our refuse matter, ashes, etc.

With oil we save this expense,

and we make a considerable saving, in labor also, in our fireroom. At the present time we generate about twelve hundred horse-power of steam at our largest plant, where one fireman takes care of it with perfect ease and comfort, and we have to stir him once in a while to keep him from getting lazy. I understand Mr. THOMAS of Lowell has experimented considerably, and I think he has used different processes of burning oil; and I think perhaps, having more recently installed his plant, his memory may be better than mine, and I would like to have him called upon.

The PRESIDENT. I understand you to say the cost of material is about the same, whether you use coal or oil?

Mr. MESSENGER. That is our experience. I will say we always burn broken coal at our works. We might perhaps have burned a coal that would have been a little cheaper in results than what we did use.

Mr. MESSENGER. Anthracite, yes; and our comparisons are made with that.

The PRESIDENT. Mr. THOMAS, we will be very glad to hear from you.

Mr. E. W. THOMAS. I am quite unprepared to give any figures. I can simply substantiate what Mr. MESSENGER says in regard to the first cost of the fuel. It stands us about the same. We make a saving in the handling and carting of ashes, in labor, and in the appearance of our boiler-house. I had intended to read a paper here to-day giving forth some facts; but as a matter of fact I am not prepared to; certain suggestions I wanted to make, but I could not prepare them in time to incorporate in a paper.

The PRESIDENT. What process do you use?

Mr. THOMAS. We are using the same as Mr. MESSENGER, Reed's burner, which is a very simple process.

The PRESIDENT. Mr. FISH, will you give us your experience in your process?

Mr. C. H. FISH. We are still running about six hundred horse-power upright boilers, and we have been running now since a year ago last August, when we started; but have not made any tests for perhaps seven or eight months; but I see no reason for changing the figures which were given at the meeting here in the spring. Our evaporation, I think, ranges from sixteen to perhaps eighteen pounds maximum in our regular running, and we have never had any trouble at all with the process. This is the Archer process. As far as the first cost and economy goes, why, figuring from that evaporation, you can arrive at your own conclusions. Our coal used to cost us

nearly five dollars, delivered at the mill. This year coal is very much cheaper there, but we have not bought any, so I do not know just what it will cost us. Our tanks are underground without any foundations at all; that is, we dug a hole deep enough to bury the tanks below the level of the boiler-house floor, and the tanks are held by brick cradles or shoes bricked up against them to prevent their shifting, and connected with the pipes; and the whole is covered up underground, so the road goes right across over the top, and there is no knowing where the tanks are. We left the hole open long enough to determine whether the tanks were going to leak any or did leak any, and when we found they were all right, covered them up. Mr. MESSENGER. I would like to ask Mr. FISH if they did not vent their tanks at all.

Mr. FISH. Yes; we had to vent them because of running oil into the tanks. We passed a pipe out of the top. Each tank is tapped with an inch hole, and all connected with one main which runs to one side of the roadway, out of the way, and an upright pipe sticks up six or eight feet; but that is the only vent except in connection with the pumps in the boiler-house.

Mr. MESSENGER. In our tests, as I remember, the best results we got were a little over seventeen pounds of water to a pound of oil, but our coal was costing at the time two dollars and a half per thousand pounds; that would be a little over five dollars a ton for coal delivered on our dump.

The PRESIDENT. The secretary informs me that Mr. SHELDON's paper is in the hands of the printer, and it was promised to be here about noon. Shall we stay here any longer, or shall the meeting be adjourned? There is no further business that I know of.

Mr. O. S. BROWN. Mr. President, from time to time we have parties come to us with some patent ingredients or some secret. substance they will put into our sizing, from which they claim to get great results. My experience with it has been but very little. Some have tried it; and if there is any good thing in the market, I would like to know what their experience is with it.

A MEMBER. Dressine is the best article for use in sizing.

Mr. T. B. WATTLES. I will say in reply to that, that starch dressine makes yarn smooth, less chafing off of the sides; that is, yarn is as elastic, and more so, we think, than it is without it, and there will be less breaking in the looms in consequence. I do not know that there is anything more that I care to say

about it.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, Mr. WATTLES has not answered the question yet, by telling why.

