A1VJ4-\ 0\^ CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARD WEIGHTS FOR "^^ VARIOUS COMMODITIES^ HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COINAGE, WEIGHTS, AND MEASURES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SIXTY-FOURTH COTGRESS First Session ON H. R. 150 JANUARY 20 and 27, 1916 # WASHINGTON OOVliKNMBNT FEINTING OI'i'IOE 1918 COMMITTEE ON COINAGE, WEIGHTS, AND MEASURES. IIousB OP Representatives. SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS. WILLIAM A. ASHBROOK, Ohio, Chairman. JAMES L. SLAYDEN, Texas. LADISLAS LAZARO, Louisana. JOHN W. ABERCROMBIE, Alabama. WILLIAM H. MURRAY, Oklahoma. J. CHARLES LINTHICUM, Maryland. C C. DILL, Washington. BENJAMIN C. HILLIARD, Colorado. WILLIAM J. SEARS, Florida. -JAMES H. MAYS, Utah. E. E. ROBERTS, Nevada. ISAAC BACHARACH, New Jersey. WALTER R. STINESS, Rhode Island. BURTON E. SWEET, Iowa. HENRY L EMERSON, Ohio. JAMES W. HUSTED, New York. C. F. REAVIS, Nebraska. F. C. HICKS, New York. J. KUHIO KALANIANAOLE, Hawaii. ESTABLISHMENT OF STAI^DARD OF WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES. Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures, House of Eepresentatives, Washington, D. C, January W, 1916. The committee met at 10.30 a. m. Present: Representatives Ashbrook (chairman), Murray, Linthi- cum, Hilliard, Sears, Mays, Bacharach, Sweet, and Husted. Present also: Hon. Charles H. Dillon, Representative from Ohio, and Messrs. Curtis Nye Smith and Frank W. Bolgiano. The Ghaieman. I want to make just a word of explanation to the committee. One week ago to-day I announced at the conclusion of the hearing on H. R. 2 that we would have a hearing to-day on the bills introduced by Mr. Dillon. A day or two later I received a wire from the Toledo Scale Co., who are very much interested in this bill, stating that it would be impossible for them to have their I'epre- sentative here at this time and asking that the hearing be postponed for one week. I knew of no reason why this could not be done and therefore wired them that the hearing would be postponed. I also notified Dr. Stratton, of the Bureau of Standards, that he need not appear before the committee to-day, that the hearing would be held on the 27th. I learned this morning that there were some gentle- mefi in the city who had made a long trip here for the purpose of appearing before the committee, and not wishing to disappoint them, I concluded to call the committee together. These gentlemen are here and we will give them an opportunity to be heard, and, inas- much as I have promised to the other gentlemen that we would have a hearing of this bill one week from to-day, there will be a further hearing on January 27. Mr. Dillon, the author of H. R. 150, is present. He served on this committee during the last Congress, but to my regret he was trans- ferred to another committee, and is no longer a member of this com- mittee. However, he has given questions of concern to this com- mittee a great deal of thought and attention, and I am very glad indeed that he has retained his interest in these matters and has introduced this bill, and he is here this morning to speak to you con- cerning it, which I will offer for the record : [H. R. 150, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session.] A BILL To establish a standard of weights for various commodities, and for other purposes. Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assemUed, That whenever any commodity men- tioned in this section shall be sold or purchased by the bushel or any fractional part thereof in any of the States, the Territory of Alaska, or the District of Columbia the proper amount thereof shall hereafter be ascertained by weight 3 4 STASTDAED WEIGHTS FOE VAEIOUS COMMODITIES. and be computed as follows : Alfalfa seed, sixty pounds per bushel ; apples fortv-eight pounds per bushel; dried apples, twenty-four pounds per busUel, apple sleds forty pounds per bushel; barley, forty-eight pounds per bushe beans slxt^ pounds per bushel; castor beans, forty-six pounds per bushel; blets sixty pounds per bushel; bine-grass seed, fourteen pounds per bushel; bran, twenty pounds per bushel; broom-corn seed, thirty pounds per bushe buckwheat, forty-eight pound per bushel; carrots fifty pounds Pfi; '^"^^^J : clover seed, sixty pounds per bushel; corn, shelled, flfty-six pounds per bushel, corn meal, fortv-eight pounds per bushel ; cotton seed, thirty-two pounds per bushel; cranberries, thirty-two pounds per bushel; cucumbers forty-eight pounds per bushel ; flaxseed, fifty-six pounds per bushel ; hempseed, forty-tour pounds per bushel ; herds grass, forty-five pounds per bushel ; Hungarian grass seed, fifty pounds per bushel; Kafir corn, flfty-six pounds per bushel; malt, thirtv-eight pounds per bushel; millet, fifty pounds per bushel; oats, thirty- two pounds per bushel; onions, fifty-seven pounds per bushel; top onion sets, twenty-eight pounds per bushel; bottom onion sets, thirty-two pounds per bushel; orchard-grass seed, fourteen pounds per bushel; parsnips, fifty pounds per bushel; peaches, forty-eight pounds per bushel; dried peaches, thirty-three pounds per bushel ; peanuts, twenty-two pounds per bushel ; pears, forty-five pounds per bushel; green peas, unshelled, flfty-six pounds per bushel; dried peas, sixty pounds per bushel; pop corn, shelled, flfty-six pounds per bushel; potatoes, sixty pounds per bushel ; sweet potatoes, flfty-five pounds per bushel ; quinces, forty-eight pounds per bushel; rape seed, fifty pounds per bushel; redtop, fourteen pounds per bushel ; rough rice forty-five pounds per bushel ; rutabagas, fifty pounds per bushel; rye meal, fifty pounds per bushel; rye, flfty-six" pounds per bushel ; shorts, twenty pounds per bushel ; sorghum seed, fifty pounds per bushel ; timothy seed, forty-five pounds per bushel ; tomatoes, fifty-six pounds per bushel ; turnips, fifty-five pounds per bushel ; wheat, sixty pounds per bushel : Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed as pro- hibiting the delivery of any commodity by the use of the bushel measure or fractional part thereof in accordance with any contract for purchase or sale of such commodity made prior to the passage of this act. Sec. 2. That whenever any of the above-mentioned commodities are purchased or sold it shall be unlawful to employ any other weight in such sale than the net weight of such commodity ; and all contracts concerning any of the above- mentioned commodities, purchased or sold, shall be understood and construed accordingly. Whenever the weight of any commodity is mentioned in this act it shall be understood and construed to mean the net weight of such commodity. Sec. 3. That the Director of the Bureau of Standards, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce, shall make and promulgate uniform rules and regu- lations for carrying into effect the provisions of this act ; shall give instructions and advice as to 1:he methods to be used in testing all weights and weighing devices, which instructions and advice shall govern the procedure to be followed by all weights and measures officials in the United States ; and may act in con- junction with such officials for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this act. Seo. 4. That any person, corporation, company, society, or association who shall sell or offer for sale less than the quantity he presents, or shall take or attempt to take more than the quantity lie represents, when as buyer he fur- nishes the weight or weighing device by which the amount of commodity is determined, or who shall falsify any weight or weighing device, or who may liave in his possession any false weight or weighing device, shall be guilty of "a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $.500, or by Imprisonment for not more than three months, or by both such fine and im- prisonment. We will now hear from Mr. Dillon. STATEMENT OF HON. CHAELES H. DILLON, A EEPKESENTATTVE IN CONGKESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA. Mr. Dillon. Inasmuch as the statement I am about to make to the committee will be repeated at the hearing of January 2Y, I shall ask that it not be included in the present hearing. (An informal statement was made by Mr. Dillon, on H. R. 150.) STANDABD WKIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 5 Mr. Dillon (continuing). Mr. Smith represents the seed men, and he is here and would like to make a statement upon the pea question. I have had probably 20 letters upon that subject. The trade, so far as peas are concerned, wants a classification between the wrinkled and the ordinarj' pea. There is, I think, some 5 pounds difference in the weights, and it is upon that subject that Mr. Smith wishes to present an argument. Personally I have no objection to that classification if the committee wants to go into that much of a detail. My people have written me, my seed men, and they want that classification, and if the committee deem it is wise to make that classification in peas, it could easily be done, as the two varieties are clearly marked and well defined by the seed trade, and it is especially upon that point that I think the gentlemen now present would like to be heard. One change in this bill from the bill that was introduced in the last Congress is in reference to the top onion sets and the ordinary onion set. There is such a variation in the weights of those two classifications that I made that classification in the new bill. The Chairman. We shall be glad to hear from Mr. Smith. Mr. Sweet. May I ask Mr. Dillon a question? The Chairman. Certainly. Mr. Sweet. Will you kindly state why it would not be practicable and desirable to vest the Bureau of Standards with authority to adopt a uniform system of weights and measures for all articles for which it was desirable to estab^lish a standard and then confer upon them authority, through inspectors, to enforce the provisions of the act? Mr. Dillon. That goes further than this bill. It goes much fur- ther than this bill, but the only objection I could see to that would be the administrative features — the expense of it. Mr. Sweet. Would that not result in a substantial saving to the States, Mr. Dillon? As I understand it, your bill does not contem- plate the abolition of the office of supervisors of weights and measures in the various States? Mr. Dillon. No. Mr. Sweet. And all of the administrative expense now borne by the several States in connection with those offices? Mr. Dillon. I have talked that over with Mr. Fisher and with the Bureau of Standards, and you have got to depend upon the local machinery largely to enforce your law, and that becomes pos- sibly the best instrumentality of enforcement. If we go into that provision, it will be rather expensive. Possibly the committee might want to go that far. If so, I would have no objection to it. Mr. Sweet. Would not the local machinery still be aAailable ; that is, the police force still be available in case an inspector of the Bureau of Standards discovered a violation of the law, would not the police of the various States be still available for the purposes of enforcement ? Mr. Dillon. Yes. Mr. Sweet. Even through the supervisor of weights and measures was no longer a State officer? Mr. Dillon. Yes. Mr. Sweet. It occurred to me if the Constitution of the United States has vested the Federal Government with authority in this 6 STANDAED WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMOClTIES. matter, I do not see Avliy the Federal Government should not exer- cise it and should not establish a standard throughout the States for all articles for which it seemed desirable to establish a standard, so that we might not only have a standard on these particular arti- cles which this bill covers'but on any other article which it may here- after be deemed desirable to establish a standard for, whereas under this system it is necessary to amend your acts from year to year, and it seems to be desirable to establish standards. Mr. Dillon. Personally, I would have no objection to the com- mittee going that far if they deemed it wise to do so. STATEMENT OF ME. CURTIS NYE SMITH, OE BOSTON, MASS. The Chairman. Please state your name, your residence, and who you represent here. Mr. Smith. My residence is Boston; I repi'esent the American Seed Trade Association, wholesale seedmen, and the Wholesale Grass Seed Dealers' Association. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I want first to thank you for your courtesy in giving me this hearing. I came down here understand- ing there vv'as to be a hearing, and, in fact, Mr. Dillon was so courteous as to advise me there was to be a hearing, and I signified my intention of being present, and upon stating that fact to the chairman of your committee, he very kindly said he would give us this opportunity to speak on this bill, because it would be rather impossible for me to come down a week from this time, and, as an acknowledgment of that courtesy I am going to limit my time to 10 minutes. Mr. Dillon has very carefully stated the object of this bill. The seed trade association and all the members, I believe, of this asso- ciation are not at all opposed to the theory of this bill ; in fact I am very positive that the object of the bill meets with their approval, for the reason, as so ably stated hj Mr. Dillon, that in each State almost we have what they call standard weights per bushel of the commodities in which we seecfsmen deal. This variation in the standard creates a very serious difficulty to merchants engaged, as all seedsmen are, in an interstate business. The merchant of New York is quite as liable to sell his seeds in Michigan as he is to sell them in New York. This means that when he deals in New York State he violates the New York law in his sale in a New York prod- uct, but the Michigan seedsman in selling to a New York purchaser is not bound by the same law. In other words, the New York mer- chant is handicapped in peas to the extent of a competition of four pounds per bushel. My object is simply, Avithout raising any objection to the bill, to point out that there are several items in this bill which ought to be changed if you are going to take upon yourself the plenary power of fixing the standards of weights per bushel of these various com- modities in which seedsmen deal. In so doing you make it possible by one sweep of the pen, or by the passage of one act, to rectify all of these mistakes, and if you are going to take that power why not make it correct? The trouble with this bill, and the trouble with the circular issued by the Bureau of Standards, or any statement that Mr. Stratton mav STANDABD WEIGHTS FOB VAEIOUS COMMODITIES. 7; make to you, is that they take the thing as they find it on the stata,te books. It is a matter of bookkeeping to determine for Mr. Stratibon, what should be the weight per bushel of these various commodities. As a matter of practice, and that is the object of my appearing before you, is to explain that since these laws were passed in the varioiis States, the horticulture and agriculture have developed new varieties, and while 40 years ago the standard weight per bushel of peas was correctly stated to be 60 pounds, now there has been devel- oped a new pea, the wrinkled variety, we call it, which has revolu- tionized the sale of peas. In other words it is a great advance to have the wrinkled peas. It is an earlier pea, more nutritious and de- licious to eat. As a consequence this bill and various State bills^ have made no recognition of this advance in the development of the? varieties of peas, and the same thing is true of beans. Therefore in going through this bill we find there are a few corrections that we would like to note. On page 1, the 11th line — I have prepared here, Mr. Chairman, ajj amendment suggested by the seedsmen, which I will hand to the stenographer — but I should like to call the attention of the gentle- men to these very few corrections. For instance, in the 11th line, on page 1, we find the item, " beans 60 pounds per bushel." Now, if we are obliged in all States under this Federal law which you are now considering to sell all beans at 60 pounds per bushel, you would make it impossible to sell a large variety of beans, which are not and can not be made to weigh 60 pounds per bushel. That same situa- tion, Mr. Chairman, developed in the State of Massachusetts. There was a certain inspector of weights who thought he would enforce the law in his little town. So he demanded that the seedsmen should sell all their peas and beans at 60 pounds a bushel. Under that stat- ute of Massachusetts, which is exactly similar to this one — that is, peas 60 pounds and beans 60 pounds a bushel — we had absolutely no right to ask that the commissioner of weights and measures at the statehouse should recognize the difference in the varieties and make different standards. Therefore a bill was introduced in the Massa- chusetts Legislature and the commissioner of weights and measures brought before the committee, which is the same as your committee here, all these various varieties. He brought up from his office the standard weights and the standard capacity measures, and he weighed all of these articles before the committee to show to the committee as a demonstration that these beans and peas could not weigh that amount. The result was that the law was changed iq Massachusetts on the same line that I am now suggesting to your committee. In other words, beans were changed in the general item to include " lima beans, 56 pounds per bushel ; scarlet runner pole beans or white runner pole beans, ,50 pounds; and broad Windsor beans, 47 pounds." You can see there is a tremendous difference be- tween 47 pounds and 60 pounds. That is the law of Massachusetts at the present time. An effort was made by the speaker to introduce certain bills in the various States to correct the errors, but the work was so tremens dous it involved so much time to go through every State and make these corrections, and in view of Mr. Dillon's bill, which came up about the same time, we decided that it was perfectly foolish to 8 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOB VAEIOUS COMMODITIES. undertake to make it uniform in the State legislatures, and we trusted that this committee and Congress would make the proper corrections. Therefore the only argument in favor of adding these few words, which do not complicate the matter very seriously, is this: That it makes possible to establish those standards at which all these seeds are universally bought and sold. There is no exception to what I am stating. They are all sold by the trade that way, irrespective of what the law is. In some States they do not pretend to comply with the law; they do not pay any attention to the law. As you loiow very well, if any State law under the police power is so unreasonable that it is impossible to comply with it, we know the consequence is that it is unconstitutional. You can not make a bushel of wrinkled peas, no matter how hard you try by pressing them down or crowding them, weigh 60 pounds to a bushel ; therefore that law is unconstitutional, because unreason- able, and as a demonstration of that I have here two varieties of peas, the wrinkled pea and the smooth pea. This is the smooth pea here [exhibiting] , which weighs properly 60 pounds a bushel, and is so provided in your bill. The wrinkled pea weighs only 66 pounds, and it is impossible to make it weigh any more. We simply ask that there shall be that correction in the bill by inserting those very few words, not quite a half dozen, saying, " Wrinkled peas, 56 pounds a bushel." Mr. HiLLiAED. Would that not be protected by the seed