[Defense : Official Bulletin of the National Defense Advisory Commission. Vol. 2, No. 2]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
4û7 -
DEFENSE;
OFFICIAL BULLETIN of the NATIONAL DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMISSION Washington, D C. Issued Weekly JAN. 14, 1941 . VOL. 2, N 0. 2
Summary of the
Week in Defense
Legislation to enable conversion of the United States into an arsenal for Democracy was placed before Congress January 10. The bill contains no appropriations, but would authorize:
1. Sale, lease, loan, or other disposition of war materials to “any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.”
2. Testing, repairing, and outfitting of any defense article of a friendly belligerent. .
3. Manufacture of war materials for friendly foreign governments in Government-owned and privatley owned arsenals, factories, and shipyards.
4. Communication to any friendly government of any information pertaining to any defense article actually furnished to that government, including designs, blueprints, and information for using the equipment.
5. The release of any defense article for export, eliminating restrictions in the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Embargo Act of 1940.
It was emphasized in a joint statement by Senate and House majority leaders that the bill would not authorize use of American vessels to deliver war materials to combat areas.
Fleet reorganization
The President directed reorganization of the United States fleet and ordered warships manned at war strength. The reorganization, which takes place February 1, provides that the Navy will be divided into three fleets—the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Asiatic, each under a commander in chief.
Rear Admiral H. E. Kimmel will command the Pacific fleet with the additional title and duty as commander in chief of the United States Fleet. Rear Admiral Ernest J. King will command
(Continued on page 16)
284635—41
Establishment of Division of Defense Housing by Executive Order
By Executive Order of the President, dated January 11, 1941, a Division of Defense Housing Coordination has been established within the office for Emergency Management of the Executive Office of the President. Mr. Charles Palmer, who was appointed coordinator of the new defense housing organization, shall perform his duties and functions under the direction and supervision of the President, and shall report to the President through the Liaison Officer for Emergency Management.
By Executive Order, the new duties of the coordinator were set up as follows:
(A) Establish and maintain liaison between the several departments and establishments of the Government, and such other public or private agencies as may seem necessary to the Coordinator, to facilitate proper coordination and efficiency in the provision of housing facilities, essential to the national defense.
(B) Anticipate the need for housing in national defense areas, analyze re-
ported defense housing needs, coordinate studies and surveys of Federal housing agencies, and facilitate the full use of existing housing accommodations.
The term “Federal housing agency” as used’ in this order shall include all executive departments and independent agencies, including corporations in which the United States owns all or a majority of the stock, either directly or indirectly, which:
(a) Plan, construct, or operate defense housing facilities.
(b) Grant loans or subsidies for public housing purposes.
(c) Encourage or assist the financing or construction of private housing.
(d) Conduct surveys or analyses of housing conditions and housing markets.
(C) “Formulate and recommend to the President coordinated defense housing programs with the objective of avoiding shortages, delays, duplication, and overlapping in defense housing; and advise each Federal housing agency of its part in each proposed program.
(D) “Facilitate the execution of approved housing programs through private industry or through appropriate governmental agencies, and take appropriate steps to eliminate obstacles which impede the expeditious provision of defense housing.
(E) “Advise with private and Federal agencies in the formulation of plans, terins, rental and management policies, and other factors involved in developing and operating approved defense housing projects.
(F) “Review proposed or existing legislation relating to or affecting defense housing activities and recommend such additional legislation as may be necessary or desirable to assure the effective and expeditious provision of adequate housing facilities for persons engaged or to be engaged in defense activities.”
INDEX
Office of Production Management: Page
Statement_________________________ 2
Executive Order___________________ 3
Priorities Board___________________ 4
Labor Division_____________________ 5
Consumer Division_________________6,7
States and Cities_________________ 8
Price Stabilization________________ 9
Purchases_________________________ 10
Transportation___________________ 11
Mr. Forrestal’s appeal on subcontracting ____________________ 12
Recommended plans for procuring: new plant facilities____________ 13
Compilation of contracts for expansion of plants_____________14,15
Mr. Rockefeller’s statement_______ 16
Page 2
k DEFENSE k January 14, 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 M. McReynolds, Secretary of the Commission.
Charles Palmer, Coordinator of Defense Housing.
Nelson Rockefeller, Coordinator of Commercial and Cultural Relations Between the American Republics.
In the January 7 issue of Defense, page four, column three, it was stated that “arrangements have been made * * * for the shipment of large quantities of pig iron from the British Isles to the United States. This was a misstatement. The words “pig iron” should have read “coke”.
From the Office of Production Management: A Statement——“surpassing urgency”
The following statement was issued by the membership of the Office of Production Management:
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 and to establish and maintain production that will insure its efficiency and adequacy 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, but all that we have will be far from sufficient.
We shall have need of the active, aggressive, and enthusiastic cooperation of every man, woman, and child in the United States if we are to make this arsenal in America adequate to the successful defense of democracy and freedom. This can only mean that in the immediate future everything in our national life must be subordinated to the 'necessity for defense.
Industry must subordinate its concern over the possible future effects of tremendous immediate expansion. It must be satisfied with a normal return for new capital required. If there is in industry and management anywhere a subconscious, unexpressed hope for wartime profits, that must be sternly repressed. If there are those who think they can employ this emergency for any selfish advantages, they must dismiss such thoughts. Democracy is fighting for its very life in its struggle to retain the principles of a free economic system.
In any successful defense program the active, intelligent, and patriotic cooperation of the men who man the machines is vital. Laws now in effect make secure the principle of collective bargaining and throw about the interests of the workingman adequate protection. Labor must know that under the administration of the Office of Production Management no sacrifices will be asked of it that will not be matched by a corresponding sacrifice on the part of capital, but just as it is intolerable for capital to seek a selfish advantage by reason of the present emergency, so must labor avoid any attempt to make improper use of its position in the present world-wide emergency; the whole principle of collective
bargaining and the rights of labor under our system of government and economy are being challenged.
If the totalitarian forces of the world are victorious, all the hard-won rights of labor will be destroyed and both capital and labor will become the involuntary vassals of an all-powerful State. Labor has as great a stake in this crisis as capital, and both must work together harmoniously if the United States is to make its contribution to a democratic victory in the world.
To achieve the results which the country expects from the Office of Production Management, we expect and must have the kind of cooperation from everybody that counts no sacrifice too great to make if it will contribute to a more successful and a more efficient defense. It is this spirit which we seek to invoke, and it is in a similar spirit that we undertake this great task which the Commander in Chief has committed to our hands.
★ ★ ★
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 the President may from time to time determine: Division of Production, John D. Biggers, director; Division of Purchases, Donald M. Nelson, director; and Division of Priorities, Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., director.
Construction of tank arsenal is proceeding on schedule
Heavy snowstorms and low temperatures, usually serious handicaps in structural-steel operations, have failed to retard progress on construction of the tank arsenal being built by the Chrysler Corporation at Detroit, Mich., and work is proceeding on schedule, the Secretary of War announces.
The arsenal, the largest of its type in the world, is expected to cost $20,000,-000. The War Department already has placed an order for 1,000 twenty-five-ton tanks at an estimated cost of $33,500,000.
January 14, 1941
★ DEFENSE ★
Page 3
Text of Executive Order establishing the Office of Production Management
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the statutes, and in order to define further the functions and duties of the Office .for Emergency Management with respect to the national emergency as declared by the President to exist on September 8, 1939, and to increase production for the national defense through mobilization of material resources and the industrial facilities of the Nation, it is hereby ordered:
1. There shall be in the Office for Emergency Management of the Executive Office of the President an Office of Production Management which shall consist of (1) a Director General and (2) an Associate Director General, each to be appointed by the President; (3) the Secretary of War;_and (4) the Secretary of the Navy. The members shall serve as such without compensation, but shall be entitled to actual and necessary transportation, subsistence, and other expenses incidental to the performance of their duties.
With such advice and assistance as it may require from 'other departments and agencies of the Federal Government, and subject to such regulations or directions as the President may from time to time prescribe, and subject further to the general policy that the Departments of War and Navy and other departments and agencies of the Government will be utilized to the maximum extent compatible with efficiency, the Office of Production Management shall:
A. Formulate and execute in the public interest all measures needful and appropriate in order (1) to increase, accelerate, and regulate the production and supply of materials, articles, and equipment and the provision of emergency plant facilities and services required for the national defense, and (2) to insure effective coordination of those activities of the several departments, corporations, and other agencies of the Government which are directly concerned therewith.
B. Survey, analyze, and summarize for purposes of coordination the stated requirements of the War and Navy and other departments and agencies of the Government, and of foreign governments for materials, articles, and equipment needed for defense.
C. Advise with respect to the plans and schedules of the various departments
and agencies for the purchase of materials, articles, and equipment required for defense, to coordinate the placement of major defense orders and contracts, and to keep informed of the progress of the various programs of production and supply.
D. Plan and take all lawful steps necessary to assure the provision of an adequate supply of raw materials essential to the production of finished products needed for defense.
E. Formulate plans for the mobilization for defense of the production facilities of the Nation, and to take all lawful action necessary to carry out such plans.
F. Determine the adequacy of existing production facilities and to assure their maximum use; and, when necessary, to stimulate and plan the creation of such additional facilities and sources of production and supply as may be essential to increase and expedite defense production.
G. Determine when, to what extent, and in what manner priorities shall be accorded to deliveries of material as provided in section 2 (A) of the act entitled “An Act To Expedite National Defense and for Other Purposes,” approved June 28, 1940. Deliveries of material shall take priority, as provided in said act, in accordance with such determinations and the orders issued in pursuance thereof by the Office of Production Management.
H. Perform the functions and exercise the authorities vested in the President by section 9 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940.
