Identifier: historyofmanufac00amer (find matches)
Title: History of the manufacture of armor plate for the United States navy
Year: 1899 (1890s)
Authors: American Iron and Steel Association, comp
Subjects: United States. Navy Armor-plate
Publisher: Philadelphia, American Iron and Steel Association
Contributing Library: The Library of Congress
Digitizing Sponsor: The Library of Congress

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
e demoralizationof plant and organization. The situation was one withwhich every business man and manufacturer is familiar,that under the circumstances it was better to take thework, even if at a loss, without reference to fixed charg-es, than to have no work at all. In addition to this itwas recognized that the placing of an order for armor byRussia with a United States concern, in competition withall the European manufacturers, would be a notable eventin the rapid march of the steel industry in this country,and would be the best possible method of heralding tothe world that, though young in the business, the UnitedStates manufacturers had mastered the art and were readyto compete with all the world for the supply of armorplates of the highest quality. These motives inducedboth the American companies to send their agents toRussia with instructions to take the worh. 3 s 3 yo TO I—I o > ■-1 Ul6> oCT.O O 3 ^^ 3-? W ? ^J N 2- ^ n o 3Ok II—I O X g >a. w w
Text Appearing After Image:
ARMOR PLATE FOR THE NAVY. 19 The European manufacturers were, of course, muchaverse to the advent of American makers into the field,and determined to offer a stout resistance by bidding lowprices. These prices were, however, met by the Americancompanies, between which an active competition followed,resulting in the contract being awarded to the BethlehemCompany at the ruinously low price above mentioned.To make armor continuously at such a price could onlybring disaster, for a great expenditure of capital, energy,and skill would have been made without returns. Surelythe Government of the United States, the reputation ofwhose warships was raised by this transaction, can not,when dealing with its own manufacturers, whose con-tinued prosperous existence must form the corner-stoneof national defense, justly consider as a precedent for itsfuture action a price made under the circumstances abovedescribed. It should be noted that the contract as originally madewith the Russian Government was

Note About Images