The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-27

tha greatest positiveness and from sources
of Spanish information whose authority, he
says, is not open to question.
When seen to-day, Senor Du Bose had no
details to add to his statement. The infor-
nation reaching him confined itself to the
one succinct declaration that no mines or
submarine defenses of any kind exist inside
or outside of Havana harbor. With empha-
sis he expressed his indignation that he
should feel it to be his duty to repel the
insinuations and statements that Havana
harbor was mined, which assertions were in
spired, he said, by those anxious TO stir
passion and resentment between the two ma
tions. He considered such suggestions an
insult to Spain, and without deigning an an
swer to them he submitted as a bare fact
that there were no mines or submarine de-
fenses of any character in or about Havana
harbor. He would not discuss the subject
further, saying it suficed to make the one
essential statement of fact.
When the attention of Philip AIger, ex-
pert of the Bureau of Ordnance, was called
to Senor Du Boscs statement he said; THE
statement is importent as representing the
position taken by the Spanish officials who
have absolute knowledge of whether or not
Havana harbor was mined. 1t is, of course,
listed, since it is not customary to plant tor
pedoes in the harbors at all. especially not
in harbors constantly occupied by friendly
vessels. Should it be possible TO prove
Senor Du Boscs statement to be true. the
whole theory of the Names destruction
by torpedo will become untenable, in my
opinion. But the only proper course to be
now pursued is to await patiently the re-
of hn ri Of tiua nd
accept its findings as conclusive. When
the first news of the catastrophe arrived it
was we'll to attempt to allay excitement by
pointing out the fact that the probabilities
were greatly in favor of the explosion hav-
ing been an accidental one. Nothing that
has yet become known should lead to a
modification of this view. 1t is still vastly
more probable that the cause was an in
ternal one than that it was external. There
seems, however, to be a prevalent feeling
that the accident theory casts reflection
on the navy, and also that its acceptance
would be hurtful to the navy's interests.
The contrary seems to me to be true. The
art of man has not yet devised any imple-
ment of destruction which accident may
not turn against friend with an effect equal
to that which it was intended to produce
upon an enemy. Accidents will sometimes
happen, and 1t is seif-evident that the force
of the explosives carried by any war ship
will always be sufficient to destroy her if
they are accidentally set on fire. If it was
an accident it's cause may be ascertained
and repetition can be guarded against. If
a battle ship can be easily destroyed by the
enemy, as the advocates of the torpedo peo-
pie believe, then perhaps it might be
claimed, with some show of reason, that
such ships should not longer be built But
to condemn battle ships because an acci-
dent may completely destroy one would be
to act without reason"
1t can be said that Senior Du Bosc's state
ment exactly agrees with the inquiries that
have been under way for many months by
agents of our government, for, so far, it is
slightest evidence of the existence of any
plan OF defense in the harbor by means of
mines or torpedoes, much less to locate
them, as has been reported in some quar-
ters. Officials of the Navy Department say
the effect of this statement if it is to be
accepted as conclusive on that point, is al
most certain to negative the supposition
that the disaster resulted from other than
accidental causes, as the almost unanimous
testimony of experts here, based on the
history of torpedo work, is to the effect
that no single torpedo of any known type
could have caused the terrific wreck of the
Maine.