[Defense : Official Bulletin of the National Defense Advisory Commission. Vol. 2, No. 3]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
DEFENSE
★ OFFICIAL BULLETIN Jl. of the NATIONAL DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMISSION
Washington, D. C. Issued Weekly
★ JAN. 22, 1941 . VOL. 2, NO. 3
Need for immediate construction with public funds of 1982 dwelling units in eight defense areas
President Roosevelt has found a need for immediate construction, with public funds, of 1982 dwelling units in eight different defense localities upon the recommendations of C. P. Palmer, Defense Housing Coordinator.
In a letter to Federal Works Administrator John M. Carmody, the President stated that a shortage of adequate shelter, which might impede progress in the National Defense program, exists in Hinesville, Ga.; Rantoul, Ill.* Brooklyn, N. Y.; Erie, Pa.; Orange, Tex.; San Antonio, Tex.; Norfolk, Va.; and Radford, Va.
At the same time, Mr. Palmer reported that in these same localities his office has recommended a total construction program embodying 9029 dwelling units. Of this number, many of which are now under construction contract, 2850 dwelling units are to.be supplied by private industry; 1912 to be built by the Navy; 1110 through the United States Housing Authority, or local authorities; 2832 under the jurisdiction of the Federal Works Agency; and 325 units by the Defense Homes Corporation.
Area breakdown
Of the 1982 dwelling units recommended for immediate construction by the President under the Lanham Act, 665 units are to be constructed in the Norfolk, Va., area; 100 at Hinesville, Ga.; 100 at Rantoul, Ill.; 200 at Brooklyn, N. Y.; 500 at Erie, Pa.; 200 in Orange, Tex.; 17 at San Antonio, Tex.; and 200 at Radford, Va.
Mr. Palmer reported that in the Hampton Roads area there are now 4002 dwelling units under construction and an additional 1000 units for which land has been acquired. However, these figures do not include a substantial amount of pri-
(Continued on page 4)
Summary of the week in defense—Placing of Navy Yards on 24-hour schedule; call for more sub-contracting; departure of U. S. Commission for study of British conditions
President Roosevelt pledged faith in democracy in his third inaugural address in Washington Monday. To ward off “great perils never before encountered,” he summoned the country to muster its faith and its spirit. He promised that this Nation will oppose disruption from without and keep the “sacred fire of Liberty” alight in the world.
Navy
Secretary Knox disclosed that the Navy Department is rapidly placing Navy yards throughout the country on a twenty-four hour, three-shift schedule, with employees each working forty-eight hours weekly, except in a minority of establishments where, because four hours is needed for overhauling machinery, two shifts of ten hours each are in effect. Navy yard employees on a six-day, fortyeight hour week are being paid overtime for the eight hours over the standard week, Mr. Knox said.
The House Naval Affairs Committee approved a new $1,209,000,000 program to speed shipbuilding. Under the program $315,000,000 would be used to provide additional yard facilities, $194,000,000 to
build factories for ship parts and armament, and $400,000,000 to construct 400 auxiliary ships for the Navy.
Subcontracting
Under Secretary of War Patterson called on war material contractors to farm out more of their work to small manufacturers in order to achieve a wider distribution of production and overcome “serious obstacles.”
Shortly afterward, the Division of Public Contracts of the Department of Labor, issued a statement that, despite a different impression in some quarters,” . . . subcontractors as a class are not subject to any of the provisions of the Public Contracts Act except for one prohibiting the performance in any plants . . . under working conditions which are insanitary or hazardous or dangerous to the health and safety of employees. . .
Commission to Britain
A United States Commission to study health conditions, epidemic control, transportation, and evacuation of children in Great Britain left New York last Saturday. The Commission’s trip was organized by Federal Security Administrator Paul V. McNutt, and approved by the President following a request by the War Department.
The Commission expects to remain in London a month and will also attempt to visit France and Germany.
Membership on the Commission includes U. S. Surgeon General Thomas Parran; Maj. Eugene Ridings, of the War Department General Staff; F’ C. Horner, transportation consultant to the National Defense Advisory Commission; Geoffrey May, associate director, Bureau of Public Assistance, Social Security Board; and Dr. Martha Elliott, assistant chief of the Children’s Bureau, Department of Labor.
INDEX
Page
Price stabilization_______________ 2
Mr. Biggers’ statement______________ 3
Aircraft priorities_________________ 3
Housing_________________________ 4, 5
Consumer division___________________ 6
Transportation_____________________ 7*
Purchases________________________ 8, 9
State and local cooperation_____10,11
Labor_____________________________ 12
Agriculture________________________ 13
Compilation of contracts___________ 14
Certificates of necessity_______ 16
2
★ DEFENSE ★
January 22, 1941
DEFENSE
OFFICIAL BULLETIN published weekly by the Division of Information for the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense, at Washington, D. C. Published with the approval of the Bureau of the Budget (Rule 42, J. C. P.).
SUBSCRIPTION RATES, BY MAIL
75 cents for 52 Issues; 25 cents for 13 issues; single copies 5 cents, payable in advance. Remit money order payable directly to the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
★
NATIONAL DEFENSE
ADVISORY COMMISSION
Ralph Budd, Transportation.
Chester Davis, Agriculture.
Harriet Elliott, Consumer Protection.
Leon Henderson, Price Stabilization.
Sidney Hillman, Labor.
William S. Knudsen, Industrial Production.
Edward R. Stettinius, Industrial Materials.
Frank Bane, State and Local Cooperation.
Robert W. Horton, Information.
Stacy May, Research and Statistics.
R. L. Maxwell, Export Control.
Paul V. McNutt, Coordinator of Health, Welfare and Related Defense Activities.
William H. McReynolds, Secretary of the Commission.
Nelson Rockefeller, Coordinator of Commercial and Cultural Relations Between the American Republics.
DEFENSE LOANS
Federal Loan Administrator Jones announced that defense commitments of the RFC now aggregate more than $1,000,-000,000, including approximately $550,-000,000 in loans for the construction of defense plants; $125,000,000 in loans to manufacturers; $260,000,000 for the purchase of strategic metals; and $140,000,-000 for the acquisition of stocks of rubber.
PRICE STABILIZATION ...
Statement by Mr. Henderson that there is no justification for the great advance in the price of iridium; evidence that the rise is due to “sheer speculation”
There is no justification whatever, for the great advance in the price of iridium, culminating in a jump during November and December from $148 per ounce to $300 or more per ounce, according to an announcement by Leon Henderson, Commissioner of the Price Stabilization Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission.
This metal, which is used as a hardening agent for platinum in airplane motor parts, electrical equipment, and jewelry, sold for $65 per ounce throughout the summer of 1939. During the 3 years 1937-1939 the average price was about $92.
Sheer speculation
Members of the Price Stabilization Division have uncovered evidence, Mr. Henderson said, that this costly price rise is due to sheer speculation.
Rumors of large military requirements and of great scarcity have been employed to double the price in the last 2 months.
Mr. Henderson pointed out that in many basic industrial commodities such as steel, zinc, and copper, there has been active cooperation with the Defense Commission in preventing undue and dangerous price increases. Iridium, he added, appears to present one of the few instances to date of wilful exploitation of urgent defense needs of this Nation and Great Britain for the benefit of a few speculative interests.
Study of supplies
There are aspects of this situation, added Mr. Henderson, which undoubtedly would justify and may require the application of full governmental powers.
A comprehensive study of military requirements and available supplies of iridium has been conducted jointly by the staffs of Mr. Henderson and J. D. Biggers, Director of the Division of Production, Office of Production Management. This study indicates that contrary to preva
lent rumor there is no real shortage of iridium. Military requirements will add only a relatively small amount to ordinary domestic consumption.
According to a survey made for the Defense Commission by the Bureau of Mines, total stocks of iridium in the hands of domestic refiners are equivalent to several times military requirements for 1941 and 1942. Foreign dealers in the United States have stocks in addition to those reported to the Bureau of Mines.
Use of substitutes
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that domestic refinery output will vary substantially in 1941. Although imports dropped greatly in 1940 this was partly due to a growth in British military consumption. It is now reported that as a consequence of certain recent technological changes, consumption of iridium in Britain will shortly be materially reduced, due to the fact that it has become possible to use substitutes in the manufacture of airplane spark plugs.
If it should appear desirable to curtail nonmilitary consumption of iridium in order to conserve supplies for military use in future years, this could be done by employing another hardening agent for platinum jewelry, which use has accounted for two-thirds or more of the normal domestic consumption of iridium.
According to experts, an effective substitute is the metal ruthenium, supplies of which are ample for extensive replacement of iridium. The price of ruthenium has remained at about $35-$40 an ounce since 1938.
★ ★ ★
ARMY STRENGTH
The War Department announces that it plans to maintain the United States Army at 1,418,097 enlisted men and 97,-371 officers during the 1942 fiscal year.’
That strength would include selectees and National Guardsmen as well as Regular Army units.
January 22, 1941
* DEFENSE *
3
Announcement by Mr. Biggers of the names of the chief executives of the Division of Production; Mr. Batt deputy director
John D. Biggers, Director of Production Division, Office of Production Management, announces the names of the chief executives of the Production Division.
Mr. Biggers, on leave from the Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, of which he is President, has served for the past seven months as William S. Knudsen’s deputy on the National Defense Advisory Commission, of which Mr. Knudsen is the Production commissioner.
Mr. Biggers said' that the following members of his staff had been approved by President Roosevelt and the Office of Production Management, of which Mr. Knudsen is Director General:
William L. Batt, deputy director.— President, SKF Industries, on leave; for the past seven months Deputy Commissioner of the Industrial Materials Division of the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense.
W. Averell Harriman, chief, industrial materials.—Mr. Harriman is on leave as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Union Pacific Railroad, and for the past seven months has been Liaison Officer of the Industrial Materials Division.
