The Project Gutenberg eBook of English and American tool builders
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: English and American tool builders
Author: Joseph Wickham Roe
Release date: November 5, 2023 [eBook #72046]
Language: English
Original publication: New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1916
Credits: deaurider, Harry Lamé and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENGLISH AND AMERICAN TOOL BUILDERS ***
Transcriber’s Notes
Texts printed in italics and in bold face have been transcribed
between _underscores_ and =equal signs= respectively; small capitals
have been replaced with ALL CAPITALS. ^{text} represents superscript
characters.
More Transcriber’s Notes and an explanation of the transcription of
the “genealogical charts” may be found at the end of this text.
ENGLISH AND AMERICAN TOOL BUILDERS
[Illustration: HENRY MAUDSLAY]
ENGLISH AND AMERICAN
TOOL BUILDERS
BY
JOSEPH WICKHAM ROE
_Museum of the Peaceful Arts, City of New York,
Professor of Industrial Engineering,
New York University_
FIRST PRINTED IN 1916
REPRINTED IN 1926
McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC.
NEW YORK: 370 SEVENTH AVENUE
LONDON: 6 & 8 BOUVERIE ST., E. C. 4
1926
COPYRIGHT, 1916
BY
JOSEPH WICKHAM ROE
First published May, 1916
Republished March, 1926
“Man is a Tool-using Animal. Weak in himself, and of small stature,
he stands on a basis, at most for the flattest-soled, of some
half-square foot, insecurely enough; has to straddle out his legs,
lest the very wind supplant him. Feeblest of bipeds! Three quintals
are a crushing load for him; the steer of the meadow tosses him
aloft, like a waste rag. Nevertheless he can use Tools, can devise
Tools: with these the granite mountain melts into light dust before
him; seas are his smooth highway, winds and fire his unwearying
steeds. Nowhere do you find him without Tools; without Tools he is
nothing, with Tools he is all.”
CARLYLE: “Sartor Resartus,” Chap. IV.
PREFACE
The purpose of this book is to bring out the importance of the work and
influence of the great tool builders. Few realize that their art is
fundamental to all modern industrial arts. Without machine tools modern
machinery could not be built. Little is known by the general public as
to who the great tool builders were, and less is known of their lives
and work.
History takes good care of soldiers, statesmen and authors. It is
even kind to engineers like Watt, Fulton and Stephenson, who have
conspicuously and directly affected society at large. But little is
known, even among mechanics, of the men whose work was mainly within
the engineering profession, and who served other engineers rather
than the general public. The lives and the personalities of men like
Maudslay, Nasmyth and Eli Whitney, can hardly fail of interest to the
mechanic of today. They were busy men and modest, whose records are
mainly in iron and steel, and in mechanical devices which are used
daily with little thought of their origin.
In following the history of English and American tool builders,
the query arises as to whether there might not have been important
contributions to tool building from other countries. Others have
contributed to some degree, but practically all of the creative work
in tool building has been done in these two countries. Although the
French were pioneers in many mechanical improvements, they have always
shown an aptitude for refinements and ingenious novelties rather than
for commercial production on a large scale. They have influenced other
nations more through their ideas than through their machinery. The
Swiss are clever artisans, particularly in fine work, but they have
excelled in personal skill, operating on a small scale, rather than
in manufacturing. Germany has, under the Empire, developed splendid
mechanics, but the principal machine tools had taken shape before
1870, when the Empire began. The history of English and American tool
building, therefore, covers substantially the entire history of the art.
Almost the only book upon tool builders and their work is Samuel
Smiles’ “Industrial Biography,” which is out of print and little known.
It is an admirable and interesting book, and a mine of information upon
the English tool builders down to about 1850. The writer has used it
freely and would urge those who are interested in the subject to go
to it for further information on the early mechanics. It was written,
however, over fifty years ago and contains nothing about modern
developments or about the American tool builders who have contributed
so much.
The writer has tried to trace the origin and rise of tool building
in America and to give something of its spread in recent years. The
industrial life of the United States is so vast that a comprehensive
history of even a single industry, such as tool building, would run far
beyond the limits of one volume. This book, therefore, is confined to
the main lines of influence in tool building and to the personalities
and cities which have been most closely identified with it. The later
history of American tool building has never been written. For this the
writer has had to rely largely upon personal information from those who
are familiar with it, and who have had a part in it.
Part of the material contained in this book has appeared from time to
time in the _American Machinist_, and the writer would acknowledge
his indebtedness most of all to Mr. L. P. Alford, the editor of that
journal. His help and counsel have given these pages much of such value
as they possess. So many have helped with information, corrections and
suggestions that acknowledgments can be made only to a few. The writer
would particularly thank Mr. L. D. Burlingame, Mr. Ned Lawrence, Mr.
James Hartness, Mr. Coleman Sellers and Mr. Clarence Bement.
If these pages serve to stimulate interest in the lives and work of the
tool builders, to whom we owe much, they will fulfill the hope of the
writer.
Sheffield Scientific School,
Yale University,
October, 1915.
AUTHOR’S NOTE
In reprinting this book certain minor corrections have been made. In
the later chapters references occur here and there to the “present”
condition of various plants and firms. After careful consideration,
it seems wise to let these statements stand as they were written in
1915. Interest in this subject centers chiefly on the early history
of the plants and firms rather than on recent changes. To revise the
statements, bringing them up to date, would add little. With the ever
shifting status of a live industry, the statements, so revised, would
remain correct for only a short time. Therefore, when a reference is
made to present conditions it should be understood to cover those at
the beginning of the World War, which is a natural dividing point in
our industrial history.
The general predictions made in the last two paragraphs of the book
have been borne out by the developments in American toolbuilding since
that time.
Museum of the Peaceful Arts,
City of New York,
February, 1926.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Chapter I. Influence of the Early Tool Builders 1
Chapter II. Wilkinson and Bramah 11
Chapter III. Bentham and Brunel 22
Chapter IV. Henry Maudslay 33
Chapter V. Inventors of the Planer 50
Chapter VI. Gearing and Millwork 63
Chapter VII. Fairbairn and Bodmer 71
Chapter VIII. James Nasmyth 81
Chapter IX. Whitworth 98
Chapter X. Early American Mechanics 109
Chapter XI. The Rise of Interchangeable Manufacture 128
Chapter XII. Whitney and North 145
Chapter XIII. The Colt Armory 164
Chapter XIV. The Colt Workman--Pratt & Whitney 173
Chapter XV. Robbins & Lawrence 186
Chapter XVI. The Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company 202
Chapter XVII. Central New England 216
Chapter XVIII. The Naugatuck Valley 231
Chapter XIX. Philadelphia 239
Chapter XX. The Western Tool Builders 261
Appendix A 281
Appendix B, The Jennings Gun 292
A Partial Bibliography on Tool Building 295
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Henry Maudslay _Frontispiece_
Fig. 1. Smeaton’s Boring Machine, Carron Iron
Works, 1769 _Facing page 2_
Fig. 2. French Lathes of about 1772 _Facing page 2_
Fig. 3. French Slide-Rest, 1772 _Facing page 6_
Fig. 4. French Lathe for Turning Ovals, 1772 _Facing page 6_
Fig. 5. Genealogy of the Early English Tool
Builders _page 7_
Fig. 6. John Wilkinson _Facing page 14_
Fig. 7. Wilkinson’s Boring Machine _Facing page 14_
Fig. 8. Eminent Men of Science Living in 1807-8 _Facing page 20_
Fig. 9. Sir Samuel Bentham _Facing page 22_
Fig. 10. Sir Marc Isambard Brunel _Facing page 26_
Fig. 11. Brunel’s Mortising Machine _Facing page 30_
Fig. 12. Brunel’s Shaping Machine _Facing page 30_
Fig. 13. French Screw-Cutting Lathe, Previous to
1569 _page 37_
Fig. 14. French Screw-Cutting Lathe, about 1740 _page 37_
Fig. 15. Maudslay’s Screw-Cutting Lathe, about 1797 _Facing page 42_
Fig. 16. Maudslay’s Screw-Cutting Lathe, about 1800 _Facing page 42_
Fig. 17. French Planing Machine by Nicholas Forq,
1751 _Facing page 50_
Fig. 18. Matthew Murray _Facing page 58_
Fig. 19. Richard Roberts _Facing page 58_
Fig. 20. Roberts’ Planer, Built in 1817 _Facing page 60_
Fig. 21. Roberts’ Back-Geared Lathe _Facing page 60_
Fig. 22. James Nasmyth _Facing page 82_
Fig. 23. First Sketch of the Steam Hammer,
November 24, 1839 _Facing page 94_
Fig. 24. Model of the First Steam Hammer _Facing page 94_
Fig. 25. Sir Joseph Whitworth _Facing page 102_
Fig. 26. Samuel Slater _Facing page 122_
Fig. 27. Genealogy of the New England Gun Makers _page 139_
Fig. 28. The First Milling Machine, Built by Eli
Whitney about 1818 _Facing page 142_
Fig. 29. Blanchard “Gun-Stocking” Lathe, Built in
1818 for the Springfield Armory _Facing page 142_
Fig. 30. Eli Whitney _Facing page 152_
Fig. 31. Samuel Colt _Facing page 164_
Fig. 32. The Colt Armory _Facing page 168_
Fig. 33. Root’s Chucking Lathe, about 1855 _Facing page 170_
Fig. 34. Root’s Splining Machine, about 1855 _Facing page 170_
Fig. 35. Francis A. Pratt _Facing page 178_
Fig. 36. Amos Whitney _Facing page 178_
Fig. 37. Genealogy of the Robbins & Lawrence Shop _page 187_
Fig. 38. Robbins & Lawrence Armory, Windsor, Vt. _Facing page 190_
Fig. 39. Frederick W. Howe _Facing page 196_
Fig. 40. Richard S. Lawrence _Facing page 196_
Fig. 41. James Hartness _Facing page 198_
Fig. 42. Joseph R. Brown _Facing page 202_
Fig. 43. First Universal Milling Machine, 1862 _Facing page 208_
Fig. 44. Early Micrometer Calipers _Facing page 212_
Fig. 45. Genealogy of the Worcester Tool Builders _page 223_
Fig. 46. Lucius W. Pond _Facing page 228_
Fig. 47. Salmon W. Putnam _Facing page 228_
Fig. 48. Hiram W. Hayden _Facing page 232_
Fig. 49. Israel Holmes _Facing page 232_
Fig. 50. Genealogy of the Naugatuck Brass Industry _page 235_
Fig. 51. William Sellers _Facing page 248_
Fig. 52. Coleman Sellers _Facing page 252_
Fig. 53. William B. Bement _Facing page 252_
Fig. 54. Worcester R. Warner _Facing page 262_
Fig. 55. Ambrose Swasey _Facing page 262_
Fig. 56. The “Mult-au-matic” Lathe, 1914 _Facing page 276_
Fig. 57. Machine Tool Building Area of the United
States, 1915 _page 279_
ENGLISH AND AMERICAN TOOL BUILDERS
CHAPTER I
INFLUENCE OF THE EARLY TOOL BUILDERS
Well-informed persons are aware of the part which machinery in general
has had on modern industrial life. But the profound influence which
machine tools have had in that development is scarcely realized, even
by tool builders themselves.
Three elements came into industrial life during the latter part of
the eighteenth century. First, the development of modern banking and
the stock company brought out the small private hoards from their
hiding places, united them, and made them available for industrial
undertakings operating on the scale called for by modern requirements.
Second, Watt’s development of the steam engine and its application to
the production of continuous rotative motion gave the requisite source
of power. But neither the steam engine itself nor the machinery of
production was possible until the third element, modern machine tools,
supplied the means of working metals accurately and economically.
It is well to glance for a moment at the problems which were involved
in building the first steam engine. Watt had been working for several
years on the steam engine when the idea of the separate condenser came
to him on that famous Sunday afternoon walk on the Glasgow Green, in
the spring of 1765, and, to use his own words, “in the course of one
or two days the invention was thus far (that is, as a pumping engine)
complete in my mind.”[1] He was a skilled instrument maker and his
first small model was fairly successful, but when he undertook “the
practice of mechanics _in great_,” his skill and all the skill of those
about him was incapable of boring satisfactorily a cylinder 6 inches in
diameter and 2 feet long; and he had finally to resort to one which was
hammered. For ten weary years he struggled to realize his plans in a
full-sized engine, unable to find either the workmen or the tools which
could make it a commercial success. His chief difficulty lay in keeping
the piston tight. He “wrapped it around with cork, oiled rags, tow, old
hats, paper, and other things, but still there were open spaces left,
sufficient to let the air in and the steam out.”[2] Small wonder! for
we find him complaining that in an 18-inch diameter cylinder, “at the
worst place the long diameter exceeded the short by three-eighths of an
inch.” When Smeaton first saw the engine he reported to the Society of
Engineers that “neither the tools nor the workmen existed that could
manufacture so complex a machine with sufficient precision.”[3]
[1] Smiles: “Boulton & Watt,” pp. 97, 98. London, 1904.
[2] _Ibid._, p. 114.
[3] _Ibid._, p. 186.
Smeaton himself had designed a boring machine in 1769 for the Carron
Iron Works for machining cannon, an illustration of which is given in
Fig. 1.[4] It consisted of a head with inserted cutters mounted on a
long, light, overhung boring bar. The work was forced forward on a rude
carriage, as shown. The method of supporting the cutter head, indicated
in the section, shows an ingenious attempt to obtain a movable support
from an inaccurate surface. One need hardly say that the work resulting
was inaccurate.
[4] “Engineer,” London, March 4, 1910; p. 217. Drawn from the
description given in Farey’s “Treatise on the Steam Engine.”
[Illustration: FIGURE 1. SMEATON’S BORING MACHINE
CARRON IRON WORKS, 1769]
[Illustration: FIGURE 2. FRENCH LATHES OF ABOUT 1772]
Fortunately, in 1774, John Wilkinson, of Bersham, hit upon the idea,
which had escaped both Smeaton and Watt, of making the boring bar
heavier, running it clear through the cylinder and giving it a fixed
support at the outboard end as shown in Fig. 7. The superiority of this
arrangement was at once manifest, and in 1776 Boulton wrote that “Mr.
Wilkinson has bored us several cylinders almost without error; that of
50 inches diameter, which we have put up at Tipton, does not err the
thickness of an old shilling in any part.”[5] For a number of years,
Wilkinson cast and bored all the cylinders for Boulton & Watt.
[5] Farey: “Treatise on the Steam Engine,” p. 328. 1827.
The importance to Boulton & Watt of the timely aid of Wilkinson’s
boring machine can hardly be overestimated. It made the steam engine
a commercial success, and was probably the first metal-working tool
capable of doing large, heavy work with anything like present-day
accuracy.[6]
[6] Watt’s beautiful parallel motion, invented in 1785, was made
necessary by the fact that there were no planers to machine a
crosshead and guides. Planers were not developed until thirty years
later.
We hardly realize the crudity of the tools available in the eighteenth
century. In all machinery the principal members were of wood, as
that could be worked by the hand tools then in use. The fastenings
and smaller parts only were of metal, and consisted of castings and
forgings fitted by hand. There were some lathes of the very simplest
type. Most of them were “pole” lathes, operated by a cord reaching
from a foot treadle, around the work itself, and up to a pole or
wooden spring attached to the ceiling. The work rotated alternately
forward and backward, and was caught with a hand tool each time as it
came forward. Two are shown in Fig. 2, one at the back and one at the
left. Only the very best forms had continuous motion from a direct
drive on the live spindle, as shown at the right of the same figure.
This figure is reproduced from the French _Dictionnaire des Sciences_,
published in 1772. Such lathes were almost useless for metal cutting,
as they lacked both the necessary power and a holding device strong
enough and accurate enough to guide a tool. The slide-rest, while it
had been invented, had not been put into practical form or come into
general use. There were a few rude drilling and boring machines, but no
planing machines, either for metal or wood. The tool equipment of the
machinist, or “millwright,” as he was called, consisted chiefly of a
hammer, chisel and file. The only measuring devices were calipers and a
wooden rule, with occasional reference perhaps to “the thickness of an
old shilling,” as above. Hand forging was probably as good as or better
than that of today. Foundry work had come up to at least the needs of
the time. But the appliances for cutting metal were little better than
those of the Middle Ages.
Such was the mechanical equipment in 1775; practically what it had been
for generations. By 1850 it was substantially that of today. In fact,
most of this change came in one generation, from about 1800 to 1840.
Since that time there have been many improvements and refinements,
but the general principles remain little changed. With so wonderful
a transformation in so short a time, several questions arise almost
inevitably: Where did this development take place, who brought it
about, and why was it so rapid?
The first question is fairly simple. England and America produced the
modern machine tool. In the period mentioned, England developed most
of the general machine tools of the present day; the boring machine,
engine lathe, planer, shaper, the steam hammer and standard taps and
dies. Somewhat later, but partially coincident with this, America
developed the special machine tool, the drop hammer, automatic lathes,
the widespread commercial use of limit gauges, and the interchangeable
system of manufacture.
In a generalization such as this, the broad lines of influence must be
given the chief consideration. Some of the most valuable general tools,
such as the universal miller and the grinder, and parts of the standard
tools, as the apron in the lathe, are of American origin. But, with all
allowances, most of the general machine tools were developed in England
and spread from there throughout the world either by utilization of
their design or by actual sale. On the other hand, the interchangeable
system of manufacture, in a well-developed form, was in operation in
England in the manufacture of ships’ blocks at Portsmouth shortly after
1800; and yet this block-making machinery had been running for two
generations with little or no influence on the general manufacturing of
the country, when England, in 1855, imported from America the Enfield
gun machinery and adopted what they themselves styled the “American”
interchangeable system of gun making.[7]
[7] See page 139.
The second question as to who brought this change about is not so
simple. It is not easy to assign the credit of an invention. Mere
priority of suggestion or even of experiment seems hardly sufficient.
Nearly every great improvement has been invented independently by a
number of men, sometimes almost simultaneously, but often in widely
separated times and places. Of these, the man who made it a success is
usually found to have united to the element of invention a superior
mechanical skill. He is the one who first embodied the invention in
such proportions and mechanical design as to make it commercially
available, and from him its permanent influence spreads. The chief
credit is due to him because he impressed it on the world. Some
examples may illustrate this point.
Leonardo da Vinci in the fifteenth century anticipated many of the
modern tools.[8] His sketches are fascinating and show a wonderful and
fertile ingenuity, but, while we wonder, we smile at their proportions.
Had not a later generation of mechanics arisen to re-invent and
re-design these tools, mechanical engineering would still be as unknown
as when he died.
[8] _American Machinist_, Vol. 32, Part 2, pp. 821 and 868.
Take the slide-rest. It is clearly shown in the French encyclopedia of
1772, see Fig. 3, and even in an edition of 1717. Bramah, Bentham and
Brunel, in England, and Sylvanus Brown,[9] in America, are all said to
have invented it. David Wilkinson, of Pawtucket, R. I., was granted
a patent for it in 1798.[10] But the invention has been, and will
always be, credited to Henry Maudslay, of London. It is right that it
should be, for he first designed and built it properly, developed its
possibilities, and made it generally useful. The modern slide-rest is a
lineal descendant from his.
[9] Goodrich: “History of Pawtucket,” pp. 47-48. Pawtucket, 1876.
[10] _Ibid._, p. 51.
Blanchard was by no means the first to turn irregular forms on a lathe.
The old French rose engine lathe, shown in Fig. 4, embodied the idea,
but Blanchard accomplished it in a way more mechanical, of a far wider
range of usefulness, and his machine is in general use to this day.
[Illustration: FIGURE 3. FRENCH SLIDE-REST, 1772]
[Illustration: FIGURE 4. FRENCH LATHE FOR TURNING OVALS, 1772
The spindle swings sidewise under the influence of the two cams which
bear against the upright stops]
[Illustration:
+------------------------+ +-----------+ +-------------+
| =JOSEPH BRAMAH= | |=Sir SAMUEL| | =Sir MARC I.|
| =1748-1814= | | BENTHAM= | | BRUNEL= |
| | |=1757-1831=| | =1769-1849= |
|Invented Lock, Hydraulic| +----+------+ +----------+--+
|press, 4-way cock, and | | |
|wood working machinery. | | 44 NEW MACHINES, |
+------+----------+------+ |BLOCK M’CHRY-1800-08|
| | +---------+----------+
| | |
| +--------+------------------------+---------+
| | =HENRY MAUDSLAY= |
| | =1771-1831= |
| |Slide rest for metal work, Block machinery,|
| |Flour, Sawmill and Mint mach’ry, Punches, |
| |Mill and Marine Steam Engines, Fine screw |
| |cutting. Laid basis for Lathe, Planer and |
| |Slotter |
| +--------+------------+-----+----+----------+
| | | | \
| | | | \
+------+----------+--------+ | | \
| =JOSEPH CLEMENT= + | | \
| =1779-1844= |\ | | \
| Slide Lathe, | \ | | \
| Planer 1820 and 1824 | \| | \
|Manufactured Taps and Dies| | | \
| Standard Screw Threads | |\ | \
+--------------------------+ / \ | \
/ \ | \
+-------+ +--------+ +----+----+ +-+-------------+ +---------+
|=MATT. | | =JAMES | |=RICH’D. | | =JOSEPH | | =JAMES |
|MURRAY=| | FOX= | | ROBERTS=| | WHITWORTH= | |NASMYTH= |
| | | | | | | =1803-87= | |=1808-90=|
|Engines| | Index | |Versatile| | Std. Screw | | Index |
|D-Valve| | Cutting| |Inventor,| | Threads | | Milling |
|Planer | |of Gears| | Planer | | Foremost tool | | Shaper |
| | | Lathes,| | | |builder of the | | Steam |
| | | Planer | | | |19^{th} Century| | Hammer |
+-------+ +--------+ +---------+ +---------------+ +---------+
AM. MACHINIST
FIGURE 5. GENEALOGY OF THE EARLY ENGLISH TOOL BUILDERS]
To the third question as to why this development when once begun should
have been so rapid, there are probably two answers. First, an entirely
new demand for accurate tools arose during these years, springing
from the inventions of Arkwright, Whitney, Watt, Fulton, Stephenson
and others. The textile industries, the steam engine, railways, and
the scores of industries they called into being, all called for
better and stronger means of production. While the rapidity of the
development was due partly to the pressure of this demand, a second
element, that of cumulative experience, was present, and can be clearly
traced. Wilkinson was somewhat of an exception, as he was primarily
an iron master and not a tool builder, so his relationship to other
tool builders is not so direct or clear. But the connection between
Bramah, Maudslay, Clement, Whitworth and Nasmyth, is shown in the
“genealogical” table in Fig. 5.
Bramah had a shop in London where, for many years, he manufactured
locks and built hydraulic machinery and woodworking tools. Maudslay,
probably the finest mechanician of his day, went to work for Bramah
when only eighteen years old and became his foreman in less than a
year. He left after a few years and started in for himself, later
taking Field into partnership, and Maudslay & Field’s became one of the
most famous shops in the world.
Sir Samuel Bentham, who was inspector general of the British navy,
began the design of a set of machines for manufacturing pulley blocks
at the Portsmouth navy yard. He soon met Marc Isambard Brunel, a
brilliant young Royalist officer, who had been driven out of France
during the Revolution, and had started working on block machinery
through a conversation held at Alexander Hamilton’s dinner table while
in America a few years before. Bentham saw the superiority of Brunel’s
plans, substituted them for his own, and commissioned him to go ahead.
In his search for someone to build the machinery, Brunel was referred
to Maudslay, then just starting in for himself. Maudslay built the
machines, forty-four in all, and they were a brilliant success. There
has been considerable controversy as to whether Bentham or Brunel
designed them. While Maudslay’s skill appears in the practical details,
the general scheme was undoubtedly Brunel’s. In a few of the machines
Bentham’s designs seem to have been used, but he was able enough and
generous enough to set aside most of his own designs for the better
ones of Brunel.
Of the earlier tool builders, Maudslay was the greatest. He, more than
any other, developed the slide-rest and he laid the basis for the
lathe, planer and slotter. His powerful personality is brought out in
Nasmyth’s autobiography written many years later. Nasmyth was a young
boy, eager, with rare mechanical skill and one ambition, to go to
London and work for the great Mr. Maudslay. He tells of their meeting,
of the interest aroused in the older man, and of his being taken
into Maudslay’s personal office to work beside him. It is a pleasing
picture, the young man and the older one, two of the best mechanics in
all England, working side by side, equally proud of each other.
Joseph Clement came to London and worked for Bramah as chief draftsman
and as superintendent of his works. After Bramah’s death he went
to Maudslay’s and later went into business for himself. He was an
exquisite draftsman, a fertile inventor, and had a very important
part in the development of the screw-cutting lathe and planer. Joseph
Whitworth, the most influential tool builder of the nineteenth century,
worked for Maudslay and for Clement and took up their work at the point
where they left off. Under his influence machine tools were given a
strength and precision which they had never had before. Richard Roberts
was another pupil of Maudslay’s whose influence, though important, was
not so great as that of the others.
We have an excellent example of what this succession meant. Nasmyth
tells of the beautiful set of taps and dies which Maudslay made for his
own use, and that he standardized the screw-thread practice of his own
shop. Clement carried this further. He established a definite number
of threads per inch for each size, extended the standardization of
threads, and began the regular manufacture of dies and taps. He fluted
the taps by means of milling cutters and made them with small shanks,
so that they might drop through the tapped hole. Whitworth, taking up
Clement’s work, standardized the screw threads for all England and
brought order out of chaos.
Some account of the growth of machine tools in the hands of these men
will be given later. Enough has been said here to show the cumulative
effect of their experience, and its part in the industrial advance
of the first half of the nineteenth century. Similar successions of
American mechanics will be shown later.
Writing from the standpoint of fifty years ago, Smiles quotes Sir
William Fairbairn: “‘The mechanical operations of the present day could
not have been accomplished at any cost thirty years ago; and what was
then considered impossible is now performed with an exactitude that
never fails to accomplish the end in view.’ For this we are mainly
indebted to the almost creative power of modern machine tools, and the
facilities which they present for the production and reproduction of
other machines.”[11]
[11] Smiles: “Industrial Biography,” p. 399.
CHAPTER II
WILKINSON AND BRAMAH
In the previous chapter it was stated that John Wilkinson, of Bersham,
made the steam engine commercially possible by first boring Watt’s
cylinders with the degree of accuracy necessary, and that his boring
machine was probably the first metal-cutting tool capable of doing
large work with anything like modern accuracy. Although Wilkinson was
not primarily a tool builder but an iron master, this achievement alone
is sufficient to make him interesting to the tool builders of today.
He was born in 1728. His father made his financial start by
manufacturing a crimping iron for ironing the fancy ruffles of the
day. John Wilkinson first started a blast furnace at Belston and later
joined his father in an iron works the latter had built at Bersham,
near Chester. By developing a method of smelting and puddling iron
with coal instead of wood-charcoal, he obtained an immense commercial
advantage over his rivals and soon became a powerful factor in the iron
industry. Later, he built other works, notably one at Broseley, near
Coalbrookdale on the Severn.
One of the important branches of his work was the casting and finishing
of cannon. It was in connection with this that he invented the boring
machine referred to. He bored the first cylinder for Boulton & Watt in
1775. Farey, in his “History of the Steam Engine,” says:
In the old method, the borer for cutting the metal was not guided in
its progress,[12] and therefore followed the incorrect form given to
the cylinder in casting it; it was scarcely insured that every part
of the cylinder should be circular; and there was no certainty that
the cylinder would be straight. This method was thought sufficient
for old engines; but Mr. Watt’s engines required greater precision.
[12] See Fig. 1.
Mr. Wilkinson’s machine, which is now the common boring-machine,
has a straight central bar of great strength, which occupies the
central axis of the cylinder, during the operation of boring; and the
borer, or cutting instrument, is accurately fitted to slide along
this bar, which, being made perfectly straight, serves as a sort of
ruler, to give a rectilinear direction to the borer in its progress,
so as to produce a cylinder equally straight in the length, and
circular in the circumference. This method insures all the accuracy
the subject is capable of; for if the cylinder is cast ever so
crooked, the machine will bore it straight and true, provided there
is metal enough to form the required cylinder by cutting away the
superfluities.[13]
[13] Farey: “Treatise on the Steam Engine,” p. 326. 1827.
Wilkinson’s relations with Boulton & Watt became very intimate. He
showed his confidence in the new engine by ordering the first one
built at Soho to blow the bellows of his iron works at Broseley.
Great interest was felt in the success of this engine. Other iron
manufacturers suspended their building operations to see what the
engine could do and Watt himself superintended every detail of its
construction and erection. Before it was finished Boulton wrote to Watt:
Pray tell Mr. Wilkinson to get a dozen cylinders cast and bored from
12 to 50 inches in diameter, and as many condensers of suitable
sizes; the latter must be sent here, as we will keep them ready
fitted up, and then an engine can be turned out of hand in two
or three weeks. I have fixed my mind upon making from 12 to 15
reciprocating, and 50 rotative engines per annum.[14]
[14] Smiles: “Boulton & Watt,” p. 185. London, 1904.
This letter is interesting as showing Boulton’s clear grasp of the
principles of manufacturing. Later, when Boulton & Watt were hard
pressed financially, Wilkinson took a considerable share in their
business and when the rotative engine was developed he ordered the
first one. He consequently has the honor of being the purchaser of the
first reciprocating and the first rotary engine turned out by Watt.
Later, when Watt was educating his son to take up his work, he sent him
for a year to Wilkinson’s iron works at Bersham, to learn their methods.
Fig. 7, taken from an old encyclopedia of manufacturing and
engineering, shows the boring machine used for boring Watt’s steam
cylinders.
On two oaken stringers _SS_, frames _FF_ were mounted which carried a
hollow boring bar _A_ driven from the end. The cylinder to be bored
was clamped to saddles, as shown. The cutters were carried on a head
which rotated with the bar and was fed along it by means of an internal
feed-rod and rack. In the machine shown the feeding was done by a
weight and lever which actuated a pinion gearing with the rack _R_, but
later a positive feed, through a train of gears operated by the main
boring-bar, was used. Two roughing cuts and a finishing cut were used,
and the average feed is given as ¹⁄₁₆ inch per revolution. While this
machine may seem crude, a comparison with Smeaton’s boring machine,
Fig. 1, will show how great an advance it was over the best which
preceded it.
Wilkinson was a pioneer in many lines. He built and launched the first
iron vessel and in a letter dated July 14, 1787, says:
Yesterday week my iron boat was launched. It answers all my
expectations, and has convinced the unbelievers who were 999 in
a thousand. It will be only a nine days wonder, and then be like
Columbus’s egg.[15]
[15] “_Beiträge zur Geschichte der Technik und Industrie_,” 3. Band.
S. 227. Berlin, 1911.
In another letter written a little over a year later, he says:
There have been launched two Iron Vessels in my service since Sept.
1st: one is a canal boat for this [i.e., Birmingham] navigation, the
other a barge of 40 tons for the River Severn. The last was floated
on Monday and is, I expect, at Stourport with a loading of bar iron.
My clerk at Broseley advises me that she swims remarkably light and
exceeds my expectations.[16]
[16] _Ibid._, 3. Band. S. 227.
In 1788 William Symington built and ran a steam-operated boat on
Dalswinton Loch in Scotland, which was a small, light craft with two
hulls, made of tinned sheet-iron plates.[17] It has been erroneously
claimed that this was the first iron boat. It was at best the second.
Although of no commercial importance, it is of very great historical
interest as it antedated Fulton’s “Clermont” by many years.
[17] Autobiography of James Nasmyth, p. 30. London, 1883.
Twenty-three years later, in 1810, Onions & Son of Broseley built the
next iron boats, also for use upon the Severn. Five years later Mr.
Jervons of Liverpool built a small iron boat for use on the Mersey. In
1821 an iron vessel was built at the Horsley works in Staffordshire,
which sailed from London to Havre and went up the Seine to Paris.[18]
Iron vessels were built from time to time after that, but it was fully
twenty-five years before they came into general use.
[18] Smiles: “Men of Invention and Industry,” pp. 51-52. New York,
1885.
[Illustration: FIGURE 6. JOHN WILKINSON]
[Illustration: FIGURE 7. WILKINSON’S BORING MACHINE
USED FOR MACHINING THE CYLINDERS OF WATT ENGINES]
With Abraham Darby, 3d, Wilkinson has the honor of having built, in
1779, the first iron bridge, which spanned the Severn at Broseley. This
bridge had a span of 100 feet 6 inches, and a clear height of 48 feet,
and is standing today as good as ever.[19] He invented also the method
of making continuous lead pipe.
[19] Smiles: “Industrial Biography,” p. 119. Boston, 1864. Also,
_Beiträge_, etc., 3. Band. S. 226.
He was a man of great ability, strong and masterful. Boulton wrote of
him to Watt:
I can’t say but that I admire John Wilkinson for his decisive, clear,
and distinct character, which is, I think, a first-rate one of its
kind.[20]
[20] Smiles: “Boulton & Watt,” p. 438. London, 1904.
There is a note of qualification in the last clause. With all his
admirable qualities Wilkinson was not always amiable and he was in
constant feud with the other members of his family. He became very
wealthy, but his large estate was dissipated in a famous lawsuit
between his heirs.
Forceful and able as Wilkinson was, another man, Joseph Bramah, living
in London about the same time, had a much more direct influence on
tool building. Bramah was a Yorkshire farmer’s boy, born in 1748, and
lame.[21] As he could not work on the farm he learned the cabinet
maker’s trade, went to London, and, in the course of his work which
took him into the well-to-do houses about town, he made his first
successful invention--the modern water-closet. He patented it in 1778
and 1783, and it continues to this day in substantially the same form.
In 1784 he patented a lock, which was an improvement on Barron’s,
invented ten years before, and was one of the most successful ever
invented. For many years it had the reputation of being absolutely
unpickable. Confident of this, Bramah placed a large padlock on a board
in his shop window in Piccadilly and posted beneath it the following
notice:
“The artist who can make an instrument that will pick or open this
lock shall receive two hundred guineas the moment it is produced.”
[21] The best account of Bramah is given in Smiles’ “Industrial
Biography,” pp. 228-244. Boston, 1864.
Many tried to open it. In one attempt made in 1817, a clever mechanic
named Russell spent a week on it and gave it up in despair. In 1851
Alfred C. Hobbs, an American, mastered it and won the money. He was
allowed a _month_ in which to work and the Committee of Referees
in their report stated that he spent sixteen days, and an actual
working time of fifty-one hours, in doing it. This gave Hobbs a great
reputation, which he enhanced by picking every other lock well known in
England at that time, and then showing how it was done.
This started up the liveliest kind of a controversy and gave everyone
a chance to write to the _Times_. They all began first picking, then
tearing each other’s locks. Headlines of “Love (Hobbs?) Laughs at
Locksmiths,” “Equivocator” and other like terms appeared.[22]
[22] Price: “Fire and Thief-proof Depositories, and Locks and Keys.”
It was finally recognized that any lock could be picked by a skillful
mechanic with a knowledge of locks, if he were given time enough. The
old Bramah lock, made, by the way, by Henry Maudslay himself, did not
fare so badly. Hobbs had unmolested access to it for days with any
tools he could bring or devise; and though he finally opened it, a lock
probably sixty years old which could stand such an assault for fifty
hours was secure for all ordinary purposes.[23]
[23] Anyone who is interested can find an account of the affair in
Price’s “Fire and Thief-proof Depositories, and Locks and Keys,”
published in 1856, and Mr. Hobbs has given his own personal account
of it, explaining how the work was done, in the Trans. of the A. S.
M. E., Vol. VI, pp. 248-253.
When Bramah began manufacturing the locks he found almost immediately
that they called for a better quality of workmanship than was
available, with even the best manual skill about him. A series of
machine tools had to be devised if they were to be made in the
quantities and of the quality desired. He turned first to an old German
in Moodie’s shop who had the reputation of being the most ingenious
workman in London; but while he, with Bramah, saw the need, he could
not meet it. One of his shopmates, however, suggested a young man at
the Woolwich Arsenal named Henry Maudslay, then only eighteen years old.
Bramah sent for him and Maudslay soon became his right-hand man, and
was made superintendent of the works at nineteen. The work of these two
men in developing the tools needed laid the foundation for the standard
metal-cutting tools of today. The most important improvement was the
slide-rest. Nasmyth later said that he had seen the first one, made
by Maudslay, running in Bramah’s shop and that “in it were all those
arrangements which are to be found in the most modern slide-rest of our
own day” (i.e., fifty years later). Other parts of the metal-cutting
lathe also began to take shape; it has been said that parts of the lock
were milled on a lathe with rotary cutters, and that the beginnings
of the planer were made. How much of this work was Bramah’s and how
much Maudslay’s it would be hard to say. Bramah was a fertile, clever
inventor; but Maudslay was the better general mechanic, had a surer
judgment and a greater influence on subsequent tool design.
About this time Bramah invented the hydraulic press. As he first built
it, the ram was packed with a stuffing-box and gland. This gripped the
ram, retarded the return stroke, and gave him a lot of trouble until
Maudslay substituted the self-tightening cup-leather packing for the
stuffing-box, an improvement which made the device a success.
Bramah’s restless ingenuity was continually at work. He invented a very
successful beer-pump in 1797, the four-way cock, a quill sharpener
which was in general use until quills were superseded by steel pens,
and he dabbled with the steam engine. He was a bitter opponent of Watt
and testified against him in the famous suit of Boulton & Watt against
Hornblower. He maintained the superiority of the old Newcomen engines
and said that the principle of the separate condenser was fallacious,
that Watt had added nothing new which was not worthless, and that his
so-called improvements were “monstrous stupidity.”
In 1802 Bramah obtained a patent for woodworking machinery second only
in importance to that granted Bentham in 1791. Like Bentham, he aimed
to replace manual labor “for producing straight, smooth, and parallel
surfaces on wood and other materials requiring truth, in a manner
much more expeditious and perfect than can be performed by the use
of axes, saws, planes, and other cutting instruments used by hand in
the ordinary way.” His tools were carried in fixed frames and driven
by machinery. In his planing machine, one of which was running in
the Woolwich Arsenal for fifty years, the cutter-head, which carried
twenty-eight tools, was mounted on a vertical shaft and swept across
the work in a horizontal plane. He used this same method in planing
the metal parts for his locks, which corresponds, of course, to our
modern face-milling. He provided for cutting spherical and concave
surfaces and used his device for making wooden bowls.
In 1806 he devised an automatic machine which the Bank of England used
many years in numbering their banknotes, eliminating error and saving
the labor of many clerks.
Maudslay was in his employ from 1789 to 1797. He was getting as
superintendent 30s. ($7.50) a week. A growing family and “the high
cost of living” rendered this insufficient and he applied for more. He
was refused so curtly that he gave up his position and started in for
himself in a small workshop on Oxford Street in London. Later he took
Field in as partner under the firm name of Maudslay & Field.
In 1813 Bramah engaged another man who later had a great influence,
Joseph Clement. Clement soon became his chief draftsman and
superintendent. Salaries had gone up somewhat by that time and he had
an agreement for five years starting on the basis of three guineas a
week with an advance of four shillings each year. At Bramah’s death not
long after, his sons took charge of the business, and soon grew jealous
of Clement’s influence. By mutual consent the contract was terminated
and he went at once to Maudslay & Field as their chief draftsman.
Later he, too, set up for himself and had an important part in the
development of the screw-cutting lathe, the planer and standard screw
threads. Whitworth was one of his workmen and Clement’s work on taps
and dies formed the basis of the Whitworth thread.
Bramah died in 1814, at the age of sixty-six. He was a man of widely
recognized influence, a keen and independent thinker, a good talker,
and, though it might not appear from what has been said, a cheery and
always welcome companion. He left a reputation for absolute business
integrity and the quality of his workmanship was unrivaled until his
later years, when he was equaled only by those he had himself trained.
He gave the world some great and valuable devices and paved the way for
others. His influence on modern tools can probably never be accurately
judged, but Smiles’ tribute to him is as true today as when it was
written, two generations ago:
From his shops at Pimlico came Henry Maudslay, Joseph Clement,
and many more first-class mechanics, who carried the mechanical
arts to still higher perfection, and gave an impulse to mechanical
engineering the effects of which are still felt in every branch of
industry.[24]
[24] Smiles: “Industrial Biography,” p. 244.
Bramah had an invincible dislike for sitting for his portrait and
consequently none exists. A death-mask was made by Sir Francis
Chantrey, who executed the Watt statue in Westminster Abbey, but it
was unfortunately destroyed by Lady Chantrey. The complete catalog
of the National Portrait Gallery in London[25] gives Bramah’s name.
The reference, however, directs one to Walker’s famous engraving of
the “Eminent Men of Science Living in 1807-1808,” which shows about
fifty distinguished scientists and engineers grouped in the Library
of the Royal Institution. This engraving is the result of four years’
careful study. It was grouped by Sir John Gilbert, drawn by John Skill,
and finished by William Walker and his wife. Bramah’s figure, No. 6,
appears in this group, but _with his back turned_, the only one in that
position. It is a singular tribute to Bramah’s influence among his
generation of scientists that this picture would have been considered
incomplete without him. As no portrait of him existed he was included,
but with his face turned away. The figure was drawn in accordance with
a description furnished by Bramah’s grandson, E. H. Bramah.
[25] Cust’s.
[Illustration: FIGURE 8. EMINENT MEN OF SCIENCE LIVING IN 1807-8
FROM WALKER’S ENGRAVING IN THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY, LONDON
1. William Allen, 1770-1843
2. Francis Bailey, 1774-1844
3. Sir Joseph Banks, 1743-1820
4. Sir Samuel Bentham, 1737-1831
5. Matthew Boulton, 1728-1807
6. Joseph Bramah, 1749-1814
7. Robert Brown, 1773-1859
8. Sir Marc Isambard Brunel, 1769-1849
9. Edmund Cartwright, 1743-1823
10. Hon. Henry Cavendish, 1731-1810
11. Sir William Congreve, 1772-1828
12. Samuel Crompton, 1735-1827
13. John Dalton, 1766-1844
14. Sir Humphrey Davy, 1778-1829
15. Peter Dollond, 1731-1820
16. Bryan Donkin, 1768-1855
17. Thomas Cochrane, Earl of Dundonald, 1775-1860
18. Henry Fourdrinier, 1766-1854
19. Davis Giddy Gilbert, 1767-1839
20. Charles Hatchett, 1765-1847
21. William Henry, 1774-1836
22. Sir William Herschel, 1738-1822
23. Edward Charles Howard, 1774-1816
24. Joseph Huddart, 1740-1816
25. Edward Jenner, 1749-1823
26. William Jessop, 1745-1814
27. Henry Kater, 1777-1835
28. Sir John Leslie, 1766-1832
29. Nevil Maskelyne, 1732-1811
30. Henry Maudslay, 1771-1831
31. Patrick Miller, 1730-1815
32. William Murdock, 1754-1839
33. Robert Nylne, 1733-1811
34. Alexander Nasmyth, 1758-1840
35. John Playfair, 1748-1819
36. John Rennie, 1761-1821
37. Sir Francis Ronalds, 1788-1873
38. Count Rumford, 1753-1814
39. Daniel Rutherford, 1749-1819
40. Charles, third Earl Stanhope, 1753-1816
41. William Symington, 1763-1831
42. Thomas Telford, 1757-1834
43. Charles Tennant, 1768-1838
44. Thomas Thomson, 1773-1852
45. Richard Trevithick, 1771-1833
46. James Watt, 1736-1819
47. William Hyde Wollaston, 1766-1828
48. Thomas Young, 1773-1829
Group originated by William Walker. Designed by Sir John Gilbert.
Engraved by Walker and Zobel.]
The engraving includes many other men of interest whose names are
indicated. Some of them have already been considered; others, while
famous as engineers, worked in fields other than the one we are
considering.
CHAPTER III
BENTHAM AND BRUNEL
In the genealogical table shown in Fig. 5, Sir Samuel Bentham and
Sir Marc I. Brunel are indicated as having originated the famous
“Portsmouth Block Machinery,” which was built by Maudslay and which
first gave him his reputation as a tool builder. While Bentham was
primarily a naval administrator and Brunel a civil engineer, they were
among the first to grasp the principles of modern manufacturing and
embody them successfully. Both were men of distinction and each had an
interesting career.
Samuel Bentham, Fig. 9, was a brother of Jeremy Bentham, the famous
English publicist and writer on economics, and a step-brother of
Charles Abbott, speaker of the House of Commons. He was born in 1757,
went to the Westminster School, and later was a naval apprentice in
the Woolwich Arsenal. His tastes and his training led him toward the
administrative and constructive work of the navy, and for this he had
the best education available at that time. He went to sea after a final
year at the Naval College at Portsmouth; and in 1780, in consequence of
his abilities, was sent by Earl Howe, then first Lord of the Admiralty,
to visit the various ports of northern Europe. He went through the
great ports of Holland and the Baltic, eastward to St. Petersburg, and
was introduced at the Russian court by the British ambassador.
[Illustration: FIGURE 9. SIR SAMUEL BENTHAM
FROM AN OLD MINIATURE]
The Russians took to him kindly, as he was handsome, tall, and
distinguished in manner, inspired confidence, and made and held
friends. He was well received by the Empress Catherine, and soon
became a favorite of Prince Potemkin. He traveled over a greater part
of the empire from the Black Sea to the Arctic and as far east as
China, examining mining and engineering works. On his return to St.
Petersburg he fell in love with a wealthy heiress of the nobility. The
parents objected; but though the empress, who was interested, advised
an elopement, he gave it up as dishonorable and went away to Critcheff
in southern Russia as a lieutenant-colonel of engineers in the Russian
army. While there he took charge of Potemkin’s grossly mismanaged
factories in order to put them on a sound basis, an undertaking
suggestive of the twentieth-century efficiency engineer. In this he
was not wholly successful. In 1787 he built and equipped a flotilla
of ships, and in the following year distinguished himself in a naval
battle with the Turks, in which John Paul Jones was also engaged. One
of the vital elements in the fight was the use of the large guns built
by Bentham, which fired shells for the first time in naval warfare.
Nine Turkish ships were burned or sunk and 8000 men were killed or
taken prisoners. For his part in this battle Bentham was knighted and
made a brigadier-general.
There were few skilled artisans in Russia and almost none available in
the southern provinces--a Danish brass founder, an English watchmaker
and two or three sergeants who could write and draw were all he had.
This set Bentham at work on the problem of “transferring skill” by
means of machines, so that unskilled workmen might be made to produce
the same results as skilled labor.
While Bramah and Maudslay were working in London on their
metal-cutting tools for making locks, Bentham, in Russia, was
thinking out substantially the same problem in woodworking machinery.
He returned to England in 1791 and that year took out his first
patent. Certain suggestions which he made to the Admiralty about the
introduction of machinery into the dockyards led to his making an
extended inspection of the dockyards throughout the kingdom, and he
reported that immense savings were possible. The office of inspector
general was created for him and authority given him to put his
recommendations into effect.
For the next eighteen years he served the British navy. When he took
hold it was honeycombed with inefficiency and worse. His business-like
methods, his skill as an engineer and naval designer, and his fearless
integrity were elements in the preparedness of the British navy in the
Napoleonic wars. He was an intrepid enemy of red tape and graft and
soon made cordial enemies; but he was a good fighter, with no weak
spots in his armor, and it took many years to bring him down. In 1805
he was sent to St. Petersburg, and kept there on various pretexts for
two years. It was remarked by some about the Admiralty office, that so
high was their opinion of his talents they would be glad to give him
£6000 ($30,000) a year if by that means they would never see him again.
He returned in 1807 to find his office abolished and its functions
transferred to a board, of which he was made a member at an increased
salary. Here his power was diluted somewhat, but even this solution
was too strong and he was retired on a pension in 1812. For the next
fifteen years he lived in retirement in France. The years abroad
softened the rancor of his enemies and from his return to England in
1827 until his death, Bentham was in frequent and friendly consultation
with the navy officials. Bentham may well be considered as one of the
first and greatest of “efficiency experts.”[26]
[26] See the biography of Bentham, by William Lucas Sargant: “Essays
of a Birmingham Manufacturer,” Vol. I, No. V. London, 1869. Also,
“Memoirs of the late Brigadier-General Sir Samuel Bentham,” by Mary
S. Bentham, in “Papers and Practical Illustrations of Public Works.”
London, 1856.
The patent of 1791 referred to is not important, but it was followed by
another in 1793 in which was set forth the whole scheme of woodworking
machinery which had been maturing in Bentham’s mind. This has been
characterized as one of the most remarkable patents ever issued by the
British Patent Office. More than fifty years after, one of the Crown
judges said of it in summing up a case before him involving woodworking
machinery, that “the specification of his (i.e., Bentham’s) patent of
1793 is a perfect treatise on the subject; indeed, the only one worth
quoting that has to this day been written on the subject.”
Jeremy Bentham had revolutionized the prison system of England, and had
introduced the system of labor in penitentiaries which has become an
essential element in all modern penal systems. Woodworking was the most
available field of work, but the greater part of the prisoners were of
course unskilled, and Samuel Bentham was called upon to devise machines
to meet the need. The two brothers established a factory and began
making woodworking machinery for the prisons and dockyards.
The work for the dockyards soon took definite form. Pulley blocks
formed one of the important supplies of the navy. A single full-rigged
frigate used about 1500 and the Admiralty were purchasing at that time
about 100,000 yearly. This formed a large business in itself and one in
which the interchangeability that Bentham was continually urging was
especially desirable. On Bentham’s recommendation, a government factory
organized on a manufacturing basis and utilizing machinery had been
begun at Portsmouth and a few machines of his design already installed,
when Brunel, who had been working independently on block machinery, was
introduced to him.
Marc Isambard Brunel, Fig. 10, was a Norman Frenchman, born in 1769,
who was the despair of his father because he would not study to be a
priest and would persist in drawing and in making things. As a family
compromise he received a naval training and served as an officer for
six years. In 1793, his ship being paid off, he was in Paris. His
outspoken loyalty in one of the cafés on the very day when Louis XVI
was sentenced to the guillotine brought down upon him the anger of
the republicans present. He escaped in the confusion, spent the night
in hiding, and leaving Paris early the next morning, made his way
to Rouen. Here he hid for a time with M. Carpentier, the American
consul, in whose home he met a young English girl whom he afterwards
married. Six months later he sailed from Havre on a forged passport,
under the nose of a frigate searching for suspects, and landed in New
York only to find a French republican squadron lying in port. As he
was personally known to many of the officers and in danger of being
recognized, arrested and condemned as a deserter, he left the city at
once and went to Albany in the vague hope of finding M. Pharoux, a
friend who was undertaking the survey of a large tract of wild land
in the Black River valley, east of Lake Ontario. Brunel found him by
good chance, joined the party, and soon became its real leader. They
showed the capacity, which the French have always had, of working in
friendly relationship with the Indians, and their work was successfully
accomplished. Fifty years later there were still traditions among
Indians in the valley of a wonderful white man named “Bruné.”
[Illustration: FIGURE 10. SIR MARC ISAMBARD BRUNEL
FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BY WALKER, LTD., OF THE PORTRAIT IN THE NATIONAL
GALLERY, LONDON]
Brunel remained in America for over five years and was naturalized
as a citizen in 1796. During this time he was engaged on the
Hudson-Champlain canal and various river improvements. He was a friend
of Major L’Enfant, who planned the city of Washington and he submitted
one of the competitive designs for the original Capitol. He also
designed and built the old Park Theater in New York, which was burned
in 1821. He was appointed chief engineer of New York, built a cannon
foundry and had a part in planning the fortifications of the Narrows in
New York harbor.
He was gay, refined and a favorite among the emigrés who enlivened
New York society in the closing years of the eighteenth century. It
was at Alexander Hamilton’s dinner table that the first suggestion
of the block machinery came to him. He had been invited to meet a M.
Delabigarre, who had just arrived from England. M. Delabigarre had been
describing the method of making ship’s blocks and spoke of their high
and increasing cost. Brunei listened with attention and then pointed
out what he considered the defects of the method and suggested that the
mortises might be cut by machinery, two or three at a time. The shaping
machine he afterward used was conceived while he was at Fort Montgomery
in the highlands of the Hudson. Brunel left America for England early
in 1799 and remained in England the rest of his life. His marriage soon
after his arrival to Miss Kingdom, the girl whom he had met at Rouen,
doubtless gives the reason for this change.
Two months after reaching England, he took out a patent for a writing
and duplicating machine and he also invented a machine for twisting
cotton thread. Meantime he was working on the drawings for a complete
set of block machinery, and by 1801 he had made a working model of the
mortising and boring machines. He offered his plans to Fox & Taylor,
who held the navy contract for blocks. Mr. Taylor wrote in reply that
his father had spent many years developing their existing methods of
manufacture and they were perfectly satisfied with them. He added,
“I have no hope of anything better ever being discovered, and I am
convinced there cannot.”
Brunel, through introductions brought from America, then laid his
plans before Lord Spencer, of the Admiralty, and Sir Samuel Bentham.
Bentham, as we have seen, was already working on the same problem. He
saw at once the superiority of Brunel’s plans and, with the freedom
from jealousy and self-interest which characterized his whole career,
he recommended their adoption, with the result that Brunel was
commissioned to build and install his machines.
About sixty years ago there was a sharp controversy over the origin of
this Portsmouth machinery. Partisans of Bentham and Brunel each claimed
the entire credit for all of it. The fact is that some of Bentham’s
machines were used for the roughing out, but all the finishing work
was done on Brunel’s, and there is little doubt that the definite plan
of operations and all the more intricate machines were his. Bentham
conceived the enterprise and had it well under way. His broad-minded
and generous substitution of Brunel’s plans for his own was quite as
creditable to him as the execution of the whole work would have been.
While Brunel was a clever and original designer, he was not a skilled
mechanic. His plans called for a large number of refined and intricate
machines which were wholly new and he no sooner began actual work than
he felt the need of a mechanic capable of building them. Maudslay
had just started in for himself and was working in his little shop on
Oxford Street, with one helper. M. Bacquancourt, a friend of Brunel’s,
passed his door every day and was interested in the beautiful pieces
of workmanship he used to see from time to time in the shop window. At
his suggestion Brunel went to Maudslay, explained to him his designs,
and secured his help. There could hardly have been a better combination
than these two men. Maudslay’s wonderful skill as a mechanic and his
keen, practical intuition supplied the one element needed and together
they executed the entire set of machines, forty-four in all.[27]
[27] For a description of the Portsmouth Block Machinery, see
Tomlinson’s “Cyclopedia of Useful Arts,” Vol. I, pp. 139-146. London,
1852. Also, Ure’s “Dictionary of Arts, Manufactures, and Mines,”
Vol. I, pp. 398-402; Seventh Edition. London, 1875; and Rees’
“Cyclopedia,” article “Machinery for Manufacturing Ship’s Blocks.”
The machinery was divided into four classes.
First. Sawing machines, both reciprocating and circular, for roughing
out the blocks.
Second. Boring, mortising, shaping and “scoring” machines for finishing
the blocks.
Third. Machines for turning and boring the sheaves, for riveting the
brass liner and finish-facing the sides. In the larger sizes small
holes were drilled on the joint and short wire pins riveted in to
prevent slipping between the liner and block.
Fourth. The iron pins on which the sheaves turned were hand forged in
dies, turned and polished.
In addition to these there were several machines for forming “dead
eyes,” or solid blocks without sheaves, used in the fixed rigging.
A detailed description of the entire set would be too long. A brief
description of one or two of the machines will serve to give some idea
of the others.
Fig. 11 is taken from an old wood-cut of the mortising machine.[28] A
model of it is shown in the background of the portrait of Brunel in the
National Gallery, reproduced opposite page 26. A pulley and flywheel
are connected by a cone clutch _M_ to a shaft _D_. At the front end of
this a crank and connecting-rod drive the reciprocating cutter head
from a point _a_. The chuck carrying the block, movable forward and
backward on guides, was operated by the feed screw _R_, a cam, and the
ratchet motion shown. A system of stops and weighted levers on the side
threw out the ratchet feed at the end of the cut, and the carriage was
returned by hand, using the crank _r_. The crosshead had two guiding
points, a double one below the driving point and a single one above it
at _F_, and made 150 strokes per minute. The chuck could take either
one or two blocks at a time.
[28] Tomlinson: “Cyclopedia,” Vol. I, p. 141.
Fig. 12 shows the shaping machine.[29] _Ten_ blocks were chucked
between two large, circular frames, the same working points being used
as in the last machine. The principle of establishing and adhering to
working points seems to have been clearly recognized. A cutter _g_ was
moved across the face of the blocks as they revolved, its motion being
governed by the handles _l_ and _G_ and a former _i_. One side of each
of the ten blocks was thus finished at a time. The blocks were then
indexed 90° by revolving the bevel _K_, which turned the wormshafts _d_
and rotated all the chucks simultaneously. The blocks were then faced
again in their new positions and the operation continued until the four
sides were finished. The strong curved bars at the top were provided
to protect the workman in case one of the blocks should let go. As
the momentum of the frame and blocks was considerable, a spring brake
was provided between the bearing and bevel-gear to bring them to rest
quickly.
[29] _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 144.
[Illustration: FIGURE 11. BRUNEL’S MORTISING MACHINE]
[Illustration: FIGURE 12. BRUNEL’S SHAPING MACHINE]
Another well-designed machine “scored” the outside of the blocks for
the ropes or straps. Two disks with inserted steel cutters grooved
the blocks which were chucked on a swinging frame. The depth and path
of cut were governed by a steel former against which a roller on the
cutter shaft bore. In the metal working machines, under the fourth
group, cutters were used in which a short, round bar of tempered steel
was held by a binding screw in a holder of the lathe-tool type. From
the sketch of it shown by Holtzapffel, the whole device might almost be
used as an advertisement for a modern tool-holder for high-speed steel
cutters.
Enough has been said to show that these machines were thoroughly
modern in their conception and constituted a complete range of tools,
_each performing its part in a definite series of operations_. By this
machinery ten unskilled men did the work of 110 skilled workmen. When
the plant was in full running order in 1808 the output was over 130,000
blocks per year, with a value of over $250,000, an output greater than
that previously supplied by the six largest dockyards. It continued for
many years to supply all the blocks used by the Royal Navy, and was in
fact superseded only when wooden blocks themselves largely made way for
iron and steel ones.
Brunel devised other woodworking tools, but none so successful as
these. He started a mill at Battersea which burned down; his finances
became involved and he was thrown into prison for debt. He was freed
through a grant of $25,000 which friends secured from the government.
His later work was in the field of civil engineering--the most famous
work being the Thames tunnel. He was given the Legion of Honor in
1829, was knighted in 1841, and died in 1849.[30]
[30] For fuller information, see the biography of Sir Marc Isambard
Brunel by Richard Beamish, F.R.S. London, 1862.
His son, Sir Isambard K. Brunel, was also one of the foremost engineers
of England, a bridge and ship builder, railway engineer and rival of
Robert Stephenson. At the age of twenty-seven he was chief engineer of
the Great Western Railway, and built the steamer “Great Western” to
run from Bristol to New York as an extension of that railway system.
This was the first large iron ship, the first regular transatlantic
liner, and the first large steamship using the screw propeller. Its
success led to the building of the “Great Eastern” from his designs.
This ship was about 700 feet long and for nearly fifty years was the
largest one built. She was a disastrous failure financially and after
a varied career, which included the laying of the first transatlantic
cable, she was finally broken up. Brunel was a strong advocate of the
broad gauge and built the Great Western system with a 7-foot gauge,
which was ultimately changed to standard gauge. While a number of his
undertakings were failures financially, his chief fault seems to have
been that he was in advance of his generation.
CHAPTER IV
HENRY MAUDSLAY
We have mentioned Henry Maudslay frequently. In fact, it is hard to go
far in any historical study of machine tools without doing so.[31]
[31] For best accounts of Maudslay, see Smiles’ “Industrial
Biography,” Chap. XII, and “Autobiography of James Nasmyth.”
Maudslay was born in Woolwich in 1771. He was the son of an old soldier
working in the arsenal, and had but little schooling. At twelve he was
at work in the arsenal, first as a “powder monkey” filling cartridges,
later in the carpenter shop and smithy. Young as he was, he soon became
the leader among the workmen. He was a born craftsman and his skill was
soon the pride of the whole shop. To dexterity he added an intuitive
power of mechanical analysis and a sense of proportion possessed by
few men, and from the beginning he showed a genius for choosing the
most direct and simple means for accomplishing his purpose. He was a
great favorite among his fellows from his fine personal appearance, his
open-heartedness and complete freedom from conceit.
In the chapter on Bramah we have seen how Bramah, seeking someone to
help him devise tools to manufacture his locks, turned first to an old
German mechanic in Moodie’s shop. One of the hammer men in Moodie’s
shop suggested Maudslay, apologizing for his youth, but adding that
“nothing bet him.” When Bramah saw Maudslay, who was only eighteen, he
was almost ashamed to lay his case before him. Maudslay’s suggestions,
however, were so keen and to the point that the older man had to admit
that the boy’s head at least was old enough. He adopted the suggestions
and offered him a job in his shop at Pimlico, which Maudslay gladly
accepted. As he had served no apprenticeship, the foreman had doubts
of his ability to work among experienced hands. Without a moment’s
hesitation Maudslay pointed to a worn-out bench vice and asked whether
he could take his rank among the other workmen if he could fix it as
good as new before the end of the day. He was told to go ahead. He
resteeled and trued the jaws, filed them up, recut and hardened them,
and before the time set had it together, trimmer and in better shape
than any of its neighbors. It was examined, admired and accepted as his
diploma as a journeyman.
