•'> A Digest of “The Metric versus the English System of Weights and Measures” From Research Report No. 42 SPECIAL REPORT NUMBER 20 December, 1921 National Industrial Conference Board Wy~ v Mf ■■ V ^ -'j , ' * : ' '2 • . • ■ «!&>' ...'• DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY DURHAM, N. C. A DIGEST OF “THE METRIC versus THE ENGLISH SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES” FROM RESEARCH REPORT No. 42 Special Report Number 20 December, 1921 National Industrial Conference Board 10 East 39th Street New York City Copyright, 1921 National Industrial Conference B d ,3 ?/ 3 3 / ■77 ?. 7 7 5 a.X- )3 (* ^ A Digest of “The Metric versus the English System of Weights and Measures” From Research Report No. 42 Research Report No. 42, from which the following excerpts are taken, concisely presents facts and arguments bearing upon the question as to whether the Metric system should be substi- tuted for the English system of weights and measures in the United States. The aim of the Report is to provide a basis for intelligent judgment upon this question, rather than to express an opinion. The Report represents the results of careful scientific inquiry by the National Industrial Conference Board, aided by an Advisory Committee of prominent industrialists of broad bus- iness experience and scientific attainment, some of whom favor and others oppose the compulsory adoption of the Metric system in the United States. The full approval of the Report by all members of the Advisory Committee and by the members of the National Industrial Conference Board indicates that it presents accurate and comprehensive information on the sub- ject and gives an impartial synopsis of arguments on both sides. The English system, with the inch and foot as units of linear measure, the quart and gallon for liquid measure, and the ounce and pound for weight, is now with few exceptions in universal use in the L T nited States. The Metric system which it is pro- posed to substitute for it, is briefly described in its main features in the following excerpt: The fundamental unit of length in the Metric system is the meter. . . The system is so devised as to provide a close interrelation between the units of length, capacity and weight. The liter, which is the basic unit of capacity, is the volume of one-tenth meter cubed. The gram, which is the fundamental unit of mass, is the weight of a volume of pure water at maximum density, equal to one-hundredth of a meter cubed. With respect to the multiplication and division of units, the Metric system is distinctly decimal. . . The meter is divided into tenths (decimeters), hundredths (centimeters) and thousandths (milli- 1 meters), while for more minute measures the millimeter is further divided into hundredths. The larger unit of linear measure is the kilometer, of 1,000 meters. In a similar manner the liter, for capacity measures, is subdivided into deciliters and milliliters, and the larger units are the dekaliter, the hectoliter and the kiloliter. The larger units of weight are the kilogram of 1,000 grams, the quintal of 100 kilograms, and the ton of 1,000 kilograms. 1 In considering legislation now before Congress, certain ques- tions of paramount interest immediately arise and press for answer. These relate to: a. Intrinsic merits of the Metric and English systems. b. Present use of the Metric and English systems generally and in special fields. c. Effect on American industry generally and on fundamental mechanical standards of substitution of Metric for English system. d. Effect of such substitution on the general public. e. Cost of such substitution. f. Length of transition period as experienced in making similar change in other countries. g. The need for compulsory legislation to effect such a change. h. The nature and the extent of the demand for a change. i. Comparison of Metric and English systems for universal use. A basis for intelligent judgment on these questions is provided in the following excerpts from the Report. It must be borne in mind, of course, that the principal facts and arguments here quoted are necessarily in the nature of summary statements presented out of their context and without the details or testi- mony supporting them. For this reason, in forming final judg- ment with respect to the controversy surrounding the two systems, the excerpts here given should not be regarded as standing alone. They give important findings borne out by the data contained in the report, which data must be consulted for a full understanding of the subject. (a) Intrinsic Merits of the Metric and English Systems. 2 Metric Contentions. ....Metric proponents picture the ideal system of weights and measures as one that is constructed to have the smallest possible number of units, simple ratios between the units, and a simple corre- lation between the units of length, capacity, and weight, i. e., the simpler the structure, they contend, the more readily will the system be comprehended. The Metric system, they insist, with its decimal >Pp. 13-14 of the Report. 