The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1900-09-27
QUESTION FOR NAVAL. OEFlCE,,s
Tho Proposed Abandonment of Port
Royal Naval Station---Intcrestin
facts About tho Dry Dock

Royal Naval Station-.-Intcrest,,,
facts About tho Dry Dock.
Scientific American.
The question OF tho bcst Sit, fo, .
naval station on tho Atlantic c0nst, bn' "
| tween Nnrf0lk and Pensacola ia nov
being made tho subject OF inyestjva.
tion by special commission, whose re-.
port to the Secretary Of tho Navy will
probably be made public within the
next few weeks. There is alroady in
existence at Port Royal naval station
which WAS selected and approved by
various commissions which, after an
examination OF the locality, pronounce
cd cmphatically in favor Of this site as
being tho best adapted to meet tho re-
quirements Of the case. One Of those
commissions WAS presided over by Ad.
miral Porter, who was strongly In
favor Of tho site, and later comm g.
sion authorized by Congress in 1888,
Cam, recommended the establishment
at Port Royal Of IL dry dock, IL depot of
naval supplies, and coaling station.
In tho spring of the present year, tho
Naval Appropriation Bill, as passed
by the House Of representatives, con.
tained an appropriation OF 800, 900 to-
ward the rebuilding OF the dry dock at
This station in concrete or stone. The
bill went 10 tho Senate and WAS re-
(crrcd TO the Committee on Naval
Affairs. While under consideration
by this committee, tho Secretary of
the Navy submitted letter from Ad-
miral Ehicott, Chief OF tho Bureau OF
Yards and Docks, in which he strongly
deprecated the carrying out Of any
further work OF Improvement or CXtcn
f.,,.
criticised tho site Of the dock AZ being
unSuitcd, for val inus specified reasons,
to the purposes Of Il naval station, the
specified grounds OF objection strange
10 say, being tho very grounds which
had been quoted IN all previous inyesti.
cations As being favorable for q station.
In the course OF his letter he said
During tho year the Mayor OF the
city OF Charleston suggested the pro-
priety Of transferring The naval station
TO that city from Port Royal, stating
among other things the facilities for
transportation to the interior, the
proximity or large commercial city,
the convenience Of obtaining AT all
times skilled labor Of all ciasscs, an
abundance Of fresh water, etc, .dvant.
ages which are lacking nL Port loyal"
While the transfer would undoubtedly
money which has been expended at
Port Royal, Admiral Endicott consid.
crs the present Is the proper time to
consider the suggestion Of the Mayor
The Admir- al was go much Impressed
with the wisdom OF tho Mayors Sug.
gc9tion, that he gave IL hearty en-
durscmeut and able advocacy through
our his whole letter. He recommends
cd that tho matter be brought to tho
attention OF the Senate Committee on
Naval Affairs, and that q board OF Of
iicers be appointed to "eXamine into
the conditions existing at Port ROYAL,
and the various questions Involved in
the proposition TO remove this station
80 Charleston liarbOr.'
Acting upon this letter, tho Navy
Committee amended the bill by au-
thorizing the Secretary Of the Naval
to inquire intO,Lhe advisahility of NOV
ing tue naval station from Port Royal to
Charleston, and if he deemed it advis.
able to do so, empowering him to use
Sl00, 600 OF the money appropriated in
tho bill for tho Port Royal naval
station for the purchase OF land for a
site at or near the city Of Charleston,
and to proceed with the building OF a
dry dock there.
Pending the publication OF the re-
port OF this commission, it Is not for us
TO say ahything one way or the other
with regard TO tho proposed transfer
which, OF course, has very naturally
aroused bitter opposition on the part
OF the citizens In the immediate neigh
borhood of the present station. The
proposition to remove" the yard in
wolves the abandonment OF tho dry
dock, machine shops and other build
ings at Port Royal, which would re-
present Il dead loss OF between one and
two million dollars. Moreover, the
modern forts at the entrance to the
station, which were erected during the
Spanish war, will 10 large extent,
lose their military value when there is
10 longer any station for them to dc.
fcId. The Port ltoya! site VAS chusen,
pl csumably, after careful! and exhaust
i've examination, by various expert
commissions, in the course Of which
| the advantages OF Charleston must
surely have received due consideration.
| Az the same time it is possible that
the relative stratcgical advantages Of
Port Royal and Charleston are not tn T..
same under the changed condition OF
modern naval warfare as they were in
| the days Of Admiral Porter, Admiral
| Jew EFT and Commodore MCCunn
Among other reasons which are
given for the removal of the station it
is urged that the absence Of social at.
, fractions and cOnvcnicnccs in such an
out of-thc.way place as Port RoyaI
will! render it unpopular with naval
officers, both OF the line ard stan, con
vGnicnces which Charleston would
rrauily hiIOrd. II seems to us that
Is; < amcnts OF this kind are not warrant
cd either by the traditions Of the navy
or The invarablc sclf-clfaccmcnt which
charactcriHcs our naval officers, when
IL il u question between personal com.
| fort and the highest interests OF the
country they scrvc. The question for
the best site for II dry dock and naval
| irpair yard Is purely - technical ono
and will he decided entirely by uucs
lions Of accessibility by sea anu by
land capabilities for dc(cnsr, suitahili
ty h location with regard 10 tho cXi
EcnrIrs oi " naval campaign, and posi-
hilitirs OF obtaining at all times The
necessary skilled labor.
1t Is AZ ANY rate certain that SO com
| pltratrd and rminrntly technical q
| I,,,, t,,,, Nt l., H. i. !.