SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY / NUMBER 29 

Samuel Colts 

Submarine Battery 

THE SECRET AND THE ENIGMA 

Philip K. Lundeberg 

rRmitnsonian Iigtitution 'PrSss 

CITY OF WASHINGTON 

1974 
ABSTRACT 

Lundeberg, Philip K. Samuel Colt's Submarine Battery: The Secret and the 

Enigma. Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology, number 29, 90 pages, 

43 figures, 1974.—Samuel Colt's sustained efforts to secure the adoption of his 

Submarine Battery system as a major element in the coastal defenses of the United 

States have long constituted an obscure yet potentially significant episode in the 

technological development of undersea warfare. Stimulated not only by apparent 

threat of renewed British naval assaults on the Eastern seaboard early in the 1840s, 

but also by notable and well-publicized advances by British military engineers in 

galvanic underwater demolition techniques, the development of Colt's novel harbor 

defense system was supported by limited Congressional appropriations during 

1841-44, as well as by the encouragement of Samuel F.B. Morse and John William 

Draper at the University of the City of New York. Colt secured no comparable 

assistance from the National Institute for the Promotion of Science, of which he 

was an early member. 

The New England inventor's dogged secrecy regarding the precise character of 

his Submarine Battery, which he successfully maintained throughout four public 

demonstrations at Washington and New York, ultimately alienated cognizant 

military professionals, whose guidance or active participation Colt deliberately 

eschewed in refining his distinctive single and dual observer systems for mine firing 

control. Notwithstanding the apparent success of his climactic demonstration at the 

Washington Navy Yard in April 1844, the precise details of which yet remain open to 

conjecture, Colt was unable to secure War or Navy Department support either 

for the adoption of his galvanic mine system for coastal defense purposes or for Congressional payment of a contingent premium for the secret of his Submarine Battery. 

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is 

recorded in the Institution's annual report, Smithsonian Year. SI PRESS NUMBER 5014. COVER 

DESIGN: "The Last Experiment of Mr. Colt's Submarine Battery in Washington City," 1844 

by An Gibert, reproduced by courtesy of Caldwell C. Robinson. 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

Lundeberg, Philip K. 

Samuel Colt's Submarine Battery. 

(Smithsonian studies in history and technology, no. 29) 

Includes bibliographical references. 

Supt. of Docs, no.: SI 1.28: 29 

1. Mines, Submarine—History. 2. Colt, Samuel, 1814-1862. 3. United States—Coast 

defenses History. I. Title. II. Series: Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian studies in 

history and technology, no. 29. 

V856.5.U6L86 623.4'5115 74-7322 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 — Price $1.95 (paper cover) 

Stock Number 4700-00295 
Preface 

The history of nineteenth-century military technology contains no more baffling 

chapter than the dogged and long-obscured efforts of the New England arms 

inventor, Samuel Colt, to secure the adoption of his Submarine Battery as a major 

element in the coastal defense system of the United States. Although the European 

and American antecedents of Colt's mine warfare system can be readily identified, 

the details of his own widely publicized yet curiously secretive demonstrations remain 

unclear. Virtually no connection has been established between his galvanic observation mine schemes and the remarkable development of mining operations witnessed 

during the American Civil War as part of the Confederate system of riverine and 

coastal defense. Friedrich von Ehrenkrook, in his pioneering survey, Geschichte der 

Seeminen und Torpedos (Berlin, 1878), was unable to establish a connection 

between the Yankee inventor's dual observer scheme, of which he was ignorant, and a 

similar system employed by the German inventor, Werner von Siemens, during the 

defense of Kiel in 1848, the first significant wartime employment of coastal minefields. 

The obscurity surrounding the nature of Colt's Submarine Battery stemmed substantially from the almost obsessive secrecy with which that remarkable entrepreneur 

surrounded what was indeed the favorite creation of his early career. As his 

authorized biographer, Professor Henry Barnard, resignedly observed regarding Colt's 

galvanic mine scheme: 

In addition to this, Col. Colt claimed to possess a further secret, which many of his friends 

think died with him. But so reticent was he on the subject, that to this day it is not clear whether 

this secret related to the explosive compounds, or to the mode of arranging them, or to 

ascertaining at what instant it was necessary to fire the aquatic mine.* 

As suggested by the subtitle of the present study, however, the secret of Colt's 

Submarine Battery—more specifically the practical details of the single and dual 

observer galvanic systems described in his long hidden patent application—has a less 

apparent yet equally intriguing counterpart in the enigmatic question of whether 

that inventor ever fully tested the purported elements of his novel system of undersea 

warfare. Owing to Colt's success in denying cognizant scientists and military specialists the opportunity to examine his plans and participate in his experiments, no substantive body of official evaluations were generated in his lifetime or indeed for a 

century thereafter. The report rendered to Congress in 1844 by Secretary of War 

William Wilkins, entitled The Secret of Colt's Submarine Battery, shed considerable 

light on the earlier evolution of galvanically controlled explosions, yet it contained 

virtually no data on any of that inventor's four governmentally funded demonstrations. Wilkins' report, substantial portions of which are reproduced in the Appendixes, 

affords a remarkable mirror of the frustration that befell government officials, scientific referees, and the stubborn inventor himself as the result of his obdurate secrecy. 

For their generous assistance in helping me to grapple with the riddle of Samuel 

Colt's Submarine Battery, I should like to express my sincere appreciation to Mr. 

*HENRY BARNARD, Armsmear: The Home, the Arm, and the Armory of Samuel Colt: A 

Memorial (New York: Alvord [printer], 1866), pages 287-288. 
Elmer Parker and his staff in the Old Military Records Branch of the U.S. National 

Archives; to Mr. Thompson R. Harlow, Director, and Mrs. Frances R. Hoxie of the 

Connecticut Historical Society; and to Mrs. Estella C. Lord, Director of the Connecticut State Library Museum. No student of Samuel Colt should neglect the 

penetrating insights into that doughty entrepreneur's extended encounter with the 

federal bureaucracy provided in William B. Edwards's sprightly account, The Story 

of Colt's Revolver: The Biography of Col. Samuel Colt (Harrisburg: Stackpole Co., 

1953). I would, in addition, express my gratitude for challenging questions and valued 

insights offered by the former Chairman of the Mine Advisory Committee of the 

National Academy of Sciences, Professor Andrew Patterson, Jr., of the Sterling 

Chemistry Laboratory at Yale University; and to my sagacious colleague, Dr. Nathan 

Reingold, Editor of the Joseph Henry Papers in the Smithsonian Institution. Finally, 

for encouragement in seeking to shape one of the building blocks on which the history 

of technology is now emerging, I am deeply indebted to my friend and most generous 

colleague, Colonel Howard I. Chapelle, Historian Emeritus of the Smithsonian 

Institution. To these and numerous other helpful colleagues I am most grateful; 

they bear no responsibility for any errors that may appear herein. 

IV 
Contents 

Page 

Preface iii 

The Advent of Galvanic Mine Warfare 1 

The Genesis of Colt's Submarine Battery 7 

The Approach to the Congress 16 

Experiments and Demonstrations 22 

Climax at Washington 38 

Judgment 47 

Appendixes 1—14 59 

Notes to the Text 72 

Notes to the Figures 80 

Index 84 
The Advent of Galvanic Mine Warfare 

. . . concerning the return to Col. Fitstum of 502 rubles, 72 kopecks, which he 

expended in the conduct of an experiment on underwater mines invented by him . . ., 

Col. Fitstum himself wrote me about this matter and I replied that, considering all of 

the information which has been compiled on the matter, I was unable to find 

anything in his favor ... . 

DIRECTOR OF THE MARINE MINISTRY TO THE 

QUARTERMASTER SECTION, ST. PETERSBERG, 2 8 AUGUST 18 10 

The emergence of undersea warfare in the midnineteenth century has long been wrapped in an 

obscurity unusual even in the incompletely charted 

realm of military and naval technology. Several 

seminal episodes, notably including the attempts of 

David Bushnell to conduct mine and submarine warfare during the American Revolution, the extended 

experimentation of Robert Fulton with "torpedoes" 

and diving boats during the Napoleonic era, as well 

perhaps as the dogged efforts of Wilhelm Bauer to 

develop submersibles in the mid-nineteenth century, 

did indeed receive close scrutiny by early historians of 

undersea warfare.1 Yet related technological developments, particularly those efforts by scientists, inventors, 

and entrepreneurs to apply newly discovered electrical 

phenomena to the destruction of shipping, have been 

relatively overlooked, save in Russia, where the first 

sustained program of research and development in 

sea mine warfare had been undertaken under the 

aegis of the Imperial Academy of Sciences during the 

decade and a half preceding the Crimean War.2 In 

the present study, this writer has sought to probe the 

enigma of a particularly obscure American development, Samuel Colt's ill-starred Submarine Battery, 

whose nonfruition remains one of the most curiously 

anticlimatic episodes in the history of military technology in the United States. 

The foundations of galvanic undersea warfare lie 

Philip K. Lundeberg, Division of Naval History, Department 

of National and Military History, National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 

D.C. 20560. 

close to the mid-eighteenth century roots of electrical 

science. The technological kernel of the ensuing 

developments consisted of the detonation of gunpowder under water by means of electric current 

transmitted through insulated leads from a battery to 

an incandescent fuse lodged in the combustible charge. 

An early prefigurement was provided in 1751, when 

Benjamin Franklin of Philadelphia (Figure 1), then 

some five years launched into his investigations of 

"electric flame" and lightning, sounded out one of his 

frequent London correspondents, Peter Collinson of 

the Royal Academy, on 29 June: 

I have not hear'd, that any of your European Electricians 

have heitherto been able to fire Gunpowder by the Electric 

Flame. We do it here in this Manner. 

A small Cartridge is filled with Dry powder, hard rammed, 

so as to bruise some of the Grains. Two pointed Wires are 

then thrust In, one at Each End, the points approaching 

Each other in the Middle of the Cartridge, till within the 

distance of half an Inch: Then the Cartridge being placed 

in the Circle [circuit], when the Four Jarrs are discharged, 

the Electric Flame leaping from the point of one Wire to 

the point of the other, within the Cartridge, among the 

powder, fires It, and the Explosion of the powder is at the 

same Instant with the Crack of the Discharge.3 

The Philadelphian's expansive scientific interests, 

revealed in 1751-54 with the publication of his 

Experiments and Observations on Electricity, Made at 

Philadelphia by Edward Cave in London, subsequently carried him on to more domestic applications, 

notably the lightning rod. Two decades later, as senior 

statesman of the American Revolution, Franklin had 

occasion to encourage several early protagonists of 

undersea warfare. On 22 July 1776, Franklin wrote 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Figure 1.—BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, 1706-1790. Founder 

of the American Philosophical Society, this Boston-born 

printer first turned his restless imagination to the study of 

"electric fire" in 1746, the year that Pieter van Musschenbroek constructed the electric bottle later known as the 

Leyden jar. Franklin's subsequent correspondence with Peter 

Collinson regarding his electrical experiments at Philadelphia, culminating with his observations on the identity of 

lightning and electric current, led directly to his election to 

the Royal Society of London in 1756, as well as honorary 

degrees from Harvard, Yale, and William and Mary. When 

the Philadelphian reached London late in 1757 to represent 

the Pennsylvania Assembly's claims against that colony's 

proprietors, he was regarded throughout Europe as a leading 

natural philosopher of the age. 

to Genera l Washington, introducing Joseph Belton of 

Philadelphia, wh o ha d the previous fall proposed 

attacking British shipping by mean s of a semisubmersible "machine " capabl e of transporting a 

canno n to the vicinity of his targets. Belton ma y have 

assisted Captai n Joh n Hazelwood in his abortive fireraft attack against the British frigates Phoenix an d 

Rose nea r Tarrytown in August 1776. 

N o less dramati c events wer e soon to unfold on the 

Hudson . As early as August 1775, well before Belton's 

proposal, Franklin ha d received a letter from Benjamin 

Gale regarding a one-ma n submersible then being 

constructed in Connecticut by a young Yal e student, 

Figure 2.—"ONE OF THE KEGS CELEBRATED IN THE TIME 

OF THE REVOLUTION.'' This keg mine was deposited with 

that attribution in 1793 in the Peale Museum of Philadelphia 

by Major George Fleming, formerly of the 2nd Continental 

Artillery. Fabricated at Bordentown, New Jersey, in the 

cooper shop of Colonel Joseph Borden and designed by an 

inventive pin maker, Joseph Plowman, these mines represented a community effort. The detonator element, consisting 

of a spring lock arrangement fabricated by gunsmith Robert 

Jackaway, was apparently triggered upon disturbance of a 

wooden firing arm by a passing vessel. 

Measuring some 14 J/2 inches in height and 13 inches in 

base diameter, Major Fleming's keg was fitted with a lid 

bearing the evident remnants of a wooden tripping arm 

which, connected to an iron pin, engaged a flintlock detonating device on the under side. Individual staves and supporting pieces of the wooden tripping arm are inscribed in 

sequence with roman numerals, a typical practice among 

colonial coopers and carpenters, suggesting further the massproduction of these venerable infernal devices. 

The Fleming keg mine, secured by the Division of Naval 

History of The National Museum of History and Technology 

in 1972 from the Peabody Museum at Harvard University, 

had passed successively from the Peale Museum to the Boston 

Museum prior to reaching Cambridge. At present it is the 

oldest known example of a sea mine. 

Davi d Bushnell, for attacks on British shipping. E n 

rout e to Boston in October, Franklin's interest in 

underwate r demolition was aroused whe n h e visited 

Bushnell's secret workshop nea r Saybrook. Ther e he 

examined the young inventor's system of limpe t min e 
NUMBER 29 

warfare, utilizing a hand-propelled, one-man submersible, the Turtle, which was destined to conduct 

its historic if unsuccessful attack on Vice Admiral 

Richard Lord Howe's flagship Eagle at New York 

on 7 September 1776, the high point of American 

underwater operations on the Hudson.4 

Evidence is lacking that the earlier galvanic detonations conducted by Franklin (who departed for 

France in the fall of 1776) influenced either Bushnell's 

subsequent ventures with the Turtle at New York or 

his unsuccessful effort of 5 January 1778, in collaboration with New Jersey patriots, to attack British naval 

units on the Delaware with a score of floating contact 

mines.5 The oaken-staved contact mine (Figures 2 

and 3) may well be the type employed by Bushnell on 

this occasion. 

That abortive if amusing episode in Philadephia's 

maritime history, celebrated in Francis Hopkinson's 

mock-heroic ballad, "The Battle of the Kegs," marked 

the obscure beginnings of modern naval mine warfare (Figures 2 and 3), but its relevance to an account 

of galvanic undersea warfare development lies in its 

rough chronological proximity to early European 

investigations into the electrical detonation of gunpowder. Stimulated by the publications of Franklin, 

Priestley, and Beccaria, as well as by early experimentation in telegraphy, those investigations proved particularly attractive in Italy. In May 1777 Alessandro 

Volta, men Professor of Physics in the Royal School 

at Como and destined to provide in his electric "pile" 

the first source of continuous electrical current, wrote 

to Marchese Francesco Castelli, briefly describing 

experiments in which he had fired pistols, muskets, 

and finally a submarine mine (mine subacquee) by 

means of a bulbous eudiometrical device that triggered combustible gases serving as the detonating 

agent.6 A different approach was followed by Volta's 

friend, Tiberius Cavallo, who as early as 1782 undertook to detonate gunpowder by electric current passed 

through what appears to have been a precursor of 

the incandescent filament. Cavallo, who had been 

admitted to the Royal Society of London in 1779, 

provided an arresting description of his more extensive subsequent experiments, evidently inspired by 

early ventures in telegraphy, in the fourth edition of 

his Complete Treatise on Electricity, published at 

London in 1795: 

The attempts recently made to convey intelligence from 

one place to another at a great distance, with the utmost 

quickness, have induced me to publish the following experiments, which I made some years ago. . . . 

Figure 3.—FLINTLOCK DETONATOR FOR REVOLUTIONARY 

WAR CONTACT MINE. An important element of Major Fleming's keg mine is a remaining portion of the lock plate of a 

Brown Bess flintlock musket, marked with the British crown 

(no Royal cypher indicated) and the name of "Galton" (the 

Galton family which manufactured flintlock firearms at Birmingham and London during the period 1750-1813). This 

lock plate fits into recesses in two wooden supports on the 

under side of the keg's cover. Evidently missing from this 

firing device are connecting elements, possibly including 

springs, between the lock plate and the curved hook of an 

iron pin connected with the iron and wooden firing arm on 

the keg cover's top. This particular keg mine may be an 

incomplete prototype, as there is no evidence that pitch or 

other waterproofing had been applied to it. 

The object for which those experiments were performed, 

was to fire gun-powder, or other combustible matter, from a 

great distance, by means of electricity. At first I made a 

circuit with a very long brass wire, the two ends of which 

returned to the same place, whilst the middle of the wire 

stood at a great distance. In this middle an interruption was 

made, in which a cartridge of gun-powder mixed with steel 

filings was placed. Then, by applying a charged Leyden 

phial to the two extremities of the wire, (viz. by touching one 

wire with the knob of the phial, whilst the other was connected with the outside coating) the cartridge was fired. In 

this manner I could fire gun-powder from the distance of 

three hundred feet and upwards.7 

Cavallo, whose Treatise on Magnetism in Theory 

and Practice (1787) summed up existing scientific 

knowledge in that field, encountered problems with 

bare wire leads and incandescent materials suitable 

for his fuses that were to preoccupy his successors in 

undersea warfare development for over half a cen-
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

tury.8 Like Cavallo, those Continental successors came 

upon the application of galvanism to mine warfare 

somewhat incident to their pioneering research in the 

transmission of information by electricity. Of particular transitional importance was the work of the Prussian anatomist Samuel Thomas Sommerring (1755-

1830), a graduate of the University of Gottingen 

whose studies had led him as early as 1778 to Holland, 

England, and Scotland. Sommerring, whose subsequent work was influenced by the galvano-chemical 

research of Humphry Davy, devised in the summer of 

1809 a small galvanic telegraph apparatus which he 

demonstrated on 29 August to the Bavarian Academy 

of Sciences at Munich. Although unsuccessful in his 

efforts to interest Napoleon Bonaparte in military 

applications of this device—the French had but 

recently introduced their optical telegraph system— 

Sommerring in 1810 attracted the attention of Baron 

Pavel L'vovich Schilling von Canstadt (Figure 4), 

a member of the Russian diplomatic mission to the 

Bavarian capital who had strong scientific interests. 

Impressed by a simple telegraphic alarm devised by 

Sommerring, Baron Schilling introduced the physicist 

to Russian and Bavarian military engineers and subsequently collaborated with him in several telegraphic 

experiments. Encouraged by visits from diplomats 

and other government officials, as well as from the 

renowned Baron Alexander von Humboldt, Sommerring continued his experiments with wire insulated 

with India rubber and varnish, succeeding in March 

1812 in telegraphing through some 10,000 feet 

of cable.9 

The approach of hostilities between Russia and 

France in the spring of 1812 intensified Baron Schilling's preoccupation with the insulated conduction of 

electric current under water and through long distances, not only to transmit military dispatches but 

also to detonate mines planted on the opposite bank 

of a defended river from a controlling observer. Upon 

his recall to St. Petersburg in July, this Baltic nobleman further developed his evolving mine warfare 

system, insulating the cables with tarred hemp and 

copper tubing and devising a carbon-arc fuse, consisting of two charged pieces of pointed charcoal, 

which proved remarkably reliable.10 In the fall of 

1812, the Baron carried out a successful, if scantily 

documented, mining demonstration near the tsarist 

capital, detonating powder charges that were controlled from the opposite bank of the Neva River. 

Although Russian military engineers do not appear 

Figure 4.—BARON PAVEL L'VOVICH SCHILLING VON CANSTADT, 1786-1837. This talented Bait, born at Reval in 

1786, began his military education in the Imperial cadet 

corps in 1797. Upon commissioning in 1802 at the age of 

sixteen, the precocious Schilling was posted to the General 

Staff of the Russian army, subsequently serving from 1803— 

1812 as military attache in the Russian embassy at Munich. 

His experiments with galvanically detonated mines, though 

not presently well documented, establish him as an important pioneer of defensive mine warfare. 

to have adopted his galvanic system at that critical 

juncture in the Napoleonic invasion, Baron Schilling 

retained a lively interest in its development. Joining 

a regiment of hussars in 1813, he subsequently participated in the allied invasion of France, entering 

Paris in the spring of 1814 with the army of Alexander 

I. As recalled by his first biographer, Joseph Hamel 

of the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences, "Baron 

Schilling has told me that during his stay in Paris he, 

with his subaqueous conductor several times, to the 

astonishment of the lookers-on, ignited gunpowder 

across the river Seine."

 u 

While Sommerring's subsequent research dealt 

increasingly with development of the voltaic pile, 

Baron Schilling continued his mining experiments, 

on several occasions demonstrating the action of his 
NUMBER 2 9 

carbon-arc igniters to Alexander I at the tsar's summer camp near St. Petersburg. As Hamel reported, 

in the diffident vernacular of the court: 

Once Baron Schilling had the honor to present a wire to 

the Emperor in his tent. He begged his Majesty to touch it 

with another wire, whilst looking through the door of the 

tent in the direction of a very far distant mine. A cloud of 

smoke rose from this exploding mine at the moment the 

Emperor, with his hands, made the contact. This caused 

great surprise, and provoked expressions of satisfaction and 

applause.12 

Although increasingly preoccupied with his postwar duties as director of the tsarist regime's first 

lithographic establishment, Baron Schilling found 

time to invent the first electromagnetic telegraph, 

utilizing in his system the galvanometer multiplier of 

Johann Schweigger, Sommerring's alarm, and from 

one to five needles. The Baron, invested in 1818 as a 

Knight of the Order of St. Anne, demonstrated his 

magnetic telegraph at St. Petersburg repeatedly, later 

exhibiting it on journeys to Mongolia and in 1835 to 

Western Europe. Evidence is presently lacking as to 

whether Schilling's ideas on mine warfare were 

influenced by earlier experiments, conducted by Lieutenant Colonel Ivan I. Fitstum of the Russian Army 

Engineer Corps, that had been intended to perfect 

a system of fireships and underwater coast defense 

mines which could be fired by conventional artillery 

fuses. Colonel Fitstum, whose difficulties with sodden 

fuses had led him to propose galvanic ignition, had 

suffered the misfortune of having his project and 

indeed his considerable experimentation costs summarily rejected in 1810 by an unsympathetic Marine 

Ministry in St. Petersburg. Shortly after Schilling's 

death in 1837, the Baron's pioneering efforts in galvanic mine development were reviewed at the 

Imperial Academy of Sciences by a young Prussian 

emigre, Moritz Hermann von Jacobi, who two years 

later was appointed by Nicholas I as scientific leader 

of a joint services Committee on Underwater Experiments, a working group destined to carry through a 

sustained program of galvanic mine development 

during the fifteen years prior to the onset of the 

Crimean War.13 

The vital importance of sustained institutional 

support for such developments in military technology 

was to be strikingly demonstrated both in Europe and 

the United States during the half decade from 1839 

to 1844. While Professor Jacobi and a small corps of 

sapeurs galvaniques experimented with increasingly 

sophisticated prototypes of observation and contact 

mines at St. Petersburg, the Corps of Royal Sappers 

and Miners of the British Army, operating from 

Figure 5.—COLONEL COMMANDANT CHARLE S WILLIAM 

PASLEY, 1780-1861. A notable figure in the development 

of British military engineering, Pasley was born at Dumfries, 

Scotland, and entered the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich in 1796. Following commissioning in the Corps of Royal 

Engineers in 1799, he served in the Mediterranean and in 

1807 took part in the siege of Copenhagen. After service in 

the Peninsular Campaign under Sir John Moore, Captain 

Pasley participated in the Walcheren Expedition and was 

severely wounded at the siege of Flushing in 1809. 

During his recovery, Pasley wrote and published the first 

edition of his influential Essay on the Military Policy and 

Institutions of the British Empire (1810), a trenchant appeal 

for greater energy in accomplishing the downfall of Napoleon. 

Major Pasley was supported by the Duke of Wellington in 

his advocacy of more thoroughly professional training of 

British military engineers and in 1812 was appointed Director of the Royal Engineer's Institution for Field Instruction 

at Chatham. As Colonel Commandant of the Corps of Royal 

Sappers and Miners, he steadily enlarged the program of 

instruction, contributing himself numerous professional publications including his classic Practical Operations of a Siege 

(1829). A member of the Royal Society since 1816, Pasley 

was an early advocate of the decimal system in England, was 

appointed Inspector General of Railways in 1841, and three 

years later received an honorary doctorate from Oxford. 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Figure 6.—SIR CHARLES WHEATSTONE, 1802-1875. A 

principal developer of the practical telegraph, Wheatstone 

was one of a notable series of European scientists whose 

contributions to the development of telegraphy were applied 

to the galvanic detonation of explosives under water. Following publication of his study on harmonic motion in the 

Transactions of the Royal Society of London in 1833, he 

made pioneering contributions to the study of optics and 

light, including the principle of the stereoscope and of the 

prismatic analysis of electric light. 

Shortly after assuming the Professorship of Experimental 

Philosophy at King's College, London, in 1834, Wheatstone 

undertook extensive experiments on the rate of transmission 

of electricity through copper wire. In association with William Fothergill Cooke, he subsequently investigated the 

transmission of messages by electricity and developed the 

five-needle telegraph. Wheatstone was knighted in 1868 and 

at his death bequeathed his instruments and library to King's 

College, where they are preserved in the Wheatstone 

Laboratory. 

Chatham under Colonel Commandant Charles 

William Pasley (Figure 5), had in August 1839 undertaken the removal of the wreck of the 100-gun 

ship-of-the-line Royal George, which had sunk off 

Portsmouth in 1782. Colonel Pasley, who recognized 

in this difficult salvage operation an excellent training 

exercise for his Corps, had earlier directed the 

removal of two sunken merchantmen, the William 

and the Glenmorgan, from the Gravesend Reach on 

the Thames, demolishing them with large submerged 

charges fired by artillery fuses.14 The idea of employing electricity to detonate these waterproofed charges 

first struck Pasley in reading London newspaper 

accounts of an ordnance accident that had occurred 

near St. Petersburg in the fall of 1837, when Tsar 

Nicholas I had narrowly escaped death from fragments of a bridge demolished by a mine fired by 

voltaic battery. Colonel Pasley thereupon sought the 

advice of Charles Wheatstone (Figure 6), Michael 

Faraday, and John Frederic Daniell, three of Britain's 

most distinguished galvanic scientists, regarding the 

feasibility of firing submerged charges by means of 

electricity. Wheatstone, a fellow member of the Royal 

Society, had carried out numerous experiments on the 

conduction of electricity through copper wire and had 

developed a five-needle telegraph in collaboration 

with William Fothergill Cooke. At Wheatstone's suggestion, Pasley employed Daniell's new voltaic cell as 

his power source.15 The ensuing removal of the Royal 

George, which engaged the Chatham engineers for 

six instructive working seasons, proved a milestone in 

the development of modern marine salvage and witnessed the successful employment of August Siebe's 

closed diving suit with its copper helmet and weighted 

shoes. Colonel Pasley's galvanic equipment, which 

included insulated copper cables and platinum filament detonators, received international attention in 

scientific and military journals of the day, stimulating 

renewed interest in both Russia and the United States 

in serious efforts to apply the growing elements of 

galvanic technology to undersea mine warfare.16 

Meanwhile British military engineers had experimented both in India and Bermuda with further 

applications of electrical demolition systems to marine 

salvage operations.17 
The Genesis of Colts Submarine Battery 

My experiment in the Medway was with a very small charge only, as I do not 

choose to invite spectators to an exhibition with any chance of failure. 

COLONEL CHARLES WILLIAM PASLEY, R. E., t o 

MICHAEL FARADAY, CHATHAM, 9 FEBRUARY 18 3 9 

Early contributions to the technology of undersea" 

warfare offered by private entrepreneurs, normally 

conceived outside of military establishments, often 

met undisguised official hostility. The difficulties 

encountered by Robert Fulton in seeking government 

support in France, Great Britain, and the United 

States for sustained development of his torpedo warfare systems (Figure 7) stemmed from both frank 

skepticism and genuine apprehension among experienced naval officers, who recognized therein an ultimate threat to their squadrons of wooden-walled 

warships, the traditional basis of sea power.18 Fulton 

was not the last American inventor to be confounded 

by professional criticism and the absence of national 

institutions prepared to nurture such unusual and 

patently commercial enterprises. 

Some three decades later another enterprising 

Yankee, Samuel Colt of Hartford, (Figure 8) found 

himself similarly frustrated in his efforts to secure 

government adoption of his novel system of galvanic 

mine warfare, at that juncture by both established 

scientists and military engineers. The latter were 

currently committed to the completion of a comprehensive national program of coastal fortifications, 

erected upon the ruins of more haphazardly conceived 

Colonial and post-Revolutionary systems. DevelopFigure 7.—DESTRUCTION OF THE BRIG Dorothea OFF WALMER, ENGLAND, ON 15 OCTOBER 1805 BY A "TORPEDO". 

This plate from Robert Fulton's treatise on Torpedo Warfare (1810) strikingly indicates the model for Samuel Colt's 

dramatic demonstrations of his Submarine Battery at New 

York and Washington in 1842 and 1844. This and other 

illustrations from Fulton's pamphlet were reproduced in 1834 

in the first volume of the American State Papers: Naval 

Affairs, to which Colt specifically referred in his letter to 

President John Tyler on 19 June 1841. 

ment of that Third System had received strong 

Congressional support following the War of 1812, 

which had witnessed the burning of the nation's 

weakly defended capital. This Third System of coastal 

fortifications had been projected as the central element of that comprehensive national defense establishment proposed in 1821 by a military board headed by 

Brigadier General Simon Bernard, USA, an experienced French military engineer who had emigrated to 

the United States following extensive service under 

Napoleon on the Continent.19 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Figure 8.—SAMUEL COLT, 1814-1862. A notable entrepreneur of mid-nineteenth century New England, Colt was 

the son of a Hartford textile manufacturer who suffered 

severe reverses during the Panic of 1819. Following apprenticeship in his father's dyeing establishment at Ware, Massachusetts, young Sam attended Amherst Academy before 

going to sea in 1830. Returning from India with a wooden 

model of his celebrated revolver, he forwarded its preliminary 

description to the Patent Office in 1832. Four years later, 

after securing patents in England and France, Colt obtained 

his first American patent, and at the age of twenty-two 

became a partner in the Patent Arms Manufacturing Company of Paterson, New Jersey. 

Substantial government arms contracts eluded Colt, owing 

to unfavorable proving-ground reports, and in 1842 the 

Paterson firm collapsed. During the ensuing half decade, 

the young inventor turned his attention to submarine telegraphy, providing assistance—principally in the development 

of insulated electrical cable—to Samuel F.B. Morse during his 

historic experiments at New York and Washington. In addition to making this pioneering contribution, Colt sought 

governmental adoption of his tinfoil cartridges and of his 

long-obscure "Submarine Battery." At the outset of the 

Mexican War, Colt undertook production of an improved 

revolver, initially at Whitneyville, near New Haven, and 

from 1847 at Hartford, where he established a world-renowned 

armory, whose efficient management, machine tool equipment 

and enlightened employee relations made it a notable model 

of mid-nineteenth century American enterprise. 

Architectually characterized by the employment of 

massive casemated fortifications situated to command 

the approaches to selected naval anchorages and 

important shipping entrepots, the Third System was 

already well advanced by 1829, when the inventive 

Colt, then a lad of fourteen, first investigated the 

possibilities of firing explosive charges under water 

as the basis for what he later and most imprudently 

was to advocate as a more economical system of 

coastal defense. As Colt ultimately affirmed to Congress in an account of the development of his system 

of mine warfare: 

The idea of Submarine explosions for the purposes of 

Harbour defence was conceived by me as early as the year 

1829 while stud [y]ing in the laboratory of a bleeching and 

colouring establishment at Ware Vilage Massachusetts, and 

I made sundry experiments on a small scale at that time and 

repeated them in various ways for several successive years 

thereafter.20 

Although based on the recollections of Colt's earliest professional associate, the noted New England 

mechanic Elisha K. Root, precise information on the 

youthful inventor's "sundry experiments" is lacking. 

Evidently on the basis of close study of a popular 

compendium of knowledge that contained articles on 

galvanic batteries and the formulation of gunpowder, 

Sam Colt tried a hand at developing explosive compounds by testing various mixtures of charcoal, nitre, 

and sulphur, a hazardous venture not dissimilar to 

Immanuel Nobel's risky early experiments at Stockholm. Colt's gunpowder trials, by no means unusual 

in themselves, led him to consider the problem of 

detonating explosives under water, which he initially 

solved by means of galvanic current communicated 

from a simple battery (or possibly a Leyden jar) 

through a tarred copper wire. His initial demonstration at Ware Pond, long remembered in that neighborhood, was attempted on the Fourth of July 1829, as 

Root recalled years later: 

It had been noised around that a youngster—one Sam. 

Colt—would blow up a raft on the pond that day, and 

so I with other apprentices of the neighborhood walked some 

way to see the sight. An explosion was produced, but the 

raft was by no means blown sky-high. Yet, curious regarding 

the boy's explosive contrivances, I then and there made his 

acquaintance.21 

The irate villagers, thoroughly drenched as Colt's 

crude device erupted near rather than under the raft, 

failed to share Root's dim awareness that a significant 

technical feat had been achieved. Stung by the jibes 
NUMBER 2 9 

of his onlookers, Colt derived from this youthful 

venture a burning appreciation of the importance of 

accurate target location, a feature notably characteristic of his later mine warfare proposals. Although 

increasingly involved thereafter in fashioning the 

revolving-cylinder firearm that he patented in 1836, 

this budding Yankee entrepreneur retained a strong 

theatrical flair—supporting his early arms experimentation by touring the Eastern seaboard as the celebrated "Dr. Coult," demonstrating the amusing effects 

of nitrous oxide or "laughing gas"—as well as a 

lively interest in ultimately creating a galvanic system 

capable of detonating submerged charges with precision, in the immediate vicinity of selected moving 

target vessels.

 22 

Samuel Colt's notion of employing electric current 

to fire explosive or flammable substances was by no 

means unique, even in the United States—a fact that 

was to loom large in the ultimate frustration of his 

matured mine warfare proposals. As early as 1820, 

Robert Hare (Figure 9), recently appointed Professor 

of Chemistry at the University of Pennsylvania, had 

described in Benjamin Silliman's American Journal of 

Science and Arts a method of igniting flammable gases 

contained in a eudiometrical apparatus (Figure 10) 

by means of a "calorimotor," a galvanic battery of 

the plunge type (Figure 11) that he had devised 

containing twenty-two alternate plates of zinc and 

copper (Figure 12).23 Although the Philadelphian's 

original purpose with this arrangement had been to 

analyze various gaseous mixtures, he subsequently 

became interested in applying electric current more 

practically to the hazardous business of rock blasting, 

then the cause of numerous fatal accidents. In 1831 

Professor Hare received a request from Moses Shaw, 

a New York inventor and entrepreneur, for assistance 

in devising a safer method of blasting by means of 

galvanic current discharged from a Leyden jar. This 

cumbersome method of providing an igniting spark 

to fulminating powder poured into rock crevasses had 

proven unsatisfactory in wet weather, leading Hare to 

propose a firing system employing his calorimotor: 

It occurred to me, as soon as this statement was made by 

Mr. Shaw, that the ignition of gunpowder, for the purpose 

he had in view, might be effected by a galvanic discharge 

from a deflagrator, or calorimotor, in a mode which I have 

long used in my eudiometrical experiments to ignite explosive 

gaseous mixtures. This process is free from the uncertainty, 

which is always more or less attendant upon the employment 

of mechanical electricity, for similar purposes.24 

Figure 9.—ROBERT HARE, 1781-1858. The son of a successful Philadelphia brewer, Hare learned the scientific 

method as a student of James Woodhouse at the University 

of Pennsylvania. His inventive bent became apparent as early 

as 1801, when he described to the Chemical Society of 

Philadelphia his oxyhydrogen blowpipe, a device that generated intense heat for experimental purposes. Elected to the 

American Philosophical Society in 1803, Hare was awarded 

the degree of Doctor of Medicine by Yale University three 

years later and was, in 1818, appointed Professor of Chemistry at the University of Pennsylvania. A pioneer of physical 

chemistry, Hare, in 1827, published his Compendium of 

Chemistry, the first substantially illustrated American text 

on chemistry, which significantly influenced the subsequent 

works of his friend Benjamin Silliman of Yale. Hare's invention of the calorimotor in 1819 reflected this early American 

chemist's preoccupation with electrical phenomena. As his 

biographer observed, "Caloric, light and electricity were the 

agents to which Hare was constantly exposing chemical substances." In addition to some 150 papers for Silliman's 

American Journal of Science and Arts, Hare published 

extended essays on "The Origin and Progress of Galvanism, 

or Voltaic Electricity" and "On Electro-Magnetism," which 

were incorporated in the fourth edition of the Compendium 

of Chemistry (1840), which appeared on the eve of his 

fruitful trans-Atlantic correspondence with Michael Faraday. 
10 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

^uoomye. MmmomsmiMmwmmmMMvasm 

Figure 10.—ROBERT HARE'S EUDIOMETRICAL APPARATUS. fitted with an incandescent wire. Current to heat this filament 

Two early types of calibrated glass-tube eudiometers (see was generated by a plunge-type battery or calorimotor (sketch 

sketches 1 and 2) designed to introduce measured quantities 5), which was fitted in a cistern (AA in sketch 4), being 

of flammable gas into a glass combustion bulb (n) that was located adjacent (beneath C) to the gasometer (G). 
NUMBER 2 9 11 

Following extensive experimentation, during which 

he constructed a plunge-type "galvanic machine " 

tha t contained sixteen zinc an d twenty copper 

plates, Har e reported in 1833 in the Journal of the 

Franklin Institute: 

I have ignited as many as twelve charges of gunpowder at 

the distance of one hundred and thirty feet, from the galvanic machine employed. This distance is much greater than 

is necessary to the safety of the operator, as the deflagrator 

may be shielded so as not to be injured by the explosion, and 

by means of levers and pulleys it may be made to act at any 

distance which may be preferred.25 

Scarcely less important tha n the galvanic machine 

incorporated in Hare's rock blasting system was a 

tubula r firing device tha t he fashioned for detonating 

individual charges sealed in selected crevasses or drill 

holes. Consisting of a cylinder of tinned iron fitted 

with ignition wire an d a wooden plug packed with 

fulminating powder, this simple galvanic fuse suggested additional applications to Hare , who observed: 

" It must be obvious tha t in all cases of blasting unde r 

water, the plan of a tin tube, an d ignition by a galvanic circuit, must be very eligible."

 26

 In concluding 

his remarkable essay on the employment of galvanic 

current for rock blasting, this pioneer of American 

experimental chemistry foresaw practical military 

applications as well: 

It can scarcely be necessary to point out that the method 

of communicating ignition described here for the purpose of 

rock-blasting, may be applied as the means of exploding a 

mine. As, for instance, the mines associated with the fortifications erecting near Newport, as a. part of the means of 

annoyance, might have a communication through copper 

wires, with a galvanic apparatus, in those situations to which 

the besieged might be expected to retire; putting it thus 

completely in the power of the commanding officer to select 

the time for the explosion when its effects would be most 

serviceable.27 

Har e appears to have been misinformed regarding 

the Army's intentions of employing sea or land mines 

at Newport, Rhod e Island, during the thirties. Work 

h a d steadily progressed there since 1824 on the construction of massively casemated Fort Adams, but 

Figure 11.—HARE'S "AQUEOUS, SLIDING-ROD, HYDRO-OXYGEN 

EUDIOMETER" (replica). Reconstructed on the basis of 

fragmentary original portions of Hare's eudiometer in the 

Robert Hare Collection, Division of Physical Sciences, The 

National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian 

Institution. This instrument included a copper filament connecting the poles within the glass combustion chamber. 

Figure 12.—ROBERT HARE'S CALORIMOTOR. This plungetype galvanic battery, part of a collection deposited by Hare 

in the nascent Smithsonian Institution in 1847 following his 

retirement, was among the earliest specimens of "philosophical apparatus" secured by Joseph Henry for that national 

institution. Substantially similar to the calorimotor that Hare 

had described in the American Journal of Science and Arts 

in 1819, this galvanic device was notable in that all copper 

plates were connected and all zinc plates were similarly 

connected, thus in effect creating one large pair of electrodes, "instead of multiplying the pairs of galvanic plates." 

Like earlier plunge-type batteries devised by William Pepys, 

C.H. Wilkinson, and Humphry Davy in England, Hare's 

calorimotor had the advantage of limiting corrosion of the 

plates to the period of actual immersion in the electrolyte. 

Its subsequent employment by Hare for rock blasting during 

1831-33 received substantial attention in American scientific 

circles. 
12 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

official correspondence of the Corps of Engineers and 

surviving plans of those works reveal no provision for 

minefields, with or without galvanic control. The 

letterbooks of Colonel Joseph G. Totten, U.S. Engineers, who had his headquarters at Fort Adams for 

more than a decade while supervising the construction 

of fortifications in New England and on the Northern 

Lakes, contain no allusion to utilizing mines at any 

of those sites as auxiliary means of defense. It may be 

noted, however, that on 15 May 1832, Colonel Totten 

had written to Major General Joseph G. Swift, former 

Chief of the Corps of Engineers, regarding rock blasting that had been conducted at Newport during the 

construction of Fort Adams. After describing safety 

procedures and the use of steel drills and blasting 

cartridges, Totten observed that "the electrical spark 

may be useful in obtaining very long blocks of stone, 

either to be used in mass or to be regularly split up 

for building stones—but will never, I think, be substituted for the present mode in common operations. . . ."

 28

 Tha t the requisite technology for 

introducing a system of sea mines was present at 

Newport is obvious; but evidence of an intent to 

employ such auxiliary ordnance is clearly lacking. 

Robert Hare's conception during 1833 of utilizing 

sea mines in conjunction with coastal fortifications 

nevertheless proved strikingly prophetic of those complex coastal defense systems that evolved in Europe 

and the United States during the latter half of the 

nineteenth century, largely under the control, it 

should be emphasized, of military engineers of the 

respective nations. That the United States did not, 

as in the case of Russia, integrate observation mines 

with its Third System of coastal fortifications during 

the two decades prior to the Civil War appears to 

stem in no small part from the fact that Samuel Colt, 

as principal American proponent of galvanic harbor 

mines in that era, represented their utility in a manner 

that antagonized those military officials charged with 

long-range development of the nation's system of 

coastal fortifications, a system then approaching the 

climax of its technical development. 

For the remainder of the thirties, the fledgling 

Yankee entrepreneur found himself heavily engaged 

in promoting the manufacture and sale of his remarkable revolver and similarly designed repeating rifles. 

Following incorporation of the Patent Arms Manufacturing Company at Paterson. New Jersey, in 1836, 

Colt repeatedly visited Washington in high hope of 

securing substantial contracts from the War and Navy 

Departments. His Congressional lobbying efforts, 

which established Colt's reputation in the capital as 

an unstinting host, nevertheless met with studied 

official reserve. Limited numbers of Paterson-built 

revolvers and carbines were purchased by the 

embattled Republic of Texas toward the close of the 

decade, but orders from the United States Army 

proved so disappointing, following unfavorable evaluation of Colt's weapons by the Ordnance Board, 

that the Patent Arms establishment collapsed early in 

1842. By that juncture, Colt was also directing his 

restless energies to the development of waterproof 

tinfoil cartridges—a venture which convinced the 

inventor that he had little prospect of receiving effective cooperation from the Ordnance Board—and 

submarine mines, the latter destined to lead him 

briefly into the field of commercial telegraphy, in 

collaboration with Samuel F. B. Morse.29 

Samuel Colt's renewed involvement in the development: of mine warfare materiel was by no means 

attributable to the failure of the Paterson venture. As 

early as 1836, during a period of deteriorating FrancoAmerican relations, the 21-year-old inventor's 

imagination had been roused by President Andrew 

Jackson's vigorous measures to strengthen the nation's 

naval establishment and coastal defenses. During 

July, while yet engaged in setting up revolver production at Paterson, Colt had sketched a scheme for 

tracking the movements of a man-of-war through a 

river minefield by means of visual cross-bearings 

coordinated by two shore observers (Figure 13). 

Although undocumented, aside from the notation 

"Paterson 4 July 1836," this simple conceptual drawing indicates Colt's renewed preoccupation with the 

problem, embarrassingly revealed in his Ware Pond 

experiment, of detonating observation mines only 

when the target vessel was in their immediate vicinity. 

