This recorded commission speaking turn questions the comparability of cost figures presented for potash works. Lederer contrasts Baer’s evidence for an especially efficient works with the figures supplied for Aschersleben:
Die Daten aber, die uns für Aschersleben genannt wurden, zwingen mich, die Frage aufzuwerfen, wie es sich damit verhält, daß uns hier eine ungefähre Verdoppelung der Kosten nachgewiesen wird, auf den Doppelzentner umgerechnet, während wir von Anfang 1919 bis Mitte 1920 für dieses gute Werk von „Glückauf“ eine Steigerung von 100 auf 637, von 100 auf 2000 usw. gehört haben.
English translation: But the figures given to us for Aschersleben compel me to raise the question of how to account for the fact that we are shown here an approximate doubling of costs, calculated per double hundredweight, whereas for this good works of “Glückauf” we have heard of an increase from 100 to 637, from 100 to 2000, etc., between the beginning of 1919 and the middle of 1920.
The intervention moves from acknowledging favorable evidence to demanding an explanation of divergent magnitudes. Its force lies in testing reported increases against a common unit of output. Lederer offers no resolution: he exposes a discrepancy that the commission’s evidence must clarify.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian