New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-08-16
THE NAVAL MACHINE.
CONGRESSMAN FRANCIS H. WILSON DIS
CUssES THE MATTICE LETTER
HE SHOWS THE WEAKNESS OF THE OPPOsI-
TON TO THE POINTS IN THE CIRCULAR
REFORM IN PRESENT METHODS
SORFIY NEEDED.

SURELY NEEDbD.
A reporter for The Tribune called upon Congress
man Francis r. Wilson OF the lid District.
Brooklyn at his New York office on Friday. and
had talk with him on the letter OF Ex-Chief En-
gineer Asa NJ Mattice. entitled queer Dongs I'm
the Navy" Mr.. Wilson said that he saw that the
letter had awakened deep interest in the subject,
as he believed it would when he asked the authors
permission make II public: that II now
three months since IT was issued and much to his
surprise in view of the severe criticisms II con
tains. he had seen no attempt to answer it.
There is department OF the public service
he said. lin which the people OF the country feel
deeper interest than In that Of the Navy. They
are willingly appropratng large sums Of money
to increase the number and efficiency OF our war
ships 1t will be better perhaps. not to discuss the
letter at the present time but I'm nautical Ian
guage to haul 10. for a moment take our bearings.
and just what situation Is. on January 10.
of this year. I introduced a Mill. known the En-
gneering bill. II r.. 36lS. Its object to Or
ganize and increase the efficiency Of the personnel
Of the Navy ON it's face It would seem 70 he
worthy object The bill proposed to accomplish
this object. so far the engineer corps was con-
cerncd first by giving the engineers positive
rank: second by increasing their numbers to meet
the needs Of the service. and third by raising the
standard of efficiency among engineers and
providing engineer reserve In time of war by
allowing the chronological institutions of the
country to compete for vacant positions In the
Engineer Corps
81 have no argument. yet that tends
TO show that tn end in view. or that the way pro-
posed by the bill to attain it, is not commendabe.
A few line officers and their friends assert that
the purpose of the bill is to give the engineers
command Of warships and they reterate the
assertion. in and of season, despite the
fact the amended bill expressly provides that the
Engineer Corps shall command It's own department
subject TO the authority Of the commanding officer.
but shall not be entitled command In the line or
other staff corps It is also claimed by some of the
line officers that there IS need Of an increase
of numbers in the Engineer Corps.
I'm 1864 % per cent of our warshps were without
engines. and not one that had engines could de-
velop more than one thousand horse power. The
steam frigate Minnesota, with its ono thousand
horse power and comparatively simple machinery
had nine engineers. In 1896 the protected cruiser
Columbia-witn 1880 horse power. ninety engines,
l72 steam cylinders-with all its varied and com
plcated machinery has only four engineers.
"In 1864 there were enrolled in the regular and
volunteer naval service 2.si6 line officers and LIS
engineers. and in the regular service alone 46a line
officers and sol engineers. In other words. the
necessities Of war had made the members in each
corps nearly equal.
THE Navy Register Of 1896 shows that we now
have l7S engineers and IA line officers, or more
than four line officers to one engineer for these
fighting machines that we are now constructing In
Navy
81 am simply stating a few Of the facts that seem
TO show that we either have far more line officers
than we require few engineers; but on this
point do not care TO comment further at the pres
ent time.
ONE METHOD OF ATTACK.
what may be called the educational feature OF
the bill has been subjected to a somewhat inter-
esting mode of attack.
"A few weeks after the bill introduced
circular letter. dated Washington February 10.
1896 signed by a number Of line officers copy of
which have) was sent to the faculties Of some of
our colleges and chronological institutions for the
purpose Of inducing them TO withdraw their in
dorsement OF the bill The letter contains this
profound observations no measure for the benefit
Of education at large should be Joined to one de-
signed to advance the fortunes of individuals or Of
any body OF men, etc. Its effect upon the minds
Of many OF the distinguished educators and
scientists was such that. after a careful analysis
Of the bill they began forthwith to memorable
Congress for it's immediate passage. No less than
twenty such memorials. representing such institu-
tions as Columbia and Cornell colleges, Colby Uni
versity and many others and from such distin-
guished educators as General Francis A. Walker,
DIT Thurston Presidents Low and Angel and
many others. were received.
accompanying the circular letter a pamph-
let upon which conspcuOusly printed a crti-
cisn Of the bill. that purported 10 be quotation
from The Steam Navy Of England book written
bv the chief engineer OF the English Navy. The
quotation Is as follows: From the engineer officers
poin; Of view It Is probable that this bill would
be unobiectionabe. but 1t is doubtful whether the
change would. in the end benefit either the class or
the Navy at large
The following IS an extract from copy Of the
answer to a letter Of inquiry addressed to the au
thor Of The Steam Navy Of England:
no Is Garfield Terrace. Stoke, Devonport. Eng
land
My Dear Sir "The Steam Navy of England"
was written in 1892 and published in the early part
Of 1898 II is obvious that reference Of any kind
was made in It to the Engineering introduced
in the American Congress in 1896 The word "bill''
has been interjected into the text. etc. tic sym
pathize with you and my professional brethren in
your Navy in the endeavor to better the status OF
the engineer officers | sincerely hope that you may
be successful. Believe me Yours sincerely,
"'HARRY WILLIAMS. Royal Navy
THE quotation in question Of which the above is
n CARRIED extract should read as follows: Some
the class should be made executive officers. From
the engineer officers point of view It Is probable
that this would he unobjectionabe. but II IS doubt
full whether the change would. in the end. benefit
either the class or the Navy at large Comment is
unnecessary
Il received Asa NJ Mattice's letter the
end OF April read and Icread il with great care
II seemed 20 me a very able and remarkable docu-
ment. As he stranger 10 me, ! addressed
a letter 20 Commodore George ". Melville request
ing him to inform me Of Mr.. Mattces standing in
his profession and Of his record while he
nccted with the naval service. Commodore Mel
villes answer to my inquiry contained the highest
Of Mr. Mattice's character qualihca-
lions and trustvorthiness He wrote that his rec
ord IN the service was ono of enthusiastic devotion
10 duty 50 far as such a thing possible with the
drawbacks a siaf officer. and particularly an en-
gincor. had 10 encounter.
II wrote for and obtained permission from Mr..
Nattice to have the letter published II came out
IN pamphlet form under the title queer Dongs In
the Navy II was given a wide circulation some
three months ago and what strikes me as remark
ably strange. IN view Of it's charges is that one
has attempted to answer IL.
LINE OFFICERS ASK QUESTIONS.
"A reprint Of 81 WAS published. and. possibly 10