Herreshoff #191801es Seaplane Barge No. 17 (Org. #331p)

"The Herreshoff Manufacturing Company have a government contract for the construction of 10 wooden pontoons for hydroplanes." (Source: Anon. "Bristol and Vicinity." Bristol Phoenix, January 8, 1918, p. 2.)

"The Herreshoff Manufacturing Company, having completed 10 of the 12 steel pontoons for hydroplanes [#191801es - #191810es], with the remaining two well under way, has now received a naval order for [oil tankers? About 7 unreadable words] about 100 [or 150?] feet long and propelled of steam power. They will be built in the main shops and will occupy probably a year and a half in their construction. [The oil tankers are apparently a reference to #191801ep. This order was cancelled in November 1918 as per NGH's diary.]" (Source: Anon. "Bristol and Vicinity." Bristol Phoenix, October 15, 1918, p. 2.)

"[Note: Some of the following text does not specifically refer to any Herreshoff-built seaplane barge but describes in detail what is was used for and how it was operated.]
SEAPLANE TOWING-BARGES
When the war on the U-boat was carried up into the sky, many new naval problems cropped up, particularly when German submarines chose to work far out at sea. Big seaplanes were used, but they consumed a great deal of fuel in flying out and back, cutting down by just so much their flying-radius at the scene of activities. A special towing-barge was used. These barges had trimming-tanks aft, which could be flooded so that the stern of the barge would submerge. A cradle was mounted to run on a pair of rails on the barge. The body of the seaplane was lashed to this cradle and then drawn up on the barge by means of a windlass. This done, the water was blown out of the trimming-tanks by means of compressed air and the barge was brought up to an even keel. The barge with its load was now ready to be towed by a destroyer or other fast boat to the scene of operations. There water was again let into the trimming-tanks and the seaplane was let back into the water. From the water the seaplane arose into the air in the usual way. ... [Illustr:] Hauling a Seaplane up on a Barge so that it may be Towed at High Speed." (Source: Bond, A. Russell. Inventions of the Great War. New York, 1919, pp. 302, 305.)

"THE return of the Atlantic Fleet Air Force to its home yard at Philadelphia on June 28 [1920], marked the completion of a cruise by aircraft which constitutes in many respects a record for aviation operations not equalled by any other similar number of aircraft since flying began. ...
As a result of nearly two years' continuous operations ... it has been found unnecessary to house the planes and repairs of a kind which require hauling machines out of the water are few and far between. Each airboat of the detachment carries its own anchor and anchor line, and is anchored out in a harbor in just the same manner as any other seagoing craft.
The Shawmut, one time mine layer, has been assigned as a tender, and accompanies the airboat squadron wherever it goes. On board the Shawmut are workshops, fuel tanks, storage spaces for spare parts, and the living quarters for the flying crews.
In addition to the Shawmut, another Navy mine layer, the U. S. S. Sandpiper, has been assigned as an auxiliary tender for the detachment. This vessel also carries sufficient fuel, in drums, for one refueling of the entire squadron. ...
DURING the past two winters the Airboat Squadron of the U. S. Atlantic Fleet has been conducting its operations with airboats of the F-5-L type. This is a large twin-engined biplane flying boat, weighing, fully loaded, 13,100 pounds --- about six and one-half tons. It has a wing spread of 103 feet, is about 50 feet long from nose to tail, and is propelled by two 400 HP Liberty engines. ...
OCCASIONS arise when it becomes necessary to haul the airboats out of the water to clean bottoms, or to make repairs to hulls, for the bottoms of these seagoing aircraft, collect barnacles and marine growth just as fast as, or probably faster than, the bottoms of surface craft at anchor. When necessity arises for thus hauling them out there is provided a special seaplane barge, towed from port to port by one of the tenders, fitted with cradle and railway. The stern compartment of this barge is flooded, thus submerging the after end of the tracks so that the airboat can be floated onto the cradle and hauled up the tracks. The after compartments are then pumped out, the airboat jacked up off the cradle, and the bottom is then clear for any necessary work.
With the present facilities it is entirely practicable to accompany the fleet to any base in the Americas and maintain a squadron of airboats in constant operating condition for indefinite periods.
THE entire squadron of six airboats, during the past winter and spring manoeuvres of the Atlantic Fleet, made a most remarkable record, not even approached by the naval air forces of any other nation. Leaving Philadelphia, the squadron flew to New York, then to Pensacola, and, after the Christmas holidays, joined the Fleet at Guantanamo. An independent cruise took the airboats to Jamaica, Porto Rico, St. Thomas, and back to Guantanamo.
The Fleet manoeuvres completed, the squadron returned to Philadelphia by way of Pensacola, reaching the home station after nine months of cruising entirely under their own power, without a casualty or serious mishap. ..." (Source: Leighton, B. G., Lieut.-Commander, Commanding Fleet Air Force, U. S. Atlantic Fleet. "Nine Months' Cruise Of Atlantic Fleet Air Force Without Mishap. Six Air Boats Make Record Trip To West Indies And Return." In: U.S. Air Service, Official Publication of the Army and Navy Air Service Association, September 1920, p. 8-10.)