people in the price? Mr. Smith. It is, in a way. It is in this way, that all these wrinkled peas are sold at a specific price. If it was to be sold at 60 pounds a bushel the seedmen would abandon the sale at 60 pounds a bushel, as a bushel sale, a measured sale, and sell by the pound and charge an additional price. Mr. HiLLiAED. That is what I had in mind, that you could charge more per bushel or per pound as you chose. Mr. Smith. That is a very interesting question, and I should like to ask a few moments to explain the difficulty that the seedsman has in selling by weight. All over this country for hundreds of years, both in this and in other countries, all the farmers have been buyin"' by the bushel. They know exactly what a bushel of grass seed wilt do on an acre. They Imow exactly what a pound of peas will plant exactly 50 feet of row. As we call it, all of the " cultural advice " to' the farmer is on the basis of that measure ; that is, one pound of peas or beans we will say will plant exactly 50 feet of row and that is the reason why, if we try to disturb that thing, we have oot to edu- cate all the farmers all over the country to buy not a pmt but 15 ounces, you see, because 15 ounces at the rate of 60 pounds per bushel is the comparative figure — the ratable division. Is that an answer to your question ? Mr. HiLLiAED. Yes; I was only asking for information. Mr. Smith. Let me pass hastily on, unless some other questions are to be asked. Mr. LiNTHicuM. Is it not customary at the present time in the seed houses to buy an ounce of this or a pound of that ? Peter Henderson for instance, always quotes prices at so much per ounce for small lots, for the vegetable garden ? STANDAED WEIGHTS FOB VAEIOUS COMMODITIES, i) Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Mr. LiNTHicuM. Is that not practically the same thing carried out a little further? Mr. Smith. No, sir; it is a desirable feature to have that carried on, and in wholesale they do sell by the pound. That is, the growers to the big fellows — ^the growers selling to the large wholesalers. Mr. LiNTHicuM. I mean buying an ounce of this or an ounce of that. Mr. BoLGiANO. There are certain things like cabbage seed, lettuce seed, and parsnip seed that are never sold by the bushel. Those are all quoted in Mr. Henderson's catalogue you refer to by the pound and by the ounce, but peas, beans, and some other things which have been mentioned are never sold excepting by the quart. In the very far West, in San Francisco, they do use the pound in dealing in beans. Mr. LiNTHicuM. Then, if that is the case the farmers have been educated to a certain extent in some of the seeds, but not in all. Is that what it amounts to ? Mr. BoLGiANO. No; that is not so. The custom has been — I could trace it back personally for over 150 years, and how much further I could not say, there has been the use of pounds and ounces, and the pounds and quarts used, and that being the case the farmer is edu- cated only in two ways, one by the pounds and the other by the quarts. Mr. Smith is perfectly right in saying that it would mix up the trade so thoroughly that it would be almost impossible for the seedsman to educate his people, for a year or two, to get rid of the idea of the quarts and the bushels. For instance, a farmer will come in and say, " I Avant to plant 8 acres of clover," he says, " I want 8 bushels." He does not know any- thing about the pounds. He has no idea about pounds. He has his little measure at home, and he will go there and he will dip out a peck or one-half peck, and — with all due respect to Mr. Stratton, or whoever made the assertion that 99 per cent of these people are wrong — he has been doing that way for years. And it has been com- ing right, too. He has that measure and he goes and measures out those quantities. You have got to educate those men in a different line entirely. He will go to a seed man and say, " I want 100 pounds of grass seed. How much will that plant?" The Chairman. Is it not a fact that the passage of a bill like the one before the committee at this time would mean a campaign of education in all the States on all the different items mentioned in the bill? Mr. Smith. No ; because this is by standard. The Chairman. But it would change the number of pounds per bushel ? Mr. Smith. No; because they have been buying it all wrong and they will continue to buy it all wrong. The Chairman. That might be as to peas and beans, but here are many other items mentioned in this bill, and Mr. Dillon has already stated , and all of the members of the committee well know, there is a different standard of weight in practically every State; and the object of this bill is to have a standard weight, and that would mean a change in the different States and would mean that the people must 10 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOB VARIOUS COMMODITIES. be educated that when they buy a bushel of any article mentioned in this bill that they get the number of pounds mentioned in the bill. It therefore would mean, as I said in the beginning, a campaign of education all over the country on all of these items included m the bill. Mr. Smith. I think you are quite right, Mr. Chairman. There will have to be an education in certain respects, and that is one of the inevitable consequences and one of the favorable consequences. The Chairman. Do you not think also, Mr. Smith, that other gen- tlemen who may be interested in other items of this bill could come before this committee and raise some similar objection to having one standard rate for one kind of seed or commodity ? Mr. Smith. No, sir. I also represent the American Association. It is interested, to a certain extent, in this. I have gone over all these items, and the only items so far that these two great boclieS) of merchants wish amended are the \'ery few items that I am going to suggest to correct this thing and make it so that when we do> start on this campaign of education that it will be educational. The Chairman. I think the suggestion of the gentleman from Colorado would meet your objection, and that is that the price wouldi regulate the pounds jDer bushel. Mr. Smith. That is very easil}' answered, Mr. Chairman, if I may suggest this : When a farmer orders from us a bushel of the Duke of Wellington peas he is entitled, under this bill here and under the statutes of all of the States, to a' bushel of 60 pounds, although it is a wrinkled pea. Now, it is impossible to deliver to him a bushel that does weigh 60 pounds, and that is the object in correcting this thing by saying that a wrinkled pea shall weigh 56 pounds. There is no question of price on the thing. If he wishes to get 60 pounds of peas he can get four- sixtieths more in quantity and the corresponding amount more in price. The Cpiairman. But in a very short time would not the people learn when they bought a bushel of smooth peas that they are get- ting 60 pounds, and when they bought a bushel of wrinkled peas they were getting 56 pounds? Mr. Smith. That is quite possible, and I am sure that most of the farmers now realize that whenever they purchase a bushel of wrinkled peas that they are getting 56 pounds. But that is not what is interesting us especially and what ought interest this com- mittee, but it is the establishment for all of the States of a standard per bushel; that that standard should be a correct standard. It should not ask the merchant to sell a bushel of wrinkled peas at 60 pounds per bushel, as this bill now does require. Mr. Dillon. I should like to ask Mr. Smith a question, with the permission of the committee. The Chairman. Yes, sir. Mr. Dillon. Is there any State in the Union that provides for 56 pounds to the bushel of wrinkled peas? Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Mr. Dillon. What State? Mr. Smith. Massachusetts. Mr. Dillon. I thinlf that is the only one. Mr. Smith. It is the only one, because it is the only one that has recognized the difference between the peas. STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 11 Mr. Dillon. For the benefit of the committee I will say that I have the compiled statement here showing that 30 States have fixed the peas at 60 pounds to the bushel and there is no diversity as among those 30 States. Now, the question is whether these 30 States should five away and allow you to make a new classification. Such a classi- cation would conflict with the mandatory laws of a lot of other States. The question is whether it is wise to do it. Mr. HtrsTED. Along that line, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman states that it would be impossible to deliver a bushel of peas weighing 60 pounds; am I correct? Mr. Smith. I should like to amend that by saying wrinkled peas. Mr. HusTED. A bushel of wrinkled peas, weighing 60 pounds. Does not this act, by its very terms, create a varying bushels If it declares a bushel of 60 pounds, then it is a varying bushel. You have changed the bushel to meet the requirements of the particular article with respect to weight. In other words, as a matter of fact, ordinary peas will weigh 60 pounds a bushel and wrinkled peas 56 pounds, and if you comply with the terms of this act you have got to have a bigger bushel of wrinkled peas than you have for your smooth peas? I think that is the effect of the bill. Mr. HiLLiAED. I tliink the fact that we use the term " pounds '" indicates that we do not measure, but we weigh, and if we set wrinkled peas at 60 pounds we do net care what the quantity is, but the man who sells knows what he must have to make a profit. Mr. Smith. If that is the policy of the bill my argument is not so interesting; but the policy is the establishment of the weight of certain commodities. That is a bushel of peas, not distinguishing between the two varieties, shall weigh 60 pounds a bushel. We ask, and submit for your judgment, whether it would not be advisable to recognize that difference between the two varieties and insert the word. If we are mistaken in stating that the universal weight per bushel of wrinkled peas is 56 pounds you can very easily ascertain that fact; but if it is the fact that all wrinkled peas are sold at 56 pounds a bushel, then we have simply agked that there shall be a correction, out of justice and in accordance with the facts. Mr. Mays. Do you have wrinkled beans also? Mr. Smith. No ; we do not have wrinkled' beans ; but we do have different varieties. For instance, the large Windsor. The Windsor bean is a very large bean and only weighs 46 pounds to the bushel. Mr. Sweet. Does this bill provide the number of pounds in a bushel of apples? Mr. Smith. Apple seed, I think. Mr. Sweet. But not apples? Mr. Smith. No, sir. Mr. Sweet. So, then, you do not get into the difficulty of interfer- ing with selling apples by the box ? Mr. Smith. I understand not. Mr. HtrsTED. The act says, " Apples, 41 pounds per bushel." The Chairman. Of course we all know that a bushel of large apples will not weigh as much as a bushel of small apples. Mr. Linthicum. 1 was going to suggest, right along that line, that that was one objection. Take the large hotels in New YorJi. They buy their potatoes of a certain size and of a certain size only.. 12 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOB VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 'Sow a bushel of those small potatoes will weigh more than a bushel of big potatoes. Mr. Sweet. Yes; and in a great many westei'n States they have been educating their people to sell the apples by the box and are trying to educate the people of the East to buy by the box and not by the bushel or barrel. Mr. Smith. My answer to you was inadvertent. I thought it read " apple seeds." It is a mistake we shall be very glad to have corrected. The CiiAiRMAx. Mr. Smith, this provides, though, in article 1 — it says, on page 3, that — Nothing herein shall be construed as prohibiting the delivery of any com- modities by the use of the bushel measure or fractional part thereof in acc(jrd- iince with any contract for purchase or sale of such commodity. That was made prior to the passage of this act; that would not apply, then, after the passage of that. Mr. Smith. I noticed that. I think that is the only reason I came down here, because of those last few words. The CHAiRaiAN. It might possibly be well to amend this bill so that a commodity could be sold by the bushel and not by the pound if the party wishes to make a contract of that kind. Mr. Smith. As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, this bill does not interfere at all with the sale of these various commodities by the bushel. In fact, it confirms such a practice and simply provides that in such sale in order to protect the purchaser, and very properly so, that these various commodities shall weigh so much a bushel. I think that is a very proper thing. The only thing is, the bill is not up to date, because it does not take into account of these varieties, and if it does not it is unjust. Mr. Bacharach. As a matter of fact, you only sell 66 pounds of wrinkled peas per bushel, even in the States that have the 60-pound provision ? Mr. Smith. That is true, sir. In one State in wdiich I was con- nected with a case the seedsmen got a judgment which was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, but unfortunately they had deducted from the jud^-ment the purchase price of the pea seed, about $400, because the statute called for 60 pounds and the court just deducted that amount, four-sixtieths of the purchase price, whereas the local attorney was not acquainted with that statute. A great many attorneys are not acquainted with these statutes in regard to weights per bushel. If the attorney had been acquainted with the statute, he would have simply introduced in his answer the con- stitutional question on that feature, which would- have met that difficulty. Mr. Bacharach. As I understand, it is 60 pounds now ? Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; and as I say we never take the trouble of asking the legislatures to change a law unless we are having some difficulty with it. They have not been enforcing this 60 pounds a bushel of wrinkled peas, so we have not gone to the trouble and expense of introducing laws in every State. In Massachusetts, be- cause of the antipathy of one inspector, it did become necessary to have this correction made, and it was very promptly done by the legislature on a statement of the facts, such as I have attempted to give. STANDARD WEIGHTS FOB VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 15 The next item I want to call to your attention is page 2, line 3. We find there that corn, shelled, is 56 pounds per bushel. It so hap- pens that the old Indian maize, the old Indian corn or flint corn, is; sold at 56 pounds per bushel. I have the schedule here. The legal weights per bushel gotten up by the Bureau of Standards in all those States which have adopted that theory, the law was enacted many many years ago, since which time, as in the case of peas and beans, we_ have developed what we call the sweet corn, which does not weigh that. Varieties of sweet corn are now sold universally and purchased universally at between 40 pounds and 50 pounds a bushel, according to the variety. That is a matter of fact which is easily determined. We therefore suggest that it would be rather impossible to list all these varieties and we suggest to the committee that there should be inserted before the word " corn " the word " field " in order to cover this thing and make this bill apply to what it is really intended to apply, namely, field corn, which is sold at 56 pounds a bushel. Mr. HusTED. Does the Dent corn weigh the same ? Mr. BoLGiANO. Practically, yes. I do not know any difference. We buy it that way and sell it that way. But sugar corn is entirely different. The Chairman. Will a bushel of large kernel corn, like the yellow corn, weigh as much as a bushel of flint corn ? Mr. Smith. Can you answer that question? Mr. BoLGiANO. Yes. Do you mean by the measure? The Chairman. That is probably true, although I did not think it would weigh quite as much. Mr. Bolgiano. There might be a slight variance in the measure, but it is so b( ught and so sold, and has been for years. The only difference that we know in corn is, as said by Mr. Smith, in respect to sugar corn. If I had thought to bring up a sample you could very readily see the difference. For instance, you take Evergreen sugar corn, one of the older varieties, and I doubt very much if you could get 42 to 44 pounds to the bushel — whether you could get it in the bushel — but I am sure you could not get 56 pounds in it, even by shak- ing, as they used to do in my earlier days — shake it three times, I believe it was, before they measured. You could not possibly get it in. It would run as much as a peck over in the measure. Mr. Smith. Shall I pass to the next item, Mr. Chairman? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Smith. That is on line 9, page 2. We find Hungarian grass seed at 50 pounds a bushel. Hungarian grass seed ought to be listed at 48 pounds per bushel. The next line is 11, same page, millet, 50 pounds per bushel. Now, millet covers all millets, so far as this bill is concerned; but I call you attention to the fact that Japanese millet, which has been intro- duced into this country and is now sold extensively, does not weigh over 35 pounds a bushel. Therefore we suggest that Japanese millet be mentioned in this act at 35 pounds a" bushel, or that some excep- tion should be stated in that case. You can not make a bushel of Japanese millet weigh 50 pounds. Mr. HusTED. Thirty-five pounds, you say? Mr. Smith. Thirty-five pounds. It is universally bought and sold at that weight. 