Evening star., 1900-04-05
BUILD ITS OWN PLANT
VIEW OF MINORITY OF HOUSE
NAVAL COMMITTEE.
Disngrees With Majority Regarding
Armor Plate and Ship COnstruc-
tiOn in Navy Yards.

Four members of the minority of the
House naval affairs committee, Messrs.
Wheeler of Kentucky, Rixey of Virginia.
Kitchen of North Carolina and Vandiver
of Missouri, united in a report opposing
csrta1n items of the naval appropriation
bill. Their rel ort dwells especially upon
the failure of the majority to make pro-
vision for future supply of armor plate
at a reasonable cost. The report says the
minority agree with the majority as to the
necessity for purchasing 7,400 tons of armor
for the battle ships Maine, Ohio and Mis-
souri,, even though al an exorbitant. price
because longer delay would injure the ships
and also subject the government TO suits
by contractors. The report then criticises
the majority for refusing to attempt to
solve the question of a future supply of
armor plate. notwithstanding vessels al
ready authorized will require $1,000 tons,
adding:
1T seems to be pretty generally under
stood the armor plate factories will not
furnish Krupp armor for less than S545
per ton but exactly where this informa ton
comes from We are unable to state for
there was no testimony before the commit
tee on the subject. except from Admiral
O'Neill. who did not, as we understand it,
speak for the plate factories.
1.-The sum of $545 per ton for armor is, in
our judgment, beyond question exorbitant,
If not outrageous. There is not scintilla
of proof from any factory showing what
Krupp armor costs to manufacture. Har-
veyized armor has been recently Gf it is
not now supplied to the government at
S4OO per ton, and no man connected with
either of the factories in this country has
SAID to the committee or any one else, as
far as we know, that krupp armor cannot
be supplied as cheaply. When the commit
tee was considering the armor plate ques-
ton ths two armor plate factories were no
tilted of the fact and asked if either cared
to be heard on the question. A reply was
had from each of the factories (and here
we will remark the replies were singularly
similar), saying they had made a statement
to the last Congress and stood by that
statement or words to that effect.
We have been unable to find. after much
lnvesugatlon, where any one places the
labor cost in ton of armor plate above
S1so5o. The decided weight of evidence
puts 1t at S165, and much evidence entitled
to weight as low as 1856. The cost of the
steel ingot will seldom exceed $40, which,
together with the royalty (and there is
grave doubt in our minds if any royalty
whatever is paid make up the total cost
OF producing ton of armor plate. This is
OF course, from the standpoint of the p.r-
chaser, and does not take into conSidera-
ton the profit of the company nor interest
on the plant or wear and tear of same.
Estimating the labor at S1S5.5O per ton
would make the net cost per ton $50 30
and estimating it at s1t5, the most accept
able figure, would make it $40 per ton.
Now, We submit. if these figures are in the
least reliable, $5i5 per ton is an exorbitaut
price to charge for armor plate. In other
words, sis or even S2gJ per ton profit is
excessive.