Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-03-20
WHO PLANNED THE NGRRlMAC?
A Reply of &C. 5. Navy"t Mr. John w.
II. Porter.
RICHMOND, Va, March 10, 1892.

RICHMOND, Va, March 10, 1892.
To he Editor Of the Dispatch:
Absence from the city and other duties
have prevented me from making earlier re-
plv to the article of Dir. John w. Ii. Por-
ter. in your issue of March 6, 1892. The
near eridence Mr.. Porter publishes was
known TO me. for it had previously been IN
print. but for the reasons gwen below,
which he will appreciate, could not change
the conclusions | had already reached on
the subject, Who designed the Merrlmac
The authorship of the plan has become
"a tedious as 1.-THE twice-told tale vexlng
the dull ear of drowsy man." Nothing
less manifest than the wide opening winch
MIR. Porter gives for reply. and the strong
desire TO wrest the Subject afrom the con-
fusion about to engulf 1t could tempt me
TO claim your valuable space.
Could | be sure of the attentive ear OF
those to whom the subject has become
rernfn gitaestlo, the vindication of truth
would be near at hand, or put IL such
shape that it should
.shine by the side Of every path We tread
With such lustre he that runs may read"
In doing this / should deserve well of
this generation, If not OF my country, IN
laying ghost that, like Banquo's, will not
down.
The need has not been new or addi-
tloual evidence, but to read, marx, learn,
and invardly digest the evidence we have
had before us for thirty years. Mr.. W. Z.
Williamson and Mr.. John l.. Porter had
peen summoned by Secretary Mallory TO
Richmond about June %. 1861. Dir. Mai
Tory states in his official report TO Congress
on this subject that Lieutenant John NJ.
Brooke had already submitted plan OF
an ironclad. and that his design had been
approved by the department, and that
Messrs. williamson and Porter were or
dered to Richmond for consultation on
the same subject generally, and to aid IN
the work. "-Southern Historical Papers,
volume XIX, page l6
THE DRAWINGS AND PLANS.
Mr.. John W. II. Porter says this board
met in Richmond June %, 1861 ; " that
there was nothing before the board or con-
sidered by 1t except Mr.. Porter's model,
and there Is no mention whatever made In
their report Of Mr.. Brooke's drawings"
II the reader will turn TO page IL volume
XIX, Southern Historical Society Papers,
he will find the report or the board,
signed by williamson, Brooke. and John
i. Porter. II begins AS follows:
Il
carefully examined and considered the
udriOus plans, e,c.'
MIR. John w. III. Porter says further:
Lieutenant BrOokes rough drawings
had made no impression whatever on his
mind (Secretary Mallory's). and the state
ment that the submerged ends of the
(Merrimac) Virginia was distinctive tea
ture of the vessel is sheer nonsense"
Reference 10 page Is, volume XIX, South
ern Historical Papers, will show that Secre-
tary Mallory regarded :" the novel plan OF
submerging the ends of the ship and the
caves of the casemate as the peculiar and
distinctive feature of the Virginia. 1t
was never before adopted
Reference to page 20. volume XIX, South
ern Historical Papers, Will show that John
nj. Brookes clam TO, and award of, a pat
ent. granted July 20, 1862, consists in SO
constructing the hull of vessel that her
bow and stern shall each extend under water
beyond the forward aud after ends OF the
shield, to give the sharpness necessary TO
speed. aud buoyancy to support the weight
OF lron."
THE SUBMERGED ENDS.
This "sheer nonsense" Mr.. Editor, is
the sole claim of MIR. John Nj. Brooke's
plan and patent. Ii is the keystone to the
arch ON which rests the honor of the in
yention which John III. Brooke claims.
This "sheer nonsense" will not be
claimed. of course. by Mr. John w. III. Por-
ter as part of Mr.. John l.. Porter's model
The sheer nonsense OF submerged ends
being thus removed from the dispute.
gives Mr.. Brooke what he claims. and Mr..
John L. Porter's model must therefore be
based upon the casemate or shield, for
there is nothing else which ELAN or model
can cover.
1t is apparent that the letters of Mr.. w.
X. Singleton and Mr.. Charles Schroeder.
which Mr.. Porter prints with his article,
speak solely of the casemate or shield,
and inasmuch as Mr.. John w. II. Potter
regards the submerged ends as nonsense,
there is nothing IN the letters of MIR. Parks
and Mr.. Borum to exclude the supposition
that they, too, bear testimony to the shield
and not to the submerged ends.
IL the reader will turn to page 16, South
srn Historical Papers. volume ok. he will
fnd that Secretary Mallory, in his report
10 Congress, makes the following state
ment: "Mr. Porter and Lieutenant Brooke
have adopted for their cssemate thick
ness of wood and iron and an angle of in
clinstion nearly identical"
The letters patent to John II. Brooke re-
= l. -