It was in this pioneering consideration of methods of 

accurate minefield surveillance that Colt was to make 

his greatest, albeit virtually unknown, contribution to 

the evolution of modern undersea warfare. As would 

later become apparent, Colt's initial two-observer 

conception foreshadowed the observation mine system 

devised for the defense of Kiel harbor on the Western 

Baltic in 1848 by Werner von Siemens, a scientifically 

talented young Prussian artillerist (Figure 14) .

30 

Colt's imagination soon carried him beyond this 

classic two-observer scheme, however, for in 1836 he 

also draughted some "first thorts" on his celebrated 

and secrecy-enshrouded "Submarine Batary," a 
NUMBE R 2 9 13 

Figure 13.—SAMUEL COLT'S INITIAL CONCEPTION OF A TWOOBSERVE R MINEFIELD, DRAWN AT PATERSON, NEW JERSEY, 

4 JULY 1836. This two-observer system for controlling a 

river minefield involved the employment of prearranged 

multiple sighting lines laid to intersect at the location of 

individual mine cases. What solution Colt envisaged for 

communication between the observers is not evident either 

in this sketch or in his patent application for the Submarine 

Battery in 1844, which cited [see Appendix 12] the twoobserver system as an alternate means of achieving accurate 

control of the detonations. He appears to have contemplated 

a field of 16 to 29 mines, perhaps with the Passaic River, 

flowing past the Paterson factory, as the basis of his 

conception. 

Figure 14.—WERNER VON SIEMENS, 1819-1892. Born near 

Hanover, this notable German inventor joined the Prussian 

Army in 1838, following graduation from the Royal Artillery 

and Engineer School in Berlin. During early duty as an artillerist, he exhibited strong proclivities for scientific experimentation with explosives. 

By the mid-forties, European governments had become 

actively interested in the success of Charles Wheatstone 

and William F. Cooke in demonstrating the feasibility of 

commercial and, by implication, military telegraphy. In 1846, 

von Siemens was appointed to a Royal Commission created 

to establish an underground telegraph system in Prussia. 

Through the suggestion of his elder brother Wilhelm, he 

became aware of the insulating properties of gutta percha, 

and in 1847 he directed the successful completion of an 

experimental telegraph line in the Berlin suburbs. 

During the ensuing Schleswig-Holstein War in 1848, 

von Siemens collaborated with his brother-in-law, Professor Karl Himly of the University of Kiel, in designing 

and laying a field of galvanically controlled mines in the 

approaches to Kiel that effectively discouraged Danish naval 

bombardment of that seaport. Following these early achievements, von Siemens emerged rapidly as an international 

entrepreneur of telegraphic systems, completing numerous 

major lines in both Prussia and Russia and ultimately attaining stature as a giant of early German scientific industry. 
14 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

I 

£, 

^. 

K 

a • 11 i—&—&' 

-<, "*: 

Figure 15.—SAMUEL COLT'S "SUBMARINE BATARY" CONCEPTION, 1836. These "first thorts" include no visible 

indication of a galvanic element. Clearly evident is Colt's 

scheme for reflecting the image of his minefield, possibly 

buoyed as in later German practice, onto a control panel 

located in a "torpedo tower" overlooking the field. 

Figure 16.—OVERHEAD VIEW OF COLT'S SUBMARINE BATTERY (undated). Decorated with woodblock prints of merchantmen (cut from commercial journals), this overhead 

perspective of Colt's "torpedo tower" and adjacent river 

minefield clearly reveals the inventor's conception of a control panel studded with numerous metallic terminals connecting with individual mines. Located behind the control 

panel is an apparently globular mirror, mounted overhead to 

reflect an image of the entire field on the panel. 

/r^ 
NUMBER 2 9 15 

remarkably original single-observer system (Figure 

15) for precise visual control of extensive minefields, 

which he began cautiously promoting early in the 

forties. The most salient element of this novel conception was an enclosed "torpedo tower," a galvanic 

firing post very possibly of masonry construction. 

Within this shore observation post would be installed 

a ten-foot convex mirror, positioned above and behind 

the galvanic operator in order to reflect the image of 

an adjacent minefield onto the mirrored control 

grid before him.31 Embedded in this control panel, as 

suggested in Colt's later overhead perspective of the 

observation post and nearby river minefield, were 

envisaged numerous individual metallic terminals 

from several score anchored mines, each terminal 

being located upon the control grid's equivalent of its 

mine's watery position (Figure 16). As ultimately 

envisaged by Colt, his observer-operative, seated before 

the galvanic control panel (Figures 41 and 42), would 

be capable of triggering selected clusters of mines as 

a target ship's image moved across the minefield grid, 

by completing appropriate circuits with a lead from a 

battery located beneath the control panel. Central to 

the development of this conception was the inventor's 

determination to achieve accurate target location, a 

problem which European submarine ordnance specialists had not yet addressed. Inherent in Colt's singleand two-observer schemes however, was the weakness 

—those systems' ineffectiveness in darkness or fog— 

that would ultimately necessitate the incorporation of 

contact detonators in effective observation mine 

systems.32 
The Approach to the Congress 

The result of this course of experiments [at Chatham] may be of great importance, 

especially for defensive military mines, because the Voltaic battery affords the only 

possible means of firing several such mines, not only instantly but simultaneously ... . 

Army and Navy Chronicle, WASHINGTON, 

13 JUN E 1839 

Deteriorating Anglo-American relations early in 

1841, arising principally from the Maine boundary 

dispute, finally projected Samuel Colt into active 

advocacy of his novel system of coastal defense. Well 

aware of several rival schemes that emerged for 

Congressional consideration at this juncture, including Uriah Brown's fireship and John Webster 

Cochran's "multi-chambered bomb cannon," Colt had 

also been closely following the accounts of those 

galvanic demolitions conducted by the Royal Sappers 

and Miners during the salvage of the Royal George, 

published in the Army and Navy Chronicle (Figure 

17) .

33

 Being seriously overdrawn on his Paterson 

account, the inventor-entrepreneur recognized that 
NUMBER 2 9 

he was not in a position personally to finance the 

development of his Submarine Battery, and accordingly he journeyed to Washington early in June 1841. 

There he established himself at Fuller's Hotel, a 

Pennsylvania Avenue hostelry that was soon to be 

immortalized in the derisive prose of Charles Dickens. 

Having some fourteen months earlier been exasperated by the manner in which a trial lot of his tinfoil 

cartridges had been fabricated at the Washington 

Arsenal, Colt deliberately avoided approaching the 

government through the Army Ordnance Office, 

which customarily conducted trials of weapons systems 

offered for official consideration.34 

Initially, Colt disclosed the details of his mine warfare system to Senator Samuel L. Southard of New 

Jersey (Figure 18), previously Secretary of the Navy 

under Presidents James Monroe and John Quincy 

Adams and currently occupying the strategic position 

of President of the Senate; and to Major William 

Gibbs McNeill, formerly of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Topographical Engineers. Southard, who had earlier 

brought his inventive constituent's repeating firearms 

to the attention of the Navy Department, was 

impressed by his claim that the Submarine Battery was 

capable of accurately mining a moving man-of-war 

from considerable distance by means of a galvanic 

impulse. Eschewing an approach via the Ordnance 

Office, Senator Southard thereupon wrote to President John Tyler directly in behalf of Colt's mechanical 

ingenuity. Encouraged by this well-placed support, 

Figure 17.—THE SALVAGE OF THE Royal George. In August 

1839, the Corps of Royal Sappers and Miners of the British 

Army, under the direction of Colonel Commandant Charles 

William Pasley, undertook the removal of the wreck of the 

100-gun Royal George, which had sunk at Spithead in 1782, 

seriously obstructing the approaches to Portsmouth. Based 

on the frigate hulk Success, this extended training operation 

marked the beginning of modern marine salvage. Utilizing 

two "lumps" moored over the wreck as diving platforms, 

two rival teams of salvagers outfitted in Siebe's steel-helmeted 

diving suits methodically dismantled this dangerous hulk. 

Operations were periodically punctuated by the galvanic 

detonation of demolition charges ranging from 45 to 2320 

pounds of gunpowder. Concluded in 1844, the salvage of 

the Royal George was wholly funded by the sale of her 

guns and other artifacts at public auction. Meanwhile, as 

early as December 1839, Pasley's system of galvanic demolitions had been employed in clearing the wreck of the barque 

Equitable from the river approaches to Calcutta, half way 

round the world. 

Figure 18.—SAMUEL LEWIS SOUTHARD, 1787-1842. This 

veteran Whig jurist graduated from the College of New Jersey 

in 1804, studied law at Fredericksburg, served as a county 

prosecutor in Virginia, and in 1815 had been appointed an 

associate justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court. In 1820, 

following the election of his friend, James Monroe, Southard 

received an interim appointment to the United States Senate, 

where he subsequently played a significant role in the drafting 

of the Missouri Compromise. 

Judge Southard's appointment in 1823 as Secretary of the 

Navy began a vigorous and progressive administration of 

that Department that was continued under Monroe's successor, President John Quincy Adams. A strong advocate 

of a comprehensive naval criminal code, Southard played 

a pioneering role in identifying the Navy's long-range institutional needs and sought practical measures for reform of the 

sea services. In 1825 Secretary Southard launched a. longrange program for improvement of the Navy's shore establishment, particularly its shipyards. In addition to establishing the first naval hospitals, he promoted construction of 

the Navy's first dry docks, at Boston and Norfolk. Many of 

Southard's proposals, such as the founding of a naval academy, organization of a naval exploring expedition, and 

re-establishment of the National Coast Survey, came to 

fruition following the Jacksonian avalanche that temporarily 

swept him from office in 1829. 

Returning to law practice in Trenton, Southard won the 

Governorship in 1832 and subsequently campaigned successfully for the United States Senate. While serving as president of the Senate in 1841—42, Southard took an interest 

in Samuel Colt's Submarine Battery proposals. Fully appreciative of the Navy's role in the nation's coastal defense 

program—having early advocated the construction of steam 

warships for harbor defense—Southard quite evidently failed 

to impress upon his enterprising constituent the wisdom of 

advocating his mine warfare system as an auxiliary element 

in the nation's total defense system. With Southard's death 

on 2 May 1842 Colt lost his most potent political support. 
18 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Colt thereupon wrote to the White House on 19 June, 

informing the Chief Executive (see also Appendix 

1) that 

for more than five years past I have employed my leisure, in 

study & experiment, to perfect the invention of which I now 

consider myself master; & which if adopted for the service of 

our Government, will not only save them millions outlay 

for the construction of means of defence, but in the event 

of foreign war, it will prove a perfect safeguard against all 

the combined fleets of Europe, without exposing the life of 

our citizens.35 

I n advancing this argumen t for the economy of his 

system of coastal defense, Colt invited the President's 

attention to the publication in 1834, in the first volume of the American State Papers: Naval Affairs, 

of Robert Fulton's mine warfare experiments at New 

York in 1810, demonstrating the destructive effect 

of torpedoes detonated beneath wooden vessels.36 

"That discovery," Colt confided to the President, 

"laid the foundation for my present plan of harbour 

defence . . . ."37 Although cautious in adverting to the 

unique character of his own system, the inventor was 

by no means restrained in describing its potential 

effectiveness: 

Discoveries since Fulton's time combined with an invention original with myself, enable me to effect the instant 

destruction of either Ships, or Steamers, at my pleasure on 

their entering a harbour, whether singly or in whole fleets; 

while those vessels to which I am disposed to allow a passage, 

are secure from a possibility of being injured. All this I can 

do in perfect security, & without giving an invading enemy 

the slightest sign of his danger. 

The whole expense of protecting a Harbour like that of 

New York, would be less then [than] the cost of a single 

steam ship, & when once prepared, one single man is sufficient to manage the destroying agent against any fleet that 

Europe can send.38 

By way of proof, Colt proposed a demonstration of 

his system before the Cabinet, requesting an appropriation of $20,000 to cover his expenses and, in the 

event of successful completion of the experiment, 

payment of an unspecified annuity "as a premium 

for my secret." This candidly commercial proposal 

won no early response from the White House, for 

Tyler, having but recently ascended to the Presidency 

following the death of William Henry Harrison, was 

deeply preoccupied with the problem of reaching an 

understanding with Henry Clay and the Whig 

majority in Congress on the re-establishment of a 

sound national fiscal policy. It was in these circumstances that Colt, through the assistance of Senator 

Southard, an active Clay supporter, finally secured a 

brief interview with the President and Secretary of 

the Navy George E. Badger, to whom the inventor 

subsequently divulged the essential details of his 

Submarine Battery. The Tyler administration, having 

inherited an unprecedented national debt and an 

unbalanced budget, was in no mood for major expenditures on unproven systems of defense, indeed being 

obliged during 1841 to suspend the pay of both the 

military and the civil service on several occasions. 

Thus, although evidently intrigued by Colt's scheme, 

Secretary Badger rejected his suggestion that adequate 

trials might be financed by resort to Navy Department 

contingency funds.39 

While Southard undertook to provide for the 

experiment in forthcoming naval appropriations, 

Colt now seriously considered an attractive alternative 

—the proposal by members of a Russian naval commission then studying naval technology in the United 

States that he place his inventive talents at the service 

of Tsar Nicholas I. The Russian ambassador, Count 

Alexander de Bodisco, had earlier evinced considerable interest in Colt's repeating arms. That the 

Russian commission, headed by Captain Ivan Ivanovich von Schantz,40

 may have been interested in more 

than revolvers and carbines was indirectly suggested 

when, on 8 July 1841, the 26-year-old inventor 

pointedly advised Southard that 

I have had an invitation to go to Russia in the Steam Ship 

of War [steam frigate Kamchatka], built here for the Russian 

Government. This Steamer will sail about the middle of next 

month, and should I not meet with satisfactory encouragement from our Government, I shall avail myself of this 

favorable opportunity to go Abroad: therefore it is of vast 

importance that my case should be immediately decided, 

that unless some inducement should be offered for me to 

remain at home, I shall at once be enabled to commence 

preparations for my departure. 

While such candor had by no means a disarming 

effect, it was scarcely a unique approach in that 

speculative era. In the summer of 1834, the British 

government had been confronted by a somewhat 

similar proposition in the form of "Warner's 

Destroyer," an ephemeral underwater ordnance 

scheme alleged by its inventor, Samuel A. Warner, to 

be capable of destroying any fleet and rendering 

modern fortifications obsolete. With notably ill grace, 

Warner threatened in 1841 to make his invention 

public if his demands in the amount of £400,000 for 

purchase of the patent were not met. As for Samuel 

Colt, he was characteristically direct in appealing 

anew to his Senator: 
NUMBER 2 9 19 

I wish you to converse with the President, the Secretary of 

the Navy and the Chairman of the Naval Committee of the 

House of Representatives on the subject of my proposition 

for an exhibition of my Submarine Battery, and inform me 

what are my prospects of favor with our Government. 

It is my wish to give my own country the exclusive use of 

my discovery, and nothing but actual want will induce me 

to seek patronage from foreign Governments. 

If our Government will but accept my proposition or propose to me any terms that will enable me to obtain the means 

necessary to make the Exhibition I propose, I will decline the 

invitation I have received to go abroad.41 

Unknown to Samuel Colt and doubtless most 

military authorities in Western Europe, Russia was 

indeed already well advanced in the application of 

galvanic technology to undersea warfare. In October 

1839, a Russian armed services Committee on Underwater Experiments had been established at St. Petersburg and, under the direction of Professor Moritz 

von Jacobi (Figure 19), a distinguished member of 

the Imperial Academy of Sciences, had begun a 

sustained program of sea mine development. Perhaps 

spurred by Colonel Charles William Pasley's widely 

reported galvanic demolitions in England, that committee had as early as 1843 evolved systems of 

remarkably sophisticated electrical contact mines, as 

well as of independent "pyrotechnic" mines fired by 

chemical contact devices. The former observation 

mine system, destined to be extensively deployed for 

the defense of Kronstadt during the Crimean War, 

involved the control of large minefields from inconspicuous command posts whose observers, as in Colt's 

scheme, might permit the passage of friendly vessels 

by disconnecting their batteries. 

The Russian mines, instantly lethal in darkness or 

fog, afforded round-the-clock deterrence. Unlike the 

American system, which involved selective firing of 

mine clusters from exposed observation posts, the 

Jacobi system encompassed scores of mines individually fitted with mercury "connecting devices" that 

permitted the closure of each mine's firing circuit only 

on its being struck by a passing vessel.42 Under such 

circumstances, it is doubtful that Samuel Colt's 

Submarine Battery would have significantly altered 

the course of Russian mine warfare development. 

Aside from the capability of initiating mine explosions 

for deterrent effect, the American's system offered 

little of an innovative character with relation to those 

being developed at St. Petersburg. 

Unlike his Swedish contemporary, Immanuel 

Nobel, the Yankee entrepreneur was not destined to 

establish himself on the banks of the Neva.43 Through 

the continued efforts of Senator Southard, the naval 

appropriation bill submitted to Congress early in the 

fall of 1841 included the provision of $50,000 for 

naval ordnance development, an allocation understood by both Southard and Secretary Badger to 

Figure 19.—MORITZ HERMANN VON JACOBI, 1801-1874. 

Born at Potsdam, Prussia, Jacobi studied architecture at 

Gottingen and, following a brief practice in Konigsberg, 

became Professor of Architecture in 1835 at the University 

of Dorpat (Tartu), long a center of Germanic academic 

influence in Russia. Jacobi's scientific interests, stimulated 

by his study of J. Frederic Daniell's "constant" galvanic 

battery, led him to St. Petersburg two years later as a junior 

associate in the Imperial Academy of Sciences and subsequently resulted in his appointment as a regular member of 

the academy in 1847. 

In addition to numerous pioneering contributions to electro-mechanics, telegraphy, and metallurgy, Jacobi served for 

many years as member of the Council on Manufactures in 

the Russian Ministry of Finance. His notable contributions 

as scientific member of the armed services Committee of 

Underwater Experiments from 1839 to 1856 fairly qualify 

Academician Jacobi as the father of Russian mine-warfare 

technology. Being convinced of the necessity for maintaining absolute secrecy regarding his galvanic mine developments, he deliberately refrained from publishing scientific 

treatises on that subject. 
20 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

include planned experiments with the Submarine 

Battery. Unfortunately for Colt, this gentleman's 

agreement was suddenly vitiated by the dramatic 

resignation on 10 September of Tyler's entire Cabinet, 

excepting Secretary of State Daniel Webster, at the 

climax of mounting Whig outrage with the President's 

conservative fiscal policies.44 

Colt may not have initially grasped the implications 

of this violent political upheaval for early adoption of 

his mine warfare system, owing doubtless to his 

increasing preoccupation with a family tragedy 

involving the trial of his elder brother John for 

murder. While Sam hastened to New York for costly 

legal efforts in behalf of the accused, Major William 

Figure 20.—UNIVERSITY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 

Opened some three years after the University's founding in 

1832, the Gothic "old main'' on the east side of Washington 

Square was aptly described by Theodore Winthrop as "half 

college and half lodging house" in its early years. Artists, 

inventors, and literary figures not on the University staff 

soon moved into the upper floors, supplementing the young 

institution's slender financial resources. 

As Henry James later wrote, "The ideal of quiet and 

genteel retirement, in 1835, was found in Washington 

Square." Samuel Colt secured rooms in the University's 

south tower in 1841, soon making the acquaintance of both 

Morse and Professor John William Draper, a distinguished 

chemist and long a mainstay of the medical school. With 

their occasional assistance, Colt set up a modest laboratory 

and during 1842-44 conducted a series of materials tests 

for elements of his Submarine Battery, exchanging insulated 

cable with Morse and at times utilizing the Professor's own 

remarkable laboratory. 
NUMBER 2 9 21 

G. McNeill attempted unsuccessfully to secure a more 

active consideration of the Submarine Battery by 

Tyler's new Secretary of the Navy, Judge Abel P. 

Upshur, a Tidewater Virginian who well exemplified 

the fiscal conservatism of the second Tyler Cabinet.45 

The persuasive Colt, however, was not long to be 

denied. Returning to Washington midway in November 1841, the inventor provided Upshur an account of 

his previous experiments (Appendix 2), invited the 

Secretary's attention to Thomas Jefferson's littleknown benediction on Robert Fulton's earlier torpedo 

warfare proposals, and, finally securing an interview 

with Upshur, "went over with him the whole plans 

and secrets of my inventions which so far convinced 

him of their practicability that to remove the only 

remaining doubt he simply required me to make the 

single experiment of the blowing up of a vessel at a 

distance beyond the range of an enemy's shot."

 46 

While impressed by Colt's conception, Upshur provided him no carte blanche, offering no commitment 

regarding an eventual premium. He did, however, 

authorize a working advance of $6,000 for a sharply 

limited demonstration of the Submarine Battery 

principle, one that virtually eliminated the observation 

features of that system. More surprisingly, the Secretary did not submit Colt's proposal to the Board of 

Navy Commissioners for evaluation, a well-established 

advisory procedure that Upshur evidently felt constrained to waive, owing to the injunction of secrecy 

with which the inventor presented his case. For his 

part, Colt submitted no patent application at this 

juncture, most probably a reflection of both the relatively undeveloped state of the Submarine Battery 

idea and his determination to avoid an early critique 

of that system by military professionals. Even a modest 

advance from the Navy Department constituted 

official support for development of his conception, 

however, and the young manufacturer, characteristically grasping an advantage, gratuitously advised 

Upshur on 24 November: 

By stating in your annual report that Secret experiments are 

being made which may result in a Material change in our 

present System of Harbour & Coast Defence & that you will 

make a Special report of their Success for the information of 

Congress, at as early a period as possible, you will undoubtedly prepare them for an immediate and favourable action, 

whenever the matter is brought up for their decision.47 

At first glance, Colt had chosen wisely in not 

making his initial overtures to Congress by way of the 

War Department, whose Corps of Engineers was 

deeply committed to its massive program of coastal 

fortifications. Owing to his earlier disappointments 

at the hands of the Army Ordnance Office, Colt 

exercised exceptional caution in his subsequent relations with military professionals, prophetically and 

most revealingly warning Senator Southard regarding 

the nascent Submarine Battery that "if . . . the story is 

told or sufficient of it to excite the jealousy of the 

officers of the Army & Navy (particularly that portion 

of them that are exeld in putting togeather stone and 

morter) the invention will be still born into oblivion 

& what has been so well begun will neather proffit 

ourselves or be worth anything."

 48 

With Navy Department support formally confirmed 

on 25 November 1841, the inventor-entrepreneur 

moved rapidly to acquire additional financing from 

the private sector and began testing necessary elements 

of his galvanic mine warfare system in laboratories at 

the University of the City of New York (Figure 20), 

located at Washington Square.

 49

 Stock certificates for 

the "Submarine Battery Company," formed on 18 

December 1841, were printed to a capitalization of 

$100,000, and a handful of subscribers, including 

both Senator Southard and Major McNeill, were 

secured, thus adding an unmistakably speculative 

dimension to this governmentally sponsored venture.50 

In an effort to assure professional naval support, Colt 

thereupon initiated correspondence in behalf of 

McNeill's appointment as Chief Engineer of the Navy 

Department, a maneuver that was destined to prove 

unsuccessful. The Navy's steam engineers, currently 

involved in a crucial struggle to achieve full professional stature within the service, were about to 

secure Congressional reorganization of their Engineer 

Corps and succeeded methodically in frustrating 

McNeill's aspirations.51 
Experiments and Demonstrations 

Every thing on my part was conducted as privately as possible so much so that 

every reporter for [the New York] newspapers have as yet mistaken even the place 

I were stationed when I made the explosion. 

SAMUEL COLT TO SECRETARY OF THE NAVY ABEL P. UPSHUR, 

N EW YORK, 19 OCTOBER 18 4 2 

During the winter of 1841—42, Colt was engaged 

in the procurement, insulation and testing of several 

thousand feet of rolled copper wire, whose manufacture was undertaken at the Waterbury works of 

Philo Brown and John P. Elton.52 At this juncture 

Colt began consulting with his Washington Square 

neighbors, Professors John William Draper and 

Samuel F. B. Morse, the latter (Figure 21), then 

living in genteel poverty while perfecting his electromagnetic telegraph. From Draper, an able physicist, 

Colt learned the Hare system of galvanic detonation. 

Morse was particularly interested in Colt's efforts 

to secure insulated cable that was capable of transmitting electric current relatively undiminished for 

substantial distances.53 Morse's interest was doubtless 

particularly heightened in March 1842, when Colt 

reported to Secretary Upshur his success in firing a 

gunpowder charge some ten miles distant from his 

battery. 5 4 Th e subsequent active collaboration 

between these two inventors is well reflected in 

Morse's midyear letter to Professor Joseph Henry of 

the College of New Jersey at Princeton: 

During the last few months I have availed myself of the 

means which Mr. Samuel Colt has had at his command in 

experimenting with wire circuits for testing his submarine 

batteries; also to test some very important matters in relation 

to the Telegraph. I loaned him, in the first instance, my two 

reels of wire, which .. . is reduced to eight and a quarter 

miles ... . The experiments were highly satisfactory, the 

magnetism and the heating effects, which latter Mr. Colt 

desired, being apparently stronger when the wire was 

stretched out than when in coil. We also found that when 

one wire was coated, the other might be naked, and passed 

to any distance. 

This result induced Mr. Colt to contract for his purposes, 

for the purchase of forty miles of wire ... . Twenty miles 

have already been finished, and we have experimented with 

perfectly satisfactory results on this distance.55 

Notwithstanding preoccupation early in 1842 with 

the impending trial of John Colt, as well as his experiments at Washington Square, Sam took time to 

journey to New London, Stonington, and Mystic to 

investigate several intriguing leads on the attempts 

of an obscure Connecticut inventor, Silas Clowden 

Halsey, to conduct a torpedo attack against British 

warships blockading New London in 1814. Although 

interested enough to sketch out oral descriptions 

that he secured of Halsey's one-man submersible and 

towing torpedo,56 Colt was evidently even more 

anxious to document the motive for such lone 

ventures, which was found in emergency legislation 

enacted by Congress on 3 March 1813, offering 

rewards for the destruction of British blockading 

vessels. Adopted in a mood of revulsion following 

outrages committed by British amphibious forces at 

Hampton, Virginia, this legislation reflected a virtual 

bankruptcy of national military resources. 

Be it enacted, &c, That, during the present war with 

Great Britain, it shall be lawful for any persons to burn, 

sink, or destroy, any British armed vessel of war, except 

vessels coming as cartels or flags of truce; and for that purpose to use torpedoes, submarine instruments, or any other 

destructive machine whatever; and a bounty of one-half the 

value of the armed vessel so burnt, sunk, or destroyed, and 

also one-half the value of her guns, cargo, tackle, and 

apparel, shall be paid out of the Treasury of the United 

States to such person or persons who shall effect the same, 

otherwise than by the armed or commissioned vessels of the 

United States.57 

As Colt observed to Senator Southard on 13 February 

1842: "The fact of the government having to resort to 

private resources & contrivances at that time to destroy 

the enemy is I think a strong argument in favour of 

paying a liberal reward for my invention. . . ."

 58 

Press reports from Washington regarding Congres22 
NUMBER 29 23 

Figure 21.—SAMUEL FINLEY BREESE MORSE, 1791-1872. 

Born at Charlestown, Massachusetts, Morse graduated from 

Yale in 1810 and subsequently studied painting in London 

under Washington Allston. Returning to America in 1815, 

he achieved recognition as a portrait artist and served as 

first president of the National Academy of Design. Morse 

was appointed Professor of Sculpture and Painting at the 

young University of the City of New York in 1835, thereupon acquiring an apartment in that gothic landmark on 

the east side of Washington Square, where he subsequently 

developed the principal components of his electromagnetic 

recording telegraph. At Washington Square he designed both 

transmitting and receiving apparatus for his telegraph. 

Upon a suggestion by Leonard D. Gale, who collaborated in 

devising a signal code, Morse used Joseph Henry's multicell 

battery and intensity magnet in his telegraph receiver, thus 

permitting the transmission of messages through ten miles 

of wire wound about his laboratory. With Henry's encouragement, he devised an electromagnetic renewer or relay, which 

further extended his transmission capability, leading Morse 

to file a caveat for his system in 1837 at the United States 

Patent Office. Following a successful public trial of his telegraph at New York, the artist-inventor exhibited it at the 

Franklin Institute and in 1838 demonstrated its operation 

to the Cabinet of President Martin Van Buren. 

Although frustrated in his hopes for early Congressional 

appropriations to develop his system, Professor Morse doggedly continued his experiments for the next six years, 

until his triumphant demonstration of the telegraph at 

Washington in 1844. 
24 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Figure 22.—THE STEVENS BATTERY. Conceived by John 

Stevens, a pioneer of steam navigation and railways in the 

United States, this iron-clad harbor defense battery was 

authorized by Congressional act on 14 April 1842, appropriating an initial $250,000 for construction of "a war 

steamer, shot and shell proof, to be built principally of iron," 

in accordance with plans developed by Robert L. and Edwin 

A. Stevens, sons of its original proponent. Approved by a 

joint Coast Defense Board consisting of Commodore Charles 

Stewart, Captain Matthew C. Perry, Colonel Sylvanus 

Thayer, and Colonel Joseph G. Totten, this floating steam 

battery was originally designed to measure some 250 feet in 

length and be fitted with armor plating 4/2 inches thick. 

Ballistics tests against such armor conducted subsequently 

by the Swedish inventor John Ericsson severely shook official 

confidence in Washington, and it was not until 1854, when 

Robert L. Stevens had revised his project to encompass a 

sharp-lined vessel 420 feet long and with a 53-foot beam, 

that construction was begun. During the ensuing twenty 

months, Stevens expended $500,000 in government funds 

and $200,000 of his own fortune in an unsuccessful effort 

to finish plating this 6,000-ton vessel. 

Naval officials refused to invest government funds to finish 

the Stevens Battery's 654-inch armor during the Civil War, 

and although an additional $1,000,000 of the Stevens fortune was subsequently invested in the project, Congress 

refused in 1874 to authorize further funds for its completion. Scrapping of the Stevens Battery shortly thereafter 

closed a chapter in the early history of American iron-clad 

construction. 

-JX„ _ Q ..0 .Q . _ 

-r> o O" 

Figure 23.—COLT'S "SIPHON BATTERY," 1842. Drafted at 

the University of the City of New York in May 1842, this 

plan for a multicell battery appears to have envisaged an 

arrangement for raising and lowering plates into two electrolytes by means of geared wheels. Three years later, The 

Scientific American, in describing the more advanced Grove 

Battery, asserted that "this is the kind of battery that is used 

in producing the electro-magnetic action in Morse's Telegraph, and for the ignition of Colt's submarine explosive 

battery." Thus, although initially influenced by the plungetype arrangement embodied in Robert Hare's calorimotor, 

Colt appears subsequently to have followed Morse's decision 

to employ the Grove system (see Figure 30). 
NUMBER 2 9 25 

sional consideration of Robert L. Stevens' harbor 

defense battery further roused Colt, leading him to 

assert to Southard that "the original cost. . . will be 

more than the cost of protecting the port of New 

York on my plan against the Whole British Navy...."59 

The final passage of legislation appropriating $250,-

000 for the revolutionary iron-hulled Stevens Battery 

(Figure 22) proved particularly disturbing, for Colt's 

own hopes of demonstrating his Submarine Battery at 

Washington in May 1842 were frustrated by the 

evident incapacity of his Leyden jars to provide 

current sufficient for more than a single mine detonation. This lead him to dispatch an urgent requisition 

to Brown and Elton for "250 plates of Zinc four & 

a half inches wide, twelve & a half inches long and 

one eighth of an inch thick."60 Described by Colt as 

"siphon batteries" (Figure 23), the voltage sources 

constructed by the inventor for his ensuing experiment 

appear to have been of a multicell, plunge type, 

possibly incorporating the constant voltage characteristics of J. Frederic DanielPs two-electrolyte cell, 

which, as adapted in 1838 by William R. Grove, was 

subsequently to be employed by Samuel F. B. Morse in 

his telegraph experiments.61 

Continued delays in the delivery of various elements 

of the Submarine Battery proved disquieting for both 

Colt and the Navy Department, obliging Secretary 

Upshur to suspend further warrants to his account 

in the spring of 1842. Nevertheless, through the timely 

assistance of the Commandant of the New York Navy 

Yard, Captain Matthew C. Perry (Figure 24), who 

had on 4 June observed a private trial of Colt's galvanic detonating system, the 27-year-old entrepreneur 

finally secured sufficient gunpowder to undertake an 

initial public demonstration of his Submarine 

Battery in New York Harbor, characteristically on 

the Fourth of July 1842.62 Colt, who had earlier 

sought both state and local interest in his system for 

the defense of New York, made the most of the 

National Jubilee. By way of securing maximum public 

exposure, as well as obtaining additional funding for 

his experiments, he made arrangements to conduct the 

Submarine Battery demonstration directly off Castle 

Garden, a popular open-air theater located in 

venerable Castle Clinton on lower Manhattan, the 

scene less than two years earlier of a demonstration 

of "Cochran's Bomb Cannon," another transient 

ordnance phenomenon of the era.63 Aware of the 

national attention galvanized by such exhibitions, 

Colt dispatched a round of invitations to the New 

Figure 24.—MATTHEW CALBRAITH PERRY, 1794-1858. A 

native of Newport, this younger brother of Commodore 

Oliver Hazard Perry entered the Navy as a midshipman in 

1809, was wounded three years later during the engagement 

between the President and H.M.S. Belvidera and subsequently served in the Caribbean patrol against West Indian 

pirates. An officer of notable vision, who is best remembered 

for hb successful role in establishing trade relations with 

Japan, Perry had successfully advocated the establishment 

of a naval apprentice system and took a leading role in 

promoting the creation of the Navy's Engineer Corps. As 

commanding officer of the U.S.S. Fulton II, he trained a 

rising generation of American naval engineers, being indeed 

regarded as the father of the steam Navy of the United 

States. 
26 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

York press. To his delight, his experiment received 

generous notice, the New York Evening Post 

relating that 

an interesting experiment with Colt's sub-marine battery 

created much attention, and was witnessed by many thousands with great satisfaction. An old hulk was moored off 

Castle Garden fitted with temporary masts, from which were 

displayed various flags, with piratical devices, immediately 

under which the battery was placed, and the effect of the 

explosions was tremendous. The vessel was shattered into 

fragments, some of which were thrown two or three hundred 

feet in the air, and there was not a single piece left longer 

than a man could have carried in one hand.64 

The theatrical effects may have been intended on 

this occasion to divert close press scrutiny of Colt's 

firing arrangements, whose exact character yet 

remains uncertain, owing to conflicting reports. 

Several observers noted merely a simple demolition on 

a motionless target, obviating any need for the distinctive observation post features of the Submarine 

Battery system. Particularly direct on this score was 

an account by the New York American: 

The case containing the combustibles was sunk under the 

hulk, and a wire conducted from it to the deck of the North 

Carolina, distant some two or three hundred yards. At the 

moment fixed, (1 o'clock) Mr. Colt, on the deck of the 

Carolina, applied the acid to his plates, and quicker than 

thought, the doomed hulk was thrown into the air... .

65 

The inventor, who had conducted his experiment 

on board the 74-gun North Carolina through the 

courtesy of Captain Francis H. Gregory, provided a 

more impressive account of his achievement to the 

Navy Department, asserting that his target "was being 

towed through the water at the rate of about three 

knots an hour."

 66

 This assertion was indeed corroborated by the report of the New York Herald: 

"The battery having been placed under her bottom, 

the cable of the doomed vessel was cut, & when by the 

aid of the tide and the boats of the United States' 

Ship North Carolina, her speed through the water 

had been made about four knots an hour, the explosion took place .. . .

67

 That Colt may have employed 

an unusually long lead from his battery to a charge 

affixed to the target vessel's hull cannot be dismissed 

lightly. Secretary of the Navy Upshur received no 

official report from Captain Gregory or Captain Perry, 

and it is conceivable that he did not read the judgment of the New York Sun, subsequently reprinted 

by Niles' National Register: 

Any thing less than a ship of the line must have been 

either destroyed or capsized had the explosion taken place 

immediately under it. But it strikes us that the great difficulty in rendering the battery efficient must be the impossibility of placing it. immediately under any vessel that it 

may be designed to destroy.68 

Notwithstanding puzzling contradictions, Samuel 

Colt's exhibition at New York had effectively focused 

national attention on his Submarine Battery, inducing 

Secretary Upshur to renew cautious encouragement 

to the entrepreneur's maturing plans for conducting 

a more complete demonstration at Washington, in 

the presence of the Congress.69 Recognizing the 

critical importance of this second trial, Colt urged 

that it be solidly supported with the remainder of the 

original $50,000 appropriation for ordnance experiments, assuring the Virginian on 5 July that 

I will guarantee to fortify every Port upon our Seaboard 

against the combined Fleets of Europe, at a cost for each, 

less than that required to build a single steam ship of war; 

and when once fixed, my Engine of destruction may be used 

without the expense of fuel or soldiers, the cost of which, 

every year, exceeds the expense of making permanent Fortifications of my construction.70 

Unfortunately for Colt, then desperately organizing 

legal efforts in behalf of his accused brother, government support proved insufficient at this juncture to 

permit a thorough evaluation of the Submarine 

Battery by responsible authorities. Secretary Upshur, 

who routinely referred new weapons proposals to his 

overburdened Board of Navy Commissioners for 

testing by naval ordnance specialists or officers of the 

Ordnance Office of the Army, took no steps to arrange 

a trial of Colt's mine warfare system by military 

professionals, again evidently in deference to the 

inventor's insistence on secrecy in the matter.71 

The Navy, then anticipating a major administrative 

reorganization, initiated by Upshur, that was to see 

the Board of Navy Commissioners replaced by the 

bureau system in September 1842, still lacked a 

permanent weapons-testing establishment, comparable 

to the Army's Ordnance Office, within which a complex system of armament might receive comprehensive evaluation and possibly be subjected to further 

development. While awaiting Senate action on his 

proposed reorganization of the Navy Department, 

Upshur had felt obliged on 11 July to reject Colt's 

request for the purchase of a sizable target vessel for 

the Washington demonstration, indicating instead his 

intention of laying the matter before Congress.72 

Meanwhile the death of Senator Southard late in 

June had deprived Colt of critically strategic support 

on Capitol Hill,73 and it soon became apparent to 
NUMBER 29 27 

the entrepreneur upon his arrival in Washington on 

2 August that strong opposition to his mine warfare 

proposal was developing in the House of Representatives. That opposition centered notably in the person 

of John Quincy Adams. The venerable ex-President, 

who did not share Southard's confidence in the practicality of Colt's harbor defense scheme, further strongly 

objected to it on moral grounds and adamantly 

ignored the inventor's request on 11 August for an 

interview on the matter.74 

Far more disturbing for Colt's Submarine Battery 

prospects, however, was the dissipation of the prolonged threat of hostilities with Great Britain in the 

summer of 1842, almost coincidentally with the 

conclusion of the Seminole War and resulting Congressional reduction of the Regular Army. As the 

well-informed Adams had learned on 24 July from 

the British minister plenipotentiary, Lord Ashburton, 

extended negotiations between that diplomat and 

Secretary of State Daniel Webster on the disputed 

Maine boundary had been substantially and amicably 

concluded, affording Congress the welcomed prospect of adjournment before fall.75 

Discovering that time had nearly run out, Colt and 

his assistant, Robert Cummings, hastened preparations for the Washington demonstration. Colt began 

the difficult cable-laying operations on 11 August 

with a boat crew and carpenter from the Navy Yard 

and employed their services for no fewer than three 

weeks, both in laying and later recovering reels of 

insulated cable from the United States Arsenal at 

Greenleaf Point to a firing station some five miles 

distant on the Alexandria waterfront. On 18 August 

Colt secured Secretary Upshur's permission to spend 

upwards of $150 for a target vessel—which the inventor described as a sixty-ton schooner—and further 

requested surplus spars, masts, rigging, and a supply of 

gunpowder. Upshur referred the powder request to 

Lt. Col. George Talcott of the Army Ordnance Office, 

while calling on Captain Beverly Kennon, Commandant of the Washington Navy Yard, for available 

ship stores. Kennon took a dim view of Colt's venture, 

sternly advising: 

We have no condemned materials on hand in the yard 

suitable for rigging the temporary masts referred to . . . there 

is no rigging even suitable. The only rubbish in the yard is a 

quantity of empty beer barrels, which will be furnished.76 

Beer barrels were rarely scorned by early submarine 

miners, yet Colt later caustically informed the Navy 

Department that "the cost of hack hire (to say 

nothing of personal annoyance & waste of time) was 

far greater than the advantage I derived from the 

Washington Navy Yard."

 77

 Subsequent events suggest 

that, although clearly pressed for time, Colt would 

have rejected close collaboration by military or naval 

ordnance specialists, for fear of disclosing to them the 

exact nature of his firing arrangements. Having 

deployed his curious equipage—galvanic batteries, 

firing controls, fathoms of insulated cable and the 

mystery-shrouded "infernal machine"—with the 

assistance of Navy Yard ordinarymen, Colt dispatched 

his characteristic announcements to the press. Time 

was indeed running out for the inventor. Even as Colt 

undertook his first Washington demonstration on the 

evening of 20 August off Greenleaf Point, the Senate 

found itself locked in a lengthy debate that culminated about nine o'clock in formal ratification of the 

Webster-Ashburton Treaty,78 terminating the threat 

of Anglo-American hostilities. 

Few records survive to document Colt's final 

arrangements on the Potomac, but it is evident that, 

while securing limited materials and manual labor 

from official sources, he carefully avoided professional 

participation by either the capital's military or scientific community. If he again considered filing a patent 

petition to protect his Submarine Battery scheme at 

this juncture, he appears to have rejected the notion 

as premature. As subsequently became clear, months 

of materials development and testing lay ahead before 

Colt would be prepared to demonstrate his entire 

mining system in the most rudimentary form. While 

instrumental in providing gunpowder, barrels, workboats, and laborers, neither the Army Ordnance Office 

or the Board of Navy Commissioners appear to have 

been consulted by Colt, notwithstanding the fact that 

his demonstration was staged off the U.S. Arsenal for 

the edification of the Cabinet, the Congress, and "an 

immense concourse of spectators."

 79 

No less remarkable was Colt's failure to consult 

members of that short-lived forerunner of the Smithsonian Institution, the National Institute for the 

Promotion of Science, whose headquarters were 

lodged in the capital's impressive new Patent Office 

(Figure 25).80 Founded in May 1840 through the 

efforts of then Secretary of the Navy Joel R. Poinsett 

and other prominent federal officials, this transient 

association (originally designated the National Institution but from mid-1842 styled the National Institute) had briefly emerged as a potential institutional 

recipient of the indenture of James Smithson, that 
28 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Figure 25.—THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE, CA. 1846. 

This classic marble structure, begun in 1836 following the 

destruction of the original Patent Office by fire, was completed in 1840. In addition to housing several government 

bureaus including the Patent Office, it became the repository 

of four museum collections, including major exhibits from 

the Wilkes and Perry expeditions, the varied acquisitions of 

the National Institute for the Promotion of Science, and 

miscellaneous donations from individuals. Its exhibits included 

Franklin's cane and printing press; Washington's sword, 

uniform, field chest, and campaign tent; and the memorabilia of James Smithson—national treasures subsequently to 

be incorporated in the collection of the Smithsonian 

Institution. 

Here the National Institute briefly had its headquarters, 

and here, ironically, Samuel Colt stored substantial elements 

of his Submarine Battery equipment, following his demonstration of August 1842, evidently in a basement chamber 

judging from his subsequent correspondence with Henry L. 

Ellsworth, the sympathetic Commissioner of Patents. Colt 

ultimately submitted his application for a patent on the 

Submarine Battery on 8 June 1844, only to withdraw it 

the following day in a mood of evidently mounting outrage. 

British scientist and philanthropist whose historic 

bequest of some $515,000 to the United States had 

been formally received by Congress in 1836 for the 

stipulated if highly challenging purpose of founding 

"an establishment for the increase and diffusion of 

knowledge among men."

