The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1918-12-20

not wish to minimize the boldness of the
plan of the agent and the courage and
success CT the undertaking but We are not
able to find affirmatively that the agent
has satisfactorily accounted in the hearings
before us for the expenditure of SO large
plant.
A Fundamental Miscaiculation.
"Waiving all minor questions Of contro-
versy the outstanding fact is that the
oseoes s sn@I It's November y estimate Of
$27 600 900 have been 30 far exceeded that
the probable cost Of the yard will be about
additions made by order of the fleet cor
poration). Such discrepancy must be due
TO some fundamental miscaleulation in the
original estimate, to supervening cond1-
lions, including enlargement OF the plant
to mism1nagement In operation OF , to
ancy Of such magnitude would seem to
call for clear explanation from the agent,
but this has not been furnished. -,
the agent in the hearings to stultify its
own estimates by claiming that they were
iSue Fe oS
and there is no contemporaneous evidence
justifying the agents present position. The
vised estimate Of November p, made after
two and a half months Of actual contact
with the work, in nowise foreshadows any.
thing except the normal variations OF cost
which might be expected in job of this
magnitude fhs ma.t significant .,oale fact ina,-
eating the point Of view at Hog Island was
that bills for material, largely lumber
were prepaid land properly paid to the
was made by the agent until our investi-
cation to prove whether prepaid bills were ere
material paid for.
Kept No Cost Sheet.
Another fact of strong significance is
that while the contract provided in ex-
press terms that the agent should keep
very careful provisions defining cost, yet
the agent at an early date took the posi-
ton that since the government paid for ev.
was unnecessary to comply with this pro-
vision. Hence at no stage OF the WORK
since last December could it be determined
1t was certainly possible to supervise the
undertaking from the standpoint Of cost
Admiral Bowles was sent to Hog Island to
poration in the matter Of direction and
efficiency Of 5he work and yet eliminate
unnecessary salaries in three departments
and for
oreanization in other departments is un-
der way"
Gave Them More Pay.
In a footnote the report gives an account
ants reportthat N men who were on ,t the
rS Of ssns 81 spy Il a
red to the Hog Island payroll in September
and October of that year at an average of
A report of the naval technical advisers
included in the report says SO far as tine
data before them show. the general scope
Of the Hog Island plant has not been
changed very materially since the Novem-
between $27 100000 and $50, 100000 cannot
be accounted for BY expansion subsequent
to November 20. It says the November es.
Innate is regarded e Insufficient. but after
cost of labor and the necessity for speed
the cost will be higher than the experts are
able to account fss.
Cost More There.
The total cost Of about 81, 10O, 900 pei
slip at Hog Island is compared with $685.
600 for the square yard at Bristol and
S3g0.000 at Newark bay. The investigator
| fleet corporation cannot claim the contract
was not complied with because all substan.
tia1 acts were approved by the corpora
ton because orders for additional ships
ment and, extravaganza had been made.
Regarded as SerioNs.
This. the report says, is regarded as seri
contract under which the investigators pro
| pose to inquire into the reasOnableness OF
| the expenditures provides that in any dis
| etc. shall be referred to the general man
ager of the fleet corporation and his de
s o dns
| of three disinterested naval architects, tt
| be selected one by the fleet corporation
| one by the agent and one by the two.
bill in equity for an accounting by the
agent might be brought. the report says
| but "the main question being the reason
ableness Of the expenditures, a board of ex
we think, than court or a court and 1
jury"