484 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



[June 1, 1914. 



and biscuits, and another contract calling for unsmoked sheets 

 and biscuits as per London standard, do you consider there 

 arc any dilTcrcnces in the quality 6r description, any difference 

 in the three standards mentioned? A. Yes. 



Q. In other words, we do not recognize unless specifically 

 stated in contract here the London standards? A. We do 

 not unless so stated. 

 Testimony of Mr. C. 



By Mr. B. — Q. You sell rubber I presume on New York 

 good merchantable quality or Xew York types, or sometimes on 

 London types? A. Yes. 



Q. Yoii consider there is a distinction, a difference between 

 grades, do you not? A. We recognize London standards but 

 go a little on our own judgment. We do the same on other 

 grades of rubber. There are certain customs here in the trade 

 of accepting certain blemishes if not too great. We do not 

 know whether they would be rejected in London or not, and it 

 is difficult to answer the question positively. 



Q. if you were selling rubber based on your understanding 

 of New York conditions and delivering to manufacturer and 

 importer, and he desired you to put in as understood in London, 

 would you hesitate about it? A. Very decidedly so. 



Q. Then you consider there is in your mind some difference? 

 A. There is a difference, but more in settlement and method 

 of settlement. I mean by that financially. In London they 

 <lctermine to take a delivery of what is within certain grades. 

 Here no such custom prevails. 



Q. The only reason you hesitate is that you are bound to 

 take rubber with allowances? A. Yes. 



Q. Unless it states as understood in London you take New 

 York determination of quality? A. There is this distinction. 

 Dealers understand here London terms and conditions in sell- 

 ing to dealers, and 1 am necessarily more careful than in sell- 

 ing to manufacturers because they understand the terms and 

 recognize them. 

 Testimony of Mr. F. 



By Mr. A.— Q. Do you recognize a difference in quality 

 between usual good quality and fair average quality? A. If I 

 stated that before I was probably misunderstood. I intended 

 to say there was a difference between London standards and 

 good merchantable fair average quality. 



Q. London standard, good merchantable— is that expression 

 ever used in the trade? A. It is. 



Q. A contract calling for good quality in one and fair aver- 

 age quality in the other, is there any distinction? A. I see no 

 dift'erence between fair average quality and usual good. 

 Testimony of Mr. G. — Another weigher. 



By Mr. B.— Q. When you drew the samples \yith Mr 



did you tind any excessive amount of moisture in these goods? 

 A. No, it seemed to be pretty dry. 



Q. The moisture then was not apparent? A. No, not ap- 

 parent. 



Q. In these particular samples the moisture was not so it 

 was running off? A. Oh, no. 



Q. Could you see it like dew on the grass? A. No. 



Q. Was there any excessive amount of mould on these 

 sheets? A. There was a slight amount of mould, but I would 

 not call it excessive. 



Q. Was it dry or wet? A. Dry. 



Q. Is it your opinion that if this rubber was moist and 

 mouldy and stuck together that it could be placed back in these 

 cases? A. My opinion is that it could be in most cases. There 

 would be such a small proportion left out of the cases that it 

 would not amount to more than one bag or one case at most. 

 Testimony of Mr. C. — 



By Mr. A. — Q. In accepting deliveries of plantation rubber 

 in your experience what percentage have you considered accept- 

 able as a fair delivery, what percentage of mould and dampness 

 have you considered a fair percentage for acceptance of a good 

 delivery? A. I. do not think we settled on any percentage. 

 We look at the rubber and form our opinion. If it is all right 

 and docs not contain too much objection w'e accept it. There 

 is no fixed percentage I have heard of. 



Q. If some of the rubber that is in the lot is absolutely bad 

 would you consider that it had to be accepted in the lot tend- 

 ered? A. No. 



Q. If part of a lot that is tendered you is in such condition 

 that it is not acceptable, the custom of the trade is that you 

 have the right to reject the lot? A. It depends entirelv upon 

 the contract. On this contract you could not reject it, in my 

 opinion. You could reject the portion, and the seller has a 

 perfect right to make another tender. He could tender the 

 same over, having withdrawn the portion that is not up to the 

 standard. 



