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

16 MARINE HICHBORN'S PROTEST. A WARM LETTER TO THE SEORETARY OF THE NAVY ON THE SUBJECT OF PRO- TECTED ORUISERS--BITTER CONTROVERSY BETWEEN HEADS OF SHIP BUILDING BUREAUS. A 'controversy, which has become personal in its acrimony, is now - waging in Washington on the subject of the protected cruisers authorized by the act of June 7, 1900. Chief Constructor Hichborn is entirely at va- riance with the rest of the board on this subject. He maintains that the circular recently issued by the board on the protected cruisers really de- signs an armored cruiser and consequently violates the intent of congress. The chief constructor stoutly maintains that congress knew what it was about when it specified that three armored cruisers should be constructed. Incidentally the chief constructor reveals the fact that he leans somewhat to the protected cruiser which he describes as a commerce destroyer. He submits a design of a vessel to maintain a speed of 23 knots after the Russian and French type--the Variag and Chauteaurenault. This is a class of cruiser which has no counterpart in the British navy, having slight defensive and offensive qualities and depending wholly upon superior speed to get out of danger. The protected cruiser would make short work of an ocean liner or auxiliary cruiser, [but in turn an armored cruiser or battleship would make short work of a protected cruiser. The type probably never will be popular, for its chief defense is speed, and speed is frequently a difficult thing to maintain. No condition must be wanting to maintain 23 knots, and in active service conditions are some- times wanting. Machinery will give way. The minority report of the chief constructor, or rather his protest against the circular, dated Aug. 6 and addressed to the secretary of the navy, is as follows: "Referring to the report of the majority of the board of construction, submitting the circular proposed by it, defining the chief characteristics of three protected cruisers, authorized by act of congress, approved June 7, 1900, I have to state that I do not concur in the action of the board in submitting said circular, and do not approve of the circular submitted. Under title 'Increase of the Navy,' enacted June 7, 1900, provision is made for 'two sea-going battleships, carrying the heaviest armor and most powerful ordnance for vessels of their class * * *. * and to cost, exclusive of armor and armament, not exceeding $3,600,000; three ar- mored cruisers of about 13,000 tons trial displacement, carrying the heaviest armor and most powerful ordnance for vessels of their class * * * * and to cost, exclusive of armor and armament, not exceeding $4,250,000; and three protected cruisers of about 8,000 torts trial displace- ment, carrying the most powerful ordnance for vessels of their class * * * * and to cost, exclusive of armament, not exceeding $2,800,000.' "Tt will be observed from a reading of this act that congress provided for three types of vessels--battleships, armored cruisers and protected cruisers. The act provides that the battleships and armored cruisers shall carry the heaviest armor for vessels of their class. It omits any provision for armor for protected cruisers, showing clearly that it was not the intention that said cruisers should carry armor. Said act limiting the cost of battleships and armored cruisers provides that the limit of cost shall be the amount stated, exclusive of armor and armament. With reference to the protected cruiser, the act states that the cost shall be not exceeding $2,800,000, exclusive of armament. "The circular submitted by the majority defines the chief character- istics of the three armored cruisers, and not of the protected cruisers, as authorized by the act of congress, approved June 7, 1900. That congress in recommending the three protected cruisers in question, thoroughly understood the distinction between armored cruisers and protected cruisers, is clearly shown by a reference to page 24, of the report No. 930, house of representatives, fifty-sixth congress, first session, being the re- port from the committee on naval affairs, submitting the naval appropria- tion bill. It is therein stated, and credit is given to the office of naval intelligence for having furnished the information to the house naval com- mittee, that 'armored cruisers are vessels of moderate to large tonnage, with protection to hull and battery similar to that of battleships, except that the thickness of metal in all cases is much less, which, with the weight saved by carrying lighter guns, gives opportunity to make the speed and steaming radius of the armored cruiser much greater than the battleship.' 'Protected cruisers are vessels usually of small to moderate tonnage, with protection to hull by protective deck, coal 'bunkers and cellulose. No side armor; no turrets; barbettes or casemates; guns protected by gun shields.' Had congress with this information before it, desired the con- struction of three more armored vessels, they would undoubtedly have authorized the construction of armored cruisers instead of protected cruisers, "The circular of the majority of the board on construction describes an armored vessel which, although larger than the New York and Brook- lyn, is not superior to these vessels in many respects. The armored ves- sel produced on such lines would be nothing but a second-class armored cruiser as compared with the six vessels of the California class, which are first-class armored cruisers. The protected cruiser 'is designed 'for a special field of action. . She is intended to prey upon the commerce of the enemy, and therefore on this type of vessel armor is sacrificed for high speed and ability to keep the sea for extended periods, protection being afforded by protective decks, arrangement of coal bunkers and cellulose in cofferdams. Protected cruisers have lately been built for the Russian and French navies with speeds of 23 knots. The United States would be 'behind other nations by building protected cruisers of less speed, which vessels would be unable to meet on even conditions the large passenger vessels of the merchant marine converted to naval use. "The provisions as to speed in the act of June 7, 1900, are that the battleships shall 'have the highest practical speed and great radius of action'; the armored cruisers 'the highest practical speed and great radius of action'; the three protected cruisers 'the highest speed compatible with good cruising qualities and great radius of action, It will therefore be observed that congress makes a distinction between the battleships and armored cruisers and the protected