St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-07-01
IRON DISTRICTS.
Where They Are and Their Geo
graphical Boundaries.


Iron Age
Comparisons are going the rounds and
are being discussed in some of the trade
journals of the pig-iron production of
certain sections during the past decade.
In the case under discussion the debate
turns on the relative output of the six
Western states of Ohio, Indiana, Hi
nois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Missouri,
and the nine Southern states of Ala
Dama, Tennessee, Virginia, West Vir-
ginia. Kentucky, Georgia, Maryland,
Texas and North Carolina. We do not
believe that comparisons of this char
acter have any significance, because
they are vitiated by the fact that they
are based on purely political boundaries.
The groups into which the iron in
dustry of the United States naturally
divides do not happen to coincide with
the political boundaries. The con-
Siderations which determine this group
Ing are sources of supply of raw ma
terial, methods of manufacture, prod
uctS and other markets. A striking
example of the fallacy of grouping i'll
any other way is furnished by the
group among the Central Western
states the nail and steel plants with
their furnaces on one bank of the Ohio
river, and to turn over to the Sou thern
states the establishments facing them
on the West Virginia side of that
stream. The whole Wheeling district
should consequently be included in the
Central Western group. The Pittsburg
district, the Shenango and Juniata val
leys and the plants located in that part
of Pennsylvania lying west of the
Allegheny mountains belong to the
same great district. Practically they
draw from the same sources for their
ores and their fuel. They pursue the
same methods, turn out the same line of
products, seek the same markets. 1t
seems to us a question whether the
Kentucky industry should not be added
to the same group.
Then, again, Maryland cannot be
fairly included in the Southern list. Its
greatest plant, that of the SparrowS'
Point extension of the Pennsylvania
Steel company, groups naturally with
Eastern Pennsylvania. We question,
too, whether it is fair to include in the
comparison the charcoal iron industry
of the different sections. We may
frankly confess that we attach very
little importance to the statistical dis
tribution of product by states. To the
student of the iron trade of the country
there is far more significance in the
figures of output of certain sections.
Thus the total pig production of Penn
sylvania means very little; the output
of Allegheny county, the Shenango
valley, the SchuylkilI, Lehigh, Sus-
quehanna, or Lebanon valleys means
a good deal. James M. Swank has
long recognized this and has arranged
his figures accordingly. In the same
manner, in the nail trade, he gives fig
ures for the Wheeling district and for
Central Pennsylvania. The table
which he publishes, and which our con-
temporaries are now discussing, is in
tereSting in it's way, but it is not in
tended for, nor does it furnish the ma
terial for the comparisons which they
have drawn.
If we were to seek the proper group
ing, we would take together New Eng
land, New York. New Jersey, Eastern
and Central Pennsylvania and Mary
land as one; w estern Pennsylvania,
West Virginia. Kentucky, Ohio, In
diana. Michigan, Wisconsin and Mis-
souri, as onother, and Alabama, Tennes-
see, Georgia and Virginia as the third.