A-74715, AUGUST 3, 1936, 16 COMP. GEN. 111

A-74715, AUGUST 3, 1936, 16 COMP. GEN. 111

PURCHASES OF MULTIGRAPH, MULTILITH, ETC., MACHINES - USE FOR "PRINTING" UNAUTHORIZED THE LEGALITY OF PURCHASES OF MULTIGRAPH, MULTILITH, ETC., MACHINES IS NOT FOR DETERMINATION ON THE BASIS OF THE CHARACTER OF THE MACHINE, BUT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THEY ARE TO BE USED, SUCH PURCHASES NOT BEING IN DEROGATION OF THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1919, 40 STAT. 1270, REQUIRING ALL GOVERNMENT PRINTING, NOT OTHERWISE EXCEPTED, TO BE DONE AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, SOLELY ON THE GROUNDS THAT SUCH MACHINES ARE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING ILLEGAL "PRINTING," BUT SUCH MACHINES MAY NOT BE USED FOR WORK WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE TERM "PRINTING" AS USED IN SAID STATUTE.

ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL ELLIOTT TO THE CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, AUGUST 3, 1936:

THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED A LETTER DATED JULY 2, 1936, FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, AS FOLLOWS:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO PREAUDIT DIFFERENCE STATEMENTS OF JUNE 11, 16, AND 24, 1936, RETURNING WITHOUT CERTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT VOUCHERS, BUREAU NUMBERS 1192, 1465, 1467, 1510, AND 1531, IN FAVOR OF THE MULTIGRAPH COMPANY, FOR ONE MULTIGRAPH MACHINE, ONE MULTILITH MACHINE, AND VARIOUS ACCESSORIES AND SUPPLIES FOR USE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. THE REASON STATED FOR NONCERTIFICATION WAS THAT THE ITEMS PURCHASED INVOLVE PRINTING PROCESSES AND ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1919 (40 STAT. 1270), REQUIRE ALL PRINTING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO BE DONE AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. THERE WERE ALSO CITED SEVERAL REGULATIONS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING, AS WELL AS VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL RELATING TO PRINTING.

IT IS THE VIEW OF THIS OFFICE THAT THE EXCEPTIONS TAKEN ARE NOT APPLICABLE, AS THE MACHINES PURCHASED WERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING DUPLICATING AND REPRODUCTION WORK, AND NOT PRINTING. THE PURCHASE ORDERS WERE PLACED UNDER A GENERAL SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES CONTRACT AWARDED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF EXISTING LAW, THESE ITEMS BEING COVERED BY CLASS 54 AND LISTED UNDER THE HEAD OF DUPLICATING MACHINES.

THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT SEEM LOGICAL TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS COMMISSION COULD BE CHARGED WITH NOTICE THAT THE USE OF SUCH MACHINES MIGHT BE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PRINTING LAWS, AND FURTHER IT WOULD APPEAR FROM THE MANNER OF LISTING THAT THE PROCUREMENT DIVISION OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HAD DETERMINED AND CONCLUDED THAT THEY WERE DUPLICATING AND NOT PRINTING MACHINES. IN THIS CONNECTION, ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PUBLIC PRINTER AT A HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEGISLATIVE ESTABLISHMENT APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1936, WHEREIN IT WAS STATED IN SUBSTANCE THAT THE MULTILITH PROCESS WAS NOT PRINTING. (SEE P. 293.)

ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION OF THIS OFFICE, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION THESE MACHINES WERE NEVER INCLUDED UNDER THE GRAPHIC ARTS CODE FOR PRINTING. THESE MACHINES WERE PURCHASED AND ARE USED BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION TO MEET ADMINISTRATIVE AND EMERGENCY NEEDS.

