The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-03-24
FRANKFORT ARSENAL Case
The Charges to Be Pressed for a
Thorough Investigation.
American Ordnance Company Claims
It's Allegations VIII BE Horne Out
by Papers Flied i'm the War De
pnrtment Roots Alleged Letter.

pnrtmcnt - Roots Alleged Lctte
The charges made against the Drigg
Seabury Gun and Ammunition Compan
Of Derby. Conn. by Hopkins & Hopkin
attorneys for the American Ordnan'
Company, and published on Friday, hay
caused much comment among Governmei
officials and army officers. The Drigg'
Seabury corporation is charged win nav
ing used the Frankfort Arsenal, Unite
States property, for the manufacture
guns and ammunition for the Colombia
Government.
COMPTROLLER Tracewell will notify Sec
rotary Root OF the charges made IN IN
brief and will then take action agains
the briggs Seabury Company, after Civ
ing the latter time to state its case.
The charges will be fully investigate
and a decision in the case may be expect
cd within a few days.
1t is denied by War Department of
fcials. including those Of the Bureau o
Ordnance, that Secretary Root eve
wrote a letter to the Driggs-Seabur
Company blaming them for their action
and It is denied that there is on file a
the War Department any statement from
the briggs Seabury Company admitting, il
effect, the charges.
The attorneys for the American ora
nance Company. however, have in thei
possession whatthey claim to be a COPY
Of letter written by Secretary Root t
the briggs Company. The communicates
follows: 1000
Gentlemen: l am informed that
Won have sold and delivered to the
Republic of Colombia q number OF b.
FOUNDER guns for the armament OF
cruiser and have delivered to them
;. 900 rounds of ammunition for such
guns. and are about to deliver an ad-
ditional 1000 rounds.
Under the contract made by you
with the Chief of Ordnance, United
states Army, April Is, 1898, you are
now in default by the non-deilNery
of 1900 rounds Of ammunition Tor
6-pounder guns, all OF which, by the
terms of the contract, should have
been delivered by August 2, 1895 and
by the non-delivery of 1900 ROUNDS
called for by the supplemental order
under the same contract
'On October, 1898, In order to faclll-
tate you In performing this contract,
which YOU appeared otherwise unable
to perform. and to enable the Govern
ment to get the desired ammunition,
permission was given you to use the
large press at the Frankfort Arsenal
for the purpose Of drawing the am
munition cases to be furnished under
this contract.
Il am informed that the ammunition
furnished by you to the Colombian
Government is contained ia cases
manufactured by you for the use of
this press under the permission re-
ferred to. You have no right to use
the cases thus manufactured for any
purpose other than for filling your
contract to the United States Govern
ment. You had no right to use your
plant and machinery for the manufac-
ture OF guns and ammunition for 9TH
er customers, leaving your contract
with this Government untitled.
The violation of your obligation -
this Government appears to be all the
more fragrant because of the fact that
on the Sth of July. 1899, you obtained a
further contract from this Government
for the delivery of forty 6-pOunder.
and forty 15-pounder rapid fire
guns, all of which under the terms of
the contract should have been deliver
ed by the list of August, 1890. and none
of which has as yet been delivered.
An opportunity viii be afforded You
at any time during the coming week
ending Saturday. 18th, TO make any
statement in writing you may choose
TO make upon this subject. and TO give
any rea sons you may have why re
course should not be had to the rene
dies stipulated for by the fifth clauses
Of the aforementioned contracts,
either by supplying the deficiency in
open market or declaring the contract
to be null and void.
Yours. respectfully,
"ELIHC ROOT.
Secretary of War"
1.-The Driggs-Seabury Gun and Ammu-
milton Company. Kellogg Building,
Washington, d. c.
In the brief of the American Ordnance
Company's counsel is the following. which
they claim is the part of the defence bear
ing directly on that of the Driggs-Sea-
bury Company's attorneys, and which 1t
is asserted is now on file at the War De-
partment:
That since April, 1895. they had given
to the department a greater number of
rounds of ammunition C6-pounder) than
the number called for in their contract;
that the zoo rounds of steel shell referred
to by Mr.. Root they had on hand and in
readiness for delivery, and were only pre-
vented from doing so for the reason that
the Ordnance Department had made so
many repeated changes in regard to the
quality Of powder to be used.
That default as to the 5000 rounds
called for by supplementary order was
erroneous for the same reason and that
under recent directions from The Ord
nance Department it would be about two
months before the powder authorized
could be ready for the remaining ammu-
milton.
That in work upon cartridge cases at
the Frankfort Arsenal they had paid all
expenses Of running plant and labor, as
well as the much greater part of the
work and labor done at Derby; that they
had also paid for all material employed,
and thought that the product was their
property until the Ordnance Department
had received and paid for it.
THAT while they were supplying them
selves with plants requisite to do the
same work and while their product was
held up for months waiting determination
on the part Of the Ordnance Depart
rnent in regard to the powder question
they did not think they We're violating
either law OF morals in selling 552 cart
ridge cases, for cash. to the Colombian
which they could not get
from this Government. having in mind
that they still had 2G36. on hand and
could replace the $50 and manufa ct ure
enough additional TO keep their contracts
rs soon as they could get the proper DOW
der TO go with them.
The officials Of the American Ordnance
Company deny that there is anything per
sonal in the charges made. They say that
they simply want to see justice done. 1t
Is held by them that the Comptroller Of
the Treasury has no right to allow the
briggs Scabury Company one cent for
work done until that company has paid
into the Treasury the sum OF SSU0, 900 on
penalties accrued
The brief, as filed, states the follow
ing;
ANY payment to the briggs Seabury
company Is unlawful for the reason thar
there Is no legal warrant for so doing
as this company has by its actions for
leited al rights our Intervention Is
based on the following points: First. that
We were competing bidders under the
original contracts for the work second
~, that favoritism has been shown The
lIrigSs- Seabury Company by the War DC
lartmcnt in altering the terms OF con-
tracts 10 suit that company. and modify
ing contracts to save IL from los 20
money and contracts. This is a fraud