New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-04-11
AGAINST BATTLE-SHlPS.
ACTION OF THE HOUSE IN COMMITTEE OF
THE WHOLE.
PROVISION FOR THREE SUCH VESSELS
.rp,cKEy FROM THE NAVAL APPROPRIATION
pFpORTED.

APPROPRIATE" ~ - .ire this afternoon 1t seemed
- though il might become lotal "io.n' ~
WAS struck by a vicious ma" Aoi" 49,, t tn
,er which carried overheard the PROVISION w |~0
suilding of three new armoreo paw. 81 p
49, ponuhican side this feature OF the Dill was OPP
'"0 - hr Mcssrs Cannon, Of Illinois; Pc
p 90 vansas and Kerr, of Iowa, whOcarrled enough
,v..no ponu,ucans with them to enable the Dem
o,rats 70 defeat the clause in Commluee Oh 'he
Whole despite the efforts OF MessrS' hc'ooi'' nv
Adoo and others TO prevent such ioS"io ~ was
q urnrise 10 lind the Republicans named ana o'hers'
opposing appropriations for 'He Duiiuins VI "o"
nayv 70 he expended under the direction OF seere-
, Tracy after appropriations for that purpose
na boon unrrudcingiy voted TO be expended under
The sirection of secretary Whitney The surprise was
~, roo.d when one remembered certain sentences in
49,, penuhlcan National platform adopted at Chicago in
,ssa which reads, in part, as follows:
We demand appropriations fer the e"iiy rebuilding OF
80 for me construction Ct coass Notifications and
oiern ordnance and approved modern means OF de-
fence for protection n our deenceess hartois and
cites policy will give employ nent to our labor
activity to various industries Increase the security OF
oui country, ETC.
II i MOI unfair to say that the Republicans who
today turned their backs upon the National plat
form ana voted against provisions of the bill recon-
rended not only by the Republican members of the
Committee on Naval Affairs. but 10y Democratic mem
leis a. we'll gave satisfactory reasons for their
ard careful study and thorough investigation 10y the
members Of that committee. and certainly deserved
better treatment than 1t received day in what Wa
supposed 20 be the house Of its friends. The mes
t.e was most ably defended by Chairman Boutcle.
NJ Loo and others the Republican side as well
A. by several Democrats: but thin Committee of
tie Whole. composed Of less than half the member
shin a. he House. succeeded striking out one OF
il, mos, necessary and essential features by some
twenty majority. There will be an effort 10 restore
The provision by yea and nay vote in the House,
aid tic record made by Republicans on that occa-
sion Will be studied with much interest. If the time
Ia, come when Republican majority in the House
/. 70 he swayed by local provincial considerations
in regard to a measure of National Importance and
saftt, a great many members Of the party viii be
10th pointed and surprised.
Mr. Herbert, of Alabama offered amendment
r-oyidag for construction Of two dnstead OF three
o,,st-iine battle-ships. His amendment. he said
was based on the ground that the United states was
proceeding too rapidly in the construction Of battle
ssip. lie would favor the construction of fast
cgus,rs which could destroy the commerce of any
nation With which this country might become in
vowed in
IT, oates Of Alabama, criticised the amendment
because il struck out only one OF the ships, Whc IL
should have stricken out all three.
Mr. BouteNe. Of Maine. said that the bill was IN
70 sense sectional political measure. lie opposed
II, amendment TO reduce the number Of battle
SHIPS TO two If the bill passed in its present
forn. the entire oblisati assumed by the United
states during the last four years together with tins
year would amount annually to s7927O 900. If
ihe Government were to build two atle-ships, there
vas no economic reason why three should not be
sullorized.
Mr. Wheeler of Alabama, inquired whether, if one
Of The battle ships should be dispensed WITH Would
rot I've one which to be constructed on the Gull
Coast.
hot no could mot toll he
lin would have to be reconstructed. lie hoped and
exncc,ed 10 see a plant erected on the Gulf Coast
capable Of constructing one Of these vessels
Mr. Herbert's amendment was lost-31 TO So
Mr. Peters, of Kansas, moved to strike ont inc
entire clause for the Of the Navy. lie be
Loved that the United states had ncec Of battle
SHIPS and possessed all the cruisers that II required
ii Congress indorsed this proposition, it must 90 on
and build not three battle ships, but twenty or twenty
FIVE battic-shps Battleshlps of this sort could 10y
enter the harbor Of NewIorl except at certain houi'
of the day TLey could not enter half the ports Of
the country. The only safety for the seacoast cites
was the Notifications which could be constructed.
There was a sentiment gradually reaching over the
country that the United states should never increase
either It's Army OF Navy until it becomes involved ID
actual war. Of which there was no probability
NJ McAdoo. of New-Jersey. denied that the Naval
question was between cruisers and batte-ships, but
laid i; was between high and low freebOard vessels.
ana he favored the low freebOard type But the gen
tcan from Kansas had left him choice as 70 type
la, obliged him 10 vote for against any Navy. The
laiileslips Of the bill coastdcfcnce ships lie
va. with the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Peters 50
far a. the lattcrs object concerned great standing
army But if he believed that any considerable body
II the people, North south or West. objected TO the
protection of coast he was mistaken.
Nr Cannon, of Illinois. said that he did not know
much about the Navy nevertheless, he began to sus
1c that lie knew as much the experts on the floor
Ne had watched Naval progress. and feared that those
slips proposed 70 be built would become Obsolete
before completion. lie believed in small comSiot
md powerful Navy including the best type Of vessels
br; the Navy Department has reported that the Maine
and Texas, now building. would never be duplicated
lie was lost in the conflicting opinions Of experts
The Government had provided for fortllcation7 on
land and he not that Notifications were not
about a. good to protect scacoat cities as were battle
ships He wanted to congratulate the country that
frlrl 1866 until les2 there had not been ships con
srcted or many guns built. lie recollected IN l7""
hearing one Of the brightest thinking who ever
81 I'm the House Mr.. Hewitt OF New YORK, advocating
tie building OF guns which IN ten years would nave
involved an expenditure Of SlOO,OOO,OOO. Ten years
later the same gentleman admitted that if Congress
had supported him the Government would nave eA
pended the money and lhe guns would have been
obsolete.
Mr. Lodge. Of Massachusetts, thought that the Naval
expert from Kansas Or. Peters had not stated cor
leciy the position OF Navy. There c"uld DC 10 Navy
with one class Of vessels. There must be different
sAips for aserent purpO,es. The controversy to-day
Was between low frcebOard and high frcebOaId. The
slea, feature Of the monitor was preserved IN the
modern bsttleship. The batteship was nothing but
noniiOr with high freeboard The Committee on 49,.
Affairs had decided in favor Of the high feeboaId,
Jceelse believed it necessary for the completion o
sB encieuJ Navy able 10 defend American cues ana
back up american diplomacy. The argument that the
United state. had done well In not buding shiPs wa
argument tat II should not build ships al all. IT
Was a delnsive argument. The Maine wa not an
obsolete ship nor was the Texas. The lldrtiOiu was
IN obsolete ship. Would il have been well 10 have
omitted bullcing her? If we had had Navy behind
Is the negotiations which had dragged along 50 many
year f1r the settlement Of the fisheries question would
have been ended long ago.
NOice-Iy war;
Mr.. Lodge-NO: bv diplomacy. II is the kno~ledge
that great cities lie exposed TO the nfst 1orrlpi
slip that along that gives 10 other Nations thclr
only force against the United states In diplomacy
nr. Kerr. Of Iowa. said that he represented a dIs,
t.ct In which there lived many Quaker, VINO iidh
sent him petition after petition. requesting nm 10