Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T10:23:57.237Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Draper Loom in New England Textiles: A Comment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Lars G. Sandberg
Lars G. Sandberg
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The September 1966 issue of this Journal contains a study by Professor Irwin Feller on the rate of adoption of the Draper Automatic Loom in the New England cotton textile industry. I have no quarrel with his central conclusions concerning the economic rationality of the New England cotton manufacturers. I do, however, have some comments on his analysis of the relative costs of producing cloth on plain (power) as opposed to automatic looms.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , December 1968 , pp. 624 - 627
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Feller, Irwin, “The Draper Loom in New England Textiles, 1894-1914: A Study of Diffusion of an Innovation,” The Journal Of Economic History, XXVI (1966), 320–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Ibid, p. 339.

3 Ibid, p. 341.

4 Ibid, p. 342.

5 Ibid, p. 343.

6 Ibid.

7 This becomes apparent when it is noted that the depreciation charged to the two methods differs only by 10 percent. In Uttley's calculations, depreciation at 7 percent for both methods resulted in a depreciation charge on automatic looms more than three times as great as the depreciation charge on plain looms.

8 U.S. Congress, House, United States Tariff Board (not Tariff Commission as Professor Feller would have it), Cotton Manufactures, 62d Cong., 1st sess., 1912, House Doc. 643, p. 469.

9 Ibid, p. 366.

10 Ibid, p. 465.

11 Ibid, p. 470. This example, in which all the plain looms considered were at least 30 years old, also puts a somewhat larger depreciation charge in the plain loom cost column than in the automatic loom column.

12 Ibid, pp. 471-72.