The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

ae MARINE REVIEW. [November 23, DEATH OF GEN. THOMAS W. HYDE. 'Gen. Thomas W. Hyde, founder of and principal stockholder in the Bath Iron Works, Bath, Me., died on the 13th inst. at Old Point Comfort. Va. He had gone to Virginia six weeks /before hoping that a change of climate might prove ibeneficial to his health, which was then fast failing. He had been an invalid for upwards of two years. Gen. Hyde was born in Florence, Italy, in 1841. He graduated in succession from the Bath High School, Bow- doin College and Chicago University. His record during the civil war was a most re- markable one and highly cred- itable. He organized a com- pany of the Maine regiment, of which he was elected major and in the absence of his supe- rior officers took the regiment ~to the front in August, 1861. At the close of the war he re- turned to Bath. and acquired the foundry which was hence- forth operated under his name, i . manufacturing windlasses, pumps, capstans and other ship machinery. His next move was the ac- quisition of the Goss Marine Iron Works, where, from that time forward, marine engines and other machinery was constructed. Then ship build- ing was taken up, and in 1889 Gen. Hyde secured the contract for the crusiers Machias and Castine. Since that time the Bath Iron Works has been continuously engaged in building vessels and thas turned out many prominent naval and mercantile vessels. 'Gen. Hyde some years ago organized the Hyde Windlass Co., to which was turned over the manu- facture of all the forms lof auxiliary machinery in which he had an interest. He was prominent in many public onganizations and 'had been for years a member of the council of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. He is survived by several children. His sons have for some time past been in charge of 'business affairs at Bath. THE AMERICAN NAVY. From the annual report of Rear Admiral Philip Hichborn, chief of the bureau of construction and repair, navy department, it appears that the present naval strength of the country is 303 vessels, of which 215 are in the regular and 88 in the auxiliary navy. The vessels of the regular navy are apportioned as follows: Twelve first-class battleships; three first-class battleships, sheathed; one second-class battleship; two armored cruisers; three armored cruisers, sheathed; one armored ram; four steel single- turret monitors; six double-turreted monitors; nine iron single-turret monitors; thirteen protected cruisers; eight protected cruisers, sheathed; four unprotected cruisers; twelve gunboats; three light-draught gunboats; six composite gunboats; one training ship (naval academy); two special class vessels; nineteen gunboats under 500 tons; sixteen torpedo boat de- stroyers; thirty-six steel torpedo boats; one submarine torpedo boat; one wooden torpedo boat; five iron cruising vessels; seven wooden cruising vessels; six wooden sailing vessels; seventeen tugs; eleven wooden steam vessels unfit for sea service; and six sailing vessels unfit for sea service. In the auxiliary fleet are seven merchant vessels converted into auxiliary cruisers; twenty-five converted yachts; twenty-seven converted tugs; seventeen steamers converted into colliers; and twelve special class vessels. All of the vessels purchased by the war department or captured from Spain are included in the lists, but the particulars regarding them are meagre in the extreme. Details regarding the converted vessels and the special class craft, which were incomplete in last year's report, are, how- ever, presented in very complete form. During fhe year which has inter- vened since the compilation of the last report the navy department has accepted from the builders after official trials fifteen new vessels; four sunken Spanish vessels were raised and added to the navy and seventeen vessels were added through purchase or capture on the Asiatic station. Of the forty vessels which were dropped from the navy department, the greater portion were either revenue cutters which were returned to the treasury department or auxiliary craft which were sold. Within the twelve months covered by the report fifty-two vessels were surveyed for repairs and ina numberof. instances the same vessel was surveyed two. and even three times. Ls NH Metres RESULTS OF THE PERSONNEL BILL. ". The results of the personnel bill upon the-engineer-corps of the navy are precisely what we predicted they. would be at the time of its passage, but it is somewhat surprising to find so experienced an officer as Admiral Melville expressing surprise that officers of the line do not take more kindly to engineering work.. Who expected that they would? The fact is not to be disguised that the navy no longer has an engineer corps, and must wait for one until they can make one out of the warrant machinists, who will make an appeal to congress next winter for commissions. They and other enlisted men are doing the duty in the engine rooms formerly assigned to officers of the engineer corps, who are no longer required to stand watch over the engines. A reference to the annual report of Ad- miral Melville will show that he has called the attention of the department to this serious blow at the efficiency of the navy. He is too late; the mis- chief is done, and there is but one remedy, which is to create a new engi- neer corps. 'We shall have more captains, commanders and so on, but no more engineers of the type that has made our navy so efficient in their department; that is not until we can evolve a new engineer corps.