"EXHIBIT NO. 160," introduced on p. 657, is on file with the committee.

"EXHIBIT NO. 161," introduced on p. 661, is on file with the committee.

GENTLEMEN: From time to time we have discussed with you some misunderstandings which have apparently arisen as to the interpretation of the license contract between our companies, and we feel that it is worth while to sum up the matter in a letter.

We understand that it has been suggested that no glassware manufacturer can obtain forming machines from the Lynch Corporation unless such manufacturer is also a feeder licensee of the Hartford-Empire Company. Of course, this is not what the contract says and is not what was intended. As is clearly stated in Section 3 of the Forming Machine Agreement, the Lynch Corporation has a license to deliver forming machines coming under Hartford-Empire patents "to any person or concern that has obtained from Hartford a license under Hartford's forming machine inventions to use such forming machines." We think it will be desirable that both you and ourselves make this plain whenever the question arises as to who can obtain forming machines coming under Hartford patents.

As we now understand it, you are unwilling to eliminate from the Forming Machine Agreement the provisions of Section 8, page 9, to the effect that Hartford is required to pay license fees to Lynch for any excess of its annual production of patented forming machines over a prescribed capacity. We regret that you cannot agree with us that Section 8 should be removed from the contract but, of course, if you are not willing to have it removed, we can do nothing about it.

This letter will also confirm our understanding that the Supplemental Agreement, dated August 23, 1933, between Hartford and Lynch, is no longer in effect. Adding to what we have already stated above, we wish to assure you that it is our policy to negotiate licenses for Lynch forming machines with any reputable glassware manufacturer, whether or not such manufacturer desires a feeder license from the Hartford-Empire Company.

Very truly yours,

RDB/PET.

HARTFORD-EMPIRE COMPANY,
R. D. BROWN.

Co Messrs. F. G. Smith, W. J. Belknap, and Safford.

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA

The following statement was entered in the record at hearings on February 28, 1939, and is printed herewith in connection with the testimony of Alfred Reeves, see text, p. 303:

Income:

EXHIBIT NO. 302

AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

Statement of Income and Expense for the Year Ended June 30, 1938

The following statement was entered in the record at hearings held February 28, 1939, and is printed at this point in connection with the glass patent story herein:

GLASS CONTAINER ASSOCIATION

OF AMERICA

19 WEST 44TH STREET
NEW YORK

See what you Buy-Buy in Glass

Honorable JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY,

Chairman, Temporary National Economic Committee,

JANUARY 9, 1939.

Room 281, Apex Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In compliance with your statement at the close of the Glass Container Industry hearing on patents-that "each member of the Committee is desirious of seeing this problem from every possible aspect, and will therefore welcome comment and suggestions and reports from any interested person”—we hereby submit for the record an economic survey of the industry covering the past period of from nine to eighteen years. The survey has been submitted to the Department of Justice. Copies are enclosed for members of the Committee. This survey covers the history of the companies and plants in the industry for the past eighteen years. Some of the points disclosed are as follows:

1. At the present time there are 45 companies having 90 plants.

2. The 90 plants are located in 17 different states. Over 50% are located in towns of under 25,000 population.

3. During the eighteen years, 22 new companies have come into the industry; 29 companies have gone out of business; and 28 companies have consolidated with other companies.

4. From 5 to 28 companies compete for each line of containers. 5. Active capacity is nearly 50% in excess of any past demand. In 1937, the industry's best year, it operated at 67.43% of active capacity. For the past ten years the average operation has been approximately 55% of active capacity. Licensed capacity, or potential capacity, is much greater than this.

6. In the last ten years the small companies have increased their volume 86%; the medium-sized companies, 89%; while the five largest companies have increased their volume 40%. The industry shows an increase of 52%.

7. Milk bottles cost the dairies approximately 40 of a cent for each trip that a bottle makes.

8. Since 1929 average selling prices have been reduced approximately 13%. 9. Since 1929 the labor cost per unit has increased approximately 13%. 10. In 1929, 27.7 employees were required to produce 1,000 gross of bottles in one week. In 1937, 29.4 employees were required to produce 1,000 gross of bottles in one week.

11. From 1929 to 1937, hours of work per week have been reduced from 49.7 to 41, or 17%. Wages per hour have been increased from $0.501 to $0.645, or 29%. Wages per week have been increased from $24.88 to $26.42, or 6%. The number of employees has increased from 17,173 to 28,293, or 65%.

12. Employment has been continuous. Labor is organized. Labor relations are good. The industry has been practically free from labor disturbances during the past nine years. Less than one hour out of every 8,000 working hours has been lost due to strikes, or approximately .012%.

Respectfully submitted.

EGA:MM

(Signed)

E. G. ACKERMAN,

E. G. Ackerman,

GLASS CONTAINER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA.

EXHIBIT NO. 303

SURVEY OF THE GLASS CONTAINER INDUSTRY

Submitted to The Temporary National Economic Committee by the Glass Container Association of America, 19 West 44th Street, New York, N. Y., December 5, 1938

1 Pagination of original document is carried throughout in brackets on left margin.

THE GLASS CONTAINER INDUSTRY

[1]

DEFINITION

The Glass Container Industry may be defined as the manufacturers who produce and sell glass bottles, glass jars, and glass accessories for glass bottles and jars.

SCOPE OF INDUSTRY

The industry at the present time consists of forty-five known companies, operating ninety factories. The factories are located in seventeen different States. The location of these factories may be listed as follows:

The products of the industry are produced primarily by automatic machine. Production by the hand method is continued by five companies, though four of these five also produce by automatic equipment. Production by the hand method has not been included in this study except where Census figures have been used, and where it has been impossible to separate this production from automatic production.

The value of hand production has been less than 2% of the total value of glass containers during this period. The value in 1929 amounted to approximately $1,800,000.00, and the value in 1937 amounted to approximately $1,000,000.00.

[2] HISTORY OF INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES, WITH PLANT LOCATION SINCE 1920

On the accompanying chart we show the operating history of the individual companies in the Glass Container Industry, and the operation of individual plants since the year 1920.

Change in name of company has been noted in the year when this change occurred.

Plants such as the Busch Glass Mfg. Company in St. Louis, and William Franzen & Son, Inc., in Milwaukee, that specialized in beer bottles, and went out of business shortly after 1920, have not been included in this study. Also, such plants as the V. & S. Bottle Company of Roulette, Pa., and the General Glass Works of Ridgway, Pa., that operated intermittently by the hand method during the early part of this period, have not been included. Also, such plants as the Puritan Glass Company of Massillon, Ohio, and the Birmingham Glass Works of Tarrant, Ala., that operated only a few months, have not been included. The study does include all plants that operated for an extended period during these eighteen years.

In the plant history, we have indicated the period of operation, and the period of idleness, and have indicated the approximate size of all plants, or companies, that went out of business, or that were dismantled.

In reviewing this history it should be noted that individual plants have generally increased in size, and have materially increased their productive capacity.

In summary, the number of plants has been reduced from 102 to 90. During the later period there has been an increasing number of idle plants, so that at the present time there are 78 plants operating, and 12 plants that are idle.

In 1920, there were 80 different operating companies. During the 18-year period, 22 new companies have come into the industry, 29 companies have gone out of business, and 28 companies have been consolidated with other companies in the industry, so that in 1938 we have a net of 45 companies.

For the greater part, plants in the industry are located in small towns, and represent the principal industry in these small towns. The location of present plants may be summarized by size of town as follows: