as the language of the bill was concerned. The department could keep on hand as much as it pleased, and use it.

Admiral MASON. I wanted the words "and other supplies for ships" stricken out of the clause; we came to the conclusion that it would be best if nothing else was brought under it, and the "supplies" are elsewhere estimated for. I do not think it imperative that the words "and reserve" be retained, but I think they will make the situation more satisfactory, and recommend that they be left in. At this time last year our ammunition was tied up because it had been purchased under various appropriations. The condition was relieved by a provision in the appropriation act. It is proposed and recommended that all ammunition, other than that for target practice, continue to be purchased under one head. The clause as worded can not possibly cause any trouble or confusion in the future. It has the advantage, as it was submitted, of showing just what the money is to be expended for, and it is believed will save future explanations on this point. I therefore recommend the retention of "and reserve."

The CHAIRMAN. We will make it "ammunition for ships."

Mr. PADGETT. Yes. We had that question discussed, and agreed on it last year, and got it through.

Mr. HOBSON. Before you finally leave the point of projectile manufacture, will you give in your supplemental statement the total amount of armor-piercing projectiles that we have on hand and that we would likely have on hand and would require in time of peace, that we have been accustomed to order on the average each year, and whether, in your judgment, that would be enough to warrant more than one private firm establishing an adequate plant for its manufacture?

Admiral MASON. Counting projectiles which we should be able to purchase with the money herein asked for and those now under contract, we will have one complete outfit of projectiles for every ship built or building and nearly one reserve supply or outfit for each ship down to battle ships Nos. 30 and 31, and destroyers Nos. 21 to 31. These projectiles are, however, partly common shell, with heavy bursters but weaker perforating powers than armor piercers. I am unable to give the numerical amount of the projectile supply without making public the amount and character of the supply of the ships. Because of our reserve supply having been so short, the demand for armor piercers is greater just now than it will be in the future. When we are once caught up, I should say that the one plant, with a capacity of 250 six-inch projectiles per day, could keep pace with any future demands in time of peace. This capacity, however, is attained by working twenty-four hours per day and seven days per week, and were another large plant now ready it could be occupied for some time to come.

Mr. HOBSON. I would like to know the average yearly demand and the probable increase in that demand on the outbreak of war.

Admiral MASON. The average yearly demand for armor-piercing projectiles is only in proportion to the number of ships that we appropriate for, because we do not expend them, barring a few for armor tests, and so forth.

Mr. PADGETT. As I understand, we have altogether, in ammunition, powder, and projectiles, something like twenty-seven or twentyeight million dollars, have we not?

Admiral MASON. Í have forgotten the figures now, but it is somewhere around that.

Mr. PADGETT. I thought it was.

Admiral MASON. It is quite a large amount, but still ammunition is very costly.

Mr. HOBSON. I have asked you for an expression also of your opinion as to whether there would be enough to warrant more than one private firm establishing a plant. Along with that information please give what you know or can find out about the number in foreign countries, and whether the foreign countries have more than one plant capable of manufacturing, and how many.

Admiral MASON. We are not informed as to the supply of ammunition of any foreign country. As far as known, the foreign armorpiercing projectile manufacturers are the following:

Italy: No plant except those branch plants established by British firms to fill current contracts.

Austria: Krupp, Celuhardt, and Poldihutte.

Germany: Krupp.

France: Schnieder-Canet and Creusot.

Japan: Not known.

Great Britain: Cammel, Laird & Co.; Hadfield's; and Thomas Firth & Sons.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. As I understand the Admiral, in explaining the pay of per diem draftsmen and clerks, etc., there is $364,000 that. has heretofore been paid out of ordnance and ordnance stores.

Admiral MASON. Yes; and other lump appropriations, as explained in the table.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. You have no objection, then, when they come to the armor and armament to adding the proviso there that none of that money shall be expended for the pay of any clerical force? Admiral MASON. No, sir.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. That will be all right?

