Quotes and excerpts must be cited as follows: Oral history interview with Philip Simmons, 2001 April 4-5. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.
Topic:
Blacksmiths -- South Carolina -- Charleston -- Interviews Search this
An interview of Philip Simmons conducted 2001 April 4-5, by Mary Douglas, for the Archives of American Art's Nanette L. Laitman Documentation Project for Craft and Decorative Arts in America, in Simmons' home and workshop, Charleston, South Carolina.
Simmons speaks of his childhood and early education; jobs shining shoes and delivering papers at age 8; also at age 8, working as an apprentice to Peter Simmons in his blacksmith shop on Calhoun Street; Philip Simmons's attraction to blacksmithing and the action of the shop; being hired by Peter Simmons at age 13 in the blacksmith's shop where he has worked for 79 years. He also describes his apprenticeship and talks about blacksmithing as an ongoing learning experience; the necessity of adapting skills to an evolving market, from making wagons and horse shoes to ornamental iron work, and equipment for cargo shipments; the affect of the economic boom after World War II; drawing inspiration from nature and "God's creations in Charleston" for design ideas; working with wrought iron, mild steel, brass, and lead; making his own tools; craft as a representation of the past; giving demonstrations at the Smithsonian's Folklife Festival in Washington, D.C. in 1976 and 1977 (through John Vlach's invitation) and a gate he made at the festival that was purchased by the Smithsonian and featured in Southern Living; his 1982 lunch with Ronald Reagan on the occasion of receiving a National Folk Award; meeting other blacksmiths through the Southeastern Regional Blacksmith Conference; the public's understanding and reception of blacksmithing; recognition, awards, and publicity for his work; involvement with craft educational programs at schools, museums, and churches; the function of the Philip Simmons Foundation; blacksmithing in Charleston as a national tourist attraction; the relationship of farming and blacksmithing by enslaved blacksmiths to his own blacksmithing; the impact of travel on his work; working with Ira DeKoven; his interest in preserving traditions; corporate versus private commissions; the importance of mechanical drawing skills; preserving old piece, salvage work; his retirement because of arthritis; current interest in sketching and drawing; family life with his wife and three children; and his involvement with the community.
Biographical / Historical:
Philip Simmons (1912-2009) was a blacksmith from Charleston, South Carolina. Mary Douglas (1956- ) is the curator at the Mint Museum of Craft and Design in Charlotte, North Carolina.
General:
Originally recorded on 2 sound cassettes. Reformatted in 2010 as 4 digital wav files. Duration is 2 hr., 7 min.
Provenance:
This interview is part of the Archives of American Art Oral History Program, started in 1958 to document the history of the visual arts in the United States, primarily through interviews with artists, historians, dealers, critics and administrators.
Restrictions:
For more information on how to access this interview contact Reference Services.
Topic:
Blacksmiths -- South Carolina -- Charleston -- Interviews Search this
The collection consists primarily of glass plate slides (negative and positive), photo prints, and stereographs documenting the work undertaken by Frank and Lillian Gilbreth from 1910 to 1924 in the fields of motion study, shop efficiency, and factory organization. Also included are slides dcoumenting the Gilbreth Family, their travels, residences, and friends. The collection also contains the film "The Original Films of Gilbreth The Quest for the One Best Way," 1968 by James S. Perkins.
Scope and Contents:
The collection consists primarily of glass plate slides (negative and positive), photo prints, and stereographs documenting the work undertaken by Frank and Lillian Gilbreth from 1910 to 1924 in the fields of motion study, shop efficiency, and factory organization. As scientific managers, the Gilbreth's introduced new techniques to analyze work, the workplace, and work practices with the goal of eliminating waste to maximize productivity. The collection illustrates these new techniques and their application to a wide variety of studies. The collection is diverse and provides insight into understanding how Gilbreth approached his studies. Also included are slides documenting the Gilbreth Family, their travels, residences, and friends. The collection also contains the film "The Original Films of Gilbreth The Quest for the One Best Way," 1968 by James S. Perkins.
Series 1, Background Information, 1892-1997, includes biographical materials about Frank B. Gilbreth; copies of some of Frank Gilbreth's patents, 1892-1916; and printed materials, 1907-1997, that contain articles, newspaper and magazine clippings about Frank and Lillian Gilbreth and time and motion study generally. Black-and-white photo prints of Gilbreth or work Gilbreth documented from collections held at Purdue University and Ohio State University are included.
Series 2, Glass plate stereo slides, 1910-1924, consists of approximately 2,250 glass stereo slides photographed by Frank B. Gilbreth and others and intended for viewing through an optical viewing machine. Some are positive black and white, positive color, and negative black and white. The subject matter of the slides covers the work undertaken by Frank Gilbreth from 1910 to 1924 in the fields of motion study, shop efficiency, and factory organization. Many of the images serve as documentation for the studies the couple performed as they were hired by firms in an attempt to provide solutions to the problems of inefficiency. Also included are the Gilbreth Family, their travels, residences, and friends.
The slides are numbered sequentially. For example, a glass plate slide numbered 318949.001 will have a corresponding photoprint 318949.001 in Series 3, Photoprints of glass plate slides. Note: not all glass plate slides have corresponding photoprints. Additionally, there are Office of Photographics Services, Smithsonian Institution negative numbers assigned to many of the photo prints.
Some subject categories include:
Frank B. Gilbreth: working in motion laboratories, on factory inspections, seated in offices, with family and friends, in World War I uniform, watching and monitoring shop operations.
Lillian M. Gilbreth: with family, during university graduation ceremonies, traveling and working with Frank and observing office workers.
Gilbreth Family: family on the road in an automobile, at home seated around the dinner table, in the parlor, in the garden, and with friends and relatives.
Gilbreth ship travel: contains views on steamer voyages to Europe, deck scenes, arrivals, departures, ship officers and crew, and other passengers.
Automobile assembly study: internal and external views of a warehouse/factory, including large piles or rows of metal car frames and other parts.
Benchwork study: images of a male worker standing or sitting in a chair while filing an object secured in a vice at a workbench.
Betterment: images of efforts whcih contributed to industrial betterment (the Gilbreth chair, employee library, and the home reading box).
Bricklaying study: view of men wearing overalls and caps, shoveling, and men laying bicks.
Business and apparatus of motion study: views of lectures, meetings, film showings, demonstrations, charts, drawings, motion models, charts amd some equipment.
Disabled study: views of partially blind World War I veterans, amputees using special tytpewriter, assembling machinery, use of cructhes, and a one armed dentist.
Factory bench work: table-top machines assembly operations, hand tools, orderly arrangement of parts prior to and during assembly and a variety of bench vises.
Factory documentation: various images of the interior and edterior of factories including heavy machinery.
Golfing study: various cyclegraphs of a man swinging a golf club.
Grid boards: back drops used by Gikbreth to isolate and measure worker motions. This includes walls, floors, desktops, and drop cloths divided into grids of various densities and scales.
Handwriting and cyclegraphs: finger lights moving in patterns of script.
Ladders: include step ladders and painters' ladders shown in use near shelving.
Light assembly study: wide variety of images ranging from cyclegraphs of women working, to the factory floor as well as tools and machinery.
Materials handling study: different angles of an empty cart, a cart oiled high with boxes, and a man pushing a cart illustrating different body positions.
Military study: illustrate work on the Army foot meausring machine, gun parts, men holding a rifle.
Motion models: images of simple wire motionmodels.
Needle trade study: views of textile machinery and workers.
Office study: various shots inside of an office with tables, desks, drawers, files, and typewriters. Some of the images are cyclegraphs of femal and male workers performing tasks, such as writing, both tin the context of an office as well as in front of a grdidded background. There are several close-ups of an organizer containing penciles, paperclips, pins and rubberbands.
Packing: methods of placing and arranging goods in boxes, such as soap packing.
Panama-Pacific Exposition 1915: contains views of statuary, fountains, and architecture of the exposition held in San Francisco.
Pure light cyclegraphs: no workers or grids visible only finger lights in motion.
Rubber stamping study: hand movements and access to ink pads and stamps.
Scenic views: views of buildings, landscapes, street scenes, and fountains from around the world documenting Gilbreth's travels.
Shoe making study: laboratory studies of shoe assembly operations with an emphasis on workers access to component pieces.
Shop machinery: various shots of machines and workers working with machines.
Signage: include organizational flow charts, shop floor plans, route maps, office layouts, numbering systems, exhibit display boards illustrating Frank Gilbreth's efficiency studies and techniques.
Stacking: views of the art and science of stacking boxes, clothing, equipment, containers, and vertical storage without shelves.
Stock bins: consists of storage pips, paper, other raw materials, shelves, and corridoe shots.
Storage: images illustrate contrast between old techniques and new.
Surgical and dental studies: thester views of surgeons, assistants, nurses, hand motions in grasping, placing surgical instruments, dental work and self inspection of teeth.
Tool cribs: storage of hand tools in shops with an emphasis on easy access and easy inventorying.
Typing study: various views of femaile s under observation using Remington typewriters.
Series 3, Photoprints of glass plate slides, 1910-1924, consist of black and white photoprints of the glass plate slides depicting the fields of motion study, shop efficiency, and factory organization. Also included are the Gilbreth Family, their travels, residences, and friends.
Series 5, Stereographs,1911-1914,
Series 6, Audio Visual Materials, 1968, 2000, and undated, is divided into three subseries: Subseries 1, Audio visual documentation, 1968 and undated; Subseries 2, Moving Images, 1968 and undated; and Subseries 3, Audio Recordings, 1980, 1990,. 2000 and undated. The series contains several formats: 7" open reel-to-reel audio tape, 1/2" VHS, Beta Cam SP, DVD, audio cassette, one inch audio tape, and 16 mm film.
Subseries 1, Audio visual documentation, 1967-1968 and undated, consists of supplemental documentation for the film, "The Original Films of Gilbreth The Quest for the One Best Way." Specifically, there are brochures and other printed materials detailing what the film is about and how copies may be obtained. This subseries also contains a copy of the book Cheaper by the Dozen, 1948. The book was written by Frank Bunker Gilbreth, Jr. and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey and tells the biographical story of Frank Bunker Gilbreth and Lillian Moller Gilbreth, and their twelve children. The book was adapted to film by Twentieth Century Fox in 1950.
Subseries 2, Moving Images, 1967, consists of one title, "The Original Films of Gilbreth The Quest for the One Best Way." The film materials consist of the film's production elements: 16 mm black and white negative A-roll; 16mm black-and-white negative B-roll; and the optical track negative. Each is 800 feet in length.
The film presents a summary of work analysis films which were taken by Frank B. Gilbreth between 1919 and 1924 showing a number of industrial operations from which the motion study was developed. Demonstrates motion and fatigue study, skill study, plant layout and material handling, inventory control, production control, business procedures, safety methods, developing occupations for the handicapped, athletic training and skills, military training, and surgical operations as researched and developed by Gilbreth. Points out that Gilbreth created entirely new techniques on how to improve industrial efficiency, while at the same time significantly improving conditions for the workers. The film was produced by James S. Perkins in collaboration with Dr. Ralph M. Barnes and with commentary by Liilian M. Gilbreth and James S. Perkins. The film was presented on December 3, 1968 at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Annual Meeting in New York. The formats for this title include: 16 mm, Beta Cam SP, and DVD. Additionally, there is a one inch audio tape recording for the film.
Subseries 3, Audio Recordings, 1980, 1990, 2000 and undated consist of a Smithsonian radio program titled "Inside the Smithsonian, Cheaper by The Dozen," from 1980 and an recording of Ernestine Gilbreth Casey discussing Gilbreth Family photographs from 2000. Hosted by [Ann Carroll?], "Inside the Smithsonian, Cheaper by The Dozen," featured Fred and Bill Gilbreth discussing their parents Frank and Lillian, Gilbreth, and the book Cheaper by the Dozen. The radio program coincided with the 100th Anniversary of the American Society of Mechancial Engineers (founded 1880)of which Lillian Gilbreth was the Society's first female member and showcased a single case exhibition at the Museum of History and Technology (now the National Museum of American History) titled "Frank and Lillian Gilbreth: Motion Engineers." Inside Smithosnian Radio was a weekly program produced by the Office of Telecommunications. The recording of Ernestine Gilbreth Carey was recorded on July 9, 2000 and documents Ms. Carey's identification and discussion of Gilbreth Family photographs. David Ferguson assisted in the discussion. A hard copy index to the photographs Ms. Carey discusses is available.
Arrangement:
The collection is arranged into six series.
Series 1: Background Materials, 1892-1997
Subseries 1.1: Frank B. Gilbreth, undated
Subseries 1.2: Frank B. Gilbreth patents, 1892-1916
Subseries 1.3: Printed Materials, 1907-1997
Series 2: Glass Stereo Slides (Positive), 1910-1924 and undated
Series 3: Photo prints of glass stereo slides, 1910-1924 and undated
Subseries 3.1: Photo Print Books, 1-9, undated
Subseries 3.2: Photo prints (duplicates), undated
Series 4: Stereo Autochromes, undated
Series 5: Stereograph Cards, 1911-1914
Series 6: Audio Visual Materials, 1968, 1990, 2000 and undated
Subseries 6.1, Audio visual documentation, 1968 and undated
Subseries 6.2: Moving images, 1968 and undated
Subseries 6.3: Audio recordings, 1980, 1990, 2000, and undated
Biographical / Historical:
Frank Gilbreth is best known for his work on the efficiency of motion. Working with his wife and professional partner Lillian Moller Gilbreth, he applied modern psychology to his work with management. His innovative motion studies were used on factory workers, typists and people with disabilities. Gilbreth established the link between psychology and education to be succesful management.
Frank Gilbreth was born in Fairfield, Maine on July 7, 1868. His parents, John and Martha Bunker Gilbreth were New Englanders. John Gilbreth ran a hardware business, but died when Frank was only three. Bearing the responsibilty of raising her children alone, Martha moved the family twice in search of quality education for her children. Ultimately she decided to school the children herself. In 1885, Frank graduated from English High School in Boston. Despite gaining admission into the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Frank opted to enter the work world immediately as a bricklayer's apprentice with Whidden and Company, building contractors in Boston.
Smart and skilled, Gilbreth worked his way up in the company. He learned the trade quickly and soon was promoted to supervisor, foreman, and finally to the position of superintendent. To further his edcuation, he went to night school to study mechanical drawing.
At the age of 27, Gilbreth embarked upon his first business venture. He started his own contracting firm. His firm developed a fine reputation for quality work at a very rapid pace. He invented tools, scaffolding, and other contraptions to make the job easier. His company goals included the elimination of waste, the conservation of energy, and the reduction of cost. His work included canals, factories, houses, and dams. His clients came from all parts of the United States, and he performed some work in England.
