« PreviousContinue »
the law: Accomac, $50,000; Chickasaw, $50,000; Pawnee, $60,000; Pontiac, $75,000. The Leslie, if you want her, $30,000. We built her for $15,261, but we would have to pay $30,000 now. If new tugs are considered we would not duplicate the design of any of these vessels. The increased size of our new ships require for their safe handling a class of tug such as the Ontario or Sonoma, for which you appropriated $215,000 each in 1911.,
The CHAIRMAN. What makes the great difference in the purchase price of those ships and the building price now?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. That struck me as something I would like to look into myself. Take, for instance, the case of the Chickasaw. She has not been an important enough vessel to draw my attention before, but Dialogue sold her for $15,000 in 1898, and now she is worth to us practically $50,000, provided we had to replace her. Special circumstances, a forced sale, for instance, might account for an exceptionally low figure.
Mr. ROBERTS. How long will the Accomac be suitable for service if we would spend this $25,000 on her?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. That I would not be able to say, offhand. I think we could say, however, in case of all of them that the amounts stated would be justified in the added service we would get out of them. The Accomac would probably be available for about seven years more.
Mr. BUTLER. How much would she cost new?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. The Accomac cost $40,000 new. She would probably cost more than $50,000 now.
Mr. ROBERTS. In the little note at the head here you speak of the installation of new boilers, the renewal of boilers, and the general overhauling of machinery. That is on the Accomac. I did not at first understand that you contemplated new boilers in her, and yet you want to get the money to repair the old ones.
Capt. WINTERHALTER. I should perhaps have itemized separately for each vessel.
Mr. ROBERTS. I see the same language used on all of them.
Capt. WINTERHALTER. They are yard tugs and all need more or less general overhauling and repairs, both in Steam Engineering and Construction, and we have not any more than necessary of those tugs to do the navy-yard work.
Mr. ROBERTS. What I was getting at is, what is contemplated on these tugs! What do you mean by installation of new boilers! Does that relate to putting them in place?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. It means taking the old boilers out and putting in new ones.
Mr. Roberts. It does not mean the purchase of a new boiler?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. Yes; in this case it means the purchase of new boilers, also their installation.
Mr. ROBERTS. Then what do you mean by renewal of boilers"? You have another item“ renewal of boilers ” under the same heading. You have one set of words at the beginning and another at the end, one for the renewal and the other for the installation.
Capt. WINTERHALTER. The work in connection with the installation of new boilers is divided between two bureaus, just as it is separated
in the text. Work of installing the new boilers is Construction work; the renewal of boilers and general overhauling of machinery is Steam Engineering work.
Mr. ROBERTS. This estimate is for taking out old and putting in rew, and this other item is for purchase of new boilers.
Capt. WINTERHALTER. It is separated under the two bureaus in that paragraph. Now, returning to the subject of inspection, the board of inspection for ships must do its work before any of this money is spent, and then, if at all, of course it would be up to material. We would have to be satisfied of her condition before any repairs would be undertaken. Up to a certain point, up to the statutory limit, we could undertake any repairs. We simply want your authority for the excess of the amount over the statutory limit, not an extra dollar of appropriations. The suggestion has been made to me that the statutory limit ought to be increased. I do not think so. I would have to see whether we could profitably expend as much as $300,000 in the period of three months at the navy yard, which is all we can give the battleships.
Mr. Foss. How do you find that out! Do you go to the chiefs of the bureaus and inquire ?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. I go to the chiefs of the bureaus, or they come to me, we meet constantly. Of course this thing, Mr. Foss, as you understand, is going on all the time in the department from day to day. There is not a day passes that I do not meet the chiefs of the bureaus. We meet daily and discuss such matters. The four aids meet in council daily. We have semiweekly meetings of the executive committee of the General Board, at which the aid for material is present, as well as the aids for operations and for personnel, and at which there are frequent discussions with regard to material. Weekly the aids meet in formal conference with the Secretary, in which any one of these things or all of them can be brought up. Then there is a meeting once a month of all the aids and of all the bureau chiefs with the Secretary, in which an aid or a bureau chief can bring up anything that he wants to.
