DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BUREAU OF STANDARDS

S. W. STRATTON jt Director

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS—No. 48

Weights and Measures

Fourteenth Annual Conference

OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM VARIOUS STATES

HELD AT THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS

WASHINGTON. D. C. MAY 23. 24. 25, AND 26, 1921

PRICE, 20 CERTS

Sold oiUy by the Superintendent of Documents, Covenunent Printing Office Washington, D. C

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1922

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BUREAU OF STANDARDS

S. W. STRATTON ^ Director

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS—No. 48

Weights and Measures

Fourteenth Annual Conference

OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM VARIOUS STATES

HELD AT THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS

WASHINGTON, D. C, MAY 23, 24, 25, AND 26, I92t

PRICE, 20 CENTS

Sold only by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office Washington, D. C.

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1922
I

II
OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES.

OFFICERS.

(As elected by the Fourteenth Annual Conference.)

President, S. W. Stkatton, Director, Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. First Vice President, W. T. White, Director, State Bureau of Weights and

Measures, Albany, N. Y. Second Vice President, H. A. Webster, State Commissioner of Weights and

Measures, State House, Concord, N. H.

Secretary, Louis A. Fischee, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures, Bureau

of Standards, Washington, D. C. Treasurer, Frank Wanser, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures,

Trenton, N. J. COMMITTEES.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

(As elected by the Fourteenth Annual Conference.)

S. W. Stratton,

W. T. White,

H. A. Webster, }Ex officio. Loins A. Fischer,

Frank Wanser,

R. F. Barron, State Commissioner of Weights and Measures, Old Capitol Building, St. Paul, Minn.

Augustus F. Bove, Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall, Portland, Me.

William F. Cltjett, Chief Deputy Inspector of Weights and Measures, City

Hall, Chicago, 111. H. N. Davis, Deputy State Commissioner of Weights and Measures, Montpelier,

Vt.

S. C. Dinsmore, State Commissioner of Weights and Measures, Reno, Nev.

T. F. Egan, State Commissioner of Weights and Measures, Hartford, Conn.

Gut G. Fraby, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Vermilion.

S. Dak.

D. F. Fraziee, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Nashville, Tenn.

A. A. Greer, Chief, State Division of Weights and Measures, Lansing, Mich.

D. C. Hill, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Ddllas, Tex.

Joseph J. Holwell, Commissioner, Mayor's Bureau of Weights and Measures,

Municipal Building, New York, N. Y.

T. L. Irvine, Superintendent of Weights and Measures and Oil Inspection, Salt

Lake City, Utah.

William B. McGradt, Chief, State Bureau of Standards, Harrisburg. Pa. Francis Meredith, State Director of Standards, State House, Boston, Mass.

I. L. Miller, State Commissioner of Weights and Measures, State House,

Indianapolis, Ind.

John M. Mote, State Inspector of Weights and Measures, State House Annex,

Columbus, Ohio.

F. E. Rowland, Assistant Chief State Food and Drug Inspector, Topeka, Kans.

William F. Steinel, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Milwaukee, Wis.

G. B. Stewart, State Inspector of Weights and Measures, 194 Charles Avenue,

Morgantown, W. Va.

Leo Stuhr, State Secretary of Agriculture, Lincoln, Nebr.

John Umpstead, Special Inspector, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Philadelphia, Pa.
4 BUEEAU OF STANDARDS.

COMJUTTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES.

(Standing committee.)

F. S. HoLBKOOK, Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. William F. Cltjett, Chief Deputv Inspector of Weights and Measures, City

Hall, Chicago, 111. W. T. White (vice Chas. G. Johnson, resigned), Director, State Bureau of

W'eights and Measures, Albany, N. T. COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION.

(Standing committee.)

D. A. Gregg, Deputy State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Austin,

Tex.

Joseph J. Holweix, Commissioner, Mayor's Bureau of Weights and Measures,

New York City.

Ralph W. Smith, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D. C. E. F. Stimpson, Deputy State Sealer of Weights and Measures, Lawrence, Kans.

COMMITTEE ON WEIGHT STANDARDIZATION OF BREAD.

(Discharged after reporting to the Fourteenth Aimual Conference.)

Augustus W. Schwaetz, Assistant State Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Elizabeth, N. J. Guy G. Fraet, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Vermilion,

S. Dak.

Leo S. Schoenthal, Chief Inspector of Weights, Measures, and Markets,

District Building, Washington, D. C. W. T. White, Director, State Bureau of Weights and Measures, Albany, N. Y. D. A. Geegg, Deputy State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Austin,

Tex.

F. G. Barnaed, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Battle Creek, Mich.

C. jM. FxnxEE, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Los Angeles, Calif.

ACTING COMMITTEES FOR THE FOURTEENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE.

Committee on Resolutions.—Guy G. Frary, H. A. Webster, John J. Cummings,

Leo Stuhr, Joseph J. HoIweU.

Committee on Nominations.—William F. Cluett, Augustus W. Schwartz,

John M. Mote, H. N. Davis, B. Frank Rinn.

Committee on PuMicity.—A. A. Greer, George M. Roberts, W. A. Payne.

Committee on Entertainment.—WiUiam B. McGrady, W. F. Steinel, Ralph

W. Smith.

In Charge of ExliiMts.—H. H. Dutton.
LIST OF PERSONS WHO ATTENDED THE CONFERENCE.

STATE DELEGATES.

District of Columbia Geop.ge M. Roberts, Superintendent of Weiglits,

Measures and Markets, District Building, Washington.

Illinois William F. Cltjett, Chief Deputy Inspector of

Weights and Measures of Chicago, City Hall,

Chicago.

Indiana I. L. Millee, State Commissioner of Weights and

Measures, State House, Indianapolis.

Kansas F. E. Rowland, Assistant Chief State Food and

Drug Inspector, Topeka.

Kentucky F. Reichmann, Louisville.

Louisiana J. N. Sieen, Inspector of Weights and Measures of

New Orleans, 41.5 South Pierce Street, New Orleans.

Massachusetts John J. Cummings, Chief State Inspector, Division

of Standards, State House, Boston.

Maryland Chaeles A. Lxjtz, Chief Inspector of Weights and

Measures of Baltimore, Baltimore.

Michigan A. A. Geeee, Chief, State Weights and Measures

Division, Lansing.

Minnesota R. F. Baeeon, State Commissioner of Weights and

Measures, Old Capitol Building, St. Paul.

Nebraska Leo Stuhr, State Secretary of Agriculture, Lincoln.

Veenon G. Ziemee, Chief State Inspector of Weights

and Measures, Lincoln.

New Hampshire H. A. Webster, State Commissioner of Weights and

Measures, State House, Concord.

H. S. Peabody, State Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Littleton.

New Jersey Frank Wansee, State Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Trenton.

Augustus W. Schwartz, Assistant State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Elizabeth.

J. Feank Fowler, Assistant State Superintendent

of Weights and Measures, Trenton.

Elliott B. Holton, Assistant State Superintendent

of Weights and Measures, 128 Mapes Avenue,

Newark.

New York W. T. White, Director, State Bureau of Weights

and Measures, Albany.

C. L. Hutter, State Inspector of Weights and

Measures, 173 Peck Street, Rochester.

Ohio John M. Mote, Assistant Chief State Inspector of

Weights and Measures, State House Annex, Columbus.

Pennsylvania William B. MoGrady, Chief, State Bureau of

Standards, Harrisburg.

John S. Williams, Deputy State Inspector of

Weights and Measures, Phoenisville.

Rhode Island William F. Goodwin, State Sealer of Weights,

Measures, and Balances, State House, Providence.

South Dakota Guy G. Frary, State Superintendent of Weiglits

and Measures, Vermilion.

Tennessee D. J. Frazier, State Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Nashville.

Vermont H. N. Davis, Deputy State Commissioner of Weights

and Measures, Montpelier.

5
6 BUBEAU OF STANDARDS.

Virginia A. B. Thoknhill, State Dairy and Food Commissioner, Richmond.

West Virginia G. B. Stewaet. State Inspector of Weights and

^Measures, 194 Charles Avenue, Morgantown.

CITY AND COUNTY DELEGATES.

Connecticut

Bridgeport Dennis Kelly, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Room 110, Warner Building.

Stamford Momus Peeell, Sealer of Weights and Measures, 24

Spring Street. Waterbury Thilip T. Filon. Sealer of Weights and Measures.

District of Columbia

Washington Leo S. Schoenthal, Chief Inspector of Weights,

Measures, and Markets, District Building.

W. C. DixLER, Inspector of Weights, Measures, and

Markets, District Building,

Geokge a. Howe, Inspector of Weights, Measures,

and Markets, District Building,

James T. Townsenu, Inspector of Weights, Measures, and Markets, District Building.

Florida

Jacksonville J. D. Geetheu, Municipal Inspector of Licenses,

Weights and Measures, and Oils. Illinois

Chicago WiLLiAji F. Clxjett, Chief Deputy Inspector of

Weights and Measures, City Hall.

Kansas

Kansas City G. J. Koean, Inspector of Weights and Measures,

City Hall.

Louisiana

New Orleans J. N, Siren, Inspector of Weights and Measures, 41.5 South Pierce Street. Maine

Portland Augustus F. Bove. Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall.

Maryland

Baltimore Charles A. Lutz, Chief Inspector of Weights and

Measures.

James T. Everett, Inspector at Large.

Massachusetts

Beverly Robert J. Raffeety, Sealer of Weights and Measures. Cambridge Felix C. McBride, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Building.

Clinton George P. Davenport. Sealer of Weights and

Measures.

Lawrence Joseph V. Brogan, Sealer of Weights and Measures.

Lowell Warren P. Riorda.n, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Salem George L, Day, Sealer of Weights and Measures.

Springfield William Foster, Sealer of W^eights and Measures,

City Hall.

West Newton Andrew Prior, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall.

Winthrop Hoeace Waite, Sealer of Weights and IMeasnres. Woburn Thomas .T. McColgan. Sealer of Weights and Measures, 38 Union Street. Worcester James A. Healey, Sealer of Weights and Measures.

Michigan

Flint Howard R. Estes, Sealer of W'eights and Measures.

Grand Rapids .Tohn .1. Byrne. Sealer of Weights and Mea.sures. Highland Park J. W. Worden, Sealer of AVeights and Measures.

New Jersey

Bayonne Waltee J. Flynn, Superintendent of Weights and

Mea-sui-es, 24 West Fifty-first Street.
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 7

New Jersey—Continued.

Bergen County John R. O'Connor, County Superintendent of

Weights and Measures, North Arlington.

Camden Harry F. liSDDiNo, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, G13 Mount Vernon Street. Cape May County Paul E. Cakeoli,, County Superintendent of Weiglits

and Measures, Dennisville.

Cumberland County ^^'1LL1AM C. Holimes, County Superintendent of

Weights and Measures, Court House, Bridgeton.

Elizabeth AVxlliam .J. Be.\der, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Ilarniouia Building.

Hudson County Thomas .J. Waldron, County Superintendent of

Weights and Measures, Court House, Jersey City.

Jersey City .John S. Bueke, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, City Hall.

Kearny John D. Castles, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Newark Post Office. Mercer County Stephen G. Plant, County Superintendent of

Weights and Measures, 1055 Indiana Avenue,

Trenton.

Middlesex County Nathan IIobins, County Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Metuchen.

Monmouth County Glenn L. Berry, County Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, .52 Slocum Place, Long Branch.

Morris County Heney S. Worman, County Superintendent of

Weights and Measures, Boonton.

Newark John H. Sullivan, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, City Hall.

Edward V. Farley, Assistant Superintendent of

Weights and Measures, City Hall.

Margaret D. Farley, Special Inspector of Weights

and Measures, City Hall.

Passaic County Harry Rosenfelt, County Superintendent of

Weights and Measures, Court House, Paterson.

Somerset County M. H. Cle.wes, County Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Court House, Somerville.

Trenton J James O'Donovan, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Municipal Bldg.

Union County Isaac Seeley, County Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 25 Rahway Avenue, Elizabeth.

New York

Buffalo Charles J. Quinn, Sealer of Weights and Measures, 44 West Seneca Street. Erie County E. F. Cooke, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, Alden.

Greene County Archie D. Clow, County Sealer of Weights and

aieasures, 251 Main Street, Catskill.

Ithaca Court Bellis, City Sealer of Weights and Measures. Mechanicville Daniel D. Snell, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

118 North Second Avenue.

Monroe County W. A. Payne, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall Annex, Rochester.

Nassau County Frank A. Wood, County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 26 Nassau Road, Roosevelt.

New York Joseph .J. Holwell, Commissioner. Mayor's Bureau

of Wtights and Measures, Municipal Bldg.

Oneida County D. A. Pierce, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, 1545 Seymour Avenue, Utica.

Ontario County Howard J. Moore, County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Canandaigua.

Rochester H. W. Sherman, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

37 Exchange Street. Saratoga County Daniel D. Snell, County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 118 North Second Avenue, Mechanicville. Seneca County Webster Kuney, County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Seneca Falls.
8 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

New York—Continued.

Suffolk County C. P. Smith, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, Riverhead.

Tompkins County Cotjkt Bellis, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, Ithaca.

Warren County Lembekt J. Dean, County Sealer of Weights and

Measures. 62 Elm Street, Glens Falls. Ohio:

Dayton Charles A. Schultz, Sealer of Weights and Measures. Columbiana County W. H. Bark, Deputy County Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Lisbon.

Medina County J. D. Dannley, Deputy County Sealer of Weights

and Measures, Medina.

Scioto County F. W. Waenee, Deputy County Sealer of Weights

and Measures, Portsmouth.

Pennsylvania

Allegheny County George B. Mooee, Chief Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Court House, Pittsburgh.

Allentown B. Frank Rinn, Inspector of Weights and Measures. Bethlehem Erwin H. Siefert, Inspector of Weights and Measures, 231 Broadway.

Harrisburg George B. Nebingee, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, 14 Walnut Street. Jefferson County P. .1. Casey, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Falls Creek.

Lehigh County Harry E. Biery, County Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Court House, Allentown.

McKean County R. P. Yerdon, County Inspector of Weights and

IVIeasures, Smethport.

Philadelphia Conyees B. Graham, Chief Clerk, Bureau of

Weights and Measures, 2017 Arch Street. Theo. a. Seeaphin, Deputy Supervisor, Bureau of

Weights and Measures.

.Iohn Umstead, Special Inspector, Bureau of

Weights and Measures.

Tennessee

Chattanooga Clyde Garrett, Sealer of Weights and Measures.

Texas

Dallas D. C. Hill, Inspector of Weights and Measures.

Virginia

Danville George S. Dyer, Food Inspector.

Richmond G. F. Seay, Deputy Inspector of Weights and

Measures, City Hall.

Roanoke C. R. Vaughan, Sealer of Weights and Measures.

Wisconsin

Milwaukee William F. Steinel, Sealer of Weights and Measures. West Allis Erwin J. Rogers, Sealer of Weights and Measures

and Market Master.

DELEGATES FROM STATE ASSOCIATIONS OF WEIGHTS AND

MEASURES.

Massachusetts State Association of Sealers of Weights and Measures : George P. Davenport, Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Clinton, Mass.

GUESTS REPRESENTING MANUFACTURERS.

Allsteel Scale Co. (Inc.) : Harold C. Mitchell, 25 West Broadway, New York City.

Anthony Liquid Vending Machine Co.

George A. Brown, St. Paul, Minn.

Atlantic Refining Co.

C. H. Ehlees, Engineer, 1211 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
FOUETEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 9

Avon Specialties Manufacturing Co.

William L. Thaxton, President and General Manager, Baltimore, Md.

Ayers Primeter:

Charles S. Ayees, Riverton, N. J. Barnes Scale Co.

W. J. Baenes, Vice President, Detroit, Mich.

Christian Becker (Inc.) : W. Claek Symington, 92 Reade Street, New York City.

C. A. Beckee, Superintendent, 147 Eighth Street, Jersey City, N. J.

S. F. Bowsee Co. (Inc.) : I. L. Walkee, Executive Engineer, Fort Wayne, Ind.

John Chatillon & Sons

Geoege E. Chatillon, 89 Cliff Street, New York City.

J. G. HtJGEL, Special Representative, 89 Cliff Street, New York City.

Edwin C. Smith, Sales Manager, 89 Cliff Street, New York City. L. L. SxiLLivAN, Southern Representative, Atlanta, Ga.

Clear Vision Pump Co.

Geoege M. Compton, Secretary-Treasurer, Wichita, Kans.

J. J. Stephens, 1533 Michigan Avenue, Chicago, 111. Computing-Tabulating-Recording Co.

Haeey S. Evans, Manager, Munsey Building, Washington, D. C. Dayton Computing Scale Co.

D. J. MoYNiHAN, General Foreign Manager, Dayton, Ohio.

Joseph Hopkinson, Chief Engineer, Dayton, Ohio.

William F. Bowen, 224 G Street, Washington, D. C. Dayton Moneyweight Scale Co.

J. T. Van Sieklee, Dayton, Ohio.

Dayton Pump & Manufacturing Co.

A. J. PococK, Vice President and Mechanical Engineer, 500 Webster Street,

Dayton, Ohio.

Dover Stamping & Manufacturing Co.

E. S. Rice, Cambridge, Mass.

B. & T. Fairbanks & Co.

O. A. Ullrich, Chief Draftsman, St. Johnsbury, Vt. R. Y. Feenee, 1410 H Street, Washington, D. C. Fairbanks Co.

Chaeles J. LaFoege, Treasurer, 416 Broome Street, New York City.

.John R. Meginnis, Manager, Scale Depot, Baltimore, Md.

Heney a. Steffens, Baltimore, Md.

General Automatic Scale Co.

D. H. Champlin, Eastern Manager, 200 Fifth Avenue, New York City.

Gilbert & Barker Manufacturing Co.

C. C. Ramsdell, Vice President, Springfield, Mass.

E. S. CusHMAN, Springfield, Mass.

Granberg Meter Co.

Lynn A. Schloss, Engineer, 817 Sharon Building, San Francisco, Calif.

Guarantee Liquid Measure Co.

W. S. Townsend, Vice President and General Manager, Rochester, Pa.

Geoege W. Mackenzie, Chief Engineer, Rochester, Pa. Guarantee Visible Measure Sales Co.

Lansfoed Fostee, Vice President and General Manager, 50 Union Street,

New York City.

W. & L. E. Gurley

Waltee G. Cobb, Sales Department, Troy, N. Y. W. L. Egy, Engineer, Troy, N. Y. Howe Scale Co.:

C. A. Lindsay, District Manager, Old Colony Club, Raleigh Hotel, Washington, D. C. International Scale Co.

J. D. Mannington, Dayton, Ohio.

Kron Scale Co.:

Feank V. Atlee, District Manager, 746 Reservoir Street, Baltimore, Md.

Measuregraph Co.

D. C. Palmer, 99 Chauncy Street, Boston, Mass.

G. S. Rosboeough, Sales Manager, 1819 Olive Street, St. Louis, Mo.

Morris Automatic Scale Co.

C. R. Heeman, Purchasing Agent, Crafton, Pa.

J. L. MoEKis, Inventor, Crafton, Pa.
10 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

National Meter Co.

William E. FitzSimons, Mechanical Engineer, 299 Broadway, New York

City.

John J. McKague, 299 Broadway, New York City.

Pittsburgh Meter Co.

Horace Chrisman, Engineer, 840 East Hutchinson Street, Edgewood, Pa.

A. G. Holmes, Manager, East Pittsburgh, Pa.

Scoville Manufacturing Co.

HoLLis B. Bagg, Scale Inspector, Waterbury, Conn.

Seraphin Manufacturing Co.

Ida W. Seeaphin, Secretary, Philadelphia, Pa.

Standard Computing Scale Co.

M. D. RiBBLE, Special Representative, Detroit, Mich.

Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey

A. B. Dickinson, 3304 Auchentooly Terrace', Baltimore, Md.

J. A. Feickiee, Branch Manager, Baltimore, Md.

J. Peessee, jr., Pump and Tank Department, Pier No. 2, Pratt Street,

Baltimore, Md.

J. Z. Walkee, Washington, D. C. Standard Scale & Supply Co.

W. N. Haines, Chief Engineer, Beaver Falls, Pa. Nathan Hatjse, Manager, Baltimore Branch, 409-11 North Gay Street,

Baltimore, Md.

St. Louis Pump & Equipment Co.

Sheewood Hinds, Factory Manager, International Life Building, St. Louis,

Mo.

Stimpson Computing Scale Co.

W. F. Stimpson, Vice President, Louisville, Ky.

J. S. Johnson, Sales IManaser, 242 West 14th Street, New York City.

Streeter-Amet Weighing & Recording Co.

H. F. Reck, President, 4101 Ravenwood Avenue, Chicago, 111. Tokheim Oil Tank & Pump Co.

M. B. MtrxEN, Vice President, Fort Wayne, Ind.

Toledo Scale Co.

H. O. Hem, Consulting Engineer, Toledo, Ohio.

Chaeles C. Neale, Special Representative, Toledo, Ohio.

Torsion Balance Co.

W. Claek Symington, President, 92 Reade Street, New York City. A. T. MnxEOT, Sales Manager, 92 Reade Street, New York City.

Triner Scale & Manufacturing Co.

Haeold E. Mitchell, 25 West Broadway, New York City.

Henry Troemner

Samuel B. Peteeman, 911 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pa.

Visible Pump Co. (Inc.) : H. E. Dean, Fort Wayne, Ind.

Wayne Oil Tank & Pump Co.

F. A. Bean, Consulting Engineer, Fort Wayne, Ind. E. A. Bennett, Salesman, 302 Southern Building, Washington, D. C. Yard-O-Meter Corporation

A. L. Levi, 705 Olive Street, St Louis, Mo.

GUESTS REPRESENTING RAILROADS AND WEIGHING DEPARTMENTS.

Bylsma, J, M., Chief, Weighing Department, Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau, 1822 Transportation Building, Chicago, 111. Claek, F. D., Chief Inspector, Weighing Bureau, Chesapeake & Ohio Ry.,

Richmond, Va.

Dower, .John, Supervisor of Weights, Merchants' Exchange, St. Louis, Mo.

Epeight, a. W., Supervisor of Scales and Weighing, Pennsylvania R. R., Altoona, Pa.

GoE, R. B., Supervisor of Weighing and Inspection, Illinois Central R. R., Chicago, 111. Haeeison, Maek J. J., General Scale Inspector, Pennsylvania R. R., 323 South

WeUs Street, Chicago, lU.

HosFOKD, Charles C. General Scale Inspector, Pennsylvania R. R., 7225 Perrysville Avenue, Ben Avon, Pittsburgh, Pa.
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 11

Lawrence, E. Kent, General Scale Inspector, Baltimore & Ohio R. R., Central

Building, Baltimore, Md.

Mack, H. G., Scale Inspector, Pennsylvania R. R., Columbus, Ohio.

Maegly, F. C, Assistant General Freight Agent, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe

Ry., 1130 Railway Exchange, Chicago, 111. Mann, C. H., Superintendent of Scales, Southern Ry., Washington, D. C. Maechant, Haesy, Scale Inspector, Bethlehem Steel Co., Maryland Branch,

502 B Street, Sparrows Point, Md.

McAteek, .John, Scale Inspector, Consolidation Coal Co., Fairmont, W. Va.

Pheeigo, J. L., Chief Scale Inspector, Southern Ry., Washington, D. C. ScHMiTz, J. A.. Assistant Weighmaster, Chicago Board of Trade, and Editor

Scale Journal, 99 Board of Trade Building, Chicago, 111. GUESTS REPRESENTING OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

Gast, F. W., Engineer in Charge of Scales, Treasury Department, Washington,

D. 0.

Munch, J. C, Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Pappe, T. F., Acting Chemist in Charge, Office of Cooperation, Bureau of

Chemistry, Washington, D. C. RuNKEL, H., Net Weight Investigation, Bureau of Chemistry, Washington, D. C. Wardwele. Harey H., Automatic Scale Expert, U. S. Customs, 2106 Mt. Vernon

Street, Philadelphia, Pa.

OTHER GUESTS.

Allen, R. M., Director, Research Products Department, Ward Baking Co., New

York City.

Atwood, .Joseph W., Former Inspector of Weights and Measures, Randolph, Vt. Baknaed, H. E., Director, American Institute of Baking, Minneapolis, Minn.

Baumee, Heebeht, Architect. 9 Rue Christine, Paris, France.

Ceocker, W. Mortimer, World Metric Standardization Council, Congress Hall

Hotel, Washington, D. C. Dunwoody, Brig. Gen. H. H. C, U. S. A., Army and Navy Club, Washington,

D. C. Davis, Mes. H. M., Chemist, National Cereal Products Laboratories, 1731 II Street, Washington. D. C. Feaziee, F. H., Vice President, General Baking Company, 45 East Seventeenth

Street, New York City.

GoE, Mrs. R. B., 6.511 Blackstone Avenue, Chicago, 111. Geaham, Mrs. Conyebs B., .54 Pastorius Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Geeeley, Capt. Allan, U. S. A., 1312 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D. C. Haepee, Geoege T., Washington, D. 0. Hogg, William H., Associate Editor, Bakers' Review, Woolworth Building, New

York City.

Hough, Feanklin H., Patent Attorney, 519 Washington Loan & Trust Building,

Washington, D. C. Jacobs, B. R., Director, National Cereal Products Laboratories, 1731 H Street,

Washington, D. C. Leonard, Chaeles F., American Institute of Weights and Measures, 115 Broadway, New York City.

Lewis, Clifford, President, Lewis Hotel Training School, 1324 New York

Avenue, Washington, D. C. Owen, J. A., Merchant, Amo, Ind.

Rabenold, Ellwood M., American Institute of Baking, 61 Broadway, New York

City.

Reel, H. D., Former Inspector of Weights and Measures, Harrisburg, Pa. Richards, Howard, jr., American Metric Association, 156 Fifth Avenue, New

York City. Scott. H. H., 700 North Appleton Street, Baltimore, Md.

Wilbur, H. G., Official Stenographer, 921 Fifteenth Street, Washington, D. C. Woolridge, W. H., Trade Paper Correspondent, Washington, D. C.
CONTENTS.

rage. Foreword . 15

F1E8T Session (Morning of Monday, May 23, 1921).

Abstract of address of welcome by the president, Dr. S. W. Stratton 16

Abstracts of reports of State delegates

District of Columbia, George M. Roberts 16

Illinois, William F. Cluett 17

Indiana, I. L. Miller 17

Kansas, F. E. Rowland 17

Kentucky, F. Reichmann 17

Louisiana, J. N. Siren 17

Massachusetts, John J. Cummings 18

Michigan, A. A. Greer 18

Minnesota, R. F. Barron 18

Nebraska, Leo Stuhr 18

Announcements and appointment of committees 18

Second Session (Afternoon of Monday, May 23, 1921).

Abstracts of reports of State delegates (continued) : New Hampshire, H. A. Webster 19

New Jersey, Frank Wanser 19

New York, W. T. White 19

Ohio, John M. Mote 19

Pennsylvania, William B. McGrady 20

Rhode Island, William F. Goodwin 20

South Dakota, Guy G. Frary 20

Tennessee, D. J. Frazier 20

Vermont, H. N. Davis 20

West Virginia, G. B. Stewart 20

Education of public to appreciation of necessity for accuracy, by W. T. White, director, bureau of weights and measures, State of New York 21

Discussion of above paper 23

Appointment of committees 23

Reports of other delegates 23

Third Session (Morning of Tuesday, May 24, 1921).

Bread legislation from the standpoint of the baker, by H. E. Barnard,

director, American Institute of Baking 24

Proposed bread weight legislation in Illinois, by William F. Cluett, chief

deputy inspector of weights and measures, Chicago, 111 30

Enforcement of bread legislation, including proper tolerances, by Charles

M. Fuller, sealer of weights and measures, Los Angeles County, Calif 37

Discussion of preceding papers and of legislation relating to the sale of bread 37

Report of special committee 44

12
POUBTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 13

Fourth Session (Afternoon of Tuesday, Mat 24, 1921).

Page.

Enforcement of law in re marking of weights on wrapped meats, by H.

Runkel, Bureau of Chemistry, Department of Agriculture 45

Discussion of above paper 50

Detecting shortages, securing evidence, and prosecuting offenders, by

R. F. Barron, commissioner of weights and measures. State of Minnesota 50

Discussion of above paper 53

Destination weighing of coal from the standpoint of the official, by T. L. Irvine, superintendent of weights and measures and oil inspection. Salt

Lake City, Utah 54

Discussion of above paper 56

Mine scale work of the Bureau of Standards, by Louis A. Fischer, chief,

division of weights and measures, Bureau of Standards 57

Fifth Session (Morning of Wednesday, May 25, 1921).

Testing of liquid-measuring devices, by Ralph W. Smith, Bureau of

Standards - 64

Report of committee on weight standardization of bread, presented by

A. W. Schwartz, chairman 72

Discussion of report of committee on weight standardization of bread 73

Address by Hon. Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce 79

Discussion of report of committee on weight standardization of bread

(continued) 80

Sixth Session (Afternoon of Wednesday, May 25, 1921).

Address and resolution in memory of the late James Sweeney 82

Discussion of report of committee on weight standardization of bread

(continued) 83

Discussion of tolerances as applied to bread weights 84

General discussion of weights and measures problems

Necessity for specifications and tolerances for heavy-duty automatic

scales 87

Necessity for regulations in re fabric-measuring devices 87

Necessity for regulation of tank wagons 88

Report of committee on specifications and tolerances, presented by

F. S. Holbrook, chairman 89

Discussion of report of committee on specifications and tolerances 90

Seventh Session (Morning or Thursday, May 26, 1921).

Discussion of report of committee on specifications and tolerances (continued) 93

Amendment of liquid-measuring device specification No. 9 104

Report of the treasurer, Frank Wanser, presented by A. W. Schwartz__ 107

Eighth Session (Afternoon of Thursday, May 26, 1921).

Report of committee on resolutions, presented by Guy G. Frary, chairman,

and discussion thereon 108

Resolution of appreciation to the Secretary of Commerce 108

Resolution of sympathy and good wishes to Louis A. Fischer 108

Resolution of appreciation to the director and staff of the Bureau

of Standards 108

Resolution of appreciation to exhibitors of apparatus 109

Resolution indorsing principle of national serialization of type of

apparatus 109
14 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

Report of committee on resolutions, etc.^—Continued. Page

Resolution indorsing principle of standardization of packages and

containers 110

Resolution indorsing principle of simplification of packages and con- tainers 110

Resolution in re proposed legislation concerning slack-filled packages. Ill

Discussion and motions in relation to metric system 112

Report of committee on nominations, presented by William F. Cluett,

chairman, and election of officers 115

Discussion of application of retroactive specifications for liquid-measuring

devices 116

Amendment of liquid-measuring device specification No. 5 119

Motion in re amendment to model law, and other motions 119

APPENDIXES.

Appendix I. Specifications and tolerances for liquid-measuring devices

(as amended by the Fourteenth Annual Conference) 123

II. Model bread law adopted by the Fourteenth Annual Confer- ence 131

III. Revised section on bread to be substituted for bread section

formerly included in model State law on weights and

measures 131
REPORT OF THE FOURTEENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND

MEASURES OF THE UNITED STATES.

HELD AT THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS, WASHINGTON, D. C, MAY 23-26, 1921.

FOREWORD.

On account of the urgent need for economy in the expenditure of

Government funds it has been found necessary to abridge this report

in many respects. To this end the material has been carefully

studied to determine what portions might be deleted with the least

sacrifice of essential matter. As a result of this examination the

proceedings of the first two sessions have largely been abstracted or

deleted, and the discussion in all other sessions has been curtailed in

every case where it was believed that this could be done without too

great loss of material of permanent usefulness to weights and measures officials and others.

The carrying out of this decision has, among other things, re- sulted in the abstracting of the reports of State delegates and the

elimination of the reports of city delegates. It should be understood that the Bureau of Standards is not of the opinion that this

material is not of interest and value. It is felt only that this matter

can, perhaps, better be spared than discussions resulting in the

adoption of some specific proposal, such as a model law or specifications and tolerances. The debate leading up to adoption of decisions of such a character is always of value as showing the information upon which the action was taken and the necessity of the

final material, and is sometimes very necessary also for the complete

understanding of the matter in question. Furthermore, the reports

of State and city delegates are usually issued in printed form by

their jurisdictions, and the information given at the conference can,

as a rule, be obtained by consulting them.

The bureau hopes that this departure from the usual method of

reporting the proceedings of the Annual Conference on Weights and

Measures will not be found to impair the general usefulness of the

publication.

S. W. Stkatton,

Director, Bureau of Standards, and

President, Annual Conference on Weights and Measures.

15
FIRST SESSION (MORNING OF MONDAY, MAY 23, 1921).

The conference was called to order at 11 o'clock a. m, by Dr. S. W.

Stratton, president of the conference and Director of the Bureau of

Standards.

ABSTRACT OF ADDRESS OF WELCOME BY THE PRESIDENT,

DR. S. W. STRATTON.

Dr. Stratton welcomed the delegates to the Bureau of Standards

and recapitulated the objects of the conference for the benefit of new

delegates. He touched upon the growing interest in cooperation in

weights and measures as evidenced by the volume of correspondence

received by the bureau and pointed out the general awakening to the

importance of weights and measures regulation and the consequent

increase in the duties of the officials. He explained the importance

of Federal legislation looking toward the regulation of certain phases

of the subject. He emphasized that standards of quantity and quality are of equal importance, and predicted that eventually the functions

of weights and measures officials would include both of these. He

cited the trend toward the adoption of sales by weight rather than by

measure—a method consistently advocated by the conference in the

past.

Dr. Stratton urged the interchange of ideas between the official

and the manufacturer as the best method of securing an improvement in the weights and measures in commercial use, recommending

a general ti-eatment of the problems arising rather than a consideration of any specific device. Finally, he announced with very great re- gret the serious illness of L. A. Fischer, the chief of the division of

weights and measures of the Bureau of Standards and secretary of

the conference.

Mr. HoLWELL. I think before we proceed with our order of busi- ness that a motion is in order that this conference express its regret

at the illness of its secretary, Mr. Fischer, and that a committee be

appointed by the chair to wait upon him and to convey to him an

expression of sympathy from the conference.

(The motion was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion

was agreed to.)

The Chairman. The Committee will be appointed before the adjournment of this morning's session.

ABSTRACTS OF REPORTS OF STATE DELEGATES.i

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

By George M. Roberts, Superintendent of Weights, Measures, and Markets.

Mr. Roberts reported the passage of a general weights and measures

law to take effect June 3, 1921. Among the outstanding features of

1 For convenience of reference these reports have been arranged in alphabetical order throughout.

16
I'Ourteenth conference on weights and measures. 17

this law may be mentioned the mandatory sale of bread in loaves

of specified standard weights and of dry commodities by weight or count or in standard prescribed containers, and the abolition of the fee

system.

ILLINOIS.

By William F. Cluett, Chief Deputy Inspector of Weights and Measures of

Chicago.

Mr. Cluett reported that a bill for a comprehensive weights and

measures law in Illinois was pending in the legislature with an excellent prospect of passage. He also gave figures on the work ac- complished during the last year by the State superintendent of

standards.

INDIANA.

By I. L. Miller, State Commissioner of Weights and Measures.

Mr. Miller gave a brief history of the weights and measures legislation in Indiana and explained the legislative program of the past

year, which granted some additional authority to the department.

He stated that universal compliance with the recently enacted standard-weight bread law has already been secured.

KANSAS.

By F. E. Rowland, Assistant Chief State Food and Drug Inspector.

Mr. Rowland reported that the weights and measures work of the

department was very greatly hampered by lack of funds, and that

comprehensive inspections could not be conducted on that account.

A bill providing for the correction of these conditions failed of passage at the last legislature.

KENTUCKT.

By F. Reichmann, Official Representative of Kentucky.

Mr. Eeichmann reported that the State had no proper weights and

measures law, but that the governor was much interested in the subject and desired to secure a constructive outline for legislation to be

introduced at the next session. He expressed the conviction that a

general State law would be adopted.

LOUISIANA.

By J. N. SiEEN, Inspector of Weights and Measures of Neio Orleans.

Mr. Siren reported briefly the S5^stem of weights and measures inspection in use in the city of New Orleans, with special attention

to the methods employed in the case of liquid-measuring devices. It

appears that there is an excellent opportunity of securing constructive legislation at the coming session of the legislature.

67370—22 2
18 BUREAU OF STANDARDS,

MASSACHXTSETTS.

By John J. Cummings, Acting Chief State Inspector, Division of Standards.

Mr. Cummings reported the activities of the department especially

in relation to the action taken upon weighing and measuring apparatus of different types, and gave a resume of 10 acts and a resolve

atfecting the department which were passed during the past year.

MICHIGAN.

By A. A. Geeee, Chief, State Weights and Measures Division.

Mr. Greer reported that the progress made in the regulation of

weights and measures in his State had been especially marked during

the past year, more having been accomplished than in any previous

year. He referred to the success attending the last State convention

of weights and measures officials.

MINNESOTA.

By R. F. Barron, Commissioner of Weights and Measures.

Mr. Barron reported several important change of personnel in

the State department. The improvement of the condition of the

apparatus in the State was briefly detailed, and the prosecution and

conviction of 86 offenders against the laws was noted.

NEBRASKA.

By Leo Stuhr, State Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. Stuhr reported the entire revision of the weights and measures

law, which now provides, among other things, that dry commodities

shall be sold by weight or count or in containers. A law requiring

that bread be sold only in standard-weight loaves of 8 ounces, 1

pound, 1^ pounds, or multiples of a pound, was also enacted.

AITNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENT OP C0MMITTEES.2

The Chairman. Gentlemen, I will announce the entertainment

committee as Mr. McGrady, of Pennsylvania; Mr. Steinel, of Milwaukee ; and Mr. Smith, of the Bureau of Standards.

We have ascertained that it will be convenient for a small committee to meet Mr. Fischer. I will therefore appoint Mr. Holwell,

Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Cluett, and Mr. Moynihan to serve on that committee.

The next item on the program is the exhibit, and since the exhibit

is over in the same building where we will have luncheon, we will not

meet here until 2.45, giving you a chance to visit the exhibit while

you are over there.

(Thereupon, at 12.35 o'clock p. m.,the conference took a recess until

2.45 o'clock p. m.)

^ For appointment of other committees see p. 23.
SECOND SESSION (AFTERNOON OF MONDAY, MAY 23, 1921).

The conference reassembled at 2.45 o'clock p. m., Dr. S. W.

Stratton, chairman, presiding.

ABSTRACTS OF REPORTS OF STATE DELEGATES—Continued.

NEW HAMPSHIRE.

By H. A. Webster, State Commissioner of Weights and Measures.

Mr. Webster reported the progress made by the department in

the State, giving particular attention to the cooperation of the State

department with local sealers, a campaign of education conducted,

the continued successful operation of the wood law, and the inspection of track scales in conjunction with the National Bureau of Standards track-scale testing equipment.

NEW JERSEY.

By Feank Wansek, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures.

