»l 
 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
REGULATION AND CONTROL OF MANUFACTURE, SALE, 
 AND USE OF WEKiHTS AND MEASURES 
 
 HEARINGS 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE COMMITTEE ON 
 COINAGE, WEIGHTS, AND MEASURES 
 
 HOUSE OF REERESENTATIVES 
 
 SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 
 IJtRST Session 
 
 ON 
 
 H. R. 9328 
 
 FEBRUARY 10, 191'i 
 
 X 
 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 GOVEENMBNT PRINTING OPI'IOE 
 
 1916 
 
COMMITTEE ON COINAGE, WEIGHTS, AND MEASURES. 
 House of Rbpbesentatives. 
 
 SIXTY-FOURTH CORGEESS. 
 
 WILLIAM A. ASHBROOK, Ohio, Cliainnan. 
 
 JAMES L. SLAYDEN, Texas. 
 L.\DISLAS LAZARO, Louisiana. 
 JOHN W. ABEUCROMBIE, Alabama, 
 WILLIAM H. MURKAY, Oldalioma. 
 J. CHARLES LINTUICI'M, Maryland, 
 C. C. DILL, Wa5.hJngton. 
 BENJAMIN C. IIILLIARD, ('ul.iiado. 
 WILLIAM J. SEARS, Florida. 
 JAMES H. MAY.S. Utah. 
 2 
 
 E. E, ROBERTS, Nevada. 
 ISAAC BACHARACH, New Jersey, 
 WALTER R. STINESS, Rhode Island. 
 BURTON B. SWEET, Iowa. 
 HENRY I. EMI:RS0N, Ohio. 
 J.VMES W. HUSTED, New York. 
 
 C. F. REAVIS, Nebraska. 
 
 F. C. HICKS, New York. 
 
 J. KUIIIO KALANIANAOLE, Hawaii. 
 
REGULATION AKD. COiNTROL OF THE MAiNUFAlTURE, SALE, 
 Ai\D USE OF WEIGHTS A.nD MEASURES. 
 
 (.'(JJIJIITTEr. ox 'CoIXA(;E, WlilCiSTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 House oe Repress:^ tatives, 
 WusJvhigton, D. C, Fehruary 10, 1916. 
 
 The committee met at 10. MO o'clock a. m. 
 
 Present: Hon. William A. Askbi-ook (chairman), Eepresentatives 
 Slaj'den, Abercrombie, Linthicuni, Sears, ilays, Bacharach, Sweet, 
 Reavis, and Hicks. 
 
 The Chairman. Gentlemen of the committee, I have called you 
 together this morning for the purpose of giving brief consideration 
 to H. E, 93:23, a bill to legulate and control the manufacture, 
 sale, and use of weights and measures. 
 
 We have already had rather interesting hearings on the Dillon bill, 
 but if the committee should decide to act favorably on H. R. 9323, 
 or some similar bill, is possilily would not care to take any action 
 on the Dillon bill at this time. InasDiuch as the authority under 
 H. R. 9323 would be in the Bureau of Standards, I have asked the 
 director of the Bureau of Standards, Dr. Stratton, to appear before 
 the committee to address you on this bill. I might say, I think, 
 without violating any confidence, that the Department of Commerce, 
 which includes the Bureau of Standards, is very much in favor of 
 this bill. After the committee has given proper consideration of 
 the bill, if, in your judgment, you think it advisable to report a bill 
 of this character, of course, you can do so and you can also take 
 action on the Dillon bill. After we have heard from Dr. Stratton 
 this morning, I think it would be, perhaps, advisable for the commit- 
 tee to hold an executive session and determine whether or not it is 
 wise to have any further hearings on this bill H. R, 9323, and 
 also get some action on the Dillon bill. 
 
 We will now be glad to hear from you, Dr. Stratton. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. S. W. STEATTON, DIRECTOR BUREAU OF 
 STANDARDS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, 
 D. C. 
 
 Mr. Stratton. Mr. Chairman, the history of this bill, I think, is, 
 perhaps, known to you very well. It grew out of the continual de- 
 mand for something of this kind on the part of the State officials 
 and those interested in weights and measures throughout the coun- 
 try. Primarily it did not originate with the Bureau of Standards, 
 but we simply approved something of this kind as being about the 
 only way that it could be handled efficiently and economically. Such 
 matters had received very little attention until the establishment 
 of the Bureau of Standards. The States are taking a very great 
 
 3 
 
4 MANUFACTUEE^ SAI.K, AND USE OF M'EICHTS AXD MEASUEES. 
 
 interest in the wliole weights-and-measures movement, ajid the effort 
 of the bureau has been to assist the States in establlsliinji a weights- 
 and-measures machiner^y to provide them witli standards, and to get 
 them before the bureau once a year, in order that they may confer 
 with one another, and in order tliat we may liear what tliey need 
 from day to day. These conferences liave been of the greatest good 
 in helping the States to help themselves, and that has always been 
 the attitude of the bureau, not to usurp the functions of the States, 
 but to try and lia^e them establish uniform practices as far as possi- 
 ble by coming together and knowing Avhat each Sate is doing. There 
 are a few things, however, that they have already practically all 
 agreed ought to be uniform and worked out in one place and this 
 is one of them, and I might say that when your chairman submitted 
 this bill to the bureau a year or two ago, it was placed in the hands 
 of our experts and the solicitor of the department, and, as far as we 
 know, the bill accomplishes what these people desire to accomplish 
 in a very simple and effective way. 
 
 I notice, in reading over the bill, that the Bureau of Standards is 
 mentioned directly, and the directcr. If it is preferable, there is no 
 reason why this should not be referred directly to the Secretary 
 of Commerce', or the Department of Commerce, which would be 
 precisely the same thing. 
 
 I would also call attention to the fact that all countries regulating 
 weights and measures have something along this line. Three or four 
 years ago I happened to meet the committee in Paris that was draw- 
 ing up the bill for the establishment of the metric system in China. 
 The Chinese Government sent a commission to Paris to confer with 
 an international committee on weights and measures, of which I hap- 
 pened to be a member. I noticed in the draft of their laAv that there 
 was a provision of this kind. One of the very first provisions was 
 that do device shall be manufactured and placed upon the market 
 without the approval of the central authorities. That is the custom 
 in all countries, and would have been in this country, if such matters 
 had received any attention on the part of Ctmgress, which thej- have 
 not. Weights and measures legislation in the past has been very 
 meager. Congress, as you know, gave to each of the States a set 
 of standards, and when the Bureau of Standards was established we 
 had to look into this matter, and we found that practicallj- all of the 
 States had looked upon these as souvenirs — relics to be stored away 
 and taken care of, and in some cases they were not even taken care 
 of. We found the standards of one State had been disposed of for 
 scrap brass, and actually purchased back. There were only a few 
 States that had not taken care of them, but they seemed to think that 
 their duty ended in caring for the standards. You might as well 
 have no standards at all as to fail to provide for their use. It is 
 the use of a standard that is just as important as the standard itself 
 Now, there has been a great change throughout the States in that 
 matter. They are using their standards, they are asking for more 
 and we are in continual touch with the States, and the States' or- 
 ganizations are being perfected. The bu)'eau has a model State law 
 that several of the States have jtassed, and when a State first puts 
 into effect this weights and measures law the bureau will send an 
 expert to help their new official for the time being — to help get his 
 work started. But this is cue thing that the weights and measur'es 
 
MANUFACTUEE, SALE, AND USE (IF WKTGHTS AND' MEASU HES. 5 
 
 officials feel should W handled in some way. They are handieapped 
 by the great diversity of these deA'ices. There is one thing, I think, 
 that prompted this more than anything else and that is the tendency 
 of some manufacturers to manufacture devices which are capable 
 of change, without the customer knowing it, and that was really 
 what prompted the l)ill. Pining balances were made, with the front 
 so it could be slid up and dmvn. Ordinary platform scales are made 
 so that adjustments could be made underneath which could not be 
 seen by the customer, and would iirike them dishonest, inaccurate 
 apparatus. That is the intention; that is the real thing that is back 
 of this bill — to prevent, first of all, the manufacture and sale of 
 devices that may become fraudulent and may be used fraudulently. 
 That is at the bottom of it. 
 