In 1903, Frank Gilbreth met Lillian Moller (1903-1972) and married her on October 19, 1904. Lillian graduated from the University of California, Berkeley with a BA (1900) and MA (1902). She later earned a Ph.D from Brown University (1915), earning a dissertation titled The Psychology of Management. Lillian's academic work, large family and integral role in Frank's consulting business kept her busy. Her contributions to the business led to a greater understanding of an individual's welfare in the work world. This becamme a key idea to increasing productivity through scientific management techniques.
Working together, the couple became leaders in the new field of scientific management. They published books, gave lectures, and raised tweleve children together: Anne, Mary (1906--912), Ernestine, Martha, Frank Jr., William, Lillian, Frederick, Daniel, John, Robert and Jane. Some of Gilbreth's books include Fields System (1908); Concrete System (1908); Bricklaying System (1909; Motion Study (1911); and Primer of Scientific Management (1911). Gilbreth co-authored with Lillian: Time Study (1916); Fatigue Study (1916); Applied Motion Study (1917); and Motion Study for the Handicapped (1919).
It wasn't long before Gilbreth moved away from construction. Together with his wife, they focused on the link between psychology and motion. With her strong psychological background, and his interest in efficiency, the Gilbreth's opened the School of Scientific Management in 1913. The school was in session for four years. Numerous professional attended the school, and soon the Gilbreth's had established a reputation as consultant's to the new field of scientific management.
In 1912, Frank won a contract with the New England Butt Company in Providence, Rhode Island. There he installed his system of scientific management in a factory setting for the first time. Contracts with the Hermann-Aukam handkerchief manufacturing company in New Jersey and the Auergessellschaft Company in Germany followed. Using motion study, Gilbreth studied and reoganized the factories, attempting to find "the one best way" to do work.
Gilbreth traveled to Germany to continue his work was a scientific manager. He visited factories and hospitals, working to improve procedures and eliminate waste. Using micro-motion study and the chronocyclegraph procedure, he analyzed and dissected motion, discovering therblings, the seventeen fundamental units of any motion. World War I slowed Gilbreth's progress abroad, so he focused his consulting business on firms n the United States.
After World War I, Gilbreth's business thrived. in 1920, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers instituted its Management Division, something Gilbreth had been demanding for years. He was now a famous American engineer, gaining financial rewards as as professional honors.
Frank Gilbreth died suddenly of a heart attack on June 14, 1924, still in the middle of three contracts. He was honored after his death in 1944 by the American Society of Engineers and the American Management Association with the Gant Gold Medal. After Frank's death, Lillian moved the family to California where she continued to work on efficiency and health in industry issues. She was a respected buiness woman and was hired by several companies to train employees, study working conditions, and reduce fatigue. She lectured at several universities (Newark College of Engineering and the University of Wisconsin), and joined the faculty at Purdue University in 1935 as the first woman professor in the engineering school.
Frank and Lillian Gilbreth often used their large family (and Frank himself) as guinea pigs in experiments. Their family exploits are lovingly detailed in the 1948 book Cheaper by the Dozen, written by Frank Jr. and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey.
Related Materials:
Material in Other Institutions
Purdue University, Archives and Special Collections
Frank and Lillian Gilbreth papers, 1869-2000
The Gilbreth Papers documents the professional and personal lives of Frank Gilbreth and Lillian Gilbreth. The collection consists of personal papers, letters, correspondence, photographs, and other memorabilia that Lillian Gilbreth collected during her life regarding her youth, marriage, family, and career.
Collection of materials related to Lillian Gilbreth, 1964-2006
One folder of items relating to the life of Lillian Gilbreth, and her family, collected by her granddaughter, Lillian (Jill) Barley and Nancy Weston. Materials include clippings relating to the Lillian Gilbreth postage stamp (1984); obituaries and memorial programs for Peter Barney, Ernestine Carey, Lillian Gilbreth, Anne Gilbreth Barney, Charles Carey, and Frank Gilbreth Jr.; programs and photographs relating to Lillian Gilbreth's visit to Athens in 1964; and biographical information on Lillian Gilbreth.
Cornell University, Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives
Frank Gilbreth Papers on Microfilm, Collection Number: 5424 mf
Selected papers pertaining to industrial engineering. Original materials are held by Purdue University. Microfilm copied purchased from Purdue University in April 1968.
Provenance:
The collection materials were donated by several individuals: New Jersey Institute of Technology (1975); Frank B. Gilbreth, Jr., (1980); Ernestine Gilbreth Carey (1995); Daniel B. Gilbreth (1998); and James Secor Perkins in 2001.
Restrictions:
Collection is open for research but the films are stored off-site and special arrangements must be made to work with it. Series 2: Glass Stereo Slides are restricted. Boxes 3-9 were digitized in 2021. Researchers must use digital copies. Contact the Archives Center for information at archivescenter@si.edu or 202-633-3270.
Rights:
Collection items available for reproduction, but the Archives Center makes no guarantees concerning copyright restrictions. Other intellectual property rights may apply. Archives Center cost-recovery and use fees may apply when requesting reproductions.
The collection is open for research. Gloves must be worn when handling unprotected photographs and negatives.
Collection Rights:
Collection items available for reproduction, but the Archives Center makes no guarantees concerning copyright restrictions. Other intellectual property rights may apply. Archives Center cost-recovery and use fees may apply when requesting reproductions.
Collection Citation:
William R. Hutton Papers, dates, Archives Center, National Museum of American History
Collection is open for research. Access to collection materials requires an appointment.
Collection Rights:
The NMAAHC Archives can provide reproductions of some materials for research and educational use. Copyright and right to publicity restrictions apply and limit reproduction for other purposes.
Collection Citation:
Norma Merrick Sklarek Archival Collection, 1944-2008. National Museum of African American History and Culture, Smithsonian Institution.
Exhibition Collectors Historical Organization Search this
Names:
New York World's Fair (1939-1940 : New York, N.Y.) Search this
Extent:
130 Cubic feet (417 boxes, 25 map-folders)
Type:
Collection descriptions
Archival materials
Souvenirs
Photographs
Pamphlets
Guidebooks
Exhibition posters--1930-1940
Diaries
Ephemera
Film transparencies
Motion picture film
Posters
Place:
Flushing Meadows Park (New York, N.Y.)
New York (N.Y.)
Date:
1835-2000, undated
Summary:
Collection documents the 1939 New York World's Fair in Flushing Meadows, New York. Also includes material relating to other fairs, the Exhibition Collectors Historical Organization (ECHO), New York City tourism and The Walt Disney Company.
Scope and Contents:
Collection primarily documents the conception, planning, construction, management, and operations of the 1939 New York World's Fair located in Flushing Meadows, New York. Materials provide historical context and cultural significance as recorded in publications, artwork, photographs, ephemera, postcards, maps, plans, exhibitor's literature, souvenirs, and motion picture film. Most of the materials were primarily created for people who attended the fair. Some of the materials include scrapbooks created by fair visitors to document their experiences. There is a significant amount of material relating to other fairs, New York tourism, the Exhibition Collectors Historical Organization (ECHO) and the World's Fair Collector's Society. Other forms of entertainment such as festivals, the Olympic games, and Disney World are also found among these materials. There is little information relating to Edward Orth's personal and professional life as a city planner. The collection is arranged into eleven series.
Arrangement:
The collection is arranged into eleven series.
Series 1, Edward J. Orth Personal Papers, 1915-1989, undated
Subseries 1.1, Correspondence, 1939-1989
Subseries 1.2, Other Materials, 1915-1989, undated
Series 2, Exhibition Collectors Historical Organization (ECHO) and World's Fair Collector's Society, Incorporated Records, 1942-1990, undated
Subseries 2.1, General Information, 1960-1988, undated
Subseries 2.2, Correspondence, 1942-1990, undated
Subseries 2.3, Classified and Wanted Advertisements, 1956-1988, undated
Edward Joseph Orth grew up with a strong interest in history, particularly the history of the 1939 New York World's Fair. Orth's visit to the fair as a twelve-year-old boy led to a life-long passion of collecting. At the time of his death, he had amassed enough materials to fill two homes in California. Orth also collected materials from several other fairs. In addition, he saved some of the records of the Exhibition Collectors Historical Organization (ECHO) and the World's Fair Collector's Society.
Orth was born April 19, 1927, to Andrew Joseph Orth and Florence Minnie Gordon Orth in Glendale, New York. In the 1930s, the Orth family lived in several locations in New York including Ridgewood, Brooklyn, Glendale, and Queens. The home that made the most impact in young Orth's life came in 1935 when the family moved to St. Albans, Queens seven miles from Flushing Meadow Park, the future site of the 1939 fair. Sadly in 1939 there were several deaths in the family including three grandparents. The severe loss of life limited family social activities but a drive by the future site of the fair provided Orth a glimpse of the Trylon and Perisphere. He would later remark that the sight appeared to be magic. In the summer of 1939, he went to the fair with his classmates from Public School 136. The next summer Orth and his father purchased a 10-admission ticket from an elementary school in Hollis, Queens, New York. He saved every souvenir and any information he could find about the fair. He filled scrapbooks with images from newspapers and postcards from the Curt Teich and Manhattan Postcard companies. When his family moved from an apartment to a house, he acquired a fair bench which was kept in the backyard.
In 1941, Orth attended Newton High School in Elmhurst, and Queens, New York. The high school offered a college preparatory program with heavy emphasis on mathematics, science, mechanical drawing, and workshop courses. Orth's education and training combined with the knowledge he gained from motion picture films viewed at the fair, including Thomas Edison's "The City of Light," Ford Motor Company's "Road of Tomorrow," "Democracy," and General Motors' "Futurama" provided the foundation and inspiration for a career in architecture and landscaping. He ultimately became a city planner for the state of California. By 1943, Orth was exploring used magazine and bookstores in New York City to acquire more fair materials before enlisting in the United States Army in 1945. Upon his discharge he resumed buying and trading fair postcards. From 1948-1953, Orth attended the University of California and the University of Connecticut where he studied architecture and landscape design. During these years he posted advertisements in various publications in his continued pursue for fair materials.
In March 1953, Mr. Orth moved to Los Angeles, California. There he formed lasting friendships with other collectors. By 1967, Orth and several of his closest friends including Peter Warner, Oscar Hengstler, David Oats, Larry Zim, and Ernest Weidhaas conceived the idea of a fair collector's organization. By the summer of 1968, the group had formally created the Exhibition Collectors Historical Organization (ECHO).
As time passed Orth became increasing concerned about the welfare of his collection. He wanted it to go to a museum rather than be sold in parts. In his will he stipulated that the collection would be given to the Smithsonian Institution upon his death. Jon Zackman, former Smithsonian employee, interviewed Orth's brother George and fair collector Peter Warner. Orth and Warner corresponded and traded objects over many years. Mr. Orth primarily covered the west coast area while Peter Warner was his east coast counterpart. Edward Orth died on September 6,1989 in Los Angeles, California at the age of sixty-two.
Related Materials:
Materials in the Archives Center
New York World's Fair Collection, NMAH.AC.0134
Landor Design Collection, NMAH.AC.0500
Warshaw Collection of Business Americana, Subject Category, World Expos, NMAH.AC.0060
Larry Zim World's Fair Collection, NMAH.AC.0519
Alice R. Hillis World's Fair Film, NMAH.AC.0531
Borden Company 1939 New York World's Fair Collection, NMAH.AC.1063
Memories of the New York World's Fair, NMAH.AC.0592
Archives Center World Expositions Collection, NMAH.AC.0825
Daniel H. Meyerson World's Fair Collection, NMAH.AC.0745
Division of Community Life World's Fairs Collection, NMAH.AC.1132
Princeton University Posters Collection, NMAH.AC.0433
Smithsonian Speech Synthesis History Project, NMAH.AC.0417
Messmore and Damon Company Records, NMAH.AC.0846
Thomas Norrell Railroad Collection, NMAH.AC.1174
William L. Bird Holidays on Display Collection, NMAH.AC.1288
Wurlitzer Company Records, NMAH.AC.0469
Victor A. Blenkle Postcard Collection, NMAH.AC.0200
Materials at Other Organizations
New York Public Library The New York World's Fair 1939 and 1940 Incorporated Records, 1935-1945, MssCol 2233.
New York City 1939 World's Fair architectural drawings, circa 1935. Museum of the City of New York. Museum of the City of New York.
New York City 1939 World's Fair Collection, 1939-1940. Museum of the City of New York. New York World's Fair 1939/40 Collection. Queens Museum.
1939 New York World's Fair Postcards, Identifier: 1972-320, Audiovisual Collections Repository, Hagley Museum & Library
Separated Materials:
Materials at the National Museum of American History
Artifacts from the collection include several thousand souvenirs and examples of memorabilia commemorating the fair to include buttons and badges, ceramics, glassware, clothing, costume jewelry, coins and medals, commemorative spoons and flatware, toys and games, and philatelic material which are all part of the Division of Home and Community Life's holdings (now Division of Cultural and Community Life).
Restrictions:
Collection is open for research but is stored off-site and special arrangements must be made to work with it. Researchers must handle unprotected photographs with gloves. Researchers must use reference copies of audio-visual materials. When no reference copy exists, the Archives Center staff will produce reference copies on an "as needed" basis, as resources allow. Viewing film portion of collection requires special appointment, please inquire. Do not use when original materials are available on reference video or audio tapes.
Contact the Archives Center for information at archivescenter@si.edu or 202-633-3270.
Rights:
Collection items available for reproduction, but the Archives Center makes no guarantees concerning copyright restrictions. Other intellectual property rights may apply. Archives Center cost-recovery and use fees may apply when requesting reproductions.
Topic:
Exhibitions -- 1930-1940 -- New York (State) -- New York Search this
Collection documents the Coxe Brothers and Company Inc., an anthracite coal producer in Pennsylvania.
Scope and Contents:
The collection contains primarily drawings of mine machinery and buildings, including buildings within the company town such as worker housing and churches and maps, including real estate maps, contour and topographical maps, maps of highways and roads, insurance maps and others. There are some photographs, including glass plate negatives, of mining machinery and operations; deeds, leases, and agreements and papers relating to Eckley B. Coxe's patents and legal matters.
Arrangement:
The collection is arranged into seven series.