14 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES. I notice an omission that I made in my exceptions, and that is blue- grass seed, on page 1, line 13. Blue-grass seed is here listed at 14 pounds per bushel. It is hardly conceivable how they could possibly make that error, except on this theory that in the old days, before we had this expensive cleaning machinery, blue-grass seed was sold as it came, and it does weigh 14 pounds ; but you do not find anybody now buying blue-grass seed to plant their fields that only weigh 14 pounds per bushel. When you clean it, you have an entirely dif- ferent proposition. Mr. Htjsted. What does it weigh then? Mr. Smith. There are five gTades, 17, 19, 21, 24, and 28 pounds per bushel. Mr. HusTED. Does that represent the degree of cleanliness of the seed? Mr. Smith. That represents the cleanliness of the seed and also the plumpness of the seed. The Chairman. And the variety of the seed? Mr. Smith. This is blue-grass seed. The Chairman. There are different varieties, are there not? Mr. Smith. Of blue grass? Mr. BoLGiANO. Yes; there is the Canadian. Mr. Smith. Wait a minute. The United States Department of Agriculture does not like us to list Canadian blue-grass seed as Ken- tucky blue-grass seed or blue grass. It is an entirely different proposition. Canadian blue grass forms a bunch, and people that want to get real, genuine blue-grass seed do not want to have this bunchy stuff called Canadian blue grass. Mr. Dillon. May I interrupt you just a moment for information? Mr. Smith. Yes. Mr. Dillon. I have the form here. There are 18 States which have legislated on that question, and they are all uniform on blue grass. They all make it 14 pounds to the bushel. Mr. Smith. If you wish to have it 14 pounds I do not think it helps the farmers very much. And I will make this suggestion to the committee: If you will investigate as to when those acts were passed establishing the weight you will find it was before the days of these great cleaning establishments. Mr. Sears. What weight would you suggest? The Chairman. He has suggested five weights. Mr. Sears. That is according to the cleanness. There ought to be a weight which we could have, a basis that they would have to furnish that weight, say 20 pounds. Mr. Smith. I suppose it would be an injustice to eliminate the 17 pounds, because that is a merchantable seed ; it is a perfectly good seed; simply that there are certain farmers, especially in "certain parts of the country, where they can not afford to and will not pay the very high prices for Kentucky blue-grass seed, and thev like to buy the 17-pound seed. Mr. Sears. What weight would you give, 14 pounds ? Mr. Smith. No; I should think that ought to be raised to 17 pounds anyhow. Mr. Sears. I know, but the weights you gave just now ? Mr. Smith. They were 17, 19, 21, 24, and 28 pounds. Mr. Sears. Now you want to make it 17 pounds for the minimum ? STANDARD WEIGHTS FOB VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 15 Mr. Smith. I suppose that would be perfectly fair, and I do not make any suggestions to the committee except to call your attention to the fact that these laws are imperfect. We can take this thing as a matter of bookkeeping; we can ask our clerks and they will say, "Why, yes; all these States have this." Then ask the clerks when those laws were passed and you will find out it was before the day of this machinery, or before these new varieties had been brought out. That is why we are trying to correct the matter before this committee. _ The next item is on page 2. We come to dried peas. The sugges- tion is — I will not repeat the argument — that we ought to change that by saying "smooth peas 60 pounds, and wrinkled peas 56 pounds." Mr. Htjsted. What line, please ? Mr. Smith. That would be in line 19. Mr. HusTED. Instead of dried peas, smooth peas? Mr. Smith. Yes; unless you wish to keep the word "dried" in there. The Chairman. Mr. Smith, would it not meet your objection as to the weight of corn to include pop corn and sweet corn together at 56 pounds ? I see the weight of pop corn is fixed at 56 pounds. Mr. Smith. If you want to simplify it, if it is all the same, that is true. But the only thing we ask is that you simply put in the word " field " before the word " corn," just to apply it to the variety that does weigh 56 pounds, and not by interpretation of the statute, as any court would make it, that the word " corn " applies to all varieties, including sweet corn, which never weighs more than 50 pounds, and in some cases down to 40 pounds. Mr. BoLGiANO. The better the grade of sweet corn the less it weighs. Mr. HusTED. The better it is the less it weighs? Mr. BoLGiANO. The better it is the less it weighs. Understand, the sweetness is made by the moisture that is contained in the corn. The more it evaporates the less it will weigh. The shell is there — but the better the sweet corn is the less it weighs. Mr. Smith. The next suggestion is as to line 23, on page 2, " red top." This is about the same situation in regard to red-top seed that we have in blue grass, namely, that before the days of cleaning establishments we got lighter red-top seed. We suggest that you put in the words "natural seed," because that is really what 14 pounds per bushel means, and all these 30 odd States based it on red top as taken out of the field. They did not have any cleaning establishments then. Now, the astonishing situation is that red top, when cleaned by modern methods and grading, weighs about 40 pounds per bushel. That is rather a difference. So we suggest that you put in the words " red-top natural seed, 14 pounds." ■ Mr. HrrsTED. And " red top cleaned " ? Mr. Smith. Is that a fair statement? Mr. BoLGiANO. We call it " fancy, clean, extra clean." It is known in the trade as fancy red top, but it is a product of cleaning. At the 14-pound weight you are getting something like 5 to 7 per cent of seed; in the fancy cleaned you are getting as high as 95 per cent of seed. 16 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. Mr. HusTED. What does the ordinary red top that is used in the trade weigh? Mr. BoLGiANO. Nowadays there is not 1 pound of red top in our stores at this present moment that weighs less than 30 pounds per bushel. We have it, according to grade, up to 38 pounds this year. The various seasons make a difference in the weight of red top and blue grass. You can not always get 28 pounds of blue grass to the bushel. It is only in pecuHarly well adapted seasons for the maturity of it. I do not wish to urge the suggestion, but, personally, I should like to see the standard of blue grass put at 21 pounds. That would be my suggestion, but I do not Avant to be quoted, except as to my own personal view. Mr. SiNiiTH. I think we have tried to put before the committee that apparently it is not right to have it at 14 pounds on cleaned seed, and I thiiik you should use your best judgment as to what you wish to do with it. Mr. Dillon. I might state to the committee, with the permission of your chairman, that nine States have fixed red top at 14 pounds, while Virginia has fixed it at 12 pounds. That will give you the condition in the States. Mr. Smith. I think perhaps that is an item in favor of changing it in all these States. They have thoughtlessly gone ahead on the old basis and not considered these new varieties. It does not seem to me that a farmer who gets this cleaned seed is very much pro- tected by a law which only requires 14 pounds i^er bushel, and, as a matter of fact, no seedmen will sell it to him at that rate. The next suggestion, if there are no more questions, is as to line 24, page 2, that rough rice be changed to 44 pounds instead of 45. Those are all the points I wish to make, except this one: I think this bill could be materially increased in efficiency if this director of the Bureau of Standards, Avith the approval of the Secretary of Commerce, should have some right to make variations, margins of toleration, to take care of certain difficulties that do appear. Most of the State laws do provide such toleration, such administrative right to make reasonable tolerations in this statute. Therefore I make the suggestion that some provision should be inserted at the end of section 3 to give the director of the Bureau of Standards some authority to make those margins of toleration. That is — as Mr. Dillon will doubtless tell you — quite common in most of the States. I have especial reference to New York State, where such provision is made, and where I have had some experience. Before I close I want to answer the gentleman on my l(;ft [Mr. Husted] in one respect. He suggested that this matter of standards of all these commodities — I think I interpret his statement cor- rectly — should be left to the departmental officer, so that any dis- crepancies might be taken care of. Is that not it? Mr. HusTED. I did not suggest it. I simply] asked th( introducer of the bill what objection there would be to doing that. Mr. Smith. I thought I would like to give an answer to that, if the committee will indulge me. One of the great troubles about all of our statutes in these various States, and also in the legislatures, is the almost automatic turning over of making laws to commissions and to administrative officers. I want to call your attention to the gi-eat difficulties that ave apparent STANDAKD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 17 on the face of it by not providing on the statute books a sure method by which we all can find, by examining our statute books of national laws and in the States, what we merchants are expected to do in selling our goods. We have no means of knowing what changes are promulgated, either in Washington or in the 48 States, without communicating with the officer in charge to find out what his latest idea is in respect to certain legislation. Eeferring to the nursery-stock laws in cer- tain States we know nothing about how we can ship our nursery stock into those States, because we can find no authority for any of the regulations that may be there. The only thing we can do is to ask an officer in that State what they are. We may undertake to fit our trade to those certain regulations, and by the time our stock is ready to be shipped into that State we may find that the regulation has been changed and our stock is prohibited entry. I claim, Mr. Chairman, that if there is any necessity for any statu- tory regulation of any legitimate commerce, such as seeds, such as nursery stock, such as anything that the merchants of this country are engaged in selling, that they should be able to find on the statute books those regulations which materially affect their business. I am not denouncing the necessary rules and regulations to carry out a statute. I think those are absolutely necessary, but I do say that the Congress and the State legislatures should not refer the merchant to a rule or regulation of a departmental officer. I think it is unfair to the merchant. I think it is a development of autocracy in this country which is foreign to our ideals. That principle has been tried — and with this I wish to close. That principle of turning over authority to commissions and adminis- trative officers has been vigorously tried in the States. At one time we had a law, universally passed, when insurance was a new fea- ture — the legislature did not know enough to make the law itself, which is the admission of all these laws that the legislature does not know enough about the subject to make the laws itself in the main — of course, there are exceptions — so they considered and de- termined upon a standard policy,' and determined that the commis- sioners of insurance in the various States were to determine what that form was to be, and every insurance company doing business in the State was to comply with that law. The result was we had an upset in the insurance world; we never knew what was coming on, and the only way to stop that thing was to test it, as we did in six States, to test the constitutionality of the act, and it was very properly decided by the supreme court in those States as a delegation of legislative power. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. The Chairman. We thank you for your suggestions to the com- mittee. It is now about time to adjourn this committee hearing, but there are several gentlemen here, I believe, who wish to be heard, but Mr. J. H. Sherman, who is superintendent of weights and meas- ures and markets of the District of Columbia, is present, and we will allow him five minutes to address the committee. Mr. Smith. In order to complete the record, I should like to offer these amendments, which I have in written form. The Chairman. Very well, Mr. Smith, you may insert them at this point in the record. 25190—16 2 18 STANDAED WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES. AMENDMENTS TO H. E. 150. Page 1, line 11, insert, before the word " beans," the words " small whlti;." After the last word " bushel " and semicolon insert the words " Lima beans, fifty-six pounds ; scarlet runner pole beans and white runner pole beans, fifty pounds ; Broad Windsor beans, forty-seven pounds." Page 2, line 3, before the word " corn," insert the word " field." Line 9, strike out the word " fifty" and insert the word "forty-eight." Line 11, after the word " bushel," insert the words " Japanese millet, thirty- five pounds." „ Line 12, strike out the word " onions " and insert the words " onion bulbs. Line 19, after the word " bushel," insert the word " smooth." Line 20, after the first word " bushel," insert the words " wrinkled peas, fifty- six pounds ; ameer peas, fifty-six pounds." Line 23, after the word " top," insert the words " natural seed." Line 24, strike out the word " forty-five " and insert in lieu thereof the word " forty-four." Page 4, line 4, strike out the period, insert a comma and the words " and by and with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce shall have the authority to make and promulgate reasonable margins of tolerances of the weights of com- modities herein provided." STATEMENT OF MR. J. H. SHERMAN, DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OP WEIGHTS, MEASURES, AND MARKETS. Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish to say I would not have been asked to say anything if it had been possible for me to know that these hearing to-day were to be held, or if the representa- tives of the United States Bureau of Standards were here. We only heard that this hearing would be had after it had begun, and as I was the nearest weights-and-measures man to the committee room I was asked to appear. It seems to me Mr. Smith has just made a very good argument in favor of the centralization of authority of such matters as have been under discussion here into the hands of the Federal Government, to be administered through such body as it sees fit. His argument has been, if you will notice, not an argument against the authorization of some administrative official to make rules and regulations. His argument has been against varying the rules and regulations in the various States and cities, and his argument loses all its point if it be known that the place of getting the information he wishes is in some Federal body, such as the Bureau of Standards, or the Federal Office of Markets and Weights, or the Federal Bureau of Chemistry. Referring to the question of these weights per bushel, I want to speak from the standpoint of one who has been trying to administer a number of such laws. No objection whatever has been made, for example, to the potato bushel, which is universally 60 pounds; yet as a matter of fact only two thoroughly careful investigations have been — over long periods of time, as to the weight of potatoes of which I have knowledge — made by people in official capacity who' are unprejudiced, and those investigations showed that the proper weight if you are going to. have the average weight through the year for all the various grades of potatoes, would be about 57.65 pounds. Now the potato has been standardized for a long time at 60 pounds and tlie opposition has died out ; that is all. But you can not get a bushel to weigh 60 pounds. It will weigh more or less, according to the time of the year and according to the grade of potato. "^ STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 19 Let me present another example showing how utterly imposablei it is to satisfy everybody on these grades, because on every item you will have dimerent objections raised, naturally. Sweet potatoes are listed at 35 pounds per bushel. No objection is raised to that just now, but I happened to know that there is a great movement on foot ior the standardization of sweet potatoes of various grades, and if this bill were to come up a year from now, it would probably be necessary to provide a standard weight per bushel for each of five grades of sweet potatoes, because each of the various gradings weigh differently, the size of the potato is larger, the texture of the potato is different, and so on in various grades. Now, gentlemen, it means this, that when we are going to try to Establish weights per bushel and put the administration of the law in the hands of any particular body or any number of bodies in the vStates or in the Federal Bureau of Standards, your administrative officer can apply the law until he sees that it is doing an absolute hardship and injustice, and then he himself invites disaster by seek- ing to enforce the law. We in the District are not trying to en- force any of our weights equivalents at the present time. We use them only as a guide. If a bushel of potatoes delivered weighs much less than 60 pounds we go there with the standard bushel measure and measure it up, but if prosecution is made, it is made on the basis bf the bushel measure by our standard. The 60-pound bushel of potatoes is not attempted to be enforced in the District of Columbia, It can not be. We know it is not fair if we are going to stick to the word " bushel " at all. All these facts simply point to one thing. Either we should deal by the bushel, or we should deal by weight only, or we should estab- lish standards, as this bill attempts to establish them — establish standards equivalent for a bushel ; but if so, if we take this method, it makes no difference whatever what we use as the standard equiva- lent for a bushel if we make it universal throughout the country, because we are really doing that with the volumetric bushel as a unit of measure and putting in a certain number of pounds which shall be called a bushel, and it will depend upon the season of the year ; even the wrinkled pea will weigh more or less than your standard accord- ing to the time of the year, according to your temperature, and ac- cording to the climatic conditions at the time of weighing. And we are doing that with the volumetric bushel and putting in a certain number of pounds to be called a bushel, the volume of which will v£Bry from time to tiine, and according to the variety of the prqduct. The Chairman. So the standard of measure would then be the pound rather than the bushel ? Mr. Sherman. Yes ; and if we are going to do that, why not legis- late for sale by the pound and be consistent about it ? Why attempt to pick the word " bushel " simply because a long time ago we got in the' habit of using it? We are simply perpetuating by legislation the thoughtless use of an incorrect method of measuring. That is all. And it is simply a concession to a conservatism that ought not to exist if we are going to act on those things at all. Mr. HiLLiARD. I take it that to be complete it must exhaust the list of things which must be measured and weighed ? Mr. Sherman. Pretty nearly, and it Ought to contain some provi- sion for accommodating itself without further legislation and thei 20 STANDAED WEIGHTS FOB VARIOUS COMMODITIES. introduction of new grades. It ought not to be necessary next year for Congress to be asked to pass an amendment to this bill providing for each of the five new grades of sweet potatoes. You see the point, do you not? It seems to me really that the consistent thing, if we want a thing of this sort at all, is to legislate for any interstate business that is done by weight or measure at present, to be handled only on terms of weight hereafter. . Mr. Bacharach. You are opposed to the bill by weights? Mr. Sherman. No; I am not opposed to the bill. I would favor it if it can be made absolutely regular. I am opposed to this kind of bill. In the various States at the present time, each State has a bill and each legislature probably has heard gentlemen like Mr. Smith, who appeared before the committees in favor of the bill and argued for specific weights, for a specific product, and a different line of argument has been given in each State as a result, and you have a little chaos in this matter ; but if we could have a bill such as this and have it universal and make it powerful enough, put enough teeth in it so the States should be forced by internal pressure to come to these standards for intrastate transactions, this bill would be better than what we now have ; that is to say, it would be better than indiscriminate dealing by the volumetric standard alone, because it would do away with the volumetric standard. But if we are going to do away with the volumetric standard, why not carry this bill to its logical conclusion and handle all such transactions by weight only? The Chairman-. Are you opposed to the use of the bushel as a measure ? Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You favor the pound only? Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And not the bushel? Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir; and I will add that I do not know in the entire United States a single man who has been engaged in the administration of weights and measures laws for as long a period as one year or longer, who is not in favor of the abolition of sale by measure. They favor sale by weight only for dried commodities. The Chairman. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Sherman, for your courtesy. The committee will now stand adjourned until 10.30 o'clock a. m. one week from to-day, January 27, for further consideration of this bill. (Thereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until Thursday, January 27, 1916, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measttres, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C, January 27, 1916. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. William A. Ashbrook (chairman) presiding. Present: Messrs. Sears, Husted, Hilliard, Mays, Hicks, Sweet Stiness, Abercrombie, Linthicum, and Eeavis. ' Present also: Messrs. S. W. Stratton, Director of the Bureau of Standards; Louis A. Fischer, of the Bureau of Standards; John L STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 21 Theobald, eastern representative of the Toledo Scale Co., Philadel- phia, Pa.; J. H. Sherman; Albert H. Meads, representative of the Toledo Scale Co., of Toledo, Ohio, 1302 Chamber of Commerce Building, Chicago, 111.; Daniel J. Moynihan, representative of the Computing Scale Co., Boston, Mass.; D. H. Kelley, of the Toledo Scale Co.; and Hon. Charles H. Dillon, representative in Congress from the State of South Dakota. The Chairman. Gentlemen, we adjourned one week ago to-day until this morning for the further consideration of H. E. 150. There are a number of gentlemen here present this morning who wish to be heard on this bill, and we will therefore at once take up further consideration of this bill. I believe I will at first ask Mr. Kelley, who is a representative of the Toledo Scale Co., to address the com- mittee. Mr. KELuer. Mr. Meads is our representative and will speak for the company. I do not care to make any remarks, I think. The Chairman. Very well ; we will hear from Mr. Meads. STATEMENT OF MR. ALBERT MEADS, OF 1302 CHAMBER OF COM- MERCE BUILLING, CHICAGO, ILL., REPRESENTING THE TOLEDO SCALE CO., OF TOLEDO, OHIO. Mr. Meads. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I rep- resent the Toledo Scale Co., of Toledo, Ohio. The Toledo Scale Co. objects to this bill, and I am here this morn- ing prepared to state, as best I can the objections which the company has to the bill. In addition to presenting the arguments I have against the bill, I shall be very glad to answer any questions which the gentlemen of the committee may have to ask me. The authority for the passage of the bill in question is evidently predicated upon section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States. By section 8 it is provided that the Congress shall have power — To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and currency of the United States. The bill in question is not authorized, nor does it purport to be authoi-ized, by the provision of the Constitution authorizing Con- gress to regulate weights and measures among the several States, for, by its very terms, it provides that whenever any commodity shall be sold or purchased in any of the States, the Territory of Alaska, or the District of Columbia, etc., without regard to whether such com- modity may be a subject of traffic between the States, and the re- quirements that shall follow. It is evident, therefore, that the sole justification for the bill is that in the Constitution, as above quoted. Congress shall have the power to fix the standards of weights and measures. ■ The words " fix the standards of weights and measures " have quite a definite meaning. Under this power Congress can, for in- stance, determine just how long a yardstick shall be, or how many cubic inches there shall be in a bushel measure, or how many grains or other integral parts shall be in a pound weight, etc., but all the 22 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOB VARIOUS COMMODITIES. Constitution gives the Congress the power to do is to fix such standards. Having fixed such standards, Congress has exhausted its power in the premises, and any other further act as to the use or abuse of such standards so fixed by Congress remains in tlie States, where it has always been, never having been delegated by them to the Fed- eral Government. The bill in question goes much further than the fixing of standards and attempts in section 4 to provide punishment for persons, cor- porations, companies, societies, or associations who shall oifer for sale less than the quantity of goods represented to be sold, or who shall take or attempt to take more than the quantity he represents as buyer, or who may have in his possession any false weight or weighing device, and fixes the punishment for such offenses. In this connection it is most significant to note that the power in question is given by clause 5 of section 8 of the Constitution " to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures." The next clause of section 8 provides for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and cur- rent coin of the United States. It will be noted that no provision is made in the Constitution for the punishment of anyone for an infraction of any regulation as to weights and measures. It is quite evident that in the minds of the framers of the provision in question there was no thought of any such punishment, for it was inconceivable how anj'body could do any criminal act which would interfere with Congress if it should fix standards of weights and measures. In other words, anything that any individual could do toward preventing Congress from fix- ing weights and measures would hardly be considered a criminal act. How could it be ? What could he do ? The only thing he might do would be to blow up the Capitol and all you gentlemen in it, which, of course, I hope nobody will do; but anything they could do to stop you from fixing standards of weights and measures would be quite negligible. It can not be done. It never occurred to the framers of the Constitution that there should be any offense for which they ought not to provide, because all the Constitution gave them to do was that one thing of fixing standards of weights and measures. That is a most significant thing. And it is part of the same significance that the only provision made by Cono-ress for punishment is made for the punishment of counterfeiters. "^ The Chairman. What do you think about there being an implied power to enforce the regulations that Congress is empowered to make ? Mr. Meads. There is no question. They did not conceive that it was possible for anybody to interfere with the Congress in its power to fix standards of weights and measures. The Chairman. If Congress by the Constitution is empowered to fix standards of weights and measures, is there not there an impli- cation of power to enforce such standards ? Mr. Meads. I think there is. Mr. HusTED. Does the Constitution provide a punishment for infraction of interstate-commerce laws ? Mr. Meads. Not specifically. STANDARD WEIGHTS FOB VABIOUS COMMODITIES. 23 Mr. HusTED. No. Mr. Meads. And I am ready to admit that if you can conceive an individual interfering with your power of JSxing standards of weights and measures you would have a right to punish that indi- vidual. Mr. Eeavis. As I understand this bill, the punishment is for an attempt to interfere with the power of Congress to fix standards, but has provision for punishment for interfering with a standard when set? Mr. Meads. No ; there is no such provision. It is interference with the device, as I will point out later in my discussion. If there was some crime that the individual committed against your right to fix standards there is no question but that you could punish that indi- vidual who interfered with any power given to you by the Con- stitution. Mr. Eeavis. The point I had in mind — if I am not bothering you Mr. Meads. No ; go ahead. Mr. Eeavis. The point I had in mind is that for an attempt to interfere with the power to fix there is a punishment provided, but the punishment for interference with the standard itself there is no punishment prescribed. Mr. Meads. That is a power that is in the States. Mr. Eeavis. You do not think there is an implied power in Con- gress to enforce the regulations that it has a direct power to make the standards. Mr. Meads. I do ; yes. I think there is implied power in Congress, but I think that Congress has exhausted its power when it has fixed, and the offense must be against the fixing, not against the use. Mr. Eeavis. We have exhausted our power when once we have fixed the standard. If that is so, then there is no implication of power to enforce that standard. Mr. Meads. There is an implication of power to do anything neces- sary to fixing. Mr. Eeavis. But not to the enforcement of the standard after once it is fixed. Mr. Meads. I do not quite understand what you mean by enforce- ment of the standard. In other words, to fix the standard is, in my mind, to determine what the standard shall be. In other words, I think that to fix the standard is to determine what the standard shall be. After you have determined on that, given it to the various States, an infraction of the use or the abuse of this standard must be left to the States. The only act that Congress can punish would be something that would interfere with your determination of the standard. If a man, for instance, should be guilty of a conspiracy to defraud through the use of a yardstick that was short, he could be punished. Anything that would interfere with your fixing of the standard would be punishable ; but after you have determined what the stand- ard is to be, then the rest of this business is left to the States, where it always has been. Mr. Eeavis. Involves local legislation that the State is bound to carry out? 24 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES. Mr. Meads. That is it, exactly. Mr. Hicks. Isn't that rather a narrow interpretation of the power of Congress? Mr. Meads. No; I do not think so. If a man infringes on the standards his acts would not be against the Federal Government or any provision of the Federal Government. His act would be against the individual of the State using the standard as a false token, or something of that kind. Mr. Aberceo3ibie. Your contention is this, then: If a retail mer- chant should sell a certain number of yards of cloth, for instance, and it did not measure up to the number in the contract, that indi- vidual would have to go into the State courts for relief, rather than into the Federal courts for relief. Mr. Meads. Precisely, because what that man has done has not interfered with anything Congress has done. He has committed an act against the individual within the borders of the State, in pretending to give the individual something he has not given him. Now, to determine whether that man has been guilty of that offense it will probably be necessary to resort to the standards which yon gentlemen have fixed. There is no question of your right to fix those standards. To determine within the State, in the State courts, as to whether an offense has been committed it will probably be necessary to resort to the standard you ha\e fixed for use through- out all the States. Mr. Eeavis. That is interstate commerce? Mr. Meads. Precisely. This bill is not predicated upon that at all. This bill does not — let me read the opening of the bill — " that whenever any commodity mentioned in this section shall be sold or purchased by the bushel or any fractional part thereof in any of tlie States, the Territory of Alaska, or the District of Columbia," etc. That does not say anything about interstate traffic. It assumes that you will go right into a State or a Territory or into the District of Columbia. However, I assume the Constitution gave you the power to do that, but this bill does not cover that point. I think the bill might be dravi'n along those lines — that is, a bill predicated upon the interstate-commerce part of the act, which this bill is not. Mr. Abercrombie. This bill proposes to go into the States and do what the States are now doing in the matter of punishing for offenses of that character? Mr. Meads. Yes, sir ; to go into the States by virtue of this power conferred by the Federal Constitution. The Chairman. Then, in the absence of a State law, you could not enforce the Federal statute? Mr. Meads. In the absence of a provision in the State for the punishment of offenses of this kind, no. That is true. You could enforce the Federal statutes fixing the standards. The primarv object for fixing the standards is to give a legitimate foundation for harmless trade. The primary object is to have at a central bureau of the United States a standard to which everybody can refer to determine where they are. The Chairman. Then, Mr. Meads, if Congress should pass the bill under discussion, for instance, and the States should decline, neglect or refuse to pass the necessary statutes for its enforcement, can you see what a very ridiculous position it would place Congress in? STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 25 Mr. Meads. Of course, that is a theoretical rather than a practical objection, because all the States now have a provision for short weights. There is no State in the United States that does not have a provision for punishment of individuals who cheat by giving short weights. Mr. Reavis. The act of Congress with reference to fixing standards is final and when there is State legislation fixing punishment for fraud the question reverts back to the act of Congress as to what the standard is? Mr. Meads. Precisely. In other words. Congress has the power to give the proper foundation to which all the States may resort or refer for the purpose of measuring, and see whether they are right or wrong. Mr. HusTED. The whole — that is because the whole power of fixing standards is in Congress. Mr. Meads. Precisely. Mr. Reavis. Yes. Mr. Meads. The provision in the Federal Constitution is this: To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures. That is the power given by section 8, Article I, and until exercised it rests in the States. • I may not be quoting the literal language of the Constitution, as what I am saying now is my own language, but the language of the Constitution is that Congress shall have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, and to fix the standards of weights and measures. Until that power has been exercised^and it has not been exercised yet — it remains in the States. Take a bankruptcy law. Many of the States — I know Wisconsin, for one, has a bank- ruptcy law; but as soon as the national bankruptcy law was passed it superseded the State law. When Congress fixed the standards of weights and measures any State which may have fixed them previ- ously must necessarily retire her statutes in deference to the Federal statutes. But until that time comes the State retains that power. Mr. Mats. You say that the States would have the right to coin money ? Mr. Meads. Yes. Mr. Sweet. As a matter of fact, they did. Mr. Meads. Yes; as a matter of fact, they did. There is a case where the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they held that power until taken away by Congress. Mr. HusTED. And the exercise of the power by Congress deprives the State of that power? Mr. Meads. Yes, sir ; I do not want for a minute to have you infer that you have not the right to fix standards, because you have. Mr. Abeecbombie. I see this bill fixes the standard for a bushel of wheat at 60 pounds. Mr. Meads. Yes. Mr. Abeeckombie. Do you understand that if this bill should be enacted into law and one* farmer in my State purchased from an- other farmer a quantity of wheat, and he delivered 55 pounds instead of 60 pounds, that the defrauded man can come into the Federal courts and prosecute ? Mr. Meads. If this bill passes, he can. But, under the Consti- tution, there is no power given to Congress to punish an infraction 26 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. of this kind. Congress has merely the right to fix the standards. I think perhaps the Congress has the right to fix what the bushel of wheat shall be, but, when, within the confines of a State, without any question of interstate commerce being involved, a man cheats his brother by giving him 55 jjounds of wheat instead of 60 pounds of wheat for a bushel it is an intrastate offense. It is left to the State to punish him. Congress is in the position where it can say this, and only this, "We have the power of fixing the standards of weights and meas- ures, and Ave will give you the benefit of standards by which you can regulate your weights and measures ; but when it comes to infrac- tion of laws inside your State, you must punish the individual." Mr. Sweet. Just to get this clear, you object to section four? Mr. Meads. As I pointed out — or as I shall point out later in my statement of the objections we have to this bill — it is quite probable that sections 1 and 2 of this bill are good. Evidently, however, there have been tacked onto this bill sections 3 and 4, which are not germane to the bill at all, and under which the question of con- stitutionality is clearly an issue. Mr. Sweet. The Federal Government has the right to enact the law, but if it is not the interstate commerce in any sense, the enforce- ment of the law is wholly up to the State. Is that your position ? Mr. Meads. Yes. My position is that the Federal Government has the right to enact the laAv under the Federal Constitution, as to the fixing of standards. Mr. Sweet. But it is up to the State to enforce the law, provided it does not appertain to interstate commerce ? Mr. Meads. Yes; if there is any such thing as the enforcement of the fixing of standards, but, of course, the mere fixing would not be any offense. You can hardly be guilty of an offense against the mere fixing. With these things fixed it would be up to the States to pass appropriate legislation to enforce them. Mr. Chairman. If the States neglect or refuse to pass the neces- sary legislation, then this law would be null and void in that par- ticular State? Mr. Meads. In that particular State. Mr. Aberceombie. As a matter of fact, there is no such State. Mr. Meads. There is no such State ; no. Perhaps I should not give a categorical answer to the question. The law, as I see it would not be null and void. The Chairman. You say we could not enforce it under the Federal statute ? Mr. Meads. Your law would be operative within the confines of this State as to the standard, as to what the standard should be as for instance, 60 pounds of weight to the bushel ; and any honest man in that State — most men are honest — would conclude their transac- tions, conduct their business, in accordance with those standards and give 60 pounds of wheat to the bushel. There might be no law in that particular State to punish the criminal who was guilty of an infraction of the law, but the standard as fixed would still obtain in that State. _Mr. Hilliard. So far as the States are concerned, it would be a criminal violation of the statute. Mr. Meads. Of course. STANDARD WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 27 If Congress wished to exercise this power, it could certainly do so, and nothing that any individual could do would affect Congress in its exercise of such power. There was no necessity of any provision for punishment, for the provisions