Now, so far as the commmission is concerned, previously it supported the decimal weight bill. All the facts that have so far been developed favor the present bill, or a similar bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Does any member of the committee desire to ask Mr. England any question?

Mr. PERKINS. I wish to ask him a question: It seems that most of the packages run in the duodecimal; that is, figures divisible by 12-48 pounds, 24 pounds, 12 pounds, etc.?

Mr. ENGLAND. Yes. Of course, the reason for that being that you have the 196 pounds as the unit; that is, the barrel; you divide that in two, and you get down to your 98; and then you go on down, and pretty soon you are at 48, and 24, and 12.

Mr. PERKINS. Do you think the establishment of the system, or a decimal system, is better than the duodecimal system?

Mr. ENGLAND. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not a fact that practically all the States fail to carry out the correct fraction of the 196-pound barrel?

Mr. ENGLAND. It is.

The CHAIRMAN. And that if you take the smaller packages that are sold in the different States as a basis, you find that the barrel will be 192 bounds in more cases than 196 pounds?

Mr. ENGLAND. That is true. And that is true in certain cases by statute. Just to get away from that fraction, the State legislature saw fit to make it 48 pounds, and 24 pounds, and 12 pounds, instead of the fractions.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether the commission has investigated the question as to whether or not, in the barrel as it is now constructed, 200 pounds of flour can be packed in that barrel?

Mr. ENGLAND. It has not. My own observation is that it can. The CHAIRMAN. I think that is the weight of the testimony of everybody who has appeared before the committee.

Mr. ENGLAND. But the commission's inquiry did not go into that particular phase of it. My own answer is that that is the fact.

The 140-pound size, which is mentioned in the bill, in all probability should be made one of the standard sizes, because it is the size that is used for export business; and we all know that it is very hard to change customs, even in our own country; and if we change our sizes, it practically would prejudice our millers in selling to the foreign trade.

I might say, also, in answer to a question that was asked, that the reason for this 140-pound package goes away back into history: 140 pounds was 10 stone; a stone is 14 pounds; so there we are getting into the tens again.

Mr. PHILLIPS. It seems to me that the barrel ought to be either 200 pounds or 192 pounds. It certainly ought not to be 196 pounds; there is no question about that. There might be an argument in favor of the 192 pounds. But we are so used to using the decimal system that there would be argument in favor of the 200 pounds.

Mr. ENGLAND. It seems to me that the biggest thing we can do is to reduce the number of packages; whether the barrel is 200 pounds or 192 pounds does not make much difference; but we should have a limited number of packages, and have the number of sizes so reduced that the purchaser can not be fooled. When we look at a

package of flour, we can not tell whether it is 24 pounds or 24 pounds.

The CHAIRMAN. I have a letter here from Mr. Samuel S. Dale, of Boston, in which he has submitted a brief that he wants to go in the record. He said it was impossible for him to be at the hearing. Mr. Dale is very much afraid that we are likely in this bill to establish the metric system, so that he wants to get his brief into the record, and if there is no objection-and it is very short-we will permit it to go into the record.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

Hon. ALBERT H. VESTAL, Chairman,

10 HIGH STREET. Boston, Mass., January 24, 1924.

Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: The objects of the bill (H. R. 3241), namely, to bring about uniformity in the sizes of packages of wheat-mill and other products throughout the United States, and reduce the number of sizes to the smallest number necessary for carrying on the trade in these products, are in every way to be commended. Such standardization and simplification of these packages will not only result in economy in the conduct of business, but will prevent the losses to purchasers and sellers that are now unavoidable owing to the large number of sizes in use and the variation in standards of different States.

Section 7 of this bill, however, is open to serious objection and should be eliminated. This section 7, which can be omitted without in any way affecting the objects or administration of the bill, is as follows:

"That this act shall not be construed as repealing the act of July 28, 1866 (chap. 301, Revised Statutes of the United States, sects. 3569 and 3570), authorizing the use of the metric system, but such sections shall not be construed as allowing the packing, shipping, or offering for shipment, the sale or offering for sale of packages of any size other than those established as standards herein."

