The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-06-13
Armor Plate to the Front.

We note with some interest that Ad-
ministration organs are beginning to pound
the naval gong of glory. and to talk about
the construction of our new battleships.
cruisers and gunboats. as well as about
completing those already on the stocks,
in a way TO minimize the effect OF the
armor plate factor in the popular equation.
1t will not do. The armor plate question
is one which must be considered alone and
on its merits 1t must be treated not only
from its industrial and naval points OF
view. bu. as political proposition as well.
When the responsibility for establishing
reasonable price" was placed upon the
shoulders Of the Hon. John d. Long. by
act Of Congress, the people who engineered
the passage OF the provision in the Naval
Appropriation bill believed that he could
be induced to give the Armor Plate Trust
the extreme Of its demands: otherwise
they would not have trusted the decision
to Long. They did not. and do not. expect
him to protect the interests of the people
In the negotiation. They did. and do. ex-
pect him to carry out an understanding
between certain party leaders and the
trust, which will result in the latter Sc
curing price for armor plate suficient
to cover desired profit. and political con-
tributions past and current. Whether or
not Mr. Long will lend himself to such
yet to find out.
1t is significant, however. that the Car
negie- Bethlehem trust. II We are to be-
lieve prominent New York organ of the
Administration, declares that heavy plate
armor cannot be manufactured and deliv-
cred at fair profit for less than five
hundred and fifty dollars ton We are
always chary about criticising commercial
cost figures. So many things enter into
calculation that it is oftentimes improper
for the outside layman to say a word.
But it might be edifying to ascertain just
what factors OF cost the trust has to count
with in making its minimum estimate.
II 1t be true that the price to Russia is
two hundred and twenty-five dollars ton,
that must include profit of say fifty DOL
lars per ton, allowing for deterioration Of
plant and SO forth. But. say that the Rus
sian price is cost, then between it and the
present hold-up price of the trust there
is a margin of three hundred and twenty
five dollars. Now the question is, why
does 1t cost more to supply the United
States with armor plate than it does to
supply Russia? Is the difference In the
element of Incidental and miscellaneous"
expenses? II so, how much of the three
hundred and twenty-five dollars a ton ap-
parent profit is chargeable to the cam
paign of 1892. how much to that Of 1896,
and how much to the struggle of 1900?
These are matters which. among other
things, Mr.. Long will have to settle with
his immortal soul.
We feel deeply and fear for him. On
the floor of the Senate the chief of the |
combination of which. thus far. he has !
been a subservient follower. said that q |
fair price" for armor plate might be
about six hundred dollars ton. That |
observation was doubtless made with
purpose. But IL Mr.. Long fancies that be
will be publicly acclaimed for his economy
and honesty in cutting the Hanna six hum
1red dowE to five hundred and fifty. he is
:adly mistaken.