"Under free government trade must be free, and to be of permanent value it 
  ought to be independent. Under our standard we do not expect the government to 
  support trade; we expect trade to support the government. An emergency, or 
  national defense may require some different treatment, but under normal 
  conditions trade should rely upon its own resources, and should therefore 
  belong to the province of private enterprise."--President Calvin Coolidge, 
  address to the Pan American Commercial Congress; The Nation's Business, May 
  20, 1927. 

STICKING TO THE BASE
   In the great national game, theft is an important element of success. The man 
who reaches first must stick to his base as long as the first baseman is at the 
sack. When the first baseman goes off to quite a distance, the runner leaves his 
place of safety and goes as far as he dare toward second. He must keep a keen 
eye, however, as either the catcher or the pitcher may return the ball to the 
first baseman, who has crept up unawares, and the runner is "out." If the 
basestealer is put out he is booed; if he succeeds he is wildly cheered.
   In general it is the first principle of safety to stick close to your base. 
An army that leaves its base too far may run into danger. Its supply of 
provisions and munitions may be cut off. The enemy may send an armed force to 
cut off retreat.in case of defeat. Upon the whole, sticking to one's base is not 
only considered a mark of good judgment, but often of honesty of purpose in 
fulfilling the duties imposed upon a player. Stealing bases in scientific 
matters is quite another story.

RISE OF BUREAUCRACY
   While the bureau is an important element in Government activities, it also 
affords an opportunity for ambitious directors (and all directors should be 
ambitious) to leave the base on which they are supposed to stay. I do not except 
even the bureau over which I presided for nearly thirty years from having at 
various times had attacks of this grasping disposition. The Honorable Frank A. 
Lowden says, in World's Work, December, 1926:
     "The Government official is inclined to exaggerate the importance of his 
  office. He is constantly endeavoring to expand its scope. He is properly 
  jealous of his authority. * * * I think that this tendency is inevitable. * * 
  * Where, however, the enterprise is a vast one, as in Government, or as in a 
  great business organization, these tendencies, if left uncontrolled, are 
  likely to inflict serious injury upon the service. * * * The original purpose 
  of the creation of the Bureau is finally lost sight of and it is likely to 
  seem to those who direct it an end and not a means." 
   It would be well to add to the warnings of President Coolidge and Governor 
Lowden in regard to mixing up business with Government, the opinion also of 
another expert along the same line. Mr. Merle Thorpe, editor of Nation's 
Business, published under the auspices of the National Chamber of Commerce, made 
this interesting statement before the National Association of Real Estate Boards 
held (Sept. 18, 1927) in Seattle, Washington. The title of his address was "From 
Bottom Up or Top Down."
     "Because of our failure to do things for ourselves, we are calling upon the 
  government to do everything under the sun. Statute books are groaning. 
  Regulations are myriad. Bureaus and commissions spring up overnight. Taxes are 
  mounting, and naturally, because every one of the laws we put upon the statute 
  books requires administration and more people on the tax payroll. To-day it is 
  estimated that each ten families in the United States feed and keep another 
  family on the tax payroll. Two months' production of each man, woman, and 
  child, out of the twelve, now go to keep up the tax payroll. 
     "'Let the Government do it!' is our favorite panacea. Of course, the 
  politicians do not object. In fact, there have been occasions where they have 
  been known to encourage legislation and join in the national anthem, 'There 
  ought to be a law--' 
     "The waste and inefficiency and mounting costs, however, are not the 
  greatest penalties we pay for doing the nation's work from the top down. Most 
  of the legislation is directed at business and business is no longer the 
  simple act of trade and barter it once was. It has become most complex. 
  Business is so interrelated, so interdependent, that a law regulating this 
  industry reaches out and out and affects scores of us thousands of miles away. 

     "It is a wise man indeed, who can see through and through to its conclusion 
  a simple piece of economic legislation. We shall never know how much the orgy 
  of lawmaking has slowed down the legitimate task of furnishing food and 
  shelter and clothing, to say nothing of the luxuries of life, to those who 
  need and want them, but it is safe to say it has done a great deal. 
     "The breaking point will come. Already there have been four parliamentary 
  governments overthrown and dictators rule to-day. As Mussolini says, 
  'Democracy, with its endless talk and politics, has miserably failed.' We may 
  never come to that situation of dictatorship in the United States, but we may 
  reach a stage where democracy and its accredited representatives are 
  discredited. That would be disastrous, for democracy is based upon confidence. 

     "Disastrous, too, for it would destroy the one thing which has made this 
  country great, 'individual reward for individual initiative.' Every time we 
  ask government to do something which we as individuals, or groups, or 
  communities, can do better for ourselves, we are striking at that 
  individualism which has given us our strength." 
   Bureaus are either created by Act of Congress or by executive order. In the 
latter case Congress must approve the executive act by appropriations for 
specific purpose. By specific legislations Congress also assigns to certain 
bureaus special duties which presumably can not be abrogated by executive 
orders. It follows that all expansive work must lie in the scope of the bureau 
and in harmony with problems already allocated.

SCIENTIFIC ETHICS
   In Science, July 19, 1927, page 103, is found a proposed code of ethics for 
scientific men. No. 2 of this code reads as follows:
     "Exemplify in your conduct and work a courageous regard for the whole 
  people, and not alone some powerful and influential faction thereof with which 
  you come in close personal contact." 
   This is most excellent advice in connection with the above observations.

CHEMICAL ETHICS
   The American Chemical Society has no printed code of ethics. There is, 
however, an unwritten code which every member of the society is under obligation 
to respect.
   There are two cardinal principles involved in the unwritten code of ethics of 
the American Chemical Society. The first is that no member of the society shall 
seek by improper means to deprive any other chemist of his employment. The 
second is that a field of investigation which is already occupied shall not be 
entered by an outsider without full cooperation and agreement with the party 
already occupying the field of investigation. These two fundamental principles 
guide and control the relations of the members of the Society toward each other.
   A much younger association of chemists, namely, the American Institute of 
Chemical Engineers, has already adopted a code of ethics. Inasmuch as some of 
the activities of the Bureau of Standards are essentially those of chemical 
engineers, it is probable that most of the chemists in the Bureau of Standards 
are members of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. This code of ethics 
is not very long but it is very pertinent. The principal elements of this code 
are the following:
     1st. That in all their relations, they shall be guided by the highest 
  principles of honor. 
     2nd. The upholding before the public at all times of the dignity of the 
  chemical profession generally and the reputation of the Institute, protecting 
  its members from misrepresentation. 
     3d. Personal helpfulness and fraternity between its members and toward the 
  profession generally. 
     4th. The avoidance and discouragement of sensationalism, exaggeration and 
  unwarranted statements. In making the first publication concerning inventions 
  or other chemical advances, they should be made ithrough chemical societies 
  and technical publications. 
     5th. The refusal to undertake for compensation work which they believe will 
  be unprofitable to clients without first advising said clients as to the 
  improbability of successful results. 
     6th. The upholding of the principle that unreasonably low charges for 
  professional work tend toward inferior and unreliable work, especially if such 
  charges are set at a low figure for advertising purposes. 
     7th. The refusal to lend their names to any questionable enterprise. 
     8th. Conservatism in all estimates, reports, testimony, etc., especially in 
  connection with the promotion of business enterprises. 
     9th. That they shallnot engage in any occupation which is obviously 
  contrary to law or public welfare. 
     10th. When a chemical engineer undertakes for others work in connection 
  with which he may make improvements, inventions, plans, designs, or other 
  records, he shall preferably enter into a written agreement regarding their 
  ownership. 
   The 4th, 7th, 8th and 9th sections of the above code of ethics are not 
italicized in the original.

PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS
   The object of establishing the Bureau of Standards is luminously set forth in 
the hearings before the comittee on weights and measures and in the debates in 
Congress on this measure.
   I desire to call attention to a bureau in which it appears that the desire to 
get control of all forms of activities has developed into a megalomania, and to 
point out some of the crimes it has committed or attempted to commit against the 
battered and bleeding food law.
   Professor Edward Murray East, eminent biologist of Harvard University, says:
     In our most cherished beliefs, from the earliest ages to the present, there 
  is a great deal to justify the opinion of the cynic that man is to be 
  distinguished from the apes not by his lack of a tail, but by his megalomania. 
  Since becoming the dominant animal on the surface of this cosmic atom, he has 
  never, until recently, had the slightest doubt concerning his supreme 
  importance in the general scheme of things. 
   I am not looking into the activities of the Bureau of Standards in any way 
which would reflect upon any member of the Bureau, either as to his capacity and 
ability, or as to his honesty. I assume, and I believe the disease of 
megalomania is to some extent epidemic; it attacks people against their desire 
and will. We do not lose our esteem for those who are ill of influenza or high 
blood pressure. We might attach some personal blame to those who suffer from 
typhoid fever. We should regard megalomania as a sad misfortune.
   It is not in any way my purpose to review all the expansive activities of the 
Bureau of Standards. I will confine my remarks to those activities which affect 
scientific ethics, public health, and adulteration of foods.
   The Bureau of Standards was intended to be a natural enlargement of the old 
office of Weights and Measures. This office for some mysterious reason was 
connected with the Department of the Treasury. The enlargement of the office and 
its change of name to the Bureau of Standards was first publicly suggested by 
the Secretary of the Treasury, the Hon. Lyman J. Gage (50th Congress, first 
Session, House of Representatives, Document No. 625.) The general purpose of the 
new Bureau is outlined by the Secretary of the Treasury in the following 
language:
     The functions of the bureau shall consist in the custody of the standards; 
  the comparison of the standards used in scientific investigations, 
  engineering, manufacturing commerce, and educational institutions with the 
  standards adopted or recognized by subdivisions; the testing and calibration 
  of standard measuring apparatus; the solution of problems which arise in 
  connection with standards; the determination of physical constants, and the 
  properties of materials when such data are of great importance to scientific 
  or manufacturing interests and are not to be obtained of sufficient accuracy 
  elsewhere. 
   Under the head of conditions which necessitated the establishment of a 
National Standards Bureau the Secretary makes, among others, the following 
remarks:
     Throughout our country institutions of learning, laboratories, 
  observatories, and scientific societies are being established and are growing 
  at a rate never equaled in the history of any nation. The work of original 
  investigation and instruction done by these institutions requires accurate 
  reliable standards, which in nearly every case must be procured from abroad, 
  or can not be procured at all. * * * 
     The recent acquisition of territory by the United States more than 
  proportionately increases the scope and importance of the proposed 
  institution, since the establishment of a government in these possessions 
  involves the system of weights and measures to be employed. During the near 
  future large public improvements will be undertaken in these countries; 
  schools, factories, and other institutions will be established, all of which 
  require the use of standards and standard measuring apparatus. 
   The National Academy of Sciences endorsed the movement in the following 
resolution:
     Whereas the facilities at the disposal of the Government and of the 
  scientific men of the country for the standardization of apparatus used in 
  scientific research and in the arts are now either absent or entirely 
  inadequate, so that it becomes necessary in most instances to send such 
  apparatus abroad for comparison: Therefore, be it 
     Resolved, That the National Academy of Sciences approves the movement now 
  on foot for the establishment of a national bureau for the standardization of 
  scientific apparatus. 
     The American Chemical Society approved the measure: 
     Resolved, That the Congress of the United States be urged to establish a 
  national standard bureau in connection with the United States Office of 
  Standard Weights and Measures, which shall provide adequate facilities for 
  making such verification of chemical measuring apparatus and for stamping the 
  same as are provided by foreign governments for similar work." 
   Prof. Simon Newcomb, U. S. N., said:
     I do not think that anything I could do or say is necessary to emphasize 
  the practical and scientific importance of introducing the highest standard of 
  efficiency and precision in the work of such a bureau. 
   Prof. Albert A. Michelson (head of department of physics, University of 
Chicago) made the following statements:
     It gives me great pleasure to indorse the measures proposed regarding the 
  importance of the establishment of a central bureau of weights and measures, 
  the functions of which shall be: 
     (1) The calibration of all standards and measuring instruments used in 
  scientific or commercial work. 
     (2) The investigation of problems which arise in connection with standards 
  or standard measuring apparatus. 
     (3) The determination of physical constants and the properties of 
  materials. 
   A large number of eminent scientists joined in the same general way in urging 
the enactment of the measure. Wherever reference was made to foreign 
institutions they were institutions for standardizing weights and measures of 
various kinds in all the different countries.
   When the measure went before the Senate (50th Congress, Second Session, 
Document No. 70), the Secretary of the Treasury appeared also before the Senate 
Committee. Among other reasons which he advanced are the following:
     In this particular of standardizing weights and measures and testing 
  apparatus of every kind the older countries are far ahead of us; in fact, it 
  may be said that there is no comparison between us. We are dependent utterly 
  upon Germany, perhaps France to some extent, and England for our measurements 
  and those standards which we are obliged to resort to in testing and comparing 
  when we enter into competitive work against them. * * * 
     Now the establishment of a bureau like this, where the Government is the 
  custodian and the originator of these standards of weights and measures as 
  applied to all the higher scientific aspects of life which we are so rapidly 
  developing in, has, to my mind, a value far and above the mere physical 
  considerations which affect it, although those physical considerations are 
  fundamental and most important. Nothing can dignify this Government more than 
  to be the patron of and the establisher of absolutely correct scientific 
  standards and such legislation as will hold our people to faithfully regard 
  and absolutely obey the requirements of law in adhesion to those true and 
  correct standards. 
   Before the Senate, as was recorded in the document above mentioned, many 
scientific men appeared and all in the same strain stressing the importance of 
standards of accuracy for all kinds of weights, measures and instruments of 
precision. Among those was Mr. 0. H. Tittmann, Superintendent of the United 
States Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Professor H. A. Rowland of Johns Hopkins 
University.
   The Association of Official Agricultural Chemists adopted the following 
resolution:
     Resolved, That the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists most 
  heartily indorses the movement in progress for the establishment in this 
  country of a national standardizing bureau, and hereby declares that the 
  absence of facilities such as would be provided by the proposed bureau has 
  seriously hampered the work of this Association, owing to the difficulty of 
  obtaining in this country, with official certificates of accuracy, the flasks, 
  burettes, pipettes, weights, thermometers, polariscopes, and other apparatus 
  needed in the work of official chemists. The use of apparatus which bears the 
  official stamp of the Government would eliminate one element of dispute in 
  commercial analyses, thus preventing the expense of litigation, and would, in 
  general, increase the value of the work of this Association by facilitating 
  the attainment of uniform results. 
   Not only were scientific men all over the country interested in the 
establishment of standards invited to give testimony, but the heads of 
departments in which scientific work was carried on were also asked their 
opinions respecting the proposed legislation. The Secretary of Agriculture asked 
the head of the bureau most interested to prepare his paper. Mr. Southard, in 
introducing the discussion in the House said:
     Mr. Speaker, the functions of the present office of weights and measures 
  are confined to the ordinary measurements of mass, length, and capacity. That 
  was sufficient, perhaps, when that office was established. In the early days 
  the standards in question were the pound, the yard, the bushel, and the 
  gallon. Now, however, the progress of science and the complexity of industrial 
  processes resulting from it require derived standards of a thousand and one 
  kinds--all kinds of measuring apparatus--volumetric apparatus used in the 
  chemical laboratories of the Government and similar laboratories all over the 
  country--standards of measurement for high and low degree of temperature, etc. 

     I must stop here to indicate some of the different kinds of measuring 
  apparatus. They are barometers, thermometers, pressure gauges, polariscopes, 
  instruments of navigation, steam-engine indicators, and instruments of a 
  thousand different varieties. That the graduations and indications of these 
  instruments should agree with the fundamental standards is a question of most 
  vital importance, and without the facilities for such tests and comparisons 
  the public is deprived of the greatest benefits to be derived from the 
  standards recognized by the Government. We have in this country to-day no 
  means of testing these different instruments of precision. The result is, we 
  have to send them to Germany or France or England or somewhere else to have 
  them tested and calibrated. 
   The bill has been enthusiastically indorsed by all the heads of Department of 
the General Government having scientific bureaus, as well as by all the chiefs 
of such bureaus. As furnishing an illustration of the necessity and value of 
this proposed bureau to the General Government, I will quote from the statement 
of the Secretary of Agriculture:
     "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of April 24, 
  and beg to assure you that the establishment of a national standardizing 
  bureau, having the function outlined by you, will be of the highest value and 
  importance, not only to the scientific bureaus, offices, and divisions of this 
  Department, but to the country at large. Its influence will be felt wherever 
  the quality and value of substances are fixed by chemical and physical tests, 
  whether this be in connection with scientific investigations, in connection 
  with manufacturing and other industrial processes, or in connection with 
  commercial transactions. 
     "Speaking for this Department alone, I wish to say that it has been our 
  policy to patronize the American manufacturers of scientific apparatus 
  whenever practicable without hampering our investigators by compelling them to 
  use apparatus of an inferior grade. The art of the construction of scientific 
  apparatus has been brought to such a high degree of perfection under the 
  fostering care of European govemments--notably Germany--that we have been 
  compelled to send abroad a large proportion of our orders, either directly or 
  indirectly, through importers. The greatest disadvantage resulting from this 
  state of affairs is not the delay, inconvenience, and expense connected with 
  making purchases abroad; nor is it to be found in the danger of injury to 
  delicate and expensive apparxtus during transportation across the sea. 
     "It is the necessity of importing the certificate of a foreign government 
  whenever an official certiflcate of accuracy is desired with apparatus. In 
  Germany an order can be issued for apparatus with the specification that the 
  goods delivered must be of the quality and accuracy recognized by the 
  regulations established by the standardizing bureaus of the Imperial 
  Government. Apparatus made in accordance with these regulations are regular 
  commodities, and are described in the catalogues of all the apparatus makers 
  and dealers. When the goods are received the purchaser is able to send a 
  proper proportion of the shipment to the government standardizing bureaus and 
  base his acceptance or refusal of the goods upon the results of the official 
  tests. For the accommodation of customers who need certified apparatus for 
  immediate use most of the dealers keep in stock apparatus bearing the official 
  stamp. 
     "The disadvantage under which American scientific workers--notably 
  chemists--labor is evidenced by a recent experience of the Division of 
  Chemistry of this Department. The confusion of standards and carelessness 
  which has characterized the manufacture of graduated chemical glassware in the 
  past is notorious. Some months ago the Division of Chemistry issued to an 
  American dealer and importer an order for graduated glassware, to be made in 
  accordance with the regulations of the German Imperial Testing Commission. 
     "While all this apparatus was to fulfill the requirements in point of 
  construction and limits of error in graduation of the regulations named, 
  certain pieces were to bear the official stamp of the Imperial commission. At 
  the special request of the American dealer to whom the order was sent 
  permission was granted to import only the pieces of apparatus requiring the 
  official stamp and to supply for the remainder of the order apparatus of 
  American manufacture, but made in accordance with the regulations named. After 
  considerable delay the goods were delivered. The certified pieces were 
  eminently satisfactory; the uncertified ones were quite the opposite. They 
  were unsatisfactory both in the form of construction and in regard to 
  accuracy. 
     "As an example of the degree of inaccuracy, it may be stated that a flask 
  marked to contain 100 cubic centimeters was found to contain 100.3 cubic 
  centimeters. I do not believe that this experience was due to unworthy motives 
  on the part of either the manufacturer or dealer. This experience is simply 
  the result of the absence in this country of any well-established and 
  authoritative standards governing the forms of construction, the system of 
  graduation, and the allowable limits of error for apparatus of this kind. The 
  mere adoption of regulations relative to the character of apparatus admissible 
  for stamping by a national standardizing bureau will cause a revolution in the 
  apparatus manufactured and give to it that highly important quality, 
  uniformity. 
     "As a further illustration of the great desirability of such an 
  establishment, I may call your attention to the contention which has arisen in 
  the courts in the United States in the last few years concerning the 
  regulations prescribed by the Treasury Department governing the polarization 
  of imported sugars. These regulations were prepared by a joint commission 
  consisting of the Chemist of the Department of Agriculture as chairman, a 
  representative of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, Office of Weights and 
  Measures, and the Chemist of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. 
     "The regulations were based upon the most careful scientific determinations 
  and the apparatus and utensils employed by the customs-house officers 
  standardized by the Office of Weights and Measures of the Coast and Geodetic 
  Survey. Nevertheless, the accuracy of these officials has been called into 
  question by the importers, and the question is now the subject of expensive 
  and tedious litigation. The existence of such an office of your Department as 
  you propose to establish would have avoided all sueh trouble by the weight of 
  its authority. This is only one of the many instances where the utility of 
  such a bureau would prove of practical advantage to official operations." 
   It is not because of any desire to claim credit for supporting the campaign 
to establish the Bureau of Standards, but for other reasons which are important 
that the Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry at the time mentioned desires to state 
that he was the author of the letter signed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
   It is a matter of some interest to know that the importers of sugar paid 
import duties under protest according to the regulations above cited. The case 
finally reached the Supreme Court. The Chief of the Bureau was asked by the 
Solicitor of the Treasury to write the scientific part of the brief before the 
Court. It was unanimously decided in favor of the Government. Nearly a million 
dollars were saved by this decision. It would be illuminating to cite many other 
cases but the records of the discussion of this bill are all on file and those 
who are interested in the matter can find them in the references given. The 
Congressional Record of Feb. 1, 1901, pages 1793 to 1795, and March 2, pages 
3473 to 3478 in the House; and 3487 and 3515 in the Senate may be consulted.
   The wonderful unanimity of scientific men in support of this measure is best 
illustrated by the words of Mr. Southard's address on page 1794 of the Record 
above referred to:
     Shortly after the reference of the measure to the Committee on Coinage, 
  Weights and Measures that committee received a deluge of indorsements, most 
  commendatory in character. They came from almost every Department of the 
  Government and from the different bureaus in the various Departments. They 
  came from the governors of States and from the departmental officers in the 
  States. They came from scientific bodies, from scientific men, and from 
  associations of scientific men. They came from men engaged in educational 
  pursuits everywhere. They came in the form of resolutions adopted by the 
  faculties of universities and colleges throughout the country. They came from 
  the great railroad corporations, many of which maintain, as gentlemen know, 
  chemical laboratories in connection with the operation of their roads. They 
  came from the great iron and steel industries of the country and from the 
  manufacturers of electrical machinery and appliances, and they came from 
  agricultural associations and from other sources. In other words, they came 
  from almost everywhere. and I may say that these were no mere perfunctory 
  indorsements, but were characterized by a remarkable zeal and earnestness, 
  indicating clearly and strongly the desire, in this connection, of the people 
  making them. 
   The attitude of all these supporters of this measure, who practically 
represent all the scientific men of this country interested in physics and 
chemistry, shows that they all understood the bill exactly the same way; it was 
to be a real bureau of standards, of all weights and measures. There was no hint 
of extending the functions of this bureau to standards of purity of foods, 
drugs, soaps, or anything else; nor was there the least hint of the Bureau of 
Standards engaging in manufacturing, or promoting manufacturing in any way 
except by furnishing accurate standards of measurements for all the processes 
that go on under the guidance of accurate measurements in official industrial 
and commercial activities. To invade the domain of agriculture and to furnish 
plans for building dextrose manufactories were never even suggested.
   Rarely has any topic been presented to Congress in which members of the 
committees considering the measures, and witnesses brought before them, and 
speakers on the floor of each house, have shown greater unanimity than was 
exhibited in connection with the establishment of the Bureau of Standards. The 
character of the work was fully understood by all participants in these 
discussions. The standards which were to be established were those in every case 
of precision and accuracy for the use and enlightenment of all parties needing 
standards of measurement of all kinds. Only one witness, Professor Rowland, saw 
in the wording of the proposed act any possibility of departing in the 
activities of the bureau from the basic purpose for which it was organized. 
Professor Rowland, with that keen sense of accuracy and definiteness for which 
he was so renowned, pictured some future Director, who, by misinterpreting the 
spirit, and also the words of the act, might proceed to explore fields of 
investigation entirely foreign to its purpose. In his testimony before the 
Committee of Coinage, Weights and Measures, Professor Rowland made the following 
suggestion:
     There is one point that is left out in this bill, and I do not see how it 
  can be covered, and that is with regard to the kind of standards that are to 
  be adopted. Shall the director of this standardizing bureau have the right to 
  introduce any standards he pleases, or shall they be more carefully defined? 
   Many of the activities of the Bureau of Standards illustrate the prophetic 
wisdom of Professor Rowland's foresight. As an illustration of how far the 
Bureau of Standards has departed from its base, a few quotations from the budget 
submitted for the fiscal year 1928 will show.
THE BUDGET FOR 1928
     (Page 369) For structural materials, such as stone, clays, cement, etc., 
  and for collecting and disseminating approved methods in building, planning 
  and construction, economy in the manufacture and utilization of building 
  materials and supplies, and such other matters as may tend to encourage, 
  improve and cheapen construction and housing. 
   For the authority to do this the original Act of March 3, 1901, is quoted.
     (Page 371) For investigation of fire-resisting properties of building 
  materials and conditions under which they may be most efficiently used, and 
  for the standardization of types of appliances for fire prevention. 
   The original act is also quoted as authority for this investigation:
     (Page 375) "To study the methods of measurement and technical processes 
  used in the manufacture of pottery, brick, tile, terra cotta, and other clay 
  products, and the study of the properties of the materials used in that 
  industry." The original Act is again cited. 
     (Page 376) "To develop methods of testing and standardizing machines, 
  motors, tools, measuring instruments,. and other apparatus and devices used in 
  mechanical, hydraulic, and aeronautic engineering. " The original Act is 
  cited. 
     (Page 377) "To investigate textiles, paper, leather and rubber, in order to 
  develop standards of quality and methods of measurement." Original Act cited. 
     (Page 380) "For investigating the conditions and methods of use of scales 
  and mine cars used for weighing and measuring coal dug by miners for the 
  purpose of determining wages due and of conditions affecting the accuracy of 
  the weighing or measuring coal at the mines." Original Act quoted. 
     Again on the same page: "For metallurgical research, including alloy 
  steels, foundry practice and standards for metals and sand; casting, rolling, 
  forging, and the properties of aluminum alloys; prevention of erosion of 
  metals and alloys; development of metal substitutes; as for platinum; 
  behaviour of bearing metals; preparation of metal specifications; 
  investigation of new metallurgical processes and studies of methods of 
  conservation in metallurgical manufacture and products; investigation of 
  materials used in the construction of rails; wheels, axles, and other railway 
  equipment; and the cause of their failure." Again the original Act is cited. 
     (Page 381) "For laboratory and field investigations of suitable methods of 
  high temperature measurements and control in various industrial processes, and 
  to assist in making available directly to the industries the results of the 
  Bureau's investigations in this field." Same Act is cited. 
     (Page 382) "For the investigations of the principles of sound and their 
  application to military and industrial purposes." Same Act cited. 
     (Again on the same page) "For technical investigations in cooperation with 
  the industries upon fundamental problems involved in industrial development 
  following the war with a view to assisting in the permanent establishment of 
  the new American industries." Same Act cited. 
     (Page 384) "To enable the Bureau of Standards to cooperate with Government 
  departments, engineers and manufacturers in the establishment of standards, 
  methods of testing and inspection of instruments, equipment, tools, and 
  electrical and mechanical devices used by the industries and by the 
  Government, including the practical specifications of quality and performance 
  of such devices and the formulation of methods of inspection, laboratory and 
  service tests." Same Act cited. 
     (Page 388) " During the fiscal year, 1928, the head of any Departmed or 
  independent establishment of the Government having funds available for 
  scientific investigation and requiring cooperative work by the Bureau of 
  Standards on scientific investigations within the scope of the functions of 
  that Bureau, and which the Bureau of Standards is unable to perform within the 
  limits of its appropriations, may, with the approval of the Secretary of 
  Commerce, transfer to the Bureau of Standards such sums as may be necessary to 
  carry on such investigations." 
   These transferred funds in 1926 amounted to $173,250. They were used to 
investigate oil pollution, radio direction for the coast guard, helium 
recorders, chromium plating, corrosion, fatigue and embrittlement of duralumin, 
electrically charged dust, optical glass, substitutes for parachute silk, 
goldbeaters skin, storage batteries, internal combustion engines, fuels, 
lubricants, photographic emulsions, stresses in riveted joints, machine guns,
bomb ballistics, rope and cordage, chemical and metallurgical tests, wind tunnel 
tests of models, aircraft engines, velocity of flame in explosives, etc.
   According to Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, one of the largest 
publications of the American Chemical Society, the Bureau of Standards has just 
completed an investigation of the suitability of caroa fiber for paper making, 
also the development of suitable lubricants for glass stopcocks.
   Since the publication of budget estimates, a supplemental grant of funds to 
the Bureau of Standards has been submitted by the budget authorities, to the 
amount of $50,000, to enable the Bureau of Standards to investigate farm wastes. 
These illustrations show how in nearly all cases the Bureau has introduced the 
word "standardization" or "measurement" in some way to connect these 
miscellaneous investigations into everything under the skies with the original 
Act. This Act is cited as authority for these universal studies which can in no 
way be connected with the basic idea of the standards implied in the hearings.

