THE HITY IN CONGRESS: 
BEING 
SPEECHES 
OF THE 
HON. MESSRS. GRIMES, DOOLITTLE, AND NYE; 
OF THE SENATE. 
AND THE 
HON. MESSRS. RICE, PIKE, GRISWOLD, AND BLOW; 
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
WASHINGTON: 
FRANCK TAYLOR. 
1865. THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
SPEECH OF HON. J. W. GRIMES, 
OF lOWA 
Friday, February 17,1865 
In the Senate 
Mr. GRIMES said : 
ought to approach this question without being 
influenced in the remotest degree by our likes 
or our dislikes of any individual now con- 
nected, or who has hitherto been connected, or 
is likely to be connected, with the administra- 
tion of the Navy Department We are not 
legislating in regard to any individual. There 
may be an objectionable man connected with 
the Navy as Assistant Secretary, or as Secre- 
tary, or as head of a bureau. Our remedy in 
such a case is to get rid of that man, and not 
by one swoop, upon an appropriation bill, at- 
tempt to overturn the entire naval organiza- 
tion. 
I do not stand here to night as the defender 
or as the advocate of any man, but to main- 
tain what I believe to be the public interest in 
connection with the Navy Department. It is 
the public service we are to promote, and not 
the interests of any man or set of men. I 
shall not seek to defend or palliate any wrong, 
no matter by whom committed. I believe that 
this Department, as all other Departments, has 
made mistakes, but the true remedy for them 
is not the one set forth by the Senator from 
Ohio; and entertaining the opinions that I do 
on the subject, there is no alternative for me 
but to oppose as strenuously as I may be able 
the amendment that he proposes. 
I have no fault to find with the Senator from 
Ohio for proposing this amendment. It is true 
that we have a Naval Committee, of which I 
happen to be a member. It is true that it is 
the business of that committee to examine into 
all the laws in connection with naval affairs, to 
inform themselves of the operations of the 
naval organization, to understand not only its 
written but its unwritten laws, to know what 
vessels have been built or are being built, the 
character of their armament, the character of 
the machinery by which they are to be pro- 
pelled, their efficiency and speed, and the 
character of the contracts under which they 
are to be built. I think I can say that the 
Committee on Naval Affairs have endeavored, 
as far as their capacity and time would allow 
them, to thus inform themselves on all these 
points. It is the duty also of this committee 
Mr. President: I would, if I could, bring 
the Senate back to the consideration of the 
subject immediately before it. I shall attempt 
to do so in the few remarks I have to submit 
this evening. 
I shall not follow gentlemen in the wander- 
ing debate that has characterized this occasion. 
I shall discuss no party issues. I have no en- 
comiums to pronounce upon and no denuncia- 
tions to utter against the old Democratic and 
Whig parties, for I am content that the dead 
should bury their dead. 
1 shall say nothing of the alleged corrup- 
tions in the Navy Department, for all these 
charges have been triumphantly refuted by the 
Senator from Wisconsin, who was a member of 
the select committee of this body especially 
instructed to investigate them. 
I have nothing to say of the attempted pur- 
chase of a part of Seavey’s Island for the use 
of the Portsmouth navy-yard, for it is in the 
recollection of most of the Senators here that 
all the remarks that have been submitted to 
the Senate to-day upon that subject have been 
annually replied to by the distinguished gen- 
tleman now at the head of the Treasury De- 
partment, very much to the satisfaction of the 
Senate. I cannot help, however, remarking in 
this connection that all the wrong in that case, 
if there were any wrong, was done by a rear 
admiral of the Navy, an officer of the very 
class whom it is sought by the amendment 
under consideration to make omnipotent on 
this subject as well as upon every other con- 
nected with naval affairs. Nor have I any 
reply to make in relation to the contemplated 
purchase of land for additions to the navy- 
yard at Charlestown, except to state the signi- 
ficant fact that that purchase also was recom- 
mended by the officers attached to that yard— 
the same class of men, be it remembered, 
who will be made Lords of the Admiralty 
should the amendment proposed by the Sena- 
tor from Ohio be adopted. 
Mr, President, I suppose this question will 
be decided—it certainly ought to be—without 
any regard to personal considerations. We 4 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
to inform themselves, and I think they have 
attempted to do it, not only in regard to our 
own particular naval organization, but in re- 
gard to the naval organizations of the different 
nations of the earth, and if in their opinion 
there be any advantages over ours in any of 
those organizations to suggest them to the 
Senate for adoption into our own. I think the 
Committee of the Senate on Naval Affairs have 
informed themselves in regard to each of the 
many descriptions of vessels, some twenty-five 
or thirty, that have been built by the Navy 
Department, and that now constitute parts of 
our Navy. 
Nor am I going to find fault with the Senator 
because, in obedience to an instruction which 
he received from the Senate, as a member of 
the committee on the conduct of the war, he 
examined only one particular type of vessels 
that had been built by the Department, and 
found some objections to that class. But I 
submit to the Senate that it would hardly be 
wise for them in a time like this, upon a supply 
bill, because there happened to be in the esti- 
mation of the committee on the conduct of the 
war some objections to that particular kind of 
vessels, to overturn the entire Navy organiza- 
tion, when the Naval committee, Avho have ex- 
amined into all the various descriptions of 
vessels that have been built, and have been 
able to survey the whole field, and having done 
it in obedience to the general instructions 
which they have received from this body, have 
not deemed it advisable to propose any such 
change. 
Nor am I going to object that this amend- 
ment was studiously kept secret—l will not 
say that; but that it was not communicated to 
the Senate or to the Naval Committee before it 
was offered. It is possible that we might have 
taken a different view of the subject if our at- 
tention had been called to it earlier, if we had 
been permitted to pass upon it and investigate 
it as an independent measure by itself; but 
coming to us as it does, and informed as we 
are in regard to the general operations of the 
Navy, knowing the success that it is admitted 
on all hands has been achieved by the Depart- 
ment in the construction of the varied descrip- 
tions of vessels; knowing what has been accom- 
plished for the country and for our national 
reputation by the Navy during the last four 
years under its present administration, we have 
unhesitatingly come to the conclusion, as the 
organ of this body in connection with naval 
affairs, that this change ought not to be made, 
and would prove to be most disastrous if made. 
The whole argument upon which this amend- 
ment is based proceeds upon one assumption, 
and that is that there have been mistakes made 
in the construction of what are known as the 
light-draught iron-clads. Admit it. Is that a 
reason for overturning the Navy Department? 
Is this the first mistake that has been made ? 
If the committee on the conduct of the war 
had inquired of the Naval Committee, we could 
have told them that a similar mistake was 
made in regard to the second class of monitors 
that were built, that same class of monitors 
which have been doing such efficient service at 
Fort Fisher, and of which Admiral Porter 
speaks in such eulogistic terms. Is it un- 
known to the committee on the conduct of the 
war that at least one-half of all the old sailing 
vessels that have been built since the establish- 
ment of the American Navy have been modi- 
fied and changed ? Does not the Senator know 
as well as I do that within five years the Pen- 
sacola was changed under our own eyes at the 
navy-yard in Washington, and forty feet added 
to her length? Was that a reason for over- 
turning the Navy Department? Does not the 
Senator know—if he had informed himself he 
might have known—that nearly all of the 
British iron-clad vessels, such as the Warrior 
and Black Prince, are now pronounced fail- 
ures? Does any man doubt it? I have the 
highest British authority for saying it lying 
upon my desk to be read if desired; and the 
Warrior is now being dismantled, being consid- 
ered unfit to go to sea. 
Did the Senator ever know that a peer of the 
realm or any member of the House of Commons 
rose in his place in the British Parliament and 
gravely proposed to overturn the whole Admi- 
ralty system of that empire upon a supply bill 
because mistakes had been made in the con- 
struction of their iron-clad vessels—vessels 
that have cost millions of pounds sterling? 
What would be thought of such a proceeding 
were it attempted ? 
Admit the mistake to be as great as it is 
charged to be. Is this the only mistake that 
has been made ? Has no other Department 
blundered ? Have there been no mistakes in 
the Treasury, and will you put that Department 
in commission also ? Has the War Department 
been entirely free from blunders during the last 
four years, and if not, will you overturn that 
Department upon an amendment to the Army 
appropriation bill ? 
But how great is this alleged mistake, where 
did it originate, and how is it to be obviated 
by the Senator’s amendment? If I understood 
the Senator correctly, he entirely exonerated 
the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary 
of the Navy from all blame in this matter. 
Mr. WADE. Perhaps that statement is a little 
too broad, I certainly did not accuse them of 
any intentional wrong, but there were sins of 
omission perhaps that will be found when we 
come to report the evidence. The statement of 
the Senator is a little broader than the one I 
intended to make. 
Mr. GRIMES. I understood the Senator 
to say so. Perhaps I misunderstood what he 
said. 
Mr. WADE. I did not exactly mean that. 
Mr. GRIMES. If I remember aright, the 
charge of malfeasance, or misfeasance, or non- 
feasance, whatever it was that the Senator 
brought, was against the chief of the Bureau 
of Construction principally, or perhaps against 
a board of which he spoke, and of which the 
chief of the Bureau of Construction and the 
chief of the Bureau of Engineering were mem- 
bers. 
Mr. WADE. If the Senator will allow me, SPEECH OF HON. J. W. GRIMES. 
5 
I will state that T complained of a general loose- 
ness and inattention to the business. It does 
not seem to have been anybody’s business to 
attend particularly to the construction of these 
vessels. They were passed from hand to hand, 
and frequently the person engaged and charged j 
with it, Mr. Stimers, was sent on other duty, 
and so it would pass into other hands. There 
was a general inattention; it was nobody’s j 
business really to trace the matter thi'ough. j 
That is what I charged. That was the princi- 
pal complaint I made. 
Mr. GRIMES. I think I did not misunder- 
stand the Senator when he said that the charge 
was based principally upon the testimony of 
Mr. Stimers, which was given two or three 
days before he made his speech here yesterday 
and which yet remains untranscribed in the 
notes of the reporter, and that Mr. Stimers 
said he had applied to Mr. Lenthall, or Mr. 
Isherwood, or to a board of which they were 
members, to compute the displacement of those 
vessels, and that they refused to do it. 
Mr. WADE. They did not do it. 
Mr. GRIMES. I was at once satisfied that 
there was some mistake about that statement 
of the Senator, I was satisfied that the Senator 
from Ohio was misinformed, and that his criti- 
cisms upon the chief of the Bureau of Con- 
struction were unjust. It is a singular fact 
that the gentlemen who advocated and opposed 
this amendment in the House of Representa- | 
tives united in one thing, and I believe only in 
one thing, and that was in the encomiums 
pronounced on the chief of the Bureau of | 
Construction ; while the advocates of the same 
measure in the Senate also unite in one thing, j 
and perhaps only in one thing, and that is in 
their condemnations of the chief of the Bureau 
of Construction. After I listened to the remarks 
of the Senator from Ohio 1 had a conversation 
with him on the subject, and discovered that I 
did not misunderstand the statements of his 
speech in this regard. I then addressed a note 
to the chief of the Bureau of Construction, 
satisfied as I was that the Senator was wholly 
mistaken, first as to Mr. Lenthall having had any 
connection with the light-draught iron-clads, 
and second, as to his being opposed to the con- 
struction of iron vessels, for I think the Sena- 
tor made that charge also. I have a letter 
from the chief of the bureau, written this 
morning, which I will read. It is as follows; 
It is not true that I am now or that I ever have 
been opposed to the building of iron-clad vessels, 
or so intimated to any one. But, on the con- 
trary, I have strongly advocated vessels of that 
class. I have views of my own as to the adapta- 
tion of certain classes of these vessels for sea- 
j going purposes; but I have never doubted the 
value or necessity of the monitor type for the 
I purposes of harbor defence, and the unsatisfactory 
j result of the light-draught monitors is altogether 
| due to errors of detail made by Chief Engineer 
Stimers, and not to the general principle of these 
vessels. 
Respectfully, your obedient servant, 
JOHN LENTHALL, Chief of Bureau. 
Hon. James W. Grimes, Chairman of Commit- 
tee on Naval Affairs, United States Senate. 
Mr. Lenthall is one of the most competent and 
one of the purest men, in my estimation, not- 
withstanding what has been said by Senators 
on this floor, that I have ever had the fortune 
to be acquainted with—a gentleman of whom 
an eminent officer of the Navy, speaking of his 
merits, said that if he had lived under any 
other Government he would long since have 
been knighted for the services he had rendered 
his country. 
Now, I think, Mr. President, it will be ad- 
mitted even by the Senator himself, that the 
whole substructure of his argument is remov- 
ed. He based his argument entirely upon the 
testimony of Stimers—Stimers, who made the 
1 mistake in the calculation of displacement, and 
who was therefore directly interested in swear- 
ing, as he did swear, according to the Senator’s 
version of his testimony, that the blame rested, 
i not upon himself, but on some one else. He 
must fix it upon some one, so a mythical board 
that never had any existence, but which was 
said to be composed in part of two persons to- 
ward whom he does not entertain very friendly 
feelings, was selected as the scape-goat to bear 
the burden of his sins. 
The Senator will remember that yesterday 
he was not able to tell me who was the third 
member of this apocryphal board of officers. He 
said that Stimers stated that it was composed 
of Lenthall and Isherwood, and some one else 
whose name he could not recollect, and who, it 
seems, is destined to be unknown in history. 
I cannot secure the testimony of this unknown 
man, but I have the testimony of Mr. Isher- 
i wood on this subject, which T will read: 
Navy Department, 
Bureau of Steam Engineering, 
February 17, 1865. 
Sir : In reply to your note of inquiry concern- 
-1 ing certain facts in relation to the light-draught 
monitors, I have to say that I never was a mem- 
j her of any board to consider or pass on that sub- 
ject ; that no such board was ever, to my know- 
ledge, called; nor was my opinion on the subject 
ever asked of me further than to estimate (after 
the designs had been adopted) what speed a cer- 
tain boiler-power would give a certain immersed 
amidships section assumed at a draught of six 
feet. 
I never saw either the plans or specifications of 
these vessels, or of their machinery ; never gave 
any directions in regard to them; and did not 
have in any way the slightest connection with 
their design or construction. 
Navy Department, 
Bureau of Construction and Repair, 
February 17, 1865. 
Sir : In reply to your inquiry of this date, I 
have respectfully to say that I was never a mem- 
ber of any board to which the subject of the light- 
draught monitors was referred I have no know- 
ledge that any such board was ever called; nor 
was I ever asked to calculate their displacement, 
and therefore did not refuse to do so. To this 
day I have never seen any of the plans or speci- 
fications of these vessels or of their machinery, 
except the general outline of the hulls deposited 
in this bureau by Chief Engineer Stimers at the 
time the advertisement to contractors referring 
them to Chief Engineer Stimers’s office at New 
York, was issued inviting propositions from bid- 6 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
I have always been strongly in favor of build- 
ing iron-clad war steamers of the type and pro- 
portions which my professional experience could 
approve. 
Very respectfully your obedient servant, 
B. F. ISHERWOOD. 
Hon. J. W. Grimes, United States Senator. 
So much for the testimony of Stimers before 
the committee on the condupt of the war, and 
the mythical board of construction or compu- 
tation that has been so thoroughly denounced 
as old and incapable. Can there be a linger- 
ing doubt in the mind of any one as to the 
weight that should be given to Stimers’ testi- 
mony in this matter? If such a board ever 
existed the record of its creation is in the Navy 
Department. Where is that record? It has 
no existence. 
Now, Mr. President, I repeat the inquiry, 
how much of a mistake has been made, after 
all ? I think not a great one; I think that the 
Government has not been greatly injured. If 
I am not mistaken the Senator stated that these 
vessels had been raised so as to give them a 
larger draught than was at first intended, and 
if I did not misconceive what he stated, he said, 
in answer to a question of a Senator on the 
other side of him, that they were raised with 
wood. Am I right? 
Mr. WADE. I said they were continued up 
twenty-two inches. 
Mr. GRIMES. Of wood? 
Mr. WADE. Yes; of wood and iron—iron- 
clad as the rest of it was. 
Mr. GRIMES. The Senator is mistaken in 
regard to that. They are iron, and not wood, 
as I understood the Senator yesterday. 
Mr. WADE. Wood faced with iron. 
Mr. GRIMES. The Senator is mistaken. 
They are wholly of iron. Well, Mr. President, 
how great are the mistakes that have thus been 
made? How much is the Government going 
to be injured ? On this subject I beg leave to 
read a letter addressed to the Senator from 
Ohio himself by the Secretary of the Navy, and 
which will doubtless considerably enlighten the 
Senate on this subject. Every Senator who has 
engaged in this discussion has asserted his belief 
that the Secretary of the Navy is a strictly 
honest man. He would not seek to mislead us 
or the country. What are his opinions on this 
subject, founded upon research and information 
far more thorough and extensive than it was 
possible for the Senator from Ohio to make ? 
I will read: 
Navy Department, January 16, 1865. 
Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the re- 
ceipt of your letter of the 14th ultimo, inclosing 
a copy of a resolution of the Senate in the follow- 
ing words : 
II Resolved, That the Committee on the Con- 
duct of the War be instructed to inquire what 
progress has been made in the construction of the 
iron-clad gunboats contracted for in the year 
1862—by whom the contract was made on the 
part of the Government—who planned the models 
of the same, and who is responsible therefor? 
Have any of them been finished ? If so, what 
was the condition of the vessel after she was 
launched? Are the other vessels contracted for 
to be built on a plan or model similar to the 
Chimo lately launched at Boston ? and all infor- 
mation which may be had touching said gun- 
boats.” 
I am requested in the letter transmitting a 
copy of the resolution to “ furnish the committee, 
as soon as convenient, with such information upon 
the subject-matter of the resolution as may be in 
possession of the Navy Department.” 
I presume that a mistake has been made by 
the committee or by the Senate in their inquiry 
relative to the “iron.-elad gunboats contracted 
for in the year 1862.” In the spring and summer 
of 1863 contracts were made for twenty turreted 
vessels of the Monitor class. Not doubting that 
the resolution of the Senate and the investiga- 
tions and inquiries of the committee have refer- 
ence to those contracts and those vessels, my 
response will be made as if the resolution read 
1863 instead of 1862. The mistake of a year in 
regard to the execution of these contracts, pro- 
vided they are, as I suppose, those referred to, is 
important to the contractors as well as to the 
Department, and should therefore be corrected. 
In answer to that part of the resolution which 
inquires “ by whom the contract was made on 
the part of the Government,” I have to state it 
was by the Chief of the Bureau of Construction 
under advertisement issued by this Department, 
on the 10th of February, 1863. A reference to 
the message of the President and accompanying 
documents of the first session of the present Con- 
gress may be had for a list of bidders and award 
of contracts under direction of this Department. 
It is asked “who planned the models of the 
same, and who is responsible therefor?” 
The general idea of a light-draught iron-clad 
inside of a raft of wood was furnished by Captain 
John Ericsson, of New York, the distinguished 
inventor, at the request of this Department. The 
details of the plan and the preparation of the 
working drawings were intrusted to Chief En- 
gineer A. C. Stimers, who was instructed by the 
Bureau of Construction to consult with Captain 
Ericsson and take directions from him. 
It will be observed that this relates to all the 
monitors. 
Mr. WADE. The twenty light-draught 
monitors ? 
Mr GRIMES. Yes. all of them. 
To that extent Chief Engineer Stimers is re- 
sponsible. 
“ Have any of them been finished ; if so, what 
was the condition of the vessel after she was 
launched ?” 
None of the light-draught turreted vessels are 
quite finished. The Casco, converted into a boat 
for reeonnoitering and torpedo purposes, has re- 
cently made a passage from Boston to New York. 
Complaints were made by the officers of discom- 
forts, as complaints were formerly made of the 
brigs and schooners of the Navy, so many of 
which, like the Grampus, Somers, Porpoise, and 
Bainbridge, have gone to sea and never been 
heard of. 
The Secretary might have added the Levant 
and several others. 
The Chimo was the first of her class which was 
got into the water, and led to the discovei-y that 
due allowance had not been made for all the 
weights. She floated on an even keel only about 
three inches above the water, instead of fifteen, 
as was intended and expected. Several of the 
same class which have been since launched have varied considerably from this, all of them being 
high out of the water, notwithstanding all were 
made from the same drawings, showing that there 
have been variations in model or in the weight of 
materials used in construction. 
Before any of this class of vessels had been 
launched, Rear Admiral Dahlgren and Acting 
Rear Admiral Lee had strenuously urged the De- 
partment to send them some monitors—hulls 
without turrets—to be used for the purpose of 
reconnoissance and as torpedo boats. Five of the 
light-draughts most advanced were therefore or- 
dered to be finished without the turrets. When 
relieved of this weight, the necessity and expense 
of raising their sides and thereby increasing their 
capacity was obviated. The other fifteen were 
recommended to be enlarged by building them 
higher, thus increasing their capacity about one 
hundred and thirty tons, and rendering them 
consequently more efficient. Previously the same 
plan was adopted in constructing and completing 
the second batch of monitor vessels, which have 
just passed through the baptism of fire at Fort 
Fisher; and have remained at anchor on that 
coast, exposed as it is in the winter season ninety 
miles from a harbor, during the most terrific gale 
of wind ever experienced, according to the Wil- 
mington papers, and performing, as Rear Admi- 
ral Porter reports, to the admiration of every- 
body. 
“ Are the other vessels contracted for to be 
built on a plan or model similar to the Chimo, 
lately launched at Boston?” 
I have already stated that twenty light-draught 
monitors were contrac ed for in the spring and 
summer of 1863. All were designed upon the 
monitor plan which has been so serviceable, hut 
modifications and alterations were made of five, 
omitting the turrets for special purposes, by spe- 
cial request of naval officers. 
The resolution, in conclusion, calls for “ all 
information which may be had touching said 
gunboats.” 
The necessity of light-draught iron-clads to 
operate in the bays, bounds, and rivers, as well 
as for defensive purposes, was forced upon the 
Department at an early period of the present 
struggle. Not only was the contest in which we 
were engaged peculiar, but the means and mea- 
sures to meet and suppress it, particularly those 
of the navy, were novel and without precedent. 
Most of the lines of Army communication were 
by water, and the Navy was expected to protect 
them and render them secure. A brief experience 
and a few engagements made it evident that light- 
draught, unprotected, wooden boats, with maga- 
zines, machinery, and boilers exposed, could be 
driven off by field artillery behind earthworks. 
Light-draught iron-dads became, therefore, an 
imperious necessity, and the convictions of the 
Department, and of all indeed who gave the sub- 
ject intelligent consideration, were irresistibly in 
favor of such vessels ; but we were without mod- 
els, and the wants of the country were pressing. 
Neither of the Maritime Powers of Europe had 
built, or attempted to build, alight-draught iron- 
clad. 
The Navy Department, in this emergency, was 
compelled to feel its way, without experience or 
precedent in any quarter to guide it. Appeals 
had been made in vain to Congress to provide a 
proper establishment for the construction of iron 
and armored vessels, where plans and models 
might have been developed and matured with 
studied deliberation and skill. When the con- 
tracts for these vessels were entered into, delays 
SPEECH OF HON. J. W. GRIMES. 
were inadmissible. Difficulties with foreign Pow- 
ers seemed imminent, and in the absence of any 
national establishment immediate contracts for 
the construction of armored vessels were called for 
on every hand. The authorities of the States 
and cities on the seaboard were appealing to the 
Department and the Government for iron-clad 
vessels to defend their harbors from the two or 
three rovers that were then already abroad, and 
great apprehensions were entertained that certain 
formidable ships in the process of construction 
in France and England for the rebels would soon 
visit our coast. Many who may now he for- 
ward to criticize and censure the enlarged and 
energetic action that was taken were at that 
time profuse in censuring the Department for 
delays in not more promptly providing whatever 
vessels were necessary for the service. 
Congress having omitted to provide an esta- 
blishment for the construction of an iron navy, 
where this class of armored vessels of light 
draught could be constructed, the Department 
has been compelled to rely on contractors and 
outside parties in different sections of the country 
for the work. 
The parties contracting have generally exerted 
themselves to meet in good faith the requirements 
of the Government, and it is a subject of just 
congratulation that, in this great emergency, 
when the Department was compelled to act with- 
out precedents to guide it, and when the Go- 
vernment had omitted to furnish a suitable 
establishment, private enterprise and our skilled 
mechanics have so well met the difficulties pre- 
sented. 
Mr. J. B. Eades, of St. Louis, furnished the 
light-draught river boats which have been so 
successful on the Mississippi and also in the bay 
of Mobile. Captain Ericsson, the inventor of 
the monitor class of vessels, furnished the idea 
which is now near practical consummation. Al- 
though as yet untried these vessels differ so little 
from the original monitor that there is every 
reason to anticipate their success. To predict 
otherwise would be presumption ; yet it has been 
the misfortune of the Department to encounter 
hostility and forebodings of failure with every 
improvement which has been made during the 
war, and often from those of whom encourage- 
ment and support might reasonably have been 
expected. Some of the best engineers and con- 
structors in the service of the Government, as 
well as others, expressed their want of confidence 
in the first monitor, and declared it would prove 
a failure. It was represented that she could not 
float, that she would plunge to the bottom when 
launched, and that to send her to Hampton Roads 
would be recklessness amounting to crime. A 
constant succession of struggles against prejudices, 
ignorance, and fixed habits and opinions, has been 
the fate of the Department at every step which 
the extraordinary exigencies of this war have 
compelled it to take. While it is not difficult to 
criticize and point out mistakes in a new descrip- 
tion of vessels which the change in naval warfare 
has suddenly called into existence, and to sug- 
gest alterations and improvements on what has 
already transpired, it is a satisfaction to the De- 
partment which was compelled to encounter this 
opposition to know that this class of vessels, sub- 
jected at the beginning to ridicule, and subse- 
quently to obloquy and denunciation, has been 
successfully tried in battle and in storm—that 
these vessels have equalled the expectations of the 
country in periods of peril, and have been exten- 
sively copied abroad. Other Governments are 
7 8 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
adopting them, while many of the discontented 
of our own country still question the wisdom of 
building vessels of the class which has at a criti- 
cal moment rendered unequalled service to the 
Union, and saved the capita! of the nation. 
In encouraging contrast with the illiberal and 
prejudiced opinions which have opposed all im- 
provements, denounced them in advance as fail- 
ures, and been dissatisfied even with successful 
results, are the observations and reflections of the 
sagacious and sensible author of the recent valua- 
ble work on “English and French neutrality,” 
who, appreciating the difficulties of the Depart- 
ment, remarks at page 458 of his instructive 
volume : 
“ It is no small proof of ability in the manage- 
ment of thejNavy that there was skill enough to 
provide, and independence enough to use, a form 
of war-ship and a kind of cannon before untried, 
but which time and experience have shown were 
alone of all ships and weapons then known capa- 
ble of meeting the emergency.” 
At the present time the call for light-draught 
iron-elads comes from every squadron engaged in 
this struggle. Acting Rear Admiral Lee says 
that within the limits of his command there must 
be a large increase of light-draught iron-dads 
Vice Admiral Farragut, before he left the scene 
of his great exploits, asked for additional iron- 
clads, especially those of light-draught, and de- 
clared that the coast could not be held unless he 
had them. In each of the blockading and river 
squadrons they are required. 
Nearly two years have elapsed since any con- 
tracts have been entered into for this class of ves- 
sels, and it is hoped the present war is so near 
its close that no further expenditures for addi- 
tional ones will be necessary ; but should the war 
continue a year longer more will be wanted. 
My acknowledgments are due to the committee 
for this opportunity to express my views. I shall 
feel under obligations to them or others, as will 
the whole country, for any improvements or sug- 
gestions which they may propose in consequence 
of their investigations, or for any undetected 
errors or mistakes which they may discover, in 
order that their conclusions and recommenda- 
tions in this great emergency may be brought to 
the aid of the Department on this most interest- 
ing and important subject. 
I am, very respectfully, 
Your obedient servant. 
be of great value to the Government Now, 
what is the wise course for us to pursue ? 
Would it be wise for us, upon a supply bill, an 
appropriation bill, on the mere suggestion of 
the Senator from Ohio, predicated upon testi- 
mony that is not before us, which we have not 
an opportunity to read, or to analyze, or to 
examine at all, to undertake to condemn these 
vessels as though we were naval experts, revo- 
lutionize the entire Navy Department, and put 
it into commission ? Could a more absurd 
proposition be submitted to us ? After hear- 
ing this letter from the Secretary, is any one 
satisfied that we have squandered $10,000,000 
upon these iron-clads? 
In regard to these light draught iron-clads, 
the facts are very simple. We had a board that 
sat originally in 1861 to determine the cha- 
racter of the vessels that should be built with 
the million and a half of dollars appropriated 
at the extra session in July of that year for 
the construction of iron-clad vessels-of-war. 
That board was composed of three superior 
officers in the Navy. They reported in favor 
of three different classes of vessels. They 
reported in favor of the Ironsides, which is 
an excellent vessel; in favor of the Galena, 
which has turned out to be a failure ; and they 
said to Mr. Ericsson, who proposed to build 
the original Monitor, that he might build that 
vessel for a given sum of money, a small price, 
and run his own risk upon her; if she turned 
out to be a success the Government would take 
her, and if otherwise it would not. That 
Monitor, at the time she fought the Merrimac, 
and relieved us of the great weight that rested 
upon every man here in Washington after the 
destruction of the Congress and Cumberland, 
was not the property of the United States, but 
belonged to John Ericsson and the men who 
were associated with him in building her. 
Whenever the Government has any of these 
works going on at private yards it directs an 
engineer to supervise the work, and to see that 
the contractors put the proper material and 
the proper kind of workmanship in the vessel. 
The engineer in the navy, who was engaged 
in that business in New York, at the beginning 
of the work on the first monitor, was Mr. A. 
C. Stimers, the gentleman who was the wit- 
ness before the committee on the conduct of 
the war. He is quite a skilful man. I be- 
lieve he has the reputation of being an ex- 
cellent engineer. He was associated with 
Mr. Ericsson, and Mr. Ericsson furnished to 
him the computations, or they made them 
together, as to the floating capacity, or the 
buoyancy, or the displacement, or whatever 
may be the technical term of the different 
vessels of the monitor type that were built. 
When the contract was made for building these 
light-draught iron-clads, the department di- 
rected that they should be built under the su- 
pervision, with the advice, and under the di- 
rection of Ericsson and Stimers, as all the 
preceding ones had been built. But it seems 
that some misunderstanding grew up between 
Ericsson and Stimers, and Mr. Stimers, with- 
out letting the department know anything 
GIDEON WELLES, 
Secretary of the, Navy. 
B. F. Wade, 
Chairman of the Committee on the Conduct 
of the War. 
Mr. President, here is the committee on the 
conduct of the war pursuing an ex par'e ex- 
amination, calling before it whom it pleases, 
and only whom it pleases, reaching the conclu- 
sion that these vessels are a failure. The 
Secretary of the Navy, surrounded by naval 
officers, seeing daily, if not hourly, the men 
who are conversant with naval constructions 
and the performance of naval vessels, having 
reports at the end of every week from the 
experts and inspectors who are placed in charge 
of the construction of these vessels, knowing 
what the repoi’ts are from the officers wrho are 
in command of the various squadrons of the 
performances of similar or nearly similar 
vessels, comes to the conclusion that they are 
not failures; but on the contrary that they will SPEECH OF HON. J. W. GRIMES. 
9 
about it, undertook to make the computations 
himself, unaided by and -without consulting 
Ericsson. He never sent the plans or specifi - 
cations of these vessels to the Navy Depart- 
ment, as is testified before you here this eve- 
ning by both John Lenthall and Benjamin F. 
Isherwood. There was where the trouble arose. 
There was a mistake made in the computation 
of the displacement of the vessels There is 
no question about that. That mistake was not 
detected until the first vessel was launched, 
and would not have occurred had Mr. Stimers 
consulted with Mr. Ericsson as he had been 
instructed to do, and as he had done from the 
time the first monitor was contracted for. 
Now, Mr. President, let us see what it is 
proposed by the Senator from Ohio that we 
should do. This amendment provides:— 
And he it further enacted, That the President, 
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
shall appoint a Board of Admiralty, which shall 
consist of the vice admiral, one rear admiral, one 
commodore, one captain, one commander, and 
one lieutenant commander, over which the Secre- 
tary of the Navy or the officer of highest rank 
present shall preside ; and when the subject under 
consideration shall appertain to the duties of any 
bureau in the Navy Department, the chief of such 
bureau shall be a member of the board, and en- 
titled to sit and vote on the subject. 
I should be pleased if the Senator would in- 
form me what will be the tenure of office of 
this Board of Admiralty. 
Mr. WADE. I suppose they will hold their 
offices at the will of the President, as others 
do. I suppose the President will have power 
to turn them out of office, and displace them 
if he sees fit, as there is no time limited. 
Mr. GRIMES. Five naval officers, officers 
of the line, sea officers, are provided for who 
are to hold their offices during the will and 
pleasure of the President, according to the 
construction the Senator from Ohio gives here, 
and the Secretary of the Navy is to preside 
over them. It is to be a kind of New England 
town meeting. If any question comes before 
this Admiralty Boai’d in connection with any 
one of the bureaux, the head of that bureau 
is then to be permitted to come in, and partici- 
pate in the discussions. 
