The Iron Age 1926-06-24: Vol 117 Iss 25

JUN 25 1920 Turn to the orange-bordered page for the convenient News Summary. THE IRON ACE Si ra apy ks nis Six Dollar Canada $8. 50: be slam n $1 MORGAN WORCESTER a) aa eeoed uz Veg eiey aces 1926 c1ation ¢ the ac 149 Rolling Mills of our design and manufacture 14/ are in operation to-day — Os ro ’ | ae | = P MT LL MORGAN CONSTRUCTION CO. WORCESTER, Bidet acheter Uz Fs A. THE IRON AGE June 24, 1996 ss Va Ta Wa ee LJ Why Tie Up Capital? — by truck or by rail, Ryerson shipments will be on their way to you within a few hours after you give the order. We have the steel and can ship at once—so why tie up your capital in large stocks subject to depreciation and waste. Buy only for your current requirements and let Ryerson carry the load. Bars Turnbuckles Wire Reinforcing Steel Shapes Babbitt Chain Firmtread Plates Structurals Plates Forging Bars Alloy Steel Rails Sheets Billets Tool Steel Shafting Rivets Boiler Tubes Small Tools Strip Steel Bolts and Fittings Machinery, etc. c Pet ‘ Write for the Journal and Stock List— Vacationing Soon! the “key” to Immediate Steel It’s easy to get away when orders are placed with JosePu T. RYERSON & SON inc. ee - _ ESTABLISHED 1642 epen upon prompt accurate PLANTS CHICAGO ST. LOUIS DETROIT NEW YORK shipments. MILWAUKEE CINCINNATI BUFFALO BOSTON REPRESENTATION IN: DENVER LOUISVILLE SAN FRANCISCO JERSEY CITY MINNEAPOLIS TULSA HOUSTON LOS ANGELES NEWARK ‘ THE IRON AGE New York, June 24, 1926 ESTABLISHED 1855 ® VOL. 117, No. 25 Barbed Wire—Who Invented It? History of Early Development and Litigation— “Moonshine” Wire—More Than 200 Varieties Patented BY ARTHUR G. WARREN* ITH the passing of Jacob Haish7, Feb. 19, 1926, at his home in De Kalb, Ill, at an age lacking but a few days of a full century (he was born in Germany, March 9, 1826), came repeated statements in the public press crediting him with being the original inventor of barbed wire for fencing. The first appear- ance of barbed wire fencing was upward of a half cen- tury ago, and few people today are acquainted with the circumstances of its advent. The present writer would make no attempt to tell the whole story (both lengthy and intricate) of the in- troduction of fencing armed with variously-called prickers, spurs, thorns or barbs. It is felt, however, that a distinct service will be rendered to those inter- ested, and also to the future historian of the wire in- dustry, by setting down a few of the facts and circum- stances related to the subject, selected from historic material on file in the Industrial Museum of the Ameri- can Steel & Wire Co., at Worcester, Mass. Alphonzo Dabb United States letters patent No. 63,482 were issued April 2, 1867, to Alphonzo Dabb, Elizabethport, N. J., for “Picketed Wrought Iron Strip” for top of a wall or fence. This appears to be the earliest suggestion pat- ented in the United States of a fence armed with sharp, projecting points for the purpose of making it a more effective barrier. Subsequent events make it appear that the same or a similar idea for improvement of farm fencing had *Secretary Industrial Museum Committee, American Steel & Wire Co., Worcester, Mass. The illustration at head of page shows a mass of barbed wire of many obsolete patterns. 7;Page 600, THE IRON AGE, Feb. 25 1769 been lying dormant in many minds, only awaiting the first open suggestion as the signal for springing into action, and producing a variety of designs in defensive equipment for fences. Lucien B. Smith Patent No. 66,182 was granted June 25, 1867, to Lucien B. Smith, Kent, Ohio. This was the earliest United States patent for wire fencing armed with pro- jecting points or barbs. The writer is not aware that any fencing made to this specification was ever put on the market or sold privately. Later, however, this patent became of prime importance, due to its included feature of defensive equipment. William D. Hunt Patent No. 67,117 was granted July 23, 1867, to William D. Hunt, Scott, N. Y., for a wire fence equipped with spur wheels. Hunt and Smith were brought into legal interference and, after examination, Hunt was awarded priority of invention, thus being officially rec- ognized as first in the field to equip a fence wire with spurs or barbs. This fencing was efficient, but rather difficult of con- struction. Hunt was without funds and, although he sold certain territorial rights, failed to interest anyone with capital in his invention, and so was unable to start manufacture. Probably not more than a half- mile in length was ever produced, and that, laboriously, by hand. After seven years, Hunt considered himself for- tunate in selling his patent rights (Oct. 15, 1874), to Charles Kennedy of Hinckley, IIl., for $1,725 cash. The 1770 patent (original and reissue) was later held to be of great basic value. Michael Kelly Patent No. 74,379 was granted Feb. 11, 1868, to Michael Kelly, New York, for “Thorny Fence,” a wire fencing armed with perforated, elongated-diamond shaped two-point flat barbs. Patent No. 84,062 was granted Nov. 17, 1868, to the same Michael Kelly, for round wire thorns thrust through holes in flat wire. Some eight years later these patents (original and reissue) were acquired by the Thorn Wire Hedge Co., Chicago, which for a considerable time sold the Kelly wire extensively. These also were numbered with the valuable basic patents. Lyman P. Judson Patent No. 118,135 was granted Aug. 15, 1871, to Lyman P. Judson, Rose, N. Y., for “Barbed Iron Strip A. DABB. Picket Fence. No, 63.482. Patented April 2, 1867. Earliest of All Patented Forms of Barbed or Spiked Protection Was This Peculiar Type In- vented by Alphonzo Dabb in 1867. It did not get into what we now know as “production” Fence.” This called for a heavy weight of metal and the barb effect was inefficient. It was not a success. Henry M. Rose Patent No. 138,763 was granted May 13, 1873, to Henry M. Rose, Waterman Station, IIl., for “Wooden Strip with Metallic Points,” as an improvement in wire fence. This formed a fairly effective barrier, but of crude construction when viewed alongside later suc- cessful designs. The idea was worthy of respect, how- ever, even though its chief value lay, as will be seen, in pointing the way to something