PUBLISHED MONTHLY, AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM-THOMAS W. WHITE, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.

VOL. VII.

RICHMOND, MAY & JUNE, 1841.

OUR NAVY.

[Our readers have another treat from Harry Bluff's "Lucky-Bag." The "Scraps" here presented, need no com

mendations from our pen: they speak for themselves. All

we ask for them is an attentive perusal.

For our own part, we had no idea that things were as bad in the Navy as they really are, and as an analysis of the Commissioners' Report called forth in consequence of statements made in a former No. of the "Bag," shows them to be. Nothing more strikingly illustrates the irresponsi bility of the Navy-Board, than that they should, instead of asking for a specific appropriation of $23,000 to build a new Shark, actually expend $45,000 in repairing the old one. Other cases of egregious folly, Harry Bluff makes no less palpable than this. We hope that the Secretary of the Navy and Members of Congress will give this paper an attertive perusal, and take the trouble to satisfy themselves if "these things are not so." The suggestion here made about the appointment of a "Commission," we commend to the most attentive consideration of the former. We think the idea an admirable one, and, if carried out, would no doubt be attended with the most beneficial results.

Harry Bluff truly remarks, that the West is the "land of steamboats." The importance to the South and West of a Steamboat Navy-Yard on the waters of the Mississippi, and of a strongly fortified Naval-Depot at the South, is too obvions for argument. We entreat Southern and Western Members to look to the subject, and not to leave the interests of their country and constituents longer exposed and trifled with. Why should not the Navy be identified with the South and the West, as well as with the North and the East? In truth, the whole essay is rich with valuable in formation and important suggestions, which we would fain dwell upon, were it not that we might weaken what Harry Bluf has so well set forth. Wherefore, we say, READconsider the economy of white-oak ships upon the plan of no repairs-its advantages-the suggestions about the Revenne service-the Marine Corps, and other important matLETS-READ, READ.]-Ed. Sou. Lit. Mess.

MORE SCRAPS FROM THE LUCKY-BAG.
MARCH 1841.

To MR. T. W. WHITE,

NOS. 5 & 6.

considered it a prodigal piece of vain glory. History would doubtless have treated such a paper, as a boast put forth to the world by haughty Spain, that her men-of-war were built at double charges; and that she, so great was her wealth, and such her spirit of extravagance, choosed to repair them at multiplied rates. Here, the statements made from the 'Lucky-Bag' concerning the prodigal expenditure of the public money for Naval purposes, are more than confirmed. Nor is all the story yet told even here; for in these official statements concerning the actual cost of building our men-of-war-of repairing and fitting them for sea, several items of heavy expense are omitted by want of returns. Yet enough is made known to startle with amazement the officers themselves, and to give the public some idea of the evils and abuses incident to the present organization of our Naval system.

Upon the faith of official estimates, stating, that to than $385,000, Congress was induced to pass a law, |build and fit for sea a ship of the line, would cost less and appropriate money, for building line-of-battle ships. Years after, Congress demands to know what has been the actual cost of these ships. The Official Report that is now to be considered, makes its own statements in reply, which show that to build one of those line-of-battle ships, the Ohio, and to fit her for her first cruise, has, instead of less than $385,000, actually cost from first to last, more than $887,000! and that too, exclusive of 'provisions and clothing'!

It was officially stated to Congress, that the warrant officers' stores for a vessel would cost but so much. Congress voted away the money with a ready will and a liberal hand,-for the amount was reasonable and the Navy popular. But this Report shows that the actual cost of those stores, instead of being but so much, has, in one instance at least, exceeded the amount first stated, by more than seven hundred per cent. But more of this presently.

