HARDWOOD RECORD 



Mij!< |>rii|><>iitii>ii, iiK' 11 iM<'iM'i' I'- Milriii'OiitrdViTtilily n|;iii»"t tli>' 

 "iiitonii'iit made in Uint lottcT. 



II^HftwooK Rfcoho roitornlcn that luul tlio r<>|>rm««ntativ<< roii- 



lliii({ to tnko till- |iro|MT couriM', niiil lin<l tlu-y nc 



iiivitfltioiiK tlioy fduUl not only linvo |mrtii'i|iiitoi| 



Mill ri'lntix'i* to |iro|ioHcil flinni;<*H in 101- ruli'it, wliii'h 



I! t<">K |ilnr<> lit till* tniH-tini! tionu* inontlm |irovioiiH to the 



>!!\i>ntinn, but oouM nho linvo swurcil for n rpprciW'nliitivo tlie 



r-. . ^. .if tilt- lloor on till' otiiiHion of tlic convention itnelf liel.l in 



i'liio.i|;o Inst June. Hardwood Recokd inainlniuH Mint the eoiiHniniiiK 



interests simply fnileJ to tuke n<lv:iiitn(;e of a s|ieeiru- invitation lo 



|iarti>-i|>nle in iKitli ilisriissions. 



As to n substantintion of its contention uml as a refutal of the 

 •"'CUestion contninc*! in tlie adjress In-fore the feilerntion, to the 

 I'fTwt that protests from some 600 consumers at;ainst the rhangin); 

 of 1912 rules were iRiioreil, H.midwood Reiokd offers the following: 



The National Hardwood Lumber Association liles show that in- 

 -Wail of ignoring the committee of consumers who protested, the 

 • hairman of the insi>ection rules committee of the National Hard- 

 wood Lumber Association wrote one of the prominent Wisconsin 

 ronsumers who was most active in the agitation under date January 

 •J5, 191.1, as follows: 



I assure jrou (hot the Nulinnul llHrdwooil I.umlier .Vssoclntlon In work- 

 InK out this prolileni of uniform Inspection tins always consldored tlic 

 lnlpn>st of the consumer. In fact, wc have been severely criticized by 

 som<> for our attitude towards the consumers, claiming that we have 

 favuretl them too much. 1 am sure that you wUI agree that the uniform 

 standard for Inspection Is very much desired hy the entire trade, and as 

 we are now trying to perfect our rules, I hope that we may have the 

 continued cooperation of the consumers, whose Interests at all times we 

 have tried lo safe-guard. 1 am sure that our eomnilttec would be glad 

 to arrange a confereno' with you and other consumers for discussing this 

 problem and If .von desire I will take up the matter with the officers of 

 the as.-iiieiatlon with the object In view of having such a conference. I 

 am sure that this would result In a much better understanding of the 

 sitiiallnn. 



Following this a second letter was written to the same gentleman 

 on February 6, 19i;f, from which the following (quotation is taken: 



I note that you feel that the rules committee should meet a delegation 

 con-.-ention and this plan will be agreeable to 



before the i 



the as.soclntlun. I am sure such a conference will result In much more 

 l)elng dono on amicable lines than In any other way.- and will be pleased 

 Jo have you advise what date would l>e agreealile for such conference. 



The absolutely incontravertible proof that the claim of the con- 

 sumers' protests being ignored, and their being denied attendance at 

 the meeting is shown in the fact that this letter requesting that the 

 consumers set a date for a conference was absolutely ignored, and 

 that the consumers did not accept the invitation to confer with the 

 inspection rules conmiittee. These facts are absolutely a matter of 

 record and prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the consumers 

 did not take the right attitude originally regarding the 1913 rules. 



Going on further regarding the statement in the communication 

 and in the address before the federated body, that between 500 and 

 600 printed forms of protest were filed by the various associations 

 but without result, H.mjdwood Record would suggest that consumers 

 bearing this impression would refer to the recommendation con- 

 sidered by the inspection rules committee at the Milwaukee meeting 

 prior to the June, 1913 convention, and compare these recommenda- 

 tions with the actual printed rules now in effect as adopted at the 

 convention last June. It will be readily seen that practically all 

 of the more drastic recommendations were omitted from the rcj>ort 

 the rules committee made to the convention, and that these omissions 

 were made in the face of emphatic demands from a large northern 

 contingent of the National Hardwood Lumber Association members 

 that they be adopteil. 



