28 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



.I.imiary 10, l;i2i; 



loading or unloading facilities. In many eases the small de-tails of 

 this nature have been the controlling factors which have deter- 

 mined whether or not an operation was operated at a profit or a loss. 

 It appears that the most successful operations have been the ones 

 in which the tractors have been utilized to the greatest extent, that 

 is to say, when they were not actually hauling timber on the main 

 haul they were utilized for building or breaking out new roads, the 

 toting of supplies or the numerous other jobs to which a tractor, if 

 available, can be successfully applied. 



Some have been hasty in condemning tractors for their work and 

 perhaps suffered losses, whereas others facing the same problems 

 have had the courage to go through with their own convictions and 

 have obtained most satisfactory results and great savings. 

 Saving Effected by the Use of Tractors 

 Many firms have been kind enough to fiirnisli us full particulars 

 as regards their hauls with tractors, particularly on the points of 

 cost of operation, maintenance, etc. 



A careful analysis has been made of the more reliable and more 

 accurate of these reports. As compared with similar figures on 

 hauling with teams, the result is most convincing. 



In summer logging, savings have been effected ranging from .$1.88 

 to $4.60 per thousand feet in the actual transportation of timber 

 alone, and on winter logging even greater savings have been 

 effected, after the difficulties have been overcome and successful 

 plans worked out. One of the most prominent operations called to 

 our attention is one of last winter, in which 1,100,000 feet of hard- 

 wood was hauled over a lOVi-mile haul with tractors for $1..50 per 

 thousand feet, as against a cost of $10 per thousand feet with teams 

 over the same haul. 



The only honest and impartial conclusion that can be deducted 

 from my investigation to date is that in practically every case 

 where the proper type and size of tractor has been used and with 

 the proper au.viliary equipment, and has been correctly applied to 

 the work at hand, the results and savings have been most satisfac- 

 tory, and on the other hand, .it is clearly evident that at least 93 

 per cent of what might be called failures is due purely to lack of 

 knowledge at the time of purchase, or improper application of the 

 tractors to the work. 



"We hauled over a 10%-mile common snow road with a lO-ton 

 tractor, pulling all the way from eight to twelve loads to a train 

 which averages about 14,000 feet. We used sleighs with 9' bunks 

 and a 4' 8" run. On this haul we made three trips a day, that is 

 every twenty-four hours, averaging about 42,000 feet. We used our 

 10-ton machine on these trips. Now, our picture train, as we call it, 

 contained twelve loads of logs scaling 31,200 feet, and was hauled 

 over a common snow road from our camp about 7^4 miles from town 

 in two hours and twenty minutes. We also hauled over a 7i,i-mile 

 road, making four or five trips every twenty-four hours. Besides 

 doing the above work our machines had to do all their own setting 

 out. The loaders would have four or five sleighs bunched on the 

 different branch roads and our 'caterpillars' would have to pull 

 them out to the main road. We used horses only for loading and 

 snubbing away from skidding. 

 "Our expenses were as follows: 



Operator, two shifts at $6.00 shift $1 2.00 



Conductor, two shifts at $4..50 shift 9.00 



Eighty gallons gas, three trips at 30 cents 24.00 



Interest on investment, sleighs and tractors, $11,000 at 9 per 



cent 3.30 



Depreciation and repairs T 2.00 



Two gallons oil o.OO 



Gi-er.se 1 00 



Kerosene in radiator in place of water 20 



"The foregoing makes a total of $63.50 for a day of eighteen to 

 twenty-two hours, making an average of about $1.50 per M. Other 

 parties hauling on this same road with horses were paying $10 per 

 M. to get their logs hauled, and nearly all of them left some of their 

 logs in the woods, while we hauled in every log. We hauled for 

 twenty-seven days and nights over this road, moving 1,100,000 feet 

 of logs, or a saving based on the above figures of $8.50 per M, 



amounting to $9,350. The above expenses were for our 10%-mile 

 haul. On our 7%-mile haul our expenses were about $65 per day 

 and we hauled nineteen days, moving 1,260,000 feet at a little 

 less than $1 per M for having the work done with horses, and we 

 figured we saved $6 per M on the above, or $7,560, or a grand total 

 ou both our hauls of $17,910. 



