Skip to main content

Full text of "Information concerning optical glass and chemical glassware"

See other formats

-- Lj 

United States Tariff Commission 



















Office : 1322 New York Avenue, Washington, D. C. 


F. W. TAUSSIG, Chairman. 









Washington, June 3, 1919. 
The Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives: 

I have the honor to transmit herewith, in accordance with your 
request dated June 2, 1919, information compiled by the United 
States Tariff Commission on optical glass and chemical glassware. 
Very respectfully, 


Vice Chairman. 



Letter of transmittal 3 


Description 7 

Development of a new industry 7 

Tariff considerations 7 

Status of the industry: 

Description 8 

Domestic production 8 

Experimental work 8 

Difficulties encountered and progress made 9 

Materials, equipment, and methods of production 10 

Domestic production and consumption 10 

Foreign production 10 

Imports 10 

Competitive conditions and tariff considerations 12 

Methods of optical-glass manufacture 13 


Description 17 

Established as a new industry 17 

Tariff considerations 17 

Status of the industry: 

Description 18 

Domestic production 18 

Quantity 18 

Classification of products 19 

Materials 19 

Equipment 19 

Methods and processes 19 

Organization and capitalization 19 

Geographical distribution 20 

Domestic production and consumption 20 

Exports 20 

Foreign production 21 

Imports 21 

Tariff history 21 

Tariff considerations 21 

Comparative tests of foreign and domestic ware 22 

Views of manufacturers, scientists, importers, and others: 

Tariff Commission conference with glass manufacturers 23 

Opinions of scientists 25 

Views of importers and manufacturers 32 

List of manufacturers of chemical glassware 34 

List of shops making lamp-blown and volumetric ware 35 




Paragraph 494. Glass plates or disks, rough cut or unwrought, for use in the 
manufacture of optical instruments, spectacles, and eyeglasses, and suitable only 
for such use; provided, however, that such disks exceeding eight inches in diameter 
may be polished sufficiently to enable the character of the glass to be determined. 
(Free of duty. Act of 1913.) 



Optical glass, rough cut or unwrought, is the essential element in 
the manufacture of microscopes, field glasses, range finders, gun 
sights, photographic lenses, and other optical instruments. It is ad- 
milted into the United States free of dutv. Up to the end of the 
year 1917, this glass was not manufactured in the United States and 
nad been imported in its unwrought state, principally from Germany, 
where many new varieties had been developed after years of scientific 
research and experiment. It has been imported also from France 
and England. 

Optical glass in a finished state and as part of completed optical 
instruments is also free of duty, when such instruments are imported 
by educational institutions for their own use. 


The shutting out of German imports and the necessities of the 
Allied Governments soon exhausted the supply of optical glass in 
the United States. In 1917 scientists of the Carnegie Institution 
and the United States Bureau of Standards cooperated with four 
American manufacturers and succeeded in producing certain varieties 
of optical glass which met the requirements of the Army and Navy. 

These manufacturers have built and equipped factories for the 
production of the optical glass required for domestic consumption. 
The quantity needed for this purpose is not large either in time of 
war or peace, but that the industry is essential was established by 
our experience in the war. 

In Germany, France, and England the industry has been expanded 
since 1914. 


The advantages possessed by Germany and other countries are 
such that this new American industry is unequal to successful com- 
petition with the countries named on the basis of continued free im- 
portation of the foreign product. American manufacturers desire 
the repeal of paragraph 573 of the tariff act of 1913, which admits, 




duty free, complete optical instruments imported, for scientific use 
in educational institutions for the reason that a very large part of the 
total domestic demand comes from these institutions. 


Optical glass of the highest grade is the essential element in the 
making of microscopes, field glasses, range finders, gun sights, peri- 
scopes, aiming circles, photographic lenses, and other optical instru- 
ments. While this glass is indispensable in directing and control- 
ling the firing of modern artillery and of naval and military ordnance 
in general, the quantities needed for range finders, gun sights, trench 
periscopes, etc., are not great in any country, even in time of war. 
For microscopes, field glasses, and other instruments used in time of 
peace there will be a steady and increasing, though limited, demand. 


The production of optical glass in the United States from April to 
October, 1918, inclusive, as shown by the War Industries Board, was 
as follows: 

Optical glatt plates or disks, rough cut or unwrought. 









Ordinary crown 

3, 760. 00 
5, 272. 00 

8, 842. 75 
9, 122. 25 
10, 255. 75 

22, 397. 00 

13, 726. 50 
k 210. 00 


6, 890. 37 

8, 372. 25 


Barium crown 

I.ieht flint 

Dense flint 

Baryta flint . 

Very li"ht flint 


28, 157. 00 

46, 538. 50 



93, 239. 00 


95, 563. 68 

Experimental work. Prior to the year 1918 there was practically 
no production of optical glass in the United States. One American 
company built an experimental optical glass plant in 1912 and by 
1914 was able to produce a few types of glass which were used in 
optical instruments. Manufacturers of optical instruments up to 
1914 were able to obtain optical glass of the best quality from Europe, 
the general supply coming from, three great firms, one in Germany, one 
in France, ana one in England. But by the end of 1914 the importa- 
tion of optical glass had become difficult and uncertain and three 
American firms and the Bureau of Standards beo;an to experiment 
in making it. When the United States entered the war in 1917 the 
demands of the Army and Navy required the making of the glass in 
this country, and the scientists of the Geophysical Laboratory of the 
Carnegie Institution were called upon to aid the manufacturers in its 

The beginning of the optical-glass industry in the United States 
and its development to meet the needs of the Government were 


stated to the Tariff Commission by Capt. F. E. Wright, Army repre- 
sentative of optical glass and instruments for the War Industries 
Board. Capt. Wright was in charge of optical-glass production for 
the geophysical laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Wash- 

Optical glass, although not requirpd in large quantities, is nevertheless an important 
item in war op rations, because by the use of optical instruments much of the firing, 
esp?cially by artillery, is directed and controlled. If the men are not equipped with 
fire-control instruments and can not s?e to aim prop rly their firing can serve little 
purpose. This situation was not adequately realized by manufacturers in this country 
before the war, and little effort was made to produce optical glass. Manufacturers of 
optical instruments were able to obtain optical glass in desired quality and quantity 
from Europ:', and consequently did not feel the necessity for making it themselves. 
In 19J2, however, the Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., thraugh the efforts of Mr. William 
Bausch, built an experimental optical-sflass plant, and placed a practical glass maker, 
Mr. V. Martin, in charge. By 1914 this company was able to produce- a few types of 
optical glass which were us-^d in optical instruments. By the end of 1914 the impor- 
tation of optical glass had become difficult and uncertain. Other firms, as Keuffel <fc 
Ess-"!-, Spmcer Lens Co., and also the Bureau of Standards, began to experiment in 
making optical glass. E'.v 1917, when the United States had entered the war, the 
optical-glass situation had become critical; the European supply was practically cut 
off; optical glass had made in this country if our Army and Navv were to receive 
the fire-control instruments which they needed. The geophysical laboratory of the 
Carnegie Institution of Washington was called upon to aid in the production of high- 
grade optical glass. A party from the laboratorv was stationed, in April, 1917, at 
the plant of the Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., and for seven months all efforts of the 
laboratory were concentrated at this plant. By the end of 1917 the essential details 
of the manufacture had been developed, and glass in considirabl" quantities was 
being produced. The efforts of the laboratory wtre then extended to the Spncer 
Lens Co. and the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. At the present time large quantities of 
optical glass of the kinds needed for military lire-control instruments are being pro- 
duc"d of a quality equal in practically every risp: ct to the best European glass. 

The production of this glass has been an urgent military necessity. The required 
information on details of manufacture has been gained at very consielerable expense. 

Difficulties encountered and progress made. At the Pittsburgh hear- 
ings of the Tariff Commission statements were made explanatory of 
the difficulties encountered and the progress that had been made. 
In his testimony Dr. John A. Brashear said: 

You elo not know how we have been handicapped on account of lack of material 
to make the things that the Government is wanting so badly. 1 think we have refused 
to handle in our workshop over half a million dollars worth of orders from the Gov- 
ernment because we had no way in which to fill them. Yet the Government needs 
those things. I think we have 99.000 pieces to make of this article (indicating small 
piece of glass]. There are 11 pieces to each article. 1 think we have orders for 
9.000 sets, which would make 99,000 pieces. This instrument is a peris- 
cope to be used in the trenches to locate places from which shot? are being fired and 
to locate those places within 4 or 5 seconds of an arc. and these pieces have to be made 
with a precision of which you have no idea. We must get the material, anel those 
people are going to give it to us. The Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. now has two Gov- 
ernment experts from the Bureau of Standards, and the Carnegie Institution at Wash- 
ington has sent either two or four of their men to give them, as far as they can, the 
chemical equivalents, the technique, and all that sort of thing. My little firm on 
the hill is doing everything it can to help. 

At the present time, of course, we have none of the optical glass made by the Ger- 
mans. They have developed 28 new kinds of glass, and one of those kinds was the 
glass that we use entirely now for range finders and for gun sights for the Navy, for 
which we now have orders for some 5,000. It is also used for the panoramic sight. 
I happen to have a couple of pieces of that glass here. 1 1 ore is one of the pieces, 
which is a little bit soiled [indicating a small bit of glass]. Here is another piece [indi- 
cating glass]. This is made for what is called the panoramic sight, which requires a 
precision \\hich would not have been dreamed of 20 years ago. This piece of glass 
[indicating] has to have its angle corrected to 2 seconds of an arc and its surface has 
to be correct to the one one-hundred-thousandths of an inch. Of course, we are 

12889319 2 


able to do that; in fact, we can test them within one ten-millionth of an inch. The 
French have also taken that glass up and make it successfully. 

