The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-01-12
Charleston Selected in Place Of Port
Royal.
TWO SITES ONLY CONSIDERED.
Extensive Reasons Given Why the
Station Should be Moved-System
of Improvements for Southern
Harbors Greatly Changed
Existing Conditions-The
Requisites Discussed.
(By Associated Press.)

WASHINGTON, Jan. u.-Secretary
Long to-day made public the report of
the Board of Naval officers. submitted
yesterday. concerning the establishment
of a naval station on the South Atlantic
coast, and more particularly with refer
ence to the relative merits of Port Royal
or Charleston, S. c., as the site for THU
station.
The board recommends in favor OF
Charleston, reinforcing it's views with an
elaborate statement of the advantages of
that place over Port Royal. y dissenting
view is presented by Rear-Admiral George
Sumner, who favors retention of the
naval station at Port Royal.
THE REQUISITES.
The board discusses the general re-
uuisites of n naval station site on ths
South Atlantic coast, including accessi-
bility from the sea, immunity from at.
tack: railroad and steamship facilities
labor supply and many other special re-
quirements of the navy.
After an exhaustive review of the adj
vantages offered by different localities,
the board declares that it IS expedienS
to transfer the naval station now al
Port Royal, S. c., to q point near .tha
city of Charleston, S. c., and finds tho
only available site TO be that on the west
bank of Cooper River. about six miles
above the Charleston Custom-House,
comprising part of Chfcora Park. and
also. if deemed advisable, part of ths
marsh land belonging to the State OF
South Carolina, which lies south OF Law
tons Land.
FACILITIES LACKING.
The only other site examined by thu
board in the vicinity of Charleston
which afforded the necessary water front,
was on the south bank of the Wandd
River, but as this site has neither rail'
road connection nor adequate waite,
facilities. it was not deemed deSIrapt
for the purposes intended
The board states: We are fully aWart
of that fact. that in selecting Charleston
as n site for n naval station in preference
to Port Royal, we are departing from the
opinion of two boards of naval officers
which have previously considered tha
question of the establishment of naval
station on the South Atlantic coast. ona
of which was presided over by Admiral
Porter.
No INCONSISTENCY
This fact has been brought to the at
tention of the board by the Port Royal
and Beaufort citizens COMMITTEES as an
argument for the retention of the station
at Port Royal There is. however, no in
consistency in this decision.
When the previous board selected Port
Royal as the best site for a naval station
that coast. the great system for the
Improvement of Southern harbors had not
been carried forward! TO any extent ana
Port Royal possessed the only harhor or
the coast which large ships could enter
under any circumstances Moreover. the
ships of that date were smaller and
lighter, and carried much less fixed
weight in the shape of armor, turrets,
etc
In concluding the report the board
states that its recommendation of the
Charleston site is based upon It's opinion
that it is the better site of the two. The
majority report Is signed by Rear-Admi-
raj Frederick Rodgers. president OF the
board; Captain George y Converse, civil
engineer: C. E. Assertson, naval construc-
tor; j. FL Linnard, Commander E. y.
Iseutz and Lieutenant-Commander S. y.
Stanton.