 Then, in addition to that, inefficient devices should not be used. 
 We find in the (TO\ernment work the Government purchases a great 
 quantity of balances. Take, for instance, the Post Office Depart- 
 ment. And our continual effort and fight has been to keep these up 
 to the standard. That is, our S3^stem of com])etitive buying encour- 
 ages the introduction of cheap materials and cheap devics's, so that 
 the standard of the balances must be stated, the specifications of the 
 balances desired in the department must be stated, and then the bid- 
 der required to come up to that standard. jMen will make a balance 
 out of cheap materials and of very poor desig-n in order to put in a 
 low bid. We are confronted continually with that condition. So 
 that there is something on the other side, the efficiency of the devices. 
 If they are not efficient and good, they should not be allowed to be on 
 the market. It does not mean that a cheap balance can not be a 
 good balance, but many of the balances, and even including some of 
 the larger scales, are inefficient and of poor design and should not be 
 allowed. There w^ill be no difficulty from it at all. In the end it 
 will be a great boon to the manufacturer himself, and I do not see 
 how any manufacturer could oppose it. 
 
 The Chairmax. Now, Dr. Stratton, this bill,. in just a word, would 
 standardize weights and measures for all of the States? 
 
 Mr. Stratton. Standardize all apparatus used, weights and meas- 
 ures as well as the balances. 
 
 The Chaiejiax. Well, it would give a standard for all of the States 
 for the weights and the measures and also for weighing devices? 
 
 Mr. Str±\.tton. Yes; the first paragraph covers weights and 
 measures. 
 
 Mr. Reavis. AVell, that is one point on which I was a little confused 
 about with reference to the first paragraph. The object of the bill, 
 as I understand from the statement just made Ijy the chairman, is to 
 standardize not only weights and measures, but all apparatus and 
 devices by ^^hich weights and measures are ascertained. 
 
 Mr. Stratton. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. I notice, starting about line 8, on the first i^age — pre- 
 vious to line 8 you state that the standard of weights and measures 
 shall be the weights and measures prescribed by the United States 
 Government under joint resolutions of Congress approved June 14, 
 1836, and July 27, 1866, " and such new weights and measures in addi- 
 tion thereto or renewal thereof and in conformity therewith, as have 
 been or shall be established by the several States." 
 
6 MANUFACTURE, SALE, AND USE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 Mr. Abercrombie. With the approval of the Bureau of Standards. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Yes; but does that refer to the standardizing or 
 weights and measures or to the devices ? 
 
 Mr. Stratton. Both, but that particular line would refer almost 
 solely to the devices, because there is another law that says the State 
 shall use the standard of weights and measures prescribed by 
 Congress. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Has Congress prescribed the standard of weights and 
 measures ? 
 
 Mr. Steatton. Not directly, but indirectly, and the States have 
 all taken that to mean directly. In the first place. Congress gave 
 them some standards, including the metric standard. That has been 
 taken to mean that Congress prescribes it. Congress has directed 
 the Secretary of the Treasury to unif j^ the weights and measures at 
 the customhouses, and there have been a number of different acts 
 that imply Congress means they shall be the standards. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Is there a standard with reference to the weight or 
 measure of a bushel of wheat in the United States? 
 
 Mr. Steatton. No ; I doubt if that is included here or would come 
 under this bill. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. "What do you think of the advisability of making a 
 uniform standard with reference to such commodities? 
 
 Mr. Steatton. Well, I do not think it is advisable. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Why not, Doctor? 
 
 Mr. Steatton. I am speaking now as a capacity measure. I 
 think that the tendency throughout the country is to use weight. I 
 was talking with a wholesale grucer the other evening, one who was 
 attending this conference, and I have talked with a number about it, 
 and he said they have abandoned the custom of selling by the bushel 
 and only buy by the bushel when they have to. They sell by weight 
 entirely. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. I had an instance come to me that was as follows : I 
 was practicing law in Nebraska, and a farmer desired to seed down 
 some two thousand acres of ground and he wrote, I think, to the 
 Department of Agriculture to ascertain the proper amount of seed 
 of various kinds for a permanent pasture. They wrote back to him 
 to use so many pounds of blue grass to the acre, so many pounds of 
 clover, etc., and he purchased his seed in another State and sowed 
 about two-thirds of his land. He came to me to ascertain whether 
 or not he had been defrauded, and we ultimately determined that 
 he had not, because he had sowed so many bushels, ancl the weight 
 in one State for a bushel differed so much from the weight in an- 
 other State that about a third of his land went without grass seed. 
 Would it not have been advisable in that case to have had a standard 
 bushel of wheat, or a standard bushel of blue grass, or various com- 
 modities? Would it not be advisable to make that uniform in the 
 United States? 
 
 Mr. Stratton. Perhaps you misunderstood. Perhaps I went a 
 little further than you. I think if we retain the bushel at all, it must 
 certainly be uniform. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Don't you think it is advisable for Congress to estab- 
 lish a standard bushel for these commodities, as to ther weight? 
 
 Mr. Stratton. It is, if we are going to keep the capacity measure. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. This bill does not do that, does it? 
 
MANUFACTURE, SALE, AKD USE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 7 
 
 Mr. Stratton. No; this bill has nothing to do with that aspect. 
 
 The Chairman. It has nothing to do with making a standard 
 bushel, but it has to do with making standard weights. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Mr. Chairman, would it not be advisable to incorpo- 
 rate in this bill a standard bushel for various commodities? 
 
 The Chairman. For the very reasons that you have mentioned, that 
 the ditt'erent States have a different number of pounds to the bushel, 
 in my judgment the bushel is obsolete and we ought not to encourage 
 its further use. 
 
 _ Mr. Eeavis. You are going to find that in the farming communi- 
 ties it is going to be used, without reference to what legislation is 
 passed. 
 
 The Chairman. In Kentucky they buy corn by the bushel. It is 
 not sold by the bushel. If you buy corn in Kentucky it will be so 
 much per barrel. Of course, the different States have a different 
 number of pounds for the bushel, and, for the reason mentioned, if 
 3'ou buy grain from one State by the bushel you think you are going 
 to get a certain number of pounds, when, as a matter of fact, you 
 will not get it ; you will get the number of pounds that is in use in 
 that State. Therefore, if the bushel was abandoned and the use of 
 it abolished, and you would buy a product by the pound, you would 
 know absolutely what you were getting when you bought 100 pounds 
 of clover seed or of corn or of whatever you might buy. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Does this bill tend to abolish the bushel ? 
 
 The Chairman. Well, it does not tend to abolish it, but it makes 
 no reference to it, and it lodges the authority in the Bureau of Stand- 
 ards to fix standard weights for all of the States, so that it would 
 help to abolish the use of the bushel. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. I think, Mr. Chairman, you will find a great many 
 people in this country who will continue to operate by the bushel. 
 
 The Chairman. You still think they will cling to the bushel ? 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. I know they' will in my State. 
 
 Mr. Stratton. At these annual conferences of the weights-and- 
 measures people they have several times passed resolutions favoring 
 the abandonment of the bushel and the adoption of the weight. In 
 the West it is that way altogether. 
 
 Mr. HusTED. I agree with what the chairman has said, that we 
 should abandon the bushel. Some of my people are large growers of 
 potatoes. I have been in conference with them, and they all favor the 
 establishment of a weight measure and the abolishment of the bushel. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Mr. Sweet, you and I know that a man figures whether 
 he has got a good corn crop by the number of bushels he grows to the 
 acre, and the market reports are published every day that corn is 
 worth so much per bushel, and this legislation is not going to divorce 
 the people of the Middle West from that proposition. 
 
