The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

26 MARINE REVIEW. [June 6, ENCOURAGING OPPOSITION TO NAVAL INCREASE. The New York Sun says that the opponents of liberal appropriations for the navy are likely to have a powerful weapon during the next con- gress in the delays that lave ensued in the construction of torpedo boats and destroyers. Of thirty-one vessels of these two types authorized three years ago only a few have been completed, although the contracts called for their delivery to the government within eighteen months for the destroyers and twelve months for the torpedo boats. Through the lenient policy pursued by the navy department liberal extensions of the contract time have been granted until the period of completion has been carried over more than a year beyond the dates set for deliveries in the original contracts, and now some of the ship building firms have again come for- ward with requests that there be still further extension of from two to six months. It is difficult to place the responsibility for this condition of affairs, but even if that were accurately determined it would probably increase the force of the argument which the opponents of naval increase would bring to bear in the senate and house when the next naval bill is under consideration. The fact remains that little vessels that could be completed in a year, and this is a liberal allowance of time, are now in their third year of construction. When it is said that a battleship can be completed in three years the force of the comparison 1s obvious. The argument that the ship yards of the country had already as many big naval vessels as they could conveniently build for several years to come, was strong enough to cause congress at its last session to refuse appro- priation for any more battleships and armored cruisers, contenting itself with directing the navy department to prepare plans for some armor- clads to be submitted to the two houses when they meet again in: Decem- ber. And there was no promise held out in the clause directing the department to this, that the plans would be adopted and the vessels authorized. It is evident that the men who were chiefly instrumental in preventing actual naval increase at the session that ended last March will not fail.to obtain the additional advantage afforded by the showing of delays on torpedo craft. Their contention that the ship builders will have their hands full constructing the powerful armored ships already authorized, will, apparently, gain force by the assertion, backed by official information, that the ship builders require three years to construct tor- pedo boats and destroyers, the smallest types of naval vessels. The thirty-one torpedo boats and destroyers were authorized by con- gress in May, 1898. In September and October of that year the contracts were awarded and in each case they required the completion of the vessel in September or October, 1899. When the contract period expired most of the contractors asked for an extension, claiming that, owing to the great boom in the steel trade, manufacturers of steel forgings had more . work than they could do and were unable to furnish in time the material required for the vessels under construction. The department accepted this explanation and granted the requests for extensions, making the additional time one year, the greatest increase asked. In order to be perfectly fair, the department extended the contract period to torpedo boats and destroyers whose builders had not asked for that privilege. Later there was another increase for the reason stated in the first instance and now an additional extension of the contract period is asked by some of the contractors. : : While, heretofore, the department and its advisory committee, the board of construction, had accepted in good faith the explanations made for the inability of the torpedo craft builders to complete their contracts within the specified periods, recent information has given rise to the sus- picion that the prevailing prosperity in the steel trade has not been wholly responsible for the failure to construct the vessels on time. With the requests just made for further extension of the contract periods, some of the contractors have submitted explanations of their failure to obtain steel material which indicate that the steel makers are indifferent to the repeated demands that the deliveries be made. A few firms only are able to make the nickel steel shaft forgings and other nickel steel materials required by the specifications and the torpedo vessel builders are dependent on these firms. That they have the time to do this work within the period of their contracts with the torpedo boat builders is evidently believed by some of the latter. Why, in these circumstances, the steel makers have not fulfilled their obligations. is not definitely known, but it is attributed in some quarters to the fact that these forgings are small and bring very little money to the makers, who, it is said, have HAP dese a in furnishing similar forgings of large size for the big armor clads. The applications of the torpedo boat builders for time extensions will probably not be acted upon until Secretary Long returns to Washington, but should he follow what appears to be the prevailing sentiment in the department, an additional delay would be officially sanctioned. A CASE LONG IN COURT. Of all the long-drawn-out admiralty cases known to shipping inter- ests of the great lakes that involving differences over a collision between the steamers Conemaugh and New York is probably the most famous. It has just been learned that this case is again in the supreme court on a writ of certiorari and may not be settled for two or three years more. The proceedings in court were first begun by the Erie '& Western Transit Co. against the propeller New York, owned by the Union Steamboat Co., and grew out of a collision in the Detroit river between the pro- pellers (Conemaugh and New York, Oct. 21 1891. The Conemaugh was sunk and sustained considerable damage, but the damage to the cargo, about $40,000, was even greater than the hull damage. In the first hear- ing before United States District Judge Swan at Detroit both vessels were held at fault and the damage divided. On rehearing in the same court the New York was held solely at fault. On appeal to the United States circuit court of appeals, sixth circuit, the decree below was re- versed and the Conemaugh held solely at fault. Then the case was taken to the United States supreme court on a writ of certiorari and the decree of the court of appeals reversed, both vessels being again held at fault, GO DS LIANE LIA IE WE SED RAE NE We can supply promptly any ordinary order for Steel Bridges, Roofs, Girders, Buildings, Columns, Channels, Angles, Plates, etc. J») Trusses, Beams, BFS CFS IDV DVN YGEERLD S