proposed by them, be required, provided only that bottles marked in accordance with the requirements agreed upon will be accepted in the different States.

As we look into this question, it appears that many of the special marks now required by law or regulation have been specified in an effort to have this marking approximate the seal which the weights and measures officer normally places on a scale or measure to signify his approval of the device for commercial use; but the ultimate purpose of these marks is to identify bottles so marked as bottles which conform to the requirements of the State in question and which may legally be used in commercial trade. As to the name, initials, or trade-mark of the manufacturer, and the designating number, the only purpose of this marking is to identify the maker of the bottle and fix the responsibility for its accuracy, except in the case of the one State which specifies that the name, initials, or trade-mark shall be those of the dealer using the bottle. It would seem, therefore, that, with the exception noted, every purpose served by present marking requirements could be served equally well by a uniform sealing mark and by a single designation for each manufacturer. The principal difficulty of putting this program into effect lies, of course, in the changes which will be necessary where the marking requirements at present in force are incorporated in the statutes; in those cases where these requirements are promulgated by the State weights and measures officer the necessary modifications may readily be made. The difficulties are by no means insurmountable, however, and may all be overcome if the officials of the several States will make a concerted and earnest effort to arrive at a condition of uniformity.

The Bureau of Standards will be glad to do its part in carrying out this entire program as outlined, by acting as a disinterested clearing house in all matters affecting milk bottle regulations. We can bring again to the attention of all the States the conference code of specifications for milk bottles, modifying this, perhaps, in such minor respects as including a number as a part of the designating mark as the manufacturers and many of the States desire. We can compile a list of designating marks for all bottle manufacturers now in the business and as new firms enter this field from time to time, we can assign to each a designating mark to distinguish its products.

However, to make this plan effective it will first be necessary for the States to secure the required modifications in their laws or regulations so that the uniform specifications and marking requirements may be adopted; and, second, it will be necessary for the States to adhere to the recommendations of the bureau in respect to the designating marks to be assigned to the different manufacturers. I am sure you will agree that without this cooperation nothing worth while could be accomplished.

Before undertaking anything along this line we wish to have an expression of the opinion of the conference as to the advisability of such action, and if the response is favorable to proceeding with the plan we wish to have some indication of the support which will be accorded by the weights and measures officials in pushing matters through to a point where we can actually have uniform regulations for milk and cream bottles throughout the United States. As stated before, the bureau is heartily in favor of accomplishing

this, and we believe that all weights and measures officers will appreciate the advantages which will result from such a course to all concerned. If in some States certain individual requirements now in force must be given up, it should be remembered that the program outlined involves no sacrifice of essentials, but only the modification of form, and such loss as is inevitable will be much more than compensated for by the benefits of standardization and uniformity.

DISCUSSION OF ABOVE PAPER

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, this exposition of the milk-bottle situation is before you. Will you discuss the paper?

Mr. FOSTER. I would like to ask one question. With us a great many dairies insist on having their names blown in the bottles. If that is not done the bottles become common property and unscrupulous dealers profit by the bottles that the other fellow buys and the innocent party has no way of claiming his bottles.

Mr. SMITH. There is no intention, Mr. Foster, of preventing a dealer from having his name blown in a bottle. I think that is an excellent provision; that is, however, an individual arrangement made by the user with the manufacturer. It is only in relation to the official requirements that I speak.

Mr. FOSTER. When I raised the point, what I had in mind was the number or the multiplicity of dies. What is to be the advantage of the simplification which you recommend if the manufacturers must still continue to make special bottles for individual customers? Mr. SMITH. Every time they make an additional modification it increases the number of dies and adds to the expense. They can not get away from showing the names of the dairies owning the bottles, but it would simplify the manufacturing operation materially if they made the bottles uniform in other respects. That plan would have the additional advantage of certain marks meaning the same thing in every State, whereas now a designating mark may mean different things in different States. The manufacturers say that this proposal would result in a very desirable simplification from their standpoint. I am not familiar in detail with the savings that would result, but it surely means something to them or they would not have asked for it; and I can not see any objection to it from the standpoint of weights and measures regulation.

Mr. EMERY. I wish to say in this connection that I am not prepared to express an opinion. I know that our law has been very satisfactory, and I do not want in any way to place myself against it.

Mr. ESTES. Mr. Chairman, it seems the plan outlined in Mr. Smith's paper is very logical and one to be desired, especially by people in our official capacities who are working for standardization. Therefore, to express our approval of the plan, I move that this matter be referred to the resolutions committee for appropriate action.

(The motion was seconded.)

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any discussion?

Mr. STOVER. I would like to see all the letters taken off the bottom of the bottle.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. In New Jersey we have a milk dealers' protective association, and they insist that the milk dealer's name be blown in the bottle, indicating the ownership of the bottle. In fact, they have a detective force that goes throughout the State to detect and prosecute dealers who unscrupulously handle the bottles of other dealers. That is the only method they have of protecting themselves from the dealers who buy their bottles from junk dealers or secure them by other questionable methods. If bottles are found in hands of people to whom they do not belong they prosecute. They have a certain agreement along those lines. They would insist on having the name of the dealer blown in. I can see no objection.

(The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.)

Mr. SCHWARTZ. May I suggest that the gentleman who made the motion prepare the resolution and submit it to the resolutions committee for consideration; also that anyone having resolutions in mind kindly prepare and present them promptly to the resolutions committee for their consideration.

TESTING OF POST-OFFICE SCALES

Mr. HOLBROOK. I desire to take advantage of this opportunity to read a letter from Postmaster General New, addressed to Doctor Burgess, regarding post-office scales. The letter is as follows:

GEORGE K. BURGESS,

Director, Bureau of Standards, and President,

MAY 21, 1924.

