Mr. Guy L. MOSER, AMERICAN MARKETING ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Committee of the Census, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MOSER: I write as an individual but express, I believe, an opinion of the one-thousand-and-odd members of the American Marketing Association. who are engaged as practitioners and teachers in the field of distribution. I voice objections to the proposals contained in S. 1627 and companion legislation now before the House Committee of the Census. Reasons: Should the Census of Manufactures be taken on a 5-year basis it would be entirely inadequate as a measure of trends in marketing. It is vitally important today for American business to be able to appraise properly its markets and check geographical shifts that are occurring because of the national defense. Now, more than ever, this census is a tool of business management. To deprive business executives of this information would hamper our economic development with no compensating gain by the elimination of the expense in enumeration and publication of the census, now on a 2-year basis. If there is any criticism of the present census it is administrative and not conceptual. What is needed is more data-not less frequent enumeration of our manufactures. If requested, I shall be glad to appear personally before your committee to testify on the use now made of the census data by our members and by businessmen in general. My plea to you is to continue the census on the present basis. Cordially, HOWARD T. HOVDE, President. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., Cleveland, Ohio, October 22, 1941. Representative GUY L. MOSER, Chairman, Committee of the Census, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MOSER: May I call your attention to the importance with which industrial advertisers in the country look upon congressional action on House bill 5319 and Senate bill 1627 which propose changing the census of manufactures from its present biennial basis to a 5-year basis. Industry with its present set-up makes much use of this information, and it is of much more interest to us on a more frequent census basis. The elimination of the census on its present basis would take from industry much timely market information that is especially useful to the smaller manufacturer in his regular operations. I strongly urge that the proposed legislation be defeated. Mr. RALPH O. MCGRAW, P. C. SOWERSBY. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, DEAR MR. MCGRAW: To change the frequency of the Census of Manufactures from the present 2-year basis to a 5-year basis would limit seriously the usefulness of this census to businessmen. As a teacher and research worker in marketing over the past 11 years, I have devoted special study to industrial marketing. There is no source of information of such basic value in the efficient planning and control of industrial marketing as the Census of Manufactures. In my opinion it would be a real mistake to shift from the present 2-year enumeration to a longerinterval, especially at a time when many industries are experiencing important shifts in plant location. Although sample studies are useful in indicating a general trend, they cannot by their very nature provide detailed information by various geographical units and I do not feel that they would substitute effectively for the complete census. as it is now taken every 2 years. There would also be difficulties in getting statistically reliable samples from industries in which the number of producing units is small. Sincerely yours, Ross M. CUNNINGHAM. FAIRBANKS, MORSE & Co., Chicago, October 24, 1941. Representative GUY L. MOSER, Chairman, Committee of the Census, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MOSER: On Monday, October 20, we wired you as follows: "Proposed change in Census of Manufactures from present 2 years to 5 years destroys its value to us and deprives us of useful market information. Urgently request your support to maintain present 2-year enumeration." In explanation of the statement in the telegram that the proposed change to a 5-year enumeration "destroys its value to us and deprives us of useful market information," we wish to again call your attention to the fact that the rapid changes taking place now and in the immediate future necessitate frequent enumerations if the Census of Manufactures is going to be of any value in lowering the cost of distribution and helping manufacturers in the marketing of their goods. We have assumed that the purpose of the Census of Manufactures was to assist in the distribution of goods to supply information which would definitely lower distribution costs. If the committee really desires to be of assistance to industry, therefore, it will maintain the present 2-year enumeration. Yours very truly, HARRY NEAL BAUM, Advertising Manager. Mr. RANKIN. May I inquire if this concludes the hearings, so far as outside witnesses are concerned? The CHAIRMAN. This concludes the open hearings. some Members of Congress who want to be heard. There may be Mr. RANKIN. I suggest we set a day to hear them. My observation as chairman of a committee is if we do not follow that procedure they do not come. The CHAIRMAN. I also understand that the Census Bureau wishes to be heard further, and, without objection, we will hear them tomorrow at 10 o'clock, together with the Members of Congress who desire to appear. (At 12:05 p. m. an adjournment was taken until 10 a. m. of the following day, Wednesday, October 29, 1941.) QUINQUENNIAL