The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-01-29

| respects to other machlnesi A. This is a dif-
iefent thing; it Is for marine engines.
2. Did you not say for boilersq A. did not
use the word boilers
Q. Why do you say that In machines for the
construction of boilers ingenuity. has been
| dlspiayed, while none has been displayed In
other toolsg A. That is, according to my judg'
@. That in tools for the construction of boilers
| impi ovements have been made, but that In
tools for the construction OF engines none of a
substantial kind have been made? A. None that
may De called practical; there have been many
| Were the committee disposed to attach much
Importance to Mr. Zeller's judgment a
| mechanic OF to the value of his testimony, they
| would be compelled to conclude that the Iivet-
| ing machine in question is for very peculiar
and special work, as there is little rlveting done
| IN marine engines except in the boilers. On
| the question Of the improvem in machinery
| the committee beg leave to present the opinion
OF Chief Engineer Ieller, in conjunction with
| those of the chief engineers who were detailed
| as experts by the Engineer.in- n-Chief, VIZ,
| Messrs. Henderson and Wood, first presenting
| Mr.. Heller's which was rs tollows;-
| z. What is the annual percentage of benefits
| to machines by improvements? A. ! don't
| know OF any; the improvements are all on
| little things that are specialues, and they are
| charged extra in the price of all tools. TIE
description OF tools is precisely the same now
| as ten years ago.
Q. Have there been no substantial improve
| ments in this class OF tools within the last ten
| years A. don't know of anything that is of
| any benefit in marine machinery; there are
attachments whether they are Improvements is
| thing that few will admit.
On this point Chief Engineer Henderson, of
the Boston Navy Yard, testified that during the
| last twenty years there had been marked i'm
| provements In tools for building engines, marine
| and otherwise. He thought that the perfectness
| of machinery at the present day, over what it
| was twenty years ago, is very much due to the
! Improvements In the size and style of the tools.
| He thought 1t was economy in all the shops to
use the latest improvements, although many
| things were styled --latest improvements which
| did not add to the efficiency.
Chief Engineer W. w. W. Wood testified 10 the
| same effect.
FIRST Assistant Engineer Roop sustained the
| opinions OF Chief Engineer Zeller, that second
! hand machinery is equal to new, If kept in
| repair. All work could be done on the tools
under consideration that could be done on the
most modern constructed tools.
FABRICATED EVIDENCE.
The examination of the tools and the testi-
moDy satisfied the committee that the purchase
| of these secondhand tools was most inudiCous.
| In the JUDGMENT of the committee, the space
| tor several OF them would be more valuable TO
| the proprietor OF ia well'appointet machine
| shop, or person fitting up machine shop for
| active competition in the neghborhood OF we'll
| appointed shops, than the tools themselves.
| This is believed to be true of the boring bar,
| the brake lathe, the imitation double, headed
| lathe, and the 36inch planer, for which the
| Bureau of Steam Engineering paid John Roach
& Son $l7 05O. That those who had made the
purchase did not feel 1t safe to
| upon its merits, was made apparent In the early
| stage Of our proceedings; for, when the COM
| mitiee called upon the chief engineer OF the
yard for list of the tools he had purchased,
| and the prices paid for them, that officer
| through Emil Goldsen, his draughtsman, who
had prepared it, produced an elaborately ar
| ranged sheet, headed:-"List OF tools and
machinery contracted for by the Etna Iron
| Works, New York, John Roach & Son propre-
| tors, showing the price at which the contract
was awarded, and the bids of other manulac-
y AVx.. co. tnll ntn nf ind Af
the same or nearly the same capacity. ALI
prices include cost OF transportation to the
Philadelphia Navy Yard"
This exhibit disclosed the fact thai, in addi
tion 10 the 2l tools hitherto referred to, which
had been purchased at a cost of $40, ,425, con"
tracts had also been made with hessrs. Roach
4 Son for II other tools for which they were to
be paid $5l, 423. The statement conveyed to the
| mind of the committee, as it was evidently
| designed to do, the impression that the two
| firms whose prices We're said to be set forth in
| parallel columns to the prices of Messrs. Roach
| q Son had been invited to bid for all these
| tools, and had bid for most OF them, and that
| the prices set under their names, respectively,
| for equivalent tools had been taken from their
| bids. These firms we're Messrs. Bement d
| Dougherty and william Sellers Il Co., both of
| Philadelphia. Upon this exhibit, nor in any
paper accompanying it, was any allusion made
| 10 the fact that the offers from these firms, if
| any had been made, were of new tools, and that
more than forty per cent. OF Roach's were more
| or less worn, second hand, old style tools; but,
| the followlng:-
| "The contract and offers by John Roach & Son re-
uuiTe OF the dboUGndred tools TO be OF fte best
E9uAL TO ANY IN THE coUNTRY.i
The note being SO emphasized as to require
the use of small capitals and italics, as above,
| should IT be put in print.
| BY this exhibit appears that the cost OF the
tools from Ro ach Il Son will be $99, S48. 1t pur-
| ports TO be COMP carlson OF the prices OF par
! iiCular TOOLS but not of the total cost, had they
| all been procured from the other firms, who are
represented Us having made no bids for number
| OF the tools.
| 1t also contains broad column headed IRE
| marks" ;" purportipg TO be explanatory, but from
| which the committee could derive but little aid.
| Indeed, the observation OF the committee, aided
| by the testimony OF the witnesses who repre-
| seDted Bement d Dougheriy and Sellers Co.,
made it apparent that the object OF the remarks
was not to illustrate but 10 ooseure the point at
| issue. Thus, opposite to the brake.lathe the
| remark is simply, This KIND OF tool Is not
| manufactured in Philadelphia but does not, as
it should, also say, "or anywhere else, because
| it was long since superannuated."
| Again, opposite to the boring bar, which ls
| designated as Il ''boring mill" the remark is:-
| 'Bement & Uougberty's bid is for boring and
| turning mill OF different construetion;' but does
| not also say, such as are now in universal use
| TO the exclusion of the kind purchased
And again, opposite TO planer IL feet be-
| tween housings, 20 feet travel, the remark Isl
Element d Dougherty's tool admits only 10
| feet;n but omits to add that IL was, rs required
by the specification on which IT is alleged their
fore involved about double the amount OF metal
| and work mauship.
The production of this exhibit involved the
| Investigation Of several collateral questions,
| among which were whether the antique and
| well-WoIn tools of Roach d Son were as set
Il fhap ln1Nt nj hf n4W VI RompQt