This section expressly states that it shall not be construed as allowing the use of packages of any size other than those established by the act. I submit that section 7 is unnecessary for the safeguarding of the act of 1866, because the fixing of standard sizes by expressing such sizes in terms of one legal system does not prevent the same sizes from being exactly stated in their equivalents in terms of the other legal system. Laws now on the statute book supply many examples of sizes fixed in terms of the English system. Following are a few of these:

Standard dollar: The act of 1900 (31 Stat., ch. 41. 45, sec. 1) provides that the dollar, consisting of 25.8 grains of gold, nine-tenths fine, shall be the standard unit of value. It contained no metric proviso and it had no effect on the act of 1866 making the use of the metric system permissive, because it did not forbid the expression of the weight in terms of the metric system by anyone who prefers 1.67185 grams to 25.8 grains.

Standard township: The acts of 1706, 1800, and 1877 (R. S. 2395) provides that the public lands shall be divided to form townships of 6 miles square. The metric act of 1866 had no effect on these acts of 1706 and 1800, and the act of 1877, which contained no metric proviso, did not repeal the metric act of 1866 in any way, because it left every one who wished to do so free to call a township 9.656 kilometers square instead of 6 miles square.

Standard lime barrel: The act of 1916 (No. 228, 64th Cong.) established standard sizes for lime barrels, one to hold 280 pounds, the other 180 pounds of lime. It contained no metric proviso, but that did not affect the act of 1866 making the use of the metric system permissive, for it left complete freedom to call the 280-pound barrel a 127-kilogram barrel; or the 180-pound barrel an 81.6-pound barrel.

These laws fixing standards for the dollar, township, and lime barrel demonstrate the undoubted fact that an act fixing a standard in terms of our fundamental English weights and measures has no effect whatever on the act of 1866 Section 7 of this bill being plainly superfluous and of no possible effect either on the use of the metric system under the act of 1866 or on the standard making the use of the metric system permissive, because the act fixing the

standard does not in any way prevent such standard from being expressed in metric terms. For this reason section 7 of the Vestal bill is unnecessary if sizes of the packages under the pending bill (H. R. 3241), the question arises as to why it was inserted in the bill. No explanation on this point in connection with H. R. 3241 has been offered so far as I know, but the same provision regarding the metric system act of 1866 was inserted in the standard basket bill (H. R. 7102) of the Sixty-seventh Congress, and during the discussion of the bill in the House the following statements were made regarding the metric section (Cong. Rec., November 3, 1921, p. 7279):

"Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What is the necessity for including the provisions of section 9 in this particular act with reference to the metric system?

· Mr. VESTAL (in charge of the bill). I will say to my friend that I do not think there is any particular reason for it.

"Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. The gentlemen will recall that this was inserted in order not to give the impression that we were cutting out the metric system. "Mr. VESTAL. I think that is true."

On June 8, 1922, the basket bill (H. R. 7102) was passed by the House after the metric section 9 had been struck out of the bill on motion of Mr. Vestal, who made this explanation (Cong. Rec. p. 8436):

"Mr. VESTAL. Some question has been raised by different Members whether or not the metric system might be employed in these different measurements, and in order to be sure about it I move to strike out section 9."

These metric clauses are a comparatively recent feature in weights and measures bills, and have passed through three distinct stages. The first one framed by the Bureau of Standards and inserted in the berry basket bill of 1910 distinctly provided for baskets of 1 metric liter. This was struck out before the bill became a law and after it had been shown that the metric clause would legalize the use of two sizes of baskets, the quart of 67.2 cubic inches and the liter of 61 cubic inches, and thus nullify the object of the bill.

The metric provision in its second form appeared in the basket bill (H. R. 7102) of 1921, and was struck out as already explained.

The third form of the metric clause is found in the pending bill, and is beyond question entirely useless, its only imaginable object being that of advertising the metric system, as was stated by Mr. Cooper of Winconsin in connection with the metric section of the basket bill.

