Toll, or The Miller's Compensation for Making Flour.
Dressing the Burr-Stones at the Washburn-Crosby Mill,
Toll, or The Miller's Compensation for Making Flour.
In the introductory has been briefly sketched a few of the many
changes which have taken place in the past centuries in the methods and
machinery by which grain is manufactured into meal or flour. In the
first chapter reference was made and facts given showing how some of
these changes affected the food supply and its cost and the manner of
living among the masses of the American people. But the cost of this
nation's food supply, as well as that for the civilized world, has been
affected in the last hundred years by a multitude of other factors as
well as by the inventions and discoveries in the milling business. The
introduction of the railway and the steamship, the growth of great
cities, and a thousand other modern innovations, have aided in
completely revolutionizing the organization of society and the methods
of conducting nearly all enterprises. These innovations have modified
the food supply of the world and its cost even more than the inventions
in the milling business already referred to. Some of these modifica
tions have been gains for all concerned and others have, with such
gains, been the cause of incidental and small losses to particular
classes. It is not, however, the purpose of this chapter to investigate
these gains and losses save as they affect the flour milling business,,
and with it the cost of wheat to the producer and of flour to the
consumer.
In the days of Homer, and later in those of Cassar, flour was
everywhere worth the value of the wheat which was consumed in its
production and the added value of the labor required in its
manufacture. There was no third factor in the problem. Wheat and the
labor of the mill slave were the only factors entering into the cost or
price of the flour. To be sure, the hand mill or quern, used in the
making of the flour, cost money or labor, and yet that cost was so
small relativley that it was never counted in the expenses of the
operation. With the introduction of mills, driven by water power or by
the wind, other elements of cost began to be included in the price of
flour. After the adoption of such mills, flour required, for its
production, the labor of the miller or of his associates, as before, it
had called for the toil of the slaves who operated the quern or hand
mill. In addition it necessitated the aid of the mill wright and all
the various craftsmen who assisted in the erection of the mill or the
construction of its machinery. The services of these artisans were
indirectly included in the charges of the miller for converting the
grain into meal or flour. Interest on investment, the expenditures for
repairs, improvements, insurance, and taxes all, after a time, had to
be considered by the miller as well as the amount paid to his workmen
or claimed by himself as wages in the business. These additional
elements, entering into the cost of flour, were, however, less iu value
than the wages of the human labor saved by the introduction of
mechanical power for the grinding of grain. The price of flour was
lessened therefore to the consumer by this first introduction of
improved or labor saving machinery in its manufacture. The charges of
the miller, including an allowance for the interest on his investment,
repairs, etc., was less than the wages of the manual labor called for
by the earlier methods. But while interest, repairs, etc., began to be
factors in the cost of flour with the introduction of the first power
mill, yet, for practical purposes, all these added minor factors were
and are grouped with the labor of the miller under one head as the
miller's charges. The cost of the flour then could be divided, as at
first, into two general factors, the price of the wheat at the place of
its manufacture and the charges of the miller for his services.
For centuries after the introduction of the power mill the great
majority of people carried their wheat to the mill and had it ground
and carried the flour home themselves. So long as this condition of
affairs continued there could be but the two elements or factors
mentioned in the selling price or value of flour, the cost or value of
the wheat and the charges of the miller for his services, in grinding
the same. In those days the miller was a mechanic but not a trader in
any sense of the term. His charges, the profits of his business, arose
from the mechanical work performed by himself or under his supervision.
*
Modern times have seen a great departure from that primitive condition
of the milling business. Great cities have arisen and the people, busy
at their regular tasks, can not attend to the buying of wheat or
trading with the miller. They want flour ready made and delivered at
their door. Instead of each man taking his bag of wheat to the mill as
of yore, and carrying home his resulting flour in the same receptacle,
the modern man in the cities and towns receives his flour in bags or
barrels prepared specially for the purpose. The cost of these bags or
barrels, which the man of to-day purchases with his flour, is as large
as the expense for changing their contents from wheat into the flour
which is desired. The maker of the bags or barrels has then, at the
present, as much to do in fixing the price of a quantity of flour as
has the miller. Here, then, is the introduction of a new element or
factor in the price or value of flour to the consumer. But this cost of
the package, in which it is delivered, is not the only nor even the
greatest addition to the price of flour to the average man who uses it
in the latter part of this century.
The people cannot go to the mill and bring thence their flour as of
yore. They must have it brought to their door and with the least
possible bother on their part. This is a modern social requirement and
with its growth the world has seen slowly develop a system by which the
grocers carry the flour made by the miller to the houses of their
patrons. This delivery of flour was no part of the ordinary duties of
the miller of long ago. But this delivery costs money and the purchaser
finds the expense of the same included in the price of the flour as
well as the value of the wheat, the charge of the miller, and the pay
of the bag or barrel maker. Here are two new elements added to the
ancient cost of flour to the consumer. There is yet a third. It is the
cost of soliciting trade for the millers and of transporting the flour
from his mill or store-house to the store of the retail grocer. This,
which may be called the expense of jobbing or wholesaling flour, is a
considerable factor. It is as large as the cost of manufacturing flour
in some of the most improved mills, and, like the cost of the barrel or
the pay of the grocer for his trouble, must all be included in the
selling price of the flour and paid for by the consumer.
In the price of flour, two or five centuries ago, there was included
only the value of the wheat in the locality of the mill and the charges
of the miller for grinding. To these have been added, as the result of
the changes briefly outlined above, for the great majority of people,
three additional factors of expense, the cost of a package in which to
deliver it, the cost of advertising and wholesaling it, and the expense
of its final sale and delivery by the retail grocer or other dealer. As
a rule, these added factors of expense are separated almost wholly from
the office of the miller. This is true of all the flour manufactured in
the northwest and finally consumed in the east or in Europe. But in his
place of residence the miller to-day often sells his flour at retail to
his fellow townsmen. In that case he performs, in addition to his
traditional office of miller, the modern function of a trader. The
price charged for his goods includes the pay for this added service as
well as his recompense as miller proper.
A half century ago society almost everywhere saw different consumers of
flour obtaining it from the miller at different rates. The man
purchasing it for cash or on credit had to pay the miller the price of
the retail grocer. That price, fifty years ago, as to-day,included all
the five factors which have just been detailed at length. The man thus
purchasing flour outright paid for all these diverse expenses and
charges no matter of whom he made his purchase. The miller's trade with
the grocer had already begun to be an important item in his business.
