'.W-, a THE DAILY EVENING TELEGRAPH PHILADELPHIA, FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 18C9. OUR MAW YARD, The Alleged Frauds in the Tnr tttase of Tools-Report of the Sub-Comraittco of the, Honse of Repre scntatiTOS. Trtm Cur Own Correspondent. ir.on,To .Ian. 28.-After considerable Wbor, and an amount ot strategy which would do -credit to General McClellun, I have suc ceeded in obtaining a copy of the rrport of the Keval Committee appointed to investigate the l,eged lrauds in the purchase of tools aud Machinery lor the Philadelphia Navy Yard. It is aa lollows: Our readers should bear in mind that thl s the report ot the sub committee, of which J I ude Kelley was chairman, uppoiuted by the vl" Committee. Chief Engineer Zeller is noff oUir lug additional evident e on his e do or tne question to the Kaval Ccaiiuiittec itself. It is thought that the committee will niuke a hnm report iu the whole matter belore many days, and we will lay It before our reader as Boon i as It is published. The report furnished toj oui respondent rear-bed us "t"1010 1 we are unable to give all the testimony id de'Rll, so we merely give the s ubstauce. ho. ivlninu Mr. Kelley, from the Committee on Naval J flairs, made the following REPORT. The Naval Committeo bee to submit the fol Jowin" report on the purchase ot toDls by Theodore Zeller, Chief Engineer ot the Phila delphia Navy Yard. Ihe committee, in the performance of the duty committed to them, appointed a sub committee to proceed to Phila delphia and examine tho tools recently pur chased, and take uch testimony as would enable the House to judge of the regularity aud legality cf the purchases of the tools iu question. That committee, having performed its duties, printed the following report, which is respet iul'y submitted: . . To the Naval Committee of the Ilouse of Re presentatives Uentleaicu: The sub-eommittce appointed by you to proceed to Philadelphia, under the resolution of the House ot Represen tatives Instructing the Naval Committee to inquire into the regularity and legality of the purchase of planum and riveting machine?, Cameron pumps, and tools and machinery gene rally, fry Theodore Zeller, Chief Engineer of the Navy Yard at Philadelphia, repectiully report that they proceeded to Philadelphia, and, attended by Theodore Zeller, Chief Engineer, and John Row both a in, master machinist of tho yard, made a personal examination of the tools, riveting machine, and pumps in question, to gether with tho builuings iu whien they were placed, or intended to bo placed. They alio examined tho followlt-g named persons as wit nesses: Emil Goldstein, draughtsman of the department of steam engineering; John Row bolham, master machinist; James P. Munu, clerk of the department of steam engineering; George R. John-ou, chief engineer United States Navy, on duty as inspector of ma terial, or inspecting engineer; David Hennesey, late quarteiinau of tne machineshop; William A. Palmer, present quartcrtnan of the machine thop; Edward Hall, Charles Henry, John Doif ey, and Joseph E. Connor, machinists employed in the yard who had had experience in the use of the tools; J. Shields Wilson and John Birkbcck, superintendents of large esta blishments for the manufacture of steam en gines, boilers, etc.; William B. Bement, of the .Industrial Works, Philadelphia; Theodore Zeller, chief engineer of tho yard; John Roop, his assistant engineer, and William W. Wood and Alexander Henderson, chief euglneers in the navy, who, at the suggestion of Mr. Isher wood. enginecr-tnchlef United States navy, were detailed lor that purpose. The committee also examined John Koich, ot the Etna Iron Works, who craved a bearing. They also com municated with William Sellers A Co., tool manufacturers, from whom they received such papers and information as they required. THE ORIGIN OF THE INQUIRY, The purchases which led to this investigation, and upon which the inquiry is based, were 21 tools purchased ol John Roach & Bons, of the Etna Iron Work", New Yoik, at a cost of $42,425. The condition of the tools had attracted the attention of citizens of Philadelphia in no wise connected with the manulaeture of tools or machinery, or the furnishing of materials there Jor, but who hat throughout the war taken a patriotic interest iu the success of our navy and the reputation of Philadelphia In connection therewith, and who felt themselves Impelled by conscientious motives to bring the matter to tho uenuon oi tne wavy Department. In coei- Iiliancc with their suggestion, as your committee earned In the course ot the inquiry, a board of engineers had been designated to investigate the matter, and had reported an approval of the purchase as the result of their investigation; whereupon an appeal was made by the citizons referred to to their representatives for a further investigation of the matter. In response to that appeal the House adopted tho resolution, under, Tyhich the committee is acting. fHK CBABACI&l OF THE T001S. Vr. J. Shields Wilson testified that he was a mechanical engineer and machinist of slxtecm Sean.' experience; had been employed as a raughtsman with I. P. Morris A Oo., and was at present superintendent of the Penn Works cf Messrs. Neafie A Levy: he considered tho large planing machine a first-class tool, but the -worse for wear, and it would require consider. able expense to put It in order; the brake-lathe 'was not first-class and had not modern facilities; it was lully fifteen years behind the times, but was iu reasonably good order for a second-hand machine. Mr. Wilson explained in detail his reasons for considering this tool Inferior and incapable of the work that it ought to do. He thought that the best tools were always the cheapest. The double-headed lathe he conbidcred pretty well worn out: an old style tool. With regard to the other second hand tools Mr. Wilson testified that they were in tolerably good order, but old-tashloned and not capable of the same work as the new pattern now In use in all tho best shops. In all largo shops, like tbat of Morris A Co., they allow five per cent, per annum for the deprecia tion of the valuo of tools. There had been great Improvements in laths within the lat fifteen year, and the one under consideration -was not only old-fashioned but it was detective in many respects. H titling up a shop for himself he WJuld rather buy tools of Bement A Dougherty or William Sellers A Co., at an additional cost of 54 per cent., than tho second hand ones at the Navy Yard. Mr. Rowbotham, the machinist of the yard, eoufirmed tho testimony ot Mr. WiUon. Mr. Ilennessy and Mr. William A, Palmer, qua'.ee jnen in the jard, testilied that the tools fur nished by Roach & Sous were not ot the approved styles, that they did defective work, and that the workmen complained that they could not do first-tiara work ou them. Charles Henry, John Doivev, James E. Con nor, and Edward Ball, machinists employed In tho yard, testilied that the double-healed lathe was fifteen or twenty year old; thut It never was a first-cla?8 tool; that it was out of order, lequirliig to bo adjusted before use, and that they could not do first-class work upon it. Mr. John JJirkbeek testilied that the large lathe never was, In reality, double headed; that Jt was not modern in style, and was not, iu his r,i,mr a first class tool: he would not give it hop-room if furnlshiug an establishment, if - - . . 1 1 ....J...... Kih1.i mill hi nau luO option OI uiuucju uuiiuk Mr. Birk beck thought that the planers were rood useful tools, but not equal to those built sow. He had never seen a riveting machine hke the one at the Navy Yard. Mr Birkbeck aid that he usually made an allowance of ten per cent, per annum lor the deterioration of tool. The tools were not in accordance with the stipulations under which they purported to have been bought, namely: ' That they should be first class, with the latest improvements, and equal to any in the country, and especially adapted to the construction cf murine engines at tie present day.' THK INBPECTTON AWARDED TBI TOOLS. The committee, before leaving this bra nod of the subject, have to remark that the antiquated character and dilapidated condition of many of these tools was brought officially to the notice of the engineer department of tne yard before they were received and approved by the in specting engineer and the chief engineer, and paid far. The committee examined at great length Mr. George K. Johnson, chief engineer in the United States navy, on duty as inspector of materials nt the Philadelphia station; and though his testimony Is uncertain and contra dictory on many points, It abounds in incidental proof that one employe of the Government (namely, Mr. John Kowbolhani, the master ma chinist) sought to protect it from the wrong done by the purchase of these tools, aud that the engineer department accepteei mem aucr rrceiviug notice from him of their imperfect condition. In complianco with the request of Ahe com mittee, Mr. Johnson produced a copy of the Instructions issued to him bs inspecting engi neer. The instructions are in the form of a circular, Issued to the commaudauts ot the dif ferent stations. From the copy produced by Mr. Johnson the committee make the following extracts: You will direct lliat In receiving and Inspecting store and materials ollerrrt by contractors wild Mils bureau, and on eijeu nirclino, that every article bo rigl'ily Inspected, and none accepted Mint arc not of tlio very bint quality ot thoir kind, aud aro tucli as the contract or the reiiilf1ilon lor open purchase re iiilrm,and that every article reoelved be conectly welKhed, coi nled , or measured, as the kind requires. Files i r Inferior quality havo often beon accented at ihe jarl. You will dliecl that baral'i.ar each Ilia be cltiely IDipec'ed, and none received tbat are lui twrtett. or are faintly labelled, or tbaa are not, in ever rarpect. of the best quality, aud luub as the ecbeduie speelUes, The allusion to files is the only reference to tools in the circular loiter of instruction. It is, however, significant enough to suw thct the author of thut circular appreciated the import mice of furnishing Ihe workmeu employed by thfi Government with tirst-clas tools. Mr. Johnson swears thut it was his duty, as Inspector of materials, to inspect the tools pro cured for the engineer's depuitmcnt from John Roach t Bon. As no condensed synopsis of the testimony of this ceutletnan could convey any idea of I) is wnnt of consistency, the committeo will permit him to speak lor himself at consider able length. Mr. Johnson tifctifled that he inspected the tools when brought to the yard, aud found that there were eomo Binull parts broken, and some portions were nioie than he thought they should be. He saw Mr. Roach about it, aud that gentleman said he would make good all tho defects. The counter shaftings of tho lathe are an essential portion, but aro not generally fur nished with the tools; runuy of theso were not to have counter (-balls. The committee deem it proper, in connection with the lat suggestion ot the inspecting engi neer, to remark thnt an expieis stipulation of the contract of purchase was that the tools were to have all counter shafting and pulleys com plete. Mr. Johnson rend from a manuscript the following complaints made by master machinist Rowbcthnni: The first ou the list was that the double head lathe wants one bracket for holdiug in the feedscrew, oue biucuet for holding In the revcTi-ing shaft the bracket sent lor these purposes does not fit, and cannot be used on account of the tie pieces that hold the lathe together. It wants also two five-eight stud bolts on the forty sixth inch end of the lathe. It wants the bolls that run across the shears taken out and laid two inches lower, as they interfere with the travel ot the tool rest. The 3G inch planer wants a pulley in place of a broken one; It wants four new small gear wheels in place of those on the machines, which are loo much worn; one hanger ol the gear-cutter has the lug broken which carries tho belt shafting upparatus. The boring machine wants eiaht bolts one inch squaro and four feet long. The five foot six-inch planer wants 1G boitj, also foi.r new cogs to the pulleys and gear-wheels; r. wants two hangers and counter shaft, and one pulley for the over head shall of the planer. The 28 inch planer wants counter -shafting; the 22 inch planer wants counter shading. This memorandnm is not dated, but the letter in reply was dated, I think, in December, some time before Christmas. This Is a note made by my orders by the draughtsman, who made a note of all the thiugs complained of by Mr. Rowbotham. Mr. Roach then came on here with a man, and he said he would make everything as good as new. Q. You think that communication was date! in December; was that before or after these articles had been paid for? A. It must