THE NOTT ENGINE AT CHICAGO.

To FIRE AND WATER ENGINEERING:

It will be remembered that about five months ago Chief Campion, of Chicago, advertised for bids for one engine, according to certain specifications so drawn as to debar the Nott Fire Engine company from bidding on its high-efficiency engine. Chief Campion refused to reject the bids and again advertise, modifying his specifications so as to enable the Nott company to tender a bid. He refused to do so, and was about to sign the contract with the American-La France company—the only bidder—when the matter was brought before Mayor Dunne, who directed Chief Campion to withhold the other contract, which was done, and the contract has not yet been signed. The matter, together with a set of specifications, was turned over by the mayor for investigation by the board of examining engineers of the city, who reported them as physically impossible and throttling competition. The mayor then directed the board of examining engineers to invite the different manufacturers to enter a competitive test, and further directed the board to formulate the details for the performance of the engines. Of the three manufacturers in the field the Nott company promptly and unconditionally accepted the invitation, and had its engine ready in Chicago by January 15. The Ahrens company offered the reasonable excuse, that, as it had so recently started in business, it could not have an engine ready by January 15. The AmericanLa France is said to have asked to have the conditions modified, and, as its request was not granted, refused to compete, and has since stated that the type of engine for which Chief Campion advertised was known and recognised as the Chicago standard, and could be built by any manufacturer. The old Chicago standard engine was one that has been out of use for many years; that of late years has been the American pump, with the Fox boiler, known as the Metropolitan— the latest and best product of the American-La France company. The advertisement, of course, meant that and not the older type of engine.

It is claimed, however, by the Nott company that not only at Chicago, but elsewhere, the Fox boiler has net been a success, and has constantly been a source of considerable expense for repairs and replacements. The company further claims that it would not build any engines of such low efficiency as the old Chicago standard engine, and, further, that the lately reorganised Ahrens company, the original builders of that type of engine, no longer constructs such engines, and no cities nowadays order them.

The Nott company, alluding to the fait that the American-La France company claims to have beaten it in four competitive tests, admits that such was the case three years ago or more at Atlantic City, N. J., the engine with which they competed being of the first type the company produced—with the submerged flue boiler. Since that time, however, the Nott company has progressed. It had a second-size engine at Chattanooga, Tenn., in 1904, at the convention of the International Association of Fire Engineers, and had been challenged to compete with a similar one of the American-La F’rance company at Chicago within a given time. The former company states that it notified the latter by ordinary mail, by registered letters and by telegrams that its engine was at Chicago awaiting the test. No answer was received, and, after its engine had remained in Chicago for thirty days, it was sent back to Minneapolis. At Napa, Cal., a competitive test took place between third-size engines of the two companies. “Through spurts and trickery,” says the Nott company, the Metropolitan engine “obtained high records.” The representative of the rival company, the Nott company, insists “admitted before the Napa city council that the company had resorted to trickery to obtain high records, and they charged us with doing the same—which was not true.” The Nott was awarded the contract, and the American-La France company secured a temporary restraining order upon the city of Napa, preventing it ffibm purchasing the Nott engine, and likewise entered suit against the city for $50,000. The court dissolved the injunction, dismissed the suit, and Napa purchased the engine. At Los Angeles the test was very close: but the Nott company won, and although the city afterwards purchased some metropolitan engines, it did so (the Nott company states), because the other company was the lowest bidder, having “cut its former price.” At Winona, Minn., the competition embraced two different sets of tests, the first of which was won by the Nott engine; the second, by the American-La France. The city bought one of each type. Milwaukee, Wis., the other daybought a second-size Nott engine, which, as Master Mechanic Thomas Manion of that city points out, “had been subjected to the test of a first-sized engine—the test under which the engine of the American-La France engine failed at first, and finally made, with the use of our men. This second engine heat the first-size engine about sixteen and one-half per cent. The most severe test required was two and one-quarter-inch streams through leads of 250 feet of hose. One hundred pounds of pressure at the nozzle was required. The Nott engine gave us 116 and one-third. In all of the other tests the engine beat the requirements, and with apparent ease. It is the best fire engine I ever saw.”

The Nott Fire Engine company now challenges the American-La F’rance F’ire Engine company to a competitive test in Chi.ago with first, second or third-size engines (the principal sizes used)— the best either side can turn out. The only conditions it makes are as follows: 1. That the boiler on the Elmira company’s engine shall be of no larger diameter or height than that of the Nott company. 2. That the number and length of hose lines and size of nozzles shall be such as to compel each engine to show its maximum boiler and pumping capacity. 3. That water-pressures only at the base of the nozzles be considered and taken on self-recording gauges. The test to be for $1,000 a side, the winner to retain $500 to cover the expenses of the test; the other $500 to go to the Chicago Foremen’s Benevolent association.

E. A. WILKINSON, Manager of Sales.

To FIRE AND WATER ENGINEERING:

I send herewith a brief summary of the Dryden bill and the conclusions of the committee. On my return South from New York, I stopped over three or four days in Washington and had another conference with Senator Drydeu and other Senators. 1 have their assurance that I shall be given every opportunity to safeguard our interests, before final action is taken. I have just returned from Columbia, S. C., where I presented the two per cent, relief bill for the South Carolina firemen to the joint committee of the senate and house of representatives. The joint committee gave me a unanimous report in favor of the bill and a wire from the president tells me, that the bill has passed the senate and has gone to the home for concurrence. My ambition as president of the National Association is to see similar laws in every State in America. I believe in doing something tangible, material and beneficial. In accordance with the will of the Kansas City convention the special committee on National legislation met in New York city on January 24, to take up, and give to the Dryden bill our careful consideration. As already said, the writer had spent a few days in Washington before meeting with the committee, and personally gone over the bill with Senator Dryden and got his ideas as to its intents and purposes. It is certainly not the intention or desire of the senator to do anything that will injure our interests, still there is not the shadow of a doubt, but that, should the bill become law as it at present stands, it would ultimately destroy the source from which we are now receiving our beneficial revenue. The original bill as introduced on January 15 (Senate bill No. 3,026) is entirely too long to reproduce here, so, for the benefit of your readers (and it is a matter in which every fireman is interested), I copy only a few of its most important sections. Section 14 provides that a division of the Department of Commerce and Labor, to be known as the “Bureau of Insurance,” shall be charged with the regulation of the business of insurance, in all its branches, among the several States, in charge of a Comptroler. etc., etc. Section 16 provides that the provisions, of the act shall apply to all corporations, associations or individuals, such as Lloyds Underwriters. engaged in interstate insurance business, etc. That policies are declared to lie articles of commerce and the payment of premiums to be transactions of commerce. Section 18 provides that every corporation within the scope of this act shall file an annual report with the Comptroler of Insurance, and must secure a certificate of authority to carry on an interstate business, etc. Section 19 gives the Contptroler of Insurance authority to inquire into every detail of the affairs of every corporation within the scope of this act. The above are the most important sections affecting our interests. None of the provisions or sections directly interferes with any law or regulation imposed by any State now in force. In fact, in view of Amendment No. 10 of the Constitution of the United States, which says, “That the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it, to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” your committee cannot see how Congress can possibly pass any law interfering with the laws now in force in some States regarding the tax upon-insurance companies. The great danger in this bill lies, not in its wording, but in its being an entering wedge that will ultimately take from the States all control, over such matters. That the bill will have a rocky road to travel and be subject to all sorts of amendments, etc., is fully recognised by its author. In the meantime, the fire service can rest assured that the National committee will carefully watch its every detail and do all that can honorably be done to safeguard the interests of the entire American fire service. JAS. D. MCNEILL,