State officials, but that is not adequate; it is in the present law, but it has never been followed. The regulations proposed were never fully discussed with the State departments, at least certainly not with that of New York State.

We take the position that we will follow through with the legislation, with minor variations and corrections, if the bill is an interstate bill, with a similar bill to be proposed as parallel State legislation, just as we have today in the case of food legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion? Mr. Spilman, do you wish to comment?

Mr. SPILMAN. The only comment I would make would be a reiteration of what I said in my paper, that the principle of having this bill based on intrastate commerce is not new. We have it now in two out of the three standard-container laws that are on the statute books, and it is simply a question for Congress to decide whether they wish to abandon the policy which has been in effect for 20 years, for another policy.

Mr. PISCIOTTA. I am very much interested in having other members of the Conference express their views on this very important question, because it arises in connection with the report of our standardization committee and the bills that we are proposing. We should establish once and for all whether we are in favor of or against the introduction of measures to be enforced throughout the country. I have nothing to say one way or the other just now, but I should like to have others express their opinions for the guidance of our committee. Mr. ROGERS. We have also opposed the bill on the same principle. We feel that there is set up a ponderous method of enforcement; it does not seem to allow flexibility in the individual jurisdictions. After we have developed the evidence in a case, I do not see how we can turn this over to the Federal Department of Agriculture and depend on the actions of the Federal courts. Much of our work is done in summary fashion-we must act quickly when we find a violation. We registered our objections with Congressman Somers on that very point. There may be a way of setting up in the bill some authority for local officials, in their own jurisdictions, to carry cases to their local courts; that should not conflict at all with the principles and purposes of the bill.

Mr. KANZER. Since the passage of the legislation in 1928 there has not been a single prosecution in the State of New York. I would be interested to know if any State or municipality has made any prosecution in connection with that legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Has any member of the Conference an affirmative statement to make in that connection?

Mr. SPILMAN. I may say that since the passage of the act in 1928 there have been 29 prosecutions for violation of that act. I might further state that we attempt to administer our standard-container acts through securing the cooperation of manufacturers, so that prosecutions have not often been necessary. If we find containers of improper size, we endeavor to have those containers eliminated, and during the past 10 years we have destroyed more than a million containers by having them burned with the consent of the manufacturer. We feel that that is a much more practical and satisfactory way to enforce the law than to go through criminal prosecution; we eliminate

the faulty containers at the source and keep them from getting into the flow of commerce.

Mr. KANZER. Were any of those 29 prosecutions State or municipal? Mr. SPILMAN. They were all Federal.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion of Mr. Spilman's paper?

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL RESOLUTION COMMITTEE

The CHAIRMAN. I now wish to announce the personnel of the Special Resolution Committee, authorized this morning in connection with the death of Mr. Holbrook. This Committee will be as follows: C. E. Tucker, of California, Chairman; Carlton L. Klocker, of Connecticut; S. T. Griffith, of Baltimore, Md.; William C. Witfoth, of Toledo, Ohio; C. P. Griffith, of S. F. Bowser & Co. (Inc.); J. W. Saybolt, of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey; J. E. Woodland, of Jacobs Brothers Co. (Inc.).

The Chair regrets that unexpected duties concerned with the preparedness program will interfere with his attendance at all of the Conference sessions. He will ask H. N. Davis if he will kindly take the chair at this time.

(At this point, H. N. Davis, Vice President of the Conference, assumed the chair.)

(At this point, Rollin E. Meek, Chairman of the Committee on Legislation, was called upon, in regular order, for his report. Mr. Meek requested an extension of time, so that in the preparation of its final report the Committee might give due consideration to the discussions occurring during the meeting; to this the Conference agreed.)

THE FUNCTION AND OPERATION OF SIGHT-GLASSES

By C. D. BAUCOM, Superintendent of Weights and Measures,
State of North Carolina

In discussing this subject, I first wish to say that I have no brief whatsoever either for or against any design, make, trade name, or manufacturer. My remarks are intended only as being pertinent to a principle which I think is vital to weights and measures activities. Any conclusions drawn from the study of this principle must necessarily come as a result of experience, observations, and tests in conjunction with such equipment as is found in general operation and use. I shall be as nontechnical as possible. However, if any of you would like to go into the scientific phases of this subject and will see me after we adjourn, it will be a pleasure to follow through.