"Now that the hauling season is over and other companies are' 

 feeding up good hay and oats wintering their horses, we are 

 using our 10-ton tractor to operate a small sawmill, cutting from 

 500 to 650 ties a day and about 1,500 feet of lumber without any 

 extra man to run the machine. This machine takes about thirty 

 to thirty-five gallons of gas a day to run this mill ten hours and not 

 over $2 worth of oil and grease." 



Lumber Trade Customs 



These decisions are made hy the Arhitrntion Drfinrtmcnt of the Amcricon 

 Wholesale Luinhcr Assoeiation. 



Responsibility in Negotiating Sale of Rejected Shipments 

 THE FACTS : A sotithoni wholesaler solil :i northern wholesaler one 

 cnr of No. 1 common yellow pino MCH cnr sidiiip: and shipped same on 

 September 14, 1020, the car containing 25,811 feet. 



The shipment was rcjccte<l upon arrival on account of wrong manu- 

 facture, the stock being %" instead of \l" in thickness. 



Buyer i)roniptl.v notified seller accordingly, the latter acknowledged his 

 error and asked buyer to ascertain best basis on which he conld dispose of 

 tile shipment. 



In December, 1020, buyer advised seller he had an offer on the car at 

 .$20 per M less than original Invoice price, which proposition seller promptly 

 accepted. A few days later, however, buyer found he could not close on 

 this basis, due to the offer having been withdrawn by his customer. Buyer 

 notified seller of this fact and stated he would continue his efltorts toward 

 making disposition, to which seller made no reply. 



r>nyer was unable to secure any further offers until .\pril 4, 1921. when 

 he advised seller he could settle the matter on basis of a re<luction of 

 $30 per M from original contract price. Hearing nothing from seller in 

 reply, buyer disposed of the shipment on this basis, sejiding seller debit 

 memorandum accordingly. Upon receipt of the latter seller advised buyer 

 that allowance would not be made in greater amount than $20 per M, as 

 jjcr the first basis ntentioned. 



THE DISrUTIC : The seller construed buyer's first proposition on the 

 shipment as a firm offer and Hi^erefore considered the matter closed so far 

 as he (seller) was concerned. Seller stated he paid no attention to later 

 correspondence i>ertaining to settlement, because ho was not Interested in 

 same for reason stated. lie contended he was not responsible for the 

 inability or failure of buyer to close on basis first proposed and that 

 seller should therefore not be called upon to make any greater allowance 

 than that first agreed upon, or $20 per M. 



Buyer's contention was that he promptly and definitely rejected the 

 car ; that seller theretipon asked him to endeavor to dispose of same ; that 

 thereafter he acted only as seller's agent in the transaction, and that 

 therefore he was not personally responsible for the genuineness of any 

 offers submitted for seller's consiilcration. Buyer al.so contendefi that 

 seller was at all times free to dispose of the shipment himself if he so 

 desired, but not having done so, nor advising buyers to the contrary, he 

 (the buyer) assumed that he was still being depended upon by the seller 

 to make disposition of the car. Buyer further contended that In view of 

 the foregoing situation, and having given seller ample opportunity to 

 decline the last proposal If he saw fit, he had a right to assume that It 

 was seller's desire that the matter be closed on that basis. Seller having 

 thus permitted buyer to close the transaction the latter insisted he should 

 be given credit for the full amount of the allowance finally made, or 

 SfZO per M. 



THE DECISION: Held, First— That the seller breached the contract 

 in the manner alleged ; that at no time did buyer waive the breach, and that 

 during all subsequent negotiations buyer acted only as seller's agent. 



Second — That all offers were submitted by buyer in his capacity as agent 

 for seller and he was, therefore, not personally responsible therefor. 



Third — That seller was privileged at all times to dispose of the ship- 

 ment through some other channel, but failed to do this ; nor did he refund 

 advances made liy buyer on the shipment, together with Interest thereon, 

 which buyer had a right to demand together with his profit in the trans- 

 action. 



Fourth — That under the circumstances buyer was fully justified in mak- 

 ing disposition of the material at a price he felt was the best he could 

 obtain, and was therefore entitled to refund of the total allowance made. 

 It Is therefore 



HELD: That seller pay buyer the sum of $:tO |)er M on the entire 

 shipment, or a total of .$774 33, 