Mr, Wanser reported in some detail the work of the department

during the year and commented on the successful functioning of the

weights and measures association of the State. The weights and

measures laws were amended in several essential respects and a public

weighmaster bill was enacted, but a standard-weight bread bill was

unsuccessful.

NEW TORK.

By W. T. White, Director, State Bureau of Weights and Measures.

Mr. White reported the work of the department during the year

and paid a special tribute to the harmony prevailing between the

State bureau and the local officials. A number of special surveys

were conducted throughout the State with very beneficial results, and

a resume of several investigations was given and the results obtained

described.

OHIO.

By John M. Mote, Assistant Chief State Inspector of Weights and Measures.

Mr. Mote reported the passage by the last legislature of a standardweight bread law and told of the marked improvement in conditions

resulting from the enforcement of the standard container act passed

two years ago. He also described the Ohio weights and measures

organization and outlined the work accomplished during the past

year.

19
20 BUEEAU OF STANDAEDS.

PENNSTLiVANIA.

By William B. McGkady, Cliief, State Bureau of Standards.

Mr. McGrrady reported the passage by the last legislature of five

acts affecting the work of the State bureau and discussed in detail

the circumstances leading to the passage of the act giving the State

bureau authority to pass upon types of weighing and measuring

instruments. He also mentioned the large number of coal scales

tested in Pennsylvania.

RHODE ISLAND.

By WiLiAM F. Goodwin, State Sealer of Weights, Measures, and Balances.

Mr. Goodwin reported an increased appropriation granted to the

department by the last legislature which v^^ould make it possible to

greatly expand the weights and measures work in Ehode Island.

He said that, in general, conditions in the State were satisfactory.

SOUTH DAKOTA.

By Guy G. Fbaey, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures.

Mr. Frary reported that the department had been greatly hampered

in the past by lack of sufficient funds, but the last legislature had

granted an increased appropriation, which would place the work

upon a more satisfactory basis. He also told of the enactment of a standard-weight bread law.

TENNESSEE.

By D. J. Frazier, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures.

Mr. Frazier reported the recent enactment of a law prohibiting the

sale of dry food commodities except by weight. He also gave a comprehensive outline of the various weights and measures laws of the

State, and expressed the opinion that Tennessee was making excellent

progress along these lines.

VERMONT.

By H. N. Davis, Deputy State Commissioner of Weights and Measures.

Mr. Davis reported especial activity along the lines of supervisory

work, particularly in checking the weights of butter packed in the

creameries and the weights of coal and ice deliveries. He stated

that nearly all commodities in Vermont are now bought and sold on

the basis of weight, and that, with the exception of fruits, dry measures have been eliminated.

WEST VIRGINIA.

By G. B. Stewart, State Inspector of Weights and Measures.

Mr. Stewart reported that every effort was being made to secure the enactment of progressive statutes in West Virginia and outlined

the department's legislative program. He mentioned in this con- nection bills relating to standard packages, clinical thermometers,

standard-weight loaves of bread, ice, and scales for coal.
FOUBTEENTH CONFEEElSrCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 21

EDUCATION or PUBLIC TO APPRECIATION OF NECESSITY TOR

ACCURACY.

By W. T. White, Directo?; Bureau of Weights and Measures, State of Neio York.

Mr. President and delegates, the subject assigned to me is broad

enough to permit of a long talk. However, I have no intention of

inflicting upon you gentlemen here a lengthy address, but will en- deavor to be as brief as possible.

Education means progress. Progress usually results in attainment. To my mind, we all have an object to attain, and that is

accuracy whenever and wherever weights and measures are concerned. In order to reach the goal of accuracy, we must first inform

the citizens of this country of the importance of many of the phases

of weights and measures work. I have no intention of criticising

our educational institutions. However, I sincerely believe that this

subject is passed over ver}'^ hastily in such institutions, and to my

mind this results in careless and slack methods being employed in

business institutions.

Another reason or need for educational weights and measures

propaganda—and especially is it true in the State of New York—is

the great percentage of foreign born and people who are speaking

foreign languages. Commissioner Howell, of New York City, to

my mind, is confronted with this problem more forcibly than any

other weights and measures official in the country, and the work that

Commissioner Howell has done along lines of educating foreignspeaking peojole in the city of New York has produced some very

beneficial results.

At the present time I have under consideration what I call a "Weights and measures primer." This little booklet will be compiled in such a way that it will be interesting and understandable to a child possessing three years of public-school training. We have

found that many of the families in our foreign colonies depend to a

certain extent upon their children to do the purchasing. Furthermore, these chilclren act as educators in these families ; and we hope

that the distribution of this primer, which we have arranged for

through the educational department, will have this result: That

these children will take these primers home with them and impart

what simple weights and measures information they contain to

their parents. Then, there is another object in this primer, and that

is to impress upon the minds of our youngsters, who are to be our

future citizens, the importance of accuracy in weight and measure

matters.

I have here [indicating] a little booklet which we prepared in our

bureau, which was gotten out last year, and we call it " Through

the door of thrift." This booklet is gotten out in popular form. We

found that the cut-and-dried and technical phraseology and language

would not be read by the housewife or, in fact, by others. Those

of you who can see it will note that the front page of this booklet

is made to represent an ordinary paneled door. On the first big

panel it says, " Make your dollar deliver 100 cents through the door

of thrift by the way of accurate weights and measures."

I will outline briefly the contents of this booklet. On the first page

we note what the functions of the bureau of weights and measures

are. On the next page, in cross-section style, we state at the top,
22 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

" What the weights and measures bureau helps you to get." Below

that you will note a cross section where it says, " You save by thrift."

There are such legends as " The weights and measures bureau helps

you to get your honest weight or measure in all purchases." On the

next page we have a legend, " What the weights and measures bureau

wants you to do." Here we have a number of little hints which will

help the housewife and other purchasers. The rest of the booklet is composed of several little items, among which are a number which

are put under the head of " How to save." The next heading is, " Remember." Under " Remember," for instance, we state, " Remember that the bureau of weights and measures is for the public and

there are no charges for its services," and " Remember that this

bureau was created for the enforcement of a square deal, but not to adjust differences caused by spite." Another heading we have is, " See that you are not defrauded by inaccurate linear measures."

Then we go on to relate what you are likely to encounter in the form

of a faulty linear measure. On the next page, " Don't buy when

faulty liquid capacity measures, such as the following, are used." In

connection with the description of several different faulty liquid

measures we show pictures of three different types of faulty measures. On the next page we state, " These dry capacity measures will cheat

you." There we describe some faulty dry measures, showing the

pictures of cut-down, false-bottom measures. On the next two pages

are pictured some fraudulent scales. Then the book has weights and

measures tables and useful information for the housewife.

The value of weights and measures exhibits, I think, is appreciated

by all weights and measures officials, and in New York State we do

as much of this kind of work as our funds will permit. I have found

that it affords an excellent opportunity for distributing such weights

and measures literature as I have here and any other that we may

have for distribution. Another thing that appears to me as being

a very good practice is for a weights and measures official to give

weights and measures talks whenever and wherever the opportunity

is afforded. It is particularly desirable that a weights and measures

official should talk about his work before business associations, classes

in economics, mothers' clubs, and other similar gatherings. It is not

necessary that a man should be an orator in order to talk at these

gatherings. In fact, I believe, and I haA^e found it to be so in practice, that people are more interested in hearing about some of the

official's experiences in regard to his work. If a man is inclined to soar away on oratorical flights, I think that the purpose of his talk

is killed at that point.

Newspaper publicity is desirable—you might say necessarj?-—but it must be " good stuff," as a newspaper man calls it. It must be authentic, and it must be straight from the shoulder. Otherwise it is taken

for the product of an overworked publicity agent.

When I was a sealer and carrying an inspector's kit I realized the

need for some kind of educational news for the sealers themselves.

Therefore, one of the first tasks that I set about when I became the

head of the State bureau was to start what we call our monthly

" Sealers' news letter." This humble little publication is gotten out

with the aid of a very competent stenographer and a willing mimeograph operator. The sealers themselves contribute most of the articles for this little paper, and each month it is prepared and sent to
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 23

each of the sealers. In this way the sealers in the different cities

and counties are kept informed as to particular activities of other city or county sealers.

I do not claim that my system of educating the public, if you

please, is the best, but I do claim that the weights and measures offi- cial who is not doing some kind of work along this line is not fulfilling all the obligations of his office. I thank you.

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE PAPER.

The Chairman. It might be a good plan for each man to have a small lantern, such as can now be purchased at a cost of from $25

to $50. The bureau has a number of interesting pictures, and I think

we could supply each sealer with a few slides that you would like

to show in connection with the history of weights and measures. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES.s

The Chairman. I desire at this time to announce the appointment

of several committees. On the committee on the weight standardization of bread, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr.

Neale, we have appointed Mr. W. T. White, of New York. Mr.

Schwartz is now the chairman of this committee. The committee on

publicity is Mr. Greer, of Michigan ; Mr. Roberts, of the District of

Columbia ; and Mr. Payne, of Monroe County, N. Y. The committee

on nominations is Mr. Cluett, of Chicago ; Mr. Schwartz, of New

Jersey; Mr. Mote, of Ohio; Mr. Davis, of Vermont; and Mr. Rinn,

of Allentown, Pa. The committee on resolutions is Mr. Frary, of

South Dakota; Mr. Webster, of New Hampshire; Mr. Cummings, of

Massachusetts; Mr. Stuhr, of Nebraska; and Mr. Holwell, of New

York.

REPOKTS OF OTHER DELEGATES.

Reports were also made to the conference by the following officials

G. F. Seay, deputy inspector of weights and measures, Richmond, Va.

xiugustus F. Bove, sealer of weights and measures, Portland, Me.;

Joseph J. Holwell, commissioner, mayor's bureau of weights and

measures. New York City; Charles A. Schultz, sealer of weights

and measures, Dayton, Ohio; H. S. Peabody, inspector of weights

and measures, State of New Hampshire; Court Bellis, city and

county sealer of weights and measures, Ithaca, N. Y. ; Morris Perell,

inspector of weights and measures, Stamford, Conn. ; Charles J. Quinn, city sealer of weights and measures, Buffalo, N. Y. ; Clyde

Garrett, citj' sealer of weights and measures, Chattanooga, Tenn.

Howard R. Estes, city sealer of weights and measures, Flint, Mich.

W. F. Steinel, city sealer of weights and measures, Milwaukee, Wis.

W. H. Barr, deputy county sealer of weights and measures, Lisbon,

Ohio ; D. C. Hill, inspector of weights and measures, Dallas, Tex.

At this point a motion to adjourn was made and seconded, and the

motion was agreed to. (Thereupon, at 4.30 o'clock p. m., the conference adjourned to

meet at 10 o'clock a. m., Tuesday, May 24, 1921.)

^ For appointment of other committees see p. 18.
THIRD SESSION (MORNING OF TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1921).

The conference reassembled at 10.15 o'clock a. m. at the Bureau

of Standards, Dr. S. W. Stratton, chairman, presiding.

The Chairman. The meeting will please come to order. We have

before us this morning a very interesting program. There is before

us now this question of bread legislation. We have had a special

committee considering this, but I did not realize until yesterday to

what extent you are all thinking of it. The question came up yesterday as to the relation between the conference and the bakers and as

to the attitude of the bakers. The bakers are reasonable men, just as you people ai-e. They are on the producing side, and you represent the consumers. I think that the secret of getting along in all

of these things is to get together and base all decisions upon the real

merits of the case. If that method is pursued, you can always arrive

at conclusions that are fair to both sides. So it is with very great

pleasure that I introduce this subject this morning, and I am especially glad to call upon the first speaker. Dr. H. E. Barnard, who is

with us to-day, to speak on bread legislation from the baker's standpoint. Dr. Barnard.

BREAD LEGISLATION EROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE BAKER.

By H. E. Babnaeo, Director, American Institute of Baking.

Dr. Stratton, ladies and gentlemen, and old friends, a year ago

I felt it necessary to decline an invitation from your secretary to

address your Thirteenth Annual Conference on the subject of

" Standard weights for bread." It was of interest, however, to know

that the subject was brought before you, and that following the

address by Commissioner Neale a committee was appointed to study

the matter of standardization and to make a report at the next

conference.

During the past few months it has seemed to the baking industry

that every State legislature has thought it necessary to regulate

the baking industry, and so, in view of the fact that the topic is a live one both to the baker who wishes to comply with the laws and

regulations and to commissioners of weights and measures who are interested in adopting some uniform method of handling this important subject, I have this year accepted Mr. Fischer's invitation

and have come to Washington to talk to you, not as I once had the

pleasure of doing, as an official charged with enforcing weights and

measures laws, but as a representative of the baking industry.

Let me assure you that the bakers of the country are heartily in

sympathy with any legislation which will benefit the consumer. The baking industry lives because of the good will of the bread

eater. Any legislation which will secure better service for the con- sumer must of necessity benefit the industry, and so I am glad to- day to tell you what the baker thinks of the subject of standard

weights as it applies to the loaf of bread.

24
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 25

I shall frankly say that all bakers do not think alike on this subject. Varying conditions in the several States and in the larger

cities have thus far made it impossible for them to get the same

viewpoint. They are not agreed that bread should be sold by standard weight. They are all of one opinion, and that is that the con- sumer should get what he pays for and know what he is getting.

That is the reason why you gentlemen are enforcing different types

of laws in your several States ; that is why the laws of Massachusetts

and Texas are different ; that is why the New York baker who ships

bread across the river finds it necessary to conform to the Federal

law governing the interstate shipment of bread and mark the weight

of the loaf on the package. But, in addition to this requirement,

he must also comply with the law of the State of New York and with

the municipal code of the city of New York. His bread must meet

the regulation requirements of every city and borough in New York

to which he ships. When shipments go across the State lines into

Connecticut, New Jersey, or Pennsylvania they must run another

gauntlet and meet the critical inspection of you gentlemen who serve those States.

I assure you, gentlemen, that the baker has very real reasons for

his interest in the laws which you are enforcing, and it is his desire

to work with you in perfecting legislation which will absolutely

protect the consumer and, at the same time, be uniform in character,

both as to construction and enforcement. I wish it were possible

for you to hear the arguments which time and again have been

presented by leading bakers against the adoption of standard-weight

legislation, and then that you could listen to the arguments of other

bakers who have favored such legislation. Out of this conflict of

opinion I am sure it would be possible for you to draft regulations

which would meet the ends desired by you as officials, by the public,

and by the baker. But since this is not possible, I shall, as best I

can, marshal the facts before you.

The baking industry believes that if you have the facts and appreciate the desire of the baker to work with you, rather than to oppose

you, nothing but good can result. Weights and measures legislation

has become necessary in order that fraud and deceit may not be

practiced against the public. Such legislation proposes to set up a square deal between the producer and the consumer; it proposes to

establish a true measure of bread value ; it proposes to make unfair

competition impossible.

It is not necessary to discuss with you gentlemen the enforcibility

of any statute, for you know what you can do and how successfully

you can work. The argument against the standardization of bread

weights—that is, against fixing the weight of the loaf at 16 ounces

or 24 ounces, 12 hours after leaving the oven—has been ably set up in a recent issue of the Northwestern Miller. I do not think I can present the argument any more clearly than in the Avords of the

editor, who says

" Standardization " lias become such a potent word in the mouths of those who

Icnow little or nothing: about what it really means, and the -whole system of

weights and measures is, very properly, so jealously safe.caiarded by law, that

any proposal to establish standard weights for such an essential commodity as a

loaf of bread is bound to have strong support, and the only way to oppose it effectually is to educate public opinion as to what it actually involves.
26 BUREAU OF STA5TDARDS.

If the unit price for bread were a large one. like that for a ton of coal or a

barrel of flonr or a bushel of wheat, there could be no possible objection to the

standardization of weights. With a large selling price even the smallest variations in manufacturing, transporting, and selling costs can be accurately re- flected in the charge made to the final purchaser. [Remember, this is the argument not of a baker but of a miller.] For example, if cash wheat drops 1 cent,

the miller takes approximately 5 cents from the selling price of a barrel of

flour, the reduction amounting to about six-tenths of 1 per cent of the total

price. In this way the consumer is assured of the full benefit of every decrease,

however slight, in the cost of wheat and the expense of flour milling, and,

conversely, the producer is protected by his ability to reflect accurately every

increase in his expenses in his selling price.

This principle, however, can not possibly be applied to the loaf of bread.

With 10 cents as a basic price, a decline corresponding in extent to that just

indicated in the case of flour would mean a reduction of six-tenths of a mill in

the retail price, a difference which could hardly be expressed even by the use of

German pfennigs at the present rate of exchange. As recent experience has

shown, the change of a cent, either up or down, in the bread price means a very

extensive shift in the baker's costs, and yet a cent is the smallest possible unit

by which such changes of price can be measured.

Furthermore, the consumer who buys baker's bread is purchasing quality as

well as quantity. He can get a pound of alleged bread which will do him

absolutely no good, or he can get exactly the same weight of the most nourishing

food in the world. Between these extremes there are innumerable variations

of quality for which no system of accurate standards has ever been devised.

The proposed Federal definition for bread may, if adopted, serve to rule out the

very poorest varieties, but these are negligible under any circumstances, as competition nowhere permits any baker to produce them. The things that

determine bread quality are such as to defy any system of standards ever devised, and they ai'e vastly more important than matters of weight.

Standardized weights for bread mean, first, that the baker has no way of

passing on to the consumer the immediate benefits of slight reductions in his

own expenses, nor has he any protection in case his costs correspondingly

advance. Second, they mean that the consumer is assured only regarding the

actual weight of the bread he buys, without the slightest guaranty as to the

thing which really matters—its quality. If the baker sees his expenses rising

without the justification for an increase of a full cent in his selling price, and

if he can not reduce the weight of his loaf by so much as the fraction of an

ounce, his inevitable temptation is to sacrifice enough in the matter of quality

to offset the loss he would otherwise sustain.

The sliding scale of bread weights operates directly and immediately to the

advantage of the consumer, because the baker's costs are accurately measured

by the selling price and the weight of the loaf taken together. It helps the

baker, because bread prices are notoriously hard to change, either up or down.

If they are even a fraction of a cent too low, the baker's small margin of profit

is wiped out, whereas if they are too high some more reckless or more fortunate

competitor promptly steps in and secures the trade on a cut-rate basis.

The only argument in favor of the standard bread-weight system—its alleged

protection to the public—collapses, both because it absolutely fails to afford any

protection at all in the matter of quality, which is the thing that really counts,

and because it defeats its own purpose by denying the consumer's right to the

full benefits of lower production costs. So much for the argument of the Northwestern Miller. May I

make a practical apiDlication of one of the points, namely, the impossibility of passing on the benefits of decreased production cost to the

consumer by quoting an advertisement which recently appeared in

the Detroit papers

Under the old sliding scale of bread weights in force before the war the

fluctu.'itions of the wheat market could immediately be reflected in the real price of the loaf by a slight change in weight. Under the sliding scale of bread

weights, for example, the undersigned bakers could give the customers of

Detroit a 22-ounce loaf for 14 cents. On the basis of a daily distribution of

111,128 loaves for one company and 75.000 for another, the customers of Detroit

would have saved $33,534 during the month of January alone.
FOURTEENTH CONEEKENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 27

As large as this sum is, it is by no means the greatest gain to the consumer. Under the arbitrary 24-ounce loaf ordinance the baker has no recourse in case of a sudden increase in the price of wheat flour but to jump the price

of bread at least 1 cent per loaf, when the increase in cost may have amounted

to but a fraction of a cent per loaf; or, since the public does not like price

increases, to keep a general high price level iu fear of a sudden rise in the

wheat-flour market which may never come ; or, and this is very important, to give the consumer lower-grade breal. The Massachusetts law, which many bakers believe is a model law,

embodying as it does sanitary regulations and the provision that

bread shall not be sold otherwise than by weight, and then only in

units of 16 or 24 ounces, further provides that these unit weights

shall not apply to loaves which are plainly labeled with the weight

and the name of the manufacturer. In other words, loaves weighing

16 or 24 ounces need not be labeled with the net weight, but if conditions justify the baking of loaves slightly different from the standard loaves it is only I'equired of the baker that such loaves be labeled

as to their exact weight. Under this law the public is protected. It

knows how many ounces of bread it gets for 8, 9, or 10 cents. It is possible for the housewife to measure quality values with quantity

values. The baker who makes a loaf of larger volume, which looks

like a pound loaf but weighs less, shows by the label exactly what

the loaf does weigh and so provides a measure of value more accurate

than that of the eye of the purchaser.

The Massachusetts law . cloes not operate to lower bread quality,

and the baker who wishes to make a su]3erior loaf—richer in milk, or sugars, or shortenings at increased cost—can regulate his price

accordingly, and that price will be reflected past the grocery store or other distributing agent to the consumer. These are the arguments advanced by a large number of bakers,

perhaps the majority. Another group of bakers, however, take a

different stand. During the war the United States Food Administration operated the bakeries of the country. The regulations set up

the formulas by which the bakers worked ; they determined the size

of the loaf and its method of distribution. One of the important

regulations provided that all bread should be sold by a fixed standard

unit weight. The results of this regulation were set forth in an

excellent paper read before the convention of the Southeastern

Bakers' Association. May I quote the argument there advanced

What the bakers had thought impossible before the creation of the Food

Administration worked like a charm, and the trade being relieved of the

destructive competition in weight and of the necessity of constantly watching

the juggling of weights by their comijetitors could settle down to the more important problem of furnishing the people, even under adverse conditions, with

quality bread at a price which, despite the extraordinary and oftentimes ex- asperating circumstances, made bread still the cheapest and best food on the

American table; in fact, the envy of all European countries, where so-called Avar bread even to-day is remembered with a shudder.

This standard weight insisted upon by the Food Administration is one of the

regulations referred to as having been found so advantageous by the majority

of the bakers that in a great many cities the rule has been either voluntarily

adopted as a sound business practice by the bakers or, at the instance of the

trade, has been incorporated in new afterwar bakery laws and regulations.

Now, if a standard weight for bread was good for trade during the war, when

it helped the baker to assure for himself a standing with the public, when the

people with every justification took the greatest pride in the achievements of the

American baker, and when confidence in the commercial baker correspondingly

increased by reason of his accomplishments in the face of discouraging condi-
28 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

tions, vi'liat possible argument can be advanced that the selling of bread by

weight is not good for the baker in times of peace? * * * The excuse in most cases is—and in my belief it is a very poor one at that

that we have no coin small enough to justly reflect the necessary changes in the

price of bread as produced by the fluctuations in price of all the materials that

go into it. It is very honorable of these gentlemen to want to be so just to the

consuming public, but I do not believe that their excuse will stand the test. As

the commissioner of foods and markets of the State of New York only recently

told a delegation of bakers, in the speaker's hearing, this absence of small coins

from our currency would not affect the ethical and economical advantages of

standard weight for bread. The official pointed out that this apparent disadvantage would work out to the satisfaction of all, and that he, speaking for the

public, was quite prepared to take the lean with the fat. In other words, if the

baker was forced, by reason of an absence of smaller denomination coin, to charge

a fraction of a cent more for his bread than under the market changes he was

really entitled to, the possibilities are that the next month the rule would work

the other Avay, and the public would be the gainer of a like amount by reason of

the same. * * * The establishment of a standard weight would greatly facilitate the handling

of the pans in the average bakeshop and would eliminate the purchase of extra

pans from time to time, which of necessity must be done as the baker sees fit to decrease or increase the weight of his loaf. This is an advantage of standardization, and in every sphere of commercial activity where packages or containers are being used the number of these has been cut down as a matter of reconstruction expediency and economy.

I shall not quote further from this clear-cut presentation of the

arguments in favor of stanclard-Tveight bread, but I do want to call

attention to one paragraph of the address which should gladden the

heart of every weights and measures official, and that is as follows

While I am heart and soul, of course, in favor of the introduction of standard

weight for bread, I am not blind to the fact that all laws and regulations per- taining to such a step will be of benefit to the industry only if these laws and

regulations are strictly and honestly enforced. In States where standardweight laws have been put on the statute books the one great mistake has been

that no appropriations suflicieutly large have been made for the enforcement of

them, and that the inspectors and other officials having the carrying out of the

law in charge are far too few to make it effective. A standard-weight law without due enforcement would be as bad as no law at all. But we have ample

proof that the bakers themselves are able and willing to assist the Government

officials in the carrying out of the law—referring now to the advisory boards of

bakers who worlied in most of the States with the officials during the reign of the

Food Administration. If standard weight should be adopted all over the

country, the reestablishment of advisory boards would be in order, and the

bakers themselves should police the trade and see to it that fair play was ac- corded to all, and that the law was being carried out by every member of the

trade.

This closes the argument. Men better posted in the intricacies of

the baking industry than I are here ready to tell you just how bread

legislation affects the baker, his bread, and his customers. It is your

business to balance all the facts I have given you and all those that

may be brought to your attention and to draft uniform legislation

which will benefit consumers and the baking industry in States and

cities alike. But may I urge as strongly as I can that your committee

on legislation work slowly and carefully ? (3ut of the crop of ill-conceived and crudely'- drafted bills which

have been before our legislatures during the past few months and

which, I am glad to say, for the most part, did not originate in the

offices of the commissioners of weights and measures, several

measures have become laws. At the i^resent time a number of States

require bread to be sold by standard weight. Bakers working under
FOtTRTEENTH COlsrFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 29

these laws can not change the size of the loaves, no matter what conditions at the bakery may demand. It may be that these laws will

operate successfully both for the baker and the consumer. On the

other hand, as you gentlemen enforce them you may find that they

are impractical, that they are not helping the consumer, and that

they are detrimental to the baker. May I urge you, therefore, to

delay drafting any standard bill until by the operation of these laws

it may be determined by actual experience just how helpful they are?

We have here an opportunity, and now I speak as one who has had

much experience in drafting and enforcing weights and measures

legislation and as the director of the American Institute of Baking,

to formulate a real bread law—a law which will furnish complete

protection to the consumer against the vicious baker who would

cheat his customers, a law which will regulate competition, a law

which will place the produ:cts of the baking industry on a par with

other food commodities which are sold in package form.

We believe in labeling bread with the weight of the loaf and would

insist that the label must tell the truth. We want the weights and

measures officials, no matter where they are working—in the cities,

the country, or in the States—to enforce the law to the very letter,

but we do not want legislation passed which will made it impossible

for the baker to- fit his business to the fluctuating markets and to

regulate the size of his loaf accordingly.

The baking industry comes to you for assistance and advice. It

wants your cooperation in the suppression of every fraudulent practice. It looks to you to protect the industry whenever it is unfairly

attacked. And, I think, right there, gentlemen, I must pause to

emphasize that point. I believe that industries of this country have

certain rights which they have not in the past exercised as they

should. I believe it is the duty of a man who is engaged in producing and distributing food to tie up with his commissioner of

foods in his State. I believe it is the duty of a man who uses the

scale in his business to make closer contact than he has with the

weights and measures officials. There has been too much misunderstanding between the official and the man who is under inspection,

simply because the men have not got together. We are here to-day,

I believe, for the purpose of getting together.

So the baker looks to you to protect the industry whenever it is

unfairly attacked. It will go to you whenever the subject of honest

weights and measures arises. I can also assure you that while he is

very seriously opposed to the drafting of any legislation which will

operate to the disadvantage of the consumer or against the development of better practices in the industry, no baker, who has the

right to be called a baker, will willingly or willfully violate any law

or regulation which you gentlemen are sworn to enforce.

This is the first opportunity I have had to speak to you for several

years. It has been a pleasure to meet you again, and t hope that out

of this and similar conferences may grow a strong feeling of partnership in the important business of placing our industries on a stable

basis. May I ask you when you go back to your offices not to forget

that the American Institute of Baking wants an opportunity to worlc

with 3^ou ? It speaks for the baker and his vitally important industry,

but it knows that the baker's success Avill be commensurate with the
30 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

service he renders. Let us all work together, that that service may

be of utmost good to the consumer. (At this point H. A. Webster, of New Hampshire, assumed the

chair.)

PROPOSED BREAD WEIGHT LEGISLATION IN ILLINOIS.

By William F. Cluett, CMef Deputy Inspector of Weights and Measures,

Chicago, III.

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, delegates, and guests, should loaves of

bread be sold by certain prescribed weights only or should the baker

be allowed to sell any weight he desires, providing it is labeled with

the weight and name of the manufacturer ? The bakers of this country are apparently well organized and are endeavoring to have laws passed in the different States that will permit them to sell loaves of bread of any weight they see fit to bake,

with the simple concession to the rights of the purchaser of marking

the loaves with their weight and the name of the manufacturer. As

there is no law in this country to set the price at which a commodity

or article shall be sold, this simply means that the purchaser is at the

mercy of the baker as to how much the loaf shall weigh and how

much he will have to pay for it. One of these bills was introduced in the Illinois Legislature last

month, and I fancy it is along lines that they desire to have passed

in other States. This bill is particularly obnoxious to us for various

reasons, which I will point out and which, I think, will be of interest

to other sealers who may have similar bills introduced in their jurisdictions.

I wish to explain, first, that the State of Illinois has no active State

weights and measures department, and that the local sealers are all

appointed and their salaries paid by the city or town in which they

are located; that the laws or ordinances they work under are promulgated by their city councils under police powers conferred upon

the councils by the State. The Illinois bill reads

A BILL For an Act regulating the sale of bread. Be it enacted by the people of the State of Illinois, represented in the General

Assembly, Except as hereinafter otherwise provided, bread shall not be sold or

offered or exposed for sale otherwise than by weight and shall be manufactured

for sale and sold only in units of sixteen or twenty-four ounces or multiples of one pound. When multiple loaves are baked, each unit of the loaf shall conform

to the weight required by this section. The weights herein specified shall be

construed to mean the net weights twelve hours after baking to be determined

by the average weight of at least twelve loaves : Provided, however. Such unit

weights shall not apply to rolls or fancy bread weighing less than four ounces nor to loaves bearing a plain statement in intelligible English words and

figures of the weight of the loaf and the name of the manufacturer thereof. In

case of wrapped bread, such information shall be stated upon the wrapper of

each loaf ; and in the case of unwrapped bread, it shall be stated by means of a pan impression or other mechanical means, or shall be stated upon a label not

larger than one by one and three-quarters inches and not smaller than one by

one and one-half inches. Such label affixed to an unwrapped loaf shall not be

affixed in any manner or by use of any gums or pastes which are unsanitary and

unwholesome, and there shall not be more than one label on a loaf or unit. The

Department of Agriculture shall prescribe such rules and regulations as may be

necessary to enforce this section, including reasonable tolerances or variations

within which all weights shall be kept: Provided, hoxoever, That such toler- ances or variations shall not exceed one ounce per pound under the standard
FOUETEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 31

unit or marked weight. The Department of Agriculture and, under its orders,

the local sealers of weights and measures, shall cause the provisions of this

section to he enforced.

Sec. 2. Before any prosecution is begun under this act the parties concerned

shall be notified by written notice and be given an opportunity to be heard

before the said department.

Sec. 3. Any person convicted of violating section 1 of this act shall, for the

first offense, be punished by a fine in a sum of not less than fifteen dollars ($15)

and not more than one hundred dollars ($100), or by imprisonment in the

county jail not exceeding thirty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment,

in the discretion of the court, and for the second and each subsequent offense

by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25) or more than two hundred

dollars ($200), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. I will first point out our objections to the bill as drawn and then

give our answers to the arguments and reasons advanced by the

bakers as to why they desire a law of this kind enacted. The bill in

the first eight lines provides that bread shall be sold by weight and

made into loaves or units of 16 ounces, 24 ounces, or multiples of 1

pound, the weights herein specified to be construed as net weights 12

hours after baking and to be determined by the average weight of

at least 12 loaves. Now, that reads perfectly fair and reasonable,

and had they added " of any one unit," we would have agreed that

thus far it was fair and aboveboard; but in the next four lines it

turns around and undoes the good that was contained in the first

eight lines by reading

Provided, hotcever, Such unit weights shall not apply to rolls or fancy bread

weighing less than four ounces nor to any loaf bearing a plain statement in intelligible English words and figures of the weight of the loaf and the name of

the manufacturer thereof.

That is surely blowing hot and cold in the same breath. First, it

provides for certain standard weight loaves, and then turns around

and, in effect, saj'^s to the baker, " If you do not care to bake the weight

loaves specified, bake any weight you like as long as you label them

with their weight and the name of the manufacturer."

Except for the purpose of kidding or bamboozling the public it should read, " All bread shall be sold by weight and made into loaves or units of any weight desired by the baker and shall be labeled with

its weight and the name of the manufacturer."

The bill then continues and provides for methods of marking the

weight to be either upon a printed label, by pan impression or other

mechanical means for unwrapped bread, or upon the wrapper for

wrapped loaves. The size of the label is provided for, but nothing

is said about the size of the letters or figures showing the weight ex- cept that they shall be " intelligible English words and figures."

This is rather vague. What terms shall be used to give the information pound, pound and a half, or multiples of a pound or ounces ? In

Chicago there are many people who do not know how many ounces

constitute a pound. Therefore, the number of ounces would not

mean very much. A loaf of bread to many means 1 pound of bread.

That seems to have been the weight since time immemorial for a loaf

of bread, so if the loaf is labeled 1 pound or 1| pounds, or 1 pound

multiples it fixes some sort of a standard for them ; but with no size

specified for the letters or figures on the label they could be so small

as to be almost unreadable.
32 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

This, however, is really a small matter in comparison with what

follows. Starting at line 20, the bill again takes up the bakers' cause.

It reads

The Department of Agriculture shall prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to enforce this section, including tolerances or variations

within which all weights shall be kept.

That sounds fair enough ; but here, again, follows a proviso

Provided, hoioever, That such tolerance or variation shall not exceed one ounce per pound under the standard unit or marked weight.

Lines 7 and 8 read that

The weights herein specified shall be construed to mean the net weights twelve

hours after baking, to be determined by the average weight of at least twelve

loaves.

The weights therein specified are 16 or 24 ounces or multiples of

1 pound. Consequently, these are the only weight loaves that must

average the correct net weight in any certain number of loaves, and

there is no necessity for baking these weight loaves, because the first

proviso in the bill says so. Therefore, for all other weight loaves

the baker is to be allowed a tolerance of not exceeding 1 ounce per

pound under the standard unit or marked weight.

Any reasonable person, even a baker, should agree that so far the

baker has been pretty well looked out for, but the first section ends

up with these words

The Department of Agriculture and, vender its orders, the local sealers of

weights and measures shall cause the provisions of this section to be enforced.

This takes away all independence of action from the local sealer

in the regulation of the sale of bread and would cause the repeal of

all local ordinances passed by the city council in conflict with the

provisions of this bill and make the local sealer subservient to the

State Department of Agriculture. At the present time there is nothing said in this act about the quality of the bread in the loaf, and for

that reason we can see no reason why the Department of Agriculture

should have the enforcing of a straight weights and measures provision. Weights and measures regulations in Illinois come under the

Department of Trade and Commerce, and it is only reasonable and

logical that if the proposed law were put under any State department it should be the trade and commerce department.

Section 2 of this act we consider to be a most unreasonable provision. It would not only assist the baker to delay, but to escape

prosecution, and, in addition, we consider it to be an insult to the

intelligence, honesty, and capability of the local sealer. It reads as follows

Sec. 2. Before any prosecution is begun under this act the parties concerned

shall be notified by written notice and be given an opportunity to be heard

before the said department.

The local sealer in order to justify his acceptance of the salary

paid him by his city or town is to be allowed to go out and weigh

up and investigate the weights and markings of the loaves of bread

sold in his jurisdiction. Then, if he finds violations, no matter how

glaring or flagrant, can he prosecute ? Oh, no ; he must first notify

the parties concerned by written notice and the Department of Agriculture by written notice, and after they have received their written
FOTJETBENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 33

notice the local sealer must wait until he receives notice that the

Department of Agriculture will give him a hearing on the matter

on a certain day, and he can then spend some more of his city's or town's money to go to Springfield for a hearing as to whether or not the Department of Agriculture thinks the baker should be

prosecuted. If they do, he may start the prosecution, and if they

do not, he can go home and do some more investigating.

We believe that it is perfectly right and proper for a State department to prescribe rules and regulations and reasonable tolerances and

variations in the interest of uniformity and for the guidance of the

local sealers, and that it should have the right to enforce the provisions of the act in those places in the State where no local sealer

is appointed; but to not only give the right to the local sealer but

make it his duty to make all investigations and to collect all neces- sary evidence and then wind up by saying that before any prosecutions shall be started under this act the parties concerned shall be

notified by written notice and given an opportunity to be heard

before the Department of Agriculture is impugning the intelligence,

honesty, and capability of the local sealer. He is presumed to be

honest, intelligent, and capable enough to perform all other duties

under this act except where he finds violations, and there his honesty,

intelligence, and capability end.

We believe that a bill of this kind should not be enacted into law,

because it is unfair, unreasonable, and vague in meaning in spots

and entirely too broad in other places.

We will now take up and answer the arguments advanced in favor

of the passage of this bill. The bakers who are advocating the

passage of this bill say that they are doing so in the interest of the

housewife ; that they want to be allowed to bake loaves of bread in

any desired weight, providing they label it with the weight and name

of the manufacturer, in order that the housewife may at all times

receive as large a loaf of bread as she is entitled to, which is impossible to do under the present system of requiring certain specified

standard weight loaves. Now, that is a very laudable and praiseworthy reason. They say that, owing to the frequent slight changes in the cost

of flour and to the fact that 1 cent is the smallest denomination in our currency, it is impossible at all times to give the housewife a square deal by increasing the price of the loaf a full cent when the

increase in the cost of flour only amounts to a fraction of 1 cent

per loaf, but if allowed to change the weight they could at all times

give the housewife and baker a square deal.

This same argument was used years ago when they were opposing

the passage of the Chicago bread ordinance, but at that time they

used the additional argument that they were compelled by custom to

always sell a loaf of bread for 5 cents, as the public considered that

the standard price and they would not pay 6 or 7 cents, so for these reasons they should be allowed a sliding weight or tolerance.

The war has proved they were mistaken in this idea, as witnessed

by the increase in street-car fares and loaves of bread and other

articles that formerly sold at 5 cents and have since been increased

in price. They say that bread should not be singled out and only

certain prescribed weights allowed to be sold ; that it is permissible

67370—22 3
34 BUREAtr OF STANDARDS.

to mark the weights on hams and sides of bacon and sell them by

marked weight, and in their opinion it is only fair to allow loaves

of bread to be sold in the same manner. They neglect saying that

the size and weight of a ham or side of bacon are controlled by

nature, and that they are not sold at so much per ham or side of

bacon but at so much per pound.

Butter, if made up into prints or bricks, is required to be made

up into certain prescribed weight bricks or prints. Berries, if sold

in boxes or baskets, are required to be sold only in certain prescribed

sizes.

If bread were made up of various different size and weight pieces

and then wrapped or put into package form, we would agTee that

marking the weight on the wrapper or package would be a reasonable regulation ; but when we consider that bread is made in a batch

of dough and baked into a loaf the size and weight of which is controlled by the baker, and that it is sold by the loaf at a price controlled by the baker, then we submit that the weight of the loaf should

be prescribed by law in order that the purchaser may be protected.

