Evening journal., 1913-02-03

ware, who lead the opposition and
brought about the defeat CT the Sher-
ley amendment designed to make the
Government manufacturer of
smokeless powder, made a gallant
protest against having the Govern
ment engage in the powder making
business
In introducing the amendment to
the House, Representative Sherley
said:
"The committee has had very elab-
crate testimony touching this whole
subject In some instances the cost
of our manufacture as against the cost
OF buying from private manufactur-
ers was very much in favor of the
Government However. il is only fair
to say that some of the recent con-
tracts approach and in. some cases go
under the price that it has been cost
ing the Government to manufacture
itself Whether that was due to the
agitation by the committee and other
members or not is a question, though
probably it is only fair to say that
some Of it has been due to the fact
that the manufacturers, having got
ten over the initial cost Of making a
new article. were enabled to effect
ECONOMIES lUtl WdIIdlltu Lutiu III Dlh-
ding at a lower figure.
Il have no doubt in the world that
in some instanses we have been
charged eXorbitant prices for some Of
Of the things we have bought, and /
want to assure the gentlemen that the
committee. within the limit of its pow
ers, has made searching inquiry and
will continue to do So What has been
done in regard to powder should also
be done as to a great many articles.
What enabled us to work with some
degree of accuracy in the powder mat
ter was the fact that we could pre-
sent known costs to the government
in comparison with the supposed cost
TO the private manufacturers.
The defense Of the nation, the life
of the nation, is so important that
the government can well AFFORD to go
into manufacture and not be depend
ent upon outside aid In addition to
that, usually the thing that is needed
is something for which there is but
one purchaser. the Government itself
Therefore unless it by manufacture
OF its own. has some sort of whip
over the outside manufacturer, it is
liable to be held up in price | would
not be in favor of the government
manufacturing shoes for the soldiers
because shoes are things that are
bought and sold in the open market
and concerning which the government
is at no disadvantage any more than
any other purchaser; but in the max
ing of things that it peculiarly and
exclusively uses, / think il ought tC
do a large part of the manufacturing
Whether It ought to do all of it OF
not is a question For instance, the
government in having some Of It's
powder manufactured outside has had
a b;Ais of comparison by which We
could determine whether we were eff
ficiently manufacturing it ourselves OF
not 1t also had somewhat the ad
vantage of having the inventive geni
Gus and skill of others as well as oul
own officers engaged i'm the work.
also might provide for an additiona
supply in case of great need in timI
of war But, broadly speaking,
think we ought to manufacture yer,
largely the things that we exclusivel.
used for war purposes
Il am not prepared TO say that WI
ought overnight to jump into building
arsenals to undertake work. The gen
tlement must understand that we hav
HO uOnODOi1 VI chiil dlN iIDlt llul
any manufacturer has. and that if w
undertake to do new work we vii
find it expensive just as a manufac
turer does in the first instance.
you undertake to throw us immediate
ly into doing a great deal of new
work it will be found that there vii
be a great waste of money"
Mr.. Sherley concluded by sayin
that he thought in time the govern
ment would take up the manufactur
OF powder extensively, if it is fOun
to be satisfactory, and the start
once made on a large scale.
Mr.. Sherley made reference to sew
eral government factories and to tn
work they are doing He told of wha
their capacity is estimated to be. bu
admitted that il is not actual capacity
IL was then that Mr. Heald took ia
floor He said:
Mr. chairman. some years ago, &C
cOrding to my recollection. there wa
an appropriation made for an increas
of, these plants, and while that ha
been done | have not observed tina
there has been an increase of thei
capacity. fIor that reason, think tn
committee ought to know whether O
not an increase in certain part fof tn
process of manufacture shall be er
larged so that the maximum efscienc
of every part OF the plant can be mad
available There is one thing certai
to my knowledge and that is the pow
er plants are largely in excess of th
requirements of the other parts. a
4 though that is not the one to which
was particularly referring
Does the gentleman realize that tt
theoretical capacity of these factoris
3 is an entirely different propositiC
s from their actual capacity? 1t wa
shown in the hearings last year thi
IN the manufacture of smokeless poy
8 der the actual output was but on
tnird or the theoretical capacity of q
plant. and ! understand that Admir-
Twlning, after these hearings. in
a letter TO the chairman of the Cor
& mittee on Naval Affairs. stated tn
while the final output might be 4
u creased to three times that prese
output that one part OF the proce
of manufacture, and necessary pa
of it, was running "A hours a day. an
81 therefore. without increasing any pa
81 of the process, it would absolutely
Il impossible TO increase its total cutpi
If | may further suggest. my id
81 was to bring out this fact: That viii
81 il has been stated that these COVER
ment powder factories are running
an eight-horu shift, if may be IN
when we desire to operate these plan
s. for three eight7hour shifts for the pr
cess of increasing the total output
may find that we are already work
them to their full actual capacity. J