Page images
PDF
EPUB

cerned, probably the reclothing of the cards, and putting on fillets instead of sheets, had more to do with it than the shellfeed.

The PRESIDENT. When we applied the shell-feed, we also applied the licker-in at the same time. Some of the members may infer that the advantage came from the licker-in rather than the shell-feed; but I do not think so. I am of the opinion that the good results produced are pretty evenly divided between these two appliances.

Mr. BOURNE. Mr. President, I would like to inquire if there is any one who has had the licker-in with the rolls, who has just taken the rolls out and put in the shell-feed with the same licker-in, on breaker card; and if they always had the licker-in with the rolls, and used this saw-tooth fillet.

Mr. A. F. KNIGHT. Mr. President, it seems to me that the use of the shell-feed implies the use of the licker-in. In my experience, on a plain card, and also on a Foss & Pevey card, and on the Foss & Pevey card more particularly, the use of the licker-in without the shell-feed, that is, with the ordinary feed rolls, has caused the cotton to be delivered in bunches. It seems to me that the shell-feed would overcome the delivering of the cotton by the licker-in to the carrier or to the cylinder in bunches; and in that way it becomes an advantage. I would like to ask Mr. THOMAS what was the condition of the cotton on the licker-in, before he adopted the shell-feed.

Mr. THOMAS. I will state to Mr. Knight that we changed our licker-in when we put on the shell-feed, but, on the old system of carding, our licker-in was always jammed up full of clots. It never seemed to take the cotton from the rolls in the condition it should be. By putting a shell-feed in the old licker-in we might have got some little benefit; but certainly experience has shown that the saw-tooth licker-in is one that should be used in connection with a shell-feed, as giving a better result. We now get a very clean surface. The lickers-in are always clean. The leader takes the cotton away from it very nicely. Mr. GARSED. Mr. President, Mr. LEIGH's work on cottoncarding shows that the work can be done as well without a

licker-in as with it. There is no trouble about that; but, from the remarks made here, I think you might be led astray. Some gentleman has stated an increase of cylinder speed would be a benefit. Now, if an increase of cylinder speed would produce the result, there is no necessity of putting a shell-feed on. Do you see the point I try to make, that, if the centrifugal velocity of the cylinder will throw off the fibre of cotton and will make an increase in the production, there is the element of success, or otherwise? It does not follow, that a shell-feed can only be used on a card with licker-in. It can be used on cards without licker-in, by simply turning the plate, or shell, so that the roller, in shell plate, will be under the plate instead of over it. It is illustrated in the books of Mr. and shown in works on carding. Perhaps some gentleman present can tell us whether the increase of speed from 150 to 180 will give his work equally well carded or equally well done; or any other increase in the velocity of the cylinder.

Mr. O. S. BROWN. Mr. President, I cannot answer from personal observation that question; but, talking with a manufacturer a few years ago, he told me he had decreased from 140 or 150 down to 120. He made very much less waste and very much better carding.

Mr. GARSED. That would seem to answer the question.

The PRESIDENT. The tendency seems to be to high speed on the cylinder.

Mr. HERVEY KENT. Mr. President, the point to my mind. is the quality of the work. We have some cards, made a good many years ago, and we are obliged to run the cylinder at low speed, because in the first place, the shell is not thick enough. There is not stock enough in the cylinder. We are obliged to run them slow. It seems to me if you are going to accomplish much by the card, you want it so you can run it with some speed, and it has got to be built with express reference to that. With the old appliances you can hardly run it 165 or 175 without confining it in its boxes; as we can in best modern cards.

The PRESIDENT. If there is nothing more to be said on this subject, we will take up the next topic, "Is the production of a mill increased or diminished by stopping for Saturday halfholidays?" The discussion will be opened by Mr. F. M. MESSENGER of North Grosvenor Dale, Conn.

Mr. F. M. MESSENGER. Mr. President, it seems to me that other papers to follow will be very interesting, and something must be crowded out here to-day. The other subjects are of a great deal more importance to the Association than this one; and, while I do not desire to shirk any responsibility whatever, I would ask, in the interest of the Association, that this paper be omitted; and I hope the Association will grant permission to omit it.

A MEMBER. Mr. President, if Mr. MESSENGER is prepared, I would like to hear from him, for one, for it is quite an important question.