Admiral MASON. That will be all right.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Very well.

The CHAIRMAN. The next is on page 30, "Purchase and manufacture of smokeless powder, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars." Can we not reduce that this year?

Admiral MASON. No, sir. Up to last year we have had $500,000, which kept the powder factory going, and last year the committee allowed us $150,000 over that appropriation for the purpose of reworking a lot of this old powder that was getting old.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you not done that?

Admiral MASON. Oh, we are working, and we will continue doing this at the rate of $150,000 a year right straight along.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Is that the fault of having it in reserve? Admiral MASON. Not the fault of having it in reserve, but it is the fault of nitrocellulose powder that it will not stand more than about ten years at the best before it commences to deteriorate, so that although it will give the proper ballistics, it is not safe to carry it aboard ship. It commences to run down. Taking that powder and putting

it through this reworking process at a cost of about one-fourth its original cost, 25 per cent, we make a brand-new powder out of it. Mr. BUTLER. Just as effective as the new powder?

Admiral MASON. Just as effective as the new powder; and as a matter of fact it is new powder. That is what it is. We take it and grind it up and rewash it and work it all over, and it comes out of the machine new powder.

Mr. PADGETT. Last year you stated that we had a lot of powder on hand, and that there were two things that we could do with it; one was to take it out in the yard and set it afire and let it burn up slowly, and the other was to haul it out into the sea and dump it. Which was done?

Admiral MASON. That is still stored in the magazine. The most of that has been put out in the open and covered over with temporary cover. We have been trying to find some way to leach it and get the niter out of it, and we also had a request the other day from the naval station on the Lakes to give them some to try to see what they could do with it blasting down the side of a hill; but I do not think there is any use for it.

Mr. BUTLER. What is the age of that powder?

Admiral MASON. That is a different powder-the powder made before and just during the Spanish war. It is what we call the brown prismatic powder. It is entirely different from smokeless powder. It makes more smoke than anything else.

The CHAIRMAN. "Purchase and manufacture of smokeless powder." How much of this $650,000 goes to the purchase and how much to the manufacture of smokeless powder?

Admiral MASON. Very little has gone for purchasing powder. Nearly all of it has been used by the powder factory.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not purchase your powder out of this same appropriation?

Admiral MASON. The powder is purchased out of the appropriation for ammunition.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. That $5,600,000?

Admiral MASON. This powder covers all the testing work, the armor tests, and mounts, and everything of that sort, and what is left over goes into the ammunition.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. How much powder do we use in a year? How much did we use last year, for instance, of smokeless powder? How much did we buy and how much did we make?

Admiral MASON. We used about 1,200,000 pounds. We bought (per requisitions) 2,408,053 pounds. We made 1,080,777 pounds. Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. What price did we pay for it?

Admiral MASON. As to the price, we paid a price of 67 to 69 cents a pound, which price was settled upon by the Joint Board on Smokeless Powder, consisting of expert army and navy officers, who considered the cost of the powder manufactured at the powder factory at Indian Head, and also at the Army Powder Factory at Picatinny Arsenal, which has just commenced work, allowing the powder companies a fair profit on their article. The price has been 67 cents since October, 1907.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. This board fixed the price, did they?

Admiral MASON. Yes, as they have done for the last three years, the companies accepting the price not willingly, but without much objection.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Do you know how much it cost us last year to manufacture smokeless powder?

Admiral MASON. Our actual cost at the powder factory, leaving out interest on plant, and things of that sort, was about 43 cents a pound last year, counting the cost of labor and material alone.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not take into consideration the cost of the plant, or anything like that.

Admiral MASON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Or appropriations for buildings?
Admiral MASON. No, sir.

Mr. BUTLER. Or betterments or improvements?

Admiral MASON. Counting the cost of material and labor alone, the price, under the present processes, has averaged about 45 cents per pound. For the last fiscal year it was about 43 cents, the reduction being due to the efficiency of the acid plant.

