22 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



July 10. 1922 



Northern Pine Manufacturers' Association : Yes. 

 Northern Hemlock & Hardwood Mfrs.' Assn. : Tes. 

 American Hardwood Manufacturers' Association : Yes. 

 National Hardwood Lumber Association : No. 



Report on Standardization and Sizes 

 The report of the Committee on Standardization and Simplifica- 

 tion of Sizes and Grades was delivered by W. T. Murray, chair- 

 man. It developed that there were many things on which this 

 committee could not get together, the primary considerations being 

 sizes of certain softwood buiiding lumbers. As the report was 

 primarily concerned with softwoods, it is not essential to reproduce 

 it here. All three of the Hardwood Associations represented on the 

 Committee of Standardization of Sizes voted "Tes" in the com- 

 mittee meeting on this report, these associations being the Michigan 

 Hardwood Manufacturers' Association, the Northern Hemlock & 

 Hardwood Manufacturers ' Association and American Hardwood 

 Manufacturers' Association, the National Hardwood Lumber Asso- 

 ciation not having appointed a committee member. 

 Discussion on Full vs. Scant Sizes 

 The reading of the report to the conference was attended by very 

 considerable discussion, mainly revolving about the question of 

 whether or not lumber sold should be manufactured and shipped 

 full thickness as indicated, or whether, on the other hand, the ques- 

 tion of economical utilization of forest products would not make it 

 more logical that the commonly accepted thickness and widths for 

 finished lumber should continue in practice. There was, in fact, 

 a very definite and strongly supported minority report submitted 

 by Mr. Hill, earnestly advocating absolute. adherence to full thick- 

 ness and full width as standard specifications for size. It became 

 apparent in this discussion that both sides were in real earnest, the 

 minority members being governed primarily by the effect upon the 

 public mind in the matter of shipping of less than inch for inch 

 stock and scant widths where the full width is named. The ma- 

 jority members were equally earnest in supporting their contention 

 that the best interests of conservation would be served by manu- 

 facturing according to common sense requirements for any purpose, 

 it being developed that in most cases the five-eighths finished thick- 

 ness and the scant finished widths are sufficient for the purposes for 

 which the material is designed, and satisfactory to the purchaser. 

 A middle ground was suggested, namely, that where scant thick- 

 nesses and scant widths are common trade practice they should be 

 designated by actual thicknesses and actual widths rather than as 

 inch, two inch, etc., when less than that amount is actually meant. 

 In this connection the pertinent observation was offered that "the 

 matter which affects the ultimate consumer is the greatest number 

 of adequate units he gets for a given expenditure of money, and 

 not the quantity contained in each unit." 



Majority Report Adopted 

 On putting the motion to adopt the majority report on standardi- 

 zation of sizes, the result was as follows: 



Southern Pine Association : Yes. 



West Coast Lumbermen's Association : Yes. 



Western Pine Manufacturers' Association : Yes. 



California Retlwood .\ssociation : Yes. 



California White & Sugar Pine Mfrs.' .\ssn. : Yes. 



Georgia-Florida Sawmill Association : Yes. 



Michigan Hardwooil Manufacturers' Association : Here. 



North Carolina Pine Association : No, 



Northern Pine Manufacturers' As8<K'iation : Yes. 



Northern Hemlock & Hardwood Mfrs.' Assn. : Yes. 



Southern Cypress Manufacturers' .\ssociation : Yes. 



American Hardwi»o<l Manufacturers' Association : Yes. 



National Hardwood Lumber .Association ; — 



Horace F. Taylor (when National Hardwood Lumber Asso- 

 ciation was called; : Mr. Chairman, I think that as hardwood men 

 we will ask to be excused from voting, on the grounds that we are 

 not qualified. 



At the conclusion of these votes the president explained the 

 status of the conference insofar as actions taken are binding on 

 respective associations, explaining that the purpose of the initial 

 meeting of lumber manufacturers was purely to bring out certain 

 recommendations to be placed in subsequent meetings before varied 

 and respective consuming interests. 



Taylor Wants Privilege of Submitting Minority Reports for 

 Hardwoods 



At this point Horace F. Taylor, president ot the National Hard- 



wood Lumber Association, addressed the meeting as follows: 



Mr. President, may I state a word on behalf of the National Hardwood 

 Lumber Association'; Our delegat'on came here very gladly at the invita- 

 tion of Secretary Hoover, and in the best of faith that they would en- 

 deavor to make as much progress as could be made in support of his pur- 

 pose and wishes. I would like, however, to call attention to a fact which 

 is patent to all of us. and that is that the softwoods are represented here 

 in the proportion of about 20 to 1, and the plan that was adopted at the 

 opening meeting, on which we made some protest, of referring both hard- 

 wood matters and softwood matters to the same committees, resulted in 

 matters affecting hardwoods being passed upon by a majority composed 

 of softwood men. That was done, of course, without any intention to be 

 unjust to the hardwood industry, but I desire to explain that that is the 

 reason we have had to object to many things which have been carried by 

 the majority, the softwood manufacturers. 



