[Defense : Official Bulletin of the National Defense Advisory Commission. Vol. 2, No. 1]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                DEFENSE





    ★   OFFICIAL BULLETIN

^l. of the NATIONAL DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMISSION
Washington, D C. Issued Weekly
★   JAN. 7, 1941 • VOL. 2 NO. 1

Increase in price of fuel oil is not traceable to defense-report of Consumer Division

  Recent rises in price of domestic fuel oil are not the result of the defense pro-granr and there is no justification for a further rise, according to a preliminary investigation released by Miss Harriet Elliott, Consumer Commissioner of the National Defense Advisory Commission.
  Primary cause of the rise is increased demand for fuel oil for home, office, and apartment heating.
  Shortage of tankers to transport oil does not explain the price rise. Tanker and storage facilities are adequate. Operating costs of tankers have not risen. Insurance rates have not risen and have been lowered in some instances. Although wage rates have increased slightly, they constitute no more than 15 percent of the total costs of tanker operations.
New sources
  Tanker tonnage transferred to the Navy and to foreign registry represents only about 13 percent of the total tanker capacity.
  Published charter rates for tankers have increased, but 90 percent of the oil moving from Gulf ports to the Atlantic seaboard is transported in tankers belonging to large oil companies which do not pay published charter rates.
  Should the situation in tanker facilities eventually become critical there are sources from which added facilities may be made available—56 new tankers representing a capacity of over 500,000 tons are under construction, some of them near completion.
  Certain of the ships transferred to foreign registry could be made available under recall provisions.
Stocks on hand
  Stocks of fuel oil in hands of refining companies at the end of October were larger than stocks held at the same time last year.

      282134°—41

Summary of the week in defense~ the President’s message to Congress; expansion of aircraft facilities

  In his message to Congress Monday afternoon. President Roosevelt asked for “Billions of dollars worth of weapons.” He made no specific legislative recommendations, but outlined the following policy:
  1.    All-inclusive national defense and speeding up of the armament program.
  2.    Full support to nations' “resisting aggression everywhere.”
  3.    Rejection of any suggestion of a negotiated peace dictated “by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers.”
  4.    Loan of armaments to nations fighting dictatorships to be repaid after the war.
  5.    Heavier taxes entailing “sacrifice” by the people.
  6.    A pledge that there would be no profiteers in this new emergency.
  7.    An expanded domestic program to include widening of social security coverage, more adequate medical care, improved employment machinery.


        INDEX

Priorities_______________________   2
Production_________________________ 3
Materials__________________________ 4
Agriculture 2^2____________________ 5
Price stabilization________________ 6
Housing____________________________ 7
Labor______________________________ 8
Consumers_________________________ 10
Transportation____________________ 11
States and cities.________________ 12
Purchases_________________________ 13
Compilation of contracts, December 15 to 31_________________________ 14

Expansion contracts
  Following President Roosevelt’s address to the Nation a week ago, calling for further defense effort, these aspects of progress in the program were announced:
  Award of contracts totaling $70,000,000 for expansion of aircraft manufacturing facilities at four plants—$36,800,000 for Studebaker plants at South Bend and Fort Wayne, Ind., and Chicago, with the remainder divided for expansion of the Buick Motor Division of General Motors at Grand Blanc, Mich.; North American Aviation Corporation at Inglewood, Calif.; and General Electric at Everett, Mass.
  Suspension by Executive Order—because of “extraordinary emergency”—of the 8-hour day for workers constructing Army and Navy bases at sites leased from Great Britain. The President emphasized that national defense required construction of the bases at the “earliest practicable date.”
NYA training
  Inauguration of a plan to open facilities of vocational schools to more than 300,000 NYA workers to provide training in vocations “most valuable to national defense” under supervision of the Office of Education with cooperation of State and local schools.
  Award of contracts by the War Department for a $14,000,000 ammunition loading plant at Milan, Tenn.; an $11,-000,000 TNT plant at Sandusky, Ohio; $31,680,000 for two munitions plants, one at Humboldt, Tenn., and the other at Henderson, Ky.

Page 1

Page 2

★ DEFENSE ★

January 7, 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, Transporiaiion.
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.
Donald Nelson, Coordinator of Defense Purchases.
Cbjxl-bs Palmer, Coordinator of Defense Housing.
Nelson Rockefeller, Coordinator of Commercial and Cultural Relations Between the American Republics.

        SHIP CONSTRUCTION RECORD

   Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox has announced that the 1,650-ton destroyer Edison, being built by the Federal Shipbuilding Co. of Kearny, N. J., will be delivered for commissioning this month, setting a record for the present program of 10 months of construction time. Normal time for similar construction has been 18 to 31 months.

Description of the operation of the priorities system
   Rules and regulations that govern the operation of the priorities system under the general supervision of the Priorities Board were promulgated recently.

  By virtue of the authority vested in the Priorities Board, appointed by the Council of National Defense, by Executive Order No. 8572, dated October 21, 1940 (5 F. R. 4199), as amended by Executive Order No. 8612, dated December 15,1940 (5 F. R. 5143), and pursuant to section 2 (a) of the act of June 28, 1940 (Public 671, 76th Cong., 3d sess.), and in order to establish in the public interest and in the interest of the national defense a uniform procedure for the handling of priorities, the following rules and regulations are hereby prescribed:

        PART I—DEFINITIONS

  “Board,” as used herein, shall mean the Priorities Board appointed by the Council of National Defense, and vested with authority by Executive Orders No. 8572 and No. 8612, referred to above.
  “Administrator,” as used herein, shall mean the Administrator of Priorities designated by the Board and vested with authority by Executive Orders No. 8572 and No. 8612, referred to above.
  “Subcontracts,” as used herein, shall include (a) contracts for material between prime contractors and any persons; (b) contracts for related materials between such persons and any suppliers; (c) contracts for related materials at any stage of production or processing which directly or indirectly enter into or contribute to the production or processing of materials ultimately to be delivered by the prime contractor.

        PART 11—PROCEDURE

  Article 1. In accordance with the Directive established on August 5, 1940, by the Army and Navy Munitions Board and the Army and Navy Joint Board, entitled “Priorities in Material Procurement,” as the same may be amended from time to time by joint action of War and Navy Departments, the Priorities Committee of the Army and Navy Munitions Board, with the concurrence of the Priorities Board, shall provide for the assignment


of preference ratings to all Army and Navy prime contracts for materials contained in the list of critical items of the Army and Navy, approved October 23, 1940, as the same way be amended from time to time with the approval of the Priorities Board.
   Art. 2. Pursuant to the written direction of the contracting officer, any person with whom a contract for materials has been placed by the War or Navy Department may extend the preference rating on his contract to his related subcontracts, in accordance with instructions heretofore and hereafter issued by the Priorities Committee of the Army and Navy Munitions Board, with the approval of the Administrator. A copy of any such written direction shall immediately be transmitted by such contracting officer to the said Priorities Committee.
   Art. 3. Whenever a person with whom a preference rated contract or subcontract has been placed finds that, as a result of his inability to effect the necessary adjustments with the cooperation of industry or for any other reason, he will be or is unable to deliver the materials called for by the contract or subcontract, as the case may be, on the specified date of delivery, he shall immediately report the facts through the normal procurement channels for processing, if necessary, to the Priorities Committee of the Army and Navy Munitions Board.
   Art. 4. Upon receipt of such report or upon its volition, the Priorities Committee of the Army and Navy Munitions Board shall endeavor to resolve the conflict by arranging for a change of delivery date or preference rating or by some appropriate adjustment within the War and Navy Departments. If the said Priorities Committee is, however, unable thus to resolve the conflict, it shall immediately refer the matter to the Administrator.
   Art. 5. The Administrator may, thereupon or upon his own volition, take such (.Continued on page 16)

January 7, 1941

★ DEFENSE ★

Page 3

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION ...
Ten billions in defense contracts;
85 percent of total; heavy industry is now at tooling-up stage
   With the major part of defense contracts awarded, the Nation’s heavy industries are now at work tooling up for mass production of defense items, and before the year is out they will be producing defense items at unequalled speed, according to recent statements by William S. Knudsen, Commissioner in charge of the Production Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission.

   Mr. Knudsen recently was named Director of the Office for Production Man-agemejit, of which Sidney Hillman, Labor Commissioner, is Associate Director, and the Secretaries of War and Navy are members.
   Approximately $10,000,000,000 in defense contracts—more than 85 percent of the total—have been awarded.
   Major contract categories include: $3,300,000,000 for ships; $1,500,000,000 for construction of factory expansion and for housing; $1,500,000,000 for planes and parts; $600,000,000 for ammunition; $500,000,000 for guns; $400,000,000 for trucks and tanks.
50,000 planes
   These contracts, plus such British and other foreign material orders as have been placed at the present time, call for:
   50,000 airplanes; 130,000 engines; 17,-000 heavy guns; 25,000 light guns; 13,000 trench mortars; 33 million shells loaded; 9,200 tanks; 300,000 machine guns and ammunition; 400,000 automatic; rifles and ammunition; 1,300,000 regular rifles and ammunition; 380 navy ships; 200 mercantile ships; 210 camps and cantonments; 40 Government factories; clothing and equipment for 1,200,000; the first mass production tank factory in the world; 5 smokeless powder and high explosive plants; 6 shell, bag, and ammunition loading plants; 5 new machine-gun plants; 50,000 trucks.
   Deliveries on these contracts show:
   Approximately 2400 airplane engines monthly; approximately 700 airplanes monthly; over lOOJight tanks monthly; more than 10,000 Ml semiautomatic rifles monthly; one fighting ship for the Navy every 12 days.
   Contracts will call for about 18,000,000 man-hours of labor.
Certain general principles were followed in awarding the contracts. The first consideration was speed of delivery

with orders placed in such a manner as to insure the most efficient use of each particular facility from the point of view of the whole program.
   Assurance of proper quality was also of prime importance. It was necessary to determine whether the prospective contractor could meet specifications. These specifications had to come as near as possible to coinciding with commercial standards so that existing productive machinery may be used wherever possible.
   Price was given due consideration. Every effort was made to assure its reasonableness, and consideration is given to a proper appraisal of the costs involved in the production of the particular item.
   Very important was the matter of utilizing off-season production. In several instances—blankets for example—it has been possible to dovetail the military program into production for civilian requirements by utilizing plant facilities that were idle or nearly so because of seasonal demands for the product. In addition, placing orders for military requirements at slack times reduces the overhead of the plant by employing its facilities at a higher level of capacity. This, in turn, results in lower prices both for civilian consumers and the Government.
   The interests of the consumer were recognized in other directions, especially in respect to civilian needs and morale, proper health and housing of employees. ' The interests of the worker were safeguarded by adherence to all existing labor laws and standards.
Distribution
   Another important consideration was geographical 'distribution of defense orders.
Financial responsibility of the supplier was examined. Ability to post a bond did not necessarily dispose of this prob

lem. The probability should exist that the supplier will be able to continue in business. An ability to finance himself through private sources will take precedence over Government aid.
  The moral responsibility of the supplier was important, and in some respects, fundamental. There should be evidence of honest and sincere desire to cooperate with the Army and Navy in producing what is called for, without profiteering. Plant contract
  A plant facilities contract has been developed whereby a separate arrangement is made for the plant and another for the article. This was done in order not to unduly inflate the price level. The facilities are grouped into three classes.
  (a)   Strictly complete munitions plants which would have no commercial value after the emergency, built by the Government, operated under a management fee contract, and returnable to the Government by the management after completion of orders—the title to the property resting with the Government at all times.
  (b)    A plant built and operated by a private manufacturer toward the cost of which the Government will subscribe 20 percent annually for five years and take progressive title to the property as the payments were made, with the provision that the manufacturer had the right to purchase the property at that period or before, if the emergency did not last five years, by paying the original cost of the plant, less specific depreciation rates outlined in the contract, or to negotiate for a price below this, with the contracting agency having the refusal of the offer and the right to keep the plant, (a) Where a partial expansion of the plant took place the method followed as in Plan (b) except where the negotiations failed at the end of the emergency the Government could not take the addition to the plant but had to demolish the financed portion and restore the property to its original state.

