258 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



[May I, igo8. 



"Hoolihan's Hose Specifications" Discussed, 



THE appearance in The Ixdia Rubber World last month of 

 the article entitled "Hoolihan's Fire Hose Specifications" 

 has called forth a considerable volume of correspondence, 

 extracts from which will be found below. First is given a letter 

 from the president of the Boston Manufacturers' Mutual Fire 

 Insurance Co. Then follow several letters from rubber manu- 

 facturers, most of whom have indicated a desire not to be men- 

 tioned by name; in consequence the name of none has been 

 printed. For the most part, it will be seen, these writers approve 

 the sentiments of "Hoolihan," though one letter takes the oppo- 

 site position. 



FROM THE FACTORY MUTUAL HEADftUARTERS. 



Boston Manuf.icturers' Mutu.\l Fire Insur.\nce Co.. 

 31 Milk street, Kocnl 61. 



Boston. Mass.. April 11, igo8. 



To THE Editor of The India Rubber World : The "Hoolihan" 

 article on "Fire Hose Specifications," published in your April 

 number, has furnished us with much amusement. I would be 

 wholly lacking in a sense of humor if I had not enjoyed the 

 many "hits," which are so well and happily made that they leave 

 no sting behind them. There is more truth in the article than 

 perhaps appears on the surface to a casual reader not fully ac- 

 quainted with the conditions, and the manufacturers' side of the 

 question needs, I think, more support than it usually receives. 



Apparently the intent of the article is to give in a humorous 

 way the manufacturers' point of view in regard to the expert 

 supervision exercised by at least one of the laboratories main- 

 tained in connection with the fire insurance interests. It is well 

 to remember that there are two sets of laboratories, which are 

 entirely independent of each other — the Factory Mutual Labora- 

 tory, located here in Boston, and which is under our supervision, 

 and the Underwriters' Laboratories, so called, located in Chicago, 

 over which we have no control. 



It is not the purpose of this letter to defend the methods of our 

 laboratory. They need no defense. The good work which our 

 laboratory has done in devising the original "specifications" for 

 underwriter fire hose and testing the product of the manufactur- 

 ers, is well known. The specifications and the methods of testing 

 were devised by our experts in full consultation with the manu- 

 facturers of hose and with their approval. We employ no so- 

 called "traveling experts" to go about visiting the factories and 

 supervising methods of manufacturing, nor do we place "tin 

 tags" on the products. Tliat would be carrying the matter too 

 far. In other words, it would be "expert bossing of another 

 man's business." Representing as we do our members, our 

 province is to furnish the manufacturers with certain specifica- 

 tions for them to live up to. We then ask them to give us results 

 and we assist by such inspections at the factory as may be neces- 

 sary. The real responsibility for furnishing good hose must rest 

 upon the manufacturer himself. If we were to carry the ques- 

 tion of expert supervision too far, and to "tin tag" the product, 

 it would result in removing all responsibility from the manufac- 

 turers and place it upon the underwriters, where it does not 

 belong. In addition, such a course would tend to destroy the 

 individuality of the manufacturer, making him a mere machine. 

 This would be detrimental to the interests of not only tlie manu- 

 facturer, but the users of hose whom we represent. 



Thanking you for the pleasure which the article has given me 

 and for tlie npp.irl unity of replying to saine, I remain. Sincerely 

 yours, J. p. Gray, President. 



STANDARD FIRE HOSE SPECIFICATIONS UNDESIRABLE. 



To THE Editor of The India Kubber \\'ori.ii : Wc have read 

 "Mr. Hoolihan's" dissertation on fire hose with considerable in- 

 terest and amusement and assume that the attempt recently made 

 to formulate standard specifications for fire hose for municipal 



service is the reason for printing Hoolihan's latest utterance on 

 this subject. 



Good natured humor, or even public ridicule, is oftentimes a 

 more effective weapon than serious argument. From our point of 

 view, we do not look with favor upon the proposition for a 

 standard specification for fire department hose. We do not think 

 that any manufacturer will acknowledge that either the under- 

 writers' fire hose business or the M. C. B. air brake hose business, 

 which at the present time is based on standard specifications, is 

 satisfactory or profitable. If a standard specification for fire 

 department hose were adopted we think it would be only a ques- 

 tion of time before this business would be practically as unprofit- 

 able and in many ways as undesirable as the two classes of trade 

 just mentioned. Comparatively few municipal fire departments 

 would have conveniences and appliances necessary to make the 

 prescribed physical and chemical tests. 



A standard specification would destroy the value which at 

 present attaches to various manufacturers' brands or trade marks 

 as the result of advertising, and the value and worth of the 

 goods sold under these names have been proven by years of 

 experience. Fire hose for municipal service is generally sold 

 with a stated time and pressure guarantee and, while competition 

 in the length of the latter often reaches unreasonable and even 

 ridiculous extremes, we doubt if on the whole any better general 

 results would be achieved by a radical change to a uniform 

 standard specification. When goods are made to specifications 

 furnished by the customer and fulfill all of the prescribed physi- 

 cal, chemical, and other tests upon deliver}-, it is certainly not 

 reasonable to ask the manufacturer to guarantee the durability of 

 such hose for a stated length of time. 



In the case of air brake hose, we think experience has proven 

 that the average hose as supplied under present M. C. B. specifi- 

 cations is not as durable as some grades formerly supplied under 

 various manufacturers' individual brands, which in some cases 

 were sold at prices less than those that have, until recently, pre- 

 vailed for M. C. B. standard air brake hose. It seems to us that 

 a uniform fire hose specification is undesirable for the reasons 

 above mentioned and also because it would practically eliminate 

 the advantages which some manufacturers are able to offer as the 

 result of years of experience based on practice and not on theory. 



April 8, 1908. 



PRESENT GUARANTEE SYSTEM OPPOSED. 



To THE EIditor OF The India Rubber World: I have read with 

 a great deal of interest the article in your issue of April i, 

 entitled "Hoolihan's Fire Hose Specifications," and while they are 

 written in a satirical vein, yet I believe them to contain as much 

 common sense as rubber manufacturers are asked to adhere to 

 in making up fire hose to other people's specifications, and we 

 might also add that this would apply to practically all of the 

 specifications which rubber manufacturers are expected to make 

 rubber goods to, from various other users of such rubber goods. 

 It has always seemed to us to be extremely unfair to be asked to 

 manufacture goods to other people's specifications and then also 

 guarantee them. We firmly believe that if the manufacturers 

 were fullj' informed as to the service which the goods are ex- 

 pected to give, and they were then asked to furnish goods to meet 

 these conditions, as well as guarantee them, then it would work 

 for the betterment of all concerned. 



April ID, 1908. 



WHO SHOULD ASSUME THE GUARANTEE! 



To THE Editor of The India Rubber World: I have read "Mr. 

 Hoolihan's" remarks on fire hose specifications in your last issue. 

 I don't believe you would care to print my expressions if I were 

 to send them to vou either signed or unsigned, Init 1 venture them. 