That trade was growing and the miller, to protect it, retailed his
flour on the same terms as the grocer. But while the miller, selling
for cash, asked the same price as did the grocer, he traded with the
farmer on a different basis. The latter carried his wheat to the mill
and in return obtained all the flour which could be made therefrom. He
paid the miller for his sendees a small compensation in grain or in
money. He paid for no packages, since he returned home with his flour
in the bags in which he had brought his wheat. The cash or wheat toll
was based upon the laws or usages of an earlier time, before the sale
of flour by retail dealers of any description. To the farmer, then, the
cost of the flour was, as had been the case to his ancestor centuries
before, the value of his wheat and the added pay for the services of
the miller.
This different cost of flour to the wheat raising farmer, from what was
paid for the same article by all others, continued in all parts of the
United States until after the introduction of the modern milling
process within the past twenty-five years. In that process, it takes so
long for wheat to be changed into flour, it has to undergo so many
processes and pass through so many different machines that it is very
difficult to take any small lot of grain from the farmer and try to
return to him the resulting flour as in the earlier days. Then it has
been found that for the production, of the best, flour the average
wheat must be mixed with other grain to some extent. The farmer demands
the best flour, and will buy of the good modern mill rather than
patronize the old one with its inferior flour. Under these
circumstances the miller, with the improved modern appliances in his
establishment, is more and more demanding and receiving from the
farmers the same prices for his flour which is paid by the other
purchasers thereof. Up to the introduction of the new process in
milling the farmer had obtained his flour on better terms than any of
the other members of the community. With that introduction the old
arrangement began to come to an end. It is maintained in only a small
portion of the towns of the country. The farmer loses his advantage in
the prices which he has to pay for this great staple food product. The
modern milling inventions thus become a leveling agent, bringing down
the farmer from his ancient position of pre-eminence, and placing him
in the purchase of flour on the same footing with the day laborer, the
clerk or the artisan. In this respect, at least, they arc the source of
a loss to the wheat grower.
The first form of power mills to be erected was that still in use in
some parts of the world, one of which was shown in figure 8, and given
under the designation of ' 'a Norse mill of Shetland." Such mills were
at first generally erected by a number of farmers associating together,
or they were built by the parish or township. Each farmer who
patronized the mill was in turn his own miller. Each managed it while
his grain was being ground. Under that primitive arrangement the farmer
was the only person engaged in the business or enterprise of flour
making. He raised the wheat and ground it into flour. But with
improvements in milling machinery the average farmer lacked the skill
to manage the same. Trained mechanics were needed to make and keep the
apparatus in order. Again, the improved mills cost money, and the
farmers did not have it to invest. The occupation of the miller became
thus separated from that of the farmer, and the miller and the farmer
became equal but distinct partners, as it were, in the enterprise of
furnishing the community with ffour. The charges of the miller for
grinding, as those of the farmer for raising the wheat, entered into
the selling price of the flour.
It required time to develop this special class of millers in society
and separate their work entirely from that of the farmer. The
separation early became complete in thickly settled and progressive
communities. And yet the old arrangement still lingers in the last half
of the nineteenth century in sparsely settled and non-progressive
communities. In the same way it required time to give the retail and
wholesale grocers and the bag and barrel makers a standing in the
business of furnishing a hungry world with food. With the growth of
towns and the development of a large class of flour consumers, apart
from the wheat producers, the millers began to sell their flour. They
started in the flour selling business as the farmers operating such a
mill, as shown in figure eight, began the milling business. But with
the continued growth of towns and cities came the necessity for the
retail grocer. By degrees, in these cities, the work of making and of
retailing flour became separated, as previously the farmer had ceased
to be his own miller. The grocer then becomes a third partner with the
farmer and the miller in furnishing flour to society. Other changes
admit the bag and barrel maker and the wholesale grocer or jobber
likewise into the enterprise. To be sure, in some of the smaller towns,
the miller still sells a part or the whole of his flour at retail. In
such towns the function of the miller and trader, such as are found in
the large cities, are not separated. The tendency, however, can
everywhere be traced to dissociate the miller from the trader as have
previously been separated the raising and the grinding of grain.
The student of social questions, in reviewing such changes in the
methods of supplying the world with food, always inquires how they have
affected the cost and the manner of living among the great masses. The
cost of making and handling flour can be traced in the past along many
lines, among which is that by a study of the legislation for the
regulation of toll or the miller's charge for grinding grain. A review
of that legislation also affords much light upon the growth of the
milling business. Legislation, for the regulation of toll in England,
was originally more local than general. The local authorities, as the
justices of the peace, established the millers' toll and wages of all
classes of labor. This exercise of local authority explains the few
references to the subject in the acts of the British Parliament. The
first and the only act of Parliament upon the subject, before the year
1796, was in the reign of Henry III, Edward I, or Edward II, the
lawyers are unable to tell which. It must have been not far from the
year 1300. That old law was as follows:
"The toll of a mill shall be according to the custom of the land and
the strength of the water course, either to the twentieth, or the four
and twentieth corn. (2). And the measure
whereby the toll shall be taken shall be agreeable to the King's
measure, and toll shall be taken by the rase and not by the heap or
cantel. (3). And in case that the fermors (farmers) find the
necessaries, they shall take nothing besides their due toll, and if
they shall they shall be greviously punished.''
"The custom of the land and the strength of the water course" were the
two factors that the law admitted as modifying the tolls mentioned. In
other words, the tolls for grinding were, by this old law, to be
determined by the common sense rule of an equitable return for the work
given. The miller on a small stream, who labored under many
difficulties, was allowed to charge a higher toll than the one who had
a steady and valuable mill power. The early settlers in the American
colonies, and later in the western states, were guided in their
legislation by the principles of this old law. Thus Delaware, two
hundred years ago, allowed a larger toll in some counties than in
others. The difference was due to the relative patronage of the mills
in the newer and older settlements. South Carolina gave the miller a
larger toll for a small than for a large grist. Some of the colonies
allowed a larger toll for a mill driven by wind power than for one
propelled by water. So, later, the states in the west generally
provided one toll for a mill driven by water and allowed the man who
ground by horse power to take double the toll of the former case. In
some way all states and territories have striven by legistation to
allow for the extra work of bolting flour and for the varying task of
grinding different grains.
