I have been away from Yakima, except for an occasional 
day, for a year, and arrived here two weeks ago. Last 
Saturday, March 26th, I exhibited your new type meter 
at a meeting of Engineers here, most of whom are engaged 
in Reclamation work. ‘They were much interested, but 
criticised the meter severely... . 
I cannot comprehend how an engineer, who must have 
known the conditions under which a meter has to operate, 
could have designed such a device. 
The upper bearing in my first meters was not worn or 
cut by grit; the lower pintle bearing was not cut or worn; 
and the hardened steel pintle and its hardened steel 
bearing did not rust . . 
contained was kept out by the air which was compressed 
in the inverted cups. 
The upper bearing of this meter has no air trap to keep 
out water and grit, and the lower bearing is nearly as 
inefficient. The upper bearing housing is, I believe, four 
times larger than necessary. ‘The large housing produces 
eddy currents, which may cause some inaccuracy in 
measurements. 
If I can go East next summer, I would like to have you 
build a meter for me, at my expense, that I would not be 
ashamed to bear my name. 
I will express your meter to you today. 
. . The water with the grit it 
That letter might have created considerable con- 
sternation, especially in the Geological Survey where 
the new design had been sponsored, had it not been 
that prior to May 18, 1926—several months before 
the letter arrived—someone had already conceived 
of the idea of moving the upper bearing from the 
stem of the contact chamber to a much_ higher 
position within the chamber. The air trap in that 
area was thereby provided for the first time on Small 
Price current meters. That change first appeared in 
Gurley’s drawing no. 8250BS, dated May 18, 1926. 
The first production lot of the 622 meters was manu- 
factured on the basis of that drawing so that only the 
small experimental lot contained the fault Price 
criticized most severely. The fault of having no air 
pocket for the lower bearing still remained, however. 
A cross-sectional view of the 622 model is shown in 
figure 33, 
The penultimate paragraph of Price’s letter of 
March 29, 1927, tells of his plan to visit the W. & L. E. 
Gurley plant in Troy, N.Y., the following year to get 
them to build, at his own expense, a special current 
meter that would fulfill all of his desires. That visit 
never took place, although Price and his wife left 
Yakima in June 1928 with every intention of making 
PAPER 70: WILLIAM GUNN PRICE AND THE PRICE CURRENT METERS 65 

Y 
FIGURE 33.—CROss-SECTIONAL VIEW of 622-type Small 
(From W. & L. E. Gurley, Bulletin 
no. 700, April 1928.) 
Price meter. 
it. Their first stopover was at the Sanitarium in 
Battle Creek, Michigan, where Price underwent a 
physical examination to see what, if anything, could be 
done for his heart condition. ‘Their next stop was to 
have been at Schenevus, New York, where some of 
Price’s relatives still lived and where he planned to 
revisit the scenes of his childhood. As their train was 
drawing near Detroit, however, he suffered a severe 
heart attack. He was taken to the Fort Shelby Hotel 
in Detroit, where he died on July 6, 1928, on his 
75th birthday, in the city where the world’s first 
cup-type current meter—Daniel Farrand Henry’s cup- 
type “Telegraphic” current meter, the forerunner of 
all four of Price’s current-meter inventions—was 
built. No doubt, if he could have made the visit to 
Gurley’s, the results might well have produced a 
change in the subsequent history of current meters. 
Price was buried among the scenic hills of his 
childhood at Schenevus, New York. The inscription 
on his tombstone reads: 
WILLIAM GUNN PRICE 
1853-1928 
SCIENTIST ENGINEER 
AND INVENTOR 
ADORED HUSBAND OF 
MARY KELLEY PRICE 
The model 622 “Improved”? Small Price current 
meters enjoyed the status of being the Geological 
Survey’s standard meter for about three years after 
Price’s death. Toward the end of that period, the 
supervision of the repair and improvement of current 