Editor of the Southern Literary Messenger. There was a time, Mr. Editor, when the build- I did say to you and your readers, on a former ing of single ships might have been rated at mil- occasion, Mr. Editor, that I was about to tie up lions, and the cost of repairing them counted at and seal forever the Lucky-Bag.' And such was hundreds of thousands, and seamen would not have fully my intention; for its slender stock of facts had wondered; but that time was in the palmy days of been all disposed of in my poor way. Since that, Spain, when the ransom of a single captive was however, a fresh collection has been made, and a his prison-house full of gold-when Mexico, the scrap or two of such importance has been picked mines of Potosi, and the Guacas of Peru emptied up, that, in justice to the cause I advocate, and in forth their treasures in her lap-when 'homeward- duty to the service, of which I myself am but a bound Spanish-men' carried silver and gold for bal- junior and an humble member, I am constrained last, and jewels on freight. Had the document again to solicit from the pages of your Messenger, which now lies on the table, and which is fresh from the favor 'to pass the word' for another overhauling the American Navy-Board, been submitted in those of the Lucky-Bag.' I therefore crave the attendays, we, in our republican simplicity, would have' tion, and the indulgence too, of your readers once

VOL. VII-44

more.

over, I have been taught to consider that official statements which do not tally, are as heinous as false credits in private accounts. 'Straws show the way the wind blows.' These little discrepancies, and others with which this Report abounds, and which will be pointed out at the proper time, indicate, what indeed the whole Report itself confirms, viz: that there is a degree of confusion and disorder in the affairs of the Navy-Board, which absolutely forbids, and does entirely prevent, every thing like economy and efficiency in the management of the Navy.

The Report contains no returns to show the cost of the 'ordnance, and warrant officers' stores,' in the first instance, for the North-Carolina 74. Their cost, we are told in a note, is "assumed to

The 'Scrap' of the most importance is the one to which allusion has already been made. It is marked "26th CONGRESS, 2nd Session, [SENATE] [223]", and entitled "Report from the Secretary of the Navy, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate, in relation to the cost of building and repairing certain vessels. March 1, 1841, read and ordered to be printed." It is to be regretted that the call for such information had not been more searching-that it did not embrace more objects and cover more grounds; and that the answer itself does not, as it is, satisfy more fully the object of the call. A statement showing the quantity and value of the different kinds of materials used in the construction, repairs, and equipment of each ship, would not only have been valuable as it regards the economy of ship-building, but it would be the same as those of the Ohio;" and is put have been useful in tracing to their origin many down at $106,921 45. Now the Ohio is an 80 evils and abuses of the present Naval system, gun ship-is much larger than the North-Carowhich yet lie hid. lina-and was not fitted out at the same place, The information contained in the document about nor until thirteen years after the North-Caroto be examined, is conveyed from the Navy Com-lina was. The Delaware 74, is the same size missioners themselves to the late Secretary of the of the North-Carolina, to a ton-they were both Navy, and by him transmitted to the President of equipped from Norfolk, and within three years of the Senate. There are some mistakes in it, which, each other-and the cost for the Delaware, of in a spirit of candor and fairness, I beg leave to "ordnance and warrant officers' stores for a cruise," correct; for it is my purpose not to examine the is returned at $84,312. Therefore, it appears to paper critically, but simply with a view to get me that the cost of the same things for the Northat facts and a true state of the case. I desire Carolina ought to have been assumed' at this sum. that you and your readers may form proper con- This would have lessened the apparent cost of the ceptions of the nature and degree of at least North-Carolina by upwards of $22,000, and made some of the evils, which the act creating the Na- the disparity between her actual cost, and that of vy-Board has entailed upon the service. After her sister-ship the Delaware, still greater and more having thus obtained an idea of the real condition of things, we can the better understand how, where, and what, are the proper remedies to be applied. And that we may go knowingly to work, I will first point out the mistakes, and correct them, as far as I can. It is here stated that the Ohio was launched 3d May, 1820. In a communication also from the Navy-Board, but dated 5th Sept. 1822, it appears that the Ohio was launched on the 30th May. I suppose the latter is correct, for it has never before been contradicted.

astounding than it is.

