New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-06-30
HARB0R DEFENsEs.

a few days ago communication was sent to
the, Senate at Washington by the secretary Of the
navy inclosng report from joint board Of army
ana navy officers, relative to harbor defensos.
This board consists of Bear Admirals G. Fl. Davis
and ]. A. Dahigren, United States Navy, and Bre-
vet Major Generals J. G. Barnard, z. 3. Tower
and B. Alexander, and Captain James Alden
United States Army. The secretary Of the navy
suggests that this board be reappointed, in order
that they may continue investigations and experi-
ineats ia relation to the very important subject
committed to their charge. Thus far, however il
does not seem that any very novel, or very cou-
elusive results have been reached. Three prpm5
nent subjects were presented to the consideration
OIL the board and are discussed in the repetition
clad vessels, channel distractions and torpedoeg
A 70 the first named subject the problem pre-
scented is to settle approximately the character
and number of iron clad batteries necessary for
harbor defense. The board does not come to a
final solution of the question of harbor defenses
but seems to take If for granted that the system Of
floating batteries is to be the main reliance
This conclusion is based upon the assumption
that the destructive effect Of stationary artillery
has not kept pace with the inYulnerabity flrou-
clad vessels moving at o high velocity, and on the
assumption of tie great danger involved in the
possible success Of such vessels in passing between
forts and shore batteries. 1t seems to MS that
these conclusions are not justified by the expert
ence Of the recent war. It is true that in every
case, shore batteries were not found efIicacious
for defense against irun-e clad vessels but the CON
spieuous instances in which all the power of the
most tremendous armament that could be brought
70 bear proved futile against Notifications would
seem to imply that the failure in other eases was
owing to other considerations than those neces.
safiiy involved in this problem and indeed, there
Is no example during the war of the capture Of a
vigorously defended place, by means of naval ar
maments alone except thatof New Orleans and
the inconrluslve affair of Port Royal. The reduc-
ton of the forts at the entrance of Mobile bay
vas the nearest approach that was made to sue.
cess, by means Of direct naval assault. But even
70 that case, the capture Of the city could not be
accomplished except by tile aid Of land force.
The passage of the New Orleans forts was an ex-
eeptioual case arising out of the peculiarites Of
the Mississippi river
bad it been practicable to hold the federal feet
before the shore fortidcatoas, those Qualifications
could not have been reduced. yicksburg and Port
Hudson suffered comparatively little from naval
attacks although the vessels did succeed in pass
ing them, They could have held out forever
against naval assault Or as long as they could be
supplied from the land side. The defsnses of
James river were perfect against the navy. After
the first repulse Of the Monitor and the Galena nj
Drury's Bluff, when there were only three p1Ds
70 battery at that place, and those in 5ay5ele.
the United States naval officers never made an at
tempt even to assail Richmond BY water. But the
defense of Charleston against all the power of the
United States navy, aided by extraordinary pow
erlul batteries on Norris Island, is an imperish-
able historical monument not only OF the skin and
Ealor with which the defensive operations were
conducted but Of the superiority of land defeuses
over naval ornaments. That siege and the defense
1f James river might also have suggested to the
board solution Of problem which they seem to
consider still doubtfu-the efficiency of channel
distractions. Admiral Dahlgreu himself declared
hat the distractions in Charleston harbor consti-
Iuted an iasuperable impeachment to a successful
naval attack, and Admiral Goldsborough assigned
the same reason for declining to attempt the pas.
sage of James river. The board find that channel
distractions proved 20 be failures when under |
taken by the French in the roadstead of the
Island Of AK; but such distractions certainly
proved effective, att least in the way of lettering
stack, both at Charleston and Richmond. Il
In regard to artillery the board Gays: "His be-
ieEed that guns have now reached their maximum
INIT q poEer at least ia naval use, and that ex