[No. 93]

STATEMENT SHOWING SAVING THAT WOULD RESULT IN CASE SIX LIGHT CRUISERS SHOULD BE ORDERED THIS YEAR

CL/A9-10(270121).

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, January 21, 1927.

MY DEAR MR. BUTLER: I have given careful consideration to your request to be furnished, for the information of the House Committee on Naval Affairs, with an estimate of the saving that would result in case six light cruisers should be ordered this year instead of three this year and three at a later date. While I am of the opinion that the ordering of the six cruisers at one time would materially assist in the advantageous placing of the contracts and result in a substantial saving, a definite estimate of the amount would require too many assumptions to permit much weight being given to the estimate. I am, however, forwarding comment relative to the different factors involved.

With a plant of sufficient size two cruisers can be built at considerably less than twice the cost of one, provided the time interval between the two vessels is not so great as to prevent handling the work on the two as one job. The plan work, the laying down in the mold loft, the preparation of patterns, and certain other items would cost practically the same for two vessels as for one; many operations could be carried out in duplicate with some saving in cost; articles purchased, particularly those of special design, would cost less if double the number were ordered; and the overhead costs would not increase in direct proportion to the additional work handled. A further considerable saving would result from the fact that the special difficulties which always arise in connection with an engineering job of the extent of the building of one of these light cruisers would be ironed out on the first vessel and would be avoided on the second.

The reduction in construction costs that would result from the above causes would be dependent in considerable measure on the character of the shipbuilding plant and on the methods of production in use, but it is considered that a reasonable estimate would be in the neighborhood of $350,000 to $400,000 per vessel; that is, the second vessel, if built as one of a pair, would cost between $700,000 and $800,000 less than if built independently. If a third cruiser were added to the group, there would be a further saving in construction costs as compared with the second, but of much smaller amount.

It does not appear, however, that any satisfactory estimate can be made of the reduction in construction costs that would result from building three additional cruisers as part of a group of six, instead of as an independent group of three. The difference in cost would depend to a great extent on the distribution of the contracts for the six cruisers and for the three cruisers. The distribution in one case would not be known until the bids had been received and 20038-27-No. 93 (451)

action taken thereon, and the effect of this distribution on construction costs would have to be compared with a hypothetical distribution which might or might not represent what would have occurred in the other case.

A further element of uncertainty is introduced when an attempt is made to determine how the difference in cost of construction would be reflected in the bids submitted. The price bid by a shipbuilder is governed not only by the estimated cost of construction, but also by the urgency of his need for additional work and by his estimate of the general situation in the industry as affecting other shipbuilders and their willingness to sacrifice profit and possibly overhead costs for the purpose of obtaining additional work. When, as at present, the amount of new construction offering is small, the cutting of prices to obtain work is likely to have an important effect on the bids.

The above comments apply whether the amount appropriated for the second group of three cruisers be $150,000 per vessel, as proposed in the amendment to the naval bill introduced in the House, or $400,000 per vessel, as provided in the bill as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The appropriation of the smaller amount would give such advantage as might arise from placing the contracts for the six vessels as one group. The appropriation of a larger amount up to about $500,000 per vessel would facilitate the handling of two vessels, one for earlier and the other for later delivery, as one job, with a probable favorable effect on the bids received. The appropriation of an amount in excess of $500,000 per vessel would result in a further reduction in the time required for delivery, but it is not believed that there would be any further marked increase in economy of construction. Furthermore, if an appropriation in excess of $500,000 per vessel were made, an initial appropriation for the guns and mounts to be installed on the vessel would be required, as it would in this case be necessary to start work on these articles in the fiscal year 1928, in order that they might be completed by the time the vessel was ready to receive them.

Sincerely yours,

Hon. THOMAS S. BUTLER,

CURTIS D. WILBUR,
Secretary of the Navy.

Chairman Committee on Naval Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

[No. 94]

TO AMEND THE NAVAL RECORD OF FRANK H. WILSON, ALIAS HENRY WENCEL (H. R. 16192)

MM-Wilson, Frank H/P19-1(270112) L.

NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, January 27, 1927.

The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Replying further to the committee's letter of January 12, 1927, transmitting the bill (H. R. 16192) to amend the naval record of Frank H. Wilson, alias Henry Wencel, and requesting the views and recommendations of the Navy Department thereon, I have the honor to advise you as follows:

The purpose of this proposed legislation is to provide that, for pension purposes, Frank H. Wilson, alias Henry Wencel, shall be considered to have been honorably discharged from the United States Navy on August 14, 1885.

