54 



other Government agencies depended. Its findings were a source of 

 great power. However: 



* * * If the Bureau's foot slips, a business starting in against all the normal 

 competitive hazards, finds itself up against something with which it cannot cope, 

 the vast power of the U.S. Government. '^^ 



He suggested that the committee " * * * might want to reexamine 

 the legislation giving the Federal Trade Commission very broad 

 powers in matters like this." He might have added that even if NBS 

 had not erred, its relaxed and informal attitude in consulting with a 

 party to a commercial dispute might give color to the charge by the 

 other party that NBS was not objective and without bias. 



Other procedural issues suggested by Weeks involved the NBS 

 with the political and economic aspects of the issue. Bureau personnel 

 had become involved in a technical controversy. Finally, he raised 

 the question as to the roles of scientific tests versus practical experi- 

 ence in the evaluation of products. There were " * * * many testi- 

 monials to the fact that the product is good * * * ." Then the Sec- 

 retary stated succmctly the essential issue as he saw it: 



As a practical man, I do not see why a product should be denied an opportunity 

 in the market place. I believe that the purpose of the Congress in establishing 

 the Bureau of Standards and in giving powers to such agencies as the Federal 

 Trade Commission and the Post Office Department to act to prevent unfair prac- 

 tices and the pei-petration of frauds, was that * * * their powers should be 

 exercised in the interest of the general public and that such interest should be 

 substantial and specifically and positively shown to be adversely affecting before 

 the power is used.'" 



Direct consequences of the controversy 



There were six direct and explicit consequences of the AD-X2 

 controversy. They were : 



1. The Senate Select Committee on Small Business did not report either 

 favorabl}' or unfavorably on the merits of the additive. 



2. The Director of the National Bureau of Standards was fully restored to his 

 position by the Secretary of Commerce. 



3. The National Bureau of Standards was extensively reorganized in response 

 to the recommendations of the Kelly committee, and in particular was relieved 

 of responsibility for political or other nontechnical decisions relative to com- 

 mercial testing. 



4. The Committee on Battery Additives of the National Academy of Sciences 

 issued a formal report that found: 



(o) AD-X2 to have no merit; 



(6) NBS tests of the additive to be of excellent quality; 

 (c) Competence of NBS personnel in battery tests to be high; 

 (cO No want of objectivity of NBC personnel in the conduct or interpreta- 

 tion of tests of battery additives. 



5. The Post Office Department canceled its fraud order against Pioneers, Inc. 



6. The Federal Trade Commission unanimously dismissed the complaint against 

 Pioneers, Inc. 



Indirect consequences oj the controversy 



In addition to these direct consequences, there were a number of 

 indii-ect results or effects, of which the most significant — as seen in 

 retrospect — were the following: 



1. Pioneers, Inc., and its proprietor, emerged without legal blemish, 

 although at considerable cost for which he later vainly sought re- 

 imbursement at the U.S. Court of Claims. The demonstration by this 

 "Village Hampden" that the regulatory mechanisms of the Govern- 

 ment on commerce could be effectively resisted by a determined indi- 



•5« Hearings, op. cit., p. 3. 



157 Idem. 



