The Wilmingtonian., 1886-11-20
PRICETWOCENTS.
Secretary Whitney Criticised.

secretary Whitney Criticised.
l III referring to the harsh criticism of Set
retary Whitney by the Clyde steamshi
builder John Ward it is necessary for exac
J ness sake to quote the words attributed t
Mr., Ward by the New York Herald.
81 find = said Mr.. Ward, "a circular ad
vertised in this country by the United State
Navy Department asking for designs for al
armored crusier and an armored line of bat
tie ship. The terms of the circular show
that the United States government wisheC
the designs to come from those in thi,
country who at the country's expense, have
similar desgns.te get.out for cur own navy
The honorarium offered for this BETRAYAL
of trust was $15, 900, with further sum foI
working drawings. Here is humiiating
state Of things. First, that foreign gov
ernment should have Gauss to know the eff
cacy of a bribe upon our government off.
cials and, second, that a friendly govern
ment should not soruple to lay such temp
tation in the way of weak patriots.
OF the United States government we might
expect better things
The above words were spoken by MIR.
| Ward in the course of lecture upon "De-
structive Aid in Naval Warfare" at the
GraapooIr Tnet;tp+a NT.al .. l,.4
II Secretary Whitney or his agents have
approached British government officials with
the brihes described, of course our Secretary
stands condemned.
But the very case cited by Mr.. Wald that
of the Charleston, in other words, according
to English testimony, Nanikawan, the Jap
anese man-of-war, constructed by the Arm
strongs, weakens his assertion at first sight.
In the case cited Sir William Armstrong is
not government constructor. In that in
stance he must be considered private
builder similar to tne Harlan & Hollings-
worth Company, Cramp s. Sons, or John
Roach.
The British government has a peculiar
method of constructing its warships. Some
times the ironclads are built in the govern.
ment yards, but, Just as often the contract
for construction is given to private builders,
to Clyde men, or builders at Barrow, Birk-
euhead, Newcastle, etc.
1t appears from English testimony that
tine Nanikawan whose drawings Mr.. Whit
ney is accused of hankering after was CON
structed in Sir William Armstrong's private
shipyald, not in government yards, nor as
commission from the British government
Therefore the Armstrong; have every right
should they feel SO disposed of parting with
the drawing models of the Charleston or
Nanikawan.
But still there is another point in Mr.
Wards citation of Seortary Whitney which
there will be some positive difficulty, as
things appear now, in clearing our Naval
bureau of, viz, that Mr.. Whitney should
lay bribes in the way of the officials of
friendly government.
Here an altogether different picture pre-.
sen's itself. We are brought into the province
of international adminstrational courtesy
and all that that would involve.
Supposing that Secretary Whitney, did,
as Mr.. Ward implies, officially infer wish
to become pessessor of what is overly Brit
ish government property, and openly laid
| his plans fo: cousummating that wish, in
any other way than direct application to the
| British government such action should call
down upon his head sharp reprimand from
President Cleveland.
The Clyde builders assertions, as far as
can be seen, in this latter phase are fully
corroboratcd. We all read Mr.. Wh;tney's
advertisements in the English papers, for
they were equo:ed here at the time, offer
ing large sums of money for designs, certain
of which were we'll known to be the private
property of the British government, and the
details being in the possession of British gov
erument naval constructors and the Admi-
atty officials alone.