Has the Senator forgotten, or has he not 
been informed that within the last few years a 
great revolution has come over all the navies 
of the world ? Does he not know that the most 
important officer on board of every ship-of-war, 
next to the man actually in command, is the 
engineer? Is he going to intrust the whole 
navy of the United States to the hands of five 
line officers, without any consultation, or ad- 
vice, or uniting with them, and giving any 
voice to the staff officers of the navy ? 
Mr. WADE. It is provided that they may 
take the advice of any one skilled. 
Mr. GRIMES. Can they not do that now? 
Mr. WADE. They do not. 
Mr. GRIMES. I assert that they do. I 
assert that there has not been any important 
measure taken by the Navy Department in the 
last four years without calling to its aid a 
board of officers, and the advantage of the pre- 
sent system over that proposed is obvious. 
There are some particular officers wdio are 
experts in ordnance. The Secretary of the 
Navy can convene a board of experts of five 
or seven or nine men who are distinguished in 
that particular department; they would be 
able to report something that would be valu- 
able to the Secretary of the Navy and advan- 
tageous to the country. But every question in 
regard to ordnance is to be submitted, under this 
proposition of the Senator from Ohio, to a board 
of sea officers, who may or may not know any- 
thing about ordnance. We have had time and 
time again, boards of engineers assembled, to 
which various questions have been referred by 
the Secretary of the Navy. They have been 
composed of experts in that particular depart- 
ment. The advice that they have been in the 
habit of giving to the Secretary of the Navy 
has been of value, and will continue to be of 
value to the Government; but of what value, I 
pray to be informed, would be the opinion of 
these five sea officers in regard to the con- 
struction of engines? They know no more 
about engines than the Senator from Ohio or I 
know about them, and I apprehend that we are 
about equally ignorant on that subject. So, 
also, in relation to various special branches of 
the service. The amendment further is: 
Sec. —. And be it further enacted, That the 
board shall deliberate in common and advise the 
Secretary on any matters relating to naval or- 
ganization, naval legislation, the construction, 
equipment, and armament of vessels, navy-yards, 
and other naval establishments, and the direc- 
tion, employment, and disposition of the naval 
forces in time of war, when required by him. 
All such opinions shall be recorded. 
Sec. —. And he it further enacted. That no 
vessel-of-war shall be built or materially altered, 
nor any guns of new construction ordered or 
adopted, nor any engine for any vessel-of-war 
adopted or ordered, nor any permanent structure 
for naval service executed, until the plans, 
estimates, proposals, and contracts for the same 
shall have been submitted to the board, and its 
opinion and advice thereon communicated in 
writing to the Secretary; nor shall any patented 
invention be bought or adopted for the naval 
service without first the opinion of the board 
thereon having been taken ; and all experiments 
to test inventions and naval plans and structures 
shall be conducted under the inspection of the 
board, or members thereof named by the Secre- 
tary, and submitted to the board for its opinion 
thereon ; and all courts-martial ordered by the 
Secretary of the Navy shall be detailed by the 
board. 
Sec. —. And he it further enacted, That all 
invitations for plans or proposals for any of the 
works above mentioned shall be prepared by the 
board, subject to the approval of the Secretary ; 
and all bids or offers or proposals for the same 
shall be opened in the presence of the board, and 
the award made by it, subject to the approval of 
the Secretary. 
Sec. —. And he it further enacted, That the 
Secretary may add to the board from time to 
time other officers of the Navy eligible to the 
position of chief of the bureau, not exceeding 
three at any time, for consultation on any of the 10 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
above subjects. The board may take the opinion 
of eminent practical engineers, mechanics, ma- 
chinists, and architects, in their respective 
branches of art or industry, when in their opinion 
the public service will be promoted by it, and pay 
them such reasonable compensation as the Secre- 
tary may approve. 
Mark the second section of the proposed 
amendment As I construe it, it virtually takes 
the control of the Navy from the Secretary and 
gives it to this board. Not the most trivial 
thing can be done by him independently of the 
board, and he is expressly denied the power to 
even detail a court-martial. 
This board may take the advice of engineers 
and naval architects, but there is nothing re- 
quiring them to do it. The Senator does not j 
put a naval architect, or constructor, or engi- 
neer, upon the board, and—and that is a very 
important item—he puts upon it no one to rep- 
resent the supply department of the Navy, but 
he leaves the whole charge and control of the 
Navy, in fact, to this board of line officers, | 
saying that they may if they choose ask the 
advice, not receive the counsel of, not to allow 
to participate in their deliberations, these offi- 
cers of staff branches of the service. 
The amendment means neither more nor less 
than this, if it means anything; to put the naval 
Department into commission, to put it into lead- 
ing strings, to put it in the control of some line 
officers who have been for along time in the ser- 
vice; or else it means to furnish to the Naval 
Department a subterfuge by which it can at 
all times avoid responsibility. Either it means 
to give the control of the Navy Department to 
these commissioners, or else the effect will be 
to furnish the Secretary of the Navy the means 
in the future of avoiding all responsibility for 
his acts by thrusting everything off upon this 
board of commissioners. Do you wish to divide 
responsibility thus ? Do you wish to give the 
Secretary of the Navy an opportunity to shuf- 
fle off all responsibility for his acts upon this 
board of irresponsible officers, who hold their 
commissions by a life tenure? I surely do 
not. 
Yet, Mr. President, that will be the effect 
of this amendment if adopted. That is the 
effect of the British Admiralty administration 
to day. There is nothing that the members of 
the naval profession in England are so anxious 
to get rid of as their admiralty system, after 
which this amendment is modelled. They saw 
fit two hundred years ago to put their office of 
lord high admiral into commission, and it is 
now wielded by just about such a board as the 
Senator has proposed to create here, and what 
is the result of it ? Precisely the result that I 
predict will follow here. A British writer on 
the admiralty administration says: 
“It is unnecessary to insist at any length on 
the evil of divided councils, which must often 
occur among six persons brought together by the 
chapter of accidents, without previous knowledge 
of each other’s views, and in fact the admiralty 
often represents nothing so completely as the 
endless diversity of opinions which prevail among 
naval officers; a diversity which on the other 
hand is partly accounted for by the absence of 
any standard course of policy to be discovered in 
the conduct of successive naval administrations.” 
And he says, further: 
“With respect to naval officers the case is not 
more encouraging, for the only one subject on 
which there is general agreement among them is 
the utter hopelessness of any good result arising 
from a system which is felt to hang like a blight 
over the navy.” 
That is a navy board which the Senator from 
Ohio would induce the American Senate to 
adopt and incorporate into our system. Sir 
Charles Napier, a great naval authority, says ; 
“Believing, as I do, that no permanent good 
can be done for the service until the Board of 
Admiralty is abolished, I shall point out what 
appears to me would be the best mode of ruling 
the navy, although that step has not been taken.” 
Sir George Cockburn has said ; 
“Having filled the station of confidential or 
principal sea lord of the admiralty for more than 
seventeen years, I feel that my opinion regarding 
the constitution of the board may sooner or later 
be deemed worthy of consideration and attention. 
I am induced, therefore, to place in writing the 
decisions to which my experience has brought me 
on this point. 
“ I have no hesitation in stating that I consider 
the present establishment of that board to be the 
most unsatisfactory and least efficient for its pur 
pose that could have been devised.” 
Mr. President, if you adopt this scheme for 
a Board of Admiralty, one or two things will 
follow, either the appointments that will be 
made under it will be made by the President 
of the United States upon the suggestion of 
the Secretary of the Navy, and therefore you 
will have no more nor less than the tools, the 
pets, or the friends of the Secretary of the 
Navy to compose it; or the appointments will 
be made independently of him and will be an- 
tagonistic to him, and thus you will secure 
divided councils. Which of the horns of that 
dilemma will the Senate prefer ? Suppose that 
a new Secretary of the Navy should come into 
office on the 4th of March, will not the Presi- 
dent detail or appoint for his associates in this 
board men whom he will designate, with whom 
he is familiar, and with whom he is willing to 
co-operate ? Or, if the present Secretary shall 
be continued, do you suppose the President 
will select men whom Mr. Welles will not de- 
sire to unite in his councils ? If they are not 
thus appointed, if the President does not re- 
gard the wishes of the Secretary, as I suppose 
he will, he will select men who are in opposi- 
tion and in hostility to him, and in that case 
how will the Navy Department be conducted? 
You will have such confusion as no executive 
office in this Government was ever yet cursed 
with. 
Mr. President, I trust that it is hardly ne- 
cessary for me to say anything more this 
evening in opposition to the adoption of this 
amendment. I believe that a more disastrous 
I measure for the Navy could not be devised I 
| know that there are some officers who are in 
[ favor of it. lam tolerably familiar with the 
i sentiment of the Navy, and while some of the SPEECH OF HON. J. W. GRIMES. 
11 
older officers who have spoken with me, and 
others who have not spoken with me, with 
whom I am acquainted, are in favor of it, I 
know that the bone and sinew, the heart and 
the muscle of the Navy, the men who do the labor 
and who are destined to do it, the men in ma- 
ture life, and from that down to the young 
passed midshipmen, are utterly and wholly 
hostile to it. 
Sir, what has been our experience on this 
subject? We had this Navy board once, or 
something tantamount to it. As a friend said 
to me yesterday, when the proposition was 
introduced here, “ When we got rid of the old 
board in 1842 we felt as Sinbad the sailor felt 
when the Old Man of the Sea was lifted off his 
shoulders.” It was an incubus on the Navy, 
and was so regarded at that time by everybody 
except some of the old post captains who were 
assigned as members of the board. It was an 
inefficient organization, and was so considered 
by every one whose opinion was worth any- 
thing. Every nation on the face of the earth 
that has had it or anything like it is attempt- 
ing to abolish it. The Senator from Ohio 
proposes that we now in a time of war, when 
of all other times there should not be any di- 
vision in council, shall adopt it, and make it 
part of our system, without any consideration, 
and without any report by a committee of this 
body in favor of it, and adopt it, too, upon an 
appropriation bill 
Mr. President, I have been asked two or 
three times in private conversation, by mem- 
bers of this body and of the other House, why 
it is that we have not built any other iron ves- 
sel of the description of the Ironsides, why we 
have not built larger vessels corresponding 
with the large vessels that have been built by, 
France and England. 
Mr. WADE. They are failures ; that i&the 
reason. 
Mr. GRIMES. That is one reason, and it is 
also because the Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives very wisely refused to do it. The 
Navy Department, it will be remembered by 
the members of this body, made estimates for 
large iron-clad ships, in obedience to the ex- 
pressed wishes of the commercial cities on the 
Atlantic coast, and sent those estimates here. 
We refused to vote them. For one, I refused 
my vote because I relied upon that system 
which is now proved to be the best naval sys- 
tem in the world, with the best ships for the 
purpose that the American nation desires to 
accomplish. Everybody admits that the moni- 
tors are an admirable sea defence; that for the 
purpose for which they were originally de- 
signed, the protection of our harbors, nothing 
exceeds them ; the Senator from Ohio says, 
“ Provided you can get them from one hatbor 
to another ” Have any gone down except the 
earliest built and most incomplete, the Monitor 
and Weehawken ? Have they not been taken 
from our north Atlantic cities around Cape 
Hatteras to the Gulf of Mexico? 
The troubles about the monitors has arisen 
from the fact that their friends have claimed 
too much for them while their enemies have 
too greatly undervalued them. The truth, as 
is generally the case, lies in the mean between 
the two parties. lam not much of a believer 
in them as sea-going vessels; I would not 
recommend them as cruisers; but for harbor 
defence, the purpose for which they were ori- 
ginally devised, they are unapproached by 
anything yet invented by the ingenuity of man. 
Mr. CONNESS. Will the Senator permit 
me for an instant to make a suggestion on that 
point? 
Mr. GRIMES. Certainly. 
Mr. CONNESS. I wish simply to state that 
there are demands for an increase of the Navy 
on the Pacific coast, and there is great pro- 
priety in making that increase; and in some 
of my most recent conferences with the Navy 
Department they hare announced it as their 
intention to send some of the monitors around 
through the Straits of Magellan to that coast, 
and said at the same time that they were wil- 
ling to take passage in them. 
Mr. GRIMES. In answer to the suggestion 
which has just been made it will not be inap- 
propriate for me to read a short extract from 
a report of Admiral Porter in regard to vessels 
of the monitor class of which the Monadnock 
is the type. Here let me say what may, per- 
haps, be known to every Senator, but I will 
state it nevertheless, that the Monadnock is 
the only one of these vessels that has been 
built by the United States Government at a 
navy yard. All others have been built by con- 
tractors ; and many of the difficulties that 
have been experienced in regard to these ves- 
sels have originated from the fact stated by Mr. 
Welles in his letter to the Senator from Ohio, 
that the vessels were not made at our navy yards, 
under our own superintendence, and have suf- 
fered from overweight and underweight and 
defective materials. Where the vessels have 
been made at our own navy yards, under our own 
superintendence, by our own workmen, no such 
difficulties have ever been experienced. Ad- 
miral Porter says: 
“As to the Monadnock, she could ride out a 
gale at anchor in the Atlantic Ocean. She is 
certainly a most perfect success, so far as the hull 
and machinery are concerned, and is only defec- 
tive in some minor details, which in the building 
of these vessels require the superintendence of a 
thorough seaman and a practical and ingenious 
man. 
“The Monadnock is capable of crossing the 
ocean alone (when her compasses are once ad- 
justed properly), and could destroy any vessel in 
the French or British navy, lay their towns under 
contribution, and return again (provided she 
could pick up coal) without fear of being fol- 
lowed. She could certainly clear any harbor on 
our coast of blockaders, in case we were at war 
with a foreign power. As strong and thick as 
the sides of this vessel are, one heavy shot from 
Fort Fisher indented the iron on her side armor, 
without, however, doing any material damage. 
These vessels have laid five days under a fire 
from Fort Fisher, anchored less than eight hun- 
dred yards off. and though fired at a great deal, 
they were seldom hit, and received no injury, 
except to boats and light matter about decks, 
which were pretty well cut to pieces.” 12 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
I suppose that is sufficient testimony as to 
the ability of vessels of that description pas- 
sing from port to port along our coast. 
I was saying, Mr. President, that I think we 
have the best Navy in the world for our pur- 
poses. What are our purposes ? First, to 
protect our own harbors ; and if there are any 
vessels superior to the monitors for that pur- 
pose I confess I do not know what they are. 
Such is not only the judgment of naval men in 
this country, but of the commercial marine, 
and of foreign Powers, many of which are at 
this moment engaged in constructing them. 
Some have already been built, and many more 
are being built by the Powers of continental 
Europe; and some very similar known as the 
Captain Cowper Coles’s pattern are being built 
by Great Britain. Then we have the fastest 
sea-going naval vessels in the world. I know 
that that has been denied, but I have here the 
testimony to prove it if it be doubted; testi- 
mony that cannot be controverted. 
All we want is the monitors to protect our 
harbors, and then fast vessels to destroy the 
commerce of a hostile power. It is utter folly 
for us to undertake to build a navy with which 
we can compete with France and England in 
immense naval battles. That is not our policy. 
Our true policy is to protect ourselves at home, 
and then to sweep the commerce of our enemy 
from the sea; and the system that has been 
pursued by the Navy Department during the 
last four years in building up the Navy we now 
have is calculated to accomplish that purpose 
in a higher degree than any other plan that 
could possibly be devised. 
SPEECH OF HOTL JAS. R. DOOLITTLE 
OF WISCONSIN 
Friday, February 17, 1865. 
In the Senate, 
Mr. DOOLITTLE said: 
Mr. President: I had intended to make 
some remarks in reply to the honorable Sena- 
tor from New Hampshire, confining myself 
entirely to those matters of investigation which 
were entered upon by the committee of the 
Senate of which he was chairman and I was a 
member; but the speech of the Senator from 
Delaware for a moment challenges my atten- 
tion, and a few facts briefly and very concisely 
stated will show that the whole speech of that 
gentleman is founded upon nothing ; it is mere 
declamation, sound, without any foundation in 
truth. 
Now, I say to my honorable friend from Del- 
aware, for personally these are our relations, 
that the Democratic party by name is a party 
of very modern origin. I remember long before 
it was born; I was present at its christening. 
I propose in a moment to strip off this veil 
which covers what are claimed sometimes to be 
the glorious antecedents of the great Demo- 
cratic party. What is the fact, Mr. President? 
In 1798 the Republican party was originated, 
and Jefferson and Madison and Monroe and the 
great statesmen of that period were its found- 
ers. In 1800 the Republican party elected 
Jefferson President for four years. In 1804 
the Republican party elected Jefferson again 
for four years more. In 1808 it was the Re- 
publican party which elected Mr. Madison as 
President of the United States. In 1812 the 
Republican party elected Madison a second 
time President of the United States. In 1810 
the Republican party elected Monroe as Presi- 
dent, and again in 1820 elected him without 
any opposition whatever. The party opposed 
to the Republican party during all that period 
from 1800 to 1820 was the Federal party, and 
in 1820 the Federal party as such yielded up 
its existence, and in 1824 there were four can- 
didates for the Presidency, every one of them 
running as Republicans, not as Democrats. Mr. 
Crawford was the nominee of the regular cau- 
cus in 1824; General Jackson ran as an inde- 
pendent Republican candidate from Tennessee; 
Mr. Clay as an independent Republican candi- 
date from Kentucky; and Mr. Adams as an 
independent Republican candidate from New 
England, for he at that time had given in his 
adhesion to the Republican party. In 1824 
there was no choice for President by the peo- 
ple; it went to the House of Representatives, 
and Mr. Adams was chosen as President. In 
1828, General Jackson, nominated by the peo- 
ple, not as a Democratic candidate but as the 
people’s candidate and as a Republican, was 
elected President of the United States; and in 
1832, for the first time in the history of the 
country, was the assumption given to the Re- 
publican party, or that branch of it which sup- 
ported General Jackson, of the Democratic 
Republican party. It was a contrivance of 
Mr. Van Buren to secure, not the nomination 
of General Jackson, but his own nomination as 
Vice President under him. It was when the 
first national convention that was ever held in 
the United States, called also at the instigation 
of Mr. Van Buren and his friends, and then for 
the first time that branch of the Republican 
party which supported General Jackson as- 
sumed the name of Democratic Republicans. 
In 1836 it assumed the same; in 1840 the 
same; and from that period gradually it began 
to drop the name of “ Republican ” and it was 
called the Democratic party. But, sir, as the Whig party in 1850, by the issues of that day, 
was dissolved and buried in the tomb of Web- 
ster and Clay, its great champions and repre- 
sentatives, so the Democratic party, when it 
drew that fatal knife which severed the silver 
cord and broke the golden bowl of peace, when 
it drew that fatal knife which destroyed the 
Missouri compromise, dissolved also and went 
into fragments, and upon the ruins of all those 
parties sprang into existence with the newness 
of life the Republican party based upon the 
ideas of the old Republican party of Jefferson 
and Madison, and to those ideas it stands 
pledged and has from the beginning; and I tell 
my friend from Delaware that the true, real 
Rejmblican party, based upon truth as its 
foundation, in the nature of things never dies, 
and it never will. And, sir, if we who repre- 
sent that party this day in the administration 
of affairs are but true to the principles upon 
which it reorganized itself in 1854, and again 
in 1856, and triumphed in 1860, it is to hold 
the control of the destinies of this country for 
a generation to come; but if it is false to those 
principles, we shall pass away, the false repre- 
sentatives of the true, genuine Republican 
party, ay, sir, the real Democratic party of 
this country, as it is this day its true repre- 
sentatives and champions. 
But, Mr. President, 1 have been drawn too 
far in what I have now said by the remarks of 
the Senator from Delaware. I proposed to say 
a few words, and but a few, by way of reply 
to some portion of the remarks of the honora- 
ble Senator from New Hampshire, and I shall 
confine myself in these remarks to the investi- 
gation which was ordered by the Senate by a 
committee, and upon which I was placed as a 
member, and of which he was chairman. In 
the first place-, let me say, that committee 
agreed in a report in this: they recommended 
to Congress the passage of a law which would 
authorize the Department, whenever bids were 
put in for a price more than ten per cent., in 
the judgment of the Department, above the 
market price, to refuse to accept those bids. 
Under the law as it originally stood, the De- 
partment was bound to accept the lowest bids, 
whatever might be the price. In 1863, the 
law was amended so as to provide that the 
Department should not be bound to accept 
fictitious or nominal bids. If articles were bid 
for at a mere nominal price the bids might be 
disregarded. It might be that iron might be 
offered at one dollar per ton when it was known 
to be worth twenty or thirty dollars in the 
market, and the Department was authorized to 
reject such a bid as fictitious and nominal. 
But under this word “fictitious,” it was found 
at the Department to be impossible to deter- 
mine whether certain bids should or should not 
be rejected. You could not claim that a bid 
put in for a specific article, when the price 
named by the bidder was fifty per cent, above 
its market value, was a fictitious bid. You 
could not say that was a nominal bid. The 
truth is that the change in our currency, the 
great expansion of our currency, by which the 
nominal prices of everything have changed so 
SPEECH OF lION. JAS. R. DOOLITTLE. 
rapidly, and have within two or three years 
doubled and more than doubled in some in- 
stances, has had the effect of demonstrating 
that those bidders who sometimes put in their 
bids for fifty per cent or even one hundred per 
cent, above the market price were wise men, 
prudent men ; and they are not to be con- 
demned because they made their bids at these 
high prices, as the result has shown. 
But all the committee concurred in recom- 
mending that Congress should pass a law 
authorizing the Department to reject any 
article out of the lists of bids when it should 
appear satisfactorily to the Department that 
the amount at which it was bid for was more 
than ten per cent, above its market value, be- 
lieving that if the Department were clothed 
with that power they could prevent themselves 
from being imposed upon, as they had hitherto 
been imposed upon under the laws as they ex- 
isted. 
But, Mr. President, in relation to the facts 
which were disclosed before the committee, 
there was a difference of opinion between the 
different members of the committee. For my- 
self I maintain that upon that evidence there 
is no proof which goes to show the fact that 
any person employed in that Department has 
been guilty of any offence whatever, or of any 
violation of his official integrity. I do not say 
that contracts may not have been imposed upon 
the Department from the fact that the bids 
that were put in were sometimes for great 
prices, enormous prices, some of them twice 
the market value. But, sir, what I stand here 
to say—and I feel it my duty to say it to the 
Senate and to the people of the country—is, 
that there was no evidence disclosed on that 
investigation which shows any want of official 
integrity in any person employed in the Navy 
Department; for it was to that subject that 
we particularly gave our attentionand I will 
refer to the persons by name whose bureaus 
were examined. 
As to the chief of the Department, the Sec- 
retary himself, I believe it is not pretended, 
and never has been by any person, that there 
were any facts disclosed in that investigation 
going to throw the slightest shadow of sus- 
picion upon his official integrity in any way 
whatever. And as to the Assistant Secretary 
of the Navy, Mr. Fox, between whom and the 
Senator from New Hampshire, it would appear 
from the speech certainly of the Senator, no 
very friendly relations exist, there is no proof 
in the testimony taken before that committee 
which in any way whatever reflects upon the 
character of Mr. Fox for personal integrity. 
I will ask the honorable Senator from New 
Hampshire, if in his recollection there is any 
word of testimony disclosed on that investiga- 
tion that bears upon his official or personal 
integrity as a man. So, Mr. President, in re- 
lation to Faxon, who is the chief clerk in that 
Department, Witnesses were questioned to 
ascertain whether Mr. Faxon had ever in any 
way received any consideration or in any man- 
ner Avhatever performed his duties as chief 
clerk of the Department improperly, and I 
13 THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
undertake to say, and the Senator from New 
Hampshire will not controvert me when I say 
it, there is no evidence before the committee, 
as will be seen on referring to the report, that 
goes to show anything bearing on the integrity 
of Mr. Faxon. So in relation to Admiral Smith, 
the chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks ; 
I undertake to say there is nothing in this re- 
port detailed upon which the Senator from 
New Hampshire or anybody else can put down 
his finger and say, “I charge‘upon Admi- 
ral Smith a violation of his official duties,” or 
“ I charge upon him a want of official integrity 
in the performance of these duties ” So too 
in relation to Mr. Isherwood If you look 
through the whole of this testimony you will 
see that there is nothing which in the slightest 
degree goes to affect the official integrity of 
Mr. Isherwood until you come to that testi- 
mony which the honorable Senator from New 
Hampshire read, and to which I wish to call 
the attention of the Senate for a moment, and 
which when it is seen in its true light, so far 
from casting any suspicion on the integrity of 
Mr. Isherwood, shows on the other hand that 
Mr. Isherwood was a faithful and diligent and 
efficient officer in the discharge of his duties in 
that very respect. We had gone on for months 
taking testimony, listening to the witnesses as 
they were questioned, nothing appearing what- 
ever to cast the slightest shade, until just at 
the close of the examination Mr. Murdock was 
called and this question was put to him by the 
Senator from New Hampshire, the chairman of 
the committee: 
who had all his bids, and was sitting at Mr. Isher- 
wood’s table with a pen in his hand, copying and 
examining the bids. And there were times when 
every person in the room had bids of their own 
or others in their hands, which they read and 
examined at their leisure.” 
That statement of Mr. Murdock, on its face, 
would seem to show that Isherwood, the day 
after his bids had been received and opened, 
was receiving bids from some other person, 
and, as a matter of course, if it were true it 
would show that Isherwood ought to be pun- 
ished with the severest penalties of the law ; 
but now what are the facts ? I desire specially 
to call your attention, Mr. President and Sena- 
tors, to the facts. When the advertisements 
were issued for those bids they were all issued 
by Mr. Lenthall, because at the time when 
they were issued the bureau of which he was 
the head, the Bureau of Construction, Equip- 
ment, and Repair, had not been divided, the 
Bureau of Engineering had not been taken from 
it, that being then a branch of Mr. Lenthall’s 
bureau ; but by the time the bids came in the 
business was so great that the bureau had been 
subdivided, and Isherwood was put in charge 
of one branch, that of steam engineering, Mr. 
Lenthall retaining the other branches; and 
when the bids came in many of them came to 
Lenthall’s bureau, which were for classes belong- 
ing to the bureau of which Mr. Isherwood was 
the head. Immediately upon recalling to the 
stand Mr. Isherwood, and Mr. Farwell, who 
was the chief clerk in Lenthall’s bureau, the 
facts appeared. Mr. Farwell swears positively 
that the very bid to which Murdock referred 
was deposited on the first day in the bureau 
of Mr. Lenthall, and it was in the hands of 
Mr. Lenthall, and Mr. Farwell himself took 
that bid to Mr. Isherwood’s bureau and pre- 
sented it first to Mr. Neally, who was Mr Isher- 
wood’s chief clerk. Neally at first refused to 
receive it, because it came too late. Farwell 
then presented it to Mr. Isherwood, the chief 
of the bureau, telling him what the facts were. 
Murdock was present when this witness testi- 
fied to these facts, and when Mr. Isherwood 
also testified to them, and on having his atten- 
tion again called to the subject he states that 
the facts were precisely as Farwell and Isher- 
wood had stated them. Let me give the words 
of the witnesses. The reply of Mr. Murdock to 
the question of the Senator from New Hamp- 
shire was on the Ist of June. On the next day 
he was examined by me, and 1 will read his 
testimony : 
“Question. Was not the bureau then under 
Mr. Lenthall called the Bureau of Construction, 
Equipment, and Repair? Was it not all one bu- 
reau at the time of the advertising ? 
“Answer. I do not know whether it was or not. 
I only know that Mr. Lenthall issued the adver- 
tisement for the Bureau of Steam Engineering. 
“ Question. When the bids were put in, do you 
know whether some of them which were intended 
for the Bureau of Steam Engineering were de- 
livered in fact to Mr. Lenthall ? 
“ Answer. I know there were some bids in Mr. 
Lenthall’s bureau that belonged to the Bureau of 
Steam Engineering. 
“ State any facts in your knowledge which tend 
to prove that bidders at the several bureaux of the 
Navy Department may have had any knowledge 
of any bids before theirs were put in.” 
“ At the opening of the bids in the Bureau of 
Steam Engineering, early in the spring of 1863— 
I cannot give the exact date—there were bids 
received and accepted on the day after the bids 
generally had been opened and entered on the 
schedules, and by parties who were present at the 
day of the opening, the day previous. Among 
them I remember bids from Mr. Stover for classes 
at the Washington yard, in connection with others 
which I cannot now call to mind. I remember, 
too, that he had no bids for that yard entered on 
the schedule on the day of the opening, and that 
all the bids which were deposited and accepted 
on the morning after were successful. I remem- 
ber, too, that Mr. Neally, who had cha'rge of the 
bids, threw out one or two classes on account of 
the prices being exorbitant. He took the respon- 
sibility to throw them out himself, for the reason 
that there were no other bidders for the class but 
Mr. Stover. 
“ At the two openings when I was present, but 
more especially the opening of June of last year, 
there were a large number of persons present, and 
every one in the room had the liberty to take the 
bids after they had been opened, and read and 
examine them, and even to take them out of the 
room into an adjoining room ; and I remember 
distinctly that Mr. Ellis, who had a bid in for two 
or three classes, came to me and protested against 
the thing being allowed, for that there 
was a party whom he did not know in the room, 
Murdock made this answer; SPEECH OF HON. JAS. R. DOOLITTLE. 
15 
“ Question. They had all been under one bureau 
previous to that time, and the advertising was 
issued by Mr. Lenthall’s bureau? 
“Answer. Yes, sir. 
“ Question. Was that the spring opening of 1863 
of which you speak, the first opening made by 
the Bureau of Steam Engineering, of which Mr. 
Isherwood was chief? 
“Answer. Yes, sir. 
“ Question. Now, to come more particularly to 
the transaction of which you spoke in relation to 
the bid put in by Mr. Brown in behalf of Stover ; 
on having your attention more particularly called 
to it, do you remember the mistake which Brown 
asserted was the reason why the bid had not been 
handed in to Mr. Isherwood? 
“Answer. I remember, since having my atten 
tion called to the fact last evening, that the claim 
which he made was that the bid was deposited 
originally in Mr. Lenthall’s bureau. 
“Question. Did he claim that the bid had been 
delivered in time, delivered the day before? 
“ Answer. He claimed that the bid had been 
delivered to Mr. Lenthall’s bureau, and was found 
among his bids at the opening, whereas it ought 
to have been delivered to Mr. Isherwood.” 
to the Bureau of Construction alone, which was 
under Mr. Lenthall. 
“ Question. Your bureau, which is the Bureau 
of Steam Engineering, branched off from his 
bureau just about this time? 
“Answer. It was a sub-office of his bureau pre- 
viously, and had then just been erected into an 
independent bureau. This was the first bidding 
after the separation. 
“ Question. Who issued the advertisements for 
this bidding for both these branches of the old 
bureau ? 
“Answer. Mr. Lenthall issued the advertise- 
ments for that bidding. All since have been 
issued by me. 
“Question. Were the advertisements in this 
bidding issued just as they previously been, 
as if it was but one bureau? 
“Answer. Yes, sir.” 
I will next read Mr. Farwell’s testimony in 
relation to that transaction: 
‘‘A. B. Farwell recalled and examined. 
“ By Mr. Doolittle : 
“ Question. You were chief clerk of the bureau 
of which Mr. Lenthall was the head at the time 
of the advertisement spoken of, as I understand? 
“Answer. Yes, sir, I was. 
“ Question. You may state whether all the ad- 
vertisements for that bidding of the early spring 
of 1863 were issued by your bureau, of which Mr. 
Lenthall was chief. 
“Answer. They were all issued from our bu- 
reau. 
II Question. Do you remember the circumstance 
of a certain bid that was put in by one Ainsworth 
Brown, in behalf of Stover, in the spring of 1863 ? 
“Answer. I remember that Mr. Ainsworth 
Brown brought all of Stover’s bids there at that 
opening. 
“ Question. On what day did he bring the bids 
there ? 
“Answer. He brought them there on the morn- 
ing of the 13th of March, 1863, the morning on 
which the opening commenced. 
‘ ‘ Question. Before any opening had taken 
place ? 
“Answer. Yes, sir. 
“Question. With whom were they filed? 
“Answer. With Mr. Lenthall. 
“Question. Brown acted as agent for Stover? 
“Answer. He said he was Mr. Stover’s chief 
clerk. 
“Question. I believe you have already stated 
that the openings by Mr. Lenthall were made in 
your presence ? 
“Answer. Yes, sir. 
“ Question. Do you remember the opening of 
Stover’s bids in your bureau? 
“Answer. I do not remember the opening of 
Stover’s bids any more distinctly than I do the 
opening of others. I remember that his were 
opened. 
“ Question On the opening of those bids will 
you state whether you found that he had put in 
bids for matters which belonged to Mr. Isher- 
wood’s bureau, and for what j7ard? 
“Answer. Yes, sir ; but I do not remember the 
yard. I only remember that in Mr. Stover’s bids 
we found proposals belonging to Mr. Isherwood’s 
bureau. 
“Question. Can you state what was done with 
those bids that belonged to Mr. Isherwood’s bu- 
reau ? 
“Ansvjer. That bid of Mr. Stover was opened 
1 on the second day of our openings. 
