210 STANDARDIZATION AS AFFECTING THE 
where different ores have different characteristics and properties. A universal specification 
is difficult to draw that would avoid undue favor to some mills as compared with others. 
American, British and German steels have their own characteristics, but given a willingness 
to cooperate, it should not be impracticable to draw specifications broad enough to cover a 
merchantable article satisfactory for use the world over. One great question is: Can genu- 
ine willingness to agree, if possible, be obtained? Without at least that as a basis, it is no use 
trying for international steel standards. 
During the war, considerable progress was made towards international standard rolled 
sections, such as angles, channels and bulbs; this as between America and Britain. Here 
we have two standards, structural shapes and ship shapes, these ship shapes being identical 
with the British except in minor points; there they have one set of standards for bridges, 
buildings and ships. There is considerable opinion in favor of a single standard here. The 
manufacturers fear scrapping of equipment before it is worn out; the answer is that properly 
regulated standardization is not an over-night affair and will involve no scrapping of good 
equipment. France has been on a metric basis of measurement almost as long as the mem- 
ory of man runneth, but I am told that even yet in the remote rural districts the old non- 
metric units are largely used in local trading. 
The inch, pound and metric units involve us in trouble when considering international 
standards. The obvious way to get around it is by printing two columns parallel to each 
other; customers in metric countries can use the one in which they can think best. The 
metric system, or lack of it, is no bar to international standards, though it is an admitted 
difficulty, which benefits the printing trade more than anyone else. 
Since the war, progress towards international rolled steel standards is to be noted on 
the part of Australia, Belgium, and France, as well as between ourselves and Britain. Plain 
angles present few difficulties; the channels, bulbs, and I-sections are the crux of the matter. 
Standardization of what we may term secondary ship materials such as brass, bronze, iron 
and wood is also to be kept in mind. 
Again a real question is: How willing are the different parties to go at the matter and 
find a solution that will give the best sections designable and commercially manufacturable 
at this date? Without this willingness, we are merely beating the air. 
The war has done at least one good thing: it has taught us that undertakings before con- 
sidered impossible can be put through provided the will to accomplish is there; that men and 
women of many races can forget petty differences and work together for a common goal. 
Whether broad-gauge sentiments similar to those inspired by the stress of war can also be 
invoked for peace-time objects is at least open to debate, especially in the present condition 
of world affairs. 
Again, do the foreign trade elements of each nation want uniformity in these matters, or 
do they want the Tower of Babel? 
The transition stage would have its troubles; the present state has its disadvantages. 
The same solution for steel specifications, both as to composition and dimensions, as has al- 
ready been applied to such matters as tonnage, safety regulations, etc., would appear te the 
writer as the proper one, namely, broad-gauge standardization on an international basis with 
equitable leeway to each nation as far as individual peculiarities are concerned, such as 
extend from mine to finished product. 
In developing new countries, is it an advantage or a disadvantage to have similar struc- 
