U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

REPORT OF THE

TWENTY-NINTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE

ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

ATTENDED BY REPRESENTATIVES

FROM VARIOUS STATES

HELD AT THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

WASHINGTON, D. C, JUNE 6, 7, 8, AND 9, 1939 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION M164



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

HARRY L. HOPKINS. Secretary NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

LYMAN J. BRIGGS. Director

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION MI64

REPORT OF THE

TWENTY-NINTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE

ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

ATTENDED BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM VARIOUS STATES HELD AT THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

WASHINGTON, D. C, JUNE 6, 7, 8, AND 9, 1939

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1940

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. Price 25 cents
i


OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES

OFFICERS

(Serving during Twenty-ninth National Conference)

President, Lyman J. Briggs, Director, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. Vice Presidents: W. S. BussEY, Chief, State Weights and Measures Division, Austin, Tex. RoLLiN E. Meek, Chief, State Bureau of Weights and Measures, Indianapolis, Ind. Charles C. Read, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Trenton, N. J. C. E. Tucker, Chief, State Division of Weights and Measures, Sacramento,

Calif. Howard E. Crawford, City Inspector of Weights and Measures, JacksonviUe, Fla. B. W. Ragland, Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Richmond, Va.

Secretary, F. S. Holbrook, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. Treasurer, George F. Austin, Jr., Supervising Inspector of Weights and Measures, Detroit, Mich.

(As elected by the Twenty-ninth National Conference for the ensuing year)

President, Lyman J. Briggs, Director, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. Vice Presidents

:

H. N. Davis, Deputy State Commissioner of Weights and Measures, Monipelier, Vt. A. J. Jensen, Chief State Inspector of Weights and Measures, Jamestown,

N. D. Charles C. Read, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Trenton, N. J. C. E. Tucker, Chief, State Division of Weights and Measures, Sacramento,

Calif. James O'Keefe, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Chicago, 111. Alex Pisciotta, Director, Bureau of Weights and Measures, New York, N. Y.

Secretary, F. S. Holbrook, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. Treasurer, George F. Austin, Jr., Supervising Inspector of Weights and Measures, Detroit, Mich.

COMMITTEES

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

(As elected by Twenty-ninth National Conference)

Lyman J. Briggs

H. N. Davis

A. J. Jensen

Charles C. Read

C. E. Tucker )Ex officio. James O'Keefe

Alex Pisciotta

F. S. Holbrook

George F. Austin, Jr. Russell S. Ackerman, Superintendent, Department of Licenses, Weights and

Measures, Minneapolis, Minn.

C. D. Baucom, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Raleigh, N. C. W. S. Bussey, Chief, State Weights and Measures Division, Austin, Tex. Howard E. Crawford, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Jacksonville, Fla.

S. T. Griffith, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures, Baltimore, Md.

William A. Jones, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Waterville, Maine.

C. L. Klocker, State Inspector of Weights and Measures, Hartford, Conn. John P. McBride, State Director of Standards, Boston, Mass. Rollin E. Meek, Chief, State Bureau of Weights and Measures, Indianapolis,

Ind.
OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES -

' W. P. Reed, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Atlanta, Ga, CiEORGE M. Roberts, District Superintendent of Weights, Measures, and Markets, Washington, D. C. Irvin R. Shultz, Inspector of Weights and Measures, York, Pa,

J. C. liNKEY, Chief Deputy State Sealer, Columbus, Ohio, H. G. TwYFORD, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Newport News, Ya. Louis G. Waldman, Commissioner of Weights and Measures, St. L^uiSy Mo,

I CM Webb, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Nashville, Tenn. COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS ANO TOLERANCES

(Standing committee)

^. S. HoLBROOK, National Bureau of Standards, Was^feington, D. C, chairmanw

Charles M. Fuller, Sealer of Weights and Measures of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, Calif. Joseph G. Rogers, Assistant State Superintendent of Weights and Measures,

Trenton, N. J. John P. McBride, State Director of Standards, Boston,, Mass. George F. Austin, Jr., Supervising Inspector of Weights and Measures, Detroit,.

Mich.

COMMITTEE ON PUBLICITY

George M. Roberts, District Superintendent of Weightsy, Measures, and Markets, Washington, D. C, chairman.

Glenn L. Berry, Superintendent of Weights and Mea&ures of Monmouth

County, Asbury Park, N. J. W. S. BussEY, Chief, State Weights and Measures Division, Austin, Tex. C L. Klocker, State Inspector of Weights and Measures, Hartford, Conn. Louis G. Waldman, Commissioner of Weights and Measures-, St. Louis, Mo.

COMMITTEE ON PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE

FOR THE STATES IN ADMINISTRATION OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAWS

John P. McBride, State Director of Standards, Boston, Mass.,. chairman.

Frank L. Hammon, Director, State Bureau of Weights and Measures, Boise, Idaho.

J. H. Meek, Director, State Division of Markets, Richmond, Ya. RoLLiN E. Meek, Chief, State Bureau of Weights and Measures, Indianapolis,

Ind. Charles C. Read, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Trenton, N. J. S. T. Griffith, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures, Baltimore, Md.

W. P. Reed, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Atlanta, Ga. COMMITTEE ON STANDARDIZATION OF PACKAGED GOODS

Alex Pisciotta, Director, Bureau of Weights and Measures, New York, N. Y.» chairman.

C. D. Baucom, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Raleigh, N. C. R. L. FuLLEN, Chief Sealer of Weights and Measures, Dallas, Tex.

C. L. Klocker, State Inspector of Weights and Measures, Hartford, Conn. James O'Keefe, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Chicago, 111. C. E. Tucker, Chief, State Division of Weights and Measures, Sacramento,

Calif. George Warner, Chief Inspector, State Division of Weights and Measures,

Madison, Wis.

ACTING COMMITTEES FOR THE TWENTY-NINTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE

Committee on Nominations. Rollin E. Meek, of Indiana, chairman; ;Harrt

E. BiERY, of Lehigh County, Pa.; James A. Boyle, of Portland, Maine; M. A. Hubbard, of Virginia; Charles C. Read, of New Jersey; J. C. Tinkey, of Ohio;

Louis G. Waldman, of St. Louis, Mo.

Committee on Resolutions. W. S. Bussey, of Texas, chairman; V. Bruschi,

Jr., of San Diego County, Calif.; H. N. Davis, of Vermont; A. J. Jensen, of North Dakota; J. M. McLeod, of Nevada; Mrs. Clark McQuilkin, of East

Chicago, Ind.; Tom Webb, of Nashville, Tenn. In Charge of Exhibits. R. F. Ackermann.

In Charge of Registrations. Mrs. H. E. Rosenberger.
PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

DELEGATES—STATE, CITY, AND COUNTY OFFICIALS

ALABAMA

City: Birmingham R. M. Johnson, Chief Inspector of Weights and

Measures, City Hall. CALIFORNIA

State C. E. Tucker, Chief, Division of Weights and

Measures, State Building, Sacramento. County:

Los Angeles Charles M. Fuller, Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 501 New High Street, Los Angeles.

San Diego Virgil Bruschi, Jr., Sealer of Weights and

Measures, San Diego.

CONNECTICUT

State C. L. Klocker, Inspector of Weights and Measures, 100 Washington Street, Hartford.

City:

Ansonia Boleslaw Nikel, Sealer of Weights and Measures, 420 Main Street. Bridgeport Louis Snow, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

925 Main Street. Hartford Thomas F. Rice, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Municipal Building.

County: Tolland William F. Masinda, Sealer of Weights and

Measures, W^est Willington.

district of COLUMBIA

District George M. Roberts, Superintendent of Weights,

Measures, and Markets, 301 Sixth Street, Washington.

FLORIDA

City: Jacksonville Howard E. Crawford, Inspector of Weights

and Measures, Utilities Building.

GEORGIA

State S. H. Wilson, State Oil Chemist, State Capitol, Atlanta.

City: Atlanta W. P. Reed, Inspector of Weights and Measures,

Police Headquarters. ILLINOIS

State John J. Levitt, Superintendent of Standards,

Armory Building, Springfield.

Vivienne Mannen, Secretary, Illinois Weights

and Measures Association, Armory Building,

Springfield.

City: Chicago James O'Keepe, Sealer of Weights and Measures.

City HaU. INDIANA

State Rollin E. Meek, Chief, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, State House Annex, Indianapolis. V
VI PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

City:East Chicago Mrs. Clark McQuilkin, Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 3432 Fir Street. Gary Cleg C. Morgan, Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall. Terre Haute A. Edward Snyder, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, City Hall. MAINE

City:

Portland James A. Boyle, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Building.

Waterville William A. Jones, Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall. MARYLAND

City: Baltimore Charles G. Crockett, Inspector of Weights

and Measures, Municipal Building.

MASSACHUSETTS

State John P. McBride, Director of Standards, State House, Boston. William Bradley, Inspector of Standards, 54

Lynn Street, Everett.

City:

Arlington Allan E. Cowie, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Town Hall. Springfield Carl E. Hawkins, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Administration Building.

Taunton Edward Ward, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. MICHIGAN

City:

Detroit George F. Austin, Jr., Supervising Inspector of Weights and Measures, 740 Elmwood Avenue. tHamtramck Arthur J. Wilhelm, Sealer of Weights and

Measures.

.Highland Park Manon L. Fowler, Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 25 Gerald Avenue.

"Jjansing_^_,*,„_„,^,^^,, Charles T. Quinn, Sealer of Weights and

Measures, City Market;

MINNESOTA

City: Minneapolis Russell S. Ackerman, Superintendent, Department of Licenses, Weights and Measures, City

Hall. MISSOURI

City:

St. Louis Louis G. Waldman, Commissioner of Weights

and Measures, City Hall.

Springfield A. Harman, Inspector of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. NEVADA

State— . J. M. McLeod, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Reno. NEW JERSEY

State Charles C. Read, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 187 West Hanover Street, Trenton. Joseph G. Rogers, Assistant Superintendent

of Weights and Measures, 187 West Hanover

Street, Trenton.
PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE YU

City:

Clifton Garret H. DgVries, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, City Hall. Englewood Leonard DeRiENZo, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Municipal Building.

Jersey City John S. Burke, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, City Hall. Linden Cornelius O'Donnell, Superintendent of Weights and Measures, City Hall. Paterson Joseph P. Leonard, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 115 Van Hounten Street. Perth Amboy John Farkas, Jr., Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, City Scales. Union City Alfred O. Oslund, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, City Hall. County:

Bergen A. F. Barnard, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, 66 Zabriskie Street, Hackensack.

Cape May Gilbert S. Smith, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Avalon. Cumberland Alfred Lirio, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Court House, Bridgeton. Essex Frank A. Osmun, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Hall of Records, Newark.

Gloucester William P. Abdill, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Woodbury.

Mercer Ralph M. Bodenweiser, Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Court House, Trenton. Middlesex Charles H. Englehard, Superintendent of Weights and Measures, County Offices, NewBrunswick.

Monmouth Glenn L, Berry, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, 706 Eighth Avenue, Asbury

Park. Morris Del G. Nelson, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Court House, Morristown.

Passaic William Miller, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Court House, Paterson. Somerset 0. B. Mathews, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Court House, Somerville. Sussex R. L. Slater, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Newton. Union James M. Dietz, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Court House, Ehzabeth.

Warren Claire E. Tilton, Superintendent of Weights

and Measures, Court House Annex, Belvidere. NEW YORK

State Barnett Kanzer, Director, Bureau of Weights

and Measures, State Office Building, Albany.

City:

New York Alex Pisciotta, Director, Bureau of Weights

and Measures, 139 Centre Street. Matthias A. Harrington, Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures, 139 Centre Street. Rochester Anthony C. Samenfink, Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 280 North Union Street. County

:

Nassau Robert Williams, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Court House Annex, Mineola.

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

P. O. Box 412, East Moriches.

NORTH CAROLINA

State — C. D. Baucom, Superintendent of Weights and

Measures, Raleigh.

George S. Turner, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Raleigh.
VIII PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

State H. L. Shankle, Chief, Gasoline and Oil Inspection Division, Department of Revenue, P. O. Box 1510, Raleigh.

City and County: Charlotte, F. C. Yarbrough, Inspector of Weights and

and Mecklenburg County. Measures, 300 South Poplar Street, Charlotte. NORTH DAKOTA

State A. J. Jensen, Chief Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Jamestown. OHIO

State J. C. TiNKEY, Chief Deputy State Sealer, State

Office Building, Columbus.

V. D. Campbell, Assistant Deputy State Sealer, State Office Building, Columbus,

City: Toledo William C. Witfoth, Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 561 North Erie Street. PENNSYLVANIA

State Robert A. Snyder, Acting Chief, Bureau of Standard Weights and Measures, Harrisburg.

City:

AUentown James E. McHugh, Sealer of Weights and

Measures, City Hall. Raymond P. Reinhard, Assistant Sealer of Weights and Measures, City Hall. Reading William A. High, Inspector of Weights and

Measures. York Irvin R. Shultz, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, City Hall. County:

Adams G. W. Naugle, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Orrtanna. Allegheny Edward F. McDonough, Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures, Court House, Pitts- burgh.

P. J. Hunter, Inspector of Weights and Measures, Court House, Pittsburgh.

Berks Harry Hilzinger, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Court House, Reading.

Columbia H. Lewis Creasy, Sealer of Weights and Measures, 428 Market Street, Bloomsburg.

Lehigh Harry E. Biery, Inspector of Weights and. Measures, Court House, AUentown.

Luzerne Gordon Watkins, Sealer of Weights and

Measures, 207 Conyngham Street, WilkesBarre. Union Hobert R. Spaid, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, 517 Market Street, Mifflinburg.

Westmoreland Curtis J. Dickson, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Court House, Greensburg.

Merle D. Musick, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Court House, Greensburg.

SOUTH CAROLINA

State-_„_-- J. S. Rogers, Jr., Field Representative, Department of Agriculture, Commerce and Industries,

P. O. Box 6, McColl.

W. E. Tate, Field Representative, Department

of Agriculture, Commerce and Industries,

P. O. Box 765, Florence. Miss Lily R. Hodges, Secretary to Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Commerce and Industries, Columbia.

Miss Janie Crosland, Department of Agriculture, Commerce and Industries, Columbia,
PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE IX TENNESSEE

City: Nashville Tom Webb, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. TEXAS

State W. S. BussEY, Chief, Weights and Measures

Division, Austin. Oscar W. Cox, Inspector of Weights and Measures, 814 Bagby Avenue, Waco. M. S. Fraze, Chief, Markets and Warehouse

Division, Austin. City: Dallas R. L. Fullen, Chief, Sealer of Weights and

Measures, City Hall. VERMONT

State H. N. Davis, Deputy Commissioner of Weights

and Measures, State Office Building, Montpelier.

VIRGINIA

State M. A. Hubbard, Supervisor of Weights and

Measures, State Office Building, Richmond.

City:

Newport News H. G. Twyford, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. Norfolk H. V. Hayman, Assistant Sealer of Weights and

Measures, New City Hall. Richmond B. W. Ragland, Chief, Bureau of Weights and

Measures, City Hall Annex.

C. D. Garber, Deputy Sealer of Weights and

Measures, City Hall Annex. M. L. Rice, Deputy Sealer of Weights and

Measures, City Hall Annex. WEST VIRGINIA

State S. M. Miller, State Scale Inspector, Martinsburg.

City: Wheeling L. W. Fulton, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

City Hall. County: Wood H. A. Watkins, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Court House, Parkersburg.

WISCONSIN

City: Milwaukee Louis E. Witt, Sealer of Weights and Measures,

1331 North Fifth Street. DELEGATES—NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Director's Office: Lyman J. Briggs, Director. Division of Weights and Measures: H. W. Bearce nui^f^

F. S. HoLBROOKr^-^^^^^^-

Howard S. Bean, Chief, Section on Gas Measuring Instruments.

R. E. Gould, Chief, Time Section.

L. V. JuDSON, Chief, Length Section. D. R. Miller, Chief, Section on Limit Gages.

E. L. Peffer, Chief, Section on Capacity and Density.

A. T. PiENKOWsKY, Chief, Mass Section. H. H. Russell, Chief Engineering Inspector (Scale). Ralph W. Smith, Chief, Section on Weights and Measures Laws and

Administration.

WiLMER SouDER, Chief, Section on Thermal Expansivity, Dental Research,

and Identification. Division of Simplified Practice: E. W. Ely, Chief. W. E. Braithwaite, Assistant Chief Business Specialist, Containers and

Miscellaneous Products.
X PEESONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

GUESTS REPRESENTING UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Department of Agriculture:

Agricultural Adjustment Administration: D. E. Montgomery, Director, Consumers' Counsel Division, Washington, D. C. Agricultural Marketing Service: C. A. Briggs, Livestock Weight Supervisor, Washington, D. C. Food and Drug Administration:

W. S. Feisbib, Chief, Division of State Cooperation, Washington, D. C. Sumner C. Rowb, Associate Chemist, Washington, D. C. Post Office Department:

Equipment and Supplies Branch: J. C. Miller, Skilled Draftsman, Washington, D. C. United States Tariff Commission:

Accounting Division: Mabel G. Hamilton, Special Expert, Washington, D. C. Claire A, Mason, Special Expert, Washington, D. C. Lillian R. Stam, Special Expert, Washington, D. C. GUESTS REPRESENTATING MANUFACTURERS OF WEIGHING AND

MEASURING DEVICES

Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.: E. E. Powell, Manager, Loadometer Sales,

Towson, Md.

Bonded Scale Co. : Arthur Gluck, President, Columbus, Ohio.

Bowser, S. F., & Co. (Inc.): E. C. Marsh, Vice President, Fort Wayne, Ind.

C. P. Griffith, Chief Engineer, Fort Wayne, Ind. Brodie Meters: D. W. Kingsley, Eastern Manager, 425 Chrysler Building, New York, N. Y.

C. J. McCaffrey, 425 Chrysler Building, New York, N. Y.

Carolina Scale Shop: C. H. Norman, Manager, 112 East Morehead Street, Charlotte, N. C.

Chatillon, John, & Sons: Paul T. Bortell, Vice President, 89 Cliff Street, New

York, N. Y. Dayton Pump & Manufacturing Co.

:

E. E. Eickmeyer, Vice President and General Manager, Dayton, Ohio. K. M. Brower, Sales Manager, Dayton, Ohio. G. W. Eichhoff, Eastern Manager, 441 Lexington Avenue, New York, N. Y.

A. G. Horvath, Chief Engineer, Dayton, Ohio.

Erie Meter Systems (Inc.) : L. R. Olsen, Chief Engineer, P. O. Box 559, Erie, Pa. Exact Weight Scale Co.

:

W. A. ScHEURER, Vice President, 944 West Fifth Avenue, Columbus, Ohio,

James F. Baldwin, 309 American Building, Baltimore, Md.

E. H. Cameron, Industrial Engineer, 817 Mission Street, San Francisco,

Calif. Fairbanks, Morse & Co.:

J. F. Cruikshank, Sales Engineer, 600 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill» Jerome Kennet, Sales Representative, New York, N. Y.

C. A. Hennie, Scale Division, 205 Water Street, Baltimore, Md.

W. C. Gantt, Scale Service Manager, 205 Water Street, Baltimore, Md.

Edward J. Coverdale, Sales Engineer, Chastleton Hotel, Washington, D. C.

Gilbert & Barker Manufacturing Co.:

J. A. Logan, Manager, New Products & Patents Division, Springfield, Mass. W. M. Harks, Sales Engineer, Springfield, Mass.

Gurley, W. & L. E.: Franklin G. Williams, 3616 Newark Street, Washington, D. C,

Hobart Manufacturing Co.: Kenneth C. Allen, Chief Engineer, Dayton Scale Division, 448 Huffman

Avenue, Dayton, Ohio.

S. M. Templeton, Special Representative, Dayton Scale Division, 914

Girard Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa. Howe Scale Co.

:

E. V. Syrcher, Manager, 1325 South Wabash Avenue, Chicago, lU. C. A. Lindsay, Special Representative, 1305 Euclid Street, Washington,. D. C. International Business Machines Corporation: L. S. Smithers, Special Representative, 590 Madison Avenue, New York, N. Y.

Jacobs Bros. Co. (Inc.) : J. E. Woodland, Sales Manager, Detectogram Division,.

Main and Water Streets, Brooklyn, N. Y.
PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE XI Kron Co.: Richard F. Straw, President, Bridgeport, Conn.

J. C. Van Fossen, Engineer, 4603 Sheffield Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa. L N S Corporation: William H. Lolley, President, 25 Broadway, New York, N. Y. Martin & Schwartz (Inc.) : Jack H. Prause, Assistant Vice President, 2933 Main

Street, Buffalo, N. Y.

National Meter Co.: R. H. Barge, Development Engineer, 4207 First Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y.

J. L. Schumann, Sales Engineer, 4207 First Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y.

National Store Specialty Co.: W. E. Sheaffer, General Manager and Secretary, Bareville, Pa.

J. RoTBR Miller, Bareville, Pa. Neptune Meter Co.: R. K. Blanchard, Vice President, 50 West Fiftieth Street, New York, N. Y.

, Walter H. Sieger, Engineer, 192 Jackson Avenue, Long Island City, N. Y.

Peerless Weighing & Vending Machine Corporation: A. J. Lilliedahl, Manager,

Service Traffic, 22-19 Forty-first Avenue, Long Island City, N. Y.

Pittsburgh Equitable Meter Co.: H. I. Beardsley, Manager, Oil and Gasoline Division, 400 North Lexington

Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa. Edward R. Eyler, Sales Representative, 400 North Lexington Avenue,

Pittsburgh, Pa. E. W. Wright, Jr., Sales Representative, 400 North Lexington Avenue,

Pittsburgh, Pa. Robinson Seal Co.: C. J. Robinson, 170 Summer Street, Boston, Mass.

Schirmer-Dornbirer Pump Co.: W. P. Schirmer, President, 1719 East Thirtyninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio.

Scovill Manufacturing Co.: J. V. MacDonald, Assistant Sales Supervisor,

Waterbury, Conn.

Seederer-Kohibusch (Inc.): J. E. Seederer, President, 149 New York Avenue,

Jersey City, N. J. Seraphin Test Measure Co.: Theo. a. Seraphin, President, 1314 North Seventh Street, Philadelphia, Pa» Lawrence C. Schloder, Superintendent, 1314 North Seventh Street,, Philadelphia, Pa.

Service Station Equipment Co.: Eric H. Bradley, Chief Engineer, Muskegon^

Mich„

Smith Meter Co.: Allan A. Floyd, President, Los Angeles, Cahf. Glenn D. Frye, Sales Manager, 114 Liberty Street, New York, N. Y.

Spinks Scale Co.: J. M. Spinks, Manager, 656 Mayland Avenue, S. W., Atlanta, Ga. Standard Computing Scale Co.: W. Tom White, Assistant Supervisor of Agencies, 2461 East Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Mich.

Streeter-Amet Co.: Harry M. Roeser, Mechanical Engineer, 4101 Ravens- wood Avenue, Chicago. 111. Tokheim Oil Tank & Pump Co.: G. U. Brake, Service Manager, Fort Wayne, Ind.

L. W. Kohler, Salesman, Fort Wayne, Ind. Toledo Scale Co.:

S. Q. Bennett, Manager of Service and Weights and Measures Division,

Toledo, Ohio. H. O. Hem, Chief Engineer, Toledo, Ohio. Elwood p. Vroome, Special Representative, Toledo, Ohio.

Triner Scale & Manufacturing Co.

:

Frank A. Lang, Representative, 2714 West Twenty-first Street, Chicago, 111. Felix Jansey, Representative, 30 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, 111. John E. Edgerton, Representative, 1395 National Press Building, Washington, D. C. Veeder-Root (Inc.) : J. J. Brannick, Sales Representative, Hartford, Conn. Wayne Pump Co.: Charles C. Neale, Manager, Weights and Measures Division, Fort Wayne,

Ind. R. J. Heinekamp, 2008 Sixteenth Street, Washington, D. C. Wood, John, Manufacturing Co. (Inc.)

:

A. E. McKeever, Manager, Master Duplicator Division, 618 Capitol

Avenue, Hartford, Conn.

E. M. Orbeck, Chief Engineer, Master Duplicator Division, Hartford, Conn,
XII PERSOl!TS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

GUESTS REPRESENTING ASSOCIATIONS, BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY.

RAILROADS, ETC.

American Can Co.:

F. F. Fitzgerald, Directoi^of Research, 230 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. Henry B. Tourtellot, 230 Park Avenue, New York, N. Y. American Home Economics Association: Hazel Kyrk, Home Economics Department, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. Associated Grocery Manufacturers of America (Inc.): Robert F. Wilson,

Assistant to President, 205 East Forty-second Street, New York, N. Y.

Association of American Railroads: M. J. J. Harrison, Pennsylvania Railroad,

Altoona, Pa. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad System: E. Kent Lawrence, General Scale Inspector,

Baltimore, Md.

Can Manufacturers Institute (Inc.): F. F. Fitzgerald, American Can Co., 230

Park Avenue, New York, N. Y. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.: H. C. Propst, Chief Scale Inspector, Richmond,

Va. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. : Harry Mayer, Supervisor of Scales, 400

West Madison Street, Chicago, 111. Cooperative Food Distributors of America: Hector Lazo, Executive Vice

President, 1627 K Street, Washington, D. C. Folding Paper Box Association of America: George H. Sicard, Eastern Secretary,

19 West Forty-fourth Street, New York, N. Y.

Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association: G. Denny Moore, Managing

Director, 420 Lexington Avenue, New York, N. Y.

Glass Container Association of America: J. S. Algeo, Hazel-Atlas Glass Co., Wheeling, W. Va. Great Northern Railway Co.: H. M. Batcheller, Scale Inspector, Minneapolis,

Minn.

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.: J. S. Algeo, Vice President, Wheeling, W. Va. Home-Makers Forum: Irene Case Namur, 511 West Two hundred and thirtysecond Street, New York, N. Y. Label Manufacturers National Association: Charles R. Cosby, Executive

Secretary, 60 East Forty-second Street, New York, N. Y. Muirson Label Co. (Inc.): Clarence Stewart, Vice President, Decatur and

Irving Avenues, Brooklyn, N. Y. National-American Wholesale Grocers' Association: M. L. Toulme, Secretary, 60

Hudson Street, New York, N. Y.

J^ational Canners Association: Carlos Campbell, Director, Division of Statistics, 1739 H Street, WashlEONAm) D*. Peterson, Statistician, 1739 H Street, Washington, D. C. National Scale Men's Association: H. M. Batcheller, President; Great Northern

Railway Co., Minneapolis, Minn. ia i t + Norfolk & Western Railway Co.: C. H. Rodeniser, General Scale Inspector,

Roanoke, Va.

Owens-Illinois Glass Co. : ^, . ^ i j H A. Trumbull, Merchandising Manager, Ohio Buildmg, Toledo, Ohio. Edward F. Glacken, Eastern Sales Manager, Chrysler Building, New York, N. Y.

J. D. Laird, Supervisor of Specifications, Toledo, Ohio. • i,- Pennsylvania Railroad: M. J. J. Harrison, Supervisor of Scales and Weighing,

Altoona, Pa. ^ _ , t^. , . Scale Journal Publishing Co.: Edith G. Jacobs, Secretary, 1703 East Eightyfourth Street, Chicago, 111.

^ ^ v

Sinclair Refining Co.: James G. Bohart, 630 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y.

Standard Oil Company of New Jersey:

J. W. Saybolt, Sales Manager, 26 Broadway, New York, N. \

.

L. L. Kennedy, C. & M. Assistant, Newark, N. J.

-o r^ t> iohq

Southern Railway System: J. N. Todd, Superintendent of Scales, P. O. Box 180«,

Washington, D. C. ^ . • 4. it Tide-Water Associated Oil Co.: Edgar A. Orpin, Supervisor of Equipment, 17 Battery Place, New York, N. Y. ^ . + ^ Wood, Gar, Industries (Inc.): B. A. Cooper, Sales Engineer, Vernon Street and

Broadway, Long Island City, N. Y.
CONTENTS

Pag^

Officers and committees. m

Persons atteiading the Couference v

FIRST SESSION—MORNING OF TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1939 Progress in the standardization of large-capacity scales, by Lyman J. Briggs,

Director, National Bureau of Standards, and President, National Conference on Weights and Measures 1 Roll call of delegates 5 Weights and measures requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act, by W, S. Frisbie, Chief, Division of State Cooperation, Food and

Drug Administration, United States Department of Agriculture 5 Coordination between departments in relation to interstate shipments, by

C. E, Tucker, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures, State of California 9' Tolerances, by M. J. J. Harrison, Supervisor of Scales and Weighing,

Pennsylvania Railroad 12

Retail sale of commodities by weight or measure, by C. L. Klocker, In- spector of Weights and Measures, State of Connecticut 16* The value of weights and measures radio programs, by A, Edward Snyder,

Inspector of Weights and Measures, city of Terre Haute, Ind 19 SECOND SESSION—AFTERNOON OF TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1939 Demonstration of recent developments in weighing and measuring apparatus, by representatives of manufacturers 25

Report of Committee on Proposed Federal Legislation to Provide Assistance

for the States in Administration of Weights and Measures Laws, presented

by John P. McBride, chairman 25

Discussion of above report 27

Activities of the National Scale Men's Association, by H. M. Batcheller,

President, National Scale Men's Association 30

Discussion of above paper 31 Broken glass, by George F. Austin, Jr., Supervising Inspector of Weights

and Measures, city of Detroit, Mich 31 Test weights of large denominations, by Ralph W. Smith, National Bureau

of Standards 35 THIRD SESSION—MORNING OF WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 1939 Appointment of committees 45 Research program on volumeters of the ASME Special Research Committee

on Fluid Meters, by Howard S. Bean, National Bureau of Standards 45 The consumer looks at weights and measures administration, by D. E. Montgomery, Consumers' Counsel, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, United States Department of Agriculture 48

Discussion of above paper 55 Report on the teisting of vehicle scales by the National Bureau of Standards,

by Ralph W. Smith, National Bureau of Standards 57 Report of Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, presented by John

P. McBride, and discussion thereon 64

Section on liquid-measuring devices 64

Section on vehicle tanks 65

Section on scales 71 FOURTH SESSION—AFTERNOON OF WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 1939 Tour of the laboratories of the National Bureau of Standards 77

XIII
XIV CONTENTS

FIFTH SESSION—MORNING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1930 Standardization of packages: Page

Report of Conference Committee, presented by Alex Pisciotta,

chairman 79

Paper presented by Hazel Kyrk, Home Economics i5epartment,' University of Chicago, representing the American Home Economics

Association 35 SIXTH SESSION—AFTERNOON OF THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1939 Standardization of packages—Continued:

Paper presented by Hector Lazo, Executive Vice President, Cooperative

Food Distributors of America 89

Discussion of above paper 92

Paper presented by Carlos Campbell, Director of the Division of Statistics, National Canners Association 85

Discussion of above paper 100 Paper of Arthur P. Williams, President, R. C. Williams and Co., repre- senting the National-American Wholesale Grocers' Association 104

Discussion of above paper 109

Paper presented by F. F. Fitzgerald, Director of Research, American

Can Co., representing the Can Manufacturers Institute, Inc 112

Discussion of above paper 116

Paper presented by J. S. Algeo, Hazel-Atlas Glass Co., representing the Glass Container Association of America 117

Paper presented by Charles R. Cosby, Executive Secretary, Label

Manufacturers National Association 121 General discussion of report of Conference Committee 125 SEVENTH SESSION—MORNING OF FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1939 Supplemental report of Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, pre- sented by John P. McBride, and discussion thereon 129

Report of Committee on Specifications and Tolerances, presented by John

P. McBride, and discussion thereon—Continued 132

General restatement of tolerances for large-capacity scales 133

Vehicle-scale tolerances 133

Single-service measure containers 134

Abstracts of State reports: Alabama, R. M. Johnson 135

California, C. E. Tucker 135

Connecticut, C. L. Klocker 135

Florida, Howard E. Crawford 135

Georgia, S. H. Wilson 136

Illinois, John J. Levitt 136

Indiana, Rolhn E. Meek 136

Maine, James A. Boyle 136

Maryland, Charles G. Crockett 136

Massachusetts, John P. McBride 136 Michigan, George F. Austin, Jr 137 Minnesota, Russell S. Ackerman 137

Missouri, Louis G. Waldman 137

Nevada, J. M. McLeod 137

New Jersey, Charles C. Read 137

New York, Barnett Kanzer 138 North Carolina, C. D. Baucom 138

North Dakota, A. J. Jensen 138

Ohio, J. C. Tinkey 138

Texas, W. S. Bussey 138

Vermont, H. N. Davis. 139

Virginia, M. A. Hubbard 139 West Virginia, S. M. Miller 139

Wisconsin, Louis E. Witt 139

New York City, Alex Pisciotta 139

Reports of representatives of State associations of weights and measures offi- cials 140

Motion to reconsider adoption of recommendation of Committee on Specifi- cations and Tolerances in relation to tolerances for vehicle scales _ 140
CONTENTS XV

Page

Report of Committee on Nominations, presented by Rollin E. Meek, chair- man, and election of oflBcers 143 Report of Committee on Resolutions, presented by W. S. Bussey, chairman,

and adoption of resolutions: Appreciation to Director and staff of the National Bureau of Standards. 143

Appreciation to management of headquarters hotel 143

Appreciation to the Scale Journal 143

Appreciation of cooperation 144

Appreciation to officials cooperating 144

In memory of C. J. P. Cullen 144

In memory of Clarence L. Jarrett 144

In memory of deceased members 144

Appropriation for National Bureau of Standards 144 Regret at absence of Capt. S. T. Griffith 145 Committee on publicity and education 145

Establishment of Committee on Legislation 145

New business. 146 Report of the treasurer, George F. Austin, Jr - 148

REPORT OF THE TWENTY-NINTH NATIONAL

CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

HELD AT THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS,

WASHINGTON, D. C, JUNE 6, 7, 8, AND 9, 1939 FIRST SESSION—MORNING OF TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 193^

(The Conference was called to order at 11:10 a. m., by Lyman J. Briggs, Presi- dent of the Conference.)

PROGRESS IN THE STANDARDIZATION OF LARGE-CAPACITY

SCALES

By Lyman J. Brjggs, Director, National Bureau of Standards, and President^ National Conference on Weights and Measures Members of the Conference, ladies and gentlemen: It is a great

pleasure to the National Bureau of Standards to welcome you to the

Twenty-ninth National Conference on Weights and Measures.

In my opening talk at the Twenty-eighth Conference on Weights

and Measures last year I took occasion to mention that we hoped

soon to have here at the National Bureau of Standards a suitable

vehicle scale of our own. I am now happy to announce that this

hope has become a reality. A 60,000-pound vehicle scale with a 40-

by 10-ft platform has been installed, and this has been tested and

accepted by the Bureau. This scale will be visited on the tour of the Bureau laboratories which will be made tomorrow afternoon.

The scale is completely installed and ready to weigh. I regret, however, that the surroundings are not as shipshape as I had hoped they

would be when you arrived.

The scale will eventually be entirely housed—at present the enclosure is only partially constructed. However, it is far enough advanced so that you can visualize what is contemplated. The concrete roadways on either end of the scale are also in very sketchy condition.

Eventually there will be in the scale house not only the vehicle scale

but a beam for the sealing of heavy weights from 100 to 1,000 pounds —you will see this beam on your tour tomorrow—and a 10,000-pound

scale for testing weights of more than 1,000 pounds and for the weighing of heavy loads. A 10,000-pound crane will be installed for handling these objects. We shall have then, assembled under one roof,

facilities for testing weights and accurately weighing loads ranging in

size from 100 to 60,000 pounds. We have long needed such facilities. I now desire to discuss with you certain actions which the Bureau is preparing to take in relation to specifications and tolerances for railwajr

track and vehicle scales. Some 20 years ago the first nationally recognized specification for

the manufacture and installation of railway track scales was formulated by a joint committee of various interested organizations, including the National Bureau of Standards. This specification was issued as Circular No. 83, published by the National Bureau of Standards in

188876—iO 2 1
2 NATIOIirAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

1920. It was widely accepted. A number of manufacturers designed

scales to comply with these requirements, and they were made the

basis of many scale purchases. As a result, they had a profound

influence in the railway track scale field, resulting in very greatly

improved conditions throughout the United States. This specification served its purpose excellently for a number of years. A few years after this specification was issued, work was started on

the formulation of a competent purchase specification for other largecapacity scales. This work was intrusted to the Subcommittee on

Scales established by the Yards and Termiaals Committee of the

American Eailway ^ Engineering Association- The membership of

this subcommittee included a member of^ the staff of the National

Bureau of Standards and also representatives of other organizations

interested in the proper design, construction, and accuracy of scales. When completed and approved this specification was published in the

AKEA Bulletin; thereafter it was published by the National Bureau

of Standards as Letter Circular No. 152. It represented the first competent nationally recognized purchase specification for the types

of scales which were included within its purview. As in the case of the

specifications for railway track scales discussed above, these requirements resulted in greatly improving the design and construction of

the types of scales in question.

A few years ago it was felt that the time had arrived when these

origiaal specifications for railway track scales and for other largecapacity scales might well be amended to some extent. Consequently,

this work was undertaken, and naturally it was inaugurated under the

auspices of the Subcommittee on Scales of the Yards and Terminals

Committee.

These revised specifications were eventually completed by the

Committee and were put through the usual routine necessary to obtain the formal approval of the Association of American Kailroads,

and in 1936 they were issued by that Association. They are entitled,

respectively, ''Specifications for the Manufacture and Installation of

Four-Section, Knife-Edge, Kailway Track Scales—1936," and ''Specifications for the Manufacture and Installation of Motor-Truck,

Built-in, Self-Contained and Portable Scales for Railway Service—

1936."

Both of these specifications appear in the Manual of the Association and also in a booklet entitled "Scales," issued by the Association

of American Railroads. The foreword of this booldet cites the facts

that the rules and specifications contained therein "were developed in

the Engiaeering Division, A. A. R., vnth. the active and helpful collaboration of the National Bureau of Standards, the National Scale

Men's Association, the Scale and Balance Manufacturers' Association,

and the Traffic Department, A. A. R. They describe methods and

practices which have been demonstrated by experience to be essential

for satisfactory scale equipment, and carry the approval, as of the date

of this publication, of the Association of American Railroads."

The best railway track scale and motortruck scale iastallations now

commercially procurable may be secured by specifying and enforcing

the requirements of these two specifications. These specifications

supersede the former specifications pontained in National Bureau of

Standards Circular No. 83 and Letter Circular No. 152, both of which

are now out of print. It is the intention of the National Bureau of
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 3

Standards to supersede these publications by another which will set forth the provisions of the present AAR specifications. Moreover, I am advised by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Weighing and

Measuring Devices of the Federal Specifications Board that the necessary steps will be inaugurated to the end that these specifications

may become the basis of the purchase requirements of the Federal

Government and of the other agencies which utilize, in purchasing,

the specifications approved by the Federal Specifications Board.

Since the specifications mentioned above for railway track scales

and motortruck scales and other large-capacity scales are purchase

specifications, the tolerances given therein are tolerances for new

scales only; tolerances to be applied to scales in use (maintenance tol- erances) are not included. However, maintenance tolerances for rail- way track scales have been adopted by the Association of American

Railroads, these being included in "Rules for the Location, Maintenance, Operation, and Testing of Railway Track Scales—1934.'^ Recently the Bureau has been reviewing the tolerances apphed by the

Bureau in its tests of railway track scales. These tolerances are

basically the same as those applied by the various railroads in their

own tests of railway track scales. However, they differed in one

respect, namely, the railroad tolerances specified that when a test car

of 7-foot wheeibase or less is used in a test, in no case shall the error

at any position of the test car exceed 0.3 percent, or 3 lb per 1,000 lb

of test load. This made the railroad tolerance shghly more stringent

than the Bureau tolerance, since on a four-section scale the Bureau

tolerance is applied only to the largest mean of two errors found for

different specified positions of the test car, and no specific limitation is placed on the error developed on an individual section. The limitation

adopted by the railroads is a reasonable one. Consequently, this re- quirement is being adopted by the Bureau and will be put into effect at the beginning of the coming fiscal year, July 1, 1939. We feel that

this is a satisfactory step toward uniformity.

The Bureau has not been applying tolerances to railway track

scales having automatic indicating or recording devices embodied in or attached to them; we have merely been reporting the errors developed upon test. A tolerance on scales equipped with these devices was adopted by the Association of American Railroads in 1934. In

adopting this tolerance the Association of American Railroads fol- lowed the requirement contained in the code of tolerances adopted by

the National Conference on Weights and Measures (Scales J. Toler- ances—^par. J-la. 2). Since the Bureau has always considered the

Conference requirement a sound one, we are adopting the AAR tol- erance, and will apply it to track scales equipped with these devices

and inspected by the Bureau on and after July 1, 1939. Again, we

are achieving uniformity.

As to the maintenance tolerance on vehicle scales, you will recall that in 1937 this Conference adopted certain amendments to its scale

code, with special reference to requirements for vehicle scales, as fol- lows: On vehicle scales in use the tolerance to be applied to the results on a corner shall be 0.4 percent, provided that the algebraic mean of

the errors on the two comers at each end of the scale shall not exceed

the regular tolerance of 0.2 percent; also when a load of test weights

,of not less thian 8_,000 pounds is employed in any test of a vehicle scale
4 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

in use, certain minimum tolerances are specified. Following your 1937

Conference, the Scale Subcommittee of the Yards and Terminals

Committee gave attention to these amendments of your body and

found them satisfactory. The amendments were proposed for adoption by the Association of American Railroads, were transmitted

through the usual channels, and were officially adopted by that organization for application to vehicle scales in railway service. Thus the

railroads have made their requirements conform with yours.

As a result of all this effective cooperation, I am now very happy to be able to announce that the tolerances for railway track scales and

vehicle scales of the National Bureau of Standards and of the Association of American Railroads are in entire accord and that only slight

amendments would be necessary to bring the National Conference

tolerances in conformity with these codes. Since the adoption andapplication of divergent tolerances by agencies having the same ideals

would be an extremely unfortunate state of affairs, we think that the

uniformity which has now been achieved is highly satisfactory.

I feel that I should not dismiss questions of tolerances without

remarking in passing that the Bureau has revised its tolerances on heavy test weights. I need not say more in this relation since Ralph

W. Smith of our staff will include all necessary information as to this

matter in the paper which he will present this afternoon.

Many of you are cognizant of the fact that it has not been possible

for the National Bureau of Standards to be represented at the meetings

of State associations of weights and measures officials during the past

year. We have been obliged to decline invitations to participate in. every instance. I desire at this time to emphasize that the Bureau

considers that this form of cooperation with you is highly desirable. I would like very much to authorize attendance at all of these meetings.

The situation is solely due to the fact that money which can be ex- pended for travel has not been available.

Travel funds are ''earmarked" for this purpose. A special allotment is made to the Bureau, and this amount may not be exceeded

regardless of the total funds at our disposal. There are many demands

upon us for services involving expenditures for travel. I must so parcel out the funds that these demands can be met in the order of

their urgency. You will readily appreciate that this is not an agreeable task.

I have been liberal in my allotment of available travel funds to the

Division of Weights and Measures. I asked this Division to make

an estimate of its needs for the present fiscal year, and they requested

a sum that it was out of the question to grant in full. However, I allotted to this one Division travel funds equal in amount to that for

the other eight technical Divisions combined. And when I had

given all the travel money which could possibly be spared, Mr. Holbrook and Mr. Bearce went into executive session with their obligations. You see they are obligated to many expenditures. Three

railway track scale testing equipments and the vehicle-scale testing

unit must be operated—this work must go on. When these demands

were estimated they found there was no money available for attend- ance at the State meetings. So this activity was regretfully canceled.

I may say that the actual expenditures for the year show that their

estimates were conservative. Railway Track Scale Equipment No.

2 is now laid up at Clearing and will not be started out on a new itiner-
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 5

firy until the new fiscal year begins ; Equipment No. 1 is being expedited

into Clearing and will not be started out again until after July 1. The

Vehicle-Scale Testing Unit will discontinue operations after the test- ing program in Chicago is concluded. Three of our inspectors are cooperating by taldng periods of annual leave. After all these econ- omies are effected, Mr. Holbrook tells me that he hopes to have a

balance of $9 on June 30, the end of our fiscal year. The Bureau has been represented at two weights and measures

schools of instruction and at one State meeting during the year;

however, no Bureau travel funds were expended in these cases. The

organizations in question found it possible to assume the expenses

of the men. Please do not misunderstand my purpose in mentioning

this. I merely cite these instances so that you will understand that

there have been no exceptions to our general rule. I am not for a moment suggesting that your organizations should pay our travel

expenses. I do not think that it is incumbent upon you to do so, and I realize that in most instances it is wholly out of the question.

If any of you have been inclined to feel neglected or aggrieved

because we had to decline to attend meetings in which you were interested, I hope this frank exposition of our situation will have the result

of wholly dissipating this feeling. In closing, I want to assure you

that representation at State meetings will be resumed just as soon as

it is practicable to do so. ROLL CALL OF DELEGATES

The Chairman. Gentlemen, you will see by referring to the program that the reports of State delegates have been deferred this year

until Friday morning. However, we do wish to have at this time a

roll call of the delegates, in order that we may be able to identify each

other. And so I shall ask the delegates to rise as their names are

called and to remain standing until the names of all the delegates

registered from that State have been called. This group will then be

seated at the sound of the gavel, and the same procedure will be

followed successively with the other States. I will ask Mr. Smith now to call the roU. (The roll was called by Mr. Smith in the manner outlined.)

(At this point the Chairman read a letter from S. T. Griffith, Chief, Division

of Weights and Measures, of the city of Baltimore, who was unable to attend the Conference on account of illness.) WEIGHTS AND MEASURES REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL

FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT

By W. S. Feisbie, Ch^'ef, Division of State Cooperation, Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Agriculture

When the present speaker appeared before your Conference in

1935, the Copeland bill then before the Congress was the subject of

discussion, particularly those sections of the bill which required a statement of quantity of contents on food in package form. That

discussion drew one important difference between the act of 1906 and

the bill, i. e., in the use of the word ''accurate" in requiring the quantity of contents declaration on such packages to be accurately made.

This provision is now a law, and with it those sections of that bill which declared food to be misbranded if its container was so made.
6 NATIOI^AL BUKEAU OF STANDARDS

formed, or filled as to be misleading. Furthermore, these requirements now apply or will apply not only to food but to drugs, to therapeutic devices, and to cosmetics. The effective date of the enforcement of this act is June 25, 1939. In anticipation of the question

which may be asked, the Lea bill, which amends in some particular

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and which has passed

both the House and the Senate and is now in conference, contains no

provision affecting in any manner those sections of the act which

relate to net weight declaration or to misleading shape or fill of

container.

For purpose of convenience, this subject matter will be divided into

three parts, as follows: (1) The apphcation of the law to the label

statements of quantity of contents on packages, (2) to slack filling of

packages, and (3) to the type or shape of container.

In the first division, there is perhaps not much to add to what has

already been said or written relative to the law of 1906, although there

are one or two improvements, so far as the ultimate consumer is concerned, which are worthy of mention. Not only does the new act

require that an accurate statement of the quantity of contents be

made, but also that in all cases the statement shall be intelligible and

informative to the consmner. This is manifest by reading section

403 (f), which foUows immediately that section requiring the quantity

of contents statement as well as the name and place of business of the

manufacturer, packer, or distributor. This section reads—prefaced

by the clause that a food (or drug, or cosmetic) is misbranded:

If any word, statement, or other information required by or under authority of

this Act to appear on the label or labeling is not prominently placed thereon with

such conspicuousness (as compared with other words, statements, designs, or

devices, in the labeling) and in such terms as to render it likely to be read and' understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase

and use. For years the Department has recognized that the term ''plain and

conspicuous" in the act of 1906 did not represent a precise or mathematical yardstick, since the legend might be both plain and conspicu- ous and by a labeling arrangement, either by design or accident, fail to acquire that prominence which the spirit at least, if not the letter,, of the act seemed to require. The legislative committee was approached when this bill was in Congress, and the result was the drafting of section 403 (f) which I have just read. In other words, not only

must the quantity of contents statement be plain and conspicuous,,

but prominent with respect to all other labeling, whether mandatory

or voluntary, which appears on the label and this means prominence

in type as well as in position on the label. Certainly, that is our interpretation. The regulations which have been promulgated under

section 403 (e) which require the declaration of quantity of contents- are not different from those which have been in effect for many years. The same language as to variations and exemptions appears in this new

statute, and the same regulations have been adopted. The exerciptions as to small packages, that is, exemptions from any declaration

of quantity of contents, apply in the case of food packages containing

less than one-half ounce avoirdupois as before, and to packages of

liquid containing less than one-half ounce instead of 1 fluid ounce as

before. In the case of cosmetics, exemptions apply to packages^ containing less than one-quarter ounce avoirdupois, or less than one-eighth

fluid ounce. No exemptions have been extended to any size package
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 7

of drugs, SO far as weight or measure is concerned, but in the case of

numerical count for foods, drugs, devices, or cosmetics, the exemptions apply where less than six units are contained, provided they can

be seen in the unopened package.

