Mr. KELLEY. Just in what respect. Admiral WATT. I can not give you the details from personal knowledge. I am a user of the dock and not the builder; but I am informed by the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks that The difference in the estimated cost for a dock at Norfolk and one at Hunters Point, Cal., is mainly represented by the difference in cost of the body of the dock. At Hunters Point the dock would be constructed in very soft rock, the excavation being finished with a lining of masonry. The amount of masonry is therefore small and the foundations inexpensive as compared with a dock at Norfolk, . which must be founded on piles with heavy masonry walls and bottom. The CHAIRMAN. I will state that gentlemen representing the Union Iron Works came here last year and saw me at the time they submitted this proposition to the department. They said that they expected to build a dock at a cost around $2,000,000, but not less than $2,000,000, on account of the fact that they had the depth of water and did not have to do any dredging, and because they had & soil construction that did not require piling, and which could be taken out readily by their dredges, shovels, and things of that character. I asked these gentlemen if $2,000,000 would build the dock, and they said to me that they hoped to build it for $2,000,000 with their facilities and experience. I asked them what, in their opinion, it would cost the Government to build a dock at the same place, and they said they thought $3,000,000. As to why they said that or what they based their opinion on, I do not know. That is my recollection. What is the length of the New York dock? Admiral WATT. Seven hundred feet. Mr. WITHERSPOON. What did that dock cost? The CHAIRMAN. What did the dock at Norfolk cost with the enlargement? No, that is hardly a fair test of cost, because there was some duplication of work. We took out the end of the dock and rebuilt it by making it longer. That would not be a fair test. What did the Bremerton dock cost? Admiral WATT. The cost of Puget Sound No. 2 dry dock was $2,300.000. The Norfolk dock, extended to 722 feet in length, cost $1,729,000. Mr. WILLIAMS. Did your question cover a concrete dock? Mr. ESTOPINAL. Was that the original cost or after the addition had been made? Admiral WATT. The addition cost $529,000. The CHAIRMAN. That is embraced in those figures. Admiral WATT. The contract price of the dock was $1,200,000. The contract price of the extension was $529,000. The total cost of the 722-foot dock was $1,729,000. Mr. FARR. Why should there be that difference between the cost of a dock constructed by the Government and such a concern as the Union Iron Works? The CHAIRMAN. I do not know, sir. Mr. WITHERSPOON. We always pay more when we do it than when somebody else does it. Mr. FARR. My understanding is that the Government can build warships as cheaply as by contract? 32598-14-18 The CHAIRMAN. It has not done it yet. Admiral WATT. Only in one instance. The gunboats Monocacy and Palos were built at the Mare Island Navy Yard for materially less money than the one bid we obtained after the usual 60-day advertisement. The CHAIRMAN. What is their tonnage? Admiral WATT. One hundred and ninety tons. Mr. FARR. There is one battleship under construction? Admiral WATT. We have one battleship, the New York, under construction at the New York Navy Yard, which is making excellent progress and is being built very cheaply. It is not possible as yet to state the cost of the New York, but the last battleship finished at the New York Navy Yard cost 50 per cent more than was paid for the sister vessel built under contract. Mr. WITHERSPOON. That was the Florida? Admiral WATT. The Florida was built at New York Navy Yard. The sister ship Utah was built by contract at Camden, N. J. Mr. FARR. Has the Government the facilities to build a dry dock compared with concerns in that business? Admiral WATT. The Government would build the dry dock by contract; the competition would be very wide, and I see little reason for anticipating that the cost to the Government would be more than the cost to a private shipbuilding corporation. There are local conditions in connection with this Hunters Point proposition which make cheap construction feasible. They already own the land on which it is proposed to construct the dock, and they may have a proposition for using the material excavated. All such questions enter vitally into the cost. Mr. ROBERTS. Does the fact that the Government puts a price on it have any bearing, in your judgment, on the amount of the contract bid? Admiral WATT. I do not think so. I think there may be times when the shipbuilders have a large number of contracts on hand when they may say, "This contract is attractive if we can get a good price for it; otherwise we do not want it," but the fact that there is a limit placed on the expenditure does not affect the competitive bidding adversely to the Government interests. The CHAIRMAN. Has the Government ever built any docks of late years? Admiral WATT. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All of them have been built by contract? The CHAIRMAN. So that the Government has no facilities? Mr. ROBERTS. I notice that the table on page 802 purports to give the controlling depth of water from the several navy yards to the sea, mean low water, and I would like to ask, Admiral, if you have in your bureau reliable data on the depth of water at mean low water from the several yards where there are docks to the open sea? In other words, have you in your bureau any reliable data giving the controlling depth of water-and by "controlling depth of water," I understand that that is the least water-from the Portsmouth Dry Dock to the ocean? Admiral WATT. Complete data is on file in the Bureau of Yards and Docks, Mr. RORERTS. As this has not been brought up to date, I would like to make an inquiry in regard to the controlling depth of water at New York, which is given at 31 feet. I had an impression that there was a greater depth of water from the open sea to the New York yard. Admiral WATT. I think that 31 feet is correct. Mr. ROBERTS. Philadelphia is given as 25.5 feet and Norfok 27 feet. Admiral WATT. The controlling depth given is the minimum depth at any point from the sea to the yard at low water, and of course every effort would be made to pass such points at high water when the conditions were the best. Mr. ROBERTS. I supposed they had 30 feet at low water up the Delaware all the way from the sea to the navy yard. Admiral WATT. This table was revised by the Bureau of Yards and Docks in October, 1912. There may have been improvements in depth of water since that time, but this table was undoubtedly correct in October, 1912. Mr. ROBERTS. At the Mare Island yard it is only 20 feet, and I had an impression there was a great deal more than 20 feet. The CHAIRMAN. Some of the officers, I think Admiral Hollyday and one of the other officers, stated to us in some of the previous hearings that they had 23 and 24 feet of water over the bar. Mr. STEPHENS. They have more than 20 feet at Mare Island at the present time. The table there given refers to October, 1912, and that was probably taken from data that was prepared many months previous to that time. The CHAIRMAN. I will call upon Admiral Stanford to put in the hearings the present status of the depth of the water. Mr. WITHERSPOON. What is the depth of the water in the Delaware River? Mr. BROWNING. The 30-foot project has been completed and they have now started on a 35-foot channel. Congress refused to appropriate until the project was completed. The CHAIRMAN. The next item is "Improvement of construction plants," and the estimate for Portsmouth is $10,000, the same as last year? Admiral WATT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. At Boston, Mass., you are asking for $10,000 instead of $20,000? Admiral WATT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. The other items are the same, but you ask an increase for repairs at Charleston, S. C., and I will ask you to state if all of these repairs are needed and if they are based upon an estimate that has been carefully gone over. Admiral WATT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Why the increase at Charleston; what is the work or the necessity? Admiral WATT. There have been increased activities at the navy yard at Charleston and the commandant has reported additional tools necessary. This Mr. KELLEY. What is the additional work being done there? Admiral WATT. At the present time the Baltimore is being converted into a mine-laying ship at the Charleston Navy Yard. large volume of work means an increase in the personnel employed at the yard. The CHAIRMAN. On pages 45 and 46 you will notice a table, and under the distribution of the appropriation as carried for the suspended Bureau of Equipment you get for "hemp, wire, iron, and other materials," etc., $1,080,000 out of the appropriation. What did you have last year under that item? Admiral WATT. The total is unchanged. The CHAIRMAN. And "for the purchase of all other articles of equipage at home and abroad, and for the payment of labor in equipping vessels therewith, and the manufacture of such articles in the several navy yards you get $443,000, and "Classified service". that is, for the employment of clerks, messengers, draftsmen, etc.