New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-04-11
ARMOR PLATE. AND PREPAREDNESS
The Fo Of Attempting Establish Monopoly Pointed Out
BrooksOne the Obvious Lessons OF the Great
War Is the Necessity Encouraging Private Enterprise

ments on this belief are, first, that. if true
t convicts past administrations of negligence
even more than IL conyicts the companies Of
greed: and. secondly that those who look al
the problem Of industrial preparedness solely
from the angle Of finance and who allow
the question OF price to settle their policy
for them might just well spend theil
time examining "a continent through tho
wrong end of "A microscope.
But / will take the bull by the horns
/, il the fact that the American armor plate
manufacturers have been mulcting the gov
eminent excessively? | assume that there j:
no real competition among them, any
more than there is in England, anC
that, also like the English firms, they
have from time to time sold armor abroad
more cheaply than at home in order tC
get footing in foreign markets. But is
the popular and the official notion Of
their cxtortionate proclivities one thai
the facts justify?
DO not profess to be able to decide
But notice that the companies which
seem 90 me TO have argued their case in
very straightforward fashion by direc
statements TO Congress and the press asser
that the United States pays less for its armol
than any other naval power in the world
except Italy. and very considerably less thar
we pay in England That is fact which
10 the best Of my knowle edge has been neither
denied nor disputed. Furthermore, the com
panes have publicly stated that the govern
ment to-day is buying its armor at a figur,
below the average of the past thirty years If
spite of the increased cost of labor and raw
material This statement. again, has mo-
been refuted or even questioned.
Finally, the companies have expressed theil
wi lingness 10 have an official inquiry int,
their costs OF manufacture and on the basi,
Of that inquiry 20 leave it TO the government
% fix the figure at which armor plate SHOULD
be supplied. ! can only deduce from thi:
that IL which is doubtful there were ex
ccssiye profits in the past there cannot pos
siby be any in the future, and that tn,
question OF price therefore affords no grounc
for such a radical and momentous chang,
Of policy as the armor plant bill contem
plates.
Gould there in any event be less propitiou,
hour for making experiments? There is wa
all round you. One conflict YOU already hav,
on your hands in Mexico. Another an,
greater one YOU may at any moment be draw
INTO. And besides this a thousand and on,
problems Of naval armament are now fol
the first time being brought 70 the touchston,
of actual experience. No one as yet car
tell what the European struggle may revea
10 the relative efficiency of different type.
of vessels or the amount Of armor plate thai
may be needed in the navy of the future
Still less can any one tell what crisis may no.
be precipitated upon the United States during
the three years or more that il vii
take 20 build the government armor plan
and work IL up to its maximum capacity
say nothing as 10 the technical Difficult
ties which in the case of armor making seen
very strongly 70 reinforce all the familiar
objections to government ownership. But
do venture 10 ask, Is this a time fol
taking risks and for driving even s
single firm out OF the armament industry
Are you prepared to sanction and EN-
bark on course which can only leav,
YOU a hundred times less ready for grear
national emergency than We ever wer,
in England? If so, God help you,
SYDNEY BROOKS.
New York April :. 1916.