E. F. Johnson, chief, aircraft, ordnance, and tools.—Mr. Johnson was formerly Vice President of General Motors Corporation and for the past seven months has been the Director of the Light Ordnance Section of the Production Division.
W. H. Harrison, chief, ships, construction, and supplies.—Mr. Harrison is on leave as Vice President and Chief Engineer of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, and for the past seven months has been Chief of the Construction Section of the Production Division.
Mr. Harriman’s major division heads will be as follows:
George M. Moffett, chief, mining and mineral products.—Mr. Moffett is on leave as President of the Corn Products Refining Company and for the past seven months has been Director of the Food Products Section of the Production Division.
R. R. Deupree, Chief, Agriculture and Forest Products.—Mr. Deupree is on leave as President of Procter & Gamble Company and for the past two months has been Division Executive of Agriculture and Forest Products.
E. R. Weidlein, Chief, Chemicals, Drugs, and Allied Products.—Mr. Weidlein is on leave as Director of the Mellon Institute and has been Division Executive of Chemicals and Allied Products of the Industrial Materials Division.
Mr. Johnson’s major associates will be as follows:
Merrill C. Meigs, Chief, Aircraft.—Mr. Meigs is on leave as Publisher of the Chicago Herald-American and for the past two months has been Director of the Aeronautical Section of the Production Division.
A. R. Glancy, Chief, Ordnance.—Mr. Glancy was formerly President of the Pontiac Motor Company and has been a special adviser to the Ordnance Section of the Production Division.
Mason Britton, Chief, Tools.—Mr. Britton is on leave as Vice Chairman of McGraw-Hill Publishing Company and for the past three months has been Director of the Machine Tool Section of the Production Division.
Mr. Harrison’s key associates thus far chosen are the following:
Emory S. Land, Chief, Ships.—Admiral Land is Chairman of the Maritime Commission and for the past seven months has been Director of the Shipbuilding Section of the Production Division.
J. C. Nichols, Chief, Supplies.—Mr. Nichols is on leave from J. C. Nichols Investment Company of Kansas City, Missouri, and for the past seven months has been Director of the Miscellaneous Equipment Section of the Production Division.
The Office of Production Management: William S. Knudsen, director general; Sidney Hillman, associate director general; members: Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox.
Within the Office of Production Management are the following and such other operating agencies as the⁵ President may from time to time determine : Division of Production, John D. Biggers, director; Division of Purchases, Donald M. Nelson, director; arid Division of Priorities, Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., director.
Announcement of the appointment of complete personnel for the Commercial Aircraft
Priorities Committee by Mr. Stettinius
E. R. Stettinius, Jr., director of priorities, announces appointment of the complete personnel of the Commercial Aircraft Priorities Committee: Estab-lishihent of a Commercial Aircraft Priorities Section, with Arthur B. Whiteside as executive officer, was announced on January 13. Mr. Whiteside is on leave from his position as president of Dun and Bradstreet, New York City.
The Commercial Aircraft Priorities Committee will recommend policies bearing on the use of priorities in this field to the Director of Priorities, who will also be advised by Consumer, Price and Labor Consultants.
Such policies, when approved, will be carried out under the direction of Mr. Whiteside.
Complete personnel of the committee follows:
Col. John H. Jouett, president of the Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce.
Col. Donald H. Connolly, of the Civil Aeronautics Board.
C. R. Smith, aeronautical consultant to the Transportation Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission.
Capt. D. C. Ramsey, representing the Navy.
Col. E. L. Lyons, representing the Army.
Merrill C. Meigs, head of aeronautical section of the Production Division, will be an ex-officio member of the committee.
★ ★ ★
EXPORT CONTROL
The President has signed an Executive Order authorizing use of general licenses for export control purposes, at the discretion of the Administrator of Export Control.
Under the order, the Secretary of State may issue general licenses authorizing the exportation to all or certain areas or destinations any of the articles and materials on the export control list, in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the President or such specific directives as may from time to time be communicated to the Secretary of State through the Administrator of Export Control.
4
★ DEFENSE ★
January 22, 1941
DEFENSE HOUSING ...
Establishment of a new Homes Registration Division within the Division of Defense Housing Coordination; advisory body to housing committees of councils of defense
In order to muster all of the available housing facilities in vital defense areas, C. F. Palmer, Defense Housing Coordinator, has announced establishment of a Homes Registration Division within the Division of Defense Housing Coordination.
The new division will supplement emergency building programs in the provision of shelter for defense workers being carried on in defense localities through public or private agencies as a part of the defense housing program.
Mr. Palmer appointed Harold Pomeroy, former State Relief Administrator of California, and more recently Executive Director of the Sacramento Housing Authority, as Director of the new Division.
Dr. James Ford of Harvard University, who conducted the Homes Registration Service during the World War, has been appointed as Consultant. In 1917 and 1918, more than 100,000 workers were housed through this community cooperation.
Advisory body
The new division will act as an advisory body to the Housing Committees of local Defense Councils. The core of the operation will be a complete file of both vacant rooms and family dwelling units broken down by type, location, rent, and condition.
This file will be set up and maintained by the local committees and will serve as a central bureau for the listing of available accommodations. This registry will cooperate with realtors in referring applicants for dwelling accommodations to vacant units.
The registries will furnish information to the defense councils and to other appropriate agencies for proper local action in the development of every dwelling place that can be made available either for temporary or for permanent use. They will also furnish regular reports to the office of the Defense Housing Coordinator through the Division of Homes Registration so that necessary action can be taken to assure the construction
of additional dwelling units where they are essential.
To indicate need
Information on rents collected by the local offices of the Division of Homes Registration will indicate the need for legal steps to maintain rent levels in any locality. Legislation is being prepared by the National Defense Advisory Commission to be made available to States and localities where sucri legal action is necessary.
The report issued by the National Defense Advisory Commission dealing with this subject recommends, however, that such legal action be used only as a last resort. A program providing additional dwelling and the proper use of all available living space was suggested as positive means of maintaining rent levels, to be taken before legal machinery is invoked.
Based on the experience of the last war, the advisory Homes Registration Office in Washington will aid the local programs in part as follows:
(1) Provide a manual for the organization and operation of Homes Registration Offices.
(2) Assist localities in the organization and operation of local offices by making available the services of its field representatives.
(3) Provide all basic forms necessary for operation.
(4) Suggest appropriate publicity programs.
Local action
Housing committees, already established under local defense councils, have been composed of representatives from among the following: local defense industries; health departments; public housing agencies; local housing groups such as the housing committee of the Chamber of Commerce, and social welfare groups, such as YWCAs, YMCAs, Salvation Army, Travelers’ Aid, real estate boards, apartment management associations, and rooming house associations.
Note.—The Division of Coordination of National Defense Housing is now, by Executive order, in the Office of Emergency Management of the Executive Office of the President.
In announcing the new Division, Mr. Palmer stated: “Maximum defense production cannot be accomplished by the Federal Government alone. Such a great variety and complexity of problems are involved that action is required of the individual citizens, community organizations, cities, counties, regions, and each state in the Nation. One of the many problems bearing upon the efficiency of defense production is adequate housing for defense and related workers and their dependents. If satisfactory dwelling places are not available within reasonable commuting distance of employment, production efficiency will be materially reduced.”
★ ★ ★
Housing . . .
(Continued from page 1 ) vate construction being conducted through the facilities of the Federal Housing Administration.
The new recommendations bring a total of dwelling units either projected or under contract in San Antonio area to 717; in Erie to 500; in Hinesville to 100; in Radford to 300; in Brooklyn area to 400; in Rantoul to 400; and in Orange to 1000. In the latter locality only 500 are projected for immediate construction with the remainder needed for later on in the year.
The report made public by Mr. Palmer regarding these eight localities is in conformance with the designated function of the Defense Housing Coordinator to examine housing needs in defense areas and to make recommendations with regard to fulfilling these requirements.
In all of the above-mentioned areas, where possible, private industry is encouraged to supply housing where economic conditions and the nature of the shelter necessary make possible the investment of private capital.
Mr. Palmer pointed out, however, that where private interests fail to meet the need promptly it will be necessary for the Government to produce living accommodations so that there will be no halt in the tempo of defense production due to a bottleneck in adequate housing for the families of workers and enlisted personnel.
January 22, 1941
* DEFENSE ★
5
Continued progress in providing housing for families of defense workers and enlisted personnel—report by C. F. Palmer
Continued progress in the provision of housing for the families of defense workers and enlisted personnel through a coordinated housing program carried on by the Federal Works Agency, Federal Housing Administration, the Army and the Navy, is indicated in a report by C. F. Palmer, Coordinator of Defense Housing.
New developments on the Housing front during the past week were:
Total defense housing units completed up-to-date with Federal Funds rose to 687.
Total defense housing units under construction contracts reached 26,462, and funds definitely had been earmarked for 49,706 units.
Work was also started this week on 2555 new homes financed by the Federal Housing Administration, and applications for Mortgage Insurance were submitted on 3876 additional small single family residences to be built under FHA inspection.
A summation of the work of each agency as of last week showed:
Navy
As of January 14, the Navy had 14,515 dwelling units under construction in vital defense areas. These units will be for the families of the enlisted personnel and civilian workers in Government plants.
Army
The Army is preparing one project in the Canal Zone comprising 825 dwelling units for families of enlisted personnel.
Federal Works Agency
The Federal Works Agency reported contract awards made during the week through the Public Buildings Administration for 535 dwelling units to be built at a cost of $1,698,500. The projects will be located at Fort Sill, Oklahoma; Jackson, Mississippi; Fort Meade, South Dakota; Riverside, California, and West Palm Beach, Florida, and will be for the occupancy of married enlisted personnel of the United States Army stationed at or near these locations. The award of these contracts brings the total of Public Buildings Administration Defense Housing Projects in 31 locations to 8437 units, with an estimated cost of $25,769,700.
