HARDWOOD RECORD 



19 



or at least that "lumbermen through their associations and otherwise 

 were industriously striving in concert to maintain or raise prices," 

 and that ' ' lumber prices advanced from 80 to 200 per cent between 

 1897 and 1907." 



It is somewhat difficult to pin down such a statement as that in all 

 its details. It may be a fact that some grades or kinds of lumber, 

 in certain markets, and under local circumstances, may have shown 

 such increase in price. To that extent it is possible that figures might 

 be dug up somewhere to sustain the commissioner's claim of such 

 advance in lumber cost; but such advance will not hold true of lum- 

 ber generally. In fact, the statement is wholly misleading. 



Of the charge in the report that lumbermen maintained a lobby 

 in Washington at a former time, and that they combined to raise 

 prices, no discusion will be offered at this time, but the claim that 

 prices went up from 80 to 200 per cent cannot be allowed to pass 

 unchallenged. If that claim falls when tested by records, the assump- 

 tion is allowable that the other charges have no better foundation on 

 which to stand. 



The claim that the price of lumber rose 200 per cent, or any other 

 per cent, in a stated time cannot be proved by picking a case here 

 and there. Such figures would be exceptions, and rules are not 

 proved by exceptions. On the contrary, too many exceptions destroy 

 a rule. 



In comparing prices, the mathematical axiom must be followed 

 that like must be compared with like. A retail price must not be 

 compared with a price at wholesale. A ])rice in Louisiana must not 

 be pitted against a price in New York. The grades must be alike, 

 the conditions alike, or there is no value in comparisons. 



Take similar conditions, like grades, and make the comparisons as 

 broad as possible, and the results are worth something, and not other- 

 wise. In a charge as serious as that made against the National Lum- 

 ber Manufacturers' Association, there should be no juggling of 

 figures to prove the charge. It is easy for one to deceive himself, 

 particularly when hunting evidence to prove a charge already believed 

 to be true. However, if the broadest possible scope is given to the 

 evidence, the chance of being misled by the exceptions is greatly 

 diminished. 



The government, through the Census Bureau and the Forest Service, 

 has published pretty full figures of lumber prices from 1899 to 1912. 

 The report of Commissioner Davies goes farther back than 1899, but 

 as Hardwood Record has the complete figures only to 1899 it must 

 begin there with its comparison of lumber prices, and bring them 

 down to the close of 1912, which is the latest year thus far published. 

 In order to be perfectly fair in the comparisons, it is thus explained 

 that the period is not exactly the same as that during which the 

 commission claimed that prices had gone up from 80 to 200 per 

 cent; but it is believed to be a fair comparison. At any rate it is 

 broad. It covers every part of the United States, and includes every 

 kind of lumber for which prices are published by the government. 

 Nothing is left out and nothing is put in for the purpose of proving 

 or disproving anything. The figures are given and they speak for 

 themselves. The prices quoted are all on the same basis — mill run 

 lumber loaded on cars ready for shipment from the mills. That is 

 the point where it leaves the control of the manufacturers, and if 

 they have anything to do with raising or fixing prices, they would 

 do it before the liuiiber leaves them. The figures on which the fol- 

 lowing percentages are based may be found on page .50 of the bulle- 

 tin giving the lumber cut in 1912, printed in 1914: 



Larch 49 



Basswood 50 



Cypress 31 



Spruce 51 



White Pine di 



Southern Yellow Pino 58 



Yellow Poplar 72 



Cottonwood 97 



Average for all lunibcr ;!8 



The foregoing figures fall far short of substantiating the claim of 

 "from 80 to 200 per cent" advance in price. The average is 38 

 per cent, the lowest 24, the highest 97. The latter is Cottonwood, and 

 it is the only one in the whole list that goes above even the 80 per 

 cent claimed. The reason why it increased in price as much as it 

 did is easily explained without presupposing a combination of manu- 

 facturers to force the price up. Cottonwood is becoming very hard to 

 get, and those who must have it are obliged to pay. The cut in 

 1899 was 415,000,000 feet, and only 227,000,000 in 1912. Yellow 

 jjoplar, the next greatest in price advance, has a similar history. The 

 cut in 1899 was 1,115,000,000 feet, and in 1912 was 623,000,000. 



Those who are searching for a cause for the advance in lumber 

 prices would be well repaid by directing their search into the field of 

 "supply aiul demand." 



The Yellow Pine Ring Rule 



» T A MKETING OF THK YKLLOW PINE Manufacturers' 

 r\ Association in Chicago on May 5 the committee on grades made a 

 favorable report on a proposed change in, or addition to, the grad- 

 ing rules relating to pine timbers, and the meeting acceirted the com- 

 mittee's report. That action, however, did not constitute an adoption 

 of the proposed change, but will serve to bring it before a future 

 meeting of the association which will have authority to adopt, modify, 

 or I eject. 



The ring-lule is not a new thing as applied to pine timbers. Its 

 principle is well understood. It is based on the number of rings of 

 yearly growth )icr inch on a line measured from the tree's heart to 

 the bark. The recent purchase by the Panama Canal Commission 

 of six million feet of southern yellow pine on an inspection based 

 largely on the number of rings to the inch has brought the matter to 

 the front at this time. 



There are four leading southern yellow pines, commonly called 

 jongleaf, shortleaf, loblolly, and Cuban. The first of these is usually 

 of slow growth, with narrow rings. It is known commercially as hard 

 or Georgia pine, and possesses great strength when the timber is of 

 slow growth. The other three pines usually grow more rapidly, with 

 wider rings; but any of the pines may grow slowly or rapidly, de- 

 pending upon whether conditions are favorable or unfavorable. 



The proposed ring rule does not favor or disparage any particular 

 species of southern yellow pine, but is concerned only with the width 

 of the growth rings. This is on the assumption that timbers with 

 rings of the same kind are of the same strength without regard to the 

 exact .species. In connection with the number of rings to the inch, 

 their character is likewise considered, with regard to the jjroportion 

 of the ring composed of dense summerwood and of lighter springwood. 

 The proposed rule has been favored because of its simplicity, and 

 especially because it w'ould remove a fruitful source of disputes and 

 misunderstandings concerning the exact species of yellow pine. Any- 

 body can count rings and measure with a rule, but it is not always 

 an easy matter to determine the precise species of pine from which 

 a timber was cut. 



The Forest Products Laboratory at Madison, Wis., paved the way 

 for the adoption of such a rule by making numerous tests of pine 

 beams to ascertain their strength in relation to the width of the rings 

 and the comparative quantities of springwood and summerwood. The 

 tendency of the tests all pointed one way, and showed that so far as_ 

 the southern yellow pines are concerned, strength is not a matter of 

 species but of structure, and that two trees with similar rings do not 

 diflfer much in strength, though one may be longleaf and the other 

 loblolly. 



On a ring rule system of grading, timbers would be classed as 

 "dense wood" and "not dense wood." A somewhat explicit defiui- 



