The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-12-17
THE BUILDISG OF BATTLE SHIPS.
why This Class OF War Vessels L. Rseou.
mended for Our Navy.


WARRINGTON. Dec. 16-There should be no
hesitation Oh the part OF CONGRESS- In authoriz-
ing the new hattie ship called for by Secretary
Herbert. Certainly II cannot be said that
an undue development OF naval power Is
aimed at. since our country now ranks only
seventh among the worlds naval powers. Eng
land. France. Italy. Russia. and even Germany
and spain surprising us. The case 10 not SO
discreditable as II was at the begin ming OF the
new steel navy. whom Austria. China. Japan,
Holland. Sweden. Turkey. and even Denmark,
Greece. Brazil Argentina, Chilli. and Portugal
were ranked above the United States. although
1t hardly seems possible that our country can
really have fallen SO low. But certainly we
should not be assuming an undue place In
proposing to become the sixth power in naval
rank. for that was our status In 1850.
A table published with Mr.. Hsrberts report
shows that Of battle ships England has A. 4;
France, 20: Russia Is; Germany. Il; Italy.
II; Turkey. o; Austria. T. and Brazil and the
United States o each. We are also behind In
armored cruisers. Of which England possesses
~; France. 10; Russia. IL; Italy and Turkey. 8
each; Spain. Z: Brazil. o. and SO down to tho
United States.wh has two. namely, tn New
York and Brooklyn. both Of very high class
but the latter not yet completed. For that
matter. the whole record lust given perhaps
Y.
none Of the battle ships attributed to the
United States iisi com pleted. In coast defence
vessels We are relatively better on Tho five
double-turret monitors. with the Monterey
and the KAtahdin. give us 7 vessels OF that
class. against 20 possessed by France. 10 BIZ
Germany and IL by England Some countries.
also, with small armored vessels. have larg
list OF coast defence craft and % are attributed
TO Holland. 10 to Russia. and 20 to Sweden
AMI Norway
The programme Of battle ships arranged for
our country included twelve vessels. Of these
We have four OF the first class now building.
the Indiana, Nlassaeh setts, oregon. and lows
and two Of the second class. the Maine and
Texas ~ the two latter should be included
In the battle ship list six would stu be need;
has been to authorize one battle ship at each
session. and the failure to do this at the last
session makes II all the more advisable not to
It may be suggested that some less eIpsn-
sive ship could be- substituted. But on this
Ioint We may motto that there Is no very great
difference IN cost between the large vessels Of
our three leading types. The, contract price
s26S5, 900; that Of the Massachnsetts, coast.
line battle ship; 5000 OOQi that OF the Column
OF her mate, the MINNEAPOLIS, 81. 600. 900. IL
will be seen that the RTmorsd cruiser cost
about 1000 tons less displacement and OF
much inferior defensive strength and battery
AND Set coal ~ @dSsa sspeIi0r 1t Is true IN speed
-
needed Tor navy primarily protective and
offensive like ours, they should be supplied
by preferences. Again. while the Colum bia and
her class are very important, yet Secretary
Herbert urges that the military value OF q
oommeres, destroying fleet Is easily over
rated. Cruisers" he says directed against
an sPsI5ys aset aTnSoat are capable OF doing
among merchants and worry peopis against
whose property they are directed, but unSIp.
ported by ships OF the line. their Operations
are perhaps never decisive OF a war. The his
tory OF our civil war furnishes a recent and
Irritating. but 1t decided nothing Ii Would
have been Intellectual even II the Coniedsrates
had possessed ten times as many eruissrs un-
SR5o's al s tnsy wsIsb X S,s
enormous speed and coal endurance like the
COLUMBIA, Minneapolis, and Olympia and The
New York and Brooklyn. also OF very high
speed and still others approaching or exceed
enough on for the present In that particular.
II may be suggested. however. that perhaps
a gain could DO effected by building LATHE
shlps Ike the Texas and Maine. What the
the limit ixed for each was -. BOO. 600 1t Il
plain. therefore that since they displAee but
LOO and i64S tons rssDsetivelY. against TO-
200 for tie Indiana, and have far Inferior
HrmoT and batteries. the saving made By going
back to this type would be poor ecOnomI On
this point Secretary Tracy has well said that
the halns and Texas, although excellent ships
iqF thelF size. are not large enough to accom-
plish the true object Of heavily AFmorsd yes
sci One lrst-elass shlp would cost certainly
CEe-hih less than two OF the smaller type And
YET have a comparative force 50 much greater
that IN az engagement Il would destroy them
sssas clear. IL short thAt battle shi5 u the
hTst elass. as Mr. Herbert advises. ahoald b
AathorAed ~ the pTessnt sesstoa.