St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1915-12-22
GOVERNMENT SHIPBUILDING
1t Is MOIe Expensive Than Building
BY Private Concerns

Mr.. Wilson and Mr.. Daniels are in
favor of building the new battleships
in the navy yards. They propose that
the private shipyards shall not have a
chance at them. The motive for this
intended discrimination, it seems, is
the necessity which the Government is
under of rebuking the rapacity of the
commercial shipyards. 1t is a curious
thing, however. that inspite of this
rapacity it always costs the Govern
ment a great deal more to build a ship
in it's own yards than the commercial
yards would charge to build the same
ship. AS Congressman William A
Jones of Virginia, one of the conser~
.vative Democratic leaders, showed in
a speech on the subject in the House
last year, every battleship built in a
Government yard has cost more than
its sister ship built in a private yard
The New York and the Texas, for IN
stance, were sister ships. The New
York was built in a public yard for
6,956, 442; the Texas. built in a pri-
waite yard, cost $4,000 The Louis
lana, contract built cost $374,00O less
than the Connecticut, navy-yard
built the Utah. contract built, ST.
269, 900 less than her sister the F'lOri-
da, navy-yard built. Similar differ
er1ces exist as to the Jupiter and tht
CycIops, and several other pairs; SO
that Mr.. Jones was able to show that
nine ships built in the navy yards at
New York and Mare Island, and one
ship built at Norfolk. cost $7,799,000
more than they would have cost il
they had been built at private yards.
1t is true that Mr.. Daniels claims that
the Government-built ships are better
built, and that the repairs are less
than in the case of the private-yard-
built vessels. But this claim is not
borne out by the actual record of ex-
penditures on the vessels in question.
The repairs on the Government built
than on private built vessels, by an
inquiry made through the chief con-
structor of the navy.
The simple fact, the business-like
indication, is that ships should be built
both in Government yards and in
commercial yards. The country needs
both strings to it's bow. We should
certainly be in a bad position if we
had no private yards capable of the
rapid and efficient building of war
vessels, and we should be in even Il
worse position if the Government
could not build them. 1t is worth
while to know that commercial yards
can build such ships cheaper than the
Government and at least equally well,
since it generally builds them more
quickly. The services of these yards
will absolutely be needed, and very
extensively needed, if the large pro-
gramme of naval construction now
proposed is carried out 1t is nom
sense to threaten to build no ships in
commercial yards. To do so would
mean not only to restrict the nations
power of preparation against attack,
but to cripple the constructive re.
sources of the country. 1t would not
only be bad business-it would be bad
patriotism.
1t is the disposition of the present
Administration to take over as many
as possible of the lines of business that
have always been in private hands.
This distinctly socialistic tendency
seems strangely at variance with the
doctrine of Jefferson and of Calhoun,
as we'll as of Carlisle, of Cleveland, or
Olney. But it must be remembered
that it is the doctrine to which Mr.
Wilson was converted at about the
same time that he gave up academic
pursuits for political ambitions. lie
is now an avowed partisan of govern
ment ownership in many lines which
American experience had hitherto left
in private hands.-Boston Transcript.