Conservation Of Natural Resources.

Discussion of the paper of James Douglas, presented at the New Haven meeting, February, 1909, and published in Bulletin No. 29, May, 1909, pp. 439 to 451. JAMES DOUGLAS, New York, N. Y. (communication to the Secretary*) :-In my paper on the Conservation of Natural Resources, I referred to the slow replacement of bee-hive ovens by the by-product ovens as a most notable instance of waste. And I quoted from Mr. Parker's report for .1906 an explanation given by him in accounting for the small production of by-product coke. It was that the markets for the by-products of the coke-ovens was so limited that some of the ovens constructed were out of operation. His report on the manufacture of coke in 1908 1 does not record an improvement, and attributes the strange fact that we alone, of all the industrial peoples, delay the adoption of this cardinal improvement from the continuance of the same almost inexplicable cause. To quote again from his report, lie says (p. 241): "The year 1908 was not marked by any notable gain in the construction of by-product coking plants, though some new work was done. There was a net increase of 115 in the number of completed ovens in 1908 over 1907, the totals for the two years being, respectively, 3,892 and 4,007. The additional equipment consisted of 140 Koppers regenerative ovens built at Joliet, I11., by the United States Steel Corporation, but this increase was partly offset by the dismantling of Y5 Semet Solvay ovens at Sharon, Pa., the net gain being 115 ovens. Included in the total of 4,007 completed ovens in 1908 are 152 Newton-Chambers ovens at Vintondale, Pa., but as no recovery of by-products was made at this plant in 190S, the production of coke is included with that from beehive ovens. The 56 ovens of the same type at Pocahontas, Va., have not been in practical operation since they were first. installed. In addition to these there was one other by-product plant of 120 ovens. Oat. was not operated during the year. The number of retort ovens producing coke in 1908 was 3,679, as compared with 3,811 active ovens in 1907." In describing the anomaly he says (p. 249): It has been contended that the development of the by-product coking industry would have shown more rapid progress if markets for the by-products were * Received Feb. 2, 1910. Mineral Resources of the United States for 1908, Part I1., U. S. Geological Survey (1909).