construction, sight-glass or visigauge attachment, bell-ringing device, and a long succession of dial-reading developments.

1918 ushered in the "visible," or glass bowl pump. This step in development was another attempt to meet the demand of the motoring public for some visible means of determining the delivery of gasoline in the automobile tank.

Then came the electric meter pump in 1925, some experimental units having been installed several years earlier. This truly progressive type of pump soon threatened obsolescence of all earlier types. Power operation and metered measurement brought to the field of petroleum marketing features consistent with the modern machine age.

Then came the computing pump in 1933. A new principle in dispensing gasoline had arrived, that of mechanically calculating the amount of the sale while measuring it in fractions of gallons, visibly performing the act in the presence of the gasoline purchaser.

Following quickly the introduction of this modern business machine came the synchronized price-indicating mechanism, permitting the gasoline purchaser to see the price per gallon on the dial, in its true relationship between the number of gallons sold and the amount of the sale. Then came the zero-set-back principle, guarding against the delivery of gasoline before the indicator is set back to the starting point of zero.

To weights and measures men, in the struggle of years of evolving a practical and efficient machine for dispensing motor fuel, Heaven must have been a place where there were no gasoline pumps, and a future Hades held no terrors. But this is not so today. The strictly modern gasoline pump is as nearly a perfect machine for its purpose as the ingenious mind of man can conceive. It is truly a precision instrument, proof against the severest weather conditions and capable of maintaining its operating standards under the hardest usage. This is all reflected in the factor of service, giving to both the user and the supervising sealer a minimum of worry and trouble in that respect.

Here, I would like to take the opportunity to tell you something of the survey that the Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association has been conducting for nearly a year to find out the true state of obsolescence of the gasoline pumps in use. You have all doubtless received letters from my office seeking information on the number of pumps of the various types in your jurisdictions. Some of you have replied. Others have slightly delayed. The figures are coming in, however, and within the next few months I expect to have a complete survey of the number of gasoline pumps in each of the more than 3,000 counties in the United States, according to the four types-blind, visible, meter noncomputer, and computer.

GREATER UNIFORMITY OF REGULATIONS

As I approach the conclusion of my remarks, it occurs to me to repeat the perennial prayer of the pump industry for a closer approximation of uniformity in the laws and regulations governing the manufacture and operation of gasoline pumps.

To me it has always been a situation of astounding inconsistency that gasoline pumps acceptable in one State may not be approved in another; and again, that certain special equipment or variation in

equipment required in some jurisdictions may not be permitted in others. The variations in specifications range all the way from a difference in the choice of a single word in a warning sign to the variation in important mechanical parts that virtually mean the building of special measuring units.

It is important to remember that the manufacturers build their products for stock and not for individual orders. All pumps according to model or type are built to the same standards, and deliveries are made always from factory stock, the only variations being in painting and customer branding. This is necessary to conduct production on an economical and orderly plan.

The "production line" principle of building gasoline pumps, referred to in my description of the testing operations in the factory, is a vital part of the production plan. Consider one phase of construction requiring an extra part or process in production. Orders for the special part cannot be drawn from stock, but must be "tailor-made" at additional cost of material and labor, and with inevitable confusion in the plant schedule. And yet the price cannot be increased; certainly not when the buyer purchases for other territories where the standard article is acceptable to the weights and measures officials. And so the manufacturer absorbs it. But this throws his cost estimates out of line, and he must make allowance in his new schedule for the increase. Thus the price structure must be increased, and again the burden is passed on to the buyer, down to the ultimate consumer. The buyer may also find this variation in standards a serious handicap. For example, a purchaser supplying equipment to his stations in several States would be unable to switch equipment from one jurisdiction to another without the inconvenience and expense of changing the varying parts or specifications to conform. Furthermore, the complication would make it impossible for him to buy at the best advantage, because he could not anticipate his requirements safely for stocking purposes, considering the variety of product he has to buy. Either this, or he would have to carry excessive stock in combination and increase his investment in inventory accordingly. This is obviously downright impractical and very definitely uneconomical.

With full respect for the individuality of opinion, it does seem both logical and practical to plead for the leveling out of the many differences in the construction and operating requirements of the gasoline pump, where such a move would result in economy and convenience to both the manufacturers and the vast number of users of this nationally distributed product.