have been before, because 1 did not pass them when I found these things wanting. It may not be inappropriate for the committee to remark, at this point, that the bill for these tooli was approved by Mr. Johnson and by Chief engineer teller on tne sist ot uc toner; so that, if the conversation referred to occurred iu December, it was a month after Mr. Roach had been paid for the tools. Mr. Johnson testified at considerable length as to his manner of inspecting tools, and his evidence seems to indicate that he was not as particular as he should have been to sec that all the requirements of the contract were carried out. It may be well for the committee to state that in all requisitions for toots made upon esta blished manufacturers of those articles, the fol lowing st'-nuiutions are embodied: -- - - - All ol tbe above machines to beot the batt material and workmanship. In accordance with the Hpeollica ViOnsdrawn up by tba cblel engineer of tbe yard, to De suDject to niH inspection at any time ounn( tneir manulaeture, and not to be received nulesa found entirely KatlBfacturr to him. To ba delivered a-, tbe Pbllade pbla Navy Yard, with all connter-ihaftlng, pulleys, bangers, wrenches, banditti, etc, complete. These salutary stipulations were in part omit ted from the requisition for the tools of John Roach & Son. In lieu of them the following were inserted: The tools to be ot the most approved deifgn and In perfect woiklnK oiUtr, of wblori the chief euKlneer of the ard count liueaUbfa:toiy evldunca before they will be accepttd. Tbe whole ot the above machlats tu be delivered with all coanter-Rhafllrjg, palleyr,to., complete, at ihe Vhiladeiphla Navy Yard, tree ol any extra cbarge to tbe appended prices aud to be In nist-iate working order, ol which tue chief engineer Of tbe yard is to bo the judge. The difference is very marked, and with re ference to the tecond-hand tools, the construc tion of which could not be superintended, may be accounted for; but why this salutary clause should have been withdrawn from contracts for new tools, which, it is alleged, are to be heavier than any manufactured elsowhere, and the pro duction of which requires a number of. mouths, it is ditlkult to perclve. Nor, as will be per ceived, could Mr. Zeller, who made the requisi tion, assign any plausible reason for it, nor indeed, any other than that he was iu tbe habit ot devolving the duty of preparing strob pipers on his draughtsman (Euiil Goldbtcin), wbohadseea fitto chance the phraseology. In answer to the question, "Why the language ot the requisition on Mr. Roach differed liom all tho others produced to the committee," Mr. Zeller said, "I cannot tell; th'j per.-on who brought the second one wrote thi first, Mr. Roop and Mr. Goldstein went to Hement & Dougherty and Hellers & Co., auj did tho business. Why they made thut change I do not know." The It .'Mowing is a portion of Mr. Zellcr's testimony in lull: Q. Had requisition No. 6 contained the clause found iu your other requisitions, to wit, "to bo of the best ma'eml and workmanship, and to bo in accordance with specifications drawn up bv tho chief encincer of the yarJ. subject to Ir.s iut-pection at any lime during the process of their manufacture," could you have bought secouu-nana tools? a. xso, sir; not uy any mane; that mut nave uecn nituie Dian new. O. Did not the oinisiiou oi that clause open the wav lor you to purchase second-hand tools? A. I was ordered by tbe department to buy tecond-band tools. V I repeat my question: Could yon have bought those tools had not the clause contained . .i t'.: . i . :..... i ti.i. , . 111 Otner requisitions ueeu uumwu iu mini a. Nn. sir; of eourfc not. . Then. 1 ask. was not that clause omitted in order that the tools already constructed misht be purchased? A. It never occurred to me before why Goldstein did not write it like the others, and why be omitted it. 1 only know that I went to buy these second-hand tools, aud I presume Mr. Goldstein knew that. The witness beiDg pliown a copy of 30 order from B, F, leliervreod, Chief ol Burwtu ol fcteaui Engineering, acknowledged it to be a correct copy ot the order xeferrei to. It is as fol lows: Wavy I)BrATMHT, Itnitto os Atiim jc. oinKBninn, June 15, law. fetlr: Proceed to New York, to tba :tna Iroa Warkt. and Mtrolni tbe large tools fur aale there, with a view of aveertalnlag irany are aiiliable for thaahopa of tba Philadelphia Navy Yard ander thla bnreaa; end If so. Ktbe prions areancb a to make their parchaaedetlrabie. Hhould yon And any ot theae tool dretrable and of the pro per prloe, yon will make a requisition for them, nd atato wbetber tbey are to be la addition to thnae re quired ou reqnlaltioaa No. 170 and ISO, of May in. 167, or to be abstltuted for any on thooo requisitions. After baring made tboio examination, yoa will re sume your aaaal dutlp. Respectfully. , B- 1BHMWOOD, Chief el Dureaii. Chief nglneerTBEoroa Zjklli. U.I.N,, Navy Yard, 1'alladeJpbla, F. Q. Did you proceed, under that order, to New York and examine the tools ol John Roach A Bon? A. Ye?, sir; I did examine them; I got the assistance of Chief Engineer John Lon In examining the tools, And he passed his judgment upon them. I asked him to accompany me; he had been employed ai Government Superin tendent at Roach Jt Son's shop. y. The order is dated Juno 15. How soon did you proceed T A. Hoon afterwards. Q. How long a time did vou devote to the examination? A. If 1 remember right I wns iu New York two days; I was at the work only one day. How far Mr. Zeller was controlled in the selec tion of tools by the known wunts of the Uureiiu ot bteum Kiigi'nei'i ing at the Philadelphia Yard, Is thus clturly shown by his testimony. It is true that, in answer to a question ns to whether ho determined the size, length, and swinar of lathes be wanted by the size, length, and swing of tools Hint he found iu Mr. Roam's shop, he had answered, "No, sir; thepHn of the rloor of the machine shop here governed that." How faithful tbat answer was will also appear by the following extract from bis evidence: Q. Had the necessity for these articles hn?n suggested to jcu by Mr. (joldsteiu or Mr. Roop before ou went to New York? A. No, sir; f went under Instructions to see what I could find and to consult, and I subinittei these to my ussihtaut and as-ked If they would suit. Q. You have already sworn to these papers Which show that requisitions Nos. 179 aud 180 weie cancelled by requisitions No. l'Jl and 105. What requisition was cancelled when you m:tde No. C, under which you made the Roach pur chase? A. When requisition No. C was made it wa3 to take the place of these (173 uud 10). Q. Your requisition No. 1U4 was made June 28, and took the place ot No. 179; your requisi tion No. 195 was made June 28, and took the place oi No. 180: vourrcnuisitionNo. 