I recognize the value of the provision in section 17 (b) for the collection of current data which may be on a sampling basis, but I believe that this cannot take the place of the complete enumeration such as we have now under the biennial census. I feel especially that it is necessary to provide definitely for a census in 1941, because the whole economy of this country has been changed since the 1939 figures were collected. To defer collection until 1943 would leave a large gap in economic data which would make many of the figures based on the census count of little use in the next few years. May I request, therefore, that the House Committee on the Census consider amending S. 1627 to provide for the regular census of manufactures in 1941 and the collection of such a limited list of items as I suggested above biennially thereafter. Sincerely yours, WM. GREEN, President, American Federation of Labor. COMBUSTION ENGINEERING CO., INC., New York, October 17, 1941. The Honorable GUY L. MOSER, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: With reference to those provisions in bills S. 1627, H. R. 5139, and H. R. 5232, which would change the taking and the issuance of the Census of Manufactures from a 2-year to a 5-year basis, I respectfully submit a protest on the grounds that the value of this census would be greatly diminished if the data were to become available at only 5-year intervals. The data contained in the manufacturers' Biennial Census have become increasingly valuable, but they are subject to quite considerable change over a period of several years and therefore their usefulness would certainly be impaired if the intervals between their collection and issuance were extended. Very truly yours, Hon. GUY L. MOSER, Chairman, Committee on the Census, CHARLES MCDONOUGH, THE FLINTKOTE CO., INC., House Office Building, Washington, D. C. SIR: The pending legislation to lengthen the interval to 5 years instead of 2 between census of manufactures is, we believe, contrary to the public interest. Today facts about markets, productive capacity, etc., are more urgently needed than ever before to enable industry to function most effectively in the defense program. We hope you will lend your powerful support to the retention of these manufacturing censuses on a 2-year basis. Respectfully yours, L. ROHE WALTER, Subject: H. R. 5139 and 5232. THE INTERNATIONAL NICKEL Co., INC., Hon. GUY L. MOSER, Chairman, House Committee on the Census, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: These carry provisions which would change tke taking and the issuance of the Census of Manufactures from a 2-year to a 5-year basis and as a user of this type of census information, we wish to register a protest against the suggested change. The present Biennial Census of Manufactures has proved to be of real value in the distribution of industrial products and such vital and useful statistical data on manufacturing activity and the location of markets would be greatly impaired by any reduction in the frequency of this service. Your serious consideration of this proposed change is respectfully requested. Very truly yours, Hon. GUY L. MOSER, Chairman, Commission on the Census, H. E. SEARLE, Manager, Engineering Sales. JOHNS-MANVILLE, New York, N. Y., October 17, 1941. House Office Building, Washington, D. C. SIR: I understand that hearings are about to begin on bill S. 1627 which provides for the establishment of the census of manufacturers on a 5-year basis instead of biennially as at present. We have found this census to be most helpful, but we are very much afraid that if it is published at 5-year intervals much of the value will be lost. Even on a 2-year basis the rapid changes which take place in industry cause some loss of effectiveness. We realize the tremendous job involved in getting out a book as comprehensive as this one is and can appreciate why issuance at 2-year intervals may be necessary. We do hope, however, that you will decide against the extending of this period. Very truly yours, JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, Assistant Sales Promotion Manager, Industrial Division. CARNEGIE-ILLINOIS STEEL CORPORATION, Hon. GUY L. MOSER, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MOSER: After studying the proposal to eliminate the biennial census of manufacturers and substitute for it a 5-year census, I have reached the conclusion that a serious error would be made. If the information, which has been made available in the 2-year-period plan, were delayed for a longer length of time, I sincerely believe that much of its advantages and usefulness would be lost. I have checked my opinion in regard to this question with our central research library, and I find that the information contained in the Biennial Census is the most frequently consulted information in the library. Post-war conditions will certainly enhance the value of the present system. Yours very truly, FRANCIS JURASCHEK, Manager, Market Research Bureau. THE CARPENTER STEEL Co., Hon. GUY L. MOSER, Chairman, House Census, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MOSER: It is a fortunate coincidence that I can address you both as chairman of the House Census Committee and also as our own Representative. I am naturally very much interested in the sales of the Carpenter Steel Co.