of going to the President for the money out of the emergency fund. but we took it up with Mr. Fitzgerald and he said he preferred to have it come here.

Dr. STRATTON. The matter is pressing. The Navy Department, the War Department, and the Bureau of Standards have united on the scientific work of wireless, and this work is developing very rapidly. This building should be pushed to completion as early as possible. I think we could have it ready to move into by the early spring if we do not have to change our plans. If we have to change our drawings and specifications, it would mean additional time.

Mr. BYRNS. And you are in position to give the matter very close supervision if you have the legislation to which you refer?

Dr. STRATTON. Yes, sir. We superintended the last three buildings built; we have the facilities, and I can not but feel that these people have added on more for safety in their estimates than is necessary. I think the increased cost under present conditions would probably be something like 25 or 30 per cent and not 100 per cent. However, this is a mere guess on my part. The bids were for $90,000. Mr. SHERLEY. Is this to be a brick building?

Dr. STRATTON. Yes, sir; a very plain, simple brick building, similar to the others.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 11, 1917.

BUREAU OF LIGHTHOUSES.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. GEORGE R. PUTNAM, COMMISSIONER OF LIGHTHOUSES.

DEPOT FOR FIFTH LIGHTHOUSE DISTRICT, NORFOLK, VA.

Secretary REDFIELD. Mr. Chairman, there is one other matter. This item refers to an estimate which was included in the Book of Estimates for 1918, page 621, and this item is No. 31. I will hand it to you for the record. It refers to the depot of the Lighthouse Service in the port of Norfolk, located as per this map [indicating]. You notice the navy yard adjoining here [indicating]; and, also as it appears from this blue print, located here [indicating]. The navy yard is here [indicating], and the block is between. Concerning this matter, I would like to file a letter from the Acting Secretary of the Navy dated to-day, a statement from the lighthouse inspector dated August 10, and a statement from the Commissioner of Lighthouses dated to-day. I will say, preliminarily to what Mr. Putnam will say to you, that the reason we bring this up now is and it is as mich our purpose to get your judgment upon it as to urge it-because of its immediate importance as a war measure. We do not bring it up because the Lighthouse Service, excessively crowded as it is, needs this additional space; we bring it up because the work of the Navy Department, to which all of our vessels have been turned over on the Atlantic coast. is very largely held up at times by present conditions.

I call your attention to the statement of the inspector as to these vessels which are in the naval service as well as doing lighthouse work. For example, on Monday, the 16th of July, and again on Sunday, the 22d of July, these vessels were at that dock-the statement in your hand will show you that the dock has a frontage of 246 feet-he says:

On both occasions the following vessels were at the depot awaiting opportunity to receive water, coal, provisions, ice, laundry, buoyage, supplies for station, etc.: Orchid, Holly, Laurel, Arbutus, Juniper, light vessel No. 72, light vessel No. 101, besides the barge, pile driver, and lighter of repair party. On both occasions vessels were tied up four deep in front of the depot wharf, as well as tied to piles and dilapidated wharf on adjacent property. The aggregate length of the above-mentioned vessels is 1,030. The wharf frontage of the Portsmouth depot is 243 feet. I think it a conservative estimate to say that between one and two days of each week are lost to several tenders due to this condition, which must be seen to be fully appreciated.

It is for that reason that the matter came up to me, and only a day or two ago I asked the Navy Department to state their views. Å formal estimate will be seen through which will contain a fuller statement of the matter, but for the naval work there it is a matter of very serious moment; whereas if we get this land, this single block, in between, we could then link up with the navy yard and work to very much greater advantage for both parties.

Mr. SHERLEY. Your original estimate placed a cost of $125,000 on the purchase of the water-front property. Is that the property you have just alluded to?

Secretary REDFIELD. That is it; yes.

Mr. PUTNAM. The estimate is general; it does not restrict us to this particular piece of land. Of course, if we could not buy this property at a reasonable amount we would have to go somewhere else.

Mr. SHERLEY. The nature of the estimate rather indicates the desirability of not undertaking to enlarge the present site, on the ground that the buildings are old and dilapidated and that you should acquire a new site.

Mr. PUTNAM. That has been under consideration-the question of getting a new site or enlarging this site.

Mr. SHERLEY. This block that has been referred to would be in the nature of an addition to the existing site?

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes, sir; it would be valuable to the Navy because it is between the navy yard and our present site.

