Anthony Madonna
January 20, 2016
The Naval Appropriations Act of 1905


"Our Navy is the surest guaranty of peace and the cheapest insurance against war." - President Theodore Roosevelt (above), justifying his request to expand the Navy. See "Plea for Big Navy,"  Washington Post , February 23, 1905.

"Our Navy is the surest guaranty of peace and the cheapest insurance against war." - President Theodore Roosevelt (above), justifying his request to expand the Navy. See "Plea for Big Navy," Washington Post, February 23, 1905.

The Naval Appropriations Act of 1905 provided appropriations for naval service ending June 30, 1906. It was considered and adopted in the third session of the lame duck 58th Congress. It provided for an increase in naval expenditures, highlighted by the construction of two new battle ships.  President Roosevelt requested appropriations for three, but opponents wanted to limit it to one or zero.[1] They viewed the measure as putting the U.S. on the war footing and the expenses as too great. They also suggested government corruption led to certain U.S. steel companies getting armor contracts and that these companies charged the U.S. considerably more than they charged foreign nations. Proponents suggested the measure was necessary to protect American interests.

The Naval Appropriations Act of 1905 was not listed as landmark by Stathis (2003) or Petersen (2001) but was rated the fifth most important enactment of the 58th Congress by Clinton and Lapinski (2006). The House and Senate considered 88 amendments during initial consideration of the act (56 in the House; 32 in the Senate). The vast majority of these were committee amendments. Altogether, there were three roll call votes cast during consideration of the bill: one in the Senate on an amendment and two in the House on motions to recede and concur with a Senate amendment. There were two separate conference reports. Initial passage of the bill and adoption of the conference reports in both chambers were agreed to by voice vote. It was signed into law by President Roosevelt on March 3, 1905.


The 58th Congress met from March 4, 1903 to March 4, 1905 during the third and fourth years of Republican President Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency. Republicans controlled majorities in both chambers, holding a 57-33 seat advantage in the Senate and a 207-176 seat advantage in the House. The Congress was perhaps most notable for the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, which established the Panama Canal Zone. It coincided with the 1904 elections, which led to a landslide 336-140 victory for President Roosevelt over Governor Alton B. Parker (D-NY) in the Electoral College and Republican gains in the House of Representatives (41 seats) and Senate (3 seats) (Stathis 2014). 

The Naval Appropriations Act of 1905 was considered and adopted during the lame duck third session of the 58th Congress. It was not reported out of the House Committee on Naval Affairs until late January, 1905, and debate did not commence until late February. This coincided with a busy final three weeks. The Washington Post noted that other important bills, including the river and harbor and sundry civil appropriations bills and statehood bills were all pending during these final weeks. The paper suggested further that the longer legislative days leading up to adjournment might lead to an increase in usage of “special orders” in the House.[2]

Initial House Consideration (February 14, 1905-February 21, 1905)

H.R. 18467 was reported out of the Committee on Naval Affairs by the Committee Chair, Rep. George Edmund Foss (R-IL) in the third session of the 58th Congress on January 28, 1905.  House debate commenced in the Committee of the Whole on February 14, 1905. Foss asked for unanimous consent that debate be shorted to three hours on each side, but the ranking member, Rep. Adolph Meyer (D-LA) insisted on four hours. Foss yielded to this request.[3]

The measure represented an increase over the naval appropriation act of the previous year by 2.5 million dollars and proposed the construction of two new battleships.[4] Consideration was not cleanly split down party lines.  As the Washington Post noted, at various times "about forty Democrats supported” the measure’s key tenets and "about an equal number of Republicans voted in opposition.”[5] 

Opponents largely took issue with the cost of the measure. Rep. Charles Edward Littlefield (R-ME) noted it was the most expensive Naval Appropriations bill in congressional history. He added that "river and harbor appropriations, and public building appropriations, which are the monuments of peace, indicating the progress of a great people within its own borders and its own limits, are equally as useful and equally as essential to the prosperity of this great Republic” (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 14, 1905, 2585). Rep. John Franklin Rixey (D-VA) suggested the level of naval expenditures were "militarism and foolhardiness run mad” (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 14, 1905, 2577). They also suggested the price of the bill may lead to militarism in South America (“Raps ‘Big Stick’ Policy,” New York Times, February 15, 1905.) Finally, others argued the measure was a hand-out to certain industries.[6]