It may be well at this point to emphasize the fact that we interpret

again the language of Congress with reference to reasonable variations

as being of a general rather than a specific character. The (question

has many times been raised as to what specific tolerances will be al- lowed on this commodity or that article, to which we have invariably

replied that, owing to factors of varying degree throughout the country

which may affect the net contents of a food packed under the best of

conditions, it is impossible to establish with any degree of uniformity

those tolerances which would be equitable in all given cases. Furthermore, experience has taught the Department that some manufacturers, fortunately few, are disposed to aim at a tolerance rather

than the full declared weight. Thus the nominal amount minus the

tolerance, rather than the weight declared, becomes the amount of

the commodity delivered, to the detriment of the honest manufacturer

and the ultimate consumer. The quantity of contents in the case of liquids shall be expressed in

liquid measure ; if the food is a solid or semisolid or a mixture of these,

in terms of weight, provided that dry conmiodities may be declared

in terms of dry measure. An exception, of course, is made where these

statements in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count, or a combination of them, in common use by consumers to express the quantity, actually give accurate information as to the quantity, in which

event such commonly used terms may be employed. The statement

may express a minimum quantity of contents or an average quantity

of contents, but if the latter, then there shall be no unreasonable

shortage, even though such shortage is compensated by packages

above the declared weight. If the declaration is in minimum terms,

then the package shall not fall below the minimum declared, and ex- cessive variations above will not be coimtenanced. Quantity of

contents in terms of numerical count must alwa3^s be informative, and

exemptions as to such declarations are made with a count of less than

six, provided all the units can be readily observed in the unopened

package.

The second division of this subject is of interest—the so-called

slack-filled provision. Probably, the first bill was introduced in

Congress in 1919, and for nearly 20 years successive bills were introduced, passing either the House or the Senate, but never receivings

approval of both Houses. This principle did receive recognition,

however, in 1930 when the McNary-Mapes amendment to the act of

1906 was approved, establishing for certain canned goods not only a

standard of quality but also a standard of fill of container. Some of

the State legislatures gave attention to the obvious necessity for slackfilled provisions, notably Nebraska, nearly 20 years ago, followed in more recent years by Alabama and North Dakota, and still later by

Louisiana, when that State adopted most of the provisions of the

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic legislation then before Congress. Two of

these States—Alabama and North Dakota—have made definite at- tempts to establish limits or tolerances for slack filling, for example,

Alabama, by regulation, requires packages such as oatmeal, rolled

oats, rolled-oat groats, and other oat flakes to be at least 85 percent
s NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

filled with the food they purport to contain, and foods such as corn

flakes and similar products at least 75 percent filled, and in the case

of whole and ground spices, packages of less than two ounces, 70 per- cent filled, two to three ounces, 75 percent filled, and packages of three ounces or more must be 80 percent filled. North Dakota first ruled

that spice packages must be 80 percent filled to be in satisfactory compliance with the law, later determining to solve the problem in a more

satisfactory fashion. The most recent ruling sets up a maximum size of container, depending upon the weight of the spice.

The Food and Drug Administration has given a preliminary study

to the problem of slack filling, but so far no regulations have been

issued, nor similar announcements made. The act itself provides

authority—continuing the principle of the McNary-Mapes amendment—to establish a fill of container for all foods in package form,

and already hearings on fill of container for canned apricots, pears,

cherries, and peas have been held. There seems to be the impression on the part of the trade that an 80 percent fill (for spices) is satisfactory

and equitable, but whether this is equitable under all conditions for

various containers is a question which the Administration is not prepared at the present time to decide. We must also remember that

this provision extends to drugs and cosmetics—a new field so far as net weight is concerned.

The third part of this subject relates to deceptively shaped containers. In particular, section 403 (d) of the act declares a food (or

drug or cosmetic) to be misbranded if the container is so made,

formed, or filled as to be misleading. There exists no authority anywhere in the act to establish a standard system of measurement for

deceptive containers such as exists in the fill-of-container clause in

connection with food standards. Here again, North Dakota has

given pioneer consideration to what may be regarded as a deceptive

container. That State has ruled that bottles and similar containers

of 2 to 4-ounce capacity whose ratio is 1.5 or less are normal and those

whose ratio exceeds 1.8 are deceptive and represent violations. The

ratio here is the ratio between the apparent volume (including the

volume of the panels) compared with the capacity of the container;

in other words, its apparent bulk divided by its actual capacity. One

of the representatives of the industry has pointed out that this ratio

is dependent upon the capacity of the bottle as well as the shape and

contents, that the ratio should be constant for any given size, and has

suggested a formula in which the sum of the volume of the glass plus

the volume of the panels raised to the three-over-two power is divided

by the actual capacity. We have applied both of these formulas in

the measurement of a number of bottles and find that the North

Dakota formula is acceptable, provided the capacity of the bottles

is within the order of 2 to 4 ounces, and that the other formula is based upon the assumption that the bottle is cubical in shape. Neither

formula is constant when bottles of very small or very large capacity

are included, or in the latter where they depart from a cubical shape.

Here again no decision has so far been made and, regardless of any

mathematical expression, we must still take into consideration the

actual impression created in the mind of the potential buyer, whether

or not, under ordinary or usual conditions of sale, the container is actually so shaped as to be misleading.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 9

In classifying the kinds of deceptive containers we have the case of

glass bottles, those made of thick glass, those with deep panels, those

of excessive and unnecessary height, those with deeply indented

bottoms, and those of irregular or particularly unusual shape. We

have similar situations in the opaque glass jars, with the additional

problem of the raised cover. In the cardboard, fiber, and metal cartons, we have false bottoms as in candy boxes, indented bottoms such

as those used for ice cream and cosmetics, raised covers as found in

face-powder boxes, and in all types of containers we find the oversized cartons and excessive wrappings. We also regard the container

which is made with cellophane or other similar material of such color as will impart a deceptive appearance to the food contained therein

as definitely outlawed b}^ this section of the act. For example, a

carton with a colored window of a red hue will make the green or unripe tomato appear perfectly ripe. It may, in passing, be pointed out

that such food may not only be misbranded but adulterated, by reason

of that section of the act which declares food to be adulterated if damage or inferiority has been concealed in any manner. The

feasibility of demonstrating to this Conference examples of deceptive

containers has been considered and solved by extending to the members an invitation to visit the offices and laboratories of the Food and

Drug Administration here in Yv^ashington, where these exhibits of

deceptive containers may be seen and studied, and explained by those

technically familiar with weights and measures problems. The members are therefore cordially invited to visit the Administration at any

time during the Conference and to make contact either with the

speaker or with S. C. Rowe, who is the Administration's expert on

this subject.

As to the policy of this Administration when the act becomes

effective, it is our purpose to insist upon a strict compliance with the

terms of the act which relate to the manner of declaring the quantity of

contents on foods, drugs, and cosmetics in package form, and to see that this is declared in terms that are intelligible and easily understood by the ultimate consumer. The mandate of Congress is clear; accurate information on this score must be conveyed to the purchaser.

It will be our purpose to study thoroughly the situation with respect

to slack filling of packages, whether through the establisliment of

fiU-of-container standards under that section of the act, or through

the issuance of regulations, and to determine in an equitable fashion

what containers are shaped or made so as to be misleading. While we

are wholly sympathetic with the movement toward standardization

of packages, there is no authority contained in the Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act to undertake the education of the consumer and the

manufacturer, but it is always our aim and purpose to enforce the law

in such manner as will promote honesty and fair dealing with the consumer. COORDINATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS IN RELATION TO

INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS

By C. E. Tucker, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures, State of California- Mr. Chairruan and members of the Conference: I am responding

today to the invitation of F. S. Holbrook, secretary of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures, to discuss the coordination of

efforts of the various State departments of weights and measures in
10 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

relation to the shipment of commodities in interstate commerce, with

particular reference to goods packed in containers.

At the outset, I wish to call your attention to the use by Mr.

Holbrook of the word "interstate" when he refers to commerce. By

using "interstate" instead of "intrastate", he indicates that he wishes a discussion of the problem as it relates to commerce between the

States. In that field, I am forced to speculate. If he had said

"intrastate" commerce, I might offer more direct information, for in

California we have a law which prohibits the use of false and misleading containers. However, the operation of that law does not

extend beyond our State, and that is where our problem begins. To

make my meaning clear, it will be necessary for me to review briefly

the situation in California.

Section 10 of the California Net Container Act provides:

The term container used in this Act is hereby defined to be any receptacle or carton into which a commodity is packed, or any wrappings with which any

commodity is wrapped or put for sale, or to be offered or exposed for sale. No

containers, boxes, or baskets wherein food products or other commodities are packed shall have a false bottom, false side walls, false lid or covering, or be

otherwise so constructed as to facilitate the perpetration of deception or fraud. In other words, our law demands that packages must be honest in

their declarations of quantity. If they are extra-large packages, they

shall not be misleading in their construction so as to convey by design a greater amount than actually packed. They must have no trick

construction within or without to deceive the eye and drain the

pocketbook or confuse the consumer. This is a relatively new law but an old principle. Our experience

has proven it to be a popular law with consumers, and to be acceptable

to those manufacturers, processors, packagers, and others who are only

interested with legitimate trade and honest trade practices.^ However, this law is very severe on the evildoer, the cheaters, the tricksters

who are not content to make a fair profit on the sale of the commodity,

but who must dip further into the pocket of the consumer and steal from him by tricks and fraudulent devices.

We began to enforce this law, not only by officials of the Division of

Weights and Measures in the California Department of Agriculture,

but also through the 58 county sealers and their staffs. First, we gave the new law considerable publicity so that fair warning would enable those violators who wished to avoid trouble to rid themselves of the objectionable merchandise. After a reasonable

time, a few months, we moved for prosecutions.

We found that manufacturers were taking advantage of special

occasions to push their deceptive packages. We found that the

California public is sentimental when it comes to purchasing a gift box.

That was particularly true on such occasions as Christmas, Easter,

Mother's Day and other holidays. It just didn't seem right to pick

lip a box of candy intended for mother on Mother's Daj and inspect

it carefully to determine if it was only half full or whether it was loaded

down with chocolate-colored paper dividers to give the impression of a

bountiful box. No, the buyers were thinking of the warm reaction

their mothers would get when the box arrived at home. In such a frame of mind, the buyers were ripe for the plucking so far as the

tricky-package people were concerned. Furthermore, our experience

showed that the plucking was good. Now there is no more plucking,

at least we know of no more of it.
TWEl!TEY-mNTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 11

We took several boxes of Mother's Day candy to our laboratory.

We examined them and fomid them grossly unfair. We found them

underweight. We found them containing but one very light layer,

ivhereas the boxes gave the impression of two layers. We found them

'decorated with bright ribbons and tissues, very gay, very attractive,

but very deceptive and very fraudulent. It was costly to buy paper

at $1.00 per pound.

We confiscated a large quantity of such merchandise, removed ii from the shelves of dealers, and took it to our storerooms. We did not

move to prosecute for we accomplished the result in a better way.

Almost at once we began to hear from the interests involved. We

lieard from the California distributor. We heard from the Eastern

manufacturer. The distributor passed the ''buck", so to speak, to the manufacturer, maintaining that he had purchased the goods in

good faith and that the responsibility was with the original seller, a

thousand miles away.

The Eastern manufacturer, at first very angry that his goods had

been confiscated, threatened and blustered but finally came down off his high horse and promised to mend his ways. He wouldn't put up

«andy in such deceptive boxes any more. He wanted to cooperate

with the weights and measures officials, and he was surprised that such

a law existed and further surprised that, even though it existed, it was

being enforced. He said such packages were being sold all the time in

other States. It has always been done that way with holiday goods.

The result was that all such candy was taken out of California and

sent back east by ship. I rather imagine that the hold of that ship was rather crowded, too, for California had been virtually flooded with

this quick-sale, shoddy holiday confection.

By this time the word was beginning to get aroimd that the California weights and measures officials meant business in their enforcement of the law against deceptive packages. However, we pressed our

drive and soon discovered that California was virtually the dumping

ground of the Nation for fake boxes of bath and face powder.

I have in my hand one of these powder boxes. You will see that it •gives the impression that the powder content is several inches deep.

At the prices quoted, it would have been a genuine bargain, had it been full. Imagine the deep chagrin of milady when, at home, she

opened her box to find less than an inch of powder. Such things make

women very unhappy. Well, we cleaned up that mess and another

shipload of fake stuff went back east. At Christmas-time we found that a manufacturer who specialized in

glazed fruits was selling bulging bowls of dainties, beautifully adorned

with ribbon, holiday greetings, and that sort of thing. The bulging

dome of fruit, however, was caused by the insertion of a generous

pasteboard dome. About all of the fruit in those bowls was that to be

seen on the top layer, for the rest was pasteboard. Here was another

instance of a manufacturer taking advantage of the sentiment of a

holiday. The manufacturer in this case was prosecuted and paid

•$1,000 for violating the law. Now he submits his packages to the

division well in advance of the selling season and gets an official approval before he sells a single pound of glazed fruits.

^ These confiscations and this $1,000 fine attracted national attention.

Many articles were written about the law. We saw to it that newspapers and picture syndicates were provided with articles and pictures
12 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

to explain what was being done and why. To say the least, the

campaign has had a splendid reaction in California. It was worth

while and it is being continued. Now we must try to interpret these

circumstances into the field of national action, in interstate commerce. We encounter complications at once. Only Congress can control

interstate commerce. It cannot be done by Executive order or by

some commission. Standardization w^ould require carefull}^ consid-^

ered legislation. In these days competition is very keen. Millions

and millions of dollars are being spent in advertising and sales promotion. Perhaps a drastic change in a package form might require

the entire rebuilding of a factory or an entire realignment of a sales. polic3^ involving great sums of money. However, the day is coming,

and speedily, when business men will have to face this problem for

the public is consumer-conscious and will not tolerate this banditry

by boxes, regardless of how pretty they may appear or how sweet

they may smell.

In that connection, I was interested in an article in a nationally

circulated trade magazine in which packages were discussed. It

listed some of the mistakes made in packaging goods, but nowhere

in the article was the fraudulent package mentioned. No mention was made of larcenous dividers, nothing was said about truth in

packages, and that, to my mind, is an important problem facing the

manufacturers of many products if they are to maintain and increase

sales. We must call this matter to their attention at once, and

forcefully, so that they may have a fair and rightful opportunity to^ adjust the difficulty within their own industry.

We should also call this matter to the attention of the National!

Council on State Governments, so that, in the absence of strict- Federal legislation, the legislatures of the various States can get into

this field and follow California, if they find it advisable. This is a National problem in the nature of public business, in terms of personal

items, demanding the consistent support of 48 States based on principle. We can also keep this subject alive in our discussions, and we

can help in our relations with other groups.

We cannot legislate. We cannot make rules, but w^e can point out

to those in authority the alarming evils of this situation and commend

the benefits that could come if corrective and effective steps were to be taken. We can do this not only for the protection of the con- sumer but also for the protection of the legitimate, conscientious

manufacturer who wants to compete on a basis of quality and quantity

rather than on a shyster, stealing basis involving deception and

double dealing.

It is a tremendous problem, but it must be solved.

TOLERANCES

By M. J. J. Harrison, Swpervisor of Scales and Weighing, Pennsylvania Railroad

Mr. President and gentlemen: The privilege of appearing before^ you has so often been mine, and the capacities in which I have appeared have been so numerous, that I feel that it might be well at

the outset this morning to identify my present status. My appear- ance this morning, if you please, is that of an individual—of one whose daily work in 13 States and the District of Columbia is, at the

very least, parallel to your work—of one whose daily contacts with

you and your work have been and are very close—and of one who has
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 13

attained a familiarity with the aims and objects of the National Conference on Weights and Measm-es and is sincerely sympathetic

theremth.

My topic this morning is of my own selection. Its choice came

about as a result of some relatively recent personal experiences. Some

of you, and especially some of the senior members of the Conference,

will naturally wonder what can possibly be said about tolerances

that has not already been said, and well said. I have felt that way

myself. However, ' 'strange as it may seem," or

* 'believe it or not,"

I have discovered that there are many people—people whom we have

a right to expect to know—who talk glibly about tolerances but have

no intelligent conception of them or of their proper application. So

definite a statement as I have just made is bound to be a shock to at

least some of you, but no other conclusion can be dra^vn from some of

the things that have come to my attention.

'^hose of you gentlemen who attended the early sessions of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures—then known as the

Annual Conference on Weights and Measures—or who have read the

reports of those sessions, will recall some of the primary reasons for the

establishment of the Conference. Chief amxong those reasons was the

obvious desirability of (1) uniform laws and uniformity in their administration, and (2) uniform specifications and tolerances, and

uniformity in their enforcement.

In that era of weights and measures work, each ofiicial had his own

ideas as to tolerances. He Imew that 100 percent mechanical perfection was unattainable, but there were few published tolerances,

and certainly there was no substantial uniformity in tolerances as applied in different jurisdictions, and I might even go so far as to say that there was little uniformity in tolerances as applied by differ- ent inspectors in the same jurisdiction.

When the Conference tolerances were initially adopted in 1916 and

promulgated by the National Bureau of Standards in its now superseded Circular No. 61, they were accepted thankfully. We had then,

for the first time, a set of tolerances recommended for uniform application to commercial apparatus, and those tolerances were the result

of the joint effort of the members of the Conference. It is a tribute

to both the Conference and to its Committee on Specifications and

Tolerances that its material has had such remarkably uniform acceptance. But why is there not 100 percent adherence to it? My observation has suggested certain thoughts, which are advanced at this

time in the hope that they will be found of some value, not only in

your activities and deliberations as the National Conference on

Weights and Measures but also in your consideration of problems

that arise in your own daily work.

First, what is ''tolerance"? Your dictionaries will tell you that,

among other things, it is a disposition to allow or permit something

which is not wholly approved—an attitude of forbearance with re- spect to something with which one is not fully in sympathy.

On the other hand, what is "a tolerance?" Your Handbook H22

contains an excellent statement of the purpose of tolerances, especially

from a weights and measures administration point of view, and several

definitions have been proposed, all of which are based on the conception of a tolerance as a specific quantity. This conception must

necessarily be observed, since the tolerances of any given system must
14 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

be mutually consistent and interdependent, or else they will be of

necessity disregarded.

Some 8 or 9 years ago, R. W. Smith of the National Bureau of

Standards prepared a most comprehensive discussion under the title ^^Tolerance and Tolerances.'' This discussion was initially published

in the January 1931, issue of the Scale Journal, and is commended to the careful study of all of you who have not already read it; it may be

reviewed with profit by those of you who have previously read it. I have no intention of plagiarizing Mr. Smith's discussion, but I shall

necessarily have to repeat here some of the thoughts that he suggested.

In a recent written discussion of a question involving metrological

tolerances, I stated the following as a basis for their construction:

That, with respect to any given type of metrological device, the formal

tolerance values should be predicated upon—(1) the economically

available refinement of manufacture of that type; (2) the refinement

of determination sought through the customary use of that type, and

(3) the practical conditions of use and maintenance of that type.

These are principles that are fundamental, and from personal observation of some twenty years, I aver that sight of these principles has never been lost in the work of this Conference, except on those for- tunately rare occasions when a motion from the floor, adopted in the

course of debate, has had an entirely unforeseen effect upon an item of

the tolerance structure—an effect which might easily have been

avoided if the proposal had had Committee study and consideration

in advance of its presentation.

When all is said and done, tolerance structure values are controlled

by the inflexible laws of mathematics and not by personal prejudices.

Since this is axiomatic, I respectfully^ submit the inquiry—why should

we discover among the supposed intelligensia of the weights and

measures world such incongruities as the following?

1. An ofiicial who publicly adopts standard tolerances for commercial apparatus, and then requires his subordinates to use working

standards of, to say the least, doubtful accm*acy, and testing technique

which could not possibly result in determinations with a precision

comparable to the tolerance values said to be applicable.

2. Another man who alleges that the Conference tolerances are unduly large, since advantage will be taken of them by the unscrupulous. Accept such allegations only with much salt; the people

who originate them are frequently less well-informed in the matter

than are you, and may often advance their specious theories from

selfish or ulterior motives.

3. Another official who, upon demand, can produce a printed table

of standard tolerances, but cheerfully and almost proudly admits

that they are so small as to be impracticable of application. Such a man probably lacks proper observational training.

4. Another official who wears an appearance of great wisdom, and

observes loudly that he recognizes no tolerance whatever—that "they

have to split the graduation."

5. Another official who alleges that the Conference tolerances are unduly large, his reason therefor being that he rarely or never finds a

device which he has to condemn. Investigate this man's methods

before taking him seriously; it will probably be found that his methods,

are not adequate to develop the actual errors of the equipment which

.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 15

he tests. In some instances it will even be found that Ms tests are

rarely or never made of the equipment in the condition in which it is found—cleaning and adjustment being required in advance of the

official test. This procedure amounts to application of the maintenance tolerances as adjustment tolerances—an^ entirely different

and totally imwarranted application. It has in its favor only the

fact that, at the time of the official visit, the equipment is left in

reasonably accurate condition ; there is no control of either the equipment or its accuracy under actual service conditions.

It is this last-named practice which I personally find most annoying.

We set up and publish maintenance tolerances, and then do not always

apply them as maintenance tolerances. That upsets the orderly

relation which should exist. It is the generally accepted view—I wish

it were uniformly accepted—that, having published a maintenance

tolerance, the errors of a device under service conditions shall not

exceed those tolerance values. Koutine tests should be considered as a means of learning whether those errors, under practical conditions

of use, exceed or do not exceed the applicable tolerance, and such

tests should be made of the device ia the condition in which it is found

operating by the inspector at the iastant of his arrival.

If the device is new, or if repairs or adjustments are necessary, then

we have our adjustment tolerances—usually one-half of the corre- sponding maintenance tolerances. The difference between adjustment tolerance values and maiatenance tolerance values is, of course,

to provide for unavoidable mechanical deterioration and also to some

extent for other causes of inaccuracy arisiag from practical conditions of use. The ideal situation, of course, would be for a device, at the time of one test, to be left in such accurate condition that, when next tested

in an ''as found" condition, its errors will not exceed the applicable

maintenance tolerance.

I do not cite these instances to be pessimistic; far from it. But,

rare though they be, there are enough of them to attract attention.

Obviously, such digressions from orthodox procedure constitute neither

honest nor intelligent application of weights and measures laws and

regulations. They do not convince a user or owner of a commercial

weighing or measuring device that his neighbor—possibly his competitor—is subject to the same requirements that he is. We come here annually to discuss matters of common interest.

We put forward our individual best feet. We speak proudly of how

weU we are domg our job, both individually and collectively. Why,

then, when we go home, should some of us figuratively shrug our

shoulders and say, "Oh, well! Those tolerance tables are all very

well m theory, but I'll just use my own judgment." Whom are we

fooling by adoptmg that course? Just ourselves, and, to only a

limited extent, the people who must depend on us to tell them if the

equipment over or by means of which they buy or sell is satisfactorily accurate.

I cannot dismiss this part of my remarks without mentioning one

other source of occasional criticism of Conference tolerances. I refer now to the manufacturer who blandl}^ claims such superiority for his

product that tolerances of the order of those already in effect are not

required. You should have no trouble in deciding for yourselves if such claims are as altruistic as it is hoped you will believe them to be.
16 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

A few days ago I found a letter with reference to tolerances, written some 18 years ago by a friend of mine. In it he said, and I think he

would say the same thing today

The trouble is that everj'^one is willing to go into these matters Just as far as he

can understand them easily, but he at once declares impractical that which

requires a little cogitation to understand. My personal plea to you at this time may be summarized as follows:

1. Recognize the value of the carefully considered proposals of your

own Committee on Specifications and Tolerances.

2. Recognize the necessary interdependency of the various tolerance

values, and that an inconsistency in one spot throws the entire struc- ture out of gear, so to speak.

3. Apply your adopted specifications and tolerances strictly as written; do not tolerate errors which exceed the value of the uniform

adopted tolerances; use a testing technique which is adequate to dis- close the accuracy or otherwise of the device under test under practical

working conditions ; and be sure that your own working standards are

of proper authenticity.

4. Do not disregard a stated tolerance value simply because you

individually fail to understand it. 5. In the adoption and enforcement of specifications and tolerances,

be tolerant only to the extent that, for the sake of uniformity, you

"tolerate" the views of the majority, instead of setting up an artificial claim of having a local condition that requires a set of tolerance values

differing from those already adopted by this Conference.

If you will observe these suggested precepts, you will probably

better conditions in your ovvm jurisdictions, you will in so doing in- crease your value to your own State or community, you will especially

simplify matters for every organization engaged in any way in intercommunity or interstate commerce, and you will do your part in

advancing the standard of accuracy on which the smooth flow of our

National commerce so largely depends.

RETAIL SALE OF COMMODITIES BY WEIGHT OR MEASURE

By C. L. Klocker, Inspector of Weights and Measures, State of Connecticut The title of this paper suggests a serious and timely matter, considering that at the present time most of the States allow the retail sale of commodities by both weight and measure, which puts a doubt in the

mind of the consumer as to whether or not he is receiving the correct amount by either method. To my mind, all commodities should be

sold at retail by weight.

Let us consider some of the advantages and disadvantages of the

retail sale of commodities by measure, using as an example the lesser of two evils, the struck measure and its usual subdivisions. Commodities, of course, refer to fruits, vegetables, and other products and we

may consider them as packed in standard containers.

About 1836 the Federal Government established the bushel as containing 2,150.42 cubic inches, and this cubical content of the bushel

has been consistently maintained up to the present time, including

the Standard Container Act of 1928. This act refers to specified

types of containers, namely, round-stave baskets, splint baskets, or hampers for fruit and vegetables, and specifications for the various

sizes of containers have been issued by the United States Department
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASUBES 17

of Agriculture within the provisions of this law. As you know, we now

use these containers in interstate shipments as required by this act. This in itself is all right, but why should the Standard Container Act

of 1928 be enforced after the wholesaler in the State to which the goods

are consigned receives these commodities? The retailer in the market, when he bids on a quantity of various commodities, invariably

picks up several of the containers to determine the approximate weight

of each container. He knows that in the State of Connecticut, at

least, he will be unable to sell these commodities to the consumer by

measure because of the fact that the average consumer in the State of

Connecticut is well aware that a pound is constant and the amounts

arrived at by the use of a bushel or its subdivisions are variable. A

container is not only variable to the consumer; it causes trouble for

any weights and measures official. I defy anyone to look over a dozen

or more containers of approximately the same size and shape and to determine whether or not they contain 2,150.42 cubic inches, 2,000

cubic inches, or 2,200 cubic inches, or any other definite amoimt.

We are always endeavoring to educate the consumers to investigate

and see for themselves the amount they actually purchase. If it is impossible for a weights and measures official to determine the approximate cubical content of a container by observation, how can we expect

the consumer to determine the amount, when we have such a difficult time to educate him in the practice of reading a scale which is right

in front of him, and which any child could look at and ascertain how

much weight he is receiving? We cannot expect the consimier to go

into a store carrying several sealed measures in order to determine

the amounts of the commodities he desires to purchase. That, of

course, is impossible. Neither can we expect the consumer to use the

chart put out by the United States Department of Agriculture, which

explains how to measure and then determine the content of any container. If any one of you present has seen these charts, and the directions contained thereon for determining the size of a standard contaiuer, and has tried to use them, you have found that, in most instances, it requires the services of an engineer, statistician, and mathematician, and approximately one-half hour of measuring and figuring,

in order to determine the cubical content of a particular container.

I will grant that scales go out of order as will any mechanical device,

but the activity of the weights and measures officials of today makes it reasonably certain to any consumer that if a scale is on zero before the

commodity is weighed, and the scale shows that it has been sealed by

a weights and measures official, he is receiving the weight indicated by

the scale. The State Department of Weights and Measures in Connecticut is and has been advocating the sale of all commodities at retail by weight

or numerical count, and will continue to do so indefinitely, I hope.

To my mind, the sale of commodities by weight or by measure is not

a subject for debate; it is a matter of common sense. It is one of our

duties to protect the consumer and to aid the consumer in protecting

himself, and the most logical way of accomplishing this end is the sale of commodities by weight.

Take the sale of clams for example: Put 3 bushels of clams in a

barrel so that the barrel is level full ; let it stand for one-half hour and

that barrel will fail of being full by one peck or more. Take these

clams from the barrel and put them into three bushel measures and

188876—iO 3
18 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

they will fill the measures level full. This is an exceptional case perhaps, but it is true of other commodities as well. In filling, a container can be filled loosely or packed tight, so that in the one instance

the consumer will receive less and in the other instance will receive

more, all depending on how the container is packed. However, if the commodity is placed on a scale and the scale reads 10 pounds, the consumer knows by reading the scale that he is receiving 10 pounds.

Along this line, a standard container, approved by the United States

Department of Agriculture as containing 1 peck, was introduced into

the State of Connecticut a short while ago for the sale of potatoes.

This container conformed with the rules and regulations of the Department of Agriculture and contained the required number of cubic

inches. However, the weight of these packages was from 12 to 12%

pounds, including the weight of the container. This so-called peck of

potatoes was being sold for the same price as a 15-pound peck. According to the Federal law, this container was legal, and State weights

and measures officials could not directly prohibit its use. However,

there are more ways than one of taking care of such matters, and

needless to say, these containers were used for only a few days in the

State of Connecticut and have not been used since.

Another disadvantage in the sale of commodities by measure, rather

than by weight, is the fact that after the retailer has emptied the

container, he has the idea that it is a legal measure, and if the opportunity affords itself, he proceeds to use it as such. This is not a

legal measure in any sense of the word, according to any State or

Federal law, yet the retailer is under the impression that it is a legal measure. This j ust makes one more job for the State and local weights

and measures officials, as it is necessary that they watch to see that

these containers are not used over again.

During a recent discussion on this subject, I was informed that the

State of Connecticut, during a previous session of the legislature,

passed a law for the bushel measurement of a certain commodity.

As you know, the State Department of Weights and Measures cannot

control the legislature in these matters, and of course, this action did

not have our approval. On the other hand, it does not make a great

deal of difference in view of the fact that Federal legislation supersedes

State legislation, and such a bill might just as well be passed, as it conforms to a similar Federal law. However, we already have a means of discouraging the retailer from selling this particular commodity by measure.

I have not been in the weights and measures business for any great

length of time, and I am not a stockholder, nor am I interested in any

scale company, but I like to see the amount I receive when making

purchases of any commodity, and I believe the people in the State of

Connecticut feel the same way when making their purchases. This,

of course, is merely my opinion, but at the National Conference on

Weights and Measures held in Washington in 1935, L. C. Carey of the

United States Department of Agriculture, in his paper entitled ^'The

Byrd Bill to Consolidate Federal Standard Container Legislation",

stated in part, in speaking of a particular section of the Byrd bill—

"This is the section which has been devised in an attempt to make it very sure that the provisions of standard container legislation shall not interfere with State laws or city ordinances respecting the sale of fruits and vegetables by weight." This shows that the Depart-
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 19

ment of Agriculture, through Mr. Carey, while working on the standardization of containers, evidently believes in the retail sale of commodities by weight, or they would not have advocated this particular

section of the Byrd bill. In a circular of the National Bureau of Standards entitled "Legal

Weights (in Pounds) Per Bushel of Various Commodities," issued

while S. W. Stratton was Director of the Bureau, it is stated—''It is important that it be distinctly imderstood whether a bushel by volume

or a bushel by weight is the amount intended to be delivered or

received. Since amounts determined by weight are much more

nearly accurate than similar amounts attempted to be determined

by measure, transactions upon a basis of weight are much to be pre- ferred to those upon a basis of measure, and therefore, it is recom- mended that insofar as possible, all purchases and sales be made by

weight as is now the practice in wheat transactions." Therefore,

since the Department of Agriculture and the National Bureau of

Standards, upon whom we rely for all sorts of information, advice,

and methods of procedure, advocate the sale of commodities by

weight, far be it from me to refute their findings or the result of their

experiments and study.

In other words, the State Department of Weights and Measures

for the State of Connecticut is in wholehearted accord and agreement

with the United States Department of Agriculture and the National

Bureau of Standards in regard to their evident desire that the sale of

commodities at retail be by weight, always keeping in mind the

variable bushel and the constant pound.

I believe that this matter should be taken up and acted upon at

this Twenty-ninth National Conference on Weights and Measures,

as it is directly in line with two of the objects of the Conference,

namely, uniformity in weights and measures procedure thi'oughout

the country, and protection for the consmner. THE VALUE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES RADIO PROGRAMS

By A. Edwabd Snyder, Inspector of Weights and Measures,

City of Terre Haute, Ind. Mr. President, members of the Conference, and guests: Millions

of words have been spoken about weights and measures, thousands

of words have been printed, but only comparatively few words have

been broadcast by radio; therefore the radio is a fertile, virgin land

to be utilized and developed to spread the truths about weights and

measures. The subject of my paper should be divided into the following four

parts: First, the necessity; second, the possibihties ; third, the material;

and fourth, the results.

If there was ever a time when there was a dire necessity for the

understanding of weights and measures laws, it is this time. This

necessity has been brought about, among other things, first, by keen

competition, or by selling at close profit, which is a direct result of the depression, recession, or whatever you want to call it; and second,

this weights and measures knowledge is necessary because today, in

most instances, the general public must make every penny count in

order to have enough money for essential needs.
20 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Charles C. Neale wrote nie in reference to our discussion on weights

and measures radio educational programs, as follows:

Any way that you look at it, it is a real job to force the people to grasp the real meaning of weights and measures work. At that, I presume we are all prone

to let public officials do their duty without aid from us. Seldom do we worry

about the subject of fire protection, police service, and the like. It is quite easy

to dismiss such subjects with the satisfying thought, "Let the proper officials take care of such matters; that is what they are paid for." Maybe, to a greater

degree, that is the general idea as to weights and measures law enforcement.

Besides, the weights and measures subject is a technical one and beyond the abil- ity of the ordinary citizen to grasp. However, it is even closer to the individual

as a matter of everyday existence than many other forms of public service, hence

the necessity of continuous effort to tell the educational storj'' no matter how

fruitless it may seem at times, and that is just what your radio specialty is doing. It is impracticable, in fact a physical impossibility, for the weights

and measures inspectors to be on hand every time a purchase is made

in the United States, therefore, only by educating the public in proper

buying and selling methods are we going to be able to fulfil our job

of protecting the purchaser and promotmg fair competition.

This education of the public by word of mouth has been possible

since the beginning of weights and measures supervision, and by the

press for many, many years, but weights and measures education by

use of motion pictures and the radio has been possible for only a few

years, therefore regular weights and measures programs over the air are not in general use. It is true that on special occasions there have

been numerous weights and measures programs over the air, but in

very few instances has a regular program been conducted. Persons

who have studied the results of a regular weekly or every other week

weights and measures radio broadcast have reported satisfactory

results. Robert Fullen, Chief Weights and Measures Inspector of Dallas,

Tex., started a regular weekly 5-minute program over station WRE,

in Dallas. This broadcast has been developed by the State Department into a State-wide hookup. In New York City, Alex Pisciotta,

Director of the Bureau of Weights and Measures, has a regular weekly

broadcast over station WNYC. Barnett Kanzer, Director, Bureau

of Weights and Measures for the State of New York, has been con- ducting a series of weights and measures radio broadcasts. There

may be other regular programs with which I am not familiar. I do

know many States, cities, and counties have special feature radio programs which are very beneficial. It is a proven fact, since the radio has come into common usage

both in the home and in the business world, that people will listen to a radio program, whereas they would never read a printed copy of

that same program. The reason given is, people listen to the radio

at the same time they are doing something else and therefore hear

and learn things that they would not take time to read, which would

require their entire attention. With this fact in mind you can realize the possibility of reaching people you wouldn't reach by other means.

I have been asked how the Department can afford to pay for 15

minutes of broadcasting every 2 weeks. The answer is simple. Station WBOW, Terre Haute, Ind., is willing, w^hen possible, to donate

time for programs of civic interest. Weights and measures programs

are decidedly civic in interest, therefore when I explained what I had

in mind, station WBOW was more than willing to donate 15 minutes
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 21

every other Thursday at 4:00 p. m. for weights and measures programs. We have been having these radio programs as a result of the

generosity and broadmindedness of our local station WBOW.

A survey made by station WBOW shows that within a radius of 45

miles around Terre Haute there are 96,410 homes where radio receiving sets are located, and as a result there are 520,413 possible radio

listeners, giving my Department in a city of 69,000 a chance to contact thousands of people whom it would otherwise be impossible to reach.

There are many sources for material and ideas for these programs.

At my written request, R. W. Smith, of the National Bureau of

Standards, sent me the following suggestions in reference to weights

and measures radio programs:

To make your programs of maximum interest, I think you should strive for variety in subject matter, treatment, and speakers. As to subject matter, if one

were to conduct a series of lectures to a class on weights and measures supervision, these might well be planned on the basis of an orderly and logical progression from historical background through the needs for supervision, the provisions

of the existing statutes, desirable modifications of the statutes, the existing

and most desirable departmental organization, the mechanical phases of supervision, the purely supervisional side of the work, reports on accomplishments

and on faulty conditions encountered, the cooperation needed and desired from

the general public and from organized groups, etc. For a series of radio pro- grams, however, this gradual development of the subject might fail to hold the

interest of the listeners; I believe, therefore, that it would be well to sacrifice something of logical progression for variety. The material may all be utilized eventually, but if each program differs rather sharply in subject matter from the preceding one, you should be able to hold an audience which might otherwise be

lost.I think it might also be a good plan to try to build each program around some

central theme or about some unusual incident or fact; the more dramatic this key idea or incident is, the better, especially if it can be expressed in such a way

as to arouse speculation and interest. As an example of the sort of thing I mean,

I may mention that Dr. Heyl's work here at the Bureau in determining a better value for the gravitational constant was dramatized in the press as "weighing the

earth."

Similarly, I would suggest variety in the method of presenting your programs. Let them not all be in dialogue form. At times talk for the entire period yourself. At times follow the "interview" technique, being interviewed yourself

which gives you the opportunity to answer the questions—or in turn interviewing someone else. At other times, subordinate your own part of the program by

introducing some other speaker to do most of the talking, along some line defi- nitely associated with weights and measures administration. An unrehearsed

forum discussion to bring out the ideas of a varied group on some anticipated step

or on some special problem should be an interesting innovation. As to the speakers cooperating vdth you in your broadcasts, I would again

suggest variety. You should, of course, be heard on each program, as the official at the head of your local organization, so as to keep your office before the public.

But I can well imagine that you will have no difficulty at all in persuading some

of those well known in your community to assist you; other city officials, prominent merchants, leaders of civic or business groups should all be glad to help.

Unknowns may be interspersed among the celebrities—housewives, clerks, filling- station attendants, peddlers, John Q. Public himself, should all have some contribution to make, even though it be no more than a confession of ignorance of those weights and measures matters upon which they should be informed. I have been very fortunate in having the assistance and cooperation

of Waldo Watts, the Vigo County Weights and Measures Inspector.

He has taken part in all discussion and is constantly encouraging me

in the preparation of script for the programs. Judging from the

public reaction, we have found the interview and discussion-type

programs more interesting, and they tend to hold the listeners better

than speeches or talks.
22 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

We have discussed in our National Conferences of past years, and

will discuss at this Conference, material and subject matter which

has in it dynamite for weights and measures radio programs. The

dramatic clubs of our high schools have afforded us rare opportunities

to present weights and measures dramatizations of some outstanding

fact or an interesting case or some weights and measures procedure or the proper method of everyday buying and selling. These dramatizations not only give practical illustrations to the general public,

but make an indelible mark on the minds of these young people,

teaching them the proper methods of buying and selling. The

students of Wiley High School in Terre Haute reenacted a scene dramatizing the proper methods of buying and selling poultry. Mr.

Fullen, of Dallas, Tex., reenacted a raid he and his deputies made

on a poultry establishment. Members of the radio-station stajff and Mr. Fullen and his deputies took the various parts.

The history of weights and measures is as old as mankind, and

therefore there are many interesting historical facts that can hold

the attention of your listeners. The experiences that I have had from

day to day have always been a source of material upon which to base my broadcasts. The bulletins sent to us by our State Chief,

KoUin E. Meek, afford good broadcasting material. I reserve a

part of each broadcast for a question and answer feature. At that

time I answer questions sent in by mail or questions of general interest

asked me during my daily work.

It is almost a daily occurrence for either Mr. Watts or me to have

a comment made to us about our programs. While testing in a grocery store, one of the customers, upon hearing me referred to as the weights and measures inspector, told me that she had formerly

not paid particular attention to the weights on the labels of the

package goods which she bought. After hearing a program, she felt she had been receiving much more for her money by noting the

weight of the package goods she had been buying, as suggested in the

broadcast. One storekeeper said he had been interrupted during a

broadcast to the extent that he did not get to hear all that I had said

regarding oysters, and asked me to explain to him what he had missed.

If we could create enough public interest in the weights and measures departments and thereby get public opinion in our favor, I dare

say we would have a far easier time getting adequate appropriations

to operate our weights and measures departments.

We, in our local. State, and national departments of weights and

measures, have made great strides toward educating the public, but

that is only a good start. What we need is a united National front

composed of the city, county, and State and National departments

of weights and measures marching shoulder to shoulder pulling the same vehicle of educational principles in the same direction and at the same time. It would be a forward step if this Conference would

appoint a committee to formulate a few simple but fundamental

weights and measures educational precepts as lampposts to guide

aU the local units. This National weights and measures educational

committee, with the aid and guidance of the National Bureau of

Standards, could get the cooperation of all local departments of

weights and measures to carry on the same educational program,

thus securing Nation-wide attention. In my opinion this educational feature is as important as the inspection of equipment, but has
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 23

not been emphasized as much because most local departments of

weights and measures are undermanned, resulting in the average

inspector's daily routine demanding all his time. This committee

could distribute information and programs that had been successfully

conducted by local departments, thereby helping the local departments that do not have time to prepare programs.

Weights and measures educational programs should have as their

goal, two aims—first, to promote fair competition among merchants,

which would in turn protect the honest merchant by causing the

weeding out of the dishonest merchant; second, to teach the consumer

that the majority of merchants are honest, but that the consumer

should learn proper methods of buying and selling in order to safe- guard himself against the dishonest merchant, and also against

unintentional mistakes. This type of weights and measures educational program will create a better understanding between the merchant, the consumer, and the department of weights and measures.

I do not minimize the value of weights and measures education by

the press or any other methods of weights and measures education,

but I do say, let's not only take advantage of the other methods, but

let's also use the everspreading medium of radio for weights and

measures educational purposes. We are faced ^dtli the dire necessity of weights and measures education. An ever-increasing number

of homes and businesses have a radio in them; it is possible to reach

people who cannot be reached otherwise; there has been a popular

response to those broadcasts already had; and these broadcasts may

be donated. In view of these circumstances there can be no question

of the unlimited value of weights and measures radio programs.

The Chairman. You have heard Mr. Snyder's presentation and

interesting suggestions. Is there any discussion on the matter at

this time? This will be brought to the attention of the Committee

on Resolutions for consideration. This concludes the morning

program.

(At this point, at 1:13 p. m., the Conference took a recess until 2:15 p. m.)

SECOND SESSION—AFTERNOON OF TUESDAY,

JUNE 6, 1939

(The Conference reassembled at 2:15 p. m., at the National Bureau of Standards; Lyman J. Briggs, President of the Conference, in the chair.) DEMONSTRATION OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN WEIGHING AND

MEASURING APPARATUS, BY REPRESENTATIVES OF MANUFACTURERS

Secretary's Note.—At this point several manufacturers brought before the Conference samples of apparatus embodying new design features and demonstrated them to those in attendance. Particular attention was given to the new

features incorporated, the method of manipulation of the adjustments provided,

and the answering of questions asked by members. As was the experience in former cases, it was found that many of the remarks made are of no value to a

reader when a sample of the product is not before him, and thus no good purpose would be subserved in printing such material here. Consequently, it has been

omitted from the report.

It may be noted that such demonstrations as these, which familiarize the

delegates with new apparatus, are of great interest and value to them. Attend- ance at the Conference is the only way in which advantage can be obtained from

program features such as this. The delegates were duly appreciative of the

efforts of the manufacturers who took part in this demonstration.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO

PROVIDE ASSISTANCE FOR THE STATES IN ADMINISTRATION OF

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAWS, PRESENTED BY JOHN P. MC

BRIDE, CHAIRMAN

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Conference: The proposed bill for Federal aid was first presented to the Twenty-seventh National

Conference in 1937 by Mr. Meek, of Virginia, and after considerable

debate on the (][uestion from the angle of Federal control and possible

loss of State rights, the Conference voted to take no action. The

matter was further pressed by Mr. Meek and a special committee was

appointed to consider the matter for the 1938 Conference. This

committee held several meetings. One of such meetings was an open one to which was invited all members of the Conference desiring

to attend, for the purpose of getting an expression of opinion; but one person attended this open meeting and the committee felt that

they were not in a position to make a definite report to the 1938 Conference and prayed for further time. This was granted and a questionnaire was made up from suggestions, advanced by the committee

members. The questionnaire was sent, with a copy of the proposed

bill, to 55 different jurisdictions. Forty replies were received. Fif- teen jurisdictions failed to interest themselves sufficiently to answer. Of the 40 received, 28 were from State authorities, 1 1 were from municipalities, and 1 was from a county.

The interrogatories and replies thereto are as follows:

1. Are you in favor of the National Conference sponsoring the

adoption of this proposed bill? Eeplies to the above showed 18 jurisdictions opposed to the Conference sponsoring this bill, 10 in favor, and 7 in favor under certain

specified conditions. The remaining 5 did not indicate their attitude.

25
26 NATIONAL. BUREAU OF STANDARDS

2. If your answer is Yes, to what extent would you favor Federal

aid?

In the replies, eight stated they were in favor of Federal aid administered by the Bureau as at present, expressing an attitude favorable

to supporting additional funds to promote activities along this line. Two were in favor of unlimited Federal aid. One expressed itself as

in favor of close supervision. Two wanted Federal financial aid only.

Two were for the method as outlined in the proposed bill, and one was

for financial assistance bearing one-half the expense of any special

activity. The remainder did not answer this question directly and

might be classified as being satisfied with the present arrangement.

There was a very strong current against Federal aid approaching centralization and control, to the derogation of State rights.

3. If your State does not have a bureau or department of weights

and measures at the present time, do you think the governing

ofiicials would accept the proposed Federal aid intended in

this proposed bill? This question proved to be somewhat of a *'dud." Only five of

the jurisdictions have no department and some of these function

through other departments. One of these five stated that such a

proposition would not be acceptable; the remaining four did not

state. Others expressed as conjectural the acceptance by their

various authorities. One thought it might require legislative action.

4. Do you favor the joint supervision by Federal officials with your

own in matters pertaining to weights and measures in your

jurisdiction?

Nineteen jurisdictions replied very strongly in the negative, setting

up as a reason that divided authority would tend to confusion. Eight were in favor, and one was doubtful. The remaining did not reply.

5. State specifically your reaction to sections 3, 4, and 5 of the

proposed bill, and if you think such a proposed plan could be

worked out equitably and be feasible under all circumstances.

This produced a variety of answers with a trend against what some

felt would amount to a compulsory adoption of specifications and toler- ances. A distaste was expressed for the method of voting outlined.

One jurisdiction thought the matter of matching funds not equitable, as he felt his State could not meet any great sum. Objection was

taken to particular sections. Others thought that it might be more

equitably worked out. The consensus would indicate a necessity

for some revision in these sections.

6. What is the present weights and measures setup in your jurisdiction, and what is the total amount of your annual budget,

including salaries and expenses?

Twenty-three States have departments, three apparently have

nothing, and two have a form of weights and measures supervision.

One State has a setup with no funds at all. Several stated they

needed no financial assistance whatever, and some stated^ that all they wanted was financial assistance. The budgets varied from

$5,000 per annum to $150,000, the latter being for the city of New

York. Most of the States averaged around $40,000.

It may be said that this questionnaire showed a disposition against

the proposed bill, but a desire for a continuance of the present system

of cooperation between the Federal Bureau and the States, counties,
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 27

and municipalities, with the hope that the Bureau might receive

further fmids to be expended for the purpose of continued and increased activities along advisory lines. The general feeling seemed

to be that this bill would be a means of final Federal total control.

Your Committee therefore feels that this proposed bill would not

be successful of enactment and respectfully recommends that this

Conference take some appropriate action before the Congress to increase the appropriation of the National Bureau of Standards, for

the specific purpose of enabling the Bureau to assist the States, cities,

and counties by sending a representative to the State meetings,

sending testing equipment when occasion required, and otherwise

advising and assisting the several jurisdictions in the proper performance of their duties.

(Signed) John P. McBride, Chairman,

W. P. Reed,

J. H. Meek (by M. A. Hubbard),

Chas. C. Read,

RoLLiN E. Meek,

Committee on Proposed Federal Legislation.

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE REPORT

Mr. McBride. Now, what form the action to secure increased

appropriations might take, we don't say. I don't know whether I am correctly informed. Doctor Briggs, but Mr. Meek, of Virginia, sent me a letter this morning and he said that the bill containing

proposed Bureau appropriations now rests before the subcommittee

of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. He thought some

action might be taken now toward informing that committee what

this Conference might think of increasing the National Bureau of

Standards' appropriation for the specific purpose of affording additional travel funds, for attendance of the Bureau representatives at meetings, and for operation of equipment such as the Vehicle-Scale

Testing Unit and the equipments for the testing of railway track

scales. Something might be accomplished presently; otherwise it might have to wait until next year. Mr. Jansey. Mr. Chairman, the Committee is recommending that

there be an additional appropriation for the Bureau, but what does

your Committee recommend on the rest of it, on all the other queries,

such as centralization of control and the appropriations for the use

of the States?

Mr. McBride. The Committee feels this bill would not be successful of enactment, and recommends that the Conference take some

appropriate action to give the Bureau some additional fxmds.

Mr. O'Keefe. I move you, then, that Mr. Meek's bill be not

adopted by this Conference, except for the part for further appropriations for the Bureau.

(The motion was seconded.)

Mr. Ackerman. It strikes me as strange that there were 18 States

opposed to Federal aid. That is something new to me. I am

wondering when this questionnaire went out and who took the

responsibilitj^ for answering for the various States. Mr. McBride. The query was:

''Are you in favor of the National Conference sponsoring the

adoption of this proposed bill?"
28 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Now, that was not concerned with general Federal aid; it relates only to this specific bill. The questionnaires mainly went to officials on record here as heads of the different State departments; some

went to governors.