Defense Homes Corporation
The Defense Homes Corporation has approved the construction of 1944 dwell-
Status of Public Defense Housing Construction
JANUARY 14, 1941
Funds allo- Contracts Completed
cated awarded
Number of States and Territories___________ 40 34
Number of localities________________________ 92 68 3
Number of projects_______________________ 169 97 3
Number of family dwelling units____________ 49, 706 29, 462 3
Civilian industrial workers_____________ 21, 092 10, 712 687
Other civilians: Employees of Army and 7, 364 4, 737 412
Navy____.__________________________ 21, 250 14, 013 275
Married enlisted personnel_____________
Private Construction Under FHA Mortgage Insurance
Week ended Previous
Jan. 11 week
New homes started.___________________________________ 2, 555 2, 183
Mortgages selected for appraisal_________________________ 3, 876 2, 815
ing units, locations of which will be announced later.
Federal Housing Administration
The FHA announced last week that 3 out of every 10 new small homes financed by FHA Insured Mortgages during 1940 were purchased by families with annual incomes of less than $2000, indicating that the benefits of the FHA Insured Mortgage Program were being utilized by a broader section of the Nation’s moderate income families.
Although public funds, according to Mr. Palmer, are being allocated as rapidly as possible in those areas in which the findings of the Housing Coordinator indicate an emergency need for shelter, building figures continue to indicate the substantial part private industry plays in filling emergencies as well as normal housing requirements.
Gain under FHA
This was indicated by the sharp gain in new homes started under the FHA program. It is estimated that more than 40% of all the single-family residences built last year were financed through the facilities of FHA which thus provide an accurate barometer of private building.
Inasmuch as the preponderance of FHA construction takes place in metropolitan
areas where defense housing facilities will be in the greatest demand, last week’s sharp rise indicates that private building is alleviating to a considerable extent any potential housing shortage.
★ ★ ★
Long-time trend of farm exports is downward—speech by Secretary Wickard;
“not a result of war”
Secretary of Agriculture Wickard, speaking at the Farm and Home Week convocation at Lafayette, Indiana, said “the important thing to remember” is that the long-time trend in our exports (of farm products) is downward . . , the nations of the old world have been trying to become self-sufficient and “new land in this hemisphere and in the eastern hemisphere has been broken out for cultivation by the millions of' acres in the past 40 years.”
“Tremendous surpluses were on hand before the war broke out. These tremendous world-wide surpluses are not a result of the war. And if the war were to end tomorrow . . . they would probably still be there . . . isn’t it in the interest of-farmers, and the Nation, to lay plans accordingly?" he said.
6
★ DEFENSE ★
January 22, 1941
CONSUMER DIVISION ...
W • <
Sustained production the only true answer to the problem of maintaining living standards under the defense program—an address by Miss Harriet Elliott
“Can we so organize and utilize our resources as to produce enough, not only for our greatly expanded armed forces, but for our civilian population as well?”
This is the basic problem in maintaining living standards as an essential part of the Nation’s program of total defense, Miss Harriet Elliott, Commissioner in charge of the Consumer Division, National Defense Advisory Commission, told the annual meeting of the National Consumers League in New York.
Commissioner Elliott outlined four methods by which military and civilian needs could be coordinated and the national production economy adjusted to the defense program. She emphasized that only one of them is fully consistent with the democratic concept of total defense, namely, sustained production for everyday living needs through the most effective possible use of resources not needed for military purposes.
The easiest way, Miss Elliott indicated, would be to allow shortages to develop, with consequent price rises. This method, she said, would restrict purchasing to those consumers with enough income to* pay for the reduced supply. Priorities
Imposing priorities is the next easiest way, Miss Elliott said. This, she pointed out, must be done where necessary to insure military supplies. At the same time, she stressed that priorities are no substitute for production.
“They are only devices to use temporarily while we get the necessary production, or, in a few cases, where there are actual shortages of raw materials or other production items. When and where priorities are necessary, adjustment of consumer purchasing may be required and will be appropriate.”
Reduced purchasing power
Reduced consumer purchasing power through taxation or other means was a third method of adjustment outlined by Miss Elliott. She pointed out that Great Britain has used this method under stress of extreme war emergency but de
clared that the present situation in this country does not call for such measures.
Describing these methods as “the three easier ways of meeting the demands on productive capacity placed by the defense program,” Miss Elliott continued: “We must choose the hard way—getting production—as the only one that is fully compatible with the defense of our democracy. We must direct our best ingenuity toward keeping up production through the most efficient use of existing capacities and the expansion of such capacities as far as our resources will permit. We must create the economic conditions favorable to the maintenance of such production.”
Consumer supplies
“In the manner in which production and purchase of military supplies is directed; in the manner in which business is conducted; in the manner in which consumers direct their expenditures; and in the manner in which local, State, and Federal Governments provide consumer services that are publicly available—in all these ways the conditions for maintaining supplies of consumer goods are being established.”
“The maintenance of living standards calls for consumer Income to stimulate production, price stability to insure that real income is not reduced through rising prices, action by producers and merchants to make and distribute the goods which are needed, and action by consumers to direct their purchasing intelligently.”
★ ★ ★
WPA FUNDS FOR DEFENSE
WEA has announced that $157,000,000 in WPA funds were earmarked for national. defense projects during the first six months of the fiscal year. In a radio address, Acting WPA Commissioner Hunter declared that over 40 percent of all airport developments in the last five years had been accomplished by WPA labor.
Preparation for defense work by the students at the Woman’s College, North Carolina U.
National defense has become the chief interest of the students at the Woman’s College of the University of North Carolina, of which Defense Commissioner Harriet Elliott is dean, reports the North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development.
A number of the girls are preparing themselves for work in munitions plant laboratories, where at least one of last year’s graduates already is employed. Others, who formerly considered cooking a “home art,” are now equipping themselves to assist in the mass feeding of thousands in cantonments, hospitals, and institutions, in preparation for possible emergencies.
Compact foods, ideal for the soldier’s pack, and emergency utilization of soy bean flour are among the chief research problems of graduate students in the Department of Home Economics. Studies in X-ray technique, photography, physical therapy, and first-aid have become increasingly popular with the students.
During the World War, the Department of Conservation reports, the girls at Woman’s College took over a great part of the manual labor in the college and on the college farm. A group of the girls formed a unit of “farmerettes” and ran the college farm for an entire season. Others attended to the campus and college buildings. When carpenters could not be found to build a new Y. M. C. A. hut, the girls built it themselves. Although they were untrained in carpentering, that building is still being used after 22 years •
★ ★ ★
INFANTRY SCHOOL GRADUATES
The War Department announces that during January and February, 1,620 students from the Regular Army, the National Guard, and the Officers’ Reserve Corps of the United States Army will be, or already have been, graduated from the Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia. This number includes 1,304 officers from classes in five different officers’ courses, and 316 graduates in two enlisted men’s courses.
January 22, 1941
* DEFENSE *
7
TRANSPORTATION...
Commercial motor carriers take part in first complete highway movement of troops as combat unit in the history of the Army
Ralph Budd, Commissioner in charge of the Transportation Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission, reports that Division consultants have worked out details of the American Army’s first complete highway movement of troops as a combat unit in commercial vehicles in cooperation with the Army General Staff.
Arthur M. Hill and Ted V. Rogers, consultants on Bus Transportation and Trucking, respectively, planned the precedent-breaking movement in which 1,900 officers and men were transported to Little Rock, Arkansas, from 15 points within the State.
At the War Department’s request, the
Division outlined the movement as a solution to the tactical problem of determining the role of bus and truck operators in transportation of combat units.
A total of 21 buses and 56 trucks, in addition to regular Army vehicles, was used in the operation. The longest haul was 220 miles. Questions of speed, capacity, and vehicle coordination were studied by Messrs. Hill and Rogers, who then planned the movement so that an efficient result was obtained. The whole procedure represents a radical departure from previous methods.
Mr. Budd stated that the Division would continue to work out details of troop movement problems.
Wide-scale program for the use of motion pictures to promote closer American relations
Nelson A. Rockefeller, Coordinator of Commercial and Cultural Relations between the American Republics, announces “a wide-scale program for the use of motion pictures as a medium for promotion of closer relations and better understanding among the American Republics.”
The program involves production by commercial motion picture companies of feature and short films on central and South American themes, increased newsreel coverage of South American events, and the appointment of industry committees to facilitate these endeavors.
John Hay Whitney, Director of the Motion Picture Division of the Coordinator’s Office, announced that an Executive Committee will be headed by Y. Frank Freeman, President of the Association of Motion Picture Producers.
Cooperating committees will be headed by Joseph Schenck (Committee on Visits to South America) ; Sam Briskin (Committee on South American Film Facilities) ; Walter Wanger (Committee of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) ; Gunther Lessing (Short Subjects Committee); Cedric Gibbons (Art Direction Committee) ; and Sheridan Gibney (Committee on Story Material).
Questionnaire for organizations subject to foreign control
Attorney General Jackson has disclosed that organizations subject to foreign control which engage in political or military activity will be required to answer more than 225 detailed questions concerning their finances, affiliations, activities, and organizational set-ups.
★ ★ ★
LATIN AMERICAN TRAVEL
Students, teachers, and their families will be encouraged to travel from the United States to Latin American countries and from Latin American countries to this country through a rate reduction of 50 percent on one-way fares for steamship travel, under an arrangement announced by the United States Maritime Commission.
The lower rates for scholars have been established by the American Republics Line operating from United States Atlantic coast to the east coast of ^South America, the Mississippi Shipping Company, operating from the Gulf of Mexico to the east coast of South America, and the Grace Line operating from United States Atlantic coast to the west coast of South America.
Announcement of examinations for civilian instructors for Army Motor Transport Schools
Examinations are to be held throughout the country under the direction of the Civil Service Commission to secure at least 60 qualified civilian instructors for the Army Motor Transport Schools, two of which already are in operation, and two of which will be put into operation March 15, 1941, the War Department announces.