 Mr. Sweet. The desire of the people there is to cling to the bushel, 
 but I might say this, that I do not see any particular objection to 
 saying that so many poimds make a bushel of wheat or a bushel 
 of corn, but so far as still clinging to the capacity measure by the 
 stricken bushel or the heap bushel, or anything of that kind, I do not 
 believe they would be particular about that. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. My idea was not so much as to capacity measurements, 
 but simply to inake uniform over the United States the measurement 
 of these various commodities which is known as the bushel. 
 
B AIANUFACTURK, SAL!:, AIs'IJ I'tir. OF AViaUHIS AND MJCASUKK.S. 
 
 Mr. Strattox. I do not think this bill, Mr. Chairman, \\ould give 
 to the Ikireau of Standards authority to say that ro many iio'inds 
 shall be a bushel in one S'iiite and so many in another State. ' 
 
 The CiiAiiiMAx. This bill seeks to give io the Bureau of Standards 
 the regidation, control, and use of v eights and measures. 
 
 Mr.\^'Ti;.\TTox. Yes; that is true, but.it would be \ery indiscreet. 
 
 The Chairman. I want to say that I am some'what of a fanner 
 myself and I have a fai'm and I deal to sor/ie extent in farm iirodiicts. 
 Now, when you go to the warehouse in Ohio and buy. for instance, 
 oil meal, chopped feed, and things hke that, you buy by the him- 
 (hvdweigkt, you do not buy by the bushel. 
 
 Mr. I'i-.AVTs. Generally in my OAvn State products are all sold Ijy 
 weight, but I presume, Mr. Chairman, that even in Ohio corn and 
 wheat are marketed by the bushel. 
 
 The CiiAiRMAX. That is true, but it is hauled to the warehouse and 
 'weighed by the pound, and not sold by the bushel. 
 
 Mr. Sti!.\tt(ix. How are you going to compare the wheat in Cal- 
 ifornia with the wheat in Iowa ? It is bought l)y the hundredweight 
 in California and sold bv the hundredweight. 
 
 Mr. Reavis. That is true. Well, my sugg.-:- tion with reference to 
 this bill would not ha\'e a tendency "to depri\e any conmiunity of 
 selling by the hundredweight, if they wanted to, but my idea was 
 to make a standard of pounds that should constitute a bushel of these 
 various commodities, so that there would be uniformity among those 
 States that operate by the bushel. 
 
 Now, the grass seed was purchased in 3'our State. Your bushel is 
 entii-ely different in grass seed than ours, with just the river between, 
 and that is confusing. It seems to me that if we are going to stand- 
 ardize weights and measures, that it would not be objectionable to 
 standardize the poimds in those commodities that are sold by the 
 bushel. 
 
 Mr. Sth.vjtox. That was the object, of course, of the first para- 
 graph of the Dillon bill. 
 
 Mr. Reams. My idea was to incorporate that portion of the Dillon 
 bill in Mr. Ashbrook's bill. 
 
 Mr. M.vYs. Would tliey not soon drift away from that custom^ 
 
 Mr. Reavjs. They have been operating under it for -l") years that 
 1 know of. 
 
 Mr. Mays. They used to sell some things by the bushel in our 
 State, but now we sell everything by the pound — wheat, corn, every- 
 thing by the hundredweight. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. What is your State? 
 
 Mr. I*Iats. Utah. 
 
 Mr. Reavis. They may eventually get away from it, but even if 
 they did, such a provision in this bill would not have a tendency to 
 keep them wedded to that custom, but it would relieve a good deal of 
 annoyance that obtains in the Middle AVest by reason of lack of uni- 
 formity in that proposition. 
 
 The CiiAiRjiAX. I fully agree with the gentleman from Nebraska, 
 that farmers in the Middle States invariably speak of so many bushels 
 of corn, or so many bushels of wheat, or oats, and it has always, so 
 far as I know, been in use, and the farmers would, regardless of any 
 legislation that Congress might enact, probably still continue the 
 use of the bushel to express the amount of the grain that they might 
 
MANX'FACTURE, SAl.E, AND USIv Oi-' VVEKiilTS AND Ml'.AtiUHICS. 9 
 
 have to sell and buy, but I think, Mr. Dillon, the anthor of this bill, 
 would agree that it is an obsolete thing', to a very p-reat extent; 
 that is, as a capacity to measure. 
 
 Mr. Reavis. Now, if you have operated in feed to any extent, as 
 I have, you would know tli;!t when you buy corn, you will buy it 
 by the bushel, the bushel in our State being the accepted standard in 
 that State, but that bushel in your State would be different, but they 
 still call it a bushel. 
 
 The Chaii!Ma:\'. But if the capacity of a bushel was the same in 
 all States it would be very different, but it is uot: it is the pounds 
 that determines what the bushel is. 
 
 Mr. Reaves. Undoubtedly, and for that i-eason I have no desire, 
 and, in fact, am opposed to corn being disposed of, or aii}' commodity 
 being disposed of by measui-e. I would want it disposed of by weight, 
 but when joii buy a bushel of grass seed in Iowa we would like to 
 have some idea, inasmuch as we have got to pay the price, as to how 
 much that grass seed is going to weigh. If a bushel of Idue grass in 
 Iowa is 10 pounds, and in my State it is 12 pound's, we are going to 
 think somebody is cheating ns; we are goiut;- to be deceived as to the 
 amount of ground it will cover; and for that reason it seems to me 
 that the •\'\-eight of the various commodities called a bushel should be 
 uniform between the different States. 
 
 Sir. Strattox. I am inclined to think that that is a matter for leg- 
 islation. The thing that is left to the Bureau of Standards here is 
 the standards of weights, the standards of capacity, and so on. The 
 bushel is a capacity measure. M()\v, this matter of fixing the number 
 of pounds in a bushel of a commodity is an entirely different thing. 
 I am inclined to think — I may be wrong in tliis — but that would be a 
 matter for legislation. 
 
 The Chairman. How is that? 
 
 Mr. Stratton. I am inclined to think that the fixing of the num- 
 ber of pounds per bushel — which ought to be uniform. I agree — is a 
 matter for legislation. 
 
 Mr. Reaves. I thing so, too. Doctor. I doubt whether (Jongress has 
 the authority, under the Constitution, when it is given the authority 
 to fix the standards, to delegate that authority to a commission. I do 
 not know whether the provision would be germane to the bill of the 
 chairman, and I would not want it incorporated in there if it is not 
 germane, but I do believe that the duty devolves upon this Congress 
 to standardize and make uniform the weights in the various com- 
 modities. 
 
 The Chaikjx.vn. I would like to say to the committee that I do not 
 have so much pride in this bill, H. R. 9323, Avhich I introduced, as to 
 desire that the committee should give this preference over the Dillon 
 bill, but my idea is this, that we c^m not hope to secure the passage of 
 very many bills from this committee at this session of Congress, and 
 we ought to determine what we think is the most impnilant legisla- 
 tion we ought to get behind and rei:)ort tliat out. And I may say 
 frankly, that my understanding of this bill was that the Bureau of 
 Standards would have the right, if they so desired, to arbitrarily fix 
 the number of pounds in a bushel, because it says they have the right 
 to regulate and control the manufacture, sale, and use of weights and 
 measures. 
 
 Mr. Stratton. That is right. 
 
10 MANUFACTURE, SALE, AND USE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASUEES. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Yes; but that is the apparatus by Avhich the com- 
 modity is weighed. They do not arbitrarily fix the standard itself. 
 
 Mr. Mats. Mr. Chairman, if everything is sold by weight, even m 
 the State of Nebraska, what is the use of a bushel anyway ? 
 