Series 1: Eckley B. Coxe, Jr. Estate Materials, 1891-1969
Series 2: Patent Material, 1871-1902
Series 3: Agreements, Deeds, and Leases, 1882-1949
Series 4: Miscellaneous Documentation, 1866-1950
Series 5: Glass Plate Negatives and Photographs, 1890-1937
Series 6: Drawings, 1885-1991
Series 7: Maps, 1830-1997
Historical:
The Coxe family's connection with Pennsylvania's anthracite coal region is rooted in the prescience of the statesman, author and land speculator Tench Coxe. Recognizing the significance anthracite would play in the development of the newly founded Republic, Tench purchased nearly 80,000 acres of land surrounding outcroppings of anthracite coal in Carbon, Luzerne and Schuylkill counties. He hoped that future generations of the family would profit from the land when the anthracite industry came of age. Indeed, his purchase would secure wealth for the Coxe family and all their mining enterprises well into the twentieth century.
Tench Coxe was born in Philadelphia on May 22, 1755, to William and Mary Francis Coxe, members of a family with a long tradition of land ownership. Tench's great-grandfather, Dr. Daniel Coxe, personal physician to King Charles II and Queen Anne of England, held large colonial land grants in New Jersey and the Carolinas. Though he never visited his property in the new world, Dr. Coxe would eventually acquire the title of Governor of West Jersey. Upon his death, he passed the whole of his North American land holdings to his son, Colonel Daniel Coxe. The Colonel was the first Coxe to leave England for life in America, settling in Burlington, New Jersey in 1702. Inheriting a passion for land, Colonel Coxe distinguished himself by publishing "A Description of the Provinces of Carolana," which in 1722 proposed one of the earliest plans for political union of the British colonies of North America. Tench Coxe explored various career options in his struggle to establish his name in the United States. After considering a profession in law, Tench chose instead to join his father's import-export firm, Coxe & Furman, in 1776. The renamed firm of Coxe, Furman & Coxe operated for fourteen years but was dissolved by mutual agreement after experiencing financial difficulties.
Soon after, Tench and a business partner from Boston established a new commercial enterprise under the name of Coxe & Frazier. After several prosperous years, this firm also disbanded, freeing Tench to pursue a career in public service. Tench's Loyalist sympathies during the American Revolution complicated his political ambitions. Following British General Howe's evacuation of Philadelphia in 1778, the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania accused Tench of treason for collaborating with the enemy. Although he swore an oath of allegiance to the United States of America, his Tory leanings would be used repeatedly to undermine his political influence. Despite his Loyalist past, Tench retained the respect of his patriot neighbors. He was selected as the sole Pennsylvania delegate to the Annapolis Convention in 1786, and then selected to the Second Continental Congress in 1788. After the war, Tench became an advocate for the Whig Party, although his politics were often in direct support of the Federalist cause. This was apparent from a pamphlet he wrote in 1788 titled, "An Examination of the Constitution of the United States," which revealed his strong support for the ratification of the United States Constitution.
With the new government in place, Tench received a variety of appointments to public office under George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. He was named Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in 1790, Commissioner of the Revenue of the United States in 1792 and Secretary of the Pennsylvania Land Office in 1800. After switching his affiliation to the Republican Party in 1803, Tench accepted an appointment from Thomas Jefferson as Purveyor of the Public Supplies, an office that he held until 1812. The duties of his various posts ultimately made Tench an authority on the industrial development of the nation. In 1794 he published a collection of essays under the title, "A View of the United States of America," in which he contemplated the development of commerce and manufacturing in America. These essays reveal his early awareness of coal in Pennsylvania, as he remarked:
"All our coal has hitherto been accidentally found on the surface of the earth or discovered in the digging of common cellars or wells; so that when our wood-fuel shall become scarce, and the European methods of boring shall be skillfully pursued, there can be no doubt of our finding it in many other places."
Anthracite coal was discovered around the year 1769 in Pennsylvania. It is the hardest of the known types of coal, with an average 85%-95% carbon content, as compared to the 45%- 85% range of the bituminous coal found in the western part of the state. The high carbon content in anthracite allows it to burn at much higher temperatures than bituminous coal and with less smoke, making it an ideal fuel for home heating. The only anthracite deposits of commercial value in the United States are located within four major fields in Eastern Pennsylvania and are confined to an area of 3,300 square miles. These four coalfields are commonly referred to as the Northern, Eastern-Middle, Western-Middle and Southern fields. Tench Coxe's awareness of the promise of anthracite coal, coupled with his tenure in the Pennsylvania land office and a family tradition of land speculation spurred him in 1790 to begin purchasing promising acreage. Though he acquired land throughout the country, he particularly focused on land in Carbon, Luzerne and Schuylkill counties in Northeastern Pennsylvania, which he believed held vast underground seams of coal.
Despite large land holdings, Tench Coxe lived most of his life in debt thanks to litigation, tax problems and complications with business partners. Realizing that he would not be able to develop the property in his lifetime, Tench worked diligently to retain the property he believed was enriched with valuable mineral deposits, in hopes that his dreams would be realized by future generations of Coxes. Tench's son, Charles Sidney Coxe, would inherit
from his father a passion for land ownership and for the untapped potential of the anthracite coal region. When Tench Coxe died on July 16, 1824, he left Charles sole executor of his estate, which was composed of approximately 1.5 million acres in eight states. Born July 31, 1791, Charles Sidney Coxe was the sixth of ten children of Tench and Rebecca Coxe. Educated at the University of Pennsylvania and Brown University, Charles was admitted to the Philadelphia Bar in 1812. Charles eventually served as District Attorney of Philadelphia and associate judge of the District Court of Philadelphia, but he remained infatuated by his father's vision.
Charles devoted his life to keeping together the large coal properties handed down by Tench to his surviving children. This monumental task involved paying annual taxes on completely unproductive land, fighting a never-ending battle against squatters and timber thieves, and litigating an endless array of boundary disputes. Charles and his family routinely spent their summer months in Drifton, Luzerne County a location that would eventually become synonymous with the Coxe name. His son Eckley Brinton Coxe gained his first experience in the coalfields at Drifton, accompanying his father as he traced the geology of the area in search of coal veins. Besides introducing Eckley to the "family business", the surveys gave Charles invaluable detailed knowledge that he used to preserve the coal deposits on his family's property. Deposits that he discovered comprised nearly half of the entire Eastern-Middle field. Even as his knowledge grew, however, Charles was unable to develop the land he retained. He saw the pioneers of anthracite mining lose fortunes as the mining technology of the day struggled to catch up with the new demands.
Regular shipments of anthracite began in the 1820s as canals opened the coal regions of Pennsylvania to markets in Philadelphia. The demand for anthracite remained relatively low during the early years of the industry, but as markets developed and demand increased, railroads began to compete in the trade and would eventually come to dominate as carriers to all of the major markets. As the problems of mining and transporting coal and developing a market for it were worked out, the demand for "hard coal" grew substantially. Coal sales increased from 364,384 tons in 1840 to 3,358,890 tons in 1850 and would steadily increase throughout the century to levels exceeding 40 million tons annually. Charles Coxe's witness to the inception of this industry unquestionably spurred his desire to realize his father's dream, but like Tench, he too would have to defer to his sons.
Charles S. Coxe had married Ann Maria Brinton in 1832 and together they were the parents of seven children, Brinton, Rebecca, Anna Brinton, Eckley Brinton, Henry Brinton, Charles Brinton and Alexander Brinton. The eldest son, Brinton Coxe, followed the career of his father, establishing himself in the legal profession. Brinton was a renowned lawyer and writer of constitutional law and served with prestige as president of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania from 1884 until his death. The remaining four sons would distinguish themselves in the coal business under the guidance of their brother, Eckley B. Coxe. Born in Philadelphia on June 4, 1839, Eckley B. Coxe entered into a family in which his calling was clear. His aptitude for the calling, however, would astonish the entire industry. Eckley's earl surveying excursions with his father introduced him to the mines, machines and collieries of the anthracite industry. His exposure to local miners must also have made a lasting impression, as his knowledge of their customs and sympathy toward their circumstances proved to be one of his greatest assets as an employer.
Eckley Coxe's formal education began in 1854 at the University of Pennsylvania. Although focusing his studies in chemistry and physics, he took additional courses in French and bookkeeping after receiving his degree in 1858. After graduation, Eckley briefly returned to the coalfields where he was engaged in topographic geological work on his family's land, learning a skill that would later earn him a commission to the Second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania. In 1860 Eckley went abroad to polish his technical education, spending two years in Paris at the Ecole Nationale des Mines, one year at the Bergakademie in Freiberg, Germany and nearly two years on a tour studying the practical operations of European mines. Armed with both practical and theoretical knowledge of his craft, Eckley B. Coxe returned to America and embarked on the mission for which his entire life had prepared him. On January 30, 1865, Eckley, his brothers Alexander, Charles and Henry and a cousin, Franklin Coxe, formed the co-partnership Coxe Brothers and Company.
The company began with a combined capital of $120,000, with Eckley investing $40,000 and the other partners investing $20,000 each. The firm was formed for the exclusive purpose of mining and selling coal from the Drifton property, which they leased from the Estate of Tench Coxe. The Estate had begun leasing property as early as 1852 to various companies, which paid royalties to the estate in return for the coal they mined. Coxe Brothers would operate under a similar lease, but they would, in a sense, be paying royalties to themselves as both partners and heirs. Coxe Brothers and Company began operations in Drifton in February 1865, sending their first shipment of coal to market the following June. Once the operations at Drifton were fully tested and proved successful, Eckley moved to consolidate control over all of his family's land, in order to keep all the mining profits in the family.
By 1879 Coxe Brothers and Company had opened collieries at Deringer, Gowen and Tomhicken, adding Beaver Meadow Colliery two years later. The firm's success exceeded all of the partners' expectations, reaching well beyond the goals set forth in the original Articles of Copartnership. Charles B. Coxe died in 1873 and Franklin Coxe retired from the firm in 1878. In 1885, the remaining partners agreed to extend the life of the firm indefinitely and operate for the purpose of developing the land belonging to the Estate of Tench Coxe.
Even more important to the success of the Coxe family mining interests was the organization of the Cross Creek Coal Company in October 1882. The officers of this company included the three remaining partners of Coxe Brothers and Company, along with a Philadelphia partner, J. Brinton White and the Coxe's first cousin Arthur McClellan, brother of the Civil War General, George B. McClellan. Cross Creek Coal Company took over all of the mining operations on the Estate lands, led by Eckley B. Coxe, president of both companies. Coxe Brothers transferred the mining rights to the Coxe property to the Cross Creek Coal Company but retained control of the Coxe collieries where the freshly mined coal was prepared.
Eckley's shrewd and aggressive management of his family's land proved successful. When his father, Charles S. Coxe died in 1879, Eckley assumed an even more direct role in the management of the property. In addition to receiving the inheritance of his grandfather's land, he, along with his three surviving brothers, became executors of the Estate of Tench Coxe. By 1886, Eckley had brought nearly 3/4ths of his family's property under his direct control. Coal shipments from these properties reached an astounding 1.5 million tons in 1890, a vast improvement from the 27,000 tons sold in its inaugural year. Coxe Brothers and Company did not limit itself to mining operations on the lands of the Estate of Tench Coxe. By 1889, the firm was also leasing lands from the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, West Buck Mountain Coal Company, Anspach & Stanton, the Black Creek Coal Company, and the Central Coal Company. In total Coxe Brothers was operating roughly 30,000 acres of coal property.
Just over twenty years after its inception, Coxe Brothers and Company established itself as the largest individual anthracite producer that was not associated with a major railroad. This distinction, however, made them an obvious target for the expanding railroad industry. Realizing the value of anthracite as freight, railroads entered into a land scramble throughout the region, securing their coal freight by purchasing it before it was mined. This point is perhaps best illustrated by the actions of the Pennsylvania Railroad, which in 1872 purchased 28,000 acres in the anthracite fields. Of the roughly 38 million tons of coal produced in 1888, 29 million had been mined by coal companies linked with the railroads.
The remaining independent producers were forced to negotiate with the railroads to have their coal shipped to market. It was the practice of the railroads to charge exorbitant fees to the independent producers, which in effect reduced the railroads' competition in the coal sale yards. In order to survive, many independent producers were either forced to sell their coal directly to the railroads at the mines or to sell their operation completely to the railroad. Eckley B. Coxe, however, pursued an altogether different means of survival. In 1888, the partners of Coxe Brothers and Company petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission for relief from the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company (LVRR). They argued that the Lehigh Valley Coal Company (LVCC), entirely owned by the LVRR, sold coal at a price that did not net them sufficient funds to pay the fees that were being charged to Coxe Brothers and Company for the same shipping service. The railroads were willing to operate their coal companies at a loss, since they were more than able to absorb the losses with increased railroad freight. As a result of discriminating between the companies it owned and independent operators, the LVRR was found in violation of federal law and was forced to lower its rates in 1891.
The lengthy trial, however, inspired Eckley to build his own railroad, which began operations in 1891. Incorporated as the Delaware, Susquehanna & Schuylkill Railroad, its tracks linked all of the Coxe collieries with connections to most of the major rail lines in the region. With sixty miles of single gauge track, twenty-nine locomotives and 1,500 coal-cars, they forced the railroads to compete for the immense freight being produced by their coal companies. By compelling his adversaries to come to fair terms with victories in both the courts and in the coalfields, Eckley succeeded in securing Coxe Brothers' position as the largest independent anthracite producers in Pennsylvania. In June 1893, Ezra B. Ely and Eckley Brinton Coxe, Jr. were admitted to the firm of Coxe Brothers and Company. Ezra, a long-time business associate and general sales agent of Coxe Brothers and Company and Eckley, Jr., son of the deceased Charles Brinton Coxe, joined the firm just weeks prior to the establishment of two more Coxe mining enterprises.
On June 19,Coxe Brothers and Company, Incorporated was organized as the selling agency for Coxe coal and purchased from the firm their supply headquarters in New York, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Milwaukee and Philadelphia. This same day also saw the formation of the Coxe Iron Manufacturing Company, which took control of the firm's machine shops in Drifton. In addition to being responsible for the construction and repair of Coxe mines and railroads, this company also filled large outside orders for machinery. It was in these machine shops that Eckley proved himself as one of the most brilliant mining engineers of the day. The United States Patent Office records 111 patents either issued directly to Eckley B. Coxe or as a supervisor of employees who worked under his instructions at the Drifton Shops. Seventy-three of these patents pertained to the details of the Coxe Mechanical Stoker, which introduced the first practical means of burning small sizes of anthracite coal. This innovation put an end to the financial loss associated with large culm banks of fine sized coal that plagued collieries as waste. The subject of waste seems to have driven the business and personal endeavors of Eckley B. Coxe.
