Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1888-05-16
Mr.. Scetts Figures on steel.


Mr.. Scsit's Figures on Steel.
We publish elsewhere the statistics and
the argument made by the Hon. VIM. l..
Scott upon the protection afforded the
iron and steel industry, the Edgar Thom-
son works at Braddock, near Pittsburg,
being made the subject of his illustration.
The detailed argument of Mr.. Scott con-
frms our impression that his conclusions
are apt to he sounder than his facts. We
End what seem to be clear errors and
omissions in his calculations of the
cost of the products Of the Edgar
Thomson works. He makes the cost OF
Q ton of steel rails in 1887 to be s26.79, Of
which si09 is the labor cost. But this
apparently includes only the cost Of the
skilled labor employed in converting the
pig iron into steel, the steel into blooms
and the blooms into rails to which
should be added the other labor of the
yard, in handling and shipping the pro-
duct and unloading, storing and deliver
ing the materials, together with the cost
Of the materials, outside the coke and
iron, that are consumed such as
firebrick, sand and coal, or nat.
ural gas, used in the heating fur
naces, and the lining Of the con-
verters these are not found in Mr..
Sc0tt's estimate, whi III takes in appar-
emily nothing but the iron, the coke, and
the skilled labor directly used in the
steel and rail manufacture not even in
cluding the expenses of the Office and the
general administration and omitting, as
he admits, the cost OF fuel for steam
power, and the spegeleisen, the deteriora.
tion of the plant and the interest account.
Adding such items OF cost TO Mr..
SCOTS figures IL will be apparent that
there is no extravagant margin of profit
IA the market price Of $50 80 per ton for
steel rails. 1t is the experience of every
manufacturer that exceptional items of
cost add largely to the sum of every cal.
cnlation Of cost, and need always to
b provided for by an allowance
Tor contingencies and Mr.. Scott
needed to make such an allowance In es.
timatiDg the cost of rails. lie has ex.
perience In iron manufacture and knows
himself how 1t is that the best laid ex.
pectation Of profit is often disappointed
In that business. We do not think it
wise to seek to sustain an ar
gument- with strained facts; the
reduction of duty upon steel rails in the
Mills bill, is warranted by the actual cost
OF steel, even though that cost should be
the price of thirty dollars per ton, to
which 1t has been reduced by home and
not by foreign competition.
That Mr.. scott included in his calcuIa-
ton OF labor cost only the skilled labor
Immediately employed, is apparent from
the careful enumeration he makes of that
labor, giving the total number of men
employed at 673, while in subsequent
portion of his argument he allow a
$500 men as daily employed in the
various industries at these works. And
he enumerates the great quantity of
materials that are daily loaded and un.
loaded there, being 1920 tons of ore.
coke, limestone, pigron, cinder, rails,
coal, sand, bricks, molds, refractories,
etc. IMr. Scott understands that the 800
tons, given as the daily consumption of
coal, includes all of the last five
Items; which seems to be an error !:
though If 1t did, that would afford
no occasion for wonder, and certainly
none for complaint in a country which
uses natural gas as fuel, and which Mr..
Scott thinks is thereby placed at such ad-
vantage as to be independent of the tariff.
Mr.. Scott falls further into manifest
error in putting the cost of coke per ton
OF iron at 72t cents; figure which he
reaches by combining the 400 tonsy-.;
pig iron and the 500 tons Of ,s.,sSI ra;Is lie
daily produced and applying the $50 tons
q coke daily &sed at sl.lo per ton, to
the total Of 1900 tons. Coal NAV
be worth but clio per ton at
the Edgar Thomson works now, though
last year it was sold at 81 at the mines ::
but certainly no coke is used in the max
Ing OF steel rails, the blooms being heated
py cOal UT gas.
We do not think that Mr.. Scott's sta.
tistics received as careful attention from
him as he says that the Mills bill has re.
ceived else these inaccuracies would not
have appeared in his speech, for he GER
tainly has full knowledge of the subject.
We believe generally in bis conclusiC n
that the Mills bill sufficiently protects the
iron and steel manufacturer and we
are not willing that this conclusion,
which is sufficiently based upon facts,
should appear to be propped by anything
else.
Mr.. Scott presents a striking picture
In his statement that 10000, ,OCO acres
OF cotton land employ 1925 900 wage
workers, while the l65 acres of the Edgar
Tnomson employ 1900 ; the one indus
Try unprotected and the other protected
the latter producing.the greater profit to
tho capital employed. But the suggestion
OF the picture seems to be decidedly
favorable to protection, in the greater
value Of the protected acre of land in
furnishing employment to population.
Church Unity.
TIE first DAVIS session of the pco,