2 For detailed Metric contentions and English answers see pp. 123-140 of Report. 2 and scientific correlations meets these ideal requirements. It is simple in structure and its units are easily convertible, being scientifi- cally related and divided into tenths and multiples of ten; the units are few and their names are easily learned, for which reasons, they say, the whole system is more readily comprehended by the average person than is the English system . 1 As for convenience, Metric proponents contend that those elements of their system which make for simplicity likewise make for con- venience, viz., uniform decimal and scientific relationships between the units. They assert also that their system has proved to be readily adapted to mechanical and other needs and comprehensive in filling the requirements made of it . 2 English Answers. .... English proponents maintain that the English system is in- trinsically superior to the Metric because its fundamental units, such as the inch, foot, pound, ton, quart, gallon, have developed from the eternal process of a natural selection of fittest units and not as the result of a rigid inflexible plan; because it multiplies and divides its units not only decimally to meet certain limited needs but also bi- narily and duodecimally to meet other and much more extensive needs; because the character and names of its units are so tied in with everyday experience that they are readily learned and retained; and because the features just mentioned make the English system, as compared with the rigid and inflexible Metric system, much more comprehendible to the average mind, and more convenient, adaptable and comprehensive in filling the needs a system of weights and measures is called upon to fill . 3 In this connection English proponents point out that natural local units in countries the world over are closely related to the units of the English system. 4 (b) Present Use of the Metric and English Systems Generally and in Special Fields. The distribution of world population 5 on the basis of the pre- dominant use by countries of the Metric and English systems shows that the Metric system is in predominant use in thirty- seven countries 6 with a population of 395,521,000; th< English iP. 136. ’P. 137. »P. 140. 4 See Diagram I, p. 7 of the Report. 6 See Diagram II, p. 19 of the Report, also pp. 16-18 referring to this diagram. ^Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chili, Congo, Colombia, Czecho- slovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Jugo-Slavia, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Nica- ragua, Norway, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunis, Uruguay and Venezuela. 3 system is in predominant use in twelve countries 1 with a popu- larion of 343,557,000; and twenty-eight countries 2 with a pop- ulation of 823,700,000 do not use either the Metric or the Eng- lish system predominantly. The distribution of world export trade 3 in 1919, according to groups of countries using the English and Metric systems shows that English countries carried on 48.2% of the world’s export trade; Metric countries 37.5%, and all other countries, 14.3%. This statement should be viewed in connection with the follow- ing excerpt: Summing up the whole discussion of the world-wide aspects of the English and Metric systems in foreign trade, it appears that general export and import figures, trade relations between English, Metric and other countries, and the nature of the products exported from English countries, all confirm the observation already made that the English system of weights and measures is being projected into Metric and other countries to a very considerable extent through the export trade of the United States and Great Britain and that the reciprocal influence of the Metric system is much smaller . 4 The distribution of exports from the United States in 1919, according to groups of countries using the Metric and English systems was as follows: 5 Exports to European Metric countries, 37.1% of the total; to Latin American Metric countries, 6.3%; to Latin American, English and other countries, 5.7%; to other English countries, 41.9%; and to all other countries, 9%. This statement should be considered in relation to the following excerpt: . . . .The interests of foreign trade are naturally along the line of establishing a uniform system of weights and measures the world over. So long as substantial uniformity is secured, however, there is no reason why this field should prefer any one system over another except as one or the other system is found to be already in pre- dominant or increasing use. The facts indicate that the trade of the world is not carried on more in the Metric system than it is in the English and that, as a matter of fact, the English system predominates. Furthermore, in considering a compulsory change to the Metric ’Russia (measures of length), United States, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, British Guiana, Australia, Liberia, Straits Settlements, Porto Rico and Santo Domingo. 