Now, let me read Mr. Isherwood’s testimony: 
“ B. F. Isherwood recalled and examined. 
“ By Mr. Doolittle : 
“Question. Do you remember the occasion of 
a bid being brought into your office the next 
morning after you commenced your opening, 
which was alleged to have been filed with Mr. 
Lenthall; a bid for Mr. Stover? 
“Answer. I have a very indistinct recollection 
of Mr. Farwell bringing some bid to me. Whe- 
ther it was Mr. Stover’s bid, or whose it was, I 
cannot now say. It has passed from my mind. 
I have been endeavoring to recollect the name, 
but I cannot. I know that he brought some bid 
that had been sent to their bureau with other 
bids, and upon opening it, they finding that it 
belonged to my bureau, he brought it in to me. 
That was in my own office. 
“ Question. Where they had already been sent 
in in time, on the day fixed in the advertisement, 
did you ever give directions to have any bid re- 
ceived and sealed that was brought into the De- 
partment after the day fixed ? 
“Answer. Never. I never received any that 
was offered after the opening commenced, not 
even on the same day. When the opening once 
commences, when the first seal is broken, all fur- 
ther bids are excluded, 
11 Question. And any bid that may have been 
brought into your office after the opening com- 
menced was a bid which had been filed by mis- 
take in some other bureau of the Department, 
but filed in time ? 
“Answer. These bids that we are now referring 
to in these two bureaux were opened on the same 
day. The bids for my bureau were comparatively 
few, quite insignificant compared with the others. 
We got through ours the first day. The other bu- 
reau took two days to open theirs, and, of course, 
until they did open them they could not tell to 
whom they belonged, nor to which branch of the 
bureau they ought to go. 
“ Question. The old bureau, under the charge 
of Mr. Lenthall, was a Bureau of Construction, 
Steam Engineering, and Repairs ? 
“Answer. All the functions that now belong 
to the three distinct Bureaux of Construction, 
Equipment, and Steam Engineering then belonged 16 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
"■Question. You are sure it was filed on the 
menced. Bids have been received at our bureau 
by mail arriving there the next day and have been 
scaled, leaving half a dozen lines between the 
regular scale and those that came in late, and the 
words ‘Received too late’ were marked opposite 
to them, and they were never considered in the 
awarding of contracts.” 
first day ? 
“Answer. Yes, sir, they were all filed together. 
We never took any bids into the bureau after we 
commenced opening; and when those were torn 
off they were found to contain bids for lettered 
classes. Our own bids were all for figure classes, 
and in the other two bureaux the classes were 
lettered. These were torn off by Mr. Lenthall, 
and he ordered me to take them into Mr. Isher- 
wood’s bureau. I did so, and offered them to 
Mr. Neally, Mr. Isherwood’s chief clerk. 
“ Question. On which day did you take them 
in? 
And then, after these witnesses had thus tes- 
tified, Mr Murdock was recalled 
“Ira Murdock recalled and examined. 
“ By Mr. Doolittle : 
“ Question. On your hearing Mr. Earwell state 
the facts in relation to what occurred there, does 
your recollection agree with his as to what he 
states ? 
"Answer. On the second day of our opening. 
When I got in there Mr. Neally declined to take 
them, saying that they had closed their opening. 
I said to him that Mr. Lenthall had torn them 
from our bids—that they belonged to his bureau. 
He said that, as they had got through, he would 
not take them, but I might hand them to Mr. 
Isherwood. Mr. Isherwood was then out, but he 
came in while I was there talking with Mr. Neally, 
and I handed them to him, saying ‘ These belong 
to your bureau,’ and I immediately went out. 
“Question. Do you remember whether Mr. 
Brown went in with you or not? 
“Answer. My recollection is that Mr. Brown 
came in while I was there ; he came in while I 
was going out of the door, and he said he was 
going in to see that his bids were properly sealed. 
“Question. Was Mr. Murdock there at the 
time ? 
“Answer. Yes, sir ; I should like to look at the 
scale of that bidding. [Scale shown to witness.] 
On examining the original scale, I find that Mr. 
Stover bid for four classes, that two were awarded 
to him, and on one class he was not a successful 
bidder. On the remaining class the bid was 
thrown out, there being no competitor and the 
price being exorbitant. On farther reflection and 
examination of the scale, I desire to make this 
correction of the statement I made yesterday.” 
Mr. President, and Senators, when you come 
to look into this transaction and see it as it is, 
I undertake to say that there is not a shadow 
resting upon the official integrity of Mr. Isher- 
wood. As to Mr. Lenthall there is certainly 
nothing within the lids of this volume which 
goes to reflect on his official integrity as an offi- 
cer; nothing to show that there was any cor- 
ruption or anything wrong, or at least any in- 
tentional wrong He may have made mistakes, 
as other men make them; but that there was 
any intentional wrong on his part, or any cor- 
ruption on his part, there is no evidence what- 
ever to show. 
"Answer. Yes, sir ; Mr. Murdock was sitting at 
what is called the engineer’s desk, his back to us. 
"Question. State what occurred what did 
Brown say on the subject? 
"Answer. When I started to go out of the door 
Brown wanted me to say to Mr. Isherwood that 
they had been torn from our bids, as they were. 
I told him that I had already said that to Mr. 
Isherwood, and I recollect saying to Mr. Isher- 
wood that my opinion was that they had better 
he sealed, and, if they had any doubts, submit the 
question to the Department whether they should 
he accepted. 
"Question. What did Mr. Isherwood reply to 
that? 
Now, you may come down to the clerks in the 
Department. There was Mr. Earwell, who was 
the chief clerk of Mr. Lenthall’s bureau. There 
was in the testimony given by Franklin W. 
Smith some hearsay evidence, which seemed for 
a moment to throw a suspicion upon Mr. Ear- 
well. Smith stated to the committee that some 
other person had told him in the city of Boston 
that Earwell and Murdock, two of the clerks 
in the Department, had been purchasing some 
property near Boston and that their houses had 
been furnished, and intimating, not saying in 
so many words, that it was done for some kind 
of corrupt or improper services rendered by 
them in the Navy Department, they being clerks 
in that Department, When Mr. Pratt and Mr. 
Ellis, the two gentlemen who Mr. Smith said 
made this statement to him, were called upon 
the stand as witnesses, they denied that they 
had ever told Mr. Smith any such thing. It 
was mere hearsay anyhow. When Earwell and 
Murdock were called on the stand as witnesses 
and examined at length on these charges of 
their having purchased property or receiving 
something as a consideration for their action in 
the Department, I undertake to say that in their 
testimony they clearly and unequivocally ex- 
plained it all, and there has not been a shadow 
resting on Earwell; and if suspicion rests on 
anybody it is on Murdock ; but his testimony 
on this subject is clear and explicit. 
"Answer. I think Mr. Isherwood told Mr. 
Neally to scale them, and they would afterward 
settle whether they ought to be received or not. 
"Question. I understand you to say that you 
carried in those bids yourself, of Stover, and 
handed them to Mr. Neally? 
"Answer. I carried them in myself. I offered 
them to Mr. Neally. He declined to take them, 
and I then handed them to Mr. Isherwood. They 
never went into Brown’s hands until they had 
been in Mr. Isherwood’s. There were bids of 
many parties torn off in the same way for Mr. 
Isherwood’s bureau and the Bureau of Equipment. 
"Question. The bids came into your bureau, it 
would seem, just as they had formerly, before the 
division of the bureau ; and then over 
those bids, seeing some for construction, some for 
engineering, and some for equipment, you sepa- 
rated the classes and sent them around to the dif- 
ferent bureaux where they properly belonged ? 
"Answer. Yes, sir. 
"Question. As to this particular bid of Stover’s 
which Brown represented, are you positive that 
it was put in on the first day ? 
"Answer. I am positive that it was put in there 
in the morning with all Stover’s bids. They were 
all put in together by Mr. Brown. We never 
took a bid in our bureau after the openings com- SPEECH OF HON. JAS. R. DOOLITTLE. 
17 
I do not desire to take up the time of the 
Senate ; but this point about corruption with- 
in the Navy Department and the corruption of 
the heads of bureaus and of clerks in the De- 
partment has been referred to so often that I 
feel called upon as a matter of duty both to 
these officers and to the country in whose 
service I am, that these charges so often re- 
peated shall not go forth unchallenged to 
destroy the confidence of the people in the very 
officers that are administering the Government 
in this time of peril. On this subject Mr. 
Murdock was questioned, and I questioned him 
myself, among others. This is his testimony; 
partment for a whole year before the investi- 
gation began by this committee ; and yet the 
investigation was sought upon the basis of 
charges of fraud and corruption in that De- 
partment of the Government, more dangerous 
to the country even than the enemies in the 
field. 
Mr. President, I rose only to speak upon one 
point, and that was to defend the official integ- 
rity of the men in this Department against 
these wholesales and sweeping charges. I chal- 
lenge any Senator on any side of this Chamber 
to name the man in the Department; and I say 
that if, after months of investigation, you have 
not the evidence upon which you can point to 
this man, or that man, or the other, and say 
to him, “Thou art the man; I charge you with 
corruption,” every tongue' should be silent on 
this subject of official corruption in the Navy 
Department. I do not stand here to say that 
all that has been transacted in the navy-yard 
at Charlestown or New York is free from any 
charge of corruption. I do not undertake to 
know what has transpired there. I will not 
make charges without proof, and I am unwil- 
ling that charges should be made unless they 
are based upon proof. 
Among other things it has been urged that 
the administration of that Department has 
been inefficient. Sir, a single fact is sufficient 
to answer all that. In what condition was that 
Department when it was taken possession of by 
Mr. Welles and the men under him? In what 
condition was the naval force of this country 
at the breaking out of this rebellion ? Sir, 
our naval force under the last Administration, 
which was in sympathy with this very rebellion, 
had been sent to the four quarters of the 
world; not a single vessel remained to us ex- 
cept the Brooklyn, and she, drawing fourteen 
feet of water, could not enter any harbor on 
the southern coast with the exception of one 
or two. They had been sent to the uttermost 
parts of the sea for the very purpose of dis- 
arming the Government and rendering it pow- 
erless in the great conflict. And what have we 
seen? Steadily under the administration of 
this much-abused Navy Department we have 
seen that naval power growing month by 
month. We have seen it victorious at Hilton 
Head. We have seen it victorious at New Or- 
leans, where the British and French admirals 
in command of their vessels in the Mississippi 
river at New Orleans declared that it was im- 
possible for our naval vessels to be successful. 
We have seen it winning triumphs at Vicks- 
burg, at Mobile, at Fort Fisher. Ay, Mr. 
President, under the direction and control of 
this much-abused Navy Department we have 
seen a naval force gathered together which, 
under the command of David Porter, in the 
attack upon Fort Fisher, had a power sufficient 
to have sunk the whole navy of Great Britain 
in six hours in a single fight. And all this 
great Navy has been gathered together in the 
short period of three or four years; and yet men 
speak of the inefficiency of the administration 
of the Navy Department. Sir, I go not into 
the details; I care not whether it is admi- 
“By Mr. Doolittle : 
“ Question. You say you reside in Bridgewater, 
Massachusetts ; what is the name of the county ? 
“Answer. Plymouth County. 
"■Question. Did you purchase a house and lot 
at Bridgewater not long ago? 
"Answer. Yes, sir. I held a mortgage on a 
house, and I took possession of it some year ago. 
The owner of the house was down in the southern 
country ; he went there to live after the rebellion, 
and I think has been heard from not more than j 
once or twice since he left. 
"Question. Did he join the rebels, as you un- 
derstand ? 
"Answer. I do not know that he did; it is 
supposed that he did. His wife could not carry 
on the place. Circumstances were embarrassing 
at the time he left, and I paid her a certain sum 
of money, and took the house, with a guarantee 
from her brothers and his brothers in Boston— 
responsible men—that I should at a certain time 
receive a deed from him, which I have not re- 
ceived. 
"Question. How much was your mortgage? 
"Anstver. About five thousand dollars. 
‘ ‘ Question. And how much did you give her ? 
"Answer. Fifteen hundred dollars. 
"Question. Do you know a gentleman in Bos- 
ton by the name of Pfatt, of the firm of Bowers, 
Pratt & Co. ? 
"Answer. Yes, sir ; very well.’ 
Mr. Pratt was the person who it was said 
had made the statement in relation to Mur- 
dock, that he could be purchased in the De- 
partment. 
"Question. Has Mr. Pratt given to you, or to 
your wife or family, in any way, direct or indirect, 
anything in consideration of any favor you may 
have done him connected with the Department or 
the Government? 
"Answer. Never a dollar. ” 
And when you look into the testimony of 
Mr. Pratt and the testimony of Mr Ellis, they 
both swear positively that no such thing ever 
did occur, and they never said to Smith that it 
did occur; and that, I confess, is one of those 
painful facts standing out in the ease which 
have led me to doubt very much the good faith 
of this Smith in the testimony which he gave. 
These two witnesses swear positively that they 
never made to him any such statement as he 
stated they did ; and the man himself swears 
positively that no such thing ever occurred. 
And what goes to show how perfectly basejess 
is this charge against the Department will ap- 
pear when I tell you that this Mr. Murdock 
had not been in the employment of the De- 18 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
nistcred by the Secretary-in-chief or by bis 
Assistant Secretary; it is administered by some- 
body who has brains, power, energy, and will, 
and it has accomplished in the putting down 
of this rebellion that for which the American 
people in their heart of hearts ought to de- 
clare their unbounded gratitude and their un- 
dying thanks. 
Mr. President, I do not purpose at all to go 
into other matters on this occasion. The hon- 
orable Senator from lowa [Mr. Grimes] is 
much better prepared than myself to speak 
upon the other great questions that have been 
raised in relation to thd administration of this 
Department, and I shall forbear trespassing 
any longer upon the attention of the Senate. 
SPEECH OE HON 
JAMES W. NYE- 
OP NEVADA 
In the Senate. 
Friday, February 17, 1865. 
Mr. NYE said: 
Sir, the remarks of the Senator from Dela- 
ware—he will pardon me for saying it (I be- 
lieve in his heart he is loyal and right, but he 
lacks a little of that old Democratic firmness of 
which he boasts to assert it)—sound like what 
I heard while sitting in this gallery about four 
years ago; and the Senator will remember it, 
as it was during the closing scenes of his party’s 
existence. I allude to the remarks of Mr. 
Wigfall, Mr. Breckinridge, and a host of others 
whose names I will not mention, who seemed 
to me to have fallen into that great error into 
which no man, and especially no statesman, 
should fall, and to have reached that point 
where their adoration for party rose higher 
than their devotion and duty to their Govern- 
ment 
Sir, I have a right to remember the history 
of the old Democratic party. I acted with it 
before the Senator was old enough to vote; and 
one of two things is true, that the Democratic 
party departed from its original glory, fell, 
literally fell, from its high estate, or I did not 
understand its principles when I voted with it. 
I had always understood him to be the best 
Democrat who loved his country most, and who 
would make the greatest sacrifices to sustain 
it. That was the Democracy that was taught 
to me. But in modern times it seems to be the 
crowning glory of a Democrat to do the most to 
tear down the temple of republican freedom. 
With that kind of Democracy I have no sym- 
pathy, no affiliation. I love the Democratic 
party, if I love it at all, for its ancient glory 
and usefulness, not for its modern dereliction 
and recreancy. 
We are told by the honorable Senator that 
during the Democratic reign the writ of habeas 
corpus was never suspended. Let me, to show 
his error, call the honorable Senator’s attention 
to two or three instances. When the first 
Democratic Vice President of the United States 
was about to be arrested for treason, General 
Wilkinson was intrusted with the arrest; and 
the President at that time, a Democrat as he is 
claimed, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, 
and placed that suspension in the hands of the 
officer who was charged with the arrest ere he 
left this Capitol. 
Mr, President: I think, as this debate has 
assumed somewhat of a discursive character, 
it is perhaps a fitting occasion for Nevada to 
utter her first voice in this august presence. 
I have been interested, instructed, amused, 
and pained by the discussions here to-day. 
Every Senator, of course, is the judge of his 
own taste ; but if 1 had been the Senator from 
New Hampshire mine would not have led me 
in the direction in which his taste has led him 
here to-day. So, too, of the Senator from 
Delaware. He has attempted to enlighten and 
instruct us upon the histm-y of the old, glorious 
Democratic party; and he remarked that he 
had never seen, in the course of bis observa- 
tion, a person who had formerly belonged to 
that party who would acknowledge that lie left 
it. I desire to gratify him now by an exhibi- 
tion of one who has the manliness to admit 
that he left the Democratic party when it had 
ceased to do good and had learned so well to do 
evil. 
I do not think that the honorable Senator 
from Delaware has studied carefully the history 
of the Democratic party; his recollections of its 
glory rest on tradition. He intimates that he 
was one among the few that had stood here for 
years, like the stripling of Israel against the 
giant of Gath, to defend its principles. The 
misfortune of the gentleman is that most of his 
former associates are to be found in the rebel 
army; that they lost their love and their affec- 
tion for the institutions of their country and have 
raised their arm to destroy it. In an evil hour, 
when passion instead of judgment controlled 
their action, they ceased to honor and respect 
the olden glory of their party, and have lite- 
rally, in their madness, deluged this continent 
in blood. 
The Senator closed his speech with a word 
of encouragement to his own party to stand 
firm and rally around their standard. And 
pray, sir, who was your last standard-bearer ? 
A man of whom in the history of this country 
is written the fact that he was particcps crim- 
iuis in this wicked rebellion—a fit candidate 
for a party whose first and whose last Vice 
President was a rebel. SPEECH OF HON. JAMES W. NYE. 
19 
The PRESIDENT pro tempore: The Senator 
from Nevada will pause. The hour of half 
past four o’clock having arrived, the Senate 
will now take a recess until seven o’clock. 
power at a moment when rebellion was com- 
mencing its mutterings, without an Army, with 
no Navy, or with what little we had scattered 
all over this continent. As the honorable 
Senator from Wisconsin has said, our Navy had 
to be gathered in from the remotest parts of 
the seas. Sir, it seems to me as though every 
Department of the Government on this occa- 
sion’s demand had spoken as if by magic, a 
power into existence, that has been ample for 
the necessities of the times, wonderful in its 
creation, and yet more wonderful in its results. 
Sir, this Administration has done more ; and 
that, I take it, is the real cause of complaint, 
as well with the honorable Senator from Dela- 
ware as with those who think and act with him. 
It has produced a mighty moral and political 
revolution. Out of the fury that rebellion 
raised have issued glorious moral and political 
results. Sir, I am not one of those who call 
these the evil days of the history of our coun- 
try. Far greater calamities may befall a na- 
tion than to be summoned to the fields of strife. 
Better that the land should be deluged with 
blood than that the spirit of liberty should be 
lost. Far better that every house should be 
draped in mourning than that republican free- 
dom should be slain. 
Sir, in the particular point about which I 
think the Senator from Delaware feels aggrieved 
is written the great glory of this Administra- 
tion. It has spoken freedom to four million 
human beings that were in bondage. It has 
knocked the shackles from off the limbs of that 
number of slaves, and has given them freedom 
in their place It has abolished those hateful 
words “master” and “slave,” and they will be 
heard no more forever upon this continent. 
That is glory enough for one Administration, 
and reason enough, too, for those to complain 
of it who seem to have been chained a lifetime 
to the car of slavery by links the world could 
not sever. 
Does the Senator from Delaware wish to 
bring us back again into the cold embrace of 
modern Democracy ? Sir, what have been its 
fruits? Look upon every battle-field from the 
Potomac to the Gulf, and you see there in long 
mounds of new-made graves the fruits of the 
teachings of modern Democracy. Look at the 
long rows of your hospital beds, and hear there 
a voice which, if the heart is not adamant, will 
speak in terms to attract at least the attention 
of a modern Democrat. 
Sir, I was willing to let this old Democratic 
party die, and I was willing that it should die 
and be buried without inquest. I believe it is 
a known principle of law that where the cause 
of death is positively known it is not necessary 
to call in a coroner The Democratic party 
died of a disease of which the far seeing or 
short-sighted might see it would die sooner or 
later. It died of what the eloquent Curran 
called “ the doldrums”—a confusion of the 
head arising from the corruption of the heart. 
(Laughter.) The cause of death being well 
known, no coroner was called. It needed no 
verdict from a jury to advertise to the world 
the cause of the death of the Democratic party. 
Evening Session. 
Mr. NYE. At the time the recess was taken 
I was replying to the assertion of the honorable 
Senator from Delaware in regard to the suspen- 
sion of the writ of habeas corpus, and had cited 
a well-known example of the exercise of the 
power to suspend it. Another illustrious man 
exercised that high prerogative, one whose 
Democracy even the honorable Senator from 
Delaware will not question. He found himself 
in New Orleans much in the position that some 
of our commanding generals have recently 
found themselves in other localities. He found 
there, at that early day, a modern Democrat, 
an editor of a paper, who published articles 
criticizing the conduct of the commanding 
general when he was facing the army of the 
enemy. He thought that the public interests 
and the public safety required that both the 
paper and the editor should be arrested; and 
the historian has not recorded that there was 
any process by which that editor was arrested 
save the order, the mandate of the commanding 
general The editor was arrested, and there 
was then found by his side a judge of the 
modern Democratic school, ever ready to use 
this great writ of liberty when it is proposed to 
extricate or release one of his own belief; and 
Jackson thought that the public safety required 
that that judge too should be arrested. He was 
a Democrat with whom to think was to act, and 
he acted rightly and promptly, and caused the 
arrest. Sir, not exactly in this room, but in a 
room occupied by this honorable body, many 
years after, I heard the warmest, truest, highest 
eulogium passed upon the conduct of that brave 
man that ever fell from the lips of Democracy 
or from its opponents. This great nation 
through its representatives spoke approval of 
his conduct in language not to be misunderstood. 
They remitted the fine imposed upon the hero- 
patriot and soldier. The glory that Jackson 
achieved there was only eclipsed by the subse- 
quent glory of putting down the attempted re- 
bellion of which modern Democracy was the 
father and nullification the object. 
Therefore, sir, I take it that the honorable 
Senator had forgotten these noble examples at 
the time he made the assertion that the writ of 
habeas corpus had never been suspended until 
this Administration came into power. He had 
forgotten that the press that was charged with 
mischief and malignity was stopped or “muz- 
zled” by Andrew Jackson. He seemed to pass 
over all this with a view of getting at once to 
the alleged enormities of this Administration. 
Mr. President, I have no defense to make for 
this Administration. It needs none at my 
hands. It is seen, it is written, it is printed, 
it is impressed upon every lineament of this 
country. Its glory shall live when its traducers 
shall have died. This Administration came into 20 
THE NAYY IN CONGRESS. 
But, sir, I am frank to confess that the two 
Democratic Presidents who had suspended the 
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in former 
times differed materially from the character of 
Democrats in these days. They were Union 
men; they believed in upholding the pillars of 
our institutions, while modern Democracy 
seems to have taught the doctrine that our 
duty is to tear them down. This is the differ- 
ence. The President, in times of revolution 
that have past, would have been held up to the 
scorn and derision of present and future gene- 
rations if he had failed to do otherwise than 
suspend this writ. 
Will the honorable Senator from Delaware 
tell you, sir, and this body, the exact condition 
in which the Democracy left the administration 
and the affairs of this Government? At the 
time the people rose in their majesty and 
wrested the sceptre of power from the Demo- 
cratic party the very atmosphere by which we 
were surrounded was thick with the fragments 
of dissolving empire. I have envied modern 
Democracy only in one thing, and that is, the 
perfect composure they exhibit while the evi- 
dences of portentous mischief to the country 
are all around them. They seem to fold their 
hands in meek submission to the grossest in- 
sults to which our country has been subjected. 
I know that it is not in the honorable Senator’s 
heart to do this; but he is much in the position 
that many Democrats have been before. He 
lacks the courage, not physical, but moral, to 
break away from this corpse upon which he 
invokes an inquest. In olden times, as I have 
read, they had a strange punishment for the 
higher order of offences. They chained the 
offender to a corpse, and made him drag it 
around till decay did its work and the body dis- 
appeared. I hope the honorable Sena tor from 
Delaware will soon cut the cord by which he 
is bound to that dead body, and let modern 
Democracy go where the verdict of the world 
has declared it ought to go, into utter oblivion. 
Who would take us back again into the em- 
brace of the last Democratic President, whose 
longer embrace would have been death? 
Where are now to be found the time-honored 
Democrats of whom the Senator speaks? Where 
is the President of the confederate States ? Go 
ask him to-night what his politics are, and he 
will tell you he is a Democrat of the purest 
character. Go ask Toombs, and Hunter, and 
Mason, and Slidell, and Wigfall what their 
politics are, and they will chant you anthems 
to the glory of Democracy. Their Demo- 
cracy has found its true status; it is arrayed 
with bloody steel against the glory and the 
integrity of this country. Thank God ! there 
are thousands less of these Democrats now 
than there were when this rebellion broke out. 
Many of them have met their just deserts, and 
unless they speedily repent and submit them- 
selves to the justice, the mercjq and the laws 
of their country, their numbers will be so 
diminished as not to cause any apprehension 
in regard to their future. 
I find fault with modern Democrats for this: 
they seem to be willing and anxious to punish 
{ all crimes except the-crime of treason. When 
one Department of our Government is ar- 
raigned before this body by the honorable 
j Senator from New Hampshire, the face of my 
distinguished friend from Delaware glows with 
unusual brightness, and he is anxious to join 
the honorable Senator from New Hampshire to 
punish frauds. Oh. the horror and the wicked- 
ness of these frauds! But the modern Demo- 
crats are not willing that the highest crime 
known to our law, treason, should be punished. 
Not a day passes by, not a paper that repre- 
sents them do we read, but that is crying out 
for peace, honorable terras of peace, no terms 
that will look to subjugation, none that could 
mortify the pride of their brother Democrats; 
and now, when this great nation that has 
walked upright amid the scenes through which 
we have passed, which, when the last star of 
hope grew pale, redoubled its courage, has 
beaten them upon every field, these modern 
Democrats want honorable peace and no penal- 
ties for treason inflicted! The law declares 
that if a man is guilty of larceny he shall be 
punished; if he is guilty of murder he shall 
be hanged ; and the Constitution and the laws 
both declare that the penalty for treason is 
death; and yet there is not a modern Demo- 
crat that I have heard speak that does not 
want that penalty to be unenforced against 
those whose hands are red with the patriot 
blood of their fellow-countrymen. 
Sir, I should not have occupied the attention 
of the Senate one moment on this question had 
I not come from a State just born into our 
glorious Union; a State the youngest in the 
sisterhood of States; a mountain. State; and I 
rejoice that she proves the truth of the old 
saying that liberty is a mountain nymph. In 
our constitution we have put the negative upon 
all these modern Democratic pretensions of the 
rights of States when arrayed against the majesty 
of the Government. It is a State rich in mineral 
productions, but whose material wealth is poor 
when compared with the undying loyalty of her 
.people. That new State, although the marks 
of her swaddling-clothes are yet around her, 
would rise up and condemn me should I sit 
here and listen to the invitations wooing us 
back into the embrace of this modern Demo- 
cratic party; and above all would she arraign 
me before the bar of her judgment, if I should 
silently suffer the Administration, that we have 
loved so well, to be defamed here in the house 
of its friends, and the imputations of its chal- 
lengers listened to in silence. 
I do not know but that there is something 
wrong in the Navy Department. The Senator 
from Wisconsin says there is not. The Senator 
from New Hampshire, who seems to have a 
special mission to perform with that Navy 
Department—for what reason I do not know— 
says there is. Sir, it would be strange, indeed, 
if there was not something wrrong in all the 
Departments of this Government, hurried, as it 
was, from a quiet slumber of peace to the 
creation and command of the mightiest armies 
and navies of the world, which had to have 
their growth as rapid as the growth of the gourd in the night. It would be passing 
strange if there was not some corruption in 
these Departments. I have never believed 
that it'made much difference with the purity of 
men to what particular party they belonged, 
or to what particular religious denomination. 
Men are but men; and sometimes they fall 
victims to their cupidity. I could cite many 
such instances in the Democratic period to my 
friend from Delaware that he would well re- 
member ; but yet the Democratic party did not 
make much noise about them. Unlike my 1 
friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, they 
never told of them, if they knew of them; they 
kept the knowledge of them in their own 
breasts. 
Mr. Fox may be wrong. If he is, put 
another man in his place. My friend from 
New Hampshire says that he has no doubt the 
Secretary of the Navy himself is an honest 
man. No one ever doubted that. In this con- 
nection the Senator from Delaware will pardon 
me if I remind him that the Secretary voted 
the Democratic ticket while the Senator’s cheek 
was yet covered with the dew of youth, and 
learned, I grant, to be honest in the olden times 
of genuine Democracy, when the party as a 
whole were honest. Sir, when the history of 
these times shall be written it will stand out in 
bold relief, and form one of its brightest pages, 
that with the incalculable expenditure we have 
been called upon to make, very little of it has 
adhered to the palms of those who were charged 
with the duty of its disbursement. 
The Senator from New Hampshire says that 
these iron-clads are failures. Sir, at least one 
of them was not a failure. If all the others 
should sink and find their harbor, as he sug- 
gests, in the bottom of the sea, that first-born 
Monitor has written a history of glory for this 
country that will never die. It defeated with 
a single shot the monster creation of the rebel- 
lion, and drove her back crippled and wounded 
to her hiding-place, from which she never again 
emerged, but found her destiny deep buried in [ 
the fathomless ocean sands. If the rest are I 
all failures that is enough. But, sir, they are j 
not failures ; there is much less of failure about | 
them than might reasonably*have been ex- 
pected in these wonderful naval creations— 
creations that to-day make old England sing 
in a whisper she is the mistress of the seas; a 
Navy that keeps the imperial ruler of France 
from sending his army and navy to find har- 
bors and gold and silver upon our Western 
shores. 
SPEECH OF HON. JAMES W. NYE. 
I thought it unwise in the Senator from New 
Hampshire to advertise these iron-clads as 
failures; but after all I do not know that it was. 
Let those who desire to invade our rights try it, 
and these much-abused vessels will not only 
vindicate themselves, but put to flight the in- 
vader. This Navy that was created so magi- 
cally attracts the attention of the whole world; 
and while Great Britain and France have been 
anxious to write on parchment the acknowledg- 
ment of the independence of the southern 
Democratic Confederacy they saw the fifteen- 
inch muzzles of our iron-clads, well loaded, and 
hesitated; and our Navy made them hesitate. 
I hope, Mr. President, that all the appropria- 
tions that are needed to perfect this Navy will 
be freely voted by this body. I desire to see 
it of sufficient magnitude to be a standing adver- 
tisement to the world that we are not only able 
to put down rebellion at home, but are able to 
resist invasion from without. 
Sir, it is too late in the day to talk of econo- 
mizing. This modern Democratic party that 
led us up to the shambles have put it out of 
our power to economize. Two things are cer- 
tain: this rebellion must be put down; it will 
he put down ; and another thing is just as cer- 
tain, that when it is put down the nations of 
the earth will have notice that we are prepared 
to defend ourselves against the open as well as 
the covert attacks of an opposing world. 
I hope, sir, that all the appropriations that 
this careful, scrutinizing committee calls for 
will be voted by the Senate. I know the care 
with which the chairman of this committee in- 
vestigates and reports, and upon his sugges- 
tion that certain appropriations are necessary. 
Nevada—I think I can speak for my colleague 
—will give two votes without any reference to 
the magnitude of what is required. Yonder 
mountains are full of the material with which 
to pay the national obligation. Providence has 
kindly stored away in the lofty mountains of 
Nevada, and Idaho, and Oregon treasure 
enough to make the debt which we now owe, 
or may owe at the conclusion of this bloody 
war, dwindle and dwarf into insignificance. 
Open up to us a way by which we can get the 
means of producing it, and we can as well give 
you $500,000,000 a year as the $30,000,000 
that we annually send you now. Sir, I know 
of no debt that is too mighty for a nation to 
incur to save its freedom. I know of no debt 
that should stand between us and the putting 
down of this rebellion. 
21 22 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
SPEECH OF HON. A. 11. PICE, 
OF MASSACHUSETTS 
In the House of Representatives 
February 3, 1865. 
The House resolved itself into the Committee 
of the Whole on the State of the Union (Mr. 
Washburns, of Illinois, in the chair), and re- 
sumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 
676) making appropriations for the naval service 
for the year ending June 30, 1866, the pending 
question being the amendment submitted by Mr. 
Davis, of Maryland, to add to the bill the fol- 
lowing : 
Sec. —. And he it further enacted, That the 
Secretary may add to the board from time to time 
other officers of the Navy eligible to the position 
of chief of bureau, not exceeding three at any 
time, for consultation on any of the above subjects. 
The board may take the opinion of eminent prac- 
tical engineers, mechanics, machinists, and archi- 
tects, in their respective branches of art or in- 
dustry, when in their opinion the public service 
will be promoted by it, and pay them such rea- 
sonable compensation as the Secretary may ap- 
prove. 
