New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-02-16
4RMOR PLATE CONTROVERSY.
A CHANGE FROM THE PRESENT SYSTEM
ADVOCATED.

CHIEF CONSTRUCTOR HICHBoRN PROPOSES THAT
THE sHIPEUILDERs SHALL ALSO FURNISH
Amor. EEsERvING TO THE GOVERN
MENT THE RIGHT or INSPECTION
ADVANTAGES OF THE PLAN.
tBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TEIBUNEl
Washington. Feb. 1.-THE naval armor controversy
has taken a turn 1t has been proposed by
Chief Constructor Hchborn that shpbui!ders be
required hereafter to contract to supply armor
plates. and that the Government be relieved from
responsibility in the case. reservrg the right Of in
spection Some Of he foreign navcs follow this
custom. with economical results as to time and
money. and go far 20 include In the general
contract for ship the items of ordnance and pro-
visions. Secretary Tracy favored the idea before
he went OF Office He said that had he another
contract TO let tor warsh!p he would require the
shipbuilder furnish the thick armor. Secretary
Herbert also favors the proposition. but not to the
same unqualified extent his predecessor. The
proposition is being discussed by the House Com
mittee on Naval Affairs and it may supplant the
Senate plan to build a Government armor plate
plant.
In a communication to the Secretary of the Navy
Chief Constructor Hichborn has set forth at length
the why he avors the proposition that ship
builders should supply heavy armor plates a. well
the hull plates. engines and boilers of all kinds
OF vessels II Is understood that copy of h, letter
considered In connection with the general question
OF armor The Chief Constructors idea Is that ship
builders should furnish all arno-, armor
bolts and accessories the Bureau Of Ordnance 10
retain its present authority inspect and test the
material In his opinion the present difficulties en-
countered by the Navy Department are due wholly
10 the existing method which requires the Govern
ment 20 deliver the armor to the shpbuild"rs.
properly drilled, fitted and tapped. The CHER Con-
structor thinks the present system pad III many re-
spects. He says in his letter:
The practical result Of the system now followed
has been that the Department has acted a. buHer
between tne snip contractors ana tIle armo con,
tractors. Much annoyance has been caused ana
furnishing armor. Not only has it been necessary
10 allow the ship contractors long extensions OF
time. bur they have actually been PAID Tor taxing
rdrc OF vessels during suGh Times. tndLess orr,
spondence has been caused the ship contractors on
urging that il be delivered more promptly. ana the
Department. on the other. "nde avoring TO comply
with their not unwarran'able demands. While
much of the difficulty due this source would
probably be avoided in future ships owing to the
more rapid delivery OF armor which may reasona-
bly, he expected hereafter yet there are many rea-
which make the change above suggested de-
srabc.
Even suppo>ing that there IS absolutely no delay
in the Manufacture and delivery OF armor. there
and Of Increased expense; Under the present sys-
TEN tn plans and schedules for each ship are pre-
pared by the ship contractors and are tnSn ny
them submitted 10 the experimenting naval con-
structor. After careful examination the latter for
wards The plans TO this bureau. when they are
again examined This bureau then forwards the
pian, rtc to the Bureau OF Ordnance. After APP
provG by the Bureau Of Ordnance, that bureau
sends tn plans to the armor contractors. ana In
forms this bureau of its action. This bureau then
similarly informs the superntending naval con
structor and he in turn informs the ship contract
ors This is all on the assumption that the plans
are found be correct and acceptable TO the armor
OF the neures any difference Of opinion relative
to any point. enormous mass of correspondence
enSues, as every letter and plan must make the
length" circuit above outlined
With a place far distant as San Francisco 1t
has been no unusual thing to have months elapsee
between the preparation OF plan ana rs final
acceptance And what Is the cause OF all this con-
Government is responsible for the shape and di-
mensons OF all armpr;, and that any hnai dis
most impoSsiblc wholly avoid, once brings
pensatio FOR correcting the discrepancy What has
been said above relative to armor is even more
true Of e ed t6 9n amount o. correspondencS and
DELAY that would incredible Mere it not
irg demands from the armor contractors for plans
and schedules. all o. which are mad on the De-
o. hurrying up the delinquent ship contractors while
under the now system proposed all such friction
would bo confined between the armor contractors
and ship contractors. whore it properly belongs.
All this would be obviated ny making the fur
vesseI Instead OF the ship contractors holding the
Department responsible Tor prompt delivery AS
vol as for correct shape and dimensions. the re
spcctiye positions o. the parties would be reversed
Nine-tenhs OF the correspondents" would cease: the
.hin contractor would deal direct with the armor
contractor holding him directly responsible tor
accurate work and being himsel; directly RESPONSE
p De would be saved much annoyance and
expense, and could hold the ship contractor TO
roninuaily mot ny counter claims relative TO delay
I'm furnishing armor.
rosuIt o. the method would be material reduction
in future price OF armor resulting in saving In
total cost OF American men-of-war.