This expression of hope is made in the realization that the spirit of organization among the weights and measures officials is not bound by State, county, or city lines, but permeates the entire fraternity, as so well exemplified in this great national conclave where the minds of all territorial jurisdictions meet in friendly discussion of their problems and ideas.

In conclusion, the gasoline pump industry salutes this impressive and inspiring demonstration, and as in all of the years of cheerfully and sincerely working with you in the interest of a higher degree of public service, the manufacturers give you their unqualified assurance of continuing in that cooperative strain.

METHODS OF SALE FOR CERTAIN COMMODITIES

Mr. PISCIOTTA. I desire to present the following report on the informal round-table discussion held yesterday afternoon. [Reading:] Pursuant to a suggestion made by Mr. Pisciotta, of New York City, and Mr. O'Keefe, of Chicago, an informal round-table discussion was held yesterday afternoon in the East Room of the Mayflower Hotel. Several important matters were discussed pertaining to the proper methods of selling and merchandising certain commodities. The following recommendations were made for the consideration of this Conference so that they may be a guide to be followed by weights and measures officials throughout the country.

WRAPPING PAPER

It is recommended that wrapping paper be sold by weight, and all weights and measures officials are urged to enforce their respective laws compelling the sale of wrapping paper by this method only.

COTTON AND WOOL BATTING AND WADDING

It is recommended that this Conference establish a standard method for the sale and merchandising of cotton and wool batting and wadding.

Cotton and wool batting and wadding shall be sold by weight; however, no deficiency in the weight on any one package shall be considered a shortage unless the entire lot as contained in a wholesale carton shall have been weighed and found to be below average weight.

It is further agreed that by reason of the nature of the product plus the effect of climatic conditions, reasonable variations from the weight do occur and shall be allowed.

PROPER DISPLAY OF SCALES FOR RETAIL STORES

In order better to protect the consumer on purchases made in retail stores, it is recommended that weights and measures officials enforce the recommendation made by the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances to the effect that all scales be so displayed that the customer will have an unobstructed and complete view not only of the weight indications but also of the weighing operations of the scale. It is further recommended that weights and measures officials communicate with showcase manufacturers seeking their cooperation so that showcases may be built providing a suitable place for the scale, to carry out these recommendations.

TOILET TISSUES

It is recommended that the custom established for many years which has complied with rules, regulations, and laws of many jurisdictions for selling toilet tissues by numerical count be continued, and that the new method of selling toilet tissues by net weight be disapproved. However, reasonable opportunity should be given manufacturers to dispose of any stock, wrappers, or other printed material already manufactured and distributed.

CREATION OF A COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PROPER METHODS OF SALE AND MERCHANDISING OF COMMODITIES

It is recommended that the President appoint a standing committee of this Conference to be known as the Committee on Standards and Specifications for the Proper Methods of Sale and Merchandising of Commodities. The object of this committee shall be to prepare and recommend to this Conference proper methods of selling commodities to comply with the principles and spirit of proper weights and measures enforcement.

[The foregoing report was signed by the following officials: Alex Pisciotta, of New York City; James O'Keefe, of Chicago, Ill.; Charles C. Read, of New Jersey; W. P. Reed, of Atlanta, Ga.; C. D. Baucom, of North Carolina; John J. Levitt, of Illinois; L. G. Waldman, of St. Louis, Mo.; R. L. Fullen, of Dallas, Texas; W. S. Bussey, of Texas; Charles M. Fuller, of Los Angeles County, Calif.; S. T. Griffith, of Baltimore, Md.; C. E. Tucker, of California; Joseph G. Rogers, of New Jersey; H. N. Davis, of Vermont; C. L. Klocker, of Connecticut; Barnett Kanzer, of New

York; Rollin E. Meek, of Indiana; A. J. Jensen, of North Dakota; John P. McBride, of Massachusetts.]

I move that these recommendations be adopted.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. These are the recommendations of a group of men who got together, and they think they are practical recommendations. This group was not a committee of the Conference. It has been moved and seconded that these recommendations be accepted by this Conference and made a part of the record.

Mr. ARCHIBALD. I would like to raise a question about that part of the cotton recommendation reading, "as contained in a wholesale carton." Various manufacturers use different sizes of cartons and pack different quantities in the cartons, and there is no standard of packing so far as the individual carton is concerned. There is in the trade a standard unit known as one "lot," which consists of 48 pounds. From the standpoint of the industry, I should prefer to have the wording changed to refer to our standard unit of 48 pounds instead of to the wholesale carton. In some instances there is just one roll in a carton. Mr. PISCIOTTA. You do not want us to pick one unit, but you do want us to pick a whole carton?