Mr. BUTLER. I wish you would include in that item the cost that you estimate in the manufacture of powder-the items of cost, the items of expense-so that we may see whether or not you have included everything.

Admiral MASON. You mean what the thing is based on?
Mr. BUTLER. Yes.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Is not that in your report?

Admiral MASON. I have given this information a number of times. Mr. PADGETT. My recollection is that he said last year it was 43

cents.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. No; I think he is right; I think it was 47

cents.

Admiral MASON. I said 47 cents last year before this committee, and supplied various documents from our files about the cost of powder. In one of these (Appendix F hearings of Sixtieth Congress, first session), is a statement of Indian Head costs which was compiled for the powder board. Some confusion has resulted from various statements of cost which are at variance because they do not always include the same items; for instance, the price has been including alcohol and without it. The following is the data on which our calculations and estimates are based:

Actual cost at powder factory, per pound of powder for 1907, including cost of alcohol, an allowance of one-seventh of the fire losses for seven years and a machinery depreciation allowance, but exclusive of salaries of commissioned officers and clerical force, 0.4885

cent.

During the fiscal year of 1908 the labor and material charges, which are the variants, were such as to have brought this down a little, the difference being mainly due to cheaper acids. At this particular time the market price of alcohol is up-about 20 per centand our powder is costing a little more than it was a few months ago. Mr. PADGETT. I got it into my head that it was 43 cents. Admiral MASON. I think Mr. Waddell said it was 43 cents.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know a man by the name of Robert S. Waddell, of Peoria, Ills.?

Admiral MASON. I have met him once or twice, and I have read circulars and other documents that he has sent out from time to time. The CHAIRMAN. He claims, I believe, that the Government is in the hands of the powder trust.

Admiral MASON. I understand he claims it, but in my opinion the powder manufacturers are in the hands of the Government just at present, and have been for the last two or three years.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he ever make any proposition to the Navy Department in any way?

Admiral MASON. Not that I know of. He has simply been to the Department for information; but I do not know of any proposition that he has ever made. I do not remember any.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the a powder manufacturer himself?

Admiral MASON. I understand that originally he was connected with the Du Pont company in some capacity, purchasing or selling agent, and left their employ and went out west, and I have been told that he started a powder factory, but where it was or how much of a plant it was, I do not know. This, of course, is only hearsay on my part. I have no knowledge except from talk.

The CHAIRMAN. And he never came before you at the Navy Department and made any proposition to furnish powder at a less price than you were getting it for, did he?

Admiral MASON. Mr. Waddell has never made any proposition to manufacture smokeless powder for the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know anything about it. Where was this mentioned before?

Admiral MASON. I think it was before this committee. You asked me about it.

The CHAIRMAN. The Military Committee took it up, did they not? Admiral MASON. Yes.

Mr. PADGETT. It is on page 144 of the hearings of last year.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. I am going to ask the Admiral this question for information. Do you think, Admiral, it would be wise if there was a rule established by the Navy Department whereby no powder would be allowed to accumulate beyond the period of four years?

Admiral MASON. You mean to use it up inside of four years?
Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. Yes.

Admiral MASON. In that way we would not be able to keep our

reserve.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER. You would have a three years' supply always on hand?

Admiral MASON. Three years, but we only use a very small amount of the amount necessary for target practice each year. It is our custom, of course, in target practice to use the oldest powder possible. Mr. BUTLER. Do you not use about one-fourth of your supply for target practice every year?

Admiral MASON. We use, as I say, about 1,200,000 pounds of powder each year.

Mr. BUTLER. About one-fourth, and in four years you could use that powder you purchased four years ago, could you not?

Admiral MASON. No; three-fourths would go by each year.

Mr. BUTLER. Our oldest powder would be four years old. If we used the powder made in 1904 this year, and next year the powder bought in 1905 and next year that bought in 1906, could you not do that?

Admiral MASON. As regards this point, the Bureau of Ordnance has two paramount duties: (1) To maintain a reserve supply of good