The records of the Navy Department show that Henry Wencel enlisted in the Navy on December 1, 1873, at New Orleans, La., for three years as seaman, and served on the Vermont, Ohio, and Brooklyn until July 21, 1876, when discharged. His name also appears on the records as Wensel. He reenlisted on July 31, 1877, at Washington, D. C., for three years as ordinary seaman, engineer's force; served on the Wyoming and Franklin to February 9, 1878, when discharged at his own request. On March 5, 1879, he reenlisted at Norfolk, Va., for three years as seaman; served on the Franklin, Lehigh, Franklin, Wyoming, and Franklin to March 4, 1882, when discharged. On March 6, 1882, he reenlisted at Norfolk, Va., for three years as seaman, engineer's force; served on the Franklin, Standish, Santee, Franklin, and Tennessee to March 5, 1885, when discharged. On March 6, 1885, he reenlisted as Henry Wencel at New Orleans, La., for three years as first-class fireman, and served on the Tennessee to August 14, 1885, when he deserted.

The enactment of the bill H. R. 16192 would result in no increased charge against naval appropriations. However, it has been ascertained that its enactment would result in the payment to this man of a pension at the rate of $8 per month under the provisions of section 4695, United States Revised Statutes.

A bill (S. 2700, 69th Cong., 1st sess.) which is for the same purpose and identical in wording as the bill H. R. 16192 was referred to the Bureau of the Budget with the above information as to cost and a statement that the Navy Department contemplated making an unfavorable recommendation on the bill, and under date of February 27, 1926, the Navy Department was informed that this report was not in conflict with the financial program of the President.

In view of the foregoing and the fact that this proposed legislation is not for the general good of the naval service, and further that its (453)

20038-27-No. 94

enactment would encourage others to seek similar legislation, the Navy Department does not recommend the enactment of the bill H. R. 16192.

Sincerely yours,

CURTIS D. WILBUR,
Secretary of the Navy.

A BILL To amend the naval record of Frank H. Wilson, alias Henry Wencel

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in the administration of the pension laws and laws conferring rights and privileges upon persons honorably discharged from the United States Navy, Frank H. Wilson, alias Henry Wencel, seaman, United States Navy, shall be held and considered to have been honorably discharged from the United States Navy on August 14, 1885, but no pension, pay, not bounty shall be held to have accrued prior to the passage of this act.

[No. 95]

HEARINGS ON THE BILL (H. R. 16616) AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

Tuesday, January 11, 1927.

The subcommittee this day met, Hon. Roy O. Woodruff, presiding. Mr. WOODRUFF. We have met this morning for consideration of H. R. 16616, which was introduced by Mr. Miller, to authorize the Secretary of the Navy to proceed with the construction of certain public works.

(H. R. 16616 reads as follows:)

A BILL To authorize the Secretary of the Navy to proceed with the construction of certain public works, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Navy be, and he is hereby, authorized to proceed with the construction of the following-named public works projects at a cost not to exceed the amount stated after each item enumerated:

Naval station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Water front development, consisting of two piers, three slips, quay walls accessory thereto, dredging and filling, $1,500,000.

Submarine base, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Storage and administration building, $160,000; general shop, $80,000; torpedo storage and overhaul shop, $50,000; one bachelor officers' quarters, $100,000.

Navy yard, Mare Island, California: Building for submarine activities, $60,000; battery storage and overhaul, $240,000.

Navy yard, Puget Sound, Washington: Accessories and crane, pier numbered 6, $1,310,000; machine and electric shop, $1,000,000; equipment house, $100,000; paint and oil storehouse, $125,000.

Naval torpedo station, Keyport, Washington: General storehouse, $40,000; rifle range, including purchase of land, $85,000.

Submarine base, New London, Connecticut: Purchase of land, $40,000. Naval operating base, Hampton Roads, Virginia: Paint and oil storehouse, $125,000.

Navy yard, Norfolk, Virginia: Purchase of land and dredging, $65,000. Naval base, Canal Zone: Commandant's quarters, $35,000; officers' quarters, $72,000.

Submarine base, Coco Solo, Canal Zone: Officers' quarters, $240,000; quarters for married chief-petty officers, $144,000.

Naval station, San Diego, California: One small floating dry dock, $350,000. Naval fuel depot, San Diego, California: Magazine, $20,000.

Naval training station, San Diego, California: Mess hall and galley for enlisted men, $173.500; four barracks for enlisted men, $348,000; physical instruction building and armory, $175,000.

Navy yard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Battery overhaul and storage building, $72,000; general utilities building, $40,000.

Marine barracks, Quantico, Virginia: One regimental group of barracks, $850,000; three storehouses, $225,000; commissary, bakery, cold storage, and ice plant, $150,000; disciplinary barracks, $30,000; motor transport storehouse and repair shop, $100,000; power house and equipment in part, $380,000; apartment houses for officers, not to exceed $370,000; improvement of grounds and distributing systems in part, $100,000; total, $2,205,000, to be accounted for as one fund.