Mr. Foss. That is once a month? Capt. WINTERHALTER. Yes; that is once a month in a formal way. There is no restriction on the aids or the bureau chiefs seeing the Secretary at any time otherwise. These monthly meetings have done much good in bringing the various bureau representatives closer together, with a larger appreciation of the aims and work of each bureau.
Mr. Foss. Now, these estimates that we are passing on now are made up by the chiefs of the bureaus, as I understand it?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. They are signed by the Secretary of the Navy.
Mr. Foss. But these are estimates made by chiefs of bureaus?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. As necessary to advise the Secretary if they appear excessive, and in connection with the compilation of the total estimates as made up from the amount submitted by the several bureaus.
Mr. Foss. When a ship comes in, the board of survey goes on board and inspects the ship and makes its report, does it?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. Yes.
Mr. Foss. For instance, they would go on board the Minnesota and North Dakota and make an inspection and make a report, and then that report is sent to the chief of the bureau, isn't it?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. It comes to the department.
Capt. WINTERHALTER. Yes; it goes to the chiefs of the bureaus then.
Mr. Foss. And then they make their recommendations!
Mr. Foss. And then their recommendations go to you, as I understand it, to be reviewed !
Capt. WINTERHALTER. Yes; separate recommendations from each bureau.
Mr. Foss. And then you make your recommendations to the Secretary?
Čapt. WINTERHALTER. Yes; after having considered and reconciled all the recommendations submitted.
Mr. Foss. Now, do you cut down the recommendations of the chiefs? Has that been your practice, I mean?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. I gave the Secretary advice. My idea has always been this: I personally never cut down an estimate; but that does not prevent me from recommending to the Secretary, giving him my advice to have items eliminated and having him decide.
Mr. Foss. You have been there since Capt. Fletcher went awaysince August. During that period have you recommended the cutting down of any of these estimates as finally submitted to you by the chiefs of bureaus in the case of any ship?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. That is, where they have not themselves in the first place
Mr. Foss (interposing). Where they did not agree to it. I am speaking about not in the first place where they submitted the estimates, but after the board of survey has come to the department, after it has been reviewed by the chiefs, and the chiefs have finally passed upon it and it has gone up to you, have you in any case recommended to the Secretary the cutting down of an estimate as finally recommended by the chiefs of the bureaus?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. Not the estimates themselves, for these estimates in the first place are made by a board of officers at the home yard who go on board the ship, and knowing the yard facilities and local conditions, make the estimates. When these appear excessive they are returned for revision; this often happens.
Mr. Foss. Would you, in a case where the total exceeded the statutory limit?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. In a case where the total exceeds the statutory limit I advise the return of the estimates to the board of estimates for revision, and sometimes it is necessary to do this two or three times and then eliminate the least necessary items in order to keep within the statutory limit of costs. This whole matter is simplified by reference to the particular policy of the department involved with regard to items of alterations or repairs up for decision. As all boards and bureaus are now loyally cooperating and scrupulously observing departmental requirements, the aid for material is prin
cipally concerned with the consistent carrying out of the department's policies.
Mr. Foss. What I wanted to know was whether or not you took the final judgment of chiefs of bureaus on the actual repair of the ships for the appropriation, or whether you recommend a reduction or cutting down of those estimates to the point acceded to or recommended by the chiefs of bureaus?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. If in any case it is my understanding that the department's policy has not been followed; or, if a proceeding contrary to law or a cost exceeding the limit imposed has been recommended; or, if the question of the military value of the vessel has not been considered, I would surely recommend to the Secretary that he call for a revision of estimates, eliminate items, or do whatever else is appropriate. Everything is, however, in such a constant process of adjustment that as soon as a policy is fixed, every man in a bureau or in the department who is interested will act accordingly. Any matter needing discussion will have been well discussed before the Secretary renders an opinion pursuant to a recommendation that I have made. I am speaking personally, of course.