of the Constitution in question clearly show that all that the framers had in mind was that Congress should fix the standards in question, and that, having so fixed such standards, the rest of the subject was left to the States. As to how the States should use the standards so fixed and what punishment should be meted out for offenders who transgressed laws enacted by the States were questions with which Congress clearly had nothing to do. Even if sections 1 and 2 of the bill in question could be construed as the mere fixing by Congress of the standards of weights and meas- ures, it is clear that section 3, which provides that the Director of the Bureau of Standards, with the approval of the Secretary of Comrnerce, shall give instructions and advice as to the methods to be used in testing all weights and weighing devices, which instructions and advice shall govern the procedure to be followed by all weights and measures officials in the United States, is not warranted by any- thing in the Constitution and is a clear invasion of the rights of the States. With the standards fixed by Congress, if Congress cares to exercise this power, it is a matter distinctly within the rights of the States themselves to police their territories and determine what methods are best adapted in their territories for the detection of those guilty of crime and to punish them as they see fit. Especially strong is the inference that as to the infractions of any regulations as to weights and measures the punishments miist be left to the States themselves, when the significant absence of any provi- sion for such punishment from the Constitution itself is noted as suggested above, although punishment for counterfeiting is expressly given to Congress, which punishment, as the context shows, follows the words "fix the standard of weights and measures," and which words are the final words of the paragraph giving to Congress the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin. Even if all the provisions of the proposed act in question were constitutional, there are may practical objections to the bill as drawn. In the first place, the bill delegates to the Director of the Bureau of Standards what practically amounts to the promulgation of a code which shall govern the procedure to be followed by all weights and measures officials in the United States. In other words, Con- gress enacts a law which in effect ties the hands of all weights and measures officials in the United States, Avithout knowing what the provisions of such law will be. Without reflecting at this point upon any act of the Director of the Bureau of Standards, it may be said in passing that the records of various proceedings show that in the past he has been at least very human, and has erred in his judgment on various devices, so that if this law had been operative in the past it would be easy to show that great injustice would have been done. I have said that the Director of the Bureau of Standards has been at least very human. I am glad Dr. Stratton is here. I certainly would not say anything behind his back. I have the records here, in which Dr. Stratton has advocated and indorsed the use of certain scales which have been condemned by the Supreme Court of the 28 STANDAED WEIGHTS FOB VARIOUS COMMODITIES. State of Massachusetts and which, I will be direct enough to sai now, under the regulations, shall be barred from use. In passing I may say that this may only show progress. It shows that th( Director of the Bureau of Standards has grown. He has progressed Of course, as I say, he has at least been very human. I say this m n( disrespect to Dr. Stratton, and do not mean it in that sense at all. ] have a great respect for Dr. Stratton. But, gentlemen, do you realize the extent of the power which yoi nre about, or, at least, proposing, to delegate to the Director of th( Bureau of Standards? Under this power, gentlemen, he will havt control of all the sealers in the United States, under the powei which this bill would delegate to him. Gentlemen, in delegating this power to the Director of the Bureai; of Standards you do not Imow what you are doing. You are Mr. Abekceombie (interposing). " You do not know what j^ou arc doing." I do not get you on that. Mr. Meads. I have reference to the power M'hich this bill would delegate to the Director of the Bureau of Standards. Under it he will have power to make a code which will govern the procedure ol all weights and measures officials in the United States. Let me read the words in the bill : That the Director of the Biirean of Standards, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce, shall make ami promulgate uniform rules and regula^ tions for carrying into effect the jirovisions of this act; shall give instructions and advice as to the methods to be used in testing all weights and weighing devices, which instructions and advice shall go"('ern the procedure to be fol- lowed by all weights and measures officials in the United States. Gentlemen, can you determine now what advice Dr. Stratton is going to give? Suppose he gave the advice that I have referred tc before in reference to the scales that were condemned by the Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts? He himself would be frank enough to admit he was wrong. But, gentlemen, his advice, no matter what it shall be, " shall govern the procedure to be followed by all weights and measures officials in the United States." You give him there the power and authority to make a code governing the procedure to be followed by all weights and measures oiScials in the United States. Mr. Abeecrombie. We have been doing the same thine, in prin- ciple, in many other instances. We did it in the case of "the parcel- post act. Mr. Meads. I have not had my attention called to that. It may be that the Director of the Bureau of Standards has always been right in those other things. Mr. Abeeceombie. Congress has been giving those powers to the United States departments and bureaus in all branches of the Gov- ernment. The parcel post is an instance. We gave the Postmastei General blanket authority to issue regulations and he issued the regu- lations which govern the Parcel Post System. Mr. Meads. In other words, as I see it, you are willino- now tc codify regulations which you do not know anything about."^ You dc not know what regulations he is going to put into effect. If you are going to do it blind, that, of course, relieves you of a lot of work bu1 Qot of the responsibility. ' STANDABD WEIGHTS FOB VAEIOUS COMMODITIES. 29 Second, the provision of the act, that the Director of the Bureau of Standards may act in conjunction with such officials for the pur- pose of enforcing the provisions of the act is too indefinite and vague. How is he to act in conjunction with such officials? Is he to help them in prosecutions in the various State courts, or are the States to maintain expensive forces of weights and measures officials to act in the Federal courts when the Director of the Bureau of Standards de- sires them to do so ? I am assuming now, of course, that the bill would be warranted by the Constitution, which, of course, I will not admit. This is too in- definite and uncertain and too broad. Nobody can tell what that means. I do not know who drew this last clause of this bill, but it does not show the care or the carefulness that the earlier clauses of the bill do. What does that mean — "act in conjunction"? Under that what is he to do? Mr. Abeecrombie. What would you say about what the States should do in the matter of fixing the fines and penalties for a viola- tion of this bill? Mr. Meads. I want to answer that. Mr. Abeeckombie. You stated that" the Constitution merely gave the Congress the right to fix the standards of weights and measures, and that that would not carry with it any lawful enforcement or provision for penaiizing anybody who violated the provisions of the bill. Mr. Meads. Yes; essentially. Mr. Aberceombib. I notice here an analogous case. Congress is also given the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes. It does not say that Congress shall also have the power to enforce it. Yet Congress, does enforce it. Mr. Meads. I am glad to answer that objection. This bill is not predicated upon the interstate-commerce clause of the Constitution, Mr. Abeecrombie. Of course not. Mr. Meads. Now, to regulate commerce with Indian tribes and for-- eign nations. You can not regulate the punishment of individuals for an infraction. If this bill was to regulate weights and measures within the confines of the United States, I would not be here this morning. But you have not done that. You have not attempted to do that. The only power you have under the Constitution is given by the words "fix*^ standards." ' Mr. Aberceombib. You have the power to enforce it if you have the power to fix it. It is the same with the interstate commerce. Mr. Mbads. Possibly you can suggest some example. If anybody interfered with your power to fix standards of weights and measures, you could punish them and punish them hard. There is no question about your being able to punish when there is an infraction against your power to fix. Mr. Keavis. You admit that the first portion of this bill may be enacted into law by Congress under the authority of the constitu- tional provisions empowering Congress to fix standards ? Mr. Meads. I do. I have to admit that. My point is, however, not the punishment for interfering with standards, but punishment for violation, in transactions between two individuals, in not observ-. 30 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES. ing the standards. That is purely a State matter rather than a Federal matter, and the crime fixed by the bill is a crime of fraud between two individuals that in nowise affects the standards. The Congress has the power to fix the standards, but infractions between individuals themselves in the use of those standards are matters purely for regulation by tlie States. Mr. Eeavis. It is suggested by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hilliard] that the fixing of this standard makes it the basis for all O"!" n Tl (I Q Vfi C! Mr. Meads. It does. Congress might have been given that power, but it was not. And that is the most significant point. The act is unnecessarily harsh, in that it provides that anyone who may have in his possession any false weight or weighing device shall be guilty of misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500. A person might have such a device merely as junk, or for transportation, or a manufacturer might have such a device for the very purpose of correcting it and making it honest, and yet, under the provisions of the act, he would be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine or imprisonment. Mr. HusTED. It says not to exceed $500. Mr. Meads. I see that. Mr. HusTED. You might fine him 50 cents. Mr. Meads. You might fine him 50 cents, yes ; but still it is wrong in principle. The law ought not to be in that form. It ought to be considered and clothed in apt language. It ought to be so worded as not to give some fellow with a grudge against some other manu- facturer a chance to lay for him. Mr. HusTED. Take the case of a man — I know of a case where a man in a market was caught giving short weights. He had hun- dreds of customers each and every day. How long he had been giving short weights I do not know. But he had been short-weigh ing his customers, and they were numbered by the hundreds maybe, Now, what fine would you say ought to be given him ? Mr. Meads. It ought to be heavy. He is guilty as a criminal but, I think, the act ought to be so framed that it will not worl an injustice to persons who have in their possession — innocent per sons — scales which are not correct. They may have them in theii possession for the very purpose of making them correct. That poim ought to be considered and covered. The Toledo Scale Co. has spent several hundred thousand doUari in the aggregate trying to get good laws passed, beginning in Massa chusetts and going on down. Doing a great deal toward covering the very point you mention, and, to answer your question, I shouk say the man you mention ought certainly to be punished. Mr. Reavis. How does that bill affect the scale company? Mr. Meads. I will tell you how it affects the scale company ; but perhaps, I can do that best by a little history. For three years- well, I have been familiar with it for three or four years — ther have been conferences here attended by scale men from all ove the country, the purpose of which has been to provide for adequat scale inspection throughout the United States. The purpose o having these conferences was to put upon the market a scale tha would be uniform and conform to the best trade opinion of th country. STANDARD WEIGHTS FOK VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 31 Three years ago they said that the graduation on these comput- ing scales should not be greater than 2 cents. The manufacturer went to work, under that recommendation, and manufactured hun- dreds of thousands of dollars worth of scales. The very next year they said that it was wrong, and that up to 30 cents the graduation should be 1 cent, and that beyond 30 cents it might be 2 cents a pound. There were thousands of those scales built by the manu- facturers. That, gentlemen, is what we would have to contend with under this bill. There would be changes, which might be disastrous to the scale industry. Certain standards might be fixed, and then a new set of rules or regulations would come out and upset it. The in- , dustry under such a regime. There are thousands of scales all over the country, scales which are in good condition, in daily use, and which conform to the standards already laid down — good service- able scales. Suppose, now, under this clause in this bill, a man using one of those scales should be haled into court for doing the very things that the Bureau of Standards has said he had a right to do? Mr. Fischer. May I ask a question? The Chairman. Certainly. Mr. Fischer. I want to point out the fact that these rules and regulations are drawn up by a committee composed of representa- tives from all of the States. It is better to have one set of rules than to have each individual sealer, as is being done at the present time, draw up his own regulations, so that scale manufacturers in New York can not sell their scales across the line into the next State. There would be different standards in different States. It is much better to have one stanard for all of the States. Mr. Eeavis. Is there not the utmost necessity for permanency in these rules? Mr. Fischer. There is; yes; but I must confess that in the past they have not been permanent. Mr. Meads. You drew up the regulation as a member of the com- mittee, and it was not changed after it went to the convention as a whole. Mr. Fischer. It was what? Mr. Meads. The regulation was drawn by you and Mr. Connors and was not changed and was approved as a whole. Mr. Fischer. That is true. Mr. Meads. At that conference you said that a graduation of 2 cents would be proper, or sufficient; but the very next year you said that it ought to be 1 cent up to 30 cents a pound, and then, beyond that, 2 cents a pound. It shows the danger we are subject to con- stantly. We have no assurance of the permanency of the standard ; that is, we would be liable to a fine of $500 for using scales, although good, which were not in accordance with the latest regulation. And that regulation might be changed at any time. Mr. Fischer. I think the particular case cited does not exist. I do not think that has been changed. Mr. Meads. Your original regulation allows the scale to graduate its entire length. Now, it is up to 30 cents a pound, 1 cent and 2 cents beyond that. 32 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES. The Toledo Scale Co. next made what is known as the springless scale. And the balance on that is obtained by the raising of a pen- dulum. It is known as the pendulum scale. The pendulum rises as the hand goes off this way, and you read it as indicated by the hand. I suppose I may be prejudiced, but I think it is a very high-class machine. The Federal departments have probably bought hundreds of them. Two years ago these regulations, promulgated under Dr. Strat- ton's and Mr. Fischer's department, went into effect, and the result was that the pendulum had to be equipped with a device for show- ing when there was a level. You know that a pendulum itself is the very best device for determining when a thing is level, because if the thing is not up and down the pendulum will be off level. Mr. Stratton. The pendulum must be swung free, and if it is swung over in one direction, only in one direction, then your state- ment is not true. I wish you would just confine yourself to the facts. Mr. Meads. I will confine myself to the facts. I think I have been. We will say that it is longitudinally or lengthwise of the scale. Why was that provision put in there as to the pendulum scales ? Why not apply it to all the scales ? The Chairman. Right there let Dr. Stratton answer that question. Mr. Meads. Very Avell. Mr. Fischer. Perhaps I can answer that question. That regula- tion was not abandoned, but was made general. Instead of requir- ing that the pendulum be required to have the level, the thing was worded this way — that in case in the indicator is thrown beyond the level as much as 3° it must be provided with a level or some device to indicate whether it was level or not. The assumption was that the scale might be within that level of 3° without it being very appar- ent, and we wanted to provide against a scale that would be out of balance. It was provided that a device should be put on there to de- termine whether it was level or not. In regard to the pendulum scale, the pendulum was being used to level the scale. You can level a scale or throw the scale out of level and then put material on the platform and then let the scale reach zero, and still indicate erroneous results. Mr. Eeavis. You mean you made the regulation general a year after you first promulgated it? Mr. Fischer. Yes. Mr. Reavis. Why did you not make it general in the first place? Mr. Fischer. The Bureau of Standards Mr. Meads (interposing). That is an important point. Mr. Fischer. The Bureau of Standards had not adopted these things until this year. That was the formative stage which the- society suggested. Mr. Eeavis. Why wasn't the regulation made general in the first place ? Mr, Meads. That is it. _ Mr. Fischer. This particular scale was just called to our atten- tion — that this particular scale was being used in that way. The Chairman. You found it was true? Otherwise you would not have made it general? Mr. Fischer. Quite so. SIANDABD WEIGHTS FOB VAMOTIS COMMODITIES. 