Mr. MESSENGER. Mr. President, I will say I have not prepared a paper. (Laughter and applause.) I did not suppose that, under the new order of things, we would be expected to prepare an essay. I had the idea that we were expected to say a few words in opening a subject, just simply to start the discussion. I will say that only from my so understanding the matter would I have accepted this part of the programme; for the reason that our mills have never adopted that system. We never have run the mills where I am on the Saturday halfholiday principle. I need not say, therefore, that I have not been in favor of it. Where we are, it is one of those things that bring an irregularity into our work, and break up our system more or less; and, unless there is some other thing that enters into the consideration, I will say that, on general principles, I believe it is objectionable to break up your system by running extra time for five days, in order to stop work a little carlier another day. I can imagine, in some localities, in the case of a mill located perhaps near a large town, where the operatives can go shopping to advantage and profit, that the change might be so beneficial to them that a refusal on the part of the company or corporation to grant it might work to their

injury as a whole. Perhaps in cities, where the operatives have less opportunity to get out in the fresh air in the summer season, it may be that the advantages derived from having the Saturday half-holiday, and being thus enabled to get out without losing their time, would be sufficient to warrant the change. In such cases the advantages might more than off-set the disadvantages; but, on general principles, my opinion is that, unless there are some such considerations as these, we can do better work both in quality and quantity by running regular hours through the week.. I base my opinion on this fact, that in any week that a holiday occurs we have almost invariably realized a lessening of production, and an increase in the second, or lower, quality of goods; and, if that is true of an occasional holiday thrown in, it seems to me it must be true where we work extra hours to obtain a half-holiday.

There is another point. People who have been agitating the subject of short hours, as I understand, always objected to getting the young people up so early in the morning to go to the mill; but, since we have got the ten-hour law out in Connecticut, they want the Saturday half-holiday; and, in order to do that, get up a little earlier, and work a little later, than ever before; so as to get out Saturday afternoon. We never felt the necessity for the change in our locality, and never adopted it; but I can see that in some localities it might be a good thing. I think it would be difficult, however, for us to agree on the matter, if we decide it intelligently, each from his own stand-point.

A MEMBER. Mr. President, in reading the question as it is presented in the programme, it is, "Is the production of a mill increased or diminished by stopping for Saturday halfholiday?" It leaves the question open whether that is intended to be an inquiry in regard to the loss of the half-day or making it up in some part of the week, as suggested by Mr. MESSENGER. I think the question as it stands would look as though the mill was simply to run on regular time until Saturday noon, and then stop; but I noticed that Mr. MESSENGER'S argument was wholly on the ground of making up the half-day. I

would like to ask whether, to his mind, that would make any difference. I was not quite clear on which side of that point he was.

Mr. MESSENGER. I did not understand the question that way. Perhaps that was the intention of it. If it was, it seems to me it must be, inevitably, less productive to have a mill stop for a Saturday half-holiday; lessening the running hours of the mill to that amount. For instance, we stop now at three o'clock Saturday afternoon. If we should stop at noontime, I do not see how we could possibly make up the loss in the production that would be entailed.

Mr. GARSED. Mr. President, in Pennsylvania we have to make sixty hours a week. The law does not tell us to make it all in six days or five, but we make sixty hours a week, and stop at twelve o'clock on Saturday. That is the rule throughout Pennsylvania, as far as I know. We actually make the time, but we make the sixty hours in five days and a half.

Mr. HERVEY KENT. Mr. President, we have been running on five and a half days' time, making the sixty hours in that way, now for several years; and I believe that the help are so well pleased with it that I would about as soon think of running a mill without oil, as undertaking to turn the current the other way at the present time. We do it, however, only in the summer months, when we can do it without any extra expense for gas. I am inclined to think that we get more work and better work, because the help enjoy it better, and it gives them an opportunity to have half a day, consequently they will work more steadily the rest of the week; and we have been able, from the fact that we put in our time in five days and a half, to make up for all lost time except holidays. As we run ten hours and fifty minutes, for five days, every holiday we lose the fifty minutes which we make up; and that makes it easy, to make up for all stoppages. The principle is to make the help just as contented and happy as we possibly can.

Mr. MESSENGER. Mr. President, while I appreciate the point Mr. KENT makes, at the same time I think in some local

« PreviousContinue »