The Forest Republican. [volume] (Tionesta, Pa.) 1869-1952, 1908-03-11
ARMOR BELT TOOLOW
Testimony Of Three Witnesses
Before Senate Committee.

Rear Admiral Remey Said Com.
mander Should Have Full Stores
Aboard When Going Into Battle.
Lieut.. White Said Ships Had Great.
err Drafts Than Designs Called For.
Washington, March 10.-Testimony
was adduced before the senate COM
mittee on naval affairs, which is in
vestigating the criticisms of battle
ship construction, showing that the
location of the armor belt of Ameri-
can battleships was too low. On the
other hand a letter from Secretary
Metcalf was read declaring it to be
the opinion of the board of construc-
tion and Rear Admirals Evans and
Brownson that the armor belt lines of
the battleships Delaware and North
Dakota were right. The secretary in
his communication took occasion to
declare that American battleships
were superior to those of any other
navy.
The witnesses were Lieutenant
Richard d. White, assistant inspector
of target practice, and Rear Admirals
George C. Remey and C. F. Goodrich.
Lieutenant White was the first to take
the stand. In reference to the loca-
tion of the armor ben he said that If
1t were possible for ship to get into
action at the designed load draft the
present location would be about right,
but it was his observation that the
ships had greater drafts than those
designed, He thought the drafts
would be still greater under war con-
ditions.
Concerning the construction of tur-
rets, he preferred the two-stage hoist
and declared that the shutters now in
use in the direct hoist are "most in
efficient"
Would Not Sacrifice Safety.
Rear Admiral George G. Remey, re-
tired, told the committee he would To-
cate the armor belt with reference to
the proper load waterline when the
ship is equipped to go into battle. He
thought it the duty of a commander
of battleship to have full stores on
board, If possible, in going into bat
tie. Though unfamiliar with the
hoists now used he said he had no
hesitancy in endorsing the inter-
rupted hoist. He opposed sacrificing
safety for rapidity of fire.
Rear Admiral c. F. Goodrich, COM
mandant of the New York navy yard,
asserted that he believed the Ameri-
can ships to he good and that they
could be made better. He was asked by
Mr.. Hale if he would subscribe to Mr..
'Reuterdahl's statement that If our
ships went into action they would be
no better Off than the Russian ships
when they met the Japanese.
"Oh, no sir" he replied, his posi-
tive manner indicating that he
thought that there could be no COM
parison.
Have you made reports to the de-
partment criticising any matter of
construction? asked Mr.. Tillman.
81 have" replied the admiral, and
answering other questions said he had
criticized the location of the armor
| belt.
WaterIine Should Divide Armor Belt
The witness said he thought the ar.
NOR belt too low. He thought the
waterline should approximately divide
the armor belt with half above and
half below the waterline. 1t was sug-
gested by Chairman Hale that a
chance would have to be taken as to
the condition of sea at the time the
ship went into action.
"The whole naval life Mr.. Senator,
is a chance the witness remarked.
Mr.. Tillman returned to the charge
that officers had been discouraged
from making suggestions or criti-
cisms and demanded Admiral Good
rich's experience, who said:
"I have made several suggestions
which have not borne fruit"
Admiral Goodrich said that in 1902
he had recommended the abolition OF
the military masts with their fighting
tops. He said these masts were heavy
and he knew OF no instance where
they were of value. The ships now
being designed, the admiral said, do
not have these fighting tops.
"Then the suggestion did not fall
on barren ground?" said Mr.. Tillman.
81 cannot hatter myself that my let
ter had anything to do with the de-
cision to do away with this feature"
said the admiral.