The Evening critic., 1882-06-29
The Nnvy-YarsI.

While we believe in the policy embodied
in the present Naval Appropriation bill as to
the future management of the public navy
yards in general we feel called upon to dis
sent from the committees recommended
tions regarding the Washington yard in
particular. The trouble with our system
of navy-yards is that the science of ship
building has outgrown them In the days
of wooden ships our yards were the envy of
the world. But to-day the United States
has, out of eight navy-yards, not one in
which modern iron or steel man .ofwar
could be built, whether armored or un-
armored. We believe that the existence of
these yards and the apparent necessity of
making some show Of work in them is the
main, if not the sole, cause of our adhere
ence to the absolute wooden cruiser as our
standard naval type.
Nothing but wooden ships can be built
in these yards. To fit them for building
iron or steel ships would cost more than
to build and equip new navy by contract.
But so long as they remain as they are
there will always be demagogues in Con-
gress to raise howl against contract work,
and in that way the old, absurd, obsolete
system is maintained, defiant of every
sound principle and regardless of every
economical policy.
This is the argument of Mr.. Robson and
of the committee. 1t is valid and logical,
with respect to every navy-yard in the
United States, except the Washington
yard. 1t may not be uninteresting to
remark here that the Washington yard,
in its later development, was notde-
signed for shipbuilding purposes at all, or
at least not in a primary sense After the
destruction of the old yard by the British,
in 1914, little was done here until about
the time of the Mexican war, when the
Washington yard was practically revived
as a depot of equipment. Several ships
were built in it, but, as we have said, the
main usefulness of the yard was that of
manufacture From 1850 up to the out
break of the Rebellion, the growth of the
Washington yard was in exact ratio to the
increased employment of machinery in
ships of war. The Rebellion itself COM
pleted what the Mexican war hal begun,
by turning the yard here into vast
marine machineshop, which at one time
had no superior in the country. 1t is still
the great naval machineshop, and in fact
the only one of any account owned by the
Government. 1t is, indeed, behind the
times in some respects, such as in facilities
for compound engine building but the al
teratiens and additions required to put it.
machinery in order for any modern require
ment would be triling compared to the out
nl 30 tb. %, a
No wise statesman will advocate tota
surrender of the naval industries into pri
yate hands. At all events whether tn,
Government actually does any manufac
turing or not, it should always remain
prepared to do its own work as a checl
upon the human nature of contractors
Moreover, there is multiplicity of detail
in ship-purchasing nowadays, all of whicl
is constantly subject to innovation an,
experiment, aud in this direction the Gov
eminent ought to do its own work and il
its own way. For all of these uses, whic
are of primary importance, the Washing
ton yard is the only one available as we'll a
the one most convenient. 1t is located O
the naval headquarters. 1t is beyond til
reach of the eorrupting, wasteful influence
of local politics which in the past have mad
the very name Of navy-yard odious. 1t
less liable to attack and capture by a
enemy than any other yard in the coun
try-not, indeed, by reason of defenses, fc
we have no defenses anywhere, but simpl
because no hostile shipof sufficient draugf
to be irresistible could get within strikin
distance of it. The conditions of naviga
tion which must forever preclude
from building uses ON a large scale al
at the same time its defenses again
aggression. 1t should not only be pr
served, therefore, but improved. II shoul
be equipped to manufacture everythir
required about public ship, from boa
oar to twelye-inch steel breech-loade
We have no doubt that such policy wi
preVail "a fha end