His advancement was rapid, and in about a year, while still only
nineteen, he was made general foreman and maintained his leadership
without the slightest difficulty. He remained with Bramah for eight
years, during which time the two laid the foundation for many of the
modern machine tools, more especially the slide-rest and screw-cutting
lathe. We have already considered Maudslay’s work done in connection
with Bramah and little need be added here in regard to it. During this
time Bramah invented the hydraulic press, but the cup-leather packing
which is so essential a part of it was suggested by Maudslay.
He left the Pimlico shop because Bramah would not give him more than
30 shillings ($7.50) a week, and with a single helper started a little
blacksmithing and jobbing shop on his own account near Wells and Oxford
streets in London.
His first customer was an artist who gave him an order for an iron
easel. Business prospered and he found plenty of work. His reputation
was established, however, in connection with the Portsmouth block
machinery, which was described in the last chapter. The building of
this machinery occupied about eight years, from 1800 to 1808. The
design was substantially Brunel’s, but Mr. Nasmyth says that “every
member of it was full of Maudslay’s presence and the mechanical
perfection of its details, its practicability and adaptability show his
handiwork at every turn.”
Soon after this work was undertaken, Maudslay moved his shop to
Margaret Street, near Cavendish Square. During the building of the
block machinery Maudslay had met Joshua Field, who had been engaged
as a draftsman in the Portsmouth dockyards under Sir Samuel Bentham
and had worked with him in the development of the machinery. Field was
transferred to General Bentham’s office at the Admiralty in 1804, and
a year later joined Maudslay. Five years later they moved to Lambeth
on the south side of the Thames and bought an old riding school on
Westminster Road on what was formerly a swampy marsh. Here the firm
of Maudslay & Field continued its long and famous career. Few firms
have influenced mechanical development more, and for many years it was
one of the leading machine shops of the world. Here Maudslay did his
life work as one of the leaders in the development not only of machine
tools but of the steam engine, both stationary and marine. After his
death in 1831 the business was continued by Mr. Field, who outlived him
many years, and by Maudslay’s son and grandson, both of whom were fine
mechanics and men of great influence.
It was in connection with the slide-rest and screw-cutting lathe
that Maudslay is best known. Too much value cannot be placed on the
slide-rest and its combination with a lead screw, operated by change
gears. It is used in some form in almost every machine tool and is one
of the great inventions of history.
Like most of the great inventions, it was the work of many men. In
crude applications, parts of it date back to the Middle Ages. Leonardo
da Vinci caught an inkling of it. French writers in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries describe and illustrate devices which involve
the parts of it. Fig. 13, reproduced from an illustration in the old
work of Besson, first published in 1569,[32] shows a lead screw. The
copy from which this illustration was taken is printed in Latin and
is in the Astor library, New York. The upper shaft had three drums;
the middle one carried the rope which was manipulated by the operator.
Of the drums at the ends, the one at the left operated a lead screw
and the one on the right, the piece being cut. The two outer weights
held the follower up against the lead screw. The cutting was, of
course, intermittent, as in all the earlier types of lathes. The idea
of the lead screw occurs in other French works of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. In the lathe shown in Fig. 14, from a French book
published in 1741,[33] gears instead of ropes were used to connect the
rotation of the lead screw with that of the work, but if the idea of
_change_ gears was contemplated, it was not developed.
[32] “_Des Instruments Mathématiques et Méchaniques, &c., Inventées
par Jacques Besson._” First Latin and French Edit., 1569. Plate 9.
Two later editions were published at Lyons, one in 1578 and one in
1582. The same copper plates were used in the three editions.
[33] Holtzapffel: “Turning and Mechanical Manipulation,” Vol. II, p.
618. London, 1847.
[Illustration: FIGURE 13. FRENCH SCREW-CUTTING LATHE, PREVIOUS TO 1569]
[Illustration: FIGURE 14. FRENCH SCREW-CUTTING LATHE, ABOUT 1740]
The slide-rest was also known. An illustration of a French slide-rest,
published long before Maudslay’s time, is reproduced in Fig. 3. In
Bramah’s original “slide-tool,” the tail-stock and slide-rest were
combined.[34] It was made about 1795 by Maudslay while still his
foreman. How much of the design was Bramah’s and how much Maudslay’s we
cannot tell. It was a light, flimsy affair and very different from the
slide-rests Maudslay was making only a few years later.
[34] Buchanan: “Practical Essays on Mill Work and Other Machinery.”
London, 1841. Volume of Plates.
In none of these was the slide-rest combined with change gears and
a power-driven lead screw. It was this combination which formed
Maudslay’s great contribution, together with improvements in proportion
and in mechanical design which raised the device from an ingenious but
cumbersome mechanical movement to an instrument of precision and power.
Jesse Ramsden, a famous instrument maker, is said to have made a small
lathe in 1775, which had change wheels and a sliding tool holder moved
by a lead screw. The writer has been unable to find any illustration
or description of it, and if such a lathe existed, it certainly did
not exert a very wide influence. The combination was anticipated in
Bentham’s famous patent of 1793. In this patent Bentham says: “When
the motion is of a rotative kind, advancement (of the tool) may be
provided by hand, yet regularity may be more effectually insured by the
aid of mechanism. For this purpose one expedient is the connecting,
for instance, by cogged wheels, of the advancing motion of the piece
with the rotative motion of the tool.”[35] This patent contained no
drawings, and the suggestion was not, so far as is known, embodied in
any definite construction.
[35] See the British patent records. Patent No. 1951, dated April 23,
1793.
Many men were working at the problem of generating an accurate screw
thread. The use of dies was quite well known, but their design and
workmanship was of the crudest order and their product of the same
character; and they were inadequate for the making of any large
threads. Holtzapffel’s book on “Turning and Mechanical Manipulation,”
published in London, 1847, describes some of the attempts of the
earlier mechanics to devise other means.[36] At the famous Soho works
in Birmingham a workman by the name of Anthony Robinson cut a screw 7
feet long and 6 inches in diameter with a square, triple thread. After
the cylinder had been turned, paper was cut and fitted around it,
removed, marked in ink with parallel oblique lines, then replaced on
the cylinder and the lines were pricked through with a center punch.
The paper was again removed and dots connected by fine lines with a
file. The alternate spaces between the lines were then cut out with a
chisel and hammer and smoothed by filing. A block of lead and tin, as a
temporary guide nut, was then cast around the partially formed screw.
Adjustable cutters were fixed upon this guide nut and it was used as a
kind of tool-holding slide-rest, being rotated around the screw by hand
levers, thereby cutting the finished thread. In other words, a lead
screw was cut on the piece itself and the temporary nut was used as a
tool holder to finish the work.
[36] Holtzapffel. Vol. II, pp. 635-655.
One method used for some purposes was to coil two wires around a core
in close contact with each other. One of these was then removed,
leaving a space corresponding to the hollow of the thread. The core and
remaining wire were then dipped in melted tin and soldered together. In
some cases they were actually used in this form as the desired screw
thread. In others, the helical wire was used to guide a sleeve nut
which controlled a tool used to cut a thread located farther up on the
length of the core.
Another method resorted to was that of grooving a smooth cylinder by a
sharp-edged cutter standing at the required pitch angle and relying on
the contact of the knife-edge to produce the proper traverse along the
cylinder as it was rotated, thus developing the screw. This method is
not so crude as it seems and was one of those used by Maudslay himself.
He also used a flat steel tape wound about a cylindrical bar, but he
found the inclined knife method more satisfactory. The device which he
used was a mechanism of considerable refinement. He employed cylinders
of wood, tin, brass and other soft metals accurately mounted to revolve
between centers. The hardened knife was crescent-shaped, nearly fitting
the cylinder, and fixed at the required angle with great precision by
means of a large graduated wheel and tangent screw. A chasing tool
carried by a small, adjustable slide cut the thread as the stock moved
forward under the incisive action of the inclined knife edge. Hundreds
of screws, both right and left, were made by this device, and their
agreement with each other is said to have been remarkable. This was the
way in which Maudslay generated his first lead screws.
With the best of the screws so obtained Maudslay made the first
screw-cutting lathe a few years prior to 1800, shown in Fig. 15,[37]
which had two triangular bars for a bed, and was about three feet long.
The headstock carried a live spindle, which was connected with a lead
screw by a pair of gears, and a slide-rest ran upon the triangular bars
under control of a lead screw having four square threads per inch.
In this machine he at first used different lead screws for different
pitches. The inner end of the lower spindle in the headstock had a
two-jawed driving device, which might be disconnected and into which
various lead screws might be fitted. Later he added change gear wheels.
[37] No. 1601 in South Kensington Museum, London. Cat. M. E.
Collection, Part II, p. 266.
The great idea of using a single lead screw for various pitches, by
means of change gears, was Maudslay’s own. Fig. 16 shows how rapidly
the idea was developed.[38] This machine, built about 1800, is
distinctly modern in appearance. It has a substantial, well-designed,
cast-iron bed, a lead screw with 30 threads to the inch, a back rest
for steadying the work, and was fitted with 28 change wheels with teeth
varying in number from 15 to 50. The intermediate wheel had a wide
face and was carried on the swinging, adjustable arm in order to mesh
with wheels of various diameters on the fixed centers. Sample screws
having from 16 to 100 threads per inch are shown on the rack in front.
Both of these lathes are now in the South Kensington Museum in London.
With lathes of this design, Maudslay cut the best screws which had
been made up to that time. One of these was 5 feet long, 2 inches in
diameter, with 50 threads to the inch, and the nut fitted to it was 12
inches long, thus engaging 600 threads. “This screw was principally
used for dividing scales for astronomical and other metrical purposes
of the highest class. By its means divisions were produced with such
minuteness that they could only be made visual by a microscope.”[39]
[38] No. 1602 in South Kensington Museum, London. Cat. M. E.
Collection, Part II, pp. 266-267.
[39] “Autobiography of James Nasmyth,” p. 140. London, 1883.
Some idea of how far Maudslay was in advance of his time is shown
by the fact that the wooden pole-lathes in Fig. 2 represent fairly
the state of the art at that time. This form had been in use in many
countries for centuries. One of these wooden lathes, built in 1800, the
same year as Maudslay’s lathe, Fig. 16, is also in the South Kensington
Museum, and was in use as late as 1879. Similar lathes are said to be
still used by chair makers in certain portions of England.[40]
[40] No. 1596 in South Kensington. Museum, London. Cat. M. E.
Collection, Part II, p. 264.
About 1830, shortly before his death, Maudslay designed and constructed
a lathe with a face-plate 9 feet in diameter operating over a pit 20
feet deep. This lathe had a massive bed and was used to turn flywheel
rims. It was fitted with a boring bar and was capable of boring steam
cylinders up to 10 feet in diameter. We regret that no picture of this
lathe is available. It would be interesting as it would show in a
striking way the development of the slide-rest and lathe in the hands
of this great mechanic.
Maudslay’s work on the screw thread was not confined to the lathe. He
improved the system of taps and dies whereby they were made to _cut_
the threads instead of _squeezing_ them up, and he introduced the use
of three or more cutting edges.[41] He made the first move toward the
systematizing of thread sizes and made a series of taps from 6 inches
in diameter, for tapping steam pistons, down to the smallest sizes
used in watch work. The diameters of these taps varied by eighths
and sixteenths of an inch, and their threads were determined by the
respective strengths of each screw. He established for his own use
definite standard pitches. Many copies of these threads found their
way to other shops and influenced the construction of similar tools
elsewhere. In fact, Holtzapffel says: “I believe it may be fairly
advanced, that during the period from 1800 to 1810, Mr. Maudslay
effected nearly the entire change from the old, imperfect, accidental
practice of screw making to the modern, exact, systematic mode now
generally followed by engineers; and he pursued the subject of the
screw with more or less ardour, and at an enormous expense, until his
death.”[42]
[41] Holtzapffel, Vol. II, p. 646.
[42] _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 647.
[Illustration: FIGURE 15. MAUDSLAY’S SCREW-CUTTING LATHE
ABOUT 1797]
[Illustration: FIGURE 16. MAUDSLAY’S SCREW-CUTTING LATHE
ABOUT 1800]
While we would not detract from the ingenuity of others who conceived
the idea of the slide-rest and lead screw, enough has been given to
show that no other mechanic of his day appreciated their possibilities
as he did, and none embodied them in forms as useful. The fact that for
many years the slide-rest was popularly known as “Maudslay’s go-cart”
indicates that his contemporaries recognized him as its originator.
The business at Lambeth grew steadily until it employed several hundred
men, and embraced the making of saw- and flour-mills, mint machinery
and steam engines of all kinds. With his keen mechanical intuition
he saw that the cumbersome wooden walking beam characteristic of the
Newcomen and Watt engines was unnecessary. He therefore dispensed with
it and drove direct from the engine crosshead to the crank, thus making
the first direct-acting engine, which held the market for a long time.
He built the first marine engines in England, and his leadership in
that field was unchallenged for many years. Another of his inventions
was the punching machine for punching boiler plates and iron work. His
influence was felt in many directions in the field of machine design.
He was the first to point out the weakness of the clean, sharp corners
in castings which were so prized at that time, and advocated the use of
fillets, showing that they greatly increased the strength.
To the end of his life he retained his personal dexterity at both
the anvil and the bench. One of his greatest delights was to go into
the shop and “have a go” at a piece of work which his workmen found
impossible to do. One of his old workmen, years afterward, speaking
in kindling pride of him, said: “It was a pleasure to see him handle
a tool of any kind, but he was quite splendid with an 18-inch file.”
Nasmyth confirms this, saying: “To be permitted to stand by and
observe the systematic way in which Mr. Maudslay would first mark or
line out his work, and the masterly manner in which he would deal
with his materials, and cause them to assume the desired forms, was a
treat beyond all expression. Every stroke of the hammer, chisel, or
file, told as an effective step towards the intended result. It was a
never-to-be-forgotten lesson in workmanship, in the most exalted sense
of the term.... No one that I ever met with could go beyond Henry
Maudslay himself in his dexterous use of the file. By a few masterly
strokes he could plane surfaces so true that when their accuracy was
tested by a standard plane surface of absolute truth they were never
found defective; neither convex nor concave nor ‘cross-winding,’--that
is, twisted.”[43]
[43] “Autobiography of James Nasmyth,” pp. 147-148. London, 1883.
Whitworth is usually credited with having been the originator of the
method of making plane surfaces three at a time, using them to correct
each other. Nasmyth, however, says that Maudslay used this method
and that surface plates so made were in daily use in his shop. His
testimony is so clear that it is given in full: “The importance of
having Standard Planes caused him [i.e., Maudslay] to have many of them
placed on the benches beside his workmen, by means of which they might
at once conveniently test their work. Three of each were made at a time
so that by the mutual rubbing of each on each the projecting surfaces
were effaced. When the surfaces approached very near to the true plane,
the still projecting minute points were carefully reduced by hard steel
scrapers, until at last the standard plane surface was secured. When
placed over each other they would float upon the thin stratum of air
between them until dislodged by time and pressure. When they adhered
closely to each other, they could only be separated by sliding each off
each. This art of producing absolutely plane surfaces is, I believe,
a very old mechanical ‘dodge.’ But, as employed by Maudslay’s men, it
greatly contributed to the improvement of the work turned out. It was
used for the surfaces of slide valves, or wherever absolute true plane
surfaces were essential to the attainment of the best results, not only
in the machinery turned out, but in educating the taste of his men
towards first-class workmanship.”[44] Whitworth’s later success with
the generation of plane surfaces seems clearly to be a refinement and
outgrowth of Maudslay’s work.
[44] _Ibid._, pp. 148-149.
Maudslay’s standard of accuracy carried him beyond the use of ordinary
calipers, and he had a bench micrometer of great accuracy which he kept
in his own workshop and always referred to as “The Lord Chancellor.”
It was about 16 inches long and had two plane jaws and a horizontal
screw. The scale was graduated to inches and tenths of an inch; and
the index disk on the screw to one hundred equal parts. Speaking from
the standpoint of fifty years ago, Nasmyth says: “Not only absolute
measure could be obtained by this means, but also the amount of minute
differences could be ascertained with a degree of exactness that went
quite beyond all the requirements of engineering mechanism; such, for
instance, as the thousandth part of an inch.”[45]
[45] _Ibid._, p. 150.
Maudslay’s record, as left behind him in steel and iron, would give
him a secure place in engineering history, but his influence as a
trainer of men is quite as great. He loved good work for its own sake
and impressed that standard on all in his employ. Clement, Roberts,
Whitworth, Nasmyth, Seaward, Muir and Lewis worked for him, and all
showed throughout their lives, in a marked way, his influence upon
them. Other workmen, whose names are not so prominent, spread into
the various shops of England the methods and standards of Maudslay &
Field (later Maudslay, Sons & Field) and made English tool builders the
leaders of the world for fifty years.
J. G. Moon, who afterwards became manager of James Watt & Company of
Soho, the successor of Boulton & Watt, was apprenticed to Maudslay,
Sons & Field and gives the following picture of the shop at the zenith
of its prosperity.
There were not more than perhaps a dozen lathes in use there, with
cast-iron box beds such as we now know; but nearly all the lathes
had been constructed by the firm itself and were made without a
bed, the poppet or back center and the slide-rest being supported
on a wrought-iron triangular bar, varying in size from, say, 3-in.
to 6-in. side. This bar was supported on cast-iron standards, and
reached from the fixed lathe head to the length required of the
“bed.” If the lathes were self-acting, there were two such triangular
bars with the guide screw running between them. The advantage of
these lathes was great, for if a large chuck job was on hand, the
bars could be withdrawn from the fixed head, supported on standards,
and anything that would miss the roof or swing in a pit beneath could
be tackled.
There was one screwing machine or lathe which all apprentices in the
vice loft (as the fitting shop in which the writer was apprenticed
was called) had to work during their curriculum--this was a small
double-bar lathe with a guide screw between. The fixed head was on
the right of the operator, and the lathe was worked by hand by means
of a wheel very much like a miniature ship’s steering wheel. This
wheel was about 2-ft. diameter, with handles round the rim, and we
apprentices were put at this machine to develop the muscles of the
right arm. The advantages of having the fixed head on the right
(instead of on the left, as in an ordinary lathe) was that in cutting
a right-hand thread the tool receded away from the start and ran
off the end, and thus prevented a “root in,” which might happen if,
whilst pulling at the wheel, you became absorbed in the discussion
of the abilities of a music-hall “star” or other equally interesting
topics with a fellow-apprentice.
The writer remembers using a pair of calipers at that time, whose
“points” were about ¹⁄₂ in. wide for measuring over the tops of
a thread. These were stamped “J. Whitworth, 1830,” and formerly
belonged to the great screw-thread reformer. Nearly all the bar
lathes were driven by gut bands, and one can remember gut bands of
1-in. diameter being used.
Most of the planing machines were made and supplied by Joseph
Whitworth & Co., and the tool boxes were of the “Jim Crow” type,
which used to make a half-turn round by means of a cord when the
belt was shifted at the end of each stroke, thus cutting each way.
The forerunner of this used to interest the writer--a machine in the
vice loft that was variously called a shaping machine and a planing
machine. It was driven by means of a disc about 3-ft. diameter, with
a slot down the disc for varying the stroke. A connecting rod from
the disc to the tool box completed this portion of the machine.
The tool box was supported and kept true by two cylindrical bars
or guides on each side, so that the whole arrangement was like the
crosshead of an engine worked by disc and connecting rod. On the top
of the tool box was fixed a toothed sector of a wheel, and at the end
of each stroke this sector engaged with a rack, and in this way the
tool box took a half-turn and was ready for cutting on the return
stroke. The writer understands that it was from this machine that
Whitworth developed his “Jim Crow” tool box.
There was also a huge shaping machine, whose stroke was anything up
to about 6 ft., which was simply a tool box fixed on the end of a
large triangular bar of about 12-in. side with the “V” downwards.
To the back of the bar was attached a rack, and this, gearing with
a pinion, gave the motion. It was a great fascination to watch this
ponderous bar with its tool box slowly coming forward out of its
casing and taking immense cuts.
Another machine tool that also used to interest the writer was a
machine for turning the crank pins of very large solid cranks, the
crank pins being about 18-in. to 20-in. diameter, and the crank
shafts about 24-in. to 30-in. diameter. These immense crank shafts
used to be set in the center of the machine, and the tool would
travel round the crank pin until the work was completed, the feed
being worked by means of a ratchet actuated by leaden weights falling
to and fro as the machines slowly revolved.[46]
[46] Junior Institution of Engineers, pp. 167-168. London, 1914.
Maudslay was a large man, over 6 feet 2 inches in height, with a
large, round head, a wide forehead, a good-humored face, and keen,
straightforward eyes. His ringing laugh and cordial manner made friends
everywhere and his kindliness and unvarying integrity held them. It
will repay anyone who cares to do so to look up the account of him as
given in the “Autobiography of James Nasmyth,” who went to Maudslay as
a young man and worked beside him as his private assistant. In reading
this affectionate account one can easily see why Maudslay influenced
those about him so deeply and why he raised the standard of his craft.
Like Nasmyth and many other great mechanics, Maudslay became interested
in astronomy, and at the time of his death he was planning to build
a 24-inch reflecting telescope for his own use. He patented but few
inventions, and relied rather upon his reputation and workmanship to
protect him. He was full of quaint maxims and remarks, as true today
as then, the outcome of keen observation and wide experience. He used
to say: “First get a clear notion of what you desire to accomplish
and then in all probability you will succeed in doing it.” “Keep a
sharp lookout upon your material.” “Get rid of every pound of material
you can do without; put to yourself the question, ‘What business has
this to be there?’” “Avoid complexities. Make everything as simple as
possible.”
His shop was the pride of the country, and Nasmyth tells of the
intimate visits of Faraday, Bentham, Brunel, Chantrey the sculptor,
Barton of the Royal Mint, and Bryan Donkin the engineer, who used to
call and chat with him while he worked at his bench.
No better tribute to Maudslay and his influence can be given than that
of Nasmyth, who said that his “useful life was enthusiastically devoted
to the great object of producing perfect workmanship and machinery;
to him we are certainly indebted for the slide-rest and indirectly so
for the vast benefits which have resulted from the introduction of so
powerful an agent in perfecting our machinery and mechanism generally.
The indefatigable care which he took in inculcating and diffusing among
his workmen and mechanical men generally, sound ideas of practical
knowledge and refined views of constructions, has and ever will
continue to identify his name with all that is noble in the ambition of
a lover of mechanical perfection. The vast results which have sprung
from his admirable mind, are his best monument and eulogium.”[47]
[47] T. Baker: “Elements of Mechanism,” p. 232. Second Edition with
remarks by James Nasmyth. London, 1858-1859.
CHAPTER V
INVENTORS OF THE PLANER
In almost no case is the crediting of invention more difficult than in
that of the planer. Not only was this tool the product of many men but
no single man stands out clearly as Maudslay, for instance, does in the
development of the lathe. The invention of the metal planer has been
claimed in England on behalf of Spring of Aberdeen, James Fox, George
Rennie, Matthew Murray, Joseph Clement and Richard Roberts. The planer
was in use in the United States so early that it may also have been
invented independently in this country, though, without doubt, later
than in England.
With the planer as with the lathe, the French were the pioneers.
Plumier, a French writer on mechanical subjects, published in 1754 a
description of a machine which had been used for some years, consisting
of two parallel bars of wood or iron connected at their extremities.
The article to be planed was fixed between them, and a frame guided
between the same bars was moved lengthwise by a long screw and carried
a tool which took a planing cut from the work. The machine was intended
for ornamenting the handles of knives and was said by Plumier to have
been an English invention. A planing machine invented in 1751 by
Nicholas Forq, a French clock maker, for the purpose of planing the
pump barrels used in the Marly water works to supply the fountains
at Versailles, is shown in Fig. 17. These pump barrels were made up
of wrought iron staves bound together by hoops. There were quite a
number of these barrels from 10 inches to 4 feet in diameter and
from 7 feet to 10 feet long. The illustration, taken from Buchanan’s
“Mill Work,” published in 1841,[48] is not complete, as it lacks the
carriage carrying the planing tool which was not shown on the original
drawing. The general construction of the machine however is quite
clear. The built-up barrel is shown in place. The cutter was carried
backward and forward between two parallel iron bars set horizontally
through the cylinder. Either the tool or the pump barrel must have been
given a rotative feed. Its action was therefore equivalent to planing
on centers, and it is said to have done this fairly large work in a
satisfactory manner.
[48] Buchanan: “Practical Essays on Mill Work and Other Machinery.”
London, 1841. Volume of Plates.
[Illustration: _NOTE.--The spots on the photograph were the yellow
stains of age on the original plate_
FIGURE 17. FRENCH PLANING MACHINE BY NICHOLAS FORQ, 1751]
Bentham described a planer in his well-known patent of 1793 and Bramah
in his patent of 1802. Matthew Murray is said to have built one in 1814
to machine the faces of D-slide valves, which were originally invented
by Murdock in 1786 but improved by Murray in 1802. Richard Roberts
built a planer in 1817 which is, without doubt, the earliest planer
now in existence. It is in the South Kensington Museum in London and a
picture of it is given in Fig. 20.[49] It will be seen that the modern
planer design was already beginning to take shape. The chisel and file
marks on the bed and ways indicate that it was itself made without
the use of a planer. It had vertical and horizontal feeds, an angular
adjustment and separate tool-feed for the head, and a hinged clamp for
the tool to allow it to lift on the return stroke. The table, which was
hand-operated through a chain drive, was 52 inches long by 11 inches
wide.
[49] No. 1619. Cat. M. E. Collection, Part II, p. 272.
George Rennie built a planer in 1820 with a movable bed operated by
a screw and furnished with a revolving cutting tool.[50] James Fox
built one in 1821, capable of planing work 10 feet, 6 inches long, 22
inches wide, and 12 inches deep, to plane the bars of lace machines.
Joseph Clement made his first planer in 1820 to plane the triangular
bars of lathes and the sides of weaving looms. Some years later he
built his “great planer,” a remarkable machine from both a mechanical
and a financial standpoint. A very full description of it was given by
Mr. Varley in the “Transactions of the Society of Arts” in London in
1832,[51] illustrated by a set of copper plates made from Clement’s own
drawings. Clement’s reputation of being the most expert draftsman of
his day is well borne out by these drawings. In this planer two cutting
tools were used, one for the forward and one for the return stroke. The
bed ran on rollers, mounted on a concrete foundation, which were said
to have been so true that “if you put a piece of paper under one of the
rollers it would stop all the rest.” It was fitted with centers and
was used for planing circular, spiral and conical work as well as flat
work. It took in work 6 feet square and was hand-driven. The cutting
speed must have been low, for “the power of one man was sufficient to
keep it in motion for ordinary work, though two were employed to make
long and full cuts both ways.” For more than ten years it was the only
one of its size and it ran for many years night and day on jobbing
work, its earnings forming Clement’s principal income. Smiles says
that his charge for planing was 18 shillings, or $4.32, per square
foot, which amounted to about £10 per day of twelve hours, or, with two
shifts, to about $100 a day.[52] On this basis he must have machined
an average of about 11 square feet in twelve hours.
[50] Buchanan, p. xlii.
[51] Vol. XLIX, p. 157.
[52] Smiles: “Industrial Biography,” p. 306. Boston, 1864.
By 1840 the design of the planer had become fairly well settled and
its use general. In America, planers were built by Gay, Silver &
Company of North Chelmsford, Mass., as early as 1831. Pedrick & Ayer
of Philadelphia are also said to have built a planer at about the same
time. The early American tool builders will be taken up in a later
chapter.
Little is known of the personalities and histories of some of these
men, such as Spring of Aberdeen. Spring’s name is mentioned by Smiles
in his “Industrial Biography”[53] as one of the inventors of the
planer, but no further reference is made to him.
[53] p. 223.
James Fox was the founder of a well-known firm of machine-tool builders
in Derby. He was originally a butler, but his mechanical skill turned
him toward the design and building of lace machinery. The gentleman in
whose employ he had served furnished him with the means of beginning
business on his own account, and he soon obtained work from the
great firms of Arkwright and Strutt, the founders of modern cotton
manufacture. His planer, built about 1814, was used in the manufacture
of this machinery. It is described by Samuel Hall, a former workman
under Fox, as follows: “It was essentially the same in principle as the
planing machine now in general use, although differing in detail. It
had a self-acting ratchet motion for moving the slides of a compound
slide-rest, and a self-acting reversing tackle, consisting of three
bevel wheels, one a stud, one loose on the driving shaft, and another
on a socket, with a pinion on the opposite end of the driving shaft
running on the socket. The other end was the place for the driving
pulley. A clutch-box was placed between the two opposite wheels,
which was made to slide on a feather, so that by means of another
shaft containing levers and a tumbling ball, the box on reversing was
carried from one bevel-wheel to the opposite one.”[54] This planer was
in regular use as late as 1859. The driving and reversing mechanism
described above is almost exactly that used on Clement’s great
planer, built a dozen years later. Fox is said to have also invented
a screw-cutting machine, an automatic gear cutter and a self-acting
lathe, but the evidence in regard to their dates is uncertain.
[54] _Ibid._, p. 315.
George Rennie was the brother of Sir John Rennie. They succeeded to
the business founded by their father, the elder John Rennie, one of
Watt’s best-known workmen and next to Murdock the most important of
his assistants, who built the Albion Flour Mills in Black Friars,
where one of the first rotative engines was installed about 1788. The
mill was a great success until it burned down a few years later. John
Rennie’s connection with it established his reputation and he shortly
after started out for himself as a millwright and founded the business
which his two sons carried on for many years and which had a great
influence throughout all England. Sir William Fairbairn was one of
those who worked for George Rennie and furnishes another example of the
cumulative influence of a succession of strong mechanics.
Matthew Murray was born at Stockton about 1765. He was apprenticed to
a blacksmith and soon became an expert mechanic. He married before
his term of apprenticeship expired and as it was difficult to find
sufficient work near Stockton, he left his wife behind him as soon as
he was free and set out for Leeds with his bundle on his back. He
obtained employment with a John Marshall who had begun the manufacture
of flax machinery near Adel. Murray suggested improvements which
brought him a present of £20 and rapid promotion until he soon became
the first mechanic in the shop. He sent for his wife and settled down
in Leeds, remaining with Mr. Marshall for about twelve years. He
formed a partnership with James Fenton and David Wood and started an
engineering and machine-building factory at Leeds in 1795. Here he
began the manufacture of steam engines and soon established a high
reputation, pushing Boulton & Watt hard. Murdock was sent down to
Leeds, called on Murray, was received cordially, and was shown freely
over the entire work. On visiting the Soho works a short time afterward
Murray was received cordially by Murdock, and was invited to dinner
but was told that there was a rule against admitting anyone in the
trade to the works. Under the circumstances Murray was indignant and
declining the invitation to dinner left without further delay. A little
later Boulton & Watt attempted to “plug him up” by buying the property
adjoining his factory, and this tract of land remained vacant for
over 50 years. He improved the D-slide valve and did much work toward
simplifying the design of the steam engine. The flat surfaces required
in this type of valve led to the building of his planer. Mr. March, a
well-known tool manufacturer of the next generation, went to work for
Murray in 1814. Mr. March said the planer was in use at that time. “I
recollect it very distinctly,” he continues, “and even the sort of
framing on which it stood. The machine was not patented, and like many
inventions in those days it was kept as much a secret as possible,
being locked up in a small room by itself, to which the ordinary
workmen could not obtain access. The year in which I remember it being
in use was, so far as I am aware, long before any planing machine of a
similar kind had been invented.”[55]
[55] _Ibid._, p. 316.
Like many of the owners of that time Murray lived directly opposite
his works and he installed in his house a steam heating apparatus
which excited much wonder and which must have been one of the first
in use. He built the first locomotive which was put to successful
commercial use. Trevithick had invented a steam road-engine with
a single steam cylinder and a large flywheel, which had attracted
considerable attention, but was wholly impracticable. It was important,
however, as it had one of the first high-pressure engines, working
above atmospheric pressure. In 1811 Blenkinsop of Leeds, taking his
idea from Trevithick, had a number of locomotives built to operate a
railway from the Middletown collieries to Leeds, a distance of 3¹⁄₂
miles. Blenkinsop was not a mechanic and the work was designed and
executed by Matthew Murray. Murray used two steam cylinders instead
of one, driving onto the same shaft with cranks set at right angles,
and therefore introduced one of the most important features of modern
locomotive design. These engines were in daily use for many years and
were inspected by George Stephenson when he began his development of
the locomotive. Murray’s design formed the basis from which he started.
The engines, however, were operated by a cog-wheel driving onto a
continuous rack laid along the road bed. It was not until a number of
years later that Hedley and Stephenson established the fact that the
wheel friction of smooth drivers would furnish adequate tractive power.
The old Blenkinsop engines, as they were called, hauled about thirty
coal wagons at a speed of 3¹⁄₄ miles an hour.
Murray’s most important inventions were connected with the flax
industry and for these he obtained a gold medal from the Society of
Arts. At the time they were developed, the flax trade was dying. Their
effect was to establish the British linen trade on a permanent and
secure foundation. All the machine tools used in his establishment were
designed and built by himself and among these was the planer which was
unquestionably one of the earliest built. He made similar articles for
other firms and started a branch of engineering for which Leeds became
famous. He was a frank, open-hearted man, and one who contributed
greatly to the industrial supremacy of England.
Joseph Clement was born in Westmoreland in 1779.[56] His father was a
weaver, a man of little education but of mental ability, a great lover
of nature and something of a mechanic. Joseph Clement himself had only
the merest elements of reading and writing. He started in life as a
thatcher and slater, but picked up the rudiments of mechanics at the
village blacksmith shop. Being grateful to the blacksmith, he repaid
him by making for him a lathe which was a pretty creditable machine. On
this he himself made flutes and fifes for sale and also a microscope
for his father to use in his nature studies. As early as 1804 he began
to work on screw cutting and made a set of die-stocks, although he
had never seen any. He worked in several small country shops, then
in Carlisle and in Glasgow, where he took lessons in drawing from
a Peter Nicholson and became one of the most skillful draftsmen in
England. Later he went to Aberdeen and was earning three guineas ($15)
a week designing and fitting up power looms. By the end of 1813 he
had saved £100. With this he went to London, meaning sooner or later
to set up for himself. He first worked for an Alexander Galloway, a
ward politician and tradesman who owned a small shop. Galloway was
a slovenly manager and left things to run themselves. When Clement
started in he found the tools so poor that he could not do good work
with them, and immediately set to work truing them up, to the surprise
of his shopmates who had settled down to the slipshod standards of the
shop. Seeing that Clement was capable of the highest grade work, one of
his shopmates told him to go to Bramah’s where such workmanship would
be appreciated.
[56] The best information on Clement comes from Smiles’ “Industrial
Biography,” Chap. XIII.
He saw Bramah and engaged to work for him for a month on trial. The
result was so satisfactory that he signed an agreement for five
years, dated April 1, 1814, under which he became chief draftsman and
superintendent of the Pimlico works. Clement threw himself eagerly into
the new work and took great satisfaction in the high quality of work
which was the standard in Bramah’s establishment. Bramah was greatly
pleased with him and told him, “If I had secured your services five
years since I would now have been a richer man by many thousands of
pounds.” Bramah died, however, within a year and his two sons returning
from college took charge of the business. They soon became jealous of
Clement’s influence and by mutual consent the agreement signed with
their father was terminated. Clement immediately went to Maudslay &
Field’s as chief draftsman and assisted in the development of the
early marine engines which they were building at that time. In 1817 he
started in for himself in a small shop in Newington, with a capital of
£500 and his work there until his death in 1844 is of great importance.
[Illustration: FIGURE 18. MATTHEW MURRAY]
[Illustration: FIGURE 19. RICHARD ROBERTS]
As already pointed out, he had been working for many years on the
problem of screw cutting. Maudslay had carried this to a more refined
point than any other mechanic. Profiting by Maudslay’s experience,
Clement began the regular manufacture of taps and dies in 1828, using
the thread standards developed by Maudslay as his basis. He introduced
the tap with a small squared shank which would fall through the
threaded hole and save the time of backing out. He is said to have been
one of the first in England to employ revolving cutters, using them to
flute his taps. While he may have used such cutters, he was certainly
not the first to do so, as they were in use in France at least thirty
years earlier. He did important work in developing the screw-cutting
lathe, again improving upon Maudslay’s work and increasing the accuracy
of the device. He was given a number of gold medals for various
improvements in it, as well as for his work on the planer. We have
already referred to his “great planer” and will only say here that of
those who contributed to the early development of this machine none
have had a greater influence. He executed the work on Charles Babbage’s
famous calculating machine, which attracted so much attention eighty
years ago and was probably the most refined and intricate piece of
mechanism constructed up to that time.
Clement was a rough and heavy-browed man, without polish, who retained
until the last his strong Westmoreland dialect. At no time did he
employ over thirty workmen in his factory, but they were all of the
very highest class. Among them was Sir Joseph Whitworth, who continued
his work on screw threads and brought about the general use of what is
now known as the Whitworth thread.
Richard Roberts, the last of those mentioned as inventors of the metal
planer, was born in Wales in 1789. Like most of the early mechanics
he had little or no education, and as soon as he was strong enough
he began work as a laborer in a quarry near his home. His mechanical
aptitude led him into odd jobs and he soon became known for his
dexterity. He finally determined to become a mechanic and worked
in several shops in the neighborhood. He was employed for a time as
pattern maker at John Wilkinson’s works at Bradley, and is one of the
few links between Wilkinson, who made the first modern metal-cutting
tool--his boring machine--and the later generation of tool builders.
He drifted about, a jack-of-all-trades--turner, millwright, pattern
maker and wheelwright--to Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and finally
up to London, where, after being with Holtzapffel for a short time, he
found work with Maudslay in 1814 and remained with him several years.
His experience here was valuable as he came in contact with the best
mechanical practice. The memoir of Roberts in the “Transactions of
the Institution of Civil Engineers”[57] states that he worked on the
Portsmouth block machinery, but this could hardly have been true, as
that machinery was in operation by 1808. He ceased roving and did so
well that he determined to return to the North and begin business for
himself.
[57] Vol. XXIV, p. 536. 1864.
He started at Manchester in 1817 and there he spent the best years of
his life. Few inventors have been more prolific or more versatile.
Within a year or two he had made one of the first planers, already
described; had invented the back-geared headstock, having the cone
pulley running loose upon the main spindle,[58] shown in Fig. 21, and
made other improvements in the screw-cutting lathe; invented the first
successful gas meter and built gear-cutting, broaching and slotting
machines and an improved beam-scale. Holtzapffel says: “Probably no
individual has originated so many useful varieties of drilling machines
as Mr. Richard Roberts.” Throughout his book he frequently illustrates
and describes tools and machinery designed by Roberts, crediting him
with the invention of the slotter and key-seater, which he thinks was
an outgrowth of Brunel’s mortising machine, Fig. 11. Roberts’ punching
and shearing machinery was the standard for that time.[59]
[58] _Ibid._, p. 537.
[59] Holtzapffel: “Turning and Mechanical Manipulation,” Vol. II, pp.
568, 900, 920-922. London, 1847.
[Illustration: FIGURE 20. ROBERTS’ PLANER, BUILT IN 1817]
[Illustration: FIGURE 21. ROBERTS’ BACK-GEARED LATHE]
By 1825 his reputation had so increased that his firm, Sharp, Roberts
& Company, was asked by a committee of the cotton manufacturers of
Manchester to undertake the development of an automatic spinning
mule. The spinners were the highest paid labor in Lancashire textile
industry, but they were difficult to work with and prone to strike on
a moment’s notice, closing the mills and throwing other workmen out of
employment. The operators asked Roberts repeatedly to help them but he
gave them no encouragement, as the problem was conceded to be difficult
and he said he was not familiar with textile machinery. He had been
thinking over the problem, however, and the third time they called
on him he said that he now thought he could construct the required
machinery. The result was the invention in 1825 of his delicate and
complex automatic spinning mule in which hundreds of spindles “run
themselves” with only the attention of a few unskilled helpers to watch
for broken threads and mend them. This was one of the great textile
inventions and has had an enormous influence on the development of the
cotton industry. The next year, 1826, he went to Mülhouse in Alsace
and laid the foundation of modern French cotton manufacture. Later he
invented and patented a number of other important textile machines.
With the development of the railway his firm began the manufacture of
locomotives. They built more than 1500, and established a reputation
equal to that of Stephenson & Company in Newcastle. The engines were
built interchangeably to templates and gauges, and Roberts’ works were
one of the first in England to grasp and use the modern system of
interchangeable manufacture.
In addition to all that has been mentioned, he invented the iron
billiard table, a successful punching and shearing machine, the most
powerful electro-magnet then made, a turret clock, a cigar-making
machine and a system of constructing steamships and equipping them with
twin screws having independent engines.
With a wonderful mechanical genius, he was lacking in worldly wisdom
and was a poor business man. He severed his connection with Sharp,
Roberts & Company, became involved financially and finally died at
London in 1864 in poverty. At his death a popular subscription, headed
by Sir William Fairbairn and many of the nobility, was started to
provide for his only daughter as a memorial of the debt which England
owed him. The memoir of him in the “Transactions of the Institution
of Civil Engineers” closes with the following words: “The career of
Mr. Roberts was remarkable, and it should be carefully written by some
one who could investigate impartially the numerous inventions and
improvements to which claim could justly be laid for him, and who, at
the same time, would, with equal justice, show where his inventions
have been pirated.” It is a great pity that this was never done.
He was a rugged, straightforward, kindly man, of great inventive power.
He improved nearly everything he touched or superseded it entirely
by something better, and neither his name nor his work should be
forgotten.
CHAPTER VI
GEARING AND MILLWORK
By 1830 the use of machine tools was becoming general; they were being
regularly manufactured and their design was crystallizing. It was the
period of architectural embellishment when no tool was complete without
at least a pair of Doric columns, and planers were furnished in the
Greek or Gothic style. As the first machine frames were made of wood,
much of the work probably being done by cabinet makers, it was natural
that they should show the same influence that furniture did. It took
several generations of mechanics to work out the simpler lines of the
later machines.
The application of scientific forms for gear teeth came at about this
time with the general development of the machine tool. The suggestion
of the use of epicyclic and involute curves is much older than most
of us realize. The first idea of them is ascribed to Roemer, a Danish
mathematician, who is said to have pointed out the advantages of the
epicyclic curve in 1674. De la Hire, a Frenchman, suggested it a few
years later, and went further, showing how the direction of motion
might be changed by toothed wheels. On the basis of this, the invention
of the bevel-gear has been attributed to him. Willis,[60] however,
has pointed out that he missed the essential principle of _rolling_
cones, as the conical lantern wheel which he used was placed the wrong
way, its apex pointing away from, instead of coinciding with, the
intersection of the axes. De la Hire also investigated the involute
and considered it equally suitable for tooth outlines. Euler, in 1760,
and Kaestner, in 1771, improved the method of applying the involute,
and Camus, a French mathematician, did much to crystallize the modern
principles of gearing. The two who had the most influence were Camus
and Robert Willis, a professor of natural philosophy in Cambridge,
whose name still survives in his odontograph and tables. All of the
later writers base their work on the latter’s essay on “The Teeth
of Wheels,” which appeared originally in the second volume of the
“Transactions of the Institution of Civil Engineers,” 1837. Willis’
“Principles of Mechanism,” published in 1841, which included the above,
laid down the general principles of mechanical motion and transmission
machinery. In fact, many of the figures used in his book are found
almost unchanged in the text-books of today. Smeaton is said to have
first introduced cast-iron gears in 1769 at the Carron Iron Works near
Glasgow, and Arkwright used iron bevels in 1775. All of these, except
the last two, were mathematicians; and no phase of modern machinery
owes more to pure theory than the gearing practice of today.
[60] “Principles of Mechanism,” p. 49. London, 1841.
Camus gave lectures on mathematics in Paris when he was twelve years
old. At an early age he had attained the highest academic honors in
his own and foreign countries, and had become examiner of engines and
professor in the Royal Academy of Architecture in Paris. He published a
“Course of Mathematics,” in the second volume of which were two books,
or sections, devoted to the consideration of the teeth of wheels, by
far the fullest and clearest treatment of this subject then published.
These were translated separately, the first English edition appearing
in London in 1806, and the second in 1837.[61] In these the theory
of spur-, bevel-, and pin-gearing is fully developed for epicycloidal
teeth. In the edition of 1837, there is an appendix by John Hawkins,
the translator, which is of unusual interest. He gives the result of an
inquiry which he made in regard to the English gear practice at that
time.[62] As the edition is long since out of print and to be found
only in the larger libraries, we give his findings rather fully. His
inquiries were addressed to the principal manufacturers of machinery in
which gearing was used, and included, among others, Maudslay & Field,
Rennie, Bramah, Clement, and Sharp, Roberts & Company. To quote Hawkins:
[61] “A Treatise on the Teeth of Wheels.” Translated from the French
of M. Camus by John Isaac Hawkins, C.E. London, 1837.
[62] _Ibid._, p. 175.
A painful task now presents itself, which the editor would gladly
avoid, if he could do so without a dereliction of duty; namely, to
declare that there is a lamentable deficiency of the knowledge of
principles, and of correct practice, in a majority of those most
respectable houses in forming the teeth of their wheel-work.
Some of the engineers and millwrights said that they followed
Camus, and formed their teeth from the epicycloid derived from the
_diameter_ of the _opposite wheel_....
One said, “We have no method but the rule of thumb;” another, “We
thumb out the figure;” by both which expressions may be understood
that they left their workmen to take their own course.
Some set one point of a pair of compasses in the center of a tooth,
at the primitive circle (pitch-circle), and with the other point
describe a segment of a circle for the off side of the next tooth....
Others set the point of the compasses at different distances from the
center of the tooth, nearer or farther off; also within or without
the line of centers, each according to some inexplicable notion
received from his grandfather or picked up by chance. It is said
inexplicable, because no tooth bounded at the sides by segments of
circles can work together without such friction as will cause an
unnecessary wearing away.
It is admitted that with a certain number of teeth of a certain
proportionate length as compared with the radii, there may be a
segment of a circle drawn from some center which would give “very
near” a true figure to the tooth; but “very near” ought to be
expunged from the vocabulary of engineers and millwrights; for that
“very near” will depend on the chance of hitting the right center and
right radius, according to the diameter of the wheel, and the number
of teeth; against which hitting, the odds are very great indeed.
Among the Mathematical Instrument Makers, Chronometer, Clock and
Watch Makers, the answers to the inquiries were, by some, “We have
no rule but the eye in the formation of the teeth of our wheels;” by
others, “We draw the tooth correctly on a large scale to assist the
eye in judging of the figure of the small teeth;” by another, “In
Lancashire, they make the teeth of watch wheels of what is called
the bay leaf pattern; they are formed altogether by the eye of the
workman; and they would stare at you for a simpleton to hear you talk
about the epicycloidal curve.” Again, “The astronomical instrument
makers hold the bay leaf pattern to be too pointed a form for smooth
action; they make the end of the tooth more rounding than the figure
of the bay leaf.”
It is curious to observe with what accuracy the practiced eye will
determine forms.... How important it is, then, that these Lancashire
bay leaf fanciers should be furnished with pattern teeth of large
dimensions cut accurately in metal or at least in cardboard; and
that they should frequently study them, and compare their work with
the patterns. These Lancashire workmen are called bay leaf fanciers,
because they cannot be bay leaf copiers; since it is notorious that
there are not two bay leaves of the same figure.
Hawkins then describes a method of generating correctly curved teeth,
or rather of truing them after they had been roughly formed, devised
by Mr. Saxton of Philadelphia, “who is justly celebrated for his
excessively acute feeling of the nature and value of accuracy in
mechanism; and who is reputed not to be excelled by any man in Europe
or America for exquisite nicety of workmanship.” By this method the
faces of the teeth were milled true by a cutter, the side of which lay
in a plane through the axis of a describing circle which was rolled
around a pitch circle clamped to the side of the gear being cut. It is
by this general method that the most accurate gears and gear cutters
are formed today.
While he by no means originated the system, Hawkins seems first to
have grasped the practical advantages of the involute form of teeth.
Breaking away from the influence of Camus, the very authority he was
translating, who seems to have controlled the thought of everyone else,
Hawkins writes the following rather remarkable words:[63]
[63] _Ibid._, pp. 160 _et seq._
Since M. Camus has treated of no other curve than the epicycloid,
it would appear that he considered it to supersede all others for
the figure of the teeth of wheels and pinions. And the editor must
candidly acknowledge that he entertained the same opinion until after
the greater part of the foregoing sheets were printed off; but on
critically examining the properties of the involute with a view to
the better explaining of its application to the formation of the
teeth of wheels and pinions, the editor has discovered advantages
which had before escaped his notice, owing, perhaps, to his prejudice
in favor of the epicycloid, from having, during a long life, heard
it extolled above all other curves; a prejudice strengthened too by
the supremacy given to it by De la Hire, Doctor Robison, Sir David
Brewster, Dr. Thomas Young, Mr. Thomas Reid, Mr. Buchannan, and
many others, who have, indeed, described the involute as a curve by
which equable motion _might_ be communicated from wheel to wheel,
but scarce any of whom have held it up as equally eligible with the
epicycloid; and owing also to his perfect conviction, resulting from
strict research, that a wheel and pinion, or two wheels, accurately
formed according to the epicycloidal curve, would work with the least
possible degree of friction, and with the greatest durability.
But the editor had not sufficiently adverted to the case where one
wheel or pinion drives, at the same time, two or more wheels or
pinions of different diameters, for which purpose the epicycloid
is not perfectly applicable, because the form of the tooth of the
driving wheel cannot be generated by a circle equal to the _radius_
of more than one of the driven wheels or pinions. In considering this
case, he found that the involute satisfies all the conditions of
perfect figure, for wheels of any sizes, to work smoothly in wheels
of any other sizes; although, perhaps, not equal to the epicycloid
for pinions of few leaves.
With Joseph Clement, he experimented somewhat to determine the
relative end-thrust of involute and cycloidal teeth, deciding that the
advantage, if any, lay with the former. He details methods of laying
out involute teeth and concludes:
Before dismissing the involute it may be well to remark that what
has been said respecting that curve should be considered as a mere
sketch, there appearing to be many very interesting points in regard
to its application in the formation of the teeth of wheels which
require strict investigation and experiment.
It is the editor’s intention to pursue the inquiry and should he
discover a clear theory and systematic practice in the use of the
involute, he shall feel himself bound to give his views to the public
in a separate treatise. He thinks he perceives a wide field, but is
free to confess that his vision is as yet obscure. What he has given
on the involute is more than was due from him, as editor of Camus,
who treated only of the epicycloid, but the zeal of a new convert to
any doctrine is not easily restrained.
So far as the writer knows this is the first _real_ appreciation of the
value of the involute curve for tooth outlines, and Hawkins should be
given a credit which he has not received,[64] especially as he points
the way, for the first time, to the possibility of a set of gears any
one of which will gear correctly with any other of the set. It was
thought at that time that there should be two diameters of describing
circles used in each pair of gears, each equal to the pitch radius of
the opposite wheel or pinion. This gave radial flanks for all teeth,
but made the faces different for each pair. The use of a single size of
describing circle throughout an entire set of cycloidal gears, whereby
they could be made to gear together in any combination, was not known
until a little later.
[64] John Isaac Hawkins was a member of the Institution of Civil
Engineers. He was the son of a watch and clock maker and was born
at Taunton, Somersetshire, in 1772. At an early age he went to the
United States and “entered college at Jersey, Pennsylvania, as
a student of medicine,” but did not follow it up. He was a fine
musician and had a marked aptitude for mechanics. He returned to
England, traveled a great deal on the Continent, and acquired a wide
experience. He was consulted frequently on all kinds of engineering
activities, one of them being the attempt, in 1808, to drive a tunnel
under the Thames. For many years he practiced in London as a patent
agent and consulting engineer. He went to the United States again in
the prosecution of some of his inventions, and died in Elizabeth, N.
J., in 1865. From a Memoir in the “Transactions of the Institution of
Civil Engineers,” Vol. XXV, p. 512. 1865.
Professor Willis seems to be the first to have pointed out the proper
basis of this interchangeability in cycloidal gearing. With the
clearness which characterized all his work he states: “If for a set
of wheels of the same pitch a constant describing circle be taken and
employed to trace those portions of the teeth which project beyond
each pitch line by rolling on the exterior circumference, and those
which lie within it by rolling on its interior circumference, then any
two wheels of this set will work correctly together.... The diameter
of the describing circle must not be made _greater_ than the radius
of the pitch-circle of any of the wheels.... On the contrary, when
the describing circle is _less_ in diameter than the radius of the
pitch-circle, the root of the tooth spreads, and it acquires a very
strong form.... The best rule appears to be that the diameter of the
constant describing circle in a given set of wheels shall be made equal
to the least radius of the set.”[65] This practice is standard for
cycloidal gearing to this day. In his “Principles of Mechanism,” Willis
did the work on involute gearing which Hawkins set before himself; and
also describes “a different mode of sizing the teeth” which had “been
adopted in Manchester,” for which he suggests the name “diametral
pitch.”[66]
[65] Willis: “Principles of Mechanism,” Articles 114-116. London,
1841. See also “Transactions of the Institution of Civil Engineers,”
Vol. II, p. 91.
[66] Diametral pitch, which is credited to John George Bodmer, was
long known as “Manchester pitch.”
CHAPTER VII
FAIRBAIRN AND BODMER
With the improvement in machinery came improvement in millwork and
power transmission. We quote in the next chapter Nasmyth’s description
of the millwork of his boyhood.[67] Two of the mechanics most
influential in the change from these conditions were Sir William
Fairbairn and his younger brother, Sir Peter Fairbairn. They were born
in Scotland but spent their boyhood in poverty in the neighborhood of
Newcastle, in the same village with George Stephenson.
[67] See page 85.
Sir William Fairbairn went to London in 1811 and obtained work with the
Rennies. The shop, however, was filled with union men who set their
shoulders against all outsiders. After struggling for a foothold for
six weeks, he was set adrift, almost penniless, and turned his face
northward. He obtained odd jobs in Hertfordshire as a millwright, and
returned again to London in a few weeks, where he finally found work
and remained for two years, most of the time at Mr. Penn’s engine shop
in Greenwich. In the spring of 1813 he worked his way through southern
England and Wales to Dublin, where he spent the summer constructing
nail-making machinery for a Mr. Robinson, who had determined to
introduce the industry into Ireland. The machinery, however, was never
set at work owing to the opposition of the workmen, and the trade left
Ireland permanently.
Fairbairn went from Dublin to Liverpool and proceeded to Manchester,
the city to which Nasmyth, Roberts, Whitworth and Bodmer all
gravitated. He found work with an Adam Parkinson, remaining with him
for two years as a millwright, at good wages. “In those days,” wrote
Fairbairn, “a good millwright was a man of large resources; he was
generally well educated, and could draw out his own designs and work
at the lathe; he had a knowledge of mill machinery, pumps, and cranes,
could turn his hand to the bench or the forge with equal adroitness
and facility. If hard pressed, as was frequently the case in country
places far from towns, he could devise for himself expedients which
enabled him to meet special requirements, and to complete his work
without assistance. This was the class of men with whom I associated in
early life,--proud of their calling, fertile in resources, and aware
of their value in a country where the industrial arts were rapidly
developing.”[68]
[68] “Useful Information for Engineers, Second Series,” p. 212.
In 1817 Fairbairn and James Lillie, a shopmate, started out as general
millwrights. They hired a small shed for 12 shillings a week and
equipped it with a lathe of their own making, to turn shafts, and “a
strong Irishman to drive it.” Their first order of importance came
from Mr. Adam Murray, a large cotton spinner, who took them over his
mill and asked them whether they were competent to renew his main
drive. They boldly replied that they were willing and able to execute
the work, but were more than apprehensive when Mr. Murray told them
he would call the next day and look over their workshop to satisfy
himself. He came, pondered over “the nakedness of the land,” “sized
up” the young partners and told them to go ahead. Although a rush job,
the work was done on time and so well that Murray recommended the new
firm to Mr. John Kennedy, the largest cotton spinner in the kingdom.
For his firm, MacConnel & Kennedy, Fairbairn & Lillie equipped a large,
new mill in 1818, which was an immediate success and at once put the
struggling partners in the front rank of engineering millwrights.
“They found the machinery driven by large, square cast-iron shafts
on which huge wooden drums, some of them as much as four feet in
diameter, revolved at the rate of about forty revolutions a minute; and
the couplings were so badly fitted that they might be heard creaking
and groaning a long way off.... Another serious defect lay in the
construction of the shafts, and in the mode of fixing the couplings,
which were constantly giving way, so that a week seldom passed without
one or more breaks-down.”[69]
[69] Smiles: “Industrial Biography,” p. 389.
Fairbairn remedied this by the introduction of wrought-iron
shafts, driven at double or treble the speed, and by improving and
standardizing the design of pulleys, hangers and couplings. In
the course of a few years a revolution was effected, and by 1840
the shafting speeds in textile mills had risen to from 300 to 350
revolutions per minute.
William Fairbairn’s influence was felt in many ways. His treatise
on “Mills and Millwork” and numerous papers before the learned
societies were authoritative for many years. He improved the design of
waterwheels, and was one of the first to undertake iron shipbuilding
as a special industry. He established a plant at Millwall, on the
Thames, “where in the course of some fourteen years he built upwards
of a hundred and twenty iron ships, some of them above two thousand
tons burden. It was, in fact, the first great iron shipbuilding
yard in Britain.”[70] To facilitate the building of his iron ships
he invented, about 1839, improved riveting machinery. With Robert
Stephenson he built the Conway and Britannia Tubular Bridges. Probably
no man in England did so much to extend the use of iron into new
fields, and his formulæ for the strength of boilers, tubing, shafting,
etc., were standard for years. Like Nasmyth, William Fairbairn has left
an autobiography which gives a full account of his career. It is not,
however, so well written or so interesting. He died in 1874, at the age
of eighty-five, loaded with every honor the nation could bestow.
[70] _Ibid._, p. 394.
His younger brother, Sir Peter Fairbairn, of Leeds, was apprenticed to
a millwright while William was a journeyman mechanic in London. A few
years later he became foreman in a machine shop constructing cotton
machinery, and for ten years he worked in England, Scotland and on the
Continent, wholly on textile machinery. In 1828 he came to Leeds, in
the first flush of its manufacturing prosperity. Mr. Marshall, who had
helped Matthew Murray, gave him his start and encouraged him to take
over the Wellington Foundry, which, under Fairbairn’s management, was
for thirty years one of the greatest machine shops in England. To the
manufacture of textile machinery he added that of general machinery and
large tools for cutting, boring, rifling, planing and slotting. He had
a great reputation in his day, but his work seems to have been more
that of a builder of standard tools than an originator of new tools and
methods.
Charles Holtzapffel, another well-known engineer of that generation,
was the son of a German mechanic who came to London in 1787. He
received a good education, theoretical as well as practical, and
became a skilled mechanician and a tool builder of wide influence.
His principal book, “Turning and Mechanical Manipulation,” published
in 1843 in three volumes, is an admirable piece of work. Covering a
field much wider than its title indicates, it is the fullest and best
statement of the art at that time; and scattered through it there is a
large amount of very reliable mechanical history.
By 1840 the number of men engaged in tool building was increasing
rapidly, and it is impossible to consider many English tool builders
who were well known and who did valuable work, such as Lewis of
Manchester, B. Hick & Son of Bolton, and others. One noteworthy man,
however, ought to be mentioned--John George Bodmer, who was neither
an Englishman, nor, primarily, a tool builder.[71] He was a Swiss who
worked in Baden and Austria, as well as in England, and his fertile
ingenuity covered so many fields that a list of the subjects covered by
his patents occupy six pages in the “Transactions of the Institution of
Civil Engineers.”
[71] For a “Memoir” of Bodmer see “Transactions of the Institution of
Civil Engineers,” Vol. XXVIII, p. 573. London, 1868.
Bodmer was born at Zurich in 1786. After serving his apprenticeship he
opened a small shop for millwright work near that city. A year or so
later he formed a partnership with Baron d’Eichthal and with workmen
brought from St. Etienne, France, he started a factory in an old
convent at St. Blaise, in the Black Forest, first for the manufacture
of textile machinery and later, in 1806, of small arms.
“Instead of confining himself to the ordinary process of gun-making by
manual labour, Mr. Bodmer invented and successfully applied a series
of special machines by which the various parts--more especially those
of the lock--were shaped and prepared _for immediate use_, so as _to
insure perfect uniformity_ and to _economise labour_. Amongst these
machines there was also a planing machine on a small scale; and Mr.
Bodmer has been heard to observe how strange it was that it should
not have occurred to him to produce a larger machine of the same kind,
with a view to its use for general purposes.”[72] He does not seem to
have used the process of milling until much later. Bodmer was thus
among the first to discern and to realize many of the possibilities of
interchangeable manufacture, Eli Whitney having begun the manufacture
of firearms on the interchangeable basis at New Haven, Conn., about
1800, only a few years before. Why Bodmer’s attempt should have failed
of the influence which Whitney’s had is not quite clear. A possible
explanation may lie in the fact that the use of limit gauges does not
seem to have been a part of Bodmer’s plan. This use was recognized by
the American gun makers as an essential element in the interchangeable
system almost from the start.
[72] _Ibid._, p. 576. (The italics are ours.)
Bodmer was appointed, by the Grand Duke of Baden, director of the iron
works and military inspector with the rank of captain and for a number
of years much of his energy was given to the development of small arms
and field artillery. He invented and built a 12-pound breech-loading
cannon in 1814, which he had tested by the French artillery officers.
It failed to satisfy them, and was sent a few years later to England,
where it was decently buried by the Board of Ordnance.
The following year he built a flour-mill at Zurich for his brother.
