Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-04-03
MORE ABOUT THE MsRRlMAc.
Nm j. W. III, Porter Replies to &C. s.
Navy" Regarding Her Designs and Plans.
PORTSMOUTH, Va, March 29, 1892.
IL IA rdito,. Of fha nisnnLch.

PORTSMOUTH, Va, March 20, 1892.
To he Editor of the Dispatch:
Pardon me for again trespassing upon
your kindness, but it seems that in my
Communication in the DIspATcH Of March
9th instant, on the subject of the Virginia
(Merrimac) did not make myself as clear
as should have done, or &C. 5. Navy"
would have understood me, and his letter
in the DISPATCH of the goth would have
been unnecessary.
He says: Secretary Mallory stated in
his official report TO Congress on this sub
iect that Lieutenant John Nj. Brooke had
already submitted plan of an iron-clad
and that his design had been approved by
the department. and that Messrs. William
son and Porter were ordered to Richmond
for consultation on the same subject gen.
orally and TO aid in the work."
What became of that order? III II could
be produced 1t would probably prove from
its date that it was issued after Mr.. Porter
reached Richmond with his model and
submitted It to the Secretary. Why was 1t
never produced Why was the Secretary
forced TO trust to his memory for the date
of an order issued nearly year previous?
The Secretary says ii was about the 23d OF
June. 1861. On that day MIR. Porter was i'll
Richmond.
&C. S. Navy " says Mr.. Mallory's official
report to Congress says the Navy De
partment mad previously approved the
plan of an iron-clad presented by John III.
Brooke prior to the date of its order TO
Messrs. Williamson and Porter TO report to
Richmond" Mr.. Mallory had long
been in public life and knew the response
bilities of Office. He was regarded as
man of good character and ve:acity," dc.
AN ORDER
have nothing to say against Secretary
Mallory mi de m0rtuls, Mise bOnun " Is O
GOOD motto, but / will put MIR. Mallory
against himself. When Mr.. John l.. Porter
submitted to him the plans for converting
the Merrimac into an iron-clad he approved
them at once and wrote ,c'h his otc'i hand
the following order, which ne handed Mr.
Porter for delivery to Commodore For
rest: -
RICHMOND, July IL, 1861.
Flag-OGcer r. Forrest:
sir,-You win proceed With all practicable dis
patch TO make the changes In the herrmac, and
TO build, equip, and ut her In all respects,
according 10 The designs and plans Of ue coiI-
strtctor and engineer, Hessrs. Porter and William
son. As time is Of the utmost importance In tho
matter you will zee that the work progresses
without delay to completion.
Secretary Confederate States Navy.
He did not reconvene the board or even
send for Mr.. Brooke to see If they were
correct. Which is the more reliable-his
knowledge at the time he ordered the work
to be done or his recollection nearly year
afterwards of what took place? Sup
posing, for the sake of argument, that
MIR. Brooke had submitted plans for his
approval, he did not mention those plans
in connection with the Nerrimac, but Or
dered Commodore Forrest to convert her
into an iron-clad after the plans of Messrs.
Porter and Williamson. MIR. Brooke's
plans seem to have been something else.
How easy it would have been for him to
have said: After the plans Of Lieuten-
ant Brooke" if he had really believed that
gentleman was their inventor.
DISTINCTIVE FEATURE.
I said that the clam that 1.-The SUBJ
merged ends of the Virginia was a distinctire
feature of the vessel was sheer nonsense"
and by this / meant what any naval archi-
tect would understand without any fur
Their explanation. When any part of O yes
sci is claimed as distinctive feature"
thereof that means it was designed 30 es-
pecially in the plans; that the vessel
was designed with special reference
to that feature of it, but in the
case of the Merrimac that feature
was a matter of necessity and not of de-
sign. The vessel had been burned TO her
the water to be submerged. There was
no submerging of her ends beyond what
was done by the weight of her shield. DC.
Her ends outside her gun-deck were not
cut down below the line Of her caves. The
ship was on the same line all around. As
to the claim that subnerging the ends of
q vessel will give her buoysncy and speed.
might add. If the claim were worth no.
ticing, that building her ends aboce the
0tU
greater speed on account OF presenting
less surface to the resistance OF the water
NOT BEFORE THE BOARD.
The various plans" referred to by the
board which recommended the conversion
of the Merrimac into an iron-clad, upon
which &C. y. Navy" seems to base so
would recommend the building of ns,o
boat after Mr. Porter's model orapply that
model TO the Merrimac. Messrs. William
son and Porter both say Mr. BrooEe's
rough drawings" were not before the
board at all.
Lieutenant Brooke, in his account of the
vessel claiming to himself the credit OF
having projected her, says:
After the weasel was launched, Mr. Por-
ter stated to me that he had accidentally
omitted in his calenla!,ons some weights
quence OF which she did not draw Is much
water when launched ~ be anticipated"
Does any ono believe Mr.. Porter one OF
the best naval architects OF his day, made
any such silly statement - that TO Mr..
Brookef II be had fosgotten 10 estimate
tor any weights in the ship che would have
drawn mort instead Of he Wstef than be
calculated She was not idxnoked either.
PC wy 9 s ip y tpS 2, a!y.aoes, tne