Waterbury evening Democrat., 1905-02-16
A BULKY DOCUMENT.

A LULhY DOCUMENT.
 Correspondence With the Two Sub. marine Torp edo Boat Com pa niss.
 Washington. Feb 16.-The navy de- partment has forwarded to the house committee on naval affairs all the cor respondence with the department and the two leading submarine tofpadO boat companies, the Holland Co and the Lake Go. The correspondence in question makes quite document and covers all letters and statements from January p, 1901, when the Lake Co first requested an investigation of the Lake type of submarine torpedo boats, to the present time. The report shows i that there is quite a controversy be- tween the two companies and the navy department, and from the standpoint of the department Captain Lake has no complaint to make. The committee !. will probably, however. look into the matter carefully and determine what shall be done in the future with refer ence to submarines.
 In transmitting the letters. the chief of the bureau of construction and re- pairs says, in part: 'In transmitting this correspondence it is recom1hended that special attention be invited to the fact that the contention of Mir Lake, as contained in his communication of January 25, 1905, to the Hon E. J. Hill, that the department had refused to permit test of the Lake boat, 'un- less the Lake Co sign q statement that it would accept as final trial of its boat alone and not side by side with q government submarine, as clearly provided by law and demanded by tho Lake Co., is wholly without founda. tion in fact and clearly disprOved by the phraseology employed by the dc. partment, which was as follows: That the boat which you submit to the de partment for test Is at that time, final. ly completed, and that you are pre-. pared to accept as final, for the pur. poses of this act, the result which your boat is capable of developing on trial at the present time
 ''This clause as written by the de, pertinent had a very simple and defi' nite meaning and was intended to pre- vent either competitor from submitting boat which was incomplete and claiming subsequent to the, trial that its boat was not entirely in readiness thereby compelling the department tt undertake an indefinite number oi l trials in order to determine the merits of respective competitive boats. It is also recommended that attention he in vited to the fact that this particular statement which the department in sisted must be made by all competitors was not objected to by the Lake Co a, the time of its original submissioE or January 19, 1904, and not until Deccm Der 3, 1904. The Lake Co knew per fectly well. and had been so advised by the department, that its condition had been formally accepted by their 1 competitor; that such statement could only refer to administrative methods: that it could not possibly bf construed as limiting the character of the tests to he made, and was purely and solely to prevent incomplete boats being offered for trial.
 Tt is believed that the correspon dence on file in the department partic ularly the departments letter of De ccmber :. 1904. will satisfactorily dis pose of the misstatcment of fact which is made in the petition of MT Lake oi january 9. l9O5."
 The letter of December :. 1904. re f,rred to is lengthy statement of the department as to the attempts tc bring the two companies together ir a competitive trial with their boats which attempts thus far have failed for one reason or another. Secretary Morton, who prepared this letter him self, closes as follows:
 'The department has endea vorcd {, afford the Lake Torpedo Boat C, every reasonable opportunity to sub init boat of their type for thorough trial under the terms of the acts mak ing appropriations for submarine boats and in doing so has possibly placed al Il disadvantage a competing company which. as reported by the trial board submitted for test a boat which meI the departments conditions in all es sential respects.
  facts in connection with the competi tive trials of submarine torpedo boats the department can find no justilica ton for further delay in this ma ter since the statements made by the Lak. Torpedo Boat Co in its letter of De cember 3. 1901. do not afford evidenc, of reasonable grounds for further ex tension of time. hut impugning tlie fai- ness of officers whose conclusions ar, unanimous and clearly based hIcn tn, actual performances of the vessel test cd. Despite the liberal treatment ac corded to the Lake Torpedo Boat Cs by the department. that company now questions the departments understand ing of it's own correspondence in thi. matter. and disputes its Iegai right t' impose conditions which have beer long since accepted in good fai-h b, other competing company and whicl have hitherto been un,lisputed i.y tn. Lake Torpedo Boat Co itself. so far a. any evidence before the department in dicates.
 "The department therefore begs ts advise you that it will now proceed {, take such action relative to contract, for the construction of submarine tor pe.io boats as may. in it's judgment seem proper. hut requests that # may h. advised promptly as sson .s ths Lake Torpedo Bcat Co arc prepared {. have their boat tested under the con