I. Serve as the liaison and channel of communication between the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense and the Departments of War and Navy with respect to the duties imposed upon the Commission by the following-named acts, and with. respect to all other matters pertaining to defense purchasing and production: Public, Nos. 667, 781, 800, and 801, and Public Resolution No. 95, Seventy-sixth Congress.
J. Perform such other functions as the President may from time to time assign or delegate to it.
3. The Director General, in association with the Associate Director General, and serving under the direction and supervision of the President, shall discharge and perform the administrative
responsibilities and duties required to carry out the functions specified in paragraph 8, subject- to and in conformity with the policies and regulations (not inconsistent with such regulations as may be issued by the President) prescribed by the Office of Production Management.
4. There shall be within the Office of Production Management the following and such other operating divisions as the President may from time to time determine:
A. A Division of Production.
B. A Division of Purchases.
C. A División of Priorities.
Each division of the Office of Production Management shall be in charge of a director appointed by the Office of Production Management with the approval of the President.
5. There shall be within the Office of Production Management a Priorities Board composed of six members. A chairman and three other members shall be appointed or designated by the President; the Director General and Associate Director General shall be members ex officio. The Priorities Board shall serve as an advisory body and, from time to time as may be required by the Office of Production Management, shall make findings and submit recommendations with respect to the establishment of priorities, the placing of mandatory orders, the assignment of preference ratings, the allocation of deliveries, and other related matters. In making its findings and recommendations, the Priorities Board shall take into account general social and economic considerations and the effect the proposed actions would have upon the civilian population.
6. Within the limits of such funds as may be allocated to it by the President on the recommendation of the Bureau of the Budget, the Office of Production Management may employ necessary personnel and make provision for the necessary supplies, facilities, and services. However, the Office of Production Management shall use insofar as practicable such statistical, informational, fiscal, personnel, and other general business services and facilities as may be made available through the Office for Emergency Management or other agencies of the Government.
7. Executive Order No. 8572 of October 21, 1940, as amended by Executive Order No. 8612 of December 15,1940, is revoked.
Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The White House, January 7, 1941.
Page 4
★ DEFENSE ★
January 14, 1941
*
Announcement of appointments to the staff of the Division of Priorities
E. R. Stettinius, Jr., director of the Division of Priorities of the office of production management, has announced the following appointments to his executive staff:
James P. Towers, assistant director in charge of administration. Mr. Towers is executive vice president of Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc., New York City, industrial engineers.
Blackwell Smith, assistaht director in charge of staff activities. Mr. Smith was associated with Mr. Stettinius in the Industrial Materials Division,of the National Defense Advisory Commission.
Industry committees
Charles E. Adams, who will organize the activities of the various industry committees which will be appointed from time to time. Mr. Adams served as special consultant to the Industrial Materials Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission and is on leave from his position as President of the Air Reduction Corporation.
A. C. C. Hill, Jr., deputy director. Mr. Hill was connected with the Office of the Coordinator of National Defense Purchases and later served as Acting Deputy Administrator of Priorities under the old Priorities Board.
Isador Lubin, consultant to the Labor Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission, has been appointed labor consultant to Mr. Stettinius.
Mr.* Stettinius also announced establishment, of the minerals and metals priority section of the Division of Priorities, with Dr. Ernest M. Hopkins, president of Dartmouth College, as executive officer. Dr. Hopkins served during the World War as assistant to Secretary of War Baker, in charge of Industrial Relations.
Iron and steel
Dr. Hopkins also Will serve as chairman of the advisory industry committees which will be appointed from time to time under the minerals and metals section. First such industry group to be established is the iron and steel priorities committee, with the following members:
Walter Tower, president of the American Iron and Steel Institute, representing the industry; Carl Conway, chairman of the board of the Continental Can Co., representing industrial consumers; Capt. Paul Hendron, representing the Navy,
and Lt. Col. Hugh C. Minton, representing the Army.
It is contemplated that other sections, in addition to Minerals and Metals, will be established to supervise priorities in chemicals, commercial aircraft, tools and equipment, and general products. Industry advisory committees will be established under each of these sections.
Provisions have been made for the appointment of a labor consultant to each of these sections.
The Priorities Board members are Mr. Stettinius, chairman; John D. Biggers, director of the Division of Production of the Office of Production Management; Donald M. Nelson, director of the Division of Purchases; and Leon Henderson, Price Stabilization Commissioner, National Defense Advisory Commission. William S. Knudsen, director general of the Office of Production Management, and Sidney Hillman, associate director general, are ex officio members.
★ ★ ★
Expansion of Army Air Corps— goal will be near attainment within a year after planning
The War Department announces that the Army Air Corps expansion program, as planned early in 1940, has moved rapidly forward.
On June 30, 1940, the Army Air Corps consisted of 3,322 Regular Army and Reserve officers, 1,894 flying cadets, and 45,914 enlisted men. At that time a definite goal for expansion had been set, namely an Air Force of 54 combat groups. At that time there were 16 skeleton groups and wings. On December 18, 1940, four Air District Headquarters were activated, together with 14 additional Wing Headquarters, which will care for assignment of all personnel and planes in the 54-group program. All other groups, not already activated, will be ordered into being January 15, 1941, to be formed from existing Regular Army units.
The complete personnel allotment under the 54-group program is approximately 16,000 officers and 166,000 enlisted men; and it is expected that by June 30, 1941, 10,100 officers and 15,000 flying cadets and 151,000 enlisted men will be in the Air Corps, the goal almost attained within 1 year.
Letter from William S. Knudsen to manufacturers and text of the poster to be displayed
The following letter has been sent to 10,556 plants working on defense contracts :
“The office of production management has prepared the enclosed poster which, with your approval, we desire placed on the bulletin board of your plants. You will observe that there is no signature to the poster, the space having been purposely left for the signature on your management.
“We will appreciate your cooperation in this matter. We are very desirous of having this strong appeal by the President of the United States before the men in your plants.
“Very truly yours,
“The Office of
Production Management, “W. S. Knudsen,
Director General."
. The poster reads as follows:
TO ALL DEFENSE WORKERS * * *
The President of the United St^es said:
“I appeal * * *
“to the owners of plants,
“to the managers,
“to the workers,
“to our own Government employees,
“to put every ounce of effort into producing these munitions swiftly and without stint. And with this appeal I give you the pledge that all of us who are officers of your Government will devote ourselves to the same wholehearted extent to the great task which lies ahead.
“We must be the great arsenal of democracy. For us this is an emergency as serious as war itself. We must apply ourselves to our task with the same resolution, the same sense of urgency, the same spirit of patriotism and sacrifice as we would show were we at war.”
* * *
Let’s get squarely behind our President’s appeal.
* * *
Let’s work together building that "GREAT ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY" in record time.
* * ♦
Increase PRODUCTION!—That’s our No. 1 job!
Let’s go!
January 14, 1941
★ DEFENSE ★
Page 5
LABOR DIVISION ...
Government vocational courses will train more than 500,000 for defense work in the next 10 months—Dr. Reeves’ report
More than half a million Americans will be trained for defense jobs in Government vocational courses within the next 10 months in a Nation-wide jobtraining program designed to anticipate defense labor supply needs, Dr. Floyd W. Reeves, executive assistant to Sidney Hillman, in charge of the Labor Supply Section, announces.
This is one part of the two-way program for labor training under Mr. Hillman’s supervision, the other being the training-within-industry program.
Mr. Reeves’ principal task is coordination of the vast existing governmental facilities for education. His associate in this work is Dr. Will H. Alexander, who left his post as head of the Rosenwald Foundation to come to Washington.
Seven agencies
Seven Government agencies, in addition'to the War and Navy Departments, are cooperating in this program. These are the United States Office of Education, the Work Projects Administration, the United States Civil Service Commission, the Federal Committee on Apprenticeship, the Bureau of Emploment Security, National Youth Administration, and the Civilian Conservation Corps.
The number of men available and the kind of work they could do was known at almost the same time as the defense program began^because these offices had made a Nation-wide inventory in April 1940. At that time there was a reserve of 5,100,000 workers available for employment. By the end of June the active flies of public employment offices contained the work histories of 5,735,000 workers.
2 million placements
By the end of November the number of unemployed had declined to 4,567,000, and during the period from June through November the Public Employnient Office made over 2 million job placements.
Before defense contracts could be allocated and new plant sites selected it was necessary to know whether or not there was adequate labor supply in the
area. This demand was for more than a mere list of unemployed. It called for specific information on the kinds of unemployed men in the area. The Public Employment Service now has drawn up classifications for more than 500 defense jobs which enable them to immediately classify the kinds of work a man can do.
Through the Public Employment Service a constant check is kept on the Nation-wide supply of labor. There is close cooperation between Public Employment Service and the vocational education program. All unemployed students in defense schools are required to register at public employment offices.
Anticipate needs
To anticipate local labor needs the Employment Service is now sending its representatives once a month into all factories having defense contracts. These representatives ask employers to state their anticipated labor requirements for the ensuing 60 days.
In June 1940 Congress appropriated $15,000,000 to the Office of Education for vocational defense training programs. The training courses now run by this agency are for (15 unemployed workers referred by WPA or by the local employment sei vice offices, to refresh and improve their skill, and (2) employed workers referred by employers and local union groups to prepare themselves for up-gradings in industry.
These programs were started on June 1, 1940, and through October 31, 1940, a total of 242,000 persons had been enrolled with more than 600 cities cooperating.
Further funds
An additional $26,000,000 was made available by Congress during the summer for these programs. An appropriation of $8,000,000 authorized the purchase and rental of equipment and $9,000,000 was allotted for college engineering courses. Another $10,000,000 went for courses for out-of-school youth, and $7,500,000 went for courses for youth on NYA projects.
WPA workers may receive their regular wages for time spent in training for manual occupations under an act of Congress passed in June 1940. From July 1,1940 to November 30, 1940, a total of 49,974 WPA workers had been enrolled in these courses.