In order to get the proper perspective of this subject, let us first review the history and evolution of the so-called "visigauge." Originally, it was used on the "blind pump." In the early twenties, it was used in conjunction with the "dry hose" visible pump, placed in the discharge line immediately after the cutoff valve, adjacent to the glass bowl. In the late twenties, it was incorporated in the so-called "wet hose" visible pumps and the early models of the "meter pump." In 1932 the first model calculating pump came into being, still carrying the visigauge attachment.

Up to this time, the sight-glasses, or visigauges, were pretty much of the same design and being used for practically the same purpose,

280936-41-3

mainly to show if and when the liquid, as measured, was being Idelivered to the customer. In 1938 the trend was towards "streamlining" everything, and the gasoline pump was no exception. The sight-glass adopted was of the "bull's eye" design, which design is incorporated in practically all of the 1940 models.

I have just stated that the purpose of the sight-glass has been pretty much the same since its first adoption. However, it is well to enumerate some of the specific purposes. In the case of the "blind pump", it was to show that each stroke of the piston delivered its full liquid measurement; in the "visible pump", to show when the delivery was complete; and in the "meter pump", to show that delivery was being actually consummated as indicated by the register. After the advent of the air eliminator, the sight-glass was to show that no air was being measured and delivered in conjunction with, and as a part of, the delivered liquid. It was also intended that the sight-glass show any discharge of the measured liquid, either through leaking foot-valve, hose, or any other outlet, prior to the beginning of delivery to the consumer. Another purpose of the sight-glass, which is commercial and not necessarily affecting weights and measures, but nevertheless is of vital importance to the purchaser, is that it enables him to observe the color of the product which he is receiving for comparison with the color of the product as advertised by the producer or the distributor.

To sum up, the real purpose of the sight-glass, according to my understanding, is to render visible evidence to both the operator of the pump and the purchaser of the pertroleum product, of the proper functioning of the measuring device, including all of its component parts, so as to make a delivery culminate in a satisfactory business transaction, and give confidence that the transaction was based on the United States standard of measure.

Thus far I have confined my remarks to the first part of the subject of this discourse, namely: "The Function of Sight-Glasses," and I shall now take up the operations with regard to effects when the sight-glass, particularly, the "bull's eye" type as used with the presentday gasoline-dispensing pump, fails in its purpose. For some time the trend has been toward the minimizing of the purposes and usefulness of sight-glasses, and some jurisdictions even question the necessity of such a device. However, regardless of trend, when I discovered that the sight-glass assembly was being so designed and built as to make it possible to deliver 40 indicated gallons into a 5-gallon can without any visible evidence, contrary to the proper functioning of the pump as a whole, I concluded that it was time for a reckoning. A study of this situation revealed that the liquid in the "bull's eye" was dormant, or practically so, due to the very design of the sight-glass, that the spinners were mechanically attached to a shaft driven by a propeller, not visible, in the main flow of the discharge line, which would operate as readily with air as with liquid, and that the liquid in the "bull's eye" proper is behind the spinner. You all know, from your physics, that two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, and the sight-glass assembly is no exception. The very construction of the assembly, including bearings, baffles, spinners, and reflectors incorporated in a dormant liquid, helped to prevent any circulation other than eddy currents created by the rotation of the spinner itself, and even the

very design of the glass helps to minimize visibility of inside contents. Consequently, any air or vapor which may, for any reason whatsoever, pass through and be measured by the measuring device would, naturally, follow the line of least resistance and never be discerned in the "bull's eye."

Further study of this assembly showed that it would not drain automatically below one-third or one-half of its capacity, this making it possible for the assembly including the hose, to be completely empty, without such fact being observed as a fact by the purchaser, and, therefore, it does very definitely become an aid in the perpetration of fraud. Ás an example, were the purchaser to call attention to the sight-glass not being full, the unscrupulous operator would reply that he had a slight leak and would make up for it by giving an overregistration, knowing that he had drained the system partially or completely before delivery was begun. The present-day "bull's eye" design of sight-glass also shows that the spinner is placed as close as possible to the inner surface of the "bull's eye" glass and is of such color and design as to act as a screen, thus causing any air bubbles which might possibly pass through this assembly to travel back of the spinner and not be noticeable. Another factor of considerable importance, is that the spinner is motivated by means other than the flow of liquid in the "bull's eye" glass itself, and that a spinner being thus driven will so agitate the liquid in its immediate area as to break up and minimize any air bubbles coming in contact therewith, which, together with the minimizing effect of the "bull's eye" glass, will render visibility ineffective to such an extent as to be deemed as creating an optical illusion.