better, soon to be achieved by others. The Big Four In 1873, six years had elapsed since the Smith and Hunt patents were granted, and as yet nothing had been heard from any one of “the Big Four,” who were to figure so prominently in later years in the barbed wire industry, viz.: Jacob Haish, Isaac L. Ellwood, Joseph F. Glidden, all residents of De Kalb, IIl., and Charles F. Washburn, representing the Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co., Worcester, Mass. Jacob Haish Forty-seven years of age, alert, and from boyhood watchful for opportunities of advancement, Jacob Haish THE IRON AGE June 24, 1926 had not yet taken the first step toward securing a patent for barbed wire. In view of the seven patents for barbed fencing issued during the last preceding six years, it is at first difficult to understand this delay on the part of Haish, who later claimed priority of invention. The following is a possible explanation: Prior to 1873 little general interest was taken in the barbed fence patents already issued. It is possible, therefore, that neither Glidden nor Haish was aware of their existence up to the time of first making appli- cation for patents in October and December, respec- tively, in that year. Isaac L. Ellwood is on record as giving to the inven- tion of Henry M. Rose, (patent No. 138,763, previously noted), the credit of suggesting not only to himself, but also to Glidden and to Haish, their first thought of attaching wire barbs to wire fencing instead of driv- ing them into wood strips. The occasion was a county © fair at De Kalb in 1873, when the trio stood together looking at an exhibit of the fencing recently patented by Rose. It is obviously impossible to know when the thought of barbed wire for fencing first came to him, but it is a matter of United States Patent Office record that Jacob Haish’s earliest application for a barbed wire patent is dated Dec. 22, 1873. Joseph F. Glidden Some two months earlier, on Oct. 27, 1873, Joseph F. Glidden, De Kalb, IIl., filed application for a barbed wire patent, an essential feature of the specification be- ing a novel method of holding the spur-wires in place Glidden’s claim was challenged by Haish and, due to interference proceedings which began July 28, 1874, and also to time required for necessary amendments to the application, the patent was delayed. Interfer- ence decision was rendered by the Patent Office on Oct. 20, in favor of Glidden, and on Nov. 24, 1874, he was granted patent No. 157,124. Meanwhile, three barbed wire patents of later appli- cation had been granted to Haish and one to Glidden. It may be noted that in none of Glidden’s several appli- cations did he claim to have invented the spurs or barbs for use in fencing. In fact, in an application dated March 14, 1874, he expressly states, “I do not claim to have originated the devices known as spurs or prongs on the wire, they having been used before, but confine myself,” ete. Isaac L. Ellwood Patent No. 147,756 was granted Feb. 24, 1874, to Isaac L. Ellwood, De Kalb, Ill., for “Barbed Fence.” The design was similar to one for which Haish had received a patent only a week earlier (No. 147,634, Feb. 17, 1874). It was not long before Mr. Ellwood, for good and sufficient reason, lost interest in his par- ticular style of barbed fence and discontinued its manu- facture and sale. Charles Kennedy Patent No. 153,965 was granted Aug. 11, 1874, to Charles Kennedy, Hinckley, Ill., for a barb to be at- tached to plain wires, mainly on fencing already erected. It was in this year that Kennedy purchased the Hunt patent. Haish and Glidden Lead For our present purpose, it is needless to enumerate the many styles of barbed wire which soon appeared in rapid succession. We may note separately, however, the patents issued to Haish and Glidden, mentioning first the patents granted to Jacob Haish, as follows: Patent No. 146,671—Jan. 20, Patent No. 147,634—Feb. 17, Patent No. 152,368—June 23, Patent No. 164,552—June 15, Patent No. 167,240—Aug. 31, The last-named was for the popular “S” barb, a very excellent style which had a wide sale and on which Mr. Haish latterly rested his reputation. This patent was reissued Jan. 6, 1880, as No. 9036. June 24, 1926 THE IRON AGE 1771 [HUNT — 1867]| JOSEPH F. GLIDDEN 1813 1906 (Photo taken io bis %th year) CHARLES F. WASHBURN 1827 —. 1893 IAL MD Hard JACOB HAISH 1R2¢ ~ 19 oa Eo - \C fees A Nonthe basse | th Ehvods | SMITH — ISAAC L. |:LLWOOD 1833 — 1910 | eee eo Mae 5k RET Sie ye |867 1873 ac oe eae ht Le Surrounded by Seven of the Earliest Forms of Barbed Fence—Wire and Other—Are “The Big Four” in the Famous Barbed Wire Patent Litigation, Which Lasted from 1874 to 1892. Legal animosity did not cut short their useful lives, for two of the four went well past 90 and Mr. Haish reached within 18 days of round- ing out a full century. The Glidden and Haish designs—at lower left and right respectively—are the only ones of the seven examples which had the qualities necessary for retaining public favor over many years Joseph F. Glidden’s patents relating to barbed wire numbered three in all, viz.: Patent No. 150,683—May 12, 1874 (Reissued as Nos. 6913 and 6914—Feb. 8, 1876) Patent No. 157,124—Nov. 24, 1874 (The Winner) Patent No. 181,433—Aug. 22, 1876 The earliest invention of Glidden (patent No. 157,- 124, Nov. 24, 1874, for which he had filed application Oct. 27, 1873), embodied a radical improvement in barbed wire construction, and was the most practical form yet conceived. It not only proved more popular than any other style up to that time, but during a half- century it has always held and still occupies a leading place. For many years its nearest ranking competitor was Haish’s famous “S” barbed wire, which was a worthy rival. Mr. Glidden in July, 1874, sold to Isaac L. Ellwood, hardware dealer of De Kalb, a one-half interest in this patent (No. 157,124), for $130, plus $135 to cover one- half of incidental expenses to date—a total of $265. Glidden and Ellwood then formed a partnership under the firm name of Barb Fence Co., for the manu- facture and sale of barbed wire fencing. Both being resi- t 1772 dents of De Kalb, it was there they established their factory.