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

24 day as we do—and ever should? She bears no ancient grudge against the “Lion” that clawed the “Cub” in 1812. Rather does she now regard that incident as but a family af- fair, one that disclosed her strength and showed the ultimate good that flows from pursuing, peacefully com- mon Anglo-Saxon ideals. Read his- tory aright: If an outsider menaces the United States, note the ominous twitching of the “Lions” tail, and the direction of the flare of her nose. The CONSTITUTION’s cannons spoke in protest only. When they did, all the world hearkened to what she had to say; the language she spoke was universal—everlasting; understood to- day, as it was a century ago and will be a thousand years hence. “Behold, the former things will come to pass” is the comforting mes- sage vouchsafed to us in the ages long past. We should all therefore take heart and believe that “history will repeat itself’ and that before many more years have run their course, Ontp IRonsipes will again have partaken of the elixir of life as she did in 1906-7. This elixir was but a draft on the treasury of the United States in amount sufficient to restore her “as far as may be practicable, to her original condition but not for active service.’ Thanks to the gen- erosity of the school children of America, another draught adminis- tered by the hand of congress may not be needed. If it is, then let it be forthcoming in ungrudging meas- ure. The sixty-eighth congress passed an act, approved March 4, 1925, author- izing the restoration of this vessel but without appropriating any money for the purpose. It carried, however, MARINE REV IE W this proviso: “That the secretary of the navy is further authorized to accept and use any donations or contributions, which may be offered for the aforesaid pur- pose.” On Feb. 14 1900, there was an analogous enactment, by which funds Concerning the Author The contributor of the article “Guns and Gunnery, Old Iron- sides,” Rear Admiral Elliot Snow, construction corps, United States navy, retired, was until his re- cent retirement one of the high ranking officers of that corps. In 1906-7 he was very closely identified with the restoration of the U. S. S. CONSTITUTION, as carried out under a_ provision enacted by the first session of the fifty-ninth congress. The statutory restriction against using funds appropriated for work, undcr the appropriation “con-— struction and repair” for repairs to wooden vessels amounting to more than 10 per cent of the cost of a new vessel was at that time waived in the case of the CONSTITUTION. A provision was also included that directed $100,- 000 or such part of that sum as might be required, “shall be wsed to repair, equip and restore the frigate CONSTITUTION, as far as may be practicable, to her original condition but not for active ser- vice.” What Admiral Snow says in this article is taken partly from his personal files, partly from the archives of the navy depart- ment, and is technically accurate. were to be raised through the agency of the Massachusetts state society, United States Daughters of 1812. After a lapse of some five years, MODEL OF THE U. S. S. CONSTITUTION LEAVING PORT 1922—A SAILING MODEL MADE BY COL. WILLIAM F, SPICER, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS. A VIEW TAKEN ACTUALLY SAILING October, 1926 congress yielded to public opinion and issued a mandate to the bureau of construction and repair (appropria- tion act of 1905-6) ‘‘to expend $100,- 000, or such portion thereof as may be necessary to repair the CoNSTITU- TION but not for active service.” An evidence of the widespread, growing interest in the coming re- storation of the historic frigate came from Duluth, Minn. It took the form of a letter, addressed to the Scientific American, and dealt with the battery of that vessel. The correspondent failed to include his address, thus rendered it impos- sible to communicate with him. It seemed wise therefore to place be- fore the editor of the Scientific Amer- ican . some first-hand information bearing upon the history of the re- storation of OLp IRoNsIDEs, in 1906-7. Accordingly a letter was sent to the editor and with it was en- closed the following statement: “It is to be hoped that the funds and the information as to the details of the battery the CONSTITUTION car- ried in 1812 will both be available. If your correspondent can and will write to me or the commandant of the navy yard, Boston, and tell us where to find the information upon which to reproduce the battery he will have served his country well— better perhaps, from an_ historic standpoint than he realizes. The estimates upon which the ap- propriation of $100,000 was made for the restoration work of 1906 were asked for by telegraph and were similarly submitted within 24 or 48 hours from the receipt of the order, because the naval appropriation bill was then in the final stages of con- ference and there was no time to be lost. The funds voted were thus based upon a necessarily quick snap judgment guess only, and as_ it proved were not sufficient to permit of too great nicety in their expendi- ture for detailed differences in the battery. Upon closing the accounts at the end of the fiscal year, the expenditures amounted to somewhere in the neighhood of $99,996. The affairs of the navy have not always been in the hands of an execu- tive department bearing that name. When the CoNSTITUTION was building and first equipped, the affairs of the navy were in the hands of the war office then administered by Timothy Pickering. Her guns were English built, borrowed from the Common- wealth of Massachusetts, some were smaller in size than she carried in 1812. The lack of original documents wherewith to settle obscure details of OLD IRONSIDES, cannons (as guns were called in her day), is due to the loss of these papers by fire. The original records of the navy were burned in 1800. Fortunately the (Continued on Page 60)