$15,000? Admiral WATT. That is the same as last year. The CHAIRMAN. And "Contingent," $2,400. Did you get that last year? Admiral WATT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did you have any unexpected balance last year? Admiral WATT. No, sir; we had an overexpenditure of $10,000. The CHAIRMAN. A deficit? Admiral WATT. No deficit will result. The overxpenditure was met by an allowance from the unexpended balance of another bureau. The CHAIRMAN. But you had an expenditure above this amount? Admiral WATT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Will you need this amount this year? The CHAIRMAN. You have a larger demand than last year? Admiral WATT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. But you are asking for no increase? Admiral WATT. No, sir. (Thereupon the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow, Saturday, December 20, 1913, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, Monday, December 22, 1913. The committee this day met, Hon. Lemuel P. Padgett (chairman) presiding. STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL RICHARD MORGAN WATT, CHIEF BUREAU OF CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR-Continued. The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, when the committee adjourned the other day I was about to call your attention to the item on page 110, "Construction and machinery: On account of hulls and outfits of vessels and steam machinery of vessels heretofore authorized, to be available until expended." I would be glad to have you tell us what that is to cover. I notice last year the appropriation was $13,550,728, and this year you are asking for $11,387,617, a reduction of $2,200,000. Admiral WATT. I will append to my hearing the usual letters submitted by the Chief of the Bureau of Steam Engineering and the Chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair, explaining in detail how those figures are arrived at. (See Appendix VIII.) The CHAIRMAN. In a general way, how many vessels does that take care of? Admiral WATT. In a general way, the $11,000,000 requested provides the amount needed for the fiscal year 1915 to advance the construction throughout that fiscal year of 4 battleships, about 15 destroyers, 2 submarine tenders, 2 fuel ships, and 1 gunboat. Mr. STEPHENS. Mr. Chairman, on Friday last the depth of water in the channel at the Mare Island Navy Yard was under discussion, and I have here a telegram addressed to Hon. C. F. Curry, a Member of Congress from California, which I would like to read. It says: MARE ISLAND, CAL., December 20, 1913. Hon. C. F. CURRY, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: Depth Mare Island channel, low water, 24 feet; high water, 30 feet; depth, berthing space at quay wall, 17 to 26 feet, low water. Channel is being dredged to 30 feet at low water. About 2,000 feet, or 12 per cent of contract, completed. Entrance to dry docks, 20 to 24 feet, low water. BENNETT. I only bring the matter before the committee at this time to show that the depth under existing conditions is 24 feet. I also want to make the statement that the Independence, drawing 31 feet of water, entered at Mare Island more than 50 years ago, and that the California left Mare Island Navy Yard, March 17 or 27, 1913, drawing 27 feet of water. I also submit for the record a letter from Howard C. Holmes, a consulting engineer, who has designed and constructed most of the water passenger and freight terminals on the bay of San Francisco, to the citizens of Vallejo, across the channel from Mare Island: SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., July 24, 1913. To the Citizen's Executive Committee, Vallejo, Cal. GENTLEMEN: I am submitting herewith, at your request, maps and plans embodying my ideas as to some of the available sites for a dreadnaught graving dock at Mare Island Naval Station. These plans show four different suggestions as to location, and I will name them in the reverse order of their numbering and desirability. No. 4 shows a dock 1,030 feet in length, located directly south of present Dock No. 2. No. 3 is located in what is known as Glen Cove, on the Vallejo side of the Mare Island Channel, and is, of course, of the same dimensions. In fact, all docks contemplated are 1,030 feet in length. No. 2 lies just north of Dike No. 14; and No. 1, which I think the most desirable, is located between Dikes No. 12 and 14 and on the extreme southerly end of the island. I will not go extensively into the merits of any of the aforesaid dock sites, except those of Dock No. 1. Dock No. 4 has the advantage of being in close proximity to the two existing docks at the island, but in my opinion is not particularly desirable on account of the uncertain nature of the underlying mud. Most of this, in my opinion, is similar to that which was found under Dock No. 2, to wit, tule, mud, and silt, and would necessitate the use of an expensive self-contained cofferdam and the depositing of the bottom concrete under water. Proposition No. 3 would be an ideal one were it not for the existence of the channel between the present equipment at Mare Island and the Vallejo Peninsula. In this location there is undoubtedly solid rock bottom and no difficulty would be found in obtaining and maintaining deep water at the mouth of the dock. Proposition No. 2, at the south end of the island, would (from all the present indications) have a solid rock foundation, but the objection that might be made to this |