THERE IS A DAILY NEED IN THIS COMMISSION, AS WELL AS IN MOST OTHER GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTS, FOR THE REPRODUCTION BY MULTIGRAPH, MULTILITH, AND OTHER PROCESSES OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF MATERIAL WHICH IN NO EVENT, DUE TO THE TIME ELEMENT AND COST INVOLVED, COULD BE PRINTED AND WHICH UNDER THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF PRINTING IS IN NO WAY CONSIDERED AS AN INFRINGEMENT UPON THE LAW REQUIRING PRINTING TO BE DONE AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

AS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE CONSTANT NEEDS OF THIS COMMISSION FOR REPRODUCTION BY THE MULTILITH PROCESS, IT MAY BE STATED THAT THE FEDERAL POWER ACT REQUIRES THIS COMMISSION TO DETERMINE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECAPTURE AT THE END OF THE LICENSE PERIOD, THE NET INVESTMENT IN CERTAIN ELECTRIC-UTILITY PROJECTS. THIS WORK IS ACCOMPLISHED BY SENDING AUDITORS TO THE HOME OFFICES OF THE LICENSEES, AND AFTER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL MONTHS THEY SUBMIT PRELIMINARY ACCOUNTING REPORTS WHICH MAY RANGE FROM 200 TO 400 PAGES OF TABULAR MATTER. THERE ARE SET FORTH IN THESE REPORTS THE ITEMS WHICH ARE RECOMMENDED BY THE AUDITORS FOR ALLOWANCE, SUSPENSION, OR DISALLOWANCE. PROPER CONSIDERATION REQUIRES WITH THE LEAST PRACTICABLE DELAY FROM 50 TO 100 COPIES OF THESE REPORTS FOR THE USE OF THE COMMISSION, THE ACCOUNTING DIVISION, THE LEGAL DIVISION, THE LICENSEE, AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES. THE LOGICAL AND ECONOMIC WAY TO REPRODUCE THIS WORK IS BY THE MULTILITH PROCESS. IT IS ENTIRELY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE AND TO ATTEMPT TO PREPARE SUFFICIENT COPIES ON A TYPEWRITING MACHINE WOULD NOT ONLY BE CONDUCIVE TO ERRORS BUT WOULD RESULT IN AN EXORBITANT COST AND, WITH THE LIMITED NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED, WOULD IN NO SENSE OF THE WORD JUSTIFY THE COST INVOLVED IN PRINTING REPORTS BASED LARGELY ON TABULAR MATTER. IT IS IN THIS FIELD AND IN MANY SIMILAR ONES THAT IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE MULTILITH AND OTHER DUPLICATING PROCESSES MAY PROPERLY BE USED FOR EXPEDITIOUS AND ECONOMICAL REPRODUCTION WORK WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT UPON THE PRINTING LAWS.

IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE VOUCHERS IN QUESTION ARE RESUBMITTED WITH THE REQUEST THAT THEY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

SECTION 11 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1919, 40 STAT. 1270, IS IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

* * * PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT ON AND AFTER JULY 1, 1919, ALL PRINTING, BINDING, AND BLANK-BOOK WORK FOR CONGRESS, THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE, THE JUDICIARY, AND EVERY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, INDEPENDENT OFFICE, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE DONE AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, EXCEPT SUCH CLASSES OF WORK AS SHALL BE DEEMED BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING TO BE URGENT OR NECESSARY TO HAVE DONE ELSEWHERE THAN IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF ANY FIELD SERVICE OUTSIDE OF SAID DISTRICT.

THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A MULTIGRAPH MACHINE MIGHT LEGALLY BE PURCHASED AND USED FOR A LIMITED CHARACTER OF WORK BY AN EXECUTIVE AGENCY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN FIRST CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY ALMOST THIRTY YEARS AGO. ON APRIL 8, 1907, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REQUESTED A DECISION AS TO WHETHER INSTALLING SUCH A MACHINE WOULD IN ANY WAY CONFLICT WITH SECTION 87 OF THE ACT OF JANUARY 12, 1895, 28 STAT. 622, WHICH, LIKE THE PRESENT CONTROLLING STATUTE OF MARCH 1, 1919, SUPRA, REQUIRED ALL PRINTING FOR THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS TO BE DONE AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. THE REQUEST FOR A DECISION STATED, IN PART:

THE COMMISSION DESIRES TO PURCHASE A GAMMETER MULTIGRAPH FOR THE USE OF THIS OFFICE, TO DO SUCH WORK AS IS USUALLY DONE ON REPRODUCING MACHINES, SUCH AS THE STYLOGRAPH, HECTOGRAPH, AND MIMEOGRAPH.

