40 AGRICULTURAL APPROPRIATION BILL, 1924. 



priations for the Government Printing Office, and my recollection 

 is that at that time we arrived at the conclusions we reached as a 

 result of representations by the Government printer that the cost 

 of paper, the greater efficiency of the offices, and the general reduc- 

 tion of expenditures accomj^lished there made it possible to do the 

 same amount of work for less money, but, on the other hand, if this 

 means there is going to be less printing done, that is dili'erent. 



Assistant Secretary Pugsley. I think it means there will have to be 

 less printing done than there would be with a larger appropriation, 

 because it is impossible to do as much printing, even with the reduced 

 costs, as it would be with the $800,000. On the other hand, we are 

 constantly making combinations of periodicals and making improve- 

 ments and changes in the work of the printing, and the Public Printer 

 is doing the same thing, I think, so that the reduction in the amount 

 of printing will be less, perhaps, than the reduction in the total. 



Mr. Anderson. Well, my observation of investigational research 

 work is that it is a Avhole lot easier to make an investigation and 

 get the facts together than it is to get them out and get people to 

 read them, and nothing is gained by a policy Avhich involves spending 

 an enormous amount of money to get facts, by research work, and 

 then cuts at the other end, so that what you do is embalmed in the 

 brains or in the library of the Department of Agriculture. So, as 

 far as I am concerned, I Avould hesitate a good deal before cutting 

 this appropriation below the limit of the useful work that can be 

 done through the distribution of the publications. 



Mr. CoBBs. Mr. xVnderson, suppose I give you just a few figures 

 which will give you the actual status of the printing fund as to 

 last year. We had a total of $850,000. We returned to the Treasury 

 unused, $183,848.79. But we had a carry-over at the end of the 

 year at the Government Printing Office of approxinuitely $141,000. 

 That is to say, had we been able to get delivery of the work which 

 was at the Printing Office we would have had an unused amount in 

 our printing fund of approximately $42,000. 



Assistant Secretary Pugsley. That is, there was work turned in, 

 but because of the rush at the Printing Office it could not be deliv- 

 ered until after July 1, and that will have to come from this appro- 

 ])riation. A good many manuscripts were submitted for printing 

 a<jainst the deficiency appropriation. Mr. Marvin had a nnnii)iM' 

 of manuscripts he was verj' anxious to get out. 



Mr. Anderson. The charge, then, I take it, is not made by the 

 Government Printing Oflice against the Department of Agriculture 

 until the Avork is delivered^ 



Mr. CoBBS. The final charge is not nuide until delivery. 



Mr. Anderson. So that while you may have had work in their 

 office which would have absoi-bed (hat entire a])propriation this year, 

 or last year, yon have one lumdicd and eighty thousand and odd dol- 

 lars come back into the Treasury because the work was not delivered 

 and paid for. and you have got to pay for that $140,000 carry over 

 this year out of Ibis approi)riation^ 



Mr. CoBBS. That is the sil iial ion exactly, and some oi" the bureaus — 

 1 think Mr. Marvin particularly — had a number of expensive publica- 

 tions which were \^\\\ in early last year and which were not delivered 



