The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1899-02-24
THE NAVAL BILL
PASSES THE House
The Price for ArmOr Plate
Materially Reduced.
One Hundred Dollars Per Ton Saved
by the Hopkins Amendment.
MIR. Lewis of Washington Charges
Against the Government

In the debate yesterday on the Naval
Appropriation bill an amendment was Of
fered by Representative Hopkins. reducing
the price 10 be paid for armor from $5i5
TO s445 and another offered by Represen-
tative Walker of Massachusetts, providing
that even this should not be paid if the
same character of armor should be sold
20 foreign governments at less price.
These amendments were adopted after
a strong debate in Committee of the Whole
and after a separate vote ON the last prop
osition and on the Naval Academy appro-
priation. adopted two days ago at the in
stance of Representative Mudd Of Mary
land. Representative Underwood's amend
ment. providing for Government armor
plate factory. was ruled out on a point
of order
Much OF the friction over the bill was de-
nberately provoked by Mr.. Boutelle, who
for several days has refused TO answer
questions, has imputed demagogism to
members who disagreed with him on
pending questions, and conducted himself
in anything but a conciliatoTy manner
Further, Mr.. Boutelle's report on the bill
outlined important evidence on tho sub
ject which members commended should have
been printed for the examination of the
House.
The discussion opened yesterday on the
point of order raised against Mr.. Under
woods amendment for an armor factory.
There was practically no question that
the point of order was well taken, but
Mr. Boutelle insisted on spending his time
in discussing the general merits of the case
instead Of the point of order. and in eX
planning to those who disagreed with him
how contemplate they were. Mr.. Handy
of Delaware finally raised point OF order
against Mr.. Boutelle as not speaking in
order Chairman Sherman, of the Com
mittee of the Whole. sustained the point
and Mr.. Boutelle subsidized for the time.
Mr.. Hopkins of Illinois then offered an
amendment reducing the price of armor
from s5i5 to si45 ton. He and Mr.. Rix-
ey Of Virginia, member of the Naval
Committee. spoke in favor of the amend
ment. Their position. generally STATED.
was that they wished the best armor for
the ships, and did not deny that the ex-
pensiye krupp armor might be the best.
But they declared that there was abso-
lutely no evidence to prove that Soi5 a ton
was fair price for this armor, or that
there was any reason why ii should not be
furnished at good profit 10 the makers at
$500 n ton-the price at which present
contracts for armor have been made. MIR.
Greene OF Nebraska asked whether the in
crease in cost was not all due to increased
royalties 10 the owners of the process.
Mr.. Hilborn of California said that the
krupp process was secret one, but there
was reason TO believe that il was intrinsi-
cally more expensive Than that used in ths
Harvey process. He added that the Gov
eminent was at the mercy of the armor
makers, and had TO pay what they demand
ed or go without.
II was developed that the committee was
In possession of evidence. said by it to be
conclusive on the subject, but which had
been forgotten or neglected by Mr.. Bou-
telle, who rushed the bill into the House
without even waiting for il TO be printed.
Mr.. Hepburn OF Iowa said that several
years ago the House had examined this
question of armor and had fixed the prize
ct $500 a ton. The gentleman from Maine
had thrown his papers on his desk and left
the hall in rage at this action, claiming
that armor could not be bought at that
price. Yet contracts had been readily
made al that price. Now the gentleman
from Maine had discovered an Immensely
more valuable process, which cost sli5
more per ton. 1t was high time, he said,
that the United States should get from
under the domination of the armor pate
factories. Official estimates three or four
years ago put the actual cost of armoT
plait elbI per ION. steel TEliS were
made today of the very best quality al 81
per ton.
Mr. Hepburn advocated a Government
armor plant so that the Secretary of the
Navy might have a weapon by which he
could cause the manufacturers TO reduce
their extortionate prices.
Mr. Lewis charged that the armor plate
makers had refused TO bid against each
other during the war. dividing the work be-
tween them, and insisting on the full price
OF $500 per ton allowed by Congress. He
read from the New York Sun" for MAY
"a. 1888, in support of his contention.
Mr.. DalZell said that when the Mianto-
nomoh was built, some ten years ago, the
United States had bought very inferior
srmor for that vessel in England for oyeI
$500 per ton. The armor had been vastly
improved since then.
Mr.. Walker of Massachusetts offered az
amendment TO Mr.. Boutelle's amendment
providing that the United States SHOULD
not pay more than any foreign government
paid. This was adopted by vote Of II.
10 IS.
The vote then REQUIRED on Mr. Hopkins
amendment 10 reduce the price from $54
TO s4s5 per ton. This was adopted by
vote Of 102 TO rs.
At about > o'clock the bill was passet
and the House adjourned
rur zsrNnpTrv pTDnpT