Supporters contended the bill was important for national security. Representative Abraham Lincoln Brick called the Navy "the most important factor of our security and process in the future" (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 15, 1905, 2677). He went on, advocating for the bill by noting experts suggest Congress will not adopt such preparedness for the future: 

"In the memory of all the victorious seas swept by the stars and stripes, always carrying liberty with it, and everywhere filling the glowing pages of American history with the burning deeds, the heroism, manliness, courage, and patriotism of the bravest sailors that ever lived, I hope it is not true. In the memory of John Paul Jones, Commodore John Barry, Biddle and Barney, the fathers, and all the great captains who have added luster to the flag, breathing in their last hours an imploring appeal that the day may come some time when the American idea shall encompass the earth—in the memory of the mighty past let us prepare for the future.” (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 15, 1905, 2681).[7] 

Consideration on February 14th was confined to general debate.[8] During debate the following day, February 15th, Foss called for a reading of the bill for amendment. In total, the chamber considered five amendments and adopted two of them. Perhaps the most notable of these, the Atlanta Constitution noted that the House voted down a Rixey amendment which "struck out the proposed increase of 3,000 men for the navy, although on a point of order by him the provision permitting their immediate enlistment was stricken out” ("Assaults Made on Great Navy,” Atlanta Constitution, February 15, 1905.) 

The House considered 11 amendments the following day, February 16th. This included a string of unsuccessful amendments by Rep. John Fitzpatrick (D-NY), who sought to decrease the overall cost of the measure. The Washington Post highlighted one such Fitzgerald amendment, which sought to strike out appropriations for coaling stations ("Rebuked by House,” The Washington Post, February 17, 1905).[9] Debate and amending continued on February 17th. Objections to the cost of the measure continued. For example, Rep. John Snout Snook (D-OH) cautioned that Senate amendments would further increase the total amount of Naval Appropriations. The House considered and rejected 8 amendments, perhaps the most notable of which was a Rixey amendment that would have diverted funding for the construction of the Guantanamo Military Base in Cuba. Rixey argued the base could not be "fortified” or "defended” (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 17, 1905, 2798). His amendment was adopted via voice vote but rejected on a subsequent division vote.[10]

Initial House consideration concluded on February 20th after a contentious seven hour session ("Two New Battleships," Washington Post, February 21, 1905).  The House dispensed with thirty one amendments during the debate, many by point of order. In one instance, Rep. Robert Baker’s (D-NY) amendment was cut off by a point of order from Rep. Charles LaFayatte Bartlett (D-GA) asserting the amendment was not germane. Baker argued Bartlett could not make that determination until the amendment was read, prompting Bartlett to state: "I can generally assume it is out of order, coming from the source it does" (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 20, 1905, 2928). The point of order was upheld.[11]

Much of the substantive debate centered on an amendment by Rep. James Breck Perkins (R-NY) that would decrease the number of new battle ships to two. After some debate, a time agreement was reached. Eventually, the amendment was defeated by voice vote, and subsequent division and teller votes confirmed the Perkins’ amendments’ rejection. As debate continued, it appeared that opponents were starting string out its consideration. A number of non-germane amendments were offered. Additionally, Rep. John Maddox (D-GA) moved the Committee of the Whole rise and report progress to the full house. This failed, but he demanded a division. He then attempted to demand tellers, but the Chair ruled debate had progressed past that being in order. He made the same motion later in the debate, and again insisted on a division vote. 

After some additional amending and several successful motions closing debate on a paragraph, Foss moved the committee rise and report amendments. This motion carried by voice vote. After the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole were agreed to en bloc, Foss moved to recommit the bill and demanded the previous question. Rep. William Kitchin (D-NC) then moved to amend the motion. Foss’ maneuver was—in Bartlett’s view—a "procedural trick” to prevent a recorded vote on the battleships ("Two New Battleships," Washington Post, February 21, 1905.) Kitchin asked if it would be in order to amend Foss’s motion to provide the committee report a bill with one battleship as opposed to two. Speaker Cannon reported this was not in order. Bartlett inquired if another motion to recommit with instructions was in order, but Cannon noted: "The rules provide for only one motion to recommit”"(Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 20, 1905, 2928). 

A motion to adjourn by Rep. James Wadsworth (R-NY) was then rejected.  This was followed by a vote on Foss’ previous question motion, which was adopted on division, 122-68. A point of order by Representative James Robinson (R-IN) that no quorum was present was rejected.[12] This was followed by a Bartlett request for the yeas and nays, which failed to produce a sufficient second. A second Wadsworth (R-NY) motion to adjourn and the Kitchin motion to recommit were both rejected via voice vote. The bill was then adopted by voice vote and initial House consideration was concluded.