The Report states that she was repaired before she was completed. She was completed, says the Report, in May 1825, and is then charged with $106,921 45 for ordnance and warrant officers' stores.' She was repaired prior to May 1825, and is then again charged in the further sum of $80,590 41-making the whole cost of ordnance and warrant officers' stores for this ship's first cruise, upwards of $187,000!-more than twice as much as the same items cost for her sister-ship It is here stated that the Fairfield was built in the Delaware. It would appear, therefore, that 1826. The name of this vessel is first borne on the this ship is charged with the same items twice; the Register of 1829, and for thirteen times has that effect of which is to swell up her cost, and to make document, in its annual statements, dated the build- it bear some proportion to that of her sister-ships. ing of the Fairfield from the year 1828. Such I have no reasons for thinking this a mistake, except too is my own recollection on the subject. This is such as are gathered from the face of the docuimportant; because it shows that repairs have been ment itself, and from the incongruity, and the appamore frequent upon her, than in this Report they rently irreconcilable character of this and other of are made to appear. It is here stated that the its statements. But if the statements here, be reject Consort and Pioneer are each of 222 tons. In an ed for such reasons as these, the Report itself would Official Document, marked "H. Reps.-138-2nd have to be rejected altogether, so wild and extravaSession, 24th Congress, and dated Navy Commis- gant are many of its statements. A sense of decorum sioners' Office, 4th Feb. 1838," the tonnage of these and of the respect due the official character of the two 'non-descripts,' is registered at 230, and not at Report, forbids the application of any such rule to 222. I am a little particular' in small matters, statements put forth and sanctioned as these are. Mr. Editor, for they make up the big ones. More- Therefore, I shall not treat this or any other state

·

Cost as stated by the commissioners in 41. Difference. $105.868 91

ment as false or erroneous, unless the facts to be are left to infer that the other returns were comadduced in evidence of the falsity, be of the most plete. positive character. Moreover, if this be a mistake, Cost as stated by the commissioners in '29. I have no means of rectifying it. The object of Warren, $104,368 00 this paper is to deal with the naked truth; wherefore Vincennes, your attention is merely directed to some of the Boston, apparently conflicting statements relative to money Falmouth, expended on the North-Carolina; hoping, that, if Natchez, there be any mistake, some one will point out its presence and the extent of it.

$1,500 91

115,889 77

117,967 99

2,078 22

108,849 02

110,946 38

2,097 36

106,717 70

114,025 84

7,308 14

112,729 18

124,390 76

11,661 58

112,080 08

128,529 40

16,449 32

Lexington,
Vandalia,
Aggregate difference to be reconciled be-

According to this document then, the NorthCarolina was built at Philadelphia, between 1818 and 1820, and was completed at Norfolk, in May How shall these discrepancies be reconciled? 1825, when she is charged for ordnance and The Report makes no note of explanation. The stores' in the sum of $106,921 45, as before sta-statement of 1829, has been uncontradicted before ted. And in her 'repairs at Norfolk prior to May the world for twelve years; it was put forth, we 1825,' she is charged under the same head (ord- are told, after a minute examination of the returns nance and stores) in the further sum of $80,590 41! made to the identical office whence this Report is making more than $187,000 for these items alone! issued. Whichsoever of the two statements be Now, the Delaware, according to the same docu- correct, their discrepancies show that there must ment, was built between the years 1817 and 1820, be "something rotten in the state of Denmark." when she is charged for ordnance and stores' in I shall not pretend to judge between them, for they the sum of $84,312. She is next repaired at are both official and equally authentic; yet I think Norfolk, in 1827 and 1828, for a cruise, (three it but just to the officer whose name is borne on years after the North-Carolina was,) but is not the statement of 1829, and who is now numbered charged with a single dollar for ordnance or stores; among our illustrious dead, to say here in this place, for her cost for the first cruise was already high, that in no one instance, have I found the statebeing upwards of $627,000, without provisions, ments of THE Report to agree with any previous when it ought to have been less than $385,000. statement that comes also from the Navy-Board. And though she is charged with $84,000 and up- I have examined among the public documents, for wards, for ordnance and stores, in 1820, when she official communications, with which the statements was launched, every officer knows, that most of of the Report might be compared; and I have these stores were not supplied or paid for, until she found several, but, unless in one or two instances, was first equipped for sea, eight or nine years after-where the Report professes to have copied former wards. This is not the place to say any thing of statements, not a single case of agreement. The drawing money out of the Treasury under the head of 'repairs,' and applying it to building and altering ships.

