24 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



July 2o. 1022 



l,e taken. 1 linMiii.e the roll will l.e calleil of the Associations repre- 

 sented her,.. ^^ Association Men May Vote 



The Cbairmiiii: The Chair ^vould state its uuilerstanaing that the vote 

 r,£ the eont" ■ ence should be by those who are represeutatiyes o£ <»-eAmzR- 

 lions That is simply a statement of the policy ^yhlch the Washington 

 conferemv adopted in concluding that this program should be deyeloped 

 th?oS the channels of the organizations, in the lumber trade. Therefore, 

 those here who represent an or|anization of lumber producers, distributors 

 or ?onsumers ^yill be eligible to vote and not others. That, however, is 

 subject to your questioning it you. think that statement is incorrect. 



Young Amends His Motion 



Air Young: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in view of Mr. Winslow's 

 statements a moment ago, the Forest Products Laboratory, as I under- 

 s and it at this ti'nie and during last week at the conference, did not con- 

 s der the ciuestion of hardwoods, 1 will amend my, motion by saying that 

 the word ■■linrdwoods at this time.- "at this meeting," not be considered. 



Th^ Chairman TMr. Saunders, you seconded the motion Do you desire 

 to second the amendment? The Chair understands that Mr. Young with- 

 draws the first motion and substitutes the last motion : 



The Cha?r°man7'''Mr. Saunders seconds the motion. Is there any discus- 

 sion UDon Mr Young's motion as it now stands? • „ » j.u„ 



Mr Hall I understand that this revised motion is made in view of the 

 fict that nateral or information is not available at this time for discus- 

 sion an 1 does noFin any sense declare ourselves as opposed at some future 

 time, ?akin| UP the matter. I think this should go into the record as an 



"The Chairman : Is that your understanding, Mr. Young and Mr. Saun- 

 ''^"' Investigation Only Is Keeiuired 



Mr Dulweber • I will like again to call the attention of the meeting to 

 the tact that the hardwood report only embodies the recommendation for 

 investlEation of the hardwood situation. Xow, gentlemen, are .we going 

 Selosf our minds to knowledge? Are we going to take the position here 

 that we are perfectly satisfied and seek no further knowledge.' I pray 

 vou ?ent"emen consider that. All that we want to do is to have /ou 

 rive us an opportunity to make this survey. It the Forest Products Labo- 

 fatory is quilified to do it, they ought to do it, but ^e want to have in- 

 formation, whether or not, we are better able to serve the pubUc. 



Saunders Answers Dulweber 



Mr Saunders ; I would like to say. as a hardwood manufacturer, that 

 the time to investigate this matter will be when it is in the hands of the 

 friends of the hardwood business and the men who can deliver the goods 

 w-hen the time comes to deliver. Now, I think that you men should give 

 us time to get in step if we are not in step. The hardwood manufacturers 

 a?e "nfOTttmately not well represented here, and so far as I, as a manu- 

 tac urer of hardwoods am concerned, I know of no d'ssat-jfa/t'o","! °"? 

 ranks of 1,500 manufacturers— not consumers— who ">ake .these rules It 

 our rules are not right and do not suit the consuming public, I think that 

 we are in better shape to make them right than any new organization I 

 am ad rector of the National Hardwood Lumber Association, but I am 

 speaking as a dh-ector of the Michigan Hardwood Manufacturers' Associa^ 

 t on, not having authority to speak for the National H"<'^-°°d Ji""'''^^ 

 Association, and also the Maple Flooring Association. Unfortunately, 1 

 don't understand just why the National Maple Flooring Association, has 

 not been invited or was not at any time pai'tiHpating in these cUscussions 



The Chairman : They have been invited. Both the maple and the oak 

 fiooring associations have been invited. , „, , , • »• „ i,„„ 



Mr Saunders : I don't know that the Maple Flooring Association has 

 a representative here. I took the liberty to represent them at Washing- 

 ton, and I would do so again. Both flooring and hardwood would want 

 to be considered by itself and I think if the gentlemen will go right along 

 with the organization of building trades and let the hardwood rest for 

 the time being, let us make our own investigations and report at a future 

 date it will be much better. We have only five grades of lumber while 

 vou fellows have many times that number of grades. I think that we can 

 "very easily get in line at the proper time and that is the reason that we 

 ask you to eliminate this at the present time and take It up at some future 



'"Mr^^Thomas O'Berrv (North Carolina Pine Association, Goldsboro, 

 N C ') ■ We grade in softwoods from the best side and we have a luniber 

 that 'is used as a laying grade, you might say. In hardwood, as I under- 

 stand it, 90 percent of it is a cutting grade, and you therefore have to 

 -rade most grades from the worst side. Therefore, it strikes me that we 

 would be wise to take the hardwoods out until it can be gone into more 

 and after a future conference with the representatives of the torest 

 Products Laboratory we will be better able to determine whether we can 



serve both woods. i, . ^^ >. i i i«j, .„»„,. 



Mr Saunders : That is the bone of contention in the hardwood Industry 

 today One branch of the trade want to grade from the poor side of the 

 piece and another branch want to grade from the best side. . 



Mr W J Eckman (Oak Flooring Manufacturers' Association. Cincin- 

 nati O ) • I think the motion made that the elimination of hardwoods 

 be Inserted here is worthy consideration. I know the Oak Flooring Asso- 

 ciation is not ofllciallv represented here and I can safely say it will have 

 authoritative representation if need be. I ask for the endorsement of tne 

 motion last made by the gentleman, for the elimination of hardwood. 

 (Question called for.') 



The Chairman : The question is upon Mr. Young's motion as amended. 



