The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-02-22
WRONG IN IRIS CONCLUSION.

Our esteemed contemporary, the Alex
andria Gazette makes Il mistake in Its
conclusions relative to the VISIT f D
delegation composed OF business citizens
| from Norfolk. Portsmouth and vicinity
to washington in the interests Ofsthe
navy-yard at this port, and TO conf
| plain that the building of ships had been
| given to the Newport News ship-yards
instead of the Government yard at this
port. The Gazette remarks:
| understanding seems to have depart
ed. If II ever had Il place therein, from
| the heads Of certain people In Norfolk
aud Portsmouth who are complaining
loudly because the Navy Department.
a national bureau. conducted for the
good Of the whole country. and not of
any one part Of it, has decided to build
its ships by contract at Newport News,
instead of al the Norfolk Maynard,
and That, too. in face OF the fact that
several of the ships recently built ut
Government ship yards have proved un-
satisfactory. II not inefficient. II a YES
sci bull, n IA private yard doesn't meet
the terms Of III" contract. ii isn't paid
for but 10 matter how great failure
/, may prove. if built at Il Government
shipya,d il must be.
The Gazette Is guilty OF Il grievous
error In its conclusions as to any com
plain; being uttered by the committee
against; the building of a warship ut the
Newport News shipyard. The people of
Norfolk and Portsmouth and Norfolk
county rejoiccd that the contract had
been awarded the yard at Newport
News. our business Associations
81, l,,ssn or
an qualification that Newport News
received he contract for building the
two new ships. There was no complaint.
What they asked was that In the con
saruction Of other ships the Government
yard ut this point should be recognized.
They set forth It's advantages and
facilities for the construction OF battle
ships for the new navy and they pre-.
sumed that the work by Govern
mer, yards and Government employees
could be as economically performed as
by the private shipyards of the coun-
try.
The points presented by the Secrctar!
OF the Navy were, It Is said, new TO the
members of the committee. and 1t can
not be disputed but that there was
deal OF force in what he said. Unuucs-
t!onahly the navy-yards OF the country
are the property of the country Mt large
and established to protect the interest of
tile Government. II the Government
was to employ the yards at a great
loss IN the construction OF vessels, as
compared with what the same work
could be done at the private shipyards
.! The country. there would without
question be great cry of opposition
Capt. McCar.ick, a member OF the com
m!t;ec, scnsibly presented the So
luton CT the issue. If IL costs
a great deal more to execute
work At the navy-yards of the
country than 1t does at the private ship
pards. 1t also costs Il great deal 10 keep
such immense plants idle. and the lux
uiy is bur,hen upon the people. The
Governments should therefore dispose
of the plants. or run them as cconomi-
cally as ether similar plants owned BIZ
private concerns are run.
The Gazette should correct the inius-
tice done tine committee and the com
muhities the committee represented.
Norfolk and Portsmouth and all this
section are proud Of the success OF New
po". News and its great shIpbuIld,nr
plant.