Mr. AcKERMAN. I don't believe a comprehensive survey of all the

States would show there are 18 States opposed to Federal aid.

Mr. McBride. The query was only in relation to this bill. Some

interrogatories show that those answering were in favor of a different

form of Federal aid, but not to the form proposed in this bill. Mr. Levitt. I think most of the fellows expressed their feelings as heads of departments, personally, and for the benefit of their own

departments. After all, your Congressmen or Senators usually speak

for you in the Congress as to the measures the Federal Government is going to handle for the benefit of the States. Mr. O'Keefe. I understand there are two separate bills under

consideration and, if so, we should go on record as opposing Mr.

Meek's bill first. I am opposed to the original bill Mr. Meek presented 2 years ago. I am down here to promote weights and measures work and not to propose financing. My city of Chicago will take care

of finances.

The Chairman. The Chair understands, then, sir, that your motion

is that the original bill proposed by Mr. Meek be not endorsed by this

Conference?

(The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.) Mr. McBride. The further recommendation of the Committee was

that some appropriate action be taken before the Congress to increase

the appropriation of the Bureau for the specific purposes of enabling

the Bureau to send representatives to State meetings, to operate

equipments, etc. There is a bill now pending before Congress seeking

to increase the Bureau's appropriation.

Mr. O'Keefe. Mr. Chairman, I move you that that be adopted.

I am with the Bureau in anything they want, because I think they

are doing splendid work.

Mr. McBride. Shouldn't a committee be designated to decide how

that should be furthered? Otherwise nobody is going to be charged

with the responsibility.

Mr. O'Keefe. I will add to my motion that the Chairman appoint a committee to see that the legislation is followed through.

Mr. HoLBROOK. Mr. Chairman, is there any bill now before

Congress to this end?

The Chairman. Mr. Meek, who is interested in the work of this

Conference and the work of the Bureau, endeavored to have a supplemental appropriation item added to the appropriation for the National

Bureau of Standards for the purposes you gentlemen have indicated.

But Congress is very reluctant to consider such matters unless it comes up through the Bureau of the Budget in the regular way.

This matter was not taken up early enough to bring it before the

Budget in connection with our regular Bureau appropriations. While

Mr. Meek presented the matter both to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and also to the Committee on Appropriations

of the Senate, the House did not act on it, and I have reason to think

that the Senate Appropriations Committee will not act on it either,

because when I came before the committee no inquiry about it was
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 29

made. So the situation at the present time is that there is no bill formally before the Congress.

Now, the most direct and helpful procedure would be for this

Conference to appoint a committee, if you so desire, to confer with the

Bureau of the Budget and with the appropriation committees, relative to an increase in the funds of the Bureau for the purposes you have in

mind. Nothing can be done this year. But it would be quite in

order for you to take the action indicated, which your Committee has

already recommended, to support the work in the way I have indicated.

If that is your wish, the Chair will entertain a motion.

Mr. Waldman. Mr. Chairman, would it not also be advisable for

this Conference to go on record by resolution? Would not that be an

effective way of presenting the matter to the Senate Appropriations

Committee?

The Chairman. I think the effective way, sir, is to call on those

people. It would be in order for the Committee to present a resolution.

Mr. Waldman. Then, if I am in order, Mr. Chairman, I move that

the Committee be empowered to draw that resolution for adoption by

this Conference.

Mr. Baucom. We have not appointed the committee.

Mr. Waldman. I propose that the present Committee continue to function.

Mr. Baucom. The Committee should confer with the National

Bureau of Standards, and cooperate with the Bureau and work under

its direction in bringing about the very thing we want to help to do.

The Conference as such doesn't know how to proceed.

I had the pleasure of discussing this with Dr. Briggs about a month

or so ago, and the situation here in Washington is, that he can't express any view of how much money he wants until the Bureau of

the Budget has acted on the request. Now, then, we will have to wait for his instructions in order to see the different committees in

Congress. What we are trying to do is fall in line and help Dr.

Briggs in every way possible.

Mr. HoLBROOK. The continuation of the present Committee has

been suggested.

Mr. O'Keefe. That is right.

The Chairman. We have two motions, and neither of them has

been seconded.

Mr. Ackerman. I second Mr. O'Keefe's motion.

Mr. Waldman. I withdraw mine from the record.

The Chairman. Gentlemen, Mr. O'Keefe's motion is before you,

duly seconded. Is there further discussion?

(The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.) Mr. Ragland. This morning a paper was read on tolerance, and

it wasn't left with the clerk but was taken to be rewritten. I am

sure that the Conference doesn't want any such action as that. We

want that paper as read this morning. I make a motion we request

that that paper be submitted as read this morning.

(The motion was seconded.)

The Chairman. Is that Mr. Harrison's paper?

Mr. R. W. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Harrison's request was based on a desire to submit a clean copy without some interlinea-
30 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

tions he had on the paper. The motion indicates there might be some

subversive action, and I am sure that is not the case. The Chairman. In view of that explanation, do you now press

your motion?

Mr. Ragland. No, sir. ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL SCALE MEN'S ASSOCIATION

By H. M. Batchbller, President, National Scale Men's Association Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen: Allow me to extend to this

distinguished body greetings and best wishes of the National Scale

Men's Association. As President and official representative of this

organization, permit me to express their earnest desire to cooperate in

every way to forward the work of this great National Conference on

Weights and Measures.

I have been asked to speak on rather a broad subject; therefore,

111 endeavor to confine my remarks to some of the important features.

Tbe National Scale Men's Association now has a membership of

about 400. Among the more important committees is the one now

investigating the feasibility of the *'Over and under attachment''

applied to scale beams, which it is claimed will be faster and more

accurate for testing and weighing purposes. Another item is that a committee has been retained from 1938 to try to have the National

Conference on Weights and Measures and the AREA retract their

liberalization of tolerance on corner tests of vehicle scales. The

National Scale Men's Association and all the local divisions have

voted against changes in the vehicle-scale tolerance, as has also the

Western Railroad Scale and Weighing Conference, which represents

about all railroads west of the Mississippi River.

One of the chief activities which I feel has done more to bring about

a better understanding and friendly relationsliip between industry and

scale men is the formation of so-called local divisions or branches of the

National Scale Men's Association in various communities. These

locals hold meetings, inviting scale men; weight and measure department officers; and employees of States, counties, and cities; scale

manufacturers; weighmasters ; and owners and users of scales. The purpose of these gatherings is to discuss problems pertinent to the maintenance and efficiency of scales, and primarily to educate the owners and users of scales, that it is false economy to just go to the

expense of purchasing and installing a scale, and then forget it. For

although it may originally have been well-precisioned, the constant

use and battering of this device is such that it demands attention the same as any other fine piece of mechanism. Therefore, to derive the

maximum benefits from the investment it is important that scales be

tested at frequent intervals, and any defects corrected by competent

scale men before there is too much loss to the industry. The enthusiasm displayed has been the means of rapidly increasing our membership.

I had the pleasure of attending the last meeting of the Northwest

Division in the Twin Cities and wish to state that the Minnesota

State Weights and Measures officials requested all of their inspectors to attend, and they were all present at this meeting which lasted 2

days. We also had the Superintendent of Weights and Measures

from North Dakota and all of his inspectors. There were 110 in attend- ance at this meeting.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 31

At present, charters have been issued to six locals which were

organized and are now active, namely. Central Division, Chicago;

Midwest Division, Kansas City; Texas Division, Houston; Northwest Division, Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul); Pittsburgh

Division, Pittsburgh; and Southern Division, Birmingham.

On June 23 a charter will be presented to the Great Lakes Division

at Toledo. We started organizing these locals about 2 years ago, and

it is our aim to continue this work until we have branches in all parts

of the United States. Altogether, I wish to assure you that the activities of the National

Scale Men's Association have shown a healthy growth during the last year. The spirit of the organization is good and promises much for

the future.

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE PAPER

The Chairman. It is always pleasant to hear from this organization. Have you any questions to ask Mr. Batcheller?

Mr. Baucom. I would like to ask one or two. I imderstand your

organization is on record as recommending that comer tests be

resumed again.

Mr. Batcheller. Yes, and the Western Conference has gone on

record for the same thing. We have the chairman of our committee

present here now, Harry Roeser, and I am sure if there are any questions you want to ask, he will be very glad to answer them for you.

The Chairman. We would be glad to hear from Mr. Roeser.

Mr. RoESER. I don't believe there is anything to be added to what

Mr. Batcheller said, that the Association doesn't like this special

tolerance on comer tests of 0.4 percent. It tears down a lot of work

and it is of no use to us. We opposed it unanimously at our last convention.

The Chairman. Is it not required that the scale be accepted, Mr.

Roeser, only when the average value of the errors on the two corners

at one end of the scale is within two-tenths of 1 percent?

Mr. RoESER. In substance the resolution adopted at the last National Scale Men's Association was this: That all of the material

in the Handbook H22 relative to vehicle scales be deleted and toler- ances adopted which read in substance that the tolerances on vehicle

scales shall be 2 pounds per thousand on scales in service at any load

and under any condition of application of load to the scale. The Chairman. Is there further discussion?

BROKEN GLASS

By George F. Austin, Jr., Supervising Inspector of Weights and Measures,

City of Detroiif Mich.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Conference, and guests: At the

present time we, as weights and measures officials, are very much

concerned over standardization of packages, and rightfully so. By

the same token we should be equally interested in an adherence to our principles of standardization and uniformity as we have them

presented to us at these Conferences from time to time, and we should

attempt to keep our own house clean in view of the fact that we want

to entertain standardization along other lines. It was with this

thought in mind that I have prepared this paper.

Many years ago, during the earlier periods of civilization, the

pioneers built their homes out of logs, so they would have a staunch
32 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

and lasting shelter against the elements of the weather, attacks by

beasts of the forest and the Indians. However, types and styles of

architecture have changed considerably since that time, until" today

we have homes built out of glass blocks, for comparison. Therefore,

it is entirely within the realm of possibility now, to live in a glass

house and to be able to look out wpon the world and observe your

contemporaries as they pass in parade through life, without fear of

having your glass house shattered by a missile tossed from the hand

of someone to whom you may have had occasion to offer constructive

criticism. So being a bit fearful of the old saying, * 'People who live

in glass houses,'' etc., and not caring to find myself buried under a

pile of broken glass, I have patiently awaited this day and age, ta

impart a few inoffensive suggestions, in the interest of better weights

and measures supervision.

The weight and measure official today is clothed with exceptional

authority and has great powers in his hands. When properly used,

this power finds its secure resting place in justice, where such powers

are delegated through law. In the use of such power the weight and

measure official determines by his course of action whether he is using

them to promote justice, or whether he abuses his powers to the commission of unjust acts. While admiring the service rendered by the manufacturers of

weighing and measuring devices, the weight and measure official should not establish any relation with such manufacturers whereby

through his aid and help, sales are made of a particular manufacturer's device. Such interest is apt to prejudice a weight and measure

official in favor of, or against, a certain make of apparatus, while

activity in promoting the sale of a device in which he is financially

interested, frequently impairs his effectiveness and lowers his standing among his associates and with merchants and manufacturers.

The successful weight and measure official must be impartial ; he must

refrain from expressing his views publicly when asked for them by

merchants who are in the market to purchase certain types of apparatus. Any apparatus manufactured by a reputable firm which has

been approved by competent weight and measure officials as conforming to the standards, should be satisfactory to him.

Weight and measure officials should always be prepared to deal

with insidious propaganda concerning their policies; many times this

propaganda is motivated seffishly and for personal reasons. You

may have a challenge to meet at this very Conference, of like nature,

where a tolerance adopted by this official assembly after a thorough

study and lengthy consideration, is now being assailed. In this

instance, the real issues and the real motives of the agitators have

been carefully veiled; the reason for changes camiot be satisfactorily

explained by those loudest in their clamor. Therefore, in the discussion of such matters, it is well to weigh all evidence carefully.

A weight and measure official today occupies in many ways both

the position of a prosecutor and a judge. He should possess a character that is definitely above suspicion and reproach. He should be

honest, considerate, energetic, tactful, and just. He should weigh

his action before proceeding against an individual or firm, consider

what it means to the individual or firm that is to be publicly exposed,

and what the influence of his act will be upon the community. An

unwise weight and measure official can do much harm in ruining the
TWENTY-NINTH CONFEEENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 33

reputation of a reputable merchant or manufacturer, and he can deal a blow to the prosperity of a city or town in which he operates by

leading its inhabitants to believe its businessmen are cheats, and that

it is no place in which to do business.

With the wonderful increase in population and commerce made by

America within the life of the present and the preceding generation,

the position of the weight and measure official has developed into a very important one. From practically an obscure and unimportant

office m the community, the office of weights and measures has

advanced to a point where the incumbent must possess not only a knowledge of his own duties, but he must possess the necessary tact and understanding to deal fairly and justly with those merchants and

manufacturers with whom he has official relations.

The weight and measure official of today is imbued with the same

spirit which actuates the vast majority of the public officials of

America, namely, the desire to perform real service for the public.

He knows, or should know, that because he possesses large powers he

should not use them to harass and hinder the operations of the

reputable merchants and manufacturers ; one of his principal functions

is to cooperate with them. However, he should correct those practices which are not in compliance with the law, because these are a menace to the business, commercial, and industrial life of this country,

and if permitted to contmue, not only make it impossible for honest

competitors to do business, but result in the mulcting of the purchasing public.

A factor which has notably contributed its share toward elevating

the standards of American commerce during the last quarter of a century is the splendid cooperation and service rendered by the

m.anufacturers of weighing and measuring apparatus. To the men

responsible for the investment of capital, to the inventive geniuses

who have created such wonderful devices for weighing and measuring

commodities, to the intelligent and energetic men who have traveled

to all parts of America to explain the advantages to be gained by the

merchant, the manufacturer, and the consumer through the use of

such devices, a debt of gratitude is owed by the American public for

their invaluable services.

The fact that specifications and tolerances for commercial weighing

and measuring devices, contained in the National Bureau of Standards Handbook H22, are the fruit of a great deal of study by men

whose experience in the weights and measures field makes them

unquestionably qualified to know * 'What's what", should be sufficient reason for a general and more thorough adherence to same.

In some instances where a lack of cooperative spirit is evident, it has been attributed to the weight and measure official not having

education commensurate to the office he holds, while some others

are too busy with peanut politics, are void of suitable qualifications,

and are trying to get ahead of the other fellow. In this respect,

there is one thing of which I am firmly convmced ; that it is possible

to be so concerned with what you are going to be in the future, that

you can fail to be what you ought to be now. And since the future

is invariably built, piece by piece, out of many "nows", what you

are now is most important. Unfortunately, and as selfish as it may

seem, you will find that the world in general is not particularly

interested in where you and I want to get, even though it may seem

188876—40 i
34 NATIONAL. BUKEAU OF STANDARDS

to be. Rather, the world is interested in having its work done, in

having the things done which should be done and well done. The

work comes first; the worker is only a necessary implement or device.

Therefore, your value to yourself can only be determined by your

value to other jDeople, your employees, your associates, your community, city, or country. The sooner you and I learn the stark

reality of this truth, the sooner we will be on our way toward getting

ahead.

The weight and measure officials and the reputable merchants

and manufacturers are all engaged in the work of serving the public.

| It is only through the performance of their respective parts that the ' public is justly and equitably served. In establishing proper rela- tions with the merchants and the manufacturers, the weight and

measure official can do much to raise the standards of commerce, to further the prosperity of the nation, and to render genuine and

efficient service to the public.

Here in Washington, D. C, we have, as you well know, an insti- tution of which we can be justly proud—the National Bureau of

Standards. This institution was established some 39 3^ears ago at a considerable cost, and is being maintained at no little cost to the

taxpayer. This institution was dedicated to a specific and all- important purpose, that of standardization and unification of matters

pertaining to commerce. We find within this great organization a

division whose efforts are whoUy directed to bringing about standardization and uniformity in matters relating to weights and

measures. In addition, we have the National Conference on Weights

and Measures which convenes annually at the National Bureau of

Standards, and which is working in the same direction, to provide

standards to guide weight and measure officials in their work.

It is gratifying to know that the majority of States, counties, and

cities having departments of weights and measures, carry out the

edicts of these parent organizations; however, there are some departments that fail to cooperate to a measurable degree, thereby

retarding their own efficiency and becoming a stumbling block in

the way of a commendable National program for uniformity in the

administration of weights and measures. In my short span of busy years I have seen this drama enacted over and over again; I have seen men who, by virtue of their talents, should

have been shouldering the more important responsibilities of an organization, become more and more discouraged and disgruntled; then,

pitying themselves, they have given up the ghost and move on from

place to place in a futile effort to find the job that had a future in it for them.

Nothing that ever amounted to a whoop was accomplished, except

through righteous effort and teeth-gritting determination to overcome

obstacles, and it is well to remember that the best jobs are not secured

through seeking, for good jobs seek men—men who have left a trail of

satisfactorily completed jobs behind them.

If you follow this rule or philosophy, I know from my own experience

and the experience of others, that the resulting work will be good

work, that credit for this good work will accrue to your interest,

that your reputation for doing good work will come to the attention

of those who are able to show their appreciation, and the chances are 10 to 1 that you will wake up some day with the pleasant surprise
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 35

of finding yourself much farther along the road to success than you

had any idea of being.

So I close with a friendly suggestion. In this race of life, don't spend

much time watching the other fellow and trying to get ahead of him.

Watch yourself and confine your efforts to your responsibilities as a weight and measure official; tackle your daily problems with a zest and a real sincerity of purpose. And as the captain of a ship depends on a rudder to guide his boat, so should you depend on tried and proven

practices to guide you to a successful end.

TEST WEIGHTS OF LARGE DENOMINATIONS

By Ralph W. Smith, National Bureau of Standards This paper does not treat of those test weights of small denomination

used as

* 'error weights" or of the standards for use at the tip of a weighbeam in determining ratio errors or on a balance in testing counterpoise weights ; the paper is limited to a consideration of those test weights comprising the ''test loads" utilized in the testing of largecapacity scales. Test weights may be classified into three principal groups, upon the

basis of the customary methods employed to handle them in the course

of a test. In group 1 we may place weights which are susceptible of

being handled entirely by manual effort. The familiar 50-pound cast- iron weight is the most common weight in this group, but the 100-

pound weight, if and when used, also belongs here.

In group 2 we may place those weights of larger denomination,

which require some mechanical assistance for their handling but in

connection with the handling of which manual effort does or can play

a large part. In this group belong weights of denominations in excess

of 100 pounds but not exceeding 1,000 pounds. The common examples

of weights in this group are those of 500- and 1 ,000-pound denominations. Such weights can conveniently be shifted on a reasonably

smooth and level surface by means of a simple cart or dolly, but

require a hoisting mechanism for loading into or unloading from the

transporting vehicle.

In group 3 are to be classified all weights of denominations in excess

of 1,000 pounds. Weights of this group are usually of denominations

of 2,500, 5,000, or 10,000 pounds. ^ The loading and unloading of these weights demand not only a hoisting mechanism but also power

operation of such mechanism, and in practically all cases power-operated means are required for shifting the positions of the unloaded

weights.

There are certain general principles which should be observed in the

design and manufacture of weights of all groups, and these may be

enumerated as follows:

^ 1. Material.—Weights should be made of material w^hich is suffi- ciently hard and tough to resist damage as a result of normal handling.

Cast iron is most commonly used for all weights except those of very

large denomination, and gives good satisfaction when of good quality;

it may readily be cast in the desired form, is sufficiently hard, and is not imduly expensive, but has the disadvantage of being somewhat

susceptible to fracture. Steel is readily cast, is sufficiently hard, and

is less brittle than cast iron but has the disadvantage of being considerably more expensive than cast iron. Hollow castings filled with
36 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

water or loose material have been proposed, but these have almost

never been used and cannot be considered suitable as standards.

2. Design.—In general a test weight should be designed to provide

the minimum of exposed surface consistent with the intended method

of its use, handling, and storage. For denominations of 1,000 pounds

and less, weights which approximate the form of a cube will be foxmd

very satisfactory. Recesses in the top and sides in which water or

foreign matter can accumulate should, if practicable, be avoided, and

the surfaces beneath the handle or lifting bar should be sloped to re- duce accumulations at this point and to facilitate their removal if they

do occur. The central portion of the bottom of the weight should be

slightly raised in order to reduce the area of the weight in contact

with its supporting surface, but the side walls of the resulting depression should be formed at a considerable angle to reduce the probabilitjr of picking up foreign matter and to facilitate cleaning. The

interior angles formed by the sides and bottom of any depression in a surface should be well-rounded to facilitate cleaning. All edges

and comers should be well-rounded to reduce the probability of

fracture. There should be no projections beyond any of the principal

outside surfaces.

The weight should be provided with an adjusting cavity of a capacity adequate^ to meet requirements for original and future adjustment, but this cavity should not be of excessive size; before its first adjustment the value of a weight should not be more than 1.5 percent

less than its nominal value, and if after the initial adjustment there

remains sufficient space in the cavity to accommodate an amount of

adjusting lead ecjuivalent to approximately 0.5 percent of the nominal

value of the weight, this should serve all purposes. For example, in

the case of a 1,000-pound weight, the adjusting cavity should be

designed to have a volume of approximately 50 cubic inches, and

after the initial adjustment of the weight, there should remain not

less than 10 cubic inches of space for future adjustments. The

adjusting cavity should have but one opening and this should nor- mally be in the side and not in the top of the weight; in no case should the opening be in the bottom of the weight. This opening

should be closed by a screw plug and the plug should be covered

by a lead sealing cap driven tightly into place. The walls of that

portion of the adjusting *'hole" surrounding the sealing cap should be

undercut, or other suitable provision should be made, to insure permanent sealing of the cavity.

It is desirable that the weight be marked with a designation of its nominal value, preferably cast into the weight. The preferred form

is characters in relief upon a recessed panel in the side of the weights

When a weight is cast to special order, a brief designation of ownership may be incorporated in the design for the value designation.

Another form of designation of weight value and ownership is provided by stenciled characters or decalcomania transfers applied after

final painting; these have the advantage of leaving the sides of the

weight free from any depressions, but they are less permanent than

the cast-in characters.

3. Casting.—The weight should be so cast that it is free from all blow holes, gas pockets, or other imperfections at or near any of its surfaces.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 37

4. Finish.—All surfaces of the weight should be finished reasonably

smooth, and should be given a suitable protective coating. The

metal surfaces of new weights should be chemically treated with a

zinc phosphate solution, such as Bonderite or Granodine, and one

coat of an anticorrosive primer should be applied. Experience indi- cates that a very satisfactory paint finish is two coats of aluminum

paint mixed in the proportions of 2 pounds of aluminum powder or paste to 1 gallon of first quality spar varnish. Overnight drying

should be allowed between successive operations. After weights are put into use, the finish may be kept in good condition by application

of the aluminum paint, as circumstances require, except that if and

when the paint coat becomes perceptibly thick, all old paint should

be stripped off before repainting.

An alternative finish for weights has been suggested by one manufacturer, as follows: Thoroughly clean and heat the weight to perhaps 200° F, then paint with two

or three coats of good grade oil that will not gum when cold. After this has

been allowed to penetrate, the weight is rubbed down and given two coats of wax. We have weights over 30 years old treated in this manner which do not

rust and remain in almost perfect seal from year to year. The weight should be

cleaned and given a fresh coat of wax before each readjustment.

In the case of the large weights of group 3 (denominations over

1 ,000 pounds) the particular means and methods adopted for handling

the weights will frequently dictate details of design necessitating

departure from some of the general principles outlined above. It may also be noted that in certain instances hand-operated and poweroperated units utilized in handling test weights have themselves been

standardized for use as test weights; such units require more careful

and more frequent attention than test weights of ordinary design in

order to maintain the same degree of accuracy for each.

The Bureau has recently reviewed the entire question of tolerances

for test weights of the three groups under consideration in this paper.

The tolerances formerly adopted for avoirdupois weights are given

in table 1. Table 1.

Original class C tolerances for avoirdupois weights of large denominations

Group

Denomination of weight

Tolerances

1 Pounds p ±10 grains (with a maintenance tolerance of ±50 grains for cast-iron weights). ±H6 ounce. ±H ounce. ±?^6 ounce. ±H ounce. ±H ounce. ztH ounce. ±1^^ ounces. ±4 ounces. ±8 ounces.

100

2

200 300

400

3

500

1,000

f2,000 •^5,000...... 10,000 These tolerances were considered to be not entirely satisfactory in

the following respects: (a) A maintenance tolerance was not specified

for weights larger than 50 pounds, (b) The maintenance tolerance

of 50 grains provided for the cast-iron 50-pound weight, which repre- sents 1 part^in 7,000, made it theoretically possible for the error of the
38 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

test weights to exceed 25 percent of the tolerance of 0.5 pound per

1,000 pounds, which represents 1 part in 2,000, appHcable on certain

scales; moreover, the ratio of 1 to 5 between the adjustment and

maintenance tolerances specified seemed excessive in itself, (c)

Because of the limitations of the equipment ordinarily procurable for

the testing of weights of large denominations, it was considered improbable that accurate determinations within tolerance values as small as those specified for the larger denominations of weights could

consistently be made, (d) The adjustment tolerance for the 50-

pound denomination is a part of what may be called the regular class

C series of the Bureau, in which the tolerances grow proportionally

smaller as the weight denominations increase, whereas the tolerances

for weights of 100 pounds and more are seen to be approximately,

although not exactly, proportional; it appeared that the 100-pound

weight should be associated with the 50-pound weight rather than

with those of larger denomination, by reason of similarity of physical

characteristics and methods of handling and use, and that its adjustment tolerance should therefore be derived by an extension of the

regular class C series. In arriving at a new set of tolerances, we started with the basic

value of 10 grains as the adjustment tolerance for a 50-pound weight

and reduced the maintenance tolerance for this denomination from

50 to 40 grains. The class Cseries was extended to arrive at a 15-grain

adjustment tolerance for the 100-pound weight, and the maintenance

tolerance for this denomination was derived by applying the 1 to 4

ratio observed for the 50-pound denomination. An adjustment

tolerance of 1 ounce was then decided upon for the 1,000-pound

weight, proportional tolerances were fixed for the remaining denominations, and the table was simplified by listing only those denominations commonly reproduced. For weights of denominations in excess

of 100 pounds, it was found that a ratio of 1 to 2 between adjustment

and maintenance tolerances would result in a maintenance tolerance

of 1 part in 8,000, which, with a minimum scale tolerance of 0.05 percent, or 1 part in 2,000, is the maximum permissible under the principle

of restricting the tolerance on a standard to a value not exceeding 25

percent of the value of the minimum tolerance on the instruments to be tested by the standard; accordingly, maintenance tolerances for

these denominations were derived by applying the 1 to 2 ratio. Finally,

there was added the instruction that for denominations not listed,

the tolerances would be proportional to the tabulated values.

The new tolerances for avoirdupois weights of class C, in denominations of 50 pounds and upward, are given in table 2. To recapitulate, it may be said that in the new tolerances now

presented, we have values which are closely coordinated throughout.

Maintenance tolerances are 1 part in 8,000 except for the two lowest

denominations, where they are 1 part in 8,750 and 1 part in 11,667,

for the 50- and 100-pound denominations, respectively; thus it is provided that the permissible error on a weight will never represent an undue proportion of the tolerance applicable to the devices for the

testing of which the weights will be used—in other words, the weights,

under these tolerances, will be sufficiently accurate to meet every

anticipated need. Adjustment tolerances are not so small as to preclude their application when weights are being calibrated on equipment available or readily procurable, yet are in all cases sufficiently
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 39

less than the corresponding maintenance tolerances to provide a

reasonable range throughout which the value of the weight may

change before readjustment is demanded, thus avoiding unnecessarily frequent adjustment, and simplifying the maintenance of these

test weights.

Table 2.New class C tolerances for avoirdupois weights of large denominations^

Group

Denomination of weight 1

Tolerance

Acceptance and

adjustment Maintenance

12

Pounds

j50

llOO10 grains —

15 grains.-

40 grains (for cast-iron weights only). 60 grains.

1 ounce.

2 ounces.

4 ounces.

5 ounces.

10 ounces.

20 ounces.

r500_ 0.5 ounce

\1,000 1 ounce -- (2,000 2 oimces- - 3 J 2, 500

15,000

1 10,000

2.5 ounces

5 oimces

10 ounces

1 For weights of denominations intermediate between those listed, the tolerances shall be proportional

to the values shown. The tolerances for class C weights of large metric denominations

have also been revised to harmonize these with the revised tolerances

for weights in the avoirdupois system, and the new values are given

in table 3. Table 3.

Neiv class C tolerances for metric weights of large denominations

Denomination

of weight 1

Tolerance

Acceptance and

adjustment Maintenance

Kilograms Grams Orams

20 0.6 2 2.4

25 »2.8

50

1*

'

4 200 12 24 500 30 60

1,000 60 120

2. 000 120 240 5,000 300 600

1 For weights of denominations intermediate between those listed, the tolerances shall be proportional

to the values shown.

* For cast-iron weights only. In passing, it may be noted that the test Weights utilized on the

railway track scale testing equipments of the Bureau are adjusted

without regard to tolerances, the effort being to approximate zero

error; these very close adjustments are considered necessary because

of the use of these weights for the calibration and adjustment of

master railway track scales. The calibration of such test weights as are under consideration in

this paper does not require any special skill or knowledge beyond

what is at the command of every well-informed weights and measures

officer, but the proper calibration of any of these weights does demand

equipment possessing special characteristics. Such equipment consists of one or more of the following items, depending upon the denomi-
40 i^ATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

nations of the weights to be calibrated: 1, a suitable balance; 2, a

suitable testing beam; and 3, a suitable platform scale. Of the utmost

importance, of course, is a suitable standard of mass as a basis for the

calibration.

A 50-pound standard will ordinarily be the basis for the calibration

of any weight of groups 1, 2, or 3. Such a standard should be accurate

within ±2 grains, which is the class B tolerance of the Bureau, in

which case its error may be neglected; or its error should be known

so that suitable correction therefor may be made when the standard

is used.

For the calibration of 50-pound weights the familiar equal-arm

balance with suspended pans, having a capacity of 50 pounds on each

pan, will be found convenient and satisfactory. If the equality of arms is good, the direct weighing method may be used, that is, the

standard on one pan against the weight under test on the other pan;

if the equality of arms is not good, it will be advisable that the substitution method of weighing be used, in which the rest point of the

balance is first established with the standard on one pan and any con- venient mass on the other pan, the standard is then removed and the

weight under test substituted for it, and finally, small weights are added as required on either pan to restore the former rest point, the

error on the weight under test being equal to the value of the small

weights so added. The procedure for testing weights on a balance is explained in detail in a paper presented to this Conference in 1926

by A. T. Pienkowsky, chief of the Mass Section of the Bureau, and

that paper should be studied by ail who may need to refresh their

minds on this subject.^

There is one type of portable equal-arm balance with a capacity

of 10 pounds on each pan having an extra load-receiving element

designed to receive a 50-pound weight, which has a ratio of 5 to 1 with respect to the opposite pan. Such a balance may be noticeably

less sensitive under 50-pound load than the regular 50-pound equal- arm balance, but if it is of proper design and construction and in good

condition it will give satisfactory results for calibrating 50-pound

weights of class (7. Balances upon which 100-pound weights may be calibrated are manufactured, but are not generally available, and for weights of this

denomination it will ordinarily be necessary to utilize a testing beam

of some kind.

Both 50- and 100-pound weights may be calibrated upon the test- ing beams, presently to be discussed, designed primarily for the test- of 500- and 1,000-pound weights. With care, a testing beam for

weights of group 1 may be fabricated from a vehicle-scale weighbeam,

a load-receiving element being provided depending from the load

pivot, and equilibrium being established durmg the substitution

weighing by means of the weighbeam poise and/or load applied on the

counterpoise banger.

The essential characteristics for balance or testing beam are sensitiveness and repeatability—sensitiveness such that for a given load

there will be a readable response from the mechanism to load changes

of less than one-half the minimum tolerance to be applied; and re- peatability such that the balance or beam will consistently give the

1 See National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous Publication M74, Report of the Nineteenth National Conference on Weights and Measures.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 41

same indication, within reasonable limits, for the same conditions of

loading.

A platform scale, even though of small capacity, of good design and

construction, and in good condition will ordinarily not be sufficiently

sensitive for adjustment calibration of weights of group 1; a scale

suitable for maintenance calibrations of weights of this group, may,

at times, be available.

"Weights of denominations of 200, 300, and 400 pounds are seldom

made, and therefore no special consideration will be given to the

calibration of these weights. The remaining weights of group 2—500

and 1,000 pounds—are, however, the denominations most frequently

employed in vehicle-scale testing where adequate test-v/eight loads

are provided, and their proper calibration is, therefore, a matter of

increasing importance as the number of testing units equipped with

such weights increases.

The type of platfomi scale ordinarily available, or readily procurable at relatively low cost, is not suitable for the calibration of 500-

and 1,000-pound weights or, for that matter, of weights of group 3,

by reason of being insufficiently sensitive and of having unsatisfactory

repeatability characteristics. Platform scales of superior construction can be procured which will be satisfactory for such weight cal- ibrations but even with the best equipment, precision methods must

be used and the weights must be calibrated by substitution against

standards carefully and accurately built up. These scales must be

used practically like balances, with refined means for determining

weighbeam rest points, and great care must be exercised in the

application and removal of loads to avoid any disturbance or derangement of parts which would adversely afl^ect the accuracy of the results. Also, independent, duplicate observations should be made in order to detect errors of observation or computation, or any erratic performance on the part of the scale being utilized as the comparing means; if the

results are discordant, observations should be repeated until a set of

values is obtained which appears, upon analysis, to be reliable. The greater simplicity of a testing beam as compared with a platform scale, its probably superior accuracy, repeatability, and sensitiveness when properly designed and constructed, and the greater

ease vnth which a testing beam can be used if all details have been

carefully worked out to adapt it to its particular service, are factors

which strongly recommend the testing beam over the platform scale

for weight calibration. Since the market for testing beams is limited,

they will probably usually be built to special order, and thus the

official is in a most favorable position to have basic designs modified

to adapt them to his special needs.

Accordingly, the Bureau recommends to weights and measures

officials the procurement of testing beams whenever weights of denominations of 500, 1,000, and 2,500 pounds are in use. For weights of

the two smaller denominations, the same beam may satisfactorily be

used; it is probable that a 2,500-pound beam would not be entirely

satisfactory for 500- and 1,000-pound weights because of lack of

needed sensitiveness at these smaller loads, but it is also probable

that no official would need to procure two beams, for our observations

indicate that a vehicle-scale testing unit designed to utilize weights

of the two smaller denommations does not employ the 2,500-pound

denomination, and vice versa. The Bureau is without information
42 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

as to the practicability of weight-testing beams of capacities in excess

of 2,500 pounds, although it would appear that such beams might well

be expected to yield results comparable with those obtained with

beams of smaller capacity; for the present, however, our recommendation for equipment for the calibration of 5,000- and 10,000-pound

weights is confined to what may be termed a

* 'precision" platform

scale. As to testing beams for 500- and 1,000-pound weights, which will be in most demand, it appears first that these should normally be

designed for installation in a fixed location, in order to provide the

maximum of stability for the associated parts and thus contribute

toward good repeatability in use. In other words, better results are

to be anticipated if the weights are brought to the beam than if the

beam is designed as a portable unit to be taken to the weights. It may be noted parenthetically that the 1,000-pound testing beam of

the Bureau, designed for the calibration of the weights carried by our

Vehicle-Scale Testing Unit, is necessarily of the portable type, be- cause this must be sent into the field from time to time for use when

the Unit is operating in territory distant from Washington.

Two basic designs for a testing beam naturally suggest themselves,

the equal-arm type and the unequal-arm type ; each of these possesses

certain advantages, but considering all factors, it is probable that the

unequal-arm type will give the more general satisfaction. For an

unequal-arm type of testing unit, one lever or two levers may be

utilized. It is considered that the multiple of any one of these levers

should never be greater than 10. A multiple of 5, 10, or 20 is recom- mended for the unit as a whole—5 or 10 for the single-lever unequal- arm type and 10 or 20 for the compound-lever type; a 1,000-pound

load would thus be counterpoised at the tip of the unit by 200, 100, or 50 pounds. Since the substitution method of calibration is defi- nitely recommended, it will be apparent that accuracy of arm length, or ratio, of the unit is of secondary importance, although the official would not wish to have and the manufacturer would not wish to

release a unit with an arm-length error of any considerable magnitude.

Suitable means should be provided to permit ready application and

removal of the main and counterpoising loads without undue derangement of the working parts of the unit, and the main loadreceiving element should be designed to accommodate easily weights

of the particular dimensions of those to be calibrated. Some suitable means should be provided for arrestilig and releasing the mechanism

or for supporting the load-receiving elements during the loading and

unloading operations. A refined means should be provided for determining with precision the rest point of the unit on each observation.

Workmanship on the pivots and bearings should be of high quality,

and loads per lineal inch of knife-edge should be kept low.

It will be obvious that an equal-arm testing beam is used in the same general manner as an equal-arm balance, these two instruments

differing essentially only in capacity. The use of the unequal-arm

testing beam is equally simple; the same principles and the same

general procedure are to be observed as in the case of the equal-arm

type. It may be appropriate again to mention Mr. Pienkowsky's

paper where the principles and procedure in question are explained in

detail.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 43

Weights of any denomination from perhaps 10 to 100 percent of the

capacity of a testing beam may be calibrated by substitution on the

main load-receiving element of an imequal-arm beam, and similarly

weights of any denomination not exceeding the designed maximum

load on the counterpoising element may be calibrated by substitution

at that point; thus on a 1,000-pound beam having a multiple of ten,

50-, or 100-pound weights may be compared with standard weights by

substitution on the load-receiving element at the tip of the unit,

whereas on a similar unit having a multiple of 20, the load on the counterpoising element would be limited to 50 pounds, making it necessary

to use the main load-receiving element for any weights in excess of

this denomination.

In conclusion, it is urged that weights and measures oiSicials give

the same careful attention to their large-denomination test weights

as they are accustomed to give to test weights of small denomination,

in order that these important working standards may be kept in

proper condition. The accuracy of these large weights should be unquestioned, and their appearance should be consistent with their

importance; these ends may be realized if the weights are well-designed and constructed, if they are handled with reasonable care when in use, if they are reconditioned whenever their appearance

becomes less than good, and if they are regularly and carefully cali- brated upon a suitable testing instrument.

The Chairman. This concludes our program, but the secretary

has an announcement to make.

Mr. HoLBROOK. I want to announce something that many of you

have already discovered; copies of the report of the Committee on

Specifications and Tolerances are available on the desk here. This

report is to be made tomorrow morning and therefore, if you want to study it, you will have an opportunity to do so. Mr. PisciOTTA. Mr. Chairman, I thought we would adjourn

tonight in memory of our good friend, Joe Cullen, and I want to make

a motion to that effect,

(The motion was seconded, the question was taken by a rising vote, and the motion was unanimously agreed to.) (At this point, at 4:35 p. m., the Conference adjourned, to meet at 10 a. m., Wednesday, June 7, 1939.)

THIRD SESSION—MORNING OF WEDNESDAY,

JUNE 7, 1939

(The Conference reassembled at 10:15 a. m., at the National Bureau of Standards; Lyman J. Briggs, President of the Conference, in the chair.) APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES

The Chairman. The Chair would like to announce the appointment of the following Committees:

Committee on Resolutions:

W. S. Bussey, Texas, chairman.

H.. N. Davis, Vermont.

J. M. McLeod, Nevada.

A. J. Jensen, North Dakota.

V. Bruschi, Jr., San Diego County, Calif. Tom Webb, Nashville, Tenn.

Mrs. Clark McQuilkin, East Chicago, Ind,

Committee on Nominations:

RoUin E. Meek, Indiana, chairman.

Charles C. Read, New Jersey. M. A. Hubbard, Virginia.

J. C. Tinkey, Ohio. James A. Boyle, Portland, Maine.

Harry E, Biery, Allentown, Pa. Louis G. Waldman, St. Louis, Mo.

I will ask the chairmen of these Committees to arrange for proper

meetings and reports.

RESEARCH PROGRAM ON VOLUMETERS OF THE ASME SPECIAL

RESEARCH COMMITTEE ON FLUID METERS

By Howard S. Bean, National Bureau of Standards

The Special Research Committee on Fluid Meters of the ASME

was organized in 1916. Its special duties were to collect and correlate

available data on fluid meters, to conduct or cooperate in original

research on fluid meters, and to prepare for publication reports of its findings. Its first report was issued in 1924 and was prepared almost

entirely from infoiTuation collected from several sources. In the

next 6 years this report was revised and reissued twice.

In 1931 the committee joined with the Gas Measurement Committee

of the American Gas Association in completing an extensive research

program on square-edged orifices. The results of this joint work

were published in 1935 and are now very generally used where fluids are metered with square-edged orifices. In this same year, 1935, the committee started a research program

on another form of differential producer for rate of flow meters,

namely, the flow nozzle which is sometimes called an orifice of rounded

approach. The necessary experimental work and tests for this program have been very nearly completed and it is hoped that a report

of this work will be ready this year. 45
46 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

A year ago the committee decided to take up the study of volumeters^,

commonly referred to as displacement meters. Accordingly, a subcommittee was appointed to plan and carry out a thorough research

program on these meters. Those appointed on this subcommittee

are: K. J. S. Pigott, chairman of both the subcommittee and main

committee, and staff engineer of the Gulf Research and Development

Corporation; A. J. Kerr, district manager, Pittsburgh Equitable Meter

Co.; S. R. Beitler, Ohio State University; M. J. Zucrow, consultmg

engmeer; and your speaker. To the last member has been detailed

the work of assigning and coordinating the experimental work between

such laboratories as that of the Engineering Department of the

University of Oklahoma and the United States Bureau of Mines at

Bartlesville, Okla.

The subcommittee is of the opinion that this research should be

planned so as to include, ultimately, volumeters for all kinds of

fluids, gaseous as well as liquid, and also that the effect of associated

conditions, such as location, type of flow, and uniformity of the state

of the fluid, should be given attention.

The following is an outline of the general program:

A. Types of Meters to be Studied:

I. Piston types:

a. Cylinder and piston, in duplex and swash plate.

b. Square piston.

c. Bellows.

II. Rotary:

a. Sliding and swinging vane.

b. Oscillating ring.

c. Nutating disc.

d. Wet gas meter.

e. Lobed impeller.

III. Inferential:

a. Turbine meters. IV. Weight meters. B. Things to be Studied:

I. Nature of errors in volumeters:

a. Slip-sealing.

b. Pressure slip relationship.

c. Mechanical and hydraulic friction.

d. Recording mechanism load. Variation of this load due to wear and corrosion of mechanism.

e. Pressure drop required to drive.

f. Distortion of case due to internal pressure.

g. Displacement as a reference value.

h. Variations between meters of same make and size and between different

sizes of same make.

II. Effects of associated conditions:

a. Uniform fluids—elimination of foreign liquids or gases.

b. Elimination of solids.

c. Effect of meter pulsations.

d. Effect of line pulsations.

e. Materials and design for strength and durability.

f. Arrangement of piping before and after a meter.

C. Things to Work With:

I. Theoretical material to guide testing:

a. Slip formulation.

b. Bearing, packing, liquid shear, and register friction.

c. Relation between displacement line and calibration line, and effect on

apparent corrections.

II. Test equipment factors to be considered:

a. Size relative to capacity of meter.

1. Measuring device large enough to handle maximum flow rate of meter

over significant period of time.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 47

b. Precision.

1. For liquids, measuring device should be within five-hundredths of a

percent.

2. Means provided for controlling temperatures and pressures within close

limits.

c. Elimination of gas effects for liquid meters.

1. Adequate separation before metering.

2. Liberation of absorbed gas in passing through meters.

3. Evaporation of light ends after metering.

d. Humidity corrections.

e. Temperature and pressure corrections. D. Test Program:

I. For accuracy: At least two sizes of each type (or make) . Tests at five or more rates and

with three or more viscosities for liquids; air and gas (natural) for gas

meters.

II. Durability:

Eight to ten months on continuous full-flow operation with accuracy check

tests at suitable intervals. It will, of course, require several years to carry through so extensive

a program. The first tests will be confined to a study of volumeters

for crude and refined oils. These meters have been placed first on the

program, because there is a great deal of interest in them at this time,

and it appears probable that their use throughout the oil mdustry

will increase very rapidly. Moreover, there is much uncertainty on

such questions as the actual accuracies that are attainable, the rate

of wear, and the effects of various associated conditions.

For the present the tests on oil meters will be made at the engineering laboratories of the Universit}:^ of Oklahoma, under the immediate

supervision of E. E. Ambrosius. The manufacturers of these meters

have been asked to assist the committee by submitting at least two

sizes of meters, and if they make more than one type of meter, then

two meters of each type. The object of the first tests is the determination of the accuracy of registration, over several rates of flow and with

several grades (or viscosities) of refined oil. The meters will then be

operated under simulated working conditions for 9 to 12 months, with

check tests made at suitable intervals. Later, the committee expects

to arrange to have some tests made at some pumping station or refinery

where the meters can be operated under actual field conditions.

The committee has already discussed with the United States Bureau

of Mines the question of their assisting in a study of the effects of such

associated conditions as piping arrangements and the elimination of

gas, salt water, and sediment. For this work the probable arrangement will be for the committee to provide for one or two assistants to work directly under the supervision of one of the Bureau of Mines

staff. Following the past policy of the Fluid Meters Committee, progress

reports and papers on various phases of the work will be published from

time to time as the research progresses. In these published reports

each meter will be designated by a suitable symbol and every effort

will be made to prevent these reports from being used as a basis for

advertising or sales promotion. In addition to these published reports,

there will be another group of reports, which may be termed individual

reports, made to the meter manufacturers, giving the results of the

tests on their own meters m detail, together with such criticisms and

suggestions as the committee feels competent to offer. It is the committee's hope that this program will produce results of

real value and assistance to the meter manufacturers and the users, and
48 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

to the public through the various State agencies dealing with weights

and measures and the conservation of resources. THE CONSUMER LOOKS AT WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

ADMINISTRATION

By D. E. Montgomery, Consumers' Counsel, Agricultural Adjustment AdminiS'

tration, United States Department of Agriculture

Dr. Briggs, ladies, and gentlemen: Two years ago at your Conference

I came to discuss with you the need and possibilities of interesting this

wide, ramblmg thing called the consuming public in the importance to them of the work which is done by you people. And again last year

I spoke to you on the progress made up to that time, and I am here

again to tell you of further progress. During that 2-year interval since I first talked to you, the consumers movement has been gathering weight rapidly. This year, you might

say, it is almost graduated from school and is becoming quite widely

recognized by business groups everywhere and is becoming very much

aware of itself. It is beginning to know pretty definitely what it wants and it is learning how to get it. This year there have been

several lai^e conferences held, business conferences and educational

conferences, where this consumer movement has been the main topic

of discussion. I came down last night from Buffalo, where the National Better Business Bureau had a 3-day discussion on consumer

relations, where the consumer movement w^as well represented and

spoke for itself very well indeed.

So I come back to the question we are interested in together.

First of all, I want to report on some of the efforts of our Division to give greater publicity to the work of weights and measures officials. The Consumers' Counsel Division issues a biweekly publication

called the ''Consumers' Guide." I think most of you are familiar

with this publication. During the last year this publication carried

five articles dealing with weights and measures activities. Two of

these articles gave publicity to radio broadcasts for consumers dealing

with weights and measures enforcement programs. One reviewed the

historical background of weights and measures and two gave publicity

to a nation-wide weights and measures contest which the Division

conducted. The Consumers' Guide now goes to 135,000 ultimate consumers scattered in 48 States, and we feel that these articles on

weights and measures affairs will create an increased interest in the

work of your departments.

The Consumers' Counsel Division, in cooperation with the General

Federation of Women's Clubs puts on each week a Consumer Time

Broadcast, which is carried on the coast-to-coast Red Network of the

National Broadcasting Co. Since the last meeting of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures, this radio program has contained discussion of the importance of weights and measures enforcement programs on three occasions.

Probably the activity which has aroused most interest was the

weights and measures contest sponsored by the Division. To publicize this contest, the Consumers' Guide carried a weights and measures quiz 'TIow High is Your Consumer I. Q.?" Four hundred and
TWENTY-NINTH CONFEKENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 49

eleven consumers answered the forty questions included in the quiz

and sent in two weights and measures slogans. Entries came in from

every State in the Union but two. It happens that two persons

answered all of the 40 questions correctly, but the judges thought

that the slogans of Mrs. Paul Clumpner, a housewife of Metaline

Fallg, Wash., were superior, and so she was awarded the first prize, an

excellent household scale provided by the Virginia Association of

Weights and Measures Officials. At this time, I want to take this

opportunity^ to thank the Virginia Association for the contribution of

this fine prize. I also want to thank J. G. Rogers, Assistant State

Superintendent of Weights and Measures of New Jersey, George

Warner, Chief of the Bureau of Weights and Measures of Wisconsin,

and B. W. Ragland, Chief of the Bureau of Weights and Measures of Richmond, Va., for acting as judges of this contest.

(At this point Mr. Montgomery presented and discussed the results of a Con- sumer Standards Project of the Consumers' Counsel Division, which comprised

a study of weights and measures administration. This material is contained in tables 4 to 12, inclusive.)

Table 4.

