The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-07-24
THAT ARMOR PLATE MIDDLE.



A little more than year ago congress
authorized the secretary of the navy to
construct three battle ships. Contracts
for their OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES for their
armor-were Immediately made, one be-
ing with the Newport News company,
one with the Union Iron works of San
Francisco, and one with Cramp & Sons of
Philadelphia. The vesse1s are named re-
spectively the Illinois, the Wisconsin and
the Alabama, and their average cost, less
the armor, Is $2,639,9S3. With their ar
NOR and armament, ready for sea- their
average cost will be about $1,000, 900. The
builders have progressed so far that the
ships are now ready for the armor plate,
but no armor plate is forthcoming.
o
Armor is an extra, so to speak, and 1t is
not a part of the contracts with the ship
builders that they shan furnish It, The
government does that buying it from the
armor plate manufacturers, and there are
but two of these concerns in the United
States, the Bethlehem company and the
Carnegie company, and these have really
combined as one. They have made all
the armor plate for our navy so far, and
there is no question that they have re-
ceived most exorbitant prices for 1.-THE
average being something like $3.50 per
ton. They have of course peen at an out
lay of millions of dollars in establishing
and equipping their plants, but taking
everything into consideration 1t is gen.
orally conceded that they have been paid
very much more than they should have
demanded. All this, however, was known
to congress when the three last battle
ships were ordered, but no action was
taken in respect to the price of armor.
o.
Last winter, when an Appropriation was
called for to meet the cost or the armor
plate for the new ships. a great debate
III.
had hitherto been paid by the government
for armor, and law was passed limiting
the price hereafter to be paid by the sec
| retary of the navy to $500 a ton. The
| manufacturers maintain that they cannot
| turn out the quality of armor demanded
| by the government at that price, and
will not. OF course the secretary Is pow
erless to compel them, and the result is
| the vessels stand armorless on the stocks.
The secretary, after many negotiations
with the armor makers at last procured
| an offer from them to supply the armor
| at $425 per ton. but this has just been re-
| jected by congress, and the $500 limita-
| tion has been retained. In addition to
| this the secretary of the navy has been
| authorized, in case he shall find it impos-
| sible to make contracts for armor within
| the limits fixed by congress, to take steps
| to establish government armor factory
|
| This is probably intended as a gentle
threat to the armor makers, though that
| it will ever be seriously carried out we
| greatly doubt. If the government got to
| making armor 1t would probably cost
| 81 900 a ton, and be worthless at that.
| The government once undertook to build
| battle ships, and the Texas is a bright
| and shining example of wnat 1t can do.
| That noble vessel of war SINKS in the mud
| every time it goes to sea.
| %
| 1t may be that $500 ton is more than
| the government should pay for armor
plate and an excessive price for the man.
ufacturers to charge. but what are we
| going to do about it? Do we want our
ships to rot on the stocks while the gov
ernment is haggling over the price? Sup
pose the manufacturers are right and
| that they cannot make the armor at the
limited price, do we want 'cheap" ar
NOR? In great battle one defective
plate might cost us a fleet, and it is for
| battle that these vessels are constructed.
The right and proper ti.ng to do is to
get the armor at the best price possible
and complete these vessels. And here
after let congress, when II orders new
vessels, set its limitations as to price be-
forehand. 1t will not then be put in a
hole" as one senator expressed himself
by exacting contractors and manufactus-
ers.