With a persistence worthy of a better cause, the Engineering writer returns to the point he seems especially anxious to enforce. Toward the end of the article he says: "In every instrument described by Mr. Edison the diaphragm is the ruling genie of the instrument. Professor Hughes, however, has through his great discovery been enabled to show that variations of resistance can be imparted to an electrical current not only without a diaphragm, but with very much better results when no such accessory is employed."
The animus of all this is only too apparent. Altogether the article is the most dishonest piece of writing we have ever seen in a scientific periodical; and although the article appears in the editorial columns of Engineering, we prefer, for the honor of scientific journalism, to think that the management of that paper was not party to the rascally act. It is more credible that a gross imposition has been practiced by some trusted member of the Engineering staff, or by some contributor whose position seemed to justify the acceptance of his utterances without any attempt at their verification. It is well known here to whom, in London, at Mr. Edison's request, Mr. Prescott sent proofs of the matter abused, together with electros of the cuts used, in Engineering. Accordingly the burden of dishonor lies upon or between a prominent British official on the one hand, and on the other a journal which cannot afford to leave the matter unexplained. Whoever is hurt, we sincerely hope that the fair fame of scientific journalism for candor and honesty may come off unstained.
[ A More Perfect Production.]
The highest skill in manufacture or in production of any kind is not yet the prevailing characteristic of American industry. Uniformity of production, of whatever kind, is of much greater importance than to attempt the manufacture of any grade for which the material or the tools, the machinery or the knowledge of the workmen is not fitted. The highest condition of product in any nation is to produce the finest or highest cost articles in the most perfect manner, and to have material and machinery adopted, and the skilled workmen, so as to be able to so produce economically. But until the master hand is satisfied of all the requisites for producing fine goods, he should confine production to the best his facilities will make in the most perfect, uniform manner.
Samples of fine goods are shown all over the country every day, and were consumers or merchants sure that the product would be the same, there would be much less difficulty in introducing and more homemade goods used where now importations are depended upon. The Stevens crash mills import raw flax because it is to be had according to sample, perfectly classified, and saves the employment of skilled labor to assort and classify, and of purchasing a great deal not wanted. The manufacturers of edge tools and knives use imported steel because it is warranted and the warrant proves good, while the uncertainty of American steel is such that a knife will often crack in tempering and cause the loss of labor worth ten times the difference in the price of the steel. Samples of alpacas and other dress goods are shown in our jobbing houses fully equal to any imported goods, but the goods when received are quite often of various grades and imperfections of character.
The imperfect or second quality productions find sale, but at a much lower price, and are to be found at second rate places, the imperfections slight and the goods perhaps generally quite as serviceable, but not absolutely so, and first class houses, catering to those who pay highest prices, cannot afford to have any other house carry better articles than they do. The use of perfect appliances and the best material and the employment of the highest skill are not yet the first step and an absolute necessity, as it should be, in America. The supply of such machinery, material, and labor can be had if those who propose to enter the production of first class articles will insist upon it, and if such supplies are appreciated by the payment of their higher value. The American standard of production is not the highest, and it can be materially elevated, and while, as at present, too many common articles are supplied, the leading manufacturers should turn to producing finer, the finest, and in smaller quantities, to take the place of many articles now imported, and to supply the new market which such productions will always create in any country.
[ The Wool Product of the World.]
From an interesting article on the wool trade of the Pacific coast, published in a recent number of the San Francisco Journal of Commerce, we learn that the number of sheep in the world is now estimated at from four hundred and eighty-four to six hundred millions, of which the United States has about 36,000,000, and Great Britain the same number. From 1801 to 1875 the wool clip of Great Britain and Ireland increased from 94,000,000 to 325,000,000 pounds. That of France has increased almost as rapidly, though the wool is finer, as a rule, and hence the superiority of French cloths. Australia produces nearly as much wool as the parent country—Great Britain. The United States product increased from very little at the beginning of the century to about 200,000,000 pounds at the present time. Of this California has produced about one fourth, and the Pacific coast as a whole almost one third. If the ratio of growth shown in the past prevails in the future, the day is not far distant when the Pacific coast will produce at least one half the wool produced in the United States, as not only California and Oregon, but also Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and New Mexico are well adapted to its production. The wool clip of Australia is about 284,000,000 pounds; that of Buenos Ayres and the river Plata, 222,500,000 pounds; other countries not previously given, 463,000,000 pounds. The total clip of the world last year was about 1,497,500,000 pounds, worth $150,000,000. This when scoured would yield about 852,000,000 pounds of clean wool.