The San Francisco call., 1899-11-04
BIDDING CLOSE
FOR CRUISERS
Rem arkabIe Similarity
of Figures.
Special Dispatch to The Call.

CALL HEADQUARTERS YELLING
TON HOTEL, WASHINGTON, Nov. s.
one remarkable feature about the bids
rendered few days since for the con
struction of six sheathed cruisers of 5000
tons IS that the figures are so close. A
year ago, when the contracts were given
out for the four monitors, charges were
made that the shipbuilders had formed
trust. but this accusation was vigorously
refuted, and, under the circumstances, the
present close figuring IS no doubt simply
coincidence SO far as relates to three
of the bidders, and may as a whole be
accepted an evidence of our shipbuild-
ers knowing what their work is worth
Confning the competition to the five
firms, whose bids range from 81 ,0S9, 500 to
S1,116000 (Which bars out the Burlee Dry
dock Company's bid) it will be seen that
the highest bidder exceeds the lowest by
only 7.3 per cent, while the bids of three
of the firms are practically the same, and
that there is only $3.50 difference between
the figures of the Bath and the Union
iron works. AS a rule, novices in navy
contract work bid very low, while there
are others whose tenders are either pur-
posely too high or informal so as not to
be taken seriously; but when an old eX-
perienced firm like the Columbia Iron
Works puts up its figures per cent
higher tnan that of the Union Iron Works
there is a mystery about these bids which
the absence of combination only tends
TO intensity.
Townsend & Downey. New York.. S954, 800
fFau River Eng Co, Braintree, Mass. 1920, coo
+Irigg * Co.. Richmond. Va............. ,O27. 900
Lewis Nixon Elizab izabethport.............. l. 039 SOC
Bath Iron Works Bath, Maine. 1,0h. $50
fNeafie & Levy Philadelphia. lOS0, 600
'Burlee Dry Dock Co. Eew York lg5 @ 09o 6
Moran Bros, Seattle Wash. 122, 900
Firm names against which star appears are
new bidders for navy work, and those with
have contracts on hand for torpedo-boats.
It will be noted that neither Cramps nor
the Newport News people made offers to
build these cruisers, the reason, no doubt,
being that their yards are more than
busy with mercantile and naval work.
Then again, these cruisers are somewhat
different in their construction from other
naval vessels are comparatively more
costly, because they are to be wood
sheathed and coppered. This involves
considerable painstaking work, which is
expensive and is new to most of the
yards.
Congress placed a limit of s1,1E,SOO as
the cost of these cruisers, exclusive of
/ armament, but including hulls, machi-
merry, equipment and general outfit. The
latter two items may be roughly esti-
mated at 100000, leaving Sl,04l 800 as the
I contract cost for hull. machinery, boats,
spars, furniture, etc. Upon this basis the
bids Of Lewis Nixon, the Bath and Union
iron works are within the limits, and each
of these firms is likely to receive orders
! Department reserves the right to refuse
/ bids which. although they may be the
/ lowest, may not be acceptable for other
I reasons; but 1t is just possible that the
/ Richmond firms s bid of s., ,027, 900 may be
accepted, because of the geographical po-
sitton OF that yard and that the work
will be distributed from Maine to Vir-
ginia on the Atlantic seaboard and that
/ San Francisco will get one and perhaps
/ two Of these cruisers.
The contract cost of these vessels is
! considerably higher than those of a
nearly similar type and size built in Eng
! land in 1891, where eight vessels of the
Rainbow class were contracted for at an
( average cost per ton of s225. The Rain
bow and sister ships are sheathed cruis-
ers of $500 tons and nineteen knots speed,
/ while the Denver class of the United
! States navy about to be built is only 5000
tons and are to have 1872 knots. The sew
/ eral bids show the cost per ton to be as
follows:
Triggs. Richmond, 1921, or 43.5 per cent
over british cost
Lewis Nixon, 1925, or 444 per cent over
Bath Iron Works, s325.5, or 44.6 per cent
( over British cost.
Union Iron Works, s325.S or 447 per cent
These figures are instructive, as they
indicate difference of practically 50 per
cent excess of cost in this country over
similar navy work in England, and If it
! as it probably does-applies similarly to
mercantile work, explains why our ocean
merchant marine fails to expand. An
is the fact that, Notwithstanding the
4 higher wages paid on this coast as com
pared with Eastern, and notwithstanding
the cost OF transportation of material 5000
miles and the attendant delays, the Union
! Iron Works of San Francisco can build
| as cheaply as is done in Maine. This
proves either that conditions in San Fran
cisco are so favorable as to overcome
other drawbacks or that the builders Of
! the Oregon are content with very small
| profits
Moran Brothers of Seattle Wash. ship
builders. have submitted to the Navy De-
partment another bid to take the place
! of that submitted last Wednesday for
] the construction of the 3500-ton cruisers.
The firm does this on the theory that
| Congress intended that at least two of
the six vessels should be constructed on
the Pacific Coast. and as the Union Iron
| Works of San Francisco, the only other
! bidder on the slope, bid for only one of
the ships, the Seattle firm feels that if 1t
reduces its original bid to the same figure
as that of the San Francisco corporation
! it should have 1t considered on even
! terms. The proposition being irregular,
] 1t has been referred to the board of con-