Provided, That no money appropriated for the 
naval service shall be expended otherwise than in 
accordance with the following provisions, so far 
as it is applicable ; that is to say, that the Presi- 
dent, by and with the advice ana consent of the 
Senate, shall appoint a Board of Admiralty, which 
shall consist of the vice-admiral and one rear ad- 
miral, one commodore, one captain, one comman- 
der, and one lieutenant commander, over which 
the Secretary of the Navy or the officer highest 
in rank present shall preside ; and when the sub- 
ject under consideration shall appertain to the 
duties of any bureau in the Navy Department, 
the chief of such bureau shall be a member of 
the board, and entitled to sit and vote on the con- 
sideration of the subject. 
Sec. —• And be it further enacted, That the 
hoard shall deliberate in common and advise the 
Secretary on any matters submitted by him re- 
lating to naval organization, naval legislation, 
the construction, equipment, and armament of 
vessels, navy-yards, and other naval establish- 
ments, and the direction, employment, and dispo- 
sition of the naval forces in time of war. All 
such opinions shall be recorded. 
Sec —. And he it farther enacted, That no 
vessel-of-war shall be built or materially altered, 
nor any guns of new construction ordered or 
adopted, nor any engine for any vessel-of-war 
adopted or ordered, nor any permanent structure 
for naval service executed, until the plans, esti- 
mates, proposals, and contracts for the same shall 
have been submitted to the board, and its opinion 
and advice thereon communicated in writing to 
the Secretary ; nor shall any patented invention 
be bought or adopted for the naval service with- 
out first the opinion of the board thereon having 
been taken ; and all experiments decided to test 
inventions and naval plans and structures shall 
be conducted under the inspection of the board, 
or members thereof named by the Secretary, and 
submitted to the board for its opinion thereon. 
Sec. —. And he it further enacted, That all in- 
vitations for plans or proposals for any of the works 
above mentioned shall be prepared by the board, 
subject to the approval of the Secretary ; and all 
bids, or offers, or proposals for the same shall be 
opened in the presence of the board, and the award 
made by it, subject to the approval of the Seore- 
Mr. RICE, of Massachusetts, said : 
Mr. Chairman; I am at the present time 
very ill prepared to reply to the remarks which 
have been made by the honorable gentleman 
from Maryland; but lam not willing that this 
speech shall have been made in this House and 
pass out to the country without my saying a 
single word upon the subject, although I am 
obliged to speak without special preparation 
and in the absence of certain statistics which 
would be most valuable to me if I had them 
here at hand. 
It is but natural, too, that I should rise under 
some embarrassment, with some feelings of 
diffidence, to reply upon the spur of the moment 
to the elaborate speech which has been deliv- 
ered by the honorable gentleman from Mary- 
land, a speech for which, it is quite manifest, 
he had made a careful collection of such sta- 
tistics as might serve his purpose, and in which 
he has discussed the subject in hand with that 
degree of warmth and enthusiasm which is apt 
to arise from the fervor of some measure of 
personal hostility. 
I think the gentleman has been unfortunate 
in the selection of the proposition which he has 
submitted to the House. It is, sir, nothing 
more nor less than that this Congress and the 
Navy Department of the United States shall 
throw away ail the teachings of experience, 
both at home and abroad, and shall take a re- 
trograde step, placing the administration of our 
naval affairs where it was nearly a century ago. 
The honorable gentleman has taken occasion, 
in the opening portion of his remarks, to refer 
to the action of the Committee on Naval Affairs 
upon the bill which he has discussed, and which 
he has brought in here and submitted, I think, 
contrary to all rule and to all precedent, as an 
amendment to an appropriation bill, and before 
there was opportunity for the Committee on 
Naval Affairs, to whom that subject had been 
referred, to present the report upon which they 
had concluded long before Ms amendment was 
offered. Now, sir, I desire to say for the members of 
that committee, that if any gentleman in this 
House chooses to call in question their dili- 
gence, their industry, and their patience, let 
him resort to the room, and to the records of J 
the committee, and find how far their patience 
has been tried and their time absorbed by 
useless investigations thrown upon their hands j 
in a resolution submitted by the honorable j 
gentleman from Maryland, during the last 
session of Congress. 
Sir, the resolution to which I allude was a 
sweeping one, aimed at no particular point, 
looking to the correction of no particular evil; 
but one starting out this Committee on Naval 
Affairs upon an exploring expedition to ran- 
sack the whole transactions of the Naval De- 
partment ; the mysteries of the construction of 
steam machinery, and the investigation of pro- 
fessional and scientific, as well as of practical 
questions. The subjects for investigation ran 
also into matters of personal quarrels; into 
the connection of alleged and fictitious abuses 
on the part of persons connected with the Navy 
Department, and into other acts through the 
agency of other persons which I will not con- 
sume the time of the House, or tire its patience 
even by relating. The character of this labor 
and its results are to be found in the report of 
the Naval Committee recently submitted to the 
House. 
Now, sir, in prosecuting the labor imposed 
by that resolution alone, the Committee on 
Naval Affairs consumed more than seventy sit- 
tings during the last session of Congress, an 
average of three days every week of the session 
from the time the resolution was ofi'ered; and 
the investigation, with all the diligence, all the 
labor, and all the care which could be bestowed, 
was not concluded until the very last days of 
June. And since the present session of Con- 
gress convened it has devolved upon the com- 
mittee to prepare a report covering that vast 
mass of documentary evidence and testimony 
which the House, affrighted by its magnitude, 
refused on Monday last to allow to be printed. 
It has been necessary during this session to 
examine and analyze that whole testimony, to 
collect all the facts and statistics, to separate 
the wheat from the chaff, and to select that 
which was true out of that which was false, 
and to report the result to the House. And, 
sir. without instituting any invidious compari- 
son between the labors and diligence of that 
committee and those of any other committee 
of this House, I should do great injustice to 
my colleagues upon that committee if I did not 
bear testimony to the fact that neither their 
personal convenience nor comfort has been 
allowed to interfere with the diligent discharge 
of their duties. So much, sir, in regard to the 
amount of labor and attention which have been 
bestowed by the Committee on Naval Affairs 
upon the subject referred to them by the gen- 
tleman from Maryland. 
The question of the expediency of putting 
the Navy Department under the surveillance of 
a board of examiners, or a board of adminis- 
tration, the committee proceeded to consider 
SPEECH OF HON. A. H RICE. 
as soon as they could gain time from the pres- 
sure of other and more important matters; 
and, as I said before, weeks ago they were 
ready to submit their action and conclusions 
to this House as soon as its rules would permit, 
and, if necessary to do so, to submit the rea- 
sons for the decision to which they arrived. 
Now, I desire to say here, that the report 
which the committee are ready to make when- 
ever they have an opportunity, is adverse to 
the proposition submitted by the honorable 
gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Davis,] and 
if the House will indulge me I will proceed to 
state, with as much brevity as the circum- 
stances permit, some of the reasons which 
have led us to that conclusion. The proposi- 
tion of the honorable gentleman is substantially 
that the Navy Department of the United States 
shall be put under a similar kind of adminis- 
tration to that by which the British navy is at 
present controlled; and I need not say to any 
gentleman who has examined that subject, that 
the British Board of Admiralty is to-day, of all 
administrative things in England, the most un- 
popular among the people and Government of 
that nation. 
.The administration of the navy of Great 
Britain was vested originally in an officer called 
the “Lord High Admiral of the British Navy,” 
an office which has not been filled, except for 
a very short period, for nearly one hundred 
and eighty years, the exception being its occu- 
pation by the Duke of Clarence in 1827; at 
all other times it has been placed in commission, 
as the phrase is, a commission consisting of 
two lords, four commissioners, and two secre- 
taries, the incumbents being so appointed and 
retired as to be in harmony and sympathy with 
the dominant party in the Government for the 
time being. And what has been the result ? 
Just precisely what one would expect would be 
the result of the action of an organization hav- 
ing no individual responsibility, and feeling the 
stimulus of no executive power. 
We all know that after the accession of Louis 
Napoleon to the throne of France, and when 
that wonderful man commenced, as he did al- 
most immediately, to bestow his attention upon 
the condition of the navy of that empire, and 
its comparative magnitude and prowess with 
that of Great Britain, Parliament and the Brit- 
ish people were both intensely excited at the 
rapid strides France was making in the con- 
struction of a great navy, and the periodicals 
and the leading men of Great Britain in Parlia- 
ment summoned to the bar of public opinion 
this irresponsible and inactive Board of Admi- 
ralty, that they might, if possible, give an ac- 
count of how it happened that the British navy 
had gone into disrepute, and was so far behind 
everything which it should have been when 
compared with the wants of the nation, or the 
vast sums of money expended upon it; and 
four years ago, when the war broke out in this 
country, and the stupendous achievements that 
were made by the Navy Department of the 
United States, in constructing our naval force, 
' became known across the water, they also at- 
i tracted the attention of the Government and 
23 24 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
the people of Great Britain, and now, more 
than ever before, public opinion condemned 
the inefficiency of this Board of Admiralty, and 
interrogated them to show why it was that 
when France was making these rapid strides, 
and the Government of the United-States was 
outstripping France even, the British Board of 
Admiralty sat supinely in their seats and were 
doing absolutely nothing to preserve the rela- 
tive naval force of Great Britain. 
The United Service Magazine, published in 
London, a high British authority, said in 1862, 
while discussing the British admiralty system, 
that— 
“ There is something so clumsy in the ma- 
chinery of a board that the leading statesmen of 
all parties who have of late years devoted their 
attention to the reconstruction of the large Go- 
vernment departments, have given their opinion 
against this mode of conducting public business. ” 
The select committee on military organiza- 
tion, which sat in 1860, and which was com- 
posed chiefly of Prime Ministers and ex-Prime 
Ministers, of Secretaries and ex-Secretaries of 
State, of First Lords and ex-First Lords of the 
Admiralty, also reported as follows, upon Lord 
Grey’s proposal that the army should be gov- 
erned by a board: 
“This board would be a new experiment; it 
undoes all that has been done;” * * * “in- 
stead of concentrating responsibility it redistri- 
butes it. The machinery of boards is known to 
be cumbrous and uncertain in its operation; it 
only works well when the head of it acts as if he 
alone were responsible. A board, therefore, 
would be a retrograde measure, which we can- 
not recommend.” 
| which is defective in its very nature, and fhere- 
j fore it cannot be made of paramount value by 
the administration of any men, however effi- 
cient, excellent, and experienced they may be. 
Yet this, let me say, is substantially the system 
which the honorable gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Davis), if I understand him, desires we 
shall establish here; a system which after a 
test of more than two hundred years in Great 
Britain is more than almost anything else con- 
nected with their Government in disrepute, 
both with the Government and with the peo- 
ple, and has singularly failed in presenting any 
positive advantage, as the present condition of 
the British navy shows. This is the system 
which the honorable gentleman from Maryland 
| (Mr. Davis) desires us to institute here. This 
is the kind of trammel that he desires to put 
over the chief officer of our Navy Department. 
I have alluded to the accession of Louis Na- 
I poleon to the throne of France, and to the itn- 
i mediate attention which he bestowed upon the 
i construction of the navy of that empire, and to 
j the effect which the naval movements of France 
have had upon Great Britain. I need not in- 
i form this committee that the navies of France 
and Great Britain are constructed almost 
J wholly with reference to a single point, and 
; that is, the relative power of the two nations. 
They are rivals in everything, and jealous of 
each other. They are hostile to each other, 
and their hostility and their jealousy extend 
to everything connected with the interests or 
with the power of either of those nations. 
Now, sir, as soon as the Emperor of France 
looked out upon what was supposed to be the 
formidable navy of Great Britain, and which 
indeed was formidable among the navies of the 
world at that period, he found that if he were 
to secure his throne, if he were to maintain the 
dignity of France, if he were to retain the 
fealty and the confidence of his subjects, he 
must provide a power that should be able to 
meet the navy of Great Britain on any sea, and 
that should be able to protect the coast of 
France against any assaults that’ might be 
made by Great Britain. Therefore, sir, the 
construction of the English navy and of the 
French navy has, as I have said, in a great 
degree become a reciprocal operation. When 
Great Britain builds a ship, then France builds 
a ship ; and when France builds an iron-clad, 
Great Britain must build an iron-clad; and so 
they go on multiplying day after day, and year 
after year—not because of any particular 
exigency that is pressing upon those nations 
at the moment, but because neither can afford 
to be behind the other in the number and the 
armament of its ships. 
Well, sir, Louis Napoleon is known to the 
world. When he ascended the throne of France 
he became France. He is that voltaic battery 
placed on the seat of power in the nation, 
whose touch sends the vital impulses through- 
out his whole empire. He is the head of the 
navy of France, as he is the head of everything 
else that is great connected with that nation. 
He wants no boards of admiralty to sit down 
and dream over what in some possible exigency 
According to the same authority: 
“Even Sir James Graham, who favors the 
continuance of the present system of naval ad- 
ministration, states that if the command of the 
navy were a new machinery to be constructed he 
should not wish to have a board such as the 
Board of Admiralty.” 
Other leading men and authorities have 
spoken of this board in even stronger terms of 
disfavor, as a feeble and unsatisfactory mode 
of administering the Navy, and this in such 
numbers as to lead one to suppose that nothing 
but the proverbial unwillingness to make a 
radical change in any part of their governmental 
organization would tolerate its continuance. 
And let me call attention to the fact that it is 
not against the personnel of this Board of Ad- 
miralty that the objection lies, but against the 
system itself; for the Board of Admiralty of 
Great Britain has from time to time embraced 
some of the wisest, some of the most experi- 
enced, and some of the most judicious naval 
authorities in Great Britain. But during all 
the time of its existence down to the present 
it has hardly been able promptly and efficiently 
to put forth the efforts which were necessary 
to provide against the exigencies of war which 
at all times are liable to occur. As I have 
already shown, British authorities, who have 
investigated for themselves the subject, declare 
in their periodicals, reports, and speeches, that 
this Board of Admiralty is an organization SPEECH OF HON. A. H. RICE. 
25 
it may be expedient to do. He wants no board 
of admiralty that shall hamper the progress of 
the French armies or navies when the exigency 
arrives. But he, sir, is the living and the 
vitalizing power, and when he speaks the word 
it is done; when he commands, every man and 
everything under the power and control of the 
French nation stands fast to service and duty. 
The administration of the French navy, 
therefore, is a totally different organization 
from that of the British Admiralty. The 
British Admiralty is responsible to/ nobody. 
Each board is moreover involved with its 
successor and with its predecessor, as a ser- 
pent involves its coils ; and if there be faults 
or omissions arising in the administration of 
the navy, it is almost as impossible to fix the 
precise point of responsibility among these 
successive boards of admiralty as it is to fix | 
the precise point of motive power in a serpent’s ] 
body. The board of administration of France 
is, on the contrary, an organization having, 
through all departments, the element of indi- 
vidual responsibility and of special attention. 
Every man who has a duty to perform in con- 
nection with the administration of the French 
navy is responsible; he can be ferreted out; i 
the exact measure of his responsibility can be 
fastened upon him; and everybody knows 
what is the fate of an irresponsible or unfaith- ! 
ful officer before the man who sits upon the j 
French throne. 
Now, sir, the gentleman from Maryland in t 
proposing this measure has not only run con- j 
trary to the experience of France and of Eng- 
land upon this subject, but he proposes to leap 
over the whole period of time during which 
this Government has had an existence. Why, 
sir, when the navy of the United States first 
came into being, in 1775, we then had a Ma- 
rine Committee. In 1776 we had what was 1 
called a Continental Navy Board. In 1779 we 
had a Board of Admiralty. In 1798 a Navy 
Department was established, with a Secretary 
of the Navy. In 1815 we had a Board of Navy 
Commissioners appointed. In 1842 all these 
irresponsible boards, these debating societies 
organized to discuss and to settle the principles 
upon which our navy should be constructed j 
and administered, were wiped out of the way, 
under the experience which the Government j 
had had through this long period, and a Navy j 
Department, substantially like that which we 
now have, was established. We got along very 
well from 1842 up to 1862, the second year of 
this war, under the Navy Department as it was 
organized in 1842. And, sir, what did the j 
wisdom of Congress determine after two years ! 
of experience amid the trials of this war, added j 
to the long experience in a peace establishment? 
What did the wisdom of Congress decide was 
expedient to be done in 1862, when the height 
of the pressure of this war was upon us, when 
new exigencies were arising every day, when 
there was a demand for the loftiest and broadest ' 
wisdom and experience that the country could 
furnish in respect to the best method of admin- 
istering the navy? Why sir, it did not esta- 
blish a board of admiralty; it did not establish 
a board of commissioners; it did not run across 
the water and adopt the system of admiralty 
which the Government of Great Britain was 
just then trying earnestly and laboriously to 
dispense with. But Congress did amplify the 
existing Navy Department, changing none of 
its material features, but enlarging it to meet 
the added necessities which were brought upon 
it and upon the country by this gigantic war. 
So, sir, it is only two years since the Navy 
Department was reorganized and indorsed in 
its present form ; and I hazard nothing in say- 
ing that, as a department, I think it is the 
most complete, and among the most efficient 
and responsible of all the Departments of the 
Government. It approximates nearer to the 
idea of a department than does any other 
branch of the executive power of this land 
that I know of. We have at its head a Secre- 
j tary of the Navy; and under him are subdi- 
visions of the department, eight in number, 
styled bureaux, each of which bureaux has its 
own specialty, with its own officer placed at its 
head, men of broad experience, and versed in 
the particular subjects and duties they are 
called upon to consider and discharge; men 
who are responsible both to the country and 
to Congress, and to the head of the Navy De- 
| partment, inasmuch as they stand in conspi- 
i cuous positions, and cannot screen from obser- 
j ration the nature and character of their duties, 
or the manner in which they perform them. 
Each head of a bureau is supposed to know 
j everything in detail belonging to the particular 
branch of naval duty which belongs to that 
bureau, and to have the executive ability to 
bring his work to completion. He makes up 
the annual estimate of the amount which wall 
be required to be expended upon the particular 
objects of that bureau; but he cannot expend 
a single dollar of the money which Congress 
appropriates for the navy, nor enter into any 
engagement, except by the permission of the 
Secretary of the Navy himself; so that under 
this system, wre have combined the advantages 
of individual skill and responsibility supervised,, 
and ultimately controlled by a general head. 
The head of each one of these bureaux is 
therefore directly responsible to the chief of 
1 the Navy, and yet the chief of the Navy is not 
j hampered by the divided counsel of those bu- 
i reau chiefs. He is the man who, after all, is 
called upon to stand up before Government and 
people and assume the responsibility of what- 
ever appertains to the administration of that 
department of the public service. 
So, sir, we have in the amendment of the 
I gentleman from Maryland no new proposition 
| whatever, but one ■which we have already tried, 
improved upon, and discarded. 
But the honorable gentleman says no other 
country has such a system as our own. 
AVell, sir, if I mistake not, it is no novel or 
strange thing for the United States to be found 
{ differing from the rest of the world either in 
j the nature of its Government or in its adminis- 
| tration. If I remember rightly, there are many 
j particulars in which the progress of this nation, 
I and in which the means and facilities and power 26 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
of this nation, differ and have always differed | 
from any other nation on the face of the earth. 
And I will say just here that I have no pre- I 
possession for or any prejudice against any- 
thing, whether it appertains to the Navy or to 
any other Department of the Government, be- 
cause it is or is not foreign in its origin and 
use. I recognize the fact that there are many 
things appertaining to the Governments and 
the people of nations of the earth which are 
specialties of their own, which are national pe- 
culiarities, immediately recognized and known 
of all men, but they do not necessarily constitute 
in themselves standards of merit; and simply 
because a thing is or is not found elsewhere, 
does not bring to my mind any argument for 
either adopting it or dismissing it here, except 
so far as it may have been proved to be valuable 
or useless by the experience of other nations or 
our own. I hold that the experience of man- 
kind is the property of mankind; and if it be 
true that whoever, acting as an individual or 
as a member of a Government, disregards the 
experience of the world, may travel possibly 
into a slough of trouble and difficulty from 
which that experience might have saved him, 
it is also true that if a man plant himself en- 
tirely upon that which some other man has 
experienced under the same or different condi- 
tions and circumstances, his fate will be hardly 
happier than that of him whom I have described 
in antithesis. 
Now, it will be seen that the proposition sub- 
mitted by the gentleman from Maryland is not 
in favor anywhere in the world where it has 
been submitted to the test of experience. It 
will be found that it has been tried already, 
over and over again, in a great variety of forms, 
and that it has been cast aside because it has 
been proved here to be, as it will prove to be 
wherever it is tried, irresponsible, inefficient, 
and uncertain in its operation. 
But, Mr. Chairman, I think no man who has 
listened to the speech delivered by the honor- 
able gentleman from Maryland can have failed 
to.see that he had a double purpose in making 
it, and that his amendment was only a precur- 
sor, and a small one at that, to the real object 
which he had in view. In the hour and a half 
or three-quarters during which he discussed 
this subject, he spent but a very small portion 
of it in elaborating or elucidating facts or ar- 
guments in support of the establishment of a 
board of naval administration, while he did 
occupy the larger portion of his time in dis- 
cussing what he is pleased to indicate as the 
faults and failures of the Navy of the United 
States. 
I remember, sir, because I am reminded of it 
by the speech of the gentleman from Maryland, 
that this proposition which he has introduced 
here was made as long ago as last April. It 
seems to me that if the question of the effi- 
ciency or of the failure of the Navy of the 
United States is to be discussed in the interest 
of those who complain, it would have been much 
better, in the light of history and of events, for 
the gentleman to have discussed it at the time 
when it was originally submitted. 
Let us see, sir, what are some of the facts in 
regard to this Navy, which the gentleman would 
have us bring into disrepute, which he would 
have us put under surveillance, which he would 
have us hamper with a Board of Admiralty, to 
discuss every topic, great or small, that should 
arise in the service. All the resources of the 
country, vast as they are, whether public or 
private, have been brought into requisition, in 
one form or another, to deliver the country 
from the perils in which it was involved by tills 
I gigantic civil war. I need not remind members 
I of this committee that in December, 1860, the 
State of South Carolina passed an ordinance of 
secession, to take that State out of the Union, 
j and that early in the following year several of 
the Gulf States followed the example of South 
Carolina, so that before the President was in- 
augurated in March, 1861, and before any of 
the Departments were organized in harmony 
with the head of the Government, and in ac- 
j cordance with the legally expressed will of the 
j people of the country, some seven or eight 
’ States had already left the Union, as far as it 
j was possible for them to do so, by passing or- 
j dinauces of secession. Gentlemen need not be 
I reminded that before the Navy Department was 
I organized there was not a single place between 
| Chesapeake Bay and the Rio Grande, on the 
j Atlantic coast or on the Gulf coast, that was 
j not in possession of the rebels. They need not 
be reminded that, in taking possession of this 
vast extent of territory, the rebels also took 
possession of two of the five navy-yards be- 
longing to the United States, one of them the 
most important of all the navy-yards of the 
country, that of Norfolk. Not only did the 
rebels capture these navy-yards, but they cap- 
tured some of our ships in them, and a vast 
amount of ordinance and naval supplies. They 
captured at the Norfolk navy-yard more than 
two thousand pieces of heavy ordnance, three 
hundred of which were Dahlgren guns, more 
also at Pensacola, and a vast amount of small 
arms and naval stores. 
In what condition was the country then left 
—with more than thirty-five hundred miles of 
sea-coast and with more than thirty-five hun- 
dred miles of navigable inland waters to take 
| care of? What means did the Government 
i then possess for the performance of that mighty 
| and stupendous work? Our whole Navy con- 
| sisted at that time of but forty-six vessels, and 
of these nearly one-half were out of commis- 
| sion. A part of those that were in commission 
| were on foreign stations, and at the time of the 
j secession of the rebel States there were but 
j four naval vessels left available to the Govern- 
! ment of the United States with which to pro- 
ceed to reclaim the navy-yards, forts, and 
j territory that had been seized by the rebels, in 
, accordance with the avowed purpose of the 
President of the United States, to which both 
| Houses of Congress, and a vast majority of the 
j people heartily responded. 
| Here was the work; to recover and to guard 
j this vast extent of sea-coast and inland waters, 
i to be done with old ships, if at all, or to be 
! done by new means and instrumentalities de- SPEECH OF HON. A. H. RICE. 
vised by that man who holds the responsible | 
position of Secretary of the Navy. Does any j 
one suppose, sir, that it would have been pos- 
sible for the Secretary of the Navy to have built 
ships enough to have guarded the whole coast 
of the Atlantic, from the capes of the Chesa- 
peake to the Rio Grande, and to navigate the 
inland waters of the country, wresting them, 
place by place, one after another, from the i 
hands of the rebels, if he had had to wait until 
he could build the ships, and cast and finish the I 
ordnance necessary to perform this gigantic I 
undertaking ? It is an absurdity to make such 
a suggestion. Then I want to know what was 
left open for the Secretary of the Navy to do 
but just precisely that which he did do, and 
which is here at this time made the subject of 
hostile criticism and animadversion by the hon- 
orable gentleman from Maryland. [Mr. Davis.] 
He went out to his countrymen, and said to 
them: “Give me your ships; give me your 
yards; give me your foundries; give me your 
machine-shops; give me your rope-walks; give 
me everything that you have suited to the pur- 
pose, in order that I may, according to the best 
of my ability, use them for my country, and j 
while you and I stand alike in the face of man- 
kind to be tried by its judgment, as to whether 
we can or cannot accomplish this gigantic un- 
dertaking, while the friends of despotism, and 
the enemies of republics are looking on and 
hoping that we shall fail, I ask you to come 
forward and give your ships, and your facilities, 
be they what they may, in order that we may 
vindicate the patriotism, skill, and capacity of 
American workmen and people, in quenching 
this fire of rebellion; that we may have the 
pleasure, the inexpressible and unbounded 
pleasure, of showing to mankind that however 
great your disadvantages, that however small 
the resources .at the command of the Govern- 
ment, yet, when the national life is assailed, 
there is no limit to the power which the Ameri- 
can people will bring out for the use of their 
Government to enable them to save the.national 
life from any hand by which it may be assailed, 
whether it be foreign or domestic.” 
The appeal of the Secretary of the Navy did 
not go out to his countrymen unregarded and 
unheeded. They responded to it. They brought 
out every ship that was available for naval ser- 
vice, and put them at the disposal of the Navy 
Department: and the Navy Department availed 
itself to the utmost of the ability of our citizens, 
limited only by the resources of the country, in 
procuring ships and ordnance and men and ma- 
terial of every kind, to enable it to carry out 
the gigantic undertaking that rebels and trait- 
ors had forced upon its hands. Nor did it act 
unwisely in this particular. If gentlemen can 
translate themselves from this present hour, 
in February, 1865, back to 1861, and contem- 
plate the necessity that then existed of contrib- 
uting in any manner and in every manner of 
the resources of the country; if they can recall 
the anxiety they then felt that the Navy 
should do all that it could, and vastly more 
than it was doing, I think that in that state of 
mind they will not be prepared to condemn the 
Navy Department because it availed itself of 
the ships of the merchant service when there 
were none belonging to the Navy, and when all 
the yards of the Government, and all the shops 
of the country were working night and day, 
and were all totally inadequate to supply the 
immediate and pressing exigencies under which 
the Government was then laboring. 
The honorable gentleman comments upon the 
character of these merchant vessels, and dwells 
upon the absurdity of counting them in among 
the naval resources of the country. But I think 
that, if he had dwelt upon the topic in all its 
lights and all its bearings, he could not have 
failed to discover that, under that generic term 
“ the Navy,” there is a great variety of duty to 
be performed, and that there is duty that can 
be performed as well, or nearly as well, by 
vessels that were built for the merchant service 
as by those which were built expressly for the 
naval service. 
But passing from this point, for it is not 
worth while to discuss it in the light of the 
facts, the alternative then presented was, will 
you have these ships or will you have no ships? 
Will you do all you can to arrest the progress 
of this rebellion, or will you sit down supinely, 
as a board of admiralty might have done, suck- 
ing your thumbs and saying that the undertak- 
ing is totally beyond the capacity and genius 
of the American people to enter upon and to 
accomplish ? Not only was the Government 
without vessels and without ordnance, but in 
the first year of the war, out of the small num- 
ber of officers that composed the Navy two 
hundred and fifty-nine resigned or went over 
to the enemy, in order that they might com- 
mand the ships and make use of the ordnance 
which they had stolen from the Government of 
the United States at Norfolk and Pensacola 
and elsewhere. So that our losses were not 
only losses to ourselves in ships and material, 
but they were gains in the same kind and 
degree to the rebels; and they gained in addi- 
tion a large number, if not all, of the one hun- 
dred and fifty-nine officers of the American 
Navy to make use of those ships and of those 
materials. 
Well, sir, during this year 1861, starting in 
the spring with only four vessels available for 
the whole uses of this gigantic war, to blockade 
all the southern ports, to recover all the places 
that had been stolen from us, to open the great 
internal channels of commerce—starting, I say, 
with those four vessels, before the close of the 
year 1861, the first year of the war, during a 
period of only about nine months, the number 
increased from four vessels to two hundred and 
twenty-six. This is the work accomplished, so 
far as outfitting the navy is concerned, by this 
Department in the first nine or ten months of 
the war. During the second year that number 
was increased to between three and four hun- 
dred. During the next year, if I remember 
rightly, it rose up to more than five hundred 
and eighty. And now, sir, at the end of the 
!, fourth year, we have a Navy of six hundred 
and seventy-one vessels; not all built on one 
plan, not all built of one size, not all built of 
27 28 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
one fashion and for one use, as the honorable 
gentleman from Maryland would seem to imply 
by his argument would have been judicious, 
but various in their construction and appli- 
ances, adapted to the ever-changing, ever-new 
exigencies and necessities of this great war. 
Now, sir, not to leave entirely out of sight 
the value of the advice that may be derived 
from a board of consultation, I desire to state 
here that, while all the responsibility settles 
down upon the head of the Navy, and upon the 
chiefs of the Bureaux of the Navy Department, 
yet, sir, without a board of administration 
which it is obliged by the force of law to con- 
sult and to defer to, the Navy Department has 
hardly taken a single step of great importance 
without summoning, as the chief of that De- 
partment has the undoubted right to do, a board 
of consultation and advice from those who are 
experienced in the Navy in commanding our 
ships, experienced in all the details of war, as 
well as in all naval literature and practice, that 
he might have the benefit both of their experi- 
ence and of their professional knowledge. 
Those boards have been constituted over and 
over again as specialities have demanded. They 
have not been exceptional cases ; they have 
been the rule rather than the exception. And 
the Secretary of the Navy, feeling that it rested 
upon him to take the responsibility, to assume 
accountability for what shall be actually done, 
without regard to the character of the advice 
which he may receive, has, after hearing the 
opinions that have been expressed by those 
whom he has consulted, moved forward in ac- 
cordance with the dictates of his own judgment, 
to do those things which he believed to be best 
for the interest of the country and the accom- 
plishment of the gigantic work which he had in 
hand. 
Why, sir, almost immediately after the Ad- 
ministration was organized, it became indispen- 
sable that there should be certain points upon 
the Atlantic coast recovered and put in posses- 
sion of the Government as depots for naval 
supplies, as places of resort for vessels that 
were doing duty on the Atlantic. And what 
did the Secretary of the Navy do? Why, sir, 
he did not send in here and ask you to give him 
a board of naval administration, but he sent 
out to some of the most experienced officers of 
the Navy, to those who were most familiar with 
the coast; and he sent to the Coast Survey 
office: he had all the geography of the country 
and all the knowledge and experience of the 
country bearing upon the topic laid before him; 
and the opinion of a commission was taken as 
to the particular points that could be most ad- 
vantageously recovered and most advanta- 
geously used after they were so recovered. 
And when the naval expeditions started out 
under Stringham and Du Pont for the capture 
of these places on the Atlantic coast, they 
started, sir, with a definite object to be ac- 
complished, and that object was determined 
upon by the Secretary of the Navy after he 
had made use of all the means and all the re- 
sources at his command, including a commission 
of men specially versed in this department of his 
duty. 
[Here the hammer fell.] 
Mr. ASHLEY. I move that the gentleman 
be allowed to proceed. 
There was no objection. 
Mr RICE, of Massachusetts. I have spoken, 
Mr. Chairman, very much longer than I antici- 
pated when I arose, and I appreciate the kind- 
ness and courtesy of the House in allowing me 
an opportunity further to proceed ; and 1 will 
endeavor to show my appreciation by not tres- 
passing upon the patience of members further 
than may be absolutely necessary to present 
the case which I have in hand. 
Now, sir, I was about to say that I would 
not go over a long and tedious recital of the 
number of boards which the Secretary of the 
Navy has from time to time summoned, that 
he might acquaint himself with their opinions, 
and, so far as he should determine, act in ac- 
cordance with their advice. So far as that is 
concerned, he and the Department have had 
all the practical benefits of a board of admi- 
ralty without the loss of executive ability. 
And upon that one point of executive ability 
let me say that you may look over the annals 
of mankind, from the dawn of civilization to 
the present time, and you will find nowhere in 
the records of any nation so gigantic a per- 
formance in the way of constructing a navy in 
the same length of time as has been performed 
by the Navy Department of the United States. 