 Mr. Slayden. I have asked myself that question many times. VvnJ 
 should it not be sold by the pound? There is no mistake abnit what 
 a pound is. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. It is sold by the pound, but the number of pounds 
 that constitutes a bushel in one State differs from the number of 
 pounds that constitutes a bushel in another State. 
 
 Mr. Slatden. If they were all sold by the pound, you would get 
 around that difficulty at once. 
 
 Mr. Reavis. It is sold by the pound, but a man writes from 
 Nebraska to Iowa and says " I want a bushel of blue-grass seed " 
 
 Mr. Mats. He would quit that, would he not ? 
 
 Mr. Eea\is. No ; I doubt it exceedingly. 
 
 Mr. Seaes. Don't you think the Department of Justice would send 
 out bulletins, etc., dropping the word "bushel," and saying so many 
 pounds, and that the farmer would soon catch on ? The farmers are 
 the quickest people in the world to catch on to a proposition. Your 
 friend who bought the blue grass will not buy it any more by the 
 bushel. He will buy it by the pound. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. That is going to be a terrible infliction on the farmers 
 in my country. 
 
 Mr. Sweet. In Iowa they have got a State law that determines 
 what a bushel of wheat, or a bushel of rye, or a bushel of oats is. 
 When I learned that this bill was being considered here, I wrote to 
 Iowa, to a number of men who are interested there in this matter, 
 and they wrote right back and said they saw no reason why the 
 bushel should not be standardized by weight, and that it would work 
 all right in conjunction with the Iowa law, and that there would be 
 only a few little changes here and there, and that the Dillon bill 
 would be very acceptable about standardizing the bushel by weight, 
 but one of them said we must keep the bushel, that is, the name of 
 the bushel. That is the idea, not as to the capacity; they do not care 
 anything about that. 
 
 Mr. Stratton. There is nothing inconsistent about it at all, if we 
 assume that these commodities are sold by weight, as they are now. 
 The bushel is not used, except, as you say, it is still used as a capacity 
 measure. 
 
 Mr. Sweet. That is universally true. 
 
 Mr. Stkatton. Now, there is not anything to prevent, or should 
 not be anything to prevent any State using any unit it likes, so long 
 as there is no national legislation in regard to it. If it is thouo-ht 
 desirable to permit the States to use another unit, it may be'^SO 
 pounds, or 60 pounds, or 75, whatever it is, well and good ; Ijut it is 
 a matter for national legislation, just as the bushel. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Now, Doctor, candidly, don't you think the weight 
 which constitutes a bushel of the various commodities should'^be 
 standardized by Congress? 
 
 Mr. Stratton. Yes. indeed. If you use it at all, it should be 
 standardized. I think that goes without saying. The number of 
 standards we have is ridiculous. T am ashamed to send out a 
 circular. 
 
MANUFAGTUEE, SALli, AND fSE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASUKES. 11 
 
 Mr. PItrSTED. Here is the point. Nebraska has one standard, Iowa 
 has another standard, and if you are going to adopt a standard to 
 fit one State it will not fit the standaz'd of any other State. 
 
 Mr. Mats. The truth of it is that as far as Iowa is concerned, if 
 you take the Dillon bill and make only a few changes in the Dillon 
 bill, it will fit the Iowa standard. 
 
 Mr. HusTED. But it will not fit the Nebraska standard. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. But when a man sends over to Iowa for a bushel of 
 seed he will know how many pounds he is going to get. 
 
 Mr. Slatden. If he should buy it by the pound he would certainly 
 know it. 
 
 Mr. Eeaa'is. But they do not do that. 
 
 Mr. Slayden. Would they not do it very quickly? May I inter- 
 rupt you just a minute to tell you of a great historic thing that fell 
 under my observation? Mj' people, I shall risk saying, are not 
 inferior to yours anyway. Within my knowledge of the country, 
 and it just happens that I was in the country at the time the change 
 went into effect, the chaotic, archaic, absurd system of weights and 
 measures, that obtained in Mexico from inheritance from Spanish 
 rule, further complicated and made obscure by Indian customs, and 
 things of that kind, was radically changed and made one scientific 
 system of weights and measures, the metric system, and the Indians, 
 the thick-skulled, uneducated Indians, adjusted themselves to it, and 
 in less than five years there was no trouble whatever; it was as 
 smooth as possible, and everybody is more than delighted that the 
 change was made. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. And yet, every morning when the farmer looks at his 
 stock paper or his market reports he finds that corn, wheat, oats or 
 rye, or barley are worth so much a bushel. 
 
 Mr. Slayden. I know he does now. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Every year when the Agricultural Department sends 
 out these grain reports they are made in so many bushels. 
 
 Mr. Slayden. They will change that. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. It is universal. One of my old farmers wrote about 
 having 70 bushels of corn to the acre. If you are going to make him 
 sit down and figure it out at so many pounds that he has got to the 
 acre, you are going to take half the joy out of his life. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, Mr. Eeavis, when the farmer sows his 
 wheat he figures on so many pounds of fertilizer to the acre? 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, can he not just as well figure so many 
 pounds of wheat or oats per acre ? 
 
 Mr. Mays. When he figures on wheat he figures so many bushels 
 per acre. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. And the Agriculture Department's reports deal m 
 bushels. 
 
 Mr. Stratton. They will all favor a change. 
 
 Mr. Mays. Even these lists sent out in regard to fertilizer say you 
 can put in so many pounds of fertilizer, but they figure it along 
 without even going to, the acreage. 
 
 Mr. Slayden. Don't you think it would be better to have a uni- 
 versal and scientific system that would mean the same thing in Texas 
 that it means in Maine, California, or Florida ? 
 
12 A'lAKUFACTUkE^ SAi,E, AKD ITS3 OF WI-ilcllTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 Mr. Mays. Yes; I think so; and I think we all agree that the bushel 
 should be standardized; but the point we make is we do not want 
 to drop the word " bushel." 
 
 Mi-. Sears. What sucredness is there in the word "bushel''? 
 
 Mr. Mays. Simply because for 40 or 50 or GO years our people 
 throughout the entire West have been educated to use the word 
 " bushel." 
 
 The CiiAiR^£AN. Because our grandfathers used it. 
 
 Mr. Sears. You are progressive out there? 
 
 Mr. Slatden. Did you eve-r try to figure out in\<ii'-es in pounds, 
 shillings, and pence? 
 
 Mr. Mays. No; I ha^e not. 
 
 Mr. Sl^yden. Well, I have, many a one ; and a more absurd system 
 of reckoning was never devised — if it was devised — by the wit of 
 man than that; and we all think it would be a very sensible thing 
 to adopt a decimal sj'stem, that we have dollars and dimes, and so 
 on, and we rejoice to think they Avould do it. It would simplify 
 commercial transactions between Great Britain and our country. We 
 have an equally absurd, archaic system of weights and measures, and 
 if it were changed, in five j'ears everybody would rejoice that a scien- 
 tific system had been adopted which would simplify it. We speak 
 of our cotton growing as a bale to the acre. We are bragging when 
 we say a bale. If we told the truth we would say a half or three- 
 quarters of a bale to the acre, but we invariably sell it by the pound, 
 which is an exact measure that we all know. We do not deal in 
 bales at all. It is just as absurd as a bushel. 
 
 Mr. HusTED. In regard to change, Mr. Chairman, on the Ne^\' 
 York Stock Exchange they have been for years quoting stock on the 
 percentage basis, and the Pennsylvania IlaiJroad stock, which is the 
 largest held steel-: of any traded in there, has been quoted on the per- 
 centage basis. That has iieen the custom ever since the Pennsyl- 
 vania Railroad was organized; and several stocks are quoted in the 
 same way — tlie jicrcentage basis. Arbitrarily, the stock governors 
 said six months ago. '' We will change that entirelv. and Pennsyl- 
 vania will be quoted at par." So that the next morning that man 
 oAvning Pennsylvania stock which he thought the nisht before was 
 worth 120 he found was only worth 60. 
 