As a founder and future president of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, Eckley was appointed to chair a committee to investigate waste in coal mining, which he did thoroughly. His report outlined the waste associated with the extraction, preparation and transportation of anthracite coal. To combat waste in the preparation of coal, Eckley designed and erected the world's first coal breaker made of iron and steel. This fireproof structure, used to separate coal into uniform sized pieces, was also equipped with numerous innovative labor-saving devices, including an automated slate picking chute, improved coal jigs, corrugated rollers for breaking coal and electric lighting for nighttime operations. The breaker at Drifton stood as one of the most revolutionary coal structures in the region until Eckley erected an even more magnificent iron and steel coal breaker at Oneida. In creating more economical methods for preparing and consuming coal, Eckley helped boost the anthracite industry to remarkable levels. Although he secured many of his inventions by patent, Eckley licensed his improvements to many coal operators and created an agency to help install and maintain the complicated machinery at the various collieries. This service reflected Eckley's conviction that the mutual exchange of knowledge in engineering matters would benefit the whole anthracite industry, and in turn would benefit each individual company. That attitude appears to have carried over in his interactions with consumers, as is evidenced by a paper Eckley read before a meeting of the New England Cotton Manufactures, acknowledging that, "It may seem curious that a person whose life has been spent in mining and marketing coal should appear before this association to discuss the economical production of steam, involving, as it does, either the use of less fuel or fuel of less value. But I am convinced that the more valuable a ton of coal becomes to our consumers, the more in the end will be our profit from it."
Eckley recognized, however, that the increased demand for anthracite would subvert his battle against waste. The abundance of coal beds in the region gave rise to numerous operators who often sacrificed long-term efficiency for low-overhead and quick profits. Using cheap machinery and incompetent labor, these operators mined only the most valuable and easily available veins, leaving large amounts to waste. Mining practices like these were prohibited in many European countries, where the right to mine had to be obtained from the government. In many countries, mining operations were required to work to full capacity, so long as they did not compromise the safety of the men or the mine. Having witnessed European laws in practice, Eckley was an advocate for comparable laws in this country, calling for a well-educated corps of experts to inspect the mines and manufactories to ensure the protection of life and property. In later years, mining foremen would be required by Pennsylvania law to pass an extensive exam, demonstrating not only practical experience but also specific knowledge of the principles of ventilation. Eckley was also aware that mining legislation alone could not prevent careless miners.
As an employer of skilled labor and a trustee of Lehigh University, Eckley gave a great deal of thought to the issue of technical education. In concluding a paper titled, "Mining Legislation," read at the general meeting of the American Social Science Association in 1870, Eckley insisted "upon the importance of establishing schools for master miners, in which anyone who works in the mines could, while supporting himself by his labor, receive sufficient instruction in his business to qualify him to direct intelligently the underground workings of a mine." His exposure to the finest technical institutions of Europe made Eckley keenly aware of the shortcomings in America of giving its students an equivalent education. In order to prevent future mining foremen and superintendents to grow up without a theoretical knowledge of their work, Eckley established the Industrial School for Miners and Mechanics in Drifton. The school opened its doors on May 7, 1879, providing young men employed by Coxe Brothers and Company with an opportunity to educate themselves outside of working hours. This unique opportunity gave the young miners a chance to combine the scientific knowledge of various disciplines, including trigonometry, mechanical drawing, physics, mineralogy and drafting with the experience gained in their daily toil. Classes were held free of charge at night and during idle days in the mines in a two-story building erected by Eckley Coxe, known as Cross Creek Hall.
In addition to comfortably seating 1,000 people and housing a library and reading room for the residents of Drifton, it also furnished classrooms for the eleven students who enrolled in the school during its first year. The school succeeded in delivering a first-class technical education to its students for nearly ten years before a fire completely destroyed the Hall in 1888. Five years later the school reorganized under the name Miners and Mechanics' Institute of Freeland, Pennsylvania, which soon after changed its name to the Mining and Mechanical Institute of Freeland. The school continues to operate today as the MMI Preparatory School and stands as a testimonial to Eckley's achievements in promoting technical education.
Eckley and the Coxe family gave generously to the people of the anthracite fields. They donated estate lands for churches and cemeteries of various denominations, as well as schools, parks and baseball fields. Eckley also established a scholarship prize of $300 for the best student at his mining school, which would continue for the term of four years if the recipient chose to pursue higher education. Eckley made a point, however, not to confuse business with charity and confined his donations predominantly to gifts of opportunity and knowledge. But, as the people of Drifton affirmed during the opening ceremonies for Cross Creek Hall, "For relieving those who have been disabled by accidents, providing for the widows and orphans, visiting our homes in times of sickness, taking an interest in the education and welfare of our children and providing a free library, to promote our intellectual culture you are worthy of the highest praise we can bestow." One of the most deplorable circumstances in the coalfields was the scarcity of adequate hospitals. Nineteenth century anthracite mining was extremely dangerous, with miners facing hazards from explosions, suffocation, cave-ins and floods.
By 1881, Coxe Brothers and Company employed 1,171 people, who endured their share of accidents, despite the sound mining methods initiated by the company. The closest hospital was in Bethlehem, which was over two hours away. To remedy the situation, at least for his own workers, Eckley established the Drifton Hospital on September 1, 1882, for the benefit of Coxe Brothers and Company employees. The building could accommodate thirty-five patients and in its first sixteen months of operation treated eighty-five people. In later years, a state hospital at Hazleton was built for the miners of the Eastern-Middle field. Eckley was an obvious candidate for the Board of Commissioners of the state hospital, an appointment he received in 1891.
The company also maintained an accident fund for its employees. In the event a Coxe Brothers employee died, the fund contributed fifty dollars to the family to defray their funeral expenses. It also provided the widows of employees with three dollars a week for one year, allowing an additional dollar per week for each child less than twelve years of age. In cases where the employees were disabled, men were given five dollars a week until they were able to perform light work.
In all his endeavors, Eckley B. Coxe held himself to a high standard of honor. His standard of personal integrity created unusual circumstances when he was elected to the Pennsylvania State Senate in November 1880. Elected a Democrat from the 26th senatorial district, comprised of parts of Luzerne and Lackawanna counties, he declined to take the oath prescribed by the state constitution, thereby forfeiting the office. In an address to his constituents in January 1881, he explained that he was not able to swear to the fact that all his campaign funds had been contributed as "expressly authorized by law." He further stated, "I have done nothing in this campaign that I am ashamed of, or that was inconsistent with strict honesty." A detailed examination of his accounts shows expenses that were not considered "expressly authorized," but were also not uncommon for most of the political candidates in Pennsylvania. In holding himself to the strict letter of the law, he earned the respect of both Democrats and Republicans alike. The next year Eckley B. Coxe was again elected to the Senate, this time with a majority three times as large as the previous year.
Eckley's personal character made him a model senator and he took advantage of the opportunity to spread his opinions across the entire commonwealth. Belonging to the minority party in the Senate, Eckley was unable to initiate any legislation, but did remain vocal concerning many of the major issues of the day. He was particularly interested in the "Voluntary Trade Tribunal Statute," which dealt with the vexed topic of labor organizations. In addressing the Senate, Eckley argued, "Though not pretending to be a workingman, or in any way his representative, but, on the contrary, a large employer of labor of all kinds, I feel and admit that he has equal rights with me. What he properly demands, and what he will have, is justice. To be satisfied, he must feel that the bargain is fair, and that it has been reached in an honorable way, without any resort to coercion. He cares more for this than a slight addition to or a deduction from his daily pay. Where the workingman does not get his dues, trouble must ensue, and capital must pay its share of the bill, which is often a large one." Eckley made every attempt to treat his men with the respect they demanded. Even so, he was not immune to strikes, which brought his collieries to a halt on several occasions. When demands for increased wages by a joint committee of the Knights of Labor and the Miners' and Laborers' Amalgamated Association brought operations in the anthracite fields to a standstill in 1887, Eckley remained open to hearing the grievances of his men, but like many coal operators, refused to meet with organizations, as he did not believe they represented the best interest of his men. As labor struggled to organize in the latter part of the century, workingmen were as determined to stand by their unions as operators were to ignore them.
This state of affairs resulted in repeated struggles between labor and capital throughout the country, struggles that were especially bitter in the coalfields. When a congressional committee was appointed to investigate the labor troubles in Pennsylvania in 1888, Eckley testified, "It does not make any difference to us whether the men belong to any association or not. I do not care what association they belong to or what politics they have; it is none of my business; but when it came to the question, I was always willing and anxious to deal with my own men, and I expect to always; but I want to deal with the men who are interested to the particular question that I have got to settle." Eckley continued to remain active in the mining profession through his associations with numerous professional organizations, including the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Engineer's Club of Philadelphia, the American Chemical Society, the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, to name just a few. In 1870, Eckley published a translation of Julias Weisbach's treatise, "A Manual of the Mechanics of Engineering and of the Construction of Machines, with an Introduction to the Calculus." Weisbach was a former professor of Eckley's at the Bergakademie in Freiberg, and an influential voice in the field of mechanics. This capacious volume, used primarily as a textbook, was completed at a monetary loss, but would, however, associate Eckley's name with one of the leading mechanical engineers in the world.
As Eckley continued to advance his own career and the anthracite industry as a whole, he never lost sight of his principal commitment to developing the lands of the Estate of Tench Coxe. In an effort to fully exploit the resources of his family's land, Eckley organized four additional companies in June 1893. The Drifton, Oneida, Tomhicken and Beaver Meadow water companies were organized to supply water to the industries and citizens of Hazle, East Union, Black Creek and Banks Township, respectively. On June 20, 1893, the capital stock of the four water companies, along with the stock of the Cross Creek Coal Company, Coxe Brothers and Company, Incorporated, the Delaware, Susquehanna and Schuylkill Railroad Company, and the Coxe Iron Manufacturing Company were placed into a trust under the control of Eckley B. Coxe, who served as president of them all. The trust was created to secure the continuation of the companies in the case of the death or sale of interest by any of the partners. The ownership of these companies was held in the same interest as that of the firm of Coxe Brothers and Company, being 4/15ths each with Eckley and Alexander Coxe, 3/15ths each vested in Henry B. and Eckley B. Coxe, Jr., and a 1/15th interest with Ezra B. Ely.
With the establishment of the various new Coxe enterprises, the business of the original firm (Coxe Brothers and Company) became limited to the operation of company stores at Fern Glen, Eckley and Drifton. This was no small point, however. By remaining a partnership, the Coxe family was not bound by the corporation laws of Pennsylvania, which prohibited the operation of company stores. But Coxe Brothers and Company stores respected the spirit of the anti-company store legislation. All Coxe employees were paid in cash that they could spend anywhere and not company script, which they would have to spend on overpriced goods at company stores. Eckley instructed his stores to sell goods as cheaply as possible and at no point were store debts deducted from an employee's wages. The various Coxe-owned enterprises remained in Eckley's charge till May 13, 1895, when at the age of 55, Eckley Brinton Coxe died of pneumonia. His death was mourned across the region as the buildings of Drifton were draped in black and Coxe collieries went idle. On the occasion of his funeral, every mine in the region suspended operations as a tribute to their deceased colleague.
Although Eckley was gone, his benevolence lived on through his wife of twenty-six years, Sophia Georgiana (Fisher) Coxe. Sophia undoubtedly served as Eckley's guiding light in his many altruistic endeavors. She was collectively known throughout the region as the "Angel of the Anthracite Fields" and the "Coxe Santa Claus." Sophia earned the latter title by providing the children of the Coxe mining towns with gifts and candy at an annul Christmas Party held in Cross Creek Hall. With the income guaranteed to her in Eckley's will, Sophia embarked on numerous acts of charity, funding additions to the Hazleton State Hospital, White Haven Sanitarium and the Philadelphia Children's Hospital. Sophia also advanced Eckley's work in education as a faithful benefactor of the Mining and Mechanical Institute of Freeland. She endowed the school with a new gymnasium and a trust fund to keep the school operating after her death, which occurred in 1926.
As Eckley's benevolence continued after his death, so too did his mining enterprises. His two surviving brothers, Alexander and Henry Coxe remained active in the business affairs of the Coxe mining companies, as Alfred E. Walter, a business associate, took control of the trust and presidency of the Coxe companies. The trust would subsequently pass to Irving A. Stearns from 1901 to 1905, when the trusteeship was canceled. The mining enterprises continued to expand through the turn of the century under the administration of Alexander B. Coxe. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, Alexander had distinguished himself in the Civil War, serving on the staff of Major-General George Meade. After the war, he played a major role in the financial management of Coxe Brothers and Company as the only Coxe partner, other than Eckley, who resided in Drifton. He continued to live near the collieries for nearly forty years.
In March 1900, Alexander initiated a series of business maneuvers to streamline the management of the various Coxe companies. He purchased the entire capital stock of the Coxe Iron Manufacturing Company and the selling agency, Coxe Brothers and Company, Inc. for the Cross Creek Coal Company. Now representing the combined capital of three companies, the Cross Creek Coal Company officially changed its name to Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. The new company name distinguished only by the replacement of "and" by "&". Days later, the original firm of Coxe Brothers and Company was dissolved by agreement, with the remainder of its property and assets being assigned to the Cross Creek Coal Company for the sum of $300. The business of the firm would be continued by Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. and the Delaware, Susquehanna & Schuylkill Railroad, both of which were owned in the same interest as the original firm. As both the executor of the Tench Coxe Estate and partner of Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc., Alexander was in a unique situation to further consolidate the management of the Coxe properties. On June 24, 1904, the numerous individual leases from the Estate of Tench Coxe to Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. were consolidated into one blanket lease. The lease granted exclusive mining rights to the latter on the Drifton, Eckley, Stockton and Beaver Meadow properties, as well as on portions of the Tomhicken, Derringer and Oneida properties. The terms of the lease were agreed to continue until the coal was exhausted from the property or mining operations became unprofitable.
In 1904 Coxe Brothers was operating roughly 30,000 acres of land, although not all of it came from family leases. In addition to owning small portions of land, they still held leases on additional property from the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, West Buck Mountain Coal Company, Anspach & Stanton, Black Creek Improvement Company and the Central Coal Company. The year 1904 also marked the death of Henry B. Coxe, leaving the sole responsibility of the company and the estate in Alexander's charge. With most of the family leaving the coalfields for homes in Philadelphia and nobody in the family willing to take the reins of the family business, the aging Alexander contemplated giving in to the railroads and selling off the mining operations. The Pennsylvania Railroad approached Alexander with an offer to purchase the entire operation of Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc., in an attempt to secure the valuable freight being produced at Coxe collieries. This freight totaled over one 1,500,000 tons of anthracite with 1,000,000 tons being mined directly from Coxe land. The LVRR, however, was not willing to lose its principal independent coal shipper and made Coxe Brothers a matching offer. Fortunately for the LVRR, Alexander Coxe served on its board of directors and in 1905 agreed to sell the whole of the Coxe mining enterprises to the LVRR.