Instead of each set of stones being driven by a small waterwheel,
all the machinery connected with the mill was driven by a single
large wheel through mill gearing. The millstones were arranged in
groups of four. “Each set could be started and stopped separately,
and was besides furnished with a contrivance for accurately adjusting
the distance between the top and bottom stones. By means of a hoist
of simple construction, consisting in fact only of a large and
broad-flanged strap-pulley and a rope-drum, both mounted on the same
spindle (the latter being hinged at one end, so that it could be
raised and lowered by means of a rope), the sacks of grain or flour
could be made to ascend and to descend at pleasure, and the operatives
themselves could pass from one floor to any other by simply tightening
and releasing the rope.[73] The shafting of this mill was made of
wrought iron, and the wheels, pulleys, hangers, pedestals, frames, &c.,
of cast iron, much in accordance with modern practice.”[74] This was
several years before Fairbairn and Lillie began their improvements at
Manchester.
[73] Apparently the modern belt conveyor.
[74] “Memoir,” p. 579.
Bodmer went to England for the first time in 1816 and visited all the
principal machine shops, textile mills and iron works. He returned in
1824 and again in 1833, this time remaining many years. On his second
trip he established a small factory for the manufacture of textile
machinery at Bolton, in which was one of the first, if not the first,
traveling crane.[75] At the beginning of his last and long residence
in England, Bodmer appointed Sharp, Roberts & Company makers of his
improved cotton machinery, which they also undertook to recommend and
introduce. This arrangement was not successful, and a few years later,
in partnership with Mr. H. H. Birley, Bodmer started a machine shop and
foundry in Manchester for building machinery.
[75] _Ibid._, p. 581.
Nearly all of the machinery for the Manchester plant was designed and
built by Bodmer himself and it forms the subject of two remarkable
patents, granted, one in 1839 and the other in 1841.[76] The two
patents cover in reality nearly forty distinct inventions in
machinery and tools “for cutting, planing, turning, drilling, and
rolling metal,” and “screwing stocks, taps and dies, and certain other
tools.” “Gradually, nearly the whole of these tools were actually
constructed and set to work. The small lathes, the large lathes, and
the planing, drilling, and slotting machines were systematically
arranged in rows, according to a carefully-prepared plan; the large
lathes being provided, overhead, with small traveling cranes, fitted
with pulley-blocks, for the purpose of enabling the workmen more
economically and conveniently to set the articles to be operated upon
in the lathes, and to remove them after being finished. Small cranes
were also erected in sufficient numbers within easy reach of the
planing machines, &c., besides which several lines of rails traversed
the shop from end to end for the easy conveyance on trucks of the
parts of machinery to be operated upon.”[77] There were, in addition
to these, however, “a large radial boring machine and a wheel-cutting
machine capable of taking in wheels of 15 feet in diameter, and of
splendid workmanship, especially in regard to the dividing wheel, and
a number of useful break or gap-lathes, were also constructed and used
with advantage. It is especially necessary to mention a number of
small, 6-inch, screwing lathes, which, by means of a treadle acting
upon the driving gear overhead, and a double slide-rest--one of the
tools moving into cut as the other was withdrawn,--screw cutting could
uninterruptedly proceed both in the forward and in the backward motion
of the toolslide, and therefore a given amount of work accomplished in
half the time which it would occupy by the use of the ordinary means.
Some of the slide-lathes were also arranged for taking simultaneously a
roughing and finishing cut.”[78]
[76] The first of these is described in the _American Machinist_ of
March 13, 1902, p. 369.
[77] “Memoir,” p. 588.
[78] _Ibid._, p. 597-598.
The latter part of Bodmer’s life was spent in and near Vienna, working
on engines and boilers, beet sugar machinery and ordnance; and at
Zurich, where he died in 1864, in his seventy-ninth year.
Bodmer does not seem to have originated any new types of machine tools,
with the exception of the vertical boring-mill, which he clearly
describes, terming it a “circular planer.” It was little used in
England, and has been considered an American development.
It is hard now to determine how far Bodmer has influenced tool design.
It was much, anyway. Speaking of the patent just referred to, John
Richards, who has himself done so much for tool design, says, “Here was
the beginning of the practice that endured.” He has described some of
Bodmer’s tools in a series of articles which show a standard of design
greatly in advance of the practice of his time.[79] Another writer says
of Bodmer, “He seems always to have thoroughly understood the problems
he undertook to solve.” “One is lost in admiration at the versatility
of the inventive genius which could at any one time--and that so early
in the history of machine design--evolve such excellent conceptions of
what was needed in so many branches of the mechanics’ art.”[80]
[79] _American Machinist_, Vol. XXII, pp. 352, 379, 402, 430, 457,
478, 507, 531, 559, 586, 607, 637.
[80] _Ibid._, Vol. XXV, p. 369.
Bodmer was elected a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers in
1835, and his standing among his contemporaries is shown by the fact
that thirty-five pages in the “Transactions” of the Institution for
1868 are given to his memoir. For a foreigner to have won respect
and distinction in the fields of textile machinery, machine tools
and steam engines in England, where all three originated, was surely
“carrying coals to Newcastle.” Not only did he succeed in these fields,
but he invented the traveling crane, the chain grate for boilers, the
Meyer type of cut-off valve gear, the rolling of locomotive tires,
and introduced the system of diametral pitch, which was long known as
the “Manchester pitch,” from its having originated in his plant at
Manchester.
Though Bodmer was never regularly engaged in the building of machine
tools, his contribution to that field is far too great to be forgotten.
CHAPTER VIII
JAMES NASMYTH
We know more of the life of Nasmyth than of any of the other tool
builders. Not only did Smiles give an account of him in “Industrial
Biography,”[81] but fortunately Nasmyth was induced in later life
to write his recollections, which were published in the form of an
autobiography, edited by Smiles.[82] With the exception of Sir William
Fairbairn, he is the only great engineer who has done this. His
intimate knowledge of the rise of tool building, the distinguished part
he himself had in it, and his keen and generous appreciation of others,
make his record valuable. We have already quoted him in connection with
Maudslay, and wherever possible will let him tell his own story.
[81] “Industrial Biography,” Chap. XV. Boston, 1864.
[82] “James Nasmyth, Engineer, An Autobiography,” edited by Samuel
Smiles. London, 1883.
Unlike most of the early mechanics, James Nasmyth came from a family
of distinction dating from the thirteenth century. They lost their
property in the wars of the Covenanters and his direct ancestors
took refuge in Edinburgh, leaving their impress on the city as the
architects and builders of many of its most famous and beautiful
buildings. Alexander Nasmyth, the father of James, was a well-known
artist, the founder of the Scotch School of Landscape Painting, and
a friend of Burns, Raeburn and Sir Walter Scott. He was a landscape
architect and enough of an engineer to be included in Walker’s
engraving of “The Eminent Men of Science Living in 1807-1808,”
reproduced in Fig. 8. He invented the “bow-string” truss in 1794,
the first one of which was erected over a deep ravine in the island
of St. Helena, and also the setting of rivets by pressure instead
of hammering. This last, by the way, was the result of trying to do
a surreptitious job on Sunday without outraging the fearsome Scotch
“Sawbath.” Alexander Nasmyth was one of the six men on the first
trip made on Dalswinton Loch, October 14, 1788, by the steamboat
built by Symington for Patrick Miller. This was the second trip of a
steam-propelled vessel, the first one being that of John Fitch on the
Delaware, August 22, 1787. It was an iron boat with double hulls and
made about five miles an hour. It barely escaped being the first iron
vessel, as Wilkinson’s iron boat on the Severn was launched less than a
year before. The picture of this trial trip which has come down to us
was made by Alexander Nasmyth at the time.[83]
[83] _Ibid._, pp. 28-31.
James Nasmyth was born in 1808, the tenth in a family of eleven
children. Like all of his brothers and sisters, he inherited his
father’s artistic tastes. If he had not been an engineer he would
probably have become distinguished as an artist. He was ambidextrous,
and to the end of his life his skill with his pencil was a constant
source of pleasure and convenience. The notebook in which the later
record of his mathematical ideas is contained, is crowded with funny
little sketches, landscapes, little devils and whimsical figures
running in and out among the calculations. The leaf in this book on
which he made his first memorandum of the steam hammer is shown in Fig.
23. In 1817, Watt, then in his eighty-first year, visited Edinburgh and
was entertained at the Earl of Buchan’s, where Alexander Nasmyth met
him at dinner. Watt delighted all with his kindly talk, and astonished
them with the extent and profundity of his information. The following
day Watt visited Nasmyth to examine his artistic and other works. James
Nasmyth, a nine-year-old boy, returning from school, met him at the
doorstep as he was leaving, and never forgot the tall, bent figure of
“the Great Engineer.”
[Illustration: FIGURE 22. JAMES NASMYTH
FROM AN ETCHING BY PAUL RAJON]
Nasmyth’s father had a private workshop which was well equipped for
those days. Nasmyth played there from childhood and had mastered
the use of all the tools while still a schoolboy. “By means of my
father’s excellent foot lathe,” he says, “I turned out spinning tops
in capital style, so much so that I became quite noted amongst my
school companions. They would give any price for them. The peeries
were turned with perfect accuracy, and the steel shod, or spinning
pivot, was centered so as to correspond with the heaviest diameter at
the top. They could spin twice as long as the bought peeries. When at
full speed they would ‘sleep,’ that is, turn round without a particle
of waving. This was considered high art as regarded top-spinning.”[84]
He established a brisk business in these, in small brass cannon, and
especially in large cellar keys, which he converted into a sort of hand
cannon, with a small touch-hole bored into the barrel and a sliding
brass collar which allowed them to be loaded, primed, and then carried
around in the pocket.
[84] _Ibid._, p. 89.
He haunted all the shops and foundries in the neighborhood, making
friends with the skilled workmen and absorbing the mysteries of foundry
work, forging, hardening and tempering, and those arts which were
handed down from man to man. Speaking of Patterson’s old shop, Nasmyth
says: “To me it was the most instructive school of practical mechanics.
Although I was only about thirteen at the time, I used to lend a hand,
in which hearty zeal made up for want of strength. I look back on these
days, especially to the Saturday afternoons spent in the workshops of
this admirably conducted iron foundry, as a most important part of my
education as a mechanical engineer. I did not _read_ about such things;
for words were of little use. But I saw and handled, and thus all the
ideas in connection with them became permanently rooted in my mind....
“One of these excellent men, with whom I was frequently brought into
contact, was William Watson. He took special charge of all that related
to the construction and repairs of steam engines, waterwheels, and
millwork generally. He was a skillful designer and draughtsman and an
excellent pattern maker. His designs were drawn in a bold and distinct
style, on large deal boards, and were passed into the hands of the
mechanics to be translated by them into actual work.”[85]
[85] _Ibid._, p. 92.
After telling of various workmen, Nasmyth says: “One of the most
original characters about the foundry, however, was Johnie Syme.
He took charge of the old Boulton & Watt steam engine, which gave
motion to the machinery of the works.... Johnie was a complete
incarnation of technical knowledge. He was the Jack-of-all-trades of
the establishment; and the standing counsel in every out-of-the-way
case of managing and overcoming mechanical difficulties. He was the
superintendent of the boring machines. In those days the boring
of a steam engine cylinder was considered high art _in excelsis_!
Patterson’s firm was celebrated for the accuracy of its boring.
“I owe Johnie Syme a special debt of gratitude, as it was he who first
initiated me into that most important of all technical processes in
practical mechanism--the art of hardening and tempering steel.”[86]
From another of his friends, Tom Smith, Nasmyth picked up the rudiments
of practical chemistry, as it was then understood.
[86] _Ibid._, p. 93.
Traveling with his father from time to time, he had good opportunities
for meeting many distinguished engineers and of visiting the great
iron works, the most famous of which was the Carron Iron Works. “The
Carron Iron Works,” he writes, “are classic ground to engineers.
They are associated with the memory of Roebuck, Watt, and Miller of
Dalswinton. For there, Roebuck and Watt began the first working steam
engine; Miller applied the steam engine to the purposes of navigation,
and invented the Carronade gun. The works existed at an early period
in the history of British iron manufacture. Much of the machinery
continued to be of wood. Although effective in a general way it was
monstrously cumbrous. It gave the idea of vast power and capability of
resistance, while it was far from being so in reality. It was, however,
truly imposing and impressive in its effect upon strangers. When seen
partially lit up by the glowing masses of white-hot iron, with only the
rays of bright sunshine gleaming through the holes in the roof, and the
dark, black, smoky vaults in which the cumbrous machinery was heard
rumbling away in the distance--while the moving parts were dimly seen
through the murky atmosphere, mixed with the sounds of escaping steam
and rushes of water; with the half-naked men darting about with masses
of red-hot iron and ladles full of molten cast-iron--it made a powerful
impression upon the mind.”[87]
[87] _Ibid._, p. 109.
By the time he was seventeen Nasmyth had become a skilled model maker.
While he was still attending lectures in the Edinburgh School of Arts
and in the University, he had built up quite a brisk business in engine
models, for which he charged £10 each. He made his brass castings in
his own bedroom at night, arranging a furnace in his grate. He had a
secret box of moulding sand and rammed his patterns gently so as not to
awaken his father who slept below. In the morning the room would be all
clean and gave no indication that it was serving for a foundry as well
as a bedroom, and by some miracle he managed to complete his practical
education without burning down the house. In 1827, when he was
nineteen, he built a steam road carriage which ran about the streets of
Edinburgh for many months, but the condition of the Scotch roads was
such as to make a machine of this kind almost useless. When he went to
London he broke it up, and sold the engine and boiler for £67.
From inspecting the engines constructed by different makers, Nasmyth
became impressed with the superiority of those turned out by the
Carmichaels of Dundee. “I afterwards found,” he writes, “that the
Carmichaels were among the first of the Scottish engine makers who gave
due attention to the employment of improved mechanical tools, with the
object of producing accurate work with greater ease, rapidity, and
economy, than could possibly be effected by the hand labor of even the
most skillful workmen. I was told that the cause of the excellence
of the Carmichaels’ work was not only in the ability of the heads of
the firm, but in their employment of the best engineers’ tools. Some
of their leading men had worked at Maudslay’s machine shop in London,
the fame of which had already reached Dundee, and Maudslay’s system
of employing machine tools had been imported into the northern steam
factory.”[88] These reports built up an ambition, which developed into
a passion, to go to London and work in Maudslay’s shop under “this
greatest of mechanics.”
[88] _Ibid._, p. 123.
Consequently, in the spring of 1829, he went with his father to London
and made application to Maudslay to work with him as an apprentice.
Maudslay told them in the friendliest way, but unmistakeably, that he
had had no satisfaction from gentleman apprentices and that he had
definitely settled that he would never employ one again. He showed them
about his shop, however, and began to melt when he saw the boy’s keen
interest and intelligent appreciation of everything about him. Nasmyth
had brought with him some of his drawings and one of his engine models.
At the end of the visit he mustered courage to ask Maudslay if he would
look at them. The next day Maudslay and his partner looked them over.
“I waited anxiously. Twenty long minutes passed. At last he entered
the room, and from a lively expression in his countenance I observed
in a moment that the great object of my long cherished ambition had
been attained! He expressed, in good round terms, his satisfaction at
my practical ability as a workman engineer and mechanical draughtsman.
Then, opening the door which led from his library into his beautiful
private workshop, he said, ‘This is where I wish you to work, beside
me, as my assistant workman. From what I have seen, there is no need of
an apprenticeship in your case.’[89]
[89] _Ibid._, p. 129.
“Mr. Maudslay seemed at once to take me into his confidence. He treated
me in the most kindly manner--not as a workman or an apprentice, but
as a friend. I was an anxious listener to everything that he said;
and it gave him pleasure to observe that I understood and valued his
conversation. The greatest treat of all was in store for me. He showed
me his exquisite collection of taps and dies and screw-tackle, which
he had made with the utmost care for his own service. They rested in a
succession of drawers near to the bench where he worked....
“He proceeded to dilate upon the importance of the uniformity of
screws. Some may call it an improvement, but it might almost be called
a revolution in mechanical engineering which Mr. Maudslay introduced.
Before his time no system had been followed in proportioning the
number of threads of screws to their diameter. Every bolt and nut was
thus a specialty in itself, and neither possessed nor admitted of any
community with its neighbors. To such an extent had this practice been
carried that all bolts and their corresponding nuts had to be specially
marked as belonging to each other....
“None but those who lived in the comparatively early days of machine
manufacture can form an adequate idea of the annoyance, delay, and
cost of this utter want of system, or can appreciate the vast services
rendered to mechanical engineering by Mr. Maudslay, who was the first
to introduce the practical measures necessary for its remedy.”[90]
[90] _Ibid._, pp. 131-132.
There was no place in all England where Nasmyth could have learned
more. He was in close personal contact with one of the best mechanics
in the world. He had Maudslay’s warmest personal interest and heard
all the discussions of the engineers and famous men who used to come
to the workshop. “Among Mr. Maudslay’s most frequent visitors was Gen.
Sir Samuel Bentham, Mr. Barton, director of the Royal Mint, Mr. Bryan
Donkin, Mr. Faraday, and Mr. Chantrey, the sculptor. As Mr. Maudslay
wished me to be at hand to give him any necessary assistance, I had the
opportunity of listening to the conversation between him and these
distinguished visitors. Sir Samuel Bentham called very often. He had
been associated with Maudslay during the contrivance and construction
of the block machinery. He was brother of the celebrated Jeremy
Bentham, and he applied the same clear common sense to mechanical
subjects which the other had done to legal, social and political
questions.
“It was in the highest degree interesting and instructive to hear
these two great pioneers in the history and application of mechanics
discussing the events connected with the block-making machinery. In
fact, Maudslay’s connection with the subject had led to the development
of most of our modern engineering tools. They may since have been
somewhat altered in arrangement, but not in principle. Scarcely a
week passed without a visit from the General. He sat in the beautiful
workshop, where he always seemed so happy. It was a great treat to
hear him and Maudslay fight their battles over again, in recounting
the difficulties, both official and mechanical, over which they had so
gloriously triumphed.”[91]
[91] _Ibid._, pp. 151-152.
While with Maudslay, Nasmyth designed and built an index milling
machine for finishing the sides of hexagon nuts. After Maudslay’s death
in 1831, he remained a few months with Mr. Field to finish some work in
hand, and then left to start in business for himself. Nasmyth speaks in
the kindliest terms of Mr. Field, and doubtless would have had more to
say about him if his relationship with Maudslay had not been so close.
Joshua Field was a man to be appreciated. He was a draftsman at the
Portsmouth dockyard when the block machinery was being built, and
showed so clear a grasp of the work in hand that Bentham had him
transferred to the Admiralty at Whitehall. In 1804 he left the service
and went to Maudslay’s, when he was at Margaret Street and employed
about eighty men. He rose steadily, was taken into partnership in 1822,
at the same time as Maudslay’s eldest son, and was the senior partner
after Maudslay’s death when the firm was at the height of its long
prosperity. He was one of those consulted in the laying of the Atlantic
cable and in the designing of machinery for doing it.
“Mr. Field was one of the founders of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, the origin of which was very humble. About the year 1816,
Mr. Henry Robinson Palmer, who was then a pupil of the late Mr. Bryan
Donkin, suggested to Mr. Field the idea of forming a society of young
engineers, for their mutual improvement in mechanical and engineering
science; and the earliest members were Mr. Henry Robinson Palmer, Mr.
William Nicholson Maudslay, and Mr. Joshua Field. To these three were
shortly added Mr. James Jones, Mr. Charles Collinge, and Mr. James
Ashwell. They met occasionally in a room hired for the purpose, and to
them were soon attracted others having the same objects in view. Mr.
Field was the first chairman of the Institution, being elected to that
post on the sixth of January, 1818. Subsequently he became, in 1837, a
vice-president, an office he filled until he was elected president in
1848, and in 1849, and he continued to the last to be an active member
and warm supporter of the Institution.”[92] Mr. Field did everything in
his power to give Nasmyth a start, allowing him to make the castings
for some machine tools which he proposed to finish later for use in his
own plant.
[92] Memoir, in “Transactions of the Institution of Civil Engineers,”
Vol. XXIII, p. 491. 1863.
Nasmyth returned to Edinburgh and took temporary quarters in a little
outbuilding 16 feet by 24 feet, within a few minutes’ walk of his
father’s home. He hired one mechanic, Archie Torry, who remained with
him the rest of his life and became one of his principal foremen. His
power plant consisted of one husky laborer who turned a crank. Together
they finished up the castings brought from Maudslay & Field’s, making
first a lathe, then a planer 20 inches by 36 inches, and with these a
few boring and drilling machines. He carried the expense of this by
doing some work for an enthusiastic inventor of a wonderful rotary
steam engine. Nasmyth honorably informed the inventor that his machine
would not work, but as the inventor was bent on spending his money,
Nasmyth executed the work for him, and the proceeds enabled him to
build his machinery.
In a few months he was ready to begin. He went to Liverpool and
Manchester looking for a location, and soon made many powerful friends
in both cities. In 1831 he rented a single floor in Manchester, 27 feet
by 130 feet, with power, and ten days later Archie followed with the
tools. It was a particularly fortunate time and place for starting such
an enterprise. The success of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, just
opened, created a great demand for locomotives and for machine tools.
Orders came in fast, and the planer especially was busy all the time.
If its profits were anything like those of Clement’s planer, it must
have been a very heavy earner. As the business grew, Nasmyth added more
tools, always making them himself and steadily improving their design
and construction.
He soon outgrew his quarters; and in 1836 he secured land at
Patricroft, a mile or so outside of the city, admirably located between
the new railway and the Bridgewater Canal, and built a new plant which
he called the Bridgewater Foundry. In the new foundry he used the first
worm-geared tilting pouring-ladle. As it eliminated a common and very
dangerous source of accidents, he refrained from patenting it and in a
short time its use was universal. He formed a partnership with Holbrook
Gaskell, who took the business end of the enterprise, and the firm of
Nasmyth & Gaskell had a very prosperous career until, sixteen years
later, Mr. Gaskell was forced to retire on account of ill health.
Nasmyth built machine tools of all kinds. In 1836 he invented the
shaper which was long known as “Nasmyth’s Steel Arm.”
Descriptions and illustrations of some of Nasmyth’s tools may be found
at the end of his autobiography,[93] in Buchanan’s “Mill Work,”[94]
and in the _American Machinist_.[95] He patented but few of his
inventions, relying for protection mainly upon the reputation which
he soon established. “In mechanical structures and contrivances,”
he says, “I have always endeavored to attain the desired purpose by
the employment of the fewest parts, casting aside every detail not
absolutely necessary, and guarding carefully against the intrusion
of mere traditional forms and arrangements. The latter are apt to
insinuate themselves, and to interfere with that simplicity and
directness of action which is in all cases so desirable a quality in
mechanical structures. Plain common sense should be apparent in the
general design, as in the form and arrangement of the details; and a
character of severe utility pervade the whole, accompanied with as much
attention to gracefulness of form as is consistent with the nature and
purpose of the structure.”[96] This was written in later life. While
his later work was in thorough conformity with these principles, it was
some time before he freed himself from the tradition of Greek style in
machine frames. He was one of those, however, who led the way into the
more correct practice indicated above, though he was probably not so
influential in this direction as Whitworth.
[93] p. 400 _et seq._
[94] Volume of Plates.
[95] Oct. 14, 1909, p. 654.
[96] Autobiography, p. 439.
His greatest invention unquestionably was that of the steam hammer,
which came about in an interesting way. He had built a number of
locomotives for the Great Western Railway. This railway operated a line
of steamers from Bristol to New York and was planning a ship larger
and faster than any then built, to be called “The Great Britain.” It
was to be a side-wheeler and the plans called for a large and heavy
paddle shaft, 30 inches in diameter. Mr. Humphries, its designer,
wrote to Nasmyth asking for help, saying so large a shaft could not be
forged with any of the hammers then in use. Nasmyth saw at once the
limitations of the prevailing tilt hammer--which was simply a smith’s
hand hammer, enlarged, with a range so small that it “gagged” on
large work,--and that the design of large hammers must be approached
in an entirely new way. “The obvious remedy was to contrive some
method by which a ponderous block of iron should be lifted to a
sufficient height above the object on which it was desired to strike
a blow, and then to let the block fall down upon the forging, guiding
it in its descent by such simple means as should give the required
precision in the percussive action of the falling mass. Following up
this idea,” he writes, “I got out my ‘Scheme Book,’ on the pages of
which I generally thought out, with the aid of pen and pencil, such
mechanical adaptations as I had conceived in my mind, and was thereby
enabled to render them visible. I then rapidly sketched out my steam
hammer, having it all clearly before me in mind’s eye. In little more
than half an hour after receiving Mr. Humphries’s letter narrating
his unlooked-for difficulty, I had the whole contrivance, in all its
executant details, before me in a page of my Scheme Book, a reduced
photograph copy of which I append to this description. (See Fig. 23.)
The date of this first drawing was the twenty-fourth of November,
1839....”[97]
[97] _Ibid._, p. 240.
[Illustration: FIGURE 23. FIRST SKETCH OF THE STEAM HAMMER NOV. 24,
1839]
[Illustration: FIGURE 24. MODEL OF THE FIRST STEAM HAMMER
IN THE SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM, LONDON]
“Rude and rapidly sketched out as it was, this, my first delineation of
the steam hammer, will be found to comprise all the essential elements
of the invention.[98] Every detail of the drawing retains to this day
the form and arrangement which I gave to it forty-three years ago. I
believed that the steam hammer would prove practically successful; and
I looked forward to its general employment in the forging of heavy
masses of iron. It is no small gratification to me now, when I look
over my rude and hasty first sketch, to find that I hit the mark so
exactly, not only in the general structure but in the details; and
that the invention as I then conceived it and put it into shape,
still retains its form and arrangements intact in the thousands of
steam hammers that are now doing good service in the mechanical arts
throughout the civilized world.”[99]
[98] Compare Nasmyth’s sketch, Fig. 23, with Fig. 24, which was
taken from the model of his first hammer now in the South Kensington
Museum (Exhibit No. 1571). The description of it in the catalog is as
follows:
“It consists of a base plate with a large central opening through
which projects the top of the anvil, so that a blow on the anvil
is not transmitted to the base plate. On the plate are secured two
standards which form guides for the hammer-head or tup, and also
support an overhead cylinder, the piston of which is connected with
the tup by a piston rod passing through the bottom of the cylinder.
Steam is admitted to this cylinder by a stop valve in the form of
a slide, and then by a slide valve on the front of the cylinder,
which by a hand lever can be moved so as to let steam in below the
piston and so raise the heavy tup. When it is lifted to a height
proportionate to the energy of the blow required, the steam is by the
slide valve permitted to escape and the hammer falls upon the forging
placed on the anvil. The cylinder is therefore only single-acting,
but the top is closed, and a ring of holes communicating with the
exhaust pipe is provided at a little distance down inside. In
this way an air cushion is formed which helps to start the piston
downwards when a long stroke is being taken, and also the steam below
the piston is permitted to escape when the tup has been lifted as
high as it can safely go. Soon after its invention the steam hammer
was greatly increased in power by accelerating the fall of the tup by
admitting steam above the piston in the downstroke and so changing
it into the usual double-acting steam hammer.” Cat. Machinery
Collection, Part II, p. 255.
[99] Autobiography, p. 242.
The shaft, however, was never built. Screw propulsion was just coming
into use; the design of the vessel was changed, and the whole scheme
lapsed. A year or so later, M. Schneider, the French iron master of
Creuzot, and his engineer, M. Bourdon, visited Bridgewater while
Nasmyth happened to be away. Mr. Gaskell, after taking them about the
plant, showed them the Scheme Book and pointed out the sketch of the
hammer, telling them of the purpose for which it was intended. They
were impressed with it and took careful notes and sketches of its
details. Nasmyth was informed of their visit upon his return, but knew
nothing of their having taken sketches of the hammer.
In 1842 Nasmyth visited France, and was cordially received at Creuzot
and shown about the works. “On entering,” he writes, “one of the things
that particularly struck me was the excellence of a large wrought-iron
marine engine single crank, forged with a remarkable degree of
exactness in its general form. I observed also that the large eye of
the crank had been punched and drifted with extraordinary smoothness
and truth. I inquired of M. Bourdon ‘how that crank had been forged?’
His immediate reply was, ‘_It was forged by your steam hammer!_’...
He told me ... that he had taken careful notes and sketches, and that
among the first things he did after his return to Creuzot was to put
in hand the necessary work for the erection of a steam hammer.... M.
Bourdon conducted me to the forge department of the works, that I
might, as he said, ‘_see my own child_’; and there it was, in truth--a
thumping child of my brain.”[100] Fortunately it was still time to save
his patent rights. He moved rapidly and in June, 1842, two months after
his visit to Creuzot, a patent was obtained.[101]. The steam hammer
soon found its way into all the large shops of the world and greatly
increased Nasmyth’s already comfortable fortune. Nasmyth transferred
his United States patent to S. V. Merrick of Philadelphia, who
introduced the hammer into the American iron works.
[100] _Ibid._, pp. 246-247. The self-acting valve motion for the
steam hammer was invented by Mr. Wilson, when Nasmyth was absent
on business. Wilson was manager at Patricroft and later became a
partner. It was much used for a time but with the advent of balanced
piston-valves the hand-operated gear supplanted it. Nasmyth’s
invention of the hammer was denied by M. Schneider in 1871. For
fuller discussion of the history of this hammer see _London
Engineer_, May 16, 1890, and a pamphlet by T. S. Rowlandson, entitled
“History of the Steam Hammer.” Manchester, 1866.
[101] No. 9382, June 9, 1842.
Besides work on the hammer and machine tools, Nasmyth made a number
of inventions of interest. While still with Maudslay he invented the
flexible shaft made of a coiled spring, and speaks with amusement at
his finding the same idea in a dental engine many years later credited
as an American invention. He invented the ball-and-socket joint for
shafting hangers and also the single wedge gate valve. His steam
piledriver, an adaptation of the steam hammer, was the invention in
which he seems to have taken the most satisfaction. He was working out
a method of puddling iron with a blast of steam when he was eclipsed
by Bessemer’s brilliant invention, in 1855, of the air blast. Nasmyth
was a member of the Small Arms Committee which remodeled the Small Arms
Factory at Enfield. His connection with this will be taken up in the
consideration of the rise of interchangeable manufacture.
Nasmyth retired from business in 1856, bought an estate in Kent,
and spent the remainder of his life in travel and in his studies in
astronomy. He was deeply interested in this study from boyhood. Before
he was twenty he had built an excellent 6-inch reflecting telescope,
and it was he who aroused Maudslay’s interest in the subject. He had
a 10-inch telescope at Patricroft and a large one at Hammersfield. He
began his study of the moon in 1842, and received a medal for his work
at the Exhibition of 1851. His book, “The Moon, Considered as a Planet,
a World, and a Satellite,” published in 1874, in conjunction with James
Carpenter, the result of his thirty-two years of work, is authoritative
today.
Nasmyth died in 1890 at the age of eighty-two. He was much more than a
splendid mechanic. His personal charm and quality of mind can best be
appreciated by reading his own story. This chapter will have served its
purpose if it induces the reader to read the autobiography from which
we have quoted so freely.
CHAPTER IX
WHITWORTH
The work of the earlier generation of English tool builders may be
said to have culminated in that of Sir Joseph Whitworth. For a man of
his commanding influence, the information in regard to his life is
singularly meager. He left no account of himself as Nasmyth and William
Fairbairn did; no biography of him was written by his contemporaries,
and the various memoirs which appeared at the time of his death are
short and incomplete.
He was born at Stockport in 1803. His father was a minister and
schoolmaster. At fourteen he was placed in the office of his uncle, a
cotton spinner in Derbyshire, to learn the business. But commercial
work did not appeal to him. He slighted the office as much as possible
and delved into every nook and corner of the manufacturing and
mechanical departments of the establishment. In a few years he had
mastered the construction of every machine in the place and acquired
the deep-seated conviction that _all_ the machinery about him was
imperfect. He ran away to Manchester to escape a routine business
life, and found work with Creighton & Company, as a working mechanic.
He married in 1825, and shortly afterward went to work with Maudslay
& Field in London. Maudslay soon placed him next to John Hampson,
a Yorkshireman, who was his best workman. While there, Whitworth
developed his method of making accurate plane surfaces by _hand
scraping_ them, three at a time. On leaving Maudslay, Whitworth worked
for Holtzapffel, and later for Clement. He returned to Manchester in
1833, rented a room with power, and hung out a sign, “Joseph Whitworth,
Tool Maker from London.” Here he began his improvements in machine
tools--the lathe, planer, drilling, slotting and shaping machines. He
improved Nasmyth’s shaper, adding the quick-return motion, which has
been known ever since as the Whitworth quick-return motion. His tools
became the standard of the world, and in the London Exhibition of 1851
stood in a class by themselves.
Their preëminence lay not so much in novelty of design as in the
standard of accuracy and quality of workmanship which they embodied.
With unerring judgment, Whitworth had turned his attention first, to
use his own words, “to the vast importance of attending to the two
great elements in constructive mechanics,--namely, _a true plane_ and
_power of measurement_. The latter cannot be attained without the
former, which is, therefore, of primary importance.... All excellence
in workmanship depends upon it.”[102]
[102] Presidential Address. Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
1856, p. 125.
The first step, the production of true plane surfaces, made while he
was at Maudslay’s, was, we are told, a self-imposed task. The method of
producing these, three at a time, is generally credited to Whitworth.
We have already quoted Nasmyth’s statement that the method was in use
at Maudslay’s and that it was “a very old mechanical dodge.” While
this is probably true, Whitworth contributed something to the method,
which very greatly increased the accuracy of the product. The writer
is inclined to believe that that element was the substitution of _hand
scraping_ for grinding in the final finishing operations. Whitworth’s
paper, read before the British Association for the Advancement of
Science at Glasgow in 1840, indicates this, although it does not say
so directly. In this paper he specifically points out the reason why
planes should _not_ be finished by grinding them together with abrasive
powder in between; namely, that the action of the grinding powder
was under no control, that there was no means of securing its equal
diffusion or modifying its application and localizing its action to
the _particular spot_ which needed it. Holtzapffel confirms this view,
saying, in 1847: “The entire process of grinding, although apparently
good, is so fraught with uncertainty, that accurate mechanicians have
long agreed that the _less grinding_ that is employed on rectilinear
works the better, and Mr. Whitworth has recently shown in the most
satisfactory manner,[103] that in such works grinding is _entirely
unnecessary_, and may, with the greatest advantage be dispensed with,
as the further prosecution of the scraping process is quite sufficient
to lead to the limit of attainable accuracy.... The author’s previous
experience had so fully prepared him for admission of the soundness
of these views, that in his own workshop he immediately adopted the
suggestion of accomplishing all accurate rectilinear works by the
continuance of scraping, to the entire exclusion of grinding.”[104]
[103] Referring to the paper before the British Association, 1840.
[104] “Turning and Mechanical Manipulation,” Vol. II, p. 872.
When Whitworth determined to make a better set of planes than any in
use at the Maudslay shop, we are told that he was laughed at by Hampson
and his other fellow workmen for undertaking an impossible job. He
not only succeeded, but the truth of the planes he produced aroused
the admiration and wonder of all who saw them. Nasmyth distinctly
mentions scraping, but it should be remembered that he worked at
Maudslay’s four or five years after Whitworth went there, and scraping
may have been introduced into their older methods of making triple
surface-plates by Whitworth, and have accounted for the wonderful
accuracy of which Nasmyth speaks.
Having realized what he considered the first element in good
workmanship, Whitworth began on the second,--improved methods in
measurement. He introduced the system of “end measurements,” relying
ordinarily on the sense of touch rather than eyesight; and, for
extreme accuracy, on the falling of a tumbler held by friction between
two parallel planes. At the presentation of the address before the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, in 1856, he exhibited a measuring
machine built on this principle which detected differences of length
as small as one-millionth of an inch. The address was largely devoted
to the advantages of end measurement. Referring to the machine before
him, he said: “We have in this mode of measurement all the accuracy
we can desire; and we find in practice in the workshop that it is
easier to work to the ten-thousandth of an inch from standards of
end measurements, than to one-hundredth of an inch from lines on a
two-foot rule. In all cases of fitting, end measure of length should
be used, instead of lines.” This principle has become almost universal
for commercial work, although for extremely accurate work upon final
standards line measurements, aided by the microscope, are used.
It was Whitworth who brought about the standardization of screw thread
practice in England. He had come into contact with the best thread
practice at Maudslay’s and at Clement’s, but in the other shops
throughout the country there was chaos, so far as any recognized
standard was concerned. Using their work as a basis, and collecting and
comparing all the screws obtainable, Whitworth arrived at a pitch for
all sizes and a thread contour, which he proposed in a paper before
the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1841.[105] It was received with
favor, and by 1860 the “Whitworth thread” had been generally adopted
throughout the country.
[105] The Minutes of the Institution, Vol. I, give only an abstract
of this paper. A recent writer, however, in the _American Machinist_,
Vol. XLIII, p. 1178, quotes Whitworth as follows:
It is impossible to deduce a precise rule for the threads of screws
from mechanical principles or from any number of experiments. On the
other hand, the nature of the case is such that mere approximation
would be unimportant, absolute identity of thread for a given
diameter being indispensable.
There are three essential characters belonging to the screw thread,
namely, pitch, depth and form. Each of these may be indefinitely
modified independently of the others, and any change will more or
less affect the several conditions of power, strength and durability.
The selection of the thread is also affected by the mutual relation
subsisting between the three constituent characters of pitch, depth
and form. Each of these may be separately modified; but practically
no one character can be determined irrespective of the others.
We find instead of that uniformity which is so desirable, a diversity
so great as almost to discourage any hope of its removal. The only
mode in which this could be attempted with any probability of success
would be by a sort of compromise, all parties consenting to adopt a
medium for the sake of common advantage. The average pitch and depth
of the various threads used by the leading engineers would thus
become the common standard, which would not only have the advantage
of conciliating general concurrence, but would, in all probability,
be nearer the true standard for practical purposes than any other.
An extensive collection was made of screw bolts from the principal
workshops throughout England, and the average thread was carefully
observed for different diameters.
(Then follows the well-known table showing the number of threads per
inch.)
It will be remembered that the threads, of which the preceding table
shows the average, are used in cast iron as well as wrought; and this
circumstance has had its effect in rendering them coarser than they
would have been if restricted to wrought-iron.
The variation in depth among the different specimens was found to be
greater proportionately than in pitch. The angle made by the sides
of the thread will afford a convenient expression for the depth. The
mean of the variations of this angle in 1-in. screws was found to
be about 55 deg., and this was also pretty nearly the mean of the
angle in screws of different diameters. As it is for various reasons
desirable that the angle should be constant, more especially with
reference to general uniformity of system, the angle of 55 deg. has
been adopted throughout the entire scale. A constant proportion is
thus established between the depth and the pitch of the thread.
In calculating the former, a deduction is to be made for the quantity
rounded off, amounting to one-third of the whole depth--that is,
one-sixth from the top and one-sixth from the bottom of the thread.
Making this deduction it will be found that the angle of 55 deg.
gives for the actual depth rather more than three-fifths and less
than two-thirds of the pitch. The precaution of rounding off is
adopted to prevent the injury which the thread of the screw, and that
of the taps and dies, might sustain from accident.
[Illustration: FIGURE 25. SIR JOSEPH WHITWORTH]
In 1853 Whitworth visited the United States, and in conjunction
with George Wallis of the South Kensington Museum, reported on the
enterprises and manufactures of the United States.[106] Nearly all the
memoirs of Whitworth refer to the profound effect of this report. As
one reads it today, it seems difficult to see why it should have had so
much influence. It is probable that Whitworth’s own personal report to
the influential men about him contained much which does not appear in
the formal report. In it he takes up steam engines, railway supplies,
woodworking tools, electric telegraph, textile mills, and gives brief
accounts of some of the factories and methods which he found at various
places in New England and the Middle States. The longest description
is given to the Springfield Armory, but even this is a mere fragment,
and the only detailed information is of the time necessary to finish a
gun-stock. We know, however, that this armory and the various private
armories they saw, made an impression upon Whitworth and the whole
Commission which led to the remodeling of the British gun-making plant
at Enfield. Nasmyth was also concerned in this and a fuller account of
it will be given later.
[106] “Report of the British Commissioners to the New York Industrial
Exhibition.” London, 1854.
The conclusion of Whitworth’s report shows clearly that he was deeply
impressed with the extent to which the automatic principle was being
applied to machine tools in America. “The labouring classes,” he says,
“are comparatively few in number, but this is counterbalanced by, and
indeed, may be regarded as one of the chief causes of, the eagerness
with which they call in the aid of machinery in almost every department
of industry. Wherever it can be introduced as a substitute for manual
labour, it is universally and willingly resorted to.... It is this
condition of the labour market, and this eager resort to machinery
wherever it can be applied, to which, under the guidance of superior
education and intelligence, the remarkable prosperity of the United
States is mainly due.” Another characteristic of American manufacture
attracted his attention,--the tendency toward standardization. In his
address in 1856 he condemns the overmultiplication of sizes prevalent
in every branch of English industry.
Shortly after his return from America, Whitworth was requested by the
government to design a complete plant for the manufacture of muskets.
He disapproved of the Enfield rifle and declined to undertake the work
until exhaustive tests were made to determine the best type of rifle.
The government, therefore, equipped a testing plant and range near
Manchester, and Whitworth began a series of tests which showed the
Enfield rifle to be inferior in almost every respect. He then submitted
a new rifle, designed on the basis of his experiments, which embodied
the small bore, an elongated projectile and a rapid rifle-twist and
great accuracy of manufacture. Although this rifle excelled all
others in accuracy, penetration and range, it was rejected by the
war office. Some thirty years later, the Lee-Metford rifle, which
embodied Whitworth’s improvements, was adopted, but only after these
principles had been recognized and used by every other government in
Europe. His contributions to the manufacture of heavy ordnance were
even greater, but they met with the same reception from the war office.
In 1862 he completed a high-powered rifle cannon with a range of six
miles, the proportions of which were substantially those in use today.
He developed the manufacture of fluid compressed steel, about 1870,
to supply a stronger and more reliable material for ordnance use. Few
men in any country have had a greater influence on the design and
development of ordnance and armor. His partnership with Sir William
Armstrong resulted in one of the greatest gun factories in the world.
Whitworth married twice but had no children. He acquired a great
fortune. During his lifetime he established the famous Whitworth
scholarships. At his death, large sums were distributed by friends,
to whom he had willed them for the execution of his wishes, and they
devoted nearly £600,000 ($3,000,000) to the foundation or endowment of
the Whitworth Institute, Owens College, and the Manchester Technical
Schools, and other public institutions. In 1874 he converted his
Manchester business into a stock company, giving the majority of the
stock to his foremen and making provision for the acquiring of further
stock by his clerks and workmen. While he was slow in receiving
recognition from his own government, he became universally recognized
as one of the greatest engineering authorities in the world, and was
honored as few engineers have been, being elected to the Royal Society,
chosen president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, given
degrees by Dublin and Oxford, the Cross of the Legion of Honor; and,
in 1869, made a baronet.
As he grew older he became irritable and exceedingly dogmatic, possibly
because of his long contests with slow-moving government officials.
Charles T. Porter, in his autobiography, brings out this side of his
nature and shows that the initiative of subordinates in his shop was
practically killed. Perhaps this limited his service somewhat in his
later years, but when all is taken into account, he was, without
question, one of the greatest of mechanical engineers. He was a master
experimenter. Tests which he made were thorough, conclusive, and
always led somewhere. His experiments, whether in machine tools, screw
threads, or ordnance, always resulted in a design or process which
sooner or later became standard.
Whitworth’s position as a tool builder is not weakened by the fact that
most of the general tools had been invented by the time he began his
independent work. He raised the whole art of tool building by getting
at the fundamental conditions. He led the way in the change from the
weak, architectural style of framing; introduced the box design or
hollow frame for machinery, taking his suggestion from the human body,
and very greatly increased the weight of metal used.
In 1850 Whitworth was, without doubt, the foremost tool builder in
the world. He had introduced a standard of accuracy in machine tools
unknown before, and so improved their design and workmanship that he
dominated English tool practice for several generations. In fact, the
very ascendency of Whitworth’s methods seems to have been an element
in the loss of England’s leadership in tool building. Most of the
progressive work for the next fifty years was done in America.
In the foregoing chapters we have traced briefly the work of the great
English mechanics from 1800 to 1850. Their services to engineering,
and, in fact, to mankind, cannot be measured. When they began, machine
tools in any modern sense did not exist. Under their leadership nearly
all of the great metal-working tools were given forms which have
remained essentially unchanged. England had the unquestioned leadership
in the field of machine tools. Machine-tool building in Germany and
France was one or two generations behind that of England, and nearly
all their machinery was imported from that country. With the exception
of the early and incomplete work of the ingenious French mechanics,
which we have referred to from time to time, practically all of the
pioneer work was done by Englishmen.
In glancing back at these early tool builders, it will be seen that few
of them were men of education. All were men of powerful minds, many
of them with broad intellectual interests. It is suggestive to note
one thing, whatever may be its bearing. Only three of all these men,
Matthew Murray and the two Fairbairns, served a regular apprenticeship.
Bentham and Brunel were naval officers; Bramah, a farmer’s boy and
cabinetmaker; Maudslay, a blacksmith; Clement, a slater; Roberts, a
quarry laborer; Nasmyth, a clever school boy; and Whitworth, an office
clerk.
Whatever may have been the reason, the rapid advance of the English
machine-tool builders ceased about the middle of the last century, and
they have made but few radical changes or improvements since that time.
At about the same time the American engineers introduced a number of
improvements of very great importance.
The great distance of America from England forced it into a situation
of more or less commercial and mechanical independence. While France
and Germany were importing machine tools from England, America
began making them and soon developed independence of design. The
interchangeable system of manufactures and the general use of accurate
working gauges, which were hardly known in England, developed rapidly
in America. These, with the introduction of the turret, the protean
cam, and precision grinding machinery, and the great extension of the
process of milling, served in the next fifty years to transfer the
leadership in machine-tool design from England to America. A visit
to any one of the great machine shops in England, Germany or France
will convince one that the leadership now rests with the American tool
builders.
The remaining chapters will take up the lives and work of those who
have contributed to this great change.
CHAPTER X
EARLY AMERICAN MECHANICS
The phrase “Yankee ingenuity” has become a part of the English
language. If New England no longer holds all the good mechanics in
the United States, there was a time when she came so near it that the
term “New England mechanic” had a very definite meaning over the whole
country.
The industrial development of New England was long delayed, but once
started it was rapid. Up to 1800 New England artisans supplied merely
small local needs and there was little or no manufacturing in any
modern sense; but from then on the development was so rapid that by
1850 New England was not only supplying the United States with most of
its manufactured products, but was beginning to export machinery and
tools to England, where machine tools originated. For five generations,
American mechanics had little or no industrial influence on Europe, and
then within fifty years they began to compete on even terms.
There were several reasons for this. A market for machinery must of
necessity be a wide one, for no single community, not even a large
modern city, can alone support a great manufacturing enterprise.
Machinery building can thrive only in a settled country having a
large purchasing power and good transportation facilities. The
colonies lacked all of these conditions; the people were widely
scattered and poor, and there were practically no facilities for
heavy transportation, at least by land. The colonial mechanics were
often ingenious and skilled, but they had few raw materials and they
could supply only their immediate neighborhood. Any approach to
specialization and refinement was therefore impossible.
The second cause for delayed development was England’s industrial
policy toward her American colonies. The colonists had hardly gained
a foothold when they began to show a manufacturing spirit and an
industrial independence which aroused the apprehension of the
manufacturing interests in England. The first importations of iron
into England from the colonies came from Virginia and Maryland, about
1718.[107] The importations for a few years thereafter are not known,
as no records are available. They were sufficient, however, to arouse
the jealousy of the English iron masters, for, although there was
plenty of iron ore in England, they were beginning to feel seriously
the shortage in wood which was then used for its reduction. They
felt that the abundance of iron ore, fuel and water power in America
constituted a serious menace, and they vigorously opposed the growth of
any kind of manufacture in the colonies. This resulted in a prohibition
of the manufacture of any form of ironware and of bar or pig iron
by forges or other works. In spite of these repressive measures, a
report on manufactures in the colonies, made to the House of Commons
in 1731, indicated that New England had six furnaces, nineteen forges,
one slitting mill and one nail factory.[108] These could, however,
have supplied only a small part of the materials required even for
colonial use. By 1737 much discussion had arisen respecting the policy
of encouraging importation of American iron, and petitions in favor
of doing so were presented to Parliament. England imported at that
time about 20,000 tons of foreign iron, 15,000 from Sweden and 5000
from Russia, most of which was paid for in money.[109] It was urged
that if this could be obtained from the colonies it could be paid for
in British manufactures, at a saving of £180,000 annually. The annual
production of bar iron in England was about 18,000 tons, and on account
of the shortage of wood this could not be materially increased. To
encourage colonial exportation of pig and bar iron to England would, it
was urged, be the best means of preventing such further manufacturing
as would interfere with their own. It was, therefore, proposed that a
heavy duty be laid on all iron and manufactured products imported into
the colonies from continental Europe, and on all iron imported into
England except from America. These views prevailed and resulted in the
act of 1750, which was entitled “An act to encourage the importation
of pig and bar iron from His Majesty’s Plantations in America,” and
provided that “pig-iron made in the British Colonies in, America,
may be imported, duty free, and bar-iron into the port of London; no
bar-iron, so imported, to be carried coastwise, or to be landed at
any other port, except for the use of his Majesty’s dock yards; and
not to be carried beyond ten miles from London.”[110] With this was
incorporated another clause designed to arrest all manufacture at
that stage. It was enacted that “from and after the 24th day of June,
1750, no mill, or other engine for slitting or rolling of Iron, or any
plating forge to work with a tilt-hammer, or any furnace for making
steel shall be erected, or after such erection, continued in any of
his Majesty’s Colonies of America” under penalty of £200.[111] This
attempt to stifle the industrial life of the colonies, persistently
adhered to, ultimately brought about the Revolution.
[107] J. L. Bishop: “History of American Manufactures,” Vol. I, p.
625.
[108] _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 623.
[109] _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 623.
[110] _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 624.
[111] _Ibid._, Vol. I, pp. 624-625.
From 1730 to 1750 there had been an importation of about 2300 tons
of bar iron annually, 90 per cent of which came from Maryland and
Virginia, and a little less than 6 per cent from Pennsylvania. New
England and New York were producing iron by that time, but were using
nearly all of their product, hence their small share in the trade. The
iron masters of the midland counties in England protested against this
act, prophesying the utter ruin of the English iron industry. England,
they said, would be rendered dependent upon the colonies, and thousands
of English workmen would be reduced to want and misery; American iron
could never supply the place of the Swedish iron in quality, nor the
Russian iron in cheapness, consequently the manufacture of tools would
be stopped and numberless families reduced to beggary.
The manufacturers of Birmingham, on the other hand, petitioned that
the bill was a benefit to their trade and to the colonists, who
would exchange their raw products for British manufactures; that
manufacturing was more valuable to the nation than the production
of raw materials, and as iron could not be produced at home in
such quantity and at such price as to supply all the needs of the
manufacturers, it was the duty of Parliament to encourage the
importation of raw materials, even if it should arrest their production
in England; that the importation of iron from America could affect
the iron works no more than the same quantity from any other country,
and the home production was less than one-half the amount required,
and growing steadily dearer: that the increasing activity of the
English manufacturers rendered it more and more necessary to obtain
these materials at the lowest price, and the only way to do this was
either to reduce the duty on continental iron, or make it necessary for
English iron masters to reduce their prices by raising up a rival in
America. They heartily concurred, however, in the prohibition of all
finishing of materials as an interference with British manufactures.
The merchants of Bristol petitioned that American bar iron, which was
admitted only at the port of London, be imported duty free into all
of His Majesty’s ports. This discussion continued until 1757, when
the privilege of importation was extended to the other ports of Great
Britain.[112]
[112] _Ibid._, Vol. I, pp. 626-627.
Under the act of 1750, the importation rose to about 3250 tons, 94 per
cent of which still came from Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania.
Practically all the iron produced in New England was used there, for,
despite the repressive measures from the mother country, small local
manufacturing enterprises, “moonshine iron works,” were constantly
cropping up. The iron supply of New England came at first from the bog
ores in eastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island. By 1730-1760 better
mines were opened at Salisbury, Conn., and in Orange County, New
York, so that the production of iron in the bog-ore regions gradually
dwindled.
The Revolution terminated British legislative control over the trade
and manufactures of America. The war itself furnished a market for
supplies for the army, and the manufacture of cannon and guns was
active. Many of these factories were ruined by the flood of imports
which followed the Revolution. In 1789 the present Federal Government
replaced the ineffective Confederation, which had left to the separate
states the duty of protecting their manufacturing interests, and
a tariff was placed upon manufactured articles. Freed from the
old restrictions, and with foreign competition largely precluded,
manufacturing industries began to spring up on every hand.
A third cause contributed to rapid development at this time. An
enormous production of cotton followed Whitney’s invention of the
cotton gin in 1792, and the South, which had never been a manufacturing
community, furnished both a source of supply and a rich market,
easily accessible by coastwise trade. The beginnings of New England’s
manufacturing industries are closely identified with the rise of
the American cotton crop, and most of the first machine shops were
developed to manufacture textile machinery.
England, who seems to have blundered whenever she legislated on early
American trade, made one more serious mistake. In 1785 Parliament
passed a stringent law, with severe penalties, to stop the emigration
of all mechanics and workmen in iron and steel manufactures, and
to prevent not only the exportation of every description of tool,
engine or machine, or parts of a machine used in making and working
up iron and other materials, but even the models and plans of such
machinery.[113] England was then the most advanced of all countries
in the production of engines, tools and textile machinery, and it was
hoped by this act that manufacturing might be kept there. It had the
opposite effect so far as America was concerned. It was inevitable
that mechanics, such as Samuel Slater and William Crompton, should
get away, and with them, ideas. The act only stimulated a race of
skillful mechanics in America to independent development of machine
tools, textile machinery, and the like. America, instead of buying her
machinery from England as she would naturally have done, proceeded to
make it herself.
[113] _Ibid._, Vol. I, p. 630.
One of the earliest American mechanics was Joseph Jenks, who came
from Hammersmith, England, to Lynn, Mass., about 1642, and died in
1683. With the backing of Governor Winthrop, he set up an iron foundry
and forge near a bog-iron mine. The very first attempt in America to
start an iron works had been made in Virginia more than twenty years
before, at the settlement of Jamestown. It was hardly started, however,
before it was destroyed in the general sack of the settlement, and for
one hundred years there was no further attempt at producing iron in
Virginia.[114]
[114] Beverley: “History of Virginia.” Bishop: “History of American
Manufactures,” Vol. I, pp. 469, 595.
From the little forge and foundry started at Lynn, there is no break
in the spread of iron manufacturing in this country. The forge was
located on the lands of Thomas Hudson, of the same family as Hendrick
Hudson, the explorer. Jenks was “the first founder who worked in brass
and iron on the western continent. By his hands, the first models were
made and the first castings taken of many domestic implements and iron
tools.”[115] The very first casting is said to have been an iron quart
pot.
[115] Lewis: “History of Lynn.”
For many years the colonial records refer to his various activities.
He made the dies for the early Massachusetts coinage, including
the famous pine-tree shilling.[116] In 1646 the General Court of
Massachusetts resolved that “_In answer to the peticon of Joseph
Jenckes, for liberty to make experience of his abilityes and Inventions
for ye making of Engines for mills to go with water for ye more speedy
despatch of work than formerly, and mills for ye making of Sithes
and other Edged tools, with a new invented Sawe-Mill, that things
may be afforded cheaper than formerly, and that for fourteen yeeres
without disturbance by any others setting up like inventions; ... this
peticon is granted._”[117] In 1655 he was granted a Massachusetts
patent for scythes, his improvement consisting of making them long and
thin, instead of short and thick, as in the old English scythe, and
of welding a bar of iron upon the back to strengthen it, which later
became the universal practice,[118] and no radical change has been made
in the blade of this implement since his day. He built for the town
of Boston the first fire engine used in this country, and also made
machines for drawing wire. Jenks seems to have also been interested in
another iron works started at Braintree between 1645 and 1650.
[116] Weeden: “Economic and Social History of New England,” Vol. I,
p. 191.
[117] Goodrich: “History of Pawtucket,” p. 17.
[118] Weeden, Vol. I, p. 184. Bishop, Vol. I, p. 477.
An iron works was started at Raynham in 1652 by the Leonards, who came
from England about the same time as Jenks and had worked at Lynn.[119]
The Jenks and Leonard families were all mechanics. It used to be said
that wherever you found a Leonard you found a mechanic; and the Jenks
family has been in some form of manufacturing continuously from the
days of Joseph Jenks to the present time.
[119] Bishop, Vol. I, p. 479. Weeden, Vol. I, p. 192.
The near-by portions of Rhode Island and Massachusetts centering on
the headwaters of Narragansett Bay, became famous for the production
and manufacture of iron. A young Scotchman, Hugh Orr, settled in
Bridgewater about 1738. He was a pioneer in the manufacture of edged
tools, and is said to have introduced the trip hammer into this
country. “For several years he was the only edge-tool maker in this
part of the country, and ship-carpenters, millwrights, etc., ...
constantly resorted to him for supply. And, indeed, such was his fame,
that applications were frequently made to him from the distance of
_twenty miles_ for the purpose of having an axe, an adze or an auger
new tempered by his hands.” In 1748, he built 500 stand-of-arms for the
province, the first made in America, and later did much casting and
boring of cannon during the Revolution. After the war, he made cotton
machinery until his death in 1798, at the age of eighty-two. Weeden
credits Hugh Orr with being “perhaps the most conspicuous” American
iron worker in the eighteenth century. His son, Robert Orr, was also a
skilled mechanic, and was one of the very early master armorers of the
Springfield Arsenal.[120]
[120] Weeden, Vol. II, p. 685. Bishop, Vol. I, pp. 486-487.
Joseph Holmes is another of the pioneers of this neighborhood. He
is said to have made more than 3000 tons of iron from bog ore, and
“Holmes’ iron” was famous for anchors. He also furnished many of the
cannon used in the Revolution.[121] The Hope Furnace at Scituate, R.
I., famous for many years, was started about 1735 by Daniel Waldo.[122]
A nail mill was in operation at Milton, Mass., about 1740 or 1742.
Another was started at Middleboro about 1745, on information stolen, it
is said, from Milton by a mechanic disguised as a rustic.[123] A mill
for making scythes was in operation at Andover in 1715, and a “heavy”
forge was in operation at Boston in 1720.[124] Nearly all the cannon
for the early American frigates were cast in and about Providence.
Capt. Stephen Jenks was making arms in North Providence at the
beginning of the Revolution.[125] An account of the early attempts in
iron manufacture in Rhode Island can be found in Vol. III of Field’s
“State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.”
[121] Bishop, Vol. I, p. 489.
[122] Field: “State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,” Vol.
III, p. 331.
[123] Weeden, Vol. II, p. 499.
[124] _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 498.
[125] _Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 793.
The Jenks’ influence had spread to Rhode Island as early as 1655 when
Joseph Jenks, Jr., who had learned the business with his father, moved
from Lynn to the headwaters of Narragansett Bay, and founded Pawtucket.
He built a forge near a bog-ore mine and water power, and began making
domestic utensils and iron tools. The settlement was destroyed by the
Indians in 1675, during King Philip’s war, but was soon rebuilt. The
son of this Jenks, the third Joseph Jenks, was born there, and later
became a very influential man in the colony. He was governor for five
years and was interested in many of its activities.[126] Providence,
from its better situation commercially, early became a trading center,
but nearly all the manufacturing was done at Pawtucket on account of
the abundant water power. In fact, it was not until the steam engine
rendered manufacturing independent of water power that Providence took
the lead as an industrial center.
[126] Goodrich, pp. 18-23.
In the enterprises centering about Pawtucket and Providence, one finds
continually the names of Jenks, Wilkinson, Brown and Greene, among the
latter that of Nathaniel Greene, the Revolutionary general, who had
a cannon factory at Coventry. Of these early families the Wilkinsons
were the most influential. Oziel Wilkinson, a Quaker, came to Pawtucket
from Smithfield, R. I., established an anchor forge there in 1784, and
soon became the leading man in the community. He built an air furnace
in 1791, and three years later he furnished castings for the Cambridge
drawbridge and for canal locks, probably those first used on the
Merrimac River.[127] He and his family had a most important part in
the development of early manufacturing in America. He had six sons and
four daughters. Four of the sons worked in two partnerships, one of
Abraham and Isaac (twins), the other of David and Daniel. The fifth
son was also a successful manufacturer. One of his daughters married
Samuel Slater, who will be mentioned later; one married Timothy Greene,
another, William Wilkinson, and the youngest, Hezekiah Howe, all of
whom were manufacturers. The remaining son, the only child unaccounted
for, died at the age of four years.[128]
[127] _Ibid._, p. 51.
[128] Israel Wilkinson: “Memoirs of the Wilkinson Family,” pp. 220,
461. Jacksonville, Ill., 1869.
In 1794 David Wilkinson built a steamboat and made a trip in it of
three and one-half miles from Winsor’s Cove to Providence. He was not
impressed with the practical value of it, and dismantled it after their
“frolic.” Before it was destroyed, however, a young man named Daniel
Leach examined it carefully with the greatest interest. Later, when
Fulton made his plans for the “Clermont,” the drawings were said to
have been made by this same man, Leach.[129]
[129] _Ibid._, pp. 509-513; also, Field, Vol. III, p. 372. The name
here is given as French.
In 1797 David Wilkinson invented a slide lathe which was patented
the next year. The writer has not been able to obtain an accurate
description of this. The most direct reference to it is a letter of
Samuel Greene to Zachariah Allen, a prominent Rhode Island cotton
manufacturer, dated June 17, 1861, which says: “I suppose David
Wilkinson to be the inventor of the slide lathe, at first applied to
the making of large press screws, for which I believe he got a patent.
