The  Navy  Department  has  not  pussyfooted  in  this  way,  as  you  will  see  from
the  letter  we  have  just  received  from  the  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Ordnance,  of
which  I  enclose  you  two  photostats.  For  your  information  I  also  enclose  you  a
certified  copy  of  the  recent  decision  of  the  Court  of  Claims,  which  shows  that
the  Army  gun  was  t;iken  bodily  from  the  Navy  gun.  Of  course,  to  anyone
familiar  with  ordnance,  they  know  that  the  performance  of  a  gun  mechani-
cally and  its  rapidity  of  fire  are  all  due  to  the  breech  mechanism  and  the
semiautomatic  mechanism.  The  performance  ballistically  depends  upon  the
powder  charge,  weight,  and  type  of  projectile,  and  length  of  bore.  None  of
these  features  are  patentable,  and  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  us  from  making
our  gims  to  correspond  in  all  respects,  which  of  course  it  does  anyway.
The  Army  have  lately  adopted  certain  features  of  construction  which  do  not
effect  the  functioning  of  the  gun,  and  it  is  immaterial  to  us  whether  we  use
them  or  not.  One  is  in  the  recoil  system  of  the  40-cal.  gun,  but  has  not  been
incorporated  in  the  50  cal.  We  are  not  interested  in  using  this  anyway.  The
system  in  the  50-cal.  gun  is  better.
The  main  object  in  the  Army  making  the  limitations,  they  said  was  that
otherwise  the  impression  might  be  given  that  the  equipment  we  were  offering
was  the  same  in  all  respects  including  the  new  computer.  We  have  asked  per-
mission to  use  this  and  it  is  under  consideration.  If  it  is  finally  determined  to
keep  this  particular  instrument  secret  we  can  nevertheless  furnish  a  fire  control
system  that  will  function  just  as  well,  provided  this  is  required  of  us.