original cost of the same ships, as put forth in this Report, and in others equally authentic, and bearing also the endorsation of the Navy CommissionIn a letter dated 5th Sep. 1822, and to be found at ers, differs by tens and thousands, and in one inpage 835 of the volume of State Papers devoted to stance at least, by hundreds of thousands of dolNaval Affairs, the Commissioners of the Navy-lars. It was shown in 1822,* by a report from the Board report with much minuteness and detail, the cost of the frigate Potomac. Her cost is there stated at $108,[178.]320 09. In this Report it is put down at $231,013 02, "principally for the hull; the returns for other parts incomplete." How shall this discrepancy be accounted for? Both statements are official. They both come from the Navy-Board.

Navy Commissioners, that the cost of the Delaware 74, up to that time, amounted to $317,000. This Report now states it to have been $627,000. Doubtless she cost this sum, but not at that time. Farther than this, I judge not, for I possess no rebutting testimony in favor of either case.

'Obey orders if you break owners,' is one of the seaman's most wholesome maxims; and when orders conflict, the rule on board ship is always to obey the last one, in preference to that which went before.

take the last statement as the correct one, and so consider it, until some one shall tell how the truth may be.

In Document No. 2, of the 21st Congress, is to be found another letter from the Commissioners, dated March 31, 1819, [1829,] relative to the cost of the ten sloops-of-war mentioned in this Report. "Of In noticing the cost of these ships again, I shall the ten sloops-of-war," observe the Commissioners in their letter of this date, "we have ascertained, by a minute examination of the returns made to this office, that seven of them have cost as follow:"* The statement given below is then made; and they add: "The returns with respect to the three other sloops-of-war, are not complete." By which we *The 'Lucky-Bag' is not accountable for the grammar.

the cost of the Vincennes' armament and stores for miserably defective, and the system a bad one, is her first cruise, stated at only $6,453. But the plainly indicated on the very face of this document cheapness in this instance is not more surprising itself. In many instances, the cost of the labor than the extravagance in other and similar cases: employed, or of the materials used, in the building thus the same articles for her sister-ships of the and equipment of ships, is either not stated at all— same class, all built under the same law, and because there are no returns-or if stated, the equipped about the same time, and supplied ac-statements are but partial, because the returns are cording to the same list, are stated to have cost,-incomplete; and this too is the case with regard [in the round numbers only]-for the Lexington, to works that have been done by direction of the $13,000; for the Falmouth, $19,000; for the Con- Commissioners, 10, 15, 20 years ago. Call on any cord, $25,000; and for the Fairfield, upwards of of the Bureaux in the War Department, (I make $31,000! There is, you will observe, no rule or the allusion not for the purpose of instituting comratio in the cost of these things; and as $6,453 is parisons between the officers of the two services, but perhaps much nearer than $31,515 to what ought for the purpose of contrasting the two systems)— to have been the cost, and as there is no note in call on any of these Bureaux for a statement of this, as there is in other cases, indicating that the the cost of work done by their direction, whether returns are not complete, I shall, in returning to in this or that section of the country; and they this subject again, take this statement, as in fair-will give you full and complete returns up to the ness I should, just as it stands.