        ★   ★ ★
        FIRST AT-8 PLANE

  Delivery of the first AT-8 airplane, manufactured by the Cessna Aircraft Co., Wichita, Kans., has been announced’by the War Department. This plane is a two-seater, bimotor type, powered by two Lycoming 280 horsepower radial engines. It is the first advanced training plane with twin engines and is to be used for transition from single- to twinengine training.

Page 4

★ DEFENSE ★

January 7, 1941

INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS ...

Expansion of aluminum facilities; prevention of bottlenecks in supply of raw materials for defense
   Greatest aim of the Industrial Materials Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission in 1941 will be to prevent bottlenecks in the supply of raw materials to defense industries, as production in the national defense program reaches its peak, Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., head of the Division, said this week.

  Plans to meet these increased demands from the Nation’s industries for raw materials have been in formulation since the Division began work 6 months ago, he asserted.
  In anticipation of these demands the Industrial Materials Division has been moving forward on many fronts. Expansion of aluminum fabricating facilities to meet the requirements of our aircraft program has been worked out. Armor plate and heavy forging facilities will be expanded to meet the needs of our shipbuilding program as evidenced in the December announcement of the favorable attitude of the Division toward expansion plans of the Bethlehem Steel Co., and in the Division’s granting to Bethlehem a certificate of necessity for special tax amortization of the new facilities.

Adequate aluminum
  Production of ingot aluminum during the next 2 years from the present plants and those additional units already planned, together with the secondary supply, appears adequate to take care of military requirements as now estimated, and present civilian requirements, with a sufficient surplus to permit some increase in civilian requirements over the present level, or in military requirements if needed.
  Ingot production has already been increased from the 1939 level of 325 million pounds to the present capacity of 465 million pounds per year.
  Expansions already under way and planned will increase the level to 690 million pounds per year by July 1941, and 825 million pounds by July 1942. This July 1942 production will be two-and-one-half times the 1939 level.
  Fabricating facilities of the industry are being increased to take care of the increased requirements, and while there may be temporary delays in supplying civilian needs for some fabricated


articles, no serious difficulties are expected.

Aircraft requirements
  Aircraft requirements are based on the revised schedules of the Army, Navy, and the British, and include the new British program. The aluminum requirements are estimated four months in advance of airplane schedule deliveries. These requirements will increase steadily to meet the increasing requirements of the aircraft program.
  Capacities of sheet mills are being increased to produce the strong alloy sheets used in airplanes.
  The anticipated supply of the strong alloy aluminum used in plane construction is ample to meet the present plane schedules. At present there are large orders on hand for military requirements other than planes, such as field kitchens and the individual soldier’s equipment, and while these orders are in process there may be temporary delays in meeting come civilian requirements.
Temporary delay
  There are some delays in forgings, but this is expected to be temporary. With the installation of new hammers this situation will be remedied.
  Consumption of bauxite from Arkansas is being increased.
  Supplies of manganese on hand or readily available to the United States are now estimated as adequate for more than 2 years’ requirements.
  Reserve stocks of tin are being accumulated rapidly and current supplies either already in the country or en route are adequate to meet requirements for more than a year.
  Potential supplies of tolueno used in the highly important explosive TNT are adequate for all anticipated United States requirements.

British pig iron
  Arrangements also have been made with the British for the shipment of large quantities of pig iron from the British Isles to the United States. This material will be carried in British ships which heretofore have been making the return journey to this country empty or with only partial cargoes.
  The program for acquiring stock piles of strategic and critical raw materials sufficient to carry through the emergency has been moving ahead. But this has been a difficult task, as Mr. W. L. Batt, Deputy Commissioner of the Division, explained in a speech recently. “Huge stocks of these materials are not lying around the world waiting to be purchased,” he pointed out.
  “Negotiations are difficult. Trade restrictions are manifold. Sometimes production and deliveries, because of shipping difficulties, are slow. We were able to make a couple of quick purchases of substantial supplies, of antimony and chrome ore in Indochina and the Mediterranean, but those were the exceptions rather than the rule.
, “The stock pile program, calling for the accumulation of about 2 years’ reserves of the strategic materials, is well along from the standpoint of contracting for deliveries, but even if we had title to it a ton of chrome ore in the mountains of Turkey would not help us produce a single pound of high-grade steel.
Substitutes
  “There are two other possible courses of action. One is to find substitutes. We are following this line, too, notably in the case of rubber, where we are arranging for greatly increased production of synthetic.
  “The last course is salvage and reclamation. We try to save this one as a last resort. But, just to be on the safe side, we are developing detailed plans for gathering up waste products and reusing them wherever possible.”

        ★   ★ ★
        INCREASE AT CHARLESTOWN

  The War Department has announced award of a contract for approximately $23,000,000 to the E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. for increased facilities for smokeless powder manufacture at the Indiana Ordnance Works, Charlestown, Ind. This added contract brings total cost of this plant to approximately $74,000,000.

January 7, 1941

ir DEFENSE ★

Page 5

AGRICULTURE...

Effect of decentralization of defense industries on the farm labor problem; prospect of expanded demand in 1941 for dairy products and meats

   Gearing American agriculture into the defense program will be the principal task of the Agricultural Division during the coming year, Chester Davis, head of the Division, said this week.


  Groundwork was laid in the past 6 months, when the Division worked toward greatest possible utilization of agricultural resources in the defense effort, and in adjusting certain of the impacts of the defense program so as not to press unduly on the farm industry.
  An important consideration is that of prices and the price policy to be followed as a result of the war abroad and the defense program at home. The farmer has a double interest in prices— first as a producer of raw materials, and also as a user of manufactured goods in farm production.

Production up
  Behavior of agriculture during the depression has differed from that of industry. The great depression, with its accompanying loss in both home and foreign demand, did not bring any appreciable reduction in output of agricultural commodities. Instead of reducing its scale of operation with accompanying obsolescence in plant and labor force, agriculture continued to produce at capacity levels. In fact, during recent years the aggregate agricultural production has been higher than at any previous time.
  The result of this is that many problems which have been serious throughout industry are either totally absent or present only in a minor degree in agriculture since the United States has abundant supplies of most of the great staples. In fact, excess Supplies of cotton, wheat, tobacco, and certain other commodities continue to be a problem in spite of the defense program.' Substantial quantities of these commodities have been thrown back on the domestic market because of the closing of the sea lanes and have been added to the domestic surplus.

   For certain commodities such as dairy products and meats, there is a prospect during 1941 of expanded domestic requirements. However, here again there are no questions of bottlenecks, serious skilled labor shortages, or reluctance to expand capacity. And through the agricultural programs built up in recent years, there is adequate machinery for obtaining an orderly expansion in the output of farm commodities if required.

Location of industries
   Next, to its supplies of food and fiber, the most important resource of agriculture in the defense program is the large reserve of labor available for industrial employment.
   During the depression the normal migration from rural areas where the birth rate is high, to urban centers with a low birth rate, was largely checked. During this same period, technological advances in agriculture were releasing farm labor and in the immediate past, the cutting off of cotton, tobacco, and wheat exports has made available a large potential reserve of farm labor which is no longer needed for the production of these commodities.
   Much of this labor will be drawn into urban industry but it has been a major objective of the Agricultural Division to minimize the extent and distance of the migration required so far as possible.

Decentralization
   The most important device for achieving this general objective is the decentralization of new defense industries in order that these labor reserves may be tapped directly. The Agricultural Division has participated actively in the location of the new defense industries with this end in view. A strong effort is being made to locate as many of the new de

fense plants as possible in the South or west of the Mississippi River.
   While the major objective in decentralizing defense industries has been the tapping of this large labor reserve, it is believed that other advantages may be expected to accrue from such a policy.
   In some measure, the pattern of industrial concentration in the United States was set during the War Between the States and during World War I.
   Hurried and unplanned expansion of industry during these two periods led to a natural concentration in the Northeastern and Lake States. It has been considered wise to avoid, so far as possible, a further reinforcement of this concentration to the end that a better balance between agriculture and industry over the country as a whole might be achieved. At the same time it was hoped to avoid the congestion of transportation facilities and extreme labor shortages which occurred during the first World War.
Difficulties encountered
   There have been serious difficulties in carrying through this policy. In many instances locations desirable from a longer time point of view have had to give way to less satisfactory sites where more rapid production was possible.
   Moreover, for the types of plants requiring large quantities of skilled labor, the risk of moving out of the present areas of production was too great to be taken during a period of defense emergency.
   However, for many of the large munitions factories, a substantial measure of decentralization has been achieved.
   Thus, two of the three smokeless-powder plants have been located in areas where they will draw on reserves of predominately rural labor.
   Of the four large shell-loading plants, one has been located in a rural section of the South and another in the area west of the Mississippi River.
   All of .the small-arms ammunition plants have been located outside of existing areas of heavy industrial concentration. The later stages of the airplane program are also in western cities away from the major industrial centers.
   On the other hand, much of the earlier expansion in the aircraft industry, the plants for production of mechanized equipment, and plants requiring a large proportion of machine skills in their labor force, has gone into the present industrial regions.
(Continued on page 6)