The sale was completed on October 7, 1905, and included all of the property and assets of Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. comprising, 1100 miners' houses, real estate in Chicago and Milwaukee, floating equipment in New York harbor, all the mined coal on hand as well as the leasehold rights covered in the 1904 lease. Also included in the sale were the Delaware Susquehanna & Schuylkill Railroad and the four Coxe subsidiary water companies. In return the LVRR paid a total of 18.4 million dollars, $6,400,000 being paid in cash and $12,000,000 in collateral trust four percent bonds, which could be redeemed in semi-annual payments of $500,000. The bonds were issued by the Girard Trust Company, which secured payment with Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. stock, pledged by the LVRR. These bonds would mature in February 1926 at which time the stock was to be transferred back to the LVRR. The sale had the effect of taking the Coxe family out of the mining industry after forty years of successful operations.
The sale also marked the last major land acquisition by the LVRR, which competed in an industry that by some estimates controlled as much as 78% of the entire anthracite output. Nearly all of the other large independent operators had sold-out years ago, leaving the Coxe family operations as a relic of a day gone by. The family, however, would not forget the employees who gave the better part of their lives in service to the company. The Coxe Relief Fund was created by a resolution of the former stockholders of Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. on October 31, 1905, and was funded by contributions from the Coxe family. In addition to paying off the sundry debts of the company, the fund provided a pension to numerous Coxe employees. The Coxe family benefited greatly from Alexander Coxe's management of the company. In addition to providing the estates of his former partners with an $18.4 million dollar sale, he secured the Heirs of Tench Coxe a steady income of coal royalties for years to come. The stress and anxiety of such an endeavor, however, had an adverse effect on his health. Just four months after completing the sale to the LVRR, Alexander B. Coxe died.
With all of the original Coxe partners dead, a new generation of Coxe heirs stepped in to manage the affairs of the Estate of Tench Coxe. In January 1906, Henry Brinton Coxe, Jr. and Alexander Brown Coxe, both sons of Henry B. Coxe, became the Estate Agents. The management of the estate's property remained in the hands of agents and attorneys-in-fact for its entire existence, one member of which was always a descendant of Tench Coxe.
Although selling all of its direct interests in mining, the Coxe family retained ownership of the land it leased to Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc., now a subsidiary of the LVRR. Indirectly having control of the leases to the Coxe property, the LVRR subleased the mining rights of the Coxe land to the Lehigh Valley Coal Company, placing Coxe Brothers in the business of preparing coal at the breakers.
For years Federal law had prohibited railroad companies from owning their own coal properties, a law that was easily avoided by placing control of their properties with a coal company whose stock they owned entirely. Laws seeking to put an end to monopolistic trusts were becoming increasingly more stringent, however, placing all of the major rail lines in the anthracite field at risk of prosecution. In June of 1906, the Hepburn Act passed into law. Containing a commodities clause, it explicitly forbade the interstate shipment by railroad companies of any mining product in which they held a direct or indirect interest.
The LVRR became an easy target for the law. The railroad could not readily disguise its ownership of Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. because it was paying for the purchase with railroad bonds. A decision in 1911, by the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, affirmed that the LVRR was in violation of the Commodities Clause of the Hepburn Act by its stock ownership of both the LVCC and Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. To evade the clause the Lehigh Valley Coal Sales Company was organized in an attempt to distance the railroad from its mining operations. The sales company purchased Coxe Brothers and Lehigh Valley coal at the breakers and distributed it to the various dealers.
The Lehigh Valley Railroad Company's entanglement with its coal properties remained obvious nonetheless and in March 1914, the Federal Government filed suit against the railroad for trust evasion, charging it with violations of both the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Hepburn Act. After six years of litigation, a decision was handed down ordering the dissolution of the Lehigh Valley mining combination. The final decree of the court was handed down in November 1923, outlining the exact steps the court required. The decree called for the creation of a trusteeship that would hold the complete voting power of Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. stock. The trustee was further ordered not to vote the stock in any way that would bring about a unity of interest or a suppression of competition between the two companies. Under the direction of the Coxe trustee, Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. went through a series of changes in the operation of their property. In 1929 management of the Coxe properties was turned over to the Jeddo-Highland Coal Company, operated by Donald Markle, son of the highly successful retired anthracite operator, John Markle. The change in management took control of the Coxe Brothers property out of the hands of the LVCC, severing the remaining links with the LVRR. The agreement with Jeddo-Highland had been in place for seven years when, in 1936, Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. was given direct control of its mining operations, placing them back in the business of mining coal for the first time since the company was sold in 1905.
Management by Coxe Brothers did not prove to be very sound, as strikes repeatedly shut down operations. During a strike in 1938, an operative employed by the company to spy on the men reported, "They say the company is not providing and using props at any place – that no effort is being made to save the roof. They say no coal is being taken which entails the expenditure of anything but the minimum amount of money. This they interpret to mean the abandonment of the company's operations there in the near future is a certainty. This is now the basis for the strike." The poor management of Coxe Brothers under the control of its board of directors, many of whom were directors of the LVRR, did not go unnoticed by the Coxe trustee and in 1940 management of Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc., once again, was turned over to the Jeddo-Highland Coal Company. Management of portions of some properties were also granted to the Gowen Coal Company, Wolf Collieries Company, Pardee Brothers and Company, Inc., Sterrick Creek Coal Company and the Haddock Mining Company.
The year 1940 marked the last year that Coxe Brothers had any direct or indirect control concerning mining, selling or transporting coal from its leased property. The anthracite industry saw peak years of production during World War I, but then began a steady decline from which it would never recover. By the 1940s coal operators were becoming increasingly scarce giving the LVRR an opportunity to regain control of the capital stock of Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. In 1942 they petitioned the United States Government to end the trusteeship, arguing that Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. acted strictly as a property agent without any control of the operators' policies. They further argued that 82% of the coal on Coxe Brothers property had been removed since the trusteeship was created and with the decreased market for anthracite coal, finding a buyer of the Coxe Brothers stock would be nearly impossible.
The courts handed down a decision in favor of the railroad and ordered the stock of Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. returned to the LVRR. The return of Coxe Brothers' stock was authorized by the courts with the explicit requirement that quarterly reports concerning the financial condition and conduct of business be submitted to the office of the Attorney General of the United States. The approval of the Attorney General's office was also required before Coxe Brothers could change the terms or execute any new lease. In its petition to the courts the LVRR alluded to the "short prospective life of Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc." This attitude appears to be confirmed upon the latter's return to LVRR control. A memo from C.E. Hildum, Vice President of the LVRR, in June 1943, stated, "Coxe Bros. presumably could use its cash to continue mining operations, either by its own organization or through management agreements, until its working funds were exhausted, or until its operating leases exceeded the Railroad Company profits from the movement of coal."
The LVRR was once again mining for freight, a practice that ultimately brought about a significant decrease in coal royalties for the Heirs of Tench Coxe. In 1943, Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. leased over 19,000 acres of land, 79% of which was leased from the Estate of Tench Coxe. The remaining portions were either owned in fee or leased from the Deringer Estate, LVCC or the Estate of Charles S. Coxe. For the next seven years Coxe Brothers did not operate any of its collieries but was still required to obtain the heirs' consent before subleasing to tenants. The Estate Agents, however, were unhappy with the way Coxe Brothers was managing their property. The agents believed that Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. was mainly interested in obtaining freight for the railroad rather than obtaining the maximum income from the properties.
Coxe Brothers was further criticized for allowing the Haddock Mining Company to operate the Beaver Meadow, Deringer and Tomhicken properties without paying royalties or taxes for a period of nine months. In 1938, an amendment was made to the 1904 lease in which royalties were to be paid to the estate on a profit-sharing basis, with 2/3 of the net income being paid in royalties. The estate was then permitted to employ accountants to examine the records of Coxe Brothers. The accountants found numerous discrepancies in Coxe Brothers' accounts and in February 1949 the Heirs of Tench Coxe filed a lawsuit against Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. to recover $350,000 due them in royalties. The heirs charged that Coxe Brothers took unauthorized deductions in computing their net income, the basis for establishing royalty payments. The lawsuit, however, was just an example of the animosity that existed between the two interests. It eventually became the clear desire of the Estate Agents to eliminate Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. as a "middleman" by canceling the terms of the 1904 lease.
In 1950, the Estate Agent, Daniel M. Coxe, called a meeting of the Coxe heirs to discuss the canceling of their lease with Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. It was agreed by all parties involved that the result of such an action would create considerable savings on overhead and increased royalties to the Estate. As part of the settlement agreement from the lawsuit filed a year earlier the terms of the 1904 lease were canceled. In addition, Coxe Brothers assigned all of its subleases, titles to culm and refuse banks, its fee land, mining equipment, drainage tunnels and miners houses to the Estate of Tench Coxe. Of particular significance in this agreement was the stipulation that all of the maps, leases, surveys, correspondence and records of every nature relating to the property be transferred to the Estate. The ownership of these records were retained by the Estate until 1968 when they were transferred to the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, as a portion of this collection. The courts approved the settlement agreement in July 1950, having the effect of putting Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. out of business and in line for liquidation. Coxe Brothers was officially dissolved in July of the following year with distribution to its stockholders, the LVRR. The settlement also placed the Coxe family in direct control of its landholdings for the first time in forty-five years.
By 1950, the anthracite industry was a shell of its former self. A deflated market for anthracite led to decreased income for the estate. Under the direction of the agents, new leases were granted to mining operations, including the Jeddo-Highland Coal Company, but finding additional tenants proved to be extremely difficult. Given the state of affairs in the anthracite fields it soon became the clear intention of the Tench Coxe Estate to divest itself of its land holdings.
In 1956, the first major land sale was completed for 2,000 acres, to the Beryllium Corporation of Reading to establish the firm's new Nuclear Division. The land sale trend continued in 1959 with the sale of the Drifton Village and again in 1960 with the sale of Tomhicken. Coal production on estate lands was down to 62,744 tons in 1960 without any hope of future improvements. Facing the prospect that the majority of accessible coal deposits had been exhausted and profitable leases were no longer available, Daniel urged to the heirs to liquidate the real estate of the Estate of Tench Coxe. The large number of individuals, estates and trusts holding an interest in the Tench Coxe Estate, however, made property sales extremely difficult.
With over fifty-seven distributees, representing 108 heirs on two continents, the fractional interests of the estate were getting smaller as the number of heirs multiplied with each generation. To avoid the lengthy task of securing consent from all of the individual family members, the heirs and owners of the Tench Coxe properties executed a trust agreement, which conveyed their authority to sell the family property to a group of trustees, which included Daniel M. Coxe, Eckley B. Coxe, III and Tench C. Coxe, Jr. The trust was organized under the name Tench Coxe Properties Liquidating Trust in December 1961.
Initially, the trust was able to sell only small portions of the property, but nonetheless actively pursued a buyer for the large acreage that remained. The trust liquidated the last remaining portions of the estate lands in 1966, with the sale of 16,400 acres to Butler Enterprises, Inc., owned by the prominent Philadelphia real estate developers, Philip and Nathan Seltzer. Butler Enterprises was drawn to the area due in large part to the efforts of Can-Do, Inc., (Community-Area New Development Organization). This citizen-sponsored organization was established in 1956 with the intention of drawing new industries to the Hazleton region, which Philip Seltzer described as being one of the "great progressive areas of Pennsylvania." Can-Do, Inc. functioned with assistance from the Coxe family, which had a great deal to gain from increasing the vitality of the region.
The assistance was also very much characteristic of the Coxe family's tradition of providing support for the social and economic development of the region. The transfer of title to Butler Enterprises marked the end of an era for the Coxe family, an era spanning over 150 years of direct involvement with the people and geology of the area. An example of this relationship between labor and capital can be seen today at Eckley Miners Village, a historic site representing a nineteenth century company mining town or "patch town." The site is maintained by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, on land once owned by the Estate of Tench Coxe. The family's impact will also continue to be felt at MMI Preparatory School, which continues to benefit from contributions from the Heirs of Tench Coxe and the Sophia Coxe Charitable Trust.
Although the Coxe family has long since left the coalfields of Northeastern Pennsylvania, the potential still exists for the Coxes to return to the region, through the auspices of Tench Coxe, Inc. Established in 1968, this company holds the gas and oil rights to roughly 13,000 acres of property included in the sale to Butler Enterprises. Although the prospect of discovering gas and oil may not be substantial, large domes discovered on the property in the 1950's may prove to be valuable storage sites for natural gas surpluses pumped into the Northeast during summer months. The domes are situated at depths of 18,000 feet, which do not make them economically useful to date.
Source
Coxe Family Mining Papers, Background Notes, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 2001. (last accessed February 28, 2022, http://www2.hsp.org/collections/coxe/findingaid.html)
Related Materials:
Materials at Other Organizations
Historical Society of Pennsylvania
Coxe Family Papers, 1638-1970 (inclusive), 1730-1900 (bulk)
The collection is broken into three major series of papers. They include the Tench Coxe section, 1638, 1776-1824, 1879; the Charles Sidney Coxe, Edward Sidney Coxe, and Alexander Sidney Coxe legal papers section, circ 1810-1879; and Third Party Papers, circa 1722-1815. The Tench Coxe Section is broken down further into four series: Volumes and printed materials; Correspondence and general papers; Essays, addresses and resource material; and Bills and receipts
Coxe Family Mining Papers, 1774-1968
The Coxe family mining papers document the history of what once was the largest independent anthracite coal producer in the United States
The William J. Wilgus Collection, 1915-1916
Documents the valuation conducted by William Wilgus during 1915 and 1916 on land and property either owned or leased by Coxe Brothers and Company, Inc. Coxe Brothers was a company that mined and leased anthracite coal lands in northeastern Pennsylvania.
Provenance:
The collection was donated by Tench Coxe Properties through Daniel M. Coxe, Senior Trustee to the Division of Extractive Industries, National Museum of History and Technology (now the National Museum of American History). The exact date of the acquisition is unknown, but it is presumed to be pre-1978.
Restrictions:
The collection is open for access. Unprotected photographs and negatives must be handled with gloves.
Rights:
Collection items available for reproduction, but the Archives Center makes no guarantees concerning copyright restrictions. Other intellectual property rights may apply. Archives Center cost-recovery and use fees may apply when requesting reproductions.
The collection documents S. Newman Darby's development of the sailboard, which became known as the windsurfer through sketches, mechanical drawings, plans, patent specifications, legal documents, photographs, correspondence, notebooks, clippings, periodicals, and an 8mm film.
Scope and Contents:
The S. Newman Darby Windsurfing Collection, 1946-1998, documents the body of Newman Darby's inventive output as well as the development of the windsurfing industry. It consists of sketches, mechanical drawings, plans, patent specifications, legal documents, photographs, correspondence, notebooks, clippings, periodicals, an 8mm film and a videocassette. The collection is particularly rich in the material related to the development of the sailboard, including Darby's personal memoirs. It contains U.S. and foreign patents related to windsurfing as well as records and reports related to Darby's testimony in litigation and the recognition of the priority of his invention. the collections research value lies in the documentation of the invention of the windsurfer and the industry and culture it spawned. It documents the processes of invention and marketing of new devices. It is evidence of the full range of S. Newman Darby's imagination, life and career.
