The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1897-01-07
GUST OF ARMOR PLATE.
Herbert Reports Result Of His
Investigation.
COMPANIES WANT RID OF PLANTS.

preparation bill directing him to examine
into the actual cost of armor plate and
report to congress before Jan. /, 1897,
and to make no contract for armor
plate for the vessels authorized by that
act until after the report was made to
congress. This provision OF the bill
grew out of heated debate in the house
and senate, in which the main conten
ton was that the government was pay
ing too much for armor plates. The re.
port is very important and in many
respects a sensational document.
The present cost of armor is $3.50 per
ton. Mr.. Herbert's conclusion is that
the cost of material and labor is Sl99. 40
and allowing for the cost of maintain
ing the plant and the nickel now fur
nished by the government and 90 per
cent profit to the companies the net cost
to to the government would be in round
numbers $400 per ton. The Carnegie
and Bethlehem companies have both
expressed desire to sell out their plants
the government, the former at cost
and the latter below cost.
The secretary opposes the govern.
ment having its own plant, but thinks tho
companies are making too much. They
should have, he thinks. fair profit.
For time both firms refused to give
information, but finally did so
The Bethlehem company accused the
government of unfairness in giving
contracts to the Carnegies, after assur.
ing them that they would get the work,
Secretary Herbert questions the fig.
ures of the cost of tho plants, the Beth.
lehem estimating their plant at 81, ,000,.
900 and the Carnegies ut $3,000,000
The Bethlehem company estimates
the cost of armor plate as follows:
Estimated cost of labor and material,
$3.50.
Interest on cost of plant. S7S 30.
Maintenance and depreciation $l32 72,
Working capital $33.55.
Total, Sl94 66.
The Carnegie company's estimate
was as follows, exclusive Of shop cost
Interest on plant per ton Of armor,
S8l.53.
Maintenance of plant per ton Of ar.
NOR, $67. "a,
Loss by abandonment of plant when
navy shall have been completed per ton
of armor, S7540.
Total, $224 90.
To this the Carnegie company also
Secretary Herbert speaks of the armor
furnished by the companies to Russia
at $249 per ton, and later at $500 per
ton and concludes from a comparison of
prices that there is at least "friendly
understanding or agreement among the
powerful armor manufacturers of the
world to maintain prices at or about the
same level
In summing up the secretary asks
what will be price sufficient to justify
manufacturers in maintaining armor
plants. "These two contractors have
already been repaid the cost of their
plants, together with fair profits. The
government is under no obligation to
pay them moro than the cost of their
original Investment, but should pay
them enough to maintain the plants
1t has been determined. he says, that
the cost of labor and material i'll q ton
of double.forged nickel.steel Harveyad
armor, including allowances for losses
in manufacture, is $l9S.7S. This com.
prises every element in cost save main.
tenance of plant.
He allows 10 per cent for this aud says
it is enough and more. He estimates
that the cost of the plants of the two
companies to be 81 800, 600, and an al.
lowance of $l50,000 per annum would
be sufficient for maintaining the plants.
Supposing that 1900 tons of armor is
manufactured yearly, it gives an allow.
ance of $50 per ton, making, in round
numbers, the cost of armor plate $3.50
per ton. If 5000 tons were manuiac-
tured, the price could be ascertained by
adding $500 to the original cost per ton
$l9S, or $24S. He concludes that $3.50
may be taken as the cost of q ton of ar
NOR when the companies have fair or.
ders for work.
This estimate is almost the exact fig.
ure which the Bethlehem company bid
Iur furnishing armor to the Russian
government, which was $249 per ton.
The cost of transportation and insur.
ance was 81 per ton, the nickel fur
nished $50 per ton, leaving the net cost
1925 per ton, which the secretary says, If
| the company can barely make armor at
q cost of $3.50 per ton, was loss of SEA
per ton, or $50, 900 on the 400 tons
| furnished He points out that in the
last contract which this company made
with Russia. the price was $50 90 Per
| ton for 81 1876 tons. and says that the
| profits must have been very large.
| The secretary says that it is essential
that these or other armor plants be kept
| In operation.
The Carnegie and Bethlehem com
panies have erected plants costing al
least 81, 900, ,000 but this was done upon
the faith of immediate contracts guar
anteeing them large profits, If congres,
shall decide, as the report recommends
that no such profits as has heretofore
been earned are to be allowed in the fu'
ture, it is not probable that other bust
ness corporations will venture upon thr
establishment of plants, although it ha'
been shown by testimony that plant'
| can be erected at much reduced cost
Should the present armOr contractors
refuse to make contracts at the tguI'
decided upon by congress, il is not PROB
able that others would undertake rhC
work.
Mr.. Herbert says it is not desirable
that the government should manufact
ure armor, and for these reasons, very
liberal profits should be offered to tn
present contracts to induce them to con
tinue their plants in operation, and b.
recomends, as a fair profit 90 per cen
on the cost of manufacture whicl
would be 1915 per ton. The seretar.
further advises that the contractor
hereafter furnish the nickel which nov
costs the govrnment about $50 per ton
! making tho cost 1896 per ton, or il
round numbers $400. This figure, h
believes fair and equitable price :,
pay for the armOr for the Wisconsin
/ Alabama and Illinois, the three new
: battleships last authorized.
I The government is now paying $b6
' per ton for armer and with the nicke
added 1888. At the prices suggested b.