Under the general law of A. D. 1300, the English long continued to
regulate the millers' toll. The early settlers in America brought with
them to the new world the principle of regulating that toll. In
establishing it they took account of the circumstances of the settlers
as much as the early law allowed in England for '' the local customs
and the strength of the water course." Agriculture, in Virginia and the
southern colonies, gave the planter a larger return for his labors than
was realized by the farmers of New England. Each colony measured the
recompense of the miller by that of the farmer, and the legislator of
the south therefore voted the miller twice the toll which was allowed
by the law makers of Massachusetts and her neighboring colonies. Life
in New England for the tiller of the soil was, for a long time, a
severe struggle. Under their local laws and regulations the miller had
to be con tent with as small a return for his toil as was realized by
the farmer. At first there were no mills in the colonies. The people
prepared their flour in mortal's, such as were in use in the earliest
times and shown in figure two, or by other rude and primitive devices
shown in the other cuts in the introductory. The first mill in
Massachusetts Bay was erected in Dorchester, on the Neponsett River, in
1633. Two years later the legislature passed the law regulating the
toll, and forbade the miller to take a toll greater than one-sixteenth.
In the following year (1636) permission was granted for the erection of
the first mill in the Plymouth colony. The language of that permit was
as follows:
"It is concluded upon by the Court that Mr. John Jenny shall have
liberty to erect a mill for grinding and beating of corne upon the
brooke in Plymouth, to be to him and his heirs forever; and shall have
a pottle (two quarts) of corne tolle upon every bushell for grinding
the same for the spase of the first two years after the said milne is
erected, and afterwards but a quart at a bushell-for all that is
brought to the milne by others, but if he fetch it and grind it himself
or by his servant then to have a pottle tolle for every bushell as
before."
This toll of one part in thirty-two evidently proved too small, for we
find the same court, in 1638, allowing the miller at Scit- uate to take
a toll of one-sixteenth, and thereafter that seems to be the only rate
referred to in the early statutes of New England.
While the early settlers of New England, with unanimity fixed upon
one-sixteenth as the proper toll, the early settlers of Virginia were
more liberal with the miller. This, as previously mentioned, was,
without question, due to the fact that they were realizing large
returns from their tobacco and other crops and must" needs give the
miller as good a chance for money making as they themselves possessed.
The first law of that colony was passed in 1645 and was expressed in
the fol lowing words:
"To rectifie the great abuse of millers, be it enacted that no person
or persons shall for grinding any grain that shall be brought to them
take above the sixth part thereof for toll." For the violation of the
foregoing law a penalty of 1,000 pounds of tobacco was provided by the
legislature of 1657. In 1670 the law was changed and the toll was fixed
at one-eighth for grinding wheat and for Indian corn one-sixth as
before. The other southern colonies had laws for the regulation of toll
based upon the legislation of Virginia, as the other New England
colonies followed those of Massachusetts, already referred to.
Of the original thirteen colonies New York and Pennsylvania alone have
at no time, either as colonies or as states, passed laws for the
regulation of toll. Penn, in his colony and many of the Dutch Patroons
of New York and other large land owners in the two colonies, erected
mills in the settlements in which they were interested. The existence
of these mills and the low rates of toll which they exacted were held
out as inducements for settlers to buy their lands. These land owners,
under the special grants from the crown, had control of all mill
privileges in their territory. They erected mills of their own and
permitted others to erect mills as Penn did in Pennsylvania, but only
on condition that the owner of the new mill should not charge any
higher toll than was taken at the pro prietor's mill. The language of
the special permits and the fact that we cannot find, in those
colonies, the enactment of any laws about toll or even a demand for
such legislation, is good proof that the fees of the early millers in
that part of the new world were fairly satisfactory to settlers.
Again, many of the towns of those two colonies, at an early date,
received charters making them corporations. Under those charters those
towns, as Huntington, on Long Island, and many others, erected their
own mills and then sold them, gave them away or leased them under
circumstances which fixed by contract the charge of the miller for his
services. These tolls, thus established, varied with the amount of work
to be had for the mill and kindred circumstances from one- fourth to
one-sixteenth. This local variation in the tolls of New York and
Pennsylvania can be traced for over a century. As the country became
more fully settled the principle of competition began to be felt, and
one-tenth became the almost universal toll taken by the millers in all
parts of those states.
This was the toll which was later established by law in Delaware, New
Jersey and Ohio. It is worth while, in passing, to note that this toll
of one tenth was like the geographical situation of the states in which
it prevailed about midway between the legal tolls of New England and of
the southern states.
In the settlement of the west and northwest the pay of the millers
allowed by law was copied after the legislation of the south and not
after the meager compensation of New England. Two factors aided in the
matter. These states were carved out from the old northwest territory
which, in the beginning, belonged to Virginia. The law of Virginia
about mills was adopted by the earliest of these new territories soon
after the revolutionary war. This was in Kentucky. Another fact which
assisted in-making the toll of the west one eighth instead of
one-sixteenth was the great fertility of the west. The farmer easily
made a crop of grain and he readily consented that the miller should
have a liberal compensation for his services. In early England one
factor shaping the different tolls collected was. as has been noted in
connection with the law of the fourteenth century, the' -strength of
the water course." In the new world this does not appear to have been a
determining factor to any great extent. ''The strength or fertility of
the land" was the great determining factor. The farmer of the south
profited by the sunny skies of his section and the large return which
nature gave for his labors. The settler in the new west did the same.
The adjustment of toll on a more liberal scale here than in the less
fertile or genial New England may be taken as an illustration of the
equity on w hich at last all charges of the miller and other workers
must be adjusted. The old laws regulated the partnership of the farmer
and the miller in furnishing the world with flour. In establishing the
miller's toll for the various states law-makers strove to base their
statutes upon the equity which considered all things involved, "the
strength of streams,'' the fertility of the soil, the wages of labor,
and all else which, in the special locality, modified the mutual
earnings of men. This same basis of consideration must, in this
generation, be kept in mind in passing judgment on the relative
recompense of the farmer, miller, grocer, and others for their services
in providing the public with flour. Equal service should, in each case,
receive, as it is entitled to, equal recompense, and each class of
workers should rejoice in the other's prosperity.
It is interesting, in this connection, to trace this general equity in
the past by comparing the tolls paid in the several colonies with the
wages paid therein for services of various kinds. In New England toll
was established -by law at one- sixteenth of the wheat ground. In New
York, without law. custom established that toll at one-tenth. But wages
in the two places approximately corresponded with these two different
tariffs for grinding grain. Thus we read (Economic and Social History
of New England. Weeden, page 400,) that in the year 1690, common
laborers, in Massachusetts, earned two shillings a day when they
boarded themselves. In New York, at the same time, they received from
two shillings and three pence to three shillings a day. Skilled
handicraftsmen, at the same time, received, in the former place, three
shillings a day, and five shillings in the latter. The miller in New
York received one-half more for his services than his fellow flour-
maker in New England, because he and all others received and paid
one-half larger wages for all classes of skilled labor. In another
place will be given the wages and prices of wheat and other commodities
at various times and at various places in the past in contrast with the
present. Thus will be showyn how, in the past, the miller's toll was
regulated by wages— the earning capacity of the people.