6 wim .iniv X, and you eay it was a substitute tor another; x hdk wuuv requisition it suosi.tuteu f A. I have made a mUtakc; you have puzzled me in the whole matter. Q. I have placed before yon copies of official papers turnisbed from your department: how have I puzzled you ? A. I can give you no further explanation of the subject. Q. Did requisition No. (5 fubstitute any other requisition? A. I really do not know: I don't remember these things; my clcik cau give you more information than 1. y. Are jon the chief of Ihe department, or Is Mr. Goldstein? A. I am the head of the de partment. (. Then I ask you if requisition No. 6 substi tuted another or not? A. 1 cannot tell you on oath, for I don't know. Q. Who can tell ? A. T think the store clerk, Mr. Mutn. Q. Can Mr. Goldstein? A. Probably he cau. Chief Engineer SSollcr further testified that he was not a practical machinii-t, aud disclaimed auy familiarity with the comparative working of dill'erent machines such as are iu nee in shops for the building and repair of steam engineer ing. When aked, "Is it not your busiueas as superintendent ot the machine shops of the navy jard to be familiar with the stvlc aud capacity of machinery ?" he said, "I think not ot thcte little details; I have never attended to it in my life." The following portion of his testin.onv deserves special attention: Mr. Zeller said that he thought the boring machine was the best he could get for the purpose; the idea of improvement for the last tcB or twelve years was all bosh, and no one could name anything thnt was not an attach ment for w hich extra would have been charged. The screw-cutting lithe he considered the handiest tool in the shop. He did not know whether the double-headed lathe was so origi nally or not; it was double headed Dor, aud he knew nothing whatever about its history. The response of the chief engineer to the next quer tion is so rem aik able that tbe committeo will be pardoned for inviting special attention to it. Every witness whose attention was called to this miscalled lathe alluded to the tact tbat its centres were not opposite as a delect in the tool. The chief engineer, however, differs with them all. His answer to the question, "Are its centres opposite?" "No, sir; and never were intended to be; but the condition was that the tools were to be put in as good order as new onct. I do not mean to say the specification, but the written agreement of Mr. Roach con tained this condition." Q. (To Mr. Zeller.) This i your specification, is it noli' l'uper examined by witness. Does it not require the tools to be of the most ap proved design and in perlect working order, aud is that double-headed lathe of the most approved design and in perfect working order? A. I don't know; I was not here when that tool was in spected, Q. You are the chief eneineer? A. Yes, sir. Q. You bought It? A. Ycp, sir. o. Were vou satisfied at the time that you made the requisition that it was of tho most i . . j. i r . a 1 t - ... J Q approvea design ana in peiiect wunmg uruei i A. I was satisfied: and if aovthing was the mat ter which I did not detect, tbat it would be male good aud put iu perfect working order. V. YV Iiat sailBUeil JOU r a. iuo ngimuicui na made with me in conversation about these things. I said, "Should anything be the matter with these vou must repair them." He said. "I will do it; I wjll make it as good as new. Q. Have Mr. ttoocn & hou repaireu one oi the pieces of machinery sold to you and found to be defective ? A. That 1 don't know; not to my knowledge. y. wnat oonu um jou wise uoui uuu tunt it detective he would put them in order? A. Nothing but his word; I took no paper. NT. Keller inougut mat ine ioois at iuo Allaire Works, New York, had been there forty yean; these must be a little worn, but the worn parts could be renewed. y, You bought these tools, relying on Mr. Johnson to inspect them closely when de livered? A. I thought nothing ot the inspection at the time, because I thought they wo t Id be made right by Mr. Roach before they erne. Q. Would jou think that an inspecting engi neer had done his dutv if he had let them pas because he knew an engineer had been in New York and seen them run, and then hud them taken down and scut bere? A. I should think he had overlooked his duty. Q. If the chief engineer buys tools upon the promise ot a gentleruau that he will put tsiem in order, and the inspecting engineer passes them without objection because tba chief enni neer lias examined them, what is there to guard the rights of the Government? A. I do not think tuat he has any right to do that. Mr. Zeller stated that the counter shafting, previously mentioned, hud not beca sent, but think that he was expecting it every day, The confidential character of the rola'ions belwt en the bureau and John Roach & Son is well illustrated by the following extract from Mr. filer's testimony: (i. Where is the guarantee? A. The oiler to furnish thete things. C. Then jou have no Guarantee? A. None excepting that agreement "which he made with me, and ou which I oidered the things. ,. Tuat letter which you claim to be a guarantee is all the guarantee upon which you hold lioach & Bon lor the fulfilment of their promise to make good auy deficiency ? A. In point of law it would not be a sufficient guarantee, but I have no doubt he will do it. Q. If he had leealiy bound himself to do so, have you not released him by certifying on the bills tbat they are "quantity aud quality correct?" A. I think so: but a man in such a large establishment would never take advantage of such a little oulbble as that. Mr. Zeller, sneaking of the patent riveting machine, said this machine is superior to any in use; whereupon he was asked whether be I; ad not f aia that there had been no substantial jmjiioTenifLts in tools for making steam- enginery. Tie answered: Yes, sir; I said it front conversation with machinists. Q. How do you reconcile that with the state ment lust made, tbat this Is superior In some respects to other machines? A. This is a dif ferent thing; it is for marine