The daily gazette., 1880-03-13
Our .Defss,s syess Seacoast.

ever been at war, and although our lit
tie navy covered itself with glory in
the war of 1919, yet towards the end
of the war English vessels harried our
coasts almost at will. It was an expe-
dition landed from the Patuxent river
that burned the public buildings at
Washington. At present we are not
as well off as in 1879, for then we had
o good navy, what there was of it,
while now we have nothing but col
lection of old hulks and naval abor-
tions. We have a number of forts,
the construction Of which is due to the
strong impression upon the public
mind made by the disasters of the war
of 1912, but the ordnance with which
they are armed would be powerless
against modern iron-olad; and at any
rate fixed Notifications on shore can
never prove reliable defense against
steam war vessels. Farragut ran the
forts at Mobile Bay and New Orleans
in wooden vessels, and were all our
forts of the most approved modern
construction and armed with guns of
the greatest penetrating power known,
they could not restrain q feet of the
modern war vessels, steaming fourteen
knots an hour, from entering any of
our harbors. Torpedo defenses would
be highly useful in narrow channels,
but the long range of the great guns
now turned out at Woolwich and Es-
sen would make ships batteries eff
fective at distances where the sea-
room would be too ample for torpedoes
to constitute a safe reliance and even
torpedo defenses cannot be improvised,
but require a considerable period of
time to prepare and place. In fifteen
days the swift-steaming English IRON
clads could be on our coasts, and any
one of the recently-constructed great
war vessels could lay five or six miles
off any of our seaports and drop 1000
pound shells into 1t at the rate of forty
or fifty an hour. Before we could
gather together our resources or strike
one blow losses of hundred of millions
of dollars would have been sustained,
and the nation would be girdled with
ruin.
Some argument in favor Of this de-
fepseless condition may be made on the
score that 1t protects US fiom .'spirited
foreign policies" or, in other words,
from interneddling and arrognant di-
plomacy; but in this country the Gov
ernment is not controlled by an aristo-
cratic class, with Jingo proletariat at
its heels. Here, business interests are
supreme, and trading people are oppcs-
ed TO dis lurbances Of the peace. There
is ne danger that the possession of
weapons of defense will cause any de-
parture from the justice, fairness, and
the moderation which have always char.
acterized the dealings of this country
with foreign nations; and meanwhile
our defenseless condition places us at q
disadvantage, in case any disagreement
with foreign Power should arise. The
justice Of the arguments Of our Secretary
OF State will be better appreciated wheE
foreign nations are aware that
we are more fully prepared for all
contingencies. 1t is bad policy to be so
weak as to invite bullying. We have been
lucky, SO far; but we have no warrant
that our good luck will continue. The
VirginIus affair was q warning to us.
War might very easily have been the
outcome of that difficulty; but what q
plight it would have found us in Our
immense resources would have brought
vicsUry In the end, but our lack Of pre-
paration would have first subjected us to
immense losses aud extraordinary ex-
penditures. The risk is so great that the
cost of creating and maintaining ade-
qua.e defense would be a small and
cheap insurance charge upon the nation.
These facts are beginning to att act
popular attention, and are justly the sub
ject of much uneasiness. The New York
Chamber of Commerce has recently teen
discussing the necessity of defenses for
the harbor OF New York, and the popu-
lar sentiment on the subject is beginning
to exert pressure upon Congress. Dur
ing General Grants administration the
conduct of the Navy Department was
such that the smaller the appropriation
to the department the better satisfied
was public opinion. But no such objec-
tiOn to liberal appropriations exists at
present, and judicious expenditures for
the purposes If national defense would
be not acceptable to the people, but are
absolutely demanded by them.
In planning system OF defenses the
best naval engineers recognized that the
value of forts is now very small, and
ing. Torpedoes and gunboats are the |
most effective Instruments. A number |
of small vessels, each carrying gun of |
the largest power, would be less expen-
sive than a large ironclad, and would be |
far more effective. Rams are also fear
fully effective against ironclads. A
large and unwieldly monster like the
Infexible or the Duilio would have q
small chance against crowd of active |
assailants of this sort. 1t is obvious
that the greater the number Of ports
which could be brought within the pro-
lection of one system of defenses, the
more safe and economical in its opera
tions 1t would be. Thus the Chesa-
peake Bay system of defenses would
cover the barbors of the Susquehanna,
the Patapsco, the Potomac, and the
James, and include such cities as Balti-
more, Washington, Norfolk and Rich
mond in Its projections.
1t is clearly a necessity In connection
with this system that a ship canal shall
be cut between the Delaware and Ches-
apeake which would bring Wilmington
and Philadelphia under the protection of
the same system of coast defense. The
construction of that canal would estab-
lsh an interior line of water communi-
cation which would enable all movable
defenses to be concentrated at any point
from the Delaware river to the James
to repel an attack by an enemy; max
ing this portion Of the Atlantic coast
i,onraonahIa Trhn