2 Abyssinia, Afghanistan, Armenia, Bolivia, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Greece, Guatemala, Hedjaz, Honduras, India, Japan, Mesopotamia, Morocco, Nepal, Oman, Palestine, Panama, Persia, Peru, Salvador, Siam, Syria, Tripoli and Turkey. 3 See Diagram III, p. 105 of the Report. P. 112. 2 See Diagram V, p. 119 of the Report, and the explanation given on p. 118. 5 industry showed similar opposition. The lumber industry was like- wise opposed and emphasized the “great confusion and incalculable expense” that would result. The paper and printing, automobile, railway-car, shipbuilding, and implement and vehicle, industries also went on record as decidedly adverse to any change. The manufacturing field, employing as it does over 10,500,000 workers, and producing commodities valued at something like $25,- 000,000,000 annually, is unquestionably one of the most important fields of industry in the United States. The indications are that a compulsory change to the Metric system would profoundly affect many manufacturing lines, especially during the period of transistion, which the experience of other countries suggests would be very long. The interests and desires of such an important field and the effect of a change in weights and measures upon it should naturally be care- fully weighed in considering the advisability of a compulsory change. 1 Metric Contentions. Metric proponents maintain that a change to the Metric system would not necessarily mean the destruction and discarding of the present system of mechanical standards or the equipment embodying it; that it would involve in large part merely the expression of present standards in Metric terms; and that in so far as any alteration or destruction became advisable, it could be affected gradually and without confusion as the equipment in question wore out and had to be replaced. 2 English Answers. . . . .English proponents contend, first, that all available evidence based upon the experience of other countries indicates that the sub- stitution of Metric designations for existing sizes and the actual replacement of English with new Metric equipment is impracticable, and secondly, that if the United States is contemplating a change in systems it must face the fact of the destruction of existing mechanical standards. In addition, they insist that following the change there would necessarily be a long aftermath during which the mechanical industries of the country would suffer from a tremendous confusion and the laborious undertaking of rebuilding new standards in another system. 3 (d) Effect of Such Substitution on the General Public. The following brief excerpt contains a general statement of fact only. Arguments are to be found in several places in the Report . 4 'Pp. 100-101. See also pp. 97-100 on “Relation to Question of Change in United States.” -P. 173. For detailed Metric contentions and English answers on this point see pages 173-180 of Report. See all important considerations mentioned on pp. 50-51. »P. 180. ■•See pp. 66-/7; 148-150; 169-170 in respect to agriculture, mining, transportation and trade. 6 There is another effect. . . .that the change would have, which, as it pertains to transportation and retail trade particularly, is of para- mount importance. This would have to do with changing the habits not only of those engaged in these fields, but also of those that constitute the traveling and buying public. In 1910 there were about 71,500,000 people in the United States ten years of age and over. Most of these in their everyday activities engage in traveling and in the retail purchasing of consumable goods. With trade prac- tices as bearing on weights and measures changed by compulsory law, the habits of the entire buying and traveling public, as well as of those directly engaged in selling and transporting goods, would be affected. . ... .In the four fields 1 treated in this chapter, such little demand as exists for a change to the Metric system comes from those engaged in wholesale trade, who, as has been noted, comprise a very small group, comparatively speaking. There is practically no sentiment in favor of a change to be found in the other fields discussed. 2 (e) Cost of Such Substitution. 3 Metric Contentions. Metric proponents contend in general that the cost of a change to the Metric system has been greatly overestimated. Such a change would involve, they assert, merely the translation of literature and catalogs, which, in view of the existing Metric literature, would not be difficult, and the replacement of present weights, measures and scales, affecting chiefly the field of domestic trade, rather than any serious destruction of equipment.... 4 English Answers. .... English proponents claim, since a compulsory change to the Metric system under any form of compulsory law would necessarily entail the discarding or alteration of a large part of the basic me- chanical equipment of the manufacturing industries of the country, compel the replacement of scales and measuring instruments in use among all classes of people, and require a period of training in the use of the new system, which period would involve errors and reduce efficiency — the only result of the compulsory adoption of the Metric system would be to drag the country into an enormous expenditure and waste without providing any compensatory advantages. 