engines. Q. Did you not say for boilers t A. I did not use the word boilers. Q. Why do jou say that la machines for the construction of boilers ingenuity has been displayed, while none has been displayed In other tools ? A. That is, according to my Judg ment. , Q. That In tools for the constrnetton of boilers impiovements have been made, but that In tools for the construction ol engines none of a substantial kind have been made? A. None that may be called practical; there have been mauy attachments. Were the committee disposed to attach much itnpoitnnce to Mr. Zellcr's judgment as a mechanic, or to tho value of his testimony, they would bo compelled to conclude that the livet ing machine in question Is for very peculiar and special work, as there Is little riveting done In marine engines except in the bolleis. Ou the question of the improvements in machinery, the comniittf e beg leave to present the opiulou ot Chief Engineer Zeller, iu conjunction with those of the chief engineers who were detailed as experts by the Biiglueerin-Chief, viz., Messrs. Henderson and WooH, first presenting Mr. Zeller's, which wa as follow: y. What is the annual percentage of benefits io machines by improvements? A. 1 don't know ot any; the improvements are all on little things that are specialtle", and they are charged extra in the price of all tools. Toe inscription of tools is precisely tho same now as ten j tars ago. Q. Have there been no substantial Improve ments in this cla of tools within the lat ten years? A. 1 don't know of anything that is of anybtnefit in maiiue machinery; there are nitnehmen's whether they aro improvements is a thing that few will admit. On this point Chief Engineer Henderson, of the Boston Navy yard, testified that during tbe last twenty years there had been marked im provements iu tools for building engines, inarlue and otherwise, lie thought that the perfeetuess of machinery at tho present day, over what It was twenty years ago, is very much due to the improvements in the size and style of the tools. He thought it was economy in all tho shops to use the latest improvements, although many things werp styled "lutett improvements" which, did not add to tbe effiniencv. Chief Engineer W. W. W.'Wood testified to tho same effect. First Assistant Engineer Roop susta'ned the opinious ot Chief Engineer Zeller, that second hand machinery is equal to new, if kept in repair. All work could be done on the tools under consideration tbat could bo done on the most modern constructed tools. FABUTCATBP ETIDEKCE. The examination of the tools and the testi mony satisfied the committee that the purchase of these second-hand tools wus most injudicious. In the judgment of the committee, the space for sevetal of them would be more valuable to tho proprietor of; a well appointed machine shop, or a person fitting up a machine shop for active competition in the neighborhood ot well appointed shops, than the tools themselves. This is believed to dc true of the boring bar, the biakc lathe, the imitation double neided lathe, and the 36 Inch planer, for which the bureau or bteam uneineerlng paid John Koach & Son $17 050. That those who had made the purchaso did not feel it sale to submit tbe transaction to investigation UDon its merits, was made apparent in the carl v stage of our proceedings; for, when the com mittee called upon the chief engineer of the yard for a list of the tools he had purchased, and the prices paid lor them, that officer, through Emil Goldstein, his draughtsman, who had prepared it, produced an elaborately ar ranged sheet, headed: "List of tools and machinery contracted for by the Etna Iron Works, New York, John Roach & Son proprie tors, showing the price at which the coutract was awarded, and the bids of other manufac turers for tooli, etc., of tho same kind and of tbe same or nearly the same capacity. All prices include cost ot transportation to the Philadelphia Navy Yard." This exhibit disclosed the fact tha., in addl tion to the 21 tools hitherto referred to, which had been purchased at a cost of $12,425, con tracts had also been made with flessrs. Roach A Son for 17 other tools for which tbey were to be paid $51,423. The statement conveyed to tho mind of the committee, as it was evidently designed to do, the impression that the two firms whose prices were said to be set forth iu parallel columns to tbe prices of Messrs. Roach & f-cn haa oeen inviicu to ma tor uu mese tools, and had bid for most of them, and tbat the prices set under their numes, respectively, for equivalent tools had been taken from their bids. These firms were Messrs. Bement & Dougherty and William Sellers & Co., both of Philadelphia, upon this exhibit, nor In any paper accompanjlng it, was any allusion made to Ihe fact that the offers from these firms, if any had been made, were of new tools, and that mure than forty per cent, of Roach's were more or less worn, second baud, old-style tools; but, on the contrary, appended to it as a note was the following: 'The contract and offers by John Roach fc Boa re quire all of the above-named tuota to be of I tit brut v-orhnwnshtji aita aeaifm, m peri warKing oraet,aiM iUUAL TO AMY IN IH1 COUNTRY." The note being so emphasized an to require tbeut-eof small capitals and italics, as above, fcbould it be put in print. Bv this exhibit it appears that the cost of the tools Irotn Roach & Hon will be $93,848. It pur ports to be a comj ariton ot the prices ot par ticular tools, but not of the total cost, had they ell been procured troin the otner nrms, wno are represented us having made no bids tor a number ot tbe tools. It also contains a broad column headed "Re marks," purporting to be explauatory, but from which the couiuattee could aerive but little aid. Indeed, the observation of the committee, aided by the testimony ot the witnesses who repre sented Bement & Doug hen y and Bellers&Co., made it apparent that ihe object of the remarks was not to illustrate but to ooscure tbe point at issue. Thus, opposite to tho brake-lathe the remark is Mniply, "This kind ot tool is not manufactured iu Philadelphia;" but does not, as it should, also say, "or anywhere else, becauso it was lensr since superannuated." Again, opposite to the boring bar, which is designated as a "boring mill," the remark is: "Bement & Uoughertj's bid is for a bortug and turn'.ua mill ot dillcnnt construction;" butdocs not also Fay, such as are now In universal use to the