To-day we are making instruments for the Army that will photograph the flight of 
a cannon ball. It took 40 minates to take the first picture of the human face in 1839 
and to-day, by the use of a photochronograph, we record the flight of a cannon ball. 
We can photograph it inside the gun or outside the gun for a great distance. 

Materials. In American factories the materials used in the manu- 
facture of optical glass are silica, alkali, lime, lead, baryta, zinc, 
alumina, and boron. 

The Bureau of Standards has developed clay crucibles in which 
the glass is melted and brought to perfection. 

Domestic production and consumption. While optical glass of the 
highest quality has been successfully produced and the capacity of 
factories has been sufficient to meet olomestic needs, it is evident that 
the industry is not yet able to supply all the grades and kinds of 
glass for which there is a demand. In 1913 we imported optical 
plates and disks valued at $506,594, and in 1914 at $617,703, of 
which 50 per cent came from Germany and 27 per cent came from 
England. In 1917 the value of the imports was $238,258, and in 
1918 there was an increase to $275,295. The decrease from former 
years in 1917 and 1918 is due in part to the establishment of this 
new industry in the United States. 


Statistics of foreign production are not available, but the potential 
power of foreign competitors is indicated in their export trade and 
in the great advantages they have had in the earlier scientific devel- 
opment of this product. The statistics of exports of this particular 
kind of glass are meager and not reported at all for some countries. 

In 1913 Germany exported optical glass of various kinds, valued 
at $7,900,172, classified as follows: Rough optical glass, $271,320; 
lenses, $2,528,274; and other optical glass, $5,100,578. In the same 
year France exported lenses valued at $493,887, and other optical 
glass, $18,760. 

The manufacture of optical glass requires scientific knowledge of a 
high order as well as exceptional skill. It is one of peculiar technical 
difficulties, both chemical and mechanical. Prof. Abbe, in Ger- 
many in 1876, in making an appeal for assistance and cooperation in 
the continuance of experimental work, said, "The future of the 
microscope as regards further improvement in its dioptric qualities 
seems to be chiefly in the hands of the glassmakers," and "not 
microscopy alone is here affected, but all sciences and arts that need 
optical appliances." This appeal resulted in a Government subsidy in 
aid of a scientific investigation in 1881, and after five years of research 
and experiment, the Germans w r ere successfully engaged in the whole- 
sale production of optical glass in a number of varieties. The formu- 
lae and methods of production were kept secret, and a practical 
monopoly was established. 


In 1913 optical glass plates and disks, rough cut and unwrought, 
of the value of $506,594, were imported into the United States. 
In the following fiscal year the value of the imports of this glass 



increased to $617,703; in 1915 they decreased to $495,179, and in 
1916, 1917, and 1918 to $265,389, $238,258, and $275,295, re- 
spectively. In 1913 and 1914 the imports from Germany were 50 
per cent of the total, while those from England were 27 per cent of 
the total. In 1918 the imports from England were 73 per cent of 
the total, and were also 40 per cent in excess of imports from England 
in 1913. English exports to the United States probably included 
reexports. Imports from Germany and Belgium have ceased. 
Imports from France in 1913 were 18 per cent of the total, and in 
1918, 26 per cent. 

Glass plates or disks, rough cut or unwrought. 

[Fiscal years.] 

Imported from 

Imports of plates or disks (optical glass), rough cut or un- 
wrought, for optical purposes. 







England... . . .... 

18, 894 

98, 832 



$190, 096 
39, 762 

71, 235 


Belgium . . . 



249, 471 




All other 






504, 594 

617, 703 

495, 179 


238, 258 

275, 295 

Imported from 

Imports of lenses and other optical instruments (including 







United Kingdom 

392, 513 

403, 801 
14, 807 
237, 596 
20, 794 

104, 473 

$7, 861 
128, 895 


24, 871 
69, 177 





17, 820 

7, 537 




All other 



695, 135 

721, 560 

302, 971 

166, 766 

146, 261 


1 Imports during the 6 months ending December, 1918, $170,762. 

2 Imports during the 6 months ending December, 1918, $77,239. 

In addition to the imports of unmanufactured optical glass, large 
amounts are imported in a manufactured condition as the essential 
parts of lenses and other optical instruments, including spectacles. 
In 1913 the value of the imports of lenses and other optical instru- 
ments, including spectacles, was $695,135, and in 1914, S721.560. 
In the years following, these imports have gradually decreased to 
$116,649 in 1918. From France in 1913 these imports were 56 per 
cent of the total, from Germany 25 per cent, and from England 14 
per cent. For the six months ending December, 1918, the imports 
of unwrought glass were $170,762 and of lenses and other optical 
instruments $77,239, both showing decided increases over the 
previous year. 



This new industry in the United States has the materials, the 
scientific knowledge, the equipment, and the capacity to compete 
with some of the Sest products of foreign manufacture. During the 
past three years Germanj 7 has heen shut out of our market and 
American manufactures have perfected and increased their output. 

We have not as yet produced all of the varieties required for 
domestic consumption; we are still (1918) obliged to import about 
one-half of the normal amounts (1913-14) of unwrought and rough 
cut optical glass and in addition large quantities of optical glass in a 
finished condition as parts of optical instruments. In December, 
1917, we were making but a few fundamental varieties of optical 
glass. At that time a scientific authority l stated that "The four 
most necessary varieties of glass, to wit, a very light and transparent 
crown suitable for field glass prisms, an ordinary crown of slightly 
higher index, a typical heavy flint, and a typical light flint, are 
already in production. The two next in importance are a heavy baryta 
crown and a light baryta flint used particularly in photographic 
lenses, and these, we learn, are under way, with every prospect of 
reaching suitable commercial developments. If a good supply of 
well annealed material, even of the half-dozen sorts here enumerated, 
can be had, the country will be in pretty good shape to make its own 
optical instruments. The matter of suitable mixing and annealing 
for the production of disks of large size may be trusted to the future." 2 

It was not until after five years of scientific research and experi- 
ment that the Jena works, of German}', developed 28 new kinds of 
optical glass. This firm had the advantage of 25 years' experience 
in producing optical glass and in this field was practically without a 
competitor. It is not reasonable to expect that American manu- 
facturers and scientists could, in less than three years, attain the 
required standards of knowledge and efficiency to meet the demands 
of domestic consumption and the inroads of foreign competition. 

During the war the optical industries of Germany, France, and 
England have been driven to a high state of industrial activity and 
the scientific precision essential in the production of perfect optical 
glass. Under the tariff act of 1913 optical glass is admitted free of 
duty into the United States. The new American industry under 
such conditions is unequal to the task of engaging in successful com- 
petition with the output of the highly developed industry and the 
experienced scientists and manufacturers of the countries named. 

Under paragraph 573 of the tariff act of 1913, the optical glass 
imported in a finished state as part of optical instruments is also free 
of duty when imported by educational institutions for scientific use 
and for experimental purposes. 

Unwrought optical glass producers desire adequate protection for 
their new industry in order to stimulate greater production for 
educational and commercial requirements and for the further develop- 
ment of optical scientific instruments of the finest accuracy. They 
ask for the repeal of paragraph 573 which admits such instruments 
free of duty to educational institutions. 

1 Metallurgical and Chemical Engineering Journal, Dec. 15, 1917. 
' In February, 1919, all types of glass were being made. See p. 15. 


The usual practice in the manufacture of optical glass consists of 
the following sequence of furnace operations : 

The pot is carefully preheated in a small subsidiary furnace called 
a pot arch; from there it is "set" or transferred to the furnace. 
The pot is usually set at a temperature of about 1,050 C., and it 
must be heated up to the melting temperature of the glass batch, 
about 1,400 degrees for most glasses, before filling. The best prac- 
tice is to overburn the pot before commencing the fill. 

The batch, or batch mixed with cullet, is fed into the pot in several 
installments, until the fill is complete. The details of this process 
differ from plant to plant. 

After the fill is complete, the glass is left undisturbed for several 
hours, primarily to give time for the bubbles to rise to the surface. 
The temperature during this period is high; in some places it is the 
practice to use a higher temperature for the fining operation than for 
the fill. 

After the fining period is complete, it is customary to stir the glass 
by hand, intermittently; a common schedule is to hand stir for 15 
minutes every two hours. This process removes the bubbles of gas 
adhering to the side and bottom of the pot, and helps to secure uni- 
formity in composition. 

After the period of intermittent hand stirring is complete, the glass 
is stirred continuously, a stirring machine being used. As a rule, 
soon after putting on the machine, the fire is turned off and the glass 
allowed to cool, stirring being continued until the pot is removed 
from the furnace. The operations summarized above take from two 
to three days in the furnace, the actual time depending on local 
practice. When, as is usually the case, the empty pots are pre- 
heated in pot arches, and the finished glass cooled in an appropriate 
subsidiary apparatus, a melting furnace will yield one pot of glass 
every two days. 

New schedule doubled production.- After considerable experience in 
manufacturing optical glass, certain of the usual operations seemed to 
be inadequate or illogical, and soon after taking charge of the optical 
glass plant of the Spencer Lens Co. for the War Industries Board, I 
devised a new schedule radically different from the above, which may 
be called the "24-hour" process. Because of its importance in 
practically doubling the production of optical glass, a basic material 
in the manufacture of fire-control instruments the details of the proc- 
ess were communicated to the military optical glass and instrument 
section of the War Industries Board, and were communicated by 
them to the other manufacturers of optical glass. 