Arrangement:
The collection is divided into six series.
Series 1: Biographical materials, 1969-1982
Series 2: Inventions and designs, 1953-1990
Series 3: Darby Industries, 1982-1983
Series 4: History of windsurfing, 1944-1998
Series 5: Photographs, 1946-1997
Series 6: Audio-Visual materials, 1965-1997
Biographical / Historical:
S. Newman Darby is recognized as the first person in the United States to conceive of connecting a hand-held sail rig fastened with a universal joint to a floating platform for recreational use. He called it sail boarding in 1965, when he published his designs in Popular Science Monthly magazine. Although he and his brothers Ronald and Kenneth began manufacturing the boards through their company Darby Industries, they never applied for a patent.
S. Newman Darby (1928-2016) was born in West Pittston, Pennsylvania. He graduated from West Pittston High School in 1946. A sign painter and artist, like his father Sidney Darby, he studied drafting at the Pennsylvania State University extension school where he took chemistry, business, art, and photography courses for one year. His first invention, the Darby Dory, a folding rowboat dates from 1953. The sailboard developed out of Darby's experiments with a personal pontoon catamaran, each hull being big enough for one foot and designed to be operated with a hand-held sail and no rudder. By 1964 he had designed a universal joint that connected a mast to a flat bottom sailing scow. This board had a centerboard, tail fin and kite shaped free sail. Early tests were conducted on Trailwood Lake and the Susquehanna River, near West Pittston.
Today sail boarding is known as windsurfing. It adopted its name from Windsurfer International, a company Hoyle Schweitzer and Jim Drake established on the basis of a patent granted to them in 1970 for a "wind-propelled apparatus." In all essential qualities, their claims duplicated Newman Darby's earlier work.
After Schweitzer bought out Drake's share in 1973, he energetically promoted the sport and licensed manufacturing rights to more than 20 companies around the world. Schweitzer forcefully prosecuted patent infringements he perceived among windsurfer manufacturers and he threatened to sue the 1984 Olympic Committee should it authorize a board produced by a manufacturer not licensed by Windsurfer International.
Although he was aware of the growth of the sport and the profits flowing into Windsurfer International through its licensing activities, Darby was unable to mount a legal challenge to Schweitzer. His priority in the invention of the sport was overlooked and almost forgotten.
In the late 1970's, Mistral, a Swiss manufacturer sued by Windsurfer International in Germany, located Darby and presented his "prior art" as a defense. In the early 1980's, courts in the United States were asked to rule on the validity of the Windsurfer International patent. Newman Darby's prior art was at the center of the controversies. The court voided Windsurfer's original patent and Schweitzer was forced to apply for a reissue based on severely limited claims. He lost the use of "windsurfer" as a trademark. Schweitzer retained the reissued patent through further challenges until it expired in 1987. The example of Newman Darby has become a textbook case of the importance of thorough searches for "prior art" for patent attorneys.
Following completion of the patent litigation Darby designed original sail rigs for Mistral in Europe and Horizon in the United States. In 1982 Newman entered into a new partnership with his brothers Ronald and Kenneth and formed NRK, Inc., to design and manufacture windsurfing boards, training devices and to produce written and video documentaries of his contributions to the history of the sport.
Naomi Albrecht Darby, Newman's wife, sewed the first sails for the boards and participated in their testing and marketing. She documented Darby's inventions through the years in photographs and moving images. Over the years, Darby has worked on numerous inventions--most of them related to wind propulsion. Like many independent inventors, Newman Darby conceives of his ideas, executes all of the mechanical plans, builds his own prototypes and tests them. Darby continues to research improvements in windsurfing and to teach courses in boat building and design.
Related Materials:
An original sailboard, rig, mast and daggerboard from the same period are also housed in the Pennsylvania State Museum at Harrisburg.
Separated Materials:
The Division of Culture and the Arts (now Division of Cultural and Community Life) holds artifacts relating to S. Newman Darby and his invention of the windsurfer, including an original board, boom and mast, and sail dating from 1964. See accessions #1998.0086 and #1998.0323.
Provenance:
Most of the collection was donated to the Archives Center of the National Museum of American History by S. Newman Darby and his wife Naomi on February 3, 1998.
Restrictions:
Collection is open for research.
Rights:
Collection items available for reproduction, but the Archives Center makes no guarantees concerning copyright restrictions. Other intellectual property rights may apply. Archives Center cost-recovery and use fees may apply when requesting reproductions.
National Museum of American History (U.S.). Division of Mechanical and Civil Engineering Search this
National Museum of American History (U.S.). Division of Work and Industry Search this
Extent:
57 Cubic feet (60 boxes, 97 map-folders)
Type:
Collection descriptions
Archival materials
Blueprints
Mechanical drawings
Tracings
Glass negatives
Photographs
Drawings
Date:
circa 1880-1980
Scope and Contents:
Collection consists of six hundred sixty-eight (668) glass negatives relating to the Erie Railroad. Subjects include stations, train cars, railroad employees, employees' recreational activities, ferries, construction, street scenes, and resort hotels; drawings of structures built by the various railroads which, at the time of the donation, constituted the Consolidated Rail Corporation. Included are linen tracings, blueprints, and mechanical copies; and two cubic feet of photoprints made from negatives in the Erie Railroad Collection.
Arrangement:
The collection is divided into seven series.
Series 1: Photographs
Series 2: Glass Plate Negatives
Series 3: Lists
Series 4: Subject Files
Series 5: Specifications for Bridges, Buildings and Terminals
Series 6: Drawings
Series 7: Bridge Notebooks
Biographical / Historical:
The Erie Railroad was founded in 1832 by large group of investors from the Southern Tier Counties of New York. Among these investors, businessman Eleazar Lord had been among the originators and later became the first president of the company. The railroad's construction took place from 1832 to 1851 with a seven-year pause between 1842 and 1849.
At the time of its completion, the Erie Railroad was the largest railway system in the United States, both in length, 446 miles, and in gauge, six feet. Thanks to its tracks span from New Jersey to Illinois and itsabove-average gauge, it could transport larger cargo.
Throughout its history the company underwent numerous bankruptcies and merged with several companies. The first merger was in 1960 with the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad creating the Erie Lackawanna Railroad. The second was in 1976 when the once-again bankrupt company merged with five other lines to create Conrail.
Source
Allegany County Historical Society, Andover, New York
https://www.alleganyhistory.org/culture/transportation/railroads/erie-railroad/1060-the-erie-railroad (Last accessed on Decemeber 3, 2019)
Provenance:
Originally collected by the National Museum of American History's Division of Mechanical and Civil Engineering's reference collection.
In 1978, 668 glass plate negatives documenting Erie railroad stations were purchaed from Walter Olevsky; in 1987 drawings of structures built by the various railroads which, at the time of the donation, constituted the Consolidated Rail Corporation were donated; and in 2007, two cubic feet of photoprints and nine cubic feet of archival records were transferred from the Division of Work and Industry to the Archives Center.
Restrictions:
Collection open for research on site by appointment. Unprotected photographs must be handled with gloves.
Rights:
Collection items available for reproduction, but the Archives Center makes no guarantees concerning copyright restrictions. Other intellectual property rights may apply. Archives Center cost-recovery and use fees may apply when requesting reproductions.
National Museum of American History (U.S.). Division of Transportation Search this
National Museum of American History (U.S.). Division of Engineering and Industry Search this
Extent:
18 Cubic feet (78 boxes)
Type:
Collection descriptions
Archival materials
Right of way deeds
Reports
Letterpress copybooks
Mechanical drawings
Estimates
Financial statements
Circular letters
Bills
Accident reports
Correspondence
Place:
Lackawanna County (Pa.)
Luzerne County (Pa.)
Cressona (Pa.)
Harrisburg (Pa.)
Norristown (Pa.)
Philadelphia (Pa.)
New Jersey
Sumerton (Pa.)
Cheltenham (Pa.)
Sunbury (Pa.)
Reading (Pa.)
Trenton (N.J.)
Schuylkill County (Pa.)
Pennsylvania
Date:
1860-1936
Summary:
Collection of engineering reports and correspondence from the Engineering Department of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company. The Philadelphia and Reading Railroad was most used for the transportation of anthracite coal within Pennsylvania from 1833 through the early 1970s.
Scope and Contents:
Primarily outgoing correspondence from the Engineering Department of the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company, the remainder being engineering reports and other miscellaneous papers.
Series 1: Letterpress Copybooks consists of 219 volumes from various engineers, each with own index (1865-1892): were generated by Chief Engineer, Assistant Chief Engineer, various resident engineers, other lower-level engineers, and the Chief Road-Master. Bulk of copybooks created by William H. Bines and Henry K. Nichols during long careers with the Philadelphia & Reading. Other volumes contain letters and reports by Charles W. Buckholz, Charles E. Byers, William Lorenz, and others. Correspondence covers all aspects of the engineering operations of the railroad, much of it at highest levels, being addressed to the Presidents of the Reading. Also includes one letterbook from John E. Wooten (1865), Superintendent.
Series 2: Reports of Chief Engineer to Auditor, 1908-1910; structural design calculation notebooks, 1901-1935; right of way deeds, 1903; and tracings of assorted machine parts.
Arrangement:
The collection is divided into five series.
Series 1: Letterpress Copybooks, 1866-1870
Series 2: Chief Engineer Standard Plans, 1904-1942
Series 3: Construction Reports, 1901-1913
Series 4: Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Valuation of Railroads, 1913-1922
Series 5: Reports and Miscellaneous Papers, 1860-1936
Biographical / Historical:
This railroad was chartered in 1833 to provide low-cost transportation from the Schuylkill and Mahanoy anthracite coal fields in eastern Pennsylvania to Philadelphia. Main line from Philadelphia to Pottsville opened 1842. Reading expanded by acquiring other railroads, and by 1869 had monopoly of coal traffic from Schuylkill anthracite region.
Expansion accelerated when Franklin B. Gowen became president (1869) and attempted to dominate entire anthracite trade. Purchased Schuylkill Canal (1870) to eliminate competition for coal trade; then organized the Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Company in 1871 to purchase and operate coal mines; secured over 40 percent of U.S. anthracite reserves, but debt incurred led railroad to bankruptcy and receivership (1880). Gowen's reckless style drove the Reading into second receivership (1886), and he was forced to resign.
Gowen's Successor, Archibald A. McLeod, tried to increase company control over anthracite trade (1892-1893), then control of several New England railroads. The Reading went bankrupt again and McLeod was ousted. In a reorganization (1896), the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad and the Coal & Iron Company became properties of the Reading Company, a holding company. Later additions to system were infrequent and largely confined to short branches and improvements inalignment. Due to anti-trust proceedings, company divested mining subsidiary (1923) and merged wholly owned railroad companies into an operating company. Acquired Lehigh & Susquehanna Railroad 1963, went bankrupt in early 1970s, and conveyed portions of its lines to Conrail (1976). The reorganized Reading Company retains real estate and other non-rail holdings.
Collection donated by the Reading Company, Philadelphia, Pa., 1960s.
Restrictions:
Collection is open for research.
Rights:
Collection items available for reproduction, but the Archives Center makes no guarantees concerning copyright restrictions. Other intellectual property rights may apply. Archives Center cost-recovery and use fees may apply when requesting reproductions.
Armstrong Manual Training School, built in 1902, was authorized by congress as a vocational high school for African American youth in Washington, DC. The school was named for Samuel C. Armstrong (1839-1893), a white commander of an African American Civil War regiment and founder of Hampton Institute, now University. Designed by local architect Waddy B. Wood, the Renaissance Revival building provided carpentry, machine, foundry, and blacksmith workshops. In addition, the school taught chemistry and physics. Dr. Wilson Bruce Evans, the father of performing artist Lillian Evans Tibbs, served as founding principal. Duke Ellington, William "Billy"Eckstein, and John Malachi are among a host of Armstrong graduates who became prominent in their profession. In 1996 the school was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in the District of Columbia.
Collection Restrictions:
Use of the materials requires an appointment. Please contact the archivist at acmarchives@si.edu.
Collection Rights:
Collection items available for reproduction, but the Archives makes no guarantees concerning copyright restrictions. Other intellectual property rights may apply. Archives cost-recovery and use fees may apply when requesting reproductions.
Esterbrook Steel Pen Mfg. Co. ; United States Steel Pen Manufacturing Co. ; Search this
Notes content:
Art and drafting pens ; "Drawlet" lettering pens ; "Dip-less" desk pen sets. Company history can be found at: http://hans.presto.tripod.com/nibs/esterbrook02.html
Includes:
Trade catalog
Black and white images
Color images
Physical description:
8 pieces; 2 boxes
Language:
English
Type of material:
Trade catalogs
Trade literature
Place:
Camden, New Jersey, United States
Date:
1900s
Topic (Romaine term):
Artists; drafting; crafts materials and supplies Search this
Arthur Ehrat invented and patented a breakaway basketball rim, fashioning his prototypes from bolts, metal braces and one key part: a piece of the heavy-duty coil spring on a John Deere cultivator. His invention helped to revolutionize the way basketball is played because players could slam dunk the ball with fewer injuries and without bending the rims or breaking backboards. This collection includes correspondence, legal documents --such as patent papers, litigation files and licensing agreements --photographs and sketches that relate to the basketball invention, as well as materials regarding his two field spreader patents and other invention ideas.
Scope and Contents:
The collection is divided into five series and consists of approximately seven cubic feet.
This collection includes correspondence and legal documents--such as patent papers, litigation files and licensing agreements--that relate to Arthur Ehrat's basketball goal, as well as materials regarding his field spreader patents and other invention ideas. The bulk of the collection is made up of attorney correspondence, patent infringement documents, and patent licensing documents. The collection also contains handwritten notes by Arthur Ehrat and his attorneys, sketches of his inventions, an oral history interview, and photographs.
Attorney McPherson Moore sent many of the legal documents and correspondence to Ehrat. These documents were assembled by the law firms for which Moore worked. The original order has been preserved.
The correspondence consists of letters from attorney McPherson Moore to Ehrat and from Moore or his associates to other attorneys regarding litigation, pending licensing agreements, and other actions. The correspondence contains handwritten notes, promotional materials for sporting goods companies, drafts of legal documents, copies of patents and other enclosures. The majority of the correspondence is copies.
