750
T H E JOURNAL O F I N D U S T R I A L A N D E N G I K E E R I N G C H E M I S T R Y
V d . 13, NO.9
EDITORIALS An Acknowledgment We have worked in the face of what seemed insurmountable obstacles to place this issue in the hands of our readers promptly on schedule. Its typographical shortcomings are not due to negligence on the part of our staff, for they have worked untiringly, nor through any fault of our printer, who waived his contract terms to permit the editorial sections to be printed elsewhere. Labor conditions unexpectedly intervened, and it was necessary to move the half-finished work bodily from one shop to another in the dead of night. Obviously it was impossible to match accurately the usual type styles, and conformity of detail in the third shop not to be expected. Standards have been sacrificed for promptness. We are heartily grateful to the efficient manager and capable typesetters who “delivered the goods”.
Welcome to our Visitors A hearty welcome to our British and Canadian guests! It is easy for those of us who think alike, speak alike and feel alike to get together for common good. The editorial suggestion of a year ago that the chemists of Great Britain, Canada and the United States meet together f o r common counsel met with sympathetic response. Correspondence and personal conferences soon made the matter an accomplished fact. Never was there better illustration of the value of personal acquaintance, and the next two weeks will afford opportunity for a wide extension of this personal contact. The broad basis of sympathetic understanding in each o f these joint meetings now in progress lies not so much in a common language as in the fact that in each of our lands the chemist, before the war, occupied a lowly plane in our body politic. His existence was known but little heeded. He was considered a man apart, no glamor attached to his accomplishments, his opinions were given but scant attention by men in power. In each country the Teuton, through cleverly fostered propaganda, was held in popular esteem as the superman in chemistry. But the tasks of war were worthily performed. Side by side we worked on those pressing problems upon the successful outcome of which great issues hung. In the light of our accomplishments national gratitude was a not unreasonable expectation. Such a feeling would logically express itself in the form of prompt protective legislation which would safeguard the future. However, in England it was only after a great tide of imports had rushed in through the breach made in the dyke of war blockade by the Sankey decision that the gap was closed by the Licensing Act of December 1920. The British dye industry is still suffering from that devastating flood. Not before August 12, 1921, aImost three years after the Armistice, was the Government’s Safeguarding of Industries bill, protecting the key industries developed during the war, passed. How like the war psychology! Grave disaster was the stimulus necessary for effective measures of defense. But once aroused the British answer to the call has always been complete. With us in America the story has been a little different, but the spirit of dallying just as evident. We have made use of the sand bags of the War Trade Board to avoid a break in our dyke against a flood of dyes, though often this temporary expedient has seemed on the point
of exhaustion, but in other key industries we still await the enactment of permanent tariff legislation to check the uneven competition of longer experience and depreciated currencies. Again how like war psychology-sIow in being aroused to our responsibilities. That which gives heart and hope to all of us in each of our lands is that public understanding, though gradually, is surely arising, and we believe it a historical fact that when once the Anglo-Saxon race sees a thing clearly it sees it through. Fortunately the visit is not to be a hurried one, for besides the opportunities of close association afforded by the week of the General Meeting with its formal program there will follow Exposition Week with its numerous occasions for informal gatherings. While it is hoped that the social functions arranged will afford an atmosphere of good fellowship and happiness, nevertheless the period just before us is pregnant with possibilities of great good, not so much to ourselves as to the lands we love. It is a time for great things. The occasion is here. Unfetter the imagination. Let us plan for the future on broadest lines and unitedly set about to accomplish their fulfillment.
The Fiffhtin the Senate We call it a fight for t h a t is the only fitting term to describe the hearings on the dye embargo held before the Senale Committee on Finance during the dog days of August 1921. The defeat of the measure in the House by such a heterogeneous vote, secured under a cloud of fake issues, “monopoly,” “trusts,” “corruption,” etc., made certain the reopening of the question in the Senate. While waiting for the battle to begin the opposition celebrated its victory in the House by a luncheon given ir New York City on July 25, 1921, by the American Protective Tariff League in honor of Congressman Frear, the aggressive leader for the German interests. Among the other guests was Mr. Metz, assumedly representing the impoiters and the Democrats. With the social festivities ended the hearings began, with the chemical interests, aided strongly by the War and Navy Departments, on the offensive to regain the ground lost in the House, while the importers and the small group of textile interests took up the defensive, Senator Moses occupying a strategic position behind the lines. Again was covered the same ground so thoroughly thrashed out during December 1919. The outstanding features of the new hearings were the aggressive leadership of General Fries, the Chief of the Chemical Warfare Service, the letters to Senator Penrose by Secretaries Weeks and Denby (reproduced below), the admirable brief filed by Mr. Ghoate, the presentation of the smaller manufacturers’ case by Mr. Isermann, the outspoken opposition t o the embargo plan by the Amoskeng Mills (Senator Moses3 chief constituent), constant questioning by Senator Smoot, and the presence of former Senator Thomas of Colorado a t the hearings. But the cleverest move in the proceedings was by Chairman Penrose. The Democrats had been called in to the hearings on the American valuation and dye embargo features of the bill. Known t o be in opposition, their votes would be helpful in killing both, but Republican sentiment for American valuation developed so strongly that