In the first place, the filling operation required modification. 
Melting of the batch takes place from the top downward; the upper 
layers sinter together, then the more easily fusible components trickle 
down, leaving the upper layers impoverished in the substances usu- 
ally called "fluxes." This results in the surface becoming high in 



silica; this is proved by skimmings from both crown and flint batches, 
which not only showed an actual accumulation of partially dissolved 
quartz grains, but also had a refractive index lower than that of the 
rest of the glass 

Harmful effects of jinxes settling to the bottom overlooked. The fluxes, 
especially lead, tend to settle to the bottom; this is proved by the 
dark layer always brought up when hand stirring is begun, by tests 
made by plunging a long iron rod into the glass and quickly with- 
drawing it, and by the examination of partially melted pots which 
have been removed from the furnace because of leaks and breaks 
after cooling. In the latter case the preponderance of silica men- 
tioned above has also been observed. 

This initial inhomogeneity, it is true, is removed by the subsequent 
stirring operation, and this probably accounts for its harmful effects 
having been overlooked. One of these harmful effects, especially in 
flint glasses, is due to the fact that lead-rich mixtures (for example, the 
extra-dense flints) are extremely corrosive on the pots. By the 
older process this lead-rich layer is allowed to lie on the bottom of 
the pot throughout the filling and the fining periods, both of which 
periods are of some hours' duration and of extremely high tempera- 
tures. This necessarily results in greatly increased pot corrosion. In 
addition, the impoverishment of the upper layers in fluxes increases 
the time required for complete solution of the batch ingredients. 

Stirring during fill the remedy. The obvious remedy is to stir 
during the fill. This is not feasible until the pot is a little over hah* 
full, because the stirring rod can not be floated before this, but as 
soon as feasible it should be begun, and the melt should be stirred 
each time a new batch is added. Making such a stir during the fill 
should diminish pot corrosion, give glass of a better quality, freer 
from color, striae and stones, and should hasten the solution of the 
batch and thereby shorten the melting process. After the fill is 
completed, the glass must be freed from bubbles of gas arising from 
the decomposition of carbonates and nitrates in the batch and from 
the water in the batch ingredients. In some cases these volatile 
components comprise one-fifth of the weight of batch filled. By the 
old process the bubbles are mainly removed during the fining opera- 
tion, the glass being kept hot and undisturbed for some time to allow 
the bubbles to rise to the surface. The intermittent hand stir fol- 
lowing supplements the fining period by removing the layer of 
bubbles which adheres to the pot walls, and also tends to secure 
uniformity in composition throughout the melt. 

Stirring the logical way to remove bubbles. That seemed an illog- 
ical way to secure the desired result. In the first place, common 
experience is that bubbles in other liquids are more rapidly re- 
moved by stirring than by quiescence. It seemed reasonable to sup- 
pose that in a pot of glass also the bubbles will be more rapidly 
removed by stirring. Moreover, in the usual process the glass is 
not homogeneous in composition until after the fining period; the 
upper layer is deficient in fluxes, and hence melts less rapidly than 
the mass of the glass. The margin in composition between an 
unworkable viscous glass and a workable glass is a narrow one; the 
stirring should prevent the upper portion being deficient in fluxes 
and hence too viscous to permit the free passage of bubbles. It 


seemed a reasonable supposition, therefore, that two of the operations 
to which optical glass is usually subjected could be dispensed with, 
namely, the long fining period and the period of intermittent hand 
stirring. In other words, it seemed that better results could be 
obtained by putting on the stirring machine immediately after the 
fill, and stirring continuously until the glass was free from bubbles. 
With this modification could well be combined a hand stir during 
the fill, as mentioned before. 

Results, prove reasoning good. The best test of this reasoning is the 
results. The new schedule was tried out on a melt of flint glass hav- 
ing an index of 1.617. The melt was run at the usual temperature 
for this glass, 1,390 C. Fills were made at two-hour intervals, the 
first fill Being about one-third of the total batch, and on each subse- 
quent fill the pot was heaped up with batch. As soon as possible a 
Hand stir was made; 10 hours after the first fill the stirring machine 
was put on; at this time there was still undissolved batch, not all 
quartz. The stirring machine was run at a good speed, both with a 
circular and with a vertical motion. 

After six hours the glass seemed free from bubbles; the fire was 
accordingly turned off and the pot cooled and removed as usual. 
The entire process, from the time the pot was set until the melt was 
out of the furnace and another pot set, was 24 hours. When the glass 
was examined it proved to be of the best quality, wholly free from 
bubbles, of greatly improved color, and also freer from striee than 

Special schedules for different types of glass. The details of the proc- 
ess were subsequently modified, and special schedules were worked 
out for the different types of glass. Following is a sample schedule, 
being that for a flint having N d = 1.617 36.5. The pot used is 26 
inches high and 28 inches in diameter, inside dimensions. The time 
of filling in the cullet is taken as zero hour. 

Schedule for MF glass. 

Hours. FRun at 1,390 C.] 

0. 00 Add cullet. 

1. 00 Fill pot three-quarters full of batch. 

2. 30 Fill pot with batch. 

4. 00 Hand stir; fill pot with batch. 

5. 30 Hand stir; fill pot with batch. 

7. 00 Hand stir; fill pot with batch. 

7. 30 Stiiring machine on. 

15. 00 Gas off. 

When cooled to the proper temperature the pot of glass is removed 
from the furnace, and slowly cooled in a pot arch. A new pot is set 
into the furnace, and given a preliminary burning, so that in 24 hours 
all is ready for another melt. 

It may be well to emphasize one point of difference between the 
longer process and the 24-hour process. In the former the melt, 
often with an unduly corrosive layer on the bottom, remained in 
contact with the hot "pot for from 20 to 30 hours from the time the 
last fill was made until the gas was turned off; in the 24-hour process 
the corresponding period of maximum corrosive action is 5 to 6 
hours. As the majority of the contamination of glass, with our 
present raw materials, comes from the pot, the superiority of the 
newer process is obvious. Better color results from smaller pot 


contamination, as well as a greater freedom from atriae, less trouble 
from stones and less pot breakage. 

Process proving a success. The first experimental pot of glass 
made by the 24-hour process proved a complete success. Since that 
time some 350 pots of glass have been made by the shorter schedule. 
They comprise practically all types of glass; flints, from an extra 
dense flint with refractive index of 1.76 to an extra light flint with 
index of 1.55; soft crowns and ordinary crowns of three different 
types; several types of borosilicate crown: several barium crowns, 
both light and dense, and several baryta flints, ranging from a light 
baryta flint with index 1.56 to a dense baryta flint, index 1.62. 
Without exception the new process has produced a better glass than 
the old, with a doubling of production and correspondingly lower 
cost. (George W. Morey, general manager of Spencer Lens Glass 
Plant, Hamburg, N. Y., and late expert of Geophysical Laboratory, 
Washington, D. C.) 

Recent improvements. 1 The usual practice is to allow the melt to 
cool in the pot and the latter is thereby destroyed either during cool- 
ing or in breaking up and sorting the glass. An improvement by an 
American manufacturer, which has been successfully applied, con- 
sists in the casting of or pouring the melted optical glass on large 
casting tables, upon which it is rolled out before annealing in a large 
sheet, in the same manner as in the making of plate glass. This 
sheet or plate is then ground and polished, defects cut out, and the 
remainder cut to size for final inspection and selection of suitable 
lens pieces. 

Hand stirring of the glass in the pot has been the European prac- 
tice and also American, because of the care required in the operation. 
Motor-driven stirring apparatus has been adopted to take the place 
of hand stirring. It has been found that it is necessary to have 
sand with less than one two-hundredths per cent of iron content. 

i Harrison E. Howe in Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering. 



That part of paragraph 84 which includes chemical glassware is italicized in the following: 

"Glass bottles, decanters, and all articles of every description composed wholly or in chief value of 
glass * * * and all articles of every description, including bottles and bottle glassware, composed wholly 
or in chief value of glass blown either in a mold or otherwise" * * *, 45 per cent ad valorem. 

Chemical glassware is admitted free under paragraph 573. 

Philosophical and scientific apparatus, utensils, instruments, and preparations, including bottles and 
boxes containing the same, specially imported in good faith for the use and by order of any society or 
institution incorporated or established solely for religious, philosophical, educational, scientific, or liter- 
ary purposes, or for the use of any college, academy, school, or seminary of learning in the United States 
or any State or public library, arid not for sale, and articles solely for experimental purposes * * *. 



Imported chemical glass utensils are dutiable at 45 per cent 
ad valorem under paragraph 84 of the tariff act of 1913 if used for 
manufacturing and commercial purposes. They are duty free under 
paragraph 573 of the act of 1913, if imported for the use of educa- 
tional institutions. They are essential for the chemical control of a 
number of industries through their use as utensils in laboratory tests 
and analysis. The chemical departments of universities and other 
educational institutions use a large proportion of this ware in the 
courses of instruction given to the students of chemical and allied 


Prior to 1915 practically all of this ware was imported mainly from 
Germany and Austria. Since that time it has been established as a 
new industry in the United States. Factory blown ware, such as 
flasks, beakers, tubing and blanks, is now being made in seven old- 
established glass factories. Lamp-blown and volumetric ware and 
apparatus are being made in upward of 10 shops. 

Scientific tests made by the Bureau of Standards in 1918 established 
that the flasks and beakers made in the principal American factories 
equaled in all cases, and surpassed in some, the best qualities of im- 
ported ware. Not only are American factories now fully supplying 
the domestic demand, but during 1918, they exported chemical glass- 
ware valued at $179,682 to more than 17 foreign countries. 

Estimates of imports in 1913 range from SI, 200, 000 to $1,500,000, 
and of these from 42 to 53 per cent were imported free of duty to/ 
educational institutions. 