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is well to say right 
here—because it is pertinent to the remarks 
made by the gentleman from Maryland—that 
not only has this Navy Department had its 
attention carefully fixed upon absorbing the 
resources of its navy yards and the private 
establishments of the country in the building 
of ships and ordnance and machinery, but it 
has also had closely at heart the grand result 
to which all naval warfare tends, or should 
tend, and that is, a victory; and in carrying 
out that idea it has not groped only among 
naval administrative reports of foreign coun- 
tries ; it has not blindly followed the lead of 
any nation; not merely imitated what the 
brains of some other man or some other people 
had devised, but taking the issues of the living 
present before it, and studying them, has ad- 
dressed itself, whether by old means or by new 
means, at all events by successful means, to 
the accomplishment of the result to which, as 
I said before, all naval warfare should tend— 
victory. 
And let me say here what is the distinctive 
American idea upon the subject—an idea dif- 
fering entirely from the theories of either Eng- 
land, France, or any other nation on the face 
of the earth—and that is, in the first place, in 
respect to vessels, and in the second place in 
reference to ordnance; for, as has been well 
and justly said, since this war commenced the 
United States have reformed the whole system 
of naval warfare twice: first, in respect to the 
construction of ships; and secondly, in respect 
to the construction of ordnance. And that 
idea, the main idea, is this, to take away as 
far as possible in the construction of your 
ships the target to the enemy’s guns; and in SPEECH OF HON. A. H. RICE. 
29 
the second place, in the construction of your 
ordnance to put the greatest weight of metal 
into the smallest possible compass; and, sir, 
whether for weal or for woe, whether in suc- 
cess or in defeat, that is the American idea 
which has been working out and which is now 
working out in the construction of the Ameri- 
can Navy.. 
Why, everybody knows that the first change 
which took place in naval ships—l speak not 
now of the period since the war commenced— 
was to dispense with sails and to adopt steam 
as the motive power. But since this war com- 
menced the idea has been not only to construct 
steam vessels, but to construct iron vessels also; 
and in constructing iron vessels, not to con- 
struct broadside vessels only, carrying a large 
number of guns and standing many feet out of 
water, but to pvit the vessels as low in the 
water as practicable, and to compress, as I said 
before, the weight of your ordnance-metal into 
the smallest possible compass. And if any- 
body desires a practical illustration of the 
wisdom and efficiency of this theory when car- 
ried out to practical results, let me carry his 
mind back to that memorable Saturday morn- 
ing in March, 1862, when your frigates with 
their immense broadsides lay in Hampton roads 
waiting and watching there for anything which 
might come to them from the harbor of Norfolk. 
And wdiat did come ? Why, sir, the Merrimac, 
a great and powerful iron-clad, came down on 
Saturday and sent to the bottom of the ocean 
your frigate Cumberland and your frigate Con- 
gress with as apparent ease as you would crush 
an egg-shell in your hand. And, sir, nothing 
under heaven saved the rest of that fleet ex- 
cept the fact that they were in very shoal water 
where the Merrimac was not able to follow 
them. 
And how did it happen that the Merrimac, 
when she came down the next morning, did not 
make a similar disposition of the remainder of 
the fleet? How did it happen that she did not 
come along the coast, and up the Potomac, 
shell this seat of Government, and lay this 
capital in ruins ? Why did she not go to Balti- 
more, why not to Philadelphia, why not to New 
York, Boston, and other important commercial 
places on the sea-coast, and lay them under 
contribution, and capture or destroy their 
shipping and defences ? Because on that Sun- 
day morning the first practical development of 
this American idea of dispensing with a target 
for your enemy, and of concentrating the weight 
of your metal into the smallest possible com- 
pass, was made. The Merrimac came down 
just as confidently on Sunday morning as she 
had come down on Saturday : but, if I mistake 
not, and if history is not altogether at fault, 
she went back with an entirely different mes- 
sage to the southern confederacy on Sunday 
from that which she took back on Saturday. 
She met there, as the gentleman from Mary- 
land has said, if not originally, yet felicitously, 
a raft with a cheese-box on it; and the result 
of that raft with a cheese-box on it, the result 
of that practical American idea, in which it 
differed from France and from England 
from the world, was that when she discharged 
her immense guns into the sides of the Merri- 
mac, that vessel, gigantic as she was, .found 
that she was entirely unable to cope with this 
diminutive, untried Yankee notion. This ex- 
periment, for it was nothing more nor less than 
an experiment then, this first practical embodi- 
ment of the American idea, sent the gigantic 
rebel monster, constructed more after the 
plans of France and England, skulking back 
into the harbor of Norfolk, from which she 
never came out afterward. 
And so, also, wherever this American idea 
has been subsequently tested the same result 
has followed. How was it in the case of the 
Fingal, constructed on the Clyde, and sent over 
here as a blockade runner, one specimen of 
those vast contributions which our former 
friend and—if I speak not unadvisedly—our 
recent enemy, has made to the southern con- 
federacy in the building and supply of ships 
and ordnance to enable the rebels to tear down 
the pillars of this Government and to destroy 
our national life ? How was it in the case of 
the Fingal, which came over here under the 
guise of a merchant vessel, which was taken 
up to Savannah and there altered, at an ex- 
pense of millions of dollars, into a rebel iron- 
clad ? After she was completed she came out 
at the appointed time, commanded by one who 
had served under the old flag, and filled with 
officers who were ingloriously transferring not 
only their allegiance but their experience to 
the flag of our enemy, and accompanied by 
transports filled with gay people, who were 
coming out as on a festive occasion to witness 
the conflict between the Atlanta—which the 
Fingal had now become—and the Weehawken, 
commanded by that noble sailor and just and 
honest man, John Rodgers. 
And what was the result of that trial between 
the combination of British and confederate 
skill and this American idea ? Hardly had the 
Atlanta got into position before a fifteen-inch 
shot from the Weehawken struck against her 
side, prostrated forty men upon her decks, and 
scattered barrels of splinters, of wood and iron, 
as the first announcement to the officers of the 
Atlanta of how great an advance had been 
made by this theory of compressing the weight 
of your metal into the smallest possible compass. 
After that one shot was fired it was utterly 
impossible for the commander of the Atlanta 
to bring his men back again to their guns ; and 
before the Nahant, the cooperating vessel of 
the Weehawken, was able to get into position 
and fire a single shot, the white flag appeared 
on the Atlanta and she became a prize—a prize 
to this American idea. And she now floats 
under the stars and stripes, and is doing good 
and efficient service, as I understand, in the 
American Navy. Almost every successful naval 
battle that has been fought has been fought 
partly with the use of those monitors. The 
honorable gentleman from Maryland has stated 
what he would have us believe to be the testi- 
mony of high officials in the naval service in 
condemnation of these monitors, and yet if he 
will read the testimony of these men candidly 30 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
and impartially he will find that they not only 1 
declare in their favor, but that they are unwil- 
ling to go into any great and important action 
without their assistance. 
The gentleman from Maryland has referred 
to the magnificent and glorious achievements 
of Farragut in Mobile Bay. But does the hon- 
orable gentleman desire me to tell him that | 
before Admiral Farragut made his movement 
in Mobile Bay he waited for iron-clads? and four 
of them did join his fleet before the action com- 
menced, and I have here the testimony of Ad- 
miral Porter, if I could consume the time of 
the committee in reading from testimony, as 
the gentleman has done, but it is not worth 
while; whether it be on the Atlantic, or in the 
Gulf, or upon the Mississippi, the result is the 
same. For they have built iron-clads and iron 
vessels on the Mississippi and its tributaries as 
well as upon the Atlantic and in the Gulf, and 
everywhere they have turned out to he the 
most efficient and most powerful and the most 
formidable vessels ever constructed. 
Now, Mr. Chairman, I shall be obliged, in 
the fulfilment of my promise not to weary the 
House more than is necessary, to pass over 
many important features of this discussion. I 
want to say next, that when the fight took 
place between the Merrimac and the Monitor at 
Hampton Hoads, a high British authoi’ity de- 
clared that the naval force of England amounted 
to but three or four vessels. I cannot quote 
his language precisely; but it was substantially 
that the naval force of Great Britain was wiped 
out; that they must begin de novo; that they 
must cast aside their Warriors, their Agin- 
courts, and all other like ships they had con- 
structed, because the fight in Hampton Hoads 
proved that the Monitor vessels, which pre- 
sented no broadside to be perforated by the 
shot of the enemy, also carried a gun that 
would crush in the sides of the vessels built 
upon the English and the French plans. That 
demonstrated that the countless millions that 
they had expended under the wisdom and fore- 
cast of this Board of Admiralty was all for 
nothing. 
We have to-day accomplished, in the con- 
struction of our naval vessels, the two things 
which the Government started out to accom- 
plish when it entered upon this gigantic under- 
taking, so far as the theory of the construction 
of vessels is concerned. In the first place they 
desired to devise a vessel that would carry an 
armor which the ordnance of no foreign nation 
could shoot through, and then to place upon 
these ships guns throwing a weight of metal 
which, if it would not perforate, would crush 
in the sides of any ship belonging to any other 
nation. And I say here, without the fear of 
contradiction, that that result has been accom- 
plished, and that we to-day have vessels whose 
armor is a complete protection against the 
guns of any nation on the face of the earth, 
and that we also have on those vessels, on the 
Monitor vessels, guns that will drive from the 
ocean any vessel that may come in conflict with 
our ships. 
Now, sir, I think that fact is not new on the 
other side of the water, if it is new here. That 
fact is not new in France and in England, if it 
be new in the United States. That fact is pro- 
bably not new in the Parliament of Great Britain 
or in the Chamber of Deputies of France, if it 
be new in the Congress of the United States. 
Let me say to you, that those Governments are 
to-day studying the monitor system of the 
United States with the most careful and anxious 
solicitude, to see by what means they may be 
able, if by any means whatever, to put them- 
selves on an equality with the gigantic, and at 
present all but, if it be not altogether, irre- 
sistible naval power of the United States. Why, 
sir, is it a matter that need be told here, that 
the Governments of several foreign nations have 
sent special commissions here since the fight 
took place between the Monitor and the Merri- 
mac, and the Weehawken and Atlanta, to study 
out, if it may be, this wonderful power that has 
been improvised amid the excitements and ne- 
cessities of a gigantic and unexampled war ? 
And besides that, every item of information 
which goes out from us in respect to this con- 
flict to France and Great Britain, with whom 
we are in the closest communication, is sought 
for and maturely studied. Have gentlemen 
forgotten that Sweden has sent her officers here 
|to specially study this system? And have you 
forgotten that the Imperial Government of 
j Russia sent a fleet over here, bringing some of 
| her most accomplished officers, that they might 
I acquaint themselves with the nature and cha- 
j racter and probable results of these wonderful, 
I improvised systems and implements of Ameri- 
I can naval warfare? Nor, sir, need 1 remind 
I you or the honorable gentleman from Maryland 
I that the Imperial Government of Russia, sitting 
! apart at the head of the eastern continent, 
overlooking it and ourselves, studying, watch- 
ing, observing closely and anxiously the naval 
progress of all the naval Powers of the world 
—that the Russian Government, immediately 
I after learning of the trial of one of these moni- 
I tor vessels, ordered thirteen of them constructed 
|to take their places as an efficient part of the 
Russian navy. And, sir, if need be, let me 
inform the gentleman from Maryland and every- 
body else, that for such results it was that the 
naval officers of that great Power came by the 
boards of admiralty of Great Britain and by 
the better naval organization of France, over 
here, across the Baltic and across the Atlantic 
Ocean, to study here, upon American soil and 
in American waters, the nature and character 
of Ameifican ships and of American ordnance, 
and the ways and means by which such gigantic 
results have been produced in so short a period 
of time. 
Sir, the honorable gentleman from Maryland 
directed his animadversions also against another 
class of vessels, the double-enders, or ferry- 
boats, as he was pleased to term them, but 
which everybody else recognizes as gun-boats, 
constructed to meet the new exigencies which 
had arisen in the progress of this war. Every- 
body knows that this war has been mainly a 
defensive war—so far as foreign nations have 
been concerned, entirely so. It is known also SPEECH OF HON. A. H. RICE. 
31 
that it has been necessary, in the prosecution 
of the war by the navy, that there should be 
classes of vessels suited to a great variety of : 
purposes and uses, and among others that ves- 
sels especially were wanted that should be able 
to move into the rivers, and into the shallow 
harbors of the southern coast. It is known 
also that when a vessel gets up into a river 
it takes a great deal of time to turn about, and 
that there are exigencies that would prevent 
its turning about, and all means of escape be i 
consequently cut off. Hence it was that these 
vessels were constructed with double bows, in 
order that rather than wait perhaps under the 
fire of an enemy the time necessary to turn, or i 
rather than be placed perhaps in a position where 
they could not turn, they might be able to re- 
tire without delay, and without molestation. 
And those vessels have been among the most 
successful ships of the navy. 
Sir, it was told us some time ago, just as 
the gentleman has told us this morning, that 
the Dictator will not run over six knots an 
hour; it was told us that there was not a new 
vessel in the navy that would make more than 
six or seven knots an hour. Well, sir, when 
the Committee on Naval Affairs undertook the 
investigation instituted by the resolution of the 
honorable gentleman from Maryland, there 
were two naval vessels frozen in by the ice at 
the Washington yard. By direction of the 
committee, I immediately notified the Secretary 
of the Navy that the Committee on Naval | 
Affairs would require one or both of those ves- 1 
sels before they should leave the Potomac I 
River, in order that a practical test of their 
speed might be made I learned on inquiry 
that those vessels were the Sassacus and the Eu- 
taw, two of this very lot of forty-seven double- 
enders to which the honorable gentleman from 
Maryland has alluded. Finding that they 
were duplicates of each other, and that it was 
useless to try the same thing over twice, I said 
to the Secretary that it would answer the pur- 
pose of the committee to try one of those 
vessels. Said he, “Which will you have?” 
Speaking entirely at random, for I knew . 
nothing whatever of the vessels, I chanced to ! 
say, “We will take the Eutaw.” And, sir, 
we took that vessel. I then said to the Navy j 
Department that the committee would wish to 
have upon this vessel during this trip, some | 
practical engineer who is independent of the 
Navy Department, and beyond the scope of its 
influence, and who would be competent to watch 
all the manipulations of the ship, the perform- 
ance of her machinery in every particular, and 
able to report to the committee fairly and in- 
telligibly concerning her performance. The 
services of an experienced practical engineer 
from the city of New York were secured, a 
gentleman who had constructed a vessel with 
which it was said no vessel of the navy could 
successfully compete in speed. He accom- 
panied the Committee on Naval Affairs, and 
other gentlemen on that trial trip of the Eutaw 
down the Potomac River. Further than that, 
the committee were determined that the test 
should be made with such accuracy and such 
guarantees that the result should be beyond 
mistake; and we sent to the Coast Survey, 
asking the head of that department to detail 
officers with the proper charts and instruments 
to enable them to determine the distances run 
and the speed made from point to point. With 
that engineer to inspect the performance of 
the vessel, and with those officers of the Coast 
Survey to mark the distances and note the time, 
that experiment was made, and I have sub- 
mitted to this House the official reports of 
those gentlemen upon that subject. They state 
that a vessel that could do nothing—that ves- 
sel was a “failure,” as forty-six others are, 
according to the honorable gentleman from 
Maryland—made a speed of knots an 
hour, equal to sixteen miles per hour. I have 
no reason to believe that her speed was greater 
than that of many others belonging to her 
class. There is the practical test made by a 
committee of this Congress, a committee of this 
House, appointed by its authority, and acting 
in obedience to its instructions. That is the 
result testified to by an accomplished engineer 
having no connection whatever with the Navy 
Department, and an officer who belongs to the 
Coast Survey office, and, so far as I know, 
having no partialities and no ends to subserve 
elsewhere. 
Now, sir, I do not think it necessary for me 
to pursue and answer, in tedious detail, all the 
complaints made, whether in Congress or out of 
Congress, by men who, instead of elevating 
I their minds to the consideration of the gigantic 
i and successful achievements of the Navy and 
the best means of sustaining them, muse only 
in dissatisfaction, seeking for those things 
alone which they may visit with hostile criti- 
cism. Suffice it to say that during the progress 
of the investigation and in obedience to the in- 
structions of this House in respect to these 
ships, and especially in respect to the machine- 
ry of those ships upon which the honorable 
gentleman has dilated, the committee spared 
neither time nor labor in examining every wit- 
ness who was summoned before us. Some of 
I them were before us two or three weeks, and 
the committee sat and heard their statements, 
and I hazard nothing in saying that a more tri- 
[ umphant vindication of any man or any De- 
partment was never made than is made by the 
| testimony and the evidence gathered under 
that investigation. Such is the opinion of the 
committee. 
The honorable gentleman from Maryland 
would have us believe that there have been 
great and important changes made in the con- 
struction of the vessels and machinery of our 
Navy. I have already said something of the 
• differences in the construction of the vessels. 
, I have also intimated the difference which has 
taken place in the construction of ordnance, 
so that instead of scattering guns all around 
• the side of a vessel, we compress the equivalent 
1 into ten, fifteen and twenty-inch guns. And 
r if the gentleman wants to know something else 
besides what he has mentioned which cannot 
• be found anywhere else except in the United 
i States, I can tell him two things which he can- 32 
THE NAVY fN CONGRESS. 
not find elsewhere, and those are the fifteen 
and the twenty-inch guns. I can tell him that 
that fifteen-inch gun and that twenty-inch gun, 
which he cannot find anywhere else, is precise- 
ly the instrument and the only instrument on 
the face of this earth which will shoot through 
or crush in the sides of any naval vessel not 
sailing under the flag of the United States. 
And they can only be floated on the monitor, 
for the reason that in building a broadside 
vessel two or three hundred feet in length, and 
standing anywhere from twelve to fifteen feet 
out of water, in order to put upon her side a 
suflicient weight of metal to render her im- 
pervious to shot, you would get on so much 
weight as to send her to the bottom; whereas, 
in the monitor vessel there is but little length 
compared with this broadside vessel, and in- 
stead of standing many feet out of water, she 
only stands a few inches out of water. There- 
fore, while the English cannot put upon their 
broadside vessels more than from four and a 
half to six inches of iron, through which we 
can shoot and crush their sides, we are able to 
support twelve and fourteen inches of iron upon 
so much of the sides of the monitor as are ex- 
posed to the shots of the enemy. And then 
our great guns are not distributed upon the 
broadside or deck of the vessel of the monitors, 
but are put into turrets twenty or more feet 
in diameter, the sides of which are protected 
by twelve or eighteen inches of iron, which 
cannot be shot through by any ordnance yet 
constructed. 
And while upon this topic let me say a single 
word in regard to these monitors which the 
gentleman from Maryland has criticized so se- 
verely, saying that they would “dictate” to 
nothing except at the bottom of the ocean. 
Would it be very marvellous, if in the excite- 
ment and under the tremendous pressure of 
tins war, the Navy Department, or the engi- 
neers of the country, should sometimes make a 
mistake? 
AVhere is the man who has angelic wisdom, 
who goes to the fountain of all knowledge and 
dips out of its plenitude that measure which 
shall guaranty him against the common acci- 
dents and the common fallibilities of human 
nature? Tell me where the man is, what his 
name is, and then I shall perhaps be able to 
cite to you a man who can undertake a great 
and gigantic and untried experiment, prosecu- 
ted under unparalleled difficulties, and find no 
possibility for improvement on his first effort. 
Now, sir, it is no extraordinary thing for a 
vessel to have a greater draught of water than 
she was designed to have. It is no extraordi- 
nary thing, as I am told, in vessels, whether 
they be built for the Navy or the commercial 
marine, that there should be some slight vari- 
ation from the calculations in that respect. Is 
that such an unpardonable sin, then, as to call 
for the arraignment of a Department of this 
Government, as that it should be held up for 
censure here in the Congress of the United 
States before the people of the country and be- 
fore the people of the world—some of them 
already sufficiently hostile to us and to our 
j purposes ? Is it so great a crime that the Navy- 
Department, or those acting for it, should on 
one occasion or more, have made a small mis- 
calculation of draught of water in the construc- 
j tion of a new and untried class of vessels? 
| But what does this error amount to ? Why, 
I it amounts to this, that these monitor vessels, 
which were designed to draw some six or seven 
I feet of water, drew, if I recollect aright, some 
twelve or fifteen inches more than they were 
designed to draw. That fact was discovered 
when the first of these vessels was launched, 
and in season for the correction of the error in 
all but five; these five were taken for special 
use as torpedo boats. If they had not been 
applied to that \ise vessels would have had to 
be constructed for that purpose. W'hat is the 
real importance of the mistake in constructing 
these vessels? It is not that they are ruined. 
It is that they must have on their sides one or 
two more courses of iron, just precisely as if a 
man were building a house one and a half story 
high, and should find when he got it along tolera- 
bly well toward completion that it would be more 
convenient and better suited and perhaps ne- 
cessary to his purpose if he were to raise the 
roof a little higher and make it a complete two- 
story house. That is the sum of the matter. 
A few courses of iron have been added to the 
sides of these vessels, carrying their decks up 
higher,increasing their tonnage very materially, 
and involving an increased cost of about eighty- 
four thousand dollars apiece. That, sir, is 
what the mistake of these light-draught moni- 
tors amounts to. 
And now, Mr. Chairman, to bring these re- 
marks to a close, although I have by no means 
exhausted the subject, 1 desire to call the at- 
tention of the committee to the fact that, in the 
long investigation which the Naval Committee 
had in reference to the construction of the en- 
gines and the boilers and the condensers and 
the valve gear in this naval machinery, they 
were found to be in accordance, for the most 
part, with the best authorities, with the best 
testimony; not only up to but surpassing 
the vessels which had been previously built 
in the Navy, so far as they were tested by 
their speed. And that is one way, I take it, 
in which we are to bring this question of ships 
and of machinery in ships to a practical test. 
I say here, as the result of investigation, that 
there is an increase of speed in the vessels 
built since over those built before the acces- 
sion of the present Administration. Not only 
that, but I say that the vessels yet completed 
and put into service are not, according to 
this investigation, the vessels that have been 
built for the special accomplishment of speed ; 
and I hazard nothing in saying that when those 
being built with that object are put into ser- 
vice, we will probably have the fastest as 
well as the most formidable defensive navy in 
the world. 
Now it seems to me to be a very strange time 
and a very singular selection of opportunity, 
after our experience in this war, to summon up 
here to the judgment of the country, for con- 
demnation and censure by Congress and the SPEECH OF HON. F. A. PIKE. 
33 
country, the Navy Department of the United 
States. Why, sir, from the very dawn of this 
rebellion the Navy has been in efficient service. 
It has been created from four ships up to six 
hundred and seventy-one ships. The gentle- 
man from Maryland [Mr. Davis] has called the 
attention of the House to the vast expenditure 
of money, the wasteful squandering of large 
sums, upon what he characterizes as useless and 
unavailable ships of the Navy. Sir, let me tell 
you that according to British authority this 
American Navy has been created, has been put 
afloat and armed, and the Department carried 
on at an expense of less by $5,000,000 than it 
cost Great Britain to maintain her fleet during 
the same period of time, though she has been 
at peace. These two examples illustrate the 
practical working of our system and theirs. 
The British Navy is conducted by a Board of 
Admiralty whose defects are sufficiently de- 
scr id by their own people as attended by 
delays, divided councils, and the lack of econo- 
my and of executive power. It results from 
the fact that they are following old examples, 
and England regards what France does, and 
France regards what England does; whereas 
we have a navy organization that is vitalized, 
that is responsible, that acts upon the spur of 
the moment; and because it is able to seize the 
earliest opportunities and the best facilities for 
supplying its wants, may be always ready to 
meet exigencies and perils as they arise. And 
I think I hazard nothing in saying, in the pre- 
sence of the facts, that there are claims now 
before the Naval Committee, from the manu- 
facturers of the machinery of our Navy, asking 
for remuneration in the sum of millions of 
dollars which they have lost, because the bar- 
gains of the Navy Department were made so 
close, were so nicely scrutinized, that they have 
not been able under the exigencies of the war 
to do the work they contracted for at the es- 
timated cost. Here we are to-day called upon 
virtually to pass a vote of censure upon the 
Navy Department, and to put it under the 
surveillance of an independent legalized board, 
in the presence of all that it has accomplished, 
whether it be in the construction of ships or in 
the achievement of victories. 
Why, sir, as I have already said, from the 
dawn of the rebellion until now the Navy has 
been everywhere that it could be, and always 
has done glorious and efficient service. The 
Mississippi and its tributaries are open to com- 
merce again every port for blockade runners 
upon the Atlantic and the Gulf has been closed; 
all the strongholds seized by the enemy upon 
the coast have been recovered, and nearly every 
corsair driven from the ocean. The Navy was 
at Hatteras, at Port Royal, at Charleston, at 
Island No. 10, at Fort Donelson, at Fort 
Henry, at Shiloh, at Memphis, at Vicksburg, 
at Arkansas Post, at Port Hudson, at Mobile 
Bay, and at Fort Fisher. And in all those 
places it added radiance to the American name, 
and glory to the American naval history, which 
no lapse of time shall be enabled to obliterate. 
It has placed upon the imperishable record of 
fame, to be transmitted amid the plaudits of 
mankind to the latest generations, such names 
as Stringham, and Foote, and Du Pont, and 
Farragut, and Goldsborough, and Porter, and 
Dahlgren, and Rodgers, and Rowan, and Davis, 
and Winslow, and Cushing; and I should con- 
sume the day if I attempted to name them all. 
Their reputation is secure in history; it is 
secure in the hearts of their countrymen ; and 
when the final history of this war shall be 
written out, and the comparison shall be made 
of the manner in which the different Depart- 
ments of this Government have executed the 
high and laborious and responsible trusts com- 
mitted to them, faithful and earnest as they 
have been, there will not be one of them that 
will stand brighter, or that will be more loudly 
or warmly commended by our successors, than 
will the Navy Department. And, sir, I cannot 
think that the well-earned fame of the naval 
service, this just meed of praise, will be dimin- 
ished or obscured by any gentleman, however 
lofty his standing or however brilliant his 
abilities, who asks you, in the light of these 
facts, to put over your Navy Department a 
board of administration which shall be a change 
without improvement, or who cites to you the 
fact that, in the accomplishment of the gigantic 
labors that have fallen to the lot of that De- 
partment, it made a mistake in regard to the 
draught of a monitor, or an alleged but not 
admitted mistake in the construction of a 
double-ender. 
SPEECH OF HON. F. A. PIKE, 
OF MAINE. 
In the House of Representatives, 
The House having resumed the consideration 
of the bill making appropriations for the naval 
service for the year ending the 30th of June, 
1866, and the amendments thereto— 
Mr. PIKE said: 
Mr. Chairman: The gentleman from Mary- 
land [Mr. Davis] asked yesterday why the 
February 4, 1865. 
Naval Committee had not at least reported the 
proposition which he had submitted to it. He 
said, and correctly, that he applied to members 
of that committee to have a report, whether it 
were in favor of or opposed to his proposition. 
If the gentleman means to treat the Naval Com- 
mittee fairly, he should have stated further that 
that committee took up that measure at once. THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
I was one of the persons to whom he applied, ' 
and the day after his application to me that j 
measure was taken up in the Naval Committee. [ 
It was there discussed and put in train for re- j 
port; but from that day to this there has been j 
no opportunity when, under the rules of the j 
House, that committee could make a report, j 
And that was the reason, and the sole reason, i 
why the report has not been made. The gen- j 
tleman from Maryland had not the slightest 
reason to accuse the Naval Committee of an | 
intention to smother his bill. 
The gentleman further said that the Naval j 
Committee, in their action on his bill, reflected 
the views of the Navy Department, as if the | 
only desire of that committee was to register I 
the decrees of that Department. I suppose the 
gentleman would not make that statement un- ! 
less he had some evidence to sustain it; but | 
for myself, as a member of that committee, 
while I am far from considering it a crime to 
act in conjunction with that Department on 
this or any other measure, I have never had 
any conversation with the Secretary or the As- 
sistant Secretary of the Navy upon the subject, 
and I do not know to-day whether they are in 
favor of or opposed to this bill. I do not know 
how it may be with the other members of that 
committee in reference to the opinions they 
hold on the subject; but I have no doubt that 
they have acted with equal independence of the 
Navy Department. And as to the gentleman 
from Maryland, I do not know what his rela- { 
tions are with the Navy Department, further j 
than from the indication he gave yesterday and j 
last session I was led to suppose that they are j 
unfriendly. I say, with all respect to him, that | 
I neither know nor care whether he is friendly j 
or unfriendly to the gentleman at the head of i 
the Navy Department. 
Mr. DAYIS, of Maryland. The gentleman j 
does not mean to make, of course, reference to 
my relations with the Navy Department. 
Mr. PIKE. I have said that I know nothing 
about them except what he stated in his place 
here. He said further, by way of illustration, 
that the Naval Committee had spent a large 
portion of their time—so I understood him— 
at the last session running around the country 
to find a location for a navy-yard, and that 
that matter had better be committed to pro- 
fessional hands; which is doubtless true. But 
let me state that I, sir, as a member of that 
committee, took part in that examination, or 
most of it; and I will say to the gentleman 
and to the House that, although I did attend 
the committee on a trip to look at a site for a 
navy-yard, and came back with that committee, 
I was absent during the whole of the last session 
only one single sitting of the House upon the 
business of searching fora site for a navy-yard. 
Such allegations, sir, by the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland seemed to me to call 
for a reply; for a gentleman who can be so 
careless in his statement of facts about his asso- 
ciate members upon this floor, can hardly ex- 
pect that his statement upon other and more im- 
portant matters shall be implicitly relied upon. 
But all these matters are personal and unim- 
portant. The gentleman from Maryland pro- 
pounded a grave question to this House, and 
that was, “Have we a Navy?”—a question not 
to be answered by eloquence nor by brilliant 
declamation. If it were, I should decline to 
interpose my rude speech. But, sir, a ship-of- 
war is, as Mr. Carlyle says, a “ great fact.” 
Ay, sir, a perfect ship-of-war is a great fact 
which has been sought for by all maritime na- 
tions for centuries; and it is because it rests 
among facts and not among theories, that I 
propose to discuss briefly the important ques- 
tion he has propounded. 
The gentleman says that not only have we 
no considerable Navy, but we have no organi- 
zation by which that result can be brought 
about. That is a statement of fact, which, if 
true, in view of the not improbable contingen- 
cies of a foreign war, it is well for this House 
now and here to discuss, in order to ascertain 
whether the allegation be correct. 
It is a preliminary question whether or not 
there is an organization that in the future can 
produce a respectable Navy. The gentleman 
from Maryland has produced his plan. Here 
it is: a board of naval administration which is 
to be a panacea for all the ills under which we 
now sutfer. I hold in my hand the original 
measure, but which I understand has been 
modified somewhat since. It provides that the 
vice-admiral and four other officers of the Navy 
shall constitute a board, and that that board 
shall have the advising of the construction and 
management of the Navy. 
It is proposed to make this board permanent, 
for the smaller experiments which have been 
tried from time to time in the Navy Depart- 
ment, and which is an ordinary and almost 
daily means of obtaining the opinion of an ad- 
visory board, will not satisfy the gentleman. 
He must have this a permanent board, under 
the appointment of the President and sanction 
of the Senate. So he would retire our distin- 
guished vice-admiral from active service, and 
take him and four or five other distinguished 
officers of the Navy and lay them up in ordi- 
nary here, imposing upon them simply the 
duty of advising the Secretary of the Navy, 
which advice he may or may not be expected, 
in his discretion, to follow. In addition to the 
serious objection of retiring so many good offi- 
cers, we can readily imagine the conflicting 
views which will arise, the discordant councils, 
and the balancing and shifting of responsibility 
from the head of the Navy Department to the 
naval board, and back again from the naval 
board to the Secretary of the Navy. Either 
one or the other of them must be responsible. 
It will not be as it is now, where you have pro- 
vided your Secretary of the Navy with heads 
of bureaus who shall advise him of all the de- 
tails of their particular departments. If the 
Secretary desires to contract for a ship he goes 
to the head of the Bureau of Construction, of 
whom Admiral Du Pont said, “The nation is 
largely indebted to him for his valuable ser- 
vices in constructing our best vessels, and under 
any other form of government he would long 
ago have been knighted.” SPEECH OF HON. F. A. PIKE. 
35 
If the Secretary wishes to contract for the 
construction of an engine, he applies to the 
head of the bureau whose special duty it is to 
attend to that particular thing. If he wants 
to act in other directions, he inquires of the 
admirals and other experienced and able offi- 
cers who are at the head of the other bureaus, 
and taking their advice singly and collectively, j 
as he does from time to time, he makes up his j 
opinion and acts accordingly. Thus you have 
the principle of individual and strict responsi- 
bility, and at the same time have all the benefit 
of consultation and advice which could possibly 
be obtained from an advisory board of the 
character proposed. 
It is asked now that we shall change all this; 
and why ? Why, because other maritime 
nations have done so. We should call in a 
Board of Admiralty because England has had 
a Board of Admiralty, and the gentleman from 
Maryland has copied his plan partially from 
that of England and partly from that of France. 
Well, sir, the Board of Admiralty at the time 
of its creation in England was progress and re- 
form. Bad as it is it was better than its prede- 
cessor. It succeeded the Lord High Admiral. 
He was a prince of the blood. The office was 
held by a natural son of Henry VIII when he 
was but eight years of age, and afterwards by 
various branches of the dull family who at 
present occupy the British throne. 