Page 6

★ DEFENSE ★

January 7, 1941

Agriculture . . .
(Continued from page 5)
Land acquisition
  While there are many problems involved in getting a defense plant located in a rural area, there are other factors to be considered after a rural location is approved.
  Establishment of defense facilities in rural areas, particularly those requiring large acreages, such as munitions or training centers, will create new and difficult problems for the people who have to move off the land selected for defense sites. Families representing every section of the Nation and every stratum of income, from sharecropper to estate owner, are now living on land Involved in the purchase program.
  Many of these people will be able to relocate themselves without guidance or aid, but many others will need assistance. An attempt is being made to get priority of employment for workers in the displaced families on the new defense projects.
  Attention has been given to land-acquisition problems, including a study of methods of purchasing land. As a result, it has been decided by the purchasing agencies concerned that in the future in the case of projects where large areas of farm land are involved, experienced Government land purchase and land appraisal agencies will be used in determining land values.
Standard procedure
  Study has also been given to a proposal to draw up a standard land purchase procedure which would protect the rights of both landowners and tenants. It would recognize the value of factors such as loss due to the forced sale of livestock not yet ready for market; loss of small secondary farm buildings or farm property which could not be salvaged; value of silage and value of field work performed in preparation for next year’s crops. Under this proposal rights of tenants would be recognized and protected.
  In all land-acquisition work close cooperation has been maintained with the Department of Agriculture. Land experts and economists of the Department have served as consultants.
  The food situation is quite different now from that of 1917.
  In 1917, we had low reserves and actual shortages in many commodities.
  Now we have large surpluses in many

commodities, and adequate supplies for the present in almost all of them.
   Whether we will encounter a serious food problem later depends upon the duration of the war. But it appears advisable to have a program prepared to meet whatever situation may develop in the future.
   With this preparedness thought in mind, an Interdepartmental Conference Committee on Food Resources, composed of representatives from all Government departments and agencies concerned with food, has been set up to secure facts

on which to base a defense program in the food field. This conference committee has appointed 15 subcommittees, each covering a special segment of the food industry.
   These subcommittees are now taking an inventory of our food resources, surveying existing data on production, stocks, carry-over, exports, imports, and utilization. They are taking an inventory also of our physical assets—storage, warehousing, processing, and manufacturing equipment, and our distribution ' facilities.

PRICE STABILIZATION ...
Conferences with scrap, pig-iron industry representatives; stable price for steel in first quarter of 1941; “industrial well-being”
   The Price Stabilization Division, under Commissioner Leon Henderson, this week continues its procedure of the first 6 months of the Commission’s activity in calling together consumers and producers in an industry where a price situation is developing.

   This week Mr. Henderson is meeting with members of the scrap, pig-iron and related industries. These conferences were scheduled after a meeting held in Washington in December with representatives of integrated and nonintegrated steel companies.
Steel price
   At that conference recent price developments in the steel and related industries were reviewed by representatives of steel companies and of the Price Stabilization Division.
   It was pointed out that while prices of scrap, pig iron, and coke changed little for nearly 2 months following a similar meeting on October 8, they have moved upward during the past two weeks. It also was noted that the price of finished steel for the first quarter of 1941 will remain the same as for the last quarter of 1940 and for several previous quarters.
   It was agreed that steel makers cannot continue indefinitely to absorb the increased cost of raw materials entering into their product without ultimate reflection in a higher price of finished steel—a

result which steel manufacturers do not desire.
Lower level
   Dealers in scrap also are agreed they do not wish to see the price of that raw material increase and sellers of scrap who also are purchasers of finished steel desire to see scrap and steel prices held down. It therefore is apparent that all three groups involved—buyers, middlemen, and sellers—are anxious to avoid price increases.
   “Today the price level is lower than it ever was when wheels of industry were turning fast,” Mr. Henderson said recently. “This I regard as the healthiest sign of our industrial well-being. Low, noninfiationary prices are necessary for stability and strength—not only in the procurement of defense needs, but in the troubled days when this emergency is over. Again—this low, stable price level did not come into existence by accident. It resulted, again, from a national policy of allowing ample agricultural supplies, taken together with an insistence by government on low industrial prices and the adoption by business statesmen.”

January 7, 1941

★ DEFENSE ★

Page 7

DEFENSE HOUSING ...

27,700 federally financed dwelling units in 29 States; houses being built by public and private agencies will total 100,000 in March
   With 27,700 federally financed dwelling units being built in 29 States, a Nation-wide survey shows that Federal defense housing agencies whose programs are being carried on in cooperation with the Defense Housing Coordinator are going forward with construction to meet immediate needs, Defense Housing Coordinator C. F. Palmer has reported to the National Defense Advisory Commission.

   Of the 27,700 dwellings, the Navy is building 15,865. Under the Federal Works Administration the Public Buildings Administration, is building 6,800 units and the United States Housing Authority, with local Housing Authorities, is building 5,100 dwellings.
   In addition to these Government-financed programs, thousands of houses are being built in defense areas by private builders to meet impending shortages caused by increased defense activities.
Government aid
   Private builders are assisted by the Federal Housing Administration and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board in carrying out their part of the cooperative program. Their part consists of private and permanent housing for workers who can pay more than minimum rents. This effort on the part of private enterprise conserves Government funds for low »ent housing.
   The first 50,000 family dwelling units in the defense housing program will be ready for occupancy during the first few months of 1941. It is anticipated that the number of houses under construction and completed by private and public agencies will total 100,000 by March 1941.
   Under the coordinated program, the agencies constructing housing with public funds and the agencies assisting private capital are cooperating in a program which uses all of their facilities.
   Specific portions are assigned to each agency so that the entire need can be met without duplication or gaps. The Government is building housing for low income groups and to provide for temporary needs. It also assists private capital to provide for medium rent and permanent need.

Typical area
   The Norfolk-Newport News-Port s-mouth region of Virginia represents a typical area where intense defense activities require the building of defense housing. A few days ago officials of the various housing agencies made a flying trip to the area with the Coordinator.
   On the flight from Washington to Norfolk the party flew over the Norfolk, Newport News, Portsmouth, Yorktown, Va., and Indian Head, Md., projects. From the air the party could see foundations being laid, and in many places roofs were going up, so that construction could be completed during winter months.
   The party saw over 6,000 dwelling units under construction for the shipbuilding workers, the Navy Operating Base and Aviation Base, Army establishments, and service workers moving into this region.
“For every workman”
   These houses are being built by private builders, by the Navy and through FWA, by the United States Housing Authority, and by the Public Buildings Administration. The coordinated defense housing program for the area calls for several thousand more houses, in addition tc those now under construction.
   Mr. Palmer, after seeing the work thaL each agency is doing, announced, “Wc feel sure that housing is going to be provided for every workman necessary for the vital defense shipbuilding and military activities.”
Summary of standards
Mr. Palmer, during the past six months, has been concerned with establishing, in cooperation with other federal agencies, certain basic principles for defense hous-

jng. A summary of minimum planning standards for defense housing projects, including reasonable standards of safety, convenience, and health is being devised, which includes requirements for site selection, site planning, planning for dwelling units, and community facilities.
  Group buying procedures for agencies constructing defense housing have been set up through the cooperation of Commissioner Leon Henderson, of the Price Stabilization Division, and Donald M. Nelson, Coordinator of Defense Purchases. These procedures apply particularly to mechanical equipment such as refrigeration and all plumbing items as well as heating devices.
Information on awards
  To prevent the overburdening of any particular contractor and resulting delay, a system has been devised under which each of the several government agencies engaged in defense housing construction may know to what contractors other agencies have made awards.
  A memorandum of understandings concerning the establishment of central registration in the programs of the local defense councils has been worked out with the Division of State and Local Cooperation and the Coordinator.
  This requests housing representatives of State defense councils to make arrangements with the local defense councils for central registration of vacant houses, apartments, and spare rooms, in order to assist defense workers in securing appropriate housing facilities among existing accommodations.

        ★ ★ ★
        ARMY ENGINEER SCHOOL

  The Army Engineer School at Fort Belvoir, Va., has enlarged its program of instruction considerably in recent months to meet increasing demands for highly trained engineer personnel necessitated by the rapidly expanding Army. It is now one of the largest of the special service schools being operated under direction of the War Department.
  In this fiscal year, an estimated 1,700 officers and 1,500 carefully selected enlisted men will receive special training there in the latest military engineering technique. At present about 200 Reserve officers are being graduated each month. Quartered in tents during the summer and early fall, the student officers and men are now housed in frame barracks.

Page 8

★ DEFENSE ★

January 7, 1941

LABOR DIVISION ...

Report for the first six months; greatest training program in the history of the country under way; mobilization of labor skills; management-labor cooperation
   During the past 6 months, serious strikes in defense industries were cut to two stoppages, it was pointed out this week by Sidney Hillman, chief of the Labor Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission.

  In addition, he said, the greatest training program in the history of the country has been begun, a Nation-wide mobilization of labor skills is now in full swing and management-labor cooperation has been promoted at the conference table.
  The triple objective of the Labor Division is to help American labor contribute the fullest measure of its talents and efficiency toward meeting the material needs of national defense; to safeguard labor’s rights and to reemploy the unemployed.
  A review of the Labor Division’s work during the past 6 months follows:
  Nearly 2,000,000 Americans have gone back to work under stimulus of the defense program and the natural forces of recovery. A year hence, 4,000,000 more will have found jobs.
Survey of resources
  The Division’s first assignment was to And out what the Nation had in terms of such human resources. At the request of the Division, the United States Employment Service, through its 1,500 employment offices throughout the country, hastened surveys to classify some 5^2 million unemployed men and women according to trades and skills in more than 1,000 different occupations. Employers have been using these lists to fill their personnel needs and thus to drain off the unemployed in their localities.
  The Civil Service Commission made a similar inventory of its applications on file, and, at the instigation of the Labor Division, it tapped the reservoir of older skilled workers by raising maximum age limits from 45 to 62 years in United States Army arsenals and United States Navy shipyards.

  Labor unions cooperated with this program by making surveys of unemployed and employed members. Many skills useful for defense industries have thus been brought out from behind store counters and filling station pumps where they had been driven by the depression.
Mapping of demands
  The Labor Division next set up a system for mapping the present and future demands on the labor market as new contracts and subcontracts are let for the defense industries. Under the direction of Dr. Isador Lubin, executive assistant to Mr. Hillman, in charge of labor requirements, contracts are immediately analyzed to show what manpower will be needed to turn out the scheduled materials.
  Speedy production of 17 billion dollars’ worth of materials needed for defense called for the largest and fastest program for training workers ever attempted in America.
  Before the close of the first month, June 1940, the Division had planned and the United States Office of Education and the W. P. A. had inaugurated a joint system of vocational training to improve and refresh the skills of 150,000 workers. Empowered by special legislation and an allotment of more than 17 million dollars, schools normally idle during the surpmer were thrown open.
  By the end of August, more than 100,000 persons were enrolled—either unemployed workers refreshing skills in intensive courses fitting them for defense jobs, or employed workers receiving supplementary training to improve skills on the job. Within the next year more than 500,000 persons will have received


these courses which are keyed to new job-openings in each community.

