SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 217 
Aires, Argentina, I had occasion to order some office furniture, and I got it from a British 
firm which represented 360 different American firms. We sold the goods f. o. b., New 
York, and they did the middleman’s business. The British have done a great deal of stand- 
ardization in commercial shipbuilding, but I think we have probably standardized more 
in our Navy than has the British Navy. You all know, in our new standard design of de- 
stroyers, each one costs over $1,000,000. The design is well ahead of its time and has not 
yet been duplicated abroad in respect to horse-power, speed, torpedo equipment and up-to- 
date equipment generally, including mine laying and depth-charge dropping. We have built 
over 300 of these destroyers, the intention being to standardize everything possible on board, 
but as we gave them 28,000 horse-power for a speed of 35 knots we ran up against the im- 
possibility of standardizing the engine and boiler fittings as each shipbuilding firm has special 
rights in engine and boiler construction. We, therefore, allowed wide latitude in the type of 
engines and boilers as long as the speed and horse-power were forthcoming. In other words, 
below the spar deck, in the engine and fire rooms, very little is standardized. Last year they 
had at the Charleston Navy Yard, of which I am now commandant, a great many of these 
destroyers on which it was necessary to make changes in the installation of the up-to-date 
fire control and, while the boats are absolutely identical in other respects, the hatches in 
the engine room and fire room to the spar deck are materially different because of the differ- 
ence in design of the machinery installation. This was not a serious matter but only shows 
some of the difficulties of absolute standardization. 
The Navy has carried out standardization of shipfittings, boats, boat davits, bitts, 
anchors, chains, and articles of supply in general, but there is a point beyond which stand- 
ardization should not go. The previous speaker ably discussed this paper from a financial 
standpoint, which is the real one. We all feel that standardization is, on the one hand, an 
economic question and, on the other, it limits improvement in design. I have been a mem- 
ber of this Society for thirty years, and I feel that the Navy Department has followed stand- 
ardization as far as it is practicable. It is a theory to which we would all at least like to 
approximate. 
Outside of the question of design, we have had some able papers at this meeting on 
operating vessels, and I wish to call attention to the service of the Navy in standardizing 
certain features of operating. The Engineering Experiments Station at Annapolis has done 
excellent service in this respect in standardizing supplies used in operating, such as engine 
packing, oils, lubricants, construction materials, chemicals, brasses, and various other things 
which have saved thousands of dollars to the Navy Department. 
It is very difficult to be entirely consistent in the question of standardization, and even 
if the Navy does it as a military question, it is not necessarily a guide to commercial prac- 
tice. The crux of the whole question is that when standardization limits improvement in de- 
sign too seriously it is not a good thing. The only thing of any real importance that I 
have to say on the question is that there are many standard fittings already on the market 
which are cheap and which will answer every purpose, so that naval architects and marine 
engineers, in designing, would save a great deal of money if they used catalogs of firms man- 
ufacturing standard articles which answer all purposes instead of entirely new designs, expen- 
sive and difficult to build. Shipyards, in repairing vessels, lose a lot of money in manufac- 
turing articles which can be purchased in the open market through the free use of descriptive 
catalogs. There are an amazing number of standard articles manufactured in America as well 
as abroad, and great economies can be effected in utilizing them, because ships go abroad and 