Presumably the protests coming from the consumers, which were 

 duly considered and gone over carefully in the two days' session, 

 were the most important factor leading to the omission of the 

 specific recommendations for changes. Thus it can readily be seen 

 that the consumers not only ,did not show the proper spirit of arbi- 

 tration and conference by ignoring the invitation to set a specific 

 date for conferring with the grading rules committee, but that the 

 protests which they claim were ignored were not ignored but were 



given the closest ronaiiicration with the result that the pro|)OMHl 

 changes to Ih> suggeNt4>d aa rocoinmende<l for ailoplion were very 

 iimteriully moililled. In fact, it la i>Htimnted tlint the omiMsiuna rep- 

 resented fully two thirds of the entire list of pro|io)H-d ehuiiges lu fur 

 as importance nfTecting quantities of lumber is concerneil. 



The eorrespondi'ut alHive quuti-d further takes exception to our 

 statement that legitiiniite parliamentary oV<'ctiuns were the cnuKe 

 of the refusal to jiermit of n diacussion of the jiropoacd changea on 

 the lloor of the convention in June, lOI.'l. 



S|M>cifleully the situation was that the diseursion of the grading 

 rules came later in the sessions when there was considerable liusiness 

 to Ik> transacted and that in the judgment of the ehnirman of the 

 convention the consumers not being menilaTS of the a^Boeiation, two 

 of them having requested Uie privilege of the floor, could not Ijo 

 granted that privilege on account of the lack of time available. This 

 denial was qualifie<l with the statement that there were several 

 consumers who ifcrc meml>ers of the association and were very 

 active in the grading rules controversy, who could have had the 

 )>rivilege of the floor the same as any other member, niiil further- 

 more the ehairnmn made the specific suggestion that these inenilierH 

 make the plea for the consumers rather thm\ the non-members. Thus 

 there was no direct and unqualified refusal of the privilege of the 

 floor as this i)rivilege was accorded the members of the re<-ently 

 formed furniture federdnon, who were then also members of the 

 National Hardwood LumWr Association, but this opportunity was not 

 taken advantage of. 



This certainly indicatas-conclusively that the ronsumers were not 

 denied the opportunity*^ presenting tJieir contentions la-fore the 

 convention as they had this opportunity but simply faileil to 



uti 



Going on further regarding the letter above quoted, Hakdwooh 

 Record does not believe that the statement that the grading rules 

 controversy was but one question for consideration Iwfore the fed 

 crated body was sufficient justification for not giving the National 

 Hardh'ood Lumber Association officially the opportunity of stating 

 its .side of the question when the con.sumers'' contentions were so 

 manifestly ilrastic and have been proven to be based on statements 

 which were manifestly not facts. It would seem that in a mere 

 spirit of fairne.ss and courtesy, the officers or at least the secretary 

 of the National Hardwood Lumber A.ssoeiation would have been at 

 least invited to attend this session when the report on grading rules 

 was read. The absence of this invitation simply indicates that the 

 men behind this agitation were following the specific policy of show- 

 ing their defiance of the National as.sociation ami absolutely ignor- 

 ing the possibility of a more amicable and permanent understand 

 ing which would unquestionably result from fair and open conference 

 with the body they seem to consider their opponents. 



The absence of the invitation shows that they did not want to 

 recognize the National Hardwood Lumber Association as a factor in 

 the proposition in any way, shape or manner, as even though the 

 time were limited a question of this extreme importance would 

 unquestionably warrant a fair statement from the other side, or at 

 least an opportunity on the part of the other side to know officially 

 what the consumers were aiming at. 



Regarding the statement as contained in the communication above 

 that practically every one of the fourteen furniture associations who 

 are affiliated in the federation had individually discussed the subject 

 of the 1912 rules and were practically united on the common senti- 

 ment that there was no need of further discussion, this is but a 

 further important reason why the National Hardwood Lumber Asso- 

 ciation should have been given the opportunity of answering the 

 charges before this federated body as none of the fourteen affiliated 

 organizations singly represented the consuming interests, while the 

 federation presumably docs represent those interests. 



The very fact that the separate organizations are not representative 

 and that their discussions and conclusions are not official, is full and 

 conclusive proof that the National Hardwood Lumber Association 

 had not had an opportunity prior to the mass-meeting to go into the 

 subject with the consumers as a body, for it is treating with the 



