Mr. FULTON. That is turned over to the bookkeeper and that is where

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON (interposing). No, sir. The report turned over to the general superintendent remains in his possession and is for his information only. It is not an accounting record. It is really a duplication whereby he keeps track of the foreman.

Mr. FULTON. I see. Where does the bookkeeper get his information? Where does the accounting record come from?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. From the operator's card checked by the equipment checker and turned in to the accounting department. Mr. FULTON. I see. That is not, then, approved by the superintendent before it goes to the bookkeeper?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. It is approved by the superintendent of the equipment division.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. MANIER. Now, the next one of those was a ditching machine. The testimony is that it had been received on the reservation at the time they took the photograph and had not worked any at all. It was brand new and had been ordered onto the reservation, and on the question of Brewster as to how long it had been there, I understand it had been there approximately 3 weeks.

The testimony of John Ralls is to this effect:1

A request was made under date of July 1, 1941, with notation on same "To arrive at once." The purchase department immediately called for bids and three lessors submitted bids. The Midwest Construction Co. submitted low bids on two Cleveland trenching machines at a new cost of $5,585 each, and a rental per month of $650 each. The requisition was completed on August 4, 1941, and Midwest Construction Co. was instructed to ship the machines, after we had obtained the regular approval of Lieutenant Bruce and Lieutenant Nicholsen, of the contructing quartermaster's office. The machines arrived on the project on August 22, 1941. It will be noted that August 24 was Sunday, and the records in the accounting department showed that these machines started work on August 27. These ditching machines, therefore, were not idle 3 weeks, as stated by Mr. Harrison.

Mr. FULTON. Then, Mr. Manier, of course the point is raised there that Mr. Harrison wasn't saying the contractor didn't claim the records showing operation; he was giving pictures of machines found by an inspection to be idle on the property.

Mr. FERGUSON. May I clear up that particular machine, too? That was a ditching machine brought in for the Midwest Construction Co., who are doing igloo construction in Milan Ordnance depot plant. It was brought in deliberately in advance of their arrival on the job because it was one completed machine which was immediately available to us. We have had several sad experiences by trying to delay rentals, that is to save rentals, in which the machine was allowed to remain at the manufacturers and some other plant stepped in with an A-1 priority or the Navy stepped in and took it right out from under our noses and left us waiting anywhere from 4 to 8 weeks before we could get a piece of equipment to put on that job.

Mr. FULTON. Then I understand that you brought it there before it could be used so that you would be sure to have it when you absolutely needed it.

Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct, sir.

1 See Affidavit No. 63, appendix, p. 3544. See also Affidavit No. 63-A, appendix, p. 3545.

Mr. FULTON. That is only further evidence, is it not, that these affidavits to the effect that you have records showing that it was on the project only mean that you have records.

Mr. FERGUSON. No, sir.

Mr. FULTON. For you yourself are saying you brought it there ahead of time because you had to do it, and therefore controverting your own affidavit.

Mr. FERGUSON. No, sir. The affidavit given there indicates and includes the time it has worked since the date of the report which was put into the testimony.

Mr. FULTON. But you are saying you brought these things here several weeks early and that record says it started work immediately, as I understand it.

Mr. MANIER. It arrived on the project on August 22, 1941, and went to work on August 27.

Mr. FULTON. Yes; precisely the opposite of what you just said, that you ordered these things several weeks before you needed them in order to be sure you had them.

Mr. FERGUSON. No, sir.

Mr. FULTON. Proceed with it, then.

Mr. MANIER, It was 3 days before it went to work after it arrived because the 24th was Sunday.

Now, the next one is a Rome pull grader. Mr. Harrison testified that it had been idle 90 percent of the time, that it had a wheel off.1 A Rome pull grader is a wet weather machine

This is the testimony of Wallace H. Faulk1—

and it is the general practice to keep one or more of such machines on any kind of a grading job, due to the fact that during wet weather the motor patrol used in dry weather and mounted on pneumatic tires will not perform the necessary work. This piece of equipment was rented at the extremely low figure of $55 per month, which is cheap equipment to be held for an emergency in wet weather, and especially on a project of this kind where time is an essence. Nevertheless, as will be shown from the records, this piece of equipment has worked 2,064 hours as against 3,000 possible idle hours.

The next one was testimony about a "smith wagon" down about 90 days. Mr. Faulk makes an affidavit as to that: 2

There were two "smith wagons" on the job and both of them will be covered in this affidavit. The two "smith wagons" came on the job on March 18, 1941. As the projects were only getting into operation, these two pieces of equipment had to wait for pull tractors before being operated, and therefore during the month of March one of them worked 28 hours and the other worked 56 hours. However, thereafter these "smith wagons" worked during April, May, June, and July a total as follows: One "smith wagon" 1,475 hours, and the other 1.369 hours, or an average of more than 400 hours per month each, or an average of 13 hours per day each. On July 12, 1941, by letter through the proper channels, these two "smith wagons" were recommended for termination, that is, release back to the lessor or transfer to another project. These two "smith wagons" were parked in a line with other machines recommended for termination at the rear of the heavy equipment garage, awaiting instructions from the zone constructing quartermaster.

