The Washington herald., 1908-03-01

only 10 crsticise the Navy Department for
=, failure to give proper encouragement 10
outside inventors. He thought the navy
was too SLOW Asked for a remedy, he
said he would set apart an experimental
snip TO test material
That's new idea" said Mr.. Hale: Il
had never thought Of that.
! M. Tillman created some amusement by
suggesting that Capt. Fiske had not seen
actual fighting.
You forget the battle OF Manila. Sena-
tor. said Capt. Ftslle Il was there"
| oh. that was not a battle; il was a
murder on our part" exclaimed Mr.. Till
man.
We incurred very little risk in that
engagement iEterposed Mr.. Hale
We think that now. as We look back
/ at the battle" said Capt Fiske I'VE
didn't think so before the engagement %
/ Capt. Fiske's testimony was not i'm
/ portant. but he will be recalled later.
when the committee fakes up the subject
/ Of the personnel.
! Rear Admiral Capps. Chief Constructor
/ OF the Navy. was present and strongly
/ dissented from the views Of Commander
/ HILL lie prOpounded several questions.
At times their colloquy showed much
/ feeling Commander Hin came 10 the
/ committee room fortified with drawings.
I tables. and data to uphold his views He
also brought extracts from correspond
ence Of several naval officers upholding
/ his views In reports made 20 the Secre-
taTy OF the Navy. but strenuous objec-
/ tion from Senator Perkins. Of California.
prevented their introduction in evidence
Not TO CrItIeIse.
Commander Hill. at the outset o. his
hearing. explained that he was not pres
ent to criticise any officer or the ships
OF the navy. They are good ships. but
1 think they can be improved I am not
finding fault merely stand for a point
Of view. The subject is not a new one.
These criticisms have been heard for
years.
| Il merely want TO discuss the location
Of the armor belt at the water line 1
am not prepared 10 discuss any other
| feature OF navy construction"
Commander Hill. continuing his state
ment. declared that the view he held
about the armor belt being too low was
shared by officers ahoat as well as on
land, and the records would show that
boards assembled aboard ships had in
vestigated the subject and recommended
that weights be removed to raise the
armor belt line. He said he thought no
criticism could properly be made as TO
the thickness OF armer belt Il criticise
the location. 1t is too low in the water.
and leaves the ship above the water line
unprotected"
Commander Hill explained that one of
the faults was that proper allowance
was not made for coal 10 be carried. on
trial trips the coal supply was always
small, and this was done purposel- TO
! tighten the vessel and bring up the ar
NOR belt above the water line. This was
in the interest OF speed. and that was one
reason why no United States war ship
had ever made the same speed afterward
that she did on her trial
80 we have been paying for speed we
have not been getting" inquired Mr..
Tillman
We have never had a ship that made
the speed in service that il showed on
trial. replied Mr.. HiIl
I'm other words. we have been cheated"
snapped Mr.. Tillman. and he read from
the report of Admiral Togo TO prove it.
The Russian ships carried enough coal
not only for the twenty-four hours steam
ing, but some OF them had enough left
after the battle 10 steam at fuI speed
to Manila" said Commander Hill
Would Have Beer Caught.
"If they had carried but n small sup
ply Of coal. they would not have been
able 10 get away If l were in battle
I world want 20 have enough coal to run
down I'D smash every one OF the enemy"
cor = conditions were reversed. get
away yo rself' suggested Mr.. Hale
Yes" Re replied, 1T is important from
either vie ypoint."
The bur len of the testimony Of the Off
Ger was - show that on all the ships of
the later designs the armor belt was too
low. He submitted table made up
from the logs Of the Connecticut. Ala
baua, Georgia, Maine, and Kearsargc
representing as many types Of naval con
struction. 20 show how the armOr belt
line was affected by degrees or loading.
and tending to prove that the design put
the armor too low.
Rear Admiral Caps attacked the ac-
curacy OF the figures. and made state
ment 20 show that so far as trial trips
were concerned, the proportion Of coal
carried was the same in the English,
Japanese, and French navies as in our
own
Two otneT Witnesses heard were Com
mander Carl r. Vogelgesang and Capt
Bradley Fiske. The former made serious
reflections upon turret construction
Asked If he had heard any criticisms
upon the direct hoists for ammunition. as
they were used in the Spanish war, ne
replied that all the criticisms had been
heard since 1900.
He described the operation OF the direct
hoist. the shutters that were applied as
the result of the explosion on the Mis-
souri,, and the new interrupted hoist. be-
ing installed on the new ships The pres
ent conditions. he declared, are dangerous
not only from a bareback. but from the
bursting of a shell from the enemy over
the turret. Either might ignite the
powder charge that might be tl the turret
and communicate 10 the handlinz-room.
as had happened in the case OF the Mis-
souri,.
Was Only Gods Mercy.
In his opinion it was only Gods mercy
that the Missouri and most OF her men
had not been lost. The new hoist would
have saved the sixteen lives that had
been lost on that vessel He thought that
apparatus was as good as was in any
other navy. but in the English navy the
hoists were more inclosed, and therefore
better protected. The shutter attachment
he denounced as cumbersome and ineffi-
than useless-as an example