5 (f) Length of Transition Period as Experienced in Making Similar Change in Other Countries. Metric Contentions. Proponents of the metric system declare that, in general, the experi- 'See pp. 66-77; 148-150; 169-170 in respect to agriculture, mining, transportation and trade. ’Pp. 76-77. s For detailed testimony regarding the cost of a change, see pp. 180-188 of Report. «P. 180. 5P. 188. 7 ence of other countries demonstrates that the difficulties involved in such a change are greatly exaggerated by supporters of the English system and that the people of the United States would adopt the new units without serious confusion after a relatively short transition period, especially if the legislation requiring the use of the metric system were limited at first to certain activities and gradually broadened in scope . 1 Metric advocates assert also that in countries where the Metric sys- tem has been adopted, difficulty in making the change has been evi- denced only among ignorant people and that the retention of ancient units in these countries and among such classes does not constitute an argument against a change. The mere fact, they say, that the use of ancient terms continues in certain isolated industries and communi- ties carries no more weight than does the fact that we still retain Roman numerals on our watch faces or that the Gregorian calendar has not yet entirely desplaced the Julian calendar or that older units remained in use for a generation after the adoption of our decimal currency in the United States. In view of the simplicity and ease of use of the Metric system as pre- viously set forth, they maintain, it is unlikely that any class of the edu- cated population in the United States would find the s) r stem difficult to acquire in a short time. On the contrary the uniformity and stand- ardization which the metric system of measures would bring, they con- tinue, would make the people of the country welcome such a change and adapt themselves to it quickly . 2 English Answers. English proponents maintain that the experience of other countries and a consideration of the situation in the United States show that the change to the Metric system would involve enormous disturbance to the eve yday habits and customs of the whole buying and traveling population of the country and would create untold confusion in business practices which would require a long transition period to overcome, no matter how compulsory legislation were applied. In the first place, the assertion of pro-Metrics that a change in other countries has been easily and quickly made is flatly denied. They cite the general difficulties involved in a change as indicated by the contin- ued and extensive use of the old units in Metric countries, statements from United States Consuls stationed in these countries, and from in- dividual engineers, commerce officials, and others who have made a study of the use of weights and measures in such countries. In further answer to the Metric contention that various Metric coun- tries have easily and quickly secured, by the adoption of the Metric system, uniformity of weights and measures and the suppression of the many and varied local systems in the country, proponents of the English system call attention to two facts, First, they point out that even where iPp. 161-2. For detailed arguments based on experience of other countries, see pp. 162-164. dPp. 163-4. 8 a substantial degree of uniformity exists in a Metric country, today, experience of all Metric countries proves that a long transition period, ranging from 25 to 100 years is necessarily involved in making a change in systems, during which period the country is forced to contend with a confusion resulting from the extensive use of local measures along with the attempted enforcement of the compulsory Metric law. France is pointed to as a preeminent example of such difficulty, confusion, and lack of uniformity. In the next place, proponents of the English sys- tem point out that whereas most Metric countries had no national uni- formity of weights and measures before the Metric system was adopted, the United States now has and has had for many years a standardized and thoroughly unified system which is solidly incorporated in its man- ufacturing and basic industries and business life, and deeply ingrained in the habits of the people. For these reasons, English proponents point out, if it has been difficult to suppress older units in other coun- tries which have adopted the Metric system, still greater difficulty is to be expected in the United States.... 