Training in industry
  The next move was to undertake a Nation-wide program of training within industry. On July 24, Commissioner Hillman called a conference, under chairmanship of Owen D. Young, of six industrial and labor leaders who were experts in this field. Out of that conference came plans for a progressive program to aid industry in training apprentices, to stimulate the up-grading of those already at work in defense plants, and otherwise to equip large sections of labor with the knowledge necessary for the most effective use of the many new tools and machines which the defense program has brought into being.
  From the ranks of industry the Labor Division drew two of the country’s foremost personnel authorities—Channing Dooley, of Socony Vacuum, and J. W. Dietz, of Western Electric. They are assisted by a panel of experts drawn from labor and management.

Rapid advancement
  When the program is placed in operation, every American worker in defense industries will be able to use his highest skill. This up-grading procedure is making employee advancement swifter than ever before. Top-notch mechanics are being released from devoting their time to simpler, routine tasks. Workers in the intermediate grades will be trained for the best they can do so that they can be rapidly transferred upward from light machine operation to more complicated assignments. New employees are being prepared to move up tung by rung on the ladder of promotion.
  These techniques have been evolved through special studies and cooperation of management and union leaders, and results are being made available to defense employers through a series of Training Within Industry Bulletins which have been published since September 24.

Coordination
  To quicken adoption of the plan on a Nation-wide basis, some 20 district representatives have been appointed to supervise this undertaking in the country’s chief industrial centers. They will

January 7, 1941

★ DEFENSE ★

Page 9

be .aided by 2 management and 2 labor advisors, together with a panel of personnel and training experts.
   They have coordinated the vocational training given by the NYA and the CCC under the direction of the Office of Education. A large percentage of the 300,000 enrollees in Civilian Conservation Corps camps is learning defense trades.
   Approximately 210,000 boys and girls are at work part timé in over 3,500 National Youth Administration shops and construction projects getting experience in metal, mechanical, and manual trades which will help qualify them for noncombat defense jobs.
   In part emulating the experience of Great Britain, the Division has inaugurated a program of revitalizing the “ghost” towns and declining industries of America. Late in October Commissioner Hillman suggested that contractors extend subcontracting in order to swing idle and near-idle factories and their reservoir of serviceable machinery and skilled help into the production of these parts. These plants could be used, he pointed out, without waiting for delivery of new machinery or the training of new skilled workers.

List mailed
   As a result, to cite a single instance, a list of partly idle plants in 15 cities in the Ohio River region, ranging from older foundries and a rolling mill to railroad repair shops, was mailed out November 27 to 500 firms holding Government contracts.
   Primary among the problems confronting the Labor Division was that of helping 'to insure uninterrupted production on defense contracts.
   Shortly after arriving in Washington, Commissioner Hillman appointed a Labor Policy Advisory Committee to advise with him on drawing up a program to obtain labor’s participation and cooperation in defense work. This committee is composed of 16 labor representatives— 6 from the American Federation of Labor, 6 from the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and 4 from the Railroad Brotherhoods.

Support is pledged
   This committee pledged the support of organized labor to the defense program and immediately informed Commissioner Hillman that everything possible would be done to maintain regular output in defense industries. Recently the committee again confirmed this ^stand by a statement which read in part as follows:

   “In this time of world crisis, American labor is awake to the crucial need for a strong national defense program. * ♦ ♦ Labor has been—and is—cooperating whole-heartedly throughout the entire defense effort. Labor again reaffirms its assurance of cooperation with the national defense program and further pledges itself to take no action which may in any way impede production before all conciliation facilities of the Federal Government for resolving any existing controversy have been exhausted.”
   Several industrial relations experts have been added to the Labor Division’s staff to aid the Labor Department Conciliation Service and to collaborate with the members of the Labor Policy Advisory Committee to carry out this pledge.
   The result: Only two major strikes during the first six months of the defense program.
   These lasted six and four working days, respectively.

Shipbuilding stabilization
   Last month the Shipbuilding Stabilization Committee was appointed, consisting of representatives of organized labor, the shipbuilding industry and the Federal Government.
   These representatives have approved a policy urging that there be no interruption of production on the part of shipyard employers and employees before all facilities at the disposal of the National Defense Advisory Commission for adjusting differences have been exhausted. A subcommittee was named to determine detailed procedure.

Labor policy
   In accord with President Roosevelt’s declaration on May 26 that the defense program should bring no breakdown or cancellation of recent social gains, the Labor Policy Advisory Committee drew up and submitted to the Commission a statement of labor policy which was unanimously adopted and made public September 1. The statement said in part:
   “All work carried on as part of the defense program should comply with Federal statutory provisions affecting labor wherever such provisions are applicable. This applies to the Walsh-Healy Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, the National Labor Relations Act, etc. There should also be compliance with state and local statutes affecting labor relations, hours of work, wages, workmen’s compensation, safety, sanitation, etc.”
   In the belief that this policy was of national importance, President Roosevelt

included its text in a special message to Congress on September 13. To implement this policy and to require its strict observance the appropriate clauses are being written into defense contracts.
   The system of negotiated contracts, which has been adopted to take the place of the customary competitive bidding, in various instances, has been of considerable aid in carrying cut this labor policy.
   The following statement of principles has recently been issued by the Adjutant General’s office of the War Department:
   “In future, every invitation for bids pertaining to national defense contracts will include this statement:
   “ ‘The general principles governing the letting of national defense contracts and the statement of labor policy adopted by the advisory commission to the council of national defense and approved by the President will be the guide in the award of contracts under this invitation for bids. * * * All work executed under any such contract will constitute work under the national defense program and will be carried out in compliance with the provisions of the statement of labor policy relative to overtime pay and in compliance with Federal statutory provisions affecting labor wherever such provisions are applicable, as well as with State and local statutes affecting labor relations, hours of work, wages, workmen’s compensation, safety, and sanitation.’ ”


        PAMPHLET ON COMMISSION-ACTIVITIES AND FUNCTIONS

  The National Defense Advisory Commission has published a pamphlet describing the functions and duties of the Commission with a summary of its activities for the past 6 months.
  The first section of “The National Defense Advisory Commission: Duties and Functions,” gives brief definitions of the duties of each of the seven Commissioners, and also of the duties of the Defense Housing Coordinator, the Coordinator of National Defense Purchases, the Administrator of Export Control, the Coordinator of Commercial and Cultural Relations between the American Republics, and the Division of State and Local Cooperation.
  The second section is a division-by-division summary of the commission’s activities since it was established on May 28, 1940.
  Copies may be obtained for 5 cents each, payable to the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

Page 10

★ DEFENSE ★

January 7, 1941

CONSUMER DIVISION ...

Day-to-day studies of the effect of defense on the consumer; timing and spacing of orders for the Army and Navy; conferences of business leaders

   Day-to-day studies of the effect of the defense program on the American consumer, aiming to maintain a balance between military and civilian needs in the greatly expanding defense program, form the increasing task of the Consumer Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission in 1941, Miss Harriet Elliott, Commissioner, said this week.


  The Division will continue to work closely with the Army and the Navy, utilizing existing research facilities of Government agencies, to make sure that the Defense Commission and the military services constantly have at hand, information on consumer supplies and prices.
  As large military orders have been proposed for food, clothing, and other commodities, the Consumer Division has studied the specified quantity, cost, and delivery dates.
  Sometimes such studies reveal that the military order would have no ill effect on the consumer market.
  In other cases, suggestions for timing and spacing of the orders which did not interfere with military requirements have prevented dislocations such as price increases or shortages ₛ to meet civilian needs.
  Sheets, socks, razors, mattresses, and coats are but a few of the hundreds of items which have been analyzed in this way during the past 6 months.
Wool policy
  Other Army purchasing policies in which some of the Division’s recommendations have been embodied through the Coordinator of Defense Purchases are the relaxation of the requirement that domestic wool be used exclusively in the manufacture of Army goods, and announcement, as far in advance as possible, of military needs for woolen goods.
  This will enable manufacturers to plan their purchasing and production to meet both civilian and military requirements.
  Recommendations have been made to broaden certain machine specifications for the production of clothing items in order not to take up all the industry’s facilities with military orders. For ex

ample, in a recent purchase of cotton socks, Army specifications required the use of a certain type of machine of which there were only 5600 available in this country. The proposed order, together with previous ones, would have required 45 percent of the total capacity of these machines on an 8 hour, one-shift basis for several months.
   It was discovered that if the specifications were broadened slightly, 19,000 machines instead of 5600 would be available and the production capacity which would be utilized for military purposes would be reduced from 45 percent to 13 percent.
   Since this change could be made without lessening the quality of the product the recommendation for the alternative specifications was made to the Coordinator of Purchases.
Speculation in tins
   Recently the price of the number 10 size of canned foods increased to a point where it was entirely out of line with the price for the same quantity in smaller cans.
   The number 10 size is usually purchased by the Navy, Army, and by other institutional buyers such as hospitals and schools, while the smaller sizes of 2 and 2% are usually bought by private consumers. Evidence at hand indicated that the reason for the increase was speculative activity in holding stocks of the large size tins.
   If this condition were not checked, not only the Army but other large users of canned foods, would face unjustifiable increases in food costs. It was therefore recommended to and accepted by the Quartermaster General that purchase for Army use should, if necessary, be made in the 2 or 2 % size can.