exclusion of tho kind purchased." And again, oppoMto to a plauer 12 feet be tween housings, 20 feet travel, the remaik is: "bement & Uoughertj's tool admits only 10 feet;" but omits to add tbat u was, as rsquired by the specl6catiou on w hich it is alleged their oiler was obtained, of 45 feet travel, und there fore involved about double the amount of metal and workmuuship. " The production of this exhibit invelvel the Investigation cf several collateral questious. among which wete whether the autique add wcli-wom tools ot Ronch & Sou were, as set forth, the equivalent of the now tools of Bmeot & Dougherty and William Sellers &Co. ; whether Jehu Roach & Sou had established an equal reputation with those firms as producers ot tools ol the character in question: and whether Ik ment & Dovglierty und William Sellers C . had been called upon for, and had made bids for, any or all of these tools; and it so, whether thtir pricea were lairly stuteU? The solution of these queuious reflected but little credit upon the Integrity of the manage ment of the department ot steam engineering at tne Philadelphia Navy Yard, or the conduct of the englnecr-in-chiel ol tho navy in approving requisitions lor these tools, under all tho cir cumstances of the cafe. The committee deem It proper to remark, In this connection, tbat the proof is overwhelming tbat the statement of bids and prices of the firms of Bement & Dougherty aud William Kellers A Co., had been ingeniously tibricaied for the purpose of covering up this transaction or giving it a favorable gloss, and that no bids for these tools had been solicited from either of these firms. Among tbe patters lurulbhed the committee ty the department was found irre futable prool that it bad in its possession, at the time of this purchase, price lists of those firms, showing that they would bave furnished tools ! of sliailur dimensions to many of these, in AnRUst, 18fi, at lower price than were paid John Koach A Son In July, 1867, and January. l&fiH, although the nmrktt price of this class of tools bas steadily depreciated since the close of the war reduced the demand for them. But. worse than this, the prices of tools which bad thus long befoie been offered at lower rates were not only omitted from the comparative table, bnt, in some instances, were set forth as much hisrher than was shown to have been the case b their offers of August, 1(!6, produced from tho files ol the department. To this point we shall recur hereafter. COMPETITION BIDS ADD rRICF.S. Pacing from this question, the committee piocecd to consider th fuune.g of the price for these tools, whether old or new, aud to deter mine whether competitive bids lor them were 8oJ0lted or received. That such bds were solicited or received from Bement A Dough'Ttv und Vi tllinin Selleri, & Co., the members of both these firms positively denied. Each firm stated Unit they received from the Bureau of Strum Eiigliieerlne, duiing the month of August, lHiiB, an informal request for their prices of a number of tool-, to which request the former firm responded on the 24th ot August, 18M, embody ing m their note a distinct announcement that tue prices were Fubmit'ed here "suhject to changes In cost cf buildintr." This was done, as the committee viere informed, because the mar ket for tools had steamly declined from the clo-e of the war, in the bpriug ot iH05, and was then dtcltuing. The resprnse of Messrs. Sellers bnira dnfo Aur ust 30, ISM. Regarding the request, as did Bement & Dougherty, as a mere preliminary step, and not bs a icqucst tor b.ds, they sa'd: o nave mo pleasure to enclose herewith I hotoeraphs and specifications ot most of the tools nnuied oy jou, tbe pie-ent price ol'which, delivered mi our works, would bo about as fol lows," etc. So corsiant was the decline in the price of such tools, that both thee houses have issued revised price-lists lit periods of a Jew mouths during the Interval. Other causes than those whicii operate upou the general market of the country often produce a reduction of t tie price of tools, such ns the DOMies-don of nuttorna imn which to make 4 bem, or orders for a number of xooisaime mme time, whlcb by their extent justify a more economical orenniziuion i.f rn,n and labor; so that it Is not, in ihe judgment of lue trnoe, saw to contract rorexoeusive tools before they aie needed, or upon prices long antedating the transaction. Blesi-rs. Sellers & Co., having examined the exhibit hereof referred to, said: AV entver marie auy bids lor tbp?e tools, neither were w requested t do so. Uurlutter of August!, lfwlfl, ai d certain photograph ubtalued Iroru us some time previous t May til, 1S67, at which tiuio we re vlsfd our price list, must have been the baa In upou w hich the comparison bas been made. Some ot the sisei given as ours we do not make. On this point Mr. Bemnt, of the firm of Bement A Dongheriy, beine fhown tbe exhibit and asked whether the prices were ttiOse of his firm, said they were not bid.--; that when the fiim makes bids they take pres copies of them; that the books of the firm bad been examined and found tbat no bids had be:n ifiven for these tools, and no member of tho fiim or employe thereof had ai y recollection of any bids having bet n solicited or requested, aud added, ' If there had been a call maae at that time, June, 1867, the prices would not have been as earned out iu tbe exhibit." U. Then jour books show no call on you for propo sition! lor the seveial Um set torih in tua. ecbe duie? a. p o, sir; ana hadtuch call been made the prices w uld not pave bean a iiuuiiiu; and ihe prices qu td aa oura In nr. rue rases are do. tne prices on 24 18 o' "blci w' InrDltued a year before, on August 'bo it appeared that the "comparative state ment" prepqred by the Buieau of EnKlueeriug, and which the committee learned had sufficed to itduco a board of engineers, appointed by the 8tcrefary ot the Navy to inquire into this tram-action, to approve it, was iraadulent, not only in comparing ihe worn tools of John Roach A Son with the new tools of the first builders in the country, but in exaeceratine the prices aefctd for new tools, end in omitting from its columns of ers for new and improved tools at lower rates than had been paid for those of Messrs. Roach & Son. Whatever apoloiry there may be for the purchase of these secondhand tools by Mr. Zeller, who is not a machinist or a business man, the committee suggest that no measure of ingenuity