Merger mania of the '90s ... 1890s, that is.

Many business monopolies had developed during the 1800s. Brought about by company mergers, they often centered on patents for new technology. In the woodworking industry, the planer-matcher was an outstanding example. A combine was formed by three companies, with the objective of completely controlling the dressed lumber business, based upon the Woodworth planer patent. The monopoly was successful for nearly 30 years, made possible by multiple patent extensions obtained by congressional bribery. As detailed in the book, Planers, Marchers & Moulders in America 1800-1985, this monopoly was brought to a halt by massive public outcry in 1856.

But that didn't stop the mergers.

This sort of business practice, widespread in many industries, gave rise to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890.

In 1897, American Wood Working Machine Co. was incorporated by Charles N. King, Nelson R. Vanderhoof, and August C. Kellog. It was a $50 million to $80 million corporation - a lot of money at that time. The object of the company was to join a large group of major woodworking machine makers into one concern, and thus achieve both manufacturing and marketing economies. Manufacture of the products of the 11 participants was consolidated into four factories, and adjustments in sales arrangements were made.

American's catalog #1, issued in 1898, named the 11 merged companies, shown in the illustration of the catalog page. Note the pointed denial that any antitrust laws were being violated.

During all of the merger negotiations, the trade press was rife with rumors about who would and who would not join the combine. The best guesser was Southern Lumberman in 1897. They made a list of those who would not participate, and they were correct. Among those listed were: S.A. Woods, Berline Machine Works, E & B Holmes Machinery, Greenlee Brothers and H.B. Smith.

This new organization was, without question, the largest manufacturer of woodworking machines in the world. One of the nice orders they booked was for 32 new American "Hoyt" planer-matchers to outfit a large mill at Potlatch, Idaho. In 1925, they employed more than 1,000 persons and distributed their products worldwide. By that time, however, P. B. Yates Machine Co. also had over 1,000 employees. Both claimed to be the world's largest.

The P. B. Yates Machine Co. had a spectacular growth pattern, too, but in contrast to American, it was the result of the efforts of one man - Porter B. Yates. As a young man working in his father's hardware store, he became interested in the Excelsior drum sander business, which was struggling for a start in 1883 in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. By dint of Yates' efforts, his company (then called Berlin Machine Works) became the major manufacturer of drum sanders, as well as a long list of very popular machines including planers, moulders, ripsaws, and other items. Upon Porter Yates' death in 1925, P. B. Yates Machine Co. bought out American Woodworking Machine Co., leaving no doubt as to which manufacturer was the largest. It was perhaps prophetic in 1922 that a photo of prominent Association of Manufacturers of Wood Working Machinery members showed J. E. McKelvy, president of American Wood Working Machine Co., seated next to P. B. Yates - but with a bouquet of flowers between the two.

In the beginning, the new Yates-American organization employed more than 2,000 persons in six factories, with a company sales force of 125. Although there have been many mergers of wood machine manufacturers over the years, none can compare with Yates-American Machine Co. Today, that company continues operating in Beloit, Wisconsin, with major efforts directed to high-speed planer-marchers (up to 2,000 fpm), double surfacers, and related feeding and handling equipment.

It is interesting to note that in earlier times there were several American companies claiming to manufacture almost every imaginable woodworking machine. But by the end of the 1930s, the emphasis shifted toward specialization. As higher speed, more intricate machines came into being, specially designed support and handling equipment was necessary. Under these conditions, no company could be everything to everybody. As a result, a large number of machine builders shifted gears and concentrated on equipment where their expertise was greatest. Today, machine makers no longer claim to serve each and every need of the industry; they claim to be the best in their specialty.