 81 

By the eventful summer of 1842, the National 

Institute had secured the sympathetic patronage of 

President Tyler, established correspondence with 

some 150 scientific societies in Europe and North 

America, and was taking steps to acquire a major 

scientific collection brought back from the Pacific in 

1841 by Lieutenant Charles Wilkes' United States 

Exploring Expedition. Acquisition of the Wilkes 

Collection accorded well with the National Institute's 

declared object, "to promote science and the useful 

arts, and to establish a national museum of natural 

history " 82 During the summer of 1842, it may 

further be noted, the War and Navy Departments 

had issued circulars to ships and shore commands 

encouraging the establishment of scientific cabinets 

suitable for preserving collections ultimately destined 
NUMBER 2 9 29 

for the National Institute.83 Stimulated by the example 

of both Secretary Poinsett and Secretary of War Levi 

Woodbury, several scientifically inclined officers in the 

armed services had assumed active roles in the 

National Institute, notably including Lieutenant 

Matthew Fontaine Maury, Officer-in-Charge of the 

Navy's Depot of Charts and Instruments, and Colonel 

Joseph G. Totten, Chief of the Army's Corps of Engineers and for practical purposes the director of the 

nation's growing system of coastal fortifications. At 

first glance, an association such as the National 

Institute, potentially a national academy of sciences, 

might have proven a suitable womb within which 

Samuel Colt's remarkable system could have developed. In reality, however, the presence of Colonel 

Totten and, until quite recently, Representative John 

Quincy Adams on the Institute's Board of Directors, 

appears to have dissuaded Colt, who had himself 

been enrolled as a corresponding member of the 

Institute as early as August 1840, from attempting to 

avail himself of that association's support in the 

development of his Submarine Battery.84 

Thus it was that Colt eschewed conducting his 

first Washington experiment in the privacy of an 

ordnance proving ground, preferring once again to 

stage a simple public demonstration which, while 

generating powerful political impetus for his proposal, 

permitted the inventor to conceal the precise character of his underwater system. Contemporary accounts 

of this second Submarine Battery trial, conducted on 

20 August before some 8,000 spectators congregated 

at the Washington Arsenal (Figure 26), indicate that 

Colt carried out a somewhat more sophisticated 

demolition of a moored target, described by the New 

York Evening Post as "an Accomac clam boat."

 85 

At half past five, the steamer containing the President and 

members of the cabinet, with their suites, was opposite the 

spectators, and its illustrious and precious freight received a 

very hearty greeting from the mouths of twenty-four great 

guns. A few minutes afterwards the signal for the explosion was given by the discharge of a twenty-four pounder, 

and instantaneously, as though a missile from the gun itself 

had borne the torch to a magazine in her, the old craft was 

sent in ten millions of fragments five hundred feet into the 

air, and then fell into the water with a roar like that of 

Niagara . . . .

86 

An observant reporter of the Washington Daily 

National Intelligencer ascertained that Colt's target 

had been moored about 150 yards offshore, asserting 

that "the case of combustibles" had been placed 

underneath the target, on the bottom of the river."

 87 

Whether Colt's explosive device was laid as a ground 

mine or anchored, as indicated in his patent drawings, 

remains obscure. Colt's success in frustrating close 

analysis of his system is indicated by the same 

reporter's statement that 

the charge placed beneath the vessel is said to have been 

exploded by the inventor or discoverer of the power, he being 

at Alexandria, five miles off when the signal was given, by 

means of dipping into an acid the ends of a magnetic wire 

communicating with the charge. If this be true, it must be 

a sure and absolute defense for all our harbors which are 

approached through narrow channels.88 

Having visually confirmed the complete destruction 

of Colt's target vessel off the arsenal, the Presidential 

party steamed down the Potomac to his mine control 

station at Alexandria, having ample opportunity to 

consider the impunity with which his device had 

wrought its destructive result "at a distance far 

beyond the reach of guns of the largest calibre."

 89 

Remarkably enough, there is no evidence that members of Tyler's suite went ashore to examine the inventor's galvanic apparatus. Colt was instead invited on 

board, roundly congratulated, and presented a 

bouquet by the Chief Executive's daughter that provided a long-treasured memento of this strikingly 

social occasion.90 Secretary of the Navy Upshur 

appears to have been satisfied by Colt's simple demonstration, leading him to forward a request to the 

Chairman of the House Committee on Naval Affairs, 

Representative Henry A. Wise, that an expression of 

Congressional opinion would be appropriate if further 

trials of the Submarine Battery were desired.91 The 

inventor, however, had something more concrete in 

mind. On 23 August, in response to Colt's own 

request, Representative Edward Stanly introduced a 

joint resolution in the House, instructing the Secretary 

of the Navy 

to render Mr. Samuel Colt facilities to test his submarine 

battery to an extent, which will settle the questions whether 

there can, with ease and safety, successfully be employed a 

power sufficient to destroy the largest class of ships of war, 

when in motion, passing in or out of harbor, without the 

necessity of approach within reach of shot from guns of 

the largest calibre; and whether continuous operations, after 

the destruction of one or more vessels, can be effected without removing the means under exposure to an advancing 

squadron; and whether the same can be used for the defense 

of a harbor, without endangering the passage in or out of 

other than hostile vessels.92 

In support of this portion of Stanly's motion, Representative Wise emphasized that such additional Navy 
30 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Figure 26.—THE WASHINGTO N ARSENAL, CA. 1861. 

Erected at Greenleaf Point, on the ruins of magazines 

destroyed by British forces during the burning of Washington in 1814, the Washington Arsenal was described by 

Colonel George Bomford in 1841, as "an arsenal of construction, advantageously situated for making and preserving 

patterns, inspecting instruments and models, as well as for 

building artillery-carriages, &c." 

Although in no sense a gun foundry, the arsenal was the 

scene of periodic ordnance experiments. In the spring of 

1841, Samuel Colt secured permission from Lt. Col. George 

Talcott of the Ordnance Office to demonstrate the hand 

manufacture of tinfoil cartridges of his own design at the 

arsenal, employing a guard made available by the officer in 

charge. To his chagrin, the inventor "found that the man 

whom I had taught to make my cartridges, had been kept 

on guard all day & night preceding & not relieved until 

seven o'clock in the morning. .. . As usually happens in such 

cases, he took his revenge upon my cartridges." This 

experience, followed ultimately by government cancellation 

of a small contract for his tinfoil cartridges, confirmed Colt's 

growing disillusionment with the Ordnance Office of the 

War Department. Significantly, when the inventor first tested 

his galvanic mining system at Washington in August 1842, 

he personally avoided recourse to the Ordnance Board, while 

conducting his demolition directly off the Washington 

Arsenal. 

Department assistance was authorized under previous 

legislation in 1841 allocating $50,000 for ordnance 

experiments. Mindful of other submarine warfare 

proposals, notably George W. Taylor's "submarine 

rocket," Wise was unprepared to support Stanly's 

further recommendation that the Navy Department 

be authorized to conclude contracts with Colt for 

actual installation of Submarine Batteries in a selected 

harbor, asserting that "he thought he understood from 

the Secretary of the Navy the nature of Mr. Colt's 

invention, and it was not necessary to lay down the 

shells in time of peace."

 9 3 

Congress was now moving rapidly toward adjournment, but it was apparent to John Quincy Adams that 

Colt's spectacular demonstration had powerfully 

influenced Congressional opinion. The doughty 

ex-President advised the House that he was convinced 

that further experiments "would be but the throwing 

of so much money into the sea." 

He was as fully conscious that the system would be useless to the United States, as if one hundred years had passed; 

but if it could be made successful, he was opposed to blowing up ships of war with submarine batteries; if done at all, it 

should be done by fair and honest warfare.94 
NUMBER 2 9 31 

Notwithstanding Adams' strong opposition, the House 

passed the Submarine Battery resolution on 25 August 

1842, by a vote of 108 to 51, in effect confirming the 

opinion of the departed Southard.95 As ultimately 

hammered out in conference with the Senate, this 

joint resolution appropriated $15,000 from the Navy 

Department's ordnance experiments fund for Colt's 

subsequent demonstrations, while allocating $6,000 

from that fund for unrelated steam boiler tests. Final 

action in the Senate was taken within hours of 

adjournment on 31 August, significantly with the 

support of John C. Calhoun, under whose leadership 

some two decades earlier the War Department had 

inaugurated its massive postwar program of coastal 

fortifications.96 

Colt, ever mindful of the verdict approaching in 

his brother's trial, did not long remain in Washington. 

Before departing, however, he may have paid a visit 

to the Navy's Depot of Charts and Instruments, then 

located in modest quarters on Pennsylvania Avenue, 

armed with an introduction from Secretary Upshur 

to the new Officer-in-Charge of that establishment, 

Lieutenant Matthew Fontaine Maury, USN (Figure 

27) : "I would thank Mr. Maury to allow Mr. Colt to 

consult such charts as he desires at the Depot."

 97

 The 

survival of this intriguing introduction in the inventor's papers does not argue persuasively that a meeting 

did indeed take place between Colt and the Navy's 

future hydrographer. A chart of the Potomac and 

Eastern Branch surviving in Colt's Submarine Battery 

drawings is more convincingly ascribed to his second 

demonstration in Washington in 1844,98 yet an 

encounter between these two seminal figures, however brief and apparently unfruitful, may indeed have 

occurred. Maury, who had recently assumed his duties 

at the Depot of Charts and Instruments, had already 

emerged as a leading advocate of naval administrative reform and early expansion of the steam Navy as 

a major adjunct to coastal defense. He was to achieve 

international recognition during the ensuing two 

decades for his pioneer contributions to oceanography 

and, significantly, played a substantial role in promoting the first trans-Atlantic cable.99

 Ultimately, perhaps 

with but dim recollection of the Yankee inventor's 

attempts to secure official acceptance of his mysterious 

Submarine Battery, Maury was to achieve a grimmer 

reputation as founder of the Confederate torpedo 

service at the outset of the American Civil War.100 

Whether or not Maury ascertained even the most 

evident characteristics of Colt's system of mine war-

\fc M 

Figure 27.—MATTHEW FONTAINE MAURY, 1806-1873. A 

native of Virginia, this pioneer American oceanographer 

entered the United States Navy as a midshipman in 1825 

and served at sea until 1834, demonstrating notable talent 

in navigation and hydrographic surveys. Maury's first professional paper, "On the Navigation of Cape Horn," was 

published in 1834 in Silliman's American Journal of Science 

and Arts, being followed two years later by his lucid New 

Theoretical and Practical Treatise on Navigation, which won 

the approval of mariners and scientists alike. Professional 

differences with Charles Wilkes denied Maury his first great 

scientific opportunity, that of participating in the United 

States Exploring Expedition of 1838-1842. Following a 

stagecoach accident that abruptly ended his seagoing career 

in 1839, he redeemed months of painful recovery by composing his penetrating "Harry Bluff" articles for The Southern Literary Messenger, advocating reforms in naval administration and education that bore fruit within half a decade 

in the establishment of the bureau system in the Navy 

Department and of the Naval Academy at Annapolis. 

Unable to secure further sea duty, Maury devoted himself 

to scientific writing, taking an active role in the shortlived 

National Institute and in 1842 being appointed Officerin-Charge of the Navy's new Depot of Charts and Instruments at Washington. During his 19 years as head of the 

Navy's prime scientific establishment, Maury developed its 

observatory into an institution of world-wide repute, made 

major contributions to international collaboration in meteorological research, played an important role in locating a 

suitable submarine plateau for the first trans-Atlantic cable, 

and won international honors for the contribution which 

his Sailing Directions made to the safety of ocean commerce. 

In The Physical Geography of the Sea, first published in 

1854, Maury achieved a remarkable early delineation of the 

science of oceanography. Such was the distinguished background to Maury's efforts as founder of the Confederate 

torpedo service early in the Civil War, a conflict that had 

tragic consequences for his scientific career. 
32 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

-UJ 

SESi: 

fare at this juncture remains a mystery, on which the 

Virginian's papers shed no light.101 Notwithstanding 

Colt's evident desire to avoid close official scrutiny, the 

inventor or possibly a journalistic friend appears 

to have unveiled a major portion of his firing system just five weeks later, on the eve of yet another 

demonstration, in a characteristic flight of prose 

(Appendix 3) that appeared in the Alexandria 

Gazette and Virginia Advertiser on 5 October 1842, 

in the form of a "Letter from Washington" under the 

cryptic authorship of one "C." 

I do not know whether you have seen or published an 

account of Colt's Steam [Submarine] Battery, and as its 

description is simple and yet interesting, I have transcribed 

the following from a Northern paper, viz:—the Battery consists of a light sheet iron box filled with gunpowder, and 

having two copper wires wound around with cotton, then 

varnished with a mixture of gum shellack, alcohol and Venice 

Turpentine, and extending through tight corks in one side 

of the box, having a piece of platina wire extending between 

them in the box amongst the gunpowder, and the two copper wires extending off from this box (which may be 

anchored in the channel of a river) to a large one of Grant's 

Electricity collecting [connecting] machines, electrified by a 

large Galvanic Battery, which may be seven or eight miles 

distant from the box, and where the operation [operator] 

is, having one of the wires in his hand ready to attach them 

to the collectors [connectors] the instant the signal is given 

to explode the box.102 

No description of the Submarine Battery's platinum 

filament fuse phrased in comparable detail may be 

found in Colt's subsequent patent petition of 1844 or, 

indeed, elsewhere in his voluminous correspondence. 

While this extraordinary public revelation may quite 

Figure 28.—ANCHORED MINES FOR COLT'S SUBMARINE BATTERY. Anchors, chain, and galvanic cabling appear in 

inventories of Colt's Submarine Battery equipment in 1844. 

In this drawing "G," the inventor depicts buoyant mine 

cases in cross-section, equipped with what appear to be 

carbon-arc fuses. Individual leads from a submarine cable 

line run up alongside anchor chain to the mine cases, reflecting Colt's plan for selective firing by the operator, who does 

not appear to have the benefit of sighting buoys. 

plausibly be attributed to Colt or an associate on the 

basis of its caustic and, as it proved, impolitic ensuing 

comments on the Army's coastal fortification system, 

a more precise identification is offered by comparing 

the preceding technical passage with two unsigned 

sketches found among the inventor's drawings. The 

first (Figure 28), illustrating two anchored, buoyant 

box "torpedoes" depicts internal fuses supplied by 

electric leads from shore batteries.103 A closer view of 

this arrangement is suggested in a second, possibly 

later drawing, faintly captioned "Submarine Torpedo 

fired by Electricity or a Galvanic Battery" (Figure 

29) more clearly delineating two terminal wires 

fitted within a globular fuse compartment of a circular or cylindrical mine case, the terminals being 

fitted with a ruptured filament or possibly pointed 

carbon poles.

 104 

Samuel Colt's characteristic preoccupation with 

firing his mines precisely beneath the target, as well as 

a rudimentary grasp of galvanic theory, is evident in 

the ensuing passage of this revealing effusion: 

Now, when an enemy is over the box, and the wires are 

that instant attached, positive electricity immediately passes 

along one wire, and negative electricity passes along the 
NUMBER 29 33 

Figure 29.—SECTIONAL PLAN FOR GALVANIC MINE. 

other wire, these two kinds of electricity concentrate on the 

platina wire, instantly heat it red hot, and it fires the gunpowder, and blows the vessel to fragments.105 

That the author had been present at the Washington demonstration of 20 August is finally apparent in 

the concluding passage, which not only demonstrates 

the inventor's sensitivity to professional criticism but 

also suggests the emotional base for his appeal against 

further expenditures on coastal fortifications: 

Having seen the effects of this wonderful contrivance in 

the explosion of a stout schooner near Greenleaf s Point, I 

am as well convinced of its utility for the protection of harbors, and indeed of bays and rivers from the invasion of 

hostile fleets, as of any other invention which of late has so 

astonished the world. It has been said that the wires could 

be raked up by sending boats ahead with rakes and oystertongs. I think it would be a rather hazardous business, if 

not utterly impracticable for the want of a knowledge of the 

locality of the boxes (for I presume any number of boxes 

may be sunk in the channel) and with wires; besides the 

operator or superintendent in one night could sink boxes in 

the channel in [the] rear of the enemy's ships, which would 

ensure their destruction, and instead of raking for the wires, 

you would find the crews taking to their boats and jumping 

overboard. I trust we may hereafter dispense with our expensive and useless forts on the sea-board. I say useless, because 

they are of no earthly use but to protect the soldiers from 

the enemy, who can land their men out of gunshot of the 

fort, and ravage the country, opposed by none but militia. 

We experienced this last war, in the instance of Forts 

Detroit, Niagara, Oswego, Castine, and Fort Bowyer.106 

Although Colt was unprepared at this juncture to 

provide government officials the ultimate challenge— 

the destruction of a moving vessel within a sizeable 

field of mines—he nevertheless felt compelled to sustain public awareness of his undersea warfare system. 

Officers of the American Institute, an early New York 

association for promotion of the useful arts, provided 

the restless inventor an irresistible setting for yet 

another public demonstration in the fall of 1842, 

importuning both the White House and the Navy 

Department to permit Colt to demonstrate his Submarine Battery at the Institute's annual fair on Manhattan.107

 To add to Secretary Upshur's mounting 

disenchantment, Colt rationalized this evident circumvention of professional scrutiny in a note of 12 

September to John D. Simms, Chief Clerk of the Navy 

Department, commenting caustically on his experience 

at the Washington Navy Yard and asserting: 

If I am permitted to conduct my experiments in my own 

way without being bothered by Navy Yard regulations, I will 

guarantee to accomplish all that is required of me by Congress at less expense & less time than [I] can otherwise.108 

Secretary Upshur was by no means satisfied, making 

it abundantly clear to the American Institute that 

the Department had no authority to permit a 

government-supported undertaking to be exploited 

commercially.109 On 27 September Upshur bluntly 

advised Colt that he could honor no further requisitions unless the entrepreneur would henceforth "confer with me as to your course of proceedings."

 n o 

On the fateful day that Upshur penned this sharp 

admonition, its recipient sustained a deeply mortifying 

blow, the conviction of John Colt for murder by a 

New York court and the announcement immediately 

thereafter of his death sentence.111 Secretary Upshur, 

who chanced to visit the distraught inventor at this 

juncture, subsequently acceded to Colt's proposal of 

6 October that the Submarine Battery be demonstrated at the American Institute fair with the Navy 

Department's tacit permission.112 Upshur nevertheless 

felt obliged to refuse Colt's request for official funds to 

purchase a target vessel, the 260-ton brig Volta, which 

finally appears to have been acquired with the assistance of the American Institute.113 
34 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

In preparation for his second major New York 

demonstration, held off Castle Garden on 18 October 

1842, Colt acquired an extensive amount of insulated 

cable, including at least three reels lent by Professor 

Samuel F. B. Morse, who was concurrently conducting 

tests of his magnetic telegraph system, in the immediate vicinity, employing copper cabling similarly 

insulated with tarred thread.114 Although Colt's own 

cable-laying preliminaries again attracted little public 

notice, he secured maximum attention for the actual 

mining of the Volta, offering assurances through the 

New York Express prior to the event that "the galvanic battery will be placed to [at] Castle Garden, so 

that all who will take the trouble to go into the 

Garden, which will hold several thousand, can see 

with ease and distinctness the mode of arranging the 

wires and of causing the explosion."

 115

 Thus an 

estimated forty thousand spectators thronged the 

Battery and nearby ships on the 18th, including Secretary of War John C. Spencer and, by the inventor's 

account, "all the Navy and Army officers in port. . ., " 

who again took station on the ship-of-the-line North 

Carolina}16 To his undisguised delight, Colt had yet 

another surprise for both the press and the assembled 

officialdom, as he later reported to Upshur: 

Everything on my part was conducted as privately as possible so much so that every reporter for [the New York] 

newspapers have as yet mistaken even the place where I were 

stationed when I made the explosion. 

The general belief that I would be on board the North 

Carolina with my apparatus crowded her decks to suffocation 

with every body that could gain admission. Among them of 

course was many news papers reporters some of which, disappointed in not being able to discover anything of my 

apparatus have seen fit to reflect upon me for what they 

deem unnecessary secracy.117 

The instantaneous destruction of the Volta, signaled 

by the last salvo of a thirteen-gun salute from the 

North Carolina, deeply moved and indeed mystified 

the thousands of onlookers congregated at the Battery. 

. . . the great bulk seemed lifted by some unseen power, 

the bow and stern sunk heavily, and the whole was enveloped 

by a huge pile of dense mist, some two hundred feet in 

diameter and about eighty high, through which now and 

then were seen pieces of timber, of which even the shape 

could not be guessed.118 

The mystery that again surrounded Colt's firing 

arrangements was reflected by Secretary Spencer's 

unsuccessful effort to discover whether his powder 

magazine had been anchored beneath the Volta or 

attached directly to her hull. The Washington Daily 

National Intelligencer subsequently reported that the 

Volta had been "placed about equidistant between 

Castle Garden and the North Carolina .. ., and under 

it was placed the battery of Mr. Colt, he remaining 

three-quarters of a mile off, on Governor's Island, 

ready to apply the electric spark at the concerted 

signal."

 119

 In reality, Colt had boarded the Revenue 

Cutter Ewing off the Battery at noon, connecting his 

firing apparatus with the submerged cable leads and 

thereafter conducting the experiment from that station, characteristically escaping the attentions of the 

curious.120 Evidence is lacking to indicate that the 

inventor attempted more than a stationary demonstration, notwithstanding the fact that his most recent 

correspondence with the Navy Department had 

included rough plans for a channel minefield controlled by two separate observers.121 

Captain Matthew C. Perry, senior naval observer on 

board the North Carolina, clearly was not impressed. 

Doubtless recalling the frustration of Robert Fulton's 

attempts to torpedo the brig Argus at New York in 

1810, Perry offered the opinion, as reported by the 

New York Herald, that in disbursing the $15,000 

allocated for the testing of Colt's Submarine Battery, 

"one thousand of it should be taken to purchase a 

vessel, and the balance be divided between one party 

who volunteer to go aboard the vessel and sail her, 

and another party who should try to blow her up . . . ." 

Considering Colt's frequent and pointed comparisons 

between the cost of a steam warship and of a major 

Submarine Battery installation for the defense of 

New York, it is indeed remarkable that Perry had 

afforded him considerable assistance for the Castle 

Garden demonstration.122 

In concluding his report on the American Institute 

demonstration, Colt assured Secretary Upshur that 

"the Gov't is benefited by the information gained by 

the exhibition,"

 123

 yet the inventor made no attempt 

to represent the results as meeting the Congressional 

requirement of providing "a power sufficient to 

destroy the largest class of ship, when in motion, 

passing in or out of harbor."

 124

 Eighteen months of 

extensive testing lay ahead before Colt could return to 

Washington prepared to offer conclusive proof of the 

practicality of his system of coastal defense. 

The final stages in the development of Colt's Submarine Battery were strikingly intertwined with 

Samuel F. B. Morse's concluding efforts to secure 

Congressional recognition of his electromagnetic 

telegraph. Following his demonstration at the Ameri-
NUMBER 2 9 35 

can Institute fair, Colt exhibited his galvanic battery 

at Castle Garden in the same booth from which 

Morse was attempting to transmit messages to nearby 

Governor's Island. As reported by the New York 

Herald, Morse experienced difficulties with his transmitter initially: "This would not perform according 

to the programme, in consequence of the weakness of 

the Professor's battery. But after the [Submarine 

Battery] explosion, when it received the accession of 

Mr. Colt's large battery, it worked very well."

 125 

Misfortune continued to dog the Professor, however. 

On the morning of 19 October, Morse arrived for 

the main demonstration of his invention. After a 

triumphant initial exchange of signals with his 

partner, Professor Leonard D. Gale, who was stationed on Governor's Island, Morse was suddenly 

dismayed to observe his submarine cable innocently 

hauled up and severed by the crew of a merchantman 

preparing to get under way (Figure 30). The abrupt 

termination of this experiment humiliated Morse, who 

suffered the jeers and insults of uncomprehending 

onlookers.126 Undaunted, Morse continued his private 

experiments at Washington Square, occasionally borrowing cable from Colt and making the discovery late 

in 1842 that two or more currents could be conducted 

simultaneously by a single wire, a commercially 

significant discovery that was eventually designated 

duplex telegraphy.127 

Morse's departure for Washington in December 

and his successful demonstrations on Capitol Hill, 

culminating in passage of the Telegraph Bill on 3 

March 1843, by no means concluded the close association of these embattled inventors. Following Professor 

Morse's climactic demonstration of 24 May 1844 in 

the chamber of the Supreme Court, an historic event 

that followed swiftly upon Colt's final demonstration 

in Washington, these pioneers of American galvanic 

technology found themselves indirectly associated in 

the development of the New York and Offing Magnetic Telegraph Association. This company, which 

provided notification in Manhattan of ship arrivals off 

Sandy Hook, was cne of the first telegraph enterprises 

founded by Morse's business associates in 1845 to 

exploit the commercial feasibility of his magnetic 

recording telegraph patent.128 

The shadow of John Colt's approaching execution 

had hung heavily over further development of the 

Submarine Battery during the fall of 1842. Its concluding lugubrious events, including the apparent 

suicide of the convicted and the subsequent flight of 

Figure 30.—SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH CABLE. Fabricated by 

Colt's assistant, Robert Cummings, in a small New York 

rope walk, this four-stranded submarine cable was employed 

on 18-19 October 1842 during that inventor's Submarine 

Battery demonstration and subsequently during Samuel F.B. 

Morse's telegraph experiment between the Battery and Governor's Island. Considered the first submarine telegraph cable 

successfully laid in the United States, this lead-sheathed 

cable—whose individual copper strands were wrapped with 

cotton yarn impregnated with asphaltum and beeswax— 

may well have had simpler antecedents in the insulated copper conductors employed by Colt in his experiments at New 

York and Washington earlier that year. 

Cable similar to that illustrated was successfully employed 

by Colt in the construction of the New York and Offing 

telegraph line from Manhattan to Coney Island and Fire 

Island in 1846, which he completed in partnership with 

the associates of Samuel F. B. Morse. 

his widow to Europe, clearly preoccupied the distraught younger Colt for several months.129

 Early in 

1843, however, the entrepreneur resumed his remark-
36 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

•Z* e-z . .. .. . f(fFigure 31.—COLT'S EXPERIMENT ON THE HEATING EFFECT 

OF ELECTRICITY ON COPPER LEADS OF VARYING LENGTH, 15 

APRIL 1843 (with transcription). Conducted at Washing22 plate Battery 

Sulfuri c Acid 

Nitre Acid 

N.Y. Universit y Apri l 15, 1843. 

152 Newly Mixed 

" often used before 

1100 yds. N* 14. Coper Wire. A, Temperature 67° . G, Temperature 164s increase 972 

2200 " " " " " " " " " 98 ° " 3 1 

3300 " " " " " " 85 " 18 

4000 " " " " " " 74 n " 1 \ 

No differance persieved wheather thermometer was placed in the cirke t 

[circuit ] near the battery or a t a distance 

No differanc percieved wheather the conductors were twisted togeather or 

sepperate 

Spark produced on braking contact with indirec t conductor when twisted with 

direc t conductor also when the curant was passing through direc t conductor a spark 

would be produced by braking connection with indirec t conductor unpleasantly heavy 

shock were fel t by passage of curant through indirec t conductors. Gunpowder was 

ignited by brakiny contact with charcole points on indirec t conductors wit h one 

direc t conductor 

Spool N2 wires al l found to be sound. 

ton Square, this materials test reveals Colt's inquisitive bent 

and indicates that he was then considering a carbon arc 

fuse as an alternative to the platinum filament detonator. 

ably deliberate task of refining the various elements of 

his mine warfare system, acquiring a fresh supply of 

gunpowder from the New York Navy Yard and ordering additional rolled copper wire and platinum filament from Brown and Elton.130

 From February 

through April, Colt carried out a series of experiments 

to determine the relative heating effects of electricity 

on copper and platinum wire (Figure 31 ).131 From 

tests on platinum filament of varying diameter conducted at New York University on 23 March, the 

inventor concluded: "Inferance from experiments are 

that it is necessary to have but one exploding power 

(platinum wire) at the point of explosion. Wire should 

be coiled in small diameters & as close together as 

possible without touching."

 132

 Such materials tests 

and experiments, while necessary for practical implementation of the Submarine Battery system, did not 

represent the unique core of that conception. In the 

final professional judgment on Colt's scheme rendered 

in 1844, it was conjectured that the inventor had based 

his claims to originality mainly on an application of 

the galvanic process to the ignition of gunpowder. In 

reality, Colt had publically disclaimed any such basis 

for originality as early as 11 May 1843, when the Army 

and Navy Chronicle and Scientific Repository published a succinct letter on galvanic rock blasting that 

he had posted from Washington Square a week 

earlier. Adverting to recent articles in that journal 

regarding the use of electricity for rock blasting by 

British engineers, Colt pointed out: 

The first person who made any practical use of electricity for the purpose of igniting large masses of gunpowder 

was Mr. Moses Shaw, of Boston, Mass. His experiments were 

made as early as the year 1828. He applied it for the purpose 

of blasting rocks. An account of his method was communicated to Professor Silliman by the late Dr. Chilton, of this 

city; and it was published in the American Journal of Science 

and Arts, vol. xvi, 1829. Mr. Shaw at first made use of the 

ordinary electrical machine; but, finding it inconvenient in 

damp weather, he, by recommendation of Dr. Hare, of 

Philadelphia, employed the calarimater [calorimotor], a form 

of galvanic battery constructed by Dr. H., in which the plates 

are so connected together as to act as one pair. Its power of 

igniting in all weather would extend a distance sufficient 

to blast rocks with safety. An account of his experiments 

was published by Dr. Hare in the American Journal of 
NUMBER 2 9 37 

Science and Arts, vol. xxi 1831, and again with additions, 

in vol. xxvi 1834; in which latter article Dr. Hare recommends a battery of a number of galvanic plates. Since that 

time, both common and galvanic electricity have been usefully employed by various persons in many parts of this 

country, for the purpose of igniting magazines of gunpowder, 

and for years before the English engineers attempted to break 

up the Royal George. Electricity for blasting was employed 

at Harlem, Sing Sing, Black Rock, Lockport, Buffalo, and 

other places, with perfect success. In one instance, at Black 

Rock, no less than thirty blasts were fired at one time, by 

only one battery.133 

Although containing no direct reference to the Submarine Battery, Colt's public note, coming well after 

his first three mining demonstrations, left little doubt, 

for those who chose to read it, as to the galvanic 

character of his system. During the spring and summer 

of 1843, a period that saw furmer development of his 

tinfoil cartridge venture, Colt advertised from Norfolk 

to Portland for a suitable target vessel, ultimately 

selecting an 81-foot barque, the Brunette, which he 

discovered at Woods Hole.134 Tests of various combinations of batteries and multistranded cable 

occupied the inventor during the fall of 1843; by the 

following February, Colt had developed an elevenplate battery designed to supply his projected minefield through nine-stranded copper conductors.135 
Climax at Washington 

As experiments, these, as many others have been, were very beautiful and striking; 

but in the practical application of this apparatus to purposes of war, we have 

no confidence. 

Army and Navy Chronicle and Scientific 

Repository, WASHINGTON, 18 APRIL 1844 

Colt had meanwhile made arrangements for a final 

conclusive demonstration of his Submarine Battery at 

Washington (Figure 32) early in the first session of the 

twenty-eighth Congress. The inventor was doubtless 

encouraged by the progress of the Morse telegraph 

system and possibly also impelled by accounts of the 

armored floating battery currently under construction 

at Hoboken by Robert L. Stevens for the defense of 

New York.136 Late in November 1843, Colt had dispatched the Brunette to Alexandria, where she was 

temporarily docked by Stephen Shinn, his shipping 

agent. The magnitude of the forthcoming demonstration first became apparent on 16 December when 

Shinn reported the arrival from the naval magazine 

-*«* '^y^-asfc* - • • • . 
NUMBER 29 39 

Figure 33.—THE Princeton DISASTER, 28 FEBRUARY 1844. 

President John Tyler, who had witnessed the first demonstration of Colt's Submarine Battery at Washington in 1842, 

observed the first two test firings of Captain Robert F. 

Stockton's flawed 12-inch "Peacemaker" on board the 

Princeton before the fatal salvo was fired. 

Figure 32.—"THE LAST EXPERIMENT OF MR. COLT'S SUBMARINE BATTERY IN WASHINGTON CITY" 1844. Such is the 

description of this oil painting by the artist, An. Gibert, 

contained in his receipt for $60.00 for this work, addressed 

to Samuel Colt from New York on 15 October 1844. The 

locale of Gibert's painting had long been believed to be 

New York harbor. Close comparison of this painting with 

an unsigned sketch in the Colt Papers, however, reveals not 

only a general similarity of perspective but numerous common elements in the background, including the shiphouse 

and other buildings of the Navy Yard and the prominent old 

eight-story sugar refinery, located near the eastern entrance 

of the Washington Canal. Evidence is presently lacking as 

to whether Gibert witnessed the last Washington demonstrations. Gibert may have worked from the anonymous 

sketch (Figure 36) certified by Colt as factually "correct". 

on Ellis Island of 150 barrels of gunpowder, a dangerous consignment that Shinn prudently stored 

ashore in a local magazine.137 The precaution proved 

fortuitous, for on 28 February, shortly before Colt 

and his assistant, Robert Cummings, returned to 

Washington, the capital was deeply shocked by the 

Princeton disaster (Figure 33), an ordnance demonstration accident that occurred on board the new 

steam frigate Princeton while she was cruising with 

President Tyler and his entourage on the Potomac 

near Mount Vernon. That tragedy, from which the 

President narrowly escaped, claimed the lives of five 

members of the Presidential party, including the newly 

appointed Secretary of State Abel P. Upshur and 

Secretary of the Navy Thomas W. Gilmer, greatly 

hastening the revolution in naval ordnance design. 

Ironically, this disaster scarcely raised questions 

regarding the immediate presence of Cabinet members at such potentially dangerous demonstrations. 

In Upshur's death, significantly, the administration 

lost its only member intimately familiar with the 

secret of Colt's Submarine Battery.138 

Such was the somber background for Colt's request 

on 11 March to Acting Secretary of the Navy, Com-
40 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

modore Lewis Warrington, for assistance in completing arrangements for his own mining demonstration. 

In accordance with a Senate resolution introduced by 

John J. Crittenden on 19 March, Colt was provided 

with anchors, boats, timber, and mooring line from 

the Washington Navy Yard, as well as a chart of the 

Potomac and Eastern Branch rivers above Alexandria 

(Figure 34).139 Gratified by this official assistance, 

Colt worked rapidly with Cummings in deploying his 

minefield and on 1 April reported to Representative 

Henry A. Wise that "I have fortified the river leding 

to the Navy Yard & the ship is to be got under way 

with all her sails set & blown up while at her greatest 

speed."140 Subsequent announcements to the press on 

1 April, pointedly emphasizing the experiment's 

danger to imprudently curious parties of boaters, left 

little doubt that Samuel Colt intended to satisfy 

Congressional requirements for his Submarine Battery 

performance beyond the margin of reasonable doubt.141 

The entrepreneur's sense of timing could scarcely 

be faulted. Early in April 1844, the National Institute 

for the Promotion of Science convened the first 

major literary and scientific convention held in the 

United States, a week-long meeting of leading scientists that was opened at the Treasury Department 

under the personal sponsorship of President Tyler and 

members of his cabinet. Attended by numerous members of Congress and the diplomatic corps, this 

remarkable convocation represented a major effort by 

advocates of the National Institute to secure its 

designation as recipient of James Smithson's bequest. 

Incidentally, it provided an attractive occasion for 

inventors, notably including both Morse and Colt, 

to draw attention to their current undertakings.142 

Much more dramatic matters were at hand in the 

capital, however. By the spring of 1844, Congress 

found itself intensely preoccupied with the proposed 

annexation of Texas, an issue that had been revived 

by President Tyler, partly with the approaching 

presidential campaign in view. Fundamentally, however, the Administration was responding to mounting 

diplomatic pressure from the young Republic of Texas 

that presented Washington with the risky alternatives 

of offering the Lone Star Republic early admission to 

the Union or witnessing its independent national 

development, possibly accompanied by the abolition 

of slavery in the Southwest, doubtless with British 

economic and political encouragement. The military 

implications of yet another confrontation with Britain 

thus were already taking disturbing form when Colt 

began his final overtures in Washington.143 

Congressional nerves, which had been distinctly set 

on edge by the Princeton tragedy, had inadvertently 

been further frayed by a quixotic incident on 11 

March when Major Samuel Ringgold's celebrated 

"Flying Artillery"—established in 1838 as the first 

company of horse artillery in the U.S. Army—conducted a thunderous demonstration on Capitol Hill, 

in imprudent proximity to the East Front, bringing 

this corps d'elite to Congressional attention in a 

manner not anticipated: "The first firing made sad 

havoc with the window glass in the Capitol ... . All 

the glass in the Supreme Court room was knocked 

into pi[eces] while the court was in session. Many of 

the Senate committee rooms fared as badly, and 

nearly all the glass of the Senate Chamber.''

 144

 The 

Senate, though by no means amused, managed, as revealed in The Congressional Globe, to retain its 

aplomb in proceeding to an unexpected adjournment: 

Mr. [John T.] Morehead here remarked that the hour for 

the orders of the day had nearly arrived; but several Senators had assured him that they would be compelled to leave 

their seats in consequence of the exposed situation of the 

Chamber—almost all the glass in the windows having been 

broken by the firing of the United States artillery. If it 

would, therefore, be agreeable to the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Buchanan] who was entitled to the floor on the 

Oregon question, he would move that the Senate adjourn.145 

Curiously, a similar motion was offered by Representative Alexander Duncan one month later, on 12 

April, the day before Colt's announced Submarine 

Battery demonstration, with somewhat more chaotic 

result as reported, tongue in cheek, by the Alexandria 

Gazette: 

Mr. Duncan at last took the floor, and said something 

about blowing up. 

But no man seemed to understand the precise nature of 

the explosion at hand. Some members stated that Mr. Colt 

was to blow up the Potomac: others that he was about to 

blow up the Department of State, including Oregon and 

Texas; and others again broached the strange idea that the 

company of light artillery, which on a former day had made 

some experiments on the window-frames of the Chambers 

of the Senate and Supreme Court, was about to subject the 

Capitol to further tests of its strength.146 

During heated debate that ensued in the Flouse, 

Representative John B. Thompson sagely urged that 

an early adjournment might enable the members to 

observe final preparations for Colt's experiment.147 

Subsequent press accounts of the Submarine Battery 

demonstration, the more florid of which appear to 
NUMBER 2 9 41 

h i k 

A

 * 

.- *4 • 

<:••-.•-i _ if U 

•r i - - -*- -Vr -* -. ".*- - -

;

-" "^it^ * 

»-.i * .*.» ] 

.y. H .• 

_•• . . • 

.-4 

-. =:. - 4? 

•-.-'V-

.jttVv: 

•L&am 

ft*^-: / 

Figure 34.—CHART OF THE EASTERN BRANCH OR ANACOSTIA RIVER. This portion of a larger chart of the Potomac 

and Eastern Branch between Alexandria and the Long 

Bridge provides the locale of Samuel Colt's Washington 

demonstrations of 1842 and 1844. Found among his patent 

drawings for the Submarine Battery, it bears several lightly 

penciled sighting lines across the vicinity of his minefield in 

the Navy Yard approaches of the Eastern Branch. Such 

sighting lines accord well with the principle involved in his 

. • . 1 

• •-•>- : 

&y 

two-observer system, as these partially erased lines intersect 

across eight faintly marked buoys laid in two lines of four 

each athwart the channel. Colt could have achieved the 

effect of a two-observer system by having the Styx piloted 

directly through this minefield (employing some landmark 

near the Navy Yard), while positioning himself at right 

angles, either on Poplar Point or on the north shore of the 

Eastern Branch. Partial erasure of these sighting lines, as 

well as the absence of mines actually detonated, raises doubt 

regarding this apparent arrangement. 
42 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

have been inspired and perhaps edited by the inventor, suggest however that Colt had deliberately completed his preparations sufficiently in advance to 

frustrate comprehensive evaluation by either federal 

officials or Washington newsmen.148 

The scene of Colt's climactic demonstration on 13 

April 1844, that broad reach of the Eastern Branch 

extending from the Arsenal on Greenleaf Point to 

the venerable shiphouses of the Navy Yard, had been 

widely advertised: 

. . . the whole populace was in a fidget of satisfaction and 

impatience—everybody in every place, from the halls of Congress and the Executive Departments down to the boarding 

house kitchen and boot-blacks' cellars, were hurrying 

through the business of the morning to ensure an early dinner 

and a sight of the blow up.

149 

Owing yet again to the absence of official supervision of Colt's experiments, no report by military 

professionals survives to establish the precise preparation of the inventor's first major minefield (Figure 

35), the location of his observation post, or the 

sequence of events surrounding the destruction of 

the Brunette, which had been rechristened Styx for 

her final cruise. Fortunately, however, a chart, signal schedules, contemporary newspaper accounts, and 

a surviving on-the-spot sketch provide substantial 

insight into the events of the Washington Navy 

Yard test. 

The intended scenario of Colt's demonstration 

was outlined in two brief schedules drafted by Lieutenant Junius Boyle of the Navy Yard, who had 

volunteered to conn the target vessel to the minefield's immediate vicinity. It was agreed that about 

4:30 in the afternoon the inventor would signify his 

readiness by "a small explosion" (possibly a pistol 

shot), following which Boyle would respond from 

the Styx by lowering her topsail three times. After 

removing the national ensign, Boyle and his small 

crew were to leave the target vessel in a boat and, 

when clear of danger, fire a rocket. Boyle also provided Colt a minuted schedule of gun signals from 

the Navy Yard that, while outlining the intended 

sequence of events, contains no indication that a 

second observer may have assisted the inventor from 

some vantage point within the Yard: 

Signals between Mr. Colt and the Navy Yard. 

On the arrival of the Secretary a Salute of 17 guns will be 

fired and the Ensign hoisted to the Sheers. 

At 5 PM a gun will be fired which will be followed by an 

explosion from Mr. Colt's battery. 

At 5.10 another gun will be fired when the wreck will be 

removed from the channel by an explosion. 

At 5.20 another gun will be fired when several simultanius 

explosions will take place. 

At 5.30 another gun will be fired when a final explosion 

will conclude the experiments. 

Junius Boyle

 15° 

Here one finds no evidence that the signals were 

to be integrated with a two-observer arrangement: 

no evidence that Colt would have been advised by 

sound signals that the Styx was passing through successive ranges of mines sighted from a second observation post. As soon became apparent, this scenario 

did not materialize precisely as planned. 

A vivid account of the actual demonstration was 

provided by one "Sigma," a reporter of the Washington Daily National Intelligencer, on whom the inventor appears to have made a favorable impression. 

I strolled down to the shores of the Eastern Branch about 

three o'clock; yet though it was more than an hour before 

the appointed time, I found thousands there before me, 

patiently waiting (under no very merciful sun, either) the 

destined hour to arrive. Stationing myself on an elevated 

bluff, I enjoyed, in delighted silence, the panorama which 

surrounded me. The undulating shores on the opposite bank 

of the river, with their woods and farm houses, and cultivated fields; on the left, the navy yard, with its ship-houses 

and workshops; on the right, the arsenal, with Giesbury point 

and Alexandria in the distance; close by, the wharves and 

river beach, covered with people; the nearer heights covered 

with carriages and vehicles of every description, with riders 

on horseback, companies of children, and anxious mothers 

trying to restrain them from venturing to the precipices; 

while below, the placid blue stream, gently rippled by a very 

light breeze, and glittering in the rays of a fervid, unclouded 

sun, covered with boats of all sizes, rowing or sailing to and 

fro—these objects combined in one wide coup d'oeil, presented a scene which, for variety, interest and picturesque 

beauty, could scarcely be surpassed. 

In the middle of the stream, and in full view, lay the object 

on which all eyes were fastened—a ship of about five hundred tons, very old, but newly painted, black with a white 

streak, her sails much patched and weather beaten, having at 

her mainmast head a red flag, and at the mizzen mast the 

American ensign floating beautifully in the breeze. She was 

at anchor, and near her were boats that seemed, from their 

motions, to be in communication with those on board. Presently a steamboat heaved in view and, taking her station 

at a convenient distance, began to let off steam; and before 

long, another and longer appeared, having her deck black 

with a crowd of people and bearing the national colors, 

having as it was understood, the President on board, accompanied by the Heads of Departments and other offices of 

Government. 

