The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-10-08
THE BATTLE sHIp QUESTION.
The value OF Hesviiy Arr,es s-s Ar-ores
SHIPS for Oar Naval Needs.


shIps for Oar Naval Needs.
wAsBiSoToS, Oct. TT IL we'll understood
that Secretary Herbert will ask in his annual
report for an increase Of the navy, and there 10
good ground for believing that he will recon-
mend that this increase shall be In the form OF
battle ships and torpedo boats. Since the great
fight of the mouth Of the Yalu there has been
some disposition to laud cruisers at the expense
Of ships Of the line. in view Of the havoc
wrought by the guns OF the japanese. That en-
gagement certainly showed the destructive
power Of modern artillery, in whatever ships
mounted; but II proved nothing against battle
ships, since, apart from tactical mistakes or the
questions OF the best handling. not one Of the
Chinese armored vessels was In the class Of our
Indiana, Massachusetts, Oregon. and Iowa
Cruisers have an important place in navy
but they cannot be substitutes for ships OF the
line. Battle ships have we'll been called the
backbone OF = fleet, and Capt. Mahan. whose
opinion on such subjects properly carries great
weight, only few months ago declared that
the battle ship, in some form, must be the main
reliance for the future Mr.. Herbert himself
has put clearly the relative value OF such YES
sells. When Mr.. Tracy was Secretary Of the
Navy, Mr.. Herbert was Chairman Of the House
Naval Committee, and in one Of his reports
declared that Congress has now provided for
no others should at present be built. II are to
have battle ships. In battle ships consists the
fighting strength Of modern navy. With seven
or eight more Of these and their accessories.
reasonable number Of torpedo boats, ours
would rank hfth among the navies Of the world"
In his report last year he returned to the sub
lect with these vigorous comments upon I'M
armOred cruisers:
They can destroy merchant ships they can nght YES
sels o. their class but they dannut meet arnored
the twenty years of the French revolution Frcnch
srgssrs and priyasers Sagtured many houssRd, q
shps ns,spd q seS,er1s to convoy merShsp yss
poleon's communications by water. With her wealth
that The two great fas"rs in The downfs q The great
SRd the io iS weSR n The srsn. sea ~
the world u Government in the future Is TO have
10 csndltioS 70 enforce the tsr%s dictated Sy i" .an
and must build reasonable number OF torpedo Doat.
The same view Is held by the leading naval
authorities OF other countries. II Is true that In
France VI. Lockroy recently made sensation
by denouncing French battle ships and declar-
ing that fast cruisers are wanted instead, since
"our only chance is to cut of English commerce
this Is az contracted view. II England had no
French and Russian battle ships to fear to-day,
a wiser opinion is that which is expressed BY
Lord Brassey, in the current Naval Annual"
when he that S9thns VIII
naval power. On battle ships our command Of
the sea depends. and in this class Of ship 1t is
premacy. A practical illustration OF these
views Is given In the enormous tonnage put into
construction, by ali the great naves. England
alone Is building, or about to lay down, nine
Sats s q close i5Goo ds
tieorge, Caesar. Hannibal, Majestic, Magnificent.
lllnstrious; and Victorious; together with a
undertaken. And France and Russia are, on
their part, constructing 80 many that some fears
are entertained in England Of her not suffi-
ciently outmatching them should those two
1t has been urged as an argument against bat
n single blow from torpedo. That Is true, and,
30 far as IL Is an argument for providing more
force of the argument need not be moderated.
But battle ships have their steel nets to protect
torpedo boat catchers assigned to modern fleets.
Besides, battle ships are no more liable TO lie de-
Without the er for fr no OF 'he IKE
one basket" does apply 70 building the largest
are not used in our navy " hen il comes to
vessels Of the types we have. the difference In
protected cruisers; The contract price for the
f hsl and and sa%s va. of tSs e
cruisers Columbia and MiSnansapeIis, SaIIt *
TSs former are OF 10 oDs
dis placement. and the two latter 1880. Speed
premiums, In fart, carried the price of the
Columbia and Minneapolis far above So. 900 900.
This high cost is due to the speed and other
qualities required of them for their functions;
But they are unarmored, protected cruisers, and
carry only one S-inCh, two 6-inCh, and eight
4-inch guns each, while the battle ships have
IL inches OF armOr on their sides and ! d and ! 8
four l3-inch eight S-inch, and four 6-inch guns.
Imagine the Japanese cruisers encountering
When the foundations Of our new steel navy
cruisers were the type most urgently needed, and
indeed all that could then be furnished. His sue
cessor, Secretary Whitney. took new step for
ward In the construction OF our first battle ships
the standard still higher in his turn, with the
three battle ships Of the Indiana class the sea
going battle ship Iowa, and the armored
cruisers New York and Brooklyn. Thus far.
authorized by Congress TO construct a single new
armored vessel, and "A trio Of small gunboats
and another OF torpedo craft are all that have
been accorded TO MIN. Yet no part Of the naval
than that which, for several years, has fixed
uDon an aggregate Of about twelve battle ships
ms required by our needs on the Atlantic Pacific.
and Gulf coasts. For IL must be borne in mind
commerce destrOyers, and also the scouts OF
feet besides being able to fight vessels of their
own class heavy battle ships are harbor defend
ers, and are thus also valuable adjuncts OF the
land forts.
The policy announced by Mr.. Herbert himself
when on the House Naval Committee, was that
OF adding one frst-class battle ship each year
until total OF ten or twelve should be reached.
dtiOn Of the Treasury has been put forward as
a reason for not furnishing this annual contri-
button. The excuse should serve no longer
One Il not two, frst-class battle ships should be