Correspondence found throughout the collection is key to understanding the legal documents because it provides insight into the legal negotiations behind the settlement and licensing process, and the diligence necessary to protect a viable patent from infringement. Correspondence should be read in conjunction with litigation and licensing documents to gain a better sense of the negotiations between attorneys and how and why the legal documents were created.
Throughout this collection, reference is made to legal terms, including pleadings, production documents, discovery, patent infringement, file histories, and Bates numbers. Series 3, Civil Action and Settlement Records has numerous sets of pleadings, which are the legal documents filed in a lawsuit. These documents encompass complaints, petitions, answers, motions, declarations, and memoranda.
The discovery process is the effort of one party to a lawsuit to get information from the other party prior to a trial. This is done through depositions, requests for or production of documents, and interrogatories (written questions to the other party).6
Bates numbers --named after the Bates Automatic Numbering Machine patented in the late 1800s --are used to identify documents with a unique number. The parties to a lawsuit use these numbers to keep papers in order when they are sent to the other party during discovery. This collection contains sets of production documents stamped with Bates numbers. (See Series 3, Subseries 8: Ehrat v. Icon, Proform and K's Merchandise, 1984-1996)7
Patent infringement is "the manufacture and/or use of an invention or improvement for which someone else owns a patent issued by the government, without obtaining permission of the owner of the patent by contract, license or waiver."8
A patent file history (also called a file wrapper) is a folder maintained by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It contains all of the correspondence and documents from a patent application.9 See Series 2, Subseries 2 for the file history of Ehrat's United States Patent No. 4,365,802.
Series 1: Background Materials, 1968-2005, 2011
This series, which is further divided into three subseries, comprises oral history interviews, early sketches of Ehrat's basketball goal, articles about slam dunking, Ehrat's breakaway rim, correspondence and notes, income and expense records (including legal expenses), photographs and facsimiles of photographs, and invoices from the components Ehrat purchased when he created prototypes. One receipt documents the heater Bob Copelin purchased for his new shed in 1975, around the time Ehrat began inventing. This was significant when Ehrat was trying to prove to the United States Patent Office that he had his idea before Frederick Tyner.
Subseries 1: Ehrat History, 1968-2005
Correspondence in this subseries includes a handwritten list of possible names for the basketball rim, one which Ehrat titled, "The Rebounder Has Been Tested." The correspondence also contains copies of letters sent to the United States Patent Office intended to prove that Ehrat's rim was unique; a letter from National Basketball Association saying that, after testing, it is going to use Kenneth Mahoney's (Toss Back) rim instead of Ehrat's; letters from basketball halls of fame; and copies of e-mail from the Smithsonian. This subseries has an original sketch of Ehrat's basketball goal with annotations. Also included is a 1 D2" VHS tape of Ehrat explaining the components he used to fashion his first breakaway rim prototypes and a news segment in which Ehrat was interviewed about his invention at the Chicago Board of Trade. The audio and video recordings contain some repetition of information.
Subseries 2: Photographs and Clippings, 1973-2005
Color photocopies of photographs depicting early rims; a birthday gathering for Ehrat's father, William Ehrat, circa 1974-1975 (used to help prove that he was working on the rim before Frederick Tyner); Ehrat giving a rim to Virden High School; Ehrat with sportscaster Dick Vitale; and a studio shot of his daughters, Rose, Jo, Sharon, Jane, and Linda.
Three photographs in this subseries show prototype rims with coil springs. Ehrat holds up one of these photographs in the video history, but he does not discuss the photographs' origin. There are no markings of any kind on the photographs.
Subseries 2 also contains field photographs taken by John Fleckner, National Museum of American History staff, in May 2005. Field photographs include: the grain elevator Ehrat managed; rim prototypes; and a donated rim hanging on the gym wall at Virden High School.
Articles in this subseries are from the Virden Recorder, The State Journal-Register, Chicago Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, and Kentucky Living. The topics covered include collapsible rims and breakaway rims; Ehrat and his invention; and the Smithsonian Institution's interest in the breakaway rim. Also included is a clipping from Farmers Elevator Co.'s meeting minutes from December 15, 1973, in which the board voted to relinquish rights to any patent or product created by Ehrat.
Subseries 3: Oral History Interview, 2005
A May, 2005, interview of Ehrat by John Fleckner at Ehrat's home in Virden, IL. Ehrat discusses his background, attorney Ralph Staubly, basketball rims he built, and a slam dunk contest that his nephew Randy Albrecht helped organize in the early 1980s at St. Louis Community College. Subseries 3 also contains Digital video disks (DVD) in which Ehrat discusses the documents he sent to the Archives Center, National Museum of American History. There is some repetition of topics discussed in the audio and video recordings.
Series 2: Patent Records for Basketball Rim, 1865-1984 (bulk 1970s-1984)
This series, divided into four subseries, contains copies of patents used as research or as prior art for Ehrat's patent application, a file history of the patent, correspondence/notes from Ehrat and his attorneys, and legal papers sent from Ehrat's first attorney, Ralph Staubly, to McPherson Moore.
Subseries 1: Ehrat and Dittrich Patents, 1979-1984
Copies of Ehrat's United States Patent No. 4,365,802, deformation-preventing swingable mount for basketball goals and William Dittrich's two patents, United States Patent No. 4,151,989, basketball practice device and United States Patent No. 4,465,277, basketball goal structure.
Subseries 2: Research and File History, 1865-1984
The complete patent file history consists of a list of actions taken (rejections, appeals, civil action filed) on the patent application for United States Patent No. 4,365,802. Pages 19-23 are copies of letters sent to United States Patent Office to establish the rim's unique qualities after the examiner's interference search found Frederick Tyner's patent (United States Patent No. 4,111, 420, Energy-absorbing basketball goal/backboard unit) and ruled Ehrat's invention was too similar.
Subseries 3: Correspondence and Notes, 1976-1984
Two sets of letters from acquaintances. The first set, 1977-1978, was sent to the United States Patent Office and provide a sense of the invention's unique quality. The second set, 1983-1984, consists of letters written by Ehrat's friends and was used in Basketball Products International and Ehrat v. Mt. Vernon School District and Porter (Series 3, Subseries 1) to establish that Ehrat had his breakaway rim idea before Frederick Tyner. A letter in the correspondence folder for this litigation, dated February 23, 1984, mentions that copies of these letters were sent to Basketball Products International. Also in this subseries is a transcript of a phone conversation between Ehrat and attorney McPherson Moore about when Ehrat had the idea for a breakaway rim and who knew about it.
Subseries 4: Files from Ehrat's First Attorney, Ralph Staubly, 1976-1982
Includes the file about Ehrat sent from Ralph Staubly to McPherson Moore when Ehrat changed legal representation in 1983. The folder contains originals, copies, and drafts of documents sent to the United States Patent Office, some with annotations. Also included is a high school basketball rulebook, 1977-1978, and the notes Ralph Staubly used to write an affidavit for Ehrat's patent application in which Ehrat swears he invented before Frederick Tyner.
Series 3: Civil Action and Settlement Records, 1984-1996
This series is divided into eight subseries. It contains full and partial sets of case pleadings, with pleadings indices, from eight court cases, attorney correspondence and notes, depositions of Ehrat and Frederick Tyner, case judgments, and signed settlements.
In 1984, Ehrat and Basketball Products International were plaintiffs or defendants together in five civil action lawsuits that involved sporting goods companies, including Porter Equipment Company, Gared Company, and Toss Back. These lawsuits and their correspondence should be consulted in conjunction with one another.
Subseries 1: Basketball Products International and Ehrat v. Mt. Vernon School District and Porter, 1984
Civil action, February 1984-June 1984: The complaint alleges patent infringement by sporting goods company Porter for manufacturing products embodying the invention, and infringement by Mt. Vernon School District (WA) for purchasing Porter basketball goals. Action dismissed June 11, 1984. This subseries contains the subpoena and deposition of Frederick Tyner regarding United States Patent No. 4,111, 420, Energy-absorbing basketball goal/backboard unit. It also contains plaintiff's exhibits, numbered 1-31, which include Tyner's notes, documents, and facsimiles of photographs related to his patented basketball goal.
Subseries 2: Porter Equipment Company v. Basketball Products International and Ehrat, 1984
Civil action, April 1984-June 1984: The complaint alleges that Ehrat's and Basketball Products International's patents are invalid and unenforceable and that Porter and Mt. Vernon School District did not infringe. Porter calls for dismissal or transfer of the case. The pleadings index for Vol. 1 has a note at the bottom that says "Start Vol. 2," but Vol. 2 is not in the collection.
Subseries 3: Gared Company v. Basketball Products International and Ehrat, 1984-1988
Civil action, March 1984-October 1984: This action is in response to letters sent by attorney McPherson Moore threatening a lawsuit if Gared Company does not cease manufacture of infringing goals. Gared Company files a complaint for declaratory judgment, calling the patent invalid and alleging unfair competition. A stipulated dismissal of complaint was signed by Moore and Ralph Kalish, Gared Company's legal counsel. Declaratory judgment is the judgment of a court which determines the rights of parties without ordering anything be done or awarding damages.
Of note in this subseries is the deposition of Ehrat regarding his involvement with Gared Company and the city of St. Louis, where the company is based. Gared Company's counsel, Ralph Kalish, asks Ehrat questions about his nephew, Randy Albrecht. Ehrat purchased 12 rims from Gared Company, on the advice of his nephew, for the purpose of building and testing his releasable basketball goals. Kalish tries to assess whether there was a profit motive and how Gared Company's goals factored into that.
Subseries 4: Basketball Products International and Ehrat v. Gared Company, 1984
Civil action, April 1984-June 1984: Complaint filed against Gared Company and Athletic Supply (which purchased Gared Company goals) for patent infringement. The case was dismissed.
Subseries 5: Basketball Products International and Ehrat v. Toss Back
Civil action, May 1984-June 1984: Complaint filed against Toss Back and the cities of Seattle and Tacoma (which purchased Toss Back basketball goals) for patent infringement. There is no evidence of a settlement or of court action. Toss Back signed a licensing agreement with Ehrat in 1985 (See Series 4, Licensing Agreements).
Subseries 6: Ehrat v. Gared Company and Nixdorff-Krein Industries, 1982-1990 (bulk 1987-1990)
Civil action, 1988-1990: Complaint filed against sports equipment company Gared and its parent company, Nixdorff-Krein Industries, for patent infringement. Request for passing case for settlement filed by Ehrat's attorney, McPherson Moore, and granted by the court. The signed settlement is in this subseries. This subseries has file histories of Gared Company patents. A file history (or file wrapper) is a folder kept at the United States Patent and Trademark Office that has all of the correspondence and documents from a patent application
Subseries 7: Ehrat v. Diversified Products, 1989-1994
Civil action, 1993: A complaint was filed against Diversified Products after a series of letters calling for the company to cease manufacture and sales of infringing basketball goals went unheeded. The parties were granted a consent judgment to settle out of court. The signed settlement is in this subseries.
Subseries 8: Ehrat v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc., Pro Form Fitness Products Inc., and K's Merchandise Mart, 1984-1996 (bulk 1994-1996)
The Icon Health & Fitness Inc. (hereinafter Icon) pleadings consist of two volumes, Vols. 2 and 3. Vol. 1 is missing. There is a draft of the first page of Ehrat's complaint against Icon in Box 9, Folder 3. A consent judgment was entered, and the parties settled out of court. The signed settlement is in this subseries.
There are two categories of production documents in this subseries, those for the plaintiff (three folders) and those for the defendant (seven folders), that have Bates numbers affixed to or printed on the bottom of the pages. Bates numbers are used to identify documents with a unique number. The parties to a lawsuit use these numbers to keep papers in order when they are sent to the other party during discovery.
The plaintiff's production documents include Bates numbers 1-205. Numbers 1-105 contain Ehrat's patent file history; numbers 107-205 are copies of Ehrat's licensing agreements through 1993.
In the defendant's production documents, one folder has Bates # I10001 and other numbered pages that are not in a particular order. Bates numbers I10068- I10882 include the file history for United States Patent No. 4,365,802, deformation-preventing swingable mount for basketball goals; correspondence among defendant's attorneys; copies of patents; and copies of licensing agreements through 1993.
Series 4: Licensing Agreements, 1982-2000 (bulk 1980s-1990s)
This series is divided into twenty-six subseries and encompasses materials pertaining to Ehrat's relationships with numerous companies that manufacture or sell sports equipment. These materials include correspondence and notes, licensing agreements and drafts of agreements, Dun and Bradstreet financial reports, catalogs, pamphlets, and other promotional materials. Ehrat and attorney McPherson Moore used the promotional materials to determine whether the companies were marketing or selling basketball goals that infringed on Ehrat's patent, then contacted the companies about licensing Ehrat's patent. With the exception of Subseries 1: Correspondence and Subseries 6: William Dittrich Patents, each subseries represents a different company.
To better understand Ehrat's relationships with these companies, researchers should consult Subseries 1: Correspondence, as well as the correspondence within specific subseries, in conjunction with licensing agreements and other documents in this series.
There are thirteen signed licensing agreements in this series, some of which bear original signatures. Ehrat's first licensee was with Basketball Products International, which signed an exclusive agreement in 1983. In November, 1984, after five civil action lawsuits in which Ehrat and Basketball Products International were either co-plaintiffs or co-defendants, the company signed a nonexclusive licensing agreement. Drafts of the agreements exist for some companies, but there is no evidence that the agreements were signed. In some cases, correspondence indicates which companies were not interested in entering into an agreement.
Ehrat's licensees include Huffy (signed May 1988); Basketball Products International, exclusive license (signed July 1983), nonexclusive license (signed November 1984); Toss Back (signed January 1985); Porter Equipment Company (signed 1985 and 1989); RDH Enterprises/Schutt (signed August 1991); Industrial Machine Specialties/Bison (signed January 1987); Lifetime Products (signed March 1989); Fisher-Price (owned by Quaker Oats, signed April 1988); Indian Industries/Harvard Sports (signed June 1991); McCullough (signed April 1990); and Sure Shot (signed March 1991).
Companies in this series without signed licensing agreements include Medart; Blazon-Flexible Flyer; Spang/Today's Kids; Sports and Leisure/Ideas That Sell; Wilson Sporting Goods; Hutch Sporting Goods; Aalco; Bergfeld Recreation; Future Pro; MacGregor; Pro-Bound; Architectural Design Products; and Hyland Engineering.
Settlements and licensing agreements that Ehrat signed with Gared Company, Diversified Products, and Icon appear only in Series 3, Civil Action and Settlement Records.
