$50,000 on the old foundry, believing that adequate facilities for foundry purposes would be secured for this yard. I do not think that anyone believes but that the new foundry costing $150,000 would be a better foundry, better located, and susceptible of more economical operation than the present foundry improved and enlarged. The CHAIRMAN. Why could it not be as economically operated! Admiral HOLLYDAY. The flasks and molds would be more convenient at the new place, and the new location would place it in the group of what is known as the new steam engineering buildings, that is to say, on the west side of the new dry dock, where is located building No. 96, boiler shop, constructed in 1908 at a cost of $150,000; building No. 95, pattern shop, constructed in 1908 at a cost of $100,000; and building No. 80, machine shop, constructed in 1906 at a cost of $100,000. But if you are after economy, I should say that it would be better to appropriate $50,000 toward extending this foundry: COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., January 15, 1912. The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Lemuel P. Padgett (chairman) presiding. STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL R. C. HOLLYDAY, UNITED STATES NAVY, CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS. The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, I have received some blue-print maps and some suggestions from citizens of Portsmouth relative to the yard there, which I will submit to you and will ask you to put in the record such comments and suggestions thereto as may appear proper to you with regard to the estimates submitted, and then I would like to make a general request that with all of these public works for the different yards you indicate in the hearings the relative importance of the appropriations asked for, so that if the committee should see proper not to allow all of them we would have the order stated in which you regard them as the more important and the more urgent. Admiral HOLLYDAY. I have looked over these papers and I find that all of the questions brought up in them have already been covered and answered in my hearing. The CHAIRMAN. Page 42, gentlemen, I believe, was where we left off. "Navy yard, Boston, Mass." I believe the language is about the same until we get down-$175,000. It is printed 70,000, but I believe 75,000 was the amount. Admiral HOLLYDAY.--The order of importance of the estimates is as follows: The item for dredging is the same, but it is a new item this year. Last year you gave $5,000, and we are asking the same amount this year. The CHAIRMAN. "Toward 150-ton floating crane (cost not to exceed $325,000)". One hundred and fifty thousand dollars was appropriated last year, and you are asking for one hundred and seventy thousand this time. That is the remainder. Admiral HOLLYDAY. The remainder; yes, sir. Mr. BUTLER. Will that complete the crane? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Yes, sir. We can do better than that. The original estimate for that crane was $325,000, but the contract was made for two hundred and eighty-seven thousand, which would make it absolutely necessary to appropriate one hundred and thirty-seven thousand this year to pay the obligation already incurred. Mr. BUTLER. Will it take one hundred and thirty-seven thousand to complete it? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Thirteen thousand should be added to this, which would make three hundred thousand for the crane, which is twenty-five thousand less than the authorization. The balance need not be appropriated. The CHAIRMAN. So that $150,000 additional should be appropriated instead of $175,000? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. The limit was placed on that last year. Admiral HOLLYDAY. Last year it was brought out before the committee we were asking for a crane for Boston and one for Pearl Harbor, and I stated that if both were authorized we could undoubtedly make a contract for less than this authorization, but we must have this authorization unless we knew certainly that both were going to be appropriated for, which we didn't know at that time. We got the authorization for both and made one contract, resulting in this saving. The CHAIRMAN. What did you save on the other one, the one for Pearl Harbor? Admiral HOLLYDAY. It cost $330,000 more. The CHAIRMAN. "Improvement to water front, $50,000." What improvement does that contemplate? It seems that we had the same amount appropriated last year. Admiral HOLLYDAY. The $50,000 appropriated last year for improving the water front was for rebuilding a pier in the vicinity of Pier No. 9. The length of the piers at the Boston Navy Yard is not sufficient for ships which are now in commission and being authorized. Some of the larger ships project 200 feet beyond the pier line, and some of the new ones authorized will project still farther. The present piers are from 