for the purpose of instruction and cooperation, realizing that many jurisdictions are more or less without outside assistance in their weights and measures activities. Further than that, there is the possibility of an enlargement of actual testing services, such as is now being carried on by the Bureau Vehicle-Scale Testing Unit.

The other thought which the Committee had in mind was the thing which we particularly want-having a representative of the Bureau in attendance at our State meetings. We expressed that thought to Major Jones. Such attendance has been a distinct advantage to those States that have weights and measures meetings; it may have been burdensome to those members of the Bureau staff who have attended, but I know that in our State it has always been very worth while. We have had the distinct advantage of having a Bureau representative at our meetings, listening to our problems, and in turn giving a paper, and allowing himself to be subjected to whatever questioning might grow out of the meeting.

That, gentlemen, is the report of the Committee. We have not been as successful as we had hoped. Perhaps the reason for lack of success is that your Committee was not sufficiently active; we are so much imbued with the merits of our cause that perhaps we do not talk enough about it. If it is your desire to continue the Committee, the Committee would have in mind a more active program, constantly bringing this matter before the parties who are considering our proposition. We shall undoubtedly need your support in making contacts with your representatives in Congress to inform them of the needs of our work and the value of this assistance to all of us.

Mr. S. T. GRIFFITH. I move you, sir, that the report of the Committee be approved, and that the Committee be continued for the ensuing year and report at the next Conference.

(The motion was seconded, the question was taken, and the motion was agreed to.) Mr. KANZER. The State of New York offers its complete cooperation in this matter, but I think it would like to be more active in the proposition. The Committee in due time should let us know how we can help by making certain contacts, and we can then go forward. I appreciate that the National Bureau of Standards cannot do that, but if the Committee will keep us informed, each of us in turn can contact certain sources to assist in the matter.

Mr. S. T. GRIFFITH. With the permission of Mr. McBride, Chairman of the Committee on Proposed Federal Legislation, may I offer the suggestion that the Committee Secretary undertake what Mr. Kanzer has requested, and keep all members of this Conference advised as to progress.

A NOVEL FORM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES SCHOOL
By CLEO C. MORGAN, Sealer of Weights and Measures, City of Gary, Ind.

Dictator Hitler, with his 70-ton tanks, parachute troops, fifth columns, diving planes with death-dealing bombs or machine-gun fire, and all the other modern techniques of mass butchery may "educate" a lot of people, but in Indiana the weights and measures inspectors have found an old, time-tried method of instruction very helpful. Twice a year they use a method of fact-finding perfected 24 centuries ago by a chap called Socrates. Twice a year the Hoosier inspectors wage "blitzkrieg" on their own shortcomings by that good

old method of asking questions and answering them. Unlike the casual question-answer routines of many organizations, the questionbox of the Indiana Association of Inspectors of Weights and Measures has been set up as a semiannual school, and by the time 25 to 50 live questions have been X-rayed, dissected, and given the concentrated thought of those in attendance, there is no doubt about the answers.

Going on the theory that a good question deserves a better answer, the Indiana Association makes special preparations for its questionbox school. About 2 months before the school begins, its originator, Rollin E. Meek, chief State inspector and association president, issues a call for questions to all inspectors. They may deal with problems, doubtful points, mechanical difficulties-in fact, anything in the field. Every inspector sends in one question or more. Strange as it may seem, the inspectors show a keen interest, and this is demonstrated by the fact they all send questions. The queries are sent to the capitol where a committee of three experts, headed by the chief State inspector, revises them, making any necessary clarifications. All questions are mimeographed and a copy sent to each inspector, along with an assignment to prepare an answer to one of them. Each inspector figures out his answer in preparation for an oral report at the school.

Success of our school, I believe, lies in the careful preparation of questions and answers, as well as the resulting interest among the inspectors. To give each school a more lasting benefit, the final outcome and by this I mean the correct answers to all questionsis mimeographed and distributed. Right here I want to offer a suggestion for making this last service more helpful. I am satisfied that an index, cumulative from year to year, would give inspectors and other interested persons a ready-reference textbook, and this would fill a real need.