Sir, it was progress and reform to take the 
management of the navy out of such hands, 
and place it under the control of the British 
Board of Admiralty. These reforms do occa- 
sionally occur in Great Britain. But one con- 
siderable reform satisfies that moderate people 
for a century ; and this organization is nearly 
two centuries old, and it is time, as it is worn 
out, corrupt, and effete, that it should give 
place to a modern organization that shall free 
itself from existing errors, and answer the pur- 
poses of the present generation. 
Sir, I cannot say, as my distinguished friend 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Rice] said yesterday, 
that I have no prejudices upon this subject. I 
am frank to confess that I have prejudices, and 
of two systems equally good, the one our 
American system, and the other an English 
system, I confess that my prejudices would 
lead me always to select the American system. 
But, sir, I do not wish to depend upon preju- 
dices. I wish to produce here authority for 
what I say about the British Admiralty. I 
took occasion the other day when this subject 
came up to go into the Library, and found 
there only three books upon this subject, and 
I examined them to see what intelligent British 
criticism had to say about this Board of Admi- 
ralty. Ido not propose to cite from those 
authorities at length; but I invoke the atten- 
tion of the House to some brief extracts. And 
the first is a book published in London about 
four years ago, entitled Admiralty Administra- 
tion, by a very intelligent author, who, if I 
mistake not, is a distinguished naval officer. 
He says of this Board of Admiralty: I 
“ It is most important to remember that this 
distribution of business is an internal arrange- 
ment by which the board delegates to its several 
members a portion of its own duties ; that each 
; member is responsible to the board, and to the 
board alone, for his performance of those duties ; 
and that for each and all of those duties the respon- 
sibility upon Parliament and the country is that 
not of the individual lord, but of the board in its 
collective capacity.’' 
That is precisely applicable to this bill. Well, 
! what was the effect? This writer describes the 
, effect; he says : 
l “ It is unnecessary to insist at any length on 
the evil of divided councils, which must often oc- 
; our among six persons brought together by the 
chapter of accidents, without previous knowledge 
of each other’s views, and in fact the Admiralty 
often represents nothing so completely as the end- 
less diversity of opinions which prevail among 
naval officers ; a diversity which on the other hand 
is partly accounted for by the absence of any 
standard course of policy to be discovered in the 
conduct of successive naval administrations.” 
| And he winds up by saying: 
“ With respect to naval officers the ease is not 
more encouraging, for the only one subject on 
which there is general agreement among them is 
| the utter hopelessness of any good result arising 
i from a system which is felt to hang like a blight 
over the navy.” 
Now, sir, I hold in my hand a series of letters 
written by a distinguished British admiral, Sir 
Charles Napier, in which he describes this sys- 
tem, having served under it for a long period. 
Let us see what he says about it. He says; 
“I have been forty-one years in the service; 
and with the exception of commanders of sloops, 
first lieutenants, senior midshipmen of ships of 
the line and frigates, being promoted in conse- 
quence of the capture of a superior or equal force, 
I have seldom observed anything like common 
| justice in the distribution of promotion. First 
; lieutenants might be the best and most zealous 
officers in the service—that was seldom a sufficient 
recommendation for promotion.” 
| Again, sir, he says: 
“ What Sir George Cockburn, Sir George Clark, 
: and I believe Sir Byam Martin foretold, has come 
| to pass. There is no responsibility whatever, for 
, | the responsibility of six gentlemen composing the 
Board of Admiralty is not worth a straw. May 
I ask your lordship who is responsible for the 
millions of money thrown away in building an 
inefficient steam navy ; who is responsible for the 
! iron steam fleet that the Admiralty do not know 
' ! what to do with ? It was only the other day that, 
raising a tank and the dunnage under it, in one 
; iof these precious vessels, they found a hole in her 
bottom through which the water passed, and a fish 
in it, on which, if I am not mistaken, one of their 
; lordships breakfasted.” 
And again: 
‘ “Believing, as I do, that no permanent good 
■ can be done for the service until the Board of 
Admiralty is abolished, I shall point out what 
; appears to me would be the best mode of ruling 
the navy, although that step has not been taken.” 
And that mode, sir, was to have one head of 
the navy, on whom the undivided responsibility 
of its management should rest. 
3 So much for Sir Charles Napier. I now 
. read from another book entitled Our Naval 36 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
Position and Policy, written also by a naval 
officer, and published in London in 1859 ; and 
this is what he says upon the subject. He 
quotes from Sir George Cockburn, and approves 
the sentiment ; 
fleet,’ is suddenly discovered to be utterly de- 
fenceless as a ship-of-war. 
“We were prepared for this discovery. While 
she was still under construction we pointed out 
that the unprotected condition of her bows and 
stern would be fatal to her in action, as it would 
enable a completely armored antagonist to make 
a wreck of her two ends, and in her crippled state 
leave her no choice but destruction or surrender. 
Representations to that effect were urged on the 
j notice of the admiralty, but disregarded with 
sublime indifference by ‘ my lords’ and their noble 
| secretary. Remonstrance was in vain ; the square 
fighting-box, occupying two hundred feet in length 
of the centre of the ship, was a capital invention. 
The batteries and the gunners were safe in this 
iron fortress; the arrangement was perfection, 
nothing could be better. The comptroller and 
his staff were jubilant; they treated with disdain 
the sinister predictions of professional and civilian 
critics, and, not content with one experimental 
iron-clad on the fighting-box system, costing nearly 
half a million, they induced the Admiralty to order 
three others on the same principle. Four ships, 
at a cost of nearly a million and a half, were built 
on an untried plan, and now, after their comple- 
tion, by a trial, which might and ought to have 
been made long before the first of the number was 
ready for sea, it is discovered that the objectors, 
whose opinions were treated with scorn, are right, 
and the plan is a failure. 
“ The recent shell practice against the target- 
ship Alfred, at Portsmouth, has suddenly opened 
the eyes of the ‘ lords’ who witnessed it to the un- 
pleasant fact that a Warrior with her bows and 
stern unprotected by iron armor would be no 
match for a Gloire, much less for a Couronne or 
a Magenta, 
“ A panic has seized the comptroller of the navy 
and his chief constructor, and spread to the board. 
The fear of Parliament is before their eyes. Hasti- 
| ly, ‘the Warrior is to be paid out of commission, 
| and is ordered to be thoroughly dismantled, every- 
thing being returned to store, and her machinery 
taken to pieces.’ Three reasons are spoken of as 
having influenced the Admiralty in paying her 
out of commission : ‘ First, want of men for the 
three-decker Victoria; secondly, the defective 
condition of the ship’s boilers; and, thirdly, the 
intended alterations and continuation of the armor- 
plating aroitnd the bows and stern.' The two first 
reasons are mere pretexts—the last is the true one. 
At length the murder is out. The famous War- 
rior, the splendid iron-clad, cannot meet an enemy 
without being doomed to destruction and without 
disgracing England’s flag. The remedy is a bitter 
pill for the Government to swallow ; but there is 
no avoiding it. The, Warrior must be recon- 
structed; and this will commence the reconstruc- 
tion of our entire iron-clad navy. The Warrior 
or elastic system of armor plating—iron on wood 
backing which, with slight modification, is 
adopted for every plated ship, as we have fre- 
quently shown, is defective in principle, and must 
be replaced by a system of greater rigidity. The 
expense will be enormous, but it is unavoidable. 
“ The intended alteration to the Warrior’s bow 
and stern will necessitate the opening and length- 
ening of the ship’s frame forward and aft, other- 
j wise she would be unable to carry the additional 
armor-plating, and would be ruined in her present 
excellent sea-going qualities and speed. In plain 
words, it is found necessary to cut the Warrior 
into three parts, and reunite them by splicing (to 
use a familiar term) at both ends. This work 
I will necessitate the removal of the armor-plates 
“Having filled the station of confidential or 
principal Sea Lord of the Admiralty for more than 
seventeen years, I feel that my opinion regarding 
the constitution of the board may sooner or later 
be deemed worthy of consideration and attention. 
I am induced, therefore, to place in writing the 
decisions to which my experience has brought me \ 
on this point. 
“ I have no hesitation in stating that I consider 
the present establishment of that board to be the 
most unsatisfactory and least efficient for its pur- 
pose that could have been devised.’’ 
So much for the authority of intelligent 
British criticism upon the Admiralty Board of 
England. 
Suppose, now, that you examine that Board 
in the light of their accomplishments. What 
did the board do when the great transition 
came from sailing vessels to steam? It was 
tried, as our present Navy has been tried, by 
war. They had the Crimean war, in which 
England and France combined, and the univer- 
sal opinion of naval writers was that the naval 
administration of Great Britain was a failure. 
The Admiralty Board only covered themselves 
with ridicule by building a hundred and fifty 
extra and useless gunboats and parading them 
before the public after the war was over, to 
show that there was still some life left in the old 
board. 
And how was it, sir, with regard to the iron- 
clads, the second transition period of the Navy ? 
They had long years the start of us. Twenty 
odd years ago we began one single battery, and ; 
there we stopped with it still on the stocks in 
New Jersey. We saw no need of any further | 
efforts in that direction, and made none. But 
England and France both began to arm them- 
selves in this new mode of naval warfare, and 
what was the result ? I do not call upon my 
prejudices for an answer. I have it here from 
British authority. I will ask the Clerk to read 
an extract from one of the best naval mechani- 
cal magazines in Great Britain, the London 
Mechanics’ Magazine 
The clerk read, as follows: 
“The event foreshadowed in the Mechanics’ 
Magazine, more than two years since, is close at 
hand. The fleet of experimental iron-clads, of 
which the Warrior is the type, must, if they are 
to be in a condition to cope with the armor-plated 
ships of foreign Powers, be reconstructed. What 
a bitter sarcasm is this announcement on Admi- 
ralty management! The Warrior has been held 
up to the admiration of the naval world as the 
most perfect specimen of a screw iron-clad frigate. 
Quite recently, it was represented, on Whitehall 
authority, that ‘ her excellent sea-going qualities 
and rate of speed under steam were unrivalled,’ 
and she was ‘just in such splendid order in all 
her internal arrangements as can only be attained 
by unremitting exertions at the close of an ordi- 
nary term of commission.’ It seems incredible 
that this magnificent vessel, which, we are told, 
the Admiralty officials ‘feel a just pride in calling 
the finest and fastest of her Majesty's iron-clad SPEECH OF HON. P. A. PIKE. 
37 
and backing at the two extremities of the ship, 
the reconstruction and replating of the latter, and 
probably alterations in the masting and rigging. 
These changes will involve great expense, and 
may be seriously prejudicial to the trim of the 
vessel. Three other iron-dads on the same plan 
will have to be reconstructed. 
“ But worse still remains to be told. What is 
to be done with Mr. Reed’s fleet of wooden bot- 
toms and unprotected ends, carrying square iron 
fighting-boxes on the Warrior plan, but with such 
instability of structure that the iron top sides vi- 
brate alarmingly from the fire of the ship’s guns, 
with armor that will hardly resist 68-pounders at 
short ranges, and with the hamper of movable 
bulkheads on deck? If the formidable Warrior 
cannot encounter an enemy without being recon- 
structed, what is to become of the ships of the 
Research and Enterprise class, of which eight 
were built or laid on the stocks before one was 
tried ? They have neither strength nor speed, 
are neither liners nor cruisers, and cannot by any 
process of reconstruction be converted into ser- 
viceable craft. With these prospects before us, 
the condition of the navy is by no means satis- 
factory.” 
MR. PIKE. Such, Mr. Chairman, is the 
naval administration of Great Britain in theory, 
and such when tried in practice. Is there any- 
thing in it, in theory or in accomplishment, 
that should induce us to copy from it? Shall 
this young and thrifty nation take a graft from 
that old and worn-out tree for the purpose of 
improving the fruit that we should produce ? 
But the system now proposed to be intro- 
duced partakes not only of the characteristics 
of the English Board of Admiralty, but it par- 
takes also of those of the French board, and 
the authority of the French board is cited here 
to influence this House in its action. Sir, the 
French board is about thirty years old. It was 
adopted on the recommendation of a committee 
of the French parliament. It has been changed, 
and it has brought about a result which has 
alarmed Great Britain. But has it done any- 
thing as yet in time of actual war? La Nor- 
mandie rolled and tumbled across the ocean to 
Yera Cruz, and after straining and leaking, to 
the great joy of everybody on board got back 
to France. Besides this feat, what else has 
France done? And of what use is it to talk 
about the organization of the French board ? 
I hold in my hand an English book devoted to 
the subject of naval administration, in which 
the adoption, in part, of the French board is 
advocated. But after discussing the subject, 
the writer says frankly : 
“ But it is to be borne in mind that, though a 
change in the constitution of the French Admi- 
ralty did much, there is also much due to the pe- 
culiar talents and character of Napoleon 111. 
We might possibly import the whole French sys- 
tem (as we always want to export our talkamen- 
tary Government) and be like the wise man who 
bought all Punch’s show but forgot to buy the 
man inside.” 
copy from the French system. France has 
never yet been a first-class maritime country. 
She has but a million tons of shipping against 
some five or six millions of English tonnage, 
and about an equal amount of American ton- 
nage ; but she has accomplished a formidable 
navy, considered in the light of an attack on 
Great Britain. The great question between 
those two Powers is the possession of the Eng- 
lish Channel. That raises the fears and quick- 
ens the exertions of one side or the other. No 
blow is struck at Cherbourg without thinking 
of Portsmouth, and no bolt is driven at Ports- 
mouth without thinking of Cherbourg. 
Such, Mr. Chairman, are the systems abroad. 
Is there anything in them, or in either of them, 
or in their performances, that should induce 
this House to copy them? 
And now we come to our own system. Let 
us see what it has done, and whether it is 
worthy of the general condemnation pronounced 
upon it. We have tried heretofore copies of 
foreign systems, and they have failed. We 
have had our “Maritime Committee,” our 
“Continental Navy Board,” our “Board of 
Admiralty,” our “Board of Naval Commis- 
sioners;” we tried the last thoroughly for 
twenty-seven years; and by universal assent 
they were all given up for the present system, 
which has been in operation since the year 
1842 or 1843. 
Now, sir, it is well to test the system in the 
two ways I have indicated; first, by its theory, 
of which I have spoken; and, secondly, by the 
results it has produced The gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Davis] has tried it by its re- 
sults. That is a fair way of trying it. And 
now let us see what our naval administration has 
done in the present war. What was the first 
necessity in 1861 when the war broke out? It 
was necessary to have a blockade, and as a first 
step it was necessary to have ships-of-war to 
carry out that blockade. It was the blockade 
of a coast of three thousand five hundred miles 
in extent; and Lord Lyons inquired of Mr. 
Seward with incredulity whether he really was 
in earnest in proposing to blockade a coast of 
that extent. Sir, it was a great undertaking. 
And I submit that the Navy Department, when 
tried by this test, fulfilled its purposes. That 
blockade has been strictly enforced according 
to the latest decisions upon the subject; it has 
been effectual. It has been tried by the opinion 
of foreign Powers, and has been pronounced by 
them to be an effectual blockade; and the re- 
sult upon the confederacy, the result upon 
prices abroad, and the result upon prices here 
at home, show that it has been effectual; and 
I have no doubt the suffering English owner of 
many a captured blockade runner has unwill- 
ingly confessed to himself that the blockade 
was really strictly enforced. In order to accom- 
plish this, it was necessary that the commercial 
marine of the country should be called upon, 
and vessels were purchased for that purpose. 
Hence comes the large list of purchased vessels 
upon which the gentleman from Maryland com- 
mented yesterday. 
What was the next necessity? That the 
As to the French board and the whole French 
navy, as Louis the Grand said of the State, so 
may Louis Napoleon say of the navy: “ia ma- 
rine—c'est moi.” And unless we propose to in- 
troduce him too, I see no reason why we should 38 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
Navy should assist the Army in reducing the 
southern forts. Has not that been accom- 
plished? What is the list of Naval efforts but 
an almost constant succession of victories? 
With the almost single exception of the unfor- 
tunate attack upon Charleston, the flag has 
been triumphant everywhere. What more could 
have been done under any naval administration ? 
Why, sir, in the last affair at Fort Fisher the 
concentrated fire from that whole fleet produced 
a result which is described in the rebel news- 
papers as a shower of shot and shell such as 
has never been equalled since the invention of 
gunpowder. And I may add an important fact, 
which has not been generally considered, that 
all of the guns upon the sea-face of that fort 
were dismantled by the fire from the navy; that 
not one of them at the time of the attack of 
the land forces remained in position; there was 
but a single howitzer that could act offensively 
upon the land forces when they made the attack. 
And, sir, in addition to this, we have furnish- 
ed cruisers which have perambulated the sea, 
and have rescued our commerce from the grasp 
of the British pirates Sir, in these important 
respects your naval administration has been a 
decided success. Does anybody suppose that 
the slow-moving discussions of an aristocratic 
and conceited board of admiralty would have 
resulted as well ? 
But, sir, it is complained that, notwith- 
standing the naval administration has been a 
success in these particulars, it has failed in 
want of preparation for a foreign war. If this 
were so it would not be wonderful. Suppose 
it to be true that the gunboats that have been 
used to patrol the western waters for a length 
of three thousand five hundred miles are unfit 
to go to sea, is that anything remarkable ? 
Suppose it to be true that the double-enders, 
which have been used for the shallow rivers 
and narrow inlets of the South, are exposed 
in their machinery on account of their light 
draught of water, is that anything to be sur- 
prised at? Was not the expenditure upon 
them made for a temporary purpose, and 
should the money have been reserved and taken 
away from a present and pressing necessity, to 
be applied to a futux-e and possible contingency ? 
Would that have been wise? Why, sir, I 
hardly think that even the British Board of 
Admiralty would have committed so stupid a 
blunder. Sir, the first great duty was to aid 
in the suppression of the rebellion; the next 
duty was to prepare for the possible contingency 
of foreign war. Well, sir, suppose that we 
are to have the foreign war, which many sup- 
pose will follow the suppression of the rebel- 
lion ; suppose that, upon the suppression of the 
rebellion, Great Britain refuses to accede to 
our just demands, and a foreign war is brought 
on, and is hard pressing upon us, what is our 
first necessity ? I submit to gentlemen of this 
House, what is the first necessity in case of 
such foreign war? Why, sir, it is the same ne- 
cessity that has been felt in England for the 
last century : it is to defend your own ports. 
Now, I ask whether or not the system of 
naval administration in this country has not 
provided for that defence ? Speak as you may 
of the monitor system; denounce it as you 
may as a sea-going system; speak of it as you 
may as a system of attack; speak of it as the 
gentleman from Maryland did yesterday when 
he said that between the discharges of the 
guns at Fort McAllister the rebel officers ap- 
peared upon the parapets and smoked their 
cigars; say that the system is slow for that 
purpose; that these long intervals between 
the discharges destroy the efficiency of the at- 
tack ; that you need a rapid, a concentrated, 
and an overwhelming fire for the pui-pose of 
j disabling a garrison ; but do these objections 
i apply to the monitor system as adapted to re- 
! polling an attack? Take these forty-seven 
j monitors which are now completed, or in rapid 
| progress toward completion, and tell me, would 
| not Boston feel safer, and New York feel safer, 
j and Baltimore feel safer, if they had each half 
j a dozen of these vessels within their respective 
| harbors at the time of the declax’ation of a 
foreign war? Why, sir, you need only look 
I back to see the applications from various ports 
1 and from the authorities of various cities for 
( these iron-dads for the purpose of defence 
I when a war did threaten abroad, and xvhen it 
was even supposed that some of the rebel 
ci’uisers miglxt visit our northern harbors— 
from these earnest applications you learn ■ the 
intelligent opinion of the country. 
And let me say two things in reference to 
the monitor system, which answer all the 
| charges made against it. There are two things 
[ which have already passed into the history of 
| the country; and which, if the whole system 
should now be thrown away as useless, would 
justify the whole expense and ten times more. 
The first of these was the check given to the 
furious raid of the rebel iron-clad steamer 
Merrimac. You will recall the consternation 
! which prevailed throughout the land. You 
[ will remember the alarm cx;eated by the tele- 
| gram from General Wool from Fortress Mon- 
j roe. You will think of the overwhelming 
anxiety which prevailed in the northern cities 
when it was learned that the Merrimac had 
easily destroyed the Congress and the Cumbex-- 
land, and that there was nothing to prevent 
her entering any northern harbor and attack- 
ing any of our cities where there was sufficient 
depth of water to admit her Think of all this, 
j and then estimate values. I was here at that 
time, and remember what I saw at the other 
end of the avenue and at this end, and I have 
no doubt that millions of dollars would have 
been contributed and tens of millions voted at 
that time to have that vessel destroyed. 
The history of the monitor is not unfamiliar 
to the House. It illustrates our mode of build - 
j ing vessels. In July, 1861, the Secretary of 
j the Navy recommended an appropilation to 
make experiments in iron-clads. Congress 
j made an appropriation of $1,500,000, and pro- 
| vided by law tlxat it should be placed under 
( the direction of a board. That board consid- 
j ered the subject of ii’on-clads. It was headed 
I by one of our most intelligent and respectable 
I admirals. So little did they think of these SPEECH OF HON. F A. PIKE. 
monitor iron-dads, even as a means of defence, 
that they reported they would only accept 
Ericsson’s as he offered it for $276,000, pro- 
vided he would run his own risk. It is part of 
the history of the country that the iron-clad 
Merrimac was driven back by a vessel acting on 
the responsibility of a private individual. Yes, 
sir, quite a large portion of that moderate 
compensation of $276,000 was held back to await 
the decision of that important naval conflict. And, 
sir, I may state, what I understand to be a 
fact, and to illustrate the position that all the 
naval wisdom is not confined to a board of dis- 
tinguished officers, that that board—as able, 
perhaps, as any that could be gathered in the 
navy—stated to the secretary as their opinion 
that the probable wants of the service in this 
rebellion would be twenty-five new vessels. 
The gentleman from Maryland, if I under- 
stand him, talks of the wasteful expense of the 
navy. I hold in my hand an extract from a 
leading London paper, the Star, showing the 
expense here as compared with that of England. 
I will read it; 
ably of much greater importance, was that the 
monitors saved us from foreign intervention. 
When the news of that combat down in Hamp- 
ton Roads was flashed across the country, it 
was thought there was no limit to the possi- 
bilities of the monitor system. 
If a monitor could stand as that little vessel 
stood and receive the battering and hammering 
it received, and repel the attempt to run it 
down, it was capable of almost anything, it 
was thought, and greatly exaggerated impor- 
tance was attached to it in the public mind. 
That same exaggerated opinion crossed the At- 
lantic, and the London Times, in view of that 
combat, said they had but four ships in the 
British navy. The matter appeared in Parlia- 
ment, and a distinguished gentleman on the 
floor said, referring to that combat, that they 
had no navy. The chairman of one of their 
committees to examine into the matter of iron- 
clads, Sir John C. Hay. said : 
“The man who goes into action in a wooden 
ship is a fool, and the man who sends him there 
is a villain.” 
Of course, sir, if England had no navy she 
could not for a moment think of interfering in 
our war. 
Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. Admiral Farra- 
gut took Mobile with wooden ships. 
Mr. PIKE. He declined to make the attack 
until he obtained the iron-clads. 
Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. But he made the 
attack with wooden vessels. 
Mr. PIKE. But it was the heavy guns of 
the iron-clads that disabled the Tennessee, and 
that determined the result of the naval fight in 
the bay of Mobile. 
Well, sir, that fight in Hampton Roads saved 
us from intervention at that time. But subse- 
quently the pendulum of public opinion swung 
the other way. The numerous criticisms upon 
iron-clads and upon the monitor system de- 
pressed the public mind as much as it had been 
previously elevated, and it came to the conclu- 
sion, particularly after the attack on Charles- 
ton, that the monitors were of comparatively 
little consequence. A similar revolution of 
public opinion took place in England, and that 
princely conceit which had been temporarily 
dethroned after the fight at Hampton Roads 
resumed its usual sway in the British mind. 
They came to the conclusion that there need 
be no fear of the American iron-clads, and that 
the exaggerated importance attached to them 
was mainly in consequence of Yankee bragging. 
So the British Government allowed Mr. Laird 
to go on and build iron-clad vessels for the rebel 
service. Mr. Adams, our minister, applied to 
Lord John Russell to put a stop to it, but he 
failed to satisfy Lord John by his testimony. 
Mr. Adams furnished further testimony, but 
still he failed to convince the British minister. 
In the mean time the fight occurred in the 
Savannah river, where the Atlanta, built upon 
British principles, came out to attack one of 
these monitors, the Weehawken, when the gal- 
lant John R,odgers, by five shots from the moni- 
tor’s fifteen-inch gun, destroyed her efficiency 
as a vessel-of-war, and obliged her to show the 
“ Not the least interesting portion of thelength- 
ened annual report of the President is his sum- 
mary of the condition, the work, and the expense J 
of the Navy during three years of the war. It ! 
seems that the Federal Navy now consists of 671 i 
vessels, carrying 4,610 guns, and manned by | 
51,000 officers and seamen. This necessarily in- ! 
eludes those gunboats which have been designed ! 
for the service of the Mississippi and similar great 
rivers; nor can we separate the iron-clads of the 
monitor class from sea-going ships. That the latter | 
are not only numerous but effective is shown by 
their capture during the past year of 324 vessels, 
which must necessarily have been almost all block- i 
ade runners. The naval captures since the war j 
commenced number 1,379, of which 267 were 
steamers, and the prize money already declared 
amounts to upward of £3,500,000, which does not 
include many claims in course of adjudication. 
The preparation and expense of this vast fleet since 1 
the war began have amounted to £47,700,000, I 
which is scarcely credible in view of the fact that 
our navy, without any vast outlay for the produc- | 
tion of new vessels and during a season of peace, | 
has cost during the same period £48,000.000. We 
commend the fact to the notice of Mr. Gladstone 
in the preparation of his new budget.” 
That shows that our navy, during a season 
of war, has not cost as much money by mil- 
lions as the British navy during a season of 
profound peace. And you learn from the re- 
port of one of the chiefs of bureaus, one of the 
admirals I have spoken of, the difference the 
Department finds between paper and gold, as 
he says he was compelled to pay a contractor 
$1,250,000 in currency for materials for his 
department which the same contractor would 
furnish for $500,000 in gold. If you put the 
Department upon the English gold basis, in- 
stead of the total sum named by the President, 
we should have at least thirty-three per cent, 
less expenditure here than in England. Would 
that British Board of Admiralty have done 
better ? 
I have specified one of the things accom- 
plished by the monitors, in the repulse of the 
Merrimac. Another result, of equal and prob- ■ 40 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
white flag. The success of the Weehawken 
rang across the Atlantic, and Lord John said 
they had proof enough, and the building of 
British iron-clads was stopped, and Mr. Laird 
was never afterwards able to furnish them to 
the rebels. That was a critical period in our 
history, and we should never forget one of the 
adjuncts by which we were able to escape its 
dangers. 
Sir, I have great respect for the correspond- 
ence of the Secretary of State. I was not of 
those who, the other day, thought it was fit 
and wise for the interests of this country to i 
remove the control of our foreign affairs from 
that Department at the other end of the avenue 
and transfer it to this House. But high as my 
respect is for the distinguished gentleman at 
the head of that Department, and highly as I 
appreciate his efforts to keep peace with Eng- 
land, I place a higher value upon our humble 
monitor, and in my judgment the country would 
make a poor exchange to swap off a monitor j 
for a dispatch. 
Well, sir, as I said, in case of a foreign war j 
the first necessity is defence. I have spoken 
of our means of defence and of the power of 
our forty-seven monitors. Our next necessity 
would be a fleet for the purpose of destroying 
foreign shipping. And we have a fleet for that 
purpose. 
Why, sir, after eliminating, as the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Davis] did yesterday, from 
our six hundred and seventy-one vessels, and , 
taking out those which he considered worthless, 
we still have enough left to destroy all foreign 
commerce. We have forty-seven double-enders 
Of about a thousand tons burden, and carrying 
heavy armaments. These vessels have already 
proved their efficiency in .this war. They were 
referred to yesterday in connection with their 
speed, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Rich] told you how fast they were. I 
have here a memorandum of the speed of other 
vessels of that class besides the Eutaw, to which 
he referred, and it shows that they readily 
reach thirteen and thirteen and a half knots 
an hour—very fast for war-vessels. They 
have proved their value in the fight in Mobile 
Bay and in the attack on Fort Fisher; and we 
all recollect how gallantly and efficiently the 
Sassacusran into the rebel ram Albemarle, and 
would have destroyed her had she been prop- 
erly supported by others of the fleet. 
Here is what Admiral Porter says of them 
in a recent dispatch : 
“ Two of the douhle-enders had their boilers 
pierced by shot, but that did not put a stop to 
their operations. They were in every fight after- 
ward, and made quite as much speed as was 
necessary under one boiler, and good speed at 
that. 
“In action I found the batteries of these ves- 
sels very effective, from the fact that I could 
place them as close as it was possible to go, near 
the shoals. Bach one could bring six heavy guns 
to bear from one side, which made four of these 
vessels equal in broadside guns to one of the 
heavy frigates, the Wabash firing twenty-three 
nine-inch guns and a one hundred and fifty- 
pounder pivot from her broadside, while four 
double-enders fired sixteen nine-inch gunS and 
eight one hundred-pounder rifles, or eleven-inch 
guns, from a broadside, the favor in guns being 
on the side of the four double-enders, and the 
strength and power of endurance being on the 
side of the frigates. 
“Bor operating in rivers, for which purpose 
they were intended, these vessels are good, sub- 
stantial ones, and could be perfectly well adapted 
to the work required of them, with very little 
alteration, and those built by Government can 
go anywhere and at any time.” 
Besides these double-enders we have forty- 
four sea-going vessels of from three hundred 
and fifty to nine hundred tons. Of some of 
the smaller of these, such as the Yantic, Nyack, 
and vessels of that class, Admiral Porter says: 
“These vessels, though, have proved them- 
selves a perfect success as steam gunboats. They 
are fast, steady at sea, and come up in every re- 
spect to the requirements of a good vessel of war. 
They will all average eleven knots, are of light 
draught, and will enter most of these southern 
harbors at high water. Ido not think that they 
have canvas enough to cruise under sail alone, 
and the sail is only serviceable to them in very 
fresh breezes, or in lying-to in a gale. As sea- 
boats these vessels are unsurpassed.” 
And in addition to these we have forty-four 
vessels building or already built, ranging from 
twelve hundred and fifty to three thousand 
seven hundred and thirteen tons. Will not 
that be an effective fleet ? These vessels are 
built with reference to speed, and are capable 
of accomplishing two results, to destroy all 
foreign commerce unarmed, and to fight and 
overcome armed vessels equal or inferior, and 
escape from superiors. They are in part upon 
the stocks and in part already launched. They 
embody the true idea of a cruiser, to fight or 
run as they deem best. If they do not make 
fifteen knots an hour they will disappoint every- 
body concerned in them, and if they make any- 
thing near that they will be smarter than any 
vessel in the British navy, while they are of 
sufficient size to carry a most formidable arma- 
ment. 
Sir, compare the destruction caused by the 
Alabama alone, a vessel of very ordinary capa- 
city, with the immense destruction that would 
be effected by any one of these powerful cruisers, 
and it is not extravagant to assert that this fleet 
of ours could sweep from the ocean in sixty 
days after a declaration of war all the com- 
merce of an enemy. 
[Here the hammer fell.] 
Mr. ASHLEY. I ask unanimous consent 
“I have found the douhle-enders a much better 
class of vessels than they have been represented 
to me. Indeed, for the purpose for which they 
were intended (as river boats) they are capital 
vessels and have only one defect. That is, they 
do not fire their guns straight ahead. This de- 
fect can be easily remedied by cutting a port in 
the bow, which any commander would be justified 
in doing when the necessity arises. 
“ There is a wide difference between the con- 
tract double-enders and those built by the Go- 
vernment. The latter are strong and substantial. 
Some of them are of great speed, and if not quite 
equal in this respect to the blockade runners they 
have proved themselves faster than the best rebel 
privateers. that the gentleman be allowed to proceed for 
ten or fifteen minutes. 
No objection was made. 
Mr. PIKE. Well, these are the two most 
important objects to accomplish: in the first 
place, to provide for our own defence; and in 
the second place, to attack our adversaries. 
I have spoken of these cruisers for the pur- 
pose of attacking foreign commerce and inferior 
vessels-of-war. I presume that we are not to 
repeat the experiment that Napoleon failed to 
try of an invasion of England with Boulogne 
as a base. I presume that we shall not at- 
tempt the invasion of any foreign country; but 
in case of a war with any Power holding pos- 
sessions on this side of the Atlantic, it may be 
necessary to have vessels powerful in the fight 
as well as cruisers. AVell, sir, we have such j 
vessels in our Navy. Why, sir, besides these | 
forty-seven monitors of the smaller type, we 
have thirteen of a larger type, from fifteen 
hundred and sixty-four to thirty-two hundred 
tons, and how effectual these vessels are we i 
know from actual experiment; their power does [ 
not rest on theory only. 