We believe that the answer to the baker's argument that he should

be allowed to change the weight of the loaf when there is only a slight

fluctuation in the price of flour is that when the increase amounts

to less than one-half of 1 cent per loaf no change should be made in

the selling price of the loaf, but when it amounts to one-half cent or more, then the selling price of the loaf should be increased a

full cent. This would equalize the changes in the cost of production

and marketing and would leave a standard weight that could be

checked against at all times.

Would the bakers consider it right for the millers to change the

weight of the barrel of flour or the weight of a 100-pound sack of

flour to something less than 196 pounds for the barrel and 100 pounds

net for the sack because the price of wheat and other costs rise and

fall? Would they not insist that the change be made in the price

only, in order that they would have a fixed, unchangeable weight

standard that they could check up their business on ? We should remember that, while the bakers advance very laudable

and praiseworthy reasons for wisliing to be allowed to bake their

loaves of any desired weight, they are not in business for philanthropic or sentimental reasons or because they have the welfare of

the bread-eating public so much at heart. They are in business for

the very same reasons that people are engaged in other lines of busi- ness—to make money.

And there is another but more selfish reason for desiring a law

of this kind that they have not placed so much stress on. That one

is competition. There are at the present time certain other bakers

who are putting out standard-weight loaves of bread that are selling

for a lower price than these bakers can afford to sell their loaves of

a similar weight for. The consequence is that these other bakers are cutting into their trade. The bakers say that these other loaves are made up of cheaper materials than they use and that is the reason they can be sold cheaper.

The answer to this argument is that if these loaves are wholesome

and contain no deleterious substance there is nothing in the law to

prevent them from using similar materials and competing with
rOUBTEENTH CONFEKENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASUKES. 35

these other bakers at their own standards, and they can still make

their regular loaves and get the trade of the more discerning public

who prefer quality to quantity or price. If the materials used are unwholesome and contain deleterious substances, then they can get

the health department after them and prohibit their sale.

These bakers say that their bread is mixed with milk and contains

only the best of ingredients, and that a certain professor has pointed

out that this is the healthiest form of food for children, and so forth,

and the}'^ would like to have a qualit}' provision inserted in the bread

law providing that only bread of this quality shall be sold.

We believe that a quality provision would be perfectly proper, but

that it should be broad, providing that no bread should be allowed

to be sold that was unwholesome or that contained any deleterious

substance or material, and that it should be made in a clean and sanitary place; but we can see no reason why this provision should re- quire that no bread should be allowed to be sold unless mixed with

milk and other certain prescribed materials if bread mixed with water

and compound or vegetable oils is wholesome and can be sold for a cheaper price.

If the baker is to be allowed to tell us the exact quality of the

bread and the weight and price of the loaf that we may buy, it will

be only a short step for other dealers to regulate what we shall eat,

wear, and use, the quality, the price, and the amount we shall receive.

The bakers lay great stress upon the honesty of their intentions,

because they agree to label the loaf with the weight and the name of

the manufacturer. Where is the competition in the sale of bread

where there is no required similarity as to weight, price, or quality?

How is the housewife protected? She can not ask the price per

pound and then order a definite quantity or so many cents' worth at

the price per pound asked, which will be weighed out to her like

other commodities and Avhich can be reweighed in order to see Avhether or not she has received the weight she was entitled to re- ceive. No, indeed. It is sold by the loaf, of the weight, quality, and

price decided on by the baker.

How can the sealer enforce the weight provisions? Suppose a baker puts out a 15-ounce loaf one day and a 13-ounce loaf the next,

and the sealer finds 13-ounce loaves with 15-ounce labels ? You say

this is purely a short-weight case and the penalty section covers it. What is the baker's alibi ? A mistake. His workman got the labels

mixed; he has no intention of putting out short-weight loaves, and

the workman would be just as liable to put a 13-ounce label on a 15-ounce loaf. The weight printed on the label really does not signify

much, because the public is always given as large a loaf as he can

afford, considering the quality of the loaf and the cost of production.

Do you think the sealer would get very far with a prosecution of

this kind ? I do not. He would be accused of persecution and interfering with this baker's business.

The Illinois Legislature in passing the Cities and Villages Act,

which is the charter u.nder which the cities and villages of the State

function, deemed the regulation of the sale of bread of sufficient

importance to devote an entire section to the matter. Section 52

reads that the city council shall have the power to pass ordinances
36 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

" regulating the sale of bread and to prescribe the weight and quality of bread in the loaf."

The city of Chicago availed itself of this power and passed ordi- nances requiring that all bread shall be sold by weight and made

into loaves or units of certain prescribed weights, each loaf or unit

to be labeled showing the weight of the loaf and the name of the

manufacturer. The bakers fought the provisions of this ordinance

bitterly, claiming the ordinance to be unconstitutional, unreasonable,

in restraint of trade, class legislation, and in violation of the freedom of contract.

The Illinois Supreme Court in a lengthy opinion held that the

legislature had the power to authorize cities and villages of the State

to legislate upon the subject of the sale of bread in the loaf offered for

sale or sold in such municipalities, and said that

The power to regulate the sale and determine the weight of bread in the loaf

when offered for sale as a legitimate exercise of the police power by such municipalities, as the plaintiff, has uniformly been recognized by the courts and

the exercise of such power is now too firmly established to be challenged.

Upon appeal to the United States Supreme Court this decision was

upheld (Matthias Schmidinger v. the City of Chicago, 226 U. S. 578).

In the case of the City of Chicago v. The Bowman Dairy Co. (234

111.), which was a case brought by the city of Chicago for a violation

of an ordinance requiring that only certain prescribed sizes of bottles should be used in the sale of milk and cream and providing for

the marking of the capacities on said bottles—a case that is particularljf applicable to the sale of bread in the loaf—the court held

that

Milk and cream are articles of general consumption. They are usually sold

by the pint or quart, and while each transaction involves but a few cents the

number of such transactions in a large city like Chicago daily reaches a large sum. The opportunities for fraud in their sale are great, and the ordinary legal

remedy afforded the individual consumer to protect himself against deceit and

fraud is wholly inadequate. Clearly, therefore, an ordinance like the one under

consideration is valid and is not obnoxious to any provisions of the State or National Constitution.

In the case of the People v. Wagner (86 Mich.) the court holds

that

The police power of a State is not confined to regulations looking to the

preservation of life, health, good order, and decency ; laws providing for the

detection and prevention of imposition and fraud, as a general proposition, are

free from constitutional objection.

The regulation of the weight of bread in the loaf has been recognized by all courts as a legitimate exercise of the police power of

the State. Not everyone eats pork or mutton or onions or olives,

but nearly everyone eats bread. Bread is the staff of life and is the

most universally used article of food we have. A necessity of this

kind should not have a changeable standard of both weight and

price. The weight standard should be a lixed, unchangeable standard, the price alone fluctuating with the rise and fall of the cost of

production and marketing. The prescribed standard weight for

loaves of bread is a matter in which the public needs protection,

because it can not protect itself.
FOUBTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASUEES. 37

ENrORCEMENT OF BREAD LE&ISLATION, INCLUDING PROPER

TOLERANCES.

By Chakles M. Fuller, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Los Angeles County,

Calif*

Gentlemen of the Fourteenth Annual Conference, the following

suggestions in regard to the enforcement of bread legislation, including tolerances, are offered as the result of five years' successful

enforcement of a standard-weight bread law.

The law itself provides that the standard weight of all loaves of

bread within 12 hours after baking shall be 16 ounces, 24 ounces, or multiples of the 16-ounce size. A tolerance of 1 ounce above the

standard weight is allowed for each 16-ounce unit. No stated toler- ance below the standard weight is allowed, for the reason that were

there such a tolerance certain unscrupulous bakers would not hesitate to scale their bread that amount short. At least 25 loaves are weighed and the average taken in determining the standard weight.

If there is any doubt about the average weight, several hundred

loaves are often scaled.

When the bread is found short and the baker has had a previous

good record, all bread as much as an ounce underweight is seized

for distribution to charitable institutions and the baker given a warning. If the offense is repeated, the bread is confiscated and the

baker is prosecuted as well. All weighings are entered on cards

printed for that purpose, and these are filed under the name of the

bakery, so that a complete record of every place of business is readily

available.

In the enforcement of this act we have convicted 25 bakers, $535 in

fines being paid, and several thousand loaves of bread confiscated

and turned over to charity. It is interesting to note that the act has

worked out so successfully in eliminating the unfair competition of

bakers who would cut the price by selling an underweight loaf that even those firms which were first opposed to the idea of a standardweight bread law are now in favor of it. And I have before me a communication from the secretary of the Southern California

Bakers' Association, stating that at a meeting of the Wholesale and

Retail Bakers' Association a unanimous resolution was passed indorsing this law.

DISCUSSION OF PRECEDING PAPERS AND OF LEGISLATION

RELATING TO THE SALE OF BREAD.

Mr. HoLWELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the conference,

while my friend Cluett was speaking this morning I began to foot

up what bread means in America. In New York City we consume

daily 3,000,000 pounds of bread, a per capita consumption of half a pound. On this basis, with a population of 110,000,000 in this

country, we consume 55,000,000 pounds of bread daily, 20,000,000,000

pounds annually, and since over 50 per cent of our population is in

cities it means that 10,000,000,000 pounds of bread are consumed

yearly in our cities.

* Iji the abserice of Mr. Fuller ttis paper, prepared by tiin, was read by F. S. Holbrook.
38 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

In New York City we estimate .that the 4,000 bakers, both wholesalers and small retail bakeries, manufacture over 90 per cent of our

bread. So this means, applying it to the cities of the country, that

the bakers bake 9,000,000,000 pounds annually. It means that, if

we use the figure of 8 cents for 16 ounces, the manufacturers in the

bread industry in America annually receive $720,000,000 for their

product. So we are discussing not only the stalf of life, but we are discussing a big national industry.

In the State of New York we had a section of the law which read

Method of sale of certain commodities.—All meats, meat products, and butter

shall be sold or offered for sale by weight. All other commodities not in con- tainers shall be sold or offered for sale by standard weight, standard measure,

or numerical count, and such weight, measure, or count shall be marked on a

label or a tag attached thereto : Provided, liowever. That vegetables may be

sold by the head or bunch.

Under the charter of the city of New York the board of aldermen

enacted an ordinance regarding bread, reading, in part, as follows

All bread baked and offered or expo.sed for sale shall be made of good and

wholesome flour or meal and sold by avoirdupois weight. All loaf bread

offered tor sale not in conformity with the provisions of this article shall be

forfeited and may be seized and disposed of for the use of the city.

Mr. Eabenold, representing the bread industry, challenged the

legality of the action of the State superintendent of weights and

measures, who, cooperating with the officials of the first-class cities,

established regulations for the sale of bread. The matter arose in

this way : The district attornej^ of Kings County, my own home

county, prosecuted one of the wholesale bakers and succeeded in

obtaining a conviction.

Mr. Kabenold carried it to the higher court—I think it was the

appellate division—and Judge Thomas wi'ote the decision in the

case, which upheld the contentions of Mr. Eabenold.

The district attorney of Kings County carried the case to the

court of appeals, and that court refused to pass upon it. So we

in New York State to-dajr are practically without any regulation for

the sale of bread. A bill requiring the sale of bread in standardweight loaves of 8, 16, and 24 ounces and multiples of 1 pound was

introduced in the present legislature, recently adjourned, but it was

beaten in committee. The manufacturers opposed the bill, opposed

it on various grounds. They claimed that it would increase the

price of bread.

As weights and measures men we are interested in seeing that the

public get what they think they are paying for. The average hovisewife believes that she is purchasing a 16-ounce loaf when she purchases a small loaf of bread.

Last Thursday I had one of my inspectors go out and make a hurried survey of how bread is sold in the city of New York to-day,

and before I read the results of this investigation I want to say that

I do not believe that any reputable firm, whether it is a bread man

or any other man, is engaged in business for the purpose of defrauding the public. I believe that the bread men of New York

City—and in my opinion that applies to every reputable concern engaged in the bread industr}'—are endeavoring to give a proper

commodity of the right quality to the consuming public; but we

weights and measures men are engaged in trying to place that in-
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 39

dustry on a uniform basis not only in the State of New York but

throughout the country.

Let us first consider the large baldng establishments. One of the

largest bakers in New York is selling a wrapped loaf, a small-sized

loaf, for 9 cents. Eight loaves show an average weight of 13^|i ounces. The loaves of another large manufacturer average 14^|

ounces. Still another averages 14^ ounces; a fourth, 14| ounces; a

fifth, 14i% ounces. These loaves of bread are sold when wrapped

at 9 cents and unwrapped at 8 cents.

Turning our attention to the chain stores, one such company

sells unwrapped loaves of bread for 7 cents, and they weigh 14J

ounces. Another sells unwrapped loaves for 7 cents, and these

weigh 15^- ounces. Still another company sells unwrapped loaves

for 7 cents, and their average weight is 14-14 ounces. The small bakers—and we have approximately 4,000 of them

in the city of New York—as a class charge more for their bread

than the wholesalers. One small baker charges 10 cents for a loaf

of an average weight of 15-^ ounces; another, who charges 10 cents

for his loaf, averages 15f ounces; still another baker, having an

8-cent loaf, supplies one averaging 13^^ ounces; a fourth, with an

8-cent loaf, averages 14^2 ounces. Here are three distinct groups

engaged in the bread industry in the city of New York, and there

is no uniformity in price or in weight.

We are vitally interested, and I know that you are too, in the secu.r- ing of weight standardization in the manufacture of bread. The

large wholesalers claim that this would increase the price of bread.

How is it, I would like to know, initiated though I am in the bi'ead

industry, that one large baker turns out a loaf weighing 13^J ounces and another, one of the largest bakers in the United States, turns

out a loaf averaging 14|- ounces, the price of both loaves being the

same? How is it that a man operating a chain of stores can turn

out a loaf of bread unwrapped for 7 cents, 1 cent cheaper than the

price charged by the large bakers, and yet maintain his loaf at a weight of 15^^ ounces?

I present these things to you, and I present them to the representatives of the bread industry' who are present here this morning. Is it possible for the bread bakers of America to get up a 16-ounce loaf without increasing the price? I believe it is, if one

large baker can give an ounce more than another, for I do not believe that the overhead in one big plant is any greater than in another

similar one. If we can bring about uniformity—a 16-ounce loaf of

bread—we will be saving to the housewives of America a tremendous

sum annually, and I believe we will not impair the financial standing

of any large bread baker.

I believe, too, that the representatives of the bread industry should

be foremost in working for the weight standardization of bread.

They speak of the fluctuation of prices owing to the fluctuating costs

of the products that enter into the manufacture of bread. Reference

has already been made to the milk industry, where we have standardization in the bottles and where we have fluctuating prices from

month to month, sometimes ascending and sometimes descending.

If the milk industry can conform to standardization, sui'ely the bread

industry can, too. But I want to say this: Before you introduce

your bread bills in the next legislature it would be advisable for you
40 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

to take up this question with your governor before the end of this

year and place the facts before him, so that he may incorporate them

in his inaugural message at the opening of the sessions of your

State legislature. If we can get bread legislation as a policy of

the governors of the States, we can go forward faster than if we

wait for the opening of our respective legislatures and then try to secure such legislation through the committees. With the power of

the governor behind us we can secure legislation where, without it, it would be almost impossible.

I make this point, because if we have six, eight, or a dozen States

working together at the same time in 1922 there will be far greater

and better results that way than if we worked haphazardly. We

ought to have a comprehensive program; we ought to have a program of unity; and in following along this line of taking up this

question in November instead of January or February or March,

there is more likelihood of securing the results that we are seeking.

I thank you.

Mr, Eabenold, I want to assure you, gentlemen, that I came here

to listen rather than to be listened to. But I do think^ Mr. Chairman, that the president, the presiding officer initially, voiced the attitude which the baking industry certainly has toward this question.

We invite conference ; we solicit expression of views, and all we ex- pect in the foreground of any discussion is the assumption that,

whether we are right or wrong, we are talking with sincerity; we

are talking what we at least ourselves believe to be right, and that

questions of petty advantage or of personal selfishness or of selfaggrandizement are pushed into the background as far as they can

be pushed.

On that plane I want to respond to a few suggestions that have

been made to-day. The baking industry is vitally interested in this

question. I am speaking here to-day to a group of officials charged

with the duty of enforcing weights and measures laws, and I cer- tainly appreciate this opportunity.

The baking industry may be wrong, but it is at least honest in its

Aaews. At the forefront of any discussion here there is after all a certain burden of proof, is there not, upon the official or other proponent of legislation that changes the status quo? That is the

ordinary situation. The man who proposes something new or who

would change an existing situation is ordinarily called on to show

some reason why there should be such a change made.

It seems to be assumed that bread should be sold by standard

unit weights. It seems to be assumed that the housewife expects to

receive a pound in the loaf. It seems to be assumed that there is no

variation in these loaves of bread that Mr. Holwell speaks of except

the variations of price and variations of weight. We challenge all

those assumptions.

We ask weight and measure officials, " Why should a loaf of bread

necessarily be a pound ? " And, driving weights and measures offi- cials to an answer, the only answer that I have been able to derive

ultimately was a certain facility of enforcement of a statute. And

that cropped out, as you observed, in Mr. Holwell's talk.

There is strength in that proposition. I have always conceded

that. But after all that is an adjective matter. It is a more or less

formal matter. The substance of the matter is, why should bread
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 41

be sold in units of a pound? Does the housewife demand it? We

have never heard of any demand of that character. If we are wrong

about that, it is going to be very easy to demonstrate it. We have

never yet found a housewife or any consumer who tested bread by

weight. If we are really wrong in that statement—that no housewife weighs bread ; I mean, judges bread with reference to the weight

of the loaf—then we must revolutionize our baking industry. Then

we must go in simply for quantity production rather than quality

production.

The whole effort of the baking industry from the earliest days in

this country has been directed toward quality production. If the

housewife does not care about quality, or if there is something that

she cares about more than quality, why we are just all wrong about

that. But we certainly want to be put right.

On the assumption of quality, what is the answer to most of the

questions that Mr. Holwell has asked ? He says, " Why is there no

uniformity in weight, why is there no uniformity in price?" The

answer is, " Because there is no uniformity in quality." We are dealing, therefore, with variables ; we are not dealing with constants. I

say we challenge the assumption that there is any requirement that

bread should be sold in a particular unit of weight, and we challenge

the second assumption that the housewife expects a pound loaf.

The fact is that the chain stores, referred to here, as well as the

larger bakers, are advertising their weights. I was recently in St.

Louis, and there, upon the front of the plate-glass window of one of

the chain stores, I found not only the price of the loaf advertised but

I found the weight of the loaf advertised. But I find nothing upon

which to support the assumption that the housewife when she buys a loaf of bread has any expectation that the loaf weighs a pound. And

yet, don't you see it is that assumption upon which all this loose

talk of cheating is based ? Any attorney will tell you that the elements of deceit or fraud are,

first, a representation ; second, a failure to stand up to the representation; and, third, a reliance on that representation. And on those

three elements alone can you base deceit or fraud. I am not standing

sponsor for every member of the baking industry. No. I am speaking in broad terms of general conditions—the only thing you can face

here to-day. I am not defending any particular baker who may have

reprehensible business practices. But you must legislate, if you do,

broadly for the entire industry and the entire country. And where

we find a particular instance let it be dealt with in and of itself, instead of seeking to throw any aspersion on the seventh industry in the

United States.

With respect, now, to the question of fluctuating weights as contrasted with other commodities, comparing bread, for instance, with

milk. There is a very obvious distinction that is a necessary result

of what I have said about the variable character of quality. Milk

has reached into the category of standardized products. We have in

New York City a " certified " milk, we have a " grade A," we have a " grade B." That grading is done under public supervision in accord- ance with well-defined tests. Now, what is milk ? Milk is a combination of water, fats, and certain other chemical elements, all of which

are exactly gauged in the product. You can test milk immediately
42 BUEEAU OF STANDARDS.

after production or a day after production, but you can not test the

quality of bread.

I submit to you men that until you have made some little nearer approach to a standardization of quality you can not begin to compel

a standardization of weight unless you want to do the arbitrary thing

and it is against that arbitrary thing that the baking industry protests as vigorously as it may, in the interest of itself, true, but in the

interest of the consuming public, as to which we must have a very

jealous and a very intimate regard.

There has been no complaint of gouging, there has been no complaint of overcharging. Quite the contrary. You can ask Mr.

Hoover when he comes here to-morrow to repeat to you men what he

stated publicly in Atlantic City last fall, that the baking industry

above every other industry was freer from any attempt even of imposing on the people of the United States during war times than

any other industry in this country. So we are not asking any favors.

i submit here this morning simply this : You men as public officials

under democratic institutions and the spirit of our laws are not interested in sumptuary legislation referring to an antediluvian past.

Notwithstanding what Mr. Holwell has suggested, don't let this question of weights legislation become linked up with any consideration

of whether the bakers can or can not give more bread for the same

money. Don't let this subject, on the other hand, become linked up

with any question of standardization of kind until there is such a thing as standardization of kind.

What is left? The only question left for you to discuss—the only

question that is properly within your province—is to protect the

public against any misrepresentation, and in order to protect the

public against misrepresentation you must first have a representation. So I say get your representation. I will help you get a law,

in the absence of any law at all to-day, which will compel a baker to

make a representation as to what he is selling. That representation

may be in the form of a standard loaf. I have no quarrel on that

score at all except I would not stop there. For fear that you may

arbitrarily impose a limited requirement we present to yovi the advisability of permitting an alternative. Let the baker who wishes to

make representation in the form of a standard loaf weighing a jDOund

do SO. But if there are bakers—if there is only one baker, and much

more if there are 4,000 bakers—who desire to make their representation of weight or quantity in connection with price, to make that

representation in the form of a weight label on the unwrapped loaf,

in the form of a printed representation on the wrapper of their

wrapped loaf, let them do so. Is there any reason why they should not be permitted to_ do it, if

the only object of the legislation is that the public shall be informed

as to what they are buying? There is no public need even of that,

may I say. But we will take your own assumption there. We will

take your assumption that the public does want to know Avhat the

weight of the loaf is, although we do not believe it at all. We say

we are perfectly willing to tell it. If you want the representation in

the form of a standard loaf, we will do it ; but give us the alternative

where the conditions may require the alternative to be adopted,

namely, the weight of the loaf if it differs from the standard weight.

We say that meets every public requirement that properly enters into
rOUETEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 43

this question. And on that score we submit that we will find the baking industry unanimous. We trust we m?ij find you unanimous, and

the public will be served.

Mr. CuMMiNGS. With your permission I would like to ask one

question of the gentleman representing the bakers. Assuniing the

correctness of your contention that the only valid argument in favor

of standardization of the bread loaf would be the facility of law

enforcement, would the establishment of such a standard operate

against free competition on the basis of quality and price ? Mr. Eabenold. I think a group of public officials should not_ be

interested primarily in whether it is good or bad for the baking

industry. Their whole consideration should be whether it is good or bad for the public. But to answer your question, which is directed

rather to the internal operation of the baking industry, may I say

that one of the powerful arguments that has been made internally

within the ranks of the baking industry in favor of the standard

Aveight is that, if you fixed the weight of the loaf, it would repress

unfair competition among bakers.

Mr. CtJMMiNGS. If the standardization of the loaf would be a good

thing from the weight and measure official's standpoint, and it would

not be a real bad thing from the baker's standpoint, why it seems

to me there would not be any force in the argument against the

enactment of a law for the standard weight.

Mr. Rabenold, If that were the whole story the conclusion would

follow. However, it seems the sense of the baking industry is that

there would be a real harm inflicted upon the industry by having

standardization of unit weights of bread. I speak with hesitation

in terms of conclusion on that, for the committee that is here in

response to your invitation received only one instruction—it could re- ceive only one instruction—and that is to merely inform this conference that this question, which has been debated a great deal, will

come formally again before the board of directors of the American

Association of the Baking Industry on June 16. It is also anticipated that it will be the first order of business at the annual con- vention in September, at which time I hope I will have an answer to

the question as to what the baking industry of the country', speaking

generally, considers its own relationship to this question.

Mr. ScHTTLTz. We have a bread ordinance prescribing that bread

must be baked in loaves weighing not less than 1 pound. They sell

that 1-pound loaf for 10 cents. Then, the next size is sold for 15

cents, and we find that the 15-cent loaf runs only from 20 to 22

ounces. The people naturally expect if they pa}^ 10 cents for 1 pound

that the bakers, having the same ovei'head on a pound and a half

loaf that they have on a pound loaf, could give a pound and a half

for 15 cents and the housewife expects at least a pound and a half.

Mr. McGn-'iDT. The bakers are very careless in Pennsylvania, wliere

we have no bread law, as to the uniformity of weights. In 1912 or 1913 I made a survey of certain bakeries in Pittsburgh, weighing

approximately 100 loaves of the bread of each firm. I will not at- tempt to give you the details of the weights, but the " low " was 11 ounces and the " high " was close onto 16 ounces. Mr. Mote. The gentleman in his remarks—and I must say that the

bakers' views were very ably presented by him—challenged the contention of the weights and measures men as to whether the housewife
44 BUKEAU OF STANDARDS.

wants a standard loaf of bread. I assure hira that every housewife's

league in the State of Ohio was behind the bill which passed the Ohio

Legislature two weeks ago standardizing the loaf of bread.

We have a law now standardizing bread to 1, 1|, 2, 3, 4, and 5

pounds. Also, a number of cities in the State of Ohio already regulate a standard loaf of bread by city ordinance. In one city in the

State of Ohio a 1-pound loaf was being baked to sell for 10 cents, and

that same baker was baking a 13-ounce loaf and selling it beyond the

city limits for 10 cents. I would like the gentleman to explain why

that took place.

Mr. Eabenold. Nobody can tell me a baker can manufacture a 16- ounce loaf of bread at the same cost as a 13-ounce loaf.

Mr. HoLWELL. How is it that one baker sells a lighter loaf than

another ? Mr. Eabenold. The only assumption I can make is that the one is

making such a good loaf of bread that people are ready to buy it at a less weight at the same price they 'pa.y for others.

Mr. HoLWELL. I was raised on the heavy loaf and I still stand by

the man that makes it. BEPOKT or SPECIAL COMMITTEE.

Mr. Schwartz. In reporting for the committee appointed yesterday to visit Mr. Fischer, I will state that we went there after the

adjourmnent of the conference and found Mr. Fischer sitting up,

feeling quite cheerful, and regretting exceedingly that he was unable

to be present here, not only to greet the old members of the conference but also those who have come in this year for the first time.

He was very grateful indeed for being remembered, sent his sincere

regrets, and" trusted that we would have the usual good time.

(Whereupon, at 12.35 o'clock p. m., the conference took a recess

until 2 o'clock p. m.)
FOURTH SESSION (AFTERNOON OF TUESDAY, MAY 24,

1921).

The conference reassembled at 2.30 o'clock p. m., Dr. S. W. Stratton, chairman, presiding.

ENFORCEMEUT OF LAW IN BE MARKING OF WEIGHTS ON

WRAPPED MEATS.

By H. RuNKEL, Bureau of Chemistry, Department of Agriculture.

I am very sorry, indeed, that Dr. Alsberg is unable to address you

on this subject, for I believe he would have given you something

that would have been worth while. I do not feel that I am able to

more than give you a few details, but what I say may possibly open

the subject for discussion and bring out some points on which you

can exchange your own views.

The passage of the Kenyon amendment on July 24, 1919, describing the interpretation of the word "package" as used in the so- called net-weight amendment of the Federal Food and Drugs Act as including wrapped meats, has been a distinct advantage to the

Bureau of Chemistry in the interpretation of the word "package."

Our cases have included a wide variety of products, among which are cans of cottonseed oil, sacks of cottonseed meal, jars of cheese,

baskets of grapes, bottles of sirup, cartons of macaroni, and many

other products in similar containers. Although a large number of

cases on a large variety of products have been made none have so far

been contested in such a manner as to give the Bureau guiding principles on which to interpret the word " package." The nearest approach to such an interpretation has been the congressional action

requiring wrapped meats to be considered as packages within the

meaning of the act. As Dr. Alsberg has told you at previous meetings of this conference, the Food and Drugs Act has many peculiarities which are not

common to State and city weights and measures laws. One of these

peculiarities is a stipulation that the crime committed is the shipment

of adulterated or misbranded food in interstate commerce rather

than the actual adulteration or misbranding. This stipulation makes

it necessary that we proceed against the interstate shipper. In many

cases the interstate shipper has purchased the goods in package form

from a local producer. In the development of the case the shipper

almost invariably introduces as an excuse for his violation of the law

the fact that he purchased these goods from a local man. In making

this excuse he infers that we should place the responsibility upon the

local producer, and in many instances it appears only just that the

responsibility be so placed. The law provides, however, that the

shipper shall not be prosecuted if he can produce a guaranty given

to him by the local producer that the goods sold are not in violation

of the Federal Food and Drugs Act.

45
46 BUBEAU OF STANDAEDS.

In sales of ordinary fruits and vegetables such a guaranty is seldom

given. It is inconvenient to the producer to give this guaranty, and

the movement of the goods is so fast, due to their perishable nature,

that such matters are usually overlooked. In the case of meat sales

this difficulty is not nearly so great, since the packing and sale of

meats are usually conducted in a well-organized establishment which

is familiar with the requirements of the law. Such establishments

usually have legal departments which advise them very specifically

and carefully in regard to the legal requirements which it is neces- sary for the establishment to meet in maldng its interstate shipments.

This feature of the law would probably not interfere so often with

the placing of the responsibility for the marking of the quantity of

contents on packages of meats which are shipped in interstate commerce. Another feature of the Federal Food and Drugs Act which must be

taken into consideration in the enforcement of the net-weight section

of the law is the multiplicit}^' of activities which may be undertaken

under the act. For example, on weight alone we have the Kenyon

amendment in regard to the marking of weights on packages of

meats, we have the Gould amendment rec[uiving that the quantity of

contents be marked on all packages of food which fall within the

jurisdiction of the lavv', and we have a general paragraph stating that

the term " misbranded " is applied to all articles of food the package

or label of which bears a statement, design, or device regarding sucli

article which is false or misleading in any particular. Action is taken for short weight under this latter section of the act. In addition to these sections of the act which deal with weights and measures,

the act is so constructed as to deal with products so adulterated

as to affect the health of people and deals with frauds and unfair

competition in connection with the adulteration or misbranding of

any type of food or drug.

The facts that the scope of the act is so broad and that it deals

with shipments in interstate commerce bring a type of cases involving

health to United States attorneys and United States courts which are more serious in their effects upon the public than the cases involvingfraud. The dockets of the various courts are usually crowded with a number of cases of a more serious type than those involving a failure

to declare the quantity of contents. It has therefore been found that

unless a net-weight violation is affecting a large number of people

and proof can actually be presented that the people are being defrauded by a certain type of declaration or the failure to make a

certain type of declaration the United States attorneys and courts

are loath to consider such cases in preference to those involving the

health of the public. This tendenc,y on the part of the attornej'S and

courts is not surprising and, no doubt, is proper. This matter is not

pointed out, however, to belittle the net-weight cases, as it is well

known that frauds of extensive proportions are perpetrated on the

public by failure to declare the quantity of contents as well as by

giving short measure. The thing that we have to keep in mind is the

presentation of evidence to the district attorneys showing that the

violation of the law complained of is one of serious moment and one which must be taken cognizance of by United States courts before the

violation will be discontinued.
FOUBTBENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 4*7

The matter of collection of proper evidence has been taken up

simultaneously with the question of education. It is well known that

educational work is not the most effective way in which to secure a compliance with the law. Writing letters to a man to tell him that

he is violating a law is without doubt the simplest method of education and probably the least effective. It is very hard for an official

to have the patience to write him a letter telling him that he is violating the law when the official knows that the action which will secure

best results is prosecution.

In connection with net-weight cases under the Federal Food and

Drugs Act educational work is not necessarily lost because it gives

an opportunity to collect evidence which can be presented to the district attorney showing him that the practice complained of is of some

moment and should be taken cognizance of by a United States court.

In the normal development of net-weight cases in the Bureau of

Chemistry the type of violation is studied, and if of more or less

technical nature educational campaigns are planned for the pvirpose

of bringing the requirements of the law to the attention of the

shipper. These campaigns are followed by another campaign of citation to a hearing, in which action by criminal prosecution is taken

against m.ore flagrant violations by the shippers who have been previously warned. This campaign is followed by seizure action if the

situation warrants it. In each step the evidence of the seriousness

of the violation has been collected in the previous step. The application of this scheme to wrapped meats has not been necessary so far

because the packers have been willing and ready to comply with the

law.

Soon after the Kenyon amendment was passed the bureau got in

touch with the Bureau of Animal Industry. It was soon found that

although Congress has interpreted the word " package " for us, there

were further difficulties in determining how far we could go in holding that wrapped meats were packages. When a ham or a piece of

bacon is wrapped with cloth or paper as an individual unit and

tightly sealed, there can be no question as to whether it is a package

within the meaning of the act. This type of product gave no trouble.

However, hams, bacon, and loins of pork are often loosely wrapped

with a piece of plain paper for sanitary reasons, and a number of

these individually wrapped cuts are inclosed in a shipping case. After considerable discussion of the interpretation of the law with

the legal office of the department it was decided that wrappers of

loose, plain paper were not considered as wrappings in the sense that

" wrapped " is used in the Kenyon amendment, and that such individual cuts of meat inclosed in such plain loose wrappers were not

packages within the meaning of the amendment and need not bear a statement of the quantity of contents. It was decided, however, that

if such loose temporary coverings bore other printed matter or labels a statement of the net weight must be applied. Appropriate instructions were issued by the Bureau of Animal Industi-y regarding this

requirement.

In connection with meats shipped in crates the question arose whether or not such crates were packages within the meaning of

the Gould amendment or the so-called net-weight amendment. The

question was brought up by some complaints from various sections
48 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

of the country that meat was being sold in these crates, which crates

were marked with three separate distinct figures, one of which re- ferred to the number of cuts, one to the gross weight, and one to the

tare weight. It was reported in these complaints that the meat was

being sold at a weight which included the loose wrappings around

each individual piece, amounting in some cases to more than a pound

on a 100-pound crate. This led to the question of whether or not the

net weight should not be marked instead of the gross and tare

weights.

It was found upon investigation of the records and invoices upon

which the sales were made that the packer made the statement in the

printed matter on the invoice that the weight as invoiced included

the weights of wrappers. The bureau hag no authority to control

the manner in which products are invoiced, but it can control the

method in which packages of meat are marked. The bureau is also

supported in this matter by the Bureau of Animal Industry. As a corrective measure the Bureau of Animal Industry had this question

up some years ago and published in its Service and Eegulatory Announcements for December, 1916, a ruling stating that the word

" net " was held to represent the weight of the meat exclusive of any

wrappings or linings. According to this ruling of the Bureau of

Animal Industry the statement of the tare weight included the

weight of the wrapping. This question also brought up the matter

of shrinkage.

It is a well-known fact that meat will shrink in transit. The

amount of this shrinkage is probably not so well known. The bureau

has now made arrangements to conduct experiments to determine

the shrinkage of meat during transportation. It is hoped by the

end of the next fiscal year to have some very valuable figures on this

subject. The bureau has conducted a large number of shrinkage

experiments in connection with other products and has used this

information to assist in winning a number of cases on shortage in

weight. It is believed that the information on shrinkage in weight

of meats will serve the same purpose.

The question of shrinkage has not been taken up previously for

the reason that the bureau maintains very amiable cooperative relations with the Bureau of Animal Industry. That bureau maintains

a field inspection force, which can be called upon to investigate practically any problem in connection with a meat-packing establishment.

When complaints are raised in regard to the weight shortage of

meats the question immediately arises whether the shortage is due to

original short packing or shrinkage. In such cases the complaints

are referred to the Bureau of Chemistr_y, who in turn takes the matter

up with the Bureau of Animal Industry, who investigates the factory at its source to determine whether or not a practice is prevailing

at this establishment to cause a shortage in weight. This arrangement has sufficed up to the present time to bring about better attention to the matter of weights by the packers. There is no doubt but

that the arrangement is very efficient and produces exceptionally

good results, in view of the fact that there is a man on the job all

the time at the originating establishment. This arrangement, however, does not take care of complaints which may be made to local

sealers of weights and measures. There is no doubt but that com-
POURTEENTH CONFEREIJCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 49

plaints are made to them which should be investigated, and if they

had information in regard to shrinkage they would be able to determine whether or not action would be justifiable.

The bureau is always glad to lend any assistance possible in making

prosecutions of this type, and when the shipping experiments have

been completed the results will be available to any official who may

have use for them. It is possible that some of the ^State laws do

not require that shrinkage shall be allowed on packages of meats

shipped into their several territories. If such is the case, the bureau

can see no objection to the requirement of the local sealers of weights

and measures that the package be re-marked in accordance with

their local laws.

The Bureau of Chemistry would be unable to take any action against

packages of wrapped meats which were correctly marked as to weight

at the time the product entered interstate commerce. If it can be

shown that at the time the package entered interstate commerce the

marked weight was not correct, the bureau would have authority to

take action. However, any shrinkage subsequent to that time would

have to be allowed for. In case the local men feel that they would

prefer to take action under their own law, any of our field stations

which are located at various cities in the United States would be glad

to lend any assistance in their power in developing such cases. It

might be pointed out in this connection that the Federal Food and

Drugs Act permits any State health, food, or drug official to submit

information to the United States attorney in regard to a violation of

the Federal Food and Drugs Act. Arrangements are made through

our office of cooperation, now under the direction of T. F. Pappe, to

lend all possible assistance to any sealer of weights and measures or other food official in making such case under the Federal Food and

Drugs Act. It has been the practice of our bureau to commission the

State sealers of weights and measures as food officials, who may

operate directly under the Federal Food and Drugs Act. There has

been, however, some difficulty in commissioning local sealers of

weights and measures for the reason that it is doubtful if the law con- templated commissioning these officials. However, that need not deter

any local sealer of weights and measures from beginning action by

reporting the facts to the United States attorney if he so desires, and

I assure you that Mr. Pappe's office will lend all the assistance in its

power in bringing such cases as seem desirable under the act. I wish to solicit from you all the cooperation that it is possible for

you to give and assure you that we will make every effort to reciprocate. It is possible that you will be able to bring cases under your

own laws with as much success as under the Food and Drugs Act.

However, if you will bring the violations which come to your attention to the attention of our field men I am sure we will together be

able to bring about corrections of malpractice in your own territories

and will be of service both to the local and to the national population.

It is our mutual aim to work to protect the public, and if such protection can be brought about by cooperative efforts I am sure you will

find that the Federal Food and Drugs Act is a tool in your hands

which will assist to bring about such protection.

67370—22 4
50 BUREAU OF STAITDAKDS.

DISCUSSION OE ABOVE PAPEB.

Mr. Webstee. May I be permitted to ask Mr. Runkel a question

referring to that part of his address relating to the marking of crates ? I understand that the bureau ruled that the net weights should be indicated upon the packages themselves; for instance, in the case of

pork-loin boxes you did not state in your address whether that provision had been adopted or not.