Q. Then according to your answer you have the right to re- 

 ject the entire lot if part is inferior? A. It depends upon the 

 contract. On a specified lot of Ceylon rubber if you find a 



portion of it inferior you are entitled to reject it, in my opinion ; 

 but on a straight contract the seller has the right to refill it. 



THE TESTING OF MECHANICAL RUBBER GOODS. 



\ S will be recalled, a conference of experts interested in the 

 **■ question of standardizing the specifications and tests of 

 mechanical rubber goods, met at New York on December 7, 

 1911. On that occasion a committee was appointed, consisting 

 of C. R. Boggs, Simplex Wire & Cable Co.; W. S. Clark, Gen- 

 eral Electric Co.; W. .\. Del Mar, New Y'ork Central & Hudson 

 River Railroad Co. ; W. B. Geiser, New York Central & Hud- 

 son River Railroad Co. ; J. P. Millwood, consulting chemist ; 

 P. Poetschke, Lederle Laboratories, and H. B. Rodman, Penn- 

 sylvania Railroad Co. At a later date were added : E. L. Will- 

 son, Hazard Manufacturing Co., and J. B. Tuttle, United States 

 Bureau of Standards. 



The committee decided to confine itself to the development 

 of a specification and an analytical procedure for compounds of 

 the 30 per cent. Para type, by which samples of different rubbers 

 were analyzed. Twelve regular committee meetings were held, 

 in addition to numerous sub-committee meetings. After nearly 

 two years' work the committee was in a position to submit on 

 October 1, 1913, a preliminary analytical procedure, and a chem- 

 ical specification for a compound containing 30 per cent, of Hevea 

 rubber with mineral fillers, with a request that both these pro- 

 posals should be considered tentative in order that the results 

 of experience during the ensuing year should ultimately be in- 

 corporated in a final report. 



The most important parts of the above named provisional re- 

 ports have been reprinted by the Simplex Wire & Cable Co., 

 Boston, for distribution among those interested. 



Meanwhile the Bureau of Standards has issued Circular No. 

 38, with illustrations, describing the methods of rubber testing 

 in use at that institution, to which a supplement has since been 

 published, embodying the progress made by the Joint Rubber 

 Insulation Committee. This publication must not. it is re- 

 marked, be taken as an official indorsement of the methods in- 

 dicated. 



In the "Explanation of Specification'' the committee states 

 that experience has shown that compounds with the character- 

 istics of good Hevea rubber may be relied upon to be more 

 permanent than those made of rubber of other grades. It is 

 further stated that the term "Hevea" applied to rubber means 

 rubber from the Hevea Brasiliensis tree whether wild or cul- 

 tivated, and regardless of the locality in which it has been 

 grown. Much interest will, therefore, attach to the final report 

 of the Joint Rubber Insulation Committee, which may be looked 

 for about the end of the current year. Colonel Samuel Reber, 

 of the United States Signal Corps, has presided at the various 

 meetings of the committee. 



The annual report of automobile statistics for New York State 

 showed the total amount of license fees collected by the State — 

 owners', chauffeurs' and dealers' — in 1913 to have been $1,275,727. 

 Similar collections from the opening of new registrations on 

 February 1 to April 25, amounted to $1,008,598, about half of 

 which, or $556,337, has been contributed by New York City. 



New companies were incorporated during .^pri! with individual 

 capitalization of $100,000 or over and capital increases authorized 

 involving the sum — including all industries — of $186,752,000, of 

 which charters filed in the Eastern States represented a capital 

 of $136,185,000. Among the largest of these was the Sterling 

 Gum Co., a New York corporation with a capital stock of 

 $6,000,000, while an incorporation of perhaps greater interest 

 and importance to the rubber industry was that of the Norwalk 

 Tire & Rubber Co., of Connecticut, capitalized at $1,500,000. Of 

 the Delaware incorporations might be mentioned the Malaysian 

 Chicle Co., with a capital of $500,000. 



