T H E J O U R N A L OF I N D U S T R I A L A N D E N G I N E E R I N G C H E M I S T R Y the blowing-out process more fully developed later, and both of which have been in use by the Midland Chemical Company and Dow Chemical Company practically continuously since 1892. The Dow Company had practically no competition in America, and although German manufacturers were shipping some bromine to the United States, these shipments ceased a t the outbreak of the European war. Justice Sear1 then proceeded: That the Emerson Drug Company and the Dr. Miles Medical Company had purchased bromides in considerable quantities, the former company as high as IOO,OOO pounds a year on contract. With the increased price demanded a controversy arose, the purchasing concerns alleging that the Dow Company was charging an exorbitant price because having a practical monopoly. In 1915 the Emerson Company considered the advisability of engaging in the manufacture of bromide, and learned of Douglas and of the fact that the Meyer Brothers plant at Midland was for sale. A copartnership was formed by the Emerson Drug Company and the Dr. Miles Medical Company and the American Bromine Company was incorporated under the laws of Michigan in December, 1915,with the Emerson Company holding 60 per cent and the Miles Company 40 per cent of the Bromine Company stock. The court then reviewed the correspondence between Douglas and the Emerson Drug Company, the discussion of the process to be used and the fact that Dow was using an electrolytic process. After all the correspondence and conferences “in which the founders of the American Bromine Company were practically informed in so many words that the Dow Company were operating under secret processes in addition to its patented processes, Douglas was employed and set to work to build a plant to make bromines and bromides, not by the use of bittern waters as he recommended, but by the electrolytic process.” “The officials of the Emerson Drug Company,” asserts the court, “must have had full notice and knowledge that it was proposed to duplicate the plant of the Dow Company in all its essential details, except possibly where it might conflict with the patents held by the Dow Company.” Later, Schaefer was employed to take tbe place of Douglas. The court also says: “I find that except in some minor details the plant of the American Bromine Company is in its essential characteristics a duplicate of portions of the plant of the Dow Chemical Company and that in the manufacture of bromine and bromides from raw brine the American Bromine Company are now using the same processes as were used by the Dow Company a t the time Douglas and Schaefer were employed by the latter company.”
UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION INQUIRY IN REGARD TO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES The Tariff Commission is undertaking an inquiry into the significant developments that have taken place in the chemical industries since the passage of the tariff act of 1913. Changes which seem likely to alter permanently the conditions of international competition or the course or volume of foreign trade are to be special subjects of study. All persons having direct knowledge of pertinent facts in regard to any particular industry or product are invited to submit a statement of the Tariff Commission. Among the matters on which the Commission desires as full and complete information as possible are: I. The manufacture within the United States of articles formerly unavailable or obtained exclusively by importation, for example, phosgene. 2. I n the case of industries previously established in the United States, the erection of new plants or increase in capacity of existing plants; for example, the increase in capacity of existing plants for making caustic soda and chlorine and the installation of such plants a t textile and paper mills.
Vol,
IO,
No. 2
3. The future of industries or establishments newly created, or in which productive capacity has been greatly increased to meet a direct war demand. How can these plants be utilized when the war demand disappears? For example, the acetone industry. 4. Any general or significant differences in the prevailing method of manufacture in the United States and abroad, such as the relatively small use of the carbureted water-gas process in England compared to the process in the United States. 5. Differences in the organization of the industry in the United States and abroad. 6 . The development or invention in the United States or abroad of new or improved processes which are likely to influence the conditions of international competition; for example, the hydrogenation of fatty oils or the flotation process for concentrating ores. 7. Significant changes in the conditions of international competition caused by the recent law-making patents owned by citizens of enemy countries available t o American manufacturers; for example, the patents on salvarsan. 8. Industries which have been seriously hampered in their normal operations or in their development by difficulty in securing materials or supplies formerly imported; for example, the lack of potash for fertilizer or glass. If these difficulties have been met by the introduction of substitutes, it is expected that there will be a return to the old materials and methods when foreign supplies again become available, or will the changes be permanent? 9. Developments or changes in other industries which have created a new or greatly increased demand for chemical products; for example, the manufacture of new varieties of glass in the United States. IO. The discovery of new uses of materials, &eating a new demand or furnishing a market for materials formerly wasted; for example, the use of aniline as an accelerator in the vulcanization of rubber. 11. Any governmental hindrances in the United States or abroad, either in manufacture or commerce; such as the export duty on nitrate from Chile. The Commission will publish only general statements or summaries, which will not reveal the operation or plans of individuat companies.
SPECIAL CHEMICALS AND APPARATUS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE CHEMISTRY COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL The Chemistry Committee of the National Research Council will endeavor to locate for our chemical investigators chemicals and apparatus where the need is deJZnite and urgent, and where the article required is not obtainable in the oPen market. Inquiries for chemicals should be addressed to Prof. Roger Adams, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill., who has already published lists of certain of the products which are obtainable through his office. Requests for aid in locating apparatus should go to Mr. A. H. Thomas, W. Washington Square, Philadelphia, the Chairman of our Sub-committee on Chemical Apparatus. As these gentlemen are carrying out this work as a patriotic service for the welfare and security of our country and without any remuneration for the labor involved, it is requested that investigators in need of such supplies make sure that the material required is not available through the ordinary commercial channels before turning to these colleagues for aid, as the burden of correspondence is already heavy. When the desired material is located, the inquirer will be put in direct communication with the owner, so that a loan or sale may be arranged. I t will assist these gentlemen in their labors if chemists and physicists having special or unusual chemicals or apparatus available forlgan or sale will forward full details concerning the same. MARSTON TAYLOR BOGERT WASHINGTON, D. C. January 14, 1918
