30 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



DOW farms. Through lack of scientific forestry vast forests have been 

 cleared, without heed tor the future, until today our sources of timber 

 supply are limited. According to goverument statistics, the general increase 

 in the cost of lumber during the past thirty-five years has averaged 100 

 per cent every three years. 



Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is a true state- 

 ment and that the cost of lumber has increased 100 per cent every 

 three years for the period mentioned. Supposing at the beginning 

 of that period the initial cost is placed at $10 per thousand feet. 

 At the end of thirty-three years at the above ratio of increased 

 cost, it would be selling for $20,480 per thousand feet or just a 

 trifle over $20 per lumber foot. The statement is not only untrue 

 but positively ridiculous, not even worthy of serious consideration. 



Economy at Point of MANUFACTuitE 



Lumber manufacturers are often criticized for their wasteful hab- 

 its at mill manufacturing points. If there were the proper co-opera- 

 tion between the United States Government, its Department of Ag- 

 riculture, its Forest Reserve Commission, its Interstate Commerce Com- 

 mission, the railroads with transportation companies and the lum- 

 ber manufacturers, much of this seeming waste could be eliminated. 

 Perhaps few of you gentlemen are aware of the fact that the freight 

 rate on lumber is the same whether shipment consists of the high- 

 est grades or high-priced lumber or of the lowest grades or cheap 

 lumber. 



What if the railroad companies through their classification bureau 

 assessed lumber freight rates as follows: 



A pertain rate for dressed lumber of the higher grades which 

 provide interior finish, trim, partition, wainscoting, ceiling, etc. 



A lower rate for the rough product of medium-priced lumber and 

 a still lower rate for the offal suitable for fuel wood. If this were 

 done many of the cheaper and poorer grades eoujd be shipped to far- 

 away markets instead of being consumed in the burner at the mill 

 or wasted. 



I can assure you that at our Chicago yard and plant there is very 

 little waste because defective pieces of lumber are cut into shorter 

 lengths for pail and tub stock, also for short length wainscoting, 

 beveled siding, etc. In the manufacture of barrel heads many short 

 pieces otherwise useless and worthless are utilized. The offal is 

 disposed of for kindling wood, shavings and sawdust. In European 

 countries, and I refer particularly to France and Germany, there 

 is less waste at source of manufacture than in this country, because 

 the finished product need not be shipped there the great distances 

 that it must in this country. Again, as a tree is felled, it is 

 stripped of its branches and its bark. Branches of the thickness of 

 a man's wrist or thumb are gathered and bundled according to size. 

 Twigs are also gathered and bundled. The leaves are gathered and 

 packed ; the bark is removed. There is absolutely no waste because 

 each of these items is utilized for some purpose. Such a thing is 

 impossible in this country so long as there is no consuming market 

 in the immediate vicinity of our great forests. Our freight rates 

 make it prohibitive to ship these items any great distance. 



So much for the lumber business in general. The balance of time 

 allotted me 1 want to devote to a question of vital importance not 

 only to lumbermen but to the entire city of Chicago, because its 

 solution affects the whole United States, namely: 



Extending Chicago Fire Limits 

 This is merely another attempt of brick, concrete, cement and 

 kindred manufacturers to secure local control of all building opera- 

 tions to the exclusion of lumber and kindred forest products. In the 

 Manufacturers' News of September 24, issued in the interest of the 

 Illinois Manufacturers' Association, there appeared an article by 

 T. E. Waddell, secretary of the committee on publicity and educa- 

 tion, which committee organized fire prevention day, from which I 

 quote: 



Extend the fire limits of Chicago. 



JIake the city s.ifer, more beautiful, more sanitary and more enduring 

 in the restricted area. 



Build all dwellings and apartments and business structures of brick, con- 

 crete, stone or other permanent material, so they will last for generations. 



The proposition to extend the fire zone was revived last spring in 

 the city council. 



Arguments against the permanent class of buildings simmer down 

 chiefly to the single one that they are too expensive. The principal 

 objection urged to the use of non -combustible material for dwellings 

 is the claim that the cost is prohibitive for a man of small means. 



Figures were secured on dwellings actually constructed, and it 

 was found that the cost of a brick building with non-combustible 

 roof was only 6 per cent higher than frame for buildings costing less 

 than $2,000, while for concrete with non-combustible roof the cost 

 was a small fraction less. 



It was argued that the lower cost of maintenance and insurance, 

 the greater durability and the fact that they were warmer in win- 

 ter and cooler in summer more than outbalance the slight increase in 

 cost, to say nothing of the reduction of the conflagration hazard 

 involved in the abolition of shingle roofs and exterior frame con- 

 struction. 



I am obliged to contradict these cost statements by figures which 

 last January were submitted before our city council, and I will take 

 just a little time to quote the following comparative statement: 



Tlicse figures or estimates were secured from reputable local con- 

 tractors who were then and are now still engaged in the contracting 

 business. 



On exhibit "A" six estimates were secured from as many contractors. 

 The average bid on the : 



Brick house was $2,133.17 



Frame house 1.GS0.17 



Difference $ 453.00 In favor of frame house, or equal to 27%. 



On exhibit "B" four estimates were secured from as many contractors. 

 Tlic average cost of : 

 Brick house was. . . .$2..'?89.00 

 Frame house 1,887.25 



Dlllerence $ 501.75 in favor of frame house, or equal to 20^4%- 



On exhibit "C" five estimates were secured from as many contractor«i. 

 The average cost for: 



Brick house was $S,0.'i.S.20 



Frame house 2,383.80 



Difference ? 674.40 in favor of frame house, or equal to 28%. 



On exhibit "D" four estimates were secured from as many contractors. 

 The average cost of : 



Brick house was $3,63!). 75 



Frame house 2,939.25 



Difference $ 700.50 in favor of frame bouse, or equal to 24%. 



Compare a saving of 27 per cent on the first house, 26V2 pc cent 

 on the second house, 28 per cent on the third house and 24 per cent 

 on the fourtli house with the 6 per cent difference. in cost statement 

 referred to in Mr. Waddell 's article. 



In this connection I wish to inform you that a committee of local 

 lumbermen is now procuring comparative estimates on buildings under 

 construction, these estimates to cover frame houses, brick houses and 

 stucco houses. With your permission at some later date I will 

 submit those figures which were not available at this time. 



Apparently under the guise of educating the public, but obviously 

 to secure spectacular advertisement, local brick manufacturers and 

 allied interests of non -combustible material on fire prevention day, 

 October 9 last, staged on lake front the timely melodrama of brick 

 vs. lumber. The principal characters in this drama were a brick 

 cottage and a frame cottage. These puppets had to suffer the humilia- 

 tion of being consumed by fire in order to impress the audience and 

 mold the opinion of the public to the thought that by extending the 

 fire limits and by building homes of brick and non-combustible mate- 

 rial conflagration is prevented, hence the solicitous warning of the 

 brick manufacturers, ' ' Don 't build to burn. ' ' 



The Manufacturers' News, issue of October 15 last, reported this 

 drama as follows: 



Combustion In the frame house broke the windows before the brick house 

 showed any signs of damage. Then, to be perfectly fair, policemen kicked 

 in the door of the brick structure so it would have a draft also. "I think 

 it was rather more than fair," said a brick manufacturer afterward. 



Kobbed of the spectacular and theatrical, this episode merely 

 gives you some idea how active local brick manufacturers and allied 

 interests are to secure general control of the building operations 