300 to 500 feet long. It is not desirable that ships should extend beyond the piers, and the piers can not be built out any farther without extending beyond the harbor commissioner's line. It is therefore proposed to cut into the yard, and by that means get an additional length for the piers, and that is what this $50,000 is asked for this year. The CHAIRMAN. Instead of extending the length of the pier into the water you extend it into the land. Admiral HOLLYDAY. Yes; the piers are already built to the harbor commissioner's line, and no piers can be built beyond that. 42999-12-10 The CHAIRMAN. Will that $50,000 complete the work? Admiral HOLLYDAY. No; it would lengthen one pier. The whole project would be a pretty big undertaking. This will complete only one pier. The CHAIRMAN. "Paving, $10,000," the same this year as last year. What paving does that contemplate, and how much? Admiral HOLLYDAY. There is no paving on a portion of Second Avenue nor on the area between the two dry docks, and this money is intended to pave those places. This year a portion of First Avenue has been repaved. It is now all paved. During the year paving has been done on Eighth Street on the approach to Pier 4A, which is a pier recently completed. As additional improvements are made it is necessary to further extend the paving. As a matter of fact, we could very well expend, to pave the yard properly, $60,000, but Congress has never seen fit to appropriate enough at one time to pave the yards completely, so we are coming back each year asking for an appropriation. The CHAIRMAN. How much has been appropriated in the aggregate for paving this yard up to the present time, within the last 10 years. Will you put that in the hearings? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Yes. It is $205,000 for paving and grading. The CHAIRMAN. About how many square yards of paving will the $10,000 do? Admiral HOLLYDAY. That paving would cost about $3 a square yard. It has a heavy concrete base, and the top might be brick or wood block or something of that sort. Mr. BUTLER. Is that just a sidewalk? Admiral HOLLYDAY. No, it is street paving. Mr. LEE. Is the paving done by the Government or given out by contract? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Sometimes one way and sometimes another. Mr. LEE. Has the Government ever kept any account of what it cost them for paving? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Yes. Mr. LEE. What is the difference between what the Government can do it for and what the contractors charge? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Well, there is not much difference. If we don't think when we come to look it over that we can do it as cheaply by the yard force as by contract, we let it by contract, If we think it would cost about as much to do it by contract, and we are in a hurry, we go along and do it ourselves. Each case depends upon the circumstances, but generally any large amount of paving is done by contract. Mr. LEE. Have you any record of the cost of paving done by the Government at League Island? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Yes, we have a record of that. That was extremely economical, that paving, extremely so. Conditions there are very favorable, and we can pave by yard force there for much less than we can do it by contract. We get all of our sand and gravel for nothing there, which is quite an item. Mr. LEE. Have you the figures of what that cost there? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Yes; $2 a square yard. The CHAIRMAN. Can you put in the hearings some of the contracts for similar work, the cost under Government work and under contract, of the paving at Boston, so we can compare the two? Admirai HOLLYDAY. Yes; $2.50 a square yard by contract at Boston and it would cost as much or more if done by yard force. The CHAIRMAN. Can you also state about how much paving remains yet to be done? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Yes, sir; about 22,000 square yards at Boston. The CHAIRMAN. I will be glad to have that in the record. "Electrical system, extension, $5,000." Please state the particulars about that. Admiral HOLLYDAY. With the growth of the yard we have to constantly extend the electrical distribution of power, and this is to continue that. The yard estimated they should have $10,000, which was reduced by the department to $5,000. We have just completed a pier there and are building another, and as the improvements continue we will have to extend these facilities. In addition to that, more power is being used at the yard each year. The CHAIRMAN. "One officer's quarters, $12,000." For what purpose is that officer's quarters? Admiral HOLLYDAY. There was one appropriated for last year, and it is recommended that one be erected this year. There are a number of officer's who receive commutation of quarters and live in Boston, and it would be in the line of economy to furnish them houses and save the commutation. In addition to that it is very much better to have the officers live in the yard, where they are available at all times, rather than living in Boston or the suburbs. When working time is over they go away and are out of the yard until the next morning. The CHAIRMAN. What rank is this intended for? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Lieutenant commander, commander, or captain. A commander or captain would probably occupy that house. The CHAIRMAN. You gave the commutations last Friday in your hearings. Admiral HOLLYDAY. There are 41 officers attached to this yard who would get commutation for quarters. There are 10 quarters in the yard now. A number of these officers are junior officers. Nine of them are really students at the Tech, but they are attached to the yard. Of course they do not want quarters. Then there are 10 warrant officers there. Of course their commutation of quarters would be very much less. The CHAIRMAN. The commutation for an officer who would occupy a $12,000 house would be what? Admiral HOLLYDAY. From $60 to $84 a month. Mr. HOBSON. Isn't this a bad time to undertake new building construction? Isn't the cost of construction unusually high at present? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Yes; it is high; but we have no special reason to think that it will be less. It has been going up right straight along. Mr. HOBSON. I know that in this construction trade the country is holding back with the idea that it is going down. Admiral HOLLYDAY. There is no doubt about it that business is very slack, but whether the cost of construction will be less is hard to tell. There is an uncertain condition of affairs, but what the result will be I don't suppose anyone can tell. Mr. HOBSON. It is a good policy to build quarters instead of commuting quarters. Admiral HOLLYDAY. We have only asked here and there for quarters. You will find in going through the bill that there are only about four to six asked for altogether in the whole bill. Mr. ROBERTS. Where is it proposed to locate these quarters ? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Alongside of the one being built now, right down there on the road going to Chelsea. If you could see the map here, I could show you. We are building one there right next to the house of the captain of the yard, if you are familiar with that. Mr. ROBERTS. You have given up the idea of taking some of that garden at the south end of the yard? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Yes; we have given that up. We haxe fixed the site for this house, whether we get it this year or next year. Mr. ROBERTS. Have you got a map there? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Yes; I have one here. Mr. Roberts examines map. The CHAIRMAN. The next item is "Coaling plant improvements, $50,000." Explain about the necessity of that and the urgency of it. Admiral HOLLYDAY. The capacity of that plant at present is 100 tons maximum an hour, and by the introduction of additional machinery the amount can be considerably increased. That is what this $50,000 is asked for. That plant was completed in 1904, at a cost of $167,000, and by spending $50,000 the capacity of it would be materially increased. The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by "materially"? What is the estimated increase? Admiral HOLLYDAY. We could probably increase the capacity to 150 or 200 tons an hour. It means the purchase of additional machinery for handling more coal. Mr. HOBSON. What is the capacity now? Admiral HOLLYDAY. One hundred tons maximum. Mr. BATHRICK. That's for loading ships? Admiral HOLLYDAY. Loading and unloading ships. Mr. ROBERTS. When you speak of the capacity in tons per hour you mean the coal they can take out of a collier; you don't mean the amount they can put on board a collier? Admiral HOLLYDAY. No; it means what we can take out. It is very hard to put coal on a battleship on account of its construction. We don't put it alongside the dock and load it that way; it lies out in the harbor and the coal is carried out to it on barges. Mr. BATHRICK. Then this apparatus is solely for unloading? Admiral HOLLYDAY. It could be used for unloading a collier or taking coal out of the plant also. Mr. MACON. What is the necessity for expediting the matter of unloading so much more rapidly? It is 100 tons now and you want to increase it to 150 tons or more? Admiral HOLLYDAY. It is always advisable in a coaling plant to be able to handle coal rapidly. Mr. MACON. Suppose you could increase it to 500 tons an hour; would that be proper or necessary? That would be still faster. Admiral HOLLYDAY. Not at Boston, because that is not one of our big coaling plants. This is a plant in the yard there for convenience. if it were one of our big plants it would be advisable to run it up to the greatest amount we could within reason, unless it cost too much |