* Upon advice of counsel, they proceeded to acquire by purchase an interest in the Hunt, Smith and Ken- nedy patents. They also tried to purchase the Kelly patent, but it was not for sale. While the output of the Barb Fence Co. was at first small, it rapidly increased. About this time (1874), Joseph Haish began the manufacture of barbed wire ina small way and met with gratifying success. It will be remembered that Glidden and Haish patents were then pending. Thus far, barbed wire fencing was strictly a Middle-West product, sold only to Western customers, and was practically unknown in the East. Eastern Interest Aroused The attention of Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. being attracted by the appearance in the market of this new wire ‘product, Vice-President Charles F. Washburn was L. 8 SMITH. Wire Fence. No, 66,182. Patented June. 25, 1867 THE IRON AGE June 24, 1926 valued his remaining one-half interest considerably higher than in 1874 when he sold a one-half share to Isaac Ellwood for $265. Glidden Retired Negotiation was immediately begun in earnest, with the result that an agreement was reached, and later confirmed, by which in May, 1876, Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co., by Charles F. Washburn, purchased Mr. Glid- den’s remaining one-half interest in the Glidden patents, and also his interest in the business and properties of the Barb Fence Co., for a payment in cash and notes totaling $60,000, and agreement to pay a royalty of ‘4c. per lb. on all barbed wire manufactured under the Glidden patent or patents by Washburn & Moen, or by any person or corporation under their authority as licensee, or otherwise; or in the manufacture of which Washburn & Moen might be interested, and which should be sold at 15c. or over per lb.; the royalty on all } LD Fimnt - = 7 - ~~ ~~ “ME LICE LPiterted Faly.23/%by, Hegt Both the Smith Patent of 59 Years Ago and the Hunt Patent Issued Four Weeks Later Figured Largely in the Early History of Barbed Wire. Neither came into real use, but both patents were considered necessary of acquisition by those who entered into production from other designs. They represent the two first patents issued for barbed WIRE fence delegated to investigate facts and conditions, with a view to acquiring an active interest in this latest addi- tion to the wire industry. To this end, in March, 1876, Mr. Washburn went to Chicago and met Jacob Haish, who invited him to visit his factory at De Kalb. There Mr. Washburn saw first the operation and product of the Haish barbed wire fac- tory, and sounded the owner as to whether or not he would sell his patent rights and equipment. Mr. Haish was willing to sell—for a consideration— and named $200,000 as his price. Paying Mr. Haish the compliment of believing him equally serious with him- self, Mr. Washburn promptly withdrew and turned to Glidden and Ellwood. Many years later Haish stated that, if Washburn had been a typical Yankee and had offered him $25,000, he probably would have accepted it. Introducing himself to Messrs. Glidden and Ellwood, Mr. Washburn was shown the equipment and product of the Barb Fence Co., inquired into the conditions and prospects of their business, was favorably impressed and learned that Mr. Glidden was willing to retire— for a consideration. It is not surprising that he now *Shortly before this deal with Ellwood, Mr. Glidden offered a one-half interest in his invention to a neighbor farmer, Andrew Y. Baldwin. for $100 Mr. Baldwin, who through hard work and thrifty living had acquired ample means to invest much more than that sum, had he wished, refused the offer, giving as his reason that he had “no faith in patents of any kind.” wire selling at less than 15c. to be correspondingly re- duced. The price then was 18c. at the factory. The Barb Fence Co. was superseded by I. L. Ell- wood & Co., Charles F. Washburn being the silent but by no means inactive partner in the newly-formed con- cern. The factory at De Kalb was forthwith enlarged and equipped to furnish Glidden barbed wire to the en- tire Western trade, while Eastern and Southern cus- tomers were to be supplied from Worcester by Wash- burn & Moen. By this deal, entire control of all J. F. Glidden’s pat- ents, present and future, and also of the basic patents of Hunt, Smith and Kennedy, passed into the hands of Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. and I. L. Ellwood, who later acquired the Kelly patent (original and reissue). Thus they were enabled to establish a practical monop- oly of the barbed wire business in the United States. Barbed wire patents were granted to them in En- gland and on the Continent of Europe as early as 1876 or 1877. They also became possessed of the legal title to the invention of barbed wire. Although bitterly and persis- tently contested by Jacob Haish and others, this title was never attacked in the courts with more than tem- porary success. I. L. Ellwood & Co., realizing their value, made earnest and repeated efforts to purchase Haish’s patents, or to obtain his cooperation, but long June 24, 1926 without success. Eventually, however, both the patents and a limited degree of cooperation were secured. Machine Patents Enter other inventors had been busy, and and various were the styles of barbed wire de- Meanwhile, many J. F. GLIDDEN. Wire-Fences. No.157,124. Patented Nov. 24, 1874. GA. rent Ox Sos LG Gy Liloten, oy God dpe Glidden’s Design of Barbed Wire Is What We Use Today—Virtually U nchanged After Half a Century. Competition was intensive, for years, between this style and the “S” barb invented by Jacob Haish a signed and patented. Numerous patents were issued also for machines, designed to produce Glidden’s barbed wire, Haish’s “S” barb wire, and other more or less prominent styles. The machine patents were second only in importance to patents for barbed wire itself, success in competition depending largely upon the speed and precision with which the leading styles of barbed wire could be produced. In addition to manufacturing Glidden wire in large increasing tonnage, Washburn & Moen and Ell- issued licenses to manufacture, to various par- many of whom were already patentees of barbed wire, or of barbed wire machines. I. L. Ellwood & Co. continued the policy begun by