Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1861-05-15

time more like an exasperated ~mud-puddle
than anything else-we have been getting
ourselves into a state of armed neutrality"
10 respect to a war now going on between our
two thin-spread contemporaries, the Gazette
and the Commercial, quodd Gun. boats.
For the opinions Of the Commercial which,
IL will be remembered II reinforced Fort Sum
ter in the most brilliant and satisfactory
manner, and victusled it for an indefinite
period Of time, by process Of pure ratiooina.
tion-su act Of which we always blamed Ma.
jor Anderson, for not having taken the proper
advantage, and the President for not having
adequately rewarded-upou war, we always
bave entertained, aud trust we always shall
cherish feelings of the most unbounded ven.
Grafton. Had Major Anderson -, but we
find ourselves in danger here of running
into a depression, which, all things consid-
cred, it is best to avoid. Posterity will do
Justice to the most able and spirited strategic
movement Of the war, thus far; which is
some consolation for the loss the country
sustained in the fort.
What damage has been done BY the mu-
tual bombardment-which has now been 90
ing on for a week or so, between our cotem-
poraries, as we have..no.special correspond.
ent in either establishment-we have vet
to learn from the official reports not now
published. The missiles appear to be,
to the outside observer mostly such as
were fashionable at Moultrie, Gum
ming's Point and other places in that
neighbOrbood, during the Sumter af-
f~air-"spent balls" to-wit: which, here as
there, by the special permission of Provi-
dence, bounded of, without material injury
to the psrties upon whom they alighted.
Having confined our practice 10 gunnery
principally to weapons of a less destructive
character than guns, revolvers, Derringers,
howitzers, Dahlgrens, fowling-pieces and
Columbiads, we should do wrong to profess
to speak experimentally upon a matter so
ohstruse at once and so important as the
Gun boat question; but as we have read
prayerfully, and, we trust not without ad-
vantage, the articles Of the Commercial we
may venture to lay down a few elementary
points which will be beneficial to the less
instructed readers of the Pass, in case they
should see fit to pursue the subject in the
more profound polemics Of our cotempora-
ries. We will begin with the definition of
Gun boat. What is a Gun-boatP
A gun is a gun, and a boat is a boat
combine the two, and the product, in fact
as in Technology, is gun. boat. Auy boat,
with any gun in it is pro tanto, a gun.boat;
therefore, a skif carrying a fowling- piece,
comes up prima facis to all the requirements
of the tltle-it is a gun.boat; while q huge
vessel of multitudinous tunnage, with bull
warks rendered invulnerable by massive
plates of iron, and carrying several ugly
looking and e-behaving pieces of
tubular pot metal is still a gun. boat, and no
more than q gun. boat.
A profound thinker of New England was
wont to sum up the results of his philosoph-
ical researches in the following brief seu-
tence: There's odds in deacous" The
Gazette, with equal profundity, has reached
the conclusion that there is, or may be, odds
in gun boats. This fact, or principle, the
the Commercial disregards. With a sublime
Inconsistencies of minor distinctions so
common with lofty intellects, the CONNER,
ciat RESPONSIVE give il in a paraphrase-a
gun is a gun, and a boat is a boat; therefore
a gun boat is a gun-boat. A gun boat can
thus and thus for example: Let A. B. be
the object of attack-a battery of sand bags
or q fort of logs of palmetto; and B. G. the
gun. boat whose business it is to destroy it.
A. B. can not go to B.. c., argaI B. @. must
go to A. B. Every thing is in readiness;
the universe holds its aerial and other huids
in an sgony of expectation bang goes B. G.,
and down comes A. d. Hurrah
Nay, but, says the Gazette, Juggling out
its discovery, and remembering its Scripture
at the same time; As one star differeth from
another star in glory, SO one gun. boat DIFF
fereth from another gun-bOat in-what shall
we call it to turn the sentence properly
ulaIity.
Besides, says the Gdzette-now fairly
way with its logic-there's a differ
ence in forts as well as in gun-boats.
To the Devil with your differences, says
he Commercial growing alarmed at these
ine spun distinctions, and trying to ge. into
water. Had the Government, says
he COmmerciaI-still harping on its old
point-had but two or three gun
boats at Fort Sumter
How big2 puts in the Gazette.
D. the odds, says the Commercial.
Besides reading up for this article in the
Commercial we have been glancing at the
Encyclopedia for materials. We looked for
run in G., and for boat in B., and combined
he information. Treating its subjects mis-
ellaneously and, as it were, Historically, the
does not supply those strictly
cientifc formulas necessary to full eluci-
of all its practical aspects. Its funda-
mental proposition-a gun is a gun and a
,oat is a boat, therefore a gun-boat is a gun
,oat-perhaps renders this unnecessary. We
ave, however, been seeking for some rule
~ which the relative power of g~un-boats
md batteries may be determined mathemat-
cally and have found it. 1t is as follows,
md we submit it to the Commercial conf
lent tina. its eonsummate military genius will
aot fail to see in it all that is desirable. We
it, confident of its approval, giving
full permission to use the same in its
controversies with the Gazette;
As the square Of the exposed surface Of
.he boat, added to the ealibre of its gun, is TO
he cube Of the ~sand-bags composing the
so is the ratio Of the shots fred by
he former TO the sum of the killed and
wounded in the latter.
The conclusion to which we have arrived
Is, that although there may be things in
size and weight of metal make no
difference, gun-bosts are not one of them.