Mr. WATTLES. I do not want to tell the gentlemen that. I think the best way to answer Mr. BROWN's question would be to do just what I often do, go to the mill and stay as long as I want to, until I have sized the yarn satisfactorily.

Mr. MESSENGER. There are sizing compounds that have a tendency to moisten or serve the purpose of moistening the atmosphere, so that the yarn does not get dry. Now, if there is such a thing as that, it must be quite an advantage in the saving of cost for vapor steam, and in lessening heat, so as to make the rooms more comfortable for the operatives. I have had no experience that I can give you, but I would like to know if any one has had an experience with any kind of a compound that does serve that purpose to any extent what

Mr. C. H. FISH. We are still running about six hundred horse-power upright boilers, and we have been running now since a year ago last August, when we started; but have not made any tests for perhaps seven or eight months; but I see no reason for changing the figures which were given at the meeting here in the spring. Our evaporation, I think, ranges from sixteen to perhaps eighteen pounds maximum in our regular running, and we have never had any trouble at all with the process. This is the Archer process. As far as the first cost and economy goes, why, figuring from that evaporation, you can arrive at your own conclusions. Our coal used to cost us nearly five dollars, delivered at the mill. This year coal is very much cheaper there, but we have not bought any, so I do not know just what it will cost us. Our tanks are underground without any foundations at all; that is, we dug a hole deep enough to bury the tanks below the level of the boiler-house floor, and the tanks are held by brick cradles or shoes bricked up against them to prevent their shifting, and connected with the pipes; and the whole is covered up underground, so the road goes right across over the top, and there is no knowing where the tanks are. We left the hole open long enough to determine whether the tanks were going to leak any or did leak any, and when we found they were all right, covered them up. Mr. MESSENGER. I would like to ask Mr. FISH if they did not vent their tanks at all.

Mr. FISH. Yes; we had to vent them because of running oil into the tanks. We passed a pipe out of the top. Each tank is tapped with an inch hole, and all connected with one main which runs to one side of the roadway, out of the way, and an upright pipe sticks up six or eight feet; but that is the only vent except in connection with the pumps in the boiler-house.

Mr. MESSENGER. In our tests, as I remember, the best results we got were a little over seventeen pounds of water to a pound of oil, but our coal was costing at the time two dollars and a half per thousand pounds; that would be a little over five dollars a ton for coal delivered on our dump.

The PRESIDENT. The secretary informs me that Mr. SHELDON's paper is in the hands of the printer, and it was promised to be here about noon. Shall we stay here any longer, or shall the meeting be adjourned? There is no further business that I know of.

Mr. O. S. BROWN. Mr. President, from time to time we have parties come to us with some patent ingredients or some secret. substance they will put into our sizing, from which they claim to get great results. My experience with My experience with it has been but very little. Some have tried it; and if there is any good thing in the market, I would like to know what their experience is with it.

A MEMBER. Dressine is the best article for use in sizing.

Mr. T. B. WATTLES. I will say in reply to that, that starch dressine makes yarn smooth, less chafing off of the sides; that is, yarn is as elastic, and more so, we think, than it is without it, and there will be less breaking in the looms in consequence. I do not know that there is anything more that I care to say about it.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, Mr. WATTLES has not answered the question yet, by telling why.

Mr. WATTLES. I do not want to tell the gentlemen that. I think the best way to answer Mr. BROWN's question would be to do just what I often do, go to the mill and stay as long as I want to, until I have sized the yarn satisfactorily.

Mr. MESSENGER. There are sizing compounds that have a tendency to moisten or serve the purpose of moistening the atmosphere, so that the yarn does not get dry. Now, if there is such a thing as that, it must be quite an advantage in the saving of cost for vapor steam, and in lessening heat, so as to make the rooms more comfortable for the operatives. I have had no experience that I can give you, but I would like to know if any one has had an experience with any kind of a compound that does serve that purpose to any extent what