The manufacturers that have established this new industry in the 

United States since 1914 are satisfied with the existing rate of duty 

of 45 per cent ad valorem, but urge that the provision in paragraph 

573, which admitted about half of the total chemical ware imported 

12889319 3 17 


free of duty, be repealed and that all chemical ware be made dutiable 
at 45 per cent ad valorem. They state that this is necessary in order 
to encourage and build up their new industry; that large quantities of 
the ware used in educational institutions are not required to be of a 
high grade, and therefore the cheaper ware will be imported free of 
duty when normal trade conditions are restored ; and that while they 
can compete under the existing rate of 45 per cent, they can not 
compete with duty free ware. 



Chemical glassware usually designated as " hollow glassware" or 
ware made in a glass factory operating a furnace, and including flasks 
beakers, tubing, reagent bottles, and other blown articles and blanks 
for volumetric ware, and also ware made from tubing before the blast 
lamp and groups of graduated ware, as burettes and pipettes, extrac- 
tion apparatus, condensers, and other articles, when imported for 
manufacturing and commercial purposes, are dutiable at 45 per cent 
ad valorem under paragraph 84 of the tariff act of 1913. When these 
classes of chemical glassware are "specially imported in good faith for 
the use and by order of any society or institution incorporated or 
established solely for religious, philosophical, educational, scientific, 
or literary purpose" they are aumitted free of duty. 

Many of our most important industries requiring research work 
the testing of processes and the analyses of their materials and 
products are dependent upon chemical and scientific glassware for 
their successful continuance. Laboratory tests and analyses by 
means of this ware are essential in the chemical control of such 
varied industries as iron and steel, raw and refined sugar, packing- 
house products, fertilizers, rubber manufacture, Portland cement, 
soap, oil refining, waterworks, textiles, and in chemical plants in the 
manufacture of explosives, dyes, soda, and other products. 


Qiiintity. Before the war, practically all of these different classes 
of ware were made in, and imported from Germany. Begin- 
ning with the year 1915, factory-made blown ware, such as flasks, 
beakers, tubing, and other articles have been made in about 10 large 
and well-organized glass factories in the United States. Flasks and 
beakers have been made in one American glass factory since about 
the year 1900, but in very inconsiderable quantities. Since 1915 the 
cutting off of imports has induced domestic factories to enter upon 
the production of this class of ware. Lamp blown and volumetric 
ware is being made in a Idrge number of shops, comparatively small 
in si/.e. The value of the chemical ware produced in American 
factories and shops has been as follows: 1915, $950,319; 1916, 
$1,661,121; 1917, $2,233,704; 1918, $2,865,774. 

Cfa-ssification of products. In an address on "The Manufacture of 
Chemical Apparatus in the United States" delivered before the 
American Chemical Society at its meeting held at Urbana, 111., 
April 18-21, 1916, Mr. Arthur IT. Thomas, an importer, exporter, 


and dealer in laboratory apparatus of both foreign and domestic 
manufacture, made the following classification of chemical glassware: 


Articles Flasks, beakers, and other factory-made shapes, including blanks for 
some volumetric ware. Tariff, 45 per cent, ad valorem. 

Sources before the war. With the exception of one large factory in the United States 
which made, in addition to extensive products in other lines, a few flasks, and beakers 
of excellent Duality and reasonable price, this ware was purchased exclusively in 
Europe. The American production was not. in any commercial sense, a factor in the 


Articles. All shapes made of tubing before the blast lamp, including the graduation 
of blanks made in the factory in addition to those made before the lamp. Tariff, 45 
per cent ad valorem. 

Sources before the trar. With the exception of a few items not of significance to our 
discussion, such as hydrometers and thermometers for clinical and industrial use, 
homeopathic vials and test tubes, milk bottles, and syringes, all staple stock was 
purchased in Europe. Repair work and the manufacture of a great variety of special 
items, not in sufficient demand to warrant arrangement for importation in large 
quantities, was conducted in a few glass-blowing shops operated by some of the larger 
dealers, in separate small shops in a few of the larger cities, and in the south Jersey 
district as an important side line in connection with three large glass factories. 


Articles. Spectroscopes and spectrometers, polarimeters, and saccharimeters, 
refractometers, colorimeters, and microscopes. Tariff, 35 per cent ad valorem, 
except on microscopes, 25 per cent. 

Sources before the war. The instruments in this classification as used in chemical 
laboratories were all purchased in Europe with the exception of microscopes, the 
manufacture of which has. as you all know, been extensively and successfully con- 
ducted in America for many years. 

Materials. Sand, borax, and boric acid are the chief materials 
reported by one of the principal manufacturers. Other materials 
named are lime, soda ash, arsenic, and all are of domestic origin. 
Potash is not an essential ingredient. 

I'.quipinent. The ordinary equipment of a glass factory for the 
blowing of bulbs and bottles suffices for the production of chemical 
hollow blown ware. Molds, blow pipes, and furnaces constitute the 
principal equipment, and are the same in all countries. 

Methods and processes. The making of hollow blown chemical 
ware is similar to that of incandescent lamp bulbs and bottles. 
Lamp-blown and volumetric ware made from tubing, and often 
according to the designs of laboratory scientists, and from the factory 
blanks is the work of specially trained artisans. There are less than 
250 workmen of this class in the United States (1916) who have been 
for the most part brought from the Thuringian factories of Germany. 
Since the war one American firm has developed the use of machinery 
to do in part what was laboriously done by hand in Germany in the 
manufacture of the great variety of products coming under the 
head of ''lamp-blown and volumetric ware.'' 

Organization and capitalization. There are no factories engaged 
exclusively in the production of chemical hollow glassware, and in 
the large, well-organized and long-established factories where it is 
made, it is not a major product. Its manufacture is dependent 
upon the existing organization and capitalization of the factory. 

Geographical distribution. The principal hollow ware factories 
are located in Xew York, Pennsylvania, and ^ew Jersey. The lamp- 



blown and volumetric shops, a few of them connected with factories, 
are in New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and New Jersey. 

Domestic production and consumption. Since 1915 there have been 
no imports of chemical glassware, and the domestic production at this 
time (February, 1919) is fully equal to the demands of domestic 
consumption. The exports of this ware though small, indicate that 
the existing factories are meeting our requirements. The shortage 
of the highly skilled labor required for the making of lamp-blown and 
volumetric ware makes it doubtful if American shops can meet the 
domestic requirements for this class of ware. 

The following table shows the production of chemical glassware 
in the United States for the period 1915-1918. The figures are 
compiled from the reports of manufacturers to the Tariff Commis- 






$748, 440 

$201, 879 

$950, 319 


1, 279, 178 

3S1 943 

1 661 121 


1, 560, 046 

673, 658 

2, 233, 704 


1, 910, 109 

995, 665 

2, 865, 774 

Exports. For the first time in its history the United States has 
become an exporter of domestic chemical glassware. During the 
calendar year of 1918, chemical glassware, valued at $179,682, was 
exported to 17 specified foreign countries and to others not specified. 
Canada, Cuba, Mexico, and China, in the order named, were the 
destinations of about 60 per cent of the total. During the six 
months ended December 31, 1917, the value of exports of this ware 
was $65,336, this being the first export recorded. It is believed that 
a shortage of the ware in these countries, formerly buyers from 
Europe, was the cause of the exports, and that the bulk of this trade 
will not be permanent. 

Domestic exports of chemical glassware. 1 

6-month periods ending 

Exported to 



Italy $3,215 



Canada 22,144 


21 , 759 

Mexico . 4.754 

6, 279 


Cuba 10, 833 



Argentina 2,052 



Brazil 2, 936 



Chile 1 465 

5, 139 


Peru 627 

1 341 

2 236 

Uruguay 220 

2 320 

Venezuela . . . . 524 



China 664 



Dutch East Indies . 2 272 



Australia . 540 

5 890 


Philippines ' 1,215 



All other 21, 865 

7, 636 


Total 65, 330 

87, G01 


1 First shown in-July. 1917. 

2 Made up principally as follo\ys: England. $3,600; British South Africa, $3.206: and British India, $3,20(1. 



There are no available statistics of foreign production. Jena, Ger- 
many, occupies first place in the production and export of this ware- 
and it was there it was successfully developed. It is also made and 
exported from Austria, Belgium, and France. In 1911 Germany 
exported to all countries chemical ware valued at $1, 946, 126. The 
exports of Austria have been considerable, but are not ascertainable. 


Before the war the total domestic consumption of the United 
States was imported, except a very small quantity made as a by- 
product in a IVew Jersey glass factory. 

Statistics of the imports of chemical glassware have not been 
reported separately for many years. Estimates of the value of the 
imported ware before the war by the tw r o principal importing houses, 
for the year 1913, place it at from $1,200,000 to $1,500,000; of these 
totals the value of the w r are imported free of duty for educational 
institutions the same year was from $500,000 to $800,000, or from 
42 per cent to about 53 per cent. 


Paragraph 573 of the act of 1913 exempts from duty chemical 
glassware as philosophical or scientific apparatus, utensils, or instru- 
ments for educational and like institutions. This exemption dates 
back to the act of 1790. Enlargements of the classes of goods or insti- 
tutions were made in the acts of 1816, 1824, 1841, and 1842. The pro- 
vision was omitted from the act of 1846 and also from 1864 to 1870, 
since when free entry has been uniformly accorded. 

Three rules of construction have competed, each at times success- 
fully, in litigation. First, intrinsic character of the article; second, 
chief use of the article; and, third, intended or actual use of the par- 
ticular importation. The last was held by the Court of Customs Ap- 
peals to be the proper rule. ( United States v. Kastor, 6 Ct. Cust. 
Appls., 52.) 


There has thus far been no competition. Prior to 1915 practically 
all of this ware was manufactured in and imported from Germany. 
In 1915 American factories began to produce the ware as a new 
industry and there have been since no importations. 