ANY NUMBER OF COPIES CAN BE MADE ON THE MULTIGRAPH, WHICH CAN NOT BE DONE ON THE ABOVE-NAMED MACHINES. THE MULTIGRAPH WILL REPRODUCE TYPEWRITTEN MATTER WHICH CAN NOT BE TOLD FROM THE ORIGINAL COPY, IN BOTH TYPE AND ANY COLOR OF RIBBON DESIRED, WHICH CAN NOT BE SO EASILY DONE ON THE OLD STYLE REPRODUCING MACHINES.

IN HIS DECISION OF APRIL 18, 1907, ON THE MATTER, 13 COMP. DEC. 712, THE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY STATED THAT HAVING ENTERTAINED SOME DOUBTAS TO WHETHER THE MULTIGRAPH WAS A PRINTING MACHINE AND WHETHER ITS OUTPUT WAS PRINTING HE HAD PROPOUNDED CERTAIN QUESTIONS TO THE PUBLIC PRINTER "THE ANSWERS TO WHICH OUGHT TO MAKE CLEAR THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE USE OF SUCH MACHINE IN DOING THE CHARACTER OF WORK IN YOUR OFFICE THAT IS USUALLY DONE BY THE REPRODUCING MACHINES, SUCH AS THE STYLOGRAPH, THE HECTOGRAPH, OR MIMEOGRAPH, IS THE USE OF A PRINTING MACHINE AND ITS PRODUCT PRINTING.' THE REPLY OF THE PUBLIC PRINTER, AS SET FORTH IN THE DECISION, WAS AS FOLLOWS:

I AM IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 12, 1907, INCLOSING A REQUEST FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (WITH EXHIBITS) TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO PURCHASE A ,GAMMETER MULTIGRAPH" FOR USE IN THEIR OFFICE TO DO SUCH WORK AS IS USUALLY DONE ON SUCH REPRODUCING MACHINES AS THE STYLOGRAPH, HECTOGRAPH, OR MIMEOGRAPH.

IN MY OPINION THE "GAMMETER MULTIGRAPH" IS A PRINTING MACHINE; THAT IS, THE PRODUCT OF THIS MACHINE IS PRODUCED BY THE ASSEMBLING OF MOVABLE METAL TYPES AND MAKING IMPRESSIONS UPON PAPER FROM THE SAID METAL TYPES.

HOWEVER, THE "GAMMETER MULTIGRAPH" PROCESS OF MAKING THE IMPRESSION FROM THE TYPE UPON THE PAPER DIFFERS FROM PRINTING AS IS DONE AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, IN THAT THE IMPRESSION IS PRODUCED BY TRANSFER TO THE PAPER THROUGH AN INKED RIBBON, SIMILAR IN EVERY WAY TO A TYPEWRITER RIBBON, BUT LARGE ENOUGH, OF COURSE, TO COVER THE SURFACE OF THE METAL TYPES.

IMPRESSIONS MADE UPON PRINTING PRESSES FROM MOVABLE TYPES AND FROM ELECTROTYPE OR STEREOTYPE PLATES ARE PRODUCED WITH THE AID OF A SERIES OF COMPOSITION PRINTING ROLLERS.

PRINTING INK IS USUALLY IN PASTE FORM, AND IS TAKEN FROM A FOUNTAIN AND GRADUATED THROUGH ,VIBRATING ROLLERS" AND INKING PLATES, IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE PROPER CONSISTENCY OF INK TO PLACE OVER THE SURFACE OF THE TYPE; THE IMPRESSION UPON THE PAPER BY SUCH PROCESS BEING PRECEDED BY THE COVERING THE TYPE WITH A LIGHT FILM OF PRINTING INK, PLACED THERE BY THE "FORM" ROLLERS.

BEARING THIS DISTINCTION IN MIND, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT WHILE THE "GAMMETER MULTIGRAPH" IS (TECHNICALLY SPEAKING) A PRINTING MACHINE, ITS PRODUCT IS PRACTICALLY THAT OF A TYPEWRITING MACHINE AND HAS NO DIRECT BEARING OR EFFECT UPON THE PUBLIC PRINTING PRODUCED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

THE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS DIVISION OF THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE IS NOW OPERATING A "GAMMETER MULTIGRAPH," WHICH IS USED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE PUBLIC PRINTER, FOR ISSUING TYPEWRITTEN CIRCULAR LETTERS AND OTHER MATTER WHICH IT IS DESIRED TO MATCH IN INSERTING NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM SAID CIRCULAR LETTERS ARE ADDRESSED, THE OBJECT BEING TO GIVE THE FINISHED PRODUCT THE APPEARANCE OF A TYPEWRITTEN LETTER AND YET ECONOMIZE BY SAVING THE EXPENSE OF INDIVIDUALLY WRITING EACH LETTER.