I know he made application to the British Government, and I have heard
said did get a grant.” The patent ran out before the lathe came into
general use. Fifty years later Congress voted Wilkinson $10,000 “for
benefits accruing to the public service for the use of the principle
of the gauge and sliding lathe, of which he was the inventor.”[130]
He seems to have been working on it in America at the same time as
Maudslay in London.[131] Sylvanus Brown, who helped Slater build the
first Arkwright cotton machinery at Pawtucket, is also said to have
invented the slide lathe still earlier (in 1791) and to have also used
it for cutting wrought-iron screws for sperm-oil presses.[132] There
are good records of Maudslay’s slide lathes; in fact, screw-cutting
lathes made by him prior to 1800 are in the South Kensington Museum at
London. Priority can hardly be claimed for these American lathes until
something more is known of them, and whether they were the equal of
Maudslay’s in design and quality.
[130] The Senate Committee which recommended this action consisted
of Rusk of Texas, Cass of Michigan, Davis of Mississippi, Dix of New
York, and Benton of Missouri. The bill passed the Senate in June, and
the House in August, 1848.
[131] “Memoirs of the Wilkinson Family,” pp. 506-508, 518. Goodrich,
p. 51.
[132] Goodrich, p. 48.
The Wilkinsons were closely identified with the early textile
enterprises. As the gun industry developed the interchangeable system,
so the cotton industry developed the American general machine tool. At
the close of the Revolution, many attempts were made to start textile
industries, by Orr in 1786, Cabot at Beverly in 1787, and Anthony
at Providence in 1788, and also at Worcester. A man named Alexander
is said to have operated the first loom with the flying shuttle in
America, which was later moved to Pawtucket. Moses Brown, about 1790,
imported a few spinning frames to Providence, but they proved a failure.
Samuel Slater, who married Wilkinson’s daughter, was an Englishman
who had served his time with Arkwright and Strutt, and had become
thoroughly familiar with the Arkwright machinery. In 1789 he had
emigrated to America with the purpose of starting a textile industry.
We have already mentioned the embargo which England placed on mechanics
and on all kinds of machinery. This had compelled Slater to use the
greatest caution in leaving the country. Disguised, it is said, as a
rustic, he went to London and sailed from there, giving no indication
of his plans until after he had gone, when he had a letter sent to
his family. He went first to Philadelphia, but hearing of Moses
Brown’s attempts at spinning in Providence, he wrote to Brown and made
arrangements to go to Pawtucket and reproduce for him the Arkwright
machinery. Slater was at that time only twenty years old. After a
winter of hard work he succeeded in making several frames with a total
of seventy-two spindles, and two carding machines. These were started
in a small building, later known as the Old Slater Mill, with an old
negro named “Primus” Jenks as motive power. During this winter Slater
lived in the family of Oziel Wilkinson and married his daughter. The
second mill was started in 1799 by Oziel Wilkinson and his three
sons-in-law, Slater, Greene and Wilkinson.[133]
[133] _Ibid._, pp. 39-51.
Doctor Dwight, in his travels, in 1810,[134] writes of Pawtucket:
[134] Vol. II, pp. 27-28.
“There is probably no spot in New England of the same extent, in which
the same quantity or variety of manufacturing business is carried on.
In the year 1796, there were here three anchor forges, one tanning
mill, one flouring mill, one slitting mill, three snuff mills, one oil
mill, three fulling mills, a clothier’s works, one cotton factory, two
machines for cutting nails, one furnace for casting hollow ware--all
moved by water--one machine for cutting screws, moved by a horse, and
several forges for smith’s work.” This was long before Lowell, Lawrence
and Manchester had come into existence.
The Wilkinsons were interested in other things as well as in the cotton
industries. David established a shop and foundry in Pawtucket, where
for one thing he made cannon which he bored by an improved method
consisting of “making his drill and bore stationary and having the
cannon revolve about the drill.” He built textile machinery for almost
every part of the country, from northern New England to Louisiana, and
made the machinery used at New Bedford and other whaling ports for
pressing sperm oil.[135] About 1816 David and Daniel Wilkinson bought
out a man named Dwight Fisher and manufactured nails until 1829, their
output being about 4000 pounds daily.[136] In 1829 David Wilkinson
moved to Cohoes, N. Y., and with DeWitt Clinton, Stephen Van Rensselaer
and others, started the textile industries in that city.[137] In 1832
Zebulon White started up one of the abandoned Wilkinson furnaces, which
three years later was known as the Pawtucket Cupola Furnace Company.
This afterwards became the firm of J. S. White & Company.[138]
[135] Goodrich, p. 69.
[136] Field: “Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,” Vol. III, p.
373.
[137] Van Slyck: “Representatives of New England Manufacturers,” p.
515.
[138] Field, Vol. III, p. 372.
[Illustration: FIGURE 26. SAMUEL SLATER]
Oziel Wilkinson died in 1815, but the influence of the Wilkinson family
continued for many years. Slater steadily widened his operations and
was so influential in laying the foundations of the textile industry
that he became known as “the father of the American cotton industry.”
How rapidly the cotton industry spread is shown by a memorial to
Congress in 1815, stating that there were 140 cotton manufactures
within thirty miles of Providence, employing 26,000 hands and operating
130,000 spindles.[139] Only a few of the more important ramifications
can be given.
[139] Bishop, Vol. II, p. 214.
In 1822 Samuel Slater, Larned Pitcher and three others bought a little
two-story building at what was then Goffstown, on the Merrimac River,
and founded the great Amoskeag Manufacturing Company, and the city
of Manchester, N. H. It is now known as the greatest textile mill in
the world, but the company’s original charter was very broad, and, in
addition to its other interests, the company operated for many years
one of the largest and most influential machine shops in the country,
where were built locomotives, engines, boilers, all kinds of textile
machinery, machine tools and mill machinery.
Alfred Jenks, who learned his trade under Slater, moved to Holmesburg,
near Philadelphia, in 1810, taking with him drawings of every variety
of cotton machinery, as far as it had then advanced, and commenced its
manufacture.[140] He furnished the machinery for the first cotton mill
in that portion of Pennsylvania and for the first woolen mill in the
entire state, and developed what was for many years one of the most
important plants for the building of textile machinery in the United
States.
[140] _Ibid._, Vol. III, p. 18.
Eleazer Jenks built a machine shop at Pawtucket in 1813 for heavy
forging and for the manufacture of spinning machinery, which was
occupied by David Wilkinson for many years.[141] The same year, Larned
Pitcher also started a shop there, and soon took in P. Hovey and Asa
Arnold. In 1819 Ira Gay was taken in, and the firm became Pitcher &
Gay, one of the largest manufacturers of cotton machinery. Gay remained
in Pawtucket until 1824, when he went to New Hampshire in connection
with the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company and the Nashua Manufacturing
Company, then just starting.[142] A few years later Ira Gay and Zeba,
his brother, started a shop at North Chelmsford for building textile
machinery. With the growth of the Merrimac textile interests, this
plant became very influential and is running today. The firm has
changed several times with the deaths of various partners, and is
now known as the North Chelmsford Machine & Supply Company. It has
preserved many of the old tools used in the early days, and there are
few shops of greater historical interest in this country.
[141] Goodrich, p. 64.
[142] _Ibid._, p. 66.
Capt. James S. Brown, son of the Sylvanus Brown referred to, who had
worked for David Wilkinson in 1817, succeeded Ira Gay in the Pawtucket
shop, the firm becoming Pitcher & Brown. In 1842 Brown became sole
owner and greatly enlarged the works. The shop which he built in 1847
was 400 feet long and employed over 300 workmen. Brown lived for many
years and made many valuable inventions, which included a beveled gear
cutter, boring machine, grinder, improvement in the Blanchard type of
lathe, and many improvements in textile machinery. Some of the lathes
which he himself built in 1820 were in use for seventy years.[143]
[143] _Ibid._, pp. 71-72.
Col. Stephen Jenks started a shop in 1820 for the making of nuts and
screws, which later became the William H. Haskell Company of Pawtucket.
Alvin Jenks, of Stephen Jenks & Sons, went to Central Falls in 1829
and the next year entered into partnership with David G. Fales. This
firm, known as Fales, Jenks & Company, built cotton machinery for many
years, and moved to Pawtucket in 1865.[144] The Jenkses of the Fales &
Jenks Machine Company, as it is known now, are lineal descendants of
the original Joseph Jenks of Lynn.
[144] _Ibid._, p. 72. Also, Field, Vol. III, p. 373.
In 1834 Jeremiah O. Arnold, who as a young man worked for David
Wilkinson, and his brother, Joseph Arnold, started in Pawtucket the
first press for making nuts. Later, Joseph Arnold retired and William
Field took his place, the firm becoming William Field & Company. They
moved to Providence in 1846, and in 1847 became the Providence Tool
Company.[145] The Providence Forge & Nut Company was organized by some
men from the Tool Company in 1852, and a plant was built. Four years
later the new venture was absorbed by the parent company, which moved
to the new plant. The Providence Tool Company had a wide influence for
many years, manufacturing the Household sewing machine and the Martini
rifle, as well as a line of tools. In 1883 it was reorganized and
became the present Rhode Island Tool Company.
[145] Goodrich, p. 75.
The Franklin Machine Company was started by Stanford Newell, Isaac
Thurber and others, about 1800. The plant was always referred to in
the old records as “The Cupola.” During the War of 1812 it was busy
making cannon under the charge of Isaac Wilkinson, one of Oziel’s
sons, who was then a boy only seventeen years old.[146] The Builders
Iron Foundry, formerly known as “The High Street Furnace,” began
business some time prior to 1820. The American Screw Company had its
beginning in the Eagle Screw Company, organized in 1838 under the
leadership of William G. Angell. Hampered by serious litigation and
sharp competition, it continued with indifferent success until 1849,
when Mr. Angell, adopting a machine invented by Thomas J. Sloan of New
York, brought out the pointed screw. The New England Screw Company,
whose inventor, Cullen Whipple, had come from the earlier Providence
Screw Company, united with the Eagle Screw Company in 1860, forming the
present American Screw Company.
[146] Field, Vol. III, p. 375.
The Corliss Machine Works were started in 1848.
Brown & Sharpe, the most important and influential of all the
Providence plants, was established in 1833 by David Brown and his son,
Joseph R. Brown. The history of this company is so important that it
will be taken up in a separate chapter.
One can hardly turn from the history of manufactures in Providence
without some reference to the manufacturing of jewelry. A Cyril
Dodge made silver shoe buckles “two doors north of the Baptist
meeting-house” about the time of the Revolution, but the first real
manufacturer of jewelry in Providence was Nehemiah Dodge, who, just
after the Revolution, started in a little shop on North Main Street
as a goldsmith and watchmaker. He also made necklaces, rings and
miniature cases. Dodge lived to be over ninety years old and to see the
industry spread wonderfully. By 1805 there were three other jewelers,
one of whom, by the way, was a Jenks, and they employed all told about
thirty workmen. In 1810 there were 100 workmen; in 1815, 175; and in
1832, 282. The census writers of 1860 give eighty-six shops with 1761
workmen; in 1880, 148 shops with 3264 employees, and in 1890 there
were 170 shops employing 4380. These figures cover Providence only.
Many other shops were located in near-by towns. These were all small
and tended to multiply. The journeymen were the highest paid artisans
anywhere about, earning from $5 to $10 a day, and two or three were
constantly setting up for themselves. The oldest jewelry firm in or
about Providence is said to be the Gorham Manufacturing Company now
located in the suburb of Elmwood. Jabez Gorham, its founder, was first
engaged as a jeweler with four others about 1813. In 1831 he formed a
partnership with H. L. Webster, a journeyman silversmith from Boston,
and specialized on the making of silver spoons, thus starting the
Gorham Manufacturing Company.[147] Palmer & Capron, another old firm,
was founded about 1840.
[147] _Ibid._, Vol. III, pp. 377-381.
There were other early centers of mechanical influence. With the
invention of steam navigation, New York became a center of engine
building for the steamboat trade, and the Allaire, Quintard, Fletcher,
Delamater, and other works, were well known many years ago, but for
some reason New York City has never been conspicuous for tool building,
the Garvin Machine Company being the only large firm in this field.
Worcester, Hartford, Philadelphia and Windsor, Vt. (small and secluded
as it is), have contributed signally to tool building throughout this
country and Europe, and will be taken up later. We have considered
Pawtucket first, because it was the earliest center and because its
wide influence in building up other centers is little realized. The
extensive water power available in the Merrimac Valley gave rise to
the great textile interests of Manchester, Lowell and Lawrence, which
have far outstripped those centered about Pawtucket, but the textile
industry began in Pawtucket and with it the building of machinery and
tools.
CHAPTER XI
THE RISE OF INTERCHANGEABLE MANUFACTURE
It is well, in beginning, to define what we mean by the interchangeable
system. We will consider it as the art of producing complete machines
or mechanisms, the corresponding parts of which are so nearly alike
that any part may be fitted into any of the given mechanisms. So
considered, it does not include the manufacture of separate articles,
closely like each other, but which do not fit together permanently into
a mechanism. If this were meant, the work of the early typefounders
would clearly antedate that of the modern manufacturers, as they
produced printing types by the process of casting which were similar
to each other within very close limits. There is, however, a wide
difference between this and the parts in such a mechanism as a gun, for
individual types are not permanently articulated.
The interchangeable system was developed by gun makers. It is
commercially applicable chiefly to articles of a high grade, made in
large numbers, and in which interchangeability is desirable. Of the
typical articles, such as firearms, bicycles, typewriters, sewing
machines, and the like, now produced by the interchangeable system,
guns and pistols are the only ones which antedate the system itself.
These were used in great numbers, and in military arms especially
interchangeability was of the highest value. Under the old system with
hand-made muskets, in which each part was fitted to its neighbors,
the loss or injury of a single important part put the whole gun out
of use until it could be repaired by an expert gunsmith. Eli Whitney,
in a letter to the War Department in 1812, stated that the British
Government had on hand over 200,000 stands of muskets, partially
finished or awaiting repairs.[148] The desirability, therefore, of some
system of manufacture by which all the parts could be standardized
and interchangeable, was well recognized. There existed a demand for
military arms which could meet this condition, but it was felt at the
time that it was impossible to meet it.
[148] Blake: “History of Hamden, Conn.,” p. 133.
The system of interchangeable manufacture is generally considered to be
of American origin. In fact, for many years it was known in Europe as
the “American System” of manufacture. If priority be assigned to the
source which first made it successful, it is American; but the first
suggestions of the system came from France. We have already seen that
the French mechanics were the first to work upon many of the great
mechanical improvements; but here, as in the case of the slide-rest and
planer, they seem to have caught the idea only. It was left to others
to make it a practical success.
At least two attempts were made to manufacture guns interchangeably
in France, one in 1717, the other in 1785. Of the first we know
little. Fitch, in his “Report on the Manufactures of Interchangeable
Mechanisms,” in the United States census of 1880, speaks of it, but
says it was a failure.[149] We know of the second from an interesting
and surprising source. Thomas Jefferson, while Minister to France,
wrote a letter to John Jay, dated August 30, 1785, which contains the
following:
[149] p. 2.
An improvement is made here in the construction of muskets, which
it may be interesting to Congress to know, should they at any time
propose to procure any. It consists in the making every part of them
so exactly alike, that what belongs to any one, may be used for every
other musket in the magazine. The government here has examined and
approved the method, and is establishing a large manufactory for
the purpose of putting it into execution. As yet, the inventor has
only completed the lock of the musket, on this plan. He will proceed
immediately to have the barrel, stock, and other parts, executed in
the same way. Supposing it might be useful in the United States, I
went to the workman. He presented me the parts of fifty locks taken
to pieces, and arranged in compartments. I put several together
myself, taking pieces at hazard as they came to hand, and they fitted
in the most perfect manner. The advantages of this, when arms need
repair, are evident. He effects it by tools of his own contrivance,
which, at the same time, abridge the work, so that he thinks he shall
be able to furnish the musket two livres cheaper than the common
price. But it will be two or three years before he will be able to
furnish any quantity. I mention it now, as it may have an influence
on the plan for furnishing our magazines with this arm.[150]
[150] “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Edited by H. A. Washington,
Vol. I, p. 411. New York, 1853.
Six months later he wrote a letter to the governor of Virginia, which
is almost a copy of this one. In another letter written many years
later to James Monroe, Jefferson gives the name of this mechanic as Le
Blanc, saying that he had extended his system to the barrel, mounting
and stock, and stating: “I endeavored to get the U. S. to bring him
over, which he was ready for on moderate terms. I failed and I do not
know what became of him.”[151] We wish to give full credit to this
genius who seems to have caught a clear idea of some at least of the
principles involved, those of interchangeability and the substitution
of machine work for hand work. The account makes no mention of gauges
or of the division of labor, but this might easily have been due to
Jefferson’s unfamiliarity with the details of manufacture.
[151] “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Edited by Paul L. Ford,
Vol. VIII, p. 101. New York, 1887.
We have seen in a previous chapter that a close approach to the
interchangeable system was made in the Portsmouth block machinery
of Bentham and Brunel. This was rather an application of modern
manufacturing principles than a specific case of interchangeable
manufacture. The interchangeability of product obtained was incidental
to good manufacturing methods, not a distinct object aimed at, and
there does not seem to have been any system of gauging during the
processes of manufacture, to insure maintaining the various parts
within specified limits of accuracy. In fact, the output itself did
not require it, as ship’s blocks do not call for anything like the
precision necessary in guns or the other typical products of the
interchangeable system.
We have seen, too, that John George Bodmer began about 1806 to
manufacture guns at St. Blaise in the Black Forest, using special
machinery for much of the work previously done by hand, especially for
the parts of the lock, which “were shaped and prepared for immediate
use, so as to insure perfect uniformity and economize labor.” In both
of these instances, the Portsmouth block machinery and the St. Blaise
factory, definite steps which form part of the interchangeable system
were taken, but it does not seem probable that the system existed in
anything like the completeness with which it was being developed at
that time in America.
In 1798 and 1799 two contracts were let by the United States Government
for firearms, one to Eli Whitney in 1798, the other to Simeon North
in 1799. These contracts are of the greatest importance. Whitney had
invented the cotton gin in 1792. This invention, as is well known,
had a profound economic effect on the whole civilized world, but the
condition of the patent laws at that time and the very value of the
invention itself made it impossible for him to defend his rights; and,
although he had practically created a vast industry, he actually lost
more money by the invention than he gained. By 1798 he made up his
mind that he must turn to something else. He chose the manufacture of
muskets, and addressed a letter to Oliver Wolcott, Secretary of the
Treasury, in which he said:
I should like to undertake the manufacture of ten to fifteen thousand
stand of arms. I am persuaded that machinery moved by water, adapted
to this business would greatly diminish the labor and greatly
facilitate the manufacture of this article. Machines for forging,
rolling, floating, boring, grinding, polishing, etc., may all be made
use of to advantage.[152]
[152] “New Haven Colony Historical Society Papers,” Vol. V, p. 117.
His contract of 1798 resulted. From the very start Whitney proposed
to manufacture these arms on a “new principle.” He built a mill at
Whitneyville, just outside of the city of New Haven, utilizing a small
water power. Nearly two years were required to get the plant into
operation, as he had to design and build all of his proposed machinery.
In 1812 when making application for another contract for 15,000
muskets, Whitney writes:
The subscriber begs leave further to remark that he has for the
last 12 years been engaged in manufacturing muskets; that he now
has the most respectable private establishment in the United States
for carrying on this important branch of business. That this
establishment was commenced and has been carried on upon a plan
which is unknown in Europe, and the great leading object of which
is to substitute correct and effective operations of machinery for
that skill of the artist which is acquired only by long practice
and experience; a species of skill which is not possessed in this
country to any considerable extent.[153]
[153] _Ibid._, p. 122.
In another place it is stated that the object at which he aimed and
which he accomplished was “to make the same parts of different guns,
as the locks, for example, as much like each other as the successive
impressions of a copper-plate engraving.”[154]
[154] Denison Olmstead: “Memoir of Eli Whitney,” p. 50. 1846.
Mr. Whitney’s determination to introduce this system of manufacturing
was ridiculed and laughed at by the French and English ordnance
officers to whom he explained it. They said that by his system every
arm would be a model and that arms so made would cost enormously.
Even the Washington officials were skeptical and became uneasy at
advancing so much money without a single gun having been completed,
and Whitney went to Washington, taking with him ten pieces of each
part of a musket. He exhibited these to the Secretary of War and the
army officers interested, as a succession of piles of different parts.
Selecting indiscriminately from each of the piles, he put together ten
muskets, an achievement which was looked on with amazement. We have not
the exact date of this occurrence, but it was probably about 1800.[155]
[155] Blake: “History of Hamden, Conn.,” p. 138.
Meantime Simeon North, who unlike Whitney was a gun maker by trade,
had completed his first contract for 1500 pistols, and had executed a
number of others. In these no mention was made of interchangeability,
but whether independently or not, he very soon began to develop the
same methods as Whitney. In a letter to the Secretary of the Navy in
1808, North says:
I find that by confining a workman to one particular limb of the
pistol untill he has made two thousand, I save at least one quarter
of his labour, to what I should provided I finish^{d} them by small
quantities; and the work will be as much better as it is quicker
made.[156]
[156] S. N. D. and R. H. North: “Memoir of Simeon North,” p. 64. 1913.
He also says in the same letter:
I have some seventeen thousand screws & other parts of pistols now
forg^{d}. & many parts nearly finished & the business is going on
brisk and lively.
Here is clearly the principle of subdivision of labor and the beginning
of the standardizing of parts. In 1813 North contracted to furnish
20,000 pistols. This agreement contained the following significant
clause:
The component parts of the pistols are to correspond so exactly that
any limb or part of one Pistol may be fitted to any other Pistol of
the Twenty thousand.[157]
[157] _Ibid._, p. 81.
It is stated in the valuable memoir of Simeon North, by his
great-grandsons, that this is the first government contract in which
the contractor agreed to produce arms having interchangeable parts, and
it is consequently claimed for Colonel North that he originated this
process.
We have not had an opportunity to examine the official records in
Washington in regard to Mr. Whitney’s dealings, but it is quite clear
from his letter of 1812 that he had been operating on this basis for
nearly ten years, although it may not have been formally recognized
in his contracts with the Government. Capt. Decius Wadsworth, then
inspector of muskets, wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury in 1800 as
follows:
But where the different parts of the lock are each formed and
fashioned successively by a proper machine, and by the same hand,
they will be found to differ so insensibly that the similar parts of
different locks may be mutually substituted. The extending of this
principle to all parts of a musket has been a favorite idea with Mr.
Whitney from the beginning. It has been treated and ridiculed as a
vain and impracticable attempt by almost all those who pretended
to superior knowledge and experience in the business. He has the
satisfaction, however, now of shewing the practicability of the
attempt. Although I am of the opinion that there is more to please
the imagination than of real utility in the plan, yet as it affords
an incalculable proof of his superior skill as a workman, and is
what I believe has never been attempted with success before, it is
deserving of much consideration.[158]
[158] Blake, p. 296.
Furthermore, Jefferson, in the letter to Monroe written in 1801, says
in speaking of Whitney:
He has invented molds and machines for making all the pieces of his
locks so exactly equal, that take 100 locks to pieces and mingle
their parts and the 100 locks may be put together by taking the
pieces which come to hand.[159]
[159] See note 150, page 130.
In a letter to the Secretary of War in June, 1801, Whitney writes:
“... my system and plan of operations are, I believe, entirely new and
different from those heretofore pursued in this or any other country.
“It was the understanding and expectation of the Secretary of the
Treasury, with whom I contracted, that I should establish a manufactory
on the principles which were then pointed out and explained to him.
This system has been uniformly pursued from the beginning.”[160]
[160] Blake, p. 300.
It would seem that the stipulation in North’s contract of 1813 was not
so much the beginning of a new method as a recognition of methods
which had already come into existence. It seems almost inevitable
that the two men, pioneer manufacturers and government contractors in
closely allied industries, and located but twenty miles apart, must
have known more or less of each other’s work and have been influenced
by each other’s methods. Without trying to differentiate the credit
between them too closely it is quite certain that in the work of these
two men the interchangeable system had its birth. Colonel North’s work
for the Government was invariably well done, and for more than fifty
years he continued to supply, first pistols, and later rifles for
the army and navy. Of the two, Whitney had the greater influence in
spreading the interchangeable system throughout the country. He was
well known and influential through his invention of the cotton gin and
was located in a larger center. He was called upon by the Government
for advice, and at its request sent to Springfield some of his best
workmen to introduce his system there, and also help to start it at
Harper’s Ferry. Whitney built his factory in 1798 or 1800, and employed
at the start about sixty men. Colonel North moved from Berlin to
Middletown in 1813, and built a factory at a cost of about $100,000,
where he employed seventy men and produced about thirty pistols a day.
The interchangeable system was well begun in both of these factories by
1815.
The Springfield armory had been started during the Revolution,
mainly for making cannon. In 1792 Congress authorized the President
to establish two arsenals for small arms. These were located at
Springfield in the North, and Harper’s Ferry in the South. In 1811
Captain Hall was granted a patent for a gun which was adopted as
the government standard in 1819 and the Government undertook to
manufacture them at one of its own armories. Captain Hall was placed
in charge of the work and the plant at Harper’s Ferry was equipped
for interchangeable manufacture.[161] Later many of these rifles were
made by private contractors, such as Colonel North. By 1828 in one of
Colonel North’s contracts we find the principle of interchangeability
extended still further. It is guaranteed that the component parts
should be interchangeable, not only in the lot contracted for, but
that they may be exchanged in a similar manner with the rifles made or
making at the national armories.[162]
[161] “Memoir of Simeon North,” pp. 168-169.
[162] _Ibid._, p. 160.
In 1836 Samuel Colt invented his revolver, and the first lot contracted
for by the Government was made at the Whitney works in 1847. Mr.
Colt determined about 1850 to establish his own factory, moved to
Hartford, and in 1854-1855 built the present Colt’s Armory, in which
the principles of interchangeable manufacture were adopted in a most
advanced form. Hand work was practically eliminated and automatic
and semi-automatic machinery substituted. A type of manufacturing
miller, built for this work by George S. Lincoln & Company, is still
known as the Lincoln miller. E. K. Root, superintendent under Colt,
had a profound influence in the development of manufacturing at this
time. He put the art of die forging on its present basis. At first
he used a type of hammer in which four impressions were arranged in
four different sets of dies. The hammers were lifted, first by a set
of dogs, later by a central screw, and the operator walked around the
machine, using the impressions successively. A few years later the
present form of board drop was developed. Two of George S. Lincoln &
Company’s men were Francis A. Pratt, superintendent, and Amos Whitney,
contractor, who later founded the firm of Pratt & Whitney.
In 1857 Smith & Wesson began manufacturing revolvers at Springfield
along similar lines. Mr. Smith had worked in the old Whitney shops.
Another firm of great influence was that of Robbins & Lawrence,
later the Windsor Machine Company, in Windsor, Vt. Frederick W.
Howe built there a number of machines for profile milling, rifling,
barrel drilling, and is said to have designed the first “universal”
miller in 1852.[163] The Ames Manufacturing Company in Chicopee,
which had been founded in 1829, was also engaged in this work. By
1850 the interchangeable system began to extend its influence abroad.
Robbins & Lawrence had an exhibit of interchangeable guns in the
exposition at London in 1851, which attracted much attention. In 1853
a British Commission came to this country and visited the government
and private armories, the Ames Manufacturing Company and Robbins &
Lawrence. During the visit of this Commission at Springfield, Major
Ripley, superintendent of the armory, ordered ten guns, which had
been manufactured in ten successive years, from 1843 to 1853, to be
stripped, and the parts to be reassembled at random.
[163] Not to be confused with the Brown & Sharpe universal milling
machine, which was invented by Joseph R. Brown in 1871.
[Illustration:
THOS. BLANCHARD ELI WHITNEY SIMEON NORTH
Blanchard lathe and New Haven, Conn. Middletown, Conn.
stocking machinery After his death Four sons--Reuben,
*1, 2* business carried on James, Alvin and
by E. W. & Philos Selah
Blake, nephews, *8, 9*
followed by Eli
Whitney, Jr.
Business sold to
Winchester
Repeating Arms
Co. 1888
*3, 4, 5, 6, 7*
#1, 3, 8# #2 7 9#
SPRINGFIELD ARMORY HARPER’S FERRY ARMORY
Capt. John H. Hall
Jas. H. Burton
*15*
#6#
ROBBINS & LAWRENCE SMITH & WESSON
Windsor, Vt. Norwich, Conn. later
Fredk. W. Howe Springfield, Mass.
Henry D. Stone Horace Smith worked
*10 11 12 13 14* for Whitney Arms Co.
D. B. Wesson invented
cartridge, which was
sold to
*16*
#4# #16#
AMES MFG. CO. SAMUEL COLT VOLCANIC ARMS CO.
Chicopee, Mass. Hartford, Conn. Sold to O. F.
N. P. Ames, First revolvers Winchester
Jas. T. Ames, made by Whitney *23 24*
*17* Arms Co.
#15# *19 20 21 22*
Jas. H. Burton
*18*
#12 17# #20# #14 23#
ENFIELD GUN MACHINERY E. K. ROOT TYLER HENRY
and other machinery Built Colt’s Armory: Workman at Robbins &
for European Drop hammers, cartridge Lawrence. Improved the
governments machinery Jennings’ Rifle
*25* *26*
#18 19# #13 21 25# #24 26#
C. M. SPENCER GEO. S. LINCOLN & CO. NEW HAVEN ARMS CO.
Rifles, drop Hartford, Conn. “Henry” Rifle
hammers, automatic Lincoln Miller, first *28*
lathes built for Colt. Pratt
*29* and Whitney were two
of their foremen
*27*
#11# #22 27# #5 28#
JONES & LAMSON MACH. PRATT & WHITNEY WINCHESTER REPEATING
CO. Hartford. Conn. ARMS CO.
Turret lathes, etc. Gun machinery, New Haven, Conn.
machine tools, etc. “Model ’66” Winchester,
etc.
#10 22 29# #30#
BILLINGS & SPENCER HARTFORD MACH. SCR. CO.
Drop Hammers, Drop Forgings, etc. Automatic Lathes, Screw Machine
Billings apprentice at Robbins & Products
Lawrence. Fairfield and Spencer. Both worked
Billings and Spencer worked at at Colt’s
Colt’s.
*30*
FIGURE 27. GENEALOGY OF THE NEW ENGLAND GUN MAKERS]
As a result of this visit 20,000 interchangeable Enfield rifles were
ordered by the English Government, and in 1855, 157 machines for the
manufacture of guns were sent to England. These machines comprised
seventy-four millers, twenty-three drilling machines, five tapping
machines, and seven edging machines. The remainder were special
machines for threading, rifling, turning, boring, and so on.[164] In
this list of machines scarcely a single lathe is found and no mention
is made of any turret machines. Ten or fifteen years later there
would have been a large number. James H. Burton, who had been at the
Harper’s Ferry armory and was at the time with the Ames Manufacturing
Company, went over to England to install the new system and operate
the new plant. The Ames Manufacturing Company alone is said to have
exported four to five hundred stocking machines of the Blanchard type
on these early foreign orders. Within the next fifteen or twenty years
nearly every government in Europe was supplied with American gun-making
machinery, all planned to operate on the interchangeable system, which
was known everywhere as “the American system.”
[164] Fitch: “Report on Manufactures of Interchangeable Mechanism,”
U. S. Census, 1880. Volume on “Manufactures.”
Nasmyth was concerned in the introduction of this machinery into
England. His mention of it in his autobiography throws light on how the
interchangeable system was looked upon by the English engineers:
In 1853 I was appointed a member of the Small Arms Committee for the
purpose of remodeling and, in fact, re-establishing, the Small Arms
Factory at Enfield. The wonderful success of the needle gun in the
war between Prussia and Denmark in 1848 occasioned some alarm amongst
our military authorities as to the state of affairs at home. The
Duke of Wellington to the last proclaimed the sufficiency of “Brown
Bess” as a weapon of offense and defense; but matters could no longer
be deferred. The United States Government, though possessing only a
very small standing army, had established at Springfield a small arms
factory, where, by the use of machine tools specially designed to
execute with the most unerring precision all the details of muskets
and rifles, they were enabled to dispense with mere manual dexterity,
and to produce arms to any amount. It was finally determined to
improve the musketry and rifle systems of the English army. The
Government resolved to _introduce the American system_,[165] by
which arms might be produced much more perfectly, and at a great
diminution of cost. It was under such circumstances that the Small
Arms Committee was appointed.
[165] Italics are ours.
Colonel Colt had brought to England some striking examples of
the admirable tools used at Springfield[166] and he established
a manufactory at Pimlico for the production of his well-known
revolvers. The committee resolved to make a personal visit to the
United States Factory at Springfield. My own business engagements at
home prevented my accompanying the members who were selected; but
as my friend John Anderson (now Sir John) acted as their guide, the
committee had in him the most able and effective helper. He directed
their attention to the most important and available details of that
admirable establishment. The United States Government acted most
liberally in allowing the committee to obtain every information on
the subject; and the heads of the various departments, who were
intelligent and zealous, rendered them every attention and civility.
[166] Hartford?
The members of the mission returned home enthusiastically delighted
with the results of their inquiry. The committee immediately
proceeded with the entire remodeling of the Small Arms Factory
at Enfield. The workshops were equipped with a complete series
of special machine tools, chiefly obtained from the Springfield
factory.[167] The United States Government also permitted several of
their best and most experienced workmen and superintendents to take
service under the English Government.[168]
[167] This must be a mistake. The machinery seems to have been
supplied chiefly by Bobbins & Lawrence and the Ames Mfg. Co. Mr.
Burton of the latter company installed it.
[168] Autobiography of James Nasmyth, pp. 362-363.
In using the term “interchangeable” it must be remembered that
the meaning attached to this word grew during these years. The
interchangeability of 1813 would not have been considered satisfactory
in 1855, much less so today. When Hall completed his first hundred
rifles at Harper’s Ferry in 1824, it is said that “the joint of the
breech block was so fitted that a sheet of paper would slide loosely
in the joint, but two sheets would stick.” This system of gauging will
have a familiar sound to the older mechanics who grew up before the
days of the micrometer. When Colonel North was given his first contract
for the rifles and furnished two models to work from, these models were
so unlike that he asked to have one set aside and that he be allowed to
gauge his work from the other.
Of the various tools associated with interchangeable manufacture,
drilling jigs were in use very early, probably from the start. The
filing jig is said to have been invented by Selah North, the son of
Colonel North, but it was used by Whitney almost as early. Both Whitney
and Colonel North were using plain milling by 1820. A light sort of
milling machine is shown in the French Encyclopedia of 1772, already
referred to, but the first successful one was built by Mr. Whitney some
time prior to 1818. This machine, still in existence and now in the
possession of the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University, is
shown again in Fig. 28.[169] In 1817 to 1822 we find the introduction
of forging in hand dies, barrel turning by special machinery, and the
Blanchard lathe for gun-stocks. Receiving gauges are said to have been
used at Middletown in 1829, and were regularly in use at Springfield
by 1840. Automatic machinery for the woodworking was first invented
by Blanchard in 1818 for the Springfield armory. The accuracy of
these machines, shown in Fig. 29, outran that of the metal work of
the time. To accommodate the variations still present in the metal
parts Blanchard devised a machine which used the actual lock plates as
formers and cut the stocks to match, and such machines were used at
Springfield until 1840. By that time the work on the metal parts could
be made as accurately as the stocks, and this method was no longer
necessary. A modern degree of accuracy in shaping of the metal portions
was not possible until the miller came into general use for irregular
shapes, which was some time in the forties. By 1842, for the new musket
to be manufactured at Springfield, there was a complete set of model
jigs, taps and gauges. The profiling machine was developed by F. W.
Howe, R. S. Lawrence, and E. K. Root, from 1848 to 1852. A drop hammer
with dies was used by Hall of Harper’s Ferry in 1827, the head of which
was raised by a moving chain and freed by a trip at the desired height.
Later Peck invented his lifter, using a strap. The Root drop hammers we
have already mentioned. The board drop is largely the work of Spencer.
[169] For a detailed account of this machine and its history see
_American Machinist_, Vol. XXXVI, p. 1037.
[Illustration: FIGURE 28. THE FIRST MILLING MACHINE
BUILT BY ELI WHITNEY ABOUT 1818. NOW IN THE MASON LABORATORY, YALE
UNIVERSITY]
[Illustration: FIGURE 29. BLANCHARD “GUN-STOCKING” LATHE
BUILT IN 1818 FOR THE SPRINGFIELD ARMORY. IN USE OVER FIFTY YEARS]
Probably no machine has had so great an influence on interchangeable
manufacture as the automatic turret lathe. The turret lathe, “the first
radical improvement on Maudslay’s slide-rest,” was built commercially
by Robbins & Lawrence in 1854, and is said to have grown out of a
revolving-head bolt cutter which Henry D. Stone saw at Hartford. The
turret idea was not originated by Stone. Root and Howe had used it a
number of years before, and it had been utilized by several others.
All of these turrets except Howe’s seem to have had a horizontal axis
instead of the vertical one which became general. Later improvements
by C. M. Spencer and a long line of brilliant mechanics have increased
the accuracy of the turret lathe and made it more nearly automatic than
any other type of general machine tool. Today it is, with the milling
machine, the main reliance for interchangeable work.
In sketching the development of interchangeable methods in American
shops, we have confined our attention to gun makers chiefly. They were
by no means the only ones to have a part in this development, but
they were its originators, they determined its methods, and developed
most of the machines typical of the process. About 1830 Chauncey
Jerome began the manufacture of brass clocks. Terry, Thomas and other
Connecticut mechanics had been manufacturing wooden clocks, which gave
way to metal clocks as the advantage of interchangeable manufacture
became recognized. In 1848 A. L. Dennison founded the American Watch
Company at Waltham. The interchangeable system has nowhere reached a
higher development than in the work of this company and of the other
great watch factories. In 1846 Elias Howe was granted his patent on
sewing machines, and within four or five years their manufacture
sprang up on a large scale. Both of these industries, watch and clock
manufacture and the manufacture of sewing machines, utilized a system
which was already well established. Since that time it has been applied
to a wide variety of articles.
CHAPTER XII
WHITNEY AND NORTH
In the last chapter we considered the rise of the interchangeable
system of manufacture and saw that it started in the shops of Eli
Whitney, at New Haven, and of Simeon North, at Middletown. The lives
of these men are of much interest, particularly that of Whitney.
His struggle in defense of his patent rights on the cotton gin is
instructive for all who see a high road to fortune in the patenting of
a valuable invention.
Measured by its economic effect, the cotton gin is one of the greatest
of inventions. As an industrial factor its success was immediate and
far-reaching. It developed the agricultural resources of nearly half
the United States, made possible its gigantic cotton crop, vastly
increased the wealth of this country and, to a scarcely less extent,
that of England; and yet toward the end of his life, Mr. Whitney said
that he had hardly more than “come out even on it”; and this in spite
of the fact that his patent was sustained and was apparently one of the
most valuable ever granted.
A patent for an invention which meets a widespread and pressing need,
and for which there is a tremendous demand, is difficult to defend.
Watt’s rights in the steam engine were established only after a long
and bitter fight, and he would have failed and died a disappointed man
had it not been for the indomitable courage and business skill of his
partner, Matthew Boulton. Whitney was a far better business man than
Watt, but his partner was not in any way the equal of Boulton. If he
had been, the story of the cotton gin might have been different.
Whitney saw the futility of depending solely on patent rights and
wisely turned his splendid talents to manufacturing; where, without
patent protection of any kind, by methods then new, but which have
since spread throughout the world, he built up a fortune. Someone has
said that the besetting sin of mechanics is invention. This may, or may
not, be true, but it is worth pondering whether superior methods and
business judgment are not still the best industrial protection.
Eli Whitney, whose portrait is shown in Fig. 30, was born in
Westborough, Mass., in 1765. He came from that best school of
mechanics, the New England hill farm. Most of the early American
mechanics, like him, came from the country and had the same training
of hard work with simple implements, and learned to turn their
hand to nearly everything, and to work with few and rough tools.
From his boyhood he showed mechanical talent. When he was fifteen,
with his father’s consent, he began making nails with the aid of
such rudimentary tools as he could contrive. This was during the
Revolutionary War, when nails were in great demand and brought a high
price. By hard work he built up a profitable little business which he
carried on for two winters in addition to the ordinary work of the farm
during the summer. The business grew beyond his capacity to care for
alone, so he set out on horseback to a neighboring town in quest of a
fellow laborer. Not finding one as easily as he had anticipated, he
rode from town to town with the persistence which was a strong trait in
his character, until forty miles from home he found such a workman as
he desired. During this journey he called at every workshop on his way
and absorbed all the information he could respecting the mechanical
arts. When the nail business ceased to be profitable after the war, he
turned his attention to knife blades and to the making of the long pins
for bonnets then in fashion. He showed so much skill that he nearly
monopolized the latter business.
When nineteen years old, Whitney determined to obtain a liberal
education, but he was not able to gain his father’s consent until he
was twenty-three. Then, in 1788, with money made partly in his little
manufacturing business and partly from teaching school, he entered Yale
College. He completed his college education with but little expense to
his father who paid a few of the last of his college bills, for which
the son gave his note and which he paid soon after graduation. His work
at college was creditable, rather than brilliant; he left a marked
impression behind him for good judgment, sound reasoning and steady,
intelligent work.[170]
[170] The best sources of information on Whitney are: Olmstead:
“Memoir of Eli Whitney, Esqr.” New Haven, 1846. Blake: “History of
Hamden, Conn.” New Haven, 1888. Blake: “Sketch of the Life of Eli
Whitney,” “New Haven Colony Historical Society Papers,” Vol. V, 1894.
There were few school facilities in the South at that time and many of
the wealthy planters had their children educated by private tutors. In
the fall of 1792, the year in which he graduated, Whitney was engaged
as a private tutor in a family in Georgia. On his way there he met Mrs.
Greene, the widow of General Nathaniel Greene, who was returning to
Savannah after spending the summer in the North. When Whitney reached
Georgia he found that, despite his engagement, another had been given
his place and he was stranded, practically penniless, a thousand miles
from home and not knowing which way to turn. Mrs. Greene kindly invited
him to make her house his home. He did so, and began to study law
under her hospitable roof. Here he met Phineas Miller, a native of
Connecticut and also a graduate of Yale College, who had himself come
south as a tutor in the Greene family and after General Greene’s death
had become manager of his estate. He was a man of cultivated mind, of
eager, hopeful temperament and later he married Mrs. Greene.
Shortly after Whitney’s coming, a large party of gentlemen from Augusta
and the upper country, consisting principally of officers who had
served under the General in the Revolutionary army, were visiting
Mrs. Greene. In the course of the conversation the deplorable state
of agriculture was discussed, and great regret expressed that there
was no means of separating green seed cotton from its seed, since
all the lands which were unsuitable for the cultivation of rice and
long staple cotton, would yield large crops of green seed cotton. The
black or long staple cotton had already been introduced successfully
in the Sea Islands, but it could not be grown inland. It was vain to
think of raising green seed or upland cotton for the market unless
some machine could be devised which would facilitate the process of
cleaning. Separating one pound of the staple from the seed was a day’s
work for one woman. During this conversation Mrs. Greene told them that
Whitney could invent their machine, saying, “He can make anything.”
This incident turned Whitney’s attention to the subject. Encouraged
by Miller he dropped his law studies, went to Savannah, obtained a
small parcel of raw cotton, and set himself at work on the problem.
With such resources as the plantation afforded he made tools suited
to his purpose, drew his own wire and by the close of the winter had
so far developed the machine as to leave no doubt of its success. The
first model he made (made, it is said, in about two weeks) is still in
existence in the possession of his grandson, the present Eli Whitney.
The three essential elements of his gin, the rotary wheel with forward
pointing wires or teeth, the slotted bar, and the revolving brushes for
cleaning the teeth, remain practically unchanged today.
At that time the market was glutted with such products as Georgia
produced, trade was languishing, and there was little employment
for the negroes or support for the white inhabitants. Mrs. Greene
indiscreetly showed the first machine to visitors and the news soon
leaked out that a means had been devised for separating more cotton in
one day, with the labor of a single man, than could have been done in
the usual manner in the space of many months. An invention so important
to the agricultural interest could not long remain a secret. The
knowledge spread throughout the state and so great was the excitement
that multitudes from all quarters came to see the machine. It was
not deemed safe to gratify their curiosity until patent rights were
secured, but so determined were they that the building was broken into
by night and the machine carried off. In this way the public became
possessed of the invention, and before Whitney could secure his patent
a number of machines were in successful operation. They deviated only
slightly from the original and gave Whitney much trouble later in
establishing his rights to the invention.
In the spring of 1793, Miller and Whitney formed a partnership under
the name of Miller & Whitney, for developing the business, and Whitney
returned to Connecticut to perfect the machine, obtain a patent, and
manufacture and ship to Georgia machines to meet the demand. At the
start they made a fatal error of policy in deciding to buy the seed
themselves, gin it and sell the product. Protected by their patent,
they planned to maintain a monopoly of this business. Later they were
willing to manufacture and sell the machines for general use or to sell
the rights. If they had done this at the start much of the opposition
which they incurred might have been obviated. Whitney, at least, was a
clear-sighted business man and if he had realized the magnitude of the
result of his invention he would probably not have chosen this course.
There is not another instance in the history of invention of the
letting loose of such tremendous industrial forces so suddenly. The
inventions of Arkwright, Watt, Fulton and Stephenson have affected
society quite as profoundly as did that of the cotton gin, some of them
more so, but in none of these cases were the results so immediate.
In 1784, only eight years before Whitney’s invention, eight bales of
cotton from the United States which were landed at Liverpool were
seized on the ground that they _could not have been produced_ in the
United States.[171] In 1791 the total production of cotton in the
world was estimated at 490,000,000 pounds, of which the United States
produced 2,000,000 pounds, or only ¹⁄₂₄₅, of which 189,316 pounds were
exported. In 1792 they exported 138,328 pounds, an actual decrease
of 51,000 pounds from the previous year. In 1793, the year after the
gin was invented, there was an exportation of 487,000 pounds; in
1794 of 1,601,000 pounds; in 1795 of 6,276,000 pounds. By 1800 the
total production had risen to 35,000,000 pounds, of which 17,790,000
pounds were exported. In 1845 the total estimated output of the world
was 1,169,600,000 pounds, of which the United States produced nearly
seven-eighths.[172] At the present time the output of the United
States is about 15,000,000 bales, or 7,000,000,000 pounds. Less than 1
per cent of this is “Sea Island” or long staple cotton. All the rest is
upland or green seed cotton, cleaned on the Whitney type of gin, and
made commercially available by his method of cleaning.
[171] Olmstead: “Memoir of Eli Whitney, Esqr.” p. 63. Also,
Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, Vol. VII, p. 264.
[172] Olmstead: “Memoir.” Also _Merchant’s Magazine_, Vol. VI,
Article on “History of the American Cotton Trade,” by James H. Lanman.
The intensity of the demand for the use of this machine made it
practically impossible to defend a patent right upon it. The patent
laws of the country, as has been stated, were crude at that time, and
the infringement suits were tried before juries composed of the very
men who were interested in breaking the patent.
Nearly all of the great inventions have been developments to which
a number of inventors have contributed, as in the case of the steam
engine, the locomotive, and the steamboat; but the fundamental
invention of the cotton gin was due to Whitney and to Whitney alone.
And yet in a letter written to Robert Fulton, at a later date, he says:
My invention was new and distinct from every other: it stood alone.
It was not interwoven with anything before known; and it can seldom
happen that an invention or improvement is so strongly marked, and
can be so clearly and specifically identified; and I have always
believed, that I should have had no difficulty in causing my rights
to be respected, if it had been less valuable, and been used only
by a small portion of the community. But the use of this machine
being immensely profitable to almost every planter in the cotton
districts, all were interested in trespassing upon the patent-right,
and each kept the other in countenance. Demagogs made themselves
popular by misrepresentation and unfounded clamors, both against
the right and against the law made for its protection. Hence there
arose associations and combinations to oppose both. At one time,
but few men in Georgia dared to come into court and testify to the
most simple facts within their knowledge, relative to the use of the
machine. In one instance, I had great difficulty in proving that the
machine _had been used in Georgia_, although, at the same moment,
there were three separate sets of this machinery in motion, within
fifty yards of the building in which the court sat, and all _so near
that the rattling of the wheels was distinctly heard on the steps of
the court-house_.[173]
[173] Olmstead, p. 58. (Italics are ours.)
It should in justice be said that at first there was no widespread
disposition on the part of the Georgia planters to avail themselves of
the invention unlawfully, but later nearly all, deluded by the general
attitude, joined in the attack upon the inventor’s rights.
The unfortunate policy adopted by Miller & Whitney worked to their
disadvantage in two ways. First, they could not themselves produce
machines fast enough to gin the rapidly increasing crops; and second,
their policy of buying the seed and ginning it themselves meant
financing the entire crop and called for a vastly greater capital than
they had at their command. Infringing machines sprang up on every side,
their most formidable rival being the saw gin of Hodgin Holmes, in
which circular saws were used instead of a drum with inserted wires
as in Whitney’s original gin. The idea of such teeth had occurred to
Whitney, as he afterward proved; but not until 1807 did he completely
establish his right over this machine.
[Illustration: FIGURE 30. ELI WHITNEY]
Perplexities and discouragements dogged their steps from the start.
In 1795 the shop which they had built in New Haven, together with all
machines and papers, was consumed by fire. In the diary of President
Stiles of Yale College is an entry: “March 12 (1795). Yesterday morning
Mr. Whitney’s workshop consumed by fire. Loss 3000 Dol. about 10
finished machines for seeding cotton & 5 or 6 unfinished, & all the
tools which no man can make but Mr. Whitney, the inventor, & which he
has been 2 years in making.” They found great difficulty in raising
money, even at rates from 12 to 25 per cent. With these misfortunes
upon them, word was received from England that the manufacturers
condemned the cotton cleaned by their machines on the ground that the
staple was injured. They had thirty gins at work in eight different
places in Georgia and many of these were brought to a standstill.
It was nearly two years before this prejudice could be overcome. By
that time, however, encroachments on their patent right had become so
extensive as almost to annihilate its value. The first infringement
suit was tried in 1797 and went against them. An appeal was denied on
technicalities.[174] At a second trial, in 1798, a great number of
witnesses had been collected from various parts of the country, some
of them from one hundred miles away, when the judge failed to appear,
and, of course, no court was held.[175] Mr. Miller writes in 1799
that “the prospect of making anything by ginning in this State, is
at an end. Surreptitious gins are being erected in every part of the
country; and the jurymen at Augusta have come to an understanding among
themselves, that they will never give a verdict in our favor, let the
merits of the case be as they may.”[176] The firm would now gladly have
relinquished their plan of doing the ginning themselves and confined
their operations to the sale of patent rights; but few people would buy
a patent right which could be used with impunity without purchase.
[174] _Ibid._, p. 26.
[175] _Ibid._, p. 27.
[176] _Ibid._, p. 27.
In 1801 South Carolina voted the purchase of the patent rights on the
cotton gin for that state for $50,000, $20,000 to be paid in hand and
the remainder in three annual payments of $10,000 each. A year later
Whitney sold the right for North Carolina. The legislature laid a
tax on every saw, to be continued for five years. After deducting
the expenses of collection, the proceeds were to be passed over to
the patentee. Negotiations were also entered into with the state of
Tennessee. The prospects of the firm were, therefore, growing more
favorable, when the legislature of South Carolina suddenly annulled
the contract, refused payment due, and sued for the refunding of what
had already been paid. Doubts were raised as to the validity of the
patent; the patentees were charged with nonfulfillment of a part of
their contract relating to the submission of models; it was charged
that _somebody_ in Switzerland had conceived of the idea beforehand;
and that Whitney had been antedated in the use of saws instead of wire
teeth by Holmes. This action was the result of the political agitation
against the patent, which was strong throughout the cotton-growing
states. Tennessee followed the example of South Carolina, and the same
attempt was made in North Carolina, but the legislative committee to
whom it was referred reported in Whitney’s favor, declaring that such
action was a breach of contract and of good faith. In 1803 Mr. Miller,
who had represented the firm in the South, died disappointed and broken
by the struggle.
In the following year South Carolina rescinded its action and carried
out its contract, so that from North and South Carolina Whitney
received a considerable sum. In all he received about $90,000; $50,000
from North Carolina; at least $30,000 from South Carolina and about
$10,000 from Tennessee. A large portion of this amount was, however,
balanced by the cost of the endless litigation in Georgia. More than
sixty suits had been instituted in the latter state before the first
decision was obtained on the merits of the claims.
This decision was rendered in the United States Court in December,
1807, by Judge Johnson. Whitney, as the survivor of the firm of Miller
& Whitney, was suing a man named Arthur Fort for violation of the
patent right and for a perpetual injunction restraining him from use
of the gin. Judge Johnson’s decision is so clear a statement of the
situation, and so splendid an example of justice in the face of popular
agitation that we give it nearly in full:
Defendant admits most of the facts in the bill set forth, but
contends that the complainants are not entitled to the benefits of
the act of Congress on this subject, because:
1st. The invention is not original.
2d. It is not useful.
3d. That the machine which he uses is materially different from their
inventions, in the application of an improvement, the invention of
another person....
There are circumstances in the knowledge of all mankind, which prove
the originality of this invention more satisfactorily to the mind,
than the direct testimony of a host of witnesses. The cotton plant
furnished clothing to mankind before the age of Herodotus. The green
seed is a species much more productive than the black, and by nature
adapted to a much greater variety of climate. But by reason of the
strong adherence of the fiber to the seed without the aid of some
more powerful machine for separating it, than any formerly known
among us, the cultivation of it would never have been made an object.
The Machine of which Mr. Whitney claims the invention, so facilitates
the preparation of this species for use, that the cultivation of
it has suddenly become an object of infinitely greater national
importance than that of the other species ever can be. Is it then to
be imagined that if this machine had been before discovered, the use
of it would ever have been lost, or could have been confined to any
tract or country left unexplored by commercial enterprise? But it is
unnecessary to remark further upon this subject. A number of years
have elapsed since Mr. Whitney took out his patent, and no one has
produced or pretended to prove the existence of a machine of similar
construction or use.
2d. With regard to the utility of this discovery, the Court would
deem it a waste of time to dwell long upon this topic. Is there a
man who hears us, who has not experienced its utility? The whole
interior of the Southern States was languishing, and its inhabitants
emigrating for want of some object to engage their attention and
employ their industry, when the invention of this machine at once
opened views to them, which set the whole country in active motion.
From childhood to age it has presented to us a lucrative employment.
Individuals who were depressed with poverty and sunk in idleness,
have suddenly risen to wealth and respectability. Our debts have
been paid off. Our capitals have increased, and our lands trebled
themselves in value. We cannot express the weight of the obligation
which the country owes to this invention. The extent of it cannot now
be seen. Some faint presentiment may be formed from the reflection
that cotton is rapidly supplanting wool, flax, silk, and even furs
in manufactures, and may one day profitably supply the use of specie
in our East India trade. Our sister states, also, participate in the
benefits of this invention; for, besides affording the raw material
for their manufactures, the bulkiness and quantity of the article
afford a valuable employment for their shipping.
3d. The third and last ground taken by the defendant, appears to be
that on which he mostly relies. In the specification, the teeth made
use of are of strong wire inserted into the cylinder. A Mr. Holmes
has cut teeth in plates of iron, and passed them over the cylinder.
This is certainly a meritorious improvement in the mechanical process
of constructing this machine. But at last, what does it amount to
except a more convenient method of making the same thing? Every
characteristic of Mr. Whitney’s machine is preserved. The cylinder,
the iron tooth, the rotary motion of the tooth, the breast work and
brush, and all the merit that this discovery can assume, is that
of a more expeditious mode of attaching the tooth to the cylinder.
After being attached, in operation and effect they are entirely
the same. Mr. Whitney may not be at liberty to use Mr. Holmes’ iron
plate, but certainly Mr. Holmes’ improvement does not destroy Mr.
Whitney’s patent right. Let the decree for a perpetual injunction be
entered.[177]
[177] _Ibid._, p. 39.
This decision was confirmed by a series of subsequent ones, and from
that time onward there was no serious questioning of the patent right.
In 1812 Mr. Whitney made application to Congress for the renewal of
his patent. In his memorial he points out that his patent had nearly
expired before it was sustained; that his invention had been a source
of wealth to thousands of citizens of the United States; that the
expense to which he had gone in defense of the patent had left him
little or no return on the invention; that the men who had grown rich
by the use of his machine had combined to prevent the patentee from
deriving reward from his invention; that in the state where he had
first introduced the machines he had received nothing; that from no
state had he received all told an amount equal to ¹⁄₂ cent per pound on
the cotton cleaned by his machine in one year; that the whole amount
received by him for his invention had not been equal to the labor saved
in one hour by the cotton gins then in use in the United States; that
the invention had already trebled the value of land throughout a great
extent of territory; that the degree to which the cultivation of cotton
would still be augmented was incalculable; and that the species of
cotton grown had from time immemorial never been known as an article of
commerce until his method of cleaning it had been invented. He closed
with an argument for the policy of providing adequate reward for the
encouragement of invention.[178] Notwithstanding these arguments and
a favorable committee report, the application was rejected. With the
exception of a few liberal-minded men, nearly all the members from the
cotton-growing states opposed the application strongly.
[178] _Ibid._, pp. 55-57.
Whitney combined in a singular degree high inventive capacity with
clear judgment and steady determination. By 1798 he saw that his hopes
for any large return from the cotton gin were uncertain. He turned
to the manufacture of firearms and by steady, sure steps built up
another business and died a well-to-do man. In this second enterprise
he developed the interchangeable system of manufacture and thereby
influenced modern society almost as greatly as he had in the invention
of the cotton gin, although this is little realized by the general
public.
In the chapter on “The Rise of Interchangeable Manufacture” we traced
Whitney’s work as a gun manufacturer from 1798, when he first applied
for his contract for ten thousand muskets. His undertaking of this
contract required courage and self-confidence. Although he was not
a trained gun maker, he proposed “from the start” to manufacture
guns by a new method, which was ridiculed by those familiar with the
manufacture of firearms at that time. He had to build a plant, design
and equip it with new and untried types of tools; and to educate
workmen to his methods. Furthermore, he did this work, involving
$134,000, under bond for satisfactory performance. The high estimation
in which Whitney was held by those who knew him is evidenced by the
fact that, although he was already embarrassed and embarking on an
entirely new kind of enterprise, ten of the foremost men of New Haven
signed his bond for the faithful performance of his contract.
A contemporary, intimately acquainted with his work, has outlined his
method of manufacture in words which describe the interchangeable
system, as it exists today, so accurately that we give it in full:
The several parts of the muskets were, under this system, carried
along through the various processes of manufacture, in lots of some
hundreds or thousands of each. In their various stages of progress,
they were made to undergo successive operations by machinery, which
not only vastly abridged the labor, but at the same time so fixed
and determined their form and dimensions, as to make comparatively
little skill necessary in the manual operations. Such were the
construction and arrangement of this machinery, that it could be
worked by persons of little or no experience, and yet it performed
the work with so much precision, that when, in the later stages of
the process, the several parts of the musket came to be put together,
they were as readily adapted to each other, as if each had been made
for its respective fellow.... It will be readily seen that under such
an arrangement any person of ordinary capacity would soon acquire
sufficient dexterity to perform a branch of the work. Indeed, so easy
did Mr. Whitney find it to instruct new and inexperienced workmen,
that he uniformly preferred to do so, rather than to attempt to
combat the prejudices of those who had learned the business under a
different system.[179]
[179] _Ibid._, pp. 53-54.
It took him a much longer time to fulfill the contract than he had
anticipated; two years elapsed before his plant was ready. Only 500
guns were delivered the first year instead of 4000, and the entire
contract required eight years instead of two from the time when
he began actual manufacture. In spite of this delay he kept the
confidence of the government officials, who were very liberal in
their treatment of him; so much had been advanced to him to help him
develop his machinery that when the contract was completed only $2450
out of the total of $134,000 remained to be paid. The work was highly
satisfactory, and in 1812 he was awarded another contract for 15,000
muskets from the United States Government and one for a similar number
from the State of New York. What is known of his methods and machinery
is given in the chapter referred to, which shows also how they spread
to other armories throughout the country.
The business which Mr. Whitney started was carried on for ninety years.
After his death in 1825 the armory was managed for ten years by Eli
Whitney Blake, later inventor of the Blake stone crusher, and Philos
Blake, his nephews. From 1835 to 1842 it was managed by ex-Governor
Edwards, a trustee of Mr. Whitney’s estate. His son, Eli Whitney, Jr.,
then became of age and assumed the management, and that same year
obtained a contract for making the “Harper’s Ferry” rifle,--the first
percussion lock rifle, all guns before that date having had flint locks.
Eli Whitney, Jr., continued to develop the art of gun making. He
introduced improvements in barrel drilling and was the first to use
steel for gun barrels. In 1847, during the Mexican War, Jefferson
Davis, then a colonel in a Mississippi regiment, wrote to the
Ordnance Department at Washington, that it was his opinion that the
steel-barreled muskets from the Whitney armory were “the best rifles
which had ever been issued to any regiment in the world.” The Whitney
Arms Company supplied the Government with more than 30,000 rifles
of this model. The company continued in existence until 1888, when
the plant was sold to the Winchester Repeating Arms Company. It was
operated by them for a number of years in the manufacture of 22-calibre
rifles. This work was subsequently removed to their main works and the
plant was sold to the Acme Wire Company, and later to the Sentinel Gas
Appliance Company, its present owner. Some of the original buildings
are still standing. It may be of interest to note that at the time the
works were first built, a row of substantial stone houses was built
by Whitney for his workmen, which are said to have been the first
workmen’s houses erected by an employer in the United States.
