Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1900-04-05
MINORITY VIEWS.
While They Recognize the Neces-5
sity for Armor at Almost
Any Price
For Present Needs, They Believe
Exhorbitant Rates Should
Not Continue. ...
Only Sure Way to Prevent Is
for Government to Build
i5' a Plant. 3$I

NJ - 1OI ,IUtcIH1IlCIlUE w DulIN E.s1g
s9.ss ss' a Plant.
WASHINGTON, April 5.--Four mem
bers Of the minority Of the naval affairs
committee, Messrs. Wheeler of Ken
tucky, Rixey of Virginia, Kitchen of
North Carolina and Vandiver of Mis-
souri,, united in report opposing GER
tain items of the naval appropriation
bill. Their report dWells especially
upon the failure of the majority to
make provisions for future supply of
armor plate at reasonable cost. The
report says the minority agree with the
majority as to the necessity for pur-
chasing 7,400 tons of armor for the bat
tleships Maine, Ohio and Missouri, even
though at 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 future supply of
armor plate, notwithstanding vessels
already authorized will require 81, 900
tons, adding: s,s
1t seems to be pretty generally un-
derstood the armor plate factories will
not furnish Krupp ar1nor for less than
$545 per ton, but exactly where this in
formation comes from, we are unable to
state for there was no testimony before
the committee on the subject except
from Admiral O'Neill, who did not, as
we understand it, speak for the plate
factories. y 'sss >. t}"
Price Undoubtedly Exorbitant.
..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 fac
tory showing what Krupp armor costs
to manufacture. Harveyized armor has
been recently (if it is not now supplied
to the government at $400 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 sup
EGed as cheaply. E< ..5
ttWe have been unable to find, after
much investigation, where any one
places the labor cost in a ton of armor
plate above .$1S5.50; the decided weight
Of evidence puts it at $165 and much
evidence entitled to weight, as low as
$156; 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 what
ever is paid) make up the total cost Of
producing a ton of armor plate. This
is, of course, from the standpoint Of the
purchaser and does not take into con-
sideration the profit Of the company nor
interest on the plant, nor wear and tear
of same. Estimating the labor at
$lS5.50 per ton, would make the net
cost per ton $250.5O, and estimating it at
$165. the most acceptable figure, would
make it $3.50 per ton. Now, we submit
if these figures are in the least reliable,
s545 per ton is an exorbitant price to
charge for armor plate. In other words
$3I5;or even $295 per ton profit is ex-
eessive. &. *
$si Say It Would Save Millions.
s.We believe if the secretary of the
navy was directed to buy armor for not
exceeding $400 per ton, and if he could
not get it at that price, to build a fac
tory, the two companies would reduce
the price to a 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 will never cheaper. The.
greatest estimate for the cost of con-
structing an armor plate factory COM
plete In every detail is 81 ,0o0, 600. We
believe the government can save enough.
on armor plate now needed or that will
be needed, for ships auth horized to. CON
strnct its factory and have some 81, ,000,-
600 left over. @,i
Statement of Constructor Bowies. Ss
The following statement Of Con-.
structor BoWles of the New York yard
is quoted: asi ss3.s
81 recommend the ilding of some
vessels in the present navy yards of the
United States, because Z believe it to be
good business, and if owned those
/ yards and kept them for the purposes
they are now kept for, / should say that
it would be IA sensible thing to do to
build one ship iii each Of the arortant
yards all the time, simply TO keep them
in order and Inaiil tain q sufficient force
ready for all emery rgeneies. =
The minority then say that while IN
the report they will nos specify the
items of extraya gaftce in the bill. they
coll attention TO ssthe fact that this bill
lis $18, ,0oo, 900 in excess of any bill here
tofore reported, and SIG, ,oo0, 900 in ex-
cess, or practically double that OF any
| bill ever reported in time of peace, indi-
cate growing disposition to forget how