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

August, 1909 pounds, or 15,000 pounds per hour; the hours run would be 500 and the total coal 3,750 tons. Assuming that 2,000 tons are retained for the home- ward voyage at reduced speed and, with all our outlay, we will have de- livered fleet. 2;200° Fons, just about enough 'to fill the punkers of one of our new battleships. The naval apologist object that no ship would be driven throughout the voy- age at any such rate. Granted; but why then was their carrying capacity sacrifced and hgh power provided and cost increased for no purpose? Perhaps the average citizen may suppose that in time of peace these colliers be utilized in carrying coal to our various coaling stations. Perhaps he thinks those we have are so employed. Not a bit of it, for more than one reason. The cost of operating even a coal ship in the navy is many 'times greater than the cost of chartering tramps or coasters. They must be commanded by naval officers too Our will will and simply carrying coal is something that naval pride cannot stand for; just ask one of them. The interest on this $10,000,000 for the years the navy will be building its ships, if it was handed over as a present to some one who knows his 'busness, would produce, long tbefore the government ships are ready, five 9,000-ton, 12-knot colliers, which would carry more coal in two years than the navy-built and operated ships will do in all the years they are in exist- ence, and even with charter in addi- tion to the cost the country would be saving money. Folly of Arming Colliers. These colliers are armed wth four 3-in. rapid fire guns, or will be some day. What for? Presumably to keep off other colliers, or bloody pirates maybe. Surely not for anything else. Our limited 'opportunities during the war with Spain demonstrated that even the common brand of torpedo . boat could not be stopped by them. As to carrying men it has to tbe ad- mitted that they do carry a good many. The complement is stated in the report to be 19 officers and 213 'men, The ordinary cargo sh'p of that capacity at sea would carry about 40, all told. No wonder we can't get men for our navy. What is a crew of 232 going to do on a 6,000-ton col- lier, Fight? Rubbish. And 12,500 tons displacement for 6,000 tons of cargo, a weight for the ship of over 6,000 tons or 50 per. cent. No wonder the navy is a stench and _ a by-word among all who know any- thing, even rudimentary, about ship "TAE Marine REVIEW building. Five years, and $1,550,000 and. 232 men and 16 knots and 7,500 horsepower and 12,000 tons displace- ment for 6,000 tons of coal. When the Pacific cruise. of the navy 'was projected we had to scour the ship- ping offices to find colliers to carry coal for the fleet and not one Ameri- can ship among them. Not even a coll'er 'belonging to the navy, and yet the navy list comprises 16 colliers al- ready built. Where were they? Why didn't the navy use the colliers we provided the money for? Read the bureau reports: Laid 'up at navy yards; repairs; "special service," etc., and we are now asked to furnish $10,- 100,000 more that the navy may have six more to lay alongside of them. Extravagance and Incompetence. This 1s only one item of the tor- rent of extravagance and incompetence which, to any one fam lar with ship building and shipping is apparent at every turn. Men whose sole knowl- edge of construction is technical, and wholly without practical knowledge or discretion, are detailed on supervision of work where they accomplish noth- ing but the hampering of progress and multiplication of expense. I do not ibelieve there is a ship yard mana- ger in the country who will not con- firm this statement. As long ago as 1902, "an a paper = presented. to- the Society of Naval Architects and Ma- rine Engineers, Geo. W. Dickie, mania- ger of the Union Iron Works of San Francisco, the man who did build the Oregon but who has never been given credit for it, called attention to some of the features of department methods and all he succeeded in developing was a series of general statements holding out hope of improvement in the future. The conditions are no better today, worse if anything. An instance of the acquaintance of some of the constructors with practical ship work is to be found in a paper pre- sented to the same society last No- vember by one of the department's staff on "Two Instances "of Unusual Repairs to Vessels." As a matter of fact there is probably not a dry dock anywhere that does not, in its ordin- ary business, meet with and handle os : : repair jobs many times more 'unus- society. ual' than those noted. The was kind enough not to take too much notice of the exhibition. The story told by the manager of one of the largest and oldest forges in 'the coun- try and familiar in most ship bu lding and engineering offices, is also in point. The names are suppressed for obvious reasons. The concern in ques- tion had the order for the finished crankshafts of a certain naval ship "eral 265 building on the Pacific coast. In ac- cordance with the custom of the de- partment an inspector of machinery, de- tailed for the purpose, inspected and passed the shafts and they were shipped to their destination, but upon arrival the inspector on the ground condemned one and it was shipped back to the forge. A replace was gotten out which, as the manager says, "we knew more about than the inspector could find out," and it was passed, shipped, passed again and installed. Meantime the condemned shaft had been stored inthe yard, and one day, not long - after the ship went into commission, a telegram was received stating that the second shaft had broken and or- dering another rushed to replace it. After a decent interval the condemned -- shaft was hauledinto the shop, cleaned up and shipped, was accepted and in- stalled, and is still in service. Changes of Specifications, The specifications and contracts drawn 'by the department not only dis-. play the most amazing and exasper- at'ng lack of discretion in the require- ments as to material, but leave the whole thing wide open for the bureau and their inspectors to roam at will, change, condemn and otherwise ham- per and delay construction, and the contractor has no redress. The inevi- table result is a cost out of all pro- portion to the goods delivered. The department prepares only gen- plans--all detail or working drawings must be made by the con- tractor and approved by the bureau having jurisdict'on over the work un- der construction, and, aside from the fact that the various 'bureaus all have ~ to be satisfied and that they are con- tinually at loggerheads amongst them- selves as to authority, weights, space, -etc., the dilatoriness of the department in-acting on.such plans make quick or economical work utterly impossi- ble. Only recently the chief eng neer of an eastern concern with naval con- tracts was expressing himself to the writer over a delay of more than six weeks in getting action on certain plans prepared in harmony with the ideas of the constructor on the ground and sent to Washington for approval only to have the. whole ar-~ rangement rejected. How is it possi- ble for any contractor to make thead- way under such a system? Even the smallest and most insignificant detail must go through the same process. It matters not that the contractor may have a pattern or design for some part used for the same purpose on an exactly. similar ship; if a different con- structor happens to think he would