Glidden and Ellwood of acquiring, by purchase and as- signment, all obtainable patents for barbed wire and barbed wire machines which promised to be of possible value. Asa result, in the year 1881, they were in con- trol of about 90 patents for barbed wire and barbed wire machinery, and in 1884, the number of such patents owned by them had increased to 220. and wood ties, “Moonshine” Wire Appears The owners of the basic patents were thus enabled to issue licenses to manufacture not only Glidden wire, but also a variety of other selected styles. They like- wise acquired a similar advantage in the matter of machines for making barbed wire. With a view to stabilizing the rapidly developing in- THE IRON AGE 1773 dustry, and to minimize the difficulties arising from possible infringement litigation, a general ruiing was made that patents owned or controlled by applicants for license to manufacture should be transferred to the licensers as part of the terms of license. The refusal of certain inventors and manufacturers of barbed wire either to sell patent rights, or to acknowl- edge the supremacy of Washburn & Moen and Ellwood, and their determined persistence in the stoutly claimed right to independent manufacture and sale, resulted in the appearance on the market throughout the Middle West and Southwest of quantities of so-called “moon- shine” wire. In the consequent litigation, the most determined and the ablest opponent of Washburn & Moen and Ell- wood, until the entrance of John W. Gates in the early 80’s, was Jacob Haish. He was encouraged and sup- ported by an ardent group of interested farmers and others, scattered throughout the Middle West. After nearly two decades of incessant struggle in the Federal courts, marked by decision and reversal in original and appellate tribunals respectively, the United States Supreme Court on Feb. 29, 1892, rendered a final decision establishing the claim of Washburn & Moen and Ellwood over all competitors. An occasional barbed wire case was heard subse- quently in the courts, mainly for the purpose of sup- pressing “moonshiners,” but the famous old-time con- }. HAISH. Wire-Fence Barbs. No. 167,240. Patented Aug. 31, 1875. wt ah. —-—" i.e PUG. fv. ad 6xe £ ee . ae Saar . F ger Sy WITWESSES ; Moe Vliy! fuel Hoaggh Le neki c Cie 8 Taw i... Re Ae ance ee ; ATTORNEYS. One Sheet From the United States Patent Granted to Jacob Haish Fifty Years Ago, Show- ing the Famous “S” Barb, Which Was Popular for Many Years. This was the chief competitor of the Glidden patent tests which held the attention of manufacturers, dealers and farmers throughout the country for so many years, were practically settled by the Supreme Court decision. Summary It is aimed in the foregoing to touch only some of the high-lights of barbed wire history, citing enough to render it clear that the inventions of Hunt and Smith, 1774 THE patented in 1867, and of Kelly, in 1868, embodied the basic ideas in barbed wire construction. Then came Glidden and Haish, almost neck and neck, Glidden slightly in the lead, with a design which has been steadily a favorite for upward of a half-cen- tury. For some years Haish, whose famous “S” barbed wire was practically the equal of Glidden’s, remained the closest rival in the race, until by an agreement, which included concessions on both sides, he yielded his independent operation and accepted from Washburn & Moen a license to manufacture. An impartial examina- tion of the evidence leads to the following three con- clusions: 1. That both Joseph F. Glidden and Jacob Haish were inventors of barbed wire in separate and distinctive designs. 2. That each produced at least one style which proved highly successful and profitable; but 3. That neither Glidden nor Haish was the first to conceive the idea of prongs, spurs or barbs to be applied to wire fencing, this feature having been previously covered in each of the patents granted to Hunt, Smith and Kelly. There are now to be seen in the Industrial Museum of the American Steel & Wire Co. in Worcester no fewer than 140 different styles of barbed wire. Models of more than 100 additional styles were located by the writer some months ago at the Patent Office in Wash- IRON AGE June 24, 1926 ington. It is expected that eventually these will be added to the Industrial Museum collection. Amid Jacob Haish’s numerous business interests, the one relating to his fighting days held first place in his memory, mind and affections. Some years ago, so that “he who runs may read,” and, reading, may accept his dictum, Mr. Haish placed above one of the entrances to his ornate and spacious residence a plac- ard, still there, which reads: “Jacob Haish, Inventor of Barb Wire.” That he was an inventor of barbed wire, and unusu- ally prominent as such, cannot be questioned. For this he justly receives full and unstinted credit. The equally established fact, however, which Jacob persistently re- fused to admit, was that there were others, both before and in the running with him, whose barbed wire designs ranked with his own and practically nullified his claim to priority of invention. In the main lobby of the Patent Office in Washing- ton is an interesting display of United States letters patent granted for inventions which have been epoch- making in their resulting benefits to mankind. It is significant that the single barbed wire patent given a place in this industrial “hall of fame” is No. 157,124, granted to Joseph F. Glidden on Nov. 24, 1874. Dies for Making Brake Drums One Set Blanks and Draws and Another Pierces Holes to Close Limits of Concen- tricity—Method of Figuring Dimensions Outlined BY C. S. WO dies employed to advantage in the manufacture of brake drums are shown in the accompanying line sketch illustrations, one being a combination blanking and drawing die and the other a piercing die. The combination blanking and drawing die, shown in Fig. 1, was designed for use in a double-acting press, and is employed in blanking pieces 20% in. in diameter and then drawing a drum 16 in. in outside diameter and 2% in. in height. The punch ring holder, C, is mounted on the outer ram, A, and carries the punch ring, D, which 1s bolted to its holder by means of cap screws coming down from the top. The