cruisers, the protected cruisers being required to have the highest speed compatible with good cruising quali- ties and great radius of action. I am of the opinion that such conditions can only be met by sheathing the vessels, which I believe to have been the intent of congress. The question of the advisability of sheathing the REVIEW. [August 23, battleships and armored cruisers, provided for in the act of March 3, 1899, was considered by the board on construction, and the majority of that board recommended to the department that, with reference to these two classes of ships, congress be asked to modify the law. The majority and minority reports on the subject were submitted by the honorable secre- tary of the navy to congress for its consideration. Hearings on the sub- ject were given Admiral Dewey and other officers by the naval committee. After a thorough investigation of the subject no change was authorized in the requirement of the act of March 3, 1899, as to sheathing and copper- ing. In view of the fact that the appropriation, as made under the act of June 7, 1900, is identical with the estimates furnished by this bureau for protected cruisers, sheathed and coppered, and taking into consideration also other facts connected with the passage of this act, of which the de- partment has been advised, I am of the opinion that it was the intention of congress that the protected cruisers should be sheathed and coppered. Furthermore, no question was raised by the majority of the board on con- struction as to the advisability of sheathing and coppering protected cruisers. "I will not attempt to discuss this circular in detail, as I consider it fundamentally unsatisfactory, and at variance with the requirements as authorized by congress. The limit of cost, $2,800,000, precludes the con- struction of vessels as described by this circular, as the cost of all hull armor, even admitting that the use of armor is permitted by the act of congress, must, under a decision of the attorney general, dated Jan. 31, 1889 (No, 504 navy department, judge advocate general's office), be de- ducted from the limit of cost. The majority estimates the cost of this armor at $100,000. The weight of the side armor or main belt is stated at 228 tons. The lower casemate armor, 192 tons. A portion of the upper casemate armor must be considered with this item, but, omitting this, the 420 tons of side armor and lower casemate armor, at $400 per ton, a price less than has been paid for armor of this class, would amount to $168,000, and this sum must be deducted from the limit of cost, $2,800,000. A fur- ther deduction of about $153,000 should be made for designing and inspec- tion and outfits to be supplied by the government. With this deduction of $321,000, the available limit of cost within which the contract would have to be let, is but $2,479,000. "The contract price of the New York was $2,985,000, and of the Brooklyn $2,986,900. Notwithstanding the fact that the contracts on these vessels were made at a time when the prices of labor and materials were much lower than at present, and the further fact that on these vessels large inducements were offered in the form of premiums for increased speed, which were subsequently paid, the actual cost of the New York-- 1,300 tons lighter than the vessel proposed by the majority--not including cost of armament, armor for gun protection, speed premiums and trial trip expenses, as stated in the report of the honorable secretary of the navy for 1899, page 10, was $3,593,294, or $793,294 more than the total available appropriation for the protected cruisers. The corresponding cost of the Brooklyn--285 tons lighter on trial displacement than the ves- sel proposed by the majority--is given on page 12 of the secretary's report, 1899, as $3,391,349.41, or $591,349.41 more than the available ap- propriation for each of the protected cruisers. The limit of cost named in the acts authorizing the New York and Brooklyn was in each case $3,500,000, or $700,000 more than the limit of cost for the vessels under consideration. "The chief constructor is prepared to furnish a circular, and design a protected cruiser, meeting, in all respects, the requirements of the law, and carrying the battery, except the l-pounders in military tops, desired by the majority of the board, being a sheathed protected cruiser of about 8,500 tons displacement, and having a speed of 23 knots, one knot addi- tional to that required by the majority, having the same coal capacity on a less displacement, and with consequently greater radius of action. Such a vessel can be designed and built within the limit of cost. Following is a comparative statement of the dimensions of the vessel proposed by the majority and minority: Design by Proposed by ma- the chief jority of board construc- on construction tor. Aug. 6, 1900. Displacement .......... 8,500 tons. 9,500 tons. Length on L. W. L 410 ft. 494 ft. Breadth, extreme, approximate. 64.5 ft. 66 ft. Mean draft, dimensions............ 23 ft. 6 in. 23 ft. 6 in Tons; per? foot; about... .......... 43 46 Coal; full supply: 3) ee 1,500 tons. 1,500 tons. SPCC crusts occa eon ee 23 knots. 22 knots. Tee Pic te shea ak eee 23,000 21,000 Number of: ofiicers:.<.035. oe 40 40 Number of menvi vei. ec 525 525 14 6-in R. F. 14 6-in R. F. 18 14 pdr. 18 14 pdr. 12 3 pdr. 12 8 pdr. A 41 pdr. 121 pdr. : rmament. 2 8-in. field. 2 3-in. field. 2 Gatlings. 2 Gatlings. 3 ES 8 Colts. m : . Protective deck center over machinery ao aren Protective deck slope over machinery. Sein 3-in. Protective deck slope forward and ; med abaft machinery: ..4cicsa5 0. 1%-in 3-in Protective deck center forward 'and oe ; abaft machinery .................... 1%-in. 2-in. Cellulose ey... ii 55 tons. ' 66 tons. aE recommend that the protected cruisers St. Louis, 'Milwaukee and Charleston, authorized by the act of June 7, 1900, be built as protected cruisers in reality, as required by law; to be sheathed and coppered, and to be of about 8,500 tons trial displacement, with the general character- istics stated in the preceding table." The ship building business of Eureka, Cal., formerly conducted by H. D. Bendixen, has been incorporated and will hereafter 'be known by the name H. D. Bendixen Ship Building Co. The plant has been in opera- ioe since 1873 and consists of fourteen acres of land with 1,000 ft. of water Cee _On the stocks at Present are the four-masted barkentine John almer, building for Suden & Christensen, of San Francisco, and a four- masted schooner, building for Joseph Knowland, of San Francisco. As soon as the barkentine is launched a companion schooner to the one now on the stocks, will 'be built for (Mr. Knowland.