The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-07-20
GOVERNMENT TO BLAME.
Cramp Explains Delays i'm Building
warships.

Philadelphia Inquirer.
Regarding the current discussion relating
to the delay in the completion of battle
ships. both in this country and in Eng
land, Charles II. Cramp has given out the
following statement:
Without attempting TO speak for any
other contractor, l will say that. far
the Cramp Company is concerned. every
delay has been wholly due 10 failure on the
part of the government 10 carry out its
part of the contract, namely, the delivery
of armor at the times and in the order
necessary to carry on the work properly,
which is the language of the contract itself.
Beginning with the Indiana, the records
will show that the armor first contracted
for was to be plain steel. After about
years delay this was changed TO nickel
steel. In August. 1895, the nickel steel
armor for the Indiana, with unimportant
exceptions, was finished at Bethlehem and
ready for shipment to our works. On Aug.
%, 1895, the Navy Department determined
TO Harveyize that armor. This caused an
additional delay of thirteen months In the
beginning of delivery, the first delivery OF
the Harveyized armor having been made at
our works Sept. "A, 1896
THE next battleship constructed at our
works the Iowa. After the contract
was signed and all the plans approved the
Navy Department decided 10 alter the form
OF the main or twelve-inch turrets. The
the Indiana. They were altered TO the
elliptical balance form. Pending this alter
alton, work was suspended by order of the
department. The time elapsing between the
suspension of work and its resumption
after the shape of turret had finally been
settled was eleven months.
Additional delay was caused by this
fact, for the reason that ii involved an
alteration in the armor plan. shape OF tur-
ret plates. etc, which could not be pre-
pared until the design of the turret was
finally settled. The total delay caused by
the change in the form of the Iowa's tur-
rets was sixteen months.
Then came the Alabama class. The
contract for the Alabama was signed on
Sept. a. 1896: keel laid Dec 3 1896. the con-
tract time being three years. Congress linn
tied the price to be paid for armor to $500
a ton. This proved prohbitory. The next
session of Congress rescinded that action
and provided that $500 ton might be paid
| AT this price armor was procured, but the
contract for the Alabama's armor was
not signed until sixteen months after the
contract for the construction of the ship.
| The Alabama was delivered to the govern
ment and placed in commission on Oct. o.
1900, four years and twenty-three days
after the contract was signed. or one year
/ and thirteen days beyond the contract
| time. 1t is therefore evident that the de-
! lay of one year and twenty-three days was
! less than the difference in time between
| signing the contract for construction of
| The ship and signing the contract for max
| ing the armor. After this statement of
| facts X would not seem to require much
argument TO prove that the contractor was
not responsible for any delay that occurred
| in the case of the Alabama.
1.-The next battleshiD was the new Maine.
! The contract for this ship signed May
! T. 1898. No provision was made at that
| time to supply armor for the Maine. al
| though the contract provision was the same
| as in other cases. Ii is now three years
since the contract was signed for the con-
| struction OF the Maine. and the delivery
| of the armor has not yet begun. The de-
| partnent has promised 10 begin delivery
of the armor within the current month
but none has yet arrived.
IF anything more were needed to show
/ hat hn 1re0~a 49,.
is not to blame for these delays, IL might
be added that a certain part of the armor
known as the diagonal belt was a struc-
tural part of the vessel. and the construc-
ton could not be proceeded with in its alb
sence.
In the case of the Alabama the depart
ment had no authority to pay over $500 n
ton for armoT. We therefore supplied the
diagonal armor for the Ala bama ourselves,
at our own expense. paying for il over
$500 a ton. and receiving from the depart
ment $500 ton, which was the legal limit.
| thereby. in order to proceed with the work
losing the difference between $500 and over
500 ton on that part of the ships armor -