however, something could be done to enforce full measure in ladders as in other commodities.

Fundamental to the protection of the buyer and seller in commercial transactions is the standardization of weights and measures and the enforcement of their fair application.

In 1790, George Washington expressed his concern for uniformity in the "currency, weights, and measures of the United States."

In 1836, a joint resolution of Congress directed the Secretary of the Treasury to make a complete set of all weights and measures adopted as standards for use in customhouses and for the States.

Neither George Washington nor the Members of the Congress of 1836 could have foreseen the age of preweighed, prepackaged, prelabeled, and sometimes precooked comestibles, or of commodities used in day-to-day living.

Nor could any of us, even a few short years ago.

Weights and measures inspection is rapidly changing in character from testing scales in the grocery to spot checking preweighed packages on the supermarket shelf and in the warehouses.

The purpose, however, is the same: to protect the buyer and the seller in the marketplace.

It is time we had the tools of the 20th, not the 19th or the 18th, century to work with.

Senate bill 985, while not perfect, will help us catch up with the times. It will give a greater measure of protection for the consumer, and for the merchandiser, too, who wants to hold on to his clientele. I urge its favorable report to the Senate, and I certainly hope for its passage.

Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Miss Blatt.

Senator Lausche.

Senator LAUSCHE. On the basis of the tabulation, Miss Blatt, contained in your statement, it would appear that the consumers who purchased the different items which you tabulated were shortchanged by 14.1 percent on the average; is that correct?

Miss BLATT. Well, let us say they would have been if we had not ordered these items off sale. Of course, when we found this shortage, we ordered them off sale.

But assuming that they were on sale in other places, then I would say that you are correct.

Senator LAUSCHE. Yes. Do you have a State law which makes it a crime to misrepresent the quantity of goods that are being sold? Miss BLATT. Yes, we do.

Senator LAUSCHE. Did you prosecute these people who had these large quantities of underfilled goods?

Miss BLATT. Well, we have a practice

Senator LAUSCHE. No, my question is: Did you prosecute them? Miss BLATT. The answer is "Yes." But I would like to put this qualification with it.

Senator LAUSCHE. All right.

Miss BLATT. That on first offenders we do not prosecute immediately. But it is part of the prosecution process to enter a warning against their name, I presume, so that is why I have answered you "Yes." But on persons who have offended more than once, they certainly were prosecuted.

Senator LAUSCHE. Well, the State of Pennsylvania then does have a law that was capable of coping with the evils which you set forth as having existed in these sales and purchases that are tabulated.

Miss BLATT. Well, I think we have a good law. I do not want to downgrade it at all. We do have the uniform weights and measures law now before our legislature, which I think is even better and which I hope will be passed and which will give us a little bit more authority insofar as detecting deceptive and fraudulent packaging methods. Senator LAUSCHE. Surely.

Now, then, after you discovered these sales which had contents of 14.1 percent less than what they should have had, you called upon your Pennsylvania law and did remedy this wrong?

Miss BLATT. I hope so.

Senator LAUSCHE. All right.

Miss BLATT. But we are constantly on the alert because it may occur again and frequently has.

Senator LAUSCHE. Now, with respect to food, we have on the Federal statutes books the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and that deals with meats, dairy products, poultry, dried fruits and vegetables, milk, candies, bread and bakery products; and it states:

A food shall be deemed misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular, also if its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.

Did you take up with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act administrator this fraud that was being perpetrated upon the citizens of Pennsylvania in the purchase of these goods?

Miss BLATT. As to these particular goods in the table, we had no occasion to take it up with anybody. We ourselves prosecuted, as I said.

In regard to other items where we have detected what we thought to be fraud, we had no opportunity to even conduct preliminary investigations, having no authority under our law to do that.

Senator LAUSCHE. Are you familiar with the Food and Drug Act? Miss BLATT. Well, I know of it. I am certainly no expert on it. Senator LAUSCHE. Well, to me it seems that the matter, if it is of the flagrancy which you have described, ought to be brought to the attention of the administrator of this act, because I think we have a law here that can meet it.

Now, with regard to ladders, there was a definite misrepresentation there. They said it was a 12-foot ladder when in fact it was 11. Was the violator criminally prosecuted?

Miss BLATT. No. He took them off sale.

Senator LAUSCHE. HOW?

Miss BLATT. He voluntarily took them off sale.

Senator LAUSCHE. Well, do you not think that a person who engages in that type of practice ought to be prosecuted as a criminal? Miss BLATT. Well, this is the problem we run into. We have a local retailer who puts that or any other item up for sale. He does it in good faith, thinking that he has got what he in turn bought from somebody in another State against him. And we have no opportunity to bring any prosecution. And that is one reason I would like to see some of this legislation, because as a Pennsylvania official I do not want to be hard on Pennsylvania merchants who I think really are

operating in good faith. And our legislators, I am sure, would not approve of my being hard on them, but they are frequently the ones who must take the brunt of the criticism and the blame for something over which they have little or no control.

Senator LAUSCHE. Did the ladders have an imprint on them saying "12 feet"?

Miss BLATT. Yes, they did.

Senator LAUSCHE. And who put that imprint on?

Miss BLATT. The manufacturer.

Senator LAUSCHE. The manufacturer.

Miss BLATT. And they were shipped in to us from outside Pennsylvania.

Senator LAUSCHE. Why could not prosecution be brought against the manufacturer? There are ample laws to bring the prosecution: fraud in sale. You have your State law, you have your Federal law. Why I am serious about this, because anybody that goes out and cheats the public should not be dealt with with silken gloves. Criminal prosecution ought to be brought against a person who labels a ladder to be 12 feet when he knows it is only 11 feet. But it has not been done. I cannot understand it.

Now, then, with respect to the ladders, the Federal Trade Commission, inasmuch as this is not a food, has jurisdiction of the matter. Has it been brought to the attention of the Federal Trade Commission?

Miss BLATT. Senator, I am sorry to say that I cannot answer you definitely. I hope it has. But I do not have a record of it. I will look it up and let you know that.

Senator LAUSCHE. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am trying to make the point that we have laws. We have the old common law of fraud. You need no statute. You have criminal laws that deal with it; that whoever perpetrates a fraud through misrepresentation is guilty of a crime and shall be prosecuted. And now we are just going to pile up another law, with State laws, city laws, Federal Trade Commission, and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act being on the books and nobody utilizing them.

Miss BLATT. If I may comment, Senator, I certainly agree with you on the inadvisability of piling laws upon laws.

On the other hand, in this day of mass consumption, mass buying, the average consumer and even the average retailer or supermarket operator, is put to a great disadvantage in trying to protect himself against practices of the kind I have indicated. True, he could go to court and sue, I suppose. But it is a very, very difficult and costly process. And by the time he proved he is right on his 12-foot ladder he has spent lots more than the ladder would have cost, maybe lots more than shipments of the ladder would have cost the retailer. And it seems to me he has a right to depend on his Government for a little more help than he has had.

Senator LAUSCHE. Am I correct in my understanding of your testimony that on the packages which you inventory the customers who did buy received 14.1 percent less than they were paying for?

Miss BLATT. I would think that that was a fair assumption. Senator LAUSCHE. All right. I think it is lamentable that, with all the laws we have, that the only action taken was: Get it off your shelves and it will be all right.

Miss BLATT. Not quite. If you do it again

Senator LAUSCHE. That is why people are complaining. The laws that we have are not being utilized.

I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Scorr. Do you have any comment on that, Miss Blatt? Miss BLATT. I merely wanted to say it is not quite that way. I said only a first offender has the opportunity to take it off his shelves and escape prosecution. And we find with most of our people that is all they need, a warning. And we seldom find them doing it the second time. But if they do, they are prosecuted.

Senator LAUSCHE. That is all I have.

Senator Scorr. Do you agree, Miss Blatt, that the instance you cited is an instance of deception or fraud, the 11-foot ladder which purported to be a 12-foot ladder?

Miss BLATT. I am afraid I did not understand.

Senator SCOTT. Is that a fraud or deception? Would it come under that category?

Miss BLATT. Yes, surely. I just picked that as a sample because it was a fairly recent occurrence and I chose it. There could have been many others.

Senator Scort. Is that not already covered by Federal as well as State statutes?

Miss BLATT. I am not an expert on the Federal statutes, Senator, and I would not want to say categorically yes or no. But I know that when we brought it to the attention of the National Bureau of Standards, they indicated no way they knew to handle it except by promulgating a voluntary regulation, which they did, and which they hope will help, and so do I.

Senator SCOTT. Senator Lausche has referred to the State of the manufacturer. I hope it was not Ohio, incidentally. But do you recall whether or not your department certified this case to the relevant department of the State wherein the manufacturer was located so that the fraud could be prosecuted further in the State of its origin?

Miss BLATT. I am sorry to say that, as I said, Senator, I do not quite remember about that. And I will be glad to let you know. We, I know, had lengthy conferences with the National Bureau people as to what we could do about it, and the Bureau concerned, I hope, did just what you say. But I cannot tell you, and I will look it

up for you.

Senator SCOTT. All right.

On page 3 of your testimony you said you would hope that:

* under this bill we will eventually get regulations standardizing quantity packaging, of certain frequently used items at least

But this bill is to authorize the standardizing of quantity packaging over the entire field, on all items, if the Federal agency were so

inclined.

For clarification, are you arguing that goods now sold in differing sizes ought to be put up in packages, say, of 1 pound, 3 pounds, or 5 pounds?

Miss BLATT. Not all goods, no. As I understand the act, it would give the administrators probably authority to standardize all. I

would not advocate that that authority be used if I were advising an administrator, but I think on certain frequently used items, necessary items in any household, there could be much more standardization than there is.

For example, we do now buy butter by pounds and half pounds and quarter pounds, and so on. We do not break that into nine-ounce packages.

I think you could do the same with cereals, which are a household necessity. I think we could do the same with detergents, a similar necessity.

I am not in favor of doing it with caviar or anything that the people can do without. But for the average family buying large quantities of certain items such as cereals and detergents, I think some prescription of standard sizes would be advisable and helpful and not detrimental to the industry.

Senator SCOTT. I appreciated your reference to the old-time grocery, maybe more than you realized, because I used to be a grocery clerk myself. And you referred to potatoes, and I remember when we took little potatoes and stuck them on the top of the kerosene cans in lieu of the stopper.

But I also remember at those times the housewives would send down whatever container they happened to have convenient and say: Fill this up and charge me for it. So they did not always ask by the pound or by the peck or something.

Blackstrap molasses was measured out according to the size of the container that was sent down. So the possibility of deception existed there as it would exist today, yet now we have laws which would prohibit deception.

Miss BLATT. Of course, if you sent your own container down and it was filled, you got all you asked for. And if you paid the same thing for it each time you knew you were not being cheated. I suppose if the grocer started charging you more for it, you might have a complaint.

Senator SCOTT. I think we would have heard from them.

Miss BLATT. Yes.

Senator SCOTT. Now, with reference to a producer going on the market with a package developed by the company, his artist and the advertising agency, you do not take any exception to that as a merchandising practice, do you?

Miss BLATT. No. But I think it has a built-in danger for the consumer that can result in deception. I do not say it has to. But I myself have seen some packages that had a lot of empty space at the top. They were a new design. The women or purchaser has been used to finding, say, 12 ounces in a box of corn flakes, same size box, same box on the outside, and it is also marked containing only 11 ounces. she does not take time to look at that. Now, that is her fault, I grant you.

But

But from the standpoint of the busy shopper in the supermarket with nobody to consult about it but the label, and not time to look at that, I think it is demanding too much of her.

Senator Scorr. Well, it does seem to me that to a degree you are asking the Federal Government to think for the housewife, are you not? Miss BLATT. You could say that. But this is a case where I think