The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-06-19


under prescribed conditions, shall be
100 and maintained successfully for
| SIX consecutive hours. provided that in
case of the failure Oh the development
of this power the vessel shall be ac-
cepted, if it can be shown to the salts
faction of the naval advisory board and
the Secretary of the Navy that this
failure was due neither to defective
workmanship nor the material used.
This trial having been had in Long Island
Sound, under conditions favorable in
the main, had yet failed to meet this re-
qnirement, having developed but 2.118
horse power for six hours. The naval
advisory board, in referring to this. had
stated that they were of the opinion
that this deficiency was not due to de-
fective workmanship nor materials, but
that with better coal and well-trained
engineer force, these results will be
exceeded. For the purpose of verifying
this prediction, and to satisfy myself as
towhat appeared my duty, wrote upon
the goth of March, suggesting TO the
contractor another trial. As the place OF
trial had been fixed in Long Island
Sound by persons authorized under the
contract to prescribe the conditions
of the trial, and as the terms
were not more severe than those
exacted by other na.ions,1 expected an
immediate favorable reply to the rea-
sonable request. 1t was acceded to on
the 9Th OF May, over six weeks having
elapsed. In the meanwhile, an exami-
nation of the dealings of the department
with the contractor, and especially the
manner in which the reserved payments
had been surrendered to the contractor,
induced me to select three competent
persons to make a thorough examina-
ton for the purpose of my adyisenlent.
as tn first, whether the contract had
been properly performed; second, as TO
the defects in the vessel; third, as TO re-
sponslbility for the defects observed, If
any.
The result of that examination, made
with great patience and intelligence, is
herewith submitted for your iconsidera-
ton. i now desire an examination
of the contract and law by
yon that | may be advised, whether,
representing the government, have on
my hands what is in the nature of a
bad bargain or broken contract. The
report demonstrates that the govern
ment has not got in the Dolphin what
Congress stipulated for and what should
have been obtained. There are three
general subjects considered by the
board: First, speed second, strength;
third, general workmanship.
The Secretary then takes up these
subjects separately. As to speed he
calls attention to the act of Congress
approprlating money for the DotphiR's
construction, in which it is provided
| that she shall have sea speed of fifteen
knots and says that he re-
ouires n speed over smooth
water of from liz to Is knots
| that this. fact was shown before the
committee of Congress and that, there
I fore, there was reason to expect this
speed from the Dolphin, whereas, her
HIGHEST speed for six hours was fifteen
! knots: that the result of her various
ltrials show her to have probable sea
speed of only between twelve and
! thirteen knots in service, that she has
! never developed for six hours the
required 1900 horsepower. As to
strength, he calls attention to the report
of the board that the evidence Is
meagre = that the English vessels have
! to undergo trials of two or three days
but that from the fact that she Yibrated
when under way; that her floors yielded,
| and that her journals became so heated
from a slight shifting of her ballast
that it was necessary to constantly
deluge them with water, the conclusions
reached that she is not as strong as she
| should be. As to the general character
of her workmanship. he quotes that the
! contract provides for first-class materials
and workmanship. These, he says, are
criticised by the board.
The Secretary concludes as follows
1.-The whole matter comes in the end
IL q arNf No
what it expected and had right to ex-
pect from the construction of this vessel
The question which l desired answered
! is, whether the department has the
matter of bad bargain simply, which
as between the contracting parties, II
must stand to, or is it broken contract
emitting it to insist upon something
better. In connection with this queS-
ton. I desired to be advised what 1:
the effect of the circumstance that the
construction has been supervised by
government officials and the materia
passed as sufficient, and the workman
J ship similarly approved, from time TO
time during the construction? Tit
contract provides for this supervision
and inspection and am advised that il
q has taken place as the work has pro
: crossed. Upon this subject call your
i attention to the fourteenth section o
the contract, which provides that l
, shah not under any circumstances, b.
obligatory upon the party of the secont
: part to accept the vessel, or any par
thereof, to be constructed under thi
contract, unless the same shall hav
2 been completed IN strict conformit,
: with this contract under the supervision
of the naval advisory board and In ac
cordance with the provisions OF the &C
of August 5tE. 1882, etc.
eff the supervision,and inspection tina
has been had is bar, SO that the de
partment cannot go back and examln
! the work passed and approved by 1t
inspectors and by the naval advisor.
I board, that ends the consideration o
the matter. II it is not bar, how ia
is the contractor responsible for tn
speed, strength and general workman
I ship of the vessel. and what are tn
remedies of the department under tn
circumstances? 2"
!, more Willingly avail myself of tn
privilege of referring this matter tt
: your judicial judgment and advice. les
. that in a spirit of resentment at this re
; suit, should be unjust"
Trial Postponed.