Initial Senate Consideration (February 24, 1905-February 27, 1905)

H.R. 18467 was referred to the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs on February 21, 1905. It was reported out two days later with amendments by the Committee Chairman, Senator Eugene Hale (R-ME). The Washington Post reported that the Senate committee passed the bill quickly and with minimal amendments.[13] The Senate Committee amendments increased spending by just over 400,000 dollars over the House bill. This amounted to a roughly 4.2% increase.

On February 24, 1905, Hale moved the Senate proceed to the bill, and the motion was agreed to by unanimous consent.[14] Hale noted he did not intend to "take up any contested matters, but [he] would like to have the formal part of the bill read (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 24, 1905, 3242)." This was agreed to, but senators squabbled over the availability of printed copies of the bill. Apparently there was an error and most of the copies were sent back to the printing office. The Senate then separately considered and adopted twenty committee amendments separately, all by voice vote. Consideration of the bill then concluded.[15]

Senate consideration of H.R. 18467 on February 25th was comparably brief. Hale’s motion that the Senate proceed to the bill was agreed to by voice vote. This was followed by quick consideration of two committee amendments—both of which were adopted via voice vote. Senator Edward Ward Carmack (D-TN) then announced his intention to offer an amendment striking appropriations for one of the two battleships. This was essentially the same amendment that generated controversy on the House side. The Senate then spent some time debating a committee amendment increasing expenditures on colliers and scout cruisers before giving way to private bills. Hale proposed a unanimous consent agreement—that was adopted—that "the next time the Senate is in legislative session [the Naval Appropriations Act] will be the first business to be considered (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 25, 1905, 3387)."[16] 

When debate commenced on February 27, 1905, the Senate resumed consideration of the colliers and scout cruisers amendment.[17] After some substantial discussion, the amendment was adopted via voice vote. Carmack then offered his amendment striking appropriations for one of the two battleships. As it was in the House, the amendment was aggressively debated by both sides, with proponents of the amendment arguing the extra battle ship was unnecessarily expensive. Opponents argued two battleships were necessary for American security.[18] 

After Senator Arthur Pue Gorman (D-MD) requested the yeas and nays, the amendment was defeated 22-38.[19] The Senate then quickly adopted three committee amendments via voice vote and reconsidered an earlier committee amendment it adopted and rejected it via voice vote. One committee amendment providing for an investigation into "Harvey process patents" was struck out by a point of order.[20] Amendments by Senators Orville Platt (R-CT), Edmund Pettus (D-AL) and Francis Newlands (D-WV) were then rejected by similar points of order (that they constituted legislation in an appropriations bill).[21] A modified Newlands amendment was later adopted via voice vote and the bill was adopted via voice immediately afterwards.[22]

Secondary House Consideration (February 28, 1905)

The Speaker laid before the House H.R. 18467 on February 28, 1905. Foss asked for unanimous consent that the chamber non-concur in the Senate amendments and ask for a conference with the Senate. In order to get his assent, Vandiver requested assurances that the House vote separately on Newland’s amendment authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Navy to institute an investigation into the cost of the manufacture of armor plate and the cost of the establishment of an armor-plate factory (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 28, 1905, 3672).” Foss agreed and modified his unanimous consent request accordingly. Reps. Foss, Alston Dayton (R-WV) and Meyer were appointed conferees.

Secondary Senate Consideration (February 28, 1905)

The President Pro Tempore laid the House action disagreeing to the Senate’s amendments to H.R. 18467 and asking for conference later in the day on February 28th. Hale moved the Senate insist upon its amendments, disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and agree to conference asked for by the House (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 28, 1905, 3628).” This was agreed to by unanimous consent. Senators Hale, George Clement Perkins (R-CA) and Thomas Martin (D-VA) were appointed conferees.

Initial Senate Conference Report Consideration (March 1, 1905)

On March 1, 1905, Hale submitted the conference report to the Senate. Under the report, the Senate agreed to recede from three amendments and the House receded from disagreement to thirteen Senate amendments. The committee on conference were unable to reach an agreement on thirteen additional amendments. The Washington Post and subsequent House debate highlighted that the amendments in disagreement all pertained to the increased expenditures on the Marine Corps, most notably, the increase of 1200 enlisted men.[23]

Hale moved “that the Senate insist upon its amendments not agreed to by the House and [asked] for a further conference (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, March 1, 1905, 3747).” This was agreed to by unanimous consent and Senators Hale, Perkins and Martin were once again appointed conferees.

