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

24 MARINE REVIEW AND MARINE RECORD. [June 4, PROBLEM OF BUILDING WARSHIPS ON THE GREAT LAKES." By H. C. SADLER. With the conditions of armed peace which obtain at the pres- ent day throughout the world it is necessary that every first- class power should possess a navy. In the case of nations whose commercial interests are widely distributed the possession of a strong naval force, capable of doing distant work, has often proved more than a powerful moral factor in connection with international disputes. It is not intended in the present article to discuss naval policy, but it may be taken for granted that under existing international affairs the United States must continue to - keep her place among the maritime nations of the world. The policy of a nation building its own warships has per- haps reached its highest state of development in Great Britain and France where it is possible by reason of the proximity of the dock yards to maritime and manufacturing centers, to do the work reasonably and rapidly as compared with private firms. But even in these countries, since the adoption of implied or de- fined naval policies, and owing to the demand for speedy delivery of vessels, it has been found impossible to construct more than 50 per cent of the battleships and cruisers in the government establishments. The small vessels, such as torpedo boats and destroyers, are built almost exclusivel- in private yards. In fact, if Great Britain and France had relied solely upon the admir- alty dock yards to carry out their latest programs, there would have been such delay in building the vessels that some of the first vessels to be constructed would have become somewhat obsolete before the last were finished. The same is true in other countries, the government dock yards being a necessity for repair and com- mission purposes, but performing a small part in the actual build- ing of the navy. In the United States this question has been carefully consid- ered, and the comparative ability of the navy yards to build as cheaply, efficiently and rapidly as the private concerns is now being tested. When it was decided, some seventeen years ago, to rehabilitate the navy, one of the first problems with which the government was confronted was the ability to construct the required ships with the resources and facilities in existence. Few, if any, of the government dock yards were properly equipped to undertake the construction of modern vessels, es- pecially in any numbers, and the authorities were therefore com- pelled to turn to the private builders for help in carrying out the required work. At that time, owing to the moderate naval programs projected, the resources and equipment of a few firms which were capable of constructing the necessary ships proved ample for the needs of the government. But the day of small vessels and moderate programs has passed, and, owing to the events that have occurred during the past few years, the United States must of necessity increase her navy. The continual in- crease in size of warships that is taking place has narrowed the field of contractors capable of building such large vessels to small limits, until to-day there are less than a dozen ship yards to which such work can be entrusted. As the government has al- ways had dithculty in retaining the services of skilled men at navy yards, and as the purchase of government material can- not be expedited as in the case of private firms, the navy depart- ment would seem to be at a disadvantage in undertaking such work, The private ship builders have, therefore, played the most prominent part in the construction of the present navy, al- though in many instances they have been enabled to arrive at their present state of exnerience and prosperity by the helping hand which the government held out to them in the early days. _ In the United States at the present day there are some ten ship yards which undertake the larger government contracts. Most of these are situated on the coast, but there is still a large region where the shin building industry has been flourishing for a number of years, and which, up to the present, has not been used to assist the government in building up the navy, namely the great lakes. In this district there are some fourteen ship yards and engine shops, well equipped with modern machinery and capable of building vessels up to 500 ft, in length, and some forty smaller yards. With regard to dry docks and marine railways, there are thirty-nine, one over 600 ft., three over 500 ft., seven between 400 and 450 ft. in length, with draughts on sills varying from 19 to 214 ft., besides many smaller ones in the neigh- borhood of 300 ft. in length. 'Lhe navigation period varies, but on the average the lakes are open from the second week in April un- til the second week in December. During the last two years some forty steel vessels have been built on the lakes each year, and this does not include small craft, such as tugs, etc. 2 With such ship building facilities at hand, it is the object of the present article to discuss the means by which these could be utilized to help in the building of the navy. The principal points that will be considered in connection with this subject are: (1) The present agreement wth Canada and Great Britain with re- gard to the question of warships on the great lakes. (2) The means of moving to the coast vessels built on fhe great lakes. (3) The ability of the lake ship yards to construct war vessels. (4) Whether the cost of construction in this region will com- pare favorably with that of yards on the sea coast. : There is no formal treaty between the United States and Can- *From the Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers. ada with regard to keeping armed vessels on the great lakes, the present modus vivendi dating from an agreement between these two countries of April 28, 1817, and comprising two letters between Mr. Bagot and Mr. Rush. According to these, each country agrees to confine itself to the following vessels: "On Lake Ontario to one vessel not exceeding 100 tons burthen and armed with one 18-lb. cannon. On the upper lakes to two vessels not exceeding like burthen, each armed with like force ; on the waters of Lake Champlain to one vessel not exceeding like burthen and armed with like force." It further states that "all other armed vessels on these Jakes shall be forthwith dis- mantled and that no other vessels of war shall be there built or armed ;" and that "if either party should hereafter be desirous of annuling this stipulation and should give notice to that effect to the other party, it shall cease to be binding after the expiration of six months from the date of such notice." Situated as the United States and Canada are in this region, it will be generally conceded that the above agreement, so far as keeping armed vessels on the lakes is concerned, is a wise one. The small vessels above mentioned simply fulfill a general police duty, and it would without doubt militate against the interests of both countries to keep these waters patrolled by regular fleets of war vessels. If this agreement should be discontinued, then each time one country commissioned, a vessel the other would of necessity have to do likewise, and a. state of affairs would eventually be produced similar to that which obtains in Europe at the present day. The second part of the agreement, however, stipulates that "no vessel of war shall be there built or armed." When this agreement was made the great lakes were purely in- land seas, and therefore ships built on their shores were destined - to remain in these waters. It was impossible at that time for ves- sels of any size that could be built in these regions to be taken to the coast. Now, however, with the completion of the Can- adian canals, vessels up to 260 ft. in length are enabled to pass from the lakes to the sea. Since these waters are practically open to the sea, it seems reasonable that, provided each country would agree to let the first part of the present agreement stand. 1. @., not to keep war vessels on the lakes, there should be no objection to either country building war vessels there if on completion, or if necessary before the armament is put on board, these vessels to be taken to the seaboard, In fact, as the treaty now stands, if all of the converted yachts used in the late war with Spain had been built on the lakes (and some actually did come from these waters) no objections could have been raised as: to their use as gunboats, provided that they were not armed before they left that region. Most war vessels in any case have to be taken to the navy yards to complete their outfit, so the question of arming these at the lake ship yard is not of very serious moment. The spirit of the present treaty is that neither country should keep a fleet of war vessels on the great lakes, and this principle, as already stated, should be observed by both nations, but with the waters of the great lakes now open to the sea, and with the possibilities of more outlets in the near future, the clause as to building war vessels does not have the same weight to-day that it did when the agreement was first signed. Speaking without the weight of authority, it is never- theless the writer's opinion that neither Canada nor Great Britain would raise objections to the reconsideration of this matter, as it is one that would affect both countries in the same manner. In the event of such an agreement as above outlined, the ques- tion which would confront this country would be a proper outlet to the sea. At present the only passage way for vessels of any size is the Welland canal and St. Lawrence river route, practic- ally all in Canadian territory. The largest vessel that can be taken through this canal is one of approximately 260 ft. length by 40 ft. beam and drawing about 14 ft. of water. All vessels, therefore, of the small cruiser or gunboat type could readily be taken to the coast by this route. The United: States does not at present possess any outlet approaching this size, and although a discussion as to the advisability of this government providing a ship-canal to the coast is beyond the scope of the present. paper, this question is one that cannot be too strongly urged by every- one who has the maritime interests of the country at heart. The contemplated Erie canal improvements, though necessary, do not attempt to give the outlet required, and this will be, as its name signifies, simply a "barge" canal. The report of the United States Deep Waterways Commission of 1896 discusses all the principal canal routes from the lakes to the sea, and amongst its conclusions it is stated that, in the opinion of the commissioners, a channel of not less than 28 ft. depth should be constructed, and that this is a perfectly feasible project. Such a canal. would fulfill all the requirements of a barge canal, and would at the same time give an outlet for larger vessels. The argument that vessels suited for lake work are not: suit- able for seagoing purposes is generally true as regards the large freighters, but many of the smaller and coasting type could be made, suitable for both purposes. In any case, provided that canal charges were not excessive, a great saving would be effected if vessels could carry their cargoes directly to a seaport and there discharge into seagoing vessels. In the latter case the cargo is