Mr. Runkel. I believe that your understanding is correct.

DETECTING SHORTAGES, SECURING EVIDENCE, AND PROSECUTING OFFENDERS.

By R. F. Baeeon, Commissioner of Weiyhts and Measures, State of Minnesota.

It is recognized by every official charged with the enforcement of

weights and measures laws that the prosecution of violators of those

laws is one of the most delicate as well as one of the most important

problems which he has to solve. Some offenses are of so flagrant a nature that there can be no doubt of the advisability of prosecution,

while again we find many technical violations which while they are

classed as misdemeanors by the law are of such a nature that an inspector would hardly be justified in prosecuting. Between these two

extremes we are continually being confronted with many cases, each

of which must be settled on its own respective merits, and no complete and rigid specifications can ever be adopted which will satisfactorily cover the subject of short weight or measure prosecutions.

Personally I feel that a vast majority of the men in business to-day

are reasonably honest in their dealings with the public, either because

it is their nature or because they realize that petty dishonesty is very

poorly rewarded. There remains no doubt whatever in my mind that

every line of commercial endeavor has its small percentage of outand-out crooks, and the bulk of supervision work must naturally be

aimed at such parties.

We must not overlook, however, the fact that there is a much

larger percentage whose indifference and carelessness lead to frequent violations of the statutes, and the man who uses a counter scale

an ounce or two out of balance, or who operates a pump he knows to

be wrong and says, " I did not have time to look after it," is entitled,

in my opinion, to very little consideration. In checking coal and ice

deliveries we find surprising variations, and while we realize that the

officials of the company in general do not countenance the practice of

short-weighting their customers nor profit by the saving made our

rule is to hold the company liable unless it can be shown that a reasonable effort to protect their customers has been made, and that the

proper amount of supervision work, which alone will insure their employees' carefulness and honesty, has been done.

Most of the prosecutions in our State result directly from the investigations made following complaints filed by either customers or

competitors, although, as a rule, it is not possible to secure the co- operation of the injured party in securing evidence. The checking

of coal and ice deliveries, peddler wagons, and package goods present

no very difficult problems to the active inspector and only require the

exercise of due care in ascertaining and verifying his weights.
FOUKTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, 51

The hardest proposition to handle, in our experience, is the grocer

or meat dealer who makes a practice of taking from 2 to 5 cents on

each sale and thinks to escape detection because of the small amount

involved in each case. Courts are inclined to be lenient with a merchant appearing in answer to a complaint alleging that he delivered a piece of meat an ounce or two short of the weight charged for. It

is difficult, of course, for the local sealer or inspector to secure evidence himself against such concerns, and we find that it is occa- sionally necessary to call on inspectors from other districts to work

where they are not known to the merchants. We find this practice

preferable to taking as evidence purchases made by persons not familiar with the work, as inexperienced witnesses are very apt to make

a poor showing if the defense is ably handled. In a recent three-day

drive with two inspectors Ave were able to secure six convictions

against one meat dealer and three against another, and a judge who

had never before taken these small shortages seriously assessed fines

aggregating $225 and warned the dealers that the next appearance

meant a trip to the workhouse. Some judges are hard to convince,

but, giving credit where credit is due, I must say that in general we

have found the courts very fair, and in St. Paul especially the maximum fine is assessed far more frequently than the minimum.

It should be borne in mind at all times that a case which is dismissed or which results in an acquittal because of weak or faulty

preparation on the part of the inspector tends to reflect on the department under which he operates and will not raise him in the estimation of the judge before whom he may have frequent occasion to

appear. It therefore behooves the inspector to use extreme care not

only in preparing his evidence but in seeing that his complaint is

properly drawn and charges only what he is prepared to prove.

It was rather embarrassing to an inspector from our department

some years ago after naming a certain grocer as defendant in a shortweight complaint to be informed that the party had been dead eight

years and could not be produced on such short notice. Quite recently

one of our best men named as defendant a respectable lady who, while

still the owner of record, had no trouble in proving that she had disposed of her interests over six months previous to the date of the

alleged offense. Neither of these mistakes prevented successful prosecutions of the guilty parties, but did occasion needless trouble and

waste of time and incidentally gave the critics an opportunity to be

heard.

We have found it advisable in some instances to avoid in the complaint a statement of the exact shortage found, especially when such

commodities are involved as gasoline or ice, where there is a constant

change in volume or weight and the inspector's figures would not

represent the actual amount delivered, even though the variations

would be small. The complaint in such cases is made that the defendant sold a quantity less than he represented, and the figures can

be presented as part of the evidence and can then be more easily

explained and substantiated.

The practice of making a complete record at the time the investigation is made is strongly to be recommended, and no more reliance

should be placed on memory than is necessary. The memorandum

can be qualified as an exhibit and used to refresh the inspector's

memory, as well as being in the terms of the law "best evidence."
52 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

Only a couple of months ago one of our younger inspectors under a

stiff cross-examination became confused in his figures, and it was

only the introduction of the State's exhibit "A" in that inspector's

handwriting that saved the day.

Too much stress can not be placed on the importance of making

" assurance doubly sure " when the question of the accuracy of the

apparatus used in determining the amount of shortage is involved.

Even when the commodity is checked back on the dealer's own scales

and the seal on these scales shows that they were correct within the

allowable tolerance at the time of last test, a further test should be

made immediately or the results obtained in the first instance verified

by weighing on other scales, so that no reasonable doubt could exist as to the accuracy of the weights. In any case it is very necessary

to retest the dealer's scales, so that it may be known whether the

shortage is the result of a faulty scale or carelessness or intent on the

part of the vendor.

Frequently, of course, it happens that the time spent in perfecting a

case to make a presentable showing is apparently wasted, but even though an inspector may feel certain that a plea of guilty will be

entered he may be certain that the first sign of weakness on his part

will be the signal for a bitter fight on the part of the defendant.

Occasionally a touch of humor enlivens the routine of court procedure. Within the present month the driver of a peddler wagon was

arrested on a short-weight charge. When he appeared before the

judge, the clerk accidentally picked up the wrong file and read a complaint charging the poor short-weight artist with beating his wife.

Somewhat surprised at the unusual turn of events, but bothered, no

doubt, by a guilty conscience, the defendant entered a plea of guilty

to that charge, and only the intervention of the inspector saved him

from a trip to the workhouse.

It is on record in our State also that on one occasion an inspector

usurped the duties of prosecutor, counsel for the defendant, and

justice of the peace in addition to his own work. A report was re- ceived at the office from a disgruntled driver charging that the coal

dealer for whom he had worked was making a practice of selling

1,900 pounds of coal to the ton. The inspector sent to investigate

secured a full confession from the dealer, and public sentiment in

that small town was quickly aroused. Fearing that his prisoner

would be treated to a coat of tar and feathers if he appeared in the

town hall, the officer assessed a fine of $300, secured a written agreement from the merchant to the effect that restitution would be made

in all cases to the injured purchasers, then swore out three complaints, presented the State's case on behalf of the department, en- tered a plea of guilty for the defendant in each case, and paid the

maximum fine of $100 and costs for each offense.

The judge's astonishment in that case was perhaps no greater than

that of an inspector in the northern part of the State who found

a general merchant using a pump which had been rejected the previ- ous day and on which no repairs had been made. Upon inquiring

where the nearest justice of the peace could be found the inspector

was informed that the party he wished to prosecute was the nearest

qualified justice within 20 miles. Inasmuch as both the merchant and

the inspector were reasonable men, it was agreed that the justice

should take official cognizance of his own offence and he proceeded
FOURTEENTH CONFEEENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 53

forthwith to fine himself $20 and costs. The fine was remitted to

the office the same day, and we believe that our record on that case stands unique among weights and measures prosecutions.

In still another case where the manager of a creamery pleaded

guilty to a charge of exposing for sale short-weight butter prints

the judge assessed a fine of $50 against the company and then as- tonished the inspector by remarking that he owned more than 50

per cent of the stock in that concern and wanted to do business right,

and further stated that the manager could take official notice that his

services would be no longer required at that creamery.

Getting back to the more serious side of the question, I have had

two experiences in the past few months which convinced me that

the plea so often heard, "We don't care about the fine, but we do

want to avoid the advertising," is a serious matter in some cases. A

daylight raid on a coal yard resulted in exposing the company's

practice of sending out the early loads light weight. The sales manager learning of the investigation rushed to the office to explain that

he had recently secured the business of over 100 concerns that transferred their accounts when the firm with which they had been doing

business had paid a fine for short weight, and that all of this business

and much more would be lost if their company had to appear in court

on the same charge. I expect the business was lost, as the judge

assessed the maximum fine on two counts and the papers published

the names and facts with unusual accuracy.

The other incident occured the same week and again involved a coal company. This company had pleaded guilty a few weeks before

on two short-weight charges and were apparently in a hurry to make

up the amount of the fine, as the first load checked by our inspectors

following the convictions was over a thousand pounds short. The

officials of the company were beginning to realize that their competitors were making use of the prosecutions to induce their trade

to leave them, and every effort was made to have the third case dropped. Failing in this, an offer was made to $5,000 if the complaint was brought against the weighmaster instead of the company.

In both of these instances I have every reason to believe that the

short weight was deliberate and intentional and would not feel at all

bad if neither company ever sold another pound of coal in Minnesota.

When we realize that only a few years ago such concerns could

carry on their unfair practices with very little restriction, and that

the honest competitor and the unsuspecting public alike were practically at their mercy, we can not help but feel that the work we are doing has a very important place in the economic life of the Nation,

and we still look hopefully forward to the time when those two words,

" weight " and " measure," will receive from the general public the

consideration which we know their importance deserves.

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE PAPER.

Mr. Bellis. I would like to ask whether there was found any short

weight in seed. In my territory I know of one case where a merchant bought $4,000 worth of seed corn, and the shrinkage and the

damage amounted to over $800, which he succeeded in having re- turned.
54 BUREAU OF STANDAEDS.

Mr. Barron. I do not believe our troubles in Minnesota are as great

in that respect as in other places. Most of the feed and flour sold

in our State is put up in Minneapolis, and I must say that the millers

in Minneapolis are possibly the most careful and most accurate

users of weighing equipment of any large industry in the country.

We find a surprising shrinkage in some feeds, and we know from

experience that the shrinkage is large on some feed shipped in by

other States. We also find considerable loss from poor sacks and

loose containers. But in general we find that the feeds and feed

stuff's that are put up by the larger concerns in the larger places are reasonably correct, but that it is with the feed that is shipped out

from the smaller towns in Minnesota, where it is probably weighed

over some old wagon scale in wagonload lots, that the trouble occurs. Mr. ZiEMER. 1 would like to ask if any inspectors have any trouble

in short weight on Portland cement and if anyone has made any investigation. We have had a great deal of trouble with the contractors in Lincoln. One man told me he averaged 16 pounds short to

the sack.

The Chairman. I would suggest that you take that up with the

Cement Manufacturers' Association. It is a very reputable association, and I do not believe they would tolerate that for a moment on

the part of one of their members.

Mr. ZiEMER. I have done so to a certain extent, and they say they

expected to furnish 88 to 90 pounds, yet it ran 74 pounds.

Mr. Mote. In that connection I want to say that in the State of

Ohio we found one car of cement that ran over 1,000 pounds short

in weight. Those sacks were marked 94 pounds net, and some of them

contained as low as 68 pounds. Upon taking the matter up with

the manufacturers they were A'ery willing to adjust the matter, which

they very promptly did, and asked that a representative of our department come to their factory. We found they were using automatic filling machines. The men operating them were working on

piecework and a number of sacks were being taken off the machine

before the machine tripped. They put in a check weighman and there

has been no trouble since.

Mr. Miller. We had a similar experience in Indiana. On one

carload of cement coming from a concern in Illinois we found that

all the sacks we checked were running from 3 to 7 pounds short.

We took it up directly Avith the company and they made adjustments

and thanked us for calling the matter to their attention.

DESTINATION WEIGHING OF COAL FE.OM THE STANDPOINT OF THE

OFFICIAL.

By T. L. lEviNE, Superintendent of Weights and Measures and Oil Inspection,

Salt Lake City, Utah.^

In presenting this subject I will confine myself to conditions as I find them in the west, although the same conditions, no doubt,

prevail to a greater or less degree throughout the Nation. The necessity for national legislation Avhich will compel railroads to give to

the consignees destination weight on coal shipments is a theme which

should command the immediate attention of every weights and

' In the absence ot Mr, Irvine this paper, prepared by him, was read by F. S. Holbrook.
rOURTEENTH COISTFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 55

measures official, as well as every citizen who is interested in fair

dealing. When the seriousness of the matter is carefully considered,

it will seem almost preposterous that remedial legislation has not

long since been enacted.

The railroads have persistently fought the efforts of those vitally

interested in such legislation and through their well-organized lobby

have been eminently successful, at least so far as Utah is concerned.

It is true that the statutes of Utah indicate that such a law has

been passed and is a matter of record, but so far as the enforcement of

the law is concerned it may as well have never been enacted. I have

been informed that up to the present time not one car of coal has

been weighed under its provisions.

It is common knowledge that a very large proportion of the cars containing coal and being delivered to the yards of the dealers are under weight. This shortage is occasioned from various causes. In

the first place, the mines are working only part time, for which reason

the cars are loaded far beyond their capacity in order to increase

tonnage. Owing to the overloading the coal spills from the cars at

the mine tipple and lodges on the scale and is allowed to accumulate

until it becomes a nuisance, when it is loaded on a wagon and delivered

to the boiler house or to the private residence of some employee who

pays the mining company a nominal sum for the same. This accumulation on the scale is weighed with each car and is charged against the

consignee just as if he had actually received the coal, when quite

the opposite is true. When switching these overloaded cars at points

along the line, much coal is lost through being shaken off. Quite frequently inaccurately marked tare weights of oars are

used, which in most cases cause a considerable discrepancy which

works to the disadvantage of the consignee. People living near the

railroad at points where coal trains have to stop or slow down pilfer

coal from the cars, and in many cases such people never purchase a pound of coal and do not pretend to do so just so long as they are permitted to procure sufficient to keep them warm. Pilfering from

the cars is a simple matter, as most coal is shipped in open cars. While in recent years the railroads have issued orders that all coal

used by station agents, section gangs, construction outfits, flagmen,

and switch tenders be purchased from the mines, it is a common

practice for these agencies of the railroads to help themselves to

whatever coal they are in need of, and as a rule they select the

choicest and most expensive coal from the cars in transit. If by

chance they are discovered in the act of taking this coal, they justify

themselves by saying that they are unable to determine which is company coal and which is the coal consigned to the dealer.

The question might be asked : Is it not possible for the dealer to

keep track of the actual amount of coal in each car and recover the

shortage, where a shortage exists, by filing claims and prosecuting

the same with the railroads? The answer is that the penalties and

red tape imposed on the consignee by the railroads make it more

expensive to collect on this class of shortage than to take the loss

in the first instance. Not only does the consignee pay for the shortage, but he is compelled to pay the railroads freight charges on that

which he does not receive.

If mine owners and railroads are permitted to deliver short weight

to the dealers, why not throw down the bars and permit the retailers
56 BtTKEAU OF STANDARDS.

to short-change their customers ? With a close margin of profit for

the retailer, would he not be tempted, knowing that he had been

short weighted, to get even by the same method that is imposed on

him ? The tendency, no doubt, would be along that line.

If railroads were compelled to give destination weight without

great trouble or inconvenience to the retailer, there is no doubt that

vigilance of weights and measures officials could be considerably

relaxed without endangering the public to short weight. As far as Utah is concerned the question might be asked, and very logically,

too, as to why the requirements of the destination-weight bill are not enforced. The history of the destination-weight bill in Utah

reads like a chapter from an old fashioned "yellow-back" dime

novel.

Considerable time, money, and effort have been expended by those

interested in destination weight to secure the passage of a suitable

bill. Each time the matter was presented to the legislature it was

met by the solid phalanx of the railroad lobby in an attempt to frustrate the efforts of the proponents of the bill. Finally, the first bill

was unanimously passed by both branches of the legislature and

signed by the governor. After the legislature had adjourned the

dealers were informed by the attorney general that the bill was

invalid, inasmuch as it contained a joker in the shape of an interstate clause. In the following meeting of the legislature a bill was

presented eliminating the objectionable clause, which bill was passed,

but was subsequently vetoed by the governor on the ground that a destination-weight bill was already on the statute books. A third

time the bill was presented to the legislature, and a third time it was passed, and this time signed by the governor, the bill to take

effect at a fixed time. This time the railroads were successful in

deferring the operation of the bill until the war was thrust upon

us and the railroads were taken over by the Government. At this

time the dealers were politely informed by the railroads and counsel

that owing to Government control the railroads were not subservient

to the State. During this time the railroads, fearing that when the

roads were returned to private ownership they would be compelled

to weigh the coal at destination, removed a number of their scales,

thus defeating any attempt to enforce the law.

In conclusion will say that a volume might be written on this

subject if one should enumerate specific instances relative to the

present methods of railroads in handling coal shipments. I feel that

sufficient has been said to open up the subject for discussion, and trust

the delegates will feel free to give expression to their ideas on this

subject.

DISCUSSION or ABOVE PAPER.

, Mr. Stewart. This is not in relation to destination weights, but,

taking the other side, I would like to make a statement. You can go

to almost any coal operator or producer and he will tell you that he

will lose on the railroad weights from 100 to as high as 600 and 600

tons per month, depending on the amount of coal that he produces.

The coal is sold by railroad weights.

Mr. Rowland. In 1917 the city of Kansas City, Kans., ordered 30

cars of coal from the mines in Wyoming because we could not get it

from the east. The coal was delivered in box cars and the cars
FOUETEENTH CONFERENCE ON "WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 57

were sealed at the mine and every one of the cars ran short froni 2 to

5 tons. It seemed to me at the time that the shortage occurred at

the mine, because, while there is a shrinkage on coal, it could not

have been A^ery much when it was inclosed in box cars. We filed a

bill for the shortage, but could not get anything on it at all. It never was satisfactorily settled. The dealers in Kansas City are short on every car of coal they receive, and they never can get any

settlement out of it, and the mine owners say the same thing_ as this

gentleman over here, that they sell the coal at the railroad weights.

Mr. McAteer. I represent a mining company that ships coal from

West Virginia. That coal going east is hauled 106 miles before it is

weighed at Keyser. Going west it is weighed at Hillyer, 116 miles

away. In the two years and a half that we have been paying the

miners by weight our company has never come out even; we have

been short every month. We pay the miners by the mine weight and

we sell it by the railroad weight. We are trying to find the cause of

the discrepancy. They claim that atmospheric conditions have some

effect on it, and also that coal is stolen en route. The approximate

average shortage is one-half of 1 per cejit.

Mr. Wood. It seems to me this situation should be met in some

manner. I have in mind the case of a small local dealer. His shortage last year was 682 tons on his year's supply.

Mr. Mote. We have found in Ohio some big discrepancies on the

tare weights of cars. Mr. Stewart. With the exception of the two points mentioned by

Mr. McAteer, all of the coal that is dug in West Virginia is taken to

some other State and weighed. I am trying to get a law that will

compel the railroad companies to put in and maintain railroad scales

within a reasonable distance of the mine, where they will be under

State supervision.

MINE-SCALE WORK OF THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

By LoTJis A. FiscHEE, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures, Bureau of

Standards."

The investigation of mine scales by the Bureau of Standards was

inaugurated in August, 1917, in response to a request from the authorities in Maryland, who were confronted with the prospect of an

immediate general strike as a result of a dispute as to the correctness

of the scales upon which the coal mined by the individual miner was

weighed and from the weight thus determined his wages computed.

The need for all the coal that could be mined was a matter of national importance at that time, and the local authorities were naturally alarmed at the possibility of a shutdown of the mines, cutting off of the supply of coal from this source. It appeared that the

miners had lost all faith in the ability of the State to correct conditions existing, and insisted upon tests by the Federal Government,

which they held would be free from local influences and fair to both

sides in the controversy. In this emergency the State authorities

turned to the Bureau of Standards. While there were no funds avail-

•la the absence of Mr. Fischer this paper, prepared by him, was read by F. S. Holbrook.
58 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

able for this special purpose, the case was of sulEcient importance to

warrant the use of our reserve funds, and one of our best men was detailed to the work. A ton of 50-pound test weights was shipped to

Cumberland by express, transportation from there to the mines in

question was furnished by means of a motor truck provided by the

local authorities, and the work was begun only a few days after the

original complaint was filed with the bureau.

The result of this particular investigation showed that the miners

had just cause for their complaint, since many of the scales were

found to have important errors against the workers. However, as soon as the scales were declared by the bureau to be in order and

operating correctly the miners forgot their grievances, those who had

ceased work returned to the mines, and the incident was closed. Subsequently complaints were received from other sections of the softcoal regions, and to meet these demands the bureau asked for and re- ceived from Congress an appropriation of $15,000 to carry on minescale investigations.

Description of mine-scale testi/ng equipment.—As soon as the funds

were available the bureau purchased two motor trucks equipped with

special features necessary for the sure and rapid transportation of the

field party and of the test weights and other apparatus. The trucks

were obtained from the War Department and were built on a contract

for the Aviation Service. They are of the so-called " light aviation " type, now commonly seen in the Public Eoads Service, as Congress

has since then authorized the transfer of a large number of these

trucks to this service. They are designed and built to obtain a combination of speed, power, and endurance. Special features embodied

are a 2-ton Continental motor on a 1-ton G. M. C. chassis, solid disk

front and rear Avheels, double pneumatic tires on each rear wheel, and

special hubs and extra wheels designed to minimize road delays on

account of tire trouble. Recently solid tires of the cushion type have

been installed on the rear wheels of one truck, but they have not as yet been tried out under service conditions. Bodies were built to

afford convenient means of hauling and handling 2,400 pounds of

test weights in 50-pound units, sealers kit, other necessary testing

apparatus, and baggage of the field party who make the truck their

chief means of transportation.

Field part}/.—T\\Q field party of two consists of an inspector or engineer in charge and an assistant who acts as driver, mechanician,

assists in the testing work, and performs other duties in his spare

time. The inspector selects territory, arranges and directs details of

tests, makes adjustments when practicable, and advises regarding

weighing conditions and features of installation. He must play a

ticklish role in a situation fraught with continual discontent. His

position is analogous to that of a baseball umpire deprived of the

privilege of banishing those who cast more or less profane aspersions

upon his efforts to be fair. The slightest hesitation or misstep in a

critical situation is likely to bring the work of the whole test to

naught as a result of suspicion engendered by an apparently unrea- soning attitude of both parties to an age-old and bitter controversy.

Attitude of vtiners.—In the coal-mining profession it is axiomatic

that no coal miner was ever satisfied that the tipple scale gave him

credit for as much coal as he dug, loaded on cars, and sent out of the

mine. Generally the opinion is that all scales are fixed and all weigh-

I
FOURTEENTH CONFEBENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 59

masters are dishonest. Detailed and voluminous information as to

the causes for this attitude can be obtained from any coal miner.

The following incident, which happened to one of our inspectors,

illustrates the situations which commonly arise in connection with

the weighing of coal. In the autumn of 1918, when one of our equipments was operating in eastern Ohio, the inspector in charge received

an urgent call for his services in settling a strike on account of weighing conditions that had kept a mine closed down for the preceding

three days. The mine is one of the country's largest, and the closure

of it at that particular time was a matter of more than ordinarj'- or

local concern. The following recital is in the language of the inspector who handled the case

Few of tlie miners could speak English. They had employed for a checkweighman a Greek, whom all knew as Pete, an obstreperous little runt whose

hair line began half an inch from the bridge of his nose. Pete's qualifications

for election to his responsible position were a captious temperament, powerful

and untiring lungs, and a dramatic manner of expression, all of which he was

employing to the fullest extent when the bureau's equipment arrived. After

much loss of time our inspector finally got him cooled down to the point of

confining his oratory to the English language. It seemed that the superintendent had taken some liberties with him. As a matter of specific fact the superintendent had told Pete to take his crazy ideas and go to with them. In- stead of doing as he was told he called out his gang. During the council of war

the inspector asked for the company weighmaster. The superintendent asked,

" Which one do you want? We have a dozen or more around. This buzzard [pointing to Pete] runs one out of here every day or so." The strange

part of the whole atfair was that all of Pete's contentions turned out to be absolutely true. The company had made an agreement to stop and uncouple the

cars of coal before weighing them. This they had failed to do, and Pete con- tended that under the circumstances one of the two scales in use weighed every

car 300 or more pounds light. The test showed that all of Pete's claims about

the scale were absolutely correct, although how he obtained the information was a mystery, since he had no adequate means of determining the facts. Nevertheless, the United Mine Workers' agreement provided other means of

redress, and Pete should not have called a strike. Under the agreement the

company was authorized to assess a penalty of $1 per day per miner for each

day the mine was closed down, the proceeds to go to the American Red Cross. The company offered to pay all the fines if the miners would call a meeting,

declare Pete's job vacant, and elect a successor. A meeting was held, but the

miners elected to pay their own fines, and at a late Inquiry Pete was still holding down his job with unabated zeal. On another occasion one inspector was called to handle a strike over weighing conditions at a mine in West Virginia. The miners

were Italians. They had decided that both the company weighmaster and their own checkweighman were dishonest, had discharged

the checkweighman, closed down the mine, and set about to test the

scale to their own satisfaction. They carried a small portable scale

from the company store up to the scale, pulled out a car of coal,

weighed it on the company scale, and then began weighing it a tubful at a time on the small scale. Things progressed very smoothly

until the car was emptied. Two of the men had been chosen to keep

tally. After the weighing was completed one of them had checked

off 23 tubsful and the other 25. The first thing the inspector had

to do on arrival was to assist the superintendent in quieting the rather

animated discussion that followed this disagreement and which bade

fair to end in a riot. The test by the bureau showed that the suspicion

of the miners was justified. Through ignorance or carelessness an

oil-filled dashpot cormnonl}' used to dampen beam vibrations had
60 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

become partially dry and an error of about 300 pounds per car ensued.

Generally, the tests made by the bureau have a very favorable effect.

In cases where the scales are found correct distrust and suspicion are

allayed, and where they are found incorrect and corrective measures

are applied confidence is restored.

Method of test.—The method of test is not widely different from

that of testing an ordinary platform or wagon scale. Coal-tipple

scales are usually of 3, 5, or 10 ton capacity. A test to capacity by

applying test weights is impracticable, as it is impossible to transport

and handle more than 1 ton of test weights with efficiency. Loads

of one-fourth, one-half, and 1 ton are applied and the errors and

multiplications at those loads determined. The actual weight of an

empty car is determined by the method of substitution and the weights

then loaded into this car. This gives a test load usually in the neighborhood of 2 tons, depending, of course, upon the weight of the car. A car full of coal is then applied and weighed at each end and in the

center of the deck to develop sectional errors. Sufficient test weights,

usually 500 or 1,000 pounds, are added to determine the multiplication, from which the actual Aveight of the car of coal is computed

and compared with the weight indicated by the normal operation.

The car is then dumped and weighed empty. The weight of coal

thus obtained is compared with the weight which would normally be

credited to the miner on the tipple sheet. The procedure is similar

for a hopper scale, excepting, of course, the necessary manipulation

to determine the weight of empty cars. By simply passing coal into

the hopper a test load can be built up by the method of substitution

to any desired value.

Situation of mines.—Most of the mines in the eastern coal fields are in mountainous country and accessible only by roads of the worst

possible description which tax the power of the engine and the

strength of the loaded truck to negotiate them. Sometimes the

efforts of outside assistants are necessary. It is, of course, desirable

to get the truck as close as possible to the scale so as to reduce the

labor of handling the weights to a minimum. This occasionally re- sults in abandoning the roads entirely and the crossing of railroad

tracks and streams are daily occurrences. One of the greatest obstacles to the proper maintenance of proper

weighing facilities is the fact that mines are temporary and everything connected with them is likewise so. "Why should there be

expensive permanent foundation provided for scales to be abandoned

when the mine can no longer be profitably run ? " is a question often

asked by the operator.

Types of mines.—The mines encountered are of many different

types, among which may be mentioned the following

DRIFT MINE.

A drift mine is one in which the coal seam or bed is entered laterally. In some localities the coal seam lies high in the h:ils or mountains and the mine

entries are driven in at some point where the coal seam " crops " out in the

side of the hill. SHAFT MINE.

A shaft mine is one in which the coal bed is entered by driving a vertical

shaft down to the bed. This is necessary in localities where the coal lies deep

under the surface.
Miscellaneous Publications, Bureau of Standards, No. 48

Fig. 3.

Typical shaft-mine tipple in southeastern Ohio fields; mine scale testing

equipment being unloaded at left
Miscellaneous Publications, Bureau of Standards, No. 48

Fig. 4. —Trans[yortation of test weights by mules and sled several Jumdred feet up

mountain to mine inaccessible to truck

Fig. 5.

Another method of moving test weights to drift-mine tipple inaccessible to truck by loading into mine car at accessible point on track
I

FOUETEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 61

STEIPPEB MINE.

In some localities tlie coal lies so close to the surface that the earth covering can be " stripped. " off by steam shovels and the coal taken up in the same way.

Such a mine is called a " stripper " mine.

LOW COAL MINE.

The term " low coal " mine is applied to mines working in a comparatively

shallow coal seam, say, 42 inches or less thick.

HIGH COAL MINE.

The term " high coal " mine is applied to those mines in which the coal seam

is so thick that a man can walk about under the mine roof without stooping.

TICKLE BACK MINE.

A " tickle back " mine is a small operation whose output is less than 100 tons or so daily.

DOG MINE.

A " dog " mine is a drift mine in which the coal is hauled out of the mine by

dogs hitched to small cars running on wooden or iron rails. The coal is so low—i. e., the seam is so shallow—that a mule or pony can not get into the

mine. There are a few of these in the vicinity of Zanesville, Ohio. The coal seam is 24 to 28 inches thick. The dogs show a coUie strain.

TRUCK OE WAGON MINE.

A truck or wagon mine is one situated away from a railroad, making it necessary to haul the coal away in wagons or motor trucks.

It is necessary that scales be installed in dilferent ways in the

case of mines of various types. Also, the nature of the topography

of the neighborhood has an important bearing on the installation.

The foundation for the scale will of necessity be much below the

level of the scale in the case of a shaft mine. The same thing is

true if the ground falls off rapidly at the mouth of a drift mine. No

two are exactly alike, but doubtless they could be grouped in classes

in which the problems would have a sufficient similarity to permit

of a common solution. Certainly the installation of a scale having

the important function of fixing wages of a large group of men is

entitled to our first consideration and thought.

Number of tests.—Up to April 1 of the present year about 450

scales had been tested at different coal tipples in Maryland, West

Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia. Of this number

about 63 per cent failed to pass a tolerance of 0.40 per cent of the

applied load or 4 pounds per thousand, which will be recognized as being twice the tolerance applied to railroad-track scales and other

commercial scales. Seven per cent had errors of 50 pounds; 48 per

cent had errors in excess, and 52 per cent had errors in deficiency,

from which it appears that, on the whole, little or no attempt is made

to short weight. Since April 1 our trucks have been worlang in the

State of Indiana.

As a result of the accumulation of information the bureau has

drawn up tentative specifications for coal-tipple scales and their

installation, but they are not yet ready for publication.

General attitude of bureau.—The purpose of the bureau in this as in all testing work is to improve the accuracy of the scales, their

installation, and general weighing condition. It desires to do this for

J
62 BUKEAU OF STANDARDS.

the benefit of the operator and the miner. False weights, be they

intentional or accidental, should not be permitted by the Government any more than it should permit the counterfeiting of money.

Any Government that permits either can not claim first rank in

this day. False weights should be penalized hj laws comparable in

their severity to those relating to coinage. Nothing could conceivably

give the thousands of ignorant foreigners working in the mines so

false an impression of our institutions as to find themselves at the

mercy of some dishonest mine superintendent. In their stage of

intelligence they make little distinction between the dishonest mine

management and the Government. All that they know or feel is that

the}^ are being robbed, and that the Government permits it. That

is one aspect of the matter. The other is that it is bad policy for

the coal industry, just as any other dishonest practice is ultimately

injurious for any business.

in the mining industry, where the wages are directly determined

by weighing the output of the miners, all doubt as to their correct- ness should be removed. With this source of misunderstanding and

suspicion removed there are still enough sources of misunderstanding left to satisfy the most contentious individual.

Conclusion.—The annual appropriation for this work is $15,000.

The number of employees is not definitely fixed, but varies from time

to time as the exigencies of the work demand and the amount of the

funds warrants. Necessarily the bureau can not meet all the demands

made upon it by miners, operators, and weights and measures officials

with one or two equipments, which, moreover, can only be kept in the

field part of the time on account of the inadequacy of the funds provided for this work. The total number of coal mines is legion and they

cover a great amount of territory. Much more could be done if our funds could be increased. The mines are in the States, and their management and troubles might in former times have been regarded as local issues, but this point of view is no longer tenable. The stoppage

of mining in one section of the country may have a profound effect

upon the business of another section. Like our transportation, the

mining of coal is an essential industry, too vital and big to be ignored

by the Federal Government, particularly in time of war, when it becomes necessary for the Government to take the railroads and to create

machinery in the form of a Fuel Administration to allocate and fix the

price of this essential commodity ; also the creation of a wage board

to consider differences between miners and operators was shown to

be necessary. Perhaps in speaking thus I am trespassing upon political grounds—what I assume to be generally admitted may not be so by all. If there be any differences as to the advisability of governmental assumption of authority, the writer has no intention of supporting one or the other by argument. He has merely thought he

was stating what was generally admitted to have been necessary

under the circumstances.

Assuming, however, that there may be some difference of opinion

about these war-time measures of our Federal Government, there

could hardly be any difference of opinion as to the advisability and

desirability of the Federal Government taking up duties prescribed

to it by the Constitution of the United States, which gives it authority to fix the standard of weights and measures. This makes it
FOURTEENTH CONPEKENCE ON "WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 63

the solemn duty of the Government not only to adopt standards

but to see that the adopted standards are used in trade. Nothing

less than this could constitute fixing the standards. This does not

mean that the Federal Government should be the exclusive agency

in enforcing the use of the standards. It may and should use and

cooperate with whatever agencies are in existence and available,

and by cooperation with these bring about the desired result, namely,

the use of weights and measures and weighing and measuring devices that shall guarantee the quantity in all transactions, exactly

as the medium of exchange is maintained. To bring this about

is the problem the Bureau of Standards has set itself, and among

the agencies whose cooperation the bureau depends upon in carrying out this program is the Conference on Weights and Measures.

Mr. HoLBROOK. In the course of the investigation a number of

pictures were taken of various mines at which tests Avere made.

Mr. H. M. Eoeser, one of our inspectors, made most of these pictui'es,

and because he is very familiar with them I am going to ask Mr.

Eoeser to explain them to you as they are thrown upon the screen. (Thereupon various pictures were shown upon the screen, accompanied by explanations by Mr. Eoeser.)

(Thereupon, at 4 o'clock p. m., the conference adjourned to meet

at 10 o'clock a. m. Wednesday, May 25, 1921.)
FIFTH SESSION (MORNING OF WEDNESDAY, MAY 25,

1921).

The conference reassembled at 10 o'clock a. m. at the Bureau of

Standards, Dr. S. W. Stratton, chairman, presiding.

TESTING OF LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES.

By Ralph W. Smith, Bureau of Standards.

In the weights and measures official's examination of mechanically

operated liquid-measuring devices the general principles to be considered are no different than in the testing of any other type of weighing

or measuring equipment, although the liquid-measuring device tests

present some distinctive problems. Two prime considerations must

be boi'ne in mind. First, the necessity for accuracy on the part of

the machine under test, and, second, the possibility of fraudulent use of a machine which might or might not satisfy the first condition

when operated in a normal manner.

In the field of mechanically operated liquid-measuring devices by

far the greater portion of the instruments are used in the vending or measuring of gasoline or oils. For this reason this discussion will be

confined to the types of apparatus used for this purpose, although,

in general, the principles enunciated will be applicable to types of

liquid-measuring devices designed for other uses. Of that group of

devices designed to handle gasoline and oils there are several distinct

classes which are usually grouped as piston types, visible types, and

meters.

There are certain general principles which apply to all types, but it is obvious that the details of a test differ in some respects for each of

the types mentioned. An effort will be made to point out the more

important steps in the examination of liquid-measuring devices, with

particular stress upon those points which are apt to prove troublesome to the official.

The work of the inspector in relation to any device which he is

examining may be divided into two phases, inspection and test. In

the case of liquid-measuring devices the inspection is particularly important and necessary in view of the many possible variations in the

installation of different machines of the same type and also of the large

number of variations between machines of different manufacturers.

Normally, inspection should precede test. Invariably on a machine

the type of which is new to the inspector a rigid inspection should be

made to determine compliance with the specifications affecting the

device and to familiarize the inspector with the details and method of

operation of the machine. In the case of a device of a type with which

the inspector is familiar the detailed inspection is not necessary be- cause he knows whether the particular type in question normally complies with regulations. However, inspection in these cases can not be

entirely dispensed with, because the inspector must satisfy himself

64
FOURTEENTH CONFEEENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 65

that the device is, in fact, similar in all respects to the type he has in

mind, and that it has no added attachments or connections which

might affect his approval of the installation. These changes from the

regular type may consist only of an added pipe or valve and are frequently inconspicuous, but anything unusual should be thoroughly

examined and the method of its operation and the reason for its installation determined. In case such unusual attachments or connections are found the inspector must satisfy himself that these are of

such a nature that he can safely approve of the entire installation, and

that these additions or changes will not interfere with the correct functioning of the device.

It is well to invariably inspect all the indicating or recording elements of any device under examination regardless of whether the type

is familiar to the inspector or not. These features of the device are of

essential importance to the operator and to the customer, and if their

indications are confusing or if they are illegible, accuracy of deliveries is jeopardized.

It is well understood that the operation of a liquid-measuring device

depends to a large extent upon the manner in which it is installed.

This is particularly true of those types of measuring devices in which

supply pipe connections must be tight and in which there must be an

absence of air pockets in the line if correct delivery is to be made. In

view of this the inspector should, if possible, inspect the entire installation of such devices. It frequently happens that suggestions may be

made at the time of installation which will save labor and expense for

the owner of the device and time for the inspector by correcting

obvious faults, and thus making it unnecessary to subsequently uncover piping and connections when the test is made to remedy defects

causing the trouble. In the case of installations which have been completed the inspection should extend as far as practicable and should

include such valves, connections, etc., as may readily be examined.