The schools, attended by specially selected men of the Army, provide training in operation and maintenance of motor vehicles. Both Army and civilian instructors will be on the school staffs. Selectees as well as other Army personnel who are chosen to attend the schools will become well qualified for jobs in industry upon completion of their service.
Present schools are located at the Holabird Quartermaster Depot, Baltimore, Maryland, and the Fort Normoyle Quartermaster Depot, Normoyle, Texas. The two to be put into operation in March are at Fort Francis E. Warren, Wyoming, and Camp Lee, Petersburg, Virginia. Initially, 34 instructors will be hired at Camp Lee and 26 at Fort Warren.
Individuals interested in taking the examination for positions as instructors should obtain information at local post offices or write to the district office of the Civil Service Commission.
Instructors will receive $1800 per annum, Senior Instructors will receive $2600 per annum; and Principal Instructors, to be selected from the b^st qualified Senior Instructors, will receive $3200 per annum.
★ ★ ★
NEW FIELD RANGE
The War Department, announces development of a sectional gasoline field range, built in individual units so it can be expanded to meet the needs of any size organization, which assures Army troops in the field of better-cooked meals than ever before.
Three of the units can be installed across the front end of a 1%-ton Army truck, and ordinary hot meals can be prepared during field movements as well as while in camps or at field stations. By fastening the units together and anchoring them to the truck, meals can be cooked while the truck is moving.
8
★ DEFENSE ★
January 22, 1941
DEFENSE PURCHASES ...
“One of the most colossal tasks ever assigned to human beings.. .’’—address by Mr. Nelson on the Office of Production Management; Purchasing Division’s work
The following address was delivered January 13 by Donald M. Nelson, Director of the Division of Purchases for the Office of Production Management, before the National Retail Dry Goods Association in New York City:
On January 7, the President of the United States established a new organization which has been named the Office of Production Management. To that group he delegated all the authority of his office that he could, under the Constitution, pass along to other men.
And with that group he placed responsibility for performing one of the most colossal tasks ever assigned to human beings outside the realm of mythology— responsibility for making this Nation what he described as the “great arsenal of democracy.”
It would be no exaggeration to say that the future existence of democratic government for perhaps hundreds of years—the future existence of political freedom and individual liberty, the future existence of private capitalism and human decency—may all depend upon the degree of success attained by that group.
“Tremendous responsibility”
There is no doubt that the members of the Office of Production Management fully comprehend the tremendous responsibility that has been placed upon them. But more important even than that is the fact that they have recognized the responsibility placed, in turn, upon every citizen of this country. *
Let me read you an excerpt from a statement made by them immediately after their appointment:
“The task which confronts the Office of Production Management is one not only of critical importance but also one of surpassing urgency.
“The President has said that the United States must become the arsenal of democracy. To create such an arsenal will require far more than we who are charged with its management can
provide. We promise all that we have to the fulfillment of this order from our Commander in Chief, bdt all that we have will be far from sufficient.
“We shall have need of the active, aggressive, and enthusiastic cooperatiqn of every man, woman, and child in the United States. • * * ”
A challenge
The Office of Production Management has accepted the responsibility and, in democratic fashion, has issued a challenge to every citizen of the land. I would like to take up this general appeal for the support of “every man, woman, and child in the United States” and particularize in terms of you who are here tonight. I should like to talk briefly about the need for the “active, aggressive, and enthusiastic cooperation” of the retailers of this country represented by the N. R. D. G. A.
One of the three divisions of the Office of Production Management is the Division of Purchasing, of which I am Director. This Division has an important part of the total job to perform.
We may have different roles to play in this gigantic program—different tasks to perform. But the best halfback in the world cannot go very far on a football field without 10 other men out in front clearing the way for him. And that is the point I should like to stress: that the relationship between the parts we must play in the program is the same relationship that exists between members of a team—a team that moves as a unit in the same direction, toward the same goal.
Identical objectives
We who are charged with the management and strategy of the job have to call the signals and carry the ball but we need you as teammates to clear the way for us and keep it cleared. We are partners because our long-range objectives are identical.
Let me remind you that those in charge of the defense program are not
only responsible for the production and procurement of a vast array of defense items in staggering quantities, but we also are responsible for the impact of that program on the national economy. That means we are charged with preserving the basis upon which you can continue to carry on your businesses as free individuals operating within a free and fair economic system.
So the long-range objectives of Government and business and industry and labor are the same.
Our methods will be whatever legal means are calculated as the best instruments to provide free governments with the weapons of self-defense. Sometimes those methods will operate against the immediate short-term interests of individuals and groups. And in those cases we shall be put to a severe test. We shall be called upon for a practical demonstration of our ability and willingness to subjugate personal interest to national interests; our vision and statesmanship will be put to trial.
“Willing to subordinate . . •”
These are not empty words. We might as well decide right here and now that unless every industrialist, every businessman and every wage earner is willing to subordinate his own short-term interests to the long-range interests of all of us, then this program will fall short, for the “surpassing urgency” referred to by the Office of Production Management clearly demands personal and business sacrifices.
The general nature of our problem in the field of purchasing is to find out as far in advance as possible the exact requirements of the Army, Navy, and foreign governments we are supplying with war equipment. We must place contracts for those items, whether they are four-engined bombers or shoe laces, with the factories best equipped to produce them and in such a manner that they can be turned out as rapidly, efficiently and economically as possible.
But let me make one thing clear about this matter of future requirements. The requirements of military and naval equipment for ourselves and our friends are limited by only one thing—the total capacity of every mine, factory, and mill in the country to produce such equipment.
We no longer are in a position to say
January 22, 1941
★ DEFENSE *
9
“We need so-and-so many 50-caliber machine guns.”
What we now say is: “We need every 50-caliber machine gun that can be produced by the total coordination of every pound of material, every inch of factory space and every man-hour of work that can be mobilized for the job.”
No fixed limits
This is an all-out effort. There are no fixed limits save the limits imposed by physical and human capacity employed to their utmost.
We, in Government, shall do everything in our power so to plan and schedule the procurement of this equipment that it will have the least possible harmful effect on any business organization in the country. But at the risk of useless repetition let me say once more that defense must come first. This is our compelling task. If anything stands in the way it must make way.
I, for one, am convinced those persons whose individual interests conflict momentarily with the effective operation of the defense program will step aside, not grudgingly but gracefully and willingly, and offer the rest of us a hand in the bargain.
I ask you to cooperate with us by keeping us informed of conditions in your trade, by making voluntary adjustments in your normal business practices and profits when it is necessary, and by generally smoothing our path and facilitating our efforts. I urge you to adopt this attitude toward the defense program and our efforts to make it successful.
★ ★ ★
Annual joint training exercise of Army,Navy, and Marine Corps units in Puerto Rican waters
Commencing about January 21 and extending into February, the annual joint training exercise of units of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps will be conducted in Puerto Rican waters. These exercises are scheduled in furtherance of the policy of the War and Navy Departments for obtaining coordination of effort through frequent joint training exercises.
Selected units of the First Division under command of Brig. Gen. J. Garesche Ord will comprise the Army contingent. Naval vessels participating will be from the Patrol Force, U. S. Fleet, Rear Admiral E. J. King, commanding. Marine Corps units will be from the First Marine Brigade, under Brig. Gen. H. M. Smith.
Development of methods to solve the problem of buying eggs, butter, cheese, and poultry for the Army; meeting of industry spokesmen with the Division of Purchases
Ways to solve the problem of buying eggs, butter, cheese, and poultry for the Army are being worked out between representatives of the industry and the Division of Purchases of the Office of Production Management in cooperation with the Quartermaster Corps, Douglas C. MacKeachie, assistant to Donald M. Nelson, Director of the Division, announces.
The more than 50 representatives who met in Washington with Mr. MacKeachie and Col. Paul P. Logan, chief of subsistence of the Quartermaster Corps, will appoint a subcommittee to the Food Pro-
• curement Advisory Committee, which represents all branches of the food trades industry.
The Advisory Committee works with the Division of Purchases on food procurement problems through its subcommittees.
Revise specifications
The subcommittee to be formed by the butter, egg, poultry, and cheese industries will assist in revising specifications, in developing proper inspection, and in working out the terms and conditions under which these products will be bought.
Representatives of the industry approved basic food procurement policies of the Quartermaster Corps requiring purchase by competitive bidding, as outlined by Col. Logan, and endorsed the proposal that the Army make full use of seasonal production in these commodities to prevent dislocation of civilian purchases.
Industry spokesmen
Spokesmen for the industry at the conference, over which Lloyd Tenney, manager of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, presided, were the following: *
Poultry.—J. A. Liston, Chicago, institute of American Poultry Industry, ahd George Schultz, New York, Mercantile Exchange;
Eggs.—C. L. Poole, New York, National Poultry, Butter and Egg Association, and Clyde Edmonds, Salt Lake City; Utah Poultry Producers Cooperative and Northwestern Turkey Growers Association;
Butter.—W. A. Gordon, St. Paul, National Association of Local Creameries;
Cheese.—George Mooney, Plymouth, Wisconsin, National Cheese Institute.
Government representatives at the meeting, besides Mr. MacKeachie and Col. Logan, were George Livingston, Agricultural Division, and Harold Rowe, of the Consumer Division of the Defense Commission.
John A. Logan, President of the National Association of Food Chains, and Secretary of the Food Procurement Advisory Committee, represented the Committee at the meeting.
★ ★ ★
35,000-ton battleship in full commission April 11, more than two months ahead of schedule
The Navy announces that the 35,000-ton battleship North Carolina will be placed in full commission on April 11— more than 2 months ahead of schedule.
She will be the first U. S. battleship to be placed in commission since December 1,1923.
The North Carolina, built at the New York Navy Yard, carries nine 16-inch guns and a heavy battery of antiaircraft and secondary broadside guns, and is equipped to carry three aircraft.
