At page 5215: Mr. EDGE. Of course, after the speech of the Senator from Tennessee it probably will not make any difference; but if the Senator wants the facts, let me say that this concern is a large concern-there is no doubt about that—but we are not discussing machinemade goods. The company represented by the witness no doubt has hundreds of machines, but the rate proposed does not apply to the goods made by machines or any importations of machinemade goods.— Mr. EDGE. If the Senator will pardon me for just a moment more, they are asking for a duty on handmade goods; and the particular plant referred to has a handmade branch, of course, but it also produces machinemade goods. Mr. MCKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield? I want to ask the Senator whether his amendment applies solely to hand-blown bottles and stoppers? Mr. COUZENS. Absolutely. Mr. MCKELLAR. It does not apply generally, as in the amendment offered by the Senator from New York? Mr. COUZENS. No; solely to hand-worked glass. At page 5217: Mr. COPELAND. * * *. I propose this: That on line 2, page 46, the comma and the rest of the sentence be stricken out and that we insert the words "if produced by automatic machine, 65 per cent ad valorem, and when not so produced the rate shall be 75 per cent ad valorem." [Italics ours.] * * *. It is not right that the same rate should be placed upon the automatically made bottle as is placed on the bottle which is hand blown. If we are here to try to serve the public, I believe we may by the addition of 10 per cent to the present rate, which is 55 percent, give encouragement to the production of the machine-made bottle and at the same time protect the maker of the handblown bottle. In the record of the hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means, Tariff Readjustment, 1929 (Vol. II, page 1366) appears the following: Mr. RAMSEYER. You agree with the witness who preceded you that there is no need for an increased tariff on machine-made bottles? Mr. GAYNER. In so far as I understand it. Mr. RAMSEYER. Do you agree with him that there should be some increase on hand-made bottles? Mr. GAYNER. Absolutely; because with the machine-made bottles the labor element does not enter into it. The glass flows automatically into the machine. It is handled entirely by the machine and conveyed to the annealing lehr, and not touched by human hands until it is ready to be sorted and packed. From a careful examination of the foregoing history and what I think is a proper understanding of the involved paragraph, it appears to me to be elementary that the framers of that paragraph intended to apply a low rate of duty to one type of bottle, namely that made by automatic machines. Certainly it appears that Congress was apprized of the fact that several bottle producers in the United States produced bottles by automatic or semi-automatic machines. It is also clear from the record and must have been known by Congress that automatic bottle making machines were developed in the early 1920's. It further appears without contradiction in the record, and of which Congress must be presumed to have knowledge, that the method of operation, set out in appellant's case herein, is known in the United States as being performed by "hand operated machines." The record herein shows that the bottle making machines operated and regulated by skilled craftsmen in the art have been in common usage in the industry since the early 1920's. It is further clear from the legislative history that the wording of the involved paragraph, with the exception of the rate of duty upon the two classes of bottles, is in substantially the same phraseology as that tendered by Senator Copeland, hereinbefore quoted, "if produced by automatic machine, 65 per cent ad valorem, and when not so produced the rate shall be 75 per cent ad valorem." This he stated, as hereinbefore set out, would "give encouragement to the production of the machine-made bottle and at the same time protect the maker of the hand-blown bottles." It is very clear to me that Congress did intend to protect the hand glass blowers, which it certainly accomplished in writing the involved paragraph. It is also clear to me that in so doing, Congress had the further intention of protecting the skilled mechanics who operated the so-called hand machines or semiautomatic machines. This Congress did in clear, succinct, and unmistakable language. The majority decision in my opinion runs foursquare against the judicial definitions given in the cases hereinbefore cited; is inconsistent with the universally known common meaning of "automatic" heretofore discussed; and legislative history has been employed to create an ambiguity, ignoring the plain, clear, and certain language of the statute. I can not bring myself to agree with the philosophy of Little Buttercup, as it is in effect implicit in the majority opinion that "Things are seldom what they seem." Neither can I believe, as I would be compelled to believe if I agreed with the majority, that the Congress purposely, ignorantly, or inadvertently so masked its intent that we should "behold without seeing and hearing not understand." As may be clearly discerned from the legislative history, Congress knew full well all about automatic and other machines and all about hand glass blowing in the bottle making art when the involved paragraph was worded. I am sure that Congress meant exactly what it said in well considered, plain, unambiguous language. Had it been its intention to legislate as the majority opinion holds, I feel that it would beyond all doubt have enacted the involved paragraph in the following or equivalent language: Bottles and jars, wholly or in chief value of glass, * * produced by hand blown method, 75 per centum ad valorem; otherwise produced, 25 per centum ad valorem. After all, in considering statutes we must judge by the results and not by the various factors which may have determined legislative votes. It is the latter that I fear has influenced the majority. I make bold to state that I believe this dissenting opinion and the prevailing opinion of the trial court are "as sound as the sea is salt" and "as conclusive as Mount Everest." The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. story on of tially rein t ad t ad MEMORANDUM OF DECISIONS en the DISMISSED NOVEMBER 4, 1948 Ohio Department of Liquor Control v. United States (No. 4571).- NOVEMBER 12, 1948 Olavarria & Co., Inc. v. United States (No. 4606).—Artificially flavored sirup-sugar. Appeal from C. D. 1110. 143 RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS Effective December 1, 1948. GENERAL RULE I CLERK 1. The clerk of this court shall keep his office in the city of Washington. He shall not practice either as an attorney or counselor of this court while he shall continue to be clerk. He shall indorse on every paper the date on which the same is filed and shall not permit any original paper, document, or exhibit to be taken from the files without an order from the court or permission of one of the judges thereof. The parties interested in any matter pending before the court may have full access to the records in such matters in the office of the clerk and may take copies of all papers filed therein: Provided, That the clerk, in executing the duties required of him, may allow any original papers or transcripts of record on file in his office to be used by the printer, and said clerk shall be responsible for the preservation and safe return thereof. 2. It shall be the duty of the clerk to preserve, for the use of the court, one copy of the record in each case disposed of, together with the briefs of counsel. 3. The clerk shall furnish to any applicant a copy of any paper on file in any case on payment of the legal fees therefor. 4. The office of the clerk shall be open for the transaction of business on every day except Sundays and legal holidays from 9 o'clock a. m. to 4:30 o'clock p. m., except on Saturdays, when it shall be open from 9 o'clock a. m. to 12 o'clock noon. 1 NOTE.-In connection with the above rule arrangements have been made whereby parties or attorneys desiring to file papers after the clerk's office closes on any business day may deliver the same before midnight of that day at the office of the Captain of the Guard, at the main entrance of the Internal Revenue Building on Constitution Avenue, where they will be retained and delivered to the clerk and filed as of the date of their receipt in the said office of the Captain of the Guard |