18 
testing in connection with government 
purchases. It is of importance from a 
business standpoint, and as a matter of 
good engineering. It is also of great im- 
portanee as contributing to good govern- 
ment. 
8.REASONS FOR TESTING MATERIALS PUR- 
CHASED BY THE GOVERNMENT 
1. The first and most obvious reason for 
testing instruments, machinery and mater- 
ials purchased by the federal government 
is of course to insure the government get- 
ting what it pays for. But that is not the 
only reason, and in some cases it may not 
be the main reason. Such testing is done 
upon many kinds of materials, but for a 
conerete illustration we may think of elec- 
trical instruments or electric lamps. 
(1) With the results of a thorough and 
impartial test at hand, a government engi- 
neer, charged with drawing specifications 
for a given kind of instrument or mate- 
rial, knows what performance can be se- 
eured by such instruments, or what prop- 
erties can be expected in the given mate- 
rial, and hence is able to prepare the speci- 
fications intelligently. 
(2) With the results at hand of tests on 
the instruments or materials of different 
makes, the purchasing officer knows what 
makers to invite to submit bids for govern- 
ment requirements. If those whose instru- 
ments or materials are unsuited for the 
given purpose are not permitted to bid, ex- 
pense and trouble are avoided, both to the 
manufacturer and to the government. 
(3) If the results of thorough tests are 
available, the purchasing officer can take 
account of the quality as well as the price 
in making awards of contracts. It often 
happens that any one of several makes of 
instruments or materials can be used, and 
it is necessary to know the differences in 
quality as well as the differences in price 
SCIENCE 
[N.S. Vout. XXXV. No. 888 
in order to determine which bid is best. 
The practise of accepting the lowest bid 
regardless of quality often causes dissatis- 
faction both to those who bid for the gov- 
ernment’s business and those who use the 
articles purchased. 
(4) If tests are systematically made, a 
conscientious purchasing officer is pro- 
tected from charges of favoritism or collu- 
sion in the performance of his duty. His 
answer to such intimations, whether they 
come from dealers or those in authority, is 
the certified results of tests upon which he 
had relied. If the tests have been made in 
an impartial and well-equipped laboratory 
established for the purpose, the results are 
likely to be given greater weight, and the 
protection to the purchasing officer is 
greater, than if done by the bureau or de- 
partment making the purchase. Purchas- 
ing under such a system of testing, the op- 
portunity and the temptation to collusion 
between purchasing officer and contractor 
is greatly reduced. Such collusion is not 
frequent in the government service, but it 
has occurred, and it is desirable to reduce 
the opportunity for it to a minimum. 
(5) Purchasing under a system of thor- 
ough and systematic tests protects admin- 
istrative and purchasing officers from po- 
litical pressure in connection with pur- 
chases, and members of congress are spared 
from the appeals of constituents in con- 
nection therewith. It has sometimes hap- 
pened that a manufacturer or contractor 
on failing to secure a government contract 
feels that he has been discriminated against, 
and in good faith goes to his congressman 
or senator with his grievance. The latter 
is placed in an embarrassing position, be- 
tween his desire to serve his constituent 
and his uncertainty as to the real facts in 
the case. A system of fair and thorough 
testing of materials in connection with 
public advertising removes almost entirely 