punch ring holder is held to the ram by means of stud bolts and clamps around the outside. The draw punch, E, is mounted to its holder in the same way. This holder, which was cast and made special for this job, is held in the inner ram, B, by regulation clamps which grip the shouldered shank on the top end of holder. Al- though the blanking punch stroke carries the punch to the bottom of the punch ring, clearing it by only a quarter of an inch, the draw punch, E£, follows the blanking punch so closely that it is bearing on the blank as soon as it is cut and carries it on down through the draw ring, H. The cut ring, F, which is bolted to the draw die block, G, serves to hold the blank central. In figuring the dimensions of this die, the tolerances allowed in the finished brake drum were basic considera- tions. It is required that the outside diameter of the drum, 16 in., be held within limits of plus or minus 0.010 in. Another fixed dimension is the thickness of the wall, which in this drum cannot vary more than 0.005 in., plus or minus. The outside diameter of the drum gives us the inside diameter of the draw ring, which is 16 in. We could start out at 16.010 in., but if we do that the drum will be over size on the outside as soon as the ring wears a little. So we start at the 16 in. diameter and when the ring has worn to 16.010 in. it is replaced. The worn ring then goes to the heat-treating department, to be annealed at a tem- perature of 1550 deg. Fahr., and then put through a shrinking operation which reduces the inside diameter about 1/16 in. After the ring is shrunk it is again annealed and the surplus stock inside removed by WHEELER boring. It is then ready for rehardening and grinding. As this is a drum made from 7/32-in. stock, and the side wall thickness must not vary more than the limits noted above, it follows that the draw punch diameter must be the thickness of the wall on each side minus the inside diameter of the draw ring, which is 16 in. This, minus double the thickness of stock, leaves 15.563 in. as the diameter of the draw punch. The stock for ironing is obtained from the blank thickening up as it is formed into the shape of the drum. This thicken- ing up of the stock takes place during the instant preceding the passing of the drum through the ring. The above dimensions are arrived at by taking the thickness of stock as specified by the customer and working from that. The stock, however, may vary as much as 0.010 in. above or under the nominal thick- ness, and this has to be taken into consideration. The method of making allowance for variations in thick- ness of the stock is as follows: The blank size is figured to give a predetermined amount to trim off the drum after drawing, say % in. If the stock comes 10 per cent heavier than the customer’s requirements and, as in this case it is 7/32 in., then the wall of the drum will be 0.021 in. in addition to the thickness obtained by the folding up of the blank. Now, the desired height of the drum being 2% in., the extra thickness of the stock will add about % in. to this, and this extra height will have to be trimmed off. These calculations will hold good over approximately all percentages in stock thickness variations. Then it follows that if a wide variation in stock thickness is allowed in the press room the cost of production is increased about 20 per cent for the trimming opera- tion. If % in. is figured as sufficient to trim off the drum and the stock should come 10 per cent less than the given thickness, the drum will come from the draw die nearly % in. below the finished size. If the stock has a tendency to run low it cannot, in this drum, run more than 8 per cent less than the given thickness and leave anything to be trimmed. Wall of Drums Pierced Concentric with Center Hole One of the problems of the drum manufacturer is to be able to draw and pierce drums that come within June 24, 1926 THE Fig. 1\—Combination Blanking and Drawing Die Used in Double-Acting Press for Making Brake Drums 16 In. in Outside Diameter and 2% In. High the customer’s limits as to the concentricity of the wall of the drum with the center hole. The tendency of car builders is to reduce the tolerance allowed on the indicator reading, with the indicator bearing on the outside or inside of the drum wall with the center hole fitting a plug on which the drum is revolved. It was a fairly easy matter to draw and pierce drums when this tolerance was as much as 0.020 in., but with this cut to as low as 0.008 in. on some drums, it was neces- sary to design a piercing die which would pierce drums close enough to the given limits so that grinding would not be necessary. The die shown in Fig. 2 is one which will do that. With the older type piercing dies the stripper was operated by carrier rods coming up from under the press and the stripper, being carried on the punch block, was pulled down at the top of the stroke. With the new die the stripper is still mounted on the punch but is operated from a knockout bar in the ram of the press. The punch block is in two pieces with the adapter, A, mounted in the top. A pin operated on by a bar in the ram bears down on the knockout plate, D. This in turn rests on the knockout screws, E, which are screwed into the stripper plate, H. This plate is tool steel, hardened and ground all over, with the bottom surface ground convex 0.010 in. more than the concave called for on the drum. The die plate, J, is ground concave to match the stripper plate. The 0.010 in. excess convex and concave takes care of the spring back in the drum after it is flattened. The punch holder, F, is held to the central web of the die block IRON AGE 1775 by six flat-head screws and is held from shifting by two dowels. The section, J, is a tool steel hardened and ground ring cut into four sections. Before the ring is cut apart it is finished to the same diameter as the inside of the draw ring. The die plate, J, is ground to fit the inside of the drum, with the radius on the upper corner ground to clear the radius in the drum. When the drum is placed over the die plate and the press ram comes down on it, the ring, J, holds the walls of the drum tight against the die plate while the holes are keing pierced. If