A NAVAL CONTRAST. T HE removal of the body of John
Ericsson, the inventor of the screw-propeller, and the foremost naval engineer of the New World, to the 'United States war-ship 'Baltimore,' on its way back to his native country, Sweden, was made the occasion of an imposing demonstration of public honour and respect in New York last Saturday. A procession of 10,000 persons escorted the body down the Broadway to the harbour. Admiral Braine, Commander- in-Chief of the Navy, and General Howard, commanding the Army, took part in the procession in their official capacity, and with them Admiral Wordon, now Secretary of the Navy, who commanded Ericsson's famous ship. the Monitor,' in the historic fight in Hampton Roads. A vast fleet of vessels covered the harbour, and between a double line of warships, to the sound of muffled drums and minute-guns, the body of the great Swede, who began in the service of Bernadotte the eventful life which has just closed on the banks of the Hudson, was taken back to rest in the country of his birth. The recollection of the naval glory won in the fight off Charleston was perhaps the strongest, though by no means the only sentiment which drew the crowds to pay honour to his memory on Saturday. Fortune gave to Ericsson one of those rare opportunities in which time and circumstances combine to present the fairest field for the trial of a great invention, and to paint its triumph in the brightest and most enduring colours. In 1861, he persuaded the Federal Government to allow him to build the first turret-ship, which he named the 'Monitor,' and the vessel was despatched to join the squadron then blockading Charleston. She arrived on the morrow of a great disaster. The Confederates, with equal enterprise, though with less material resources and skill, had also built an ironclad, the frigate Merrimac,' which they had cut down and roofed over with rail- way iron. On March 8th, 1862, the vessel steamed out into the roads to encounter the whole Federal fleet. In less than ten minutes, she rammed and sank the Cumberland,' the largest of the blockading squadron, the 'Congress' hauled down her colours, and their three consorts ran aground in a panic. In this condition they were found by Ericsson's ship, which boldly attacked the conqueror of the previous day, and drove her, disabled and sinking, back to Charleston. The victory was justly attributed. to Ericsson's skilful design ; and a whole fleet of monitors was built, first by the United States, and then by all the Navies of Europe. But this, as we have said, was not the only claim which Ericsson had. on the gratitude of a nation not easily moved to admiration except by sustained and practical success. The Americans are using part of their surplus in building a new Navy, and the man who, by the invention of the screw-propeller and the turret-ship, had twice changed the system of naval construction, was not left out of their counsels. To the last Ericsson remained active in his calling, and Saturday's demonstration was not more a tribute to his success in the past, than to his recent services as a naval engineer.
Strange to say, in our own Navy, the same class whom America " delighteth to honour" are still snubbed, belittled, and disparaged. Our own naval engineers, whether engaged in the work of design, or when actually responsible for the efficient working of the Fleet under steam, are still placed under the greatest disadvantages of numbers and position. We stated lately that the numbers of the Engineer officers had been reduced from 1,400 to 672, in the face of an increase of 5,000 in the men employed in the engine-rooms ; that there were no Engineer warrant- officers ; that the engines of a ship of 3,000 horse-power were given only one Engineer officer, and allowed by official sanction to be left in the hands of a working man ; and that the number of so-called "executive officers," in pro- portion to the seamen under them, was about double that assigned to the same number of men in the Engineer's department. To this we may add that, at one extreme of the service, the number of stokers is not less than 25 per cent, short of the minimum complement; and that, at the other, the so-called "Chief Engineer of the Fleet" is a subordinate officer in the Department of the Controller cf the Navy; that, to "the best of the recollection" of the late Second Naval Lord, he is never called to attend a Board meeting on any question; and that he does not even enjoy the consideration in his own depart- ment which the head of the Medical Department does in his. All this would be incredible if we had not the evidence before the Select Committee on Naval Estimates to prove it. But we are glad to find that the same document which gives these and other strange conditions, for which the inveterate jealousy of the " executive " for the " mechani- cal " branch of the service is glad to find excuses, presents us also with the official defence for them. Admiral Sir A. H. Hoskins is the apologist. He has, as he hastened to Boards of Admiralty ; so that in quoting his views, we mayELECTIONS.