 Mr. Slayden. In recent times we sold oui' cattle by as'es — vear- 
 lings, 2-j'ear olds — and 3-year olds, ard the pi-cducers lost "money bv 
 it. Now everything goes by the pound. 
 
 Mr. Stratton. It will be a very short time until all these com- 
 modities are sold by the pound, by the hundredweight. 
 
 Do you want to saddle this old system upon future generations? 
 Do you want to go on doing it this way just because you have been 
 doing it, when you can just by shifting the decimal point settle 
 that? Suppose you weigh up so many thousand pounds; how much 
 more difficult is it to divide that l)y a hundred? Just shift the 
 decimal point is all there is to it. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Your idea is that it should be fixed at so much per 
 hundred? 
 
 Mr. Stratton. Yes; either say a pound or a hundredweight. It 
 is a matter of indiffei'ence. One is ten times the other. Thev are the 
 same thing. 
 
MANUFACTDKE, SAI.I-'.^ AND USE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASUEES. 13 
 
 But there is another point. Take the comparison of statistics. 
 The liureau is all the time having trouble, and the Agricultural De- 
 partment no doubt has the same difficulty, in comparing statistics. 
 Statistics which are prepared in a way that suit one State do not 
 suit some other State. Then, statistics compared with foreign coun- 
 tries meet the same difficulty. There is no objection to adopting the 
 practice of selling by the bushel, and so on. There is no objection to 
 any farmer, if he wants to, figuring up his yield in the old units, 
 60 pounds per bushel, but it ceases to be a commercial proposition. 
 _ Mr. Slayden. Yes: and it would cease to be a practical proposi- 
 tion in a -N'ery short time, just as the vara gave way to the meter in 
 Mexico. The vara has a rather peculiar history. Just around the 
 main plaza of central market place in Madrid the people came ni 
 and did their little marketing. There was a measure there intrusted 
 to a man named Vara. That was a convenient thing for those people 
 to measure their laces and things of that kind, little ])easi!nt-made 
 commodities. They Avould say, "How much is that;" And they 
 would say, " It is so much a vara." That was in common use in 
 Mexico and still is in real remote mountain regions aniong the In- 
 dians. 
 
 Mr. Steatton. We even use it in the Bureau of Standards. It 
 comes about in this way. Sometimes in verifying surveys in Mexico 
 the Vara tape is a little more convenient in checking up old surveys. 
 
 When you look at the books, you will read about the metric system 
 not being successful in the old countries. It is the same thing ex- 
 actly. You might just as well say that our system is not a success 
 here of decimal money because in some States they speak of bits 
 and shillings, or that our common system of weights and measures 
 is not successful because we sometimes measure in varas. 
 
 Mr. Slayden. Dr. Stratton, has not the adoption of the metric sys- 
 tem been to some extent at least prevented by the refusal of man- 
 facturers to go to the expense of preparing to remake their instru- 
 ments of measure and weight % 
 
 Mr. Steatton. The objection to it came largely through ignorance, 
 and I will use that word qualifiedly. I mean people who are not 
 familiar with the system. They would be very intelligent other- 
 wise. When I came to Washington, I remember a series of very 
 interesting hearings in this room on the metric system. I made the 
 statemer.t several times that it would be possible for every manufac- 
 turer to give to his workmen the things with which to measure, 
 and that the Avorkmen would use one just as well as the other. The 
 jnanufacturers, who were opposins: that, and there \vere many of 
 them, said, " That is purely academic " ; those are the words of a scien- 
 tific professor. They do not amount to anything; it is academic. 
 
 A few- months ago one of the main officials of the Baltimore Loco- 
 mctive Works came iut-i my office, and he had just been abroad. I 
 asked him about foreign trade and whether he was building any 
 locomotives for foreign'ccuntries. He said: "Yes, we brought back 
 (,n the last trip an order for 100 locomotives for a French Prorince." 
 1 did net think about the metric system. It came up incidentally. 
 I was interested in knowing whether those people were adopting our 
 types and designs. I asked him if the foreigners specified the kind 
 o'f the locomotive, or siuiply specified its capacity. He said, " Oh, 
 
14 MAN CJFACT LIKE, SALE, AND USE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASUBES. 
 
 no, they specify everything, down to the width of the fire shovel, in 
 milimeters." He said, "Yes, we have been building locomotives in 
 the metric system for the last 8 or 10 years. When the drawings 
 were made in the first case, we thought it Avould be better to trans- 
 late the drawings and change them, but we found that would be 
 slower work, so we simply got a lot of the things they measure with 
 and put these things in the shop," and he said, '• They like it, they 
 use them ; they do not care what they work in." I said, " I thought 
 you said you could not do that, that it was academic." 
 
 A few years ago the Secretary of Commerce was with me in the 
 €fEce of the American Locomotive Works, and we talked about for- 
 eign trade, and in particular whether their engines were built in 
 very quick time, and so so, and I said, " How do you build your 
 locomotives, according to their drawings?" He said, " Yes, in- 
 deed," and he told, me that their locomotives were all built accord- 
 ing to the metric system. 
 
 Mr. Slayden. If we do business in South America we have got 
 to do it on that system. 
 
 Mr. Steatton. The thing that was grossly misrepresented at that 
 time was this idea that everything had to be changed. The Baldwin 
 Locomotive AVorks now make all their drawings in the metric system. 
 Any workman can work to one measure as he can to another. It is 
 a reflection upon tlie intelligence of our workmen to say they can 
 not use it. We use it altogether in our shops. 
 
 Mr. Slayden. Wliy do you use it. altogether in your shops? 
 
 Mr. Stratton. Because most of our work is scientific apparatus, 
 and the designers have to design in the metric system. All scientific 
 men do. They never use any other system, except some case where 
 they have got to use something ah'eady in existence, but they do not, 
 as a rule. 
 
 Mv. HusTED. I think that is ii very strong point my friend makes 
 there, that in ov.v efforts to build u]) trade with South America, which 
 is the great cry of the President, it has got to l)e done under some 
 different standard than we use in this country. 
 
 Mr. Slayden. They use the metric system altogether. 
 
 Mr. Reavis. Let me ask the chairman a question. This bill, as I 
 understand it, is to fix the standard of devices of weights and 
 mensures and the apparatus connected with tliem. 
 
 The Chairman. And gives the bureau control. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. What else does it do? What other purpose has it? 
 
 The Chairman. Well, as I understand the bill, that is the purpose 
 of the bill in a nutshell. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. If the whole purpose of the bill is limited to a desire 
 to standardize the apparatus of weights and measures and devices 
 how vrould that have the effect to do away witli our antiquated bushel 
 system ? 
 
 The Chairjian. Well, it probably would not have anv particular 
 effect in that direction; but if you agree, if we believe that the use 
 of the bushel as a capacity measure is obsolete and unnecessrv, whv 
 should we encourage it to the extent of enacting legislation that Mnll 
 for all time continue the use of the bushel ? 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Do you mean, with nothing in this bill that dis- 
 courages it — with the lack of encouragement on our part — you do 
 away with it ? 
 
MANUFACTURE^ SALE, AND USE OF WElGilXS AND MEASUBES. 15 
 
 Ine Chairman. As I understand the bill, it gives the Bureau of 
 standards authority to fix all weiglits and measures, and if it had 
 that authority to fix the weights and measures for all of the States 
 it certainly ivould not make use of the bushel as a capacity measure, 
 but would use the hundred-pound weight. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. I do not believe that Congress would have any consti- 
 tutional authority to sublet, if I may use that word, to the bureau 
 the right of fixing a standard of weight. 
 
 Mr. Slaiden. Xo; that is a constitutional authority gi\en to 
 Congress. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Xow, if aac are only giving to the bureau the right 
 to establish standards with reference to weights and de\ices to 
 determine weights, you are going to continue on your old bushel 
 system out in the Middle AVest, and if we are going to continue on 
 that, why not have a uniform weight constitute a bushel in the given 
 States^ I am going in a circle right back to the old point. 
 