As all were now waiting with much impatience, a gun was 

heard from the navy yard, which was followed by others, till 
NUMBER 29 43 

Figure 35.—CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION OF AN OBSERVATION MINEFIELD FOR CoLT's REFLECTED SUBMARINE BATTERY. This section from the 13-foot watercolor of Colt's 

matured Submarine Battery scheme indicates that individual 

sighting lines from the "torpedo tower" would fall on the 

water surface directly above clusters of submerged, buoyant 

mines. Linked horizontally in clusters of five cases (cf. Figures 28 and 29), these globular mines appear to be served 

in cluster by a single insulated lead from the main transmission cable running across the river or harbor bottom, 

suggesting that a target vessel would receive the impact of 

five simultaneous explosions. 

a salute of seventeen guns was fired. We now began to hope 

that the play had begun. Every eye was turned towards the 

ship; but she did not move. A little boat advanced and 

removed certain buoys which had been floating near the 

spot where the battery lay; and soon after a low and peculiar 

sound was heard, when a most beautiful jet, of mingled 

water, fire and smoke, rose to a considerable height near the 

opposite shore, and as the water fell back in white translucent 

masses, the smoke, colored by the sun's rays with all the dyes 

of the prism, slowly melted into the air, while the grains 

of wet powder, ignited and smoking, fell in soft showers upon 

the bright surface of the river. This exhibition rose as if by 

the touch of magic, and seemed intended as a sort of prelude 

to convince the waiting multitude that there was a prospect 

of being paid for their walk.151 

The observant reporter, who had referred to Colt 

in his opening paragraph as "this new Fulton," 

regrettably offered no comment on the inventor's 

preparations or the location of his firing station during the demonstration. An equally effusive colleague, 

who styled himself "Peter Primrose," subsequently 

reported that "a poplar grove on a point of land 

upon the opposite shore, and nearly abreast of the 

ship, was pointed out to us as the spot where Mr. Colt 

was posted with his apparatus."

 152

 Poplar Point lay 

at the southerly end of two cross-channel lines partly 

erased from Colt's chart of the Eastern Branch. 
"M 

$f6*y*k 

Y\ • ..L:* 

Figure 36.—DESTRUCTION OF THE BARQUE Styx BY COLT'S 

SUBMARINE BATTERY OFF THE WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, 

13 APRIL 1844. This unsigned contemporary sketch of the 

climactic demonstration for Congress is annotated as "correct," evidently by the inventor. 

Regardless of his exact location overlooking the 

minefield, he had succeeded once again in evading 

scrutiny by scientifically astute observers and the public at large. During the ensuing moments of his 

demonstration, however, he was to be embarrassed 

somewhat by several waterborne observers. 

At length the American ensign was lowered, and the few 

persons on board the ship [Styx], passing over her side, were 

rowed off, amid the huzzas which rose from the shores, and 

the vessel, abandoned to the breeze, commenced her fateful 

voyage. She proceeded slowly, and as steadily as if navigated 

by the most skilful crew. As she approached the spot where 

the buoys had floated, an explosion took place, and the water 

was thrown up in a pyramid, but a few yards ahead of her. 

"Ah!" exclaimed a thousand tongues, "what a pity! it was a 

failure after all!" The ship held on her course, and in a few 

minutes another mountain of water, larger and blacker than 

the first, rose on her larboard bow, and so close to her that 

she rocked under the undulation. "Oh, he has missed her! but 

it was very near." The words were scarcely uttered when a 

third explosion took place—the bows and bowsprit of the 

ship, instantly shattered to atoms, were thrown into the air. 

The fore part of the vessel was lifted up almost out of the 

water, and then immediately sank, while the stern continued 

above water, and the mizzenmast was left still standing, 

though in an inclined position. The spars and sails hung in 

confusion, being suddenly blackened by the smoke, and the 

whole presenting a wreck in the highest degree picturesque— 

in fact a study for the pencil [Figure 36]. A momentary pause 

of gratified suspense took place, and then the shores 

resounded with heartfelt plaudits, subsiding into longcontinuing murmurs of admiration. The gratification was 

unbounded. Nothing could have been more completely successful. There was no accident, no injury, no disappointment 

in any respect; the public expectation was not only met but 

surpassed; and when the boat containing the crew darted 

swiftly to the wreck, and with some difficulty restored the 

stripes and stars to their former station, it required no stretch 

of the imagination to fancy that we beheld a captive 

invader, which had been compelled to strike, and was now 

taken possession of as lawful prize.153 

The contrast with the Princeton disaster was evident; yet, as sensed by another reporter, the experiment did not come off exactly as scheduled: "It 

would seem that the explosion was made a little too 

soon, as, had the battery struck the vessel a minute 

later, she would have been completely destroyed,"

 154 

In his cryptic report to the Navy Department on 

22 April, Colt indicated two factors that had complicated his task: "The number of small boats upon 

the river, which from the position I occupied could 

not be distinguished from pieces of the wreck, 
- 7 - --> ' 

=&.•,: *£'• " ' ^ 

':0W^ 

Figure 37.—WASHINGTON IN 1834, AS VIEWED FROM BEYOND 

THE NAVY YARD. This pastoral vista suggests that a relatively unobstructed view was available from the Anacostia 

heights, approximately one mile south of Colt's minefield, 

which was sown on the lower reaches of the Eastern Branch, 

between Greenleaf Point (extreme left) and Poplar Point. 

Opposite low-lying Poplar Point rises an eight-storied sugar 

refinery; to the east are seen the Washington Navy Yard's 

sawmill and shiphouse, while to the west, on Greenleaf Point, 

is visible the wall-enclosed complex of the Washington 

Arsenal. 

deterred me from proceeding further after the destruction of the vessel, for fear of accident."155 

The location and character of Colt's observation 

post, elements that were critical to a professional 

evaluation of his mine warfare system, still remain 

obscure and indeed constitute principal elements of 

the enigma that yet surround his Submarine Battery 

demonstrations. In reporting to Secretary of the Navy 

John Y. Mason, he asserted that his "position in this 

case . . . was on the opposite bank of the river something more than two miles distant from the ship."

 156 

Here again the inventor alluded to no second observer. Colt may indeed have conducted his demonstration from an overlook on the Anacostia heights, 

but a reconnaisance of that area indicates that he 

could have secured no effective view of the mined 

area from the distance he alleged. Even from a closer 

overlook, as suggested in Figure 37 (or by a modern 

view from the Frederick Douglass home on Cedar 

Hill), Colt would not have enjoyed the various angles 

of reflection necessary for precise target positioning 

that was embodied in his single observer system. 

That Colt considered utilizing posts within half 

a mile of his minefield is suggested by sighting lines 
46 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Figure 38.—THE HEART OF THE ENIGMA. This enlarged 

portion of Gibert's painting illustrating the destruction of 

the Styx focuses on three locations that may have been 

involved in Colt's successful mining of that vessel: the sawmill and shiphouse of the Washington Navy Yard and an 

abandoned eight-story sugar refinery. Originally constructed 

in 1798, the sugar refinery was later utilized as a brewery, 

clearly the highest potential command post immediately 

adjacent to Colt's minefield. The log of the U.S.S. Union, 

which has been identified as the steamer then refitting at the 

Navy Yard sawmill, sheds no light on these proceedings. 

partially erased from his chart (see Figure 34), that 

terminate in box-shaped positions marked on both 

Poplar Point and the north bank of the Eastern 

Branch, suggesting his use of a simplified "torpedo 

tower." Mindful of his observation post's vulnerability 

to naval gunfire, the inventor emphasized its remote 

location, doubtless to confound his professional critics. 

On 3 June Colt wrote to Representative Henry C. 

Murphy of the House Committee on Naval Affairs, 

asserting that "a fisherman's house, or barn, or even 

the top of a tree, any where within five miles distance could be made the position from which the 

engineer could operate on the enemy"1 57 (Figure 

37). Such assurances, which square badly with Colt's 

patent drawings, effectively masked his actual firing 

arrangements at Washington, while revealing anew 

his constant concern for avoiding reference to that 

most unique element of his proposed system—the 

"torpedo tower." 

Herein lies the ultimate element of the enigma 

surrounding Colt's final demonstrations, on which 

the subsequent inventories of his equipment shed no 

positive light. The inventor's papers contain no evidence that he employed either a reflecting mirror or 

a control grid in accomplishing the destruction of 

the Styx. Far more useful than a distant farmhouse 

would have been the abandoned eight-story sugar 

refinery (Figure 38) that figures prominently in both 

contemporary depictions of the Navy Yard experiment. That structure would have afforded a superb 

overlook of the mined channel, with the requisite 

range of angles of reflection for his rows of mines, 

while fully concealing the operator from the throng.158 

Colt's guarded statements, including his reference to 

"the engineer" in his hypothetical example, suggest 

that he had employed and indeed personally operated 

some form of a single observer system in detonating 

select mines laid athwart the Navy Yard channel. 

The significance of the Submarine Battery's climactic demonstration was assidiously driven home 

for Congress by two noticeably sympathetic press 

observers, most strikingly by the aforementioned 

"Sigma," who concluded: 

May this important invention, now brought to the test of 

experiment, and proved to be so eminently successful, prove 

the happy means of forever preventing the approach of an 

invader to shores thus guarded and rendered impregnable by 

the force of American science and enterprise; and may lasting 

honor and merited reward crown the inventor of so great a 

public benefit! Twenty-four hours are sufficient completely to 

protect the entrance of any harbor in the Union, for no foe, 

unless bereft of reason, will run into the jaws of so certain 

and so speedy a destruction.159 

Military professionals, denied the opportunity to 

monitor Colt's difficult undertaking closely, took a 

decidedly more skeptical view of the Navy Yard 

demonstration, an attitude well reflected in the Army 

and Navy Chronicle and Scientific Repository, which 

concluded its brief notice: "As experiments, these, as 

many others have been, were very beautiful and striking, but in the practical application of this apparatus 

to purposes of war, we have no confidence."

 160

 Officials at the Washington Navy Yard had particular 

reason to regret the destruction of the Styx off Poplar 

Point, for her wreck, not fully disintegrated by a subsequent demolition effort and mine-firing demonstration carried out by Colt on 20 April 1 6 1

 continued to 

obstruct the narrow approach channel and gradually 

built up a major sandbar that embarrassed ship movements in and out of the Yard virtually to the eve of 

the Civil War. 1 6 2 
Judgment 

Mr. Colt may, perhaps, not attempt to found his claims to originality on the invention of the galvanic process, to which he can have no title, but on a new application 

of this process to a method of harbor defence; and also on a new arrangement of 

subaqueous magazines for the same purpose. 

JOSEPH HENRY TO SECRETARY OF WAR 

WILLIAM WILKINS, 3 MAY 1844 

Samuel Colt's final lobbying efforts in behalf of his 

Submarine Battery—although favored somewhat by 

current Congressional anxiety regarding Great Britain's reaction to the Texas annexation treaty submitted 

to the Senate on 22 April 1844 by President Tyler 

—were destined to be vitiated by widespread official 

dissatisfaction with the highly secretive, yet superficially public, manner in which his invention had 

been demonstrated. The imminent approach of the 

Presidential campaign, beginning with nominating 

conventions scheduled at Baltimore late in May, had 

already become a major preoccupation in Washington.163

 Thus on 19 April, three days after Colt 

submitted a memorial to Congress requesting consideration of his "great expenditure of time and 

money" in perfecting the Submarine Battery, Representative James J. McKay, Chairman of the House 

Ways and Means Committee, introduced a resolution 

that deeply disquieted the inventor. McKay's motion 

directed the Secretaries of War and Navy to report to 

that House, "whether the combustible agent used by 

Mr. Colt was a secret before he made the same known 

at the seat of Government; and whether the mode of 

its application to harbor defence be new; and if new, 

what objections there are against its adoption, if 

objections do exist."

 164

 It may well be noted that this 

sharply interrogatory motion, which was promptly 

agreed to by the House, was followed immediately and 

perhaps pointedly that day by a report from the Secretary of War regarding official tests of the strength and 

utility of wrought iron cannon.165 Shocked by the 

McKay Resolution, which effectively wrested the 

initiative from advocates of the Submarine Battery, 

Colt hastily wrote to William Gibbs McNeill on 22 

April, urging him to journey to Washington immediately to aid him in securing a quid pro quo for his 

long sustained efforts: 

Movements are making to kill me of[f] without ceremony. 

A resolution was offered the other day in the House of Representatives. I presume at the instance of some officers of the 

Army hostile to my new mode of fortification, calling on the 

Secretarys of War & of the Navy for information as to the 

plans of my invention[,] the claims which I have if any to 

origonality &c, &c. The Navy department I think will treat 

the subject fairly but the Sec'y of War has refered the resolution to the Ordnance Department & the Engenear beauroughs, people of all others the least calculated to give a just 

repoart in a matter directly hostile to their own profession. 

Col Tolcot [George Talcott] & in fact nearly every officer 

of the ordnance department has been hostile to every invention I ever made & I can't hope for any other result in my 

present cace. 

In these outraged passages, Colt clearly revealed his 

profound distrust of those professionals on whose 

judgment the fate of his Submarine Battery inevitably 

rested. In his desperation, the frustrated inventor 

advanced one final argument: 

Neither the ordnance or ingineer Departments have a 

right to report on this matter for they have no knowledge of 

my plans of fortification & under the secret arrangements 

between me and the late Sec'y of the Navy they never can 

be inlitined on the subject without my permission.166 

After attempting to enlist McNeill's influence in 

persuading the Engineer and Ordnance bureaus to 

submit simple disclaimers of knowledge of his Submarine Battery to the Secretary of War, Colt wrote 

on 24 April to the recently appointed Secretary of the 

Navy, John Y. Mason, providing a summary review 

of his several experiments and driving home the 

contention that 

47 
48 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

in no single instance have I failed in the use of my submarine 

battery, and that the combined results of my experiments 

proved beyond all doubt that it can be successfully employed 

with the most perfect ease and safety to destroy the largest 

class of ships of war when in motion passing in or out of 

harbour without the necessity of approach within reach of 

shot from guns of the largest calibre.167 

Secretary Mason, who had assumed his duties on 

26 March, had neither attended the Washington Navy 

Yard demonstration nor attempted to discover the 

secret of the Colt system vouchsafed to the ill-fated 

Upshur. In the absence of professional evaluations of 

the Washington Navy Yard or preceding demonstrations of the Submarine Battery, Mason considered 

himself in no position to support the inventor's evident 

expectation of a substantial final honorarium from 

Congress. The Secretary's dilemma was perhaps most 

concretely aggravated by the doubtful credibility of 

Colt's statement on 22 April regarding the actual distance of his observation post from the Styx at the time 

of her destruction off the Navy Yard.168 

Under these circumstances, Secretary Mason cooly 

moved to conclude the Navy Department's role, securing from Colt on 25 April an initial statement of his 

expenses that included his draughts for materials and 

services totaling $21,867.71 during the preceding two 

years of experimentation. To this account, Colt added 

the observation that the figures did not include his 

travel expenses, a discrete overture to the question of 

a Congressional honorarium.169 While appreciative of 

Colt's expectations, Secretary Mason found no substantial technical data on the Submarine Battery and 

its performance in the inventor's final appeal on 1 

May to the Navy Department. Instead, Colt had 

enclosed for historical perspective a copy of the contract concluded with Robert Fulton by William Pitt 

the Younger in 1804, reserving to Great Britain exclusive benefit of that American inventor's plans "for 

attacking fleets by submarine bombs."

 17° 

The British government had indeed ultimately not 

rewarded the peripatetic Fulton for his considerable 

mining efforts, and Samuel Colt was destined to 

receive no final award from Congress for the successful demonstration of his Submarine Battery. While the 

Navy Department attempted to close the account of 

Colt's expenses, Secretary of War William Wilkins 

sought authoritative answers to those questions raised 

by the McKay Resolution regarding the novelty of 

Colt's "combustible agent."

 m Unknown to the scientists and military professionals subsequently queried 

by Wilkins (Appendix 5), the much publicized "secret 

of Colt's Submarine Battery," insofar as it represented 

a new contribution to undersea warfare, did not 

actually reside in his mine's galvanic firing device but 

in its unique and not yet wholly proven single observer 

system for gauging the proper moment of detonation. 

Initially, Wilkins sought and found himself unable to 

obtain information from Colt himself on any technical 

aspect of the Submarine Battery. The inventor, who 

had attempted unsuccessfully to visit Wilkins on 20 

April, subsequently wrote to the Secretary requesting 

him to confirm 

that no communication has ever been received at your 

Department from me, on the subject of my new mode of 

fortification; and that you possessed no further information 

on the subject, than the natural inferances framed from 

witnessing his [my] public exhibitions of its effects ... . 

The relations existing between me and the Government on 

this subject, are such, that neither the Government or myself 

have a right to make any of my plans known to the public, 

and as a communication from either your ordnance or ingineer bureaus must inevitably be breaking the good faith of 

the Government towards me in case they should give any 

hints which must lead to an exposure of any of my plans, I 

am compelled to enter this my most solemn protest against 

anything being said or reported by your Department, except 

the simple fact that nothing whatever is known to you of 

the matter [Colt's emphasis].172 

In replying to this peremptory message on 7 May, 

Wilkins confessed being "discouraged by the terms of 

your letter," but renewed his offer to receive any 

explanations "tending to elucidate your proposed 

scheme of harbor defence, or your claim to originality 

of invention.

 173

 Having no intention of divulging his 

secret in this fashion, Colt responded with the 

assertion that 

I have already made full explanations to the Navy Department upon the subject, which are deposited in its secret 

archives. To communicate these to another Department 

would, I conceive, not only be unnecessary, but greatly increase the risk of making public matters which it is essential should be kept secret. Should the Navy Department 

desire any further information, I shall hold myself in readiness at all times to furnish what may be necessary to enable 

the head of that Department to understand the efficiency 

and value of my invention.174 

As revealed in the subsequent publication of this 

epistolary duel, Secretary Mason reported to Wilkins 

on 7 May that, notwithstanding indications that Colt 

had divulged the details of his Submarine Battery to 

Secretary Upshur in 1841 under the injunction of 

secrecy, "there is nothing in existence in this [Navy] 

department to show, so far as I am informed, that the 
NUMBER 2 9 49 

secret had been divulged by him, or is applicable to 

the purposes of the government, without some 

arrangement with Mr. Colt, which this department 

has no authority to make."

 175

 With this additionally 

discouraging information on hand, Secretary Wilkins 

was in no mood to countenance Colt's final request 

on 9 May that he be permitted to examine a copy of 

the report being drafted by the War Department for 

submission to the House of Representatives. An 

arrangement, clearly implied in Colt's wish to make 

suggestions regarding "the existing relations between 

the United States government and myself," was not 

destined to be concluded.176 

During the preceding week, Secretary Wilkins had 

received advisory opinions that confirmed his impression that Colt's Submarine Battery, while possibly 

containing novel elements, relied primarily on galvanic arrangements known to scientists for more than 

a decade. On 1 May, Professor Robert Hare, distinguished professor of chemistry at the University of 

Pennsylvania, submitted a documented review of his 

own and other experiments: ". . . as respects the 

employment of a galvanic current to ignite a wire, 

and by means thereof to explode gunpowder, whether 

for the purpose of rock-blasting, or for warlike defence 

or annoyance, the galvanic process employed by Mr. 

Colt has not the slightest claims to originality."

 177 

Recalling his own experiments as early as 1820 involving the galvanic ignition of gaseous mixtures, as well 

as his subsequent association with Moses Shaw in the 

development of galvanic rock blasting, Hare drew 

attention to subsequent applications of this method to 

submarine demolitions in Great Britain, France, and 

India between 1839 and 1841, most notably demonstrated in the demolition of the Royal George wreck. 

Recognizing Colt's ingenuity and good judgment in 

availing himself of this galvanic arrangement, Hare 

was, nevertheless, perplexed by the "great difficulty 

of conceiving how it can be applied so as to avail 

against movable bodies like ships of war. If Mr. Colt 

can so employ an exploding apparatus as to defend a 

harbor, I can see no objection to the project, except 

that it must be very precarious."

 178

 Unwittingly, in 

referring to the problem of how to mine moving hostile vessels, the Philadelphian had identified Samuel 

Colt's most unique theoretical contribution to the 

evolution of undersea warfare technology. 

No less impressive than the judgment of Robert 

Hare was the opinion offered to the War Department 

on 3 May by Professor Joseph Henry (Appendix 8), 

the distinguished galvanic physicist at Princeton 

(Figure 39). Destined to be called to Washington in 

1846 as the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Henry had achieved international recognition 

in 1831—32 by virtue of his publications on electromagnetic induction, which laid the basis for the 

electromagnetic telegraph and numerous industrial 

applications. Frequently in correspondence with Samuel F. B. Morse, Professor Henry had on occasion 

borrowed insulated cable from that inventor for his 

own experiments and had given him strong encouragement in perfecting his telegraph at a critical point 

in his career. For his part, Professor Morse proved no 

less considerate of a fellow inventor. Quite evidently 

alerted by the apprehensive Colt as to Henry's new 

advisory responsibility, Morse wrote to that distinguished scientist on 30 April 1844, advising rather 

pointedly that "I informed him [Colt] that you would 

speak your mind prudently and without fear or favor 

[and] that he need not apprehend anything adverse 

from you, as I presumed [that] all you would testify 

in regard to the mode he adopted would be that he 

had not imparted any knowledge of it to you, and 

therefore nothing could be said respecting it, but that 

a method could be devised for accomplishing what 

he accomplished on known scientific principles."

 179 

If Morse's intervention reached Professor Henry while 

he was yet engaged in drafting his opinion on Colt's 

Submarine Battery, it failed to deter him from rendering judgment, which, taken in conjunction with other 

professional opinions, proved devastating to that 

inventor's prospects. In response to Secretary Wilkins' 

inquiry regarding the originality of Colt's supposed 

method of submarine demolition, Henry confirmed 

the opinion of his Philadelphia colleague succinctly: 

The explosion of gunpowder at a distance, by means of 

galvanism, has been familiar to men of science and practical 

engineers for several years. The method now generally used 

was made public in 1832, and is the invention of Dr. Hare, 

of Philadelphia. It consists, essentially, in extending between 

the reservoir of powder and the operator two long thick 

wires of copper, the further ends of which, terminating in 

the powder, are united by a short wire of platinum of small 

diameter. The other ends of the copper wires, in the hands 

of the operator, at the desired moment of explosion being 

suddenly brought in contact with the two poles of a galvanic battery, a current of galvanism is transmitted through 

the circuit of wires, which, heating to redness the piece 

of platinum in the midst of the powder, produces the 

explosion.180 

The practicability of exploding gunpowder at a distance, 

in this way, was established by the experiments of Dr. Hare; 
50 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Figure 39.—JOSEPH HENRY, 1797-1878. Born at Albany, 

New York, this eminent early American scientist studied at 

Albany Academy and in 1826, after briefly considering 

careers in medicine and the theatre, assumed the Professorship of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy at that institution. Henry proved a stimulating teacher, enlivening his 

classes with frequent demonstrations of electrical phenomena 

and in 1827 presenting a paper on "Some Modifications of 

the Electro-Magnetic Apparatus" that clearly marked him 

as an emerging scientist. His successful efforts to improve 

William Sturgeon's electromagnet led him to the discovery 

of the quantity and intensity magnets, which he reported in 

Benjamin Silliman's American Journal of Science in 1831. 

Henry accepted the chair of Natural Philosophy at Princeton 

in 1832, shortly after the belated publication of his pivotal 

paper "On the Production of Currents and Sparks of Electricity," wherein he described his discovery of the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction, on which Michael Faraday had but recently published. 

During a visit to Europe in 1837, Professor Henry 

discussed his continuing investigation of electromagnetic selfinduction with Faraday, Wheatstone, and Daniell. His growing international reputation made his counsel particularly 

valued in the American Philosophical Society and the Franklin Institute of Philadelphia, the latter on 1 April 1844 

appointing him chairman of a scientific investigation of the 

Princeton disaster. Late that month, while Henry was yet 

engaged in this undertaking, the War Department also 

requested his opinion on the mysterious Submarine Battery 

of Samuel Colt, regarding whose tests with insulated cable 

he had been informed by Samuel F. B. Morse some two 

years earlier. (Courtesy of Chicago Historical Society.) 

and his results were verified and applied in actual practice 

by several persons, before the time of the exhibitions of 

Mr. Colt. In 1839, a series of experiments by Colonel Pasley, 

of the royal engineers, was published in England, relative to 

the explosion of a large quantity of powder by the galvanic 

process, at the bottom of the river Medway; and, as an 

evidence of the wide diffusion of the knowledge of this 

process, I may mention, that I have now before me a book 

published in Calcutta, in 1841, in which is given a minute 

account of the experiments of Dr. O'Shaughnessy, of the 

Bengal army, in destroying a wreck sunk in Hoogly river, 

by a method which the author himself calls the process of 

Dr. Hare. 

The experiments made on the Hoogly, as well as those on 

the Medway, were made in 1839; and since that time, as it 

would appear by the various publications on the subject in 

the different English scientific journals, the application of 

the galvanic process of exploding gunpowder has become an 

established part of the business of the English engineer. In 

short, I consider the laws of the transmission of electricity 

through long wires as fully developed by the researches of 

Ohm, Wheatstone, Daniell, and others,—at least as far as 

they are applicable to the process in question; that I do not 

think it in the least degree probable that Mr. Colt has added 

a single essential fact to the previously existing stock of 

knowledge on this subject.181 

Personally conscious, through bitter experience, of 

the importance of early publication of scientific discoveries, Henry may well have been disturbed by 

Colt's determined secrecy. The Princeton scientist's 

statement, as indeed that of Robert Hare, revealed 

no awareness of Colt's own succinct account of the 

early history of galvanic rock blasting, published in 

May 1843 in the Army and Navy Chronicle and 

Scientific Repository. Professor Henry was loath, however, to conclude his professional opinion without a 

strong cautionary note regarding the Submarine Battery, whose technical details, as pointed out to him in 

Morse's letter of 30 April in Colt's behalf, were totally 

unknown to him.182 

In conclusion, I wish it to be distinctly understood that 

the foregoing remarks are all made in reference to the method 

of exploding gunpowder at a distance by means of galvanism, and are intended as a specific answer to the question 

proposed to me in your letter. Mr. Colt may, perhaps, not 

attempt to found his claims to originality on the invention 

of the galvanic process, to which he can have no title, but on 

a new application of this process to a method of harbor 

defense; and also on a new arrangement of subaqueous 

magazines for the same purpose. Of the validity of claims 

thus founded, I am not called on to give my opinion; but, 

in justice to Mr. Colt, I ought to say, that whatever may be 

the result of the investigations relative to originality of his 

plans, I think he deserves credit for the industry and practical skill with which he has brought them before the 

public.183 
NUMBER 2 9 

These judgments by two distinguished members of 

the American Philosophical Society represented the 

closest approximation in mid-nineteenth century 

America to the opinion of a national academy of sciences. Offered by experienced scientists who had 

played significant roles in the discovery of electrical 

phenomena, the opinions of Robert Hare and Joseph 

Henry reflected their distinct sense of unease in being 

expected to render judgment on an evident application of science whose parameters remained obscure. 

Even with Colt's impending patent papers in hand, 

these eminent referees would have had no solid basis 

for certifying that his system had been demonstrated 

at Washington, even in rudimentary form. 

No such disquiet pervaded the lengthy report 

(Appendix 7) submitted to Secretary Wilkins on 1 

May by Colonel Joseph G. Totten (Figure 40), Chief 

of the Corps of Engineers and pre-eminent military 

engineer in the United States.184 As conversant with 

numerous other military inventions offered to the War 

Department as he was with European systems of fortification and demolition, Totten exuded a military 

professional's contempt for the secrecy that had surrounded Colt's actual firing arrangements: "I should 

consider myself as risking nothing were I to engage to 

have these results repeated, without the least reference 

to Mr. Colt's—using only processes that are now the 

property of the scientific world—with modifications 

probably, but with such only as ingenuity, by no 

means rare, could supply."

 185

 Correctly surmising with 

both Hare and Henry that voltaic electricity was the 

"combustible agent" employed in the Submarine 

Battery, Totten advised Wilkins: 

The details of Mr. Colt's mode of conveying the power of 

the galvanic battery to distant charges of gunpowder have 

not been communicated; he has stated to me, in conversation, that this is a secret between himself and the Navy 

Department.186 

While personally unaware of any proposals prior to 

Colt to employ galvanism in firing harbor defense 

mines, the Chief Engineer professed greater confidence in the system of contact torpedoes proposed 

four decades earlier by Robert Fulton, owing to that 

system's constant relative effectiveness regardless of 

prevailing visibility conditions. The absence of officially supervised tests for the Submarine Battery 

proved particularly unacceptable to Totten: "Military 

experience has enacted, as an inflexible law, that no 

device, however plausible, shall be admitted to confidence as a military resource, except as it shall make 

Figure 40.—JOSEPH GILBERT TOTTEN, 1788-1864. A 

native of New Haven, this pioneer of United States military 

engineering graduated from West Point in 1805 and, upon 

entering the Corps of Engineers three years later, took part 

in the construction of Fort Clinton at Castle Garden 

on Manhattan Island. During the War of 1812, Totten was 

twice brevetted for gallantry while serving as Chief Engineer 

on the Niagara frontier and in the defense of Plattsburgh, 

concluding that conflict with the mining and demolition 

of Fort Erie. In 1816, Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Totten 

was posted to the new board of engineers, headed by General 

Simon Bernard, subsequently making a major contribution 

to that board's series of landmark reports, which not only 

inaugurated the nation's Third System of coastal fortifications but actually established the first comprehensive United 

States defense policy. The designer and constructor of Fort 

Adams at Newport, Rhode Island, which was regarded as 

the most advanced masonry works of that era, Colonel Totten 

was appointed Chief Engineer of the United States Army 

in 1838 and, distinguishing himself yet again at the siege 

of Vera Cruz in 1847, continued to serve as head of the 

Engineer Bureau until 1864. 

Brevetted as Brigadier General in 1847, Totten was 

regarded as a model of professional competence, energy, and 

incorruptibility. "Conservative in all his views," as described 

by one observer, "he was slow to adopt innovations, yet he 

was ever foremost to embrace all great professional improvements. . His judgment was as sound as his reason, and 

his almost Draconian sense of justice required of others the 

measure of right practiced by himself." A connoisseur of 

scientific, professional, and literary works, Totten published 

a notable report on national defense in 1851 and was destined to play an important role in planning the defenses of 

Washington during the Civil War. He was additionally a 

leading figure in the emphemeral National Institute, was 

appointed in 1846 to the first Board of Regents of the 

Smithsonian Institution, and served with Joseph Henry on 

the Light House Board. 
52 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

its way by success in actual war, or in a long and 

severe course of experience analogous thereto."

 187 

Although uninformed as to the complexity or indeed 

the existence of Colt's "torpedo tower," Colonel Totten identified the observation post inherent in such a 

galvanic system as a link vulnerable to attack by 

hostile landing parties, in the absence of fortifications 

or large defending forces: 

The defence rests, then, either upon the fort or upon the 

army, and not upon the deposites of powder; for, if this 

protecting force be overcome, there will then remain nothing 

to prevent the breaking up and destruction of the galvanic 

arrangements. Or the enemy may prefer to destroy the system 

of conducting wires as they lie upon the bottom. For this 

purpose, he may send at night his heavy boats—aided, perhaps, by one or two small steamboats, each provided with 

the means of dragging the bottom, so as to break the wires, 

and tear away the powder cases. Traversing the channel in 

all directions within the scope of the deposites, a single night 

would suffice to clear away from the portion of the channel designed to be followed, every trace of submarine 

communication.188 

Awar e of Colt's repeated if impolitic assertions tha t 

the Submarine Battery represented an economical substitute, rathe r tha n an auxiliary element, for the Engineer Corps' extensive system of coastal fortifications, 

Colonel Totte n thus concluded in advising the 

Secretary of War: 

That the project of Mr. Colt, as a sole means of defence, 

is wholly undeserving of consideration; as an auxiliary, 

although it might in some situations be resorted to, it should 

in all, or nearly all such cases, be regarded as inferior to 

means that have long been known; and, even when resorted 

to, that it may be applied without any indebtedness to Mr. 

Colt, either as an inventor, an improver, or an applier of 

the process.189 

Reviewed and approved by scientists and ordnance 

specialists of the Army's Topographical and Ordnance 

bureaus, the Totten critique powerfully complemented the opinions of Hare and Henry, adding persuasive military objections to the Submarine Battery 

proposal. These eminent professional objections, countered by no substantive detail from Colt regarding the 

theory or actual demonstration of his system, bulked 

understandably large in Secretary Wilkins' report of 

8 May 1844 (Appendix 11) to the House of Representatives. Yet at no point in its evaluation of Colt's 

supposed system did the War Department reveal itself 

cognizant of mine warfare development in Russia 

during the preceeding half decade, a development— 

alluded to by the Army and Navy Chronicle and 

Scientific Repository on 13 June 1844—currently 

being carried forward as an adjunct to the tsarist 

coastal fortification system. Thus, based upon wellestablished information on galvanic applications to 

underwater demolitions in England, India, and the 

United States, as well as on forceful objections from 

the Corps of Engineers, the Secretary concluded: 

If the means assumed to be those employed by Mr. Colt (and 

if we are in error, he has his own caution alone to blame) 

are actually not those which he uses, then I affirm that any 

intelligent, scientific person, aided and encouraged by equal 

munificence and appropriations, could, without invading any 

patent or exclusive right of others, and by merely applying 

means which have been gratuitously contributed to science 

by distinguished men of our country, accomplish all that 

Mr. Colt has achieved under the bounty and generous encouragement of his government, in his peaceful experiments 

against a defenseless and untenanted ship.190 

In rejecting Samuel Colt's proposal that the United 

States acquire the secret of his Submarine Battery on 

the basis of a negotiated settlement, Secretary Wilkins 

played a major role, together with the inventor himself, in postponing submarine mine development in 

the United States for nearly a generation. The Wilkins 

report, a 17-page document freighted with the 

aforementioned advisory opinions, was received by the 

House on 15 May and promptly referred to its Committee on Naval Affairs, where it remained in limbo 

until early in 1845.191 Meanwhile, in an effort to 

revive his dwindling prospects, Colt had written to 

Representative Henry C. Murphy of that Committee 

on 3 June, setting forth in considerable detail the 15-

year history of his submarine experiments (Appendix 

12), making full acknowledgment of Robert Hare's 

pioneer contributions to galvanic demolitions and yet 

concluding with characteristic grammatical flourish 

(once again without disclosing the unique element of 

his system), 

J claim to be the originator of a submarine battery with 

peculiarities which has enabled me to perform what has never 

before been accomplished and on a full explanation of my 

plans and secrets to my Government[,] originality of plans 

was not only admitted but I were encouraged to prove in 

practice what seemed plausable in my theory, and I were to 

have if successful a reward adequate to the advantage to be 

derived therefrom [.] I have proven every thing contemplated 

or regarding which a doubt was entertained, and now I 

desire the further action of Government on my claims to 

their promise "quid propo" [quid pro quo].192 

Evidently drafted in deep resentment, Colt's challenge revealed a broad gulf of misunderstanding. In 

an effort to resolve the matter, Representative Mur-
NUMBER 2 9 53 

phy called upon Colt to reveal the details of his 

Submarine Battery to Henry L. Ellsworth, the U.S. 

Commissioner of Patents, "in order to ascertain 

whether it possessed novelty sufficient to sustain a 

patent, as in that case alone would it justify the further consideration of the government."

 193

 Thus, on 

8 June 1844, the inventor submitted a formal patent 

application, enclosing a detailed description of the 

Submarine Battery that included plans indicating its 

principal components. After describing his metallic 

"torpedoes" and their platinum filament firing 

arrangements (Appendix 13), Colt explained the 

operation of his "torpedo tower": 

A main point in the producing of submarine explosions, so 

as to destroy a vessel under sail is to ascertain the instant 

when such vessel is directly over one of the torpedoes, and 

this I effect in two ways, in one of which it is ascertained by 

reflection, by means of mirrors, which can be managed by 

one observer.... 

In drawing No. 3 [Figure 41], I have given a sketch of 

the manner in which the place of a vessel is ascertained by 

reflection. C, is a convex mirror so situated as to take in the 

whole field of view of the channel, or harbour where the 

torpedoes are anchored; from this mirror the vessel which 

may come within the field of view will be reflected, at an 

angle due to its situation, onto <* metallic, or other, mirror, 

situated at D. This second mirror is surrounded by a number 

of pieces of metal a,a,a, which constitute the terminations of 

as many connecting wires as there are torpedoes anchored, 

and the mirror is so arranged as to exhibit distinctly the 

place of the reflected image of the vessel, and the connecting wire corresponding with this situation. E, is the 

Battery, and F,F, the connecting wires leading to and from 

the respective torpedoes. The operator is consequently enabled to complete the circuit at the moment when the vessel 

is over the torpedo indicated by the reflection.194 

Although Colt's patent application also described 

his two-observer system, it was his novel "torpedo 

tower" that aroused keenest interest (Figure 42). 

Having examined the application, Commissioner Ellsworth concluded that the Submarine Battery posFigure 41.—INTERIOR ARRANGEMENT FOR COLT'S "REFLECTED 

SUBMARINE BATTERY." The single-cell battery indicated in 

this drawing is not clearly identified in Colt's papers but 

appears to have been an early version of J. Frederic DanielFs 

"constant battery" (1836), which possessed the advantage 

of providing an undiminished supply of voltage for a succession of mine detonations. Colt may have employed the 

more powerful Grove battery for his final demonstration at 

Washington in 1844. There is no clear evidence that he 

employed a fixed control grid on that or previous occasions, 

a fact that would have baffled his official reviewers even 

had they been granted access to his patent draughts. 

Y 
54 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Figure 42.—SAMUEL COLT'S "TORPEDO TOWER." This 

watercolor illustration, part of a 13-foot drawing ("A") 

that may have accompanied Colt's patent application in 

1844, reveals clearly the unique core of his Submarine Battery conception, a galvanic observation post. One undated 

note in his papers indicates that he envisaged a tower no 

less than 100 feet in height, altogether a most tempting 

target for his critics had they ever learned of his conception. 

sessed "novelty sufficient to sustain a patent."

 195

 This 

opinion was sustained by Dr. Thomas P. Jones, former 

Superintendent of the Patent Office and long-time 

editor of the Journal of the Franklin Institute, who 

had at Secretary Wilkins' request closely examined 

the Submarine Battery patent, finding it "not only 

novel, but. . . also calculated to effect the purpose with 

a certainty nearly unerring."

 196

 On the basis of the 

Patent Office finding, the House Committee on Naval 

Affairs thus concluded that Samuel Colt's Submarine 

Battery indeed possessed the merit of originality.197 

Unhappily for Colt, however, the committee did 

not limit its requirement to the criteria of originality, 

turning thereupon to the question of utility. In reviewing the War Department's objections, the committee 

found itself severely embarrassed by lack of tangible 

information. Particularly open to challenge, in view 

of the character of the "torpedo tower," was the 

Department's admitted supposition that "it is impossible for the operator to ascertain the precise position 

of the vessel so as to effect the explosion at the right 

time."

 198

 While there is no evidence that Colt had 

actually employed a fully equipped observation post, 

replete with convex mirror and grided firing panel, 

during the Washington demonstration in 1844, he 

had demonstrably succeeded in firing a torpedo 

beneath a moving target with substantial accuracy. 

Under the circumstances, including the persuasive 
NUMBER 2 9 55 

Totten strictures regarding the vulnerability of Colt's 

observation post to landing parties, the committee 

proceeded to a remarkably ambivalent conclusion: 

From all, therefore, that appears in the reports of the 

Secretaries, there is nothing to induce the committee to 

believe that there is no utility in the invention of Mr. Colt. 

The Committee, on the contrary, from the affirmative testimony which had been submitted to them, and to which they 

have referred, and from the experiments witnessed by themselves, are of opinion that the invention is entitled to the 

favorable consideration of government. There is not sufficient evidence, however, before the committee, to enable 

them to judge of the propriety of adopting it as a means of 

fortification; and they are therefore not prepared to recommend it for that purpose.199 

Confronted by the mounting disinterest of the War 

and Navy Departments, the committee was seriously 

embarrassed in its efforts to resolve the Submarine 

Battery issue. Although prepared to recommend compensation to Colt for personal expenses incurred during his experiments, the committee was disinclined 

to advocate payment of a premium to the inventor 

for the secret of his Submarine Battery. And a secret 

it was to remain. Having withdrawn his patent on the 

very day after its nominal filing, Colt carried the 

details of this unique mine warfare system to his 

grave.200 The House Committee report, drafted on 

the eve of the election of 1844, remained in limbo 

throughout that year, while Colt sought unsuccessfully to induce both War and Navy Departments to 

carry out a survey of harbors and rivers in which the 

Submarine Battery might be employed. On 11 January 1845, Representative Murphy introduced legislation for formal acquisition of the Submarine Battery 

system and a settlement of Colt's claims for an 

"adequate reward," subsequently set at $10,000.201 

In reality, however, the Tyler administration had 

at no stage formally committed itself to payment of a 

premium to Colt should the Submarine Battery 

experiments prove successful. Thus, in response to an 

inquiry from the House Committee on Naval Affairs, 

Secretary of the Navy John Y. Mason effectively 

terminated further consideration of Colt's claims for 

reward on 13 February, stating: "Believing that any 

projector of a great national improvement is amply 

compensated for his personal troubles in the advantage to be derived from the Govt with its means 

testing his invention, I could not recommend the 

clause giving a salary for several years past to Mr. 

Colt."

 202

 Having invested more than three years in 

the development of the Submarine Battery, its inventor was actually to derive nothing of profit from his 

government-sponsored experiments, either in the form 

of United States contracts for his system or subsequent 

offers from foreign governments, which he made no 

effort to solicit. For the disenchanted Colt there would 

have been little additional solace in Secretary Mason's 

concluding judgment that 

the government ought not to authorize expenditures of money 

in testing inventions unless it was first ascertained satisfactorily by the examination of competent officers or others that 

the probable results would be advantageous.203 

Such indeed was the costly administrative lesson 

that emerged from the Submarine Battery fiasco, a 

lesson whose principal victim proved to be a young 

and virtually bankrupt inventor. Samuel Colt's tortuous approach to Congress on behalf of his novel 

mine warfare conception, calculated on the basis of 

his previous frustrations with the Army Ordnance 

Office, had postponed his reckoning with the military 

professionals; yet in the final event it proved singularly 

ill-advised. To Colt's misfortune, no national scientific 

institution then existed in the United States within 

which the Submarine Battery might have enjoyed a 

deliberate, officially sponsored development. Dedicated entrepreneur and lobbyist that he remained, 

Colt had demonstrated from his youth a strong 

attachment to scientific inquiry, and his association 

with Draper and Morse at the University of the City 

of New York suggests that under more favorable circumstances he would have collaborated with a major 

scientific institution in perfecting his unique mine 

warfare system. 

Fundamental to Samuel Colt's extended commitment to the Submarine Battery's development was the 

clear realization that he would be heavily reliant on 

financial support from the government. Frustrating 

as had been his experience in attempting to have his 

tinfoil cartridges manufactured at the Washington 

Arsenal under the aegis of the Ordnance Office, the 

question may reasonably be raised whether the inventor might not have fared better with his Submarine 

Battery had he sought the collaboration of the Engineer Corps in its development. The leaders of that 

elite corps were by no means hostile to peacetime 

development of a mine warfare capability within the 

service. Doubtless impressed by the evident success 

of Colonel Pasley's training program at Chatham, 

Colonel Totten had advocated establishment of a 

Company of Sappers, Miners and Pontoniers as early 
56 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

as 1841. Late in 1844, with memory of the Colt imbroglio still fresh, the Chief Engineer returned to that 

proposal, providing Senator Thomas Hart Benton 

with the draft of a bill establishing such a specialized 

contingent. Totten appears to have envisaged more 

than a simple training mission for such a Company. 

That he may have aspired to creating a modest counterpart of the progressive Chatham establishment is 

suggested in the conclusion of a substantial report to 

Secretary of War Wilkins on 4 February 1845 by a 

special board consisting of Totten (Corps of Engineers), Lt. Col. George Talcott (Ordnance Office) 

and Colonel John J. Abert (Topographical Engineers) 

regarding the submarine rocket proposals of George 

William Taylor of Boston. That indefatigable inventor, whose total underwater schema included a diving 

bell, armored diving suit, collapsible lifeboat, handpropelled submersible, and limpet type "rockets," had 

been conducting underwater demonstrations as early 

as 1839 from Charleston to Boston. Profiting from the 

tactical lessons of Colt's misadventure, Taylor finally 

submitted his underwater system, which envisaged 

galvanic or percussion detonation of his submarine 

rockets, to the aforementioned military board early in 

1845. Though highly impressed by that inventor's 

candor and ingenuity, Totten and his colleagues rendered an adverse verdict, partly on the basis of the 

imperfect state of his system's development. The idea 

of taking over the development of Taylor's rocket was 

not broached. The kernel of a policy indeed 

emerged, however, perhaps through consecutive impact of the Colt and Taylor proposals: 

The device of Fulton—we mean the anchored Torpedo— 

though needing modification—is in our opinion far superior 

to any of its successors—the present one included. Being of 

that opinion, we advise if the government is desirous of 

having ideas of this nature matured, that its attention be 

turned in that direction, through its own officers, who 

undoubtedly are competent to apply all requisite improvements. We think the subject should be taken up by the 

Government, made its own: & all its secrets if there are to 

be any, confined within responsible limits. If the subject be 

really of great importance to the nation, it is worthy of this 

attention; and, in the meantime, the inventions of individuals, in the same field should be discouraged; & not assisted, 

to be, in the end, perhaps, turned against ourselves.204 

Even considering Colt's undisguised threat to emigrate to Russia in 1841, the board's proprietary view 

on mine-warfare development could be seriously 

faulted from the security aspect, as the wholesale defection of military and naval officers to the Confederacy demonstrated two decades later. As a matter of 

record, neither the Colt nor Taylor proposals were to 

assist the U.S. Army in rationalizing the establishment 

of a cadre of sappers and miners capable of carrying 

forward significant peacetime development programs 

comparable to those already afoot in Europe. 