THE "GAMMETER MULTIGRAPH" IN THIS CASE IS USED AS AN AID TO TYPEWRITING AND NOT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR PRINTING, FOR THE REASON THAT PRINTING WOULD NOT AND COULD NOT PRODUCE THE EFFECT UPON THE RECEIVER'S MIND AS BEING THE RECIPIENT OF A PERSONALLY ADDRESSED COMMUNICATION AND NOT OF A ,STOCK" COMMUNICATION, THUS INSURING A GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF THE COMMUNICATION IN QUESTION RECEIVING ATTENTION.

I CITE THESE DISTINCTIONS IN ORDER THAT MY VIEW OF THIS SITUATION MAY BE CLEAR TO YOU--- THAT THE "GAMMETER MULTIGRAPH" IS AN AID TO TYPEWRITING AND NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR PRINTING.

IN VIEW OF ALL OF THE PRECEDING, I BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE INCONSISTENT IN CONSTRUING THE "GAMMETER MULTIGRAPH" AS AN AID TO TYPEWRITING AND THAT IT HAS NO BEARING IN ANY WAY ON SECTION 87 OF THE ACT OF JANUARY 12, 1895.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU AUTHORIZE THE USE OF THE "GAMMETER MULTIGRAPH" IN DEPARTMENTS, AS AN AID TO TYPEWRITING, IT WILL NOT IN ANY WAY CONFLICT OR BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CLAIMS WHICH THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE HAS FOR PUBLIC PRINTING AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE LAW.

I RETURN HEREWITH THE EXHIBITS AND PHOTOGRAPHS ACCOMPANYING YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 12. IF I CAN BE OF ANY FURTHER SERVICE IN THIS MATTER PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO COMMAND ME.

I TRUST YOU WILL PARDON MY LENGTHY STATEMENT, BUT THERE IS SO FINE A TECHNICAL POINT INVOLVED THAT I HAVE ENDEAVORED TO COVER IT CLEARLY.

ON THE BASIS OF THIS STATEMENT BY THE PUBLIC PRINTER THE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY WAS OF THE OPINION THAT---

* * * FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH YOU INTEND TO USE SUCH MACHINE AS SET OUT IN YOUR COMMUNICATION, ITS USE WOULD NOT BE THE USE OF A PRINTING PRESS AND ITS PRODUCT WOULD NOT BE PRINTING. AND IT WAS EXPRESSLY DECIDED THAT THE CHAIRMAN, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, WAS AUTHORIZED IN HIS DISCRETION TO PURCHASE AND USE SUCH MACHINE "FOR THE PURPOSES" MENTIONED IN THE LETTER SUBMITTING THE QUESTION FOR DECISION.

IN A LATER DECISION, 17 COMP. DEC. 349, THE SAME PRINCIPLE WAS APPLIED TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF A SPECIAL PRINTING PRESS FOR USE IN PREPARING CHECKS IN THE OFFICE OF THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES. AS TO THIS IT WAS SAID:

* * * AS I UNDERSTAND FROM THIS STATEMENT, WHEN CONSIDERED WITH WHAT FOLLOWS, THE PRESS IN QUESTION IS USED TO PREPARE THESE CHECKS FOR PAYMENT; THAT IS TO PRINT ON THEM CERTAIN WORDS AND FIGURES TO MAKE THE BLANK CHECKS NEGOTIABLE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SUCH PRINTING AS THIS IS NOT THE PRINTING PROVIDED FOR BY THE ACT OF JANUARY 12, 1895. IT IS A SUBSTITUTE FOR TYPEWRITING OR ORDINARY WRITING. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE TREASURER TO PREPARE THE CHECKS FOR PAYMENT AND THE PRINTING IS A MERE INCIDENT TO THIS WORK. INSTEAD OF USING A TYPEWRITER AND AN OPERATOR, OR A PEN AND INK, HE USES THIS SPECIALLY PREPARED SO-CALLED PRINTING PRESS.