The 704-foot warship will join the fleet sometime in July, the Navy announces, and will be under the command of Capt. Olaf M. Hustvedt, of Decorah, Iowa.
★ ★ ★
NEW ARMY SONG BOOK
The War Department announces that, in line with efforts to maintain a high morale in the Army, a new official Army Song Book will be distributed to all components of the Army about February 1. The book is approximately 6 by 9 inches in size and is covered with Army blue. It contains 67 songs, selected on the basis of a poll of a representative group of soldiers. The first edition will be about 25,000 copies. The books will be the property of the United States Government.
10
★ DEFENSE ★
January 22, 1941
STATE AND LOCAL COOPERATION ...
Council of State Governments convenes for its fifth assembly; Cooperation in national defense is major subject of discussion
State and local action for national defense and such continuing problems as taxation, relief, and interstate trade barriers were under discussion this week by the Council of State Governments, meeting in Washington for its fifth general assembly.
Attending the biennial assembly were over 200 officials of the forty-eight States, including governors, legislators, attor-neys-general, members of defense councils, and other official representatives.
Addresses were scheduled by the following State officials; Governor Harold E. Stassen, Minnesota; Governor Herbert H. Lehman, New York; the Honorable Ellwood J. Turner, member of the Pennsylvania General Assembly; the Honorable Arthur I. Burgess, member of the Massachusetts General Court; the Honorable Simeon E. Leland of Illinois; Governor Herbert R. O’Conor, Maryland; and Senator Robert C. Hendrickson, New Jersey.
Speakers
Federal officials delivering major addresses: The Honorable Hatton W. Sumners, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, U. S. House of Representatives; Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox; Attorney General Robert H. Jackson; Mr. William S. Knudsen, Director General, and Mr. Sidney Hillman, Associate Director General, Office of Production Management; Federal Security Administrator Paul V. McNutt; Mr. Charles E. Merriam, National Resources Planning Board; and Hon. Daniel W. Hoan, Associate Director of the Division of State and Local Cooperation, National Defense Advisory Commission.
The following are presiding officers at one or more sessions: Senator Edgar A. Brown, South Carolina, chairman of the board of managers of the council of State Governments; Governor Leverett Salton-stall, Massachusetts; Governor Burnet R. Maybank, South Carolina; Governor Frank M. Dixon, Alabama; Governor Murray D. Van Wagoner, Michigan; Gov
ernor Harold E. Stassen, Minnesota; Governor Prentice Cooper, Tennessee.
State responsibilities
Following a roll call of the States at the opening session, Governor Harold E. Stassen of Minnesota, president of the Council of State Governments, pointed out three responsibiliites of those representing the governments of the States:
“First, and foremost as States of the Union, we must give united support regardless of geographical location or par- . tisanship to the established foreign policy of the Federal Government.
“Second, we must make every possible cooperative contribution to the effective and rapid building and production of the means of national defense.
“Third, we must maintain strong and efficient State governments as one of the safeguards of the future liberty of our people in face of the inevitable great concentration of Federal executive power necessitated by the emergency.”
Pointing out that the Council of State Governments has been rendering every assistance that it could in building and producing our national defense, he called attention to the fact that the director of the Council has been loaned to the National Defense Advisory Commission to serve as director of the Division of State and Local Cooperation. Facilitation of every part of the national defense program means more than a whole-' hearted response to requests from the National Government, he said. It means also alert anticipation. of problems that will arise in the sphere of the States by reason of the Federal program, and accordingly he urged that experience and successful experiments by the State governments be called to the attention of the Division of State and Local Cooperation. <
In conclusion, he stressed the fact that all steps that maintain the standing and respect of State governments will not only contribute to the strength of the Union, but will also constitute added safeguards to the liberty of the individual citizens of the Union.
Imminent danger
The threat to our security both in a military and economic sense is not only greater than any witÿi which we have ever been faced, but it is imminent, asserted Governor Herbert H. Lehman of New York in his address on “The States and the Présent Emergency.” “Fortunately the vast majority of our people realize this danger,” he added. “We must do all in our power to strengthen our defenses. Time is of the essence. Every day may count. We cannot afford delay.”
The big job facing us today, he said, is to make certain that all the industrial and labor resources of the respective States are made available to the Federal Government. These, in turn, depend upon full utilization of existing facilities of our cities, including schools, churches, homes, hospitals, power plants, water systems, gas and sewerage, police and a multitude of services, professional and civic, all established as going concerns and easily expanded to meet added demands.
He urged that creation of new plants should be considered only after existing facilities have been used, except in those cases where it is obvious that existing facilities cannot be adapted to special defense needs. In New York, he reported, marked progress has been made in convincing manufacturers of the advantages in using existing available facilities by farming out part of their work to other responsible firms. But a great deal still remains to be done.
Wider publicity
He urged that Federal authorities give wider publicity and more detailed information concerning defense needs and possible bottle-necks in production. “The smaller manufacturers must know what is needed in order to ascertain how they may fit into the picture, and every effort must be made to see to it that large manufacturers do not, for selfish reasons or otherwise, refuse to farm out work when it will obviously speed up production.”
Responsibility also rests upon private industry to use more initiative in seeking out defense work which it is equipped to perform, he said.
He urged that each State take steps to prevent a shortage of workers in trades essential to defense production through vocational training and upgrading.
January 22, 1941
* DEFENSE *
11
The States and localities are anxious to cooperate in the development of any plans necessary for protection of the civilian population, he said, but expressed it as his view that they cannot act effectively without direction from Federal authorities in such matters as construction of air raid shelters, the devising of methods of fire fighting and evacuation. On the other hand, certain precautionary measures for civilian populations can and should be taken by the States and cities on their own initiative; for example, State guards can be organized and plans for emergency mobilization of police units can be adopted.
Unity of purpose
Mayor Daniel W. Hoan, Associate Director of the Division of State and Local Cooperation, National Defense Advisory Commission, in his address on January 22, emphasized that preparation for our national defense requires cooperative effort with unity of purpose throughout the country. He reviewed the work of the Division of State and Local Cooperation, which is directed toward this objective.
First task of the Division is to serve as a channel of communication between the Council of National Defense and its Advisory Commission and the State councils, and through the State councils with local councils in each State. Its second function is ' to receive reports, suggestions, and recommendations from defense councils in the States and be responsible for their routing and follow-up.
Its third duty is to keep State and local councils currently informed regarding the national defense program, particularly the specific activities in which the cooperation of State and local councils is required. Its fourth responsibility is to clear information between defense councils in different States regarding matters of council organization, administration, and activity.
Mayor Hoan characterized the method of operation of the Division of State and Local Cooperation and of the defense councils in the several States and municipalities as the essence of the democratic way: “The Division gives no orders; the people themselves, through their representatives in the State capitol or the town hall, solve their own problems, using the Division’s personnel as a channel for information concerning Federal plans and policies and for technical advice in various fields.
Conferences
When requests arise for assistance and advice in organizing a State or local council of defense, the Division renders all possible aid.
The Division calls conferences on special problems, such as those on emergency problems of public personnel and on defense fire protection, and sees that representative committees are set up to explore problems requiring further study. It clears with other Federal agencies on various defense problems confronting States and localities.
It is in the spirit of national unity that all levels of government and their representatives are attempting to act, he said, “to the end that when this world crisis is passed and the danger of attack has melted away, we shall not have forgotten that our forefathers built this great political structure on the safest of all foundations: strong and assertive local units of self-government.”
★ ★ ★
STATE GUARD UNIFORMS
The War Department announces it will prescribe no uniform for State Guard organizations, but makes the provision that all such uniforms must be unmistakably different in appearance from that of the United States Army, Navy, or Marine Corps. They must be readily identifiable as the State Guard uniform.
In a move to prevent interference or competition with the procurement of uniforms for Federal forces, requests to purchase cloth and findings for the State Guard uniforms will be submitted to the War Department (through Corps Area commanders), listing types and quantities desired.
★ ★ ★
ENGINEER COMMITTEE
Secretary of War Stimson has appointed a committee of seven engineers, each representing a national engineering organization, to assist the War Department in technical matters relating to the collection, evaluation and dissemination of information of value in the proteption of civilians and vital civilian properties in time of war.
Among the problems to be studied will be those pertaining to air-raid bomb shelters, water supply, and power.
Chairman of the Committee is Walter D. Binger, American Society of Civil Engineers.
Implications of defense program for State finance— conference of Southern
States, January 31
Implications of the national defense program for State finance will be considered at a conference of Southern States, January 31 to February 1, at the University of Alabama, sponsored by the Alabama Department of Revenue and the Bureau of Public Administration of the University, assisted by the Federation of Tax Administrators.
Financial experiences of Australia and Canada during World Wars I and II will be discussed by the Right Honorable R. G. Casey, Australian Minister to the United States and former Secretary of the Treasury of Australia, and Mr. Eric Cross, Member of Parliament and former Minister of Municipal Affairs of Ontario.
As defense activity increases in the United States, State administrators may soon face problems similar to those of these other Federal commonwealths.
Methods by which the States may meet the financial problems ahead will be analyzed in light of World War experience and Federal-State fiscal relationships since that time. Speakers are to include Federal officials, budget and tax administrators from the Southern States, and university faculty members.
¥ ¥ ¥
ILLINOIS EMERGENCY DEFENSE COUNCIL
With organization of the Illinois Emergency Defense Council at a meeting called by Governor John Stelle on January 6, Illinois became the thirty-eighth State to set up an advisory and coordinating body for defense activities. Details of organization are to be perfected later.
Present membership includes the governor as ex offtcia chairman, Mr. Murray W. Baker of Peoria, general chairman, and eight other citizens who are to serve as chairmen in the following fields: Agricultural resources and production; civil protection; welfare and consumer interest; public works and housing; human resources and skills; industrial resources and production; public education and morale; public health. An executive director is to be appointed.