33 Mr. Meads. The history of the department has shown that many of these regulations, if you had had the power of Congress behind you, might have been enforced to our detriment. Mr. Fischer. These regulations are being issued by all the States. Mr. Meads. They have changed them in all the States. They have to change them to conform to the exigencies which arise in each State. You can not now give Dr. Stratton and Mr. Fischer power to legislate, to make regulations to apply which shall determine the acts of all the sealers all over the United States. Dr. Stratton. I think the gentleman is confusing the confer- ence of State weights and measures with the Bureau of Standards. The conference has held its meetings at the bureau and asked our advice. The very things he is complaining of were adopted by the State officials and they are begging us every day to do it. Mr. Husted. Why is it worse from the standpoint of his company to have this matter regulated by the Federal Government, by one general regulation, than it is to have it regulated by 48 different States'^ Now, the 48 States can make changes just as well as the Federal Government can make them, and this is a matter, as I un- derstand it, which is rather in its infancj' and is capable of deiinite and accurate ascertainment, and the time is speedily arriving Avhen the Bureau of Standards can arrive at an accurate standard. They will reach a point where change will be unnecessary. This scale company, and all sCale companies, will be under one general regula- tion. Mr. Meads. My point is that Congress has no power to do that. I think you will come to the same conclusion after you have thoroughly considered the matter. Mr. Husted. It seems to me that there is a sharp distinction be- tween the constitutional question raised under section 4 of the bill and the constitutional question raised under section 3 of the bill. The constitutional question raised under section 4 is as to whether, under the (Constitution, the Congress has the power to punish for a violation of the law or an infraction of the regulations; but under the third section of the bill, where it simply vests the Bureau of Standards with authority to carry out certain regulations and give certain advice, the question is different. Now, the Constitution ex- pressly provides that the Central Government has authority to make the laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execu- tion the foregoing powers, and T think, under the third section of the bill, we have the authority to vest the Bureau of Standards with power to make regulations, because that is in furtherance of the main purpose of the bill, as set forth in the first and second sections. Mr. Meads. Passing the constitutional question of the bill, a fur- ther objection to the passing of this bill and the vesting of this power in the Director of the Bureau of Standards is that it is impossible for one man in Washington, with a territory so large as the United States, with the different circumstances that arise in the different quarters of the country, to cover this subject. The varying conditions in the wide territory covered by the United States make it almost impossible for a Federal body to legislats on this subject. The products of one part of the country are oft?n so unlike the products of a remote part of the country that the regula- 25190—16 3 34 STANDABD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. tion and supervision of the devices used in the sale and dispositioi of the products must necessarily be left to local authorities. For instance, it might be well in the State of Louisiana to hav^ carefully drawn regulations governing the sale of bananas, but it ii inconceivable that the weights and measures officials of the btate o: Montana would ever be very greatly interested or have occasion U use the regulations in question. On the other hand, it is quite con ceivable that careful regulations should be draAvn governing th( weighing of copper ores and refined metal, which would be of greai interest to the citizens of Montana but of scarcely any interest to th( citizens of Louisiana. These examples may be somewhat far-fetched, but they are offeree to show how necessary it is to leave the legislation on these matters to the various States to be determined according to the local de- mands and exigencies. This is too big a matter to be handled by one man, with all due respect to Dr. Stratton. I have great respect for Dr. Stratton But this is too big a subject for one or two men or a dozen men tc handle. The country is too big. The products of the country an too diversified. Why do you want to fix the standards? Why do you invade the provinces of a State? Wliat do you gain by it? As to sections 3 and 4, it is evident that they attempt to legislate as to the testing of various devices and are not germane to the rest of the bill in question, which purports to establish standards ol weights for various commodities, and appear to have been tacked on to the bill in question without good reasons for such addition. In conclusion, it is respectfully submitted that the bill is unconsti- tutional, and that, even if it could be held in its first two sections tc be constitutional, its last two sections are clearly unconstitutional; and that if the question of constitutionality were waived entirely the bill is so indefinite and uncertain that it should not receive the approval of this committee. I thank you. If there are any question the gentlemen of the committee would like to ask me, I shall be very glad to answer them. Mr. Eeavis. Is there anything in this bill unnecessary after the first section? Mr. Meads. After the first section? Mr. Rbavis. The second section seems to say that what went be- fore shall be the law. Mr. Meads. I think beyond the first section it is not necessary I think you can say that the second section should be upheld undei the Constitution, as an interpretation of what they mean by the firsi section. Whenever any of the commodities mentioned are purchased or sold, it shall be unlawful to employ any other weight in such sale than the net weight of such commodity. I presume that is a con- struction of article 1. Mr. Reaves. Isn't net weight understood ? Mr. Meads. I am not fighting section 1. Mr. Abercrombie. Suppose a man in Pennsylvania shipped a car- load, or, we will say, 50 bushels of timothy seed to a man in Marv land. After getting and paying for them, the man in Marvlanr finds they are short weight. How would the man in Maryland STANDAKD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 35 punish the man in Pennsylvania under your construction of the Con- stitution, namely, that we have not the power to enforce? Mr. Meads. Why, the offense would be committed in Pennsylvania. Mr. Aberceombie. Yes. Mr. Meads. In that particular case it might be a hardship for the man in Maryland to go to Pennsylvania to prosecute the man who defrauded him, but Congress can not remedy that. Mr. Abeeceombie. Could not a law be passed to cover that? Mr. Meads. I am addressing myself to interstate commerce, but you can doubtless draw a bill that will cover that. In this particular case the man would have to go from Maryland into Pennsylvania to punish the man, just as now, if another man runs off with your wife you have to go into the State where they have gone in order to get jurisdiction, get within the jurisdiction of a court that can give you relief. Mr. Steatton. You referred to one case where you say the Bureau of Standards made a change to the detriment of your company. Now, I would like to have you submit in writing that particular case. Mr. Meads. You mean the testimony in the McKeesport case? Mr. Steatton. I do not know what the case is, but whatever it is, I would like to have you state it in writing. Mr. Meads. I have a transcript here now. If you want it I shall be glad to let you have a copy of it. Mr. Steatton. I would be glad to have a copy of it. Mr. Meads. Well, I will let you have one. Mr. Steatton. The most of the cases referred to are not cases of the Bureau of Standards, but other cases. I would be glad to have you submit a statement, and then I will reply to.it. Mr. Reavis. This seems to be a contest between these gentlemen, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Meads. I only used that case in passing, to show that the Bureau of Standards is not infallible. Mr. Steatton. We do change our specifications. We pride our- selves on that, that we can and do improve the specifications. Mr. Meads. I do not want to reflect upon Dr. Stratton. I do not want to cast any reflection upon him, because I hold him in the high- est respect. Mr. FiscHEE. I believe, and I think you must admit, that they are getting the benefit of our work throughout all the States. Mr. Meads. I do not want to indulge in personalities. Mr. Steatton. I would be very glad, indeed, to have an individual investigation of these cases. Mr. FiscHEE. Yes ; that would be proper. Mr. Meads. I do not think now that Mr. Fischer would stand for the 63 Dayton scale. Mr. Fischee. Oh, it is not that particularly. Mr. Meads. You will remember that you went as a witness for the Dayton Co. when they were trying to condemn that scale. Now you would not stand for that. I merely point that out to show that you have grown in your knowledge. You are a bigger man. Mr. Fischee. I hope so ; that is 10 years ago. Mr. Abeeceombie. Mr. Chairman, I move that we proceed. The Chaieman. If no member wishes to inquire any further of Mr. Meads, we will call some other gentleman. 36 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. Mr. Dillon. Did not this Toledo Scale Co., in sending out the letters, intimate that this committee had given the bill no consider tion, but that it was kicked out of the committee in the last Congresf As a member of that committee at that time— of the committee th had charge of the bill — I know it was introduced very late. Mr. Meads. I do mot believe there is any such a statement as tha I think what the Toledo Scale Co. objected to was it had no oppo tunity to be heard on the changes made by the Department of Con merce and Labor. Mr. Dillon. The matter was not heard before the committee; was introduced too late. It was not presented before the committe Mr. Meads. The Toledo Scale Co. has no objection to any actic taken by this committee. It has always been treated by it with tl greatest courtesy. We have always had the greatest consideratic for this committee. Mr. Theobald. One of the objections raised is an objection again the provision of anybodj^ having in possfession any scales. A mam f acturer may have possession of scales for the purpose of correctiu them, or, again, they may be in possession of a junk dealer and 1 merely junk. Would it satisfy you to change that language by inser iiig " with intent to use the same "? The CiiAiKMAx. I think that would cover the ground. Mr. Meads. Yes. Mr. Dillon. That would cover the objection, I think. Mr. AIeads. That would help that particular provision, but object to the bill fundamentally; but as to that particular provisioi a clause of that sort would help that. I merely mentioned that pa ticular point to show how hastily and how unskillfuUy this bill hi been drawn. But the insertion of the clause " with intent to use tl same " would take away a great deal of the danger. The Chairman. Just one question, which may perhaps be som^ what personal. Do you know of any other manufacturers of scah who are not in sympathy of the purposes of this bill besides the con pany which you represent? Mr. Meads. Well, I am in the general practice, Mr. Ashbrook, bi the only scale company with which I am in close contact is this pa ticular company. As to others, I do not know. What I don't kno about^the general scale business is a good deal more than I do kno\ Mr. Kelly, do you know whether there are any other companies oi posed to this bill? ' Mr. Kelly. I do not know the position of any other company i regard to this bill; no. ^ r j The Chairman. We have had a very generous correspondence i regard to this bill, and as I had but slight correspondence with oth( manufacturers of scales, I was, therefore, quite anxious to have yc appear before the committee and to know why you opposed the bil There seemed to be silence on the part of other manufacturers ( scales. If there are no other gentlemen present who do not reside in tl city Avho wish to address the committee Mr. Motnihan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to sav a word The Chairman. Mr. Moynihan, we shall be glad to hear from yo STANDARD WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 37 STATEMENT OF DANIEL J. MOYNIHAN, OF BOSTON, MASS., REP- RESENTING THE COMPUTING SCALE CO. OF AMERICA AND ALL ITS SUBSIDIARIES. Mr. MoTNiHAN. We sell vastly over $3,000,000 worth of counter scales used in the retail trade each year. It was not until 24 hours ago, or 36 hours ago, that I got word that this committee was going to hear gentlemen in regard to this bill, and I did not have the time to prepare myself on the subject of the attitude of our company. However, I can say that the attitude of our company has not changed a bit. We are in favor of the bill. Congress has been empowered to fix the standards of weights and measures, and this is what that bill does. It is a carrying out of the provision of the Constitution which gives Congress the power to fix the standard of weights and measures. I am familiar with all types of scales in use in the United States, and I can say, I think, without unduly boasting, that we make the best class of counter scales in the country. That has been the expe- rience that I have had, and my experience, the experience of our company, has extended over a period of 25 years of successful business. I do not propose to take up with the committee the question of the constitutionality of this bill. I think that has been gone into, and I am very sorry that the principle involved in that bill should be attacked. Our company is in favor of this bill. I am in favor as a repre- sentative of this company and personally of any legislation that will put to Avork the power of the Central Government to regulate this scale business. I know from experience that it is very diffi- cult to do business in all parts of the United States vhen there are 48 States making standards of weiglits, and therefore I am in favor of lodging this power in the Bureau of Standards, to the end that we may have one standard for use throughout the entire United States. You can go into any municipality or town in the Uiiited States and you will find means there for ascertaining the correctness of a particular type of devices, and you will find a type of de^/ices there being tested as to its correctness and fitness for that particular locality. Go into another town or municipality and you will find another set of officials testing types of devices to ascertain their correctness and fitness for use in that particular locality. That is the way it is throughout the entire United States. Obviously srch a practice is not conducive to the best results. How can it be ? This means that we are compelled to go to the various States in the Union and lay this matter before them, present our case, and get them to legislate on the proposition, and then we have to conform to the requirements of that particular State. That is the way we have to do. I am sure that any reasonable gentleman will agree that it is better to have the power lodged in one central bureau, such as the Bureau of Standards here in the city of Washington, than to have 48 different authorities in the 48 different States fixing standards of weights. Do not think for a moment, gentlemen, that any one company alone is affected. AH companies are affected to a greater or lesser extent. 38 STANDAED WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES. We are all working toward the same end, and all have to meet t same difliculties. We all ha^-e to work along lines that will bri our types up to the correct standards, as laid down by the authoriti Now, if, instead of having to work toward 48 different standards the 48 different States of the Union, we can work toward one, fix by the Bureau of Standards here at Washington, then I think, a: I believe all reasonable men will agree with me, and I am sure th the gentlemen of this committee will agree with me, that that woi; be much preferable. There are improvements going on all the time. We are all strivi: toward perfection. It would aid a great deal if we had one centi bureau to lay down what the standard shall be, and with which ' could cooperate to that end. As it is now, we have to meet the cc rections that are constantly being made in all the different Stati and we are trying to bring out types up to a greater efficiency, ai correct them according to the standards demanded by the improv conditions and by the additional information gotten through scie tific research of such gentlemen as Dr. Stratton and Mr. Fisher hei That is my impression. It is a matter of improvement. These ge tlemen are in position to assist us if we will let them. These ge tlemen are recognized men of authority. A man high in the counc of my city, a member of the board of trade, the other day refern to Dr. Stratton as one of the very highest authorities on this questi( in the United States. The same is true of Mr. Fisher. That sizes up the entire situ tion, so far as the principle involved is concerned. If you have o: research board, under the supervision of such men as Dr. Stratt( and Mr. Fisher, we will have greater efficiency in this work. Wi men in the laboratories, in the various shops throughout the countr and in the field we can keep the matter going in the right directi( and accomplish the greatest results. If this matter is handled by oi central bureau, such as the Bureau of Standards here at Washin ton, instead of by each of the States individually, then the wo: will be simplified throughout the Ignited States, and the conditio: can be more easily met. We have men out all over the country, who come in contact wi merchants and purchasers, and with the authorities in the differe localities where we have business, and we understand what the co: ditions are throughout the United States. They vary in differe localities. And the adoption of a bill of this character, empowerii the Bureau of Standards to fix the weights and to advise with tl various companies manufacturing scales, would, I think, be great to the benefit of all the scale companies of the country I was 10 years a sealer in Boston, Mass., and I speak with know edge on this subject, because I was a deputy of that deoartmer The trouble in the business has been to get a standard defiS determined, so that the sealer would Imow^just eSy what to d Now, if a particular type IS made and is approved by one centr bureau, the greatest benefit will result. Under condlL^= ^l exist at present, when a type is made and it is appro ecllw sn. one man, we will say out in California, the type can ll T California but when you go across the line into another StXvr find that the type does not meet the requirements imposed the STANDARD WEIGHTS FOB YAEIOXJS COMMODITIES. 