The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-03-02

smoke. But the gas engine meets that difculty perfectly. The same amount of anthracite which is now required take her twice as far and throw of no smoke when burned in a gas-producer. This fact the British admiralty has cordingly. we have the announcement of the smokeless battleship "indefa- tigable." to be driven by gas engines. While most of the other navy depart ments of the world are deep in the ruts, the British leap ahead with one rev olutionary innovation after another.
 That sounds as though there's some- thing in it, and no doubt there is. English engineers and naval experts are not in the habit of chasing rain bows, and if they believe they can build smokeless battleships they are very apt to do it. We have not seen the details of the process and do not understand just how coal can be out any smoke while burning. but that is a detail they will be able to work out we suppose, and if successful the invention is bound to be a valuable one. Even the layman who knows lit- tie or nothing about naval warfare must see that if ships can fight with out smoke from either their guns or their furnaces it will add much to their chances of destroying each other, and we suppose that is the main object in fighting.
 The Times thinks our own govern ment has plainly been travelling the wrong road on naval affairs. Tt would, have been a wise plan," it says, flor the United States to have stopped building battleships and other big ves- sells two years ago. and to have await ed the results of developments in naval construction on> the other side of the Atlantic. Not only have we no naval designers Gin the navy department) capable of guiding us safely in a pol icy of naval construction. but there appears to be no one in Congress who is thoroughly familiar with what is going on in Europe. and courageous enough to call halt in the frightful waste to which we are committed. in- volving the expenditure of hundreds of three years in carrying out a program of construction which does not provide for one ship that is not already quite out of date.'"
 The Times seems to forget that jim goism has been in the saddle in this country for some years. President business and has had plenty of will ling imitators Sending our fleet around the world had considerable of the stuff in 1t. as is plainly evident. The ambition to have a bigger and strong CT navy than any other power on earth is another form of bluff, design ed to have something like a paralyzing effect on other powers of earth. It is in effect saying to other nations, Now be good or we'll come across and wipe you out" That is very different from the old American spirit. but this is an age of progress, you will remember.
 The Times doesn't seem to have a very high opinion of the ability of our engineers or Congressmen, when 1t comes to the question of how to build ships, when to build them and when to refrain from building them, but per- haps it's doubts are natural. There have been so many blunders, so much waste of public money that one is not to blame for incredulity on the sub ject With some Congressmen-and they seem to be the majority-there is apparently little effort to ascertain the lack of need for more battleships or how they are to be built. The main ob- iect they have in view is to appropri- ate the money with a serene indiffer- ence as to how it will be spent.
 But leaving all this out of considera- tion there is no doubt of the value of the alleged English invention, if 1t proves to be what is claimed for it. What wonderful sight it will be to an observer in an airship, We will say, to look down on two great fleets busily engaged in the work of destroying each other without either smoke or sound 10 indicate their deadly work, or how it is being done. It will re- semble the fancies of the widest writ CTS of fiction. and seem like a dream to the observer. Plainly Uncle Sam had better look out that the Britons do not leave him a long way behind.