 Mr. Mats. In other words, why can we not take up the Dillon 
 bill, and also this bill? Are they in conflict? 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Take up the first section of the Dillon bill. 
 
 Mr. yLAYDEN. I am rather slow to understand. Let me ask you. 
 You asked, if I understood you correctly, why we should not de- 
 clare what is a bushed, making a standard throughout the United 
 States. We have a right to do that. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. INIaking a uniform bushel. 
 
 Mr. Slayden. Do you not run into this difficulty '. Take wheat, 
 as the commodity to be measured, for example. A bushel is a cubic 
 measure, cubic contents. Such an area is a bushel. But suppose 
 you have heavier wheat in Kansas than you have in Nebraska, or 
 vice versa, would you not run into a little difficulty there? There 
 must have been some reason for fixing a different numlier of pounds 
 for a bushel in the different States. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. I do not think we would run into any difficulty, for 
 two reasons. In fixing the standard of' a bushel we have nothing 
 lo do with fixing the price of a bushel. 
 
 Mr. Slatden. Certainly not; but you have declared a certain 
 quantity to be a bushel, and you may get fewer pounds of the com- 
 modity in one bushel than you do with another, whereas if the trans- 
 action was done in pounds, your trade would not be affected, and 
 nobody would be hurt. _ . , • ,, 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. But the transaction is not done m pounds m the 
 
 Middle AVest. . ^ . , ^ ^. 
 
 Mr Slayden. It would be done m pounds m a very short time. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Goods on the market are quoted by the bushel in 
 Chicago, Kansas City, and St. Louis. 
 
 Mr. Slayden. They are now, undoubtedly. ^u u i, i 
 
 Mr Eeavis. And they fix the price per bushel. ^ Now the bushel 
 in Kansas may differ entirely from the bushe m Nebraska, and 
 that differ in turn from the bushel in Iowa. As long as they are 
 doing business along that line, and have been doing it for the past 
 half century out there, and as long as there is nothing m this bill to 
 discourage the continuation of that practice, why not standardize the 
 weight of a bushel? . j.i j. t i 
 
 Mr. Slayden. The only objection I can see is the reason that 1 have 
 
 just mentioned. 
 
16 MANUb'ACTUEE, riAl.E, A^D USE OE WEIGEIXS AND MEASUEEri. 
 
 Mr. Reams. Because it is an antiquated practice? . 
 
 Mr. Slayden. That is a pretty fair reason, too; but the reason ^ 
 that the same cubic quantity will weigh more m poimds m one case 
 than it will in another. u + fir, 
 
 Mr. Reavis. That would go to the grade of the wheat ; wheat i\ o. 
 2 is worth more than wheat No. 3, because wheat .No. /! is nea^ lei 
 than wheat No. 3. When they get it to the market, they test it. ana 
 when the local grain buyer buys it he pays so much per busliel tor 
 one grade of wheat, and a lesser amount for another grade of wheat. 
 At the same time agricultural business in the ^Middle \\ est is done 
 exclusively in the bushel system, and if that be true, it seems to me 
 the bushel should be stadardized. 
 
 ^Ir. Slayden. If that is not the ratii.nul system, why nut change it ; 
 Mr. Reams. But this bill does not change it. 
 
 iSIr. Slayden. I would have a bill that would. I am radical in 
 wanting to get the bushel system of weights and measures abolished. 
 Mr. S'l'isATTON. From a technical standpoint, I do not see any 
 reason for putting them together. They are two entirely separate 
 questions, and there is nothing on that proposition. I might have 
 overlooked it. Mr. Chairman, but the first paragraph is the one in 
 which we find tliis power and I do not find it there. Thei-e is noth- 
 ing here in tliat fii'st paiagraph giving to the bureau the right to fix 
 any standard whiite^■er. 
 
 JNIr. Eea\is. I have only given the bill a cursory examinati(_)!i. but 
 I did not encounter any. 
 
 Mr. LixTincujr. I do not understand that the bill tends to do 
 away with the cubic measures at all. 
 
 ^fr. Si-AYDEX. I was simply saying that it was a superficial meas- 
 ure. In other words, a bushel of wheat from one part of the country 
 will contain more pounds than a bushel of wheat from another part 
 of the country. 
 
 Mr. LixTiiicuM. I do not understand that this is intended to 
 abolish the cubic measure at all or do away with it. 
 jMr. Slaydex. I did not suggest that. 
 
 jNIr. STitAnux. There is another reason for not combining the two. 
 This bill, as it stands, has to do with de\ices alone and would apply 
 to either system of weights and measures. Xow, if you fix the bushel, 
 you may find in time, if you adopt the ujctiic system, that that has 
 to be undone. They arc two entirely separate questions. This bill 
 has notliing to do ^vith the sy.stem of weights and measures used. 
 If we sliould adopt the mertic system in future, this bill would ajjply 
 just the same. 
 
 The CiTAnniAx. Dr. Stratton, this bill, then, in fact, would have 
 but little to do except as to the regulation and control of the manu- 
 facture and sale of weighing devices. 
 
 Mr. Si'itATTox. I think that is all it has to do with. 
 Mr. Seaydex. Yard sticks and quart cups and things of that kind? 
 Mr. Si'KA'rroN. And weighing devices. It is especially intended 
 to prevent the use of those de\ices which are easily changed, either 
 through intent or through Aveak construction. 
 
 Mr. Reavis. I presume, Mr. Chairman, that every member of this 
 committee received the two opinions from the representative of the 
 Toledo Scale Co. I did, anyway, and after reading them I became 
 
MAjSTUFACTUEE, sale, and use of WHiCHTS AND MICASUEES. 17 
 
 convjnced of the absolute necessit\' of JegisJation of tliis character. 
 .J-nev had exactly the opposite effect from Avhat the aiitliorities send- 
 ing them to me though the\' would ]iave. They have testimony there, 
 and it is disclosed in those two opinions, that the selling- inducement 
 of these scales is the opportunity it gives to the seller to deceive and 
 defraud the buyer. Nott, as long as this thing prevails in this 
 countrv, there ought to be some authority with the bureau to prevent 
 that practice. 
 
 ]Mr. Sears. As I understand. Mr. Chairman, this bill does that. 
 If the committee desires later t(i take uj) the other proi^osition which 
 you are suggesting, which is not germane to this, and which would 
 simply confuse it, they can do so. 
 
 Mr. Eeavts. It lea\es us just where we are — without any uniform 
 standard. 
 
 The CiiAiEJtAN. Well, if it is the pleasure of the committee to 
 report out the Dillon bill, standardizing the bushel, I have no ob- 
 jection to it, although I say I am not very strongly in favor of it. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be understood as ad- 
 vocating reporting out the Dillon bill. There are certain things in 
 the Dillon bill that ought not to be reported, but the first section of 
 the bill, which provides a uniform standard, a uniform bushel. I 
 am not prepared to say that the weights prescribed in the bill are the 
 proper weights for a uniform bushel. I do not know whether they 
 are or not. I have not given that any consideration, but I feel the 
 necessity of establishing a uniform weight in the United States for 
 what we term a bushel. I recognize, too, that the second and third 
 sections of that bill, the second section of the bill conflicts with this 
 bill, and the third section I think is absolutely unconstitutional. 
 
 Mr. HusTED. Mr. Chairman, I am very much in favor of the pas- 
 sage of this bill. It seems to me it is a very important matter for 
 consideration. It gives the Bureau of Standards authority to con- 
 trol these things. 
 
 Mr. Reavis. Now, Dr. Stratton, have you ever had the consti-- 
 tutionality of this matter investigated by the department? 
 