In person Mr. Whitney was tall and dignified. He had a cultivated mind
and a manner at once refined, frank and agreeable. He was familiar
with the best society of his day and was a friend of every president
of the United States from George Washington to John Quincy Adams. He
had a commanding influence among all who knew him. Seldom has a great
inventor been more sane, for his powers of invention were under perfect
control and never ran wild. Unlike those who devise many things but
complete few, he left nothing half executed. Robert Fulton said that
Arkwright, Watt and Whitney were the three of his contemporaries who
had done the most for mankind.[180] Lord Macaulay is quoted as saying,
“What Peter the Great did to make Russia dominant, Eli Whitney’s
invention of the cotton gin has more than equaled in its relation to
the progress and power of the United States.”[181] He contributed
immeasureably to the agriculture and the manufacturing methods of the
whole world and few mechanics have had a greater influence.
[180] Blake: “History of Hamden, Conn.,” p. 303.
[181] Devans: “Our First Century,” p. 153.
Simeon North was born at Berlin, Conn., the same year as Whitney, and
like him, started life as a farmer. In 1795 he began making scythes in
an old mill adjoining his farm. Just when he began making pistols is
not clear. It is said that he made some for private sale as early as
the time of the Revolution, and it is probable that he had begun their
manufacture in a small way prior to receiving his first government
contract. He may have learned the rudiments of the trade from Elias
Beckley, who had a gun shop about a mile from North’s birthplace.[182]
[182] The fullest account of Simeon North is given in the “Memoir of
Simeon North,” by S. N. D. North and R. H. North. Concord, N. H.,
1913.
In March of 1799, about a year after Whitney received his first
contract for muskets, North received his first contract for
horse-pistols, 500, which were to be delivered in one year. This was
followed by others for 1500 in 1800; 2000 in 1802; 2000 in 1808; 1000
in 1810, and others not known. By 1813 he had made at least 10,000 and
was employing forty or fifty men. In none of these contracts was there
any mention made of interchangeability, but some time during these
years North began to use interchangeable methods. The correspondence
quoted in the previous chapter and the quotations already given show
that Whitney was working on the same basis from the start. It is a
great pity that Colonel North’s papers were destroyed after his death,
as they might have thrown some light on the question as to how and when
he began to use interchangeable methods. It is impossible now to say
how much Whitney and North influenced each other if they did at all.
In 1812 the Secretary of War visited North’s shop at Berlin, Conn.,
and urged him to increase his plant. On receiving the contract of
1813, North purchased land in Middletown, Conn., and built a dam and a
three-story brick armory, 86 x 36 feet, on the best lines known at that
time, involving in all an expenditure of $100,000. The old factory was
run in conjunction with the new one until 1843, when it was closed.
North began making barrels of steel in 1848, only a year or two after
Eli Whitney, Jr., and contributed many improvements in the design
of the pistols and guns which he built. The Remington Arms Company,
the Savage Fire Arms Company, the Maynard Rifle Company and the
Massachusetts Arms Company, all trace back in some way to him, and,
like Whitney, he deeply influenced the practice of the United States
Government in its armories at Springfield and Harper’s Ferry.
Colonel North’s first contract with the Government was made in 1799;
his last was finished in 1853, a year after his death, covering in
all about 50,000 pistols and 33,000 rifles. He worked under sixteen
administrations, representing all parties, and in all the fifty-three
years he never received a reproof or a criticism of his work.
He had an old-fashioned sense of honor. In 1826 he was called on to
pay a note for $68,000 which he had indorsed. Although advised that
he could not be held legally, he said that his name was there and he
would stand by it. He placed a mortgage on his property, and it was
twenty-two years before he had made good the loss, which, principal
and interest, amounted to over $100,000. But for this endorsement he
would have died, for that time, a wealthy man. Colonel North was a
country-bred man, strong, quiet and almost painfully modest. He lacked
Whitney’s education and influence, but like him he represented the best
which American mechanical and business life has produced.
CHAPTER XIII
THE COLT ARMORY
The city of Hartford has been more closely identified with the later
development of interchangeable manufacture than almost any other city.
The gun makers have been so vital an element in its industrial life
that, before leaving them, we will trace their influence.
The grist and saw mills, always the pioneers, had made their
appearance in the seventeenth century. With recurring attempts at silk
manufacture, most of the meager industrial life was directed toward
some branch of textiles up to and even after 1800.
In 1747 Col. Joseph Pitkin started a prosperous forge for making
bar iron and a mill for iron slitting. It was killed by the Act of
Parliament of 1750, already referred to, but the Pitkin family balanced
the account by using the buildings during the Revolution to make
powder for the Continental army. Later the buildings were put to their
original use. The Pitkins were industrial leaders for many years in
textiles, and in the manufacture of silverware, clocks, watches, and
heating apparatus. Henry and James F. Pitkin made the old “American
lever” watches in 1834, and many of the early workmen who went to
Waltham were trained by them.
[Illustration: FIGURE 31. SAMUEL COLT]
The assessors’ returns for 1846 to the Secretary of State gave for
Hartford only three “machine factories” with a total capital of
$25,000, an annual output of $35,000, and forty-five men employed.
There were two boiler shops, a screw factory, a plow factory, a pin
factory, two brass and four iron foundries, and one poor gun maker
who did a business of $625 a year. Taken together, these enterprises
averaged only about $15,000 in capital, $20,000 in annual output and
fifteen employees each. This is hardly more than would be expected
in any town of its size, and certainly does not mark the city as a
manufacturing center. Book publishing employed over twice, and clothing
shops more than four times, as many men as all the machine shops
together.
In 1821 Alpheus and Truman Hanks purchased a small foundry and began
the business which later became Woodruff & Beach. This firm had a long
and successful career in building heavy machinery, engines and boilers,
and was among the earliest makers of iron plows. In 1871 it became H.
B. Beach & Son, boiler makers, and the firm is still running, H. L.
Beach being now (1914) the only survivor of the old works.
In 1834 Levi Lincoln started the Phœnix Iron Works. Under various names
(George S. Lincoln & Company, Charles L. Lincoln & Company, The Lincoln
Company, The Taylor & Fenn Company) the business has been maintained
by his descendants to this day. Levi Lincoln invented a number of
machines, among them the first successful hook-and-eye machine for
Henry North of New Britain, which became very valuable and helped to
lay the foundation of the prosperity of that town. George S. Lincoln
& Company built machine tools, architectural iron work and vaults.
Their name is permanently associated with the “Lincoln” miller, which
was first built in 1855 in their shop for the new Colt Armory, from
the design of F. A. Pratt. It was an adaptation and improvement of a
Robbins & Lawrence miller which had been brought to Hartford a year or
two before. Few machines have changed so little or have been used so
widely. It has been said that more than 150,000 of them have been built
in this country and abroad. Even in Europe, the type is definitely
known by this name.
The building of the Colt Armory in 1853 to 1854 marks a definite era
in Hartford’s history and the beginning of manufacturing there on a
large scale. Samuel Colt had an adventurous life, and died in the midst
of his success while less than fifty years old. Born in Hartford in
1814, he had a rather stormy career as a schoolboy and shipped before
the mast to Calcutta before he was sixteen. After his return from this
voyage, he worked for some months in his father’s dye works at Ware,
Mass., where he got a smattering of chemistry. At eighteen he started
out again, this time as a lecturer under the name of “Dr. Coult,”
giving demonstrations of nitrous-oxide, or laughing gas, which was
little known to the public at that time. Dr. Coult’s “lectures” were
frankly popular, with a view more to laughter than the imparting of
knowledge, but he was clever and a good advertiser. It is said that
he gave laughing gas to more men, women and children than any other
lecturer since chemistry was first known. For three years he drifted
over the country from Quebec to New Orleans, getting into all kinds of
experiences, from administering gas for cholera when impressed into
service on account of his assumed title, to fleeing the stage from big
blacksmiths who took laughing gas too seriously and actively.
He made the first crude model of his revolver on his voyage to Calcutta
and used the means derived from his “lectures” for developing the
invention. In 1835 he went to England and took out his first patent
there and on his return in 1836 he took out his first American patent.
These covered a firearm with a rotating cylinder containing several
chambers, to be discharged through a single barrel. The same year,
1836, he organized the Patent Fire Arms Company at Paterson, N. J.,
and tried to get the revolver adopted by the United States Government.
In 1837 an army board reported “that from its complicated character,
its liability to accident, and other reasons, this arm was entirely
unsuited to the general purposes of the service.”
Colt’s first market was secured on the Texas frontier. His earliest
revolvers are known as the Walker and Texas models, and the hold
which he acquired with frontiersmen at that time has never been lost.
The Seminole War in Florida gave Colt an opportunity to demonstrate
the value of the revolver. In 1840 two government boards gave it a
qualified approbation and two small orders followed, one for one
hundred and the other for sixty weapons. The pistols, however, were
expensive, the sales small, and in 1842 the Paterson company failed and
ceased business.
In the next few years the tide turned. The superiority of the revolvers
outstanding was creating a great demand. With the breaking out of the
Mexican War in 1846 came two orders for 1000 pistols each, and from
that time onward Colt’s career was one of rapid and brilliant success.
As his Paterson plant had closed, Colt had the first of the large
government orders made at the Whitney Armory in New Haven, where he
followed minutely every detail of their manufacture. The following
year, 1848, Colt moved to Hartford and for a few years rented a small
building near the center of the city. With rapidly increasing business,
larger quarters soon became necessary.
In 1853 he began his new armory, shown in Fig. 32. South of the city
on the river front, lay an extensive flat, overflowed at high water
and consequently nearly valueless. He purchased a large tract of this,
built a protective dike 30 feet high and 1³⁄₄ miles long, and drained
it. His armory built on this site marks an epoch not only in the
history of Hartford, but in American manufacturing.
After the failure of his first venture at Paterson, Colt had seen the
advantage of interchangeable manufacture at the Whitney shop, and
determined to carry it even further in his new plant. So thoroughly
was this done that the methods crystallized there, and many of the
tools installed have undergone little change to this day. Machine work
almost wholly superseded hand work. Modern machines were developed,
and interchangeability and standards of accuracy given an entirely new
meaning.
The building was in the form of an “H,” 500 feet long and 3¹⁄₂ stories
high. It contained over 1400 machines, the greater part of which were
designed and built on the premises. The tools and fixtures cost about
as much as the machines themselves, a proportion unheard of before.
In 1861 the plant was doubled. Three years later the first building
was burned to the ground, but was immediately rebuilt. This plant was
the largest private armory in the world and far-and-away the best then
existing for economical and accurate production of a high-grade output.
Many rivals have sprung up in the past sixty years, but the Colt Armory
is still one of the leading gun factories of the world.
Colonel Colt was a remarkable man, masterful, daring and brilliant. He
started the larger industrial development of his city, and affected
manufacturing methods more than any other man of his generation.
[Illustration: FIGURE 32. THE COLT ARMORY
FROM AN OLD WOOD-CUT]
One of the elements of his success was his ability to gather and hold
about him men of the highest order. Among these was Elisha K. Root,
one of the ablest mechanics New England has ever produced. Root was
a Massachusetts farmer’s boy, a few years older than Colt. He served
an apprenticeship, worked at Ware and at Chicopee Falls, and came to
the Collins Company, axe makers, at Collinsville, Conn., in 1832. He
began work there as a lathe hand in the repair shop, but very soon
became foreman and virtual superintendent. His inventions and methods
converted a primitive shop into a modern factory and gave the Collins
Company control, for a long time, of the American market, and opened up
a large export trade. In 1845 he was made superintendent, and that same
year was offered three important positions elsewhere, one of them that
of master armorer at Springfield.
In 1849 Colt offered him the position of superintendent at a large
salary. It was characteristic of Colt that, although he was just
starting and still in small rented quarters, he outbid three others to
get the best superintendent in New England. Root moved to Hartford,
designed and built the new armory and installed its machinery. Many of
the machines devised by him at that time are still running, holding
their own in accuracy and economy of production with those of today.
Almost every process used in the plant felt his influence. He invented
the best form of drop hammer then in use, machines for boring, rifling,
making cartridges, stock turning, splining, etc., and worked out the
whole system of jigs, fixtures, tools and gauges. The credit for the
revolver belongs to Colt; for the way they were made, mainly to Root.
Fig. 33, a chucking lathe, and Fig. 34, a splining machine, are two of
Mr. Root’s machines which are still at work. When Colonel Colt died,
Mr. Root became president of the company and continued until his death
in 1865, receiving, it is said, the highest salary paid in the state
of Connecticut. He was a mechanic and inventor of high order, a wise
executive, and the success of the two companies he served was in a
large measure due to him. He was quiet, thoughtful and modest. His
influence went into flesh and blood as well as iron and steel, for
under him have worked F. A. Pratt and Amos Whitney, Charles E. Billings
and C. M. Spencer, George A. Fairfield, of the Hartford Machine Screw
Company, William Mason and a host of others whom we cannot mention
here. Like a parent, a superintendent may be judged, in some measure,
by the children he rears, and few superintendents can show such a
family.
Within a few years after the building of the Colt Armory, manufacturing
at Hartford had taken a definite character. From that day to this
it has centered almost wholly on high-grade products, such as guns,
sewing machines, typewriters, bicycles, automobiles and machine tools.
Naturally, during the past generation, the skilled mechanics of the
city have attracted many new and important industries, only indirectly
connected with the armory, which we cannot consider here.
In 1848 Christian Sharps invented his breech-loading rifle, and in
1851 a company was formed at Hartford to manufacture it. Richard S.
Lawrence came from Windsor, Vt., as its master armorer, and is said
to have brought with him the first miller used in the city. They did
a large business for some years, but later moved to Bridgeport, and
the plant was sold to the Weed Sewing Machine Company. C. E. Billings
and George A. Fairfield, both “Colt men,” were superintendents of this
plant. When the Columbia bicycles were introduced, the Weed Sewing
Machine Company made them for the Pope Manufacturing Company of Boston.
Later this company bought the plant, and it became one of the greatest
bicycle factories in the world. Of late years it has been used for the
manufacture of automobiles.
[Illustration: FIGURE 33. ROOT’S CHUCKING LATHE
ABOUT 1855]
[Illustration: FIGURE 34. ROOT’S SPLINING MACHINE
ABOUT 1855]
Two great industries sprang up in the neighborhood of Hartford in
the early days and had a vigorous life quite independent of it. We
have noted that Levi Lincoln contributed to the establishment of the
hardware industry at New Britain. Although New Britain is but a few
miles from Hartford, its manufactures have moved in a distinctly
different direction. In fact, by 1820 it had taken its character as
a hardware manufacturing center. North & Shipman had begun making
sleigh-bells, hooks and plated goods, and Lee was making buttons and
saddlery hardware. In 1839 Henry E. Russell and Cornelius B. Erwin
became active partners in Stanley, Russell & Company, the beginning
of the Russell & Erwin Manufacturing Company. The Stanley Works and
Landers, Frary & Clark had their beginnings in 1842; P. & F. Corbin
in 1848, and the Stanley Rule & Level Company in 1854. About the same
time, Elnathan Peck, after a partnership with George Dewey and Henry
Walter, sold out to J. B. Sargent, who later moved to New Haven. Mr.
Peck also moved to New Haven and started what is now Peck Brothers. It
is a remarkable case of the localization of a great industry. These
companies, all large and important, started within fifteen years in one
small village of only a few thousand inhabitants.
The other industry which started near Hartford but has developed
separately is the manufacture of clocks. Early in the nineteenth
century Eli Terry, first at Windsor, just north of Hartford, and later
at what is now Thomaston, Conn., began using machinery in making wooden
clocks, and by 1840 he had reduced the price for a movement from $50 to
$5. About 1840 Chauncey Jerome, an apprentice of Terry’s, introduced
the one-day brass clock which could be made for less than fifty cents.
In 1842 he shipped his first consignment to England. They were
promptly confiscated at their invoice prices by the customs authorities
for under-valuation. This was perfectly agreeable to Jerome, as it
furnished him with a spot-cash buyer at full price, with no selling
expenses. He therefore sent another and larger shipment, which shared
the same fate. When a third still larger one arrived, the authorities
withdrew from the clock business and let it in. The exports soon spread
everywhere, and today Connecticut manufactures three-fifths of the
clocks produced in the United States.
Nearly all the great clock companies of Connecticut, like the New
Haven, Seth Thomas and Waterbury companies, trace back directly or
indirectly to Jerome and Terry.
CHAPTER XIV
THE COLT WORKMEN--PRATT & WHITNEY
At least two of the superintendents of the Colt Armory should be
mentioned--Prof. Charles B. Richards and William Mason.
Mr. Richards was not primarily a tool builder, but his contributions to
mechanical engineering are too great to pass without notice. About 1860
he helped Charles T. Porter develop the design of the first high-speed
steam engine, and in order to study the action of this engine he
invented the Richards steam engine indicator. Indicators, more or
less crude, had been in use from the time of Watt, but the Richards
indicator was the first one accurate enough and delicate enough to
meet the demands of modern engine practice; and its influence has been
far-reaching. After a few years in New York as a consulting engineer,
he was for many years in the Colt Armory as engineering superintendent
under Mr. Root, and later was superintendent of the Southwark Foundry
& Machine Company in Philadelphia. In 1884 he became Professor of
Mechanical Engineering at the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale
University, where he remained for twenty-five years as the head of the
mechanical engineering department.
William Mason was another of those who helped make the Colt Armory
what it was. He was a modest, kindly man, little known outside of his
immediate associates, but of singular fertility in invention and almost
unerring mechanical judgment. He learned his trade with the Remington
Arms Company at Ilion, N. Y., and after a long association with them
he was for sixteen years superintendent of the Colt Armory. In 1885 he
became master mechanic of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company of New
Haven, and held that position until his death in 1913. He had granted
to him more than 125 patents, most of them in connection with arms and
ammunition and tools for their manufacture, but they included many
appliances for looms and weaving, steam pumps, and bridge work, and he
assisted with the development of the Knowles steam pump and Knowles
looms.
Asa Cook, a brother-in-law of F. A. Pratt, was for years a foreman and
contractor at Colt’s. He was afterwards a designer and manufacturer
of machinery for making wood screws, bolt machinery and many other
types of tools. George A. Fairfield, another Colt foreman, became
superintendent of the Weed Sewing Machine factory and later president
of the Hartford Machine Screw Company; another workman, A. F. Cushman,
of the Cushman Chuck Company, for many years manufactured lathe chucks.
In fact, there is hardly a shop in Hartford which dates from the
seventies and eighties which does not trace back in some way to the
Colt Armory. Its influence is by no means confined to Hartford, for
such men as Bullard and Gleason carried its standards and methods to
other cities.
Four of the Colt workmen formed two partnerships of wide influence:
Charles E. Billings and Christopher M. Spencer, who organized the
Billings & Spencer Company, and Francis A. Pratt and Amos Whitney, of
the Pratt & Whitney Company.
Charles E. Billings was a Vermonter, who served his apprenticeship in
the old Robbins & Lawrence shop at Windsor, Vt. When twenty-one, he
came to Colt’s, in 1856, as a die sinker and tool maker and became
their expert on the drop forging process. In 1862 he went to E.
Remington & Sons, where he built up their forging plant, increasing its
efficiency many times, saving $50,000, it is said, by one improvement
in frame forging alone. At the end of the war he returned to Hartford
as the superintendent of the Weed Sewing Machine Company, which had
taken over the old Sharps Rifle Works, built by Robbins & Lawrence. For
a short time in 1868 Mr. Billings was at Amherst, Mass., associated
with Spencer in the Roper Repeating Arms Company. The venture was not
a success, and the next year, 1869, they came back to Hartford and
formed the Billings & Spencer Company. This company has probably done
more than any other for the art of drop forging, not only in developing
the modern board drop hammer itself, but in extending the accuracy and
application of the process. Mr. Billings was president of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers in 1895.
Christopher M. Spencer was born at Manchester, Conn. He served his
apprenticeship in the machine shops of the silk mills there from 1847
to 1849, and remained for several years as a journeyman machinist
with Cheney Brothers. In 1853 he went to Rochester, N. Y., to learn
something of the other kinds of machinery, working in a tool building
shop and a locomotive shop. After some years at the Colt Armory he
went back to Cheney Brothers and soon obtained his first patent for an
automatic silk-winding machine. This was adopted by the Willimantic
Linen Company, with some modifications made by Hezekiah Conant, and was
the machine which Pratt & Whitney began manufacturing in their first
rented room in Hartford.
Mr. Spencer has had a passion for firearms from boyhood. In 1860 he
obtained a patent for the Spencer repeating rifle. The Civil War
created a tremendous demand for it, and the Government ordered first
1000, then 10,000, and before the war was over it had purchased about
200,000. In 1862, while the first contracts were pending, Spencer
saw President Lincoln at Washington. He and Lincoln went down on the
White House grounds with the new rifle, set up a board and shot at it.
Lincoln enjoyed it like a schoolboy, and shot well, too. He tore his
coat pocket in the process, but told Spencer not to worry over it, as
he “never had anything of value in it to lose.”
At the close of the war Spencer went to Amherst and was there first
associated with C. E. Billings in the Roper Company, as we noted. A
year later he joined in starting the Billings & Spencer Company and
coöperated with him in the development of the drop hammer.
A successful machine which Spencer invented for turning sewing machine
spools suggested to Spencer the possibility of making metal screws
automatically. The result was his invention of the automatic turret
lathe. The importance of the blank cam cylinder, with its flat strips
adjustable for various jobs, was wholly over-looked by his patent
attorney, with the result that Spencer obtained no patent right on the
most valuable feature in the whole machine.
The importance of this invention can hardly be overestimated. It ranks
with Maudslay’s slide-rest and the turret tool-holder, as it is an
essential feature in all modern automatic lathes, both for bar-stock
and chucking work.
Assured of the success of the machine, Spencer withdrew from active
connection with the Billings & Spencer Company in 1874, and in 1876,
with George A. Fairfield, then superintendent of the Weed Sewing
Machine Company, and others, formed the Hartford Machine Screw Company,
one of the most successful enterprises in the city. Unfortunately, Mr.
Spencer withdrew in 1882 to manufacture a new repeating shotgun and
rifle which he had invented. The gun was a success mechanically, but
the Spencer Arms Company, which had been formed in 1883 at Windsor,
Conn., was a failure, and Mr. Spencer lost heavily. In his later years
Mr. Spencer has returned to the field where he did his most brilliant
work, automatic lathes. He represents the New England mechanic at his
best, and his tireless and productive ingenuity has made a permanent
impress on modern manufacturing methods.
Francis A. Pratt was born at Woodstock, Vt. When he was eight years old
his family moved to Lowell. He was a mechanic from boyhood but he had
the good fortune to be apprenticed as a machinist with Warren Aldrich,
a good mechanic and a wise teacher. At twenty, Mr. Pratt went to
Gloucester, N. J., where he was employed first as a journeyman, later
as a contractor. In 1852 he came to the Colt shop, where he worked for
two years. He then accepted the foremanship of the Phœnix Iron Works,
which was run by Levi Lincoln and his two sons.
Amos Whitney was born in Maine and moved to Lawrence, Mass., where
he served his apprenticeship with the Essex Machine Company which
built cotton machinery, locomotives and machine tools. He came from
a family of mechanics. His father was a locksmith and machinist, his
grandfather was an expert blacksmith, his great-grandfather was a small
manufacturer of agricultural tools, and he is of the same family as Eli
Whitney of New Haven, and Baxter D. Whitney, the veteran tool builder
of Winchendon. In 1850 both he and his father were working at Colt’s
factory at Hartford. In 1854 Amos Whitney joined Pratt in the Phœnix
Iron Works, where they worked together for ten years, the former as
a contractor, the latter as superintendent. Whitney was earning over
eight dollars a day when he left Colt’s and took up the new contract
work which offered at the beginning only two dollars a day.
Many of the shops of that generation were “contract shops.” The
Colt Armory was run on that basis, at least in its manufacturing
departments. Under this system the firm or company furnished all the
materials, machinery, tools, shop room and supplies, while the workmen
were employed by the contractor, their wages being paid by the firm but
charged against the contractor’s account. A better training for future
manufacturers could hardly be devised, and a surprising number of these
old-time contractors have succeeded later in business for themselves.
In the summer of 1860 Pratt and Whitney rented a small room and, in
addition to their regular employment, began doing work on their own
account, i.e., manufacturing the small winder for the Willimantic
Linen Company. Mr. Whitney’s father-in-law acted as pattern maker,
millwright, bookkeeper and general utility man. The following February
they were burned out, but were running again a month later in other
quarters. Here they continued to spread from room to room until all
available space was outgrown. They succeeded from the very start, and
at once became leaders and teachers of other mechanics, suggesters
of new methods of work and of new means for its accomplishment. Both
Pratt and Whitney were thoroughly familiar with gun manufacture, and
the business was hardly started when the outbreak of the Civil War
gave them more than they could do. In 1862 they took into partnership
Monroe Stannard of New Britain, each of the three contributing $1200.
Mr. Stannard took charge of the shop, as Pratt and Whitney were still
with the Phœnix Iron Works. Within two years the business had increased
to such an extent that they gave up their positions at the Phœnix
works and in 1865 erected the first building on their present site.
From $3600 in 1862 their net assets grew in four years to $75,000, and
during the three years following that they earned and put back into the
business more than $100,000. In 1869 the Pratt & Whitney Company was
formed with a capital of $350,000, later increased to $500,000. In 1893
it was reorganized with a capitalization of $3,000,000. Since that time
it has become a part of the Niles-Bement-Pond Company.
[Illustration: FIGURE 35. FRANCIS A. PRATT]
[Illustration: FIGURE 36. AMOS WHITNEY]
Beginning with the manufacture of machine tools and tools for making
guns and sewing machines, they have extended their lines until their
catalog fills hundreds of pages. From their wide experience in
interchangeable manufacture, it was natural that they should take a
prominent part in developing the machinery for the manufacture of
bicycles and typewriters, when, later, these were introduced.
Soon after the Franco-Prussian War, an agent of the company visited
Prussia and found the royal and private gun factories equipped with old
and inferior machinery and the armories bare. Mr. Pratt was sent for,
and returned to Hartford with orders from the German Government for
$350,000 worth of gun machinery. During the next few years Mr. Pratt
made no less than ten trips to Europe, taking orders aggregating over
$2,000,000 worth of machinery. When the panic of 1873 prostrated the
industries of the United States, Pratt & Whitney had orders, mostly
foreign, which kept them busy until 1875. Their equipment of the three
royal armories of Spandau, Erfurt and Danzig resulted in an improvement
in quality of output and a saving of 50 per cent in wages. Pratt &
Whitney’s production of gun-making machinery alone has run into many
millions of dollars, and there are few governments which have not at
one time or another purchased from them.
Pratt & Whitney from the start were leaders in establishing standards,
particularly in screw threads. Their gauges for pipe threads have for
years been the standard for the country. The troubles which arose from
the lack of agreement of standard gauges and the growing demand for
interchangeable bolts and nuts led to a demand on the company for a set
of gauges upon which all could agree.
In undertaking this work Pratt & Whitney examined their own standards
of length with reference to government and other standards in
this country and abroad. The results were conflicting and very
unsatisfactory. By different measurements the same bar would
be reported as above and as below the standard length, and the
investigation produced no results which could be used for a working
basis. At length Prof. William A. Rogers of Harvard University, and
George M. Bond, backed by the Pratt & Whitney Company, developed
the Rogers-Bond comparator with which they determined the length of
the standard foot. When they began, the length of the yard and its
subdivisions varied with the number of yardsticks. Professor Rogers’
work was based on line measurement rather than the end measurement
which had held sway from the time of Whitworth and which is now
generally recognized to be inferior for final reference work. Professor
Rogers went back of all the secondary standards to the Imperial Yard
in London and the standard meter in the Archives at Paris. He obtained
reliable transfers of these, and with the coöperation of the United
States Coast Survey, the most delicate and exhaustive comparisons were
made of the standard bars prepared by him for the use of the company
with the government standard yard designated “Bronze No. 11.” Many
thousands of dollars and three years of time went into this work.
The methods used and the results obtained were examined and reported
upon by a committee of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
and the conclusion given in their report is as follows:
The completion of the Rogers-Bond comparator marks a long stride
in advance over any method hitherto in use for comparison and
subdivision of line-measure standards, combining, as it does, all the
approved methods of former observers with others original with the
designers. Comparisons can thus be checked thoroughly by different
systems, so that the final result of the series may be relied on as
being much nearer absolute accuracy than any hitherto produced.
The calipering attachment to the comparator deserves special
commendation, being simple in the extreme, and solving completely the
problem of end measurements within the limit of accuracy attainable
in line reading, by means of the microscope with the micrometer
eye-piece. The standard to which the end measurements are referred is
not touched, and each measurement is referred back to the same zero,
so that error from end wear does not enter into the problem. This
attachment is in advance of all hitherto known methods of comparing
end measures, either with other end measures or with line standards,
both as to rapidity of manipulation and accuracy of its readings,
the strong point in its construction being that it refers all end
measures to a carefully divided and investigated standard bar, which
is not touched during its use, and cannot be in the slightest degree
injured by this service, thus giving convincing assurance that
the measures and gauges produced by its use will be accurate and
interchangeable.
In the opinion of this committee, the degree of accuracy already
attained is such that no future improvements can occasion changes
sufficiently great to affect the practical usefulness of the
magnitudes here determined, or the interchangeability of structures
based upon them with those involving further refinement.
Prof. W. A. Rogers and Mr. George M. Bond are unquestionably entitled
to great credit for the admirable manner in which they have solved
the problem of exact and uniform measurement, while the enterprise
of the Pratt & Whitney Company in bringing the whole matter into
practical shape, is deserving of the thanks of the engineering
community.[183]
[183] Those interested may find detailed descriptions of the methods
used and of the Rogers-Bond comparator in the following references:
George M. Bond: Paper on “Standard Measurements,” Trans. A. S. M.
E., Vol. II, p. 80. George M. Bond: Paper on “A Standard Gauge
System,” Trans. A. S. M. E., Vol. III, p. 122. Report of Committee
on Standards and Gauges, Trans. A. S. M. E., Vol. IV, p. 21 (quoted
above). W. A. Rogers: Paper, “On a Practical Solution of the
Perfect Screw Problem,” Trans. A. S. M. E., Vol. V, p. 216. Two
lectures delivered by George M. Bond before the Franklin Institute,
Philadelphia, in 1884, on: 1. “Standards of Length and their
Subdivision.” 2. “Standards of Length as Applied to Gauge Dimensions.”
The standards so obtained became the basis of the gauges which Pratt &
Whitney have produced.
In 1888 the company received its first order for Hotchkiss revolving
cannon, and for three- and six-pounders rapid-fire guns. They have made
hundreds of these guns for the secondary batteries of war vessels.
In 1895 they brought out a one-pounder invented by E. G. Parkhurst,
an expert mechanic, who had entered their employment as assistant
superintendent in 1869 and later took charge of their gun department.
For many years the Pratt & Whitney tool-room lathes were the standard
for the country. Later their leadership was materially affected by the
Hendey Machine Company of Torrington, Conn., who built a high grade
tool-room lathe having the change-gear box which has since been applied
to nearly all types of machine tools. The change-gear box is one of the
important contributions to tool building made in recent years. Among
the later developments introduced by Pratt & Whitney is the process of
thread milling, and they have designed a full line of machines for this
work.
The Pratt & Whitney works, like the Colt Armory, has been a training
school for successful tool builders. Worcester R. Warner and Ambrose
Swasey were both foremen at Pratt & Whitney’s and left there to go
west, first to Chicago and then to Cleveland. Some account of these two
men will be given in a later chapter. Pratt & Whitney have had a marked
influence on tool building in Cleveland, for, in addition to Warner and
Swasey, E. C. Henn and Hakewessel of the National Acme Manufacturing
Company who developed the multi-spindle automatic lathe, A. F. Foote
of Foote, Burt & Company, and George C. Bardons of Bardons & Oliver,
come from their shop. Johnston of Potter & Johnston, Pawtucket, was
chief draftsman at Pratt & Whitney’s; and J. N. Lapointe who later
developed the broaching machine, Dudley Seymour of Chicago, Gleason of
the Gleason Works in Rochester, E. P. Bullard of Bridgeport, and F.
N. Gardner of Beloit, Wis., inventor of the Gardner grinder, were all
workmen there.
Mr. Gleason was also a workman in the Colt Armory. He went to Rochester
in 1865 and the works which he developed form the most important tool
building interest in western New York. There have been “a good many
starts there in tool building and almost as many finishes.” Mr. Gleason
always said that but for the training and methods he had gained at
Hartford he would have shared their fate. Like many others, his company
began with a general line of machine tools but has come to specialize
on one type of machine, bevel-gear cutters, of which they build a most
refined type.
E. P. Bullard, like Gleason, worked at both Colt’s and Pratt &
Whitney’s. Later he formed a partnership with J. H. Prest and
William Parsons, manufacturing millwork and “all kinds of tools”
in Hartford. In 1866 he organized the Norwalk Iron Works Company
of Norwalk, but afterwards withdrew and continued the business in
Hartford. For a number of years Mr. Bullard was in the South and
Middle West, at Athens, Ga., at Cincinnati, where he organized the
machine tool department of Post & Company, and at Columbus, where
he was superintendent of the Gill Car Works. In 1875 he established
a machinery business in Beekman Street, New York, under the firm
name of Allis, Bullard & Company. Mr. Allis withdrew in 1877 and the
Bullard Machine Company was organized. Recognizing a demand for a high
grade lathe he went to Bridgeport, Conn., and engaged A. D. Laws to
manufacture lathes of his design, agreeing to take his entire output.
In the latter part of the same year Mr. Bullard took over the business
and it became the Bridgeport Machine Tool Works. In 1883 he designed
his first vertical boring and turning mill, a single head, belt feed
machine of 37 inches capacity. This is believed to be the first small
boring machine designed to do the accurate work previously performed
on the face plate of a lathe. Up to that time boring machines were
relied on only for large and rough work. In 1889 he transferred his
New York connections to J. J. McCabe and gave his entire attention to
manufacturing, the business being incorporated as the Bullard Machine
Tool Company in 1894.
The building of boring mills gradually crowded out the lathes, and for
twenty years the company has concentrated on the boring machine as a
specialty. In their hands it has received a remarkable development.
They introduced a range of small-sized mills capable of much more
accurate work than had been done on this type of machine. They applied
the turret principle to the head carried on the cross rail and a few
years later introduced a mill having a head carried on the side of
the frame which permitted of the close working of the tools. These
improvements transformed the boring mill into a manufacturing machine,
and it became practically a vertical turret lathe with the advantages
inherent in that type of machine. This trend toward the lathe type
has finally resulted in a multiple station-type of machine which is
in effect a vertical multi-spindle automatic chucking lathe with five
independent tool heads, as shown in Fig. 56. Comparison of this with
Fig. 15, shows how the lathe has developed in the 115 years since
Maudslay introduced the slide-rest principle and the lead screw.
CHAPTER XV
ROBBINS & LAWRENCE
A glance at the genealogical chart, Fig. 37, will show why the old
Robbins & Lawrence shop, at Windsor, Vt., in the backwoods of northern
New England, deserves a special chapter. When built, it was miles away
from a railroad. It was never large, and the wheels of the original
shop have long since ceased to turn, but few plants have had so great
an influence on American manufacturing. Three brilliant mechanics,
Lawrence, Howe and Stone, were working there in the early fifties, and
from them and their successors came wholly, or in part, the vertical
lathe turret, the miller, the profiler and a large number of the modern
machines used in interchangeable manufacture. Of these three, Lawrence
went to Hartford, Howe to Providence, while Stone remained at Windsor.
In each case an important line of influence may be traced.
In the region about Windsor, sixty or seventy years ago, there were a
number of small custom gun shops, and one firm, N. Kendall & Company,
was regularly making guns at the Windsor prison, using prison labor
in addition to that of a number of free mechanics, who did the finer
work. The history of the Robbins & Lawrence Company begins about 1838,
when Lawrence came to Windsor from the neighborhood of Watertown, N.
Y. Fortunately he wrote out an account of his life shortly before his
death, at the request of his son, giving a very interesting record
of his early work and his connections with his various manufacturing
enterprises. This account shows clearly the integrity, modesty and
worth of the man.[184]
[184] By the courtesy of Mr. Ned Lawrence this account is given in
Appendix A. It has never been published before.
[Illustration:
N. KENDALL & CO. R. S LAWRENCE
Kendall & Lawrence
Custom Gun Shop, Windsor, Vt.
*1*
#1#
ROBBINS & LAWRENCE
Guns and Gun Machinery, Turret Lathes, Millers, etc.
R S. Lawrence, H. D. Stone, F. W. Howe
*2 3 4 5 6 7*
#2# #7#
ENFIELD GUN MACHRY., 1855 CHAS. E. BILLINGS
Enfield, England Billings & Spencer,
Hartford
#5#
LAMSON, GOODNOW &
#3# YALE, 1859 #6#
SHARPS RIFLE WORKS later PROVIDENCE J. R. BROWN
Hartford, Conn. E. G. LAMSON & CO. TOOL WORKS S. B. DARLING,
*8* Guns, Sewing F. W. Howe, ETC.
Machines, Machine Supt., *12*
Tools, 1853-68
Windsor *10 11*
*9*
#4#
J. D. ALVORD
a contractor in R. & L. Shop,
Hartford & Sharpe Wks. Built the
Wheeler & Wilson Shop,
Bridgeport
*13*
#8# #9# #11 12#
WEED SEWING MACH. Sewing Machine business sold BROWN & SHARPE
CO. about 1861 to Mr. White F. W. Howe, Supt.,
Hartford, Conn. *15 16* 1868-73
*14* Plain and Univ.
Millers, Turret
Lathes
#14# #10#
POPE MFG. CO. RHODE ISLAND TOOL CO.
Hartford, Conn. Successors of Providence Tool
Works
#13#
WHEELER & WILSON PUTNAM MACH. CO.
Bridgeport, Conn. Fitchburg, Mass.
Sewing Machines S. C. Wright
*17*
#15# #16# #19#
WHITE SEWING MACH. WINDSOR MANUFACTURING SULLIVAN MACHRY. CO.
CO. CO. Claremont, N. H.
Cleveland, O. 1865 Mine and Quarrying
*20* *18 19* Machinery
#20# #18 21#
CLEVELAND AUTO MACH. JONES, LAMSON & CO., JAMES HARTNESS
CO., ETC. 1869 1889
Cleveland, O. JONES & LAMSON MACHINE *21 22*
CO., 1879
#23 28# Moved from Windsor to #17 22 25 27#
WINDSOR MACHINE CO. Springfield, Vt., in FITCHBURG MACH. WORKS
Windsor, Vt., 1889, 1889 Fitchburg, Mass.
Gridley Automation Hartness Flat Turret, Lo-Swing Lathe
Fay Automatic Lathes
*23 24*
#24#
JAMES HARTNESS
#29# *25 27* #26#
BRYANT CHUCKING E. R. FELLOWS FELLOWS GEAR
GRINDER CO. *26* SHAPER CO.
Springfield, Vt. G. O. GRIDLEY Springfield, Vt.
*28*
Wm. BRYANT
*29*
FIGURE 37. GENEALOGY OF THE ROBBINS & LAWRENCE SHOP]
Richard S. Lawrence, whose portrait appears in Fig. 40, was born
in Chester, Vt., in 1817. When two years old, his father moved to
Jefferson County, N. Y., and his boyhood was spent in the neighborhood
of Watertown. He was only nine years old when his father died, and
consequently he had a hard boyhood, with very little schooling, and was
early at work in the support of the family. He worked on a farm and
later in a woodworking shop, making carpenter’s and joiner’s tools.
In the basement of this place was a custom gun shop, where he spent
much of his spare time and became an expert gun maker. He worked with
indifferent success at various jobs until the winter of 1837-1838, when
he served in the United States army for three months, guarding the
frontier during the Canadian Rebellion. At his discharge he determined
to start in elsewhere for himself and thought of his relatives in
Vermont. After a long journey by the Erie Canal, the newly built Albany
& Schenectady Railroad, and by stage, he reached Windsor in 1838.
A week or two after his arrival, while visiting a Doctor Story, he
undertook to repair an old rifle, a “Turkey rifle,” made by the
doctor’s brother in a gun shop in the neighborhood, and put on a
peep-sight, a thing never heard of before in that neighborhood. He took
the gun apart, leaded out the barrel, forged and finished the sight
and put it on the gun. His skill in handling tools astonished those
who watched him. Two days later, when the work was done, the doctor
and Lawrence went out to try the gun. They paced off twelve rods from
a maple tree which had a three-quarter-inch auger hole in it that
had been used for a sap spout. Lawrence did the shooting. His own
account of it is as follows: “The doctor tended target. Could find no
ball hole. Said I missed the tree. I fired again, no ball hole to be
found. Doctor came up to me and said I had spoiled his rifle. Before
my repairs he could kill a chicken every time at twelve rods. I said,
‘Uncle, I am very sorry, but I will make the gun all right before I
leave it.’ He said he could not consent to my doing anything more to
improve the shooting qualities--the sight he liked very much. I said
that as the gun was loaded I would take one more shot and see if I
could not hit the tree. After the third shot I went up to the tree to
investigate, and all of the three balls which I had fired were found in
the auger hole.”[185] The doctor was astonished, for he had never heard
of such shooting.
[185] Quoted from the full account given in Appendix A.
The next day he took Lawrence down to see N. Kendall & Company, who
were making guns at the Windsor prison. They hired him at once for two
years at $100 a year. His first work was stocking rifles by hand and
the first day he put on five stocks. The next day the superintendent
looked over the work and said it was well done, but it would never do
to rush the work as he had, for he would “soon gun-stock them out of
town,” and he “must take it more easy.” In the course of the next six
months, he had so far mastered every process in the factory, even that
of engraving in which he could soon compete with the oldest hands, that
he was put in charge of the shop. Four years later the company gave up
the gun business, and for a time Lawrence remained as foreman of the
carriage department in the prison shop.
In 1843 Kendall and Lawrence hired a small shop in Windsor village
and started a custom gun shop. In the winter of 1844 S. E. Robbins, a
business man, came to them and said that the Government was in the
market for 10,000 rifles. The matter was talked over, a partnership
formed, and a bid sent to Washington. In spite of the opposition of
nearly all the other Government contractors, who said they could never
do the work, it resulted in the award of a contract for 10,000 to
Robbins, Kendall & Lawrence, at $10.90 each, attachments extra, to be
furnished within three years.
They bought land, built a shop, and bought or made the necessary
machinery. It was in the performance of this and the subsequent
contract that many of the early machine tools were developed. The
contract was finished eighteen months ahead of time, at a good profit,
and they obtained a second contract for 15,000 at the same price.
Soon after finishing the first contract, Robbins and Lawrence bought
out Kendall’s interest in the firm, which became Robbins & Lawrence.
The business proved very profitable. About 38 per cent of their work
for the Government had to be rejected on account of poor material
and workmanship, but the California gold excitement was then at its
height and guns were in great demand. They were therefore able to sell
their second-quality work for the full government price. About 1850
they contracted with Courtland C. Palmer for 5000 Jennings rifles, a
gun which later developed through the Henry rifle into the present
well-known Winchester rifle.
About 1850 Robbins & Lawrence took the first of the steps which led to
their undoing. The railroad had just been completed through Windsor,
and S. F. Belknap, a large railroad contractor, induced them to start
in the car business, which, of course, had no rational relation with
their main activity of building guns. Mr. Belknap assured them that he
could control all the car work in that section, and put in $20,000 as
a silent partner. The firm went to a large outlay, but just as they
were finishing the first cars, Belknap quarreled with the president of
the railroad and the firm could not sell a single car when they had
expected to. After a considerable delay they were sold to other roads,
and stock which proved valueless was taken in payment. The operation
involved an actual loss of $134,000, which was later increased to
nearly $240,000.
[Illustration: FIGURE 38. ROBBINS & LAWRENCE ARMORY, WINDSOR, VT.
FROM AN OLD LITHOGRAPH]
In all of their gun work, Robbins & Lawrence used the interchangeable
system, and they contributed very largely to its development. Lawrence,
Howe, and later Stone, were constantly improving the methods of
manufacture. Fitch’s article on Interchangeable Manufacture in the
U. S. Census Report of 1880, describes and illustrates a profiling
machine built by Howe as early as 1848. The design shown there was used
for many years throughout all the gun shops in the country. He also
designed a barrel drilling and rifling machine, and he and Lawrence
designed and built a plain miller, which was the forerunner of the
well-known Lincoln miller. One of these millers, built in 1853, is
still running in the shop of the North Brothers Manufacturing Company
in Philadelphia. This machine had a rack-and-pinion feed for the
table, which chattered badly when starting a heavy cut. The principal
improvement which F. A. Pratt introduced in the Lincoln miller was the
substitution for this of a screw and nut. The original drawing of this
Robbins & Lawrence machine is still on file in the office of the Jones
& Lamson Machine Company and shows clearly that it furnished the basis
of the design of the Lincoln miller.
In 1851 Robbins & Lawrence sent to the Exposition in London a set
of rifles built on the interchangeable system, which excited great
interest and for which they received a medal. This led to the visit of
an English commission which resulted in a large contract to Robbins &
Lawrence for Enfield rifles, and for gun machinery which was installed
in the Armory at Enfield, near London. It has been said that this
contract caused the failure of Robbins & Lawrence. This is not true.
In 1852 the company contracted to make 5000 Sharps carbines at Windsor,
and 15,000 rifles and carbines at a plant which they were to erect in
Hartford. The Sharps Company advanced $40,000 to enable them to build a
new factory and Mr. Lawrence moved to Hartford in 1853 to superintend
the building and equipment of the plant. Shortly after it was
completed, Robbins & Lawrence, already strained by their losses in the
car-building venture and with the erecting of the new plant, undertook
a contract with Fox, Henderson & Company for 25,000 Minié rifles. They
were assured by the agent that he had in his pockets contracts for
300,000 more, which he promised them on the completion of the 25,000.
Lawrence objected strenuously to signing the contract for the 25,000
without more assurance as to the 300,000 to follow, as the outlay
for the work would greatly exceed the profits on the first contract.
It was signed, however, and it later developed that the agent had no
authorization for the 300,000. It was this which caused the failure of
Robbins & Lawrence.
Mr. Lawrence left the firm and took charge of the new Hartford plant
which had been bought by the Sharps Rifle Company. J. D. Alvord, one
of the contractors at Hartford under Lawrence, later built the Wheeler
& Wilson plant at Bridgeport. Robbins and others leased the Windsor
shops and began the manufacture of sewing machines. In 1859 the plant
and business were purchased by Lamson, Goodnow & Yale, who retained
Henry D. Stone as their mechanical expert. During the Civil War the
plant was given over entirely to the manufacture of army rifles, and
the sewing-machine business was sold to Mr. White of the White Sewing
Machine Company of Cleveland, Ohio.
In the early thirties Silas Lamson had begun manufacturing scythe
snaths in one of the hill towns of western Massachusetts. Up to that
time the farmers had either used straight poles or those which happened
naturally to have a convenient twist. Lamson conceived the idea of
steaming the poles and bending them to a predetermined curve. About
1840 his sons, Nathan and E. G. Lamson, moved to Shelburne Falls and
after some years began the manufacture of cutlery, founding the factory
which has been in successful operation ever since. After the completion
of the railroad through Windsor, they moved their snath factory to that
place. They and their successors, the Lamson & Goodnow Manufacturing
Company, continued this work there for many years. When the Robbins
& Lawrence property was put on the market it was purchased by E. G.
Lamson, A. F. Goodnow and B. B. Yale, under the name of Lamson, Goodnow
& Yale. E. G. Lamson & Company and the Windsor Manufacturing Company
succeeded this firm and continued the manufacture of machine tools and
Ball and Palmer carbines, and completed a number of government rifle
contracts. In 1869 R. L. Jones, a business man, of the Ascutney Mill
at Windsor, joined the firm, which became Jones, Lamson & Company, and
a small cotton mill was added to their other activities. Ten years
later the Jones & Lamson Company was organized to take over the machine
business. During all these changes Henry D. Stone continued as the
designer. A large poster of the Windsor Manufacturing Company, printed
some time about 1865, shows that they had plenty of irons in the fire,
for they were prepared to furnish guns and machinery for manufacturing
guns, sewing machines and needles, a standard line of hand-operated
turret lathes, plain and index millers, planers, trimming presses,
drill presses, sawmills, rock drills and mining machinery. Later their
mining and quarry-machinery business was moved to Claremont, N. H., and
became the Sullivan Machinery Company.
In 1889 the present Jones & Lamson Machine Company moved to
Springfield, Vt., where it now is. That same year, James Hartness
entered the employment of the company as superintendent. With his
advent the scattering of activities ceased and the Jones & Lamson
Machine Company began concentrating on turret lathes, which Robbins
& Lawrence and their various successors have been manufacturing
continuously since the early fifties. A number of the old mechanics and
foremen, who had homes in Windsor at the time the company was moving to
Springfield, took over the old shops and organized the present Windsor
Machine Company which now manufactures the Gridley Automatic Lathes.
This, briefly, is the history of the old Robbins & Lawrence shop. The
men, however, who worked with Robbins & Lawrence and its successors,
are of greater interest.
While Lawrence continued as master-armorer of the Sharps Rifle Works,
the company was successful financially. Fitch, in the Census article
frequently referred to, says that he brought with him “from Windsor the
first plain milling machine used in Hartford.” Lawrence also applied
the broaching process to the manufacture of Sharps rifles, effecting
great economies, and was the inventor of the split pulley which was
first made for him at Lincoln’s Phœnix Iron Works. In the winter of
1850 Lawrence introduced the practice of lubricating rifle bullets with
tallow, making possible the repeating rifle which had been a failure
up to that time as the barrel “leaded” and the gun lost its accuracy.
This was done in connection with some trials of the Jennings rifle
during the visit of Louis Kossuth, the Hungarian patriot, who was in
this country for the supposed purpose of purchasing rifles.[186] Mr.
Lawrence left the Sharps company in 1872 and was for many years an
official in the city of Hartford, as Superintendent of Streets and on
the Water and Fire Boards. He died in 1892.
[186] See Appendix B.
The Sharps Rifle Works, after Lawrence’s retirement, were bought by
the Weed Sewing Machine Company, and later by the Pope Manufacturing
Company, who extended it greatly for the manufacture of the Columbia
bicycle.
Frederick W. Howe, the second of the Robbins & Lawrence mechanics
mentioned, whose portrait appears in Fig. 39, learned his trade in the
old Gay & Silver shop at North Chelmsford. We have seen in a previous
chapter the connection of this company, through Ira Gay, with the early
mechanics at Pawtucket. It is an interesting and perhaps significant
fact that both milling machines and turret lathes were in use in this
shop, probably at the time when Howe worked there. Howe was first
a draftsman and later superintendent at Windsor and was intimately
associated with the designing there at that time. The Jones & Lamson
Machine Company still have drawings of machine tools made by him as
early as 1848. As both Lawrence and Howe were designing in the Windsor
shop at that period, it is difficult today to apportion the credit
between them.
When Robbins & Lawrence failed, Howe went to Providence as
superintendent of the Providence Tool Company and his work there
contributed greatly to the success of that firm. While with both
Robbins & Lawrence and the Providence Tool Company, he worked on the
turret-head screw machine and the plain miller. The first screw
machine brought out by Brown & Sharpe in 1861 was built for Mr. Howe.
Joseph R. Brown added certain valuable features to it, but the parts
for the first machine were said to have been cast from Howe’s patterns.
Howe invented and built a universal milling machine,[187] but it should
not be confused with what is now known as the “universal” miller, which
was first built by Brown & Sharpe, also in 1861, for Mr. Howe to mill
the flutes in twist drills. The distinction between these two machines
has been pointed out by Mr. Burlingame. The No. 12 plain miller which
Brown & Sharpe build today was designed by Howe, and for many years was
known as the “Howe” type of miller. From 1868 to 1873 Mr. Howe was the
superintendent of Brown & Sharpe, and built the first building on their
present site. Later he started in business for himself as a consulting
mechanical engineer and was designing a typewriter (which was never
built) at the time of his death. He was a smooth-faced, well-dressed
man, with a restless inventive mind, apt to change things frequently,
improving each time, however, and when he finished anything it was
thoroughly done. He left a deep impress on mechanical development in
this country, and while Lawrence was perhaps the best mechanic, Howe
was probably the ablest of the three men connected with the early
Robbins & Lawrence history.
[187] Illustrated in the _American Machinist_ of August 13, 1914. See
also p. 208.
[Illustration: FIGURE 39. FREDERICK W. HOWE]
[Illustration: FIGURE 40. RICHARD S. LAWRENCE]
Henry D. Stone was born in 1815 and died at Windsor in 1898. He learned
his trade as a millwright at Woodstock, Vt., but soon afterward came
to Robbins & Lawrence. He remained with them and their successors
for the rest of his career, more than thirty years. He has been
very generally credited with the invention of the vertical turret
as applied to the lathe, but the idea was by no means original with
him. In 1845 a horizontal turret was designed and built by Stephen
Fitch at Middlefield, Conn., to manufacture percussion locks for
the United States Government. This machine is illustrated in the
_American Machinist_ of May 24, 1900. It had a horizontal axis with
eight positions for as many tools. In the same magazine for November
28, 1908, two turret lathes are illustrated and described, one with a
vertical and the other with a horizontal turret, both of which were in
use in the Gay & Silver shop at an early date, probably in the forties,
at the time Howe was there as an apprentice. The horizontal turret
principle was also in use by E. K. Root at the Colt Armory,[188] and J.
D. Alvord is said to have used a turret screw machine in the Hartford
plant in 1853. There is little doubt that both Howe and Lawrence had
something to do with the development of the turret lathe at Windsor.
The turret designs which Howe had built for him a few years later in
Providence are all along the same lines. Stone unquestionably had a
share in the development of the turret, for he made the drawing of the
first Robbins & Lawrence turret machines and continued for many years
the development of the turret lathe for the various companies which
successively operated in Windsor. With the turret screw machine came
the box-tool and hollow mill. _Machinery_ of May, 1912, illustrated and
described a box-tool, fitted with two back rests and two cutting tools,
which was made by Robbins & Lawrence at Windsor in 1850.
[188] See Fig. 33. See also the valuable article by E. G. Parkhurst
in the _American Machinist_, of May 24, 1900, p. 489, referred to
above.
The second period in the history of this company, or succession of
companies, begins with the coming of James Hartness to the Jones &
Lamson Machine Company in 1889. Mr. Hartness was born in Schenectady
in 1861 and learned his trade by “picking it up,” first with Younglove,
Massey & Company, of Cleveland, where his father was superintendent,
and then in the machine shop of the Union Steel Screw Works. In the
latter shop he first came in contact with close, accurate work. The
practice of this company was due to Jason A. Bidwell, who came from the
American Screw Company, in Providence, which we have referred to in a
previous chapter. Three years later Mr. Hartness went to the Lake Erie
Iron Works as tool maker. In 1882 he went to Winsted, Conn., as foreman
in the Thomson, Stacker Bolt Company, and in 1885 to the Union Hardware
Company of Torrington, manufacturers of gun implements, first as tool
maker, then foreman, and later as inventor. During the year 1888 he
worked for a few months at the Pratt & Whitney shop in Hartford,
at Scottdale, Pa., and with the Eaton, Cole & Burnham Company, in
Bridgeport. He went to the Jones & Lamson Machine Company in February,
1889, the year in which they moved to their present location at
Springfield, Vt. He was first superintendent until 1893, then manager
until 1900, and president from then on.
During these years Mr. Hartness has become one of the most influential
designers of machine tools of this generation and in 1914 he was
president of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. When he
went to Windsor, the Jones & Lamson Machine Company was manufacturing
principally a standard type of high-turret lathe, lever-operated,
with power feed and back gears. Mr. Hartness immediately began an
investigation of the problem which resulted in the invention of the
Hartness flat-turret lathe and many improvements in the details of the
tools used on it. While Mr. Hartness was developing certain details
of the turret construction, he found in the records of the company
sketches of the identical mechanism, made by Howe nearly forty years
before, which show not only that Howe was engaged in turret-lathe
design but that he was a generation ahead of his time.
[Illustration: FIGURE 41. JAMES HARTNESS]
Under Mr. Hartness’ management, the Jones & Lamson Machine Company have
concentrated on a single design of machine which they have developed
to the utmost. Rather than be diverted from this single object, he
has, as new inventions have come up, helped others to develop them
independently. The result has been that while the Jones & Lamson
Machine Company, with one exception, has confined its attention to
flat-turret lathes, a number of important machines, which have sprung
from men connected with that company, are now being manufactured by
other firms.
The Fellows gear shaper is one of these machines. Mr. Fellows’ career
is a problem to those who are interested in the training of mechanics.
He was a window dresser in a dry goods store in Torrington and also
ran the carpet department. When Mr. Hartness came to Springfield, Mr.
Fellows, then twenty-two years old, came with him. Without any previous
mechanical training or technical education he worked for one week in
the shop, slotting screw heads, and then went into the drawing room.
He succeeded so well here that in a short time he was chief draftsman.
In 1896 he invented his gear shaper, the Fellows Gear Shaper Company
was organized, and has been in successful operation ever since. As the
theory underlying this invention is of a very refined order and the
problems involved in its manufacture have been worked out with great
skill, one would expect it to be the product of long experience and
high technical training. That Mr. Fellows should have brought out so
refined a machine within a few years from the time he first turned
his attention to mechanical matters is a remarkable tribute to his
qualities as a machine designer.
Mr. George O. Gridley is another mechanic who worked under Mr. Hartness
at Springfield. He developed the single- and later the multi-spindle
automatic lathes which are now manufactured by the Windsor Machine
Company in the new plant which has been built near the old Robbins &
Lawrence shop at Windsor. The original plant of the fifties is now used
as a club house for the men.
The Lo-Swing lathe, manufactured by the Fitchburg Machine Works at
Fitchburg, was invented by Mr. Hartness. The Fitchburg Machine Works
was founded in the early sixties by Sylvester C. Wright, who came from
the Putnam Machine Works. For many years they manufactured a general
line of machine tools, but they now confine their attention entirely to
the Lo-Swing lathe.
The Bryant chucking grinder, invented by William L. Bryant, is another
machine which has sprung from the Jones & Lamson shop of recent
years. It is manufactured by a separate company, the Bryant Chucking
Grinder Company, also at Springfield, Vt. The Fay automatic lathe,
now manufactured by Jones & Lamson Company, is the exception to their
policy of concentration on the flat turret. Like the Lo-Swing, it
is intended for work which cannot be done on the flat-turret lathe,
more particularly such pieces as are carried on mandrels. The cutting
tools are controlled by cams and a cam drum. Like the Lo-Swing, it is
intended to supplement the field of the turret lathe and to give the
advantage of multiple tools, constant setting, and automatic operation
for work which could not be put upon a turret machine.
We have followed the four main lines of influence from the old shop
at Windsor; one, through Lawrence, to Hartford; one, through Howe,
to Providence; one, through Stone and later Gridley, at Windsor; and
the fourth, through Hartness and the Jones & Lamson Machine Company
to Springfield. Another line of influence comes through Charles E.
Billings, who learned his trade under Robbins & Lawrence, went to the
Colt Armory, and as we have seen elsewhere, founded the Billings &
Spencer Company. Like Mr. Hartness, he also has been a president of
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. There are other lines of
influence in Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere which we cannot follow
out here.
CHAPTER XVI
THE BROWN & SHARPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Two companies, both in New England, have been conspicuous for their
leadership in tool building and the introduction of precision methods
in manufacture. One of them, the Pratt & Whitney Company, we have
considered. The other, the Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company, of
Providence, calls also for special notice.
It was founded in 1833 by David Brown and his son Joseph R. Brown.[189]
For nearly twenty years its business comprised the making and repairing
of clocks, watches and mathematical instruments, in a small shop
without power. Its influence was hardly more than local and only
fourteen persons were employed in 1853, when Lucian Sharpe was taken
into the partnership, and the firm became J. R. Brown & Sharpe.[190]
[189] David Brown retired in 1841. For the early history of David and
Joseph R. Brown see Van Slyck: “Representative Men of New England.”
[190] The writer would acknowledge his indebtedness to Mr. L. D.
Burlingame for much of the material in this chapter.
The real development of the business had begun a few years before. In
1850 J. R. Brown had invented and built a linear dividing engine which
was, so far as is known, the first automatic machine for graduating
rules used in the United States. It was fully automatic, adapted to
a wide variety of work, and provided with devices for correcting the
inaccuracies of the machine as built, and such as might develop on
account of wear. Various improvements were made in this machine within
the next few years and two more were built, one in 1854 and one in
1859, essentially like it. These three machines are in use today and
doing work which meets modern requirements of accuracy.
[Illustration: FIGURE 42. JOSEPH R. BROWN]
Soon after the first graduating machine was put into use, the vernier
caliper, reading to thousandths of an inch, was brought out by Mr.
Brown; the first was made as early as 1851. In the following year
he applied the vernier to protractors. A writer, in speaking of the
invention of the vernier caliper, says, “It was the first practical
tool for exact measurements which could be sold in any country at a
price within the reach of the ordinary machinist, and its importance in
the attainment of accuracy for fine work can hardly be overestimated.”
The introduction of the vernier caliper was slow, only four being made
in the first year. In 1852 Mr. Brown asked the New York agents to
return one which they had on exhibition because he needed it for some
fine work and did not have another in the shop. Within a year or two
the sales improved, for Mr. Sharpe wrote his agent at Newark, N. J., in
1854, that it could not be expected there would be a market for many
more tools in that neighborhood, as $500 worth had already been sold
there.