last quarter, showing the cost of every thing, from The organization of the Navy-Board is bad. The the building of a fort or a castle, down to the shoeseeds of disease were implanted in its system from ing of a horse. But the office of the Commissionthe beginning. Laboring thus early under a con- ers contains no returns for work done by their distitutional malady, it has afflicted upon the ser-rection, and even under their very eyes, in the vice, first one and then another of its ills, until at Washington Navy-Yard, 20 years ago!

last the whole Navy has got the cachexia. The As for the "cost of the several Navy Yards, friends of the patient have become alarmed; and in and of the improvements and repairs made in the consternation that prevails, many and various each," [being a part of the information called for,] remedies are proposed. But let us, if possible, the Commissioners state that they do not possess Mr. Editor, retain our presence of mind, and at- the means of answering the call. In submitting tempt first to ascertain in what stage of disease an estimate, however, of what the Yards, their fixthe patient really is: then we may proceed to pre-tures and repairs have cost, the Board" have," say scribe remedies with a better grace, and to treat the Commissioners, "of necessity, to rely upon the case with more chances of success. It mat- the amount actually appropriated in some years— ters little by whose agency, or under whose treat-upon the amounts out of appropriations, blended ment the patient has been brought to the present with other objects supposed to have been applied critical situation. The question now is, how to afford relief, and by what means may its former health and strength and vigor be restored to this enfeebled arm of the nation.

to the Navy," &c. And as for the Navy-Yard expenses since 1831-they answer the call simply by stating in gross for each Yard, the amount of appropriations annually made since that time. That With such objects as these in view, you will rea- the appropriations were granted, and have been dily perceive, that it is not the purpose of this paper exhausted they know-but upon what objects and to attack individuals, or in any manner to reflect in what sums, this vast amount [three millions and upon officers-unless indeed some should consider a a quarter of money] has been expended, and that statement of facts, or an exposure of abuse, as a re- too so recently, they have not the means of knowflection upon them. Should they so consider it, it ing. Yet the works upon which it was squandered will be because they stand behind those abuses, and are in charge of the Navy Commissioners, and shall themselves choose to make the application. I were undertaken by direction of the Navy-Board. aim to show that the system by which the Navy has When, in the private relations of life, Mr. Edibeen conducted for the last twenty years is a ruinous tor, we hear it said of any one, how rich so-ever one. To do this I shall state abuses. I aim to he may be,-"There's a man who builds houses, show that the evils of this system are becoming and orders work to be done, without ever knowing greater and greater, and that many of them have the cost,'-we shake the head, pronounce the habit grown out of the institution and organization of the unbusiness-like, extravagant and wasteful; and we Navy-Board. To prove this, I shall adduce many predict ruin and a speedy downfall for that man. Yet, of the official statements that are put forth in the judging from their Report, this is the manner in which document before me. I shall endeavor to state Commissioners of the Navy-Board are required to facts fairly and truly, boldly and openly, without ever turning aside to see who it is that stands before or behind them.

do business for the Navy. They build ships and direct the most expensive works for the Navy; but the face of this Report, as well as their own That the organization of the Navy-Board is direct statements on the subject, show that their

office does not afford the means of ascertaining teen years of her existence, and at an aggregate the cost of the one or the other. Were their own cost of upwards of a half a million of dollars!— private affairs managed in this way, extravagance, ($529,394 21.) waste and ruin, we know, would follow. And because in the defective organization of the Board, they are required to manage the business of the Navy in this way, should we expect a different result? When matters are reduced down so as to become an affair of dollars and cents, is it in the nature of a money-loving people to be more tender with the public, or with their own private purse?

