JS Sullivan/JM Hays didn't do leatherwork, but there was a separate saddle company ('Ruwart Saddlery') that was operating in the same fashion at the Missouri State Pen. This was the same company that moved to Colorado after WW1 and became the Ruwart-Simpson Saddlery Co.Rick Throckmorton wrote:Interesting, Todd. I was not aware of the labor source of the contractor made saddle trees, or the international economic impact of this little niche of equipment production. Were any of the prisoners utilized for leather work?
Hmm. Colonel Burr [George W. Burr, Ordnance Dept, commanded RIA from 7 April 1917 to 15 Feb 1918] makes clear that specification drawings are to be the standard, not sample trees.There is evidence of a letter from Colonel Burr to plaintiff [Hays], dated April 7, 1917, to the effect that a sample tree had been delivered to Hampton to be used in connection with bids to be opened by the Arsenal for mule saddles, and that the tree is not to be considered as covering all the specifications, concluding: "In the inspection of work the drawings and specifications govern rather than any models or sample."
Can't add anything to this discussion here but would remark that this was my understanding concerning the production of swords and sabres in the post 1900 period too. Specifications and drawings were supplied to contractors proposing production of the 1902 and 1913 sabres."In the inspection of work the drawings and specifications govern rather than any models or sample."
Brian P. wrote:I had always assumed that the narrower gullet in the trees was due to the decision by the Quartermaster Corps to breed remounts with more Thoroughbred in them, presumably producing a somewhat narrower, higher withered animal. I'm surprised, then, that there isn't a record of an ordered change in the tree specs.
(As an aside, things obviously didn't work out, as evidenced by photos of army horses from the 1930's with gall marks on their withers.)
, and would be somewhat believable - except, as you note, it still doesn't work out. Plus, there would likely have been a LOT more correspondence and records and letters floating around about a decision like that. Which would STILL go against fundamental reality, where cavalry mounts were conformationally different than a lot of artillery mounts - the pre-WW1 tree dimensions are much more forgiving of a wider variety of horses than that WW1 contract form.Really interesting stuff on these companies!Todd wrote:Well, have to agree on the minor points, but this was a pretty major deviation in the core structural dimensions. To be blunt, it was a change for the worse, as most people would attest who have tried to fit that WW1 contract saddle to a lot of different horses. In the QM drawings over time, you find copies where old specs are altered (sometimes with revisions noted in rough handwriting). The WW1 'Contractor' specification drawings were approved/provided on April 20, 1917, and these are pretty clear about certain changes, including the blockier pommel. The profile cross-sections of the pommel are updated - so why not the significantly more important sections of the sidebar?
I'm thinking that I may have to delve into the company records for a semi-local firm that had a huge footprint in this area of production, the J.S. Sullivan Saddletree Co. of Jefferson City, Mo. (later merged/morphed into J.M. Hays Wood Products Company). Interesting company, led by two very closely tied individuals, J.S. Sullivan and J.M. Hays - they utilized the prisoners of the Missouri State Penitentiary for labor for many, many years. Hays in particular seemed to be tied to a number of different businesses (saddletrees, wood products, shoes) that used prison labor. Some research awhile back showed that this sort of arrangement predominated in the saddletree manufacturing industry in the late 19th centry and first couple decades of the 20th - to the point that Canada actually banned the importation of saddletrees, shoes, brooms and several other products that were made so cheaply that they feared the loss of their own industry in the process of this product dumping. Indeed, very few 'independent' saddletree makers existed for very long once the prison-system companies really came online in the late 1870s and 1880s.
Long way to the point - I've read that by WW1, there were basically four (perhaps five) saddletree manufacturers in the United States, and ALL of them used nearly free prison labor. J.M.Hays Wood Products labels are found on a lot of WW1 contractor trees, so if their company records exist somewhere, that has potential for solving the mystery.
For fans of carved wooden duck decoys, you'll probably recognize the name J.M. Hays Wood Products Co. as one of the most coveted early duck decoy makers - after WW1, the saddletree machinery was moved from the penitentiary to another location in Jefferson City, and they tried to find a relevant 'eccentric turned wood product' that could bring in work. IIRC, they only managed to keep it rolling for a few years, thus making these decoys rather scarce today. http://tjbailey.com/decoys/hays.htm
When the new website gets launched, I'll definitely have to get this story into the new blog-format, probably with a image gallery of the QM drawings over time.
A quick Westlaw search reveals this to be the only and only case involving J. M Hays that resulted in a published appellate opinion, which is interesting. Simmons Saddlery is likewise not mentioned again as a litigant, but Simmons Hardware has one case, and apparently was part of the same company.Todd wrote:Brian P. wrote:I had always assumed that the narrower gullet in the trees was due to the decision by the Quartermaster Corps to breed remounts with more Thoroughbred in them, presumably producing a somewhat narrower, higher withered animal. I'm surprised, then, that there isn't a record of an ordered change in the tree specs.
(As an aside, things obviously didn't work out, as evidenced by photos of army horses from the 1930's with gall marks on their withers.)
I believe that theory may have been floated here years ago
Here's a fascinating read - https://casetext.com/case/hays-wood-pro ... addlery-co
Appeal of a suit brought against the J.M.Hays Wood Products Co. by Simmons Hardware/Saddlery, regarding Hays' late delivery of mule riding saddletrees that caused contract penalties on Simmons. Simmons attempted to recoup from Hays, and lost the initial suit. Deep in the text, we find the partial name and rank of the ordnance officer in charge of the RIA woodworking department, a Lt. Baxter. Perhaps by homing in on this guy, we might be able to find correspondence about dimensional revisions.
I haven't pinpointed the exact date, but J.S.Sullivan Saddletree Co. became J.M. Hays Wood Products Co. just prior to the time of the actions described in the suit (early 1917). When this appeal was settled, J.M. Hays was already well down the road to eventual dissolution. The saddletree business was dead, and they were working on toys and duck decoys. The company itself was bought out and run as a subsidiary for a startup lumber company that was trying to set up a 'strawboard' manufacturing plant (strawboard sometimes known as 'strand-board' or 'chipboard'). That went belly-up around 1924/5 and it seems to have taken all the other attached concerns down with it.Pat Holscher wrote:
A quick Westlaw search reveals this to be the only and only case involving J. M Hays that resulted in a published appellate opinion, which is interesting. Simmons Saddlery is likewise not mentioned again as a litigant, but Simmons Hardware has one case, and apparently was part of the same company.
J.M. Hays, president of the plaintiff company, called as a witness for defendant, testified that he had been connected with the saddletree plant at Jefferson City for over forty years; that his company had made saddletrees for the government during the Spanish-American war, and that the government at times afterwards ordered goods just as other commercial houses would do; that early in 1917 plaintiff had filled a contract with the government for Samur saddletrees; that he had often gone to the Rock Island Arsenal in March and April, 1917, and that he had discussed with officials there the prospect of receiving government work, but did not discuss mule saddles until after this matter came up with defendant; also, that after April, 1917, plaintiff had made saddletrees for the government.