Our president usually appoints two chairmen. Last time we had C. C. Neale, manager of the weights and measures division of the Wayne Pump Co., on liquids; and M. J. J. Harrison, supervisor of scales and weighing of the Pennsylvania Railroad, on scales. Both are outstanding in the field. Now, school is in session, and this is how it is conducted.

The chairman reads a question and calls on the inspector who prepared an answer for his remarks. Usually, the chairman detects a controversial point and directs the discussion, but often other inspectors are quick to offer suggestions. Of course, some questions are quickly answered, while others are debated for an hour.

Here is one question that not only aroused a heated discussion but interested one oil company in developing a product previously overlooked: "Should inspectors recommend to operators of vehicle scales that they periodically grease the knife-edges and bearing steels of such scales?" You have heard that one before, I am sure, and I hope all have the right answer.

To give you an idea of the questions and the ultimate answers, I shall quote several:

"Limburger cheese comes wrapped in tinfoil, approximately 3 ounces per package, with no net weight shown on the wrapper. Retailer weighs package 'as is,' and charges for the gross weight, claiming that it is not required that the net weight be shown. Is it legal to sell without the net weight being shown, and should not the

sale be made on the basis of the net weight only?" And here is the answer, gentlemen, an answer that resulted from the discussion and which was drawn up by a special committee, about which you will hear more in a few minutes: "Tests made by the U. S. Department of Agriculture have indicated that the net-weight declaration on packages containing soft cheese (due to large moisture content) is of little value; therefore, if the cheese is actually weighed at the time of sale, little fault should be found with packages not labeled with net weight. The only proper basis for sale is by net weight."

The following is a question with a different odor, so to speak. "Can set onions be sold by the quart or any other measure?" The committee's answer was, simply, "No."

Here is another: "Should inspectors be as careful to test personweigher scales regularly as they are to test scales for commercial purposes? What consideration should be given to the fact that users of person-weighers are paying for a service?" And the answer: "The fact that a charge is made for the use of a person-weigher makes it definitely a commercial device. As such, it should be regularly tested and required to conform to the appropriate tolerances."

One of the thought-provoking questions propounded at the silver anniversary convention in Terre Haute was this: "Should an inspector, when testing a vehicle scale and finding it in error the same amount on both ends (or on all corners, according to the procedure followed in making the test) make a special effort to determine if the error is in the poise? Further, has an inspector fully performed his duty when he has determined whether a weighing or measuring device is in tolerance, leaving the matter of determining the cause of error, and its correction, to qualified mechanics?" You probably know the answer, but here is the one which came from the school: "Insofar as his mechanical activities are concerned, it is the duty of an inspector of weights and measures to inspect and test commercial weighing and measuring devices to determine officially their fitness for commercial use. When that determination has been made, the inspector has complied with the letter of both the statute and the instructions under which he is presumed to be working. On the other hand, in the light of the inspector's experience, a faulty condition may be perfectly obvious, and its localization and correction may require only a few minutes of his time. However, for an inspector to engage in repair work is not generally considered good practice, and, above all things, the inspector should avoid 'starting something which he cannot finish'."

Now a more technical question: "Is it advisable to prosecute when a computing scale at time of testing stands at from 1 ounce to 11⁄2 ounces fast at zero?" Our ultimate answer was: "Regulation K-3 of the Indiana 'Specifications, Tolerances, and Regulations' requires a scale in commercial service to be maintained in balance. The condition cited in the question is strongly suggestive of intent to defraud. The advisability of filing a complaint will depend on the attitude of the owner, on the good judgment of the inspector, and possibly on other circumstances. In some cases a warning has a better effect than a prosecution."

