As previously stated, the tenders, or bids, for tnese six cruisers have been lately received, and it will be interesting to consider them in connection with the proposals put forward by the United States Government, more especially as the procedure followed in America differs somewhat from our own. The Naval Appropriation Bill providing for these ships was that which dealt with the provision of vessels for the United States Navy up to the end of the present fiscal year, which terminates on June 30 next. There were authorised to be constructed by contract, three seagoing coast-line battleships, three armoured cruisers, and these six protected cruisers. The general particulars of the ships were laid down in the Bill, and they are each to cost, exclusive of armament, not more than 1,140,800 dols. The Secretary of the Navy was directed to award the contract to " the lowest responsible bidder, having in view the best results and the most expeditious delivery." Not more than two of the seagoing battleships, and not more than two of the protected cruisers, were to be built in one yard or by one contracting party. It was further provided "that one and not more than one of the seagoing battleships, and one and not more than one of the armoured cruisers shall be built on or near the coast of the Pacific Ocean." The President was, however, allowed to exercise his discretion in regard to the latter provision if it was found that the vessels could not be built on the Pacific side at a cost not exceeding 4 per cent, above the lowest accepted bid for the other ships.
There is a good deal that iB interesting in the provisions of this Bill, especially when considered in conjunction with the armour-plate questions in which the United States Congress has recently thought fit to
* See Engineering, vol. lxviii., page 819 and page 50 ante.
interfere with not very fortunate results. No doubt a wise discretion is exercised in fostering shipbuilding enterprise on both ocean-coast lines of the country, as thereby the naval strength of the nation is increased, although a cynically inclined American citizen might be apt to attribute the procedure to the influence of Pacific coast votes. But in any case it would be more satisfactory, we should think, to have these matters left to the Secretary of the United States Navy and his professional advisers; as, in this country, they would be left to the First Lord of the Admiralty. Unfortunately these wider questions of national policy are the kind of things our First Lords never seem to consider; because, it may be presumed, they are subordinate to the Treasury—which never recognises anything more Imperial than tbe lowest tender— and also because they are afraid of questions in the House. The "awards " for the six cruisers were made on November 27 last, as follows:
Galveston, Wm. R. Trigg and Co., 24 months,
1,027,000 dols. Chattanooga, Lewis Nixon, 30 months, 1,039,966
dols.
Cleveland, Bath Iron Works, 30 months, 1,041,650 dols.
Tacoma, Union Iron Works, 27 months, 1,041,900 dols.
Des Moines, Fore River Engineering Company,
30 months, 1,065,000 dols. Denver, Neafie, and Levy, S. and E. B. Company,
30 months, 1,080,000 dols.
These contracts are for the department's designs with a speed of 164 knots. There was offered by one firm a lower price than any of those named, namely, 954,500 dols., but their tender was Dot accepted. There were also three bids somewhat higher. The closeness of some of the tenders is quite a coincidence, and indicates how very well the estimating department is managed in some of the works.
no subject
There is a good deal that iB interesting in the provisions of this Bill, especially when considered in conjunction with the armour-plate questions in which the United States Congress has recently thought fit to
* See Engineering, vol. lxviii., page 819 and page 50 ante.
interfere with not very fortunate results. No doubt a wise discretion is exercised in fostering shipbuilding enterprise on both ocean-coast lines of the country, as thereby the naval strength of the nation is increased, although a cynically inclined American citizen might be apt to attribute the procedure to the influence of Pacific coast votes. But in any case it would be more satisfactory, we should think, to have these matters left to the Secretary of the United States Navy and his professional advisers; as, in this country, they would be left to the First Lord of the Admiralty. Unfortunately these wider questions of national policy are the kind of things our First Lords never seem to consider; because, it may be presumed, they are subordinate to the Treasury—which never recognises anything more Imperial than tbe lowest tender— and also because they are afraid of questions in the House. The "awards " for the six cruisers were made on November 27 last, as follows:
Galveston, Wm. R. Trigg and Co., 24 months,
1,027,000 dols. Chattanooga, Lewis Nixon, 30 months, 1,039,966
dols.
Cleveland, Bath Iron Works, 30 months, 1,041,650 dols.
Tacoma, Union Iron Works, 27 months, 1,041,900 dols.
Des Moines, Fore River Engineering Company,
30 months, 1,065,000 dols. Denver, Neafie, and Levy, S. and E. B. Company,
30 months, 1,080,000 dols.
These contracts are for the department's designs with a speed of 164 knots. There was offered by one firm a lower price than any of those named, namely, 954,500 dols., but their tender was Dot accepted. There were also three bids somewhat higher. The closeness of some of the tenders is quite a coincidence, and indicates how very well the estimating department is managed in some of the works.