DISCOVERY OF A NEW PRODUCT
   In the annual report of the Bureau of Standards for the fiscal year ended 
June 30, 1920, page 129, is found the first report on a commercial process for 
manufacturing pure dextrose. In this report it was announced that for the first 
time dextrose had been separated from a water solution. It is stated:
     "Previous methods for the preparation of the pure substance have demanded 
  the use of alcoholic solvents." 
   It is stated further down on the same page:
     "In carrying this investigation to a successful conclusion the Bureau has 
  -virtually created a new industry of great magnitude. * * * The magnitude of 
  the commercial possibilities of the new sugar is shown by the fact that one of 
  the largest corporations in the country requested the Bureau to design a large 
  scale experimental plant costing approximately one-half million dollars. This 
  has been done and the plant is now practically completed." 
   A careful re-reading of the original bill which was enacted into a law, fails 
to find any warrant for, the architectural excursions which the Bureau of 
Standards confesses to have made. Let us examine for a moment some authorities 
relating to this discovery. In Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, issue of 
July 10, 1924, News Edition, on page 2, Ifind the following copied from an 
address made by T. B. Wagner, for many years chief chemist for the Corn Products 
Company, the corporation for which the Bureau of Standards designed a 
half-million dollar factory. It was on the occasion of the presentation to the 
Chemists Club of New York City of a portrait of Dr. Arno Behr, for many years 
chief chemist of the Corn Products Company, and one of the most eminent 
carbohydrate chemists this country has produced. Dr. Wagner said, in speaking of 
the earlier investigations of Dr. Behr, some Menty or twenty-five years prior to 
the new discovery of the Bureau of Standards:
     "It was while engaged in the refining of cane sugar that Dr. Behr turned to 
  a study of the chemistry of corn and while following these pursuits he 
  discovered a simple method of producing without the aid of alcohol, 
  crystallized, anhydrous dextrose of great purity and beauty. * * * That was 
  over forty years ago, and it is curious therefore to note the Director of one 
  of,the important Government Bureaus in Washington coming forth at so recent a 
  date as July 1, 1920 with the announcement * * * that * * * the Bureau has 
  shown that a pure, white dextrose may be obtained by crystallization from a 
  water solution and may be easily separated from the mother liquor by using a 
  centrifugal machine. Previous methods for the preparation of the pure 
  substance have demanded the use of alcoholic solvents. 
   Dr. Wagner adds:
     "These are almost exactly the words employed by Dr. Behr in his patent 
  specifications of 1883. Being on the subject I will be pardoned, perhaps, for 
  commenting upon another discovery pertaining to the discovery of pure dextrose 
  and described in the same report in the following language: 
     'Two processes were investigated. In the one which met with almost 
  immediate success the converted starch liquor was boiled in a vacuum until 
  concentrated to 42° Baumé, and was then dropped into a crystallizer. It was 
  then inoculated with pure crystals of dextrose and agitated until the 
  crystallization was complete.'" 
   Dr. Wagner then continues as follows:
     "That is the substance of U. S. Patent 835, 145, issued on Nov. 6, 1906, of 
  which I happen to be the author. " 
   The Bureau of Standards sent a representative to a large glucose 
manufacturing company to apply the process on a large commercial scale of 
operation. It is interesting to inquire whether the Bureau's process, which was 
discovered about one hundred and thirteen years before the Bureau discovered it 
and had been practiced in commercial production frequently, succeeded in making 
the new discovery practical in the special factory costing a half million 
dollars, which was built upon architectural plans supplied by the Bureau of 
Standards. As we are dealing here with United States patents there is no harm in 
calling names. Mr. Newkirk, who was the man sent to introduce this new process, 
which was to establish a new industry on a magnificent scale, succeeded in doing 
so with the knowledge he obtained in working out these plans in the Bureau of 
Standards. It was not long before he resigned from the Bureau of Standards to 
accept the position of chief dextrose-maker for the Corn Products Company. After 
he left the Bureau of Standards Mr. Newkirk began to take out patents on the new 
process of manufacture. He filed an application for a patent on Nov. 16, 1922, 
and the patent was issued to him, No. 1,471,347, on October 23, 1923, and 
assigned by him to the Corn Products Refining Company, a corporation of New 
York. The title of the patent is "Method of Making Grape Sugar." He says in this 
application:
     "I have found that by making a radical departure from the methods usually 
  employed in the manufacture of grape sugar, a sugar of very close to absolute 
  purity can be produced by a process which is relatively simple and is 
  economically practical." 
   This shows, if it shows anything, that the method devised by the Bureau of 
Standards wouldn't work economically. He clinched this conclusion by continuing:
     " Dextrose or grape sugar of high purity has been made heretofore, but 
  never, so far as I am aware, on a commercial scale by methods which can be 
  regarded as feasible from its economic point of view." 
   The Bureau of Standards' own expert in this language denies that the great 
discovery which founded a new industry was economically workable.
   Mr. Newkirk continues his assertions of the failure of all previous 
processes, as follows:
     "Failure of previous experimentors to realize the importance of these 
  considerations accounts for the practical unworkability of many of the 
  processes described in the literature for manufacturing high purity grape 
  sugar. By accident when conditions were just right a satisfactory product 
  might be produced. But there was no certainty that another batch, treated in 
  apparently the same way, would not prove a failure. Obviously manufacture on a 
  commercial scale under these conditions was impossible. Other processes, 
  theoretically possible, have proved too expensive for commercial utility. 
  Hence a literature disclosing apparently repeated successful solution of a 
  problem, which as a matter of fact, has not prior to the present invention 
  received any satisfactory solution." 
   It seems, therefore, that the Bureau of Standards was somewhat mistaken in 
having claimed to make the only discovery which put this great industry on its 
feet. Either a mistake was made by the Bureau, or Mr. Newkirk has done the 
Bureau of Standards a grievous wrong.
   The Bureau of Standards not only claims the discovery of a process which has 
created, or will create a new industry, but it specifies particularly the things 
which it has discovered. Before their experiments, which evidently were carried 
on immediately prior to 1920, they stated that all previous preparations of 
dextrose were from alcoholic solutions. In a patent, No. 256,623, dated April 
18, 1882, issued to Arno Behr, he makes the following statement:
     In carrying out my process I form a watery solution of grape-sugar 
  containing, say, thirteen per cent. of water and deposit the same in a 
  suitable tank or vessel, and maintain it at a temperature of about 90° 
  Fahrenheit for a period of one to two weeks, or until thorough crystallization 
  has taken place. * * * In order to somewhat hasten crystallization, I 
  introduce into the concentrated solution a minute quantity of finely-divided 
  crystallized anhydrous grape-sugar previously prepared." 
   Thus it is seen that two of the discoveries of the Bureau of Standards, one, 
that dextrose could be crystallized from an aqueous solution, and the other that 
it could be hastened by the addition of previously crystallized dextrose, were 
known and patented forty years prior to this great discovery. The fact that the 
temperature should be kept up to or, above blood heat for the purpose, of making 
anhydrous dextrose is clearly pointed out in the patent issued to T. B. Wagner 
(No. 259,794, dated June 20, 1882). He says:
     "Prior to my invention it was known that crystallized anhydride of 
  grape-sugar could be produced by dissolving grape sugar in strong alcohol and 
  crystallizing it from the alcoholic solution; but in this process it is 
  difficult to entirely free the resulting product from all traces of alcohol 
  and from an unpleasant flavor resulting from impurities contained in 
  commercial alcohol. My improved product,, which consists of pure crystallized 
  anhydrous grape-sugar, entirely free from all traces of alcohol, may be made 
  in various ways from water solutions of grape sugar." 
   The claim he makes is as follows:
     "I claim as my invention a new article of manufacture, crystallized 
  anhydrous grape-sugar, free from any trace or flavor of alcohol or its 
  impurities, produced from a watery solution of grape-sugar. 
   In a patent issued to T. B. Wagner, No. 835,145, dated Nov. 6, 1906, the 
following purpose of the invention is described:
     "The object of my invention is to produce anhydrous grape-sugar from corn 
  or other analogous farinaceous material by a method in which the yield of 
  sugar is larger, its quality is purer, the time required for its production is 
  shortened, and the amount of labor required is materially lessened. I have 
  found that all of these results may be obtained by abandoning that part of the 
  present process which has heretofore been considered neeessary--that is 
  keeping the crystals during the process of generation in as quiet and still a 
  condition as possible, and on the contrary employing the principle of 
  crystallization in motion." 
   From the above citations it seems plain that the claims made by the Bureau of 
Standards as the original discoverers of this great industry are, to say the 
least, contrary to historical evidence.