Colt's inability to provide detailed voucher substantiation of his expenditures for development of the 

Submarine Battery during 1841-44 was to embroil 

him in prolonged correspondence with auditors of the 

Treasury Department that was not concluded until 

1854.205 During the intervening years, he survived an 

almost equally disasterous plunge into the early telegraphic communications industry and succeeded— 

largely on the basis of substantial War Department 

orders for his repeating arms during the Mexican 

War—in establishing a private arsenal at Hartford 

that embodied some of the most advanced techniques 

in machine tool employment and enlightened labor 

management practices in the mid-nineteenth century.206

 Colt's eventual success in securing major 

government arms contracts was derived from emergency war-time requirements rather than the recommendations of an officially constituted ordnance 

inspection board, a circumstance that doubtless assuaged the frustration of his coastal defense proposals. 

Viewed in longer perspective, the technological 

nonfruition of Samuel Colt's mine warfare system 

proved remarkably fortuitous for the United States. 

It seems apparent that had Great Britain intervened 

in the course of the Mexican War, his Submarine 

Battery might well have received renewed consideration in Washington, notwithstanding a remarkably 

inflexible schedule of prices that survives in the Colt 

Papers for the manufacture of varying numbers of 

mines.207 As events transpired, however, the Royal 

Navy encountered its first major mine threat off 

Kronstadt during the Crimean War, a long obscured 

episode in the evolution of modern naval technology 

that failed to stimulate serious experimentation with 

systems of submarine mining in either the United 

States or Great Britain.208 The continued disinterest 

of American military engineers and ordnance specialists—professionals shortly to be pitted against one 

another in four years of desperate coastal and riverine 

warfare—in establishing a peacetime developmental 

base in sea mine technology was, ironically, to prove 

of profound importance to the ultimate preservation 

of the Union. 

Viewed in the perspective of the approaching Civil 
NUMBER 29 57 

Figure 43.—SPLIT-CONTROL REFLECTED SUBMARINE BATTERY SYSTEM. The ultimate concept of Samuel Colt's harbor defense system, this section of his 13-foot drawing ("A") 

of the Submarine Battery reveals a channel or harbor sown 

with no fewer than 2500 mines, controlled in clusters of five 

cases. Observational command of the mined area appears 

divided between two "torpedo towers" of different height, 

as seen in the lower or transverse plan. 

War, during which extensive Confederate innovation 

in the art of undersea warfare was launched from an 

essentially theoretical base by Matthew Fontaine 

Maury,209 the adamant refusal of Samuel Colt in 1844 

to vouchsafe the secret of his Submarine Battery to 

unsympathetic military professionals appears to have 

contributed substantially to that narrow margin of 

inadequacy found in the Confederate coastal defense 

system two decades later. Paradoxically, however, it 

was the intricate character of Southern coastal 

defenses, notably as developed at Charleston, combining combat-proven modifications of vulnerable Third 

System fortifications with a variety of auxiliary 

underwater systems—mines, obstructions and semisubmersible torpedo craft—that convinced both European and American military engineers of the absolute 

necessity of integrating undersea warfare systems in 

future coastal defense planning.210 While recognizing 

an element of overstatement in Samuel Colt's claims 

for coastal mine warfare in the context of his era, one 

may scarcely review naval operations during the present century—in the Yellow Sea, the Dardanelles, the 

Heligoland Bight and Danish Straits, and the coasts 

of Korea and Indochina—without perceiving the 

larger prophetic character of his Submarine Battery 

proposal. 
Appendixes 1-14 

APPENDIX 1: Unsigned inventory (not Colt's) of 

the Samuel Colt Collection, Connecticut State 

Library Museum, Hartford. 

S. Colt's Submarine Battery 

Conceived 1836. 

List of drawings and sketches. 

Note: To this belongs an exhibit consisting of an electric 

cable insulated by being covered by a lead pipe. 

Mark on 

Sheet: 

A. 

C. 

D. 

A drawing in water colors 13 feet long by 2 feet 

1" wide, showing a sectional view of torpedoes 

in position and submarine and subterranean 

electric connection with observatory and battery; 

also a smaller scale section with two stations on 

opposite shores, and a larger scale plan view. 

A pencil sketch representing the blowing up ot 

a vessel by Col. S. Colt in the Potomac near 

Washington Navy Yard, about 1843, endorsed 

on face by the word "correct." 

Plan showing location of torpedoes, connections, 

and location of two observatories. 

Sketch of an operator making connection or 

closing the circuit at that point of the switchboard which is indicated to him by the appearance on the inclined surface of the switchboard 

of the image of the object; this image being 

reflected upon the switchboard by a planoconvex 

reflector above and in rear of the operator, and 

indicating the presence of the passing object 

(ship, et.c.) over that torpedo, of which the connecting electric wire ends at the point of the 

switchboard where the image appears. A small 

sketch fastened to this sheet shows the exact 

location of a passing object by observation from 

two stations, this sketch is endorsed in writing 

"Patterson, July 4th, 1836." Sheet D bears some 

explanatory notes by Chs. B. Richards. 

Pencil sketch of submerged electric torpedoes 

and indication of the passage of an object by 

its reflection. Endorsed "Submarine Battery first 

thoughts in 1836." 

Plan of one station connecting with parallel 

rows of torpedoes. 

G. Detailed view of submerged anchored torpedoes 

electrically connected to a cable. 

H. Shows (on the back of an old memorandum of 

an address) an electric fuse, in which a cap is 

to be struck when a hammer is liberated; the 

hammer detent is shown as if to be liberated by 

the closing of the circuit at the station.? 

I. Detail view of torpedo marked in pencil "Submarine torpedo fired by electricity or Galvanic 

Battery." 

J. & K. Two sheets, plans for location of torpedoes; on 

back of K endorsed: "Submarine Battery 

S. Colt." 

L. Small sheet showing an instrument, endorsed 

"Metallic Thermometer for testing & showing 

-the-quantity of galvanic fluid. New York University. 

S. Colt, June 5th, 1842" 

M, N, O, Six sheets showing details of a galvanic battery. 

P, Q, R. Endorsed: "Siphon Battery, University N.Y. 

May 1842." 

S & T. 2 sheets, showing soundings of entrance to the 

New York Harbor. 

U. Copy of a part of coast survey. 

APPENDIX 2: Letter of Samuel Colt to President 

John Tyler, 19 June 1841, retained copy, Samuel Colt 

Papers, box 5, Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford. [The original of this letter has not been found 

in the John Tyler Papers in the Manuscripts Division 

of the Library of Congress.] 

Washington, June 19, 1841. 

Sir: 

It is with no little diffidence that I venture to submit the 

following for your consideration; feeling as I do, that its 

apparent extravagance may prevent you from paying it that 

attention which it merits. & but for the duty I owe my country in these threatning times, I should still longer delay 

making this communication. 

There seems to prevail at this time with all parties a 

sense of the importance of effectually protecting our Sea 

Coast; & as economy is a primary consideration, in the 

present exhausted state of our treasury, I think I have a 

right to expect a favourable consideration of the propositions 

which I have determined to make. 

59 
60 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

For more than five years past I have employed my leisure, 

in study & experiment, to perfect the invention of which I 

now consider myself master; & which if adopted for the 

service of our Government, will not only save them millions 

outlay for the construction of means of defence, but in the 

event of foreign war, it will prove a perfect safeguard against 

all the combined fleets of Europe, without exposing the life 

of our citizens. 

By referring to the Navy State Papers, page 211, you will 

discover that Robert Fulton made experiments which proved 

that a certain quantity of Gunpowder discharged under the 

bottom of a ship would produce her instant destruction. 

That discovery laid the foundation for my present plan of 

harbour defence. & notwithstanding the failure of Fulton to 

use his invention to much advantage in its imperfect condition during the last war, one glance at what he did perform, 

is sufficient to convince the most incredulous that if his 

engine could be brought within easy & safe control, it must 

prove an irresistible barrier against foreign invasion. 

Discoveries since Fulton's time combined with an invention original with myself, enable me to effect the instant 

destruction of either Ships, or Steamers, at my pleasure on 

their entering a harbour, whether singly, or in whole fleets; 

while those vessels to which I am disposed to allow a passage, are secure from a possibility of being injured. All this 

I can do in perfect security, & without giving an invading 

enemy the slightest sign of his danger. 

The whole expense of protecting a Harbour like that of 

New York, would be less then [than] the cost of a single 

steam ship; & when once prepared, one single man is sufficient to manage the destroying agent against any fleet that 

Europe can send. 

With the above statements as an intimation of what can 

be done, I will mention in as brief a manner as possible, the 

terms on which I will make an exhibition to prove to yourself, & your Cabinet, that a Sailing vessel, or Steamboat, 

cannot pass (without permission) either in or out of a harbour where my engines of destruction are employed. 

To make the exhibition (which I contemplate should I 

meet with sufficient encouragement) will require an expenditure of $20,000. which sum I will employ for that purpose 

from my own means; on condition that the Government will 

lend me such aid as I shall require (which can be supplied 

without incurring new expenses) & that when I get through 

my exhibition, the Government shall refund to me the amount 

of money which I shall have expended; & pay me an annual 

some [sum] of $ as a premium for my secret. 

In hope I may be excused for mentioning that as any hint 

of my plans at this time must prove prejuditial, it is my wish 

that the present communication may be kept from the view 

of all persons excepting the members of your Cabinet. 

I have the honor to be 

Sir. 

Most Respectfully 

Your Excellency's Devoted 

& Obedient Servant 

Samuel Colt 

Fullers Hotel 

To his Excellency 

John Tyler 

President of the United States 

APPENDIX 3: Description of firing arrangement in 

Colt's Submarine Battery, published in the Alexandria 

Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, 5 October 1842. 

LETTER FROM WASHINGTON. 

COLT'S SUBMARINE BATTERY, &c. &c. 

I do not know whether you have seen or published an 

account of Colt's Steam [Submarine] Battery, and as its 

description is simple and yet interesting, I have transcribed 

the following from a Northern paper, viz:—the Battery 

consists of a light sheet iron box filled with gunpowder, and 

having two copper wires wound around with cotton, then 

varnished with a mixture of gum shellack, alcohol, and Venice 

Turpentine, and extending through tight corks in one side 

of the box, having a piece of platina wire extending between 

them in the box amongst the gunpowder, and the two copper 

wires extending off from this box, (which may be anchored 

in the channel of a river) to a large one of Grant's Electricity collecting [connecting] machines, electrified by a large 

Galvanic Battery, which may be seven or eight miles distant 

from the box, and where the operation [operator] is, having 

one of the wires in his hand ready to attach them to the 

collectors [connectors] the instant the signal is given to 

explode the box. 

Now, when an enemy is over the box, and the wires are 

that instant attached, positive electricity immediately passes 

along one wire, and negative electricity immediately passes 

along the other wire, these two kinds of electricity concentrate on the platina wire, instantly heat it red hot, and it 

fires the gunpowder, and blows the vessel to fragments. 

Having seen the effects of this wonderful contrivance in 

the explosion of a stout schooner near Greenleaf's Point, I 

am as well convinced of its utility for the protection of 

harbors, and indeed of bays and rivers from the invasion of 

hostile fleets, as of any other invention which of late has 

so astonished the world. It has been said that the wires 

could be raked up by sending boats ahead with rakes and 

oyster-tongs. I think it would be rather a hazardous business, 

if not utterly impracticable for the want of a knowledge of 

the locality of the boxes (for I presume any number of boxes 

may be sunk in the channel) and with wires; besides the 

operator or superintendent in one night could sink boxes in 

the channel in [the] rear of the enemy's ships, which would 

ensure their destruction, and instead of raking for the wires, 

you would find the crews taking to their boats and jumping 

overboard. I trust we may hereafter dispense with our expensive and useless forts on the sea-board. I say useless, because 

they are of no earthly use but to protect the soldiers from 

the enemy, who can land their men out of gunshot of the 

fort, and ravage the country, opposed by none but militia. 

We experienced this last war, in the instance of Forts Detroit, 

Niagara, Oswego, Castine and Fort Bowyer. I ask what 
NUMBER 29 61 

advantage Fortress Monroe could afford in time of war, as 

a defence or obstruction? It is true vessels might take shelter 

under its guns, but vessels have cut out harbors fortified 

more skilfully and more difficult of access than Fort Monroe. 

Then again, suppose this fort should be taken by the enemy, 

(a matter not in the least, problematical) would it not 

afford the invaders a rendezvous for their fleet, and enable 

them to annoy the whole country. Many persons think Forts 

Monroe and Calhoun protect the mouths of Chesapeake 

and James River, a fact entirely erroneous. A ship bound up 

the bay need not approach the Fort nearer than six miles, 

and perhaps as much as ten. My opinion has ever been that 

Forts should be built on the confines of a town or city, and 

located in a position where the approach of an enemy might 

be more easily repelled. Forts built 5, 10, 15, 20, and 100 

miles off, from a city, it is intended, to protect, is of a. piece 

with the system of opposing Indians with Infantry, many of 

whom never rode a horse in their lives and are only fit for 

building Barracks and cultivating the lands for their own 

support and convenience. Yet such were the soldiers to 

oppose the Indians in Florida, some of them enlisted not 

three days in the country, and who had never rode a horse 

or fired a. musket in the country they emigrated from. The 

light Artillery is the best force to subdue Indians flanked by 

mounted gun men. 

I have been thinking it strange that such a fuss should 

be made in N. York about the fist fight of Lilly and McKoy, 

and that the press should ring with its enormity far and 

near; whilst at the same time duelling, with deadly weapons, 

is tolerated. Nature gave to all animals as well as man, the 

means of offence and defence, and the use of those powers 

are not cognizable as felonies. But when we see gentlemen 

go to the fields and kill each other, instead of rendering 

them odious to the community, and objects liable to the 

penalties of the law—their society is courted and they become 

bold and insulting in their intercourse whether in the forum 

or in private circles. On the other hand the lower classes 

who fight with their fists are hooted [hunted?] down, and a 

hue and cry raised all over the Union after them for 

punishment. 

C. 

Washington, Oct. 1, 1842. 

APPENDIX 4: Letter of Secretary of War William 

Wilkins to Joseph Henry, 29 April 1844, in Letter 

from the Secretary of War Relative to the Secret of 

Colt's Submarine Battery, May 15, 1844, House 

Document No. 127, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, 

page 11. 

War Department, April 29, 1844. 

SIR: I have the honor to enclose you a copy of a resolution 

adopted by the House of Representatives, in relation to "the 

combustible agent used by Mr. Colt;" and beg you will pardon me for asking your attention to the first branch of the 

resolution. 

It is understood that the explosive agent used by Mr. Colt 

is gunpowder; and that this is fired by means of galvanism, 

or other similar agency. 

Your pursuits having led you, doubtless, to an acquaintance with what has been heretofore done in this branch 

of practical science, the War Department would be much 

obliged by the communication of your views in reference to 

the claims which Mr. Colt's methods may have to originality. 

My object is not to impose labor or detail upon you. Your 

opinion, transmitted to me with as much brevity as you may 

think proper to use, and with as little delay as may suit 

your convenience, will be thankfully received as a contribution in the advancement of a public inquiry. 

Very respectfully, &c, 

WILLIAM WILKINS 

Professor JOSEPH HENRY, 

Princeton, New Jersey 

APPENDIX 5: Letter of Samuel F. B. Morse to 

Joseph Henry, 30 April 1844 in Joseph Henry Papers, 

Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C. 

Washington April 30, 1844 

My dear Sir, 

Mr. Colt has just called on me and informs me that you 

have been written to by the Secy, of War for an opinion 

respecting his submarine battery. He feels very anxious on 

the subject, as he conceives that there is a natural prejudice in the war department against any innovation upon 

the old established plans of fortification, and harbor defence. 

He thinks your letter will influence the decision in Congress, as it will be submitted to them and be published, and 

he wished me to write you for him. I told him I would do 

so, and in fulfilment of my promise I write this. I informed 

him that you would speak your mind prudently and without 

fear or favor [and] that he need not apprehend anything 

adverse from you, as I presumed [that] all you would testify 

in regard to the mode he adopted would be that he had not 

imparted any knowledge of it to you, and therefore nothing 

could be said respecting it, but that a method could be 

devised for accomplishing what he accomplishes on known 

scientific principles. 

I take this hurried opportunity just to say that my telegraph is in successful operation for 22 miles, and I am in 

constant correspondence from that distance, from the Junction of the Annapolis rail road with the Baltimore & Washn

. 

rail road, to the Capitol. I wish I had time to write you more 

on the subject, and especially do I wish that you could be 

here just now to suggest and make any experiments which 

may further your valuable researches. 

In great haste but with real 

respect & esteem 

Y. Mo. Ob. Servt. 

Sam. F.B. Morse. 

Prof. Joseph Henry 

Princeton. 
62 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

APPENDIX 6: Letter of Professor Robert Hare to 

Secretary of War William Wilkins, 1 May 1844, in 

Colt's Submarine Battery, House Document No. 127, 

28th Congress, 2nd Session, pages 12—14. 

Philadelphia, May 1, 1844. 

SIR: 1. In reply to your letter of yesterday, and to the 

requisition made by the House of Representatives of the 

United States, I hasten to say, that, as respects the employment of a galvanic current to ignite a wire, and by means 

thereof to explode gunpowder, whether for the purpose of 

rock-blasting, or for warlike defence or annoyance, the galvanic process employed by Mr. Colt has not the slightest 

claims to originality. This will be made evident by an inspection of the 12th volume, page 221, of the Journal of the 

Franklin Institute, of which there is no doubt a copy in 

the national library in the Capitol. It will therein appear 

that I published an account of the simultaneous explosion 

of twelve charges of gunpowder, at the distance of one hundred and fifty feet, by one battery. I performed the experiment at that distance, to show that the apparatus might be 

remote from the cavity in which ignition is to be effected by 

it; but it was perfectly well known to myself, and all others 

acquainted with galvanism, that many miles might intervene, the number and size of the galvanic series being 

proportionally enlarged. 

2. The process thus described did not differ from one of 

which I published an account in volume 2, page 315, Silliman's Journal, in 1820, as the means of igniting gaseous 

mixtures in my eudiometrical apparatus. The rock blasting 

was suggested by the application to me for assistance of a 

projector of the name of Shaw, who had attempted, with 

little success, to employ electricity produced by friction for 

that purpose, with occasional and uncertain success, and 

wished to learn by what means he could avoid the disappointment resulting from the paralyzing influence of moisture. 

3. It may be observed that paragraph the 4th, on page 223 

of the 12th volume of the Journal of the Franklin Institute, 

before mentioned, consists of the following words: "It must 

be obvious, that in all cases of blasting under water, the 

plan of a fin tube, and ignition by a galvanic circuit, must 

be very eligible." The concluding paragraph of the communication (page 226) is as follows: "It can scarcely be 

necessary to point out that the method of communicating 

ignition described here for the purpose of rock-blasting, may 

be applied as the means of exploding a mine. As, for instance, 

the mines associated with the fortifications creating near 

Newport, as a part of the means of annoyance, might have 

a communication through copper wires, with a galvanic 

apparatus, in those situations to which the besieged might 

be expected to retire; putting it thus completely in the 

power of the commanding officer to select that time for the 

explosion when its effects would be most servicable." 

4. Thus it appears that I had represented my process as 

peculiarly applicable to blasting under water, and exploding 

mines as a means of military annoyance. Moreover, it will 

appear from the Journal of the Franklin Institute, (vol. 1, 

3d series, for 1841, page 154,) that the process devised by 

me was used in 1840 by Alexander Paris, civil engineer, 

who mentions the previous employment of it in England for 

removing the wreck of the Royal George, and in several 

other successful enterprises. 

5. Professor O'Shaughnessy, of Calcutta, informed me, 

when in this city last spring, that he had (in consequence 

of reading of my experiments) undertaken with complete 

success, by a similar process, to remove from the channel of 

the river Hoogly the hull of a large sunken vessel which 

interfered with the navigation. 

6. Professor Draper, of New York, has informed me that 

he instructed Mr. Colt as to the process which he uses; it 

being understood by him at the time that it was one which 

I had previously employed. 

7. I am ready to admit that Mr. Colt must have been 

judicious and skillful in availing himself of the means which 

he has owed to the invention of others. As respects the 

employment of the process as a means of harbor defence, 

the only objection that occurs to my mind arises from the 

great difficulty of conceiving how it can be applied so as to 

avail against movable bodies like ships of war. If Mr. Colt 

can so employ an exploding apparatus as to defend a harbor, 

I can see no objection to the project, excepting that it must 

be very precarious. Any number of casks of gunpowder may 

be made to float in a channel, and may be exploded by the 

means which I have devised, at any desirable instant, either 

successively, or all at once. Where the channel is so narrow 

that an approaching vessel could not pass without coming 

very near one or more of them, evidently she might be discomfited. The casks might contain rockets and fire-balls, 

which might fly to a great distance, and set fire to the sails 

of shipping. But where there is a squadron of ships, the 

casks being so exploded as to injure the first, there would 

be no means of preventing the passage of the remainder. 

8. It occurs to me to suggest that a floating battery might 

be so placed as to have the guns discharged at any moment, 

in a way to destroy a passing ship. 

9. Of the peculiar mode in which Mr. Colt proposes to 

employ galvanic ignition in harbor defence I have no knowledge; and of course, on that subject, I cannot form any 

opinion. 

10. The fact that my apparatus, in the hands of my 

ingenious countryman Paris, was found superior for blasting 

under water to that employed by Colonel Pasley, proves the 

folly of the reason assigned by him for his not employing 

it—that it had not been used under water. (See Franklin 

Journal.) But, as the distinguishing feature of my process 

consists in the use of the galvanic circuit, it makes but little 

difference whether the one or the other form of the galvanic 

battery were employed. 

11. While the process of blasting galvanism is before 

Congress, I beg leave to call their attention to the humane 

object for which it was devised. In England, any effort of 

this kind is cried up both as an individual and national 

honor. Look at the instance of Davy's safety-lamp. The 

neglect of the use of my process for rock-blasting has caused 

many persons to be killed or crippled. I presume, however, 

that the resolution of Congress, in consequence of which I 

am honored by your letter, is not sufficiently broad to make 

it proper to take into view any other object besides harbor 

defence. 
NUMBER 2 9 63 

12. Since the preceding pages were written, I have found 

in the United Service Journal, published at London, an 

account of the operations of Col. Pasley in removing the 

wrecks of several vessels, especially that of the Royal George. 

It appears that, after bungling for some time with other 

means of communicating ignition, Colonel Pasley became 

acquainted with my process for effecting that result, and 

heretofore resorted to the galvanic circuit for the purpose 

alluded to. (See vol. 1, 3d series, Franklin Journal, already 

referred to, page 158.) With true British pride, however, 

they determined to go through a vast deal of trouble to 

get up a plan of their own, when the experiments of Paris 

show that my plan, already perfected, was preferable to that 

to which they resorted. 

I subjoin extracts A and B from the works above mentioned. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

ROBERT HARE. 

WILLIAM WILKINS, esq. 

APPENDIX 7: Letter of Colonel Joseph G. Totten 

to Secretary of War William Wilkins, 1 May 1844, in 

Colt's Submarine Battery, House Document No. 127, 

28th Congress, 2nd Session, pages 6—11. 

Engineer Department 

Washington, May 1, 1844 

SIR: The resolution of Congress of the 19th ult., having 

been referred by you for report to this office, I have the 

honor to submit thereon the following remarks. The resolution is in the following words: 

"Resolved, That the Secretaries of War and Navy be 

requested to communicate to this House the fact, whether 

the combustible agent used by Mr. Colt was a secret before 

he made the same known at the seat of government; and 

whether the mode of its application to harbor defence be 

new; and if new, what objections there are against its 

adoption, if objections do exist." 

I. Whether the combustible agent used by Mr. Colt was 

u secret before he made the same known at the seat of 

government? 

I understand this inquiry to refer to the combustible 

agent, by which fire is conveyed to deposites of gunpowder, 

and not to the gunpowder itself, nor to any substance substituted for gunpowder; and this agent I understand to be 

galvanism, or voltaic electricity. As to the nature of this 

agent, there is, I suppose, no concealment. The details of 

Mr. Colt's mode of conveying the power of the galvanic 

battery to distant charges of gunpowder have not been communicated; he has stated to me, in conversation, that this 

is a secret between himself and the Navy Department. 

The process thus concealed from common view, may be 

new partly—perhaps entirely; but, however that may be, 

there is no doubt that the idea of making this use of galvanism did not originate with Mr. Colt; and that its successful application to submarine explosions was made by 

others, before Mr. Colt's projects were submitted to the 

public. 

The use under water, of gunpowder, in blasting rocks, 

levelling for foundations, removing obstructions to navigation, and even blowing up vessels, is a matter of common 

notoriety amongst persons conversant in such operations. 

But, until within a few years, fire was communicated in 

such cases, by matches or fuses of different kinds, through 

water-tight tubes, &c.; all of which means seem applicable 

only to charges that are near at hand. 

In 1831, however, an eminent American chemist, (Dr. 

Hare, of Philadelphia,) at the close of a paper describing 

a process by which he had exploded a number of charges 

of gunpowder by the use of a galvanic battery, says, "it must 

be obvious, that, in all cases of blasting under water, the 

plan of the tin tube, and ignition by a galvanic circuit, must 

be very eligible." 

Although the English have since had much more experience than we in carrying out this idea, they acknowledge 

this to be the first suggestion of the voltaic process. Since 

this announcement by Dr. Hare, originality in this matter 

must be restricted to the details, which admit, no doubt, 

of considerable variety. 

Col. Pasley, of the English corps of engineers, after much 

experience in submarine explosions by the employment of 

fuses, matches, &c, began experiments in the autumn of 

1838 with the voltaic battery; and, in the spring of 1839, 

succeeded in firing several charges in deep water, at the distance of about 500 feet. 

In the same year, Mr. Roberts, near Edinburgh, used a 

voltaic battery in firing charges under water. 

In July, 1839, Col. Pasley caused experiments to be made 

as to the effects of an increased size in the conducting wire, 

and augmented power in the battery in exploding more 

remote deposites of powder, in which he extended the distance to 1,950 feet—a limit set, not by want of power in the 

apparatus, not by defect in the arrangements, but by the 

length of wire with which he was provided. There was 

nothing in the experiments then made, nor is there anything in those made since, affording any reason to doubt 

that, had his provision of wire been adequate, he might, at 

that time, have extended his command over a length of wire 

as great as has ever been employed. 

"As soon as Col. Pasley" (to use the language of a semiofficial report of these proceedings, dated in 1840) "was 

satisfied that he could depend upon the voltaic battery at 

any depth of water, and in any current however strong," he 

made arrangements for blowing to pieces the wreck of the 

line-of-battle ship Royal George, sunk at Spithead in 1782, 

and then lying embedded in mud at a depth of about 

fourteen fathoms; which operation was pursued through 

several seasons. Numerous embarrassments connected with 

the position of the wreck in deep water, in a strong tide 

way, and often a rough and heavy sea, attended the early 

operations; but they were all overcome, and the process 

reduced to a system simple, easy and certain. 

In December, 1839, the wreck of the barque Equitable, 

of 420 tons, was blown up in 30 feet water in the river 

Hoogly, in India—also by voltaic electricity. 

In the year 1840, Mr. Alexander Paris, an able American 
64 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

civil engineer, who was engaged, under the general government, in the construction of quay walls and launching ways 

at the navy-yard in Portsmouth, N.H., had recourse, with 

perfect success, to the same agent in levelling the rocky 

bottom to receive his walls, in depths varying from 25 to 30 

feet at high water. He preferred, for his galvanic battery, 

Dr. Hare's calorimeter [calorimotor]. 

With this experience, (which we see has been acquired by 

others than Mr. Colt,) with much more of similar nature to 

which I have not adverted, and a vast deal more, no doubt, 

of which I have no information; for, in the development of 

this branch of chemical philosophy, great improvements are 

daily made in the details, in sources of power, in modes and 

purposes of application,—with this knowledge, any intelligent person could, I have no doubt, aided by equal 

munificence, without invading any patent, and by merely 

applying means which have been gratuitously contributed 

to the cause of science, accomplish all that Mr. Colt has 

achieved. I do not say that he would use the same means 

identically, because the same effects may be reached by 

processes varying in particulars; but he would accomplish 

the same end with equal certainty, although what Mr. Colt 

claims as the secret of his process should never transpire. 

I should consider myself as risking nothing were I to 

engage to have these results repeated, without the least 

reference to Mr. Colt's—using only processes that are now 

the property of the scientific world—with modifications probably, but with such only as ingenuity, by no means rare, 

could supply. 

Even within the short time that has elapsed since Col. 

Pasley and Mr. Paris's experiments, and other above adverted 

to, the galvanic battery has been greatly extended in its 

power and convenience of application; but by means openly 

announced to the public, and better than which Mr. Colt 

need not have used in his late exhibitions. 

To meet the probability of its being said that, after all, 

the agent is not galvanism,—I have to add, that galvanism 

will, at any rate, produce identical effects. If it be further 

said, that the explosions are not the work of gunpowder,— 

it is only necessary to add, that pyrotechnical displays not 

less striking, may, nevertheless, be the work of that material. 

II. Whether the mode of the application of this agent to 

harbor defence be new? 

I am not aware of any project antecedent to Mr. Colt's, 

for communicating fire by galvanic electricity to deposites 

of powder placed in channels and harbors, for their defence. 

If, however, it were once thought advisable to make these 

deposites, it would seem that this mode of igniting them— 

a mode which has been shown to have been of frequent 

use in causing explosions under water for other purposes— 

would very naturally have been taken into consideration; 

but, I must say, I am not aware of any such project. 

If the purpose of the resolution is (without confining its 

meaning to the mere process of ignition) to inquire whether 

the idea of defending harbors by such deposites of gunpowder placed in the track of the vessels is new, then the 

answer is in the negative; Fulton's projects of this sort are 

more than 40 years old. Among his various devices for 

producing submarine explosions, and for attaching torpedoes, 

as he called them, to the bottom of vessels, was one (perhaps 

the best of all such inventions) for anchoring one or more 

lines of torpedoes across the channel, and below the surface 

of the water, and in such proximity to each other that 

vessels could not pass without striking one or more. Each 

of these magazines of powder was to be so fitted on the 

outside, that the pressure of passing bodies would set free 

an internal lock, like a gun lock, thereby giving fire to the 

enclosed gunpowder. This invention, the details of which 

afford scope for much variety, seems to me more likely to 

be usefully applied to purposes of defence, and much freer 

from objections, than any kindred project. The idea has 

long been before the world, to be availed of, possibly, in 

particular localities, in addition to other well-tried means, 

when suitable occasions shall present themselves. 

With Mr. Fulton's other device of detached torpedoes, 

that were to be drifted down upon anchored vessels—-

although, in his preliminary experiments in the harbor of 

New York, he had completely demolished the vessel submitted to his power—one or two actual attacks that were 

attempted during the last war, produced no other effect 

than causing a more than usual vigilance in the blockading 

vessels. This particular invention of drifting torpedoes, notwithstanding the striking success of the experiment in the 

presence of thousands of spectators, never partook of the 

public confidence, and received little further aid from the 

government. 

These notices but repeat the well-known fact, that submarine explosions are not new resorts as measures of 

defence, in the minds of ingenious men; however it may 

be with Mr. Colt's means of causing the explosion. 

III. // new, what objections there are against its adoption, 

if objections do exist? 

Means as applicable to the great object of national defence 

may be local or particular, or they may be general. Of the 

former class, it would be difficult to mention any means that 

can be brought to inflict bodily hurt upon man, or injury 

upon the works of his hands, that may not find some useful 

application in war. 

We pride ourselves in these days (and not without reason) 

upon the highly advanced state of military science; upon 

the great exactitude to which its combinations lead; the 

precision of its results, whether in respect to masses or 

individuals; upon the perfection of its machinery and its 

arms; and yet, indispensable as this advanced condition is, 

in order that one nation may be in equilibrium with another, 

or may be able promptly to put herself upon the same level, 

there would be hardly a day of active campaign in which 

advantageous recourse would not be had to some of the 

simple practices of early warfare. The bayonet is not, however, likely to be set aside, because in a melee, the fist may 

be sometimes used with effect even now; nor the musket, 

because in certain positions the arrow may be the preferable 

missile. But, while particular circumstances of this nature 

do undoubtably sometimes arise, no judicious person would 

therefore decry the great improvements that have grown 

out of the experience of war, or aim to supersede any of these 

by devices not approved by an equally severe test. Military 

experience has enacted, as an inflexible law, that no device, 
NUMBER 2 9 65 

however plausible, shall be admitted to confidence as a 

military resource, except as it shall make its way by success 

in actual war, or in a long and severe course of experience 

analogous thereto. The success of any device as a local or 

particular means, ought, in this way, to be thoroughly 

established, before it can enter its claim as of general utility. 

And the reason for this is plain: as the means in actual use 

are the fruits of this kind of experience, they should give 

way only to means that have been proved superior, by a 

trial not less thorough. 

These observations seem properly to precede the remark 

that the project of defending harbors by deposites of gunpowder arranged for blowing up the passing vessels of an 

enemy, is very far from possessing the sanctions which alone 

could warrant a reliance upon it, to the exclusion of a 

single one of the means of known efficiency. 

Still, it might be conceded that, in certain positions, and 

under particular circumstances, a partial resort to it might 

be advantageous. I can imagine a case that would call for 

the use of Perkins's steam-gun—an invention which excited 

the public wonder a few years ago—in preference to any 

other arm; and I can also conceive circumstances that would 

justify the trial of this project. But even were any such case 

to present itself, the object could be accomplished without 

recourse to any secret means—to any process not the common property of the world. I must add, however, that even 

in instances that would seem to admit this latter trial, any 

arrangement founded on the principle of Mr. Fulton's 

anchored torpedoes, presents itself much more favorably 

to my mind. 

To apply this project as of general use, or as a sole resort, 

would, it seems to me, be as utterly in vain as it would be 

unwise. In order to explode these gunpowder deposites 

opportunely, it is, of course, necessary that the agent shall 

know, with exactness, when the passing vessel is over the 

charge—very little latitude being allowable. Now, the only 

mode of judging is by the eye; there is no time for computation, nor even for comparison of opinions; and to say 

that a man can guess within several hundred feet, is to give 

more accurate vision than the most experienced eye would 

claim. In proof of this, it is only necessary to compare the 

opinions of bystanders as to the distance of any remote 

object, whether passing by land or water. In order that there 

may be any approach to accuracy in this respect, it is necessary, moreover, that the agent shall be placed in, or near, 

the line in which his magazines lie; if not, he can no better 

decide when the enemy is crossing this line, than he can 

tell the particular point of the line over which he passes. 

But if there be, unavoidably, this uncertainty by daylight, 

how will it be at night, when the outline of the vessel can 

only be dimly made out, if seen at all? How is this resort 

then to be applied? 

Passing from this point, as to which many sources of 

uncertainty are obvious, we will suppose an enemy to hesitate, notwithstanding, as to running the hazard of the passage—preferring to land a force, and break up the arrangement for communicating fire to charges of powder. The 

success of this landing can be prevented in one of two ways 

only. There must be a fortification and garrison capable of 

resisting the enterprise—which we know, from the lessons 

of history, will be composed of a force commensurate with 

the importance of the object to be gained; or, there must 

be encamped upon the spot an army capable of defeating 

it without the aid of fortifications. The defence rests, then, 

either upon the fort or upon the army, and not upon the 

deposites of powder; for, if this protecting force be overcome, there will then remain nothing to prevent the breaking 

up and destruction of the galvanic arrangements. Or the 

enemy may prefer to destroy the system of conducting wires 

as they lie upon the bottom. For this purpose, he may send 

at night his heavy boats—aided, perhaps, by one or two 

small steamboats, each provided with the means of dragging 

the bottom, so as to break the wires, and tear away the 

powder cases. Traversing the channel in all directions within 

the scope of the deposites, a single night would suffice to 

clear away from the portion of the channel designed to be 

followed, every trace of submarine communication. Nor 

would the use of hawsers, or even chains, intended to secure 

the wires from the dredges, avail; because, with means supplied by the larger boats of men-of-war, these could be 

lifted and cut off. 

On the supposition that this is to be the main dependence 

for defence, there would, however, be no necessity for hurry 

in this dredging operation; the enemy might take his own 

time to it. Bringing his vessels of war into convenient 

proximity, he could delay his passage until a deliberate 

examination had shown that not a clew remained unbroken. 

It must not be urged that danger to the. boats will prevent 

the scouring of the bottom; because to say nothing of the 

uncertainty which must exist on shore as to the exact 

positions of the boats at any moment in the night, we know 

that greater hazards are encountered in war with alacrity. 

A little additional pay to the soldier, and the thirst for 

distinction in the officer, keep the military miners stimulated 

for weeks, during a siege, to willing and ardent labors, in 

the midst of almost hourly explosions. 

Nor must it be assumed that the positions occupied by 

these means of defence will be unknown to an enemy. If 

these were not settled by the features of the harbor, money 

would procure this, as it does all other military information. 

If the dark and complicated countermine galleries of a 

fortification cannot remain unknown, we need not look for 

the concealment of that which must be executed in the 

face of the public. 

I could enlarge on these and other considerations of a 

like nature, explaining counter-devices, by which the project, 

standing by itself, would be rendered nugatory; but such 

cannot be necessary, and I will sum up my remarks in the 

following words: 

That the project of Mr. Colt, as a sole means of defence, 

is wholly undeserving of consideration; as an auxiliary, 

although it might in some situations be resorted to, it should 

in all, or nearly all such cases, be regarded as inferior to 

means that have long been known; and, even when resorted 

to, that it may be applied without any indebtedness to 

Mr. Colt, either as an inventor, an improver, or an applier 

of the process. 

Mr. Colt declines affording you the explanations and 

information respecting his process, which you invited him 

to communicate. This circumstance does not, however, affect 
66 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

the tenor of this report. As before observed, although we 

should forever remain ignorant of the mode of operation 

preferred by him, the results he has given to the public can 

be repeated by others whenever they may be called for. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your most 

obedient, 

Jos. G. TOTTEN, 

Colonel and Chief Engineer. 

Hon. WM . WILKINS, 

Secretary of War. 

APPENDIX 8: Letter of Professor Joseph Henry to 

Secretary of War William Wilkins, 3 May 1844, in 

Colt's Submarine Battery, House Document No. 127, 

28th Congress, 2nd Session, page 16—17. [Henry's 

retained copy, with very minor variations, is found in 

the Joseph Henry Papers, Smithsonian Institution 

Archives, Washington, D.C] 

Princeton College, N.J. May 3, 1844. 

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a letter 

from the War Department, requesting my views as to the 

originality of Mr. Colt's method of producing explosions; it 

being understood, according to your statement, that the 

combustible he employs is gunpowder, and that this is fired 

by means of galvanism, or other similar agency. In answer 

to this letter, I respectfully submit the following: 

The explosion of gunpowder at a distance, by means of 

galvanism, has been familiar to men of science and practical engineers for several years. The method now generally 

used was made public in 1832, and is the invention of 

Dr. Hare, of Philadelphia. It consists, essentially, in extending between the reservoir of powder and the operator two 

long thick wires of copper, the further ends of which, terminating in the powder, are united by a, short wire of 

platinum of small diameter. The other ends of the copper 

wires, in the hands of the operator, at the desired moment 

of explosion being suddenly brought into contact with the 

two poles of a galvanic battery, a current of galvanism is 

transmitted through the circuit of wires, which, heating to 

redness the piece of platinum in the midst of the powder, 

produces the explosion. 

The practicability of exploding gunpowder at a distance, 

in this way, was established by the experiments of Dr. Hare; 

and his results were verified and applied to actual practice 

by several persons, before the time of the exhibitions of 

Mr. Colt. In 1839, a series of experiments by Colonel Pasley, 

of the royal engineers, was published in England, relative 

to the explosion of a large quantity of powder by the galvanic process, at the bottom of the river Medway; and, as 

an evidence of the wide diffusion of the knowledge of this 

process, I may mention, that I have now before me a book 

published in Calcutta, in 1841, in which is given a minute 

account of the experiments of Dr. O'Shaughnessy, of the 

Bengal army, in destroying a wreck sunk in Hoogly river, 

by a method which the author himself calls the process 

of Dr. Hare. 

The experiments on the Hoogly, as well as these on the 

Medway, were made in 1839; and since that time, as it 

would appear by the various publications on the subject in 

the different English scientific journals, the application of 

the galvanic process of exploding gunpowder has become 

an established part of the business of the English engineer. 

In short, I consider the laws of the transmission of electricity through long wires as fully developed by the 

researches of Ohm, Wheatstone, Daniell, and others,—at 

least as far as they are applicable to the process in question; 

that I do not think it in the least degree probable that 

Mr. Colt has added a single essential fact to the previously 

existing stock of knowledge on this subject. 

In conclusion, I wish it to be distinctly understood that 

the foregoing remarks are all made in reference to the 

method of exploding gunpowder at a distance by means of 

galvanism, and are intended as a specific answer to the 

question proposed to me in your letter. Mr. Colt may, 

perhaps, not attempt to found his claims to originality on 

the invention of the galvanic process, to which he can have 

no title, but on a new application of this process to a method 

of harbor defence; and also on a new arrangement of 

subaqueous magazines for the same purpose. Of the validity 

of claims thus founded, I am not called on to give my 

opinion; but, in justice to Mr. Colt, I ought to say, that 

whatever may be the result of the investigations relative 

to the originality of his plans, I think he deserves credit for 

the industry and practical skill with which he has brought 

them before the public. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient 

servant, 

JOSEPH HENRY. 

Hon. WM . WILKINS, 

Secretary of War. 

APPENDIX 9: Letter of Thomas P. Jones to Secretary of War William Wilkins, 7 May 1844, in Colt's 

Submarine Battery, House Document No. 127, 28th 

Congress, 2nd Session, page 17. 

Washington, May 7, 1844 

SIR: I have carefully perused the communication from 

Professor Hare, which you placed in my hands, and do not 

think it necessary to add anything to the remarks of that 

gentleman. The view he takes of the subject to which it 

relates, is precisely that which had presented itself to my 

mind; and the authorities which he has adduced, being 

principally found on the pages of my journal, are such as 

I should have immediately resorted to. Dr. Hare has done 

me the honor of referring you to me, should you desire any 

information in addition to that which his communication 

affords. I cannot pretend, by anything I can say, to add 

weight to his statements; but he is aware that I am perfectly [acquainted] with his agency in perfecting the plan 
NUMBER 2 9 67 

for effecting the explosion of powder in blasting rocks, and 

for other purposes, by means of galvanic electricity; which 

plan, slightly modified, is that which has been successfully 

adopted. 

Mr. Colt may have made some new modification of the 

conducting wires, or in some other parts of the apparatus 

used by him; but this is a question of little importance, as 

every person well acquainted with chemistry and mechanical 

philosophy, and who is apt at manipulation, could very 

readily accomplish all that has been effected by that gentleman, and without liability to failure. There are hundreds 

of men of science in our country, who would unhesitatingly 

engage so to do. Without consulting with these gentlemen, 

I may, with confidence, refer you to Professors B.F. [sic] 

Morse, A.D. Bache, C.G. Page, and W.R. Johnson, now in 

this city, as I am certain that they will unite in confirming 

these statements. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient 

servant, 

J.Y. MASON. 

THOS. P. JONES. 

Hon. WM . WILKINS, 

Secretary of War. 

APPENDI X 10: Lette r of Secretary of the Navy Joh n 

Y. Maso n to Secretary of Wa r William Wilkins, 7 

M a y 1844, in Colt's Submarine Battery, Hous e Documen t No . 127, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, page 5. 

Navy Department, May 7, 1844. 

SIR: I have received your letter of this date, informing me 

that you are engaged in the preparation of a report on the 

subject of Colt's submarine battery. 

It appears that there has been paid, under orders from 

this department, to Mr. Colt, and to his order, by virtue of 

the joint resolution of August 31, 1842, up to the 22nd of 

November, 1843, the sum of $15,050.62; and the amount 

of facilities furnished other than money (excepting some 

small articles of which no account has been received) is in 

value $2,353.50. Since the date above referred to, no payment has been made by the department on that account. 