Initial House Conference Report Consideration (March 2, 1905)

Foss called up the conference report in the House, also on March 2, 1905. He asked for—and received unanimous consent—that a statement by read in lieu of the report. After the statement was read, Foss noted that "most of the amendments that were put on in the Senate were largely provisions which went out of the bill in the House on points of order, and that really the bill as amended by the Senate restores the House bill as reported by the House Committee on Naval Affairs (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, March 2, 1905, 3876)." He pointed out that the Marine Corps increase was still in disagreement. Foss then moved the previous question on the adoption of the report. 

Representatives Vandiver and Rixey requested separate votes on two amendments. Vandiver requested a separate vote on Newland’s armor plate investigation amendment and Rixey requested a separate vote on the amendment increasing the size of the Marine Corps. Foss then offered several motions that the House insist on their disagreement to several Senate amendments. These were agreed to. 

Foss then moved the House disagree to the Newlands amendment. Vandiver moved the House recede and concur with Newlands amendment with an amendment capping the price for armor plate. Foss made a point of order that Vandivers’ amendment was not germane. Vandiver disagreed and debate was briefly entertained. The Chair then sustained Foss’ point of order. This lead to a separate motion to recede and concur from Vandiver with an amendment providing a naval board of inquiry investigating bidding for contract for armor plate and presenting these findings to the Attorney General. This was also subject to a Foss point of order and sustained. 

Vandiver offered a third motion to recede and concur with an amendment.[24]  This time, he modified the amendment, striking out the section presenting the findings to the Attorney General. The Chair overruled a Foss point of order that this was not germane and debate was entertained on the motion. During debate, Representative William Hughes (D-NJ) alleged armor contracts allowed U.S. steel companies to steal over 22 million dollars from the U.S. government.[25] Minority Leader John Sharp Williams (D-MS) supported Hughes, stating that "whether there be anything 'rotten in Denmark' or not, there is a smell so much like it that we had better begin to find out (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, March 2, 1905, 3882)."

Foss disagreed. He took issue with the numbers referenced and noted that in cases where the lowest bidder was not awarded the contract, it was because it was determined they could not deliver on it.  Foss then called for the previous question on Vandivers’ motion. The question was taken and the Chair announced the "ayes" had it. Williams and Vandiver demanded a division vote, resulting in a 110-102 split in favor of the previous question motion. The question then recurred on Vandivers’ motion and it was announced that the noes had it. Williams and Vandiver again demanded a division, which revealed a 98-128 split against the motion. Vandiver then requested the yeas and nays, and the motion fell 140-158, with 5 present and 80 not voting.[26] 

Rixey then moved the House and recede and concur in the Newlands amendment with an amendment that a committee of five House members and three senators investigate the armor pricing. Foss demanded the previous question on this and it was agreed to by voice vote. The Chair then put the question on Rixey’s motion, announcing he was in doubt. A division vote revealed an 86-119 split against the motion. Williams then ordered the yeas and nays and the motion fell, 137-144, with three present and 99 not voting.[27] Foss then offered a motion the House insist on disagreement with the Newlands’ Senate amendment. This was adopted via voice vote. A second conference was then agreed to and Representatives Foss, Dayton and Meyer were again appointed conferees.[28]

Secondary Senate Conference Report Consideration (March 3, 1905)

Hale submitted the final conference report on the Naval Appropriations Bill to the Senate on March 3, 1905. He announced that the House receded and agreed to the Senate’s amendments on those items that had previously been in disagreement. However, the President Pro Tempore noted that action was not included in the conference report, to which Hale replied “There is nothing left (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, March 3, 1905, 3942).” The conference report was then agreed to by voice vote.