ATTEMPT TO MODIFY THE FOOD LAW
   While the foregoing is interesting as a sample of bureaucratic ethics it 
serves solely as a background to an assault on the food law.
 
The most objectionable effort of the Bureau of Standards was in trying, by 
the great weight of its authority as the original discoverers, to force this 
product ("corn syrup")upon the American people under the guise of real sugar.
 
A bill was introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr. Cole, on 
December 7, 1925 (H. R. No. 39), providing that the Food and Drugs Act be 
amended so that the presence of dextrose in food products would not be regarded 
as a misbranding and would not require any notification of its presence. The 
same bill (S. 481), was introduced into the Senate of the United States by Mr. 
Cummins on Dec. 8, 1925.
   The Senate bill was considered by the Committee on Manufactures, beginning 
Thursday, January 7, 1926. There was no very great publicity given to this 
hearing and the only persons who appeared, besides the members of the Committee, 
were Senator Cummins, Representative Holaday, and Representative Cole. Senator 
Cummins said to the Committee:
     "Introduction of that paragraph into the law would avoid the charge that 
  any article of food in which corn sugar is used is either misbranded or 
  adulterated." 
   Mr. Holaday said:
     "Mr. Chairman, I should like to voice my approval of the measure before 
  you, and the feeling is somewhat general throughout the agricultural regions 
  of the country that this bill may be of benefit to corn producers. The fact 
  that the producer of goods sweetened with cane sugar is not compelled to place 
  anything to that effect on his label, while the manufacturer who sweetens with 
  corn sugar is required to mention that fact on his label, creates an unjust 
  impression in the minds of the people." 
   Representative Cole stated:
     " The difference between dextrose and sucrose, a chemist has told me, is as 
  small as a molecule of water. 
     "Now what does that mean? It means that it will be used very largely, 
  especially in the case of sweetened fruits. You buy canned peaches, sweetened 
  apples, in many cases too sweet, in fact they have to put in so much cane 
  sugar in preserving these fruits that they become almost like a sirup. In 
  using corn sugar that degree of sweetness would not be obtained, but still the 
  preserving power would be there. 
   The Committee, after hearing these witnesses and no one appearing in 
opposition, made a favorable report and as a result of this report the Senate 
unammously passed the bill.

LEGALIZING ADULTERATION OF FOODS
   When these bills came before the House, the Bureau of Standards appeared as 
the chief protagonist of this effort to mutilate the Food Law. At the time the 
hearings were begun on March 2, 1926, a formidable array of opponents to the 
measure was on hand. Among these were Mr. George S. DeMuth, representing the 
bee-keepers, the Hon. Franklin Menges, representative in Congress from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. W. G. Campbell, chief of the Regulatory Service of the 
Department of Agriculture, Dr. George M. Kober, .eminent physician and Dean of 
the Georgetown University Medical School, and Mr. Harvey W. Wiley, farmer. Among 
the protagonists of this measure was Mr. Frederick Bates of the Bureau of 
Standards. Following is a brief outline of his testimony.
   He said he did not feel it would ever be necessary to defend the creation of 
industries of such momentousi importance, and when the Bureau of Standards 
created crystallized dextrose, a carbohydrate of great food value, great 
stability, great purity, and great cheapness, it was deemed a waste of time to 
attempt to take out a basic patent on a subject in which the process of 
manufacture requires so many individual steps. .He called attention to the fact 
that the Bureau of Standards for the first time in one hundred years had 
successfully crystallized manite and dextrose from.a water solution, and that is 
the crux of the whole matter.
   He referred to the fact that there had been, he presumed, several hundred 
patents on the subject of dextrose. As an example he cited Mr. W. B. Newkirk, a 
practical sugar-maker.
     "He was the man I sent to the Corn Products Refining Company to perform the 
  first experiment, and he threw down four thousand pounds of chemically pure 
  crystallized dextrose after forty years of failure." 
   Mr. Bates grew more enthusiastic as he was questioned in regard to whether 
Mr. Newkirk in his patents had mentioned any of the things discovered by the 
Bureau of Standards. Like the men in Buckram, these patents "grew apace." 
Finally (page 122) Mr. Bates said:
     " I suppose 500 would be a conservative estimate of the number of patents 
  on dextrose processes now in existence. Possibly there are 1000." 
   These patents must have been granted in foreign countries. Very few are found 
in our patent office, even including the six taken out by Mr. Newkirk after he 
left the Bureau of Standards.

NUMBER OF PATENTS
   A careful search was made in the archives of the patent office, aided by the 
experts employed therein, to determine the number of patents issued in the 
conversion of starch into other products, and particularly to dextrine, gums, 
glucose and grape-sugar or dextrose. Possibly a few patents may have been 
overlooked, and perhaps two or three may have been included which do not belong 
to this category. A total of 64 patents treat of making dextrose or grape-sugar 
from starch. It is curious to note that the greatest activity in taking out 
patents was in the years 1880 to 1886 inclusive, during which time 27 patents 
were issued for this purpose. This was at the time the glucose industry was 
attracting public and financial attention, and naturaJly marked the era of 
greatest activities and inventions.
   As has already been shown, all the principal methods used, with the exception 
of those covered by the patents of Mr. Newkirk, included substantially the 
processes employed in all dextrose factories at that time and subsequently. 
There seems to be nothing fundamentally new in any of the patents taken out by 
Mr. Newkirk since his resignation from the Bureau of Standards and his 
employment by the Corn Products Company. The patents taken out by Mr. Newkirk 
were at first assigned to the Corn Products Company, but later ones were 
assigned to the International Patents Developing Corporation, of Wilmington, 
Delaware.

RELATIVE SWEETNESS OF SUCROSE AND DEXTROSE
   The Bureau of Standards claims a relative sweetness for dextrose of about 75 
per cent. of the sweetening power of sucrose.
   Dr. C. A. Browne presented a paper to the Thirtieth Annual Conference of the 
Association of Dairy, Food and Drug Officials of the United States in 
Washington, October, 1926. On Page 6 of the printed proceedings I find the 
following:
     "Gottloeb Kirchof about the year 1806 discovered that the starch of cereal 
  grains from heating with acid could be converted into a crystallizable sugar. 
  * * * The process as originally described by Kirchof consisted in beating 100 
  pounds of starch with 400 pounds of water and 1-1/2 pounds of strong sulphuric 
  acid, boiling for a period of 25 hours with constant renewal of the evaporated 
  water. After clarification the neutralized mass was evaporated to a thick 
  syrup, set aside for several days until crystallization was complete. The
  inventor, Kirchof, made the following observation : 
     'Although starch sugar does not have the sweetness of ordinary sugar, the 
  ratio of its sweetness to that of the latter being only 1 to 2-1/4, it can 
  nevertheless replace cane sugar for many purposes.' 
   Dr. Browne continues (page 11)
     "Certain advocates of 'corn sugar' have employed, as their measurement of 
  its sweetness, the recently determined value of Biester, Wood and Wahlin for 
  pure anhydrous dextrose which is 74.3 per cent of the sweetening power of 
  sucrose. . This value is much higher than any reported by previous 
  investigators. The values in the literature for the sweetness of anhydrous 
  dextrose range from 40 to 74.3 per cent, the variations being due to the 
  differences in the methods of determination and to differenes in individual 
  taste perception. In such cases the only legitimate procedure is to take the 
  average of the results of all observers and this average, including the very 
  high figure of Biestor, Wood and Wahlin, for the nine determinations which I 
  have found in the literature is 54.4 per cent. This value when corrected for 
  the 8.43 per cent of water in 'corn sugar' gives a true value of 49.81 per 
  cent for the sweetness of the product as compared with sucrose. In other words 
  'corn sugar' is only about one-half as sweet as cane and. beet sugar and twice 
  as much of it must be used in food products as of cane or beet sugar, if the 
  same degree of sweetness is to be obtained. 
   This discussion of the subject by Dr. Browne is in strict conformity with 
scientific ethics and leads to a conclusion entirely different from that assumed 
by the Bureau of Standards. If dextrose is used for sweetening purposes, twice 
as much of it is required as.for ordinary sugar. If it is used as a, filler, 
that is an adulterant, the more you put in the better the purpose of its use is 
secured. This is the kind of sugar which the committee decided, chiefly under 
the influence of the Bureau of Standards, was the proper thing to offer the 
American consumer without notice of its presence. What a remarkable change from 
the attitude of the members of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee at 
the present time to that which characterized their deliberations in 1906!

CAN OTHERS DO IT?
   The following question was propounded to Mr. Bates, Page 127. Hearing, before 
the Interstate Commerce Committee:
     Is it possible for any one else to produce corn sugar that you know of now, 
  profitably, that is this crystallized dextrose sugar without using the process 
  that was perfected .in your laboratory and subsequently patented by the men 
  that represent you?" To which Mr. Bates answered, "Yes." 
   Another embarrassing question is found on page 130;
     "Right here let me ask, was your study of dextrose instigated by the Corn 
  Products Refining Company?" to which Mr. Bates replied, "Oh, no, they had 
  nothing whatever to do with it." 
   Evidently, however, the first mass experiment made by the Bureau of 
Standards' process was not made in the Bureau at all. On the same page Mr. Bates 
said:
     "Our contribution was to demonstrate to the world that a man could take 
  ordinary sugar-making machinery and throw down pure crystallized dextrose on a 
  factory scale. We made 4000 pounds on the first experiment." 
   On the same page the question was asked:
     "The Corn Products Refining Company had been unable to do that?" 
   To which Mr. Bates replied:
     "They.had spent about $6,000,000 in effort to make dextrose. They had built 
  one factory in Chicago costing $1,500,000 and had abandoned it many years 
  before, after attempting to operate it. for a year or two." 
   Mr. Bates finally acknowledged that dextrose is not a new sugar, and in 
answer to a question he said:
   "There is nothing new in the product. It is a new sugar in the sense that 
after forty years of failure by the anufacturers who are interested in utilizing 
corn we have sueceeded in throwing down the material from water solutions."
   The fact is that Kirchof in 1806 described the process and Dr. Arno Behr, in 
1882, took out a patent for producing dextrose from water solution, and Dr; 
Wagner in 1906 described in detail the technique of crystallizing and how to 
secure anhydrous crystals.
   According to the records of the Bureau of Standards, their experiment in 
creating this new industry was made in 1919. In 1923 Mr. Newkirk had already 
been in the service of the Corn Products Company for about two yeaxs. In. 1922 
he filed his first application for patents which were assigned to the Corn 
Products Company. Mr. Bates informed the Committee that according to the best 
figures he had available, so-called corn sugar, that is dextrose, can be 
produced under present methods at about 2 cents per pound, when corn is a dollar 
a bushel. He told the Committtee that there is no pure corn sugar produced in 
the world today on a commercial scale except that produced by Americans, and 
that this fact is entirely due to the initiative of the Congress of the United 
States, which provided the funds to make this work possible. When asked to give 
some idea of the future of the industry, Mr. Bates replied:
     "Experience has taught me that it is better to remami silent. But I leave 
  it to your experience and knowledge as to what happens when any basic material 
  of great stability, purity and cheapness can be produced." 

