Demobilization : $b our industrial and military demobilization after the armistice, 1918-1920Crowell, Benedict
History
Demobilization : $b our industrial and military demobilization after the armistice, 1918-1920
Crowell, Benedict
United States. Army. American Expeditionary Forces -- Demobilization; World War, 1914-1918 -- United States
The producers did not attempt to recoup in the business liquidation
that followed. These sentences are not intended to give a clean bill
of health to the whole body of ordnance producers--some few of them
sought to get more than they were morally entitled to get; some few,
like the country horse trader, adopted the age-old procedure of barter
by asking more than they expected to get. But where one man held out
for the last penny of his rights, there could be found half a dozen
others who put in no claims at all for money to which they were justly
entitled. The great steel-producing industry, in particular, showed an
aristocratic contempt of requiring its full due. Many steel producers
pocketed their losses without a word: in fact, the Government settled
a surprising number of ordnance contracts for the statutory one dollar
apiece and thus saved itself millions for which it was legally liable.
When the curious ordnance officers asked some of these contractors why
they did not claim their full rights, they responded that the victory
over Germany was compensation enough for them. As one of them expressed
it, the achievements of the American boys in France had given him his
run for his money.
In the Pittsburg district two steel producers had been engaged on
contracts for essentially the same sort of material and on about the
same scale. One was a small concern which had been kept at its wits’
end most of the time to finance its war enterprise. The other was one
of the largest corporations in the United States, with ample financial
resources. Into the Ordnance Claims Board came two claims terminating
contracts of approximately identical characteristics. One of the claims
was several times larger than the other, and naturally the Washington
authorities questioned the larger claim. They found that the latter
was a just claim in every particular. The discovery was made that the
smaller of the two claims had asked for an amount in settlement much
below what the producer was entitled to receive. The larger claim had
been submitted by the producer whose finances could not stand any
loss; the smaller by the great corporation referred to above. Both were
allowed in full.
Of the 317 large ordnance contracts in the Pittsburg district, the
Government settled 149, involving a total obligation of more than
$23,000,000, for $1.00 each. In this and other districts thousands of
subcontractors forgave the prime contractors their legal obligations
without the transfer of a penny. In the Philadelphia district the
prime contractors cleared up thousands of their subcontracts and said
nothing about them in their liquidation claims. These instances of
generosity were discovered only when the Ordnance Department checked
up to find out why the final settlement costs were so much lower than
the preliminary estimate of those costs, made in the first hurried days
after the armistice.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account