of the magazines and newspapers to the work of a few of the more progressive states also contributed to concentrate the attention of the state legislators on the necessity for a more efficient supervision of commercial weighing and measuring. Let the reasons be what they may, the past two or three years have seen the most astonishing activity in the legislatures of the states.
The original idea of the Bureau of Standards was to have the states adopt uniform laws and then to enforce them. It did not take it long, however, to learn that it would be an impossibility to get the same law passed by all the states. It was also evident that even with the same law, the enforcement by the different states would be anything but uniform. The idea now, therefore, is to secure uniformity as far as possible with such changes as are necessary to meet local conditions, and enough federal legislation to give the government the authority to regulate the matter so far as interstate commerce is concerned. It is obvious that an individual or corporation doing business in all the states should not be compelled to conform to conflicting state laws.
During the past two of three years the following legislation was enacted in the states:
Alabama passed legislation amending the law in relation to the sale of certain specified feeding stuffs. It is now required that when put up in original packages they may only be packed in certain specified sizes and the net weight must be plainly stamped on the outside of the containers. This is a good law and a step in the right direction, but it is very greatly restricted in its operation on account of the small number of commodities specified.
Arizona passed a general weights and measures law during the first session of the legislature after being admitted to the Union, which shows the importance of this subject in the minds of the legislators of that state. The law is based directly on the model law recommended by the National Conference on Weights and Measures, many of the sections having been enacted without material change. On the whole the law is a good one, and Arizona is to be commended upon its general effectiveness and its early passage. The system adopted requires the appointment of city sealers in all cities of more than 5,000 population who are placed under the supervision of the state inspector. In cities of less than 5,000 and more than 1,000 population the work of inspection is to be done directly by the state inspector. Communities of less than 1,000 people do not seem to have been provided for in this law. In addition to the sections relating to the inspection of apparatus there are provisions requiring most package goods to be marked with the net weight or quantity of the contents, and others regulating the sale of wood, ice, hay, fresh meats, butter, etc. Later the scope of the law was broadened by requiring that the testing of water, gas and electric meters should be in charge of the city sealers and the state inspector of weights and meas-
