The Washington herald., 1908-02-28

OF henry Reuterdahi, the marine artist
and author, has given a complete reply 10
The President, through the Navy Depart
ment.
This officer is Lieut.. Commander Frank
X Hin, who. with Commander William
s. Sims. the expert inspector OF target
practice, was by recent direction of the
President called upon in writing TO an
swer the assertion that they had inspired
the publication OF articles critieising the
navy.
Commander Hin, in his reply, meets the
issue squarely. While denying the rumor
that he was directly responsible for the
articles in question. he asserts with much
candOr that. in his opinion. there are
serious defects in the construction of our
battle ships: that he has called attention
to these matters in lectures which he has
delivered in the line Of duty as a lecturer
before the Naval War College and that
he has called his Views and opinions to
the attention OF the Navy Department
through the medium Of official reports.
He UphOIds ReuferdahI.
He says that the five principal points
brought out in the Reuterdahl article
were identical with those which he has
named IN mis- lectures before the War
College, and which he has called 10 the
attention Of the Navy Department and
officers of the navy On several occasions.
II is made 20 appear from Mr.. HIPS re-
port that these officers views are so we'll
known that no surprise need be felt that
naval writer like Reuterdahl learned of
them and wrote an article on the subject.
Even Chief Constructor Capps. who Is
most uncompromising in his denUnciation
of those who have criticised the navy
from structural standpoint. admits
freely that il is not only the privilege,
but the duty. OF every naval officer to
express his honest convictions through
private official channels, In case ne finds
anything in the service 20 critieise. The
opinion is. therefore that Lieut. Com
lnander Hill and Commander Sims can
not be blamed by the President or the
Navy Department II they have confined
their criticisms to the department and
have not uttered them in public.
Sims May Do Likewise.
Mr. Hill. at least. denies that he has
done more than 10 call attention 20 what
he regards as serious structural defects
in naval shipbuilding through the medium
of his lectures before the War College
and official reports TO his superior officers.
1t is expected that Commander Slmms
will take the same stand.
Lieut. Commander Hill and Lieut.. Com
mander Vogelgesang. both OF whom have
been named in a letter TO Senator Hale as
officers who are able 10 give him some In
formation as TO the condition of our na-
val ships. are 10 be called by the Senate
committee TO give testimony. As the
course Of these officers have been held 20
be perfectly proper from a service stand
point, they are in no sense on the de-
fensive.
Commander HnIs report takes the
ground that there are certain defects in
the armor belt Of our battle ships. and he
also enters into discussion Of the turret
question.
Rear Admiral y. Z. Mason. chief of the
Bureau Of Ordnance, was before the SEN
ate Committee on Naval Affairs yester-
day morning for about thirty minutes
during which time he was questioned re-
gaT1ing the safety Of the ammunition
hoists and turret construction on war
ships
Mason Defends Policy.
He defended the policy of the depart
ment, and declared that every possible
precaution had been taken 10 prevent
'harebacks' and 20 make the ammuni-
tion hoists safe. Replying TO a question
from Senator Tillman. as to the criti-
oism of Henry Reuterdahl. that no emer-
gency hOists. as in foreign navies. were
provided, and the work in the turret
would be at a standstin If. for any rea-
son, the hoist was to become disabled
Admiral Mason admitted that there We're
no emergency appliances. and he cOnsid-
cred this unfortunate, but said that there
was not room IN the turrets for them
The turret construction and devices for
he said were as good as those Of any
other nation. The British nary had 1873
direct hoists and So interrupted hoists.
The japanese followed the English. The
French designs We're exactly like those in
the United States navy.
Emergency Cables Useless.
Pressed by Mr.. Tillman on the subject
of emergency devices for hosting am
provided for use in case the hoisting cable
broke. but that so much time would be
required to make the adjustment that
they would be useless in a great emer-
gency. requiring speed. He admitted that
sometimes electric power failed. and
the work of hoisting ammunition was
thereby interrupted.
AR. Hale-Do you consider the eme1-
gency hoists necessary
Admiral Mason-No. I do not
In regard 20 the adoption by the Con-
struction Bureau Of the twO-stage hoists.
which have been installed in the newer
battle ships-the Delaware, North Dakota.
South Carolina, and Mlehigan-the ad-
miral expressed doubt as to whether they
were safer than the direct hOists The
second stage amounted to an ammuni-
tion stOrcrOOm. and if an explosion should
occur there the damage would be greater
than If the ammunition were in the open.
Precautions for Safety.
Asked by Mr.. Hale If he thought the
department had done all it could 10
secure safety OF ammunition hoists. Ad-
miral Mason said:
Il do. We have put in the shutters
and have installed the two-stage lifts in
the newer construction. We have new
designs which we intend to adopt as soon
as can get the money from Congress,
and The use OF the ships long enough to
make the alteration in the turrets'
NJ. Tillman--How much will these
changes cost, and how long will il take?
Admiral MasOn-About $500 for each
turres. or $4,000 for each ship 1t would
require a month to make the change.
Senator Perkins inquired why the de-
partment preferred the Finch gun to the
l3-inch gun. Admiral Mason explained
that to secure lS-inch gun that would
carry the same force as a Pinch gun
would add eleven tons to the weight to be
carried. and secure no better results. The
VafV 4svsg -.
tied policy OF discarding the I3-inch g.In
for the Pinch