12
★ DEFENSE ★
January 22, 1941
LABOR DIVISION ...
Reduction of training time for performance of highly involved defense work under the Training- Within-Industry program; breaking down operations into many occupation^
The training period for doing highly involved and delicate defense operations has been considerably cut down, with some less skilled labor being taught within three weeks to work with tolerances as fine as one ten thousandth of an inch under the National Defense Advisory Commission’s training-within-industry program, it was announced this week by Sidney Hillman, associate director of the Office of Productop Management. Mr. Hillman also heads the Commission’s Labor Division under which the training program has been inaugurated.
This achievement has been reached by application of a process of up-grading skills within defense plants under the direction of Channing Dooley, who was borrowed from the Socony-Vacuum Corporation for this work. Mr. Dooley is assisted in this work by J. W. Dietz of Western Electric, William Conover of United States Steel, and M. J. Kane of American Telephone & Telegraph.
It is. through this up-grading process that the Labor Division expects to solve many of the major problems concerned with maintaining an uninterrupted flow of skilled hands to tend the machines of defense when and where needed.
Highest skill
The upgrading plan contemplates use by each worker of his highest skill. Under it, a top-notch machinist will be freed from devoting the usual 70 or 80 percent of his time to operations which could be handled by someone with lesser ability and will concentrate exclusively on tasks which use his most valuable skill.
Operations are broken down into their simplest components and new workers at first are trained to do only one thing well. They are then moved up, rung by rung, to other phases of the entire task until they have attained versatility and all-round ability, creating a new group of “sergeant mechanics” for U. S. industry.
An instance was the result of the request of the War Department for 300 lens grinders and as many instrument makers
who were needed to make gun sights in Army arsenals and, who, Mr. Dooley was told, could not be found.
Mr. Dooley consulted officers of major United States instrument-making concerns and reported to the Army that the problem could be solved by breaking down the job into several hundred different occupations. He explained that the training of a group of workers to make lenses can be done in a few weeks after the job has been analyzed and each separate operation has been defined in detail. The training must accustom each worker to the precision required, no greater tolerance than 1/10,000 inch from the specifications being' allowed in some of the operations.
400 operations
As a result, production of range-finding instruments in Army arsenals was broken down into 400 operations, half of them done by persons without all-around skill. The machine-tool industry has adopted this method as a result, of the’efforts of Mr. Dooley and his assistants, and the system has spread to manufacturers in the airplane and other defense industries.
As explained in the report by Commissioner Hillman on the first six months of this training-within-industry program, the blueprints for the system have been drawn up, spot checks in plants throughout the country have shown its efficacy, and the Labor Division is ready to launch the program on a Nation-wide basis. During the coming year efforts will be made to have this system adopted by the majority of plants working on orders for the national defense program.
On-the-job training
The program is concerned with instruction and up-grading of production workers, the establishment of trades apprenticeship, and the development of supervisors.
Shortly after establishment of the Labor Division, it was realized that an on-the-job training program would have to be initated by the Defense Commission
to supplement the work of governmental and private training agencies. During the depression years, industry as a whole had relied on the vast pool of unemployed to meet the limited demand for additional workers and had discontinued normal training programs. The defense emergency, therefore, found many companies with no training facilities and little or no knowledge of how to set one up.
Soon after the appointment of the National Defense Advisory Commission, Mr. Owen D. Young was called down to Washington by Commissioner Hillman to advise on the problem of stimulating training-within-industry.
After study and discussion, an advisory committee of experts from both management and labor was appointed and came to Washington for a Conference July 24. Out of this conference came the broad outlines of the program and the appointment of Mr. Dooley and Mr. Dietz to direct it.
Detailed plan
After many conferences with topranking industrialists and labor leaders throughout the country, a detailed plan to render the following four types of assistance was worked out:
(1) Help in the analysis of training needs.
(2) Aid in setting up a program in each defense plant to meet these needs.
(3) Servicing of industrialists through a clearing house which would make available to them the experience of other plants throughout the country facing similar problems.
(4) Acquainting of plant management with the services of government agencies operating in the field of employment and training.
After research and study in the field to obtain first-hand information and many conferences in Washington with labor and management representatives of specific defense industries, the details of this training program were worked out and made available to industry through a series of Training-within-industry bulletins under the following headings:
The Training within Industry Program; Upgrading within Industry; Expediting Production through Training; How to Prepare Instructors to Give Intensive Instruction; Expediting the Training of Skilled Tradesmen; Strengthening the Managerial Organi
January 22, 1941
★ DEFENSE ★
13
zation; Expanding the Managerial Organization; Improving Supervision; and Helping the Experienced Worker to “Break In” a New Man.
Several thousand of these bulletins have been sent out to manufacturers and to representatives of organized labor and governmental agencies.
★ ★ ★
Satisfactory coke situation; adequate supply for the full requirements of steel industry
A recent survey of the steel industry shows that all companies are more than adequately supplied with full requirements of coke, even at present capacity operations, it is announced by J. D. Biggers, Director of the Division of Production, Office of Production Management. Indications are that this satisfactory condition will be maintained.
Most steel companies are producing sufficient coke to meet their own requirements. Other companies are buying byproducts and beehive coke, and, in some cases, importing coke from England to meet present requirements. Some companies are known to be increasing their inventories.
Emergency stocks
Some excess stocks are available at eastern foundries for emergency cases and this condition appears to be general.
Furthermore, no shortage of household coke is known to exist. Moreover, the demand for household coke will decrease considerably after the next few winter months and the supply now going into household use will be available for industrial purposes.
Byproduct coke
Construction of considerable new byproduct coke capacity is now under way. It is estimated that new capacity for approximately three million to four million tons will be in production by the end of the current year.
This new output will gradually become available beginning within the next few months. Further plans for considerable additional byproduct coke capacity are known to be under consideration. All these factors point to an eventual supply of sufficient domestic byproduct coke to meet all requirements of the iron and steel industry operating at full capacity.
AGRICULTURE
Acceptance of recommendation that farm families forced off land by defense projects be given priority for jobs
Members of farm families forced off their land by defense projects will be given priority for construction jobs on the defense projects that displaced them, according to a recommendation submitted by the Agricultural Division and accepted by the Labor Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission.
Workers living within commuting range of a defense project also will be given preference. Employment of local labor is particularly important because of the serious housing problem raised by migration.
A complete list of all displaced farm workers desiring employment on construction will be provided the United States Employment Service by the Agricultural Division, with the cooperation of the Department of Agriculture.
Workers in rural areas are being advised to register with the United States Employment Service if they are entitled to preference. A local worker is defined as any individual who lives within commuting range of the site of the defense project and who has a permanent address in the area. Trailers, tents, and other temporary living quarters will not be regarded as permanent residences.
★ ★ ★
AGRICULTURE CONSULTANTS
Mr. Philip H. Groggins of the Bureau of Agricultural Chemistry and Engineering of the Department of Agriculture, has been appointed a consultant in the Agricultural Division. Mr. Groggins will aid in handling problems dealing with the production of fertilizer and with nitrate and ammonia requirements under the defense program.
Mr. Read Dunn, Secretary and Manager of the Delta Council at Stonéyville, Miss., has been appointed a consultant in the Agricultural Division. Mr. Dunn will handle new uses for farm products in the defense program, with particular emphasis on cotton.
Supplies of the most important vegetable seeds sufficient-announcement by Chester Davis
Supplies of most of the important vegetable seeds are sufficient to meet planting needs of the United States for this year, Chester C. Davis, member of the National Defense Advisory- Commission, announces.
This statement was based on an inventory of commercial vegetable seeds conducted by the Seed Committee of the Interdepartmental Conference Committee on National Food Resources, on the basis of information submitted by the seed industry.
Wide survey
The Seed Committee is headed by George C. Edler, Senior Marketing Specialist of the Agricultural Marketing Service of the Department of Agriculture, who had associated with him seed specialists from the Department of Commerce, the United States Tariff Commission, and bureaus of the Department of. Agriculture.
The survey covered 227 commercial vegetable seed producers and dealers, including practically all of the principal concerns in the country. It was the first comprehensive survey of the vegetable seed situation in 21 years.
Concern for 1941
More than 50 kinds of vegetable seeds were covered by the survey, which included many varieties and types. Stocks of 36 vegetable seeds were found to be smaller than those of a year ago while 14 seed stocks showed an increase during the year.
Since many of the vegetable seeds are normally imported from Europe and Africa, there was some concern over supplies for 1941 planting due to the international situation. The survey indicates that both commercial growers and house gardens will be able to make normal plantings of vegetables.
Report available
A complete report of this survey may be had upon request to the Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.
14
★ DEFENSE ★
January 22, 1941
Compilation of defense contracts cleared and awarded between January 1 and 15
The following is a compilation of contracts cleared and awarded during the period January 1 to January 15, 1941, inclusive. These contracts were cleared by the National Defense Advisory Commission and awarded by the War and Navy Departments and the Maritime Commission in the approximate amount Of $393,200,000.00.
Contracts of $500,000 or more are cleared by the Production Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission.
EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
Army
Corbetta Construction Co., Inc.; warehouses at Columbus General Depot, Ohio; New York, New York; $2,357,000.00
E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company; increased facilities for the manufacture of smokeless powder at the Indiana Ordnance Works, Charlestown, Indiana; Wilmington, Delaware; $23,000,000.00
Fruin-Colnon Contracting Co., Fruco Construction Co., and Massman Construction Co.; architects and engineers: Giffels and Vallet, Detroit, Michigan; A. J. Brandt, Inc., Detroit, Michigan; Mauren, Russell, Crowell and Mullgardt, St. Louis, Missouri; Construction of plant for the manufacture of small arms ammunition at St. Louis, Mo. (Cost-plus-fixed-fee-basis); St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri; $11,819,400.00
National Acme Company; Machines; Cleveland, Ohio; $1,971,330.00
Pearson Construction Co., Inc.; warehouses at Jeffersonville Q. M. Depot, Indiana; Benton Harbor, Michigan; $708,000.00
Ford J. Twaits Co., and Morrison-Knudsen Co. Inc.; miscellaneous buildings at Fort Ord Military Reservation, Calif.; Los Angeles, Calif.; $1,351,642.00
Navy
Bohn Aluminum & Brass Corp.; acquisition, -construction and installation of additional plant facilities and equipment for manufacture of parts for airplane engines; Detroit, Michigan; $1,216,000.00
Brown and Root, W. S. Bellows and Columbia Construction Co.; Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi—access roads, etc.; $679,315.00
Camden Forge Co.; acquisition and installation in the company's present plant of special additional equipment and facilities required for the production of heavy forgings; Camden, New Jersey; $3,125,619.00
Ex-Cell-O Corp.; manufacture of aircraft engine parts; Detroit, Michigan; $1,669,678.00
Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corp.; acquisition, construction and installation of additional plant facilities and equipment; Farmingdale, Long Island, New York; $1,478,800.00
Gibbs Gas Engine Co. of Florida; Sweepers, mine; Jacksonville, Florida; $640,000.00
Hughes-Foulkrod Co.; buildings and dispensary. Philadelphia—ext. structural shop, welding sheds and welding rooms in Turret Shop, etc.; $584,100.00.
The Midvale Co. of Nicetown; armor; Philadelphia, Pa.; $1,658,208.31.
Revere Copper & Brass, Inc., Baltimore Div.; brass, copper; Baltimore, Md.; $567,379.72.
Reynolds Metal Co.; Construction of a plant for the manufacture and assembly of Ordnance equipment 2^ miles south of Macon, Ga.; Richmond, Va.; $1,673,315.00.
Todd Galveston Dry Docks, Inc.; Acquisition, construction, and installation of additional plant facilities, including a floating drydock with attendant facilities; Galveston, Tex.; $2,254,342.75.
Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.; Construction of a Naval Ordnance Plant at Canton, Ohio; Pittsburgh, Pa.; $16,000,-000.00.
Willamette Iron and Steel Corp.; Construction of mine-layers (Cost-plus-flxed-fee basis); Portland, Ore.; $24,000,000.00.
Maritime Commission
California Shipbuilding Co.; Construction of shipyard facilities, eight ways; Los Angeles, Calif.; $4,766,000.00.
Houston Shipbuilding Co.; Construction of shipyard facilities, six ways; Houston, Tex.; $4,680,000.00.
Oregon Shipbuilding Co.; Construction of shipyard facilities, eight ways; Portland, Ore.; $4,787,000.00.
ORDNANCE EQUIPMENT
Navy
Bethlehem Steel Co.; Gun forgings; Bethlehem, Pa.; $7,275,484.10
Kelsey Hayes Wheel Company; Projectiles; Detroit, Mich.; $1,239,000.00.
SHIP CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR Navy
Bath Iron Works; *6 destroyers; Bath, Me.; $400,000.00 limiting cost of additional facilities.
Bethlehem Steel Co. (Shipbuilding Division) ;
* 4 destroyers; Quincy, Mass.; $800,000.00 limiting cost of additional facilities.
Bethlehem Steel Co. (Shipbuilding Division) ;
* 3 destroyers; Staten Island, N. Y.; $700,-000.00 limiting cost of additional facilities. Bethlehem Steel Co. (Shipbuilding Division) ;
* 7 destroyers; San Francisco, Calif.; $1,500,-000.00 limiting cost of additional facilities. Bethlehem Steel Co. (Shipbuilding Division) ;
♦ 6 destroyers; San Pedro, Calif.; $1,250,-000.00 limiting cost of additional facilities.
Federal Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co.; *6 destroyers; Kearny, N. J.; $2,250,000.00 limiting cost of additional facilities.
New York Shipbuilding Co.; *2 Cruisers; Camden, N. J.
Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding Co.; *5 destroyers; Seattle, Wash.; $1,400,000.00 limiting cost of additional facilities.
Government Navy Yard; *4 destroyers; Boston, Mass.
Government Navy Yard; *2 destroyers; Philadelphia, Pa.
Government Navy Yard; *2 destroyers; Norfolk, Va.
Government Navy Yard; *2 destroyers; Charleston, S. C.
Total 49 destroyers—less 9; $253,384,875.00.#
♦Contracts, not hitherto announced by the National Defense Advisory Commission, which have.been cleared by the Defense Commis-sion,_and awarded by the Navy Department.
# These destroyers are included in the contracts awarded for the construction of 40 additional destroyers at an estimated cost of $253,384,875.00. Previous contracts awarded as follows for 9 destroyers have been canceled: Bethlehem Steel Co.; 3 destroyers; State# Island-, N. Y.; Bethlehem Steel Co.; 2 destroyers; San Francisco, Calif.; Bethlehem Steel Co.; 2 destroyers; San Pedro, Calif.; Federal Shipbuilding and Dry Dock CO.; 2 cruisers;. Kearny, N J.
MISCELLANEOUS
Navy
Associated Shipbuilders; *4 seaplane tenders (small); Seattle, Wash.; $700,000.00.
Basalt Rock Co., Inc.; Barges, oil; Napa, Calif.; $1,800,000.00.
The Greenport Basin & Construction Co.;
Coastal mine sweepers; Greenport, N. Y.; $631,400.00.
Ingalls Shipbuilding Co.; *4 net layers; Pascagoula, Miss.; $2,000,000.00.
Lake Superior Shipbuilding; Barges, oil; Superior, Wis.; $2,184,448.00.
W. A. Robinson, Inc.; Coastal mine sweepers; Ipswich, Mass.; $632,000.00.
Sun Shipbuilding Co.; *3 destroyer tenders, 3 seaplane tenders; Chester, Pa.; $2,500,-000.00.
Williamette Iron and Steel Corp.; *2 minelayers; Portland, Oreg.; $1,000,000.00.
Mine Safety Appliances Co.; Apparatus, submarine escape; protectors, eye and nose; Pittsburgh, Pa.; $525,018.80.
★ ★ ★
Plan to promote Army’s eligible lieutenants in blocks and on the same day, with the exception of officers in the Air Corps
All Reserve lieutenants eligible for temporary promotion under recent War Department authority will be promoted in blocks and on the same day at each post, camp or station, or detached installation, except for Air Corps officers, it is announced by the War Department.
Acceptance of promotions on the same day also was made mandatory by the War Department to preserve the existing relative rank of Reserve officers in a given locality.
Because the Air Corps has had some Reserve officers on extended active duty longer than those of any other branch, a separate procedure will be followed for this arm. The War Department has authorized the Chief of the Air Corps to submit recommendations for temporary promotion of all eligible Air Corps Reserve lieutenants at one time, and to effect their temporary promotion simultaneously.
Reserve first lieutenants to be eligible for temporary promotion must have served, prior to September 9, 1940, at least three years on extended active duty. There are approximately 100 such officers, all Air Corps officers, who will be promoted temporarily to captain.
One year’s extended active duty prior to September 9, 1940, is necessary to qualify Reserve second lieutenants for temporary promotion to the grade of first lieutenant. Of the approximately 1130 officers so affected, about 600 are Air Corps officers while the remainder are from the other arms and services.
No further “block” promotion of Reserve officers is contemplated at this time.
January 22, 1941
★ DEFENSE ★
15
Maintenance of the rights of individuals to have scruples against bearing arms— statement by director of Selective Service
Calling upon all Selective Service local boards to administer with sympathy the law and regulations relating to conscientious objectors, C. A. Dykstra, director of Selective Service, recently declared that the rights of individuals to have scruples against bearing arms must be maintained.
Mr. Dykstra pointed out that the Selective Service Act provides protection for the rights of conscientious objectors and prohibits forcing them into combatant training and service.
Mr. Dykstra said:
“One of the attributes of freedom of conscience is the individual right to have scruples about bearing arms. Just as this right is recognized in England, so in the United States this protection to in*-dividuals is guaranteed in the Selective Service Act.
Act quoted
“Section 5, Paragraph ‘G’, reads as follows: ‘Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service in the land or naval forces of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.’
“The Act further provides that such persons may be assigned to noncambat -ant work in the land or naval forces or, if opposed even to noncombatant service, may be assigned to other work of national importance under civilian direction.”
The Director said that plans were being put into effect to make provision for all conscientious objectors—those who object to combatant service and those who object even to noncombatant work.
President Roosevelt, Mr. Dykstra recalled, recently issued an Executive order which included service in medical and other unarmed units as noncombatant service.
Experimental plan
In addition, the Director said:
“We have a plan—experimental for the time, which is being put into operation. Certain abandoned Civilian Conservation Corps camps and some camps set up by voluntary groups in State and
National areas in the last few years are to be put back into service as conscientious-objector camps.
“Here work in forestation, soil conservation, and the like will be planned and executed. Agents of the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior will plan and supervise the technical details of the undertaking.
“Over-all supervision will be the responsibility of Selective Service Headquarters.”
“Sympathy and understanding”
Food, clothing, and hospitalization will be furnished at the direction of Selective Service, the Director said.
He declared:
“In providing these two avenues of service for conscientious objectors, non-combatant assignments with armed forces and work of national importance under civilian direction, the Army and Selective Service together are carrying out scrupulously the mandate of the people of the United States. It is the responsibility of all local boards to administer with sympathy and understanding the provisions of the Act relating to conscientious objectors. The Congress has given us the job to do.”
“Honor the local boards”
Following Mr. Dykstra’s statement regarding the local boards’ responsibility in protecting the rights of conscientious objectors, Col. William H?* Draper, Jr., member of the. President’s Advisory Committee on Selective Service, urged the Nation to “do honor to the local boards” which, he said, in the classification of registrants, are “classifying without fear or favor—selecting without prejudice.”