officers." serious, they would wish to enlist on their side. This The Admiral was very sanguine that this arrange. pamphlet tells how he has been treated by the Republican ment was popular, though he admitted that the arti- Government during the last twelve months ; and as we read ficers had "sent in to the Admiralty a representa- it, we feel that the Cabinet of which these things can be tion of their case." "For a considerable time we have said, can have no more title to be called moderate than the had the command of the market, and we have had most extreme of its predecessors.
as many men as we could possibly want of very The story begins with the election of September 22nd, good quality." But we have seen it stated that the 1889, when M. Leroy-Beaulieu and M. Menard-Dorian three gentlemen who were sent out this year to recruit were the candidates. It is strange, considering who and men, succeeded in obtaining exactly one stoker in a what M. Leroy-Beaulieu is, that he should have been fortnight, and no " artificers " at all. Admiral Hoskins opposed, as he says he was, by the whole strength of the at last deserted his stout defence of the reduction of the Administration, while his rival was supported by them Engineer officers on its merits, and sheltered himself with an ardour past imagining. Still, this may be capable —where ? Under the excuse that "it was entirely in of explanation. The Government may have had special accordance with the views of the Engineer-in-Chief reasons for desiring the return of M. M6nard-Dorian, or that the Engineer officers were limited to their pre- they may have dreaded M. Leroy-Beaulieu's criticism of sent number "!—the Engineer-in-Chief, who is under their financial or economical policy. In any case, we the Controller, who is in the "Shipbuilding Depart- should have held that they had made a bad choice as ment," who is "never asked to attend meetings of between the candidates ; but, after all, that is a point the Board," and does not rank with the head of the upon which Governments must be allowed a certain dis- Medical Department, and whom Admiral Hoskins, late cretion. They were not content, however, with opposing Second Naval Lord, "does not consider to be responsible M. Leroy-Beaulieu ; they went the length of falsifying the for the efficient working of the fleet under steam " ! returns in order to defeat him. The returns from the No doubt the proposal that there should be an Engi- several communes making up the arrondissement of neer on the Board of Admiralty is resented by men like Lodeve showed 7,023 votes for M. Leroy-Beaulieu, and Admiral Hoskins. A Naval Engineer is not one of them- 7,003 for M. Menard-Dorian. But the Committee of selves. His business is work and not fighting. The work Revision, which is appointed by the Prefect, accepted 91 is difficult and disagreeable. Besides, he is "too technical." voting-papers which the local officials had rejected. We venture to paraphrase this as : "He knows much of Papers which had been left blank now appeared with M. which we know nothing, not even the terms." Granted. Menard-Dorian's name on them ; while others, similarly But the management of the Navy is at least as much con- filled up, showed plain traces of previous erasure. When corned with construction as with organisation, and demands these facts were brought, first before a Parliamentary technical knowledge. The remedy is, not to exclude the Committee, and then before the Chamber itself, the man of special education, but for the members of the evidence against the validity of the return was over- Board to acquaint themselves with the language of the whelming. The Committee reported against M. Menard- specialist. It has been said of the English Bench, that Dorian on December 20th, and in the ordinary course many of the best definitions of technical processes have the election should at once have been declared void. been given by Judges who have taken the trouble to Instead of this, the discussion of the Report was postponed bring their general knowledge to bear on special cases till January 23rd, and then, instead of declaring the election brought before them. There is no reason why the Board void, the Chamber appointed a Commission of Inquiry to -of Admiralty should not gain equal credit. But the time take evidence on the spot. This occupied two months, has come when the distinction between the " executive " after which the Commission reported against the validity and " mechanical " branches of the service must be of the election, and recommended that the facts should be broken down. It is ridiculous that in a modern iron- laid before the Minister of Justice with a view to a prose. clad, where nearly every function of the ship is performed cution of the falsifiers of the voting-papers. This Report by engines—propulsion, lighting, coaling, watering, hoist- was presented to the Chamber on March 22nd, and ing-in anchors, lowering boats, working guns, firing on March 28th the election was at last invalidated. torpedoes—the officers who control these functions should These successive postponements were not without a be reduced in numbers and consideration. The future of motive. If a new election had been ordered in Decem- the Navy depends mainly on our reserve of engineering ber or January, it would have been held on the old and mechanical skill, and the "executive officer," however register, and it was clear that on this register M. Leroy- highly placed, who is ignorant of the first principles of Beaulieu's return was secure. By putting it off until after either, does not better his position by proclaiming his April 1st, it was held on a new register ; and to the conviction of their unimportance. preparation of this new register the authorities had
Previous page
