2b8 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



January 1, 1921 



In otlier words, Mr. Tiagley'a figures on the world's consump- 

 tion differ from the War Service Chart as follows : 



War Scr\'icc Commitrce 



CliRrts, in Tons Mr. Tinglev's 



f '^ ^ FiRurcs as I'er Differ- 



Vear U. S. A. Rest of World Total Table No. 1 ence 



1912 .S2,964 45,000 97,964 95,863 2,101 



1913 52,179 56,000 108.179 102,455 5,724 



1914 61.251 59.000 120,251 99,800 20,451 



1915 96,792 61.000 157,792 135,214 22,578 



1916 116.477 85.000 201,477 169,474 32,003 



1917 177,088 SO.OOO 257.088 229,017 28,071 



942,751 831,823 110,928 



Above figures show an additional 110,928 tons consumed in six 

 years, which apparently Mr. Tingley has not taken into considera- 

 tion, or else tlie War Service Committee intend to show this as 

 surplus in place of consumption. If Mr. Tingley has omitted this 

 quantity, then his figures of 22t,(XX) tons world's surplus at the 

 end of 1919, should be nearer 112,000 tons. 



I have a furlher criticism to make and that is in the Trade 

 News Serz'ice figures of 165,000 tons consumed for the first nine 

 months of this year compared with the War Service Committee 

 consumption figures, as shown on Table 2, of 236,977 tons for the 

 full year of 1919 in tlie United States, when from reports 

 received from other sources the belief is that the production of 

 tires, etc., for the first nine months of this year was greater than 

 1919, yet the fig^ures of the Trade News Service would have us 

 believe that less rubber was consumed on a greater production 

 of rubber goods. 



If the production of rubber tires and goods was as great for 

 the first nine months of 1920 as they were for 1919, then it is 

 obvious that if 1919 figures of rubber consumption are correct the 

 United States consumed as much in nine months as in the 

 previous twelve or nearer 236,000 tons instead of 165,000 tons. 



Bear in mind that I do not constitute myself as an authority on 

 the rubber supply and demand of the world, but I do believe 

 that the figures as given in Mr. Tingley 's article of December 

 require further explanation. 



It is certainly to be regretted that the rubber importers and 

 manufacturers are leaving this important matter in the form of a 

 guess, and if supply has anything to do with demand, and simple 

 economies prove it has, then it is exceedingly difficult to hazard 

 a forecast of prices for the next twelve months at least. 



If the reason of the importers and manufacturers is as Mr. 

 Tingley states, "that the individual holdings are a priwte matter 

 to be kept a trade secret," then why cannot the Rubber Associa- 

 tion educate the rubber companies to the importance of obtaining 

 authentic figures that can be depended on, giving them assurance 

 that no individual holdings will be open to a competitor, but that 

 all figures be sent to an impartial party such as Babson Statistical 

 Organization, who would be under bond not to disclose, any 

 figures but the totals of all the industries using rubber in the 

 manufacture of goods? 



C. D. McKiNNON, 



The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 

 of Canada, Limited. 



Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 



Kl-fBBERIZED I'RICTION IJlCE 



TI:c 1-atesr Creation in Transparent Dice Work, 

 Either Missouts or Passers, $5.00 per Pair, Why 

 Pay More? Rubberizing Liquid, Best Made, J6.00 

 per Bottle. 



As to the wisdom of using magic liquids in his locality, that 

 is a question. — The Editor. 



RUBBERIZED DICE 



To THE Editor : 



DEAR SIR:— 

 I read an article of yours not long ago in which you stated 

 that every line of work and sport today found rubber necessary 

 in some form. Now, down here shooting craps is a pretty gen- 

 erally popular sport. We don't use rubber in it, either. Seems 

 like your statement was a trifle broad. 



El Paso, Texas. W. G. S. 



We cannot agree with the writer in his conclusions for 

 they are erroneous. In proof we cite one of the several 

 advertisements found in a prominent sporting paper: 



JUDICIAL DECISIONS 



THE B. F. Goodrich Rubber Co. vs. Parshelsky Bros. 

 Where plaintiff, after cancellation of a contract between 

 it and another providing for delivery of tires to defendant, by 

 mistake delivered such tires, plaintiff is entitled to the return of 

 the tires, or to recover from defendant their value, notwith- 

 standing, had the tires been delivered pursuant to contract, de- 

 fendant would not have been liable. — New York Supplement 

 Reporter, Volume 183, page 30. 



U. S. Rubber Co. 'vs. Silvzestein. 



In an action on a guaranty in writing, which was ambiguous 

 on the question whether it guaranteed sales to two sons of the 

 guarantor or one, evidence held to sustain a finding that it was 

 a guaranty as to both sons. 



Whether letter: "Inclosed find check for the three above 

 bills. Please do not send my statements and my son's statements 

 together. Send him his, and me mine. They do business for 

 themselves, and therefore send them separate statements, but 

 I am good for what they buy" — was a guaranty of sales to two 

 sons of defendant, or only one, in accordance with a prior oral 

 agreement, held for the jury. — Northeastern Reporter, Volume 

 128, page 123. 



Fair vs. Hartford Rubber Works. 



Under Workmen's Compensation Act (Gen. St. 1918, §§5351, 

 5352) employe, who had previously lost sight of left eye, and 

 was hit in the right eye, so that he was rendered totally and 

 permanently blind, held entitled to award for total permanent 

 incapacity under section 5351, i. e., to a weekly compensation 

 of one-half his weekly earnings at the time of the injury for 

 520 weeks. — Atlantic Reporter, Volume 111, page 193. 



In RE U. S. Rubber Co. 



Under Ti;ade-Mark Act, 5 (Comp. St. §9490), denying regis- 

 tration to any mark consisting of insignia of the United States, 

 no trade-mark having the letters "U. S." as its most prominent 

 feature can be registered. — Federal .Reporter, Volume 265, page 

 1016. 



Metallic Rubber Tire Co. vs. Hartford Rubber Works Co. 

 United States District Court, Connecticut. 



Where infringement by defendant after termination of its 

 license was willful and deliberate, it is liable for all profits 

 made, and cannot require complainant to accept the royalty 

 fixed by the license contract. 



Where infringement was willful and deliberate, and it con- 

 tested recovery in the courts for 12 years, complainant held 

 entitled to interest from the date of the decision of the Cir- 

 cuit Court of Appeals, holding the patent valid and infringed, 

 except for the time the matter of accounting was held for 

 decision by the master after close of the evidence before 

 him. — Federal Reporter, Volume 266, page 543. 



adjitdicated patents 



I. T. S. Rubber Co. vs. United States Lace & Braid Manu- 

 facturing Co. United States District Court, Rhode Island. 



The Tufford reissue patent, No. 14,049, for a resilient heel lift 

 having its body portion of concavo-convex form on every line 

 of cross-section, should be construed with reference to form and 

 function of the structure shown. As so construed claims S, 6 

 and 7 held not anticipated, valid, and infringed. — Federal Re- 

 porter, volume 266, page 375. 