1 (g) Need for Compulsory Legislation to Effect Such a Change. Metric Contentions. ....Metric proponents contend that the manner in which the change is brought about could be adjusted so that it would take place in easy stages and cause little confusion or inconvenience to any of the various interests of the country. By first requiring its use in government departments and in the schools, they say, manufacturers and the public generally could gradually familiarize themselves with it and adapt themselves to it. Following this, its use might be extended by legis- lation to domestic trade. In this way the manufacturing field would be given ample time and inducement to adopt the system voluntarily... 2 English Answers. ....English proponents maintain that the experience of other countries conclusively shows that the difficulties arising from a drastic change in the habits of the people, from the necessity of revising the technical literatu e of the country, and from the confusion incident to the use of :wo systems side by side during the long period of transition neces- sary, would be insurmountable no matter what form of compulsory law were adopted to compel the use of the Metric system, and the fact that compulsory law is invariably required to bring about a change, as shown by the experience of other countries, demonstrates that the system has no advantage which would lead people to adopt it volun- tarily. In any case, English advocates contend, no compulsory law of any kind would be necessary if the Metric system possessed the advantages tPp. 165, 168-169. For detailed testimony as to experience of other countries, see pp. 165-8. 2 P. 164. For detailed metric arguments and testimony on both sides regarding the experience of other countries, see pp. 161-172. 9 claimed for it. It is already permissible, they point out, for any one who wishes to use the Metric system to do so, and if he system had any merits which recommended it conclusively to the public, no difficulties would long stand in the way of its adoption and no gradual extension of compulsion would be needed. Standards of screw and pipe threads, for instance, were freely adopted when the advantages of them were recognized, and manufacturers have voluntarily scrapped thousands of dollars worth of machinery when it was deemed desirable to do so. In short, if the Metric system were a superior system it would long since have come into use without the necessity of compulsory law . 1 (h) Nature and Extent of Demand for a Change. 3 Metric Contentions. Metric proponents maintain that there is a strong and growing demand for a change to the Metric system in this country. This de- mand is evidenced, they say, among all classes of people, a growing tendency being noted among the manufacturing industries to favor this system in place of the English. Long lists of names are presented in connection with these contentions, and the opinions of a number of manufacturers are also cited. Finally it is contended that what is true in the United States is likewise true in Great Britain, viz., that there is a widespread demand there also in favor of a change to the Metric system . . 3 English Answers. ....English advocates deny that there is any demand worthy of serious consideration in favor of a change to the Metric system in this country and point out that what little demand exists comes from teachers, scientists and a few others representing in all an extremely small group, not more than one-tenth of one per cent of the whole population — and that even this group is divided. Metric proponents, they say, have simply been exploiting a limited sentiment to make it appear that a strong demand for a change exists, have left the large and important fields of agriculture, mining, transportation, and trade entirely out of consideration, and have ignored the extremely important fact that manufacturers and business men generally are strongly op- posed to a change. . . 4 (i) Comparison of Metric and English Systems for Universal Use . 6 Metric Contentions. Metric proponents contend that the use of the Metric system and opinion in favor of it is steadily increasing in Great Britain and the ffip. 172-3. 2 For detailed arguments on both sides including actual testimony and resolutions of manufacturers, associations, etc., see pp. 189-198. ’P. 189. ‘P. 198. 5 For detailed arguments under this heading see pp. 199-211 of report. 10 United States, that there is a growing realization that the English sys- tem is crude and confusing and that the adoption of the Metric system in these countries would eliminate this confusion and secure world uniformity . 