Measures for Progress: A History of the National Bureau of Standards

262 THE TIDE OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (1920-30)
on non-standard niakes and sizes of types. I am sure you are interested,
with us, in the simplification of varieties." The flaw, of course, was in
the consumer, at the far end of the production line, who wanted variety in
type styles, and a choice in the design of beds.
While the Bureau felt that through the standardization program "the
ultimate consumer [was] getting better quality and better service, in some
* * *
instances, at lower cost, and
[enjoyed] greater protection against
unfair trade practices," high wages, the high cost of raw materials, and the
increasing cost of doing business tended to operate against him as the dec-
ade progressed. At the same time, with increasing prosperity, consumer
for more styles and varieties became an increasing obstacle to
Inevitably, too, the restoration of confidence also increased
the reluctance of business and industry to cooperate with Government, lest
it lead to regulation or control and ultimately to Government prosecution of
one kind or another.12°
The great depression ended the crusade for standardization as appro-
priations plummeted and staffs shrank. But there was no thought of wholly
abandoning the standardization work of the Bureau. Just before leaving
office in 1932, Hoover asked Burgess to take the Commerce Department
groups concerned with specifications and trade standards out to Connecticut
Avenue. They were installed alongside the simplified practice unit, brought
to the Industrial building in 1929, and there they remained until after World
War In 1950, following the postwar reorganization of the Bureau,
they were transferred back to the Department of Commerce.
Memo, GKB to Hudson, Oct. 31, 1924, and attached correspondence (NBS Box 72, El).
120 DaIzell, Gait, and Hudson, pp. 66, 70—72, 80—81. Perhaps the most notable argu-
ments of industry against standardization were those presented on behalf of General
Electric in John H. Van Deventer's "Extreme variety versus standardization," md.
Management, 66, 253 (1923).
Inevitable were the early excessive hopes for standardization, the warnings against its
excesses, and finally the revolt of the intellectuals, as reported in F. C. Brown, "Standardi-
zation and prosperity," Am. Rev. 2, 396 (1924) ; G. K. Burgess, "What the Bureau of
Standards is doing for American industry," md. Management, 70, 257 (1925);
P. G. Agnew, "A step towards industrial self-government," New Republic, 46, 92
N. F. Harriman, "The sane limits of industrial standardization," md. Man-
(1926) ;
agement, 73, 363 (1927) ; Carl Van Doren, "The revolt against dullness," Survey, 57, 35
and 152 (1926); and "Standardization," Sat. Rev. Lit. 3, 573 (1927). Popular accounts
of the controversy appeared in the Saturday Evening Post, May 11, 1928 and Dec. 21, 1929,
under "These standardized United States" and "Standardized and doing nicely."
" Dr. Briggs summed up the status of standardization as World War II began: "It appears
to me that the standardization which was accomplished during the last war has to a
considerable extent been lost sight of and that the whole subject has again to be subjected
to a searching study." Letter to Secretary, SAE, May 29, 1940 (NBS Box 445, IG).