The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-05-24
THE PORT ROYAL STATION.
Reasons Against Transferring 1T to
Charleston.


Reasons Against Transferring 1T to
Charleston.
Beaufort, S. c., May 2S.-Editor Morn
ing News: While so much is being said
in favor of the removal of the naval sta
ton from Port Royal, S. c.. to Charles
ton, l ask your indulgence for a few
words, showing the absurdity of such
thing.
In the first place. to float vessels of war,
to a dry dock or naval station it takes
a certain depth of water and in this par
ticuTar Charleston is a dead issue; but we
are informed by the News and Courier,
that Charleston will soon have twenty-siX
feet on the bar at low water Allowing
that they will have it. how many years
will II take, if ever? and how many dol
lars will it cost to get it? Much more we
think, than to build a half dozen dry
docks. 1t is true, Charleston has beau
ttful harbor, but II is all in width, but
the width of sheet of water has nothing
to do with the depth, while Port Royal
has width as well as depth.
AS every one knows, a short time ago,
the cruiser Raleigh, drawing but twenty
two feet of water, was ordered to Charles
ton to take part in some of their numar-
Gus celebrations, which are becoming
chronic, was put ashore while trying to
cross the bar. but since it has been claim
ed, that she was not to the bar, but new
ertheless the poor pilot who was aboard
of her, was suspended Why was he sus-
pended if she was not on the bar? The
pilots are not responsible for vessels ex-
cept from the bar, in and from the docks,
over the bar on their way out.
| 1t does very well for the editor of the
| News and Courier, to pen such stuff
| which is only believed by people that
don't know any better, but those that
are on the ground know more about dry
docks and navy yards than he does for
we doubt very much if he has ever seen
a modern dry dock, and inform him that
it is altogether different from Pregnalrs
Marine Railway in his city.
| If Charleston has so much water on the
! bar why was 1t that when the British
ship Astoria was picked up wa terlogged by
some Charleston fishermen she was not
lowed into that port? Search the records
of the United States Court at Charles on
| in the case that was brought against the
| vessel for salvage, and ii will be seen that
she drew too much water and that Port
! Royal harbor was the place for her. She
came In drawing twenty-eight feet for she
struck drawing thirty feet and was pump
ed little, and came in without the least
| trouble, and il was not high water either
In the News and Courier of May 10 a
| piece appears from the Congressional Rec
ord, which, if copied correctly, is one mass
of mistakes, for in that it is claimed the
Indiana could not get into the dry dock
at Port Royal but that she was sent TO
| Halifax. N. 8. This is not So for excur-
| sionS were run from Charleston. Savannah
and other points TO see the Indiana in the
Port Royal dry dock, and quite number
of photographs of her, going in, and in the
dock are in existence, as well as living
witnesses, If this poor near-sighted
genius will only look over the files of his
paper he will see anaccount of the docking
sent in by one of his reporters Now, the
battleshp Iowa has never been into this
port and was sent to Halifax, because, at
the time, our government never owned
dock large enough, it was claimed, to ac-
commodate her. even the Brooklyn dry
dock
The News and Courier also published
letter from Admiral Endicott chief of the
bureau of yards and docks, in which he re-
ports all sorts of stuff about the dock be-
ing a failure, in so far that ii is made of
wood and that it is not wide enough and
| that there is not enough water on the sill
! but he fails to mention the several draw
| backs at the Brooklyn navy yard. Is that
the fault of Port Royal harbor or of the
authorities who had the building of the
| dock in charge? If this "big chief" had
| been attending to his duties. for which he
| is well paid, Ii would never have been thus
| for on the day before the docking of the
Indiana there was thirty feet of water be-
tween the wing dams and the caisscn,
while over the sill there was but twenty
| four feet showing that the bottom of the
| dock was not built on level with the bot
| tom of the river, and also showing that the
| plans were not correctly made, and If they
were, were not carried out. He also men
lions storms that visit our coast as being
a great drawback to Port Royal. Why
| Port Royal mere than any of our coast?
! No one can stay the storms, for they are
the work of God and have visited Charles
ton as frequently as this section, and had
a dock been in Charleston in 1898, the
writer is sure ii would have suffered as
much if not more. than it did here, for
| he happened 20 be in the city on that night
| and went over the water front from the
| foot of Columbus street to Colonial Lake,
| and il was one mass of wreckage, vessels
being in the streets and heavy timber be-
| ing upon the high Battery and in the
| wards of the fine residences there Be
cause we had storm in 1898 that did great
/ damage is that any reason that we will
| have another? We all remember, Charles
ton had terrible earthquake in 1886, that
| did much more damage than our storm,
but she has not had another, and we h pc
she won't for if she does it will ruin her,
for she has not recovered from that one
vet and some of her loyal citizens have
not quit running at this late day.
No. it is not the fault of the depth of
water on our par OF III our ndrpOt, Jul II
Is the lack of free suppers and women
| society; in other words, not enough de-
| bauchery for our fine officers, who are ed
| ucated at the public expense given good
billet in the navy, and expect all these
| things added onto them. If this is what
they are looking for, we cannot furnish it,
and would rather lose dozen dry docks
| and navy yards than communicate the
moral purity of our surroundings, and
Charleston is welcome to 1t If she is will
ing to furnish such entertainment
All we ask Is fairness from the navy de-