New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-11-03
THE JEAyNET1E INVESTIG ATTON

Chief Engineer Melviles testimony before the
Jeanette Board of Inquiry is to be given day
Oh 10 morrow. As he is the main witness to be ex-
amined, it is important TO observe the general
bearing of the evidence already taken. Lieu
terant Danenhower has given clear ana
graphic account of the voyage and the retreat
across the ice. On two vital points he has
dissented from the judgment OF his late com
luander. He has declared that If he had been
in command of the Jeanette he would have
made a determined eflOr to get out of the pack
on the day the ship entered it. and that the
prospect of reaching open water wo Id have
been good and, furthermore he has asserted
that after the wreck he would have made
directly for the coast water and Behring Straits
instead of heading for the Lena delta. These
structures were injudicons. A single glance
at an Arctic chart will convince the dullest
observer that De Long selected the only prac-
tcable line of retreat. and his last letters after
leaving San Francisco disclosed a resolute
determination to enter the ice and allow the
ship to drift where it would provided he could
not find harbor in Wrangell Land. Lieuten-
ant Damenhower, sitting in darkcned room in
IIkutsk and giving newspaper correspondent
the details of the voyage, remarked: Captain
abe Long entered the ice boldly and dellbe-
rately with the intention of trying the most
"hazartl0us route to the Pole that has ever been
contemplated. He had undertaken the must
daring and magnificent venture on record"
As an ice-bound voyage toward the Pole had
been planned, he did not attempt to get out of
the pack WHEN he had once entered it. He
drifted with the ice as long as the ships tmbers
held together, and then headed for the Siberian
settlements, the nearest point ON the mainland
where human aid could be looked for.
Apart from these general structures, Lieu
tenant DanenhOwers testimony has been direct
and sensible. He has made 1t apparent that in
the details of reconstruction everything that
could he done to strengthen the vessel was
done that the supplies, with the exception of
SNAIL quantity of canned goods, were of excel
lent quality that the health and discipline of
the crew were excellent; and that the retreat
was conducted in good order, the choice of the
second cutter instead OF the second whalebOat
and the delay in leaving Bennett Island being
the only points open to criticism. In our es-
tmation the main question to be decided by the
Board of Inquiry is this: De Longs nten-
tons being what they were was the Jeanette
specially adapted for an ice-bound cruise in
the pack On this point Lieutenant Danen-
hover has given explicit testimony. While he
has said that any vessel situated precisely at
the Jeanette was on June -, 1881, might
have gone down, he has admitted that the full
under water body was not the right model aad
that the clipper build with flare outside and
kettle bottom would have been better, be-
cause the ice would have showed under and
lifted the vessel better than il WEDGE shaped"
When he was in Irxutsk debating his story to a
Herald correspondent, he was less reserved
than he was before the Board of Inquiry. n
describing the catastrophe, when, after her pro-
longed Imprisonment in the pack, the ship
finally floated on an even keel tor few hours
and was then nipped by the ice. he used these
words: "There WAS nothing in the world to
be done to assist her at that time. We had TO
"depend upon her shape. She hoated much
higher than when we entered the pack, and
that led lis to hope she would lit easier in the
q nip. Her fate was practically decided the
moment we found that she would not lift
Notwithstanding the long drift in the pack. it
was her shape that finally determined her fate
" She would not lift" Those broad surfaces
under water nearly down to the keel gave the
ice blocks that square nip" on the hull
which proved fatal
The naval experts who have been examined
by the Board of Inquiry have not hesitated to
condemn the Jeannettes model as unified for
the cruise On which she was sent. They have
conceded in the Judgment of the Naval Board
of Inspection, which reported that while she
had been materially strengthened, it was not
possible to make her particularly adapted for
an extended cruise in the Arctic regions.
Chief Engineer Farmer testified that she did
not nave as much Sdead rise a. was needed,
and consequently was "more liable to get
nipped in the ice and less likely to rise read
"ily when caught" in the foes. Commander
Calhoun hns declared that it was impossible to
reconstruct the ship for such service, and Cap
tain Johnson has indiscreety explained why
the l'oard of InsDecton did not condemn her