  The Division has participated in the formulation of Commission recommendations on plant location, industrial capacity priorities, and similar activities of the Commission and has proposed measures for consumer protection in the course of developing these phases of the defense program.
Coffee treaty
  In the field of hemispheric trade relations, the Consumer Division recommended changes in the proposed InterAmerican Coffee Treaty, recently adopted, to safeguard the interests of consumers in this country.
  To prevent unwarranted price increases in consumer goods and further promote the steady flow of goods of sustained quality, the Consumer Division has enlisted the cooperation of both buyers and sellers.
  A conference was held with merchants representing more than 50 national retailing trade organizations at which the retailers pledged efforts “to prevent so far as possible any unjustifiable rise in retail prices, by urging upon the general trade vigorous opposition to all price increases which appear to be unwarranted and which might cause difficulty to the Government and the consuming public.”
  The conference elected a Retailers’ Advisory Committee which is now engaged in giving effect to this resolution.
  Merchants and distributor leaders of 75 wholesale trade groups met with Commissioner Elliott in November and assured her of their cooperation in discouraging “unwarranted advances in wholesale prices.”
Wholesaling committee
  They elected a Wholesaling Trades Advisory Committee which has informed the wholesaling industry that “speculation in consumer goods and Inventory hoarding under present conditions would adversely affect the national defense program and therefore should be discouraged in every possible manner.” The Committee is perfecting machinery to handle problems in the field of wholesaling affecting consumer interests.
  Manufacturing trade groups and Better Business Bureaus have also pledged their assistance to the solution of consumer problems arising out of the defense program.
  Some months ago, there was a flurry of unwarranted scare advertising which was persuading the public to “buy now and buy more before the price goes .up.” With the cooperation of the Better Busi

January 7, 1941

★ DEFENSE ★

Page 11

ness Bureaus in 60 key cities, the Retailers’ Advisory Committee, broadcasting stations, and newspapers, this practice has been effectively curtailed.
  The services of existing Government agencies have been employed in watching prices, as well as contacts with business concerns having highly organized market reporting machinery.
  Since satisfactory price and supply conditions depend upon the cooperation and awareness of buyers as well as sellers, the Division has also enlisted the cooperation of consumer groups throughout the country. As a result of a conference with leaders of national civic organizations last August, channels of communication were established with hundreds of farm groups, labor unions, consumer organizations, immigrant groups, women’s clubs, men’s service organizations, and other organized civic bodies.
Cost-of-living
  At the request of the Consumer Division, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics has expanded its cost-of-living coverage and has speeded up the reporting of information on cost of living and retail prices. On the basis of this data, the Consumer Division issues a semimonthly bulletin, Consumer Prices, to State and local defense councils and to civic and service organizations described, to assist them in protecting living standards by disseminating factual information on consumer purchasing. This information also will be available twice a month in issues of Defense.
Welfare programs
  Attention has been directed to reinforcing the home-line front of national defense by encouraging civic organizations to extend educational and welfare activities in their communities. Programs have been suggested for raising nutritional levels, improving family health and effectiveness, building the human defenses of the community as a whole, and the development of a backlog of human skills for emergency service.
  With appointment of Federal Security Administrator, Paul V. McNutt as Coordinator of Health, Welfare, and Related Defense Activities, work along these lines has been centralized and will be integrated with the welfare, health, education, and social security functions of the Federal Security Agency.
  Recommendations for increased hog production and marketing of beef cattle this season have been made to the Secretary of Agriculture by the National Defense Advisory Commission at the request of the Consumer Division.

TRANSPORTATION...
Coordinating rail, motor, water, pipeline facilities; request to reduce number of freight cars needing repair to six per cent; survey of warehousing
  The Nation’s transportation facilities are ready to meet the increased demands expected to be made upon them in 1941 with the speed-up in defense production, Ralph Budd, Commissioner in charge of the Transportation Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission, announced this week.

  The problem has been one of coordinating rail, motor, water, and pipeline facilities during the past 6 months.
  During the summer Mr. Budd urged the Nation’s railroads to reduce to 6 percent the number of freight cars needing repairs as one means of reaching this goal.
  In this connection he informed J. J. Pelley, president, Association of American Railroads, that:
  “The continued rising trend of carloadings, as indicated by loading of 752,000 cars in the week ended June 29, 1940, accentuates, in my opinion, the need for full performance by all lines of the repair work necessary to reduce cars in bad order to not more than 6 percent, as was agreed. In 1939, you may recall, loadings did not reach present levels until mid-September.

Increase of 10,000

  “The Car Service Division report of cars awaiting repairs as of June 1, 1940, shows an increase slightly in excess of 10,000 cars in the number awaiting repairs, comparing June 1 with January 1 of this year. The June 15 figures indicate a reduction in the bad-order account compared with June 1 of 7,053 cars. Most of the reduction represents boxcars, there being only 505 less open-top cars awaiting repairs on June 15 as compared with June 1.
  “♦ * * There will undoubtedly be little difficulty involved in reducing to the 6 percent level. * * *.
  “The railroads as a whole have much at stake in connection with handling of the increased traffic which it appears will be offered, and any failure to do those things which have been agreed upon as necessary may well have results which will be harmful to the industry.

“Of sufficient importance”
  “Undoubtedly you will think the subject of sufficient importance that you will wish to handle it with the railroads. * * * having more than six percent bad orders and obtain from them a commitment as to their plans. I will be very much interested in the results of such inquiry as you may make, and if I can assist in any way to the end that the desired performance may be had, I will be very glad to act on any suggestions you may wish to make.”
  Meanwhile, a coordinated warehousing program is being undertaken by the Division.
  Under the program, existing warehouse space will be used first. Next, existing buildings suitable for warehouse purposes will be utilized. In emergencies, where private facilities cannot be provided, the Government may have to undertake construction.
* A survey of all existing warehouse facilities now available is being made.

        ★ ★ ★
        CARGO SHIP BIDS

  The Maritime Commission has announced that bids have been invited for construction of another group of C-2 type, single screw cargo vessels. Bids may be entered by a contractor on one to four vessels with Diesel propulsion.
  The vessels will be 459 feet overall, of approximately 6,100 gross tons, approximately 9,600 deadweight tons, with a designed speed of 15% knots, and accommodations for eight passengers.
  Bids will be opened January 13, 1941, at 12:15 p. m., E. S. T., in Room 7856, Department of Commerce Building, Washington, D. C.

Page 12

* DEFENSE *

January 7, 1941





                THE STATES AND CITIES ...





36 State and 700 local defense councils now functioning; coordination of defense effort; increased community problems

   A total of 36 States now have advisory councils or coordinators of defense, the Division of State and Local Cooperation announces. Utah’s council was the thirty-fifth and Kentucky’s the thirtysixth. In addition, Gov. John Stelle of Illinois has appointed an advisory committee to prepare a plan of operation for an emergency defense council.
   About 700 official local defense councils have been reported. While many communities continue to meet new defense responsibilities through established governmental machinery, those in certain defense areas are finding it necessary to set up councils to coordinate efforts to meet increased community problems.
Recreation, health, and welfare
   Recently, the War Department and the Defense Coordinator for Health, Welfare, and Recreation, after reviewing with the Division of State and Local Cooperation the general problems arising in many local communities in the vicinity of military reservations and cantonments, advised the Division that one of the major fields in which they wish cooperation of State and local authorities is that of the development of sound health, welfare, and recreational programs in localities adjacent to military concentrations.
   It was specifically requested that the Division suggest to the States in which major cantonments are located, the establishment of local councils of defense designated to coordinate the work of public and private agencies in providing community services which may be required because of these concentrations.
   In addition to health, welfare, and recreation, it was noted that other problems of State and local government might be involved in the impact of the defense program in these communities. Traffic control, the provision of highways, sanitation, education and, in general, almost all governmental services may be called upon for special efforts in connection with these situations.
Industrial problems
   The suggestion noted that similar problems might arise out of location or expansion of defense industries in various localities in the several States. In such

communities, it was suggested that local defense councils might be as valuable as in areas of military concentration.
   Local councils have conducted surveys of idle plant capacity which the Division has made available to the various branches of the Defense Commission.
   In numerous areas throughout the country, State, local, or regional councils are concerned in fading solutions to defense-connected problems of government.
   As advisory bodies, these councils submit recommendations or suggestions to the governor or local executive, who places them in the action stream.
   A defense council usually consists of the Governor or municipal executive as chairman ex officio, an executive vice-chairman, and members appointed by or with approval of the Governor or municipal executive, each member being responsible for a broad functional area in which he or she is especially qualified.
Usual functions
   The following functional areas are recognized in many State and regional councils: (1) Agricultural resources and production; (2) civil protection; (3) health, welfare, and consumer interest; (4) housing, works, and facilities; (5) human resources and skills; and (6) industrial resources and production.
   Function of the State, regional, and local councils of defense is to advise the Governor or local executive on problems arising with respect to:
  (1)   Integration of governmental programs for defense;
  (2)   Adjustments or arrangements necessary for prompt assimilation of such programs by the administrative establishment;
  (3)   Proper coordination between the activities of Government and private agencies cooperating in the defense effort.
  In areas where it has seemed advisable, a single regional council with an executive officer has been set up to serve two or more counties, cities, or towns, or some combination of local governmental units.
  In recognition of the need for Federal— State—local cooperation, the Division of State and Local Cooperation was es

tablished by the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense on August 2, 1940. Its primary purpose is to maintain a two-way channel of information and service in order to facilitate the development of those parts of the defense program in which State and local governments are concerned. It also helps guide defense interests of private organizations and individuals toward effective action.
Regional meetings
   In addition, the Division keeps Governors and State defense councils informed through field consultation, letters, and other informational channels of legislative and other major developments that particularly concern them.
   Between November 18 and December 11, the Division held four regional conferences with State defense council executives.
   Two conferences on special topics have been held. The first, on November 1, considered public personnel problems in the present emergency.
   A conference on fire protection, held November 12, led to the appointment by the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense of the Advisory Committee on Defense Fire Protection Problems. This committee, of which Mayor Maurice J. Tobin of Boston is chairman, consists of representatives of local, State, and national agencies, including the Army, Navy, and Department of Agriculture. The committee expects to have ready this month a program of suggestions to State and local governments for defense fire protection.
   The Division of State and Local Cooperation must keep in close touch with all aspects of the work of the National Defense Advisory Commission, as well as that of other Federal agencies where it relates to State or local defense activities. This means frequent consultation and development of coordinating devices.
   It means assistance on the spot to State and local government confronted with major problems of expanding industrial activity or large military concentrations. Thus the Division has assisted the Virginia Council of Defense and county and municipal governments in developing the Hampton Roads regional defense council to cope with problems in that area. Similarly, the Division is concerned with the problems confronting Charlestown, Ind.; Starke, Fla. (Camp Blanding); Portsmouth, N. H.; and numerous other areas.

Jar»uary 7, 1941

★ DEFENSE *

Page 13

DEFENSE PURCHASES

Long-range procurement techniques; help for small business in program of subcontracting; award of Army shoe and clothing contracts complete

   With the biggest problems of Army and Navy buying solved in award of complete contracts for woolen fabric and shoes, Donald M. Nelson, Coordinator of National Defense Purchases, sets forth techniques in development of lorig range procurement, emphasizing maintainance of fair prices in military and civilian buying.