It is my understanding that is where all the pictures were taken, but I am not personally sure of that.

1 See Affidavit No. 64, appendix, p. 3545. See also Affidavit No. 64-A, appendix, p. 3546. See Affidavit No. 65, appendix, p. 3546. See also Affidavit No. 65-A, appendix, p. 3547.

Mr. FULTON. When you say that was your understanding, do you mean someone has told you that?

Mr. MANIER. That is my recollection.

Mr. FULTON. Who said that?

Mr. MANIER. I couldn't tell you. We have dozens of these affidavits, but I got that impression and I am not in position, of course, to testify to it as a fact, and don't want to be understood as doing so. Mr. FULTON. If you don't have an affidavit on the matter I would prefer you not to refer to it, unless you know about it. That No. 528, I was particularly interested in what was said about it.

Mr. MANIER. I have them in the order they were testified about. Mr. FULTON. I don't know in what order they were.

Mr. MANIER. They will be identified.

Mr. FULTON. When you get to that one, will you take it up specially?

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Manier, in the order in which you have them, and then when you come to that one, take it up specially. Mr. MANIER. All right, sir.

The next is caterpillar tractor No. A-29 to which it is testified that it was idle on the job 90 percent of the time, and John H. Taylor testifies:1

This piece of equipment came on the job June 13, 1941, and was assigned to the building department. The building department at that time was working the tractors only on an 8-hour per day shift. This tractor was used purely as a pull unit for pulling heavy material to and from the building sites. It is true that this piece of machinery was parked for some time, but it worked a total of 852 hours as against 2,076 hours idle, based on a 24-hour day. The tractor, therefore, averaged approximately 6 hours per day while working with a crew which operated only 8 hours per day, as is shown by the records.

Now, the next one is No. 1725, a mobile light plant, generating electricity. According to Mr. Harrison, it was received in used condition and had remained idle about 90 percent of the time. The affidavit of Mr. Kingsley Ferguson:

This particular mobile light plant No. 1725 was very necessary in the operations at the Wolf Creek ordnance plant. It was used as a standby for an emergency in the event of a break-down or cut-off of power and light current. This unit was fully equipped and connected at the administration building, and particularly was it necessary as a standby plant for the International business machines which were used in the offices.

These International business machines worked 24 hours a day, which was necessary in order to compile and compute the pay-roll records and issue the checks to the up to 15,000 employees who were employed on this project. A break-down on the light and power current without a standby plant would have resulted in a serious delay of the pay rolls, and on a number of occasions would have prevented our issuing the pay roll without the time limit established in our contract with the Government. It would further have caused most of the employees on the pay roll of International business machines, numbering approximately 40 persons, to remain idle at the Government's expense, and further would have caused serious substantial claims from workmen as a result of time spent in waiting for their checks. These claims would have been made against and at the expense of the Government. Power interruptions were frequent, due to the inadequacy of sufficient power from the city of Milan during the early stages of the work and later due to the cut-off's necessitated during the construction of the permanent power supply. Although the plant was idle a greater part of the time, it was vital to the operation of the accounting systems as well as to the lights in the administration offices."

1 See Affidavit No. 66, appendix, p. 3547. See Affidavit No. 67, appendix, p. 3548.

See also Affidavit No. 66-A, appendix, p. 3548.
See also Affidavit No. 67-A, appendix, p. 3549.

The CHAIRMAN. This power shortage was due to the drought in Tennessee, wasn't it?

Mr. MANIER. Yes, sir.

Now, the next one that I have is two tank cars rented from the Illinois Central Railroad Co. and valued at $5,000. According to Mr. Harrison, the cars remained idle the entire time from the date of rental until they were released, with the exception of 48 hours. They worked 48 hours, in this affidavit of Mr. Ferguson:1

These tank cars were requisitioned on June 9, 1941, upon instructions of Capt. G. H. Kibler, executive officer for the constructing quartermaster. These cars were to be used as storage reservoirs for fire prevention and were intended to be used in areas where water supply was not yet completely available. Ferguson-Oman recommended on August 16, 1941 that these tank cars be released. It was not until September 4, 1941 that we received a directive from the constructing quartermaster authorizing their release. In view of the above it would appear that Mr. Harrison was not familiar with the purpose of this equipment, otherwise he would not have been surprised that they only worked 48 hours during the time that they were on the project. He never at any time sought information from me, nor did Mr. McCarthy, about the purpose of the equipment, and if he had I would fully have explained it to him.