The National Defense Advisory Commission is sponsoring at WPA project to train approximately 5,750 needy persons in the manual occupations of aviation ground servicemen.
Arsenal labor
The United States Civil Service Commission is performing a vitally important function in recruiting labor for the manufacturing arsenals of the War and Navy Departments.
The Federal Committee on Apprenticeship has increased its program, and at the present time 145 plants have- apprentice programs.
The number of young people on out-of -school NYA projects increased from approximately 250,000 in September 1940, to almost 340,000 on December 28, 1940. All of these young people are taking defense training courses.
★ ★ ★
Plan to utilize idle tools and manpower in three rural Virginia counties
A detailed plan to utilize idle tool and manpower in three Virginia counties for the defense program has been laid before the National Defense Advisory Commission by the Shenandoah Valley Defense Council, Morris L. Cooke, attached to the staff of Sidney Hillman, Commissioner in charge of the Labor Division, announces.
To develop plans to bring shut-down facilities into defense production form, representatives of Shenandoah, Augusta, and Rockingham counties in Virginia met with War, Navy, and National Defense Advisory Commission officials in Washington. D. W. Thomas, president of the Chesapeake and Western Rail way, acted as spokesman for the group which had pooled idle facilities on a cooperative basis.
Mr. Thomas said these three Virginia counties, even though predominantly (.Continued on page 6)
Page 6
★ DEFENSE ★
January 14, 1941
CONSUMER DIVISION...
Recommendations to keep the price of meat to consumers at reasonable levels
In order to keep meat prices to consumers at reasonable levels and at the same time benefit farmers, the Secretary of Agriculture has recommended to farmers that they raise more hogs this season and send more beef cattle to market. The Consumer Division has worked closely with the Department and the Agricultural Division of the Defense Commission in the study leading to these recommendations.
The price of beef is relatively high and the price of pork, although low in comparison with other foods and past prices, is rising. Reason appears to be lack of sufficient supply. Higher beef prices have led farmers to increase herds but also to keep large numbers of cattle off the market in order to use them for breeding purposes with a view to possible future price increases.
Although prices of pork and pork products have been relatively low during the past year, hog production has fallen off and pork prices probably will rise, the Department reports, unless production'is increased.
Buy by grade
Consumers can get full value for meats by buying beef products by grade, suggests the Consumer Division. Consumers should look for graded meats in their local stores.
The Division also points out that many cheaper beef cuts have just as much nutritive value as the more expensive cuts. Information on attractive and appetizing dishes made from the cheaper cuts of meat is contained in Meat Dishes at Low Cost, issued by the Department of Agriculture (Miscellaneous Publication No. 216), which can be purchased for 5 cents from the United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
Other food prices
Butter prices increased during November and December. Wholesale prices have fallen in recent weeks, however, and retail prices of butter may be expected to begin their usual seasonal decline, according to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumers have been
using more butter than last winter and stocks are relatively low. No shortage of butter is anticipated, however. Consumers can find plentiful supplies and low prices for alternative table spreads and cooking fats, such as oleomargarine, lard, and vegetable oils.
A guide to the housewife in the selection and substitution of butter and fats is offered in Fats and Oils for Cooking and Table Uses, published by the United States Department of Agriculture and obtainable from the United States Government Printing Office for 5 cents.
Food cost rises in the past month were due mainly to increases in the retail price of butter, milk, and flour. Prices of dairy products usually decline after a peak is reached in December.
★ ★ ★
Plan to utilize idle tools and manpower in three rural Virginia counties
(Continued from page 5) rural, have found 365 machine tools available. The survey showed that these machine tools are idle 90 percent of the time and could be used on subcontracting work for the Army and the Navy. He said a survey showed there is plenty of experienced labor available. These men are not willing to leave the area to obtain defense work in the big cities, because, Mr. Thomas explained, when not employed they go back to the farm until local plants need them again. Mr. Thomas said that the committee will obtain orders and divide them up among the plants in the area on a cooperating basis.
Mr. Cooke explained that an estimated 50 percent of the Nation’s manufacturing facilities are now idle and could be brought into the production of goods for the defense program. The Commission is working on a system of farming out the work whereby even the smaller shops can be brought into defense production.
Rise in price of Nylon hose is not related to defense activity— report of Consumer Division
Consumers have expressed concern over rise in prices of Nylon hose during the past few months. The Consumer Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission finds that this increase is in no way a result of defense activity.
Late in October, the manufacturer of Nylon yarn reduced its price to companies knitting the hose. In spite of this reduction, in many stores the price for branded 45-gage Nylons, which originally sold for $1.15, is now $1.35, and for 51-gage hose, originally $1.35 per pair, is now $1.50 or $1.60. One mail order house, however, is selling unbranded Nylon hose at $1.09 for 45-gage and $1.25 for 51-gage, with prices on quantities of 3 pairs at $2.98 and $3.45.
The increased price is not due to increased raw material costs. The hosiery manufacturers cannot obtain more yarn by offering higher prices for it. Nor can production of the yarn , be increased by consumers paying more for Nylon stockings.
Limited supply
The yarn manufacturer announced when Nylon was first put on the market that the supply during the first year would be limited. A schedule for increasing the amount as producing facilities are enlarged indicated that production would be more than doubled in approximately a year. In the meantime, stores have discovered that they can sell as many Nylon stockings as they* can provide at prices even higher than those originally set.
★ ★ ★
REPORT ON FORT BRAGG
All of the huge building program at Fort Bragg, N. C., is being completed either on schedule or ahead of schedule, the Secretary of War has been informed. As a result, about 7,900 officers and men already have moved into housing completed since September 1, 1940, and construction of buildings to accommodate the remainder of nearly 65,000 men is progressing rapidly.
January 14, 1941
★ DEFENSE ★
Page 7
Shortage of cod-liver oil need not curtail consumption of vitamins A and D—statement from the Consumer Division
There is no reason why an impending shortage of cod-liver oil should result in the harmful curtailment of the consumption of vitamins A and D, the Consumer Division announced in its recent report on consumer prices.
There are two other important sources of vitamins A and D from which suitable cod-liver oil substitutes are being derived. Other fish oils such as halibut, swordfish, sablefish, menhaden, sardine, shark, tuna, and salmon are rich in one or both of these vitamins and abundant quantities of synthetic vitamin D can also be produced by irradiation of ergosterols and cholesterols.
95% imported
In using vitamin substitutes for codliver oil, consumers must remember that it is the number of vitamin A and vitamin D units of a U. S. P. (United States Pharmacopoeia) potency which is important. One teaspoon or capsule of one form of vitamin product may be very different from an equivalent quantity of another vitamin preparation.
Almost 95 percent of the cod-liver oil used in the United States has had to be imported from sources which now are closed to us. This decline in imports has been reflected in higher prices. The price to the manufacturer of cod-liver oil for medicinal purposes has risen from $20 per barrel in the summer of 1939 to $70 in November 1940. The average retail price of a 16-ounce bottle of standard medicinal grades of cod-liver oil has increased from 81 cents in September 1939, to 90 cents in November 1940.
There is also the additional danger that available cod-liver oil supplies will be exhausted. Domestic production, even if greatly expanded, will fall short of meeting the usual demands for this product—the development and use of substitutes are necessary.
Not due to defense
The fact that prices of all vitamin preparations in the drug market are high relative to low-income budgets is not due to the defense situation. They were high long before the supplies of cod-liver oil were cut off. Other vitamin products customarily have been higher than cod-liver oil. If the importation
of cod-liver oil remains curtailed, it may *well come to exceed other sources of vitamins A and D in price.
If consumers realize that vitamin products of the U. S. P. potency may be used safely as substitutes, there is some expectation that cheaper vitamin preparations may be marketed.
Appointment of committee to draft model legislation to assist States and cities in maintaining fair rental levels
To assist States and local comittees in maintaining fair rents in areas where the defense program may bring serious rent problems, Miss Harriet Elliott, commissioner in charge of the Consumer Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission, appointed a committee to draft model legislation for the use of State and local governments.
Mr. Edward Weinfeld, New York State comissioner of housing, is chairman of the committee, which consists of city and State legal officials. Creation of the committee follows the publication of a report on the methods and principles which should guide rent protection during the emergency.
The influx of workers and their families to cities where industrial activity is increasing as a result of defense preparations has taxed the housing facilities in • certain centers where shortages were already in existence, Commissioner Elliott said, and protective measures may have to be formulated.
Disastrous rent rises and threatened evictions have occurred in previous periods of housing shortage. Until construction of new dwellings is adequate to meet the need, the report States that legislation or other steps may be necessary in some communities.
Voluntary cooperation
The report was prepared for the Consumer Division by the National Association of Housing Officials which is made up of Federal, State, and local housing officials.
Voluntary cooperation by private groups and interested public agencies are outlined as necessary for “the smooth and effective administration of a fair rents program * * *” Where legal steps are necessary, it is important that they be based on sound principles in order to avoid some of the unfortunate experiences of the past.
The Consumer Division urges more efficient use of existing facilities, consistent with the maintenance of good housing standards. A general, policy of rent control is not recommended. Rent control is recognized as undesirable from the point of view of both landlord and tenant. It should be resorted to only when new construction is not sufficiently rapid and extensive to meet the need and where local communities can find no other means to check a severe rise in rents. Where cooperation of landlords can be made effective, it is pointed out, this is preferable to legislation.
Rent and the family budget
Consumers normally pay between a fifth and a quarter of their incomes for rent. Of the major items in the consumer budget, rent is the one most likely to rise in certain localities under impact of the defense program. Since the market for housing is local and cannot be augmented by shipping surplus supplies of dwellings from other localities, congestion arising from the influx of many new people falls directly on the limited supply of houses in the particular community.
The remedy for the shortage of housing lies in the provision of an adequate supply of permanent or temporary housing rather than in the regulation of the rent of existing dwellings. But until an adequate supply of new houses is built, steps to maintain fair rent levels may be necessary in order to protect consumers.
The report describes the sound principles upon which such measures should be based. Where possible, it is indicated, legislators and interested citizens should draft and pass a measure which would become effective in the event of an emergency. Appraising past efforts at rent protection, the report stresses that the solution is to maintain rents at levels which are not unjustifiably high and Which, at the same time, permit a fair return on realty investment.
When there is an acute shortage of liveable dwellings in any particular rental group or area of a community, accompanied by a trend toward unreasonable rent increases, an emergency housing situation exists in that group or area, the (.Continued on page 11}
Page 8
★ DEFENSE *
January 14, 1941
THE STATES AND CITIES .. \
Description of the activities of State and local councils of defense in 1917-18
With organization of councils of defense in most States and hundreds of communities (Defense, January 7), there is growing interest in what similar councils did in World War I. Do they set a proper pattern for 1941? Probably not, although much can be learned from study of the earlier councils.
Secretary of War Newton D. Baker called all Governors to a national defense conference in Washington on May 2-3, 1917. At the conference, a Nation-wide move to organize State councils of defense and to stimulate their activities to aid the Nation was begun.
First activity presented to the councils by Secretary Baker was registration of man power. The public relations responsibility of State councils was stressed.
Functions in 1917
State councils of defense were given a plan of organization and an outline of functions. These included the fields of finance, publicity, legal matters, coordination of defense activities, health and sanitation, food supply and conservation, industrial surveys, manpower surveys, labor supply and labor welfare, military affairs, State protection, transportation, and extension of defense activities through local councils of defense.
A memorandum was presented entitled “Some Matters on which State Councils are asked to assist the Federal Government.” These related to such matters as promotion of patriotism; war aims; National Guard; conscription; labor supply, standards and problems; food; land use; transportation; national resources; war financing, and economies to be put into effect.
Councils of one type or another were created, by statute or otherwise, in all States. Twenty-six States enacted laws providing for them. The councils themselves spawned one agency, section, or committee after another to handle problems that emerged.
Activities of State and local defense councils and committees were communicated to the country through the State Councils Section of the Council of National Defense, and also through admin
istrators of divisions set up outside the Council.
These activities covered the various fields of health; labor; finance; thrift; transportation; aid to soldiers; military aid; Americanization; surveys of State resources; cooperation with food and fuel administrators; attempts to relieve housing congestion; reporting on marketing and other facilities; liquor control; defense exhibits at State fairs; promotion of “liberty choruses;” cooperation with the Committee on Public Information in organizing “Four-Minute Men;” coordination and supervision of voluntary war 'organizations, including those soliciting funds for war relief; coordination of Federal agencies within a State by establishment of a war board, consisting of State council officials and State agents of Federal departments and war administrations. The Woman’s Committee Division of the Council of National Defense carried on activities in each State closely paralleling those of State councils.
A second national conference of State defense council representatives was held in Washington, April 3-4, 1918. Problems of sedition and Americanization are said to have overshadowed other questions; emotional tension had increased.
Wide range in funds available
By June 1918, 29 States had available State funds ranging from $1,500 to $5,000,000; 5 other States had been given the right to expand without limit, on approval of the governor; and 5 others had private funds ranging from $10,000 to $100,000. Councils created by law usually received appropriations from the State treasury.
Where no laws had been enacted, councils were financed by contributions or by bonds underwritten by citizens, with the hope that they would be redeemed by the legislatures.
All councils, whether statutory or not? exercised power through their influence on public opinion, their ability to enlist and direct public support, and their supervision of the local organizations.
Some councils employed executive di
rectors, who seem to have contributed much to effective operation. Organization of State defense councils varied greatly.
First task undertaken by most State councils was extension of organization to counties or other local units. By the first annual report in June 1917, 22 States had completed or under way a State-wide system of local organization. By January 1, 1918, local councils had been set up in practically every State.
Emphasis on local organization is shown in its second annual report, «June 1918, when the State Councils Section said the functions of State defense councils were:
1. To create and direct local councils of defense.
2. To centralize and coordinate the war work of the State.
3. To inaugurate independent activities for State defense work.
4. To assist the Council of National Defense and the Federal departments and war administrations in their war programs.
Differences between 1916 and 1941
Differences between 1916 and 1941 are significant, for the past 25 years have seen the greatest expansion of public service in the Nation’s history. Much that State and local defense councils did in World War I is now part of regular State and local governmental activity.
Specifically, there were no State or local housing authorities in 1916, and no State or local planning boards. Only 23 States had legislation authorizing a public employment service; and in most of those operating machinery was lacking. At the end of 1916, fewer than 90 cities in the whole country had a government-operated employment office.
Local welfare and health agencies were in existence, but activities were confined largely to what might be called the negative aspects of public welfare and public health. Even State highway departments were in their infancy.
But the contrast between 1916 and 1941 goes deeper than any of these changes. States and communities have recognized and implemented their responsibility to serve the whole people— including the bulk who are average citizens, as well as the fractions, large or small, who are miscreant or victims of misfortune.
State and local governments now provide, for example, a constructive, and in large measure preventive, social security
January 14, 1941
★ DEFENSE *
Page 9
program—to safeguard public health; to give children a good start in life; to train youth in vocational skills as well as in the traditional 3 R’s; to protect conditions of work and provide unemployment insurance between jobs; to furnish aid to the needy on something more realistic and respectable than a pauper basis. Though Nation-wide Federal cooperation has been an essential ingredient in this development, it is the States and localities that have done, and are doing the job.
Even such essentially local services as fire and police protection have partaken of this progress.
It is evident that, while activities of State and local defense councils of World War I are interesting historically, they do not set the pattern for today. Those were war agencies. State defense councils and coordinators of 1941 are serving a nation at peace, and State and local governments are in position to render more service than a quarter century ago.
With all this in mind, the matter of State councils of defense was resurveyed in the summer of 1940, and the memorandum of August 2 prepared. This suggests a pattern for the present day. (See Defense, January 7.) To implement the suggestions in that memorandum, a State council of defense act has been prepared in draft form and made available to the States and to others interested in this subject.
★ ★ ★
DEFENSE COUNCIL FOR ALABAMA
By action of Governor Frank M. Dixon on January 3, Alabama becomes the thirty-seventh State to have a defense council or coordinator. In addition to the Governor, serving' ex officio, the council has seven members, all State officials.
The fields of defense council interest and the State official now responsible as a council member for each are as follows: Agricultural Resources and Production-Director of the Extension Service; Civil Protection—Director of Public Safety and Chief of the Highway Patrol; Health—Public Health Officer; Welfare and Consumer Interest-Commissioner of Welfare; Housing, Works and Facilities—Director of the Planning Commission; Human Resources and Skills— Chief of the Labor Division, Department of Industrial Relations; Industrial Resources and Production—Director of the Department of Industrial Relations.
PRICE STABILIZATION ...
Mr. Henderson’s request for voluntary reduction in price of iron and steel scrap; alternative: Recommendation of drastic steps looking toward control
Voluntary reduction of at least several dollars per ton on future sales of iron and steel scrap has been urged on the industry by the Price Stabilization Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission, Commissioner Leon Henderson announces.
Unless voluntary action is successful, drastic steps looking toward control will be recommended, Mr. Henderson stated.
The suggested price reduction was placed before a recent meeting in Wash-. ington attended by representatives of the iron and steel scrap industry, including brokers, dealers, and collectors, with members of the Price Stabilization Division.
Representatives of the trade agreed with Government authorities that current prices on scrap are several dollars per ton higher than is necessary to bring out the tonnage required to support present capacity operations.
The ultimate objective of the price reduction requested is to bring the market to a level not to exceed $20 per ton for No. 1 heavy melting steel scrap at Pittsburgh.
Those present at the conference agreed that although requirements for scrap are at a record level, the supply will be adequate to meet all needs, provided available material is released for consumption. -
The meeting with representatives of the scrap trade' was the second since October, and followed a conference three weeks ago with steel-mill purchasing officials for whom scrap is the outstanding raw material purchased on the open market.
★ ★ ★
TRAINING CENTER NAMES
The War Department announces names for four training centers under construction for use by the Army. They are Fort Leonard Wood, near Rolla, Miss.; Camp Croft, near Spartanburg, S. C.; Camp Davis, near Wilmington, N. C.; and Camp Sibert, near Boulder City, Nev.
Wool manufacturers’ assurance that no price increases are contemplated beyond those made necessary by basic factors
Leading wool manufacturers, meeting recently with Leon Henderson, Commissioner for Price Stabilization, and other representatives of the National Defense Advisory Commission, strongly insisted that no price increases are in effect or contemplated beyond those necessitated by increases in wool prices and other basic cost factors.
The manufacturers assured the Commission of their full cooperation in its program of maintaining stability in the industry, and expressed their conviction that it will be able to supply civilian needs despite heavy requirements of the defense program.
They pointed out that prices on fall lines have not yet been established, but assured the Commission that, when established, these prices will reflect only a moderate advance, directly due to increased basic costs, over spring 1941 prices.
★ ★ ★
608,000 SOLDIERS
The War Department estimates that the Army regulars and National Guardsmen actually under arms January 1 numbered 608,000, representing nearly a threefold increase in strength, within a year. Meanwhile, the Navy and Marine Corps total nearly 250,000 regulars and reservists on active duty. The land forces are to be increased by some 500,-000 men in the next 3 months under present schedules.
Page 10
★ DEFENSE *
January 14, 1941
PURCHASES ...
Agreement by the food industries on procurement policies of defense program
Full agreement by all branches of the food-distribution industries on food-procurement policies of the defense program is announced by Donald M. Nelson, director of the Division of Purchases of the Office of Production Management, following a meeting of the Food Procurement Advisory Committee.