Mr. Brown did not have the market long, for in 1852 Samuel Darling also
invented and built a graduating engine and began the manufacture of
rules and squares at Bangor, Maine. Mr. Darling had been a farmer and
sawmill owner, with a strong bent for mechanics. He had gone to work
in a machine shop six years before and almost from the first had given
his attention to improvements in machinists’ tools. His first partner
was Edward H. Bailey, but after a year a new partnership was formed
with Michael Schwartz, a saw maker and hardware dealer of Bangor.
They soon became active competitors of J. R. Brown & Sharpe, and to
this day mechanics here and there have scales marked “D. & S., Bangor,
Me.” Competition between the two firms, both in prices and quality of
work, became so keen that a truce was called in 1866, resulting in
the formation of the partnership of Darling, Brown & Sharpe, which
conducted this part of the business until 1892, when Darling’s interest
was bought out. The entire business was soon after conducted under the
name The Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company, the original firm of J.
R. Brown & Sharpe having been incorporated under that name in 1868.
In the spring of 1868 Mr. Darling moved to Providence, bringing with
him his graduating engine, machinery and six of his most experienced
workmen. Darling’s engine was built along radically different lines
from Brown’s, an interesting feature being that many of its parts were
made of saw-stock, which he also used as the material for his scales
and squares. His machines and processes had been kept secret, and it
was not until after the partnership was formed that Mr. Brown had
opportunity of seeing them at Bangor. Mr. Darling’s original dividing
machine is also still running at the Brown & Sharpe works, having been
operated for over fifty years by John E. Hall, who remembers the time
when Mr. Darling first brought his new partners to see it.
Both J. R. Brown & Sharpe and Mr. Darling had had their standards
compared with those at Washington prior to the formation of the
partnership. Standards of a still higher degree of accuracy were
prepared about 1877, and the following is quoted from a letter to J. E.
Hilgard, of the Coast Survey Office, Washington, regarding the metric
standard in use by the Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company at that
time:
Taking 39.370 as the standard, there is only 0.00023 in. in the meter
difference in our comparison, which perhaps is as close as may be
expected. We shall now consider your comparison of our steel bar with
the standard at Washington as correct, and in our comparisons with it
shall be able to detect errors as small as 0.000025 in.
Still later and more accurate standards were made by Oscar J. Beale in
1893.[191]
[191] _American Machinist_, Vol. XXXVI, p. 1025.
The early business of J. R. Brown & Sharpe connected them closely with
the various standards then in use for measuring wire, sheet metal, and
the like. Mr. Sharpe was impressed with the irregularity and confusion
of these various gauges, so that after he became Mr. Brown’s partner,
he interested himself in the establishment of a more systematic
standard for wire gauges. In 1855 he corresponded with various people
in regard to gauges for clock springs. By January of 1856 the wire
gauge with a regular progression of sizes had been conceived, and a
month later a table of sizes was made. The new system was laid before
the Waterbury Brass Association by Mr. Sharpe, and in November of
that year fifty gauges were sent to William Brown, president of the
Association, for inspection by the members to show them the uniformity
in size which could be maintained in making a number of gauges.
The Association passed resolutions adopting this standard, and in
February, 1857, eight of the leading American manufacturers signed
these resolutions. The new gauge, introduced to the public through a
circular sent out in March of that year, became the standard, since
known as the American Wire Gauge.
The subject of accurate gearing came up in connection with the clock
business then conducted by J. R. Brown & Sharpe. There were also calls
for gears to be cut which were beyond the capacity of the machine
they then had for such work. This led to the design and building of a
precision gear cutter, not only to produce accurate gears, but also to
drill index plates and do circular graduating.
The second of the linear dividing engines, built in 1854, had a
graduated silver ring set into the dividing wheel. This ring was
graduated at the office of the Coast Survey in Washington by William
Wurdeman on a machine having an index wheel with 4320 graduations
copied from the plate of the Troughton & Simms machine in London. Mr.
Brown went to Washington to see the work done and was so well satisfied
with it that he arranged with Mr. Wurdeman to graduate the copper ring
used in the precision gear cutter which was built in 1855. Patrick
Harlow, who operated this machine from about 1860 to 1910, says that
it was Mr. Brown’s special pride, that it was given the honor and care
due a precision machine, was located in a room by itself and carefully
covered every night to protect it from injury. Long after it was
supplanted by automatic gear cutters, it was used for index drilling.
The formed milling cutter, which retains accurately the contour of its
cutting edge through successive sharpenings, was invented in 1864 by
J. R. Brown with special reference to the cutting of gear teeth. In
fact, the oldest milling cutter known was used for cutting gear teeth.
This cutter was made some time prior to 1782 by the French mechanic
Jacques de Vaucanson and came into the possession of the Brown &
Sharpe Manufacturing Company about 1895. The teeth are very fine and
apparently were cut with chisels. The hole in the center is octagonal
and seems to have been broached.
The formed cutters came as one of the important elements in the system
of interchangeable involute gears, introduced by Brown & Sharpe,
based on the principles of Professor Willis. While they used both
the involute and cycloidal systems, they threw the weight of their
influence toward the former and were a strong factor in the general
adoption of the involute form for cut gearing, as well as for the use
of diametral pitch, which, as we have seen, was suggested by Bodmer in
Manchester, England.
Early in the Civil War the Providence Tool Company took up the
manufacture of Springfield muskets for the Government. Frederick W.
Howe, who had become superintendent of that company after leaving
Robbins & Lawrence, had been designing turret machines for a number
of years, as we have seen. In order to equip the Tool Company for
this work, and especially for making the nipples, he went to J. R.
Brown & Sharpe and arranged with them to build a turret screw machine
for this purpose. The general design of this machine was similar to
those of Howe & Stone, and Mr. E. E. Lamson tells the writer that the
castings for it were made at the Jones & Lamson shop in Windsor. J. R.
Brown added the self-revolving turret, utilizing a ratchet and pawl
action on the return motion of the slide, the device for releasing,
feeding and gripping the bar-stock while in motion, and the reversing
die holder. While Brown was the first to adapt these features to the
Howe machine, the revolving feeding mechanism had been used before and
Pratt & Whitney had begun the manufacture of turret screw machines with
self-revolving heads that same year, 1861.[192]
[192] “Origin of the Turret,” _American Machinist_, May 24, 1900, p.
489.
This screw machine seems to have been the first machine tool built for
sale by the Brown & Sharpe Company. Various sizes of screw machines, of
both hand and automatic types, were built by them during and since the
Civil War. In the early eighties, S. L. Worsley developed for them the
complete automatic screw machine, many features of which are still in
use in the machines now being built.
At the opening of the war plain milling machines had been in use for
many years. The Lincoln miller had taken its present form and Howe
had designed a miller with a vertically adjustable cutter-slide and a
swiveling chuck which could be revolved, indexed and swiveled in two
planes and fed longitudinally under the cutter.[193] The statement by
Fitch in the “Report on the Manufacture of Interchangeable Mechanism”
in the United States Census, 1880, that the “universal miller” was
designed by Howe in 1852, is doubtless based on this machine or a
forerunner of it. The drawings of it, however, show a machine of
radically different design from what is now known as the “universal
miller,” which was invented by Joseph R. Brown in 1861-1862, at Howe’s
suggestion.
[193] Illustrated in the _American Machinist_, Aug. 13, 1914, pp.
296-297.
The Brown & Sharpe universal miller is indirectly connected with the
percussion nipple which brought about their first screw machine. The
hole in this piece was drilled by twist drills which the Providence
Tool Company were making for themselves. One day Howe came into the
shop and watched the workman filing the spiral grooves in tool-steel
wire with a rat-tail file. He decided that the method was too expensive
and consulted with Joseph R. Brown to find a better and more economical
way of making them.
[Illustration: FIGURE 43. FIRST UNIVERSAL MILLING MACHINE
1862]
Mr. Brown appreciated the need of a machine to do this work, especially
as he was just beginning to use such drills himself in the manufacture
of the Wilcox & Gibbs sewing machines. He set himself at once to the
task of developing a machine which would not only cut the grooves in
twist drills, but would be suitable for many kinds of spiral milling,
gear cutting, and other work which had up to that time required
expensive hand operations. Little time was lost, and the first machine
(Fig. 43) was built and sold to the Providence Tool Company, March 14,
1862. After passing through several hands it came back thirty years
later into the possession of its builders and is now preserved by them
for its historical interest. The first published account of the machine
appeared in the _Scientific American_, December 27, 1862. The limited
facilities of the shop were taxed to meet the demand created, and ten
machines were built and sold during the remainder of the year 1862,
most of the sales being in the eastern states. The first machine sold
in the west went to the Elgin National Watch Company, and the first one
sold abroad went to France.
Howe never claimed to be the inventor of this machine, and, in fact,
while still superintendent of the Providence Tool Company he wrote a
testimonial to J. R. Brown & Sharpe, in which he said, “I take great
pleasure in recommending _your_ celebrated universal millers.”
Howe was connected with the Brown & Sharpe Company from January 1,
1868, to about 1873. This is the last year that he appears in the
directory as being at their works. There was some form of partnership
by which he and Mr. McFarlane, the superintendent, had an interest in
the business so that his name does not occur in its list of employees.
The plain milling machine manufactured for years by Brown & Sharpe
is his design, and his work was partly that of special designing and
partly superintending the building of their new plant on the present
site. They moved into this in 1872 from their old wooden buildings. At
that time they employed from 150 to 200 men.
In the early sixties the company began the manufacture of the Wilcox
& Gibbs sewing machine, which they have manufactured ever since. They
used cylindrical and caliper gauges, including limit gauges, for
this work. In 1865 a set of standards was made for John Richards,
and cylindrical and limit gauges of various forms were regularly
manufactured during the early seventies. For a long time the basis
of accuracy for these was a set of Whitworth plugs and rings, which
are still preserved among their archives. The sizes above the 2 inch
are cast-iron, and commencing with the 2³⁄₄ inch they are hollow and
ribbed. These were looked upon with reverence by the Brown & Sharpe
workmen and were used as master gauges for the commercial plugs and
rings. They found, however, that in trying the Whitworth plugs, say
³⁄₄ inch and 1¹⁄₄ inch into a 2 inch ring and then other combinations
into the same ring, an appreciable variation in fit could be noticed.
This led to consideration of means for obtaining greater accuracy than
was possible with dependence on these Whitworth gauges. At the time
the question arose Richmond Viall had just become superintendent and
Oscar J. Beale was chief inspector. It was decided to make a measuring
machine which should be an original standard for measuring as well as
a comparator. This machine, built in 1878, was largely the work of Mr.
Beale. It has a measuring wheel graduated to read to ten-thousandths of
an inch and a vernier reading to hundred-thousandths. There is also an
adjustment which reads even finer than the famous “millionth dividing
engine” of Whitworth. The basis of accuracy for the microscopic scale
was a standard yard, which had been compared with the standards at
Washington.
The micrometer caliper was introduced by Brown & Sharpe in 1867.
Although not the pioneers in the sense of being the inventors, they
were the first to recognize the practical value of this tool for
machinists, and to put it on the market. As in the case of the vernier
caliper, the introduction of the micrometer caliper into everyday
shopwork marked an important step in raising the standard of accuracy.
The principle is very old. William Gascoigne, of Yorkshire, England,
used it about 1637, moving two parallel edges or pointers to and fro by
means of a screw provided with a divided head. For two hundred years
the principle has been used in controlling the movement of spider webs
and cross hairs in transits and other optical instruments. It is well
known that Watt had one (now in the South Kensington Museum in London),
and we have already mentioned the “Lord Chancellor,” used by Maudslay
before 1830. R. Hoe & Company, of New York, in 1858, had a bench
micrometer reading up to 9 inches. But none of these could ever have
influenced mechanical standards generally as did the strong, compact
little instrument developed by Brown & Sharpe.
The circumstances surrounding its introduction are as follows: In
1867 the Bridgeport Brass Company had a lot of sheet brass returned
to them from the Union Metallic Cartridge Company as “out of
gauge.” Investigation showed that the sheets were to the gauge of
the manufacturer, but that the gauge used by the customer did not
agree, and, further, when both gauges were tested by a third, no two
of them agreed. All three gauges were supposed to be the regular
U. S. Standard, adopted by the wire manufacturers in 1857, of the
well-known round, flat form, with slits for the various sizes cut in
the circumference. Gauges of this form were the best and most accurate
method then known for measuring sheet metal.
S. R. Wilmot, then superintendent of the Bridgeport Brass Company,
seeing that the difficulty was likely to occur again, devised the
micrometer shown at A in Fig. 44, and had six of them made by a skilled
machinist named Hiram Driggs, under the direction of A. D. Laws, who
was then in charge of the mechanical department of the Brass Company.
The reading of the thousandths of an inch was given by a pointer and
a spiral line of the same pitch as the screw, 40 to the inch, running
around the cylinder and crossed by a set of 25 lateral, parallel lines.
In the early part of 1867, the matter was taken up with J. R. Brown
& Sharpe with a view to having them manufacture the gauges, and the
one shown, A, Fig. 44, with Mr. Laws’ name stamped on it, is still in
their possession. As submitted, the tool was not considered to be of
commercial value, for the cylinder was completely covered with spiral
and straight lines intersecting each other so closely that it was
impossible to put any figures upon it, thus making it very difficult to
read.
In 1848 Jean Laurent Palmer, a skilled mechanic in Paris, patented a
“screw caliper,” shown at B, Fig. 44, and began manufacturing it under
the name of “Systeme Palmer.” In this micrometer the graduations were
divided, one set being on the cylinder of the frame and the other on
the revolving barrel, an arrangement which permitted all the markings
necessary for clearness. The importance of this tool does not seem to
have been appreciated until August, 1867, when J. R. Brown and Lucian
Sharpe saw one at the Paris Exposition. They at once recognized its
possibilities and brought one home with them. To use Mr. Sharpe’s own
words: “As a gauge was wanted for measuring sheet metal, we adopted
Palmer’s plan of division, and the Bridgeport man’s size of gauge,
adding the clamp for tightening the screw and the adjusting screw for
compensating the wear of end of points where the metal is measured, and
produced our ‘Pocket Sheet Metal Gauge.’... We should never have made
such a gauge as was shown us by the Bridgeport man in 1867, to sell on
our own account, as it would be too troublesome to read to be salable.
If we had not happened to find the Palmer gauge, and thereby found a
practical way to read thousandths of an inch, no gauges would have
been made. If we had never seen the Bridgeport device we should have
found the Palmer at Paris, and without doubt have made such gauges, but
possibly would have made a larger one first. The immediate reason of
making the ‘Pocket Sheet Metal Gauge’ was the suggestion coming from
the Bridgeport Brass Company of the want of a gauge of the size of the
sample shown us for the use of the brass trade.”[194]
[194] From a letter of Lucian Sharpe, quoted in the _American
Machinist_ of December 15, 1892, p. 10.
[Illustration:
A
B
C
D
FIGURE 44. EARLY MICROMETER CALIPERS
A--Wilmot’s Micrometer, 1867
B--Palmer Micrometer, brought from Paris by J. R. Brown and Lucian
Sharpe, 1867
C--“Pocket Sheet Metal Gauge,” Brown & Sharpe, 1868
D--One-inch Micrometer, Brown & Sharpe, 1877]
This gauge, shown at C, in Fig. 44, was put on the market in 1868,
and appeared in the catalog of 1869. Comparison of A, B, and C in
Fig. 44 shows clearly their close relationship. The term “micrometer”
caliper was first applied to the one-inch caliper (D, Fig. 44) which
was brought out and illustrated in the catalog of 1877. In _Machinery_
of June, 1915, Mr. L. D. Burlingame has given an admirable and
very complete account of the various improvements which have been
brought out since that time. In connection with the article, a modern
micrometer is shown and its various features, with the inventors of
each, are clearly indicated.[195]
[195] The origin and development of the present form of micrometer
is further discussed in _Machinery_, August, 1915, p. 999, and
September, 1915, pp. 11, 58.
The cylindrical grinder was first made as a crude grinding lathe in
the early sixties, and used for grinding the needle and foot bars of
the Wilcox & Gibbs sewing machines. In 1864 and 1865 the regular
manufacture of grinding lathes was begun by using parts of 14-inch
Putnam lathes modified to produce the automatic grinding lathes. These
modifications consisted in mounting a grinding wheel on the carriage,
providing an automatic feeding and reversing attachment, and included
the use of a dead center pulley. From 1868 until 1876 various plans
were worked out for a complete universal grinder, and by 1876 one had
been built and was exhibited at the Centennial Exposition. The first
one used at the factory was put into service a few days after Mr.
Brown’s death, which occurred July 23, 1876. The patent granted to Mr.
Brown’s heirs for this machine included not only the ordinary devices
of the universal grinder so well known today, but also provision for
form grinding. The designing of surface machines as well as many
other varieties followed, the work being done under the direction of
Charles H. Norton, who later had charge of the design of their grinding
machinery.
The manufacture of automatic gear cutters was commenced by the Brown &
Sharpe Manufacturing Company in 1877, two designs by Edward H. Parks,
a small manufacturing machine for bevel and spur gears and the larger
machine for general use, being brought out in that year.
In sixty years the Brown & Sharpe Company has grown from an obscure
local shop into a great plant employing thousands, but its influence
and its product represent a greater achievement. Many mechanics of
high ability have gone to other shops, among whom are Henry M. Leland,
president of the Cadillac Motor Car Company; J. T. Slocomb, Horace
Thurston, Elmer A. Beaman and George Smith, of Providence; Charles H.
Norton, of Worcester; John J. Grant, of Boston; William S. Davenport,
of New Bedford; A. J. Shaw, of the Shaw Electric Crane Company, and H.
K. LeBlond, of Cincinnati. Hundreds of others, however, as managers,
superintendents, chief draftsmen and tool makers, have perhaps done
more to spread throughout the country the methods and standards of
accuracy which have made American machine tools what they are.
Mr. Henry M. Leland, who was trained in the Providence shop, says:
The man who is responsible for this and who thoroughly demonstrated
his rare ability and wonderful persistency in bringing out the
accurate measuring tools and instruments, and the advanced types
of more efficient and unique machinery, was the founder, Joseph R.
Brown. I have often said that in my judgment Mr. Brown deserved
greater credit than any other man for developing and making possible
the great accuracy and the high efficiency of modern machine practice
and in making it possible to manufacture interchangeable parts,
because the Brown & Sharpe Company were the first people to place on
the market and to educate the mechanics of the country in the use of
the vernier caliper. They were also the first to make the micrometer
caliper.
I remember that in those early days people came to Brown & Sharpe
from all over the world to consult with Mr. Brown in reference
to obtaining great accuracy and securing difficult results which
had been deemed insurmountable by other high-grade mechanics. The
mechanical engineers are now searching the records for men who have
made themselves eminent in the industrial world as inventors and
manufacturers; for a list of men to have honorable mention and to
have their achievements and ability so recorded that the modern world
may bestow upon them the credit and gratitude which they so richly
deserve. Among these names I know of none who deserves a higher
place than, or who has done so much for the modern high standards of
American manufacturers of interchangeable parts as Joseph R. Brown.
CHAPTER XVII
CENTRAL NEW ENGLAND
At the close of the chapter on “Early American Mechanics” we referred
to the spread of machinery building northward from Rhode Island to the
Merrimac Valley and central Massachusetts. This by no means implies
that all the northern shops were started by Rhode Island mechanics, but
their influence is so strong as to be clearly seen; and here, as in
Rhode Island, the early shops were closely identified with the textile
industry.
One of the first and most influential of these was the Amoskeag
Manufacturing Company. The beginnings of the Amoskeag Company were
made by a Benjamin Pritchard, of New Ipswich, N. H., who built a small
textile mill at Amoskeag Village, then Goffstown, in 1809. In 1822 it
was bought by Olney Robinson, from whom, that same year, Samuel Slater
received a letter asking for a loan of $3000. This was accompanied
by a magnificent salmon as a sample of the products of Amoskeag.
Slater, with the instincts of a good sportsman and a careful business
man, went there to investigate, with the result that he bought the
property, which then consisted of a water power, a two-story wooden
mill and two or three small tenements. Larned Pitcher soon joined him,
and in 1825 four other partners were taken in, Willard Sayles, Lyman
Tiffany, Oliver Dean and Ira Gay. Three of the partners were Pawtucket
men--Slater, Pitcher and Gay. Slater and Gay were very influential in
the early history of the company. The business grew rapidly and in 1841
they formed the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company, which has had a long
and successful career. Their charter was broad, and they extended their
operations until they included textile mills, extensive improvements
of the water powers on the Merrimac, the founding of the city of
Manchester, and the operation of a large machine shop.
The last, which interests us most, was started about 1840. At first
it was used only for building and repairing textile machinery, but
before very long it was actively engaged in the manufacture of steam
boilers, locomotives, steam fire engines, turbine wheels and machine
tools. It comprised two three-story shops, each nearly 400 feet long,
with foundries and forge shops, and employed in all 700 men--a large
plant for seventy-five years ago. William A. Burke, its first head,
left in 1845 to organize the Lowell Machine Shop, which built textile
and paper machinery and locomotives, and did general millwright work.
One of the workmen who helped install the machinery in the Amoskeag
shop was William B. Bement. He remained there for two years as foreman
and contractor, and in 1845 joined Burke at Lowell. O. W. Bayley, who
succeeded Burke as head of the Amoskeag shop, left in 1855 and founded
the Manchester Locomotive Works.
Ira Gay came to New Hampshire from Pawtucket in 1824. Besides the
Nashua Manufacturing Company and the Nashua Iron & Steel Works, he and
his brother, Ziba Gay, founded (about 1830) the Gay & Silver Company,
later the North Chelmsford Machine & Supply Company referred to in a
previous chapter. Frederick W. Howe, who did such important work with
Robbins & Lawrence, the Providence Tool Company, and Brown & Sharpe,
learned his trade in the Gay & Silver shop.
It has been claimed that the shop of Gage, Warner & Whitney,
established by John H. Gage at Nashua in 1837, was the first one
devoted exclusively to the manufacture of machine tools. If this
is true, it does not involve as high a degree of specialization as
would seem, for Bishop in 1860 says: “Their manufactures include
iron planers of all sizes, engine lathes, from the smallest watch
maker’s up to a size suitable for turning locomotive driving wheels
six or eight feet in diameter, hand lathes of all sizes, chucking
lathes of all dimensions, with sliding bed, bolt cutting machines for
rapidly transforming any part of a plain bolt into a nice, evenly
threaded screw, upright and swing drills, boring machines for shaping
the interior of steam cylinders, or other bores of large diameter,
slabbers of all kinds, gear-cutting engines of all sizes for shaping
and smoothing the teeth of gear wheels with perfect accuracy, power
punching machines of various sizes, etc.”[196] In 1852 they began
building steam engines. With all this formidable list, it seems never
to have been a very large shop.
[196] “History of American Manufactures,” Vol. III, p. 451.
In 1825 the improvement of the water power at what is now Lowell
was begun. Almost at the very beginning of this development work,
a large machine shop was built and placed under the charge of Paul
Moody, who was regarded as one of the foremost mechanics of his day
and was an expert in cotton machinery. This shop was retained by the
Water Power Company for nearly twenty years, when it was sold (1845)
and reorganized as the Lowell Machine Shop under Burke’s leadership.
It employed at times one thousand men, and became one of the most
important shops in the whole Merrimac Valley. James B. Francis, the
great hydraulic engineer, began his life work as a draftsman here in
1833; and later Bement became its chief draftsman, leaving it to go to
Philadelphia.
From 1820 to 1840, other shops sprang up in the Merrimac Valley, such
as C. M. Marvel & Company, of Lowell, the Lawrence Machine Shop, and
the Essex Machine Shop, where Amos Whitney, of Pratt & Whitney, learned
his trade, almost all of them building textile machinery, as well as
machine tools. The output of these shops showed little specialization.
They built almost anything which they could sell.
Of the Massachusetts towns, Worcester and Fitchburg seem to have been
the first to develop successful shops producing machine tools only. In
Worcester also the machinery trade had its beginning in the manufacture
of textile machinery; in fact, Worcester antedates even Pawtucket in
its attempts at cotton spinning, but these at first were unsuccessful.
Practically all the early water privileges in and about the town, not
used for sawmills, were used for textile mills. Prior to 1810 there
was a small clock shop, some paper mills, and a few other enterprises,
but they could hardly be dignified as factories. One of these was the
old shop where Thomas Blanchard invented his copying lathe for turning
irregular forms.
An Abraham Lincoln operated a mill and a forge with a trip hammer as
early as 1795. Here, in quarters rented from Lincoln, Earle & Williams
started, about 1810, the first machine shop in the city. The town grew
slowly and its interests were largely local. It was not until 1820 that
Worcester took first rank even among the towns in the county. There was
quite an excitement over the discovery of coal in 1823. It was found,
however, to be so poor, that, as someone put it at the time, “there was
a ---- sight more coal after burning it than there was before.” The
Providence & Worcester canal was opened in 1828, but its usefulness
for navigation was greatly limited by the many power privileges along
its route. Its traffic was never large and it went out of business
in 1848. It served, however, to hasten the building of the Boston
& Worcester Railroad, which was built by Boston capital to deflect
the trade of the central Massachusetts towns from Providence to that
city. It opened in 1835; and in 1836 there were listed in Worcester
“seven machinery works,” one wire mill and one iron foundry. Most of
the earlier tool builders were trained in the small textile-machinery
shops which had sprung up after 1810, such as Washburn & Goddard’s,
Goulding’s, Phelps & Bickford’s, White & Boyden’s. The rapid
development of railroads created a demand for machine tools which the
Worcester mechanics were quick to recognize, as had Nasmyth and Roberts
in England.
Thomas Blanchard, who was born near Worcester, is one of the
picturesque and attractive figures in our mechanical history. He was
a shy, timid boy, who stammered badly, and was considered “backward.”
The ingenious tinkerer, laughed at by all, first secured his standing
by devising an apple-parer which made a hit, social and mechanical. At
eighteen he began building a tack machine and worked six years on it
before he considered it finished. The essentials of its design have
been little changed since. It made over two hundred tacks a minute
and its product was more uniform and better than the hand-made tacks.
Blanchard sold the patent for it for $5000, a large price for those
days, but only a fraction of its real value.
A few years later, about 1818, he invented the lathe for turning
irregular forms which is associated with his name. It was first built
for turning gun-stocks at the Springfield Armory, and the original
machine (Fig. 29) is still preserved there in the museum. Blanchard
worked at the Armory for several years as an expert designer and
invented or improved about a dozen machines for the manufacture of
firearms, chiefly mortising and turning machines.
He was a fertile inventor and worked in many lines besides tool
building. His principal income came from royalties on his “copying”
lathe. Many stories are told of his ingenuity and homely wit. In his
later life he was a patent expert. His keen mechanical intuitions, his
wide and varied experience and unswerving honesty, gave weight to his
opinions, and his old age was spent in comfortable circumstances. He
died in 1864.
In 1823 William A. Wheeler came to Worcester, and two years later he
was operating a foundry. He did some machine work, and had the first
steam engine and the first boring machine in Worcester, and also an
iron planer “weighing 150 lb., 4 ft. long and 20 in. wide,” the first
one, it is said, in the state. Beginning with three or four hands, this
foundry employed at times two hundred men. Its long career closed in
the summer of 1914.
Samuel Flagg moved to Worcester from West Boylston in 1839, to be near
the Wheeler foundry from which he got his castings. “Uncle Sammy Flagg”
was the first man in Worcester to devote himself entirely to tool
building, and is considered the father of the industry there. He made
hand and engine lathes in rented quarters in the old Court Mills, which
has been called the cradle of the Worcester tool building industry.
His first lathes were light and crude, with a wooden bed, wrought-iron
strips for ways, chain-operated carriage, and cast gears, as cut gears
were unheard of in the city at that time.
His first competitor, Pierson Cowie, began making chain planers about
1845. After a few years he sold his business to Woodburn, Light &
Company, which in a few years became Wood, Light & Company, one of the
best known of the older firms. About the same time S. C. Coombs began
making lathes and planers. Flagg meantime had organized the firm of
Samuel Flagg & Company, which included two of his former apprentices,
L. W. Pond (whose portrait appears in Fig. 46) and E. H. Bellows.
Pond later bought out Flagg and Bellows and developed the business
greatly. It was incorporated as the Pond Machine Tool Company, in
1875, specialized in heavy engine lathes, and is now part of the
Niles-Bement-Pond Company. Bellows went into the engine business, and
Flagg started another enterprise, the Machinist Tool Company, which
did not last long. It lasted long enough, however, to build one of the
largest lathes made up to that time, 35 feet long with ways 8 feet wide.
From the old Phelps & Bickford and S. C. Coombs shops came the two
Whitcomb brothers, Carter and Alonzo, who formed the Carter Whitcomb
Company in 1849, which became the Whitcomb Manufacturing Company in
1872. From the Coombs company also came successively Shepard, Lathe &
Company; Lathe, Morse & Company, and the Draper Machine Tool Company.
P. Blaisdell & Company was founded in 1865 by Parritt Blaisdell,
who had been fifteen years with Wood, Light & Company; and S. E.
Hildreth, who had worked for more than twenty years with Flagg and
Pond, became a partner in this firm eight years later. The Whitcomb,
Draper and Blaisdell companies were united in 1905 into the present
Whitcomb-Blaisdell Machine Tool Company. From the old Blaisdell shop
came also J. E. Snyder & Son through Currier & Snyder, who began
building drills in 1833 and were both old workmen at Blaisdell’s. The
original Reed & Prentice Company was started by A. F. Prentice, who
sold a half interest to F. E. Reed in 1875. The Woodward & Powell
Planer Company comes from the Powell Planer Company, incorporated in
1876. This maze of relationships is made clear by reference to the
table given in Fig. 45. The Norton Company comes from F. B. Norton,
who began experimenting on vitrified emery wheels about 1873 and put
them on the market in 1879. At his death the business was incorporated
as the Norton Emery Wheel Company, now the Norton Company. Charles H.
Norton’s work in developing precision grinding has been perhaps the
most distinguished contribution to the later generation of Worcester
mechanics. He began work in the shops of the Seth Thomas Clock Company
at Thomaston, Conn., under his uncle, N. A. Norton, who was master
mechanic there for about forty years. At his uncle’s death, Norton
became master mechanic. He was with the Clock Company about twenty
years in all, most of the time in charge of the design and building of
all their tools, machinery and large tower clocks.
[Illustration:
WILLIAM A. WHEELER, PHELPS & BICKFORD ICHABOD WASHBURN
1823 Textile Machinery Cards and Textile
Foundry--Came from S. C. Coombs Machry.
Brookfield, *2* *3*
Plant closed in 1914
*1* #3#
WASHBURN & HOWARD
Cards, Textile
Machry. and Wire
1820
*4*
#1# #2# #4#
J. A. FAY & SAMUEL FLAGG, S. C. COOMBS WASHBURN &
CO. 1839 & CO. GODDARD
Woodworking First tool- 1845 Textile,
Machry builder in city R. R. Shepard Machry.
Keene, N. H. --came from and Martin and Wire
J. A. Fay and West Boylston Lathe 1822
Edw. Josslyn. to be near *9* *10 11*
1836 Wheeler A. A.
*5* foundry Whitcomb
*6 7* *8*
#11#
PIERSON COWIE #9# C. READ & CO.
THOS. E. About 1845--Made SHEPARD, LATHE Worcester--Screws
DANIELS chain planers & CO. *14*
Woodworking *12* *13*
Machry.
Worcester
*15*
#8# #14#
#7# C. WHITCOMB & CO. AMERICAN SCREW CO.
#15# SAMUEL FLAGG 1849--Carter and Providence, R. I.
E. C. TAINTER & CO. Alonzo Whitcomb
GARDNER CHILDS L. W Pond, *21*
Daniels Planer, E. H. Bellows,
etc. S. E. Hildreth
Worcester Pond bought out
*16* other partners.
1847
*19 20*
#13#
LATHE, MORSE & CO. LORING & A. G. COES
*17* 1836
*18*
#12#
WOODBURN, #17# #18#
LIGHT & CO. DRAPER MACH. Began making
1846 TOOL CO. screw wrenches
*22* *23* 1841
*24*
#5 16#
RICHARDSON, MERRIAM #21#
& CO. WHITCOMB MFG. CO. F. B. NORTON
Worcester. Richardson 1872 Began experiments on
was Josslyn’s nephew. *27* wheels in 1873. Began
Name of J. A. Fay was sale in 1879. Died
sold to Western 1885 and business
agents, about 1862 incorporated 1886
*25* *26*
#22#
#6# WOOD, #10#
Thomson, Skinner of LIGHT & CO. WASHBURN
Co. of Chicopee Parritt & MOEN
Falls, bought out Blaisdell Wire 1850
Flagg’s original *29* *32*
business
*28*
#26#
#28# #20 29# NORTON
NEW HAVEN MFG. P. BLAISDELL A. F. PRENTICE EMERY WHEEL CO.
CO. & CO. Sold half 1886
New Haven, 1865 interest to *33 34*
Conn. P. Blaisdell, F. E. Reed,
S. E. Hildreth, 1875 #33#
Enoch Earle, CHAS. H. NORTON
Currier, Snyder Invented Grinding
*30 31* Machines, Came
from Brown & Sharpe
*37*
#19# #30#
POND MACH. TOOL CURRIER & SNYDER REED & PRENTICE
CO. Both worked for Reed bought whole
1875 Blaisdell. business
1883 in 1877
*35* *36*
#25# #32# #37#
J. A. FAY Moved to POWELL Incorporated NORTON
& CO. Plainfield, PLANER later as GRINDING
Cincinnati, N. J., CO. Washburn & CO.
Ohio, 1888 1887 Moen Grinding
1862 *39* *40* Mfg. Co. Machines
*38* *41* 1900
#39# #36# #24#
EGAN CO. NILES-BEMENT- REED-PRENTICE CO. COES WRENCH CO.
Cincinnati, POND CO. 1888
Ohio, Hamilton, O.--
1873 Philadelphia--
*42* Plainfield
#35# #40#
J. E. SNYDER & SON WOODWARD & POWELL PLANER CO.
#38 42# #23 27 31# #41# #34#
J. A. FAY & WHITCOMB-BLAISDELL AM. STEEL & WIRE CO. NORTON CO.
EGAN CO. MACH. TOOL CO. Worcester Plant-- Emery Wheels,
Cincinnati, Worcester--1905 1899 etc.
Ohio. 1906
1893
FIGURE 45. GENEALOGY OF THE WORCESTER TOOL BUILDERS]
In 1886 Mr. Norton went to the Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company
of Providence as assistant to Mr. Parks, their chief engineer. Soon
afterward he became designer and engineer for their work in cylindrical
grinding machinery, remaining in that capacity for four years. In 1890
he went to Detroit with Henry M. Leland and formed a corporation called
the Leland-Falkner-Norton Company, Falkner being a Michigan lumber man.
Associated with them was Charles H. Strellinger, a well-known dealer
in tools and machinery. Six years later Mr. Norton returned to Brown
& Sharpe and was again their engineer of grinding machinery until he
went to Worcester in 1900. The Norton Grinding Company, organized that
year and financed by men connected with the Norton Emery Wheel Company,
have built cylindrical and plain surface grinding machinery designed
by Charles H. Norton, and under his direction have been leaders in
refining and extending the process of precision grinding.
The Norton Company and the Norton Grinding Company should not be
confused. The former make grinding wheels; the latter build grinding
machines. Neither should F. B. Norton, who founded the grinding wheel
industry and who died in 1885, be confused with Charles H. Norton,
who did not come to Worcester until fifteen years later. There is no
connection in their work, and despite the similarity of name, they were
in no way related.
The greatest industry in Worcester is the American Steel and Wire
Company, formerly the Washburn & Moen Company. While it is no longer
associated with tool building, it passed through that phase and traces
back to the textile industry as well. It was founded by Ichabod
Washburn, who started in as a boy in a cotton factory in Kingston, R.
I., during the War of 1812. Making up his mind to become a machinist,
he served an apprenticeship and then worked in Asa Waters’ armory and
with William Hovey, one of the early mechanics in Worcester. About
1820 he began the manufacture of woolen machinery and lead pipe in
partnership first with William Howard and later with Benjamin Goddard.
The enterprise prospered. As he was making cards for cotton and woolen
machinery, he determined to manufacture the necessary wire himself by
a new drawing process. His first experiments were a failure, but by
1830 they were successful enough to justify his undertaking regular
manufacture. He superseded the old methods entirely and built up the
present great business. Goddard retired, and, after various changes in
partnership, Washburn took in his son-in-law, Philip L. Moen, in 1850.
By 1868 the firm employed more than nine hundred men, and wire drawing,
which began as an incident in the manufacture of textile machinery, had
become their sole activity. Today the works employ eight thousand men.
In 1833 Washburn, in order to make an outlet for his wire products,
induced the Read brothers to move to Worcester from Providence and
begin the manufacture of screws. This business was operated separately
under the name of C. Read & Company. Later it was moved back to
Providence, where it developed into the American Screw Company.
Worcester mechanics have made many things besides machine tools; in
small tools and in gun work they have long been successful. The Coes
Wrench Company was started in 1836 by Loring and A. G. Coes, and
began to make the present form of screw wrench in 1841. Asa Waters,
in Millbury near by, was one of the early American gun makers. After
Waters came other gun makers, Ethan Allen, Forehand & Wadsworth,
Harrington & Richardson, and Iver Johnson, who later moved to Fitchburg.
Much of Worcester’s prominence as a manufacturing center is due to the
unusual facilities it offered to mechanics to begin business in a small
way. Nearly every manufacturing enterprise in the city began in small,
rented quarters. There were a number of large buildings which rented
space with power to these small enterprises; one of them, Merrifield’s,
was three stories high, 1100 feet long, and had fifty tenants,
employing two to eight hundred men. Coes, Flagg, Daniels, Wood, Light
& Company, Coombs, Lathe & Morse, Whitcomb, Pond and J. A. Fay, all
began, or at some time operated, in this way. One is struck, in looking
over the old records, with the constant recurrence of certain names, as
the Earles, Goddards, Washburns, and realizes that he is among a race
of mechanics which was certain sooner or later to build up a successful
manufacturing community.
Fitchburg, while not so large or so influential, is almost as old a
tool building community as Worcester. Its history centers about the
Putnam Machine Company which was started by John and Salmon W. Putnam,
who came from a family of mechanics. The latter’s portrait appears in
Fig. 47. They, too, began in cotton manufacturing, John as a contractor
making cotton machine parts, and Salmon as a bobbin boy and later as
an overseer at New Ipswich and Lowell. In 1836 they went to Trenton,
N. J., intending to start a machine shop there, but the panic of 1837
intervened and made it impossible. They had themselves built most of
the machines required; they stored these and found employment until
business conditions improved. Finally, they started in a hired basement
in Ashburnham, Mass., under the name of J. & S. W. Putnam.
A year later they moved to Fitchburg and began repairing cotton
machinery. At first they did their work entirely themselves, but their
business increased rapidly and they soon hired an apprentice. Their
first manufactured product was a gear cutter. This gave them a start
and they soon developed a full line of standard tools. Though he was
the younger brother, S. W. Putnam was the leading spirit. He first
built upright drills with a swinging table so that the work could
be moved about under the drill without unclamping. He designed the
present form of back rest for lathes, and is said to have invented
the universal hanger. The latter invention, however, has been claimed
for several other mechanics in both England and America. In 1849 the
brothers were burned out, without insurance. They repaired their
machinery, built a temporary shed over it, and were at work again in
two weeks. The present company was formed in 1858.
The Putnam company has been influential in other lines than machine
tools. Putnam engines were for many years among the best known in the
country, and the company was also intimately concerned with the early
development of the rock drill, through Charles Burleigh, the head
of their planer department and the inventor of the Burleigh drill.
In fact, the first successful drills, those for the Hoosac tunnel,
together with the compressors, were designed and built in the Putnam
shops. Sylvester Wright, who founded the Fitchburg Machine Works, was
for ten years foreman of their lathe department, and most of the old
mechanics in and about Fitchburg were Putnam men.
Scattered here and there are other companies. At Nashua were Gage,
Warner & Whitney, to which we have referred, and the Flather
Manufacturing Company which was founded by Joseph Flather, an
Englishman, in 1867. The Ames Manufacturing Company of Chicopee Falls
came from the old Ames & Fisher shop at North Chelmsford. This was
started by Nathan P. Ames, Senior, in 1791, who operated a trip hammer
and other machinery, making edged tools and millwork. The shop was
burned in 1810, and he moved to Dedham, Mass., for a year or so, but
returned and resumed his former business on the old site. His sons,
Nathan P., Jr., and James T., learned their trade with their father.
The older brother, Nathan, moved to Chicopee Falls in 1829. James
joined him in 1834. The Ames Manufacturing Company, formed the same
year, lived for sixty years and employed at one time over a thousand
men. From the start they had close relations with the Government and
did an extensive business in all kinds of military supplies, swords,
bayonets, guns, cannon, cavalry goods, etc. They cast bronze statuary,
and the famous doors of the Capitol at Washington were made by them.
They rivaled Robbins & Lawrence in gun machinery and shared with them
the order for the Enfield Armory. This contract alone took three years
to complete. Their gun-stock machinery went to nearly every government
in Europe.
[Illustration: FIGURE 46. LUCIUS W. POND]
[Illustration: FIGURE 47. SALMON W. PUTNAM]
In addition to all this they built the famous Boydon waterwheel, mill
machinery, and a list of standard machine tools quite as catholic as
that of Gage, Warner & Whitney. They did their work well, contributed
material improvements to manufacturing methods and had one of the most
influential shops of their day.
Most of the plants for manufacturing woodworking machinery can be
traced back to a comparatively small area limited approximately by
Fitchburg, Gardner, Keene and Nashua. This section was poor farming
land, rough and heavily wooded, and the ingenuity of its inhabitants
was early directed toward utilizing the timber. Mr. Smith, of the
H. B. Smith Company of Smithville, N. J., came originally from
Woodstock, Vt., and Walter Haywood started at Gardner. J. A. Fay and
Edward Josslyn began manufacturing woodworking machinery as J. A. Fay
& Company at Keene, in 1836. In 1853 they felt the need of better
facilities and purchased Tainter & Childs’ shop at Worcester, which was
manufacturing the Daniels wood planer. Mr. Fay died soon after, and
the business passed through the hands of H. A. Richardson, Josslyn’s
nephew, to Richardson, Merriam & Company. They built up a good business
before the Civil War, and had branch offices in New York, Chicago, and
Cincinnati.
In the early sixties the western agents bought the name of J. A. Fay
& Company and started manufacturing at Cincinnati. Later this was
united with the Egan Company, and the present J. A. Fay & Egan Company
formed. When J. A. Fay & Company was started at Cincinnati, machinery,
superintendent and mechanics were brought from Worcester, and, as the
name implies, the present company was a direct descendant from the old
Worcester and Keene enterprise.
Winchendon, in the center of the district referred to, has long been
known for its woodworking machinery. Baxter D. Whitney began there
before 1840. He died in 1915, aged ninety-eight years, the last of the
early generation of mechanics. For many years he was a leader in the
development of woodworking tools, and the business which he founded is
still in successful operation under the management of his son, William
M. Whitney.
Springfield, although an important manufacturing city, has had few
prominent tool builders. One company, however, the Baush Machine
Tool Company, has built up a wide reputation for drilling machines,
especially large multiple spindle machines.
CHAPTER XVIII
THE NAUGATUCK VALLEY
The most casual consideration of New England’s mechanical development
brings one squarely against a most interesting and baffling phase of
American industrial life, the brass industry of the Naugatuck Valley.
Here, in a narrow district scarcely thirty miles long, centering about
Waterbury, is produced approximately 80 per cent of the rolled brass
and copper and finished brass wares used in the United States, an
output amounting to upward of $80,000,000 a year. No concentration
on so large a scale exists elsewhere in the country. For example, in
1900, Pennsylvania produced but 54 per cent of the iron and steel, and
Massachusetts but 45 per cent of the boots and shoes. Furthermore,
there seems to be no serious tendency to dislodge it. While there is
more competition from outside, its ascendency is nearly as marked today
as it was a generation ago. Why should this small district, a thousand
miles or more from its sources of raw material, far from its market,
and without cheap coal or adequate water power, gain and hold this
leadership?[197]
[197] The best study of the brass industry of the Naugatuck Valley
has been made by William G. Lathrop, and has been published by him
at Shelton, Conn., 1909, under the name of “The Brass Industry.”
Mr. Lathrop had intimate knowledge of the subject and, in addition,
unusual facilities for investigation. The personal history of many of
the men who have figured in its growth will be found in Anderson’s
“History of the Town and City of Waterbury,” 3 vols. 1895.
It was not the first in the field. The Revere Copper Company, in
Massachusetts, founded by Paul Revere, began rolling copper in 1801,
and the Soho Copper Company, at Belleville, N. J., in 1813. The
brass business in Connecticut had its origin with Henry Grilley, of
Waterbury, who began making pewter buttons there in 1790. In 1802 Abel
and Levi Porter joined him, and they started making brass buttons under
the name of Abel Porter & Company. In 1811 all the original partners
retired and a new firm was formed, Leavenworth, Hayden & Scovill. In
1827 Leavenworth and Hayden sold out to William H. Scovill, and the
firm became J. M. L. & W. H. Scovill. J. M. L. Scovill did the selling
and his brother ran the shop and the finances. In 1850 the firm was
incorporated as the present Scovill Manufacturing Company.
Meantime, Aaron Benedict established, in 1812, a factory at Waterbury
for making bone and ivory buttons, and, in 1823, he too began making
brass buttons. About 1820 James Croft, a brass worker from Birmingham,
England, came to the Scovills. A year later Benedict secured him, and
when Benedict and Israel Coe formed the firm of Benedict & Coe, in
1829, Croft became one of the partners. Croft’s coming marks a vital
point in the history of the industry. On his advice, both Scovill
and Benedict began to do their own rolling. It was his influence
which induced them to import from Birmingham workmen, processes and
machinery. He went to England seven times for Benedict, and Israel
Holmes went three times for Scovill to bring back English machinery,
rollers and finishers. Israel Coe also went to England when the
Wolcottville Brass Company was started.[198] From that time, the
business may be said to have passed the experimental stage, and its
growth from 1830 was rapid. William Lathrop, who has made a study of
it, has traced, perhaps better than any other, the coincident growth of
the market and the industry. The raw material was at first mainly scrap
copper, old ship sheathing, kettles, boilers and stills, collected by
the Connecticut peddlers. More and more copper was imported until after
1850 when the mining of western copper began developing. All of the
zinc was imported until about 1870.
[198] Lathrop, p. 89.
[Illustration: FIGURE 48. HIRAM W. HAYDEN]
[Illustration: FIGURE 49. ISRAEL HOLMES]
At first they rolled brass only for their own use, but new demands for
it were arising. By 1840 Chauncey Jerome had developed the cheap brass
clock. The discovery and refining of petroleum created a lamp industry.
The pin machinery, invented by Dr. J. I. Howe, Fowler, and Slocum &
Jillson, opened up another great outlet. Daguerreotype plates gave
another, and metallic cartridges another, while the invention of the
telegraph enormously extended the use of copper wire. The Waterbury men
were best able to meet these new demands, as they were the only ones in
the country with the facilities and experience needed, and they “got
in first.” While the rolling and the drawing processes were imported
bodily from England, and have continued almost unchanged, Yankee
ingenuity was constantly at work devising new articles made of brass
and improving the machinery for making the old ones.
With the increasing demand, firms began to multiply. Israel Holmes, who
had been with the Scovills for ten years, started Holmes & Hotchkiss
in 1830, and with English workmen and machinery made wire and tubing
for the market. After several changes in partnership, the firm became
Brown & Elton in 1838. Meantime, Holmes, with Israel Coe, Anson Phelps
and John Hungerford, started the Wolcottville Brass Company in 1834,
in what is now Torrington. They built up a prosperous business in
sheet-brass kettles, but lost heavily when Hiram W. Hayden, then with
Scovill, invented the spinning process. Their property was eventually
sold to Lyman Coe, and became the Coe Brass Company. The Waterbury
Brass Company was started in 1845, with Holmes as president. Associated
with him were H. W. Hayden, Elton, and Lyman Coe, son of Israel Coe. In
1853 Holmes founded Holmes, Booth & Haydens,[199] and in 1869 Holmes,
Booth & Atwood, which two years later was forced to change its name to
Plume & Atwood on account of its resemblance to the older company.
[199] There were two Haydens in the firm, H. W. Hayden was in charge
of the manufacturing and H. H. Hayden in charge of marketing the
product.
Israel Holmes stands out among the indomitable personalities who built
up the brass industry. In addition to his invaluable work for the
Scovills, he started five of the strongest firms in the valley, and was
the first president of three.
Benedict & Coe became Benedict & Burnham in 1834, and from this firm
has come the American Pin Company, the Waterbury Button Company and the
Waterbury Clock and Watch companies. Anson Phelps soon withdrew from
the Wolcottville Brass Company and started Smith & Phelps at Derby in
1836. Encouraged by its success, Phelps planned to organize a large
manufacturing community there, but he was held up by a man who raised
the price of some necessary land from $5,000 to $30,000, so he moved
two miles up the river and founded what is now the city of Ansonia. In
1854 the firm was incorporated as the Ansonia Brass & Copper Company.
Mr. George P. Cowles, who came from Wolcottville in 1848, was its
executive head for forty years until his death. From it sprang the
Ansonia Clock Company, of Brooklyn, Wallace & Sons, which failed in
1896 and became part of the Coe Brass Company, and a number of other
companies. The Chase Rolling Mills Company developed from the Waterbury
Manufacturing Company, Benedict & Burnham, and Holmes, Booth & Haydens.
Randolph & Clowes came down through Brown & Brothers, and Brown & Elton
from the old Holmes & Hotchkiss firm.
[Illustration:
HENRY GRILLEY, 1790
Pewter Buttons
*1*
#1#
ABEL PORTER & CO., 1802 AARON BENEDICT, 1812
Begins making brass buttons Bone and ivory buttons.
*2* Started making brass ones 1823
*3*
#2#
LEAVENWORTH, HAYDEN & SCOVILL, #3 5#
1811 BENEDICT & COE, 1829
Fred’k Leavenworth, David Hayden, Aaron Benedict, Israel Coe,
J. M. L. Scovill, James Croft, Jas. Croft
Israel Holmes. *6 7*
*4 5*
#4# #10#
J. M. L. & W. H. HOLMES & HOTCHKISS,
SCOVILL, 1827 1830
Israel Holmes, Israel Holmes,
H. W. Hayden Horace Hotchkiss,
*8 9 10* Philo Brown
*11 12*
#6# #7 12#
Howe Mfg. Co., BENEDICT & BURNHAM, WOLCOTTVILLE BRASS CO.,
Darby; Slocum & 1834 1834
Jillson, A. & Chas. Benedict, Israel Coe, Israel
Poughkeepsie, G. W. Burnham, A. S. Holmes, Anson G. Phelps,
N. Y., and Fowler Chase, F. A. Mason, John Hungerford, Geo. P.
Bros., Northford, Geo. Somers Cowles, John Davol--
Ct., developed *14 15 16 17 18 19 20* Torrington, Conn.
successful pin *21 22 23*
machinery
*13*
#11 13# #20# #23#
BROWN & ELTON, WATERBURY BUTTON CO., SMITH & PHELPS, 1836
1838 1849 Anson G. Phelps, Geo. P.
Philo Brown, J. Cowles, Thos. Wallace,
P. Elton--Sold Thos. James.First at
to Brown & Bros. Derby--Co. founded at
and Holmes, Ansonia in 1844
Booth & Haydens *29 30 31*
*24 25 26 27*
#14 27# #22#
AMERICAN PIN CO., 1846 Davol organised Brooklyn
Brass & Copper Co. in 1853
*28*
#9 21 26# #29# #31#
WATERBURY BRASS WALLACE & SON, 1848 HUMPHREYSVILLE COPPER
CO., 1845 Thos. Wallace--Co. CO., 1849
Israel Holmes, J. failed in 1895--Plant Thos. James, Seymour, Ct.
P. Elton, H. W. sold to Coe Br. Co. in *35*
Hayden, Lyman W. 1896
Coe, son of Israel
Coe
*32 33 34*
#8# #19# #35#
SCOVILL MFG. CO., WATERBURY CLOCK CO., NEW HAVEN COPPER CO.,
1850 1857 1855
The Scovill
Brothers, F. J.
Kingsbery, Sr.
#24# #34#
BROWN & BROS., 1851 COE BRASS CO., 1863
Philo Brown--Failed in 1886. L. W. Coe, Chas. F. Brooker
Geo H. Clowes *38*
*36 37*
#15 25 32# #30#
HOLMES, BOOTH & HAYDENS, 1853 ANSONIA BRASS & COPPER CO.,
Israel Holmes, G. W. Burnham, 1854
A. S. Chase, L. J. Atwood Anson Phelps, Geo. P. Cowles
*39 40 41 42* *43*
#39# #18 28# #43#
Holmes, Booth & BRIDGEPORT BRASS ANSONIA CLOCK CO.,
Atwood, 1869. CO., 1865 1878
Name changed to John Davol, F. A. Brooklyn, N. Y.
PLUME & ATWOOD, Mason, Geo. Somers,
1871 F. J. Kingsbury,
Israel Holmes, Jr.
J. C. Booth,
L. J. Atwood
#40# #17#
WATERBURY MFG. CO., WATERBURY WATCH
1876 CO., 1880
A. S. Chase, Henry #44#
S. Chase, Fredk. S. CHASE ROLLING MILL
Chase CO., 1900
*44* Henry S. Chase,
#37# #42# Fredk. S. Chase
SEYMOUR-MFG. CO., WATERBURY BRASS *45*
1878 GOODS CORPORATION
#36# #16 33 38 41# #45#
RANDOLPH & CLOWES, AMERICAN BRASS CO., CHASE METAL WORKS,
1886 1899 1914
R. F. Randolph, Chas. F. Brooker
Geo. H. Clowes
FIGURE 50. GENEALOGY OF THE NAUGATUCK BRASS INDUSTRY]
The American Brass Company was formed in 1899, and now comprises the
Waterbury Brass Company, Holmes, Booth & Haydens, Benedict & Burnham,
the Coe Brass Company and the Ansonia Brass & Copper Company. This is
the largest brass company in the world.
Such, briefly, is an outline of the history of the larger companies.
To an outsider their interrelations are almost inextricable. The
chart (Fig. 50) does little more than indicate them. As phases of the
business grew, there was a clearly defined policy of setting them off
as separate enterprises. The American Pin Company, the Clock, Watch and
Button companies, and the Brass Goods Corporation are examples. Only
the more important of these manufacturing companies are shown. While
there has been at times sharp competition among them, it always stopped
short of war, and when facing outside competition the companies pull
together.
Many of the heavy stockholders, as Holmes, Elton, Burnham and Chase,
were interested in several companies. Nearly all of the leaders were
born and grew up in the valley and were full of local spirit. Israel
Coe, Holmes, the Scovill brothers and Phelps, of the earlier order,
were men of great ability, as also Lyman Coe, Cowles and Charles F.
Brooker, of the later generation. The inventions of Hiram W. Hayden
vitally affected the history of four companies. They seriously
undermined the old Wolcottville company, shut the Brooklyn Brass
Company out of important phases of its business, and built up the
prosperity of the Waterbury Brass Company, and Holmes, Booth & Haydens.
L. J. Atwood, of Holmes, Booth & Haydens, and, later, Plume & Atwood,
L. S. White, of Brown & Brothers, and W. N. Weeden, of Benedict &
Burnham, were prolific inventors, and their work contributed to the
growth of the industry.
Other influential men have built machinery for the large companies.
Almon Farrel founded the Farrel Foundry & Machine Company in 1851,
and had two establishments, one in Ansonia and one in Waterbury. The
Waterbury plant was operated for many years by E. C. Lewis as agent. He
bought it in 1880, but as a matter of sentiment retained the old name,
prefixing the word Waterbury. The two plants have come to specialize
somewhat, the Waterbury one building mainly presses and stamping
machines, and the Ansonia one rolling mills and heavy machinery. E. J.
Manville, an expert mechanic from the Pratt & Whitney shop in Hartford,
with his five sons, founded the E. J. Manville Machine Company, which
has built up a wide reputation for its presses and headers. Among the
many others are William Wallace of Wallace & Sons, Ansonia, Charles
Johnson and A. C. Campbell.
The answer, then, to our question as to origin and success of the
Naugatuck brass industry is as follows. It sprang from the local
manufacture of buttons. A small group of able, forceful and ingenious
men developed the best facilities in the country for rolling and
drawing brass, and when new demands came they were the only ones with
experience prepared to meet them. They were originally well situated
for raw material. Later they bought their copper in Baltimore. By
the time copper began coming from the West, the Waterbury companies
were firmly established. Copper is expensive, its unit of weight is
the pound and not the ton, and freight rates are far less important
than with steel, so the industry’s detached location did not outweigh
the advantage of its early start. A large force of workmen skilled
in handling brass has been developed in these factories and no large
enterprise could now be started elsewhere without drawing upon them.
Many of these workmen own their homes, and their relations with the
employers have generally been so friendly that higher wages elsewhere
do not seem to attract them.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, are the men who have
designed and built the tools used. Connecticut leads all other states
in the ratio of patents to the population, and Waterbury has led the
rest of Connecticut in the proportion of nearly two to one. All the
finishing or “cutting up” shops, as they are locally known, contain
highly developed machinery--nearly all of it special, much of it
designed and built in the shop where it is used.
This includes machinery for making eyelets, hooks and eyes, pins,
cartridges, wire forming machinery, thread rolling, and headers and
stamping machinery. Some of these machines, as, for instance, the last
two mentioned, are more or less standard, but their tool equipment has
been wonderfully developed and is bewildering in its variety. Much of
this machinery has never been made public, and nearly all of it is
too special, too intricate and too varied for description here. It is
natural, under these circumstances, that the mechanics who developed
these tools should be comparatively little known. They have, however,
been a vital element in the Naugatuck brass industry, and should be
recognized as successful American tool builders.
CHAPTER XIX
PHILADELPHIA
Although the commercial manufacture of machinery began in New England,
Philadelphia became, and for a long time remained, the largest tool
building center in the country. Its large population and nearness to
coal, iron and tide water, made this almost inevitable, but it was
hastened by the work of two brilliant mechanics, William Sellers and
William Bement.
Bishop, in his “History of American Manufactures,”[200] says: “In
the invention and construction of machinery and instruments for
practical and scientific purposes, Philadelphia mechanics early
acquired a reputation for skill. The records of original American
invention contain few names more distinguished than those of Godfrey,
the inventor of the quadrant, of Rittenhouse, who made the first
telescope constructed in America, and whose orrery and other scientific
instruments displayed unusual mechanical and mathematical genius;
of Franklin, Evans, Fulton, Fitch, and others whose inventive and
constructive skill have added to the permanent wealth of the State
and the Union.” Of these, Oliver Evans seems to have affected modern
manufacturing methods the most.
[200] Vol. I, p. 576.
Evans was born in Delaware in 1755. He was apprenticed to a
wheelwright, and invented a card machine as early as 1777, but never
followed it up. In 1785 he built a flour mill in Newcastle County,
Del.; and, impatient at the crude methods in use, he began a series
of improvements which form the basis of the modern art of handling
materials. It has been claimed that Evans stole many of these ideas
from the Ellicotts in Maryland. This does not seem probable. Thomas
Ellicott wrote a portion of the “Millwright and Millers Guide” which
Evans published to help introduce his machinery, and in this Ellicott
himself refers to “the elevators, hopper-boys, etc., invented by Oliver
Evans, late of Delaware, though now of Philadelphia.” Evans developed a
number of closely related transporting devices about which no question
is raised and no claims on behalf of the Ellicotts made; and many years
later, in 1812, Evans sued those Ellicotts who were then operating for
infringement of his patents and obtained judgment. If they could have
proved priority it seems natural that they would have done so.
Evans’ improvements related chiefly to the movement of materials during
the processes of manufacture. He modified the ancient Egyptian chain
of pots, used for irrigation, by using an endless belt carrying iron
buckets so arranged as to fill with dry material from a boot at the
bottom and to empty by gravity into a hopper as they went over the
head pulley. He used a belt conveyor for horizontal movement, without
however the troughing feature which is a later improvement. When the
discharge end was lowest, Evans utilized gravity to drive it, and
called it a “descender.” What Evans called a “drill” was an “elevator
laid horizontally” and provided with wooden cleats which scraped the
grain along the bottom of the box in which it ran, and was nothing more
nor less than our modern flight or scraper conveyor. Evans’ “conveyor”
was a round, wooden shaft on which he nailed a sheet-iron spiral which
pushed the grain along a trough in which the shaft rotated; and when
he wished to stir or dry the material as he moved it, he broke up the
continuous helix into a number of separate arms arranged spirally.
These of course correspond to the modern screw conveyor. His so-called
“hopper-boy” consisted of a vertical shaft with a horizontal cross bar
at its lower end provided on its lower side with flights which spread
the meal for drying, and slowly worked it in a spiral toward a hopper
at the center. The angle of the flights was adjustable so that the time
allowed for cooling could be varied. He also used pivoted wooden spouts
at the discharge of the elevators to deliver the grain into different
bins. These improvements are said to have effected a saving of over
$30,000 a year in the Ellicott Mill at Patapsco, Md., on an output of
325 barrels a day.[201] In his patents and various books Evans shows
nearly all of the modern transporting devices in substantially their
present forms.[202]
[201] Paper by Coleman Sellers on “Oliver Evans and his Inventions.”