■Vote Is Inconclusive 



The Chainnan then put Mr. Young's motion to a vica voce vote. (The 

 auditory vote was too indistinct both "yea" and "nay" to indicate tne 

 wish of the majority. — Editor.) „ , . .,,„ 



The Chairman : The Chair suggests a rising vote. May I repeat tne 

 suggestion that the vote be by those who represent organizations of pro- 

 ducers, distributors and consumers of lumber? 



Mr. Bell : I move that the roll be called. 



(Motion seconded.) 



Mr. George Wilson-Jones (Illinois Retail Association) ; Are we to vote 

 as associations or as units? 



The Chainnan : The question now before you is what was the vote on 

 Mr. Young's motion. The Chair is not of the opinion that it is permissible 

 to change the method of voting at this time. The Chair suggests a rising 

 vote. Does anyone challenge that method? 



Mr. Bell : I understood that we were to vote as organizations. 



The Chairman : The Chair's understanding is that any one who repre- 

 sents an organization of lumber producers, distributors or consumers is 

 eligible to vote. The question now is on what was the division of the 



Air Itell • I understood the chair's ruling to be that anyoni' represent- 

 ing ■■in association is qualified to vote. Does that mean that if there 

 ha'upen to be many representing one organization and only one representing 

 another that the "many would be recorded against the one? 



The Cliairman : That is the Chair's understanding. There are many 

 organizations not represented here. The vote can be taken on simply the 

 expression of the opinion of those present. 



Mr Young : One large organization with 1,400 members is not repre- 

 sented I certainly do not undertake to represent that organization here. 



The Chainnan : ' The vote of an association with a small membership 

 would count as much as the vote of an organization with a large member- 

 ship. In any way the vote is taken it appears to the Chair that the 

 importance of the'constituencv represented will not be clear. 



Mr Young : Is it the purpose that after this vote is taken the public 

 will be informed that this body has gone on record as favoring the .includ- 

 ing of hardwood in these recommendations on softwoods at Madison? The 

 Forest Products Laboratory have stated that they did not consider hard- 



The Chairman : The opinion of the Chair is. if he may vacate the 

 position of chairman and speak on the floor, that it would be advantageous 

 to have no record vote taken in the sense that this report be considered 

 as adopted or njccted. It was submitted not for adoption or rejection 

 but for registration of present sentiment. 



Mr Young : Then 1 am willing to withdraw my motion, it hardwood 

 is eliminated from the report. It was not in the report as originally 



The Chairman: It was on a separate sheet, and was attached. 

 Mr. O'Berry : Can more than one man vote for an association? 

 Mr. Saunders: I move we adjourn. (Seconded by Mr. Dwight Hinck- 

 ley, (Tincinuati, O.) , . , , t 

 Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman. I withdraw my motion. (Applause.) 1 

 want to state, however, the reason I withdraw it is that it the gentlemen 

 here are allowed to vote as association members it would be unfair to the 

 hardwood manufacturers, because they are not represeiiteil. Mr. Saunders 

 and myself speak as individuals. It would be very unfair to take a vote 

 along the lines suggested. I therefore withdraw my motion. 



The Chairman : Mr. Saunders' motion to adjourn is before us. It is 

 not debatable. Motion carried. Adjourned at 2 :30. 



Tluis ended the debate on the question of eliminating hardwoods 

 from the deliberations of the conference. The question was not 

 renewed either at the afternoon session on Friday, nor at the Satur- 

 day morning, and concluding, session of the conference. It is 

 assumed that this -was because all parties at interest accepted the 

 e.xplanation of the chair, later sustained by Mr. Durgin, that the 

 conference v>'as not expected either to definitely adopt or reject a 

 proposition, but could only record opinions and arrange for 

 macliinery to continue the standardization movement. 

 Dr. 'Wilson Compton Presides 

 Both the manufacturers' conference and the general conference 

 of July 21 and 22 were presided over by Dr. Wilson Compton, secre- 

 tary-manager of the National Lumber Manufacturers ' Association, 

 wlio at all times, even during the difficult hours of the hardwood 

 controversy, maintained an admirable poise and ■was master of the 

 situation. How ■well Dr. Compton succeeded in filling the diflScult 

 post of chairman ■was evidenced by the proposal by Mr. McCreight, 

 just before adjournment on July 22, of a vote of thanks to Dr. 

 Compton for the fairness and efficiency he had displayed. Dr. 

 Compton vacated the chair while the vote was taken and the 

 motion was adopted unanimously. 



General National Inspection Not Feasible 

 Before closing this report of the conference, or rather, confer- 

 ences, reference must be made to the action of the manufacturers ' 

 conference on July 20 on the question of a nationally organized 

 and administered inspection system, which was considered pursuant 

 to Besolution V, adopted at the Washington conference. After a 

 thorough debate of the question the manufacturers found that such 

 a system was "not feasible," recording their opinion in the fol- 

 lowing resolution: 



' ' Resolved, That nationally organized and supervised inspection 

 is not feasible, and 



"That if after original inspection, re-inspection, and if neces- 

 sary after re-inspection, a report thereon of chief inspector, any 

 complaint has not been settled, the National Lumber Manufac- 

 turers' Association will represent the manufacturing shipper in 

 anaiigements for arbitration." 



The second paragraph of this resolution is exactly the same as 

 the fourth provision of Resolution V of the Washington conference, 

 which was to provide for the "Creation of a Central Bureau of 

 Lumber Inspection." It was proposed by Mr. Sherrill. 



By carefully examining the question in their conference the 

 manufacturers of lumber found that it would not be possible to set 

 up a huge system of national lumber inspection to control and 

 administer the inspection of all lumber, but that the best that could 

 be done in a national way was to provide some national court of 