For these reasons I ask your committee to strike metric section 7 from the pending bill (H. R. 3241), and thus expedite the enactment of this otherwise very wise measure.

SAMUEL S. DALE.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone here representing the Department of Commerce this morning? If not, are there any further questions to be asked of Mr. England?

Mr. ENGLAND. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Carroll might want to emphasize what I have said to the committee.

STATEMENT OF MR. TIMOTHY A. CARROLL, EXAMINER IN CHARGE OF FLOUR MILLING INVESTIGATIONS, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Mr. CARROLL. Well, Mr. England has covered the subject in a very satisfactory way, I think.

But perhaps there is one phase of it that he did not emphasize as much as it might be emphasized: and that is that the proposed change in weights, which is desired by the millers, would not only be beneficial to the milling industry, but a study of the conditions under which packages are sold to the consumer indicates very clearly that it would be a great benefit to the consumer.

We are going to show pretty strong evidence of the fact that in certain communities where the ignorant, or, as we call them, the unobservant consumers-and that applies to a pretty large class of people ask for a sack of flour they are easily deceived and de

frauded by a certain class of dealers, who give them a 24-pound sack, instead of a 24-pound, or a 12-pound sack in place of a 124-pound sack.

Therefore, the decimal system will provide for sizes so distinct in weight and general appearance as to bring the matter right home to the most ignorant class of purchasers. They are put on notice at once when they see the size of that sack that is handed to them, whether it is 5 pounds, 10 pounds, or 25 pounds; there is no chance for them to be fooled; therefore, it is a protection to that class of consumers. It removes the opportunity on the part of the retail dealer to decive them, and puts them all on a common basis, where they can not impose upon the consumer.

Now that phase of it, as I think you will appreciate, is important to consider also in the adoption of the decimal weight system.

You will recall that in all the hearings that have been held upon the measure the millers as such did not presume to emphasize that phase of the situation. Naturally so, and for this reason:

The miller does not come in contact with the retail seller of the product. He delivers it to the jobber; and then comes the wholesaler; and then on down the line it goes to the retailer.

It is the State and municipal officers-the State commissions, the pure food commissions, the superintendents of weights and measures, the police officers, etc., that have to do with the enforcement of these laws throughout the country. They are the ones that come in contact with the cases of deception such as I have in mind. We have evidence from many officials on that point, and therefore the abuses from that point of view, the impositions upon the consumer, do not stand out so prominently; they have not been stressed, because there is really nobody here to speak of that phase of the situation.

We saw the importance of the subject as much from that point of view as from the point of view of the miller, and the economic saving. Then there is an economic saving to the miller, from cutting down his inventories, etc., which, of course, get into the cost of the package; as all of us will admit that large inventories, involving the investment of millions of dollars a year, at any one time, with the interest on the money, are bound to get into the cost, and flour is sold at a very close figure. There is no question about flour being sold so close down that every element of cost goes into the cost to the consumer, in the case of a sack of flour.

Of course, when it gets into the bread situation, the pound loaf of bread, that has to go from the manufacturer of flour, through the commercial bakery, to the retail store which distributes it. The retail store, of course, has its proportion of cost and profit.

That is about all I care to add to Mr. England's statement. I hope you will all see the point. Of course, we who are engaged in the work of the inquiry feel the necessity of such a measure; I think we realize its significance and importance, as is natural, more than a person would who has simply given the matter casual thought. We can see the possibilities of deception in the sales; and we know that such deception is practiced; there is no question about that. You take the mining regions of the country, the coal-mining re

gions and that embraces a large number of the States the miners are very easily imposed upon in the matter of weights. The same is true as to the ignorant negroes of the South; they will buy a sack of flour without any idea as to its real weight-whether it is 48 or 49 pounds, or some other weight. So that I think the measure will serve a great purpose from that point of view, as well as from the point of view of the milling industry.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. We thank you gentlemen for the statements you have made.

(Thereupon, at 11.30 o'clock, the committee adjourned.)