worthy of a great nation like ours, for what could be more lamentable, what more painful to one who loves his country and his profession, than to see a fleet armed with smooth-bore guns, requiring close quarters for their development, moving at the rate of 4 knots an hour; what inferior force could it attack, or what superior one escape from, of any of the great naval powers of the earth ?"

Commodore FAIRFAX: A comparison must result unfavorably to the United States, and this, in part, is accounted for by the present irresponsible system of the bureaus. Our best ships do not compare favorably with those of the third ra e European powers, either in point of speed or construction. Since Mr. Lenthall retired from the Bureau of Construction, very little intelligence or judgment has been displayed in its management. The navy has lost in him the only trained, well educated constructor at present eligible for the position. We are reminded of this forcibly, in the infliction upon the service of the iron vessels, 'Alliance,' Alert and Huron.' They are unsuited for war purposes from their construction."

Commodore CROSBY: "I do not think that our vessels of war compare favorably with the principal powers of the world, class for class, I think the slow speed of our vessels is mostly owing to the machinery; somewhat, also, to the model of the vessels.'

Commodore MIDDLETON: "The comparison of the present degree of efficiency of our vessels, with that of those of the principal powers of the world, must be conceded as unfavorable to the United States. The reason for this condition must be sought for in the inexperience of our constructors, and their want of familiarity with foreign models. The same may be said, within limits, of our designers of machinery. Our materials are as good, if not better, than any in the world. Constructors and engineers of more than ordinary intelligence should be sent to gather instructions in the line of their profession in European dock yards."

Captain RHIND: "Our ships are far behind in power of resistance, in gun power, and in speed. While our squadron was collected at Key West, at the time of the Virginius' affair, I formed and expressed the opinion that one modern war vessel of the British nation, like the Swift Sure,' would destroy the whole of them without the least damage to herself. Great reliance is placed on torpedoes, but very few of our vessels have speed enough to use them successfully. The reason for this state of affairs, is that those who command and fight the ships are not consulted in their construction. The fault is in construction, in machinery, and in want of harmony.' Captain JEFFERS: "There is no doubt, but that the average speed of our navy, taken collectively, is less than the average speed of foreign vessels, and their armament, etc., inferior.'

Captain TEMPLE: "In my opinion our vessels of war are inefficient; can neither fight nor run away, and will disgrace their captain and the country whenever a war emergency arises."

Captain WELLS: "Our armed vessels of war do not compare favorably with those of other navies."

Captain LOWRY: "Our ships do not compare favorably with the vessels of other nations in any respect as regards or their machinery, and as a consequence, we have neither speed nor efficiency; the reason for it is that the office of Naval Constructor has been a political appointment, and used for political purposes. I affirm, and defy contradiction (and believe every honest man in the navy, who is not afraid of losing his position, will confirm me when I assert), that most of the corruption in the navy yards. exists in the Naval Constructor's Bureau, and the writer can relate to the Committee many instances where the efficiency of the ship has been impaired by the constructor refusing to follow the suggestions of skillful seamen commanding."

Captain TRUXTUM : "Nearly all our steam vessels are defective in their machinery. The disorganized state of the personnel, and the wretched condition of the material of the navy, I attribute to the existence of nine (9) Secretaries of the Navy."

Captain YOUNG: "Our vessels of war do not compare, either in speed or battery, In case of a with those of a similar class of the principal powers of the world. war with either of the great naval powers, we have few vessels that could successfully contend with or run away from one of their vessels of a similar class, armed

with rifle guns. While other nations are improving every year in the efficiency of their navy, we seem to be retrograding."

Captain JOUETT: "No comparison can be made since there is nothing to compare with. I do not know that any navy in the world has any such vessel as our navy is composed of, and there should be no such vessel in our navy.