Annual Conference on Weights and Measures, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR DOCTOR BURGESS: The matter of testing post-office scales has been brought to my attention. It is also related to me that you are interested in this subject and may be able to assist us.

We understand that you have your annual conference here in Washington beginning on Monday, the 26th, and that you might be able, at that conference, to outline some policy of cooperation with us.

Would it be possible for the State organizations having to do with weights and measures to test post-office scales periodically, and could this be done without expense to the Post Office Department?

If your conference would discuss this matter and suggest some line of action, then it might be possible for this department to take it up directly with the States, realizing the while that such resolutions as you might pass in this conference would aid us very materially when we would so confer with the different commonwealths.

Yours very truly,

(Signed)

HARRY S. NEW,
Postmaster General.

The CHAIRMAN. That is evidently a subject very appropriate for consideration by the committee on resolutions. At the same time it might be well to have opinions expressed from the floor at this

time.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, I will state that we have been in the habit of testing scales in post offices upon the invitation of the respective postmasters. We thoroughly recognize that behind the counter it is Federal ground and Federal property. We have no right to go in behind any postmaster's counter and test his scales without a request from him. We do it upon request, but our men, as a rule, do not ask to inspect post-office scales. If the postmaster

feels that his equipment is not up to standard, we are glad to send in a man and have the work done. We are glad to do it without expense to the Post Office Department, it being in line with our regular duties.

Mr. MCGRADY. I am very glad this question came up. About the year 1912 or 1913 I was engaged in field work in the city of Pittsburgh. In a substation the clerk refused to have the store scales inspected, saying, "This is the property of Uncle Sam." We took it up with Postmaster Davis, and he immediately issued orders giving us the power to go behind the counter anywhere in the main post office or in stations under his jurisdiction.

Mr. EMERY. I welcome the suggestion of the Postmaster General. In Wisconsin we have felt the need for testing post-office scales, because our citizens have been paying out money because of errors of those scales, and I think it is properly our function to go into post offices and inspect all their scales. We have gone there when invitations have been extended to us. I know there is a highly technical question raised there, but at the same time we know that the scales in post offices are frequently grievously wrong, and our citizens are paying a large amount of postage that they ought not to pay. Mr. HOLBROOK. Doubtless it is not the function of a State or focal inspector to test post-office scales without consent. However, that question need not be gone into. In many instances an objection by the local postmaster to the testing of the post-office scales has been made only because he has not been sufficiently advised as to his authority to consent, and also has not been sufficiently advised as to the policy of the Government in that respect. The Post Office Department, realizing, as it does, that it is not in a position to test all its scales at frequent intervals, now desires the cooperation of the State and local weights and measures officials. If this conference indicates to the Postmaster General a general willingness on the part of its members to assume the work of testing post-office scales, then, as I understand it through a conversation with one of the officials of the Post Office Department, it is the intention of the department to issue a general order to the postmasters stating the policy of the department. It is also the intention to take up with the various individual State and local inspectors of weights and measures the matter of testing post-office scales. The authorization may not go to the full extent of having condemnations made, although in offices where a surplus supply of scales is maintained it is probable that the incorrect scale will be immediately put out of use; but the Post Office Department, I think, will request that the postmasters report any incorrect scales immediately to their bureau of supplies and equipment and new or correct scales will be furnished as soon as possible, and the old scales retired. It is along those lines that the Post Office Department wishes your cooperation.

Mr. BULSON. I recall an instance similar to what Mr. Holbrook mentioned. In one case I was called into a post office by a postmaster and the fact that he asked me to test the scale was an indication that he thought it might be defective. I wrote on the report that I made to the postmaster a recommendation that was sent to headquarters and in a short time a correct set of scales was installed.

6379°-24- 4

I would take the same stand every time in regard to the inspection of scales. In my jurisdiction I have a military post. and inspect the scales in the military barracks twice a year. I never go in there unless I am asked, but they did make the requests and got the inspections and in two instances the scales were in very poor condition.

Mr. SEAY. Mr. Chairman, in the last 12 months I have had three experiences with post-office scales. In one case one of the large business houses in Richmond was getting out large shipments of mail matter and the Post Office Department checked up one large shipment upon one scale and advised it would require a certain amount of postage. That evening the firm dumped thousands of these packages in the post office and upon their being weighed upon a different scale it was found they did not have sufficient postage. The entire consignment was held up a day and the next day the firm was required to put on $30 worth of additional postage. The several scales in the post office were then compared and differences found. In another case we found a parcel-post scale on which 6 pounds registered as 5 pounds. That scale was condemned. In another case the parcel-post scale was so stiff that it took a quarter pound to move the beam either up or down.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I do not see any objection to the conference going on record to the effect that we are only too glad to help in testing their equipment throughout the country, the Post Office Department taking the initiative. I, for one, welcome that idea. I know we are only too anxious to be of whatever assistance we can be to the Post Office Department.

Mr. CLUETT. In Chicago we have a system whereby we charge fees which go to the city treasury. While our department would welcome the right to go in and make the inspections at the different substations, at the same time there would have to be some sort of city ordinance in regard to the payment of fees. So, if that particular matter were to be taken up, at the same time the Post Office Department should also take up with the city of Chicago the question of fees. We would be glad to do the work.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further discussion?

Mr. MCGRADY. I move that in response to this letter of the Postmaster General. this conference go on record as extending to the Post Office Department the cooperation of the departments of weights and measures in the various States, wherever possible.

(The motion was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion was agreed tc.)

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further business to come before this session!

(It was moved and seconded at this point that the conference adjourn: the question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.i

(Thereupon, at 4 o'clock p. m.. the conference adjourned to meet at 9.30 o'clock a. m., Tuesday, May 27, 1924)