the drum comes from the draw die out of round this sectional ring will round it up as the ring comes down over the drum ahead of the center punch. The reason for the ring J being in four sections is that when the draw ring wears, and the drum for this Fig. 2—Die for Piercing Center Hole of Brake Drums to Close Limits reason becomes large on the outside diameter, the ring can be adjusted to fit. Thé same thing can be done if the stock should come thin, or if wear of the draw punch causes the drum to be smaller than it should. The drum, of course, stays in the ring as the ram goes up and is then knocked out by the action of the center pin on the upper knockout plate. With this type of die the drums can be held to the close limits at present required. The die plate is made of non-shrinkable steel and this as well as the other tool steel parts were hardened according to the method outlined by C. S. Smith in an article on the “Heat Treatment of Steel Dies,” in THE IRON AGE of Sept. 3, 1925, page 608. Survey of Malleable Furnace Refractories The joint committee on foundry refractories of the American Foundrymen’s Association is conducting a survey of the service conditions of the refractories used in the different branches of the foundry industry. Sub- committees composed of representative foundry man- agers and metallurgists have been appointed by the joint committee to look after the detailed work con- nected with the surveys and to report at the commit- tee’s meeting to be held in connection with the Detroit convention of the association. The subcommittee studying malleable foundry re- fractories is asking that the malleable foundry man- agers cooperate with them by supplying such informa- tion as each manager may contribute. The committee is sending to each foundry a questionnaire which will be easy to fill out and yet supply the needed data. The committee believes that the refractories used in the malleable foundries are costing too much. The prin- cipal reasons for this excess cost are stated to be: Too many sizes and shapes of bricks now used where com- paratively few sizes and shapes best suited would suf- fice and improper employment of methods of furnace operation and improper designs in furnace construction. The questionnaire forms the basis for a systematic study for improvement in composition, manufacture, specifications, testing, and application of reverberatory furnace refractories. After the data of the questionnaire are analyzed, it is proposed to have field men investigate more fully certain phases of the work. The subcommittee con- ducting the malleable furnace service conditions sur- vey is composed of James R. Allan, International Har- vester Co., Chicago; H. M. Thompson, H. M. Thompson Co., Chicago, and J. H. Birdsong, National Malleable & Steel Casting Co., Cleveland. Mr. Allan is chairman of the subcommittee. Furnace for Study of Refractories There are numerous problems concerning the ser- vice conditions of open-hearth refractories on which it is difficult to get data from commercial furnaces. The United States Bureau of Mines plans to erect a small experimental furnace of 600 or 800 Ib. ca- pacity for the purpose of collecting data on problems similar to the following: The rate of saturation of roof brick with slag, the effect of rate of heating upon roof brick structure, the effect of insulation upon re- fractories, and the abrasion of port ends as affected by design and by gas velocities. Ask a Half-Billion Wage Increase Railroad Workers Now Far Better Off Than in Pre- War Years—Twenty Per Cent Increase in Purchasing Power Since 1914 BY LEE G. LAUCK N view of the fact that the railroad labor organiza- tions are now making additional demands for wage advances, it is pertinent to present some of the striking facts relating to the status of our railroad employees during the past twelve years, and at the same time show their position as compared with that of such workers in France and Great Britain. Since 1913, increased wages and reduced hours have brought about a tremendous increase in the expense accounts of our railroads. The total compensation to employees of the Class 1 railroads, which constitute approximately 91 per cent of the railroad mileage and 96 per cent of the revenues, has increased from $1,338,612,385 in 1913 to $2,860,353,098 in 1925; while the average annual earnings per employee rose from $761 to $1,638. By giving effect to the pre-war dollar worth 100 cents as compared with the 63-cent dollar today, the average annual earnings in 1925 would be reduced to $932. In 1916, the average was less than $900, making the present earnings on the cost of living basis about 4 per cent higher than they were nine years ago. Between 1913 and 1925 operating expenses increased 109 per cent, while revenues only increased 97 per cent. Nearly 48 cents of every dollar earned by the railroads in 1925 went for labor as compared with 43 cents in 1913. Twenty Per Cent Increase in Employee Purchasing Power The purchasing power of all railroad employees in the United States during 1924 was 20 per cent greater than in 1914. This condition was due to the large in- crease in their incomes as compared with the lower advance in the cost of living. In addition these same employees have benefited far more from wage increases since 1914 than have the employees of outside indus- tries. During 1924, wages of skilled laborers in foun- dries and machine shops were 108 per cent greater than in 1914, but those of railroad skilled shop labor at the end of 1923 were 142 per cent above the 1914 level, and advanced still further in 1924. Generally speaking, the railroad worker is materially better off than in 1914. His average working day is now two *Mr. Lauck was a member Railway Economics at with Dr. David Friday, Transportation Institute the Bureau of Was associated National for a time of Washington and later director of research of the Class 1 Rail) (}oxe Total Operating Revenue $3,108,361,2 3,031,326, 2,871,563, 3,381,597, Total Operating Expenses 2,178,463,563 Year Ending June 30 1913. 1914 1915.. i916.. 2? ,.021,160,614 Year Ending Dec, 31 1916 1917 1918 a Sati tei ty 1920. . 