I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE RESULT PRODUCED BY THE USE OF THE MACHINE IN QUESTION IS NOT PRINTING WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT OF JANUARY 12, 1895 (SUPRA), OR THE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1906 (SUPRA). SEE 13 COMP. DEC. 712.

THERE APPEARS NOW NO BASIS TO QUESTION THE SOUNDNESS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THESE DECISIONS THAT THE LEGALITY OF PURCHASES OF SUCH MACHINES DEPENDS NOT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE MACHINE BUT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THEY ARE TO BE USED. THESE DECISIONS WERE MADE AND PUBLISHED YEARS BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE OF MARCH 1, 1919, SUPRA, AND AS SUCH STATUTE MAKES NO MATERIAL CHANGE IN THIS RESPECT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PREVIOUS STATUTE, IT MAY BE VIEWED AS HAVING BEEN ENACTED IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH DECISIONS AND AS REQUIRING NO CHANGE IN THE CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUSLY APPLIED. THE BASIC REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE IS THAT ALL GOVERNMENT PRINTING, NOT OTHERWISE EXCEPTED, SHALL BE DONE AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. SUCH STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IS ABSOLUTE IN ITS TERMS AND EXPENDITURES OR CONTRACTS OF ANY CHARACTER IN DEROGATION THEREOF ARE ILLEGAL AND MAY NOT BE RECOGNIZED AS IMPOSING ANY OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER ON THE UNITED STATES. SEE 14 COMP. GEN. 658 AND DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 59 CT.CLS. 197. IF THE MACHINES AND SUPPLIES HERE IN QUESTION WERE PURCHASED TO PROVIDE "PRINTING," WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE 1919 STATUTE, THE PURCHASES WERE IN DEROGATION OF THE STATUTE AND THE COST MAY NOT BE PAID FROM GOVERNMENT FUNDS. IF, ON THE CONTRARY, THE MACHINES ARE TO BE USED ONLY FOR A CHARACTER OF WORK NOT REASONABLY TO BE REGARDED AS "PRINTING" WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE STATUTE, THERE WOULD APPEAR NO BASIS FOR OBJECTION TO THE PURCHASES AS BEING IN DEROGATION OF THE STATUTE SOLELY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE MACHINES ARE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING ILLEGAL "PRINTING.'

WHILE MULTIGRAPH AND MULTILITH MACHINES ARE USUALLY REGARDED AS DUPLICATING RATHER THAN PRINTING MECHANISMS, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT FROM THEIR CATALOG DESCRIPTIONS THAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF A WIDE VARIETY OF USES EITHER DIRECTLY FOR PRINTING OR IN DIRECT SUBSTITUTION FOR PRINTING, AND THEIR USE TO PROVIDE MATERIAL OF A CHARACTER WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD ORDINARILY BE FOR PROCUREMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE IS CLEARLY IN CONTRAVENTION OF LAW. BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT SUCH MACHINES MAY NOT LEGALLY BE PURCHASED AND USED TO PROVIDE A CHARACTER OF SERVICE NOT WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE TERM "PRINTING" AS USED IN THE STATUTE.

WHETHER WORK OF A GIVEN CHARACTER WOULD BE "PRINTING" WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE STATUTE IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, AND WHILE NO EXACT RULE OR DEFINITION TO COVER ALL CASES MAY WELL BE STATED, THE GENERAL FIELD OF PERMISSIBLE DUPLICATING WORK IS FAIRLY INDICATED IN THE DECISIONS HEREINBEFORE DISCUSSED, THAT IS,"SUCH WORK AS IS USUALLY DONE ON * * * STYLEOGRAPH, HECTOGRAPH, AND MIMEOGRAPH" MACHINES; THE REPRODUCTION OF TYPEWRITTEN MATTER; "ISSUING TYPEWRITTEN CIRCULAR LETTERS AND OTHER MATTERS * * * THE OBJECT BEING TO GIVE THE FINISHED PRODUCT THE APPEARANCE OF A TYPEWRITTEN LETTER AND YET ECONOMIZE BY SAVING THE EXPENSE OF INDIVIDUALLY WRITING EACH LETTER; " "AN AID TO TYPEWRITING; " "A SUBSTITUTE FOR TYPEWRITING OR ORDINARY WRITING.' THE FIELD IS LARGELY LIMITED TO THE REPRODUCTION OF TYPEWRITTEN CIRCULAR MATTER, MAKING COPIES OF OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE AND RECORDS, ETC., WHICH ORDINARILY WOULD OTHERWISE BE REPRODUCED BY TYPEWRITER IN THE OFFICE CONCERNED AND NOT SENT TO THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE FOR PRINTING. THIS MAY NOT COVER THE ENTIRE FIELD OF PERMISSIBLE DUPLICATING BUT GENERALLY IT MAY BE SAID THAT DUPLICATING MACHINES MAY NOT LEGALLY BE USED FOR A CHARACTER OF WORK WHICH ORDINARILY WOULD BE SENT TO THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE IF THE OFFICE CONCERNED DID NOT HAVE A DUPLICATING MACHINE. HOWEVER, IF THE WORK IS OF A CHARACTER WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR TYPEWRITER REPRODUCTION, THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT A MUCH LARGER NUMBER OF COPIES MAY ECONOMICALLY BE MADE AND UTILIZED BY THE USE OF A DUPLICATING MACHINE THAN WOULD BE PRACTICABLE OR FEASIBLE WITH LIMITED TYPEWRITING FACILITIES WOULD NOT CHANGE THE BASIC CHARACTER OF THE WORK TO "PRINTING.'

IN VIEW OF THE PURPOSE AND ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRINTING STATUTE ANY SERIOUS DOUBT IN THIS RESPECT IN PARTICULAR CASES SHOULD BE RESOLVED TO REQUIRE THE DOUBTFUL WORK TO BE DONE AS PRINTING AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, BUT ORDINARILY THIS OFFICE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO OBJECT TO THE USE OF APPROPRIATIONS, OTHERWISE AVAILABLE, FOR WORK OF THE GENERAL CHARACTER INDICATED HEREIN. IN THIS CONNECTION IT MAY BE STATED HERE, HOWEVER, THAT ANY EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF DUPLICATING MACHINES FOR WORK REASONABLY TO BE REGARDED AS "PRINTING" IN DEROGATION OF THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1919, MAY REQUIRE THAT THE MATTER BE REPORTED TO THE CONGRESS AND THAT CREDIT FOR ALL EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION WITH THE DUPLICATING WORK OF THE ACTIVITY CONCERNED BE DENIED UNTIL THE ILLEGAL PRACTICE BE CORRECTED.

RESPECTING THE PURCHASES FOR WHICH PAYMENT IS PROPOSED ON THE PREAUDIT VOUCHERS RESUBMITTED IN THE PRESENT MATTER YOU ARE ADVISED THAT WHILE WORK OF THE GENERAL CHARACTER DESCRIBED IN THE NEXT TO LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE LETTER OF JULY 2, 1936, QUOTED, SUPRA, WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE "PRINTING" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE ARE INCLUDED AMONG THE SUPPLIES PURCHASED AND ITEMIZED ON THE VOUCHERS SOME 20 FONTS OF "CHELTENHAM MEDIUM" AND "COPPERPLATE GOTHIC" TYPE. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD, AND THE LETTER DOES NOT EXPLAIN, WHY THIS REGULAR PRINT TYPE WAS PURCHASED IF ONLY PERMISSIBLE DUPLICATING WORK AND NOT PRINTING OR WORK IN SUBSTITUTION FOR PRINTING WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED. THIS CIRCUMSTANCE RAISES TOO MUCH DOUBT THAT THE MACHINES AND SUPPLIES PURCHASED WERE INTENDED STRICTLY FOR DUPLICATING WORK AS DISTINGUISHED FROM "PRINTING" IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1919, TO WARRANT CERTIFICATION OF THE VOUCHERS FOR PAYMENT ON THE PRESENT RECORD.

ACCORDINGLY, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE UNPAID VOUCHERS WILL BE RETAINED IN THIS OFFICE PENDING A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION OF THIS PHASE OF THE MATTER, OR A SHOWING THAT THE PRINT TYPE HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE VENDER, AT ITS EXPENSE, FOR FULL CREDIT ON THE PURCHASE PRICE THEREOF, AND THAT THE MACHINES AND OTHER SUPPLIES ARE TO BE USED ONLY FOR STRICTLY DUPLICATING PURPOSES, AS INDICATED HEREIN.