Pointing out that Selective Service is decentralized and that the local boards bear the burden of choosing men for the armed forces, Col. Draper said: “They deserve and are receiving the complete cooperation of their communities and of the 16,000,000 men who have registered for service.”
The local board must make the decision in each individual case, Col. Draper said, and he asserted that with 6,200 local boards in the Nation, there would be
some divergence of interpretation of law and regulations.
He said:
“Of course they can’t be uniform in any absolute sense. The facts are not exactly the same in any two cases.”
Local board members serve without pay, “giving to, the country their devotion and self-sacrifice,” Col. Draper declared.
¥ ¥ ¥
No “service flag” for families of men selected for military training; opposition expressed by Director Dykstra
Opposition to proposals that some official symbol be designated for display by the families of men selected for military training was declared by C. A. Dykstra, Director of Selective Service.
Service to the Nation is a duty, he pointed out, and a basic philosophy of Selective Service is that everybody serves his country best by doing the job for which he is most qualified, needed, and available.
“I would hesitate to encourage anything that in spite of worthy intent would commercialize the performance of a patriotic obligation,” Mr. Dykstra said, and he added:
“As long as this country is at peace, and as long as men inducted for military training remain in camps in this country, I am opposed to any symbol or emblem to designate the families of those engaged in military training.
“Selective Service will succeed to the extent that the American people accept military draining as a normal obligation. One of the basic philosophies of Selective Service is that everybody serves his country best by doing the job for which he is most qualified, needed, and available. To provide some special gratuitous recognition of the families of men who are selected for military training would be an injustice to the families of those who serve in industry, agriculture, commerce, and other pursuits necessary to the maintenance of public health, safety, or interest.”
Director Dykstra’s statement was in answer, he said, to numerous suggestions he has received that apparently were inspired by memory of the “Service Hag” displayed in 1917-18 to indicate that members of a family were with the Nation’s armed forces.
IS
★ DEFENSE ★
January 22, 1941
List of 67 corporations receiving tax
Certificates of Necessity through Jan. 15
The National Defense Advisory Commission announces that 67 corporations had been issued tax Certificates of Necessity through January 15,1941.
The Certificates of Necessity are issued for the purpose of allowing the manufacturer to take advantage of the special 60-month income tax amortization provided under Section 124 of the Internal Revenue Code. If the plant additions made by contractors or subcontractors are found “necessary in the interests of national defense during the emergency period,” the rapid amortization is granted.
The majority of the corporations which received Certificates of Necessity are expanding their facilities for the manufacture of machine tools and aircraft. Twenty-two of the sixty-seven Certificates call for new machine-tool facilities. Most of the remainder are engaged in processing raw materials for Industrial consumption.
The Certificates issued through January 15 cover facilities costing over $120,-188,000. Cost figures given have been approximated to the nearest thousand. These figures are estimates only and are subject to audit by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
A list of the manufacturers who have received Certificates follows:
Ajax Manufacturing Co., Inc., Euclid, Ohio; forging machinery, $174,000.
Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa.; inspection gages; $53,000.
American Gas Accumulator Co., Elizabeth, N. J.; flood lights; $150,000.
American Screw Products Corporation, Newark, N. J.; screw machines; $194)00.
American Smelting & Refining Co., New York, N. Y.; zinc smelting; $400,000.
Barnes Drill Co., Rockford, Ill.; tools; $85,-000.
Beech Aircraft Corporation, Wichita, Kans.; aircraft; $1,620,000.
The Bell Aircraft Corporation, Buffalo, N. Y.; aircraft; $1,095,000.
Bethlehem Steel Co., Bethlehem, Pa.; coke, pig iron, steel ingots; $20,390,000.
Bilgran Gear & Machine Works, Philadelphia, Pa.; machine tools; $10,000.
Boeing Aircraft Co., Seattle, Wash.; aircraft; $10,737,000.
Boeing Airplane Co., Wichita, Kans.; aircraft; $253,000.
Bryant Chucking Grinder Co., Springfield, Vt.; internal grinders; $189,000.
Bullard Co., Bridgeport, Conn.; lathes; $1,138,000.
Chambersburg Engineering Co., Chambersburg, Pa.; forging and pressing equipment; $600,000.
Cincinnati Milling Machine Co., Cincinnati, Ohio; milling machines; $9,116,000.
Clark Equipment Co., Buchanan, Mich.; axle housings and transmissions for trucks; $2,580,000.
Cleveland Automatic Machine Co., Cleveland, Ohio; automatic screw machines; $75,000.
Cleveland Twist Drill Co., Cleveland, Ohio; twist drills and reamers; $399,000.
Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, San Diego, Calif.; aircraft; $3,090,000.
Cooper-Bessemer Corporation, Mount Vernon, Ohio; engines and steel products; $321,000.
Cramp Shipbuilding Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; shipbuilding; $10,000,000.
DeLaval Steam Turbine Co., Trenton, N. J.; oil pumps; $498,000.
Dewey & Almy Chemical Co., Cambridge, Mass.; soda lime; $27,000.
Donner-Hanna Coke Corporation, Buffalo, N. Y.; coke and byproducts; $3,000,000.
' Eclipse Counterbore Co., Detroit, Mich.; cutting tools; $105,000.
Edlund Machinery Co., Cortland, N. Y.; drilling machines; $27,000.
Fafnir Bearing Co., New Britain, Conn.; ball bearings; $1,330,000.
Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corporation, New York, N. Y.; aircraft; $1,372,000.
Fosdick Machine Tool Co., Cincinnati, Ohio; machine tools; $34,000.
Geometric Tool Co., New Haven, Conn.; screw thread tools; $54,000.
Gleason Works, Rochester, N. Y.; machine tools; $305,000.
Greenfield Tap & Die Corporation, Greenfield, Mass.; gages; $1,009,000.
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, Bethpage, Long Island, N. Y.; aircraft; $3,500,000.
Hanna Furnace Corporation, Detroit, Mich.; pig iron; $1,250,000.
Heald Machine Co., Worcester, Mass.; grinding and finishing machines; $2,061,000.
Humble Oil & Refining Co., Houston, Tex.; oils and pipe equipment; $1,097,000.
Independent Pneumatic Tool Co., Chicago, Hl.; pneumatic tools; $613,000.
Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, N. J.; surgical cotton and gauze; $350,000.
Jones & Lamson Machine Co., Springfield, Vt.; grinders, lathes, dies, and taps; $447,000.
Kingsbury Machine Tool Corporation, Keene, N. H.; machine tools; $209,000.
Lapointe Machine Tool Co., Hudson, Mass.; breeching machines and tools; $35,000.
Lees-Bradner Co., Cleveland, Ohio; machine tools; $183,000.
Lindberg Engineering Co., Chicago, Ili.; heat treating furnaces; $150,000.
Manley & Mount St. Realty Corporation, Weehawken, N. J.; hospital equipment; $201,000.
Maryland Drydock Co,, Baltimore, Md.; ship repairs; $590,000.
Monarch Machine Tool Co., Sidney, Ohio; lathes; $385,000.
Nevada-Massachusetts Co., Sonora, Calif.; tungsten products; $400,000.
New Britain Machine Co., New Britain, Conn.; machine tools; $915,000.
Northwest Magnesite Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.; magnesite; $315,000.
Ohio Machine Tool Co., Kenton, Ohio; boring and milling machines; $47,000.
Pangbom Corporation, Hagerstown, Md.; dust-collecting equipment; $135,000.
Permanente Corporation, Oakland, Calif.; magnesium oxide and metallic magnesium; $6,500,000.
Reed-Prentiss Corporation, Worcester, Mass.; engines, lathes, and milling machines; $167,000. '
Ryan Aeronautical Co., San Diego, Calif.; aircraft; $333,000.
William Sellers & Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.; drilling and planing machines; $87,000.
Sier-Bath Co., Inc., New York, N. Y.; precision gears; $170,000.
Sivyer Steel Casting Co., Milwaukee, Wis.; steel castings, tanks, and tractors; $110,000.
A. O. Smith Corporation, Milwaukee, Wis.; bomb parts; $1,157,000.
Southern Railway Co., Richmond, Va.; transportation; $7,576,000.
-Summerill Tubing Co., Bridgeport, Pa.; seamless tubing; $91,000.
Tennessee Copper Co., New York, N. Y.; sulphuric acid; $1,100,000.
Universal Cyclops Steel Corporation, Bridgeville, Pa.; steel ingots; $100,000.
Warner & Swasey Co., Cleveland, Ohio; turret lathes; $1,894,000.
9 Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.; marine propulsion machinery; $5,670,000.
Western Land Improvement Co., Santa Monica, Calif.; aircraft; $11,255,000.
Woodward Governor Co., Rockford, Ill.; governors, propellor, engine, and wheel; $840,000.
★ ★ ★
Activation of military police battalion; eight others within the next five months
The War Department announces activation of one Military Police battalion. At the same time, it says that eight other Military Police units will be activated within the next 5 months.
The unit already activated is the 518th Military Police Battalion, which has been assigned to garrison Fort Jay in New York harbor. With a total strength of approximately 1,050 officers and enlisted men, this battalion is organized into a headquarters company and four rifle companies.
Two additional Military Police battalions will be activated in February. One, the 701st M. P. Battalion, will be stationed at Fort Snelling, Minnesota, and the other at Fort Brady, Michigan.
Constituted for the primary purposes of performing guard duties and of cooperating with civilian agencies in maintaining order, each will have a total strength of more than 600 officers and enlisted men.
A fourth Military Police Battalion will be organized as an army unit at Camp Sibert near Boulder City, Arizona, about June 1943, to aid in guarding Boulder Dam.
Five Military Police companies, each having an approximate strength of 210 officers and enlisted men, will also be activated for assignment as Army Corps troops in February 1941, and will be stationed at Camp Shelby, Mississippi; Camp Bowie, Texas; Camp Blanding, Florida; Fort Lewis, Washington; and Fort McClellan, Alabama, according to War Department plans.