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

October, 1909 both statements coal; Winthrop's and _ Potter's specific on the not the truth. the a ton of coal delivered to the Pacific are that point. Fortunately. for country their statements are As to cost; navy has not had coast at a cost of less than $6.50 per ton, while much of it cost over $10 per ton, and while Washington coal can be had, with an efficiency only 6 per cent lower than the very best east- ern coal mined, at $3.75 per ton. The fact of the matter is that this whole coal business is not clean and will not stand the light. The depart- ment, sheltering itself behind false statements' and laws distorted and mis- interpreted to suit its purposes, is spending anywhere from $650,000 to $1,800,000 more per year for the 170,- 000 tons of coal it uses on the Pacific ~coast than it could do the same work Why? transportation for with Washington coal. ig ..the Tue Marine Review has gone square- matter oF ly on record as opposed to the present methods of naval administration and has freely criticized the attitude of the department towards American shipping as evidenced by its openly expressed preference for that of foreigners in the transportation of coal to the Pacific coast, sheltering itself behind an emer- in 1904. For these things the Review has been made gency measure passed the target of much criticism, which will be answered in full when the series of articles on naval administration, now appearing each month, are completed in November or December, but meantime, as evidence that the Review is not alone in its attitude, we append the following abstract from an article in Railway and Seattle, scandalous action of the department in Marine News, on the recent connection with the transportation of eastern coal to the Pacific coast: "How does the administration clothe itself with authority to offer American ships 50 per cent more than the rate which foreign ships offer to transport coal to this coast? Certainly the act - Of 1904 does not grant it. The admin- istration has no such authority for so doing, but arbitrarily nominates that American ships cannot receive more than 50 per cent in excess of foreign Ships, and this is done without investi- reasoning is stupid. TAE MARINE. REVIEW gating the motives of the owners of foreign vessels for getting their vessels to the Pacific coast during the fall of the year, when our lumber: and grain business is usually at their best. Such It is unfair and unpatriotic, and we are glad to see that all over the nation an interest in the navy is being taken--that kind of interest which will demand a curtailment of naval appropriations; which will take from the beaurocracy the great prestige it has enjoyed becatise of the tremendous amount of money disbursed. The cur- tailment should take place because the department has grown so large that it has become selfish. It cares nothing for the interests of others; provides for its own needs regardless of how much it may injure others. After that it becomes unpopular. "The people will résent its unfairness and a reduction in appropriations will begin." : The lay press, which knows. nothing of the subject, and the department, which is on the defensive, may belittle the growing feeling against the navy all they choose, but facts piled on facts will not be without their effect. When all the facts about this deal out there will be questions to answer coal come a good deal more embarrassing than the historic "Where did you get it?" LOCK VS. SEA LEVEL CANAL. For several months past Major Jay C. Morrow,. CE, UY S.A. and Admiral CF, Goodrich, U.S. N. Rave: carried on a controversy over lock vs. sea level canal in the columns of the New York Sun. In a recent article Major Morrow referred to the editorial in the April number of Tue Marine Review on "The Panama Canal and the Navigator," declaring that its perusal would con- vince anyone of the impractical charac- ter of the sea level type. The lucidity of that editorial is invincible. It deals with the fundamentals of ship operation in restricted and tortuous channels so clearly and accurately as to carry the conviction to any reasonable mind that the project of a sea _ level canal is monumental folly; for it is to be pre- sumed that the purpose of building the canal is that ships may pass through it. It is surprising to us that the argu- 399 ments advanced in that editorial have not been hitherto presented, because it is as clear as sunlight that the sea level canal, as proposed, is not a com- mercially navigable body of water. Ap- parently, however, it carries no con- viction whatever to the mind of Ad- miral Goodrich. no value when compared with the opin- ions of Gustav H. Schwab and Ad- miral Chadwick, but chiefly we may infer "published before the disaster at the Sault had destroyed the seaman's last shred of confidence in the safety of locks, and written by I know not whom." He dismisses it as of because The admiral may be at peace re- garding the identity of the author of that editorial Tur Marine Revirw assumes full responsibility for it and takes some satisfaction in adding that it was written by a gentleman, not of the corps of engineers, who is bet- ter qualified by years of experience to discuss canal navigation by big ships than any officer of the navy. 'This is said in all modesty, because naval officers are not in position to speak with any authority on the subject, never having had, in fact, the oppor- tunity of acquiring either knowledge Or experience in this phase of naviga- tion. a ae The disaster at the Sault instead of destroying the seaman's confidence in locks has done more than all the arguments that could be advanced to The trouble is that the admiral is not familiar with the con- ditions at the Sault or what really occurred there. confirm it, Three big ships were involved and if the stage had been deliberately set for the occasion, the conditions could not have been bet- ter chosen for achieving the maximum of damage. Yet the injury to two ships was unimportant. They pro- ceeded on their trips and the third, after a short delay for temporary re- pairs, did likewise. Not a life was lost nor a man injured and the lock was in commission again in 10 days. This is the occurred at the Sault canal and in the 54 years of their history there first accident that ever have been more lockages through them than are likely to occur at Pan- ama in a thousand years. Moreover,