Mr. PADGETT. I would like to ask you what you think of the propriety of adding to this legislation a limitation upon the maximum salary to be paid, similar to the provision in the army bill? I understand that they have a lump-sum appropriation with power on the part of the Secretary of War to fix the salaries, subject to a maximum limitation of $1,800 for clerks. I understand, of course, that would except the chemist and skilled labor of that kind?

Admiral MASON. Of course I can only speak of the way that it would affect my own bureau. I think that a limit of, say, $1,800 for the clerical force would be fair, but in the Bureau of Ordnance we employ chemists, ordnance experts, and electrical experts.

Mr. PADGETT. There should be certain exceptions.

Admiral MASON. Yes; chemists, ordnance and electrical experts, draftsmen, supervising clerks, as well as technical foremen, should be excepted.

Mr. PADGETT. I understand that the chemists are paid $2,500 and that the department contemplates raising their compensation to $2,750. But, leaving out those, I was asking your opinion as to the propriety of fixing a maximum salary.

Admiral MASON. It would be an excellent thing to fix a limit provided you authorized exceptions.

Mr. PADGETT. For those specially skilled and expert.

Admiral MASON. And another thing. Of course there are special clerks also. You would have to call them by some other name. They are people worth more than $1,800. For instance, a man who is in charge of a division of clerks, an expert accountant, or something of that sort. For the regular clerk $1,800 is sufficient.

Mr. PADGETT. Kindly submit with your hearing your ideas in detail as to what exceptions there should be or limitations upon the proposed limitation.

Admiral MASON. It is my opinion that if a maximum limit of salaries of clerks were fixed, $1,800 would be adequate and just, with probably a minimum limit also of about $840 or $900. This does not, of course, cover the cases of such experts in the clerical line as may be necessary; such as chief clerks and other supervisory clerks and accountants, whose work is mainly new or initiatory, requiring the highest clerical skill and comprehensive knowledge of commercial practices and the duties of the department. The salary limit for the small number of such employees should not be placed at less than $2,500. For constructive and operative experts-such as chemists, draftsmen, ordnance engineers, electrical experts, foremen of gun, torpedo, and powder factories, etc.-the salary should be discretionary with the Secretary of the Navy, as the services of competent employees of this character can not be secured and retained without a salary inducement being offered comparing favorably with the salaries offered by private establishments for similar services. Further, this bureau's work is almost entirely technical in nature and of a special and peculiar kind, so that its office and expert force must necessarily be specially trained after being employed, hence the personnel can not be frequently changed without serious detriment to the work, which unquestionably causes actual increased expenditures from lack of supervision by experienced people.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. I think the language on page 48 covers it all: "Furniture for government houses and offices in navy-yards."

Admiral MASON. That is at navy-yards, but the magazines are not at navy-yards.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. You do not call them navy-yards?

Admiral MASON. They are naval magazines. The Bureau of Ordnance has exclusive control over them, no other bureau having any interest in them other than the accounting bureau-the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts.

The CHAIRMAN. The next is on page 29, "Ammunition for ships of the navy and for reserve." On that we struck out the reserve last year.

Admiral MASON. That is explanatory, simply.

The CHAIRMAN. Why should we not use that same language, "ammunition and other supplies for ships?"

Admiral MASON. I cut the "other supplies" out and put them in the working appropriation also. There is nothing but ammunition here.

The CHAIRMAN. "For procuring, producing, preserving, and handling ammunition for issue to ships and for reserve, five million two hundred and fifteen thousand one hundred dollars." Admiral MASON. This is divided up as follows:

First supply of ammunition for new ships..

Reserve ammunition.

Small-arm ammunition..

Powder tanks for new vessels.

Reserve powder tanks, cartridge cases, and primers.

Total..

$1,250,000

3,250,000

478, 500 161, 600 75,000

5, 215, 100

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. It is for new vessels? Admiral MASON. The first item is "first supply of ammunition for new ships." That is for the original outfits of the vessels appropriated for by the last Congress namely, battle ships 30 and 31 and destroyers 22 to 31, inclusive. This does not include any ammunition for the target practice of these vessels. Because of the long period necessary for the manufacture of certain details of this ammunition, notably projectiles, it will be necessary to place the contracts for this material during the fiscal year 1909-10.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. How long does it take to procure those projectiles?

