New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-11-18
80 ALLn1 ~ - NlIE

Il is not at al probable that the recommends
ton. of the Naval Advisory Board will be fol-
lowed by Congress. That body is not in the
habit of paying much attention 10 the views of
such boards. The average member from the
Western praIrcs thinks ne knows rs much
about naval architecture a, any Commodore or
Admiral in the service, though hr may never
have set foot on the deck of a man-ol- war.
The best that can bc hoped for As the result of
this new exposure of the weakness of our Navy
and thi, fresh plan for lis systematic reinforce
mcut, is an appropriation 10 build few fast,
wcl-armcd cruisers. M men IN Congrrs, and
all others having influence with COH.rc,, who
realize how dangerous source of National
weakness, is cur puuy, autiquatcd and drca,iug
marine, will DO well to abandon the project of =
comprehensive scheme of legislation on thi,
subject, and concentrate their Efforts ON some
simple bill making beginning toward building
"A new Navy. II Congress can hr persuaded TIN,
winter TO authorize the construction of six or
eight lir-t-ratc cruising irisa'rS, armorcd only
at the bows if at ALL and provided with rams
and torpedo apparatus, al encouraging step in
the right direction will have been made These
ships should be able TO steam fifteen knots an
hour, and should hc armed with the best long
range, brccch- loading riilt-guus-such guns as
we shall have to go to Europe to buy, because
they are not made in this country and cannot he
unless the Government itself undertakes their
fabrication.
We by 10 means wish to say that the report
Of the Naval Board, with its proposition for
building forty one new ships is without prac-
teal value. Some criticisms may, PERHAPS
Justly bc made upon the details of its plan fox n
new naval establishment, but the report rs "A
whole is exceedingly significant as broadly
marking new departure in naval ideas IL this
country. The vessels recommended are all Ia
be of wood built upon steel frames. There is
no suggestion of attempting to rival the huge
ironclads of European navies. Indeed the
most enlightened officers in our service would
not build such armorcd monsters ms the Duilo
or the lnhcXiblc if they had all the money i'm the
Treasury at their command. A few years ago
the objection urged in this country against
building irOncads was that we could not afford
the enormous expense for the chance of need
ing them in some future war. Now the current
Of naval opinion is that we do not want such
ships at any cost, because il is believed they
would fall easy victims to modern toIpcdocs.
lncy are uAtIUi 10 DdIItI down tOItS but
contingency is likely to arise when we shall
want TO send fleet to lombard the dcfcnccs of
a European port. They arc also formidable in
fighting great naval battle like that fought
between the Austrian and Italian fleets in the
Adriatic in 1866; but it is not probable that
we shall be called upon to engage in an ocean
duel with the fleet of any great naval Power.
Battles are no longer fought for the supremacy
of the seas, and for the purpose Of destroying
an enemys commerce few fast cruisers are
more effective than hundred clumsy, ponder
Gus armored ships. The Alabama taught the
world that lesson nearly "A score of years ago.
If we had possessed in 1868 as great an iron
clad fleet as England now keeps ahoat, the
swift rebel privateer would probably have run
her destructive course just the same. For
harbor defence ironclads would be valuable to
us, but We can guard our sea-coast cities moro
effectually with strong shore batteries, torpedo
boats and stationary submarine explosive ap-
paratus.
About our need of a feet of swift. well armed