The times., 1899-06-28
Fight OF ORDNANCE MEN
Anti Trust Gun Makers Appeal to
Secretary Alger.
The Driggs-seabury Company Pro-
tests Against the Annuimcnt of a
DeIinquencies With an Old One
story of Tangled Controversy.

story of N Tangled Controversy.
The sincerity of Secretary Alger as an
antitrust advocate is to be tested in
ruling which he will shortly be called upon
TO make A fight is now on between two
of the largest ordnance firms of the United
States. with the seat of hostilities at the
War Department. The companies involved
are the American Ordnance Company, with
factories at Bridgeport, Conn, which is a
trust concern, and the briggs -Seabury Gun
and Ammunition Company, of Derby,
Conn. The question in dispute is on a de-
cision rendered by Acting Secretary of
War Meiklejohn. in Secretary Ayers alb
sence and if this is sustained by Mr.. Alger
it is claimed that ii Will give the trust
company an undue advantage.
These two companies control the manu-
facture in the United States of rapidfire
guns used by the Army and Navy. In
april, 1928, a contract was awarded the
briggs Company for eighty 15-pounders
and twenty 6-pounders. Under the con-
tract the briggs company was to deliver
the guns to the War Department by the
LIST of May, 1899. Several weeks ago the
War Department determined to place an
other order for guns of a similar type and
bids were invited for the delivery of forty
6-pounders and forty 12-pounders. The
bid of the Driggs-Seabury Company was
$4,000 less than that of the American
Ordnance Company. Gen. A. r. Burlington,
Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance of the
Army, accordingly notified the briggs COM
pGny of the acceptance of their bid. Speci-
fications for the guns ordered were pre-
pared and a copy forwarded to the con-
tractor These specifications required that
such changes in the details of the drawing
as the Ordnance Department desired should
be made when ordered by the department.
The contract stipulated that for each days
delay in the delivery of each gun or car
riage after the time stated in the proposal
there should be deducted the sum OF ST.,
and for each lot of ammunition, S..
Soon after the acceptance of its bid by
the department, the Driggs Company re-
qucsted that the time of the delivery
should date from the signing of the print
ed contract, then in the hands of the print
er. This the department declined to do,
and General Burlington insisted that the
time SlCulu utlt lIUiil the dtCtpldHCt Cl
the bid The company acted accordingly,
and placed orders for nearly $50, 600 worth
CT machinery to be installed in their fac
tories at Derby for the production of these
guns. Before the printed contract was
signed, General Burlington left Washssg-
ton fer an inspection trip OF the Army ar
sensls and factories in the East. 1t was
intended that the contract should be signed
on his return. but when he got back to
Washington his attention was called to
the delay by the briggs Company in the
delivery of the guns ordered in their first
contract. Assistant Secretary Meiklejohn
made an investigation and directed that
the Chief of Ordnance annul the order Civ
en- the briggs Company. He based this ac-
tion on the ground that the firm was al
ready behind in its deliveries under the
first contract. General Burlington was of
the opinion. however. that the briggs
Company would be able TO fulfill the terms
of the second contract. A report was call
ed for and received by the department
from Lieutenant Hobbs the ordnance in
spector at Derby, Conn. as to the ability
OF the company to carry out its contract
Lieutenant Hobbs inspected the factories
and made a report showing the number OF
lathes and other machines that had been
installed by the ordnance company II
was claimed by the briggs people that this
report showed that they were in a position
to fulfill their obligations. The American
Ordnance Company represented to the de-
partment however, that they were in q
position TO at once begin the work OF
making these guns, and claimed to bt
able to make deliveries within a short
time.
The briggs Company explained 10 thu
Ordnance Department that the delays il
the first order were really occasioned h,
circumstances entirely beyond its control
1t was pointed out that in the specifca
tions of the first order the department hat
required certain composition of bronz
for the carriages that should at the sam,
time give a certain tensile strength l
was impossible, they claimed. TO procur
this composition of bronze as required b,
the specification, and it was not until abou
two months ago that the Ordnance Burea1
| determined to waive this requirement Il
| enable the manufacture Of the carriages
! There were, however other causes o
| delay. 1t is claimed by the briggs Com
pany, that owing TO the rivalry in tn
| ordnance business, it was unable to pro
| cure from certain firms, friendly TO III
! American Ordnance Company, material
frequently needed in its business On
! instance of this difficulty was in the pro
| curing of cartridge cases, an order 70
which. when placed with a prominent firm
was rejected and the briggs Company wa
| compelled to erect a factory for the manu-
| facture of its own cases Recently tn
company found the same difficulty in get
! iing outside firms to make shields for tn
new guns, but it has now succeeded Il
/ placing an order and the goods will b
| delivered within short time
Owing 10 this combination the Drigg
/ Company has determined 10 increase il
| plant at Derby and plans are now unde
| way for the construction of factories ther
| for the manufacture OF large orders O
rapid-fire guns.
Since the return of Secretary Alger tn
matter of the annulment of the contrac
has been called to his attention. the Drigg
| Company having fled a protest agains
the action of Secretary Meikleiohn in agai
advertising for bids. Il is pointed ou
that by another call for bids the Ameri
can Ordnance Company is given an undu
/ advantage over the briggs Company be
cause the latter's bids under which
| was given the contract are already know
! to its rivals and they will be able If the
so desire 10 reduce their bid accordingly
On the other hand If the department is de
termined not TO give the contract to tn
| briggs Company II will cost the Govern
ment s70,0 coo more under an award to tn
American Ordnance Company than it woul
TO the briggs Company.
MR.. M'LEAN WILL NOT RESIGN