Proportion of States, cities, and counties having legal provisions con- forming to the model weights and measures law and proportion not having such

provisions, by type of regulation

[Based on 22 States, 49 cities, and 20 counties]

Proportion of jurisdic- tions conforming to model law in

Proportion of jurisdic- tions not conforming

to model law in- Type of regulation or enforcement activity i Counties Counties States Cities states Cities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (6)

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Testing commercial devices twice a year 27.3 63.1 60.0 68.2 42.9 30.0 Proving of standards every 5 years. . 40.9 83.7 85.0 40.9 12.2 10.0 Inspection of standards every 2 years - 59.1 65.3 50.0 22.7 28.6 40.0 Issuance of regulations for law enforcement 86.4 75.6 80.0 9.1 14.3 10.0 Inspection of new equipment 64.5 87.8 65.0 40.9 8.2 35.0 Stamping or sealing of approved equipment 77.3 98.0 95.0 13.6 2.0 5.0 Condemnation and seizure of unapproved equipment. 95.5 98.0 95.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Arresting violators 86.4 89.8 80.0 9.1 8.2 15.0 Penalty for first offense 31.8 22.4 35.0 63.6 67.3 55.0 Penalty for repeated offenses 27.3 22.4 35.0 63.6 61.2 65.0 Labeling packages with net weight 81.8 91.8 95.0 18.2 6.1 5.0 Prohibition of use of misleading containers 45.5 69.4 85.0 50.0 20.4 10.0 Requiring weight tickets for coal, coke, and charcoal-. 68.2 91.8 90.0 27.3 8.2 10.0 Standard units for: Bread 45.6 57.1 46.0 54.6 38.8 45,0 Butter and oleomargarine 60.0 61.2 86.0 60.0 28.6 15.0 Milk 81.8 81.6 90.0 13.6 14.3 10.0 Coal 86.4 81.6 95.0 9.1 12.2 5.0 Wood 68.2 73.5 85.0 27.3 24.5 15.0

Berries and small fruits 90.9 91.8 95.0 4.5 6.1 0.0 Vegetables and fruits (except cranberries) 59.1 67.3 70.0 27.3 14.3 25.0 Support of department by taxation 77.3 79.6 100.0 22.7 18.4 0.0 Bonding of administrative officers . 64.5 49.0 56.0 36.4 46.9 45.0 Employment of inspectors from civil service lists 18.2 57.1 35.0 81.8 36.7 60.0 Discharge of personnel 36.4 69.4 50.0 63.6 22.4 40.0

» These are condensed statements of the type of regulation or enforcement activities—see model weights and measures law for more comprehensive statements of the requirements. The model law may be found

on pages 237-258 of "Weights and Measures Administration," Handbook Hll of the National Bureau of Standards (1927).

188876—40 5
50 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Table 5.Average budget for weights and measures activities in 1 year^ as deter- mined for designated number of States, cities, and counties, by population

Population

Average budget

for 1— Range of budget for i— Number of—

®

OQ

(1)

CO .2b

(2)

.2a

r3oO

(3) (4)

.2O

(.5)

m

<x> PoO

(6)

©

OS

(7)

mo

(8)

m

.29

oO

(9>

TTnrioi- OA f\{\C\ Dolls Dolls

1,200 Dolls Dollars Dollars Dollars

1 ""r

8

1012

6

4

47

2

11

9(1 nnn tn 9q oqq 1,026 2,460

1,982

400 to 2, 300

1, 860 to 3, 200

to 3, 945

to 6, 347

to 11, 551

1, 500 to 12, 602

2, 250 to 14, 875

2, 220 to 13, 590

21, 865 to 40, 775

30,000 to 39,999- 756

3, 133

2, 959

5, 276

7, 120

14, 684

14, 595

28. 872

to 1, 612

2, 179 to 5, 108

to 14, 200

1, 700 to 10, 283

2, 466 to 14, 825

4, 010 to 26, 180

2, 100 to 34, 580

10, 500 to 50, 171 4

2

7

199

5

4

135

11

1

Af\ nnn f aq qoq

Kf\ f)(\f\ ff\ OQ QQQ 2, 409

6,262

7, 208

5, 806

5, 931 31.320

100,000 to 149,999

150,000 to 199,999 200,000 to 249.999

250,000 to 499,999 16, 500

15, 908 8,500 to 31, 000

500.000 to 999.999 8, 940 to 29, 436

1,000,000 to 1,999,999 21, 500 29. 480

2,000,000 to 2,999,999 14, 333

45, 774

48. 000 : 80. .'524 Oto 25,000

21, 000 to 64,000

3 3,000,000 or above 186, 160 6 Average 25, 667 11, 948 6, 845 Total 15 68 62

1 The averages in columns (1), (2), and (3) show that in general the budgets for weights and measures

activities in jurisdictions of medium or large population exceeded the budgets for those of small population. Individual exceptions to this main tendency were found, however. There was a wide spread or range of the budgets for the jurisdictions in a population class as is evident from columns (4), (5), and (6). Table 6.

Average size of staff, as determined for weights and measures agencies in

designated number of States, cities, and counties, by population

Population

Average number of per- sons on staff for i

Range of staff for i— Number of—

States

(1)

Cities

(2)

Counties

(3)

States

(4)

Cities

(5)

Counties

(6)

States

(7)

Cities

(8)

Counties

(9) Under 20,000 2.0 LO

1.1 L6

L6

1.8 3.2

3.0

2.8

3.1 10.3 12.0 39.0

1 178

10

13654

72

1

1

20,000 to 29,999-... Oto 2 Ito 2 Ito 3 Ito 4 Ito 5 Ito 5 Ito 6 Ito 5 7 to 14

30,000 to 39,999-.-. 1.7 1.6

2.1 2.4 4.2

7.0

6.

1

13.2

12.0

16.0 65.5

Ito 2 Ito 2

1 to 6 Ito 6

2 to 7

3 to 10

2 to 12 7 to 20

3

7

21

11

64

166

1

12

40,000 to 49,999

50,000 to 99,999

100,000 to 149,999 150,000 to 199,999- 200,000 to 249.999

250,000 to 499.999-...

500,000 to 999,999-.-

1,000,000 to 1,999,999

""4.'5"

6.2

7.0 9.7

16.0

3 to 5

4 to 7

6 to 8

4 to 17

3 to 31

3

42

38

2,000,000 to 2,999,999-. 3,000,000 or above-.. 46 to 85 Average 10.2 5.9 3.1 Total 20 77 66

1 In general, the larger the population of a State, city, or county the larger was the number of persons engaged in weights and measures supervision, which tendency is indicated by the averages in columns (1),

(2), and (3). The ranges in columns (4), (5), and (6) suggest small staffs, as a rule. For cities or counties

ataffs of 3 persons or less were in the majority, and for States staffs of 7 persons or less.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFEKENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 51

Table 7.

Summary of 7xsults of weights and measures testing activities in 1 year^

by type of apparatus

[States, cities, and counties combined]

Type of apparatus

Number

of States,

cities, and

counties

repre- sented 1

(1)

Total number

examined 1

(2)

Proportion per jurisdiction * Approved

without

adjust- ing 3

(3)

Approved

after adjust- ing i

(4)

Con- demned

for repair *

(5)

Confis- cated and

des- troyed »

(6)

Scales - 706372

67

Units

913, 628

974, 113

530, 511

25,807,063

Percent

83.2

95.0

83.6

94.4

Percent

9.1 2.0

7.6

1.7

Percent

7.0

1.2 8.4

2.8

Percent

0.7

1.8 0.4

1.1 Weights

Pumps and retail-type meters

Miscellaneous

1 Subject to revision.

* Sum of proportions for all jurisdictions divided by total number of jm'isdictions, expressed as percentage;; each percentage in columns (3), (4), (5), and (6) is therefore an average.

» Weights and miscellaneous apparatus required less adjustment than scales, and pumps and retail-type- meters.

* From the standpoints of adjustment and condemnation for repairs, scales and retail-type meters requiredi more attention.

5 Confiscations in no instance averaged as high as 2 percent. Table 8.

Miscellaneous apparatus: Summary of results of weights and measures

testing activities in 1 year, by class

[States, cities, and counties combined]

Class

Number

of States,

cities, and

counties

repre- sented 1

(1)

Total number

examined 1

(2)

Proportion per jurisdiction

'

Approved

without

adju.«t- ing 3

(3)

Approved

after adjust- ing*

(4)

Con- demned

for re- pair *

(5)

Confis- cated andi

destroye(i

(6)

Units Percent Percent Percent Percent Liquid capacity measures 63 696, 410 94.1 1.5 2.8 1.6 Milk bottles 24 22,583,294 99.2 0.8

Lubricating-oil bottles 41 1, 127, 372 99. .6

1

0.1 0.2 Dry capacity measures

Linear measures

40

48

1, 256, 725

44, 284 93.7

93.

1

.5

2.2

3.5

4.15 Fabric-measuring devices Taximeters--- - - - _ 35

13

2, 586

6, 486 96.2

96.2

.9

.9 2.9 2.9 Calibrated vehicle tanks (fuel oil and

gasoline) 67 9, 178 83.4 13.3 3.2 0.1

Fuel-oil meters -. ... . 3746

6, 195 83.6 11.4 5.0 Wholesale-type gasoline meters 7, 399 78.6 12.6 7.8 1.0- Gas meters (not gasoline) 3 67038

90.0 5.5 4.6

Electric meters 1 8L6 18.4

1 See footnote 1, table 7.

» See footnote 2, table 7.

* In 8 of the 12 classes of apparatus, the average proportion approved without adjusting amounted to 90- percent or more. OfiScials approved nearly all milk bottles and lubricating-oil bottles tested. The average was lowest (78.6) for wholesale-type gasoline meters.

* More than 15 percent of the equipment tested of calibrated vehicle tanks, fuel-oil meters, and wholesale- type gasoline meters required adjustment or repair.
52 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Table 9.Jurisdictions classified by proportion of weights and measures apparatus

of each specified type approved after

Type of apparatus tested

Number of

juris- dictions

repre- sented 1

(1)

Number of jurisdictions in which ap- proved units of apparatus aggregated50 per- cent or more

60 per- 70 per- 80 per- cent or cent or cent or more more more ^

(3) (4) (5)

90 per- cent or more ^

(6)

Number in which

all ap- paratus was ap- proved'

(7)

Number in which

no ap- paratus was ap- proved

(8) STATES

Scales Weights - Pumps and retail-type meters

Miscellaneous

18 18 18 16 12 1 15 14 14 14 13 12

19 18 18 18 12 5 17 17 17 16 14 14 CITIES

63 60 58 50 41 18 1 66 56 56 66 55 53 9

63 59 59 54 41 27 3 2 60 60 59 68 55 54 13

Scales Weights

Pumps and retail-type meters

Miscellaneous COUNTIES

59 69 53 46 36 20

57 67 57 57 67 65 60 59 56 55 48 30

61 58 58 58 57 55

Scales Weights

Pumps and retail-type meters

Miscellaneous

1 The total number of States, cities, or counties represented in the information in this column for any one

type of apparatus would not equal the corresponding total stated in column (1), table 7. Data from city and county offices apparently were incorporated in some instances in reports from State officials.

' Of the weights and measures apparatus tested, at least 80 percent was found to be satisfactory in about

two-thirds of the jurisdictions.

* The percentage approved was ordinarily higher for weights and miscellaneous apparatus than for scales and pumps, frequently running to 90 percent, sometimes to nearly 100 percent.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 53

Table 10.

Jurisdictions classified by proportion of weights and measures apparatus

of each specified type found unsatisfactory on testing, with official action taken

Type of apparatus tested

Number

of juris- dictions

repre- sented 1

(1)

Number of jurisdictions in which units of apparatus

designated for—

Adjustment aggre- gated— Repair aggregated—

Confiscation and

destruction aggre- gated—

10 percent

or more ^

(2)

20 percent

or more ^

(3)

10 percent

or more 2

(4)

20 percent

or more ^

(5)

1 percent

or more 2

(6)

5 percent

or moro

»

(7) STATES

Scales 5 - - 18 10 1 4 1 5 1 Weights* 15 1 1 1 1 8 1 Pmnps and retail-type meters *. 19 5 1 6 3 3 1 Miscellaneous 17 2 2 2 1 5 1 CITIES

Scales 3__ Weights*-

Pumps and retail-type meters *. Miscellaneous— _

63 28 12 17 56 1 63 19 6 22

60 5 3 1

21 4

26 6

6 2

23 6 COUNTIES

Scales ' Weights*

Pumps and retail-type meters

Miscellaneous59 29 16 11 57 1 60 15 8 21

61 4 2 1

17 3

24 4

6 2

16 4

1 See footnote 1, table 9, p. 52.

' Maximum percentages, aU three classes of jurisdiction:

Type of apparatus Adjustment, columns (2),

(3) Repair, col- umns (4), (5)

Confiscation and destruction, columns

(6), (7)

Scales Percent96

93

93 100

Percent

36

20

4196

Percevt 9

239

29 Weights

Pumps and retail-type meters

Miscellaneous

> Adjustments were most frequently reported for scales.

* The number of weights confiscated was relatively greater than the number of units of any other typo

of equipment.

» Pumps and retail-type meters were in the lead from the standpoint of condemnations for repair.
54 ISTATIONAL BUEEAU OF STANDARDS

Table 11,Coal, bread, commodity packages

[Distribution of States, cities, and counties according to the percentage of the total quantity found short

in weight by inspecting officials]

Percentage short in weight

Number of—

States 0)Cities

(2) Counties

(3) COAL

8 12 OtoQi 3

3

1

35

126

4

246

12

12

10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 - 50 or over.. 4 Total - 7 61 36 BREAD

9 11 €to9i 52

28

134

3

2

24

52

2

10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 - 50 or over Total 7 50 33 COMMODITY PACKAGES

4 Oto9i 7

3

1

37

14

54

13

356

6

4

10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 SO or over 1 Total - „ 11 64 51

1 Includes class. In general, less than 10 percent of the quantity of coal, bread, or commodity packages, weighed by inspecting officials, was found short in weight; many of the reports, however, disclosed larger proportions. On the whole, the proportions for cities exceeded those for States or counties. Table 12.

Comparison of three selected cities with respect to weights and measures

activities

[Population group 300,000 to 400,000]

Item

City

A B C

STAFF

Weights and measures inspectors (number).

.

173

2 2 Admin istrative staff .. (number) . 1

.

Total staff (number) . 8 5 3 BUDGET

Furnished (dollars) .

.

Fees collected but not segregated for use by department (dollars).. Budget needed (dollars) .

.

18, 000

18, 000

12, 500

2, 394

19, 160

5, 941 362

9, 000
TWEXTY-mj^TH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 55

Table 12.

Comparison of three selected cities with respect to weights and measures

activities—Continued

City

A B C

TESTING ACTIVITIES

Establishments within jurisdiction ... . . (number)

Establishments visited ...(number)..

Visits made. ... . . .. . (number)..

3,600

3, 600 7,200

4, 500

3, 500

8, 000

4,000

3,000

3, 778 APPARATUS TESTED

Scales: Examined .. . (number) . Approved without adjusting ... . (percent).. Approved after adjusting.

..

(percent).. Condemned for repair. (percent) . Confiscated and destroyed. . ... ... ... .. (percent). Weights: Examined (number).. Approved without adjusting (percent).. Approved after adjusting . (percent) .

.

Condemned for repair .(percent) Confiscated and destroyed (percent)... Puinps and retail-type meters: Examined--- . . . .. (number)

.

Approved without adjusting (percent)

-

Approved after adjusting. (percent) Condemned for repair , . (percent) . Confiscated and destroyed- ..(percent) . Liquid capacity measures: Examined--- . ... (number).

_

Approved without adjusting (percent).. Approved after adjusting ... (percent).

.

Condemned for repair.-. ... ._ ...(percent). Confiscated and destroyed

..

.. (percent) . Total miscellaneous apparatus:'^ Examined . .. ...(number).. Approved without adjusting (percent) . Approved after adjusting.. .. _. (percent) Condemned for repair.. . ... .. . . . .. ... (percent).. Confiscated and destroyed .(percent)..

11, 256 98.2

0.8

0.4

17, 288 92.6

7.4

6, 361 99.9

0. 1

5, 170 99.9

0.1

17, 973 99.8

0.1

0. 1

4, 129 49.4

34.

1

15.5

1.0

1, 679

86.0

13.2 0.8

2, 447 78.8

0.3 20.9

1,849 80.3

12.0

7.7

2, 038 71.2

21.9

6.9

796

64.2 35.8

4, 393 98.82

0. 02

1. 19

2, 609 78.7

21.3

470

98.9

1.1

7, 025

99.6 0.3

0.1 SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES

Coal:Loads weighed under supervision (number).. Loads found short of weight (percent)..

36 2.8

100 10.0 Bread:Loaves weighed under supervision (number) Loaves found short of weight .. (percent). Commodity packages: Packages weighed under supervision (number)

Packages found short of weight . (percent)..

600

5.0

2, 801 4.7

3, 800

21.

1

3, 882 39.5

1, 000

39, 619

13.8 PROSECUTION ACTIVITIES

Prosecutions made . _ (number) .

.

Total amount of fines imposed (dollars).. Jail sentences ..

. (number).. Are penalties adequate?

2

(*>)Yes

27 470 No685 No

» Includes liquid capacity measures,

h 1 fine imposed.

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE PAPER

The Ch.AlIrman. Have you any questions to ask Mr. Montgomery

in connection with tliis very interesting survey?

Mr. C. P. Smith. I would like to ask Mr. Montgomery if these

percentages of short weight are not larger than those which actually

exist throughout the country.
56 NATIOJTAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Mr. Montgomery. Yes. I tried to show that situation. I think the

high percentages would be due in part to the fact that there is a

seiective testing on the part of the weights and measures officials. I presume they have some basis for judging where such an investigation be made.

Mr. C. P. Smith. When I go into a store, I check the different

packages, and when I find they are averaging correct, I won't weigh

many packages. But when I find a store with short-weight packages,

I then weigh more. That would bring the percentage of short packages

very much higher.

Mr. Montgomery. Yes. We are, of course, presenting this report

for public distribution and will send it to you and to all of the people

who send in questionnaires. But in using it, we will point out what

you have mentioned.

Mr. QuiNN. Do you have such a model ordinance, as you were

spealdng of?

Mr. Montgomery. The National Bureau of Standards has a model

ordinance which we used in drafting this questionnaire.

The Chairman. Mr. Holbrook, do you wish to discuss that question?

Mr. Holbrooe:. The model law was one of the very early actions

of the Conference. It was first drafted in perhaps 1911 or 1912.

That model law now forms the basis of the laws of a very large number

of our States. It has been kept in touch with changing conditions

from time to time by such amendments as were found necessary by

the Conference. The model law as it stands is recommended by the

Conference and by the National Bureau of Standards for adoption by

the States. Mr. Quinn. Are copies available of that?

Mr. HoLBROOK. This material will be found in the Conference

reports and also in National Bureau of Standards Handbook No. 11. Mr. Harrison. I would like to ask Mr. Montgomery a question

with respect to his figures of percentage of shortage in deliveries. I notice, among other things, he has figures indicating a rather large

percentage of shortage in retail deliveries of coal. Does your data

represent any research as to the normal amounts of the deliveries?

What I am getting at is that in certain places there are a great many

deliveries of coal in very small amounts, not by a truckload but in

bags, for instance. Do your figures indicate any distinction between

those small deliveries and the large deliveries?

Mr. Montgomery. No; the report doesn't indicate that.

Mr. Harrison. When you got shortages of as much as 50 percent,

which I believe you have recorded, I am just wondering to which class

it applies.

Mr. Montgomery. No; it wasn't a shortage of 50 percent. The

table shows that in 50 percent of the tests made of weights, a shortage was found. It doesn't tell how much they were short.

Mr. Harrison. I got the other idea.

Mr. Montgomery. I tried to make it clear. The percentages in

table 11 indicate in how many of the tests a shortage was found. It doesn't tell how much they were short. But even on that basis, a 50-

percent report, of course, is extraordinarily high. You wouldn't

expect 50 percent of the deliveries tested to be short, unless, as it has

been suggested, the sealer knew where he was going to find trouble
TWE^J-TY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 57

and made his investigations in those places. That seems to me a very

reasonable thing to do.

REPORT ON THE TESTING OF VEHICLE SCALES BY THE NATIONAL

BUREAU OF STANDARDS

By Ralph W. Smith, National Bureau of Standards ^ This report is a continuation of the series begun in 1937, presenting

the results of the National Bureau of Standards tests of vehicle scales made in cooperation with the States. The present report will follow

the plan inaugurated last year of presenting data, not limited to

results obtained during the past year, but upon the results from the

beginning of the vehicle-scale testing service. This report, then, is concerned with the study of the results of the Bureau tests for the

period November 1936 to April 1939.

During the past year the Vehicle-Scale Testing Unit of the Bureau

has not been operated continuously; moreover, it has not been found

practicable to include in this report, data for the past month's operation. Since the report made to the last Conference, testing schedules

have been completed in the States of West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky,

Indiana, Arkansas, and Missouri, and in the ciij^ of Detroit, Mich.

There have thus been completed testing schedules in 22 States and in

1 large city in another State. As before, the cooperating officials have

been officers in charge of weights and measures departments where

such departments have been in existence; in the States of Arkansas

and Missouri, the Bureau program was carried on in cooperation with

the State Highway Department in each case, although whenever the

Unit visited a city having a local weights and measures official, such

official cooperated during the tests made in his jurisdiction.

The Bureau has now made over 1,500 tests of vehicle scales. This

report, however, is confined to the results of 1,449 tests, the remaining

tests being on scales owned by the Federal Govermnent or on scales not properly classified as 'Veliicle scales." In a very few instances a particular scale has been tested twice ; in these cases each retest has

been considered as a separate test for statistical purposes.

Of the 1,449 scales covered by this report, 563 scales, or 39 percent,

have been wagon scales and 886 scales, or 61 percent, have been motortruck scales. Three hundred and fifty scales, or 24 percent of the

total number involved, have been equipped with automatic-indicating

devices. Of these, 308, or 21 percent of the total number tested, have

had automatic-indicating devices with a substantial weighing range,

while the remaining 42 scales, or 3 percent of the total, have been

equipped v/ith ''over and under" attachments in which the weighing

range represented only a small proportion of the scale capacity.

Accuracy.—Statistical data are presented in the table which follows,

scales being separated, first, on the basis of their type, and, second,

upon the basis of their ownership or principal use. In compiling

statistical data on tests, mean percentage errors are computed from

the maximum percentage errors developed in the tests, regardless of

the size or position of the test-weight load. Scales are classified as accurate or inaccurate upon the basis of the maintenance tolerance

adopted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures, which,

1 This paper was read to the Conference by F, S. Holbrook.
58 NATIO]!TAL BUREAU OF STAl^DARDS

in general, may be said to be ±0.20 percent, appHed to errors of the

scale indications with respect to the standard-weight loads used.

Table 13 discloses that almost four out of five of the vehicle scales tested by the Bureau have been found to be inaccurate, and that the

average percentage error—that is, the mean of the individual maximum percentage errors developed—is more than six and one-half

times the basic tolerance of 0.20 percent. The average wagon scale was in error by more than the average motortruck scale, and the

percentage of wagon scales found inaccurate was approximately 10

percent higher than the corresponding figure for motortruck scales. Table IS.—Vehicle-scale test results, November 1936 to April 1939

Numerical mean of Type, ownership, or use Tested Found accurate Found inaccurate maximum

percentage

errors Numbtr Number Percent Number Percent Percent Wagon scales 563 87 15.5 476 84.5 1.50 Motortruck scales .- 886 228 25.7 658 74.3 1. 21 State, city, tovm, or county 118 23 19.5 95 80.5 .96 Coal or coke 835 182 21.8 653 78.2 1. 15 Cotton or cotton products 162 42 25.9 120 74.1 1. 67 Scrap materials 79 7 8.9 72 91.1 2. 15 Miscellaneous farm products, including

fruit and sugarcane 69 18 26.1 51 73.9 .94 Grain 54 15 27.8 39 72. 2 2. 03 Stone, sand, or gravel 47 6 12.8 41 87.2 1.72 Public weighing 26 5 19.2 21 80.8 3.51 Miscellaneous . 59 17 28.8 42 71.2 1.01 Total - - 1, 449 315 21.7 1, 134 78.3 1. 32 A graphic presentation of test results follows. This graph is di- vided into two parts. The upper portion shows percentages of

scales found accurate and inaccurate and the percenteges of scales

having plus and minus errors; the lower portion classifies maximum

errors of inaccurate scales on the basis of their magnitudes. It will be seen that there is no significant preponderance of either plus or minus errors, and that the frequency of occurrence of errors of particular magnitudes decreases as the m.agnitudes increase. For purposes of comparison, the scales found accurate are plotted at the

right of the lower portion of figure 2. As to scales used for particular purposes, it is significant that the

highest percentage of scales found inaccurate is found in the scrapmaterial group, with more than 9 out of 10 scales found inaccurate,

and that the building-materials group—handling stone, sand, and

gravel—is in almost as bad condition. It would appear that dealers

m these commodities, which on the whole sell for low unit prices, are

less particular about their weighing devices than dealers in other commodities, notwithstanding the fact that an error of 1 percent, for

instance, on the revenue from a business is equally serious whatever

the unit price of the commodity handled.

The scales reported upon include 38 scales found to have maximum

errors in excess of 5 percent of the test-weight loads; these errors range

from 5.10 to 66.56 percent. If these 38 scales were to be disregarded

because of their abnormally large errors, and if the mean errors were

to be recomputed for the groups affected, the mean of the maximum

errors would be reduced as shown in table 14.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 59

SUMMARY OF VEHICLE- SCALE TEST DATA

NOVEMBER 1936 -APRIL 1939 SCALES 1 ACCURATE I

ERRORS

PLUS (+) MINUS (-

NUMBER OF

SCALES

MAXIMUM \Sf> PERCEJiTAGE TO ERRORS 0.39

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF ERRORS

OF INACCURATE SCALES

4.00 TO

4.99

- ACCURATE

FiGUKE 1. Table 14.

Numerical mean of maximum percentage errors

Type, ownership, or use All scales

Excluding

38 scales having ab- normally

large errors

Wagon scales , Motortruck scales ..- State, city, town, or county

Coal or coke Cotton or cotton products Scrap materials Miscellaneous farm products, including fruit and sugarcane Grain

Stone, sand, or gravel.. Public weighing

Miscellaneous

Total

Percent

1. 60

1.21

0. 96

1. 15

1. 67

2. 15

0. 94

2.03

1.72

3. 51

1. 01

Percent

1.05 0.76

0. 76

.88 .76

1. 10

0.71 .76

1.00

0.88

0. 86 The foregoing data show a material reduction in the magnitude of

the average percentage errors for each group, as a result of the elimination of those scales having abnormally large individual errors. However, the average figure is still more than four times the basic

tolerance, whereas the average error for one group—scrap materials

is five and one-half times the basic tolerance. The proportional discrepancy between wagon and motortruck scales is greater than before.
60 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

the average error for the wagon type being more than one-third

greater than for the motortruck type. Scales used for weighing

scrap and building materials have the doubtful distinction of having

the largest average errors. A further study of the test results discloses that there was faulty

agreement among the several bars of the weighbeams on scales not

utilizing counterpoise weights, that weighbeam indications were in- accurate independent of scale-ratio errors on scales utilizing counterpoise weights, or that weighbeams which were subordinate to reading

faces were inaccurate, in the case of approximately one-third of the

scales tested. There were encountered 141 scales utilizing counterpoise weights;

this group com^prised 10 percent of the total number of scales tested. There were utilized on these scales a total of 717 regular counterpoise

weights of which 288, or 40 percent, were found to be accurate; 79, or

11 percent, were found to be heav}^; and 350, or 49 percent, were found

to be light.

Sensitiveness,—Sensibility reciprocal requirements were applicable

to 1,093 scales, or 75 percent of the total tested. Of these scales, 502, or 46 parcent, were not sufficiently sensitive; 578 scales, or 53 percent, were found to have SR values within the prescribed limits; and 13

scales, or 1 percent, were found to be in neutral or unstable equilibrium.

Zero-load balance.—Data on the condition of zero-load balance as

scales were found, are available on 1,407 scales. Twentj^-nine percent

of this number, or 402 scales, were found to have zero-load balance

errors in excess of 5 pounds; and, in addition, 30 scales, or 2 percent, were found to have been balanced at zero load by means of weighbeam

poises, these scales being in reasonably good zero-load balance condition as found, but having serious zero-load balance errors when all poises were returned to zero positions. Of the scales reported as having zero-load balance errors, 14 scales had not been in service for

several weeks prior to the dates of test, and for these there was reasonable excuse for the out-of-balance condition found. However, even

excluding scales of the last-mentioned group and also scales balanced

by means of weighbeam poises, a number of instances were found of

zero-balance errors in excess of 100 pounds, and in one case, the zero- balance error was -|-450 pounds, and it was necessary to improvise a balancing weight for application on the counterpoise hanger in order

to get the scale into condition for test. Loads weighed.—The overloading of scales continues to be very

much in evidence ; in some sections it was found that the overloading

of wagon scales was an almost universal practice. Upon the generally

accepted criterion that a wagon scale is suitable for the weighing of

motortruck loads only up to 60 percent of its ''wagon" capacity, it has

been found that 379, or 67 percent of the 563 wagon scales tested, have

been overloaded. Motortruck loads equaling the ''wagon" capacities

of scales were reported as being weighed on 110, or 20 percent, of these

wagon scales, which in 37 instances, or 7 percent, the motortruck

loads being weighed exceeded the "wagon" capacities of the scales. Last year it was reported that the most serious instance of overloading was the case of a 12,000-pound wagon scale on which motortruck loads

of 18,000 pounds were being weighed; this year we have to report that

in the case of a 12,000-pound wagon scale encountered, motortruck

loads of 20,000 pounds were being weighed, representing an overloading of 178 percent.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 61

The loading of motortruck scales in excess of their rated, or of their

nominal, capacities is less frequently found and, on the whole, is considered to be somewhat less serious when it does exist, by reason

of the facts that the amount of the overloading is usually relatively

small and that the scales themselves are probably designed and constructed with a sufficient safety factor so that they are better able to withstand the effects of overloading than are the relatively light wagon

scales. One or two outstanding examples of motortruck scale over- loadmg have occurred, however, where the scales have been equipped

with automatic-indicating attachments, the excessive loads being

weighed by utilizing both the weighbeam and the automatic-indicating

elements.

It may be noted again in this general connection that when the

Bureau tests a wagon scale, the test loads are limited to those which

would be applied imder conditions of proper use in accordance with

the loading criterion previously stated. When a scale is overloaded

it is probable that there may be developed errors more serious than,

those disclosed by the Bureau test. At the other extreme from the conditions discussed immediately

above, there are found many vehicle scpJes being used for the weighing

of loads of less than 1,000 pounds, a practice contrary to the regulation

adopted by the National Conference in 1937. Data on minimum

loads being weighed on scales tested by the Bureau are available on 822

scales, of v/hich number 415, or 50 percent, are reported as being used

for the weighing of loads of less than 1,000 pounds. The weighing of

loads of 100 pounds or less is reported in the case of 258 of these scales^ or 31 percent of the number on which minimum-load data are available. It is not at all uncommon to find that loads as small as 10

poimds are being weighed on vehicle scales. Results of Inspection.—The inspection of the lever system of a

vehicle scale is a regular part of the Bureau routine and such inspections are made in all cases where access to the lever systems may

reasonably be had. Because of the absence of means for access to the

scale pits or because of the presence of water, mud, or excessive accu- mulations of dirt in scale pits, no pit inspection, or only partial pit

inspection, has been possible in the case of 159 scales, or 11 percent

of those tested. Last year there were reported to the Conference a few of the unusual conditions disclosed by our inspections of vehicle scales. Among

such conditions found during the past year, the following may be

mentioned:

Serious interference developing under large loads between one or both weighbridge girders and one or more of the scale levers or other

parts of the installation, appeared to be the principal fault in the case

of 8 of the 18 scales found to have maximum percentage errors in excess of 5 percent; these scales may be tabulated as follows:

Use Coal Coal

Sand, asphalt, coal (city scale) Grain, miscellaneous farm produce.

_

Coal, farm produce, public weighing.

Grain, coal Cotton, cottonseed

Public weighing

Maximum percentage

error+5. 10 -6. 60 -7. 47

+ 16. 13

-1-17. 00

-54. 05

-57. 63

-66. 56
62 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Three instances were found in which homemade extensions to platform or platform and weighbridge structures had been built in order

to accommodate vehicles longer than those which could be weighed in one draft on the original platforms; scrap material was being weighed on two of these scales, while the third was used for public weighing

and the sale of coal. At least these scale owners appeared to appreciate the desirability of getting all of a vehicle onto the scale platform

at one time, and went to some pains to avoid two-draft weighing; for

their apparent understanding of certain fundamental principles of

weighing procedure they are to be commended even though their

efforts resulted in the introduction of other factors of problematical

effect. In the case of one scale used for weighing farm produce, it appeared

that the owner had wanted to widen the platform; in any event,

nose-irons of makeshift construction had been bolted to the two short

levers of this wagon scale, thus increasing the effective lengths of these

levers by approximately 4 inches. Mud and water in the scale pit

prevented a thorough inspection of the lever system, so the inspectors failed to discover what other faults may have existed. The

maximum percentage error on this scale was —9.00 percent.

One scale was found to have a maximum percentage error of +12.33

percent at 3,000-pound load; on a 9,000-pound load applied at one end the error was +2.22 percent; and on a 15,000-pound load applied

at the same end the error was —2.00 percent. Eight counterpoise

weights were in use on this scale and all were found to be light; their

combined error was equivalent to 158 pounds on the scale platform.

This was a city-owned scale, over which a local ordinance required

all coal sold in the city to be weighed. Unfortunately, the presence

of a considerable amount of water in the scale pit made it impracticable

to conduct an inspection of pit conditions.

One coal and public weighing scale had recently been through a fire, which had so melted the adjusting lead of the tare poise that this

poise could not be m^oved from the zero position.

One scale used for weighing coal and farm produce and for public

weighing was found to be installed with the tips of the main levers

mounted over, instead of in the openings of, the end extension levers; to make this assembly, the bearing blocks for the main-lever tip pivots were mounted on top of the extension-lever load bearing blocks, thus

constituting rigid compression bearings at these points.

A scale used for weighing cotton and coal was found to have one main lever which had been broken in two places; this was not sur- prising in itself, since the scale was a 12,000-pound wagon scale on which motortruck loads of as much as 17,000 pounds were being

weighed. One of the breaks in the lever had been repaired reasonably

enough by welding; the other was ''repaired" by applying a metal

''splint" to the under side of the lever and binding the splint to the

two sections of the lever by means of wire.

The weighbeam of one wagon scale was fitted with a main poise

from a weighbeam of different multiple, and several pieces of sheet

lead were found loosely wrapped around the poise in an effort to bring

it to proper value ; this material shifted position when the poise was

moved. The tare poise was missing entirely. The maximum per- centage error of this scale was +14.67 percent, and on a 9,000-pound

distributed load an error of +1,280 pounds developed.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 63

On a sand and gravel scale which developed a maximum percentage

error of —18.76 percent, it was found upon inspection that both loadsuspension assemblies at one end were badly out of plumb and interfering with the main levers, and that on one side of the pit, accumulations of dirt were causing serious interference with the load-suspension

assemblies. Incidentally, the indications of the automatic-indicating

elements of this scale were so dim and blurred as to be almost illegible.

Associated primarily with the installation of a scale are the factors

of accessibility to the scale parts in the pit for purposes of inspection

and maintenance, provision for pit drainage, and the condition of the

scale approaches. With respect to many factors involving elements

of the lever systems, the faults disclosed by inspection may have re- sulted from faulty installation, they may have resulted from inadequate maintenance, or they may have resulted from a combination of

poor installation and faulty maintenance.

In presenting statistical data resulting from our inspections of

vehicle scales, it may be said that except for data on automaticindicating elements, percentages reported are based upon the total

number of scales examined, regardless of the fact that in some in- stances information could not be procured upon specific points by

reason of the impracticability of inspecting the parts involved. The

faulty conditions found upon inspection are summarized in table 15. Table 15.

Faulty conditions encountered in vehicle-scale installations

Faulty condition Occurrence

Accessibility of lever system: Reported as "bad" _ Reported as "poor" Reported as "fair". Reported as "good"... Reported as "very good" No provision for pit drainage or information not available on this factor Scale approaches

:

Rough — --- Curved

Inclined to scale platform

Inclined to scale platform at angle of 3° or more (included in preceding

entry) Water standing in scale pit and/or clogged pit drain Accumulation of dirt in scale pitRusting structural steel in scale pit Pivots and bearings of the lever system: No protection against corrosion - Only partial protection against corrosion -.. Rusting or dirty, - - Worn

Displaced from proper relative positions or displaced entirely from mutual

contact - Levers out of level Beam rod, bearing assemblies, and/or connections between levers out of plumb..

Interference between, or inadequate clearance around elements of the lever system

Loose levers or lever extension arms .-. Faults associated with lever stands or supports... Faulty lever foundations -.- Faults associated with platform checking means

Clearances between scale platform and coping too large, too small, or both

Platform in need of repair Platform not in surface alinement with coping... Inadequate clearance around beam rod Weighbeam assemblies: Dirty, rusted, or tarnished Mechanical faults associated with some part of the assembly

Loose parts or insecure mounting

Automatic-indicating elements:

Interference in the mechanism

Faulty indications (does not include weighing inaccuracy)

Number Percent

64 4

307 21 604 42

426 29

55 4

761 63 102 7

231 16 747 52

334 23

229 16 606 42

491 34

603 42

72 5

681 47

225 16

174 12

324 22

650 38

203 14

56 4

84 6

45 3 240 17

589 39

373 26

169 12 67 6

343 24

250 17

193 13 76 •22

34 •10

« Based on 350 installations.
64 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

You will find on tiie Secretary's table, at the close of the meeting,

mimeographed copies of these tables which have been presented.

I thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any questions?

Mr. O'Keefe. Will there be any copies of Mr. Holbrook's report

available?

Mr. HoLBROOK. That report will shortly be available and it will be

distributed to the delegates. In the meantime, we have this tabular

material.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES,

PRESENTED BY JOHN P. McBRIDE, AND DISCUSSION THEREON

Your Committee on Specifications and Tolerances respectfully

submits its report to the Conference for your consideration and action.

This material was made available to you yesterday in mimeographed

form and doubtless all of you now have a copy of it in your hands.

The first portion consists of detailed amendments to several codes

which are recommended for adoption; the second portion contains some material of a more general nature upon which you may desire

to take action, also. As the report is read some brief explanations

will be interpolated setting forth the reasons inducing your committee to make the various recommendations.

(Signed) F. S. Holbrook, chairman,

Charles M. Fuller,

Joseph G. Rogers,

John P. McBride,

George F. Austin, Jr., Committee on Specifications and Tolerances. Mr. McBride. The first section is concerned with liquid-measuring

devices. [Reading:]

SECTION ON LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

Specification No. 5, under the above heading, reads, in part, as follows: In a pump-discharge unit a mechanical air eliminator or other means shall be

installed adjacent to the meter inlet. Amend this specification to make this sentence read as follows: In a pump-discharge unit a mechanical air eliminator or other means shall he provided in such a position that it will effectively prevent the passage of air or vapor

through the meter. Now, this change is recommended in view of a situation which

has arisen in the case of meter installations. A good many meters

now have a strainer embodied within the device proper. However,

there are some strainers utilized in installations which are not built

in the device. Under the language of the present specification, it seems that a strainer could not be installed between the air eliminator

and the meter. This does not seem to be a proper requirement

since the purpose of a strainer, of course, is to protect the meter, and

if strainers were not allowed to be installed the meter would be subject to scale and slime and residue which might come from the air eliminator into the meter.

So your Committee recommends that tliis change be made as read.

(The amendment as proposed by the Committee was duly adopted.)
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 65

Mr. McBride (reading):

Specification No. 32, under the above heading, reads, in part, as follows:

All retail devices shall be so designed and constructed that the initial zero condition and the amount delivered shall 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: Amend this specification to make this material read as follows:

All retail devices shall be so designed and constructed that the initial zero condition and the amount delivered up to the nominal capacity of the device shall be

clearly and definitely indicated by automatic means and this nominal capacity,

if less than 50 gallons, shall be plainly and conspicuously indicated on each face

of the device; the indication of any delivery shall take place only when the full discharge has, in fact, occurred: The purpose of that new language is to require a statement of

nominal capacity in certain cases. Mr. Thomas F. Rice. May I inquire if it be construed to mean

whether the capacity would be required to be marked on a 20-gallon

dial?

Mr. McBride. You would have to have some indication on each

face of a 20-gallon dial to the effect that the capacity was 20 gallons.

(The amendment as proposed by the Committee was duly adopted.)

Mr. McBride (reading):

SECTION ON VEHICLE TANKS

Specification No. 5, under this heading, reads as follows:

5. Fill Openings and Indicators.—The minimum dimension of the fill opening

shall be 10 inches. An indicator shall be provided within the fill opening of each

compartment; this indicator shall be permanently attached to the shell of the compartment and shall be located approximately midway between the ends of the

compartment. The indicator shall be so designed that it will clearly, distinctly,

and unmistakably define the height to which the compartment must be filled in order to contain its marked capacit}^ and the surface upon fill of the compartment

shall be so reduced in area that the change in height of the liquid surface at the index

of the indicator equivalent to the volume representing the tolerance on the compartment

capacity shall in no case be less than 0.04 inch. If this indicator is adjustable, it shall be so constructed that it can be sealed in such a manner that its position cannot be changed without destroying or mutilating the seal. Amend this specification to read as follows:

5. Fill Openings and Indicators.—The fill opening shall be of such size that it can readily be determined whether or not the compartment has been

properly filled or completely emptied, as the case may be, and that the attach- ment of the seal can be readily accomplished when such sealing is required by the terms of this specification: Provided, however. That if the fill opening is circular its effective diameter shall in no case be less than 5% inches, or if other than circular, it shall have an effective area of not less than 24 square inches. An indicator shall be

provided within the fill opening of each compartment; this indicator shall be permanently attached and shall be located approximately midway between the

ends of the compartment. The indicator shall be so designed that it will clearly,

distinctly, and unmistakably define the height to which the compartment must be

filled in order to contain its marked capacity, and the change in height of the liquid

surface at the index of the indicator equivalent to the volume representing the tolerance on the compartment capacity, shall in no case be less than O.O4 inch. An adjustable

indicator and any removable part to which any indicator may be attached shall be so constructed that it or they can be sealed in place in such a manner that their position cannot be changed or that they cannot be removed without destroying

or mutilating the seal or seals. This specification is not to be construed to prohibit the employment of an additional indicator when such indicator is necessary in order to permit compliance

with laws or regulations governing highway load limits and in such cases the

capacities of the compartment when filled to each indicator shall be marked as

provided in Specification No. 10. 188876—40 6
66 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

This, as you will recall, is a recurring question. The Committee

now recommends that the fill opening shall be of such size that it can

readily be determined whetner or not the compartment has been

properly filled or completely emptied. That is new, and likewise is new the provision that the minimum opening may be 5% inches.

The language in relation to the indicator and the manner of its attachment is nev/, as is also the entire last paragraph.

The Committee reached the conclusion that it was perfectly proper

in given circumstances—as in the case of a compartment of small

capacity—that a fill opening of 5% inches be permitted, provided that

in all cases the fill opening must be of such size that it can readily be

determined whether or not the compartment has been properly filled or completely emptied, and that the attachment of the seal can be

readily accomplished. We think this the fairest way out of the

difficulty of a set minimum of 10 inches, v/hich might impose a fill opening out of proportion to the size of a comApartment. Tliis new

language affords elasticity.

The closing paragraph in relation to the provision for an additional

indicator arises by reason of the liighway load limitations imposed in

certain jurisdictions. In some cases, compartment trucks may carry

loads of different densities, for instance, gasoline one way and oil on

a return trip. If they carried to the same fill point both of those

commodities, they might find that the heavier liquid resulted in a

violation of load limitation laws. As a result, the Com^mittee feels it would be a proper thmg to allow additional indicators in circumstances

such as those.

Mr. Ragland. Mr. Chairman, for your information, I suggested

the amendment to the Conference several years ago, specifying the

minimum of 10 inches. I consider the new recommendation leaves it largely to the discretion of the sealer. If you can get to it to seal it, that is the requirement necessarj^, and I most heartily move that this

recomm^endation of the Committee be adopted.

Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the adoption of this

amendment, if it is going to reduce the opening in the dome of the

compartments. I feel sure that if a 5%-inch opening is allowed, it is going to cause a great hardship to the sealer who tries to make adjustments. I believe it will lead to the manufacturers continually using

the smaller openings on their tank trucks. An opening that is the

width of a man's ha,nd and thumb is altogether too small. If Mr.

McBride has ever tried to make those adjustments or to determine

the filling point, I know he will bear me out in that.

When Mr. Ragland moved the adoption of this specification, I wondered ''Why this change of heart?" He says it leaves it to the

discretion of the sealer. Supposing it does, it is going to work a hardship with us. We should not abide by this, and if trucks come

up from Massachusetts or New York and we can help it, we shall not

allow these 5%-inch compartment openings.

I was against this proposition a year ago, and I have since talked

with the sealer who has that matter in charge entirely in the State—

the man who runs the testing unit. He said it was an utter impossibility to make those adjustments with a fill pipe much less than 10

inches in diameter.

Mr. Ragland. In reply to Mr. Davis about my ''change of heart,"
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 67

I might say that Ragiand is at all times willing to be convinced, and

I so wrote Mr. Davis after last year's Conference.

Mr. McBride. Mr. Davis, your Committee took into consideration

skinning the knuckles. But we insist upon two features—accessibility and visibility—and I think our experience will be that nominal

6-inch openings for tanks of small size will be satisfactory. We will have a smaller depth and you won't have the difficulty in getting in

to seal the indicator, or with visibilit}^ to see whether the compartment is emptied or filled, if jou confine it to those situations.

Mr. Crockett. Gentlemen, this 5% inches is the old specification

of last year under another dress. I have prepared here two openings

(indicating). Tliis one (indicating) is 5% inches in diameter with an

area of 24.85 inches, and a circumference of 17.6715 inches. These

are not my figures; they are taken from a technical handbook. How

can you do any work in it, I want to know, and get down into the tank

with the seal press in your hands?

I have a small hand. With the various weights and measures

departments all over the country worldng with reduced budgets and

reduced staffs of men, their work has got to go on the best it can. Openings of this size are going to slow up the work.

Now, this is a 10-inch opening (indicating) with an area of 78.54

square inches and a circumference of 31.416 inches—over three times

as large as this opening. You can get in there to your elbows and do

your work.

Mr. Klocker. Mr. Chairman, I would like to object to the size of

that opening. You can change the language a little bit and require

that that particular 6-inch opening be confined to compartments of a

certain size, for instance, 100 gallons. For anything greater a 10-inch

opening could be retained. You can't readily adjust the indicator in

the smaller opening.

As to this last paragraph: Does that mean you can put another

indicator in the middle of a tank? If so, that is something absolutely

out of line. If you put that down into the compartment, how will

anyone be able to tell whether the liquid comes up to the indicator?

I don't believe you can set that to witliin 15 gallons; it is entirely

wrong and should be stricken out of there. Mr. McBride. You will have to bear in mind in that relation that

the sensitiveness must be retained so that you may secure an accurate

setting.

Mr. Klocker. I am sorry, John, but here you have a different

recommendation. The only way you can accurately seal the indicator

is in the dome—in a small confined area. If you want this to knock

off a sufiicient number of pounds to reduce overweight, you would have

to drop it down into the main part of the tank, and it would be an

impossibility to accurately seal it. Mr. BussEY. I move to table the amendment.

.. (The motion was seconded.)

The Chairman. The question is on tabling the amendment. This

is not debatable.

Mr. Kanzer. As a point of order, there are two motions before the

house.

Mr. Eagland. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion.
68 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Mr. Engelhard. Mr. Chairman, I think the time is ripe to realize

that there should be two indicators when necessary. Obviously, in

carrying gasoline, you can fill the tank to the upper indicator. But, if you want to reduce the capacity in order to carry a load of a heavier

commodity on these return trips, a lower indicator may be required.

These things have to be recognized. I think it is also obviously

necessary that a 5%-inch opening should be recognized when we have

so many of them actually in use. Another thing. The small handhole opening is in a manhole cover.

It has come to our attention on several occasions that mth very little effort the manhole cover plate can be removed from one compartment and put on another compartment. I notice in this proposed

amendm.ent that a removable part shall be sealed in place if the

indicator is attached thereto. If the manhole cover is sealed in place

and in order to get inside the tank the manhole plate is removed, you

would have to get the weights and measures official to come and reseal

it. I think that a logical requirement would be one v/hich the largest

truck manufacturers in the country have accepted, namely, that the

manhole cover plate be numbered to correspond with the compartment so that it can be shown that it has been changed, if it is changed.

The Chairman. Since Mr. Eagland has withdrawn his motion, the

motion before the house is to table the amendment.

The Chair rules no further debate is in order.

(The question was taken, and the amendment was laid upon the table.) Mr. Baucom. I move we amend Specification No. 5, to the effect that the minimum diameter shall not apply to tank trucks or compartments, the dimensions of which are such as to make it impossible

to apply a 10-inch fill opening, in which event a smaller opening would

be permitted, as in the case of a 100-gallon tank, perhaps 8 inches wide.

Mr. Fuller. Mr. Chairman, some action along those lines is cer- tainly necessary, because we have a great number of tank trucks in

operation today with small compartments having fill openings of the

minimum specified in the amendment which are rendering satisfactory

service. Can you say to a man that a regulation has been adopted

here to the effect that he cannot use that size, when he can show it is already being used, and is sealed, and is giving correct measure? I think we should be reasonable in these regulations and take into

account what the industry is using, when the result is that correct measure is being delivered.

