The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-01-07

being ADan0Oneds not because Jn0 pro-
prietor was giving up the business, but
because he had bought q new shop, and 1t was
better for him to sell his old tools to the engi-
than to remove them to his new shop near by
the old one. For the Philadelphia yard they
part Of the time in the city OF PniladeIphia
part In the city Of st.. Louis, and part In the
works OF John Roach & Son. New YORK, from
whom 1t was bought for $1,000 when they could
have bought new one from Bement & Dough-
er,y It's makers @ or the SSu'1 a. MsSnne anv S COM 55e
manufacturers of such tools. for $4,000 SO.
eleven years of use, transportation about
the country, and repairing damage, made that
old tool worth to the engineers of the Navy
$780, or ten per cent. more than "a first GLASS new
rivals in business. These are some of the
reasons which L urge personally The broad
comprehensive reasons are those by which the
committee were governed. The Information
am laying before you had not reached any of
the memb bers of the committee when they acted
on the bill under consideration, aud therefore
am not at liberty to speak for other members
of the committee on this branch OF the suoIect
But on my personal responsibility state THESE
facts. and stand prepared to prove them before
the House In conjunction with q vast mass
more damning than any have referred to- and
l think the gentleman from Illioois will pro-
badly find that he VIII promote economy even
II the incoming Administration should add n
chief engineer TO the corps and save countless
millions of dollars.
Mr. MAYNARD = Cannot the Secretary now
secure the best engineering and skill outside?
Mr. Kelley-NO, sir; he is confined to the
corps of chief engineers in the navy; and, as
pertinent to the gentlemen's question, Will
say that two naval boards, two boards OF engi-
tion of complicity-two naval boards. with
these facts staring them in the face, with this
evidence drawn rom the files OF the depart-
ment of steam engineering at Philadelphia
Navy Yard, with no conflict of testimony be-
papers speaking for themselves aud 1 have
Them bere-two boards of engineers have found
these % aad nd
ment 1t appears from the papers In the engi.
neer departm ent, official copies Of which hold
in my hand, that In AUGUST, 1865. when the
decline in prices In such things after the close
Of the war had but be gun, William Sellers Co.
offered the department. twenty five ton cranes,
wood work, iron work. the machines all com
plete for $1,000; and here, under the same GER
In 1868, when the average of fifteen per cent.
fall had taken place, they bought from John
for S2250, the price of William Sellers &
Co. at the same date for the same cranes hav-
Sons S225O when they had official evidence be.
fore them that william Sellers & Co., the men
ternational Exposition. would furnish them for
Sl690. Again, sir, the same official papers show
Offers from Bement & Dongherty. the rivals Of
William Sellers Co., for fifteen. ton cranes at
$500. and that eighteen months thereafter.
with q declining market, thev paid to their
favorites, John Roach Sons, $3.50 each for five
of these cranes.
Mr.. Msyn8rd-1 do not know what this has
to do with my question.
Mr.. Kelley-Iam coming to the point. Clti-
zens of Philadelphia were outraged Oy seeing
the navy. yard gorged like Junk shop" with
old tools brought from different parts of the
country. They appealed to the Navy Depart.
ment, and the Navy Department appointed
board Of naval engineers to investigate the
matter, and with these facts before them they
whitewashed the transaction and reported that
they saw nothing dishonest in these things.
An appeal from their decision was made to
the Secretary of the Navy, and another board
OF engineers was appointed, and gave these
transactions their approval. That is the reason
l wish to go outside of the corps for officer to
indicate boards of inquiry. will not further
delay action on this bill. but will hereafter
discuss the matters 1 have broached in the
Committee of the Whole on the State of the
Union. / now demand the previous ques ion
The previous question was seconded and the
main question ordered; and under the opera
tion thereof the bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read third time; and being engrossed, 1T
was accordingly read the third time.