Evening journal., 1909-07-26
PROTEST THE
COAL AWARD
contnued rrom FIrst Iage.

talned on the test run for the same
fuel: whereas. this same basis Of COM
parison made on the fuel furnished by
another dealer Of this city showed a
large decrease in the efficiency factor
on the general run as compared with
the test run.
"Wc further submit that whereas
during the contract year OF 1908 the
departments fuel bin was apparently
about $4,000 more than in 1907 due
IN part TO heavier pumpage, this 1908
bill should have actually been about
$4,000 TO $4,000 less than the year
before for the following reasons, as
detailed in Engineer Brassington's re-
port.
First During the contract year Of
1907 the boilers were exposed to the
open weather for considerable period
during reconstruction.
Second. The general level OF soft
coal prices was running lower during
1905 than 1907 because Of the business
depression.
"Third During 1908 the new high
efficiency pumps were IN service.
"AIr. Brassington has analysed these
three factors carefully, and places the
saving In dollars and cents which the
department should have had at over
81 600. as compared with the amount
tho department actually consumed and
paid for during the year just past.
we believe that this comparison
stin further proves the unreliabllity Of
awarding contracts based upon the
present system OF short time tests
made once year
I'VE also wish TO call TO your atten-
tion. as shown In the report attached,
that tho annual statements OF tests
issued by the department have e.
many times shown quito material er-
rors in calculation and In testing.
These errors work a material in
Justice to many of the bidders. and on
account OF the use made OF your de-
partmont tests with many Of the large
soft coal consumers OF this city, such
reports naturally supply misleading in
formation TO other purchasers.
I'VE respectfully submit this situa-
ton as an actual condition that has
prevailed during the past few years,
and urge that your departments tests
before publication. hereafter have the
most thorough consideration and aud
iting.
"Nc submit this letter and report
in the interests OF the tax payers OF
this city. as we'll as the bidders fol
your fuel supply.
we feel that this important data
and the proper analysis Of it was over
looked by Mr. Kionle and your board In
reaching its decision on July 18th, anS
we ask that In all fairness you recall
tho contract papers. not yet executed
by the mayor, so far as we are nov
advised and reconsider the award re.
Gently made.
I'VE cannot too warmly express oui
thanks TO this Board and Chief Engl'
necr Kienle for the complete oppor'
tunity given the representatives o.
our company 10 collect the data here
with presented. Every record wal
promptly shown upon request. and W.
believe that our efforts In this matter
win have the fullest and fairest con
sideration at your hands, in view O
all the data presented.
= --:lf- src can be of any other service L
your Board we would be glad TO recev
your commands
VERY truly yours.
"Charlcs Warner Company,
"Charles Warner. First Vice President.
ENGINEERS MAKE REPORT.
Following is the report OF the steaI
engineers 10 the Warner ompany;
CAS- per instructions. we have ex
amined .he record Of the Water De
partment OF Wilmington. Del, An
have made up this report from tn
information SO obtained.
"Tho object Of the report is TO SHOW
az clearly as possible, the economics
results obtained by the Wilmingto
water Department from various coal
Iau F.t4I4a Irl
20 point out how these results compar
with the records Of the economical re
suits shown by these same Goals dun
ing the official tests. These ofici'
tests arc made yearly by the said dc
partmcnt for tho purpose Of selectin
tho most economical fuel to use in th
Pumping Station.
"rhe four exhibits attached TO I'll
report are rs follows:
exhibit A. shows that blueprint (
omcial tests dated 1909. is inaccurai
and that sufficient data was not takei
'Exhibit b. shows that In the fot
wears the Charles Warner Compan
was tho only one that has fulhile
their contract and supplied coal tn;
compared I'm actual work with the coi
tested i'm Official test. The Warn'
Company supplied coal that did actu
work within two per cent. Of the wor
done in official test.
'eThe coal supplied by G. II. Ts
Weeges in l906-l907 is 26 per cent. lei
I'm ehiciency than the coal supplied
official test and the coal supplied
G. H. Ten Weeges in ie0S-19O9 is ov
6 pcr cent. less efficient than that tes
cd in Official test.
"Thc coal supplied by ]. NJ. Solom'
is over 10 per cent. less efficient thi
the coal supplied in official test
''Exhibit c. shows a loss to the ci
of over $500. by changing from Wa
ner coal TO Lloydell coal in 1908.
Exhibit ID. shows tests made by q
Water Department indicating dr.
OF over IS per cent. in efficiency in &
coal supplied the Water Departme
during last year. as compared to IN
offered for test in Official tests.
.An the data I'm the above exhibl
IS based on the records Of the w
mington Water Department. Whe
tho work done in actual service by a.
given coal IS not within 5 per Gel
OF the work done by the same &C
test in official test. II shows one
the following facts:
"Ql That the contractor SUPPLY
the coal was favored in the official 4
and his coal rated too high. or
"(2) That the coal submitted by h