At our last school we had as members of the question-box committee, the co-chairmen, Mr. Neale and Mr. Harrison; C. L. Richard, a technologist of the National Bureau of Standards; Charles L. Barry,

Jr., deputy attorney general and legal adviser of the Indiana Bureau of Weights and Measures; and President Meek. Now you may wonder if this sort of school is more beneficial than other types. As the Gary inspector of weights and measures, I have attended a number of conventions and schools, but in my estimation the Indiana school gives the inspectors something outstandingly worth while. Our sessions are so interesting and instructive that there is none of the boredom seen at many conventions. Everyone has a chance to participate and to learn, and our moderators keep the discussion from wandering.

Since the questions discussed are initially submitted by the members of the association, it follows that a discussion of them is of interest to the entire membership. This is borne out by the way the crowd "stays" with the session. Personally, I learned much from each school, and other inspectors have expressed the same opinion.

Permit me to quote Mr. Harrison, our question-box co-chairman at the last school, on this. "It certainly seemed to me the discussions were of informative interest," he told me in a letter. "I know that I learned a lot, and certainly there was no lack of diverse comment on controversial points, all of which served to bring out what to me seemed to be very valuable thoughts. And, finally, an especially important part of the whole thing consisted in the recording and distribution of the 'answers,' all of which were thoughtfully prepared and carefully checked and reviewed in the light of the discussion in open meeting."

The Indiana association didn't arrive at its present type of school without experimentation. As a matter of fact, we started out in the rut of the old system, with the inspectors writing and submitting questions on arriving at the annual convention. Then 2 or 3 hours were devoted to answering them. This, it soon became apparent, was a time-wasting method, for the arguments got off the subject, no record was made of them, the men were unprepared, and the whole procedure was something like taking medicine.

Coming next was this refinement: The inspectors sent in their questions ahead of time, but assignments for answers were not issued until the last day of the convention. In the rush of convention doings, the inspectors had inadequate time to prepare, and no opportunity for doing any research.

In connection with our annual convention, we have a question-box program which is carried on as you have heard this afternoon. But the question-box school, held midway between conventions, is devoted entirely to this form of instruction.

Although the Indiana question-box school may not be perfect, yet I say it ranks high as a method of instruction. As I mentioned earlier, an index of the final answers would be a useful addition. This, I feel, would mark a further refinement, and undoubtedly, as more schools are held, other improvements will be made.

REPORT ON TESTING OF VEHICLE SCALES BY THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS IN COOPERATION WITH THE STATES

By RALPH W. SMITH, National Bureau of Standards

This report is the fourth in the series begun in 1937, presenting the results of the tests of vehicle scales made by the National Bureau of Standards in cooperation with the States. Except where otherwise

stated, the data presented herein represent results from the beginning of the Bureau's vehicle-scale testing service in 1936 to the completion of the scheduled testing in the State of Texas in April of this year; the period covered is, therefore, from November 1936 to April 1940. Since the report made to the last Conference, testing schedules have been completed in the States of Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, and in the city of Chicago, Ill. There have thus been completed testing schedules in 30 States and in two large cities in other States. (See fig. 17.) During the past year, as before, the cooperating officials have been officers in charge of weights and measures departments where such departments have been in operation; in the States of

Kansas and Oklahoma the Bureau's program was carried on in cooperation with the State Board of Agriculture in each case. Whenever the unit visited a city having a local weights and measures official, such official cooperated during the tests made in his jurisdiction.

Although the Bureau has now made approximately 2,300 tests of large-capacity platform scales, this report is confined to the results of 2,161 tests, the remaining tests being on scales owned by the Federal Government or on scales not properly classified as "vehicle scales." In a very few instances a particular scale has been tested twice; in these cases each retest has been considered as a separate test for statistical purposes.

Of the 2,161 scales covered by this report, 735 scales, or 34 percent, have been wagon scales, and 1,426 scales, or 66 percent, have been motor-truck scales. Scales to the number of 538, or 25 percent of the total number involved, have been equipped with automaticindicating devices. Of these, 472, or 22 percent of the total number