National Republican., 1884-03-31
The New Naval Cruisers.

SHIPS Ol war IesJ lhTBoly upoh VIo SiitiNio'uo
made by one or two constructors and en-
gincors Of tho designs of the cruisers now
under construction. II is argued that mas
much as certain persons who are supposed
to bo authorities OH the subject object TO
minor points in these designs tho vessels
will be failures, and the board that designed
them should be allowed to design no moro.
II may he taken as an established fact that
every designer Of modern war ship will
have his pot theory, and that you cannot get
q ship built that will satisfy the views of all
the experts. This has been the experience
in England in France, and in Germany
If We are to believe an article which
has just appeared in tho ErGHkfWtcr
Zciimg quoted in the New York Herald of
March 10, o large number of tho vessels
recently built for the German navy
are utter failures. This may or may not be
true, but It shows what may also be seen in
every debate in parliament on tho naval
estimates--that tho criticism of naval
designs is a favorite weapon OF attack upon
naval administrations everywhere. 1t is
always possible to got extravagant and irrc-
sponsblo criticisms from disgruntled con-
structors on which to base an assault, and
tho public, unable to follow technical
discussion, is left with confused impression
that something must be wrong somewhere,
though it doesn't know exactly what or
where it is.
II would be we'll to stop just here and sec
who is responsible for the designs of the new
cruisers, and who is undertaking to attack
them. The vessels are the result Of discus
sion and unanimous agreement Of the naval
advisory board appointed for the purpose
under the law, and composed of an admiral
as president, two other line officers Of estab-
lished reputation, q chief engineer, and naval
constructor belonging to the navy, and two
we'll known professional naval architects from
civil life. 1t is not possible to suppose, much
less to assert, that in designing these vessels
with the features that have been criticised
namely, reduced sail-spread, unsheathed bot
toms, beam engines in one vessel, and GER
tain arrangement of the deck-house in two
vessels-the board acted from any other
motive than the desire to do what in its
collective judgment would produce the most
efficient vessels possible. This nal judgment
of body of experts, concluded upon under q
full sense of official responsibility, and ap
proved by tho department, is what is repro
sented in'the now designs
Now, who represents the opposition? Firs
and foremost comes Mr.. Isherwood, a chic
engineer in the navy. Mr.. Isherwood is al
eccentric genius, of disappointed ambitions
who has devoted his faculties for some year
to playing dog in tho manger with grea
energy and considerable success. 1t is safe t.
say that no vessel would satisfy Mr.. Isher
wood unless he had hand in designing /
himself. His acquaintance with the perform
ance of modern war ships at sea may bt
judged from tho fact, ss stated by the navy
register, that during his long career of thirty
nine years in the service he has been but ST:
years and two months at sea, and that hi
last cruise expired in 1858. Here is his sum
mary of objections to the Chicago:
l. She is too small for irst.class cruise
by about 1,5OO tons displacement.
Q. She is not wooden sheathed and copperet
g. Her machinery is inefficient in type AM
will fail at high speed.
d. She has but half ail-power, and cannc
cruise under sail alone She will alway
have to use steam.
D. Her speed will be entirely too little an
her endurance much too small.
6. Her services in war will be limited t
our own coasts, where she will not be needed
instead of abroad in the destruction of a
enemy's commerce.
The most important of these criticisms al
answered in the recent letter of the nav
department to the senate committee Q
appropriations. Tho first one, that th
, Chicago is too small for a frst-class cruise
amounts to saying that you must not build
vessel of 1850 tons, because you might wit
more money build a vessel of 60OO thi
would be moro effective. The second, as
sheathing, may be answered by the statemer
that all the vessels of this class in Englan
such as the Leauder, built in 1880, and IL
Mersey and Severn, now under constructio
are unsheathod. OF course, this does NJ
prove that shcathing is bad thing, but
proves that the best talent in the Englii
navy condemns it, Mr.. lsherwood to tho col
trary Notwithstanding The third objection
that the machinery is inefficient, has iu
received n staggering answer in the perform
anccs of the steamer Louisiana, OF the CroT
well line. This vessel, fitted like the Oh
cago with the beam-enginos and the furnac
to which Mr.. lsherwood objects, made Il
passage month ago between New York al
New Orleans in five days and fifteen hou
from wharf to wharf being the fastest pa
sage on record. On the way back she ma
I the fastest return trip ever known, and it
n now said that her owners are SO well pleas
c with her that they purpose orderi
) u new ship with similar machinel
Mr.. Isherwood's fourth objection, I'll
, tho cruisers have only half sail-power,
. | ht,t t,,au oh M q