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


the war reduced the demand for them. But,
worse than this, the prices of tools which had
thus long before been offered at lower rates
were not only omitted from the comparative
table, but in some Instances were set forth as
much higher than was shown to have been the
case by their offers of August, 1866, produced
from the files OF the department. To this point
we shall recur hereafter.
COMPETITION BIDS AND PRICES.
Passing from this question, the committee
pl oceed to consider the fairness of the Drice lar
these tools, whether old or new, and TO deter
mine whether competitive bids for them were
solicited or received. That such BIDS wers
solicited or received from Bement 4 Doughertv
ana ana lillian Sellers u Co., the members OF both
these brms positively denied. Each firm stated
tDat they received from the Bureau of Steam
Engineering, during the month of August, 1866
an informal request for their prices OF number
OF tools, TO which request the former hrm
responded on the oath OF August, 1866. embody-
ing in their note q distinct announcement that
the prices were submitted here Subject to
changes in cost of building" This was done as
the committee were informed, because tue mar
ket for tools had steadily declined from the close
OF the war, in the spriug OF l866 and was then
dc CliDng.
The response of Mess1s. Sellers bears date
August 80, 1866. Regarding the request, as did
Bement ~ Dougherty, rs a mere preliminary
step, and not as request for bids, they saudi
I'VE have the pleasure TO enclose herewith
photographs and Specifications OF most of the
tools named by sou, the present price of which
delivered at our works, would be about as fol-
loWeO etc,
SO constant was the decline in the price of
such tools, that both these houses have issued
revised price.lists at periods OF few months
during the interval. Other causes than those
winch operate upon the general market of the
country often produce reduction of the price
OF tools, such as the possession OF patterns irom
which to make hem, or orders for q number of
tools at The same time, which by their extent
justify more economical organization of DO wer
and labor; so that it is not, in the Judgment of
the trade, safe to contract for expensive tools
oeioEe they ale needed, or upon prices long
antedatlng the transaction.
Messrs. Sellers & Co., having examined the
exhibit hereof referred to- said:-
we M, never made any BIOS ior these TOOLS, neither
@ Soe a. a certain photographs obtained from US some
nave Se bass we spon ts
which me c0mparson has been made Some of the
On this point Mr.. Bement, of the firm of
Bement Dougheriy, being shown the exhibit
and asked whether the prices were those OF his
1rm, said they were not bids; that when the
hIm makes bids they take press copies of them;
that the books Of the firm had been examined
and found that no bids had been gwen Tor these
tools, and no member of the finn or employe
thereof bad any recollection of any bids having
been solicited or requested, aud added, If there
had been call made at that time June 1867,
the prices would not have been as carried out IN
the eXhlbitn
Q. Then your books show no call on you for propo-
siors or the several Items set lorlh thai sche-
prices VIC ud not nave been as Guoied and The prices
qnttd as ours in some cases are not the prices on
"a, 1856 - VA - s"''
SO 1t appeared that the Comparative state
ment" prepared by the Bureau OF Engineering,
and which the committee learned had sufficed
to induce board OF engineers, appointed by
the Secretary OF the Navy to inquire into this
transaction, to approve it, was fraudulent, not
only in comparing The worn tools of John Roach
d Son with the new tools OF the first builders in
the country, but in eXaggeratng the prices
asked for new tools, and in omitfing from its
m nple %
lower rates than had been paid for those of
Messrs. Roach & Son. Whatever apology there
may be for the purchase of these secondhand
tools by Mr. Zeller, who is not machinist or a
business man. the committee suggest that no
measure of ingenuity can contrive an apology
Tor the deliberate fabrication of evidence to gloss
over such a transaction, and conceal it's true
character from the Navy Department and
Congress.
The committee will present few of the
features OF this tabular exhibit in connection
with the prices OF Messrs. Bement d Dougherty
and William Sellers * Co., as communicated to
the department OF engineers in August, 1866, as
they appear in copies furnished he committee by
the department under its official STAMP These
copies prove that the Chief Engineer had
among his official papers irrelutable evidence
OF the forged and fabricated character OF the
EXHIBIT.
In this exhibit appear two % ton cranes, 25.
feet swing, bought of Roach Son for S4500. 1t
shows that William Sellers & Co. did not bid for
such cranes, while the copy of their list of
prices vi august 5U, 1900, 1urnlSneQ US Oy the
department of steam engineering, contains their
offer Tor two 25-ton cranes, with woodwork
complete, $4,000 each. The superiority of the
gearing Of the cranes OF Messrs. William Sellers
d Co. over those delivered by John Roach q
Son in 1867, at $3.50 apiece more than Sellers IL
Co. had asked in 1856, is so great that with four
men at the winch OF Roach's lathes each man
must exert so pounds, while four men at the
winch ol Sellers need each exert but 20 pounds.
But is due 10 the Messrs. Sellers, and to per-
tect comprehension of this transaction, to say
that the price of their cranes in June, 1867,
when Roach Il Son received S2250 for theirs,
was but $l690 each.
Again, the exhibit shows five 15ton cranes,
Is feet swing, bought from John Roach q Son,
at $780, as late as the 9th of January, 1868, and
represents neither Sellers & Co. nor Bement &
DouebeIty as having proposed any price tor
them, while IN the certified COPY OF their esti-
mate for tools, OF August "a, 1866, it appears
that two 5-ton cranes, 25 feet by 22 feet swing,
were offered at $500 each. Thus it is shown
by evidence produced by the department that
the bureau paid John Roach Son in January,
1868, Tor l5ion crane, with Is feet swing, $3.50
more Ier crane than Bement & Doueherly
would have furnished them for with % feet
SWING in August, 1866.
Again, the exhibit shows that John Roach d
Son furnished, June 28, 1867. one 66-inCh plauer
for $6600 and that Bement & Dnugherty de-
manded Tor one of the same size $S40O. ODpo-
site the statement of these comparative prices,
in the column OF remarks, it is sald:-
The plebeTs offered by Bement tS Dougherty and
Sellers & son admit siX feet Dstween housings
No allusion, however is made to the fact that
the tool furnished by John Roach q Son had
been eleven years in use and had been sold by
ite builders, Bement d pougherty, when new,
for S37C0
But TO the illustration of the simulated char
aeter of the alleged bids. BY reference TO the
tools furnished the bureau August "a, 1865, it is
| tCuld that thew made oder for a 66 inch