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

" & : 1901.] MARINE SS rt——“‘(‘(‘(“‘i‘a a 19 OPPOSED TO CONSOLIDATION OF BUREAUS. Rear Admiral Bradford, chief of the navy bureau of equipment, has submitted his views in opposition to the plan of the navy department for the consolidation of the bureaus of steam navigation, of equipment and of construction and repair. His statement is as follows: “I believe it would be very detrimental to the interests of the navy if the bureaus proposed were consolidated, and I will give in writing some reasons for this opinion. During the ‘revolutionary war and until the year 1789 the navy suffered many vicissitudes of direction, being at difier- ent times under the charge of a ‘marine committee,’ a ‘naval marine com- mittee,’ a ‘continental navy board,’ a ‘board of admiralty, and ‘agent ol marine,’ etc. It was universally admitted that these various authorities constituted by congress to administer upon the navy lacked sufficient pro- fessional knowledge to successfully perform the task alloted. In 1789 a war department was created, and both the land and naval forces placed under it. The war department continued to administer upon naval affairs until 1798, when congress established a navy department. It was stated in congress during a discussion of the act that it was necessary ‘from a want of knowledge of naval affairs in the war department.’ The navy department first consisted of a secretary of the navy, a chief clerk and such other clerks as were necessary. This organization continued until 1814, when by act of congress a board of navy commissioners, consisting of three captains, the highest grade then in the navy, was authorized for the purpose of assisting the secretary of the navy in the discharge of his ministerial duties, and for the express purpose of taking charge of all matters in reference to the construction, armament and equipment of ships of war. The secretary, in asking for a change in the organization of the navy department, expressly stated that ‘the multifarious concerns of the naval establishment, the absence of wholesome regulations in its civil administration, and the imperfect execution of duties, owing to want ot professional experience, led to confusion, abuse and waste.’ The members of the board of navy commissioners were appointed by the president anc subject to confirmation by the senate. “This organization continued for a period of twenty-seven years and was far more efficient than any previous organization. The mistake was made, however, of requiring the three navy commissioners to act as a unit, thereby greatly limiting their capacity. In 1842 the department was again reorganized. After much discussion and debate a system of seven bureaus (practically the same as at present with the exception of steain engineering) was recommended by the board of:navy commissioners to the secretary and by him to congress. A bill providing for such an organ- ization passed the senate and was recommended by the naval committee of the house. The house, however, reduced the seven bureaus to five by combining the bureaus of ordnance and hydrography and equipment and construction and repair. When the organization was complete the de partment was divided into the following five bureaus: Yards and docks; construction, equipment and repair; provisions and clothing; ordnance and hydrography; medicine and surgery. A captain was made the chiet of each bureau, with the exception of provisions and clothing and medi- cine and surgery. This organization was not satisfactory to the secretary of the navy, who continued to recommend the seven bureaus proposed in 1842. Secretary Upshur, in discussing it in his report, after it had been in operation about six months, made use of the following language: “The law for the reorganization of this department has been carried out as far as it has been found practicable. The advantages of this change in the increased facilities of transacting business and in the concentration of responsibilities are manifest and _ great. I regret to say, however, that the system is yet very imperfect. The bill as it passed the senate (providing for seven bureaus) would, it is believed, have proved as complete and effective in its provisions as could ‘reasonably be expected of any new measure run- ning so much into details, but the changes made in it by the house of representatives (combining equipment with construction and repairs and ordnance with hydrography) have produced difficulties and embarrass- ments in practice which were not foreseen at the time. The bureau of construction and repairs, for instance, is charged with the duties of the bureau of equipment. It requires a ship carpenter to build or repair a vessel of war; it requires a naval officer to equip her. It would probably be impossible to find any one man properly equipped to perform all the duties of building, repairing and equipping a vessel of war. In providing a chief for the bureau of construction, equipment and repairs the alterna- tive lay between a naval captain qualified to equip and a naval constructor qualified to build and repair. I did not hesitate to prefer the former, and the place is filled by a member of the late ‘board of navy commissioners.’ “Owing to the increasing importance of steam machinery, Charles H. Haswell, a navy engineer, was attached to the bureau of construction, equipment and repairs in 1846, and that bureau continued to perform the duties of the bureau of steam engineering until 1862. In 1853 John Lent- hall, a naval constructor, was appointed chief of bureau of construction, equipment and repairs, a captain having previously been chief of that bureau. In accordance with the recommendation of Secretary Welles and preceding secretaries, a bill for the reorganization of the navy department was introduced in congress in 1862. Senator Grimes, then chairman of the senate naval committee, in presenting the bill to the senate had a statement printed to the effect that the granting of three additional bureaus would actually cause ‘a diminution of the expenses of the government’ and the naval service ‘be made much more efficient.’ The bill passed both houses and was approved July, 1862. The new bureaus created were the bureau of navigation, bureau of equipment and bureau of steam engineer- ing. This organization has continued to the present time. “It appears, therefore, that the proposition now made to consolidate the bureaus of construction and repair, steam engineering and equipment is one that has been tried and found unsatisfactory. In fact, the lesson to be learned from the changes in the organization of the navy department at various times is that expansion and specialization, rather than contraction and generalization, are necessary as the navy is enlarged. Since 1815 three officers of command rank have been in the councils of the navy depart- ment. In this respect there has been no increase, there being the same number now, all captains, but holding the rank of rear admiral while chiefs of bureaus. Should the three bureaus be consolidated as proposed, the chief thereof could not even read his mail, and he would be in the hands of subordinates without responsibility. Figures are often given to prove that a consolidation of bureaus will result in economy by decreasing the num- ber of employes. It is not claimed that an unnecessary number of em- ployes exists now, and it is difficult to understand how a consolidation will decrease the amount of work to be performed.’ DREDGE FOR CANADIAN GOVERNMENT. The Polson Iron Works, Toronto, is building for the Dominion government self-propelling hydraulic dredge which is to be transported to the Pacific coast.in sections and completed there during the year. The dredge will be capable of working to a depth of 40 ft. below the water surface and excavating any ordinary material, discharging it by either of three methods, viz., first, to shore through a long-distance pontoon pipe; second, through a suspended side-discharge pipe, 85 ft. long, and third, into scows alongside. It is self- propelling ated speed of eight statute miles an hour. It is fitted with crew’s quarters on the upper deck sufficient to accommodate twenty men. The machinery and equipment is first-class in every respect and of a substantial description. The dredger, as a whole, is made of the very best materials and work- manship and adapted for. permanent service in either fresh or salt water. The hull is 125 ft. long, 32 ft. wide, and 7 ft. 6 in. deep at the side. It is square ended at bow and stern for the purpose of carrying the suction pipe and stern wheel respectively, but has a rake on the under- water body forward and aft, and round bilges, making the vessel easy to propel. The construction of the hull is composite, that is to say, it has steel frames and trusses over the’ entire length with the planking and sheathing of wood, by which great strength is obtained, the steel frames being practically indestructible, while the planking can be readily and cheaply renewed at any time when necessary from injury or decay. The hull is stiffened by two internal trusses extended the whole length of the boat, which also serves to carry the deck house and sustain the weight and thrust of the front A frame. This also furnishes the necessary support for the wheel beams at the after end. There are four watertight steel bulkheads, and each compartment is fitted with means of removing the bilge water independently. The keel is ingeniously constructed in the form of a gutter, which drains the perfectly flat bottom. of the vessel completely and forms an efficient well for the pump suctions. The main engines for driving the dredging pump are of the vertical triple expansion type—13%, 22 and 386 by 21 in. stroke of the standard marine type. The main dredging pump is centrifugal of improved type, having 20 in. diameter suction and discharge. The suction pipe is de- signed to make a cut 50 ft. wide when stationary and 175 ft. wide when swinging on the stern spud. A complete outfit of auxiliary machinery is provided for handling the suction pipe, spuds, anchors, hull, ete. The two boilers are of the Heine water-tube type, having 3,000 ft. of heating surface. The builders guarantee that the dredger is capable of doing effective work at 1,500 ft. distance from discharge with only one boiler in operation. There is a surface condenser of the latest and best con- struction, having 1,200 sq. ft. of surface. The vessel is propelled by a stern wheel 20 ft. diameter, driven by double-horizontal engines 16 in. diameter and 72 in. stroke, ‘of the Polson Iron Works standard patterns, which have been thoroughly tested in service. The hull will be ready for shipment the latter part of January and will be erected in New West- minster and completed there by W.' E. Redway, the superintendent of the ship building department of the Polson Iron Works. ——— NOTES FROM COAST SHIP YARDS. Boothbay, Me., is having particularly good fortune in having its ship yards, so long still, resounding with the tools of a large force of workmen. Irving Adams has contracted to build two large first-class fishermen for S. Nickerson & Sons of Boothbay Harbor, and has a large crew of skilled workmen in his yard. He also is under contract to put a piece in a steamer, and to build a small vessel for another party. Hodgdon Bros. have contracted to build two vessels for Massachusetts owners, and have refused to take other orders. Ship carpenters are in great demand, and the supply is far less than the need. Sawyer Bros, are making preparations to soon begin work in their yard at Milbridge, Me. Material for a three-masted schooner, the first craft of the build, is arriving quite rapidly. These builders are in receipt of applications for two other schooners, one of 600 tons, the other a aes of the three-master, the keel of which will be laid the last of the mont Kelley, Spear & Co. of Bath, Me., have completed arrangements with Capt. F. J. Hinckley and others of Bath, to build a 700-ton four- masted schooner which shall be ready for jaunching in the spring. This vessel is designed to compete jor the large class of trade which the big wooden vessels constructed in Maine yards of late are too large. The construction of the new battleship Maine at Cramps’ ship yard, Philadelphia,. has become a race with time, eagerly watched by naval officers and ship builders. To have the vessel ready to take the water on Feb. 15, the third anniversary of the destruction of the Maine in Havana harbor, is requiring the ship yard to work night and day. Work is being rushed at the ship yard of the William R. Trigg Co., Richmond, Va. The keel of the cruiser Galveston will be laid next week, and the Shubrick, torpedo boat, will soon undergo her builders’ trial. The next launching will be the revenue cutter Mackinaw. The Philadelphia & Reading Railway is about to place an order with the Harlan & Hollingsworth Co., Wilmington, Del., for the con- struction of a ferry boat similar to the Philadelphia, to be used in con- nection with the Kaighn’s Point service. A five-masted schooner, the Oakley C. Curtis, was launched from the yard of Percy & Small, Bath, Me., last Saturday. A special train from Portland was run for the occasion. , The vessel measures 2,374 tons, gross. C. E. Fulton of Fairhaven, Wash., is contemplating establishing a ship yard at Fairhaven. He has approached the Commercial club of that city upon the subject and has alrcady secured two contracts. Green Bros., Bridgeport, Conn., are building an oyster boat for Jeremiah Smith & Sons of City Point, Mass. She will be a combination freighter and dredger and will cost about $20,000. ,