I have reason to believe that Mr. Colt did communicate 

to the Hon. A. P. Upshur information as to the combustible 

agent employed by him in his experiments, while that gentleman was the head of this department; that this communication was made under an injunction of secrecy; and there is 

nothing in existence in this department to show, so far as I 

am informed, that the secret has been divulged by him, or 

is applicable to the purposes of the government, without 

some arrangement with Mr. Colt, which this department 

has no authority to make. 

As Mr. Colt's experiments were, in effect, closed about 

the time I entered on the duties of this office, I have 

declined to receive a communication of Mr. Colt's secret, 

of which the knowledge could only be useful in determining 

on the effect of experiments which had already been made, 

which I had not witnessed, and which there was no means 

at the disposal of the department to have repeated. 

Hon. WM. WILKINS, 

Secretary of War. 

APPENDIX 11: Letter of Secretary of War William 

Wilkins to the Honorable J. W. Jones, Speaker of the 

House of Representatives, 8 May 1844, in Colt's Submarine Battery, House Document No. 127, 28th 

Congress, 2nd Session, pages 1—3. 

War Department, May 8, 1844. 

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a copy 

of the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives 

on the 19th of the last month, directing the Secretaries of 

War and the Navy "to communicate the fact, whether the 

combustible agent used by Mr. Colt was a secret before he 

made the same known at the seat of government, and whether 

the mode of its application to harbor defence be new; and, 

if new, what objections there are to its adoption, if objections 

do exist." 

The subjects embraced by this resolution, and submitted 

to the consideration of this department, necessarily occasioned an examination and inquiries productive of the delay 

which has occurred in rendering the required report. 

Public attention has been directed, for some time, to the 

experiments of Mr. Colt, and it is presumed that the nature 

of the agents which he employs is well understood. As no 

special communication, such as is supposed in the resolution 

of the House, had been made to the War Department, with 

a view to enable Mr. Colt to point out what he considered 

novel in his means and appliances, I addressed him a letter; 

the reply to which, with a previous note from him, is hereto 

appended. It will be perceived, too, by the reply, herewith 

transmitted, from the honorable the Secretary of the Navy, 

to my letter addressed to him on the 7th instant, that 

Mr. Colt has been so guarded and cautious in his communications with that department, as to keep from us all 

light and explanation as to his combustible agent, and the 

means of its employment. 

For the purpose of being put in possession of the views of 

the appropriate department in regard to the question of 

"harbor defence," the resolution was referred for report to 

Colonel Totten, the able chief of the corps of engineers. His 

full and lucid reply, examined and sanctioned by the experienced and scientific officers at the head of the Topographical 

and Ordnance Bureaus, is hereto appended. 

With a desire, also, to bring the judgment of men of 

general science to bear upon the subject, and especially to 

obtain their opinions and facts in reference to the alleged 

"secret," and pretended originality of invention by Mr. Colt, 

I addressed letters, covering copies of the resolution of the 

House, to Professors Hare, of Philadelphia, and Henry, of 

Princeton. Their replies, as well as a letter from Dr. Thomas 
68 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

P. Jones, of Washington, referring to Professor Hare's communication, are hereto annexed. 

The protest of Mr. Colt, to be found in his letter addressed 

to me on the 22nd ultimo, and his suggestions as to the 

reply to be made by this department, I have, of course, 

under a view of the resolution of the House, felt it my 

duty to disregard. 

It is generally understood that gunpowder is the explosive 

agent used by Mr. Colt, and that galvanism is employed to 

fire it; that harbors are to be defended by deposites of 

gunpowder fired at will, and at a distance, by the aid of 

galvanism. In regard to the use of these means, the communications just referred to establish conclusively the 

following points: 

1st. That as respects the employment of a galvanic current 

to ignite a wire, and, by that means, to fire simultaneously 

numerous charges of gunpowder, it was applied by that distinguished professor, Dr. Hare, of Philadelphia, as early as 

1833, to rock-blasting, and proposed as a means of defence. 

2d. The idea of making this use of galvanism did not 

originate with Mr. Colt; and its successful application to 

submarine explosions was made by Colonel Pasley, Mr. 

Roberts, Mr. Paris, and others, before Mr. Colt's projects 

were submitted to the public. 

3d. That the suggestion to apply to harbor defence deposites of gunpowder, to be fired by galvanism, flows so naturally 

from the use of that agent in producing submarine explosions at a distance, that no novelty can be assumed for the 

idea; and that it is, in fact, merely an application of the 

agent, galvanism, to fire Fulton's stationary torpedoes. The 

proposal to defend harbors by deposites of gunpowder is 

not novel, nor is it novel to fire such deposites beneath the 

water by galvanism. 

4th. That even if novelty could be claimed for this mode 

of harbor defence, it is liable to fatal objections as a primary 

means of that object; and as an auxiliary means, to very 

strong objections. The precise position of a vessel, by day 

and night, cannot be ascertained by the operator who controls the galvanic battery, so as to produce the explosion at 

the moment when it will be effective. The arrangement of 

the wires for transmitting the galvanic current may easily 

be destroyed. The operator must be protected by a fortification, or by an army, to prevent the destruction of all his 

means of action by the landing of the enemy. And, whilst 

upon this point, I may remark, that the very supposition (as 

stated in Colonel Totten's report) of danger to the boats 

of the enemy, tends to prove the security of their fleet; for, 

if the magazines were exploded in order to destroy the boats 

employed in search of the wires, then the fleet would be 

without cause of fear, and the harbor without defence. The 

hazard of those boats employed in the search would not be 

equal to the "forlorn hope" in storming a fortified place, 

and would, like that, be a regular military duty. But the 

unprofitableness of blowing up the boats employed in the 

search would, of itself, make the search a safe duty, and 

therefore the communications with the magazines would 

always be found, and the duty of searching for them would 

be without hazard. Yet, admitting the risk, by special 

arrangements for that purpose, it is no more than that of a 

"forlorn hope," and is over with the first boat exposed to 

it. Other boats can then complete the search, and the 

destruction of the connecting wires, at leisure, and with 

impunity. 

5 th. If the means assumed to be those employed by Mr. 

Colt (and if we are in error, he has his own caution alone 

to blame) are actually not those which he uses, then I 

affirm that any intelligent, scientific person, aided and 

encouraged by equal munificence and appropriations, could, 

without invading any patent or exclusive right of others, 

and by merely applying means which have been gratuitously 

contributed to science by distinguished men of our country, 

accomplish all that Mr. Colt has achieved under the bounty 

and generous encouragement of his government, in his 

peaceful experiments against a defenseless and untenanted 

ship. 

Whatever may be the claim to merit, on account of the 

skill and handiwork of Mr. Colt, displayed in his preparations and uninterrupted experiments on the shores of the 

Potomac, it will probably be acquiesced in by all, that if the 

expenditure of seventeen thousand four hundred and four 

dollars and twelve cents ($17,404.12) does not impair that 

claim to merit, it will, at all events, be considered as a 

generous encouragement to the exercise of his talents. 

I have the honor to be, sir, with high respect, your 

obedient servant, 

WM. WILKINS, 

Secretary of War. 

Hon. J.W. JONES, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

APPENDIX 12: Letter of Samuel Colt to the Honorable Henry C. Murphy, Committee on Naval Affairs, 

House of Representatives, 3 June 1844, at Washington 

City, retained copy, Samuel Colt Papers, box 6, 

Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford. 

Washington City June 3 r d 1844 

Sir 

Agreeable to your wish I give below the history of my 

inventions for harbour defence and the motives and inducement which have prompted me in submitting the same for 

the patronage and use of our Govt, together with what I 

consider the advantage to be derived from its use. 

The idea of submarine explosions for purposes of Harbour 

defence was concieved by me as early as the year 1829 while 

stud[y]ing in the laboratory of a bleeching and colouring 

establishment at Ware Vilage [,] Massachusetts, and I made 

sundry experiments in a small scale at that time and repeated 

them in various ways for several successive years thereafter. 

In the spring of 1836 I returned hastily from Europe to 

this Country in company with our charge d'Affaires to the 

Court of France in consequence of the threatening aspect of 

affairs, growing out of our French relations. Before I left 

Paris every thing seemed to render a war eventable [inevitable] with the French, and my desire was to aid my own 

Government in the struggle, by placing at their disposal my 
NUMBER 2 9 69 

own services with the plans and inventions I had made in 

repeating Fire Arms, projectiles, water proof cartridges, and 

my submarine fortifications. It so happened that I had 

scarcely reached Washington before a settlement of our difficulties with France was peacably effected, and finding there 

was like to be no immediate call for my inventions in submarine fortifications, I determined not to make my secrets 

known until I had the means to more completely test my 

plans of operation, and believing the same could be quickest 

obtained by bringing my repeating Fire arms into Market 

for the use of the Army operating in Florida & for private 

sale I employed my time in erecting an armory and getting 

up Machinery for that object. This being through with and 

my time again my own I revived my study and experiments 

to perfect my plans for harbour defence. 

In the spring of 1841 War again threatened our Country, 

growing out of the disputed boundary of the state of Maine. 

The importance of my invention presented itself to my mind 

with more force that ever and then for the first time I made 

a communication to our Government on the subject. My 

communication, to the President of the U. States, was accompanied by letters from the Honorable Samuel L. Southard [,] 

President of the U. States Senate and one from Major Genl 

William Gibbs McNeill late of the Corps of U. States 

Topographical Engineers. To these gentlemen I confidentially 

communicated the whole secrets of my Invention, and they 

fully sustained me in my projects. The matter was referred 

to the Honorable George E. Badger [(]then Secretary of 

the Navy) who on examining my propositions to prove by 

an exhibition at my own expense the utility of my plans [,] 

Determined that the Department had no power to enter into 

the contract proposed by me, but expressed his willingness 

that I should make the proposed exhibition at the expense 

of the Government[. I] promised I would make such 

exposure of my plans to him in confidence as would satisfy 

him that the project was plausable and he promised when 

tried [if] it should prove successful, the Government would 

reward me for the full value of my secrets. I acceeded to 

these terms and went into explanation of the whole matter 

to him. The result was that he conferred with the President 

of the U. States and the chairman of the Navy Committees 

of Congress and a resolution was passed which authorized the 

expenditure of $50,000 in experiments. It was deemed expedient to keep my name out of the bill making this approbation [appropriation] but that said appropriation was made 

with "special reference" to my projects. I refer you for 

confirmation to a letter from the Honorable Secretary of the 

Navy dated July 20, 1841, to the Honorable President of the 

U. S. Senate, a copy of which was sent to me at the time 

and it induced me to commence preperations for my submarine Exhibition on the scale contemplated. Soon after the 

passage of this bill a change in the Cabinet occurred, and 

the Honorable Mr. Upshur succeeded Mr. Badger at the head 

of the Navy Department. I did not expect that any change 

would be made by Mr. Upshur in the plans just agreed upon 

for the proposed exhibition and I persuaded [pursued] my 

experiments without communicating with the new Secretary 

until it became necessary to pay some of the bills accumulating in progress of my work. By the request of Mr. Upshur I 

then came to Washington and went over with him the whole 

plans and secrets of my inventions which so far convinced 

him of their practicability that to remove the only remaining 

doubt he simply required me to make the single experiment 

of the blowing up of a vessel at a distance beyond the reach 

of an enemy's shot, to satisfy him of the full adoptation 

[adaptability] of my plans for the purposes intended. I 

accordingly prepared for an exhibition in the Potomac River 

and [a] blow up of a small vessel anchored off the U.S. 

Arsenal from a point on the river near Alexandria five miles 

distant. The complete success of this experiment so entirely 

satisfied the Secretary of the Navy that my project must succeed and he wrote a note to the Chairman of the Navy 

Committee setting forth his entire satisfaction at the result 

and desire if any further tests were wanted to prove its efficiency for the satisfaction of Congress that an expression of 

Congress to that effect should be made. Accordingly the 

joint resolution under which I have been making my recent 

experiments and exhibitions in the East branch of the 

Potomac was passed [by] Congress. In preparing for which 

I fortified the Potomac River so completely that no enemy's 

vessel, or fleet that could enter its mouth could reach the 

Navy Yard without being one and all destroyed. My drafts 

on the Government to pay for all my preliminary experiments 

and this fortification [,] together with even the purchasing 

of the ship on which the experiments was made, and the 

final removal of her sunken wreck from the bed of the 

river [,] has only been $15,877.27, of which $15,050.62 have 

been paid by the Navy Department out of the appropriation 

of $50,000 procured for experiments with my Submarine 

Battery. The temporary fortification which I made with this 

means if prepared before hand could have been located in 

the Potomac River in one night and an enemy's force larger 

than that which once burnt the city of Washington could be 

destroyed in its passage either up, or down the River, without 

discovering any signs of its danger or having the power of 

resistance when operated upon. A fisherman's houses, or barn, 

or even the top of a tree, any where within five miles distance could be made the position from which the engineer 

would operate on the enemy. 

Fortifications of my construction can be made either 

permanent or portable as necessity require and may be so 

contrived that in either case they can be operated without 

any material increase of expense by from one to one hundred 

or any greater number of men stationed in as many different 

places at any reasonable distance from the seen [scene] of 

action and the cutting of [off] or capture of any one, or all 

but one of them and that one may be either one of them, 

would not weaken our command over the whole fortifications 

prepared for the destruction of the enemy. In my original 

letter to the President of the United States I offered to show 

that a harbour like that of New York could be fortified at an 

expense less than the cost of a steamship of War, and when 

once prepared [,] a few engineers alone were sufficient to 

operate it against any fleet Europe could send. The resolution originally introduced by the Chairman of the Military 

Committee provided that should I succeed in accomplishing 

what I were called upon to perform them [then] I were to 

be employed to fortify on my plan whatever harbour should 

be selected for that purpose provided I would undertake the 

same at a cost not exceeding that of the average cost of the 
70 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

U. States steamships Missouri & Mississippi. The Resolution 

as thus introduced was referred to the Committee on Naval 

Affairs and by my own consent the last class [clause] of the 

bill was struck off to wait the result of the experiments then 

contemplated before the same should be acted upon. My wish 

now is either to carry into execution my plans for a permanent submarine fortification to supercede those that have 

been & are to be built in N. York Harbour, for which there 

have been already expended plans and estimates made 

amounting in cost without their armaments or stores to 

$6,454,984. or to fortify any other harbour selected for that 

purpose. I could attend at the same time to any surveys and 

examination going on under the direction of the Navy 

Department of those harbours and Rivers where new fortifications are deemed necessary and are contemplated soon to 

be made with a view to make estimates and ascertain their 

adoption [adaptability] to this peculiar mode of fortification 

as an auxiliary to or substitute for those contemplated of 

common construction. Also to commence the manufacture of 

the materials requisite for portible fortifications for the 

defence of any rivers or passes in case of sudden immergency. 

The number of men in a war establish [ment] requisite to 

man the forts that have been and are to be built for the 

defence of N. York according to reports from the War 

Department is 10,250, which estimate the whole expense of 

each soldier at half that of a mounted dragoon ($1000 a year) 

would cost the Government annually $5,128,000 as [a] sum 

which in a few years would fortify the cost [coast] from New 

Brunswick to Mexico, with my Submarine Batteries. It may 

be argued by those interested in building and arming Bricks 

& water forts that an enemy could either operate from boats 

or by landing on the rough beach at a distance, cut of [off] 

my engineers or their multiplicity of means to operate 

my Batteries. 

I would answer these suggestions by saying it is reasonable 

to suppose that if I can blow up a hundred ships, I can be 

in a condition to meet the attack of as many row boats as 

such a fleet can send without weakening my means of defence 

against the ships themselves, but to admit for the sake of 

argument that the enemy could operate unmolested in boats 

[,] they never could know when their task was completed 

(and they must be pulling up "decoy duck" or the trigers 

to their own distinction). This is not the case with fortifications of common construction for when they are once captured the enemy is out of danger, and if a. force is to land 

on the beach to capture my fortifications from behind [,] 

can they not do the same in the case of common fortifications. 

Again, if an enemy can land on the beach and march an 

army over our Country with impunity [,] where is the use 

of fortification of any discriptions. 

It must appear then to every sane and unprejudiced mind, 

that wherever fortifications are built or to be built on our 

cost [coast], they are intended to protect our harbours and 

rivers against the entrance of an enemy's ships and if the 

Government continue to appropriate millions annually for 

its cost [coastal] defence [,] would it not be better to use 

that money or a portion of it in a way to secure the protection 

of the greatest possible extent of our cost [coast]. 

In presenting my claim on the Government for a fulfilment 

of their promise to give me a "reward adequate to my invention," I wish to have it to be distinctly understood that I 

never have from the commencement of my experiments, 

neither do I now pretend that I am the inventor of any 

peculiar combustible substance to be employed in my explosions, nor should I do so even if I had contrived any better 

than many that are well known which will answer that 

purpose. 

Gunpowder has been long known and well known and its 

first employment for submarine explosions to destroy ships is 

due to Robert Fulton. The powers of electricity to ignite 

gunpowder has also been long known and to Franklin is due 

the credit of first employing that fluid for useful purpose. 

Galvanic Electricity is equally well known at the present day 

and to one of our distinguished countrymen Dr. Robert Hare 

of Phila. is no doubt due the credit of employing that means 

for useful purpose in blasting rocks either blow [below] or 

above water, and the idea of removing sunken rocks 

[wrecks] (The Royal George for example) and recovering 

treasure from the bottom of the sea by employing that agent, 

to communicate fire to explosive substances has undoubtedly 

originated from hints given by publications from the pen of 

that Gentleman, and I am proud to be able to trace back 

so much of the means that can aid in making a submarine 

battery to American Oregon [origin], yet these things in the 

primative state do not make a submarine battery for fortifying a harbour against an advancing squadron, and if 

these agencies in any form are now used by me (who first 

concieved the idea of such submarine fortification) it does 

not follow that there are not means unknown to the public, 

that could not be used to produce the same effect at the 

time the idea first suggested itself to my mind. I claim to 

be the originator of a submarine battery with peculiarities 

which has enabled me to perform what has never before 

been accomplished and on a full explanation of my plans 

and secrets to my Government, originality of plans was not 

only admitted but I were encouraged to prove in practice 

what seemed plausable in my theory, and I were to have if 

successful a reward adequate to the advantage to be derived 

therefrom[.] I have proven every thing contemplated or 

regarding which a doubt was entertained, and now I desire 

the further action of Government on my claims to their 

promise "quid propo" [quid pro quo]. 

I have the honor to be very 

respectfully, Sir, yr Obt Servt 

Saml Colt. 

APPENDIX 13: Patent petition for Samuel Colt's 

Submarine Battery, 8 June 1844, Samuel Colt Papers, 

box 6, Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford. 

To all whom it may concern, be it known, that I Samuel 

Colt of the City of New York in the State of New York, 

have invented a new and useful mode of using amunition 

for Military purposes, and more particularly for the using 

of gunpowder to make submarine explosions in such manner 

as to destroy vessels when under sail in harbors or channels, 

and I do hereby declare that the following is a full and 

exact description thereof. 
NUMBER 2 9 71 

I prepare a number of metallic or other vessels for containing powder, and within the body of the powder contained in such vessel I insert a platinum, or other suitable 

wire, which may be ignited by means of a current of the 

Electric fluid passed through it from a Galvanic Battery, or 

other instrument adapted to that purpose, the connecting 

wires, and other arrangements, being such as are well known 

to men of science conversant with chemistry and mechanical 

philosophy. To the vessel containing the powder I will, for 

the sake of description, apply the name of Torpedo. These I 

anchor, or otherwise dispose of in the channel where vessels 

must pass. In the drawing No. 1, A,A, may represent two of 

these torpedoes; and A,A,A, in sheet No. 2 represents a 

channel studded with them over the whole width. In this 

drawing B, may represent the station of the battery, or instrument for supplying the electric current, this station is represented as in the vicinity of the channel where the torpedoes 

are placed, and this may, in general be so situated; but the 

apparatus may be so arranged as for the operator to be at a 

very considerable distance from the channel through which 

vessels are expected to pass. 

A main point in the producing of submarine explosions, 

so as to destroy a vessel under sail is to ascertain the instant 

when such vessel is directly over one of the torpedoes, and 

this I effect in two ways, in one of which it is ascertained 

by reflection, by means of mirrors, which can be managed by 

one observer. In the other it is ascertained by the concurrent 

observation of two persons, so situated as they may observe 

o. vessel from two points of view, and that when the vessel 

has arrived at the angular point formed by the two lines of 

observation, the concurrent action of the observers shall 

cause a torpedo to explode at that point. 

In drawing No. 3, I have given a sketch of the manner in 

which the place of a vessel is ascertained by reflection. C, is 

a convex mirror so situated as to take in the whole field of 

view of the channel, or harbour where the torpedoes are 

anchored; from this mirror the vessel which may come within 

the field of view will be reflected, at an angle due to its 

situation, onto a metallic, or other, mirror, situated at D. 

This second mirror is surrounded by a number of pieces of 

metal a,a,a, which constitute the terminations of as many 

connecting wires as there are torpedoes anchored, and the 

mirror is so arranged as to exhibit distinctly the place of the 

reflected image of the vessel, and the connecting wire corresponding with this situation. E, is the Battery, and F,F, 

the connecting wires leading to and from the respective torpedoes. The operator is consequently enabled to complete 

the circuit at the moment when the vessel is over the torpedo 

indicated by the reflection. 

Drawing No. 4, will serve to illustrate the manner of 

ascertaining the place of a vessel, and the manner of producing the explosion by the concurrent action of two observers. 

Let G, represent the part of a channel where vessels must 

pass, and where torpedoes are anchored; and let H, and I, 

represent the stations of two different observers. The station 

at H, may be one where there is an interruption in the 

circuit of the connecting wires [;] the observer there is to 

notice when the vessel is in the line of either of the torpedoes, and is to complete the circuit appertaining to that 

line. The observer at the station I is in like manner to 

ascertain when the vessel is in the fine of either of the 

torpedoes, and is to make the connexion corresponding 

therewith. If both observations meet in the same angular 

point there will be an explosion, and the vessel will be 

destroyed, but until this concurrence happens neither of the 

torpedoes will explode. 

The whole of the apparatus used for eliciting and conducting the electric current, and for producing ignition in 

the powder is, as before observed [,] well understood by men 

of science, and no claim whatever is therefore made to such 

apparatus, but the combining therewith the two reflectors 

so as to indicate the moment when a vessel is over one of the 

torpedoes is altogether new, and is therefore claimed by me 

as the subject matter of a patent. The combining with such 

a battery, and with the torpedoes, of the interrupted circuit 

in the connecting wires, and of the observation and concurrent action of the two observers, on the principle, and in 

the manner set forth, is also new, and is hereby claimed as 

making a part of my invention or discovery. 

Sam. Colt 

Witnesses 

Thos P. Jones 

N Callarifer [?] 

APPENDIX 14: Letter of Thomas P. Jones, editor 

of the Journal of the Franklin Institute, to Samuel 

Colt, 14 June 1844, in Colt's Submarine Battery, 

House Document No. 127, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, page 24 [original in Colt Papers, box 6, Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford]. 

Washington, June 14, 1844. 

Dear Sir: In answer to your inquiry, I have the great pleasure in stating that, having been made acquainted with the 

manner in which you produce an explosion which will destroy 

a vessel when under sail, I am well assured that your plan is 

not only novel, but also calculated to effect the purpose 

with a certainty nearly unerring. 

The principles upon which you proceed may, undoubtedly, 

be made the subject of a patent, were it desirable to obtain 

one. 

You will readily perceive that the opinion now offered 

does not in any manner contravene those which were given 

to the honorable the Secretary of War, in the replies made 

by several gentlemen of science to his letter of inquiry, as 

it relates to matters which were not, and could not be, 

presented to them. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Thos. P. Jones. 

Samuel Colt, Esq. 
Notes to the Text 

1

 Among the most useful early treatises on undersea warfare are HENRY L. ABBOT, The Beginning of Modern Submarine Warfare under Captain-Lieutenant David Bushnell, 

Sappers and Miners, Army of the Revolution (Willets Point, 

New York: Battalion Press, 1881); FRANCIS M. BARBER, 

Lectures on Drifting and Automatic Movable Torpedoes, 

Submarine Guns and Rockets (Newport, Rhode Island: 

U.S. Naval Torpedo Station, 1874); JOHN S. BARNES, Submarine Warfare, Offensive and Defensive, Including a Discussion of the Offensive Torpedo System, Its Effects upon 

Iron-Clad Ship Systems, and Influence upon Future Naval 

Wars (New York: D. Van Nostrand and Co., 1869); 

ALAN H. BURGOYNE, Submarine Navigation, Past and Present, 2 volumes (London: Richards, 1903); FRIEDRICH VON 

EHRENKROOK, Geschichte der Seeminen und Torpedoes 

(Berlin: E.S. Mittler und Sohn, 1878) ; FERNAND FOREST and 

HENRI NOALHAT, Les Bateaux Sous-Marines, 2 volumes 

(Paris: Ch. Gunod, 1900); EUGENE HENNEBERT, Les Torpilles (Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1888); HENRI NOALHAT, 

Les Torpilles et les mines sous-marines (Paris: Berger-Levrault et Cie., 1905); CHARLES W. SLEEMAN, Torpedoes and 

Torpedo Warfare (Portsmouth: J. Griffin and Co., 1880); 

RICHARD H. STOTHERD, Notes on Torpedoes, Offensive and 

Defensive (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1872) ; 

and MURRAY F. SUETER, The Evolution of the Submarine 

Boat, Mine and Torpedo, from the Sixteenth Century to the 

Present Time (Portsmouth: J. Griffin and Co., 1907). 

2

 See BERNARD BRODIE, Sea Power in the Machine Age 

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1941); J. S. COWIE, 

Mines, Minelayers and Minelaying (London: Oxford University Press, 1949) ; ROBERT C. DUNCAN, America's Use of 

Sea Mines (Silver Spring, Maryland: U.S. Naval Ordnance 

Laboratory, 1962); A. M. Low, Mine and Countermine 

(New York: Sheridan House, 1940); A. A. SAMAROV and 

F.A. PETROV, editors, Razvitie minnogo oruzhiya v russkom 

flote: Dokumenty [The Development of Mine Materiel in 

the Russian Navy: Documents] (Moscow: Voenno-morskoe 

izadatel'stvo voenno-morskogo ministerstva soiuza SSSR, 

1951); and G. M. TRUSOV, Podvodnye lodki v russkom i 

sovetskom flote [Submarines in the Russian and Soviet 

Fleets] (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe-soiuznoe izdatel'stvo 

sudostroitelnoe promyslennosti, 1963). 

3

 LEONARD W. LABABEE, editor, The Papers of Benjamin 

Franklin, multivolume edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961 to date), volume 4, pages 145, 202, and 

volume 10, pages 48, 112n; A. PICARDAT, Les Mines dans la 

guerre de campagne (Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1874), page 8. 

4

 FREDERICK WAGNER, Submarine Fighter of the American 

Revolution: The Story of David Bushnell (New York: Dodd, 

Mead and Co., 1963), pages 35-45; DAVID BUSHNELL, 

"General Principles and Construction of a Submarine Vessel," Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 

volume 4 (1799), pages 303-312; CARL VAN DOREN, Benjamin Franklin (New York: Viking Press, 1938), pages 

162-171, 536. 

5

 Ibid., pages 563-564; WAGNER, Bushnell, pages 52-89, 

128 [note 4]. 

6

 FRANCESCO MASSARDI and others, Epistolario di Alessandro Volta, 5 volumes (Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli, 1949-

1955), volume 1, pages 162-164, 174—175; BERN DIBNER, 

Alessandro Volta and the Electric Battery (New York: 

Franklin Watts, 1964), pages 17-39, 64-69, 75-79; I. BERNARD COHEN, editor, Benjamin Franklin's Experiments: A 

New Edition of Franklin's "Experiments and Observations 

on Electricity" (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 

1941), pages 78-100, 134-141; and DOROTHY STIMSON, 

Scientists and Amateurs: A History of the Royal Society 

(New York: Henry Schuman, 1948), pages 169-172. 

W. JAMES KING, "The Development of Electrical Technology 

in the 19th Century, Part 1: The Electrochemical Cell and 

the Electromagnet" (paper 28 in Contributions from the 

Museum of History and Technology [United States National 

Museum Bulletin, 228], Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1962), pages 234-235. 

7

 TIBERIUS CAVALLO, A Complete Treatise on Electricity 

in Theory and Practice; With Original Experiments, fourth 

edition, 3 volumes (London: C. Dilly, 1795), volume 3, 

pages 285-286; DIBNER, Volta, pages 20, 32, 39, 48, 59 

[note 6]; BERN DIBNER, Galvani-Volta: A Controversy that 

Led to the Discovery of Useful Chemistry (Norwalk: Burndy 

Library, 1952), pages 24-32. 

8

 CAVALLO, Treatise on Electricity, pages 286-296 [note 7]. 

9

 JOSEPH HAMEL, "Historical Account of the Introduction 

of the Galvanic and Electro-Magnetic Telegraph," The 

Journal of the Society of Arts, and of the Institutions in 

Union, volume 3 (November 1858-November 1859), pages 

595-597; W. JAMES KING, "The Development of Electrical 

Technology in the 19th Century, Part 2: The Telegraph 

and the Telephone" (paper 29, Contributions from the 

Museum of History and Technology [United States National 

Museum Bulletin 228], Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 

1962), pages 276-280, 284-288; A. V. IAROTSKir, Pavel 

L'vovich Schilling (Moscow: Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1963), 

pages 11-15. 

10

 Ibid., pages 14-19; HAMEL, "Introduction of Telegraph," page 598 [note 9]. 

11

 Ibid. Hamel speaks of Baron Schilling having detonated 

mines "across the river Neva" and "across the river Seine," 

while an account in 1956 by A.V. Khramoi asserts, "After 

numerous experiments on producing an electric arc (as dis72 
NUMBER 2 9 73 

covered by V.V. Petrov in 1802) by means of a remote 

signal, Schilling succeeded in exploding a number of mines 

set in water on the Neva River." A late nineteenth-century 

newspaper account cited by Khramoi describes the insulation 

of Schilling's copper wires with tarred hemp and copper 

tubing but offers nothing on any waterproofing of the 

charges themselves. A.V. KHRAMOI, Ocherk istorii razvitie 

avtomatiki v SSSR, Dooktyabr'skii period [History of Automation in Russia before 1917] (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1956), pages 82-84. 

12

 HAMEL, "Introduction of Telegraph," pages 606-607 

[note 9]. 

13

 Ibid., pages 598, 607-609; SAMAROV and PETROV, Razvitie minnogo, pages iv-ix, 2-91 [note 2]; IAROTSKII, 

Schilling, pages 22-34 [note 9]. 

14

 P. H. KEALY, General Sir Charles William Pasley, KCB, 

FRS, DCL, Colonel Commandant R.E., 1780-1861 (London: 

privately printed, 1930), pages 27-76; H.W. TYLER, 

"Memoir of General Sir Charles William Pasley, KCB," 

Professional Papers of the Corps of Royal Engineers, new 

series, volume 12 (1863), pages xii-xiii; The United States 

Journal and Naval and Military Magazine (September 

1938), pages 36-48. 

15

 Ibid. (January 1840), pages 72-83; KEALY, Pasley, 

pages 77-85 [note 14]; Army and Navy Chronicle and 

Scientific Repository, volume 3 (1844), page 744; The London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine and Journal of 

Science, volume 10 (January-June 1837), pages 415-417; 

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, volume 4 (1833), page 371; The United Service 

Journal and Naval and Military Magazine (January 1840), 

pages 72-83; L. PEARCE WILLIAMS, editor, The Selected 

Correspondence of Michael Faraday, 2 volumes (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 1971), volume 1, pages 329—335. 

16

 MENDEL L. PETERSON, "Underwater Archaeology," in 

C.P. IDYLL, editor, Exploring the Ocean World: A History 

of Oceanography (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 

1972), pages 200-202; Army and Navy Chronicle, volume 

10 (1840), page 100, and volume 11 (1843), pages 417-423; 

Journal of the Franklin Institute of the State of Pennsylvania. .., third series, volume 9 (1845), pages 214-215; 

T.W.J. CONNOLLY, History of the Royal Sappers and 

Miners, from the Foundation of the Corps in March 1772 

to the Date When its Designation Was Changed to That of 

Royal Engineers, in October 1856, 2 volumes (London: 

Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1857), 

volume 1, pages 348-353. 

17

 Ibid.; W.B. O'SHAUGHNESSY , "Memorandum of 

Experiments on the Explosion of Gunpowder under Water 

by the Galvanic Battery; with a Notice of the Successful 

Destruction of the Wreck of the 'Equitable,' at Fultah 

Reach," Asiatic Society of Bengal Journal, volume 8 (1839), 

pages 851-863. 

18

 BARNES, Submarine Warfare, pages 30-52 [note 1]; 

J. FRANKLIN REIGART, The Life of Robert Fulton (Philadelphia: C. G. Henderson, 1856), pages 108-137. 

1 9

 EMMANUEL RAYMOND LEWIS, Seacoast Fortifications of 

the United States: An Introductory History (Washington: 

Smithsonian Institution, 1970), pages 37-42; RUSSELL F. 

WEIGLEY, History of the United States Army (New York: 

MacMillan Co., 1967), pages 163-164. 

20

 Samuel Colt to Representative Henry C. Murphy, House 

Committee on Naval Affairs, 3 June 1844, retained copy, 

Samuel Colt Papers (manuscripts, Connecticut Historical 

Society, Hartford), box 6. 

21

 Compendia of scientific and technical knowledge of the 

type which Colt studied are compiled in EUGENE S. FERGUSON, Bibliography of the History of Technology (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1968), 

pages 60—62. For Root's recollections, see HENRY BARNARD'S 

authorized biography, Armsmear: The Home, the Arm, and 

the Armory of Samuel Colt: A Memorial (New York: 

Alvord, printer, 1866), pages 275-276. See also WILLIAM B. 

EDWARDS, The Story of Colt's Revolver: The Biography of 

Col. Samuel Colt (Harrisburg: Stackpole Co., 1953), pages 

17-19, 159. 

22

 Ibid., pages 159-160; BARNARD, Armsmear, pages 275-

276 [note 21]; JACK ROHAN, Yankee Arms Maker: The 

Incredible Career of Samuel Colt (New York: Harper & 

Brothers, 1935), pages 12—14. See also the manuscript of 

Colt's lecture on the effects of nitrous oxide, Colt Papers, 

Misc. MSS 73561. 

2 3

 EDWARD FAHS SMITH, The Life of Robert Hare: An 

American Chemist, 1781-1858 (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1917), pages 3-12, 62-67, 325, 371-384; ROBERT 

HARE, "Account of New Eudiometers, &c," The American 

Journal of Science and Arts, volume 2 (1820), pages 312— 

318, and plates at end of volume. 

24

 ROBERT HARE, "Description of a Process and an Apparatus for Blasting Rocks by Means of Galvanic Ignition," 

Journal of the Franklin Institute, volume 12 (1833), pages 

221-226; HENRY L. ABBOT, "Report upon Experiments and 

Investigations to Develop a System of Submarine Mines for 

Defending the Harbors of the United States" (number 23 in 

Professional Papers of the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, 

Washington, Government Printing Office, 1881), page 252. 

25

 HARE, "Apparatus for Blasting Rocks," pages 221—222 

[note 24]. 

26

 Ibid., page 223; Letter from the Secretary of War 

Relative to the Secret of Colt's Submarine Battery, May 15, 

1844, Referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, February 

8, 1845, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, House Document Number 127, pages 12-13. 

27

 HARE, "Apparatus for Blasting Rocks," page 226 [note 

24]. 

28

 Colonel Joseph G. Totten to Major General Joseph G. 

Swift, 15 May 1832, in Letters and Reports of Col. Joseph G. 

Totten, 1803-1864, 10 volumes, National Archives, Record 

Group 77, Entry 146, volume 2, pages 358-360. In addition 

to Totten's official and private correspondence in Entry 146, 

see also Entry 223, Reports of Boards of Engineers Relating 

to Fortifications and Defenses; and Entry 457, Letters 

Received by Board of Engineers for Fortifications [Bernard 

Board], 1825-1830. 

29

 See Colonel George Bomford, U.S. Ordnance Office to 

Colt, 2 March 1841, Colt Papers, box 2: EDWARDS, Colt's 

Revolver, pages 21-155, 160, 178-179, 191-207 [note 21]; 

SAMUEL IRENAEUS PRIME, The Life of Samuel F.B. Morse, 

LL.D, Inventor of the Electro-Magnetic Recording Tele-
74 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

graph (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1875), pages 436-

439; BERKELEY R. LEWIS, "Small Arms and Ammunition 

in the United States Service, 1776-1865" (number 129 in 

Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1960), pages 53-55, 122-124. 

30

 Colt to Representative Murphy, 3 June 1844, Colt 

Papers, box 6; SAMUEL FLAGG BEMIS, A Diplomatic History 

of the United States, 4th edition (New York: Henry Holt & 

Co., 1955), pages 287-291. The Paterson sketch and subsequently cited drawings are, unless otherwise noted, found 

in the Samuel Colt Collection, located at the Connecticut 

State Library Museum in Hartford. Colt's patent petition 

of 8 June 1844 for the Submarine Battery, which complements these drawings, is found in the Colt Papers, box 6, 

at the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford. 

3 1

 See drawing "E" in Colt Collection. 

32

 See drawings "A" and "F" in Colt Collection. 

33

 Colt to Captain A. Partridge, 5 August 1841, retained 

copy, and A. Partridge to Colt, 9 August 1841, Colt Papers, 

box 6. See also the manuscript diary of Samuel Colt, 1836-

1837, Colt Papers, box 1; Colt's subscription receipt for 

B. Homan's Army and Navy Chronicle for 1840; and articles 

on Colonel Pasley's operations in the Army and Navy 

Chronicle, volume 8 (1839), pages 373-375; volume 9 

(1839), pages 222, 270, 287, 294, 356-357, 389; and 

volume 10 (1840), page 100. 

34

 A typical referral from the Board of Navy Commissioners 

to the Ordnance Office of the War Department is cited in 

Commodore Isaac Chauncy to Colt, 24 July 1835, Colt 

Papers, box 9. See box 10 for Colt's outraged "Preparation 

for trying tin foil cartridges," dated 31 March-3 April 1840, 

recounting his experience at the Washington Arsenal; 

EDWARDS, Colt's Revolver, pages 144-148, 159-161 [note 

21]. 

35

 Ibid.; Colt to President John Tyler, 19 June 1841, 

retained copy, Colt Papers, box 5; Senator Southard to 

President Tyler, 21 June 1841, courtesy copy, Colt Papers, 

box 5; Colt to Representative Murphy, 3 June 1844, retained 

copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

3 6

 WALTER LOWRIE and WALTER S. FRANKLIN, editors, 

American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, 38 volumes 

(Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1832-1861), Naval Affairs, 

volume 1, pages 211-227. 

3 7

 Colt to President Tyler, 19 June 1841, retained copy, 

Colt Papers, box 5. 

38

 Ibid. 

3 9

 Ibid.; Colt to Secretary of the Navy George E. Badger, 

2 July 1841, retained copy, Colt Papers, box 5; Secretary 

Badger to Senator Southard, 20 July 1841, courtesy copy, 

Colt Papers, box 5; ROBERT SEAGER II, And Tyler Too: A 

Biography of John and Julia Gardiner Tyler (New York: 

McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963), pages 151-157; EDWARDS, 

Colt's Revolver, pages 161-163 [note 21]. 

4 0

 The identity of Colt's Russian visitors doubtless lies in 

the Soviet naval archives. Captain von Schantz may well have 

been accompanied by two members of his mission, Captain 

Pypin' and Lieutenant Sharubin', both of the Engineer Corps, 

who were reported by the Army and Navy Chronile (volume 9, page 124) on 8 August 1842 to be concluding a 

year's tour of the United States maritime establishment, 

having given particular attention to steam navigation. The 

Russian naval mission had been active in the United States 

since 1837. Captain von Schantz took command of the steam 

frigate Kamchatka upon her departure from New York for 

Kronstadt in September 1841. See EDWARDS, Colt's Revolver, 

pages 128, 140, 161-162 [note 21]; Niles' National Register, 

volume 61 (2 October 1841), page 80; S.O. OGORODNIKOV, 

Istoricheskii obzor razvitiia i deiatel'nosti morskogo ministerstva za sto let evo sushchestvovania [Historical Review of 

the Development and Activities of the Ministry of Marine in 

the Hundred Years of its Existence] (St. Petersburg: Tipografia morskogo ministerstva, 1902), page 127. 

4 1

 Colt to Senator Samuel Southard, 8 July 1841, retained 

copy, Colt Papers, box 5. Regarding Warner's Destroyer, see 

Army and Navy Chronicle, volume 9 (1839), page 158; and 

Army and Navy Chronicle and Scientific Repository, volume 

2 (1843), pages 449-452. 

42

 SAMAROV and PETROV, editors, Razvitie minnogo, pages 

2-91 [note 2]. 

4 3

 Colt visited St. Petersburg in 1856, following up substantial Russian orders for his arms after the Crimean War. 

EDWARDS, Colt's Revolver, pages 320-321 [note 21]. Regarding the career of Immanuel Nobel in Russia, see ERIK BERGENGREN, Alfred Nobel: The Man and His Work (London: 

Thomas Nelson, 1962), pages 7-15. 

4 4

 EDWARDS, Colt's Revolver, pages 163-164 [note 21]; 

SEAGER, Tyler, pages 158-162 [note 39]. 

45

 Colt to C.B.D. Ogden, 9 October 1841, retained copy, 

Colt Papers, box 5; SEAGER, Tyler, pages 164-165, 205 

[note 39]; EDWARDS, Colt's Revolver, pages 164, 170-171 

[note 21]. 

4 6

 Colt to Representative Murphy, 3 June 1844; and Colt 

to Secretary of the Navy Abel P. Upshur, 12 November 

1841, retained copy, Colt Papers, box 5. 

4 7

 Colt to Secretary Upshur, 24 November 1841, retained 

copy, Colt Papers, box 5. Regarding the absence of reference 

to Colt's Submarine Battery in the deliberations of the Board 

of Navy Commissioners, see the following entries at the 

National Archives in Record Group 45: Entry 209—Journal 

(Rough Minutes) of the Board of Navy Commissioners, 

volume 20 (22 February-23 September 1842) ; Entry 219— 

Navy Commissioners' Office Journal, volume 13 (1 September 1840-5 April 1842); Entry 219—Board of Navy Commissioners' Office, Miscellaneous Letters 1 January-25 August 

1842). 

48

 Colt to Senator Southard, 2 January 1842, retained 

copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

4 9

 Secretary Upshur to Colt, 25 November 1841, Colt 

Papers, box 5. 

50

 See the legal instrument for incorporation of the Submarine Battery Company, notarized by Colt on 18 December 

1841, with appended list of subscribers, in Colt Papers, box 5. 

51

 Colt to Senator Southard, 2 January 1842, retained 

copy, Colt Papers, box 6; FRANK M. BENNETT, The Steam 

Navy of the United States: A History of the Growth of the 

Steam Vessel of War in the U.S. Navy, and of the Naval 

Engineer Corps (Pittsburgh: Warren & Co., 1896), page 75. 

52

 See Brown and Elton to Colt, 6 January and 4 May 
NUMBER 2 9 75 

1842; and Colt to Brown and Elton, 13 January 1842, 

retained copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

53

 Colt to Professor John William Draper, 10 March 1842, 

retained copy, Colt Papers, box 6; PRIME, Morse, pages 436-

438 [note 29]; EDWARDS, Colt's Revolver, pages 160, 191-

193 [note 21]. See also Appendix 6, paragraph 6. 

54

 Colt to Secretary Upshur, 12 March 1842, retained 

copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

55

 PRIME, Morse, pages 437-438 [note 29]. 

56

 Colt's sketches of Silas Clowden Halsey's submersible 

and torpedo were based on information he secured from 

Captain Jeremiah Holmes of Mystic and others and are 

found in Colt Papers, box 6. See also in that respository 

Luther Sargent to Colt, 21 February 1842. 

57

 U.S. Congress, The Debates and Proceedings in the 

Congress of the United States. . ., Twelfth Congress, Second 

Session (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), pages 83-95, 

102-106, 1168, 1346; [Hezekiah Niles] The Weekly Register, 

volume 4 (1813), pages 293, 308-309, 325-327, 337, 340, 

344, 365-367, 375. 

58

 Colt to Senator Southard, 23 February 1842, retained 

copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

59

 Colt to Senator Southard, 28 February 1842, retained 

copy Colt Papers, box 6; BENNETT, Steam Navy, pages 57-

60 [note 51]. 