Mr. Foss. Has he actually ordered the cutting down of any estimate as finally agreed to by the chiefs of bureaus in a single case ?
Capt. WINTERHALTER. Well, perhaps that never came to him. It might easily be adjusted before it came to him. The point, it seems to me, is something like this, that while the Secretary has the advice of the aid for material,
that does not prevent him from making an independent decision. When he does not need my advice, there is no reason for him to apply to me for advice or for me to give it. Or it may have been that in the ordinary course of routine business I would proffer my advice and he would take up the matter and decide it. I have one or two instances in mind of that particular kind. As far as the chiefs of bureaus are concerned, the chief of a bureau is never stopped from going to the Secretary about anything. If it is the case of two or three bureaus being coordinated together in the material division in which anything is up for consideration, if there is any disagreement, we appear before the Secretary, or Assistant Secretary, if the Secretary is away. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Foss. Yes; in a way. I wish you would put in your hearings any instance where the department has cut down the estimates of the chiefs of the bureaus on any ship as finally recommended by the chief of a bureau.
Capt. WINTERHALTER. I will try and get hold of some case. I think, perhaps, Mr. Foss, if you will allow me to say so, you are a little confused about the attitude of the different components of the Navy Department in regard to this proposition. My experience has been since the 1st of August that the chiefs anticipate in many respects what the department wants, and every day the department disapproves repairs and alterations for which the chiefs of bureaus have recommended disapproval. Also, in this discussion there is an easy confusion of ideas as between cutting down estimates and, for instance, elimination of items; or, the adjustment of items in their relative military importance; or, the reduction of a total estimate to a sum allowed by law. The preparation of estimates is expert technical work as much as any other technical work. It is effected by technical experts on whose judgment the bureaus, as well as the
aid for material, must rely. Errors of fact that can be revealed by scrutiny can be eliminated, but the essential facts of estimates can not be touched either by the bureaus or by the aid. The work of the bureaus before the estimates come to the aid, as well as the work of the aid after he receives them, will be confined mostly to the elimination of items found unnecessary, and to the determination of the necessity for any particular item in enhancing efficiency or military value.
Mr. Foss. I mean after the bureau has finally passed upon that, given their last judgment and it goes up to the Secretary, as I understand it, and he approves or disapproves of it. I want to know of any case where he has disapproved of any estimate submitted upon the advice of the chief.
Capt. WINTERHALTER. The estimates themselves have not been disapproved. There are instances where items of work requested by ships have been recommended by a bureau for disapproval that have, after further consideration, been directed to be performed, by the Secretary. There are instances where in considering the recommendations of the several bureaus a conflict of recommendation has been found--or where the approval of all recommended expenditures would have meant exceeding the statutory limit. The actuating motive is not disapproval, but the hearty and coordinated effort of all hands. It is team work that we want. The cases A, B, C, D, E, and F, mentioned below, will illustrate the fact that economy is secured by omission of work not essential to military efficiency, rather than by curtailment of expenditures on particular items, estimates for which have been prepared by the best talent available to the department.
A. FIRE CONTROL AND CONNING TOWERS.
Recognizing that the old type of conning tower as installed on our battleships did not meet the requirements of existing fire and battle control, the bureaus designed a modified type that was acceptable to the service.
Combined fire control and conning towers were accordingly authorized for all ships subsequent to the Missouri class, and installation accomplished on the Vermont, Virginia, and Michigan.
After having completed the work on the Virginia consideration of the age of the remaining vessels of her class (Georgia, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Nebraska) and a due regard for the short length of time that they would remain in the first line led the department to cancel the authorization for new towers on these four vessels.
Total estimated cost per vessel, approximately $75,000.
B. OVERHAUL OF THE V, s. s. “ VICKSBURG."
The Annapolis was overhauled at Mare Island in accordance with the authority contained in the act of June 24, 1910, authorizing an expenditure of $101,000.
În December, 1912, the Vicksburg, a sister ship to the Annapolis, was examined and found to be in need of extensive repairs, estimated to cost $54,000.