-both as they affect the fortunes of the corporation, and as they affect the employment of nearly 2,000 workers. We have more than doubled the capacity of our plant and the number on our pay roll in order to take care of defense demands for the high-grade steels that we make. What are we going to do with all this capacity and all these workers when the defense effort is over and we get back to normal times? It is obvious that if we are going to bring to Berks County twice as much business as we have been securing during the past years, we are going to have to find a lot of new markets that we have never enjoyed before. This is the primary purpose, of course, of the National Census of Manufactures. It is, of course, obvious that many metal working plants have (or shortly will) abandon their normal peacetime manufacturing efforts and take on specialized defense work. When the emergency is over, they will continue to make something, but not necessarily the same things they made before the war. "Where they are and what they make and how big they are" will be the things that every sales department will want to know in trying to plan his peacetime future. The longer the interval between the census, the smaller will be the chance that the last information published will be of any value in our peacetime reconstruction. I know that there is a definite desire to save money on dispensable peacetime Government expenditures and I am certainly in accord with this desire. I do feel, however, that this particular effort should be continued on a 2-year basis because of its importance. If, in the interest of economy, this does not seem possible, might I suggest that provision be made to conduct a census immediately upon the cessation of the defense activity. Perhaps one specialized effort made at that particular time would have more value than anything else that could be done along this line. Respectfully yours, Hon. GUY L. MOSER, F. R. PALMER, Vice President. NEW YORK, N. Y., October 18, 1941. House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In connection with the forthcoming meeting to decide upon the frequency with which the Census of Manufacturers will be conducted, I wish to give you my opinion on the subject. This census, as you know from your own experience, is very valuable to those engaged in industrial marketing in planning sales policies. Particularly during this period of great changes in industry, it seems that the issuance of this material on any less frequent basis than 2 years would render the data highly unreliable. Also important is the necessity of having this material up to date in planning for the post-war period. I thus strongly recommend that the Census of Manufacturers be issued every 2 years as has been done in the past. Very truly yours, Mr. Guy L. MOSER, CRUCIBLE STEEL CO. OF AMERICA, DIAMOND CHAIN AND MANUFACTURING Co., DEAR SIR: As a member of the National Industrial Advertisers' Association for which a committee has been appointed to attend the hearing on census legislation, I sincerely recommend the Census of Manufacturers be retained on a 2-year basis. This information is practically invaluable and the consideration of placing it on a 5-year basis will eliminate its worth, entirely. In making final decision, please consider the manufacturers' view points. Yours very truly, H. L. MARTIN. PASSAIC, N. J., October 18, 1941. Re: S. 1627, H. R. 5232 and H. R. 5139. Chairman, Committee of the Census, Washington, D. C. HONORABLE SIR: May I urge you to guide the pending census legislation so that it will not eliminate the biennial report of the Census of Manufactures in favor of placing it on a 5-year basis. Right now our company is commencing a careful market survey of all industry and we expect to utilize the most recent report of the Census of Manufactures to assure thoroughness in our work. The reason we are starting now is that we want to lay the ground work for a plan that we believe will help the entire electrical industry following the war period. With the rapid shifting of industrial plants from congested districts and with the new industrial areas created by Federal Power Projects, we can expect innumerable permanent changes to take place. Your Census of Manufactures, as at present issued, is going to be most helpful in locating these changes, but any lengthy interval between issues of your reports is likely to make them valueless to us. Be assured that we are in accord with your efforts to economize by eliminating waste. I am sure you recognize, however, that market information based on data as much as 5 years old is generally useless and cannot therefore be classed as an economy. I believe you can do much to prevent such an unfortunate situation by helping to modify the pending census legislation. Very truly yours, Representative GUY L. MOSER, Chairman, Committee on the Census, THE OKONITE Co., THE HAYS CORPORATION, MICHIGAN CITY, IND., October 20, 1941. House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Inasmuch as the biennial Census of Manufacturers has been one of the most useful things coming out of Washington, we strongly protest as a user of the information supplied by this census to having the census put on a 5-year basis, contemplated by the provision in S. 1627, H. R. 5232, and H. R. 5139. The biennial basis is none too frequent in normal times and now that we are in the