Mr. SHERLEY. The Government has just bought quite a bit of property for the use of the Navy in connection with the naval station. at Jamestown. I have not a map of sufficient size to advise me of localities, but perhaps you can answer whether that is too far removed from this point for a light to serve the purposes of the present light?

Mr. PUTNAM. This is not for a light but for a lighthouse depot. Mr. SHERLEY. It is just a depot?

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes.

Mr. SHERLEY. And there is no light there?

Mr. PUTNAM. No; it is a supply station, a general supply station. for the fifth lighthouse district. All of the buoys are brought here; all supplies to be sent to the lighthouses are brought here and all of

the vessels of the district have to come here and take their supplies

away.

Mr. SHERLEY. The Government is planning to make an investment at Jamestown which is to be very extensive. I think it is likely that the large storehouse that the Navy contemplated building at Norfolk will not be built at Norfolk but will be built at Jamestown, and there will be, of necessity, an investment running into very large figures. Have you considered the possibility and desirability of obtaining a part of that land and using some of the facilities there, having this in mind: That one of the strongest reasons urged in favor of the purchase of the Jamestown Exposition site as a naval station was that it would shorten, by a good many miles, and save a good deal of time in getting supplies?

Mr. PUTNAM. We have considered that; yes, sir; and I have talked informally with naval officers on the subject; they have assured me that the naval plans for the development of the Jamestown site are such that they would not have any room for a lighthouse depot there.

Mr. SHERLEY. That is the answer I would have expected, but I am not quite sure that the facts will not develop that there could be a joint use of some of the facilities.

Mr. PUTNAM. We would be very glad if that were the case, but they have not given us the slightest hope that it would be possible. I am quite sure that their plans for the development of that site would not give any room for a lighthouse depot there. One difficulty with the Jamestown site is that the frontage which is on or near any deep channel is rather limited; the outer part of the Jamestown site has an extensive shoal near it.

Mr. SHERLEY. That is all to be cured by dredging and the building of wharves; the estimate in the appropriation contemplates doing all of that work.

Mr. PUTNAM. I confess I am not familiar with the details of that development, but I know that the Navy is continuing to use the present navy yard, which is right near this depot site, and that they are overcrowded; that even when they are using our vessels they are so crowded that they will not allow our tenders to stay at the navy yard.

Mr. SHERLEY. Have you any idea that you can get the land between the navy yard and your station for $125,000?

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes, sir. We might not need the whole block; the most important to us would be the water front.

Mr. SHERLEY. But, of course, that is the valuable part of the land?

Mr. PUTNAM. Not altogether, because a considerable portion of this street is valuable for business purposes. This is the main entrance to the navy yard, and the frontage on that street would not be useful to the Lighthouse Service. This is a very dilapidated dock and has not been in use for many years.

Mr. SHERLEY. It has what frontage?

Mr. PUTNAM. It has 275 feet, or somewhat more frontage than our dock. The effect of this would be to rather more than double our frontage, because we could probably use the street in between.

Mr. SHERLEY. Your wharf frontage is 445 feet, of which over 200 feet is in a narrow slip available for small light-draft vessels only? Mr. PUTNAM. That distance given there includes the slips each side of our dock, which we are not able to use; these have not been dredged and the available water front is only 246 feet. That statement is not accurate.

Mr. SHERLEY. What additional frontage would this give you?

Mr. PUTNAM. This would give us 275 feet additional, and the width of that street; that would probably give us nearly 400 fest additional.

Mr. SHERLEY. For the construction of a wharf you estimate $52,125?

Mr. PUTNAM. I would say that that estimate does not figure necessarily on this site; it would either be to develop this site or to get a new site altogether. That is rather a typical estimate, and it does not apply essentially to this site.

Mr. SHERLEY. For filling, grading, and paving you estimate $42.000?

Mr. PUTNAM. As I say, that is a typical estimate.

Mr. SHERLEY. You mean typical in that it is not an estimate of Just what the money is to be expended for?

Mr. PUTNAM. It certainly is; yes, sir. The service has a good many depots and this represents average costs for similar require

ments.

Mr. SHERLEY. The next detail is storehouse, coal shed, repair shop. and keepers' dwelling, $37,375.

Mr. PUTNAM. Some of those things might not be necessary if we develop this particular site.