1 English Answers. Proponents of the English system repeat their denial, elaborated in the preceding chapter, that there is any demand worthy of serious con- sideration in favor of the Metric system in Great Britain and the United States, and contend that, on the contrary, there is increasing indication that the English system, with slight modifications, is com- ing to be fully recognized as the ideal system . . Regarding the assertion that there is considerable confusion among the units of the English system and that people are increasingly realizing this, proponents of the English system insist that this is abso- lutely false, that as a matter of fact there is no ambiguity between dry and liquid measures and avoirdupois and troy weights, since these are used only with respect to certain well-defined classes of material known to everyone, i. e., the troy pound and the apothecaries’ pound are never used in commerce; the troy ounce is the unit used for weigh- ing gold and silver and the apothecaries’ weight does not exist outside of its use in drug stores. Futhermore, where the several states have passed statutes establishing certain seemingly arbitrary and irregular measures, advocates of the English system continue, these relate in the main to the measurement of agricultural products such as wheat, pota- toes, apples, etc., and most of them consist in defining the weight per barrel or bushel or peck. Obviously, they say, these differences in weight are inherent in the nature of the merchandize to be measured, varying with its specific gravity, and have nothing to do with any sys- tem of weights, measures, or volume. What is needed with respect to merchandize and other products also, is a more thorough-going stand- ardization of the practices employed, and this applies with even more force where the Metric system is used than in English-speaking countries, since in the latter the process of standardization has pro- ceeded much farther than in Metric countries . 2 In conclusion, it must be re-emphasized that the excerpts given in this Digest are severed from their context, and that only a full perusal of the whole report will provide a proper basis for the final evaluation of the merits of the two alternatives with respect to weights and measures, namely: Will the United States be benefited more by a continuance of the present conditions under which the English system remains in general use with the Metric system permissive , or by the compulsory establishment of the Metric system as the sole and only standard ? >P. 207. 2Pp. 208, 209. 11 PUBLICATIONS OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD {Prices given are for paper-bound copies; cloth binding fifty cents additional) Research Reports Research Report No. I . Workmen’s Compensation Acts in the United States — The Legal Phase. 60 pages. April, 1917. Revised, August, 1919. $1.00. Research Report No. 2 . Analysis of British Wartime Reports on Hours of Work as Related to Output and Fatigue. 58 pages. November, 1917. $1.00. Research Report No. j. Strikes in American Industry in Wartime. 20 pages. March, 1918. 50 cents. Research Report No. 4 . Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers — Cotton Manufacturing. 64 pages. March, 1918. $1.00. Research Report No. 5 . The Canadian Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. 28 pages, April, 1918. 50 cents. Research Report No. 6 . Sickness Insurance or Sickness Prevention? 24 pages. May, 1918, 50 cents. Research Report No. 7. Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers — Boot and Shoe Industry. 76 pages. June, 1918. $1.00. Research Report No. 8 . Wartime Employment of Women in the Metal Trades. 80 pages. July, 1918. $1.00. Research Report No. 9 . Wartime Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 — June, 1918. 82 pages. August, 1918. $1.00. Research Report No. 10 . Arbitration and Wage-Fixing in Australia. 52 pages. October, 1918. $1.00. Research Report No. II . The Eight-Hour Day Defined. 12 pages. December, 1918. 50 cents. Research Report No. 12 . Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers — Wool Manufacturing. 69 pages. December, 1918. $1.00. Research Report No. 13 . Rest Periods for Industrial Workers. 55 pages. January, 1919. $ 1 . 00 . Research Report No. 14 . Wartime Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 — November, 1918. 33 pages. February, 1919. 75 cents. Research Report No. 13 . Problems of Industrial Readjustment in the United States. 58 pages. February, 1919. $1.00. Research Report No. 16 . Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers — Silk Manufacturing. 54 pages. March, 1919. $1.00. Research Report No. Ip . Wartime Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 — March, 1919. 31 pages. May, 1919. 75 cents. Research Report No. 18 . Hours of Work as Related to Output and Health of Workers — Metal Manufacturing Industries. 62 pages. July, 1919. $1.00. Research Report No. 19 . Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 — July, 1919. 31 pages. September, 1919. 75 cents Research Report No. 20 . Wartime Changes in Wages: September, 1914 — March, 1919. 128 pages. September, 1919. $1.50. Research Report No. 21 . Works Councils in the United States. 135 pages. October, 1919. $1.50. Research Report No. 22 . The Cost of Living Among Wage-Earners — Fall River, Massachu- setts, October, 1919. 18 pages. November, 1919. 50 cents. Research Report No. 2 ?. Conciliation and Arbitration in New Zealand. 46 pages. December, 1919. $1.00. Research Report No. 24 . The Cost of Living Among Wage-Earners — Lawrence, Massachu- setts, November, 1919. 21 pages. December, 1919. 50 cents. Research Report No. 23 . Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 — November, 1919. 