In the past the price of all services and commodities were quite
generally compared with that of wheat. The pay of the miller was thus
regulated by the price of that staple commodity, since that pay
consisted of a certain part of the wheat ground by him. Judged by that
standard of the past society has to pay the miller far more for his
services in flour making than formerly. The legal toll in Minnesota is
one eighth of the wheat. This gives the miller twice the compensation,
measured in wheat, that was given for the two centuries in New England.
But with the introduction of the new process of flour-making the law
about toll in the state has become, for all cities and large towns,
practically obsolete. The cause of this has been explained. The farmer
in those places sells his wheat to the miller or grain dealer for cash
and buys his flour of the grocer in the same way. He may do this or he
may exchange his wheat for the miller's flour direct on the basis of
the cash value of each. In making such an exchange the farmer who
brings his wheat to Minneapolis, in the year 1892. must, in purchasing
a barrel of the best flour, give in return, of No. 1 hard wheat, enough
grain for the miller to make therefrom one and a half barrels of flour.
In other Minnesota towns the terms of exchange vary exceedingly. In
some places, as may be noted from the accompanying tables, the legal
toll is exacted only. In others, the charge for grinding varies all the
way -from one-eighth to the one-third at Minneapolis. The rate of
exchange may also vary from time to time in the same town as it has in
Minneapolis in the past few years. The general public, in speaking of
the difference in the amount of wheat required to purchase a barrel of
flour and the quantity used by the miller in its manufacture, call that
difference the pay for the services of the miller in the business of
supplying the world with flour. That difference actually includes many
other factors, as has been previously explained. But for the purpose of
ready comparison and reference it may still be spoken of under that
designation. In the old days, in New England, when the miller's toll
was one-sixteenth, his charge for grinding a given quantity of grain
was one-fifteenth. In the same way, in the year 1300, in England, where
the toll was one-twenty-fourth, the charge for grinding was one-twenty-
third of the grain ground.
To-day that charge, as shown by the facts stated above, is, in the
larger cities of Minnesota, substantially one-half. The farmer for his
flour-making has then to pay to-day, in some places in Minnesota, seven
and one-half times as much as his predecessor in New England in the
days of Salem Witchcraft, and eleven and one-half times as much as the
Englishman in the days of the Black Prince. What compensation, if any.
has the years brought to him in return for this enormous increase in
his expenditures for flour-making, when that expenditure is judged by
legal tolls and the rate of exchange between wheat and flour?
In answering this question we must first see if there is any other or
better method of comparison, and thus ascertain if the farmer has lost
as much in his flour purchases as is shown by the exhibit already
presented. The product of the mill has improved in the centuries, and
more as well as better flour is obtained from any given amount and
grade of wheat than formerly. Account of this improvement must be taken
before the balance is finally posted in the account between the miller
and the farmer. We must learn how many bushels of wheat the farmer had
to carry to the mill to secure a barrel of flour, as well as know, as
above stated, what portion of the grain brought to him the miller
retained for his work of grinding. The cost to the farmer of the
service purchased is measured by what he brings home as well as by what
the miller retains. Weeden, in his Economic and Social History of New
England, (page 332,) quotes Pynchon as saying that in Hadley, Conn.,
one bushel of spring wheat made about 34 pounds of good flour. To
secure for himself a barrel of flour, besides paying the miller for
grinding the same, the farmer, according to this statement or estimate,
took to the mill about 6.2 bushels of grain, two hundred years ago. The
same authority tells us. on the same page, that this flour sold in
Hadley for from 11 to 12 shillings for 112 pounds, according to its
quality, and that the price of such flour was two shillings higher in
Hartford. At Had- ley at that time the price of spring wheat was three
shillings a bushel. The two statements do not exactly agree, and show
that the first statement was a general estimate of the flour obtained
from a bushel of grain. The latter, giving the selling price of flour,
furnishes, with the price of the wheat, the best basis of comparison.
Comparing, then, the price of flour and wheat in that old New England
town, it becomes apparent that it then required from 6.4 to seven
bushels of wheat to buy a barrel of flour, to purchase the best flour
requiring larger quantity. Taking this standard of efficiency of the
old mills let us now see how it compares with the work of mills of
Minnesota.
In November, 1892, the best number one hard wheat, at one time, sold in
Minneapolis for seventy cents. At that time the selling price of the
best patent flour at retail in the grocery* stores of that city was
$4.80. For the farmer to purchase a barrel of tnat flour he would be
obliged to give in exchange, at the current prices, 6.85 bushels of his
number one hard wheat. Allowing for the daily fluctuations of the
market this is found to be approximately the amount of wheat which the
farmer in Hadley would have given in exchange for a barrel of flour two
hundred years before, when the legal toll was established by law at
one-sixteenth. Nominally the millers charges to-day, are, as shown
above, seven and one half times as great as formerly. And yet, as a
matter of fact, the farmar secures a like quantity of a greatly
improved flour in return for the same amount of whe_';. This is due to
the improvement in the processes of milling which have been introduced
in the past two centuries. More flour is made from the same wheat as
well as better than formerly. The value of this increased flour product
approximately corresponds to the cost of all the added services to the
public introduced into the business of supplying the people with flour.
It pays for all that is done by the three new partners which have been
introduced into the enterprise, the bag and barrel maker, the retail
and wholesale grocer. The increase in toll, or the rate of exchange
between wheat and flour, to seven and one-half times its former
proportions, does not then impose upon the farmer any added cost for
the making or grinding of his grain. This comparison is made upon the
basis of the present relative prices of wheat and flour in the cities
of Minneapolis, Duluth and other important centres of the wheat and
flour trade of the State. But in many of the smaller tawns, as shown by
the tables A to D, at the close of this chapter, the farmer of
Minnesota still has his wheat ground for a smaller charge. He receives
his flour" from the miller without paying for the serv ices of the bag
or barrel maker, or without paying any one for his services as a retail
dealer apart from the miller. The average of the small mills gives from
39 to 40 pounds of flour for a bushel of good wheat. Some few give more
and some less. The farmer who receives this amount of flour for his
wheat secures a barrel of flour for about five bushels of his grain.
This is a gain of thirty per cent, over the farmer of Hadley, Conn.,
two centuries ago. The saving effected by the new processes invented in
the two hundred years suffice to pay for the work of the bag and barrel
maker and that of the grocer as well. The foregoing conclusion is based
upon a comparison of the present milling charges and achievements with
those of the past when they are alike measured by the standard of a
bushel of wheat. But wheat is not the main nor even the most important
standard or measure of service or value. The service rendered by the
miller and the grocers and bag and barrel makers consists of labor
expended by these persons and their assistants. We measure the amount
of that labor in day's work. A day's work is for most purposes a better
standard for measuring the cost of different services to 'the public at
different periods of time than is a bushel of wheat or an ounce of gold
or silver. How long did the day laborer or mechanic toil to purchase a
barrel of flour or pay the miller for grinding the same 200 years ago,
and how long does his successor, in the same occupations, labor to
secure the same desirable objects or services? This must be the final
test of all exchanges of wheat and flour by the different classes of
society.
Weeden, in his Economic and Social History of New England, tells us
that when wheat sold for from four to five shillings a bushel, the best
laborers received, for a day's toil, 18 pence when they boarded
themselves, and ten pence with board. The skilled mechanic received, at
the same time, two shillings a day when he boarded himself, and 14
pence with board. Then, as we have seen, it required about seven
bushels of wheat to purchase a barrel of the best flour. With the legal
toll at one-sixteenth it needed seven-fifteenths of a bushel to pay for
the grinding of that flour. The best day laborers in Minneapolis, in
1892, received £1.75 a day, and the average of such toilers earn
about $1.50. Skilled mechanics, according to occupation, earn from
£2.50 to 85.00 a day. Flour sells at S4.80 a barrel, while the
price of the best wheat is 70 cents a bushel. To make that barrel of
flour the miller requires a little less than 4.5 bushels of the wheat.
The cost of grinding and retailing the flour, including the millers'
profit, is about $1.50 or 2.25 bushels of wheat. If now the various
prices and values of flour and wheat are expressed, in terms of days'
toil, we have the following comparisons of the value of flour and the
millers' services at the present and in the past.
It would cost the New England fanner or laborer for grinding the wheat,
to make a barrel of flour, from 1.24 to 1.56 day's toil. The same
service costs the laborer in Minneapolis to-day from 1.00 to 1.50 day's
labor. There is here no appreciable difference to be noted in the
expense of this service in flour- making. In general terms it may be
said that, measured by the labor which they give in exchange therefor,
it costs the farmer and the laborer substantially the same to have
grain changed into flour now as two centuries ago. This conclusion,
based upon the comparison of the purchasing power of wages, agrees with
the one previously given wherein the bushel of wheat was taken as the
standard of value. The farmer or the laborer, paying for turning their
grain into flour, give substantially the same as two hundred years ago.
The change of the centuries is found, not in the amount of wheat or
toil required to recompense the miller, but in the increased and
improved miller's service which that wheat or toil will purchase, as
has already been stated in detail in another connection.
For a skilled mechanic in New England, two hundred years ago, the
grinding of a barrel 'of flour was the equivalent of 0.93 to 1.17 day's
toil. The same service is worth, in Minneapolis to-day, about one-half
as much, or from one half to three-quarters of a day's labor. Here is a
positive gain with no accompanying losses. It is a gain, however, which
applies to only one part of the community,—its skilled mechanics.
But while only one class of labor has profited by the change in the
relative expense of the millers charges for grinding and delivering
flour, the figures, for the cost of the flour itself, including the
value of the wheat used in its manufacture, reveals a different
situation. A barrel of flour cost the laborer of 1650 from 18.66 to
23.37 day's toil. The same is purchased by the laborer in Minnesota for
from 3.00 to 4.50 day's services. This is only one-sixth of its earlier
price. The skilled mechanic, in the earlier days, toiled to secure that
barrel of flour from 14.0 to 17.50 days, while now ho gives in exchange
therefor only one and a half to two and a half day's labor. That is, he
now purchases the flour, delivered at his door, for the recompense
formerly asked him by the miller for merely grinding it. His bill for
bread, when paid in labor, is only about one-tenth as large as was the
charge for this staple commodity two hundred years ago. The reduction
for the mechanic in his flour bill is five times as much ;is the
decrease in the charge of the miller for grinding the same.
The foregoing comparisons would not be complete were no reference made
to the cost of flour and the pay of the millers' services in the time
of Edward I. in England, when the toll was from one-twenty-fourth to
one-twentieth of the corn according "to the strength of the water
course and the custom of the land." The best authority upon wages and
prices in agriculture at that time is Thorold Rogers. He tells us that
the price of a quarter of wheat (eight bushels) was, on an average,
from A. D. 260 to 1540. 280years, fiveshillings and 11.25 pence, or
about nine pence a bushel. The highest price for ordinary farm labor,
about the year 1300, was paid at or near Oxford. A man then in harvest
time received two pence a day. To earn a bushel of wheat he would have
to toil four and a half days. At the same time a laborer at Oxford
received for a year's service 35 shillings and 8 pence, or the
equivalent of about 64 bushels of wheat. Allowing for Sundays and
holidays this would have been a bushel for every five days.
The foregoing were the highest wages paid about the year 1300 in
agricultural England. In sections away from Oxford and London the
laborer toiled longer to earn a bushel of wheat —probably six
days on an average. A careful study of these wages gives us the
undoubted meaning of the first clause in the old statute for the
regulation of toll passed in those days. That statute fixed the toll at
one part in twenty, or one in twenty- four according "to the custom of
the land and the strength of the water-course." "The custom of the
land" doubtless refers to the varying wages paid for labor. At Oxford
and London, where the wages were such as have been given, the miller
was allowed to take one part in twenty for grinding the grain brought
to him. But where the wages were "by custom" much lower, he should not
take to exceed one part in twenty-four. A laborer at Oxford, having his
grain ground at the toll of one in twenty, would toil a day for the pay
of the miller in grinding 4.2 bushels, and at the toll of one
twenty-fourth would toil a day to pay the miller for grinding 5.6
bushels. In those days the flour was not bolted. Doubtless the same
amount of nourishment was obtained by the workman then out of five
bushels of ground wheat as now out of a barrel of flour. From that
standpoint it is found that the laborer of six hundred years ago gave
approximately the same amount of labor in exchange for grinding his
wheat as now he does for grinding, bolting, and delivery at his door.