1921 3,596,865,766 2,004, l 4,014,142,7 2,829,325, 1,7 4,880,953, 3,982,068,15 eg 5,144,795, .399,715,; 1 6,178,120,5 5,831,465,116 2, 5,516,598,: ,562,668,% 1 5,559,092, ,414,522,334 1 5,166,819 1,85 1 1 398, 1923 6,289,580,0: »ok Es ine mew wie 507,845,037 5,921,490, 6,120,379,4 ,935,773,038 eqmunnn en vennevscnesayvannennnnnennenecanens, eonnensensueenuecnnsereenenseauensenssencenecaenonsnenengernsnenrenenonssoosevesnecneccesancerensenvensenensenvenenssonenanene oads of the Number « Employees 1,759,020 2,203,423,812 1,640,029 1,491,849 2,210,892,786 1,599,158 if Aggregate 746.476 hours shorter, and the purchasing power of his daily earnings is substantially greater. In spite of this situation union leaders are demand- ing a restoration of the peak wage scale of 1920 for conductors and trainmen of all the railroads through- out the country; this represents an increase of $1 to $1.50 a day over the prevailing rate for conductors, baggagemen, flagmen, and brakemen. Conductors re- ceiving about $6.60 a day and $200 per month would obtain $7.75 a day and $232.50 a month. Corresponding increases are asked for assistant conductors and yard service employees. In many cases the demand equals a dollar a day. European Wages a Fraction of American At the present time railroad conductors in the United States receive on the average three and one- fifth times as much as railroad conductors receive in Switzerland; three and one-half times as much as in Germany; four and two-fifths times as much as in Italy, and about six times as much as in Austria and Hun- gary. Engineers, firemen and maintenance-of-way men are paid in about the same proportion. Until about two years ago the railroad employees in Canada received approximately the same wages as were paid in this country. In 1924, nearly all American railroad em- ployees received an increase in wages; but the rail- roads in Canada, under government ownership and operation, had such a deficit that they did not grant any increase. It has been estimated that the wage demands that are now being made by the several American railroad labor organizations, if granted, would increase the total annual expenses of the country’s railroads by approx- imately $500,000,000, and would cut the 1926 earnings in half and bankrupt many of the smaller roads. With these facts confronting him, the question is whether the American railroad employee believes he will be justified in supporting the leaders of the sev- eral brotherhoods in the movement they have started for a genera] advance in wages. Compensation Doubled Since 1914 Some very striking facts with regard to the rela- tionship of wages and revenues on the Class 1 rail- roads in the United States appear in the statistics shown in the table below: United States luding switching and terminal companies) Ratio of Total Aggre Average gate Compensation to Annual - , Compen- sation per Employee $761 S15 $29 854 Total Total Operating Operating Revenues Expenses 43.06 61.59 44.12 60.69 $3.05 61.17 40.40 61.79 Compensation $1,338,612,385 1,337,344,135 1,236,305,445 1,366,100,518 58,576,394 39,482,142 3,813,351 42,128,432 892 8 62. 1,004 32 61. 1,419 53.55 65. 1,486 D. 64. 1,820 9.5 63. 1,665" : 60. 1,623 .50 59.82 1,617 ‘ 61.38 1,612 .76 60.51 1,638 63.06 HHEDUEDEELEDNEDEONEREEDELELAONFEDEOENONUNOHONNEROLOOOEDONONDHONOEN EEE eEAONORONOORRD: NDOUNELOUNAEREGEAUOOOEALOOUEOLONERDLOOEOUDONEEECASROLOGN ERDONEDROGEOODORDONEDONERE 1776 June 24, 1926 The heavy outlay for labor is not to be construed as a condition which applies only to the railroads here in the United States. Throughout the world in- creased wages and reduced hours have caused a great increase in railroad expenses during recent years. This tendency is due not only to increased living costs, but also to the higher standards of living that have been one of the by-products of the war. But when consid- ering conditions elsewhere the facts show conclusively that the American railroad employee today, for the most part, works under better conditions than do his colleagues in other countries. His pay is higher, his hours usually as short or shorter, and his standards of living are decidedly better. Conditions in France The latest available statistics dealing with the cost of labor on French railroads are for the year 1924, and for the most part show that the wages received by the American railroad employee greatly exceed those paid in France. The figures available for France do not tell the whole story. Official statistics for the State railroad as well as for the railroads in Alsace- Lorraine have not been released for 1924. However, the results of the five large private railroads will show very clearly the general trend in France since 1913. The following tables give the results of operation as well as the number of employees and compensation for the years 1913 and 1924: Operating Results 1913 Total operating revenues $322,657,400 322.6 Total operating expenses 192,807,000 1 q Net operating revenue.. 29'850.400 65,564,738 Charges 133,884,100 $1,285,610 Net operating income. . .Def. 4,033,700 Def.15,720,874 1924 $358,584,643 293,019,907 Employees and Compensation Average Annual Compen- Number of sation per Year Employees Compensation Employee ROLE. cca macie’ gas 275,990 $121,821,600 $441 ROR: . 6-6 4k eee w ese 301,000 155,161,147 515 Per cent increase 1924 over 1913.. 9 27 os The compensation to employees during the year 1924 represented 53 per cent of total operating expen- ditures. This large outlay for labor is due principally to the increase in the number of personnel on certain roads, brought about by a large growth in traffic, and also by steps taken to relieve the acute situation oc- casioned by the sharp advance in the cost of living, indemnities for residence, and increases in pensions for retirement of employees. All classes have been benefited by the large in- creases effected during the past twelve years. During 1913 there were 275,990 employees, who received an annual average compensation of $441. During the year 1924 this number was increased to approximately 301,000, whose average annual compensation was $515, representing an increase of 17 per cent. The proportion of railroad revenues that has been devoted to the payment of wages during the years 1913 and 1924 presents a striking picture: Per Cent