Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-01-09

Jlf the tWtl.e Spanish vessels aS1de from
the torpedo boats. in Manila bay. one was
not injured. but was captured The others
We're all sunk. but the sinking only re-
suited the destruction of eight ships
three having been raised and restored 10
service
Spaniards Engaged.
Mr.. King explained how the amount of
the bounty upon the eight destroyed vessels
was calculated. He referred to some SCAT
tered evidence that the regular compl ament
Of these Spanish ships were exceeded. and
then 10 the report of Admiral Montojo to
show that when he went to Subg bay, just
prior To the battle. he had aboard five ships
tsI5 men. whose complement was by the
official records 1872 The explanation was
that it for the purpose Of providing
prize crews for the American vessels when
captured As a result of his calculations
he figured that there were 1.9l4 men aboard
the vessels destroyed. The bounty due Adj
uliral Dewey and his men. therefore, would
be S3S2,Son or S191. 400. according to whether
The force of the enemy was superior or in
ferior to Dewey's.
There might be a contention in determin-
ing the strength of the enemy that the
shore batteries and submarine mines should
be- excluded. hut Mr.. King argued that the
whole of the enemy's strength should be
considered in determining this question. In
number of YES se.s alone the Spanards were
superior.
shore batteries.
on each side he contended that the guns
ashore We're superior in efficiency to those
ahoat because their platforms were fixed.
Rear Admiral O'Neil of the bureau of ord
nance estimated this superiority at IN per
cent. tther witnesses increased the dis
parity admiral Dewey placed the su-
priority at To- l, Captain Mahan at to
!. and French authority estimated that
gun ashore was worth a vessel afloat
He quoted Admiral Dewey's opinion that
the force of the enemy in the enga cement
WIS superior.
Elements to Re Considered.
He then addressed himself to the ques-
ton as to whether all the elements con-
stituting the opposing force should be taken
into consideration, arguing, of course, the
affirmative Of the position. There were four
eiements-ihe torpedo boats. the warships
the shore batteries and the submarine
mines Each of these elements. he insisted
was a menace to the success of Dewey's
feet The case of the claimants TO the
double bounty. Mr.. King said. rested upon
the fact the unarmOred ships had passed
shore batteries, over submarine mines to
attack fleet of a greater number of yes
selS, ittIs Inferior i'll gun power protected
b! forts. equal to our ships in gun power
ana had succeeded in utterly demolishing
them.
He cited some precedents in support Of
MS contention, among them the case aris-
ing out Of the running of the forts below
New Orleans by FarraSut in which the
court had decided that all the elements
should BE- taken into account. the forts and
7hStructionS, as We'll as the naval force
captured.
voted himself to an exposition of the stat
Ute 10 show that the bounty was to be paid
as reward for gallantry.
The Governments Contentions.
Mr. Louis A Pradt- assistant attorney
general, presented the governments con-
tentioHs. His argument was that ii the
literal reading OF the statute upon which
this Claim j. made il to govern. il would
sem that comparison of the relative
strength Of the forces engaged must be
rlade between the strictly naval forces on
each side. After quoting the statute. he
said;
1t viii be seeE that the lesser bounty is
u be given in case the rIemy's vessel Tor
undoubtedly, vessels was of inferior force
ard the greater bounty if Of equal or SUI
P-rior farCe-
Il must admit that the reason which lies
al Jhe foundation of the statute is against
This view. Ii would certainly seem that
the amount of the bounty to be awarded
was intended 10 be governed by the relative
strength of the opposing forces, but, of
course. 1 need not elaborate TINS view Of
the matter. But, as | have said. if We are
10 be governed by a strict reading of the
statute. may not the conclusion be reached
that there il therein simply failure To
provide ion the cunting, rcy Of the cooper
alton OF land batteries with the naval
forces Destroyer If so. If course. the
CONT Is pcwerIess to supply the omission
And. following the contention OF the claim
agts. may il not be extended to the con-
CluSi"n that if land forces are to be read
INTO The statute for any purpose, the claim
cf bounty might extend to any such land
batteries destroyed during he engagement
hE The victorious fleet, yet that would come
very near reducing the claim e. an alb
sl1r,lity.
Batteries at Entrance to the Bay
If the court shall conclude that the bat
te-ies of the enemy are to be taken into
consideration in ascertainius the force of
the enemy opposed to our fleet the Ques-
tt"n next arises whether in this conSdera-
ri"n should be included the forts at the
entrance to the bay The letter OF Admiral
Dewey. found pages ~ and ~ of the
Record. offers some strong reasons why
tins should be done. 1t certainly does not
seem unreasonable to SAY with him that
III" Gups Of these Qualifications opened the
BATTLE. but the actual engagement in which
he vessels Of the enemy for which this
bounty Is claimed Were DE- Strnyed was
Ought entirely out Of range of these same
s"r'itcati5ns. and although it was clearly
necessary. as stated by III. admiral am,
th- sinking of the fleet and the. stlencing of
The batteries around the city. TO obtain
possession OF these batteries which corn
handed esress from the bay. still may that
f"t fairly be considered a separate engage
m-nt?
BY way of Illustration. We will s,Ippnss
a. At eur fleet had been sent against a flee,
OF thr enemy COnfeSscdly its SUPERIOR hun
that II had found this fleet divided int.
Nv" S'tdadrons. each of which was decided.
y lis inferior and that il had engaged an6
IL ~lrnytd each squadron INDEPENDENTLY tba
t"p being 50 separated that neither was
a"le I" render any assistance to the other
c,'utd II be claimed. in such case that
the enemy forces Were superior to our
own In other words. could this be CON
s'Fued as one engagement
Actual Strength of the Enemy.
tn" question raised in the foregoing
Proposition is perhaps immAteriaI, as IT Ger
tainiy seems to appear from the record thai
lravinS out the batteries at the entranc,
I" The bay. the enemy's force was superior
IN number of guns Of substantially tn,
same caliber and effective for any purpos.
in the Susag cement.
Our feet, Ia I've sure. was in every re-