As was suggested above, the actual test of a liquid-measuring device

should normally follow the inspection. After a thorough inspection

the inspector will fully understand the working of the device under

examination, without which knowledge he can not make an intelligent

test.The question occasionally arises as to whether a device should be

operated for testing purposes by the inspector or by the owner or user of the device. The claim is sometimes made that the owner or

user understands how to operate his device so as to give correct measure, and that if he can so operate it his device should be sealed re- gardless of whether or not it is in good condition throughout. The

fallacy of this contention is at once apparent, because there is no

guaranty that the owner will so operate his device at all times, and

even though he were perfectly sincere in his intention to operate it so

as to give correct deliveries, there is no guaranty that the one man

who understands how to give correct measure with the device will

operate it at all times. It is also claimed by some operators that they

have acquired an unusual facility in operating their device which

enables them to make more accurate deliveries than the inspector can make on account of his lesser familiarity with the device. Here,

again, there is no guaranty that the highly skilled operator will invariably operate the device in question. It follows, therefore, that a 67370—22 5
66 BUEEAU OF STANDARDS.

device which will not function properly when operated in an ordinarily skillful manner by the inspector can not be said to be a proper

device for commercial use. It may also be said that if a liquid-measuring device fails to function correctly when operated in any reasonable manner, even though

this may not be the method customarily used by the operator or recommended by the manufacturer, there is grave doubt as to the desirability of permitting the use of the device. It must be borne in

mind that a particular machine holds itself forth to do certain things,

and if it is not so constructed as to limit the manner in which it can

be used to those methods which will result in correct deliveries it is,

in effect, an incorrect piece of apparatus. This does not mean that a liquid-measuring device must be absolutely " foolproof " and incapable of being operated in a fraudulent manner—we know of no

such device to-day—but it does mean that no method of operation

which might well be adopted by a conscientious operator should re- sult in inaccurate deliveries. The general principle can then be laid

down that any method of operation which may reasonably be ex- pected to be used by an operator of a liquid-measuring device is a proper method to be used in testing such a device, and failure of the

device to meet the demands of such a test should result in nonapproval.

There are a number of factors which enter into the accuracy of the

delivery of various types of liquid-measuring devices. One of the

most important of these is the speed of operation. Certain types of

devices are more seriously affected than others by a change in speed

of operation, but almost all types of devices are so affected to at least

some degree.

When a body of liquid is in motion it tends to remain in motion

until it is checked by some cause or other, such as the force of gravity,

meeting an obstruction, or having its speed gradually diminished

through friction. In the case of a piston-type liquid-measuring pump

the column of liquid is set in motion by the operation of the hand

crank or other motive power and liquid moves throughout the entire

system. A considerable body of liquid is affected, and at the end of

the piston stroke this column of liquid may be moving at a rapid rate

of speed. If it were not for gravityj friction, and the action of the

valves in the system, this column of liquid would tend to continue its

motion, and thus the device would deliver very much more than the

nominal discharge. On account of these causes, however, the column

of liquid is quickly brought to rest. The period intervening between

the conclusion of the stroke and the time when the liquid is at rest is,

among other things, dependent upon the speed at which the column

was moving and is thus affected by the speed of operation of the device. Fast speeds of operation may thus be expected to result in deliveries in excess of the normal amount.

The very fast stroke, however, is not a customary method of operation of such a device. Furthermore, it is impossible to overcome

natural laws, and in devices of this character it frequently happens

that at a fast speed of operation more liquid will be delivered than at

normal or slow speeds. Since this method of operation results in

overmeasure, and since the condition causing this excess can readily

be controlled by the operator, it does not appear to be reasonable to

withhold approval solely on account of this overmeasure.
FOUKTEENTH CONFERENCE ON" WEIGHTS AND MEASUEES. 67

Very illuminating results may frequently be obtained on pistontype liquid-measuring pumps by a combination of strokes at different speeds; for instance, a fast stroke followed by a slow stroke, a slow stroke followed by a fast stroke, a normal followed by a fast, a

normal followed by a slow, etc. Careful study of the results of such

a series of deliveries will frequently reveal conditions which are not

apparent on ordinary tests. In connection with the fast stroke on

piston-type pumps it will sometimes be foimd that a fast stroke will

deliver more than the nominal delivery for which the pump is set, as explained before. If this fast stroke is now followed by a normal

stroke it will be observed that the delivery is less in amount than the

customary normal stroke. The cause for this seeming inconsistency

is apparently a " throwing over " of a certain amount of liquid at the

conclusion of the fast stroke, so that when the liquid column comes

to rest the level of the liquid is actually below the top of the standpipe. Obviously, this empty space in the standpipe must be filled on

the subsequent stroke before the delivery begins and the delivery wiU

be short an amount equal to the volume of the liquid necessary to

bring the height of the liquid up to the level of the top of the standpipe.

On the other hand, if the speed of operation of a piston-type pump

is reduced below the normal speed the effect of leaks in valves and

packing may be magnified, since the liquid has a longer time during

which to seep back around the piston or through leaky valves for a nominal delivery of a certain amount. Inspectors generally appreciate this latter condition and use their knowledge in making

certain tests for leakage. If a valve is provided by means of which

the discharge line may be closed off and this valve is closed and

pressure applied to the system by turning the operating handle, it

may quickly be demonstrated whether or not certain defects exist.

In case continued moderate pressure on the operating handle results

in a forward motion of the handle without the delivery of liquid

through the discharge orifice any one or a combination of several

conditions may be operative. The piston valve may not seat properly, thereby allowing the piston to rise in the measuring chamber

without displacing any liquid. There may be a leakage between the

walls of the cylinder and the piston, producing the same result.

There may be a leakage of liquid through stuffing boxes or connections so that liquid is actually being displaced from the measuring

cylinder without passing through the discharge orifice. A test of

this kind is a valuable one and should be made use of in the test of

piston-type pumps. Care should be taken, however, not to confuse

an actual forward movement of the operating handle with the slight

forward and backward movement which may be produced when the

liquid is being forced against an air cushion of considerable size, as would be the case if an extremely large expansion chamber were

used or if the discharge line had been closed off at some such point

that a large amount of air was trapped between the shut-off point

and the liquid.

Still considering piston types of pumps, a test somewhat similar

to the above may be applied to certain types to reveal the presence of

air leaks in the line below the measuring cylinder. If the operating

handle is advanced and if there is air present in the line, a check
68 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

valve through which air is passing will, to use the customary term,

" chatter." If this check valve is located above ground, it can frequently be heard to make this chattering sound when a leak is

present, and such a sound is always indicative of air in the line.

In the case of the visible types the speed of operation does not have

such a large effect. Where a measuring chamber is filled by some

means and allowed to drain down to a certain overflow point which

determines the correct setting for the capacity of the cylinder, the

speed with which liquid is introduced into the measuring chamber

is of little importance, provided that a suitable interval is allowed for

the draining off of the excess liquid, and provided also that air is not

incorporated into the liquid in such quantities as to cause the level

of the liquid to drop below the overflow point after the main overflow

has ceased, by reason of bubbles arising through the liquid. In the

case of devices of this character without an overflow and in which

it is necessary for the operator to make a setting on a line or at a

point, the speed at which the liquid is introduced into the chamber

has much to do with the accuracy of the setting. Inaccuracy in

making the initial setting, of course, affects subsequent delivery.

The speed of delivery has practically no effect upon the accuracy

of delivery in the visible types in those cases where the measuring

chamber is completely emptied or is drained down to a definite over- flow point, provided, of course, that sufficient time is allowed for

proper drainage. It is obvious that where the amount delivered must

be determined by a setting to a line or point too great a speed near

the conclusion of a delivery is very apt to result in an incorrect delivery through failure to accomplish an accurate setting.

In the case of meters the speed of delivery has some effect upon

the amount delivered, depending largely upon the type of meter.

If the delivery is made too slowly, the meter will underregister, in

other words, the delivery will be in excess of the indicated amount,

while if liquid is forced thi-ough the mechanism too rapidly, leakage

may occur with the same result, namely, the passage of unmetered

liquid through the device, but the overmeasure in the latter case will

be very much less than in the former.

The hose through which gasoline deliveries are customarily made

is a source of frequent error. A dry hose 8 or 10 feet long will

retain an amount of liquid in excess of the present tolerance (2

cubic inches) on a single gallon. Experiment has shown that a

10-foot length of three-quarter inch hose with the ordinary nozzle

and connection requires 3 cubic inches of gasoline to wet it. Hose

of larger size would, of course, require a larger amount. For this reason a delivery after standing to determine the error in an elapsedtime test should preferably be made with the hose disconnected in

order to eliminate the error due to the wetting of the hose. A delivery hose which is so badly worn as to seriously retard drainage or permit an actual leakage should not be permitted in use, and the

liquid-measuring device should not be approved until suitable hose

is supplied.

A very important element to be taken into consideration in the

test of a device used in the handling of gasoline is temperature. As

pointed out in the specifications adopted at the Thirteenth Annual

Conference, the change in volume of gasoline is approximately 0.7
rOUBTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 69

per cent for each 10° F, change in temperature, or approximately

1.3 per cent for each 10° C. change. In making a test on a liquidmeasuring device to determine possible leakages on standing, the

so-called elapsed-time test, it almost invariably happens that during

the interval between observations the temperature has changed. For

instance, if the first observation is made in the evening, to be followed

by a second observation the next morning, it is almost certain that

during the night the air temperature will drop, and at the time of

the morning test the temperature of the gasoline in the system may

be lower than it was the previous afternoon. If the difference in

temperature of the gasoline is 10° F., there will be a shrinkage of

a little more than 1.6 cubic inches per gallon ; if 10° C, the shrinkage will amount to 3 cubic inches per gallon. These shrinkages

will frequently result in corresponding shortages to the customer.

If the difference in temperature is greater or less than 10°, then the

shrinkage will be correspondingly greater or less. If the initial test

is made at a time of day when the temperature is relatively low and

a period intervenes during which the temperature rises, expansion

will take place, which may result in the passage of a certain amount

of gasoline over the top of the standpipe and into the delivery hose

or through some other outlet, this, of course, assuming that the system is full of liquid to begin with; or the device may indicate that

the measuring chamber is overfull. Under these conditions if the

temperature subsequently drops there may be a shortage on the first

delivery in the same ratio to the temperature change, as has been

explained before, in all cases where the excess resulting from the

expansion has been allowed to escape. It should also be borne in

mind that it is only the gasoline above ground which is affected by

a change in air temperature. The quantity of this liquid varies,

depending upon the construction of the particular device in question.

In the case of all of those liquid-measuring devices which depend

upon the setting of a liquid level to a graduation line or point for

the accuracy of their delivery the meniscus of the liquid must be

given very careful consideration, since this meniscus is, in effect,

the indicator of the device. The meniscus of gasoline is very pronounced and of appreciable height. The apparent height of the

meniscus varies somewhat according to the diameter of the tube or

other chamber in which the liquid stands. In the case of menisci in

glass tubes experiment has shown that there is a difference of as much as 0.03 inch in the apparent height of the meniscus of low-test

gasoline in tubes of one-fourth inch and seven-eighths inch internal

diameter, the height in the one-fourth-inch tube being approximately

0.07 inch and in the seven-eighths-inch tube approximately 0.10 inch.

Moreover, the clearness with which the meniscus may be seen is

dependent largely upon the amount of light thrown upon the tube

and the direction from which it comes. It is well known that a black band placed around the back of a tube slightly below the bottom of the meniscus has the effect of sharply defining the lower edge,

so that a much more accurate setting can be made. This expedient

is resorted to in laboratory determinations with veiy good results,

and it is unfortunate that the same thing can not be done in the case of gauge-glass types of liquid-measuring devices. The necessity for

moving the band to agree with the position of the meniscus, however,

makes it difficult to use this method of defining the meniscus.
70 BUKEATJ OF STAITOAKDS.

The general laboratory custom in the reading of menisci is to

consider the extreme bottom as the reading point. This is ordinarily the most satisfactory and most sharply defined reading point,

and its universal use in making the settings in the case of liquidmeasuring devices would be recommended if this method were practicable. However, when the meniscus is at a considerable height

above the operator's eyes, or when the operator is at some distance

from the gauge glass, the extreme bottom of the meniscus can not

readily be seen. This makes it necessary to select some other refer- ence point in the meniscus which may be used at all times, for it is

at once apparent that if readings are sometimes made to one point

and sometimes to another variations in deliveries will be unavoidable. Now, if the surface of a column of gasoline is viewed through

a gauge glass it will be observed that somewhere near the center of

the meniscus—that is, at a point about midway between the extreme

top and the extreme bottom of the meniscus—a dark band can be

seen. Since this dark band is practically the only portion of the

meniscus that is well defined under all conditions encountered in

gauge-glass liquid-measuring devices as at present constructed and

installed, it is probably the only feasible indicator to be used. Settings of this dark band in coincidence with graduation lines can be

made with a fair degree of accuracy if certain precautions are observed, as discussed hereafter.

Experience has demonstrated that parallax is one of the most

disturbing elements entering into the reading of the indicating

means on liquid-measuring devices. The ordinary effects of parallax are familiar to all—the apparent change in position of the

indicating elements when viewed from different positions. However, there is one manifestation of parallax in relation to the liquid

surface in gauge glasses as ordinarily installed on liquid-measuring

devices which is probably not so well recogTiized and is therefore

worthy of a brief description. If the top of the liquid column

is above the height of the observer's eyes and is viewed from a point

directly in front of the gauge glass, one apparently accurate setting

of the dark band on the graduation line may be made. Without

changing the height of the liquid column or of the operator's eyes, if

the operator moves to one side or the other and views the meniscus

from an angle, the dark band appears to have fallen and the previous

setting appears to have been in error. The apparent displacement

of the dark band differs with the height of the liquid surface above

the observer's eyes. It amounts to approximately 0.05 to 0.12 inch

in vertical height on a tube of approximately three-fourths inch

outside diameter at different heights and between extreme positions; that is, when viewed from the front and from well around

toward one side. When viewed from intermediate points between

these two, the dark band appears to assume intermediate positions

with reference to the graduated scale, so that a large variety of

apparently correct readings for the same setting of the meniscus

may be obtained by the operator varying his position.

Experiments which have not as yet been completed indicate that

this apparent displacement of the dark band may be minimized,

if not entirely eliminated, by providing a proper background for

the gauge glass. The ordinary custom has been for the gauge glass

to be sunken in the backing to a depth equal to about one-half of
FOUBTEENTH CONFEREHCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASUEES. 71

the diameter of the gauge glass. If the groove in the backing is

made deep enough for the gauge glass to be recessed to a depth of

about three-fourths of its diameter, the displacement referred to

seems to disappear almost entirely. Further investigation is ex- pected to provide a satisfactory solution of this problem.

That the condition just described is a serious one is readily apparent when we consider that in the operation of devices using a gauge glass as the indicating means the position of the operator is never definitely established at one certain point—that is, he is not

required by the construction of the liquid-measuring device to view

the meniscus always from the same position—and if this condition is

not overcome in some manner errors will invariably occur unless the

operator uniformly stands in the same position in relation to the

gauge glass. Failure to do this would produce a dangerous lack of

constancy in deliveries for the same nominal amounts and the inaccuracies might be entirely inadvertent on the part of the operator.

Furthermore, the angle of vision of the customer is almost always

different from that of the operator, and, therefore, under present

construction, they will not check each other's readings.

It should be unnecessary to detail each step in the test of the vari- ous types of liquid-measuring devices. The inspector should satisfy

himself that the machine under examination will make deliveries

within the allowable tolerance on all amounts which it holds itself

forth to deliver—that is, the test should include not only the nominal

capacity of the device, but also all of the intermediate stops and as many of the scale subdivisions as is practicable. Also, in the case of

a device designed to deliver a very large number of amounts depending upon predetermined prices per unit of volume, it is impracticable

to test every such amount. A sufficient number, however, should be

tested to insure the inspector that the device is properly constructed,

and a careful examination should be made of all the indicating elements to assure him that they are uniformly and properly placed.

In the test of a meter it has been mentioned that the speed at which

the meter is operated may affect the accuracy of delivery. One factor

controlling the speed of operation is the pressure at which the liquid

is forced through the device. Where a meter is installed, the inspector

should satisfy himself that the meter will function properly at any

pressure at which the liquid may be supplied to the meter. If he is

assured that only one pressure can be used, then, of course, it is only

necessary to test at this pressure.

It should be remembered that a single discharge at a particular

nominal delivery does not afford sufficient information upon which

to base an opinion as to the performance of the device at that point.

At least three deliveries for each nominal amount under each condition of test should be made. Wherever more than one outlet for the

delivery is provided, tests should be made through each such outlet

to make certain that correct deliveries are made, regardless of which

outlet is used. A delivery should be made through each outlet following a delivery through the other outlet to determine whether

delivei-y through one affects delivery through the other.

In tlie test of liquid-measuring devices the standards used by the

inspector should be given careful consideration. Field standards so constructed as to enable the inspector to read the errors on delivery

directly are, in the writer's opinion, very much to be preferred to
72 BUREAU OF STAITDAEDS.

capacity measures which necessitate the use of graduates or supplementary measures to determine the errors on delivery. Such field

standards obviate the necessity for these additional measures and re- duce errors such as those occasioned by spillage and evaporation.

While it is conceded that the type of measure employing a slicker

plate is fundamentally capable of more accurate determinations than

the field standard mentioned above, nevertheless it is believed that

under field conditions results will often be more satisfactory when

the latter standard is employed for testing liquid-measuring devices.

In case it is necessary to use graduates or small measures to determine

the errors on delivery, great care should be exercised to avoid loss by

spillage or evaporation and to make the necessary readings as ac- curately as possible, so that the resulting error of determination may

be reduced to a minimum.

Field standards should be of rugged construction, so that they will

maintain their accuracy. It goes without saying that such standards

should be closely adjusted, so that there may be the smallest possible

initial error in the standards used. These standards should frequently be compared with the office standards to assure the inspector

of their continued accuracy.

It should be remembered that it takes an appreciable amount of

liquid to wet the sides of a measure. A determination made with a measure which is dry will differ from one made with a measure which

is wet. Since by far the greater number of determinations must be

made with wet measures, it is advisable to use wet measures in all

determinations, and it is preferable that the measures be calibrated

upon the wet basis or proper corrections applied. Whenever

work is commenced, the measures in use should be properly

wetted, so as to insure that the first determination will be uniform with all the others. The drainage of the measure is another important factor. A uniform period for drainage should always be observed when the measure is emptied. A 10-second period is suggested as being long enough to satisfactorily drain a measure and as not being so long as to interfere with rapid work.

In this discussion the suggestions made refer to field tests of installed equipment, and methods which might be used in laboratory

tests of liquid-measuring devices have not been considered. In this

connection it is sufficient to say that the laboratory test involves a

relatively large amount of observations of all kinds as compared with

the field test. A very detailed inspection is made, and a device is

frequently dismantled to permit of a closer examination of certain

parts. It is obvious that laboratory methods are neither practicable

nor desirable for field practice and need only be resorted to when

exhaustive tests are demanded.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON WEIGHT STANDARDIZATION OF

BREAD, PRESENTED BY A. W. SCHWARTZ, CHAIRMAN.^

The committee on weight standardization of bread would report

that several meetings were held and the laws of the various States

relating to the sale of bread were considered, as well as suggestions

offered by the representatives of the baking industry at a joint

' The text of the model bread law as adopted by the conference will be found in Appendix II, p. 131.
FOURTEENTH CONFEEENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 73

meeting held yesterday afternoon, at which the subject was thoroughly discussed. After serious consideration the committee has

prepared and respectfully submits to the Fourteenth Annual Conference on "Weights and Measures the following proposed weight

standardization bill. This is simply a draft. The title and the

usual verbiage that accompanies the bill in various States is omitted

Section 1. That the standard loaf of bread shall weigh one pound, avoirdupois

weight. All loaves of bread manufactured, procured, or kept for the purpose

of sale, offered or exposed for sale, or sold, in the form of loaves, shall be

of this standard weight or of one of the following weights, and no other,

namely, one-half of such standard weight, one and one-half times such standard weight, or multiples of such standard weight: Provided, however. That

the provisions of this act shall not apply to biscuits, buns, crackers, rolls, or fancy bread, or to what is commonly known as " stale bread " and sold as such,

provided the seller shall at the time of sale expressly state to the buyer that

the bread so sold is " stale " bread. When twin or multiple loaves are baked,

the weights specified in this act shall apply to each unit of the twin or

multiple loaf. Sec. 2. That the * * * shall enforce the provisions of this act. Rules

and regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of this act not inconsistent therewith shall be made by the * * *, and such rules and regulations shall include reasonable variations and tolerances, in excess and defi- ciency, which may be allowed.

Sec 3. That it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, procure, or keep for the purpose of sale, offer or expose for sale, or sell, bread in the

form of loaves, which is not of one of the weights specified in section 1, within such variations and tolerances as may be fixed by the * * *. Any

person who, by himself or by his servant or agent, or as the servant or agent

of another, shall violate any of the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $200 upon a first conviction in any court of competent jurisdiction,

and upon a second or subsequent conviction in any court of competent jurisdiction, he shall be punished by a fine of not less than $50 nor moi'e than $500, or by imprisonment in the * * * jail for not more than six months, or by

both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Sec 4. The word " person " as used in this act shall be construed to import

both the plural and the singular, as the case demands, and shall include cor- porations, companies, societies, and associations.

Respectfully submitted.

(Signed) A. W. Schwartz,

G. G. Frart,

L. S. SCHOENTHAL,

W. T. White,

Committee on Weight Standardization of Bread.

DISCUSSION OF BEPOBT OF COMMITTEE ON WEIGHT STANDARDIZATION OF BREAD.s

The Chairman. We will consider this proposal section by section.

Mr. CuMMiNGS. I note in the reading of the report that fancy bread

is exempted from the provisions of the law. I think that unless there

is a statutory definition of " fancy bread " as mentioned in the act

it will be the source of a whole lot of trouble in prosecutions.

Mr. HoLWELL. In IN ew York City for some years the large bakeries

have refused to take back stale loaves, so the grocers who handle this

commodity sell some stale bread. I think that including that term

" stale bread " is leaving a loophole.

Mr. EsTES. Stale bread can be exactly defined.

• The text of the model bread law as adopted by the conference will be found in Appendix II, p. 131.
74 BUKEAU OF STAITOARDS.

The Chaikman. i want to say that in all these discussions we will

be glad to hear from the representatives of the bakers. We want to

get both sides of this question.

Mr. Cluett. In the case of the Chicago ordinance, we found it was

a very good proviso to leave it to the seller himself. If he declares

at the time of sale, " This is stale bread," that, of course, lets him

out of the provisions. If he does not declare it stale bread, then it is considered fresh bread.

Mr, Stuhe. Mr. Estes has the idea on that. If the law provides

that the bread must maintain the specified weight within the toler- ances for a specific period of 24 hours, that determines the length of

the period that your bread will be considered as fresh bread. After

that period if it loses too much weight, or if the seller sees fit, he

would call it stale bread. The period of maintaining the standard

weight is very important and should probably be a period of from

12 to 36 hours. In Nebraska it is 24 hours.

The Chaiemak. There is no motion before the house in regard

to this particular point, and if none is made I will ask you to

approve this section as a whole.

Mr. Steinel. I would like to move that it be amended to read,

" shall be of the standard weight of one pound, one-half pound, one

and one-half pounds, or multiples of one pound."

(The motion was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion

was agreed to.)

Mr. Mote. I move that section 1 be adopted as amended.

(The motion was seconded.)

Mr. Rabenold. I think that the conference ought to know a little

bit more of what happened in the committee meeting yesterday

afternoon, because what happened was a sequel to what was said in

the forenoon. I do not have any idea of influencing the vote at all. I know this section is going through.

After full discussion of the views that were expressed on the part

of the baking industry, at the request of the committee, I wrote out

a suggested section that, in the opinion of the representatives of the

baking industry here, might meet with the approval of the entire

baking industry of the United States. That section provided, first,

that bread shall be sold by weight; second, that a representation of

the weight of each loaf of bread shall be made in connection with

each such loaf of bread ; third, that this representation of weight in

the case of wrapped bread shall be made upon the wrapper of the

loaf. In the case of unwrapped bread such representation of weight

shall be made upon a label attached to the loaf. With respect to the

representation on the wrapper, or in respect to the representation

made upon the label, such representation shall be in terms of ounces,

with the name of the manufacturer in plain bold-faced Gothic type,

not less than 12-point, with the exception that in the case of un- wrapped bread sold at retail upon the same premises where manufactured, representation of the weight of that bread may be made

upon a notice conspicuously posted in those premises where manufactured and sold.

The baking industry, not officially but unofficially, proffered that

to your committee as a nucleus of a uniform bill. I am calling your

attention to that here, so that there may be no misconception about

this matter of weight of bread. There is no opposition—in fact, there
FOUETEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 75

« is full accord on the part of the baking industry—that bread shall be

sold by weight, and that there shall be a representation of weight with

respect to every loaf of bread that is sold in the United States.

Where your committee seems to differ from the representatives of

the baking industry is that your committee, for reasons that have not

at all been made plain, insists that the representation of weight must

be made in only one way, namely, by a fixed standard loaf of bread.

I submit to you that that is none of your business. That is an un- warranted interference with the baking industry, and upon that

issue we will have to contest in due time this recommendation if it is sought to put it into effect.

We consider that the public interest is fully subsrvd by what we

have voluntarily proffered to the officials. It is beyond the province

of weights and measures officials to seek to regulate an industry

merely because, forsooth, it may be easier for you to enforce the law.

We consider tliat is beyond your province. And, with respect to the

recommendation here, there is a practical situation involved that

we had hoped might appeal to the committee.

The chairman of the committee represents the State of New Jersey,

where there is no law at all. Another member of the committee represents the State of New York, where there is no law at all. The baking industry has been trying to have a law there that bread shall be

sold by weight. And yet the officials, in insisting upon a particular

kind of law—a standard-loaf law—have so far been unable to get any

law at all. As a practical matter, which is the better approach to a controverted question like this? The baking industry feels that trying to fix a particular method of doing the thing that we and you are

in accord on accomplishing is an unwarranted interference with the

processes of business. Those are considerations that may appeal to

some of you, first, as considerations of economics, and, second, as considerations of practicality in this question.

Mr. Steinel. I do not think we ought to allow the bakers to come

here and try to tell us what kind of law to put up. They are known

as opposing bread ordinances all over the country. They fought them

in our State. Their greatest hobby is, when we offer a labeling of

bread ordinance, to get up and defeat it by telling legislative bodies

how much it will cost to label bread, how many thousands of labels

they have on hand that they will have to throw away, how many different kinds of wrappers they must have, and that helps to defeat

the bread ordinance. I think we ought to try and adopt a model law

here. We have had enough experience to be able to enforce our bread

legislation in our various States and cities, to go ahead with the law

without listening to this argument. This is the first man who has

stated the bakers are in favor of a bread ordinance. Yesterday it

was declared that most of them were neutral on the subject.

The Chairman. We are not going to get anywhere by that sort of

argument. I dislike the latter part of the baking representative's

statement that you should not do this and you should not do that.

So I dislike a part of your statement. There is a right side to this

there is a compromise. We will never get anywhere by each side

telling the other side what they won't do and what they will do.

It is all wrong to say you can not regulate these things, because it is

done. In flour, cement, and many other cases, whether it is just or

not, it is done, and it is just as reasonable for you to say that the loaf
76 BUEEAU OF STANDABDS.

shall be a pound, a pound and a half, or any other weight you want

as it is to say that a barrel of flour shall be so much or that a barrel

of apples shall be so much. Those things are all regulated. It is

done, and it can be done. Whether it is the right thing is another

question.

Mr. McGradt. In answer to the points made by the representative

of the bakers, in reference to putting through a law with pounds

and ounces on the label, I will state that when I first took office in

Pennsylvania 90 per cent of the baking industry of Pennsylvania

were favoring a proposed law which was practically a copy of the

proposal made here, except that the pound loaf was omitted. I went

to Philadelphia and found the representatives of the Philadelphia

bakers were absolutely against the law. So the bakers are divided in

sentiment in Pennsylvania as to whether they want a pound or not.

Mr. HoLWELL. The able representative of the baking industry has

come here and said that this committee, which has submitted this

model bread law, has not the weight standard in the State of New

York or in the State of New Jersey

We in New York had the weight on our bread until this able

representative of the baking industry challenged the validity of the

law or of the regulations promulgated by the State superintendent

of weights and measures. And the reason why every one of the

delegates representing the State of New York is in favor of a standard

loaf of bread is because we were defeated in tiying to sell bread by

weight in the State of New York.

The same representative came into my office, representing the large

baking interests, where they were charged with civil violations

because of improperly marking their bread, and their plea was that

through carelessness or negligence on the part of one of their employees a 16-ounce label was affixed instead of a 14-ounce label,

and you are going to have a recurrence of the same situation when you

go back to marking the bread by weight. Let us have the standard

loaf. I want to compliment the committee on bringing in the

splendid report which they did. I am for it to the fullest extent.

Mr. Mote. I think that most of us are willing to admit that the

regulations promulgated by the Government during the war period,

when the loaf of bread was standardized by weight, proved to be

a good thing. In Ohio we have a number of cities that have or- dinances pertaining to the sale of bread. Some of them regulate

and standardize the loaf of bread, but one of our largest cities merely

requires a label as to the weight. From the experience we have had

for a number of years the mere statement of weight by label on the

bread has not proved satisfactory. In other cities, where the loaf

of bread has been standardized, it has proven far more satisfactory

than the mere statement of weight.

Mr. Rabenold. The baking industry realizes that if there is a

bread-loaf statute there is a very practical difficulty there which

all the weights and measures officials are familiar with, namely, that

there will be mistakes made, mistakes that superintendents of the

most expert character in the bakeshop will hardly eliminate, namely,

that throughout a period of fluctuating weights there will be a number of different sizes ; that is, different labels as to representation

of weights, and the employees will make mistakes. But the baking
FOUBTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 77

industry, confronted with that danger, which has been a real danger,

is also balancing, on the other hand, the disadvantage of the standard

loaf. Some say it is two evils to be chosen between—I mean from the

point of view of this practical difficulty that I am speaking of.

What we are seeking to-day in this conference is, however, that, as between the two methods of accomplishing this object this conference

wants to accomplish, we choose the bread label, the representation of

weight as the lesser of the two disadvantageous situations, because we

consider after all that does allow flexibility in merchandizing, flexibility in meeting the public taste, and gives them all the information

they can possibly want, as against the rigidity which may be worked

out arbitrarily on the standard-loaf measure. The Chairman. I want to call the attention of the delegates to one

point here which you might overlook. From the speaker's statement

just now I assume it to be an admission of fact that they can make a

loaf of bread to any predetermined weight. Is that right?

Mr, Eabenold. I think that goes without saying.

The Chairman. Then, what is the use of your having a flexible

weight ? Mr. Rabenold. The basic, economic argument is that our currency

does not have

The Chairman. Ahj you need not go any further. I wanted to

bring that out. I admit that—and I think these people see that—the

only object you have in favoring the other system is to adjust the

prices to suit the changing prices of the ingredients.

Mr. Rabenold. It is not so much price; it is values. With fluctuating weight it is possible to maintain the same selling price with a

different value based upon fluctuating costs. The Chairman. That is it precisel5^ You need not go any further.

That is precisely what I meant. I was unfortunate, perhaps, in using

the word " price."

Mr. Stewart. The gentleman has admitted that in the marked

wrapper the workman makes a mistake, and they come before us and

claim that. That is the very thing we are trying to relieve them

from. The divider will divide the dough so there is scarcely any

variation in the loaf. If we have the standard loaf, the divider will

cut off the 16 ounces, the 24 ounces, or whatever it may be, and we

will not ask him to mark that loaf, so far as I am concerned, and I

think that is the sense of us all. But we want a standard loaf, we

want to know what the loaf shall weigh. That will save the workmen

making mistakes.

Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that in our State this sec- tion, which the gentleman representing the Bakers' Association presents, would not help us a mite. We have wrapped bread, and the

attorney general of our State has ruled that, within the meaning of

the law, this was a package and, according to our net-weight law,

must be marked with the net weight thereon. But we are having all

kinds of trouble, such as the gentleman from New York City and

others have had, with wrapped bread with the weight marked on it incorrectly.

The Chairman. There is one point that you have not covered.

The representative of the bakers brought out the need for a smaller

coin. Would the coinage of a smaller coin help in the matter at all 1
78 BUKEAU OF STANDAEDS.

Mr. Miller. It seems to me^ Mr. Chairman, that there is one point

that has been overlooked. Smce I am a food and drug official, as well as a weights and measures official, I see the matter from two

different standpoints. In our State at least 90 per cent of the bread

is wrapped. If we have a declared weight instead of standard

weight, it will be necessary, on account of the fluctuation of price in

material and fluctuations of size of the loaf, to have those wrappers

reprinted every time there is a change in weight in order that the

declared weight may be right. Will that not operate in this way

To drive wrapped bread from the market, so that we will then have

unwrapped bread, which is the very thing that the State board of

health says we should not have ? It is certainly impracticable for the

bakers, especially the smaller bakers, to have their wrappers re- printed every few months, or even weeks, sometimes.

Mr. Rabenold. I can answer that, Mr. Chairman. We have anticipated that there would be more and more legislation of one kind

or another, and Di\ Barnard himself, in the Ajmerican Institute of

Baking, has been conducting experiments in inks and colors in order

to reach a result which would permit the printing of the weight on

the wrapper as the loaf goes through the wrapping machines and is

incased in the wrapper; and we are hopeful to-day that we have

solved the question of ink so that we can have adequate drier in it

to prevent smudging and yet have such incisiveness in it that it will

take hold and imprint the weight upon the wrapper, which is usually

coated with paraffin. That, at least, is the modern way, not having

different kinds of wrappers with various weights printed on them,

but having the same wrapper with a printing adjustment on the

wrapping machines that would print the weight on the wrapper of

every loaf that is being wrapped.

Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, a very large number of bakers in our

State have no labeling stamp, and when they adopt a hand stamp

they find that it does not stamp half the time.

The Chairman. If, however, the question of ink is worked out it

will work as well with the hand stamp. If there are no further

remarks, we will vote on the adoption of section 1. (The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.)

The Chairman. I want both the sealers and the representatives of

the bakers to understand that while we must take some action in

regard to this—we must do the best we can—it does not at all mean

that we are not going to improve things as time goes on. We are

still open to arguments on this question, and I do not think we will ever take a stand in this conference that will prevent progress.

And I hope you gentlemen will still continue to cooperate with us, and I am sure that if it is your desire the bureau will undertake such

investigations during the summer as will be needed to settle some of

these questions of tolerance, and so forth. Perhaps that can be done

in connection with some of your more experienced sealers, and also

in conjunction with" the representatives of the baking industry.

It is all wrong for you to stand on opposite sides. You must get to- gether because, as I have always contended, there is a right side

that will be fair to the people and fair to the manufacturers.

(At this point the Hon. Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce,

entered the room amid great applause.)

The Chairman. Our Secretary needs no introduction.
FOUETEENTH CONTERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASUKES. 79

ADDBESS BY HON. HERBERT HOOVER, SECRETARY OP COHMERCK

Gentlemen, I am glad to take part in welcoming you here. In

this I wish also to emphasize the desire of the Department of Commerce that we should cooperate even in a larger degree than hitherto,

not only with the officials of the country who are engaged in the important work of this character, but also with the associations of our

business men. I am particularly glad to have an opportunity to dis- cuss with you some aspects of standardization. This is indeed a matter to which I have given much thought for many years. It is

an outstanding necessity in the mind of every engineer desirous of

the advance of industry and commerce. The whole conception of

standardization has changed in recent years and has come to the

first rank of importance.

There was a time when standards meant the enforcing of public

honesty in weights and measures. This great bureau and your public

offices had their foundation in that conception. But to-day the question of standards has become a question embracing the very fundamentals of efficiency in our whole commercial and industrial fabric.

While we have industrial efficiency developed, in its individual

sense, to probably the highest average efficiency in the world, we

greatly lack in what one might call our collective efficiency. There

is no field where more constructive work can be accomplished in this

direction of national efficiency of the whole gamut of production and

distribution than in the field of standards.

Dr. Stratton tells me you have been discussing the question of

bread weights. That is not entirely a problem of enforcing honesty

and protecting the consumer with respect to a return for the money

he gives. It is also a question of simplifying the process of manufacture, and in simplifying the process of manufacture you are con- tributing to a lower production cost and protecting both producer

and consumer. We are saving something out of national energies.

Fractions of pennies saved to every household and in every industry accumulate to make the wealth and strength of the American

people. For this next generation we must meet competition from

Europe—competition in a lower standard of living as applied to production—such as we have never hitherto thought possible. We can meet that competition if we can increase the efficiency of our industrial machinery. We can meet it without lowering the standard

of American living, because our people have a greater power of

initiative; they have more genius for production and for distribution; they have the power of greater exertion, and we can produce

our goods on a basis that will enable us to meet any competitor and

still maintain the standard of our living. We can only hope to do

this, however, if we reduce the losses in our industries and in our

distribution, and I know of no factor of that problem that is of more

importance than standardization. You are more familiar than I,

perhaps, with its many ramifications. It does not extend into the

field of destroying style or quality or initiative or individualism. It

does extend at once into the whole field of greater uniformity in

dimensions. The tremendous waste that we have by the multiplicity

of dimensions in standard articles would give us a great credit of

national economy if we could find a greater degree of simplification.
80 BUREAU OF STANDAEDS.

I know of no better instance of that than the arrangement set up

by the automobile-tire manufacturers by which they reduced the number of dimensions in pneumatic tires to 10 from 216. It is true they

still have to manufacture a multiplicit}' of tires because of the older

standards that are current, but when the whole of the demand has

been brought to 10 dimensions the cost of manufacture will have

been materially reduced and the number of tires that must be carried

in stock throughout the year will have been enormously reduced ; nor

will there have been any interference in style or quality, but there

will have resulted an enormous national saving. There is scarcely an

industry, there is scarcely a commercial practice, in which some

simplification in the underlying specifications and dimensions will

not produce national economy. By your positions you have a great

opportunity to study and promote these things, and we earnestly desire your cooperation. We can, if we all cooperate together, establish

standards that are so manifestly necessary that their adoption will

be guaranteed even without legal expression, by the force of public

opinion and the convenience of public use. You are brought into contact with the retail distribution of the

country. The economies to the retailer in the simplification of dimensions and the standardization along many lines are such that the

retailer, when he once understands the processes, will insist upon

specifying that character of production. I therefore feel that you

occupy an extraordinarily useful field for public service. Distributed

as you are over the entire Union, occupying positions of public importance, you can give study to these problems; you can create the

community sentiment for their solution. Nor are these problems interstate problems in many cases. Often enough they are problems

within the State and within the city, as is the instance of the bread

problem which you have discussed. In other words, in a great program of national economy of this character, you occupy a strategic

position, and therefore I want, and Dr. Stratton wants, to cooperate

with you in this new sense of standards, where we lift standardization from the plane of protection of honesty in public dealing to a great level of national economy, to the purpose that must be the end

of all State and of all governmental action—that we should improve

the standard of living of all the people.

I thank you, gentlemen.

The Chairman. I am sure the Secretary does not know how his

remarks have fitted into this discussion at this time. We had just

reached an apparent breach—not a real breach, but an apparent

one—between the manufacturers and these people who are interested

in the consumer, and so many of your remarks have fitted the occa- sion so well that I am extremely glad you came at this particular

moment.