"[Note: The following text does not mention the Herreshoff Manufacturing Company, but makes clear that the seaplane barges were built at a contract price of $16,000 each, which subsequently was shown to be so low as to force the contractors to incur considerable losses.]
RELIEF OF CONTRACTORS.
A Hearing on the Bill H. R. 13706, before the COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Friday, December 10, 1920.
Mr. Roberts. ... I am interested in just one claim against the Navy Department, not personally, but as counsel, and that is the claim that arose under the contract to build some seaplane barges. That contract came under the Bureau of Construction and Repair and possibly Steam Engineering had something to do with it. I am not familiar with that. The officers who had to deal with that class of contractors, and there are four different contractors. I represent only one, and the smallest one, perhaps. They suffered losses of about $48,000, actual cash loss, in carrying on and carrying out this contract.
The officers of the department who had knowledge of that contract and who saw it being performed think my clients should be reimbursed all of their actual losses: no profit, but actual cash loss because the Government got the benefit of the work he did, and might say this, in that connection, that the Government, Construction and Repair, undertook to build the same class of seaplane [barge]s from the same specifications in every respect, and it cost the Navy Department between $23.000 and $24,000 to build them, and the contract price was $16,000.
Mr. Walker. And the Navy Department estimated that the cost would be $16,000.
Mr. Roberts. And the Navy Department estimated that the cost would be $16.000, that they could be built --- they were a new boat --- for $16,000, and these contractors were induced to go in and take the contract on that statement, tbe barges being something entirely new. They were an English invention, and what knowledge we had and what plans we had were very small and came over from England.
Mr. Padgett. Now, in that particular case of contract, after the contract was made, did the Government interfere, subsequently, or did they just underestimate it in the beginning?
Mr. Roberts. There were three factors that entered into it. First, the Government promised a certain amount of material to the contractor within a certain time. They did not furnish that material within that time, they did not get the material to him due to various causes. They were delayed in furnishing the material on account of the lack of railroad transportation, lack of facilities at the mill, and all of that. Another consideration was the increase in wages due to the action of the board as spoken of. And the third consideration was the change of plans, and the fourth consideration was the general lack of knowledge on the part of anybody as to what that type of boat would cost. They had no experience to guide them. ..." (Source: Committee on Naval Affairs. "Hearings Before Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives on Sundry Legislation Affecting the Naval Establishment, 1920-1921, Sixty-Sixth Congress, Third Session." Washington, 1921, pp. 1.26, 1.27.)

"[Relief of Contractors. List of Claims.]
Contractor. --- Herreshoff Manufacturing Co.
Contract. --- 3280 NSA. Based on 1481-Y-18.
Statemeent of claim. --- Claim for reimbursement of $36,048.68, excess cost of seaplane barges 17-26 over and above the contract price, based on increase in wages and other difficulties beyond the contractor's control experienced in the construction of the barges. The department in its ninth indorsement No. 26801-1139: 7, of December 4, 1919, has authorized a detailed investigation of the contractors' claim and statements. [Note: Similar claims were made by B. F. Wood ($31,802.63, excess cost of seaplane barges 47-56), Robert Jacob ($77,400.78, excess cost of seaplane barges 27-46), and Luders Marine Construction Co. $21,341.09, excess cost of seaplane barges 57-60).]" (Source: U.S. Congress House Committee on Naval Affairs. Hearings before the Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives on Sundry Legislation Affecting the Naval Establishment 1921. Washington, D. C., 1922, p. 73.)

"The sum of $20,551.69 representing a claim of the Herreshoff Manufacturing Company, at this town, against the Government, under a contract for seaplane barges which were constructed here during the World War, has been favorably reported in an item carried in the second general deficiency bill recently submitted to the House of Representatives.
Although the claim has been pending since 1919, the act enabling the company to prosecute its suit was not passed until March 4, 1925.
The Herreshoff company filed the claim under a contract for seaplane barges which it manufactured during the war for the navy. Under the contract, it was declared the company paid this amount of increased wages by orders of a Naval Board and that it suffered an actual loss of this amount in the performance of the contract. Further it was claimed that the entire volume of the claimant's business with the Government during the period of this contract did not show a net profit.
The President, the Secretary of the Navy and the Bureau of the Budget have all indorsed the claim for compensation." (Source: Anon. "Claim Awarded." Bristol Phoenix, May 22, 1928, p. 1.)

"At the end of September 1916 the late Commander Porte, of the Royal Naval Air Station, Felixstowe, proposed to extend the radius of action of the large ' America' flying boats by building some special craft, strong enough to be towed at 20 to 25 knots behind destroyers and arranged to take a flying boat on board each. A rough sketch indicating the requirements was supplied, and the suggestion was made that these craft should be submerged by flooding tanks, the flying boats floated in and raised clear of the water suitable for towing, by ejecting the water from the tanks by compressed air.
On 5 October two representatives of the Directorate of Naval Construction (DNC) visited Felixstowe to investigate the conditions, and a design was immediately afterwards commenced. Steel construction was adopted, so as to use part of the hull as an airtight trimming tank, and it was decided that, instead of arranging to submerge bodily, the lighter should be designed with a large trimming tank aft, so as to submerge the after end and enable the flying boat to be hauled up by a winch fitted on the foredeck. The weight of the flying boats to be accommodated at that time was 41/4 tons. Lines The form of the lighter was arranged with a chine, for towing at high speed, and was made very flat aft, and sufficiently 4V- shaped forward to enable her to surmount seas without pounding severely. The beam was arranged to be sufficient to house the flying boat and to provide side decks in addition on each side for working purposes. Towing was arranged by means of a bridle attached to the sides above the chine about 12 feet abaft the stem head, and in order to keep the lighter on a straight course three plate skegs were fitted under the bottom aft, no rudder being used. ...
General Arrangement. The lighter was divided up by five main transverse WT bulkheads. The foremost compartment was fitted up as a storeroom, and was also used as a place where the flying boat crew could obtain shelter under tow. The aftermost compartment was a small one, used only for the stowage of the permanent trimming ballast. The next compartment from the stern, between bulkheads 30 and 45, was the trimming tank, which could be flooded by means of a 10 inch Kingston valve at its forward end. The capacity of this compartment was arranged to give, together with the permanent trimming ballast, sufficient draught aft over the slipway to enable the flying boat to be floated in, while providing a working gangway on each side.
For expelling the water from the trimming tank four air bottles were provided, which were stowed below the side decks aft, having a total capacity of about 10.8 cubic feet of air at 25001b per square inch pressure. This amount proved sufficient to blow the tank twice. The admission of the high- pressure air to the trimming tank was controlled by a valve at a control station forward, from which also the Kingston valve was operated. ...
General particulars of the 58ft towing lighters were as follows:
Length (overall) 58ft, beam (outside of plating) 16ft, depth (keel to side of deck amidships) 7ft.
The draughts, as arranged by ballasting to take the F2, F3 and F5 flying boats, were as follows:
With trimming tank empty, no men on board, cradle in stowed position and with no flying boat on board: Forward, 3ft above bottom of keel produced. Aft, 21/2in below inner bottom at centre.
The corresponding displacement was 24 tons, and the displacement therefore with F5 flying boat and crew on board would be about 30 tons. ... [Excerpts from long text with photos and plans filed in auxiliary documents section. The HMCo-built seaplane barges were apparently identical to the British ones in this text.]" (Source: Goodall, Michael H. "Lighters. Compiled from the Public Records by Michael H. Goodall." Cross & Cockade, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1981, p. 72-80.)

"... Upon completion of repairs [at the Boston Navy Yard] on 8 May [1918], [the revenue cutter] Acushnet proceeded to Bristol, R.I., and took delivery of the seaplane barge being built there for the Navy by the noted boat builders of the Herreshoff Manufacturing Company. She then delivered the boat to the New York Navy Yard and loaded a cargo of ammunition to be delivered to the Naval District Base, New London. ... [Note: The above text does not specify which of the ten seaplane barges built by the HMCo in 1918 was delivered to New York by the Acushet, but it does show that at least one seaplane barge was ready for delivery by May 1918.]" (Source: U.S. Naval Historical Center. "Acushnet." www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a2/acushnet.htm, last accessed October 9, 2010.)

"[Item Description:] Hand-written table titled 'Casting List for Gov. Pontoons', which apparently is a reference to #191801es Seaplane Barge No. 17 (Org. No. #331p), #191802es Seaplane Barge No. 18 (Org. No. #332p), #191803es Seaplane Barge No. 19 (Org. No. #333p), #191804es Seaplane Barge No. 20 (Org. No. #334p), #191805es Seaplane Barge No. 21 (Org. No. #335p), #191806es Seaplane Barge No. 22 (Org. No. #336p), #191807es Seaplane Barge No. 23 (Org. No. #337p), #191808es Seaplane Barge No. 24 (Org. No. #338p), #191809es Seaplane Barge No. 25 (Org. No. #339p), and #191810es Seaplane Barge No. 26 (Org. No. #340p). Showing pattern names, pattern numbers and drawing numbers." (Source: MIT Museum, Hart Nautical Collections, Haffenreffer-Herreshoff Collection Item HH.6.097. Table. Box HAFH.6.3B, Folder Administrative - Notes. No date (ca1918 ?).)
①

"[Item Description:] Navy Dept. ordered ten aeroplane lighters [#191801es, #191802es, #191803es, #191804es, #191805es, #191806es, #191807es, #191808es, #191809es, #191810es], 58ft x 16ft, sort of a small floating dock arranged to carry an aeroplane, $15,000 each, built special construction shed [sketch], want six if possible by March 1, first class job for Brechin, will delay #323p [SP-2840] which is framed and being plated, #306p [SP-1841] and #308p [SP-2232] are finished and waiting for gov't action, Tod has paid for his boat [#308p SP-2232] in full, #321p [SP-2235] is almost done, one 40-fter [apparently #324p C365] has been delivered to Newport but ice is holding the other two [apparently #325p C366 and #326p C367] here and I had them picked up by shears and put on wharf, the last two [apparently #327p C368 and #328p C369] are nearly finished, they have proved expensive boats and we shall no more than make overhead on them, store house is done except cement work in vault, destroyer launch [#330p] is almost finished and is a fine little boat, hope we can build more like her, order for an aeroplane hull or pontoon [#341p NC-4], [Ernest] Alder has gone to Curtiss Works to observe and is now laying the boat down, work has commenced on Richards boat [#329p Carola], the RESOLUTE launch has been sent to Bob's [Emmons] ship the Mt. Vernon as tender" (Source: Swan, James. Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_50930. Subject Files, Folder [no #]. 1918-01-08.)
① ② ③ ④

"[Item Description:] change of HMCo fiscal year from Aug 31 to Dec 31 to coincide with tax year, Bob [Emmons] and Mr. Swasey had to resign their positions in HMCo due to Navy rule that nobody connected with the Navy can hold any position in a Company which is handling any Government contract, when their services in the Navy cease, they can again become associated with the Company, situation was brought to a head by a contract amounting to about $150,000, which the Company has just received for ten boats, to be used in connection with the hydroaeroplanes [#191801es, #191802es, #191803es, #191804es, #191805es, #191806es, #191807es, #191808es, #191809es, #191810es]" (Source: Garfield, I.M. Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_51080. Subject Files, Folder [no #]. 1918-01-16.)
①

"[Item Description:] Navy Dept. requesting new authority to sign on behalf of HMCo after death of JBH, are now getting #321p and #322p for trials and delivery, flying boat [#341p NC-4 Seaplane Hull] is along, 24 deries[?] are about completed, #323p (J.P.M.) [SP-2840 for J. P. Morgan / Navy] is about ready for machinery and one boiler was put in today, the 10 Barges [#191801es, #191802es, #191803es, #191804es, #191805es, #191806es, #191807es, #191808es, #191809es, #191810es] are progressing but we are bothered in obtaining witus[?] but hope to overcome this in a few days, Mr. Francis made us a short call this morning, he seemed to be well" (Source: Young, Charles Wesley (Herreshoff Manufacturing Co. Secr.). Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_50710. Subject Files, Folder [no #]. 1918-03-06.)
①

"[Item Description:] company is going on in satisfactory manner, prospects seem to be good, Franklin Roosevelt is in Boston today and I am to see him and press our claims ($40,000) [apparently incurred when building seaplane barges #191801es, #191802es, #191803es, #191804es, #191805es, #191806es, #191807es, #191808es, #191809es and #191810es] with the government further, after long consultation between Swan, Brightman, Morgan and myself both sides were willing to accede something to the other sides claims [accounting differences], Company dividends are important for you and me but not for some of the larger investors, much interested in the new boiler you are developing, hope you liked the design I left for a trade mark, enclose sample of aeroplane canvas" (Source: Emmons, Robert W. Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_50790. Subject Files, Folder [no #]. 1919-04-14.)
① ② ③ ④