can contrive an apolosry for the deliberate fabrication of evidence to glois over tuch a transaction, and conceal itstruo character from the Navy Department and Congress. Ihe committee will piesett a few of the features ot this tabular exhtbit iu connection With the prlcs of Messrs. Bement A Dougherty end William Sellers A Co., as communicated to the department of engineers in August, 18C(i, as they appear in copies lurnished the committee by the department under its official Marar. These copies prove that the Chief Engineer had among his olliclal papers irrefutable evidence oftheiorged and fabricated character of the exhibit. In this exhibit appear two 25-ton craneR, 25. feet swing, bought ot Roach A Son for $4500. It shows that William Sellers A Co. did not bid for such cranes, while the copy of their list of prices ot August 30, 186G, furnished us by the department of steam engineering, contains their oiler lor two 25-ton craues, with woodwork complete, $2000 each. Tbe superiority of the gearing of the cranes of Messrs. William Hellers A Co. over those delivered by John Roach A Son in 18C7, nt $250 apiece more than Sellers A Co. had asked in 1866, is so great tbat with four men at the winch of Roach's lathes each man must exert 60 pounds, while four men at the winch oi Hellers' reed each exert but 20 pounds. But is due to the Messrs. Sellers, and to a per fect comprehension of this transaction, to say tbat the price of their cranes in June, 1867, whtp KoHeh A Son received $2260 for theirs, was but $1090 each. Aeain, the exhibit shows five 15-ton cranes, 18 feet swing, bought from John Roach A Son, at Sb760. as late as the 6ih of January. 1868. and repretents neither Sellers A Co. nor Bement & Houebeity as having proposed auy price lor thtm, while in the certified copy ot their esti mate for tools, of August 24, 1866, it appears that tv.o 16-ton cranes, 25 feet by 22 feet swing, were oflered at $1500 cacti. Thus it is shown by evidence produced by the department that the bureau paid Jobu Roach A Son iu January, 18(18, lor 15-iou crane, with 18 feet swine, $260 more eT crane tban Bement A Doueberty would have furnished them for with 22 feet swing iu August, lHoti. Asraiii, the exhibit shows that John Roach A Son luinisbed, June 28, 1867. one 66-lnch planer for $6(i00, and that Bement A D mgherty de manded lor one of tbo same size $8400. Oupo site tbe siatemcnt of theso comparative prices, In the column oi remark, It is said: The jlr.erB tifl'.rd by Bttofiit A Dougherty md Sellers A boa admit sli leet bat ween hougluica No allusion, however. Is made to the fact that the tool i'urnli-bed by John Roach A Hon had been eleven yrars In use and had been sold by itb builders, Dement A Dougherty, when ne, for $3710. But to the illustration of the simulated char ncteroftho alleged bids. By reference to the c( py ot Bement A Doutrbei tj's estimate lor toi. Is luinisbed tbe buicau August 24, 18H6, it is teui.d that tbey mndn us oti'er lor a 66 inch planer, but did oiler a 72 Inch planer, such ai is described in the exhibit but not lor $8100 as mere set forth, but for $7600. Mr. Bemeut, when com minting on ttiese facts, testified that their price for a new tool, sucb as the oue In question, improved in its proportions and ot greater weight, would have been bat $6000 at the date of its purchaso ficm Uoacb. It thus appears that not only bad the planer mode by Bemeut A Deuuht-ny eleven years auo, which had Oeen roll' to a firm lu St. Lous and used by them tid 1801. hud then been bought by Mr. Roach tzi transported fiomSt. I.ouis to the fcitua Irou Works nearly doubled its original value by ue and transpor tation, but had by age, me, and trausporta'loa, actually come to b worm $600 more thsn a new and inipioved plauer of the same gpneral din fusions, but of greater weight, from the shop of thofewbobad built it. To those who are not familiar with tbe mjstertesof ensineer Ing, this conclusion may seem prepostrou. But it has received tba sanction of two boards of cnglneeis detailed specially to Investigate the propriety of these purchases, and so far as the committee could learn, the approval of the Chief of the Burriiu of S'eaui Engineering, who approved tbe requisitions for these tools. Hut the point that the committee is here Illustrating Is, that the department of steam tneineerlng of tbe Philadelphia yarl, In its exhibit, not onlv compared a new and larcer tool with tn old one, bnt added 9800 to the price demanded for it in 1860, as was shown bj its own records. MVBlIMO MACniNl AMD TVUT6. As to the riveting machine, the committee beg leave to remark that it appears to be a well built machine. It, however, has not had the ranciion of expeiience. The committee could lcam of no establishment tbat had one in use or had in any way tested it. It may be a valua ble machine, but was no', needed at tbe time at which It was purchased. It has never been called into nse, and uai not, a the date of thla report, been lully set up for use, though it stands on expensive foundations erected ex piessly for it. and in a new frame tower forty tret hi(ih. It is not probable tbat tbe Bureau of Engineering will have orcaslou to test it during the ordlonry lifetime or the tower, unless the country should bo Involved in another war. As to the Cameron A Sewall pumps, they aro in general nee in tbo navy, although the stoek provided lor the I'hiudi Iphia yard may have been somewhat larger than the immediate requirements of the nnvy. The committee touud nothlm In this connection upou which to comment, CONCLUSIONS or TnE COMMITTEE, The trannactlon with John Koach A Hon is Justly subject to criticism. Ie h ts not been the usage of tne Navy Department to lK-rmit the pnichase ol secohdhaud tools. The purchaso of a particular tool to meet an exiueuoy, or of a si ecial tool not made by the trade at lame, or lor general sale, that has been used, has some times laken place, hut ea .