38 



allowed to happen over our repeated protests; and, yet, at the Post Office hearing 

 on October 14, 1952, the Director of the Bureau of Standards testified to the fact 

 that the test was run, for all practical purposes, in accordance with the manu- 

 facturer's instructions.** 



(6) The issue as seen by committee members. — -Throughout the 

 hearmgs, there was mcomplete agreement as to what theu" purpose was, 

 what was to be decided, and what mformation was germane. Senator 

 Humphrey hiterested hmiself in the chemistry of AD-X2, and in the 

 processing competence of its vendor. Senator Nixon (by this time, the 

 Vice President), had expressed concern over the apparent discrepancy 

 between hiboratory tests and practical experience in operational use 

 of the product. ^^ Most of the committee members were concerned 

 over the small business versus big government issue. 



At various times the chairman of the committee shifted from one 

 issue to another. For example: 



The issue * * * is whether or not agencies of the Government have been fair 

 and just in the treatment of JNIr. Ritchie and his product, battery AD-X2.io° 



* * * We are trying to comb for the last morsel of evidence as to whether this 

 man should be denied the right to package and sell the product or whether he 

 should be privileged to sell it."" 



We are trying to determine whether this product has merit or not."'^ 



* * * I have absolutely no interest in the product, only as a Member of Congress 

 who is trying to determine whether a businessman should have an opportunity 

 or whether that opportunitv should be denied the businessman, becaiise of a 

 finding of a Federal agency. i"^ 



The issue of monopoly, or the question of the protection of tlie small 

 business in conflict with the interests of big business evidently inter- 

 ested Senator Gillette: 



What I am interested in, and I am sure the other members are in agreement with 

 me on this, is whether or not there was in this entire investigation any discrimi- 

 natory action against a company or a manufacturer anywhere along the line.'"^ 



* * * I have no knowledge and little interest as to whether the one test or another 

 shows the particular merchandise to be valuable or not, relatively; but I am tre- 

 mendously interested if any agency of this Government, the Bureau of Standards, 

 the Federal Trade Commission, the Post Office Department, or ai'v other agency, 

 has been, wittingly or unwittingly, knowingly or unknowingly, used to impair 

 the business and the business position of any citizen of the United States.'"^ 



For Senator Schoeppel the question concerned both the product 

 and the objectivity of NBS: 



* * * Probably the central issue h(>re is whether AD-X2 helps batteries or 

 not.108 



One of the main questions * * * jg whether the Bureau [of Standards] was 

 completely objective and fair in the handling of AD-X2.1"" 



Senator Smathers saw the issue in a broader perspective, in which 

 the Congress had obligations to both producer and consumer: 



As the other Senators have said, we are interested in seeing tliat no businessman 

 gets put out of business arbitrarily. I think we are also interested in seeing tliat 

 no consumer gets sold something under representations that do not measure up. 

 So we have sort of a dual resi^onsibility not only of protecting the businessman 

 but also, possibly, the consumer."'* 



•8 Ibid., p. 161. . ,^ . .. ^ 



•» Ibid., p. 222. (Letter excerpt, introduced as part of prepared testimony of Dr. Astni.) 



i"" Hearings, op. cit., p. 9. 



i«i Ibid., p. 229. 



i«2 Ibid., p. 374. 



iM Idem. 



iM Ibid., p. 248. 



iw Ibid., p. 384. 



i<» Ibid., p. 208. 



<•' Ibid., p. 320. 



i«s Ibid., pp. 385-386. 