  As Director of the Office of Small Business Activities, he will continue the program set down for that office of bringing small business into the defense program as subcontractors. In this program, Mr. Nelson works with Federal Reserve System officers who are helping small business get financial aid to assume responsibilities of defense subcontracts.
  In 1941 defense production will reach its peak, the facilities of primary contractors will be used to the hilt, and these companies will be looking increasingly to the subcontractor. The general aim, Mr. Nelson explained, is to see that all of America’s productive facilities are used to get the materials for defense as soon as possible.
Warm clothing
  During the past 6 months, one of the main objectives of the Defense Commission has been acquiring ample supplies of food and warm clothing for trainees. As early as November 20, bids were invited for substantially all woolen goods to be purchased by the Army and Civilian Conservation Corps during the remainder of the fiscal year.
  “After thorough study,” Mr. Nelson’s announcement read, “it has been decided that elimination of any doubts in the trade about the extent of the national defense requirements for the rest of the fiscal year will have a stabilizing effect on the industry ♦ ♦ ♦ manufacturers of woolen goods can make necessary arrangements to take care of both Government and civilian needs for the next several months with assurance that no further large orders are planned during that time.”
  “To encourage the widest possible participation of the industry in this business and to prevent development of possible

bottlenecks, the terms of this offering require no deliveries before March and permit manufacturers to spread deliveries at the rate of 20 percent monthly until August 1. This delivery schedule permits the use, to a considerable extent, of wool from the new domestic clip.
“Rumors exaggerated’’
  “It is the opinion of Defense Commission officials that the woolen industry can absorb the military purchase program with slight inconvenience to civilian buyers; prevailing rumors of a tight situation in the industry are exaggerated. In.support of this, it is pointed out that to date less than half of the industry has even bid on Government business.”
  Shoeing the prospective soldiers would require 8,200,000 pairs of shoes costing over $23 million, the Army figured. Late in December, the Defense Commission announced that contract awards for 1,840,000 pairs delivered during the next 5 months, and approximately 1,500,000 pairs to be purchased during the winter would complete the Army’s present shoe program of approximately 7 million pairs.
  Before announcing the total shoe requirements, a thorough study of the leather requirements of the defense program made apparent ample production facilities and supplies of rawhides. H. M. McAdoo, group executive for leather, estimates that total cattle hide needs under the present program will range from 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 hides.
  “Normal commercial demands,” he continues, “have ranged from 20 to 22 million hides. With the Nation’s capacity estimated at 28 million hides there will be little difficulty in securing this material. Moreover, production capacity in the shoe and leather industries is adequate not only for current defense

needs, but for M-day requirements as well.”
Food procurement
  To assist him in solving the problem of food buying, Mr. Nelson, in cooperation with the Quartermaster Corps, set up a Food Procurement Advisory Committee.
  A recent meeting of a special committee of the advisory committee, representing the fresh fruit and vegetable industry, pledged “a full measure of support” to the Government’s effort to work out efficient food procurement policies.
  Principles the Government will follow in food buying were outlined at the meeting: (1) The program should have a minimum impact on the civilian market; (2) the Army needs and welcomes assistance in developing a program making use of the present system of competitive bidding; (3) all available channels, large and small, will be given an opportunity to share in it; (4) full consideration should be given to surplus agricultural commodities, and Army purchasing will, insofar as possible, be coordinated with the Surplus Marketing Administration program; (5) fresh fruits and vegetables should and will be included in Army rations to the extent that they can be procured at prices which will permit their use within the limit of the Government ration allowance provided in established Army regulations.
Canned goods
  On December 9, Mr. Nelson announced that Federal specifications for canned foods are being simplified and brought up-to-date. “Plans are going forward,” he said, “to provide for inspection and acceptance of canned foods by Army inspectors before the goods are shipped from factory or warehouse. The effect of the provisions in regard to performance bonds on canners’ selling to the Government is being studied. Plans are well under way to provide for purchasing major items in straight carload lots.”
  Location of food procurement offices in areas where food is sold was recognized as important to efficient buying, and the Army set up regional purchasing offices. A central buying office for West coast products, including canned fruit and canned salmon, will be set up in San Francisco; canned meats, vegetables, and flour will be bought in Chicago; coffee, sugar, tea, spices, preserves, and many manufactured food items will be bought in New York.
{Continued on page 14)

Page 14

* DEFENSE ★

January 7, 1941



            Purchases . ..


(Continued from page 13}
  These offices will receive requisitions from the various Army corps areas, contract for these requirements and arrange for shipments against these contracts. The offices will keep constantly informed of the supply and market prices of the items which they buy. So far as is possible, taking into consideration conditions which affect all Government purchasing, ordinary commercial practices will be followed.
  In developing buying techniques for the armed services in 1941, the Coordinator of Defense Purchases follows the announced program of bringing small industries into the defense program through the “split bid” policy, f. o. b. contracts, distributive buying, and through the program of the Small Business Activities Office, working as liaison between the primary contractor and the subcontractor.
  “The great majority of these subcontractors,” Mr. Nelson says, “have been trained to work in groups around certain primary contractors. The armed services for many years have been engaged in surveying and lining up subcontractors so they might fit into the defense program. We have, therefore, at the present time, groups of skilled subcontractors revolving about certain major contractors. We must make sure that we tap all existing facilities, and that they have access to capital and credit.

36 mobilization centers
  “We have enlisted the cooperation of the Federal Reserve System, which has appointed one of its officers in each of the 12 Federal Reserve banks and the 24 branch banks to provide points of contact between small business organizations, private bank capital, and representatives of the Army and Navy who know what the armed services require. Thus we have, in effect some 36 mobilization centers where national defense requirements, manufacturing facilities, and bank credits can be brought together and absorbed into the armament program.”

        ★ ★ ★

        EXPORTS TO CHINA

  The Commerce Department has reported that exports to China showed an increase from $40,170,000 in the first 10 months of 1939 to $67,908,000 in the same period of 1940.


Compilation of contracts cleared and awarded between December 15 and 31
  The following is a compilation of contracts cleared by the National Defense Advisory Commission and awarded by the War and Navy Departments between December 15 and 31 in the approximate amount of $462,800,000.00.

AIRCRAFT
Navy
Brewster Aeronautical Corporation; airplanes; Long Island City, N. Y.; $15,160,501.60.
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp.; airplanes; Bethpage, Long Island, N. Y.; $5,-974,650.
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp.; airplanes and spare parts; Bethpage, Long Island, N. Y.; $30,275,805.15.

EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
Army
Allen Squire Co.; 50,000 prs. shoes, service; Spencer, Mass.; $165,500.
Allison Engineering Co., Div. of General Motors Corp.; airplane engines; Indianapolis, Ind.; $69,722,625.50.
American Glove Co.; 36,000 prs. gloves, leather, heavy; Chicago, Illinois; $39,420.
American Mfg. Co.; 150,000 caps, field, serge; New York, N. Y.; $38,155.91.
American Woolen Co.; 921,000 yds. cloth, serge, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (dark shade); New York, N. Y.; $1,004,350.
American Woolen Co.; 500,000 yds. flannel shirting, o. d., 10% -oz., New York, N. Y.; $837,500.
American Woolen Co.; 921,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (light shade); New York, N. Y.: $2,455,150.
American Woolen Co.; 1,655,000 yds. overcoating, o. d., 32-oz.; New York, N. Y.; $3,821,395.
Ansin An welt Shoe Mfg. Co.; 50,000 prs. shoes, service, Athol, Mass.; $169,000.
The Bell Co.; 100,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d.; 18-oz., (dark shade); Worcester, Mass.; $259,700.
The Bell Co.; 200,000 yds. flannel, shirting, o. d., 10%-oz.; $329,800, Worcester, Mass.
Bernard-Greenberg Co.; 200,000 caps, field, serge; New York, N. Y.; .$47,500.
Botany Worsted Mills; 400,000 yds. flannel, shirting, o. d„ 10%-oz.; Philadelphia, Pa.; $678,000.
Bressler Hat & Cap Co.; 100,000 caps, field, serge; New York, N. Y.; $24,987.50.
R. W. Briggs & Co., Thos. S. Byrne, Inc., James T. Taylor; architect and engineers: Freese & Nichols, Fort Worth, Tex.; Tent Camp, Abilene, Tex. (cost-plus-fixed-fee contract); San Antonio and Fort Worth, Tex.; $3,978,-377.
Brooklyn Bureau of Charities; 10,000 pillowcases, cotton, bleached; Brooklyn, N. Y.; $2,150.
H. H. Brown Shoe Co.; 60,000 prs. shpes, service; Worcester, Mass.; $205,800.
Brown Shoe Co., Inc.; 125,000 prs. shoes, service; St. Louis, Mo.; $412,500.
Baruch Corp.; architects and engineers: Allison & Allison, Los Angeles, Calif.; *750 bed General Hospital, Santa Barbara, Calif, (negotiated cost-plus-fixed-fee contract); Los Angeles, Calif.; $1,062,876.
Cannon Shoe Co., 50,000 prs. shoes, service: McSherrystown, Pa.; $168,000.

  * Contracts, not hitherto announced by the National Defense Advisory Commission, which have been cleared by the Defense Commission and awarded by the War Department.