Under paragraph 573 of the tariff act of 1913, chemical glassware 
imported "for the use and by order of any college, academy, school, 
or seminary of learning in the United States or any State or public 
library and not for sale" is admitted free of duty. It has also been 
admitted free of duty for educational and scientific purposes under 
various tariff acts, from 1790 to 1846, from 1857 to 1864, and from 
1870 to 1913. If imported for purposes other than those stated 
above, it is dutiable under paragraph 84 of the tariff act of 1913 
at 45 per cent ad valorem. 

At the Pittsburgh conference of the Tariff Commission in January, 
1918, manufacturers who began the making of this ware when our 
supply was cut off from Germany, and who are now supplying the 



domestic demand, strongly objected to the importation free of duty 
of laboratory ware for educational institutions. 

They pointed out that although the high grades of this ware now 
being made in the United States are superior, according to the tests 
of the Bureau of Standards, to the Jena and other European ware, 
and will be given preference on account of then- merit, yet large 
quantities of the ware are not required to be of a high grade and 
therefore American educational institutions, after normal trade 
conditions are restored, will import the cheaper ware duty free, and 
American manufacturers will not be able to compete with duty-free 
ware. They ask that the duty-free proviso on chemical ware be 
stricken out, and they further state that if the existing tariff rate 
of 45 per cent is maintained on all the chemical ware that comes in, 
they can compete. One manufacturer made the following state- 
ment: "We considered that question very carefully before we pro- 
ceeded to produce laboratory glassware, and concluded to venture, 
believing that our Government would protect us after the war." 

Comparative tests of foreign and domestic ware. Chemical glassware 
of good quality is characterized by special powers of withstanding 
heat and chemical attack. 

Comparative tests of chemical glassware were made in 1918 by the 
experts of the United States Bureau of Standards of brands of 
American-made ware and the best-known wares of European manu- 
facture. The following is from the official report of the Bureau of 
Standards : 

The cutting off of our imports from Germany and Austria has forced us to rely upon 
American manufacturers for practically our entire supply of glass beakers and flasks. 
In order to give chemists some information as to the quality of this ware, the Bureau 
of Standards has examined five brands of American-made ware in comparison with 
the two best-known wares of European make. 

The tests included chemical analysis; determination of coefficient of expansion; 
refractive index; condition of strain; resistance to repeated evaporation, to heat, and 
to mechanical shock; and resistance to chemical reagents. 

In all cases of beakers and flasks approximating in size the 400 cubic centimeter 
Jena beaker and flask were used. All the ware tested bore permanent trade-marks. 
From 45 to 50 beakers and flasks of each ware were secured for this series of tests. 

General summary of tests. 

Name of manu- 

Resistance to 








M. E. G. Co.i 
Pyrex ' 

Nosol ' ... . 

.do ... 

.. do 

Poor ,. 





Libbey ' 


1 American. 

2 Far superior to any of the other wares. 

Tn the ratine: of resistance to caustic alkalies the boiling tests only have been con- 
sidered. These results indicate that all the American-made wares tested are superior 
to Kavalier and equal or superior to Jena ware for general chemical laboratory use. 





At the conference of the Tariff Commission with glass manufac- 
turers at Pittsburgh, Pa., in January, 1918, the following statements 
relative to chemical glassware were made by the manufacturers 
named : 

J. H. Fry, vice president of the H. C. Fry Glass Co., Rochester, Pa. : 

Before the war, the chemical ware came principally from Germany. The price of 
that ware landed in this country was so low that there was no inducement to the 
manufacturer to make it. In fact, we never figured that we could compete in that 
field as long as we had to compete against the foreign ware. 

These two lines have increased our factory production about $200,000 in the last 

The technical problem in the chemical glass industry is to secure the proper mixture 
of materials and the required skill in manufacture. We had trouble in getting skilled 
labor with technical experience. It took us about six months to really get a production 
that was satisfactory. 

A large quantity of chemical ware is used by the laboratories and colleges of the 
United States. If that ware comes in duty free, as under the conditions existing 
prior to the war, we can not compete. It is necessary to have tariff protection on that 
ware if we are to maintain the quality that we are now manufacturing: and it was 
necessary to get a good quality in order to replace the foreign ware We can sell a 
limited amount to the mills and factories, but as a rule, I do not think we would be 
justified in manufacturing either the quality or the large line that we are now making. 
The chief quantity consumed is used in the scientific and educational institutions. 
We have always felt that the colleges should pay a duty the same as anyone else on 
this ware. They should pay a duty, just the same as they have to pay the price on 
iron or anything else to build their buildings. We have to support the colleges, and 
the colleges in turn, I think, should support the manufacturers. We are always 
making donations to colleges, and it does not seem fair to have them buying one of 
their principal articles from the other side. 

The German manufacturers had the materials, they had the skilled labor and 
they had the jump on us in producing this ware. We are getting the jump on them 
now because they are eliminated entirely. It remains to be seen what the effect of 
the war will be from the labor standpoint, and as to whether or not they will overtake 
us in manufacturing after the war. Of course we do not know. The reason that they 
had the advantage then was that the American factories could not compete. We 
have now proven that we can make a high quality of laboratory ware at reasonable 

To a certain extent there was a special prestige for German chemical ware in this 
country, which had to be overcome. Many of the chemists were Germans. This 
ware did not all come from Germany; some of it came from Austria. I know of only 
one factory in the United States that made any headway in that particular line prior 
to the war, and they manufactured principally such articles as are used by the drug 
trade. That was the Whitall-Tatum Co. Since the war five or six American facto- 
ries are making chemical glass, and it keeps the price down to a competitive basis. 
There are eight or ten new furnaces operating on that line of ware. 

The production in Germany was quite large. In the limited time we have been 
in this business pur sales will run over $150,000 a year. 

When we decided to go into this line, we employed the best chemists we could 
find. The idea was to get quality, so that after the war our quality would lie known 
and we would have a chance to sell it on a quality basis. We experimented with it, 
and we made glass which from all chemical standpoints was superior to the original 
German production. The ingredients and the way they are made are somewhat 
different. It is a superiority that we hope will continue indefinitely, because the 
demand in this country has been for a better quality. The distinctive requirement 
is for quality glass that will stand the laboratory tests. The first tost applied by the 
Bureau of Standards was that of water, the second that of mineral acids, the third 
carbonate alkalies, the fourth caustic alkalies, fifth ammonia and salts of ammonia, 
sixth heat shock, and finally mechanical shock. The chemical glass meeting those 
tests naturally would be known as a quality line. The workmanship does not count 
as much as the resistance to heat and chemicals, to withstand sudden changes of tem- 
perature and the attack of reagents. 


I believe that if the present tariff duty on this line of goods is maintained and col- 
lected from all impartially it will not be necessary to increase it. We can manufac 
ture the goods here to compete successfully against glassware that will be imported 
after the war, provided that duty will be imposed on all who use the glass. It seems 
unfair to have chemical glass come in duty free to universities and educational insti- 
tutions, for if they buy imported instead of American glassware our production is 
correspondingly decreased, and the cost of production is thereby made higher. That 
is, a large production is necessary to keep costs down. If we have to limit ourselves 
to a smaller field of distribution, we shall have to get a higher price. On the other 
hand, if the tariff is maintained on all glassware that comes in, regardless of the pur- 
chaser, I might say that so far as our plant is concerned we can compete. We con- 
sidered that question very carefully before we proceeded to produce laboratory glass- 
ware and concluded to venture, believing that our Government would protect us after 
the war. That is the reason we set out to produce a high-quality line of ware and spent 
about $10,000 in its development. 

I do not believe that the rate of 45 per cent ad valorem could be reduced without 
harm. It was only through getting the experience we have had which enables us to 
manufacture the ware now in quantities, that we felt warranted in going ahead and 
spending money for equipment and getting ready to stay in the business after the war. 
By that I mean we felt that the 45 per cent duty ad valorem would protect us and 
let us compete in that line after the war if conditions were about the same as they 
were previous to the war. It requires special equipment largely. We had to invest 
capital for this equipment. 

After the war some of the machinery could be reconstructed so as to be used in 
other lines, but most of it would be lost. All of the molds would be an absolute loss. 
That would be true because of the nature of the product. It is very hard and requires 
a different method of finishing than ordinary glass. 

I imagine we spent $10,000 before we were able to produce any glass. For instance, 
a man will melt a pot of glass and then throw it away, or something like that, and I 
would simplv estimate that it cost us about $10,000 to get it on the market. The 
Government is a very large user just now in our line. 

Howard S. Evans, vice president of the Macbeth-Evans Glass Co., 
Pittsburgh, Pa.: 

T would like to take up the question of the laboratory glassware. There was scarcely 
any of this line manufactured in this country before the war, but since the outbreak 
of the war our manufacturers have begun to produce all kinds of glassware for labora- 
tory use. Some of the manufacturers are producing a quality which is equal to. and 
in some respects excels, the foreign product. We have entered into the manufacture 
of it very largely. 

It has seemed to me to be rather unfair to the manufacturer in this country to 
permit the importation of this line of goods duty free. In fact, that has been the 
reason why most of the manufacturers did not enter this particular field. There is 
one concern. Whitall-Tatum & Co., that made these goods in a small way. 

I wish to say that I thought it was not quite right to the American manufacturers 
to allow the free importation of laboratory glassware and apparatus for use in colleges 
and universities. They are very large users of the product, and if their business 
was not obtainable there would be not enough left to justify the manufacturers in 
making the molds and putting in the equipment for the remaining business: that is, 
for glass that would be used industrially. That is true, even though we could com- 
pete with the German product. The demand for this ware, aside from that going to 
colleges and universities, would be so little that there would be no inducement for 
the American manufacturer to go to the expense of equipping himself and making 
molds for that line. It has also seemed to me that the jobber or dealer was entitled 
to the trade of the consumer: that is, the trade of the colleges and universities. 