CENSUS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1941 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Guy L. Moser (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. We shall be glad to hear from you, Mr. Capt. Mr. CAPT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that you hear Dr. Reed, before you hear me? The CHAIRMAN. I am sure that will be satisfactory to the committee. We shall be glad to hear Dr. Reed. STATEMENT OF DR. VERGIL D. REED, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Dr. REED. Gentlemen, I appear before you this morning mostly to break a few idols that have been, in my opinion, falsely set up by some of my friends in the industrial marketing group with which I used to be connected. First I would like to say that I am, more or less, a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde this morning. I happen to be an author in this field myself, having published two books, one in 1929 and one in 1936, rather widely accepted in the field. Therefore I would like to appear both as having some knowledge of industrial marketing as well as Assistant Director of the Census Bureau. I should like to say that the group represented by the National Industrial Advertisers Association has made a plea for what I consider special consideration, and I would like to show their position in the field of manufacturing. I have been a subscriber to Industrial Marketing as well as a member of the National Industrial Advertisers Association, and according to the circulation statement issued by Industrial Marketing through the Audit Bureau of Circulation-I analyzed that statement and found that about 1,542 copies go to manufacturers; or rather, about 1,542 manufacturers out of 186,000 in the United States are represented in the net paid circulation of that paper. It has, according to the statement given to the Audit Bureau of Circulation, December 31 of last year, a net paid circulation of 2,867 copies, and a total distribution of 4,848. I went over the list of the National Industrial Advertisers Association carefully, and according to their own claim, as best I could count them myself, their membership represents a total of 1,053 companies, and many of those are not manufacturers. 63971-41- -15 I would like to set that off as against the total number of manufacturers, 186,000, in the United States. That is less than eighttenths of 1 percent, any way you put it, and I hardly think you gentlemen would consider that as representing the field. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce for the record, with your permission, a letter. As compared with the representation to which I have just referred, we have here a letter from the National Association of Manufacturers. That group, by the way, represents a membership of approximately 7,000 manufacturers, and an affiliation of 55,000, which affiliation amounts to approximately 30 percent of the total manufacturers in the United States. They favor the bill. And in a letter to Senator Bailey, dated July 15, they make the statement over the signature of their secretary, Noel Sargent, as follows: I am writing you with reference to S. 1627. I wish to advise that the National Association of Manufacturers endorses this bill, providing that a definite termination date is incorporated therein. We assumed that they meant the termination date for the loosening of the confidential feature to meet the needs of the defense agencies. So we wrote back to them and had a reply assuring us that that was the only thing they had any objection to. And, as you gentlemen know, it has already been suggested in the subcommittee that that clause be limited to the duration of the emergency. I should like to introduce at this time, therefore, these two letters, with the permission of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the letters referred to may be made a part of the record at this point. (The letters referred to are as follows:) Mr. HOWARD H. MCCLURE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, Washington, D. C., October 27, 1941 Executive Assistant to the Director, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MCCLURE: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of today concerning the position of the National Association of Manufacturers on S. 1627, I telephoned New York and talked with Mr. Sargent, who, as you know, is secretary to the association. He advised me that the association in taking the position that there should be a definite termination date included in the measure had in mind this situation. The association feels that during the present emergency it is not advisable to place any unnecessary restrictions upon the dissemination of data between government agencies if the dissemination of such data is in any way helpful to the defense program. At the same time the association feels that the dissemination of such data should not be continued onec the emergency is past. It is for this latter reason that a termination date is requested. Trusting this is the information you desire, I am, Very truly yours, WALTER CHAMBLIN, Jr. JULY 15, 1941. MY DEAR MR. BAILEY: I am writing you with reference to S. 1627. I wish to advise that the National Association of Manufacturers endorses this bill providing that a definite termination date is incorporated therein. Respectfully yours, NOEL SARGENT, Secretary. Dr. REED. I should like also to say that we, as Federal officials, must consider the interests of the many and not the few. I must confess that this one group has made a very vociferous appeal, and I do |