The sun., 1908-03-26
MONEY


are responsible for the faults will not have
another opportunity to repeat them,
The main points in question we're the
insufficient protection In our turTcts and
the faulty appliances for bringing up the
ammunition, and the lowness Of the arTnor
the other. The first two we're admitted
as correct. Admiral Evans's letter, repre-
senting the views Of the seagoing officers
and especially those in the Pacific feet
upholds the contention that the armor IL
not where II ought to be. and think that
the country will take his word for II.
From many sources have learned that
my article has been also accepted "a a
criticism on our seagoing officers and the
men forward Nothing could he more in-
correct. Three months Of association with
them has confirmed my statement that
man for man we are superior to any other
navy. But we do not educate our officers
or train our men to be killed in the first
stages Of an action, Hence we need all
the appliances known to naval science
ARAoR BELT TOO MARROW ALSO?
WASHINGTON, March 25.-The Navy De-
partment has received from one Of the
naval constructors on the Connecticut,
Rear Admiral Evans's flagship a report
concerning the allegation that the water
line armor belt was too low. the constrlc-
tors views being based on actual observa-
tion and measurements on the trip from
Hampton Roads TO Magdalena Bay
In his report the constructor says that
there was clear weather for most of the
cruise, but in spite Of this the unprotected
hull below the water line was exposed at
times, thus indicating that the belt Is too
narrow also The criticism OF Commanders
Sims and hey and other officers In regard
TO the belt il understood to have been con-
fimed in the report
Admiral Evans made an Endorsement
on the report but information IA to its
puport is withheld No doubt is enter
tanned, however, that Admiral Evans coin
cided with the constructors view as he
is on record, fact carefully suppressed, as
having made the statement last summer
in a letter to commanding officers Of his
battleships that in consequence Of increased
draught Of water due to the greater displace-
ment Of new armor clads their armor
belt is practically awash at load draught,
which leaves them. az far a. protection Is
concerned, but little better than armored
cruisers
This statement from Admiral Evans ia
said TO be in the possession Of the Senate
Committee on Naval Affairs, which has
been investigating the criticisms Of battle
ship construction, but has not shown a dis
position TO take seriously the efforts Of sea-
going line officers to point out wherein
present methods Of construction are de-
fcient. Why the committee did not pro-
duce this information in its public record
has not been explained
An effort may he made even before the
Naval Appropriation hill is taken up by
the House for consideration 10 bring out
this information as we'll as some comments
Of the General Board Of the Navy in re-
port made last year on the position Of the
armor belt.
According 10 the General Board belt
armor should be 30 disposed as 20 AFFORD
adequate protection at full load displace-
ment, and that at full load displacement
all OF our battleships in commission have
the water line belts awash or entirely sub
merged" and that 1T therefore follows
that all material not absolutely necessary
should be removed in order to bring the
belts as far up as possible.