Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-07-27

|
or under construction, nine of thes,,
| large battle ships
The provision of 5000 tons of arnor
plate per year for 20 years, making a
| total of 10000 tons, would furnish us.
| in the proportion in which armor is pro-
| vided for the ships now under con-
Struction, with an addition to our nayv
OF from 40 to so of these great battle
ships, and that is proposition which
has never been even considered by CON
eress, and which, of course, could not
be taken into consideration by the
navy department, so that the offer Of
that corporation was absolutely out OF
the question. The Carnegie Company
simply sent in brief communication
stating that they would not make any
bid to furnish armor plate for the
prescribed price. because they could
lot afford TO furnish 1t at that price.
They said:
The Carnegie Steel Company, Limited,
Pittsburg, Pa, April 5, 1897
Sir: referring to your advertisements
Tor proposals on armor plates for battle
ships I, 8 and .. dated March 10, 1897:
- the act of Congress of March g.
1897, prohibits the acceptance of any
BID over $500 per ton Of 22i0 pounds, we
are unable to bid, as, with all our ia
cilities and experience. we can not
supply the government with armor of
the quality we are now making at that
price.
We respectfully refer you to our testi-
mony at various times before com
nittees of Congress and to our COM
munications on the subject to your
predecessor as to our position on this
question.
We trust you will be able to satisfy
Congress of the Importance of such
legislation as viii enable you to negoti-
ate with armor manufacturers to Sc
cure at fair price the quality of armor
the government should have.
If you were in a position now to
negotiate With us and We could no;
agree upon a price we would be per
fectly willing to have the price fixed
ny arbitration, the arbters to be mea
alilied in the art.
Very respectfully. yours.
The Carnegie Steel Company. Limited
c. NJ. SCHWAB. President
Hon John ID. Long.
Secretary of the Navy, Washington
d C.
Under date of April :. the Bethlehem
Company sent n somewhat longer COM
nunieation to the department, in which
they discussed the matter, and also
came to the conclusion that they could
not afford to produce armor plate at
$500 4 ton. Their communication is as
! follows:
The Bethlehem Iron Company.
South Bethlehem. Pa. April g. 1897
Sir: In answer to your advertise
ment, dated March 10, 1897, inviting
bids for the supply of about 5000 tons
more or less of nckel-steel facet hard
cned armor, we regret to have to advise
you that, as we do not see our way t.
naming prices for this armor within the
limit of $500 per ton. as fixed by the re-
cent act of Congress providing for its
purchase, we are not able to submit
| tender for its manufacture. In taking
this action we wish To present the fol-
! lowing observations:
The first contract for the supply OF
! armor which this company made with
the department. dated June /, 1857, was
for armor of plain steel. at an average
price for all kinds exclusive of acces-
sories) of $536.l6 per gross ton That
armor differed from what is now re-
CURED in that it contained no nickel,
and was not facet hardened or reforged
| These three notifications in the manu-
facture of armor by which it's ballistie
resistance has been greatly increased,
have added largely to it's cost of pro-
duction. This increased cost is due not
only to the direct cost of applying the
| 1, "a.
tonnage of face hardened and reforged
armor that can be turned out of u
given plant in fixed time
| is much less than of plain
| armor, due to the greater number OF
| operations, the increased difficulty Of
| machining, and the decrease in the
average thickness Of the armor by rea-
son of its greater balistic resistance.
Further, the design of modern armo..
| including elliptical turrets, double
tapered plates, and portfolios in super
| structure make it more difficult and
expensive to manufacture than the
armor of our original contract, and this
! is especially the fact in the case of the
! armor for the three ships for which
bids are now asked, where not only are
the portfolio plates entirely novel in de-
| sign and difficult to execute, but the
heavy turretS are conical as well as
| ciliptical, whereby the difficulty, risk
and cost of fashioning the plates is
greatly increased. making this armor
as q whole more expensive to produce
than any we have ever asked to bid
upon. In the face of the above facts
the act of Congress providing for the
purchase of this armor limits its cost
to a sum but little greater than one
half the price which, at the time we
made our first contract for plain armor.
was, after full investigation, found 10
be fair and reasonable.
An all-impcrtant factor in the cost Of
the production of armor plate, to which
we wish to call your attention, and To
which due consideration was not given
by Congress in limiting the price, is the
smallness and uncertainty in the
amount of product compared with the
cost of the necessary plant. Exclusive
of the 7155 tons of armor furnished I'M
der our first contract. which, to great
degree, was composed of an accumula-
ton incident to beginning work on the
new navy, we received on March i, 1898,
orders for 35I1 tons and on June i, 1895.