Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-03-25

however, that no further penalties should
be remitted except by order of the Secre-
tary of War;
when Secretary Root came into Office
the matter was called to his attention. but
he held that the matter OF the imposition
OF penalties was q, question between the
briggs Seabury Company and the ordinances
department aSene AID that the American
The CNntroiterss Decision.
Subsequently,. .hasever. the controller OF
the treasuryN in hasssng upon similar
case. held in$Slear And unmistakable terms
that composing bladder for contracts such
as have nlsntionsd was a party in in
terest and had right to be heard. In
this decision he Hid that jnasmueh as
time was usually I'm important element
considered by bfaAers In fixing the price
Tor piece Of. Wufk. It was fair to pre-
for completing the work covered by the
contract than would have been named had
1t been understood by them that longer
der.
He held that to give such successful
bidder additional time after the award had
been made and without adequate consider
aton was an undue advantage to the sue
other bidders and q damage to the United
States. -. -
: The departn,eritfs awarded the second
contract 6 9,a E, ta The sprtgss-seabury Company
a letter calling attention to the dates Of
delivery specified III the contract and
stated thatStley were to understand that
a rigid compHance with those terms would
not delivered would at the discretion Of
the chief of ordnance be purchased at the
company's expense in the open market or
otherwise at the best prices obtainable.
A 10 ofE1y 49, hA <ar1v
partment in awarding the second contract
at time when the Driggs-Seabury Com
Eany was In complete default under the
hrst contract the American Ordnance Com
pany formally protested
lnasmuch as the American Ordnance
company, when it submitted its bid on the
two contracts, fixed a price based upon de-
livery according to the exact terms to be
named IN the contracts, 1t feels that it has
oeen unJustly treated, because had 1t
known at the time that the dates for de-
liveries would have been extended over and
over again, and that no penalties would
have been enforced, it could and would
nave named much lower price.
You will understand that while 1t may
cost $4,00O,O0O to build a great battle ship
in three years, 1t might cost nearly double
that sum to build it in one year.
Some months since we formally notified
the Secretary Of War that If further pay
ments were made to the Driggs-Seabury
company under their contracts and IL fur
the matter before the controller Of the
treasury, the courts and Congress.
The First Step.
Finding that the payments still con-
tinued to be made and that the penalties
were not enforced we have now taken our
first step. which is in the nature of pro-
test to the controller of the treasury
against any further payments to the
Driggs-Seabury Company under the two
contracts which I have mentioned.
This action of ours is only preliminary,
for we do not propose to sit idly by and
see competing company hand nursed by
the ordnance department.
I'm anything that I have said have no
intent of casting reflections upon officers
of the ordnance department or on any one
connected with the War Department. The
high integrity of alfsthe officials connected
with that department is too well known to
need comment" 'sH