Memorandum, April 12, 1928

menorancum or intervion watn ur. April 12th,1928 - at $9 Franklin The writer explained to Dr. S. that we were anxãous to ascertain (1) whether or not plente in application of luminous materials contain ing radivo or radio-activo constituonts, usod a mathod simälar to that which wa employed at our plant in Crange. That ie does the general practico abroad consist of using fine camel'a hair broshos for painting the numerols on watch dials, and do the operatore point the with thoir lips, or did they do so at any time during the history of the industry. (2) Whether his survey browht to licht any condition abroad mimilar to that apparently existing amone our formor employees. Dr. reply to the first question was that he had no knowledge. ne further stated that he felt the matter of the las suits which wo are defend ing at this time was puraly a personal matter betwean us and the plaintiffs, and he could, therefore, see no reason why he mhould enter into the pleture in any way. Re stated thet he could not testify without teking sides,80 to speak, and he feels that hie connactions with the State Department of Labor are such that he should not under any circumatances enter into this question. Dr. S. continued by anying that the information supplied him while he tras abroad was strictly confidential in naturo, and he felt that he would be betraying the confidence of those whom he interviered should he disclose such information as they rave him. Dr. 3. is vary detormined in his attitude not to bacome involved in these laar sults, and stated that should ho be called as an involuntary witness he prove more detrimental than beneficial to us. Thão I attribute largaly as n menna of defense that Dr. S. put out to avoid our subpoenaing him as a witness. Mille I ealled to his attention the faot that Dr. VeBrido had been enlled by the plaintiffs, and that we soe no objection to his appear- ing in the esse - he franidy stated that Dr. appenring mach against his wishos. In the course of our convorsation Dr. S. augested that wo obtain the information that he has (which Trankly admitted that he Imows the method employed in the painting of watch diale abroad) in the soma manner as he obtained same, that is, by sending a representative abroad to intervier those engaged in this line of industry. he goid that he would be glad to furnimh tas with the names and addresses of the people whom he interviered, and would a so far as to write these people as to who me are, and recomend tht thay supply us with such meneral information as wo might desiro. I told Dr. S. that we would be ver glad to got this list and he promised to send it to US. Ny reaction as a result of the interview with Dr. Seamelotaki le that we would probably be better off not to call him as a witness, unless absolutely necessary. Dr. Meltride apparently has a detailed report of Dr. survey of the situation abroad, and it is quite probable thnt we can obtain the informa- tion which we desire thrown Dr. Melride when he is placed on the witness stand by the plaintiffs. The objection to such a procedure is thnt we are not amare of the nature of the information which do ming to develop. However, 3 do not see how it con prova particularly detrimental.