J. E. Capen, sales manager of Macbeth-Evans Glass Co.: 


With reference to the duty-free chemical glassware T think I could, perhaps, give 
you a little different angle. I have talked with a good many of the users of this 
glass perhaps I may call them professors in these schools, and they seem to think 
that a mistake has been made in allowing this material to come in free. There are 
two reasons for it. In the first place the schools and institutions are kept up at the 
expense of our own people in the form of cash donations, endowments, etc. Cer- 
tainly, in order to obtain this material they must place very large orders, perhaps 
once a year, and they have to wait weeks and sometimes several months to get it. 


They may buy more than they need, or they may not buy enough. They may run 
out of certain sizes of articles, and they are almost compelled to keep out of them or 
pay a good deal higher price to get them. Those to whom I have talked, almost all 
of them, seem to think it would be better if the duty was the same as applied to ware 
for commercial uses. 


Questions addressed to the directors of the chemical departments 
of universities and other institutions relating to the effect of the with- 
drawal of the duty-free privilege in the importation of chemical glass- 
ware and apparatus and the increased cost to the student elicited 
replies from some of the most important institutions. The results 
are embodied in the following summaries and they are followed by 
interesting views of the individual scientists named. 

Question. Would the withdrawal of the duty-free privilege hereto- 
fore enjoyed by educational institutions and the continuance of the 
present rates of duty on apparatus and chemicals increase the devel- 
opment and manufacture of such merchandise in the United States ? 

The heads of the chemical departments of 20 universities and scien- 
tific institutions replied to this question. The institutions included 
Yale, Cornell, Pennsylvania, Leland Stanford, Illinois, Pittsburgh, 
Chicago, Washington and Lee, Ann Arbor, Washington, the Carnegie 
Institute, Rockefeller Institution, Bureau of Chemistry, Bureau of 
Standards, Washington Hygiene Laboratory, Geophysical Labora- 
tory, and Pratt Institute. 

Of these, 17 stated that the withdrawal of the duty-free privilege 
would increase the development and manufacture of chemical articles, 
one said it would have little effect, one answered in the negative, and 
one was noncommittal. 

Of 8 of the principal importers and dealers who replied to the 
question. 6 answered yes, 1 answered no, and 1 was noncommittal. 

Question. Would such increase benefit the whole chemical industry 
in the United States sufficiently to justify the loss possibly involved 
thereby to educational institutions. 

Replying to this question, eight scientists stated that the benefit 
would justify the possible loss, while all of the other university men 
either thought it would not do so or were doubtful. The importers 
and dealers, some of whom are manufacturers of lamp-blown and 
volumetric ware, expressed the opinion that the industry would be 
sufficiently benefited to justify the possible loss involved. 

Question. What do you estimate the increased cost per student 
per year under normal conditions which might result from such 
withdrawal ? 

The replies of the university men to this question varied. The 
estimates of increased cost per year per student were as follows: 
$3 to $5; $5 to $8; $5 to $10; $10 to $20; less than $25; 
about 25 per cent; probably 50 per cent. A number of educational 
institutions charge only the actual cost. This additional information 
was given: "Some schools charge net prices, but the maiority add 
from 100 to 200 per cent to the cost, which was not intended by the 
Government when the law was passed. In other words, a great many 
schools compel students to pay the entire operating expenses of the 
laboratory supply department by adding a profit to the duty-free 
prices. One large western university pays interest on the equipment 


of the storeroom and the running expenses of same, including the 
salary of the purchasing agent, and in addition shows a profit. We 
do not know of any that charge the actual cost price. The spirit and 
literal interpretation of the duty-free law has been broken by a great 
many schools in checking up the apparatus used by instructors and 
students and allowing the same to be carried away from the insti- 
tution. Some of the duty-free goods have been disposed of by 


Bertram B. Boltwood, in charge of Sloane Laboratory, Yale Uni- 
versity: Our opinions regarding the several questions are as follows: 
In our opinion a definite distinction should be made between " appara- 
tus" and " chemicals." Chemical apparatus as such may be divided 
into two classes (1) apparatus proper, including lamp stands, burners, 
drying ovens, water baths, stills, and similar appliances used in 
chemical experiments, and (2) utensils, including laboratory glass- 
ware, porcelain and earthenware (beakers, jars, funnels, flasks, etc.). 
The manufacture of chemical apparatus (1) can scarcely be con- 
sidered as properly a part of chemical industry. The production 
of these articles, as you know, is mostly in the hands of concerns like 
Eimer & Amend, the Scientific Materials Co., the Taylor Instrument 
Co., etc., who have in general supplied American-made rather than 
imported articles, owing to the fact that for our general uses the home- 
made articles have usually been preferred. This class of manu- 
facturers have to all appearances prospered sufficiently under existing 
conditions and would scarcely seem to need any further assistance. 
With respect to class 2 (utensils), the production of glass beakers, 
flasks, etc., in this country has been confined almost wholly to con- 
cerns engaged in general glass-making who have been able to produce 
superior articles like Pyrex, Nonsol, etc., glasses which are being^ 
used more and more because of their superior qualities. It would 
hardly seem necessary to further benefit these concerns by removing 
duty-free importation as they are already sufficiently prosperous 
with every assurance of a continuation of their trade even in the 
face of foreign competition. The situation in regard to porcelain is 
somewhat different, as apparently efforts to produce a superior 
grade of chemical porcelain in this country have not been successful. 
The withdrawal of the duty-free privilege of importing porcelain 
might stimulate the manufacture of a superior grade of porcelain in 
this country, but the manufacture of both porcelain and glass would 
hardly, as we understand it, be considered as constituting a branch 
of the chemical industry. 

It would seem that the actual consumption of chemicals in educa- 
tional institutions was not sufficiently great to be an important factor 
in the industrial manufacture of these chemicals. With the continued 
improvement in the quality of inorganic chemicals manufactured in 
this country there has been an increasing tendency on the part of the 
Yale laboratories to buy American chemicals and not to import them 
duty-free from Germany. In the case of organic chemicals, owing to 
a very limited supply in this country the tendency has been to 
import from Germany, since this was the only source of supply 
available. Replying then to your questions: 1. The withdrawal of 


the duty-free privilege would in all probability tend to increase the 
development and manufacture of such merchandise in the United 
States. It would also increase the price to the consumer. 

2. Such an increase would not appear to benefit the whole chemical 
industry in the United States sufficiently to justify the loss inflicted 
thereby on the educational institutions, with a possible exception in 
the case of organic chemicals. 

3. The estimated increase in cost per student per year under normal 
conditions would probably be of the order of the rate of duty charged 
on the various supplies, since the increased cost to the institution due 
to import duty would ultimately fall upon the student. 

4. The effect of the change on the scope and quality of chemical 
research in the United States would probably be greater than on the 
routine teaching of chemistry since it is particularly in connection 
with research work that importations have to be made, owing to the 
fact that in the past, at least, it has been very difficult to obtain 
many new forms of apparatus and many of the more unusual chemicals 
in this country. The effect of the change on chemical research would 
seem to be distinctly undesirable. 

5. The practice prevailing before the war of ordering large quanti- 
ties of chemical apparatus and reagents in advance of immediate 
requirements has in our opinion resulted in a great saving rather than 
in extravagance. Owing to the fact that an excess of equipment over 
immediate needs had accumulated in a number of laboratories, these 
laboratories have been in an especially favorable position since the 
supply of material from the earlier sources has entirely ceased. It 
seems to us that this accumulation of a surplus stock has been in the 
nature of a most excellent investment, and, as most chemical appa- 
ratus and reagents are not subject to deterioration with age, the 
supplies accumulated in this way have constituted a genuine asset. 

6. The interruption in duty-free importations from Germany 
coupled with the scarcity and high cost of domestic made apparatus 
has somewhat restricted the scope of educational and research work 
in our laboratories here. The funds which may be expended by our 
laboratories are necessarily limited and the increased cost of material 
has necessitated a decrease in the quantities purchased. In certain 
cases where more expensive apparatus might otherwise have been 
used, it has been necessary to employ cheaper and inferior substitutes. 
In some cases, work, which might have been carried out under other 
circumstances, has been abandoned. This necessity for saving money 
has naturally resulted in greater economy in the running of the 

7. The general practice has been somewhat different in the two Yale 
laboratories. In both laboratories, however, the charge to the student 
for apparatus broken in use has been based upon the replacement 
value of the article in question. This replacement value has been 
determined by the price paid for the article by the laboratory on the 
basis of duty-free cost. In the college there has been annually a 
surplus balance of laboratory fees plus breakage charges over operat- 
ing expenses of the laboratory. This balance has been placed to the 
credit of the college chemical laboratory and constitutes a fund 
amounting, at the present time, to about 16,000. In the Sheffield 
Scientific School any surplus balance of this sort has been expended 
for general expenses of the institution and has not been credited to 


the chemical department. The accounts in the Sheffield chemical 
laboratory have not been kept in such a form as to make it possible 
to determine what the surplus has amounted to. The total surplus 
of both departments has certainly been very considerably less than 
the total laboratory fees (exclusive of breakage charges). 

8. In our opinion the quality of glass manufactured in the United 
States (including Pyrex and Nonsol) is distinctly superior to any 
glassware previously imported. It is extremely unlikely if market 
conditions were restored to prewar conditions that any general use 
of imported glassware would result. As far as our experience goes, 
the case of porcelain is somewhat different, as the chemical porcelain 
ware made in this country is distinctly inferior to that previously 

9. The value of chemicals used by the chemical laboratories must 
be but a very small part of the value of the chemicals produced for 
and consumed by other agencies. It does not seem at all probable 
that the enforced purchase of chemical supplies in this country would 
greatly benefit the producers and manufacturers in general. 