Admiral MASON. That requires rather a long answer. We could get them, if the companies were not already full of work, inside of a year; but the contracts have to be made and deliveries may possibly not take place within a year and a half.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. When do you expect these boats to be put in commission? The Michigan is one of them, is it not?

Admiral MASON. No. The battle ships are the Utah and Florida. They should be commissioned within two years from July 1 next.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Have you not any projectiles on hand that could be used for them, first; have you not any now on hand or being ordered?

Admiral MASON. No, sir; not reserve.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. What is the use of having a reserve? Why not have them for any ship, Admiral?

Admiral MASON. Do you not see we would be robbing Peter to pay Paul? This is to get up a reserve for the ships, and in addition to that we want ammunition for these ships, too. As to the second item, "Reserve ammunition," there has already been appropriated $7,600,000 for this purpose toward the total amount of $10,963,726 required for providing a reserve supply sufficient to refill all magazines at least once. It will be observed that the amount estimated for this year will, if appropriated, bring the total amount appropriated for this purpose to slightly less than that estimated for one refill reserve supply. It should be borne in mind, however, that one refill, or reserve, will undoubtedly be found an exceedingly short supply in time of war. In the opinion of the bureau there should be at least two reserves, or refills, for all main-battery guns.

The third item, $478,500, is the estimated cost of 15,000,000 caliber .30 rimless cartridges, and should be considered in connection with the estimate of $691,450, for "Small arms and machine guns," as this ammunition is intended for those guns.

The fourth item covers 5-inch cases and 12-inch powder tanks for battle ships 30 and 31.

The last item is intended to provide for a reserve supply of primers, 3-inch .50-caliber cartridge cases, and powder tanks.

It is believed that the entire amount, $5,215,100, which is included in these estimates for ammunition and ammunition details, can be utilized during the coming fiscal year, and it is important that it be made available in order that there may be no cessation of work in our factories, the capacity of some of which is too small, when the possibilty, after the outbreak of hostilities, of obtaining suitable material elsewhere, is considered. This point particularly needs emphasis, as regards the manufacture of large armor-piercing projectiles, which it has been found difficult to obtain in large quantities. The CHAIRMAN. Now I want to ask you about this. We have here under the previous clause that proviso stricken out by the department:

Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be expended for the purchase of shells or projectiles.

Admiral MASON. I have not the least idea who struck it out. department did not do it.

The

The CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE. It was not in the estimates. The CHAIRMAN. It was not in the estimates. How does that operate? Do you have any objection to that proviso?

Admiral MASON. We can get along. We have been getting along. We are now, of course, practically in the hands of one firm, simply because they have bid lower.

The CHAIRMAN. They have bid lower than any other?

Admiral MASON. They have bid lower than any other, and can furnish the goods. The other firms are willing to do the work, but have not so far educated themselves up sufficiently to pass the stringent Government specifications.

The CHAIRMAN. Have they made any bids at all?

Admiral MASON. They have bid on a number of occasions, but naturally their bids were higher because it was new business for them, and they evidently do not wish to bear the expense of experimenting and developing their processes. One or two firms have been awarded

contracts as the lowest bidders on comparatively small lots, but so far have made no deliveries of projectiles under the contracts, and some time has elapsed since the placing of the contracts. The CHAIRMAN. What firm is it that gets the business? Admiral MASON. The Firth-Sterling Steel Company.

The CHAIRMAN. They are at Pittsburg?

Admiral MASON. No, sir; their headquarters are at Pittsburg, but their works are at Giesboro Point. Their projectiles are made here in Washington. They make excellent projectiles.

Mr. HOBSON. Do you know the capacity of the plant of the firm from which you now get your projectiles? I ask that with the idea of what might be the demand in war time.

Admiral MASON. In calculating capacities the practice is to reduce it to the basis of some particular caliber. The capacity of the FirthSterling plant is held to be about 250 six-inch armor piercers per day. Mr. IIOBSON. In time of war could they expand materially to meet the demands?

Admiral MASON. They could, but the war would probably be over before the expansion was realized.