Hector Lazo, chairman of the committee, said, “This is a time calling for sound judgment and for withholding criticism of any branch or segment of the food industry. Success of the defense program calls for the united effort of all factors in the food industry and for wholehearted cooperation to accomplish the great task of feeding the military forces and at the same time safeguarding the scale of living of all Americans.”
The Committee stands ready to furnish complete information on A»my procurement policies to all members of the food trades, Mr. Lazo explained. Inquiries can be addressed to the committee members or to Mr. Donald Nelson directly.
Specific policies
Although the committee’s first meeting was held largely for purposes of organization, specific procurement policies were outlined at this meeting by Col. Paul P. Logan, Chief of Subsistence, Quartermaster Corps. The. four basic policies that will be followed by the Army, and which were approved by the Committee, were:
1. Continuance of competitive bidding as the basic procurement policy;
2. Eligibility of any responsible vendor to submit bids;
3. Purchase of supplies, so far as possible, in carload lots, f. o. b. destination point. This may well serve to equalize army business among suppliers in all parts of the country;
4. Inspection of all goods at the point or origin. Such a system, Colonel Logan pointed out, should avoid the difficulties of delays, returns, and unnecessary claims.
Douglas C. MacKeachie, assistant to the Director of the Division of Purchases, told the meeting that the Division’s goal
is to help the Army feed its men economically and with a minimum of interference with civilian markets. Timing of purchases, Mr. MacKeachie said, is especially important.' Efforts will be made to adjust sizes and items to avoid excessive cost to the Government and dislocation of food prices and supplies. Existing food industry facilities such as coffee roasting, bread baking, and other processing, will be used when possible to avoid duplication of plants and equipment.
In commending the work already done by the advisory committee, Mr. MacKeachie outlined the future importance of the commodity subcommittees. The fruit and vegetable subcommittee is already functioning while the dairy and poultry groups are expected to establish similar bodies soon.
Bread problem
Ways to solve the problem of buying fresh bread for the Army are being worked out with representatives of the baking industry. A proposal for having the industry appoint a representative to work with the Quartermaster Corps in drawing up specifications and to make sure the Army receives bread of the proper quality in the proper condition is being considered by the industry. Although the Army will continue to bake as much of its own bread as possible, a large quantity must be bought until the larger cantonments are completed.
Quartermaster corps
The committee called on all branches of food distribution for the names of men in the industry who have been called for service or who are subject to later call. These men will be assigned to the Quartermaster Corps for such jobs as buying, warehousing, stock control, and inspection. Information is also being sought on surplus warehouse facilities adjacent to Army cantonments.
The committee will issue a series of informational releases on Army procurement requirements and summary reports of successful aids and prices.
Endorsement of procurement policy for fish by New England fish industries
The New England fish industries have endorsed a fish-procurement policy for the Army worked out at meetings between the industry, the Quartermaster Corps, and the National Defense Advisory Commission, Donald M. Nelson, Director of the Division of Purchases, announces.
The plan, now under consideration, was worked out at a meeting held in December called by Mr. Douglas C. MacKeachie, Assistant to Mr. Nelson, and was then submitted to all members of the New England fish industries for their approval.
The most useful method of procurement, according to the plan, would be that of advertised bidding. Bids should be advertised every 60 days, allowing 30 days between the time the invitation was sent out and first delivery.
Industry representatives will submit recommendations and samples of the kinds of fish with prices that are most suited to Army requirements. It was recommended that inspectors of the Food and Drug Administration should inspect the fish at the place of shipment, and further inspection should be made on arrival.
The problem of whether fish purchases should be handled through a contracting officer in Boston, or direct from the various Army posts, is under discussion.
The recommendation was made that the industry send several experts on the handling of fish to the Bakers and Cooks School being set up by the Defense Commission in cooperation with the National Restaurant Association.
Those attending the meeting on December 19th were:
Mr. E. H. Cooler, manager, Massachusetts Fisheries Association, Boston, Mass.; Mr. Patrick J. O’Hara, president, O’Hara Bros., Inc., Boston Fish Pier; Mr. Thos. J. Grace, vice president, Gorton Pier Fisheries Co., Gloucester, Mass.; Mr. William R. Russo, president, Henry & Close, Inc., Boston, Mass.; Mr. J. J. Lamere, Booth Fisheries Corporation, 33 Boston Fish Pier; Mr. J. F. Alphin, president, General Seafoods Corporation, Boston, Mass.; Lt. Col. Paul P. Logan, Chief of Subsistence, Quartermaster Corps.; Mr. Reginald H. Fielder, Chief of Div. of Fisheries Industries, Bureau of Fisheries; Mr. Raymond L. Bland," Liaison Officer, Food Supply Section, National Defense Commission; Mr. Douglas C. MacKeachie, Assistant to the Coordinator of National Defense Purchases.
January 14, 1941 * DEFENSE * Page 11
Rent . e •
(.Continued from page 7) report says. Since different communities and rental groups have different requirements—which are determined by local » conditions—direct intervention by the
Federal Government on the administration of a fair rents program is not recommended. State and local machinery should be set up to conduct surveys at the earliest indication of a shortage. Vacancy ratios at which hardship may be said to exist for a particular community or group, should therefore be determined by State and local agencies provided by State legislation.
Exemptions
In order not to discourage new construction in areas where acute shortages have made protective legislation necessary, the report recommends that new developments should be exempted from restrictions. Public housing already provides for rent limitation and should, therefore, be exempt. Rather than provide for mandatory exemptions of specific rental groups, the report recommends that consideration be given to exempting dwelling units of higher-income groups which can protect their bargaining power even in times of emergency rentals.
As dwelling-supply conditions improve in consequence of new building, rent restrictions would be removed. To prevent dislocation and economic shock which might result from a sudden and complete lifting of restrictions, a period of decon-* trol is suggested, to precede complete freedom from regulation. Restrictions would be relaxed after a certain predetermined degree of improvement was observed.
Outlining the respective functions of Government agencies in such a program, the report recommends that the State agency should make surveys and act as a board of review and appeal, and that the administration of problems and the determination of issues between landlords and tenants should be left to the local fair rents agency. Since a number of Federal agencies, such as the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Defense Advisory Commission, the United States Housing Authority, the Federal Housing Administration, and others have developed satisfactory techniques for studies and acceptable standards for dwellings, it is
suggested that the legislation provide for cooperation between the State agencies and these Federal agencies.
Also described in the report are principles for appeals provisions, determination of fair rents, penalties, and prohibitions.
Model legislation
On the basis of this report, the newly appointed committee is preparing model State and local legislation which will be available to the States and localities that may find it necessary to adopt such measures. Members of this committee are:
Edward Weinfeld, chairman of the Committee.
Ira S. Robbins, counsel to the Committee.
Mrs. Edith B. Drellich, housing research associate, and secretary to the committee.
Henry S. Brainard, director of law, Cleveland, Ohio.
Horace Edwards, city attorney, Richmond, Va.
John Evans, city counsel, Paterson, N. J.
Fowler Hamilton, special assistant to the Attorney General of the United States.
Philip H. Hill, city solicitor, Charleston, W. Va.
Paul E. Krause, corporation counsel, Detroit, Mich.
Harry C. Nail, Jr., secretary of the National Association of State Attorneys General, Chicago, Ill.
William H. Neal, assistant city attorney, Los Angeles, Calif.
Charles S. Rhyne, attorney for National Institute of Municipal Law Officers, Washington, D. C.
Lewis H. Weinstein, assistant corporation counsel, Boston, Mass.
Hal O. Williams, director of law, Louisville, Ky.
The full report on “Maintenance of Fair Rents During the Emergency” is available from the Consumer Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission.
TRANSPORTATION...
Expectation that freight car loadings in first quarter of 1941 will show an increase of 9.5 over same period in 1940
Freight car loadings in the first quarter of 1941 are expected to be about 9.5 percent above actual loadings in the same quarter in 1940, according to Ralph Budd, commissioner in charge of the Transportation Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission.
These estimates indicate that the Nation’s rail facilities are able to handle increases arising from defense needs, he said.
On the basis of those estimates, freight car loadings of the 29 principal commodities will be 5,572,106 cars in the first quarter of 1941, compared with 5,089,820 actual car loadings for the same commodities in the corresponding period in the preceding year. All of the 13 Shippers’ Advisory Boards estimate an increase in carloadings for the first quarter of 1941 compared with the same period in 1940.
The Shippers’ Advisory Boards expect an increase in the first quarter of 1941, compared with the same period 1 year ago, in the loading of all of the 29
commodities except 5. Among those showing the greatest increase are the following:
Iron and steel, 34.9 percent; brick and clay products, 30 percent; machinery and boilers, 27.9 percent; gravel, sand and stone, 22.9 percent; lumber and forest products, 19.8 percent; ore and concentrates, 16.4 percent; chemicals and explosives, 16.2 percent; automobiles; trucks, and parts, 15.7 percent; cement, 14.4 percent; lime and plaster, 14 percent; agricultural implements and vehicles other than automobiles, 13.4 percent; paper, paper board, and prepared roofing, 8.7 percent; potatoes, 8.6 percent; canned goods, 6.9 percent; petroleum and petroleum products, 4.6 percent; and coal and coke, 4.4 percent.
The division is also studying the transportation situation at new plant sites and defense housing areas. This work is being carried on as a continuing activity and under the procedure now being followed the division hopes to avoid serious transportation problems in individual defense areas.
Page 12
★ DEFENSE ★
January 14, 1941
Mr. Forrestal’s appeal to all contractors to let out part of their work to subcontractors—“serious situation”
The following statement has been issued by James V. Forrestal, Under Secretary of the Navy:
“The attention of all contractors and prospective contractors for Navy orders should be called to the great importance of speed in making deliveries; and, to this end, they should be urged to make the greatest possible use of subcontractors, whose capacity would not otherwise be fully utilized on defense work.