Mr. SHERLEY. Mr. Putnam, is it not necessary to really acquaint yourself with just what you want to do and where and give us some accurate information as to the cost?

Mr. PUTNAM. The difficulty is that if we come before the committee and ask Congress to authorize the purchase of a particular piece of property the owners of that property will immediately raise the price on it, and it may not be practicable to purchase that land.

Mr. SHERLEY. I understand that, and the language carried would not necessarily restrict the money to be used in the purchase of a particular place, but, manifestly, by your own statement, your estimate here indicates nothing.

Mr. PUTNAM. The estimate is based more on buying another piece of property than on buying this property. Within the last few days, in talking with naval officers, they have urged us to buy this property on account of the value of having a continuous Government water front there. We have considered buying this property before, and an estimate was gotten up to either develop a new site or buy this property, or do whatever was best at the time. Of course, this estimate was submitted over a year ago, I might explain, and, as a matter of fact, there is another estimate in the Book of Estimates. Secretary REDFIELD. That is the same one you have?

Mr. PUTNAM. I think it differs slightly, because it gives the unit

costs.

Secretary REDFIELD. I thought Mr. Sherley had that before him. There is the unit cost as given in the Book of Estimates. The estimate you have before you is taken from the annual report.

Mr. SHERLEY. This provides for a site, water front, at $400 per front foot. $125,000: wharf, at $1.50 per square foot, $36.700; storehouse, at 9.2 cents per cubic foot, $19.715; coal shed, at 8 cents per cubic foot, $6.500: repair shop, at 18.5 cents per cubic foot, $13,735; track on wharf, $3,000: concrete wall, at $15 per cubic foot, $14,500; filling and grading, at $3 per cubic yard. $20,500; concrete pavement, at 25 cents per square yard, $23,500; shop equipment. $3.000; fire protection, $2,850; and traveling crane, $6.000; in all, $275,000. Is this estimate based on the idea of buying this particular property? Mr. PUTNAM. The estimate was not based on any particular piece of property.

Mr. SHERLEY. I do not see how some of these estimates could have been made at all. Here is an item for filling and grading; you can not tell what filling and grading is going to be necessary if you do not know the ground you are going to fill and grade.

Mr. PUTNAM. That is perfectly true; until the property is definitely settled on we can only give a typical estimate for an average lighthouse depot.

Mr. SHERLEY. This estimate is over a year old, too?

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHERLEY. I suggest that if you want the committee to act upon your estimate you accompany it with some information touching what you are going to do with the money.

Mr. PUTNAM. I will be glad to do that, but I would prefer not to tie the appropriation down to any particular piece of land; I think that puts the Government at a disadvantage in buying that land, and there might be conditions which would make this not the best place. Mr. SHERLEY. You might, by an option, be able to obtain this land without disclosing the purchaser?

Mr. PUTNAM. We have done that in some cases, but here it has been too indefinite when this appropriation would be available.

NOTE. The estimate now submitted by the department reduces the total amount to $225,000, and is confined to items of immediate necessity in developing the site above referred to, although it does not limit the depot to this site should it develop that it can not be purchased advantageously. The estimate is as follows:

Depot for fifth lighthouse district.--For enlarging and improving the lighthouse depot at Portsmouth, Va., in the fifth lighthouse district, or for establishing a new depot and equipping the same, so far as funds may permit, $225,000. NOTE. The present lighthouse depot at Portsmouth, Va., is entirely inade quate to the needs of the fifth district, both in area and water front. This is the principal depot of the largest lighthouse district, and is the headquarters for five tenders and two light vessels during the greater part of the year. The aggregate length of these vessels is over 1,000 feet and the total wharf frontage now available for the use of these vessels is 240 feet. Tenders frequently lay three abreast awaiting opportunity to discharge or receive cargo for two or three days at a time. This delay is estimated to cost the Lighthouse Service not less than $25,000 a year, and now that the tenders are under the jurisdiction of the Navy Department, increased facilities are an urgent military necessity. The very small area available for buoy storage necessitates much otherwise unnecessary handling of heavy buoys and appendages at large cost of time and money. The available wharf frontage of this depot should be trebled and the area increased to from 4 to 6 acres. This may be done by purchase of a new and larger site or by purchase of adjacent property. The present buildings are mainly antiquated wooden structures. They constitute a fire menace and should be replaced by modern fireproof buildings.