Mr. HOBSON. In case this was left out as recommended here, in view of the fact that it is scratched through, do you believe that the department could, consistently with the efficiency of the projectile service, encourage the establishment of additional manufacturing facilities with a view of the advantage they would be in time of war? Admiral MASON. I think it could do so by placing small orders with other firms of known reputation, orders by the manufacture of which they would work up to the necessary knowledge to produce projectiles that would pass our specifications.

Mr. HOBSON. In any other of your appropriations, or in any other appropriations that you have knowledge of, for the naval establishment, is this limitation fixed that is fixed by last year's appropriation bill that it is proposed now to strike out?

Admiral MASON. I do not think so. I think last year that this appeared in two different places; but the other place was under the appropriation for "Increase of the navy, armament and armor.” The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. How much of this last appropriation is it contemplated by the department to expend for projectiles and shells? Admiral MASON. I should say over half.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. How much of the former item is for projectiles and shells?

Admiral MASON. By "former item" what do you mean?

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Right above there, on the same page, page 29. Admiral MASON. The one on page 28 is simply for a target practice shell, and the amount to be expended for target practice shells would probably be $500,000. As the target practice ammunition amounts to about one million and some hundred thousand dollars, the shell, which are cheap, simply for the purpose of firing out of a gun and hitting a target, do not amount to much.

The CHAIRMAN. How much do you count for that target practice this coming year?

Admiral MASON. $1,855,150.

Mr. BUTLER. Will that include all the expense of target practice? Admiral MASON. Yes.

Mr. BUTLER. It will include the powder and the shell?

Admiral MASON. The powder and the shell and the targets and everything of that sort that the Bureau of Ordnance has cognizance of. We have been doing it, you know.

Mr. BUTLER. So that it is proposed to expend this coming year possibly a million and a quarter?

Admiral MASON. Yes; a little over a million and three-quarters. The CHAIRMAN. How about this second item, "For procuring, producing, preserving, and handling ammunition for issue to ships, and for reserve?"

Admiral MASON. For ammunition?

The CHAIRMAN. For reserve.

navy, and for reserve, reservge

Admiral MASON. The total appropriation is $5,200,000 and the reserve ammunition is $3,250,000, so that that is two-thirds, roughly. Mr. PADGETT. On page 29 it reads "ammunition for ships of the and then there is stricken out "and other supplies for ships." Last year there was considerable pressure brought to bear on the committee to strike out the word "reserve." They wanted to eliminate it from the bill and let everything go for the general purpose of the ships of the navy, and the committee did so. Now, this year they are striking out the provision for the ships, and are inserting the word "reserve" so as to create again a reserve. Admiral MASON. That could be stricken out.

Mr. PADGETT. Can we not leave the language the same as it is here, "and other supplies for ships?"

Admiral MASON. I purposely struck out those words "other supplies for ships," because we wanted it for ammunition and nothing else, so that when it went to magazines we would not have to figure on anything else. The other supplies for ships are estimated for.

Mr. PADGETT. Could you not make it "ammunition for ships of the navy," and you strike out the words "and other supplies for ships," and just let it read "ammunition for ships?"

Admiral MASON. That could be done but would not be very satisfactory. I want to explain to the committee why we had it this way. Mr. PADGETT. The reason I called attention to it was that we had this big fight last year, and they wanted to strike out the "reserve, and they said they could not use the ammunition set apart for the

reserve.

Admiral MASON. I would be entirely willing to have it struck out, except that it explains to Congress just what this money is going for; $5,215,000, of course, is an immense amount for ammunition for one year, but here two-thirds of it is really going into our reserve. Mr. PADGETT. How much have you in reserve now?

Admiral MASON. There has already been appropriated $7,650,000, and the estimate to make one refill for all ships was $10,963,726. Mr. PADGETT. I thought we had more than 7 millions in the reserve that had been accumulated from year to year.

Admiral MASON. That was ammunition on hand, but it was not all reserve ammunition. There was considerable of it that was, as you will remember, not fit for use.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Did you not discuss all that last year? What reason is there for calling it "in reserve?" We discussed that, it seems to me, last year, and the committee was of unanimous opinion that there was not any good reason for having any reserve powder, so far