The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-04-18
SEATTLE, WEDNESDAY, APRIL IS.


The debate on the naval appropria-
ton bin this week will afford an OPP
portunity TO bring the armor plate
question to the front again. 1t is a
problem which congress has been try
ing for ten years to solve, up to this
time with no very satisfactory results
IL In maintained on the one hand thet
the government has been paying too
much for Its armor. and that The only
sure remedy against extortion on the
part Of ppivate steel concerns is a plant
owned and operated by the United
States Those holding to contrary
belief insist that under all the circum-
stances no more than a fair price has
been paid for the armor heretofore. and
that In the end the government will gain
nothing by the establishment OF its own
plant
The FIRST contract for armor was
made by the navy department with the
Bethlehem Iron Company. In 1887. This
was for plain steel. oil tempered and
anneaied. the average price to be paid
being 1886 per ton, This price was some
what increased for the reason that the
Hafveyized steel was adopted for ar
NOR prior to the completion of the con-
tract. In the fall of 1890 the navy de-
paftment offered contract TO the Car
ncgie company with view OF securing
the establishment of another armor
plant. but the offer was declined prompt
" on the ground that the manufacture
Of nrmor plate was not profitable bus
iness subsequently the Carnegies. at
thu solicitation of President Harrison
ana Secretary Tracy. reconsidered their
decision and agreed to furnish 5000 tons
OF nickel steel and Harvey treated ar
NOR at about the same price as that
made with the Bethlehem company. In
February. 1898. additional contracts
were made by which the Carnegie and
Bethlehem companies agreed 10 fur
niah some 5000 tons OF armor at ahou.
the old price. the government furnish
ing the nickel and paying extra for the
Harvey treatment
In the naval appropriation bin for the
year ending June, 1897. It was provided
that an investigation should be made
into the cost of manufacturing armor.
The steel companies were reluctant to
furnish data. but board Of naval ofn-
GERS made a report from which Score.
tary Herbert disscnted. he holding ttst
ssco per ton would be fair price for
armor plate. In the spring Of 1897 con-
gress established an arbitrary price OF
$500 per ton to be paid for armor. al
though q was shown that foreign GOV.
ernments were PAYNE $500 for the same
class OF material later the house ma
val bn limited the cost 20 ,,O0. but
the senate would not aErcc. and the bill
finally passed providing that no con-
tract should be made at an average
rate 60 exceed $500 per ton. suhse-
auently the Illinois steel Company
made proposal 10 supply the entire
wants ot the government tor armor
plate for a ported ~ twenty years al
an average prtee 81 sac per ton under
AN agreement that a CERTAIN amount
should be used annually. but the navy
department felt that Il was no, en-
powered to enter into any such con.
tract.
In May. 1897. Secretary Long ap-
proved a proposition from the Bethlr.
hem and Carnegie companies to rar-
nish armor for three ships al sss5 par
ton. The senate reported favorabjy on
this proposition. bat the act As dualb
passed continued the price az $500 per
ton, and added the provision that should
81 be impossible to make contracts with
in the limit steps should be taken 10
establish government armor works \
beard was appointed which reported
that II would require nearly sAeeo 90
20 start plant capable ~ turning out
sufficient armor for two ships year,
The board seemed 10 think that gor-
eminent plant would be a failure eco
non,ieally. and the chief Of the bureau
Of ordnance reported tina; II was ~ the
syinion that the government could