Here then, Mr. Editor, deep-seated in the system itself, is the root of some of the evils-and growing evils they are under which the public treasury has groaned so heavily, and of which the Navy complains so loudly—e. g.-the frigate Constitution was built in 1797; and according to the showing of the document under consideration, was first hauled up for repairs, under the present system, in 1833. During this interval, the longest time she went without repairs (or if repaired, the Report is silent as to the times when, and places where,) was from 1812 to 1833, a period of twenty-one years." And the whole amount of repairs on this ship for the thirtysix years, as far as ascertained and stated in this Report, is $349,220 67. In 1833, she comes, for the first time, under the Navy-Board, for repairs: and in 1835, she is turned over, figure-head and all, comletely repaired for sea-service. In 1838, they taal her up for repairs again! And the repairs put apon her on these two occasions, and within this short time, exceed the whole ascertained amount of her other repairs, by $9,000!

The frigate United States is another war-worn and time-honored ship, and is also here reported upon. She too was built in 1797. After ransacking the old books and musty records of the offices in Washington, the whole amount that could anywhere be found charged to her, on account of repairs, from the day she was launched in 1797, till she was first turned over to the Navy-Board for repairs in 1821-a period of twenty-four years, is, as far as ascertained, but $68,513 85.* The operations and effects of the present system upon her, are therefore to be dated from that time. They immediately become obvious enough: for from 1821 to 1823, they manifest themselves in the enormous amount of $229,407 82. Chiming in with the abuses of this system, repairs are again called for upon this ship in 1826, and they are continued over to 1832, in the sum of $266,723 70! She is ripe for repairs again in a short time, and submits to the operation in 1834 and 1836. And, as though she could never again do without repairs long enough to get to sea, she is repaired in Boston in 1839; in New York again in 1840; and again in 1841 at Norfolk, where she now is. In a report from the Navy Department in 1825, submitting estimates and recommending appropriations for a Dry-Dock, it was urged, among other good and obvious reasons, that with a Dock for repairing vessels, the repairing of them "would cost much less, require much less time, and leave the vessel in a much more But you will understand more clearly the ruin-permanent and lasting condition." Without any is rate of the present system, by comparing one of these advantages in her favor, this frigate is of the Commissioners' own ships with this time- only known to have cost for repairs in twenty-four Forn vessel. Take the Brandywine. She is a live-years, the sum of $68,500-but, notwithstanding ak ship, of the Constitution's own class,† and was the advantages of Dry-Docks, the repairs of this aunched in 1825. Though built in Washington, un-same frigate for only twenty years, under the preder the immediate control and superintendence of sent system, have amounted to the princely sum he Navy-Board, the Commissioners don't, and of of $746,692 07! course no one else does, know to this day what the cost in the first instance. But they had her under 'repairs' the year after she was built; again 1829 and 1830 at New York; again in 1830 at Norfolk; again at New York in 1834; and again Norfolk in 1838-five times in the first thir*It is stated in a note to the Report, "There is nothing the records of the office, which can be found in time to swer the call of the Senate, respecting the cost of the her repairs of this ship, although she received frequent d extensive repairs after 1812, and prior to 1833." It to be regretted that the times and places of these frequent d extensive repairs, were not stated. The Report says at she received at Washington in 1812 “considerable re-cost not known." Had the times and places of the her frequent repairs been stated in like manner, the Senate old have known whether these frequent repairs came and once in nine or ten years, as they used to do, or ee in every year, or oftener, as they sometimes now do. *Own class. They are both 44's-tonnage of the former - of the latter 1607.-Report.

It is only by contrast and comparison, that you and your readers, Mr. Editor, who are not sailors nor ship-owners, can fully comprehend the defects, and properly appreciate the ruinous tendency of our present Naval organization. Therefore, let us lay this old ship alongside of one built by the Navy-Board, that you may make your own comparisons, and draw your own conclusions. The Potomac frigate is not a fit subject for such a comparison, because she has been used for experiments, by hoisting her up in the air, trying the strength of her back, and so on-besides she has been very little in active service. There being no other frigate, besides those already mentioned, contained in the Report, a sloop-of-war will answer every purpose

*The Report states that this ship was extensively repaired in 1800 in the Delaware'-'the cost not known.' And that she received repairs somewhere else, somewhere between 1812 and 1821, but the cost is also not known.