39 By putting the authority in a central bureau the matter would be simplified, our work would be simplified, and the results obtained all around would be more satisfactory. If you can get a standard type which shall be approved for use throughout the United States, that would eliminate from the field a large number of devices that have never been really permitted in general use. There are in New York a limitless number of devices of that kind. The passage of this bill would simplify the entire question of weights and measures and would be the greatest step forward that has been made in the matter of facilitating commerce throughout the United States that has been made for many, many years. I am sorry to note that there has been brought in here diiferences of opinion and opposition to this bill. I am frank to say that I do not understand why there should be opposition to a measure so beneficial to the trades people throughout the country as this bill would me if enacted into law. it might have been found necessary on the part of the representa- tives of the Toledo Scale Co., in order to make his side of the case clear, that these differences of opinion should have been brought in, but, for my part, I am in hearty sympathy with this bill, and T think both Dr. Stratton and Mr. Fisher are eminently capable men to handle this work. I think the gentleman's assertions in some in- stances are not true. You gentlemen have access to the reports of the Supreme Court. of the United States and you can consult them. The question of the correctness of the scales was involved in a case before that couit. It was not a question of the constitutionality of the act passed in Massachusetts, but it was the proposition that officers, in attempting to perform their services, might work injury to the company affected. I am sufficiently well acquainted with that matter to know what I am speaking about. The question of con- stitutionality was not involved at all. The changes that have been made by the Buieau of Standards, under the direction of Dr. Stratton and Mr. Fisher, are such changes as would simply come in the natural course of progress. I shall be very glad, and I speak for my company in this, to have this bill passed and to have the Bureau of Standards fix such rules and regu- lations as they may deem proper in carrying out the provisions of this bill — to define the weight or value and outline specifications of devices manufactured by us. Gentlemen, I come here and take this side of the question after a great deal of experience in this work, and I have a great deal of respect for the judgment of these men in the Bureau of Standards. In an address delivered in the conference in 1915 by Commissioner John L. Schholm ( ? ) , of New York, that gentleman pointed out the very great need for national regulation on this question. In May, 1904, Commissioner J. F. Martin made an address on this question, and his address opened and closed with an appeal that something be done toward seeking uniformity amongst the representatives of the different States themselves until such time as Congress would afford national regulation of the subject. Now, gentlemen, these are matters of record, and these addresses can be referred to and the assertions I make be easily verified. 40 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. I am only too glad of the opportunity to again reiterate the pos tion taken by our company that we favor such a bill as this con mittee is now considering^ and we hope that this committee wi favorably report the bill to Congress, and that it may become a la\ so that the Bureau of Standards may have control of the mattt throughout all the States of the Union. Mr. Eeavis. What about the constitutionality of the bill ? Mr. MoTNiHAN. I do not care to discuss the constitutionality ( the bill, because I am not a lawyer; but it is my personal view- admit that this is my personal view — that this bill is constitutiona I do know, as a practical man, as a man of long experience in th: business, that this would be a beneficial bill for the business of tl country, not only for the scale manufacturers but for commerce i general. I am a practical man, not a lawyer. I have been a m( chanic for a great many years — about 9 years — and going on 11 yea] I was a sealer, and for some years I have been in charge of tl: management, as the general sales manager of our company. Now, take the view that was expressed before this committee by Mr. Peter I think it was, in 1911, that Congress has the power to regulate th: matter. There is also an opinion by the Attorney General of tl: United States, Mr. Bonaparte. He gave his opinion at that tim and it will be found in the records of that hearing. That was a interpretation to the effect that Congress has the i^ower. Personally I take the view that you never fix and make permaner anything until such time as you make a standard, and not only sa that it is to be used, but shall enforce it, because it is meaningless t fix the standard without making it enforceable. It would be just i meaningless, for the purpose of aiding the commerce of the tJnite States, to make a troy standard of 5,760 grains, and then have or State have a standard of 7,000 grains instead of one of 5,760 grains- the effect would be that there would be no troy standard at all. ] you have a standard in one State of 5,760 grains and 7.000 grains i another State, that is not a standard. There ought to be a unifori practice in dealing in the various commodities throughout th country. That is_what a standard is for. It is so that we. may know, fc instance, in California, when we order something from' Chicago c New York, that it is so much, not more, and noteless. And, genth men, it is only through cooperation and collaboration with a' centri power, such as the Bureau of Standards, that this result can be ai complished. It is necessary to have a central authority to look ( in order to have these standards carried out. If you fix a standar and clothe the Bureau of Standards with power to make the nece; sary rules and regulations to carry the standard into 'effect the there is no other action necessary on your part. To revert to tl troy standard, if a particidar State has a standard of 7,000 grain there must be some absolute reason for it, and we should' know ths the Government has approved it, so that it is comparaljle. Othe' wise it is not a working standard at all. As to the constitutionality of the matter, I believe that the broa opinion expressed by Charles J. Bonaparte covers the point full At least, to the lay mind, and speaking for mvself, I believe that i be the proper view. I think the intent of the Constitution is ' STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 41 pointed out by Mr. Bonaparte. That is the way it appeals to me. Within my humble knowledge, I hold that to be the rights of the case. I hold that Congress not only has the power to fix the standards, but has the power to enforce them. Otherwise what is the use of fixing them? Mr. Meads. For the benefit of the members of the committee, I would like to cite two cases here. The Chairman. Very well. Mr. Meads. The first is the Moneyweight Scale Co. v. McBride (199 Mass.). The other is the case against the Toledo Computing Scale Co., and is found in 142 Federal Reporter. You gentlemen here can read those cases at your leisure and see whether I have misquoted them. Mr. Fischer. Have you referred to the case in which my testi- mony is given? Mr. Meads. I have a transcript of your testimony. Mr. Fischer. I would be glad to have that given to these gentle- men. Mr. Meads. You mean you want your testimony read to the com- mittee ? Mr. Fischer. No. Just give the reference to it. Mr. Meads. It is not in a reported case. I have the transcript of your testimony. Mr. Fischer. I would like to have a copy of it. Mr. Meads. Well, I will have a copy made for you. The Chairman. Is there any other gentleman present who lives outside of the city and who v\?ishes to address the committee? Mr. Kelly. I would like to address the committee for a very brief time. The Chairman. Very well, Mr. Kelly, we shall be very glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OF D. H. KELLY, REPRESENTING THE TOLEDO SCALE CO., OF TOLEDO, OHIO. Mr. Kellt. I am not a lawyer, either. I just want to point out one or two facts, which I believe will be illuminating. The constitutionality of the law has been taken care of by Mr. Meads and Avill undoubtedly ho looked into by other lawyers present. The bill is either constitutional or it is not. If it is. the Congress has the power to enact such a bill, and I believe it should be enacted in a complete manner. Either the States have the power to enforce weights and measures or Congress has the power. The majority of the States now have the machinery for the en- forcement of weights and measures laws which they have enacted. That machinery has cost and is costing the States hundreds of thou- sands of dollars. One of the smaller and less densely populated of the States spends each year, or recently started to spend each year, $100,000 in the enforcement of weights and measures laws. • Of course, the States, just like the National Government, do not have money to waste. They would be very glad to economize if they could. One of the objections I have to urge to the passage of this bill is that the States, if this bill is passed, will see a loophole through 42 STAJTDAED WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES. which they can escape this expenditure and will avail themselves c it. Why should they spend a great deal of money on a project ths the National Government has taken up? Why should they spen money if they do not need to spend the money? That is entirel independent of the law in the matter. That is simply a practics viewpoint. The enforcement of weights and measures laws has bee a very difficult thing, but it is just now beginning to be put in worl ing order. It has only been in the last 10 or 12 years that the Statt ■ have gone into it. Going into it has been very gradual. In the las three or four years they have been going in stronger and stronger. ] has been the result of a great deal of effort to get the States to tak up the work. Now that they have taken up this work, it seems to bad to do anything to stop them. Of course, the States will appre ciate the relief that will come to them if the Federal Governmen takes up the matter, but I, for my part, do not think we ought t interfere with what the States are doing. I thank you for the opportunity for saying these few words. The Chairman. Dr. Stratton, do you Avish to address the com mittee ? Mr. Stratton. Not especially, unless there are some questions. The point made by the last speaker might lead some of the mem bers astray. We have been doing everything we possibly could t' carry out these proposals, and the bureau has never in any way in terfered with them. This matter refers simply to methods o: specifying the things that shall be used, and with this organizatioii in its work of specifying the things or tools that shall be used, bette and more effective work is done, and it is done more correctly. '_ Mr. Eeavis. You are trying to standardize the whole propo sition ? Mr. Stratton. Only the question of balances and weights and thi conditions under which they shall be used. Mr. Eeavis. And if authority were granted under this bill to you: bureau to carry on the work as here provided the ultimate resul would be accomplished in all weights and measures? Mr. Stratton. Yes, sir. Mr. Eeavis. And it would not subject manufacturers to incon venience or be detrimental to their business to have a regulatioi of this kind? It would be much preferable to having local regula tion throughout the different States, would it not? Mr. Meads. I do not think so. I think the local authorities woulc be just as free to enforce the laws as the Federal Government Mr Eeavis What I mean is that under section 3 of this bill th( Director of the Bureau of Standards, with the approval of the Sec retary of Commerce, shall make and promulgate uniform rules anc regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of this act anc shall give instructions and advice as to the methods to be u4d h testing al weights and weighing devices, which instructions and ad vice shall, govern the procedure to be followed by all weights anr measures, officials in the United States, and act in conjunction wit! such officials for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this art Now, Dr Stratton, your purpose is not to submit makers o scales or other mterestecl parties to regulation with reference t( standards estabh.shed by Congress that mav be different in the dif STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 43 ferent States, but is to standardize the matter and promulgate uni- form standards, as provided by this bill ? Mr. Stratton. Yes, sir. • Mr. Eeavis. That is your sole purpose? Mr. Stratton. That is the sole purpose. Mr. Eeavis. And your judgment is that it would be better to have that authority vested in a central or single bureau than to have it distributed throughout the 48 States? Mr. Stratton. Yes, sir; I have come to that conclusion through conferences with the officials of the different States. This did not originate with the bureau. Perhaps there are some instances where I might have made changes. The principle of the thing did not originate with this bureau and has not been pushed by the bureau. But I judge that the weights and measures officials throughout the country are very insistent in the matter. Mr. Meads. Some of them, I admit, but I think not the majoritv. Mr. Eeavis. How is that ? Mr. Stratton. Don't you know that that is so ? Mr. Meads. No; I will ask you if you do not know that the State of New York and the State of Pennsylvania are avowedly against this? Mr. Stratton. That is probably true. Mr. Meads. I have not counted them, but I know, offhand, that the weights and measures officials of a number of the States have sent in a brief against this bill. The Chairman. I have not received it. Mr. Meads. I think that was against the original bill. It was known as the Ashbrook bill. The Chairman. No; I have no bill of this character. I had one the last Congress and have just reintroduced it in this Congress. Mr. Meads. I have seen what purported to be a copy of a brief from Mr. Farrell of the department of weights and measures which was submitted in regard to the Ashbrook bill when that bill was before this committee, and I understood that was submitted here. I know the inspector of weights and measures of the State of Penn- sylvania is against this bill. The Chairman. We have had no hearings on that bill and re- ceived no protests against it. Mr. Stratton. The conference was against it at first, but after discussion pro and con, I think, when a vote was taken, it went through unanimously. Mr. Meads. It was not a vote as representing the States. It was an individual vote of individual members, of the members who hap- pened to be such officials, but they came down here with no such instructions, but, in each case, they voted as individuals, and their votes represented their individual preference. The Chairman. The vote represented their individual prefer- ences and not the preferences of the States? Mr. Meads. Not of the States, no; I know a number cast their votes, their individual votes, in opposition to the desire of what is generally known" or believed to be the desire of the legislature of the States from which they came, and there were some in favor of the bill when their States were against it. The vote, finally, by the State officials, was by the State officials 19 to 3 in favor of the 44 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES. Federal regulation, there being 22 States represented in that pc ticular meeting in which a vote was taken. Mr. Abercrdmbie. What do you mean by "Federal regulatioi in that connection ? Mr. Meads. The particular point of attack was the Ashbrook bi so called, last year's Ashbrook bill, which contained sections prs tically the same as the sections 3 and 4 of this bill. Mr. Abercrombie. You mean by regulation, regulation m t matter of fixing or the enforcement of the standards in the vario States. Mr. Meads. Both. That bill provided for both. The Chairman. That bill provided for both, yes; but that h: never been considered by the committee. It was introduced in tl last session and reintroduced this session. It has been considere The bill has been slumbering. Mr. Meads. As I sav, 19 voted in favor of the Federal standard zation, and 3 voted against it. I know of cases — I went careful into two cases, and I found one man who voted against, it, vote absolutely against what would be, I am sure, the decision of tl body that contiols him at home; and I know of one man who ca his vote upon the question in favor of the bill, who would ha^ been reversed had it been referred back home, so that vote stanc only for individual opinions of 22 officials — the individual opinioi of 22 men holding official positions. Mr. Kelly. What was the total vote? Mr. Meads. Twenty-two. There was another vote held, in whic all the representatives of weights-and-measures organizations wl voted, but who were not allowed to vote in their official capacit; I know that the District of Columbia had present the superintendei and three inspectors, and so had four votes, whereas the State ( California, having present only three men, had only one vote. The Chair^ian. What was the result? Mr. Meads. The result of that vote Avas 34 to 20. Mr. Fischer. Wasn't it 36? Mr. Meads. Thirty-four. It was practically a tie. It Avas 34 to 2 Mr. Husted. You would construe section 3 to mean that tl bureau can hold the power given it as a continuing power ? Mr. Meads. I am not sure I know what you mean by " continuing Mr. Husted. Would you be able to change it froni time to time Mr. Meads. We ought not to have that. Mr. Fischer. We ought not to have the power if we could n( change it from time to time. Mr. Husted. Is not that pregnant with possibilities ? Mr. Meads. There is too much change. Mr. Husted. Couldn't you change too often? Mr. Fischer. Yes; possibly. Mr. Husted. And for that reason isn't it better to leave it with tl Congress ? Mr. Fischer. Well, that is a question for debate. Mr. Meads. Congress should fix it at something that ought to 1 left, and then not have it subject to change except bv the power ths made the law. ' ^ Mr. Husted. I am only asking for information. STANDAED WEIGHTS FOR VAKIOTJS COMMODITIES. 45 Mr. Meads. That is a matter I am posted on. Take, for example, where would you be in the pure food law if you handled it that way ? Mr. HusTED. I do not know. Mr. Meads. I am not in favor of delegating legislation to the bureau. Mr. Htjsted. I understand that. Mr. Meads. On the other side, they should have reasonable lati- tude in fixing regulations if this legislation is to be enacted at all. Of course, gentlemen, I am not in favor of it at all. Mr. HusTED. The main point is to find whether it was continuing. Mr. Meads. I don't know about that. . The Chairman. Well, it is 12 o'clock. I would like to close the hearings on this bill, and I believe there is no one here who wishes to speak except the author of the bill. I wish that Mr. Dillon would address the committee as briefly as he can. Mr. Dillon. I would like to have Dr. Fischer make a statement. The Chairman. A request was made of Mr. Fischer, and he said he did not care to make a statement. Mr. Fischer. I have no statement to make. I would rather hear Mr. Dillon make his statement. The Chairman. Very well. Mr. Dillon. All right, I will go ahead. STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES H. DILLON, REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA. Mr. Dillon. The constitutional provision gives the Congress the absolute power to fix standards of weights and measures. That pro- vision would be meaningless unless you could enforce it. This com- mittee, in the Sixty-third Congress, had a bill known as the barrel measure. During that entire discussion nobody contested the con- stitutionality of that bill. Attorney General Bonaparte gave a very exhaustive opinion upon its constitutionality. I wish to insert in these hearings that opinion. The Chairman. Very well. Mr. Abercrombie. Would a question interfere with you any? Mr. Dillon. No; certainly not. Mr. Abercrombie. Did that apple-barrel bill refer to interstate commerce ? Mr. Dillon. No ; it was a bill based upon the same theory as this bill. It was a bill entirely independent of interstate commerce. The States have certainly juggled the weight of the bushel measure. Here, again, is a shining example of the diversity of our State laws. A bushel of salt in 10 States is 50 pounds and in .7 States it is 80 pounds. A bushel of onions in Indiana weighs 48 pounds; in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island 50 pounds; in Delaware, Maine, South Dakota, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Vermont 52 pounds ; and in 20 other States 57 pounds. A bushel of parsnips in Iowa and Minnesota weigh 42 pounds, while Indiana says they shall weigh 55 pounds. A bushel of dried peeled peaches in Tennessee weigh 26 pounds, while Virginia fixes the weight at 40 pounds. A bushel of pears in Oregon, Montana, and Washington weigh 45 pounds, while in New Hampshire they weigh 58 pounds. 