The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-12-31
THE rIREBoAr.
A Pointed Letter From the Washington
Iron Works Company.

SEATTLE. Dec. co. 1880.
To THE EDITOR At the meeting of the FIRE
commissioners last evening, Mr. Kellogg, chief
OF the fire department, il reported BY the seattle
telegraph to have said. sThe Washington Iron
Works made the complaint, he understood.
We now give this statement an absolute and nat
denial No one connected with cur company,
certainly none OF the principals OF the company,
have done 50, OF hare 90 much as seen the ire
boat, either while il was being built or since II
was launched.
Now that IL il authoritafiveiy stated that the
freboat is furnished with one ordinary scotch
marine boiler, we may state that when we,
among Others, were asked to bid for the build
ing Of the fireboat complete, the specifications
called for the boat 10 be built In I'D days; for
compound engine and Cowles boiler; that the
bidders were 70 lodge along with their bids
certified check for 400 and bind themselves to
sign the contract for the whole work within i've
days thereafter, or forfeit the deposit of 1900
No practical man could comply with such
conditions, aud we hold that ii was not intend
ed or expected that any outside bidder would do
80, and this expectation was fulfilled by the re-
suit, as practically there was no definite bid
other than hat from the Seattle Dry Dock and
Ship Building Company.
Not being ship builders ourselves, VIC con-
suited those who were, and they stated that the
work could not be done In i20 days. This has
proved TO be the fact, as the Dry Dock Company
has taken seven 70 eight months, or over 200
working days. As there was penalty OF so
per day beyond the 10, the Dry Dock Company
owes the city 1900 ON this head The Cowles
boiler Is made under patent; must be made in
the East consequently brought no work to our
own city, Has more costly by many thousand
dollars than our ordinary boiler, and was alto
gether unsuitable for q firebost- We thus de-
esded 10 send In no bid.
Mr. Kellogg further stated land IL Is the first
time 70 our knowledge that 1t has been statedl
that opinion being adverse to a Cowies boiler,
''the council accordingly authorized a scotch
boiler put in, instead of Cowles. and nobody
could find fault with it," This is not question
OF whether n Cowies or Scotch boiler Is best:
we ourselves believe the latter is-but the ques-
ton is, was this square deal throughout?
Outside bidders were asked to bid o. for fire.
bost compIete--that il, with all necessary fur
nishings and fittings, except few OF the latter
that were specifically mentioned; (2j for
cowies boiler, and t3) all 10 be completed in I'D
days, according to specifications issued. These
specifications were subsequently changed and
no fresh bids were called for By the council We
leave the public to judge whether there was
thorough fairness all round.
Now the Dry Dock Company have delivered:
~ A hreboat presumably complete, but send in
abiii for extras Of $3.50, or thereabonts: 9)
Scotch boiler, costing many thousands less than
Cowles would have cost. and 90 they have
taken over 20 days instead OF 10 to build IL.
We are told on good authority that In place Of
the contract being required within five days Of
the acceptance of the bid, Ii was not signed for
about month later. Also, the original specif-
cations stipulated that the fireboat should run
for three months uncoppered, then be placed ON
dock, recauiked and coPpercd. By this the fire.
boat could neither 81 aet pied nor finally paid for
until that time bad expired
ecapitulation-Extrus charged, 5000: differ
ence between Scotch and Cowles boiler, say,
5000: penalties, as above, 1900: in all, $4,000
due the city.
Outside of being citizens and taxpayers, we
have no interests to serve In this matter, and
disclaim distinctly any jealous feeling from the
boat having been built by another concern.
Yours faithfully,
WASHINGTON Iron WoRKs COMPANY