In regard to that part of the amendment proposed allowing two

indicators, we have a good many cases where transport trucks are going several hundred miles. They may be hauling gasoline in one

direction, and coming back they may haul a pay load of commodity

having a greater specific gravity. Are you going to say to that fellow,

"You cannot do it, you have to come back empty?'' Or can we

permit him to have an indicator for that, provided it is clearly mxarked

that the capacity to the upper indicator is so many gallons, and the

capacity to the lower indicator is so many gallons?

I believe we made the language flexible enough. In the first place,

in regard to the dome opening, we required that you must be able to

see whether the compartment was completely empty, and in the other

case it was required to be such that a seal could be applied unless the

indicator was spot welded in place in which case the seal is not needed.

The Chairman. The Chair will have to rule that without a motion,
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 69

further discussion of this particular item is out of order, because you

have moved to place this amendment on the table. If the Conference

desires to go further with this discussion the Chair suggests it would be

desirable to take this motion from the table and either go on with it, or, perhaps, to refer it to the Committee along with the suggestions made.

Mr, PisciOTTA. I move that the proposed amendment be approved

with the following amendment: After the words ''shall in no case be

less than 5% mches" add the words ''for a tank capacity of 150 gallons or less, and for tanks of a capacity above 150 gallons, it be 10 inches";

also the appropriate area for the 10-inch diameter should be inserted.

If we make changes in the amendment which was tabled, I think

it would be proper for us to pass upon the material in this new form

at this time. This passing of the matter from one Conference to another just keeps the industry up in the air. It is perfectly all right

mth the tank trucks already manufactured and now in use. But we

know that the time will come when those used today will have to be

replaced, and we should mthout further delay definitely decide for

their guidance as to what we want themx to manufacture m the future.

Mr. Baucom. I am willing to add that material to the motion

which I made to amend the specification from the floor, instead of

from the Committee. Mr. Pisciotta has limited the size of compartments which may employ the 5%-inch diameter opening in a manner

which is acceptable.

Mr. Kanzek. Mr. Chairman, I don't think this answers the problem. You recall last year we debated the specification, and one or two gentlemen said it was impossible to seal the indicator witliin a

5/s-inch opening. I don't see how tiiis proposal is going to obviate

that difficulty, whether the compartment is of 150-gallon or any

other capacity. Also, if you are going to specify dimensions, let the

wording be such that we can understand it. The specification

mentions 5^ inches, 24 square inches, and 0.04 of an inch. It is impossible accurately to determine whether these requirements are met, and, in putting forth any suggested changes impossible to enforce,

you are just wasting time. We know what we can and cannot do.

Furthermore, while Mr. Pisciotta's suggestion is correct in a way

I don't know that we have enough figures to say it should be 5%

inches on a 150-gallon compartment and then jump to 10 inches for anything above 150 gallons. I don't see why it is necessary to have

10 inches for 200-gallon or 175-gallon compartments but not for a

150-gallon compartment. I think we are arbitrary in our action, and

I object to anything arbitrary in any specification. It is simple enough to provide for those tanks which are in existence

today. We can overcome that difficulty. But let us set the pace

correctly for the future tanks to be constructed, so that they should

be so constructed that a weights and m^easures official can readily

determine whether the specifications are being complied with. Let

us keep in a consistent mood and know what w^e can do and not just

put down specifications as such.

Mr. Crockett. Mr. Chairman, isn't this discussion all out of

order, when the motion has been tabled?

The Chairman. The gentlemen have taken the point that they

are now proposing a new amendment from the floor. The one tabled was the one proposed by the Committee.
70 2TATI0XAL BUEEAU OF STAITDARDS

Mr. Crockett. In other words, tliey are going to use part of the

information tabled and add something to it and bring it back to the

Conference?

The Chairman. Yes, sir, that is the point, and the Chair has been

trying to determine what that motion is. Mr. McBride. The amendment is that the fill opening in no case be less than 5% inches, on compartments of 150 gallons or less, and

that on com-partments of more than 150 gallons, the minimum fill opening shall be 10 inches, with the equivalent area also specified.

Mr. Crockett. What difference does it make, if you cannot get

your hand in, whether it is 150 gallons or more?

Mr. McBride. The only answer to that is that there are in exist- ence a number of 6-inch domes which we have been accustomed to

seal. You have done it before, and now, in the case of new vehicle

tanks, you will be required to do it in a very limited number of cases. Mr. Shankel. I move we refer this matter to the Committee for

further study, and that they report back to the Conference.

The Chairman. There is a motion already before the house.

Mr. Shankel. I move that as a substitute for the other motion.

(The substitute motion was seconded.)

Mr. PisciOTTA. Let us remember this, that we have discussed it in

1937 and in 1938; we are discussing it now in 1939, and we m^ay dis- cuss it for 10 years to come. The manufacturers of vehicle tanks

will not know what we want. As I understand these recommendations they are not retroactive, and we are not compelling the abandonment of vehicles in use today. What we are trying to do is to

set down a policy for the future. When the manufacturer builds a new vehicle tank, it is just as easy for him to put in a 10-inch opening

as a 5%-inch opening.

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we have taken three-quarters of an

hour on this matter. The Chair does not want to limit the discussion^

but we have a lot to attend to. Mr. Fuller. Just one more point. Perhaps a happy compromise

would be an 8-inch diameter, rather than the 10-inch size, which is excessive in the case of the smaller compartments.

Mr. Bussey. Mr. President, I certainly do not approve of the

Committee amendment or the amendment as presented by my friend,

Mr. Pisciotta. I do not think the Conference should hurriedly adopt

any amendment here that we are going to be sorry for in the future.

Therefore, I move to table Mr. Pisciotta's m^otion.

(The motion to table was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion was agreed to. Thereupon a motion that the specification be referred back to the- Committee for review and that the Committee report back to the Conference on

Friday morning was adopted.)

The Chairman. Gentlemen, Mr. McBride will proceed with the

report of the Committee.

Mr. McBride (reading):

Specification No. 16 under this heading reads, in part, as follows: Adequate provision shall be made for preventing the passage of air through th&

meter. Amend this specification to make this sentence read as follows: Adequate provision shaU be made for preventing the passage of air or vapor

through the meter. (The amendment as proposed by the Committee was duly adopted.)
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 71

Mr. McBride (reading):

This specification also reads, in part, as follows: In a pump-discharge unit, a mechanical air eliminator or other means shall be

provided adjacent to the meter inlet. Further amend this specification to make this sentence read as follows: In a pump-discharge unit, a mechanical air eliminator or other means shall be

provided in such a position that it will effectively prevent the passage of air or vapor through the meter. That is similar to the language adopted in No. 5 previously.

(The amendment as proposed by the Committee was duly adopted.)

Mr. McBride (reading):

SECTION ON SCALES

Paragraph A-2q, under the heading "Scales—A. General Definitions" reads as- follows: A-2q. New Scales.—Scales which are about to be put into use for the first time or which have recently been put into use and are being tested for the first time

by the weights and measures official. Scales which have been reconditioned or overhauled or which have been condemned for repairs by a weights and measures

official and subsequently adjusted or repaired shall, upon the first test thereafter^ be construed to be **new" scales for the purpose of the application of tolerances. Amend this paragraph by adding at the end thereof the following words: and SR requirements.

The proposed recommendation is designed to require that reconditioned scales be subject to the SR requirements for new scales. [Reading:]

Under the heading "Scales—A. General Definitions," paragraph A-2b(4) contains the following table:

Class of scale Clear

interval

Small-capacity scales. _ Inches

0. 04

. 12

. 25

Large-capacity scales other than vehicle scales, Vehicle scales ____________ _ _ Amend this table to read as follows:

Class of scale Clear

interval

Small-capacity scales Inches

0. 04

. 12

. 25

Large-capacity scales, other than (1) vehicle scales and (2) live- stock scales having a capacity of 6,000 pounds or more _ _ Vehicle scales, and livestock scales having a capacity of 6,000

pounds or more __ __ _ That table specifies the amount of movement of the indicator of a

balance-indicating device v/hicli shall be used in determining the SR of

the scale. Three classes of scales are set up. The proposed recom- mendation is that livestock scales having* a capacity of 6,000 pounds

or more be taken out of the class of general large-capacity scales and

that these livestock scales be made subject to the same requirem^ent
72 NATIONAL BUKEAU OF STANDARDS

as vehicle scales. The Committee now proposes an additional amendment—and this does not appear on the reports in your hands—to in- clude coal mine and tipple scales m the vehicle-scale class, also. [Reading:]

Amend "Scales—A. General Definitions" by adding a new paragraph to be

known as paragraph A-2b(5) to read as follows: A-2b(5). Two classes of SR's are established:

(a) Acceptance or adjustment SR's: These are manufacturers' SR's or the SR's applicable to new scales as defined in paragraph A-2q.

(b) Maintenance SR's: These are users' SR.'s, or the SR's applicable to scales

in use. Amend "Scales—A. General Definitions" by adding a new paragraph A-2r

to read as follows: A-2r. Tolerance.—A tolerance is a value defining the amount of the max- imum allowable error or departure from true value or performance. Two classes of tolerances are established:

(a) Acceptance or adjustment tolerances: These are manufacturers' tolerances or the tolerances applicable to new scales as defined in paragraph A-2q.

(b) Maintenance tolerances: These are users' tolerances, or the tolerances ap- phcable to scales in use. This language merely sets up two similar classes of SR's and toler- ances already recognized in the code as manufacturers' and users^ SR's and tolerances and further designates these by the familiar terms

of ''acceptance and adjustment" and ''maintenance" requirements,

respectively. It also defines the term "tolerance," which was not

formerly defined in the code itself but which was defined ui the introduction of Handbook H22. [Reading:]

Under the heading "Scales—I.—Sensibility Reciprocal (SR) Requirements,'*

paragraph I-l reads as follows:

I-l. For Large-Capacity Scales.—The maximum SR allowable on a largecapacity scale, at the capacity of the scale or at anj^ lesser load, shall be the

value of two of the minimum weighbeam graduations, except that the maximum

SR allowable on a vehicle scale shall in no case be less than 10 pounds: Provided,

however. That the manufacturers' maximum allowable SR, or the maximum SR

allowable on a new large-capacity scale, whether or not it is a vehicle scale, shall be the value of one of the minimum beam graduations.

Amend this material to read as follows: I-l. For Large-Capacity Scales.

I-la. Large-Capacity Scales, Other Than Railway Track Scales.—The

maximum SR allowable on a large-capacity scale other than a railway track

scale, at the capacity of the scale or at any lesser load, shall be the value of two of the minimum weighbeam graduations, except that the maximum SR allowable on a vehicle scale shall in no case be less than 10 pounds: Provided, however,

That the manufacturers' maximum allowable SR, or the maximum SR allowable on a new large-capacity scale other than a railway track scale, whether or not it is a vehicle scale, shall be the value of one of the minimum beam graduations.

I-lb. Railway Track Scales.—The maximum SR allowable on a railway

track scale, except one in grain-weighing service, at the capacity of the scale or

at any lesser load, shall be 100 pounds, and for a railway track scale in grainweighing service, 50 pounds: Provided, however, That the manufacturers' maximum allowable SR, or the maximum SR allowable on a new or newly re- conditioned railway track scale, shall be 50 pounds.

The proposed language takes railway track scales out of the general

classification of large-capacity scales for the purpose of the establishment of SR requirements and then sets up the SR values which have

been recognized for many years by the National Bureau of Standards

and the AAR. [Reading:]

J. Tolerances.

J-1. For Large-Capacity Scales.

J-la. General.

The present tolerances provide that all dormant, built-in, and self-contained

scales installed outdoors shall be subject to class B tolerances in use.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 73

Amend the tolerances by making such changes as are necessary to require that

all of those types of scales, wherever installed, except coal mine and tipple scales, and scales having a capacity of 6,000 pounds or more and used exclusively in the

weighing of livestock, shall be subject to class A tolerances. This will result in cutting in half the allowable tolerances on all scales of these types installed out- doors except the coal mine and tipple scales, and the livestock scales mentioned;

in the case of the latter classes of scales the present class B tolerances will apply. J-lb. Application of Large-Capacity Scale Tolerances to Railway

Track Scales.

Strike out this entire section and insert in lieu thereof the following: J-lb. For Raily/ay Track Scales.

J-lb (1). The tolerances for railway track scales not equipped with auto- matic indicating or recording devices, and for scales normally equipped with

these devices but while such devices are detached, are as follows:

(a) The maintenance tolerance (applicable to scales in use) for all scales except those in grain-weighing service, is ±0.20 percent of the test load being

utilized, applied as follows: For a scale of more than two sections, to the maximum indicated percentage

error of weighing as defined below, but with the added requirement that no

individual sectional error shall exceed 0.30 percent of the test load being utilized. For a scale of more than two sections to the maximum percentage error de- veloped when two or more test loads are applied to the scale at the same time at normal positions not closer together than the distance between adjacent sections. For a two-section scale to the maximum percentage error developed for any

position of the test load or loads.

(b) The maintenance tolerance (applicable to scales in use), for scales in grainweighing service, is ±0.10 percent of the test load being utilized, applied as

follows: For a scale of more than two sections to the maximum indicated percentage

error of weighing as defined below. For a scale of more than two sections, to the maximum percentage error de- veloped when two or more test loads are applied to the scale at the same time

and at normal positions which are farther apart than the distance between adjacent

sections. For a two-section scale, to the maximum percentage error developed for any

position of the test load or loads. Note.—A scale in grain-weighing service shall be corrected whenever a test

discloses an error in excess of 0.10 percent for any position of a test load. (This

requirement conforms to the recommendations of the Interstate Commerce

Commission—Docket 9009; 56 ICC 347.)

(c) The acceptance and adjustment tolerance (applicable to new or newly

reconditioned scales) for all scales is ± 0.05 percent for the test load being utilized, applied to the error developed for any position of the test load. J-lb (2). The tolerances for all railway track scales in which are embodied or

to v/hich are attached automatic indicating or recording devices, for the respective

types of scales and conditions of test, are the same as those for scales independent

of such devices, except as follows:

(a) If the weight is indicated on a reading face, or by means of a printed impression showing the position of an indicating line with reference to a series of graduations, the maintenance tolerance shall not be less than the value of the minimum graduation on the reading face or printed impression, or of 1/500 of the

capacity of the automatic device, whichever is a smaller value, and the acceptance

and adjustment tolerance shall not be less than one-half of the minimum specified for the maintenance tolerance.

(b) If the weight indication is a printed record comprising figures only, there

shall be added to the tolerance which would otherwise be appropriate an amoimt

equal to 50 percent of the value of the increment between indications that can be

printed b}' the device, or 50 pounds, whichever value is the sm^aller. Notes:—

Test Loads.—The test loads contemplated to be used consist either of standard,

test weights carried on a four-wheel truck of known weight, or a railway track

scale test-weight car or cars, either truck or car to have a w^heelbase not exceeding

7 feet. The test load should have a weight of not less than 30,000 pounds.

Test-Load Positions.—A test run comprises normal positions of the test load assumed when each pair of wheels of the truck or of the test car is successively

positioned over each section of the scale (except at each end section where only
74 ITATIOISrAL BUREAU OE STANDARDS

one truck position is possible) except that in the case of a two-section scale an

additional position is utilized with the center of the truck midway between the

sections. Maximum Indicated Percentage Error of Weighing.—The ''maximum

indicated percentage error of weighing" is computed for scales of more than two

sections and is the largest mean value which can be derived from two errors developed during a single test run for positions (1) not closer together than the

distance between adjacent sections on all scales except those in grain-weighing

service, or (2) farther apart than the distance between adjacent sections on all scales in grain-weighing service. Necessary changes in wording in paragraph **J-la—General" shall be made to exclude railway track scales from the provisions of that section. The tolerances proposed for railway track scales are, in general,

those which have been applied by the National Bureau of Standards

for a number of years. One or two changes are being incorporated

setting up requirements which the Bureau proposes to apply on and

after July 1, 1939. One of these changes is the material reading,

but with the added requirement that no individual sectional error shall exceed

0,30 percent of the test load being utilized. The other change involves the adoption of tolerances on automatic

indicating or recording devices. This is the material in paragraphs

J-lb (2), (a) and (b). [Reading:]

Paragraph J-2—Proviso 1—reads as follows:

1. On a beam scale the tolerance shall in no case be less than one-half of the

actual SR of the scale at the load in question.

Amend this material to read as follows:

1. On a scale other than an automatic indicating scale, when the scale is equipped with a weighbeam, the tolerance shall in no case be less than one-half of one of the m^inimum graduations on the weighbeam; when the scale is not equipped with a weighbeam the tolerance shall in no case be less than one-half of the actual SR of the scale at the load in question.

Mr. Kanzer. Mr. Chairman, I desire to go on record as opposed

to all these recommendations, in principle. The problem of the use

of new and old scales, the use of such words as

' 'sensibility reciprocal/'

and so forth, are problems I cannot go into at this time. I will take

occasion as we go along to make protests against all these difficult terms, as being impossible of being understood by anybod}^. The

merchant v/ill not know what it is all about.

Mr. Baucom. My definition of tolerance is the difference between

perfection and prosecution, and it is the range v/ithin v/hich an inspector ma^y use his own discretion. Tolerances of at least 10 pounds

are fixed for some vehicle scales—it to be implied that a coal dealer can short-weight 10 pounds, and you cannot do anything about it. I do not think that is right; we should not hamper our activities. It is up to us to work toward perfection as nearly as possible, and

not to be limited in our prosecutions. I don't think we should accept

these maximum or minimum tolerances; of course, all of you have

the right in your own jurisdiction. In North Carolina we have

already definitely gone on record as not accepting these exceptions.

We are verging mighty closely to class legislation in this particular

set-up, and whenever we do that, we are going to get in trouble.

I have the highest respect for our Committee. I know they have

worked hard on this, but I think the major premise is wrong, and, as you know, if the m,ajor premise is wrong, any deductions or conclusions from that will have to be wrong. And I don't think you can remedy the situation by ''clarification." The more you try to clarify

this, the w^orse it will be, and we have practically to go back and
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 75

adopt the old handbook, which is clearcut and concise and clearly

understood.

Mr. Levitt. I don't think the fellows have had an opportunity to read these over; I know I haven't. And I don't see why we should

use snap judgment here. I move that the action on this matter be

laid aside, until one of the later sessions, so as to give the m^embers an opportunity to make up their minds as to what they want to do

about it. (The motion was seconded.)

Mr. HoLBROOK. Mr. Chairman, I observe that Mr. Levitt thinks

these were distributed only this morning. The fact is that these were

available yesterday, and that fact was armounced. Certainly, many

of the delegates had them in their hands yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Kanzer. I didn't get mine mitil today, because I wasn't here

yesterday.

Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairm_an, I move we adjourn.

The Chairman. Will you hold that motion for a moment until we

finish this report of the Committee?

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. Mr. McBride (reading):

Regulation K-lb reads as follows: K-lb. Minimum on Vehicle Scales.—A vehicle scale shall not be used for weighing loads of less than 1,000 pounds.

Amend this regulation to read as follows: K-lb, Minimum on Vehicle or Livestock Scales.—A vehicle scale or a

scale having a capacity of 6,000 pounds or more and used exclusively in the weighing of livestock shall not be used for weighing loads of less than 1,000 pounds.

Add a regulation to read as follows: K-6c. Livestock Scales.—The value of the minimum weight graduations of a scale having a capacity of 6,000 pounds or more and used exclusively in the weighing of livestock shall not exceed 5 pounds.

The Supplement to the report of the Committee reads as follows.

[Reading:]

Amend "Scales—A. General Definitions" by adding a new paragraph to be

known as "A-2s. Types of Scales" to read as follows: A-2s (1) Livestock Scale.—A livestock scale is a scale having a capacity of 6,000 pounds or more and used primarily for the weighing of livestock on the

hoof. A-2s (2) Coal Mine or Tipple Scale.—A coal mine or tipple scale is a scale used primarily for weighing lots of coal mined by an individual miner and weighed

for the purpose of determining the wages to be paid to the miner.

Subsequent to the issuance of the Committee report, Mr. Roeser

suggested a clearer definition of a coal mine or tipple scale, as follows.

[Reading:]

"A coal mine or tipple scale is a scale used primarily for weighing lots of coal for the purpose of determining the wages of miners."

More than one indi^ddual takes part in the production of each lot of coal weighed and Mr. Roeser's suggested language is therefore more accurate than the Committee's language. All the members of

the Committee have not read Mr. Roeser's language, but in my

opinion it is preferable. So, I will offer it that way unless there is som_e objection from any of m^y Committee members.

That concludes the specific recommendations for amendments to the codes.
76 NATIONAL BUREAU OE STANDARDS

The Chairman. Thank you. There is a motion to adjourn before

us, but before I put that motion, the Secretary would like to make an announcement.

Mr. HoLBROOK. I may say that the report of the Committee on

Standardization of Packages has been mimeographed and is available on my desk. That report is to be considered the first thing tomorrow

mornmg.

The Chairman. Gentlemen, the further consideration of the report

of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances will be taken up

tomorrow afternoon, if time permits; if not, the first thing Friday

morning.

(At this point, at 1:05 p. m., the Conference took a recess until 2:00 p. m.)
FOURTH SESSION—AFTERNOON OF WEDNESDAY,

JUNE 7, 1939

TOUR OF THE LABORATORIES OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF

STANDARDS

(The afternoon session of the Conference consisted of a visit to the new vehicle

scale just installed by the National Bureau of Standards and to various Bureau

laboratories. Two different tours of the laboratories were available, either one

of which could be selected. One devoted particular attention to the Division of Weights and Measures. The other was primarily intended for delegates who had

become familiar with these laboratories, and was designed to demonstrate the

character and scope of the general activities of the Bureau. In order to make the

tours of maximum interest and helpfulness, the delegates and guests of the Conference were divided into small groups, each of which was in charge of a member

of the Bureau staff.)

Secretary's Note.—On the evening of Wednesday, June 7, 1939, a get- together entertainment session was held in the Rose Room on the Washington

Hotel Roof, for the delegates and visitors and their families. Two motionpicture films were shown: "The River," by courtesy of the United States Film

Service; and "News in the Air," by courtesy of the Standard Oil Co. of New

Jersey. Those in attendance were also delightfully entertained by the mystifying

performance of Harry H, Baker. Light refreshments were served and dancing was enjoyed.

77

FIFTH SESSION—MORNING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1939

(The Conference reassembled at 9:50 a. m., at the Washington Hotel; W. S. Bussey, Vice President of the Conference, in the chair.) STANDARDIZATION OF PACKAGES

The Acting Chairman. During the past year there was appointed

by the president of the Conference a special committee to study the

question of standardization of packages. Mr. Pisciotta will now

present tbe report of his Committee.

REPORT OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, PRESENTED BY

ALEX PISCIOTTA, CHAIRMAN

At the Twenty-eighth National Conference on Weights and Measures last year fohowing the delivery and discussion of a paper by

Director Alex Pisciotta, of the Bureau of Weights and Measures, New

York City, a motion v/as adopted that a committee be appointed to look into the matter of remedying the situation as to the standardization of packages and to determine which way may be best adopted to accomphsh that purpose. Subsequent to tliis the Committee on

Resolutions introduced a resolution which was adopted endorsing the

principle of general standardization of packaged goods as follows:

Whereas we have knowledge of the benefit which would accrue from a standardization of all packaged goods ; Therefore be it Resolved, That this, the Twentj^-eighth National Conference on Weights and

Measures, does hereby record its sincere belief that a general standardization of packaged goods is greatly to be desired, and does direct its Executive Committee

to consider ways and means of accomplishing this. An almost identical resolution was also adopted at the Twentyseventh Conference in 1937.

Dr. Briggs, president of the National Conference, appointed seven members of the Conference to serve as the National Conference

Committee on Standardization of Packaged Goods.

The need for prompt, effective action is imperative and is increasing

rapidly. George Warner's paper on the standardization of packages

of canned goods delivered at the Twenty-seventh Conference in 1937

and Mr. Pisciotta's paper on the standardization of packages in general at the Twenty-eighth Conference in 1938, and the general

discussion which followed these papers brought out the facts regarding

this fast-growing new method of cheating the consumer—because

that's what it really is. For generations commodities have been dealt in by standard units

of weight and measure, particularly the pound, quart, gallon, etc. Business methods have changed and with the grov^th of chain stores,

self-service stores, and the packaging of ccm^modities in general, the

sale of commodities which are weighed by the retailer is fast dis- appearing.^ Sale by package is now the usual thing. Competition is very keen in this class of business and has resulted in unfair practices

and in all sorts of odd-sized, misleading, and deceptive packages.

The consumier is being misled and deceived and often cheated outright.

79
80 NATIONAL BUKEAU OF STANDARDS

Honest, ethical dealers, packers, and distributors are forced, in order

to meet competition, to follow the lead of their competitors and

adopt practices which they know to be irregular and which, in many

cases, lead to conditions which are not to the best interests of the

majority of the producers themselves.

For example, coffee. This has always been bought by the pound;

everybod}^ asks for a pound of coffee, or perhaps a half pound.

Through competition, in trying to meet or to beat the price of the

other fellow, we find 7-ounce packages, 8-, 13-, 14-, and 15-ounce

cans, and the standard 16-ounce, or 1-pound, cans. There is no

justification for the packing of coffee in these odd sizes, nor is there

any justification in the packing of tea in 3-, 3K-, or 7-ounce packages,

which is also being done.

Large distributors and chain stores have identical-sized packages

for all staple commodities put out by them, such as rice, barley,

dried beans of all kinds, peas, etc. In a list of 10 such distributors

we find that for 8 such commodities, 6 of the 10 distributors put up

these commodities in full-pound weights. One distributor put up

only one commodity in a full pound, and put up five in the odd weight

of 14K ounces. Some distributors have identical packages containing

two different weights of the same commodity, for instance, pea beans

in 14- and 16-ounce packages and barley in 13- and 16-ounce packages.

There is no excuse or justified explanation for this. These distributors

argue that they purchase milHons of containers of a standard size and use the same package for different commodities. They claim

that their standard box, for example, will hold only 15 ounces of green

split peas, 14^ ounces of pea ^ beans, a full pound of lentils, and

so on. They argue that by using onl}^ the standard-sized box and

purchasing them in very large quantities, there is a great saving

which is passed on to the consumer.

This argument is absolutely false, as is proved by the fact that

other distributors can and do pack all their commodities in full-pound

boxes of identical size. Furthermore, some of them do pack 14 and

16 ounces of the same commodity in the same standard-sized boxes. L. J. Salter, of the Salter Canning Co., in a communication to the

Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the House of

Representatives in support of bill H. R. 6964, the Sauthoff bill, lists 15 different cans of tomato juice between 7 ounces and 1 pound 15 ounces and 14 different cans for tomato soup between 7% ounces and

2 pounds 2 ounces. Taking them both together, there are 29 different

quantities listed in a range of 27 ounces. In this same range there are only 15 cans listed. Some of them contain two different quantities,

probably because tomato soup is heavier. It is interesting to note

that in the entire list of 29 different quantities there are only two cans which contain an even pound and only one which contains threequarters of a pound. These are all that might be termed standard.

^ Beer is being sold in New York City, and probably elsewhere, in

containers of the following sizes: 6K-, 7-, 10-, 11)^, 12-, 26-, 29-, 30-,

and 32-ounce, or 1 quart. Through pressure on the part of the New

York City Bureau of Weights and Measures, the 29-ounce bottle has

been voluntarily discontinued by the brewer, who is now using the

full-quart size. The brewery now putting up beer in the 10- and

30-ounce bottles formerly used the usual 12-ounce and 1-quart sizes but changed to the smaller quantities to meet competition.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 81

In Wisconsin they have a law which requires that the actual weight

or volume of the contents of food in package form be conspicuously

set forth in not less than 10-point type in any advertisement when

the retail price is mentioned.

Lately the matter of fiber or paper milk bottles has become prominent. In New York and several other States the weights and measures

authorities have classed these as milk bottles and limited them therefore to the standard sizes allowed for milk bottles. Other States

handle this in other wa,ys, but all seem to be agreed that odd-sized

fresh milk containers be not allowed to come into use, A representative of the largest manufacturer of these paper containers informed

a New York weights and measures official that his firm had already

been approached to manufacture a 6-ounce size of these containers,

but had refused. Evidently, therefore, unless definitely checked, this

evil of odd-sized packages ^^nll spread mto the fresh milk industry.

Many retailers do not know the quantity in many of the packages

which they sell every day. In the city of New York within 1 week

durmg the Jewish Passover, inspectors of the Bureau of Weights and

Measures obtained 1,100 violations against storekeepers, by asking

for a 5-poimd package of matzohs and being handed a package

which was marked 4 pound, 9 ounces. In almost every case the

storekeeper was asked if it was a 5-pound package, then the price

per pound; the price quoted was made on the basis of 5 pounds at so much per pound. The matzohs were called 'Tives" and were so

billed to the retailer. A reporter on a newspaper mth one of the

largest sales in New York and throughout the East was preparing an

illustrated article on the different sizes of beer bottles sold in New

York. The weights and m.easures authorities asked him to go to the first store he met with on his way do^vntown and ask for a quart

bottle of a certain kind of beer and to make it clear to the storekeeper

that he v/anted a quart bottle. He did so and was handed a 29-ounce

bottle which the storekeeper insisted was a quart. To m.ake it more

complicated, it was labeled 1 pint 13 ounces. One of the members of the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and

Measures during the discussion of the Sauthoff bill stated, ''Then

there is no deception so far as the label is concerned?" Later in the

hearing he admitted that he never reads the contents on the label. To suggest that the millions of consimaers should memorize the

weights of different-sized packages to escape being fooled, places the

burden of proof on the consum-er and is thereby an imposition.

It is apparent that canners, packers, distributors, and others rely on the old policy of ''caveat emptor," or "Let the buyer beware."

In other words, the consumer purchases at his own risk and is bound

to protect himself as best he can against fraud and deception. That

this is no longer the case—if it ever were true—is shown by the

following extract from an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United

States in a decision on November 8, 1937:

The fact that a false statement may be obviously false to those who are trained and experienced does not change its character nor take away the power to deceive

others less experienced. There is no duty resting upon a citizen to suspect the honesty of those with whom he transacts business. Laws are made to protect

the trusting as well as the suspicious. The best element of business has long since decided that honesty should govern competitive enterprises and that the rules of "caveat emptor" should not be relied upon to reward fraud and deception.

188876—40 7
82 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Along these lines, and in conformity with this changing policy, the

Supreme Court in a decision stated that few purchasers read long

labels; many cannot read them at all. A Federal judge recently

charged a jury as follows:

The law requires a raanufacturer to be honest in his statement of the contents

of a package containing a food product and it requires him to be honest in stating the truth of the labels put on it. It is the purchasing public, the ultimate con- sumer, whom the provisions of the law are primarily intended to protect. The

law is not made for the protection of experts, but for the people, that vast multi- tude which includes the ignorant, the unthinking, and the credulous who, in making purchases, do not stop to analyze but are governed by appearances and

general impression. It makes no difference that dealers in the article are not

deceived. It is the probable inexperience of the customer that you should

consider. It can be seen from the above rulings that there is an obligation

resting upon the merchant to so represent the commodities he sells that the average person can safely rely on the representation as it is understood by the customer.

The complaint is frequently heard that there is too much Government control in business. Whether this is true or not in general,

. the fact remains that it is frequently, perhaps too often, necessary for some governmental agency to step in and remedy conditions when

business has failed to do this for themselves. A means of correcting

conditions for themselves is provided through the agency of the

Division of Simplified Practice of the National Bureau of Standards.

However, this is based entirely on voluntary cooperation and the

United States Department of Commerce has no regulatory powers with

respect to simplified practice. As a matter of fact, the failure of volimtary agreements was pointed out at the hearing on the Sauthoff

bill. The can makers could settle the problem by coming to an agreement, but they will not and they comprise only five or six corporations.

It is too much to expect that 3,000 canners will agree. A number of

the very largest canners did not sign the voluntary agreement and

were therefore not bound by it. This Conference for the past 2 years endorsed for passage the

Sauthoff bill in Congress, which was aimed at the standardization of canned fruits, vegetables, and milk. This bill provided for the

standardization on the basis of the standard liquid measures, that is, gill, pint, quart, and gallon. However, the Somers bill, although it reduces the large number of different sizes and shapes of cans, gets

away from the standardization on the basis of standard weight or measure. In the Somers bill there are nine cylindrical cans included for

fruits and vegetables and three for evaporated milk. There are two

rectilinear containers included for fruits and vegetables. This Committee is not aware of the reason dictating the inclusion of the particular sizes. There must be good reason for this selection. However,

a computation of the capacity in cubic inches indicates that none of them has an exact capacity in terms of liquid measure, the nearest being the largest-sized container specified for evaporated milk, which

will contain 231.16 cubic inches, or a trifle more than a gallon. That

the capacity by avoirdupois weight will vary with the commodity is obvious. The capacity by avoirdupois weight of distilled water at 68° Fahrenheit is given in the law to two decimal places.

The Committee, after a careful study, is definitely opposed to the

standardization of containers except in terms of standard contents.
TWENTY-NIl^^TH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 83

This is true of everything standardized or proposed to be standardized

by Federal law so far—till baskets or boxes, climax baskets, hampers,

round-stave baskets, market baskets, standard barrels, etc. Any size or shape container is permitted for dry fruits and vegetables provided

the net weight or numerical count is marked thereon. Weights and

measures officials should not be interested in the standardization or

simplification of container sizes when it conflicts with their duty.

There is much room for standardization and simplification in containers which can be done without creating the multiplicity of varied

contents. For example, everything that is sold by liquid measure

can be easily and readily standardized both by size and by shape. If there is any sincerity in this standardization and simplification, let them adopt the standard units and submultiples of the gallon as wa

recommend in this report.

It is obvious that standardization of the size of containers of commodities sold by net weight can only be had by sacrificing the standardization of the net weight. If they desire to standardize, let them

agree to pack in standard quantities and then all agree to pack the same commodity in standard-sized containers. Then all catsup

would be standard and all the bottles would be identical—all tomato

juice, which should be sold by liquid measure, would be in standard

cans or bottles all identical in shape or size. Why should the con- sumer have to w^orry about a ''No. 2" can, or a ''No. 3,'^ or any

other stock designation. All she knows or should know is what she was taught in school as standards of weight or measure. If this is true of fresh milk, packaged butter, paint, and a number of other

commodities, why shouldn't it be true of all? It may be true that standardization and simplification of metal

containers might result in reduced costs which w^ould be passed along

to the consumer. In the hearings on the Sauthoff bill the canners argued otherwise. We have been informed by a representative of

the canning industry that there are now 27 different-sized containers

for tomato juice and soup. If they are now using 27 different sizes for these commodities in a range of 27 ounces, think of the saving if only a few sizes were allowed.

It seems certain that the passage of the Somers bill in its present

form will operate to the disadvantage of standardization of packages

by contents for other commodities than those included in the bill (fruit and vegetables and evaporated milk). How can you expect to

legislate the standardization of vegetable soup or caimed spaghetti

by standard weight or measure if tomato juice or canned peas can be

legally put up in odd measure or weight, as would be permitted by

the present Somers bill? On pages 125, 126, and 127 of the report of the hearing on the

Sauthoff bill, the evaporated milk industry states the reasons for the

change from a 16-ounce can to a tall can of 14.5 ounces. Among

numerous reasons, most of which do not sound conclusive, you will

find the desire to make it a 5- and 10-cent seller. Once having

decided on that, the industry "developed" other factors. It is neces- sary in order to compare values to determine the weight or measure

contained in the can. For example, a customer found she could get

two No. 5 cans of com for 23 cents or two No. 6 cans for 25 cents.

It would take a long time for the average consumer to figure that
84 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

out, and she wouldn't know any more about it if she saw the can; they would look much alike although containing different quantities.

The Committee held an all-night session last Monday, June 5, and

had the pleasure of the presence of Carlos Campbell, Director, Division of Statistics of the National Canners Association. The subject was fully discussed and we received some very helpful suggestions

from Mr. Campbell.

From all the data that the Committee has been able to investigate

it is obvious

(1) That containers can be made of practically any sizes and shapes.

(2) That the size of the container is not regulated by canning

problems or simplified practice, but by competition and the ' Vhims''

of the packer.

(3) Container sizes are frequently made to sell at an arbitrary

price, such as a nickel or a dime; however, a standard price has been

hard to fix. Every store will sell at its own price depending on location, type of customers, and other factors.

(4) Too frequently it is considered more advisable to decrease the

size of the package in order to maintain the old price as the cost of

the commodity fluctuates.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) There is absolute necessity for the standardization of the quantities of all commodities now sold in packages or containers, whether

of food or otherwise.

(2) Present practice leads to fraud, deception, and unfair competition.

(3) Due to the interstate nature of this problem it must be remedied

by Federal law.

(4) Simplified practice is a voluntary activity; there is no means of

enforcing it and it is only effective to the extent that it is accepted

voluntarily by a sufficiently large number of those affected.

(5) The Somers bill should be amended to provide for standardization by liquid m^easure for commodities sold by liquid measure, all containers of the same quantity to be of identical dimensions.

(6) For commodities in metal containers included in the Somers

bill which are sold in terms of weight, the base dimensions of the

container should be standardized leaving the height to be regulated

for each commodity, these commodities to be put up in standardized

quantities of avoirdupois weight.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends that Federal legislation be initiated

standardizing the quantities of all commodities sold in packages or containers of any kind and that the Somers bill be amended so as not to conflict v/ith such recommended legislation; that the standard

be restricted to avoirdupois weight in the following capacities:

(1) 1, 2, 3, and 4 ounces, both fluid and avoirdupois weight.

(2) 6 fluid ounces for fruit juices only, where contents of container

is sold to be consumed on the premises. (The reason for this is the

requirement of the industry for hotel and restaurant use; a 6-ounce

glass of fruit juice is usually served.)
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 85

(3) 8, 12, 16, 24, and 32 ounces avoirdupois weight, and multiples

of the pound thereafter.

(4) 8, 12, 16, 24, and 32 fluid ounces and multiples of the pint to the K gallon; gallon and gallon; and multiples of 1 gallon thereafter.

(5) Containers of different standards to be so constructed that

the different sizes are easily discernible, this to be accomplished by

fixing the diameter or the base measurem^ents of the container and

lettmg the industry change the height of the respective containers to

fit the particular commodity.

(6) The height of the container to be no more than is required for the particular commodity at the time of packing, bottling, or canning,

so as to allow for cooling or natural shrinkage.

(7) The net weight or net measure to be in the above units not

at the time of packing, bottling, or canning, but at the time of sale to the consumer.

Respectfully submitted,

(Signed) Alex Pisctotta, chairman,

James O'Keefe,

C. D. Baucom,

C. E. Tucker,

C. L. Klocker,

r. l. fullen,

George Warner,

Committee on Standardization of Packaged Goods. Mr. PisciQTTA. May I suggest that we dispense with any discussion

of this report until we hear what the members of the industry have

to say about their side of the story? After we have had an opportunity to hear them, we wiU all have an opportunity to discuss this measure and take any position we desire to take on the report. Discussion now, without hearing any comments pro or con would be

practically a waste of time.

(A motion was made and seconded that this suggestion be followed, the question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.) PAPER PRESENTED BY DR. HAZEL KYRK, HOME ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, REPRESENTING THE

AMERICAN HOME ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION

I do not need to give this group evidence of the great increase in

the sale of packaged goods, and the increasing frequency of their sale in a multiplicity of odd-sized and odd-shaped packages. I do, however, want to assure you that the facts about this situation and the

dangers inherent in it are increasingly being noted by consumers and

being brought to their attention by an increasing number of agencies.

I would like to summarize briefly what, it seems to me, are the

objections to this aspect of the market situation from the consumerbuyer's standpoint. In the first place, there is a very real danger of

deception, or, if you prefer to call it so, of mistake as to quantity.

This danger takes two or three different forms. There is in the first place the baldest kind of what most certainly should be called deception, equivalent to short-v/eighting, when the customer asks for a pound or half pound of a commodity and is handed a package containing less than this amount. But there is also the deception or mistake

that occurs when the buyer assumes from shape and appearance

that a package contains more than it does, or as much as another,

when in fact it does not. Alhed to this is the error that is occasionally
86 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

made of assuming from the unchanged size and appearance of a package

that it contains as much as it formerly did. I have in my possession a clipping from a trade paper in which a

firm selling vanilla announces, "The B— vanilla bottle is now an

honest bottle." Up to that time it presumably had been a dishonest

bottle, with paneled sides and with length excessive for its width

a bottle intended to deceive. I hope this confession was good for their sales as well as for their souls. Now it is an honest bottle (I have seen it), and one that will stand without tipping.

But deception is not the only ground for objection to the present

miscellany of containers in which goods are packed. Another is the

obstruction it offers to the making of those price comparisons that are

essential, not only for individual economy in the narrow sense, but for

the proper functioning of our individualistic economy in the broader

sense. If the buyer is to get the most for her money, she must make

price comparisons and select the article of given quality at the lowest

price at which it is offered. I will say nothing of her ability to determine quality; that is another problem. Quantity, however, she must

know in order that she may make price comparisons in a standard

unit of measurement, per ounce, pound, pint; whatever is appropriate.

But to what extent will this happen, can this happen, in the case of

those articles offered in a multiplicity of odd-sized containers? She

would be obliged to come to the market with pencil and paper and

spend some time in calculation after getting the price quotations.

Mental arithmetic would not suffice. Note even the difficulty that

often confronts her in comparing the actual price per standard unit

of the "small," "medium" and "large" packages of one concern; the

*'smaU" may contain 3K ounces, the "medium"^ 8, the "large" 14. On what basis, one wonders, are these sizes arrived at. There are instances when they result in marked inconvenience and waste in

use, as in the case of evaporated-milk cans. The small size does not

hold quite a cup and the large not quite two cups, so that in any use

as an ingredient with the measurement other than in cans, there is always not quite enough or too much.

Note also that no market is a truly competitive market where

buyers cannot or do not make price comparisons—between dealers,

between various brands, and between the branded and the unbranded, if such there be. Among the specifications for a "freeenterprise" society that really has the economic advantages it is supposed to have, is informed buyers, zealously seeking the lowest price

for a given quality and best qualit}^ at a given price. The market

that withholds information, gives misinformation, attempts to deceive,

makes price comparisons difficult, is not a market according to the

ideal plan.

It has therefore long been my opinion that one of the next steps in

the regulation of weights and measures is legislation designed to eliminate the slack-filled and the deceptively shaped and constructed

package, to reduce the present multiplicity of sizes to the minimum

made necessary by the different uses and different users of the product

and, finally, to substitute for the odd sizes, insofar as the nature of

the product permits, those sizes that are easily calculable multiples or fractional parts of the unit of measurement appropriate for each

commodity.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 87

There is one issue that it seems to me should be brought up in this

connection and carefully thought through. That is, is plain and

conspicuous marking of the net weight or measure of the contents

adequate remedy for the dangers and difficulties complained of? If the packages are so marked, has the buyer just cause for complaint?

May the canner and packer properly say that the root of the evil is consumer ignorance and carelessness, that if she will not take heed,

(that is, compute and compare) let her suffer the consequences?

Plain and conspicuous marking, although essential, would not of coarse reduce the effort or the time-cost of making price comparisons.

In any discussion involving the buyer in the retail market, it is also well to be realistic. This buyer is far different from the buyer for

resale or manufacture. Buying by the consumer is but one of many

activities and responsibilities. The consumer buys not one commodity or related group of commodities but a wide variety of diverse

character, some only infrequently. The buying is in small quantities.

The question is not only what could consumer-buyers do, but what

are they likely to do, and what are the economic consequences of

what they will do.

Moreover, if it is granted that the multiplicity of sizes and the odd

sizes are an inconvenience, time consuming, mistake promoting, why

may we not rid the market of them? We do not set traps for ourselves, or try to make life more difficult than it need be. One question that should be asked about every market practice is, does it make

buying an easier process? Does it reduce or increase mistakes?

What are we to say of a market situation in which the buyer must

use time and energy in avoiding deception, in discovering the concealed price change? Rather, I would say, let us make the market

as mistake-proof, deception-proof, even fool-proof, as possible.

Some changes proposed to bring this about involve expense, expense

that will and should be reflected in the price of the goods. But this

proposed change presumably would not increase, and might even

decrease, the money costs of putting the goods on the market.

We need the plain and conspicuous marking of the net weight,

measure, or numerical count of the contents of all containers in the

standard unit of measurement that is appropriate. In addition, we

need standardized containers, the number, size or capacity, and

character of which have been determined by three things:

1. The nature of the commodity and the process of packing, shipping, or storing it. 2. Market demand for packages of various sizes.

3. Ease in making price comparisons and the reduction of mistake

or deception as to quantity.

The Acting Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Kyrk. The Conference

is certainly obliged for your discussion.

Before we recess, I want to ask our Vice President from the Hoosier

State to assume charge of the meeting this afternoon. Let us all make an effort to be back here in time to resume the sessions at 1:30.

(At this point, at 10:51 a. m., the Conference took a recess until 1:30 p. m.)

SIXTH SESSION—AFTERNOON OF THURSDAY,

JUNE 8, 1939

(The Conference reassembled at 1:50 p. m., at the Washington Hotel; RoUin

E. Meek, vice president of the Conference, in the Chair.)

STANDARDIZATION OF PACKAGES—Continued

PAPER PRESENTED BY HECTOR LAZO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, COOPERATIVE FOOD DISTRIBUTORS OF AMERICA

Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen: I approach this with some

hesitancy, because I have never found it worth while to pretend to be an expert in things I know very little about, and I know very little about the technicalities of this subject.

I have a very definite picture in mind of the type of distributor

that we represent, the type of distributor that is concerned with this

problem, and the type of distributor who welcomes the activities of

the National Conference in recent years and recent months towards

reducing the multiplicity of containers of all kinds, and making, shall we say, a common-sense approach towards a reduction of all these

things that are quite as confusing to my dealers as they are to the

consiuners.

We are aware of the fact that, traditionally, distributors are supposed to be some sort of poorly disguised enemies of the consumer,

and hence if the consumer sponsors a program of more informative

labeling, of greater standardization of containers, a reduction in the

multiplicit;y- of can sizes in canned goods, we, as distributors, should

be against it. Of course, that is all poppycock.

Actually, distributors are, or should be, very definitely for any program which (1) reduces the number of cans and other containers to a minimum consistent with good business and cpmmon sense, (2) estabUshes practical informative labeling with a com.mon-sense approach to the very real problem of standards of both weight and quality, and

(3) affords the consumer full and accurate information as to the quality and quantity of the contents. And why shouldn't we be for such a program? Would not such a program mean greater sales and more repeat sales for us?

^ Frankly, there is quite a group—and I hope it is growing—among

distributors who think that, selfishly if for no other reason, the dis- tributor's interests must be tied up directlj^ with the wishes of the consumer. And by that we do not mean inventing pha,ntom con- sumer desires but actually trying to take the consumer point of view

and, wherever possible, complying with such desires.

Now, obviously, consumers may be acting under either fair and full information, in which case intelligent consumers can be generally

trusted to act pretty sanely, or else they may be acting under partial or even false information, in which case their actions might be open

to question, perhaps even opposition on our part. But if the con- sumer is not fully informed, whose fault is it?

^ Is there anything now preventing us, as distributors, from telling the consumer in simple terms, what, let us say, and how much, this can

89
90 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

of vegetables contains? A myriad of practical considerations immediately rise; to the extent that they are practical obstacles, and not

merely selfish inventions of our own, the consumer ought to be willing

to listen to reason. But we must be prepared to supply those reasons. The consumer may know definitely what he or she v/ants, and in the

absence of better inform^ation to the contrary, may even believe that

Government grade labeling for quality and a sim.ilar Government

standard for quantity will supply the a.nswer to her prayer. If, as most distributors believe. Government grade labeling is not the best

solution, what is? And what are we doing to persuade Mrs. Consinner that it isn't?

Many good people shudder at the thought of Government grade

labeling, and the trade as a whole is opposed to this. There are many

and weighty arguments why the trade takes this point of viev/. Most

of you gentlemen know these much better than I do. But what does

Mrs. Consumer think about this? Does she understand our reasoning in the matter, as against the reasoning of those who advocate Government grade labeling and Government standardization by decree?

Let us be realistic in this for a moment and ask ourselves whether,

under the new Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Government has

power to set standards which can then, by various means, be forced

upon the trade. I happen to be of that school of thought which

believes the new law gives the Government just such powers. The

Government can go ahead and, after investigation, propose certain

standards. The Government proposes such standards and submits

them to the trade; the trade thinks they are pretty good; finally, after

consultation, accepts them. From then on, with the force of law, a standard can of tomatoes will be a can which contains merchandise

which, on a minimum, is thus and so. We choose to call that grade

^'Standard", the Government says that it is ''Grade C". This particular standard that has been set for the quality of the merchandise

meeting such and such specifications has got to be called something;

the Government says that is ''Grade C."

What will Mrs. Consumer call it? This depends, it seems to me,

upon the degree of educational pressure to which the consumer is exposed. ^ And if that holds good for quality, it likewise holds good

for quantit;^, for size of containers, for variety of containers.

We definitely favor a general cutting down in the multiplicity of cans, of can sizes, and of containers as a whole. The tall and the

short, the half number and the full num_ber, the odd-shaped bottle

and the false-bottom bottle—devices which savor more or less of

confusion, to say the least, in the minds of the packers and distributors, and may quite easily be used for something more sinister than mere confusion in the minds of consumers. The result is total inability of smaller merchants to stock varieties available, for obviously

the small man with small capital cannot possibly have a so-called

"full line" when the line consists of 40 different sizes of containers for one item; but he can have a full line if we com^e down to 4 or 6. Those of us whose chief concern is the small individual store, must

always bear in mind that the greater the obstacles to competitive

equality between that individual merchant and his multiple-store

competitor, the smaller the chances are for that small man to survive.

