The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

DEVOTED TO EVERYTHING AND EVERY INTEREST CONNECTED OR_ ASSO- CIATED WITH MARINE MATTERS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. Published monthly by Penton Publishing Co. CLEVELAND. BUEPALO. 0.5.20. .035.% 932 Ellicott Square. CHICAGO...........-.1328 Monadnock Blk. CINCINNATI.....First National Bank Bldg. NEW YORK..........1005 West Street Bldg. PITTSBURG... 0.555 +oeee010). Park Bldg. SBATIUE. .2...5..2.665..1942, Henry Bldg, Correspondence on Marine Engineering, Ship Building and Shipping Subjects Solicited. Subscription, U. S. and Mexico, $1.00 per annum. Canada, $1.50. Foreign, $2.00. Single copies, U. S. and Mexico, 10 cents. Elsewhere, 15 cents. Back numbers over three months, 25 cents. Change of advertising copy must reach this office on or before the first of each month. The Cleveland News Co. will supply the trade with the Maring Review through the regular channels of the American News Co. European Agents, The International News Company, Breams Building, Chancery Lane, London, E. C., England. Entered at the Post Office at Cleveland, Ohio, as Second Class Matter. October, 1910 Tue Marine Review can be found on sale at the following news stands: E. J. O'Connor, 2 Ohio st., Buffalo. R. J. Seidenberg, Ellicott Sq., Buffalo. J. H. Fleming, Chamber of Com., Buffalo. Postoffice News Co., 178 Dearborn. st., Chicago. Frank Morris, 165 Wabash av., Chicago. James Dunne, C. N. W. depot, Chicago. : Wayne Hotel, Jefferson and Third st., Detroit. Robert Schram, 115 Woodward av., Detroit. Geo. W. Sharpe & Co., 138 Griswold, Detroit. Frank Kleinschmidt, 652 Broadway, Gary, Ind. K. Kramer, Produce Exchange bldg., Toledo. Board of Trade News Stand, Boston, Mass. Revere Beach and Lynn News Stand, 350 . Atlantic av., Boston, Mass. ; Rowe's Wharf News Stand, Atlantic av., Boston. 'Staub's News Emporium, Exchange alley and Canal st., New Orleans, La. Hollei's News Stand, Commercial place, New Orleans. : Hill's News Stand, Charles, near Canal st., New Orleans. J. Fine, Produce Exchange bldg., New York. Wm. Farrell, Battery pl. and Greenwich st., New York. ibs J. Fuchs, 17 Battery pl., New York. i of Navy Yard News Stand, 1116 Eighth St, Washington, D. C. aS New Willard Hotel, Washington. Becker & Orndorff, 1427 Pa. av., Washington. C. F. Willersen, Washington st., Marquette. Pelissier's News Stand, Front st., Marquette. Lenox Hotel News Stand, Duluth. Spalding Hotel News Stand, Duluth. Edward M. Stone's Book Store, Duluth. Ferninand Ohlendorf, Galvéston,'?!¥ Purdy*'Book Store, Galveston.g52 i Charles Deferner, Galveston. Weber & Plum, Seattle, Wash. Lowman & Hanford, Seattle, Wash. Standard Book' & Stationery Co., Victoria, B. C. I'. LeRay, 1306 Government st., Victoria, B.C. Thompson Stationery Co., 325 Hastings st., Vancouver, B. C. Central News Co., 916 Pacific av., Tacoma. Oregon News Co., 147) Sixth ayv., Portland, Ore. THE MarINE REVIEW Naval Department Cost Keeping In the December issue of THE MARINE Review we made extended reference to the circulars which had been distributed by the navy department regarding the proposed Meyer reorganization, saying in part: One more point and we will leave the subject for the present. The reorgan- ization contemplates the establishment of a modern and efficient cost system. When this system is established at all navy yards, their work can be compared with sim- ilar work of outside firms. THe Marine Review takes this oppor- tunity to assert that the department will not do and has no intention of doing anything of the kind. There will be no cost system which will give the slight- est indication of cost beyond possibly the labor pay roll and material invoices, and there will be no effort to establish any- thing more complete. There will be no items of overhead expense, salaries of line and bureau officers, interest on investment, taxes, insurance, depreciation, inspection, postage and telegrams, legal expenses, repairs and maintenance, or profit on product, and any so-called cost system, which does not show | these charges in comparison with outside firms, with every one of which they are and must be taken into account, is nothing but a swindle and will fool no one but the department. .This was months before the naval ap- propriation bill was passed and which contained the following provision: Provided further, That in fixing the cost of work under the various naval appropria- tions, the direct and indirect charges incident thereto shall be included in such cost. In the past the cost of work in navy yards has not represented actual costs, as no overhead charges were. included. Mr. Newberry, when assistant secretary - of the navy, realized the importance of He knew that the cost of work in the navy yards was outrageous and felt. that the first. step in effecting a remedy was to institute obtaining actual costs. a cost keeping system which would show This would enable comparisons to be made with the cost ,of work in commercial: establish- what the work really cost. ments|,and would show the navy yard With an, ac- curate cost keeping system he would be costs.to be far greater. in a position to;force improved methods He directed the paymaster-general of the navy, Admiral Rogers, to detail two officers to visit all of the best conducted commercial establishments to learn their methods and to prepare a cost keeping system in the navy yards. for the navy. October, 1910 Admiral Rogers was already interested in the subject and he carried out Mr. Newberry's instructions fully. After complete investigation he prepared a cost keeping system which included in the cost of the output all proper overhead expenses. The clique in Washington soon saw that this would not do. The results would bring about a reformation in navy yard work. The useless captains, com- manders and other line officers, who did not add one iota to the efficiency of the plant would have to go. The soft ' shore berths would be taken from these officers and they would be forced to go to sea. This would never do. They set about to undo the good work started by Mr. Newberry and Admiral Rogers. They forced the retirement of the latter, and all of his assistants who had ex- perience in this line of work were sent to sea. The cost keeping system: was then taken in hand by Admiral Swift, the former aide for material. Very soon all the good work done by the paymaster-general was undone. The cost keeping instructions became a mass of contradictory orders. An order was issued one day to be revoked a few days later. Costs of any kind were impossible. Certain members of the naval commit- tee learned that it was the intention of Secretary Meyer and his aides not to include overhead charges in the navy yard costs. These members are inter- ested in reforming navy yards. Con- gress is requiring private contractors to conform to the eight-hour day and at last the navy yards and the private con- tractors were to be on the same basis as regards hours of work. These mem- bers desired that a comparison should be made between the cost of work in the private yards and the government yards and to enable such a comparison to be made the provision was made in the naval appropriation bill that all in- direct costs should 'be included. Let us see how, Secretary Meyer and his ..so-called "aides" are carrying out this law. THE Marine Review.has se- cured a copy of the instructions for cost keeping issued June 21, 1910, by direction of the secretary of the navy. - This is a remarkable document. in many ways. It displays everywhere ig-