The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1908-02-15
STATISTICS OF STONE
PRODUCTION
Director Of the United States Geological
Survey Replies to a Vermont Criti-
cism in Reference to the Gov
ernment's Stone Statistics.

Il 1880" PfN"|NAN ~ PtcNNHtlliS ths
following communication from tile di
rector Of the United States geological
survey There is frequent misconceptior
As to the exact scope Of the statistiei
Of stone production collected and pub
! lished by the federal government ane
y j. important that there should be az
official pronouncement III the matter
IN this connection Stone wishes to cal
attention to the fact that the statement
complained OF as misleading was moi
made By this magazine, but was quo
tation from the Hardwick, VT, Gazette
! The article was printed, not as an en-.
ldorsement Of the attitude Of that paper
but because Of its bearing on discus
SION that had been carried on in the
columns Of this magazine:
Department of the Interior,
United States Geological Survey.
| To the editor of Stone:
! notice an article in your edition for
December. 1907, which il criticism oil
the statistical figures Of the u. S. geo.
logical survey, especially those Of Yer
mont. The article states that ~the re-
port in question gives the finished value
Of the monumental work produced in
1906 in Vermont as only $45i ,222, where
as, it Is well known that Barre has pay
rolls amounting to more that million
dollars a year, 70 it would either seem
that the Barre manufacturers are selling
their goods at half price or that they
have failed to make returns to the
United States geological survey Of the
information requested as to their out
put
This statement would make it appear
that the U. s. geological survey collects
statistics OF stone from the manufactuT-
ers OF granite. This is not the case The
statistics collected and published by the
survey are the statistics Of production
only, and obtained from the quarrymen,
not from the manufacturers In case
the quarrymen finish their own product,
these figures are given to the survey,
as, in this case, this is the only value
this stone has to the producer. In the
figures for 1906, as published by the
survey, S45l ,222 represents the value of
rough monumental stone sold by the
quarymen, while $003,220 represents the
value Of rough monumental stone sold
by The quarrymen. This rough stone
is shipped all over the United States
and worked into finished material BY
innumerable small stone cutters, so that
in direct correspondence with the quar-
rymen it would be impossible to get the
finished value of the stone, it being inn
possible to determine the quantity Of
work to be done upon the stone. Taking
value of $l.00 per cubic foot for the
1898 ,220 worth Of rough stone sold by
quarrymen, there would be represented
By this sum $685. 40 cubic feet OF stone,
which. at a value Of SO per cubic foot
for dressed stone, would give S2,97p, 600,
the value Of the dressed monumental
stone. aud adding the S45l .222 already
given for dressed stone, the output would
be s., 430,S62 OF course. this is a low
estimate, a. a large part Of the Vermont
monumental stone is worth more than
s3 per cubic foot in the finished state,
and one dollar is above the average for
rough stone, as reported by the quarry
men, The following statement Of the
stand taken by the geological survey
in the collection Of statistics may be OF
interest to you.
The value for all kinds Of mineral
production which this Office desires to
publish Is the value Of raw material,
including only such value for labor as is
expended by tie producer in mining the
and getting it in shape for
the market--that II, the value of the
raw material to the producer The sell
ing price Of this material f 0. b. is
AL. s.t Io,4 s,f
when sold to local trade. the
IS Of no value until delivered
to the local customer.
In the case 81 the stone output Of the
United States, some years ago the sta
tisticai card sent ont only asked for
stone used for building and stone used
for monumental work, and the answers
sent to this ofiee parted in price per
unit Of measurement 50 much for firms
IN the same locality and for the same
firm as reported for different years, that
L was decided to separate the rough
stone from the dressed stone. This was
found to answer fairly well, as it was
possible in this manner to get statistics
capable 81 comparison, as the average
producer sells his output in the same
manner each year, and by comparison |
IF the cards for the different years it IS |
possible to determine which firms manu-
iacture their own stone and which sell I
{ rough. BY correspondence with many |
ii the larger firms, we have found that |
hey are unable 70 put value ON their \
stone except as they know the value /
from their selling price.
Ii will thus be seen that, although the I
lesire is to publish figures with as little !
abor added 10 their value as possible. !
abor value could only be excluded in
ihe case Of stone il the survey gave
saluation to the material In many
ases this would be almost impossible,
IS often no unit OF measurement is
dven. and sometimes no quantity what
yer Is stated There are over 600
James on the list Of stone producers in
lie United States. many of them being
mall local producers, and often very
literate.
This question Of value OF the stone has
ieen given much consideration, both iii
he Office Of the Z S geological survey
nd IN statistical cooperation with the
ensus Office. the geological surveys of
Georgia. North Carolina. Iowa Mary.
and, Illinois, etc. and tie decision has
lways been to give the values as they
re now given.
The above seems to give an unfair
to the stone reported as quar-
led in the different states, but Vermont
not the only state at disadvantage.
Il Georgia the marble qnarrsmen sell
imost al OF their marble in the rough.
lille ia Vermont most Of the marble
uarrymen manufacture the marble In
the large quantity Of oolitic