New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1901-07-10
DELAY ON BATTLESHTPS
CHARLES H. CRANIP SAYS THE GOVERN.
MENT is WHOLLY TO BLAME
ARMOR NOT DELIVERED AC
CORDING TO CONTRACT
To the Editor of The Tribune.

To the Editor Of The Tribune
Sir: In your Washington corresoonda,..
printed the Ith inst. appears review Of na,,,s-
ship construction apparently intended To n-o-
duee the impression that all DELAYS which har.
occurred in the completion of ships of war ard
principally battleships. have been the FAM. ..
contractors; and In another New-York pansr a,
the sth inst. appears an article apparently based
upon your Washington correspondence referred
to- which tends in the same direction
Without attempting to speak for any other
contractor. will say that. far as the Cran,p
company Is concerned. every delay Of the kind
mentioned has been wholly due to failure on the
part Of the government to carry out its part Of
the contract namely. the delivery Of arnor 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 10
be plain steel. After about a years deIav this
was changed to nickel steel. In August 1897
the nickel steel armor for the Indiana with IN
important exceptions, was finished at Bethlehem,
and ready for shipment to our works On Au-
gust p. 1895. the Navy Department determined
to Harveyize that armOr. This caused an ad-
ditional delay of thirteen months in the begin
ming of delivery. the first delivery OF the Har-
veyized armor having been made at our works
September "a 1896.
The next battleship constructed at our works
was the Iowa. After the contract was signed
and all the plans approved the Navy Depart
ment decided TO alter the form of the main or 12-
inch turrets. The first design was cylindrical
like those of the Indiana. They were altered to
the elliptical balanced form. Pending this alter
alton. work was suspended by order of the de-
pension OF work and it's resumption after the
shape of turret had finally been settled was
eleven months.
Additional delay was caused by this fact for
the reason that IL involved an alteration IN the
armor plan, shape of turret plates. etc. which
could not be prepared until the design Of the
turret finally settled. The total delay
caused by the change in the form Of the Iowa's
turrets was sixteen months
Then came the Alabama class. The contract
for the Alabama was signed on September "a
1896: keel laid. December 2, 1896 the contract
time being three years. Congress limited the
price to be paid for armor at $500 ton. This
proved prohibitory- The next session Of Con-
gress rescinded that action and provided that
800 ton might be paid. AT this price arrnor
was procured but the contract for the Ala
bama's arrnor was not signed until sixteen
after
of the ship. The Alabama was delivered TO the
government and placed in commission on Octo-
Der g. 1900 four years and twenty-three days
after the contract was signed. or one year and
thirteen days beyond the contract time It Is
therefore evident that the delay OF one year
and twenty-three days was less than the dif
ference in time between signing the contract
for construction of the ship and signing the con-
tract for making the arrnor. After this state
rnent of facts it would rot seem to require much
argument 10 prove that the contractor was not
responsible for any delay that occurred in the
case OF the Alabama.
The next battleship was the new Maine. The
contract for this ship signed May 4. 1898
No provision was made at that time 70 supply
arnor for the Maine. although the contract pro-
vision was the same as in other cases IL Ia
now three wears since the contract was signed
for the construction OF the Maine. and the de-
livery OF the armor has not yet begun Inc
department has promised TO begin delivery OF
the armor within the current month, but none
has yet arrived.
II anything more were needed to show that
the Cramp company contractor is not TO
blame for these delays. IL might be added that
a certain part of the arnor, known as the
diagonal belt. structural part OF the yes
sci. and the construction could not be proceeded
with in its absence.
In the case of the Alabama the department
had no authority TO pay over $500 ton for
arraor for the Alabama ourselves. at our own
expense, paying for il over $500 ton, and re-
ceiving from the department 5000 a ton which
the legal limit. thereby, in order to proceed
with the work, losing the difference between
$500 and over S4O0 ton on that part OF the
ships arInor.
In conclusion. permit me TO say that. what
ever may he the object which the author or
insigator of the article referred TO has in view,
his premises are utterly false. and his conclu-
siOns therefore faIlacious. far as this COM
panyS operations concerned.
CHARLES H. CRASiP.
The William Cramp & Sons Ship and Engine
Building Company.
Philadelphia. July q, 1901