OPPONENTS IGNORED
   In point of fact, the members of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce had very little confidence in those who appeared in opposition to the 
pending bill. In the report of the sub-committee, which was adopted by the whole 
committee, it is stated on the first page:
     "In arriving at this conclusion we have had the benefit of conferences and 
  frequent consultations and advice with the Bureau of Standards, the Department 
  of Agriculture, and with the legislative Counsel, to all of whom we 
  acknowledge our obligation. We are, however, under special obligation to Dr. 
  George K. Burgess, Director, and to Dr. Frederick Bates, of the Bureau of 
  Standards, and attach hereto as a part of our report their concise and clear 
  statement regarding these new sugars which were first developed by their 
  department, and call your especial attention to a definite statement made 
  therein by eight of the leading medical authorities of the United States as to 
  the complete wholesomeness of these sugars, which opinion is supplemented by a 
  letter dated March 18, 1926, from Dr. H. S. Cumming, Surgeon General of the 
  United States Public Health Service, which we also attach with this report. We 
  call attention also to the numerous citations of authorities furnished us by 
  the Bureau of Standards in support of their position." 
   Not a syllable is said concerning the luminous opposing data presented by the 
Honorable Franklin Menges, Member of the House, Mr. George DeMuth, representing 
the bee-keepers, Mr. W. G. Campbell of the Regulatory Service of the Department 
of Agriculture, and H. W. Wiley, in defense of the Food Law. The only quotation 
from the Department of Agriculture is the Secretary's approval of the amended 
bill.

REQUEST BUREAU OF STANDARDS FOR HEALTH DATA
   In securing this information the Bureau of Standards entered on a new 
activity, namely as promoters of the public health. Director Burgess in his 
letter of March 28, 1926, said:
     "In addition we would state for your information that the Bureau of 
  Standards does not deal with the subject of foods in relation either to health 
  or to physiologic action in their primary aspect. Investigations of the 
  character involved in these subjects belong to the realm of medical science." 
   The above is a most important statement. There is one field of activity in 
which the Bureau of Standards has not yet entered. Nevertheless they have made a 
fine beginning and the nose of the camel is now under the edge of the, tent. It 
is to be expected that within a short time the Bureau of Standards will assume 
all of these medical investigations in which they have made already a very 
considerable start.
   When the Bureau of Standards was asked to do this public health work by the 
committtee, it looked around to see where it could best direct its efforts. Dr. 
Burgess says:
     "In deciding upon the sources from which to obtain the information you 
  requested, the staffs of various Government institutions, such as the United 
  States Public Health Service, the Hygienic Laboratory, the Army Medical 
  School, and the Bureau of Home Economics have been consulted, and their able 
  suggestions followed. And it may pertinently be noted at this point that in 
  our search we have failed to find a statement by a single authority that is 
  detrimental to the use of dextrose and levulose as human foods, or that their 
  use as foods would cause diabetes mellitus. On the contrary we have found that 
  all authorities are positive as to the desirability of these sugars as human 
  foods. Their commendation of the Bureau's work on the sugars, whenever they 
  have. had occasion to comment, has been unstinted. 
   This investigation into the realms of public health made by the Bureau of 
Standards, at the request of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
was due to a statement I made before the Committee in regard to the 
undesirability of increasing the amount of prechewed and predigested foods in 
the American dietary.
   On page 113 of the hearings I said:
     Now let me give you just a few more words about another feature of injury. 
  You understand that we eat starch and fruit sugars. We digest those. If the 
  sucrose has not been digested we digest it. If the starch has not been 
  digested we digest it, with the functions which we have achieved in this life, 
  and then the sugar enters the blood stream. Now what becomes of the levulose? 
  We never find levulose in the blood stream. We find only dextrose. The sugar 
  that is in the blood and goes to the tissnes and there is burned is always 
  dextrose, it is never levulose. I wish I knew what became of levulose. I do 
  not; but it is possible that there may be an enzyme, a digestive enzyme, that 
  converts levulose into dextrose. Suppose you have too much starch and too much 
  sugar. You cannot burn it all at once. It is converted into an inert substance 
  called glycogen and is stored up in this condition in the liver and in the 
  tissues. The burning of the sugar in the blood is activated by the pancreas. 
  Now if we flood our stomachs with dextrose ("corn syrup"), then we will need half a dozen artificial pancreases to take care of it, and there is the real danger, the threatening danger, as every wise physiologist will tell you, from that source. So that both by reason of paralysis of our digestive apparatus through lack of functioning that is a threat in itself, and by reason of the increase of the amount of dextrose which we ingest far above what we need we endanger our health in the most serious way. So that I voice now, and with all the emphasis I can put on it, my disagreement with every other person, except Dr. Menges, who has testified here, and it has been unanimous almost, who has said that this predigested and prechewed dextrose is harmless. I deny it and I think I have most scientific grounds to convince you, gentlemen, that it is not a harmless substance. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I 
  labored for 22 years before I saw the fruits of my labors in the Food and 
  Drugs Act. I did not give myself the name ' but I am universally acclaimed as 
  the father of the Food and Drugs Act, as I am universally acclaimed as the 
  father of the Beet Sugar Industry. I see both of my children threatened, and I 
  have a parental love. Now I have lived long enough to see my two alleged 
  children grow up almost to their majority. Twenty years old they are. I do not 
  want to live long enough to see them crucified." 

INJURY TO HEALTH
   The activities of the Bureau of Standards in securing expressions from 
various eminent medical authorities to the effect that levulose and dextrose as 
found in honey and in invert sugar are not prejudicial to health was a work of 
supererogation. I can not find in any of the hearings before the committee, or 
otherwise, that any such question was under consideration. Evidently the purpose 
of this investigation by the Bureau of Standards into the region of health was 
to counteract the statements I made before the committee that predigested starch 
(glucose), in such quantities as was suggested by the Bureau of Standards, was a 
real threat to health.
   I desire to refer to page 135 of the hearings on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce on H. R. No. 39.
   MR. HOCH: "Are you familiar with the quotations that Mr. Cole makes from 
medical authorities?"
   DR. WILEY: "Certainly, I am. I do not deny the virtue of dextrose as a 
medicine for any man who cannot digest his own food. It is a valuable remedy; 
for use in a hospital. I should hate to see dextrose moved out of the hospital, 
because people in the hospital usually have poor digestive faculties and need 
blood sugar."
   MR. HOCH: "If corn sugar should be used generally throughout the country 
instead of cane sugar or beet sugar what would be the effect upon the health of 
the country?."
   DR. WILEY: "I have no quarrel for use of dextrose in hospitals, and if you 
should use dextrose in place of sugar that would be all right as to food but all 
wrong as to conservation of natural digestion."
   I quote here two statements, one from a physiologic chemist and one from a 
celebrated physician. Dr. Albert P. Mathews, Professor of Physiological 
Chemistry, University of Cincinnati, under date of Jan. 11, 1927 says:
     "As regards the effect of lack of use of our digestive apparatus by eating 
  predigested food, I dare say the point you make is correct. It seems to be the 
  general experience throughout the animal kingdom that the use of an organ 
  increases its efficiency and keeps its health. What you say as to the quantity 
  of this new sugar which would probably be consumed staggers me, but it is true 
  that it can't be told by its appearance from a good grade of granulated sugar, 
  and if it is cheaper I have no doubt it would drive the other out of the 
  market, which would be a great calamity." 
   The other authority, the eminent physician, is Dr. E. L. Fiske, Director of 
the Life Extension Institute of New York. Writing under date of Jan. 21, 1927, 
he says:
     "I concur in your views that it is unwise to make any change in the present 
  law requiring that dextrose should be so labeled. While it is quite true that 
  dextrose is just as available a fuel as sucrose, indeed more available because 
  of the fact that the action of digestive enzymes is not required, I feel that 
  the present consumption of sugar is far beyond the physiological needs of the 
  population and tends to narrow the diet. I believe that food sugars should be 
  drawn from natural sugars, such as fruit sugars and sucrose. Statistics would 
  indicate that diabetes is increasing in this country and I can see some point 
  in your caution that the use of a predigested sugar may in itself not be in 
  the interest of public health. In regard to no other food is predigestion 
  looked upon as a physiological advantage, but rather the contrary, except in 
  the emergencies of illness." 
   These opinions of these two eminent experts would be supported by every 
competent physiologist and dietitian in the country not under the influence of 
the Bureau of Standards and the Corn Products, Company. Predigestion of our 
foods to the extent indicated would tend to undermine and destroy public health.
   In regard to the quantity of sugar I quoted to Dr. Mathews the statements 
before the committee that if this bill (39 H. R.) should pass, permitting 
dextrose to be used in food. products without notice, as much as two billion 
pounds would enter into the stomachs of the American public annually. In a book 
entitled "What Price Progress?" by Hugh Farrel, page 183, reference is made to 
the work of the Bureau of Standards and of the Corn Products Refining Company, 
stressing somewhat gingerly the importance of "If."
     "Did you ever think about the word "if" as a shock absorber? Probably not. 
  "If" is usually used as a license for loose talk. If I couldn't use "if" in 
  telling you about the probable effects of recent scientific research on the 
  sugar industry, I would keep quiet, I wouldn't say anything. I'm not timid, 
  not to speak of, but I wouldn't like to. assume the responsibility for a bald 
  statement that researches of chemists in the employ of the Bureau of Standards 
  and of the Corn Products Refining Company meant the beginning of the end of 
  the cane and beet sugar industries, I wouldn't like to make that a flat-footed 
  statement even though it might be and probably would be true." 
   This enthusiastic follower of the Bureau of Standards makes the Bureau's 
modest estimate of 2,000,000,000 pounds look like the prognosis of a piker, by 
predicting a possible 40,000,000,000 crop.
   It is of interest to know that while the Corn Products Company was perfectly 
satisfied to leave its case with the Bureau of Standards, it was in deep 
sympathy with this measure. In the American Food Journal of January 1927, Page 
24, is an article entitled "Some Facts About Corn Sugar," by W. R. Cathcart of 
the Corn Products Refining Company, New York City. In this article Mr. Cathcart 
says:
     Of course the production of dextrose in commercial quantities did not 
  remain hidden under the bushel. Corn sugar soon figured conspicuously in the 
  public press, particularly in papers circulating in the corn growing, states, 
  and dextrose entered the political arena. It was clear that an increased 
  market for corn sugar meant an increased market for corn. The movement for the 
  relief of the corn grower was strong in the corn growing states and several 
  measures were introduced into Congress to meet the situation. Identical bills 
  were introduced by Senator Cummins and Congressman Cole to amend the Pure Food 
  Act so that a product could not be deemed misbranded or adulterated if it 
  contained corn sugar. Hearings before the House Committee developed opposition 
  on the part of the Department of Agriculture and Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, former 
  Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry. It was denied by Dr. Wiley that dextrose is 
  a wholesome product. * * * The Corn Products Company is a strong supporter of 
  the Pure Food Law and has no desire to change from this position. Speaking as 
  the representative of that industry, we intend to work in harmony with the 
  constituted authorities and obey the prescribed regulations. We believe in 
  hard common sense. We will continue to present arguments which we know to be 
  economically and scientifically sound. We are confident that eventually reason 
  and well established facts will overcome fanaticism and misstatement." 
   The persons who manufacture commercial glucose and commercial dextrose may 
not engage in adulterating foods therewith, but they do furnish the raw 
materials which adulterators use. The predecessor of the Corn Products Company 
manufactured "Flourine" which was used to adulterate wheat flour. To correct
this abuse it was necessary for Congress to pass the mixed flour act. This 
effectually stopped the use of "flourine" in wheat flour. It was the Corn 
Products Company that secured the change of label for one of its products, 
namely glucose, to "corn sugar," a clear violation of the food law. The natural 
sugar of corn, both in the stalk and in the ear, is sucrose and the law forbids 
calling any other object or product by the same name as one already established. 
The Bureau of Standards also referred to dextrose as the ideal filler. To a food 
adulterator the ideal filler is a cheaper substance which he can substitute for 
a dearer substance. Mr. Cathcart's statement that the Corn Products Company does 
not desire to misbrand or adulterate any product is hardly borne out by well 
known facts. Glucose and its near relations have been, are and will continue to 
be the champion adulterants.

FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE SO-CALLED CORN SUGAR BILL
   The committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce rejected the Senate bill 
which would open all foods indiscriminately for the use of dextrose without 
limit and without notice to the purchaser. The committee reported the bill in 
which the permission to use dextrose in this way was limited to frozen products, 
such as ice cream, and to bakers' products and meat products. This bill was 
approved by the House of Representatives but only with a very small majority. 
The opposition to it had grown to enormous proportions.
   . The bill, as it passed the House, was entered on the Senate calendar and it 
was understood that when it was called up the Senate would not insist upon its 
own measure, but would be content to adopt the measure as it passed the House. 
It was called up on the 2nd of July, 1926, just two or three days before both 
houses of Congress had voted to adjourn. Unless it could be acted upon on this 
occasion there would be no additional time in which it could be considered by 
the Senate.
   Senator Neely of West Virginia had become convinced that this was a vicious 
measure. He felt also that if it came to a vote the Senate, having already 
passed a more drastic bill, would probably concur in the bill as modified by the 
House. He therefore determined to defeat the measure by a lone filibuster. He 
secured the floor of the Senate and openly announced his determination to hold 
it until the hour at which the bill could be considered had passed. He held in 
his hand A copy of Good Housekeeping, and read from time to time paragraphs 
therefrom, showing the enormity of the crime intended. By that time, however, a 
large number of Senators had seen the error of their way and expressed their 
sympathy with Senator Neely who was trying to prevent a national crime.
   I addressed to Senator Neely after his successful filibuster the following 
letter:
     "The country owes you a vote of thanks for your heroic and successful 
  endeavor yesterday to block the approval of the so-called 'Corn-Sugar' Bill. * 
  * * 
     "As determined by Dr. C. A. Browne, the sweetening power of corn sugar is 
  only 50% of that of sucrose. It is much more insoluble. It leaves a very 
  disagreeable, bitter after-taste. To foist this sugar upon the American public 
  without knowledge is a crime of the deepest dye. I sincerely hope you will be 
  on your guard if any subsequent attempt is made to rush this legislation 
  through the Senate. 
   To this letter Senator Neely, on the 3rd of July, replied as follows:
     "I regret to confess there are no words in my vocabulary sufficiently 
  vigoious to convey to your mind my sincere appreciation of your more than 
  gracious letter of the second day of July. Frankly, whatever service I have 
  rendered the country's consumers of sweetened food products, I have been able 
  to perform solely by virtue of the information contained in your illuminating 
  article which recently appeared in Good Housekeeping. 
     "Sincerely hoping that the public may be thoroughly informed as to the 
  menace of the pending legislation on the subject of corn sugar before Congress 
  reconvenes in December, I am, with the best of wishes and the kindest of 
  regards, always, 
     Faithfully yours,
        (Signed) M. M. Neely." 
   On December 16th, 1926, I wrote Senator Neely as follows:
     "I am writing to ask if there is any immediate prospect of the so-called 
  Corn Sugar Bill being taken from the calendar and considered by the Senate? I 
  am preparing a document which I wish to submit to each member of the Senate 
  when it is likely that such consideration will take place. Your work last 
  summer in blocking this legislation was most notable and successful. I hope 
  you have not lost any of your enthusiasm in this case and will be on guard, 
  with the other Senators who stood by you on that occasion, to prevent any 
  mutilation of our food law." 
   To this letter Senator Neely on the same day replied as follows:
     'Replying to your very acceptable letter of the sixteenth day of December, 
  I regret to inform you that it is quite probable that the so-called 
  'Corn-Sugar Bill' will-be 'called up' at almost any hour of any day. 
     "Yesterday, a Senator from a western state inquired of me particularly as 
  to the possibility of my discontinuing my opposition to this measure. I told 
  him, and I now assure you, that I purpose to oppose the passage of the Corn 
  Sugar Bill to the limit of my capacity as long as I continue a member of the 
  Senate. 
     "In view of the article on the subject which appeared in the last number of 
  'Good Housekeeping,' I feel impelled to tell you that I have absolutely no 
  selfish interest of any kind or character in seeking to defeat this 
  legislation. I am prompted to the course I have adopted by a single motive, 
  and that motive is to preserve, protect, and defend the Pure Food Law and 
  thereby protect the health of the people of the country." 
   On December 17th, 1926, I wrote Senator Neely as follows:
     "I hope, even if Congress should pass this measure, that the President will 
  refuse to sign it. I feel certain President Coolidge could not complacently 
  approve of the perpetration of such a huge.fraud upon the American public. It 
  means fraud in every household in this broad land. I sincerely hope you may be 
  able again to block this vicious legislation, either by force of reason, or, 
  if necessary, by filibuster. 
   Under date of December 18, 1926, Senator Neely wrote me as follows:
     "Yesterday Senator Ashurst and I conferred at considerable length about the 
  subject matter of your communication, and rededicated ourselves to the task of 
  preventing the enactment of a measure (despite the good faith of its 
  proponents) which he and I believe thoroughly vicious." 
   There was organized, therefore, a number of Senators into a committee who 
promised to guard carefully the rights of the people by objecting to any 
unanimous consideration of taking the bill from its regular place on the 
Calendar. This was particularly true in the last days of, the session when night 
sessions were called to consider bills to which no objection was made. I wrote 
Senator Neely and asked him to organize a watch-meeting to see that at least one 
Senator was always present who would object to taking the so-called. Corn Sugar 
Bill from its place on the. calendar, by unanimous consent. In this way all 
legislation of this kind was blocked until the 69th Congress expired at noon on 
the 4th day of March,1927.
   All pending bills are now dead. If the 70th Congress undertakes to enact a 
measure of this kind, a powerfully organized minority at least, will be ready to 
interpose all required parliamentary obstacles to such legislation. It is quite 
certain, therefore, that any other bill of a similar character would have a very 
rugged future before it, and it is almost morally certain that no such 
legislation can now be enacted.
ALWAYS THE PROBLEM OF AGRICULTURE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
     "There shall be at the seat of Government a Department of Agriculture, the 
  general design and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among 
  the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with 
  agriculture, in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to 
  procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and 
  plants"--Act May 15,1862. 
   From the very beginning of the investigations of sugar they were given by 
Congress to the Bureau of Chemistry, Department of Agriculture. Dr. MacMurtrie 
in the early 70's, first as an assistant and then as Chief of the Bureau, worked 
upon these problems and particularly carried on investigations looking to the 
establishment of the beet sugar industry. His successor, Dr. Collier, my 
immediate predecessor, made extensive investigations as to the possibility of 
using sorghum as the principal source of sugar.
   When I was put in charge of the chemical work in 1883 it was with the 
distinct understanding that the sorghum investigations would be completed. To 
that end, in collaboration with A. A. Denton, the first study of the possibility 
of increasing the content of sugar and the percentage of purity in the sorghum 
plant was undertaken and continued for eight years. Varieties of sorghum were 
developed showing an average content of 4% increase in sugar. All of these 
investigations have been published in numerous bulletins of the Bureau of 
Chemistry. My successor, Dr. Alsberg, continued these investigations. His 
successor, Dr. C. A. Browne, has kept the work up. Thus from 1870 to 1927, a 
period of 57 years, Congress has continuously provided the funds for carrying on 
these investigations in the Bureau of Chemistry.
   The appropriation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1926, provided funds:
     "To investigate the chemical composition of sugar and starch-producing 
  plants in the United States and their possessions. 
   For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1928, the appropriation bill for the 
Department of Agriculture contains the following authorization:
     "For the investigation and development of methods for the manufacture of 
  table syrup and sugar by utilization of new agricultural sources." 
   If this means anything, it means that levulose is one of the new sources of 
sugar production, which Congress in its regular session committed to the new 
Bureau of Chemistry and Soils. Does not then this problem by right of possession 
and by a continued recognition by Congress for 57 years entitle the Bureau of 
Chemistry to carry on all investigations of this kind? By right of possession, 
as well as by ethical considerations. that rule ought not to be transgressed.
   A careful survey of the original act establishing the Bureau of Standards 
fails even to give a hint that any investigations of this kind should be 
assigned to any other department than that of agriculture. The investigations 
which led to the establishment of the beet sugar industry were given exclusively 
to the Department of Agriculture, as the original act provided. There is one 
point, however, in which perhaps it is wise to permit the investigations of 
levulose through another department. The Bureau of Standards has proclaimed that 
when levulose under its initiative is made as cheaply, as dextrose, then there 
is no longer any reason for the existence of either the beet sugar or the cane 
sugar industries. Of course Congress never intended that the Department of 
Agriculture should be used for the destruction of established agricultural 
industries. So, naturally, investigations which would destroy these industries 
would not be germane to the fundamental idea around which the Department of 
Agriculture has been built. It does seem a little bit strange that Congress 
which is now bending all its energies to do something for the relief of the 
farmer should give to the Bureau of Standards a large sum of money for the 
purpose of endeavoring to destroy some of our most profitable agricultural 
industries.

DEVELOPMENT OF DEXTROSE AND LEVULOSE INDUSTRIES
   Speaking before the committee in favor of a defieiency appropriation for the 
development of the levulose industries, the Director of the Bureau of Standards 
gave glowing accounts of what could be done with the Jerusalem artichoke. In 
answer to a question of the chairman as to the difficulty of gathering the wild 
artichoke economically, it was stated that it would be cultivated, and he 
illustrated the improvement in the content of sugar, that is levulose, in the 
artichoke from what had been done in breeding beets. He called attention to the 
fact that the percentage of sugar in the wild beet had been, by careful 
breeding, more than doubled.
   The chairman asked Dr. Burgess (page 279 of the hearings),
     "Is any of this sugar which you have shown it is possible to produce used 
  anywhere?" 
     DR. BURGESS: "Not yet. It has only been actually produced in sugar form in 
  our laboratory. The trick was to get it out of water solution." 
   The director enlarged on the problems they were about to undertake (page 288 
of the hearings.)
     "The production of sugar is one of the world's largest industries. A new 
  industry which threatens to modify this production is a thing of first 
  importance to mankind. The Bureau of Standards is considering not merely the 
  question of modification, but the possibility to a great extent of replacement 
  of ordinary sugar (sucrose) by levalose. 
   It is no wonder, therefore, that the $50,000 asked for were given to the 
Bureau of Standards, which is a branch of the Department of Commerce, and not to 
the Department of Agriculture, which is immensely interested in the maintenance 
of both the cane and the sugar beet industries. The purpose of the Bureau of 
Standards is to abolish both of these industries.
   There are many serious difficulties in the way of developing an economical 
levulose industry. It is stated by the Bureau of Standards that the present 
price of levulose is approximately $100 a pound. They proposed to make it as 
cheaply as they have been able to manufacture dextrose. The director promised 
the committee that the experimental work would be finished in.1927. This time 
has come and gone but no publication of levulose at 5 or 2 cents. a pound has 
yet been issued. The wisdom of the proverb, as it is read in Boston to the 
effect that it is undesirable to enumerate the number of progeny arising from 
the incubation of the ova of gallinaceous birds until the process is entirely 
completed, is a matter which the Bureau of Standards should take under careful 
consideration. It is quite evident that if this policy of the Standards Bureau 
be carried out any further the original intent of Congress will be entirely 
lost, sight of. Evidently there is nothing going on in this world which, 
following out the plan already adopted, may not come within the limits of 
investigation of this all embracing Bureau. Meanwhile, the work which it was 
intended to do must of necessity be neglected in order to gather in all these 
miscellaneous activities which plainly are foreign to the purpose of the 
original act. An unbiased study of these activities magnifies to colossal 
proportions the dangers which Professor Rowland pointed out.

NO DELAY IN STARTING WHAT ROWLAND FEARED
   From the first the Bureau of Standards immediately began a system of 
accretion from all sources, which it has practiced ever since. The following 
year, 1903, it was transferred to the Depaxtment of Commerce. It took over at 
once the supervision of polarizing imported sugars, which for many years had 
been a function of the Bureau of Chemistry. This was its first offense of 
scientific ethics, the cardinal canon of which is, "Don't butt into any problem 
already in charge of some one else. This was followed by the invasion of fields 
fully occupied by the Bureau of Chemistry in studies of leather, paper, farm. 
wastes, and other strictly agricultural problems. This was followed by occupying 
the field of specifications for civil and military supplies, establishing new 
definitions for Castile soaps, and finally an assault on the Food and Drugs Act.

TRADE PRACTICES
   The encroachments of trade practices on the enforcement of the Food Law will 
be shown in the last chapter.
   I refer solely to the illegal and unethical practices. They are also likely 
to be dominant in the activities of the Bureau of Standards in the case of 
scientific associates. It is even possible that activities of the Food and Drugs 
Act, or the investigations of the Federal Trade Commission may be invoked to 
restrict the scientific investigations of the Bureau of Standards. One of the 
dangers which attend the exploitation of trade practices is illustrated by the 
attitude of the Bureau of Standards in regard to Castile soap. The methods 
employed by the manufacturers of so-called Castile soaps are thoroughly outlined 
in Circular No. 62 of the Bureau of Standards devoted to this subject. The trade 
practices are set out in detail. Brands of Castile soap are made which are 
entirely foreign to the original idea universally accepted of this article. In 
the data below it will be noticed that the principal chemist who has been 
consulted in this matter, and whose suggestions have appaxently been adopted, is 
the chemist of a firm making so-called Castile soaps of different kinds without 
any olive oil whatever entering into their composition.
   The Food and Drugs Act was passed for the purpose of correcting trade 
practices. Now the efforts of the Bureau of Standards seem to be directed toward 
establishing them as ethical processes. This, of course, means great danger to 
the consuming public. A great government organization ought not to aid 
fraudulent trade practices and try to foist them upon the public, even by 
mentioning them approvingly.
     " Castile Soap was originally made from low-grade olive oils. The name now 
  represents a type of soap, the term 'castile' being applied to a soap intended 
  for toilet or household use, sold usually in large, unwrapped, unperfumed 
  bars, which are cut up when sold or when used. It is often drawn directly from 
  the kettle without 'crutching,' but is sometimes crutched a little or even 
  enough to make it float and is sometimes milled. It is also sold. in small 
  bars both wrapped and unwrapped. The type is not one easily defined, so now 
  when made from olive oil it is invariably sold as olive-oil castile. There are 
  soaps made entirely from cocoanut, oil which are sold as cocoanut castiles or 
  hardwater castiles. Many other castiles are made from a mixture of cocoanut 
  oil and tallow." (Dept. of Commerce--Circular of the Bureau of Standards, No. 
  62--SOAP--p. 9, Jan. 24, 1923. 
   NOTE: Previous Edition of Standard Circular No. 62 (Second Edition June 17, 
1919, p. 7) reads as follows:
     'Castile soap, otherwise known as Marseilles or Venetian soap, is prepared 
  from low-grade olive oil. 
   A letter from Director of the Bureau of Standards, dated September 22, 1924, 
explains the change in language note above:
     "As stated in our letter of Sept ember 9, the statements made in paragraph 
  (c) page 9, of the third edition of our circular No. 62 were intended to give 
  information as to conditions as they are at the present time rather than as to 
  what they should be. 
     "The Bureau has not issued a specification or set up a standard for Castile 
  Soap, nor has the bureau intentionally, in a passive way or otherwise, injured 
  any existing standard or trade practice regarding this commodity. Our sole aim 
  in circular 62 was to state the facts as we found them." * * * (Signed F. C. 
  Brown, Acting Director; George K. Burgess, Director.) 
   A further explanation by Dr. Burgess, Director, in letter to T. R. Lockwood, 
March 27, 1926, is as follows:
     " The statements were approved by the Soap Committee of the Soap Section of 
  the American Specialty Manufacturers Association, as indicated by the 
  following quotation from Circular No. 62 (page 4): 
     'The Bureau has received much valuable assistance in the preparation of 
  this circular from the Soap Committee .of the Soap Section of the American 
  Specialty Manufacturers Association, and especially Messrs. A. Campbell and C. 
  P. Long, chairman and secretary of the soap and soap products committee of the 
  American Chemical Society, for which it wishes to express its grateful 
  appreciation. 
   Further explained by Dr. Percy H. Walker, U. S. !Bureau of Standards, in his 
testimony at Trade Practice Submittal at the office of Federal Trade Commission, 
March 30, 1926 (Transcript, Page 31).
     "The gentleman sitting near me has asked me to read from a circular of the 
  Bureau of Standards. I may preface this by saying that THIS IS A PIECE OF 
  INFORMATION FOR WHICH WE ARE INDEBTED TO THE SOAP TRADE. I SUBMIT IT AS A 
  PIECE OF INFORMATION. IT IS AS FOLLOWS:" (Then follows the quotation from 
  Circular No. 62, 1923, Ed. p. 9, quoted above.) 
   C. P. Long, referred to as a source of information for Bureau of Standards 
Circular No. 62, is, or was, Chemical director of the Globe Soap Company, 
Cincinnati, which manufactured or manufactures four brands of "Castile" referred 
to as "Castile in combination," namely, GLOBE CASTILE, GLOBE LION CASTILE, GLOBE 
WHITE CASTILE, and LION CASTILE.
   The statement above that true Castile is "invariably sold as olive-oil 
Castile" is a gross error. This statement is undoubtedly due to the regrettable 
mistake of the revisers of the tenth decennial pharmacopoeia, for the first time 
in its history of defining Castile soap as olive oil Castile. This gives no 
warrant for calling other soaps, not made wholly from olive oil, Castile.

DUPLICATION OF WORK OF BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY
BY THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS
   The work of the Bureau of Chemistry on tanning materials, hides, tanning, and 
leather which is conducted under the appropriations for agricultural 
investigations, has been and is being duplicated in part by the Bureau of 
Standards of the Department of Commerce. Work along those lines has been done in 
the Department of Agriculture almost since its organization in 1862, and was 
specifically provided for in 1904, 23 years ago. Investigations on leather, 
according to the annual reports of the Bureau of Standards, were inaugurated as 
a new line of work in that Bureau in 1917, but 12 years ago. The attention of 
the Bureau of Standards has been called to this duplication which several times 
has been the subject of conference between the two Bureaus. Nevertheless the 
more recent annual reports of the Bureau of Standards continue to outline a 
program on leather which involves a striking and extensive duplication of lines 
of work plainly within the scope of the following long established and published 
projects of the Bureau of Chemistry:
     Investigation of the Wearing Quality of Sole leather. 
     Investigation of the Composition of Leather and Tanning and Finishing 
  Materials. 
     Deterioration of Upper, Bookbinding and Other Light Leathers. 
     Tanning Sole and Harness Leather on a Small Scale. 
   These projects were known to the Bureau of Standards not alone through annual 
reports, program of work, and other publications, but also through the fact that 
before the Bureau of Standards had organized and equipped its laboratories the 
courtesy of the laboratory of the Bureau of Chemistry was extended to them and 
its force was temporarily housed in the laboratories devoted to the leather, 
tanning and related work of the Bureau of Chemistry. Nevertheless, the Bureau of 
Standards later entered these fields despite this knowledge and ignored the 
usual customs of scientific bureaus to referring inquiries and work within the 
province of other bureaus to those bureaus. In other words, the Bureau of 
Standards has, without discussing the subject with the Bureau of Chemistry, 
duplicated and started to build up on this work, knowing that it was already 
organized and had been in operation for some time in the Department of 
Agriculture.
   Moreover, with the view to eliminate the duplications which had become 
intolerable and indefensible, the Bureau of Chemistry, in July, 1914, 
transferred to the Bureau of Standards and itself discontinued the work it had 
been doing for many years, and before the existence of the Bureau of Standards, 
on paints, varnishes, inks, oil, and miscellaneous supplies for the Government 
departments with the distinct verbal understanding between Dr. Alsberg, then 
Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, and Dr. Stratton that work in certain fields, 
among them leather and tanning, should remain in the Bureau of Chemistry.
   Authority for the Work. Authority for the work on tanning materials, hides, 
tanning and leather, which the Department of Agriculture has been doing, is 
contained:
     (a) In the organic act creating the Department of Agriculture, which act 
  defines its duties as "to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the 
  United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the 
  most general and comprehensive sense of that word, 
     (b) In subsequent annual appropriations made for work on these and related 
  subjects after statements by the several bureau chiefs before Congressional 
  committees, describing the work being done; 
     (c) In a special order, by the Secretary of Agriculture, on July 1, 1904, 
  as follows: 
     "There is hereby established in the Bureau of Chemistry a laboratory to be 
  known as the Leather and Paper Laboratory to which are to be committed the 
  analyses and investigations relating to the following subjects: 
     "Investigations of tannins and tanning materials and their effects upon the 
  strength and properties of leather with a view to promoting the agricultural 
  industries relating to the production of tannins and tanning materials and 
  leather of a high quality. 
     "All technical problems of a chemical nature relating to the production of 
  tannins and tanning products and of leathers. 
     "All technical problems of a chemical nature relating to the production of 
  leather, * * *." 
           (Signed) James Wilson, Secretary. 
   The substance of this order has been made public in Bureau of Chemistry 
Circular No. 14, 1904, on " The Organization of the Bureau of Chemistry."
   History of the Work. Work on tanning materials, hides, tanning and leather, 
began in the Deparment of Agriculture in the early days of its existence, and 
has been described in the various annual reports as far back as 1872. The nature 
and results of this work were laid before Congress not only in these annual 
reports but in the hearings before the appropriation committees. This work had 
progressed so that by 1900, that is before the establishment of the Bureau of 
Standards, it was definitely organized and a cooperative basis between the then 
Divisions of Forestry and of Chemistry. The work on all these lines has 
continued uninterruptedly. Since the specific organization of this work the 
Bureau of Chemistry has developed an experienced and informed personnel which 
has done much valuable work in the conservation and development of raw 
materials; in the development and improvement of methods of examination to 
determine quality: on the care and serviceability of leather; and in an advisory 
capacity to the Government, the public and the industry, the results being 
published from time to time either as Government bulletins or in scientific 
journals until the publications now number in all more than eighty-five.
   It has been the claim of the Bureau of Standards that all standardization 
work and even all scientific work of the Federal Government should be done 
there. Obviously this Teutonic, imperialistic viewpoint can not be admitted by 
any of the Federal Departments, first because it is not fair, economical or 
efficient, and second, because such has never been the intent nor practice in 
government work. It would seem clear that from any reasonable point of view each 
Department should, so far as feasible, standardize those materials which fall 
within its functions, and this has been the practice until the Bureau of 
Standards has constantly encroached upon the fields of other bureaus of the 
several departments.
   This ruthless and expensive duplication of fields of work has actually, as is 
to be expected, resulted in needless duplication on specific problems, as 
strikingly shown by the duplication of the work done by the Bureau of Chemistry 
on the wearing quality of shoe leather, published as Department Bulletin 1168 in 
1923, which work was duplicated even to the conclusions and published by the 
Bureau of Standards in 1925 as Technological Paper 286, "Comparative Durability 
of Vegetable and Chrome Sole Leathers."
   The last and most astonishing encroachment of the Bureau of Standards on the 
functions of the Department of Agriculture is found in the appropriation to 
investigate agricultural wastes. These studies heretofore have been almost 
continuously conducted by the Bureau of Chemistry. It will result in useless 
repetition of many studies in the past thirty years looking to utilization of 
cornstalks, salvaged fruits and watermelons, waste of canning factories, 
unmerchantable marketable products, and various other agricultural wastes. These 
may not rise to the dignity of crimes but they afford striking instances of bad 
ethics.

RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
   The most objectional feature of the activities of the Bureau of Standards, 
aside from the attempt to mutilate the Food Law, is seen in employment of 
research assistants. This activity seems to fly directly in the face of the 
statements of President Coolidge, at the beginning of this chapter.
   In Circular No. 296, Bureau of Standards, Page 3, is the following statement:
     "Devices developed during the research are for the free use of the 
  industry, the government, and the public and will not be patented unless the 
  patents are dedicated free to such use." 
   Immediately following this statement is another to this effect:
     "The work of a research associate is one of peculiar trust, often 
  confidential, on problems of concern to an entire industry." 
   It is thus seen that much of the research work done may be of this 
confidential character and if so would not be published in any manner to, 
prejudice the interest of the industry concerned. While associate scientists 
conform to government regulations in regard to conduct, hours of work and leave 
of absence, they are paid by the industries interested in their work. I can find 
no statement in Bulletin 296 as to the total amount of compensation of these 
workers. Correspondence with the industries is sent free of postage, and all 
facilities of every description for the work are provided by government 
appropriation. No estimates of the total value of these contributions by the 
government are given. The total number of research associates in 1926 is given 
at 62. On page 8 the amounts saved by the researches of the Bureau in many 
instances are stated. From study of brakelining methods fifteen million dollars, 
from tire studies forty million dollars, and from motor-fuel investigations one 
hundred million dollars are saved annually. With such savings as these the 
pitifully meager $2,000,000 appropriation granted to the Bureau of Standards 
proves Uncle Sam a. piratical piker.
   The limit of activities seems. to have been reached in the following case 
copied from the Washington Star, April 4, 1927. It is an illustration of one of 
the experiments of the Bureau of Standards with a machine intended to measure 
the shock absorbed by the driver of an automobile. The description is as 
follows:
     "To find out how much shock the driver of an automobile absorbs through the 
  bumping and rolling of his car on the road is the purpose of this delicate 
  measuring device designed by the Bureau of Standards. The information will be 
  given to manufacturers for its bearing on driving efficiency. 
   The following pertinent suggestions find an appropriate place here:
   From "YOUR MONEY'S WORTH," by Stuart Chase and F. J. Schlink, published by 
The Macmillan Company, comments on the Bureau of Standards.
  BUREAU OF STANDARDS 
     The Bureau of Standards was set up by legislative enactment in 1901. It was 
  placed under the control of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor (now 
  Commerce), but has always functioned with a considerable degree of 
  independence. Its director is appointed by the President, upon nomination by 
  the Secretary of Commerce; its staff is under civil service regulations and 
  protected to an almost unique degree from political pressure. 
     Its original duties were simple--the erection of suitable scientific 
  standards for weights and measures. Page 198. 
     Gradually the Bureau began to take on other duties. Its scientific staff 
  provided a nucleus for further investigations on the Government's behalf, (and 
  later on behalf of industry at large.) On account of its excellent equipment 
  and expert staff, other departments got into the habit of referring dubious 
  materials and devices to it for analysis and test. Page 198. 
     Which brings us to ask a blunt and necessary question. Why does a service 
  run by taxpayers' money refuse information covering competitive products--to 
  that same taxpayer? The answer is obvious but not altogether convincing. It is 
  argued that the general release of test results covering competitive products 
  by the name of maker will promote commercial injustice. Page 203. 
     In the long run would not the great savings which the Government achieves 
  through the Bureau's work be multiplied a hundred fold if all could take 
  advantage of its findings-both ultimate consumer, manufacturer and dealer? 
  Page 204. 
     Furthermore there is no reason why the citizens who pay for the Bureau and 
  the other Government laboratories should not have the right to initiate a 
  series of tests when the field is important and the known information either 
  inadequate or non-existent. Manufacturers and promoters can now secure all the 
  results of competitive tests (maker's names deleted); and they have initiated 
  thousands of new tests which the Bureau has conducted often without cost to 
  themselves. Has not the ultimate consumer an equal right? Page 204. 
     The Bureau of Standards meanwhile has ruled that proper coöperation of the 
  federal authorities with state and other governmental bodies, justifies the 
  release to the latter of technical information. It is willing to approve or 
  condemn commercial products by name in a table giving comparative quality or 
  performance. Local governments can thus secure what the taxpayer can not. If 
  any state or city government wishes to know what is the best typewriter ribbon 
  or lubricating oil to buy, its officers need only write the Bureau to learn 
  the detailed results of tests that have been made upon the product before its 
  acceptance or rejection for Government purchase under specification. If the 
  article has not already been tested by the Bureau, it is likely that the 
  needed analysis can be arranged for without charge. Page 216. 
     It is clear from the foregoing that a real start in the testing technique 
  has been made in American Government--federal, state and municipal. There is 
  the beginning of solid ground Under our feet. It is equally clear that an 
  .enormous amount remains to be done, both in the direction of coördinating and 
  making available the results of present activities, and in the development of 
  new activities. Uniform state laws and city ordinances would seem to be 
  essential next steps. Another is the release to taxpayers of the invaluable 
  information of the Bureau of Standards, and of the other federal, state and 
  municipal bureaus. Page 217. 
   During 1926 sixty-two associates representing various industries were 
stationed at the Bureau of Standards. The Portland Cement Association maintains 
a corps of eight chemists and physicists at the Bureau. The Natural Terra Cotta 
Society has two, the National Dyers and Cleaners has three, the Society of 
Automotive Engineers four. Circular, No. 296, describes in part the gigantic 
association of the Bureau with big business. Such intimate union as this justly 
merits the condemnation which President Coolidge has pronounced against 
collaboration of government with business.

AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLABORATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF BIG BUSINESS WITH THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS
   In a circular of the Bureau of Standards, No. 296, which describes the 
activities of the research associates of that Bureau, on page 1 is given the 
authority for such collaboration.
   On April 12, 1892, Congress passed a joint resolution for the promotion of 
learning in the City of Washington, for the express pupose of opening Government 
scientific exhibits and collections to students of higher education. The joint 
resolution provided as follows:
     "Whereas, large collections illustrative of the various arts and sciences 
  and facilitating literary and scientific research have been accumulated by the 
  action of Congress through a series of years at the National Capital; and 
     "Whereas it was the original purpose of the Government thereby to promote 
  research and the diffusion of knowledge, and is now the settled policy and 
  present practice of those charged with the care of these collections specially 
  to encourage students who devote their time to the investigation and study of 
  any branch of knowledge by allowing to them all proper use thereof; and 
     "Whereas it is represented that the enumeration of these facilities and the 
  formal statement of this policy win encourage the establishment and endowment 
  of institutions of learning at the seat of Government, and promote the work of 
  education by attracting students to avail themselves of the advantages 
  aforesaid under the direction of competent instructors; Therefore, 
     "Resolved, That the facilities for research and illustration in the 
  following and any other governmen al collections now existing or hereafter to 
  be established in the city of Washington for the promotion of knowledge shall 
  be accessible, under such rules and restrictions as the officers in charge of 
  each collection may prescribe, subject to such authority as is now or may 
  hereafter be permitted by law, to the scientific investigators and to students 
  of any institation of higher education now incorporated or hereafter to be 
  incorporated under the laws of Congress or of the District of Columbia, to 
  wit: 1. Of the Library of Congress. 2. Of the National Museum. 3. Of the 
  Patent Office. 4. Of the Bureau of Education. 5. Of the Bureau of Ethnology. 
  6. Of the Army Medical Museum. 7. Of the Department of Agriculture. 8. Of the 
  Fish Commission. 9. Of the Botanic Gardens. 10. Of the Coast and Geodetic 
  Survey. 11. Of the Geological Survey. 12. Of the Naval Observatory. (Approved, 
  April 12, 1892.) " 
   It will be observed that this joint resolution was passed about ten years 
before the Bureau of Standards was established. In 1901 another authority is 
quoted. It is entitled:

GOVERNMENT TO PROMOTE RESEARCH
AND ENCOURAGE STUDENTS
   This is found in a Deficiency Appropriation Bill which became a law on March 
3, 1901. The provisions of this bill are as follows:
     "That facilities for study and research in the Government departments, the 
  Library of Congress, the National Museum, the Zoological Park, the Bureau of 
  Ethnology, the Fish Commission, the Botanic Gardens, and similar institutions 
  hereafter established shall be afforded to scientific investigators and to 
  duly qualified individuals, students, and graduates of institutions of 
  learning in the several States and Territories, as well as in the District of 
  Columbia, under such rules and restrictions as the heads of the departments 
  and bureaus mentioned may prescribe." 
   This legislation also was enacted before the Bureau of Standards was 
established. It provided facilities for study and research along the line of the 
joint resolution above mentioned. There is no indication of any collaboration 
with big business of any kind but only with students who were seeking 
opportunity for education and research.
   On Page, 20 of Circular No. 296 it is stated, under the caption, 'Actions by 
Congress":
     "The full text of the two actions by which Congress opened the way for the 
  admission of qualified individuals to the use of the research facilities of 
  the National Bureau of Standards is given below." 
   It seems rather strange that this statement should be made by reason of the 
fact that there was no National Bureau of Standards in existence at the time of 
either of these Congressional authorizations. It is plain that only students of 
universities and higher institutions of learning were included in this 
authorization.
   That it should be the basis of linking up Government activities with 
corporations who desire research for their own individual benefits or that such 
activities as scientific associates could by any means be included in either one 
of these enactments is not even to be inferred. It is a well known principle of 
nearly every kind of business that research is absolutely necessary to keep pace 
with the progress of science. A business that does not conduct research is 
likely to go upon the rocks. Those corporations which have the most extensive 
research laboratories are those that are making the most progress and securing 
the best results from their activities. In most instances these great 
corporations conduct their own researches. In some instances they appeal to such 
institutions as the Mellon Institute of the University of Pittsburgh, or to such 
scientific institutions as the A. D. Little Corporation of Cambridge, Mass. In 
all cases where new processes are devised and new products perfected, the 
corporations protect themselves by letters patent. In the Mellon Institute, 
according to, the official report (1925) it is stated that about 300 patents on 
industrial procsses have been the result of their investigations. When we turn 
to the activities in the Bureau of Chemistry in which new discoveries are 
patented for common benefit, we find that 81 patents have been taken out.
   The number of investigators and importance of the investigations at the 
Bureau of Standards almost equals those of the Mellon Institute of the 
University of Pittsburgh.
     "At the close of the Institute's fiscal year on February 28, 1927, as shown 
  in the accompanying chart, fifty-eight industrial fellowships were operating, 
  employing one hundred and two research chemists and engineers. The sum of 
  $598,493 was paid during the year in support of research in the Institute by 
  the fellowship donors--an increase of $70,942 over the payments of the 
  preceding year. The total amount of money appropriated by companies and 
  associations to the Institute, for the sixteen years ended February 28, 1927, 
  was $4,318,397, all of which was disbursed in sustaining fellowship research. 
     "The extent and variety of the Institute's scientific investigations on 
  behalf of industry are shown in the appended list of the industrial 
  fellowships in operation during the entire fiscal year, February 28, 1926, to 
  February 28, 1927. There were sixty-seven fellowships--twenty-two multiple 
  fellowships and forty-five individual fellowships--on which 124. scientists 
  and engineers were occupied in research. 
   The Mellon Institute and the A. D. Little Corporation of Cambridge, Mass., 
are doing the same kind of work. as that conducted by the Bureau of standards 
and are in direct competition therewith. This is unfair competition.
   Apparently all of the expenses of the Scientific Associates in the Bureau of 
Standards and in addition their postage are paid by the tax-payers of the United 
States.
   No statement is made of the amounts paid by the industries to the sixty-two 
associates employed in the Bureau of Standards in 1926, nor of the number of 
experts belonging to the Bureau or cooperating with them. If the industries paid 
the representatives $2,500 a year, their contribution amounted to $155,050 per 
annum.
SUMMARY
   While I have called attention to only a very few of the activities of the 
Bureau of Standards, and chiefly those that belong by all right and custom to 
the Department of Agriculture, at least I have shown the ground work of the 
indictment against this Bureau. It has attempted to repeal some of the most 
important features of the Food and Drugs Act. It has claimed as its own the 
inventions of others. It has broken deeply into the activities already started 
by the Bureau of Chemistry and some of the other Bureaus of the Department of 
Agriculture, violating the fundamental principle of ethical standards. The 
Bureau of Standards should violate no standards. It has undertaken collaboration 
with great industries in such a way that the extent of its activities have not 
been disclosed, nor do we know, from any reports that have come to my notice, 
just how great a contribution is made by these industries in the way of paying 
the salaries of the scientific associates. In this respect it is in competition 
with the Mellon Institute and other organizations of a similar character 
specifically intended to conduct this research work in an open and proper 
manner. The Mellon Institute has given information of the amount contributed by 
those industries. I have not been able to discover any such information in the 
reports of the Bureau of Standards.
   No kind of investigation seems to be foreign to the Bureau of Standards. It 
has departed so widely from its fundamental conception as to be no longer 
recognized chiefly for the purpose for which it was specifically designed, 
namely, the determination and preservation of all standards of measures of all 
deseriptions for all legal and technical purposes. Either the original act 
establishing the department of Agriculture should be repealed, or any further 
incursions of the Bureau of Standards into the domain of Agriculture "in the 
most general and comprehensive sense of that word," should cease.

Neither the author nor the webmaster has authorized the use of their names or the use of any material contained within in connection with the sale, promotion or advertising of any product or apparatus. Single-copy reproduction for individual, non-commercial use is permitted providing no alterations of content are made, and credit is given.