A common-sense cutting down, therefore, of the myriad varieties,

shapes, and sizes of containers, must of necessity reduce the ad-
TWEXTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 91

vantage of the man with adequate capital, as against the little busi- ness man who has a hard time to scrape up enough money to meet his

weekly bill. He simply does not have the m^oney. It may be his fault,

and then again it may not be. This is not the place for a discussion of

that phase of it; but the stark fact remains that he hasn't the money.

If he has to attempt to stock a full line of any one commodity, which

in turn means 40 or more sizes and containers, that little man is licked

before he starts. The consumer may know very little about the

difference between a No. 2 or 2% can, and thousands of consum^ers

perhaps don't care, but the small merchant must care, for it means he

either has to double his stock of merchandise ''to be competitive," or

else be at the mercy of the man who can offer the No. 2 can at a consistently lower price. Actually, if we should continue the present

number of containers, which total over 150 different sizes, it is conceivable that through the careful manipulation of this one thing alone, more and more trade can be directed into certain channels, to the

grave danger of the small man on the corner. To us, therefore, the simplification of the variety of sizes, containers, and packages becom.es a serious consideration. We believe

that the whole question is tied up v/ith the problem of proper con- sumer education, which involves descriptive labeling as well as intelli- gent packing, packaging, and standardization of size and type.

It involves, from our point of view, perhaps a National educational

campaign the like of which the industry has never undertaken, the

like of which the American consumer might now not even want, but

certainly needs. It means the putting aside of brands for the greater

aim of fixing in the consumer's mind the convenience of, advantages

of, and protection to her of certain standard sizes; the next step then

will be certain quality standards; and the third wiU be the classi- fication of brand within those standards, both of size and quality.

It would be a rash person indeed who would attempt to suggest even the outlines of such a program in a brief talk of this kind. Our

only contribution, if it is such, today, must be limited to bringing out

into the open and onto the top of the table the possibility of a joint

trade and Government program for the education of the consumer. The interests of both not only need not, but should not, be different.

Both the Government and the trade should be interested in having

the consumer fully and accurately informed—not in the way of propaganda, but in the way of education and information. We shall both

benefit when the consumer knows intelligently how to buy her canned

goods ; knows and understands the problems faced by industry as producers, by business as distributors, and by the Government as an

umpire, interested in seeing to it that a minimum set of protective

rules are adhered to. We see no reason why common sense and a genuine cooperative

spirit should not be able to produce this ; we are fearful lest the trade

and by this we mean the producing, processing, and distributing trade

as a whole—should allow itself to be blinded by individual self- interest, and thus lay itself open to frontal attacks from both the

Government and the consuming public. We shall definitely deserve

such attacks, and the inevitable Government regulation which will

follow, if we fail as intelligent businessmen to come together for a common purpose, and evolve a common aim toward which we can march together.
92 NATIONAL BUEEAU OF STANDARDS

We according^ endorse, as a splendid step forward, the efforts of

the National Canners Association in cutting down the va ieties of

types and sizes in the various products. We want to pledge to them

our support in this effort and our cooperation toward a further

standardization, if and when this is possible. In any joint effort undertaken for the purpose of adequately and accurately educating

Mrs. American Consumer, you may count on us for our full share.

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE PAPER

Mr. PisciOTTA. Mr. Chairman, may we be permitted to ask a few

questions as we go along?

The Acting Chaieman. It was my understanding there would be no discussion until after the speakers had completed.

Mr. PisciOTTA. That was on the report of the Committee.

The Acting Chaieman. I think that would be a good idea, in view

of the fact that some of the people may leave.

Mr. Lazo. I shall be glad to answer questions, but not technical

questions, because I am not a technical man. Mr. PisciOTTA. I would like to know where in the Food and Drugs

Act is there a provision giving power to regulate and standardize by

weight the contents in any containers.

Mr. Lazo. The consensus of opinion among the lawyers I talked

to—^not Government lawyers but outside lay lawyers—was that the

power depended upon the degree of rigidity of interpretation of that

clause which permits the Government to set standards. My conception of it is that the Food and Drugs Act gives the Government

considerable latitude of power.

Mr. PisciOTTA. Is there any possibility of getting the one who gave

that information to enlighten us, because we have investigated and

studied the Food and Drugs Act and think there is no possibility in

there of regulation. I understand that before the Committee on

Coinage, Weights, and Measures that very question was raised, and

at that time no one was able to point to any provision to standardize

containers.

Mr. Lazo. I shall be very happy to draw up and transmit to this

Conference the opinions that have been given to me. I will send a consensus of them to the chairman, so that you may all have them.

Mr. PisciOTTA, We would appreciate it. May I ask another

question? Does your Association, representing the distributors,

really know what the consumers want as to the particular sizes of

containers?

Mr. Lazo. Nobody knows that.

Mr. PisciOTTA. Have 3^ou made any attempt to find out?

Mr. Lazo. Yes; as much of an attempt as is possible to make under

the circumstances. Quite frankly, you know and I know that there

is not one out of a hundred consumers who knows what he wants,

and I doubt if there is one out of fifty consumers who would be able

to make distinctions between the present cans on our shelves.

Mr. PisciOTTA. And it is necessary for someone to eliminate many

of them?

Mr. Lazo. Yes; I agree with you, it is necessary to eliminate some

of them, and it is necessary to educate the consumers as to what we

have left, and why.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 93

Mr. PiscioTTA. I believe the simplified-practice project was inaugurated in 1931. What progress has been made to simplify the

containers from that time until now?

Mr. Lazo. That I would not be able to tell you. I don't think the

distributors have accomplished yevy much, and that is the theme of

my song here—that we should do m.ore and that we are willmg to do

more. We have perhaps been standing on two sides of a fence,

whereas we should have taken the fence down and shaken hands.

Mr. PiscioTTA. Do you think one distributor out of a hundred

could upset the others? If he were a big distributor of large ways

and means, a powerful distributor, then he might dictate to the other

ninety-nine.

Mr. Lazo. No; I don't think there is any one distributor today

who can dictate to the rest of the industry.

Mr. PiscioTTA. He may refuse to go along with any of them

still go along with his own activities, regardless of what the others do,

and there would be no force under the law to compel him to do

otherwise.

Mr. Lazo. Is it your understanding, sir, that the only force in the

world is the force of the law?

Mr. PiscioTTA. Is there unj other force?

Mr. Lazo. Yes; I think so. We have demonstrated in the food

industry there is a tremendous cooperative moral force between us, the manufacturers and distributors alike. Mr. PiscioTTA. Has it accomplished anything in trying to satisfy

this particular problem?

Mr. Lazo. Well, that has to be demonstrated. This is one problem. We are thinking of our own side of it. We are thinking primarily of the distributor or manufacturer, and this is one of many

problems. This has not been tackled jointly, and it is my belief that we should tackle it. I am not in favor of doing it by Government

decree. I think it can be done differently. It can be done by a co- operative approach to this thing, and I am not in favor of more law.

Every law is simply a restriction upon the freedom of action or liberty

of som^eone. That is a law. And to the extent it restricts that

freedom, that law is effective. Now, I am not in favor of that. I am in favor of common-sense voluntary action v/herever possible. We

haven't tried cooperative action yet. This is a very healthy thing.

We may not agree as to the method, but I think we can agree as to the ultimate end. But this is a very healthy thing, to discuss our problems together and take some action together. And if the trade

fails to come to you and fails to act cooperatively and do at least its full share—although I think you will find the trade perfectly willing

to do so—then it is time for Government regulation. I do not think

this is the time for it. I have been here observing these things in

Washington for years, and I still don't believe the law is the way

to do it. Mr. PisciOTTA. I understand the simplified practice agreement was entered into about 5 or 6 years ago and hasn't been applied yet,

because the largest distributors and manufacturers won't sign.

Mr. Lazo. Is that all the fault of the trade?

Mr. PisciOTTA. Yes; they could get together and do it without someone forcing them to do it. They have had since 1931 to do it
94 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

and haven't accomplished it yet. Sooner or later somebody will have

to force them to do it. Mr. Lazo. And you think the only way is by tether legislation?

Mr. PisciOTTA. There is no other way.

Mr. Lazo. That is where we part. Here is Constitution Avenue,

and here is Pennsylvania Avenue, and you come up one and I come

up the other. I think we can do it voluntarily. However, I don't

say we should have no regulation at all. I would be the last one to say that.

Mr. PisciOTTA. The law is a regulative power.

Mr. Lazo. Yes; but there are laws and laws, and there is a certain

amount of policy with the power, and to the degree we extend it, to that degree we reduce the voluntary action of the people as a whole.

My plea is that we attack this as a common-sense problem first to have as much as we can of voluntary action. I don't think that you

gentlemen, for example, have given us the benefit of all of your technical knowledge and experience as to how we might go about a voluntary action of that kind. If you have, then we have fallen down,

nnd perhaps you should let us see if there isn't another chance. If there isn't another chance, I am here to tell you we are going to have

Government regulation, and I know it and you know it, and I want to avoid it. And if we fall down and don't do it, we are going to get

Government regulation and have asked for it. Mr. PisciOTTA. What cooperation have you seen from the industry?

Mr. Lazo. Well, I am not entirely in agreement that it is always

industry that is at fault. And I am not one of those that says everything the Government does is wrong. Far from it. I think we must

approach this thing from both points of view. You come part way

and we come part way. Perhaps we haven't come far enough. We

are hanging back on the side line, perhaps we are hanging back too

far. All right, let us make a common-sense approach toward meeting

half way. Let us do that, and then if we fail, all right, and we have

then simply to ask the Government to come in and force us to do it. Mr. PisciOTTA. Have you read the recommendations of the committee?

Mr. Lazo. Yes, sir; I have read the recommendations of the

Committee, and I am a bit fearful that the main thing there, so far as I have been able to interpret it in the few minutes, is more Government regulation. And I am just simply pleading with you to see if we cannot do it through cooperation first. Mr. PisciOTTA. In other words, you want one more chance?

Mr. Lazo. Well, let us say, let us give each other one more chance?

Mr. PisciOTTA. All right.

Mr. Kanzer. Mr. Chairman, may I ask just one question, please,

of the speaker? Let us assume all manufacturers and distributors of

tea, except one, want to have a 1 -pound package of tea; that one wants a 15-ounce package of tea. What method could we pursue to pull him in line?

In the State of New York, the sale of ice cream was being made in

the odd-sized containers. We passed legislation in cooperation with

industry, because the different dealers would not all pull together.

Would not you say that the only answer in such case is Government

regulation?
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 95

Mr. Lazo. I am afraid I agree with you. If we cannot bring ourselves into line, then we are going to have Government regulation.

I was rather hopeful there would be more people of the industry here

today because it is to them I am talking. I have been preaching this for several years. I don't think we are going to solve it simply by

slapping in an over-all law, Federal or State. I think there is much

that can be done.

I had considerable to do with regulations under NRA in the food

industry, and I am perfectly willing to be quoted for the record as saying to you that 99 K percent of the cooperation and of compliance

there was voluntary. We do have those who don't do what they

should do, including judges, and that is why we have laws and jails. I cannot say it should not be done by legislation if it cannot be done

otherwise.

The Acting Chairman. I think Mr. Lazo has given us a very

good expression of the viewpoint of the retail food distributors on this

question. We certainly wish to thank you, Mr. Lazo, for commg

here and giving us this expression of your viewpoint.

PAPER PRESENTED BY CARLOS CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR OF THE

DIVISION OF STATISTICS, NATIONAL CANNERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen: The need for standardizing

containers for canned foods is well-recognized by the canning industry.

It is, however, a relatively easy matter to recognize the need for a

change, but quite another problem to prescribe a satisfactory method

for making it. No reputable physician vfould attempt to prescribe a remedy without a diagnosis. We have recognized certain symptoms

in. this case, but as yet a thorough diagnosis involving the various

ramifications of the problem has not been presented. (When I say it has not been presented, I am not referring to any discussions that

have taken place here at this Conference. This paper was written

before.) The first step in making a diagnosis is, of course, to obtain

the facts regarding the history of the case. The canning industry in the United States is approximately 100

years old. It has grown up in many parts of the United States, each

section being developed more or less independently of all others.

Foods are canned in all but two of the States. It is only natural that

various types and sizes of containers would be developed in these

various sections, partly because of the different types of products

being canned and partly because there was no coordination in the

development of the industry. In this respect, however, the history

of the industry's container problem does not differ from the history of

the development of baskets, boxes, hampers, barrels, etc. that were

used to pack fresh fruits and vegetables.

There is, however, one fundamental difference between the tm can

as a container for canned foods and the dry measure container for

fruits and vegetables. This difference hes in the fact that a canned

food when processed must be placed in a container that carries the

food all the way from the canning factory to the consumer's kitchen.

Baskets, barrels, boxes, crates, etc. are containers used primarily for

the convenience of the distributing trade. The size of these dry measure containers is not determined by the individual consumer's

demand. Baskets of apples, sacks of potatoes, crates and hampers of
96 NATIONAL BUKEAU OF STANDARDS

fresh vegetables, are delivered to the retailer, who sells their contents

to the consumer in broken lots of many sizes. It isn't possible for the retailer to sell canned foods by cutting a No. 10 can and parceling out to his consumers so many ounces or pounds. Because of this characteristic it has been necessary for the canner to study the nature of the ultimate consumer demand and to try to predict the amount of food which the ultimate consumer would

care to purchase under all the various conditions that aifect the demand for food. The variation in the size of families, consumer

purchasing power, prices, geographic differences in native food habits,

differences in classes of consumers, and many other factors could be

mentioned that tend to cause consumers to purchase foods in varying

amounts.

Anj^one who has had experience selling to the retail trade Imows

that consumers' tastes and the amoimts of individual purchases vary

widely. He also knows that these variations are frequently not

predictable. Kjiowing these facts, the canner has attempted to

satisfy th e consumer by making available to her a wide variety of can

sizes from which she can choose.

It isn't possible for any one canner, or hardly feasible for any group

of caimers, to obtain from all the consumers the size of containers m

which they would like to purchase thek canned foods. In actual

practice this information has been obtained by what might be termed

the trial and error method; that is, a canner starting out to pack a new product packs it in as wide a range of sizes as is economically

practicable, but he continues to pack in only those sizes which the consumer purchases. Therefore, at any particular time the vast majority of the can sizes that are used in the industry are being used

because those are the sizes which the canner has found the consumer

buys.

One might expect that over a period of time canners would have

determined the can sizes which consumers want, and that the industry

would settle down to these sizes. This result could be expected only

if conditions were static. Everyone knows conditions are changing

from day to day. The sizes which a canner found were acceptable to

his trade last year may not exactly suit the situation this year. For

that matter, we have observed radical shifts in consumer purchases of

various can sizes within a given marketing year. That occurred this

year very definitely. Furthermore, new products are being developed

and with each new product there is a separate problem of determining

the can sizes that consumers desire. Canned foods are not a homogeneous product. The industry cans

over 200 products, each product having its own consumer appeal and

each product having certain physical characteristics which affect the

size and shape of container required for processmg. This necessitates

considering each product separately. Certainly no one would expect consumers to purchase tomato paste in only the size of cans used for

tomato juice or canned tomatoes. The aggregate number of can

sizes used by the canning industry should, therefore, not be considered

without due regard to the number of products for which each of these can sizes is used.

The National Bureau of Standards, m cooperation with the National

Canners Association, made a survey of the canning industry last year

to determine the size of the pack of each product in each of the various
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 97

can sizes used. The cooperation which canners gave this study is worthy of comment. About 96 percent of the total pack of fruits and

vegetables was reported in this survey.

The number of products covered depends entirely upon the defini- tion of a product. The classification made in tabulating the data

combined a number of products under one heading, when the physical

characteristics of the products would permit their being packed in the same can sizes. In spite of this method of classification, the tabulation included 101 separate and distinct products. These products were canned in can sizes which in the aggregate totaled 155. Products such as corn, peas, tomatoes, green and wax beans,

which taken together represent close to half of the total pack of

vegetables, were caimed in a relatively small number of can sizes. These products, however, have been canned for man}^ years, and

canners have had an opportunity to determijie fairly well the sizes that consumers want. On the other hand, tomato juice, a relatively

new product, was reported in 44 different can sizes, which quite

obviously represents a far greater number than is necessary. But

this illustrates the extent to which canners cover the entire range of can sizes in their attempt to determine which sizes the consumer will

bu3^. Even though tomato juice has been packed for a relatively

short period of time, the industry has already discarded a number of

sizes that were tried out in the beginning. In 1937, of the 44 sizes reported, each of 16 were being used by one canner only. Many of

these cans did not appear in the 1938 pack.

If given time, can sizes for each of the products would tend to become

standardized through the operation of the economic laws which govern

the sale of a canned food to consumers. The objection, however, to

this process of standardization appears to be that it takes too long.

The remedy is to accelerate the standardization process, that is, speed up the natural processes that lead to standardization. It would be a grave mistake not to recognize the djaiamic nature of consumer demand for canned foods and to freeze the size of containers on the basis of conditions at any one date.

The canning industry, appreciating the problems involved, has

developed a program to bring about a more speedy standardization

of containers. This program has two main objectives: (1) The elimination of sizes which because of closeness to other sizes might be

confusing to consumers, and (2) sufficient elasticity to take care of

changing consumer demand and improvements in canning operations.

The data on the 1937 pack have been studied very carefully for the

last nine months by the Association's Committee on Simplification of

Containers. The Committee, consisting of canners of long experience

who realized the magnitude of the problem, analyzed it first from the

standpoint of what had been done in other industries. Before any

attempt was made toward selecting a list of can sizes, the Committee

drafted a set of principles which would govern the selection of sizes. The first principle adopted was that, because of the differing

physical characteristics of the products, and because of the difi'ering consumer demands for the various products, it was necessary to select a list of can sizes for each product. Any one who is familiar with the

problems of canning and selling canned foods would, I am sure, agree

that this principle is fundamental.

188876—40 8
98 NATI02s"AL BUREAU OF STAmARDS

As a matter of fact, this principle is not new. Standardization of

dry measure containers for fruits and vegetables was approached on a commodity basis, with successive laws enacted for different products.

It is now proposed to consolidate the existing laws, but in this consolidation the principle is retained, and it is not proposed to set up a

single list of dry containers of one specified type that must be used

for products of different types.

The Association's Committee fully appreciated the fact that, if a

list of sizes were selected for each of the principal products and these

lists v^ere then combined and canners permitted to use any of these

sizes for any or all of their products, there would very probably be

as much confusion as before standardization was attempted. For

example, a 307X508 can was selected as one needed for packing

corn on the cob, but its use for other products could very easily cause

confusion among buyers. Accordingly, the Association's Committee

recommended a separate list of can sizes for each of 58 different

products. These recommended lists have been approved by the

Board of Directors of the National Canners Association, and the

Board at its meeting May 18 made formal request of the National

Bureau of Standards to revise its simplified practice recommendation

for the canning industry by adopting these lists of cans. The 58 fruits and vegetables included in this program were so

classified as to cover the principal fruits and vegetables packed m the

industry. The total pack of these 58 products amounted to about 97

percent of the total pack of all fruits and vegetables in 1937. The

remaining 3 percent of the pack was not included in this standardization program because of inadequate data. The inclusion of these

other products is contemplated as soon as possible.

The 58 lists of can sizes recommended include 45 sizes in the aggregate. This represents a substantial reduction from the 155 sizes used

in 1937. Each of 27 sizes was recommended for one product only,

thus emphasizing the peculiar requirements of individual products.

Eighteen sizes were recommended for more than one product. The

output of products in 1937 for which these 18 sizes were recommended

totaled about 90 percent of the total pack of fruits and vegetables.

Thus, only 7 percent of the total pack will be permitted to use sizes not included in the list of 18 sizes. For a number of products only three or four can sizes have been

recommended. Canned tomatoes have only four sizes, peas and corn

(not including corn on the cob) are allowed six sizes each. These

three vegetables represent about 40 percent of the total pack of canned

vegetables. For other products, however, a larger number of sizes was selected. Asparagus and tomato juice each have 10 sizes, this

being the largest number recommended for any one product. Of the

10 sizes recommended for asparagus, 3 are permitted for no other

product.

In the case of tomato juice, although 10 sizes have been recom- mended, it should be recalled that 44 sizes were included in the list from which these 10 were chosen. In the case of a juice product,

there is apparently a greater demand for cans of varying sizes. But,

as previously stated, tomato juice is a relatively new product, and it is practically impossible at this time to fix a list of sizes that will be

satisfactory for all time to both canner and consumer. In other words,

the program contemplates some modification in the list of sizes selected
TWEITTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 99

for tomato juice and certain other products, keeping in inind, of course, tlie two principal objectives previously stated.

In the case of beans with pork or sauce, 25 sizes were reported as used in 1937. The recommended list includes 8 sizes only. These

sizes range from the 8 Z Tall, 211 X 304, having a minimum volume

fill of 7.47 fluid ounces (8 ounces avoii'dupois) to the No. 10 can, 603 X

700, having a minimum fluid ounce fill of 94.59 ounces (6 pounds 12 ounces avoirdupois). The first seven of the eight cans listed for beans with pork or sauce are primarily for the retail trade, the No. 10 can being principally for wholesale or institution buyiQg. Of the seven retail or shelf sizes, the minim.um spread in net capacity is 3 ounces whereas the maximum is 4 ounces. The criterion of what constitutes confusion in buying is not in all iastances the spread betvreen the capacities of any two cans. The

shape of the can needs to be taken uito account also. A fixed differ- ence in capacities could not be used as a criterion, because a small

difference in small cans might not be as confusing as a larger difference

in large cans. Furthermore, any criterion that is adopted must be

apphed on a practical basis, that is, if the bulk of the sales of any

given product has been in medium-sized cans, the Committee felt that it was desirable to make available to the consumer a relatively

larger choice of cans in that group than in the smaller or larger cans. This practice tended to make the spread in capacity smaller for the more popular cans and wider for the less popular ones. This principle

is considered sound, especially lq view of the fact that canned foods

are sold on a net content basis, it being required by law that the net

content be prominently stated on the label. To summarize the Committee's point of view and the actions it has taken, it may be said: The can is a container, not a measure, the size of which is determined primarily by the consumer. It performs a dual fimction as an

original container and a consumer package.

As an original contaiaer, the can must be adapted in size and

shape to the product for which it is used.

As a consumer package the can size is subject to changes that constantly take place in consumer requirements and buying habits.

For this reason it is impracticable to select for permanent use a list of sizes based on consumer preference as of any given time. The

Committee, nevertheless, recognized that there should be a simplification of can sizes which would prevent confusion in buying, and at the same time permit modifications that would meet the changing

requirements of consumers. The lists reconamended by the Committee are based upon consumer

preference as measured by sales of the respective commodities; they

ehminate sizes that might be confusing to buyers.

The Committee, on behalf of the industry, has labored in good faith

to work out a program that is both practical for the canner and

helpful to the consumer, by giving her a visual measure of the relative

amounts of food in the cans, in addition to the statement of net contents

which the food law requires to appear on the label.

^ (At the conclusion of his paper, Mr. Campbell exhibited a chart showing can

sizes in common use and the can sizes remaining in the recommended list, and

commented briefly on the reduction in the number of sizes.)
100 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE PAPER

Mr. PisciOTTA. I believe you said at the beginning that as far as boxes were concerned, they were primarily for distribution by the

wholesalers to the retailers. That is not true of grapes and strawberries, for instance, sold in boxes.

Mr. Campbell. The statement would not hold true for everything,

but in general it is true. Also it is possible to break these boxes

without destrojdng the value of the product. Sometimes the contents of grape boxes are broken up and sold by the pound.

Mr. PisciOTTA. Does not the size of can available dictate the

particular size the consumer orders? Has the consumer any choice

in the matter?

Mr. Campbell. I would say if there were very many sizes being

sold, the consumer would have a large choice.

Mr. PisciOTTA. But if a retailer carries a limited number of sizes,

then what?

Mr. Campbell. One of the complaints is that the grocer has to carry too many sizes—that the choice is already too wide. So I w^ould say that the consumer has had an opportunity to choose from

q^uite a wide list of cans and that the number of cans of a certain

size sold is a pretty fair indication of what the consumer wants.

Mr. PisciOTTA. If a consumer wanted a pound of canned peaches,

which she cannot get, and the next nearest size is 14 ounces, she

w^ould have no choice there. Mr. Campbell. No, because there do not happen to be enough

can sizes to permit that choice.

Mr. PisciOTTA. What has the industry done to consult any con- sumer group to find out what is really wanted?

Mr. Campbell. There has been a very extensive survey made of consumers all over the United States by one of our large canning

organizations to determine what the consumer wants, and the list of cans selected for the product involved is based upon that survey.

It was made by the pineapple people.

Mr. PisciOTTA. Isn't it true that the can manufacturer will manufacture any size and shape can that the packer really requires?

Mr. Campbell. Well, I presum^e that is true; yes. That is usually

true of any manufacturer. If it is feasible, he will manufacture the

product the consumer wants. Our recommendations can place no

restrictions on the can manufacturer.

Mr. PisciOTTA. Do you know any reason for making this package

of spaghetti 15% oimces rather than 16?

Mr. Campbell. I should say that there was no attempt to make

it of a certain weight; the package was first selected and the quantity

in it was the result. Mr. Stewart. May I answer that? The chances are that the

contents of that can weigh 16 ounces. We purposely dropped the

marked weight to 15% ounces to avoid any possibility of having a lot of cans that did not weigh the full 16 ounces, thus violating the old

Federal Food and Drugs Act. We could not be sure that every can would weigh 16 oimces.

Mr. PisciOTTA. That argument holds true. In order to play safe^ you mark it less? But how about the markings on bottles of milk

or loaves of bread?
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON V/EIGHTS AND MEASURES 101

Mr. Stewart. I can't answer the argument about those commodities. I am not familiar with them. But I am able to explain

about that can. Mr. Kanzer. If that were true, why is it that the marked v/eight on a half-pound can of salmon has fallen from 8 ounces to 7% ounces, and again, to 7K ounces?

Mr. Stewart. There are two sizes of can. Columbia River

salmon is the kind you will find more frequently labeled 7% or 7%

ounces, while the Puget Sound salmon can will hold a half pound of

salmon and is always labeled 7% ounces. Mr. Kanzer. If you try to cover yourself with a quarter of an

ounce, why take another quarter of an ounce and get down to the 7K?

Mr. Stewart. That Columbia Eiver salmon is packed in a smaller can than the Puget Sound salmon.

Mr. Baucom. May I say this, that your statement indicates that

you are knowingly and willfully misbranding your product.

Mr. Stewart. In order to be safe the trade labels a fraction under

the content of the can. The Acting Chairman. I would like to suggest that, so far as it is possible, this general discussion of the subject be withheld until the

speakers have all had an opportunity to express their views.

Mr. O'Keefe. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is right. I think that since some of these gentlemen may have to go away, the

general discussion should be held right here and now. The Acting Chairman. I am certainly agreeable to a thorough

discussion as we go along, if that is agreeable to the membership.

Mr. Kanzer. Mr. Campbell suggests that the number of cans was initiated and determined by the consumers. If that were true,

then his argument would be more or less sound, but I wonder if that

is completely true. It seems peculiar that every time the consumer wanted less in his package than the standard size, irrespective of the

size of the family. It would occur to me that the canning industry

found themselves up against the difficulty presented by the man who

found he could put out a can that would simulate the standard size. When he took the quarter of an ounce off and got away with it, the

next man took off the next quarter ounce. With this there came to be a series of packages and cans that confused the situation. The

industry has raised its own Frankenstein; now they are seeldng rehef

as much as we are trying to help them get that relief. Mr. Campbell. Well, in the first place, if you will read my remarks

you will find I didn't say the consumer initiated the size of the package.

The canner, in order to find out by the trial and error method what

the consumer wants, starts out packing a wide range of sizes, wliich

in the case of tomato juice in 1937, was 44. But he continues only

those sizes he can sell. Why can he sell them? Because the consumer

buys them. Thus the consumer tends to determine the size of the

package. It has been suggested that possibly the consumer doesn't

have a wide choice. There may be some argument to the effect that

the fact that even though the consumer buys a certain size this does

not represent the consumer's choice. Well, I think that the consumer

has had a wide enough choice of cans from which to purchase to enable

the canners to determine which ones the consumer prefers.

Now your point, as I understand it, is that the consumer might

prefer a size of can which is not being packed.
102 NATIOXAL BUREAU OF STAISTDARDS Mr. Kanzer. That was exactly my point. It seems strange that

all of these sizes developed are short of the standard size and not

above the standard size. Mr. Campbell. There v/ere no standard sizes. Mr. Kanzer. I refer to sizes holdmg 1 pound, 8 ounces, and so

forth. Mr. Campbell. Well, we are packing in the industry some 250

different products. It is not feasible to have a can size which will

produce 16 ounces avoirdupois of each one of these products without

having thousands of sizes. If you will take a size holding 16 ounces

of one product and use it for another product you are not going to get 16 ounces. Mr. Kanzer. It seems strange that one of those sizes should not

be above as well as below what we consider the standard size. Mr. Campbell. We have cans that go over the 16 ounces, as well

as those that go under.

Mr. Kanzer. What proportion would you say would be over 16

ounces?

Mr. Campbell. There is a greater percentage over. Today the

No. 2 can is most widely used. This usually contarns 2 ounces, approximately, over 16 ounces, and in some products 3 ounces; it depends upon the product.

Mr. Kanzer. I think you will agree with me that the No. 2 can

started out as a 2-pound proposition; for instance, rolled oats and

lard m 1912 m this size always weighed 2 pounds net. It later be- came 2 pounds, including the can, and now it is anywhere from 1 to 2 pounds.

Mr. Campbell. I don't know the history of the No. 2 can far

enough back to say whether or not it ever held 2 pounds. The No.

2 can has been erroneously referred to as a 2-pound can. To what

products do you refer?

Mr. Kanzer. I will put it generally. Specifically a No. 2 can of

lard, contained 2 pounds. The No. 5 can was always 5 pounds of

lard net ; then the 5 pounds included the weight of the can ; now it has

dwindled, as has the No. 2 can. Mr. Campbell. You understand, of course, the can used for can- ning fruits and vegetables is not the can used for lard. Mr. Kanzer. The weight of the contents of the No. 2 can of canned

goods has dwindled considerably and now No. 2 is a designation and

has no reference whatever to any weight. But the point is this, you

maintain you want a number of sizes. In this committee report

there are 14 sizes provided, from to 1 quart. You spoke of having

10 sizes in the case of canned tomatoes. Those 10 sizes are spread over a short limit. We provide for 14 sizes, and they are all standard

sizes; certamly we have enough between and 1 quart to satisfy the

average requirements of the consumers, be they individuals or famihes.

Mr. Campbell. The 14 sizes you refer to range from to 1 quart;

the 10 sizes I referred to were for tomato juice, and they are spread

from 6 ounces to 100 ounces. Mr. Kanzer.^ Well, I doD't know just exactly what you have there. But the Committee report provides enough sizes for the canning industry, and certainly they will be guided a little bit by the con- sumer's choice.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 103

Mr. Campbell. Those 14 sizes you refer to, I think you will find

in this recommended list. In our program there are only 18 sizes recommended for more than one product. Consequently, the number

of can sizes you refer to and the number we have recommended are not very different. Mr. Kanzer. Well, they are different, in the sense that those you

recommend are not of the standard capacities. No customer goes in to buy an odd numxber of ounces of anything; yet when you ask for a

quart or pound, you get an odd size. Mr. Campbell, The question was asked of me what we have done

to iiiid out what the consumer wants to buy. There has been one

very extensive survey. Let me ask the same question. What have

you done to find out what the consumer wants to buy of canned foods?

Mr. Kanzer. I don't think we should put it that way. We have

made no survey. We do know that the customer does not go into

the store and ask for an odd capacity or odd size. We don't need an

investigation on that. Mr. PisciOTTA. May I answer that question? We have had

numerous complaints from people who ask for a pound of something^

and who discover a label of 15 or 14 ounces, on the article furnished.

In order to check, we have sent inspectors out to retail stores asking

for a quart of a particular commodity; 90 percent of the time he was

given 29 ounces instead of 32 ounces. The retailer, in practically

every instance, insisted he has handled that particular object for years

and years and always v/as under the impression that the bottle held a

quart. We have followed very many commodities, and gradually

from time to time have found packages reduced to 15 oimces, to 14%

ounces, to 14 ounces. That is how we found out what the consumer

asks for and expects when he goes in to buy, and what he is getting.

The retailer himself, objects, so much so that the Retail Customers

Board of the City of New York, Brooklyn, and Jersey City, has gone

on record in favor of even standard weights, doing away with the 14-,

15-, and 15K-ounce sizes, and keeping the 16- and 12-ounce sizes. Mr. Campbell. Don't you see, Mr. Pisciotta, that it is impossible

to standardize on 16 ounces and at the same time standardize can

sizes? If you are going to give 16 ounces always, of 250 different

products, 3^ou are going to need different size cans to give 16 ounces^

of the different products.

Mr. Pisciotta. Suppose you do: What of it? Mr. Campbell. Well, it would lead up into thousands of can sizes. Mr. Pisciotta. Let us see this example here. I have three cans

of three different commodities—one is soup, one is sweet peach, and

one is asparagus. One size of can would hold 12 ounces of each.

Isn't that true? Mr. Campbell. No; different cans would be needed; one size would

not have the same net weights.

Air. Pisciotta. These cans are of one size; each is labeled 10%

ounces. We have opened them and found the contents to be correct. Mr. Campbell. In that case, they are peculiarly accurate. Mr. Pisciotta. Here are two cans of the same dimensions [indieating] of different commodities each containing 1 pound, 14 ounces.

If the standardization was made to 16 ounces, at least these two

would use one can. So that you wouldn't have 250 cans for the same

weight.
104 NATIONAL BUEEAU OF STANDARDS

Mr. Campbell. You would have thousands of sizes for the various

weights of the various commodities. Take peaches alone; you have a

great many packs of peaches, and no two have the same specific

gravity, so that for the given weight you would have different sized cans for those different grades of peaches.

Mr. PisciOTTA. As far as liquid measure is concerned, the size is regardless of the commodity.

Mr. Campbell. Yes. But in order to standardize on a given

weight, you would generally have to have a separate can for each

separate product or grade of products, although some different commodities could probably be packed in the same size. Mr. Stewakt. Mr. Kanzer, what canned fruits or vegetables put

in a No. 1 can weighed 1 pound, or in a No. 2 can weighed 2 pounds?

Mr. Kanzer. Generally all No. 2 cans weighed 2 pounds.

Mr. Stewart. What were the products?

Mr. Kanzer. I cannot tell you now. I will have to check on it. Mr. Stewart. I have been in this business for 30 years and never

in my life have I seen any No. 2 can of fruits or vegetables which

weighed 2 pounds. I wanted to have this on the record, because if you will look over this list of weights as published by the Canners

Association you will find that the No. 2 can ranges for various commodities anywhere from 1 pound and 2 oimces up to 1 pound and 6 ounces. Back in the year 1900, there were three cans for fruits and

vegetables—the No. 1, what we called 1 pound at that time, the No. 2,

and the No. 3. Now, when the Federal net-weight law went into

effect we weighed those cans and we never found one that weighed

2 poujids.

Mr. Kanzer. Did it weigh 1 pound and 2 ounces at that time?

Mr. Stewart. They weighed about that weight; yes, sir. When

the sanitary cans came into existence, they were made to approximate,

^s closely as possible, the capacity of the old cans. Mr. Kanzer. I can say very definitely—and you have just agreed

to it—that the No. 2 can back in 1912, meant 2 pounds, as far as the

people were concerned.

Mr. Stewart. We called it that, but you show us some that

weighed it.

' Mr. Kanzer. I would say the No. 2 can generally contained 2

pounds. I will check back and send the information to you. I am

very much pleased at Mr. Campbell's answer to Mr. Pisciotta, that

there was no difficulty with respect to capacities. If there is any

question in reference to weight, there apparently is no question in

reference to capacity.

The Acting Chairman. There is a motion to proceed with the

program. I want to express to Mr. Campbell our appreciation of the

discussion he has given us on this subject from the viewpoint of the canners. PAPER OF ARTHUR P. WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, R. C. WILLIAMS

AND CO., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL-AMERICAN WHOLESALS GROCERS' ASSOCIATION i This memorandum is submitted in behalf of the members of

National-American Wholesale Grocers' Association, who distribute a

large percentage of the wholesale grocery volume of the United States.

1 In the absence of Mr. Williams, this paper was presented to the Conference by M. L. Toulme, secretary, National-American Wholesale Grocers' Association.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 105

The members of the Association, located in every State of the Union

distribute thousands of different kinds and types of food and grocery

products.

Wholesale grocers distribute a wide variety of food products in

package form purchased from many manufacturers and packers

scattered throughout the United States and in foreign countries.

Many of the products distributed by wholesalers are purchased in

bulk and then processed, conditioned, packed, and distributed under

the labels, trade-marks, and brands of such wholesale grocers. Millions of dollars have been spent in the development of goodwill in

these labels, trade-marks, and brands that now are well known to consumers of this country.

The National-American Wholesale Grocers' Association was organized in August 1933, as the result of the union of National Wholesale

Grocers' Association and American Wholesale Grocers' Association^

the organization having been accomplished in order to facilitate operations under the National Industrial Eecovery Act and the NRA Codes.

Distributors of food products have much in common with Government and consumers in the weights and sizes and shapes of food containers of all types. Unnecessary multiplicity of sizes, weights, and

shapes of containers forces distributors, vitally interested in the costs

of doing business, turn-over of stock, and the competitive situation, to invest undue amounts in stocks.

Throughout the years, trade associations of distributors in the food

field have wrestled with this problem. At the start, it was thought

by many food distributors that the problem could be solved without

imdue economic dislocations and unfairnesses, by simple statues, compelling regularitj^, uniformity, and simplicity. However, the more the

facts are studied and weighed, the more complicated reform becomes.

The lists of food products, canned and packaged, are already long and

are constantly being lengthened. Nature is whimsical and even

stubborn about producing differing sizes and shapes of food products.

Legislators as well as distributors may propose uniformity and

standardization of containers, but nature seems to be uninterested in

duplicating the reforming of sizes and shapes of her products. A

willful Nature also complicates the food situation further by producing

feasts one year and famines the next, thus dictating wide fluctuations

in prices, and prices control consumxcr buying habits mightily, as ail producers and distributors will testify. Millions of consumers,

scattered over the face of the earth, also have their own ideas, prejudices, needs, and preferences, depending upon where they live, how

the}^ live, and the sizes, tastes, and incomes of their families.

Once there was an old giant who had liis own ideas and convictions

about the desirability of regularity, uniformity, and simplicity.

However, his hobby concerned weights, sizes, and shapes of men.

Naturally, he was convinced that men should be large, tall, and handsome, like giants. This giant freely invited stranded wayfarers to enjoy his hospitality overnight and automatically assigned them to a' room^ in which there was a large bed.

If it happened that a particular guest was short and stout, the giant

had machinery which during the night stretched the guest to a size to fit the giant's bed. If it happened that the visitor w^as too lean

and lank, the old giant took care of that situation by cutting enough
106 NATIOiTAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

off of that guest, so that he fitted the bed perfectly. The giant's

methods were effective, but few of liis guests survived the ordeal.

Despite our natural impatience with the multitude of sizes, shapes,

and types of food containers, we sincerely urge that whether we be consumers or officials or distributors, we keep before us the actual

complications ahead and make progress, slow but sure, by exercising

tolerance, common sense, and good judgment.

One of the objects of the Association, functioning through its Economy Conference Committee, is to participate in trade confer- ences under the auspices of the United States Department of Commerce with producers, manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and

others, in order to bring about simplification and standardization of

manufacturing machinery and methods in the food trade, to the end

that food products may be distributed with the greatest economy to merchants and consumers. The activities of the Association and its functions in this field are described briefly in ''Trade Association

Activities" issued in 1927 by the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic

Commerce, at page 250, as follows:

The National Wholesale Grocers' Association represents approximately 50

percent of the total number of concerns engaged and transacting probably 75

percent of the total wholesale grocery sales of the country. In cooperation with the Bureau of Business Research of Harvard University it has made annual studies of costs of doing business. Its canners' conference committee confers with canners and brokers on questions having to do with the promotion of sales of canned goods and the purity and wholesomeness of such

merchandise. It endeavors to suggest uniform, clear, and equitable forms of contracts for the purchase of commodities, with the aim of preventing sales

litigation. Its econom}'' conference committee conducts trade conferences under the auspices of the Department of Commerce of the United States with producers,

manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and other merchants for the purpose of standardizing and simplifying the sizes, manufacture, operation, and distribution machinery and methods.

Its general education committee disseminates information concerning the service of the wholesale grocer. It cooperates with Federal and State departments in the enforcement of pure food laws, with the Department of Commerce in simplifica- tion and standardization work, and since 1906 has studied State and Federal

legislation and has supported measures to prohibit all adulteration and mis- branding of food, designed upon the basis of uniformity with the Federal Food

and Drug Act of June 30, 1906, in the statutes of the respective States. Its studies include railroad service and rates, uniformity of laws on commercial

subjects (particularly pure foods), and arbitration of commercial disputes. It is recognized generally in the wholesale grocery field that there is genuine economy in the simplification of food containers, principally

through reduction in the number of unnecessary sizes of containers.

While recognizing that there are material savings through simplification, and that simplification promotes not only economy but also

efficiency in distribution, it should be borne in mind that there is a

considerable difi^erence between simplification and rigid standardization of packages which would permit the use of only certain sizes and

types of packages.

The establishment of a limited number of so-called ' 'standard"

packages not only would result in unnecessary hardsliip on the

packers and distributors of food products, but it also would deprive

- consumers of various types of packages for which there is a real

demand.

This Association takes the position that simplification of package

sizes, rather than rigid standardization, should be brought about by
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 107

voluntary agreements made in cooperation with the United States

Department of Commerce, National Bm:eau of Standards, under the

auspices of its Division of Simplified Practice.

The records of the Department of Commerce disclose that this

Association and its members participated in simplified practice conferences for a number of years, and that they have aided materially in

the reduction of can and glass container sizes in the interest of the pubhc

and of the trade.

This Association's representatives at the general conference with

respect to cans for fruits and vegetables included:

Haas-Lieber Grocery Co., St. Louis, Mo.,

Daugherty & Co., Pittsburgh, Pa., Francis H. Leggett & Co., New York, N. Y., Seeman Brothers, New York, N. Y., Griggs, Cooper & Co., St. Paul, Minn.,

Morey Mercantile Co., Denver, Colo., Oakford-Fahnestock Co., Peoria, 111., Wm. Edwards Co., Cleveland, Ohio.,

Steele, Wedeles Co., Chicago, 111., Sprague, Warner Co., Chicago, 111., R. C. WiUiams & Co., New York, N. Y. Deceptive and Slack-Filled Packages.—The National-American

Wholesale Grocers' Association consistently and constantly has con- demned slack-filled and other types of deceptive packages in the food

industry. The Association has advocated the enactment of legislation

to ehminate such practices from the field, and it favored enactment of

the measures introduced in Congress by Representative Haugen in

1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1931.

In addition, the National-American Association endorsed and fa- vored enactment of Senator Copeland's bill which became the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of June 25, 1938. That statute specifically provides that food shall be deemed misbranded if its container

is so ''made" as to be misleading. Food also would be deemed

misbranded if the container is so ''formed" or so "filled" as to be misleading. These provisions are contained in section 403 of the act, reading:

Section 403. A food shall be deemed to be misbranded * * * (d) jf jts container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.

The intention of Congress in enacting these provisions is expressed

clearly by the following language in the reports ^ of the Committee on

Commerce:

This is intended to reach abuses which have arisen in the packaging of food

through the use of deceptively shaped, formed, or colored containers. It is likewise intended to reach deceptive methods of filling—particularly those known

as '^slack filling"—where the package is only partly filled and, despite the declaration of quantity of contents on the labe', creates the impression that it contains more food that it actually does. The new statute, shortly to become effective, prohibits, among other

things, the introduction or delivery into interstate commerce of any

food that is adulterated or misbranded (section 301) ; and, as has been

indicated, the act provides that a food shall be deemed to be misbranded "if its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading" (section 403). These sections are directed at the very

practices that this Conference seeks to eliminate.

» (Reports of Senate Committee on Commerce to accompany S. 2800, March 15, 1934; S. 5, May 13, 1935 and S. 5—74th Congress.)
108 NATIONAL BUKEAU OF STANDARDS

Under the provisions of the act of June 25, 1938, therefore, the

Secretary of Agriculture has authority to proceed against the use of

containers that are so made, or so formed, or so fiUed, as to be

misleading.

The Federal Trade Commission.—On March 21, 1938, President

Roosevelt approved S. 1077, generally known as the Wheeler-Lea Act. That statute considerably broadens the provisions of section 5 of the

Federal Trade Commission Act. The section originally condemned

unfair methods of competition in commerce; but, as amended, the act now declares unlawful not only unfair methods of competition in commerce but also unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.

Section 5 of the act, as amended by the act of March 21, 1938,

provides:

Sec. 5. (a) Unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair or deceptive

acts or practices in commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. The Federal Trade Commission long has condemned the use of

deceptive containers. Its policy in this connection is stated in the

annual report of the Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30,

1938, at page 72, as follows:

Imitating or using standard containers customarily associated in the mind of the general purchasing public with standard weights or quantities of the product

therein contained, to sell the public such commodity in weights or quantities less than the aforementioned standards, with capacity and tendency to deceive the purchasing public into believing that they are purchasing the quantities generally associated with the standard containers involved, and/or with the effect of so doing, and with tendency to divert trade from and otherwise injure the business

of competitors w^ho do not indulge in such practices and/or with the effect of so doing to the injury of such competitors and to the prejudice of the public.

The Federal Trade Commission has ample authority under the new- statute to prohibit the use of deceptive containers in the food industry.

Canners' Viewpoint Endorsed,—At this Conference the National

Canners Association has presented its views with respect to standardization of canned-food containers. A substantial percentage of the

packaged food products distributed by wholesale grocers is packed in

cans. The growth of the canning mdustry in recent years has been

exceptionally rapid and new products constantly are being added to the

list of canned foods. It has been estimated that canning *'is a billion- dollar industry." Many wholesale grocers distribute a wide variety

of canned food under theh own trade-marks, brands, and labels. If arbitrary, rigid standards for containers were to be adopted for canned

goods, tremendous losses would be sustained in the wholesale grocery

industr}^ through the destruction of plates, labels, machinery, and containers.

The National-American Wholesale Grocers' Association endorses

the views of the National Caimers Association as presented at this

Conference.

Conclusions.—It is respectfully urged:

First: That the Committee of this Conference make further study of, and give further consideration to, the questions involved here m viev/

of the enactment of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosm^etic Act of

June 25, 1938, and particularly the provisions of sections 301 (a) and

403 (d) of that act. Second: That this Conference and its Committee cooperate with the

United States Department of Agriculture in bringing about the en- forcement of the new Federal statute.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 109

Third: That the work of the Department of Commerce in the

simphfication field be continued through voluntary cooperation of the

various trades involved with the Department, in order that efliciency

and economy may be promoted in the industries and that buying may

be facilitated for the consuming public.

Fourth: That the Committee of tliis Conference renew on a vigorous

and widespread scale the educational campaign among consumers

urging them to make it an invariable practice to ''Read the Label/'

The Acting Chairman. Mr. Toulme, I thank you for coming here

today.

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE PAPER

Mr. PisciOTTA. Mr. Toulme, we are back to boxes, now, and away

from cans. Is that right?

Mr. Toulme. We handle both, the canned foods and the packages.

Mr. PisciOTTA. We have here (indicating) two boxes of pea beans,

the same product, the same-sized box, the same commodity packaged

by the same people. They have a 1 -pound content in one box, 14 ounces in the other. Do you loiow any reason for it? Mr. Toulme. In order to get it to the consumer at a price

approximately what she has been used to buying it for. I don't know

whether that is justified by current market conditions, but I do know,

particularly in a rising m.arket, that you do get those gradual fluctuations in the size of the containers.

Mr. PisciOTTA. In other words, if the market so fluctuates that the

peas and beans become cheaper, it is probable you will go back to 15

or 16 ounces?

Mr. Toulme. It is a competition matter. Mr. PisciOTTA. Is there a standard price all over the community?

Mr. Toulme. It depends where you buy it. Mr. PisciOTTA. So then the price question does not control the

contents of the box, does it? Mr. Toulme. As far as the manufacturers' original sale is concerned, it did control.

Mr. PisciOTTA. Is it possible that at some time the 1 pound sold at a price and when it was reduced to 14 ounces it sold at the same

price?

Mr. Toulme. If the commodity has gone up sufficiently. If the consumer is used to a price, they may try to keep it at that price.

Mr. PisciOTTA. Your sugar is still packed in standard 1-, 2-, or 5-pound packages. Has the price of sugar changed?

Mr. Toulme. Yes.

Mr. PisciOTTA. And the customers that buy sugar have to pay a penny or two cents more, according to the current price?

Mr. Toulme. I doubt that, in packaged sugar; the fluctuation is widen in bulk, I would say, than in packages.

My. PisciOTTA. There is no regular American coffee that has been

reduced a quarter or a half ounce below 16 ounces. Has there been

a change in price of coffee, too?

Mr. Toulme. There has not been a rise upward. I don't believe

the fluctuation has been enough to bring about that situation. The

manufacturer will absorb a considerable amount of that and doesn't

make a change until he has to. Mr. PisciOTTA. Does the manufacturer absorb it in pea beans?

Mr. Toulme. Apparently that manufacturer felt he couldn't.
110 l^-ATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Mr. Levitt. Isn't it a fact, that a 14-ounce package is put up for a certain class of trade?

