MOTIVES. of question 1. There are works written giving an account of the coinage, weights, and measures system of the several States, and the same works generally devote a large space to the numbering of yarn; there are also special books treating upon this matter, as the subject is too extensive to be treated in a restricted form, especially if every kind of yarn is considered. Weaving schools, if they treat only a part of the rich material, must lose a great deal of time in teaching. Very few manufacturers or merchants are capable of completely controlling the subject, for only a superficial observation will illus. trate the long row of figures which have to be dealt with. In cotton yarn, for instance, there exist two systems of numbering. England has, for a uniform weight, the English pound, and length 840 yards. France has, for uniform weight, the kilogram, and length 1,000 meters; (hanks.) In combing-wool, Germany always calculates 840 yards to an old Berlin pound; England, 560 yards to the English pound; France 720 meters to 500 grams. For flax-yarn the bases of fineness are: 1,152,000 Silesian yards to 2,400 Prussian pounds; 60,000 yards to 200 English pounds; 36,000 yards to 540 kilograms. In carding-wool the standard lengths are: 1,493,624 and 3,600 meters, 800 and 1,200 Saxon, 2,200 and 2,240 Berlin ells, 1,760 Vienna ells, and the standards of weight the English, old Prussian, Saxon, customs and Vienna pound. Floss-silk is wound up according to the English and metrical systems, &c. To this must be added that the standards of sorts brought into market are differently composed for the various threads, and that the divisions and subdivisions show the greatest variety of numbers in their mutual relations. From a glance at this hasty sketch alone may be inferred that no further illustration is needed to prove that these differences must create disorder in commerce. Indeed it is considered troublesome to all interested in the matter, as not only is every one sensible of the injurious consequences which the manifold systems of coinage, weights, and measures do always occasion, but also that the ciphers of the numbers do not agree with the thickness of the thread; that an equivalent for the number of yarn of one system is hardly to be found in another; that a change is therefore required in the setting of the web when the compensating number is used; that to make a comparison of prices is rendered difficult if not impossible; that buyers are hindered from examining the correctness of the numbers of the yarn purchased, and therefore have to accept it on good faith; in short, the differences in marking the thickness of thread of the same spinning fiber within the same industrial territory are causing in the appropriation, calculation, and manipulation, more or less material inconveniences, complicate the technics and render trade in it difficult. It ought not to be overlooked that, without taking the necessary increase of machinery into account, the weaver of mixed material will be able, only by the assistance of a series of reciprocal ciphers and calculations arising therefrom, to calculate out of weights and number the length of yarn required, and out of this, and also out of the number and thickness of the thread, the weight of the standard of surface. These difficulties are, if possible, increased by the necessity arising in cases of litigation, as judges as well as parties are obliged to make deep researches in order to establish a ground for judgment. We would also allude to the circumstance that the practice of numbering, introduced in several countries, is founded on a system of measures and weights not used in the other trades with whom they are in business relations. By reason of this the simplifying of the system of numbering yarn appears to be most urgently needed, from a technical as well as commercial point of view. The actual moment shows this necessity the more stringent as the change which has taken place in the legal system of weights and measures of a powerful industrial and commercial state will essentially favor the desired change. Apart from the alteration of antiquated ideas and the greater susceptibility for innovations which will be occasioned by this in Austria-Hungary and Germany, there is also the circumstance in favor of the question of numbering yarn being brought now to a solution, as the imminent introduction of the metrical system of weights and measures, as the only legal one, would, if the present system of numbering yarn should be continued, have as a consequence, that yarns would be bought and sold on this large area according to one, and numbered according to another system entirely different in its foundations, which would doubtless produce a division of opinions, and even a complete confusion. Questions 2 and 3. In considering the question of the numbering of yarn, the principle must be strictly kept apart from the question as to which system (weights or lengths) and according to what standard of numbering, yarn is to be brought into commerce. The difference in weight which many materials suffer in consequence of the conversion into yarn by intermixing with other material, or which occurs to other materials in consequence of their great affinity to the moisture of the atmosphere, determine in effect that certain yarn is only dealt with in commerce according to length, while others are only dealt with according to weight. The compatibility of these various measures in commerce with the existing principle of numbering, common to both yarns, or, which is quite the same, the independence of both instances one from another, appears out of the existing circumstances as shown by the