The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-12-27
BATTLE SHIP CONTRACTS.
Both Awarded to the Newport New
Ship-Building Company.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 26-Secretary Her.
bert to-day formally awarded to the New
port News Company, of Virginia, the con-
tracts for building both the new battle
ships, for one OF which the Union iron
works. Of San Francisco. was a competitor.
The award Of the contract has given the
Secretary great concern for the reason
that he desired, If possible, 10 meet the in
tent of Congress that one ship should be
built on the Pacific coast. and he has made
it the subject of a special report to the
President, showing how he was absolutely
obliged by the law to make the award TO
the Newport News Company. He says:
The bids on the departments plan are
as foll0WS: Cramp * SCns-One ship. s., S20,-
600; two ships. -s2,,5o.ooo each. Union iron
works-One, S2,140,000; two ships. s.. $50 go
each; Newport News Ship-building and
ships, s, 2,225,0O0 each. 1t will thus be seen
that there is very great disparity be-
tween the bids. Were it not for the sec
ships, which looks TO the construction OF
one of them the Pacific coast, there
would be no room for argument and the
would undoubtedly be entitled to both. The
peculiar wording Of the law authorizing
the construction of these ships. however 4.
the questions very carefully before reach
ing conclusion. The act requires that
one of the ships shall be built on. the Pa
cific coast, subject TO the provision that
If it shall appear to your satisfaction
from the biddlngs for the contracts when
the same shall be opened and examined
by you, that the proposed battle ships can
not be constructed at fair cost on the
Pacific coast chat is in this case by the
Union iron works. you may then authorize
the construction OF such battle ships else
where, that is to say, by the lowest and
best bidder the Newport News Ship-build-
ing and Dry Dock Company One cf the
works Is bound to stand by its bid, or can
Ii be allowed, if its bid does not represent
the fair cost. to reduce its bid to a price
that would be the fair cost OF the ship.
An examination of the statute seems to me
to preclude the idea that this company
can now be allowed to do this and the
actual wording seems to clearly Indicate
an Intention to preclude all such dickering,
since 1t must appear from the biddings'
for the contracts, when the same shall be
opened and examined.
Continuing, the Secretary says: 1.-The only
remaining question is whether the bid or
the Union iron works for one ship can be
accepted. II Will actually cost the govern
ment $4,000 more to give one Of these ships
to the Union iron works than IL would TO
give both to the Newport News company.
There is an element of cost to be consid-
ered-the freight across the continent for
the armament and equipment of the snip
built upon the Pacific coast, which would
amount to about $4,000. If this be added
to s5sO,ooo. it would cost the government
$650,000 to give one of these ships 10 the
Union iron works. To me ii seems clear
that the department. cannot undertake 70
say that a bid by responsible and compe-
tent company, fairly made after due con-
sideration, is lower than fair price for
such work. This company Is bidding not
only for of these ships. but for both,
and it insists upon its right to build both.
For the government 10 reject the bid under
these circumstances and insist upon paying
a higher price for the ships. or for one OF
them to be built elsewhere, on any such
around as that the Newport News company
is below the market price. would be a ruin
Gus policy. The government is entitled to
have it's ships built at the lowest prices at
which Ii can procure the doing Of the work,
and the true policy would dictate the en-
couragenent inste nd of disbursement OF
low boddng. I. therefore, recommend the
acceptance of the bid of the Newport News
Ship-building and Dry Dock Company for
both ships. ,
This Recommendation was approved by the
President to-day.