32 



of the hearings had been repeatedly brought to the attention of in- 

 dividual members, and of the committee staff. For example, referring 

 to a "letterwriting campaign to the Congress that started in the sum- 

 mer of 1951 * * *," Senator Sparkman observed: 



By the way, let me say this: I was chairman of the committee when this matter 

 came up. I have no apology to offer for our committee's having vmdertaken it. 

 I think we wonld have been neglectful of our duty if we had not. 



You point out that some 28 Senators had interested themselves in it. Those 

 same Senators were calling upon a committee that had been set up in the Senate 

 for the purpose of protecting the interests of the small businessman, to intercede 

 in behalf of this small business. We handled it as a routine matter. We have literally 

 hmadreds of these cases throughout the j^ear, and it was handled by the staff as a 

 routine matter.^^ 



A second wave of letterwriting to the Congress on behalf of AD-X2 

 occurred in February 1952. Again, according to Senator Sparkman — 



Apparently these letters started coming to the Senators about February. The 

 letter that I received originally was February 19, 1952. That letter was referred 

 to the committee staff. Copies of that letter have been sent also to other members 

 of the committee. 



Action in response to this letter, by the committee staff, was to 

 request from the Director of NBS available information on the 

 additive AD-X2.«9 



Shortly after March 2, 1952, when the Post Office Department 

 summoned Ritchie to appear in Washington to answer mail fraud 

 charges, he went in ])erson to the Small Business Committees of the 

 House and Senate to appeal for their help. The House committee 

 wrote NBS, March 11, asking that further tests be made of AD-X2. 

 In the Senate committee, a more comprehensive response resulted. 

 The Senate committee staff also asked NBS to make further tests. 

 However, Blake O'Connor, committee staff member, became active 

 in pursuing the truth of the controversy as a test case of justice to 

 small business confronted by big business and big government.™ 



When the extensive set of NBS tests of AD-X2^ iu June 1952 had 

 been completed, the Senate Small Business Committee staff pressed 

 for an inclication of results. Dr. Astin, in his testimony to the com- 

 mittee, noted that "Mr. O'Connor of your committee had requested 

 that we make every effort to exi)edite the report * * *." "^ When 

 the report was transmitted to the committee, July 11, O'Connor 

 apparently regarded it as unsatisfactor3^"^ Dr. Astin said that 

 O'Connor had asked him, later in the summer, "* * * if ^ve would 

 be willing to run still another test." "^ (Dr. Astin had replied that 

 he would be willmg to do so, if the test were designed to establish 

 some new pertinent factor, and if Ritchie would provide the batteries.) 



At any rate, the staff of the Senate Small Busmess Committee 

 persisted in the matter. Technical support was provided by Dr. 

 Keith Laidler, associate professor of chemistry at Catholic University, 



68 Ibid., pp. 258, 234. 



68 Ibid., pp. 286-287. 



'0 According to Lawrence, op. cit., p. 12, the opposition of battery manufacturers to tlie promotion and sale 

 of AD-X2 served as confinnation that it liad merit, insofar as the committee stalT was concerned. O'Connor — 

 says Lawrence— "saw in AD-X2 a test for the committee:" (apparently quoting O'Connor:) "Would [it] 

 be content merely to make more or less innocuous studies of small business problems and file reports for 

 the record or would the committee turn when needed into an aggressive champion of the riglit of the 

 Nation's small businessman?" 



'I Hearings, op. cit., p. 224. 



" Idem. Also, Lawrence, p. 14. 



" Hearings, op. cit., p. 224. 