 Dr. Stratton. Yes, sir; our solicitor took this up and gave it a 
 great deal of attention. The Solicitor of the Department of Com- 
 merce took it up with the Attorney General's Office. 
 
 Mr. Slatden. Did they think it is constitutional ? 
 
 Mr. HusTED. Did he give a written opinion? 
 
 Dr. Stratton. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HusTED. I would like to have you send me a copy of it. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. The only thing that niight be construed to be un- 
 constitutional is this — that it would give to the bureau one power that 
 Congress has which, of course, is a power that is carried by the Con- 
 stitution. Every power not directly secured by the Constitution is 
 denied by implication. The only power secured to Congress with 
 reference to weights and measures in the Constitution is the power 
 to fix a standard. We are not attempting to do that here. We are 
 attempting here to fix a standard of the device which weighs the 
 standard. Now, whether or not we have a constitutional power that 
 gives us the authority to fix the standard, whether that conveys 
 with it the authority to control devices by apparatus by which de- 
 vices are weighed, would be the question that is in my mind. 
 
 28076—16 2 
 
18 MANUFACTURE, SALE, AND USE OF WEIGHTS AND MBASUKES. 
 
 Mr. Steatton. That division was refered to at the last hearing 
 that we had. I looked that matter up. That was the point that was 
 raised, and I submitted it to the Solicitor of the Attorney General's 
 Office. 
 
 Mr. Slatden. Speaking in an elementary way, what is meant by 
 authority ? There is no authority there to fix a standard. 
 
 Mr. Reavis. By saying that so much constitutes a bushel in this 
 Nation. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think the framers of the Constitution had 
 in mind the bushel? 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. I am just saying that constitutional power is given to 
 you to fix a standard bushel in the United States. I do not say the 
 framers of the Constitution had that in mind, but that was one of 
 the powers implied hj the framers of the Constitution. 
 
 Mr. Slatden. As I understand it, this bill merely seeks to say a 
 bushel shall weigh so much, or a quart shall contain so much, and 
 that a pound shall contain so many ounces, etc. How are you going 
 to do that practically unless you define the instrument of measure ? 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Suppose we do define the instrument of measure, and 
 suppose somebody, in selling a quart of milk, measures it in an in- 
 strument of measure contrary to that which we had defined. Con- 
 gress could not touch it. It would be a matter of contract, deception, 
 and fraud, practiced under a contract. That would be peculiarly 
 under the States. 
 
 Mr. Slatden. Each of the States provides for honest dealing. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. Directly. 
 
 Mr. Slayden. I have no doubt my milkman gives me every morn- 
 ing ^ery little. 
 
 Mr. Eeavis. The point I was making, if I did not make myself 
 clear, is this, whether the power to fix the standard itself by implica- 
 tion conveys to Congress the power to determine the apparatus by 
 which that standard shall be ascertained. That would be the only 
 constitutional question there would be to my mind. 
 
 Mr. LiNTHicuM. Would this increase the cost very much ? 
 
 Mr. Sears. Would the operation of sections 8 and 9, either or 
 both, materially increase the expenses of the department ? 
 
 Mr. Stratton. No, sir. In many cases these devices should not be 
 used, because there are others that are better. 
 
 Mr. Sears. Then you state to the committee that the expense would 
 be practically the same? I presume that question would be asked 
 on the floor. 
 
 Mr. Linthicum. What I was driving at was whether these regu- 
 lations would cause the scales to be much higher. I had in mind 
 this, that many housewives, people throughout the country, who want 
 scales merely for their own use. They do not care whether they 
 carry an ounce or two more or less. I was thinking about those 
 scales, whether these regulations would make them cost more. It 
 would be a hardship on the people in the homes who want scales for 
 the homes and farms, 
 
 Mr. Stratton. The limits prescribed go to the question of toler- 
 ance. The tolerance is prescribed by each State or community, and 
 it is always allowed. Therefore, it would not make the scales cost 
 any more, but simply change the type of scale. 
 
Majstupactuee^ sale, and use of weights and measures. 19 
 
 th +■' -^^CHAEACH. Will you say wliv you arbitrarily set a year from 
 
 A/T of its passage that it is to go into effect? 
 
 Air. Reai'is. Any prosecution is barred within a year. 
 
 Mr. Steatton. That part of it Avas referred to the legal depart- 
 ment of the Department of Commerce. 
 
 Mr. Bacharach. I had reference to the fact that it does not go 
 into effect until one year aftei' its passage. I was wondering why 
 that was. It seems to me if it is to be changed that a year is not 
 long enough, if you are tzying to give the people a little time to 
 dispose of what they have on hand. 
 
 Mr. Stratton. It could be made longer. 
 
 }ir. Bacharach. It seems to me it should be made longer than a 
 year, or else go into effect immediately after the passage of the act. 
 
 Mr. Steattox. Now, if a year is not considered long enough, it 
 could be made longer. It is not a question of condemning much 
 apparatus. It looks to the future. 
 
 Mr. Sears. That is what I had in mind, whether you wanted to 
 give the people an opportunity to sell what they had on hand. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. H. SHEEMAN, DISTRICT SUPERINTEliroENT 
 OF WEIGHTS, MEASURES, AND MARKETS, WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. I think I can clear up two questions which have 
 been asked, as to the expense involved in this change, and as to the 
 time required. I represent another branch of this thing. The 
 Bureau of Standards, as you know, is an advisory body. I have the 
 actual administration of the law here in the District, and the truth, 
 as we have observed it through two years, since this bill was intro- 
 duced, we have been keeping a pretty careful account of what would 
 have been the effect of this bill had it been in operation here in the 
 District of Columbia. We have also been advising scale dealers and 
 scale manufacturers as to what changes they should be making in 
 their products now, in anticipation of the passage of this bill, telling" 
 them, going to them and saying, " You fellows do not want to turn 
 out scales this year that are going to be illegal next year. You better 
 be getting into line because this thing is sure to pass." We have 
 been putting it up to them in that way, and they are doing it. One 
 scale company, after kicking A-ery vigorously, finally put through 
 the requirements, and they find that the scale costs them 40 cents 
 a piece less than it did to manufacture them before. Another manu- 
 facturer reported a saving of $1.25 per scale. 
 
 Mr. Bacharach. What price scales were they? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. They range from $150 to $250 apiece. The $1.50 
 saving, or the 40-cent saving, looks small as a percentage saving, but 
 when you consider the number of scales they put out over the United 
 States it is a very great amount, and I want to say that there is only 
 one scale comi>any that is fighting this legislation. That is abso- 
 lutely the truth. 
 
 Now o-oing further into the thing, we find that this bill will not 
 hiive the^'eff'ect of putting out of business a lot of apparatus. It will 
 mean the making over of a lot of apparatus, and that making over, 
 that repairing, takes on an average of about four days after the ma- 
 chine gets into the shop, and to allow a year is to allov,- the man to 
 
20 MANUFACTUEt;, SALE, AND USE OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 use the machine up until the last month, and then send it to be re- 
 paired, and as for the argument that a year is too short, it is based 
 on the failure, I think, to realize what is going to be needed to be 
 done, and when you consider that it only involves a matter of repairs, 
 a year is too long. 
 
 Mr. Bachaeach. You say they can send their scales aAvay to be 
 repaired ? ' 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Bachaeach. Most of these scales, I presume, are owned by 
 large corporations, and they, of course, will do the repairing, and 
 will they not charge an excessive amount to repair the scales? 
 
 Mr. SHEKaiAx. Xo, sir. The scales are actually sold. 
 
