New-York tribune., 1905-07-23

n this way there was liberation of steam
which would eventually lead TO the burning out
of the boiler but not TO its destruction by explo-
sion Altogether the experts at total loss
20 account for the disaster. They much doubt
II the court of inquiry. which will apply itself
especially 70 ascertaining the causes and placing
she responsibility. Will be able 20 contribute
materially TO the fund Of information the
subject.
Naval engineers say that no worse accident
caa befail a ship Of war than that of boiler
explosion within the confines of the vessel. a
icondition which undoubtedly lessened the extent
of the fatalities the circumstance that the
ship was still in port and was not on the open
The difficulties Of relief and rescue at
such time are rendered doubly difficult by the
dense steam. which interferes with vision and
'7he deafening roar which prevents the giving
Of orders. At such time. the engineers say. there
IS nothing 10 90 but wait until the steam disap-
pears and the noise subsidies. and by that time
great damage has been wrought
The engineering experts see no reason why the
Bennington's boilers should have been in a dan
gerous condition. They are not as old as the
boilers OF the Yorktown and are no older than
the boilers Of the Concord, which are sister ships
of the Bennington and equipped with identical
machinery and boilers. There were the usual
precautions taken last May, when the boilers OF
the Bennington were repaired. AT that time
there the water pressure test, which is al
ways made following such repairs and before the
vessel is sent to sea This test consists of put
ting on unusual pressure. TO ascertain whether
or not the boilers leak or have any other de-
fleets
So far rs can be ascertained in Washington
no blame attaches to the engineer officer who is
n competent man, although he is Junior line
oficer who has received no more than the or
dinary training in naval engineering given 10
1nidshipman and later when they have gradu-
ated from the Naval Academy. The incident
may be used emphasize the argument put
forth in favor Of re-establishing the naval engi-
neer oeTTs, but II is probable that the advocates
of an analgamatcd line and OF what Mr. Roosa-
velt used to call "the fighting engineers will
see no special menace in the incident 10 their
cause. For that matter the older naval engi-
Dee-s. the specialists IN that line of service,
admit that the same thing would probably have
occurred no matter il all the commissioned per-
sonnel of the Bennington had been trained engi-
recrz
IT IS possible. however that the accident will
lead 10 moro liberal details 10 special engineer
duty. 1t has been felt all along that greater at
tenton should be paid to the engines and boil
ers Of ships of war, although hitherto the rea-
sons for this were confined 10 the evidences of
deterioration in the machinery distinguished
from the boilers. This defect is likely sooner or
later 10 be felt in the increased cost of re-
pairs, bu5 it has not been felt. and is not now
claimed. that the lack OF naval engineer corps
has placed the ships Of in peril. There
could be. Of course. no assurance Of protection
against such disaster as that on the Benning-
ion. no matter how large an engineer corps
there might be what able officers composed
H. The disaster to the Bennington is destined
10 remain mystery. with only the awful trag-
ody Of it in undisputed evidence