Mr. PiscioTTA. That isn't true of this particular one, because it was

cut from 16 to 14 ounces and every one of these boxes is now sold at 14 ounces. Mr. R. A. Snyder. Mr. Chairman, I have sat here for several hours

and listened to this, and I might say I know something about the

wholesale grocery trade because I was in it. I don't know why we

cannot get through with this. It is a known fact that a manufacturer

packs a 14- or 16-ounce package for certain classes of his trade; there

is no question about that. The reason for the difference in the size of the package is in order to meet competition with this chain-store

trade. For instance, for years a brand of raisins was packed in 11-

and 15-ounce sizes. Why cannot the manufacturers and the sellers get together on a

standardization of packages which would save the manufacturer the

additional cost of cartons and cans; the manufacturer would make

money, the retailer would make money, and every sealer throughout

the country would be satisfied. The Acting Chairman. I think it is the purpose of the discussion

to make feasible that accomplishment.

Mr. PisciOTTA. The reason I have asked these questions is to bring the arguments out. I know the answers. I believe you want

to know how to act on the recommendation of the Committee. I know how I am going to vote, but I believe you want to find out from

these gentlemen.

Mr. Toulme, is there an}^ reason why peas should not be packed in

2-, 4-, 8-, and 16-ounce packages? Is there a justification for a 7-ounce package of peas?

Mr. Toulme. Well, suppose a man went into business several

years ago and decided he was going to popularize a 7-ounce package

of peas, and he did it. After that man has spent several millions of

dollars for good will, why say it is a crime to sell a 7-ounce package?

It is sold at 7 ounces, and paid for at 7 ounces. How is the consumer

hurt?

Mr. PisciOTTA. Did you ever hear of a customer coming in and

asking for 7 ounces of peas?

Mr. Toulme. No.

Mr. PisciOTTA. How about a half pound?

Mr. Toulme. Yes.

Mr. PisciOTTA. When he asked for a half pound, this package was

given to him?

Mr. Toulme. The conversation is this, "1 haven't got a half pound

of peas, but I have 7 ounces and I am going to charge you for 7

ounces."

Mr. PisciOTTA. Are you sure that is what happens?

Mr. Toulme. Yes, I am sure. Mr. R. A. Snyder. Isn't it a fact that the charge is the same?

Mr. Toulme. No.

Mr. R. A. Snyder. I happened to be a sales representative of a tea company and for a number of years we packed tea, in quarter- and

half-pound sizes, and then in the 7-ounce size. We did that for one

reason—in order that our price would be cheaper and meet competition. I want to go on record here that I am for a uniform package.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 111

There is no reason why in the State of Pennsylvania we should have

one package size and other sizes in New Jersey, in New York, and in

Massachusetts. I think the manufacturers could save a lot of money

if they got right down to brass tacks and made the same package.

Mr. TouLME. Well, I think everybody in this room and in the food

business wants to achieve your objective. We are willing to help.

Let me ask you a question: There was a wide-open question, and no

answer, in relation to the voluntary program, to the effect that some- body could stay out and wreck us. I am wondering if this Association

of yours cannot come into the picture when a producer or processor of

that type stays out, and ask him why he is staying out.

jSlr. PisciOTTA. The Conference and some individual weights and

measures sealers throughout the country perhaps, by prosecution or

otherwise, may be in a position to compel certain outlaws to go along on a voluntary basis. But isn't it true that all sealers throughout the

country may not be in a position to do that?

Mr. TouLME. Well, I don't know about that. I merely propose

the question to you. With a firm such as this, what persuasion other

than this can you use?

Mr. PisciOTTA. A lav/ to compel them to do it. Mr. TouLME. I should think if you can get the trade to agree, you

would not have any trouble.

Mr. PisciOTTA. We have tried for 2 years and succeeded with many

people but we have not been entirely successful. Mr. TouLME. Then there must be some very good reason I am

not familiar with.

Mr. PisciOTTA. This was one of the reasons we discovered. These

two packages (indicating a half-pound and a 7-ounce package of tea) are on the shelf alongside each other. There is a tag above this shelf,

40 cents; there is a tag above this shelf, 35 cents. The housewife

walks in and the 35-cent price appeals to her; she thinks she is getting

it 5 cents cheaper. She doesn't realize she would have paid the same

price if she had bought the other; both were 5 cents an oujice. She

never figures that out. Mr. TouLME. I don't know whether she does or not. I find these

women are pretty cagey. She may know she gets 7 ounces in one and

8 ounces in the other.

Mr. PisciOTTA. Without reference to these women here, I have

foimd women to be the most duped buyers. I have asked hundreds

of women who have bought this for years and years, and 75 percent of

them were under the impression that they were buying a half pound.

Will you agree with me, that is the reason for the difference in weight?

Mr. TouLME. I am not going to do that. But we do believe in

keeping up that cam^paign of getting consumers to read the labels. The truth is there, and there is no fraud. It is a lot easier for the consumers of this countr}^ to take the time to read and understand

the labels, than to go down this other route, which involves a lot of

legislation and the freezing of conditions, when we don't know what we might want 6 months later. The Acting Chairman. Mr. Toulme, the Conference thanks you

for this discussion.

At this time I will invite Vice President Tucker, of the Sunshine

State, to preside.

(At this point C. E. Tucker, Vice President of the Conference, assumed the

chair.)
112 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

PAPER PRESENTED BY F. F. FITZGERALD, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH,

AMERICAN CAN CO., REPRESENTING THE CAN MANUFACTURERS

INSTITUTE, INC.

No one will question the desirability of the standardization of

canned-food containers.

From the weights and measures standpoint, the object of standardization is the protection of the consuming public from deception that

may arise from the use for the same product of cans varying only

slightly in capacity.

From the canners', brokers', and retailers' standpoint, the object

of standardization is to limit the sizes of cans used for each product

to those sizes which have been found to satisfy the trade demands,

and thus prevent unfair use by competitors of deceptive-appearing

containers.

The can manufacturer is wholly in sympathy with this program,

provided the standardization is economically sound.

The can manufacturer, canner, m^erchandiser, and the consuming

public agree as to the desirability of standardization, but the can manufacturer insists that such steps as are taken in this respect should

not so hamstring the industry as to prevent continuance of the scientific development that has characterized the industry during the past

20 years. It is from tiiis scientific point of view that I wish to approach the question of standardization.

The tin can was never designed as a measure and never can be one. A short liistory of the developm.ent of the can, or canister, will make

this clear. After the invention of the tin can by Durand, canners

who then had a sm.all output—made their own containers by hand,

usually in the winter months. The sheets of im_ported tin plate were

cut laboriously mth tin scissors into bod}^ lengths and rolled around an iron body form and soldered. Circles were cut from sheets for

ends—the top end with a large hole in it. The three pieces were

then soldered together by hand. After the can was filled with the

fruit, fish, or vegetables and heated to expel air, the caphole was

closed and the venthole soldered.

Gradually these primitive methods were improved. Dies were

used to punch out ends—thus the first attempt at standardization.

During this period the canner provided the tin plate, cut out the can

parts, furnished the coal and the cappers, and piled the finished cans. The laborer making the cans was paid a fixed sum per thousand cans, but his contract provided that he pay not only for the value or cost

of any defective container, but also for the value or loss of the can

contents of any defective container.

This type of container remained in use for years. The capping

and tipping of these containers in the canning factories gradually

became a highly specialized operation, and quite generally was let by contract to boss cappers, who hired their own crews and worked

for a fixed sum. per thousand cans, mth the definite agreemxcnt that

they would pay, not only for all cans showing defective cap and vent

closure but also for the contents of such cans. This is one of the

first instances of consequential damage contracts. The automatic body maker was then developed, and as cans could

be fabricated by these machines at much less cost than by hand, the canner naturally bought his cans from a can maker who could afford

to install such equipment. As the canner formerly held his em-
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 113

ployees responsible for defective containers he now asked and re- ceived a guarantee from the container manufacturer against dehvery

of defective contamers. This guarantee was initially against spoilage

above five cans per thousand, later three cans per thousand, and now

two cans per thousand. Under the terms of these contracts, food

containers are guaranteed against spoilage or other loss due to defects

of the container chargeable to the can manufactm^er, above two cans

per thousand. Tiiis covers not only the cost of the defective container

but also consequential losses due to spoilage of contents. These contracts were the stimuli for the scientific development of

the canning industry. Fundamental investigations were necessary

to establish the individual responsibility of the can manufacturer, the

canner, and the distributor.

Com.plete knowledge of the procedures and methods used by ail concerned is necessary. The character of the camier's raw product,

the methods of planting fertilizing, spraying, harvesting, washing,

grading, blanching, filling, closing, exhausting, cooling, and warehousing had to be studied. This also entailed a study of the design of

equipment, materials used in equipment, and methods of shipment

and storage of finished product.

Only two decades ago a can was a can. Only tvv^o kinds of tin plate were imov^Ti—open hearth and bessemer. These could be purchased

with so-called coke, canner's special, or charcoal weights of coating.

Today, with the development of new processes of manufacture such

as the cold methods of reduction, the canner is furnished v^dth containers especially designed for the particular product he is canning.

The chemical specifications of the base plate, the methods of manufacturing the plate, i. e., hot mill or cold reduction, the temper of the

plate, the weight or gage of the plate used in the bodies or ends, the

profile of the ends, the design of the body, the weight of tin coating,

and the character of enamel—if enamel cans are used—are specifi.ed.

These specifications are fixed and are absolutely necessary if the can

is to serve its proper function, which is far beyond that of an ordinary

mieasure. Let me repeat, the canner is furnished with containers

made accordmg to specifications and designs adapted to each particular

product he is canning.

The contamer is a miniature steel retort or boiler which acts effici- ently in the sterilization of the canned food, and which later can be

used as a container for the storage, distribution, and sale of the steri- lized product if properly made of suitable miaterial. Canners would not

accept today the containers which their fathers used. Development

of new types of plate has doubled the shelf life of many canned foods,

but at the same time has forced can manufacturers to change their

methods of manufacture and the design of can bodies and ends so as

to counterbalance the physical weakness of these new types of plate.

Beads on the bodies of cans and the apparently ornamental ends are not accidental but are the results of fundamental engineering study.

This short historical survey is given to show that for a century and a quarter the tin canister has been regarded as a container and that the

primary object of the scientific staffs of the can manufacturers and

canners has been directed to the development of new plate, new

processes, etc., which will enable the industry to make a product of increasing mi.erit and one that will retain its high quality during the

period of storage and distribution.

188876—40 9
114 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The contents of the container are not necessarily measured by the

external dimensions of the cans. Differences in types of cans, side seam bow, profile of ends, methods of fill, temperatures of fill, methods

of exhaust, and methods of closure prevent the can from ever being

other than a container.

Numerous examples may be cited. With adoption of cold-rolled,

low-metalloid plate, paneled bodies were encountered with the larger

size of cans for pumpkin. Pumpkin cans must be filled at high temperature on account of their slow heat penetration. This difiicuity was partially solved by the use of ''domed" or convex ends, which

permit the use of a normal fill but produce a lessened head space in

the can, thus reducing the final vacuum and lessening the paneling.

With citrus products, the use of nonspilling closing machines and gas- flow closure demands a can shorter than the former can, although both

contain the same volume of contents. With vacuum filling machines

for pork and beans the can may be shortened in height with the

finished can containing the same cut-out weight.

Products are packed in cans which are scored on the body near the

ends and opened with a key. If these products are liquid or semiliquid, the cover is depressed so that the food will not leak out when the can is opened. The heights of some sizes of salmon cans differ according

to whether the cans are hand-filled or machine-filled. The machinefilled cans are two-sixteenths of an inch higher than the hand-filled in

order to guarantee the same cut-out weight. Tomato juice packers

must vary the heights of containers to compensate for temperatures of

filling. Packers who fill at 160° F can use a shorter can than those who

fill at 190° to 200° F, because of less contraction on cooling. The

trade demands a uniform quantity of product in this case and is not

interested whether the can is one-sixteenth of an inch taller or not. The Federal Government contracted for roast beef in cans containing 24 ounces. Those packers who used thermal exhaust could use a can three-sixteenths of an inch shorter than those who used mechanical vacuum. The Government was not interested in the dimensions of the

container but in the quantity of food in the container. Numerous other

examples could be given.

As stated before, efforts to increase the service life of containers

demand changes in chemical composition of the tin plate. These

changes in chemical composition cause differences in physical characteristics of the tin plate, and these changes in physical characteristics cause subsequent changes in body design and profile, and in methods of

canning and merchandising.

The can manufacturers, as well as all other factors in the food industry, are vitally interested in can standardization, with the immediate

purpose of preventing consiraier deception, but they ask that such

standardization be made without freezing the scientific development

of the can manufacturer and canning industry.

I believe the standardization committee has presented an excellent

program. As a matter of fact, there could be, in my opinion, only one

criticism offered, and I believe this criticism is secondary. Canada

also considered, for instance, the idea of stepping up the sizes of cans by 4-ounce intervals but soon saw the impracticability of such an
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 115

idea and now recognizes 66 sizes of containers. These 66 sizes are used

for many less products than are now canned in the United States. Arbitrary mininiiun nondeceptive volumes of fill corresponding to the figiu-es established by the BAE and enforced under the Federal

food law, or average declared fills, must be established for each product

and it is immaterial in what units such volumes are expressed. This

is necessitated by difi'erences in specific gravity of products, methods

and temperatures of filling, methods of closure, necessary differences in

end profile design, etc. It would be extremely desirable to have at least a uniform method

with Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.,. but the British nation uses a different gallon and fluid oimce than ourselves. We are in the same position with France and continental

Europe, who use the metric system. It is extremely unfortunate that our weights and measures are not on a decimal basis like our monetary

system, but it would be foolish for us to try either to adopt a new sys- tem of weights and measures or to change the quantities which have

been found desirable in the trade. We probably must base our vol- umes on a cubic inch or the fluid ounce, but, as previously stated, the

choice of units is a secondary matter, as the prevention of consumer

deception is all that is necessary from the weights and measures

standpoint.

In conclusion, let me say, first, the can manufacturer will make all sizes of cans demanded by his customers; second, the can manufacturer will be forced to limit his responsibility for the service life of

containers to the extent that the can specifications do not accord with

sound engineering and technological processes; third, the can manufacturer maintains that the tin can is an inherent tool in the production

of canned foods and that its subsequent use as a container is a fortunate coincidence that has made the industry possible—^liowever, this use as a container is so involved mth phj^sical and chemical considerations that the external dimensions of the can should not, and camiot,

be taken as a precise measure of the contents of the can; fourth,

canned-food containers may readily be standardized by the simple

method proposed by the industry committee, which establishes volume

fill as a basis.

This proposal suggests, first, that standardization be estabhshed by

products; second, that there be established for each indi^ddual product

certain volumes which may be packed, making these so difl'erent in

quantity that the containers will not be confusing to the purchasing

public; third, that in foUowing the above program no mistake be made

such as trying to change our whole system of weights and measures, but that we select those commercial containers which comply with the

different requirements and whose use can be established with the least cost to all parties concerned. International standards may later be

developed, but let us not now overemphasize the gill, pint, quart,

gallon, and pound, as even these imits are at times grossly misunderstood. We have the dry quart and the liquid quart; the Imperial

gallon, the United States gaUon; the troy ounce, the Imperial ounce,

the avordupois ounce; and other units. It is not our business to fix the defijiite units of measure but only to see that there is no deception

to the consumer.
116 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE PAPER

Mr. PisciOTTA. Dr. Fitzgerald, our recommendation No. 5 provides:

Containers of different standards to be so constructed that the different sizes are easily discernible, this to be accomplished by fixing the diameter or the base measurements of the container and letting the industry change the height of the

respective containers to fit the particular commodity.

Now, you could put out a 16-ounce container for different commodities, according to the nature of the commodities, and the temperature at v/hich it has to be sealed, by varying the height of that

container.

Dr. Fitzgerald. Theoretically, it is possible. The objection to it

is that 3^ou would run the number of the containers into the thousands, so that, instead of having 55, we v/ouid have 2,500.

May I give you another example? A question was asked about

marking of 16 and 15% ounces. I think Mr. Campbell well explains

that where the indicated weight on the can varies. You start the sea- son early, and the first corn coming in is not mature. We like to fill corn at 190*^ F, to get air out of the corn. But if you heat this green

corn to 190°, it would be absolutel}^ impossible to get your weight.

You have to drop it to 170°, and then you are in danger of getting

under the minimum weight. Maybe a week later, a new field will come in and you will have no trouble getting the weight in. Mr. PisciOTTA. Then if jou purchase that same size can in another

part of the season, you wouldn't get the same weight?

Dr. Fitzgerald. The chances are that you always get the declared

weight. I would say the v^eight would tend towards the minimum at

times, and at times towards the maximum. They always mark the

weight at the minimum.

Mr. PisciOTTA. We would get the same markings on the label. Whether it was 14}^ or 16 ounces, it wouldn't make any difference?

Dr. FiTZGEKALD. Yes, you would alwaj^s get the marked weight.

Mr. PisciOTTA. Then it wouldn't make any difference about this

difference in the corn, you would still have the same container?

Dr. Fitzgerald. Not in all cases. If you are canning tomato juice

in the 12-ounce size at 160° F and at 190° F there would have to be

different sizes for the different temperatures.

Mr. PisciOTTA. Do you recall these two 15-ounce cans [indicating cans of coffee] and the reason given to us for not being able to bring

this up to 16 ounces?

Dr. Fitzgerald. I image the reason for not bringing it up to 16 ounces is that the packer doesn't want 16 ounces in there.

Mr. PisciOTTA. Do you remember, Dr. Fitzgerald, that you said

that if this was raised a fraction of an inch, there might be a danger

of collapsing the can?

Dr. Fitzgerald. I remember we didn't say a fraction of an inch.

You can perhaps get more coffee in that can. The lighter the roast the heavier the coffee, and the more you get in,

Mr. PisciOTTA. You remember you told about the impossibility of

changing this to 16 ounces?

Dr. Fitzgerald. As I remember, you were talking about changing

it to the diameter of 404. We can increase the height of that can within certain limitations, but the amount within which you can increase

the height depends upon the diameter of that can.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 117

Mr. PiscioTTA. The weight now has been increased to 16 ounces and the can is a Kttie higher. This is an example of one commodity,

different brands, with four different sized cans. I am trying to illus- trate it was possible, although we were told it was impossible, to change the can to 16 ounces. Mr. AcKERMAN. Dr. Fitzgerald, you have been very kind in answering all of our questions, and I would just like to ask if I were a manufacturer of a food product and ordered some gallon cans from your

company, would you at my request make a deeply recessed lid to fit those cans so that they would be short approximately 8K cubic inches?

Dr. Fitzgerald. No, I do not think we would. We have had that

put up to us and we declined.

Mr. Waldman. Mr. Chairman, it isn't my purpose to curtail or

limit discussion on this thing, but I would like to suggest that it seems to me perfectly obvious that all of the ansv/ers given to Mr.

Pisciotta's inquiries have been identical. I am thoroughly convinced,

and I beheve most of the members of this Conference are convinced,

that there can be a method of standardizing packages. I see no need

for asking each successive speaker the same questions and getting

the same answers.

I believe that this Conference is deeply indebted to Mr. Pisciotta

and his Committee for their study and effort and the time that thej^

have put forth on this ail-important subject. But I would like to see some of the discussion limited; this subject could be discussed from

now to the end of the Conference, and we wouldn't know any more

then than now. Mr. J. G. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I feel the same way as Mr.

Waldman. When we have developed all of the technical features, I would like to be heard. I have been trying to hold myself back until

that time.

The Acting Chairman. If the Conference wants to vote on this

question now we might bring this particular phase to a close. Mr. A. Edward Snyder. Mr. Chairman, these men are, as I see

it, representative of the various industries, and when we hear the final two speakers v/e should have more or less of a complete survey.

Mr. Pisciotta. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I think we are

finished and can go along without further questions.

PAPER PRESENTED BY J. S. ALGEO, HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO., REPRESENTING THE GLASS CONTAINER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

I speak as a representative of the glass-container industry, manufacturers of bottles and jars for foods. The glass-container industry

is engaged in a broad program of redesigning and simplifying its packages, and this program ties in v/ith the general idea of this Conference and also with the deceptive-package feature of the Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The primary purpose of this program of ours is to reduce our costs of production so that we can sell our containers at lower prices and thus obtain greater distribution. It is obvious that mth fewer styles and sizes to make, we can produce them

at a lower cost; so if by simplifying and standardizing our packages—

which is the objective you have in view—we also benefit ourselves,

then we are killing two birds with one stone. We are helping ourselves and also working toward your objectives.
118 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

j

I Glass-container designs up until a few years ago and still, to a

| very great extent, were relics of the old days when bottles and jars ! were made by the so-called hand-blown method, before the days of mass production by automatic machines. Because costs were lower

and because there was not as much difference as now between the cost

of producing items of various styles, but of the same sizes, there was

a pronounced tendency to make containers so that they would look

as large as possible with relation to the actual capacity. This ten- dency largely accounts for the extra-tall bottles which you see today

and for tall bottles with depressed panels in their sides and of other

shapes which look large in comparison with a simple round shape

which holds the same. Likewise, because mold costs with relation

to the total costs were much lower then than is true now, there was a tendency to build molds for smaller quantities than would now be

considered economical and for freakish shapes which would now be

considered impractical. This fact accounts in a large measure for

the multitude of bottle and jar designs that are now in use. There

is no question but that the glass-container industry is making more

shapes and sizes than are needed, and it is this condition which we are endeavoring to correct. It is a fact that a plain round, relatively

squat, glass container is the easiest and cheapest to produce and that

the farther awaj^ we get from such a shape, the greater the cost of

producing. Thus it happens that the least deceptive glass container

is also the lowest in cost, and thus it happens that it is to our interest

to simplify and standardize our containers.

This program of redesigning and simplifying design has not taken

the line of bringing about complete standardization—by which I mean

we have not attempted to design a jar to hold, say, 1 pound of preserves

so that all 1 -pound preserve jars made by all manufacturers would be

exactly the same. It has taken the line of developing general standards of design within which general standards any glass manufacturer

may vary his design to suit his own or his customer's preference or requirements. In actual practice the result is that jars or bottles

intended for the same product are pretty much alike, regardless of the

manufacturer, because if the general standard is complied with, there

can't be a great difference in the bottles or jars produced by different

manufacturers. At the same time, there is room left for a variety in

style, which we find is still demanded and which we believe will continue to be demanded, because one of the chief merits of a glass container as a package for food is its eye appeal. This eye appeal helps

to sell food in glass; and so in order to make best use of this eye

appeal we believe that variety in design will always be demanded, both

by the packer and by the consumer. In actual practice this program

also results in our being called upon to make fewer items than heretofore on account of the elimination of many odd and freakish designs

due to the fact that the packer has a wide choice of designs in stock

packages which suits the packer's requirements much better than hi^

odd or private mold designs. In turn this concentrates our production on fewer and more desirable items, all of which makes for lower costs. The technique of making glass containers has improved to a very

great extent during the past 15 or 20 years. We can make them

faster than we could then, and, equally important, we can make them

at lighter weights and stronger. Through this redesign and simplification program we are trying to take full advantage of this develop-
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 119

ment in technique, and in doing so we are not merely designing containers that are more practicable from our standpoint, but we are

also designing them to be more practicable from tlie standpoint of the

packer and of the distributor and of the consumer. We are designing

containers which are most practicable to manufacture with our

present-day equipment; and since the}^ are most practicable, they

are also most economical; and, again, since they are most practicable,

it results in greater uniformity in design as between containers made

by different manufacturers; and, finally, since they are most practicable from a manufacturing standpoint and most economical and more uniform, this program of the glass industry ties right in with

your program and with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. What I have just said refers to simplification or standardization of

design rather than to standardization of sizes. As we see it, there is not much the glass-container industry can do toward standardizing

sizes. That will have to come from the packer who uses our containers. We would, however, welcome a greater standardization of

sizes than now exists, because such a standardization would round

out and complete our simplification program. As a matter of fact, we are endeavoring to the extent of our ability to limit the number

of sizes. In this program of ours we are setting up specifications for

only the sizes that are most popular and doing our best to sell only

those sizes. In addition to that, we plan to cooperate with food

industries using our containers in an effort to further our program of

simplification and standardization. In my opinion, it would not be

practical to standardize to the point where we would have one line

of jars for packing all sorts of semisolid products and a liae of bottles

to pack all liquids. Each kind of product has its own characteristics

and oftentimes requires a special type of container. Jams, preserves, mayonnaise, and mustard require jars with fairly wide openings.

Pickles, if

* 'placed" in the jars, as opposed to being thrown" in,

require jars of certain heights and diameters and with a certain type

of shoulder in order to hold a certain number of pickles and to prevent

floatiag. Olives, when "placed," require a certain type of jar for

the same reason. Even bottles to hold liquids could not be of the same sizes for all products, because some liquids require greater head

space to take care of the greater expansion of one liquid than another.

Products sold by weight sometimes vary in specific gravity, hence

they require jars of different capacities to hold the same weight of contents. The best that could be done would be to adopt standard sizes for

each type of product going into a container, and while there are many

obstacles against bringing about a complete standardization in that

respect, and while I doubt whether it would be in the best interest

of the public to do so, nevertheless there is a very great amount of

standardization of sizes now, and the tendency seems to be increasing. Milk bottles, mostly through State laws, are standardized as

to size—quarts, pints, half pints, and quarter pints, and, in some

States, one-third quarts and 10 ounces—the last two sizes mostly for

the restaurant trade. Milk bottles, as to styles, have been standardized through the cooperation of glass manufacturers and milk companies. It is certainly fitting and proper that containers for such a

vital necessity as milk be standardized so that the consumer cannot

possibly be deceived and so that the containers can be produced and
120 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

sold at the lowest possible level. Household fruit jars, for many

years, have been standardized in half-pint, pint, quart, and half- gallon sizes—not through any particular cooperative effort but by

common consent. This is an advantage to all concerned. In recent years mayonnaise containers; honey containers; and preserve, jelly,

and apple-butter containers have been standardized as to sizes, but

not as to styles, through the cooperation of these various industries

with the National Bureau of Standards. These standards have been

observed fairly well but not absolutely—and I don't see the necessity, nor even the wisdom, of bringing about an absolute standardization

of containers for products which are not necessities, as in the case with milk.

From a selfish standpoint, the glass manufacturer would welcome

a greater degree of standardization of sizes, but we feel we are almost

powerless to bring it about, because, after all, we are obliged to furnish

what our customers want. If one manufacturer refuses to make a

certain size, his competitor will make it. My observation is that

there are many obstacles to a rigid standardization of sizes. One

of the most important is the fact that foods, to a great extent, are packed to retail at certain prices—for instance, 10 cents or 25 cents. When the price of raw materials goes up in cost—for example, peanuts

for peanut butter—then the amount to retail m a jar for 10 cents goes dow^n and a smaller jar is needed. The reverse is true when the

price of peanuts goes down. The American housewife seems to want

to pay only certain popular prices. She wants to buy a quarter's

worth of peanut butter or jam. If a grocer asks 27 cents, she oftentimes does not buy. I am not qualified to speak on such a subject,

however, as it is the problem of the packer to whom we sell our glass. I am confident, however, that this popular-price complex is a serious

obstacle to enforcing a rigid standardization of sizes, and I don't

believe any enforcement should be attempted except such as can be

obtained by voluntary cooperation among members of the same in- dustry, and the amount of this cooperation and the success of the

venture will depend upon many factors, such as the state of business,

competition, cost of production, location of consuming area with

respect to the manufacturer, and so on. To attempt an enforcement

of an arbitrary standard of size when that size does not synchronize

with production costs and with the purchasing power or buying habits

of the housewife, is running a serious risk of curtailing business. The

housewife is the purchasing agent for the household, and the manufacturer must produce what she v/ants or he does no business. We

believe that a certain flexibility must exist in order to keep in tune with

changing conditions, for, after all, it is more important to get food

products to the consumer at the lowest cost and in greatest volume

than it is to maintain a rigid standard for sizes. The attitude, therefore, of the glass manufacturer is that we would v/elcome a further

standardization of size from our own selfish viewpoint but that we

cannot enforce such standards, and it is doubtful whether an arbitary

enforcement would be in the public interest.

The glass manufacturer's chief function at this time, in m^^ opinion,

is primarily to improve the design of the container so that it will be more practicable to all concerned, and, secondarily, to reduce and

standardize the sizes—^necessarily following the demands and requirements of his customers and the food manufacturers in that respect.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 121

We are endeavoring to perform, these rancticns, and iii so doing we are

furthering the objectives of this Conference by the foilowmg means: We are designing and prodiicuig containers which are more practicable from our standpoint. Bemg more practicable from a manufacturmg standpoint, they are produced at alov.w cost, and this saving

is passed along to our customers and to the public.

We are designing and producing complete families of containers of one general style so that a packer, if he has to change the size of his

container because of increasing or decreashig costs, or for other reasons, can do so quicldy and without having to have special molds built. This results in greater flexibility', both for the glass manufacturer and

the packer, and necessitates a fewer number of molds on the part of

the manufacturer in serving his customers.

We are producing containers which are more practicable from the

packer's standpoint—more uniform and less freakish in design

much hghter in vreight, and yet stronger than old-type containers.

The packer thus obtains greater speeds on his j&lhng hnes and less breakage, and because of lighter weights he makes a ver}^ considerable

saving in transportation costs, which eventually benefits the consmner. We are producing containers which are m.ore practicable from the

consimier's standpoint—containers which fit better on pantry shelves

and in refrigerators, and even more important, containers from which

the contents can be removed without spoihng his or her chances of

reaching heaven.

Finally, we are producmg containers which, because they are simple

in design, cannot be considered as being deceptive.

It is not to be inferred from my remarks that this program of

simplification has been completed—it is well under v^ay and great

progress has been made, but the greater part has to be done. When

completed it will result in our having containers which are more practicable from the point of view of all interested parties, fewer items

and lower-cost items. It has been mj purpose to tell you of the program which the glass container mdustry has outhned, and to show you

that it synchronizes with the work in which you are engaged. We are

in favor of simplification and are worldng to that end and are willing

to cooperate tovfard further simplification and standardization within

the limits of the peculiarities of our own product and of the requirements of our customers.

The Acting Chaieman. Thank you very much, Mr. Algeo.

PAPER PRESENTED BY CHARLES R. COSBY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, LABEL MANUFACTURERS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Labehng is an intermediate step in the process by wiiich goods in

containers are distributed to consumers whose interests deserve certain

safeguards as a matter of public pohcy. It is a reasonable expectation

that honesty and fair dealing shall prevail among those who offer a pubhc service while enjoying the privileges and profits of our system of

private property and free enterprise. Granted that consumers are entitled to buy what they want from sellers who are offering their goods in

the market places, the problem is to insure a meeting of the minds without coercion or deception. Naturally, this calls for a common understanding of terms and definitions and is, in effect, what is meant by

the expression Standardization of Packages." The problem of creat- ing that com_mon understanding of terms and definitions is uppermost
122 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

ill the minds of officials charged with the interpretation and enforcement of sound pubKc poHcy. Government has the right to declare

that certain terms or definitions shall be used only with a certain

defined meanmg. Private industry has the capacity to familiarize consumers with the physical characteristics of the goods so described.

The inducements which normally influence private industry to assume

that task will be mentioned later in this study of the subject.

The fact that labeling is a middle step along the route from production to consumption makes it possible for label manufacturers to look in both directions, as it were, in considering the questions that

arise. In the same way that convenient packaging has proved itself an important element in the vending of commodities, informative

labeling has become an indispensable link in the point-of-sale identification of goods. The problems of standardization have a double

effect upon the business of preparing suitable labels. First, there are problems pertainmg to packages and their contents; and second, there

are problems pertaining to the preparation and use of labels. If the

label manufacturers shall be able to contribute some helpful thoughts

to this interesting subject, it will be due to their practical experience

with a wide variety of containers affording them an excellent opportunity to observe the causes and conditions that tend to create diverse

rather than common characteristics in containers and labels. These

tendencies to generate irregularities are the forces with which one

contends vfhen searching for acceptable and practicable standards.

Looking backward toward the beginning of the producer-to-con- sumer route, the label manufacturer observes that in a system of free enterprise the vending of merchandise at retail is an activity offering a wide range of choice in respect to the manner of its accomplishment.

Good judgment in appraising and satisfying the wants of the buying

public is rewarded by volume sales, mass production, and low costs. The choice of an acceptable unit of quantity is made after a careful

study of the consumer's needs and preferences. The choice of a

suitable container depends not only on the quantity to be sold but

also the physical aspects of the product. Nothing is neglected which

may be used as a means to influence the consumer's preference among

the many uses for her money. The consumer's freedom of choice is therefore the proving ground on which are developed the effective

want-satisfactions, the efficient distributing system and the highest

rewards for the enterpriser. The success of this system has been too

well proven to need any special pleading at this time.

Looking forward to the consum^er and her day of marketing, one is impressed \\dtli the tremendous responsibility borne by the label when

it comes to the counterside decisions made by her in choosing from the

vast assortments of packaged goods. Ample evidence of the strategic

position of the label at this point is the huge sum spent for naturalcolor reproductions and the artistic merit of labels intended to repre- sent the high quality of the food contents. Does the consumer know

how to evaluate the claims of rival products? Does the label tell facts which she wants to know? Can she rely on what she sees? It

is not the fault of the consumer when she is unable to find consistency

in the claims of quality and quantity. Lacking authentic information, she is often without the means of making comparisons and

evaluations. A packaged product does not always offer favorable

opportunities to examine and appraise the goods. Substitutes for
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 123

those opportunities to see and evaluate do not appeal to the same

faculties of mind. Here is a demonstration that the consumers'

choice is dependent upon a common miderstanding of the term or

definition of identity by which a product is called. The overzealous

seller is apt to indulge in exaggeration. The statement of weight may

be as unconvincing as a mathematical symbol. The quantity is sometimes ' 'generously" represented by means of oversized containers.

In a practical sense, quantity and quality either balance or unbalance

each other. For example, 8 ounces of canned soup may be equal to 16 ounces of the same quality of soup diluted with water. The proportion of inert ingredients affects both quality and quantity. This

partly explains the need for a definite standard of quality. There

are many analogies between foods and drugs, but there should be

more. In the field of medicine, a drug is not standard unless it is defined in the official compendium.

One should not assume that the education of the consumer in

respect to standards is an unrequited labor on the part of the sellers of packaged goods. On the contrary, it offers handsome rewards to those who are ambitious to serve the pubKc for profit. The economies

of mass production are made possible by the fact that manufacturing

processes may be standardized to the point that automatic devices can

be set up for long runs of identical operations. The frequ.ency of any

operation determines whether machines and tools shall be set for

automatic or hand control. The materials either cut economically or they cut wastefully. The materials from which containers are made,

such as wood veneers, tin plate, paper, paperboard, fiberboard, glass,

etc., are all subject to their own manufacturing conditions which

determine the most adaptable sizes and dimensions.

Under present conditions the label manufacturers can have no pre- conceived notions in regard to the shapes or sizes of containers in

which goods are packed. They are asked to make labels to fit certain

containers and they make them that way, as economically as conditions will permit. Label manufacturing is a made-to-measure proposition. There is practically no such thing as a stock label. No two

product labels are alike in all respects. Too many of them are unlike

in every respect. There are said to be as many as 150 different sizes of labels for cans for fruits and vegetables. Obviously, labels for all these sizes cannot be cut economically from any one size of paper

sheet, which means that label manufacturers must be prepared with

many sizes of paper, and the paper mill must produce such sizes from

the paper machine, whatever may be its width. And it means that

printing presses of various sizes must be available if the work is to be

done economically.

^ If a canner wishes to change the capacity of a can, he may change

either the height or the diameter, or both. If all cans were made the same height or the same diameter, labels could be made uniform in at

least one dimension and it would be possible to set the paper-cutting

machines so that their operations could be repeated with sufficient

frequency to effect economies in production. All that has been said

about cutting label paper applies in principle to the manufacture of cans from tin plate. Both are cut from stock of certain limited sizes. Prospects of economies in label production are dependent upon

long runs of uniform sizes of labels, and of course that depends upon

greater uniformity in the sizes of containers which the labels must fit.
124 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

If the sheet cannot be completely filled with labels of the same size,

economies cannot be effected. If the sheet is only partially filled with

a variety of labels of different sizes, a waste of paper is inevitable—not raw paper but paper bearing a labor cost of many handlings. The

greatest economic loss, hov/ever, is due to the substitution of timeconsuming hand adjustments in platemaking, and in cutting finished

labels from the sheet, a process that has some of the elements of a

jigsaw puzzle.

Labels for boxes, bottles, crates, cartons and in fact all classes of

labels suffer from such variations in the sizes of containers.

The machines that affix the labels to the containers are also adversely

affected by a variety of sizes. Each change requires a stoppage of the

macliine and the adjustment of the mechanism that holds the labels

in position. Of course this retards the production and increases the

cost. Packing cases cost less when made in standard sizes. Special can

sizes make it necessarj^ to use oversized or odd-sized cases which are not efficient in proportion to their shipping weight.

It would be difficult and perhaps tedious to enumerate all the col- lateral effects set in motion by even slight departures from customary

or natural forms. There is ample evidence that too many variations

in quantit}^ and quality are the result of misdirected zeal. Most

careful observers now agree that there should be an authoritative

standard of identity of every product sold in a container. The

methods for attaining that objective are not entirely clear. Experi- ence in that field is too recent to admit of dogmatic opinions. A division of responsibility between government and private industry seems

to be the course best calculated to serve profitably both private

industry and the consumer. Probably the most important contribution to consumer familiarity

with contents and can sizes was made b}^ the late Dr. Bigelow, who

established in true scientific fashion the proper weight of contents for

each size of cans of normal quality fruits and vegetables. This was a self-imposed task under the direction of the trade association of that

industry, the National Canners Association, and it is a splendid ex- ample of the cooperation which organized industry is able to offer in

the field of standardization.

The process of educating the consumer probably should be based on

uniformity of method in declaring the required label information. In

matters of education one can borrow profitably from the field of appfied

psychology. If four facts regarding the product must be stated, there

should be a rather definite pattern for presenting those four facts,

free from obscuring data, so that the absence of any essential declaration will be noticed. Any departure from a legally defined standard

of identity should be indicated in a specially^ allocated label space and

in prescribed terms. The relative prominence of essential data

should be definitely fixed. When the consumer can see that there is consistency and uniformity in presenting the terms and definitions

by wliich the merits of competing products may be judged, she will

become a discriminating buyer and the merchants seeking her favor

will not risk offending her by inadequate information. When the consumer becomes better accustomed to the standardization of

packaged goods, the packer will have less excuse for odd sizes and
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 125 more regard for the economies and other rewards of the pohcy of standardization.

The Acting Chairman. Thank you, very much, Mr. Cosby.

Mr. Boyle. Mr. Chairman, I would hke to ask the last speaker if there is any attempt to regulate the labeling of quantity. Frequently

you will see a statement of ''average weight, 8 ounces," or ''not less than 8 ounces," or "not less than 8 ounces when packed." I have

here a label from bread, which reads: "net weight 15 ounces, or less."- What does that label mean?

Mr. Cosby. I will not undertake to answer for the producer of the

product. The label manufacturer takes his orders from his customers

and does not inquire as to the honesty of the weight declaration, or matters of that sort. That question probably should be directed to the producer of the product rather than to the label manufacturer.

GENERAL DISCUSSION OF REPORT OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

Mr. BussEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that

the report of the Committee be adopted and approved and that the

present Com^mittee be continued with such changes in the personnel

thereof as the President of the Conference deems necessary, the Committee to confer with the different branches of the industry for the

purpose of working out and seeking the introduction of necessary legislation pertaining to standardization of package comanodities, as outlined in the Committee report.

Mr. Levitt. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pisciotta and his Committee

spent a great deal of time on this matter and are to be congratulated on the wonderful job they have done. I realize toda^^ there have been some matters put forward that ^vill probably need some further consideration and discussion. However, I think this is one of the most

progressive steps that has been made by the Conference, and while I have not gone into it personally, I am satisfied to take their views in

this matter. I want to second the motion as put by Mr. Bussey, of

Texas, for the adoption of the report and the continuation of the

Committee, and for their meeting with these various people, so that

the differences that have arisen can be settled and adjusted.

Mr. J. G. KoGERs. Gentlemen, I have sat here this afternoon and

listened to all the ramifications of this subject. I think in principle we are all in agreement with what the Committee is trying to do. But

the subject is replete with technicalities and there is danger in moving

too fast. I am thoroughly in accord with the thought that there

have been abuses in the package packing industry. However, the

packing industry has its problems, too, undoubtedly, and we have to approach this subject in a common-sense manner.

This report provides for standardization by weight. I believe the

experts who appeared here this afternoon have definitely shown that

if you do that you are going to get into thousands of sizes of containers.

In New Jersey we tried to approach a problem of coordinating

weight and volume and found our snags there. We found that there were 50 different grades of apples, all weighing differently, and that

to arbitrarily set one weight for a bushel of apples was out of the

question. And we found the same commodities grown in different

States will vary in weight. Therefore, in the packaging of viscous

and semisolid foods especially, you will have different densities, and

other factors enter into it, so that in different States different sized
126 NATIONAL, BUREAU OF STANDARDS

cans must be provided to contain a pound of the same commodity.

Also you have different recipes in the industry, which result in different

viscosities and densities, and which again cause differences in the size of containers to contain the same weight.

I was very gratified to hear this afternoon a member of one industry say he refused to make a false container. We have found

whisky bottles made up as pints, although they contained only 14 ounces. When I made a statement to that effect on this floor, I was

challenged, and it was said that no member of the industry would make

up and falsely label a bottle like that. I wonder if the label manufacturers have given us the cooperation they should and could have

done. You fellows have run across markings you need a magnifying

glass to read. Those things are things that can be corrected. The

ethics of the manufacturers should be raised so that they will not put some of those things on the market. But when you get to canned

products, you face a big problem, and as I grow older, I am a little more hesitant to jump into these things.

Gentlemen, I think a very splendid effort has been made here to develop this subject, to show what is wrong, and what we might be

able to do. Perhaps we will have to break down this situation into

certain commodities that will lend themselves to sale by weight, as against others which should be standardized by volume.

I think the Committee should be continued, because it has done

such splendid work, Mr. Pisciotta particularly. I don't believe anybody in the country has ever before made such an extensive study as

this. But I think there should be even more study and that the

Committee should find out if they can really go through with the

recommendations in this report which, as I see it, is very arbitrary in

recommending something which may not, in effect, work out. It seems almost impossible for the various container manufacturers to meet this, without putting on the market such a multitudinous number

of sizes that the same confusion would exist that we encounter at present.

I am wondering whether all of this hasn't been considered in a very

able fashion by the Food and Drug Administration in the Department

of Agriculture. Surely they must have encountered these things in

their experiences through the years. I don't know whether they have

been hesitant about approaching standardization or whether they

have just chosen the easier way, in advocating that there be a statement

of contents on the food package and that everybody shall be guided

by that. It is a question, of course, whether we can protect the cus- tomer against himself. The average American today has education

enough to be able to read and understand a label on the package, if that label is the proper kind of a label. Perhaps, after all, if industry

knows what we want, it may clean its own house so that we can get

somewhere without an upheaval, which is a thing to avoid.

Have we gone far enough to put these recommendations in a bill before Congress? May not various experts come in and show the

impracticability of the plan and demonstrate that it is something

which cannot be accomplished? Mr. Pisciotta and his Committee

describe what they believe is a simple solution. But I think it has

been developed here this afternoon that the problem is not an easy one to solve, that we still have some distance to go yet before you can

confidently prescribe the remedy. I think the Committee should by
TWENTY-^TINTH COIS-FERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 127

all means be continued, in order to contact other industries. No doubt

the Committee has done much along this line, but possibly some new

thoughts may have been developed today. For these reasons, I shall oppose the motion as it stands, to adopt and approve the present

report.

(As an amendment to the motion to adopt the report, a motion was made and

seconded that the report be laid on the table but that the Committee be continued and report back to the Conference at some future date.) Mr. Levitt. Mr. Chairman, the Food and Drug Act has been mentioned in the debate. You and I know that this act relates primarily

to quality. Why should weights and measures departments sit back

and rely on that act to regulate quantities. If we can handle the

quantitative end, let us do so. I think the original motion covers the situation; the Committee is to confer with these gentlemen and reach some agreement. If we

table this motion, we will just be putting it off another year and we

won't be accomplishing anytliing.

Mr. J. G. KoGERS. The recommendations in that report are what

will be tabled. If the matter be referred back to a committee with

instructions to work it out with the various members of the industries

affected, that will put the Conference on record as not taking an arbitrary action. The original motion provides for definite approval of

everything in the Committee recommendations, although it has been

shown here this afternoon that they cannot be carried out.

(A motion was made and seconded to table the amendment.)

The Acting Chairman. We are voting on the motion to table the

amendment.

(The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.) Mr. AcKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, speaking on the original motion,

I am in favor of the Committee report. A feviT moments ago a representative of a can company stated that this company would not manufacture a depressed lid to make a gallon can short 8 cubic inches. I want to tell you I have three cans with the label of that company on

them. They were measured yesterday by the National Bureau of

Standards; one of them is 8.6, another is 4.7, and the third 6.2 cubic

inches short.

Again, I may say that, through the help of Mr. O'Keefe, we learned

last summer, that there was a carload of salad dressing coming to Minneapolis, short weight. When we investigated, we found glass

containers which had ''one quart" blown in the glass, although the

bottles would hold this amount only when filled to the overflow point.

If you will permit me, I will read from an article published in a Minneapolis newspaper:

There no longer is misrepresentation, but the elements of *'sham" and optical

illusion are still present, and not even the glass manufacturer pretends they are

not. In fact, he makes a definite point of it. Here are some sample descriptions

in the catalog of one manufacturer:

* pride of all glasses. Thin-blown, heavy sham-bottom crystal

glasses. Appears two ounces larger than other heights. The ideal glass for beer

service. The *'* * a concave heavy sham-bottom, thin-blown glass. Has very

fine quality appearance. Looks extra big because of its heavy bottom.

New tall whiskey glass. A fine quality thin-blown clear crystal glass with triple

sham-bottom. Looks exceptionally large, but holds only regular whisky serving.
128 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Popular whisky glass, heavy pressed. Wide, high-cut flutes shammed, looks

large.

The * *"_beer mug is made of best-quality glass, full finished with extra- heavy bottom. Large strong handle. Looks large for its capacity.

Deluxe beer stein, made of best quality glass, fineh/ finished with smooth top

and bottom. Has a large, strong handle. Shammed to make it appear large

for its capacity.

And so on and on—for the brimming glass or mug that slides across the bar. The eyes see a lot more than the mouth receives. And if the psychologists took

to drinking, what a lot of deductions they could make on optico-mental illus- ions—deductions with v/hat a powerful kick. Inasmucil as some glass manufacturers do not hestitate to come

out and print phony descriptions in the catalogs and to educate the

dealers how to sham and pretend, I think it is high time we adopt the

Committee's report.

Mr. TouKTELLOT. Mr. Chairman, I would regard it as a cooperative

act if my friend who has just spoken would let me have a sample of

the can of which mention was just made, so that we can run down and

stop anything of that nature. I have just completed an investigation that I thought was thorough, of the manufacture of oyster cans

all over the country, and I am not aware of any such condition as he

cites. But if it exists, I promise you it will be rectified. Mr. Kanzer. I want to put myself on record as approving and

commending the report. On the basis of what we heard Mr. Campbell say there need be no hesitation with reference to the capacity basis

for liquids: this opened the door completely for 100-percent approval

for standard containers for liquids. My friend Joe Rogers thinks that

there are considerations wliich might make us hesitate with reference

to the weight basis. However, this motion distmctly provides that

the Committee will further confer with the industry. The principle

is correct and the report is correct, and I think it should be adopted.

(The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.) (At this point, at 5:10 p. m., the Conference adjourned to meet at 9:30 a. m,, Friday, June 9, 1939.)
SEVENTH SESSION—MORNING OF FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1939

(The Conference reassembled at 9:54 a. m., at the Washington Hotel; Charles

C- Read, Vice President of the Conference, in the chair.) SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS

AND TOLERANCES, PRESENTED BY JOHN P. McBRIDE, AND

DISCUSSION THEREON

At the session on Wednesday morning, there was referred back to your Committee, Specification No. 5 under the heading ''Vehicle

Tanks," with instructions that your Committee give this matter

further consideration and report back a rei^ised wording this morning.

Accordmgiy, your Committee has reviewed the matter and now

recommends for adoption by the Conference the following:

5. Fill Openings and Indicators.—The fill opening shall be of such size that

it can readily be determined whether or not the compartment has been properlyfilled or completely emptied, a.s the case may be, and that the attachment of the

seal can be readily accomplished when such sealing is required by the terms of

this specification: Provided, however, That if the fill operdng is circular its effective diameter shall in no case be less than 7% inches, or if other than circular, it shall have an effective area of not less than J^o square inches. An indicator shall be pro- vided v/ithin the fill opening of each compartment; this indicator shall he permanently attached and shall be located approximately midway between the ends of the compartment. The indicator shall be so designed that it will clearly, dis- tinctly, and unmistakably define the height to which the compartment must be

filled in order to contain its marked capacity, and the change in height of the liquid surface at the index of the indicator equivalent to the volume representing the tolerance on the compartment capacity, shall in no case he less than 0.04 inch. An adjustable

indicator and any removable part to which any indicator may be attached shall be so constructed that it or they can be sealed in place in such a manner that

their position cannot be changed or that they cannot be removed "vmhout destroying or m_utilating the seal or seals. (Signed) F. S. Holbrook, chairman,

Charles M. Fuller,

Joseph G. Rogers,

John P. McBride,

George F. Austin, Jr., Committee on Specifications and Tolerances. Mr. McBeide. The present proposal changes the minimum effec- tive diameter of the fill opening to 7% inches (nominal 8 inches) and

provides for an effective area of not less than 45 inches in the case of an opening which is other than circula,r. The provision contained in

the original recommendation in regard to the additional indicator has

been deleted. We feel that this is a matter v/hich might bear further

investigation.