DISCUSSION OF BEPOBT OF COMMITTEE OIT WEIGHT STANDARDIZATION OF BREAD—Continued.9

The Chairman. We have now reached the second section.

Mr. Schwartz. The second section is as follows

Sec. 2. That the * * * shall enforce the provisions of this act. Rules

and regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of this act not incon-

•The text of the model bread law as adopted by the conference will be found In Appendix II, p. 131.
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 81

sistent therewith shall be made by the * * *, and such rules and regulations shall include reasonable variations and tolerances, in excess and deficiency,

which may be allowed.

Mr. HoLWELL. I move the adoption of the section.

(The motion was seconded.)

Mr. Barnard. May I inquire of the committee whether or not it is

their thought that the commissioners or the enforcing authority would

have authority under this second section of the bill to set up time

limits within which the bread shall be weighed ? That is a provision

which is already in many of the laws, and it seems to me to be an

essential in the drafting of a model law. If the enforcing agent has

authority to say that the bread shall be weighed 12 hours after re- moval from the oven, very well. But if this provision does not take

care of that particular matter it seems to me that it ought to be taken

care of somewhere in the bill.

Mr. Schwartz. I might reply to Mr. Barnard that that was taken

under consideration, and we thought that that regulation should be

left to the enforcing officer ; that he should make rules and regulations

as to when it was to be weighed ; that those were regulations that each

State could draft for itself; that conditions might differ; and that

that should be a matter directly in the hands of the various State

departments.

(The question was taken, and the motion Avas agreed to.)

(Thereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m., the conference took a recess

until 2 o'clock p. m.)

67370—22 6
SIXTH SESSION (AFTERNOON OF WEDNESDAY, MAY 25,

1921).

The conference reassembled at 2.20 o'clock p. m., Dr. S. W. Stratton, chairman, presiding.

ADDRESS AND KESOLTJTION IN MEMORY OE THE LATE JAMES

SWEENEY.

Mr. McGradt. In rising to pay tribute to James Sweeney, a man

under whom I served, relying so largely on his judgment and friendship, I find it a moment of deep feeling on my part. James S^yeeney

was essentially self-made, as are those who most impress themselves

upon us. He was born to neither Avealth nor station. He came from

a modest home in Tioga County, Pa., a home pervaded by a generous,

wholesome, religious, and patriotic spirit—a frugal home, where love

of God, love of neighbor, and love of country were inculcated, where

self-reliance was taught.

It is no part of my purpose to recount with anything of detail the

life of our departed friend. Most of us assembled here knew him as chief of the bureau of standards of Pennsylvania, who represented

the Keystone State for many years at these conferences, and as a man who had carved out his own future—one who had succeeded in

life by dint of his own exertions, responsible to no man for his

actions, and with a self-confidence that rose superior to all fear and

overcame all difficulties, and yet a self-confidence that was as far

removed from egoism as is day from night. Quiet and sparing in

speech and mild in manner, he had that determination that conquers

all obstacles, A man of strong convictions, he had the courage to

advocate them at all times and under all circumstances. A man of

firm friendships, no one ever accused him of betraying a friend.

With an intimate knowledge of his character, I will say that the one

secret of his success was his unfaltering devotion to his friends and

his unswerving convictions as to his duty on all public questions.

James Sweeney as a man was one of the most faithful men I have

ever met. His friendship and confidence once gained, it required the

strongest evidence of cause for distrust, and even of guilt, to lose.

Mr. Sweeney loved his home, his family, his friends, and Nature.

No man really kneAV him who did not know him in these things he

valued most. The great State he represented at many of those con- ferences gave him unfaltering support as chief of the bureau of

standards ; no ordinary man could have commanded this.

In Chief Sweeney I lost a personal friend whom I loved, and I

shall always feel that my acquaintance with him will be one of the

dearest memories I can cherish. It is ever so ; the air is full of farewells to the dying and mourning for the dead. The soul of Chief

Sweeney has changed its residence, it lingers in the last realm of the

eternal, where we, who honor him to-day, must shortly wend our way.

82
FOURTEENTH CONFEEEITCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 83

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I offer the following resolutions, which

I desire to have read at the desk.

The Chairman (reading) :

Resolved, That as a further mark of respect to the deceased this conference

do now stand in silence for one minute: And be it further

ResoUed, That the secretary of this conference be instructed to forward a copy of these preambles and resolutions to liis family at No. 1 SoutJi Eighteenth

Street, Harrisburg, Pa. You have heard the resolution.

(It was moved and seconded that the resolution be adopted; the

question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

The Chairman. In accordance with this resolution I Avill ask the

members to stand.

(The delegates arose and remained standing for one minute.)

The Chairman. Be seated. I am sure that we regret more than

we can say the absence of Mr. Sweeney. I remember the first meeting he attended and his attitude toward a great many of the things

we were discussing. I was greatly pleased to see that as time went

on he developed a very real interest in the whole subject. Many of

the things that he did not see in the beginning were afterwards the

very things that he took the greatest interest in, and the conference

always benefited very greatly by his advice, and especially his en- thusiasm in his subject. He was in continual communication with

the bureau, and we had perhaps as good cooperation with his office as any State office.

DISCTJSSIOHr OF REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON WEIGHT STANDARDIZATION OE BREAD—Continued."

The Chairman. We will take up now the regular order of business. We were working on section 3, as I understand it. Perhaps

you had better read section 3, as there may be some here who were

not present before luncheon.

Mr. Schwartz (reading)

Sec. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, procure, or keep for the purpose of sale, offer or expose for sale, or sell, bread in the

form of loaves, which is not of one of the weights specified in section 1, within

such variations and tolerances as may be fixed by the * * *. Any person

who, by himself, or by his servant, or agent, or as the servant or agent of another, shall violate any of the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than

$200 upon a first conviction in any court of competent jurisdiction ; and upon

a second or subsequent conviction in any court of competent jurisdiction he

shall be punished by a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500, or by

imprisonment in the * * * jaii for not more than six months, or by both

such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Mr Stewart. I move the adoption of the section as read.

(The motion was seconded.)

The Chairman. Are there any remarks? [After a pause.] If not,

the question is on the adoption of the section.

(The question was taken, and the motion agreed to.)

The text of the model bread law as adopted by the conference will be found In Appendix II, p. 131.

J
84 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

Mr. Schwartz. The next is section 4:

Sec. 4. The word " person " as used in this act shall be construed to import

both the plural and the singular, as the case demands, and shall include cor- porations, companies, societies, and associations.

Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion for

the adoption of that section and of the report as a whole.

(The motion was seconded.)

The Chairman. Are there any remarks? The question now is on

the adoption of the whole bill, the preceding three sections, as previously amended, and section 4 as read.

(The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.)

The Chairman. We will have this printed so that you can take

copies of it away with you.

DISCUSSION OE TOLERANCES AS APPLIED TO BREAD WEIGHTS.

The Chairman. The next item which we will take up for the afternoon session is a general discussion of matters of interest.

Mr. Steinel. There are two points on which I think we ought

to have a little discussion in regard to the report which has just been

approved. One point is about the number of loaves to be taken to

strike an average in determining weights. Another point is the time

limit after baking when the bread is to be weighed.

The Chairman. And the very next question that is going to arise

is what tolerance shall be allowed. I think it would be well to take

some action, so that these gentlemen might act uniformly in regard

to it. Mr. Schwartz. Then, why not do it by way of a resolution? Let

Mr. Steinel introduce a resolution that the Bureau of Standards be

requested to make tests and then formulate a set of tolerances that can be made applicable to this model law. Let them give us an idea, so that we can get it on a scientific basis.

The Chairman. If you do that I would like to have you include

in it a permanent committee of three of this organization that will

give special attention to this and that could work with the bureau,

because it is quite essential, I think, to couple it up with this outside

experience.

Mr. Schwartz. I fully agi-ee with you in that, Mr. Chairman, and

I would suggest if the gentleman will offer a resolution as suggested,

including a committee to act with the bureau, that would cover the

matter.

Mr. Steinel. I will offer that in the form of a resolution.

The Chairman. This is a very important matter. It illustrates

exactly the point that you can not successfully enforce any law if

it is not complete in all respects.

Mr. Foster. This is the Massachusetts tolerance as prescribed by

the Director of Standards

Bread manufactured for sale or sold or offered for sale in the standard units

of 16 or 24 ounces, or multiples of 1 pound, as prescribed by section 16 of

chapter 418 of the acts of 1920, shall be deemed to be of the required standard

weight, provided that the actual weight shall be within 4 per cent in deficiency or within 12 per cent in excess, as compared with the prescribed standard

weight. The weight of loaves of other than the standard weights prescribed

by said section shall be deemed to be correctly stated, provided that the actual

weight of such loaves shall be within 4 per cent in deficiency or within 12 per
rOUKTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 85

cent in excess of the marked weight. Such discrepancies in any number of

loaves shall be as often above as belovs^ the standard or mai'ked weights, and

the average weight of not less than 12 loaves, when weighed 12 hours after

baking, shall not be less than the standard or marked weight cf such loaves.

Mr. Stuhr. In Nebraska we did not leave this open to rule or

regulation. I believe you are going to have a great deal of trouble

in enforcing these rules or regulations. Argument will come up

from time to time, and unless the Bureau of Standards formulates

some of these it will be a question that will not be very easily settled.

The Nebraska law provides that 25 loaves shall be weighed at the

place where the bread is manufactured, provided it is in the State.

The tolerance is 2 ounces to the pound. In other words, the bread

must weigh between 16 and 18 ounces, and it must maintain this

standard weight for 24 hours. All bread shipped into the State must

meet these specifications, and in that case it is weighed at the place

where it is offered for sale. Before the selection of these there was

considerable experimental work done. There were hearings on the

subject, and it was very thoroughly thrashed out.

Mr. HoLWELL. I think Mr. Schwartz's suggestion, and yours, too,

for a committee to cooperate with the bureau to establish tolerances

and also to determine the number of units we should sample is a good one. I informed Mr. Holbrook to-day that I intend going back

to New York to make a survey of the bread situation in the city of

New York more comprehensive than the one I mentioned yesterday.

I shall undertake to cover the entire city in an effort to learn just

how bread is sold, the weights of the bread of the various manufacturers, including the smaller bakeries. I intend to submit a report of

that to you, Doctor, in order that the bureau may know just what

we are doing in New York, and I trust it will assist this committee

to come to a decision as to tolerances.

Mr. CuMMiNGS. I would state that the deficiency tolerance in

Massachusetts was adopted as the result of a number of reweighings

of loaves for a period of more than 30 days, and we found that it well

covered the maximum shrinkage that miglit reasonably be expected

to occur from natural causes—4 per cent in deficiency.

The Chairman. The gentleman from Nebraska has brought up a very important point there that always comes up in every form of

tolerance. There are two ways of stating a tolerance. You can set

your standard and speak of the variations on either side, or you can

set the two limits and say it shall be between them. The latter

method is to be preferred, as a rule, but we meet many different

forms of that. When you have your standard and fix a limit, there

is a tendency to take advantage of the limit. You have endeavored

to prevent that by saying that as many shall fall above as below,

and you also have fixed a larger amount for your tolerance in excess. You say 12 per cent over and 4 per cent below. That is safe so far

as the public is concerned, and no doubt that will be taken care of by

the manufacturer, but when you can do so it is better to set the two

limits of a tolerance—to say the thing shall fall between two limits

and stop right there.

I trust this committee on tolerances will go into this thing rather

carefully and give us some definite information on it. I hope, also,

that the functions of the committee may be made broader than that.

It ought to be enabled, I think, to take up any question regarding this
86 BUKEAU OF STANDAEDS.

bread matter, to hold such investigations as it sees fit, and be posted

as to the whole situation at the meeting next j^ear, and if necessary

hear the manufacturers or their representatives, and hear the sealers,

and so on. If there is no objection I would suggest that your committee be given still broader power than merely to recommend toler- ances. Is that agreeable, Mr. Steinel?

Mr. Steinel. Yes.

The Chairman, That is to say, we will have this committee as a

sort of bread committee that will be going into this study during

the year and will report to us at the next conference.

Mr. Schwartz. As I understand it, this was to be referred to the

committee on specifications and tolerances, cooperating with the bureau. That lets the bread committee out. Therefore, I move that the

bread committee be discharged.

Mr. HoLWELL. Is it proper for a member of a committee to ask

for his own discharge ? The Chairman. There is still another reason why it is out of order.

There is another motion before the house that we must dispose of

first. This motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin is before you,

that we have a committee to study and recommend tolerances, as well

as to take up other matters pertaining to bread legislation.

Mr. Goodwin. I think this question ought to be referred to the

present committee on specifications and tolerances. I think they are

the best fitted to handle the subject and could handle it more intelligently than a new committee, because they have been working on

tolerances for five years or more, have they not? Therefore, I would

amend the motion that is pending by referring the matter to this

committee.

(The motion to amend was seconded.)

Mr. Webster. Speaking of tolerances, it seems to me that we are opening up a pretty broad subject. I have understood in the past

that the Government has never adopted any tolerance on a commodity.

The Chairman. Why do you draw the line at commodities? You

have tolerances on gasoline.

Mr. Webster. On gasoline-measuring devices and weights or measures. But, as I have understood it, no tolerance has ever been

adopted on any commodity.

The Chairman. But if you have a standard loaf, that is a measure,

as the standard apple barrel is a measure, and the standard berry box.

Mr. Webster. I am afraid that the manufacturers would take it that

there was a tolerance on bread, and therefore they would make it 15J ounces and take advantage of it the same as the meat packers might

on wrapped hams, or anything of that sort. The Chairman. Even so, in cases of that kind there must be a tolerance, because they can not always weigh the same. For instance,

as an inspector what would you say should be the weight of a pound

of butter below which you would not accept it ? Mr. Webster. Personally, I never prosecute unless it is an ounce under weight. I think it is picayunish to prosecute for anything less

than that amount. Of course, in a large number of pounds if it is

half an ounce it might be considered.

The Chairman. You have practically done in the case of butter

what you dislike to do with bread.
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 87

Mr. Webster. Well, we have never gone on record. We have used

our own judgment as to what should be a tolerance.

(The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

The Chairman. The question is on the original motion as amended.

(The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

The Chairman. It is carried, and the matter will be referred to the

regular committee on specifications and tolerances.

G-ENEKAL DISCUSSION OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES PROBLEMS.

NECESSITY EOR SPECIFICATIONS AND TOMSJANCES FOR HEAVT-DUTT

AUTOMATIC SOAIJES.

Mr. Eeichmann. Mr. Chairman, in this general discussion there

are two matters that I would like to bring up, and I would like to

put them in the form of motions. The first is, that one of the orders

of business of the next annual conference be the question of automaticindicating scales with capacities of 600 pounds and over. There are no definite specifications on these scales in the specifications adopted by any previous conference. The subject is one

that is receiving very considerable attention by industrial plants.

I know from personal experience that a number of them are setting

very peculiar, arbitrary rules, and some of their purchasing agents

have nothing to guide them.

I move that one of the orders of business for the next annual con- ference be that subject, and that the committee consider drawing

up specifications for consideration at the next conference on automatic indicating scales of 500 pounds and over. The Chairman. You have heard the motion. I like the precedent

which is being established here. I think we should always as far ae possible bring up the subjects to be discussed at the next meeting.

Mr. Eeichmann. I will frankly state to you that that is a matter

which is going to be taken up by the English Board of Trade Avithin

the next year very seriously. I was asked by a prominent Englishman what the Bureau of Standards or the conference had done in

relation to this particular kind of scales, and I could not give him

any information. But I did, as a matter of pride, tell him it was

a matter that had been agitating the members of the conference

considerably, and I did not think that there was any doubt but

what this subject would be taken up very soon. (The motion was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion

was agreed to.)

necessity for regulations IN RE FABRIC-MEASURING DEVICES.

Mr. Eeichmann. I now move that the committee on specifications

and tolerances prepare specifications and tolerances for fabricmeasuring and automatic-computing devices embodying the principle, as follows : A linear measuring device that automatically computes the money value (at a given price per unit of length) of the

article measured shall have a correct computed money value for

every length indication that is shown on the linear measure indicator.

There are a great many of these machines in the United States,

and they are of various makes. They have been brought to the
88 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

attention of manufacturers and sealers and the public generally,

very pointedly through some of the excellent work done by the

State of Massachusetts and the State of New York, in which they

have a specification, particularly applicable also to computing scales,

that where you have an automatic indicating and computing device

it must show the computed value wherever there is an indication.

I would like to add to that motion that the conference request at

the same time that the Bureau of Standards prepare a field-test plan

for such measuring devices, to be submitted to the next conference, so

as to bring about a state of uniformity and equity all around.

The Chairman. If the bureau does that, we do not Avant to be

accused of going into these things that you yourselves claim the right

to do,

Mr. Eeichmann. My only reason for bringing in that as a part

of my motion is that the question of technique in laying out a field

method of test is a matter that in some instances is very important.

And really most of the individual departments in cities and counties,

and so on, are not equipped to handle that from the technical end;

that is, I mean from the scientific technical end. In view of the

fact that the conference tolerance committee is not a part of the

bureau, I made that part of the motion as to the bureau.

The Chairman. The point is very well taken. The bureau will

agree to do that. In all such cases as that we simply look upon

ourselves as a medium for getting the information on which you base

your decision.

(The motion was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion

was agreed to.)

NECESSITY FOR REGULATION OF TANK WAGONS.

Mr. Barron. I would like to ask that the committee on specifications and tolerances be instructed by the conference to consider the

subject of drawing up specifications and tolerances on tank wagons

and the appointments thereof, having in mind old tanks or tanks in use and also new tanks to be built according to the conference's ideas of

what those tanks should be in order to be accepted as measures. There is a universal demand for this.

(The motion was seconded.)

Mr. Goodwin. Mr. President and delegates, the increasing use of

gasoline and lubricating oils has become such an important factor in

the commercial life of every community that the question of the

proper supervision of the sale of these commodities should be given

close and mature consideration by this conference. I have discovered

conditions which lead me to the conclusion that the sale of gasoline

by wholesale dealers, as delivered by their tanks, is a veritable menace

to honest measure, which should be corrected at once by this association.

The Chairman. Are there any further remarks?

Mr. Stewart. First, I want to state my position as that of being

absolutely opposed to using a tank at all as a measure. I want to

tell you some little experience I have had in that. A tank wagon

got into a wreck. The connection to the spigot was broken off. They had to take that piece out and put a new one in. When they

put the new one in it extended up into the tank perhaps three-quar-
FOURTEENTH CONFEEENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 89

ters of an inch or more, and it was impossible to get all the fluid out

of that tank. That is one of my objections. Another objection is

that in unloading a tank it must stancl on a perfect level. If it does

not, there is gasoline left in one end of the tank or the other.

(The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

REPOKT OF COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLEBANCES,

PHESENTED BY F. S. HOLBKOOK, CHAIRMAN.^

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, your committee on specifications and

tolerances respectfully submits its report to the Fourteenth Annual

Conference for consideration and action thereon.

For the convenience of the delegates this report has been arranged

in two parts. Part I contains amendments to the specifications of

such a character that a material change in the form or meaning of

the specification is believed to be involved. These changes are recommended by the committee because the committee feels that they are necessary or desirable and improve the specifications as a whole.

Part II contains amendments to the specifications of such a character that but little change in meaning is believed to be involved.

The committee feels that the proposed amendments would be advantageous, since they clarify the ideas and present them in a somewhat

better form.

It is to be understood that the ^bove classifications are very general

in their terms and the classes are necessarily overlapping ones, since

the making of any changes in the wording of a specification is apt to

modify its meaning somewhat. However, the committee feels that,

on the whole, the above explanation is a fair statement of the case, and that the division may prove useful to the delegates.

The old members of your committee desire at this time to announce

with very great regret the retirement of Charles G. Johnson from

this committee on account of the fact that he has resigned his official

position as State superintendent of weights and measures of California. Mr. Johnson was a thorough, painstaking, and conscientious

member and a splendid associate, and we feel that his resignation is a distinct loss to the committee and to the general cause of weights

and measures. The old members of your committee, however, consider the confer- ence fortunate in the acquisition by the committee of W. T. White,

director, State bureau of weights and measures of NeAv York, and are

certain that in his appointment to fill the vacancy a valuable member

has been procured who will be of the greatest assistance in carrying on the work devolving upon the committee. Both Mr. Johnson

and Mr. White subscribe to the recommendations contained in this

report.

Respectfully,

(Signed) F. S. Holbbook,

Wm. F. Cltjett,

_W. T. White,

Corrmdttee on Speeificatio'ns and Tolerances,

Annual Conference.

" The text of the specifications and tolerances for liquid-measuring devices as amended

by the conference will be found in Appendix I, p. 123.
90 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

DISCUSSION OF REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND

T0LERANCES.12

The Chairman. I take it that it will be unnecessary to read the

suggestions of the committee as a whole, since they are rather voluminous and you have copies of them in your hands; but the material

will now be read section by section for discussion and action thereon.

Mr. HoLBRooK. The first suggestion of the committee is an amendment to specification No. 3, the amendment consisting of the following recommendation:

Strike out the first sentence and insert in lieu tliereof the following: "All

liqu'i.d-mensiiring devices shall be so designed and constructed that they will

he in normal operating position lohen they are in level." The sentence which it is suggested be stricken out reads as follows

The longitudinal axis of the measuring cylinder or chamber shall be accurately plumb when the device is in level. Shortly after the last conference the committee's attention was

called to the fact that there might be liquid-measuring devices built

in which the cylinder might be laid on its side or placed at an angle.

They might be designed to operate in that manner. The intention of

the committee last year was merely to the effect that when the measuring device was so designed that the cylinder was intended to be plumb

it should, in fact, be plumb when the device was in one position,

namely, level.

In view of that suggestion the committee, under the authority of

the conference to incorporate their conclusions in regard to which

provisions should be made retroactive and which should take effect

in the future, bracketed that sentence and provided that it should not

take effect until July 1, 1921. We now suggest the change that liquidmeasuring devices shall be so designed and constructed that they will

be in normal operating position when they are in level, and the re- quirement is made that they shall be installed plumb and level. In

that case when properly installed they will be in normal operating

position.

The Chairman. You have heard this suggested amendment to the

specification. Are there any remarks or any questions?

(It was moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, the

question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. HoLBROOK. The next suggested amendment is one which is not

on the copy which you have, since it has been decided upon by the

committee within the last few days. Present specification No. 5 is

to the effect that liquid-measuring devices shall be of a capacity of 1

gallon, a multiple of the gallon, or a binary submultiple of the gallon.

The committee now recommends that in addition to those sizes a 2^-

gallon pump be allowed, and therefore suggests that after the words

"a multiple of the gallon" in the old specification the words "2J

gallons " be added.

(It was moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted.)

Mr. CuMMiNGS. Several months ago, some time after the last conference, in Massachusetts, the specifications which were adopted at

The test of the specifications and tolerances for liquid-measuring devices as amended

by the conference wiU be found In Appendix I, p. 123.
FOURTEENTH CONFEEENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, 91

that conference were published in pamphlet form, together with two

additional specifications that were adopted subsequent to the confer- ence at a meeting of Massachusetts sealers. Those specifications are now being more or less rigidly applied in Massachusetts. Our experience in Massachusetts has been that a pump with a 2-|-gallon delivery, in connection with a 2-gallon delivery, was one which might

facilitate the perpetration of fraud, and it is not allowed by our

specifications. The consensus of opinion in Massachusetts is against

any change.

Mr. HoLBEOOK. In relation to this I may state that there was submitted to the Bureau of Standards for test a 2-|-gallon pump. It was

tested very carefullj^, and a copy of the report of that test was made

available to the committee. It appears that on account of the fact

that gasoline is so generally sold in 5-gallon units and 10-gallon

units these amounts could very readily be arrived at by two or four

strokes of this device.

Mr. Foster. It is a very easy matter for an operator of this 2|-

gallon pump to stop at 2, and by giving two strokes of the piston give

the customer 4 gallons and charge for 5. That seems to be the real

objection to a 2^-gallon pump in the eyes of the sealers who have had

experience with this particular pump. It was for that reason that

there was adopted the Massachusetts regulation to which Mr. Cummings has referred. It is a device, in our opinion, that might be used

for the perpetration of fraud. I sincerely hope that this recommendation will not be adopted.

Mr. Baeron. I did not get the real idea of the last speaker. Why

is it easier to defraud with that than it is with a 5-gallon pump

equipped with a 4-gallon stop? I think that is a matter of supervisory work.

The Chairman. I presume the point made is that the full stroke is

2J gallons in one case and 2 gallons in another.

Mr. Foster. That is the point, a 2-gallon stroke is used instead

of 2h

The Chaieman. Is it clearly marked?

Mr. HoLBEOOK. It must be under the specifications. We think the

2-|-gallon size is unobjectionable, without taking into account any

special pump, on account of the fact that gasoline is sold so generally

in 6-gallon units, and this is one-half of that unit which is so commonly called for. I do not know whether the objection of the gentleman is directed to the capacity of the pump or to other points which

are not under consideration now. We are merely directing our attention to the total capacity.

Mr. CtTMMiNGS. The particular objection is that Massachusetts has

adopted specifications with which the manufacturers in general are complying. We think they are good specifications. The sealers of

weights and measures in Massachusetts have adopted those specifications after mature deliberation, and regardless of what action this

conference might take in permitting the use of a 2-J-gallon stop, I do

not think Massachusetts will change their specifications. I do not

think the sealers will stand for it. Mr. Eeiohmann. I am very much interested in this very proposition

and am very glad to learn from the tolerance committee which re- ported the change that they have made some very exhaustive tests
92 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

at the bureau. Independent of that I had also made some tests, and

I can not see, to save my life, how there could be any injury done to

the consumer with this particular type of device which otherwise

would be arbitrarily ruled out. I move the question.

(The question was taken and, upon a division, the vote was declared a tie.)

(It was moved and seconded at this point that the conference adjourn, the question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

(Thereupon, at 4 o'clock p. m., the conference adjourned to meet

at 10 o'clock a. m., Thursday, May 26, 1921.)
SEVENTH SESSION (MORNING OF THURSDAY, MAY 26,

1921).

The conference reassembled at 10 o'clock a. m., at the Bureau of

Standards, Dr. S. W. Stratton, chairman, presiding.

DISCUSSION OF REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND

TOLERANCES—Gontinued.13

The Chairman. Yesterday at adjournment we were discussing the

report of the committee on specifications and tolerances. We had just

taken a vote on an amendment to specification No. 5, which was a tie. The Chair would prefer to have a broader discussion. All manufacturers, of course, have a free voice here, and we welcome their suggestions, but the voting will have to be confined to the official delegates.

Mr. HoLBKooK. To refresh your minds on this point, the committee recommends in specification No. 5 after the words " a multiple

of the gallon " that the words " 2^ gallons " be added. The specification as it stands at present states that pumps shall be made m ca- pacities of 1 gallon, a multiple of the gallon, or a binary submultiple

of the gallon. In view of the fact that gasoline is very generally sold

in 5 or 10 gallon amounts, and these amounts can be measured by

two strokes or four strokes, respectively, on a 2|-gallon pump, the

committee is of the opinion that this size pump should be allowed.

Mr. Reichmann. Mr. Chairman, representing Kentucky, as I spoke

on this yesterday, I would like to briefly state again what I said yesterday, as many of the delegates were not here. There are quite a number, a great number, of pumps in use in the country on which

there is a ^^-gallon stroke. The attitude that I have always taken

is that if the pump does, in fact, deliver 2-^- gallons, which it purports

to deliver, there is no reason why a 2^-gallon stroke should not be

allowed. If it is a question of detail as to stops, that would come

under an entirely different specification. If it is a question of inaccuracy in delivery, that is a question of supervision for the sealers.

Mr. C. C. Ramsdell (representing Gilbert & Barber Manufacturing Co.). We do not build a 2^-gallon pump, but I do not see the

point of this objection. It has been said that the operator can stop

his stroke at two and with two strokes furnish the consumer with 4

gallons, when he supposes he is getting 5. It seems to me if this is

an objection to the 2|-gallon pump, it is an objection against all stops

on pumps. Personally, I should favor the report of the committee.

Mr. Fkart. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cummings, of Massachusetts, and

the other delegates of that State are unable to be present this morning on account of an engagement at the Capitol. He asked that the

vote on this matter be postponed until this afternoon's session.

I therefore move that action upon this specification be postponed

until the afternoon session to-day.

(The motion was seconded.)

^ The text of the specifications and tolerances ifor liquid-measuring devices as amended

by the conference will be found in Appendix I, p. 123. 93
BUKEAtr or STANDARDS.

Mr. Eeiohmann. There is a great deal to be done with the specifications. This is the last day of the conference, and there are the

election of officers and reports of other committees, etc. I know that

there is going to be considerable discussion of many other points.

Personally, I think this is a veiy minor point. I think there is no

place where it has been brought up except in the State of Massachusetts. If we defer action on this now, we might have the same situation as to every other point. Simply in the interest of expediting

the matter I would like to see the motion not prevail.

Mr. Barron. I can see no valid objection to the recommendation to

allow a 2^-gallon pump. I think if we bar a 2|-gallon pump we are unnecessarily and arbitrarily doing something which no weights and

measures men should do ; that is, to bar a device which we earnestly

believe can be properly used by a reasonably careful man to deliver

to a customer the amount he is paying for. That, in my opinion, is

the sole object of weights and measures regulations. If the pump in

question meets that statement of facts, I can not see any objection

to it. (The question was taken, and the motion was rejected.)

The Chairman. That brings us to the question of the adoption of

the amendment as it has been read.

(The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. HoLBROOK. The next amendment is to specification No. 8, the

recommendation reading as follows:

At the end of the first paragraph add the following : " Provided, however, That

when a liquid-measuring device is operated faster than normal speed of operation the tolerance shall be applied in deficiency only ; that is, the liquid-measuring device shall not be deemed to be incorrect by reason of the tolerance in excess being exceeded during such operation."

The first paragraph of specification No. 8 now reads as follows

Constancy of delivery.—The amounts delivered by any liquid-measuring device

shall not vary from the standard by more than the tolerances hereinafter provided, irrespective of the speed at which the apparatus is operated and, subject

to the conditions of the special test described below, irrespective of the time

elapsing between operations.

Just a few words in explanation of that specification. After very

careful examination we have found the following phenomena in the

case of piston-type pumps : Many piston-type pumps in perfect mechanical condition will deliver the correct amount of liquid when the

pump is cranked slowly, will deliver the correct amount of liquid

when the pump is cranked at what might be termed "normal"

speed—about the speed which the average operator would normally

use—but when pumped very rapidly, the stroke being finished very

rapidly against the stop, an excess is often delivered, which is usually

greater than the tolerance as at present provided.

The explanation of this excess is a very simple one. When you

start cranking a pump rapidly you put in rapid motion a large

volume of gasoline, that gasoline being, of course, in rapid motion

from the level of the liquid in the tank to the end of the outlet line.

That liquid has a great deal of inertia and possesses energy which is

proportional to the speed at which the liquid is flowing. In other

words, the faster the liquid is going the greater the energy, and the

liquid tends to keep in motion after the stroke of the piston is

stopped.
FOURTEENTH CONEERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 95

All the valves in the line necessarily open in an upward direction.

If the energy of the liquid column is great enough the valves will be

momentarily held open after the stroke is stopped and an indeterminate quantity of unmeasured gasoline will pass through the system. That energy will be dissipated very quickly, due to the fact

that the gasoline is rising against gravity, to the fact that the valves

are tending to close against it, to the friction of the liquid against

the pipes and the walls of the chamber, and perhaps to some other

causes. Bear in mind that this excess only occurs when the pump is stroked

rapidly and stopped suddenly. Bear in mind also that effect is

always overmeasure. Bear in mind also that this happens when the

pumps are in perfect mechanical condition; this is not an effect of

the imperfect condition of a pump. The operator of the pump can by operating it in this manner give overmeasure, and the cause of

that ovenneasure is entirely within his control. He can operate the

pump in a normal manner and see to it that overmeasure does not

result.

After very careful consideration the committee is of the opinion

that the mere fact that the pump throws overmeasure under the conditions which I have detailed is not a sufficient cause for the con- demnation of the pmnp. Therefore they suggest the addition of

certain words to the specification, which words are so designed as to

provide that under the specific conditions which I have pointed out

the pump shall not be condemned because the tolerance in excess is

exceeded upon a fast stroke. A tolerance in deficiency, if exceeded,

will be sufficient for condemnation, but the tolerance in excess is ex- tended, if you please, on account of the facts which I have endeavored

to detail.

(It was moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, the

question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. HoLBROOK. The next is an amendment to specification No. 21.

This specification allows two discharge outlets under conditions

which are designed to protect the operator of the pump and the per- son buying gasoline from inaccuracy due to the fact that there are two discharge outlets. The recommendation is to the effect that after

the words "period of discharge" near the end of the second paragraph the following words be inserted

and the closure shall be so effected that deliverj' made through one discharge

outlet shall not affect the subsequent delivei-y through any other discharge

outlet. This makes paragraph two of the specification read, in part, as follows

Also, when two or more discharge outlets for the liquid are provided all outlets except the one in use must automatically be tightly and completely closed

ofE during the period of discharge, and the closure shall be so effected that delivery made through one discharge outlet shall not affect the subsequent delivery

through any other discharge outlet.

It has been pointed out that a pump might be constructed, and I

think perhaps some pumps have been so constructed in the past, that

when one discharge outlet is used not only the measured liquid was

delivered but a certain excess was delivered which was drawn from

the other discharge line. In other words, under those conditions a
96 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

customer buying from that outlet would get overmeasure and would

take that overmeasure, that excess, from the next purchaser, who

would necessarily get the amount of shortage equivalent to the

amount of liquid which was required to fill that line which had been

partly drained. It seems to the committee that there should be very

little argument on the question that one customer should not get

something belonging to another customer.

I am not sure that pumps are being so built at the present time as

to allow this to be done, but whether or not they are being built I

think it will be granted that they should not be built. It may be

that the intent of this specification is obtainable through the enforcement of tolerances, because if the inspector should draw first from

one outlet and then from the other outlet, and should find one outlet

was overmeasuring and one undermeasuring, the pump would be

condemned anyway. But we think the matter is important enough to

be covered in a specification, and therefore we have recommended

the addition of these words at this place.

(It was moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted.)

Mr. Goodwin. I think a very simj)le device could be constructed to

prevent anything of the kind occurring. Have you recommended a device ? Mr. HoLBROOK. We never recommend a device.

(The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. HoLBRooK. Returning to specification No. 21 just a moment

for the sake of simplifying the explanation of the amendment to

specification No. 22, the former specification provides that all liquidmeasuring devices shall be so designed and constructed that no portion of the measured liquid can be diverted from the one discharge

outlet through which delivery is being made or to be made during the

operation of the liquid-measuring device. Specification No. 21, then,

contemplates under certain conditions more than one outlet. Specification No. 22 as at present worded appears to forbid more than one

discharge outlet unless one of them is controlled by a mechanically

operated valve.

With the addition that we have already made to specification No.

21, providing that deliveries through one outlet shall not affect subsequent deliveries through the other outlet, it no longer is necessary to

forbid, in the opinion of the committee, more than one discharge outlet on a liquid-measuring device. Therefore the specification has

been reworded to provide against the trapping of a portion of the

measured liquid, and if this is made impossible, and if under specification No. 21 one outlet can not affect the deliveries from the other

both must be correct—then there seems to be no reason why two

outlets should not be allowable. Therefore the committee has suggested that the first paragraph of the specification be stricken out

and that the following be inserted

No liquid-measuring device shall be equipped with a shut-off valve at the

extremity of the hose or elsewhere in the hose line except in the case of devices

designed and constructed so that they must be operated with the hose full of

liquid at all times. In case such valve is used any other valve in any portion

of the discharge line leading to this outlet must be so designed and constructed

that it can only be closed off by the use of some tool or device which is outside

of and entirely separate from the measuring device itself, such as a wrench, screw driver, etc., but not an adjusting pin.
rOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 97

That specification as reworded allows the valve in the end of the

hose under the same conditions that the valve in the end of the

hose was allowed last year. It does not allow two manually operated

valves such that at the beginning of a delivery one near the pump

can be turned on and at the end of the delivery one at a distance

from the pump can be turned off. I may say that evidence has come

to our hands that that practice was sometimes followed by unscrupulous operators. But in case the purchaser is adequately protected

in other respects two manually operated valves are allowed under

the terms of this specification, the second manually operated valve

to be in some other portion of the delivery line than the portion

which leads directly to the first manually operated cut-off valve. It

is not necessary under the present amendment to strike out the words

" shut off " in the title. Therefore, that recommendation may be considered as withdrawn.

The second paragraph has been changed by striking out the words

" two shut-off valves or cocks" and adding the words " a shut-off

valve in the hose," to conform to the amendinent made in paragraph

No. 1. Paragraph No. 3, under the new wording, becomes meaningless and is therefore struck out in toto. (It was moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, the

question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. HoLBEOOK.. The next is an amendment to specification No. 26,

reading as follows

At the end of the specification add tlie following : " And prov-ided further.

That nothing in the above shall he construed to prevent the omission of all value graduations from a clear interval between the zero gradvation and any

subsequent graduation."

making the specification read that certain graduations must be provided with this exception.

There was a great deal said last year about the omission of some

of these smaller quantity graduations, and many of the manufacturers indicated their intention of cutting off some of these. Certainly there should be no objection if the manufacturers desire to

leave off computing graduations over that range also, because if

there are no quantity graduations and a manufacturer does not intend

to make it possible to measure those small amounts there is absolutely

no reason for requiring computing values there. It seems, however

and this is somewhat doubtful—that perhaps those graduations are

at present required, and we certainly want to make it perfectly plain

in the specification that they do not need to be put there unless the

manufacturer desires to put them there.

(It was moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, the

question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. HoLBEOOK. The next is an amendment to specification 27, as follows

After the word " devices " insert the words : " and all devices designed to be

attached thereto and used in connection therewith "

making the specification read as follows

No. 27. Fraudulent construction prohibited.—All liquid-measuring devices

and all devices designed to be attached thereto and used in connection therewith shall be of such construction that they are not designed to and may not

be used to facilitate the perpetration of fraud.

67370—22 7
98 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

A number of auxiliary devices are now coming on the market,

and it certainly seems reasonable, if we do not allow a fraudulent

pump in use, that we should not allow a device to be attached to

the pump which would be fraudulent in its effect, whether the

original manufacturer installs it or whether it is a device manufactured by somebody else intended to be installed on the original

manufacturer's product.

(It was moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, the

question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. HoLBEOOK. The next matter is the question of tolerances, and

here the committee has merely presented a number of alternatives

to be considered by the delegates; the committee has made no rec- ommendation as between a number of different systems of toler- ances. They suggest, first, that the following words be added at

the beginning of the tolerance paragraph : " Except on special tests described above."

