical investigations and $58,364.76 of the appropriation for experiments in the manufacture of sugar, carried to the fiscal year 1890.

Includes $188.974.69 of the appropriation for Bureau of Animal Industry, carried to the fiscal year 1891.

Includes $7.891.94 for statutory salaries of the year 1894.

For the years 1905 and 1906 the figures given represent payments made to close of June 30, 1906, the accounts for those years being still open at the date of this revision. This total is the amount actually appropriated for the various fiscal years, with the exception of $37.604.70 appropriated July 13, 1868, to cover a number of expenditures made in previous years. It does not include an aggregate sum of $369,344.48 reappropriated from the unexpended balances of several fiscal years. (See foregoing notes.)

Does not include $37,604.70 which was disbursed during several years, and covered by an appropriation of like amount, made July 13. 1868. (See note 5.)

m Does not include an aggregate sum of $369,344.48 reappropriated from the unexpended balances of several fiscal years. (See foregoing notes.)