"[Item Description:] Herreshoff Manufacturing Company, Inc. Financial Statements for the Period from January 1, 1923 to August 15, 1923. Including discussion of valuation of inventory ('It is doubtful that the company will ever find a use for [some of] these items.') and claims ('There appears to be little hope of collection the claim against the Navy Department of the United States.' [for Seaplane Barges #191801es, #191802es, #191803es, #191804es, #191805es, #191806es, #191807es, #191808es, #191809es and #191810es]). Comparative Balance sheet as at August 15, 1923 and December 31, 1922. " (Source: Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery Accountants (creator). Financial Statement. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_50470. Subject Files, Folder [no #], formerly 124?. 1923-09-11.)
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥

"[Item Transcription:] As reported to you January 3, 1927, final liquidation of the old Herreshoff Manufacturing Company, Inc., has been delayed, pending settlement of a claim against the Navy Department, arising out of losses incurred under war contracts [for Seaplane Barges #191801es, #191802es, #191803es, #191804es, #191805es, #191806es, #191807es, #191808es, #191809es and #191810es].
Under legislation passed by Congress, the Company's claim has been established and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury and transmitted to the Committee on Appropriations.
If the necessary appropriation is made by Congress, the claim should be settled during the next year. I can then take up with the Government the matter of final determination of our taxes or obtain a final agreement thereto.
I cannot at this time give any accurate estimate as to such final dividend in liquidation as may be made, but unless something entirely unexpected should arise in the tax situation, there should be a further dividend.
From the above it is apparent, I believe, that a gain or loss for tax purposes cannot be established during the current year by persons still holding their stock.
The assets in my hands on behalf of the Liquidation Committee, amounting to approximately $15,000., are invested principally in Fourth Liberty Loan Bonds." (Source: Warren, Garfield, Whiteside & Lamson (Counsellors at Law). Letter to Stockholders of the Herreshoff Manufacturing Co. in Liquidation (incl Herreshoff, N.G.). Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_49860. Subject Files, Folder [no #], formerly 246?. 1927-12-06.)
① ②

"[Item Description:] explaining claims against the Navy Department due to losses incurred under war contracts [for Seaplane Barges #191801es, #191802es, #191803es, #191804es, #191805es, #191806es, #191807es, #191808es, #191809es and #191810es] has been settled" (Source: Warren, Garfield, Whiteside & Lamson (Counsellors at Law). Letter to Holders of Pref. Stock of the Herreshoff Manufacturing Co. in Liquidation (incl Herreshoff, N.G.). Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_49880. Subject Files, Folder [no #], formerly 246?. 1928-10-22.)
①

Note: This list of archival documents contains in an unedited form any and all which mention #191801es Seaplane Barge No. 17 (Org. #331p) even if just in a cursory way. Permission to digitize, transcribe and display is gratefully acknowledged.

Type: 10 Barges (Steel)
Length: 58'
Owner: U.S. Navy

Source: Herreshoff Manufacturing Company. "A Partial List of Herreshoff Clients." In: Herreshoff Manufacturing Company. Herreshoff Yachts. Bristol, Rhode Island, ca. 1931.

• Seaplane barges
• Note: The L. Francis Herreshoff index cards comprise a set of some 1200 cards about vessels built by HMCo, with dimensions and / or ownership information. Apparently compiled in the early 1930s, for later HMCo-built boats like the Fishers Island 23s or the Northeast Harbor 30s are not included. Added to in later decades, apparently by L. F. Herreshoff as well as his long-time secretary Muriel Vaughn and others. Also 46 cards of L. F. Herreshoff-designed vessels. The original set of index cards is held by the Herreshoff Marine Museum and permission to display is gratefully acknowledged.

Name: 10 steel barges
Type: 58' steel barges
Owner: U.S. Navy
Row No.: 780

Source: Herreshoff, L. Francis. "Partial List of Herreshoff-Built Boats." In: Herreshoff, L. Francis. Capt. Nat Herreshoff. The Wizard of Bristol. New York, 1953, p. 325-343.