Further than that, there is another hardwood association represented 

 here, which appears as a general hardwood association ; that is the Amer- 

 ican Hardwood Manufacturers' Association. It is the popular understand- 

 ing that that -Association has voted to go out of existence June 30th. I 

 may be incorrect as to that, but if I am correct in that understanding it 

 seems to me that it is hardly fair to accord one vote to that Association 

 and a single vote to the National Hardwood Lumber As.sociation, which is 

 alive and active. I wish, therefore, respectfully to protest against the rep- 

 resentation of the respective branches of the industry. We would like 

 very much the privilege, which I think will no doubt be accorded, of pre- 

 senting on behalf of the National Hardwood Lumber Association that will 

 constitute another report upon these three questions. It may or may not 

 be a minorit.v report. 



The president here interjected an explanation as to why the 

 various conferees were present, reciting a resolution adopted by 

 the Lumber Congress at Chicago in April, which resolution is quoted 

 in the beginning of this resume. On conclusion, he was followed 

 by C. H. Sherrill, who replied to Horace F. Taylor as follows: 



SheiTill Denies That Manufacturers' Association Not Qualified 



M;iy I say just a word? I regret very much, Mr. Chairman, that I was 

 not listening to what Mr. Taylor had to say a few moments ago with 

 respect to his American Hardwwid Manufacturers' Association, and I do 

 not know that I comprehend just what he di<l state with respect to that 

 Association. But I gather from my fellow members of the committee 

 that he suggested the thought that the American Hardwood Manufactur- 

 ers' Association voted to go out of existence on June 1st. 



I thought I made that clear yesterday morning, that the American 

 Hardwood Manufacturers' Association had" been in court for quite a little 

 while, and we have been trying to find a rift in the cloud and get our- 

 selves in such a position that we could move forward, free from any 

 embarrassment and free from any improper influence and absolutely in 

 accord with all existing laws, sta'te, national and otherwise. 



We have been very diligently at work on this, and we hope that within 

 the next few days we may arrive at a satisfactory program that we can 

 put before our people that will be endorsed unanimously. When I speak 

 of "our people" I am referring to the hardwootl manufacturers of lumber. 



I do not want the impression to be left here that the American Hardwood 

 Manufacturers' Association intends to go out of existence. On the con- 

 trary, we expect to be a greater power in the future than we have ever 

 been in the past : and in view of the fact that the pine timber holders in 

 the South are controlling quite a good deal of hardwood timber we are 

 expecting a unification of their interests, to a degree, with the hardwood 

 interests, so that we ma.v build up the best hardwood manufacturers' asso- 

 ciation that it is possible for brains and talent and energy to build. 



Chair Appoints Resolutions Committee 

 The chairman interjected the remark at this point that the dis- 

 cussion "is rather fruitless." Before adjournment it was proposed 

 that the president appoint a committee composed of the chairmen 

 of the respective committees, whose duty it would be to assist the 

 president in formulating plans for meetings in succeeding days in 

 conjunction with other organizations. This motion was carried. 

 The president thus announced his committee on resolutions, inclu- 

 sive of Charles Hill, chairman; D, M. 'Winton, Thomas Hamilton, 

 W, L. Saunders and Edward Hines. 



Goodman Talks on Hardwood Conflict 



Charles A, Goodman, representing the Northern Hemlock and 



Hardwood Manufacturers' Association, spoke at this juncture more 



or less for the purpose of clearing up any uncertainty on the matter 



of hardwood votes on certain of the committee reports. He said: 



I do not like to take up your time, but there were three reports turned 

 in oil the second and third reports. There were either minority reports 

 or the matter was left unsettle<l before the conference. On the first 

 report there were three "no" votes. Mr. Hines and I are on the the same 

 committee, representing the Northern Hemlock and Hardwood Manufac- 

 turers' Association, and 1 took the liberty of voting "no" on the first 

 thing, the nomenclature. I would like to state brieflv my reasons for 

 that. 



The s«'cretary of the National Lumber Manufacturers' Association. Mr. 

 Compton, prepared a statement that was supposed to outline briefly what 

 was suppose^l to be done here in the way of simplification in the lumber 

 industry. The idea was to try to straig'hten out matters which were in 

 contention. It seemed to me that on the nomenclature proposed for the 

 softwoods here was just the opportunity that should be taken by the 

 industr.r to get the names of the hardwoods on a different basis from the 

 softwoods, simply by leaving them as they now are. 



The confusion, as stated on this first" page, is all in the softwoods. 

 There is no confusion as to the grades of hardwoods. 



< >n the second page of this report it is stated : 



"There is apparently now more uniformity in the grading methods in 

 use in the hardwood industry than there is on the whole in the softwood 

 indnsrry. At least there is'raore uniformity in the grade nomenclature 

 for th^ different hardwoods. The twenty-six 'most common hardwoods are 

 graded almost without an exception as: First. Second. Select, No. 1 

 Common. No. 2 Common and No. 3 Common. This general arrangement 

 of grade names is consistently preserved." 



Now. if we go on here we find on next to the last page it gives the 