Mr. ARCHIBALD. That is right.

Mr. PISCIOTTA. The suggestion was made by some that we have given you too much leeway in taking the whole carton, and that we should limit it-that if the store has only five or ten units on hand, we should use them-but that is not giving you a fair break. We are willing to take everything that comes in a carton, whatever the standard of that particular manufacturer for that particular class of commodity may be.

Mr. ARCHIBALD. As I have said, there are some manufacturers that put one roll in a carton, and if that could be construed as a wholesale carton it would still contain only one package. If we understand definitely that you mean the unit of shipment that the cotton batting manufacturers use, then there is no objection.

Mr. LEVITT. Would it help you if we added, "in no case less than 10 units," or "in no case less than 20 units."

Mr. ARCHIBALD. I should prefer that you say 48 pounds, which is our standard unit.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Some manufacturers use 15 pounds as their standard unit, do they not?

Mr. ARCHIBALD. I know of none.

Mr. PISCIOTTA. Some use 20 pounds.

Mr. ARCHIBALD. No; not 20.

Mr. PISCIOTTA. Well, whatever it may be, you are safe enough. Whatever the carton may hold, that is what you will be tested on, and not on the individual unit.

(The question was taken, and the motion for the adoption of the recommendations was agreed to.)

PARALLAX

By HOWARD E. CRAWFORD, Inspector of Weights and Measures, City of Jacksonville, Fla.

There may be a mistake in the title of this paper. Little has been mentioned on the subject in most conferences, and only in a few instances has there been any reference to this subject in our "Handbook of Weights and Measures." Perhaps a proper title should be:

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." It was my idea that a member of this Conference from a certain eastern State could most ably present a paper on this subject, and I suggested that it be assigned to him for presentation to you. As he refused, I accepted, unknowing what a task lay before me.

Those of us in this inspection field think of this subject frequently, as it is a necessary observation. Occasionally we see that something has been accomplished, but always we realize that much more can and should be accomplished through the elimination of errors due to this cause, which I am shortly going to name. It is not my intention to ignore what has already been done to improve a condition that exists, which has been undesirable from the standpoint of ideal enforcement. On this point may I mention that I realize you will refer me to the tolerances and specifications as promulgated by our national group. However, we must realize that merchants and consumers alike suffer great losses annually because of parallax. That is one reason why we should consider and give careful thought to this subject. Discrepancies still exist due to errors through this cause which, in the minds of many, might be further eliminated.

It is my opinion, in which I hope that all of you will concur, that our handbook references should forcefully stress the errors caused from this source. In doing so, old, experienced officials would find it a great benefit in presenting the subject to the sealers who have recently been inducted into this field. By this means, manufacturers, too, could possibly be encouraged to a far greater degree in their attempt to overcome errors through this cause.

Let us admit that much more can be done and will be done, and if I seem to trespass in the field of engineering, I herewith beg your pardon, for we who are active in weights and measures enforcement should criticize only in a constructive manner. Then, if this subject can be presented in this light, something will have been brought before this body that may be truly beneficial.

The old order has failed throughout this Universe. Progress is demonstrated only through the elimination of equipment as it becomes inadequate for present and future needs. Are we employing the use of such obsolete devices in our weights and measures field today? Let us acknowledge, therefore, that errors from this cause do occur.

While it is true that there are specifications and tolerances that guide us in guarding against errors through this cause, the word "parallax" is seldom mentioned in any of our handbook publications. At this time there are many weighing devices in use where errors caused from reading at different angles are practically nonexistent. We might mention as a splendid example the automatic scale, with which we are all so familiar. In some of these scales the indicator, instead of passing in front of the graduations, passes up to and directly under them. The same comments may be made from observations of several different package-weighing scales-those commonly known as the over-and-under types. There is also the hanging spring scale of a similar graduation placement, which we are recently finding in use in increasing numbers. These scales, like those just mentioned, employ an indicator which travels directly under the graduations.

I believe that the hanging spring scale commonly in use in the field, especially the smaller ones, could be fitted with the same type of indicator at a very small cost. I am not suggesting that the manu