present trade in yarn. With the exception of silk, there at present already exists for all spinning material one system of numbering, the formula of which says: "The yarn number is given by the numeral which shows how often a certain length of yarn corresponds with a certain weight." Opposed to this general principle of numbering, we see that the flax-spinner sells his yarn according to length; the cotton-spinner, on the other hand, sells according to weight, notwithstanding that the calculation of the spinners of both spinning material is founded upon the weight; whereas the weaver of both materials calculates by the length of yarn, and that the price of each of these descriptions of webbing is arranged according to the number. According to experience, it is not this deviation which burdens the international commerce in yarn, but it is, apart from the difference in the coinage system, the inequality of the system of measurement, referring to weight as well as length, the variety of subdivisions and of the principles of formation, on which they rest, and lastly the great number of transmutation numerals which embarrass commerce and produce the abovementioned defects. As a substantial relief the yarn-trade has therefore to welcome the period when all industrial territories shall exclusively employ the metrical system of lengths and weights, and the subdivision framed according to the decimal system. As an instance, the following division of the reckoning quantities in linen-yarn will suffice, namely: 1 shock=10 balls at 10 pieces at 10 hanks at 10 schneller at 10 skeins at 10 threads at 1 meter; or, in another form, This essential relief also will not, under the below-specified and further-developed conditions, interfere with any other yarns at present in use. However praiseworthy the measure may be, yet it appears that the aim imagined by this work will not be yet accomplished through it. In opposition to the ruling difference of the parting-points, the adoption of one fundamental principle common to all yarns and generally adhered to should be attemped. As the number of yarn is the result of only two elements, length and weight, so are in general only two principles of numbering possible: 1. The number of yarn is equal to the number of standard weights which is contained in a thread of a certain length. 2. The number of yarn is equal to the number of standard lengths which correspond to a certain weight. It is evident that the question which of the two principles should be chosen can only be answered from the point of view of opportunity. It will, therefore, have to be examined which of these will be acceptable to and prove most profitable for the spinner, yarn-merchant, or weaver, being the parties most interested in it. The first, which assumes, to use other words instead of the above said formule, "the length as steady and the weight as variable," as, for instance, No. 20 is yarn of which 1,000 meters weigh 20 grams, Or the second, which "combines variable length with fixed weight," as, for instance, With the first system it is plain that the number is lowering with the fineness of the yarn, and number and weight stand in direct relation. With the second, on the other hand, the number rises with the fineness of the yarn, and number and weight stand in inverse relation. It appears when one of the elements is fixed, that is, when one of them, in an unchangeable quantity or in decimal division, is taken for a basis of the numbering of all spinning-yarns, both systems are equal in value. Both systems are easily comprehensible, convenient, and practically appropriate. Both render it possible to establish a general system of numbering for all yarns without including too many high figures or inconvenient fractions, if the standards of weight and length are adapted to the specific peculiarity of the various yarns. In the one case the steady standard weight is, corresponding with the character of the spinning-material, represented in gram, deci-, centi-, milli-, deka-, hecto-, and kilo-gram, and in the other case the steady standardlength is represented in meter, deka-, hecto-, kilo-meter. Owing to the metrical system, the objection that the numbering of the web of very coarse thread-stuff cannot be placed with some of the finest material on the same basis, without sensibly damaging the practical requisite of one or other description of web, is refuted in advance. A scope as is here given would completely satisfy the practical requirement of the various descriptions of webbing. The establishing of any of these systems would render it further possible to find for the number of a spinning-material with the same easiness the equivalent number of the other spinning-material, as 10 or a higher potency of 10, according to the fundamental relations, will form either the factor or divisor. Unquestionably, therefore, one is, without making further examinations, already advanced nearer to the desired object through the wanton election of one of the two principles. As, however, the question is merely one of utility, it still requires a more penetrating examination as to which of the two principles gives greater advantages, and which therefore should have the preference. If yaru numbers and weights stand in direct relation to each other, then the weight of a certain length of yarn, on which weight depends the quantity of the proper yarn for the production of a web, will be found by multiplying the number of standard lengths with the known weight of the standard lengths upon which the system is founded. Especially by fulfilling the above suppositions, the creation of standards for calculation or trade upon the basis of decimal division, this