Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-04-01
Mr.. HALE. 1t will not materially,

edCH year, ada to the Navy for the
purpose of keeping it in full use. allow.
ing for wear and tear and new ships
to take the place of old ones, etc, viii
there not be Il considerable addition
thereby every year to the annua
appropriation?
Mr.. HALE. That is a matter about
which one can not tell exactly. When
we get through with the appropriation
of 100000 to Garry out the building
program. that reduces the subsequent
appropriation bills so much so that the
current appropriation will be less. and
then we will have room for a moderate
increase that shall keep the Navy up to
the position it will be in when the pres
ent building program is carried out.
! But | do not claim anyone can make
| figures exactly. l should think. under
! those conditions, if we do not go on
with the larger program hereafter and
| run it up to forty eight ships. We can
get along with about $10O.O00,00O Il
| year.
Mr.. President. l did not intend 10
| consume SO much time. Senators will
boar me ont that on appropriation bills
which have been placed in my charge 1
/
speeches. | have only
Mr.. PROCTOR We are getting Il
great deal of very valuable and inter-
esting information, and | should like to
ask the Senator from Maine Il question
on the matter of expense. He has
spokcn of the program of the Naval
Board as retiring some ships. placing
them on the retired list, so to speak
the Oregon, Indiana, and MasSachu
sets. l should like to ask the Senator
what he thinks or what. in the opinion
of the Naval Board. would be about the
average life of a ship: that is to say.
i'm about how many years would the
question come up whether it WAS worth
while to repair the ship put in ali the
modern improvements, or relegatc her
to the scrap heap or to defense pur-
poses?
Mr.. HALE. I do not know. One of
the communications had from the De-
singled out the Oregon. Massachusetts.
and Indiana as not being in the first
line of offensive warfare and as being
relegated to coast defense. They are
none of them yet 10 years old. They
were launched, think in 1895 or 1896.
That is the only answer can give.
Mr.. PERKINS. Mr.. President, I will
state
Mr.. PROCTOR. The point l wish to
bring out is whether, with this large
number of battle shps-forty- eight
surprising their life for offensive pur
poses is an average of ten years,
whether the expense of renewal would
not be very great?
| Mr.. HALE. If they would last only
ten years we should have to build four
! battle ships every year to keep it good
| Mr.. PENROSE. Mr.. President
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does
the Senator from Maine yield to the
Senator from Pennsylvania?
Mr. HALE. Certainly.
Mr.. PENROSE. l think 1 can ans
wcr the question of the Senator from
Vermont in IL certain way ON page
$40 of the House hearings Admiral
! Dewey says:
The battleShips you know. cost too
much money to be cruising about in
unchartcd waters. These ships ought
to last one hundred years.
1t is the largest sized battleship
which Admiral Dewey ADVOCATES as the
principal ship for use in our Navy.
Mr.. HALE. The German authorities
say twenty years.
Mr.. PERKINS, Mr.. President I was
about to say in answer to the Senator
from Vermont that Il rule prevails in
the merchant marine by which they
write off 5 per cent. of the valuation
| every year. If the vessel is kept in or
binary repair that makes the life of an
iron or steel vessel about twenty years.
think that our battleships are good
for thirty years: because they are kept
i'm excellent condition. cOrrosion is not
permitted to take place. and they have
an ample crew. both in the engineering
and deck department, to keep them in
good order. | think. therefore. we can
safely say that the life of Il battlcship
is thirty years.
But constantly we are making i'm
provcments AS has been stated by the
Senator from Maine. our ships today
are far more effective than many of
thosc which belong to the great navies
of the world because we have prOfitctI
by their mistakes. We have improved
upon their improvements. and today our
officers can nIllui' our SiliIS more OK
pcditiously. our guns and our pHrapctS
ana our turrcts are ALL twithStandinS
the criticism, better equipped today,
and they have given evidence of it
wherever they have been in amy con-
test, although the great contest has yet
to come. as the Senator from Maine
says. and it is experimental in a great
measure.
think that instead of censuring or
adversely criticisinC our officers of the
Navy and the boards they are entitled
to great credit for what they have ic-
complshed. We as citizens of this
great Republic. those of us who have
had experience in the maritime service
of the country, look at our vessels
afloat with admiration, and we will
compare them most favorably to Our
advantage against the ships of any 9th
cr nationality.
Mr.. HALE. Mr.. President, I dctract
nothing from the merit of Il naval Off
, Ger. When you come to war he viii
take care of tn" glory and honor of the
American Navy as no other sailor and