To compare the work and pay of the miller at that time and in New
England four centuries later, after the introduction of bolting, we may
note the following. To grind in the days of King Edward I. 'seven
bushels of wheat, the amount required in early New England to make a
barrel of flour, would cost -from 1.5 to 1.8 day's toil of the common
field hand. The lower amount would be on the basis of the toll of one
part in twenty-four. It was approximately the highest cost for the same
service in New England four centuries later. It varies but little from
the compensation paid by his fellow therefore in this nineteenth
century in Minnesota. Here, then, is no change in the situation for
seven centuries onlySs the man of to-day has more and better service in
return for his expenditure of labor. The change in toll has varied with
' 'the custom of the land" relating to wages. The rate of toll has
advanced with the added wages secured for the average laborer. The
change in toll in this period of seven hundred years, passed in review,
measures the increase which has been made in the wages of the average
workman. It, however, does not tell us anything about the relative
purchasing power of those wages then and now. That is determined by the
other facts about wages and prices heretofore given. The purchase of a
bushel of wheat in England, in the reign of Edward I, called for five
days' toil. That was the best paid labor of the time. Many. if not the
most of the people, were compelled to work early and late for six days
to earn that amount of grain. To secure five bushels, cracked or ground
in the mills of the period, but not bolted, called in return for from
twenty five to thirty days' services in the field. This is from seven
to twelve times as long as would be demanded of his fellow in Minnesota
to earn a barrel of the best flour that was ever made in the world.
This ratio, between the cost from 600 years ago and now, measures the
improvement in the purchasing power of the earnings of the average
toilers in the new northwest as compared with the same in the "Merrie
England" of legend and romance. It also measure* the increased
productive power of the farm. It shows how the farm laborer, in the
valley of the Red River of the north, can now raise by his labors at
least 12 times as much wheat as his fellow six centuries ago. This
change, in the productive power of the farm, this decrease in the
expenditure of human muscle in the production of wheat, is due to the
application of machinery and the introduction of improved methods of
husbandry. The farmer and the agricultural implement maker should have
all the credit for this decrease in the cost of wheat and other food
products made therefrom.
In his field the miller has made as great progress as the farmer. A
description of the leading improvements in the milling industry was
given in the introductory. The miller's toll has been used to measure
the advance in the purchasing power of the wages of the artisan and the
laborer, and to show the success of the farmer in cheapening the staple
food products of Europe and America. That toll itself, the miller's
charges for grinding and delivering flour to the consumers,will now be
examined to learn how the progress of the miller's art compares with
these other lines of advance passed in review.
The cost of manufacturing and retailing a barrel of flour in Minnesota
varies, at the present time, from about 81.40 to $1.65, including the
profit of the miller. That cost is made up of a vast number of small
charges which, however, may be summarized under the following heads and
sub-heads.
MILLEKS CHARGES PROPER:
Labor....................................................................................................7 to 13 cents
Other mill expenses................................................................................5 to 9 cents
Repairs, etc.............................................................................................3 to 0 cents
Improvements, additions, etc..................................................................0 to 3 cents
General expenses...................................................................................4 to 9 cents
Total milling charges proper..............................................................39 to 40 cents
Packages............................................................................................16 to 35 cents
Wholesaling or jobbing.....................................................................12 to 30 cents
Retailing by grocer............................................................................60 to 60 cents
Miller's profit ....................................................................................35 to 10 cents
Grand total........................................................................................$1.40 to $1.65
In the foregoing schedule or analysis of the miller's charges of the
present the item of "labor" is placed first. The amount paid for such
labor makes up about one-third of the miller's charges proper, the cost
of manufacturing the flour apart from the expenses of selling and the
profit of the miller. When measured by the cost of labor the profit of
the various mills is seen to vary exceedingly. A similar variation of
this character has been found in the management of mills in all ages.
It is instructive to place the general facts about modern mills above
given in contrast with the same so far as known concerning the mills of
the past.
The first fact about those ancient mills to be noted is their cost of
construction. Rogers, in his history of English agriculture, gives
details concerning this for quite a number of mills erected in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries. At that time the best stones for
grist-mills were imported fron Paris, in Prance. They cost, when
delivered at the mill, from four to five pounds sterling. The water
wheels cost from three shillings and four pence to eight shillings and
four pence. The carpenter's charges for erecting and arranging the
machinery of the mills varied, in the cases cited, from three pounds to
a small amount over four pounds. This would make the total cost of
constructing and equipping the mill, (500 years ago, from seven and
one-eighth to ten and one-half pounds sterling. As the purchasing power
of money has changed with the centuries this cost can best be expressed
when stated in other terms. That cost of the mill of the thirteenth
century was the equivalent of the earnings of a common laborer for a
period of from four to eight years. The yearly charges for repairs
varied greatly with the location of the mill. They were doubtless the
equivalent of the annual earnings of from one to two or two and
one-half laborers.
Such a mill, as these expenditures would have secured six hundred years
ago. would have been a/ superior one of its kind. It would have been a
better establishment than the one shown in figure eight of an old Norse
mill of Shetland. It would have been able to grind from 25 to 50
bushels of grain a day. It would have received for this service a toll
of from one to two and a half bushels of wheat according to the
"strength of the water course" and the amount of the toll collected.
This toll would have been the equivalent of the daily earnings of the
average laborer for from five to twelve and a half days. Deducting the
labor of the miller one day and the cost of repairs, etc., from one to
two and a half days, we have, as the daily net income of the mill
owner, the equivalent of from three to nine days labor of the mill
hand. The profit of the miller would therefore be from three to nine
times the expense of labor. The uet annual income of the miller from
his plant would have been from 50 to 100 per cent, of his investment.
When that profit is compared with that of the modern miller the
following changes and want of changes are to be noted. Compared with
his investments the profit of the modern miller is less than that of
his ancient predecessor. Comparing it with the wages required to
operate the mill and it was six hundred years ago about as at the
present time. There were then as now the same extreme variations due to
local causes and to the economy of administration and the wisdom of
management. Mills are far more efficient than of old, but labor costs
about the same relatively as in the most ancient period. This fact is
due to the greatly increased wages given to the mill hand as to all
other classes of labor.
In 600 years the wages of the mill operatives have advanced from 15 to
100 times according to the character of the work performed. The average
workman, with any knowledge of milling, receives three bushels of wheat
for a day's work, and the head millers many times as much. The pay of
this worker varies with the size of the mill and his individual skill
in the business. This increase in wages is nearly all paid from the
savings effected and the improvements made in milling, as can be seen
by comparing the present cost of labor with the ancient tolls of one
part in 10, 16, 20, 24, or the ancient profit of the miller as given
above.
A portion of this added wages of the mill hands is met by the saving in
labor effected by the introduction of the inventions of Oliver Evans
mentioned in chapter one. By other inventions various minor and
trifling savings in labor have been made. The aggregate of many such
inventions make a large saving of this kind. The greatest achievement
in milling has, however, consisted in so perfecting the processes as to
increase the amount and quality of flour obtained from a given quantity
of grain. In 200 years the amount of grain required to make a barrel of
flour has been lessened from seven bushels to less than four and a
half. Here is a saving equal to one-half of all the wheat consumed in
the production of flour. This saving is the one out of which is paid a
part of the increased wages of the mill hand, and all the cost of bags
and barrels and of delivering the flour to the door of the consumer.
Modern mill inventions are not all essentially labor saving devices as
were those of Mr. Evans. They are wheat and flour savers. This saving
has been effected in many ways. One out of many may be mentioned.
Thirty years ago the waste in milling, the amount of grain used in
milling which did not reappear in the saleable products of the mill
was, in the mills of Minnesota, about seven per cent. In the best mills
this is now less than one per cent.
To reduce waste and loss in other directions, to improve the quality
and quantity of flour produced, calls for a constant outlay of money in
repairs and the purchase of new machinery. The cost of these
improvements, repairs, and additions becomes, in the best mills, the
cause of larger expenditures than the wages of labor. This is an outlay
unknown to the past and yet it is by just such expenditures repeated
for a long period of time that the manual labor in flour making has
been reduced, the quantity and quality of flour improved, and the wages
of the mill hand increased. When the new process of milling was
introduced there was manufactured a small quantity of very nice flour
which was sold at a large price. It was purchased almost exclusively by
the rich. The larger amount of the grain was used to make a lower grade
of flour for the masses. The ceaseless progress in the business is
illustrated by the fact that most of the flour of to-day is of the
best. This is shown" by the following percentages of the various grades
of flour manufactured at various dates by one of the largest mills in
Minnesota:
Under '-Other Mill Expenses" are included the cost of power, insurance,
taxes, interest, and some kindred expenditures. The sum of these is
nearly as large as the sums paid for wages. The same is true of
"general expenses." The latter includes the cost of superintendence,
all salaries of clerks, etc. In the smaller mills this is less
relatively than in the larger establishments, but the cost of labor is
larger, and so the saving in the one is offset with an increase in the
other. It should be noted that the difference in the amount of ' 'mill
charges" given in the two columns is twice the amount set down as the
profit of some millers. In fact the foregoing exhibit may be taken as
an illustration of the source of most of the profit realized oy the
average mills and the best ones of to-day. The best mills reduce the
cost of labor, general expenses, and the cost of wholesaling or jobbing
to a minimum. The saving effected in these three items includes or
measures all the difference which exists between the profits of the
best paying establishments and their unsuccessful competitors. The
savings secured under these three heads, and the gain made by them in
the quality of their flour which causes it to sell a few cents on a
barrel above the price of that made by their competitors, includes all
the profit in the modern mill. Tne tendency of the centuries is to
reduce that profit as it is to decrease the cost of labor in any
manufactured article.
Seven hundred years ago the miller's toll was one-twentieth or
one-twenty-fourth. That toll, Rogers tells us, made the miller a sort
of local aristocrat. It gave him an income several times greater than
the farmer or the skilled mechanic. Hence, the public continually found
fault with his charges and his excessive profit. All history abounds
with this complaint against the miller. The analysis of his profits
already given shows that the popular fault finding was not altogether
without reason. Prom one half to three-fourths of his toll must have
been profit. after paying for the labor and all other charges. Compared
with the capital invested this is several times the gain made by any
mill in Minnesota in the latter part of this nineteenth century.
Of the profits of milling in the early American colonies we have exact
details in a number of cases. Thus Sharf and West- cott, in their
history of Philadelphia, (page 140), in speaking of the old historic
"Swede Mill" of South Amboy, says that some one, in the year 1685, made
the following statement: "It is estimated of a horse mill that it would
clear the owner 100 pounds sterling a year, the toll for grinding a
"Scotch Bell," six bushels of Indian corn being two shillings, equal to
one bushel in every four and a half." Such a simple horse mill could
not have cost one-half the sum which is here set down as its net profit
in a single year. Of the wages at Philadelphia at that time we are told
nothing. The same author quoted above tells us, on another page, that
only a few years later a man of some abilities earned yearly between 16
and 20 pounds in Pennsylvania currency. In other words, the net
earnings of a mill costing not to exceed fifty pounds, and requiring
the labor of one man to operate it, was equal to twice the capital
invested and from five to six times the wages of the labor required to
operate the same. These horse mills received more toll than the power
mills, usually two or three times, but the average profit in the one
must have been not far from the other. That profit must have been
larger, measured by the labor cost of flour making, than is realized in
any mill in Minnesota, and, in comparison with capital invested,
greatly exceeds what is anywhere realized at present.
The cost of packages in the schedule of the charges of the modern
miller is set down as varying from 16 to 35 cents. When the flour is
sold in sacks the cost of the package is about 16 cents or thereabouts.
The cost of a barrel is 35 cents. The labor of the stave, hoop and
barrel makers, or even of the bag makers, is of more importance in the
price of flour than the labor of the workmen in the flour mill. Then
'it should be further noted that the two items of "wholesaling and
retailing" make up over one-half of the sum total of the charges
included in the work of changing wheat into flour and delivering it to
the consumer. If a business man can devise a method of reducing the
expenditure for these services he can do more than may be accomplished
in any other way for lessening what . is known as the millers' toll, or
his charges for furnishing the public with the material for bread
making.
Once everything connected with the mill was regulated by law. The
people found it even more necessary to compel the miller by statute and
legal penalties to make good flour, to keep his mill in good order,
etc., than to limit his legal toll. The world stopped legislating about
the quality of flour to be obtained by the miller before they did about
tolls. The millers who made the best flour obtained the business and
made the most money. The present wholesale flour trade of Minnesota was
established by its millers making, in the years 1871- 1875, a better
flour than was elsewhere produced out of any grain in the United
States. As a result they made marvelous profits for a titna. This extra
profit of the early Minnesota millers everywhere aided in the next
twenty years in the improvements of methods of flour manufacture thus
it ever will be. Tne m >ney to b3 miie out of good flour, and the
loss which follows poor milling, is a more potent factor in securing
efficient service than all the laws which could be enacted. We don't
need, at present, such laws as the following one passed in the Plymouth
colony:
"And whereas, there are divers other millers within this colony who are
allowed competent toll for grinding, and do not grind as they ought to
do; it is enacted by the court that such millers shall either grind
their corn sufficiently, or else that upon complaint to the court
thereof and the thing proved the miller shall for every such default
pay 6d for every bushel to the party grieved, and 6d to the treasurer
for the colony's use."