The purpose of those cars was to remain idle loaded with water and not to be worked.

The next one testified to by Mr. Harrison is as follows: 2

Mr. Harrison is incorrect in giving unit No. 19, as this number covers a D-7 tractor. However, it is assumed that he referred to unit 1900, which is an emulsion sprayer, a small cheap piece of equipment having a value of $395 and a rental rate of 10 percent or $39.50 per month. This type of small equipment is used on the job as a standby piece of equipment, and its principal value is to use same occasionally for small patching jobs and for filling in small intersections, when it would be cheaper to use this small equipment than to tie up an expensive asphalt distributor worth approximately $5,000, when this piece of equipment will accomplish the same purpose at much less expense, although not kept in constant use. This emulsion sprayer worked while it was on the job 226 hours. If during the 226 hours, a large asphalt distributor with skilled and high-priced crews had been used, the cost would have been many times the rental of the emulsion sprayer.

And Mr. Faulk makes that affidavit, saying:

3

Mr. Harrison did not ask me about this piece of equipment or I would have explained its use.

The next one I have is tractor crawler wagons. Photographs were made at the barn in the Milan ordnance depot area. I think that is what Mr. Harrison testified to, and that they stood idle 65 percent of the time."

Tractor crawler wagons No. 1110 and No. 1109

that is Mr. Wallace H. Faulk's testimony

were received on the job March 13, 1941. On July 11 and July 12, by letter through the proper channels, I recommended these crawler wagons for termination on rental agreement, or transfer from this job, as they were no longer Deeded. At the time these wagons were in the barn in the Milan ordnance depot they were undergoing repairs upon instructions from the tool and equipment checker preparatory to release or transfer. After I recommended termination

1 See Affidavit No. 68, appendix, p. 3550. See Affidavit No. 69, appendix, p. 3551. 2 Ibid.

See Affidavit No. 70, appendix, p. 3552.

See also Affidavit No. 68-A, appendix, p. 3550.
See also Affidavit No. 69-A, appendix, p. 3551.
See also Affidavit No. 70-A, appendix, p. 3552.

of this equipment, the zone constructing quartermaster purchased this equipment to be used for maintenance purposes on projects within the zone. The equip ment was stored on the job until November 1, 1941, when they were shipped to the Huntsville Arsenal plant, Huntsville, Ala., pursuant to instructions of the zone constructing quartermaster. While these wagons were on the job from March 13, 1941, to July 11 and 12, 1941, when they were recommended for termination, they worked as follows: Crawler wagon No. 1109 worked 1,350 hours. Crawler wagon No. 1110 worked 1,762 hours. It will readily be seen that these pieces of equipment rendered much service on the project at a time when they were needed for long hauls over low and wet areas. Therefore the testimony of Mr. Harrison that this equipment had been idle 65 percent of the time is not correct. That is an affidavit of Mr. Faulk.

The CHAIRMAN. He didn't say what percentage of the time they had been idle, did he?

Mr. MANIER. Well, it was idle after it was ordered transferred, you see. It was sent in for repairs, as I understand from his affidavit.

Mr. FULTON. But you say that is the quartermaster's fault rather than the contractor's?

Mr. MANIER. I don't think it was anybody's fault.

Mr. FULTON. These wagons were idle, you say, from July 12. Is that the date? They were idle to November, when they were transferred to another project?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. I can explain that. The routine was to advise the C. Q. M. that we had a piece of equipment available for release. He then undertakes through the zone to find out if there are other projects in the zone requiring that equipment. Sometimes they will need that equipment in about a month; and when no other project in the zone requires it immediately, therefore, of course, it is allowed, and put in proper repair so that it will be received at the next job ready to go to work.

Mr. FULTON. In this case that was from July to November, was it not?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. I am not familiar with the circumstances.
Mr. FULTON. You heard the affidavit.
Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. FULTON. Those were the dates.

That delay, you say, was due to the quartermaster not getting it to another project rather than to the contractor not suggesting that it be released.

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. Either that or it was not needed at another project until November.

Mr. FULTON. In any event, it remained from July to November completely idle.

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. STIRTON OMAN. May I make one statement here that may clear up a lot of this? In these rental agreements, to be sure that no equipment rental could claim any extra time, we put in these contracts to be used 24 hours a day.

Mr. FULTON. That is the War Department procedure, is it not? Mr. OMAN. No, sir; it isn't.

Captain RICHARDSON.1 The rental agreement from the War Department calls for 240 hours' operation each month prior to overtime payment.

1 Capt. R. L. Richardson, Chief of Equipment Unit, Procurement and Expediting, Office of the Quartermaster General, War Department.