called Parlin, and then we have another one a short distance from New York. Mr. BROWNING. At Gibbstown? Col. BUCKNER. No, sir. That is across from Chester. That is a dynamite plant. These plants make smokeless powder. Mr. BROWNING. You are speaking of smokeless-powder plants? Col. BUCKNER. Yes, sir. The third plant is at Haskell, in New Jersey, up near New York. Thereupon, the committee adjourned to meet on Monday, February 19, 1912, at 10.30 o'clock a. m. [No. 12.] THE COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, The committee this day met, Hon. Lemuel P. Padgett (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, I understand that there are several members of the Pennsylvania delegation present this morning who desire to be heard. Does Gen. Bingham desire to be heard? Mr. MOORE. Gen. Bingham has delegated me to proceed, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Very well; you may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. J. HAMPTON MOORE, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, there has been a custom for several years, certainly since I have been in Congress, to come before the committee and present the claims of the Philadelphia Navy Yard. This year we are in a somewhat different position as a delegation in that we have two members of what was once the minority party, now the majority party in Congress, very closely associated with this work. Mr. Donohoe, of Philadelphia, is a Democrat. We have not had the pleasure of having a Democrat with us for several years, and Mr. Lee, a member of the Democratic Party, is a member of this committee. Mr. DONOHOE. Is it a pleasure? Mr. MOORE. A very great pleasure [laughter], because it drives us all forward to do the best that is in us. I think there is no division of sentiment in regard to what we would like to have done for the Philadelphia Navy Yard. The CHAIRMAN. We never have any politics in this committee. Mr. MOORE. I understand that this committee is a semijudicial body, and will treat us fairly without regard to our party relations. Mr. Donohoe, of course, will speak for himself, but on behalf of Gen. Bingham, Mr. McCreary, Mr. Moon, Mr. Reyburn, and the other members of the delegation I desire to ask the committee to be as considerate of the Philadelphia Navy Yard as possible, more particularly since this year there has been a cut in the estimates from $160,000 to $140,000. We ask that every one of the items presented in the estimates be approved in full. They consist of the sanitation system, reserve basin, to complete, $45,000; Pier No. 5, to extend, $85,000; and water-closets, $10,000. A previous act provided an ap propriation for Pier No. 5, but it was not sufficient to complete the work and the work has not actually been begun, and the appropriation of $85,000 is now absolutely necessary in order to enable the authorities at the yard to begin the work and to give the yard the benefit of that additional pier, which is badly needed. Mr. GREGG. Were any of those items cut below the estimates? Mr. MOORE. The amount appropriated last year was $160,000 and the amount submitted by the department this year is $140,000. In speaking of a cut I meant it was a cut from last year's appropriation. Mr. GREGG. I thought maybe the department had cut out something? Mr. MOORE. The department cut out a number of things, notably the extension of streets and avenues which are highly important in a yard of that kind, where we have a great deal of vacant territory that ought to be made available for the purposes of the yard, and the department also cut out one or two of the recommendations made by the officials at the yard. They wanted to extend their electrical and steam-power system so that it might be utilized on the vessels at the docks, and so that they might be prepared for permanent improvements over the yard on ground that is not now generally improved. The authorities very properly looked forward to the improvement of the yard on a permanent basis, and having much waste land they are hoping for the opening up of the streets and for the extension of their various sources of power. This is very important in a yard of this kind, because the expense of hauling is very great, and there are times, especially in a season like this, when the streets are heavy and the wagons and drays that carry the material in the yard are stuck in the mud. In some respects the yard is not up to date in the matter of common ordinary transportation facilities. If it were possible to increase that appropriation in any one respect, we would like to have it done. The extension of the streets, pavements, water, and electric railroad systems are estimated by the authorities of the yard at $15,000. Mr. TALBOTT. Was not that all taken up with Admiral Hollyday? Mr. LEE. Yes, sir. Mr. MOORE. That was cut out by the department. Whether you propose to go beyond the department's recommendation or not I do not know. All we can do is to urge you to do the best you can with respect to the street extensions and the construction of a crane for one of the buildings there-building No. 10. This is important at this time for the carriage of freight and materials. Our main plea is that nothing less than has been submitted by the department be allowed for that yard particularly, inasmuch as we observe that in some of the other yards there have been increased appropriations, notably at the city of Washington. In all fairness it must be stated that the department itself, following the lines of economy which this Congress seems to have sought to work out, and following the general tendency of the departmental administration in Washington, has cut down estimates for appropriations at other yards, so that we may not comparatively be suffering very much. But when we look at the appropriations running up to hundreds of thousands for other yards, we sometimes wonder why, in a general estimate from the department for a great yard like that at Philadel phia, we are left with a total estimated appropriation from the department of only $140,000. Now, so much for the general conditions at the yard. A question has arisen which is regarded as highly important by certain citizens of Philadelphia, and one that properly should be presented to this committee in a general way by the delegation. In this matter there is, perhaps, a friendly rivalry, particularly so far as the newspapers of Philadelphia are concerned, and it may be that members of the delegation have entered into a friendly rivalry upon this question, but as to the ultimate object there is no difference of opinion whatever. Some of us who have been in Congress for some time feel that a question of this magnitude ought to be approached with very great caution and that this committee ought to be thoroughly fortified with opinions and estimates from the department before it proceeds to go into a matter of so much consequence. The question is the construction of a new dry dock. We have a dry dock at Philadelphia about 750 feet long. It is not the biggest dry dock in the United States, but it is an excellent dry dock. It was capable of housing the Dreadnought Utah and did it very well, but there is some difference of opinion as to the possible capacity in the matter of the entrance at the caisson for the admission of such vessels as may be constructed in the near future. Mr. GREGG. When Admiral Hollyday was before the committee Mr. Lee went very fully into that matter. Have you read the hearing? Mr. MOORE. No, sir; but I have talked with Admiral Hollyday on the subject and I have been at the yard a number of times, and have talked with officers there. The question seems to be as to the capacity at the entrance. The officers at the yard, supported very largely by public sentiment in the vicinity of the yard and in the city of Philadelphia, and by some newspaper comment, which is more or less limited, have insisted that there should be constructed there a dry dock that would extend from the Delaware River into the back channel which leads in from the Schuylkill River and completes the island, a distance of 1,700 feet. Now, ordinarily this committee would be startled, perhaps, and Congress itself would be somewhat surprised at having a suggestion made that at any yard there should be constructed a dry dock 1,700 feet long. Nobody ever heard of a dry dock 1,700 feet long. There is certainly nothing of the kind anywhere in the known world, but in this particular instance the proponents of the 1,700-foot dry dock contend that by reason of the configuration of the ground and the peculiar adaptability of the situation to the construction of a dry dock that should be continuous and reach from stream to stream, that it ought to be started in the city of Philadelphia. We agree with that and we would be very glad to have this committee take up that question and have some start made upon the proposition. Some day you will have to have one great dry dock on the Atlantic coast and another one on the Pacific coast to provide for the very largest battleships that may be constructed, although I am one of those who want to limit the size of battleships, as I want to limit the depth of the artificial channels which cost this Government so much money and accommodate only certain great battleships and |