Those words are rendered necessary by the adoption of the specification that the tolerance in excess may be exceeded at the conclusion of a fast stroke. The committee then appends the following

note in regard to values of the tolerances

In regard to the values of the tolerances, if the present ones are not con- sidered satisfactory, the following alternatives are offered for consideration.

riie committee is firmly of the belief that the tolerances on fractional parts of a gallon can not be made the same fractional part

of the tolerance on 1 gallon that the delivery is of 1 gallon. However,

it was assumed last year, and perhaps with some reason, that the

tolerance on a half gallon would be half the tolerance on a gallon;

that the tolerance on a quart would be one-quarter of the tolerance

on a gallon; that the tolerance on a pint would be one-eighth the

tolerance on a gallon; and that the tolerance on a half pint and 1 gill would be one-sixteenth and one thirty-second, respectively, of

the tolerance on a gallon. Very quickly in going down the line in

this manner you will come to a point where the tolerance is so small

that the sealer will be wholly unable to measure it. In the field

measurements can be made with accuracy doAvn to a certain point,

and beyond that point accuracy is unobtainable.

The committee last year recommended that the tolerance on a gallon should be 2 cubic inches, and that additional tolerances of

2 cubic inches per measured gallon should be alloAved, without giving

enough consideration to how that Avould be interpreted on amounts

less than 1 gallon. It subsequently developed that in the opinion of

some delegates the tolerances should decrease proportionate^ with

deliveries, but I think that all you men who are practical men realize

that to attempt to measure within an accuracy of one-eighth of a cubic inch, for instance, in the field and to condemn a pump on a

one-eighth-inch error would be an entirely impracticable proposition.

The same theory is recognized in the case of scales. The scaletolerance table is given, and it is automatically interrupted from

further decrease at a certain point—in the case of automatic scales,

for instance—by the provision that the tolerance in the table shall

apply, provided, however, that the tolerance shall never be less

than one-quarter of the minimum graduation on the reading face.

That means that while the table may show one-sixteenth ounce, one-
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 99

eighth ounce, and one-fourth ounce, nevertheless, if the minimum

graduation is 1 ounce the tolerance to be applied to the scale is never

less than one- fourth ounce. The committee believes that similarly in the case of gasoline

pumps—and while this is not an exact analogy it is, nevertheless, a close analogy—the tolerance should decrease doAvn to a certain point,

and that then below that point the same tolerance should be allowed

on all values, and that that tolerance should be one which can

easily be read by the sealer.

You can not do better than that. Anyone who has attempted to

make observations knows there is a limit of accuracy beyond which

he can not readily go. That limit of accuracy necessarily can not

be considered as a tolerance. Suppose from all the cavises of error probable the sealer's detei-mination may be half a cubic inch in

error. In our opinion the tolerance on a device should be some four

or five times that error which it is j^robable the sealer will make.

In the case of weights we know that we carry in the field certain

test weights. We know that those test weights themselves may be

in error by any amount up to the limit of tolerance on test weights.

Then, the limit of tolerance on commercial weights is made four or

five times the tolerance on the test weights of the sealer, for the reason that if the tolerance was not very considerably larger too

large a proportion of the commercial tolerance would be absorbed

in the error on the test weight itself. In other words, to return to

the consideration of pumps, the pump can not, in practice, be allowed

the entire tolerance granted to it; but a certain proportion, which

should be a small proportion, will be taken up by the more or less

constant error of determination. Roughly, the error of determination may be said to consist of the error on the sealer's measure, which

necessarily has a tolerance, the error due to spillage or evaporation,

the error due to the trapping of a small amount of gasoline in the

hose, the error due to inaccurate filling of the test measure, and the

error due to inaccuracy of reading.

Those items will all be added together to make an inaccuracy in

the sealer's determination, and then in good practice it must be

considered that the tolerance on the device should be perhaps four

times as large as that probable inaccuracj;', so that the device will be

allowed a sufficient tolerance in itself and too much of the value

given will not have been absorbed by the error which the inspector

may have made.

To return to the suggestions of the committee, the first alternative,

lettered "A," is given if you think the present tolerances are satisfactory, ancl it provides that the specification be amended simply to

provide that on 1 gallon or less the tolerance shall be 2 cubic inches,

and on amounts greater than 1 gallon it shall be 2 cubic inches per

gallon.

AVe have heard, however, some discussion among the inspectors to

the effect that while the tolerances on small amounts were not too

large, and possibly in the opinion of some too small, nevertheless,

to allow 2 cubic inches on every gallon delivered, resulted in the

tolerances on the larger amoimts being A'ery much too large. It has

been pointed out, and reasonably, that some errors will show up

just as prominently on the first gallon delivered as on the capacity
100 BUREAU OF STANDARDS,

of the pump, for instance, 5 gallons. If there is a slight leakage

due to standing and you pump 1 gallon you will have 1 gallon minus

that leakage, and if you pump 5 gallons you will have 5 gallons

minus that leakage. Therefore, they have considered that a straight

line tolerance of 2 cubic inches per gallon resulted in too much toler- ance on the larger quantities. With this thought in mind the following four tables were prepared for your consideration

Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4.

Delivery.

Toler- ance. Delivery. Toler- ance. Delivery. Tolerance. Delivery.

Cubic

inches.

Cubic

inches.

1 gallon or less. 2 gallons

3 gallons

4 gallons

gallons

6 gallons

7 gallons

s gallons

9 gallons

10 gallons

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0 6.0

7.0 8.0

9.0 10.0

11.0

i gallon or less.

1 gallon

2 gallons

3 gallons

4 gallons

5 gallons

6 gallons

7 gallons

8 gallons

9 gallons

id gallons

1.0 2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

S.O 9.0

10.0

11.0

1 pint or loss

1 quart

I gallon

1 gallon

2 gallons. . .

3 gallons. ... 4 gallons. . .

5 gallons. . .

6 gallons. . . 7 gallons. . .

8 gallons

9 gallons. . .

10 gallons. .

Cubic

inches. 1.0

1.5 2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

§ gallon or less.

1 gallon

2 gallons

3 gallons

4 gallons

5 gallons

6 gallons

7 gallons

8 gallons

9 gallons

10 gallons

For deliveries of over 10 gallons add 1 cubic inch per indicated gallon.

Table 1 provides that the tolerance on 1 gallon or less shall be 2

cubic inches, and it adds 1 cubic inch per measured gallon above

that.

Table 2 provides that the tolerance on a half gallon or less be 1

cubic inch—and this may be if it is believed that the sealer can be

reasonably certain of results to one-fifth or one-fourth of a cubic

inch—2 cubic inches on 1 gallon, and 1 additional cubic inch per

measured gallon above that.

Table No. 3 provides a 3-cubic inch tolerance on 1 gallon. It goes

down to 1 cubic inch, and further allows 1 cubic inch per measured

gallon above the 1-gallon delivery.

Table No. 4 provides for 3 cubic inches on a gallon, a minimum of

2 cubic inches on one-half gallon or less, and 1 cubic inch per gallon

above the 1-gallon point.

The committee has merely selected a number of ideas and put them

into various tables and leaves it entirely to the judgment of the conference as to which system of tolerances is best.

Moreover, let me say this, that if anybody has an opinion which

has not been expressed by the committee, because necessarily the

committee, in the premises, can not suggest all the systems there are, I will be glad to Avrite upon the blackboard, where everybody can

see it, the system that anyone has to suggest.

The Chairman. Does the committee especially favor any of these

systems ? Mr, HoLBROOK, The committee makes no especial recommendation.

Mr, Ramsdell, I should favor alternative A and the present tolerances, for the reason that in the time-elapsed tests that are made

in some places considerable liquid will be absorbed in wetting the
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 101

hose and in wetting the measure, as was pointed out to us in Mr.

Smith's paper yesterday, and in such tests quite a considerable

amount appeal's as a shortage that really does not exist so far as the actual measurement is concerned.

Mr. HoLBROOK. In relation to time-elapsed tests, specification No.

8^ in the second paragraph, provides that " a period of nonuse of

six hours shall not result in an error of the first delivery of the

device after such period of nonuse greater than 10 cubic inches or, in

the case of a new liquid-measuring device, 5 cubic inches." Of course,

this specification would not be changed unless there was specific

action taken thereon.

Mr. Ramsdell. In a test after a period of five or six hours, during

which time the pump stands idle, the hose will become dry.

Mr. HoLBEOOK. You remember, do you not, Mr. Ramsdell, the

fourth paragraph of specification No. 8

In applying the six-hour test it is recommended that the delivery be not

made through a hose, since the amount of gasoline necessary to wet the inside

of the hose will cause an additional shortage in the delivery.

Mr. Eamsdell. I had overlooked that. It is rather difficult to

make a test without a hose on many of the pumps we are buildingto-day. It is rather difiicult to make a test of that kind or to make

any test without the use of the hose.

Mr. HoLBROOK. Mr. Ramsdell, I ask for information. Suppose

that the gasoline is delivered through a hose and the hose is hung

up, allowing the liquid to drain down into the loop of the hose.

How much will evaporate, do you suppose, under reasonable conditions, in six hours ? It has a very small nozzle from which to evaporate. I know it depends largely on the grade of gasoline, and there

are many factors entering into it, but I thought perhaps you had

some idea.

Mr. Ramsdell. I think it is your intention, is it not, that the hose

should be dry. That is the idea of the overhead discharge, so that

every drop shall go into the buyer's tank. It leaves us an empty

hose that is wet with gasoline that would perhaps dry out in the

course of a few hours.

Mr. Holbeook;. Necessarily, after the hose has been practically

drained into the tank of the car, and it is hung up, there will some

gasoline collect in the bottom of this loop. But it is certainl}' the

intention of the committee, Mr. Ramsdell, that every precaution

shall be taken to eliminate errors such as this, namel}', the loss occa- sioned by the wetting of a drj hose. Investigations might be made

by taking the ordinary hose and ordinary gasoline, making conditions normal in so far as possible, to determine how much it takes

to wet the hose after six hours, and to suggest to the sealers that

that amount be actually allowed, in addition to the tolerance, for

wetting the hose in cases where the tests are made by delivering

gasoline through the hose.

Of course on the pumps which come in to the bureau for test we remove the hose and add a short length of smooth pipe at an

angle which can not collect any appreciable amount of gasoline, so that there will be no unknown factors entering into our results.

Mr. Reichmann. May I move, then, that the conference request

the Bureau of Standards to make the tests outlined by Mr. Holbrook,
102 BUKEAU OF STANDAEDS.

and pending that investigation, the results of that test, that the toler- ances allowed in section 8 stand as they -would naturally anyway.

(The motion was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion

was agreed to.)

Mr. EEicHMANisr. On this tolerance I would like to make a motion.

A great many of the delegates, apparent^, from what I learn since

being down here in the last two or three da3^s, are in favor of alternative A. A great many of them, however, making an analysis and

recognizing that the error curve is not a straight line function in

ordinarjf measuring instruments, believe that there should be a smaller tolerance on 10 gallons than 20 cubic inches.

I suggest we adopt Table 4 as a fair compromise of all the tolerance

tables suggested here.

Mr. Bakron. I second the motion. I just want to say briefly that

a careful stud}^ of the situation has led me to approve everything

that Mr. Holbrook has suggested in regard to variations. Table 4

comes closer than the others to what we have found in practical

field work to be almost a necessity on various types of pumps.

(The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. Holbrook. We have now covered Part I of the committee

report.

It is the mature conclusion of the committee that Part II contains

amendments which clarify the meaning of specifications or make

them a little smoother in their phraseology, but which really have

very little effect upon the meaning.

There is suggested an amenchnent to specification No. 5. Strike

out the word " prices " after the word " predetermined " and insert

in lieu thereof the word " A^alues."

(It was moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, the

question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. TIoLBRooK. Specification No. 6. Strike out the word "the"

before the word " piston " the first two times it occurs and insert in

lieu thereof the word " a " in each case. The use of the word "the" assumes there is necessarily a piston,

and the word " a " indicates that only when there is one the specification applies.

(It was moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, the

question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. HoLBROOK. Specification No. 9. After the words " major

ones " insert the words " are more prominent than and." In the last

sentence strike out the words " as the sole means " and insert in lieu

thereof the following : " which at some point or points or at all points

constitutes the sole or most sensitive means." It was provided in the

old specification that graduations be readily distinguishable one from

the other, and this adds the idea that the major ones shall be more

prominent than the minor ones. Perhaps a few words on the second change are advisable, as to

striking out the words " as the sole means " and adding the words

" which at some point or points or at all points constitutes the sole or most sensitive means." We considered last year that when a pointer and scale were used and no stops the pointer and scale constituted the sole means of determining deliveries.
rOUETBENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 103

One manufacturer during the year suggested to us more in fun

than in earnest, because he withdrew his suggestion immediately, that

at some points the pointer and scale were not the sole means, even when stops were not used, because they had a clocking device which

clocked off gallons one at a time and showed total deliveries, and

they had a metering device which also expressed the total number

of gallons. I think it will generally be admitted that the ordinary

clocking device and totaling meter are not sufficiently accurate to

determine deliveries, because they are very much less sensitive than

the present pointer and scale.

Therefore, inasmuch as, technically speaking, this dial also indicates deliveries and the meter also indicates deliveries, although the

pointer and the scale we know will universally be used because they

constitute the most sensitive indicating means on the device, it is recommended that the wording of the specification be changed to

read that the requirements take effect when the pointer and scale are the sole means or the most sensitive means of determining deliveries on pumps.

(It was moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, the

question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. HoLBROOK. The next is an amendment to specification No.

10. It was provided that " the width of that fart of the pointer or indicator which reaches to the finest graduation marks shall not he

greater than the width of such marhsy That carried the assumption that the pointer shall reach to the graduations, and yet that

provision is not specifically incorporated. Therefore, it is recommended that the words which I have read be struck out and the

following words substituted:

Such pointers and indicators as when used in conjunction with a gradua^ted

scale w dial constitute at some point or points or at all points the sole or most sensitive means of determining the amount of liquid discharged or the

value of the delivery at a predetermined price per unit of volume, shall reach

to the finest graduation marks, and the width of the pointer or indicator oi< of the end thereof shall not &e greater than the width of such marks.

(It was moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, the

question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. HoLBRooK. Specification 13. It is recommended that we

strike out the words " lines and " after the word " graduation,''^

and insert in lieu thereof the following

marks and shall be as close thereto as practicable, but shall not be so placed! as to interfere idth the accuracy of reading. Such figures—

Making the specification read as follows

Numbering of graduations.—Figures defining the mine of graduations shall be uniformly placed in reference to the graduation marks and shall be as close

thereto as practicable, but shall not be so placed as to interfere with the accu- racy of reading. Such figures shall be in regular sequence; that is, sequences

such as 5, 1, 2, 3, 4 shall not be permitted.

We have seen some visible devices in which the figures indicating

the value of the graduations were offset 90 degrees from the graduations, so that if a person stood directly in front of the device and

looked at the graduation he could not "see the figure. If he stood

directly in front of the figure, he could not see the graduation, and

the only point a,t which he could see both would be at some point
104 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

about halfway between, where his eye would cover the figure and

the graduation. We think the figures should be brought closer to

the graduations than that, in order that there may not be mistakes

in reading.

(It was moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, the

question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. HoLEROOK. Specification No. 15 has been entirely reworded,

because the changes were such that they could not very readily be

incorporated by specific insertions. The old specification reads as follows

All markings, instructions, and graduations required under these specifications

sJiall he such size, design, and location that they loill not tend to become obliter- ated hy dirt or oil, or for a.ny other reasojis tend easily to hecorae illegiMe.

The suggested rewording is:

All markings, instructions, figures, and graduations required under these

specifications shall he of such size, design, material, and location and sliall he

so applied or affixed that they will not tend easily to become obliterated or

illegible.

(It was moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, the

question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. HoLBROOK. Specification 19 contained a clause exempting such

devices as altered the price and delivery of liquid-measuring devices

from the application of its provisions. We now submit that there is no device which can be attached to a liquid-measuring pump which

will alter the price. The seller does that. Therefore, we suggest

striking out the words " jmce and conseque^itly the delivery of " and

adding the words " deliveries to conform to different prices fer gallon on.'''' (It Avas moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, the

(juestion was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

AMENDMENT OF LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICE SPECIFICATION

NO. 9.1*

Mr. Eeichmann. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring up a question that was brought up here last year with rather detrimental

personal results to a gentleman who had gasoline spilled over him. I

am referring to this sentence in specification No. 9:

The graduations on all linear scales shall be parallel to each other and per- pendicular to the longitudinal axis of the measuring chamber.

I move that we hear from Mr. Bean, who is interested in this

matter.

Mr. F. A. Bean (representing Wayne Oil Tank & Pump Co.). I

would like to ask the amendment of specification No. 9 by striking

out the words " the graduations on all linear scales shall be parallel

to each other and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the

measuring chamber." Last year I believe it was the concensus of

opinion that the large amount of objection Avas caused by the pointer

that Avas used in connection with the scale rather than with the scale

itself.

" The text of the specifications and tolerances for liquid-measuring devices as amended

hy the conference will be found in Appendix I, p. 123.
FOURTEENTH CONEERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 105

A number of designs were submitted to the committee, and I believe

they are of the opinion that, with the adoption of some one of those

designs, most of the objections—practically all of the objectionsraised last year and which caused the amendment of this specification

have been overcome. I do not believe it is the desire of the bureau

or of the conference to cause a hardship on any manufacturer. The

enforcement of this particular specification, however, does cause a very severe hardship. I do not think there is any question as to

either the mathematical or mechanical accuracy of the scale, and

when used in connection with the pointers which have been presented

to the committee I do not see any objection to its adoption.

Mr. Neale. Mr. Chairman, it happens that I am here this year

not as a delegate, as I have been for the last 12 years, but rather as your guest. The only reason I ask the liberty now to speak on the

subject in hand is that at last year's conference it was I who proposed the amendment now under consideration.

I had in mind a widely used pump, in which the graduations on

the scale are not parallel to each other. When I first saw such a

scale I did not understand it. It is quite natural for men in weights

and measures administration work to be fearful of machinery, or equipment, or the arrangement of things wliicli they do not fully

understand. Hence, I did not like the arrangement, but I was more

discouraged and disappointed at the crude arrangement of the readinw indicator that came against those lines at tliat time.

However, immediately after the last conference I went deeper into

the matter, visited this large pump manufacturing company, and

learned more of this arrangement, what it was, and why it was. I am

now confident that that particular scale, with a properly refined

pointer, is a scale that can be designed and can be read as correctly

as any scale, even though the lines are not parallel to each other.

If that scale with a properly designed pointer results in just as accurate a reading as may be obtained with any other design, then

I believe that Mr. Bean is not out of place here in asking that the

possibly hurried action of the last conference be reconsidered at this

time.

The Chairman. Has the committee anything to say on this ? Mr. HoLBROOK. I may state for the committee that while they have

carefully considered this they have no settled conviction one way

or the other on the matter. That is, as a committee they desire

neither to recommend nor disapprove the amendment to the specification. I may say, moreover, that the committee did not originally

propose this plan. It was proposed from the floor and adopted by

the conference, and the committee has felt and feels that its reconsideration should come from the floor of the conference and be acted

upon by the conference itself. If the committee had a conviction one way or the other, they would not hesitate to state that conviction.

But, after careful consideration, they have arrived at the conclusion

that they must remain absolutely neutral in relation to this matter.

Mr. Reichsiann. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Holbrook

a question. If a motion were made to strike out that one clause is there another specification which would cover the pointer feature ? Mr. HoLBROOK. I do not believe there is another specification that

would require the adoption of such a pointer as Mr. Bean has sub-
106 BUEEAU OF STANDARDS.

mittecl to the committee, for this reason, that the committee did not

have that particular scale in mind in wording the specification in

regard to indicators, and did not have to have it in mind, because

the conference forbade the scale at the last session. Let me say that

Mr. Bean's pointers are now such that they cut off all view of the

line back of the pointer itself. The onl}^ portion of the line which

can be seen is that part of it which may coincide Avith the pointer

and the remainder from that point on. If it is desired to block off

the remainder of that line, I do not believe there is any specification

which covers the matter.

Mr. Reichmann. Mr. Chairman, may I move, then, that that particular clause be stricken from the specification and that the committee will have, full power to act should there not be a specification that

will cover the pointer feature instead of the scale feature ? Mr. Barron. I second the motion.

Mr. Frart. In regard to the scale or pump represented b}'' Mr.

Bean, I wonder if all of us are thoroughly familiar with the significance of this change. When the matter was up last year, those

of us who were here then saw it demonstrated and understood the

inaccuracies which might result through the use of the scale and

the indicator. Mr. Holbrook has told us that the indicators now to

be used by the manufacturers on this particular pump and in con- nection with this particular scale are of such a character as to cut

off from the operator's and the buyer's view a certain portion of the

line. I would like to ask Mr. Bean if the arrangement of this present indicator is such that it can be either removed farther from

or drawn closer to the apparatus to which it is attached ? Mr. Bean. The new pointers are designed to be made of a tempered material, so that it will be impossible to bend them. Of course,

they are adjustable in a horizontal plane. That is the purpose of

the device itself. It can be adjusted, but that adjustment can be so sealed that it can not be moved at will. The operation of the pump

is the same as it was last year. Those pumps had stops at 1, 2, and

5 gallons. Now 3 and 4 gallon stops are being added. The only

points at which the scale would be used are the fractions of gallons.

(The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.^'') The Chairman. Now, I have a remark to make right here, and

it will take but a minute. I am very glad you have taken this up,

that you have acted upon it, and that you saw the necessity for making the change, and I want to ask the manufacturers that they trust

this conference to do that very thing. It is not necessary to resort

to any roundabout way such as the bringing to bear of any political

influence. Since this matter has been passed, I Avant to say that in

the last few days I have had calls from three Members of Congress

regarding this point, asking the bureau not to put this out as passed

before. It is the right of every member to appeal to his Representative in Congress for anything he wants, but please give these gentlemen the opportunity to act upon the thing and to go at it in the

right way, and let us not introduce politics into these deliberations.

The material referred to In this resolution is incorporated in liquid-measuring device

specification No. 10. See Appendix I, p. 126.
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 107

REPORT OF THE TREASURER, FRANK WANSER, PRESENTED BY

A. W. SCHWARTZ.

I beg to present the report of the treasurer, as follows

Balance on hand, 1920 report $49. 85

Receipts, 1920 assessments, as per resolution S3. 00

132. 85

Disbursements, printing bill, 1920 convention 13. 50

Balance ___$119. 35

(Signed) Frank Wansee,

Treasurer, Annual Conference.

The Chairman. I have had several suggestions that the afternoon

meeting be held at the Raleigh Hotel. We will meet there this afternoon not later than 2 o'clock.

(Thereupon, at 11.45 o'clock a. m., the conference took a recess until

2 o'clock p. m., to reconvene at the Raleigh Hotel.)
EIGHTH SESSION (AFTERNOON OF THURSDAY, MAY

26, 1921').

The conference reassembled at 2.15 o'clock p. m. at the Raleigh

Hotel, Dr. S. W. Stratton, chairman, presiding.

SEPORT or COMMITTEE OU EBSOLITTIONS PRESENTED BY GUY G.

FEAKY, CHAIRMAN, AND DISCUSSION THEREON.

The committee on resolutions present the following resolutions,

which I will read one by one for your consideration and action

thereon. The first one is as follows

KESOLXJTION OF APPRECIATION TO THE SECKETAEY OF COMMEKCE.

Whereas the Honorable Secretary of Commerce, Herbei't Hoover, very gi'aciously gave of liis time and energy to deliver an address at this Fourteenth

Annual Conference on Weights and Measures : Therefore be it Resolved, That this conference express its sincere thanks and appreciation

to Secretary Hoover for the wise and kindly counsel given on matters of prime

interest to every weights and measures official. (The resolution was duly adopted.)

Mr. Frary. The second resolution is as follows

KESOLUTION OF SYMPATHY ANU GOOD Vv'ISHES TO I.OUIS A. FISCHER.

Whereas illness has made it impossible for Louis A. Fischer, our highly

esteemed and faithful secretary, to attend the sessions of the Fourteenth

Annual Conference : Therefore be it Resolved, That this conference take this means of expressing its regret at his

inability to be present and its sincere hope that health in full measure may

speedily return to him.

(The resolution was duly adopted.)

The Chairman. The resolution was carried unanimously.

Mr. Fkary. The next resolution is as follows

KESOLUTION OF APPEECIATION TO THE DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF THE BUREAU OF

STANDARDS.

Whereas through the tireless and persistent efforts of Director S. W. Stratton

and his able assistants from the Bureau of Standards, the weights and

measures officials of this country have been able to render more elfective

service in their respective fields ; and

Whereas each succeeding national conference has emphasized to the assembled

delegates the invaluable advice and assistance rendered by the bureau in the

various subjects discussed and in arriving at the proper conclusions : Therefore be it Resolved, That this conference express to Director Stratton and his staff its appreciation and thanks for their notable services, for the delightful entertainment provided, and for making possible the success of this conference.

Mr. GooDWiisr. Gentlemen, you have heard the resolutions read.

Mr. MooRE. I move that they be adopted as read.

(The motion was seconded.)

Mr. Goodwin. It is moved and seconded that this resolution be

adopted. Before putting the question I wish to say that any man

108
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 109

that values faithful service and cooperation in an organization of this

kind must deeply appreciate the great services of our worthy director and president. Gentlemen, I will ask you to pass this resolution by a rising vote as a matter of respect for our worthy friend,

Dr. Stratton.

(The delegates arose.)

Mr. Goodwin. It is a unanimous vote.

The Chairman. Gentlemen, I appreciate very much this expression of gratitude. I can assure you that not only myself, but also my

associates, look forward to this meeting as the principal event in the

year in connection with weights and measures, and it is through this

conference that v/e have been able to make the bureau a thousand

times more useful than we could otherwise. On the other hand, as I

have often said, we get just as much help from you as you get from us. I appreciate the fact that you come from such long distances to go

into these matters with the bureau and work with us hand in hand.

I appreciate that much more than I can tell you. One thing that I

have noted with great interest is that each meeting is better than the one before. Never before have we gotten down to business as at this one. So many men have come this time with definite things upon

their minds. Thej^ have been in the field, and have been in contact

with these various matters, and are ready to contribute their ex- perience as well as to take advice. That is the object of the conference. It was formed particularly for that purpose, that we might

make it a clearing house for the knowledge that you all possess, and

that we might from year to year handle these things en masse, as it were. We get up a tentative specification. You all go back and use

it, and it is the best thing for the time being. If experience throughout the year shows it is not the best thing you can change it, as you

did this morning. That is the only way to keep up to date, the only

way to be uniform, to promulgate regulations and matters of that

kind that keep step with progress, because all of these things in relation to weighing devices and methods of using them are going to

progress, and we must not get into a place where we can not take

advantage of every new thing that comes along, and whenever we

can change a thing for the better we are going to do it. I thank you very much.

Mr. Fkaky. The fourth resolution is as follows

EESOLXJTION OF APPEECIATION TO ESHIBITOKS OF APPARATUS.

Whereas manufacturers of weighing and measuring instruments and dealers in

equipment used by inspectors of weights and measures have, at no small expense, provided highly interesting :;nd instructive displays of their products

for examination by members of this conference: Therefore be it Resolved, That the members of this conference hereby express to these manufacturers and dealers who have displayed their products here their appreciation of the educational advantages afforded by such exhibits.

(The resolution Avas duly adopted.)

Mr. Feary. The fifth resolution is as follows

EESOLUTION INDORSING PRINCIPLE OF NATIONAL SERIALIZATION OF TYPE OF

APPARATUS.

Whereas since the wonderful development w thin the past decade of weighing

and measuring devices makes it imperative that there be a centralized national
110 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

agency for the passing upon and approval of such devices before their manufacture and sale: Tlierefore be it Resolved, That this Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Weights and Measures Officials of the United States respectfully urge the Members of Congress to act favorably upon legislation making provision for the national serialization

of weighing and measuring devices.

(The resolution was duly adopted.)

Mr. Frary. The sixth resolution is as follows

KESOLUTION INDORSING PRINCIPLE OF STANDARDIZATION OF PACKAGES AND

CONTAINERS.

Whereas modern commercial practices among manufacturers and distributors

of foods in package form have given rise to the use of an ever-increasing

number of forms, sizes, and shapes of original packages for foods ; and

Whereas tliis condition results not only in confusion of dealers and consumers,

but also permits of unfair commercial practices and results in deception of the

consuming public: Therefore be it Resolved, That this conference of vi'eights and measures officials reaffirm its support of the principle of standardized crates, hampers, and ba-skets for fruits

and vegetables.

(The motion was seconded.)

Mr. Stewart. I hope that the conference will take note that if we

adopt this resolution many of us are voting for something that is

contrary to what we have been Avorking for heretofore and to the laws

we have in the States. We are asking that there be a standard container, when the basis of our system in many of the States is weight,

and not bulk. I certainly am not in favor of that sort of thing. I

believe in the basis of weight.

The Chairman. The object of this resolution is to have as small a number of styles and sizes of packages as possible. The term " standardization" misleads in this sort of thing. I suggest that you use

the word which is being used for this now, namely, " simplification."

That is what you mean, is it not ? You would be surprised if you got all the sizes of any one article

together. You will recall that the Secretary mentioned automobile

tires. We have come across many cases of that kind, where a few

sizes will answer the public just as well as a gx'eat many sizes. There

is no limit suggested here. It merely expresses approval of the principle of reducing the number of sizes of packages to a minimum.

It will make your work easier to have a fewer number of sizes.

Mr. Feary. The resolution, with the proposed change, reads as follows

RESOLUTION INDORSING PRINCIPLE OF SIMPLIFICATION OF PACKAGES AND CONTAINERS.

Whereas modern commercial practices among manufacturers and distributors

of foods in package form have given rise to the use of an ever-increasing

number of forms, sizes, and shapes of original packages for foods; and

Whereas this condition results not only in confusion of dealers and consumers,

but also permits of unfair commercial practices and results in deception of

the consuming public : Therefore be it Resolved, That this conference of weights and measures officials reaffirm its support of the principle of simplified packages for foods and of simplified crates,

hampers, and baskets for fruits and vegetables.

(The resolution was duly adopted.)
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. Ill

Mr. Frakt. The seventh resolution is as follows

RESOLUTION IN EE PROPOSED LEGISLATION CONCERNING SLACK-FILLED PACKAGES.

Whereas the practice of incompletely filling packages of food is an all too prevalent trade practice : Therefore be it Resolved, That this conference hereby express its support of H. R. 4981,

commonly known as the " Slack-filled package bill," now pending in Congress,

and respectfully urge favorable action by Congress upon this measure. This is the measure that was passed by the House last session and

died in the rush in the Senate at the last end of the session. It is

the Haugen bill.

Mr. Holbrook, have you a copy of the bill that you can read?

Mr. Holbroob: (reading) :

[H. R. 4981.]

A BILL To amend an Act entitled " An Act for preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded or poisonous or deleterious

foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors, and for regulating traffic therein, and

for other purposes," approved June 30, 1906, as amended.

Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled. That section 8 of the Act entitled

" An Act for preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated

or misbranded or poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors,

and for regulating traffic therein, and for other purposes," approved June 30,

1906, as amended, is amended

(a) By striking out the period at the end of paragraph "Second," in the

case of food, and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon, and adding thereafter

the following clause : " or if it be in a container made, formed, or shaped so

as to deceive or mislead the purchaser as to the quantity, quality, size, kind, or origin of the food contained therein." ; and

(b) By adding at the end thereof a new paragraph to read as follows:

" Fifth. If in the package form and irrespective of whether or not the

quantity of the contents be plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside

of the package in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count, as provided

in paragraph ' Third,' the package be not filled with the food it purports

to contain."

Sec 2. Such Act of June 30, 1906, as amended, is amended by adding to the

end thereof a new section to read as follows

" Sec. 14. That this Act may be cited as the ' Food and Drugs Act.'

Sec. 3. (a) No fine, imprisonment, confiscation, refusal of admission or

delivery, or other penalty shall be enforced for any violation of this amendatory Act occurring within six months after its passage.

(b) Any violation of such Act of June 30, 1906, as amended, occurring prior

to or within six months after the passage of this amendatory Act, may be

prosecuted, and the article of food or drug involved therein proceeded against

in the same manner and with the same eftect as if this amendatory Act had

not been passed.

Inasmuch as the original act is not quoted I may state that this

bill provides that under the conditions mentioned packages of food

shall be deemed to be " misbranded " as this term is used in the

original law.

Mr. Eeiohmann. Does the amendment (b) suggested in the bill

and marked " Fifth " mean that even if it were correctly marked the

person would be liable?

Mr. HouBROOK. That is the intent of the bill, because the marking

in many cases considered objectionable is correct now, but the package

is not filled and it is considered the purchaser may be deceived.

Mr. Reiohmann. How can there be any deception?
112 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

Mr. Feaet. The purchaser buys the goods by the package. If you

see a large bulky package of macaroni on the shelf you take it for

granted that the package contains more macaroni than the one beside

it of smaller dimensions. But, as a matter of fact, it may contain no

more than does the small package and it may be as correctly labeled.

We know that the housewife does not read the labels as generally as we would like to have her read them. As a matter of fact, the custom

objected to has grown up largely since the war. That is not wholly

true, but it applies to many commodities sold in packages, especially

to some forms of dry commodities, such as spices, macaroni, noodles,

and similar commodities. It applies with regard to the deceptiveness

of the package to a number of other articles. The practice has reached

such dimensions that the legitimate industry, the honest dealers, have

asked that it be taken care of by this provision. At the hearing in

Cong^ress it was brought out by those charged with the enforcement of

the h ood and Drugs Act, and was shown by a great mass of evidence,

that many packages were incompletely filled, but they were all marked

with the weight.

Mr. CuMMiNGS. There is another instance of slack-filled packages

that I can cite, namel}^, a number of bottles of flavoring extracts in

panel bottles which have all the appearance of a 2-ounce bottle but

hold only about three-quarters of an ounce. They were exempt from

marking because of the fact that they did not hold 1 fluid ounce. Mr. Keichmann. It seems to me that the first part of that covers

the whole situation. I do not see the object of the second.

Mr. HoLBROOK. I remember that in one of Dr. Alsberg's specific

arguments in favor of this bill he referred to the shaker-top package

of spices, which is not ordinarily opened by the housewife and is not

such that it can be conveniently opened. She bu,ys the package of

pepper or other spice. It is already provided with a shaker top out

of which she can shake the commodity. If she should open it to see whether it was full or not, she would destroy the purpose for which it was intended, namely, a convenient package.

Dr. Alsberg stated that formeri}- those packages had been regularly -put up in 2-ounce sizes. The price of spices rose by leaps and

bounds during the war, in the same wa}^ as a great many other commodities. He said the spice manufacturer did not change the size

of the shaker-top package but instead put less and less commodity in

it, until finally the 2-ounce package held, I believe, something like

three-quarters of an ounce. The housewife used it until it was

empty and then threw it away. At no time was it ever opened so that she could see what its condition was when she purchased it. I

simpl}^ cite that, because Dr. Alsberg brought that out at the previous

conference, and I thought it was well to put that illustration before

you.

(The resolution was duly adopted. ) Mr. Keichmann. As delegate from the State of Kentucky I want

to record my vote in the negative, with the statement that the amendment suggested to section 5, in my judgment, is improper, a reflection

upon honest merchants, and impracticable.

DISCUSSION AND MOTIONS IN RELATION TO METRIC SYSTEM.

Mr. Feaet. Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain that the next resolution

is not inti'oduced through the action of the entire committee on reso-
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 113

lutions. Mr. Webster, of New Hampshire, wishes it to be specifically

stated that he is unalterably opposed to indorsing the adoption of

the metric system as the universal system of weights and measures in

the United States. Mr. Cummings also wishes to be recorded as opposed to the adoption of the resolution.

The other three members of the committee introduce this resolution relative to House bill No. 10, the Britten bill, which was put on

our program to be discussed prior to the consideration of resolutions. Mr. Holbrook has a copy of the bill here. The resolution is as follows:

Whereas the enactment of House resolution No. 10, known as the Britten bill, will provide a simple, uniform, and easily intelligible ss^stem of weights and

measures in the United States : Therefore be it Resolved, That we indorse the Britten bill and urge early, favorable action

thereon by Congress ; and be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to each Member of

Congress.

Mr. ReichmanjST. I am personally in sympathy with the general

principle of the metric system, but it seems at this time to be impracticable to pass the Britten bill.

Mr. Goodwin. There is no legislation which has ever been passed to

prohibit any person or any firm or any State from using the

metric system if they want to ; but do you comprehend what it means

to change from the present system to the metric system at this present

age? Hundreds of millions and billions of money will be involved.

This is no way to approach this subject. You must begin in your

public schools and let future generations, after they have become

educated on it, pass on the subject. We are not qualified.

Mr. Stewart. I do not believe that this is the place and time to

bring that sort of a question before this conference—at the last ses- sion, when many of the delegates are gone. I would move you, sir,

that this resolution lay on the table.

(The motion was seconded.)

Mr. Richards. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, there are some things

that I have had the opportunity of finding out that maybe you have

not; some things have gone and others are going, whether we like

it or not. Take, for instance, the matter of counting. How many

of you men want to go back to the Roman numerals ? Not one. How

many of you men would be willing to go back to pounds, shillings,

and pence ? As you go about over in London you find there is not a man who supports Herbert Spencer. Herbert Spencer said, " Money

naturally divides itself into pounds, shillings, and pence." But

every one of them says, " Poor old Herbert Spencer. There are some

things he didn't know." In the first place, as I have traveled from

country to country in my work, I have learned that we have got to use the meter as the fundamental standard, and we have got to use

the millimeter, whether we like it or not.

I claim that the doing away with fractions of any kind is a good

thing. This is of fundamental importance. Take, for instance, a dimensional drawing I had to make some time ago of a direct-current

motor. You want to express a dimension that you formerly called

five-sixteenths of an inch. If you call that 8 millimeters you put

67370—22 8
114 BUKEAU OP STANDAEDS.

down under "millimeters" the figure 8. This is much easier than

to put down five-sixteenths of an inch. Now, you must get your area. Eight millimeters times 8 millimeters makes 64 square millimeters.

Think about getting the square of five-sixteenths inch. As you go

on with your calculations, even in the simplest kind of work, you

find that hour after hour is saved if you use this system. It is a question of going on and working to educate thei people. It is a matter of simple education, of showing to people that never realized

it how the meter is divided into 100 centimeters, just as the dollar is divided into 100 cents.

If I have made a mistake, if I am wrong in any of these things, I

want you to tell me. I am anxious to find out the truth about these

things. So, in taking up so much of your time, I do it with this

request, that Avhatever you do with this metric system resolution you

tie up with this thouglit, that this is the thing for the country, this

is the thing that is going to help America toward the front of the

world, and this is the thing that we want to work together on. I thank you.

The Chaikman. There are one or two questions I want to ask. Do

you think it is worth while for the countries of the world to try and

come to an international system of weights and measures? That is,

should we throughout the world have one system of weights and

measures ? Mr. Goodwin". When the proper time arrives, I should say " Yes."