Mr. Rogers. I move the adoption of the report.

(The motion yvslb seconded.)

Mr. Crockett. If the Conference vvill bear ^\ith me, I would like to read from a letter which I have just received from my Chief,

S. T. Griffith, as follows: [Reading:]

Mr. Chairman and members of the Conference: There is one thing in v/eights

and measures work which I am certain that everj^one is 100 percent agreed on, and that is this: The first and prime duty of everyone is to provide facilities for the detection of the perpetration of fraud, and that is the basic foundation of all weights and measures work and in everything that we do. 188876—40—10 129
130 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Now, then, you will understand that no aspersions are cast on any company

or manufacturer, and no personalities are affected, but I ask you what size opening

looks best, and as a weights and measures official doing his work, I ask you which

looks best, the large 10-inch opening or the small 5%-inch? Everyone who has

worked in calibration of compartments of tank trucks—and the average number

is four to each truck—will surely agree that it is almost always necessary to use both hands to seal the markers properly and accurately. Which opening will permit proper inspection, the little opening or the 10-inch? Gentlemen, there is no reason that we should change the 10-inch minimum

specification. It is not retroactive as of last year; the old trucks were calibrated and used before the effective date of last year, and they are passed and in use. The effective date was September 1 of last year. The tank-truck manufacturers

have been making 10-inch openings since last year, and there are no extra costs involved, and everyone seems to be happy now. Why change something good for something bad? Don^t make a step backward;

keep on progressing. The 10-inch minimum-fill opening is an established fact and fair. Gentlemen, Captain GrifBtli asks you to defeat the little 5%-inch

opening, and I urge you to vote ''no change," please.

Mr. McBkide. May I make it clear that the Committee has

recommended that the minimum-fill opening be 7% inches; the Captain

is discussing the 5%-inch opening.

Mr. Crockett. I understand that, and of course he did not know

what the recommendation of the Committee was going to be, but,

gentlemen, we showed you the two pieces of cardboard up at the

National Bureau of Standards, and would any of you gentlemen here

suggest for a 1,500-gallon truck using bunker steel, an 8-inch opening?

How is the man going to inspect the inside of that tank truck, as we

do in Baltimore? Bricks and cans and so forth can be inserted and

taken out at will by a piece of wire. As the Captain said, this is not

retroactive, and how many of you gentlemen have seen a new tank

truck with a 5%-inch opening since this went into effect? Mr. Fuller. We have seen quite a few; I am referring to the small

compartments.

Mr. Crockett. I cast no aspersions on anybody, especially the

Committee, who has done wonderful work in the past. They have

brought out some wordmgs that I have studied for 2 weeks, and I

still don't know much more about them than when I started. But I do know something about them as a general thing, and they have

done wonderful work.

Has that part of the original amendment proposed been deleted,

which read, "This specification is not to be construed to prohibit the

installation of an additional indicator," etc.? Mr. McBride. That has been deleted.

Mr. Crockett. I have changed my mind on that. Tliis double

indicator has got to come. If you put a double indicator in a compartment with an 8-inch opening, how are you going to get down to

seal it? Now, I am talking of the things that come to us in the city of

Baltimore. Many of the oil companies have found that the 10-inch

opening facilitated their work of loading so much that they have gone

to it voluntarily without any request on our part—that was prior to the effective date of enforcement. We have found it good, and why

should we take a step backward, which I really think personally this

present proposal is? I can show you scars and cuts on my hands where the screw thread

at the bottom has gashed or nicked them. I am speaking for the
TWENTY-NIKTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 131

man in the field who has done this work in all kinds of weather—rain,

snow, hail, sunshine, heat, and cold—and I positively know that you

can do better work with a 10-inch opening than wdth any other opening

of a smaller size. Mr. Jensen. I would like to inform this Conference that the com- pany which is the predominant manufacturer of tanks in the entire

Northwest, has been manufacturing their tanks in the last 2 years with

the 10-inch opening, voluntarily complying with the recommendations

of the North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin departments, and

others. That is also true in other western States. We are glad to get away from the smaller openings.

Mr. Fuller. I merely wish to submit that we have eliminated that

small size which you considered objectional, and that we have met

the proposition by what I believe is a happy compromise, which is the true spirit of Democracy. We don't say that we shall have an

8-inch or a 10-inch opening; we say that it shall not be less than 8

inches in diameter. We have some tank wagons with small compartments, and it would be impossible to equip them with 10-inch

openings.

Mr. Davis. I have an objection to reducing the size of openings in

tank trucks. I think now that a 10-inch opening is small enough.

However, for the sake of harmony, I am very willing to give in to the

ideas of this Committee, who I knov7 have labored hard and long on

it. I am going to favor the report of the Committee.

Mr. McBride. If I may, gentlemen, I would like to suggest that it

is required by this specification that the fill-opening shall be of such

size that it can be readily determined whether or not the compartment

has been properly filled or completely emptied, and that the attachment of the seal can be readily accomplished. Those conditions must

prevail. A 10-inch opening is possible, or a larger opening is possible,

according to the exigencies of the situation, as it presents itself. This is only a specified minimum.

Mr. Kanzer. I will take the word of the Committee that that is the correct solution; I will not gainsay the size of the opening. I assume that it will be all right, and I am not interested in that at this

time. But I am interested in the wording with reference to determining the change in the height of the liquid surface at the index of the indicator, equivalent to the volume representing the tolerance on

the compartment, which shall in no case be less than 0.04 inch.

I am not an expert on the other part, but I tbink that I can claim some little experience and knowledge on this, since I don't know

anybody in this room or elsewhere who can determine this variation

of 0.04 of an inch in that opening. This requires the use by the

inspector of a steel scale. I don't know of any wooden or any other

type of scale that he can use. I don't think it is necessary to equip

him with that scale; I think it is absurd. In the ultimate sense it will be a case of using his own judgment as to whether the change is distinguishable by him. If it is discernible by him, it makes no dif- ference if it is 0.04 of an inch, or any other fraction. The important

part is whether he can determine compliance with tolerance. We

should not saddle upon liim the job of determining 0.04 of an inch up

there on top of that tank.

Mr. Ragland. A few years ago, I ofi^ered the amendment for a 10- inch opening, which was adopted. After going home I was called by
132 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

a Kiclimond engineer to look at a tank, and I observed that the full opening was 8 inches in diameter; the specification said that it should

be 10 inches. I went to the city attorney, and I stated the case to him. He asked me, ''Can you clearly and unmistakably determine

the height of the surface of the liquid?" I said ''Yes," and he said, "I will tell you, we won't go to court with such evidence as that. You

can see everything that you need to in an 8-inch opening." So I went to my oihce and wrote each member of the department a letter,

and I stated that I couldn't enforce this in my State. I have talked

to the judges (some of them in our city courts are schoolmates of mine)

and I am convinced that you can't go into any court that I know of

down our way and enforce a 10-inch fill opening. I have been thoroughly convinced by good, sound arguments that an 8-inch opening

is sufficient to accomplish our purpose. If my good friend in Baltimore

can't see into that tank properly, condemn it. That is the trouble

with us—v/e have got to do a tiling, and for some political or other reason we are scared to do it. We are not here to protect knuckles;

we are here to protect the public; to be fair with the manufacturer.

Mr. Engelhard. It seems to me that we have come a long way on

a compromise when we come from 5% mches to 7% inches, which is practically an 8-inch opening. It certainly does give plenty of room

for a man to put two hands into the fill opening to seal it, and it cer- tainly is sufficient to disclose whether the liquid has been completely

emptied and whether the tank has been filled up to the indicator.

We in New Jersey Imow how to figure 0.04 of an inch. For the

benefit of some who don't l-mow what 0.04 inch means, or who only

have a foot rule or other crude equipment to work with, maybe it might be a little simpler to call it a sixteenth, which is 0.0625 in. Mr. Crockett. Mr. Chairman, I was not trying to create sympathy when I spoke about my hands ; I wanted to facilitate the work

of the inspector. I guess that we are ail working on a reduced budget

and have a reduced staff. Why not make it as easy as we possiblj^ can, for a m^an doing the work? Most of the specifications and toler- ances that have been adopted by this Conference are clear-cut and

concise and don't straddle one way or the other. I call this a straddle;

it puts it up to the man doing the work whether or not the opening is large enough.

Mr. Ragland. It is immaterial to me whether any member of this

Conference considers that I am straddling. I have come to a firm,

definite understanding. If I have been misled, it is by some of my

friends at home and not b}^ members of the Conference. If I make

a mistake I come back and tell you that I made a mistake,

Mr. Kanzer. I want to m.ake an amendment to eliminate the part

that says 0.04 of an inch, and to substitute the words "shall be readOy discernible."

The Acting Chairman. Apparently the motion is not seconded.

(The specification as proposed by the Committee was duly adopted.)

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES,

PRESENTED BY JOHN P. McBRIDE, AND DISCUSSION THEREON—Continued

Mr. McBride. ^Vhen the discussion of the report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances was interrupted on Wednes-
TWE^TTY-is^INTH CONFEKENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 133

day morning, there had been read and explained ail of the detailed

recommendations of the Committee for amendments to the several

codes. As the matter terminated, no vote was taken on the amendments proposed to specifications in relation to scales, and the matter was held to give the delegates a fm^ther opportimity to study the

recommendations.

ils I miderstand it, I am expected to wait for a vote on the material

which was read on Wednesdaj^, or for any discussion you may desire

to have in relation to it. The remainder of the report is general in

its nature.

(The detailed recommendations of the Committee were duly adopted.)

Mr. McBride. Nov-, gentlemen, we will continue with the presentation of the report. [Heading:]

GENERAL RESTATEMENT OF TOLERANCES FOR

LARGE-CAPACITY SCALES

In view of statements made from time to time by some weights and measures

officials that in regard to tolerances, especially for large-capacity scales, the state- ment was not as simple as might be, and that as a result the tolerances were not

readily understandable, your Committee has been giving consideration to methods

by which this condition might be rectified. It may be said in relation to the present statement that the committee endeavored to present the material in the

smallest possible compass consistent with a full statement of requirements.

While such a method appeared to be a desirable one, nevertheless if it results in any uncertainty as to what the requirements are, it fails of its purpose, since obvi- ously clarity is the sine qua non of regulations. In the present presentation largecapacity scales of all types have been included in one class, since the basic toler- ances for all of them, are the same. These general basic tolerances have first been

stated, following which necessary qualifications for special types have been incor- porated in provisos. Your Committee has come to the conclusion that by sacrificing brevity, and by breaking down this general class of scales into several subdivisions, a more readily understandable statement of tolerances could be made.

Time has not been available as yet for your committee to do more than outline the method. On numerous occasions in the past the Conference has seen fit to entrust your Committee with the authority to revise the language of specifi- cations and tolerances vrithout changing their meaning or efiect. If the Confer- ence sees fit again to do this in relation to tolerances for large-capacity scales, the Committee will be prepared to carry out the project outlined above. In this event your Committee would be able to place this revision in your hands, shortly

after the adjournment of this meeting, in the form of revision sheets to Handbook

H22. In this way approximately a year could be saved, since the Committee

otherwise would not be able to bring in the material before the next annual meeting of the Conference. In view of the number of States which are currently

inaugurating large-capacity scale work, this saving of time seems to be especially

important.

(The Committee was duly authorized to revise the language in question.)

Mr. McBride (reading)

:

VEHICLE-SCALE TOLERANCES

Your Committee on Specifications and Tolerances has carefuUy reviewed the

present Conference tolerance for vehicle scales. As a result of this review your Committee gives its opinion that the tolerances as adopted at the Twentj^-seventh

Conference in 1937, and continued in force after exhaustive discussion at the Twenty-eighth Conference in 1938, are entirely satisfactory and should be con- tinued in force and effect without amendment.

Your Committee considers that it is unnecessary again to go into detail as to the reasons which dictate this decision. The arguments were set forth in great

detail last year and we believe that they are entirely valid. In brief, it is believed that the present tolerances will not result in passing scales which should

be condemned for inaccuracy; on the other hand, it has been demonstrated that were the tolerances amended in the manner which has been proposed, scales would
134 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

be listed as inaccurate and condemned which are entirely satisfactory from the standpoint of accuracy, and consequently owners of such scales would be unjustly

treated and subjected to unnecessary expense. Your Committee has had access to the comprehensive results procured by the National Bureau of Standards in its present investigation of the condition of vehicle scales throughout the United States. We think that these results amply

bear out the above conclusions. The weights and measures official should not be put into the position of being

forced to condemn scales which are amply accurate for commercial use. You will remember that the opponents of the present tolerance were given a

full hearing last year both by your Committee on Specifications and Tolerances and by the Conference itself. As a result of this discussion, your Committee

recommended to the Twenty-eighth Conference a modification which made the

tolerances more rigid and which, in its best judgment, effectively disposed of the arguments advanced; this recommendation was adopted by the Conference. The modification consisted in inserting in the code a new definition to be known

as A-2q, "New Scales." By its terms, scales which have been reconditioned

or overhauled, or w^hich have been condemned for repairs by a weights and measures official and subsequently adjusted or repaired shall, upon the first test thereafter, be construed to be "new" scales for the purpose of application of tolerances. This modification resulted in a reduction of tolerances on the scales in question by a minimum of 50 percent and by 75 percent in individual instances. Your Committee believes that this action on the part of the Conference will undoubtedly require competent jobs of reconditioning, overhauling, repair, and

adjustment, and will effectively prohibit inexpert or careless v/orkmanship on

the part of scale mechanics and scale shops; thus it is felt that this amendment

has effectively disposed of any valid objections to the tolerances for vehicle scales. One thing should be said about the situation, however, to clear up a misunderstanding which may exist. Some of you may have formed the opinion that the

railroads do not approve of the present tolerance on corners adopted by the National Conference. The fact is that this theory cannot be supported. The

contrary is the case. Tolerances on scales for railroad use are formulated by the subcommittee on

Scales of the Yards and Terminals Committee of the American Railway Engineering Association; the recommendations of this subcommittee are reported to the

full committee and, if found satisfactory, are published in a bulletin and cir- culated to the membership of the AREA and other properly interested parties.

They are then referred to the AREA in convention for formal action thereon. When approved by the AREA they are referred to the General Committee,

Engineering Division, AAR, and, if found to be proper, they may be eventually

officially adopted by the Association of American Railroads as such. They are then published in the "Manual," which is a publication under the joint sponsorship of the American Railway Engineering Association and of the Construction

and Maintenance Section of the Association of American Railroads. Shortly after the revision of the tolerances for vehicle scales at the Twentyseventh National Conference on Weights and Measures, the subcommittee (of the Yards and Terminals Committee) on scales revised their tolerances to agree with the Conference action. This amendment has now gone through all the steps outlined above. It has been incorporated in the Manual of Railway Engineering

and constitutes chapter 14, section 55, "Large-Capacity Scales—Tolerances,

SR Requirements, and Regulations 1938", pages 14-107. The result is that the Conference tolerances and the AAR tolerances on scales in service and newly

reconditioned scales, are now in accord. Your Committee strongly recommends that the Conference avoid any action which will upset this very desirable uniformity and that the present tolerances on

vehicle scales be continued in force and effect. SINGLE-SERVICE MEASURE CONTAINERS

Your Committee has given some consideration to the preparation of a code of specifications and tolerances on single-service measure containers, but time has not as yet been available for drafting a code for presentation to the Conference. A code on this subject will be brought forward for consideration at the next meeting

of the Conference. That, gentlemen, concludes the report of the Committee.
TWEisTY-]S"INTH CONFEEENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 135

Mr. O'Keefe. I move that the report of the Committee be adopted

as a whole.

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

to.)Mr. Crockett. Are copies of this amendment to Specification No.

5 for ''Vehicle Tanks" available?

Mr. HoLBROOK. That will be out, probably within a week, and

copies will be mailed to all of the delegates.

ABSTRACTS OF STATE REPORTS ^ ALABAMA

By R. M. Johnson, Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures, City of Birmingham

Mr. Johnson expressed regret that the State department was not

represented and that he was imable to make a report for the State. He stated that in his city the weights and measures officials were

protected by civil service rules and that weights and measures conditions were very satisfactory; especially was this the case in relation

to gasoline-measuring equipment and gasolme deliveries.

CALIFORNIA

By C, E. Tucker, Chief, State Division of Weights and Measures Mr. Tucker stated that during the year there had been enacted in

code form all of the State statutes relative to weights and measures;

only three substantive changes were included, namely, to cover conduct of a sealer before a trial board, to eliminate two-draft vehicle

weighing, and to require the sale of meat by weight. He also stated

that a new law relative to deceptive containers ^ was a most constructive and popular statute. CONNECTICUT

By C. L. Klocker, State Inspector of Weights and Measures Mr. Klocker reported the passage of a law reducing the tolerance on a ton of coal from 20 pounds to 5 pounds, a requirement believed to be rather severe. Large shortages had been discovered in the weight

of meat delivered by the wholesaler to the retailer. A bill was introduced providing that all meat be sold by net weight at the time of

sale; this bill failed of passage.

FLORIDA

By Howard E. Crawford, Inspector of Weights and Measures, City of Jacksonville Mr. Crawford reported that no effort had been made at the last session of the legislature to secure the passage of legislation providing

for a State-wide inspection of weights and measures; thus the State

still has no satisfactory law. However, he said that inspection work

was being actively prosecuted in his own city, Jacksonville, as well as

in the cities of Miami, St. Petersburg, and Tampa.

1 For convenience of reference these reports have been assembled and arranged in alphabetic order.

« See p. 9.
136 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

GEORGIA

By S. H. Wilson, State Oil Chemist

Mr.^ Wilson reported that while a bill requiring State-wide inspection

of weights and measures had failed of enactment in his State, a preliminary survey of conditions existing had recently been conducted. He described the progress being made in Atlanta by Mr.

Keed, Inspector of Weights and Measures, who had been successful in

securing the passage of satisfactory city ordinances and was building

up a splendid local department.

ILLINOIS By John J. Levitt, State Superintendent of Standards

Mr. Levitt reported that due to success which had attended the operation of the large-capacity scale testing unit procured about 2 years

ago, a new unit identical with the one in service was now being

provided. He said that an increase of $43,000 in appropriations was

also making it possible to employ six additional v/eights and measures

investigators. The State handles all inspections except in cities of

25,000 or more. INDIANA

By RoLLiN E. Meek, Chief, State Bureau of Weights and Measures Mr. Meek reported that following the work done in his State by the

National Bureau of Standards Vehicle-Scale Testing Unit, funds had

been secured for the purchase of a test truck equipped with 10,000

pounds of weights for the more adequate testing of vehicle scales. He

said that several bills introduced in the legislature, one of w^hich would

have provided for the standardization of packages, had failed of

passage.

MAINE

By James A. Boyle, Sealer of Weights and Measures, City of Portland Mr. Bo3de reported the passage of a law standardizing the number

of cubic feet in 'loads of fitted v/ood." He said that much butter

had been found to be short in weight, it being said that this was due

to lack of proper refrigeration; this difficulty was now corrected.

Sugar in paper sacks was also frequently found short this being

variouskf attributed to improper packaging machinery, shrinkage,

and rough handling.

MARYLAND

By Charles G. Crockett, Inspector of Weights and Measures, City of Baltimore

Mr. Crockett stated that there was very little weights and measures

activity throughout the State as a whole ; the report of a commission

appointed to make a survey of weights and measures had not as yet

been made public. In Baltimore a program of consumer education

had been carried on, and demonstrations and lectures in relation to weights and measures had been given before various organizations

and in the schools.

MASSACHUSETTS

By John P. McBride, State Director of Standards Mr. McBride reported the passage of legislation which merged v/ith

his Division, the Division of Necessaries of Life, having control of
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 137

food, fuel, and shelter. Another law enacted established a barrel of 31 gallons for malt beverages. He said that meat packers had

voluntarily agreed to discontinue a former practice of including in

billed weights the weight of wrappings and skewers. The question

of shrinkage was still unsolved.

MICHIGAN

By George F. Austin, Jr., Supervising Inspector of Weights and Measures, City

of Detroit Mr. Austin was not prepared to report for the State, but announced

that a recent turnover in the staff of the State Department of Agriculture doubtless was responsible in part for the absence of a representative of the State; however, four cities had officials in attendance.

He said that Glenn Davis was the new Director of the Bureau of

Foods and Standards.

MINNESOTA

By Russell S. Ackerman, Superintendent, Department of Licenses^ Weights and

Measures, City of Minneapolis

Mr, Ackerman stated that he was unable to report for the State,

but announced that Erling Hansen had recently been appointed Supervisor of the State Department of Weights and Measures. He reported

that the results of one investigation made in Minneapolis had disclosed that herring, packed in S^-pound pails, contained % pound of

vinegar and onions. This was believed to be an unreasonable percentage and the matter had been corrected.

MISSOURI

By Louis G. Waldman, Conunissioner of Weights and Measures, City of St. Louis

Mr. Waldman reported the passage of an ordinance in his city

codifying existing weights and measures laws and adding several

important sections relating to the net v/eight of package goods, the

elimination of counter scales having manually adjustable balancing

devices, the extension of the power of confiscation of false apparatus,

and the regulation of vehicle tanks. He stated that the procurement

of an adequate vehicle-scale testing equipment was under consideration.

NEVADA

By J. M. McLeod, State Inspector of Weights and Measures Mr. McLeod reported that during the last year additional equipment had been procured, notablj^ a 50-gallon testing unit for the

inspection of vehicle-tank compartments and meters, and a light

truck carrying a number of 500-pound v/eights for the more efncient

test of vehicle scales. He expressed the regrets of S. C. Dinsmore,

State Sealer, who, on account of urgent matters, was unable to be

present.

NEW JERSEY

By Charles C. Read, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures ^ Mr. Eead reported the passage of a law providing for the pension

and retirement of county weights and measures officials and outlined

« This report was presented to the Conference by Joseph G. Rogers.
138 li[ATIOITAL BUREAU OF STAK-DARDS

other features of the legislative program. He described several regulations which had been adopted providing for the obsolescence of

certain liquid-measuring devices, for the regulation of weighmasters,

for the recognition of the Northwestern apple box, and for limiting

weights of loads on wagon scales. NEW YORK

By Barnett Kanzer, Director, State Bureau of Weights and Measures Mr. Kanzer reported great success in securing the enactment of

his legislative program; a bill designed to eliminate weaknesses in

the general law of the State was passed, as were specific laws relative to the sale of ice cream and to the standardization of beer barrels. He said that, by agreements, reforms had been brought about in the

methods of sale of meat by the wholesaler, and the sale of package

goods, and of twine and cordage.

NORTH CAROLINA

By C. D. Baucom, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures Mr. Baucom reported that during the year a new 10-ton test truck

for the test of vehicle scales had been put into service; this was

operating very successfully and was unable to keep up with the requests

being made for tests. Another important piece of equipment procured was a 1,000-gallon portable test tank for the testing of largecapacity meters. He reported the passage of a weighmaster act. NORTH DAKOTA

By A. J. Jensen, Chief State Inspector of Weights and Measures Mr. Jensen reported the formation of a board to draw up a legislative program. It was decided to increase the fees charged for the

testing of apparatus, to provide a fund to be utilized in the purchase

of new apparatus and the employment of additional inspectors. The

bill failed of passage. He advocated the inauguration of a national

weights and measures radio program, which he thought would do

much to popularize the work.

OHIO

By J. C. Tinkey, Chief Deputy State Sealer Mr. Tinkey reported that a recent law requiring the testing of livestock scales four times a year was now being enforced by the weights

and measures officials with excellent results. He also mentioned a new regulation requiring the sale of dressed meat and meat products,

poultry, and fish upon a basis of weight, and of all other commodities

upon a basis of weight, measure, or count. TEXAS

By W. S. BussEY, Chief, State Weights and Measures Division Mr. Bussey stated that the Division had procured a 100-gallon test measure for the testing of wholesale meters; a portable cotton- reweighing outfit had also been secured and put into use, and this

had proved to be of such great value to the cotton farmers that it
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 139

was decided to purchase a second one to handle the situation adequately. He reported the creation of a new city department in

Waco.

VERMONT

By H. N. Davis, Deputy State Commissioner of Weights and Measures Mr. Davis reported an appropriation for the purchase of an adequate vehicle-scale testing equipment. He said that the results of

inspections of vehicle scales made in the State by the National Bureau

of Standards had made it possible to secure this. He reported

amendments to the coal law allowing loads to be weighed in adjoming States under certain conditions, and to the law relating to the scaling of logs, recognizing both the International and the

Vermont rules. VIRGINIA

By M. A. HuBBAED, State Supervisor of Weights and Measures Mr. Hubbard reported that the Division had procured an additional 5,000 pounds of test weights to the end that vehicle scales

might be more adequately tested. He also said that the weights and

measures schools, sponsored by the League of Virginia Municipalities

and held annually, had done much toward arousing interest, improving conditions, and bringing about a more uniform interpretation and

application of requirements throughout the State. WEST VIRGINIA

By S. M. Miller, State Scale Inspector

Mr. Miller announced with the deepest regret the recent death of

C. L. Jarrett, State Commissioner of Weights and Measures. He

reported the condition of vehicle scales found by the National Bureau

of Standards testing unit and noted greatly improved conditions re- sulting, since many scales had been replaced, overhauled, or their use abandoned. Efforts were being made to procure an adequate

State-owned vehicle-scale testing equipment.

WISCONSIN

By Louis E. Witt, Sealer of Weights and Measures, City of Milwaukee

Mr. Witt said that he was not in a position to report for the State,

but that an impression that seemed to exist among members of the

Conference that George Warner was no longer Chief State Inspector

of Weights and Measures was not correct. Eeorganization legislation had at one time resulted in his transfer to another department,

but this action had been rescinded and the work was functioning as

heretofore.

NEW YORK CITY*

By Alex Pisciotta, Director, Bureau of Weights and Measures, City of New York

Mr. Pisciotta reported that he had found it very helpful in the

solution of problems to hold frequent conferences with weights and

measures officials of his own and adjoining States, since, when a consensus was reached upon matters affecting industry, it would then be

* Mr. Pisciotta made this report at the invitation of the Acting Chairman.
140 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

apparent that the decision was concurred in by several jurisdictions

and was not that of New York City alone.

Secretary's Note.—During the presentation of the State reports B. W.

Ragland, Vice President of the Conference, assumed the chair. REPORTS OF REPRESENTATIVES OF STATE ASSOCIATIONS OF

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES OFFICIALS

At this point brief reports of the activities of State associations were presented as follows:

California Sealers' Association, Charles M. Fuller, Sealer of Weights

and. Aleasures, Los Angeles County.

Indiana Association of Inspectors of Weights and Measures, A. Edward Snyder, Inspector of Weights and Measures, city of Terra

Haute.

Massachusetts Association of Sealers of Weights and Measures,

William Bradlejj, State Inspector of Standards.

New Jersey Association of Weights and Measures, Joseph G. Kogers,

Assistant State Superintendent of Weights and Measures.

Texas Weights and Measures Association, R. L. Fulien, Chief, Division of Weights and Measures, city of Dallas.

Virginia Weights and Measures Association, B. W. Ragland, Chief,

Bureau of Weights and Measures, city of Richmond.

(At this point Howard E. Crawford, Vice President of the Conference,

assumed the chair.) MOTION TO RECONSIDER ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATION OF

COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES IN RELATION TO TOLERANCES FOR VEHICLE SCALES

Mr, BussEY. In considering the report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances this morning, we adopted a recommendation

of the Committee by instructing them to rev/ord the section on toler- ances for large-capacity scales. At the same time we adopted the

recommendations of the Committee that the present tolerances on

vehicle scales be continued in force and effect. It appears to me that since the Committee is to redraft the wording

of the tolerances for large-capacity scales, including vehicle scales,

this matter should be given serious consideration and it should be put

in a form that will be acceptable to a large majority of jurisdictions over the country. There are certain provisions in the tolerances that

are not acceptable, and never will be acceptable, to many jurisdictions.

Therefore, I would like at this time to move that we reconsider our

action on that portion of the Committee report, which refers to tolerances on vehicle scales. (The motion v/as seconded.)

Mr. J. G. Rogers. Of all the steam-roller politics I have ever seen

here, this is the limit. This is certahilj^ no time to biing up that

subject for reconsideration. These men know it. You had your

opportunity here this morning when that came before us, and we

anticipated that there would be discussion on it. It seems to have

become highly controversial, and in view of that, I believe that every

member of this Conference should have an opportunity to listen to the

discussion and to vote upon it. In a sense of fairness to the delegates
TWENTY-mNTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 141

^^ho have had to return home, we should certainly not consider this now.

Personally, I think it is a tempest in a teapot, for the reason that

there is no increase in the tolerances. The men who have been sold on the idea, possible do not understand it; they have not given it study to find out whether there is anything dangerous in it. There is nothing dangerous in it, otherwise I can assure you that the

State of New Jersey would not back it. We have just spent a lot of

time and labor going over the heavy-scale situation. You have got

flexibility in what the Committee proposes, and you are not increasing

your two-tenths of 1 percent on the end of the scales. You are just

liberalizing to the extent that you will allow a four-tenths of 1 percent

error on one corner of a vehicle scale, v/hen the opposite corner has

such an error that the regular tolerance on the end is not exceeded.

Certainly w^e must consider the practical application of the test methods that are applied by v/eights and measures officials. I have known the weights and m^easures fraternity in the many years

during which I have been afiiiiated v/ith it, and it has always had the

characteristic of using common sense. We certainly have never been

putting ourselves in the position of being a nuisance to merchants and

those people whom we have to go out and regulate. Now, this thing

that you want to do is just simply definitely placing a penalty on a man

whose scale may be all right.

The trouble of it is that it has become beclouded with a lot of in- sidious propaganda—that is about all it amounts to—and there may

be subtle purposes in back of it. I am positivel}^ and emphatically

opposed to a reconsideration of this subject at this particular time.

If you gentlemen want to bring this up again next year, all well and

good, but this is no time to do it in the absence of so many of our

delegates.

Mr. Austin. This brings out what I had to say in my remarks on

Tuesday, when I warned this body about insidious propaganda and

unfair tactics. This matter is being brought up by a very small minority of our organization, backed by a body of scale inspectors and

repairmen.

Mr. Baucom. I do not know what the proposed amendment is. We are arguing and discussing something that has been adopted.

The introducer of this motion may offer an amxcndment or he may

not—I have not seen anything of the kmd. I merely ask that it be

reopened. I do not know whether we would object to the amendment

or not, but I think that w^e ought to see what it is that he proposes.

Mr. McBride. I think that above everything else we should be

honest. The report of the Committee was presented in detail, and

there was no haste, certainly by me; I waited for discussion v/hen the

matter was presented and none cam.e. I don't know what the

strategy is, but certainly these gentlemen who propose this reconsideration waited until some of the fellows had gone home. Wliatever

their proposition is, surely it cannot come before the whole body, and

I hope that we will not vote for reconsideration.

Mr. Levitt. The reason that we did not bring it up before, when

Mr. McBride read it, was that some of us who are interested in this

proposition felt that we would put this in as a resolution. The body

here authorized the Committee to rewrite those tolerances so that they

could be intelligently read and intelhgentty interpreted. Our in-
142 NATIOIsTAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

tention is to incorporate an amendment, so that while you are rewritin?^

it you can also include that.

Now, with reference to some remarks about a small minority.

During this convention it has been said, at least by inference, that

everybody is in favor of the present tolerances; I have heard different ones refer to that, and to the AREA. I do not know what the AREA

is, and while I know it is the American R-aiiway Engineering Association, I think that they represent a very sm.all minority of the people

interested in weighing. You never heard them say what the National

Scale Men's Association thinks of it, and you have not heard any of

them say what the Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau says

about it. Those people feel as we do about it. I will be glad to put

the proposition to your Committee this way—send out a questionnaire

to every State official and every member of this organization, and let them answer it in writing: then be governed by the majority opinion.

You can do that if you think that we are tr^ang to put something over. No one is trying to put anything over, but I do not believe in increasing

the tolerance to four-tenths, and I do not believe in camouflaging it so that you do not know v/hat you are doing, and that is exactly the

way it is written now. We brought this up last year, and we made a motion on the floor to refer it to the Committee, and I do not Imow

whether they considered it or not. Mr. Boyle. In fairness to the delegates who w^ere here when the

report was adopted and who have now gone home, thinking that this

matter was settled, I move that the motion be laid on the table. (The motion was seconded and the question was taken, by voice vote.) The Acting Chairman. It is carried.

Mr. Levitt. I would like to have a roll-call vote on that motion.

The Acting Chairman. Let us have a standing vote; will that be

satisfactory to you?

(The question was taken by standing vote, 26 voting in favor of the motion

and 9 voting against it; thus the matter was laid upon the table.) Mr. PisciOTTA. Ma3^ I now move that the suggestion of Mr.

Levitt be followed, that the Committee send out a questionnaire, so that there will be no question about what the people in this Conference really want. We will have the answers long before the

time of the next Conference next year. (The motion was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion

agreed to.) Mr. Snyder. I do not think that there is anyone here who could

have been more confused than I was in relation to these tolerances.

I believe that if you men could get the picture that I have gotten,

from talking to nearly everybody here, you would understand the

tolerance as set up.

I am not inferring that I am any more intelligent than you gentlemen, but I am saying that only with an intelligent understanding can we inspectors out in the various cities and counties and States answer a questionnaire properly. I would be willing, if the gentlemen present want me to do so, to explain how I reached my conclusions ^ and to explain the tolerances to you graphically on the

board, since I feel that I do have an understanding that I did not

have prior to this time. It is not a picture that cannot be imderstood. I wish that I knew whether you wanted me to go ahead.
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 143

The Acting Chairman. I am very much, in sym^pathy with what

you have suggested, but the program is dragging out and we will lose our audience if we do not get along here.

Mr. TwYFORD. I suggest that we have the report of the Nominating Committee.

(At this point, Lyman J. Briggs, President of the Conference, assumed the

chair.) The Chairman. If there is no objection, we will now have the

report of the Committee on Nominations.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON NOMINATIONS, PRESENTED BY

ROLLIN E. MEEK, CHAIRMAN, AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS

Mr. Chairman and members of the Conference, your Committee

on Nominations desires to submit the following nominations:

For President, Dr. Lyman J. Briggs; Vice Presidents, H. N. Davis,

A. J. Jensen, Charles C. Kead, C. E. Tucker, James O'Keefe, Alex

Pisciotta; Secretary, F. S. Holbrook; Treasurer, George F. Austin, Jr. For members of the Executive Committee, the officers, ex officio,

and the following: Russell S. Ackerman, C. D. Baucom, W. S. Bussey, Howard E. Crawford, S. T. Griffith, William A. Jones, C. L. Klocker, John P. McBride, Pvolhn E. Meek, W. P. Reed, George M.

Roberts, Irvin R. Shultz, J. C. Tinkey, H. G. Twyford, Louis G.

Waldman, Tom Webb.

(Signed) Rollin E, Meek, Indiana, chairman.

James A. Boyle, Portland, Maine.

J, C. Tinkey, Ohio.

L. G. Waldman, St. Louis, Mo.

Chas. C. Read, Nev/ Jersey. M. A. Hubbard, Virginia.

Committee on Nominations.

(It was moved and seconded that the report be adopted, the question was

taken, and the motion was agreed to. Accordingly, the gentlemen nominated

by the Committee on Nominations were duly elected to the respective offices.) REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS, PRESENTED BY V7. S. BUSSEY, CHAIRMAN, AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS

APPRECIATION TO DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF THE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Whereas Dr. Lyman J. Briggs, F. S. Holbrook, R. W. Smith, and their able and efficient staff have extended valuable assistance and guidance to this Conference, of which the Conference is highly appreciative: Therefore be it Resolved, That this, the Twenty-ninth National Conference on Weights and

Measures, does hereby record its grateful appreciation to the above-named

gentlemen.

APPRECIATION TO MANAGEMENT OF HEADQUARTERS HOTEL

Whereas the management of the Hotel Washington has done everything within

its power to make our present meeting the success which it has been: Therefore be it Resolved, That this, the Twenty-ninth National Conference on Weights and

Measures assembled at the Hotel Washington this 9th day of June 1939, does

express its warmest appreciation and thanks to the management of the said hotel

for the careful provisions made for our meeting; and be it further

Resolved, That the secretary of the Conference be instructed to transmit a

copy of this resolution to the management of the Hotel Washington.

APPRECIATION TO THE SCALE JOURNAL

Whereas the Scale Journal has been generous in carrying complete reports of preceding meetings of this Conference and also in giving advance notices of our

present meeting: Therefore be it
144 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Resolved, That this, the Twenty-ninth National Conference on Weights and

Measures, does hereby record its appreciation to the Scale Journal. APPRECIATION OF COOPERATION

Whereas the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey has been generous in the displaying

of^'the motion picture, "News in the Air": Therefore be it Resolved, That the Twenty-ninth National Conference on Weights and Measures

hereby records this expression of sincere thanks and appreciation for their co- operation, and to Mr. J. W. Saybolt for its introduction. APPRECIATION TO OFFICIALS COOPERATING

Whereas the Governors and the county and city officials of the various States' through their manifest interest in weights and measures work, have made it possible for their respective jurisdictions to be represented at this, the Twentyninth National Conference on Weights and Measures; and

Whereas such cooperation and attendance have in a most practical way fur- thered uniformity in regulations for the various jurisdictions and have otherwise

assisted the general good of the M^ork; Therefore be it Resolved, That this, the Twenty-ninth National Conference on Weights and

Measures, does appreciate such practical cooperation and does make this reso- lution a part of the record of its meeting. IN MEMORY OF C. J. P. CULLEN

Whereas during the^past year we have lost through the plan of Divine Provi- dence a very active member of this Conference, C. J. P. CuUen, who was past

Vice President and a member of the Executive Committee of the Conference; and

Whereas our association with Mr. CuUen has been an inspiration to us and

because of his absence from us we are deeply bereaved and will always be conscious

of his helpful influence on all occasions. Men of his character have been ex- ceptional in our fieM, and we will always be ever mindful of what he has contriDuted in our behalf: Therefore be it Resolved, That we, of the Twenty-ninth National Conference on Weights and

Measures, hereby record this expression of sincere sorrow^ at the loss of this member; and be it further

Resolved, That the secretary of the Conference be instructed to transmit a copy

of this resolution to the family of Mr. CuUen. IN MEMORY OF CLARENCE L. JARRETT

Whereas by the death of Clarence L. Jarrett, this National Conference on

Weights and Measures has lost one of its valued members; and

Whereas our associations with Mr. Jarrett have always been most pleasant ones and we feel that in his passing w^e have lost a true friend: Therefore be it Resolved, That we, of the Twenty-ninth National Conference on Weights and

Measures, hereby record this expression of sincere sorrow at the loss of this member; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Conference be instructed to transmit a copy

of this resolution to the family of Mr, Jarrett. IN MEMORY OF DECEASED MEMBERS

Whereas during the past year we have lost through the plan of Divine Provi- dence several members of this Conference; and

Whereas our association with these departed members has been an inspiration

to us to continue with greater determination toward the ideals set by them:

Therefore be it Resolved, That we, of the Twenty-ninth National Conference on Weights and

Measures, hereby record this expression of sincere sorrov>^ at the loss of these members.

APPROPRIATION FOR NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Whereas it is acknowledged that the National Bureau of Standards is a great

contributing factor to efficient weights and measures law enforcement and con- sumer protection, and by its advice, counsel, and cooperation has become in- dispensable to this service, and that a great need exists to continue this cooperative

service, particularly the travel features: Therefore be it
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 145

Resolved, That tliis Conference liereby expresses itself as desirous of these

services and authorizes the Committee On Proposed Federal Legislation To

Provide Assistance For The States In Administration Of Weights And Measures Laws to take appropriate action to secure for the Xational Bureau of Standards an appropriation sufficient to accomplish the aforesaid service of travel, of repre- sentation of the National Bureau of Standards at State meetings, of the travel of testing equipments, and of necessary research work.

REGRET AT ABSENCE OF CAPT. S. T. GRIFFITH

Whereas Capt. S. T. Griffith, Chief of the Bureau of Weights and Measures

of Baltimore, Md., has been a regular attendant and faithful v\'orker in this Conference for many years ; and

Whereas ill health has jDrevented his presence upon this occasion: Therefore be it Resolved, That we, of the Twenty-ninth National Conference on Weights and

Measures express our sincere regrel at Capt. Griffith's absence and our earnest hope for his speedy recovery; and be it further

Resolved, That this resolution be made a part of the record of this Conference

and that a copj'' of same be forwarded to Capt. S. T. Griffith. COIVIMITTEE ON PUBLICITY AND EDUCATION

Whereas we all recognize the value of publicity and education in weights and

measures administrative work, and

Whereas it is apparent that some of the benefxt^ of this important annual

Weights and Measures Conference are lost as a result of not being publicized

properly at the tinie of these annual meetings: Therefore, be it Resolved, That we, the members of this Tvrenty-ninth National Conference on

Weights and Measures in Yv^ashington assembled June 6, 1939, do adopt this resolution requesting the President of the Conference, Dr. Lyman J. Briggs, to appoint a Publicity and Educational Committee of not less than five members

to serve during the coming year and to cover the next annual Conference; a particular duty of this Committee would be to receive, arrange, and disseminate to the members of the Conference, material which it may receive during the year as

to radio and other educational work, and one member of such Committee will be

selected from the Weights and Measures Division of the National Bureau of Standards.

(Signed) W. S. Btjssey, Texas, chairman.

A, J. Jensen, North Dakota.

Tom Webb, Nashville, Tenn.

Mrs. Clark McQuilkin, East Chicago, Ind. H. N. Davis, Vermont.

V, Bruschi, Jr.. San Diego Co., Calif.

J. M. McLeod, 'Nevada.

Committee on Resolutions.. (The report as presented by the Committee was duly adopted.)

ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION

Mr. BussEY. There is one otlier matter that was submitted to the

chairman of the Committee on Resokitions, but too late for it to be

considered by the Committee. My personal opinion is that it is of

such an important nature that it would probably be a good idea to have it brought up from the floor, so I would like to ask Mr.

Baucom and Mr. Pisciotta to explain this matter to you and submit

it for your further consideration and action.

Mr. Baucom. We will try to present this real quickly. We know

that there are many bills being introduced into Congress which

authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to do certain types of weights

and measures work. An example is a bill here, which pro^ddes that

the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary, shall establish tolerances, and so forth,

and it gives him plenty of money to carry out the act. We feel that

such work should be done in cooperation mtli the weights and measures departments, v/here such exist. 188876—40 11
146 2s^ATI0^^AL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Now, I feel tliat in tliis particulai' bill it ought to be written that

in carrying out the purposes of this act the Secretary of Agriculture

is authorized to and shall cooperate with the State, county, and

municipal weight and measure authorities. I just want it to be tied

in definitely that he take it up with the weights and measures departments first, and then if he does not get the results that he wants, he

can go ahead as he would naturally.

Mr. PisciOTTA. My resolution is intended to cover questions of

that kind. I will read the resolution. [Reading:]

Resolved, That a legislative committee of this Conference be appointed by

the President of the Conference, for the purpose of keeping in close touch with

all pending legislation as it is introduced in the Congress, which would affect in any manner the work and duties of the weights and measures officials throughout

the country, and that this Committee procure copies of such bills to make a study of same, and to forward sufficient copies to members of this Conference

with comments and recommendations, and to appear on behalf of this Confer- ence at any hearings of the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the Congress, and of other boards, departments, or bureaus, alTecting the work

of weights and measures.

I think we ought to have a committee of this Conference who will continually keep on the lookout for such bills, study them, and find

out what they are all about, and send us copies of them with recommendations, so that we individually may do what we can through

our own Congressmen to foster and to help the passage of these

bills. Another thing. We know from time to tim^e that different industries go before various agencies and ask for increases m tolerances or some other such matter ; when those things are done we ought to know

that they are happening, and we ought to be in a position to appear,

either in support of or in opposition to the proposals and do whatever is necessary for the proper maintenance of our weights and

measures work.

I move the adoption of that resolution, Mr. President.

Mr. J. G. Rogers. Mr. President, I w^ould like to inquire whether

that would in any way embarrass the National Bureau of Standards.

We certainly do not w^ant to put the Bureau on the spot in this situation, with the Secretary of Agriculture or anybody else. If it would not do so, I am perfectly willing to support that motion.

Mr. HoLBRooK. This resolution is for the appointment of a committee on legislative matters for this Conference, to watch bills introduced in Congress and take such action on its own accoimt as it thinks best ; is that correct? Mr. PisciOTTA. That is correct. Mr. HoLBROOK. I do not see anything wrong with that.

Mr. J. G. KoGERS. I wanted that point clarified, because the committee will work as a part of the National Conference.

(The question was taken and the resolution was adopted.)

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Eeed. I have a proposition that I would like to put before we

adjourn. W^e all know the value of cooperation; I think that one of

the most important things that this body could do would be to help

the situation in States and cities that have no weights and measures

officials. I think that one of the best wa3^s to do that would be to educate the officials of those jurisdictions as to the value of our work.

For instance, in Georgia, unfortunately, we do not have, a State
TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 147

weights and measures law. It strikes me if we could educate the

proper officials down there, such a law might be enacted. Action was taken at the Southern Division of the National Scale Men's

Association, to the end that the National Scale Men's Association

send a representative to the United States Conference of Mayors,

which meets here in Washington next May. Along this line I would

hke to move that this organization furtiier weights and measures work by sending a speaker to the International City Managers'

Association, which meets in Detroit, October 9 to 12. I think that if we educate the mayors and city managers on the value of our work,

they in turn will have their effect upon the governors and the legis- latures. The result might be that combined efforts might bring

about the passage or improvement of State laws and city ordinances

and increase our efficiency throughout the country.

The State of Georgia is being made the dumping ground of con- demned scales. Last month one scale concern sent 57 scales into the

city of Atlanta that had been condemned. We have no State law to prevent this. Fortunately, I stopped the practice in Atlanta. If we can interest these city managers and mayors, we might eventually

get a State law in Georgia and in other States which are in a similar

position.

I move you that this organization pay the expense of a speaker to appear before the International City Managers' Association in

Detroit on October 9 to 12. We have a reported balance of some

$500 in our treasury.

(The motion was seconded.)

Mr. Meek! I would certainly be favorable on any program that

would educate the mayors or the city managers on the need of weights

and measures. Mr. Crockett. I agree that education is needed and we have in

Maryland just as bad a situation as any other place. But if we begin

this, we are starting raids upon our treasury to help particular sections,

something which they should do themselves. Let the people clean

their own houses. Why should we go and establish, or help to estabhsh, a weights and measures department in Georgia, or in

Maryland, or in any other section of the country? It is a bad

precedent, I think, to pay expenses to do these things.

Mr. Reed. Let me say that I am not selfish in my motives. I have

them headed off in Atlanta; I have all of the ordinances that I need. As far as I am concerned, you do not need to send anyone.

But I want to help these other communities that don't have anything.

Mr. Fulton. I see no reason why this thing should not be done to educate the officials of our cities and towns over the United States.

If we had a speaker at these conferences of city managers and maj^ors,

why would not that be a good thing?

Mr. A. Edward Snyder. Why would it not be a good idea to pick

out someone to speak who is located in the convention city and thus

eliminate expenses? The meeting is going to be held at Detroit; we

have men in Detroit who are competent to make a speech, to enlighten

those men. Mr. Reed. I think that that is a good point; I think that Mr.

Austin would be a good man to do that. (The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.)
148 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Mr. HoLBROOK. Ill order to keep the record straight, may I inquire whether lSh\ Austin is ai)pointed the delegate by the terms of the motion?

Mr. Reed. May I suggest that we lea\'e that to the chairman?

The Chairman. That is all right.

REPORT OF THE TREASURER, GEORGE F. AUSTIN, JR. June 6, 1939 Balance on hand June 1, 193S $4-99.41

Receipts

:

June 3, 1938. Dues, 1938 Conference $223.00 June 3, 1938. Accrued interest 7.49 230.49 Total receipts $729.90

Disbursements: June 1, 1938. Social evening, Hotel Washington

Refreshments 100.00 Music 10.00 June 2, 1938. Stenographic, mimeographing and mes-

* senger service 30.00 June 2, 1938. Telephone calls, cartage fees, and miscellaneous 5.00 Total disbursements 145.00 Balance on hand June 1, 1939 584.90 Respectfully submitted.

(Signed) Geo. F. Austin Jr., Treasurer. (The report as presented by the Treasurer was duly accepted.)

'

ls'h\ Baucom. I am sure that eveiyone would be glad to know how

many States are represented and how many delegates are in attendance, if our Secretar}^ has that information.

^ir. Holbrooe:. There are some 107 weights and measures officials registered at the Conference from 27 States and from the District of

Columbia, and some 107 other registration cards are made out,

making a total of about 214.

The Chairman. Gentlemen, before we adjourn, I would like to

tell you how thoroughly we men in the National Bureau of Standards

appreciate the efforts that you have all made to come and take part

in this Conference. The expenditure of time and money on the part

of some of you is great, but it is through these efforts and this devotion

that we are making these annual Conferences a success.

I want also to say that I am very much gratified at what so many

of you have reporte"(i regarding our vehicle-scale work. We have had

the fullest cooperation from jou from the very beginniQg, and the

success attained is attributable to you as much as to our own group.

We will go mto the States that have not yet been covered just as fast as we can.

I look forward to seeing you all again next year.

(A motion was made and seconded that the Conference adjourn, the question was taken, and the motion vvas agreed to. Thereupon, at 1:15 p. m., the Twenty-ninth National Conference on Weights and Measures adjourned sine

die.) o