Subseries 6, William Dittrich Patents, contains correspondence and documents relating to the patent and royalty agreement Dittrich made with Ehrat in 1987. Dittrich had two basketball-related patents but had difficulty getting companies to license with him because there was confusion about his patents and those of Ehrat and Frederick Tyner. Dittrich contacted Ehrat's attorney, McPherson Moore, and they worked out an agreement. Ehrat acquired Dittrich's patents and they joined forces to attract licensing agreements and to split royalties and litigation settlements. Subseries 6 also has the transcript of a 1986 phone conference between William Dittrich and McPherson Moore regarding a possible joint agreement with Ehrat and the patent file history for United States Patent No. 4,151,989, basketball practice device. There is no file history for Dittrich's other patent, United States Patent No. 4,465,277, basketball goal structure, but there are pieces of the file history in this subseries. Subseries 6 also includes drafts and signed patent assignment papers and a signed licensing agreement between Ehrat and Dittrich, 1987.
Subseries 9, Lifetime Products, consists of itemized lists of attorney's fees from McPherson Moore for November 30, 1987, to February 28, 1989. The fees are for research, phone calls, photocopies, correspondence, and litigation documents for Ehrat v. Gared Company. The companies listed in these papers include Gared Company, Lifetime, Huffy, Fisher-Price, Sports and Leisure, Today's Kids, Toss Back, and Blazon.
Subseries 16, McCullough contains a Dunk-Kit (see Box 18), which Ehrat purchased in 1989. The Dunk-Kit is a set of springs and bolts that turn a set basketball goal into a breakaway goal. According to attorney McPherson Moore, the springs and bolts constituted an infringement of Ehrat's patent. McCullough disagreed with this assessment but eventually agreed to a monetary settlement.
Series 5: Field Spreader Patents and Other Ideas, 1977-2003
Subseries 1: Field Spreader Patents, 1977-2003
This subseries contains copies of Ehrat's two field spreader patents: United States Patent No. 4,358,054, field-sprayer tank-vehicle having means for on-site metering and mixing of soil-treating chemicals and United States Patent No. 4,588,127, material-spreading field vehicle having means for on-site metering and mixing of soil-treating chemicals. It also contains magazines, articles, and pamphlets on agricultural equipment and litigation documents between SoilTeq and Ag-Chem.
Subseries 2: Other Ideas, 1971-1998
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Ehrat came up with ideas for other inventions, but none of them were patentable. This subseries has original sketches for "electric clippers with box for holding clippings;" a beverage can with multiple containers; and an "automobile refreshment temperature control." Included in the folders are letters that outline the ideas behind the inventions and the reasons they were not patented. Also included are copies of patents that relate to Ehrat's ideas.
Series 6: Toby Dittrich Files, 1889-1997
This series, which is further divided into five subseries, contains administrative records, prior art, patent records, correspondence, litigation materials, financial records, marketing and sales materials, photographs, and newspaper clippings from William A. (Toby) Dittrich. Dittrich invented the "Dunk King" break-away basketball rim in the mid 1970s while he was a physics professor at Pacific Lutheran University in Washington State. Dittrich patented and marketed his rim with mixed success before selling the rights to his patents to Arthur Ehrat in the mid 1980s. The two agreed to market and license their products independently, and cooperatively share royalties and settlements from patent infringement cases.
Arrangement:
The collection is divided into five series.
Series 1: Background materials, 1968-2005
Subseries 1: Ehrat History, 1968-2005, 2011
Subseries 2: Photographs and Clippings, 1973-2005
Subseries 3: Oral History, 2005
Series 2: Patent records for basketball rim,1865-1984
Subseries 1: Ehrat and Dittrich Patents, 1979-1984
Subseries 2: Research and File History, 1865-1984
Subseries 3: Correspondence and Notes, 1976-1984
Subseries 4: Files from First Attorney, Ralph Staubly, 1976-1982
Series 3: Civil action and settlement records, 1984-1996
Subseries 1: Basketball Products International and Ehrat v. Mt. Vernon School District and Porter Equipment Company, 1984
Subseries 2: Porter Equipment Company v. Basketball Products International and Ehrat, 1984
Subseries 3: Gared Company v. Basketball Products International and Ehrat, 1984-1988
Subseries 4: Basketball Products International and Ehrat v. Gared Company --Pleadings, 1984
Subseries 5: Basketball Products International and Ehrat v. Toss Back, 1984
Subseries 6: Ehrat v. Gared Company and Nixdorff-Krein Industries, 1982-1989 (bulk 1987-1989)
Subseries 7: Ehrat v. Diversified Products, 1989-1994
Subseries 8: Ehrat v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc., Pro Form fitness Products, Inc. and K's Merchandise Mart, 1984-1996 (bulk 1994-1996)
Series 4: Licensing agreements, 1982-2000 (bulk 1980s-mid-1990s)
Subseries 5: Other Inventions and Ideas, 1978-1980
Biographical / Historical:
Arthur Henry Ehrat was born December 20, 1924. He grew up on a farm near Shobonier, IL, east of St. Louis. Ehrat had four sisters and a brother: Dorothea, Ruth, Bernice, Grace and Walter. Growing up on a farm during the Great Depression, Ehrat learned farming skills, including milking, baling, and operating heavy equipment such as threshing machines. After graduating from Vandalia High School he moved to Wheaton, IL, to work on a farm. From the latter part of 1945 until 1947, Ehrat was an Army medic, stationed in Fort Sheridan, IL; Camp Atterbury, IN; Fort Meade, MD; and Manila, Philippines. After his Army service, Ehrat moved back to Illinois and spent a few years farming with his brother.
In the early 1950s Ehrat lived with his sister Bernice and her family in Minneapolis while attending a two-year course at Minneapolis Business College. Upon completion of the course, he returned to Virden, IL and worked at a grain elevator. Ehrat met Mary Mardell Worth in Virden. They were married June 27, 1954, and had five daughters: Rose, Jo, Sharon, Jane and Linda. Ehrat managed the grain elevator at Farmers Elevator Co. in Lowder, IL for nearly 30 years.
In the mid-1970s, Ehrat's nephew, Randy Albrecht, a coach at St. Louis University, mentioned that basketball players were slamming the basketball ball through the rim and hurting themselves, as well as bending or breaking the rims, which were affixed directly to the backboard. The bent rims had to be straightened, causing a delay of game. While Ehrat never had a strong interest in the game of basketball, Albrecht suggested his uncle, who was known as a tinkerer, come up with a safer basketball rim. The conversation sparked a few ideas. Ehrat bought a flimsy $20 basketball rim and began building a prototype.
Basketball fans during the 1940s and 1950s didn't see many slam dunks. Despite the leaping ability of stars Bob Kurland, George Mikan, and James Clifford Pollard, aka "the Kangaroo Kid," the dunk shot was considered showboating and was often done only in practice. Basketball players, whose average size was smaller in the mid-20th century, viewed the dunk as a low-percentage shot compared with the ubiquitous jump-shot.
In 1967, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) outlawed dunking. A few years later, Julius "Dr. J" Erving, who played professionally for the American Basketball Association's Virginia Squires, re-ignited excitement about basketball with his high-flying slams. In the first half of 1976, a few months before Ehrat first applied for a patent, the dunk was reinstated in college basketball.
At the professional level, flamboyant hoops star Darryl "Dr. Dunk" Dawkins shattered some glass backboards in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which prompted the National Basketball Association (NBA) to ban the shattering of backboards and make collapsible rims mandatory. The NBA's call for collapsible rims, along with the NCAA's reinstatement of the dunk, opened the door for innovations in basketball rims.
Collapsible rims, which folded down when pressure was applied to them, were the precursor to breakaway rims and had to be manually put back in place. Ehrat created a safer basketball rim that automatically snapped back after a slam dunk.
Ehrat's first rim, used a door spring. It was bolted to two plates, one that remained fastened while the other flexed down under pressure. The hinge was not strong enough, so he focused on creating a detent. A detent is a device that holds one mechanical part in relation to another so the device can be released when force is applied. If someone slam dunks a basketball and pulls on the rim, a detent would allow the rim to flex downward with minimal pressure on the backboard. Ehrat fitted some heavy-duty magnets between metal plates on the rim, but this did not work as he envisioned.
The turning point came when Ehrat decided to use a spring mechanism. Drawing upon his agricultural background, he pulled a spring from a John Deere cultivator, cutting it to fit the basketball rim. The thick, sturdy coil was able to withstand more than a hundred pounds of pressure before yielding downward and would push the rim back into place. In addition to the spring, he tested ball bearings, bolts, and corner braces before finding the right combination that would hold at least 150 pounds of pressure.
Once he had viable prototypes, Ehrat tested their durability. He sent one to Virden High School and enlisted Randy Albrecht, to test the other prototypes. Albrecht used his connections as a basketball coach at St. Louis Community College at Meramec to have prototypes installed at the schools where he worked. The rims were sent to other high schools and colleges by Ehrat. For more information on where the prototypes went, see his deposition in Series 3, Subseries 3. Ehrat estimated in his deposition that he built approximately 36-40 prototype rims.
It took six years, from July 1976 to December 1982, for Ehrat to receive the patent on his basketball goal (United States Patent No. 4,365,802, Deformation-preventing swingable mount for basketball goals). His application was rejected twice, with patent examiner Paul Shapiro noting that Frederick C. Tyner held a patent for a similar basketball goal (United States Patent No. 4,111, 420, energy-absorbing basketball goal/backboard unit).
Ehrat and his attorney, Ralph Staubly, pursued an appeal of the rejection. Staubly, a retired patent examiner had moved to Springfield, IL, in the 1970s to open a private practice. A major part of the appeal involved notarized letters from acquaintances who said that Ehrat's invention was unique and would be an asset to the sport of basketball. He also proved, through copies of canceled checks and a rough sketch of his invention, that he was working on his breakaway basketball goal in 1975 before Frederick Tyner conceived of his. In a 1984 deposition (Series 3, Subseries 1), Tyner placed the date of his invention near the last week of March or first week of April 1976, not long after he heard that the NCAA had reinstated dunking.
Ehrat won the appeal, effectively rendering the Tyner patent invalid. After Staubly fell ill and moved to Texas, and in early 1983, Ehrat found a new patent attorney,McPherson Moore of the St. Louis firm Rogers, Eilers and Howell, who became Ehrat's main legal counsel for approximately 20 years.
In February, 1983, two months after Ehrat received his patent, his attorney McPherson Moore sent certified letters to more than 60 sporting goods companies to announce the patent. The letters were sent to alert companies of possible infringement and to garner interest in licensing agreements.
During the basketball goal patent's 17-year lifespan, Ehrat obtained a dozen companies as licensees. Only Fisher-Price and Schutt Manufacturing signed without much difficulty. Ehrat worked to get the other companies licensed, in some cases filing patent infringement lawsuits or threatening to file them. Ehrat's first licensing agreement, signed in 1983, was with Basketball Products International.
Ehrat was involved in eight civil action lawsuits, five of which took place in 1984, when he had to prove for a second time that he had his idea for a breakaway goal before Tyner. Ehrat also defended his patent against other, similar patents issued to sporting goods companies in the early 1980s. Kenneth Mahoney of Toss Back, Charles Engle of Gared Company, and the Porter Equipment Co. all received patents for basketball goal devices, citing Ehrat's patent as prior art. Ehrat was involved in lawsuits with all three companies.
In 1986, Ehrat and attorney McPherson Moore were contacted by William "Toby" Dittrich, who held two patents --United States Patent No. 4,151,989, basketball practice device and United States Patent No. 4,465,277, basketball goal structure. Dittrich was having difficulty licensing his patents to companies because of the confusion over Ehrat's and Tyner's patents. Dittrich assigned his patents to Ehrat in 1987 and they signed a joint licensing agreement to split royalties and settlement money.
In addition to his basketball goal patent, Ehrat also holds two patents for agricultural inventions: United States Patent No. 4,358,054, field-sprayer tank-vehicle having means for on-site metering and mixing of soil-treating chemicals; and United States Patent No. 4,588,127, material-spreading field vehicle having means for on-site metering and mixing of soil-treating chemicals.
Arthur Ehrat died on July 9, 2015.
Related Materials:
Artifacts related to this collection were donated to the Museum's Division of Music, Sports and Entertainment, now the Division of Culture and Arts.
Provenance:
Donated to the Archives Center in 2005 by Arthur Ehrat. An addenda of materials related to Toby Dittrich was donated by Toby Dittrich in 2014.
Restrictions:
The collection is open for research.
Rights:
Collection items available for reproduction, but the Archives Center makes no guarantees concerning copyright restrictions. Other intellectual property rights may apply. Archives Center cost-recovery and use fees may apply when requesting reproductions.
Material is subject to Smithsonian Terms of Use. Should you wish to use NASM material in any medium, please submit an Application for Permission to Reproduce NASM Material, available at Permissions Requests
Collection Citation:
William Jones World War II Scrapbook, NASM.2006.0067, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution.
This series contains sketches, mechanical drawings and written documentation for concepts and invention prototypes produced by S. Newman Darby. Materials related to the invention of the sailboard, its publication in Popular Science in 1965 and Darby's subsequent development of the form as well as the innovative rigs he designed for other manufacturers are here. There are the original mechanical drawings for the first sailboard plans. His graphic designs are presented in materials for the Darby 12 model sailboards. A list of retail outlets for windsurfers c. 1983 is located in the marketing folder. Some photographs of individual pieces can be found in this series but most are found in Series 5: Photographs, 1946-1997.
Collection Restrictions:
Collection is open for research.
Collection Rights:
Collection items available for reproduction, but the Archives Center makes no guarantees concerning copyright restrictions. Other intellectual property rights may apply. Archives Center cost-recovery and use fees may apply when requesting reproductions.
Collection Citation:
S. Newman Darby Windsurfing Collection, Archives Center, National Museum of American History.
Collection items available for reproduction, but the Archives Center makes no guarantees concerning copyright restrictions. Other intellectual property rights may apply. Archives Center cost-recovery and use fees may apply when requesting reproductions.
Collection Citation:
S. Newman Darby Windsurfing Collection, Archives Center, National Museum of American History.
Collection items available for reproduction, but the Archives Center makes no guarantees concerning copyright restrictions. Other intellectual property rights may apply. Archives Center cost-recovery and use fees may apply when requesting reproductions.
Collection Citation:
S. Newman Darby Windsurfing Collection, Archives Center, National Museum of American History.
An account of Mr. Craton's life from his birth on June 23, 1902 to January 1, 1924. Written in 1972, from old letters, genealogical materials collected by Mr. Craton's mother and memory.
Collection Restrictions:
Collection is open for research.
Collection Rights:
Collection items available for reproduction, but the Archives Center makes no guarantees concerning copyright restrictions. Other intellectual property rights may apply. Archives Center cost-recovery and use fees may apply when requesting reproductions.
Collection Citation:
Forman H. Craton Collection, 1902-1983, Archives Center, National Museum of American History.