--Army & Navy. Journal. DECISIONS IN COLLISION CASES OF LONG STANDING. The collision between the steamers Conemaugh and New York, which occurred in the Detroit river near Sandwich, Ont., Oct. 21, 1891, has been finally determined by the United States supreme court, both vessels being held in fault. The experience of this case has been some- what varied. In the district court, first both vessels were held at fault. On petition for rehearing, in view of a then recent decision of the United States supreme court, the district judge modified his finding and held the New York solely at fault. The case was appealed and the United States court of appeals for the sixth circuit reversed the district court and held the Conemaugh solely at fault. Ordinarily this would have been the final determination. Petition for rehearing was filed in the United States court of appeals on behalf of the Conemaugh, but rehearing was denied. Appl. cation was then made to the United States supreme court for writ certio- rari, which was granted, on the ground that there were questions involved in the case which were of great general importance, and as to which ther= was error in the decision of the circuit court of appeals. The case was fully argued in the supreme court and in an opinion handed down Mon- day of this week both steamers are again held in fault. The questions submitted to the court, aside from the matter of fault as (between the two vessels, call for determination of the character of the great lakes, whether they are high seas or not, within the meaning of the act of 1885 establishing sailing regulations (the international code), and as to whether the United States or Canadian sailing rules are applicable to United States vessels when meeting in Canadian waters on the great lakes. The opinion of the court will probably be obtained in time for publication in the next issue of the Review. Tihe New York was repre- sented in the supreme court by C. E. Kremer of 'Chicago and H. C. Wis- ner of Detroit, and the Conemaugh iby Messrs. Goulder and Masten of Cleveland and F. H. Canfield of Detroit. ° : : _ The case growing out of the collision between the steamers Waldo and Choctaw at the Sault, May 20, 1896, has been argued before the United States circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit and is now pending decision. CLAIMING NO CONCLUSION IN THE CARTER CASE. In its last issue the Engineering Record of New York prints the text of ex-Senator George F. Edmunds' review for the secretary of war of the whole record of the proceedings of the court-martial which tried Capt. O. M. Carter of the army engineering corps. After this review was made, the president, acting on the advice of Attorney-General Griggs, approved the finding of the court. Following the text of Mr. Edmunds" review there is printed a table of the charges and specifications on which the court-martial judged the accused officer guilty, and the decision of Mr. Edmunds and the attorney-general on each are placed side by side. The review of the case by Mr. Edmunds and the surprising difference of opin- ion shown by the table as to whether the accused officer was guilty or not guilty of the different specifications in the several charges prompts the Engineering Record to declare that the guilt of Capt. Carter has yet to Be proved, and that no time should be lost in bringing the civil action against his alleged fellow-conspirators, so that the case may be tried according to the usual methods of legal procedure. The Record is not willing to accept the doctrine that because the members of this court-martial were indi- vidually honest, able and distinguished, a majority of them could not be mistaken in all their findings. The records of court-martial proceedings, it is claimed, justify no such conclusion: TRIBUTE TO CHARLES,H. CRAMP. It is gratifying to note that side by side with their recognition of the competition by which American ship builders and manufacturers of ship building machinery are forcing themselves to the attention of their rivals on the other side of the Atlantic, the British trade journals acknowledge the genius of the men who are making ship building in the United States the prosperous and growing industry that it is. In its current issue Syren and Shipping, a London contemporary, has the following: : "Exactly the position held by Mr. C. H. Cramp in the ship building world of the United States, is a question which can be better answered by the American cousin than by us on this side. It is, however, certain that so far as the shipping community of Great Britain is concerned, the name they know best in American ship building is Charles H. Cramp, and the. representative American yard to them is that of the William Cramp & Sons Ship and Engine Building Co. of Philadelphia. There are many reasons for this. From the point of view of the student of mercantile marine affairs, American ship building is represented by those magnificent ocean greyhounds, the St. Paul and St. Louis. built by the Cramps. - The successors of these ships is only a matter of time. Sooner or later our young relations on the other side of the "herring pond," will secure that shipping legislation they desire, and then the industry will flourish as American manufactures have flourished in.every other direction, -When the longed-for act of legislature is secured, and the credit therefor comes to be apportioned a huge slice will fall to the share of .our "headlight," for; if one man more than.another has preached the gospel of American ship building, that man is Charles H. Cramp. Whilst Mr. Cramp is known on this side chiefly, perhaps, as the designer of the two "Saints" of the Amer- ican line, the fame of his company as designers and builders of warships is deserving of even greater prominence. The Cramps have built many men-o'-war of all shapes and sizes, and, true to his character, Mr. C, H. Cramp has introduced many new ideas into them. The splendid passage of the triple-screw cruiser Columbia across the Atlantic is still remem- bered. Besides fighting ships for the navy of his own country, Mr, Cramp has been entrusted with orders from foreign nations, thus leading the van in that competition with European ship builders which he maintains will become of ever-growing importance. He may be right or wrong, but it is perhaps fortunate for ship builders on this side of the Atlantic that America possesses only one Charles H. Cramp. Mr. E. W. Oglebay of Oglebay, Norton & Co., 'Cleveland, has re- turned from a European trip. | |