The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-04-17

The House yesterday, in Committee of
the Whole. entered upon the consideration
of the Naval Appropriation bill for the
year ending June 80 1901 with an agree
nent for fourteen hours of general debate.
This will bring a vote on the passage of
.he bill probably Thursday afternoon.
Speeches were delivered by MessTs. Foss
of Illinois, Cummings of New York, Kitchin
of North Carolina, briggs of New York,
and Barber OF Pennsylvania, and they were
all on the bill under consideration. re-
markable contrast with the debate on gen.
eral appropriation bills hitherto this ses-
sion.
The bill carries a total of SCI, 209, 916,
being the largest naval appropriation ever
presented to the American Congress, and
SIS. 109.9 41 more than the amount of the
last Naval bill. The increase, Acting
Chairman Foss said, was chargeable to the
building up of the American Navy.
The items of the bill are: Pay of the
Navy, 1880, S97; contingent. $500 900;
Bureau of Navigation, $56j .425: Bureau of
Ordnance. $2.SSS124; Bureau of Equipment.
s3,46i,O53; Bureau of Yards and Docks,
s6Gs, 4S9; public works, yards. ana docks,
$1,I97, 46I; Naval Academy, S7S9,6SG Blu
reau of Medicine and Surgery, S22O.0G9;
Bureau of Supplies and Accounts. 81. 7S1,
2S2; Bureau of Construction and Repairs.
S6.2S5. S2i; Bureau of Steam Engineering,
81, 400; Marine Corps, SITE, SO; iu-
crease of Navy, SIG. $3.50, 599 Total SOL
209916.
Under the last item contracts are au-
thorized for two battleships to cost 49,
900 each; three armored cruisers to
| cost $3.50, 900 each. and three protected
cruisers to cost s.. 500 600 each.
The Armor Question.
The appropriation for armor was about
81 600 600, Mr.. Foss said He explained
the differences of opinion in the commit
tee Oh the armor question and stated that
the majority based their recommendation
on the report of the naval authorities that
it was absolutely necessary to have the
armor at the earliest possible date in order
that the work of constructing ships be
not interfered with.
Mr.. Cummings followed Mr.. Foss. On
the subject of sheathing the new ships he
said he was strongly in favor OF it. but
had agreed 10 compromise. leaving tine
matter in the hands Of the Secretary of
the Navy. II he thought ships should be
locked every nine months instead of every
two years it might be expensive for the
country, but his skirts were clear. The
evidence before the committee he said
in his opinion. was in favor of shedthed
vessels. They cost more, but were more
valuable. On the question of building
ships in the navy yards, he said he origi-
nally thought that the country could afford
to try that experiment. 1t would cost
more than under the contract system but
he thought that some of the ships should
be constructed at the navy yards in order
to encourage the laborers in the navy yard
who. by law, were only required TO work
eight hours a day. He did not believe. he
said. in limiting the hours of work in navy
yards 10 eight hours day and then taking
the work away from them. He was in
favor of constructing ships in the navy
yards if they We're as good as the Oregon
and Massachusetts. even If it did cost
5000. GOO or 100000 more than by contract
Mr.. Cummings thought, however. that
there was no more necessity Of having an
armor plate factory than a Government
nail factory, or a Government pin mill or
a ham factory. At S545 per ton the United
States would be paying less for Krupp
German Emperor had been struggling Tor
years, ne said, to surpass the American
Navy, and in the German Reichstag TO-
day there was a bill pending to Increase
the German navy by 400, 600 tons. He
thought this was a good argument for this
country increasing its navy as far as its
means would allow. He had always ad-
vo"ated the building up of the navy.
Mr.. Kitchin followed in opposition to the
nff 10
navy yards. one at Norfolk one at Brook
lyn and one at the Mare Island yard He
said the minority would offer an amend
ment to this effect. also that if the armor
now necessary for the ships in construction
cannot be bought for what the minority
believe to be a fair prce-say s425 ton
one to authorize the Secretary of the Navy
to build an armor plate plant. Mr.. Kit-
chin criticised the bill for its extrays-
gance IL carried a total of Sl3 0G0. 0C0 ir
excess of any bill heretofore reported and
s26. coo, eco in excess OF any bill ever re-
ported in time of peace. 1t provided fOr
SO, 900 tons of new ships and if the same
ratio of increase was kept w in sixteen
years the United States Navy would be
twice as large as that OF Great Britain.
Mr.. briggs Argument.
No other member of the Naval Commit.
tee being then ready to sneak in order to
prevent the Committee Of the Whole from
going on with reading of the bill for
amendment. Mr.. briggs was given an hour
in which he argued for the building of war
ships at the navy yards. He supported his
proposition with review of the situation
in Great Britain, where battleships were
constructed in Government yards more
cheaply than in private yards. Continuing
MIR briggs said that while the specfca-
tions for ships called for the best ma
terials to be had. the best materials were
not used by the shipbuidcrs. Mr. Cannon
rose. and Mr.. briggs added that he made
no inyidious comparison nor any disagree
able charges.
Mr.. Cannon enqured OF Mr.. briggs why
the Government should not go into all the
industries that produced the material used
in ships. il ii was 10 be dead sue" that
the best materials were to be had. Why.
If the Government built ships at the navy
yard in briggs district, it should not so
out to Cannons district and make the
steel, quarry the lime and coal and cut
the timber necessary to build the ships?
Mr.. briggs replied that he did rot re-
lieve that the Government should bui'd all
its warships. but as a matter of national
defence it ought to have shipyards well
manned the same as IL had a anding