_Journal of the Franklin Institute_, Vol. CXXII, p. 1.
[202] Sections of Evans’ mills are shown in the _American Machinist_
of November 7, 1907, and December 17, 1914. In both cases the
conveyor system was arranged to take material either from wagons on
one side of the mill or from boats on the opposite side.
Evans moved to Philadelphia some time prior to 1790. In 1800 he had
a mill near Third and Market Streets and the next year was selling
mill supplies at Ninth and Market Streets. As a boy he had become
interested in the steam engine. A description of the Newcomen engine
fell into his hands and he was struck with the fact that the steam
was used only to produce a vacuum and saw that more power could be
obtained if it were used to produce pressure. After his removal to
Philadelphia he made an engine 6 inches diameter by 18 inches stroke,
which was running in 1802, grinding plaster of Paris and sawing wood.
It cost, boiler and all, more than $3700 and nearly impoverished him.
Its successful operation, however, led to an order for an engine to
drive a steamboat on the Mississippi, which was sent to New Orleans
but never used for its original purpose. The boat it was intended for
had been stranded high and dry during a flood, so the engine was set
to running a saw mill and later a cotton press. In 1803 Evans began
business as a regular engine builder and was unquestionably the first
one in the United States. He advocated long stroke engines operating
under high steam pressure, of which he had built fifty by 1816. In 1804
he built a flat bottomed boat, fitted with a steam driven, chain bucket
dredge, which he called the “_Oruktor Amphibolos_” or in good English
the Amphibious Digger. It was built more than a mile from the river,
and was mounted on rollers connected with the engine. After moving
around what is now the City Hall Square each day for several days, the
boat walked out Market Street to the Schuykill and into the water; its
rollers were disconnected, a stern paddle wheel substituted, and it
steamed down the Schuykill and around up the Delaware to the city.
In 1805 he advertised a new book, “The Young Engineer’s Guide,” which
he intended to be very complete and “abstruse.” Disappointed in his
application for the extension of his patents and crippled by his
first engine ventures, he issued it much abridged, with only part of
the illustrations planned, and called it “The Abortion of the Young
Engineer’s Guide.” The proportions given in this book for one of his
steam engines were: diameter of cylinder, 20 inches; stroke, 5 feet;
steam pressure, 194 to 220 pounds. The boilers were of cast iron, 30
inches in diameter, 24 feet long, fired at one end, with a single
return flue. An engine was actually built to these proportions for the
Fairmount Water Works. It may be added that the boilers burst on three
different occasions.
In 1807 Evans was established as “Millwright and Engineer” at the Mars
Works at Ninth and Vine Streets. An old description of the plant says
that it consisted of
an iron foundry, mould-maker’s shop, steam engine manufactory,
blacksmith’s shop, and mill-stone manufactory, and a steam engine
used for grinding materials for the use of the works, and for turning
and boring heavy cast or wrought iron work. The buildings occupy one
hundred and eighty-eight feet front and about thirty-five workmen are
daily employed. They manufacture all cast or wrought-iron work for
machinery for mills, for grinding grain or sawing timber; for forges,
rolling and slitting-mills, sugar-mills, apple-mills, bark-mills,
&c. Pans of all dimensions used by sugar-boilers, soap-boilers,
&c. Screws of all sizes for cotton-presses, tobacco-presses,
paper-presses, cast iron gudgeons, and boxes for mills and wagons,
carriage-boxes, &c., and all kinds of small wheels and machinery for
Cotton and Wool spinning, &c. Mr. Evans also makes steam engines on
improved principles, invented and patented by the proprietor, which
are more powerful and less complicated, and cheaper than others;
requiring less fuel, not more than one-fiftieth part of the coals
commonly used. The small one in use at the works is on this improved
principle, and it is of great use in facilitating the manufacture
of others. The proprietor has erected one of his improved steam
engines in the town of Pittsburg, and employed it to drive three pair
of large millstones with all the machinery for cleaning the grain,
elevating, spreading, and stirring and cooling the meal, gathering
and bolting, &c., &c. The power is equal to twenty-four horses and
will do as much work as seventy-two horses in twenty-four hours; it
would drive five pair of six-feet millstones, and grind five hundred
bushels of wheat in twenty-four hours.[203]
[203] Freedley: “Philadelphia and its Manufactures,” pp. 54-55.
Philadelphia, 1858.
Incidentally the last sentence is an admirable illustration of the
origin of the term “horse power.” This business was carried on until
Evans’ death. It would be interesting to know how far he influenced
the design of Mississippi river boat engines which have retained the
proportions characteristic of the engines which he first built for that
service.
Evans’ best-known book, “The Young Millwright and Miller’s Guide,” went
through a number of editions and was translated and published abroad.
In this he gives his idea of “The True Path to Inventions.” It is well
worth quoting, as it explains, in part, his own success as an inventor.
Necessity is called the mother of Invention--but upon inquiry we
shall find that Reason and Experiment bring them forth.--For almost
all inventions have resulted from such steps as the following:
Step I. Is to investigate the fundamental principles of the theory,
and process, of the art or manufacture we wish to improve.
II. To consider what is the best plan, in theory, that can be deduced
from, or founded on, those principles to produce the effect we desire.
III. To inquire whether the theory is already put in practice to the
best advantage; and what are the imperfections or disadvantages of
the common process, and what plans are likely to succeed better.
IV. To make experiments in practice, upon any plans that these
speculative reasonings may suggest, or lead to.--Any ingenious
artist, taking the foregoing steps, will probably be led to
improvements on his own art: for we see by daily experience that
every art may be improved. It will, however, be in vain to attempt
improvements unless the mind be freed from prejudice, in favour of
established plans.[204]
[204] pp. 345-346.
Evans was certainly an independent, and probably the first, inventor
of the high pressure steam engine, a type of engine which he saw was
well suited to American pioneer conditions. He was interested in steam
locomotion, and predicted the development of railways with singular
accuracy.
The time will come when people will travel in stages moved by
steam engines from one city to another almost as fast as birds
fly--fifteen to twenty miles an hour. Passing through the air with
such velocity--changing the scenes in such rapid succession--will be
the most exhilarating, delightful exercise. A carriage will set out
from Washington in the morning, and the passengers will breakfast at
Baltimore, dine at Philadelphia, and sup at New York the same day.
To accomplish this, two sets of railways will be laid so nearly
level as not in any place to deviate more than two degrees from a
horizontal line, made of wood or iron, on smooth paths of broken
stone or gravel, with a rail to guide the carriages so that they
may pass each other in different directions and travel by night as
well as by day; and the passengers will sleep in these stages as
comfortably as they do now in steam stage-boats. A steam engine that
will consume from one-quarter to one-half a cord of wood will drive a
carriage 180 miles in twelve hours, with twenty or thirty passengers,
and will not consume six gallons of water. The carriages will not
be overloaded with fuel or water.... And it shall come to pass that
the memory of those sordid and wicked wretches who oppose such
improvements will be execrated by every good man, as they ought to be
now.
Posterity will not be able to discover why the Legislature or
Congress did not grant the inventor such protection as might have
enabled him to put in operation these great improvements sooner--he
having asked neither money nor a monopoly of any existing thing.[205]
[205] Evans: Extract from “Address to the people of the United
States,” quoted in the _Journal of the Franklin Institute_, Vol.
CXXII, p. 13.
He practically initiated the modern science of handling materials.
While many of his theories were faulty, his mechanical practice was
seldom wrong. He was a restless man, discontented and inclined to air
his grievances in public. Once, in a fit of pique, he destroyed the
drawings and records of, it is said, more than eighty inventions--an
act which he regretted later. Though frequently disappointed, he was in
the end fairly successful, and was unquestionably one of the foremost
of the early American mechanics.
In Philadelphia, as in New England, many of the early shops made
textile machinery. Arkwright machines were built by James Davenport at
the Globe Mills at the north end of Second Street, which Washington
visited in 1797 when the new Federal Government inaugurated its policy
of developing American industries. Davenport died soon after, the
business ceased and the factory was sold in 1798. Cotton machinery is
said to have been manufactured also by Eltonhead in 1803.
Philadelphia was then the largest city in the country, with an active
industrial life. It was natural, therefore, that the tools and methods
developed in and about Pawtucket should, sooner or later, take root
there. In 1810 Alfred Jenks, a direct descendant of Joseph Jenks, of
Lynn, having served his time with Samuel Slater in Pawtucket, moved
to Holmesburg, Pa., and started the first factory in Pennsylvania for
making textile machinery. His business grew rapidly and in 1820 he
moved to Bridesburg, now a part of Philadelphia, bringing his shop
along with him on rollers. By 1825 there were thirty cotton mills in
and about the city, most of which he had equipped. As the demand for
woolen machinery arose Jenks met it and he equipped the first woolen
mill built in the state. Under his leadership and that of his son,
Barton H. Jenks, the shop had a wide influence and was the foremost of
the early Philadelphia plants building textile machinery. Other early
shops in this field were those of J. & T. Wood, Hindle & Sons, James
Smith & Company, W. P. Uhlinger & Company.[206]
[206] Freedley: “Philadelphia and its Manufactures,” pp. 299-302,
427. Philadelphia, 1858.
The two plants which gave Philadelphia its great reputation for tool
building were those established by Sellers and Bement. Probably no one
has had a greater influence on machine tools in America than William
Sellers. He has been called the Whitworth of America, and there is a
singular parallelism in the work and influence of the two men. Sellers
was born in Pennsylvania in 1824, was educated in a private school
maintained by his father, and later apprenticed to his uncle, John M.
Poole, at Wilmington, Del.[207] When only twenty-one he took charge
of the machine shop of Fairbanks, Bancroft & Company in Providence,
R. I. Three years later he began the manufacture of machine tools and
mill gearing at Thirtieth and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, and was
soon after joined by Edward Bancroft, who moved from Providence, the
firm becoming Bancroft & Sellers. John Sellers, Jr., a brother of
William, became a partner and in 1853 they moved to Sixteenth Street
and Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr. Bancroft died in 1855 and the firm became
William Sellers & Company, which was incorporated in 1886, with William
Sellers as president.
[207] _Journal of the Franklin Institute_, Vol. CLIX, pp. 365-383.
Bancroft was the inventive member of the firm and Mr. Sellers the
executive. Sellers’ designing ability did not develop until after
Bancroft’s death. His first patent was granted in 1857. In all he was
granted over ninety United States patents and many others in foreign
countries, covering a wide variety of subjects; machine tools of all
kinds, injectors which he introduced into the United States, rifling
machines, riveters, boilers, hydraulic machinery, hoisting cranes,
steam hammers and engines, ordnance, turntables, etc. One of the best
known and most original of Sellers’ machines was the spiral geared
planer patented in 1862, which has always been associated with his name.
Almost from the first Sellers cut loose from the accepted designs of
the day. He was among the first to realize that red paint, beads and
mouldings, and architectural embellishments were false in machine
design. He introduced the “machine gray” paint which has become
universal; made the form of the machine follow the function to be
performed and freed it from all pockets and beading. Like Bement he
realized that American tools then being built were too light; and
they both put more metal into their machines than was the practice
elsewhere. From the first he adopted standards and adhered to them so
closely that repair parts can be supplied today for machines made fifty
years ago.
In April, 1864, Sellers, as president of the Franklin Institute, read a
paper on “A System of Screw Threads and Nuts,” in which he proposed the
system of screw threads since variously known as the Sellers, Franklin
Institute, or U. S. Standard.[208] They embodied the sixty degree
angle and a flat of one-eighth of the pitch at the top and bottom of
the thread. In this paper Sellers stated clearly the need for _some_
generally accepted standard, reviewed the various threads then used,
particularly the Whitworth thread, with its fifty-five degree angle
and rounded corners, which he disapproved of on three grounds; first,
that it was difficult to secure a fit at the top and bottom; second,
that the angle was difficult to verify; and third, the high cost of
making cutting tools which would conform accurately to the standard.
He proposed the sixty degree angle as easier to make and already in
general use in this country, and the flat top as easy to generate and
to verify. He went a step further, and proposed at the same time a
standard for bolt-heads and nuts, in which the dimensions were derived
from a simple formula and the distance across flats was the same for
square and hexagon nuts, so that the same wrench would do for either
style of nut.
[208] _Journal of the Franklin Institute_, Vol. LXXVII, p. 344.
[Illustration: FIGURE 51. WILLIAM SELLERS]
This paper had as great influence in America as Whitworth’s paper of
1841 had in England. A committee was appointed to investigate the
question and recommend a standard. On this committee, among others,
were William B. Bement, C. T. Parry of the Baldwin Locomotive Works,
S. V. Merrick, J. H. Towne, and Coleman Sellers. Early in the next
year the committee reported in favor of the Sellers standard, the
Franklin Institute communicated their findings to other societies, and
recommended the general adoption of the system throughout the country.
The Sellers’ thread was adopted by the United States Government
for all government work in 1868, by the Pennsylvania Railroad in
1869, the Master Car Builders’ Association in 1872, and soon became
practically universal. After exhaustive investigation the Sellers’ form
of thread was adopted in 1898 by the International Congress for the
standardization of screw threads, at Zurich, and is now in general use
on the continent of Europe.[209]
[209] For the discussion of the Sellers’ screw thread and the
circumstances surrounding its adoption, see: _Journal of the Franklin
Institute_, Vol. LXXVII, p. 344; Vol. LXXIX, pp. 53, 111; Vol.
CXXIII, p. 261; Vol. CXXV, p. 185.
In 1868 William Sellers organized the Edgemoor Iron Company which
furnished the iron work for the principal Centennial buildings and
all the structural work of the Brooklyn Bridge. In the development
of this business, he led the way in the distinctly American methods
and machinery by which the building of bridges has been, to a great
extent, put upon a manufacturing basis. This involved the design and
introduction of hydraulic machinery, large multiple punches, riveters,
cranes, boring machines, etc.
The excellence of his machinery soon brought him into contact with
government engineers and throughout his life his influence in the War
and Navy Departments was great. In 1890 the Navy Department called for
bids on an eight-foot lathe, with a total length of over 128 feet,
to bore and turn sixteen-inch cannon for the Naval Gun Factory at
Washington. Sellers disapproved of the design and refused to bid on it.
He proposed an alternative one of his own, argued its merits in person
before the Board of Engineers, and secured its adoption and a contract
for it. This great lathe, weighing over 500,000 pounds, has attracted
the attention of engineers from all parts of the world. In 1873 Mr.
Sellers reorganized the William Butcher Steel Works as the Midvale
Steel Company and became its president. Under his management the
company grew rapidly, and later became a leader in production of heavy
ordnance.
It was here that Frederick W. Taylor began in 1880 his work on the art
of cutting metals, which resulted in modern high-speed tool steels and
a general re-design of machine tools. These experiments, covering a
period of twenty-six years, cost upwards of $200,000. Mr. Taylor has
frequently acknowledged his indebtedness in this work to the patience
and courage of Mr. Sellers, who was then an old man and might have
been expected to oppose radical change. It was he who made the work
possible, however, and he supported Taylor unwaveringly in the face of
constant protests.[210] Mr. Sellers was a man of commanding presence,
direct but gracious in manner, who won and held the respect and loyalty
of all about him. His judgment was almost unerring and he dominated
each of the great establishments he built up.
[210] F. W. Taylor: Paper on the “Art of Cutting Metals,” Trans. A.
S. M. E., Vol. XXVIII, p. 34.
The firm of William Sellers & Company had another master mind in that
of Dr. Coleman Sellers, a second cousin of William Sellers.[211] He
was born in Philadelphia in 1827, his father, Coleman Sellers, being
also an inventor and mechanic. Like Nasmyth he spent his school
holidays in his father’s shop, which was at Cardington. In 1846, when
he was nineteen years old, he went to Cincinnati and worked in the
Globe Rolling Mill, operated by his elder brothers, where the first
locomotives for the Panama Railroad were built; and in two years he
became superintendent. In 1851 he became foreman of the works of
James and Jonathan Niles, who were then in Cincinnati and building
locomotives. Six years later he returned to Philadelphia, became
chief engineer of William Sellers & Company, and remained with them
for over thirty years, becoming a partner in 1873. During these years
he designed a wide range of machinery, which naturally covered much
the same field as that of William Sellers, but his familiarity with
locomotive work especially fitted him for the design of railway tools.
His designs were original, correct and refined. The Sellers coupling
was his invention and he did much to introduce the modern systems of
power transmission.
[211] See Trans. A. S. M. E., Vol. XXIX, p. 1163; _Cassier’s
Magazine_, August, 1903, p. 352; _Journal of the Franklin Institute_,
Vol. CXLIX, p. 5.
Doctor Sellers was a good physicist, an expert photographer,
telegrapher, microscopist, and a professor in the Franklin Institute,
his lectures always drawing large audiences. Like William Sellers, he
was a member of most of the great engineering and scientific societies,
here and abroad; and he was president of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, of which he was a charter member. He was received
with the greatest distinction in his visits to Europe. In 1886 impaired
health compelled his relinquishing regular work and he resigned his
position of engineer for William Sellers & Company, being succeeded
by his son, the present president of the company. His last great work
was in connection with the power development of Niagara Falls. He
was engineer for the Cataract Construction Company and served on the
commission which determined the types of turbines and generators and
the methods of power transmission finally adopted. Among the others on
this commission were Lord Kelvin, Colonel Turretini, the great Swiss
engineer, and Professor Unwin, and its report forms the foundation
of modern large hydro-electric work. William Sellers & Company has a
unique distinction among the builders of machine tools in having had
the leadership of two such men as William and Coleman Sellers.
William B. Bement, the son of a Connecticut farmer and blacksmith, was
born at Bradford, N. H., in 1817. His education was obtained in the
district schools and in his father’s blacksmith shop. His mechanical
aptitude was so clear that he was apprenticed to Moore & Colby,
manufacturers of woolen and cotton machinery at Peterboro, N. H. His
progress at first was rapid. Within two years he became foreman, and
on the withdrawal of one of the partners, was admitted into the firm.
He continued there three years, already giving much thought to machine
tools, for which he saw the rising need. In 1840 he went to Manchester
and entered the Amoskeag shop when it was just finished, remaining
there two years as a foreman and contractor under William A. Burke,
to whom we have referred elsewhere. From there Bement went to take
charge of a shop for manufacturing woolen machinery at Mishawaka, Ind.
Unfortunately it was burned to the ground while Bement had gone back
to New Hampshire for his family, so that when he returned with them he
found himself without employment and with only ten dollars in hand.
For the time being he worked as a blacksmith and gunsmith, and made an
engine lathe for himself in the shop of the St. Joseph Iron Company,
which gave him permission to use their tools in return for the use of
his patterns to make a similar machine for themselves. Much of the work
in making this lathe was done by hand as there was no planer within
many hundred miles. The St. Joseph Iron Company, seeing his work,
offered him the charge of their shop, to which he agreed, provided the
plant were enlarged and equipped with proper tools. This was done,
but just as everything was completed this plant also was burned down.
Bement had plans for another shop ready the following day, went into
the woods with others, cut the necessary timber, and a new shop was
soon completed. He remained there for three years, constructing a
variety of machine tools, one of which was a gear cutter said to have
been the first one built in the West, or used beyond Cleveland.
[Illustration: FIGURE 52. COLEMAN SELLERS]
[Illustration: FIGURE 53. WILLIAM B. BEMENT]
He returned to New England as a contractor in the Lowell Machine Shop
under Burke, who had gone there from the Amoskeag Mills in 1845. On
account of Bement’s resourcefulness and skill in designing, Burke
induced him to relinquish his contracts and take charge of their
designing, which he did for three years, his residence at Lowell
covering in all about six years.
In 1851 Elijah D. Marshall, who had established a business of engraving
rolls for printing calicos in 1848 and had a small shop at Twentieth
and Callowhill Streets in Philadelphia, offered Bement a partnership.
He moved to Philadelphia in September of that year, and with Marshall
and Gilbert A. Colby, a nephew, he began the manufacture of machine
tools under the name of Marshall, Bement & Colby, thus starting only
a year or so after Sellers. Marshall was a large man, dignified and
deliberate in speech. Bement was strong, vigorous, a born designer,
a remarkably rapid draftsman, and had a capacity for work rarely
equalled. Colby was also a man of considerable mechanical ability,
with advanced business ideas. Their shop consisted of a single
three-storied, stone, whitewashed building, 40 by 90 feet. Their
entire machine shop was on the first floor, with a 10- by 12-foot room
for an office. The engine, boiler and blacksmith shop were in small
outbuildings. Part of the second floor was rented to another factory
and the rest was sometimes used for religious meetings, while the
third floor was used for engraving printing rolls. Their tools were
few and crude; among them were a 36-inch lathe with a wooden bed and
iron straps for ways, and a 48-inch by 14-foot planer with ornate
Doric uprights. Marshall and Colby soon retired, the latter going to
Niles, Mich., where he was very successful. James Dougherty, an expert
foundryman, and George C. Thomas entered the firm, which became Bement
& Dougherty, the plant being known as the “Industrial Works.” Mr.
Thomas contributed considerable capital, and a new shop and a foundry
were built. At the same time they installed a planer 10 feet wide by 8
feet high, to plane work 45 feet long, a notable tool for that day.
After a few years of struggle, the plant began to grow rapidly and
at one time was the largest of its kind in the country. Bement and
Sellers were among the first to concentrate wholly on tool building.
They confined themselves to work of the highest quality. Both made
much heavier tools, as we have said, than the New England builders,
their only competitors, and in a short time had established great
reputations. Bement relied little on patent protection, trusting to
quality and constant improvement. Thomas retired from the partnership
in 1856 and Dougherty in 1870; and Clarence S. Bement joined the firm,
which became William B. Bement & Son. John M. Shrigley became a partner
in 1875, William P. Bement in 1879, and Frank Bement in 1888.
Frederick B. Miles was an employee of Bement & Dougherty who
established a tool business under the name of Ferris & Miles, which
afterward became the Machine Tool Works. While head of these works,
Miles greatly improved the steam hammer, particularly its valve
mechanism, and many details of what is known as the Bement hammer
were invented by Miles. In 1885 the Machine Tool Works consolidated
with William Bement & Son, forming Bement, Miles & Company. Mr. Miles
was an accomplished engineer and designer, with the unusual equipment
of six languages at his command, an asset of value in the firm’s
foreign business. William Bement, Senior, died in 1897, and in 1900
the business became a part of the Niles-Bement-Pond Company. Mr.
Miles retired at that time and has not since been active in the tool
business.[212]
[212] Most of the foregoing details in regard to the Bement & Miles
Works have been obtained from Mr. Clarence S. Bement and Mr. W. T.
Hagman, their present general manager.
Although Bement and Sellers contributed more to the art of tool
building than any of the other Philadelphia mechanics, some of these
others ought to be mentioned. Matthias W. Baldwin, a native of New
Jersey, began as a jeweler’s apprentice. In partnership with David H.
Mason he began making bookbinders’ tools, to which he added in 1822
the engraving of rolls for printing cotton goods and later of bank
notes. From the invention and manufacture of a variety of tools used in
that business they were led gradually into the machine tool business,
the building of hydraulic presses, calender rolls, steam engines, and
finally locomotives. In 1830 Baldwin built a model locomotive for the
Peale Museum which led to an order from the Philadelphia & Germantown
Railroad for an engine which was completed in 1832 and placed on
the road in January, 1833. An advertisement of that time says: “The
locomotive engine built by Mr. M. W. Baldwin of this city will depart
daily, when the weather is fair, with a train of passenger cars. On
rainy days horses will be attached in the place of the locomotive.”
From this beginning has sprung the Baldwin Locomotive Works, which
employs approximately 20,000 men. In 1834 they built five locomotives;
in 1835, fourteen; in 1836, forty. Their one thousandth locomotive was
built in 1861; the five thousandth in 1880 and the forty thousandth in
1913. These works have naturally greatly influenced the neighboring
tool makers. From the beginning, both Bement and Sellers specialized on
railway machinery and they have always built a class of tools larger
than those manufactured in New England.
The Southwark Foundry was established in 1836, first as a foundry
only, but a large machine shop was soon added. The owners were S. V.
Merrick, who became the first president of the Pennsylvania Railroad
Company, and John Henry Towne, who was the engineering partner. The
firm designed and built steam engines and other heavy machinery and
introduced the steam hammer into the United States under arrangement
with James Nasmyth. From the designs of Capt. John Ericsson they
built the engines for the “Princeton,” the first American man-of-war
propelled by a screw, and later were identified with the Porter-Allen
steam engine. Mr. Towne withdrew from the firm about 1848, and the
firm name became successively Merrick & Son, Merrick & Sons, Henry G.
Morris, and finally the Southwark Foundry & Machine Company.
I. P. Morris & Company came from Levi Morris & Company, founded in
1828, and for many years were engaged in a similar work. In 1862
Mr. J. H. Towne, above referred to, was admitted to the firm as the
engineering partner, and the firm name then became I. P. Morris, Towne
& Company, until about 1869 when Mr. Towne withdrew. At his withdrawal
the firm name was restored to its original form, I. P. Morris &
Company. It is now a department of the Cramp Ship Building Company.
During the Civil War the works were occupied largely in building
engines and boilers for government vessels, and blast furnace and sugar
mill machinery. During this period Henry R. Towne, son of J. H. Towne,
entered the works as an apprentice, served in the drawing room and
shops, and finally was placed in charge of the erection at the navy
yards of Boston and Kittery of the engines, boilers, etc., built for
two of the double-turreted monitors. Returning to Philadelphia, he was
made assistant superintendent of the works.
J. H. Towne was a mechanical engineer of eminence in his day, whose
work as a designer showed unusual thoroughness and finish. He was
a warm friend and admirer of both William and Coleman Sellers, and
through his influence, Henry R. Towne was at one time a student
apprentice in the shops of William Sellers & Company, acquiring there
an experience which had a marked influence on his future work. Both of
the firms with which J. H. Towne was connected built machine tools for
themselves and for others, especially of the heavier and larger kinds,
and thus were among the early tool builders. I. P. Morris & Company,
about 1860, designed and built for their own use what was then the
largest vertical boring mill in this country.[213]
[213] From correspondence with Mr. Henry R. Towne.
It may surprise some to learn that the well-known New England firm, the
Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company in Stamford, Conn., is a descendant
of these Philadelphia companies. It was organized in October, 1868,
by Linus Yale, Jr., and Henry R. Towne, who were brought together
by William Sellers. Mr. Yale died in the following December. This
company, under the direction and control of Mr. Towne, has had a wide
influence on the lock and hardware industry in this country. While
the products of the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company have always
consisted chiefly of locks and related articles, they have added since
1876 the manufacture of chain blocks, electric hoists, and, during a
considerable period, two lines allied to tool building, namely, cranes
and testing machines. This company was the pioneer crane builder of
this country, organizing a department for this purpose as early as
1878, and developing a large business in this field, which was sold
in 1894 to the Brown Hoisting Machine Company of Cleveland, Ohio. The
building of testing machines was undertaken in 1882, to utilize the
inventions of Mr. A. H. Emery, and was continued until 1887, when this
business was sold to William Sellers & Company, for the same reason
that the crane business was sold; namely, that both were incongruous
with the other and principal products of the company.
In recent years the Bilgram Machine Works, under the leadership of
Hugo Bilgram, an expert Philadelphia mechanic, has made valuable
contributions to the art of accurate gear cutting.
In the cities between New York and Philadelphia, and here and there
in the smaller towns of Pennsylvania, are several tool builders of
influence. Gould & Eberhardt in Newark is one of the oldest firms in
the business, having been established in 1833. Ezra Gould, its founder,
learned his trade at Paterson, and started in for himself at Newark in
a single room, 16 feet square. Within a few years the Gould Machine
Company was organized, the business moved to its present location, and
a line of lathes, planers and drill presses was manufactured. To these
they added fire engines. Ulrich Eberhardt started as an apprentice in
1858 and became a partner in 1877, the firm name becoming E. Gould &
Eberhardt, and later Gould & Eberhardt. Mr. Gould retired in 1891, and
died in 1901. Mr. Eberhardt also died in 1901; the business has since
been incorporated and is now under the management of his three sons.
They employ about 400 men in the manufacture of gear and rack cutting
machinery and shapers.
The Pond Machine Tool Company, which moved from Worcester to
Plainfield, N. J., in 1888, was founded by Lucius W. Pond.[214] It
is a large and influential shop and one of the four plants of the
Niles-Bement-Pond Company. Their output is chiefly planers, boring
mills and large lathes.
[214] See p. 222.
The Landis Tool Company, of Waynesboro, Pa., builders of grinding
machinery, springs from the firm of Landis Brothers, established in
1890 by F. F. and A. B. Landis. One was superintendent and the other a
tool maker in a small plant building portable engines and agricultural
machinery. A small Brown & Sharpe grinding machine was purchased for
use in these works. Mr. A. B. Landis became interested in the design
of a machine more suited to their particular work, and from this has
developed the Landis grinder.
CHAPTER XX
THE WESTERN TOOL BUILDERS
Prior to 1880 practically all of the tool building in the United States
was done east of the Alleghenies. The few tools built here and there in
Ohio and Indiana were mostly copies of eastern ones and their quality
was not high. In fact, there were few shops in the West equipped to do
accurate work. “Chordal’s Letters,” published first in the _American
Machinist_ and later in book form,[215] give an excellent picture
of the western machine shop in the transition stage from pioneer
conditions to those of the present day.
[215] Henry W. See: “Extracts from Chordal’s Letters”; McGraw-Hill
Book Co., N. Y. 12th Edition. 1909.
Good tool building appeared in Ohio in the early eighties, and within
ten years its competition was felt by the eastern tool builders. The
first western centers were Cleveland, Cincinnati and Hamilton. Of
these, Cleveland seems to have been the first to build tools of the
highest grade.
We have already noted that the Pratt & Whitney shop in Hartford
furnished Cleveland with a number of its foremost tool builders. The
oldest of these and perhaps the best known is the Warner & Swasey
Company. This company has the distinction, shared with only one
other, of having furnished two presidents of the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers. Oddly enough the other company is also a
Cleveland firm, the Wellman, Seaver, Morgan Company, builders of coal-
and ore-handling machinery, and of steel mill equipment.
Worcester E. Warner, of the Warner & Swasey Company, was born at
Cummington, Mass., in 1846. Although a farmer’s son and denied a
college education, he had access in his own home to an admirable
library, which he used to great advantage. When nineteen years old
he went to Boston and learned mechanical drawing in the office of
George B. Brayton. Shortly afterwards he was transferred to the shop
at Exeter, N. H., where he first met Ambrose Swasey. Mr. Swasey was
born at Exeter, also in 1846, went to the traditional “little red
schoolhouse,” and learned his trade as a machinist in the shop to
which Warner came. In 1870 they went together to Hartford, entered
the Pratt & Whitney shop as journeymen mechanics, and in a short
time had become foremen and contractors. Mr. Swasey soon gained a
reputation for accurate workmanship and rare ability in the solution
of complex mechanical problems. He had charge of the gear department,
and invented and developed a new process of generating spur gear teeth,
which was given in a paper before the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.[216] Mr. Warner, also, became one of the company’s most
trusted mechanics, was head of the planing department, and had charge
of the Pratt & Whitney exhibit at the Centennial Exposition in
Philadelphia.
[216] Trans. A. S. M. E., Vol. XII, p. 265.
In 1881 they left Hartford and went first to Chicago, intending to
build engine lathes, each putting $5000 into the venture; but finding
difficulty in obtaining good workmen there, they moved in about a
year to Cleveland, where they have remained. Their first order was
for twelve turret lathes, and they have built this type of machine
ever since. At various times they have built speed lathes, die-sinking
machines, horizontal boring mills, and hand gear-cutters, but they now
confine their tool building to hand-operated turret lathes. They have
never built automatics.
[Illustration: FIGURE 54. WORCESTER R. WARNER]
[Illustration: FIGURE 55. AMBROSE SWASEY]
The building of astronomical instruments was not in their original
scheme, but Mr. Warner’s taste for astronomy and Mr. Swasey’s skill
in intricate and delicate mechanical problems, led them to take up
this work. These instruments, usually designed by astronomers and
instrument makers, were in general much too light; at least the large
ones were. From their long experience as tool builders, Warner and
Swasey realized that strength and rigidity are quite as essential as
accuracy of workmanship where great precision is required. The design
of a large telescope carrying a lens weighing over 500 pounds at the
end of a steel tube forty or sixty feet long, and weighing five or six
tons, which must be practically free from flexure and vibration and
under intricate and accurate control, becomes distinctly an engineering
problem. To this problem both Mr. Warner and Mr. Swasey brought
engineering skill and experience of the highest order.
When the trustees of the Lick Observatory called in 1886 for designs
for the great 36-inch telescope, Warner & Swasey submitted one
which provided for much heavier mountings than had ever been used
before, and heavier construction throughout. They were awarded
the contract and the instrument was built and installed under Mr.
Swasey’s personal supervision. It is located on the very top of Mount
Hamilton in California, 4200 feet above sea-level; and to give room
for the observatory 42,000 tons of rock had to be removed. The great
instrument, weighing with its mountings more than forty tons, “was
transported in sections, over a newly made mountain road, sometimes in
a driving snowstorm, with the wind blowing from sixty to eighty miles
an hour.”[217]
[217] _Cassier’s Magazine_, March, 1897, p. 403.
As is well known, the instrument was a brilliant success. The
Warner & Swasey Company has since designed and built the mountings
for the United States Naval Observatory telescope, the 40-inch
Yerkes telescope, the 72-inch reflecting telescope for the Canadian
Government, and the 60-inch reflecting telescope for the National
Observatory at Cordoba, Argentina, the largest in use in the southern
hemisphere. In addition to this large work, the firm has built meridian
circles, transits and other instruments for astronomical work, range
finders for the United States Government, and introduced the prismatic
binocular into this country.
In connection with this astronomical work Mr. Swasey designed and built
a dividing engine capable of dividing circles of 40 inches in diameter
with an error of less than one second of arc. A second of arc subtends
about one-third of an inch at the distance of one mile. Although the
graduations on the inlaid silver band of this machine are so fine that
they can scarcely be seen with the naked eye, the width of each line is
twelve times the maximum error in the automatic graduations which the
machine produces.
Although their reputation as telescope builders is international,
Warner & Swasey are, and always have been, primarily tool builders.
They were not the first to build tools in the Middle West, but they
were the first to turn out work comparable in quality with that of the
best shops in the East.
The Warner & Swasey shop has had the advantage of other good mechanics
besides its proprietors. Walter Allen, an expert tool designer, did
his entire work with them, rising from apprentice to works manager.
Frank Kempsmith, originally a Brown & Sharpe man, was at one time
their superintendent. Lucas, of the Lucas Machine Tool Company, was a
foreman. George Bardons, who served his apprenticeship with Pratt &
Whitney, went west with Warner and Swasey when they started in business
and was their superintendent; and John Oliver, a graduate of Worcester
Polytechnic, was their chief draftsman. The last two left Warner
& Swasey in 1891 and established the firm of Bardons & Oliver for
building lathes.
Another old Pratt & Whitney workman is A. W. Foote of the Foote-Burt
Company, builders of drilling machines. Unlike the others, however,
Foote did not work for Warner & Swasey.
The first multi-spindle automatic screw machines were manufactured in
Cleveland. The Cleveland automatic was developed in the plant of the
White Sewing Machine Company for their own work, and its success led
to the establishment of a separate company for its manufacture. The
Acme automatic was invented by Reinholdt Hakewessel and E. C. Henn in
Hartford. Mr. Hakewessel was a Pratt & Whitney man and Mr. Henn a New
Britain boy, who had worked first in Lorain and Cincinnati and then for
twelve years in Hartford with Pratt & Cady, the valve manufactures. In
1895 Henn and Hakewessel began manufacturing bicycle parts in a little
Hartford attic, developing for this work a five-spindle automatic.
Seven years later the business was moved to Cleveland, where it became
the National-Acme Manufacturing Company, organized by E. C. and A.
W. Henn and W. D. B. Alexander, who came from the Union Steel Screw
Works. Their business of manufacturing automatic screw machinery and
screw machine products has grown rapidly and is now one of the largest
industries in Cleveland.
The White Sewing Machine Company and the Union Steel Screw Works were
among the first in Cleveland to use accurate methods and to produce
interchangeable work. It was at the Union Steel Screw Works that James
Hartness, of the Jones & Lamson Machine Company, got his first training
in accurate work. Their shop practice was good and was due to Jason A.
Bidwell, who came from the American Tool Company of Providence.
The Standard Tool Company is an offspring of Bingham & Company,
Cleveland, and of the Morse Twist Drill Company of New Bedford, Mass.
From the Standard Tool Company has come the Whitman-Barnes Company of
Akron, and from that the Michigan Twist Drill and Machine Company.
Newton & Cox was established in 1876, and built planers and milling
machines. Mr. Newton sold his share in the business to F. F. Prentiss
in 1880, went to Philadelphia, and started the Newton Machine Tool
Works. Cox & Prentiss later became the Cleveland Twist Drill Company.
They drifted into the drill business through not being able to buy such
drills as they required. They began making drills first for themselves,
then for their friends, and gradually took up their manufacture, giving
up the business in machine tools.
* * * * *
Cincinnati is said to have upwards of 15,000 men engaged in the tool
building industry, and to be the largest tool building center in the
world. There are approximately forty firms there engaged in this work,
many of them large and widely known.
This development, which has taken place within the past thirty-five
years, may possibly have sprung indirectly from the old river traffic.
Seventy years ago this traffic was large, and Cincinnati did the
greater part of the engine and boat building and repair work. When the
river trade vanished, the mechanics engaged in this work were compelled
to turn their attention to something else, and there may be some
significance in the coincidence of the rise of tool building with the
decline of the older industry.
There had been more or less manufacturing in Cincinnati for many years,
but little of it could be described as tool building. Miles Greenwood
established the Eagle Iron Works in 1832 on the site now occupied by
the Ohio Mechanics Institute. It comprised a general machine shop, an
iron foundry, brass foundries, and a hardware factory which rivaled
those of New England, employing in all over 500 men. The hardware
factory was important enough to attract the special attention of the
English commissioners who visited this country in 1853.
In the fifties and early sixties, Niles & Company built steamboat and
stationary engines, locomotives and sugar machinery, and employed
from 200 to 300 men. This company was the forerunner of the present
Niles Tool Works in Hamilton. Lane & Bodley were building woodworking
machinery about the same time, and J. A. Fay & Company, another firm
building woodworking machinery, which started in Keene, N. H., began
work in Cincinnati in the early sixties.
The first builder of metal-working tools in Cincinnati was John
Steptoe; in fact, he is said to have been for many years the only
tool builder west of the Alleghenies. Steptoe came to this country
from Oldham, England, some time in the forties. It is said that he
was a foundling and that his name came from his having been left on
a doorstep. He was married before he came to Cincinnati, and had
served an apprenticeship of seven years, although he was so young in
appearance that no one would believe it. After working some time for
Greenwood, he started in business for himself, making a foot power
mortising machine and later a line of woodworking tools. The first
metal-working tool which he built was a copy of the Putnam lathe. With
Thomas McFarlan, another Englishman, he formed the firm of Steptoe &
McFarlan, and his shop, called the Western Machine Works, employed by
1870 about 300 men. Their old payrolls contain the names of William E.
Gang of the William E. Gang Company; Mr. Oesterlien of the Oesterlien
Machine Company; and Mr. Dietz of the old Dietz, Schumacher & Boye
Company, now the Boye & Emmes Machine Tool Company.
Steptoe was not an originator or an inventor. He was a rough man, plain
spoken, honest and well informed. He died in 1888 at about eighty-four
years of age. Thomas P. Egan of the J. A. Fay & Egan Company, who had
worked for Steptoe and was the administrator of his estate, sold the
business for the widow to Otting & Lauder.[218] In compliance with
Steptoe’s wish it was stipulated that his name should be retained
and it has been perpetuated in the various changes through which
the business has gone. Today the John Steptoe Company manufactures
shapers and milling machines. Steptoe’s name should be remembered, for
Cincinnati tool building owes its start more to him than to anyone
else, with the possible exception of William Lodge, who was himself one
of Steptoe’s workmen.
[218] The above facts are given by several of Steptoe’s old workmen.
Mr. Lodge, the son of George Lodge, a skilled mechanic in the textile
industry, was born in Leeds, England, in 1848. After serving his
apprenticeship in the shops of Fairbairn & Company, Leeds, he came to
Philadelphia, where he worked for Chambers Brothers from 1869 to 1872,
making paper-folding machinery. He came to Cincinnati in 1872 and
worked for Steptoe for eight years, first as a journeyman machinist
and later as a foreman. Having saved $1000, he formed a partnership
with William Barker and they started in business the first day of
January, 1880, at Fifth Street and the C. H. & D. tracks. Associated
with them for a short time was Mr. Bechle, another Steptoe workman.
Their first task was to true up a few second-hand machines which they
had bought for their shop, after which they went out, secured some
business, and came back and executed it themselves, since they had
no one in their employ. Part of this first business was making some
opening dies for Powell and a small turret lathe for Lunkenheimer.
Lunkenheimer immediately ordered three more and during the following
year eighteen lathes were made and sold. Beginning with $1000, the
business inventoried at the end of the first year $7000; at the end of
the second year $32,000; and at the end of ten years $400,000. Fifteen
months after starting they employed seventy-five men. There is little
doubt that this rapid success induced quite a number of the better
and more ambitious mechanics in Cincinnati to take up similar work.
Mr. Lodge was well known among the mechanics of the city and had been
president of their union. If one of their own number could build up a
successful business, why could they not do the same? Some of the best
known of the Cincinnati tool building firms were established during the
few years after Mr. Lodge’s start.
In 1886 Mr. Barker sold his interest to Charles Davis and began making
Fox lathes and monitors independently. Lodge and Davis continued in
partnership until 1892, when Mr. Lodge sold his interest to Mr. Thomas
P. Egan and the firm became Davis & Egan, and later the American Tool
Works. Mr. Lodge, meanwhile, organized the Ohio Machine Tool Company
and a year later became associated with Murray Shipley, forming the
present Lodge & Shipley Machine Tool Company.
Mr. Lodge’s first export order was received in 1889. Alfred Herbert,
who had just started in Coventry, sent an inquiry in regard to drill
presses to Cincinnati, which was forwarded to Mr. Lodge in London.
Mr. Lodge went down to see him and asked whether the inquiry was for
purposes of information or for purchase. Mr. Herbert said that if Lodge
had a better machine he would buy. Mr. Lodge asked to see his machine
and after a little hesitation he was taken out into the shop. The first
machine he saw was a planer. He said that he could save 30 per cent
on the work as it was being done, and would sell them a machine which
would do it for £100. He was told that the planer they were looking
at cost only £65 and replied that that was all it was worth. He spent
several hours in the shop, and left the plant not only with an order,
but with the check in payment thereof. This was the beginning of a
large export business.
While the firm was Lodge & Davis, it built lathes, planers and drill
presses. Mr. Lodge wanted to manufacture rather than build, and to
specialize upon lathes. Mr. Davis, who was a business man, wanted a
complete line of tools, as he saw the opportunities of selling other
machines with the lathes. This led to a policy, the effect of which was
to build up a number of small tool building enterprises, independent
of each other, but not competing. About 1887 Lodge & Davis began
concentrating their manufacturing upon engine lathes, and placing
orders for other types of tools with mechanics known to them who were
just starting up, or with workmen or foremen from their own plant whom
they helped to start in business. For instance, to Smith & Mills, who
had been foremen with Steptoe and had started making set screws and
cap screws, they gave an order for 300 shapers. Another firm, Smith &
Silk, also built shapers for Lodge & Davis. Later they added planers,
and in the early nineties they moved to Kenton, Ohio, and began
building shapers and planers for their own account. To R. K. LeBlond,
who had served his apprenticeship with Brown & Sharpe and had come to
Cincinnati to make printers’ machinery and supplies, Lodge & Davis gave
a large order for slide-rests. To William Owen, one of their workmen,
they gave an order for Fox monitors. Owen went into partnership with
Philip Montanus and started the Springfield Machine Tool Company, and
Lodge & Shipley bought their entire product for eight years. Through
Mr. Lodge’s influence, Frank Kempsmith came from Warner & Swasey as
one of the partners in this firm. He afterwards moved to Milwaukee
and started the Kempsmith Manufacturing Company. This policy on the
part of Lodge & Davis unquestionably set upon their feet a number of
small companies which have since grown into successful, independent
enterprises.
William E. Gang worked for Lodge as vice-foreman. Greaves was his
planer foreman; Henry Dreses was his chief draftsman; and William
Herman, of the Fosdick Machine Tool Company, was his superintendent.
Gang & Dietz, and Fosdick & Plucker also began by doing work for Lodge
& Davis. Through various changes the former has become the present Boye
& Emmes Machine Tool Company and the latter the Fosdick Machine Tool
Company. Dreses, with Oscar Mueller, started Dreses, Mueller & Company
in 1896. In 1902 they separated and each formed a company of his own.
Greaves, with H. Klussman, began building woodworking machinery about
1890, to which they have since added the building of engine lathes.
The Cincinnati Planer Company is another offshoot of Lodge & Davis
and Davis & Egan through B. Quillen and W. Burtner, who were in their
office.
It is impossible here to give the history of all the Cincinnati tool
builders and only a few can be mentioned. Henry Bickford, a native of
New Hampshire and an employee of J. A. Fay & Company, started a few
years before Mr. Lodge. In 1874 he began building five sizes of upright
drills, from 20 to 38 inches in capacity. While his growth was not
so rapid as Mr. Lodge’s, it was steady and by 1885 he had built 3000
machines. The first machines were cheap and built for competition, but
from them has developed a product of the highest quality. The Bickford
Drill Company was organized in 1887 and the business was extended to
include radial and universal drills. The company was reorganized in
1893, and in 1894 it absorbed the Universal Radial Drill Company, its
only competitor in this special field in the city. Some years ago the
name was changed to the Cincinnati Bickford Tool Company. Mr. Anton
Mill and Mr. Henry M. Norris have in the main been responsible for
their engineering practice. Mr. Mill was a German who came to them from
the Cincinnati Milling Machine Company and Mr. Norris is a Cornell
graduate with a wide experience in the eastern tool building shops.
The Cincinnati Milling Machine Company comes from the Cincinnati Screw
& Tap Company, started by Frederick Holtz, who began making screws
and taps in a kitchen about 1880. He made a milling machine with a
wooden base for fluting his taps, because he was too poor to buy one.
Lunkenheimer saw this machine and ordered one, and from this start
came their present milling machine business. The firm became the
Cincinnati Milling Machine Company in 1889 with Mr. Frederick A. Geier
as president. Mr. A. L. DeLeeuw was for a number of years engineer
for this company and his experiments in cutting tools have had a wide
influence on all milling machine practice.
The prominence of Hamilton, Ohio, in tool building is due chiefly
to the Niles Tool Works, which moved thither from Cincinnati about
1876. Before the war the old firm, Niles & Company, to which we have
already referred, occasionally built tools for their own use. After
the war, George Gray, who was their designer and superintendent, was
sent through the eastern states to familiarize himself with machine
tool building and the company took it up as part of their regular work.
After their removal to Hamilton, they confined themselves wholly to
this work and have grown to be one of the largest firms in the country
in this field. About 1900 the Niles Tool Works were brought under the
same management as Bement, Miles & Company of Philadelphia, the Pond
Machine Tool Company of Plainfield, N. J., and the Pratt & Whitney
Company of Hartford, and they are now operated as one of the plants of
the Niles-Bement-Pond Company.
In 1880 Gray left the Niles Tool Works and started the Universal Radial
Drill Company in Cincinnati. This company built the first round column
radial drills, plain and universal, after Mr. Gray’s designs. He left
the company in 1883 and about ten years later it ceased business. The
G. A. Gray Company, which he started in 1883, at first built lathes,
but has specialized on planers and is now one of the foremost firms in
the country specializing in this type of tool.
As the demand for machine tools spread westward, tool building has
followed it, and an increasing number of companies are springing up in
Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin. The oldest of these, the W. F. & John
Barnes Company of Rockford, Ill., began making jig saws in 1872. Six
years later they added the building of small lathes. About the same
time they made some drill presses for their own use and then began
manufacturing them for the trade. Later, tool grinders, arbor presses,
radial and gang drills were added successively to their line of
machines. Their only competitors were in Worcester and Cincinnati, and
the high freight rates at that time gave them an important advantage
in the West. Their early machinery, built to meet pioneer conditions,
found a considerable market in the less developed foreign countries and
they have built up a widespread export business.
Rockford has become a clearly defined center for tool builders. For
many years the W. F. & John Barnes Company was the only one in the
city, but in 1888 the Mechanics Machine Company was established.
About 1893 the Ingersoll Milling Machine Company moved to Rockford
from Cleveland, where Mr. Ingersoll had been associated with Cox &
Prentiss. This company has been the leader in the development of heavy
multiple-head milling machines of the planer type. The Barber-Coleman
Company began making mechanics’ tools and gear cutters about 1896. The
B. F. Barnes Company, now the Rockford Drilling Machine Company, and
the Barnes Drill Company were established in 1897, by B. F. Barnes, a
brother of W. F. and John Barnes, who had been associated with them
for twenty years as superintendent. In addition to these firms there
are the Rockford Machine Tool Company, the Rockford Milling Machine
Company, the Rockford Lathe & Tool Company, the Rockford Iron Works and
W. F. Lingren & Company. The first of these companies started in 1897,
making shapers and planers. In 1913 it bought out the drill business
of the older Mechanics Machine Company. It is said that one of the
reasons why Rockford has become such a tool building center is that
the neighborhood was settled by Swedish immigrants, who have furnished
excellent material for the development of skilled mechanics.
The International Machine Tool Company of Indianapolis was established
in 1906. This company manufactures the turret lathes developed
by Mr. C. L. Libbey, who was for eleven years chief engineer and
superintendent of the Bullard Machine Tool Company of Bridgeport;
afterwards superintendent of the Pacific Iron Works of the same city,
and of the Ludwig-Loewe & Company, Berlin, Germany; and for four years
and a half construction engineer of the Gisholt Machine Company of
Madison, Wis. From Madison he went to Indianapolis.
There are a number of tool builders in Chicago, but though a great
manufacturing center, Chicago, like New York, has not specialized in
tool building as have some of the smaller places. There are perhaps a
dozen firms making large and small tools. Of those who build the larger
types of tools, Charles H. Besly & Company, manufacturers of grinding
machines, are best known.
Frederick M. Gardner, of Beloit, Wis., who was at one time with this
company, was largely responsible for the development of disk grinding
machines. Mr. Gardner was born in Ashfield, Mass., and served his
apprenticeship with Wiley & Russell in Greenfield. From there he went
to Pratt & Whitney’s, was later placed in charge of the small tool
department until, about 1885, he was transferred to Chicago as their
special western representative on the Pratt & Whitney tools then
being sold by Charles H. Besly & Company. His acquaintance with Mr.
Besly led to the formation of a company, of which Mr. Gardner was
superintendent, located at Beloit because of Mr. Besly’s interest in
the water power there. This company manufactured taps, dies, clamps and
other small tools. The disk grinder was originated about 1890 for use
in the manufacture of their clamps. For a number of years it retained
substantially its first form, but with the advent of coarser grades of
emery, a more powerful design with various refinements and adjustments
was developed. In 1905 Mr. Gardner organized a separate company known
as the Gardner Machine Company. Since that time still larger and more
powerful machines have been designed, lever feeds and micrometer stop
screws added, and various types, such as double spindle, vertical
spindle and pattern makers’ grinders, built. Abrasive ring wheels,
interchangeable with disk wheels allow the use of wet grinding and thus
extend the field of this type of machine. Mr. F. N. Gardner died in
1913. His sons, who were with him from the origin of the disk grinder,
are continuing his work in the Gardner Machine Company.
The Gisholt Machine Works at Madison, which grew out of a plant
manufacturing agricultural machinery, has developed a widely used
turret machine for chucking work invented by Mr. Conrad N. Conradson.
This machine applied the turret principle to much larger work than it
had been used for up to that time. Mr. Conradson has left the Gisholt
Company and has since designed a powerful, multi-spindle automatic
lathe which, like the Bullard machine (shown in Fig. 56), is vertical,
and, although a lathe, it has assumed a form which would scarcely be
recognized as such. This machine is built by the Giddings & Lewis
Manufacturing Company of Fond du Lac, Wis.
Milwaukee is rapidly establishing a reputation for tool building.
Kearney & Trecker and the Kempsmith Manufacturing Company are
well-known builders of milling machines. Mr. Kempsmith, as we have
already seen, was a Brown & Sharpe man, afterwards superintendent
of Warner & Swasey and for sixteen years at Springfield, Ohio, with
William Smith and Philip Montanus. Other tool builders such as the
Milwaukee Machine Tool Company and the Steinle Turret Machine Company
of Madison are helping to spread the art of tool building in this new
region.
[Illustration: FIGURE 56. THE “MULT-AU-MATIC” LATHE
1914]
We have not been able to mention all of the western tool builders.
Most of these firms have been established in recent years and are busy
building up a market and a reputation. Some of them will take positions
of leadership as Warner & Swasey and Lodge & Shipley have done, but
this of course requires time.
There can be no “conclusion” to the history of a live and growing
industry. A few of the present tendencies, however, may be pointed out.
One of the most far-reaching influences ever received by tool building
came from the introduction of high speed steel through the work of
Frederick W. Taylor and his associates. These steels made possible
much heavier cuts, and increases in cutting speeds, to two or two and
one-half times the previous prevailing practice. Mr. Taylor also made a
remarkable investigation of the lathe-planer type of cutting tool. A.
L. DeLeeuw and others have studied the milling cutter and twist drill
and examined the causes of the failure of cutting edges in action,
and the influence of large clearances for chips and coolants. The new
cutting steels and these investigations have compelled an extensive
redesign of machine tools during the past fifteen years, a process
which is still going on as new demands are made upon the tool builders.
These years have also witnessed a development of the “station-type”
of machine, or one in which there are multiple chucks, indexed from
station to station, one position being used for putting in and taking
out work while a succession of operations is simultaneously going on
at the other stations. In general these are high production machines
suitable for long runs of standard work. The multi-spindle automatic
bar-stock lathe is an example. One of the latest of these station-type
tools is the vertical machine shown in Fig. 56, which performs all
the functions of an engine lathe and is in effect five lathes in one
machine.
Another development of recent years has been the extension of the
grinding process, both for the rapid removal of metal and for precision
work. This has been made possible by the introduction of new and more
active abrasives.
The map, Fig. 57,[219] gives a bird’s-eye view of the distribution
of the tool building industry in the United States, and shows that
it is located in a rectangle which includes southern New England and
that portion of the Atlantic and Middle States lying roughly north of
the Potomac and Ohio and east of the Mississippi rivers. The strong
tendency toward concentration in certain localities is clearly seen.
(Each dot in the map represents a shop.) Of the 570 plants shown,
117 are in Ohio, 98 in Massachusetts, 66 in Connecticut, 60 in
Pennsylvania, 57 in New York, 42 in Illinois, 29 in Michigan and 18 in
Wisconsin. Thirty years ago practically none would have been found west
of Buffalo. Today the majority are there, although most of the more
important companies are still in the East. Unquestionably this will
equalize itself as the newer western shops develop.
[219] From the _American Machinist_, January 29, 1914, p. 210.
The general types of machine tools seem to be firmly established, and
new or startling inventions and revolutionary changes seem unlikely.
The present trend is toward higher speeds, heavier cuts with the use of
great quantities of lubricant, further refinements of jigs and holding
devices, and the use of highly developed automatic machines which may
be operated by unskilled labor.
[Illustration: FIGURE 57. MACHINE TOOL BUILDING AREA OF THE UNITED
STATES, 1915]
The unprecedented demand upon American tool builders made by the
European War has vastly increased their facilities, and will probably
tend to establish them even more firmly as world leaders in the
industry.
APPENDIX A
Shortly before his death Richard S. Lawrence wrote for his son, Ned
Lawrence, an account of his life, which has never been published.
It unconsciously reveals his genuine worth, and draws a simple but
accurate picture of the life and struggles of an American mechanic
seventy years ago. Through the kindness of Mr. Ned Lawrence it is given
below. A few portions, only, dealing with family matters of no general
interest, are omitted.
Hartford, Conn., Dec. 17th, 1890.
To my son Ned Lawrence.
By your request I will give you from memory in part a history of my
life. I was born in Chester, Vermont, November 22d, 1817. When I
was two years old my Father moved to Hounsfield, Jefferson County,
N. Y., located on a farm half way between Watertown and Blanchard’s
Corners. When I was four years old my Father moved to Blanchards
Corners and kept a Log Tavern. This was on the road from Watertown
to Sackett’s Harbour.... When I was six years old my Father moved on
to a farm one-half mile north of Blanchards Corners. At this time
my Father had a hard time in clearing up a new farm of 100 acres.
In order to make ends meet, Father, when farm work was not driving,
carted cannon and grape shot from Sackett’s Harbour to Watertown.
This material was sent to the Harbour during the War of 1812, and
condemned and sold after the War by the U. S. Government.... This
was the time that I first commenced going to school, which did not
amount to much. Father died on this farm when I was nine years old,
leaving Mother with three children.... Mother moved about this time
with her Father to the town of Pamelia. Here they lived about three
years, then moved to another small farm in the same town. I spent
most of my time helping on these two farms, and breaking steers.
Had yokes made for yearlings, had a little sled, and many times in
winter drove to Watertown Village to mill with grists. When I was
fifteen years old Grandfather and Mother moved to what is now called
North Watertown onto a small farm. About this time I began to feel
a little uneasy, and wanted to try something else for a living. I
went to live with Uncle Judah Lord in Jewellville, North Watertown.
Worked for him making Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Tools. My work for the
first year was sawing by hand seasoned beach plank into blocks for
planes. This was hard work and I wished myself in some better place
(many times). There was nothing in the least to give me courage, but
after a while I could make tools very well. What little spending
money I had was earned by night work, making packing boxes for a
paper-mill nearby. Worked half the night for 25¢. Up to this time I
never had but one suit of clothes at the same time, and was doing
about as much work as those that had much more pay. (I only had my
board. My folks furnished my clothes.) Lord’s business was dull, and
I went to work for Orange Woods & Co. making window sashes. (Will
say here that in the basement of Lord’s Tool Shop was a Custom Gun
Shop. I was always anxious to learn what I could of anything in
mechanical line, and spent my spare time with a young man employed
in this shop, tinkering on guns, and became quite handy with tools,
and could do general repairs quite well. This was the fore-runner of
my gun work.) Made sash and doors under contract. All work was done
by the best machines, and this gave me a good chance to instruct
myself on machines. At the end of one year the shop burnt up, and I
was left out in the cold. After a while Wood & Co. bought out Judah
Lord’s Tool Shop and commenced tool making. They hired me to work
on tools. In about six months this shop burnt up and I was left out
in the cold again. At this time I was about seventeen years old,
was nearly disheartened and thought I must try some new business.
Lord had moved to Brownsville and had charge of a Rope Factory and
Plaster Mill. He hired me to run the mill 12 hours each day. This was
very unpleasant work, terribly dirty. In about one year this mill
stopped and I was left in the cold again. Lord moved into a Hotel
and hired me to go with him as Bartender, Hostler, etc. When about
twenty years old (living with Lord) was drafted out in the service
of U. S. to guard the Frontier in the Canada Rebellion of ’37-’38.
Served three months, was regularly discharged, paid off, and drew my
Bounty land (and sold it). Returned to Brownsville and decided to
strike out in something new. Being in my 21st year I thought it time
to settle on something in a larger field than found in Brownsville.
Thought I would start for Vermont. Went to Utica with a friend in
york wagon (no railroad then). This friend was taking two children
to their Father who was the Engineer (Mr. Hardy) on the Albany &
Schenectady Rail Road, the only road then built that I knew of. This
friend was taken sick at Utica and sent me on with the children to
Schenectady, which was no small job, as the journey was on the Canal.
After seeing the children safe with their Father, I changed my mind
and thought I would go west, so boarded a Canal boat and started. On
arriving at Utica stept off the Boat and a farmer living ten miles
from Utica in the town of Clay, hired me for a month. Worked out my
month, and two weeks for another farmer, then I thought it best to
visit my friends in Vermont, and took Canal boat for Albany, thence
by stage over the Green Mountains to Windsor. I found Windsor Village
a dull place. The next morning I started on foot for the west part
of the town where my friends all lived. On the road met a man with
a team, made enquiry where Mr. Foster Farwell lived, an uncle who
married my Father’s sister. He looked at me and said, “Get into my
wagon and I will take you back to Windsor and then show you one of
the best Aunts you ever had. I know you by your looks--your name is
Smith Lawrence.” He had not seen me before since I was two years
old. Found my friends all glad to see me. Visited with them for
several weeks. While with Doct. Story found he had two Rifles, one
made by his Brother, Asa Story, who had a gun shop close by. This he
called his Turkey Rifle, the other was an old Pennsylvania Rifle,
full stock, barrel 4 feet long, all rusty. The Doctor said it had
been one of the best. He had killed many a deer with it. I asked him
to let me repair the rifle and put on a peep sight. He had heard of
this sight but had never seen one. Was very much interested about
the sight but did not dare let me repair the Rifle for fear I would
spoil it. After a while he consented to let me make the trial and
went over with me to his brother’s shop and obtained his consent
to let me use his shop and tools. I went to work, took the gun all
apart, leaded out the barrel, forged out the sight, finished it and
put it on the gun. His brother watched me all day. He had never seen
a peep sight and a mere boy handling tools and forging out work as
I did was a little astonishing to him. On the Doctor’s return from
his daily trip he made for the shop to see what I had done with his
Rifle. He found it in such nice shape that he could not say too much
in my praise. He made an appointment for a trial the next day as to
the shooting qualities. I had most of the day to give the Rifle a
trial and adjust the sights. We went out, he paced off 12 rods from
a maple tree which had a ³⁄₄ auger hole in (made for sap spill). He
said to fire at that. I found a good rest, lay down on the ground
and fired. The Doct. tended target. Could find no ball hole. Said I
had missed the tree. I fired again--no ball hole to be found. Doct.
came up to me and said I had spoiled his Rifle. Before my repairs
he could kill a chicken every time at 12 rods. I said, “Uncle, I am
very sorry, but I will make the gun all right before I leave it.” He
said he could not consent to my doing anything more to improve the
shooting qualities--the sight he liked very much. I said that as the
gun was loaded would take one more shot and see if I could not hit
the tree. After the third shot I went up to the tree to investigate,
and all of the three balls which I had fired were found in the auger
hole. The Doct. was astonished--dumbfounded. Said he never heard
of such shooting. We spent half of the night talking about guns. He
said we must go down to Windsor Prison where N. Kendall & Co. were
making guns. They must know about the peep sights. Mine was the first
ever seen in that section. We went down to the Prison the next day.
