. Sept.,
1920
T N E J O U R N A L OF I N D U S T R I A L A N D E Y G I N E E R I N G C H E M I S T R Y
question! T h e statistics of production, as given b y t h e U. S . Geological Survey, are a s follows: YEAR FIRMS TONSOF IC20 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1,090 1916.“. ............... 70 9,720 95 1917 32,573 1918 128 54,803 1919,“. 73 30,899 43 1920 (3 mo.). 11,969
.................. .................. ...............
..........
$
VALUE 342,000 4,242,730 13,980,577 15,839,618 7,889,440 2,738,195
A rapid increase in output took place from 1916 t o t h e end of 1918,with all indications of further increase in 1919. Fearing German importations, t h e potash producers asked protection of Congress. Mr. Fordney, chairman of t h e Ways and Means Committee, introduced a bill, embodying a form of restricted license, b u t t h e objurgations of his fellow Republicans and t h e gibes of his Democratic colleagues forced his ret u r n t o t h e accustomed waters of protection-throughtariff-alone. Farmers fought t h e bill because they didn’t want a n y kind of protection for t h e American potash industry, they wanted t h e “good old cheap German potash” again. They haven’t got i t yet b y a long sight and will not for many, many years, unless a strong American industry can force t h e price down. T h e American Commissioner in Berlin has cabled t h a t t h e Germans are selling potash t o America a t prices varying from $108 t o $ 1 2 2 , according t o time of delivery, while they charge Holland only $50. T h e German will get all t h e money out of America he possibly can for his potash, and so will t h e Frenchman. T h e fertilizer manufacturers did not support t h e bill. They were interested in German mines. On June 9, 1920, t h e New Y o r k Times published t h e following: Corporation Councilor Maximilian Kemptner, who is probably the greatest expert on the potash industry, informed the Times correSporndent about American investments in that industry in Germany, chief among them being by the Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company, and the International Agricultural Chemical Company, which were interested respectively in the Einickeit and the Sollstedt potash works. Altogether the potash works in Germany have sold to America this year 250,aoo tons of potash, which he hopes will be increased to 500,000in the next eighteen months. No indignant denials of this definite statement have come t o our notice. Those 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 tons have not yet been delivered. Are they purposely t o constitute a continuing t h r e a t against favorable legislation? Meanwhile t h e American industry is convalescing. I t was crippled last year b y t h e unsympathetic attitude of a Congress dominated in both branches b y t h e p a r t y which boasts of its policy of protection for American industries, a n d b y t h e sly propaganda of expected large imports of German potash. But methods and product have been improved, and fear of cheap German potash has been dispelled. What are we doing i n a governmental way t o aid this industry? Nothing! An appropriation t o t h e Department of Agriculture amounting t o $67,400 was voted b y the last Congress t o complete t h e kelp investigation at t h e experimental plant a t Summerland, California-why? Because it was shown t h a t t h e sale of t h e products made at t h e plant in 1920 would bring $IOI,OOO, while t h e estimated receipts in 1 9 2 1 are expected t o reach $223,000.
On t h e other hand, t h e country has been paying millions and millions of dollars of tribute for years for foreign potash, buying much more potash t h a n was needed for certain soils, because of clever propaganda, protesting against, but ultimately acquiescing in, a German export t a x which in one year’s chunk mulcted this country of $15,000,000,and now buying again a t figures which would have staggered t h e farmers five years ago. A small part of t h e millions of profits, which have been going and may continue t o go t o Germany, would enable a real exploration for potash in our great salt beds; legislation which practically fixed a price of not more t h a n $2.50 a unit (the price now being paid) would encourage capital and enterprise in t h e industry. We hark back t o t h e words of Ambassador Pinckney, in 1796, “Millions for defense b u t not one cent for tribute.’’ CHAIRMAN BANCROFT’S REPORT
We are fortunate in securing for publication in this issue, pages 911-9153, t h e report of Professor W. D. Bancroft, t h e retiring chairman of t h e Division of Chemistry and Chemical Technology of t h e National Research Council. T h e report is stimulating and inspiring in every feature. T o t h e man beset with the humdrum of everyday routine, its reading will be like a breath of fresh air during a sultry d a y ; for t h e man who thinks ahead, there will be found here a wealth of new material which should aid greatly in blazing t h e way for research. T h e report in itself is a surety of t h e value of the National Research Council t o t h e research activities of t h e nation. One need not look below t h e surface t o understand t h e fine results obtained from t h e chairman’s contact with men i n t h e allied sciences, a n d from t h e opportunity afforded b y t h e character of t h e office t o devote thought and energy exclusively t o t h e problems of research. I n this evident inauguration of real cocirdination and guidance of research along important lines there will no doubt be discovered t h e answer t o some of t h e criticism which has been directed against university research. T h e tenure of office of each chairman is limited t o one year because i t is desired t o focus different types of mind upon t h e general question of research problems in chemistry. As these reports with their many-sided viewpoints accumulate, there should be cleared a pathway straight t o t h e goal of t r u t h , along which can march a host of workers. Professor Bancroft has proved himself a pioneer of sturdy type. CRIPPLING A GREAT W O R K I n a notable address i n Baltimore, on September 30, 1918, Hon A. Mitchell Palmer, t h e then Alien Property Custodian, took t h e country into his confidence as t o t h e threat against our public welfare which lay within t h e great industrial machine which Germany had quietly b u t with characteristic thoroughness coiled like a great viper about t h e vitals of this nation, and promised t o rid America of t h e menace. The exposition of t h e danger and his determination