Sir, I hold in my hand the published letter 
of Admiral Porter, a man who has not only a 
hereditary claim to the consideration of this 
nation, but a man whose achievements have 
been twice during this war of so important a 
character as to receive the unanimous thanks 
of Congress. His opinion is of value, and what 
does he say upon the monitor system ? I know 
some landsmen critics object to his style of 
writing, but so long as the country is as well 
content as now with his style of fighting they 
will be lenient to any peculiarities of the 
gallant sailor’s composition. Why, of the 
Monadnock, one of the smallest of this class 
of monitors, he says: 
“As to the Monadnock, she could ride out a 
gale at anchor in the Atlantic Ocean. She is 
certainly a most perfect success so far as the hull 
and machinery are concerned, and is only defec- 
tive in some minor details, which in the building 
of these vessels require the superintendence of a | 
thorough seaman and a practical and ingenious 
man. 
“The Monadnock is capable of crossing the 
Ocean alone (when her compasses are once ad- 
justed properly), and could destroy any vessel in 
the French or British navy, lay their towns under 
contribution, and return again (provided she 
could pick up coal) without fear of being followed. 
She could certainly clear any harbor on our coast 
of blockaders, in ease we were at war with a fo- 
reign power. As strong and thick as the sides 
of this vessel are, one heavy shot from Fort Fisher 
indented the iron on her side armor, without, how- 
ever, doing any material damage. These vessels 
have laid five days under a fire from Fort Fisher, 
anchored less than eight hundred yards off, and 
though fired at a great deal, they were seldom 
hit, and received no injury, except to boats and 
light matter about decks, which were pretty well 
cut to pieces.” 
Now, sir, if a little monitor of fifteen hundred 
tons, and the only one of the monitors at Fort 
Fisher, be it added, which was constructed in 
a navy yard, could accomplish results like this, 
SPEECH OF HON. F. A. PIKE. 
what may not be expected from monitors of 
the larger size, built upon very nearly the same 
plan, but with those improvements -which ex- 
perience has suggested. 
But, suppose that a collision comes between 
war-vessel and war-vessel; suppose that in a 
great naval war, when it comes in the future, 
we are to have a conflict between vessels built 
on the American pattern and vessels of English 
construction, what then? No sensible man 
supposes these iron monsters are to roam the 
seas in droves like the cheap wooden ships of 
our last naval war; but, suppose they do, and 
the conflict comes, and fleet meets fleet? 
We shall have our broadside vessels, the 
Dunderberg and the New Ironsides. The gen- 
tleman from Maryland [Mr. Davis] says the 
New Ironsides is a success. I hope so. But 
the British admiralty, as I have already said, 
have sent the Warrior, of a similar make, into 
dock to be' built over again. Good or bad, we 
shall have these. Porter has recorded his 
opinion that “in a fight, the Ironsides would 
be no match for the Monadnock.” 
Besides these, we shall have our turreted 
fleet—turrets covered with fifteen inches of 
iron, and holding guns capable of throwing 
masses of iron of four hundred and fifty pounds’ 
weight. When the twenty-inch guns are got 
afloat they will send half a ton of metal at a 
discharge. Can the Warrior and her consorts 
resist that? With sides so high out of water 
that any gunner can hit them, how long will 
these monstrous globes of iron rap against the 
four and five-inch iron covering before gaining 
admittance? Sir, last year, a single blow from 
a fifteen-inch gun shivered, at the Washington 
navy yard, the best six-inch plate of French 
iron that could be procured. Why will it not 
repeat that result in the great naval conflict? 
I confess, sir, as a man who loves the sea, 
and has been among vessels from boyhood, I 
appreciate a sailor’s prejudice against these 
ungainly craft. I would willingly enter into 
convention with all naval Powers, and agree 
never to fight in iron-clad ships. They reverse 
all one’s ideas of seamanship and destroy the 
poetry of the seas. But, it is not a question 
of sentiment—it is one of fact. And, although 
untried, what reason have we to doubt the 
result? For one, sir, I should look to the 
result of that great day in which the hostile 
iron-clad navies of the world were engaged— 
a day which will never come—with confidence 
that the uncouth turret would come out tri- 
umphant over the broadside antagonist of 
Europe. The day, sir, I feel confident, would 
be one of “disastrous memory” only to the 
foes of the Republic. 
I have not deemed it worth while to speak 
of the blunders of the Navy Department. 
These general results I have spoken of are 
sufficient to vindicate its management. That 
it has blundered who doubts? But in this 
particular it is far in advance of the other de- 
partments of this Government? And, if we 
are to follow the English example and put it 
in commission, because of blunders, why not 
41 42 
pursue it further, and put all blunderers in 
commission? Where should we stop? Would 
Congress be untouched ? 
Sir, let us have done with this folly, and be 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
content with a good result, and one of which 
the nation should be proud rather than pursue 
phantoms of perfection which are unattain- 
able. 
SPEECH OE HON. JOHN A. GRISWOLD, 
OF NEWYORK. 
In the House of Representatives, 
February 4th, 1865. 
Mr. GRISWOLD said: 
I do not propose to prolong this discussion 
by considering the amendment which is pro- 
posed by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. 
Davis,;] but I feel it due to myself, as a mem- 
ber of the Committee on Naval Affairs, and 
also as one possessing some knowledge which 
I am sure the gentleman from Maryland would 
be glad to be possessed of, to say a word or 
two upon the question under discussion. 
So far as the gentleman’s very able remarks 
were concerned, I, for one, failed to discover 
that they were really advocating the amend- 
ment which he has offered. It seemed to me, 
so far as his argument was applicable, that it 
was aimed directly and exclusively, not at the 
system, but at the men who administer the 
affairs of the Navy Department. He proposes, 
by way of rectifying the difficulties which he 
alleges to exist there, not to remove inefficient 
or incompetent persons, but, as I understand 
it, to embarrass and incumber the Department 
by still greater and still more intricate and 
minute machinery. Now, it seems to me that 
if there is any argument at all, the gentleman 
should have confined himself, not to the theory, 
but to the manner in which it should be carried 
out in practice. 
The gentleman from Maryland charges upon 
the Naval Committee, among other things, that 
it has frittered away its time, and that the bill 
which he introduced has had no consideration 
by that committee, partly because the com- 
mittee has been travelling about the country 
with reference to locating sites of naval depots. 
As a member of that committee I beg to have 
a resolution read by the Clerk, to indicate in 
some degree how the time of the Committee on 
Naval Affairs has been occupied during the 
past and present sessions of Congress. 
The Clerk read, as follows: 
Thirty-Eighth Congress, First Session, 
House op Representatives, 
January 7, 1864. 
On motion of Mr. H. W. Davis, 
"Resolved, That the Committee on Naval Affairs 
do investigate, without delay, and report to this 
House, the facts in relation to the plans and struc- 
ture of the marine engines constructed and now in 
course of construction for the Navy ; and in what 
essentia] particular they differ from the marine 
engines heretofore used in the Navy and now used 
in the commercial steamers and the navies of 
France and England ; whether their inadequate 
power and speed are caused by such differences, 
and by whose authority, and on what experiment, 
and under whose supervision such changes were 
introduced; and whether any unfair practices were 
resorted to by any person in or under the autho- 
rity of the Navy Department, in the mode of man- 
ning or handling the engine of the Pensacola, with 
a view to break it down and bring it and the plan 
on which it was constructed into disrepute ; and 
whether any person connected with the Navy De- 
partment has received any fees or commission or 
compensation of any kind from any contractor for 
engines for the Navy, or compelled any payment 
of fees for patented improvements to persons not 
entitled to them, by persons contracting for en- 
gines or parts thereof, and that the committee be 
authorized to require the opinion of the Academy 
of Sciences on any scientific question involved in 
their investigations and necessary to be solved in 
order to arrive at a satisfactory result; and that 
they have power to send for persons and papers, 
and leave to report at any time. 
Attest: EDWARD McPHERSON, 
Cleric. 
Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, in carry- 
ing out the instructions of that resolution it is 
proper for me to say that the Committee ou 
Naval Affairs occupied seventy days in the con- 
sideration of the questions alluded to in it; 
took twenty-two hundred pages of evidence— 
foolscap paper—and examined in detail and at 
length no less than forty-two witnesses. Now, 
I submit to the honorable gentleman from 
Maryland that this work alone is no inconside- 
rable item in occupying the time of the Naval 
Committee, and that this consideration, if no 
other, should have induced him to withhold 
anything like censure on the proceedings of the 
Naval Committee. 
Passing over that, Mr. Chairman, and not to 
dwell on the character of the amendment which 
the gentleman proposes, I desire to say, for 
one, that instead of dividing the responsibility, 
as the head of the Navy Department would 
be able to do by the creation of the board as 
provided in the amendment, I believe, looking 
at it from a practical stand-point, that there is 
far greater security in holding the Secretary 
of the Navy and the heads of the various 
bureaus of the Navy Department to a direct 
accountability, than in dividing their responsi- 
bility. 
Rut I pass over that. In listening to the SPEECH OF HON. JOHN A, GRISWOLD. 
43 
gentleman’s two-hour speech, able and elo- I 
quent and ingenious as that gentleman always | 
is, I confess I felt grieved that a member of j 
this Congress should see fit, for the purpose of 
accomplishing the object which he had in view, 
to hold up the American Navy, at this critical 
period of our national history, as being en- 
tirely inefficient and powerless; to advertise to 
the nations of the world that they need have | 
no hesitation as to any interference that they | 
may deem advisable in our affairs, and no fear i 
of any aggressions from the Navy of the United | 
States, I regretted to hear it from the distin- 
guished gentleman from Maryland; but, of 
course, it is not for me to question either the j 
good taste or judgment of that distinguished j 
gentleman. 
I should be glad, Mr. Chairman, to go over I 
in detail, and to have read professional and | 
unprofessional statements in regard to the 
various facts alleged by the gentleman from 
Maryland; but the shortness of the time allow- | 
ed to me, and the fact that other gentlemen | 
desire to occupy a portion of that limited time, | 
compel me to refrain from it. I pass over the | 
commentary which the gentleman made on the j 
attack at Charleston, but should be glad to j 
have an opportunity of showing that what he 1 
asserted as true, namely, that in that brief 
encounter half of that little iron fleet was in- 
capacitated for action, was entirely unfounded 
and destitute of truth. It will be recollected, 
Mr. Chairman, that the whole iron-clad fleet to 
which the gentleman alludes as having attack- 
ed Charleston on the occasion referred to, 
consisted only of eight little monitors. They 
were created entirely, from stem to stern, and j 
completed and put in action, in the brief pe- 
riod of about six or seven months. The whole 
fleet cost only about as much as any one single 
ship-of-war built on the old plan. It cost less 
than one of those iron-clad ships of England | 
to which the gentleman points with such ad- 
miration. The entire number of men employed 
upon them was one-half what is requisite for 
an ordinary ship-of-war. Instead of that at- 
tack exhibiting their incapacity, it is a mem- 
orable fact that, though two thousand shot 
struck that little fleet, yet, instead of being 
disabled, they were ready to go into action the 
following day. 
But 1 pass over all these things, Mr. Chair- 
man, and will confine myself more especially to 
certain representations which were made in 
regard to the Dictator; and lam sure that the 
gentleman from Maryland will be glad to be 
disabused of the errors under which he is rest- 
ing. lam sure that he will be glad to know 
that so important an arm of our national de- 
fence is not the entire failure which he alleges. 
I beg to say to him and to this House, in con- 
nection with what he has said with reference 
to the Dictator, that he is entirely at fault. If 
I remember correctly, the gentleman alleged 
that the Dictator was built for a sea-going 
vessel; that she cost an untold amount; that 
she is incapable of taking coal across the ocean; 
that her speed is not over five knots an hour ; 
that she is entirely unworthy to be considered 
a sea-going boat; that in her first passage from 
New York to Fortress Monroe she broke down ; 
and that she lies to-day a helpless hulk Now, 
as I said, the gentleman will be glad to know 
that upon all these points he is entirely mis- 
taken. So far as the cost of the vessel is 
concerned, it will perhaps be some satisfaction 
to him to know that, although she was furnish- 
ed to the Government at an enormous loss to 
the builder, the amount which the Government 
paid for the ship was less than it would now be 
obliged to pay for her engines alone ; that the 
Government could not to-day duplicate the 
vessel or build one of anything like her power 
or capacity for less than $1,000,000 additional 
to the amount they have paid for her; and that 
the loss has come out of the pockets of indi- 
viduals, and not out of the Treasury of the 
Government. 
Now, sir, so far as her capacity for coal is 
concerned, she is capable of storing seven hun- 
dred and fifty tons (to attain seven knots per 
hour she requires three thousand pounds of 
coal, or thirty-two tons in twenty-four hours), 
a supply for twenty-five days, and adequate to 
a distance of forty-two hundred miles. I speak 
now of the actual running of the vessel, and 
make no assertion that cannot be vindicated 
by the record. Thus much for her capacity for 
fuel. • 
As to her sea-going properties, I desire to 
read a very brief extract from a letter received 
from Superintending Engineer W. Cosgrove, 
dated “ On board the Dictator, Hampton Roads, 
Virginia, January 8, 1865.” In concluding his 
report, Ire says; 
“It blew a gale of wind yesterday, with a heavy 
sea on, and we went through like a pilot-boat, part 
of the time in company with a good-sized steamer 
that seemed to be laboring heavily, while we were 
not heeding either wind or tide. It is really a mag- 
nificent sight to see the Dictator in a sea-way.” 
In regard to her speed, the passage from New 
York to Fortress Monroe was made under posi- 
tive instructions not to exceed eight knots per 
hour—a very proper prudential restriction to be 
placed on the running of new and very heavy 
machinery. She went from New York to 
Fortress Monroe without a consort, and en- 
countered very rough weather; yet in that first 
passage she attained an average speed of nearly 
eight knots an hour. Instead of her machinery 
breaking down, and the vessel lying now a 
helpless hulk, the whole difficulty arose from 
the fact that in the main shaft a defect was 
discovered : one of those defects in forging 
which no human skill or foresight can guard 
against, and which can be detected only 
by the test to which the machinery was 
subjected. 
The defective shaft has been replaced, and 
the vessel is now, or will in a very short time, 
be ready for any service that she may be called 
upon to perform. Allegations have been made 
as to the steering qualities of the vessel. Upon 
this point it is sufficient to say that, while this 
has been regarded as an unavoidable defect in 
all the iron-dads of England and France, no 
vessel afloat, iron-clad or other, responds to 44 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
the rudder more promptly and with less power 
than the vessel in question. 
The London Times of December 24 publishes 
an account of a recent experimental trip of the 
new British iron-clad Achilles. Under a full 
pressure of steam this vessel required twenty- 
one men at the rudder, while the Dictator 
requires but two. The Achilles requires for 
her turning a circle of three thousand feet; 
the Dictator seven hundred feet, or about twice 
her length; an achievement that will be re- 
garded as a marvel by the naval architects of 
the world. 
In short, Mr. Chairman, I allege without the 
fear of contradiction that the indications tend 
to prove that the Dictator is as perfect a sea- 
going vessel as has yet been built for the 
American or the navy of any other country, and 
that there is not a single particular in which 
she fails to realize the utmost expectations of 
those who were most sanguine in regard to her. 
With the indications of speed which she has 
already exhibited, her utter impregnability to 
all ordnance yet devised, and with the capacity 
of carrying a fifteen or twenty-inch gun, and 
hurling against her adversary a solid shot of 
four hundred and fifty to six hundred pounds, 
she may well defy any—l had almost said all— 
of the ships-of-war that can be brought against 
her. 
This, sir, is the vessel which the gentleman 
from Maryland would consign with so much 
nonchalance to the obscurity of a failure. We 
are told that with a board such as is proposed 
by the bill under consideration, instead of con- 
structing vessels of this class we shall have 
copied the models that have been furnished by 
our transatlantic friends across the ocean; 
this, too, in face of public acknowledgments, 
after the memorable conflict at Hampton 
Roads, by the chief constructor of the British 
navy and by members of the British Parliament, 
that the navy of England was a failure, and 
that the fact had been demonstrated in America 
that the power of a navy consisted not in the 
number of guns, but in their size. 
Before the conflict of iron-clads alluded to, 
the highest authority of England pronounced 
with a tone of entire confidence that it was 
impossible to construct a shipof-war impreg- 
nable to modern ordnance. Well, sir, we have 
had no Boards of Admiralty to discuss and 
decide as to the plans of ships-of-war, but 
have appealed to the unlimited and unfettered 
genius of our country. I require no stronger 
proof of the correctness of our policy, and of 
the objections to the plans proposed by the 
bill under consideration, than the fact that 
we have stepped out of the beaten channel, 
broken loose from the trammels which have 
tied down the inventive genius of other lands, 
and by one bold step placed this nation far in 
advance of every other in a position either 
for offence or defence in naval warfare that 
secures us against all interference from foreign 
Powers. 
Mr. Chairman, I have occupied more time 
than I intended, and now yield to the gentle- 
man wrho desires to occupy the residue of the 
time assigned to this debate. 
SPEECH OF HON. HENBY T. BLOW, 
OF MISSOURI. 
In the House of Representatives, 
Monday, February 6, 1865. 
Mr. BLOW said 
Government, and not to indulge In arguments 
and criticisms calculated to degrade it and our 
Administration in the eyes of the world. 
I hope I may be permitted, therefore, in my 
own way to present another view of the Navy 
of the United States; not going into useless 
details nor classifying our vessels as he has 
done to show how few are as perfect and as 
well suited to the age as they would have been 
with years to model and build them, but rapid- 
ly reviewing their main features and services, 
begging you to recollect that they sprung into 
existence with a rapidity which has never been 
equalled in the history of the world, and in- 
dulging only in such statements and assertions 
as will be supported by the evidence of the 
brightest and purest men in this land. I say 
in my own way, Mr. Chairman, for no report 
of the speech has been printed, and I have 
sought access only to those points referring 
especially to the monitors and the conflict with 
the Tennessee in Mobile Bay, and my aim will 
Mr. Chairman : The subject under discus- 
sion has been invested with extraordinary in- 
terest by the eloquence of the honorable gen- 
tleman from Maryland, whose acknowledged 
ability eminently fits him for the Herculean 
task which he has undertaken. I have listened 
to his statements and reflections with intense 
and painful interest, and with a regret far ex- 
ceeding any that I have ever experienced upon 
this floor. I do not doubt the purity of the gen- 
tleman’s intentions; no one regards him more 
warmly or esteems him more highly than myself. 
But I do most emphatically condemn the taste 
and judgment which induced him to attack the 
navy of our country, and to suggest a remedy for 
fancied imperfections and failures in the midst 
of its greatest achievements, and at a time 
when every consideration of justice, patriot- 
ism, and policy should have prompted the 
statesmen of the two Houses to present the 
power and progress of this strong arm of our SPEECH OF HON. HENRY T. BLOW. 
45 
be rather to place the Navy as it really is be- 
fore the country than to follow the gentleman 
in all his disparagements of it. 
The honorable gentleman who is leading this 
attack upon the United States Navy says—I 
quote his own language— 
“ The Monitor accidentally came into Hampton 
Roads as the Merrimac was trying to destroy, as 
it had already destroyed, some of our vessels. A 
collision took place. Neither party was destroyed ; 
neither vessel was sunk; neither party was whipped, 
as the boy said, and the country ran wild over two 
guns in a cheese-box on a raft, not having done 
anything.” 
distinguish him, that such a result could not 
be estimated by dollars; in fact, the moral 
weight of it was above all calculation. So 
much for the honorable gentleman’s cheese- 
box. Such must have been the opinion of Sec- 
retary Chase also, for when the hour came that 
a great responsibility was to be taken, he did 
not hesitate to counsel the honorable Secretary 
of the Navy to persevere in creating such pro- 
tection as this Monitor had proved to be. 
Nor will I, Mr. Chairman, withhold from 
Captain Ericsson the gratitude we owe him; 
his genius has accomplished too much in this 
single instance for me to allude disparagingly 
to speculators and contractors. The gentle- 
man is unsparing; he condemns the Dictator 
on a rumor; damns the Puritan before she is 
launched, and disgraces the Dunderberg in the 
face of all that is claimed for her by her ex- 
perienced builder, who has some character as 
a gentleman of honor, and a reputation as a 
constructor acquired by building some of the 
finest vessels that ever floated under any flag. 
My hope and belief is that the gentleman him- 
self will one day own that he spoke rashly of 
this great vessel. 
Such is the slur attempted to be cast upon 
a Department which so promptly and timely 
completed a vessel which preserved the char- 
acter of the nation, the safety of its capital, 
and untold millions of its property. Let us 
go back for a moment and examine into the 
circumstances which rendered this combat the 
most famous of the war. The Merrimac, on 
the Bth of March, 1862, was the most formi- 
dable iron vessel in the world; she had on that 
day destroyed two of our frigates, utterly un- 
able to cope with her; before her lay millions 
of property, which she proposed to destroy the 
next day, and then the Chesapeake could be 
cleared out, or, if her commander chose, every 
vessel in the Potomac between Fortress Monroe 
and Alexandria could be destroyed. Ay, more! 
our navy-yard here, with all its value to our 
Government at that critical period, would have 
fallen a victim to her irresistible power. If 
not this destruction, then her course in the 
Chesapeake would have cut off the gentleman’s 
own Monumental City from the world. No 
communication could have existed between it 
and the capital except by railroad, and the 
army of Beauregard would have turned its 
course toward Washington instead of evacuat- 
ing its long-held position when the news came 
to him that the brightest day in the history of 
the confederacy was succeeded by one that 
blasted all her hopes of naval supremacy and 
protection. 
The little cheese-box, so insignificant as 
hardly to be seen by the side of her immense 
mailed antagonist, carried within her contract- 
ed walls the honor and genius of a great na- 
tion, and her two guns, an experiment yet 
untried by the great naval Powers of England 
and France, resounded through the world and 
said, what? Not that America was without a 
navy, without skill, genius, and the spirit of 
progress; but that the navies of those two na- 
tions belonged to the past, and were not able 
to dictate to the people who were struggling for 
freedom what course they should pursue to- 
ward rebels enlisted in the unholy cause of 
slavery. The gentleman has alluded to Ad- 
miral Farragut. I have asked this greatest of 
naval heroes the value of the contest between 
the Monitor and Merrimac, and whether if all 
the monitors since built on the same plan had 
been sunk into the ocean, costing, as my friend 
says, $13,000,000, the experience of that com- 
bat was not worth them all. He replied, with 
the comprehensiveness and patriotism that 
I will make no comments upon the statesman- 
ship which so unjustly deals with a department 
and its contractors, against which no single 
discreditable act can be brought, in the case 
at least of these vessels, I’emarking at the 
same moment, Mr. Chairman, that for four 
years all my time and all my thoughts have 
been devoted to protecting my Government 
against every man, high or low, that would take 
advantage of this trying time in its existence to 
build up a fortune for himself. I am no favorite 
with contractors or speculators. Congress, it is 
true, voted Captain Ericsson an immense sum. 
I had faith in the committee which recommended 
it. May I remind the gentleman that on that 
occasion he should have stood by his Govern- 
ment with his powerful influence. 
I do not stand here, Mr. Chairman, to defend 
the monitor system of construction, or any other 
system of naval architecture. Their merits and 
defects have been the subject of essays from 
experts and officers of high standing in our 
Navy. Some of these I have carefully exa- 
mined, and the exalted reputation of many of 
the writers must give great force, if it does not 
add conviction, to their arguments. But few 
of us are competent to decide this interesting 
question from our own knowledge of the prin- 
ciples underlying it, or from any experience 
which we ourselves have had with the vessels. 
We must necessarily take the testimony of 
those who have such knowledge, and who pos- 
sess such experience. Fortunately we have 
this testimony, and we have it of such high 
character that it should carry conviction to the 
minds of all unprejudiced men. I beg the in- 
dulgence of the House while I introduce some 
of this testimony. For no other cause has the 
Navy Department been so much and so severely 
criticized as for the construction of the moni- 
tors, and believing myself that the administra- 
tion of that department has been eminently 
successful, I propose to show that in the con- 46 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
struction of the monitors it acted with sound 
judgment, and was guided by the best lights [ 
it could obtain. 
The gentleman from Maryland has severely 
animadverted upon the building of so many 1 
monitors immediately after the contest of the 
Monitor and Merrimac, without that careful | 
investigation which was necessary to secure 
the department and the country against the 
evils to result, and which the gentleman en- 
deavored to show, have resulted from con- 
structing vessels of no value to us. 
The plan for building the first monitor was ■ 
submitted to a board of admiralty before it was j 
adopted by the department, and this board was 
composed of Admirals Smith, Davis, and Paul- 
ding. We may form some idea of the favorable 
opinion of the plan entertained by the board, 
and of the prompt action of the department 
by the following quotation from a letter written 
by her constructor (Ericsson) to the New York 
Herald upon the subject.— 
“ A more prompt and spirited action is probably 
not on record in a similar case than that of the 
Navy Department as regards the Monitor. The 
committee of naval commanders, appointed by the 
Secretary to decide on the plans of gunboats laid 
before the Department, occupied me less than two 
hours in explaining my new system. In about two 
hours more the committee had come to a decision. 
After their favorable report had been to the Sec- 
retary, I was called into his office, where I was 
detained less than five minutes. In order not to 
lose any time, the Secretary ordered me to ‘go | 
ahead at once.’ Consequently, while the clerks 
of the Department were engaged in drawing up 
the formal contract, the iron which now forms the 
keel plate of the Monitor was drawn through the 
rolling-mill.” 
On the 10th of March, Captain G. J. Van Brunt, | 
commanding the frigate Minnesota, gave the j 
following testimony to the merits of this 
“cheese-box,” as the honorable gentleman has 
sneeringly called her. 
“At six a. m. the enemy again appeared, com- 
ing down from Craney Island, and I beat to quar- 
ters, but they ran past my ship and were heading 
for Fortress Monroe, and the retreat was beaten | 
to allow my men to get something to eat. The 1 
Merrimac ran down near to the Rip-Raps, and | 
then turned into the channel through which I had 
come. Again all hands were called to quarters, 
and when she approached within a mile of us I 
opened upon her with my stern guns, and made 
signal to the Monitor to attack the enemy. She 
immediately ran down in my wake, right within 
range of the Merrimac, completely covering my , 
ship as far as was possible with her diminutive 
dimensions, and, much to my astonishment, laid 
herself right alongside of the Merrimac, and the 
contrast was that of a pigmy to a giant. Gun 
after gun was fired by the Monitor, which was 
returned with whole broadsides from the rebels, 
with no more effect, apparently, than so many 
pebble-stones thrown by a child. After awhile 
they commenced manoeuvring, and we could see 
the little battery point her bow for the rebels, 
with the intention, as I thought, of sending a shot 
through her bow port-hole, then she would shoot i 
by her, and rake her through the stern. In the 
mean time the rebels were pouring in broadside j 
after broadside, but almost all her shot flew over 
the little submerged propeller, and when they 
| struck the bomb-proof tower, the shot glanced off 
I without producing any effect, clearly establishing 
the fact that wooden vessels cannot contend with 
| iron-clad ones ; for never before was anything like 
it dreamed of by the greatest enthusiast in mari- 
time warfare. 
j “The Merrimac, finding that she could make 
nothing of the Monitor, turned her attention once 
more to me. In the morning she had put an 
eleven-inch shot under my counter, near the water 
line ; and now, on her second approach, I opened 
| upon her with all my broadside guns and ten-inch 
! pivot—a broadside which would have blown out 
of water any timber-built ship in the world. She 
returned my fire with her rifled bow gun, with a 
shell which passed through the chief engineer’s 
state-room, through the engineers’ mess-room, 
amidships, and burst in the boatswain’s room, 
tearing four rooms all into one in its passage, and 
exploding two charges of powder, which set the 
ship on fire, but it was promptly extinguished by 
a party headed by my first lieutenant. Her second 
shell went through the boiler of the tug-boat Dra- 
gon, exploding it, and causing some consternation 
on board my ship for the moment, until the mat- 
ter was explained. This time I had concentrated 
upon her an incessant fire from my gun-deck, 
spar-deck, and forecastle pivot guns, and was in- 
formed by my marine officer, who was stationed 
on the poop, that at least fifty solid shot struck 
her on her slanting side without producing any 
apparent effect. By the time she had fired her 
third shell the little Monitor had come down upon 
her, placing herself between us, and compelled 
her to change her position, in doing which she 
1 grounded ; and again I poured into her all the 
guns which could be brought to bear upon her. 
As soon as she got off she stood down the bay, 
the little battery chasing her with all speed, when 
j suddenly the Merrimac turned around and ran 
| full speed into her antagonist. For a moment I 
j was anxious; but instantly I saw a shot plunge 
j into the iron roof of the Merrimac, which surely 
1 must have damaged her.” 
Under the same date Captain H. Y. Purvi- 
ance, of the frigate St. Lawrence, states the 
following; 
“The Monitor, whose performance more than 
equalled the highest expectations, contributed 
most powerfully to the withdrawal of the Merri- 
mac, and her earlier arrival would have pre- 
| vented the unfortunate loss of our two defenceless 
frigates.” 
In a letter dated the 9th of March, 1862, 
Chief Engineer Stimers says, addressing Cap- 
tain Ericsson: 
“After a stormy passage, which proved us to 
j be the finest sea boat I was ever in, we fought the 
Merrimac for more than three hours this forenoon, 
I and sent her back to Norfolk in a sinking condi- 
tion.” 
Lieutenant S. D. Greene, of the United 
States Navy, and executive officer of tue Moni- 
tor, states, under date of March 27, to the De- 
partment : 
“ I received to-day your communication of the 
25th instant. I do not consider this steamer a 
sea-going vessel. During her passage from New 
j York her roll was very easy and slow, and not at 
all deep. She pitched very little, and with no 
j strain whatever. She is buoyant and not very 
lively. The inconveniences we experienced can SPEECH OF HON. HENRY T. BLOW. 
47 
be easily remedied. For smooth-water operations, 
sueb as she was engaged in on the 9th instant, I 
think her a most desirable vessel. The opinion 
of experienced seamen on board is the same as 
my own.” 
drew the fire of the vessels; and I do not know 
that it failed to be elfeetive in any instance. 
“As a consequence the rebels were restricted 
to Wagner, and were powerless to hinder the pro- 
gress of the trenches that were at last carried into 
the very ditch of the work, and decided its evacu- 
ation without assault. 
The Department had therefore the action of 
a board of admiralty recommending a trial of 
the monitor plan. It had the evidence of the 
remarkable invulnerability of the completed 
vessels in this contest. It had the testimony of 
all these naval officers, and the oral represen- 
tations of many more in praise of the vessel, 
and it knew the disaster that would have re- 
sulted to us if the Merrimac had not been 
defeated. It knew that the Merrimac was not 
destroyed, and had no means of knowing 
whether she had been seriously damaged. It 
knew that other iron-plated vessels were being 
constructed by the rebels, and it knew the re- 
sponsibility which rested upon it of providing 
for the increasing efforts of the rebels in the 
same direction. It had no other armored ves- 
sels afloat upon tide-water with which to com- 
pare the merits of the Monitor. Those on the 
Mississippi had been eminently successful 
under the skilful and gallant Foote, but they 
were not capable of being moved from harbor 1 
to harbor on the sea-coast. The iron-clads of 1 
Europe had not given satisfaction to the Powers j 
which constructed them. Our own Ironsides j 
had not yet been completed, and was not for 
many months afterwards. The wants of the j 
Government were immediate, were pressing, and i 
were of the most extraordinary character. With j 
all this testimony in favor of the Monitor, and 
the absence of any better plan being submitted 
and successfully tested, the Department was not 
only justified in building as many monitors as 
Congress would pay for, but it would have been 
culpable in the highest degree not to have put 
them in the course of immediate construction. 
The wisdom of the decision of the Department 
to build these monitors was not only sustained 
by the state of facts at the time they were 
placed under construction, but the testimony 
which is borne by the highest officers of the 
Government in their favor since they have been 
completed and tried makes the action of the 
Department in this whole matter as invulner- 
able as are the vessels themselves. I propose 
as briefly as possible to present a small part of 
this testimony, but sufficient, I trust, to prove 
the truth of this assertion. 
Rear Admiral Dahlgren, in his report on 
iron-clads, says:—■ 
“ During the progress of the engineers toward 
Wagner the iron-clads played an important part, 
using their guns whenever an opportunity offered, 
as shown in the instances quoted on page 683. It 
may be readily conceived that, all things being 
equal, it was just as easy for the rebels to have 
worked toward our position as it was for our 
troops to work toward theirs. But there was a 
serious difference in the fact that the cannon of 
the iron-clads, and also of the gunboats, com- ! 
pletely enfiladed the entire width of the narrow 
island, and absolutely interdicted any operation | 
of the kind on the part of the rebels. In addition, 
whenever their fire was bearing severely on our 
own workmen, a request from the general always 
“ The duties of the iron-elads were not per- 
formed under idle batteries. The guns of Wagner 
never failed to open on them, and fired until their 
crews were driven, by those of our iron-dads, to 
take shelter in the bomb-proofs. One of these 
cannon, a ten-inch, left deep dents on every tur- 
| ret that will not easily be effaced. 
“During the operations against Morris Island 
the nine iron-dads fired eight thousand projec- 
tiles, and received eight hundred and eighty-two 
hits. Including the service at Sumter in April, 
and the Ogechee, the total number was eleven 
hundred and ninety-four. 