60

 Ibid.; Colt to Brown and Elton, 2 June 1842, Colt 

Papers, box 6; EDWARDS, Colt's Revolver, page 174 [note 

21]. 

61

 The Scientific American, volume 1, number 12 (4 

December 1845), page 46; GEORGE B. PRESCOTT, Electricity 

and the Electric Telegraph, 4th edition (New York: D. 

Appleton & Co., 1881), pages 64-66. 

62

 Colt to Secretary Upshur, 7 May 1842, retained copy, 

Colt Papers, box 6; Cole's Diary, 4 June 1842, Colt Papers, 

box 16-17. 

63

 Colt to Edward Curtice, 25 April 1841 and 24 May 

1842, retained copies, Colt Papers, boxes 2 and 6, respectively; Army and Navy Chronicle, volume 11 (1840), page 

183. 

64

 New York Evening Post, 5 July 1842; Alexandria 

Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, 8 July 1842; Washington 

Daily National Intelligencer, 8 July 1842. 

65

 New York American, quoted in Niles' National Register, 

volume 62 (16 July 1842), page 310. 

66

 Colt to Secretary Upshur, 5 July 1842, in Miscellaneous 

Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy, 1 July—31 

August 1842, National Archives, Record Group 45, Entry 

21, Microcopy 124, Roll 185. 

67

 New York Herald, 6 July 1842. 

68

 New York Sun, quoted in Niles' National Register, 

volume 62 (16 July 1842), page 310; see also aforementioned Miscellaneous Letters Received by the Secretary of 

the Navy, 1 July-21 August 1842; and Navy Commissioners' 

Office, Letters Received from New York Navy Yard, 5 May13 July 1842, National Archives, Record Group 45, Entry 

220. 

69

 Secretary Upshur to Colt, 5 and 11 July 1842, Colt 

Papers, box 6. 

70

 Colt to Secretary Upshur, 5 July 1842, retained copy, 

Colt Papers, box 6. 

71

 The Board of Navy Commissioners had received correspondence from Samuel Colt relating to his firearms on 3 

March 1842, but there is no evidence that his Submarine 

Battery came to its official attention, aside from a request, 

evidently prompted by Upshur, that it submitted to Lt. Col. 

George Talcott of the Ordnance Office of the War Department for fifteen barrels of powder for Colt's Washington 

demonstration of 20 August 1842. See Board of Navy Commissioners to Colonel Talcott, 15 August 1842, retained 

copy, Navy Commissioners' Office, Miscellaneous Letters, 

volume 8 (2 September 1839-31 August 1842), National 

Archives, Record Group 45, Entry 217; Board of Navy 

Commissioners Miscellaneous In-Letters, 1 July-25 August 

1842, National Archives, Record Group 45, Entry 219; and 

Journal (Rough Minutes) of the Board of Navy Commissioners, volume 20 (22 February-23 September 1842), 

National Archives, Record Group 45, Entry 209. 

72

 Secretary Upshur to Colt, 11 July 1842, Colt Papers, 

box 6; CHARLES OSCAR PAULLIN, Paullin's History of Naval 

Administration, 1775—1911: A Collection of Articles from 

the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings (Annapolis: United 

States Naval Institute, 1968), pages 208-211; STEPHEN V. 

BENET, editor, A Collection of Annual Reports and Other 

Important Papers Relating to the Ordnance Department. . . , 

4 volumes (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1878— 

1890), volume 1, pages 342-344, 356-357, 364-366; Army 

and Navy Chronicle, volume 13 (1842), pages 267-269. 

73 Congressional Globe, volume 11, number 44 (2 July 

1842), pages 689-690. 

74

 Ibid., volume 11, number 59 (25 August 1842), page 

939; EDWARDS, Colt's Revolver, page 175 [note 21]; Colt to 

Representative John Quincy Adams, 11 August 1842, 

retained copy, Colt Papers, box 6, with annotation, "To the 

above letter no answer was received." See also Colt Diary, 

2 August 1842, Colt Papers, box 16-17. 

7 5

 CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, editor, Memoirs of John 

Quincy Adams, Comprising Portions of His Diary from 1795 

to 1848, 12 volumes (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 

1874-1877), volume 11, page 219. 

76

 Board of Navy Commissioners to Lt. Col. George Talcott, 15 August 1842; Secretary Upshur to Colt, 18 August 

1842, retained copy, in Miscellaneous Letters Sent by the 

Secretary of the Navy, 1798-1886, volume 33, National 

Archives, Record Group 45, Entry 3; Colt to Secretary of 

the Navy John Y. Mason, 22 April 1844, retained copy, 

Colt Papers, box 6; Captain Beverly Kennon to Secretary 

Upshur, 17 August 1842, in Captains' Letters Received by 

the Secretary of the Navy, 1-31 August 1842, National 

Archives, Record Group 45, Microcopy 125, Roll 292; Captain Kennon to Colt, 27 August 1842, Colt Papers, box 6; 

Journal of the Navy Yard at Washington, 11 August-2 September 1842, National Archives, Record Group 71, Entry 91. 

77

 Colt to Chief Clerk John D. Simms, 6 September 1842, 

retained copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

78

 EDWARDS, Colt's Revolver, page 175 [note 21]; Alexandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, 20 August 1842; 

Washington Daily National Intelligencer, 19 and 22 August 

1842. 

79

 Ibid.; Board of Navy Commissioners to Colonel Talcott, 

15 August 1842, National Archives, Record Group 45, Entry 
76 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

3; Captain Kennon to Colt, 27 August 1842, Colt Papers, 

box 6. 

80Anonymous, "United States Patent Office," in The 

United States Magazine, volume 3 (1856), page 470; Bulletin of the Proceedings of the National Institution for the 

Promotion of Science, volume 1 (1841). 

81

 Ibid., volume 1 (1841), pages 1-2; SALLY KOHLSTEDT, 

"A Step toward Scientific Self-Identity in the United States: 

The Failure of the National Institute, 1844," I sis, volume 

62 (1971), pages 339-346; GEORGE B. GOODE, editor, The 

Smithsonian Institution, 1846-1896 (Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1897), pages 25-31, 37-42; WILLIAM J. 

RHEES , editor, The Smithsonian Institution: Documents 

Relative to its Origin and History (number 328 in Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Washington: Smithsonian 

Institution, 1879), pages 1-2, 146-148. 

8 2

 DAVID B. TYLER, The Wilkes Expedition: The First 

United States Exploring Expedition, 1838-1842 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1968), pages 387-

391; Proceedings of the National Institution, volume 1, 

pages 75-79, 119-120; and volume 3, pages 239-243, 

249, 259. 

83

 Ibid., volume 3, page 250. See War Department Circular 

of 9 July 1842 published in Washington Daily National 

Intelligencer, 21 October 1842; Army and Navy Chronicle, 

volume 13 (1842), page 471. 

84

 Ibid., volume 13 (1842), pages 619-623; Francis 

Markoe, Corresponding Secretary of the National Institution, to Colt, 22 August 1840, Colt Papers, box 2; Proceedings of the National Institution, volume 1 (1841), pages 

1-2, 17-18, 139-142. 

85

 New York Evening Post, 24 August 1842. 

86

 Ibid.; Niles' National Register, volume 62 (27 August 

1842), page 416. 

87

 Washington Daily National Intelligencer, 22 August 

1842. 

88

 Ibid. See also drawing "G" or "No. 5" in Colt Collection, Connecticut State Library Museum, Hartford. 

89

 Colt to Secretary Mason, 22 April 1844, retained copy, 

Colt Papers, box 6. BARNARD, Armsmear, pages 280-281 

[note 21]. 

90

 Ibid.; New York Evening Post, 23 August 1842; Washington Daily National Intelligencer, 22 August 1842. 

91

 Colt to Representative Murphy, 3 June 1844, retained 

copy. Colt Papers, box 6. 

92

 Ibid.; Colt to Representative Edward Stanly, 21 August 

1842, retained copy, Colt Papers, box 6; Congressional 

Globe, volume 11 (1842), page 930. 

9 3

 Ibid.; Army and Navy Chronicle, volume 9 (1839), 

pages 371-372. 

94

 Congressional Globe, volume 11 (1842), page 930; 

BARNARD, Armsmear, pages 282-284 [note 21]. 

95

 Ibid.; Niles' National Register, volume 62 (1842), page 

415; See also Colt's annotated record of the House vote in 

Colt Papers, box 6. 

96

 Congressional Globe, volume 11 (1842) pages 949-950, 

962, 977; CHARLES M. WILTSE, John C. Calhoun, Nationalist, 1782-1828 (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1944), pages 

107-248. 

97

 Secretary Upshur to Lieutenant Matthew Fontaine 

Maury, 31 August 1842, and Colt to Secretary Upshur, 31 

August 1842, retained copy, Colt Papers, box 6. Regarding 

Maury, see FRANCES LEIGH WILLIAMS, Matthew Fontaine 

Maury, Scientist of the Sea (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers 

University Press, 1963), pages 144-150; the Matthew 

Fontaine Maury Papers (Manuscript Division, Library of 

Congress) ; and the Maury Family Papers (Manuscripts 

Department, Alderson Library, University of Virginia at 

Charlottesville). 

98

 Colt appears to have spent much of 31 August in a vain 

effort to see Secretary Upshur before departing for New 

York. See drawing "U," a rough chart of the Potomac and 

Eastern Branch, evidently used for the final Washington 

experiments in 1844, Colt Collection, Connecticut State 

Library Museum, Hartford. 

"WILLIAMS , Maury, pages 144-268 [note 97]. By 1843, 

Maury's journalistic efforts were turning to the advocacy of 

naval construction on the Western rivers. For his earlier 

"Scraps from the Lucky Bag," published under the pseudonym "Harry Bluff," see The Southern Literary Messenger, 

volume 5 (1839), pages 233-240;-volume 6 (1840), pages 

306-320, 785-800; and volume 7 (1841), pages 3-25, 345-

378, 560-563. 

100

 WILLIAMS, Maury, pages 367-370, 376-394 [note 97]; 

MILTON F. PERRY, Infernal Machines: The Story of Confederate Submarine and Mine Warfare (Baton Rouge: 

Louisiana State University Press, 1965), pages 4-19. 

101

 See the Maury Papers, Library of Congress, and the 

Maury Family Papers, Alderman Library [note 97]. 

102

 Alexandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, 5 October 

1842. 

103

 Drawing "G" ("No. 5"), Colt Collection, Connecticut 

State Library Museum, Hartford. 

104

 Drawing "I, " Colt Collection. 

105

 Alexandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, 5 October 

1842. 

106 Ibid. 

107

 George C. De Kay to President John Tyler, 5 August 

1842; and De Kay to Secretary Upshur, 6 September 1842, 

both courtesy copies, Colt Papers, box 6. 

108

 Colt to Chief Clerk John D. Simms, 12 September 

1842, retained copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

109

 Secretary Upshur to De Kay, 12 September 1842, 

courtesy copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

110

 Secretary Upshur to Colt, 27 September 1842, Colt 

Papers, box 6. 

111

 Colt to Major William G. McNeill, 27 September 

1842, retained copy, Colt Papers, box 6; New York Herald, 

27 and 28 September 1842; ROHAN, Yankee Arms Maker, 

pages 140-141 [note 22]; EDWARDS, Colt's Revolver, page 

177 [note 21]. 

112

 Ibid.; Colt to Secretary Upshur, 30 September and 6 

October 1842, retained copies; and Secretary Upshur to Colt, 

18 October 1842, all in Colt Papers, box 6. 

113

 Secretary Upshur to Colt, 7 October 1842; and De 

Kay to Colt, 12 October 1842, Colt Papers, box 6. 

114

 Samuel F.B. Morse to Colt, 22 October 1842, Colt 

Papers, box 6; New York Herald, 19 October 1842; CARLETON MABEE, The American Leonardo: A Life of Samuel 
NUMBER 2 9 77 

F.B. Morse (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1942), pages 250 -

251 ; EDWARDS , Colt's Revolver, pages 178-179 [note 21]. 

1 1 5

 See Colt's invitation of Brigadier General William J. 

Worth, USA, 18 Octobe r 1842, retained copy, Colt Papers, 

box 6; New York Evening Post, 19 Octobe r 1842; Niles' 

National Register, volume 13 (1842), page 128; New York 

Express, quoted in Alexandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, 20 Octobe r 1842. 

1 1 6

 Colt to Secretary Upshur, 19 Octobe r 1842, retained 

copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

1 1 7

 Ibid. 

118 Niles' National Register, volume 13 (1842), page 128. 

1 1 9

 Washington Daily National Intelligencer, 21 Octobe r 

1842. See also New York Evening Post, 19 Octobe r 1842, 

and New York Herald, 19 Octobe r 1842. 

1 2 0

 See entry on 18 Octobe r 1842 in "Monthly Extracts 

taken from the Journa l of the U.S. Rev. Cutte r Ewing, Alexdr 

B. Fraser, Esq., Commd., Beginning 1st Ending 31st Oct. 

1842," in Treasury Department, Logbooks of Revenue Cutters, 1842-1843, Nationa l Archives, Record Group 26 ; Colt 

to Secretary of the Navy Joh n Y. Mason, 22 April 1844, 

retained copy, Colt Papers, box 6; BARNARD, Armsmear, page 

284 [note 21]. 

1 2 1

 Colt's conception of a. two-observer minefield at this 

juncture is sketched in Colt to Secretary Upshur, 6 Octobe r 

1842, retained copy, marked "private, " Colt Papers, box 6. 

122 New York Herald, 19 Octobe r 1842. 

1 2 3

 Colt to Secretary Upshur, 19 Octobe r 1842, retained 

copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

1 2 4

 Congressional Globe, volume 11 (1842), page 930. 

1 2 5

 New York Herald, 19 Octobe r 1842; EDWARDS , Colt's 

Revolver, pages 178-179 [note 21]; EDWARD LIN D MORSE , 

editor, Samuel F. B. Morse: His Letters and Journals, 2 volumes (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1914), volume 2, pages 

182-184. 

1 2 6

 Ibid.; Morse to Colt, 28 November 1842, and second 

undated letter believed to be of the same period, sent from 

Morse to Colt, Colt Papers, box 6. 

1 2 7

 MORSE , Morse, volume 2, pages 185-186 [note 125]; 

PRESCOTT, Electric Telegraph, pages 768-867 [note 61]; 

Morse to Colt, 22 October 1842, Colt Papers, box 6; KING , 

"Development of Electrical Technology, Part 2," pages 295 -

300 [note 9]. 

1 2 8

 Colt to Samuel Whiting, 17 Jun e 1845, retained copy, 

Colt Papers, box 5-7 ; EDWARDS , Colt's Revolver, pages 192-

203, and appendix [note 21]; MORSE , Morse, volume 2, 

pages 184-203 [note 125]. 

1 2 9

 Regarding the final melodrama surrounding the apparent death of Joh n Colt and the disappearance of his widow, 

see the New York Herald, 20 Novembe r 1842; EDWARDS , 

Colt's Revolver, pages 179-184 [note 21]; and FREDERICK 

W. SEWARD, editor, Autobiography of William H. Seward, 

from 1801 to 1834... (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 

1877); pages 630-635. 

1 3 0

 Colt to Brown and Elton, 13 and 16 Januar y 1843, 

retained copies, Brown an d Elton to Colt, 31 Januar y and 7 

February 1843, all in Colt Papers, box 6. 

1 3 1

 See records of Colt's experiments 7 February, 23 

March, 15 and 25 April 1843, Colt Papers, box 6 ; and Colt's 

account book, January-Ma y 1843, Colt Papers, box 16-17. 

1 3 2

 Record of Colt's experiment at "New York University, " 

23 Marc h 1843, Colt Papers, box 6. 

1 3 3

 Army and Navy Chronicle and Scientific Repository, 

volume 1 (1843), page 570. 

1 3 4

 Colt to David Henshaw, 30 August 1843, retained copy, 

and bill of sale for the barque Brunette, dated 30 Octobe r 

1843, Colt Papers, box 6; EDWARDS , Colt's Revolver, pages 

149-150. 

1 3 5

 Records of Colt's experiments of 3 an d 15 August, 1 

September 1843, and of 3 February 1844, Colt Papers, box 6. 

1 3 6

 Army and Navy Chronicle and Scientific Repository, 

volume 2 (1843), pages 413-414 , 694-695 , 762 ; BENNETT , 

Steam Navy, pages 57-6 0 [note 51]. 

1 3 7

 Stephen Shinn to Colt, 29 Novembe r an d 16 Decembe r 

1843; and Colt to Shinn, 6 Decembe r 1843, retained copy, 

all in Colt Papers, box 6. 

1 3 8

 Alexandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, 29 February, 1 an d 2 Marc h 1844; Army and Navy Chronicle and 

Scientific Repository, volume 3 (1844), pages 281-282 ; 

HARR Y C. WATTS , "Ericsson, Stockton an d the U.S.S. 

Princeton," United States Naval Institute Proceedings, volume 82 (1956), pages 964-967 . 

1 3 9

 Alexandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, 22 Marc h 

1844; Army and Navy Chronicle and Scientific Repository, 

volume 3 (1844), pages 341-342 ; chart of Potoma c River 

and Eastern Branch, Colt Collection, Connecticut State 

Library Museum, Hartford. See Colt to Acting Secretary of 

the Navy Lewis Warrington, 11 Marc h 1844, retained copy; 

Commodor e Warrington to Captain Joh n H. Aulick, Commandant, Washington Navy Yard, 13 Marc h 1844, courtesy 

copy; Colt to Captain Aulick, 15 Marc h 1844, retained copy, 

all in Colt Papers, box 6; Congressional Globe, volume 14 

(1844), pages 415, 419. 

1 4 0

 Colt to Representative Henry A. Wise, 1 April 1844, 

retained copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

1 4 1

 Washington Daily National Intelligencer, 12 April 

1844; Washington Madisonian, 9 an d 15 April 1844; 

Alexandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, 15 April 1844. 

1 4 2

 O n 9 April Morse successfully demonstrated his electromagnetic telegraph line between Bladensburg an d Wash -

ington. Ibid., 28 Marc h an d 3 April 1844; Washington 

Madisonian, 10 April 1844; Army and Navy Chronicle and 

Scientific Repository, volume 2 (1843), pages 141-145, an d 

volume 3 (1844), pages 625-630 ; Proceedings of the National 

Institute, volume 3 (1844), page 437ff. 

1 4 3

 SAMUE L FLAGG BEMIS , editor, The American Secretaries of State and their Diplomacy, 18 volumes (New York: 

Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., Pageant Book Co., an d Cooper Squar e 

Publishers, 1958-1970), volume 5, pages 88-121 , 136-171 . 

KOHLSTEDT , "Failure of the Nationa l Institute, " pages 339— 

340, 356-36 0 [note 81]. 

1 4 4

 Alexandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, 13 Marc h 

1844; Baltimore American, 11 Marc h 1844; THEODOR E F . 

RODENBOUG H and WILLIA M L. HASKIN , editors, The Army 

of the United States: Historical Sketches of Staff and Line, 

with Portraits of Generals-in-Chief (New York: Military 

Service Institution, 1896), pages 332, 335-336 ; Congressional Globe, volume 13 (1844), page 374. 

" 5 Ibid. 
78 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

146

 Ibid., volume 13 (1844), pages 533-535; Alexandria 

Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, 15 April 1844. 

147

 Ibid. 

148

 See in particular the extended accounts of one "Sigma" 

in the Washington Daily National Intelligencer, 15 April 

1844, and of "Peter Primrose" in the Washington Madisonian, 17 April 1844, efforts that merit stylistic comparison. 

149

 Ibid. The unsigned sketch of Colt's demonstration off 

the Washington Navy Yard, designated drawing "B," is found 

in the Colt Collection at the Connecticut State Library 

Museum, Hartford. 

150

 Ibid. Lieutenant Boyle's schedule of signals for the 

destruction of the Styx are contained in an undated document, "Signals Ship Styx," in the Colt Papers, box 6. 

151 Washington Daily National Intelligencer, 15 April 

1844. 

152

 Washington Madisonian, 17 April 1844. 

153 Washington Daily National Intelligencer, 15 April 

1844. Colt's statement regarding his position during this 

demonstration is contained in his letter to Secretary of the 

Navy John Y. Mason, 22 April 1844, retained copy, Colt 

Papers, box 6. The "study for a pencil" suggested by "Sigma" 

may indeed be the aforementioned drawing "B." 

154

 See unsigned article, "The Sub-Marine Battery," Washington Daily National Intelligencer, 15 April 1844. 

155

 Colt to Secretary Mason, 22 April 1844, retained copy, 

Colt Papers, box 6. 

1 5 s

 Ibid. In an early draft of this report, also in the Colt 

Papers, box 6, the inventor increased his original estimate 

from "My battery was a mile distant from the ship . . ., " to 

"something more than 2 miles. . . ." 

157

 Ibid.; Colt to Representative Henry C. Murphy, 3 June 

1844, retained copy, Colt Papers, box 6; drawing "U" in Colt 

Collection, Connecticut State Library Museum, Hartford. 

158

 Compare drawing "B" in Colt Collection and the oil 

painting by An. Gibert in the collection of Mr. Caldwell C. 

Robinson, Trappe, Maryland. Colt's receipt for payment to 

Gibert on 15 October 1844 of $60.00 for this painting is 

found in Colt Papers, box 16-17. See also ALLEN C. CLARK, 

Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City (Washington: W.F. 

Roberts Press, 1901), page 246. 

159 Washington Daily National Intelligencer, 15 April 1844. 

160

 Army and Navy Chronicle and Scientific Repository, 

volume 3 (1844), page 509. 

161 Washington Daily National Intelligencer, 19, 20, and 

22 April 1844; Alexandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, 

22 April 1844. 

162

 TAYLOR PECK, Round Shot to Rockets: A History of 

the Washington Navy Yard and Gun Factory (Annapolis: 

United States Naval Institute, 1949), pages 102-103. 

163

 Washington Daily National Intelligencer, 15-23 April 

1844; SEAGER, Tyler, pages 209-230 [note 39]; BEMIS, 

American Secretaries of State, volume 5, pages 136-171 

[note 143]. 

164

 Congressional Globe, volume 13 (1844), page 562; Colt 

memorial to the Senate and House of Representatives, 16 

April 1844, retained copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

165

 Congressional Globe, volume 13 (1844), page 562. 

166

 Colt to Major William Gibbs McNeill, 22 April 1844, 

retained copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

167

 Ibid.; Colt to Secretary Mason, 22 April 1844, retained 

copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

168

 Ibid.; Secretary Mason to Secretary of War William 

Wilkins, 7 May 1844, in Colt's Submarine Battery, House 

Document No. 127, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, page 5. 

169

 Colt to Secretary Mason, 25 April 1844, in Miscellaneous Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy, 1801— 

1884, National Archives, Record Group 45, Microcopy 124, 

Roll 204; Colt to Secretary Mason, 24 April 1844, retained 

copy, Colt Papers, box 6; Secretary Mason to Colt, 26 April 

1844, Colt Papers, box 6. 

170

 Colt to Secretary Mason, 1 May 1844, retained copy, 

Colt Papers, box 6. 

171

 Ibid.; Secretary of War William Wilkins to the Honorable J.W. Jones, Speaker of the House of Representatives, 8 

May 1844, in Colt's Submarine Battery, page 1 [note 168]. 

172

 Colt to Secretary Wilkins, 22 April 1844, retained copy, 

Colt Papers, box 6. 

173

 Secretary Wilkins to Colt, 27 April 1844, Colt Papers, 

box 6. 

174

 Colt to Secretary Wilkins, 30 April 1844, retained copy, 

Colt Papers, box 6. 

175

 Secretary Mason to Secretary Wilkins, 7 May 1844, in 

Colt's Submarine Battery, page 5 [note 168]. 

176

 Colt to Secretary Wilkins, 8 May 1844, in ibid., pages 

5-6. 

177

 Professor Robert Hare to Secretary Wilkins, 1 May 

1844, in ibid., pages 12-14. 

178

 Ibid. See drawing "F" in Colt Collection, Connecticut 

State Library Museum, Hartford. 

179

 Samuel F. B. Morse to Joseph Henry, 30 April 1844, 

in Joseph Henry Papers, Smithsonian Institution Archives: 

NATHAN REINGOLD, editor, Science in Nineteenth Century 

America: A Documentary History (New York: Hill and 

Wang Co., 1964) pages 62-65, 152-155; THOMAS COULSON, 

Joseph Henry: His Life and His Work (Princeton: Princeton 

University Press, 1950), pages 46-186; MORSE, Morse, pages 

170-173 [note 125]; PRIME, Morse, pages 419-423, 437-

438 [note 29]. 

180

 Compare Professor Henry's description of a platinum 

fuse mine with that provided by Colt in the Alexandria 

Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, 5 October 1842 [p. 32, 

herein]. 

181

 Joseph Henry to Secretary Wilkins, 3 May 1844, in 

Colt's Submarine Battery, pages 16-17 [note 168]. See also 

Henry's retained copy, with minor variations, in the Joseph 

Henry Papers, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C. 

182

 Army and Navy Chronicle and Scientific Repository, 

volume 1 (1843), page 570; Samuel F. B. Morse to Joseph 

Henry, 30 April 1844, in Joseph Henry Papers, Smithsonian 

Institution Archives, Washington, D.C; REINGOLD, Science in Nineteenth Century America, pages 63-65 [note 179]. 

183 Henr y to Secretary Wilkins, 3 Ma y 1844, in Colt's Submarine Battery, pages 16-17 [note 168]. 

1 8 4

 GEORGE W. CULLUM, Biographical Register of the 

Officers and Graduates of the United States Military Academy, 3rd edition, 2 volumes (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Co., 

1891), volume 1, pages 63-67. 
NUMBER 2 9 79 

1 8 5

 Colonel Joseph G. Totte n to Secretary Wilkins, 1 Ma y 

1844, in Colt's Submarine Battery, pages 6-11 [note 168]. 

« • Ibid. 

1

87 Ibid. 

188 Ibid. 

189 Ibid. 

1 9 0

 Secretary Wilkins to Hous e Speaker J.W. Jones, 8 Ma y 

1844, in ibid., pages 1-3; Army and Navy Chronicle and 

Scientific Repository, volume 3 (1844), page 744. 

1 9 1

 Colt's Submarine Battery, page 1 [note 168]. 

1 9 2

 Colt to Representative Murphy , 3 Jun e 1844, in Colt 

Papers, box 6. 

1 9 3

 House Committe e on Nava l Affairs, Report No. 46, on 

Samuel Colt, 11 Januar y 1845, in Colt's Submarine Battery, 

House Documen t No. 127, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, page 

20 [note 168]; Representative Murph y to Henr y L. Ellsworth, 

4 Jun e 1844, courtesy copy in Colt Papers, box 6. 

1 9 4

 Patent Petition of Samuel Colt of New York, New 

York, 8 Jun e 1844, Colt Papers, box 6. Th e annotations to 

Colt's patent drawing numbe r 3 are believed to have been 

added subsequent to 1860 by Charles B. Richards ("C.B.R.") , 

who served as engineering superintendent of the Colt Armory 

in Hartford during Colt's last years. JOSEP H WICKHA M 

ROE, English and American Tool Builders (New Haven : 

Yale University Press, 1971), page 172. 

1 9 5

 House Committe e on Nava l Affairs, Report No. 46, in 

Colt's Submarine Battery, pages 20—21 [note 168]. 

1 9 6

 Thoma s P. Jones to Colt, 14 Jun e 1844, in ibid., page 

24 (see also page 21). 

1 9 7

 House Committe e on Nava l Affairs, Report No. 46, in 

ibid., page 20. 

1 9 8

 As ultimately stated by the Hous e Committe e on Naval 

Affairs, this objection ha d lost Colonel Totten's very valid 

warning about the ineffectiveness of an observation system in 

darkness or lowered visibility. Ibid., pages 2, 10, an d 21. 

1 9 9

 Ibid., page 22. 

2 0 0

 Commissioner Henr y L. Ellsworth to Colt, 8 Jun e 1844, 

Colt Papers, box 6 ; BARNARD, Armsmear, page 297 [note 21]. 

2 0 1

 Congressional Globe, volume 4 (1845), page 126. See 

also "A Bill for the Relief of Samuel Colt . . . ," House 

Resolution No. 519, 29th Congress, 2nd Session, in Colt 

Papers, box 6. 

2 0 2

 Secretary Mason to Representative Joh n Stewart of the 

House Committe e on Nava l Affairs, 13 February 1845, 

courtesy copy, Colt Papers, box 6. 

2 0 3

 Ibid. 

2 0 4

 Report of Col. Joseph G. Totten, Col. Joh n J. Abert 

a n d Lt. Col. George Talcott to Secretary of Wa r William 

Wilkins regarding inventions of George W. Taylor of Boston, 

4 February 1845, in Letters an d Reports of Col. Joseph G. 

Totten, Chief of Engineers, Record Grou p 77, Entry 147, 

volume 6, pages 76-83 ; Col. Totte n to Senator Thoma s Hart 

Benton, 28 Decembe r 1844, in ibid., volume 6, pages 68-69 . 

See also Colt to President Tyler, 19 Jun e 1841, Colt Papers, 

box 5. 

2 0 5

 A major portion of Colt's equipment, including four 

batteries, anchor chain, twenty-five iron canisters, fifteen 

pounds of powde r an d sixteen spools, shipped to New York in 

the schooner Alexandria, was attached by the sheriff's office 

in settlement of the shipping agent's unpaid claims. Colt's 

efforts late in Jun e to retain the apparatus (not since located) 

for further experiments for the government opened a disheartening decade-long correspondence with the Treasury 

Department, which was unsatisfied with the inventor's 

undocumented accounting for requisitions totaling $21,050.62 

issued to his account for his Submarine Battery development 

a n d experiments. See Sturgis and Clearma n to Colt, 23 Jun e 

1844; Colt to Charles B. Penrose, Solicitor of the Treasury 

Department, 24 Jun e 1844, retained copy; William Barrett, 

U.S. Attorney's Office, New York, to Colt, 29 Jun e an d 8 

July 1844; A.O. Dayton, Fourth Auditor's Office, Treasury 

Department, to Colt, 9 Decembe r 1844, all in Colt Papers, 

box 6. See also J.M. Brodhead, Second Comptroller, Treasury Department, to F.B. Streeter, Solicitor of the Treasury 

Department, 30 Novembe r 1854, with attached earlier documents, in Treasury Department, Letters Received from the 

Second Comptroller, 1821-1894, National Archives, Record 

Grou p 206, P.I. 171, Entry 23. 

2

«6 EDWARDS , Colt's Revolver, pages 277-28 4 [note 21]; 

J. LEANDER BISHOP , A History of American Manufactures 

from 1608 to 1860 . . . , 3rd edition, 3 volumes (New York: 

Johnson Reprint Corp., 1967), volume 3, pages 407-412 ; 

VICTO R S. CLARK , History of Manufactures in the United 

States, 1607—1860, revised edition, 3 volumes (Washington: 

Carnegi e Institution, 1929), volume 2, pages 7, 20-21 , 87 ; 

JOH N W. OLIVER, History of American Technology (New 

York: Ronald Press, 1956), pages 169-170, 263, 279. 

2 0 7

 Colt foresaw few economies for the government if it 

purchased large quantities of his mining apparatus, as is 

evident in undated estimates for his "Triangula r Submarine 

Battery" an d his "Reflected Submarine Battery," Colt Papers, 

box 6. EDWARDS , Colt's Revolver, pages 211-247 [note 21]. 

208 WILLIA M LAIRD CLOWE S and others, The Royal Navy: 

A History from the Earliest Times to the Present, 7 volumes 

(London : Sampson Low an d Marston, 1897—1903), volume 

6, pages 482—484. Concerning British experience with Chinese 

fireboats and underwate r obstructions in 1856—58, see ibid., 

volume 7, pages 99, 118 an d 124-125. 

2 0 9

 PERRY, Infernal Machines, pages 5—17 [note 100]; 

WILLIAMS , Maury, pages 376-384, 390-39 3 [note 100]. 

2 1 0

 See in particular SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR , 

Report on Passive Obstructions for the Defence of Harbours 

and Channels by the Committee on Floating Obstructions 

and Submarine Machines (London : He r Majesty's Stationery 

Office, 1866); VIKTO R ERNS T RUDOLP H VO N SCHELIHA , 

A Treatise on Coast Defence: Based on the Experiences 

Gained by Officers of the Corps of Engineers of the Army of 

the Confederate States .. . . (London : E. Spon, 1868); an d 

HENR Y L. ABBOT, Submarine Mining in the Defense of Harbors and Rivers (Willets Point, N.Y.: Battalion Press, 1877) ; 

HENR Y L. ABBOT, Report on Experiments and Investigations 

to Develop a System of Submarine Mines for Defending the 

Harbors of the United States (Willets Point, N.Y. : 

Battalion Press, 1880). 
Notes to the Figures 

Figure 1. Mezzotint by Edward Fisher after a portrait of 

Franklin by Mason Chamberlain in 1762. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 46835-J. CARL VAN DOREN, Benjamin 

Franklin (New York: Viking Press, 1938), pages 156-173, 

272-288, 535-537; WORTHINGTON CHAUNCY FORD, editor, 

Correspondence and Journals of Samuel Blachley Webb, 

1772—1779 (New York [Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Wickersham Press], 1893), pages 163n-164n; SAMUEL HAZARD, 

et al., editor, Pennsylvania Archives: Selected and Arranged 

from Original Documents in the Office of the Secretary of 

the Commonwealth, 109 volumes in nine series (Philadelphia: Joseph Severns & Co., 1852-1856), first series, volume 

4, pages 650-654; I. MINNIS HAYS, editor, Calendar of the 

Papers of Benjamin Franklin in the Library of the American 

Philosophical Society, 5 volumes (Philadelphia: American 

Philosophical Society, 1908), volume 2, pages 23, 30, and 

volume 4, page 304; WILLIAM BELL CLARK and WILLIAM 

JAMES MORGAN, editors, Naval Documents of the American 

Revolution, multivolume edition (Washington: Government 

Printing Office, 1964 to date), volume 1, pages 1088-1089. 

Figure 2. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 77114. 

FREDERICK WAGNER, Submarine Fighter of the American 

Revolution: The Story of David Bushnell (New York: Dodd, 

Mead & Company, 1963), pages 83-89, 128; EVANS M. 

WOODWARD and JOHN F. HAGEMAN, History of Burlington 

and Mercer Counties, New Jersey, with Bibliographical 

Sketches of Many of Their Pioneers and Prominent Men 

(Philadelphia: Everts and Peck, 1883), pages 463-465; 

I. MINNIS HAYS, editor, Calendar of the Papers of Benjamin 

Franklin in the Library of the American Philosophical 

Society, 5 volumes (Philadelphia: American Philosophical 

Society, 1908), volume 1, page 519; JAMES D. MAGEE, Bordentown, 1682-1932: An Illustrated Story of a Colonial 

Town (Bordentown, New Jersey: The Borden town Register, 

1930), pages 30-40; Record Book of the Philadelphia 

Museum, Charles Willson Peale Papers, The Historical 

Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

Figure 3. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 72-2884. 

HOWARD L. BLACK MORE, British Military Firearms, 1650-

1850 (London: Herbert Jenkins, 1961), page 57. 

Figure 4. Portrait by E. D. Turina. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 72-9336. A. V. IAROTSKH, Pavel L'vovich 

Schilling (Moscow: Izdatel' stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 

1963), pages 9-21. 

Figure 5. Portrait courtesy of the Institution of Royal 

Engineers, Chatham, England. H. W. TYLER, "Memoir of 

General Sir Charles William Pasley, KCB," Professional 

Papers of the Corps of Royal Engineers, new series, volume 

12 (1863), pages ix-xv. 

Figure 6. Portrait by Samuel Laurence, in KARL WERCKMEISTER, editor, Das neunzehnte Jahrhundert in Bildnissen, 

5 vols. (Berlin: Photographische Gesellschaft, 1898-1901), 

volume 2, plate 199. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 

52331. See LATIMER CLARK, "On the late Sir Charles Wheatstone," Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers, volume 4 (1875), pages 319-334; ROLLO APPLEYARD, Pioneers 

of Electrical Communication (London: Macmillan & Co., 

1930), pages 84-106; E.A. MARLAND, Early Electrical Communication (London, New York and Toronto: AbelardSchuman Ltd., 1964), pages 74-82; P.H. KEALY, General 

Sir Charles William Pasley, KCB, FRS, DCL, Colonel Commandant R.E., 1780-1861 (London: privately printed, 

1930), pages 77-85. 

Figure 7. From ROBERT FULTON, Torpedo Warfare and 

Submarine Explosions (Washington: privately printed, 

1810). Smithsonian Institution negative no. 77608-1. 

Reprinted in Senate Document No. 80: "Use of the Torpedo 

in the Defence of Ports and Harbors," 11th Congress, 2nd 

Session, in WALTER LOWRIE and WALTER S. FRANKLIN, editors, American State Papers . . . , 38 volumes (Washington: 

Gales and Seaton, 1832-1861), Naval Affairs, volume 1 

(1834), pages 211-227, plate 1. 

Figure 8. Engraving by J.C. Buttre from a photograph by 

P. Graff. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 57438. WILLIAM B. EDWARDS, The Story of Colt's Revolver: The Biography of Col. Samuel Colt (Harrisburg: Stackpole Co., 

1953) : JACK ROHAN, Yankee Arms Maker: The Incredible 

Career of Samuel Colt (New York: Harper & Brothers, 

1953). 

Figure 9. Portrait of Robert Hare by Rembrandt Peale, 

circa 1820-25, in Independence Hall Historical Park, Philadelphia. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 56579. 

EDWARD FAHS SMITH, The Life of Robert Hare: An American Chemist, 1781-1858 (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott 

Co., 1917, pages 3-12, 62-67, 325, 371-384. 

Figure 10. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 77972. 

The American Journal of Science and Arts, volume 2 

(1820), pages 312-318 and plates at end of volume. 

Figure 11. Courtesy of the Division of Physical Sciences, 

The National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution. Catalogue no. 316,886. Smithsonian 

Institution negative no. 71347. 

Figure 12. Courtesy of the Division of Physical Sciences, 

The National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution. Catalogue no. 321,530. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 78000-A. 

Figure 13. Detail of drawing "no. 3," Samuel Colt Collection, reproduced by permission of the Connecticut State 

Library Museum, Hartford. Smithsonian Institution negative 

no. 76759-B. 

80 
NUMBER 29 81 

Figure 14. Portrait by unknown photographer, reproduced by permission of the Werner-von-Siemens Institute, 

Munich. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 76824. WERNER VON SIEMENS, Inventor and Entrepreneur: Recollections of Werner von Siemens. Introduction by Ernst von 

Siemens. (London and Munich: Percy Lund Humphries & 

Co. and Prestel Verlag, 1966), pages 11-70 ff; FRIEDRICH 

VON EHRENKROOK, Geschichte der Seeminen und Torpedos 

(Berlin: E.S. Mittler & Sohn, 1878), pages 20-22. 

Figure 15. Drawing "E", Samuel Colt Collection, reproduced by permission of the Connecticut State Library 

Museum, Hartford. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 

76759—J. For a contemporary representation of light reflected 

from a canted convex mirror, see JOHN FARRAR, An Experimental Treatise in Optics . . for the Use of the Students 

of the University (Cambridge: [Harvard] University Press, 

1826), pages 16-18, plate 1, figure 11. 

Figure 16. Drawing "F" , Samuel Colt Collection, reproduced by permission of the Connecticut State Library 

Museum, Hartford. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 

76759-D. 

Figure 17. Watercolor by William Siebe, reproduced by 

permission of the Institution of Royal Engineers and the 

Royal Engineers Museum at Chatham. T.W.J. CONNOLLY, 

History of the Royal Sappers and Miners, from the Foundation of the Corps in March 1772 to the Date When Its 

Designation Was Changed to That of Royal Engineers, in 

October 1856, 2 volumes (London: Longman, Brown, 

Green, Longmans and Roberts, 1857), volume 1, pages 188, 

348-353; P.H. KEALY, General Sir Charles William Pasley 

KCB, FRS, DCL, Colonel Commandant R.E., 1780-1861 

(London: privately printed, 1930), pages 30, 67-85; 

Army and Navy Chronicle, volume 8 (1839), pages 373— 

375, and volume 10 (1840), page 100. 

Figure 18. Portrait of Southard as Secretary of the Navy 

by A.S. Conrad, courtesy of the Naval History Division, 

Department of the Navy. Negative no. NH 77358 KN. 

CHARLES OSCAR PAULLIN, Paullin's History of Naval Administration, 1775—1911 (Annapolis: United States Naval Institute, 1968), pages 160-164, 179-183; Niles' Weekly Register, 

volume 20 (30 September 1823), pages 33-34; Washington 

Daily National Intelligencer, 28 June 1842, JAMES RUSSELL 

SOLEY, Historical Sketch of the United States Naval Academy (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1876), 

pages 14-23. 

Figure 19. Engraving by J. Haller from a. photograph by 

Leon Levitzky in St. Petersburg, by permission of the Wernervon-Siemens Institute, Munich. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 58088. Many of Jacobi's mine warfare contributions, 

including use of the mercury switch, are reprinted in A.A. 

SAMAROV and F.A. PETROV, editors, Razvitie minnogo 

oruzhiya v russkom flote: Dokumenty [The Development of 

Mine Materiel in the Russian Navy: Documents] (Moscow: 

Voenno-morskoe izdatel'stvo voenno-morskogo ministerstva 

soiuza SSSR, 1951). See also H. WILD, "Rede zum Gedachtnis an H.M. Jacobi, gehalten am 29 December 1875 in der 

feierlichen Sitzung der Akademie der Wissenschaften," Bulletin de VAcademic Imperiale des Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg, volume 21 (1876), pages 262-268. 

Figure 20. Engraving by unknown artist in The Scientific 

American, volume 2, number 16 (9 January 1847), page 

126. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 72-2891. See 

THEODORE FRANCIS JONES, editor, New York University, 

1832-1932 (New York: New York University Press, 1933), 

pages 43, 57-58, 393-397; THEODORE WINTHROP, Cecil 

Dreeme (New York: Henry Holt, 1876), pages 33-36; 

WILLIAM B. EDWARDS, The Story of Colt's Revolver: The 

Biography of Col. Samuel Colt (Harrisburg: Stackpole Co., 

1953), pages 191-193; EDWARD LIND MORSE, editor, Samuel 

F. B. Morse: His Letters and Journals, 2 volumes (Boston: 

Houghton Mifflin Co., 1914), volume 2, pages 37-44, 183— 

184. 

Figure 21. Photographic portrait of Morse circa 1845 

by unknown photographer. Courtesy of the Division of 

Graphic Arts, The National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Institution 

negative no. 73-1504. EDWARD LIND MORSE, editor, Samuel 

F.B. Morse: His Letters and Journals, 2 volumes (Boston: 

Houghton Mifflin Co., 1914); CARLETON MABEE, The 

American Leonardo: A Life of Samuel F.B. Morse (New 

York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1943); New York Herald, 19 October 1842; WILLIAM B. EDWARDS, The Story of Colt's Revolver: The Biography of Col. Samuel Colt (Harrisburg: Stackpole Co., 1953), pages 178-179, 191-203. 

Figure 22. The Scientific American, new series, volume 5, 

number 9 (31 August 1861), pages 129-132; FRANK M. 

BENNETT, The Steam Navy of the United States (Pittsburgh: 

Warren & Co., 1896), pages 57-60. 

Figure 23. Drawing "N," in Samuel Colt Collection, 

reproduced by permission of the Connecticut State Library 

Museum, Hartford. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 

73-10240. The Scientific American, volume 1, number 12 

(4 December 1845), page 46. 

Figure 24. Photographic portrait of Perry by Matthew 

Brady, courtesy of the Library of Congress. Smithsonian 

Institution negative no. 77792. SAMUEL ELIOT MORISON, 

"Old Bruin": Commodore Matthew C. Perry, 1794-1858 

(Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1967), pages~2G-143, New 

York Herald, 19 October 1842; Diary of Samuel Colt, 4 

June 1842, Samuel Colt Papers (manuscripts, Connecticut 

Historical Society, Hartford), box 6. 

Figure 25. Daguerreotype by John Plumbe, Jr., circa 

1846, courtesy of the Prints and Photographs Division of the 

Library of Congress. Negative no. 31707/46805. See The 

United States Magazine, volume 3, pages 288-298; Henry L. 

Ellsworth to Colt, 15 August 1843, Samuel Colt Papers 

(manuscripts, Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford), 

box 6. 