Commodore RAMSEY: "Our navy is inferior to that of all first class powers. Our cruising ships are deficient in speed, and our iron-clads are deficient in both, respecting power and speed. Our guns are entirely behind the age, rifle-guns having proved themseves much superior to the smooth-bores. Under the present system, each Chief of Bureau is a head, and gives instructions in regard to his particular duties, entirely independent of the other bureaus; the consequence is that when ships are built or repaired one bureau cannot know what the other is doing, and the instructions of the Chief may conflict. An example of this occurred when the Kansas' was repaired at the Washington Navy Yard. When the ship was ready for her battery, it was found that the constructor had changed the position of the broadside ports, and there was not sufficient space to work the 9-inch guns she had previously carried, and which the Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance had put in her. The consequence was the interior arrangement had again to be altered. The engines of our vessels compare most unfavorably with those of the vessels of war of other nations.

Commander ERBEN: "I think our ships greatly inferior in speed and battery to those of other naval nations."

Commander YATES: "My experience leads me to regretfully state that the vessels of our navy suffer greatly in comparison with those of the navies of France and England, class for class."

Commander MAHN: "Vessels of the United States are inferior in point of speed to those of England.'

It will thus be observed that

OUR NAVY IS EVEN WORSE THAN WORTHLESS,

since we are still compelled to keep up and support a large number of war vessels, which, in the event of any emergency, to use the expression of several of the naval officers above quoted, 66 are neither fit to fight nor to run away"-and must ultimately be broken up. The people are also forced to pay for the maintenance of nearly 8,000 officers and men, with which to man these rotten hulks.

It may be well at this point to recapitulate as to the condition of our navy. In 1869, when Secretary Robeson took charge, the navy bore upon its register 203 vessels. By authority of law, 8 sloops of war and 2 torpedo boats were added, and by purchase 3 more were also added; making in all 216 vessels that should now appear on the register. According to Secretary Robeson's last report, there are only 146 vessels, as follows:

First rate screw ships..
Second rate screw ships..
Second rate battle ships..

Third rate screw ships.

27

So that 70 vessels have disappeared under Secretary Robeson's administration. Such is the opinion entertained of our navy by the Admiral, the Vice-Admiral, 11 Rear-Admirals, 8 or 10 Commodores, 8 or 10 Captains, and the same number of Commanders, and all agree that our navy is inefficient.

ROBESON'S CONTRACTOR CORNERED.

In opposition to this volume of proof there is but one counterstatement, and that is the statement of Chief Constructor Hanscom. To prove that Mr. Hanscom's reports are not only unreliable, but false upon their face, we shall at this time give the testimony of that gallant young officer, Commander R. W. Meade, whose love for, and pride in, the navy is earnest and deep-seated, as is evidenced by his thoughtful study and reformatory suggestions for the promotion of its integrity and efficiency, and in the connection of the reliability of the comparison

made by the Chief of the Bureau of Construction in his last annual report, Commander Meade said: "I read the report of the Chief Constructor with a great deal of surprise, because, from my knowledge of the condition of the naval service, and the condition of the vessels in the service here and on foreign service, I felt sure that some of the statements made were not facts; in other words, they were calculated to deceive all but experts that were not familiar with the subject. My attention was particularly directed to the table given on page 185 of that report, entitled, 'Relative comparison of the relative tonnage of the English and United States vessels. In looking over this list, I find that all our ships of no value, including vessels on the stocks, and every vessel that could be made to figure upon paper, was included to swell the list, while on the English side, such vessels are taken for the comparison as were by no means first-class vessels. And even gunboats were included, omitting almost entirely the first-class ships of the English navy. As I went on over the list, I found that most of the English vessels taken in this comparison were either old hulks or training ships for boys, and even gunboats and second-class vessels; in other words, scarcely a single important vessel of the English Navy was on the list. And the vessels of that navy were compared with the best of ours, with the idea of giving to the public the impression that the American Navy was in a relatively better condition than the English Navy, which is not true. None of the modern vessels or none of any consequence are given in that list, with a few exceptions. I have all the official standard works on this subject and I know that the comparison is not true. Since the publication of Mr. Hanscom's report, I have taken the list as Hanscom gives it, and compared it with the official returns of the English Navy, and find that his comparison is not correct, and that it is calculated to deceive all but experts; I made a comparison correctly and carefully, and it is from that comparison I speak now. This report is not correct; it is a false comparison, and is calculated to deceive. From a careful study of the subject I would assert that it is no just comparison, and should not have been embodied in the report of the Secretary of the Navy. The Secretary of the Navy was doubtless misled by himself; he is not an expert, and was evidently deceived by the report. I have prepared a table which I beg to present. It is entitled 'The comparative cost of some of the vessels of the American, British and French Navies.' I have made this comparison on an original plan, but one which on examination will be found to be correct in every particular. It is based upon a comparison of their cost per ton of displacement, which I consider to be the only true way of arriving at the result. The system I adopted in making this estimate is as follows: I take the entire cost of the vessel, and use as a divisor the number of tons displaced by that vessel at the load-water line, and get from that division the actual cost per ton of displacement, which must be mathematically correct. This appears to me to be the only standard of comparison, and I have adopted that in this table. The table is as follows:

Table showing the Comparative Cost of some of the Vessels of the American, British, and French Navies.

NOTE. With the exception of the Trenton, all the United States ships are armed with obsolete smooth-bore cannon of limited range, while the British vessels are armed with muzzle-loading rifle-guns of immense range and power. The ships of the Ranger class are particularly weak and flimsy affairs.

The heaviest rifle-gun (not yet completed) in the United States navy is the 8-inch, throwing a projectile (bullet) of 185 pounds, while as a rule the English vessels are armed with 7-inch, 9-inch, 12-inch, and even 14-inch rifles. All the French ships are armed with breech-loading rifle-cannon of great range and power. The Redoubtable's armament is particularly formidable.

It will be seen that while it cost the United States from $223 to $710 per ton of displacement, exclusive of armament to produce armed wooden and flimsily built unarmed iron vessels of significant power and speed -vessels utterly behind the age and requirements of the times -England and France with their much-sneered-at "Boards of Admiralty" are really producing not only fast iron-clads, ironed with 12-inch, 13-inch, and even 14-inch rifled guns at from $157 to $253 per ton, total cost. But swift commerce-destroyers like the "Inconstant" and "Duquesne," carrying 9-inch rifled guns, capable of piercing any of our iron-clads in service at near one mile range; and yet some persons have the audacity to assert that the United States Navy is in a good condition as compared with those of foreign powers.

The idea evidently sought to be conveyed by Mr. Hanscom's table of comparison, is that the United States Navy is in a more efficient condition relatively than the British Navy, so far as the ships of each power are concerned. The falsity of this estimate is readily demonstrated. In the first place, scarcely any of the large modern unarmored ships of the Royal Navy are given in Mr. Hanscom's table of British vessels, though he gives some new gunboats Such recent ships as the "Inconstant," the " Shah," the "Raleigh,' Raleigh," etc., powerful and swift cruising frigates of 16 knots speed, 4,780 to 5,782 tons displacement, and carrying 9-inch rifled cannon, are ignored entirely. The striking power of these guns is greater than that of the 15-inch smooth-bore with which the American monitors are armed. and will enable these unarmed English cruisers to actually destroy our iron-clads with impunity, by merely keeping beyond the limited range of the cannons of the monitors and practising at the turret at leisure Our ships having little speed could

:

do nothing, as they could not close with their adversary.

The effect of Mr. Hanscom's table of comparison is to mislead all but an expert, and this is apparent to those familiar with the technical different kinds of tonnage. Such tables as are published in the Secretary's latest report ought to bring the Chief of the Bureau of Construction to court-martial for either willful deception or gross ignorance. Such tables render our navy the laughing-stock of intelligent foreigners and intelligent men.

FURTHER DECEPTION MADE IMPOSSIBLE.

The following table, compiled by Commander Meade, was presented by him to the Naval Committee, and forms a part of his sworn testimony. It is well worthy of attentive perusal, as showing the desperate attempt made by Chief Constructor Hanscom to deceive the public in his last annual report:

(See page 185, Report of the Secretary of the Navy for 1875.)

Relative comparison of the number of Guns and Tonnage of the English and United States Naval Vessels, according to Mr Hanscom, with some additional data rot given by the Chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair.

* Mr. Hanscom's "tonnage" column should be completed for him by adding the words. new measurement."