The Doct. told them all about the sight and his Rifle. The Company
hired me at once for the term of two years at about $100. per year
and board. My first work was stocking rifles (short stocks, their
rifles were stocked only on the breech). The first day I put on
five stocks, all hand work. The next morning Mr. Smith, one of the
Company, came along and looked the work over. Said the work was done
well but it would never do to rush work as I had, for I would soon
gun-stock them out of town--must hold up a little and take it more
easy. After a few days I was put on iron work. I made it a point
not to let anything be done in the shop that I did not make myself
familiar with, and soon found myself capable of doing the best work.
The Co. had quite a number of free men to work on various branches
of the work, nice parts, engraving, etc. I found that I was equal to
any of them except engraving. Could not at the end of six months do
as nice engraving as the older hands, but soon after could compete
with any of them. At the end of six months from beginning was put in
charge of the shop, much to the dislike of the older hands, but I
carried the work along without any trouble, to the satisfaction of
all. The foreman of each shop by the rules of the prison acted as
turnkey, so I had one section of prisoners to lock up. I worked out
my two years engagement.... In 1840 I again entered into the employ
of N. Kendall & Co., wages $1.08 per day and board.... I continued
work at the Prison. This was in 1842. During this year the Co. gave
up the gun business. I then engaged with the State as foreman in the
carriage department, continued in this position for about one and
one-half years, then in company with N. Kendall, hired a shop in
Windsor Village on Mill River and started the Custom Gun Works and
Jobbing. Carried on the business for about one year, done a fair
business. One day in the winter of 1844 Mr. S. E. Robbins came into
the shop and spoke of the Government asking for bids for Rifles. We
talked the business over and decided to put in a bid for 10,000 U. S.
Rifles. Mr. Robbins, with a friend Price, went on to Washington to
put in a bid for the Rifles at $10.90 each, appendages extra. This
was 10¢ below any other bid. The contract was awarded to Robbins,
Kendall & Lawrence. This was in the time of the Mexican War and the
Government was very much in want of Rifles. We made the contract to
finish the job in three years. Guns were not made at this day very
fast. We had nothing to start with--buildings or capital. We had much
opposition from all the Government Gun Contractors. They said we
could never do the work. We had nerve and pluck and were determined
to carry out the contract. The real work fell upon myself, Robbins
not being a mechanic and Kendall not exactly calculated for such
nice work, made it hard for me. We went to work with a will--bought
land, built factories, bought and made machinery with determined
will. We started the business in good shape. Soon after finishing
the Rifles, Robbins and myself bought out Kendall. Robbins then said
to me, “Lawrence, if it were not for you as a mechanic and by your
attention to business we could never go along with the heavy outlay
(debts) on our hands.” We finished the contract 18 months inside of
the time. Made a nice thing out of the job. Went on to Washington.
The Ordinance Board (Gen. Talcott) told us that ours was the only
Gun Contract ever finished within the contract time. He said, “What
do you want now? You have done well and finished.” We said, “We
want another contract for Rifles.” He said, “Come with me over to
the Secretary of War’s Office” (Sec. Marcy). Gen. Talcott told the
Secretary all about our work and wants. The Secretary said they would
see about it. On our way back to Gen. Talcott’s office he saw that we
were a little disappointed. He said, “Go right home and a contract
will be sent to you in a few days.” The contract came for 15,000
Rifles, which placed us above board. In manufacturing Govt. Rifles
a loss of about 38% was considered for bad material and workmanship.
About this time the California Gold excitement was raging. Guns were
in great demand. We sold all of our second quality work and good
mixt with it, anything to make up the gun for full Govt. price. This
was a great relief every way. Things looked very bright. This was in
1849-50. About this time we contracted with Courtland C. Palmer for
the manufacture of 5,000 of the Jennings Rifles, now the Winchester
(improved). This required new buildings and machinery. We made the
guns. Before this date we were very unfortunately situated about
freight, as no Rail Road passed through Windsor. Most of our freight
came by team from Boston. About this time the Rail Road was built
through Windsor, which put us in the market much to our advantage.
The Rail Road contractor, Mr. S. F. Belknap, came to us and wanted
to start the car business with us, led us to believe that he could
control all the Rail Road car work in that section. We went into the
business with him. He put in $20,000 as a silent partner. We went
to a large outlay, and about the time we finished the first cars,
Belknap had a quarrel with the President of the Road and we could not
sell a car when we expected to sell. We sold the cars to the Rutland
and Burlington Road, took stock and lost every dollar to the tune of
$40,000. Then we sold $14,000 to Boston, Concord & Montreal Road,
lost it all; $5,000 to Sullivan Road, $75,000 to Vermont Central.
This total loss of $134,000 was a drain on the gun work and cramped
us terribly. About this time Belknap died. In settling his estate
they brought in a charge of $105,000 against Robbins & Lawrence as
money lent. This I knew nothing about. As near as I could learn
Belknap & Robbins lost this money in stocks in Boston. We had to pay
the charge, which made a total loss up to this time of $239,000,
all paid from gun shop business. We gave up the car business after
a while. It was a mistake in ever going into this business. While
we were finishing the 15,000 Government Rifles and Jennings guns in
1852, we contracted with the Sharps Company for the manufacture of
5,000 Sharpes’ carbines in Windsor, and 15,000 Carbines and Rifles
in Hartford. Sharps Co. advanced $40,000 to enable us to build the
factories in Hartford. I moved to Hartford in 1853, and after much
trouble and many trials started up the works. Want of funds by heavy
former losses made it very hard and troublesome work to start the
business. After starting the business on the Sharps gun in Hartford,
the Minie Rifle contract was taken from Fox Henderson & Co. for
25,000 Minie Rifles. Before this contract was taken we had the
assurance from Dr. Black, Fox Henderson & Co.’s Agent, that he had
in his pocket contracts for 300,000 more as soon as we finished the
25,000. Fox Henderson & Co. agreed and did advance on the contract
$100,000. I did not like to enter into this contract for 25,000 only,
as the outlay for the work would cost more than all the profits twice
over. I objected to signing the contract without seeing the large
contract in Dr. Black’s pocket, and proposed to ask the Doctor to
show it. This Mr. Robbins objected to strongly, said it would be
an insult to Dr. Black. After a long talk I yielded the point, but
told Mr. Robbins that the minute we signed the contract we would be
floored. We had better have cut off our right hands. We signed the
contract. It proved that Doct. Black had no additional contract. Part
of the work was done at Windsor and part in Hartford. For want of
funds the whole thing was a total failure. The inspection as far as
we went was very severe. With all the gun work on my hands in 1855
and 1856 had a very hard time. The failure of the Robbins & Lawrence
Co. at Windsor brought Robbins & Lawrence under. A new Company was
formed at Windsor. I stept out and engaged with the Sharps Co. on
a salary of $4,000. About this time Robbins & Lawrence’s Agent,
Mr. Robbins’ friend, failed. I had a notice of his indebtedness to
Robbins & Lawrence of $43,000. I went immediately to Mr. Robbins
for an explanation. He said that he put this money into Foster’s
hands to fall back on in case he had any trouble. I said, “You left
me out in the cold.” Then he said, “You are all right--can demand
a large salary any time.” This was the very money that Sharps Co.
had advanced to Robbins & Lawrence to aid them in starting the
Hartford shops. Robbins done all the financing and I attended to
the mechanical work--never could find out much about our books. He
kept all mostly on memorandum books as I found at last. This $43,000
made in all as far as I know of $282,000 lost in the business. I
had laboured night and day to build up a business and make myself
comfortable and well off for old age. All the disappointments were
about all that I could stand under, but I said to myself that I
started out in life with nothing but good health, and would try once
more, and try and keep a part of my earnings. While in the employ
of Sharps with my salary, patents and speculations on machinery in
war time, I found myself as I thought worth over $100,000. I went
to friends for advice what to invest in. All said, “Put your money
into real estate. It never will decrease in Hartford.” I took this
advice which proved a very disastrous speculation. In 1872, after
leaving Sharps & Co. went into the Street Department, thinking myself
well off in this world’s goods, but the hard times of 1873 came
unexpected, and it took all my salary to furnish my family with a
respectable living, and take care of my real estate. It would have
been better to let the whole go and pass through bankruptcy as many
others did. My pride and the name of my family prevented me from
doing this. It was a mistake but cannot now be helped. I have served
18 years as Supt. of Streets in Hartford, 9 years on Water Board, 14
years on Fire Board as Chairman, 4 years on Board of Aldermen, and
one year on Council Board, 46 years in all.
NOTE
When we first commenced the gun business at Windsor we commenced
building nice machinery, made many machines for other gun makers.
Made at Windsor for the English Government most of their gun machines
for the Enfield armory. We ran a regular machine shop also. In
Hartford we ran a machine shop and Sharps Co. continued the work.
In Hartford made most of the machines used in the factory, and many
others for the English and Spanish Governments, and other Gun and
Sewing Machine Makers. Started the manufacturing of gun machinery in
Hartford which brought Pratt and Whitney into the business. I tried
to have Sharps Co. enter into the business more extensively as there
were bright prospects in the future, but they could not see it, and
declined. Sharps Co. commenced on a capital of $100,000, increased it
to $125,000. The stockholders were paid back their full subscription
of stock, about $200,000 in dividends. Sharps was paid $1.00 on each
gun made; Penfield was paid about $1.25 on each gun or 10 per cent on
all sales. The Company could not agree on anything and sold out the
whole plant for about $225,000. It will be seen that the stockholders
made a good thing out of the enterprise. This was all accomplished by
the use and skill of my brain, as I had the full charge and control
of the business. If the Company had taken my urgent advice they might
today be in the position and place of the Pratt & Whitney Co. One of
my misfortunes in business all my life was being engaged with men not
mechanics, therefore not being able to comprehend the points coming
up every day in business. Sharps Co. had the chance of taking several
contracts which I worked up for them where the profits would have
been over half a million. They could not see it and declined. When
too late they saw their mistake.
NOTE 2
I introduced the first edging machine ever in use, on the Sharps gun
in Windsor. The principle of this machine is now in general use. Also
introduced the first machine for pressing on car wheels on a taper
without splining or keying. This was done at Windsor. This principle
has since been used in all Rail Road shops. Made a great mistake in
not securing patents on both of the above.
NOTE 3
Introduced the principle of lubricating the bullet for breach loading
guns which was the salvation of breach loading guns. The guns were of
no use before this. This was done in the winter of 1850.[220]
[220] See Appendix B.
NOTE 4
Before 1855 all annealing and case hardening was done with Char coal
which was very expensive. About this time in Hartford I introduced
the plan and furnaces for using hard coal which proved a great
success and is now used everywhere for both case hardening and
annealing. Many other improvements on gun work and machinery which I
have made might be mentioned, but the above is sufficient.
APPENDIX B
THE JENNINGS GUN
“Reminiscences of the first magazine rifle. Most important discovery
by R. S. Lawrence of this city (Hartford, Conn.).--Original use of
lubricating material in fire arms.”
A few days ago Mr. A. E. Brooks of this city (Hartford, Conn.)
received a very curious and interesting magazine gun from New York,
bearing the name of Ex-Superintendent R. S. Lawrence of the street
department as the manufacturer. Conceiving that there must be a good
story connected with the arm which was one of the first magazine
guns ever made in this country, a reporter of _The Post_ sought
out Mr. Lawrence and learned the history of the gun. “The rifle
which Mr. Brooks brought to my notice, with my name on it,” said
Ex-Superintendent Lawrence, “is one of a lot of 5,000 manufactured at
Windsor, Vermont, by Robbins & Lawrence, for Mr. Courtland C. Palmer
of New York. This rifle was known as the Jennings gun. A portion
of the lot was then called single loaders, and a portion repeating
rifles, carrying twenty charges. The charge of powder was contained
in the ball, consisting of twenty-two grains of powder only. With the
repeating rifle I have often fired twenty shots within one minute,
but not with any accuracy, for the reason that all breech-loading
guns up to this time used what is called the naked ball without any
patch or lubricating material. The result in firing the gun was that
the ball leaded the barrel, by building on, to such an extent that in
firing twenty shots from a 50-100 calibre bore there would be a hole
in the barrel less than 25-100.”
“In the winter of 1850, while the guns were being manufactured at
Windsor, Kossuth arrived in this country, as was supposed by many
for the purpose of purchasing rifles. Mr. Palmer was anxious to sell
his rifles, and telegraphed on to Windsor that Kossuth would purchase
largely, if he could be shown that the Jennings rifle could be fired
with sufficient accuracy to hit the size of a man ten times out of
twenty-five at the distance of 500 yards. I answered by saying that
it was impossible to do any such thing with the Jennings rifle.
Another message was sent to Windsor to come to New York by the first
train and bring the best gun and ammunition. I complied with the
request. Mr. C. P. Dixon, Mr. Palmer’s agent, had all things arranged
for the trial at Astoria, L. I. I did my best in trying to accomplish
the desired effect asked for, but not one of the twenty-five shots
hit the target. Mr. Dixon said that we must make another trial the
next day. I went to his hotel, more than ever disgusted with breech
loading rifles, as all efforts had failed to make any accurate
shooting with any naked balls. All gun men will understand this. My
business was manufacturing rifles for the Government and for the
Sharps Rifle Mfg. Co. Most of the night at the hotel was spent in
trying to devise some way to remedy the trouble then existing with
breech loading guns. At last the simple remedy came, which has proven
the salvation of all breech loading guns.”
“Early the next morning we started for the target field. I did not
tell Mr. Dixon at first of my discovery. I simply told him that the
trouble was all over with. If he would stop at the Fulton Market and
purchase a small piece of tallow the rifle would do all that was
required of it, but he had so little confidence in the gun that he
would not be prevailed upon to purchase the tallow. I then thought
that I would keep the new discovery to myself for awhile, but changed
my mind on arriving on the target field, and tramped a mile on the
ice to a farmhouse, and purchased a small piece of tallow. With the
aid of a lathe in the cartridge shop on the ground, I turned out a
number of grooves on the balls and filled them with tallow. I then
went on to the stand and hit the target ten times in twenty shots. By
this time I had the sights regulated and could hit the target about
every shot, and finished after many shots with a clean gun barrel.
This was the first instance of lubricating material being used in
breech loading guns or any other guns. I challenge any dispute on
this subject. This was the salvation of breech loading guns.”
“At this time William E., a brother of Mr. Courtland C. Palmer, was
in Paris with the Jennings gun. All parties were so interested with
the success of the gun that Mr. Dixon, the agent, had two boxes of
ammunition made up and sent by the next steamer to W. E. Palmer in
Paris. In two weeks from the time of the trial in New York, the
invention was known in Paris and applied to the French guns with
the same success as was met with in the Jennings rifle. The same
principle is used today in all breech loading guns. I came direct
from New York to Hartford, and informed the president of the Sharps
Rifle Mfg. Co. of my new discovery and tried to induce the company to
introduce the lubricating material in the Sharps Rifle, as this rifle
then used the naked ball and was subject to the same very serious
trouble as the Jennings. Mr. Sharps was called on and the use of the
lubricating explained, but he ignored the whole matter, calling it
a ‘humbug.’ I returned to Vermont somewhat disgusted. In less than
one week the president of the Sharps Rifle Mfg. Co. wrote to Windsor
to stop all work until Mr. Sharps and himself arrived, stating that
Mr. Sharps had tried the lubricating material and found that it was
indispensable, and that no more guns must go out before the change
was made for lubrication. The Jennings rifles, of which a few had
been made for samples, were in a crude state. Robbins & Lawrence made
new models and manufactured the 5,000 for Mr. Courtland C. Palmer.
After this Mr. Tyler Henry, an old and first-class workman of Robbins
& Lawrence, made in New Haven great improvements on the Jennings
rifle. After this it went into the hands of the Winchester Arms
Company of New Haven. They made great improvements on the gun and
called it the Winchester Repeating Rifle. It is the outcrop of the
old Jennings rifle.”[221]
[221] From the Hartford _Evening Post_, Tuesday, Feb. 25, 1890.
A PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY ON TOOL BUILDING
Smiles: Industrial Biography. Boston, 1864.
Smiles: Men of Invention and Industry. N. Y., 1885.
Smiles: Boulton and Watt. London, 1904.
Smiles: The Stephensons. London, 1904.
Smiles: Smeaton and Rennie. London, 1904.
Beck: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Maschinenbaues. Berlin, 1900.
Matschoss: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Technik und Industrie. Berlin,
Bände I-V, 1909-1913.
Sargant: “Sir Samuel Bentham,” in “Essays of a Birmingham
Manufacturer.” London, 1869.
Bentham, Mary S.: Memoirs of Brigadier-General Sir Samuel Bentham, in
Papers and Practical Illustrations of Public Works. London, 1856.
Beamish: Life of Sir Marc Isambard Brunel. London, 1862.
Nasmyth: Autobiography of James Nasmyth, Edited by Smiles. London,
1883.
Holtzapffel: Turning and Mechanical Manipulation. London, 1847.
Buchanan: Millwork and other Machinery. London, 1841.
Perrigo: Modern American Lathe Practice. N. Y., 1907.
Perrigo: Change Gear Devices. N. Y., 1915.
Camus: Treatise on the Teeth of Wheels (English Translation). London,
1837.
Willis: Principles of Mechanism. London, 1841.
Fairbairn: Mills and Millwork. London, 1863.
Pole: Life of Sir William Fairbairn. London, 1877.
Memoir of John George Bodmer, in Transactions of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, Vol. XXVIII. London, 1869.
Farey: Treatise on the Steam Engine. London, 1827.
Price: Fire and Thief-proof Depositories, and Locks and Keys. London,
1856.
Baker: Elements of Mechanism. London, 1858.
Bishop: History of American Manufactures. 3 Vols. Philadelphia, 1868.
Weeden: Economic and Social History of New England. 2 Vols. Boston,
1890.
Field: State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
Goodrich: History of Pawtucket, R. I. Pawtucket, 1876.
Wilkinson: Memoir of the Wilkinson Family. Jacksonville, Ill., 1869.
Fitch: Report on Manufactures of Interchangeable Mechanism, in U. S.
Census, 1880. Volume on “Manufactures.”
Durfee: “Development of the Art of Interchangeable Construction in
Mechanism,” in Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Vol. XIV, p. 1225.
Olmstead: Memoir of Eli Whitney. New Haven, 1846.
Woodworth: American Tool Making and Interchangeable Manufacturing. N.
Y., 1911.
Blake: History of Hamden, Conn. New Haven, 1888.
Blake: New Haven Colony Historical Papers, Vol. V. New Haven, 1894.
North: Memoir of Simeon North. Concord, 1913.
Washburn: Manufacturing and Mechanical Industries of Worcester.
Philadelphia, 1889.
Iles: Leading American Inventors. N. Y., 1912.
Parton: Captains of Industry. Boston, 1891.
Van Slyck: Representatives of New England. Boston, 1871.
Goddard: Eminent Engineers. N. Y., 1905.
Lathrop: The Brass Industry. Shelton, Conn., 1909.
Anderson: The Town and City of Waterbury. 3 Vols. New Haven, 1896.
Evans: The Young Millwright and Miller’s Guide. Philadelphia, 1826.
Freedley: Philadelphia and its Manufactures. Philadelphia, 1858.
Cist: Cincinnati in 1851. Cincinnati, 1851.
Cist: Cincinnati in 1859. Cincinnati, 1859.
Porter: Engineering Reminiscences. N. Y., 1908.
Transactions of the Institution of Civil Engineers. London.
Transactions of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. London.
Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Journal of the Franklin Institute. Philadelphia.
Files of “American Machinist,” New York.
Files of “Machinery,” New York.
Files of “Engineering Magazine,” New York.
Files of “Cassier’s Magazine,” New York.
Files of “Engineering News,” London.
Files of “Engineering,” London.
Much of the data in the latter portions of this book is derived from
private correspondence and personal interviews, and is, therefore,
not available for reference.
INDEX
INDEX
Acme Wire Co.: 160.
Allen, Ethan: 226.
Allen, Walter: 264.
Alvord, J. D.: 192, 197.
American Brass Co.: 236.
American industries:
reasons for delayed development, 109-114;
influence of the cotton gin, 114.
American iron:
results of exportation to England, 110-113;
early production, 115.
American Pin Co.: 234.
American Screw Co.: 125, 198, 226;
pointed screw, 126.
American Steel & Wire Co.: 225-226.
“American system”: see Interchangeable manufacture.
American Tool Works: 269.
American Watch Co.:
interchangeable system, 144, 164.
American Wire Gauge: 205.
Ames Manufacturing Co.:
gun-making machinery, etc., 138, 140, 228-229.
Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.: 123, 124, 216-217, 253.
Andover, Mass.:
scythe mill, 117.
Angell, William G.: 126.
Ansonia Brass & Copper Co.: 234.
Ansonia Clock Co.: 234.
Arkwright, Sir Richard: 6, 64, 121, 150, 161.
Armstrong, Sir William: 105.
Arnold, Asa:
partner of Pitcher, 124.
Arnold, Jeremiah O.: 125.
Arnold, Joseph:
brother of Jeremiah, 125.
Atwood, L. J.: 237.
Babbage, Charles:
calculating machine, 59.
Baldwin, Matthias:
Baldwin Locomotive Works, 256.
Bancroft, Edward:
Bancroft & Sellers, 247.
Barber-Coleman Co.: 274.
Bardons & Oliver: 183, 265.
Barker, William:
partner of Lodge, 269-270.
Barnes, B. F.: 274.
Barnes, W. F. & John, Co.: 273.
Barnes Drill Co.: 274.
Baush Machine Tool Co.:
drilling machines, 230.
Bayley, O. W.: 217.
Beach, H. L.: 165.
Beach, H. B., & Son: 165.
Beale, Oscar J.:
accurate standards, 205.
Beckley, Elias:
gun shop, 162.
Bellows, E. H.: 222.
Bement, Clarence S.: 255.
Bement, William B.: 217, 219, 249, 252-254;
estimate of, 255;
hammer, 255.
Bement & Dougherty: 254.
Bement, Miles & Co.:
history of, 254-255.
Benedict, Aaron:
brass worker, 232.
Benedict & Burnham: 234.
Benedict & Coe:
brass workers, 232.
Bentham Jeremy: 22, 25.
Bentham, Sir Samuel: 7, 22, 49, 89, 107;
work on Portsmouth block machinery, 8, 9, 18, 22, 26, 28;
in Russia, 23, 24;
in British navy service, 24;
woodworking machinery, 24, 25;
planer, 51;
patent of 1793, 38;
slide-rest, 6, 38;
relations with Maudslay, 89.
Bessemer, Sir Henry: 96.
Besly, Charles H., & Co.: 275.
Bibliography: 295-297.
Bickford, Henry: 272.
Bidwell, Jason A.: 198, 266.
Bilgram Machine Works:
gear cutting, 259.
Billings, Charles E.: 170, 174-175, 201.
Billings & Spencer Co.: 175-176.
Blake, Eli Whitney: 160.
Blake, Philos: 160.
Blaisdell, P., & Co.: 222.
Blanchard, Thomas: 220-221;
lathe for turning gun-stocks, 6, 140, 142, 219, 220-221.
Blenkinsop:
Locomotives, 56.
Block machinery: see Portsmouth block machinery.
Bodmer, John George: 75-80;
estimate of, 79;
diametral pitch, 70 note 66;
interchangeable manufacture, 76, 131;
firearms, 76;
two patents, 77-79;
traveling crane, 77, 80;
mill machinery, 76.
Bond, George M.:
Rogers-Bond Comparator, 180-182.
Boring machines:
Smeaton’s, 2, 13;
Wilkinson’s, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 60;
in 18th century, 4.
Boston, Mass.:
heavy forge, 117.
Boston & Worcester R. R.: 220.
Boulton, Matthew: 145;
on Wilkinson’s boring machine, 3;
on Wilkinson, 145.
Boulton & Watt: 3, 11, 46, 55;
relations with Wilkinson, 12, 13.
Bow-string truss: 82.
Boye & Emmes Machine Tool Co.: 268, 271.
Bramah, Joseph: 7, 8, 15, 107;
estimate of, 19, 20;
invention of slide-rest, 6, 36;
planer, 50;
hydraulic press, 18;
machine for numbering banknotes, 19;
woodworking machinery, 18, 19, 24;
other inventions, 18;
relations with Maudslay, 17, 19, 33, 34;
with Watt, 18;
with Clement, 19, 58.
Bridgeport Brass Co.:
micrometer, 211-213.
Bridgeport Machine Tool Co.: 184.
British Small Arms Commission: 138, 140, 141.
Brooker, Charles F.: 236.
Brown, David: 126, 202.
Brown, Capt. James S.: 124.
Brown, Joseph R.: 126, 202;
estimate of, 215;
“Universal” miller, 138 note 163, 196, 208-209;
linear dividing engines, 202, 204-205, 206;
vernier caliper, 203;
formed milling cutter, 206, 207;
improvements on turret screw machine, 207;
universal grinder, 214.
Brown, Moses:
textile industry, 120, 121.
Brown, Sylvanus: 124.
inventor of slide-rest, 6;
slide lathe, 120.
Brown Hoisting Machine Co.: 258.
Brown & Elton:
wire and tubing, 233.
Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Co.: 125, Chapter XVI;
J. R. Browne & Sharpe, 202, 204;
“Universal” miller, 138 note 163, 196, 208;
linear dividing engines, 206;
precision gear cutter, 206;
turret screw machines, 207-208;
limit gauges, 210;
micrometer caliper, 211-213;
cylindrical grinder, 213;
automatic gear cutters, 214.
Brunel, Sir Isambard K.: 32.
Brunel, Sir Marc I.: 7, 26, 27, 31, 49, 107;
slide-rest, 6;
inventions, 27;
Portsmouth block machinery, 8, 9, 22, 26, 27, 28.
Bryant, William L.:
chucking grinder, 200.
Buchanan:
English writer, 50.
Builders Iron Foundry or “High Street Furnace”: 125.
Bullard, E. P.: 183-184.
vertical boring and turning mill, 184-185.
Bullard Machine Tool Co.: 184.
Burke, William A.: 253;
Amoskeag Manufacturing Co., 217;
Lowell Machine Shop, 217, 218.
Burleigh, Charles:
rock drill, 228.
Burlingame, L. D.:
history of micrometer, 213.
Burton, James H.:
Enfield gun machinery, 140.
Calipers:
“Lord Chancellor,” 45, 211;
vernier, 203;
micrometer, origin of, 211-213.
Campbell, A. C.: 237.
Camus: 64;
“The Teeth of Wheels,” 64-65, 68.
Carmichaels, of Dundee:
engine makers, 86.
Carron Iron Works: 2, 85.
Change-gear box: 182.
Chase Rolling Mills Co.: 236.
“Chordal’s Letters”: 261.
Cincinnati, Ohio:
tool building in, 266-267.
Cincinnati Bickford Tool Co.: 272.
Cincinnati Milling Machine Co.: 272.
Cincinnati Planer Co.: 271-272.
Cincinnati Screw & Tap Co.: 272.
Clement, Joseph: 7, 8, 9, 57-58, 59, 99, 107;
screw-thread practice, 10, 19, 57, 58-59, 101;
gear practice, 68;
taps and dies, 10, 19, 58;
lathes, 19, 57;
planers, 19, 50, 52, 54, 59;
relations with Bramah, 19, 58;
with Maudslay & Field, 19, 46, 58.
Cleveland, Ohio: 183.
tool builders in, 261-266;
first multi-spindle automatic screw machines, 265.
Cleveland Twist Drill Co.: 266.
Clock industry in Connecticut: 171-172.
Coe, Israel: 236.
Coe, Lyman: 234, 236.
Coe Brass Co.: 234.
Coes Wrench Co.: 226.
Colby, Gilbert A.: 254.
Collins Co.:
axe makers, 169.
Colt, Samuel: 166-168;
interchangeable system, 137, 168;
Colt revolver, 166, 167;
erection of Armory, 167, 168.
Colt Armory: 165, 166;
erection of, 167, 168;
a “contract shop,” 178.
Conradson, Conrad N.:
turret machine, 276.
Cook, Asa: 174.
Coombs, S. C.: 222.
Corliss Machine Works: 126.
Cotton crop:
growth of, 150-151.
Cotton gin:
invention of, 131, 148 _et seq._;
influence, 114, 131, 145, 149, 150-151, 161;
patent rights of, 151-158.
Cowie, Pierson: 221-222.
Cramp Ship Building Co.: 257.
Croft, James:
brass worker, 232.
Crompton, William: 114.
Cup-leather packing: 18.
Currier & Snyder: 222.
Cushman, A. F.: 173.
Darby, Abraham, 3d:
first iron bridge, 15.
Darling, Samuel:
graduating engine, 203, 204.
Davenport, James:
textile machinery, 246.
Davenport, William S.: 214.
da Vinci, Leonardo:
anticipation of modern tools, 6, 36.
Davis, Charles: 269.
Davis, Jefferson:
on Whitney’s steel-barreled muskets, 160.
Davis & Egan: 269.
D’Eichthal, Baron:
partner of Bodmer, 75.
De la Hire:
gear teeth, 63, 64, 67.
DeLeeuw, A. L.: 273, 277.
Dennison, A. L.:
American Watch Co., 144.
de Vaucanson, Jacques:
milling cutter, 206.
Diametral pitch:
“Manchester pitch,” 70 note 66;
Bodmer, 80.
Die forging: 137.
Dietz, Schumacher & Boye Co.: 268.
Dodge, Cyril: 126.
Dodge, Nehemiah:
goldsmith, 126.
Dougherty, James: 254.
Draper Machine Tool Co.: 222.
Dresses, Henry: 271.
Dresses, Mueller & Co.: 271.
Drilling machines:
in 18th century, 4.
Drop hammer:
developed in America, 5, 143, 175.
Dwight, Dr. Timothy:
on Pawtucket, 121.
Eagle Screw Co.: 126.
Earle & Williams: 219.
Eberhardt, Ulrich: 259.
Edgemoor Iron Co.: 249-250.
Egan, Thomas P.: 268, 269.
Eminent Men of Science Living in 1807-1808.
engraving by Walker, 20.
Enfield Armory: 5, 96, 103;
Nasmyth on reorganization of, 140-141;
British Small Arms Commission, 138, 140;
gun-machinery, 138-141;
Robbins & Lawrence, 191-192.
Epicyclic curve: 63, 67, 68.
Essex Machine Shop: 219.
Euler:
gearing, 64.
Evans, Oliver: 239-246;
conveyors for handling materials, 240-241, 246;
steam engine, 241-242, 245;
description of shop, 243;
steamboat, 242;
prediction of railways, 245;
“Engineer’s Guide,” 242;
“Miller’s Guide,” 244.
Fairbairn, Sir Peter: 71, 74, 107.
Fairbairn, Sir William: 62, 107;
on machine tools, 10;
with George Rennie, 54, 71;
millwork, 71;
on “a good millwright,” 72;
Fairbairn & Lillie, 72-73, 77;
treatise on “Mills and Millwork,” 73;
iron ships, 73-74;
bridge building, 74.
Fairbairn & Co.: 268.
Fairfield, George A.: 170, 174, 176.
Fales & Jenks Machine Co.: 125.
Farrel Foundry & Machine Co.: 237.
Fay, J. A., & Co.:
woodworking machinery, 229-230, 267.
Fay, J. A., & Egan Co.: 230.
Fellows, E. R.: 199.
Fellows Gear Shaper Co.: 199.
Field, Joshua: 35, 89;
relations with Maudslay, 8, 35, 90;
founder of Institution of Civil Engineers, 90.
Fire engine:
first in America, 116.
Fitch, John:
steamboat, 82.
Fitch, Stephen:
horizontal turret, 197.
Fitchburg, Mass.: 219, 227-228.
Fitchburg Machine Works: 228;
Lo-swing lathe, 200.
Flagg, Samuel, & Co.: 221, 222.
Flather Manufacturing Co.: 228.
Flax industry:
Murray’s influence on, 57.
Foote-Burt Co.: 183;
drilling machines, 265.
Forehand & Wadsworth: 226.
Forq, Nicholas:
planer, 50.
Fosdick Machine Tool Co.: 271.
Fosdick & Plucker: 271.
Fox, James: 7, 50, 52, 53, 54.
Fox & Taylor:
manufacturers of blocks, 28.
Fox, Henderson & Co.: 192.
Francis, James B.:
hydraulic engineer, 218.
Franklin Machine Co.: 125.
Fulton, Robert: 150, 151, 161.
Gage, Warner & Whitney: 218, 228.
Gang, William E.: 268, 271.
Gang & Dietz: 271.
Gardner, Frederick M.:
disk grinding machines, 275.
Gardner Machine Co.: 276.
Garvin Machine Co.: 127.
Gascoigne, William:
principle of micrometer, 211.
Gay, Ira: 124, 216-217.
Gay, Zeba: 124, 217.
Gay & Silver Co.: 195, 197, 217;
planer, 53.
Gearing and Millwork: Chapter VI.
Geier, Frederick A.: 272-273.
“Genealogies”:
Early English Tool Builders, Fig. 5;
New England Gun-makers, Fig. 27;
Robbins & Lawrence Shop, Fig. 37;
Worcester Tool Builders, Fig. 45;
Naugatuck Brass Industry, Fig. 50.
Giddings & Lewis Manufacturing Co.: 276.
Gisholt Machine Works: 276.
Gleason Works: 183.
Globe Rolling Mill: 251.
Goddard, Benjamin: 225.
Gorham, Jabez: 127.
Gorham Manufacturing Co.:
founded, 127.
Gould & Eberhardt: 259.
Grant, John J.: 214.
Gray, G. A., Co.: 273.
“Great Eastern,” The: 32.
“Great Western,” The: 32.
Great Western Railway:
steamers, 93.
Greene, Nathaniel:
cannon factory of, 118.
Greene, Mrs. Nathaniel:
friend to Eli Whitney, 147;
connection with cotton-gin, 148-149.
Greene, Timothy: 119, 121.
Greenwood, Miles: 267.
Gridley, George O.:
automatic lathes, 194, 200.
Grilley, Henry:
founder of brass industry, 232.
Grinder:
developed in America, 5;
Brown & Sharpe’s, 213-214;
disc, 275-276.
Hakewessel, Reinholdt: 183;
Acme automatic, 265.
Hamilton, Alexander:
entertains Brunel, 8, 27.
Hamilton, Ohio:
tool builders in, 273.
Hampson, John:
with Maudslay, 98.
Hanks, Alpheus and Truman:
foundry, 165.
Harper’s Ferry Arsenal: 140, 143, 163;
established, 136;
interchangeable equipment, 137;
rifle, 160.
Harrington & Richardson: 226.
Hartford, Conn.: 127;
manufactories of, 164, 165, 170;
gun makers of, 164, 166.
Hartford Machine Screw Co.: 170, 174, 176.
Hartness, James: 194, 197-198, 266;
designer of machine tools, 198;
flat-turret lathe, 198;
Lo-swing lathe, 200.
Haskell, Co., The William H.: 124.
Hawkins, John Isaac: 69;
on early gear tooth practice, 65-68, 70.
Hayden, Hiram W.: 234, 236.
Hendey Machine Co.:
tool-room lathe, 182.
Henn, E. C.:
Acme automatic, 265.
Herman, William: 271.
Hick, B., & Son: 75.
High Street Furnace: 125.
Hildreth, S. E.: 222.
Hobbs, Alfred C.:
picks Bramah’s lock, 16.
Holmes, Hodgin:
cotton gin, 152, 154, 156, 157.
Holmes, Israel: 232, 233, 234, 236.
Holmes, Joseph:
pioneer iron worker, 117.
Holmes & Hotchkiss: 233.
Holmes, Booth & Haydens: 234, 237.
Holtz, Frederick:
milling machine, 272.
Holtzapffel, Charles: 74, 99;
on Roberts, 60-61;
plane surfaces, 100.
Hovey, P.:
partner of Pitcher, 124.
Howe, Elias:
sewing machine, 144.
Howe, Frederick W.: 195, 196, 209, 217;
milling machines, 138, 196, 208, 209;
profiling machine, 143, 191;
turret-head screw machine, 195-196, 207;
turret lathe, 197, 199.
Howe, Hezekiah: 119.
Humphries:
suggests invention of large hammer, 93.
Hydraulic press:
invented by Bramah, 18, 34.
Industrial conditions:
new elements in 18th century, 1.
Ingersoll Milling Machine Co.: 274.
Institution of Civil Engineers:
founding of, 90.
Interchangeable manufacture:
rise of, Chapter XI;
developed in America, 5, 129;
defined, 128;
abroad, 138, 140;
in France, 129-131;
in Hartford, 164;
tools for, 142-143.
clock, watch and sewing machine industries, 144;
Bodmer, 76;
Colt, 137, 168;
Enfield, 138, 141;
Simeon North, 131, 133, 135-136, 137, 162;
Robbins & Lawrence, 191;
Eli Whitney, 131-133, 136.
International Machine Tool Co.: 275.
Involute gears: 63, 64, 67, 68, 207.
Iron bridge, the first: 15.
Iron boats:
Wilkinson builds the first, 14;
Symington, 14, 82;
Brunel, 32;
Onions & Sons, 14;
Jervons, 14;
at Horsley Works, 14;
“Great Eastern” and “Great
Western,” 32;
Fairbairn, 73-74.
Jefferson, Thomas:
on interchangeable system in France, 129-131;
on Whitney, 135.
Jenks, Alfred:
textile machinery, 123, 246-247.
Jenks, Alvin:
cotton machinery, 124-125.
Jenks, Barton H.: 247.
Jenks, Eleazer:
spinning machinery, 123.
Jenks, Joseph: 115-116, 125.
Jenks, Joseph, Jr.:
founder of Pawtucket, 118.
Jenks, Joseph, 3d:
governor of Rhode Island Colony, 118.
Jenks, Capt. Stephen:
guns, 117;
nuts and screws, 124;
Jenks & Sons, 125.
Jennings gun:
origin of, 292-294.
Jerome, Chauncey:
brass clocks, 144, 171-172, 233.
Jervons:
iron boat, 14.
Jewelry industry in Providence: 126-127.
Johnson, Charles: 237.
Johnson, Iver: 226.
Johnson, Judge:
decision, Whitney vs. Fort, 155-157.
Jones & Lamson Machine Co.: 191, 193, 194, 197;
flat-turret lathe, 198-199;
Fay automatic lathe, 200.
Kaestner:
gearing, 64.
Kearney & Trecker: 276.
Kempsmith, Frank: 264-265, 271.
Kempsmith Manufacturing Co.: 271, 276.
Kendall, N., & Co.: 186, 189.
Key-seater: 61.
Lamson, Goodnow & Yale: 192, 193.
Lamson Machine Co.: 198.
Landis Tool Co.: 259-260.
Lane & Bodley: 267.
Lapointe, J. N.:
broaching machine, 183.
Lathes:
pole, 3, 41;
engine, 4;
in 18th century, 3, 4;
automatic, 5, 176;
French rose engine, 6;
screw-cutting, 19, 35, 40, 119-120;
tool-room, 182;
Lo-swing, 200;
Bramah and Maudslay, 17;
Ramsden, 38;
Bentham, 38;
Maudslay, 40-42, 46;
Wilkinson, 119-120;
Blanchard, 140, 142-143;
Spencer’s turret lathe, 176;
Fay automatic, 200;
Sellers, 250.
Lathe, Morse & Co.: 222.
Lawrence, Richard S.: 188-189, 195;
profiling machine, 143;
master armorer, Sharps Works, 170, 194;
lubricated bullet, 194;
miller, 191, 194;
split pulley, 194;
turret lathe, 197;
autobiography, 281-291.
Lawrence, Mass.: 127.
Lawrence Machine Shop: 219.
Lead screw: 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43.
Le Blanc:
interchangeable gun manufacture in France, 130.
Le Blond, R. K.: 271.
Lee-Metford rifle: 105.
Leland, Henry M.: 214;
on J. R. Brown, 215.
Leonards: 116.
Libbey, C. L.:
turret lathes, 275.
Limit gauges:
developed in America, 5.
Lincoln, Levi: 165, 171.
Lincoln Co., The: 165.
Lincoln, Charles L., & Co.: 165.
Lincoln, George S., & Co.: 137, 165.
Lincoln miller: 137, 165-166, 208.
Linear dividing engines: 206.
Lingren, W. F., & Co.: 274.
Locomotives:
early inventions, 56;
Sharp, Roberts & Co., 61-62;
Nasmyth, 93.
Lodge, William E.: 268-271.
Lodge & Davis:
policy of, 270-271.
Lodge & Shipley Machine Tool Co.: 270.
Lowell, Mass.: 127;
machine shops of, 218.
Lowell Machine Shop: 217, 218, 253.
Lucas Machine Tool Co.: 265.
McFarlan, Thomas: 268.
Macaulay, Lord:
on Eli Whitney, 161.
Machine tools:
effect of modern, 1;
crudity in 18th century, 3, 4;
developments of, 4, 5, 63, 107;
Fairbairn on, 10;
Bramah and Maudslay, 34;
Whitworth, 99;
Greek or Gothic style, 63;
developed by cotton industry, 120.
Machine Tool Works: 255.
Machinist Tool Co.: 222.
Madison, Wis.: 276.
Manchester, N. H.: 123, 127;
founding of, 217.
Manchester Locomotive Works: 217.
Manchester pitch: 70 note 66, 80.
Manville, E. J.: 237.
Map of tool building industry: Fig. 56.
Marshall, Elijah D.: 254.
Marvel, C. M., & Co.: 219.
Mason, William: 170, 173-174.
Massachusetts Arms Co.: 162.
Maudslay, Henry: 7, 8, Chapter IV;
estimates of, 9, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 88;
taps and dies, 10, 42, 88;
Portsmouth block machinery, 8, 29, 35;
screw thread practice, 10, 40, 42, 88, 101;
cup-leather packing, 18, 34;
the slide-rest, 6, 35, 36, 38, 40, 43, 49, 143;
screw-cutting lathe, 35, 40, 41, 42, 50, 120;
engine improvements, 43;
work on plane surfaces, 44, 45, 99, 100.
Maudslay & Field: 8, 19, 35, 58, 98;
influence on English tool builders, 46;
Moon’s description of shop, 46-48.
Maynard Rifle Co.: 161.
Mechanics Machine Co.: 274.
Merrick, S. V.:
introduces steam hammer into United States, 96, 257.
Merrimac Valley:
textile works, 124, 127;
shops of, 216-219.
Michigan Twist Drill & Machine Co.: 266.
Midvale Steel Co.: 250.
Miles, Frederick B.:
steam hammer, 255.
Mill, Anton: 272.
Miller, Patrick: 82.
Miller, Phineas:
partner of Eli Whitney, 148-149, 153, 154.
Miller & Whitney: 149, 152.
Miller, universal:
origin of, 5, 138 note 163, 208-209.
Milling cutter, formed: 206-207, 208.
Milling machine:
Whitney, 142;
first in Hartford, 170, 194;
Lawrence, 191;
Lincoln, 137, 165-166, 208.
Millwork: Chapter VI;
Nasmyth on, 71.
Milwaukee, Wis.:
tool builders in, 276-277.
Milwaukee Machine Tool Co.: 277.
Moen, Philip L.: 225.
Montanus, Philip: 271.
Moody, Paul:
expert in cotton machinery, 218.
Moore & Colby: 252.
Morris, I. P., & Co.: 257, 258.
Mueller, Oscar: 271.
Murdock: 55;
D-slide valves, 51.
Murray, Matthew: 7, 54-57, 107;
planer, 50, 51, 55, 57;
D-slide valve, 55;
steam heating, 56;
locomotives, 56;
influence on flax industry, 56.
Nashua Manufacturing Co.: 124.
Nasmyth, Alexander: 81, 82, 83.
Nasmyth, James: 7, 8, Chapter VIII;
with Maudslay, 46, 48, 87, 88;
millwork, 71, 88;
steam road carriage, 86;
milling machine, 89;
shaper, 92;
method of invention, 92;
steam hammer and other inventions, 93-96;
study of the moon, 97;
on interchangeable system of manufacture, 140-141.
Nasmyth & Gaskell: 92.
National Acme Manufacturing Co.:
multi-spindle automatic lathe, 183, 265.
Naugatuck Valley: Chapter XVIII;
brass industry in, 231-238;
pin machinery, 233.
New Britain, Conn.:
hardware manufacture in, 171.
Newell, Stanford:
Franklin Machine Co.: 125.
New England industries:
early development of, 109-110;
cotton, 114;
iron, 116, 117, 118.
New England Screw Co.: 126.
Newton & Cox: 266.
Newton Machine Tool Works: 266.
New York:
early steamboat trade, 127.
Niles, James and Jonathan: 251.
Niles & Co.: 267, 273.
Niles-Bement-Pond Co.: 179, 222, 255, 259, 273.
Niles Tool Works: 267, 273.
Norris, Henry M.: 272.
North Chelmsford Machine & Supply Co.: 124.
North, Henry: 165.
North, Selah: filing jig, 142.
North, Simeon: 161-163;
gun contracts, 131, 133, 134, 135, 137, 162, 163;
interchangeable system, 133-134, 136, 142, 145, 162.
Norton, Charles H.:
precision grinding, 214, 224, 225.
Norton, F. B.: 224, 225.
Norton Company, The: 224, 225.
Norton Emery Wheel Co.: 224.
Norton Grinding Co.: 224, 225.
Norwalk Iron Works Co.: 184.
Oesterlien Machine Co.: 268.
Ohio Machine Tool Co.: 269.
Orr, Hugh:
early mechanic, 116-117.
Orr, Robert:
master armorer at Springfield, 117.
Otting & Lauder: 268.
Owen, William: 271.
Palmer, Courtland C.: 190.
Palmer, Jean Laurent:
screw caliper, 212, 213.
Palmer & Capron: 127.
Parallel motion: 3 note 6.
Parkhurst, E. G.: 182.
Parks, Edward H.:
automatic gear cutters, 214.
Pawtucket, R. I.:
manufacturing center, 118, 127;
Dr. Dwight on, 121;
manufactures of, 118-125.
Peck:
lifter for drop hammer, 143.
Pedrick & Ayer: planer, 53.
Phelps & Bickford: 222.
Phœnix Iron Works: 165.
Philadelphia, Pa.:
tool builders in, Chapter XIX;
early textile machinery, 246.
Pin machinery: 233.
Pitcher, Larned:
Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.: 123;
Pitcher & Brown, 124.
Pitkin, Henry and James F.:
American lever watches, 164.
Pitkin, Col. Joseph:
pioneer iron worker, 164.
Planer:
in 18th century, 4;
developed in England, 4;
Bramah, 18;
Clement, 19, 52;
inventors of the, Chapter V;
early French, 50;
Roberts, 51;
Murray, 57;
Bodmer, 75, 76;
Sellers, 248.
Plane surfaces, scraping of:
Maudslay, 44, 45;
Whitworth, 44, 98-101.
Plume & Atwood: 234.
Plumier: French writer, 50.
Pond Machine Tool Co.: 222, 259.
Pope Manufacturing Co.: 170.
Portsmouth block machinery:
influence on general manufacturing, 5;
work of Bentham and Brunel, 8, 9, 22, 26, 27, 28;
Maudslay’s contribution to, 29, 35;
description of, 29, 30, 31;
Roberts, 60;
Maudslay and Bentham, 89;
approaches interchangeable system, 131.
Potter & Johnson: 183.
Pratt, Francis A.: 137, 170, 177;
Lincoln miller, 165, 191.
Pratt & Whitney: 137, 178-183;
Interchangeable system, 179;
gun machinery and manufacture, 179-180, 182;
screw threads, 180-182;
tool-room lathe, 182;
thread-milling, 183;
workmen, 183;
turret screw machines, 207.
Precision gear cutter: 206.
Prentice, A. F.: 224.
Prentiss, F. F.: 266.
Priority in invention: 5.
Pritchard, Benjamin: 216.
Profiling machine: inventors of, 143.
Providence, R. I.:
early cannon manufacture, 117;
trading center, 118;
textile industry, 123;
manufactures in, 118-126;
jewelry industry of, 126-127.
Providence Forge & Nut Co.: 125.
Providence Tool Co.: 125;
turret screw machine built for, 207;
universal miller built for, 209.
Providence & Worcester Canal: 219-220.
Punching machine, Maudslay’s: 43.
Putnam, John: 227-228.
Putnam, Salmon W.: 227-228.
Putnam Machine Co. Works: 200, 227-228.
Ramsden, Jesse: lathe, 38.
Randolph & Clowes: 236.
Reed, F. E.: 224.
Reed & Prentice Co.: 222.
Remington Arms Co.: 161.
Remington, E., & Sons: 175.
Rennie, George: 54;
planer, 50, 51.
Rennie, Sir John: 54.
Rennie, John: millwright, 54.
Rhode Island Tool Co.: 125.
Richards, Charles B.: 173.
Richards, John: on Bodmer, 79.
Robbins & Lawrence: Chapter XV;
interchangeable system, 138;
turret lathe, 143, 197;
miller, 165, 191;
government contracts, 190;
Enfield rifle and gun machinery, 191-192;
cause of failure, 192;
successive owners of plant, 192-194, 200.
Robbins, Kendall & Lawrence: 189-190.
Roberts, Richard: 7, 9, 59-60, 62, 107;
with Maudslay, 46, 60;
planer, 50, 51, 60;
locomotives, 61-62;
Sharp, Roberts & Co.: 61, 62.
Robinson, Anthony:
screw thread, 39.
Rockford, Ill.:
tool builders in, 274-275.
Rockford Drilling Machine Co.: 274.
Rockford Iron Works: 274.
Rockford Lathe & Tool Co.: 274.
Rockford Machine Tool Co.: 274.
Rockford Milling Machine Co.: 274.
Roemer: epicyclic curve, 63.
Rogers, William A.:
Rogers-Bond comparator, 180-182.
Root, Elisha K.: 168-169, 170;
influence on die forging, 137;
profiling machine, 143;
drop hammer, 143, 169;
Colt Armory, 169;
machinery invented by, 169;
horizontal turret principle, 197.
Roper Repeating Arms Co.: 175.
St. Joseph Iron Co.: 253.
Savage Fire Arms Co.: 161.
Saxton: gear teeth, 66-67.
Schneider, M., and Nasmyth’s steam hammer: 95-96.
Scituate, R. I.: Hope Furnace, 117.
Scovill Manufacturing Co.: 232.
Screw machines, multi-spindle automatic: 265.
Screw-thread practice:
Maudslay and Clement, 10, 19, 42, 58-59, 88;
Whitworth standardizes, 10, 101;
early methods of screw cutting, 38-40;
Pratt & Whitney, 180-182;
history of Sellers’ or U. S. Standard, 249.
Sellers, Dr. Coleman: 251-252;
design of railway tools, 251;
screw thread, U. S. Standard, 249.
Sellers, William: 247-251, 255;
inventions, 247-248;
planer, 248;
system of screw threads, 248-249;
bridge building machinery, 250;
great lathe, Washington Navy Yard, 250.
Sellers, William, & Co.: 251, 252.
Sentinel Gas Appliance Co.: 160.
Shapers:
developed in England, 4;
Brunel’s, 27;
Nasmyth’s “Steel Arm,” 92.
Sharp, Roberts & Co.: 61, 62.
Sharpe, Lucian: 202;
American wire gauge, 205.
Sharps, Christian:
breech loading rifle, 170, 192.
Sharps Rifle Works: 192, 194, 195.
Shaw, A. J.: 214.
Shepard, Lathe & Co.: 222.
Shipley, Murray: 270.
Slater, Samuel: 114, 119, 121;
Arkwright cotton machinery, 120, 121;
textile industry, 122;
Amoskeag Co., 216-217.
Slide-rest:
in 18th century, 4;
inventors of, 6;
early forms of, 6, 36;
Bramah and Maudslay, 17;
Maudslay, 35, 36, 38, 40, 43, 49.
Sloan, Thomas J.:
screw machine, 126.
Slocomb, J. T.: 214.
Slotter: 61.
Smeaton, John: 2, 3;
boring machine, 2, 13;
cast iron gears, 64.
Smith, George: 214.
Smith & Mills: 270.
Smith & Phelps: 234.
Smith & Silk: 271.
Smith & Wesson: 138.
Snyder, J. E., & Son: 22.
Southwark Foundry & Machine Co.: 173, 256-257.
Spencer, Christopher M.: 170, 175-177;
turret lathe, 143, 176;
board drop, 143;
silk-winding machine, 175;
repeating rifle, 175.
Spencer Arms Co.: 177.
Spring: planer, 50, 53.
Springfield, Mass.: 230.
Springfield Armory: 103, 136, 138, 143, 163;
Blanchard’s lathes, 142-143.
Springfield Machine Tool Co.: 271.
Standard Tool Co.: 266.
Stannard, Monroe:
with Pratt & Whitney, 178.
Steam boats:
early, 82;
Wilkinson’s, 119.
Steam engine, Watt’s:
new element in industry, 1;
problems in building, 1-3;
first built at Soho, 12;
Maudslay’s improvements, 43.
Steam hammer: 4;
Nasmyth’s invention of, 93-96.
Steam heating apparatus:
Murray, 56.
Steinle Turret Machine Co.: 277.
Stephenson, George: 6, 32, 56, 150.
Steptoe, John: 267-268.
Steptoe Co., The John:
shapers and milling machines, 268.
Stone, Henry D.: 192, 193, 196;
turret lathe, 143, 197.
Swasey, Ambrose: 183, 262, 263;
dividing engine, 264.
Syme, Johnie: Nasmyth on, 84.
Symington, William: iron boat, 14, 82.
Taps and dies:
developed in England, 4;
Maudslay’s, 10, 42;
Clement’s, 59.
Taylor, Frederick W.:
high-speed tool steels, 250, 277.
Taylor & Fenn Co.: 165.
Terry, Eli: clocks, 144, 171, 172.
Textile industries:
Arkwright and Strutt, 53;
influence of Whitney’s cotton gin, 114;
in New England, 114, 120, 123, 127;
Slater’s influence on, 122.
Textile machinery:
Robert’s spinning mule, etc., 61;
Bodmer, 77;
in New England, 114, 120-121;
Wilkinson, 122;
Alfred Jenks, 123.
Thomas, Seth: clocks, 144.
Thomaston, Conn.:
clock manufacture, 171.
Thurber, Isaac:
Franklin Machine Co., 125.
Thurston, Horace: 214.
Tool builders:
general estimate of early, 107;
in Central New England, Chapter XVII;
Western, Chapter XX.
Tool building centers: 127;
map of, Fig. 56.
Torry, Archie:
Nasmyth’s foreman, 91.
Towne, Henry R.: 257, 258.
Towne, John Henry: 256-257, 258;
screw thread, U. S. Standard, 249.
Traveling crane, first: 77, 80.
Trevithick:
steam road engine, 56.
Turret lathes: 140;
early producers of, 143;
Spencer, 176;
Howe and Lawrence, 197;
Hartness’ flat-turret, 198;
Warner & Swasey, 262.
Turret screw machine, improvements on: 207.
Union Steel Screw Works: 198, 265, 266.
Universal Radial Drill Co.: 273.
Wadsworth, Capt. Decius:
on Whitney’s interchangeable system, 134-135.
Waldo, Daniel:
Hope Furnace, 117.
Wallace, William: 237.
Wallace & Sons: 234.
Waltham Watch Works, see American Watch Co.
Warner, Worcester R.: 183, 262, 263.
Warner & Swasey Co.: 261-265;
building of astronomical instruments, 263-264.
Washburn, Ichabod: American Steel & Wire Co., 225, 226.
Washburn & Moen Co.: 225.
Waterbury Brass Co.: 234, 237.
Waterbury Button Co.: 234.
Waterbury Clock & Watch Co.: 234.
Waters, Asa: 226.
Waston, William: Nasmyth on, 84.
Watt, James: 3, 6, 82, 83, 150, 161;
invention of steam engine, 1, 2, 145;
parallel motion, 3 note 6;
dependence on Wilkinson’s boring machine, 3;
opposed by Bramah, 18.
Weed Sewing Machine Co.: 170, 174, 175.
Weeden, W. N.: 237.
Wheeler, William A.: 221.
Wheeler & Wilson: 192.
Whipple, Cullen: 126.
Whitcomb, Carter, Co.: 222.
Whitcomb-Blaisdell Machine Tool Co.: 222.
White, Zebulon: J. S. White & Co., 122.
White Sewing Machine Co.: 193, 266.
Whitman-Barnes Co.: 266.
Whitney, Amos: 137, 170, 177, 219.
Whitney, Baxter D.: 177, 230.
Whitney, Eli: 6, 146-147, 161, 177;
interchangeable system, 76, 132-133, 134-135, 136, 145, 146,
158-159;
cotton gin, 114, 131, 145, 148-158;
U. S. contract of 1798, 131-132, 158, 159;
Whitneyville plant, 132, 162, 158, 160;
method of manufacture, 158-159;
milling machine, 142;
Miller & Whitney, 149.
Whitney, Eli, Jr.:
contract for “Harper’s Ferry” rifle, 160;
steel-barreled muskets, 160, 162.
Whitney Arms Co.: 160-161;
first Colt revolvers made by, 167.
Whitworth, Joseph: 7, 8, 9, 93; Chapter IX;
screw-thread practice, 10, 59, 101, 102 note 105;
manufacture of plane surfaces, 44, 45, 98-101;
with Maudslay, 46, 98;
shaper and improvements in machine tools, 99;
improved methods of measurement, 101;
ordnance and armor, 104-105;
on American automatic machinery, 102-104;
William Armstrong, 105.
Wilcox & Gibbs Sewing Machines: 208, 210, 213.
Wilkinson, Abraham: 119.
Wilkinson, Daniel: 119, 122.
Wilkinson, David: 123, 124, 125;
patent on slide-rest, 6;
steamboat, 119;
slide lathe, 119-120;
textile machinery, 122;
nail manufacture, 122.
Wilkinson, Isaac: 119, 125.
Wilkinson, John: 2, 8, 11, 15;
boring machine, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 60;
first iron boat, 14;
first iron bridge, 15;
relations with Boulton & Watt, 12, 13.
Wilkinson, Ozeal: 118-119, 121, 122.
Wilkinson, William: 119, 121.
Willimantic Linen Co.: 175, 178.
Willis, Robert: 69 note 64;
gear teeth, 63, 64, 69-70.
Wilmot, S. R.:
micrometer, 212.
Winchendon, Mass.:
woodworking machinery, 230.
Winchester Repeating Arms Co.: 160, 174.
Windsor, Vt.: 127, 186.
Windsor Machine Co.:
Gridley automatic lathes, 194, 200.
Windsor Manufacturing Co.: 193.
Wolcott, Oliver: 132.
Wolcottville Brass Co.: 233-234.
Wood, Light & Co.: 222.
Woodruff & Beach: 165.
Woodward & Powell Planer Co.: 224.
Woodworking machinery:
Bramah, 18, 19, 24;
Bentham, 24, 25;
Brunel, 31;
in Massachusetts, 229.
Worcester, Mass.: 127;
tool builders in, 219-226;
early textile shops of, 220;
gun makers in, 226.
Worm-geared tilting pouring-ladle, Nasmyth’s: 91-92.
Worsley, S. L.:
automatic screw machine, 208.
Wright, Sylvester: 200, 228.
Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co.: 258.
Transcriber’s Notes
Inconsistencies in spelling, hyphenation, etc. have been retained,
in particular in quoted material. Minie rifles and Minié rifles both
occur in the text.
Depending in the hard- and software used to read this text and their
settings, not all elements may display as intended.
Page 20, Group portrait Eminent Men of Science: there are 50 people
in the portrait, but only 48 are identified in the accompanying list.
Page 217, ... he and his brother, Ziba Gay, ...: also referred to as
Zeba Gay in this text.
Page 223, Figure 45: The source document does not show any links to
or from the entry A. F. Prentice.
Page 235, F. J. Kingsbery, Sr. and F. J. Kingsbury, Jr.: as printed
in the source document; either one may be an error or misprint.
Index: sorting errors have not been rectified.
Changes made
Footnotes, illustrations and charts have been moved out of text
paragraphs; footnotes have been renumbered consecutively throughout
the book (and footnote references have been adjusted where necessary).
Some obvious minor typographical and punctuation errors have been
corrected silently.
Apart from the first one (Fig. 5), the “genealogical charts” are too
intricate and complicated to be represented completely in this text.
Instead, the charts have been transcribed, and the relationships
between individuals and companies are indicated by numbers, with
numbers between * and between # indicating the start and the end of
the arrows used by the author, respectively.
List of names after page 20: Patrick Millar changed to Patrick Miller.
Index: the inconsistent lay-out has been standardised; some entries
(mainly proper names) have been changed to conform to the spelling
used in the text.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENGLISH AND AMERICAN TOOL BUILDERS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