Figure 26. Wood engraving from Harper's Weekly, 16 

March 1861, courtesy of the Prints and Photographs Division 

of the Library of Congress. Negative no. 31707/2220. WILLIAM B. EDWARDS, The Story of Colt's Revolver: The 

Biography of Col. Samuel Colt (Harrisburg: Stackpole Co., 

1953), pages 144-148; STEPHEN V. BENET, editor, A Collection of Annual Reports and Other Important Papers 

Relating to the Ordnance Department. . (Washington: 

Government Printing Office, 1878), page 422. 

Figure 27. Engraving by J. Haller from a photograph by 

Schmith. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 77817. FRANCIS LEIGH WILLIAMS, Matthew Fontaine Maury, Scientist 
82 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

of the Sea (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University 

Press, 1963). 

Figure 28. Drawing "G," Samuel Colt Collection, reproduced by permission of the Connecticut State Library 

Museum, Hartford. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 

76759-E. 

Figure 29. Drawing "I, " Samuel Colt Collection, reproduced by permission of the Connecticut State Library 

Museum, Hartford. Smithsonian Institution negative no 

76759-C. 

Figure 30. Photograph of the Colt cable, which was 

donated to the Connecticut State Library Museum by the 

Western Union Telegraph Company, reproduced by permission of that museum. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 

73-10239. WILLIAM B. EDWARDS, The Story of Colt's Revolver: The Biography of Col. Samuel Colt (Harrisburg: Stackpole Co., 1953), pages 172, 177-178, 191-193; J. LEANDER 

BISHOP, A History of American Manufactures from 1608 to 

1860. . , third edition, 3 volumes (New York: Johnson 

Reprint Corp., 1967), volume 3, pages 412-413. 

Figure 31. Courtesy of the Samuel Colt Papers (manuscripts, Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford), box 6. 

Figure 32. Reproduced by permission of Caldwell C. 

Robinson of Trappe, Maryland. Smithsonian Institution 

negative no. 72-10934. 

Figure 33. Lithograph by Nathaniel Currier, courtesy of 

the Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress. 

Negative no. 23399/1. 

Figure 34. Reproduced by permission of the Samuel Colt 

Collection, Connecticut State Library Museum, Hartford. 

Smithsonian Institution negative no. 76759-G. 

Figure 35. Portion of drawing "A" reproduced by permission of the Samuel Colt Collection, Connecticut State 

Library Museum, Hartford. Smithsonian Institution negative 

no. 76759-K. See WILLIAM B. EDWARDS, The Story of Colt's 

Revolver: The Biography of Col. Samuel Colt (Harrisburg: 

Stackpole Co., 1953), pages 195-200 and appendix. 

Figure 36. Reproduced by permission of Samuel Colt 

Collection, Connecticut State Library Museum, Hartford. 

Smithsonian Institution negative no. 76759—1. See also the 

document "Signals Ship Styx," Samuel Colt Papers (manuscripts, Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford), box 6. 

Figure 37. Engraving by W.J. Bennett in 1834, after a. 

painting by G. Cooke, courtesy of the Prints and Photographs 

Division of the Library of Congress. Negative no. 31707/ 

2737. See also Colt to Secretary of the Navy John Y. Mason, 

22 April 1844, retained copy, Samuel Colt Papers (manuscripts, Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford), box 6. 

Figure 38. Detail reproduced by permission of Caldwell 

C. Robinson of Trappe, Maryland. Smithsonian Institution 

negative no. 72-10936. ALLEN C. CLARK, Greenleaf and Law 

in the Federal City (Washington: W. F. Roberts Press, 

1901), page 246; log of the U.S.S. Union, 1844, Record 

Group 24, National Archives. 

Figure 39. Daguerreotype portrait of Joseph Henry about 

1842-45 by an unknown photographer. Reproduced by permission of the Chicago Historical Society. Smithsonian Institution negative no. SA12. See Secretary of War William 

Wilkins to Joseph Henry, 29 April 1844, in Colt's Submarine 

Battery, House Document No. 127, 28th Congress, 2nd 

Session, pages 2 and 11. See also Morse to Henry, 27 March 

1844; William Hamilton to Henry, 1 April 1844; Henry to 

Alexander Dallas Bache, 16 April 1844, retained copy, all 

in Joseph Henry Papers (manuscripts, Smithsonian Institution Archives) ; THOMAS COULSON, Joseph Henry: His Life 

and His Work (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), 

pages 12-31, 38-43, 46-168; NATHAN REINGOLD, editor, 

The Papers of Joseph Henry, multivolume edition (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1973 to date) volume 1, 

pages 3, 54-57, 60-61, 77-92, 132-133, 201, 217, 316-320, 

433-441, 456-459. 

Figure 40. Portrait by Robert W. Weir, courtesy of the 

West Point Museum. GEORGE W. CULLUM, Biographical 

Register of the Officers and Graduates of the United States 

Military Academy, 3rd edition, 2 volumes (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, Co., 1891), pages 63-67; WILLIAM J. RHEES , 

editor, The Smithsonian Institution: Documents Relative to 

its Origin and History, 1835-1899, 2 volumes (Washington: 

Smithsonian Institution, 1901), page 438. 

Figure 41. The annotations on this drawing ("No. 3") 

and the elfin operative appear to have been added later by 

Charles Brinckerhoff Richards, who served as engineering 

superintendent of Colt's Armory during the entrepreneur's 

last years. From the Samuel Colt Collection, reproduced by 

permission of the Connecticut State Library Museum, Hartford. Smithsonian Institution negative no. 76759-B. N.G. 

OSBORN, Men of Mark of Connecticut: Ideals of American 

Life Told in Biographies and Autobiographies of Eminent 

Living Americans, 5 volumes (Hartford: N.R. Goodspeed 

Co., 1906-1910), volume 1, pages 309-310. 

Figure 42. Portion of Drawing "A," Samuel Colt Collection, reproduced by permission of the Connecticut State 

Library Museum, Hartford. Smithsonian Institution negative 

no. 76759-F. 

Figure 43. Adjacent portion of Drawing "A," Samuel 

Colt Collection, reproduced by permission of the Connecticut 

State Library Museum, Hartford. Smithsonian Institution 

negative no. 76759-H. 
Index 

Abert, Colonel John J., USA, 56 

Academy of Sciences, Bavarian, 4 

Academy of Sciences, Russian, 1, 4, 5, 19 

Adams, Fort, 11-12, 51, 62 

Adams, President John Quincy, 17, 27, 29-31 

Advance, financial, 21, 25, 48, 56, 67, 69, 79 (n. 205) 

Advisory opinions, professional, 49—52, 61—68, 71 

Albany (New York), 50 

Albany (New York) Academy, 50 

Alexander I, Tsar, 4-5 

Alexandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, 32, 40, 60—61 

Alexandria, schooner, 79 (n. 205) 

Alexandria (Virginia), 27, 38-41, 69 

Allston, Washington, 23 

American Institute for the Useful Arts, 33-35 

American Journal of Science and Arts, Silliman's, 9, 11, 31, 

36, 50, 62 

American Philosophical Society, 2, 9, 50—51 

American State Papers: Naval Affairs, 7, 18, 60 

Amherst (Massachusetts) Academy, 8 

Anacostia heights, 45 

Anacostia River. See Eastern Branch (Potomac River) 

Anchors, mine, 32, 40, 59 

Anglo-American relations, 16, 27, 40, 47, 69 

Angular point of observation, 71 

Annapolis (Maryland), 31 

Annapolis railroad, 61 

Apprentice system, naval, 25 

Appropriations, naval, 18, 19, 26, 30-31, 34, 67, 69 

Argus, target brig, 34 

Army and Navy Chronicle, 16 

Army and Navy Chronicle and Scientific Repository, 36, 38, 

46, 50, 52 

Army, United States, 7, 11-12, 17, 26-27, 29, 34, 40, 47, 

50-52, 55-57, 69 

Arrangement (financial settlement) with Colt, 18, 48-49, 

52, 60, 67, 69 

Ashburton (Alexander Baring), Lord, 27 

Audit of Colt's Submarine Battery Account, 56, 79, (n. 205) 

Bache, Alexander Dallas, 67 

Badger, Secretary of the Navy George E., 18-20, 69 

Baltimore and Washington railroad, 61 

Baltimore conventions of 1844, 47 

Barnard, Professor Henry, iii 

Batteries, galvanic, iii, 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16-17, 19, 22, 

24-25, 27, 29, 32, 34-37, 43, 49-52, 59-68, 70-71, 79 

(n. 205) 

Battery, The (New York), 34 

"Battle of the Kegs" at Philadelphia, 2-3 

Bauer, Wilhelm, 1 

Bavaria, 4 

Beccaria (Cesare Bonesana), Marchese Di, 3 

Beer barrels, 27 

Belton, Joseph, 2 

Belvidera, H.M.S., 25 

Bengal army, 50, 66 

Bennett, W. J., 45, 82 (fig. 37) 

Benton, Senator Thomas Hart, 56 

Berlin (Prussia), 13 

Bermuda, 6 

Bernard Board, 7, 51 

Bernard, Brigadier General Simon, USA, 7, 51 

Birmingham (England), 3 

Black Rock (New York), 37 

Bladensburg (Maryland), 77 (n. 142) 

Blasting cartridges, 11, 12, 62-63 

Blockade forces, 22, 64 

Blowpipe, oxyhydrogen, 9 

Board of Engineers (Bernard Board), 51 

Board of Navy Commissioners, 21, 26, 27, 74 (n. 34), 75 

(n. 71) 

Bomb cannon, J. W. Webster's, 16 

Bomford, Colonel George, 30 

Borden, Colonel Joseph, 2 

Bordentown (New Jersey), 2 

Boston (Massachusetts), 2, 36, 56 

Boston (Massachusetts) Museum, 2 

Bounty for destruction of British warships, 22 

Boyle, Lieutenant Junius, USN, 42-44 

Brady, Matthew, 81 (fig. 24) 

British shipping, 3, 22 

Brown Bess flintlock musket, 3 

Brown, Philo, 22 

Brown, and Elton, 22, 25, 36 

Brown's fireship, 16 

Brown, Uriah, 16 

Brunette, barque. See Styx, target vessel 

Buchanan, Senator Franklin, 40 

Buffalo (New York), 37 

Buoys, mine, 32, 41, 44 

sighting, 14, 41, 44 

Bureau system, U.S. Navy, 26, 31 

Burning of Washington, 69 

Bushnell, David, 1-3 

Buttre, J.C., 80 (fig. 8) 

Cabinet, Presidential, 18, 20-21, 27, 29, 39-40, 69 

Cable-laying, 27, 32, 34, 40, 42 

Cables, insulated, 27, 32, 34-35, 37, 43, 49-50, 53, 60, 

79 (n. 205) 

Cable, trans-Atlantic, 31 

Calcutta (India), 17, 50, 66 

Calhoun, Senator John C, 31 

83 
84 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Callarifer, N , 71 

Caloric, 9 

Calorimotor, Robert Hare's, 9-11, 24, 36, 62, 64 

Cape Horn, 31 

Capitol of the United States, 35, 40, 61 

Caribbean patrol, 25 

Cases (cannisters or magazines), mine, 26, 29, 32, 34, 59-60, 

62, 68, 71, 79 (n. 205) 

Castelli, Marchese Francesco, 3 

Castle Clinton, 25 

Castle Garden (New York City), 25-26, 34-35, 51 

Cavallo, Tiberius, 3—4 

Cave, Edward, 1 

Cedar Hill (Anacostia), 45 

Chain, anchor, 32, 48, 65, 79 (n. 205) 

Chamberlain, Mason, 80 (fig. 1) 

Chapelle, Colonel Howard I., iv 

Charleston (South Carolina), 56—57 

Charlestown (Massachusetts), 23 

Chatham (England), 5-7, 16, 55-56, 80 (fig. 5), 81 (fig. 17) 

Chemical Society of Philadelphia, 9 

Chesapeake Bay, 61 

Chicago Historical Society, 50, 82 (fig. 39) 

Chief Engineer of the Navy Department, 21 

Chilton, Dr., 36 

China, 79 (n. 208) 

Civil War, American, 24, 46, 51, 56-57 

Clay, Senator Henry, 18 

Coastal defense, economical means of, 17-18, 24-25, 31—33, 

52, 59-61, 69-70 

Coastal defense systems, 7-8, 11-12, 21, 31-32, 51-52, 57, 

69-70 

Coastal defenses, Confederate, 57 

Coastal surveys, 55, 70 

Coast Defense Board, 7, 24 

Cochran, John Webster, 16, 25 

College of New Jersey at Princeton, 22 

College of New Jersey (Rutgers), 17 

Collinson, Peter, 1-2 

Colt Arsenal, Hartford, 8, 56, 79 (n. 194), 82 (fig. 41) 

Colt Collection, inventory of plans in, 59 

Colt, John, 20, 22, 26, 31, 33, 35, 77 (n. 129) 

Colt Papers, iv, 31, 56, 59-60, 68-71 

Colt, Samuel, iii—iv, 7—8ff 

Colt's repeating firearms, 12, 17, 18, 68-69 

"Combustible agent," 47, 49-52, 61-68 

Commercial profit, 21 

Commissioner of Patents, United States, 28, 53—54 

Committee on Naval Affairs, House, 19, 29, 52, 54-55, 69-70, 

79 (n. 198) 

Committee on Underwater Experiments (Russian), 5, 19 

Committee on Ways and Means, House, 47 

Communications between observers, 13, 42, 45, 71 

Como (Duchy of Milan), 3 

Compendium of Chemistry, Robert Hare's, 9 

Conductivity of copper, experiments on, 6, 8, 22, 35—37, 66 

Coney Island (New York), 35 

Confederate States of America, 56-57 

Congress, United States, 16, 18, 21-24, 26-27, 29-30, 33-34, 

38, 40, 42, 44, 47-48, 61-63, 69 

Congressional Globe, The, 40 

Connecticut Historical Society, iv, 31, 56, 59-60, 68-71, 82, 

(fig. 31) 

Connecticut State Library Museum, iv, 59, 80 (fig. 13), 81 

(figs. 15, 16, 23), 82 (figs. 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 41, 

42, 43) 

"Connecting devices" (switches), mercury, 19, 81 

Conrad, A.S., 81 (fig. 18) 

Contract, firearms, 8, 12, 56 

proposed mine installation, 30, 55 

Control panel (grid), galvanic, 14-15, 46, 53-54, 59, 71 

Convention (1844), Presidential nominating, 47 

Conyngham's brewery. See Refinery, sugar 

Cooke, G, 82 (fig. 37) 

Cooke, William Fothergill, 6, 13 

Copenhagen, seige of, 5 

Copper wire, insulated, 6, 37 

rolled, 22, 34, 36, 49 

Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, 11-12, 21, 47, 51-52, 55-57, 

63-67 

Corps of Royal Engineers (British), 5-6, 16-17 

Corps of Royal Sappers and Miners (British), 5-6 

Corrosion, electrolytic, 11 

Council on Manufactures (Russian Ministry of Finance), 19 

Counter-mine devices, 65 

Crimean War, 1, 5, 19, 56, 74 (n. 43) 

Criticism of coastal fortifications program, Colt's, 18, 25-26, 

32-33, 52, 69-70 

Crittenden, Senator John J. 40 

Cummings, Robert, 27, 39-40 

Currier, Nathaniel, 82 (fig. 33) 

Daniell cell ("constant battery"), 6, 19, 25, 53 

Daniell, John Frederic, 6, 19, 25, 50, 53, 66 

Danish Navy, 13 

Danish Straits, 57 

Dardanelles Straits, 57 

Davy, Humphry, 4, 11, 62 

Davy safety lamp, 62 

De Bodisco, Ambassador Alexander, 18 

Defense policy, United States, 7-8, 31-32, 51 

Deflagrator, 11 

Delaware River, 2—3 

Demolition, ship, 5-7, 19, 26, 29-30, 34, 39-46, 49, 60 

Demolitions, underwater, 5—7, 19 

Demonstrations, mining, 7, 18-19, 29-30, 34, 39-46, 54-56, 

59-60, 64, 66-68 

ordnance, 38-40 

Depot of Charts and Instruments, U.S. Naval, 31 

Detonator, platinum fuse, 6, 32-33, 49, 53, 60, 66, 71, 78 

(n. 180) 

Dickens, Charles, 17 

Diplomatic corps, Washington, 40 

Disclaimers of knowledge, 47-52, 61, 62, 66 

Diving suits, 16-17, 56 

Division of Naval History, Smithsonian Institution, 2, 80 

(figs. 2, 3) 

Division of Physical Sciences, Smithsonian Institution, 9-11, 

80 (figs. 11, 12) 

Dorpat (Tartu), University of, 19 
NUMBER 2 9 85 

Douglass, Frederick, 45 

Draper, Professor John William, 20, 22, 55, 62 

"Dr. Coult," 9 

Dry docks, U.S. Naval, 17 

Duelling, 61 

Dumfries (Scotland), 5 

Duncan, Representative Alexander, 40 

Duplex telegraphy, 35 

Eagle, H.M.S., 3 

Eastern Branch (Potomac River), 31, 40-45, 69 

chart of, 31, 40-44, 77 (n. 98) 

Edinburgh (Scotland), 63 

Edwards, William B., iv 

"Electric fire," 1—2 

Electric pile, 3 

Electromagnetic induction, 49—50 

Electromagnetism, 9, 49—50 

Ellis Island naval magazine, 39 

Ellsworth, Commissioner of Patents Henry L. 28, 53—54 

Elton, John P., 22 

Engineer Corps (Russian Army), 4-5, 75 (n. 40) 

U.S. Navy, 21 ,25 

Enigma surrounding Colt's Washington demonstration 

(1844); iii, 45-46 

Equitable, wreck of barque, 17, 63 

Ericsson, Captain John, 24 

Eudiometer, 3, 9-11, 49, 62 

Ewing, U.S. Revenue Cutter, 34, 77 (n. 120) 

Experiments, mining, 16, 18, 40—45 

ordnance, 38-40, 47 

Experiments and materials tests, 21-22, 34-38, 49-52, 60, 

63, 68-71 

Exploring Expedition, United States (Wilkes'), 17, 31 

Faraday, Michael, 6—7, 50 

Financial accounts of Colt's Submarine Battery, closure of, 56 

Fire Island (New York), 35 

Fireship, Chinese, 79 (n. 208) 

Fireship, Uriah Brown's, 16 

Firing arm, mine, 2 

Fiscal policy, United States, 18, 20-21 

Fisher, Edward, 80 (fig. 1) 

Fitstum, Colonel Ivan Ivanovich, 1, 5 

Fleming, Major George, 2—3 

Flintlock musket manufacture, 3 

Floating battery, 24-25, 62 

Florida, 27, 61, 69 

Flushing, siege of, 5 

"Flying Artillery," Ringgold's, 40 

"Forlorn hope" (suicidal) operations, 65, 68 

Fort 

Adams (Rhode Island), 11-12, 51 

Bowyer (Alabama), 33, 60 

Calhoun (Virginia), 61 

Castine (Maine), 33, 60 

Clinton (New York), 25, 51 

Detroit (Michigan), 33, 60 

Erie (Upper Canada), 51 

Monroe (Virginia), 61 

Niagara (New York), 33, 60 

Oswego (New York), 33, 60 

Fortification systems, coastal, 7-8, 11-12, 51 

France, 12, 49, 68-69 

Franco-American relations, 12, 68-69 

Franklin, Benjamin, 1-3, 28 

Franklin Institute of Philadelphia, 23, 50 

Fraser, Captain Alexander B., USRS, 77 (n. 120) 

Fredericksburg (Virginia), 17 

Fuller's Hotel, 17, 60 

Fulton, Robert, 1, 7, 18, 34, 43, 48, 51, 56, 60, 64-65, 68 

Fulton II, U.S.S., 25 

Fuse, artillery, 4-6, 63-64 

carbon-arc, 4-5, 32-33, 73 (n. 11) 

filament, 1, 3, 5, 6, 32-33, 36, 49, 53, 60, 66, 71, 78 

(n. 180) 

percussion, 59 

Gale, Benjamin, 2 

Gale, Professor Leonard D., 23, 25 

Galton family of London and Birmingham, 3 

Galvanometer multiplier, 5 

Gasometer, 10 

Gibert, An., 38-39, 46, 78 (n. 158) 

Giesbury Point (Anacostia), 42 

Gilmer, Secretary of the Navy Thomas W., 39 

Glenmorgan, British merchantman, 6 

Gottingen, University of, 19 

Governor's Island (New York harbor), 34-35 

Graff, P., 80 (fig. 8) 

Grant's electricity connecting machine, 31, 60 

Gravesend Reach (Thames River), 6 

Great Britain, 1, 3, 5-7, 18, 22, 47, 49, 52, 55-56, 79 

(n. 208) 

Greenleaf Point (Washington, D.C), 27, 30, 33, 38-39, 

41-42, 45, 60 

Gregory, Captain Francis H., USN, 26 

Grove battery, 24-25, 53 

Grove, William H., 25 

Gunpowder, iii, 1-6, 8-9, 11, 17, 22, 25, 27, 29, 31-33, 

36-39, 44, 49-52, 60-71, 75 (n. 71), 79 (n. 205) 

Gunshot range, 18, 21, 29, 46, 54, 69 

Gutta percha, 13 

Haller, J., 81 (figs. 19, 27) 

Halsey, Silas Clowden, 22, 75 (n. 56) 

Hamel, Joseph, 4, 72 (n. 11) 

Hampton (Virginia) outrages, 22 

Hanover (Kingdom of Hanover), 13 

Harbor defense, 8, 11-15, 18, 21, 24, 25-27, 29, 33-34, 38, 

42-44, 46-48, 51-52, 55, 57, 59-65, 67-71 

Harbor surveys, 55 

Hare, Professor Robert, 9-12, 22, 24, 36, 49-50, 52, 62-64, 

66-68 

Harlem (New York), 37 

Harlow, Thompson R., iv 

Harrison, President William Henry, 18 

"Harry Bluff," 31, 76 (n. 99). See also Maury, Lieutenant 

Matthew Fontaine 
86 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Hartford arsenal, Colt's, 8, 56, 79 (n. 194), 82 (Fig. 41) 

Hartford (Connecticut), 7-8, 56, 79 ((n. 194) 

Harvard University, 2 

Hazelwood, Captain John, 2 

Heligoland Bight, 57 

Henry, Professor Joseph, 11, 22-23, 47, 49-52, 61, 66-68, 78 

(n. 180) 

Himly, Professor Karl, 13 

History of the Submarine Battery, Colt's, 52, 68-70 

Hoboken (New Jersey), 38 

Holmes, Captain Jeremiah, 75 (n. 56) 

Hoogly River (India), 50, 62, 63, 66 

Hopkinson, Francis, 3 

House of Representatives, United States, 27, 31, 47, 49, 52, 

62, 67-70 

Howe, Vice Admiral Richard Lord, 3 

Hoxie, Frances R., iv 

Hudson River, 2—3 

Hydrography, 31 

Imperial (Russian) Academy of Sciences, 1,4-5, 19 

India, 6, 8, 49-50, 52, 62-63, 66 

India-rubber, 4 

Indochina, 57 

"Infernal machine," 27 

Insulating materials, 3, 4, 6, 8, 32, 59, 73 (n. 11) 

Intelligence operations, 65 

Interrupated galvanic circuit, 71 

Inventions of individuals, discouragement of, 56 

Inventive originality, claims to, 18, 47—55, 62—71 

Inventory of Colt's Submarine Battery plans, 59 

Italy, 3-4 

Jackaway, Robert, 2 

Jackson, President Andrew, 12, 17 

James, Henry, 20 

James River, 61 

Japan Expedition of Commodore Matthew C. Perry, 25, 27 

Jefferson, President Thomas, 21 

Johnson, Walter R., 67 

Joint (Stanley) resolution of 1842, 29-30, 69-70 

Jones, Dr. Thomas P., 54, 66-68, 71 

Jones, Representative J.W., 67 

Joseph Henry Papers, iv, 61, 66 

Journal of the Franklin Institute, 11, 54, 62, 71 

Kamchatka, Russian steam frigate, 18, 74 (n. 40) 

Kegs, Battle of the, 1-3 

Kennon, Captain Beverly, USN, 27 

Khramoi, A.V., 72-73 (n. 11) 

Kiel harbor (Schleswig-Holstein), defense of, iii, 12 

Kiel, University of, 13 

King's College, London, 6 

Konigsberg (Prussia), 19 

Korea, 57 

Kronstadt (Russia), 19, 56, 74 (n. 40) 

Labor management practices, 8, 56 

Landing forces, 52, 54-55, 65, 68, 70 

Laughing gas, 9 

Laurence, Samuel, 80 (fig. 6) 

Levitsky, Leon, 81 (fig. 19) 

Leyden jar, 1-3, 9, 25 

Light House Board, United States, 51 

Lightning rod, 1—2 

Lilly and McKoy, 61 

Lithography, 5 

Loan of copper cable, 22, 34-35, 49 

Lobbying, 12, 17-23, 26-27, 29-31, 34, 47, 52 

Lockport (New York), 36 

London (England), 2-3, 5-6, 23, 63 

Long Bridge (Washington, D.C), 41 

Lord, Mrs. Estella C , iv 

"Lumps" (salvage barges), 16-17 

Machine tools, employment of, 8, 56 

Magazines, powder, 38-39 

Magnet, intensity, 23 

Maine boundary dispute, 16, 27, 69 

Manhattan Island (New York), 25, 33-35, 51 

Marine Ministry, Russian, 1, 5 

Marine salvage, 6, 16—17 

Mason, Secretary of the Navy John Y., 45, 47-48, 55, 78 

(n. 153) 

Maury, Lieutenant Matthew Fontaine, USN, 29, 31-32, 57, 

76 (n. 99) 

McKay, Representative James J., 47-48 

McKay Resolution (1844), 47-48, 61, 63, 67 

McNeill, Major William Gibbs, 17, 20-21, 48, 69 

Medway River (England), 7, 50, 66 

Memorial to Congress, Colt's, 47 

Metallurgy, 19 

Meteorology, 31 

Mexican War, 56 

Mexico, 56, 70 

Military science in 1844, state of, 64-65 

Mine 

clusters, 15, 19, 43, 57, 71 

contact, 1-3, 15, 19, 64 

control system, single observer, 12, 14—15, 32, 43, 45—46, 

48, 53,57,59,69, 71,79 (n. 207) 

control system, two-observer, 12-13, 34, 41-42, 45, 53, 59, 

69, 71, 77 (n. 121) 

firing apparatus, 1-3, 14-15, 29, 34, 43, 57, 59, 71 

keg, 1-3 

pyrotechnic, 19 

Minefields, 2-5, 11-15, 19, 33-34, 38-39, 41-46, 53, 57, 

59, 71 

Minesweeping, 33, 52-53, 60, 65, 68 

Mine warfare, iii-iv, 1-7, 9, 12-21, 25-27, 29-34, 38-46, 

48-49,52,55-57,59-71 

Mirror, convex, 15, 53, 59, 71, 81 (fig. 15) 

reflecting, 14-15, 46, 53 

Mississippi, U.S.S., 69-70 

Missouri Compromise, 17 

Missouri, U.S.S., 69-70 

Mongolia, 5 

Monroe, President James, 17 

Moore, General Sir John, 5 
NUMBER 2 9 87 

Moral objections to mine warfare, 27, 30-31 

Morehead, Senator John T., 40 

Morse, Professor Samuel Finley Breese, 8, 12, 20, 22-23, 25, 

34-35, 38, 40, 49-50, 55, 61, 67, 77 (n. 142) 

Mount Vernon (Virginia), 39 

Multicell battery, Henry's, 23 

Munich (Bavaria), 4 

Murphy, Representative Henry C, 46, 52-53, 55, 68-70 

Mystic (Connecticut), 22, 75 (n. 56) 

Napoleon Bonaparte, 5, 7 

National Academy of Design (New York), 23 

National Coast Survey, United States, 17 

National Institution for the Advancement of Science, 27-29, 

31,40,51 

Naval Academy, United States, 17,31 

Naval Observatory, United States, 31 

Naval reform, 17 

Naval shipyards, United States, 17 

Navigation, 31 

Navy Commissioners, See Board of Navy Commissioners 

Navy Department, United States, 12, 17, 21, 25-26, 29-31, 

33, 44, 47-49, 51, 55-56, 63, 67, 69-70 

Neva River (Russia), 4, 19, 72-73 (n. 11) 

New Brunswick (Canada), 70 

New Haven (Connecticut), 8, 51 

New Jersey, 2-3, 17 

New London (Connecticut), 22 

Newport (Rhode Island), 11-12, 25, 51, 62 

Newspaper reporters, 22, 26, 29, 32, 34, 40, 42-44, 46 

New York American, 26 

New York and Offing Magnetic Telegraph Association, 35 

New York ("Brooklyn") Navy Yard, 25, 36 

New York Evening Post, 26, 29 

New York Express, 34 

New York Herald, 26, 34-35 

New York (New York), 3, 18, 20, 23, 25, 33-34, 38-39, 60, 

62, 64, 69-70, 74 (n. 40), 76 (n. 98), 79 (n. 205) 

New York Sun, 26 

Niagara frontier, defense of, 51 

Nicholas I, Tsar, 5-6, 18 

Niles' National Register, 26 

Nobel, Immanuel, 8, 19 

Norfolk (Virginia), 37 

North Carolina, U.S.S., 26, 34 

Objections to adoption of Colt's Submarine Battery, 27, 

30-31,47,63-66,68 

Observation posts, minefield, 4, 12-15, 19, 42-46, 69 

Obstructions (military), underwater, 50, 57, 79 (n. 208) 

Obstructions to shipping, 5-6, 16-17, 46, 62-63, 69 

Oceanography, 31 

Ohm, Georg Simon, 50, 66 

Old Military Records Branch, United States National 

Archives, iv 

Operator, galvanic, 32, 53, 62, 65, 68-69, 71 

Order of St. Anne (Russian), 5 

Ordnance Board, War Department, 12, 17, 30, 56 

Ordnance design, naval, 39 

Ordnance Office (or Department), War Department, 17, 21, 

26-27, 30, 47, 52, 55-56, 67, 74 (n. 34), 75 (n. 71) 

Oregon, annexation of, 40 

O'Shaughnessy, Dr. W.B., 50, 62, 66 

Oxford University, 5 

Page, C.G., 67 

Panic of 1819, 8 

Paris, Alexander, 62-64, 68 

Paris (France), 4, 68 

Parker, Elmer, iv 

Pasley, Colonel Commandant Charles William, R.E., 5-7, 16, 

19, 49-50, 55, 63, 66, 68 

Passaic River (New Jersey), 13 

Patent application for Submarine Battery, 27, 32, 53-56, 

70-71 

Patent Arms Manufacturing Company, 8,12 

Patent Office fire, 28 

Patent Office, United States, 8, 23, 27-28, 53-54, 70-71 

Paterson (New Jersey), 8, 12-13, 59 

Patronage, foreign, 18-19, 56 

Patterson, Professor Alexander, Jr., iv 

Peabody Museum of Harvard University, 2-3 

"Peacemaker" cannon, 39 

Peale Museum of Philadelphia, 2 

Peale, Rembrandt, 80 (fig. 9) 

Peninsular Campaign (Spain), 5 

Pennsylvania Assembly, 2 

Pennsylvania, University of, 9, 49 

Pepys, William, 11 

Perry, Captain Matthew Calbraith, USN, 24-26 

Perry, Commodore Oliver Hazard, USN, 25, 28, 34 

"Peter Primrose," 43-44 

Petrov, V.V., 72-73 (n. 11) 

Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), 1-3, 9, 36, 49, 62, 66, 68 

Phoenix, H.M.S., 2 

Physical Geography of the Sea, The, Matthew Fontaine 

Maury's, 31 

Pirates, West Indian, 25 

Pitt, William (the Younger), 48 

Planoconvex mirror, 53 

Plates, battery, 11, 24-26, 36-37 

Platinum filament wire, 6, 32-33, 36, 49, 53, 60, 66, 71, 78 

(n. 180) 

Plattsburgh (New York), defense of, 51 

Plowman, Joseph, 2 

Plumbe, John, Jr., 81 (fig. 25) 

Poinsett, Secretary of the Navy Joel R., 27, 29 

Political influence, 12, 17-20, 26 

Poplar Point (Anacostia), 41, 43, 45-46 

Portland (Maine), 37 

Portsmouth (England), 6 

Portsmouth (New Hampshire) Navy Yard, 64 

Potomac River, 27, 29, 40-41, 59, 68-69 

Prejudice against innovation, 17, 21, 61 

Premium for invention, 18, 22, 48, 52, 55-56, 60, 70 

President, U.S.S., 25 

Press relations, Colt's, 25, 27, 32, 34, 40, 42-44, 46 

Price schedules, 56, 79 (n. 207) 
88 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Priestley, Joseph, 3 

Princeton, College of New Jersey at, 22, 49-50, 66-67 

Princeton disaster, 39-40, 44, 50 

Princeton, U.S.S., 39 

Protest to War Department, Colt's, 48, 68 

Prussia, 12-13, 19 

Pypin', Captain, Imperial Russian Navy, 74 (n. 40) 

Refinery, sugar, 38—39 

Reflected Submarine Battery. See Mine control system, single 

observer 

Reflection, angles of, 13-15, 43, 45-46, 57, 71 

Reingold, Dr. Nathan, iv 

Relay, electromagnetic telegraph, 23 

Reval (Russia), 4 

Review and evaluation, professional military, 21, 26-27, 33, 

42,45-48,51-52,55-56,61-68 

Revolution, American, 1—3 

Reward or honorarium. See Premium for invention 

Richards, Charles Brinckerhoff, 53, 59, 79 (n. 194), 82 

(fig. 41) 

Ringgold, Major Samuel, USA, 40 

Robert Hare Collection, Smithsonian Institution, 10-11 

Roberts, 63, 67 

Robinson, Caldwell C , 79 (n. 158), 81 (fig. 32) 

Rock blasting, 9, 11-12, 36-37, 49-50, 62-63, 67-68 

Root, Elisha K., 8 

Rose, H.M.S., 2 

Royal (British) Engineers, Corps of, 5-6, 16-17, 36, 49-50, 

55-56, 63, 66 

Royal (British) Engineers, Institution of, 5-6, 16-17, 80 

(fig. 5), 81 (fig. 17) 

Royal (British) Engineers' Institution for Field Instruction, 

Chatham, 5-6, 16, 55-56 

Royal (British) Engineers' Museum, Chatham, 16-17, 80 

(fig. 5), 81 (fig. 17) 

Royal (British) Military Academy, Woolwich, 5 

Royal (British), Navy, 56 

Royal (British) Sappers and Miners, Corps of, 5-6, 16-17, 

49-50, 55 

Royal George, H.M.S., 6, 16-17, 36-37, 49-50, 62-63 

Royal (Prussian) Artillery and Engineer School, Berlin, 13 

Royal (Prussian) Telegraph Commission, 13 

Royal School at Como, 3 

Royal Society of London, 1-3, 5-6 

Russia, 1, 4-5, 12, 18-19, 56, 74 (n. 40) 

Russian naval missions, 18, 74 (n. 40) 

Safety precautions, mine, 40, 44 

Sailing Directions, Matthew Fontaine Maury's, 31 

St. Petersburg (Russia), 1, 4-6, 19, 74 (n. 43) 

Salvage, marine, 5—7 

Sandy Hook (New Jersey), 35 

Sappers, Miners and Pontoniers, proposed Company of, 55-56 

Saybrook (Connecticut), 2 

Schilling von Canstadt, Baron Pavel L'vovich, 4-5, 72-73 

(n. 11) 

Schleswig-Holstein War, 13 

Schweigger, Johann, 5 

Scientific American, The, 24 

Scientific cabinets, 28-29 

Scientific convention of 1844, 40 

"Scraps from the Lucky Bag," Matthew Fontaine Maury's, 

76 (n. 99) 

Secrecy, Colt's penchant for, iii, 12, 21-22, 26, 29, 32, 42, 46, 

48,50-51,60,65, 67-69 

injunction of, 19, 21, 26, 34, 42, 44, 47-49, 51-52, 56-57, 

60, 63, 65, 67-68 

Secretaries of the Army, iii, 29, 31, 34, 47-56, 61-68 

Secretaries of the Navy, 17-19, 25-27, 29, 31, 39-40, 42, 

47-48, 55, 63, 67, 69 

Secret of Colt's Submarine Battery, House of Representatives 

resolution and inquiry on, 45—46, 61—68, 71 

Security considerations, military, 56-57 

Seine River, 4 

Seminole War, 27,61,69 

Senate, United States, 17, 26-27, 31, 40, 47, 69 

Sharubin', Lieutenant, Imperial Russian Navy, 74 (n. 40) 

Shaw, Moses, 9, 36, 62 

Shinn, Stephen, 38-39 

Siebe, August William, 6, 16-17, 81 (fig. 17) 

Siebe diving suit, 6, 16-17 

Sighting lines, 12-13, 41, 43-46 

"Sigma," 42-43, 46, 78 (n. 148, 153) 

Signal salvos, 42 

Signal schedule, 42 

Silliman, Professor Benjamin, 9, 31, 36, 50, 62 

Simms, Chief Clerk John D., 33 

Sing Sing (New York), 37 

Siphon battery, 24-25, 59 

Sketch, eyewitness, 42, 59, 78 (n. 149, 153, 158) 

Slavery, abolition of, 40 

Smithsonian Institution, iv, 11, 27-28, 49, 51 

Smithsonian Institution Archives, iv, 61, 66 

Smithson, James, 27-28, 40 

Sommerring, Samuel Thomas, 4 

Southard, Secretary of the Navy Samuel Lewis, 17-19, 21-22, 

26-27, 31,69 

Southern Literary Messenger, The, 31 

Spectators at mine demonstrations, 7, 27, 29, 34, 42-45, 64 

Spencer, Secretary of War John C , 34 

Spithead (off Portsmouth, England), 6, 16-17, 63 

Stanly, Representative Edward, 29-30, 69-70 

Steam gun, Perkins, 65 

Steam Navy of the United States, 17, 29, 31, 34, 60, 69-70 

Steam warships, cost of, 18, 24-26, 60, 69-70 

Sterling Chemistry Laboratory Yale University, iv 

Stevens Battery, 24-25, 38 

Stevens, Edwin A., 24 

Stevens, John, 24 

Stevens, Robert L., 24-25, 38 

Stewart, Commodore Charles, USN, 24 

Stockholm (Sweden), 8 

Stock subscription, 21 

Stockton, Captain Robert F., USN, 39 

Stonington (Connecticut) 22 

Sturgeon, William, 50 

Styx, target vessel, 37-39, 41-46, 48 

Submarine Battery Company, 21, 74 (n. 50) 
NUMBER 29 89 

Submarine Battery patent, 53-54, 70-71 

Submarine Battery Resolution (1842), 31, 67 

Submarine rocket, George William Taylor's, 30, 56 

Success, British frigate hulk, 17 

Supreme Court chamber, United States, 35, 40 

Sweden, 8, 19 

Swift, Major General Joseph G , USA, 12 

Talcott, Lieutenant Colonel George, USA, 27, 30, 47, 56 

Target, moving, 12, 17, 26, 34, 40, 42, 49, 53-54, 60, 62, 71 

Target vessel, 7, 26-27, 29, 33-34, 37, 40-42, 53-54, 60, 62, 

68, 71 

Target location, precise, 8-9, 12, 15, 17, 26, 32, 48-49, 

53-54,62,65,68,71 

Tarrytown (New York), 2 

Taylor, George William, 30, 56 

Taylor's Submarine Rocket, 30, 56 

Telegraph Act (1843), 35 

Telegraph cable, submarine, 34—35 

trans-Atlantic, 31 

Telegraph, electromagnetic, 5, 22-24, 34-35, 49 

Telegraph system (Prussian), 13 

(Russian), 13 

Telegraphy, 3-4, 6, 12-13, 19, 22, 24, 34-35, 38, 56, 61 

Terminals, metallic control, 14—15, 53, 71 

Texas, annexation of, 40, 47 

Republic of, 12,40,47 

Thames River (England), 6 

Thayer, Colonel Sylvanus, USA, 24 

Thermometer, metallic, 59 

Third System of coastal fortifications, 7-8, 11-12, 21, 31-32, 

51, 57 

Thompson, Representative John B., 40 

Tinfoil cartridges, Colt's, 8, 12, 17, 30, 37, 55, 69 

Tin tube detonator, 11, 62—63 

Topographical Engineers, Corps of, 17, 52, 56, 67, 69 

Torpedo Act of 1813, 22 

Torpedoboats, semi-submersible, 22, 56-57, 75 (n. 56) 

Torpedoes, anchored, 59, 64-65 

floating, 64 

Torpedo service, Confederate, 31, 57 

Torpedo tower, 14-15, 43, 46, 52-54, 57 

Torpedo Warfare and Submarine Explosions, Robert Fulton's, 7 

Totten, Colonel Joseph Gilbert, USA, 12, 24, 29, 51-52, 

55-56, 63-68, 79 (n. 198) 

Transactions, Royal Society of London, 6 

Transmission of electric current, 22-23 

Treasury Department, United States, 40, 56, 79 (n. 205) 

Trenton (New Jersey), 17 

Triangular Submarine Battery. See Mine control system, two 

observer 

Turina, E.D., 80 (fig. 4) 

Turtle, Continental submersible torpedoboat, 3 

Tyler, President John, 7, 17-22, 28-29, 39-40, 42, 47, 55, 

59-60, 69 

Union, U.S.S., 46 

United Service Journal, 63 

United States Exploring Expedition (Wilkes Expedition), 28 

University of the City of New York, 20-21, 23-24, 35-37, 

55, 59 

Upshur, Secretary of the Navy Abel P., 21-22, 25, 27, 29, 

31, 33-34, 39, 48, 67, 69, 75 (n. 71), 76 (n. 98) 

Van Buren, President Martin, 23, 26 

Van Musschenbroek, Pieter, 2 

Vera Cruz (Mexico), siege of, 51 

Visibility factor in mining operations, 15, 19, 51-52, 65, 79 

(n. 198) 

Volta, Alessandro, 3 

Voltaic pile, 3-4 

Volta, target vessel, 33 

Von Ehrenkrook, Friedrich, iii 

Von Humboldt, Baron Alexander, 4 

Von Jacobi, Moritz Hermann, 5, 19 

Von Schantz, Captain Ivan Ivanovich, Imperial Russian 

Navy, 18,74 (n. 40) 

Von Siemens, Werner, iii, 12—13 

Von Siemens, Wilhelm (or William), 13 

Walcheren Expedition, 5 

Walmer (England), Robert Fulton's torpedo experiment at, 7 

War Department, United States, iii, 12, 17, 21, 28-31, 34, 

47-57, 61-68, 70-71 

War of 1812,7,51 

Ware (Massachusetts), 8-9, 12, 68 

Warner, Captain Samuel A., 18 

Warner's Destroyer, 18 

Warrant. See Advance, financial 

Warrington, Commodore Lewis, USN, 39—40 

Washington (D.C), 7, 17, 21, 23-33, 35, 38-45, 48-51, 54, 

56, 59-61, 66-69, 71, 75 (n. 71), 77 (n. 142) 

Washington (D.C.) Arsenal, 17, 27, 29-30, 42, 45, 55, 69 

Washington (D.C.) canal, 38-39 

Washington (D.C.) Daily National Intelligencer, 29, 34, 

42-43 

Washington (D.C), Navy Yard, 27, 33, 38-45, 48, 69, 78 

(n. 149) 

Washington, General George, 2, 28 

Washington Square (New York City), 20-23, 35-37 

Waterbury (Connecticut), 22 

Webster-Ashburton Treaty, 27 

Webster, Secretary of State Daniel, 20, 27 

Weir, Robert W., 82 (fig. 40) 

Wellington, Duke of, 5 

Werner-von-Siemens Institut (Munich), 81 (figs. 14, 19) 

Western Union Telegraph Company, 82 (fig. 30) 

West Point (United States Military Academy), 51 

Wheatstone Laboratory, 6 

Wheatstone, Sir Charles, 6, 13, 50, 66 

Whig Party, 18, 20 

White House, The, 17-18, 33 

Whitneyville (Connecticut), 8 

Wilkes, Lieutenant Charles, USN, 28, 31 

Wilkins-Colt correspondence, 48—49, 67-68 

Wilkins, Secretary of War William, iii, 47-56, 61-68 
90 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Wilkinson, C.H., 11 

William and Mary College, 2 

William, British merchantman, 6 

Winthrop, Theodore, 20 

Wise, Representative Henry A., 29-30, 40 

Woodbury, Secretary of War Levi, 29 

Woods Hole (Massachusetts), 37 

Worth, Brigadier General William J., USA, 77 (n. 15) 

Yakobi, Boris Semenovich. See von Jacobi, Moritz Hermann 

Yale College (and University), iv, 2, 9, 23 

Yellow Sea, 57 

•&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE-. 1974 O 531-60 5