The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-03-10

sbopg A. Yes, s,T; as d machnst would
regard TIT m as impert c,ions ID a machine.
THE AGE OF THE TOOLS.
On this subject Engineer Henderson said;-
II examined several OF the Tools which /
found 10 be nearly new, the dfills especially,
aud In perfect order; some OF the lathe, found
almost new machines; I consider the 36.inch
planer aud the double headed lathe as old aud
O. How long do you think the latter has been
in use?
A. | should judge 1t was built before the war.
and must have been in use through the war.
These are two )i the tools, Mr.. Roacn's testi-
mony as to the age of which the undersigned
are constrained to dscredIt He states tlat
this double beaded lathe was built in the years
1868 and 1864. But 10 resume Mr.. Heudersous
testimony
THE CHARACTER OF THE TOOLS.
Q. Taking the whole OF the John Roach tools,
are they hrst-class tools with latest i'm prove
mente, equal to any In the country and spe-
Cially adapted to the construction of marine
engines OF the present daJY A. They are not
hIst-class tools; they are not equal to any in
the country; they are adapted TO the construc
ton OF marine machinery.
A. Are they all, or generally, OF the most i'm
proved design and IN perfect working order?
A. The tools generally are in good order; three
OF tht N are not IN perfect wol king order; they
are OF good design and have the Improvements
OF quick return, vertical and cross.feeds, and
the general improvements upon them.
Q My question is, Are they, in your judg-
ment, of the most improved design? A. They
are not all IN my judgment, of the most i'm
proved design; some OF them are.
Q. Which would you inc lude among those
that ale not so? A. The doubie-headed lathe is
not of approved design.
Q. Are they in perfect working order, with
all. counter-shatting, pulleys, etc., complete?
A. They are not IN perfect working order; all
the counter.shaftiog OF the tools is not in the
Philadelphia Yard.
While dIst enting from the views presented by
| other members of the Naval Committee, the
undersigned ieel called upon to allude TO some
| errors OF fact into which their colleagues have
fallen. After maturely considering all that has
been said on the subject, aud again making
| careful comparison OF all the Official papers
submitted by Mr.. zeller, they cannot escape
the conclusion originally expressed, that the
| misstatements and omission of lower offers
from the list of comparative prices were
| studied, and designed TO mislead whoever
might attempt to investigate the subject. Yet
the report to which we are referring disposes
| of the question by saying the statement was
not intended 10 be precise" How palpable a
mistake this Is, is proven by the fact that each
| copy of the statement was accompanied by an
| appended sheet with csptlon as follows: -
| Comparison between the prices of j. Roach
| & Son, William Sellers u Co., and Bement q
| Duugherty.n 1t contains a summary statement
! of the prices asked by each house, as set forth
in the statement TO which it IS appended, and
a Comnarisop thereof. aud presents as the result
the followin.; precise avethents:-
'The bid OF Bement & DougherLy was in all
"The bid of william Sellers & Co. was in .all
| 389 per cent. higher than the one of j. Roach
| Il Son."
| The undersigned feel that it will not be con-
sidered remarkable that they decline to concur
| in a statement that these figures were not in
| tended to be precise.
| Another poiut in The report of their collea-
| CUES fIom which the undersigned feel that they
| must expressly dissent is the following allega-
| top:-
"The committee examined boring mill of
| similar construction Ito that bought from Roach
! & Sou). at the Washington Navy Yard, and were
| assured by the intelligent master machinist,
| Mr.. Wils on, that it had been found exceedingly
useful and had recently bored out the largest
class cylinders in the navy"
| The undersigned, a majority of whom have
personally examined both tools, tnd it impos-
slble to concur in this allegation. The tools
are unlike in structure and functions. That at
| Phllade lphia may with equal accuracy be de-
scrbed as an elemental part OF, or an appendage
to, that at the Washington yard, which Is a
boring mill made from the patterns OF |. p.
Morris q Co. 1t Is true that they can each be
used in boring out large cylinders, work but
rarely required. But that at Philadelphia can
do nothing else. 1t is simple, the other Is
complex; it has fixed base, the other reVolv-
ing one; it will bore large cylinders only, the
other will bore them whether large or small;
1t will not drill, the other will; 1t will not cut,
| or face, or turn and the other will do them all,
ana therefore saves the space OF other tools IN
| a shop.
The difference in the value and functions OF
these very disslmilar tools Is fully pointed out
in the testimony of Engineer Henderson,
already cited.
The undersigned must before taking leave OF
the report referred 10, also express their un-
| Qualified dissent from the manner in which the
testimony OF MIR. Bement is referred to in 1t.
|