“There are only a comparatively small number of companies which, because of their experience and well-rounded capacity, are normally considered as qualified to take prime Navy contracts.
“There are, however, respectively, in the light of the present emergency, many thousands of machine shops, foundries, and plants of special types, many of them small, some, however, large, besides countless departments of companies whose main product is perhaps far removed from Navy requirements, which have the equipment and personnel which could, with a certain amount of adaptation, perform operations that a given prime contractor could not himself quickly handle.
“Under ordinary circumstances a manufacturer might be warranted in buying extra equipment or taking the extra time necessary to do the work with the resources in his shop, rather than to farm it out. Today, however, neither of these courses should be followed except as a last resort.
“America’s tool-making and equipment-extending industries have more than they can do already in the way of constructing that equipment of which we have no adequate supply anywhere. Even where new and more efficient equipment should be ordered, it is important that in the meantime as much use as possible be made of older equipment already in existence.
“Companies having Navy contracts, but with facilities of certain types in excess of those which can be immediately used, are requested to make these facilities available to other companies engaged on defense work so long as they can do this without impairing their ability to expedite Navy orders as they come along.
“The department realizes that an extension of subcontracting will require an
administrative effort on the part of the contractors and that its success depends upon the intelligence and energy with which it is conducted.
“The situation is so serious and the necessity of meeting delivery schedules is so important that I feel justified in requesting your cooperation in this matter, and further to request that you exercise every possible recourse that may be necessary to enable you to meet the Navy’s delivery requirements on its defense orders.”
★ ★ ★
Measures adopted in building new Army barracks to prevent respiratory diseases; ventilation and lack of crowding
“It has been demonstrated that troops in Army stations are comparatively less susceptible to the spread of influenza and other respiratory diseases than are nearby civilian communities,” the War Department has announced.
An example was cited of one southern community which was struck particularly hard by the wave of influenza, while soldiers in adjoining Army camps who live a more hardening outdoor life, who have the best of food, and who are dressed uniformly in adequate clothing were almost free from the disease.
Preventing crowding
In order to guard against any material spread of influenza and similar diseases in the rapidly expanding camps of the Army, great care has been taken to prevent crowding. War Department statistics have shown that the sick rate among troops rises directly in proportion to the crowding, particularly in living and sleeping quarters.
It is for this reason that soldiers living in permanent tent camps, even in cold weather, have a higher immunity to respiratory diseases than groups living in temporary wooden barracks or in permanent quarters.
Another important factor in preventing respiratory diseases is proper ventilation, and all new construction is designed to provide the maximum in beneficial air conditions.
Distributing defense contracts in nonindustrial areas—radio address by Chester Davis
Relationship of migratory labor to National Defense was discussed by Chester C. Davis, Commissioner in charge of the Agricultural Division, National Defense Advisory Commission; Paul V. McNutt, Federal Security Administrator; and Representative John H. Tolan, of California, over a coast-to-coast network of the Mutual Broadcasting system January 6.
Mr. Tolan is chairman of the congressional committee investigating the migrant situation in the United States.
Mr. Davis pointed out that in a total defense effort it would be necessary either to remove workers from the land and out of rural communities into our great industrial centers, or produce defense materials where these people live.
By locating plants in nonindustrial areas, Mr. Davis said, rural people would not be forced to leave their land, homes, and friends and move to a city that may offer employment for only a year or two. , “We must avoid as much as possible the creation of new groups of stranded workers who may have no jobs after the defense effort is over and who may have to migrate again,” Mr. Davis said. “By distributing defense contracts widely in nonindustrial areas, an important contribution can be made to the building of the Nation’s defenses. Existing plants will be used, and housing and other facilities of towns and villages throughout the country will be available. Raw materials can be used at their source. Rural manpower can be brought into production with the least delay. We can avoid the needless expenditure of funds for new buildings and new homes, and we can lessen the danger of transportation congestion and housing shortages.”
★ ★ ★
AGRICULTURE CONSULTANT
Mr. E. C. McReynolds, of the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of Tennessee, has been appointed a consultant in the Agricultural Division. Mr. McReynolds will aid in handling problems arising as a result of the displacement of families in connection with the acquisition by the Government of land for use as sites for defense facilities.
January 14, 1941
★ DEFENSE ★
Page 13
War Department’s four recommended plans for procuring new plant facilities
Following is the War Department’s program of recommended methods of procuring new plant facilities:
Plan I—Government ownership
Purpose.—For plant in which Government desires to have permanent interest or in which the manufacturer has no future interest.
Financing.—Government funds, Army or Navy.
Title.—Vested in the Government.
Method of operation.—Leased to the manufacturer.
Reimbursement.—None.
Amortization for tax purposes.—No amortization involved.
Termination.—Government retains ownership of facilities at termination of lease.
Provision for subsequent use by manufacturer.—None, except in special cases.
Plan II—Private ownership with Government Interest¹
Purpose.—For plant in w£ich the manufacturer desires to preserve a future, interest. «
Financing.—Private, including RFC loan.
Title.—Vested in the manufacturer.
Method of operation.—By manufacturer.
Reimbursement.—Cost to be repaid to manufacturer in 60 equal monthly installments. Payments to be subject to acceleration if supply contracts run out.
Amortization for tax purposes.—Certified for tax purposes by Certificate of Necessity in interest of national defense and Certificate of Government Protection; also Certificates of Nonreimbursement under supply contracts.
Termination.—Government pays balance of costs, takes title and assumes construction obligations if facilities not completed.
Provision for subsequent use by manufacturer.—Upon termination or at end of 5-year period, plant may be permanently acquired from the Government by paying original cost less agreed depreciation or lower negotiated price.
Plan III—Privately owned
Purpose.—When manufacturer desires to own the facilities at all times and does
¹A contract form is available to cover facilities under this plan.
not include in the product price an abnormal amount for depreciation or amortization.
Financing.—Private.
Title.—Vested in the manufacturer, i
Method of operation.—By the manufacturer in the normal way.
Reimbursement.—None other than by way of normal depreciation.
Amortization.—Certified for 5-year amortization by Certificate of Necessity in interest of national defense and Certificate of Non-Reimbursement under supply contracts.
Termination.—None.
Provision for subsequent use by manufacturer.—None required.
Plan IV—Ownership in Defense Plant Corporation, a subsidiary of Reconstruction Finance Corporation
Purpose.—For plants which it is not desired to finance under plan II and in which the manufacturer desires to preserve a future interest.
Financing.—With funds of Defense Plant Corporation.
Title.—Vested in Defense Plant Corporation.
Method of operation.—Leased to the manufacturer.
Reimbursement.—None.
Amortization- — No amortization involved.
Termination.—Defense Plant Corporation retains ownership of facilities at termination of lease or transfers same to Governmént through War (or Navy) Department.
Provisions for subsequent use by manufacturer.—Upon termination of lease (and/or in some cases during term of lease) plant may be permanently acquired by manufacturer from the Defense Plant Corporation by paying original cost less agreed depreciation or lower negotiated price (or on some other basis agreed upon in certain cases).
To insure proper facilities for the work and expedite placing such facilities in production, the manufacturer should supervise their design and construction. The Government departments concerned should review the building plans and the cost estimates to determine whether the facilities proposed and the cost of the same are reasonable for the purpose, prior to any commitments.
Liaison agency through which restaurant and allied industries offer advice and assistance to armed forces
Announcement has been made of appointment of Horace L. Gardner of New York City and Clyde Davis of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., to the staff of George M. Moffett, Director of the Food and Food Products Section of the Production Division.
This office will serve as a liaison agency through which the restaurant and allied food industries offer to the armed services voluntary advice and assistance in the problems involved in feeding the rapidly expanding armed forces.
This action follows establishment of a Food Defense Advisory Committee by the National Restaurant Association. This Committee, appointed at the Association’s convention in October, is composed of George R. LeSauvage, Guy Gundaker, and Charles Laube. As a result of the conferences between this Committee and representatives of the Army, the Navy, and the Defense Commission, Messrs. Gardner and Davis will act as liaison in feeding and serving problems.
Cooks and bakers
An important problem is to supply the great number of additional cooks and bakers required. Advanced training is provided through the service bakers and cooks’ schools in the various Army Corps Areas and Navy bases.
To provide experienced personnel for further training in the schools Mr. Gardner and Mr. Davis are working in cooperation with the National Restaurant Association, American Hotel Association, American Bakers Association and the Baking Institute, the Retail Bakers Association, American Meat Institute (composed of the commercial packers), Associated Retail Meat Dealers, National Confectioners’ Association, and others.
The names and particular qualifications of draft-age employees experienced in cooking, baking, meat cutting, and other food-preparation occupations will be obtained from their employers.
Service school training
This information will help personnel officers at reception centers in selecting individuals for training at the service schools in Army methods of mess operation.
Mr. Gardner and Mr. Davis will also aid the Quartermaster Corps in the layout and construction of mess facilities at the cantonments now under construction.
Page 14
★ DEFENSE ★
January 14, 1941
State compilation to date of contracts for expansion of defense plants
Following is the tabulation by States of contracts publicly announced by the War and Navy Departments to date, for plant expansion, construction, and equipment.
It should be noted that in some Army contracts, cost of operation cannot be separated from construction and equipping costs. In Army contracts, generally only those contracts over $500,000 are shown. In Navy contracts, only the plant to be expanded is shown, and not the name of the contractor. Contracts for expansion, except by private concerns, of Government-owned arsenals, etc., are not shown.
ALABAMA
Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tenn.; rehabilitation of nitrate plant at Muscle Shoals, Ala.; $6,-500,000. (War.)
Rust Engineering Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.; design and construction of shell forging and machinery plant at Gadsden, Ala.; $1,138,000. (War.)
