The Washington times., 1915-12-09

who firmly believe III private ownership
of these industries, there could not pos
siDly be any such expansion of the
business under Government ownership.
Here's An Illustration.
A single illustration will indicate what
huge difference there is between pub
lie and private ownership. Suppose all
the powder plants in the country had
been publicly owned when the European
war broke out. No foreign government
could have bought a pound Of powder
here, because sales of powder by the
Government would have been violation
OF our neutrality.
But in fact the powder plants Of this
country were almost entirely privately
owned. When the war broke out. they
were not only ready to sell their out
put. but to increase their capacity at
lightning speed and fill all orders.
What happened?
The biggest explosive making con-
cern in the country, at the beginning
of the war, had a going capacity to
produce about 100000 pounds of war
in upon It: and at the end of the first
year of war this concern had actually
increased its annual capacity to 3O0,-
10000 pounds year! Multiplying ca
pacity by thirty was the accomplish
ment of this concern.
British Experience.
Let this achievement be compared
with what the British explosive manu-
facturers did. Soon after the war be-
gan Lord Kitchener called together the
explosive makers Of Great Britain.
learned what they could do, and asked
them to go away. consult, and return
In a few days prepared to tell him
how much thev could expand their ca
pacity in a year.
They went away. conferred. calcula-
ted. estimated. and came back. to say
that. II there We're demands justtying
1t. they could raise their total ca
pacity. In year, to 200. .00e,ooo pounds
per annum.
These figures are given on the highest
authority in the explosive business OF
this country. 1t Is believed that they
can be taken as very accurate.
In In one one ,yyear;;, year; fed by foreign orders
pacity to make war explosives increased
from 10000. 600 to 500 900 pounds. But
n that business had been, at the begin
ming Government monopoly, there
all. and no increase unless by direct
appropriation from the Government
Treasury.
Basis of Argument.
This is the basis of the argument In
favor OF continuing private manufac-
ture OF munitions, at least as large
part of, the country's means of produc.
tion. 1t would be necessary, IL a Gov.
eminent monopoly were established. tc
maintain in time of peace a set of estab.
iishments, ready. manned and equipped
to carry the peak-load of possible war.
time demand; and in such war as
either Of the great European countries
is now conducting, that would mean a
burden almost beyond belief: the bur
den TO be carried in peace as well as
war times.
Before the argument shall have gone
very far in Congress, good deal oi
/ amazing information will be given tC
the public. The idea Of Government
| manufacture has been attractive to nc
| small number of people who talk about
the munitions crust and its rapaC CT
ties; but the other side Is that the mu
| nitions makers nave accomplished be
cause there was possibility of quick re-
| turns. such an industrial mobiliza tior
as never was known in this country
! and such one rs, in the belief of tn,
| real experts, could not possibly b,
duplicated under Government monopoly