Secondary House Conference Report Consideration (March 3, 1905)


Congress:  58th Congress
Session/Sessions:  3rd
Statute No: 
Public Law No:  58 P.L. 214
Eid:  580214
Bill:  H.R. 18467
Sponsor:  Rep. George Edmund Foss (R-IL)
House Committees:  Naval Affairs
Senate Committees:  Naval Affairs
Companion Bill:  None.
Related Bills:  None.
House Rules:  None.
Past Bills:  None.
Introduced Date- Law Date:  January 28, 1905-March 3, 1905
House Floor Days:  6 (February 14-17, 20, 28, March 2-3)
Senate Floor Days:  5 (February 24-27, 28, March 1, 3)
Roll Call Votes:  3 (Voteview 58th Senate RC# 85; 58th House RC# 84, 85)
Tags:  Conference, Recede and concur; multiple conference committees

Foss submitted the final conference report on the bill to the House on March 3. The report was agreed to by voice vote. He noted that the House conferees all favored the Senate’s amendments increasing the Marine Corps by 1200 men, “but it being a matter upon which one or two gentlemen desired a separate vote, the House conferees felt as though it were only fair that they should report this for a separate vote to the House, and my motion is that we concur in those Senate amendments, and when that is done the bill is passed (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, March 3, 1905, 3982).” 

Debate was entertained on the motion and Rixey asserted he thought more marines were unnecessary. Williams then attempted to criticize Senator Hale, but was called to order twice by Rep. Payne, who noted “a statement of a Senate cannot be repeated in this House (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, March 3, 1905, 3983).” The Speaker upheld both of Payne’s points. Williams concluded by suggesting this bill would lead to war. After some additional debate, Foss demanded the previous question and it was ordered by voice vote. Foss then made a motion the House concur in the Senate amendments and this was also approved by voice vote.[29]


President Theodore Roosevelt signed H.R. 18467 (58 P.L. 214) into law on March 3, 1905.


Clinton, Joshua and John Lapinski. 2006. "Measuring Legislative Accomplishment, 1877-1994," American Journal of Political Science 50(1): 232-249.

Osborn, George Coleman. 1943. John Sharp Williams: Planter-Statesman of the Deep South. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.

Petersen, R. Eric. 2001. "Is It Science Yet? Replicating and Validating the Divided We Govern List of Important Statutes." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL. 

Poole, Keith and Howard Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.                                                       

Stathis, Stephen W. 2003. Landmark Legislation 1774-2002: Major U.S. Acts and Treaties.  Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. 

Stathis, Stephen W. 2014. Landmark Legislation, 1774-2012: Major U.S. Acts and Treaties, 2nd Edition. Washington: CQ Press


[1]  See “Wants Three Battle-Ships,” Washington Post, February 18, 1905; “Urges Naval Programme,” Washington Post, January 27, 1905; “Timid About the Vote,” Washington Post, January 26, 1905.

[2]  Indeed, the House minority appeared upset with the majority’s tactics during this Congress. Complaining about special orders, Minority Leader John Sharp Williams (D-MS) asserted Speaker Joseph Gurney Cannon (R-IL) would go down in history as an "old man afraid of his majority” (“Sent to Conference", Washington Post, February 18, 1905). He further asserted he had “never seen a time in my life before when the majority of the majority was not willing to trust the minority of the majority on its verbal promise…” (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 17, 1905, 2788). See also “Longer Legislative Days,” Washington Post, February 20, 1905. Notably though, in his biography of Williams, Osborn characterizes the 58th Congress as being “amiable and harmonious” because of Cannon and Williams’ personal friendship (Osborn 1943, 120). 

[3]  The unanimous consent request was formally stated:  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FOSS], pending the motion to go into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, asks unanimous consent that general debate be allowed with four hours on a side, eight hours altogether, and that to-morrow and the succeeding day the House meet at 11 o’clock. Is there objection?  There was no objection. (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 14, 1905, 2562). 

[4]  See “For Nation’s Defense,” Washington Post, January 29, 1905; “Hundred Million Given to Navy,” Atlanta Constitution, January 29, 1905, for more on the bill as reported out of the House committee.

[5]  See “Wants Three Battle-Ships,” Washington Post, February 18, 1905.

[6]  Specifically, Rep. Alfred Lucking (D-MI) suggested the United States Steel Corporation was overcharging the U.S. Navy and undercharging Great Britain (“Big Navy Denounced,” Washington Post, February 16, 1905.)

[7]  Other disagreed with this sentiment. Rep. William Bourke Cockran (D-NY) questioned who the U.S. needed to defend against and asked “why should we now abandon the policy of peaceful, unarmed industry by which we have achieved unparalleled success to embrace the wasteful policy of extensive armaments, which is discredited by the experience of the whole world?” (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 14, 1905, 2686).  He noted further that the U.S. made great achievements when the Navy was one-fifth its current size (“Assaults Made on Great Navy,” Atlanta Constitution, February 15, 1905.)  He concluded by suggesting this bill was another example of an attempt of “some men to eat their bread in the sweat of others men’s brows” (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 14, 1905, 2688). 