Gulf Shipbuilding; shipbuilding plant; $2,500,000. (Navy.)
CALIFORNIA
Vultee Aircraft, Inc., Downey, Calif.; plant expansion construction to be amortized in 5 years by Government with purchase option; $4,294,798. (War.)
Douglas Aircraft Co. of Santa Monica, Calif.; for plant expansion construction by its subsidiary company, the Western Land Improvement Co. at Long Beachy Calif., to be amortized in 5 years by Government, with purchase option; $11,254,700. (War.)
Bethlehem steel: shipbuilding facilities San Pedro, Calif.; $2,756,000. (Navy.)
L. A. Shipbuilding Co., San Pedro, Calif.; expansion of plant facilities, for shipbuild; ing; $450,000. (Navy.)
Consolidated Aircraft, San Diego, Calif.; expansion of plant facilities for production of aircraft; $14,446,929.27.¹ (Navy.)
Consolidated Aircraft, San Diego, Calif.; expansion of plant facilities for production of aircraft; $3,090,044.69. (Navy.)
Bethlehem Steel, San Francisco, Calif.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $11,162,000. (Navy.)
Bethlehem Steel, San Francisco, Calif.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $1,500,000. (Navy.)
Bethlehem Steel, San Pedro, Calif.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $1,250,000. (Navy.)
L. A. Shipbuilding Co., San Pedro, Calif.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $400,000. (Navy.)
Connecticut
Colt’s Patent Firearms Manufacturing Co., Hartford, Conn.; installation of equipment for manufacture of weapons; $8,074,406. (War.)
Pratt &, Whitney Division Niles-Bement-Pond Co., Hartford, Conn.; expansion of plant facilities for production of gages; $1,140,000. (War.)
Electric Boat Co., Groton, Conn.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $4,800,-000. (Navy.)
Vought Sikorsky Div. United Aircraft, Stratford, Conn.; expansion of plant facilities for production of aircraft; $1,600,000. (Navy.)
Hamilton Standard Propeller Div. United Aircraft; expansion- of plant facilities for production of aircraft propellers; $1,961,746. (Navy.)
Pratt & Whitney Div., United Aircraft, East Hartford, Conn.; expansion of plant facilities for production of aircraft engines; $15,559,000. (Navy.)
ILLINOIS
Sanderson and Porter, New York City; construction and operation of an ammunition loading plant near Wilmington, Ill.; $-14,000,000. (War.)
The Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, New York; construction of a plant at Wilmington, Ill., to produce TNT and DNT; $10,863,000. (War.)
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, New York, N. Y.; additional award for increased facilities in construction of a TNT, DNT, and a tetryl plant at Wilmington, Ill.; $20,000,000. (War.)
Foote Bros. Gear & Machine Co., Chicago, Ill.; expansion of plant facilities for production of gears for aircraft engines; $1,020,000. (Navy.)
Goss Printing Press Co., Chicago, Ill.; expansion of plant facilities for production of ordnance; $505,490. (Navy.)
Goss Printing Press Co., Chicago, Ill.; expansion of plant facilities for production of ordnance; $359,110. (Navy.)
INDIANA
E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Charlestown, Ind. (Indiana Ordnance Works); facilities for the manufacture of smokeless powder, Government owned. (This includes $25,000,000 announced July 17, and $26,000,-000 announced October 18, 1940); $51,000,-000. (War.)
Giffels & Vallet, Inc., Detroit, Mich. Chas. W. Cole & Son, South Bend, Ind.; architect and engineering for shell-loading plant at Union Center, Ind.; $77,330. (War.)
The Bates & Rogers Construction Co., Chicago, Ill.; for construction of a shell-loading plant at Union Center, Ind.; $11,500,000. (War.)
IOWA
Day & Zimmerman, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.; design, supervision of construction, installation of equipment, and operation of a shellloading plant located near Burlington, Iowa; $34,451,384. (War.)
A. Guthrie & Co., Inc., St. Paul, Minn., and Al Johnson Construction Co., Minneapolis, Minn.; for the construction of a shellloading plant*®ear Burlington, Iowa; $9,822,-000. (War.)
KANSAS
Beech Aircraft Corporation, Wichita, Kans.; plant expansion construction for new facilities to be amortized in 5 years by Government, with option to purchase; $1,619,-509. (War.)
Boeing Aircraft Co., Stearman Aircraft Div., Wichita, Kans.; plant expansion construction at Wichita, Kans., to be amortized in 5 years by Government, with option to purchase; $3,367,943. (War.)
MAINE
Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $2,000,-000. (Navy.)
Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding $400,000. (Navy.)
MARYLAND
Fairchild Airplane and Engine Corporation, Hagerstown, Md.; for additions to existing plant and construction of a separate complete plant, to be amortized over 5 years by Government, with option to purchase; $982,891. (War.)
MASSACHUSETTS
The Greenfield Tap & Die Corp., Greenfield, Mass.; expansion of plant facilities for production of gages; $1,009,000. (War.)
Bethlehem Steel Co., Quincy, Mass.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $13,427,500. (Navy.)
Bethlehem Steel Co., Quincy, Mass.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $800,000. (Navy.)
MICHIGAN
Chrysler Corporation, Detroit, Mich.; for plant and equipment (tank plant); $20,000,-000. (War.) • .
General Motors Corp., Detroit, Mich.; for the equipping of four machine-gun plants; A. C. Spark Plug Division, Flint, Mich.; Saginaw Steering Gear Division, Saginaw, Mich.; Frigidaire Division, Dayton, Ohio; Guide Lamp Division, Syracuse, N. Y.; $20,000,000. (War.).
Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Mich.; aircraft engine plant and magnesium casting foundry; $21,965,420.43. (War.)
MINNESOTA
Northern Pump Co., Minneapolis, Min.n.; expansion of plant facilities for production of ordnance; $3,473,297. (Navy.)
Northern Pump Co., Minneapolis, Minn.; expansion »of plant facilities for production of ordnance; $2,000,000. (Navy.)
MISSISSIPPI
Ingalls Shipbuilding Co., Pascagoula, Miss.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $2,000,000. (Navy.)
MISSOURI
Foley Brothers, Inc., St. Paul, Minn., and Walbridge, Aldinger Co., Detroit,, Mich.; for the construction of a small arms ammunition plant located near Lake City, Mo.; $7,500,000. (War.)
Fraser-Brace Engineering Co., Inc., New York; for the construction of TNT and DNT plant at Weldon Springs, Mo. The site is in the vicinity of St. Charles, Mo.; $11,325,-000. (War.)
Remington Arms Co., Inc., Bridgeport, Conn.; for the procurement of equipment and for operation of small arms ammunition plant near Lake City, Mo.; $73,575,261. (War.)
Western Cartridge Co.', East Alton, Ill.; for supervising the lay-out, engineering, and construction, procurement of equipment, supervision of installation, and supplying management services for small arms ammunition plant at St. Louis, Mo.; $18,600,000. (War.)
NEW JERSEY
New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Camden, N. J.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $10,500,000. (Navy.)
Federal Shipbuilding Co., Kearney, N. J.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $5,500,000. (Navy.)
RCA Manufacturing Co., Camden, N. J.; expansion of plant facilities for production of radio equipment; $2,370,034. , (Navy.)
Crucible Steel Co., Harrison, N. J.; expansion of plant facilities for production of ordnance; $125,000. (Navy.)
January 14, 1941
★ DEFENSE ★
Page 15
Westinghouse Electric Elevator Co., Jersey City, N. J.; expansion of plant facilities for production of ordnance; $495,000. (Navy.)
Federal Shipbuilding Co., Kearney, N. J.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $2,250,000. (Navy.)
NEW YORK
Bell Aircraft Corporation, Wheatfield Township, Niagara County, N. Y.; plant expansion construction for new facilities, to be amortized over 5 years by Government, with option to purchase: $1,023,200. (War.)
Savage Arms Corporation, Utica, N. Y.; for the equipping of a machine gun plant at Utica. (Title to equipment remains with the Government); $17,600,000. (War.)
General Motors Corporation, guide lamp division, Syracuse, N. Y.; part of a $20,000,-000 contracts for the equipping of four machine gun plants. A. C. Spark Plug Division, Flint, Mich.; Saginaw Steering Gear Division, Saginaw, Mich., frigidaire division, Dayton, Ohio. (War.)
* Republic Aviation Corporation, Farming-dale, Long Island, N. Y.; plant expansion; $5,210,513.50. (War.)
Grumman Aircraft Bethpage, Long Island, N. Y.; expansion of plant facilities for production of aircraft; $3,500,000. (Navy.)
Edo Aircraft, College Point, N. Y.; expansion of plant facilities for production of aircraft; $365,000? (Navy.)
Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, N. Y.; expansion of plant facilities for production of ordnance; $512,000. (Navy.)
Bethlehem Steel, Staten Island, N. Y.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $2,706,000. (Navy.)
Liberty Aircraft, Farmingdale, N. Y.; expansion of plant facilities for production of aircraft; $1,088,000. (Navy.)
Bethlehem Steel, Staten Island, N. Y.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $700,000. (Navy.)
Link Aviation Devices, Inc., Binghamton, N. Y.; plant expansion to be amortized in 5 years by Government, with purchase option; $323,432. (War.)
OHIO
Atlas Powder Co., Ravenna, Ohio; for the construction of an ammunition loading plant near Ravenna, Ohio; $14,215,000. (War.)
Ferro Concrete Construction Co., Cincinnati, Ohio; to construct a metal mirror factory for the manufacture of searchlight mirrors; $500,000. (War.)
General Motors Corporation, frigidaire division, Dayton, Ohio; part of a $20,000,000 contract for the equipping of four machine gun plants. A. C. Spark Plug Division, Flint, Mich.; Saginaw Steering Gear Division, Saginaw, Mich.; Guide Lamp Division, Syracuse, N. Y. (War.)
