NA TURE 



^7Z 



THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1921. 



Editorial and Publishing Offices: 



MACMILLAN 6- CO., LTD., 



ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON, W.C.2. 



Advertisements and business letters should be 

 addressed to the Publishers. 



Editorial communications to the Editor. 



Telegraphic Address: PHUSIS, LONDON. 

 Telephone Number: GERRARD 8830.; 



British Dyes and Dyestuffs. 



THE Sub-committee appointed on December 2, 

 1919, by the Standing Committee on 

 Trusts to "ascertain to what extent supplies, 

 prices, and costs of dyes and dyestuffs in this 

 country, and profits thereon, are affected by any 

 trade combination " has now reported under date 

 May 18, 1 92 1. The Report (Cmd. 1370, /\d. 

 net) comprises fifty-five clauses, from which are 

 drawn twenty conclusions, these being- widely 

 traversed in a minority report presented by Major 

 Harry Barnes, M.P. 



The first fourteen clauses reveal nothing which 

 is not already familiar to those who have given 

 more than superficial attention to the subject. A 

 synopsis of the factors which had placed this 

 country in a position of such complete inferiority 

 to Germany as that which existed prior to the 

 war brings out from their stable the two familiar 

 stalking-horses, patent law and industrial alcohol. 



"Further to these it has been said that in the 

 early days there was a certain slackness and a 

 lack of organisation on the part of the British 

 manufacturers, who were content, for instance, to 

 send out circulars whilst the Germans sent out 

 travellers who were not only salesmen but skilled 

 chemists ; and it is asserted that the whole course 

 of the development of synthetic dyes in this 

 country subsequent to the initial discovery ex- 

 hibits a lack of properly directed scientific re- 

 search. But whether these were contributory 

 causes of the passing of the dyes industry out of 

 NO. 2700, VOL. 107] 



this country, or whether they were accompani- 

 ments or results of the heavy handicap of unfair 

 patent arrangements and unintelligent prevision 

 as regards the use of industrial alcohol, is a matter 

 on which there are differences of opinion " 

 (clause 3). 



This lengthy passage has been quoted because 

 it offers an example of the confused thinking 

 which it appears to be the fate of the dye-making 

 industry to receive. Moreover, it is characteristic 

 of the whole Report, which studiously avoids 

 arriving at a conclusion that is not open to contra- 

 diction elsewhere in its pages ; Major Barnes is 

 more direct. Thus the Sub-committee is unable 

 or unwilling to determine the relative value of 

 the contributions to the industry made by duty- 

 free alcohol on one hand, and by "properly directed 

 scientific research " on the other. Perhaps it was 

 not represented to the Committee that if the tex- 

 tile manufacturers of the sixties of last century 

 had possessed imagination enough to set aside 

 only I per cent, of their profits to develop what 

 might then have been regarded as a branch of 

 their own industry, Hofmann, Brunck, Caro, 

 Martius, and Bottinger need never have left this 

 country to build up the chemical industry of Ger- 

 many, and a brisk demand for young chemists 

 might have led Oxford and Cambridge then to 

 weigh their responsibility towards that branch of 

 knowledge which underlies all modern industry 

 and all forms of life. 



This nice reluctance to face an issue character- 

 ises also the treatment accorded by the thirteen 

 agreed members to the main question upon w^hich 

 their deliberation was invited — namely, the extent 

 to which the supply and cost of dyes have been 

 affected by "any trade combination," otherwise 

 the British Dyestuffs Corporation. Rightly de- 

 claring that " If the Corporation is over-capitalised 

 its ability to sell at a reasonable price, while 

 making a reasonable profit, will be in so far dim- 

 inished " (clause 17), the Committee proceeds to 

 analyse the financial basis of the amalgamation 

 between British Dyes, Ltd., and Messrs. Levin- 

 stein which followed from the rejection in August, 

 1918, by the shareholders in the former company, 

 of the alternative scheme proposed by the board of 

 directors. The analysis recalls the fact that, the 

 nominal capital of Messrs. Levinstein having been 

 divided into 3000 preference shares (loZ.) and 

 6000 ordinary shares (loL), the preference share- 

 holders received in exchange preference shares in 

 the Corporation of an equal nominal amount, or 

 cash at their option. 



Z 