[8]  The Committee of the Whole House rose on February 14, 1905 on page 2595 of the Congressional Record. It continued the following day from pages 2666-2703.

[9]  Debate and amended concluding on February 16th, on page 2761, during consideration of a point of order against a Fitzgerald amendment. House debate continued on page 2790 and Foss moved the House temporarily bypass the Fitzgerald amendment. Unanimous consent on this was granted.

[10]  Debate and amending on February 17th concluded on page 4800.

[11]  Baker tried on several additional occasions to get the amendment offered. It asserted that the “American government and people viewed the killing of Russian Grand Duke Sergious with abhorrence.” He argued further that Republicans threatened to “expel him” if he offered it” (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 20, 1905, 2943).

[12]  The Washington Post described Robinson’s point accordingly: “Mr. Robinson, of Indiana, made the point of no quorum. The previous vote had resulted 122 to 68, indicating that were 190 members present. “Did any member fail to vote on the previous questions?” asked Speaker Cannon. “I did not vote,” replied Mr. Robinson. “Nor did I,” replied Speaker Cannon amid a roar of laughter. “You and I are two, and that makes a quorum” (“Two New Battleships,” Washington Post, February 21, 1905.)

[13]  See “Quick Work on Navy Bill,” Washington Post, February 24, 1905 for more on the difference between the Senate committee amendments and the House bill.

[14]  Oddly enough, Hale was interrupted by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA) who reported a resolution from the Committee on Rules instructing the Sergeant-at-Arms to not permit flowers in the chamber. It was adopted by unanimous consent. See “Capitol Chat,” Washington Post, February 25, 1905 for commentary.

[15]  Debate on February 24, 1905, spanned from pages 3241-3243.

[16]  There was an error in the index that listed debate on the bill as recurring on page 3283. Debate and amending on February 25th actually ranges from pages 3383-3387.

[17]  Debate again focused on the necessity of a large navy, leading Hale to respond that “the principal object of a big navy in times of peace is to bully small and weak powers.” He added he viewed the bill as a moderate one. See “Navy Used to Bully,” Washington Post, February 26, 1905.

[18]  As they did in the House, they also suggested it was a hand out to American steel companies who were marking up the price. Senator Francis Newlands (D-WV) noted the Russian government got a much cheaper price and suggested that “it means that $6,000,000 more than cost is being paid by the government (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 27, 1905, 3491).” Hale disagreed with this assessment.

[19]  Republicans voted 35-2 against the amendment, Democrats split 22-3 for it (Voteview 58th Senate RC# 85) (Poole and Rosenthal 1997).

[20]  For more, see “Halt with Big Navy,” Washington Post, February 28, 1905.

[21]  Newlands amendment called for an investigation in the price of armor plating and proposed a cap on Navy expenditures. Hale asserted that he would accept the investigation portion (which he does later), but not the cap. Newlands accused Hale of attempting to “satirize” his ignorance. Hale responded, assuring the senator that “on so large a subject I do not satirize (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, February 27, 1905, 3504).”

[22]  Discussion on February 27th ranges from pages 3474 to 3505, with discussion on the cruiser amendment occupying pages 3474 to 3480, and Carmack’s one battleship amendment occupying 3480 to 3502. The bill is adopted on page 3505.

[23]  See “Naval Bill Agreement,” Washington Post, March 2, 1905.

[24]  See “Score Armor Plate Trust,” Washington Post, March 3, 1905 for more on Vandivers’ motions to recede and concur with an amendment.

[25]  Hughes was quoted as saying: “…I propose to put into the Record figures showing that in the last six years $22,000,000 have been stolen from this Government by the Carnegie and Bethlehem plants (Congressional Record, 58th Congress, March 2, 1905, 3882).” See also “Score Armor Plate Trust,” Washington Post, March 3, 1905.

[26]  Voteview lists the final split on this vote as 138-154, with seven Republicans voting yes, 150 opposed and 131 Democrats voting yes, one voting no (Voteview 58th House RC# 84) (Poole and Rosenthal 1997).

[27]  Voteview lists the final split on this vote as 135-140, with four Republicans voting yes, 137 opposed and 130 Democrats voting yes, none opposed (Voteview 58th House RC# 85) (Poole and Rosenthal 1997).

[28]  House debate over the initial conference report ranges from pages 3876-3885.

[29]  For more on the final agreement see “Navy Bill Completed,” Washington Post, March 4, 1905.