10. The manufacture of chemical apparatus and chemicals appears 
to have been quite profitable to those who have engaged in it in this 
country, even under the prewar conditions. That the chemical 
industries as a whole can be benefited by increasing the profits of a 
small group of manufacturers and at the same time placing any 
restrictions or obstacles whatever in the path of chemical education 
and research seems altogether contrary to sound reasoning. 

11. Chemical teaching and research are without doubt the only 
practical foundation upon which a successful chemical industry can 
be erected. Any encouragement and advancement of teaching and 
research will certainly be to the ultimate advantage of this industry. 
The present system of duty-free importation for the chemical labora- 
tories of educational and research institutions would seem in effect 
to constitute at most a very modest tax on certain branches of 
chemical industry, while at the same time this tax is applied to 
promoting in a most effective way the best interests of the chemical 
industry as a whole. It appears, therefore, to be eminently fair and 
just in its workings. I can not but feel that the imposing of duty on 
importations of chemicals and apparatus, now admitted duty free, 
with a special view to the exclusion (after the war) of German prod- 
ucts, would be altogether ineffective. I believe that the German 
manufacturers would still be able to undersell the American producers 
of certain products in our own markets. A definite understanding and 
agreement not to buy German supplies under any circumstances, 
when American articles are obtainable, if adhered to conscientiously, 
would be vastly more effective, and much more in accord with our 
patriotic sentiments. I, for one, have definitely decided to follow 
such a policy and I know of a considerable number of other American 
chemists who are resolved to do likewise. 

./. Stieglitz, in charge of laboratory, University of Chicago: In my 
opinion the wise course to follow would lie between the situation as 
it was before the war, namely, that educational institutions were 
relieved of the payment of duty for the importation of scientific 
apparatus and chemicals, and, on the other hand, that this privilege 
be simply abolished. I believe that it will be wisest if the American 
Chemical Society should recommend to the United States Tariff 


Commission that this privilege be abolished, but that at the same time 
the duties be carefully studied and revised when necessary and based 
essentially on differences in wages as compared with European con- 
ditions in such a way that we should have not complete protection 
for the American manufacturer, but protection based on healthy, 
brainy, and foresighted competition with European products. Any 
protection that would make possible poorer work by American manu- 
facturers and give them a monopoly on such a basis would be posi- 
tively detrimental to the scientific institutions as well as to the 
industries of the country. In a word, the manufacturers of apparatus, 
etc., in this country should be put on their mettle with just enough 
protection to make possible competition on the basis of equal costs 
and quality. This would be possible in many cases only as the 
result of the employment of research chemists and physicists, a 
result which is most highly desirable in all branches of industry in the 
United States if we are to have any permanent improvement. The 
reduction in tariffs under the Democratic administration, in my 
opinion, has had such an effect to a very considerable extent, and even 
if the war had not intervened and we would have had some years of 
business depression the ultimate result would have been, I believe, 
a decided improvement through research and invention in the methods 
and products of American industry. This applies in the same way to 
manufacturers of apparatus as to manufacturers of other products. 
I would further suggest that the Tariff Commission be advised to 
make a recommendation removing the privilege of free importation 
at first for a definite period of years only 5 years or, if necessary 
and on further approval by the commission, 10 years. The idea of 
this is that the American manufacturers would then feel that they 
would have to make positive progress in the course of time in order 
to hold their market. A similar provision, I believe, is in the recom- 
mendations concerning dyes and other products. 

IF. A. N<*yes, in charge laboratory, University of Illinois: While 
there are reasons which I well understand for some restriction in 
trade between nations which greatly differ in industrial conditions 
and in the character of their people, reasons of this sort are likely to 
decrease rather than increase in the future, I can see no logical reason 
why we should buy a certain line of goods from an American when 
the same line of goods can be better or more cheaply made in 
England. I do not expect to see ideals of greater freedom of trade 
between the countries of the world realized at once, but I think that 
scientific men ought to do what they can to foster such an ideal. 

L. M. Dennis, in charge department of chemistry, Cornell Uni- 
versity: Inasmuch as the greater part of chemical apparatus and 
chemicals now purchased by our universities for their departments 
of chemistry is used for instruction in elementary courses,, the in- 
creased cost of the supplies would fall chiefly upon the students tak- 
ing these courses, since it is customary for the laboratory to require 
the student to pay for the apparatus and chemicals that he uses in 
his work. 

If conditions after the war should be such as to render it impos- 
sible to import apparatus from Germany, chemical research in the 
United States would suffer through being deprived of such aids to 
investigation as arc not now manufactured in this country and prob- 
ably would not be manufactured here for some years to come. If, 


however, such special apparatus could be imported from Germany 
under high duty, chemical research in the United States would prob- 
ably suffer but slightly because the total cost of such special apparatus 
would doubtless not be great. 

A university that imported chemical apparatus and chemicals from 
Germany before the war did so under oath that these supplies were 
for educational purposes and were not intended for sale. Such being 
the case, it has been thought by the department of chemistry of Cor- 
nell University that a charge to the student for such imported sup- 
plies that was in excess of the actual cost of these materials to the 
university would constitute a violation of our agreement with the 
Government under which such duty-free importation was permitted. 
The student's were consequently charged the cost price for all im- 
ported chemical apparatus and chemicals. 

The chemical glassware now made by the leading manufacturers 
in the United States appears to compare very favorably with the 
better qualities of laboratory glassware that were formerly made 
abroad. This fine quality of glassware is, however, not needed in 
the elementary courses in chemistrv in which the greater part of 
the purchased glassware is used. If, therefore, we are to furnish 
our students with American-made glassware after the war, it is 
highly desirable that our manufacturers produce a cheaper grade of 
ware than they are now making, since otherwise our students would 
be required to use an expensive line of glassware of much finer 
quality than is really needed in much of their work. I do not advo- 
cate the use of cheap lime-soda glassware, even for elementary work 
in chemistry, but, if our American glass companies would manu- 
facture beakers and flasks of a glass approximating in quality the 
"R" glass of Greiner and Friedricns, the cost, to our students, of 
glassware of satisfactory grade would be materially reduced and the 
development of the manufacture of such apparatus in the United 
States would thereby be substantially encouraged. The material 
reduction in price that would follow the replacement of expensive 
resistance glass by a grade like the "R" quality is apparent from a 
comparison of the prices of a small beaker of "R" glass, of Jena 
glass, and of one of the best-known grades of American glass. These 
prices stand in the proportion of 11 to 25 to 54. 

The largest purchasers of chemical glassware in this country are 
the university laboratories of chemistry. If we wish to give the 
greatest encouragement possible to the manufacture of chemical 
glassware in this country, it would be necessary to shut off foreign 
supplies, except at prohibitive rates, from all American purchasers. 
But in this connection it should constantly be borne in mind that 
whereas a chemical industry can easily meet an increased cost of its 
laboratory equipment through the profits accruing from its manu- 
facturing, a university is not a money-making institution, and usually 
contributes in money much more to the education of its students 
than the students themselves pay. If the increased cost of supplies 
should fall ur>on the university, it would constitute a tax unon a 
benefaction; if it should fall upon the student, it would constitute 
a tax unon higher education. Nothing, I think, would be more 
deplorable or have a more injurious effect on the growth and develop- 
ment of American chemical industries than a decided increase in 
the cost to the student of his professional training, for this would 


undoubtedly exclude many of our ablest young men from the pro- 
fession of chemistry. 

R. E. Swain in charge laboratory, Leland Stanford University: 
Nothing is of such importance to the chemical institutions of this 
country, whether educational, research, or industrial, at the present 
time as is complete independence of foreign sources of supply of 
chemical apparatus and pure chemicals. It is not too great a cost 
to pay, if in the establishing of such industries by protecting them 
from disastrous foreign competition, it becomes necessary to with- 
draw duty-free privileges extended to educational institutions. 

We have heretofor depended on foreign importation only for such 
apparatus and pure chemicals as we could purchase abroad at a clear 
profit. The list changed from year to year as domestic sources 
improved or became less advantageous in certain lines. On a full- 
time laboratory course the added cost would probably reach or 
exceed $10 per year. It is far more important to have domestic 
glass, porcelain, and instruments of precision than to enjoy relief 
from the financial cost of import duty. 

Simon Flexner, Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research : Looked 
at in a large way, the requirements of educational institutions are 
not great enough to warrant chemical industry to make strenuous 
efforts to supply them aside from other larger demands for the same 

While the quality of American glass is as good as the Jena glass, 
the apparatus made from it is inferior, because of the lack in the 
United States of skilled apparatus makers, glass blowers, etc. After 
the war, possibly as never before, it will be desirable and important 
to stimulate discovery in chemistry. The colleges, universities, and 
research institutions are the sources of the progress. Unless they 
can train large numbers of students and investigators and make dis- 
coveries of their own, the industry will suffer great impairment. In 
their own commercial interests, therefore, the manufacturers should 
favor the educational institutions regarding costs, etc., and not make 
it too difficult for them to draw the best apparatus in point of quality, 
precision, etc., from anywhere in the world. 

It would seem to be the part of wisdom on the part of the American 
Chemical Society to protect the interests of chemical teaching and 
research, as well as to promote the interests of chemical industry. 