In summing up this phase of my subject, the "bull's eye" design of sight-glass does not aid in the visibility of operation, is so designed as to create an optical illusion, is deceptive in operation, and, therefore, can be considered as an aid in the perpetration of fraud.

Now then, what conclusions can be drawn from the summaries related?

First, sight-glasses are very necessary in order to protect the purchaser and operator in the buying and selling of gasoline and petroleum products dispensed by the present design of gasoline pump. Second, a very accurate and all-inclusive set of specifications and regulations should be drawn by the National Conference on Weights and Measures, making mandatory the use of sight-glasses.

Third, these specifications and regulations should be approved and recommended by the National Bureau of Standards for adoption by the States, cities, towns, and other jurisdictions, so as to have uniformity throughout the United States.

Fourth, in order to cope with the situation as found, we in North Carolina have drawn the following rules, regulations, and specifications:

All liquid-measuring devices commonly known as gasoline dispensing pumps for retail trade shall be so designed, built, and operated as to render visible evidence of the functioning of all its component parts, which shall meet the following requirements:

i. A discharge, leak, drain-back, or relaese by any other means whatsoever, of seven cubic inches of measured liquid shall become immediately obvious.

2. A discharge, leak, drain-back, or release by any other means whatsoever, of one quart of the measured liquid shall show the visible indicating device to be not less than 90 percent empty when the pumping element is not in operation. 3. In a delivery of five gallons, as indicated by the liquid-measuring device, if, and/or when seven cubic inches of said indicated quantity is air, vapor, or

other gas being discharged simultaneously with the liquid and throughout the period of time required for making said delivery at normal rate of flow and under normal pressure, the fact shall be readily discernible by a casual observer from any reasonable position taken by said observer.

4. These requirements shall be in addition to those which are now applicable and/or those which may hereafter become applicable to liquid-measuring devices. I shall now endeavor to reproduce tests showing reasons resulting in conclusions as drawn, and in support of rules and regulations promulgated in my State.

I hope my discussion of this subject has been worth your time, and that when you go home you will give it some real study of your own accord, and if after making a study and test you do not agree with my conclusions, that you will communicate with me by letter, setting forth your findings, so that through cooperation of effort and coordination of ideas a true conception of the functions and operations of sightglasses may be developed.

(At this point Mr. Baucom conducted a demonstration, with explanatory comments, of the effects discussed in his paper, utilizing an assembly comprising numerous elements of a commercial gasoline-dispensing unit together with certain special gages, valves, and other accessories.)

If there are any questions, I shall be glad to discuss them and to give you the benefit of my experience, after adjournment or while we are here during the week. As I said, I may be wrong in some of my conclusions; if I am, I shall be glad to be shown, because we are all here trying to work toward the end of doing the very best for the

consumer.

Mr. NEALE. As I see it, this apparatus is entirely without an air eliminator, and in order to produce some of the results that Mr. Baucom has shown it is necessary that there be no air eliminator to take out air and also that air be let in.

Mr. BAUCOM. What Mr. Neale said is correct; there is no air eliminator. If the air eliminator is functioning properly there is no intake of air, and the pump works naturally.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith has an announcement to make before we adjourn.

Mr. R. W. SMITH. An effort has been made to procure advance copies of all papers which are being delivered to the Conference. Where we have been able to get these, they have been mimeographed, and after papers have been presented, copies will be available to those desiring them, both here at the Bureau and, on Thursday and Friday, at the hotel. The Conference Committee on Publicity and Education has encouraged us to do this, so that you might have copies of these papers to take home for immediate study, not having to wait until publication of the Conference report to review what has been said. (At this point, at 1 p. m., the Conference took a recess until 2:15 p. m.)