Competition will suffice to regulate the making of good flour. Do not
the facts about toll in all ages show that the subject of the miller's
charges and the pay of the butcher and the grocer can, within certain
lines, be left to the undisturbed laws of trade? New York and
Pennsylvania, without any laws upon the subject, succeeded as well as
any of the early colonies. The toll there adjusted itself without
statutes to the current wages of the section, and that was all which
the other colonies were able to do with their statutes and penalties.
England, which passed its first general law concerning toll about the
year 1300, and which tried all the power of local courts, abandoned the
effort for regulation about a century ago. In 1796 a law was passed
which contained many provisions about correct weight and the like, but
makes the question of miller's toll a matter of free contract between
the miller and his patron. The one essential requirement of the law
being that he shall keep posted in his mill the terms on which he will
grind for cash or for toll. Can this age improve very much upon that
law of a century ago in England?
In tables A, B, C and D are presented exhibits of the present millers'
charges in the smaller towns and cities of Minnesota. A few of those
millers still grind for a toll or payment in grain. There were 45 of
such mills reported to the Bureau. The charges of those mills are shown
in table A. Twenty-six of these mills grind for the legal toll of
one-eighth. Ten more practically do the same thing, grinding for tolls
of one part in seven or for a toll of six and a half, seven, seven and
a half or eight pounds of wheat for grinding a bushel thereof. One mill
reports a toll of from one-fourth to one third and @ne of eighteen
pounds for a bushel of wheat. Both of these are substantially the
equivalent of the cost of grinding and delivering as given in the
preceding pages for the city of Minneapolis.
In table B is shown the charges in cash of 37 different mills in
Minnesota. Their cash charges for grinding a bushel of wheat vary from
eight to fifteen cents. In two cases those cash charges are based upon
and vary with the price of wheat.
In table C is shown, for 68 mills, the terms on which the mills
exchange flour alone for wheat. One mill reports that it gives 47
pounds of flour for a bushel of wheat. The amount of such flour is
sometimes as low as 20 pounds and for the same mill varies from 20 to
36 pounds according to the quality of the wheat and the grade of flour
given in the exchange.
In table D is presented the rates.of exchange in 98 Minnesota mills
where flour, shorts and bran are given in exchange for wheat. The table
begins with three mills giving for a bushel of wheat 36 pounds of
flour, from six to seven pounds of shorts and from 9 to 13 pounds of
bran. The list exhibits a wide variation in the terms of exchange.
TABLE A.
Showing the number of mills in Minnesota which still grind for " toll " and giving for each mill the rate of toll:
"No. of Mills..................................................................................Rate of Toll.
26..................................................................................................One-eighth
of the wheat ground.
3....................................................................................................One-seventh
of the wheat ground.
3....................................................................................................One-sixth
of the wheat ground.
1...................................................................................................
From one-fourth to one-third of the wheat ground.
1....................................................................................................Six
and one-half Ibs. of wheat for grind a bushel of same.
2
...................................................................................................Seven
pounds of wheat for grinding a bushel of same.
3....................................................................................................Seven
and one-half Ibs. of wheat for grinding a bushel of same.
2....................................................................................................Eight
pounds of wheat for grinding a bushel of same.
2
..................................................................................................Ten
pounds of wheat for grinding a bushel of same.
1
..................................................................................................Twelve
pounds of wheat for grinding a bushel of same.
1...................................................................................................Eighteen
pounds of wheat forgrinding a bushel of same.
TABLE B.
Showing the number of mills in Minnesota which grind wheat for cash,
and giving for each mill the amount charged for grinding a bushel of
wheat:
No. of
mills..................................................................................Cash
charges for grinding a bushel of wheat.
1...................................................................................................One-fifth
the value of the wheat.
1...................................................................................................One-fourth
the value of the wheat.
TABLE C.
Showing the number of pounds of flour given by the mills of Minnesota
in exchange for a bushel of wheat, and also giving the number of mills
adopting each of the stated rates of exchange:
NUMBER OF MILLS..........POUNDS OF FLOUR....|......NUMBER OF MILLS..........POUNDS OK FLOUR.
19............................................36....................................|......01...........................................24-42
14............................................37....................................|......01...........................................32-36
09............................................35....................................|......01...........................................32-45
08............................................38....................................|......01...........................................32-38
02............................................39....................................|......01...........................................31-36
01............................................40....................................|......01...........................................34-38
01............................................41....................................|......01...........................................34-35
02............................................42....................................|......01...........................................35-40
01............................................47....................................|......01...........................................27-35
01............................................20-36...............................|......01...........................................37-39
TABLE D.
Showing number of pounds of flour, shorts and bran given by of
Minnesota in exchange for a bushel of wheat, giving also the number of
mills adopting each of the stated rates of exchange:
NUMBER OF MILLS..........POUNDS OF FLOUR..........POUNDS OF SHORTS..........POUNDS OF BRAN.
03...........................................36...........................................6-7............................................9-13
16...........................................35...........................................3-10..........................................5-15
22...........................................34...........................................2-.5...........................................6-15
12...........................................33...........................................3-8............................................8-14
07...........................................32...........................................4-5............................................6-10
01...........................................31...........................................6...............................................9
01...........................................25-35......................................4...............................................8
01...........................................30-35......................................5-6............................................10-12
01...........................................30-34......................................4................................................6
01...........................................30-40......................................3................................................8
01...........................................30-36......................................4................................................9
01...........................................24-38......................................4-15..........................................8-15
01...........................................15-33......................................3-
4...........................................9-13
01...........................................32-36......................................5...............................................10
01...........................................32-34......................................3-
4...........................................11
01...........................................33-34......................................4...............................................10
Source:
Chapter 2 of Part 2, Toll, or The Miller's Compensation for Making Flour,
Biennial Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the State of
Minnesota 1889-1890. by Minnesota. Dept. of Labor and Industry,
Industrial Commission of Minnesota, 1890.
Also reprinted in:
Executive Documents, Minnesota by Minnesota Industrial Commission. Dept. of Labor and Industry, 1893.
Biennial Report, by Industrial Commission of Minnesota, Minnesota. Dept. of Labor and Industry, 1893.
Return to HomePage
mailto:trhazen@hotmail.com