46 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES. North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia potatoes are sole 56 pounds per bushel, while in 37 States they sell at 60 pounds bushel. Maine fixes the weight of apples at 44 pounds per bus while Arkansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, 1 nessee, and Wisconsin say they weigh 50 pounds per bushel. In Louisiana barley weighs 32 pounds per bushel, while in C fornia it weighs 50 pounds per bushel. Beets are sold in five Sti at 50 pounds per bushel, while eight States must sell at 60 pounds bushel. The weight of buckwheat in California is 40 pounds bushel, while in Kentucky it weighs 56 pounds per bushel. Broi corn seed in North and South Dakota weighs 30 pounds per bus while across the line in Minnesota it takes 57 pounds to mak bushel. Shelled corn in many States is 60 pounds per bushel, while corn is 70 pounds per 'bushel, yet you could not get into a bus more than 30 pounds of ear corn. The weight is evidently based a sufficient amount of ear corn to make a bushel of shelled C( Nine States fix red-top grass seed at 14 pounds per bushel. Virg: fixes it at 12 pounds per bushel, yet the clean seed weigh 30 pou per bushel. Notwithstanding the fact that 20 States had a fixed bushel onions at 57 pounds per bushel, Minnesota a few years ago, find that the actual weight was 52 pounds, made that the weight o bushel. The discrepancies are further perpetuated in the subdivisions the bushel measure. For instance, you would find it impossible get one-fourth of a bushel of parsnips into a peck measure. The bushel measure has, by custom, ceased to be a standard mc urement. In practice it hardly appears at all. The Winchei bushel was established in England in 1701, with a capacity 2,150.42 cubic inches. In 1826 the imperial bushel was legs established in Great Britain, with a capacity of 2,218.192 ci inches. The English measure of the bushel is 3 per cent lar than the Winchester bushel. The British gallon is 20 per cent lai than the United States gallon. The National Government in its custom work at ports of ei has adopted the Winchester bushel by custom, not by direct le lation. Some of the States rest their measures upon custom w others have fixed the number of jDounds contained in a bushel legislative enactment. The trouble came in defining the contents of the bushel. We t the struck bushel and the heaped bushel of various forms. ' heaped bushel was intended to be 25 per cent greater than the sti bushel. By statutory law New York declared for the heaped bu with contents of 2,815 cubic inches, while Indiana, Ohio Mississi and Maryland declared for the struck bushel of 2,050.42 cubic inc Nearly all of the other States rest their bushel measure upon cust while the Government at its ports of entry recognize the sti bushel. The bushel in the United States ranges from 1 925 c inches to 2,815 cubic inches. There is no uniformity, and there never will be any, until ( gress legislates and makes mandatory standards. What authority is caj)able of coping with these evils except strong power of congressional legislation ? The f ramers of our ( STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. 47 stitution more than 125 years ago declared that the weights and measures should be controlled by the national power. The States have been justified under their police power in legislating upon this great national question, but the time is now at hand when the National Government must step forward and bring order and uniformity out of chaos and end for all time an intolerable condition. If Congress will enact this legislation, it will establish uniformity in all the States, for practically all commodities, and thus forever put to rest the conflict of, State laws that is now hampering and strangling commerce between States. I append, as a part of my remarks, a statement containing a list of the commodities for which bushel weights have been more widely adopted. We have 48 States legislating upon this proposition. The Congress admittedly has the power to legislate, but for 125 years Congress has not utilized it. The power has been lying dormant. For that length of time, therefore, Congress has not occupied the field. Now, the States are making mandatory laws, all of them practically, and the courts are sustaining these laws upon the ground of the police regu- lation of the State, in the absence of congressional legislation. But all these decisions, both State and national decisions, concede that Congress has the power. It is not a debatable question, but as soon as Congress occupies the field in legislating upon the subject you push the States out and have uniformity. You will never have uni- formity until this is done. Suppose the matter was uniform to-day and you referred it to the States. In 15 years from now the uniformity would be destroyed by the amendments that would have gone through the legislative departments of the 48 States. You will never have uniformity until you pass such a bill as this. There is no other resource. This matter has been delayed for more than a century for want of efficient legislation upon one of the greatest questions now before the country. I want also to put into my remarks a statement made by Dr. Fischer. I presume he will be ready to back it up. I found it in one of his addresses. I simply want to read it to you. Mr. FisCHEK. How long since it was made?' Mr. Dillon. About three years. The Chairman. There may have been some change in his attitude since that time. Mr. Fischer. I am proud of every change I have made. Mr. Dillon. This is an interesting article by Dr. Fischer, pub- lished in the Popular Science Monthly, of April, 1914. Speaking upon the subject of weights, he says that he made 184 stations or towns, and inspected them, such towns or stations ranging in size from nothing to 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 inhabitants— from New York, with its 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 inhabitants, to Carson City Nev., with about 2,200. He says that it will perhaps be interesting at this point to give some of the results found, which include to July 12, 1912, when the work was practically completed. He gives a summary of apparatus examined by inspectors of weights and measures. Bureau of Standards. He gives the total number of scales tested as 10,384, of which he found correct 5,535, and incorrect 4,499, with a percentage of cor- rectness of 55.2, and a percentage of incorrectness of 44.8. 48 STANDARD AVEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. He gives the total number of Aveights tested as 12,211 (ps estimated) , of which mimber 9.792 were correct, or a percentage o and of which 2,419 Avere incorrect, or a percentage of 20. The first was scales. The next is weights. He gives the total number of dry measures tested as 5,20( which number 2,956 were found to be correct, or a percentag 51.89, and 2,721 were incorrect, or a percentage of 48.11. He gives the total number of liquid measures tested as 2,40' which number 1,761 were found to be correct, or a' percentag 73.16, and 646 were found to be incorrect, or a percentage of 2 He gives the total number of visits at 3,200. He gives the total number of apparatus of all kinds inspecte 30,500. This shows that nearly 45 per cent of all the scales tested we or more per cent in error. In conclusion, I simply want to say to the committee that, in judgment, there is no bill in Congress now more important i this. For instance, a dealer in one commodity knows not ^ regulation he is subjected to in another State. There is confu everywhere in the commerce between States. This bill propos and there is absolute constitutional jjower to enforce it — that ( gress shall fix these measures interstate as well as intrastate. ' is not founded upon any commerce clause of our Constitution, upon the constitutional provision that Congress has the power t the standards of weights and measures. As long as the States h late their legislation is upheld under the police power of State ernments, but as soon as Congress occupies the field you push States out and carry uniformity into every part of the Ur States in the matter of weights and measures. I trust the committee will examine into this bill carefully anc port favorably the best bill that they can reach a conclusior upon the question of weights and measures. Mr. Meads. One question, please. Mr. Dillon. All right. Mr. Meads. Suppose this bill was passed. Would there be thing left for the States to do ? Mr, DiLLiON. Nothing, except there might be a matter of ca ing it into effect and the cooperation of the sealers of weights measures with the National Government in its enforcement. [ would be all. The Chairman. I find that I have from the bureau of stand of the State of Pennsylvania a protest against this bill, and I have it printed in the record. If I discover that a' similar protest has been received from State of New York, I will also have that inserted in the record. I have here, also, from the State of Wisconsin an indorsemer the bill. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Chairman. I have a great number of lettei this kind, if the committee would like to have them inserted. The Chairman. I think, Mr. Dillon, that anything that c( from the State officials relating to this bill would be proper to be in the record, and if you have any along that line I wish vou w incorporate them in the record. Mr. Dillon. Very well. 3TANDAKD WEIGHTS FOE VAEIOUS COMMODITIES. 49 Mr. Eeavis. Here, in section 4, it provides that any person, cor- poration, company, society, or association who shall sell or offer for sale less than the quantity he represents, or shall take or attempt to take more than the quantity he represents, when, as a buyer, he fur- nishes the weight or weighing device by which the amount of com- modity is determined, or who shall falsify any weight or weighing device, or who may have in his possession any false weight or weigh- ing device, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, etc. Now, isn't that fixing the standard of morality and making it an offense? What has that to do with the standardization of weights and measures? Mr. Dillon. Here is the proposition: He proposes to sell a com- modity. Mr. Eeavis. Yes. Mr. Dillon. He says that is so much, when, as a matter of fact, it is not. That goes to the weight of that commodity and ought to be punished as a matter of deceit. Mr. LiNTHicuM. Isn't that a matter in which the State would have exclusive jurisdiction ? Mr. Dillon. No; it relates to the eflBciency of that measurement, whatever it may be. Mr. Linthictjm. Does it relate to contracts under this bill or to contracts outside of this bill, where this bill, if a law, would have no effect ? It goes on to say, " shall take or attempt to take more than the quantity he represents." That is false representations or nothing. Mr. Dillon. It means in reference to this bill. It does not mean something outside of the scales or the measures. If I have not made it clear, the committee can consider that point. Mr. LiNTHicuM. The power to fix the standard of weights and measures on the part of Congress would not give it authority to legislate with reference to contracts incidental to that. Mr. Dillon. It is not the purpose to go out of the range of con- tracts of the person who is weighing the commodities. Mr. LiNTHicuM. What jurisdiction has the Congress to legislate upon questions of contract between individuals of States? Mr. Dillon. They have the right to fix the standard of weights and measures, and these things are incidental to that. They fall within that power. Mr. Linthictjm. We have a right to fix the section comprising 640 acres of land. Suppose a man describes it as 640 acres, when, as a matter of fact, it is only 600 acres. Has Congress the power to punish that man for deceit in that connection? Mr. Dillon. It depends upon the phraseology of the deed. If he put in "more or less," that perhaps would cover it; otherwise he would be guilty of deceit. Mr. LiNTHicuM. That is dependent upon whether it is greatly less or more. The phrase " more or less " is meant merely to take up any error in Government surveys. Mr. Dillon. Well, that would be a question. Mr LiNTHicuM. Having the power to fix the size of a section, has Congress the power to punish a man who deceives another man whom he does not give a full section to? Mr. Dillon. I do not think that is applicable. 25190—16 4 50 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES. Mr. LiNTHiCTjM. Under the fourth section of this bill we have the power to fix what a bushel of wheat shall be, and we have the power to punish for variation from that standard in defraud of another. Mr. Dillon. We have the power to punish; yes. Mr. Aberceombie. I find that you were in error on that box bill. .That bill related to boxes used in interstate and foreign commerce. The first section begins this way Mr. Dillon. It is not a box bill, but a barrel bill. Mr. Abeecrombie. " Delivered for shipment in interstate or for- eign commerce" Mr. Dillon (interposing). That is the box bill. You are confus- ing the box bill and the barrel bill. The box bill was optional. The barrel bill was mandatory. Mr. Fischer. One was an apple-barrel bill, which fixed the size for interstate commerce. Another bill, known as the Tuttle bill, was passed by Congress and fixed the size of the barrel in all parts of the country. Mr. Abeecrombie. That referred to interstate commerce, did it ? Mr. FiscHEE. Yes. Mr. Dillon. I made one of the speeches on that barrel bill. I took part in that discussion, and I do not think I am mistaken. It was mandatory, and I was in favor of it. It was interstate and intrastate. I would like in this connection to have inserted the opinion of Attorney General Bonaparte, under date of February 13, 1908; also , ©pinion of Charles Earl, solicitor for the Department of Commerce and Labor, under date of May 15, 1907, relative to the power of Con- gress to establish standards of weights and measures. These opin- ions are taken from hearings on the apple-barrel bill in the Sixty- third Congress: Office of the Solicitok, Depaetmknt of Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C, May 15, 1907. Tlie Secretary of Commerce and Labor. Sir : My opinion is requested, by your reference of a letter from the Bureau . of Standards, as to whetlier, under the fifth clause, section 8, Article I, of the Constitution, Congress may enact a law which shall define the standard of weights and measures to be used throughout the several States and Territories , of the United States, require all such weights and measures to bear a pre- scribed stamp, and malve it a misdemeanor to use in trade any weights or meas- tires departing from such standard or without such stamp I have the honor to answer this question in the afllrmative on the followins grounds : In enumerating the po\^-ers granted to Congress, the Constitution provides " The Congress shall have power : * * * To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures " The proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, as recorded add nothing to the simple words of this grant, as brief as they are comprehensive and as clear as they are precise. In the earlier drafts of the Constitution no mention was made of weights and measures. The clause, precisely as it now appears though standing alone, was first introduced in the draft reported by the commit tepnn detail August G, 1787, and it was adopted by the convention Au-ust^fi 1797 without debate. It was combined with the clause granting- the nowe t ■ money and regulate the value thereof in the draft reported by the commi^too on style and arrangement September 12, 1787 (3 Doc. iiist Pnnit lAcTkAK 724; 8 Fed. Stat., An., 152). In the Federalist the power in question i« t At vt^' only by Madison, who says merely, " The regulation of weights and mpi °^^*^^.'^ transferred from the Articles of Confederation and is founded on ,., ^''"'^^.^^ erations with the preceding power of regulating coin." (Federalist V'42 1 STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VAEIOUS COMMODITIES. 51 Referring to the Articles of Confederation, it is found tliat the power was tliere granted In the following terms (Art. IX) : " The United States, In Congress assembled, shall also have the sole au.i .. •sp99s 9iddv § 's9iddB peiJa .' -* 1 Tfi i 1 lO 1 i*< rf 1 ! -^ >0 -^ -^ -^ ' Cvl CI ■ • (M CM IM C>) CN | CN C-i CN (>i C>l CN CNCs|CN(N [s ■ -4"* 00 CN tNCN i"S9iddy ! 1 lo 1 ioo 1 CO 1 ■ 1 ' 1 GOOD • ■ ■* i^^S • CC lOOOCOOO O ■ -^ -^ -tf ■^ -^ If3 coco 0000>0 -* -^ m lorr Tf •p99SliJt1!J[V ;::;;;§§:: o CD oo oo o CO o o United States Alabama Arkansas Colorado Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idahos Illinois Iowa Kentucky Louisiana Maine ■1 ■a p II 1 1 o, 1 as .. O is 1 > a w 2; S5 1 2; o i o I 1 > STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VAEIOTJS COMMODITIES. 57 ■ cocgoooo oo as 5|g O W W M _. ■S ° 5 c E " - 3 03 O sit ^ O) _, «j s o < 5 ^ o^SSC .2 -a' ■^ o aj—- a"S; o c3 g ill ■sTJ 2 oj a> bo M-fcl'S .S>Sa •*5 6 S t*!>t?- 58 STAJiTPAKD WEIGHTS FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES. •ezTBin JO njoo* treipni ■p90S ssbjS nBIJBSuriH jC JO 3(0 t H •SSEJ3 spjaji •jTBq (Smjisjsei,!) •sajjjeqasooo ■(paasuT[) P99SXBU •sjgqranono •soTjjoquBJO ■poos no; -}00 pn^idfi •poosuo^^ioo PUB[ST Bog I'poosno^joo "po^Hoqnn IBOTUTIJOO •po}ioq 'iBomtiJOO I'IBom nJOO •jijoo ponoqs ■poiisnqnn 'JBO nj cuoo ■pa3[snq 'JBO m ttioo J i-njoo •9J100 03 rt to O Sop is So ■2 i* OB Mh-i fi|S|.S>~2S STANDARD WEIGHTS FOE VARIOUS COMMODITIES: 59 : •" ; g ;s § ; :« : i^ is i ; ;§a i^ 5 ; ;3 '. '.-^ •CO ■ • ■« \ '.°° •^ sss ; :S gss •00 ; ;g : I" : :5! ig ?3 : \P !" \s I I I : : :^ ' : :° sigg i ;s III ;j -^ : i egg ; :f 3 ; ; ; 1 JCD • ■ c 3 ■ ■ ■ !< ; ; ; i 3 1^1 P. 9 §1 O.CI ^5 ^1 -a ^ S o --I . 03 O'Pj "■Kg jai a J g.2fSa ^ fl S oj W) (B ■fci 5 « o. p. p. ■ag s.g - co3 ■ I ^ - .-a ■?(!, ° t. a ££SS&qafi3 .11 m *" ft 60 STANDAED WEIGHTS FOK VAJiiUUb oummuiJiJ-xi^ij. 8-iuoodoj C£ N ■^ 3 I'SUOJ coco g g s (&«?■ oooooooooooo ooooes to to «5 CO to ■panaqsan 'sBoa noaio g g s I'SJEaa o CO s «^ s CO 'a' ■(„SB3a "f s * oa f ? eg 8 •popsd -un 'seqouad paucE M M CO oo SSSsS? ??" eo eo ■ p9I38d'S8q0139lJ poucE ss CO CO S5 S3S s S3SSS5S CO CO CO CO CO CO CO '• eo J VS9qOB9 tlOPi tJD _: (B el's i & la ■ - ca S ■S as I > CD eig§ e ojig a— o g-" " „ ■a di2s §,-s '^ ;5 d =3°o S o . .§•8 13 rj_< r^-g'Oi 62 STANDAKD WTEIGHTS FOB VARIOUS COMMODITIES. •}1!8tlM. ■sinunJAv -Sna uouiiubo I'sdiTiJtiX •p89s £ti%oviiJj t3 lO "O >0 lO o •zjlids ao Jiofls •p89S ranqSjog 'il^s Qsa^oo •JIBS eniji I'M^JS ■9ia 'IBara QiCa •ffE3l3qBjnH •eorj qSnoH ■do} pea ■p33s Qd-ea <> •saonjtiti s9o:^B}od ajTiiAi. S90!}B;Od :}99^g 1-S901B;0(J S'a lllliillfi^g^ jRR sifiiiiiaiiiiis^iiiiillllili ■§§§•§ 3£gS STANDARD WEIGHTS TOE. VAKIOUS COMMODITIES. 63 :SSS JcO«0<0«dS :S :S8S: |s« g ;8S 9«S ::Si? «s ° i a s s ooo jes sss I 1(3 m U3 irj lO g CD in "* '. 3 g " ; sss g SS!8 CD s is OOO CO CD CD 1 1 i^ H id 3> $ .fc !> 1 1 b P SI J3 -tJ «4H O l-H ca o > ca cd" tH ^ 05 *s T-l t— ■^^ (M p^ ^ ca o ^ M rt ^ jij ^e* CS 0.0 *-5 'S'^'S S> to Cornell University Library HG479.A2 W41 1916 Establishment of standard weights for va olin 3 1924 030 192 334