 Mr. Bacharach. If you want to buy a portion of an automobile 
 and you have to purchase it from the manufacturer, it vrill cost 10 
 times as much as it otherwise would. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. A small percentage of the scales need to be re- 
 paired, it is true, although the total number is, of course, large. 
 But the competition in the scales field is so great that these scales 
 are, as a rule, sold under these conditions, that the buyer does not 
 pay for the scales until it has been passed by the sealer, and the 
 seller guarantees to keep the scales in condition to he acceptable to 
 the sealer for one year. That is the usual method of selling the 
 scales, and beyond that point the competition between fjcale compa- 
 nies is very keen. Any scale company M'ill place a new scale in a 
 man's shop and take in part payment an old scale of a competitor, 
 and take it down and utilize parts, so that the companies, as a matter 
 of fact, have to make changes now for a very nominal charge, even 
 6 or 8 or 10 years^after the scale has been installed, and the charges 
 are exceedingly small — only a nominal charge. 
 
 Going further, this thing will save both the dealers and the scale 
 manufacturers a vast amount of money through this condition, that 
 it will make the requirements uniform. Under the present laws 
 there is nothing to prevent any sealer in any State to change over 
 night the requirements of scales in his little jurisdiction. I could 
 go out to-morrow and put up a good argument to the Commissioners 
 of the District of Columbia, no one 'of whom is a technical man, and 
 unless they held an open hearing- thej probably would, but all 
 commissions do not — unless they lic'.l an open hearing and adver- 
 tised it in order to get in from the District's several hundred miles 
 the head representatives of the big scale companies, there would be 
 no opposition with respect to getting a change that would wipe out 
 half the scales in the District of Columbia. The commissioners have 
 at the present time absolute power to regulate what kind of scales 
 shall be sold. 
 
 The situation in Virginia is quite different from ^Yhat it is in the 
 District, and the situation in Maryland is different from that of 
 Virginia or the District of Columbia. If we coudenm a scale in the 
 District, it goes out into Maryland and passes the Maryland law. 
 If a man weighs something on a scale over in Maryland, and brings 
 it into the District and sells it, he gets into trouble, and he is taken 
 to the police court and fined, and the saving to the community in 
 repair charges, in transportation charges, in taking scales back and 
 forth from one jurisdiction to another, trying to get the scales 
 
MANUFAOTUEE, SA].E, AND USE OF WIUUHTS AND MEASUKES. 21 
 
 changed from one jurisdiction into anotlier jurisdiction where they 
 will pass, plus the loss to the scale companies in attempting to keep 
 their manufacturing operations flexible enough to provide for all 
 their 200 operations that now exist in their requirements. There 
 are o\'er 200 different sets of requirements that exist in the United 
 States to-day. Those requirements require the companies to main- 
 tain a lai'ge force of men, experts, at work all the time to keep up 
 with the changes, and to keep their manufacturing processes flexible. 
 The passage of this bill will save them many thousands of dollars 
 in the big companies that they now spend in an effort to keep up 
 with the varying legislation and varying requirements. 
 
 Mr. Slatden. Uniformity wouFd be good for them? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir; and as to the reference to the fact that 
 for a long time we have gone under certain conditions, and the 
 hesitation to change, I want to suggest, both with relation to scales 
 and with relation to the standard for the bushel, that a few years 
 ago a younger member of my family put in electric lights in our 
 house, and my parents, both of whom were in the neighborhood of 
 70, and who had used gas a long time, proposed that we should 
 put in a new gas meter. It is the same proposition exactly. 
 
 Mr. Sears. This bill affects scales used all over the country, as I 
 understand it. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Sears. Suppose I have paid $300 for a scale, under your 
 statement there would be an agrement for 12 months to take care of 
 that? 
 
 Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Seaes. If the 12 months should elapse before this law goes 
 into effect, then it is my scale. What is the life of a scale, four or 
 five 3"ears? 
 
 ]Mr. SHF.raiAX. No; 8 or 10 years. 
 
 Mr. Sears. Then, what recourse would I have if the factory would 
 refuse to take it back? 
 
 Mr. SiiERMAX. Xo; that is just the point. 
 
 Mr. Sears. If my contract had expired I would ha >e no contract 
 with them. . . . . 
 
 Mr. Shei:max. That is just the point. The competition is ]ust 
 so keen that tliey do. as a matter of fact. 
 
 Mr. Sears. But that is a mere presumption that they would. 
 
 Mr. Shkrtman. They do at the present time. 
 
 Mr. Sk.^-es. But they would lose when they took it hjck. 
 
 Mr. SiiER^iAX. It is not a matter of replacing; it is a mutter of re- 
 pairing. Now, as a matter of fact, all the scales costing $100 or 
 higher, T think it is fair to sa3' that not over 10 per cent would re- 
 quire any changes; that is. all just madf within the last five years; 
 not over' 10 per cent would require any changes to make them meet 
 the present tentative requirements of the Bureau of Standards. I 
 happen to know what those are. 
 
 Mr. Sears. This should not affect any scales now in use. 
 
 The Chairman. I think, Mr. Sears, it would be out of the question 
 to do that, because if we are going to have uniform scales, the old 
 scales would have to meet the requirements. 
 
 Mr. Sherman. There used to be in the District of Columbia a re- 
 quirement that ice-cream cases should have a tolerance and should be 
 
22 MANUFACrUEE, SALE, AND USE OP WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 
 
 allowed to pass if they were not more than 2 drams short in a pint. 
 A new law was passed providing that ice-cream packs had to be in 
 one pack. The law was made to provide that those companies having 
 a supply of the old cases could use them up. When I came into the 
 District I found one company still using the old packs. They had 
 been using them for three years. After all the other companies had 
 used up their old supply thej' had laid in a new supply. For three 
 years this company had had an advantage over its competitors of 
 one dram of material in every pint sold. 
 
 Mr. Slatden. For the same named quantity they delivered less ? 
 
 Mr. Sheemak. Yes, sir; and I started out to find how long this 
 thing was going to continue, and found they had a four years' sup- 
 ply. I stopped it, as I think I ought to have done. 
 
 Mr. Steatton. There is just one point that ought to be brought 
 out here. That is in relation to the scales that the common people 
 use. I did not consider this point of these expensive scales seriously, 
 because the law will take care of those, because it is a small matter. 
 A few of them will have to be adjusted. 
 
 Mr. Slayden. And the cost of the adjustment would not be ex- 
 pensive ? 
 
 Mr. Steatton. Very little; but this weights and measures move- 
 ment that is going all over the country is starting people to thinking 
 about these things, and they are buying scales, which is what we 
 want them to do. We want every housewife to get a pair of scales. 
 It can be cheap, but it must do the work. I saw a case the other day 
 in Chicago where a certain device — it was not a weighing device, 
 but seemed to have to do with electricity — was on sale in a 10-cent 
 store. That is another thing. We will have scales in the 10-cent 
 store, and we do not want them unless they are good. They can be 
 cheap, but they must do the work. 
 
 Mr. Slatden. You do not care how cheap they are if they are 
 efficient ? 
 
 Mr. Steatton. That is a dozen times more important than this 
 other matter. 
 
 Mr. Sweet. In the first section here a reference is had to certain 
 resolutions. The committee is not acquainted with what is in the 
 resolutions there. 
 
 Mr. Steatton. That refers to resolutions of Congress. The one 
 I refer to is that the Secretary of the Treasury should provide each 
 State with a set of standards. That is when the old Office of Weights 
 and Measures was in the Treasury Department. I believe that is 
 the only one that is referred to. The other is the equivalent resolu- 
 tion regarding the metric system. There are two or three of those 
 resolutions, but they all refer to the duty of the National Government 
 to the State. 
 
 Mr. Slatden. One resolution was approved June 14, 1876. That is 
 the one that authorizes the Federal Government to supply each State 
 with a set of standards. Then there is one July 27, 1866! 
 
 Mr. Steatton. Some additional standard, probably the metric sys- 
 tem. 
 
 (Whereupon the committee adjourned.) 
 
 X 
 
Cornell University Library 
 
 HG479.A2 W41 1916a 
 
 v-1 , . 
 
 Regulation and control of manufacture, s 
 
 olln 
 
 1924 030 192 342