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

January, 1910 reveal them in such manner that all may see the inefficiency and extrav- agance that. exists as clearly as he sees it himself. There has been no attempt at de- not singular, because fense, which is there. is no defense. In fact the only attempt that the Review has seen is the feeble by the Army and Navy Journal, which seems objection made more grieved at the reference to the Connecticut than anything else, though The Journal accuses the Review of taking itis really a minor incident, credit to itself for the changes im navy. yard administration and claims that they have been under considera- tion for years. Let the Journal rest its perturbed spirit in peace. The Review has no desire to lay that flattering. unction to: its. soul. [¢ is perfectly willing to let it go at that. It has no desire to be held respon- sible even by suggestion for the lat- reorganiza- est "reorganization," -a tion which, as far as we can discover, results in the creation of four new jobs and nothing else. The Review has "already editorially characterized this reorganization as a fake and the Journal can point to no expression of ours supporting it. If there is any credit attaching to it the Journal and "many years Ti, 2s the Journal says, this plan of reorganiza- "has officials of the department for many its correspondents of 9 ago' are welcome to it. tion engaged 'the attention of years" it lends additional emphasis to our contention that inefficient methods and their pitiable results remedied by those who have grown the itself. Quoting the old Union Pacific railroad as a horrible example is be- the The that those methods were wiped out cannot be up under system side question. very fact and that prosperity followed as a re- sult is rather an argument in favor of similar heroic treatment of the De- partment. Just a few words more about the which the Journal is so worried, and as we now Connecticut concerning observe with apparently good reason, the admits he "watched her construction every day The Review apolo- since Journal writer for two years." TAE MarRINE REVIEW gizes for having unintentionally trod- We have endeavored to avoid. personalities but den on anyone's pet corn. we can readily understand that any- One so intimately associated with the the navy's chef d'oevre should rally to the defense. Nevertheless the argument regard- ing laying off men and breaking in on no sound basis The same thing We say again it is not the truth, except per- new ones rests and leads nowhere. applies to every ship yard. haps to some extent as to unskilled or common labor, but not otherwise. Now one of the reasons advanced in support of building ships in navy yards (see departmental reports) is to hold together a force of men so that they are available for repair work. With this view we have no parfticu- lar quarrel and if it were correct, the "discharge of thousands" could not occur, because if there is anything for which navy yards do not suffer it is repair work. Private plants have their seasons of plenty and of famine in a degree unknown in navy yards and the laying off and breaking in is always with them and yet when work comes the skilled men, whose break- ing in would be a real question, are generally available, as every ship yard manager knows. They are not wait- ing at the gate but they are not far away and generally return. It is their trade and they stick to it and to the . Where has there been so much business in American locality. | yards as to absorb tthousands of skilled building workmen' discharged after the the Object of building her was merely to Connecticut when retain them? As a matter of fact -the New York navy yard entered into ship building on a purely competitive basis and so announced at the time the Connecticut was laid down, fur- more that the the department are mere platitudes. The last chapter of the Naval Waste contained this charge: "That no ship building plant ever, at any time, nishing one proof statements of in this country, produced such a beggarly output for the investment and equipment as in the case of the Connecticut." When the Journal is prepared with figures to the contrary the Review will be pleased to resume the dis- that time the argu- men.s are still those of the layman. cussion; until LAKE ERIE-LAKE MICHIGAN CANAL, Discussing the recent meeting "at Ft: constructing a between Lake Erie and Lake Michigan, Engineering News asks "would there be. any ad- lake in passing. through such a channel instead of tak- ing the present route through the open lake?" canal vantage to vessels The only likelihood of such a canal being constructed will come from _ its being considered too seriously. So far as lake vessels are concerned they are not asking for, nor even hoping for, anything of the kind. They couldn't afford to use it if it existed. Certain- ly the size and type of bulk freighter of the great lakes will not retrogress and a canal to accommodate ships of 15,000 to 18,000 tons displacement such now the standard is no fool as are ditch to be idly discussed by rustic boomers, even if the tonnage bound from Chicago for Lake Erie was not By far the © larger tonnage out of Lake Michigan decreasing year by year. clears from the foot of the lake, not anywhere near Chicago, and even if the Straits and Lake Huron are the short there were no other advantages, course, But the question of time is all im- portant, since in this case we already have an available alternative route. The ordinary running time of the aver- age freighter from Chicago, say, to Bar Point, Lake Erie, is about 65 which constitute the larger proportion of the Chicago-Lake : ten to fifteen hours less. If the dis- - hours--the package freighters, Erie tonnage, do it in tance to be covered by the canal is taken at 225 miles, and the elevations are as the Epgineering News states, 200: ft, the even without any delays due to passing requiring easily 25 lockages, time required for one passage vessels, waiting turn, etc., will not be less than ninety hours. The least time required' for a lockage even in