"Seaplane barges were used to retrieve airboats such as the Curtiss F-5-L from the water for fast relocation by being towed at speeds of up to 30kn by a destroyer, but also for maintenance and bottom scraping. Ten of these, named Seaplane Barge 17 to Seaplane Barge 26, were built by the Herreshoff Manufacturing Company as indicated by hearings held in 1921 before the Committee on Naval Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives and by a 1930s HMCo list of owners.
A seaplane barge was essentially a semi-submersible barge with a cradle on an inclined set of rails. To lift an airboat out of the water the barge's stern was flooded, and the plane was directed over the cradle in the stern which was subsequently pumped out. This was followed by the winching up of the cradle on the rails with a hand-operated windlass in the bow of the barge. The plane could then be towed or or maintained as required.
Hearings before the Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives in the 1920s indicate that several dozens seaplane barges were built in 1918 by the Herreshoff Manufacturing Company, Robert Jacobs and B. F. Wood on City Island in New York, and Luders Marine Construction in Stamford, Connecticut. Apparently all, including HMCo, accepted these Navy orders at very low contract prices, leading to substantial losses and lengthy negotiations with the Navy for additional payments. The unit cost appears to have been $16,000 with HMCo subsequently making a claim of an additional $3,600 per seaplane barge.
While the Herreshoff-built seaplane barges were only for seaplane retrieval, others were built to help launch seaplanes, thus becoming the first predecessors of aircraft carriers. In England, for instance, seaplane lighters were towed against the wind at speeds of up to 30 knots behind a ship, allowing a plane to take off from them. One of these, the Seaplane Lighter H21 designed by Thornycroft and built by the Royal Engineers in 1918 at Richborough, has been conserved in the Fleet Air Arm Museum in Yeovilton, England (Source: http://www.nationalhistoricships.org.uk/ships_register.php?action=ship&id=712, retrieved October 9, 2010). Like the Herreshoff-built seaplane barges it is 58ft LOA. Photos of it show remarkable similarities to the Herreshoff-built barges, suggesting that the U.S. Navy adopted the Thornycroft design for its own seaplane barges.
The U.S. Navy also experimented with vessels to facilitate seaplane launches but used a fundamentally different boat design to do so. In 1918, Murray & Tregurtha of Boston built two Albert Hickman-designed Seasleds and a year later one of these was successful to launch a Curtiss H-9 seaplane.
The U.S. Naval Institute holds a photo (NH 78226) which clearly shows a seaplane barge such as the ones built by the Herreshoff Manufacturing Company --- probably No. 48 built by B. F. Wood which was assigned to Guantanamo. The photo shows the USS Shawmut (CM 4) at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in January 1920 with a Curtiss N-9 aircraft on the water by her stern and a seaplane barge (which the photo caption wrongly identifies as a Seasled) tied up along her starboard side (Source: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-o/cm4.htm, retrieved October 9, 2010) ." (Source: van der Linde, Claas. October 9, 2010.)

"Note that HMCo drawings 034-114: Ways for 58' Gov. Lighters (1918-2-15) and 034-115: Cradle for 58' Gov. Lighters (1918-2-18) refer to these lighters as HMCo number 331 --- a number which, however, appears to be taken in the Construction Record by #331p [Launch for #725s Resolute]. Furthermore, 331 is not an ordinary HMCo job number which in 1917/1918 would have been a number around 9500. Close inspection of the Construction Record shows that even though HMCo nos. #331p through #334p appear to have been assigned to four 26' 2" LOA power launches (and the Herreshoff Catalogue Raisonné continues to use these numbers), this was apparently a change that was made at some later point in time. Originally, HMCo nos. #331p through #340p were quite certainly meant to be assigned to the ten 48' seaplane barges now named #191801es through #191810es in the HCR. This would explain the reference to HMCo number 331 on the planheads as well as on an original manila envelope in the collection of the Herreshoff Marine Museum which holds a photo of one of these seaplane barges." (Source: van der Linde, Claas. October 13, 2010.)

"Reported to have been contracted for $15,000 each as per a letter (collection of the Herreshoff Marine Museum) by general manager James Swan to NGH, dated Jan 8, 1918." (Source: van der Linde, Claas. December 9, 2016.)

"Displacement '24 tons' (long or short?) from Goodall, Michael H. 'Lighters. Compiled from the Public Records by Michael H. Goodall.' Cross & Cockade, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1981, p. 76." (Source: van der Linde, Claas. March 24, 2015.)

Note: Research notes contain information about a vessel that is often random and unedited but has been deemed useful for future research.