24 pages. December, 1919. 75 cents. Research Report No. 26 . A Works Council Manual. 32 pages. February, 1920. $1.00. Research Report No. 27 . The Hours of Work Problem in Five Major Industries. 91 pages. March, 1920. $1.00. Research Report No. 28 . Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 — March, 1920. 24pages. May, 1920. 75 cents. Research Report No. 29 . Practical Experience with Profit-Sharing in Industrial Establish- ments. 86 pages. June, 1920. $1.00. Research Report No. 30 . Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 — July, 1920. 28 pages. September, 1920. 75 cents. Research Report A T o. 31 . Changes in Wages During and Since the War — September, 1914, to March, 1920. 54 pages. September, 1920. $1.00. Research Report No. 32 . Practical Experience with the WorkWeek of Forty-eight Hours or Less. 96 pages. December, 1920. $1.00. PUBLICATIONS — continued. Research Report No. 33 . Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 — November, 1920. 29 pages. December, 1920. 75 cents. Research Report No. 34 . Health Service in Industry. 64 pages. January, 1921. $1.00. Research Report No. 35. Wage Changes in Industry: September, 1914 — December, 1920. 50 pages. March, 1921. $1.00. Research Report No. 36. Changes in the Cost of Living: July; 1914 — March, 1921. 28 pages. April, 1921. 75 cents. Research Report No. 37. Cost Of Health Service in Industry. 36 pages. May, 1921. 21.00. Research Report No. 38. Experience With Trade Union Agreements — Clothing Industries. 135 pages. June, 1921. $1.50. Research Report No. 39. Changes in the Cost of Living: July, 1914 — July, 1921. 25 pages. August, 1921. 75 cents. Research Report No. 40. Wages in Great Britain, France and Germany. 113 pages. Au- gust, 1921. $1.50. Research Report No. 41. Family Budgets of American Wage-Earners: A Critical An- alysis. 103 pages. September, 1921. 21.00. Research Report No. 42. The Metric versus the English System of Weights and Measures. 250 pages. October, 1921. $2.50. Research Report No. 43. Aspects of the Unemployment Problem. November, 1921. (In press.) Special Reports Special Report No. /. A Case of Federal Propaganda in Our Public Schools. 13 pages. February, 1919. 50 cents. Special Report No. 2 . War Revenue Act of 1918 (A Brief Analysis). 18 pages. March, 1919. 50 cents. Special Report No. 3 . Interim Report of the European Commission of the National Indus- trial Conference Board. 34 pages. July, 1919. 50 cents. Special Report No. 4 . Is Compulsory Health Insurance Desirable? 12 pages. October, 1919. 50 cents. Special Report No. 5 . Vital Issues in the Industrial Conference at Washington, D. C., 15 pages. November, 1919. 50 cents. Special Report No. 6 . Problems of Labor and Industry in Great Britain, France, and Italy. Report of the European Commission. 406 pages. November, 1919. $2.50. Special Report No. 7 . The Cost of Living Among Wage-Earners — North Hudson County New Jersey, January, 1920. 20 pages. March, 1920. 50 cents. Special Report No. 8 . The Cost of Living Among Wage-Earners — Greenville and Pelzer, South Carolina, and Charlotte, North Carolina, January and February, 1920. 25 pages. May, 1920. 50 cents. Special Report No. 9 . Proceedings of the National Industrial Tax Conference at Chicago, Illinois, April 16, 1920. 113 pages. May, 1920. $1.00. Special Report No. 10 . Should Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations Be Made Legally Responsible? 35 pages. June, 1920. 75 cents. Special Report No. II. The Closed Union Shop Versus the Open Shop: Their Social and Economic Value Compared. 27 pages. July, 1920. 75 cents. Special Report No. 12 . Should the State Interfere in the Determination of Wage Rates? 150 pages. August, 1920. $1.50. Special Report No. 13 . The Cost of Living Among Wage-Earners — Cincinnati, Ohio, May, 1920. 18 pages. July, 1920. 50 cents. Special Report No. 14 . Unwarranted Conclusions Regarding the Eight-Hour and Ten-Hour Workday. 21 pages. August, 1920. 50 cents. Special Report No. 15 . Problems of Labor and Industry in Germany. 65 pages. September, 1920. $1.00. Special Report No. 16 . The Cost of Living Among Wage-Earners — Worcester, Massachu- setts, June, 1920 20 pages. October, 1920. 50 cents. Special Report No. Ip. Proceedings of the Second National Industrial Tax Conference . New York, October 22 and 23, 1920. 200 pages. November, 1920. S1.50. Special Report No. 18 . Report of the Tax Committee of the National Industrial Conference Board, on the Federal Tax Problem. 58 pages. December, 1920 75 cents. Special Report No. 19. The Cost of Living Among Wage-Earners — Detroit, Michigan. September, 1921. 22 pages. October, 1921. 50 cents. Special Report No. 20. A Digest of “The Metric versus the English System of Weights ‘and Measures,” from Research Report No. 42. 12 pages. December, 1921. 25 cents. INDUSTRIAL NEWS SURVEY Important industrial news in concise form. A Digest of Industrial News and Comment as Published in Reliable Newspapers, Magazines, Reviews, Special Articles, and Government Documents. Weekly. $2.00 per year. Date Due OCT 1 2 ft L. 3. Cat. No. 1 137