Alexander Silverman, School of Chemistry, University of Pitts- 
burgh: We experience difficulty in securing special apparatus. For 
example, we can not obtain Plucker tubes containing the rare gases 
of the zero group, have waited several years for a Hilger spectrograph, 
can not get delivery on a Morse type optical pyrometer ordered over 
a year ago, etc. It should be understood that the American manu- 
facturer must include forms of apparatus for which there is a limited 
demand, unless he wishes the Government to place such items on the 
duty-free list. The failure to manufacture optical glass for special 
purposes is probably accounted for by tlfte policy of said manufac- 
turer to make only that which means "large production and good 
profits." I hesitate to advocate the assessment of a duty on special 
apparatus which can be bought at reasonable prices abroad. 


James Lewis Howe, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, 
Va. : Am delighted with the Pyrex glass and am inclined to buy it for 
general use in preference to anything else. Have not seen any satis- 
factory American laboratory porcelain and am using Japanese to 
replace our German supply as it becomes exhausted. I do not think 
the privilege of duty-free importation should be withdrawn. 

Ellwood Hendrick, New York: What impresses me in this connec- 
tion is the irregularity that did occur with duty-free apparatus for 
purposes of instruction and duty-paid apparatus for original work 
outside of universities. 

I think it very desirable that skilled artisans should be encouraged 
in this country and the requirements of universities should do this. 
Then, too, it would encourage the making of apparatus by students, 
which I think very desirable. Dr. Edward Weston is constantly 
training a thousand men and women in just such skill. 


Eimer & Amend: The withdrawal of duty-free privilege heretofore 
enjoyed by educational institutions, would, in our opinion, increase 
the development of manufacture of such merchandise in the United 
States, for the following reasons: 

Goods can not be manufactured to advantage unless the quantities 
desired from the factory are large enough. If therefore the Govern- 
ment departments and large colleges order supplies from Europe in 
sufficient quantities to cover their wants until the coming year, the 
balance of goods required by industrial laboratories, who order goods 
in single or dozen quantities, are in most instances too small to make 
it possible to manufacture. 

The whole chemical industry in the United States would be 
benefited because the apparatus houses will be forced to carry a 
much greater stock than in times when large orders were imported 
from abroad, so that much valuable time would be saved to the 
chemical industry, due to better service. The American factories 
will then also learn the intricacies of apparatus and instrument 
making concerning which they have been woefully lacking in times 
before. It has been almost impossible to find shops and factories 
where either the management possessed sufficient scientific training 
to understand what was required or where the workmen possessed 
sufficient skill. 

Ceriral Scientific Co.: We are decidedly of the opinion that the 
withdrawal of the duty-free privilege and the continuance of a fair 
rate of duty, would increase the development and manufacture of 
both chemical apparatus and chemicals in the United States. That 
is especially true of glassware and porcelain, as we believe the amount 
used by schools is necessary to increase the volume of our manufac- 
ture so as to make it profitable. This is, also, true of some of what 
mi^ht be termed the "nyer" chemicals. 

At the present time, we should say that in articles used in any 
quantities, the American product is superior to that formerly im- 
ported from Germany. We believe that the Pyrex glassware is supe- 
rior to any glassware ever made. We believe that we have one or 
two grades of porcelain equal to the best imported. When we con- 


aider the fact that the large majority of the porcelain imported in 
this country was what was known as the "German," we would say 
that the schools, on an average, are using better porcelain to-day 
than ever before. The same is true of boiling glassware. In the 
matter of graduated glassware, the average graduated ware of this 
country is equal to the average that was imported. The same is true 
of the cheaper grades of thermometers. We can secure in this coun- 
try normal glassware equal to that abroad but so far the volume has 
not been worked up sufficiently for the prices to compare favorably 
with the ones we formerly obtained abroad. - In regard to the lamp- 
blown glassware, this all depends upon the manufacturer. We be- 
lieve that there is a tendency towards standardization in this country 
such as we have never had before. We take this stand on account 
of the experience that we have had with laboratories criticizing 
glassware that has been made in this country within the last year or 
so. We believe this to be a good symptom and one that was not 
present before the war, for we are sure that the word "German" was 
taken as final by a great many of the laboratories, regardless of the 
fact of whether the goods came up to standard or not. This criti- 
cism has been particularly helpful to the American industries. 

Braun-Kneclit Heimann: The sale of laboratory ware is limited, 
consequently manufacturers can not cut down the cost by increased 
production. As quality is the factor that counts, the industries 
engaged in manufacturing this ware should receive positive protec- 
tion extending over a definite number of years in order to encourage 
them in carrying on the necessary research work to enable them to 
produce the highest grade product. 

Bausch & Lornb Optical: We believe that the increased cost per 
student per year in the aggregate would be a small item, compared 
to the results achieved in establishing a more extended American 
industry for so important a scientific field. 

We believe that the effect of such a change in the scope and quality 
of chemical research in the United States would be advantageous, 
as it would lead to the employment of men trained in this field of 
work to a much larger extent in the industries. 

Replying to the questionnaire another manufacturer said: 

We are manufacturing lines of scientific glassware and porcelain of high quality, 
which are vitally necessary to the control of our chemical and metallurgical industries. 
Of course, it is no longer necessary to point out to you the intimate relation of these 
industries to the safety of the Nation and the absolute need of a self-contained policy 
on the part of our Government in fostering and encouraging all of these industries and 
their correlates. 

These articles were formerly imported from Germany and Austria exclusively 
and enjoyed free entry into our scientific and industrial schools, and helped to build 
up the German propagandists' fallacy that everything of scientific value must have 
the stamp "Made-in-Germany" upon it, not only as it applied to apparatus and 
equipment, but also as it applied to the origin and finish of scientific education and 

To our mind this duty-free entry of materials from which our future chemical engi- 
neers studied has been responsible for the failure of American brains and capital to 
compete until it was certain that our home market would be assured to us for the period 
of the war. 

We further hope that the importance of these lines to American safety is being 
more deeply realized and that our Government will take steps to prevent the free 
and unobstructed competition of Austria and Germany after the war. 


A leading article in Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering (Mar. 
1, 1919) presents the following views: 

We believe we voice the patriotic sentiment of every educational institution when 
we say that Congress should repeal that clause of the tariff which permits the duty- 
free importation of chemicals and apparatus, and thus encourage American industry 
in its willing efforts to meet our own needs. It may cost more money for a time, 
but the additional expense will be welcome and we can find solace in the knowledge 
that we can shortly build up a million-dollar industry where little or nothing existed 
before. American manufacturers have shown their ability and their readiness imme- 
diately to supply our schools with American products. American teachers undoubt- 
edly are ready and willing to patronize them. It remains only for Congress to act, 
and that should be done speedily before German agents begin to reconstruct their 
lost markets. x 

The Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry (February, 
1919) says: 

For a number of years educational institutions have been given under congres- 
sional authority the privilege of importing, duty free, apparatus and chemicals for 
use in instruction. This is an indirect subsidy to education. It has proved a curse 
in disguise, for it resulted in a serious disturbance of university affairs when, through 
the blockade of German ports, former sources of supplies became unavailable. Con- 
ditions fully paralleled those in the textile industry, hitherto dependent on foreign 
dyes. Naturally manufacture of such articles had not proved attractive to capital 
in this country, nor can we hope for its development so long as this law exists. 

Frankly, we do not expect that the privilege will any longer prove of financial 
benefit to the educational institutions. Germany will have to make the fullest 
possible use of all export trade to pay war indemnities, higher prices will therefore 
be charged, and we believe it is safe for American manufacturers to go ahead. Our 
confidence in that conviction is, however, rudely shaken when we ask ourselves 
the question: "Would you be willing to put your own funds into such undertakings? ' ' 

The Council of the American Chemical Society has recently expressed its con- 
viction in favor of rescinding this legislation. If Congress will act favorably upon 
this recommendation, American enterprise and skill will bring us another step nearer 
to economic independence. 

The heads of chemical departments of 20 American universities and 
scientific institutions, in 1918, were asked if the withdrawal of the 
duty-free privilege, heretofore enjoyed by educational institutions, 
and the continuance of the present rates of duty on apparatus and 
chemicals would increase the development and manufacture of such 
merchandise in the United States. Of the 20, 17 stated that the 
withdrawal of the duty-free privilege would increase the development 
and manufacture of chemical articles; 1 said it would have little 
effect; 1 answered in the negative; and 1 was noncommittal. Of 8 
of the principal importers and dealers, 6 answered yes, 1 answered no, 
and 1 was noncommittal. 

Eight of the 20 heads of the chemical departments above men- 
tioned stated that the benefit of the withdrawal of the duty-free 
privilege to the chemical industry as a whole would sufficiently 
justify the possible loss to educational institutions, while 12 either 
thought it would not do so or were doubtful. 


Corning Glass Works, Corning, N. Y. 
Whitall Tatum Co., Millville, N. J. 
H. C. Fry Glass Co., Rochester, Pa. 
Kimble Glass Co., Vineland, N. J. 
Macbeth-Evans Glass Co., Pittsburgh, Pa. 
T. C. Wheaton Co., Millville, N. J. 
Cambridge Glass Co., Cambridge, Ohio. 



Eimer & Amend, 205 Third Avenue, New York City. 

Scientific Materials Co., Pittsburgh, Pa. 

Vineland Scientific Glass Co., Vineland, N. J. 

F. Pierce Noble Glass Factory, Conshohocken, Pa. 

Griebel Instrument Co., Carbondale, Pa. 

Louis F. Nafis (Inc.), 544 Washington Boulevard, Chicago, 111. 

A. Daigger & Co., 54 West Kinzie Street, Chicago, 111. 

Sanitary Fermentation Tube & T. Co., Rochester, N. Y. 

Globe Graduating Co., Millville, N. J. 

Independent Glass Apparatus Co., 7 South Forty-eighth Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Calta Glass Works, 460 East Ohio Street, Chicago, 111. 

Philadelphia Scientific Glass Works, 1505 North Wanock Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 


A 001274494