of Total tevenues Operating Absorbed Revenues Compensation by Wages THE IRON AGE 1777 The average number of employees for all the rail- road systems in France during 1925 has been estimated at about 500,000, and the total compensation at ap- proximately $205,195,200, or 52 per cent of total ex- penses. The average per employee is now about $550. Notwithstanding the heavy outlay for labor, the average annual compensation of a French railroad employee today amounts to approximately 60 per cent of that paid an employee on the railroads in the United States, and such is the case when allowance is made for depreciation in French money in the foreign ex- change market. In addition to wage advances the increased cost of materials and fuel has shown considerable influence on the railroad expense account. The operating deficit for all railroads during 1924 was $25,817,424, and dur- ing the year just closed this deficit was increased to $26,050,000. Great Britain Since the beginning of the war, the increased cost of labor has been severely felt by the British railroads, because of the numerous wage advances and the grant- ing of bonuses to meet the high cost of living. The average annual compensation of British railroad em- ployees immediately prior to the war was approxi- mately $312 per year, while during 1924 it rose to $834, compared with $932 in the United States. The total operating revenues of the British rail- roads in 1913 were $567,343,417, as compared with $1,044,905,861 in 1924, an increase of more than 84 per cent. During the same period operating expenses increased from $359,938,200 to $890,207,145, or about 147 per cent. Wages advanced from $228,725,500 in 1913 to $583,980,000 in 1924, or nearly 155 per cent. In 1913, 40 cents of every dollar earned was paid out in wages, while in 1924 this was increased to 56 cents. Sixty-six per cent of the expense account in 1924 was accounted for by wages, while the increased cost of fuel, material and supplies accounted for an additional 20 per cent. Conditions in regard to labor were easier during 1925 than at any time since the war, but wages still remain at an abnormally high level, 153 per cent above pre-war. The labor unions are asking for more still, which would place an additional burden of some $219,- 000,000 on the railroads. Railroads Cannot Stand Increases Experience both here and abroad has shown that it is useless for railroad employees to talk of still bet- ter conditions of service, or of wages and hours, if the industry cannot bear the cost. They must realize that it is only where there is no restriction of output, free use of labor-saving appliances, and a high standard of individual efficiency that high wages can be paid. Labor should begin to realize that high wages, short hours, inefficiency and restriction of output cannot exist to- gether. The accompanying table is a summary of the re- lationship of wages and revenues in the three coun- tries, and one can feel perfectly justified in concluding that the real wages of the employees of the railroads 1913 ........ $322.657,400 $121,821.600 98 in the United States greatly exceed those paid by the 1924 Saat i 358,584,643 155,161,147 13 lines of either France or Great Britain, and it might ig may 1994 be safely added that railroad wages here exceed those over 1913... 11 27 paid in any other country of importance in the world. Summary of Operating Revenues and Wages for Railroads of United States, France and Great Britain Compensation Average in Per Cent Annual Total Aggregate Compensation of Operating Compensation Operating Revenues to Employees Revenues per Employee = ——-- — — - — ~ — —— --—-— — — — —<¥<¥_evxX—=reee 1913 1924 1913 1924 1913 1924 1913 1924 United States. . .$3,108,261,215 $5,921,490,100 $1,338,612,385 $2,827,851,563 43 48 $761 $1,612 France ........ 322,657,400 358,584,643 121,821,600 155,161,147 38 43 441 515 Great Britain... 1,044,905,861 228,7265,§ s+00 One ceAUOeNADe Nene enTAAGAADOAERGDINETUDUNAUEONNOTLNOREDUONEOTNENLDONNEDOGGEED ONL) IONEOOUERLU>ENTIDOARDEEOERLDONN OD 900 583,980,000 40 56 312 834 ee) Rimmed Steel and How It Is Made Products Made from It and Its Importance—Some of Its Uses and Properties—Effer- vescence and Skinholes BY HENRY D. HIBBARD article, though it is the same low-carbon material as that called effervescing steel in a previous paper presented to the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers by the writer in 1919. This kind of steel was said to effervesce by an- other author in referring to it some years before, and the appellation was used in that paper as suitable. In the shop the shorter and equally distinctive name of “rimming steel” is now commonly applied to it, for which reason it is adopted herein. This article is therefore a continuation of, or sup- plement to, that of 1919. It gives, of course, the present views of the writer. Except when otherwise noted, “steel” herein means low-carbon metal intended to, or which should be intended to, effervesce and rim in in the mold. When no other process is mentioned, the excess-of-pig variation of the basic open-hearth process is meant. Rimming steel is also called by some “open” steel, because the top of the ingot does not freeze over as rimming in proceeds, but the central metal continues fluid and in active motion for some minutes after teeming, the length of time depending on the size of the ingot. For this reason others call it “churning” steel. Killed steel, on the other hand, lies dead in the mold and the top metal quickly solidifies. Rasta, Steel” is given as the subject of this Historical When the modern steel-making processes came into being, their promoters naturally aimed to follow estab- lished crucible steel practice, which comprehended sup- pression of the gases in the metal as completely as practicable. The more gas the steel evolved in the mold, the more unsound and worse the ingot. But some genius, whose name is unknown to the writer, found that in making low-carbon steel in the converter or Siemens furnace, if there was a certain abundance of gas evolved from the metal in the mold the ingot would have a sound exterior and would roll well. The date of this discovery is also unrecorded. In 1887 the writer, though he ha