The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-04-30

y strong westerly wind of two days
mad 70 lowered the water In the river
Inc pilots affirmed tho ship could not
steam up the James. There was. there
iorc. but one alternative left. and be-
inrc 'dhy OF the morning or May III.
!ohs. inc now famous ilEhing muchiua
llreinia was given a prey to the fire
iicnd, and about ; ~. NJ. the fla inc
reached the magazine and the shin
was blown up.
fet with plenty OF data at hand
General Miles asserts the result Of
me days action. 9th OF March. as Il
decisive victory OF the Mon!tor.'' Tho
retired lieutenant general could Win
ciuai Fcrnclty uuoto and indorsc the
now famous dispatch OF Major-Generai
IoIn rope at Second MANASSAS. to
.naJor-tiSncral 1lallcck, Eencrat-in-
chiei at Washington. we have won
Il great vietory!" Captain Van Braut.
oI Tue Minnesota. tho officers or both
the English and Fronch war vessels
ma N. Quod. directly rcfute the state
incnt Of General Miles. as we'll as tho
so-called historian who %chrOnicied the
fiction of Tho Monitors victory.
mere IS n sequel TO that strenuous
pattie at Hampton Roads. III 1854 tho
SURVIVORS OF tho crew or the Monitor
created n public sentiment favorable 10
y hiil Tor an appropriation Of $780,
"Vo To distribute to these survivors as
prlze money for destroying the rebel
ram Merriniac." Some opposition
eventnate1 in referring the bill To tho
committees on Naval Affairs. aud on
me alst OF May. 1851, Mr.. Ballcntino
from That committee made the follow
Ing report:
MI the evidence leads US clearly
70 the opinion that the Monitor. after
her engagement with tho Merrimac. on
INC oth OF arch, declined again to en-
gage her. though offered tho opportun-
ity; and that ~ great doubt exists
with tho United states naval and milf
tary authorities MS to the power OF the
Monitor 10 successfully meet tho Mer-
riinnc. that orders were given her com
inaider NY the President not TO bring
on an engagement.
II alsi appears that tho Mcrrimac,
80 Tar from being seriously injur-
I'd, was enabled utter the engagement
10 protect the approaches to Norfolk
ana Richinnnd until after the cvncua-
ton. , Nc assume that the proof
shows that the only serious damage
sustained hy the MerrImac was In
ficted by tho Cumberland. and that
the Mcrrimac went back to Norfolk
when her adversarics were out OF her
reach; and they being in shonl water,
and she on account of THE great depth
Of water which she drew. unable 10 at
tack them. went into dock for repairs
ana again came out AMI offered bat
tie, which waH refused; and tina
eventually. on tho evacuation OF Nor
folk by tho Confederate forces, sho
was destroyed by her officers and crew
to prevent hor falling into the hands
OF the Union forces, and that there
fore her destruction was not tho re-
suit OF her engagement with tho Moni-
tor. and that II the proof shows this
state OF facts to exist. the claim OF
the petitioners in this memorial ought
not to be allowed" Then after Sub
hitting tho proof substnntiated tho
above assumption. concludes: Holding
these views, we rcport adversely TO the
passage of the bill"
That effort was Il splendid specimen
Of our prcsent-duy graft. Yet ven
the House could not stomach such
rank aud city. General Miles can add
this investigation to his claim OF "the
decisive victory OF tho Monitor. sic
transit gloria mundi,' and In like mnn-
ncr passes the claim OF victory for
The Monitor over tho Virginia.
The fiction of the victory OF tho
Monitor over the Virginia keeps pace
With the romance of General Grants
magnaminIty In returning General
surrender OF the Army of Northern
Virginia. 9Th April. 1865. Neither in
stance has tho foundation of fact to
sustain 1t. Yet each incident finds
some new romance almost overy
month TO exploit either or both fic-
tions.