Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "75722065",
    "label": "Memorandum, November 23, 1927",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722065"
}

{
    "id": "75722065",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722065",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Memorandum, November 23, 1927",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722065",
    "collections": [
        "Safety Light Collection",
        "Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001128_Page_1.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001128_Page_1.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001128_Page_1.jpg",
    "imageCount": 3,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722065",
    "naId": 75722065,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 3,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001128.pdf",
    "mediaId": "57a8b2ccd8c5574e",
    "ocrText": "11/23/27\nMEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW WITH DR. SZAMALOTSKI\nOn Wednesday November 23rd,1927, I interviewed Dr. S. at the plant\nof the Burton T. Bush Company in Delawanna, N.J.\nDr. S. immediately put himself on the defensive with the apparant\nbelief that my object was to obtain from him information of such a\nnature that would be of value to us in courts, and perhaps involve him\nas a witness. I assured the Doctor that this was not my mission and\ntold him that I had arranged the interview at the suggestion of Mr. Stryker\nof Lindabury, Depue and Faulks, of Newark,N.J., and further explained\nthat I was merely after information as to Dr. S's knowledge or experience\nwith our zinc sulphide, as well as data which he has collected relative to\npeople who have been engaged in the application of luminous material,\nsupposedly similar to that which we manufacture. After this explanation\nDr. S. gave me quite a picture of his exact connection with the State\nLabor Department, which I gathered is as follows:\nSome 10 or 12 years ago this Department was organized for both the protec-\ntion of labor and manufacturers, and Dr. S., was invited to serve as\nrepresentative of the manufacturers, particularly from the chemical stand-\npoint - that is with regard to explosivesand chemicals which might prove\ninjurious to ones health. Dr. S. explained that he had served on this\ncommittee for 12 years, and felt that their work had been instructive, and\nthat they had always endeavored to take a very fair and just view of\nmatters with regard to both the mmufacturer and the working man. He\nfurther stated that they had gone into the matter of our difficulties\nin quite some detail and that they felt that they had rendered justice\ninsofar as it was within their power to do SO. He infered that the\nState Labor Department had been most severly criticised for their attitude\nin these cases, but still felt that such criticism was without foundation.\nI was unable to get much in the way of concrete data from Dr. S., but he\nadvised me that about two weeks ago he had returned from a trip abroad,\nwhere he had interviewed a number of concerns engaged in the application\nof luminous material. He has rendered a report to Dr. McBride of the\nState Labor Department, and advised that he would not feel free to give\nus this information without the consent of Dr. McBride. However, he did\ninfer that his investigations did not bring to light a single case\nsimilar to that which has arisen in the Orange Plant.\nPerhaps the most interesting point brought out by Dr. S, is the fact that\nthe State Labor Department feels that in connection with our cases there is\nsomething which is still unexplained. He is very much impressed by the\nfact that all of the girls reporting trouble worked at our plant during\nthe interim of 1917-1921. He further inferred that the Department felt\nwe had either intentionally or unintentionally with-held such information\n-2-\nfrom both the Department and people investigating this matter, which should\nserve as a solution to the problem. I explained to Dr. S., that we had\nendeavored to be very frank in giving to people, whom we felt were entitled\nto information, a true picture to the best of our knowledge. However, we\nadmited that we could not definitely state what had happened during the\ninterim of 1917 to 21, as some of the people connected with us in the\nmanufacture of our luminous compound were not now available. Dr. S. seemed\nto think that it would be very important if we could establish exactly\nwhat had happened during this period of time.\nWe discussed at considerable length the investigational work by the\nDrinkers, Flinn etc., and I pointed out that we were inclined to supress\nthe Drinker report, due to the fact that we felt it was incomplete, and\nshould not be published until the cases in litigation were settled. I told\nhim that we had Been advised by Dr. Flinn that through his investigations\nup to such time as he examined a Miss Dunn from Waterbury, he had not\nfound a single girl suffering from a condition similar to that reported.\nDr. S. countered with the fact that regardless of what Dr. Flinn had deter-\nmined we had these cases to confront us, and must not lose sight of the\nfact that they actually existed.\nI told Dr. S. that while naturally we did not admit that luminous material\nmay have been the cause of these conditions, still we were not in a\nposition to entirely deny it, but that our position is that we do not feel\nparticularly responsible for these cases as we feel that we acted in\naccordance with the best information that was available at that time. This\nwas a point upon which Dr. S. was very cagy, and I felt for a time that I\nwould be unable to get a commital from him. However, by putting the\nquestion in a somewhat different manner, that is whether or not we were\ncriminally negligent, due to our methods of operation at this period,\nhe definitely stated that he felt we were not, and that he believed the\nLabor Department would back us in this contention.\nWhile Dr. S. was extremely cautious in his statement, still at the same\ntime his was very friendly in his attitude, and upon ascertaining some-\nwhat more in detail what my mission was he opened up fairly well, and\ngave considerable general information. He stated that the Labor Depart-\nment had several requests from abroad asking for details of the law\nstatus involved in these types of cases in the State of N.J., and that\nthe Labor Department had refused to give any information on this subject,\nexcept such data of a statistical nature as they had compiled. He\nstated that they had never called the attention of inquirers to the\nDrinker article or any of the other published articles on this subject.\nHe felt that in view of the fact that all these cases had not been definite-\nly settled, and that the cause had not been definitely established, there\nwas little use in circulating information now at their disposal.\nDr. S. stated that the Labor Department had tried to be just to us in\nthis matter as well as to our employees, and that they would endeaver to\nfunction as such giving us their best cooperation so far as was within\ntheir power.\nHHBarker:RH"
}