Chippewa Gloves Co.; 90,000 prs. gloves, leather, heavy; Chippewa Falls, Wis.; $94.-077.25.
Chippewa Falls Woolen Mills, 20,000 yds. overcoating, o. d., 32-oz.; Chippewa Falls, Wis.; $48,200.
Clark Equipment Co., Clark Tructractor Div.; tractors; Battle Creek, Mich.; $552,502.48.
Clear Spring Worsted Mills; 50,000 yds. flannel shirting, o. d., 10%-oz.; Doylestown, Pa.; $83,580;
Colonial Woolen Mills Co.; 25,000 yds. overcoating, o. d„ 32-oz.; Cleveland, Ohio; $60,-500.
Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp.; 75,000 prs. shoes, service; Lynchburg, Va.; $250,500.
Leslie Colvin, architects and engineers: McGuire & Shook, Indianapolis, Ind.; *1,000 bed General Hospital at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Ind. (negotiated cost-plus-fixed-fee contract); Indianapolis, Ind.; $1,596,-300.
The Corbitt Co.; *trucks; Henderson, N. C.; $1,460,000.
Dallas' Association for Blind; 35,000 pillowcases, cotton, bleached; Dallas, Tex.; $7,-525.
Daly Bros. Shoe Co.; 50,000 prs. shoes, service; Boston, Mass.; $170,000.
Diamond T. Motor Car Co.; trucks; Chicago, Ill.; $6,311,085.
W. L. Douglas Shoe Co.; 60,000 prs. shoes, service; Brockton, Mass.; $205,200.
Doyle Shoe Co.; 50,000 prs. shoes, service; Brockton, Mass.; $170,000.
J. A. Dubow Mfg. Co.; 100,000 prs. gloves, leather, heavy; Chicago, Ill.; $107,460.
Durable Uniform Co.; 100,000 caps, field, serge; Asbury Park, N. J.; $18,500.
Charles A. Eaton Co.; 175,000 prs. shoes, service; Brockton, Mass.; $598,500.
Jos. N. Eisendrath Co.; 200,000 prs. gloves, leather, heavy; Marinette, Wis.; $266,908.75.
Jos. N. Eisendrath Co., 70,000 prs. gloves, horsehide, riding, unlined; Marinette, Wis.; $102,574.55.
Jos. N. Eisendrath Co., 80,000 prs. gloves, horsehide, riding, unlined; Marinette, Wis.; $144,593.40.
Ely & Walker Dry Goods; 200,000 neckties, cotton, khaki (washable); St. Louis, Mo.; $9,360.
Endicott-Johnson Corp.; 132,000 prs. shoes, service; Endicott, N. Y.; $413,160.
Farmington Shoe Mfg. Co.; 50,000 prs. shoes, service; Dover, N. H.; $172,500.
Federal Motor Truck Co.; tractor-trucks; Detroit, Mich.; $3,246,150.
Fried Ostermann Co.; 100,000 prs. gloves, leather, heavy; Milwaukee, Wis.; $109,450. Freuhauf Trailer Co.; trailers; Detroit, Mich.; $1,115,096.
Ford Motor Co.; construction of an aircraft engine factory and magnesium casting foundry at Dearborn, Mich.; Detroit, Mich.; $21,965,420.43.
Bera Mills; 500,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz, (light shade); Passaic, N. J.; $1,321,500.
Gera Mills; 200,000 yds. flannel, shirting, o. d., 10%-oz. (N. J. Worsted); Passaic, N. J.; $332,600.
3.  J. Givren Shoe Co.; 50,000 prs. shoes, service; Rockland, Mass.; $170,500.
George J. Glover Co., Inc.; architects and engineers: Farrot & Reed, New Orleans, La.; General Hospital, New Orleans, La. (negotiated cost-plus-fixed-fee contract); New Orleans, La.; $1,428,461.

January 7, 1941

★ DEFENSE ★

Page 15

The Greenfield Tap & Die Corp.; expansion of plant facilities for the production of gages; Greenfield, Mass.; $1,009,000.
Guerin Mills, Inc.; 200,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d„ 18-oz. (dark shade); Woonsocket, R. I.; $532,000.
Griffin Construction Co., Inc., and Mac-Dougald Construction Co.; architects and engineers: Cooper & Cooper, Inc., Atlanta, Ga.; *2,000 Bed General Hospital, Atlanta, Ga. (negotiated cost-plus-fixed-fee contract); Atlanta, Ga.; $2,463,712.
Hanover Glove Co., Inc.; 10,000 prs. gloves, leather, heavy; Hanover, Pa.; $9,157.50.
The Hanover Shoe, Inc.; 50,000 p"rs. shoes, service; Hanover, Pa.; $163,500.
R. P. Hazzard Co.; 50,000 prs. shoes, service; Augusta, Maine; $166,500.
Joseph M. Herman Shoe Co.; 150,000 prs. shoes, service; Boston, Mass.; $498,000.
Hill Bros. Co.: 50,000 prs. shoes, service; Hudson, Mass.; $162,500.
Samuel Hird & Sons, Inc.; 150,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (dark shade); Garfield, N. J.; $397,500.
L. H. Hoffman; architects and engineers: Whitehouse & Church (Portland, Oreg.); 750-Bed General Hospital Vancouver Barracks, Washington (negotiated cost-plus-fixed-fee contract); P o r 11 an d, Oreg.; $948,304.
Holland-Racine Shoes, Inc.; 50,000 prs. shoes, service; Holland, Mich.; $169,000.
John C. Heslep, and C. Y. Thomason Co,; architects and engineers: Lafaye, Lafaye and Fair (Columbia, S. C.); ’Charleston, South Carolina General Hospital Construction Work (negotiated cost-plus-fixed-fee contract); Columbia and Greenwood, S. C.; $1,344,316.
International Shoe Co.; 100,000 prs. shoes, service; St. Louis, Mo.; $312,000.
J. A. Jones Construction Co., Inc., Fiske-Carter Construction Co., and Boyle Construction Co.; architects and engineers: The Harwood Beebe Co., Spartanburg, S. C.; Replacement Center, Spartanburg, S. C. (negotiated cost-plus-fixed-fee contract); Charlotte, Spartanburg, and Sumter, S. C.; $6,739,327.
The Kent Mfg. Co.; 112,500 yds. flannel, shirting, o. d., 10%-oz.; Philadelphia, Pa.; $186,512.50.
Krupp Mfg. Co.; 75,000 prs, gloves, leather, heavy; Chicago, Ill.; $85,122.25.
Krupp Mfg. Co.; 18,000 prs. gloves, horsehide, riding, unlined; Chicago, Ill.; $27,563.49.
Karns-Smith Co.; ’temporary housing, electric system, roads and surface drainage, water and sanitary sewer systems at Fort Dix, N. J.; Trenton, N. J.; $1,407,000.
Leonard & Barrows Shoe Co.; 60,000 prs. shoes, service; Middleboro, Mass.; $205,200.
Link Aviation Devices, Inc.; plant expansion construction for increased production of link trainers; Binghamton, N. Y.; $323,432.
Lorraine Mfg. Co.; 400,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (light shade); Pawtucket, R. I.; $1,036,000.
Lorraine Mfg. Co.; 50,000 yds. flannel, shirting, o. d., 10%-oz.; Pawtucket, R. I.; $82,500.
George Mabbett & Sons, Co.; 5,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (dark shade); Plymouth, Mass.; $12,875.
The Glenn L. Martin Co.; maintenance parts for airplanes; Baltimore, Md.; $892,012.74.
Mayflower Worsted Co.; 36,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (d-light shade); Kingston, Mass.; $94,320.
J. F. McElwain Co.; 150,000 prs. shoes, service; Nashua, N. H.; $468,750.
Merion Worsted Mills; 100,000 yds. flannel, shirting, o. d., 10%-oz.; W. Conshohocken, Pa.; $166,065.50.
Merrimac Mills Co.; 100,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (dark shade); Methuen, Mass.; $263,301.88.
Methuen International Mills; 50,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (light shade);' Methuen, Mass.; $131,340.
Milwaukee Shoe Co.; 50,000 prs. shoes, service; Milwaukee, Wis.; $170,000.

P. O’B. Montgomery (builder^-engineers); emergency construction at Fort Sam Houston, Tex.; Dallas, Tex.; $1,903,370.
Montpelier Glove Co.; 40,000 prs. gloves, leather, heavy; Montpelier, Ind., $43,780.
Mack-International Truck Co.; ’tractortrucks, cab over engine; Long Island City, N. Y.; $3,419,860.
J. J. McDevitt Co., V. B. Higgins, F. N. Thompson and E. W. Grannis, architects and engineers: W. S. Lee Engineering Corp., Charlotte, N. C„ and William M. Piatt, Durham, N. C.; ’Anti-Aircraft Firing Center, Wilmington, N. C. (negotiated costplus-fixed-fee contract); Charlotte, Greensboro, and Fayetteville, N. C.; $8,612,495.
Mack International; ’trucks; Long Island City, N. Y.; $759,200.
Narrow Fabric Co.; 212,100 laces, breeches, o. d., vat dyed; Reading, Pa.; $2,452.72.
New York Association for Blind; 10,000 pillowcases, cotton, bleached; New York, N. Y.; $2,150.
Northwest Glove Co., Inc.; 100,000 prs. gloves, leather, heavy; Winona, Minn.; $110¹,880.
Olympic Glove Co.; 430,000 prs. gloves, leather, heavy; New York, N. Y.; $417,-931.73.
Overbrook Mills; 25,000 yds. flannel, shirting, o.d., 10%-oz.; Philadelphia, $42,038.75.
Owen-Ames-Kimball Co.; temporary buildings and hospital, Fort Custer, Mich.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; $1,383,140.
Paragon Worsted Co.; 50,000 yds. clbth, serge, o.d., 18-oz. (light shade); Providence, R. I.; $133,525.
Pratt & Whitney Div. Niles-Bement-Pond Co.; expansion of plant facilities for the production of gages; Hartford, Conn.; $1,140,000.
Premier Worsted Mills; 300,000 yds. cloth, serge, o.d., 18-oz. (light shade); Boston, Mass.; $794,400.
Wm. H. Prendergast Mills; 25,000 yds. cloth, serge, o.d., 18-oz. (dark shade); Chepacket, R. I.; $66,375.
Wm. H. Prendergast Mills; 25,000 yds. cloth, serge, o.d., 18-oz. (light shade); Chepacket, R. I.; $66,875.
Providence Braid Co.; 212,100 laces, breeches, o.d., vat dyed; Pawtucket, R. I; $2,203.29.
Prudential Worsted Co.; 190,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (light shade); Philadelphia, Pa.; $507,870.
Prudential Worsted Co.; 100,000 yds. flannel, shirting, o. d., 10%-oz.; Philadelphia, Pa.; $168,300.
Queensland Woolen Corp.; 66,000 yds. cloth serge, o. d„ 18-oz. (dark shade); Corinna, Maine; $173,208.62.
Ray Bros. Glove Co.; 50,000 prs. gloves, horsehide, riding, lined; Chicago, Ill.; $87,281.25.
Ray Bros. Glove Co.; 50,000 prs. gloves, leather, heavy; Chicago, Hl.; $44,388.75.
Raylaine Worsteds, Inc.; 200,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (light shade); Lowell, Mass.; $519,480.
Raylaine Worsteds, Inc.; 50,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (dark shade); Lowell, Mass.; $133,366.50.
Reinhart Mitten Co.; 10,000 prs. gloves, horsehide, riding, unlined; Milwaukee, Wis.; $15,372.75.
Reinhart Mitten Co.; 25,000 prs. gloves, leather, heavy; Milwaukee, Wis.; $26,243.13.
Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co.; 200,000 neckties, cotton, khaki (washable); St. Louis, Mo.; $9,900.
Rose Neckwear Co.; 600,000 neckties, cotton, khaki (washable); Philadelphia, Pa.; $30,869.10.
S. Rosenbloom, Inc.; *600,000 covers, mattress; Baltimore, Md.; $586,956.88.
Shapely Cap Co.; 100,000 caps, field, serge; St. Louis, Mo.; $23,880.
Sheffield Gage Corp.; expansion of plant facilities for the production of gages; Dayton, Ohio; $910,000.
Shelby Shoe Co.; 50,000 prs. shoes, service; Salem, Mass.; $170,500.
Simon Mattress Mfg. Co.; 2,011 bags, sleeping, M-1940; San Francisco, Calif.; $20,944.16.

J. L. Simmons Co., Inc., and J. C. O’Conner & Sons, Inc.; Architect and Engineer: Russ & Harrison, Indianapolis, Ind.; Facilities at Ordnance Proving Ground, Madison, Ind. (cost-plus-fixed-fee contract) ; Indianapolis and Fort Wayne, Ind.; $4,183,770.
Southern Worsted Corp.; 100,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (light shade); Greenville, S. C.; $264,800.
J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc.; 50,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d„ 18-oz. (dark shade); Peace Dale, R. I.; $132,500.
J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc.; 40,000 yds. cloth, élastique, o. d., 18-oz.; New -York, N. Ÿ.; $109,520.
Stillwater Worsted Mills; 200,000 yds., cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (light shade) ; Harrisville, R. I.; $527,000.
Stillwater Worsted Mills; 20,000 yds. cloth, élastique, o. d., 18-oz.; Harrisville, R. I.; $55,000.
Taft-Peirce Manufacturing Co.; expansion of plant facilities for the production of gages; Woonsocket, R. I.; $400,000.
20th Century Glove Co.; 64,000 prs. gloves, leather, heavy; Marinette, Wis.; $60,496.
Uxbridge Worsted Co.; 500,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (dark shade) ; Uxbridge, Mass.; $1,309,000.
Verdun Mfg. Co.; 50,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (dark shade); Woonsocket, R. I.; $129,000. .
A. G. Walton & Co., Inc.; 50,000 prs. shoes, service, Chelsea, Mass.; $169,500.
Waucantuck Mills; 150,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (light shade) ; Uxbridge, Mass.; $390,004.61.
Weyenberg Shoe Mfg. Co.; 53,000 prs. shoes, service; Milwaukee, Wis.; $175,960.
Wm. Whitman Co., Inc.; 1,250,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (dark shade) ; Lawrence, Mass.; $3,248,750.
Wm. Whitman Co., Inc.; 350,000 yds. flannel, shirting, o. d., 10%-oz.; Lawrence, Mass.; $578,550.
Willys-Overland Motors, Inc.; trucks—% ton reconnaissance; Toledo, Ohio; $1,424,115.
Wisconsin Mfg. Co.; 30,000 prs. gloves, leather, heavy; Milwaukee, Wis.; $33,810.
Worchester Textile Co.; 50,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (dark shade) ; Greystone, R. I.; $131,967.
Wyandotte Worsted Co.; 300,000 yds. overcoating, o. d., 32-oz.; Pittsfield, Mass.; $696,250.
Yellow Truck & Coach Mfg. Co.; * trucks; Pontiac, Mich.; $571,722.12.
Yellow Truck & Coach Mfg. Co.; * trucks; Pontiac, Mich.; $31,718,137.50.
Yorkshire Worsted Mills; 25,000 yds. cloth, serge, o. d., 18-oz. (dark shade); Chester, Pa.; $66,000.
Navy
The Cudahy Packing Co.; shortening, vegetable; Chicago, Hl.; $792,865.75.'
Dinwiddie Construction Co.; aviation facilities at the Naval Reserve Aviation Base, Oakland, Calif, (cost-plus-fixed-fee basis); San Francisco, Calif.; $700,000.
The Geo. Hyman Construction Co.; housing facilities at Alexandria, Va.; Washington, D. C.; $850,000.
The Kaiser Co.; shore facilities at the navy yard, Mare Island, Calif.; Oakland, Calif.; $3,300,000.
Maxon Construction Co., Inc.; construction of East Coast Ammunition Depot at Burns City, Ind.; Dayton, Ohio; $2,500,000.
Leonard Construction Co.; housing facilities at Coco Solo and Balboa, C. Z.; Chicago, Ill.; $4,224,000.
ORDNANCE EQUIPMENT Aemy
Procter & Gamble; ammunition loading plant at Milan, Tenn.; Cincinnati, Ohio; $14,000,000.
Revere Copper & Brass, Inc.; *Ammunition components; Baltimore, Md.; $764,480.44.
Standard Pressed Steel; ammunition components; Jenkintown, Pa.; $1,696,412.
Trojan Powder Co.; TNT plant at Sandusky, Ohio; Allentown, Pa.; $11,000,000.

Page 16

★ DEFENSE ★

January 7, 1941



            Priorities . . .


       {Continued from page 2) action as he may deem appropriate in order to obtain, with the cooperation of industry, the materials in question on schedule.
  Art. 6. In the event of inability by the Administrator to resolve a conflict in this manner, he shall issue, pursuant to the said section 2 (a), an order to the appropriate contractor or subcontractor directing such person to grant priority to delivery of the materials required over other deliveries for private account or for export. If such person refuses to comply with such order, the case will be referred to the Attorney General for appropriate action.


        PART III—THE BOARD

  Article 1. The Board shall establish policies for the handling of priorities with respect to Government departments, offices, and agencies, private parties or foreign governments, after due consultation with the governmental departments, offices and agencies concerned with the procurement, production, processing or exportation of materials. The activities of the Administrator shall be governed by such policies and such other action as may be taken by the Board.
  Art. 2. The Board shall examine any matter presented to it by the Administrator in accordance with article 2 of part IV of these rules and regulations and shall refer the same to the President with specific recommendations.
  Art. 3. The Board may create such subcommittees as it may consider desirable in the interest of the national defense to advise and recommend to the Board the formulation of policies for the handling of priorities in relation to the procurement, production, • processing or exportation of materials.
  Art. 4. With respect to departments, offices, and agencies of the Government, vested with authority to issue priority orders or preference ratings, the Board, acting through the Administrator, may recommend to such departments, offices, and agencies policies to be followed by them in the exercise of such authority.
  Art. 5. The Board shall on the first day of every month, submit a report to the President, setting forth the action which it has taken pursuant to these rules and regulations and making such specific recommendations for further action, legislative or otherwise, as it deems desirable In the interest of the national defense.


        PART IV—THE ADMINISTRATOR

   Art. 1. The Administrator may modify the procedures referred to in Articles 1 (except for procedures pertaining to the adoption or amendment of the Directive) , 2, 3, and 4 of part II of these rules and regulations for the assignment of preference ratings to War and Navy contracts and subcontracts and for notifying the Administrator of cases requiring adjustments, or he may institute new procedures for so doing. The Administrator may provide for the assignment of preference ratings to prime contracts for materials placed by other governmental departments, offices, and agencies and to -related subcontracts and to contracts for materials and related subcontracts placed by private persons or by foreign governments, and he may provide methods for effecting adjustments in such cases with the voluntary cooperation of industry.
   Art. 2. The Administrator shall be afforded full opportunity by the War and Navy Departments and other governmental departments, offices, and agencies concerned with the procurement, production, processing, or exportation of matetrials essential to the national defense to determine from time to time whether their activities in this connection are consistent with policies determined by the Board. The Administrator shall be afforded full opportunity by any other governmental departments, offices, and agencies, vested with authority to issue preference ratings or priority orders, to determine from time to time whether their activities in this connection are consistent with policies recommended by the Board pursuant to article 4 of part in of these rules and regulations. Where inconsistencies are found to exist and he is unable to settle the same in a manner satisfactory to the head of the department, office, or agency concerned, the Administrator shall present the matter to the Board for action in accordance with article 2, part in of these rules and regulations.
   Art. 3. Contacts, with respect to priorities, between governmental departments, offices and agencies and between them and industry, except as provided for in Articles 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Part H and as may be provided for pursuant to Article 3 of Part HI of these Rules and Regulations and as may be or has been otherwise provided for pursuant to any Act of Congress or Executive Order, shall be made through the Administrator. In the administration of priorities he is authorized to utilize the services of any person or division connected with the Advisory Commission to the Council of Na-

        U, «. GOVERNMENT FEINTING OFFICEl 1941

tional Defense and any person or agency designated by the War or Navy Departments for the purpose.
  Art. 4. Whenever the Administrator finds that the disposition of any matter requiring action by him would or is likely to necessitate the determination of a policy not theretofore established by the Board, the Administrator shall first refer the matter to the Board, and after the Board shall have determined the policy to be followed, the Administrator thereupon shall proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with such policy.
  Art. 5. The Administrator shall make periodic reports to the Board with respect to his activities pursuant to these Rules and Regulations.



            Contracts . . .


(Continued from page 15)
Navy
Bausch & Lomb Optical Co.; ordnance machine tools; Rochester, N. Y.; $512,000.
Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp.; ordnance— building, machine tools and other equipment, South Charleston, W. Va.; $45,000,000.
Goss Printing Press Co.; ordnance—building and equipment; Chicago, Ill.; $505,490.
Northern Pump Co.; ordnance—building, machine tools, and other equipment; Minneapolis, Minn.; $3,473,297.
Northern Pump Co.; ordnance—building, machine tools, and other equipment; Minneapolis, Minn.; $2,000,000.
Norris Stamping & Mfg. Co.; containers, cartridge; Los Angeles, Calif.; $1,006,205.
Pollak Mfg. Co.; containers, powder and cartridge; Arlington, N. J.; $515,440.80.
    SHIP CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR
Navy
Consolidated Shipbuilding Corp; hull and fittings for submarine chaser; Morris Heights, New York, N. Y.; $2,825,000.
Defoe Boat & Motor Works; hull and fittings for submarine chasers; Bay City, Mich.; $5,941,200.
Dravo Corp.; hull and fittings for submarine chasers; Pittsburgh, Pa.; $3,447,000.
George Lawley & Son Corp.; hull and fittings for submarine chasers; Neponset, Mass.; $4,500,000.
Leathern Smith Coal & Shipbuilding Co.; hull and fittings for submarine chasers; Sturgeon Bay, Wis.; $600,000.
Sullivan Dry Dock & Repair Corp., hull and fittings for submarine chasers; Brooklyn, N. Y.; $1,140,000.

MISCELLANEOUS

Army
American Brass Co.; *brass disks; Waterbury, Conn.; $644,393.75.
Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Curtiss Propeller Division; propeller assemblies and control sets; Clifton, N. J.; $63,202,820.65.
Eastman Kodak Co.; fire-control equipment;
   Rochester, N. Y.; $3,710,016.87.
Fairchild Aviation Corp.; cameras, cone, and magazine assemblies; Jamaica, N. Y.; $516,474.
Gar Wood Industries, Inc.; »reel unit and gasoline engines; Detroit, Mich.; $909,834.40.
Link Aviation Devices, Inc.; link trainers; Binghampton, N. Y.; $4,097,412.
Ritter Dental Mfg. Co.; »dental equipment; Rochester, N. Y.; $546,433.
Navy
DeLaval Steam Turbin Co.; pumps; Trenton, N. J4 $1,850,000.