Washington sentinel., 1854-04-07
INCREASE IN THE NAVY.
SPEECH OF HON. t. 8. BoCOCK,
nE VIRGINIA


OF VIRGINIA,
In HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, March 80, 1854.
The same bill being under consideration, and the
general debate having been concluded by Mr. BEN
TON, 10 opposition 10 The bill
Mr.. BOCOCK, who, as the mover of the resolu-
ton had the right 10 reply, said;
MR. CHAIRMAN: had not proposed until the
remarks that were made this morning by the dis
tlnguished member from Missouri, Mr.. BENroN,l
TO have said one word more TO this committee in
behalfof the bill under under consideration. / had
occasion the other day to go pretty extensively
into the reasons on which the Committee on Ma
val Affairs, and |, as member Of that committee,
based the propriety Of this bill. did not think,
therefore, that 1t would have been necessary for
me to reiterate any of the points that then sug-
gested but much is due TO any suggestions that
come from so distinguished source as the gen.
tleman who has addressed us this morning.
The gentleman concluded by saying that he had
made his remarks without any expectation of in
fuencing the vote of this House. Sir, the gentle
man did not do himself justice He does not
know the respect that this House pays 10 his
perience to his talents and TO his public services
Amy suggestions coming from him would, doubt
less, have great weight here; and il is for this
reason and this only that think il necessary 10
make reply this morning. In anything that
shall say on this occasion, beg that gentleman to
be assured mean nothing but the most profound
respect and courtesy 10 him.
The honorable gentleman commenced by re-
GREETING that il one of the msfortunes of hav
ing been in public life long time that the mind
was continually reverting to the past, and bring
ing up the ideas Of past years. and comparing
them with the ideas that are in progress at present
The honorable gentleman gave, in his own case,
the very best illustration of his position for he
showed how mind of gigantic proportions can
be warped and led away by early preconceptions,
and by notions that have been entertained long
years ago.
Why, the honorable gentleman got up here this
morning and discussed the action of the navy
board upon our present policy. He has told us
of the effect Of the recommendations of the navy
board at the other end Of the avenue when, by an
act passed ten years ago, that navy board was
abolished, and Mr. Jeffersons views in relation to
it carried out.
Mr.. BENTON. 1t went into bureaus.
Mr.. BOCOCK. 1t went into bureaus, and there
is now no navy board with power TO make recon-
mendations
But, sir, in many Of the remarks Of the gentle
man, in the early part of his Speech entirely con-
cur, especially in that part of them in reference
the impolicy of this government keeping up so
many navy yards. But this bill has nothing in the
world to do with navy yards. will inform the
honorable gentleman that resolution is now
pending before the Committee on Naval Affairs of
this House, to inquire into the propriety of abol-
ishing some of those yards; and when the report
of the committee on that subject comes up for
consideration, it will be very proper TO make any
suggestions against the propriety of our having
so large number of them.
While upon this subject of navy yards, would
remark that England has navy yards at Ports
mouth, Woolwich, Chatham, Spithead and nine
other places where the government carry on
works similar to those which carry on in our
yards. do not suggest this here argument
to show that we ought TO compete with England
in this respect; by no means. do not stand
here 10 advocate the idea that the Government
of the United States should undertake 10 equal
England in her expenditure for her naval arma-
ment. .-
But we are referred to our former naval history
and TO the achievements Of Commodore Decatur
in the Mediterranean, and of Commodore Porter
in the Pacific, and my friend from North Carolina
Mr.. CLINGMANl met that idea very well in the
few remarks he submitted before the hour expired
for terminating the general debate upon this bill.
But do not the members of this committee recol-
lec the changes which have taken place, since that
time, in the preparations for seafghting! Talk
now about sending gun-boats and prvateers TO
contend against frigates and screw-propellers! 1t
would be very much like the case of person who
after seeing splendid mills built with all the mod
ern inventions, holding out inducements to all who
had grists to grind, should go and set up his little
tub-mill and ask customers TO patronize him. To
talk now about fighting at sea as we did years ago
would be Just as reasonable-with all respect
say it to the gentleman from Mssouri-is to talk
about sending one hundred m-n with breast plates
and helmets TO contend against the Paixhan guns
and artillery of the present day.
The honorable gentleman did not develope his
policy at any great length. He informed us that
he was against squadrons, and in favor of cruisers
| do not know how many cruisers the honorable
gentleman would be in favor Of But can tell
him, If he wants cruisers, he ought TO build the
very,vesses that this bill contemplates; for they
are the vessels to make these cruisers. They are
intended to carry heavy armament and to be so
constructed that they carry good deal of
provisions, and be propelled either by steam by
sails, as the exigences of the case may require.
France, Great Britain, and other countries, have
their steamers sailing through every part of the
great oceans Of the world. We must be prepared
TO meet those vessels. We must have vessels Of
the same description. II we send out paddle
wheel steamers they would have TO carry large
quantity Of coal, as they are propelled by steam
exclusively But the vessels proposed to be
built are screw propellers, which can be propelled
by steam or by sail, as the circumstances of the
may require
But We are told that our policy is not to have q
force for offensive operation, but naval arma..
ment intended merely TO defend our commerce.
That is exactly what want-nothng more. But
when gentlemen talk about the armament neces-
sary to defend our commerce, why do they not tell
us what amount OF armament is essary for that
purpose? Why do they not look at the extent Of
our commerce; of the dangers which besct that
commerce of the foe we have to meet; and Of
the force necessary TO meet that foe? Armaments
to defend our commerce.! Why, that is precisely
what want, and nothing more. Nobody in this
country, believe has advocated q navy for the
purpose of offensive operations.
Now, Mr.. Chairman, 10 the policy of main
tanning these squadrons, ask, what other policy
can we adopt? We are told that we have here a
home squadron; and the question is asked "What
do we want with home squadron?" Why, Mr.. |
Chairman, the cruising ground of the home SQUAD
ron is from the fishing coasts Of the north to the
mouth of the Amazon. Ask the gentlemen who |
represent northern constituencies here what we |
want with home squadron, and they will point
you to the immense amount of money invested in |
the fisheries Of the north, for which they want pro-
lection. ASH gentlemen representing southern |
constituencies here what we want with home |
squadron, and they will point you TO the difficult
ties that we are continually getting into with the
Cuban authorities and others in the Caribbean |
sea; and they will tell you that they want this gov
ernment to protect the rights of its citizens in these
waters.
Then we are asked what we want with the
squadron in the Mediterranean The cruising
ground of this squadron extends from the capes
of Spain to the extreme the Levant.
Sir, it is but short time ago when resolution |
was gravely submitted and adopted by an almost
~NcC