most chaotic state that we have ever been in as far as planning for distribution and sales is concerned the usefulness of the census report would be absolutely destroyed if it were placed on a 5-year basis. We have heard mush about the cost of distribution. The biennial census has tended to lower this cost because of the definite information it provided and permitting the manufacturer to concentrate his efforts where the potentials were the strongest. Otherwise, all is pretty much guesswork and a lot of waste is bound to obtain. It must be apparent even to those who are not familiar with the intricacies of marketing that with every possible aid the marketing of all kinds of products following the cessation of war hysteria, selling and distribution will be the most difficult it has ever been and without such aids as that provided by the biennial census the task will be all but hopeless. Therefore, we strongly urge that you use your influence to retain the census upon the biennial basis. Sincerely yours, PHIL T. SPRAGUE, President. UNION STEEL PRODUCTS Co., Representative GUY L. Moser, Chairman, Committee on the Census, House Office Fuilding, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I am writing to you concerning bills H. R. 5139 and H. R. 5232 which would change the Census of Manufactures from its present biennial basis to a 5-year basis. From the standpoint of our own company, Union Steel Products Co., we are very much opposed to this suggested change and this letter also registers the opposition of the Advertising Roundtable of Southern Michigan, an organization of 42 companies. Several years ago we, together with other allied manufacturers, from the baking industry, spent a good deal of time urging that the Census Bureau make some changes in their census of manufactures that would make the material mean more to the baking industry. We are very glad to report that we received their cooperation and the changes were made in the next report. This made a tremendous difference in the census as far as bakery manufacturers were concerned. If the census is changed to a 5-year basis it will lose a great deal of its value. What is probably even more important, however, is the suggested change in the manner of handling. The change calls for a “sampling” method of making the survey, to which we are especially opposed. This bill is now in the House Committee of the Census for consideration. Anything you can do to help at least delay action on this proposition until sufficient time has been given to contact the companies that will use the census and get their reaction as well as the reaction of National Advertising Associations such as the National Industrial Advertisers Association of 100 East Ohio Street, Chicago, will be appreciated. I understand that this organization has submitted to both the Senate and the House copies of a resolution which was adopted at their annual conference at Toronto last month. This resolution opposed the suggested changes. In some industries, and this is especially true in the bakery field, manufacturers have to rely rather heavily on the census report for their marketing and research information. DEAR SIR: This letter will confirm our wire of October 22 and set forth the reasons for our request that the Census of Manufactures continue to be enumerated in its present biennial form. We use the biennial Census of Manufactures to evaluate industries as markets for our products, and to determine the concentration of these markets. Major shifts in the concentration of industries are inevitably reflected in the census. Thus, the frequency of the data supplied in the census is of the utmost importance, since it is only by the frequent enumerations that we are able to check on major shifts in the concentration of our markets within a reasonable length of time after the shift has occurred. It is vital that such shifts as are evidenced by the ghost cities of New England and the great industrial expansion of the South be known as quickly as possible. No 5-year survey, in our opinion, would indicate such major changes within a reasonable length of time and even the biennial enumeration seems too infrequent. Today, more than ever before, such shifts are taking place, due in a large measure to the defense program. It is increasingly true that business must make itself ready for the return of post-war markets and economy. The biennial Census of Manufactures provides the most current and authoritative statistics for this type of market planning. A 5-year survey would provide statistics too old to have any significance or usefulness. Therefore, may we respectfully urge you to exert your influence in favor of retaining the present biennial enumeration of the Census of Manufactures. Very truly yours, C. Q. WRIGHT, Jr. YARNALL-WARING CO., Philadelphia, Pa., October 21, 1941. Subject: Senate bill No. 1627 and House bill No. 5319. Hon. GUY L. MOSER, Chairman, Committee of the Census, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I very much hope that the change of the Census of Manufactures from its present biennial basis to a 5-year basis will not be made. I understand that the above bills would make such a change. The Census of Manufactures is of much interest and value to us and its worth will be greatly reduced if it is made on a 5-year basis. Very truly, B. G. WARING. |