operation is unquestionably very easy to carry out. If, therefore, this system of numbering recommends itself unconditionally from the weaver's point of view, it is also not to be misunderstood that the other system, from the spinner's and yarn-merchant's point of view, can anticipate a livelier aquiescence; and even the weaver will find, in certain cases, this other system more advantageous, as the number corresponds with the figure of standard lengths which are included in the standard weight. The spinner will find by this system the calculation substantially simplified and relieved. An analysis of the cost of producing the yarn shows that one part of the same is proportioned to the weight, inasmuch as the respective working-expenses (cleaning, carding, sorting) for all numbers of yarn remain the same. Another part, on the other hand, (slubbing, spinning,) increases with the fineness of the yarn, or what the same is with the increase of the length of thread, the weight remaining the same. third class of expenses, however, (dressing, management, machinery, premises,) is to be applied, in such proportions as experience will show, to length and weight. A The higher the yarn number rises in consequence of the latter principle, the more value of labor is represented by the product. The expression in figures of such value is, on the base of this principle, extraordinarily easy. The cost of production, independent of the number, must accordingly be considered as fixed, and added to the price of the standard of weight of the raw material shows one item in the cost price of the yarn. As for the later working expenses, occasioned by the conversion into yarn, however increased in proportion with the fineness of yarn, an average value-cipher can be established for each number; it follows therefrom: 1. That the price of production of a certain yarn is to be found, in each single instance, by a simple addition or subtraction. 2. That the fluctuation of prices of raw material in the same way are easily and safely to be valued in the finished fabric. A simple addition or subtraction renders it possible, in one word, to ascertain forthwith the expenses for any number, as also the numerical statement of the influence of the price of raw material upon the cost-price of the fabric. On the other hand, if the length is accepted as steady, then the items of account will be altered, as well as their mutual relations, and with these also the mode of calculation. If weight forms the only base of expense-calculation, then there will alter with each number, not only the price of labor, as before, but also the value of the material, and in consequence of this alteration arises the necessity of employing, for each number, for each fluctuation of price of the raw material, a tolerably com plicated account. The spinner as well as the yarn-merchant are equally interested, in a rational course of trade, to form an opinion of the cost-price of the different yarns, for which purpose an easy and possibly speedy mode of calculation is also of interest to him. But the weaver also will find, what is easily to be proved, that in the case of buying yarn wound on this spindle, this numbering principle will be far preferable. It is also to be admitted that, however easy it is to find, in consequence of the fixing of one of the items, the other items in both systems, yet the system denoting the numbering by the length has still the advantage of an unparalleled simplicity. One kilogram yarn, No. 36, for instance, without even making a calculation necessary, already expresses a uniform length of yarn of 36 (kilometers ecc.) But to find the length according to the other system, the following calculation must be made: 1,000 meters No. 36 make 36 grams; consequently go to 1,000 grams: If we consider lastly the influence of views received by education and the not to be underrated power of habit, the numbering principles existing in practice plead also for the pre-eminence of the system, according to which the number stands with the fineness in direct, but with weight in inverse relations. PROPOSITION 4. On account of the length of the reel for flax and jute being 24 meters, the calculation quantities will be made up as follows: Although this division differs in some respects from the above represented sections, yet it is in perfect harmony with the system. The unimportant difference in weights existing between the old and new numbers for manufacturers, can be equalized by slight alterations in caaming. The advantage of such easy calculation is consequently gained with barely a sacrifice. The length of the hasp of 1 meter for the other yarns, will be generally too short for practical purposes; on the other hand, hasps of 2 meters will be too long. Should, however, the length of 1,000 meters be comprised in a precise number of thread, and the circumference of the hasp in meters give a not too complicated fraction, then only the numbers of 1,000, 800, 750, 600, and 500 threads, representing a circumference of the hasp of 1, 1, 13, 14, and 2 meters will appear possible; therefore, in regard to the above, only the circumferences of the hasps existing between the two limits are recommendable. The reel of 1 meters has the advantage that it admits of being exactly expressed in full centimeters; therefore this size, although the circumference of the reel of 1 meter approaches nearest to the present English cotton reel (corresponding one with the other as 1.371 is to 1.333) and appears consequently absolutely preferable. 42, Praterstrasse. February, 1873. Vienna. The president of the imperial commission: The chief manager. ARCHDUKE REGNIER. BARON DE SCHWARZ-SENBORN. |