August 10. 1922 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



13 



Utility Standardization 



By H'illiam A. Babbitt, Secretary of Association of fVood-Using, 

 Industries, National Association of Hood Turners, Inc. 



luiitor's Note: It is proper to fnrrti irith Mr. Bnhhitt's illumhiatinfj 

 orlielr a copij of the letter of transmittal irfiieli accompanied it. trln<h icas 

 as follotrs: South Bend, Indiana. .August .:(, 192.2: Ttle enclosed contrihution 

 is offered as a constintctive and friendlii eiitiei.-<m on the program of lumher 

 standardization. iHth great Itluntne-'.s. hut all are founded on artu<l.l ex- 

 perience in putting over various standardizations in connection with the 

 leood industry. 



If it should be neccssarp for i/on to make editorial comment, irottld tt 

 not lie proper to state that tliis artiete i.s merelg an amplification of the 

 doctrine of scientific standardization irhieli I hare adroeated from the 

 outsetf This seems to nic esperialli/ impi/rlani . as I hold no brief for the 

 .Imerican Hardwood In-ititute, nnp more than for the "Sational and all 



other hardwood assorial ions. This morning J receired a letter from the 

 Institute irhieh shoirs that they arc also promoting the idea of scientifU- 

 standardi:alion. leilhout what might seem to he due eonsiderution for 

 the iri ll-knoirn /losition of the Association of Wood Using Industries and 

 its standai-tlization Committee. 



Owinii to the comment I hare made re National Hardwood Inspeetion 

 Kulis, it n-ould he rerii kind of iiou to forestall anp false impression 

 regarding Ihe same. The National has done all that has been done so 

 far in suiiporting with Inspeetion rules our standardization work. 



Vcril truly yours. 

 WMt:i:ti (ffignedj William .1- Hahhiti. 



Two short years ago, aud lumber standardization had only to be 

 mentioned to raise a laugh more or less derisive. Today, even the 

 most hardboiled of old-timers realize that lumber standardization 

 is tlie one urgent, perilous and unavoidable task confronting the 

 whole circle of industries which depend on the forest harvest. 

 Practically all the great associations of lumber manufacturers have 

 gone on record in favor of this project. The Department of Com- 

 merce and the Department of Agriculture have joined hands to 

 assist the lumbermen to secure early and thoroughgoing results. 

 Several conferences of nation-wide scope have been held, others are 

 in preparation, and the standardization mill is humming with busi- 

 ness — or at least vociferous with the shouting of orders more or less 

 contradictory. 



What's the Matter? 



Something is wrong. The writer's diagnosis may be entirely mis- 

 taken, but the issues at stake are far too momentous to permit the 

 writer or any other patriotic business man to keep silent for fear 

 of seeming impertinent for venturing to speak. It is no pleasant 

 situation which compels one to differ fundamentally with the many 

 eminent leaders in the present movement. Therefore, I might as 

 well let the worst be known, and give the reasons afterward. The 

 present program of lumber standardization is off to a false start. 

 The discussions, which have so far been recorded, remind one 

 strangely of the "Schoolmen" of the Middle Ages, who used to 

 gather in conventions and discuss in all seriousness questions of 

 opinion, such as: How many angels can stand on the point of a 

 needle f The discussions were bitter battles of opinion; and, one 

 year with another, the majority opinion so varied that to this day 

 we have no certain and reliable information on this important sub- 

 ject. If these old boys of an age long dead had got down to cases 

 and secured a properly pointed needle and then assembled a bunch 

 of angels, and made a working test run, they would have secured 

 real information which would be interesting even to this unromantic 

 generation of sawdust makers. We would not laugh at them. "We 

 would be keen to follow their example. On the other hand, if they 

 could not get the bunch of angels together, they would have still 

 secured valuable information, viz., that the question could not be 

 answered until some way coud be found to make a real test. Until 

 tlie test is made nobody's opinion matters, and anybody's is as 

 good as another's. 



The discussions of lumber standardization to date have been to a 

 marked degree schoolmen's battles of opinion, hardboiled, sectarian, 

 unscientific, somewhat obscured by jealousies of leaders; and as 

 futile as a means of finding out the truth about this great urgent 

 issue as the wordy wars of the pious monks of long ago — and for 

 the same reason. It is facts, not opinion.s, which determine the 

 truth. 



It would seem to be highly important at every stage of the Stand- 

 ardization Program to remember that the facts which are required 

 for a scientific standardization of lumber have no more connection 

 with and depend as little upon past customs, rules, and trade habits 

 as the fact which Galileo established regarding the relation between 

 tlif earth and the sun were eonftected with and depended upon the 



current oi)inions of his day that the earth was square and tliat tlie 

 sun revolved around in the solid firmament above the solid, four- 

 square earth. How far astray the opinions of the past may lead us 

 will appear later in this discussion. What this standardization must 

 have is the facts of UTILITY — the highest possible economic ■u.se 

 of the whole of Ihe Forest Harvest. Production and sales pro- 

 grams must conform to this economic demand.' There are no short 

 cuts to this goal. There is no alternative to the path of thorough- 

 going scientific procedure. 



Standardization by Changing the Rules 



One of tlie must highly regarded methods of reforming political 

 and civic eonditiinis which have become intolerable is to change 

 the rules of the game. We shorten or lengthen the terms of office, 

 introduce initiative and referendum, extend or narrow the func- 

 tions of one set of officials, and correspondingly increase those of 

 the others, appoint city managers, gerrymander the boundaries of 

 political units, buy street railway systems, etc., ad infinitum., in 

 most cases finding that our efforts to escape one set of evils have 

 thrown us into a different and worse situation. In all cases, 

 wliether or not the result desired shall be attempted by making 

 this or that change in the rules, the issue is finally determined by 

 opinion., While the contest is on, the air is full of great gobs of 

 facts, which are used to bolster up this or that opinion, but almost 

 never establish the truth, which alone can guide men to right 

 judgments. With the records of the project to date before us, is it 

 possible to escape the conclusion that the whole plan is simply one 

 more futile effort to secure a great and necessary reform in the 

 wood industry by the old and barren expedient of changing the 

 rules of the lumber section of that industry? 



In proof of this contention, one has but to read the records of 

 all conferences so far held by the parties at interest in this great 

 enterprise. Two stages have been passed through already, as a 

 matter of formality. As a matter of fact, there are few indications 

 that the original position has been to any practicable degree sur- 

 rendered. 



The Original Position 



The fundamental position of nearly all organizations of lumber- 

 men is that while no doubt the rules of all other associations are 

 more or less defective (probably more) the rules of that particular 

 association are as near perfect as human skill and wisdom can make 

 them. So strongly is this position held by one great lumber asso- 

 ciation that it was not represented at the recent Standardization 

 Conference in Chicago, held within a few blocks of its headquarters; 

 while another great lumber association endorsed the inspection 

 rules of this nonparticipating lumber association as their final 

 authority. 



Now the writer does not wish to be understood as criticizing the 

 position of this lumber association. If standardization of lumber 

 is to be obtained by merely writing new rules, then this lumber 

 association has taken a sound position in sticking to its old rules, 

 and staying out of the Chicago conference. Reference is made to 

 this outstanding case because it illustrates why the project of lum- 

 ber standardization, as now organized, is futile. It is e.ssentially an 



