The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-04-06


this country has said to the committee,
or anyone else, so far as we know, that
Krupp armor cannot be supplied as cheap
~. When the committee was consider
ing the armor plate question. the two
armor plate factories were notified Of
the fact and asked if either cared to be
heard on the question. reply was
had from each of the factories (and here
we will remark the replies were sinbular-
ly similar) saying they had made a state
ment TO the last congress, and stood by
that statement, or words to that effect.
1--WE have been unabl to find, after
much investigation, where any one places
the labor cost of a ton of armor plate
above 1850; the decided weight of evil
dence puts 1t at s165 and much evidence
entitled to weight as low as s156; the cost
of the steel ingot will seldom exceed $50.
which. together with the royalty land
there is grave doubt in our minds if any
royalty whatever is paid make up the
total cost of producing a ton of armor
plate. This is, of course, from the stand
point of the purchasers, and does not
take into consideration the profit of the
company nor interest on the plant nor
wear and tear OF same. Estimating the
labor at $3.50 per ton, would make the
net cost per ton s250.50, and estimating it
at $3.50, the most acceptable figure, would
make it $3.50 per ton. Now. we submit.
IL these figures are in the least BILE,
$545 per ton is an exarbitant price to
charge for armor plate. In other words.
1915. or even 1895, per ton profit is exces-
sive.
I'm our judgment, the potential reasons
in enhancing the price of armor to the
government is the existence of a trust
or agreement between the armor plate
factories of this country-we are almost
persuaded we can safely go further and
say armor plate factories of the world.
There are put two armor plate factories
in the United States and they understand
each other so well, there is no competi-
ton for orders or as TO price. The gov
ornment is at the mercy of these COM
panies and We see but two ways Of es-
cspe-either stop building armor ships or
manufacture our own armor.
1--WE believe If the secretary OF the
navy was directed to buy armor for not
exceeding 800 per ton, and If he could
not get it at that price TO build a factory,
the two companies would reduce the price
TO reasonable sum per ton rather than
to allow the government TO become their
competitor. One thing Is certain: Unless
we build our own plant armor plate VIII
never cheaper.
For the sake of argument. however.
we vii admit factory viii cost f.9g' 90.
and yet we believe the government & ~
save enough on armor plate now needle.
or that will Se needed for ships author-
lied. TO construct IFS factory. make is
armor. and have 10000 left over. We
need some q oo0.doD tons OF armor. and
II it can be produced for $3.50 per ton, IT
means a saving from the price We are
row required to pay OF sSl5 per ton on
something Ike g 90 tons. which would
be well night ss.0ooe5
Again. should the government conclude
TO manufacture its own armor plate, It
would insure the very best product for
our varships We unhasitatinRly say
that, in our opinion, IL would be wise
for the government 70 own its OWL plant.
even IL It never made one ton OF a-uao-
plate. because ot The fact OF the govern
'ments ability % product aTrlor ? az o.
its Own account would operate 70 keep
down prices in the private yards and
pat an end 70 exor5itant charges.
Tbs minority report Eext dlssents frczu
the refusal OF the committee to authorize
construction OF part C the vessels pro-
vided for n government yards. notwith-
standing four naval constructors and ne
chief OF the bureau % construction aa-
yised st. The following statement e Con-
struetor Bowles % the New York yard Is
quoted Il recommend the binding o
some vessels IN tia important navy yards
o. the United States. because I believe
Il 70 De good business: and II owed
thee yards ard kept than for the pr
pose they are now kept FOR. shoait say /.
that i would be sensible thing % Do !