“ The battering received was without precedent. 
The Montauk had been struck two hundred and 
fourteen times ; the Weehawken one hundred and 
| eighty-seven times, and almost entirely by ten- 
| inch shot. What vessels have ever been subjected 
to such a test ? 
“ The speed of the monitors is not great (seven 
j knots), but it is quite respectable with a clean 
j bottom, and is fully equal to that of the Ironsides, 
j Their steerage is peculiar, but when understood 
j and rightly managed not difficult of control, 
j They pivot with celerity, and in less space than 
! almost any other class of vessel. * * 
j “The monitors could operate in most of the 
\ channels; could direct their fire around the whole 
j circle, and were almost equally well defended on 
all sides. 
“ The defects in both classes of vessels are sus- 
ceptible of being remedied partially or entirely. 
The defence of the Ironsides could be made com- 
plete, and that of the monitors equally so. 
“The Ironsides is a fine, powerful ship. Her 
armor has stood heavy battering very well, and 
her broadside of seven eleven-inch guns and one 
eight-inch rifle has always told with signal effect 
when opened on the enemy. Draught of water 
about fifteen and a half to sixteen feet. Speed 
six to seven knots, and crew about four hundred 
and forty men.” 
As no other officer in the service has had so 
much experience with the monitors, and none 
are more competent to judge of their merits 
than this able officer, his testimony is entitled 
to the highest respect. 
Admiral Porter’s testimony of the seaworthi- 
ness and efficiency of the monitors at Fort 
Fisher is of such recent date and possesses such 
deep interest that it is doubtless fresh in the 
minds of the members of the House and need 
not be repeated. 
In his letter to the Department, dated Feb- 
ruary 16, 1864, he says of the first monitor: 
“ I remember pronouncing that vessel ‘ a per- 
fect success,’ ‘ and capable of defeating anything 
that then floated.’ I was looked upon at that 
time as something of an enthusiast, as my opin- 
I ions were widely at variance with those of some 
scientific gentlemen. The results have justified 
me in forming a high estimate of the monitor 
principle.” 
In this connection, the opinion of the able 
chief of the Engineer corps of the Army is 48 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
not without great interest. General Barnard 
says: 
“I formed a high opinion of armored and tur- 
reted vessels built after Mr. Ericsson’s designs, 
particularly as harbor-defence vessels; in fact, 
coming to the conclusion that his plans furnish 
the best solution of the problem of constructing 
vessels for this purpose. I also believed that in 
the Dictator and Puritan we should have vessels 
capable of encountering the heaviest seas, if not 
of keeping the sea a long time, and making trans- 
atlantic voyages, and that, from their armament 
and slight exposure to an enemy’s shot, they 
would contend successfully with anything afloat.” 
To this testimony I might go on and add the 
testimony of Commodore Rodgers and other 
officers in the Navy ; but enough has certainly 
been adduced to show that the Department has 
acted with good judgment in ordering the moni- 
tors, and to satisfy any unprejudiced mind that 
our iron-clads are not only not a failure, but 
constitute the hope, the pride, and the bulwark 
of the Republic. That they have faults I have 
no doubt, but they are better than anything 
our enemies have, and before they get any- 
thing to equal them the ingenuity of our con- 
structors will have perfected the novel ideas 
of Captain Ericsson and others, and we will 
still be ahead of all competitors. 
The Department has been assailed for not 
constructing more vessels of the Ironsides type 
instead of so many monitors. It is denounced 
for constructing monitors before their merits 
were fully established by other contests and 
trials besides that with the Merrimac. But 
the assailants of the Department forget that 
no contracts for ocean vessels have been made 
since the trial of the Ironsides, for the very 
good reason that Congress refused the necessary 
appropriation for the purpose. The plan of 
Mr. Webb for the Dunderberg and that of Mr. 
Whitney for the Keokuk were the only plans 
for ocean vessels approved by the board of offi- 
cers appointed to examine and report upon 
them while the Ironsides was building. 
The eminent success of the Monadnock not 
only bears evidence to the ability of the officials 
of the Department, but to the wisdom of order- 
ing the construction of four of this class, all 
designed in the Department and constructed 
in our own navy-yards. They are double-tur- 
reted vessels, built of wood, and heavily plated. 
The gentleman told us on last Thursday 
that our iron-clad navy was a failure. Con- 
structions that have grown up like magic under 
the inspiring touch of American energy and 
American talent, and which constituted the 
pride of our people and the bulwark of the 
nation against foreign arrogance; this best 
bower of the ship of State, upon which our 
faith was resting to hold us in safety from the 
hidden rocks and breakers of hostile shores, is 
declared to be a failure. These terrible engines 
of naval war that bear upon their mailed coats 
countless marks of shot and shell, that have 
been so carefully studied by the ablest engi- 
neers of enlightened Europe for the last three 
years, which have furnished models to be 
copied by Denmark and Sweden and Russia, 
after the most mature and careful investiga- 
tions, are declared to be failures. We are 
gravely told that this iron-clad navy has ac- 
complished nothing; that they have never 
silenced forts of any kind. Shade of the im- 
mortal Foote! are the glories of Fort Henry 
so soon forgotten ? Have the dead on the decks 
of the DeKalb, the Cincinnati, and their con- 
sorts at Donelson no place in the national 
memory? Are the fires which lighted the 
island scenery of No. 10 from a hundred iron 
throats, as the Carondelet and Pittsburg passed 
them, no longer remembered ? Is the despe- 
rate conflict with the rebel rams at Fort Pillow 
and at Memphis not written in American his- 
tory ? Was nothing done by the gallant Porter 
and the Essex, when the Arkansas was de- 
stroyed ? Have the trophies of Arkansas Post 
no glorious reminiscences ? Has the history of 
Vicksburg and Grand Gulfbeen lostin oblivion? 
Why did the old salamander, he of the iron 
heart, with the laurels of New Orleans fresh 
upon his brow, and the praises of a great nation 
for his gallant deeds still echoing over the land; 
why, I say, did our country’s pride, the noble 
Farragut, deem it unsafe to attack Mobile 
until he had four of these iron-clads which are 
pronounced so worthless by the gentleman from 
Maryland ? Did the four hundred and fifty 
pounder that crashed through the side of the 
Tennessee effect nothing ? Nor the one hundred 
and eighty-pounder blows of the Mississippi 
river iron-clads, when disabling her steering 
gear, and closing her ports, effect nothing, 
when the lighter shots of the wooden vessels 
were falling harmless upon her ? Will the 
gentleman from Maryland insist that the 
wooden vessels captured the almost impreg- 
nable Tennessee, when the published survey 
of the captured vessel made by Captains Jenkins 
and Alden, Commander Le Roy, and Chief 
Engineer Wilkinson, shows exactly how the 
damage was inflicted that placed her at the 
mercy of the fleet? He sees no virtue in an 
iron-clad carrying hundreds of tons of armor, 
to enable her to cope with our enemies, unless 
she steers with all the facility of a pleasure 
yacht; and because one of the four iron-clads 
which entered Mobile Bay on the sth of August 
had her turrets disabled in that fierce contest, 
he condemns the whole as worthless. 
For the information of the honorable gentle- 
man, and to correct any false impression as to 
the value of* the four double-turreted vessels 
now holding the harbor of Mobile, I will ask 
the Clerk to read a portion of a private letter 
from a brave and skilful officer in the fleet at 
Mobile to the gentleman who designed and 
constructed those vessels on the Mississippi 
river. This officer holds the very important 
position of fleet engineer of the western Gulf 
blockading squadron, and knowing him well, I 
can bear my humble testimony to his purity of 
character as well as the value of his testimony. 
The Clerk read, as follows: 
West Gulf Squadron, 
Engineer’s Department, 
Decevibar 15, 1864. 
Mr Dear Sir : * * * I know you have 
been kept posted on our monitors by your many SPEECH OF HON. HENRY T. BLOW. 
49 
friends attached to them in our squadron. You j 
have no doubt been informed that with a little ! 
effort we got the other two, namely, the Milwau- j 
kee and Kickapoo. I got the admiral to change [ 
off the Manhattan (Ericsson monitor) and the , 
rebel ram Tennessee for them, and before this j 
gets to you we shall have them at anchor within ) 
three miles of Mobile, the only vessels upon which j 
we depend for an entree to that harbor when we j 
get ready to make the start. They have grown 
so in favor with everybody that it almost amounts 
to an affection, particularly after the fight in Mo- 
bile Bay. 
I feel happy to think that these vessels have 
come up to my expectations, and that I succeeded 
in carrying out my views and wishes, long since 
expressed, namely, to get them in the Mobile fight. 
They did it, and I am satisfied. 
Yours, truly, 
WILLIAM S. SHOCK, U. S. N. 
To James B. Eads, Esq. 
Mr. BLOW. I will state that I myself have 
heard Admiral Farragut speak in the highest 
terms of these vessels. He does not hesitate j 
to say that they are absolutely necessary now 
to hold Mobile Bay; that the management of 
the iron-clad Chickasaw was splendid, and that 
the strength and power of the Manhattan were 
terrific. I agree with my friend from -Mary- 
land that Farragut can go anywhere in a 
wooden vessel, but that is simply because he is j 
an iron-clad himself. But I have still other 
evidence from an impartial naval officer who j 
has always been regarded with favor by our 
countrymen, and who differs widely with the 
gentleman from Maryland in regard to these 
costly guns inclosed in a cheese-box. It is 
dated Claremont, January 11, 1865, is from the 
Prince de Joinville, and the extracts from it 
read as follows: 
“The glorious action of the Kearsarge and Ala- 
bama, and the magnificent fight of Admiral Ear- ! 
ragut, must be studied in all their details. The | 
mode of fighting the forts adopted by Admiral j 
Farragut was an act of genius, and his orders were I 
carried out in the most beautiful manner. But ! 
the Tennessee was a very serious enemy, and it 
required the fifteen-inch at close quarters to do it j 
for her. 
“The amount of resistance furnished by the 
Tennessee, and every other example of your war, j 
show how useful iron-clads are for harbor and j 
coast defence. English, French, Italians, Turks, | 
and Spaniards are building very expensive sea- 
going iron-clads, but with some misgivings, and 
I understand their misgivings. Build a gunboat 
of great speed, with a few lines of thickness in 
bed-plates in excess of those of the English and 
French iron-clads, and with one good big smooth- 
bore gun, and she will be a match for the whole 
fleet.” 
I like this letter. It shows a correct appre- 
ciation of our Navy and of the genius of our 
people. 
The gentleman from Maryland, not recol- 
lecting the unfortunate result attending a 
previous controversy on the subject of im- 
proved steam machinery, has alluded in rather 
unhandsome terms to that designed by the 
Department, and now being built for our new 
vessels-of-war. It is well known throughout 
the world that we are specially skilled in the 
planning and manufacturing of steam-engines, 
and the completeness of our great construc- 
tions for the merchant and naval service is 
universally acknowledged. I beg to refer him 
to the report of the Naval Committee of the 
House who have so ably vindicated their in- 
dustry and ability on this floor, and which is 
thus noticed by the Army and Navy Register 
in its issue of last Saturday, the 4th instant. 
“The Naval Committee of the House are un- 
derstood to have unanimously adopted the report 
of their chairman, Mr. A. H. Rice, on the sub- 
ject of the resolution introduced during the last 
session, on the condition of naval machinery built 
by Mr. Isherwood, the chief of the Bureau of 
Steam Engineering; the causes of the failure of 
the machinery of the Pensacola, from the plans 
of Mr. E. N. Dickerson, and the administration 
of the engineering department of the Navy, in- 
cluding the charges of fraud and incapacity. The 
report vindicates the management of the Bureau 
of Steam Engineering, stating that the machinery 
is in accordance with the latest improvements, 
and that the mode adopted of using the steam, 
with a very moderate measure of expansion, is in 
accordance with the most recent scientific re, 
searches and practical experiments, and has the 
indorsement of all able and experienced engineers. 
The comparison of his machinery with that pre- 
viously constructed for our Navy, and for the 
French and English navies, and for the merchant 
marine, shows an incontestable superiority and a 
greater speed of vessels.” 
Mr. Chairman, the iron-clad vessels alluded 
to as having achieved the great victories that 
so strengthened the cause of the Union in the 
valley of the Mississippi, were mostly con- 
structed by a man whose genius was brought 
forth by this rebellion and the necessities of 
the country, and whose future, if we are faith- 
ful to ourselves, will be as brilliant as his past 
has been patriotic and useful. I allude, sir, to 
the only genius of the day who is now conceded 
by the naval men of this country to be without 
a superior, if he has a rival—James B. Eads, 
of St. Louis, who has constructed twenty-one 
iron-clad vessels, whose successes are the pride 
of the whole nation. 
Sir, if the entire monitor and iron-clad fleets 
constructed on the sea-board had failed, and 
nothing had been accomplished except what 
has been achieved by the western iron-clad 
navy, this country could well afford to forgive 
the errors which had caused such a failure in 
the magnificent result we have obtained through 
their agency West. If the twenty light-draught 
monitors now constructing, about which so 
much has been said, are failures, a result 
which I hope will never be established, I still 
contend that, taking all that the entire navy has 
done, there are no services equal to it in the 
history of navies and navy struggles. Let 
those at home who are not satisfied with results 
which have startled England and France from 
their fancied security, enlighten us as to the 
exact method which they would have pursued 
under similar circumstances and in detail, and 
then we can be able to judge better of the 
errors complained of. 
And are we to be told that this great country 
cannot in times like these go boldly into con- 50 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
structions and experiments, if you please, | 
■which promise at least success? Are we to j 
stand still when our rebel adversaries, weak in 
money and mechanics, are duplicating their 
Merrimacs, Atlantas, and Tennessees? Is our | 
Government to be held up to the criticisms of ; 
the world, and our own people to be the means 
of exhibiting every little failure made in this 
gigantic struggle? Are the men whose in- | 
tegrity, patriotism, skill, and devotion have 
never been doubted, to be prostrated the very 
hour when their labors are being crowned with 
success ? Let us indulge the hope, sir, that 
such a result will not occur. 
There are now in the Department plans of a 
steamer that it is claimed can run to the city 
of London and back again without coaling, and 
destroy within the time $500,000,000 of Eng- 
lish property on the way and in that city, re- 
sisting all the engines of war yet devised by 
English skill and English gold. These plans 
have been submitted by one whose enterprises 
have ever been successful, and whose genius 
has been acknowledged by the highest naval 
authorities of our country. 
My feelings and policy dictate that we should 
go on in the work of construction. Now, more 
than ever, do we need Ironsides, Monadnocks, 
and the Leviathan that can destroy the hopes 
of tyrants as well as their cities and forts. Let 
us not waste our time in idle disputes and un- 
friendly criticisms. Remember that Bull Run, 
Chickasaw Bluffs, Red River, and the two 
hundred thousand dead in Virginia, are passed 
over in the glorious victories and marches of 
Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Thomas; so 
must our errors of construction, if they really 
exist, be forgotten in the brilliant achievements 
which have immortalized Foote, Farragut, 
Davis, Porter, Du Pont, Dahlgren, and a host 
of other naval heroes. 
But I pass, Mr. Chairman, with much plea- 
sure from the discussion of points that I deeply 
regret were ever pressed upon us, and beg the 
attention of the committee to some considera- 
tions of grave importance. 
We have achieved our present supremacy on 
the ocean as a result incident to the suppression 
of the rebellion. Possessing the domination of 
the seas, policy, interest, and humanity con- 
spire to prompt its retention. When we are 
able to sweep the ocean and bid defiance to all 
whom interest or passion might otherwise 
prompt to attack us, we need not fear that our 
peace will be molested. We have the highest 
possible motives for maintaining this superi- 
ority ; but with the enormous ability to con- 
struct ocean steamers possessed by Great 
Britain at this day, we cannot hope to do so 
without such immediate legislation as will tend 
to increase our facilities for the construction 
and repair of iron-clad vessels. The develop- 
ments of the war have shown that the British 
navy is to-day far inferior to our own. But it 
is only so because of the immense additions and 
improvements in construction that have been 
made by us during the rebellion. These im- 
provements are well known to England and 
France, and if they do not at once adopt them 
] it will be only because they hope to get some 
1 that are better, not because they will trust to 
those of the past. In a very few years those 
nations, England especially, will possess a navy 
| quite as powerful as our own, if we remain 
j idle. “Eternal vigilance is the price of safety.” 
| At this day England is turning out from her 
immense private yards on the Clyde, the 
| Thames, the Mersey, the Tees, the Tyne, and 
| Wear, five hundred thousand tons of iron mer- 
chant vessels per annum. She is to-day dupli- 
cating the entire tonnage of our navy annually 
in iron steam vessels for the ocean, and this in 
her private yards alone. We are not able to 
build in all our private establishments together 
I more than one- sixth part of this tonnage. This 
is a startling fact that it is well for us to re- 
member; but it is not the only remarkable 
truth which has been brought to our attention 
by the very able and interesting report of Chief 
Engineer J. W. King, United States Navy, and 
embodied in and published with the last annual 
report of the Secretary of the Navy. Mr. King 
was sent last summer by the Department to 
examine the dock-yards and iron-clad estab- 
lishments in England and France, and I am 
| glad to be able to say that every facility was 
extended to him by the Governments of those 
j countries in the performance of his duties. 
We learn from Mr. King’s report the fact 
that England is far ahead of us in her ability to 
construct ocean iron steamers in her private 
yards; and that in her national establishments 
for the construction and repair of armored war 
vessels she is beyond all comparison superior 
to us. From his report it appears that there 
| are in England seven naval or dock-yards; one 
j of them, that at Chatham, is being extensively 
j enlarged specially for the construction of iron- 
, armored vessels-of-war, while another, situated 
at Portsmouth, is to be enlarged with like 
views. The total area of the British dock- 
yards exceeds five hundred and fifty acres, 
! possessing thirty-six and a quarter acres basin 
• accommodations, 32 stone dry-docks, and 31 
ship-houses; and when Chatham and Ports- 
. mouth are completed, the ground covered by 
. them all will exceed one thousand acres, con- 
: taining 44 stone dry-docks and as many ship- 
• houses; all other preparations being propor- 
! tionate and comparatively gigantic. Besides 
. these national works for the construction of 
i j fleets, the British have vast resources in the 
■ shape of iron-ship-yards and iron works. It 
; is seen that on the Clyde are 33 iron-ship- 
building yards, the productions from which in 
■ 1868 were 170 iron vessels with an aggregate 
t of 120,700 tons. On the river Thames during 
> the same year 117,000 tons of iron vessels were 
I built; on the Mersey 80,000 tons; on the Tyne 
l 51,236; on the Wear 25,000, and on the Tees 
■ 15,000—making a total of 408,996 tons of iron 
i vessels built in 1863; and it is estimated that 
t during the past year, 1864, upward of 500,000 
I tons of iron vessels were constructed in the 
i British dock-yards, exclusive of those built for 
- the royal navy. Some of the private iron ship- 
-1 yards have large capitals,and are very extensive 
i and complete in all respects. Mr. King’s re- SPEECH OF HON. HENRY T. BLOW. 
51 
port informs us that the constructive capabili- 
ties of either of the great Thames yards are 
equal to 26,000 tons, or ten heavy iron vessels 
in hand and progressing simultaneously. Such I 
are the facilities possessed by the British for | 
building and equipping iron-clads. The Admi- i 
ralty there could in the event of war, in addition 
to their own extensive dock-yards, command the 
services of more than 40 private iron-ship- 
building yards. 
Now, how are we prepared to build sea-going 
armored ships ? With resources in iron and | 
material superior to those of England, the few j 
private yards in this country are mere make- 
shifts compared with them. The combined capa- 
bilities of them all are not equal to one such as 
are to be found on the river Thames. What are 
our navy-yards, and how are they prepared to ! 
meet the changes taking place in ships-of-war, 
and to meet the demands of a Navy which has 
grown in proportions until it is acknowledged 
to be superior to any other afloat? The Chat- 
ham dock-yard when completed will have an 
area of three hundred and eighty-nine acres, 
the whole of the ground being occupied by ba- 
sins, dry-docks, ship-houses, and substantial 
steam factories. The New York navy-yard, 
the most important we possess, covers an avail- 
able space of about twenty-five acres, not one- 
fifteenth part as large as the Chatham yard. 
It has one stone dry-dock, two ship-houses, and 
other limited facilities for wood ship-building 
only. The Philadelphia navy-yard has a total 
area of but nine acres. It would require forty- 
three such yards to make one equal to the 
Chatham yard in England. It has one wood 
floating-dock, and two ship-houses, but not a 
steam factory, or any preparations for either 
the construction or repair of steam machinery. 
The Boston navy-yard, of but small area, has 
one stone dry-dock, three ship-houses, and is 
comparatively well prepared for constructing 
and repairing vessels; while the yard at Ports- 
mouth, New Hampshire, is but little in advance 
of that at Philadelphia. The Washington yard 
has greater facilities for building machinery 
than all the others, but has not a single dock. 
Our navy-yards on the Atlantic coast possess 
two stone dry-docks and two wooden floating- 
docks, with other proportionate facilities, while 
the British will soon have forty-four stone dry- 
docks, besides unequalled resources in private 
docks. On the river Mersey alone there are 
twenty-four dry or graving-docks! 
Apart from the limited facilities of our yards, 
they are in no way prepared, nor is there suffi- 
cient room in them, for building iron-clads. 
The Secretary of the Navy has frequently called 
attention to the subject, and the Department is 
much embarrassed for want of a proper yard, 
and the longer action in this matter is delayed 
the greater will be the difficulties and embar- 
rassments that will arise to the Department, 
and the more imminent the danger to the coun- 
try. Shall we allow this session to pass with- 
out deciding on so important a national mea- 
sure—one in which the whole nation is inte- 
rested, and in which no sectional or party feel- 
ings should or ought to interfere? 
When we consider the manner in which our 
Navy, exclusive of iron-clads, has been impro- 
vised by the purchase of vessels from the mer- 
chant marine, we can readily see the great 
superiority which England would possess in 
drawing an increase to her navy from a mer- 
chant service which is increasing at the rate of 
five hundred thousand tons per annum in iron 
vessels under the stimulus of a demand which 
has resulted from her unfriendly conduct in 
giving aid and comfort to the enemies of this 
Government. 
The want of at least one complete navy-yard 
near the Atlantic sea-board, with these startling 
facts in full view before us, is a great national 
misfortune, and its immediate construction is 
demanded by every consideration of interest, 
prudence, and policy. And yet there are gen- 
tlemen on this floor ready to vote defiant reso- 
lutions embodying the Monroe doctrine, and to 
march our armies into Canada, but who can go 
quietly to their homes and tell their constitu- 
ents that they have faithfully discharged the 
trust confided in them, when they know we do 
not possess one single national establishment in 
the whole country for the construction of iron- 
clads, nor even the proper facilities for docking 
and repairing the armored vessels which now 
constitute our sole dependence, notwithstanding 
the Secretary of the Navy has time and again 
urged upon us the duty of providing these great 
national means of preserving our present Navy 
and providing for the inevitable necessity of 
its increase. 
The unfriendly spirit manifested by England 
during the last four years toward us, and the 
ambitious designs of the French emperor, so 
boldly developing themselves upon this conti- 
nent, should admonish us to be prepared for a 
conflict that will surely come when one or the 
other of those great Powers feel that they are 
safe in precipitating it. A jealous regard for the 
condition and effectiveness of our naval estab- 
lishment is the surest way of keeping the peace 
and inspiring those and all other great Powers 
with a wholesome respect for the American Re- 
public. I apprehend that there are few mem- 
bers upon this floor who do not feel satisfied 
that our iron-clad navy has been the only ob- 
stacle to prevent the hostile designs of France 
and England from assuming a form that would 
have compelled a declaration of war with them. 
When we contemplate the enormous cost of 
this war, estimated by many at not less than 
$4,000,000,000, we can form some idea of what 
the cost of a war with those nations would 
probably be. If we compare the cost of this 
war with the cost of our entire Navy, 
$280,000,000, which includes its maintenance 
for four years, we find the latter is only one- 
fourteenth part of this outlay. And this will 
enable us to form some idea of the great 
economy of the Navy in a struggle like the 
present, when we compare the results it has 
accomplished with the cost of similar results 
when achieved by the Army. Nor has this 
$280,000,000 all vanished in smoke and cannon- 
shot, in shoddy clothing or the commissary sup- 
plies that have been consumed ; but it is to-day 52 
THE NAVY IN CONGRESS. 
existing in substantial ships-of-war that are de- 
fending our foreign commerce, blockading rebel- 
lious shores, or battering down the strongholds 
of treason and bidding defiance to unfriendly 
Powers. These six hundred and seventy-one 
vessels, at the low average of $200,000 each, 
would represent a value of $134,000,000, or 
nearly one-half of the entire outlay. The 
balance, $160,000,000 in round numbers, will 
represent the cost of maintaining it for four 
years—an average of $37,500,000 per annum. 
The Government has been and is still paying 
bounties to volunteers for the Army at the rate 
of S3OO per man, and through the past three 
years local bounties have been paid in addition 
sufficient to average at least S3OO more. These 
local bounties, although not paid by the Govern- 
ment, are nevertheless paid by those who must 
be required to meet the interest on the public 
debt and provide for its ultimate liquidation; 
hence the whole amount of these bounties, say 
S6OO per man, come from the same fountain 
source, the people, and it is proper to estimate 
their total amount as part of the expenses of 
the war. But these bounties alone are but a 
small part of the cost of maintaining the Army, 
and yet the total bounties alone paid to the 
volunteers in one year for the Army would 
defray the entire expense of maintaining our 
splendid naval establishment for ten years. 
This, Mr. Speaker, is a fact well worth ponder- 
ing over by the ablest statesmen. When war 
comes it involves the vast machinery of an 
army with its stupendous expenditures. Is it 
not the part of wisdom to put the probability 
of a foreign war as far beyond the regions of 
possibility as it is in the power of the nation to 
do when it can be done at a cost that is insig- 
nificant when compared with the cost of such a 
war —a cost that is as trifling when compared 
with the cost of war as is the premium we pay 
to the insurance company when compared with 
the loss we desire to be protected against? 
Such protection we gain by maintaining a Navy 
commensurate with the grandeur of the nation, 
and capable by the power and efficiency of its 
construction and organization to protect the 
honor and advance the interests of the Republic. 
If our Navy be preserved by such facilities for 
repairs and construction as are absolutely de- 
manded, and its development properly fostered, 
we need not fear but that American genius and 
enterprise will be amply sufficient to keep it 
through all time where it is to-day—in advance 
of all the nations of the earth. But let us be 
admonished by the fable of the turtle and the 
hare, and not believe, because we are now 
so superior to our competitors that we can 
afford to slumber and not expect to find them 
in advance of us when we awake. By American 
genius we have taught the Old World the worth- 
lessness of many of their theories, and they 
will doubtless draw wisdom from our experi- 
ence and the rapid development of facts that 
are constantly manifesting themselves in this 
present struggle. Twelve million dollars’ worth 
of Armstrong breech-loaders in Great Britain 
were demolished when one blow of a Yankee 
four hundred and fifty pounder struck the rebel 
iron-clad Atlanta. And it needed but one 
American armored ship in Hampton Roads to 
show England that 
“Ruined was her buckler and broken was her 
shield.’’ 
Her boasted rule of the waves was as empty- 
on that day as the command of her Danish king 
to those same waves a thousand years ago : 
“ Thus far shalt thou come, qnd no further.” 
Of her one thousand and four war-vessels, but 
four remained to assert Britain’s ocean supre- 
macy. And the bombardment of Fort Sumter 
with the much abused monitors, if it did no- 
thing more, taught our transatlantic neighbors 
that the new system, so much criticized and 
ridiculed in this Hall, was too invulnerable for 
their intermeddling to prove advantageous to 
them. That bombardment, if it did not cap- 
ture Charleston, was so full of instruction to 
France and England that it saved us from an 
intervention, the result of which no statesman 
on this floor would dare to prophesy. 
In the wonderfully rapid construction of our 
Navy the energies of the department have been 
taxed to the uttermost point through all its offi- 
cial ramifications; and the powers of the people, 
through the contract system, have been strained 
to their greatest capacity, and the consequence 
has been a wonderful development of resources 
and a remarkable degree of inventive talent 
and capacity for naval constructions. The re- 
sult of all this is before the nation and the 
world in the form of a navy which has dealt 
the rebellion some of its worst wounds, and 
maintained the honor of the nation. It is now 
the most potent in the world; surpassing in 
all the elements of effectiveness that of France 
or England. It now controls more than twelve 
thousand miles of inland waters, giving confi- 
dence and support to our armies, which are 
seldom beyond the reverberation of its guns, 
and at the same time successfully scours the 
ocean in pursuit of Anglo-rebel pirates, and 
maintains a blockade which is the wonder of 
the world. 
This truly gigantic work has been accom- 
plished without ostentation, and with an economy 
which has even extorted praise from the hostile 
and mercenary press of England, and, as our 
investigating committees have shown, with less 
fraud and peculation than any other under- 
taken by the government Notwithstanding 
the magnitude of the results that have been 
accomplished, the Navy Department has been 
repeatedly assailed in the most unjust and un- 
reasonable manner, and its able chief ridiculed 
and caricatured until one would suppose that 
his principal occupation had been to pass his 
official hours in comfortably dozing in an easy 
arm-chair, especially provided for that purpose 
by himself at the department. Friend and foe 
to the Union have alike been led to believe that 
what was so persistently asserted by his de- 
famers must be true. 
Treason, in mistaken security, ridiculed the 
efforts of the old man of the sea to shut up a 
coast equal to one-seventh of the world’s cir- 
cumference, and made thrice difficult by the SPEECH OF HON. HENRY T. BLOW. 
53 
rich fringe of islands, bays, peninsulas, sounds, 
and inlets bordering it from Cape Henry to the 
Rio Grande, and whose endless labyrinths gave 
friendly shelter to smugglers and pirates; but 
it has now awakened amid the terrors of star- 
vation and the hopelessness of despair to see 
this stupendous work accomplished. 
England, self-styled mistress of the seas, 
folded her snowy hands to rest when she saw 
the drowsy lids of the old Rip Van Winkle, but 
his Kearsarge guns in the British Channel have 
roused her from her pleasant slumbers. Wins- 
low is crashing through British oak. Her 
trained gunners of the Excellent are struggling 
in the agonies of death, and Cherbourg bears 
witness to the petty larceny of the pirate’s 
English consort—Britain’s neutral Deerhound. 
When the history of this war is written, Mr. 
Chairman, no prouder record of able adminis- 
trative talent and comprehensive co-operation 
will gild its instructive pages than that which 
recites the management of the Navy Depart- 
ment during the last four years. The utmost 
efforts of ridicule and defamation have been 
exhausted in vain endeavors to weaken the 
confidence of the people and the President in 
the ability of its Secretary. From the moment 
of his installation this gentleman seems to have 
pursued, with a fixedness of purpose rarely 
witnessed, a policy having for its object the 
throttling of treason and the domination of the 
ocean. Calling at once to his council the ablest 
talent in the service, and confidently trusting 
his reputation to the keeping of the loyal peo- 
ple of the land; turning neither to the right 
hand nor to the left to defend himself from the 
scurrility and misrepresentation which have as- 
sailed him, he has devoted his talents and 
energies to the consummation of this grand 
object with the modesty which attends true 
merit. Measured by the criterion of success, 
the only touchstone which a nation involved in 
a mighty struggle will trust in, the honorable 
Secretary has naught to fear. The stupendous 
work accomplished by the Navy, the soul- 
thrilling victories it has achieved, and the 
remarkable good fortune which has attended 
its undertakings during this rebellion, bear 
incontrovertible testimony to the statesmanship 
which has directed its operations, and stamp 
the administration of that Department as emi- 
nently successful. 
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like 
to record my profound admiration of the splen- 
did gallantry and devoted patriotism that have 
been displayed by the naval heroes who have 
defended the honor of the national flag with a 
devotion and bravery which have won for them 
the admiration of the world. I have on several 
occasions, by my votes in this Hall, manifested 
my gratitude to these gallant officers and men 
who have done so much to defend our land from 
the curse of treason, and would now, if I felt 
that my humble powers were equal to so grand 
a theme, delight to dwell upon the glories with 
which they have enriched the story of these 
perilous times. But, Mr. Chairman, 
“What skilful limner e’er would choose 
To paint the rainbow’s varying hues. 
Unless to mortal it were given 
To dip his brush in tints of heaven?” 
The brilliancy of those achievements will make 
history more attractive than romance. Poetry 
will draw from its absorbing record immortal 
themes to gild its graceful numbers, and many 
a youthful hero in the dim and far-off future 
will feel the first impulse of generous emula- 
tion while listening to the songs and tales which 
recite the deeds of Foote and Farragut. The undersigned offers to the public—for business abroad—the services of able 
and accomplished correspondents in London, Paris, and in most of the larger cities 
of Europe north of the Alps, points through which he reaches readily to Spain, 
Italy, and Russia. 
They bring to the execution of any kind of business whatever, a good faith and 
moderation which have never been questioned; and a judgment and discretion— 
when these qualities need to be referred to—always marked by skill, capability, and 
entire trustworthiness. The undersigned has never relied on them in vain. 
Merchandise of any nature imported to order. 
FRANCK TAYLOR, 
Washington City.