-h instance hai been justified, so lar as the comnutt -o have ceen able to ascertain, by Its special circumstances, and none of them fcruhh a precedent for this wholesale purchase oi tDe tools of a him which was not declining business, but was about to chsnge its premises, and probably found It more profitable to sell old stock than to transfer It its new premises. Messis. Koach v Son were about ta close the Etna Iroa Works, Lnvin? purchase! the Morgau Works and Engineer Jiellei's attention was directed to tbe Etna Works by tbe order of Mr. Isherwood Chief of the Bureau ot Steam Engluecriug, of June 1ft. already set forth in this renort. During 1861-1.2-63 the cxitreiicies of the navy might poesiMv have been pleaded .n jus (ideation of this tronoawii n. The demands upon the machine shops of the several stations were then doubtless in excess of their power; but thig order wns given more tbau two years after the war had closed, when little or no work was doing, and even less was likely to be done at tho yard in Philadelphia. Not only were mauy of these tools not required bv the wants of the yard, but, as bas been shown by the testimony of Inspecting Euemcer Johnson, there was no place ready for their reception, and he passed and received tbem without adequate inspection, because they would have had to lie Jour or five months before he could put them up and see whe ther tbey were in running order, ludee d, the receipt and accommodation of the machines purchased, as well as those contracted for, reouired the construction ot new bulldln"B tor their acconiu odation. And tbe Bureau of Steam Engineering could not have ben igno rant, at the date of these contracts, of thfr anxiety of the jSavy Depattment to transfer the station and its workshops from the contracted limits ot the pres-ent yard to the broader space provided by tbe city of Philadelphia for a naval nation at League Island. In view of all the" facts, tbe committee are unable to discover any reasous consittcnt with tbe interests of the Government that prompted this purchase, and believe that the department should relieve the engineer corps ot lhose who have been faithlefs to the trust reposeo" in them, it Is peihaps due to Mr. Zeller tbat tbe com mittee should say that he is not a practical machinist, and evidently has no capacity for business; tbat he appears to bave but little knowledge of the details ot his oflice, and to be completely in tbe hanos of Assistant Eugineer Jehn Roop, Inspecting Engineer George R, Johnson, and his drauahtsman, Brail Goldstein, SUFLEMENTARr FACTS. Before concluding this report. It is due to the committee and to the Honorable Secretary ot the Navy to stn'e tbat, finding it impossible to report to the House at its last Eession, the committee deemed it their duty to advise the Secretary of the fiauduleut character of the parcr purporting to bo a e'.atement of tho comparative bids for these tools (herein spoken of as au exhibit), and called upon hi-n tor that purpose. Tbe Secretary suggested tbat the statements made, to which he seemed to attach importance, should be put tn writing. In accordance with his fuceestion tho following letter was addressed to him: Judge Kelie's letter is dated July 28, 1868, and he states to the Secretary of the Navy that. "Litt of tools aud machinery, etc., showing the prices at which the contracts were awarded to Roach A Son, und the buna of oiher manufac turers lor tools of the same kind, and tbe same, or nearly the same capacity," presented by the engineers, did not present the prices of Messrs. Bement A Dougheity and William Sclleis A Co., but were false and exaeeeratcd." On the 30th ot the same month the Secretary of tbo Navy ordered Chief Engineers .Wood, Henderson, and Inch to make a complete and detailed examination of the transactions in the cute of each tool, aud to confer with tbe Phila delphia toolmaker:, and all other persons who ccvild throw any light ou the subject.) The terms ol this order of tbe Secretary of the Navy are, It will be seen, broad enough to have justiccd a thorough investigation of all the questions involved. But such examination was not made; and it in the general (acts disclosed in this report there be not evidence enough to prove tho utter demoralization of certain mem bers o' the englueer corps of the navy, it is fnrnisjed by tbe lact that Chief Engineers Wood, Henderson, and Inch conducted tbe in vestigation with such tender retard for their brethren of the corps as to have fell justified at its close In reporting tbat "the purchases wero made alter a caret ul examination of tbe equiva lent tools made by other makers whose competi tive oilers received a candid consideration. So far from any evidence of auy fraud or collusion appearing, the reverse Is proven to have been the case, tho selection and purchase having been made wholly in the luttrest of the Government, and without wrong to the interest or, rightful claims of any." Tue committee has at its command no terms in which to justly ttigmatize this second en dorsement by a board ot engineers of a trans acilpn so detrlraeual to the character of tbo corps of engineers and the interests of the Government. It Is Impossible tbat Its conclu sion can bo bused upon any examination of the papers on file tn tbe at-puiimeut ot engineering of the yard, or of the members ot either ol the Aims with wbof-e memDerithe Secretary directs tin m to confer personally. Through the kinoness of the Secretary tbe con mittee have bteu enabled to lay this portion ot the repoit belore Messrs. William Sellers Co. and Bement A Dougherty, who most posi tively deny thut ttie.y were examined by the board its to w hether they ever madecompetttive bids for the loo's in question, aud prouonnca the oonclusiou above set forth as false and unfounded. In conclusion, the committee beg leave to suggest that Messrs. Palmer, Henuessy, Henry, Dortey, Bali, and lounor, qusrtenuan and workmen in tho machine s bop, did not testify lightlv, but gave their evidence In the conscious prill of loss of en plovnienr. lo, too, did Mr. Rowbothsm, the mvs'er machinist, who was, shortly after the close ot the labors of th committee at the Philadelphia Station, removed from his position, hb a warning to ell other employes of the Government, who, even aa twrrn witne.ses, talent invade the privileges of the Department of Steam Engineering ot the Philadelphia Navy Yard. This result not entirely unanticipated by Mr. Boabotham, a in the course of his testimony he had sworn te the committee that Ch ef En giueir Zel'er, when examining tome of the machinery two (lavs belore the coming of the committer to tbe station, bad pointed his finger at him acd said:' RowHo'.haui, if you back on me in this mutter I shall consider you ouo of the most ungrateful dogs I ever knew." ah oi wuicu is respectfully eubmit'ed. WM. 1) K.ELLK7, n.' K: 8.TKVENi J-Coumlttee. T. W. lUKBT, ') t
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers