Don Relfe, chief electrician for the port, gave this testimony today in the Federal Trade Commission hearing into the merits of the additive, being held in Room 1104, Tribune Tower.

In answer to questions put by Jess M. Ritchie, president of Pioneers, Inc., manufacturers of the compound, Relfe told hearing examiner William L. Pike that:

Five $105 batteries on the fireboat Port of Oakland which would have become useless within a year, lasted 5 years after being treated with AD-X2.

Twenty-four batteries used to operate the fire-alarm system at Oakland International Airport were incapable of taking a normal charge until they were treated with the additive. They remained in service 5 years.

[Oakland Tribune, Wednesday, May 11, 1955]

PERMANENTE CEMENT COMPANY TELLS OF AD-X2 SAVINGS

The Permanente Cement Company saved almost $900 in battery costs the first year it used AD-X2, R. R. Little, transportation superintendent of the firm, testified today.

Little told Federal Trade Commission Hearing Examiner William L. Pike that his firm "was reluctantly persuaded" to use the controversial battery additive in 1947.

"The result was so gratifying that during the whole period of 1948 we treated every battery in the plant on all stationary, standby and mobile equipment; also in all batteries in storage," Little said.

Jess M. Ritchie, president of Pioneers, Inc., the Oakland firm that makes AD-X2, acted as his own attorney in questioning Little.

The FTC has charged Ritchie with using false and misleading statements in advertising and promoting the product.

Ritchie said the hearings in room 1104, Tribune Tower, probably will end next week, and then move to Washington, D. C.

Senator MONRONEY. I do not think they bear on Mr. Kern. Mr. RITCHIE. You will find the articles were kicked off by an ticle on Mr. Kern.

ar

Senator MONRONEY. I was just looking and while I have no objections to their insertion in the record, I do not think they have any bearing. I am looking at the Battery Man now and it seems to be an issue whether AD-X2 accomplishes the claims that are made for it. I do not even see the Federal Trade Commission mentioned in most of these.

Mr. RITCHIE. They all have the Federal Trade Commission in them, Senator, with the possible exception of the Battery Man, which is a trade publication, and I feel that it gives a very fair picture. It is the only publication in the trade of what is going on.

Senator MONRONEY. I do not see anything in the San Francisco Examiner piece with reference to the nominee. I have no objection to them going in but I do not think they should be put in under this question as they do not have anything to do generally with the candidate up for confirmation.

The CHAIRMAN. We will put those in the record that have some bearing upon this nomination and the rest we will put in the files for the benefit of the committee to read.

Mr. RITCHIE. My think was it would give the picture of the position of the press in relation to this case throughout the country starting from Boston and going right through.

The CHAIRMAN. As many as we find pertinent in the case will go in. Mr. RITCHIE. Now, shortly before the October 2 memorandum was put out, which I asked be made a part of the record, I furnished to the Federal Trade Commission, to Mr. Kern's office, Office of Litigation,

a copy of the witnesses heard at AD-X2 hearings before the Senate Small Business Committee during the week of June 22, 1953, over the signature of Robert A. Forsythe.

This is a three-page document, double spaced and in the conclusion of the document, this is what is found, and I furnished this to the Division of Litigation:

No one who has used this product feels in any way that they have been defranded, either by the manufacturer or by the product.

That Mr. Ritchie's advertising is conservative and that his product does just exactly what his advertising claims.

I ask that that be made a part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, that will be made a part of the record. (The documents referred to are as follows:)

WITNESSES HEARD AT AD-X2 HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE DURING THE WEEK OF JUNE 22, 1953

1. Dr. Allen V. Astin, Director, National Bureau of Standards. Dr. Astin testified that AD-X2 was of no benefit to a lead-acid storage battery. In the first tests run by the National Bureau of Standards, Dr. Astin had stated that AD-X2 produced no effects on a lead-acid storage battery. Later tests by the National Bureau of Standards confirmed the findings of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that AD-X2 did in fact have effects on a lead-acid storage battery. However, Dr. Astin still feels that those effects would have no benefit to a leadacid storage battery. Dr. Astin does not feel that field tests should be run.

2. Dr. Harold C. Weber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Weber testified that he conducted the tests on AD-X2 that were run at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He stated that he did find eight specific effects of AD-X2 on a lead-acid storage battery. He stated that further tests would have to be run in order to determine whether or not these effects would be beneficial to the operation of a lead-acid storage battery. Dr. Weber testified that he did not think the National Bureau of Standards' tests or the MIT tests which had been run to date were conclusive in any way and that certainly a product should not be condemned on the basis of these tests. Dr. Weber further testified that field tests should be run with AD-X2 and that the evidence of commercial users of the product should be received in determining whether or not AD-X2 is a good product or not.

3. United States Testing Co.: The report of the United States Testing Co., on AD-X2 was admitted in evidence. This report concluded that AD-X2 did in fact do what the manufacturer claimed for it and that the product was beneficial to the operation of a lead-acid storage battery. The Post Office Department has been given a copy of this report for its consideration.

4. Mr. Erwin George Cunningham, United States Army Transportation Corps. Mr. Cunningham testified that AD-X2 did what the manufacturer claimed and that he had used it successfully in military batteries.

5. Mr. Emerson Blum, Benecia Arsenal, Benecia, Calif. Mr. Blum testified that he had used AD-X2 in military vehicles with great success and that he could save the military thousands of dollars if he were allowed to use it.

6. Mr. J. W. Walker, materiel engineer, McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, Calif. Mr. Walker ran tests on AD-X2 on official order of the Air Force and found that AD-X2 had very beneficial effects on the operation of a lead-acid storage battery.

7. Mr. James Beene, Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio, Tex. Mr. Beene ran tests of AD-X2 on order of the Air Force and was unable to find any effect on a lead-acid storage battery through the use of AD-X2.

S. Mr. Kenneth W. Binding, experimental and development engineer, Market Forge Co., Everette, Mass. Mr. Binding testified that his company was using AD-X2 in batteries which cost approximately $500 and that his company was satisfied with the results and would continue to use it.

9. Mr. William Purcell, plant engineer, Walter Baker Chocolate Co., Dorchester, Mass. Mr. Purcell testified that his company was using AD-X2 in batteries which cost $1,700. He stated that AD-X2 did the job it was supposed to do and that it saved his company money and time in battery maintenance costs. 10. Mr. Howard P. Spaulding, chief electrical engineer, Gillette Safety Razor

Co., A Street, South Boston, Mass. Mr. Spaulding testified that his company had also used AD-X2 and that they were satisfied with it and that it did the job that the manufacturer claimed it would do.

11. Mr. E. Tyler Parkhurst, electrical engineer, United-Carr Fastener Corp., Cambridge, Mass. Mr. Parkhurst testified that his company was using AD-X2 in batteries that cost approximately $1,400. He testified that AD-X2 had produced amazing results and that it saved his company time and money in battery maintenance costs.

This is a list of some of the witnesses who testified before our committee. Others presented similar testimony, which has been made available to the Post Office Department.

In view of this testimony, it would appear that we can draw the following conclusions:

1. A scientific controversy does exist over the merits of AD-X2.

2. The military and commercial users of AD-X2 feel very strongly that this product does all that the manufacturer claims it should do and that they are satisfied that the product can effect a large saving in terms of time and money. 3. No one who has used this product feels in any way that they have been defrauded, either by the manufacturer or by the product.

4. That Mr. Ritchie's advertising is conservative and that his product does just exactly what his advertising claims.

To: Post Office Department.

Attention: Mr. Charles Hook.

MEMORANDUM

From: Robert A. Forsythe, Chief Counsel, Select Committee on Small Business. United States Senate.

Dated: August 18, 1953.

This will serve to confirm our telephone conversation of August 17, 1953. During that conversation, you stated that the Post Office Department was going to dispose of the suspended fraud order in connection with Mr. Jess M. Ritchie : Pioneers, Inc., Oakland, Calif.; and Battery Additive AD-X2. During the course of this conversation, you stated that the Post Office Department would take action during this week of August 17, 1953, and you also requested the test report of the New London Submarine Base. As you know, I delivered that test report personally to your office at about 4: 20 p. m. on August 17, 1953.

You made a further request to me that I supply you with a list of the witnesses who testified at our hearings, which were held in the week of June 22, 1958. Specifically, you were interested in testimony which supports the fact that there is at present a scientific controversy over this product.

You will find attached to this memorandum a list of witnesses which will help you in answering any questions that might be put to you by the working press when you release the fraud order.

As I told you over the telephone, our committee feels that on the basis of the testimony taken at the hearing, all of which has been made available to the Postmaster General, it would appear certain that there is no fraud connected with this case. You should be advised again that the National Better Business Bureau, the National Bureau of Standards, and this committee have not found one complaint from a user of AD-X2. We had military witnesses who, under oath, stated that they could save the military thousands of dollars a year if they would be allowed to use AD-X2. We had commercial users of AD-X2 represented by engineers with long years of experience with lead-acid storage batteries. All of these people testified that AD-X2 did what the manufacturer claimed and that it saved them thousands of dollars a year. You might be interested to know that the city of Oakland, Calif., uses AD-X2 in all of its batteries and supplied our committee with an affidavit to the effect that AD-X2 did what it was supposed to do and that it saved the city of Oakland thousandof dollars per year in battery maintenance costs. I could go on and on, pointing out instances where AD-X2 has been used successfully. In all frankness, I believe that unless the fraud order is dismissed, a grave injustice will have been done to a small-business man who is trying to sell a product which has enjoyed quite amazing success by those who have used it.

I will be very happy to be of any assistance I can to you in your effort to dispose of this case during this week. ROBERT A. FORSYTHE.

Mr. RITCHIE. All right: we come to the beginning, as it says in Genesis. The Federal Trade Commission is acting as an enforcer

of monopoly. We put Mr. K. B. Wilson, the man that signed this letter from the National Better Business Bureau on the witness stand in New York. He admitted the letter. Five of the largest battery manufacturers in the United States are members of the National Better Business Bureau.

As will be shown in here, through collusion of the members of the Bureau of Standards, they made a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission. This is dated June 17, 1949. I ask that this two-page 1 letter, signed by K. B. Wilson, be made a part of the record here. The CHAIRMAN. May I ask, Mr. Ritchie, in the hearing before the Small Business Committee, are those things in that record?

Mr. RITCHIE. No, sir; there will only be 2 documents, which I will point out, that are in here, and they are 1 page each. We have a report here signed by Leo J. Kriz, attorney examiner, Federal Trade Commission, stating that the Bureau of Standards did test this product, and something should be done about this.

1 request that be made a part of the record.

We have a document here signed by Franklin F. Johnson, attorney examiner, San Francisco office, and I ask that that be made a part of the record because Mr. Kern knew of these things. I told Mr. Kern they existed. He would take me in and introduce me to Mr. Sheehy. I told Mr. Sheehy that we knew that their files revealed what the true situation was, so Mr. Kern knows of these things.

Now, we have the Association of American Battery Manufacturers. This is to the Federal Trade Commission, gentlemen, and every one of these is to the Federal Trade Commission, where they have filed a complaint, and this is the letter that is in the Small Business Committee hearings from the Keystone Battery Co., of San Francisco, and he ends with this:

This is a serious situation. We know that we have lost a considerable amount of business for last month alone, and the loss of business to large manufacturers must have run into thousands.

The Federal Trade Commission knew that, and there you have the Association of American Battery Manufacturers' two letters and the Keystone letter, all hurrying the Federal Trade Commission to get their complaint filed.

We have a letter from A. Brooks Berlin, an attorney in San Francisco, Calif., confirming the Keystone letter. We put Mr. Keystone on the witness stand last month and he admitted the letter.

We have a letter from Jack A. Harris, general manager of the Oakland Better Business Bureau, and I ask that those be made a part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not going to put all of this in the record, are you?

Mr. RITCHIE. Senator, I believe if this material goes into the record and the Senate reads this, that it lays out chapter and verse how the Federal Trade Commission is enforcing monopoly, and without it I do not think it can be done.

The CHAIRMAN. We can make them a part of our official file. The committee has access to the file, but we do not want to have too large a document here because these things cost money. We do not have that money in this committee.

Mr. RITCHIE. I can appreciate that, but which is the most important, a little bit of printing or small business of this country, Senator Magnuson?

The CHAIRMAN. We will put them in the file and we will refer to them and have a synopsis of what the letters reflect. (See appendix.) Mr. RITCHIE. I have this letter here from the Bureau of Standards, signed by George W. Vinal, to the Federal Trade Commission, stating they tested the product and are sending their report.

In that, they sent back the material with one envelope opened. I saw that myself. The Board inspected that last week.

We have here a document-all these have been furnished from the National Better Business Bureau-quoting the National Bureau of Standards condemning the product, AD-X2 by name. That was furnished to the Federal Trade Commission.

We have here a document by Harold A. McAskill, pointing out that they claimed they tested the product and, in his investigation, they had not tested the product and something should be done about it. Here is another one, Mr. McAskill, attorney-conferee, who says that something should be done because they are evading the issue.

We have here a letter by Mr. McAskill that says that it is almost a hopeless task to get them to do anything about it.

I have another one by Mr. McAskill in which he says that where they thought they tested the product they only analyzed it.

Mr. Kern knows all of this, as I have told him.

We have one here from Mr. Samuel L. Williams. It says the same thing: "We cannot get them to do anything." It says that they have sent Mr. Reilly, of the Justice Department, and the Association of Battery Manufacturers have filed a complaint.

We have another one here by Mr. McAskill in which he is still complaining, signed by McAskill, Horton, and Snow.

We have one here by Spingarn, the man who was on the witness stand this morning. He says that they have not tested it, and something has to be done because Senator Dworshak and Senator Nixon wanted an outside laboratory to test the product and they cannot do that. They cannot rupture the good relations with the National Bureau of Standards.

My attorney, Kahl K. Spriggs, of Washington, says the system should be patented. The Bureau takes and looks at something and says that it is no good, and the Federal Trade Commission charges a man and puts him out of business, whether he is right or wrong.

Look at the schedule and see how you or one of your constituents would like to be confronted this way? Look at this memorandum, how they go out and use a chain letter system of developing evidence. They went out and called on people who never used the product. They called on people who knew nothing about it.

I even called witnesses that they tried to get information from that did not know anything about the product. They called in a witness from Pittsburgh, Pa., and he did not know anything about the product. I gave him a package and said, "Use it and see what you can do with it.”

I have a letter right here and I am going to put it in the record where the man said that he used it and it worked fine. "Send me $20 worth." That is one of their witnesses.