Weekly national intelligencer., 1863-08-13
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER
ADMIRAL DuPoNTs ATTACK ON CHARLESTON.

at,ng IT. however several important facts as to
the value of our iron clad vessels were elected, and
we copy from the New York Times report of the
evidence relating to them 1t may not be out of
place to say that nearly all the professional testi-
mony given colroborates the views of Captains
Drayton and Worden, the only witness materially
differing from them being gentleman of the press.
Annexed is the most interesting portion of the
record
Can't John L. Worden, who commanded the original
Monitor iu her fight with the Merimac. was examined
TESTIMONY OF CAPT woRDEN.
uestien Were YOU engaged in the attack on the bat
tees and forts at Charleston, South Carolina the 7th
day OF April 1868
O. Who at the time was the Commander-in Chief of
the South BockadDg Squadron; aud who was the com
mander of the naval forces that made the attack on
A. Rear Admiral s. Dupont
O. Do you know Chief Engineer Alban Z. Sinners and
if yea how long have you known him
A. do know him, and have known him about two
years.
O. Have you ever said to Mr. Sinners that the attack
on the h of April 1863 ought to have been renewed
words to that effect
A. No, sir; never
Lid you state to Mr. Sinners that the iron-cad
vessels engaged in making the attack the forts at
Charleston the 9TH of April 1863 were in fit condition
10 renew the attack, words to that effect?
A No, sir, never said any thing Of the kind II only
know that my vessel in condition to the attack
if ordered to do but made that statement to
Mr.. Sinners that recolect
O. Did you say to Mr. Sinners in his presence
that the commanders of the said ronclad vessels
after the attack aforesaid hot for renewing the engage
ment words to that efect2
A. No sir;
Were not the Monitors or ron-clad vessels in as
goud condition Wednesday, the Sh day of April 1863
after they had undergone slight repairs, to
t. attack they had been the day be-
A didn't know any thing about the condition of the
other vessels from my observation; it reported
by the commanders of of them that their vessels
very considerably damaged-that of their guns
disabled the impression left upon my mind that
they not in condition The attack next day
convinced however, that with the batterDg they had
received they could not have been good condition,
after repairs to resist shot they before they went
into the Engagement the 7h every shot received by
vessel Of that description must weaken her to greater
less degree and render her less capable OF resisting shot,
might say however, that went aboard the Weehawken
for very few moments; did not examine her crcnlly ut
within day two after the fight she had received
shot the side upper works-the side armor-wh-ch
bad penetrated the five thcknesses of iron and stripped
them off leaving the wood backing bare and also shot
which had penetrated through the of the deck and
partially broken through the wood and the jacket of her
smoketack had been penetrated by shot mean by the
jacket the impregnabe part Of the smoke stack these
all the Injuries examined as far che concerned
she had other shot, which had affected oher parts
OF her amor somewhat but not SO decidedly as those
have mentioned.
G Had the injuries to the Weehawkeu which you emu
merate been repaired at the time you board Of
her7
A. No, sir; / think not
O. Was not the attack made the forts aud bate
of Charleston the eth Of April earnest
A. Very decidedly should say
O. Could not in your opinion, the monitors have
gone into Charleston in spite of guns torpedoe and ob
structons, either the 9TH day of April last the
following day, had the attack been renewed
A. think not, sir.
O. State if you know any why the attack of the
9TH of April 1863 the forts of Charleston should
have been re enewed on the Sh7
A. am and of the opinion that renewal of the
attack the 5h would have been likely to have resulted
in very serious disaster TO the iron cads After feeling
the light Of the enemss fire the 7th, and locking
the obstructons, which of very formidable char
acer thought that any attempt to break through the
distractions would have got the propelers of the ships
involved in the networks it known the enemy had
there they would become sgeabe and 50 in
ured by torpedoes that they would have sunk in The ha
Dor have fallen into the enemys hands and did not
think the risk of such disaster just6abe under the
circumstances; rebel ronclads lying behind the
obstucons any of vessels that had become disabled
would have been exposed to attack from them.
O. Did Rear Admiral Dupont do say aay thing which
led you to think he pre- judc d against them the
9TH Of April last II yes relate what he then said did
which led you TO think him prejudiced against them.
A. He has never said or done any thing which would
lead me TO believe he had prejudice against them
G. Were not the various commanders Of the
ronclad engaged in the attack Of the eth If April last
called together board the Ironsdes the sh OF April
last by Admiral Dupont for any purpose3
A. They not, TO my knowledge.
Question by the accused You have stated that upon The
SIDE armor of the Weehawken the shot had
backing will you please state whether you observed par
ticulay ether than shot had struck
this torn place have had effect upon it. and will
you explain how the top Of the vessel this shot
shots struck and whether, n your opinion another shot
striking the place would have penetrated the
SELF
a. did net Q, tht there was more than ore shot;
supposed it to be the effect Of only shot, without
aminng ly; 1t truck the top Of the side
NOR the deck; do not think another shot striking
on the place would have penetrated, it would net
have broken through the eide Of the the parts
too well braced il would have prob .by penetrated su
fcenty to have torn up the deck plating to considera
BILE extent.
Question by the accused Was there any Informal meet
ing Of the commanders Of the cads board the Ad
commanders report verbally to the Admiral the general
condition ol their several yessesl
A. There wss no meeting OF the commanders Of the
iron-cads in body went board myself to report
the condition Of my sh and think met some of the
commanders OF the who there for the same
purpose merely stated the condition of my ship and
suppose the others did the same.
FRIDAY JUNE IL
Edward Mars coppersmith and engineer, a pas senRsr
the Ar go with Mr. Sinners gave important tes-
imOny.
SATURDAY, JUNE l3
Capt. Percivsl Drayton, commander Of the ron-clad
Passaic 10 the attack Charleston, was examined.
TESTIMONY OF CAPT. DRAYToN
q, Do you know Chief Engineer Sinners, and IL yea
how long have you known him
A. About Fix months.
Q. Did you say to Chief Engineer Sinners tha
the attack the forts and batteries on Charleston Har
Dor, msds the 9Th Of April 1863 ought to have