The Chairman. You have admitted we ought to come to an international system of weights and measures. Do you think that we ought

to take a system which has been worked out scientifically, is adapted

for all kinds of measurements, is on a decimal basis, or should we

attempt to take the English system and force that upon the world

a system which is not decimal and which has very few things to commend it as a system of weights and measures ? Gentlemen, there is not the slightest objection to putting this reso- lution on the table, but do it on the ground that you want to know

more about it. Never shut yourselves up to the light. And one thing

let me warn you about. When you hear these statements of the enor- mous cost, and so on, don't consider them. That is propaganda. It

will cost something. It will cost a lot of inconvenience ; but the people

who go abroad soon learn the other system and think nothing of it. Let me tell you one thing that explodes all this idea of millions of

dollars of costs. The two great locomotive works in this country

began 8 or 10 years ago to build locomotives in the metric system.

When the first locomotive drawing came over here, the first order

from a metric country, they took that drawing and started to change

it over into our own system. One of the workmen, a foreman, said, " Why not build it in that system ? " The superintendent said, " Well,

we will try it," and they called the foremen and workmen together,

they got a few rules, and gave them a few lessons. Then they went

to work and they built that first order by the metric system. There

was no cost, there was no expensive machinery, nothing was changed

except the measuring instruments given to the workmen, and you can measure with one as well as the other. What was the result ? They

have been building them ever since in the metric system whenever an
FOURTEENTH CONFEKENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, 115

order comes that way, and I have heard the head of the plant say that

the workmen like it better ; that they make fewer mistakes and have

no trouble.

That absolutely explodes this idea of the great cost that is claimed

to be attached to the introduction of the system. There is, of course, a greater cost in some cases than in others. Why saddle on to the

future a system of weights and measures which is not suitable for all

purposes? It has just grown up. It is not a logical system. While

we may not want to favor the adoption of the metric system to-day

or to-morrow, we ought never to go on record in the light of progress.

Mr. Stewart. I want this particular resolution tabled, but I want

to follow that with another motion to the effect that this question be

brought up at our next conference not later than the second day's

session for consideration.

(The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. Stewart. Now, Mr. President, I want to make a motion that

this question be taken up not later than the second day's session of the

next annual conference.

(The motion was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion

was agreed to.)

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON" NOMINATIONS, PRESENTED BY WM. F. CLTJETT, CHAIRMAN, AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS.

Your committee on nominations desires to recommend the adoption

at this time of the rule that future nominating committees follow the

rule of rotation in the office of vice presidents.

We respectfully submit to this conference the names of the following members to act as officers and members of the executive committee

for the ensuing year

President, S. W. Stratton; first vice president, W. T. White; sec- ond vice president, H. A. Webster; secretary, L. A. Fischer; treasurer,

Frank Wanser; members of the executive committee, all of the offi- cers, ex officio. E. F. Barron, A. F. Bove, W. F. Cluett, H. N. Davis,

S. C. Dinsmore, T. F. Egan, G. G. Frary, D. F. Frazier, A. A. Greer,

D. C. Hill, J. J. Holwell, T. L. Irvine, W. B. McGrady, Francis

Meredith, I. L. Miller, J. M. Mote, F. E. Rowland, W. F. Steinel,

G. B. Stewart, Leo Stuhr, and John Umpstead.

(Signed) Wm. F. Cluett.

Augustus W. Schwartz.

John M. Mote.

H. N. Davis.

B. Frank Rinn.

Mr. Eeichmann. I move the adoption of the report, and that the

secretary be instructed to cast one ballot for the election of all the

nominations as read.

(The motion was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion

was agreed to.)

The Chairman. The report of the committee on nominations is

adopted, and the officers and members of the executive committee

therein named are declared duly elected.
116 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

DISCUSSION OF APPLICATION OF KETROACTIVE SPECIFICATIONS

FOR LIQUID-MBASTJillNG DEVICES.

Mr. TowNSEND (representing Guarantee Liquid Measure Co.). Mr.

Chairman, there is a matter to which the manufacturers are giving a

considerable amount of thought. It is the question of retroaction in

connection with the specifications that have been adopted by the conference. There are certain specifications which were adopted which

are supposed to be retroactive in the field. That is to say, if an

equipment already installed in the field does not now comply with

specifications which have been adopted the sealer is to condemn that

particular piece of equipment, although it may have been installed

and accepted by the sealer one, two, three, or five years ago.

Our objection, giving my own opinion, which I think is that of

the industrjT^, is that this is a very dangerous custom to establish.

We necessarily comply with your specifications. Your committee

on specifications and tolerances represents, perhaps, the best talent

that can be found, and we have no objection to their action. But we

can not look into the future and say what a committee may do in the

way of drawing new specifications five years from now, and the industry is placed in this position : We may make and install to-day a machine which would absolutely comply with your specifications, but

through progress or for some other reason there would be foimd the

necessity for changing them, and if a new specification is made retroactive the manufacturing industry will never know where they are at. Capital is necessary for progress and necessary to industry, but I

think that capital will be very slow to invest in manufacturing enterprises if they never know whether their equipment in the field will

stay in or whether they will be put to much expense to change it. That is the thing on which I would like to have an expression from

the conference.

The Chairman. Before you sit down, have you any specific cases in mind, any specific illustrations? Certainly the manufacturer ought

to have a reasonable amount of time in which to make a change. I

know that our committee has always considered that, and as we go

ahead and as we change specifications some reasonable period ought

to be allowed, depending on the nature of the changes. It may be

that some drastic change ought to have a longer time than others.

Mr. TowNSEND. No; I have no particular instance in mind, sir. But, nevertheless, the opportunity is there, as we see it, squarely under your specifications. We might have a piece of machinery con- demned that has been there for 10 years. It is not so much the particular specifications which have been made retroactive as it is the

precedent which I fear.

The Chairman. Will not this be handled properly if the makers

are present and have a chance to consider the different proposed

changes in the specifications? If some change is proposed for compliance with which a year or some other definite period ought to be

allowed, will not the people concerned see it at the time?

Mr. TowNSEND. But at the time when the change is made a new

situation is created, and it may affect a piece of machinery which has

already been sold with a fixed overhead. It leaves matters in a very

unsettled condition.
POUBTEENTH CONFEEENCE ON WEIGHTS AKD MEASURES. 117

Mr. HoLBROOK. As I understand Mr. Townsend's remarks, he is

not objecting to anything which has occurred in the past, but he fears

something which might conceivably occur in the future.

As the present chairman of the committee on specifications and

tolerances, I may state that it is the opinion of the committee that

after specifications are adopted for the first time upon a class of

apparatus such as liquid-measuring devices, any amendments to old

specifications, or any new specifications which are thereafter adopted,

should in general be made nonretroactive, and that will be the policy

of the present committee. As to binding future committees or future

conferences, I do not know that it can be done. A motion might be

introduced this year to the effect that future specifications should not

be retroactive and next year's conference might change the motion

and make a motion that they should be so. It seems to me that the only way out of the matter is if this

committee attempts to violate this expression of policy made to-day, or if a future committee does not abide by that expression, that the

conference, as a whole at that time should state that any specification

adopted should be nonretroactive. But every year, I take it, when

these matters will be discussed, the manufacturers will be here to urge

upon the present committee or the committee which may exist in the

future when they think any action of the committee and of the con- ference should be nonretroactive and it can be considered upon its

merits at that time.

Last year the conference adopted a resolution to the effect that

the specifications and tolerances should be considered by the committee and should be made retroactive or nonretroactive as the committee deemed best. That was right at that time, I think, because the

subject was practically being discussed for the first time and a first

set of specifications was being adopted. The committee met the

manufacturers' representatives at the end of the conference and discussed all the problems with them, and so far as I know, both the

conference and the manufacturers were satisfied at the conclusions

reached.

As to the future I can not say except that I will repeat that the

present committee feels that new specifications or amendments to old

specifications adopted in the future, in relation to liquid-measuring

devices, for instance—a class of apparatus which has already been

handled by the conference—should be made nonretroactive unless

there were very urgent reasons for doing otherwise.

Mr. TowNSEND. I should like to say this : That immediately after

the conference last year I took occasion to write a letter to each

member of the committee in relation to the subject of retroaction.

My personal opinion about it is this: I am in thorough sympathy

with the object that they want to accomplish in making new specifications retroactive. I believe you have in your specifications one

which says that no device shall be installed or used which will facilitate the perpetration of fraud. I think under the common law you

have full protection without making a single one of these retroactive.

For instance, you find that a certain device would defraud the

public. You condemn it, and if the condemnation is contested any

court will uphold it. In making these specifications retroactive there

is an element of uncertainty that enters into the industry itself which
118 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

is dangerous from the manufacturers' standpoint and, I think, in the

long run from the public standpoint, because we manufacturers must

have certainty if we are going to follow the advice of this conference

and progress. We must have capital, and we can not invest capital,

nor can we spend capital, on an uncertain basis.

Mr. HoLBRooK. Mr. Townsend, if a committee of the conference

made a specification which was declaratory of the common law, since

the common law, as we all know, is retroactive why should not the

specification be retroactive?

Mr. Stewart. As I understand it, a specification that we adopt

here to-day applies to new installations and installations that are returned to the factory for repair, but it does not apply to that

which is now installed. "VYe are not to go back home and because a

unit does not comply with the new specifications hang a red tag on it and demand that it be changed immediately.

Mr. HoLBROOK. In my opmion, any specification in the present set

of specifications which condemns a piece of apparatus because it facilitates the perpetration of fraud should certainly be retroactive.

Mr. Ramsdell. I think the industry is very much pleased at the

treatment it has received at the hands of the bureau and the conference. What we are concerned about is the vast amount of equipment

that is noAv in the field in the hands of our customers. It has been

built with the best of intentions. All the skill and ability we have

have been thrown into it. You gentlemen have not appeared in it until recently. We are anxious, and more than anxious, to cooperate

with you in every way, shape, and manner to see that the public gets

every last drop that they are entitled to. I think that the industry

is determined to assist in every way possible in building its equipment in accordance with your requirements.

What we are concerned about are the hundreds of thousands of

pumps now in the field, running into millions and millions of dollars, as to which it is possible some of your specifications might be

made to apply in a retroactive manner. If there is anything that

has been built with the deliberate intention to defraud the public,

I think Mr. Townsend will agree with me that it ought to be con- demned.

Mr. Townsend. Yes.

The Chairman. I think the matter is straightened out. If any

pumps have been installed that will defraud the public you want

them removed just as we do?

Mr. Eamsdell. We certainly do.

The Chairman. Furthermore, it is a very good plan at each con- ference when we meet from year to year to bring up definite instances, if there are such, where injustice has been worked. If there

are any such, let us haA'e them.

Mr. Ramsdell. The competition in our industry in the past has

been sufficiently sharp to influence us to our best efforts. I think

your own records will show that we have met with a fair measure

of success. If the rulings that are made here to-day or later should

be made to apply to equipment that is already in the field, I do not

know how we could meet the situation. It would cost us millions

of dollars and cost our customers millions of dollars. I am not

speaking in defense of anything that is wrong. If there is anything

that is wrong, Ave want to know about it.
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 119

The Chairman. Are you not rather anticipating? I think if you

find a good case of that kind and bring it up you can trust to the

good sense of these people.

Mr. Ramsdell. I have no doubt of it. Mr. Goodwin. I am here to-day on a specific errand. My object

in being sent here was to prevent the fraudulent use of gasolinemeasuring devices. I want to be put on record, if you please, that

Rhode Island, although she is the smallest State in the Union, is

the pioneer in advancing the subject of the correction of a liquidmeasuring device so,that it can not function when there is danger

of fraud. I have an inexpensive device to accomplish this based on

the vacuiun principle. It can be attached below the pump chamber

and will determine whether there is leakage or not. Looking at it anyone can see by the action of the liquid whether conditions are

right or wrong.

Mr. Schwartz. I suggest it be turned over to the committee on

specifications and tolerances for presentation at the next conference.

AMENDMENT OF LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICE SPECIFICATION

NO. 5.15

Mr. Barron. There was one small point in the specifications for

liquid-measuring devices that I would have liked to have brought up

this morning, but I did not get an opportunity. In No. 5 we have

a phrase

Provided, however, Tliat a device may be constructed to deliver other amounts

than the above, corresponding to predetermined prices at a definite price per

gallon, but in such cases the device shall be so constructed that the price per

gallon at which it is set at any time must be clearly indicated to the customer

by automatic means. So far no satisfactory automatic means has been discovered. It

was found that a glass door was unsatisfactory, because the interior

of the pump is dark, the glass easily broken, and dangerous. We

believe that a sign placed on a pump will show every customer what

he is getting, will not require him to get down and turn on a flashlight, and will enable the sealer to see the point at which the pump is

set. So I would move to amend specification No. 5 by inserting after

the word "customer" in the last line the word "either," and after

the word " means " the words " or by means of a sign conspicuously

displayed on the device."

(The motion was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion

was agreed to.)

MOTION IN RE AMENDMENT TO MODEL LAW," AND OTHER

MOTIONS.

Mr. HoLBROOK. Mi\ Chairman, may I make a motion at this time

to the effect that the secretary of the conference be instructed to

draft a section of the model law in conformance with the new bread

law to be included in the place of the present section on bread in

the model law ? We have a model law on the subject of weights and

" The text of the specifications and tolerances for liquid-measuring devices as amended

by the conference will be found in Appendix I, p. 123. "The section authorized herein will be found in Appendix III, p. 131.
120 BUEEAU OF STANDAKDS.

measures which was passed at a preceding annual conference. In

that model law there is a section relative to bread.

That section is to the effect that bread should be marked with

the net weight. The conference has now gone on record in favor of

standardizing the loaf. The model law and the model bread law

just adopted are at variance, and the motion was to the effect that

the secretary prepare a section which will put the present bread

standards in the model law, so that the model law will, when re- printed, be complete in itself. The section will be shorter than the

model bread law adopted this year, because the penalty section and

enforcement provisions are included in the general sections relating

to these subjects.

(The motion was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion

was agreed to.)

Mr. Schwartz. At this time I would like to make a motion that a committee of the bureau secure a basket of fruit and some flowers

and send them to Mr. Fischer, with the compliments of the conference,

the bill to be paid by the treasurer of the conference.

(The motion was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion

was agreed to.)

Mr. Neam. I would like, if I may at this time, to express the

gratitude of the manufacturers who were given opportunity by the

Bureau of Standards to exhibit their weighing and measuring devices before this conference, and particularly to go on record as thanking Mr. Button, your delegated agent, who took care of us so well and carefully, supplying our every need. I think that every one

of the companies exhibiting at the conference join heartily in that

statement.

Mr. Hill. I would like to make a motion that the executive committee, in fixing the date for the next conference, consider the change

of date to June in place of the month of May. For one thing, the

excursion rates on the railroads go into effect on the 1st of June,

which would be of benefit to the people in the South, such as in

Texas and Oklahoma. Then, many of the elections in the South

are held in April, the officials taking office on the 1st of May, so that it gives the new incoming officers in the city no time to make

preparations to attend the conference. Also, as to the time that we

should devote to the meetings. I believe it would be a good idea, since

we have plenty of work, to put in another day. You know we come

so far, and it takes about two weeks for us, and for the men who

live near it spoils a week. Why not put in five days' work in place

of four and give us more time to discuss these things.

Mr, Siren. I second that motion, because I think if we held it in

June we would have a good many more southern States attending.

The Chairman. You have heard the motion, which has been

seconded.

(The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

The Chairman. It is understood that the executive committee is to consider this suggestion in making their program,

Mr. Schwartz. It was suggested this morning that the secretary

of the conference was to send out notices to the delegates present

that an assessment of $1 was required to replenish the treasur3^ I

do not know whether that was passed or not.
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 121

Mr. Stewart. I make a motion to that effect.

(The motion was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion

was agreed to.)

The Chairman. A motion to adjourn is in order.

Mr. Reichmann. I make the motion that we adjourn.

(The motion was seconded.)

The Chairman. Before adjourning I want to thank you gentlemen for coming so far and taking so much of an interest in this

meeting. It has been better than ever, a fact that is a source of

great satisfaction to us all. I thank you, very much.

(The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

The Chairman. The meeting is adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 3.50 o'clock p. m., Thursday, May 26, the Fourteenth

Annual Conference on Weights and Measures of the United States

adjourned.)

APPENDIXES.

APPENDIX I.—SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES EOR LIQUIDMEASURING DEVICES (AS AMENDED BY THE EOURTEENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE);

FOREWORD.

At the Thirteenth Annual Conference on Weights and Measures,

held in May, 1920, specifications and tolerances for liquid-measuring

devices were adopted. These specifications were divided into three

classes : First, the specifications or portions of specifications intended

to be retroactive; second, those specifications or portions thereof

intended to be nonretroactive ; third, those specifications or portions

thereof limited to take effect July 1, 1921, and thereafter to be nonretroactive.

For an explanation of the terms used above the following paragraphs are quoted from the former specifications and tolerances

adopted by the conference.

Classification of Specifications.—The following specifications * * * shall be divided into two sets, the first to be retroactive and to apply to all apparatus immediately upon adoption of the specifications, the second to apply

only to new apparatus.

For the purpose of administration the following classes of apparatus are

established

Class 1. * * * devices M'hich, after the promulgation of these specifications, are manufactured in the State or brought into the State. Class 2. * * * devices which are in the State at the time of promulgation of these specifications, either in use or in the stock of manufacturers of or

dealers in such apparatus.

All the specifications shall apply to apparatus of class 1. The specifications printed in italics shall not apply to apparatus of class 2, and therefore shall not be retroactive.

Since the special limitation placed upon certain specifications as explained above was to be automatically withdrawn on July 1, 1921,

the limitation on the application of such specifications is not shown

herein, and this copy is therefore effective as of July 1, 1921.

This copy of the specifications and tolerances on liquid-measuring

devices contains all of the amendments made by the Fourteenth Annual Conference held in May, 1921, and also includes a requirement

in reference to the type of pointer to be used in connection with

graduated scales having nonparallel lines, which the committee on

specifications and tolerances was directed by the conference to draft

and incorporate herein.

The attention of delegates and manufacturers is directed to the

fact that the committee on specifications and tolerances always holds

itself ready to take up and consider arguments presented by anyone

interested, whether these are directed to the necessity of new specifications or to the amendment of old specifications. A'\'liile the committee is, of course, without power to make changes in the specifica123
124 BUREAU OF STANDAEDS.

tions and tolerances as adopted by the conference, nevertheless, if

the reasons advanced in the manner indicated appear to be sound or

the objections well taken additions or amendments to take care of

the matter will be prepared and included in the report of the committee to the next conference. In so far as it is found possible the

committee will also interpret the specifications or answer questions

concerning them. Communications along these lines should be sent

to F. S. Holbrook, committee on specifications and tolerances of the

annual conference, whose address is Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C, for transmittal to members of the committee.

Eespectfully submitted.

(Signed) F. S. Holbrook,

William F. Cluett,

W. T. White,

Committee on SpedfiGations and

Tolerances^ Annual Conference.

SPECIFICATIONS.

No. 1. Definition.—A mechanically operated liquid-measuring

device, hereinafter referred to as a liquid-measuring device, is a mechanism or machine adapted to measure and deliver liquid by

volume. Such a device often consists of a pump or a pump in combination with other mechanism.

No. 2. Permanence.—Liquid-measuring devices shall he of such

design, construction, and materials that they may reasonably he ex- pected to withstand ordinary usage without impairment of the

accuracy of their measurement, or the correct functioning of their

operating or indicating parts.

No. 3. Plumb and Le^'el Conditions.—All liquid-measuring devices shall he so designed and constructed that they will he in normal

operating position when they are in level. All liquid-measuring devices shall he installed plumh and level, and their installation shall

he of such strength and rigidity as to maintain this condition.

No. 4. Means Eequired to Determine Level.—Liquid-measuring

devices, the indications or deliveries of which are changed hy an

amount greater than one-half the tolerance allowed, lohen set in any

position on a surface making an angle of 6 per cent or approximately 3 degrees with the horizontal, shall he equipped with suitable

means hy which the level can he determined arid established, such as a two-way or a circular level, a plumh hoh, leveling lugs, etc. No, 5. Units of Deli\'Ery.—Liquid-measuring devices shall have

the folloroing discharge capacities per stroke or cycle, and these

only : One gallon; a midtiple of the gallon; 2\ gallons; or a binary

suhmultiple of the gallon, that is, the quantity obtained hy dividing

the gallon hy the number 2 or a power of the number 2: Provided,

however, That a device may be constructed to deliver other amounts

than the above, corresponding to predetermined values at a definite

price per gallon, but in such cases the device shall he so constructed

that the price per gallon at which it is set at any time must be clearly

indicated to the customer either by automatic means or hy means of a sign conspicuously displayed on the device.

No. 6. Indication of Delivery Required.—^All liquid-measuring

devices shall be so designed and constructed that the amount de-
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 125

livered will be clearly and definitely indicated by automatic means,

and the indication of any delivery shall take place only when the

full discharge has in fact occurred: Provided, however. That the

requirement that the full discharge shall have been completed before

registration shall not apply to the dribble flow caused by the displacement of a piston rod during the return of a piston to its initial

position, when a clear statement conspicuous to the customer a/nd

adjacent to the indicating means is placed on the liquid-measuring

device to the effect that the full amount can not l>e delivered u/ntil

the piston or the pointer or indicator has been returned to its initial

position.

No. 7. Sensitiveness.—All liquid-measuring devices shall he so designed and constructed that they can readily he operated to deliver

each quantity for which a graduation, stop, overflow pipe, or other

indicating means is provided toithin the tolerance on such amount

hereinafter provided.

This specification shall he construed to require that in the case of

all devices which have a graduated scale or dial or similar indicating

means as the sole means of determining the amount of liquid discharged, the length on the scale or dial equivalent to the tolerance at

any graduation must he readily appredahle when the character of

the indicating element and its normal distance from and position in

reference to the ohserver''s eye are taken into consideration, and in

no case shall this length he less than O.OIj. inch. For example, if a

device is designed and constructed so that (1)1 gallon is the first

graduation; (2) there is no stop, overflow pipe, or other automatic

means of terminating the delivery; (3) the graduations are equally

spaced; and (k) if cross section of the measuring chamber is

the same throughout its length, the minimum length on the scale or

dial shall he 3.1 inches per measured gallon, the maximum cross sec- tional area,of the measuring chamber shall he 75 square inches, and

if cylindHcal, the maximum diameter must he 9.75 inches.

Note.—The second paragraph of the above specification was adopted tentatively only. For the conference interpretation of the word " tentative " see

text of resolution adopted by the conference and incorporated under " General

notes " at the end of these specifications and tolerances. The values given in

this spcification have been refigured to conform to the new tolerances adopted

by the Fourteenth Annual Conference.

No. 8. CoNSTANCT OF Deliveet.—The amounts delivered by any

liquid-measuring device shall not vary from the standard by more

than the tolerances hereinafter provided, irrespective of the speed

at which the apparatus is operated and, subject to the conditions

of the special test described below, irrespective of the time elapsing between operations: Provided, however. That when a liquidmeasuring device is operated faster than normal speed of operation

the tolerance shall be applied in deficiency only—that is, the liquidmeasuring device shall not be deemed to be incorrect by reason of

the tolerance in excess being exceeded during such operation.

For the purpose of test the. condition of the device shall be such

that a period of nonuse of one hour shall not result in an error of

the first delivery of the device after such period of nonuse greater

than the tolerance allowable on the smallest amount which the device is designed to deliver, and a period of nonuse of six hours

shall not result in an error of the first delivery of the device after
126 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

such period of nonuse greater than 10 cubic inches, or, in the case of a new liquid-measuring device, 5 cubic inches.

Note.—In the special elapsed-time test described above allowance shall be

made for errors due solely to a change in volume of the contained liquid, re- sulting from temperature variations alone, since an error of this character

is unavoidable in the case of volumetric measurements of this kind when the

apparatus is standing unused. This change in volume due to temperature variations is, however, small in amount for all ordinary variations of tenipei'ature,

amounting in the case of gasoline to about O.T per cent for each 10° Fahrenheit

cliange of temperature, or about 1.3 per cent for each 10° Centigrade change

of temperature.

In applying the six-hour test it is recommended that the delivery

be not made through a hose, since the amount of gasoline necessai^

to wet the inside of the hose will cause an additional shortage in the

delivery.

No. 9. Indicating and Eegistering Parts.—Counters and graduated scales and dials used on liquid-measuring devices to tally

sales and deliveries to individual purchasers or to indicate the

amount delivered when any portion of the cycle or stroke has been

completed shall be of such size and style and shall be so located and

disposed that they are clearly visible to and readable by the customer

from any position which he may reasonably be expected to assume. The graduations shall be of such character and arrangement that

the major ones are more prominent than and are clearly distinguishable from the minor ones. In all types of liquid-measuHng

devices tohich have a graduated scale which at some point or points or at all points constitutes the sole or most sensitive means of determining the amount of liquid discharged^ the width of the graduation

marks shall not exceed O.O4. inch.

No. 10." PoiNTEEs AND IiDiCATFEs.—All pointers and indicators

which when used in conjunction with a graduated scale or dial indicate the amount of liquid discharged or the value of the delivery at a predetermined price per unit of volume shall be so shaped that a correct and accurate reading is given. Pointers and indicators are required to he symmetrical about the graduation lines at which they

may stand: [Provided, hoicever, That in the case of pointers and indicators used hi connection with vertical scales having nonparellel

graduation lines and in respect to the nonhorizontal lines on such

scales, this requirement shall he waived if the pointers and indicators are so designed and coxhstructed that, as the pointer or indicator

approaches the correct indicating position in respect to any graduation line, only such portion of such graduation line as has not yet

been reached by the index of the pointer or indicator or by a honzontal line extended from the end thereof shall be exposed to view

and all other portions of such graduation line shall be automatically

obscured.] Pointers and indicators, which when used in conjunction with a graduated scale or dial, constitute at some point or points

or at all points the sole or most sensitive means of determining the

amount of liquid discharged or the value of the delivery at a predetermined price per unit of volume, shall reach to the finest graduation

marks.^ ami the width of the pointer or indicator, or of the end

thereof, shall not be greater than tlw -width of such marks.

" It is recommended by tbe committee that that portion of the specification inclosed

in brackets be not put into effect until ratified by the conference.
FOURTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 127

No. 11. Parallax.—All liquid-measuring devices in which the ac- curacy of the readings of aniy indicating mechanism is affected hy

paraUax shall lye so designed and constructed as to reduce the errors due to this cause to a minimum.

No. 12. Graduated Scales to be Secured.—When a liquid-measuring device is provided with a graduated scale or dial, this scale shall

be riveted to its supports or otherwise permanently fixed in position

Provided, however, That in the case of liquid-measuring devices of

the gage-glass type a sliding scale will be permitted when the displacement of such scale is, by suitable means, automatically prevented

at all times when liquid is being discharged from the delivery outlet.

No. 13. Numbering of Gkaduations.—Figures defining the value

of graduations shall he uniformly placed in reference to the gradua-

'tion marks and shall he as close thereto as practicahle, hut shall

not he so placed as to interfere loith the accuracy of reading. Such

figures shall he in regular sequence; that is, sequences such as 6, 1,

2, 3, 4. shall not he permitted.

No. 14. Scales in Opposite Directions Prohibited.—^The use on

a liquid-measuring device of two graduated scales reading in opposite directions and referable to the same indicating means shall

not be permitted.

No. 15. Lettertng, Graduations.—All markings, instructions, figures, and graduations required under these specifications shall he of

such size, design, material, and location and shall he so applied or

affixed that they will not tend easily to hecome ohliterated or illegible.

No. 16. Return of Indicating Element to Zero.—All liquidmeasuring devices shall be so designed and constructed that the

indicating element used in tallying deliveries to individual purchasers is returnable readily to a definite and clear zero reading

before the next delivery is begun.

No. 17. Stops to be Positive.—When the stops or other stroJce- limiting devices on a liquid-measuHng device are subject to direct

pressure or impact in the operation of the device such stops shall he

of such construction that the permanence and security of their positions is provided for hy a positive, nonfrietional engagement of the

parts whose relative motions are to he prevented. Such stops shall

he so designed and constructed that adjustment icithin the prescribed

tolerances can he made.

No. 18. Stop Mechanism to be Definitely Positioned.—All

liquid-measuring devices designed to deliver two or more different

predetermined amounts by bringing into operation different stops or other means of defining the delivery shall be so designed and constructed that the position for the proper setting of each stop is

definitely and accurately defined, inadvertent displacement from this

position is obstructed, and the delivery for which the device is set at any time is clearly and conspicuously indicated.

No. 19. Provision for Sealing.—All devices adapted to he altered

for adjusting or correcting the delivery of a liquid-measuring device sficdl he of such construction that tfvey can he sealed, either

separately or together, in such a manner that the position of none of

them can be changed toithout destroying the seal or seals : Provided,

however. That this shall not apply to such devices as alter the deliveries to conform to different prices per gallon on such a liquid-measuring device as is descHbed in the proviso of specification No. 5.
128 BUREAU OF STANDARDS,

No. 20. Use of Adjustments.—No adjustments of the delivery

of a defined-stroke liquid-measuring device shall be permitted, ex- cept that intended to produce a piston displacement per cycle of 231

cubic inches per indicated gallon of delivery. Adjustments of piston displacement to correct for leaks, slippage, excessive length of

pipe line, or other defects of the installation shall not be permitted.

No. 21. Diversion of Measoted Liquid.—All liquid-measuring

devices shall be so designed and constructed that no portion of the

measured liquid can be diverted from the one discharge outlet

through which deliverj'- is being made or to be made during the

operation of the liquid-measuring device.

This specification is to be constructed to require that there shall

be no means provided by which any of the measured liquid can be

diverted from the measuring chamber or the discharge line to th^

supply tank or elsewhere during the period of operation, and that

all valves in the supply line intended to prevent the reversal of flow

of the liquid shall be of such design and construction that their

closure is automatically effected in the use of the device. Also when

two or more discharge outlets for the liquid are provided all outlets

except the one in use must automatically be tightly and completely

closed off during the period of discharge, and the closure shall be

so effected that delivery made through one discharge outlet shall

not affect the subsequent delivery through any other discharge outlet : Provided, however, That the above shall not apply to the drain

outlet from the filtering chamber when such outlet is in plain view

of the customer.

No. 22. Shut-Off Valves in Discharge Line.—No liquid-measuring device shall be equipped with a shut-off valve at the extremity of

the hose or elsewhere in the hose line except in the case of devices

designed and constructed so that they must be operated with the hose

full of liquid at all times. In case such valve is used, any other valve

in any portion of the discharge line leading to this outlet must be

so designed and constructed that it can only be closed off by the use

of some tool or device which is outside of and entirely separate from

the measuring device itself, such as a wrench, screw driver, etc., but

not an adjusting pin.

This specification is not to be construed as allowing a shut-off valve

in the hose in the case of devices in which the hose or any part thereof can be drained of liquid after the actual mechanical operation of the

mechanism of the liquid-measuring device is discontinued in any way,

except as follows : ( 1 ) By means of the mechanically operated valve, or (2) by delivering from the measuring device more than the full

measuring capacity thereof during the actual mechanical operation

of the mechanism thereof.

No. 23. Drainage of Discharge Line.—All liquid-measuring devices shall be so constructed and installed that they will provide for

the complete and rapid drainage, to a definite and uniform level, of

the liquid contained in the hose or outlet pipe, and will not permit

a siphoning or a continuous trickle of liquid from the discharge outlet after the operation of the mechanism is discontinued.

This specification will be construed to require that if hose is used

its inlet end shall be at least 5 feet above the normal level upon which

the receiving vehicle or vessel stands, and the liquid-measuring de-
rOUKTEENTH CONEEEENCE OK AVEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 129

vice shall be equipped with an automatic vacuum breaker or equivalent means to insure the complete and rapid drainage of the hose,

that is required b}- the above. The hose shall be properly reinforced

and shall be of such length and stiffness that no movable portion

thereof will be readily disposed in such a way as to tend to retain

liquid after the operation of the device is completed. Provided, however, That this specification shall not be construed to apply to devices

which, under the terms of specification No. 22, may be equipped with

two shut-off valves or cocks and are to be operated with the hose full

of liquid at all times.

No. 24. Lighting Height of Sitction Lift.—No defined-strolre

piston-type, liquid-measuring device shall be so installed as to work

under a total suction head sufficient to cause vaporization of the

liquid for which it is used under the highest temperature and lowest

barometric pressure likely to occur. No. 25. Use Limited to Certain Liquids.—Liquid-measuring devices which vnll not give correct results except when used tvith

liquids having particular properties—as, for example^ high viscosity—shall he conspicuously, clearly, and permanently rnarhed to indicate this limitation. Such ivording may taJze the form, '•'Not suitable for gasoline or light oils^^ ''•Use only for molasses or heavy

oils,'''' or '•'For viscous liquids only.''''

No. 26. Computing Charts.—The value graduations on all computing charts used on liquid-measuring devices shall not exceed

1 cent at all prices per gallon up to am,d including 30 cents. At

any higher price per gallon the value gradvuation shall not exceed

2 cents: Provided, however. That nothing in the above shall be con- strued to prevent the placing of a special value graduation to represent each 5-cent interval. These special graduations may take the

form of dots, staggered graduat'ions, or similar forms. They shall

be so placed that their meaning and value may be clearly understood,

but they shall not be placed in the space betvjeen the regular graduations. And provided further, That nothing in the above shall be con- strued to prevent the omission of all value graduations from a clear

interval between the zero graduation and any subsequent graduation.

No. 27. Fraudulent Construction Prohibited.—All liquid-measuring devices and all devices designed to be attached thereto andused in connection therewith shall be of such construction that they

are not designed to and may not be used to facilitate the perpetration

of fraud.

No. 28. Metric System.—No specification contained in the preceding pages shall be understood or construed to prohibit the sale or use

of liquid-measuring devices constructed or graduated in units of the

metric system.

The tolerance to be allowed on any liquid-measuring device constructed or graduated in units of the metric system shall be the same

as those specified on similar apparatus of an equivalent size or at

an equivalent capacity in the customary system.

TOLERANCES.

Except on special tests described above, the tolerances to be allowed

in excess or deficiency on all liquid-measuring devices shall not be

67370—22 9
130 BUREAU OF STANDARDS.

greater than the values shown in the following table: Provided,

however, That the manufacturers' tolerances, or the tolerances on all

new liquid-measuring devices, shall not be greater than one-half of

the values given : And provided further. That these latter tolerances

shall also be applied to all devices which are being retested after

being found incorrect and subsequently adjusted or repaired.

Delivery. Tolerance. Delivery. Tolerance.

J gallon or less..

2 gallons

4 gallons

Cubic

inches.2.0 3.0

4.0

5.0 6.0

7.0

6 gallons

7 gallons

10 gallons

Cubic

inches. 8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

For deliveries o( over 10 gallons add 1 cubic inch per indicated gallon.

GENERAL NOTES."

Conflict of Laws and Regulations.—In the above specifications

certain items appear which may conflict in certain jurisdictions with

present State or local laws or ordinances or regulations of State or local fire marshals or boards of safety. In such cases of conflict

an attempt should be made by the weights and measures officials to

harmonize the two codes and, in the meanwhile, it may be found

necessary to suspend the enforcement of such specifications.

Device to Indicate Exhaustion of Liquid Supply.—The con- ference goes on record to the effect that it is its opinion that such a device as is mentioned in the following paragraph is a highly neces- sary one, and the conference gives notice that it is probable that at

some future time, when it becomes apparent that there are devices

on the market which will accomplish the desired purpose, an effort

will be made to incorporate the following paragraph in the specifications :

All liquid-measuring devices, the accuracy of delivery of which is affected

by the lowering- of the liquid in the supply tank to a point at or near the intake

end of the suction pipe, sliall be provided with a device which will make the

pump inoperable during tlie continuance of this condition, or shall be so con- structed as to warn the purchaser and the operator in a conspicuous and distinct manner that the level of the liquid supply is so low as to endanger the accuracy

of the measurement.

Resolution Adopted Defining the Word " Tentative."—Whereas

a doubt exists as to the proper interpretation and meaning of the

Avord " tentative " or " provisional " ; and

Whereas it is the desire of the conference that said word or words

be defined : Now, therefore, be it Resolved^ Tliat the words " tentative " and " provisional " shall be

considered as synonymous, with the construction and interjDretation as folloAvs, for the purpose of the conference : The words " tentative " and " provisional," as used by the conference, shall mean such con- templated use or usages to be complied with when possible, but in no

sense shall the}' be mandatory, obligatory, or enforcible.

" This material was incorporated in the Thirteenth Annual Conference.
rOUKTEENTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, 131

APPENDIX II.—MODEL BREAD LAW ADOPTED BY THE POTJRTEENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE.

Section 1. That the standard loaf of bread shall weigh one pound,

avoirdupois weight. All loaves of bread manufactured, procured, or kept for the purpose of sale, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold, in

the foi-m of loaves, shall be of one of the following standard weights

and no other, namely, one pound, one-half pound, one and one-half

pounds, or multiples of one pound, avoirdupois weight: Provided,

lioioever, That the provisions of this act shall not apply to biscuits,

buns, crackers, rolls, or to what is commonly known as " stale bread,"

and sold as such, provided the seller shall at the time of sale expressly

state to the buyer that the bread so sold is " stale " bread. When twin

or multiple loaves are baked, the weights specified in this act shall

^PPb^ to each unit of the twin or multiple loaf.

Sec. 2. That the [insert title of enforcing officer] shall enforce the

provisions of this act. Eules and regulations for the enforcement of

the provisions of this act not inconsistent therewith shall be made by

the [insert title of enforcing officer], and such rules and regulations

shall include reasonable variations and tolerances, in excess and deficiency, which may be alloAved.

Sec. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture,

procure, or keep for the purpose of sale, offer or expose for sale, or

sell bread in the form of loaves which is not of one of the weights

specified in section 1, within such variations and tolerances as may

be fixed by the [insert title of enforcing officer] . Any person who, by

himself or by his servant, or agent, or as the servant or agent of

another shall violate any of the provisions of this act shall be guilty

of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than

$25 nor more than $200 ujDon a first conviction in any court of competent jurisdiction, and upon a second or subsequent conviction in

any court of competent jurisdiction he shall be punished by a fine

of not less than $50 nor more than $500, or by imprisonment for not

more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the

discretion of the court.

Sec. 4. The word " person," as used in this act, shall be construed

to import both the plural and the singular, as the case demands, and

shall include corporations, companies, societies, and associations.

APPENDIX III.—REVISED SECTION ON BREAD TO BE SUBSTITUTED

FOR BREAD SECTION FORMERLY INCLUDED IN MODEL STATE

LAW ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

[To be numbered Sec. 26 in Form No. 2, Sec. 18 in Form No. 1, and Sec. 24 in

Form No. 3.]

The standard loaf of bread shall weigh one pound, avoirdupois

Aveight. All bread manufactured, procured, made, or kept for the

purpose of sale, offered or exposed for sale, or sold, in the form of

loaves, shall be of one of the following standard weights and no

other, namely, one pound, one-half pound, one and one-half pounds,

or multiples of one pound, avoirdupois weight: Provided, however^

That rules and regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of

this section not inconsistent herewith, shall be made by the Superin-