REPAIRS IN COTTON MILLS.

BY F. A. LEIGH, OF BOSTON, MASS.

I have often noticed the large number of mechanics employed in some of the mills; more, I think, than are necessary for doing the work required, if done on a proper system.

In England, the system of working mills is very different to what it is here. There, they take off a certain percentage for depreciation before estimating profits,-say from five to ten per centum, according to the kind of work done; generally seven and one-half annually for medium numbers,-as a reserve fund to replace the machinery, when, from wear, or the invention of some new system, it shall become unprofitable to work.

Here, there seems to be no system of this kind. Some concerns create a reserve fund, while others prefer to keep their machinery up to its original value by employing a large number of mechanics, and take its original cost as present value.

This system is entirely wrong; for no machine, no matter how perfect when new, can be kept for twenty years in the same state of perfection, and be considered worth its original cost. If the machine could be kept in that state, it would be liable to be supplanted by improvements which would make the working of the old machine unprofitable.

I think the English system is the best; for you then have a sure thing, and at the end of a certain time can take advantage of any improvements, and keep your mill in an efficient state.

It is necessary, however, to keep all machinery in proper repair, no matter what depreciation you take off; and to do this, you have to keep more or less mechanics.

I find there is a great difference in the number of mechanics employed by different mills for the same number of spindles. I know of some mills employing three times as many as others to do the same work, simply because they do not adopt a proper

system of working; and I have found, as a rule, that those employing the least number of mechanics, have turned off the most work per spindle.

I could illustrate this by many examples, were it necessary, but it will suffice to give one. During the American War, I had occasion to send a manager to a large mill in Russia. I advertised, and had many applications, amongst others one from a young man about thirty years of age, who requested an interview, giving some facts of the improvements he had made in the running of the mill he had then charge of.

The mill contained 32,000 spindles making coarse goods (yarn No. 12 to 30), and filled with comparatively old machinery. He was formerly mechanic at this mill, and was one of thirteen; then he became foreman, and afterwards manager, and had reduced his mechanics from thirteen (13) to three (3), and at the same time had increased the production of the mill some fifteen (15) per cent., not varying one-half hank per spindle per week for three years.

I was at once struck with his statement, and went to see him. I found his mill in perfect running order, every machine in good repair, no hurry, and everything reduced to a system.

His system of doing the work was as follows: He had a storeroom filled with all articles that were liable to give out, and kept his mechanics at work for the storeroom alone, allowing but one man to go into the mill to replace anything that was broken. By making things in quantities, the cost of each article was reduced to a minimum, and the three mechanics could do more work than the thirteen, and keep all going, for no time was lost by changing from one job to another, all being ready when needed.

This mill was the only one in that large manufacturing town that ran through the American War, and, I am told, ran profitably.

I sent him to manage a mill of 56,000 spindles in Russia, which for years had been badly managed, and was then considerably financially embarrassed. He had not been there long before he inaugurated the same system of repairs, reduced the expenses, and at the same time increased the production, and made it one of the most prosperous concerns there.

I know a mill in England of 86,000 spindles, spinning from

30 to 40 yarn, that only employs one mechanic, and it is the most prosperous concern I know of.

Of course, one mechanic could not make all the things necessary for repairs, but they find it much cheaper to buy these things of the machine builders in quantities, keeping the different parts in boxes in the storeroom until wanted. They know then what things cost, and can always get exact duplicates.

Formerly, in England, mills kept a large number of mechanics, and made and repaired their own machinery, but now they make no provision for this work in building a new mill, saving as much in buildings, tools, etc., as will keep the whole of the machinery in repair for some time, besides getting the parts from the machine builders for less than they can possibly make them for themselves in small quantities.

Seeing that most of the movements in cotton machinery are made by friction, and the loss of speed for want of proper cleaning or oiling causes breakage and irregularity of work, we can understand how necessary it is to keep all the parts clean and perfectly oiled.

Most of the breakage will be caused by neglect, and nearly all could be avoided by cleanliness, proper oiling, and keeping machinery level, so that the shafts, rollers, and bearing are not bent down by untrue floors, caused generally by the settling or overweighting of buildings.

Long machines, like mules and frames, should be kept level, if power, oil, regularity, amount of production, and repairs are

to be considered.

Another evil attending repairs done in the mill is the frequent use of castings for patterns, as in the case of wheels, racks, brackets, and other expensive parts; the shrinkage in recasting causes the wheels and racks to be the wrong pitch, and they will not work well with the other parts, thus causing more friction, irregular work, and more liability to break again.

Breakages, like misfortunes, never come singly; they are sure to occur when least expected, and when you are least prepared for them; therefore, how important for the proper running of a mill to anticipate them by being prepared with all the parts properly finished, so that when they do occur the machinery is stopped as little as possible.

I am convinced that this is the only way to insure regularity

of production, and keep expenses down; and if a proper depreciation is taken off annually, to replace the machinery when worn out, or out of date, the cost and profit of manufacturing goods can be arrived at with great accuracy.

I have recently made some inquiry into the present system adopted in England, in regard to depreciation, and find the system there is as follows: They take off 10 per cent. from boilers, 7 per cent. from fixtures, 5 per cent. from general machinery, 2 per cent. from buildings, in co-operative or limited companies. Some private concerns take off 7 per cent., others 5 per cent. off the whole. The object of depreciation to guard against it being revenue pays back to capital

is to preserve revenue intact, and divided as profit, to insure that what it insensibly takes away. The question is, What is the capacity of a mill for producing profits for a given period? This may vary according to circumstances; viz., running machinery at high speeds, inattention to repairs, coarse or fine work, and, as I said before, the continued improvements that are being made.

The depreciation should in all cases be taken annually from the original cost, and not from the depreciated balances. For instance if the amount the first year is $10,000, it should be that amount annually, and the depreciation should begin when the machinery has fairly got to work, say in six months after all the machines are started and the mill is up to its full production.

No additions should be charged to plant, but what are extensions or improvements that increase the original productive capacity.

If this system were adopted, the value of mill-stocks would be better maintained, and in times like these they would see their actual condition, and know if they were working at a profit or loss.

THE EXPORT OF COTTON GOODS.

BY EDWARD ATKINSON.

When the

GENTLEMEN :-I have been requested to speak to you to-day upon the subject of the export of cotton goods. suggestion was first made, I intended only to prepare myself to give you a few bare facts, and to present to you some samples of English and French cotton fabrics; but when I took up the case, I reached certain results which have surprised me, and which, I am sure, will greatly interest you. I shall treat the subject in a broad way, and shall make no apology if I take up more of your time than you perhaps expect. I shall be forced to bring in the question of the tariff, not in the way of contention, but simply because tariff is another name for taxation, and the different modes of taxation prevailing in Great Britain and the United States form one of the essential factors in our power to make goods for export.

I shall use statistics, and while I am perfectly aware that statistics may be made to prove almost anything that one desires to prove, yet, rightly and judiciously used, they are sure guides, if applied to long periods, and not to immediate acts.

The first question which presents itself, is, Why is this matter of exports so vitally important at this time? The common. answer will be, that there are too many spindles, and an overproduction of cotton cloth.

I undertake to say, and shall attempt to prove, that this answer is erroneous, and that if we gauge our present possible product by periods when this country was in a normal condition, and was not suffering from removable causes of depression, our present product of other goods than print-cloths is not even up to its normal standard. The difficulty under which we now suffer is a restricted home consumption, brought about in part