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:
ntil it has all beencontracted for: And prodded further, That the Secretary of the Navy isauthorized in his discretion to contract with either or all of the build-ers of the hulls and machinery of these vessels, or with one or morebidders, for the furnishing of the entire amount of said armor, if heshall deem it to the best interest of the Government. The above limitation of the cost of the armor, namely,$3,210,000, is at the rate of $400 per ton. In this act, as it finally passed both Houses of Con-gress and was approved March 3, 1897, the amount ap-propriated for the armor for these three battle-ships wasreduced to $2,407,500, and it was further provided thatno contract for armor plate shall be made at an averagerate to exceed $300 per ton of 2,240 pounds. The aboveprovision, that no portion of this armor shall be purchas-ed until it has all been contracted for, was stricken out. 3 W 2. w 50 on i > 2 C>3 12 >m wo > HH tnm D m H ^^O H 00 p w ^O t >> m
Text Appearing After Image:
ARMOR PLATE FOR THE NAVY. 11 NO CONTRACTS AT THE PRICE FIXED. The Secretary of the Navy, under date of April 9,1897, transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Repre-sentatives a letter from the Illinois Steel Company in-closing two propositions in answer to the Departmentsadvertisement, also a letter from the Bethlehem IronCompany and one from the Carnegie Steel Company, to-gether with a Report of the Chief of the Bureau ofOrdnance of his visit to the works of the Illinois SteelCompany. This correspondence is all printed in H. R.document No. 20, 55th Congress, first session. The Sec-retary of the Navy says : The communication of the Illinois Steel Company contaias a bid inthe form of two general propositions, neither of which the Depart-ment feels that it has any authority to consider with the view of ac-ceptance or rejection; while the other two communications received arenot bids, but are statements of reasons why bids are not submitted. The other two communications referred to wer

Note About Images