War Department. Trojan Powder Co., Allentown, Pa., for supervising construction, installation of equipment, and preparation for operation of Plum Brook Ordnance Plant, Sandusky, Ohio. $275,000.
Sheffield Gage Corporation, Dayton, Ohio; expansion of plant facilities for production of gages; $910,000. (War.)
Babcox & Wilcox Co., Alliance, Ohio; expansion of plant facilities for production of ordnance; $250,000. (Navy.)
OREGON
Willamette Iron & Supply Corporation, Portland, Oreg.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $1,000,000. (Navy.)
PENNSYLVANIA
Aviation Manufacturing Corporation, Lycoming division, Williamsport, Pa; for additions to the existing plant for the manufacture of aircraft engines; $1,597,491. (War.)
Henry Disston & Sons, Inc. (armor plate); addition to present Disston plant at Tacony,
¹ Defense Plant Corporation Contract.
Philadelphia. (Plant will be constructed by Barclay & White Co., of Philadelphia, Pa.) $1,018,400. (War.)
Mesta Machine Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.; equipping of a gun tube factory at West Homestead, Pa.; $1,680,000. (War.)
Cramp Shipbuilding Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $10,000,000 to $12,000,000 maximum. (Navy.)
Bethlehem Steel Co., Bethlehem, Pa.; expansion of plant facilities for production of ordnance; $1,343,797. (Navy.)
Sun Shipbuilding, Chester, Pa.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding: $2,500,000. (Navy.)
RHODE ISLAND
Taft-Pierce Manufacturing Co., Woonsocket, R. I.;, expansion of plant facilities for production of gages; $400,000. (War.)
TENNESSEE
War Department. Procter and Gamble Defense Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio. For procurement of equipment and management services during construction of Wolf Creek Ordnance Plant near Humboldt in the vicinity of Milan, Tenn. $3,585,600.
TEXAS
Humble Oil & Refining Co., Houston, Tex.; facilities for the manufacture of Toluol; (a) for the construction of a new plant at Baytown. This plant will be constructed and operated by the Humble Oil & Refining Co., on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis (Government owned) Bay town Ordnance Works. (&) for additional equipment in the existing Humble Plant; $10,760,000 (a) $1,097,000 (b). (War.)
Consolidated Steel, Orange, Tex.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $4,600,-000. (Navy.)
VIRGINIA
Hercules Powder Co., Radford, Va.; construction of smokeless powder plant near Radford, Va. (Plant will be owned by Federal Government); $25,000,000. (War.) For additional facilities; $10,000,000.
Hercules Powder Co., Wilmington, Del.; for architectural and engineering services, procurement and installation of equipment, and the operation of a bag loading plant to be located near Pulaski, Va.; $6,756,399. (War.)
Newport News Shipbuilding. Newport News, Va.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $14,000,000. (Navy.)
WASHINGTON
Boeing Airplane Co., Seattle, Wash., plant expansion construction at Seattle, to be amortized in 5 years by Government, with purchase option; $7,368,849. (War.)
Associated. Shipbuilders, Seattle, Wash.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $700,000. (Navy.)
Tacoma Shipbuilding, Seattle, Wash.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $4,600,000. (Navy.)
Tacoma Shipbuilding, Seattle, Wash.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; '$1,400,000. (Navy.)
WEST VIRGINIA
E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Del.; for the design, equipment and construction of an ammonia plant located near Morgantown, W. Va.; $15,000,000. (War.)
Carnegie-Illinois, South Charleston, W. Va.; expansion of plant facilities for production of ordnance; $4,000,000. (Navy.)
Carnegie-Illinois, South Charleston, W. Va.; expansion of plant facilities for production of ordnance; $1,353,000. (Navy.)
Carnegie-Illinois, South Charleston, W. Va.; expansion of plant facilities for production of ordnance; $45,000,000. (Navy.)
WISCONSIN
Manitowoc Shipbuilding Co., Manitowoc, Wis.; expansion of plant facilities for shipbuilding; $1,000,000. (Navy.)
Urgent need for Army nurses; 1,491 additional will go on active duty during January
There is an immediate and urgent need for registered nurses for duty with the Army Nurse Corps Reserve, according to the War Department.
In January alone, it is estimated that 1,491 additional nurses will be placed on active duty in new Army hospitals. Another large quota will be needed for hospitals to be completed in February. Six large Army general hospitals which will open early in March will require another 760 nurses. By June 30, 1941, it is planned to have 4,019 members of the Army Nurse Corps Reserve on extended active duty.
Source for the Army Nurse Corps Reserve in the past has generally been from Red Cross registers. Although 17,000 nurses are registered as available for Army service in an emergency, response to questionnaires has not been adequate to meet the demands. Service in the ' Army Nurse Corps Reserve must be voluntary.
To be eligible for commission, nurses must be single and between 21 and 40 years of age. They must be graduates from approved schools of nursing, registered as provided by State laws, and American citizens. Duties are much the same as in civilian hospitals. Initial pay is $70 a month, plus all maintenance.
Information may be obtained by writing to the commanding general of any of the nine Corps Areas of the Army.
★ ★ ★
First commercial manufacture of Ml rifles by Winchester
Commercial production of the Army’s Ml (Garand) rifle was launched officially last Friday at the Winchester Repeating Arms Co., New Haven, Conn., before a group of high-ranking Army officers from Washington. Maj. Gen. Charles M. Wesson, chief of the Army Ordnance Department, received the first new weapon from the assembly line, inaugurating manufacture of 65,000 semiautomatic rifles.
Since signing the contract October 9, 1939, Winchester has been procuring necessary machine tools and designing and producing jigs, dies, fixtures, and gages required for mass production.
The Ordnance Department’s Springfield Armory at Springfield, Mass., is the only other establishment in which Ml rifles now are being produced.
Page 16
★ DEFENSE *
January 14, 1941
INTER-AMERICAN COOPERATION... -
Report that U. S. export firms frequently are represented in Latin America by agents known to support objectives contrary to best interests of American republics.—Statement by Nelson A. Rockefeller
The following statement has been issued by Nelson A. Rockefeller, Coordinator of Commercial and Cultural Relations between the American Republics:
As a defense measure, the Office of the Coordinator has undertaken a continuing study of the representation of United States business in the other American Republics, in cooperation with the Department of State and other interested Government agencies. The first phase of the study is now completed and its results are being made available to the interested Government departments.
Shortly after the office of the Coordinator was established on August 16,1940, a mission sponsored by this office undertook a comprehensive study in Central and South America in cooperation with United States Foreign Service officers. The mission was headed by Percy L. Douglas, on leave of absence from the Otis Elevator Co., International Division, and included John Lockwood, New York lawyer, and George H. Butler, of the State Department, as well as a group of technical assistants.
The mission returned to the United States in December after visits to 18 of the other 20 American Republics and has reported to the Coordinator.-
Fin dings
The work of correlating the findings on a hemisphere basis is nearing completion. Examination of the country-by-country reports discloses the following facts:
1. That United States business is frequently represented in Central and South America by firms and individuals now known to support objectives contrary to the best interests of the American Republics.
2. That these representatives often use advertising appropriations of United States business firms to force newspapers and in some instances radio stations to adopt anti-American editorial policies.
3. That many employees of United States companies or their affiliation in
Central and South America are known members of local anti-American organizations.
4. That many anti-American firms, which formerly sold only European products, have now succeeded in obtaining agencies for United States business. These new connections are keeping them alive, and enabling them to maintain their trade contacts. In many instances, they openly declare they will return to their former lines at the expiration of the war.
Confidential information
5. That many of these agents who now represent United States firms are obtaining through this medium confidential trade information which is made available to anti-American powers.
6. That profits thus derived from representation of United States firms are being used to finance operations of propaganda agencies in Central and South America.
7. That many of the firms representing United States companies also serve as centers for distribution of anti-American literature and propaganda.
8. Many of the larger anti-American firms have established their own purchasing agents in the United States and with the goods obtained in this market remain in business.
9. Officers and employees of a number of firms, representing United States businesses, are officials of anti-American powers.
Extent of practices
The purpose of the mission was to discover the extent of such practices and their effect on hemispheric defense. The mission’s findings indicate that the majority of our exporting firms are not represented in Central and South America by agents with non-American connections, but that there is a sufficient number to make this a serious concern from a defense point of view.
It should be emphasized also that in many cases the firms involved have had no knowledge of the anti-American activities of their agents, and thus they have unwittingly contributed to our own difficulties and to those of our neighbors. In many cases, the connections are traceable to recent non-American pressures, the application of which could not have been foreseen when the connection was established.
Many United States companies already have taken steps to remedy the situation by cooperating with the nationals in the countries in which they operate to appoint agents friendly to inter-American solidarity. It is confidently anticipated that our exporting firms as a whole will cooperate as soon as they are apprised of the situation as it relates to their interests.
★ ★ ★
Summary of the
Week in Defense
(Continued from page 1) the Atlantic fleet, and Admiral Thomas C. Hart, the Asiatic.
Work Week
Wage-Hour Administrator Fleming, in a speech, called on defense industries to arrange work shifts so that plants can be kept in continuous operation. Colonel Fleming emphasized that productive capacity of individuals would decrease if they work more than 40 hours.
Export licenses
Effective February 4, new strict export license regulations imposed by the President on copper, brass, bronze, zinc, nickel, and potash will go into effect.
Merchant Marine expansion
The President announced the program to augment the Merchant Marine when he said $36,000,000 had been allotted to the Maritime Commission to start construction of shipyards to accommodate a $350,000,000 new shipbuilding program. The President estimated that about 200 ships would be built, averaging about 7,500 tons each. As much of the work as possible would be done in steel plants with the new shipyards used as assembly plants, he said.