File:History of the manufacture of armor plate for the United States navy (1899) (14595605448).jpg

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:
rts Report is sum-marized by Senator Chandler as follows : Per Ton. The Secretary takes as the cost of labor and material iii dou-ble-forged, Harveyized, nickel-steel armor the sum of $196.00 He assumes that a plant costing $1,500,000 would need $150,-000 per year for maintaining it, or $50 per ton upon 3,000tons of armor, and adds to the price 50.00 Making $246.00 Or in round numbers $250.00 He then adds for profit 50 per cent., or 125.00 Making $375.00 He then adds for nickel, to be furnished hereafter by the con-tractors 20.00 Making - $395.00 Or in round niunbers 400.00 THE SECRETARY S REPORT ANALYZED. On the face of the above statement the allowance of50 per cent, profit on the cost of manufacturing is alto-gether deceptive, the fact being overlooked that, with asmall output from a large and costly plant, a manufac-turing company producing difficult shapes may have alarge profit on the cost of manufacturing and yet realize w D GO > w > rm inI—I 13 >GOGO > nC GO m GO
Text Appearing After Image:
ARMOR PLATE FOR THE NAVY. 7 very small returns on the capital invested. The lowestestimate of cost of plant and working capital of eitherthe Bethlehem or the Carnegie Company is $4,000,000.The estimated profit of $125 per ton on 3,000 tons ofarmor amounts to $375,000, or 9.37 per cent, on the mon-ey actually invested. Deducting therefrom the legal rateof interest, 6 per cent., there remains but 3.37 per cent,to cover all the risks incurred in manufacturing. It wallbe noted that in Senator Chandlers estimate for mainte-nance it is assumed that the plant cost $1,500,000, where-as the actual cost of the Carnegie Steel Companys armorplant, as subsequently reported by Secretary Herbert inhis Supplementary Report, (document No. 151, part 2,H. R., 54th Congress, second session,) is given on page 5as $3,376,000, and, in his Report, Secretary Herbert statesthat the Bethlehem plant must have cost about $1,000,-000 more than the Carnegie plant, this difference being inpart accounted for by the c

Note About Images