Lonaconing Silk Mill

Proposal and construction

Lonaconing, Maryland, located along the Cumberland and Pennsylvania Railroad’s mainline, was an early iron, glass and coal producing community south of Frostburg along today’s Maryland State Route 36. In the early 1900s, a local banker, Duncan Sloan, overheard in a casual conversation on a railroad passenger car that the Klotz Throwing Company was looking to construct a plant in the western Maryland region. A silk throwing mill twisted or wound raw silk into thread, where it was then sent to be woven into various textiles by silk manufacturers. The silk, imported from Italy and later other countries, was first washed, dried and spun before being wound, or doubled, into skeins of thread.(2)(6)

Sloan pitched the idea of Lonaconing as the prime location for Klotz due to the availability of a mainline railroad and plentiful, cheap energy. Coal mines were plentiful, as were laborers. Just five weeks after the overhearing the conversation, Sloan managed to meet with George Klotz and J. H. Britton of New York and proposed to construct a mill in Lonaconing.(2)(6) Shortly after, a public meeting was held at the Evans Opera House in Lonaconing, and the town’s citizens agreed to accept the offer made by the Klotz and Britton for a mill.

After the meeting, a committee of seven local businessmen sought bonds from the Lonaconing Savings Bank, of which the proceeds would be used to finance the construction costs of the mill. The total cost of the equipment and building was $100,000, and the committee raised $47,000 towards the mill. A 250-foot by 400-foot section of land, adjacent to the railroad, was purchased, and ground was broken for the new mill by the S. W. Wise Construction Company on August 13, 1905.(2)(6)

On February 7, 1907, construction workers walked out of the job site over a wage dispute, according to the newspaper Cumberland Alleghanian. When they returned, a 40-foot section of the chimney collapsed, which injured one laborer.(6) The walkout did not affect the construction timetable, though, as work on the mill, including equipment installation, was completed in April.

Production

In the early years of the mill, raw silk and Douppinni, an expensive silk that was used in the production of wedding gowns, were thrown at the mill.(6) The throwing process involved the twisting and winding of silk into a yarn that was then used by knitters and weavers. Occasionally, the silk thread was broken due to the twisting and winding of the thread onto 4-inch bobbins, and the operator would tie the broken strands together with a silk knot. Other employees were involved in the steaming, dying and stretching of the silk, while others worked in the shipping department, sending the processed silk product to market.

It was only a year after the plant was built that the company was able to begin repaying the investment from the residents of Lonaconing.(6) In 1916, Klotz Throwing Company constructed an addition to the mill due to increased demand. By September 1920, the mill employed 359 with an average payroll of $8,491. By 1922, the mill was responsible for adding $100,000 to Lonaconing’s economy annually, and provided a stable employment for those that were lucky enough to work there as it offset periods of turbulence in the coal industry.

Labor Disputes and Decline

At some point in the 1910s, employees at Klotz Throwing Company were unionized under the United Mine Workers (UMW).(6) The affiliation with the UMW reflected the fact that many employees had family involved in the UMW, but the affiliation was eventually changed to the United Textile Workers of America (UTWA). The UTWA also represented the Cumberland Silk Mill, also owned by the Klotz Throwing Company. The first recorded union due date was 1917 at 15 cents per month.

For all of the good impact had on the local economy, there were still some disputes. In 1921, mill employees went on strike which lasted for two weeks.(6)

The Great Depression had some impact on the Klotz Throwing Company. Pay had decreased substantially due to slumping demand for silk products, illustrated by 111 workers being paid just $1,547 in February 1933.(6) During the Depression, the mill reorganized as the General Textile Mills Company.(4)

At the beginning of World War II, Klotz Throwing Company found its supply of raw silk disputed due to the United States declaring war with a major supplier: Japan.(6) The Lonaconing Silk Mill briefly closed when the government imposed trade sanctions against all Japanese imports. But employment declined under 200 for the mill during the early parts of the war. Pay decreased, and those who were employed were frequently moved into part-time positions. Any remaining raw silk in the mill was used to produce parachute thread for the service members.

From the first quarter of 1941 to the third quarter, the mill employed between 70 and 80 before dropping to just 27 on August 16. Throughout that fall, employment dipped under 20. Between December 16 and 31, only 5 workers were present working a total 380 hours.

But it was not long before production increased at the mill, along with employment. To compensate for the lack of silk, the mill converted to rayon, a synthetic silk material which was cheaper to purchase in bulk and of the same texture.(6) From February 1 to the 15, 1942, employment increased to 30 before tripling to 94 employees between March 16 to 31.

After the war had ended, raw silk was once again spun but at a decreased percentage compared to rayon.(6) In 1946, an addition was completed on the mill to run additional synthetic materials, a sign of increased demand post-war. But the growth was only temporary. Whereas the mill once employed over 200 on three shifts had decreased to under 200 by 1950. And it was soon after that the mill roster declined to less than 100. The mill featured outdated equipment and was inefficient with newer, modern and automated facilities. Demand for silk by consumers also declined.

Wes Duckworth, mill superintendent during the 1950s, was much worried about the future of the Lonaconing operation. The workers had requested an increase in wages to bring it up to the nearby Celanese textile workers, and raw material prices were rising. Duckworth traveled to Klotz’s headquarters in New York on behalf of the workers to bargin with customers of mill and request an increase in product price.

The trip did not go over well. Customers balked at any increase in product price, wanting instead a product price reduction.(6) Returning to Maryland, Duckworth faced the workers.

“I told them then that it doesn’t look like they re going to give you any money, so if you strike, it will only be for yourself. I’m warning you. So, they went out and that was the end of it.”
Wes Duckworth, mill superintendent (6)

The employees went on strike, and with that, the mill was closed by the company. The last payroll to 67 employees was made on June 23, 1957. Just seven days later, only six workers remained on the payroll. And by July 7, only five. On July 7, 1957, after a prolonged labor dispute over pay, the silk mill closed.(1) A skeleton crew of four employees remained on site for several years after to maintain the building.

The impact of the mill’s closure was devastating. Lonaconing, once the center of early industry in western Maryland was in shambles. The mines, which provided employment, were fickle at best and pig iron production had ceased. Glass factories were gone, and now the mill. Soon after, deep underground coal mining had ceased.(6) The town’s economy went into a terminal decline, and the population decreased accordingly.

Preservation

In 2007, the George’s Creek Watershed Association nominated the mill for the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s list of America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places.(1)(3) It was also listed in Endangered Maryland in June, the first statewide list of historic properties that were threatened with demolition or collapse.(4) The mill was described as “the only remaining silk mill in the United States with its machinery, company records and workers’ personal effects remaining unchanged from the time that the factory ceased operations in 1957.”

Herb Crawford, one of the owners of the mill, looked to divest of the “financial burden” that was the mill, noting that without immediate repairs, the mill was in danger of “irreversible deterioration.”(4) Crawford, a retired Allegany County teacher, had purchased the property in 1978 when a company had expressed interest in restarting the mill’s operations.(5)

Crawford had sought for years funding to stabilize the mill in a bid to preserve the interior for use as a museum, but a lack of state initiative and funding have nixed any proposals.(5) No comprehensive effort has been made to save the mill, partly due to its remoteness, which ironically has also allowed the property to remain vandalism-free and intact.