28 



AD-X2 were run for FTC by some other laboratory than NBS. The 

 Commission, through Chairman James M. Mead, replied in part: 



The Commission has reviewed this matter very carefully and has decided to 

 have new and additional tests made with respect to the product by the National 

 Bureau of Standards. It is being requested * * * that the tests conform, insofar 

 as is possible, to the manufacturer's directions for use of the product * * * . 



The Bureau of Standards, of course, has no biased interest in the tests which 

 it runs, and the Commission has always found the Bureau most fair in its position 

 on other matters in the past.*^ 



Although the issue of AD-X2 remained on the FTC docket through- 

 out the period of intense congressional concern it did not become active 

 until 1954. Nevertheless, developments in other areas of the case were 

 presimiably of interest to FTC, and the ultimate disposition of the 

 FTC complaint was undoubtedly of considerable interest to Rit'"lne 

 and his associates and supporters. In this sense, the suspended case 

 was a source of pressure on Pioneers, Inc. 



The Post Office Department and AD-X2 



Apparently, a complaint was lodged with the Post Office Depart- 

 ment some time before September 6, 1951, when the Ciiief Post Office 

 Inspector asked NBS to advise him if the additive x\D-X2, ''* * * 

 when used as directed and applied to mechanically sound batteries, 

 will prevent sulfation and exteiul the life expectancy of mechanically 

 sound batteries; whether it will restore junked batteries to normal 

 use; and whether it will extend the life of batteries 2^2 times tlieir 

 normal Hfe." *^ According to Dr. Astin's prepared statement to the 

 Small Business Committee — 



The Bureau submitted a report in December 1951 * * * based on results of 

 tests obtained on the sample submitted by the Oakland Better Business Bureau. 

 Following receipt of this report, the Post Office Department also requested addi- 

 tional tests on samples submitted by them. Accordingly, the National Bureau 

 of Standards initiated still another series of tests of AI)-X2.5° 



Apparently, this first NBS report to the Post Office Department- 

 like the first report to FTC — was unsatisfactory because the material 

 tested had come to the Government by an inappro])riate route (the 

 Oakland Better Bushiess Bureau). Tlie record is not clear as to when 

 and what further tests were performed. ConjecturaUy, the AD-X2 

 material supplied by the Post Office Department and the material 

 supplied by FTC were both analyzed ui detail. (Dr. Astin mentioned 

 the variation, from time to time, in the analysis of the additive. )^^ 

 Apparently, also, the first NBS test for the Post Office was rim in the 

 early days of 1952, almost simultaneously with the first test for FTC. 

 For the Post Office, 14 three-cell batteries were used. At any rate, the 

 Post Office Department notified Ritchie, March 2, 1952, that he was 

 to appear at a hearing in Washuigton on April 26 to answer charges 

 that he was "conducting an mdawful enterprise through the mails." 

 After a series of postponements, the hearing was eventually held 

 October 13-14.^2 



' «s Foregoing statoment based on text and internal evidence in FTC letter, appearing in Hearings, op. cit., 

 p. 122. 



" Report of Committee on Battery Additives, o;). cit., p. U. 



5'' Hearings, op. cit., p. 221. 



«i Ibid., pp. 221-222. 



52 Account taken from Lawrence. Op.- cit., pp. 11-12, 14-16. Post Ofnce Solicitor's docket No. 2., ( p. cit., 

 notes for the October hearing: "No one appeared for respondent at the hearing these dates." 



